Posted on 03/17/2013 8:36:06 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
“In Obama’s case, his primary evidence and source is with the U.S. DHS and Sec. Napolitano of Maricopa Co., AZ. Since the CCP jurisdiction is Maricopa Co., AZ, I don’t see anything to prevent Lt. Zullo from interviewing Sec. Napolitano.”
And do you think Janet Napolitano would be 100% cooperative with Lt. Mike Zullo?
Thanks
“The parents must sign a Power of Attorney document which give a locally employed staff member the authority to investigate and report to the CAO the benefit, if any, of the child renouncing his U.S. Citizenship. If the locally employed staff member makes a convincing case to the CAO, then the CAO will recommend the SoS issue a Certificate of Loss of Nationality to the child.”
Sven, please show us for the record the specific U.S. State Department regulation or statute that says such action ‘must’ be taken?
Thanks
CCPS
Publicly lobbying Lt. Zullo to interview the custodian of Obama’s immigration records is pro-active. Sec. Napolitano lives in CCP jurisdiction, Maricopa County, AZ.
As we saw with Tim Adams, individuals with secondary source evidence of Obama’s ineligibility are publicly attacked by the left and ignored by the right. After Lt. Zullo tried to meet with Hawaii officials and was rejected because he didn’t set up an appointment, why didn’t he meet with secondary source Tim Adams to confirm Obama’s long form BC had been sealed and archived by order of the Court?
According to the Rules of Evidence, sealed and archived documents are considered legally nonexistent in the eyes of the Court. A sealed and archived document cannot be used in any Court or administrative hearing for any purpose. Thus, the reason a Court orders the document sealed. If the document cannot be used in any Court or administrative hearing, how does Sheriff Arpaio plan to make the case it was forged? Does Sheriff Arpaio really believe he will be able to get a conviction for anyone forging a document unavailable to the Court for any reason?
Why is Sheriff Arpaio avoiding Obama’s immigration records? Sec. Napolitano lives in his jurisdiction. Sheriff Arpaio had access to the DHS database of immigration records during the Bush II administration and was denied access to the DHS immigration records during the Obama administration. Is Sheriff Arpaio interested in determining Obama’s eligibility or is he interested in keeping the focus on Obama’s sealed and archived records?
Just what physical evidence could Tim Adams have provided Zullo besides the affidavit he has already signed and notarized? All Tim stated was that he was told (by his superior I think) that Obama’s birth certificate didn’t exist.
You state “Why is Sheriff Arpaio avoiding Obama’s immigration records?”
You answer that question in your very next sentence Sven when you state this:
“Sheriff Arpaio had access to the DHS database of immigration records during the Bush II administration and was denied access to the DHS immigration records during the Obama administration.”
Arpaio was denied access as you state. There is your answer.
You then ask: “Is Sheriff Arpaio interested in determining Obama’s eligibility or is he interested in keeping the focus on Obama’s sealed and archived records?”
My answer is YES, he is interested determining Obama’s eligibility. Otherwise he wouldn’t have sent Lt. Zullo to CPAC to meet with lawmakers.
So let’s get back to the main focal point which is why you refuse to trust Lt. Mike Zullo with your evidence and knowledge that Obama naturalized in 1983. Woodward and Bernstein trusted ‘Deep Throat’, a informant, and that person gave them information to set events to bring down Nixon. Don’t you think your information would be beneficial to Zullo? Don’t you want Zullo to bring down Obama Sven? Contact Mike Zullo and give him your information. Make him aware of what you know. Sitting back and doing nothing achieves nothing. Don’t you agree? Zullo has reportedly reached out to you. Will you help him Sven?
CCPS, (david, melancholy, flotsam jetsome: comments welcome)
I just did some research on p.o.a.’s for estate planning, and if I am not mistaken, a granter of a p.o.a. gives power to another person to act in his stead.
If the granter of that p.o.a. never had the power in the first place, then that p.o.a. is meaningless.
In the case of giving up citizenship of a minor, the parent never had that power to begin with.
How did SADO do a p.o.a. (supposedly) when granny in Hawaii had legal guardianship (supposedly).
P.o.a.’s get notarized; where do they get archived?
Here’s a link about renunciation, it talks about minors:
http://immigration.findlaw.com/citizenship/renunciation-of-u-s-citizenship.html
Scroll down to the section on “minors”; nowhere does it talk about a power of attorney.
It does say that if the minor is under 14, there is a LOT of documentation/evidence/good reasons that would need to be given to support the minors renunciation.
P.O.A’s are signed by a clerk of court and archived in the court house where it took place.
“How did SADO do a p.o.a. (supposedly) when granny in Hawaii had legal guardianship (supposedly).”
Good point. I believe according to Sven, it was done when she struck him from her passport in 1968 when she was married to Lolo. This was before he returned alone from Indonesia.
So using svens HYPOTHETICAL situation,
Before SADO’s p.o.A could be done, a guardianship change had to be done first.... from granny to SADO .
Of course, there is nothing to substantiate the guardian change(s)
It would seem so because he went to Indonesia with her with her planning to stay indefinite so logic suggests they would have done it before they left. You don’t do Power of Attorneys by telegram from overseas.
*
Article.
Then comments # 1 through # 33 .
[Also, Sven posts.]
.
Say, you ever think of working for the SCOTUS? Simple. Brilliant.
However, my scholarly FReeper pal, you is obviously totally unaware of the
You see EPU, if one can claim Hawaiian Birth, one is automatically qualified to be President by Acclamation, and for as many terms as necessary to bring fair and equal progressive government to the US. As far as the Birth in Hawaii claim goes, Stanley's family often ate Dole Pineapple products for breakfast which is very strong proof, indeed. (All, in fact, a reasonable man needs.)
PING: “ - - - The only reason Lois Anderson was assassinated had to do with BHO2’s birth in Kenya. - - - “
By January of 2007 Obama had just recently amended a HI BC while pursuing the issue of whether he would run for President, according to HDOH disclosures.
IIRC, January of 2007 was also when Obama announced he would run for President. I wonder how the exact date lines up with the date of Mama Lois’ assassination.
Here’s what’s listed on a timeline for Obama’s Presidential run:
Oct. 22, 2006 Illinois Sen. Barack Obama tells NBC’s Tim Russert that he has reconsidered the possibility of running for president. Nine months earlier on the same show, Obama had ruled out a 2008 presidential run.
Jan. 16, 2007 In a Web video, Obama announces he has filed papers to form a presidential exploratory committee.
Feb. 10, 2007 Obama formally announces his candidacy on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Ill., where Abraham Lincoln once declared that a house divided against itself cannot stand. More
I just looked up, at http://allafrica.com/stories/200701291483.html it says Mama Lois was killed on Sat. Jan 27. Eleven days after Obama announced that he filed papers for an exploratory committee, and 11 days before announcing his candidacy. Smack dab in the middle of the decision as to whether to run.
Yes, the dates are interesting.
Thousands died in the Kenyan riots of 2006 and 2007. Christian churches burnt to the ground with parishioners inside, and resulting in the destruction of valuable records.
It shut down any information coming from missionaries, but not all of it.
I wonder why he walked with a limp as a child and when he “lost” it to the point that he would be playing basketball so much. I wonder where the scars were, from falling out of the mango tree. Obama has that prominent scar on the back of his head which he’s never explained.
The quote you gave apparently has a link in it. Do you have a link to the page you quoted from, so we can click the links and see more?
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.