Posted on 02/25/2013 9:25:42 PM PST by Seizethecarp
Today, I had a conversation with an investigator from the Cold Case Posse in AZ. We talked and I expanded on several dossiers filled with evidence for over an hour. They asked for all of my relevant information on Obama, the Harry Bounel alias evidence, and the dossiers I completed on Stanley Ann Dunham, her parents, and Michelle Obama as well. They have it all. BTW they also say that it looks like my information cannot be disproved and will be useful.
I have proof, definitive proof that Stanley Ann Dunham was in WA state in "1961" as per the issuance of a SSN numident in her name with the SSN 535-40-8522. There is no way that she was in HI and I have proof because in the fall she was in college in WA, not HI.
(Excerpt) Read more at obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com ...
You guys can either get a room or knock off the flamewars and name calling. It’s unbecoming and unwelcome on FR. Take it out on each other somewhere else.
I extend my apologies to you, the site and FReepers at large for my behavior.
“The person bringing the lawsuit, the plaintiff, has the burden of proving the elements of his lawsuit. In a civil case, the plaintiff must prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence. That means that he must prove a fact and his damages by showing that something is more likely so than not, i.e. 50.1% versus 49.9%.
“If the judge or jury believes the plaintiff and defendant equally, the plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proof and his claim must fail. In other words, the tie goes to the defendant. The defendant does not have to prove anything. The defense is free to simply poke holes in the case of the plaintiff.”
In a civil suit, the plaintiff files a complaint with allegations against the defendant. The defendant must respond (Motion to Dismiss) or answer the complaint (deny all allegations).
If the defendant responds and the Court overrules the motion to dismiss, the defendant must answer. The answer must deny all allegations made in the complaint. Any allegation not denied by the defendant is considered to be fact. From the prospective of the Court, all allegations are considered to be true until successfully defended by the defendant. The defendant doesn’t have to prove the allegations untrue. The defendant must deny the allegations or they will be found to be fact. The defendant may choose to submit evidence and witnesses to support their defense, but they are not required to submit anything after they have denied the allegations.
The plaintiff can subpoena evidence for rebuttal during the discovery phase. The discovery phase occurs after hearing on the defendant’s response, if any, is held. It is during the discovery phase the plaintiff’s attorney will subpoena evidence from the defendant or witnesses who have evidence on the defendant to offer a rebuttal to the defense’s argument.
The plaintiff must prove they have suffered a harm when damages are considered. A hearing on damages comes after the defendant has an opportunity to be heard and present evidence the allegations are unfounded. The plaintiff has an opportunity to cross-examine defendant’s witnesses. After that, the plaintiff may a rebuttal to defendant’s argument with their own witnesses and evidence.
Generally, a judge will conduct a hearing on damages before a decision is reached as to whether or not the defendant as met the burden of successfully defending himself/herself from the allegations. Consequently, some people become confused on burden of proof.
The plaintiff must prove they have suffered harm because of the actions committed by the defendant and the defendant’s actions are contrary to law. Using your example from the Judge Judy show, let’s say a wedding planner is sued because they ruined a bride’s wedding.
Judge Judy will ask the wedding planner for his defense against the allegation. The wedding planner says he was too sick to work that day. Judge Judy asks the bride if the wedding took place. The bride says the wedding took place.
Judge Judy asks, “How could any harm come to you when the wedding took place? Why do you need a wedding planner? He says he was sick. Obviously, you prepared a backup plan because the wedding took place.”
The bride presents a witness to rebut the wedding planner’s defense. The rebuttal witness testifies she paid the wedding planner $1,000 to plan her wedding on the same day as the bride. She also testifies the wedding planner was at her wedding on that day.
The bride testifies she had a contract with the wedding planner and pre-paid $500 to plan her wedding on the same day as the rebuttal witness. The plaintiff gives the contract to Judge Judy to prove she has suffered a harm. Furthermore, her witness discredits the defense.
In a civil suit, the plaintiff must prove a harm has occurred due to the defendant’s negligence after the defendant unsuccessfully defends himself/herself against the allegations in the complaint. During the discovery phase, the plaintiff may subpoena witnesses and documents to rebut the defendant’s argument.
Contrary to very popular belief, evidence from skip tracing databases, witness affidavits and internet theories are not considered by the judge in pre-trial motions. Orly could submit a stack of verified, certified, authenicated documents and they won’t be considered until the case goes to trail and the Court ask for plaintiff’s rebuttal to the defense.
After the defense presents his/her case the allegations are not true. The plaintiff presents a rebuttal to the defense’s argument. At this time, the Court will consider plaintiff’s evidence and witness testimony.
For example, Orly alleges Obama is not a natural born citizen of the U.S. and her client suffered harm because he was elected to an office he is not qualified for.
