Posted on 03/21/2013 4:37:24 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
“Sven’s $3000 loan to 0bama has now grown to $30,000!!!”
I was repeatedly asked to identify a situation that would get the plaintiff past a motion to dismiss in an Obama eligibility case. I changed the amount of the loan because some ConcernedFreepers mistakenly believe I’m confessing to a personal relationship with Obama prior to 2008.
It is important to remain focused. Everytime a critic of an eligibility civil suit states the Court cannot and will not remove a sitting President, the plaintiff’s attorney needs to make it clear the case is about reimbursing the plaintiff for their loss due to the defendant’s actions.
The risk is that Court Rules dicate a settlement conference must take place before trial begins. For example, plaintiff alleges, “I had a private meeting with Obama in 2007 where we agreed I would loan him $33,873 to be repaid on or before Jan. 9, 2013.” Obama could offer to settle the matter by paying the full amount claimed, plus plaintiff’s attorney fees and court cost, without enduring the discovery process.
Then, Obama could request that the Court dismiss the case with prejudice after the settlement transaction is completed. And ConcernedFreepers and OBOTS could continue a false narrative that Obama is eligible because the Court has seen the evidence and dismissed the case!
The only problem with this "only connection to Connecticut" is that the SSN is not his. Can you explain this?
“The only problem with this “only connection to Connecticut” is that the SSN is not his. Can you explain this?”
You’ll have to ask Susan Daniels or Orly Taitz about that. It’s not a part of the narrative I promote concerning Obama’s ineligibility to be President of the United States.
I’ve emailed and messaged Orly Taitz on several different occasions that it is quite common for a child in Federal Foster Care custody to have a SSN pre-fix in a state they haven’t lived in and to have multiple security numbers. Unfortunately, she ignores me because BrownDeer says I have no credibility.
Ironically, I pulled a image off of Orly’s website on the NUMIDENT file for an individual that was in the foster care program. The NUMIDENT file was coded to indicate the individual had multiple security numbers.
Read about it here: http://svenmagnussen.blogspot.com/2013/01/deconstructing-thomas-louis-woods.html
Attention Orly Taitz and Susan Daniels: Multiple SSNs could be an indication of fraud by people other than the original applicant. If so, the original applicant could be assigned a new SSN to eliminate the threat of identity. If so, the original applicant would have multiple SSNs assigned to them.
Multiple SSNs is common for children in foster care. Multiple SSNs do not prove the child was in foster care and do not prove the child has committed fraud. You’ll have to examine the applicants complete NUMIDENT file to determine if its fraud by the original applicant or if the original applicant is a victim of fraud.
“I’ve emailed and messaged Orly Taitz on several different occasions...”
For the ninth time, I have asked you this:
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’s Cold Case Posse lead investigator Lt. Mike Zullo?
I, Lt. Zullo and the other 7 Maricopa County Sheriff Department Cold Case Posse investigators deserve a answer. Will you give a simple yes or no to the above question Sven. Your credibility is at hand here.
I guess my point it that that number was issued to someone else so the SSA would not have given Zippo that number when the CSS on his behalf applied for the number.
Yet on Zippie’s 2009 tax return is the number that was issued to that other person. We have not seen any other SSN associated with Zero that can be verified to belong to him, at least under the name he is using.
Brown Deer wrote:
“....The U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual was first published in 1973......”
That’s right, I remember seeing a reference to an older document number (’7 FAM supersedes ‘ or xxx is superseded by 7 FAM).
More digging :D
And in #261 in this thread he says concerned freepers say 0 is eligible.
:(
From #261:
“Then,Obama could request that the Court dismiss the case with prejudice after the settlement transaction is completed. And ConcernedFreepers and OBOTS could continue a false narrative that Obama is eligible because the Court has seen the evidence and dismissed the case!”
” Catholic Social Services of Connecticut was the only provider of the Federal Foster Care program to take custody of an unaccompanied minor with foreign nationality at a Port of Entry in Hawaii.”
Please provide me a link that supports this assertion.
Maybe under orders from the white bathhouse to get your IP address. If you click the URL,, your IP address may be mired in STD viruses.
