I think most Americans would agree that US Immigration Policy needs change and the law needs reforming. In the current state of gridlock in Congress, that is unlikely to happen, and the resulting fallout is in the news daily.
We see it here in the case of Taitz v. Johnson et al., where Orly Taitz has sued to stop the transportation and release of undocumented immigrant children pending court hearings on their eligibility to remain in the US as refugees. The problem, says a government witness in the Taitz hearing yesterday, is that the US Border Patrol has no jurisdiction outside of the United States, and cannot therefore stop undocumented immigrants from crossing the border and can only arrest them once they cross. A statute passed in the last days of the Bush Administration, the William Wilberforce Child Trafficking Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, gives unaccompanied minor immigrants the right to a hearing, but the immigration courts are woefully underfunded, resulting in long delays. The legislation requires the government to place these children in the least restrictive setting, which in practice is release to a relative, or foster care.
Judge Andrew S. Hanen, judge of the Brownsville Division of the US District Court for the Southeastern District of Texas, doesn’t seem to like the transportation and and release of these children who are less likely than not to appear at their court hearing, and less likely than not to be allowed ultimately to stay in the US as refugees. Observer Tomtech, who was at yesterday’s hearing in the Taitz case, said that Judge Hanen appeared to be looking for a way to intervene, but concluded that nothing was likely to happen with Orly Taitz as attorney under the complaint she filed and therefore Judge Hanen denied Taitz’s request for a temporary restraining order and her admission to the Court Pro Hac Vice, removing the possibility for Orly to attempt to turn her case into a class action.
The 1:30 PM hearing lasted until almost 6 o’clock. A second hearing was scheduled for October 29th to rule on an injunction. Judge Hanen has allowed Taitz to file an amended complaint by September 12, followed by the taking of depositions with the Court’s permission.
Read more:
- Immigrant Surge Rooted in Law to Curb Child Trafficking – The New York Times
- RC Radio interview with Tomtech
- The Fogbow “Boots on the ground”™ report from Tomtech 1
- The Fogbow “Boots on the ground”™ report from Tomtech, First witness
- The Fogbow “Boots on the ground”™ report from Tomtech, Second witness
- The Fogbow “Boots on the ground”™ report from Tomtech, Third witness
- The Fogbow “Boots on the ground”™ report from Tomtech 2
- The Fogbow “Boots on the ground”™ report from Tomtech 3
- “Judge Denies Restraining Order in Immigration Case” – Associated Press
- Press release: Orly Taitz, Esq.
Minute order on hearing:
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Andrew S. Hanen. MOTION HEARING held on 8/27/2014. Appearances: O.Taitz, Atty/Plaintiff; D.Hu, AUSA; C.Kisor, AUSA;(Court Reporter: B.Barnard)(01:31-03:44/ 03:55-05:49). All parties present and ready to proceed. Discussion held as to pending motions. Oral argument held. Govts witness K. Oaks sworn in/ testified/ cross. Govts Exhibits #2,#3,#4 admitted. Defts Exhibit #1 admitted. Court Break. Court Resumes. All parties present. Govts Witness T.Brooks sworn in/ testified/ cross. Govts Witness A.Fierro sworn in/ testified/ cross. Govt concludes its presentation. O.Taitz addressed the Court. Court addressed the parties. Court DENIES the termporary restraining order. Plaintiff has until 09/12/14 to file amended complaint. Defendants have until 10/03/14 to respond either by answer or by motion to dismiss. Plaintiff may reply by 11/17/14. Injunction hearing will be held on 10/29/14 at 10:00 am. Initial Conference set for 10/28/14 is cancelled. Depositions to be taken after amended complaint and with Courts permission. Court adjourned., filed.(csustaeta, 1)
Here’s the problem … the Wilbur Wilberforce CT PRA 2008, as amended:
SEC. 404. PROHIBITION.
(a) In General- Subject to subsections (b), (c), and (d), the authorities contained in section 516 or 541 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j or 2347) or section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2763) may not be used to provide assistance to, and no licenses for direct commercial sales of military equipment may be issued to, the government of a country that is clearly identified, pursuant to subsection (b), for the most recent year preceding the fiscal year in which the authorities or license would have been used or issued in the absence of a violation of this title, as having governmental armed forces or government-supported armed groups, including paramilitaries, militias, or civil defense forces, that recruit and use child soldiers.
… unless the usurper gives the country benefiting from child trafficking a waiver and reinstatement of assistance on National Security grounds pursuant to:
(c) National Interest Waiver-
(1) WAIVER- The President may waive the application to a country of the prohibition in subsection (a) if the President determines that such waiver is in the national interest of the United States.
(2) PUBLICATION AND NOTIFICATION- Not later than 45 days after each waiver is granted under paragraph (1), the President shall notify the appropriate congressional committees of the waiver and the justification for granting such waiver.
(d) Reinstatement of Assistance- The President may provide to a country assistance otherwise prohibited under subsection (a) upon certifying to the appropriate congressional committees that the government of such country–
(1) has implemented measures that include an action plan and actual steps to come into compliance with the standards outlined in section 404(b); and
(2) has implemented policies and mechanisms to prohibit and prevent future government or government-supported use of child soldiers and to ensure that no children are recruited, conscripted, or otherwise compelled to serve as child soldiers.
Orly should object to a usurper giving foreign countries waivers and reinstatement of assistance because he’s ineligible and his waivers and reinstatement of assistance are causing harm to her business and herself.
One thing Orly is objecting to is that the government transports these people before deporting them. But it is more convenient to do it that way. It’s called “staging” and anyone who has ever moved anything understands the concept.
She can’t stand that they these people get to fly “for free” as she puts it.
I wonder if Orly will see that as a hidden hint the judge will only rule in her favour after Obama has served out his term. 😉
“less likely than not” doesn’t work. Er, maybe “less likely than so” ?
“Here’s the problem … the Wilbur Wilberforce CT PRA 2008, as amended: Orly should object to a usurper giving foreign countries waivers and reinstatement of assistance because he’s ineligible and his waivers and reinstatement of assistance are causing harm to her business and herself.”–SvenMagnussen
That won’t work because there has never been a ruling by any official body that Barack Hussein Obama, II is ineligible for the office he holds.
He received more popular votes than his opponents in two elections; he received a majority of the votes of the electors in two elections; his electoral votes were unanimously confirmed by Joint Sessions of Congress, twice. He took the Oath of Office, four times!
Congress has sent him hundreds of bills to sign into law; his nominees and appointees have been confirmed by the U.S. Senate, many have been confirmed unanimously.
Sixteen court rulings have found that he qualifies as a “natural born citizen.”
He is the duly elected 44th President of the United States.
Exactly and Orly cannot argue the legality of the appointment of President Obama as this is a political question.
Nice try though, but as is the case with so many of the birthers’ arguments, they fail in practice…
The standard for a permanent injunction is a very high hurdle. In 2008 the Supreme Court decided a case that chose between a sliding scale and a fixed definition. The strictly fixed definition won. In a 6-3 decision,Winter, et al. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al., the Court tightened the standards for permanent injunctions in the Federal courts. In order for Orly to win she must demonstrate a probability, not merely a possibility, of irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction.
Irreparable harm.
What can she allege that, even assuming she could prove causation, resulted in irreparable harm — to herself? Because it has to be an IRreparable harm TO HER.
Well, there’s no refunds or exchanges on her CPAP machine. So that’s irreparable, right there.
There is one thing that Orly does correctly – she completely ignores all of Sven’s advice.
Orly … Pro had vice
The Honorable Shelley Dick, USDC MLA, was appointed by President Obama and sits on the 5th Circuit Judiciary Committee. Orly should make an Appointments Clause challenge with respect to Judge Dick and seek immunity from local rules promulgated by the 5th Circuit Judiciary Committee. Local rules are waived after an Obama appointee assumed her office in violation of the US Constitution.
Respectfully suggest Judge Hanen investigate violations of the Constitution by Obama appointees through an in camera examination of Obama’s SSN application and Numident file to determine the facts with respect to Obama’s citizenship.
I really am curious about your habit of posting advice to Taitz in a place she’s unlikely to see it. Has she banned you from her blog?
I’m curious as to why its pronounced “veejay” and not vice.
OMG, you ARE a troll.
Hey SvenTheGreat, why don’t you yourself file something with Judge Hanen. He takes each and every opportunity to smear your government nowadays !
Judge Hanen recently sentenced a Brownsville DA and a State of Texas judge to prison upon a complaint filed by US DoJ. It would be nice to see the look on Judge Hanen’s face after opens Obama’s SSA file to see Obama didn’t update his SSA records after he naturalized and the SSA has him as a citizen of Indonesia.
And I think it would be nice to see the to the look on many a birther’s face when Obama finishes his second term, and leaves office on January 20th 2017.
Funniest Sven comment evah – I’m dying!!!!
It would also be nice to see his face when he opens his back door and finds a pink unicorn grazing on his azaleas. Since neither pink unicorns nor “Obama’s naturalization ” exist, you’ll just have to accept the fact you are not going to see his expression. Oh, well.
A deluded old fool can dream, can’t he?!
… Leprechauns…. hundreds of Leprechauns
Hold it right there: If you have evidence of Obama’s naturalization you can put an end to the whole thing.
Reason seeps into Sven’s mind like water into granite.
Sven is confused with the concept of the prosecution or plaintiff having actual evidence “before” filing a complaint or indicting somebody. He likes to troll that you only need suspicion or a rumor. You can then have discovery and get the evidence you know must exist somewhere.
In the criminal world, I would think it might be tough to get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich (in federal cases), with only a rumor. It’s almost like those who created the Constitution thought of that.
Article III. PRESUMPTIONS IN CIVIL CASES › Rule 301. Presumptions in Civil Cases Generally
Rule 301. Presumptions in Civil Cases Generally
In a civil case, unless a federal statute or these rules provide otherwise, the party against whom a presumption is directed has the burden of producing evidence to rebut the presumption. But this rule does not shift the burden of persuasion, which remains on the party who had it originally.
(Pub. L. 93–595, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1931; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011.)
_________________________________________
FRE Rule 301 was amended by Supreme Court order on Apr. 26, 2011 with an effective date of Dec. 1, 2011 after a vote with JJ Kagen and Sotomayor participating.
It is alleged Obama is in violation of the Eligibility Clause and Obama’s appointees hold their offices in violation of the Appointments Clause. If these allegations are found to have merit by a preponderance of the evidence, then FRE Rule 301 is voided.
The Framers of the Constitution understood a usurper and his accomplices would immediately begin to change the rules and regulations and continue to amend the rules and regulations to prevent exposure and continue the destruction of the Constitutional republic. For example, the most substantive changes to the FRCP were ordered on March 21, 2009 and became effective Dec. 1, 2009 during the first year of Obama’s presidency. Amendments were made to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rules 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23, 27, 32, 38, 48, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 59, 62, 65, 68, 71.1, 72 and 81. Fed. R. Civ. P. rules 48 and 62.1 were added and rule 1(f) was abrogated. Moreover, significant rulings were made by the Supreme Court with JJ Kagen and Sotomayor were issued which devolved a citizen’s right to object to the usurpation of the Office of the President of the United States.
Consequently, it is incumbent upon the District Court to investigate eligibility of President Obama through sua sponte motion to issue a subpoena duces tecum to the DHS, DoJ, DoS, HHS, IRS and SSA to determine the current citizenship status of Obama.
Otherwise, Obama and his accomplices will continue to amend the FRCP and FRE and issue SCOTUS opinions to get away with greatest fraud ever committed upon the US.
Sven is a student of OrlyLaw where you go to court with only suspicions and ask the judge to produce the evidence for you. Of course this generally leads to being told that “unlike Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something does not make it so”.
These presumptions in a civil case are related to when the suing party has an actual injury. So far, none of the birther lawsuits have been able to show that any of the plaintiffs suffered any specific injury.
Regardless, if a birther case could actually get to the merits – which for a birther is the claim that the president is not a natural born citizen – then I am positive that the defense would submit a certified copy of President Obama’s birth certificate.
And of course, all of the other idiotic ideas that you spew regarding Obama losing his US Citizenship is – well – idiotic.
It must be very frustrating to be Sven; the places where his natural allies congregate control their messaging to the extent that they no longer allow him to participate, yet the places (like Doc’s) that allow him to spew are populated by people who lack the ignorance and mendacity needed to buy his nutball “theories.” It’s a pickle.
