Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: SvenMagnussen

“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.


255 posted on 03/27/2013 10:11:28 PM PDT by Seizethecarp (Defend aircraft from "runway kill zone" mini-drone helicopter swarm attacks: www.runwaykillzone.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies ]


To: Seizethecarp

“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.”

Eyewitness testimony of direct examination of a recorded document (secondary source) is not hearsay. It’s referred to as secondary source because the eyewitness does not possess or control the document. Anyone who has visited or worked in a U.S. Federal facility that houses documents protected by the Privacy Act know its impossible to make copies, photograph or record a document without specific authorization.

Obama’s foreign nationality status can corroborated by copies of the CLN from the State Department, Treasury Department, and the F.B.I. Additional evidence to corroborate Obama’s foreign nationality status can be obtained by examining his original Form SS-5, application for SSN, and his NUMIDENT file. Not to mention his complete tax returns for fiscal years 1979 to 1982 and his Occidential College applications and transcripts. And finally, his complete immigration file with his CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION issued to him in 1983.

Securing these documents is not a fishing expedition to get something on Obama. It’s a concentrated effort to corroborate the specific allegation that Obama is not eligible for the Office of the President because he was a foreign national in 1971 through 1983 where he regained his U.S. citizenship status with the issuance of a Certificate of Naturalization in 1983.

Postscript: And the records from Office of Refugee Resettlement at HHS and Catholic Social Services of Connecticut which further corroborate Obama’s foreign nationality status.


260 posted on 03/28/2013 3:02:33 AM PDT by SvenMagnussen (1983 ... the year Obama became a naturalized U.S. citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson