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 ...
I reposted Sven’s #275 reply to you.
But with dead blog link, my comments with <—, and yours (Brown+ Deer’s) in “ “.
Arrgh, it didn’t die when I posted it!!!!!
NeroGermanicus,
Had ANYBODY started a FOIA for such a doc?
Not to my knowledge.
Someone probably will have to do the FOIA.
I was on the national archives site and it said there that in the cases where the document in question made reference to living folks, that info pertaining to them would be redacted.
I see similar on the genealogy sites, there will be for example “Joe Jones b. 1898 New York, d. 1988 Florida” then they refer to his son as “living son Jones”, no first name or where he lives.
“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.”
Then it’s prudent not to explain or diligently describe all aspects of plaintiff’s case in public. I’d rather Obama and Napolitano know there is a secondary source witness who can be called to impeach any primary source witness who testifies a Certificate of Naturalization was not issued to Barack Hussein Obama II and not much else.
And then there is the so called “fishing expedition” to uncover and prove the specific allegation Obama naturalized as a U.S. Citizen in 1983. It wouldn’t be necessary to subpoena Obama’s Form SS-5 and NUMIDENT file from SSA if Obama produced his Certificate of Naturalization from DHS and defended his sworn statements to various state election boards he is eligible for the Office of the President of the United States. It wouldn’t be necessary to subpoena Obama’s Occidental College transcripts and applications if he produced his Certificate of Naturalization from DHS. It wouldn’t be necessary to subpoena Obama’s passport applications, Certificate of Loss of Nationality and his mother’s passport records explaining her 1967 amendment on her passport application from the State Department. It wouldn’t be necessary to subpoena Obama’s CLN from Treasury or F.B.I. It wouldn’t be necessary to subpoena Obama’s Federal Foster Care records from ORR at DHS. It wouldn’t be necessary to subpoena Obama’s records from Catholic Social Services if Obama would merely produce his Certificate of Nationality and defend himself against the allegation he is not eligible for POTUS.
“Then it’s prudent not to explain or diligently describe all aspects of plaintiff’s case in public. I’d rather Obama and Napolitano know there is a secondary source witness who can be called to impeach any primary source witness who testifies a Certificate of Naturalization was not issued to Barack Hussein Obama II and not much else.”
So far there has been no plaintiff’s case on-point that survived pre-trail motions in federal court...so no trial and no witnesses or evidence will be entered into a trial record on the merits.
A person with inadmissible hearsay testimony, such as you claim to have, cannot be called to impeach a witness who gives admissible testimony, even if that witness’s admissible testimony is false. So Napolitano and Barry have nothing to fear from you.
Inadmissible witness testimony gets onto the front page of the NY Times and other media outlets foreign and domestic because the media has the means, motive and opportunity to financially exploit juicy stories...but only if the target is too weak to strike back.
Inadmissible Hearsay Evidence from Nolo’s Plain English dictionary ... “Testimony given by a witness who is not telling what he or she knows personally, but what others have said.”
You choose not to understand I’ve discussed an examination of a certified copy of the document and not what I heard somone talking about. You choose not to understand the recipient of Certificate of Naturalization is entitled to a certified copy of the document and may or may not share the document with others. The recipient may or may not allow others to examine the document, photograph, copy or use any electronic recording device to copy it.
Eyewitness testimony is not hearsay. The original document is under the control and possessed by individuals who may be charged with conspiracy to commit treason against the United States if the document is exposed and may have a motive to lie under oath to protect themselves. Consequently, a secondary source witness is viable and will be heard if the primary source witness lies under oath.
If the primary source witness or the defendent procures the documents and brings it to the deposition, the secondary source witness will not be heard because it is not necessary.
“You choose not to understand I’ve discussed an examination of a certified copy of the document and not what I heard somone talking about.”
“Eyewitness testimony is not hearsay.”
SvenMagnussen:
A “certified copy of the document” is a written potentially self-authenticating statement by a government official in the form of a document. Such a document is an out-of-court statement covered by the hearsay rule. It you go to court and testify that you saw this document, you are in effect a witness to a statement made by another which is hearsay.
IN other words, if you have seen that certified statement (document) regarding Barry’s naturalization in 1983 and want to testify that you saw it, that is hearsay as to what is “said” (written) in the document by others, not you.
From Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_States_law
“Historically, the rule against hearsay is aimed at prohibiting the use of another person’s statement, as equivalent to testimony by the witness to the fact. Unless the second person is brought to testify in court where they may be placed under oath and cross-examined.”