I note that here in Indiana the birthers got to the merits in Ankeny v. Daniels , and the birthers lost. Using rules passed in Indiana, not by the U. S. Supreme Court. In 2009. And while the Indiana Supreme Court declined to further review the case, the birthers did not seek U. S. Supreme Court review before Pres. Obama appointed Justice Kagan to the Supreme Court.
Now I recognize that Ankeny simply rejected ON THE MERITS the two citizen parent argument, but as posters here have said, if Sven has proof that Pres. Obama was (a) born somewhere else or (b) was naturalized, he has in Judge Hanen a court which may actually be interested. If I were Sven, holding that evidence, I would run, not walk (even if I had to put fresh tennis balls on my walker) to Brownsville.
I have been mystified by Sven’s habit of posting his copious advice to Taitz here, when the straightforward approach to bringing it to her attention would be to post it on her blog.
Over a year ago, Taitz posted this: 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 (that’s just the title) in which she suggests that Sven is an obot.
I have the feeling I saw this before and had forgotten. Anyhow, it seems Taitz has heard Sven’s story and it is too stupid for her. That is mind boggling.
If an examination of President Obama’s SSA records were to reveal President Obama applied for SSN in 1977 as a permanent resident alien, then it’s reasonable to question the value of presenting Obama’s birth certificate as proof President Obama was never issued a CLN in his lifetime. A birth certificate is evidence of a live birth at a particular county, in a particular state, at a certain time and date.
Alternatively, a Form SS-5, Application for SSN, is a self-identified application for a SSN with supporting documentation. Trained SSA document examiners verify the self-identified information provided by the applicant through investigation and verification of the supporting documents provided by the applicant. If a permanent resident alien, as opposed to an illegal alien, applies for an SSN with documents to support their application and the SSA document examiner verifies the information provided by the applicant, then the PRA (acronym for Permanent Resident Alien) field is coded with a “Y” on the NUMIDENT file.
Let’s say a judge tells a petitioner the birth record verifies Obama’s birth and 99.99999 % of time the person identified on the US birth certificate is a citizen of the US at birth? Can you prove by a preponderance of the evidence Obama’s parents were ambassadors representing a foreign country at the time of his birth?”
The petitioner responds, “Judge, I’m not prepared to prove Obama’s parents were ambassadors. There’s an 0.00001 % chance President Obama’s SSN prefix associated with Connecticut applicants and the fact President Obama fails E-Verify because he or Catholic Charities, Inc of Hartford, CT applied for President Obama’s SSN with supporting documentation that correctly identified President Obama as a Permanent Resident Alien in 1977.”
Petitioner continues with, “Judge it is quite common for naturalized citizens to fail E-Verify because they are required to notify SSA of their change in citizenship status from Permanent Resident Alien to US citizen. Most assume USCIS communicates the updated information to SSA automatically. They do not. It is up to the new US citizen to notify SSA of the change from alien to citizen.
That is why many naturalized citizens live and work in the US without any problems and then their employer checks E-Verify and they fail the verification. They fail because SSA still has them as a foreign national granted Permanent Resident Alien status. They must notify SSA of their correct citizenship status by providing a certified copy of their Certificate of Naturalization to the SSA. After SSA updates their files, the former alien and current US citizen will pass E-Verify.”
And then the Judge say, “How does this cause you harm? What is your particular injury that makes you think I should enter a sua sponte motion for subpoena duces tecum to examine President Obama’s SSA records in camera?”
And the petitioner says, “The defendants in this case are appointed by President Obama. Some of their defense counsel members are appointed by President Obama. Other members of defense counsel are career professional US federal officers who are required to support the US Constitution pursuant to Article VI. I am harmed by defendants President Obama who is in violation of the Eligibility Clause, appointees who hold their offices in violation of the Appointments Clause and their defense counsel who are in violation of Article VI submitting pleadings in this court that are adverse to my complaint.
The defendants and their counsel are paid by taxpayers to support the US Constitution and they are in this court to support President Obama who holds the Office of the President of the US in violation of the US Constitution.
My injury is particularized because I seek immunity from US federal officers who support an ineligible President contrary to their sworn oaths to support the US Constitution and are pleading against my application for TRO and Preliminary Injunction and pending complaint.
I’m not demanding President Obama be removed from Office by order of the court. I am requesting relief granted by the court because I object to my Constitutional rights being violated. I have a First Amendment right to seek a redress of grievances in this court. This court does not have jurisdiction to hear the pleadings of defendants who hold their offices in violation of the Appointments clause. This court does not have jurisdiction to hear defense counsel in violation of the Appointments Clause or Article VI pleading with the court to deny my TRO, Preliminary Injunction and pending complaint.”
Doc, it’s all gettin’ posted on WordPress. Relax.
I could post it on my site, but I like to post on your site.
Sven says:
“If [total lack of evidence but hundreds of words] . . . complaint.”
Sven, some of us here agree with you that “if” Pres. Obamas was actually born on Mars and his birth registered in Connecticut by the Mossad, he is not eligible.
The only little wrinkle with your word salad is the total 100% lack of evidence. Not 99.99999 % lack of evidence. You have hit 100% in the lack of evidence department.
It’s almost as if we are the only people paying attention to Sven!
The COLB proves Obama was born alive 1961 in the State of Hawai’i. The SSN application and NUMIDENT file prove Obama was living as a permanent resident alien in the US in 1977. Thus far, the courts have refused to examine Obama’s federal government records because the State of Hawai’i has proven and will continue to prove Obama was born alive in 1961. I think Judge Hanen will understand the distinction between the two presumptions of facts.
That’s really stupid.
As my friends from Missouri say, Show Me.
And yet when asked to show the naturalization record of President Obama, a record, if it existed that is a public record available for all…Svenny somehow fails to answer……
It’s simple. People can make up any allegations and a black President must show his papers to deny the allegations. Sven believes the judge should ask Obama, “papers please.” The President is not white, so he must be hiding something, thus Orly should get discovery.
Indeed, we’re the Skeptic State!
Not to be confused with the Septic State…that name belongs to that other state…you know the one!
Sven, Sven Sven…
Obama’s birth in Hawaii…DOCUMENTED fact
Sven’s made up scenario…total BS
No judge necessary. Citizens can see for themselves and voted accordingly.
