Another big problem for Sven’s claims is the “renunciation of nationality” that supposedly happened in 1968.
In 1968 0 was 7 years old.
The current state dept foreign affairs manual 7 FAM 1292 i) 2) says minors under 16 are not to be regarded as capable of renouncing nationality.
Also that the renunciation be done overseas.
Trouble is, 0 was 16 in 1977 and in high school in hawaii; see “choom gang with cake” pic.... it has “class of 1979” on it.
I doubt the 1961 era counterpart to this 7 FAM manual allowed anyone under 16 to renounce their citizenship either.
Oh, and Sven’s sidestep of these points is utter fantasy; I won’t repeat his claim here.
The truly sad thing is that there are a lot of legitimate questions about Obama’s qualifications and what the true meaning of natural-born citizen is. But any time someone tries to have a learned debate about it they get lumped in with all the raving birthers and their crazy claims and wind up being tarred by the same brush.
It seems Orly Taitz is upset that ‘Obama Release Your Records’ picked up Sven’s allegations. She goes on the attack at her blog and posted this earlier:
Headline:
Sven Magnussen is a resident of Sweden, not an employee of the State Department, there is no proof to his story about Catholic charities adopting Obama
Posted on | April 8, 2013 | 5 Comments
An individual by name Sven Magnussen wrote that Obama came to the U.S. as a foreign citizen in 1979, was in care of a catholic charity and was later placed into guardianship of his grandparents. He claims that his Indonesian adoption was annulled, so this story is actually an obot story, as it helps Obama to explain his invalid Social Security number, his Indonesian citizenship, as annulment of adoption supposedly whitewashed both. This story was published in Free Republic and later ORYR (Obama release your records). I hope people running these blogs ask for some shred of proof before publishing stories. I am wondering why ORYR published this story and did not publish a notification of my case being heard on April 22, which is on the court docket and a verified fact? Why did he publish multiple articles about yet another interview by Mike Zullo promising new information, while no new information was ever provided and this interview was just a prelude for yet another fund raiser for Sheriff Arpaio, who did over year of interviews and fund raisers, but never filed a criminal complaint, refused to appear in court and testify and deputised my witness John Sampson in his cold case posse only to tell him not to appear in my cases again and not to testify, as he is now a part of this cold case posse?
1. Sven Magnussen did not provide any proof of this story, it is similar to Linda Adams story and birth in the manger on the premises of the U.S. embassy story or birth on board of Pan Am story. Multiple stories are brought forward without a shred of proof.
2. Sven Magnussen, who from what I recall, posted under multiple names, previously wrote to me and stated that he is a citizen of Sweden and sent excerpts of Swedish papers. So, the new story, that he is a U.S. citizen and an employee of the State Department is not true.
3. I found yet another example of a fraudulent statement by Sven Magnussen. He wrote an article
Taitz v Mississippi Democratic Party Dismissed. In reality this case was not dismissed and is still going on.
“The current state dept foreign affairs manual 7 FAM 1292 i) 2) says minors under 16 are not to be regarded as capable of renouncing nationality.”
The FAM is a policy and procedures manual to dictate the current administrations policies. Note the part of FAM you’re quoting was revised after Obama took office.
Furthermore, it is a comment on the revocability of a CLN issued to a minor. Obama could have returned to the U.S. and revoked his CLN anytime before 6 months after his 18th birthday.
Congress and the Courts do not have Constitutional authority to dictate terms on the forfeiture of citizenship. Only the Executive Branch can dictate terms on citizenship forfeiture. However, Congress and the Courts do have Constitutional authority to dictate terms on revocability after a CLN is issued.
FAM 7 1292 is a reference to the fact a minor may revoke their CLN for any unspecified reason. The current administration has issued policy guidance it won’t issue a CLN to a minor because of that reason. Afroyim v. Rusk was ruled on by SCOTUS in 1967. Rusk understood the ruling was to revocability and not a ruling to terminate his ability to issue CLNs without formal renunciation proceedings. Obama was issued a CLN at this time with the understanding he could revoke the CLN for any reason.