“There are two other common misconceptions concerning the hearsay rule. The first is that hearsay applies only to oral statements. The hearsay rule applies to all out-of-court statements whether oral, written or otherwise.[4] The Federal Rules of Evidence defines a statement as an oral or written assertion or nonverbal conduct of a person, if the conduct is intended by the person as an assertion. Even written documents made under oath, such as affidavits or notarized statements, are subject to the ‘hearsay rule’.”
The secondary source document is only called to impeach testimony of a primary source witness testimony that the document does not exist or cannot be found. The secondary source witness testifies as to the circumstance and events they observed when the subject of the document obtained a certified copy of the document and revealed it to the witness.
Like a birth certificate, the subject of the document can fill out a one page form and pay a filing fee to obtain a certifed copy of the document. A secondary source witness would testify to impeach the testimony of a primary witness the document does not exist or cannot be found. The secondary source witness is not testifying as a primary source witness the document exists and it is authentic. The secondary source is only testifying after the primary source lies about it’s existence under oath. The Court and the defendant are only noticed the secondary source will be called after the primary sources lies about the document under oath. Consequently, it’s not hearsay. It’s testimony about what was observed by the secondary source witness.
I can’t recall one instance where DHS Secretary Napolitano has been named in a lawsuit or notified she may be called as a witness. You’re assuming this will continue to be the case and I’m trying to find a way to present Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization as a secondary source witness who has seen the document and will testify it exists.
Several FReepers have repeatedly demanded I file a sworn statement with Media Personality Zullo or Sheriff Arpaio even though I have repeatedly stated I’m a secondary source witness. And now your trying to convince me I’m a primary source witness and, as such, my testimony will not be allowed because it’s hearsay.
I’m not a primary source witness. I’m a secondary source witness called after primary sources witness testifies Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization does not exist or cannot be found. A secondary source witness cannot be used to prove a government document exists or is authentic. The secondary source witness is used, if necessary, to impeach the false testimony of a primary source witness.
Then it becomes a question of credibility. So, corroborating evidence is neccessary, i.e. a CLN from the State Department, F.B.I. or Treasury Department. Also, the Form SS-5, Application for SSN, and NUMIDENT from SSA and Occidental College applications and transcripts. The evidence is used to corroborate the secondary source witness testimony that the Certificate exists by a preponderence of the evidence and not the Certificate is authentic.
It is not necessarily Obama’s birth but Obama’s parentage that is in question along with the knowledge he was raised and mentored by Communist and Marxist plus raised a Muslim in his youth. Had he been allowed by the media and the far left to be vetted properly, Barry Soetoro would most likely never have been elected even senator however, with the acceptance of Political Correctness, America has been successfully muzzled from being who they really are and reduced to non-judgmental, brain dead nit wits.
“Several FReepers have repeatedly demanded I file a sworn statement with Media Personality Zullo or Sheriff Arpaio even though I have repeatedly stated I’m a secondary source witness. And now your trying to convince me I’m a primary source witness and, as such, my testimony will not be allowed because it’s hearsay.”
No, I wrote that you are an inadmissible hearsay witness.
You cannot testify to what an official certified out-of-court in an official document. The court regards this as the functional legal equivalent of you saying that you “heard” an official saying that they certified Barry’s naturalization in 1983.
Under the “best evidence rule” any testimony regarding a document, primary or secondary (whatever you think that means) requires production of the document, if available. There will be no court proceeding if the document is not available due to privacy or national security considerations.
Don’t miss the exchange between Seizure and I on Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization.
Seizure is convinced I want to swear out a statement to certify or authenticate Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization. I have repeatedly stated I’m a secondary source witness who would only be called if a primary source witness testified under oath Obama’s certificate could not be found or did not exist. The only purpose of a secondary source witness is to impeach a primary source witness who lies under oath. A secondary source witness cannot verify or authenticate a document possessed and controlled by the U.S. government.
Seizure wants us all to know I can never verify Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization, even though I would only be called to offer contradictory testimony from a primary source witness.
For review ...
If Obama, Napolitano or any other primary source witness who can testify as to the existence of Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization is never asked to testify on Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization, then anything I know to be true is inadmissible as hearsay.
If Obama, Napolitano or any other primary source witness who can testify as to the existence of Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization stipulates or testifies the certificate exists because Obama naturalized in 1983, then anything I can add is irrelevant because it is admitted.