You know, when all this information came up regarding him having a SSN that was assigned in the state of Connecticut, it did get me curious enough that I investigated my own SSN. Mine was assigned to me when I was 13 years old in 1972. I went to the SSN website and I found out that my prefix of 615 is suppose to actually be assigned to California even though I was born in Kansas and applied for my SSN in Kansas. At that point, I read on their website that the first 3 numbers aren’t to be relied on as to the area your SSN was assigned.
Regardless of that, the rest of your statement proves that Obama is a NBC. He was born in the state of Hawaii and the state of Hawaii continues to say he was born there. Nothing will change that. So, nothing else matters. Since a child can’t give up their US citizenship and a parent can’t do it for them, we all know that the rest of your hypothesis is totally crap.
Indeed! But can we see why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch?
You misunderstand the details, or at least you describe it sloppily.
The SSN was NOT “assigned in the State of Connecticut”.
The SSN was assigned, like most SSN of the time, in the SSA offices in Baltimore Maryland (if I recall correctly).
The Baltimore office used a prefix that was ‘reserved’ for applicants with a return postcode resolving to Connecticut, apparently because someone misread the postcode on Obama’s application.
The ‘reservation’ of prefixes was a throwback to when the offices, scattered across the country, needed to ensure they didn’t assign a duplicate. There would be havoc if somebody in New York assigned a number to John Doe and then Omaha assigned the same number to Jane Bloggs. Once the processing of SSA applications was centralized, there was no longer a need for the reservation to occur, however office procedures and computer systems designed around those processes take time to replace, so the practice continued. At the ‘end of the day’ the only thing that matters is that no duplicate number was issued. As long as the other 6 digits don’t match anyone else who has a ‘Connecticut’ prefix it is absolutely fine.
Other than the ridiculous “France lied!” you haven’t explained how Obama traveled using a US passport when he was in college.
Not only does he totally lack evidence, but we have reasonable evidence CONTRADICTING his theory.
So he isn’t at zero, but minus 100.
His standard answer to any evidence debunking his claims seems to be “it’s a lie!” The guy IS a troll.
Agreed, this is absolutely text book troll behavior, and of course, we’ve all been spoon feeding him/her.
But you know, there actually IS a chance that France lied.
I was using “birther words” since that is what Orly is always using when she discusses the President’s SSN. I realize that the SSN comes out of Baltimore.
My point was when I first heard this argument, I took a look at my own SSN and found out that even though I lived in and applied for my SSN in Kansas, the first 3 numbers of mine are supposedly used for people who applied in California.
So the contention of birthers that the first three numbers of a person’s SSN must match up with the state where they applied for their SSN is wrong.
Don’t be a troll yourself, you know that’s rubbish.
Sorry Lupin, did you not follow the link?
Sorry, I was a bit short. Apologies for the all too curt dismissal. I confess that I hate Jim Carrey, especially in D&D which I found excruciating, and I didn’t see the point of the clip, seriously. For my defense despite trhe cliché I can’t stand Jerry Lewis either.
In a spirit of conciliation let me offer this clip in return:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwIsI9vHDJI
OK. I was pointing out the tendency of our poster, and other posters, to assume that since sometimes humans lie, and government officials are humans, that sometimes government officials lie. Since there is a possibility that any given official has lied to any question at any time, it must be true that some official has lied somewhere sometime. If there is a possibility that an official has lied, there is “A CHANCE!” they are right. Therefore it must be true that every official must be lying all the time. Governments lie. France lies. Germany lies. USA lies. Hawai’i lies. All the time, and especially about Obama who must have some really, really big ‘universe shattering’ secret about them they don’t want exposed.
Anyway, I’m am not a fan of D&D either (I have never even seen it actually). But the clip is a standard ‘internet meme’ describing the eternal optimism of the ‘slow thinker’ in the face of stupidly impossible odds.
(Edit: and I do like Jerry, but not so much that routine.)
I’ve mentioned before that my ex-wife’s SSN has the prefix 210, which generally denotes Pennsylvania SSN. She was born in New York and she never lived or worked in Pennsylvania.
Sorry again I totally did NOT get it! That makes me as dense as the character portrayed! 🙁
Seriously gain, the “lying” argument is actually difficult to construct. Let’s break it down.
Obama said he visited France when in college (c. 1980-81). Could that be a lie? French TV located one guy (hotelier) who claimed to remember him. Maybe he was lying too? In any event, it wouldn’t be an official French lie, unless the hotelier is himself a spook or the entire TV report was a spookshow. Now we’re getting far-fetched if only because creating a fake hotelier or a fake report would be immediately obvious to the locals who live nearby.
So were going to accept Obama did visit France when he said he did. If so we’re left with only two scenarios, none of which requiring an “official lie”: either (1) he came in with a US passport; or (2) he came in with an Indonesian Passport + a Visa. I’m ruling out other nationalities because no birthers ever came up with a third scenario.
In either case, there’s no need for the French to lie; what would they lie about? What we did demonstrate, however, is that he could NOT have obtained a visa because that would have meant returning to Indonesia, and then travel on to Europe. And there is no evidence of that trip at that time.
So the French literally don’t have to lie about this; the facts pretty much speak for themselves.
Unless he did have that hypothetical Indonesian Passport and Visa, his whole history is bogus and he was in Indonesia at the right time, and he does have some “universe shattering” info he can hold over them (maybe the Foreign Legion is really the Extraterrestrial Legion – um, did I just start a new conspiracy theory?).
See what I mean? There’s a CHANCE!
And French Immigration lying about the existence of the Visa and/or what passport he used would be an official lie.
What are you afraid of?
Judge Hanen examines President Obama’s Form SS-5 application for SSN and the corresponding NUMIDENT file in camera to determine if President Obama was a Permanent Resident Alien with legal custody transferred to ORR contractor, Catholic Charities, Inc. of Hartford, CT, in 1977.
Its a limited discovery request to determine the truth of the specific allegation President Obama is not eligible to hold the Office of the President of the United States, i.e. was the application filed on President Obama’s behalf by a case worker employed by Catholic Charities,Inc and is the “PRA field” of the NUMIDENT a “Y” or “y” or “1” to indicate applicant is a permanent resident alien legally residing in the US and entitled to a SSN in 1977.
