Checkmate! Checkmate! Checkmate!
I wonder what "Checkmate" means in Swedish? ;-)
Posted on 03/21/2013 4:37:24 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is at the center of the latest "birther" conspiracy. But he's not the first to face this line of questioning.
A handful of politicians have been targeted in the last few years with the same accusation -- that they are not fit for the Presidency because they do not meet the constitutionally-mandated eligibility requirement of being a "natural-born" U.S. citizen.
Confusion around who qualifies as a "natural born" citizen has contributed to the debate, as the Constitution does not explicitly define the phrase. Some incorrectly presume it only includes people born within the boundaries of the United States. In fact, by U.S. citizenship law you can be American "at birth" or a "natural born citizen" under a few circumstances that don't involve being born on the mainland. For example, if you're born on a U.S. military base abroad, like in Panama, that counts. You are still categorized as being American "at birth" if one or both of your parents are U.S. citizens and fit a list of long and complicated requirements that arebroken down here.
Check out our list of politicians who have battled "birther" claims.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Melancholy,
Your post makes perfect sense!
“The dog didn’t bark”
Also,a Google search of the name “SvenMagnussen” comes back with a few posts (regarding eligibility) on a couple other sites, but most of the posts are here on FR .
This result is obtained when weeding out the results having nothing to do with eligibility.
“Well then let’s make it about his immigration records ...”
Pick me up off the floor! I’m stunned.
Next, let’s gets past the false narrative evidence must be produced and submitted with a complaint or the case will be dismissed. In fact, you can make any allegation you want in a civil suit and the Court is required by the rules to treat those allegations as true until successfully defended by the defendant.
That’s right. The defendant must prove by a preponderence of the evidence he/she is not responsible for the harm suffered by the plaintiff for the allegations made by the plaintiff.
Let’s try an example ...
In a complaint filed in a U.S. District Court on a civil the matter, the plaintiff alleges and states, to wit:
1) Defendant Obama asked for personal loan from plaintiff on or about June 1, 2007 in the amount of $30,000.
2) Defendant Obama and plaintiff met in a private meeting to discuss the terms of the personal loan where defendant assured plaintiff he was a future candidate for the Democratic nomination of the Office of the President of the United States.
3) During the private meeting, defendant Obama admitted he was born in Hawaii, but issued a Certificate of Naturalization in 1983.
4) Defendant Obama assured plaintiff he was a former Constitutional law instructor and his professional opinion was he was eligible for the Office of the President because he was native born and his Certificate of Naturalization was irrelevant.
5) Defendant Obama produced a certified copy of defendant’s Certificate of Naturalization and allowed plaintiff to carefully examine the document for authencity, but refused to allow plaintiff to photograph or copy the document.
6) Plaintiff refused to make the $30,000 loan to defendant, but offered purchase an option for the exclusive rights to defendant’s authorized biography for $30,000.
7) Defendant and plaintiff agreed the option for the exclusive rights to defendant’s authorized biography would include a certified copy of defendant’s Certificate of Naturalization for photographing, reproduction, and mass distribution with defendant’s authorized biography.
8) Defendant and plaintiff agreed to complete the transaction to purchase the option for the exclusive rights to defendant’s authorized biography for $30,000 with defendant producing a certified copy of defendant’s Certificate of Naturalization on or before January 1, 2013.
9) Plaintiff handed the defendant $30,000 cash on June 1, 2007 to purchase the exclusive rights to his authorized biography and obtain a copy of his certified Certificate of Naturalization on or before January 1, 2013.
10) To date, defendant has not produced his Certificate of Naturalization for photocopying and authorized use; nor has he cooperated with plaintiff for production of his authorized biography to include his Certificate of Naturalization.
When OBOTS scream for proof, plaintiff’s lawyer can remind the OBOTS all proof submitted with a complaint in a civil matter are ignored, per Court Rules for Civil Procedure. Discovery begins after the defendant answers the complaint, per Court Rules of Civil Procedure. Allegations in Complaint will be found to have merit if the defendant does not answer and successfully defend against the allegation, per Court Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff requests this Court to assess defendant for monetary damages associated with not completing the agreement and a writ of mandamus for defendant to provide plaintiff with one certified copy of defendant’s Certificate of Naturalization.
See reply #223; still no answer to the question
“will an affidavit be filed with Sheriff Arpaio about 0’s immigration records”
The full question from ray76’s post #217 hasn’t been answered yet:
“Will you sign a affidavit stating the detailed facts of your personal knowledge of knowing Obama naturalized in 1983 and turn that over to Sheriff Arpaio?”
ABC News is totally owned by liberal elite democrats. Anyone who thinks of them as ‘journalists’ is a fool.
I am deeply offended to see Sheriff Arpaio being smeared on FR by SvenMagnussen based no NO evidence. Arpaio is the No. 1 US patriot, IMO, and is literally the last line of defense against Barry’s BC forgery and his attempt to impose a sanctuary for illegals on the entire USA.
SvenMagnussen has been stalking and spamming NBC eligibility threads pimping his blog and making claims that he has personal knowledge of evidence that Barry is ineligible and citing incorrect legal rules of evidence that is very misleading to FReepers who don’t understand civil procedure.
Per SvenMagnussen:
“You read it on a public message board. It’s reported. My website, http://svenmagnussen.blogspot.com has received thousands of views.”
“Let me explain it to you in the vernacular you may be able to understand. YOU’RE BEING PUNKED BY ZULLO AND ARPAIO! The original long form BC is a misdirection play designed to look like someone is doing something when they know the BC was sealed and can’t be used in any Court for any reason.”
ping...
