Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Seizethecarp
Here is what DOS and DHS denied:

“To the extent this paragraph alleges that PresidentObama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States, that allegation is denied. Specifically, Defendants deny that President Obama was born in Kenya or anywhere outside the state of Hawaii.”

Note the lawyerly parsing. They don’t say Barry is NBC or that he was born in HI. If they did that they could be forced to defend such claims with evidence if the matter went to trial.

Of course they stated that Obama is a NBC and that he was born in Hawaii. There is no other way of reading that statement without throwing logic out the window. Moreover, any court in the country will read it that way. And so will any Congressman.

39 posted on 04/08/2013 12:40:04 PM PDT by ConstantSkeptic (Be careful about preconceptions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]


To: ConstantSkeptic

“Of course they stated that Obama is a NBC and that he was born in Hawaii. There is no other way of reading that statement without throwing logic out the window.”

No, it is called understanding legal filings.

No, they did NOT claim Barry WAS NBC or that he WAS born in HI. IANAL, but I speak from knowledge of preparing numerous pro se lawsuit answers and reading numerous answers prepared on my behalf by lawyers.

Again, the purpose of an “answer” is to avoid a default judgment in favor of claims made by the plaintiff that are not “answered.” An answer sufficient to defeat a default judgment is a mere denial of the claim. A denial is not an assertion of a claim.

If you read the answer, the defendants DO make some counter claims which they “aver” (see legal term of art definition below). The claims that DHS and DHS “aver” are claims that they have direct knowledge of, such as receipt of letters from Strunk and whether a statute says this or that.

Maybe I missed it, but DOS and DHS do NOT affirmatively “aver” that Barry IS NBC or that he WAS born in HI. If they did not do so, why is that? I suspect that it is because they do not have direct evidence or statutes or case law to support such claims in support of Barry.

See Aver:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Aver

“To specifically allege certain facts or claims in a Pleading.”


43 posted on 04/08/2013 1:08:36 PM PDT by Seizethecarp (Defend aircraft from "runway kill zone" mini-drone helicopter swarm attacks: www.runwaykillzone.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

To: ConstantSkeptic

You have thrown curiosity out the window.


45 posted on 04/08/2013 1:15:51 PM PDT by Chunga (Newt for U.S. Senate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


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