Only Judge Hanen will see the information in his capacity as a sitting USDC judge. If Judge Hanen determines President Obama was living as a permanent resident alien in the U.S. in 1977, then a discovery conference could be scheduled after the proposed plaintiff complains Obama’s appointees, appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause and acting in their capacity as US federal officers in violation of Article VI of the US Constitution are violating proposed plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights and seeks relief for themselves and those similarly situated in Judge Hanen’s court.
If Judge Hanen determines President Obama Form-5 application for SSN wasn’t filed on his behalf by a caseworker employed by Catholic Charities, Inc. of Hartford,CT and the PRA field in the NUMIDENT isn’t a “Y” or “y” or “1”, then the case is dismissed.
Riddle me this, Sven. Why should we waste our time on your hypothetical scenarios? I don’t even read them anymore, as its undeserving of the effort required.
1) This is pure lunacy
2) Also an usurpation of the powers granted to Congress
3) And besides we know you’d continue moving the goalpost or accuse the Judge of “lying”. That is after all what you have dine before.
You should only treated with the contempt you deserve.
Judge Hanen recently ordered a county DA and a State of Texas Judge to federal prison after a complaint filed by appointees of President Obama. If Obama’s appointees are holding their offices in violation of the Appointments Clause and Article VI, then these two convictions and all other criminal and civil complaints filed by Obama’s appointees in Judge Hanen’s court are voided for violations of the US Constitution.
If Judge Hanen is like Judge Hollander, then Judge Hanen should laugh out loud to any plaintiff who alleges President Obama is ineligible and it can be proven by an in camera review of President Obama’s federal records.
Judge Hanen could laugh out loud and say, “France vouched for Obama. Shut up, liar or you’ll wind up in prison like the other guys.”
Judge can’t act on allegations…he needs proof. You have none. Did you know Aerosmith wrote a song just for you Sven….it’s called “Dream On”. Because that’s all you got.
We’re not afraid of anything you have to make up in your mind. We do, however, respect the Constitution…something you’ve shown no understanding and respect for.
And guess what, even those people do not believe/claim Obama is ineligible just to get out of jail free. That should tell you something.
Sven,
You still fail to answer, why the convoluted and never going to happen nonsense about SSN’s and NUMIDENT’s
Just follow the link I provided previously and get this hypothetical naturalization record, a public and publically accessible record. I mean you have seen such document in your extensive “research”
I don’t think a single digit in a file will make the judge ignore and disbelieve the multiple verifications from Hawaii that Obama was born there.
Sven, Sven, Sven…I am SO SORRY for you. You see, the President’s eligibility isn’t on trial here, not even a part of the pleadings. No case, no discovery. Too bad you can’t get Orly to start submitting eligibility material, you may be onto something. Maybe you should be submitting friends of the court briefs with all your eligibility proof. As long as the plaintiffs don’t bring it up, there will be no discovery on the President’s eligibility.
The “eligibility case” against Obama has already been dismissed over and over again in the courts at every level.
To malcontents like you, Sven, the Constitution and our statutes and our rights, which you pretend to defend, are really just a repository of commonly and respectfully revered source material out of which you hope to endlessly fashion and synthesize darts to throw at your political enemies.
If by noon on the final full day of his current term of office, every Obama seeking legal-sounding and Constitution-wrapped cruise missile you proposed be sent against our two-term President of the United States, were officially dealt with seriously and appropriately dismissed, we could still expect to find you posting here things like:
“What are you afraid of? This is simply a limited discovery request to determine the truth of my 3000th specific allegation that President Obama is not eligible to hold the Office of the President of the United States and only Judge Hanen will see the evidence in camera in his capacity as a sitting USDC judge. If as a result of that strip-search of the President, Judge Hanen agrees with me that Obama’s appointees were appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause because the judge finds SvenMagnussen’s crap in President Obama’s underpants, then I, SvenMagnussen will have to call my doctor in a little over four hours.”
I believe Judge Hanen already reviewed the files in question and found that the President never was anything but a citizen born in Hawaii, never was a permanent resident alien, never gave up his citizenship, etc. As you suggested, only Judge Hanen saw this information, so unfortunately he hasn’t been able to tell you. But that is why no discovery on this matter has been scheduled. If you were to raise the issue, he would just note he has already done it and found nothing. Don’t believe me? Afraid to acknowledge it’s just as true as anything you suppose?
He ordered them to prison only after the Judge Abel Limas pled guilty to corruption charges and the DA Armando Villalobos was found guilty by a jury of corruption.
BTW, President Obama’s NUMIDENT shows he is a US Citizen. In 1977, the only proof he would need to submit to the Social Security Administration was his Hawaiian birth certificate. The SSA and State Department computers were not interconnected in 1977, so if by some miracle your fantasy was true it would not have had an impact.
Not just Judge Hanen, as I understand it, all federal district judges have seen the President’s NUMIDENT transcript. They were also made aware that under Indonesian law he could never have lost his US citizenship or gained Indonesian citizenship. And for good measure the Catholic Charities of Connecticut (in a rare move) filed a sworn affidavit that they have no records for Barack Obama.
Poor Sven
You bring up a very valid point that bears repeating.
I suspect the first federal judge to see President Obama’s NUMIDENT transcript was Judge R. Barclay Surrick in Berg v. Obama. Like Sven, Berg contended that the President gave up his US Citizenship for Indonesian Citizenship. Judge Surrick noted that he has “taken Plaintiff’s factual allegations as true and drawn all inferences in his favor.” He then saw all of the President’s records (in camera, of course) and ruled in the President’s favor.
The Appeals Court reviewed the case and the “obvious lack of any merit in Berg’s contentions” while also accepting “the allegations in the complaint as true” and then upheld Judge Surrick’s decision. They also would have been able to review the evidence.
The US Supreme Court denied Berg’s petition for writ of certiorari also after reviewing all the evidence.
At this point Sven should be glad to know that the Federal judges at all levels have been upholding their duty to the Constitution.
I would not be surprised if birthers started a flurry of court cases on January 21st, 2017, because they somehow believe they have a chance when Obama has “lost the special protection of the office”.
I’m pretty sure 9 out of 10 USDC judges could not point to the PRA field on any given NUMIDENT file. It’s a good thing there wasn’t any opposition in the room to point the data field out to the judge and explain that it means the applicant identified themselves as a permanent resident alien at the time of application with supporting documents to prove eligibility for SSN.
