Replies

“How does the Posse proof of the forgery of a 1961 LFBC image have anything to do with SvenMagnissen’s claims of Barry’s adoption or naturalization?”

You’re the one asserting Sheriff Arpaio and Media Personality Mike Zullo will shift or add Obama’s immigration files to their investigation if I perform certain acts you demand.

I am the one who openly questions the veracity of the investigation because Sheriff Arpaio will not shift or add Obama’s immigration files to their investigation after Sheriff Arapio announced the BC posted on the WH website was a forgery.

I posted open ended questions; such as, “Who forges a BC?” And then I answered the question to moved the discussion along with, “An immigrant.” And then I questioned Sheriff Arapio’s true intent because he would not move the investigation to Obama’s immigration files after determining the BC was a forgery.

Now, you claim I’ve done something wrong because Sheriff Arapio refuses to investigate Obama’s immigration files with Maricopa County resident, DHS Sec. Janet Napolitano, within his jurisdiction. Ironically, until Obama cancelled his access, Sheriff Arpaio had permission to view immigration files with DHS for criminal suspects.

“SvenMagnussen has zero comprehension of FRCP (federal civil procedure). An answer to a lawsuit can be a general denial of all claims. The answer does not have to refute each claim of evidence by the plaintiff or any claim of evidence, contrary to SvenMagnussen’s repeated assertions.”

You’re twisting facts to suit your agenda. I’ve always said any allegation not denied by the defendant is an allegation that will be found to have merit. Consequently, the defendant should deny all claims or be prepared to defend themselves in a hearing on damages.

You desperately want to maintain the false narrative certified, provable, authenticated evidence must be presented before a complaint will be successfull. The fact is a complaint contains allegations and the Court is required to proceed as if the allegations are true until successfully defended. Proof or evidence or witness disclosures are not considered by the Court until the defendant exercises their right to request a dismissal for procedural errors and answers the complaint if the dismissal is overruled.

You’re the one who doesn’t understand the nuiance of a secondary source witness for impeachment and a primary source witness. In the interest of case management, the Court is not interested in secondary source witness statements until a primary source is deposed under oath. The secondary source is only important if the primary source needs to be impeached.

In the case of Obama’s immigration files, the Court could care less if I saw I’ve seen Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization before a primary source testifies. If the custodian of all U.S. immigration records, DHS Sec. Janet Napolitano, denies Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization exists, then and only then will the Court be noticed a secondary source witness will be called to impeach the primary source witness testimony. Until Big Sis speaks on the matter, the Court could care less what I saw or didn’t see. If she lies, I’ll fly in at my own expense to correct the record while under oath.

FRCP Rule 26. Read it.

Sven: “You’re the one asserting Sheriff Arpaio and Media Personality Mike Zullo will shift or add Obama’s immigration files to their investigation if I perform certain acts you demand.”

I never wrote that. You are confusing me with someone else (or are delusional). I never demanded that you “perform certain acts” either. I’m not into that kind of thing with strangers!

Sven: “I am the one who openly questions the veracity of the investigation because Sheriff Arpaio will not shift or add Obama’s immigration files to their investigation after Sheriff Arapio announced the BC posted on the WH website was a forgery.”

Now I am really suspecting that you are delusional on top of being narcissistic! You actually think Arpaio and Zullo could care about your hearsay nonsense?

Arpaio always channels his inner Sgt. Friday, unlike you. He sticks to the facts in evidence and won’t make declarative statements that haven’t been proved, unlike you. He won’t even accuse Barry of forging his BC or ordering it to be forged because he can’t prove that...yet. Arpaio and Zullo can only prove that the LFBC pdf was forged.

You have zero basis for attacking and insulting them and you only offer inadmissible hearsay claims which don’t even rise to the level of evidence.

“You’re twisting facts to suit your agenda. I’ve always said any allegation not denied by the defendant is an allegation that will be found to have merit. Consequently, the defendant should deny all claims or be prepared to defend themselves in a hearing on damages.”

There is NO requirement that a defendant specifically deny plaintiff’s claims. A general denial will do. There is a boilerplate form that attorneys use every day to accomplish this. I used the form myself when I acted pro se.

Any competent attorney or pro se will never be nailed by failing to answer a lawsuit with at least a general denial which will eliminate the possibility that the court will issue a default judgment based on the plaintiff’s claims.

“You’re the one who doesn’t understand the nuiance of a secondary source witness for impeachment and a primary source witness. In the interest of case management, the Court is not interested in secondary source witness statements until a primary source is deposed under oath. The secondary source is only important if the primary source needs to be impeached.”

No, the court is not interested in hearsay witnesses such as yourself whose offer of “testimony” would be inadmissible hearsay, of course, but your knowledge of the law is so rudimentary you don’t understand this. You are no good to the court as either a primary OR as a secondary witness, based on what you have claimed so far.

Tim Adams and his affidavit were also useless. He had no personal knowledge that Barry’s BC was missing by examining any files directly. He only signed a statement that others had TOLD him that the BC was missing. That is inadmissible hearsay straight up.

No court will fail to quash a plaintiff’s subpoena on a motion from a defendant if the subpoena is a FISHING EXPEDITION such as you have fantasized.