Practice SAFE clicking!
Melancholy,
I’m ROTFLMAOPIMP, you just made my WEEK!
(the last four capitalized letters don’t refer to a blog......
or do they?)
“The U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual was first published in 1973.”
I did not know the Foreign Affairs Manual did not exist in 1968. You are correct and I am wrong.
It also means the issuance of CLNs was open to interpretation as to who is eligible and who is not eligible. No CLN is issued without the written consent of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is guided by the foreign policy pronouncements of POTUS at that time.
So, instead of looking at the post-1973 FAM, or it’s predecessor policy and procedures manual (if any), we should be asking ourselves would the President of the United States in 1968 put forth a policy to allow a 7-year-old living with an Indonesian father and American mother in Indonesia to renounce his U.S. Citizenship.
What would LBJ do? I’m pretty sure he told SoS Rusk to issue the kid his CLN with the caveat he could move back to the U.S. and recapture his U.S. Citizenship with a written request and an oath of allegiance anytime up to 6 months past his 18th birthday.
I’m thinking about writting an article about this on my blog http://svenmagnussen.blogspot.com .
Correction: from 1910 to 1973, foreign affairs policy and procedures manual was called the Central Policy File and referred to as the Decimal File.
Blog, brothel, eh...what’s in the name?
It’s all the same. The white bathhouse (s)CREW ASSociation is very devious.
The (o)anus is on the MSM, republican Congressmen and “L0w & H0lder” to provide the American people with 0kaka’s education records.
Dear Reader’s the foreign student with negative IQ will beam him back to chicago’s Man Country bathhouse in a jiffy.
The communist elite would never associate themselves with an undocumented dummy!
“Eyewitness testimony of direct examination of a recorded document (secondary source) is not hearsay. It’s referred to as secondary source because the eyewitness does not possess or control the document. Anyone who has visited or worked in a U.S. Federal facility that houses documents protected by the Privacy Act know its impossible to make copies, photograph or record a document without specific authorization.”
Under the FRE there is a hearsay exception for the custodians of official records who are government employees action in an official capacity, such as those who work in a US document retention facility. You have not yet claimed to be such a person.
If a plaintiff’s case gets dismissed on a motion for summary judgment or motion to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction or standing preceded by a general answer requiring no rebuttal of plaintiff’s specific claims, then there is no trial, no discovery and no evidence or witness testimony placed before the court. So no primary or “secondary” witness testimony from employees or custodians at US document facilities would be allowed.
<—— are my comments. “ “is brown deer’s.
To: Brown Deer
“The U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual was first published in 1973.”
I did not know the Foreign Affairs Manual did not exist in 1968. You are correct and I am wrong.
It also means the issuance of CLNs was open to interpretation as to who is eligible and who is not eligible. No CLN is issued without the written consent of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is guided by the foreign policy pronouncements of POTUS at that time.
<——Not open to interpretation, there WAS a manual called by a different name, as noted in post #276, so the remainder of the paragraph is irrelevant.
So,instead of looking at the post-1973 FAM,or it’s predecessor policy and procedures manual (if any),we should be asking ourselves would the President of the United States in 1968 put forth a policy to allow a 7-year-old living with an Indonesian father and American mother in Indonesia to renounce his U.S. Citizenship.
<—— there was a manual to be followed; see post #276. Presidential edicts are a matter of record and can be checked.
What would LBJ do? I’m pretty sure he told SoS Rusk to issue the kid his CLN with the caveat he could move back to the U.S. and recapture his U.S. Citizenship with a written request and an oath of allegiance anytime up to 6 months past his 18th birthday.
<-——the phrase —could move back..... past his 18th birthday—. is standard boilerplate, but —LBJ telling Rusk to issue a CLN— would have to be researched; again, everything a president does is archived someplace.
I’m thinking about writting an article about this on my blog http://svenmagnussen.blogspot.com .
<——The sixth blogpimp on just THIS thread!
275 posted on Thu Mar 28 2013 12:38:38 GMT-0500 (CDT) by SvenMagnussen (1983 ... the year Obama became a naturalized U.S. citizen.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
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.