Even worse, Obama never updated his citizenship status with SSA after he naturalized. The SSA still has him as an Indonesian national who has been granted asylum and permission to permanently reside in America. Obama needs to submit a certified copy of his certificate of naturalization to the SSA to update his records or he will continue to fail E-Verify.
You Hoo Svenny
Why have you not gone and pulled this magical unicorn of Obama’s naturalization record, you know the publicly accessible record I showed you where to access.
Do that, come back with it and we will all bow at your feet.
sven,
what part of `under both indonesian law and united states law backed up by SCOTUS precedent, it is IMPOSSIBLE for your president to be an indonesian citizen’ do you fail to grasp and understand?
i mean, it’s been explained to you from the legal version quoting which laws and precedents apply, right down to the `dick, jane, and spot’ version, but you STILL seem totally unable to comprehend it!
i’m hoping it’s denial, as it would depress me to think that it was possible for a member of the human race to have reached adulthood with that level of absolute stupidity without a darwin moment removing them from the gene pool.
I think sheer stupidity is the best, easiest, and final answer, and sums up Svenksa all so well.
I remember a time when Orly said she would post her Certificate of Naturalization and then did not do it. Unfortunately, no one can force her to post her Certificate of Naturalization and no one can obtain a certified copy without her expressed written permission to obtain a copy from USCIS or NARA while she is still alive.
The site you posted publishes the Certificate of Naturalization for people who have died. Dead people lose their right to privacy. If I’m wrong, then post Orly’s Certificate of Naturalization.
but you claim to have seen your president’s, and have been challenged repeatedly to link to it.
don’t try and deflect the onus of proof – YOU have made the claim, so it’s down to YOU to back it up.
oily titz is totally irrelevent to this discussion
though like so many birfoons, you will never back up your claims.
Apparently you don’t know where it is either.
The “Y” in CIPQYA6 does not mean Legal Permanent Resident. If it did than Lucille Ione-Ballantyne and Thomas Louis Wood were LPRs even though they were born in Lamoni, Iowa and New Britain, Connecticut, respectively.
Ever hear of the 14th Amendment?
This is the problem with your arguments. They’re based on feelings and interpretations, not facts or empirical data.
Not even a good lie Sven, I had a lookup and see contemporary dated records in the index, and nowhere does it say dead folks only.
Off you trot, go and get Obama’s certificate, there’s a good boy
And when that new awareness predictably doesn’t change the outcome of the next few dozen Obama eligibility challenges, you could be just as sure it was because not a single USDC judge bothered to reach up the President’s shirt sleeve to be sure he isn’t ineligibly made out of Velveeta cheese.
You aren’t protecting the Constitution or our other laws; you’re trying to usurp the right to be their ultimate interpreter. You’re just an anarchist having another Constitutional tantrum.
The PRA field is labeled “PRA” and then there is a “Y” next to it if the applicant is a legal permanent resident alien.
https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0110211530
Like I said, the opposition will probably need to be in the room and point to the field while the DoJ defendants, US federal officers sworn to support the US Constitution, tells the judge the opposition is a “liar”, “racist”, and a “troll” in the interest of justice.
Hey Sven… How come nothing you claim ever checks out?
How come you can never back up anything you say?
Is it because you are just a babbling nincompoop?
Have you stopped molesting children?
Inquiring minds want to know!
That’s not what you claimed here:
http://svenmagnussen.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-holy-grail-of-proof-obama-is-not.html
You point specifically to CIPQYA6 and draw an arrow identifying the “Y” as being the “PAR” field. It also a “Y” on Woods’ NUMIDENT transcript and every other example of a Numident that I have found on the net. You specifically say,
“Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. has posted a publicly available NUMIDENT File of Lucille Ione-Ballantyne, born in Decatur, Iowa with the PRA field as “Y” to indicate the applicant was a LPR at the time of application for a SSN Card, even though the applicant was born in the U.S.”
Where wrong then or are you wrong now?
Most likely both…
Very interesting observation which matches my interpretations of Sven’s ‘claims’. Wishing it to be true, does not make it so.
He expects people to believe that Lucille Ione-Ballantyne and Thomas Woods who were both born in the US were not citizens but Legal Permanent Residents (immigrants as he puts it). What a dope.
BTW did you see this from an earlier post:
http://tinyurl.com/mbdnphr
What photo with a red arrow pointing to a “Y”?
He has a commenter on who article that actually agrees with him. To bad it’s a spammer.
Wrong again. In fact, anyone can order anyone’s naturalization record from the National Archives. No proof of death or written authorization is required.
https://eservices.archives.gov/orderonline/start.swe?SWECmd=Login&SWEPL=1&SRN=&SWETS=1409785652835
He is not an anarchist but simply a troll.
He didn’t say it was a red arrow.
But it is… or was, since its gone now. As well you know.
I should be able to locate and publish Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization, but you can’t locate and publish Orly’s Certificate of Naturalization because … why?
When did I say that I couldn’t locate Orly’s naturalization records?
The only impediment I see to getting her records is that I don’t know the city in which she was naturalized, the city in which she was living when she naturalized, and the exact date that she entered the United States. However, since she is the only “Orly Taitz” in the United States they should be able to find her records even without that information.
This one:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:N_a85W28tZoJ:svenmagnussen.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-holy-grail-of-proof-obama-is-not.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
and this one
http://web.archive.org/web/20140903210546/http://svenmagnussen.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-holy-grail-of-proof-obama-is-not.html
And the numerous screen shots of each.
You have just proved how dishonest you are and got caught in the act.
Deceiver, dissembler
Your trousers are alight
From what pole or gallows
Shall they dangle in the night?
William Blake.
Nicely done.
And even without the cache, I remember seeing that picture at Sven’s with my own eyes.
And, as noted above, he knew the arrow was red, when gorefan never said it was a red arrow.
Liar. Troll. Sockpuppeteer. For the life of me, I don’t know why Doc hasn’t restricted his posting privileges in any way, as he has for john and Hermitian.
Sven seems to have forgotten the number 1 rule of the internet. “Once it’s out there, it’s out there for good!”
I stopped posting on that site months ago because it was hacked. Why am I responsible for what the hacker posted?
Because you lied?
Actually in about 2036, you will be able to order a copy of his birth certificate from Hawaii. And possible by 2061 all of his federal records (ss-5, passport, etc.) will be available.
