Posted on 11/06/2012 8:42:40 AM PST by Seizethecarp
OhHaHa is hiding things. Obviously, he has things to hide.
your researcher may find the contents of interest.
I’d rather you carry on and ignore useless naysaying! (Based on silly nonstop baseless speculation...)
“Something changed, I have no idea what...but when Mr and Mrs Soetoro lodged a joint tax return in Hawaii, they only had ONE child”
You need to get your memory checked out! Below is what I posted when you and SvenMagnussen posted this tax return properly claiming only one legal dependent for tax purposes, NOT only one child.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2908395/replies?c=281
To: Fred Nerks; Brown Deer; SvenMagnussen; SatinDoll; little jeremiah; LucyT; hoosiermama
You don’t need to be a retired CPA like me to know that a list of eligible dependent children on a tax return is not in any way a list of children in your legal custody, either sole or shared. All you need is an ex-wife to know that.
I don’t know the 1973 HI state income tax code, but nationally states mostly mirror the federal rules for dependents, it they have an income tax.
If the child lives with you, as Maya did, she is pretty automatically an eligible dependent. If the child does not live with you, you typically must claim to have provided over 50% of the support for the child or have a court order awarding you the right to claim the child on your return because only one tax filer can claim the child (assert having provided over 50% of the support for the child).
On this 1973 HI return, Lolo and S. Ann are filing jointly and are claiming as a dependent only their daughter Maya who is living with them.
They are NOT admitting or declaring that S. Ann does not have custody of Barry, only that he is not living with them and they are not claiming him as a dependent.
I would expect that the Dunham grandparents claimed Barry on their return as a dependent child as he was living with them at the time.
My ex-wife and I passed a child back and forth several times and whoever had him got to claim him as a dependent but we had joint custody at all times.
Note, again, that in the divorce decree, one child of the marriage over age 18 (unnamed) is listed for Lolo and Stanley Ann. In documents on the record that I have seen there was no loss of custody of Barry by her at any time before age 18.
Something mysterious happened with BHO Sr. in 1971, probably pertaining to Barry’s Kenyan potential dual citizenship in the newly founded independent nation and possible rights and benefits for Barry. After all, BHO Sr. got financial aid for study in the US as a Kenyan student. That 1971 visit might not have had anything to do with custody, but only with preserving/validating Kenyan citizenship...possibly based on birth in Kenya. Stanley Ann was keen on Barry’s future education and did place him in the most prestigious school in HI with the help of grandma.
281 posted on 07/22/2012 8:36:17 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Not true:
I should have been a bit more specific. "A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth. U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship." - U.S. State Department
And I ignored your speculation then just as I’m ignoring it now.
i think that is one dependant...
One dependant child named Maya. I’m not assuming, I’m not making any wild guesses, it’s not conjecture, that’s what the parents of Maya Soetoro submitted on their joint tax return. They had one dependant child in 1973.
Where zero might have been living, who he was living with, what the circumstances of his custody might have been, I have no idea.
All I can see is that he wasn’t a dependant of Mr & Mrs Soetoro.
Why anyone would object to that observation...is beyond me.
“Nobody. Has. Standing.”
and why my head hurts...
The Sovietization of the United States is almost complete.
The only reason we are not carted off to the gulags is because we are ineffective.
The foundations were laid before Obama but now he has absolutely no reason to follow any concept of the Constitution.
Our only choices are to accept serfdom or start a bloody
Re-Revolution.
...You need to get your memory checked out! Below is what I posted when you and SvenMagnussen posted this tax return...
It's going to be a cold day in hell before I ever respond to one of your pings again, but before I show you my final pair of heels, let me point out to you:
I DON'T RECALL EVER POSTING ANYTHING WITH SVEN MAGNUSSEN, NEITHER DID I POST ANYTHING KNOWINGLY THAT SVEN HAD POSTED. I FOUND THE TAX DOCUMENT AND POSTED IT ONCE. I HAVEN'T SEEN IT BEFORE NOR SINCE. AND I NEVER, (DELIBERATELY,) PROVIDED THE LINK.
It's really SVEN MAGNUSSEN that is getting under your skin, isn't it? Sven's comments interfere with your unsupported conjectures, AND YOU CAN'T STAND THAT, CAN YOU?
This would fit the scenario where parental rights are transferred to Obama senior in late 1971 so that Obama II’s Indonesian citizenship is properly terminated.
Legally, Obama Senior likely took full custody. But probably only temporarily. He was likely a ‘conduit’ but not the final terminal.
Actually, in 1967 Rush lost a case, Afroyim v. Rusk, in which SCOTUS ruled: “Congress has no power under the Constitution to divest a person of his United States citizenship absent his voluntary renunciation thereof.”Yes, exactly.
Congress can only write law concerning the naturalization process. Congress dictated terms and conditions Obama had to meet in order to naturalize in 1983.
The 14th Amendment dictates who is a U.S. Citizen.