If Obama, Napolitano or any other primary source witness who can testify as to the existence of Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization states it cannot be found or does not exist, then the Court and defendants can be notified a secondary source witness will be called at trial to impeach the sworn testimony of the primary source witness. If this is the case, the matter turns on who believes who is telling the truth. The plaintiff could then subpoena the CLN from the State Department, FBI and Treasury Department to corroborate testimony the certificate exists by a preponderance of the evidence. Also, the Form SS-5 from SSA and NUMIDENT file can be used to corroborate my testimony; as well as, Obama’s Occidental College applications and transcripts, Federal Foster care documents from ORR of HHS and Catholic Social Services of Connecticut. The corroborating documents do not prove Obama naturalized or authenticate Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization, they verify my testimony by a preponderance of the evidence.
You state “ Also, the Form SS-5 from SSA and NUMIDENT file can be used to corroborate my testimony” and “ The corroborating documents do not prove Obama naturalized or authenticate Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization, they verify my testimony by a preponderance of the evidence.”
So Sven, when and how are you going to make your ‘testimony’ available, and to whom?
“If Obama, Napolitano or any other primary source witness who can testify as to the existence of Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization states it cannot be found or does not exist, then the Court and defendants can be notified a secondary source witness will be called at trial to impeach the sworn testimony of the primary source witness.”
This so incorrect it is delusional, IMO. An inadmissible hearsay “secondary witness” (no such thing) such as SvenMagnussen claims to be will never be permitted by a judge to “impeach” a government custodian of records who testifies that a document “cannot be found” or “does not exist.”
I do not believe such a scenario has ever happened or will ever happen in any federal court. Feel free to impeach me with a link showing that it has ever happened!
A reminder:
So far there has been no plaintiff’s case on-point that survived pre-trail motions in federal court...so no trial and no witnesses or evidence will be entered into a trial record on the merits.
So no chance of Napolitano or any federal custodian of record every being compelled to testify. No “primary witnesses”...no “secondary witnesses”...no hearing on the merits!
All:
IMO, whether it is the HI DOH archive, SS archive, Selective Service archive, passport archive, INS archive, adoptive agency archive, only an insider going rogue as a whistleblower willing to commit a crime to expose a crime can place document images in public...which happens every year in the NT Times.
A whistleblower can receive some protections but usually they get “crucified” to be made an example of by the authorities (I speak from experience).
Excellent analysis!
In other words, the case can’t get to first base.
Also regarding docs being published (example: in the New York Times), there’s also Wikileaks.
Wonder if those guys have found anything :0
Given Arpaio’s efforts supported by many patriots, no leaks are necessary to conclude that Barry’s BC was forged, but Barry is still POTUS.
IIRC it was Pelosi who was on TV this week claiming that she needs Dems to step up this month like they did in 1994 to pass the so-called “assault weapon” gun grab which she claims they did then knowing that they would be removed from office. There were a bunch of Dems who voted for Obamacare knowing they would lose the next election and got removed in 2010 as well.
Where are our constitutional champions on the right willing to risk being called “racist” for honestly assessing Arpio’s evidence of forgery and pounding the table in Congress regardless of the consequences?
Maybe some were found last week in DC. Maybe not.
“So far there has been no plaintiff’s case on-point that survived pre-trail motions in federal court...so no trial and no witnesses or evidence will be entered into a trial record on the merits.”
Not true! A sitting judge appointed by Obama can be challenged and objected to because they were appointed by a usurper. Appointments of a usurper are a violation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. Anyone appointed by Obama can be objected to if they are scheduled to adjudicate a case if the defendant/respondent objects before trial. An objection after trial is pointless.
The defendant must merely object before trial that Obama’s appointments are unconstitutional because he is a usurper who naturalized as a U.S. Citizen during his lifetime. The Obama appointee must sustain the objection and recuse or schedule a hearing to determine if the allegation has merit. The defendant does not have to provide proof of allegation to make the objection.
Obama won’t be able to hide behind national security to prevent his immigration documents from seeing the light of day. If Obama and his appointees lie under oath and state the immigration records cannot be found or do not exist, a secondary source witness can be called to impeach the testimony of the appointees. Corroborating evidence can be obtained from Obama’s Form SS-5, application for SSN and NUMIDENT file. Certainly, Obama won’t testify his SSA records can’t be found.
The De Facto Officer Doctrine protects the government from chaos and indemnifies the government, not Obama.
“The defendant must merely object before trial that Obama’s appointments are unconstitutional because he is a usurper who naturalized as a U.S. Citizen during his lifetime.”
Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence. (look it up)
Um...one small nit: Isn’t Obama of one of his executive branch minions the defendant? Sooo...he would not be objection to his own appointment of the trail judge...but wait...there is no hope of any trial!
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.