Funny, just a few minutes ago, before you edited that comment, you admitted that you removed that pic; “You got me,” you said.
EDIT: And gorefan just quoted the rest of the pre-edit post.
I made a screenshot; I’m sure Doc has a record of the post before the change.
Is there no end to your dishonesty?
You probably have another, unmentioned impediment. You probably have a severe case of “I don’t give a s***.”
Get yourself a calendar or a dictionary. There is a difference between months ago and yesterday.
http://web.archive.org/web/20140904002636/http://svenmagnussen.blogspot.com/2014/
See it’s already been archived. So go ahead and delete it again.
ROTFL… Horrible attempt… Come on Sven just admit to your follies. The facts speak clearly
Wow… That’s game, set and match….
I think that counts as a bitchslap!
ouch! backhand and palm!
that must have stung!
So in a span of less than 90 minutes, Sven:
1. Deleted a picture from his website that disproved his own argument,
2. Admitted deleting the pic, then edited his own post to remove the admission;
3. Falsely claimed that his website had been hacked and he hadn’t posted there “in months,” though it was proved he posted there just today.
Liar. Sockpuppeteer. Troll.
That lie ranks right up there with “I didn’t make that post! My cousin was using my computer!”
You must have a hacker that really likes your opinion, since he posted on 22 August, Standing to Challenge Unconstitutional Governmental Action,
http://svenmagnussen.blogspot.com/2014/08/standing-to-challenge-nonconstitutional.html
and just today:
False Claim Act – Private Attorney General, 31 U.S.C. § 3730.
http://svenmagnussen.blogspot.com/2014/09/false-claim-act-private-attorney.html
Ha!
I looked at that earlier today and can witness that it was there at that time. It might still be up on the computer screen I used then (reading on phone now).
He really is a terrible liar, and he thinks everyone must be as ignorant as he is.
If by months ago you meant today: http://svenmagnussen.blogspot.com/2014/09/false-claim-act-private-attorney.html
Yeah I’m sure you “stopped posting there”. You’re a proven liar.
Well done Sven…
Ban him.
When you are done lying and scrubbing your old postings, kindly locate and publish Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization.
Come on guys, can’t you just ignore him ? No ban necessary.
Ahhhhh,I love the smell of burning Sven in the morning, it smells of victory.
So, how you doing on getting Obama’s naturalization record? You know the publicly accessible, don’t have to be a dead person, look and ye shall find record..?
The one that surely you gave seen since you have SUCH a detailed little fantasy narrative about it..?
I would hate to see anyone this effective banned. Let them speak and have their words be recorded for posterity.
My friend, that I doubt very much. Your level of competency and honesty would preclude you from doing this.
If the site has been taken over, then what makes you think I posted that article yesterday.
I was unable to access the site for awhile, but can get on now. But so can someone else or a group of others. I’ve changed the password, but that doesn’t stop them or him or her.
I deleted the site and it reappeared without my permission. As I said, the site has been hacked and I don’t attend it anymore.
What a transparent lie. He doesn’t even take pride in his work.
Sven, you’ve been caught in multiple lies. Just man up already.
Dude man up already. No one in their right mind would pretend to be you. There’s an article from August 22nd you posted.
You lied you got caught lying now be a man. Lol you deleted something and it magically reappeared. Right. You’re not even good at lying.
SvenMagnussen: “I should be able to locate and publish Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization,”
We are still waiting, Sven.
Well, if we can’t ban him, can we BURN him? After all, he’s a witch! He turned Jerry Corsi into rashy, albino toad! Now all the poor man can do is join the touring production of “Wind in the Willows.”
You should pay whoever it is. Maybe even if you just told them how much you appreciate their hard work, rather than throwing them under the bus? I mean, most employers look hard for such understanding of their mission. These hackers are impressively in sync with your thinking, just as if they were you, and if you paid them, even if they are make-believe brownies in the night, maybe a tiny little bit just to show your appreciation, you could get them to do more and really really get the word out. An election is coming.
There’s nothing more pathetic than someone who was caught in a lie, spouting a bunch of weaker lies, in an attempt to cover up the lie they were caught in.
For crying out loud, Sven. Be a man and just admit it already! Not single person on this website believes you.
Actually it might be worth the $10 fee to give it a try. I don’t know many of the details of Orly’s naturalization, but she is the only Orly Taitz in the U.S. and I know her date of birth and the year she claims to have naturalized (1992). That may be enough.
Its like Rickey Perry here last weekend and his Twitter feed – I did not send that horrible tweet. Who do these people think we are ??!? Even if one of your underlings who clearly is just following the environment you set – man up (like Sven will never) and admit the error of your ways!
If indeed Sven is a troll, then his comments are pranks. Refusing to acknowledge a point is a more effective way of stirring up continuing controversy than admitting it. Indeed from a troll’s point of view Sven has pretty much won the tournament.
“Commenters whose sole purpose is to pick a fight will be banned.”
This is Sven’s raison d’etre. He contributes nothing to the discussion. He repeats lies, daily, and ignores evidence. He refuses to address direct, germane questions.
He is a commenter whose sole purpose is to pick a fight. If nothing else, his behavior last night proved this.
I received a response from the National Archives:
I am writing in response to the request you submitted on September 3, 2014 for a petition for naturalization for Orly Taitz. Unfortunately, I was unable to locate a petition for naturalization under the name Orly Taitz. I searched our collection of petitions for naturalization created by the United States District Court in Los Angeles from 1976-1991. We do not have any records for naturalization after 1991 at this location. If the petition for naturalization was filed in 1992 as suggested you will need to contact the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) for assistance in. In order to obtain a copy of the petition for Orly Taitz, you will need to contact the USCIS at 1-800-375-5283 or through their website at http://www.uscis.gov. Upon contacting the USCIS you should request a copy of her alien registration file (A-file) which will include her petition for naturalization.
Sven should take note of the fact that I did not provide them with an authorization from Orly and she is not deceased, yet they did not deny my request. In fact, they actually conducted a search. This means that Sven can submit a request to the National Archives for Obama’s alleged petition for naturalization. If it exists, the National Archives will have it because according to Sven Obama naturalized prior to 1992.
Ha Ha Ha. You got a bureaucrat brushoff, so Orly’s certificate is available. You could get it because they didn’t deny your request.
