Posted on 03/21/2013 4:37:24 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
My sentence was a complete sentence.
Interesting ... will go take a look.
Am backtracking Sven. Interesting link ... http://svenmagnussen.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2013-01-24T09:43:00-05:00&max-results=1&start=24&by-date=false ... Have you been flip flopping on eligibility issue?
Cede your point on SC needing to define (if you made that point) ... you have my radar up Sven.
Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban.
Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother. His father was Cuban.
Your sentence is lacking in information in that you ignore Cruz had a mother and why she was in Canada when he was born.
Are you a journalist...spouting only the info you want people to know?
Did you file a report using a formal affidavit ?
(I.e. ANY method OTHER than blog, scribd, discussion forum, website post)
To whom did you report it?
What did you report, a cert of loss of naturalization or a cert of naturalization?
When did you report it?
Where did you file the report?
Why did you wait to file the report?
OK about the cold case posse, they have found evidence of FRAUD.
If someone has PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE that a crime was committed or is ongoing, they have GOT to report it.
PERIOD.
Arpaio and zullo have looked at three things:
The b.c. put out by o and company
The selective service registration
The social security app/number
Like I said, they’ve got the first item sorted, then they have the other two.
If you send in a formal sworn affidavit with the details, then they can go after the citizenship status.
If o is found beyond any doubts to be naturalized, then that is HUGE, dwarfs the b.c., selective service, and soc sec items (although each is important in their own right, some may have statute of limitations)
So, (paraphrasing Aragorn in Lord of the Rings)
For the love of all that is good and great, stand with us, men of the West!
FORMALLY SWEAR THAT AFFIDAVIT.
A SSA Inspector General (IG) report, “Accuracy of Social Security Administration’s NUMIDENT File”, December, 2006, indicates incorrect citizenship information in SSA’s NUMIDENT File for foreign-born U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens. The IG report states, 7.7 percent of foreign-born U.S. citizens in the NUMIDENT were misclassified as U.S. Citizens and 7.0 percent of non-U.S. citizens with an SSN were misclassified because they did not notify the SSA after they had naturalized as U.S. Citizens.”
Above is from the link. He sticks to the “non citizen” status of o.
*yawn*
Categorize this as a "We're still trying to whip this-up" BUMP
E$tabli$hment $ociali$t-Marxi$t Liberal$/RINO$ in NY/Bo$ton/Wa$hington DC Axi$
....by the NYT/LAT/WaPo/ABCNNBCB$/FauxNC pinhead$
Please cite one eligibility case where a sworn affidavit has been effective.
You’ve bought into an idea that is ignored until the discovery phase of civil suit begins. Discovery cannot begin until the Defendent denies the allegations. Specifically, FRCP Rule 26(f). Before the Defendant must answer the complaint, the Defendant is given the opportunity to motion the Court for a dismissal.
Stop blaming Federal judges for insisting the FRCP is followed.
You’re a lawyer now?
Generally, green card holders naturalize to become U.S. Citizens after they have obtained a SSN as a Permanent Resident Alien. The new U.S. Citizen is required to update their new citizenship status with the SSA. Some do not which results in false positives on E-verify, SSNVS.
Consequently, employers are told to report their findings of an E-verify search, but not fire the employee because their status has not been updated or is in the process of being updated. Either way, a false positive on E-Verify does not revoke the citizens Certificate of Naturalization.
You state “Lt. Zullo will filing criminal charges any day now.”
Give specifics how you know this Sven?
The Hawaii records clerk came forward with his information, filing a formal declaration without a trial having gotten to the stage you claim it should be.
Will you join the records clerk in exposing 0 for the criminal that he (0) is?
Also, no case has gotten to the stage that you specify (denial and discovery).
Obama is exposed. Read http://svenmagnussen.blogspot.com Your concern for credit, glory, or money is blinding you to the facts about Obama’s ineligibility.
You, and others, are singularly focused on presenting evidence pretrial under the false premise a Federal Judge will ignore the FRCP to bring Obama to trial. It’s not going to happen. The FRCP must be followed.
A careful review of the FRCP will reveal secondary source witnesses, such as myself and Tim Adams, should not be a part of the controversy until the primary source is deposed and impeachment of their testimony is necessary. A secondary source witness won’t be necessary if the primary source tells the truth. Rules on the introduction of impeachment witnesses are necessary for the Court’s case management.
In Obama’s case, my testimony and Tim Adam’s testimony will be irrelevant if DHS Sec. Janet Napolitano produces certified copies of Obama’s immigration files. If the Sec. Napolitano testified, under oath in a deposition, Obama did not have an immigration file to reveal, then the Court and the defendant would be notified an impeachment witness will be called to offer a rebuttal. In the interest of case management, the FRCP has rules that indicate my rebuttal testimony will be ignored until the primary source has a chance to testify truthfully.
Not following the rules will delay the process further.
Sven,
Is there a way that Mike Zullo could contact you to discuss your information?
FRmail me if you want.
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.