Main Menu

Taitz files a bunch more motions in immigration suit

imageOrly Taitz is seeking to expand the scope of her recent lawsuit (Taitz v. Johnson) to not just  quarantine or deport undocumented children from Central America; she’s injecting (no pun intended) Ebola! She filed 4 motions titled, “Motion to Expedite Due to Exigent Circumstances of Deadly Ebola Epidemic.” She wants to stop all arrivals in the US from places with Ebola, and quarantine anyone who has entered the US from one of those countries in the past 21 days. She moves to:

  • Expedite
  • Stop entry
  • Quarantine anyone who has visited a country where there is an Ebola epidemic
  • Retain jurisdiction and assure compliance
  • Certify a class
  • Admit Taitz Pro Hac Vice

Read more:

,

407 Responses to Taitz files a bunch more motions in immigration suit

  1. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG August 12, 2014 at 9:19 pm #

    And she’ll keep on filing until one Judge says “Okay, time to curb-stomp this crazy bitch’s ass!” and actually does something about her.

  2. avatar
    Joey August 12, 2014 at 9:25 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    And she’ll keep on filing until one Judge says “Okay, time to curb-stomp this crazy bitch’s ass!” and actually does something about her.

    If Judge Land’s $20,000 sanction in birther-related Rhodes v MacDonald for filing a frivolous lawsuit didn’t stop her (and it didn’t), I don’t know what will.

  3. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 12, 2014 at 9:50 pm #

    Bloody Orly finds herself a sympathetic judge, then proceeds to fling enough frivolous motions at him to drive him away. She’ll regret overplaying her hand.

    Everything Bloody Orly touches turns to poop.

  4. avatar
    Benji Franklin August 12, 2014 at 9:52 pm #

    Joey: If Judge Land’s $20,000 sanction in birther-related Rhodes v MacDonald for filing a frivolous lawsuit didn’t stop her (and it didn’t), I don’t know what will.

    No logical motive will stop the hardcore Birthers, – not even evidence that they recognize proves them wrong.

    Their goals ostensibly include convincing skeptical visitors at their sites to actively join movements to dump the President because he is ineligible to the Presidency. But they can’t keep themselves from losing all credibility with objective or undecided observers, by going out of their way to criticize the President for EVERYTHING he does and characterize him as an evil person.

    They then proceed to manufacture bizarre explanations for why almost nobody in government or the media agrees with the Birther accusations against Obama. They assure us that everybody knows the Birthers are right about Obama being ineligible, but is just afraid to publicize that fact!

    So they guarantee that they will never be taken seriously. But they get a kind of satisfaction from just blurting out negative things about Obama.

  5. avatar
    John Reilly August 12, 2014 at 11:16 pm #

    And Dr. Taitz suggests that the President runs the risk of going to jail:

    “Judge Hanen can find that Obama and Sec of DHS and Sec of HHS violated 8 U.S. 1324 by trafficking thousands of illegals and sentence them to 15 years in prison.”

    Of course, the fact that the President has not been charged with a crime does not slow her down. In comments she later admits that there has to be a trial first. That’s nice. She’s like Sven in ignoring the Constitution.

  6. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG August 12, 2014 at 11:23 pm #

    Bonsall Obot:
    Bloody Orly finds herself a sympathetic judge, then proceeds to fling enough frivolous motions at him to drive him away. She’ll regret overplaying her hand.

    Everything Bloody Orly touches turns to poop.

    And any poop she touches, turns into the McRib!

  7. avatar
    JPotter August 13, 2014 at 1:12 am #

    … quarantine anyone who has entered the US from one of those countries in the past 21 days.

    Why 21 days? Does she believe that’s when the Ebola outbreak began? Oh, right, that’s about the time that US media started fright-hyping the Ebola story. Before that, it obviously didn’t exist.

    According to CDC, this outbreak began in March. She should be asking for 6 months, minimum.

    http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/resources/outbreak-table.html

    Certify a class

    Certify a class? Who? The entire population of the US? Or only the “legal” white part of it?

  8. avatar
    Lupin August 13, 2014 at 2:38 am #

    Benji Franklin: No logical motive will stop the hardcore Birthers, – not even evidence that they recognize proves them wrong.

    Anecdotally I have discovered in the last couple of weeks that all the Republican or right-leaning forums I’ve visited (about 5 so far) are infested by birthers and more generally climate deniers and other lunatics.

    At this point, I don’t think the political divide in your country is between right and but between crazy and non-crazy.

  9. avatar
    ZixiOfIx August 13, 2014 at 3:04 am #

    JPotter: Why 21 days? Does she believe that’s when the Ebola outbreak began? Oh, right, that’s about the time that US media started fright-hyping the Ebola story. Before that, it obviously didn’t exist.

    Probably because 21 days is the longest incubation period known. But the CDC suggests that there have to be no recorded cases for 42 days (twice 21) for an outbreak to be considered over. So who knows?

    According to CDC, this outbreak began in March. She should be asking for 6 months, minimum.

    See, this is the part I don’t get: There are at least a few companies in the United States working on Ebola vaccines and treatments. They have to have Ebola in their labs to work on treatments and vaccines – that is how it works.

    So, why go nuts now?

    http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/resources/outbreak-table.html

    Certify a class? Who? The entire population of the US? Or only the “legal” white part of it?

    Maybe a class action of those who are afraid of: black people, folks with foreign parents (unless they’re Cuban); people who are sick; people who may become sick; people of different religions; people who speak different languages; people who are too educated… you know – birthers.

  10. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) August 13, 2014 at 4:41 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: And any poop she touches, turns into the McRib!

    Hey, don’t insult my favourite fast food!

  11. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 13, 2014 at 4:57 am #

    A Constitutional question has been presented. The Court must investigate and answer.

    A CLAIM OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY IS WITHOUT MERIT

    Defense misrepresents the facts of the case and claims that Plaintiff sued the United States of America and United States of America has sovereign immunity.

    This is simply not true. Plaintiff did not sue the United States of America. She sued governmental officials who are abusing their authority granted to them under the U.S. Constitution, who are acting outside the frame of law and Constitution and whose actions hurt the plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals.

  12. avatar
    Notorial Dissent August 13, 2014 at 5:17 am #

    Andrew, I so love your subtle and gentle turn of phrase. Did you take diplomatics in school?

    I kind of doubt this judge is going to be very sympathetic or even amenable after having gotten the full Taitz treatment in such short order. In fact, I’ll bet someone is really really wishing they’d taken the month off at this point.

    The thing is, that unless I have missed something in the intervening moments when last I looked, Taitz has yet to actually file a law suit here. Now she’s kinda sorta filed for a stay or an injunction or a something thingy(special Taitzlaw term), she isn’t real clear in any of her current legal litterings either as to what it is, or what she really wants for that matter, but it definitely isn’t a law suit.

    The cleanest way the court can look at it, and is apparently how they are treating it, is as an emergency injunction, for which she has no standing, no authorities, no law to back her up, and no real relief that the court can actually grant, plus she wrote a really sucky petition for the whatever it is to begin with, and an even worse(if possible, and it was) suckier and more incomprehensible(if that is possible) unauthorized followup that the court may, and really should reject for lack of leave, as well as for being impossible to read. At this point, as I understand it, the “thing” is fully briefed or answered or whatever it is you do with something like this, and now the judge gets to make a decision. Go with the crazy woman who wrote a really lousy petition with nothing to support it, or go with the gov’t who wrote a slam, bam, wham, response that was clear concise, and used real law and things to explain why the crazed woman really needs to go pound sand. Now if you had a real life and were actually good at your job and didn’t want to spend the rest of it with this farce, which would you do?????

    Hopefully the judge won’t keep us in suspense too much longer since everything has now been filed.

  13. avatar
    DaveH August 13, 2014 at 7:54 am #

    You may as well give up, Sven. If you sue a government official then you are suing the government. The court doesn’t need to investigate but it will answer. The government provided plenty of references in their reply to guide the court to the proper decision.

    The main hurdle for Orly is the fact that she doesn’t have standing to sue. She hasn’t proven that her “cough” is the result of being infected by one of the aliens arriving at the border. She hasn’t even proven that she has TB. Nothing she has provided the court has shown that she has in fact been diagnosed with any disease.

    SvenMagnussen:
    A Constitutional question has been presented. The Court must investigate and answer.

    A CLAIM OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY IS WITHOUT MERIT

    Defense misrepresents the facts of the case and claims that Plaintiff sued the United States of America and United States of America has sovereign immunity.

    This is simply not true. Plaintiff did not sue the United States of America. She sued governmental officials who are abusing their authority granted to them under the U.S. Constitution, who are acting outside the frame of law and Constitution and whose actions hurt the plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals.

  14. avatar
    Thomas Brown August 13, 2014 at 8:04 am #

    Sven: “Inconsequential, nonsensical rant!”

    World: [sound of crickets]

  15. avatar
    alg August 13, 2014 at 8:08 am #

    What a terrific waste of time, money and energy – all to satisfy the insatiable ego of a self-pandering, narcissistic nutburger. Perhaps John Boehner should hire her to handle the House of Representatives lawsuit. She make a perfect incontinent counsel.

    On another note I see that Sven has again re-entered the conversation with his extra-constitutional legal “analysis.” He once again has the courts conducting “investigations.”

  16. avatar
    Notorial Dissent August 13, 2014 at 8:15 am #

    Sven, I really don’t get to say this often enough, you really are an ignorant idiot, now whether the ignorance is deliberate and willful, or just your natural ability showing through I neither know nor care.

    The SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY claim has the most merit of all. The people she is attempting to do whatever it is she is doing could not be doing whatever it is she is claiming they are doing if they were not acting in their governmental capacities, since as individuals they would not have the authority to do anything, and therefore they enjoy the same sovereign immunity the government does.

  17. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 13, 2014 at 8:49 am #

    Notorial Dissent:
    Sven, I really don’t get to say this often enough, you really are an ignorant idiot, now whether the ignorance is deliberate and willful, or just your natural ability showing through I neither know nor care.

    The SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY claim has the most merit of all. The people she is attempting to do whatever it is she is doing could not be doing whatever it is she is claiming they are doing if they were not acting in their governmental capacities, since as individuals they would not have the authority to do anything, and there fore they enjoy the same sovereign immunity the government does.

    Sovereign immunity only applies to government entities. The Sovereign immunity of the United States is waived when an ineligible President assumes the Office of the President of the United States.

    US federal officers appointed by the President have Absolute immunity if they are in compliance with the authority granted to their office and they have assumed the office without a violation of that authority. For example, consider the three directors of the National Labor Relations Board appointed during the alleged recess of the U.S. Senate. The District Court ruled the appointments were a violation of the U.S. Constitution, the Circuit Court affirmed and the Supreme Court affirmed.Those three directors were removed and replaced through no fault of their own. They merely accepted a nomination and appointment at the request of a sitting President. The President is still in office because the majority of American voters want it that way. The appointees are out of office and barred from government service for violating the U.S. Constitution. One litigant complained and over 1500 cases before the National Labor Relations Board will have to be reheard. Moreover, the District Court, the Circuit Board and the Supreme Court agreed with the NLRB’s decision, but voided it because the alleged Recess Appointments violated the U.S. Constitution.

    US federal officers who are career professionals have Qualified immunity if they are compliance with the authority granted to their office and they assumed the office without a violation of that authority.

    Orly has properly objected to defendants’ claim of representing the United States. The defendants are in violation of the U.S. Code and the U.S. Constitution and have waived Absolute immunity and qualified immunity.

  18. avatar
    Sam the Centipede August 13, 2014 at 9:05 am #

    Gosh, Sven, were you born this stupid or do you have to do brain-squashing exercises each morning to ensure that you never learn anything?

    Taitz’s entire case is a load of attention-seeking nonsense. It is wrong at every level.

    Birthers never learn, do you? You have won no cases, not one ever, whatever idiotic rubbish you come up with. And that’s because you’re idiots. Racist idiots.

  19. avatar
    Janny August 13, 2014 at 9:19 am #

    Did anyone notice in her second filing of gibberish that she included a scrip from a doctor for a CPAP machine — because apparently she has sleep apnea she contacted from a patient (presumably an illegal). Really? She is the total package of ass hattery.

  20. avatar
    HistorianDude August 13, 2014 at 9:36 am #

    Sam the Centipede:
    Gosh, Sven, were you born this stupid or do you have to do brain-squashing exercises each morning to ensure that you never learn anything?

    Those are not mutually exclusive.

  21. avatar
    The European August 13, 2014 at 10:33 am #

    Notorial Dissent:
    Andrew, I so love your subtle and gentle turn of phrase. Did you take diplomatics in school?

    I kind of doubt this judge is going to be very sympathetic or even amenable after having gotten the full Taitz treatment in such short order. In fact, I’ll bet someone is really really wishing they’d taken the month off at this point.

    The thing is, that unless I have missed something in the intervening moments when last I looked, Taitz has yet to actually file a law suit here. Now she’s kinda sorta filed for a stay or an injunction or a something thingy(special Taitzlaw term), she isn’t real clear in any of her current legal litterings either as to what it is, or what she really wants for that matter, but it definitely isn’t a law suit.

    The cleanest way the court can look at it, and is apparently how they are treating it, is as an emergency injunction, for which she has no standing, no authorities, no law to back her up, and no real relief that the court can actually grant, plus she wrote a really sucky petition for the whatever it is to begin with, and an even worse(if possible, and it was) suckier and more incomprehensible(if that is possible) unauthorized followup that the court may, and really should reject for lack of leave, as well as for being impossible to read. At this point, as I understand it, the “thing” is fully briefed or answered or whatever it is you do with something like this, and now the judge gets to make a decision. Go with the crazy woman who wrote a really lousy petition with nothing to support it, or go with the gov’t who wrote a slam, bam, wham, response that was clear concise, and used real law and things to explain why the crazed woman really needs to go pound sand. Now if you had a real life and were actually good at your job and didn’t want to spend the rest of it with this farce, which would you do?????

    Hopefully the judge won’t keep us in suspense too much longer since everything has now been filed.

    I know you Americans love your Federal Judges. But still – can someone explain to me how this Judge dared to issue that order to show cause. For me it is him to blame for all the costs and hours of lifetime lost by so many people, much more than Dr. Taitz, who does not know better. Is a Judge allowed to do (nearly) anything he wants and no one calls him out ?

    An inquiring European would like to have some answers.

  22. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) August 13, 2014 at 11:03 am #

    The European: Is a Judge allowed to do (nearly) anything he wants and no one calls him out ?

    Yes, but that is pretty much the same in Germany.
    Judges here are independent, you can only

    (a) complain to their superiors about their conduct (rude, obnoxious etc.) but not about their rulings, and

    (b) press charges against them for deliberate fragrant violation of the law (§339 of the German Criminal Code) but the bar is very high for that, or

    (c) appeal their ruling to the next higher instance

    But a judge here will not get reprimanded by his superior for “granting a motion that put undue burden upon the defendant”, his judicial actions evade review outside the normal appeals process.

  23. avatar
    Daniel August 13, 2014 at 11:06 am #

    The European: But still – can someone explain to me how this Judge dared to issue that order to show cause.

    It’s always better for the appearance of impartiality, if the defence shows she’s an idiot, rather than the judge telling her she’s an idiot.

  24. avatar
    Thinker August 13, 2014 at 11:11 am #

    My mind is boggled by the number of things she got wrong about Flores v Reno. Besides the basic errors of fact, she apparently has no understanding at all of how public interest litigation shapes public policy.

  25. avatar
    Rickey August 13, 2014 at 11:29 am #

    The European: I know you Americans love your Federal Judges. But still – can someone explain to mehow this Judge dared to issue that order to show cause. For me it is him to blame for all the costs and hours of lifetime lost by so many people, much more than Dr. Taitz, who does not know better. Is a Judge allowed to do (nearly) anything he wants and no one calls him out ?

    An inquiring European would like to have some answers.

    There is no particular significance to it. Any party to a lawsuit can request an Order to Show Cause, and there is nothing unusual about one being issued in a case which claims to be an emergency request for an injunction. In this case Orly claims that she will suffer immediate and irreparable injury unless her request for an injunction is issued, so it is appropriate for the judge to require the defendants to demonstrate that they have a meritorious defense to her claims. This may even prove to be a most expeditious way to dismiss the case, since Orly obviously has no standing.

    Orly is so used to having judges slam the door on her that she makes a big deal of it whenever a judge grants any request she makes, however routine it may be.

  26. avatar
    bob August 13, 2014 at 11:53 am #

    Some judges would summarily dismissed Taitz’s application. Others would have ordered the government merely to oppose the application (rather than “show cause”).

    This particular judge, however, wants to grandstand with the executive branch over its immigration policies.

  27. avatar
    Benji Franklin August 13, 2014 at 12:02 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: The Sovereign immunity of the United States is waived when an ineligible President assumes the Office of the President of the United States.

    You’re being too humble, Sven. On any issue, the Constitution of the United States means exactly what you, SvenMagnussen, declare it means, and every statute, office responsibility and duty, and every government regulation is subject to your prescribed declaration of what is lawful and extant policy.

    So without regard for all of the disagreeing legal authorities, and current official judicial and administrative interpretation of these matters, the Sovereign immunity of the United States is waived WHENEVER YOU SAY IT IS and for WHATEVER REASONS or lack thereof you declare. Similarly, a President is ineligible WHENEVER YOU SAY THEY ARE and for WHATEVER REASONS or lack thereof you declare.

    With great regularity, Gods like you are produced, to absolutely rule over the citizens of the United States of America. I produce such Gods every day, but I defend the Constitution by flushing them down the toilet.

  28. avatar
    Dave August 13, 2014 at 12:29 pm #

    I see you’ve gotten a few varying opinions. I also am not a lawyer, but I believe that an OSC is fairly routine. (Taitz has a substantial history of seeing routine orders as victories.) Also, if I were a judge, I would take every opportunity to get the counsel I’m about to rule for to do the research for my opinion.

    I don’t know that Americans particularly love Federal judges. I think the Federal court system works much better than the state systems, and that the reason it works better is that the judges are not elected, which at least somewhat removes political pressure from them. But it is my impression that most Americans do not agree with me.

    The European: I know you Americans love your Federal Judges. But still – can someone explain to mehow this Judge dared to issue that order to show cause. For me it is him to blame for all the costs and hours of lifetime lost by so many people, much more than Dr. Taitz, who does not know better. Is a Judge allowed to do (nearly) anything he wants and no one calls him out ?

    An inquiring European would like to have some answers.

  29. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG August 13, 2014 at 12:34 pm #

    The title of one of her newest poopies essentially boils down to “Wah!!! People are calling me names!”

  30. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 13, 2014 at 12:35 pm #

    That won’t fly. She sued Johnson “in capacity as Secretary of DHS.”

    SvenMagnussen: This is simply not true. Plaintiff did not sue the United States of America. She sued governmental officials who are abusing their authority granted to them under the U.S. Constitution, who are acting outside the frame of law and Constitution and whose actions hurt the plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals.

  31. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 13, 2014 at 12:38 pm #

    … how this Judge dared to issue that order to show cause. For me it is him to blame for all the costs and hours of lifetime lost by so many people, much more than Dr. Taitz, who does not know better. Is a Judge allowed to do (nearly) anything he wants and no one calls him out ?

    An inquiring European would like to have some answers.

