I believe Sven maybe be telling the truth and here is why. If Sven was a Federal employee with access to certain records he may have seen what he claims exist in someway. But when any record is accessed there is a log of who and when. As Melancholy points out, that can get you a big headache.
So Sven is stuck between a rock and a hard place. He has knowledge that he can't do anything with but only hopes someone somewhere will.
“So Sven is stuck between a rock and a hard place. He has knowledge that he can’t do anything with but only hopes someone somewhere will.”
Remember Greg, if he’s working for this regime in any capacity, they had a year plus to read what he wrote about the “evidence” and ample time for retribution. Unless the regime is sanctioning what he claims because it benefits them in diluting issues and smearing Conservative FReepers per another soap opera, The Todd Rodriguez Affair, starring OBOTS, ConcernedFreepers, lobbyists, etc.
“I believe Sven maybe be telling the truth ...”
One must be convinced of the truth before three become believers.
“He has knowledge that he can’t do anything with but only hopes someone somewhere will.”
I’ve been pro-active. Posting messages on the background of Obama is doing something. Freepers are entitled to know the truth even if the truth is unpleasant. For some oddball reason, Freepers are convinced evidence must be obtained, certified and authenicated prior to trial before the truth can be posted.
In a civil suit, allegations are made in a complaint and a summons is issued to the defendant(s). If the defendant(s) file an answer to the complaint denying all allegations, then the discovery process begins. In Obama’s case, a responsive pleading is made which requests the case be dismissed before discovery begins. The discovery process is way to legally obtain records protected by the Privacy Act, i.e. immigration records, social security records, etc.
Any evidence obtained, legally or illegally, is ignored by the Court until the trial begins. Again, for some oddball reason, Freepers are convinced evidence of Obama’s naturalization or illegal immigrant status will force a Judge to overrule Obama’s responsive pleading, i.e. motion to dismiss. It’s not true. Allegations in the complaint are considered to be true until there is a trial and the defendant successfully defends his denial of the allegations.
If the complaint survives a motion to dismiss, the discovery process begins. Records of Obama’s birth (if any), immigration (if any), SSN (if any), etc., can be legally obtained and presented. Records illegally obtained are ignored by the Court. For some oddball reason, one or two Freepers believe illegally obtained records are ignored by the Court because the Judge is in on the conspiracy.
If the defendant does not answer the complaint to deny the allegations, then the Court can only rule the allegations have merit and a hearing on damages will begin. This is where the plaintiff must prove harm has come to them due to the negligent actions of the defendant. For some oddball reason, many Freeper accept the fact Obama was elected and elections cannot be undone. Unfortunately, it ignores the fact the plaintiffs have made allegations against Obama and those allegations have been improperly ignored. Plaintiffs have the right to a hearing to determine damages, if any.
Which brings us to the false narrative the De Facto Officer Doctrine makes Obama legal. Not true. The De Facto Officer Doctrine indemnifies the governing authority from lawsuits and maintains the law, rules, regulations and appointments made by the usurper. The De Facto Officer doctrine protects the government, not the usurper. The usurper must vacate the office and be held to account for their actions to obtain the office ilegally. Obama, Nancy Pelosi and many others could be criminally charged with election fraud in all “57 states.”