Comments to Sven are a frame for him to spin his web on.
Late Ping for the mêlée.
Check out # 1 and # 2.
Posted on 04/08/2013 7:14:00 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Vendome, were you referring to post #116?
“.....a few Freepers are demanding I explain Obama’s motivation for applying for a SSN in 1977 and not 1972.....”
Not asking for o’s motivation, just pointing out the discrepancy in the timeline and debunking the “federal foster care” THEORY.
1971/72 is when SSN’s were REQUIRED for people receiving ANY FEDERAL FUNDS.
1977 is when the SSN was OBTAINED.
Yep.
He giving us pablum, no links, no evidence and a lousy Carnac the Magnificent impersonation.
“Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.
“Petitioner, an enlisted member of the United States Coast Guard, challenges his conviction by a court-martial. His conviction was affirmed first by the Coast Guard Court of Military Review, and then by the United States Court of Military Appeals.[1] The latter court agreed with petitioner that the two civilian judges who served on the Court of Military Review had not been appointed in accordance with the dictates of the Appointments Clause, U. S. Const., Art. II, § 2, cl. 2, but nonetheless held that the actions of those judges were valid de facto. We hold that the judges’ actions were not valid de facto.”
The issue before SCOTUS concerned congress unconstitutionally appointing Coast Guard appeals court judges that should have been appointed by the POTUS.
This case has NOTHING to due with whether sitting federal judges were lawfully appointed or can make lawful rulings.
SCOTUS in this case repeatedly affirms the de facto officer doctrine as applied to judges and which currently would apply to ALL of Barry’s appointments UNLESS AFTER a finding of criminal usurpation SCOTUS itself decided to declare Barry as never having been POTUS (highly unlikely).
So SvenMagnussen’s scenario of a plaintiff challenging the legitimacy of the federal judge assigned to a case examining Barry’s eligibility documents would improperly “assume facts not in evidence” i.e. that a judge is not legitimately appointed.
” ... two civilian judges who served on the Court of Military Review had not been appointed in accordance with the dictates of the Appointments Clause, U. S. Const., Art. II, § 2, cl. 2, but nonetheless held that the actions of those judges were valid de facto. We hold that the judges’ actions were not valid de facto.”
Judges appointed by Obama must comply with the Appointments Clause, U.S. Constitution, Article II, Subsection 2, clause 2 or their appointment is invalid if the defendant or respondent challenges the appointment of a Judge by the usurper before trial.
Sven wrote:
“....The Secretary is authorized, but not directed to issue social security numbers to schoolchildren and to preschool children upon request by the parents or guardians. In addition, the Secretary is required to establish the age, citizenship, alien status, and identity of all applicants for social security numbers.
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/1972amend.html";
OK here goes:
If school children were exempt then why did he get a SSN in 1971 as part of YOUR “federal foster care” THEORY .
It STILL does NOT EXPLAIN the DISCREPANCY with getting THE SSN IN 1977.
Comments to Sven are a frame for him to spin his web on.
Late Ping for the mêlée.
Check out # 1 and # 2.
Dont forget muslim..
Whateva. The Mombasa MF is still ridin' on AF 1 while the rest of us can't afford a fill-up.
Pretty well describes ( )o( )bama.
I have a hunch that Sven is making that up out of thin air as a phony explanation for the otherwise inexplicable Connecticut Social Security number. It not only seems improbable because of geography, but the intuitive feeling here is that church-based organizations were simply not doing government social work contracting at the time, as it might be considered to be in violation of the separation of church and state doctrine. It wasn't until the early part of the George W. Bush administration when the concept of church-based organizations working in in such a manner with government on social services was actively promoted and implemented by the federal government, with a fair amount of criticism from the left.
In addition, the notion of Catholic social Services of Connecticut supervising the care of Obama until age 18 sounds incredulous because it seems he was being raised quite adequately by a relative - his grandmother - so there would have been no need for social services intervention after a certain point.
His (half) sister applied for a SSN when she had a Hawaii address, so through the regular procedure at the time, she was issued a Hawaii SSN.
Obviously, BHO could not have obtained a Connecticut SSN through the regular procedure, because there is no evidence of his ever having a CT address. On the other hand, there is evidence that he picked up the Connecticut SSN which had previously been issued to a deceased individual and was never assigned to him. If so and it was done intentionally, it was a criminal act every time he used that SSN. But as we all know, he is above the law and is protected by the MSM, so nothing has yet to come of it.
Thanks justiceseeker!
Greg, ping to the post!
And as far as we know, he’s STILL using it.
And I believe it came out from his 09 tax returns :0
“His (half) sister applied for a SSN when she had a Hawaii address, so through the regular procedure at the time, she was issued a Hawaii SSN.”
Don’t shoot me...
His half-sister was a U.S. citizen or an Indonesian citizen?
I thought she was born in Indonesia with Lolo as father? Wouldn’t that have made her an Indonesian citizen?
“Judges appointed by Obama must comply with the Appointments Clause, U.S. Constitution, Article II, Subsection 2, clause 2 or their appointment is invalid if the defendant or respondent challenges the appointment of a Judge by the usurper before trial.”
SCOTUS was reviewing a case where they determined after-the-fact that the civilian judges had not been appointed properly under the Appointments Clause but ONLY because they were appointed by congress and not the president, not because the POTUS had been merely alleged (but not impeached and removed) to be a usurper.
No federal judge has ever been improperly appointed under the Appointments Clause, so any federal judge that would hear any discovery case involving Barry’s identity or naturalization documents would be covered under the de facto officer doctrine confirmed numerous times in the case you posted. Your case rebuts your claim.
An mere allegation that Barry is a usurper cannot be grounds for a claim that a federal judge is wrongfully appointed and will not provide standing or jurisdiction for any hearing or court action.
EXCELLENT analysis!
Our group has searched high and low for confirmation of this commonly held belief, and found nothing so far, other than the first three numbers which denote the State of issue are the same. Have you found anything further that shows the numbers are the SAME?
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.