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 ...
Talk about your misleading titles. If it were true, it would mean that Cruz and six other senators have committed forgery, creating a fake birth certificate for President Obama. Or at the very least, that they were secretly posting false statements online implicating Obama.
THERE. WERE. NEVER. ANY. BIRTHER. CONSPIRACIES.
Instead, many of “we, the people” noticed that there questions about Barack Obama’s citizenship that didnt mesh, and candidate Obama never answered or even was asked any of them.
Maybe he is a citizen. But why did he not have his own social security number? What was his nationality in Indonesia? What passport did he travel under to Pakistan as a young adult? Did he apply to Occidental as a foreign student? His mother was not old enough to confer American citizenship upon him if, as it has been suggested, he was born in an unwed mother’s home over the border in Canada from her Seattle high school.
His documents are not honest. They have forged layers.
Something is wrong with his citizenship, but what? No conspiracy. Just suspicious questions.
First of all, Zullo needs to publicly state he is a media personality and not a commissioned law enforcement officer. I have no interest in meeting with media personalities trying to raise funds to investigate everywhere except Janet Napolitano’s home office.
Zullo is free to look over the articles I’ve written at http://svenmagnussen.blogspot.com . Several websites have linked to my website and a few have cut and pasted some of the information on my website and posted on their website. Zullo is free to do the same thing.
Your credibility has just hit zero.
Sven,
A question:
Who has standing to bring this suit, of which you speak, in the first place?
Per your post (copied below **) there needs to be a lawsuit that gets past denial and to discovery, then this suit then has to get to the point that napolitano gets deposed and if she lies, then you and tim Adams can give depositions refuting what she says.
But the problem is, all previous suits have been dismissed, most on account of “no standing” and some on other procedural items.
From your first paragraph:
“....Your concern for credit, glory or money.....”
Look up the Declaration of Arbroath for my answer to this!!!!!!
**
SvenMagnussen wrote:
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.
Ping to this post #159!
Ping to post #159!
You state “First of all, Zullo needs to publicly state he is a media personality and not a commissioned law enforcement officer.”
Lt. Mike Zullo works for Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a commissioned police officer elected Sheriff of Maricopa County 6 times. There should be no excuse for you not to contact them with the information that you claim to have Sven.
“Who has standing to bring this suit, of which you speak, in the first place?”
Obama and his supporters, each, have a tell. A gambler can pick it up rather easily. They will tell you what they fear, if you’ll stop listening to what they say and observe why they are saying it.
For example, Orly Taitz was fined $20,000 by a Federal Judge in Georgia. Obots repeatedly made it clear the Judge was a Bush appointee. An Obama appointed Judge is what they fear.
Anyone charged with a Federal crime or instructed to show cause for not assessing an adverse action and put before an Obama appointed Judge can object to the Judge appointed by a usurper to hear their case. The De Facto Officer Doctrine does not apply to a Federal Court defendant who objects BEFORE trial or hearing. Obots are so worried about this they are putting out false information about objecting after trial or hearing. Objecting after the trial or hearing is pointless. The De Facto Officer Doctrine does apply if the defendant objects after trial.
I wrote an article about this here: http://svenmagnussen.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2013-02-05T18:50:00-05:00&max-results=1&start=1&by-date=false
Remember: object before trial or hearing and not after.
Repeating my question (your reply above didn’t address “standing”)
Who has standing to bring this suit,of which you speak,in the first place?
Per your post (copied below **) there needs to be a lawsuit (that per your previous posts gets past denial and to discovery), then this suit then has to get to the point that napolitano gets deposed and if she lies,then you and tim Adams can give depositions refuting what she says.
But the problem is,all previous suits have been dismissed,most on account of “no standing” and some on other procedural items.
** SvenMagnussen wrote:
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.
A defendant who stands before a Judge nominated by a usurper has standing to object to the appointment by a usurper before trial or hearing begins. After a Judge issues a final ruling, the De Facto Officer Doctrine applies.
See Appointments Clause, Art II, Clause 2 of the Constitution.
What if the judge wasn’t appointed by 0, could your suggestion, as posted below, still go forward?
“A defendant who stands before a Judge nominated by a usurper has standing to object to the appointment by a usurper before trial or hearing begins.”