Obama offers a motion to dismiss because the election is really voted on by the electoral college, the vote has taken place, not one Congressman or Senator objected during the vote tally and he has been sworn in to a second term.
Orly should argue the case is about a harm suffered by her client due to the actions of the defendant(s) and not about Obama being sworn in.
If the motion to dismiss is overruled, the discovery phase will begin. Obviously, Obama will present his HI COLB to prove his natural born citizenship status. Orly will (should) be given an opportunity to cross examine the witness presenting the COLB. Then she will be given the opportunity to rebut Obama’s argument he is a natural born citizen by having a witness from DHS present Obama’s immigration file with his Certificate of Naturalization. Federal documents supercede the viability of state documents. The rebuttal overcomes the burden of proof beyond the preponderance of the evidence that Obama is a naturalized U.S. citizen regardless of where he was born.
To your “Suddenly and quietly all charges are dropped.” TV soap opera scenario, Eric Holder will give you due process, eh?
Here’s how they gave a guy who obtained private records illegally his due process, according to their interpretation of what was due him:
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/19/key-witness-in-passport-fraud-case-fatally-shot/
So, If it’s not a soap opera and you have are protected per your #3, then you have nothing to fear. Why don’t you come out of the proverbial closet and wave the “precious” evidence around, unless you would rather keep it for posterity?
Speaking of a TV soap opera, in the spring/summer of last year, you posted that your “precious” evidence will be unveiled on TV TALK SHOW APPEARENCE COME OCTOBER ‘12 and that your doubters and detractors would see you parading it on TV for all to see! You didn’t say a word then about the illegality of what you were about to do.
No offense, I wrote the abundantly used word, “precious,” just to be hip and to keep up with the newspeak on this thread.
Oh, BTW, don’t ask for a link to that post because FR’s database isn’t allowing to access more than the current page of previous posts. If you deny what you wrote at the time, I’m sure some FReepers will remember your tease for the fall season coming attraction.
Also, while you’re at it, what happened to your camarad-in-arms, Todd Rodriguez, Ret.? Do you have any explanation as to why would a FReeper in good standing (not a troll, God forbid!) such as yourself, resort to unacceptable behavior like that? Were you issued a warning instead of a ticket?
Who are the “OBOTS and ConcernedFreepers” [sic]? Care to name some of those faux Conservative FReeper trolls? They’re having a go at each other on the thread that’s not because they’re trolls, IMO, but because they have passionate differences in opinions.
Failure to answer ANY of the above questions, and I repeat myself, will speak volumes about what you’re doing here.
I believe Sven maybe be telling the truth and here is why. If Sven was a Federal employee with access to certain records he may have seen what he claims exist in someway. But when any record is accessed there is a log of who and when. As Melancholy points out, that can get you a big headache.
So Sven is stuck between a rock and a hard place. He has knowledge that he can't do anything with but only hopes someone somewhere will.
“So Sven is stuck between a rock and a hard place. He has knowledge that he can’t do anything with but only hopes someone somewhere will.”
Remember Greg, if he’s working for this regime in any capacity, they had a year plus to read what he wrote about the “evidence” and ample time for retribution. Unless the regime is sanctioning what he claims because it benefits them in diluting issues and smearing Conservative FReepers per another soap opera, The Todd Rodriguez Affair, starring OBOTS, ConcernedFreepers, lobbyists, etc.
IF (big, huge, gigantic *if*) you get an answer to “...evidence will be unveiled on TV TALK SHOW APPEARENCE COME OCTOBER ‘12” please ping me. My guess is that you’ll get an acceptable answer somewhere around the 12th of never.
Ah shoooor weeeeel!
Dear Mr. Robsinson. Fred Nerks does a lot of instigating before the average person pushes back. If you would like to see an example of the type of goading he engages in, read post 578:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2991236/posts?q=1&;page=551#578
I recall a time when this type of nastiness was discouraged on this site. Not sure if the old rules apply any more. [Note: I’m not asking you to remove the comment or take any action. I just reference it as an example of the routine verbiage in which Fred Nerks engages.]
It’s not rocket science. Any evidence obtained before a hearing on a responsive pleading is ignored because the judge operates from the perspective the allegations made in the complaint are true.
Why do so many OBOTS, ConcernedFreepers, and Orly insist evidence be submitted with the complaint when the judge ignores it? The motion to dismiss is analyzed on the basis of procedural matters, i.e. Fed Rules of Civil Procedure, and precedent.
If the case survives a Motion to Dismiss, the evidence needed can be obtained with a subpoena. Obama was subpoenaed in the GA Ballot Challenge and he ignored them. He didn’t ignore them because all the documents had been scrubbed. He ignored them because they were incriminating.