Your hypothetical example is a diversion. You make allegations and offer no substantiation.
Will you sign an affidavit stating the detailed facts of your personal knowledge of knowing Obama naturalized in 1983 and turn that over to Sheriff Arpaio?
You’ve alleged or intimated that Napolitano has documents inside a Maricopa County home and that the home should be searched.
Will you sign an affidavit stating the detailed facts of your knowledge of documents in Napolitano’s home and turn that over to Sheriff Arpaio?
An affidavit supports the probable cause needed to obtain a warrant.
Prior to any court proceeding the police conduct an investigation and gather evidence.
Will you help gather that evidence?
Will you sign a affidavit stating the detailed facts of your personal knowledge of knowing Obama naturalized in 1983 and turn that over to Sheriff Arpaio?
“I am deeply offended to see Sheriff Arpaio being smeared on FR by SvenMagnussen based no NO evidence.”
Obama was in Federal Foster Care from 1971 to 1979. During this time frame, only children with foreign nationality were allowed to enter the Federal Foster Care program. That’s called evidence.
You’ve bought into a false narrative there isn’t enough information to interview DHS Sec. Napolitano, Maricopa Co. Resident. You’re beginning to see it’s a scam to protect Napolitano and keep the focus on Obama’s birth certificate and you won’t admit it.
Here are the facts.
Obama’s background bio on one of his published books indicates he was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. That’s probable cause for an interveiw with Sec. Napolitano.
Obama’s school record dated Jan 1, 1968 with St. Francis of Assisi indicates he was an Indonesian National, born in Honolulu, HI. That’s probable cause for an interview with Sec. Napolitano.
Obama admitted in one of his books he returned to Hawaii in 1971 as an unaccompanied minor. Unaccompanied minors are taken into custody at Port of Entry and not whisked through customs. A little internet research indicates Catholic Social Services of Connecticut was one of two contractors with HHS in 1971 to take custody of unaccompanied minors with foreign nationality. Six years later, Obama received a SSN with a Connecticut pre-fix. That’s probable cause for an interview with Sec. Napolitano.
Taken together, there’s a enough information for a search warrant of Napolitano’s home office in Maricopa Co., AZ. Yet, you’re desperate for people to believe the criminal investigation is brought to a stand still because of me.
Grow up. Put your big boy pants on. Sheriff Arpaio and Zullo are the only ones stopping the investigation into Obama’s immigration records.
All:
SvenMagnussen has smeared Arpaio and Zullo claiming they are “punking” FReepers, but providing NO evidence to refute the Posse evidence that Barry’s BC is forged.
Not a single claim of evidence made by SvenMagnussen (all unsubstantiated) refutes Arpaio and Zullo’s evidence of BC forgery, yet SvenMagnussen smears them and FReepers.
How does the Posse proof of the forgery of a 1961 LFBC image have anything to do with SvenMagnissen’s claims of Barry’s adoption or naturalization?
SvenMagnussen has zero comprehension of FRCP (federal civil procedure). An answer to a lawsuit can be a general denial of all claims. The answer does not have to refute each claim of evidence by the plaintiff or any claim of evidence, contrary to SvenMagnussen’s repeated assertions.
The defendant, such as Barry, can get the lawsuit dismissed on a motion for summary judgment if the judge can be persuaded that even if all of the claims were true, the plaintiff would not prevail. SvenMagnussen is correct that for this one motion the judge must assume that all of the claims of the plaintiff will be substantiated at trial, but that won’t prevent summary judgment or require the defendant to refute the evidence in a pre-trail hearing. There will be no pre-trail discovery for the plaintiff in a summary judgment hearing.
Next, the defendant, without answering even a tiny bit of evidence in detail, can get the case dismissed for lack of standing of the plaintiff. Again, there will be no pre-trail discovery for the plaintiff if the plaintiff has no standing.
So far Barry’s legal team, with the corrupt compliance of the HI DOH, has gotten a summary judgment or dismissal for lack of standing in all cases and defeated ANY discovery of what is in HI DOH archives in trial on the merits.
It is false to claim that simply by filing a lawsuit a plaintiff will be entitled to demand discovery access to Napolitano’s files or any government files simply because the defendant does not answer in detail with evidence all claims of the plaintiff in the lawsuit.
You claim to have seen a 1983 Certificate of Naturalization for Obama.
Will you sign a affidavit stating the detailed facts of your personal knowledge of knowing Obama naturalized in 1983 and turn that over to a law enforcement person/agency or judge of your choosing?
My rebuttal to Sven’s #232 (short version) is 0 was too young in 1971 to relinquish nationality.
Long version with research:
I did some digging and found these docs:
State dept 7 FAM 1200, 7 FAM 1290.
7 FAM 1200 is about minors and loss of nationality; see section 1292 (i) (2).
It says people under 16 are viewed as not having the maturity and knowing intent to relinquish their nationality.
So we have a period of time, between ~1965 (SADO marries lolo) and 1977 (0 is 16), where 0 could not have relinquished nationality.
In 7 FAM 1290 another state dept doc on loss of nationality, look at section 1211 Summary, section b, it says that parents or guardians cannot relinquish or renounce the nationality of their children or wards.
So if o renounced/relinquished citizenship, it happened between 1977 and 1979 (and later), the years when he was 16 to 18 (and older).
Sven is DEAD WRONG when he says in post #232 that
“0 was in federal foster care from 1971 to 1979. During this time frame, only children with foreign nationality were allowed to enter the federal foster care program. That’s called evidence. “
In 1971, 0 was TOO YOUNG to have his citizenship relinquished/renounced!!!
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.