You’re attempting to define a phrase that has not been completely and definitively defined. SCOTUS has not completely and definitively defined it and has indicated in opinions the Founding Fathers intended for the phrase to have meaning, but not be completely defined.
Consequently, the only way to determine who is eligible for POTUS is to eliminate those not eligible. Non-citizens are not eligible. Naturalized citizens are not eligible. I think a good argument can be made statutory citizens are not eligible because their Certificates of Citizenship can revoked. A natural born citizen does not have a certificate to be revoked. A natural born citizen can prove they were born in the U.S.A. without a birth certificate through affidavits from the delivery doctor, hospital administrator and pediatrition. A statutory citizen and Naturalized citizen can have their citizenships revoked if they obtained their certificates fraudulently.
OBOTS don’t seem worried when an eligibility case goes before a Judge appointed by Bush or Clinton.
Boston Univ Law seems to think any Federal Officer who requires appointment or reappointment by Obama is fertile ground for a Court challenge.
MSM engaging in McCarthy like tactics.
Replying to this post (and also see your #174 post)
OK does the suit filer have to challenge the judges’ appointment?
What will that do?
We are getting off on a tangent here, my question had to do with the plaintiffs standing, I.e. did he have “damage” and then have a case?
The goal you pointed out was to get a case to the point of discovery, what do this post** and post #174 have to do with it?
** A defendant who stands before a Judge nominated by a usurper has standing to object to the appointment by a usurper before trial or hearing begins. After a Judge issues a final ruling,the De Facto Officer Doctrine applies.
See Appointments Clause,Art II,Clause 2 of the Constitution.
Notice how Sven has diverted attention from his claim to have seen a Certificate of Naturalization?
Anyone who can allege a particular harm cause by the individual Obama. Not all of us have had personal contact with Obama.
But let’s say he and I met in 2007 while playing basketball. After the game, he told me he planned to run for the Office of the President, but he needed three thousand dollars to help him get started.
I asked him, “How can a naturalized citizen be eligible for the Office of the President?”
He answered, “I can prove I was born in the U.S.A. and that is all that matters. My CLN and Certificate of Naturalization are irrelevant. Sven, would you loan me three thousand dollars as a individual to be repaid with interest on January 1, 2013?”
I responded, “Sure, as long as it is understood I’m loaning you three thousand dollars personally, and it’s not a campaign contribution. I told him I wouldn’t loan it to him if was ineligible and he assured me he was.”
We shook hands on it and I loaned him three thousand dollars. He didn’t repay me on January 1, 2013.
Sven,
When will you follow tim Adams lead?
(he filed his statement because it was his duty to report his knowledge of a crime.)
OK, here is the post by Sven where he says he has PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of 0’s immigration docs:
To: Cold Case Posse Supporter
I answered your question and you didn’t like the answer. So,you’re assuming I didn’t answer your question and am avoiding it.
My answer was personal knowledge. This is similar to the attack on Tim Adams. Tim Adams publicly stated he had personal knowledge he had gained through his employment with the state of Hawaii as Senior Elections Chief. Adams factually stated Obama’s original long form BC was not available for inspection.
Adams was called a liar,falsely accused of not having access and repeatedly demeaned because he could post a jpeg image,pdf or video of information he had gathered through his employment history.
I have personal knowledge Obama naturalized in 1983. I do not trust Zullo or Arapaio because they have enough information to interview or obtain a search warrant for primary evidence of Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization from a witness who lives in their jurisdiction. They refuse to investigate within their jurisdiction while traveling outside of their jurisdiction to Hawaii and DC to put on a good show.
I’ve asked you,Why doesn’t Zullo or Arpaio drive over to Janet Napolitano’s home in Maricopa County to interview the custodian Obama’s immigration files? Why do you refuse to answer?
64 posted on 03/22/2013 7:09:53 AM PDT by SvenMagnussen (1983 ... the year Obama became a naturalized U.S. citizen.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Sven,
I very strongly doubt that Napolitano has pertinent info in her Maricopa County home. Nevertheless, if you supplied an affidavit to the CCP it would provide the probable cause needed for the issuance of a warrant.
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.