by Sven Magnussen
Blog Wars!
My leader and co-patriot, Orly Taitz, Esq., has struck the first blow and drawn first blood in a article on her blog entitled, "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". Orly, I'm disappointed.
Let's clear a few things up so we can stay focused. My name is not SvenMagnussen, Sven Magnussen or Sven Magnusson. SvenMagnussen is a pseudonym I use because I chose not to voluntarily release my name. It's like Dr. Conspiracy, only I'm not bald. For reasons of his own, Dr. Conspiracy confirmed his real name in a blog post. I choose not to do that. Nevertheless, I've experienced many of the same adversities you have highlighted on your website, i.e. vehicle tampering, vehicle break-ins, threats, harassment, etc. I can't prove it, but I'm certain, many important people know who I am and what I'm doing. I don't think I'm anonymous. I choose not assist the entities who want the biggest fraud ever committed against the United States to continue. Also, I'm not Swedish, I'm not an employee of the State Department and I'm not a lawyer.
Your obsession for submitting proof with a civil suit complaint has been your downfall. According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, proof submitted with a civil suit complaint is ignored. The reason it is ignored is because the allegations in the complaint are considered to be true until the defendant proves the allegations do not have merit. In Court, Judges are referred to as, "Your Honor." Licensed, practicing lawyers are officers of the Court. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are based upon honor and integrity of the judicial officers of the Court. Consequently, the rules dictate allegations made in a civil suit are true until the defendant successfully articulates a theory by a preponderance of the evidence which finds the allegations do not have merit.
After the defendant in a civil suit denies the allegations, discovery can begin. This is when proof of the allegations are obtained. Obama's immigration file can be subpoenaed from Obama or from DHS, USCIS or NARA after a Touhy Exception is granted. Barring that, a rebuttal witness can be called to testify Obama's immigration file does exist and it contains a Certificate of Naturalization issued to him in 1983. If the jury does not believe the rebuttal witness, then corroborating evidence can be subpoenaed. Obama's original Form SS-5, Application for SSN, from SSA can be subpoenaed from Obama or the SSA, after a Touhy Exception is granted. Obama's NUMIDENT file from SSA will identify him as an applicant with permanent resident alien status, as well. Furthermore, Obama's college application and transcript from Occidental College will identify him as foreign student.
How do we know Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961? We know this because Obama has published and has shown a certified copy of his Certificate of Live Birth stating he was born on August 4, 1961 in Hawaii. You can't ignore a certified, authenticated abbreviated vital record from Hawaii because the long form has been sealed and archived in the State of Hawaii. The long form birth certificate was sealed in Hawaii after the Soetoro adoption was finalized in Hawaii, not Indonesia.
How do we know Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro in Hawaii? A sealed and archived long form birth certificate is evidence of adoption. Furthermore, the Associated Press has published a school record of Barry Soetoro, January 1, 1968, which identified him as an Indonesian national and his father as Lolo Soetoro. Again, more evidence Lolo Soetoro adopted Obama. It's a false narrative to explain the Soetoro adoption would not have been recognized in Indonesia because the child was too old. Indonesia law had exceptions for children adopted by Indonesian nationals from a family of divorced parents. The Obama divorce was finalized before the Soetoro marriage and Soetoro adoption.
How do we know Obama was issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality (CLN) in 1968 when the Foreign Affairs Manual states minors cannot voluntarily renounce their U.S. Citizenship? The Foreign Affairs Manual is a policy and procedures manual used by foreign service officers to enact the policy by the current administration. Each administration updates and revises the FAM to suit their administrative policies within the guidelines of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Federal Law and treaties entered into with foreign countries. Only the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government is discharged with the Constitutional authority to establish uniform rules and regulations with regard to U.S. Citizenship. The U.S. Congress is discharged with the Constitutional authority to establish uniform laws and regulations with regard to immigration and naturalization. Naturalization is a process of obtaining citizenship. Once citizenship is obtained, only the Executive Branch of government has Constitutional authority to establish uniform rules and regulations with regard to citizenship. The issuance of a CLN is discretionary and entirely within the discretion of the Executive Branch of government.