    It is common for a plaintiff to apply for an injunction in preparation of a complaint (lawsuit concerning a civil matter.) There are four prerequisites the plaintiff must demonstrate before a judge will issue a Order to Show Cause.

    1) irreparable harm will occur if the injunction is not issued;
    2) plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits at trial;
    3) defendant has not denied material facts by affidavit established by testimony attested to by a sworn oath affirming the testimony is true, without duress, and complete with a duty to amend;
    4) the injunction is in the public’s interest;

    If these four conditions are met, then plaintiff must agree to post bond in an amount to cover the cost of litigation and any harm sustained by the defendants if the plaintiff does not prevail at trial.

    In Preliminary Injunction class at the SvenMagnussen School of Law, I remember reading about a federal case where a guy with a boarding pass was not allowed to board a flight after he had checked his bags. His bags made it to his final destination, but he did not. He sued the airline and the airport authority. Before trial, he requested a preliminary injunction against the airline grounding all flights until the conclusion of the trial or a settlement.

    The judge said, “I’ll grant your requested preliminary injunction, but first you’ll have to post a $50 million cash bond.”

    The petitioner amended his application for preliminary injunction.

  32. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 13, 2014 at 12:40 pm #

    Which orifice did you pull that one out of?

    SvenMagnussen: The Sovereign immunity of the United States is waived when an ineligible President assumes the Office of the President of the United States.

  33. avatar
    bob August 13, 2014 at 12:51 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: It is common for a plaintiff to apply for an injunction in preparation of a complaint (lawsuit concerning a civil matter.)

    In the real world, one would file a complaint and an application for a preliminary injunction.

    Only in birfer world does one file an application for a preliminary injunction without first filing a complaint. Because without the complaint, there are no merits and there will never be a trial.

  34. avatar
    Rickey August 13, 2014 at 12:51 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: It is common for a plaintiff to apply for an injunction in preparation of a complaint (lawsuit concerning a civil matter.) There are four prerequisites the plaintiff must demonstrate before a judge will issue a Order to Show Cause.

    1) irreparable harm will occur if the injunction is not issued;
    2) plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits at trial;
    3) defendant has not denied material facts by affidavit established by testimony attested to by a sworn oath affirming the testimony is true, without duress, and complete with a duty to amend;
    4) the injunction is in the public’s interest;

    That is not accurate. The plaintiff merely has to allege that he or she is likely to succeed on the merits. The issuance of an Order to Show Cause does not establish that the plaintiff has demonstrated anything.

    A sample Order to Show Cause form is available on a U.S. District Court website:

    https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/forms/otsc.pdf

  35. avatar
    Rickey August 13, 2014 at 1:02 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:

    This is simply not true. Plaintiff did not sue the United States of America. She sued governmental officials who are abusing their authority granted to them under the U.S. Constitution, who are acting outside the frame of law and Constitution and whose actions hurt the plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals.

    Wrong again.

    The full caption is Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. v. Jeh Johnson, in his capacity as the Secretary of DHS, Sylvia Burwell, in her capacity as the Secretary of HHS, Barack Obama, in his capacity of the US President, U.S. Border Patrol, Rio Grande Valley Section, Brownsville Station. None of the defendants were named as individuals.

    Do try to keep up with the facts.

  36. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 13, 2014 at 1:14 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    That won’t fly. She sued Johnson “in capacity as Secretary of DHS.”

    Orly alleged unconstitutional acts committed by U.S. federal officers. The United States is not authorized to commit unconstitutional acts. If the allegations of unconstitutional acts are found to have merit, then it is assumed the U.S. federal officers waived sovereign immunity without authority and are liable. Since they have been found to have acted without authority, they waive Absolute immunity and are held professionally responsible for their acts.

  37. avatar
    Greenfinches August 13, 2014 at 1:30 pm #

    I prefer Sven’s earlier work, you know? The one about a plucky child flown to Connecticut even though grandparents await him in Hawaii, and followed years later by a social security number…

    Imaginary and implausible court procedure doesn’t work somehow – no jeopardy??.

  38. avatar
    JPotter August 13, 2014 at 1:32 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: A Constitutional question has been presented. The Court must investigate and answer.

    One of my favorite Wingchestnuts. If I allege something nutty and further allege it presents a Constitutional Question, then The Court must respond!

    Ummmm….no. Controversies confined to your skull do not a controversy constitute. Your fever dreams are not an actual burden on anyone, nor do they injure anyone.

    Well, OK, except for the poor souls who have to put up with you on a personal basis, and any who you may successfully infect with your fever dreams.

    Spreading mental illness should be considered assault / battery. Intentionally spreading biological disease has criminal consequences … when will our society stop treating mental health as an also-ran?

  39. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 13, 2014 at 1:32 pm #

    Rickey: Wrong again.

    The full caption is Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. v. Jeh Johnson, in his capacity as the Secretary of DHS, Sylvia Burwell, in her capacity as the Secretary of HHS, Barack Obama, in his capacity of the US President, U.S. Border Patrol, Rio Grande Valley Section, Brownsville Station. None of the defendants were named as individuals.

    Do try to keep up with the facts.

    It’s too bad you didn’t go to the SvenMagnussen School of Law. Constitutional law is explained like this …

    A parent (the People) grant limited rights, privileges and duties to the babysitter (U.S. federal government) written down (enumerated) in the babysitting Contract (U.S. Constitution). The parent (the People) granted some parental rights (limited rights to the U.S. Government) to the babysitter (U.S. federal government), but not all of their rights.

    The babysitter (U.S. federal government) enjoys immunity as long as the babysitter (U.S. federal government) stays in compliance with the baby sitting contract (U.S. Constitution). The moment the babysitter (U.S. federal government) violates the contract (U.S. Constitution), the babysitter (U.S. federal government) forfeits immunity.

  40. avatar
    JPotter August 13, 2014 at 1:42 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Which orifice did you pull that one out of?

    He’s been claiming that “US waives sovereignty” for quite some time now, never addresses any questions regarding it, whether posed politely or caustically ;)

    I’m quite curious about it myself. Not sharing is not nice!

  41. avatar
    JPotter August 13, 2014 at 1:50 pm #

    ZixiOfIx: See, this is the part I don’t get: There are at least a few companies in the United States working on Ebola vaccines and treatments. They have to have Ebola in their labs to work on treatments and vaccines – that is how it works.

    Naturally, and hundreds of labs with all sorts of nastiness kept on hand for experimentation and research. Why the wingnuts don’t freak? Out of sight, out of mind, and the screen hasn’t told them too yet!

    Oh, and wingnuts have only the highest regards for science. *Cough, cough*.

  42. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG August 13, 2014 at 1:53 pm #

    Sven’s arguments all hinge on “ifs” and “thens”.
    This is real life, not Basic.

  43. avatar
    Andrew Morris August 13, 2014 at 2:05 pm #

    “We the people” does not mean that 330 million people have the individual right to grind the courts to a halt

  44. avatar
    Andrew Morris August 13, 2014 at 2:13 pm #

    And remember that Orally now says she’s a Latina immigrant so she can’t be anti-Hispanic. She claims this on the basis that Moldova is a Latin country because its language is based on Latin, which is true, although I’m sure her fellow Moldovan Jews would be surprised to know that they are Latino/Latina…

  45. avatar
    Rickey August 13, 2014 at 2:21 pm #

    Sven is delusional. If you follow his argument to its logical conclusion, it means that the U.S. government forfeits its sovereign immunity every time that Congress passes a law which is later ruled to be in violation of the Constitution.

  46. avatar
    CCB August 13, 2014 at 2:26 pm #

    The European:”An inquiring European would like to have some answers.”

    Actually, the judge is acting rationally. Suppose a competent attorney files an application for a temporary restraining order to keep the defendant from acting in a way to harm his client in a way which money damages cannot compensate.The judge has three choices.

    The judge can grant the application and issue the order. In effect, the judge is assuming that the allegations of the application are true and deciding the application without hearing the other party. While I am not saying that this could occur in some cases, in most cases there are two sides to every lawsuit and judges like to hear both before making a decision.

    Second, the judge can deny the application. In effect, the judge is assuming the allegations of the application are untrue, in whole or in part, and denying the plaintiff the opportunity to show they are true. Once again, judges like to hear both sides before making a decision.

    Third, the judge can require the defendant to respond to the application quickly so that the judge may not be blind-sided by one of the parties. This gives the appearance of fairness, complies with due process and avoids having those smarty pants on the court of appeals begin their opinion reversing the judge with those fatal words, “The learned trial judge. . .”.

    I don’t know about judges in civil law countries but the most common criticism of judges in the United States is that they decide cases without hearing both sides, i.e. in accordance with some liberal or conservative bias. While this criticism is usually made by the losers who have their own bias, it can have an effect on the selection of judges.

    Here the judge is treating Taitz’ application as any other. Is this an imposition on the defendants? To be sure. If the defendants want Taitz to pay, they are certainly able to ask the judge to make her do so. Whether that has any deterrent effect remains to be seen.

  47. avatar
    The European August 13, 2014 at 3:00 pm #

    bob:
    Some judges would summarily dismissed Taitz’s application.Others would have ordered the government merely to oppose the application (rather than “show cause”).

    This particular judge, however, wants to grandstand with the executive branch over its immigration policies.

    bob, the first one is obviously the only appropriate for a case without standing and without merits. But you nailed it already. So why does the government not answer like McAuliffe ?

  48. avatar
    Notorial Dissent August 13, 2014 at 3:10 pm #

    CCB pretty much has covered why the judge is going the current route. If the application had been dismissed out of hand, and it so richly deserved, then she’d just have come back with more filings and reconsiderations and such, her usual round of nonsense, This way the court gets it properly aired, and some of the stink blows off, the gov’t come in and tells the court why the application is a steaming pile o’ Taitz, and then the court can toss it for the obvious grounds and be done with it. Which isn’t to say she won’t try more filings, but the court can always so no more, and then she’ll have to go to appeals, and we all know how well she does there, but it will cut off ehr grandstanding and get her out of that particular court.

    Sven, you’re still an ignorant idiot, and you continue to provide us with ongoing proof of that fact.

  49. avatar
    The European August 13, 2014 at 3:26 pm #

    CCB: Actually, the judge is acting rationally.Suppose a competent attorney files an application ………….

    CCB, sorry that I made a “rhetorical” question. Mrs. Taitz is not a competent attorney. The Judge knows that and still ……

  50. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 13, 2014 at 4:09 pm #

    I’ll say it again… every single claim that Sven makes rests upon the absurd assumptions that the US somehow “waives” its sovereignty when an ineligible President takes office. Not only is there not a scintilla of evidence that such a person has ever assumed the presidency, but the idea that the US can ever “waive” its sovereignty flies in the face of millennia of jurisprudence.

    Taking these two absurd claims into account, every single thing that Sven says thereafter can be summarily dismissed. Discussing his fantasies is an utter waste of time and energy.

  51. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 13, 2014 at 4:24 pm #

    Just to clarify, the US can and has waived its sovereign immunity through legislation, such as the Freedom of Information Act. The nonsense concept is, however, that the US automatically waives its sovereign immunity without support in law.

    Bonsall Obot: but the idea that the US can ever “waive” its sovereignty flies in the face of millennia of jurisprudence.

  52. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 13, 2014 at 4:34 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Just to clarify, the US can and has waived its sovereign immunity through legislation, such as the Freedom of Information Act. The nonsense concept is, however, that the US automatically waives its sovereign immunity without support in law.

    Just to clarify, Sven repeatedly claims that the US has waived its sovereignty, not just sovereign immunity. This is bunk. And even a waiver of sovereign immunity, such as you outline, must be explicit. It is never implicit.

  53. avatar
    Paper August 13, 2014 at 4:46 pm #

    The first flaw in your premise is simple and brings your whole line of reasoning to an inescapable, screeching halt: the Constitution is not a contract.

    See Joseph Story for starters (start at 463 in the linked source):

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/preambles21.html

    SvenMagnussen: Constitutional law is explained like this …

    …in the babysitting Contract (U.S. Constitution)….

    …The moment the babysitter (U.S. federal government) violates the contract (U.S. Constitution), the babysitter (U.S. federal government) forfeits…

  54. avatar
    The European August 13, 2014 at 5:23 pm #

    Paper:
    The first flaw in your premise is simple and brings your whole line of reasoning to an inescapable, screeching halt:the Constitution is not a contract.

    See Joseph Story for starters (start at 463 in the linked source):

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/preambles21.html

    You are right, Paper, constitutions are not a contract in the proper sense of the word.

    OTOH, you can see the whole net of society as a contract,

    A very disturbing case – for me – is the Michael Kohlhaas / Coalhouse Walker problem:

    society refuses to fulfill it´s part of the contract (to deliver justice). Do you have the right to take justice into your own hands then ?

  55. avatar
    bob August 13, 2014 at 5:42 pm #

    The European: So why does the government not answer like McAuliffe ?

    IMO, the government has a few scores to settle with the judge. The first half of its opposition easily disposes of Taitz’s application. The second half is (IMO) aimed squarely at the judge and his prior grandstanding.

    But I see you point: A “Nuts!” response would have dared the judge to make a ruling that would be immediately overturn. But it would have unprofessional (and perhaps contemptuous) to actually do so.

  56. avatar
    bob August 13, 2014 at 6:28 pm #

    According to Taitz’s site, she just filed another motion (to supplement).

  57. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 13, 2014 at 7:06 pm #

    bob:
    According to Taitz’s site, she just filed another motion (to supplement).

    And cited as her reason for doing so something she read in the totally-not-racist National Review.

  58. avatar
    CCB August 13, 2014 at 7:16 pm #

    The European: CCB, sorry that I made a “rhetorical” question. Mrs. Taitz is not a competent attorney. The Judge knows that and still ……

    Oh, I agree. I think “troll with a law degree” is a more accurate description. But, and this is a very important but, there are good people with incompetent attorneys who deserve a fair shake and there are scum who have the money to hire competent attorneys and game the system.

    I don’t know anything about civil law jurisdictions but every day one of the clerks in every federal district court opens the mail and finds at least one envelope from a prisoner containing legal sounding stuff that makes Sven Magnussen sound like Oliver Wendall Holmes, Jr. Last time I looked, the average inmate might have an 8th grade education and, except for the drug dealers, an IQ between 90 and 100 so trying to figure this stuff out is not fun. But, mistakes happen, innocent people are convicted and the theory is that judges decide cases on the basis of the law and the evidence, not whether the attorney graduated from Harvard or Taft.

  59. avatar
    bob August 13, 2014 at 7:33 pm #

    The court ordered a hearing for August 27.

  60. avatar
    DaveH August 13, 2014 at 7:53 pm #

    It will be entertaining. Hopefully, there will be someone that can attend the hearing and report. There’s no way the court will rule in her favor unless he wants the appeals court to override his decision.

    bob:
    The court ordered a hearing for August 27.

  61. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 13, 2014 at 8:10 pm #

    A hearing two weeks from today, and almost four weeks from the original poopie?

    I can feel the urgency.

    In the meantime, keep that blood-drenched lawyer/dentist/real estate lady off the carpets, I just had them professionally cleaned!

  62. avatar
    DaveH August 13, 2014 at 8:12 pm #

    Judge Hanen deserves it. How many weeks do you think it will take for him to get the screeching out of his head?

  63. avatar
    Keith August 13, 2014 at 9:11 pm #

    CCB: Oh, I agree. I think “troll with a law degree” is a more accurate description.

    What law degree?

  64. avatar
    y_p_w August 13, 2014 at 9:53 pm #

    Keith: What law degree?

    That’s probably what several judges were thinking with Orly in their courtrooms.

    However, it is theoretically possible to be licensed to practice law in California without a law degree.

    https://www.callawyer.com/Clstory.cfm?eid=916106
    http://admissions.calbar.ca.gov/Education/LegalEducation/LawOfficeorJudgesChamber.aspx
    http://likelincoln.org/faqs/

    This guy has a blog where he mentions that he never got a college degree nor a law degree. His California State Bar profile lists neither. He says he went through the CABAR Law Office Study Program.

    http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/236202

  65. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 13, 2014 at 10:02 pm #

    I’m more interested in knowing who took the bar exam for her. Seeing that she hasn’t once properly filed anything in any case in the last six years, it’s not credible that she actually passed the bar exam herself.

  66. avatar
    J.D. Reed August 13, 2014 at 10:12 pm #

    European the answer to your question lies in a story a certain lawyer years ago. Seems there was this real rotter of a psychiatrist, who violated all the ethics of his profession including sleeping with his clients, obviously cheating on his serial wives in the process. He exits this life while driving drunk, taking a family of five with him. So naturally he approaches the Pearly Gates without a whole lot of hope. But to his surprise and overwhelming joy, he’s warmly welcomed inside because his professional expertise is urgently needed.
    who needs his services? the relieved shrink asks.
    “The Lord himself” comes the answer “He thinks He’s a federal judge!”

  67. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 13, 2014 at 10:12 pm #

    Let me be purposely vague here, but…

    Sven has a personal web site on which he writes certain alternative biographical details about Barack Obama, things he also write about here.

    An attorney (not identified as representing anyone else) filed an Amicus brief in one of the birther lawsuits, and a significant portion of that brief matches word for word text on Sven’s web site.

    So one copied from the other, or Sven and the lawyer are the same person. It would seem highly unusual for a lawyer to take material unattributed from someone’s web site and use in his brief, It would also seem implausible that Sven has been hawking theories for years that actually sprang from some hitherto unknown lawyer. So the most plausible explanation is that Sven is the lawyer, and hence has a law degree.

    That said, Sven has said that he is not a lawyer on more than one occasion.

    That leaves one in a quandary. I’m not going to call anybody a liar without proof and there any number of scenarios (however fanciful) that might explain the coincidence. Perhaps Sven is the lawyer’s son and filed the Amicus brief under his father’s name. In any case identifying people who want to remain anonymous is not what we do here, although a previous article on this pretty much said 2+2= and let the reader draw the inference.

    Keith: What law degree?

  68. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 13, 2014 at 10:34 pm #

    As you’ve seen, Doc, I have done my best to respect your no-outing policy while still making it clear to Sven that his real identity is quite obvious and has been for some time.

    While it’s true that Sven has (rhetorically?) claimed to not be a lawyer, he has also, as recently as today, claimed that he IS a lawyer. Given this conflict, we know that one of those claims is false; therefore, Sven is an admitted liar and his word in the matter is irrelevant. That being the case, only the other evidence you’ve limned should be considered.

    I’d be curious to know if Sven and his dozens of sockpuppets have an IP address related to any locale in or around Independence, MO.

  69. avatar
    JayHG August 13, 2014 at 10:46 pm #

    Sven said: “Sovereign immunity only applies to government entities. The Sovereign immunity of the United States is waived when an ineligible President assumes the Office of the President of the United States.”

    FULL STOP….so dude, PROVE PRESIDENT OBAMA IS INELIGIBLE….I didn’t even read the rest of what you said as I’m sure it is not even worth commenting on. So UNTIL YOU PROVE THIS PART OF YOUR STUPID WHINE…..come on, where’s the proof of this statement? As soon as you give me that, we can then discuss the other utter bullshit you posted. Thanks….

  70. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 13, 2014 at 10:55 pm #

    This timeline is worth noting:

    3/20/13: Sven posts on his personal blog.

    5/13/13: Amicus brief filed in McInnish case which copies, word-for-word, huge blocks of text (all of it being disproved nonsense) from Sven’s blog post referenced above.

    6/5/13: Doc discusses the fact that the blog post and the brief are essentially identical.

    6/6/13: Sven makes a blog post lauding the amicus brief, referring to the lawyer who filed the brief in the third person, yet never discussing the fact that his own previous blog post had been copied essentially word-for-word. No complaint of plagiarism, no acknowledgement whatsoever.

    It’s simply not credible that these are two different people.

  71. avatar
    Dave B. August 14, 2014 at 12:43 am #

    Then there’s “eingriff.” Here are eingriff and Sven carrying on a dialogue:
    http://svenmagnussen.blogspot.com/2013/06/albert-wl-moore-files-amicus-brief-in.html
    Here’s eingriff posting one of those wacky briefs as a comment on Whirled Nuts Deli:
    http://www.westernjournalism.com/foxnews-finally-covers-obama-birth-controversy/#comment-72962
    Does the guy by any chance run a Chinese restaurant, too?

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Let me be purposely vague here, but…

    Sven has a personal web site on which he writes certain alternative biographical details about Barack Obama, things he also write about here.

    An attorney (not identified as representing anyone else) filed an Amicus brief in one of the birther lawsuits, and a significant portion of that brief matches word for word text on Sven’s web site.

    So one copied from the other, or Sven and the lawyer are the same person. It would seem highly unusual for a lawyer to take material unattributed from someone’s web site and use in his brief, It would also seem implausible that Sven has been hawking theories for years that actually sprang from some hitherto unknown lawyer. So the most plausible explanation is that Sven is the lawyer, and hence has a law degree.

    That said, Sven has said that he is not a lawyer on more than one occasion.

    That leaves one in a quandary. I’m not going to call anybody a liar without proof and there any number of scenarios (however fanciful) that might explain the coincidence. Perhaps Sven is the lawyer’s son and filed the Amicus brief under his father’s name. In any case identifying people who want to remain anonymous is not what we do here, although a previous article on this pretty much said 2+2= and let the reader draw the inference.

  72. avatar
    Keith August 14, 2014 at 12:43 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: So the most plausible explanation is that Sven is the lawyer, and hence has a law degree.

    That said, Sven has said that he is not a lawyer on more than one occasion.

    I was under the impression that CCB was referring to Taitz. I don’t believe she has a law degree. I do not consider a mail order diploma mill a degree granting institution, no matter how much they tart up their bone fides.

    As you point out, it seems that at least one of Sven’s mulitple personalities may be a lawyer, or not. That isn’t who I was referring to however.

  73. avatar
    Dave B. August 14, 2014 at 12:47 am #

    Now to be clear, I’m just talking about Sven and eingriff there, not anybody whose name might appear in one of those web addresses.

  74. avatar
    Benji Franklin August 14, 2014 at 1:11 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: That said, Sven has said that he is not a lawyer on more than one occasion.

    Sven did say here, ” The Sovereign immunity of the United States is waived when an ineligible President assumes the Office of the President of the United States.”

    It’s very difficult imagining any real lawyer saying something so idiotic so authoritatively.

  75. avatar
    J.D. Sue August 14, 2014 at 1:14 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: a previous article on this pretty much said 2+2= and let the reader draw the inference.


    As I understand it, the amicus brief was filed by an elderly attorney who actually had been practicing law (in some capacity) for many decades. In contrast, the Sven commenting here has never practiced law nor spent one day in law school–this is painfully clear with each sentence he writes.

  76. avatar
    The Magic M August 14, 2014 at 4:52 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: It would seem highly unusual for a lawyer to take material unattributed from someone’s web site and use in his brief

    You think it’s implausible there is more than one Orly? Is the crazyfication factor for lawyers several orders of magnitude lower than for other people?

    I’d consider it equally probable that

    (1) lawyer A is crazy and takes material from crazy blogger B

    (2) blogger B is a crazy lawyer.

    Dave B.: Then there’s “eingriff.”

    “Eingriff” is German for “interference” (from “ein” = “one/into”, “Griff” = grab/handle”), these days it’s mostly used in the medical sense (“surgery”).

  77. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 14, 2014 at 6:21 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Just to clarify, the US can and has waived its sovereign immunity through legislation, such as the Freedom of Information Act. The nonsense concept is, however, that the US automatically waives its sovereign immunity without support in law.

    The Constitution states the President must be eligible to hold the office. Birther lawsuits have sought to prevent an ineligible President from taking office, prove he is eligible to take or hold the office, enjoin Congress to investigate the eligibility of the President or have the President removed by order of the court. The court is not authorized to order any of these things, so the cases have been dismissed. The majority of Electors have the freedom to choose any person for leadership of the Executive branch and Commander-in-chief of U.S. Armed Forces.

    The people are sovereign. The people have unlimited, inalienable, God-given rights. The people delegate limited rights, privileges, duties and sovereign immunity to the U.S. federal government through the U.S. Constitution to enjoy a more perfect union. If the President is ineligible, then sovereign immunity delegated by the people is waived. The people maintain their sovereignty, unlimited, inalienable, God-given rights. The people, by a majority vote, can choose whomever they want for leadership of the Executive branch and Commander-in-chief of U.S. Armed Forces.

    The Bill of Rights provides for the minority to object to an ineligible President and seek relief in the District Court pursuant to the First Amendment. As mentioned earlier, the court is not authorized to remove a sitting President as the relief sought by the minority. Removing a sitting President after a request of the minority violates the unlimited, inalienable, God-given rights of the majority to choose whomever they want for their leadership. However, citizens in the minority may seek relief in the federal courts for violations of the Constitution to protect their interests in the maintenance the Constitutional republic. The U.S. federal government is discharged with the duty to maintain the Constitutional republic and not assist the ineligible President in dismantling it over the objections of the minority. See Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.

  78. avatar
    The European August 14, 2014 at 7:16 am #

    When I see how much “Sven The Great” adores Mrs. Taitz aka Titz I am sure that he himself is that elderly advocate of the McInnish case. Mrs. Taitz somehow attracts some elderly men.

  79. avatar
    Dave August 14, 2014 at 9:09 am #

    It didn’t strike me as anything out of the ordinary when the judge issued an OSC, but scheduling a hearing does seem bizarre. Sounds like the judge wants to do some wingnut grandstanding before dismissing this suit. Or who knows, maybe he wants to get his name in the paper by granting Taitz’s stay, though it’ll just be smacked right down again by the appeals court.

  80. avatar
    Dave August 14, 2014 at 9:19 am #

    On further thought — and I’m probably the last person to figure this out — given Judge Hanen’s history, it seems quite possible that his order dismissing this suit will begin with 10 pages of ranting about how Taitz is completely right.

  81. avatar
    Paper August 14, 2014 at 9:31 am #

    We *as a body* are indeed sovereign, and *public* servants work for us (which is not the same thing as “sovereign citizenship”). “Unlimited” rights, however, do not exist. Even undeniable rights we clearly have and historically have asserted are limited in various ways. We *could* amend the Constitution to assert people have *unlimited* rights (going way beyond the Ninth Amendment’s protection of *other* rights), but then the Constitution, government and society would break down into an unworkable mess. We have bound ourselves with the Constitution. We could unbind ourselves. But as early as kindergarten, if not sooner, we learn that we do not have *unlimited* rights, that unlimited rights are unworkable, as evidenced by the behavior of spoiled brats.

    SvenMagnussen:

    The people are sovereign. The people have unlimited…rights.

  82. avatar
    Paper August 14, 2014 at 9:47 am #

    Our government could be dismantled or altered over the objections of the minority. After all, we have amended the Constitution twenty-seven times, and we could just amend it out of existence if desired. Moreover, the Constitution itself was adopted by majority rule, despite the minority. The rights of minorities are to be protected against the majority, but that is a political dance supported by our constitution, not an inversion of majority rule.

    SvenMagnussen:

    The U.S. federal government is discharged with the duty to maintain the Constitutional republic and not assist…in dismantling it over the objections of the minority.

  83. avatar
    The Magic M August 14, 2014 at 11:15 am #

    Paper: The rights of minorities are to be protected against the majority, but that is a political dance supported by our constitution, not an inversion of majority rule.

    Precisely. While the Constitution protects the “simple” minority from a “simple” majority decision (as in “50% of the people”), it does not protect any minority from any majority decision (as obviously amending the Constitution does not require a 100% vote in any involved body) – that’s at least what people understand who actually read the Constitution and didn’t replace it in their heads with a made-up one from La-la-land.

  84. avatar
    The Magic M August 14, 2014 at 11:21 am #

    SvenMagnussen: If the President is ineligible, then sovereign immunity delegated by the people is waived.

    Again, completely made up. The Constitution clearly says what happens “if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify”, and “waiving the sovereign immunity” is not among the consequences listed.
    Why is it so hard for you to understand a simple document, simply because it doesn’t say what you want it to say?
    Are we now in “supra-Constitutional” cloudcuckooland where you can make any claim of how the Constitution no longer applies because you say so?

    SvenMagnussen: The people, by a majority vote, can choose whomever they want for leadership of the Executive branch and Commander-in-chief of U.S. Armed Forces.

    Not quite because a (popular vote) majority is neither necessary nor sufficient for someone to be elected President, thanks to your Electoral College system. (In fact, until most states had adopted legislation to require the electors to honour their pledges and/or the majority decision of the voters in their state, the EC could’ve voted for anyone, including someone who did not get any vote by the public at all.)

  85. avatar
    Rickey August 14, 2014 at 12:26 pm #

    Sven would do well to read Liackos v. Kennedy, 195 F.Supp. 630 (1961). In that case, the government was attempting to deport Liackos because it was believed that he was born in Greece and had never naturalized as a U.S. citizen. Liackos claimed that he was born in West Virginia in 1900, although he did not have a contemporaneous birth certificate (he was issued delayed birth certificates by the county clerk and by the West Virginia Registrar of Vital Statistics in 1946). There was some conflicting evidence because Liackos had avoided the draft during WWI by claiming that he was a Greek citizen and therefore not eligible for the draft.

    In spite of the conflicting evidence, the District Court ruled that Liackos was a U.S. citizen, largely because the government was unable to produce any evidence that he was born in Greece or anywhere other than in West Virginia.

    Sven and other birthers can proclaim that Obama is ineligible as loudly and as often as they like, but the precedent is clear. Obama’s Hawaii birth certificates are prima facie evidence that he was born in Hawaii, and the only way to overcome that evidence is to produce more convincing evidence that he was born somewhere else. And of course Sven’s argument that Obama lost his U.S. citizenship in Indonesia and that he was naturalized when he returned to Hawaii is completely evidence-free. So evidence-free, in fact, that even Orly doesn’t buy it.

    This quote from the Liacakos decision should give birthers pause, because it appears that both of his parents were Greek citizens:

    The Court is of the opinion that, weighing the evidence on both sides, the plaintiff has established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States, and the Court so finds.

    http://www.leagle.com/decision/1961825195FSupp630_1716

  86. avatar
    y_p_w August 14, 2014 at 2:06 pm #

    Rickey:
    In spite of the conflicting evidence, the District Court ruled that Liackos was a U.S. citizen, largely because the government was unable to produce any evidence that he was born in Greece or anywhere other than in West Virginia.

    Cool. I was looking for a place to post a link (the open thread has since been closed) and this is about as good a place as any.

    I found a case of a man born in Mexico to a US-born father and Mexican mother. He came to the US at a young age and assumed that he was a US citizen on the basis of his father’s US birth. He got fired from his UPS job after they ran E-Verify and he got flagged for being born outside of the US and with no evidence he was a US citizen or permanent resident. He had a common-law wife, but I don’t think immigration officials will recognize that for spousal status. He retained an immigration attorney (pro bono) and they filed for an adjudication of his status as a US citizen based on his father’s citizenship. They had a tough time because his father was a migrant worker and often got paid in cash with no record of an address. They basically got a copy of his father’s birth certificate, some baptismal records, and a single tax notice. It was tough going to establish the 10 year residency and 5 years after the age of 14 (where have we heard that before?), and USCIS denied his request. They took them to district court and a judge declared him to be a US citizen based on his father’s status.

    http://www.cpr.org/news/story/longmont-man-surprised-hear-he-s-not-us-citizen

    Apparently UPS wants him back now.

  87. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 14, 2014 at 2:45 pm #

    Rickey:

    The Court is of the opinion that, weighing the evidence on both sides, the plaintiff has established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States, and the Court so finds.

    http://www.leagle.com/decision/1961825195FSupp630_1716

    In your case, the defendant claimed he was a foreigner living in America and not eligible for the World War II draft. West Virginia issued a delayed birth certificate 46 years after his alleged birth in West Virginia. Somehow the defendant continued to avoid the draft even though he had been issued a delayed birth certificate in 1946 stating he was born in West Virginia.

    The U.S. federal government alleged the defendant never naturalized and should be deported even though he had been issued a delayed birth certificate birth certificate 46 years after his alleged birth.

    The District Court opined the defendant was a natural born citizen with a delayed birth certificate after determining it appeared his parents were citizens of Greece.

    And this case is devastating to my theory Obama naturalized in 1983 after he returned from living in Indonesia because the U.S. federal government and President Obama have possession and control of all the documents that prove my theory to be correct. But since I can’t produce certified copies before discovery begins, then discovery to obtain certified copies cannot be obtained and they’re is nothing I can do about it. Is that it?

    I’d say America 2.O will have many empty courtrooms with that kind of jurisprudence.

  88. avatar
    Sudoku August 14, 2014 at 3:25 pm #

    @Sven

    Sure, you can’t get certified copies, if such documents exist, but I have never seen your basis of WHY you think they exist. Please explain. C

  89. avatar
    Rickey August 14, 2014 at 4:32 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: In your case, the defendant claimed he was a foreigner living in America and not eligible for the World War II draft. West Virginia issued a delayed birth certificate 46 years after his alleged birth in West Virginia. Somehow the defendant continued to avoid the draft even though he had been issued a delayed birth certificate in 1946 stating he was born in West Virginia.

    You need to read more closely. He avoided the draft for WWI, not WWII. He was 40 years old when the draft was implemented in 1940, making him too old to be drafted by four years.

    Discovery is not a fishing expedition. To reach discovery you need to make your prima facie case the old-fashioned way, by investigating the facts rather than indulging figments of your imagination. You could start by explaining how Obama could possibly have renounced his U.S. citizenship between the ages of 6 and 10.

  90. avatar
    Woodrowfan August 14, 2014 at 4:50 pm #

    Sven seriously needs to start seeing a good mental health professional.

  91. avatar
    gorefan August 14, 2014 at 4:59 pm #

    OT – open thread is closed.

    BR is reporting WOBC is having a show today with Tom Lawson (whoever that is).

    In the comments to the article is this comment by Give Us Liberty 1776

    “Not sure AZ timeline is stable…possible snag. Regardless something has to happen well before the election….hopefully before Obama drops his nuclear immigration bomb. ”

    Are they getting ready to let the BR latents know there won’t be a press conference?

  92. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 14, 2014 at 5:03 pm #

    Sudoku:
    @Sven

    Sure, you can’t get certified copies, if such documents exist, but I have never seen your basis of WHY you think they exist.Please explain. C

    If I were Orly, here’s what I would do.

    File a complaint alleging ineligibility and demand a jury trial. At closing, I would make sure the jury understood the case is a collateral attack. In other words, if the jury finds Obama is in ineligible, then his appointees will lose their jobs for violation of the Appointments Clause and be permanently barred from US federal government service for violating the US Constitution. Obama, however, cannot be removed from office without an impeachment in the House and a trial in the Senate. Obama gets a pass because the majority of Americas voted for him to be exactly where he is. Consequently, Obama cannot be removed because a minority of disgruntled Americans are unhappy.

    Then I would remind the Jury that a vote in favor of ineligibility would set up a third term for Obama if that was what he wanted. A violation of the 22nd Amendment is no different from a violation of the Eligibility Clause. If a majority of Americans vote for him to have a third term, then there is nothing a few disgruntled Americans can do about it.

    And then I would ask the jury, “What will you do to help Obama? Will you please find him ineligible so he can serve a third term if he wants it? Isn’t it racist to deny Obama a third term if he chooses to have a third?”

    And then I would say to the jury, “Remember that only the appointees and career professionals in violation of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution will be affected by voting for Obama to be ineligible. Obama will finish his term as President because the majority of Americans voted for him. This is your moment in history. Let Obama make the decisions about his future. Vote for Obama to be ineligible and let him decide if he wants a third term”

  93. avatar
    Soduko August 14, 2014 at 5:09 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: If I were Orly, here’s what I would do.

    Thanks for the response, but you did not address my question.

    Why do you think Obama naturalised, ever? On what do you base your belief?

  94. avatar
    Paper August 14, 2014 at 6:16 pm #

    Again, we are already up to America 5.7.1, or so.

    America 2.0 came into being on March 4, 1789. Or, June 21, 1788, if you wish.

    We are well past 2.0.

    SvenMagnussen:

    I’d say America 2.O will have many empty courtrooms with that kind of jurisprudence.

  95. avatar
    Paper August 14, 2014 at 6:18 pm #

    Tantrums?

    Rickey: You could start by explaining how Obama could possibly have renounced his U.S. citizenship between the ages of 6 and 10.

  96. avatar
    Paper August 14, 2014 at 6:25 pm #

    Of course, the amendment process here ensures a super-majority and that the amendment be vetted and discussed and embraced by society at large. A minority of disagreement at best, as we are well aware, is always to be expected on almost anything. You could almost say a minority is required in most things for validity. We laugh at dictators who get 99 or 100% of the vote.

    Thus, I am not concerned that 20 to 30% of people generally believe very strange things. I personally only get concerned that my own family is infested with them (conspiracy theorists and birthers). Given how large my family is, that’s got to be 15% of the population at least, right there! ;-}

    The Magic M: Precisely. While the Constitution protects the “simple” minority from a “simple” majority decision (as in “50% of the people”), it does not protect any minority from any majority decision (as obviously amending the Constitution does not require a 100% vote in any involved body) – that’s at least what people understand who actually read the Constitution and didn’t replace it in their heads with a made-up one from La-la-land.

  97. avatar
    JoZeppy August 14, 2014 at 6:27 pm #

    Sven…

    You’re a delusional nutter…..or more than likely, just endulging in performance art. There is no way anyone can be so consistently off the reservation on every possible point like you.

  98. avatar
    Paper August 14, 2014 at 6:27 pm #

    Dismissed.

    Back-up plan?

    SvenMagnussen: File a complaint alleging ineligibility and demand a jury trial.

  99. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 14, 2014 at 6:33 pm #

    That was my initial reaction to Sven, way back when.

    JoZeppy: or more than likely, just indulging in performance art.

  100. avatar
    y_p_w August 14, 2014 at 7:07 pm #

    Rickey:

    Discovery is not a fishing expedition. To reach discovery you need to make your prima facie case the old-fashioned way, by investigating the facts rather than indulging figments of your imagination. You could start by explaining how Obama could possibly have renounced his U.S. citizenship between the ages of 6 and 10.

    Once I helped someone with an unlawful detainer (eviction) action. We were hoping the tenant would just figure it wasn’t worth the hassle and time. Real piece of work too. I helped draft the unlawful detainer using a Nolo Press book on California evictions. It was very good. The clerk said something, and when I mentioned Nolo, she said that it’s a good resource and they rarely get technically deficient filings from people who use them.

    However, I researched what might happen if it got to the point where the tenant responded. There was a standard form interrogatory, and I was freaked out that the tenant might ask for every single item.

  101. avatar
    Dave B. August 14, 2014 at 7:52 pm #

    The judgment in Ortega v. Kerry et al:
    http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/colorado/codce/1:2014cv00913/147221/40

    y_p_w: Cool.I was looking for a place to post a link (the open thread has since been closed) and this is about as good a place as any.

    I found a case of a man born in Mexico to a US-born father and Mexican mother.He came to the US at a young age and assumed that he was a US citizen on the basis of his father’s US birth.He got fired from his UPS job after they ran E-Verify and he got flagged for being born outside of the US and with no evidence he was a US citizen or permanent resident.He had a common-law wife, but I don’t think immigration officials will recognize that for spousal status.He retained an immigration attorney (pro bono) and they filed for an adjudication of his status as a US citizen based on his father’s citizenship.They had a tough time because his father was a migrant worker and often got paid in cash with no record of an address.They basically got a copy of his father’s birth certificate, some baptismal records, and a single tax notice.It was tough going to establish the 10 year residency and 5 years after the age of 14 (where have we heard that before?), and USCIS denied his request.They took them to district court and a judge declared him to be a US citizen based on his father’s status.

    http://www.cpr.org/news/story/longmont-man-surprised-hear-he-s-not-us-citizen

    Apparently UPS wants him back now.

  102. avatar
    Dave B. August 14, 2014 at 7:57 pm #

    Well that certainly puts things into perspective.

    SvenMagnussen: If I were Orly, here’s what I would do.

  103. avatar
    y_p_w August 14, 2014 at 9:31 pm #

    Dave B.:
    The judgment in Ortega v. Kerry et al:
    http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/colorado/codce/1:2014cv00913/147221/40

    Thanks. The article didn’t mention that his father was still alive, and presumably able to be interviewed as well as testify in court. I was under the impression that he was unavailable and they cobbled whatever documents they had.

  104. avatar
    Dave B. August 14, 2014 at 10:40 pm #

    The judge’s remarks on Mr. Ortega’s parents and their testimony are very interesting, and not the kind of thing you’ll ever hear about birther witnesses.
    “Marcelo (Nick Ortega’s natural-born US citizen father) testified with the assistance of a Spanish interpreter. The court finds, based upon his demeanor and manner upon the stand, the substance of his answers and the consistency of his testimony with that of his wife and with such records as exist, that his testimony was entirely credible. I note that Marcelo testified that he believes Nicholas is a citizen of Mexico, which is contrary to the fact that Nicholas and his counsel are trying to establish in this case. That opinion, plus Marcelo’s admission that he could not remember certain things that, if remembered, might have benefited his son’s case, tended to support what I had already had determined based on my observation of him as a witness– that he is an honest man who was truthful and straightforward in his testimony.”
    Judge Jackson goes on to note that regardless of Marcelo’s opinion regarding his son’s citizenship, his testimony supported the facts establishing Nicholas’s US citizenship.

    y_p_w: Thanks.The article didn’t mention that his father was still alive, and presumably able to be interviewed as well as testify in court.I was under the impression that he was unavailable and they cobbled whatever documents they had.

  105. avatar
    y_p_w August 14, 2014 at 11:10 pm #

    Dave B.:
    The judge’s remarks on Mr. Ortega’s parents and their testimony are very interesting, and not the kind of thing you’ll ever hear about birther witnesses.
    “Marcelo (Nick Ortega’s natural-born US citizen father) testified with the assistance of a Spanish interpreter.The court finds, based upon his demeanor and manner upon the stand, the substance of his answers and the consistency of his testimony with that of his wife and with such records as exist, that his testimony was entirely credible.I note that Marcelo testified that he believes Nicholas is a citizen of Mexico, which is contrary to the fact that Nicholas and his counsel are trying to establish in this case.That opinion, plus Marcelo’s admission that he could not remember certain things that, if remembered, might have benefited his son’s case, tended to support what I had already had determined based on my observation of him as a witness– that he is an honest man who was truthful and straightforward in his testimony.”
    Judge Jackson goes on to note that regardless of Marcelo’s opinion regarding his son’s citizenship, his testimony supported the facts establishing Nicholas’s US citizenship.

    I think technically, he would be considered a national of Mexico by way of birth and one can never lose that (they won’t recognize renouncement). However, they have a specific requirement for citizenship (which grants the right to vote).

  106. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG August 14, 2014 at 11:10 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Obama cannot be removed because a minority of disgruntled Americans are unhappy.

    And yet you stupid birthers keep on trying anyway!
    What is it called when you do the same thing over and over again, expecting to get different results? Insanity is it?

  107. avatar
    Dave B. August 14, 2014 at 11:41 pm #

    Yes, under Article 30 of the Mexican Constitution Nicholas would indeed be a Mexican national. No one is born a citizen of Mexico; under Article 34 of the Mexican Constitution, a citizen of Mexico is a Mexican national who is at least eighteen years of age and who has “an honest way of life.” I gather that Judge Jackson understood Marcelo to be of the opinion that his son was a Mexican citizen and NOT a US citizen; however, Marcelo’s testimony as to the facts regarding his own physical presence in the US prior to Nicholas’s birth satisfied the judge that the statutory requirements for transmission of citizenship had been satisfied.

    y_p_w: I think technically, he would be considered a national of Mexico by way of birth and one can never lose that (they won’t recognize renouncement).However, they have a specific requirement for citizenship (which grants the right to vote).

  108. avatar
    Northland10 August 14, 2014 at 11:44 pm #

    In Sven’s world, you can make up a theory with absolutely no proof and then demand the accused provide you the evidence you know must exist. If they do not, then they are hiding something so your theory is proven correct.

    This sounds like more like USSR 1.0.

  109. avatar
    John Reilly August 15, 2014 at 12:39 am #

    Northland, you are incorrect. One of the central facts to Sven’s argument is not contested. Thus, his argument is not based on arguments with absolutely no proof.

    The President is Black.

  110. avatar
    The European August 15, 2014 at 1:13 am #

    John Reilly:
    Northland, you are incorrect.One of the central facts to Sven’s argument is not contested.Thus, his argument is not based on arguments with absolutely no proof.

    The President is Black.

    It is not contested here, but have you ever looked at the asylum called BR ?

  111. avatar
    Benji Franklin August 15, 2014 at 1:17 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Vote for Obama to be ineligible and let him decide if he wants a third term”

    If Sven had been born 3000 years ago, he would have woven elaborate wicker baskets for the purpose of transporting and storing water.

  112. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 15, 2014 at 4:20 am #

    Soduko: …

    Thanks for the response, but you did not address my question.

    Why do you think Obama naturalised, ever?On what do you base your belief?

    If I were Orly, then I would …

    1) allege President Obama is ineligible to hold the Office of the President of the United States due to a violation of the Eligibility Clause after he naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1983.

    2) allege naturalized citizens are not natural born citizens

    3) allege President Obama and the U.S. federal government possess and maintain control of proof of his naturalization status at USCIS of the DHS and the Social Security Administration and the DoJ and the Department of State and the National Archives and Records Administration.

    4) allege the U.S. federal government has threatened, harassed, and intimidated witnesses with personal knowledge of President Obama’s naturalization status and those witnesses with personal knowledge have a reasonable fear of harm and retaliation if those witnesses testified or supported this action.

    5) request the Court move sua sponte for a subpoena duces tecum issued to Sec. Johnson to provide all documents in possession and controlled by the DHS concerning the naturalization of President Barack Hussein Obama, II.

    6) allege President Obama’s eligibility is relevant to the application for injunctive relief because it provides standing for the applicant to object to the executive orders and appointments of the ineligible President.

    7) allege the Court has authority to enjoin President Obama’s appointees from implementing executive orders of an ineligible President as a violation of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.

    8) allege the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear appointees currently holding their office in violation of the Appointments Clause to object to the application for stay and demand for other relief.

    9) allege Chief Justice John Roberts, United States Supreme Court, was notified President Obama was ineligible to hold the Office of the President on March 13, 2009 by Dr. Orly Taitz.

    10) allege Chief Justice Roberts assigned a investigative officer of the Secret Service to investigate and found President Obama is ineligible to hold the Office of the President of the United States after naturalizing as a U.S. citizen in 1983.

    11) request the Court move sua sponte for a subpoena duces tecum issued to Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew to provide all documents in possession and controlled by the U.S. Secret Service concerning the investigation on the ineligibility of President Barack Hussein Obama, II.

    And that is just off the top of my head as I wait for my morning coffee to brew. Give me a little time and I’ll really get into the heart of the matter.

  113. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 15, 2014 at 4:55 am #

    Rickey:

    You could start by explaining how Obama could possibly have renounced his U.S. citizenship between the ages of 6 and 10.

    The U.S. Code was amended in 1986 with respect to an age requirement for the issuance of a CLN. Prior to 1986, a U.S. citizen of any age could move out of the U.S., renounce their citizenship and be issued a CLN. And prior to 2009, the State Department accepted the sworn testimony of a parent or guardian on behalf of a child who requested a CLN.

    After 1986, the U.S. Code required a US citizen who have move out of the country and renounced to be 18 years old or older before a CLN will be issued. And since 2009, the State Department will not accept the sworn testimony of a parent or guardian of minor seeking US recognition of relinquishment of US citizenship. Relinquishment and renouncement are technically different. In renouncement, the US formally recognizes termination of the U.S. citizenship with the issuance of a CLN. In relinquishment, the US informally recognizes the US citizen believes they are not a US citizen. And minor can move out of the country and relinquish their US citizenship, but the parent will have to hire a lawyer or issue a Power of Attorney to a non-family member to speak on behalf of the child.

    Obama, through his mother, requested a CLN in the 1960’s. In the 1960’s, the U.S. Code did not require a U.S. citizen to be 18 years old to renounce and a parent could represent legal interests of a minor before the State Department. Since the 1960’s, things have changed. A CLN cannot be issued to a person under 18 years old since 1986. And since 2009, the State Department will not accept sworn testimony from a parent or legal guardian of a child who wants to be recognized by the U.S. as a person who has voluntarily relinquished their U.S. citizen.

    So if you only considered the laws and regulations actively enforced in 2014, then it would be impossible for a minor to move out of the US and renounce. Obama moved out of the US and renounced in the 1960’s. The laws and regulations were very different in the 1960’s than they are today.

  114. avatar
    The Magic M August 15, 2014 at 6:25 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Obama, through his mother, requested a CLN in the 1960′s.

    Yeah, if you had some proof for that – that would be great…

    SvenMagnussen: After 1986, the U.S. Code required a US citizen who have move out of the country and renounced to be 18 years old or older before a CLN will be issued.

    Again you are dishonestly ignoring that before that, the effective age limit was *21*:

    Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 99–653, §18(b), substituted “or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years” for “upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of a naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday: And provided further, That a person who shall have lost nationality prior to January 1, 1948, through the naturalization in a foreign state of a parent or parents, may, within one year from the effective date of this chapter, apply for a visa and for admission to the United States as a special immigrant under the provisions of section 1101(a)(27)(E) of this title”.
    (http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1481&num=0&edition=prelim)

    The bold part is the relevant part of the original wording that was replaced in 1986.

    You lose again, Sven, you dishonest fool.

    Double irony points for this non-lawyer foreigner to understand your laws better than you.

  115. avatar
    The Magic M August 15, 2014 at 6:33 am #

    SvenMagnussen: If I were Orly, then I would …

    ad 1. Proof?
    ad 2. Obvious.
    ad 3. Fishing expedition.
    ad 4. Hearsay.
    ad 5. Fishing expedition. Asking for non-existent documents to be produced.
    ad 6. No standing. “Object to appointments” is generalized grievance.
    ad 7. See 6.
    ad 8. Nonsense. Assumes as true what is subject matter, therefore the court will not entertain that before it has ruled.
    Do you really think a court will allow you to say “I sue the President but since he’s not the President you don’t have jurisdiction to hear his reply, therefore I win”? In what kangaroo court does that work?
    ad 9. Irrelevant. Basically harmful for your case as it tells the court “look, the highest judge in the country already disagrees with me”.
    ad 10. Proof?
    ad 11. See 5.

    Another EPIC FAIL.

  116. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 15, 2014 at 8:47 am #

    The Magic M: ad 1. Proof?
    ad 2. Obvious.
    ad 3. Fishing expedition.
    ad 4. Hearsay.
    ad 5. Fishing expedition. Asking for non-existent documents to be produced.
    ad 6. No standing. “Object to appointments” is generalized grievance.
    ad 7. See 6.
    ad 8. Nonsense. Assumes as true what is subject matter, therefore the court will not entertain that before it has ruled.
    Do you really think a court will allow you to say “I sue the President but since he’s not the President you don’t have jurisdiction to hear his reply, therefore I win”? In what kangaroo court does that work?
    ad 9. Irrelevant. Basically harmful for your case as it tells the court “look, the highest judge in the country already disagrees with me”.
    ad 10. Proof?
    ad 11. See 5.

    Another EPIC FAIL.

    Orly could go deeper into it if she wanted.

    The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence are currently established or amended by court order issued by the Supreme Court. Obama is ineligible because he naturalized in 1983. Obama appointed two justices to the Supreme Court. Those appointments were a violation of the Appointments Clause after an appointment by a President holding the office in violation of the Eligibility Clause.

    On March 13, 2009, Dr. Orly Taitz notified Chief Justice John Roberts, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that President Obama was ineligible. Dr. Taitz hand delivered a written objection to President Obama’s ineligibility with supporting evidence. Chief Justice Roberts agreed to examined the evidence. Chief Justice Roberts appointed an investigator with the U.S. Secret Service to investigate the allegation President Obama was ineligible. The U.S Secret Service provided notice to Dr. Taitz they were investigating. Chief Justice Roberts is aware President Obama is ineligible. Chief Justice Roberts is in violation of Article VI of the US Constitution.

    The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence have been waived due to violations of the US Constitution by 3 of the 9 sitting Justices of the Supreme Court. Each pleading will have to be resolved individually by the Court. The all important Rule 4, Rule 9, and Rule 12 motions are voided for cause. The defendants will have to prove they have not been served, prove they have not read a complaint (if one is filed) with particularity and proved they are entitled to a dismissal.

    Or Judge Hanen could issue sua sponte motion and order for production to DHS Sec. Johnson to provide all naturalization records for Barack Hussein Obama, II. If there are no records, then you have a controversy. Orly has a First Amendment right to have that controversy heard in court. Sec. Johnson can swear under oath there are no records for the naturalization of Barack Hussein Obama, II.

    And then Orly can call witnesses for rebuttal to testify Barack Hussein Obama, II, naturalized in 1983 and how they know this to be a fact.Further, Orly can subpoena the records of the SSA to established Obama filed for his SSN as an alien after arriving in the US as an Unaccompanied Minor in 1971. Also, Orly could subpoena Obama’s Occidental College records to establish Obama enrolled as a legal permanent resident alien.

    A jury can decide who’s telling the truth.

  117. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 15, 2014 at 9:02 am #

    The Magic M: Yeah, if you had some proof for that – that would be great…

    You lose again, Sven, you dishonest fool.

    Double irony points for this non-lawyer foreigner to understand your laws better than you.

    You’re quoting the 1986 amendment to the U.S. Code which was not applicable to Obama when he naturalized in 1983. Citizenship is a precious property interest and cannot be traded like baseball cards.

    Obama operatives tested your theory and lost.See Fox v. Clinton, 684 F. 3d 67 – 2012.

  118. avatar
    Paper August 15, 2014 at 9:05 am #

    I suppose once one has jumped off a cliff one option is to daydream.

    SvenMagnussen: Orly could go deeper into it if she wanted.

  119. avatar
    Benji Franklin August 15, 2014 at 9:43 am #

    SvenMagnussen: If I were Orly, here’s what I would do.

    Under your interpretation of the Constitution, you would claim that your name was Andly?

  120. avatar
    The Magic M August 15, 2014 at 9:48 am #

    SvenMagnussen: You’re quoting the 1986 amendment to the U.S. Code

    Reading isn’t your strong suit, is it?
    I quoted what the 1986 amendment replaced with what.
    Let’s try again with more line breaks, shall we?

    “Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 99–653, §18(b), substituted

    [New text]
    “or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years”

    for

    [Old text]
    “upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of a naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday: And provided further, That a person who shall have lost nationality prior to January 1, 1948, through the naturalization in a foreign state of a parent or parents, may, within one year from the effective date of this chapter, apply for a visa and for admission to the United States as a special immigrant under the provisions of section 1101(a)(27)(E) of this title”

    See, it’s not that hard. The last paragraph is what the law said *before* the 1986 amendment. Now explain how that would allow a parent to renounce a minor’s citizenship for him.

  121. avatar
    The Magic M August 15, 2014 at 9:51 am #

    SvenMagnussen: The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence have been waived […] The defendants will have to prove they have not been served

    OK, now you’re really trolling. I’m done feeding you.

  122. avatar
    JoZeppy August 15, 2014 at 10:10 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    That was my initial reaction to Sven, way back when.

    I guess even calling it performance art is a stretch. But no individual can really be as willfully stupid (I can’t even raise it to the level of ignorance) as Sven puts himself off as. I guess really bored troll with no life is the best explanation I can come up with. Orly is at least believably incompetent. Sven is clearly just throwing cr@p around just to get a rise out of us. A person of this magnitude of stupidity would need to be regularly reminded to breathe.

  123. avatar
    bob August 15, 2014 at 12:14 pm #

    Taitz (and Sven) lack standing. The very first birther case (Berg’s) taught that.

    Sven’s masturbations would be dismissed long before completion.

  124. avatar
    sfjeff August 15, 2014 at 12:18 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: 1) allege President Obama is ineligible to hold the Office of the President of the United States due to a violation of the Eligibility Clause after he naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1983.

    What evidence do you have that this happened?

    Pretty straight forward- you base your entire fiction on that claim.

    So other than your creative mind- what evidence do you have to support that claim?

  125. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 15, 2014 at 1:01 pm #

    sfjeff: What evidence do you have that this happened?

    Pretty straight forward- you base your entire fiction on that claim.

    So other than your creative mind- what evidence do you have to support that claim?

    Sven ignores that question every time it’s asked. Every single time. Then he spouts his claims anew, as if the question had never been asked and his claim was self-evident. He’s our most tiresome troll yet.

  126. avatar
    Daniel August 15, 2014 at 1:03 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: which was not applicable to Obama when he naturalized in 1983.

    Now if only you could show that ever happened…. but of course you cannot.

    Unfortunately for you, Sven, you talk as though it’s a given that Obama is ineligible. You build your entire house of cards based on that assumption. Even your delusions of what the law says still rest upon the beams of that basic assumption.

    Your problem is that you cannot show your assumption is valid. In fact all the real evidence shows your assumption is wrong. Therefore any walls of legalish verbal gymnastics you build in your desperate attempt to sound important, are simply based on a foundation of crap.

    Nothing you have to say has any merit, until you first prove your assumption. It’s not up to us, or the government, or the courts, or anyone to take your word for it that the POTUS is ineligible. It’s YOUR ball to carry.

  127. avatar
    Dave August 15, 2014 at 1:18 pm #

    I have been slow to come to this realization, but Taitz’s suit doesn’t say one word about Obama being ineligible. On the contrary, it explicitly and repeatedly refers to him as the President. It never questions that he holds the office legitimately. Here she has the attention of the most sympathetic possible judge, and she has completely left birtherism out of her suit. Almost as if she thinks it would weaken her argument.

    It’s pretty notable when the Queen of the Birthers abandons birtherism.

  128. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 15, 2014 at 2:11 pm #

    The Magic M: [Old text]
    “upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent,

    Okay. from a portion of your message you see a parent could renounce the US citizenship of a minor prior to 1986.

    That’s what the first part of my answer to Rickey was about. Rickey seems to believe a parent could not renounce the citizenship of their child under the age of 18.

    The next part of my answer was about a court case where Obama operatives tested the theory on the State Department determining citizenship classification after an individual obtains US.citizenship. The Circuit Court ruled the State Department was not entitled to Chevron Deference Part 2. Only Article III tribunal is authorized to make that determination.

    Obama naturalized in 1983. The Executive branch does not have Constitutional authority to invalidate Obama’s naturalization status and then reinstate his natural born citizenship status because he returned to the US and established residence before he turned 25 years old. Yes, the US Code said he can do it. The Circuit Court in Fox v. Clinton opined the State Department is not authorized to make those determinations. Only an Article III tribunal can make that determination.

    There are other issues with respect to why Obama chose to naturalize instead seeking US. citizenship reinstatement prior to his 26th birthday, but they are irrelevant. Obama chose to naturalize in 1983 and foreclosed his eligibility to hold the Office of the President of the United States. He could’ve done things differently but he chose naturalization.

    I don’t know why you’re so upset about it. Obama is President. He can’t be removed without an impeachment in the House and trial in the Senate. The only people impacted will be the appointees and executive level US federal officers who support an ineligible President in violation of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.The vast majority of the individuals have federally subsidized professional liability insurance. At most, they will have to leave government service and retire or find a new career.

    All of the bending, twisting, corner cutting and nuance the Executive branch has done to reintstate Obama from a naturalized citizen into natural born citizen, again, will be ruled unconstitutional by the court.

    .

  129. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG August 15, 2014 at 2:33 pm #

    Doc, in this humble internet denizen’s option, Sven isn’t here to debate, just to troll. Kinda seems pointless to keep someone like that around.

  130. avatar
    Paper August 15, 2014 at 3:05 pm #

    Except he didn’t…

    SvenMagnussen: …Obama chose to naturalize in 1983 and foreclosed his eligibility to hold the Office of the President of the United States. He could’ve done things differently but he chose naturalization….

  131. avatar
    Dave B. August 15, 2014 at 3:13 pm #

    Yeah, he is saying some really dumb things. Not quite down to the Adrien Nash standard, but getting there.

    SvenMagnussen: All of the bending, twisting, corner cutting and nuance the Executive branch has done to reintstate Obama from a naturalized citizen into natural born citizen, again, will be ruled unconstitutional by the court.

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    Doc, in this humble internet denizen’s option, Sven isn’t here to debate, just to troll. Kinda seems pointless to keep someone like that around.

  132. avatar
    DaveH August 15, 2014 at 3:15 pm #

    I don’t see that anyone here is “upset” with what you think or write. It’s more of an irritation because you’re so idiotic in your thinking. Nothing you write is accurate. None of your thinking is true. You’re like a broken record that keeps playing an irritating song. Is this the Twilight Zone?

    SvenMagnussen:

    I don’t know why you’re so upset about it. Obama is President. He can’t be removed without an impeachment in the House and trial in the Senate. The only people impacted will be the appointees and executive level US federal officers who support an ineligible President in violation of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.The vast majority of the individuals have federally subsidized professional liability insurance. At most, they will have to leave government service and retire or find a new career.

    .

  133. avatar
    Daniel August 15, 2014 at 3:36 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Obama naturalized in 1983.

    Nope.

    You can keep repeating that mantra until the chickens come home for milking, but the universe is simply not going to alter reality to suit your delusions.

    Obama didn’t naturalize, and so your house of cards is still a failure.

  134. avatar
    Daniel August 15, 2014 at 3:40 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: All of the bending, twisting, corner cutting and nuance the Executive branch has done to reintstate Obama from a naturalized citizen into natural born citizen, again, will be ruled unconstitutional by the court.

    And the noble knights of the Oval Table will drive off the purple spotted unicorn menace and re=establish Beaver Cleaver on the Red, white and blue Throne, and peace will once more reign in the United States of Avalon.

    I do so like a good fairy tale, Sven. But do you really think any of your delusions are really going to come to pass? Really?

    Really?

    Because if you truly believe all that, I have to tell you that’s about as sad a thing as I’ve heard in a long time.

  135. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 15, 2014 at 3:47 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:

    …Obama naturalized in 1983…

    …Obama chose to naturalize…

    …Obama chose to naturalize in 1983…

    …he chose naturalization…

    …to reintstate Obama from a naturalized citizen…

    That’s really stupid.

    Repeating the same nonsensical, disproved lie five times in the same post won’t make it magically become true. All it does is demonstrate that Sven is not arguing in good faith.

    But since he’s been known to use at least thirty different sockpuppets on this blog, we already knew that, didn’t we?

  136. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 15, 2014 at 3:50 pm #

    Daniel:

    … re=establish Beaver Cleaver on the Red, white and blue Throne, and peace will once more reign in the United States of Avalon.

    There is very real debate over whether Cleaver is a uniter or a divider, though.

  137. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 15, 2014 at 4:07 pm #

    Dave:

    It’s pretty notable when the Queen of the Birthers abandons birtherism.

    “I am beeg! Is birtherism that got small!”

    – Bloody Orly Desmond

  138. avatar
    JoZeppy August 15, 2014 at 4:15 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Doc, in this humble internet denizen’s option, Sven isn’t here to debate, just to troll. Kinda seems pointless to keep someone like that around.

    While I tend to like to keep an odd birther in the mix to keep interesting (things do get rather boring without them), I think any delusions that Sven actually believes the garbage he posts, and that his only purpose he is anything but trolling are long since past.

    I agree. Time to pull the plug on this troll. He adds even less to the discussion than actual birthers.

  139. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 15, 2014 at 5:23 pm #

    I find him easy to ignore.

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Doc, in this humble internet denizen’s option, Sven isn’t here to debate, just to troll. Kinda seems pointless to keep someone like that around.

  140. avatar
    sfjeff August 15, 2014 at 5:58 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: There are other issues with respect to why Obama chose to naturalize instead seeking US. citizenship reinstatement prior to his 26th birthday, but they are irrelevant. Obama chose to naturalize in 1983 and foreclosed his eligibility to hold the Office of the President of the United States. He could’ve done things differently but he chose naturalization.

    I liked the Sven and the Pirates stories better.

    At least you could have put Pirates in this tale.

  141. avatar
    Keith August 15, 2014 at 9:32 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I find him easy to ignore.

    I’m just waiting to see how he ties his adoption by the Connecticut Illuminati (or what ever it was) theory into this magnificent (non-)legal edifice.

  142. avatar
    JPotter August 15, 2014 at 10:29 pm #

    Bonsall Obot: I’d be curious to know if Sven and his dozens of sockpuppets have an IP address related to any locale in or around Independence, MO.

    Heh, that would explain his mangling of Maskell’s name … Sven has Claire Claire McCaskill (Sen., D-MO) on the brain!

  143. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 15, 2014 at 10:42 pm #

    JPotter: Heh, that would explain his mangling of Maskell’s name … Sven has Claire Claire McCaskill (Sen., D-MO) on the brain!

    Yes, the mysterious Mccaskell; always worth pointing out that, when confronted with this particular idiocy, Sven doubled down, then refused to discuss it.

    He’s a terribly mendacious troll, but he’s the only one we’ve got, for now.

  144. avatar
    The Magic M August 16, 2014 at 2:34 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Okay. from a portion of your message you see a parent could renounce the US citizenship of a minor prior to 1986.

    Yes, from a portion of the sentence “1 plus 1 is 2, not 3″ you can see that 1 plus 1 is 3.
    Your trolling gets boring.

    And no, the law prior to 1986 set the age limit to 21 effectively (unless you want to argue one of the exceptions, which you are free to do):

    Provided That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section […] as the result of a naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday

    So now you have to argue how Obama did not establish a permanent residence in the US prior to his 25th birthday. Go ahead, make some stuff up.

  145. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 16, 2014 at 3:03 am #

    Sven,

    People haven’t been able to lose citizenship due to parents since at least 1939. Read the case of Perkins v. Elg (1939). That is exactly the fact-pattern that you describe, and the United States Supreme Court ruled that Ms. Elg did not lose her citizenship when her parents took her to a foreign country, and naturalized, therefore giving their daughter Sweedish Citizenship. The Supreme Court ruled that Ms. Elg did not give up her citizenship.

    The fact pattern is the following:

    Ms. Elg was born in the United States. While she was a minor, she was taken back to her parent’s homeland. Her parents renounced their U.S. Citizenship, and became citizens of their homeland. Ms. Elg later returned to the United States at the age of 18, and resumed living in the United States.

    The Supreme Court ruled that Ms. Elg never gave up her citizenship, and elected upon reaching the age of majority that she would remain a U.S. Citizen by coming back to the United States, and resuming her life here.

    Now, what you want us to believe is that Mr. Obama was born in the United States. While he was a minor, he was taken to his step-father’s homeland. Now, let’s assume that his parents renounced their U.S. citizen (Stanley Ann Dunham didn’t, but for the purposes of this excercise, let’s say that she did). Obama later returned to the United States at the ripe old age of 10, far before the age of Majority, and resumed living here. However, you want us to believe that this paticular precedent didn’t apply because…

    I can’t name one fact that would mean that this pattern wouldn’t apply. Perkins v. Elg is exactly this same fact pattern. The Supreme Court ruled that Obama didn’t renounce his citizenship.

  146. avatar
    John Reilly August 16, 2014 at 3:46 am #

    dunstvangeet: I can’t name one fact that would mean that this pattern wouldn’t apply.

    Of course there’s a difference. Ms. Elg was white. Pres. Obama is Black.

  147. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 16, 2014 at 5:10 am #

    dunstvangeet:
    Sven,

    People haven’t been able to lose citizenship due to parents since at least 1939.Read the case of Perkins v. Elg (1939).That is exactly the fact-pattern that you describe, and the United States Supreme Court ruled that Ms. Elg did not lose her citizenship when her parents took her to a foreign country, and naturalized, therefore giving their daughter Sweedish Citizenship.The Supreme Court ruled that Ms. Elg did not give up her citizenship.

    The fact pattern is the following:

    Ms. Elg was born in the United States.While she was a minor, she was taken back to her parent’s homeland.Her parents renounced their U.S. Citizenship, and became citizens of their homeland.Ms. Elg later returned to the United States at the age of 18, and resumed living in the United States.

    The Supreme Court ruled that Ms. Elg never gave up her citizenship, and elected upon reaching the age of majority that she would remain a U.S. Citizen by coming back to the United States, and resuming her life here.

    Now, what you want us to believe is that Mr. Obama was born in the United States.While he was a minor, he was taken to his step-father’s homeland.Now, let’s assume that his parents renounced their U.S. citizen (Stanley Ann Dunham didn’t, but for the purposes of this excercise, let’s say that she did).Obama later returned to the United States at the ripe old age of 10, far before the age of Majority, and resumed living here.However, you want us to believe that this paticular precedent didn’t apply because…

    I can’t name one fact that would mean that this pattern wouldn’t apply.Perkins v. Elg is exactly this same fact pattern.The Supreme Court ruled that Obama didn’t renounce his citizenship.

    Ms. Elg went to court and complained she did not give up her citizenship despite the sworn testimony her parents presented to the State Department and the fact the State Department issued a CLN. The court agreed with Ms. Elg and ruled she did not forfeit her citizenship and the CLN issued was voided. The court is Constitutionally authorized to void a CLN after the Executive branch issues it if the petitioner can establish the CLN was issued fraudulently.

    President Obama did not go court and complain the CLN should be voided due to fraud. Instead, Obama chose to become a citizen after completing the naturalization process. After he was issued a Certificate of Naturalization, he foreclosed his eligibility to hold the Office of the President of the United States.

    The President, the State Department, DOJ and DHS have massaged, twisted, and nuanced the U.S. Code to convert President Obama';s citizenship status from a naturalized citizen to a natural born citizen. Fox v Clinton was test case. It failed. The Executive branch is not authorized to make decisions on the classification status of a citizen. Only the court is Constitutionally authorized to make that determination.

    The court won’t rule Obama’s CLN was issued fraudulently because he chose to accept the fact he was issued a CLN and petitioned the U.S. federal government to naturalize pursuant to the INA. In contrast, Ms. Elg never accepted the fact she was not a U.S. citizen and chose to go to court to have the court order the CLN was void due to fraud.

    The Congress is Constitutionally authorized to make uniform rules for naturalization.
    The Executive branch is Constitutionally authorized to implement and enforce the uniform rules for naturalization. Only the Court is Constitutionally authorized to make determinations on citizenship status after a person becomes a citizen. President Obama and Ms. Elg became US citizens at birth. President Obama and Ms. Elg moved of the U.S. and were issued CLNs at the request of their parents. President Obama and Ms. Elg returned to the U.S. and established permanent residency. Ms..Elg complained in federal court her CLN was issued fraudulently and is void. President Obama accepted the fact he had been issued a CLN and naturalized in 1983.

    Consequently, the U.S. Code was amended in 1986 to state a CLN cannot be issued to a person under the age of 18. The amendment avoids future lawsuits from persons like Ms. Elg who claim the CLN issued during their minority was fraudulently issued. President Obama has a right to be issued a CLN and accept the fact he was issued a CLN during his minority. See Savorgnan v. United States, 338 U.S. 491, 497–99 (1950) (“[T]he United States has supported the right of expatriation as a natural and inherent right of all people. . . . [The INA’s predecessor] Acts are to be read in the light of the declaration of policy favoring freedom of expatriation which stands unrepealed.” (citations omitted)).

  148. avatar
    Paper August 16, 2014 at 8:31 am #

    FIFY

    SvenMagnussen:

    The court won’t rule Obama’s CLN was issued fraudulently because no such CLN was ever issued in the first place….

    President Obama never was issued a CLN and never was naturalized…not in 1983…not ever.

  149. avatar
    Paper August 16, 2014 at 8:40 am #

    But you knew that anyway…for years now.

  150. avatar
    bovril August 16, 2014 at 9:36 am #

    So, Sven, this CLN you keep babbling on about….. you have seen it one assumes, after all such vehement faith must have some basis in personal proof…. don’t yoū..?

  151. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 16, 2014 at 12:11 pm #

    What Sven posted is nothing short of a tantrum, insisting that the world and facts bend to his will.

    How unseemly. How embarrassing. A (presumably) once-respected Harvard educated attorney, crossing his arms, stamping his feet and pouting out his lower lip. And no one in his life loves him enough to stop him. A pathetic end to a once-promising life, spending his final days wallowing in racist fantasies.

  152. avatar
    Rickey August 16, 2014 at 6:52 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Ms. Elg went to court and complained she did not give up her citizenship despite the sworn testimony her parents presented to the State Department and the fact the State Department issued a CLN. The court agreed with Ms. Elg and ruled she did not forfeit her citizenship and the CLN issued was voided. The court is Constitutionally authorized to void a CLN after the Executive branch issues it if the petitioner can establish the CLN was issued fraudulently.

    You’re lying again. No surprise there.

    Elg never argued that fraud was involved in her case, There is nothing in the record to suggest that she was ever issued a CLN, and the Supreme Court never mentioned fraud in its decision. Indeed, the decision totally eviscerates your claim that Obama could have lost his U.S citizenship while he was living in Indonesia:

    Expatriation is the voluntary renunciation or abandonment of nationality and allegiance. It has no application to the removal from this country of a native citizen during minority. In such a case the voluntary action which is of the essence of the right of expatriation is lacking. That right is fittingly recognized where a child born here, who may be, or may become, subject to a dual nationality, elects on attaining majority citizenship in the country to which he has been removed. But there is no basis for invoking the doctrine of expatriation where native citizen who is removed to his parents’ country of origin during minority returns here on his majority and elects to remain and to maintain his American citizenship.

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=325

  153. avatar
    Dave August 16, 2014 at 8:17 pm #

    Taitz has a couple posts about a demand she sent last Thursday that 1) all the defendants appear at the hearing, 2) all the defendants make themselves available for deposition before the hearing, and 3) that defendants provide her with a ludicrous and monumental list of documentation. And that, if they don’t agree to all this by last Friday, she will file a motion to compel.

    She posted the reply she got, which was that the attorney would be “meeting with [the] client” and would get back to her next week. Taitz took this to mean he would be meeting with the President.

    Since they did not agree by last Friday, I am fervently hoping she files her threatened motion to compel. Although with this lawsuit she has abandoned birtherism, I can hope that she hasn’t abandoned her need to file copious frivolous motions. And it would be entertaining to see how Judge Hanen would deal with her motion.

  154. avatar
    Rickey August 16, 2014 at 8:58 pm #

    Dave:
    Taitz has a couple posts about a demand she sent last Thursday that 1) all the defendants appear at the hearing, 2) all the defendants make themselves available for deposition before the hearing, and 3) that defendants provide her with a ludicrous and monumental list of documentation. And that, if they don’t agree to all this by last Friday, she will file a motion to compel.

    She posted the reply she got, which was that the attorney would be “meeting with [the] client” and would get back to her next week. Taitz took this to mean he would be meeting with the President.

    Since they did not agree by last Friday, I am fervently hoping she files her threatened motion to compel. Although with this lawsuit she has abandoned birtherism, I can hope that she hasn’t abandoned her need to file copious frivolous motions. And it would be entertaining to see how Judge Hanen would deal with her motion.

    That is OrlyLaw at work.

    She has not filed a Complaint. She has no right to discovery, whether it is depositions or documents. The defendants have no obligation to attend the oral arguments. They have no obligation to produce any documents.

    A motion to compel would be frivolous, but I agree that she should go ahead and file one. It should open the judge’s eyes to who he is dealing with.

  155. avatar
    Dave August 16, 2014 at 9:33 pm #

    By the way, lately my visits to Taitz’s website have occasionally resulted in popups and redirects that wind up downloading a “setup.exe” without my consent. I have no doubt that file is malware, but I’m not too worried about it — I just delete it — but you might want to be wary.

  156. avatar
    Atticus Finch August 17, 2014 at 11:17 am #

    SvenMagnussen: The U.S. Code was amended in 1986 with respect to an age requirement for the issuance of a CLN. Prior to 1986, a U.S. citizen of any age could move out of the U.S., renounce their citizenship and be issued a CLN. And prior to 2009, the State Department accepted the sworn testimony of a parent or guardian on behalf of a child who requested a CLN.

    After 1986, the U.S. Code required a US citizen who have move out of the country and renounced to be 18 years old or older before a CLN will be issued. And since 2009, the State Department will not accept the sworn testimony of a parent or guardian of minor seeking US recognition of relinquishment of US citizenship. Relinquishment and renouncement are technically different. In renouncement, the US formally recognizes termination of the U.S. citizenship with the issuance of a CLN. In relinquishment, the US informally recognizes the US citizen believes they are not a US citizen. And minor can move out of the country and relinquish their US citizenship, but the parent will have to hire a lawyer or issue a Power of Attorney to a non-family member to speak on behalf of the child.

    Obama, through his mother, requested a CLN in the 1960′s. In the 1960′s, the U.S. Code did not require a U.S. citizen to be 18 years old to renounce and a parent could represent legal interests of a minor before the State Department. Since the 1960′s, things have changed. A CLN cannot be issued to a person under 18 years old since 1986. And since 2009, the State Department will not accept sworn testimony from a parent or legal guardian of a child who wants to be recognized by the U.S. as a person who has voluntarily relinquished their U.S. citizen.

    So if you only considered the laws and regulations actively enforced in 2014, then it would be impossible for a minor to move out of the US and renounce. Obama moved out of the US and renounced in the 1960′s. The laws and regulations were very different in the 1960′s than they are today.

    A parent can’t strip a United States citizenship of a child born in the United States. A child can only renounced his or her United State citizenship when she or he becomes of age and does any of the proscribed acts contained in 8 U.S.C. 1481 which states in relevant part:

    Section 1481 -Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

    (a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by VOLUNTARILY PERFORMING ACTS WITH THE INTENTION of relinquishing United States nationality- (emphasis added)

    The operative phrase in this section is “VOLUNTARILY performing any of the following acts with the INTENTION of relinquishing United States nationality”

    Supreme court has held that the actions of a parent do not legally affect the natural born citizenship status of the child. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)(child born to alien Swedish citizens in the United States who subsequently become naturalized citizens and then returned to Sweden with child) Mandoli v. Acheson, 344 U.S. 133 (1952)(child born to alien Italian citizens in the United States and under Italian law the child was also a national of Italy who subsequently returned to Italy with child)

    The Court pointed out that it has long been a recognized principle in this country that if a child born here, is taken, during minority, to the country of its parents’ origin where its parents resume their former allegiance, he does not thereby lose his citizenship in the United States, provided that on attaining majority he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to resume his duties.
    Haaland v. Attorney General of the United States, 42 F. Supp.13, 20 (D. MD 1941)

    As such, since the only person who can renounced his or her United States citizenship is the person him or herself I am afraid that in this case Obama a SIX YEAR OLD CHILD, being a minor, lacks the legal capacity to show intent to renounce his citizenship. See Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980)(requirement of preponderance of the evidence that person intent to renounce his citizenship), Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967) (loss of citizenship required the individual’s assent).

  157. avatar
    Dave August 17, 2014 at 7:11 pm #

    Taitz has found a news article about Obama interrupting his vacation, and she puts this together with the DoJ lawyer’s statement that he will meet with his clients, and concludes that Obama is heading back to DC all because of her.

    There is no sign of her filing the threatened motion to compel. Rats.

  158. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 17, 2014 at 7:16 pm #

    Narcissism is a helluva drug.

    Have faith; after she gets her “NO” (or non-answer) on Wednesday, she’ll bay at the moon AND file that motion. Because she is Orly, and that is THE stupidest option.

  159. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 17, 2014 at 10:06 pm #

    Her Majesty’s website is down at the moment; Error 500. Let’s see what kind of magic she can work on a Sunday evening.

  160. avatar
    Notorial Dissent August 17, 2014 at 11:18 pm #

    Atticus Finch thank you for the full quote of Nationality.

    I may be wrong, but Sven’s delusory rantings and ravings notwithstanding, it has always been my understanding nationality/citizenship is one of those special cases that Fed law is very hard case and absolute about. You either are or you aren’t, and you can’t give it up unless you go through the very proper and long drawn out ritual, with no deviations or errors, or have it taken from you, see prior comment.

    Simply put, most particularly for Sven’s benefit, a child/minor DOES NOT have the legal capacity until they reach the age of 21 to renounce their birth citizenship, regardless of what their parent(s) may or may not do. Parents/guardians/whatever, DO NOT have the capacity to renounce citizenship on the behalf of a child/minor.

    There is simply No way that Obama could have lost his citizenship as a child as he was a minor for the short period he was out of the US, he returned at age 10, I believe it was, and remained here from then on other than short trips out of the country. He could not have gotten Indonesian citizenship as a child and as an adult he had no real legal connection to the country. He probably had dual UK/Kenyan citizenship but those both lapsed at age 21 when he didn’t affirmatively elect to become a Kenyan citizen, they don’t recognize or allow dual citizenship, so we are back to the fact that he was and remained a NB US citizen from birth.

    Life’s tough Sven, but then it always is for ignorant idiots. Thank you once again for letting me point that out, can’t tell you how much I enjoy it.

  161. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 17, 2014 at 11:24 pm #

    Ah, but Sven will be here in about six hours (maybe eight,) ignoring everything that’s been posted, again insisting (without evidence) that the President naturalized, and why did he naturalize, that proves he lost his NBC status, because why else would he naturalize?

    Yes, he is that predictable, that racist, that tedious and that dishonest.

  162. avatar
    The Magic M August 18, 2014 at 5:38 am #

    And he will continue to ignore that I pointed out his dishonesty in the claim that “the law was changed in 1986 to set the age requirement to 18″ somehow meant that the age requirement was *below* 18 before when in fact it was *above* 18.

    He’s a lying troll and no longer worthy of my attention.

  163. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 18, 2014 at 6:31 am #

    Rickey: You’re lying again. No surprise there.

    Elg never argued that fraud was involved in her case, There is nothing in the record to suggest that she was ever issued a CLN, and the Supreme Court never mentioned fraud in its decision. Indeed, the decision totally eviscerates your claim that Obama could have lost his U.S citizenship while he was living in Indonesia:

    Expatriation is the voluntary renunciation or abandonment of nationality and allegiance. It has no application to the removal from this country of a native citizen during minority. In such a case the voluntary action which is of the essence of the right of expatriation is lacking. That right is fittingly recognized where a child born here, who may be, or may become, subject to a dual nationality, elects on attaining majority citizenship in the country to which he has been removed. But there is no basis for invoking the doctrine of expatriation where native citizen who is removed to his parents’ country of origin during minority returns here on his majority and elects to remain and to maintain his American citizenship.

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=325

    Rickey and Atticus:

    Any U.S. citizen of any age has a fundmental right to move out of the US, expatriate and terminate U.S. citizenship. See Savorgnan v. United States, 338 U.S. 491, 497–99 (1950) (“[T]he United States has supported the right of expatriation as a natural and inherent right of all people. . . . [The INA’s predecessor] Acts are to be read in the light of the declaration of policy favoring freedom of expatriation which stands unrepealed.” (citations omitted)).

    Expatriation and termination of US citizenship is a a two stage process.

    Stage 1: the US citizen voluntarily informs the U.S federal government they have voluntarily relinquished their US citizen with a communication, oath of renunciation or act the US federal government considered to be a voluntary renunciation (Vance v. Terrazas, Terrazas notified the government of Mexico he renounced his U.S. citizenship.)

    Stage 2: the US federal government issued a US citizen who has satisfactorily completed Stage 1 of process issued the U.S. citizen a CLN. Many people incorrectly believe Stage 1 is all it takes. After voluntary relinquishment of US citizenship, the US federal government still considers the person a US citizen until a CLN is issued.

    So, when the US code indicates a person in their minority cannot renounce their US citizenship or renouncement of US citizenship does not take place unless there is a preponderance of the evidence presented by the person claiming voluntarily relinquishment of US citizenship, then the US code is referring to Stage 2 of the process (issuance of a CLN).

    For example, Ms. Elg’s father completes Stage 1 of the process of terminating US. citizenship for himself and Ms. Elg by naturalizing in a foreign state. Stage 1 is complete, but the US. federal government still considers Mr. Elg and Ms. Elg US citizens because a CLN has not been issued. This is confirmed by the fact that Ms. Elg was issued a US passport to return to the US.A CLN had not been issued for Ms. Elg, so Ms. Elg was issued a US. passport. Moreover, by applying for a U.S.passport, Ms. Elg terminated Stage 1 of the citizenship termination process (don’t stop reading, there is more information in the next paragraph.)

    Ms. Elg returned to the US with her new US passport after she applied for it. Her application for a US. passport terminated any previous assumption of voluntary relinquishment. In spite of the termination of the assumption of voluntary relinquishment of US citizenship (Stage 1), the US Secretary of Labor and Commissioner of Immigration began deportation proceedings against Ms. Elg after she established residency in the US and after she traveled to the US with a US passport. The US federal government would not have initiated deportation proceedings if a CLN had not been issued for Ms. Elg after she established residency in the U.S. She would not have been issued a US passport if a CLN had been issued before she left for the US (don’t stop reading here, more important information in the next paragraph.)

    Ms. filed a federal lawsuit alleging the Secretary of Labor and the Commissioner of Immigration were fraudulently attempting to deport a US citizen living in the US after the US citizen had been issued a US passport to travel from Sweden to the US. The US federal government moved to have Ms Elg’s federal lawsuit dismissed. The District Court dismissed Ms. Elg’s lawsuit after ruling the court will defer to the decision of the Executive branch with respect to Ms. This means that the US federal government proved to the court it had issued a CLN to Ms. Elg while she was living in the US. The District Court would not have dismissed the case and allowed the US federal government to continue deportation proceedings against Ms. Elg is she were a US citizen. The Circuit Court affirmed the District Court decision.

    The Supreme Court reversed and remanded after deciding Ms. Elg abandoned her voluntary relinquishment of US citizenship when she applied for a US passport and returned to the US to establish residency. Since Stage 1 (voluntary relinquishment had been abandoned by the US citizen, Ms. Elg), then the issuance of a CLN was contrary to law. The US federal government is not authorized to deport US citizens. Ms. Elg’s CLN was voided by the Supreme Court because Ms. Elg abandoned Stage 1 when she applied for a US passport and returned to the US.

    Remember, the U.S. Code wasn’t amended until 1986 to prohibit the issuance of a CLN to a minor. Obama was issued a CLN in 1968. Obama naturalized in 1983, foreclosing any opportunity for him to declare he had abandoned Stage 1 (voluntary relinquishment). In contrast, Ms. Elg went to court and alleged the US. government was committing fraud for initiating deportation proceedings. Obama sought asylum as a foreign national apprehended at the port of entry of the Hawaii International Airport. The US federal government went to federal court to have 10 year old Obama deported for unlawfully entering the country. The federal court granted Obama asylum with legal custody transferred to Catholic Charities, Inc of Hartford Connecticut and physical custody transferred to his grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham.

    Obama remained a foreign national living in America as a permanent resident alien until he completed the naturalization process in 1983. The Supreme Court opined Ms. Elg abandoned her voluntary relinquishment of US citizenship when she applied and received a US. passport before returning to the US. The issuance of a US passport to Ms. Elg foreclosed any opportunity for the U.S. federal government to issue her a CLN and deport her from the US.

  164. avatar
    Paper August 18, 2014 at 7:19 am #

    No, he was not, and no, he did not. None of this has any basis in reality. Where is any supporting evidence, before you start harping on fantastical notions, much less opining on legal processes?

    But as I have said before, you need to speak louder and prouder. There is an election coming up, and your voice can only help the Democrats.

    SvenMagnussen: Rickey and Atticus:

    Obama was issued a CLN in 1968. Obama naturalized in 1983…Obama sought asylum as a foreign national apprehended at the port of entry of the Hawaii International Airport. The US federal government went to federal court to have 10 year old Obama deported for unlawfully entering the country. The federal court granted Obama asylum with legal custody transferred to Catholic Charities, Inc of Hartford Connecticut and physical custody transferred to his grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham.

    Obama remained a foreign national living in America as a permanent resident alien until he completed the naturalization process in 1983….

  165. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 18, 2014 at 7:27 am #

    Seven hours and seven minutes, as promised. Predictable, racist, tedious and dishonest, as advertised.

  166. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 18, 2014 at 8:07 am #

    The Magic M:
    And he will continue to ignore that I pointed out his dishonesty in the claim that “the law was changed in 1986 to set the age requirement to 18″ somehow meant that the age requirement was *below* 18 before when in fact it was *above* 18.

    He’s a lying troll and no longer worthy of my attention.

    See Savorgnan v. United States, 338 U.S. 491, 497–99 (1950). Expatriation is a fundamental right of any US citizen of any age.

    Here’s the procedure a foreign affairs officer should follow when a representative of a US citizen who has died requests a CLN for the US citizen posthumously: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/105594.pdf

    Here’s the procedure a foreign affairs officer should follow when a legal representative of a US citizen who is under the age of 18 should follow: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/120538.pdf

    The most relevant part, the part that you think that gives the Executive branch the authority to deny a US citizen, who happens to be under 18 (or under age 26 prior to 1986) is:

    Age limitations in the INA: INA 349(a)(1), INA 349(a)(2) and INA 349(a)(4)
    contain specific provisions limiting their applicability to a person “having
    attained the age of eighteen years.” No finding of loss of nationality may be
    made for these acts committed by a person under the age of eighteen.

    “A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing” any designated expatriating act “with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality.” 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a). This is the first stage of a two stage process of terminating US citizenship. US citizenship is not terminated until Stage 2 is complete … issuance of a CLN by the US federal government.

    “Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or
    proceeding . . . the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence.” 8 U.S.C. § 1481(b).

    In the Elg case, the District ruled the US federal government proved Elg lost her citizenship when it showed the court a CLN was issued after Elg was issued a US passport and after Elg returned to the US to establish residency. It would have been fraudulent for the US government to begin deportation proceedings without first issuing a CLN.In fact, Elg sued the US federal government for fraudulently initiating deporation proceedings against a US citizen living in the US.

    The Supreme Court reversed and remanded Elg because the US federal government failed to prove Elg lost her citizenship after she was issued a US passport and established residency in the US. Since the Supreme Court ruled the US federal government failed to prove Elg voluntarily relinquished her US citizenship after she was issued a US passport and returned to the US to establish residency, the Supreme Court voided the CLN issued by the US federal government.

    Obama is distinguishable from Elg because Obama was issued a CLN in 1968. Obama returned to the US in 1971 as a foreign national.If Obama had filed a lawsuit against the US federal government, like Elg, then the court would have found his voluntary relinquishment (Stage 1) had been abandoned and the CLN was void.

    Unlike Elg, Obama accepted the fact the US federal government issued him a CLN in 1968 and he sought asylum in the US as a foreign national after apprehension in 1971 at the port of entry, Hawaii Intl. Airport. Obama’s opportunity to file suit against the US federal government for fraudulently issuing him a CLN was foreclosed when he naturalized as a US citizen in 1983.

  167. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 18, 2014 at 8:13 am #

    See? Ignoring all evidence, he continues to insist that Obama, as a child, renounced his citizenship, and later naturalized. Both statements are patently absurd, and no evidence exists that this ever occurred.

    Predictable. Racist. Tedious. Dishonest.

  168. avatar
    DaveH August 18, 2014 at 8:13 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Savorgnan v. United States,

    Sven is of course lying and not representing anything remotely close to the truth.

    Savorgan v United States was about a woman that was 26 years old, married an Italian and when she applied for Italian citizenship as it was required for the Italian man to marry her she lost her US Citizenship because part of the language in the document she signed also was to renounce her US Citizenship.

    He keeps quoting these cases but doesn’t provide the actual context of any of them. And he still hasn’t provided any proof that President Obama ever gave up his US Citizenship (which HE COULD NOT HAVE DONE as a minor) nor could his mother do it for him. There’s nothing in US law that allows a parent to renounce the citizenship of a child that was born here in he United States. The only way that could be done was when the child became an adult and willingly renounced his or her citizenship.

  169. avatar
    DaveH August 18, 2014 at 8:22 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Here’s the procedure a foreign affairs officer should follow when a legal representative of a US citizen who is under the age of 18 should follow: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/120538.pdf

    And the above link isn’t useful information. This regards children of foreign nationals that obtained US citizenship because they were born here and the parent DID NOT want them to have US citizenship.

    And it is very difficult for the child to renounce their citizenship. The child has to be interviewed in the presence of another person that is not a relative to the child and then they will make the decision on whether or not the child is sufficiently mature and truly understands the implications of giving up their citizenship.

    That is a big difference from a US citizen parent that gave birth to a US citizen child here in the United States.

  170. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 18, 2014 at 8:29 am #

    Bonsall Obot:
    Ah, but Sven will be here in about six hours (maybe eight,) ignoring everything that’s been posted, again insisting (without evidence) that the President naturalized, and why did he naturalize, that proves he lost his NBC status, because why else would he naturalize?

    Yes, he is that predictable, that racist, that tedious and that dishonest.

    Obama chose to naturalize in 1983. Obama could have sued the US federal government for issuing him a CLN in 1968 and would have won. I explained why Obama would have won in the previous two messages above.

    Rickey, Atticus, Magic M and quite a few others think the opinion issued in Savorgnan v. United States, 338 U.S. 491, 497–99 (1950) has been voided by the US Code and the US Code of Federal Regulations. In Fox v. Clinton, 684 F. 3d 67 – 2012, the Circuit Court opined the State Department is not entitled to Chevron deference with respect to interpretation of the INA Section 349(a)(1).

  171. avatar
    Bovril August 18, 2014 at 8:30 am #

    bovril:
    So, Sven, this CLN you keep babbling on about….. you have seen it one assumes, after all such vehement faith must have some basis in personal proof…. don’t yoū..?

    Still waiting on an answer Sven

  172. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 18, 2014 at 8:33 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Obama chose to naturalize in 1983.

    There is literally zero evidence that this happened. It is instructive that you believe it anyway.

  173. avatar
    John Reilly August 18, 2014 at 9:05 am #

    Bonsall Obot: There is literally zero evidence that this happened. It is instructive that you believe it anyway.

    It is instructive that he refuses to produce the evidence at all.

  174. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 18, 2014 at 9:33 am #

    DaveH: And the above link isn’t useful information. This regards children of foreign nationals that obtained US citizenship because they were born here and the parent DID NOT want them to have US citizenship.

    And it is very difficult for the child to renounce their citizenship. The child has to be interviewed in the presence of another person that is not a relative to the child and then they will make the decision on whether or not the child is sufficiently mature and truly understands the implications of giving up their citizenship.

    That is a big difference from a US citizen parent that gave birth to a US citizen child here in the United States.

    Congress is authorized to establish a uniform rule of naturalization and the Executive is authorized to implement the uniform rule of naturalization. For some oddball reason, Congress thinks its authorized to establish a uniform rule of denaturalization and the Executive branch is authorized to implement those rules of denaturalization. They are not.

    Expatriation is a right. In 1968, SoS Dean Rusk recognized Obama’s right to denaturalize and issued him a CLN. If at anytime prior to 6 months past Obama’s birthday Obama had requested a US passport after he had been issued a CLN, the State Department would have been required to cancel his CLN and issue him a US passport. If Obama had requested a US passport at anytime prior to 6 months past his 18th birthday and the State Department refused to issue him a US passport because he had been issued a CLN in 1968, then Obama could sue the US federal government in federal court and won.

    Obama’s opportunity to demand a US passport was foreclosed by his choice not to request a US passport from 6 months past his 18th birthday until he naturalized in 1983. After he naturalized, he was entitled to a US passport.