The Executive Branch controls who is no longer a U.S. Citizen when it determines allegiance is questionable. SoS Dean Rusk is a cabinet official with the Executive Branch. It was the Executive Branch that decided children born in America who moved out of the U.S. and naturalized in foreign states had voluntarily abandoned their nationality and allegiance in the 60's.
The Executive Branch is subject to more control by the U.N. under treaty than by Congress when it comes to maintaining citizenship. Once SoS Rusk determined a U.S. Citizen had moved out of the country and would not be stateless, a CLN was issued.
You’re quoting the Policy Guidance for the current administration. State Department Policy is edited, updated, and changed with each new President.
President Kennedy had a different policy than Obama when it came to issuing CLNs to children who moved out of the country and naturalized in a foreign state. The issuance of a CLN is entirely discretionary on the part of the Executive Branch of government.
Stanley Ann Soetoro and Lolo Soetoro were stripped of their parental rights in 1971 when Obama arrived as an Unaccompanied Minor with foreign nationality in 1971.
Not only was Lolo Soetoro stripped of his rights as the paternal parent after the Soetoro adoption was finalized, he and Ann had Barry taken away from them and placed in the legal custody of Catholic Social Services of Connecticut. Obama’s grandmother was appointed his guardian or foster mother, but Catholic Social Services of Connecticut maintained legal control.
Why Catholic Social Services of Connecticut and not child welfare of Hawaii? Because Obama was a foreign national. Foreign nationals were not placed in the custody of state-based child welfare agencies in the 70’s. Catholic Social Services of Connecticut is a non-government, non-profit welfare agency that had contracted with the U.S. Federal Government to take custody of abandoned foreign national children.
1971 ... Lolo and Stanley Ann stripped of their parental rights. The Soetoro COLB created by State of Hawaii after the Soetoro adoption was finalized is sealed and archived. A new COLB is created by the State of Hawaii with BHO Sr. listed as the father and his race as “African” by order of the Court. The Court orders Barack Hussein Obama II to remain in the legal custody of Catholic Social Services of Connecticut with Madelyn Payne as his guardian.
1977 ... Catholic Social Services of Connecticut applies for a SSN on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama II using his Permanent Resident Alien Status as the qualifying event for the card.
1971 ... 1979 (Obama’s 18th birthday) Stanley Ann and Lolo Soetoro cannot claim Barack Hussein Obama II as a dependent on their U.S. Federal Tax Return because he is in the custody of Catholic Social Services of Connecticut. Stanley Ann and Lolo had been stripped of their parental rights. With permission, Stanley Ann could visit Obama. But she had no control over him and could not claim him as a dependent.
After 1979 ... Stanley Ann and Lolo Soetoro claim one child, over 18, dependent upon them for education expense. Catholic Social Services of Connecticut no longer had legal custody of Obama after his 18th birthday.
again sven where did obama naturalize in 1983 acording to your theory ?
Give me your best guess where Obama naturalized in 1983. I need feedback on how much is sinking in.
The Afroyim v. Rusk SCOTUS ruling contradicts your analysis and conclusions. If Congress can make no law stripping citizenship from US citizens, then Rusk, as a member of the executive branch who can only enforce constitutional laws, had no authority under any law to issue a CLN regarding young Barry or any minor after 1967.
If Barry was never a US citizen in the first place, or if he did voluntarily surrender his nationality after turning age 18, then he might have had to be nationalized. But there is no hard evidence that he was a US citizen at birth, other than evidence that he was actually on his mother’s passport before being stricken and that the INS FOIA files reveal that some sort of investigation showed Barry to be a US citizen.
If Barry was a US citizen on his mom’s passport and the Elg case and the Rusk SCOTUS cases preserved his US citizen status regardless of any dual citizenship or adoption, then why does Barry have a bogus SS# that he didn’t start using until the mid-1980s? My best guess is that Bill Ayers forged a new identity for Barry due to some criminal Marxist terrorist activities...and Barry continues to use the SS# he gained from that identity even after he reverted to his birth name.
“I DON’T RECALL EVER POSTING ANYTHING WITH SVEN MAGNUSSEN, NEITHER DID I POST ANYTHING KNOWINGLY THAT SVEN HAD POSTED.”
False. You posted SVEN’s comment to SatinDoll on the tax return in your comment #274 in that thread in which you put up the return:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2908395/posts?page=274#274
IMO, you posted this comment in furtherance of your Mal-Val narrative claim that Stanley Ann was not Barry’s mom. See this thread for the Mal-Val narrative which asks for any evidence that Stanley Ann is not his mom and asks for any evidence that another woman is his mom (haven’t seen anything but wild speculation so far, IMO):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2913366/posts
I believe he was a resident of New York-attending and graduating from Columbia University around 1983 thus that would be my guess. Depending on when in 1983 he naturalized, he could have been elsewhere, Chicago, Hawaii, somewhere where he could claim 3 months residency prior to applying.
What about the earlier rules, maybe from around 1952?
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.