But, but, but .... the FAM and Court opinion say a minor cannot renounce their U.S. Citizenship. What about that? Anyone of any age can move out of the country and renounce their U.S. Citizenship. Any discussion concerning a minor incapable of making an informed, voluntary choice on forfeiture of citizenship concerns revocability of the CLN and not the prevention of the issuance of the CLN. Minors can return to the U.S. and revoke their CLN for any unspecified reason until six months past their 18th birthday. This issuance of a CLN is entirely upon the Executive Branch of government. The U.S. Congress and the Judicial Branch of the U.S. Government have the Constitutional authority to proffer rules, regulations and orders on revocability of a CLN after it has been issued by the Secretary of State. In Afroyim v. Rusk, SCOTUS did not opine the Secretary of State could not issue a CLN to dual citizens who voted in foreign elections. Rather, it opined the former dual citizen could revoke the CLN through application for a U.S. passport.
Why would the Secretary of State issue a CLN to someone who could revoke it? The issuance of a CLN relieves the U.S. State Department and U.S. taxpayers of the burden of protecting and providing service to a U.S. citizens who live abroad and do not plan to return to the U.S. Generally, a former U.S. Citizen must return to the U.S. or plan to return to the U.S. in the near term to revoke a CLN.
In closing, it's important to remember all of the publicly available information in determining Obama's ineligibility. Indisputable proof Obama is ineligible for the Presidency is in his immigration file and not his birth records. Good luck, Orly. You may continue to count me as a supporter. A frustrated ... disappointed ... can't believe you haven't memorized the F.R.C.P. supporter.
- Process Server Declared Obama Refused Service
- Orly Fights Back! U.S. District Court Judges Give Conflicting Orders for Serving Obama
- How to Subpoena Obama's Immigration File from DHS
- Obama Naturalized as a U.S. Citizen in 1983
- U.S. House General Counsel Responds to Taitz's Subpoena
- Serving a Summons, Complaint on the President as an Individual
- Grinols v. Electoral College; Motion for Reconsideration of Order; Obama Demands Service Through DoJ AG
- US Court of Appeals; Naturalized Citizens Not Eligible for POTUS
- Grinols v. Electoral College; Obama Not Served
9 comments:
I am truly grateful to the owner of this web site who has shared this wonderful piece of writing
at at this place.
Here is my blog post :: her comment is here
So what kind of business are you in if you are not a lawyer or don't work for the State Department?
"How do we know Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961? We know this because Obama has published and has shown a certified copy of his Certificate of Live Birth stating he was born on August 4, 1961 in Hawaii."
Certified birth documents are only as good as their probative value, which in this case is zero.
In fact, Barack Obama hasn't provided one, single, solitary, independent,* corroborative piece of evidence in support of any of the claims made on his two birth certificates, not one -- not even the records from his birth hospital.
Since no corresponding evidence has been put forward in support of Obama's birth certificate information, an examination of his Hawaiian Health Department records, starting with the original information the Hawaiian Health Department registrar used to create their Obama file, and trace their path to their live birth decision must now be undertaken.
ex animo
batazoid
*Independent of HDOH records
batazoid;
Obama's COLB is self authenticating. To impeach it, someone must step forward and provide testimony or evidence to the contrary. Then, Obama would have to provide corrobative evidence.
The original information on Obama's birth became irrelevant when Obama's mother testified in Hawaii Family Court her attestation in 1961 was not true. She testified Barack Hussein Obama was not the father of her child. After hearing testimony and examining evidence, the Court ruled BHO Sr. was the father and the original long form BC will remained sealed and archived.
Are you referring to her 1971 Hawaii Family Court testimony?
ex animo
batazoid
"Obama's COLB is self authenticating. "
A pic on the www is "self authenticating?"
Seriously?
Try putting your BC (or drivers licence) on the www, and telling someone asking for it they can find the image in the ethers. Be sure to tell them since an image of it is on the internet, it's "self authenticating."
Good luck with that!
You are right 'Anonymous'.
One of the frustrating things about my court case in Georgia -- the Court would not allow a download of the jpg image of Obama's BC into evidence because it couldn't be authenticated, i.e., the raised seal could not be authenticated. the certified copy, properly sealed and authenticated, was required. And yet, somehow, the judge told us, "Of course the President's BC was real".
But, Sve is right, assuming the document is in evidence, it would be self-authenticating. Again, assuming the Plaintiff had no impeachment prima facie evidence, which, of course, we did and do.
ex animo
batazoid
taundatum xaikalitag buigniguinity [url=http://uillumaror.com]iziananatt[/url] Napphyday http://gusannghor.com dimilelia
The Long form Birth certificate has been proven to be a computer generated document and not a copy of a real BC.
Post a Comment