    Obots desperately want you to believe the Congress can pass a Congressional Act that forecloses your opportunity to exercise a fundamental right to denaturalize by amending the Immigration and Naturalization Act. The INA is for people immigrating to America and for legal permanent resident aliens who want to become Americans.

    The courts have consistently held the Executive branch is not qualified to interpret the INA with respect to denaturalization. Only the court can interpret the INA with respect to denaturalization.

  175. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 18, 2014 at 9:36 am #

    John Reilly: It is instructive that he refuses to produce the evidence at all.

    He can’t produce what he doesn’t have. Evidence. Integrity. Clarity. I could go on.

    Free advice, Sven. At your advanced age, your limited time is better spent, if you MUST continue to propound absurd theories, pushing them on your fellow feebleminded citizens at BR, Stormfront and Bloody Orly’s Treason Emporium. As has been amply demonstrated, the readers of this blog won’t buy your speculations without evidence. You are wasting everyone’s time, especially your own.

  176. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 18, 2014 at 10:17 am #

    DaveH: There’s nothing in US law that allows a parent to renounce the citizenship of a child that was born here in he United States.

    It’s a fundamental right for any citizen, regardless of how they obtained their US citizenship and their age, to move out of the country and expatriate themselves voluntarily.

    In the Elg case, Ms. Elg , a native born, had the right to voluntarily relinquish her US citizenship by and through her father, an immigrant, and the fundamental right to change her mind until she reached the age of majority at that time (26 years old). SCOTUS held Ms. Elg changed her mind about her voluntary relinquishment when she applied for a US passport and moved back to America to establish residency. Consequently, the US federal government was foreclosed from deporting her because she changed her mind on the voluntary relinquishment before she turned age 26 (the age of majority at that time.)

    Obama had a fundamental right, like Elg, to voluntarily relinquish his US citizenship by and through his mother in 1968. SoS Rusk recognized Obama’s right to denaturalize and issued him a CLN in 1968 with the caveat that Obama could void the CLN at anytime prior to 6 months past his 18th birthday. 18 was the age of majority at that time. This scenario is consistent with the SCOTUS ruling in Perkins v. Elg.

    Far from being racist, SoS Rusk gave Obama exceptional opportunities to make profound decisions about his US citizenship with the caveat Obama could change his mind at anytime before 6 months past his 18th birthday. SoS Rusk gave Obama opportunities and the ability to make decisions about his life that most children are not allowed to make because they have never established residency outside of the US.

  177. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 18, 2014 at 10:29 am #

    SvenMagnussen: It’s a fundamental right for any citizen, regardless of how they obtained their US citizenship and their age, to move out of the country and expatriate themselves voluntarily.

    Cute bit of.misdirection, since there’s literally zero evidence this ever happened in the President’s case.

    SvenMagnussen:

    Obama had a fundamental right, like Elg, to voluntarily relinquish his US citizenship by and through his mother in 1968.

    Even if that were true (it’s not,) it’s irrelevant. There’s no evidence this happened.

    SvenMagnussen:
    SoS Rusk recognized Obama’s right to denaturalize and issued him a CLN in 1968

    Never happened. Every shred of evidence that actually exists contradicts this fantasy of yours.

    SvenMagnussen:

    Far from being racist, SoS Rusk gave Obama exceptional opportunities to make profound decisions about his US citizenship with the caveat Obama could change his mind at anytime before 6 months past his 18th birthday.

    Again, misdirection. You’re the racist, not Rusk. No one ever said otherwise. The President never surrendered his citizenship and never naturalized.

    Seriously, stop being childish. Repeating a lie over and over and over doesn’t make it magically come true. You’re almost eighty, not eight. You should know better.

  178. avatar
    John Reilly August 18, 2014 at 10:37 am #

    If the 1968 “CLN” existed Sven would provide a copy, or a link to a copy.

    Sven remains a racist troll. And a liar.

  179. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 18, 2014 at 10:40 am #

    John Reilly:
    If the 1968 “CLN” existed Sven would provide a copy, or a link to a copy.

    Sven remains a racist troll.And a liar.

    It would have to be a link directly to his troubled mind, and no way would I click THAT.

  180. avatar
    Lupin August 18, 2014 at 10:43 am #

    SvenMagnussen: It’s a fundamental right for any citizen, regardless of how they obtained their US citizenship and their age, to move out of the country and expatriate themselves voluntarily.

    Bold mine.

    This strikes me as rather preposterous. Frankly, I don’t know any (western?) country that allows a minor child to make that kind of decision by itself.

  181. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 18, 2014 at 10:55 am #

    Lupin:
    Frankly, I don’t know any (western?) country that allows a minor child to make that kind of decision by itself.

    Ah, but Rusk was being not-racist by affording a seven-year-old child the agency to surrender his citizenship, a decision that seven-year-old children inherently grasp the import of.

    By trying to deny this seven-year-old child his right to surrender his birthright citizenship, you’re the real racist.

  182. avatar
    Bovril August 18, 2014 at 10:59 am #

    Bovril: Still waiting on an answer Sven

    Yoohoo….Svenny….still waiting, have you or have you not seen this unicorn like CLN you keep insisting Obama has?

  183. avatar
    Atticus Finch August 18, 2014 at 11:09 am #

    DaveH: Sven is of course lying and not representing anything remotely close to the truth.

    Savorgan v United States was about a woman that was 26 years old, married an Italian and when she applied for Italian citizenship as it was required for the Italian man to marry her she lost her US Citizenship because part of the language in the document she signed also was to renounce her US Citizenship.

    He keeps quoting these cases but doesn’t provide the actual context of any of them. And he still hasn’t provided any proof that President Obama ever gave up his US Citizenship (which HE COULD NOT HAVE DONE as a minor) nor could his mother do it for him. There’s nothing in US law that allows a parent to renounce the citizenship of a child that was born here in he United States. The only way that could be done was when the child became an adult and willingly renounced his or her citizenship.

    It bears repeating over and over again.

    A child born in the United States does not lose his or her U.S. citizenship by moving to another country. Moreover if the other country does not recognize dual citizenship then the child’s place of birth will be his or her sole citizenship.

    The other country’s nationalization laws do not pre-empt United States citizenship laws regarding its citizens; in other words, a foreign country’s nationalization laws does not strip a United States citizen of his or her citizenship.

    The only way a United States citizen can have his citizenship revoke is by doing any of the proscribed acts listed in 8 U.S.C. 1481. These proscribed acts required the United States citizens to have attained the age of eighteen or committed an act of treason and being convicted of treason.

    In this case, Obama being under the age of EIGHTEEN and having not been accused and tried for treason against the United States while he was living in Indonesia did not lose his United States citizenship.

    What the birthers failed to understand is that the only way a natural born or naturalized citizen can have his or her United States citizenship revoked is by the citizen doing any one of the proscribed acts listed in 8 U.S.C. 1481. If they took the time to read this statute they will realize that a MINOR can’t renounced his or her United States citizenship because those acts required either the citizen have attained the AGE OF EIGHTEEN or have been tried and convicted for TREASON. Since Obama had neither attained the age of eighteen nor was he tried and convicted of TREASON.

    The birthers have to claim that a CHILD under the age of ten (being the age that Obama left Indonesia to Hawaii to live with his maternal grandparents) had the necessary mental capacity to understand that he was relinquishing his United States citizenship. Here in the United States, we legally protect minors in contract law, by not permitting them to sign contracts is so as to protect the minor from their lack of maturity. As such, the question is presented: If under contract law, Obama being a minor was unable to sign a contract then how could it be possible that he would have the maturity to relinquish his United States citizenship?

  184. avatar
    Atticus Finch August 18, 2014 at 11:18 am #

    SvenMagnussen:

    Obama had a fundamental right, like Elg, to voluntarily relinquish his US citizenship by and through his mother in 1968.

    It bears repeating over and over again.

    A child born in the United States does not lose his or her U.S. citizenship by moving to another country. Moreover if the other country does not recognize dual citizenship then the child’s place of birth will be his or her sole citizenship.

    The other country’s nationalization laws do not pre-empt United States citizenship laws regarding its citizens; in other words, a foreign country’s nationalization laws does not strip a United States citizen of his or her citizenship.

    The only way a United States citizen can have his citizenship revoke is by doing any of the proscribed acts listed in 8 U.S.C. 1481. These proscribed acts required the United States citizens to have attained the age of eighteen or committed an act of treason and being convicted of treason.

    In this case, Obama being under the age of EIGHTEEN and having not been accused and tried for treason against the United States while he was living in Indonesia did not lose his United States citizenship.

    What the birthers failed to understand is that the only way a natural born or naturalized citizen can have his or her United States citizenship revoked is by the citizen doing any one of the proscribed acts listed in 8 U.S.C. 1481. If they took the time to read this statute they will realize that a MINOR can’t renounced his or her United States citizenship because those acts required either the citizen have attained the AGE OF EIGHTEEN or have been tried and convicted for TREASON. Since Obama had neither attained the age of eighteen nor was he tried and convicted of TREASON.

    The birthers have to claim that a CHILD under the age of ten (being the age that Obama left Indonesia to Hawaii to live with his maternal grandparents) had the necessary mental capacity to understand that he was relinquishing his United States citizenship. Here in the United States, we legally protect minors in contract law, by not permitting them to sign contracts is so as to protect the minor from their lack of maturity. As such, the question is presented: If under contract law, Obama being a minor was unable to sign a contract then how could it be possible that he would have the maturity to relinquish his United States citizenship?

    The statute governing renunciation of United States citizenship is described in 8 U.S.C. 1481 (Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.)
    http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html

    The queston pose to Sven : Are you suggesting that Obama lost his United States citizenship in Indonesia? If that is your contention then how could a SEVEN YEAR OLD CHILD knowingly and intelligently renounced his United States citizenship.

  185. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 18, 2014 at 12:37 pm #

    To all of those who think the US Code, as amended post-1986, is applicable to 1968 expatriation, then click this link and download the pdf http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview/vol38/iss2/2/

    It’s a scholarly article on expatriation published in 1964. Page 11. Read the whole page and not just the first part.

  186. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG August 18, 2014 at 12:45 pm #

    Go home, Sven. You’re drunk!

  187. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 18, 2014 at 12:51 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:
    To all of those who think the US Code, as amended post-1986, is applicable to 1968 expatriation, then click this link and download the pdf http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview/vol38/iss2/2/

    It’s a scholarly article on expatriation published in 1964. Page 11. Read the whole page and not just the first part.

    Another attempt at misdirection? Really?

    The President never renounced his citizenship; every reference you make to expatriation is irrelevant.

    Since every argument you have rests on his imaginary expatriation, you are comprehensively wrong.

    Seriously, you are very bad at this.

  188. avatar
    Arthur B. August 18, 2014 at 1:13 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Obama chose to naturalize in 1983.

    Sven, you come across as at best ridiculous and at worst dishonest when you continue to base your arguments on an assertion for which you have not provided the slightest evidence.

    Would you address this question please? On what factual basis are you making the claim that “Obama chose to naturalize in 1983″?

  189. avatar
    Benji Franklin August 18, 2014 at 1:16 pm #

    Atticus Finch: The other country’s nationalization laws do not pre-empt United States citizenship laws regarding its citizens; in other words, a foreign country’s nationalization laws does not strip a United States citizen of his or her citizenship.

    Thanks for your long-suffering expertise here, Atticus! Try this?

    A child with a unique birthmark and associated with a taken and recorded specific DNA type is born in a New York city hospital to two previously officially naturalized , documented, (and at the time of that birth STILL) United States Citizens.

    No one in this fight would dispute that the child is, at birth, a Natural Born Citizen of the United States.

    The child is kidnapped going home from the hospital by a Canadian Citizen couple whose child was just stillborn at home, and they smuggle it across the border, report it as home born, and raise it as a Canadian Natural Born Citizen, complete with an authentic Canadian birth certificate.

    At the age of 25 the child moves to the US and at age 30 goes through naturalization to become a United States Citizen. From a job-related DNA check he discovers his true history and wonders if he could later become eligible to run for the presidency of the US.

    Isn’t he still a US NBC?

    More simply put, would a NBC unknowingly going through US naturalizing, have lost his NBC status acquired at birth? I presume not.

  190. avatar
    Jim August 18, 2014 at 1:44 pm #

    Atticus Finch: The other country’s nationalization laws do not pre-empt United States citizenship laws regarding its citizens; in other words, a foreign country’s nationalization laws does not strip a United States citizen of his or her citizenship.

    This old argument is coming up again? What does Sven want? To give North Korea power over US Citizenship? What a maroon! :D

  191. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 18, 2014 at 1:50 pm #

    Arthur B.: Sven, you come across as at best ridiculous and at worst dishonest when you continue to base your arguments on an assertion for which you have not provided the slightest evidence.

    Would you address this question please? On what factual basis are you making the claim that “Obama chose to naturalize in 1983″?

    There is much more to the story. A truthful and full accounting of President Obama’s life story will be made public eventually. Be patient. Relax. Eligible or not, President Obama will finish his 2nd term if the House does not impeach him. I don’t think the House will impeach him, nor do I think the Senate will convict if the House does impeach.

    Anyone who thinks proof of Obama’s ineligibility will mean removal from office or nullification of all the Congressional Acts he has singed into law does not understand the Constitution. Congressional Acts singed into law by a usurper are objectionable by those who bother to disobey the law after notice of their objection to the law. The Constitution gives an objector the right to object to the laws signed by a usurper and the right to seek relief for themselves. Objectors cannot disable the law because the usurper has millions of supporters who want to comply with his laws, orders, directives and appointments. The will of the majority will not be thwarted.

  192. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 18, 2014 at 2:05 pm #

    Jim: This old argument is coming up again?What does Sven want?To give North Korea power over US Citizenship? What a maroon!

    Yes, I was working in the garden earlier and I’m a little maroon today.

    Read the Savorgnan v. United States, 338 U.S. 491 (1950) case. SCOTUS ruled the poor woman renounced her US citizenship after signing a document renouncing her US citizenship that was written in Italian. She did not read or speak Italian at the time of renouncement. SCOTUS was unsympathetic because her husband spoke and read Italian fluently and translated for her.

    The case is quoted frequently and often in citizenship cases before the USDC.

  193. avatar
    Arthur B. August 18, 2014 at 2:14 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: There is much more to the story.

    Perhaps so. But would you answer my question please?

    On what evidence have you concluded that “Obama chose to naturalize in 1983″?

    You understand, I’m sure, that as long as you repeat that assertion without providing a shred of factual basis for it, everything that follows from it is completely lacking in credibility.

  194. avatar
    Jim August 18, 2014 at 2:21 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Yes, I was working in the garden earlier and I’m a little maroon today.
    Read the Savorgnan v. United States, 338 U.S. 491 (1950) case. SCOTUS ruled the poor woman renounced her US citizenship after signing a document renouncing her US citizenship that was written in Italian. She did not read or speak Italian at the time of renouncement. SCOTUS was unsympathetic because her husband spoke and read Italian fluently and translated for her.
    The case is quoted frequently and often in citizenship cases before the USDC.

    So, now where is your proof that the President EVER renounced his citizenship? That would be a necessary step in order for him to have to naturalize.

  195. avatar
    Daniel August 18, 2014 at 2:32 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: There is much more to the story. A truthful and full accounting of President Obama’s life story will be made public eventually.

    Then why do you bother continuing to make assertions that you know full well any reasonable person will reject without evidence, if you also know you’re not going to give us this evidence you claim to have, until later?

    Why not simply wait until you can release the evidence you claim to have, and make your assertions then?

    The answer is obvious, but I’d like to hear how you spin it.

    Not that I expect you to have the guts to answer directly.

  196. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 18, 2014 at 2:42 pm #

    Shorter Sven:

    “You’ll see! You’ll all see! ANY DAY NOW!”

  197. avatar
    bovril August 18, 2014 at 4:16 pm #

    Come along Sven, such an easy question, such an easy answer, have you or have you not seen this mystical CLN..?

  198. avatar
    y_p_w August 18, 2014 at 5:01 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Yes, I was working in the garden earlier and I’m a little maroon today.

    Read the Savorgnan v. United States, 338 U.S. 491 (1950) case. SCOTUS ruled the poor woman renounced her US citizenship after signing a document renouncing her US citizenship that was written in Italian. She did not read or speak Italian at the time of renouncement. SCOTUS was unsympathetic because her husband spoke and read Italian fluently and translated for her.

    The case is quoted frequently and often in citizenship cases before the USDC.

    I checked out the case for the amusement factor. She was also maybe 25 years old at the time she acquired Italian citizenship. Also – he didn’t translate for her other than informing her that she was signing an instrument that would grant her Italian citizenship.

    The rationale of the court seemed to be that she knew she was obtaining Italian citizenship, and by that criteria she should have known that she was renouncing her US citizenship. She also took residence in Italy, thus sealing the deal.

  199. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 18, 2014 at 5:16 pm #

    Daniel: Then why do you bother continuing to make assertions that you know full well any reasonable person will reject without evidence, if you also know you’re not going to give us this evidence you claim to have, until later?

    Why not simply wait until you can release the evidence you claim to have, and make your assertions then?

    The answer is obvious, but I’d like to hear how you spin it.

    Not that I expect you to have the guts to answer directly.

    I’m reading case law picked up from St. John’s Law Review, A Study of Expatriation. I thought I was a lock on “… US citizenship is a precious property interest.”

    “Citizenship is a most precious right. It is expressly guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which speaks in the most positive terms.” Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963). Mr. Justice Goldberg.

    I thought I invented it.

  200. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 18, 2014 at 6:10 pm #

    Well, sequitur-wise, that was “non.”

  201. avatar
    Suranis August 18, 2014 at 6:25 pm #

    Guys, there is no direct proof is that Obama wont let us see his naturalization records. If he had nothing to hide he would let us see them and we would all see he had been naturalized.

  202. avatar
    Rickey August 18, 2014 at 6:28 pm #

    There is no point in feeding the troll any further. Sven will not respond to direct questions about his evidence (because he has none), and when he does respond at all it is usually with misdirection to something which is totally irrelevant or to another outlandish legal theory which exists only his fevered imagination.

  203. avatar
    Keith August 18, 2014 at 6:55 pm #

    Lupin: Bold mine.

    This strikes me as rather preposterous. Frankly, I don’t know any (western?) country that allows a minor child to make that kind of decision by itself.

    Perhaps he is working up an article for the next NAMBLA newsletter?

  204. avatar
    Keith August 18, 2014 at 6:59 pm #

    Jim: This old argument is coming up again?What does Sven want?To give North Korea power over US Citizenship? What a maroon!

    Is this a reference to the Maroons losing the State of Origen for the first time in years?

    (Maroons = Queensland; Blues = New South Wales; State of Origen = the highest competition in Rugby League – sort of the All Star Game on steroids).

  205. avatar
    Jim August 18, 2014 at 7:18 pm #

    http://www.websophist.com/Bugs_Bunny_MaroonAN.gif

    Congrats to the State of Origen! :D

  206. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 18, 2014 at 7:19 pm #

    Jim:
    What does Sven want?To give North Korea power over US Citizenship?

    Say what you will, at least North Korea doesn’t elect those people. And isn’t that what this is all about?

  207. avatar
    Daniel August 18, 2014 at 7:45 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: I’m reading case law picked up from St. John’s Law Review, A Study of Expatriation. I thought I was a lock on “… US citizenship is a precious property interest.”