He will ignore all subpoenas because they will prove he’s not a natural born citizen. When subpoenas are ignored, they are not scrubbed or forged. They’re available, but not submitted. Contempt of Court is grounds for a default judgment. (That’s a win for the plaintiff.)
Next, it’s time for a damages hearing. The plaintiff will have to demonstrate damages and suggest compensation.
Listen and listen good, you haven’t answered any of my questions. Your garbage legalese and Orly Taitz BS ain’t gonna cut it.
It looks like you got caught with your pants down showing a vacant lot. Man up and answer the questions. I doubt you’re a female because females answer, hunt and fight instinctively, much more than your likes will ever do.
Borrowing a phrase from algore about gloBULL warming, “science is settled!” I gave you every benefit of a doubt for a long time. I gave a chance to answer three times to no avail.
You just have to go, put your knickers back on, and don’t bother posting because your credibility is toast.
I’ll leave calling conservative FReepers OBOTS, ConcernedFreepers, lobbyists, etc. by nobodies like you to the mods. The abuse button by any REAL FREEPER may be your zot!
Just go f....f....fly a kite!
Takes two to engage in a flamewar. Don’t be goaded. Disengage and move on to a different thread/topic/discussion.
Thank you for that personal reply. I appreciate it and will try to do as you advised. I’m sure things will work out better that way.
I’ll just add this. The only reason I’ve ever engaged with Fred Nerks is because his theory does neither him nor this site any credit. He proselytizes the ‘truth’ that Stanley Ann Dunham is not Barack Hussein Obama’s mother. It just really bothers me that people have been sucked into this strange/unsubstantiated theory. But I will let it go for now. As mentined above, I’m sure that’s for the best.
Thanks again for your gracious reply. I remember you in my prayers and hope your health is good.
Obama offers a motion to dismiss because the election is really voted on by the electoral college, the vote has taken place, not one Congressman or Senator objected during the vote tally and he has been sworn in to a second term.
Orly should argue the case is about a harm suffered by her client due to the actions of the defendant(s) and not about Obama being sworn in.
Ok, two problems here.
First, the issue of standing. It's been discussed on this forum before and I will not argue the issue. I will just point out that many of the courts deciding this issue have denied that the plaintiff had standing to sue. They will continue to decide in that fashion, whether you agree with it or not.
Second, no court will accept a case for which they cannot provide relief. At this point, in the eyes of all the courts in the United States, Barack Obama is the President of the United States. There is no court which has authority to change that, so what relief can the plaintiff sue for?
Good go Fred. Nice to see you exposing the imbecilic.
Who in all get out does this idjit think he is, anyway?
Fred Nerks is right. There is no credible documentary evidence that Stanley Anne Dunham is in fact Barak Obama’s mother. There is photographic evidence that the infant Obama was raised by a surrogate mother in his early years.
That is all the Obama State censorship and documentary manipulation has allowed us to know.Think about it and what it means for America’s future.
Thanks for the support, but I’ve finally got the message, you can’t say there’s no proof she was his mother - it brings out some really irrational behaviour and a number of otherwise quite reasonable people will do their best to tear you to pieces.
They don’t need a birth certificate to know she was his mother, it’s written in the stars and William Ayres apparently told them so.
I’m replying to you because I appreciate your kind words, but I won’t be tempted to broach the subject again.
Well, there are few professional historical researches here. They are mostly RINOplasts and Trolls who want to spin the truth away.
The bald facts are that there is no documentation, there is no history outside of fable, and a tyrant occuppies the White House while milk sops in the Legislative and Judicial branches of government kiss the gloved hand of the Muslim conquerors.
I agree with you, there is little use of raising the matter. This will not be solved at the ballot box. It will be solved in the streets. Obama has declared war on patriotic Americans.That is why at this particular time your copmments produce a strident reaction of “It can’t be true.” The truth is just too awful to face. The Republic is done, finished, kaput.
“First, the issue of standing. It’s been discussed on this forum before and I will not argue the issue. I will just point out that many of the courts deciding this issue have denied that the plaintiff had standing to sue. They will continue to decide in that fashion, whether you agree with it or not.”
Yes. Most eligibility plaintiffs have filed lawsuits with the goal of exposing the truth on Obama’s background and they should stay focused on developing the case against defendants because their actions were contrary to law and the plaintiffs suffered a harm due to the actions of the defendants.
“Second, no court will accept a case for which they cannot provide relief. At this point, in the eyes of all the courts in the United States, Barack Obama is the President of the United States. There is no court which has authority to change that, so what relief can the plaintiff sue for?”
Yes. Eligibility plaintiffs should stay focused on obtaining compensation for the harm they have suffered due to the actions of the defendants. Instead of championing a void election or a do-over election, Orly should be demand $100 Million from Obama for America, Barack Obama II and Nancy Pelosi for her clients.
FW to JR & ping FN, I'll just add this...na na nana na.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.