You’ve been studying OrlyLaw when should be studying the SvenMagnussen School of Law.
In the SvenMagnussen School of Law we request a certification of nonexistence to prove a citizen did not naturalize and request a discovery conference to discuss the issuance of a subpoena if the defendant denies they naturalized as a US citizen. The first step is to allege they naturalized as a US in the complaint.
After they pound the table and scream, “You don’t have proof?”
The appropriate answer is to request a discovery conference to obtain prove from the source.
——————————————– from your link ——————————
To request certification of nonexistence of a specific record, write directly to the USCIS Records Services Branch at:
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
ATTN: Records Operations Branch
1200 First Street N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20529-2204
It is important that all request letters contain information to specifically identify the immigrant. Requests must contain the:
• Immigrant’s name (including all variants and aliases);
• Date of birth; and
• Place of birth.
As much information as possible about when and where the immigrant arrived in or lived in the United States and the names of immediate immigrant relatives can also be helpful. In all cases the immigrant must be deceased. If the immigrant’s birth date is less than 100 years before the request date, requests for certification of non-existence must include a copy of the immigrant’s death certificate.
————————————————————————————————–
When they demand a death certificate, tell them they are supporting treason.
Did you just admit to being a performance artist?
Are you really a fool, or are you just pretending to be one?
You don’t need to go to UCIS for Obama’s supposed naturalization records. In your fantasy he naturalized prior to 1992, so the National Archives is the place to go. They do not require a Death Certificate to conduct a search, and after the search is done they will tell you if a naturalization record exists.
But you won’t even try because you know what the answer will be.
Lonely old Sven craves attention so badly that, like a class clown, he behaves childishly.
Unfortunately, naturalized citizens enjoy privacy rights just like immigrants to the US who do not naturalize. A death certificate or wriiten waiver of privacy rights or a subpoena is required.
It’s a moot point, anyway. I heard a rumor Obama admitted he naturalized to the FBI.
That’s nice.*pours tea*
No, it’s not required. I was able to get the National Archives to search for Orly’s naturalization records without an death certificate, a waiver, or a subpoena. They didn’t find the records because she naturalized after 1991. If they searched for Orly’s records for me, they will search for Obama’s non-existent records for you.
You are an obstinate, angry old man who can’t abide the fact that a black man is President. It’s a shame that you’re wasting your remaining years by repeatedly making a fool of yourself.
Yes, we all know about your rumors. Such a fool you are. Clueless, powerless, and without any evidence. You’re so much fun my friend.
And not very good at it either.
Yet he is still President. What a conundrum for you.
I heard President Obama admit to being an alien as well…
People laughed.
Rickey, I respectfully disagree. First, I have seen no proof that Dr. Taitz ever became a naturalized citizen. I have seen references asserting she became a citizen in 1992, but no reference is doing anything more than relying on Dr. Taitz.
Second, there is no reason to believe that Dr. Taitz could successfully navigate becoming a citizen when, years later, she is unable to draft a legal complaint or serve legal papers properly. Heck, she has yet to master having all of the print in a document be in the same typeface and font size.
I don’t really disagree with anything you say, but I don’t care if Orly has naturalized. My point was simply to demonstrate that the National Archives will conduct a search about a living person without an authorization or a subpoena. That said, the fact that they didn’t find a record of her doesn’t prove that she didn’t naturalize, because as you say she claims that she was naturalized in 1992, and the National Archives doesn’t have any naturalization records which occurred after 1991. She may have had a real attorney do the paperwork for her.
A long time ago I learned that every saint has a flaw. It would not surprise me to find that the self-professed Queen of the Birthers was, in fact, not a citizen. Certainly we are entitled to the degree of proof Dr. Taitz demands from the President.
As to requesting the President’s naturalization papers, I see no reason to waste postage, as Sven told us he had that proof.
http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/History%20and%20Genealogy/Our%20History/INSPolicyAndCorrespondenceRecords.pdf
In 2009, the beginning of President Obama’s administration, USCIS began transferring A-files to NARA for permanent storage. All files transferred to NARA relate to individuals born 100+ years ago whose immigration file became active in or after 1975. Only about 500,000 of an estimated 200 million A-files have transferred to NARA.
Very helpful graphic presentation on page 5 at the link.
If Obama was born 100 or more years ago and his A-file happened to be one of the 0.25% of records transferred to NARA, then you might be on to something.
Sven,
Not even a passing grade here, your paste relates to HISTORIC documents not ones that would encompass Obama’s mythical document which as you have already been shown is available to be searched for.
Off you go and be a researcher now, Obama’s document may only be a short search away, think how satisfied you will be when you return with it and show it in all its glory to the evil Obots.
I’m pretty sure Obama understands that admitting he’s a naturalized citizen to an FBI agent conducting an investigation means he finishes his term as President of the United States. Lying about naturalizing in 1983 to an FBI agent conducting an investigation could lead to an indictment for obstruction of justice. 18 U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees.
As we observed in the Noel Canning case, the appointees were removed and replaced after Obama violated the Appointments Clause by making an appointment without the advice and consent of the US Senate. Obama knows he’s not the one who will suffer the consequences of successful Appointments Clause challenges.
Of course, if you believe Judge Hollander, then all US federal officers found to have been appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause will be reappointed and all US federal officers found to have conducted themselves in a manner contrary to Article VI of the US Constitution will be given a pass so they can appear in Federal Court or at any Federal administrative function to support the parts of the US Constitution that are convenient.
So Sven, how much of this free advise that you’re using to prove yourself wrong are you going to share with us? Or you just going to keep all your failures to yourself? Come on, tell us all about your failed attempts that the posters have practically hand-held you through. We could use another good laugh. 😆
Sven,
As opposed to babbling about the FBI and this or that clause, why don’t you simply admit you fecked up with your stupid little post..?
Simple really, your post bears no relation to actual naturalization records, if you had had a scrap of brains you would try and find this mythic Obama BC, the rest of your drivel is value free
The two weeks for this thread will close, I believe, tomorrow. From the opening comment, to the final closure, there is only one more thing to be said,
Sven is an idiot.
And a troll.
No doubt. Add pathetic, bigoted and completely delusional.
And Sven can go to his nearest Staples and scan said document (on a Xerox Workcentre, no less) to a PDF file and email it to himself so he can share it with all of us. Wait, wait, wait….