    “Citizenship is a most precious right. It is expressly guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which speaks in the most positive terms.” Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963). Mr. Justice Goldberg.

    I thought I invented it.

    That has nothing to do with my question, which I’ll ask again in the hopes you might have the guts to give a straight answer. I won’t be holding my breath…

    Then why do you bother continuing to make assertions that you know full well any reasonable person will reject without evidence, if you also know you’re not going to give us this evidence you claim to have, until later?

    Why not simply wait until you can release the evidence you claim to have, and make your assertions then?

    The answer is obvious, but I’d like to hear how you spin it.

    Not that I expect you to have the guts to answer directly.

  208. avatar
    JPotter August 18, 2014 at 11:47 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: thought I was a lock on “… US citizenship is a precious property interest.”

    “Citizenship is a most precious right.

    Other than coincidentally referring to citizenship as “precious” the phrases are dissimilar. The Law Review states citizenship is a right, you assert it is an “interest”. Similar adjectives, very different subjects. Swing and a miss, your patternicity on fire.

  209. avatar
    Whatever4 August 19, 2014 at 3:34 am #

    I’m late to this party. Has Sven ever mentioned why he thinks a 7-10 year old Obama voluntarily relinquished his US citizenship while his own mother never relinquished hers? And how would a young child explain he knew what he was relinquishing?

  210. avatar
    Keith August 19, 2014 at 3:35 am #

    Jim:
    http://www.websophist.com/Bugs_Bunny_MaroonAN.gif

    Congrats to the State of Origen!

    Yeah, should be State of Origin.

    Not to be confused with State of Confusion.

  211. avatar
    John Reilly August 19, 2014 at 3:55 am #

    Whatever4:
    I’m late to this party. Has Sven ever mentioned why he thinks a 7-10 year old Obama voluntarily relinquished his US citizenship while his own mother never relinquished hers? And how would a young child explain he knew what he was relinquishing?

    No. Sven refuses. He insists that there is a document, a “CLN” which sets forth some of the proof, but he has not produced it, provided a link to it, or provided secondary evidence that it ever existed.

  212. avatar
    Bovril August 19, 2014 at 4:45 am #

    Face facts, even BitterDelusional and the Birfoon Muppets of Freakerville think Sven is full of the brown and aromatic. If you can’t convince the most conspiracy minded and deluded housewife in America then you have nothing…….

    At leat he seems to finally have dropped that other shibolleth of his, the adoption “proof” in Obama’s BC…

    How do we know Obama was adopted

    His post-adoption COLB has a “date filed” as opposed to a “date accepted.” “Date filed” indicates a judicial order was executed by the HDOH to create the post-adoption COLB and seal the original BC.

    Obama’s copy of his original Long Form BC is missing the “The is not a legal document.” stamp. It’s fraudulent to present his original Long Form BC as a valid legal document after it was sealed by order of the Court unless it has the “This is not a legal document.” stamp on it.

  213. avatar
    The Magic M August 19, 2014 at 5:24 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Rickey, Atticus, Magic M and quite a few others think the opinion issued in Savorgnan v. United States, 338 U.S. 491, 497–99 (1950) has been voided by the US Code and the US Code of Federal Regulations.

    That case is inapposite as it concerns “a competent adult American citizen” and we were discussing the case of a minor, you imbecile.

  214. avatar
    The Magic M August 19, 2014 at 5:25 am #

    Bovril (quoting a birfer): Obama’s copy of his original Long Form BC is missing the “The is not a legal document.” stamp. It’s fraudulent to present his original Long Form BC as a valid legal document after it was sealed by order of the Court unless it has the “This is not a legal document.” stamp on it.

    This is probably the best proof of their madness and another case of Catch-22, the birthers’ favourite game. “It’s not legal because it doesn’t say it’s ‘not legal’.” *smh*

  215. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 19, 2014 at 5:53 am #

    Yeah, the “they didn’t say the words of the magic spell in the right order!” tack gives off a definite whiff of SovCit insanity.

  216. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 19, 2014 at 7:09 am #

    JPotter: Other than coincidentally referring to citizenship as “precious” the phrases are dissimilar. The Law Review states citizenship is a right, you assert it is an “interest”. Similar adjectives, very different subjects. Swing and a miss, your patternicity on fire.

    “… U.S. citizenship is a precious, property interest” is a work in progress”

    US citizenship is a property interest of precious value obtained by right as enumerated in the 14th Amendment. Moreover, each US citizen has a right to discard their property interest in the United States at will which is not enumerated in the US Constitution, but identified as a fundamental right of all US citizens, regardless of age, by Supreme Court. SeeTrop v. Dulles, supra note 9, at 106 (Brennan, J., concurring) ; United States ex rel. Marks v. Esperdy, supra note 9, at 676.

    But, the US citizen is not the only entity with a property interest in a person’s US citizenship. They have a partner. The partner is the US federal government. The US federal government needs productive, taxpayers to call upon from time to time to serve, protect and defend the Constitutional republic. At the time of the Civil War, Congress, after years prodding by the Courts, finally passed a Congressional Act to formally forfeit the United States’ interest in a person’s US citizenship if they were found guilty of desertion of the US Armed Forces. See 13 Stat. 490-91 (1865). In 1868, Congress announced it was a policy of the United States that all persons have the right to relinquish and renounce their US citizenship to regulate foreign affairs. See Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44, 64-65 (1958).

    Discarding US citizenship is a two step process: 1) voluntary relinquishment by the US citizen 2) issuance of a CLN by the US federal government. US citizenship is not terminated until a CLN is issued. Voluntary relinquishment is a fundamental right that Congress is not Constitutionally authorized to control. Congress is only authorized to dictate terms and conditions with respect to the issuance of a CLN by the US federal government.

  217. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 19, 2014 at 7:25 am #

    And nothing Sven just posted is relevant to the subject of the blog, since Barack Obama never relinquished his U.S. citizenship – not at age seven, not ever.

  218. avatar
    roadburner August 19, 2014 at 7:30 am #

    this is all very well sven, but you seem to be unable to explain how a minor of under 10 years old managed to legally renounce their own citizenship.

    this seems to be the biggest hurdle that you are avoiding like the plague at the moment

  219. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 19, 2014 at 7:47 am #

    The Magic M: That case is inapposite as it concerns “a competent adult American citizen” and we were discussing the case of a minor, you imbecile.

    Obama was a minor represented by an adult with legal custody of the minor and fully capable of representing the interests of the child before an Executive branch agency administrative proceeding in 1968

    In America, minors have rights. Prior to 2009, minors had the right to move out of country and discard their US citizenship when competently represented by one of their parents with legal custody. Both Ms. Elg and Obama had a parent represent them to request voluntary relinquishment of their US citizenship.

    Termination of US citizenship is a two step process. After voluntary relinquishment, US citizenship is still intact, but subject to termination by the issuance of a CLN by the U.S. federal government.

    In Ms. Elg’s case, a CLN wasn’t issued until 20 years after she voluntarily relinquished her US citizenship. But since she applied for a US passport and returned to the US to establish residency in her early 20’s, SCOTUS ruled the CLN was issued in error after she cancelled her voluntary relinquishment by obtaining a US passport and moving back to the US to establish residency. For some oddball reason, you interpret this to mean SCOTUS ruled it is illegal for the US federal government to issue a CLN to a minor with reckless disregard for the rights of minors.

    In Obama’s case, his mother represented him when he voluntarily relinquished his US citizenship. Shortly thereafter, SoS Dean Rusk issued Obama a CLN to terminate his US citizenship. SoS Rusk put the US federal government at great risk for a federal lawsuit by Obama. Like Ms. Elg, Obama could have applied for a US passport during his minority to effectively cancel his voluntary relinquishment of US citizenship. Up to 6 months past his 18th birthday, Obama could have filed a lawsuit against the US federal government for terminating his US citizenship in violation of the US Code. A mnor who voluntarily relinquishes the US citizenship has until 6 months past their 18th birthday to void their voluntary relinquishment. Without a voluntary relinquishment of US citizenship, it is a violation of the US Code to issue a CLN to anyone of any age.

    Fortunately for the US federal government, Obama did not sue and chose to naturalize in 1983. Unfortunately, Obama’s naturalization terminated his eligibility to hold the Office of the President of the United States. And as we have witnessed, it has not terminated his opportunity to assume the office. So its a win-win for those who take the time to try and fully understand what is happening instead of calling people nasty names.

  220. avatar
    The Magic M August 19, 2014 at 8:03 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Prior to 2009, minors had the right to move out of country and discard their US citizenship when competently represented by one of their parents with legal custody.

    My quote of the relevant part of US law above begs to differ. Why do you hate US law so much?

  221. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 19, 2014 at 8:04 am #

    roadburner:
    this is all very well sven, but you seem to be unable to explain how a minor of under 10 years old managed to legally renounce their own citizenship.

    this seems to be the biggest hurdle that you are avoiding like the plague at the moment

    Minors have rights. A minor has the fundamental right to move out of the country and voluntarily relinquish their US citizenship. To accomplish this, the minor must be represented by a competent adult willing to negotiate on behalf of the minor with the caveat the adult is advocating the best interests of the child.

    Prior to a 2009 policy change at the US State Department, a parent with legal custody of a minor could represent the minor in an administrative proceeding to voluntarily relinquish the minor’s US citizenship.Since 2009, the custodial parent or legal guardian must hire a lawyer or provide power of attorney to a non-family member to represent the interests of the child.

    Every US citizen, regardless of age or disability, has a fundamental right to move out of the country and voluntarily relinquish their citizenship. When a minor voluntarily relinquishes their US citizenship, the US federal government must be cautious about issuing a CLN. A minor can easily cancel their voluntary relinquishment. And, as in the Ms. Elg case, the US federal government can be sued for issuing a CLN after the minor withdraws her voluntary relinquishment by applying for a passport during her minority.

  222. avatar
    Bovril August 19, 2014 at 8:04 am #

    Come along Sven, where is this CLN, have you or ANYONE evert seen it, since naturalization records are public records care to show it to us..?

    http://www.archives.gov/research/naturalization/

  223. avatar
    DaveH August 19, 2014 at 8:07 am #

    SvenMagnussen: In America, minors have rights. Prior to 2009, minors had the right to move out of country and discard their US citizenship when competently represented by one of their parents with legal custody. Both Ms. Elg and Obama had a parent represent them to request voluntary relinquishment of their US citizenship.

    This is FALSE.

    And this is how it would be done if it had been done which it was not. If President Obama had renounced his citizenship as a child, there would be a record of it. But since he moved back to the states at the age of 10… well, everything you write and think is FALSE.

    http://travel.state.gov/content/travel/english/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/renunciation-of-citizenship.html

    F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN/INCOMPETENTS

    Citizenship is a status that is personal to the U.S. citizen. Therefore parents may not renounce the citizenship of their minor children. Similarly, parents/legal guardians may not renounce the citizenship of individuals who are mentally incompetent. Minors seeking to renounce their U.S. citizenship must demonstrate to a consular officer that they are acting voluntarily and that they fully understand the implications/consequences attendant to the renunciation of U.S. citizenship.

  224. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 19, 2014 at 8:09 am #

    SvenMagnussen:

    In Obama’s case, his mother represented him when he voluntarily relinquished his US citizenship. Shortly thereafter, SoS Dean Rusk issued Obama a CLN to terminate his US citizenship. SoS Rusk put the US federal government at great risk for a federal lawsuit by Obama…

    Fortunately for the US federal government, Obama did not sue and chose to naturalize in 1983.

    None of this ever happened.

    There is not one scrap of evidence that any of this ever happened.

    Every shred of actual evidence directly refutes these contentions.

    The question remains: why do you believe what you believe?

    I know why you do. Can you examine your precepts and understand why you believe things that aren’t true?

  225. avatar
    Keith August 19, 2014 at 9:18 am #

    SvenMagnussen: US citizenship is a property interest of precious value obtained by right as enumerated in the 14th Amendment.

    Citizenship is NOT PROPERTY, precious or not. Property indeed has value, can be traded, sold, disposed of, used to create wealth, etc. Citizenship has none of those properties.

    Citizenship is an existential state of being.

    Just as the state of matter is “controlled” by the “laws” of physics, so too the state of citizenship is controlled by the laws of man.

    One of the laws of man says that a person cannot lose or voluntarily renounce their citizenship if that act leaves them stateless. Remember the story The Man Without A Country? Can’t happen. Period. That is international law, and that is United States law.

    If Child Obama had somehow been allowed to renounce his citizenship (he didn’t and he wasn’t, but for the sake of argument…), it would have left him stateless because he could not, by the laws of Indonesia, become a citizen of Indonesia.

  226. avatar
    roadburner August 19, 2014 at 9:28 am #

    “Minors seeking to renounce their U.S. citizenship must demonstrate to a consular officer that they are acting voluntarily and that they fully understand the implications/consequences attendant to the renunciation of U.S. citizenship.”

    c´mon sven, tell us what 10 year old (using the maximum age before returning to hawaii) can fully understand the implications/consequenses attendant to the renunciation of u.s. citizenship?

    if your president did it at 10 years of age, what possible reason would there have been as he was returning to hawaii?

    if this allegedly happened earlier, how could a younger child understand, and what member of the consular staff would sign off on it if they didn´t want to find themselves in a consulate in hell after letting a child of that age renounce their u.s. citizenship?

    i understand you have a lot invested in this, but the logic and reality just doesn´t match your wet dreams.

  227. avatar
    John Reilly August 19, 2014 at 9:29 am #

    As you can see, Whatever4, Sven asserts that Pres. Obama’s Mother relinquished his citizenship for him and Dean Rusk issued a “CLN.”

    “SvenMagnussen:

    In Obama’s case, his mother represented him when he voluntarily relinquished his US citizenship. Shortly thereafter, SoS Dean Rusk issued Obama a CLN to terminate his US citizenship.”

    Of course, absolutely no facts are presented to support this wild assertion. No copy of the “CLN” is attached, nor is a link provided.

    And as our other colleagues note, even had Ms. Dunham done so, and Secretary Rusk issued some paper, it would have been legally ineffective.

    So the question has to be why Sven, who has been quite talkative this morning, has not responded to repeated requests for actual facts.

  228. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG August 19, 2014 at 9:45 am #

    Sven’s narrative is so full of holes that I’m currently using it as a makeshift pasta strainer, and I dare say it works better than the real thing.

  229. avatar
    Keith August 19, 2014 at 9:50 am #

    SvenMagnussen: At the time of the Civil War, Congress, after years prodding by the Courts, finally passed a Congressional Act to formally forfeit the United States’ interest in a person’s US citizenship if they were found guilty of desertion of the US Armed Forces. See 13 Stat. 490-91 (1865). In 1868, Congress announced it was a policy of the United States that all persons have the right to relinquish and renounce their US citizenship to regulate foreign affairs.

    You are conflating two or possibly three different concepts here.

    The first concept is that of “WHO” is doing the ‘denaturalization’. Ever since the American Revolution, Americans recognized that people did not necessarily owe ‘perpetual’ allegience to the Sovereign. What was not clear was who could sever the link, the individual or the sovereign.

    That first act you mention (13 Stat. 490-91 (1865) did NOT “recognize a person’s right to denaturalize” – it terminated the person’s citizenship. In other words, it fired the person, it did not allow him to resign.

    The second act you mention (1868) had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with American citizens renouncing their citizenship or their right to do so. It addressed problems naturalized citizens (that is, immigrants, not NBC) had when they returned to their native country for visits. Previously, American protection was suspended when they visited their native country and they were subject to the obligations of citizenship of that country (military service, etc). The 1868 law “announced it was a policy of the United States that all persons have the right to relinquish and renounce their FOREIGN citizenship” when they become US citizens.

    Your assertion that the 1868 law refers to US citizens renouncing their citizenship is demonstrably false.

    For a complete discussion of this issue, see: Limiting Congressional Denationalization After Afroyim

  230. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 19, 2014 at 9:55 am #

    Bovril:
    Come along Sven, where is this CLN, have you or ANYONE evert seen it, since naturalization records are public records care to show it to us..?

    http://www.archives.gov/research/naturalization/

    CLNs are kept at the State Department with copies forwarded to the FBI, IRS, DHS, DoD and Secret Service. Its possible Obama told somebody who told somebody who told somebody to move the CLN(s) and one or more of those somebodies double crossed Obama. If Obama has been double crossed, then it’s available for rebuttal after Obama, Holder, Kerry, Hagel, or Lew swear under oath they can’t find it, it doesn’t exist, or its been lost and cannot be replaced.

    If Orly had the name of the person or persons who double crossed Obama, then she would be sitting on top of a goldmine.

    Obama’s naturalization records are sealed and Orly will need a court order to unseal them.

  231. avatar
    Keith August 19, 2014 at 9:59 am #

    I ran out of editing time to complete this thought:

    Your assertion that the 1868 law refers to US citizens renouncing their citizenship is demonstrably false. This recognition did not come until 1907.

    This example shows a prime example of how the law changes over time. What the law said in 1865 or 1868 or 1907 ultimately doesn’t matter in 2014. What matters is what the law says in 2014 (or in the case of your fantasy, what it said in 1973 or whenever you think child Obama denaturalized himself)

  232. avatar
    Arthur B. August 19, 2014 at 10:04 am #

    SvenMagnussen: CLNs are kept at the State Department with copies forwarded to the FBI, IRS, DHS, DoD and Secret Service.

    Sven, are the simple questions too difficult for you?

    On what evidence have you concluded that Obama was ever issued a CLN?

  233. avatar
    Bovril August 19, 2014 at 10:14 am #

    So, Sven,

    1. You haven’t seen such a magical CLN

    2. You have never gone and looked at the publicly accessible records of naturalization and found a BHO certficate or record of naturalization

    On what basis of fact then have you built this clay footed idol..?

  234. avatar
    roadburner August 19, 2014 at 10:19 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Obama’s naturalization records are sealed and Orly will need a court order to unseal them.

    so you can tell us the number of the court order sealing those documents, what judge signed it, and in what court and on what date this happened.

    you can´t?

    oh ain´t that a big surprise!

    basically, you´re back to the line of `it´s there….i know it…..but no-one has ever seen it……they can´t confirm it….it´s SEEEEEEEEKRIT!!!´

    please feel free to get back to us with something of substance rather than this watery soup of birther banality.

  235. avatar
    Keith August 19, 2014 at 10:21 am #

    SvenMagnussen: See Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44, 64-65 (1958).

    Perez v. Brownell had NOTHING to do with the law of 1868. It was a challenge to provisions of the Expatriation Act of 1954 which allowed the United States to withdraw citizenship from individuals who performed certain acts, such as treason against the United States, serving in the military of a foreign nation, or even voting in a foreign nation.

    From the article linked to in my earlier post:

    After the passage of the Expatriation Act of 1954, the spotlight of expatriation law again passed from the Congress to the judiciary. In a five-to-four decision, the Supreme Court upheld in Perez v. Brownel183 the denationalization of an American citizen who
    had voted in a foreign election. As in Mackenzie v. Hare, the issue was the power of Congress to legislate loss of citizenship. The Court held in Perez that Congress had the power to denationalize an American citizen who voted in a foreign election.

    Again the Court was willing to endorse congressional denationalization, but the opinion by Justice Frankfurter forebore any reliance on an expatriation rationale embodying implied assent. It was a distortion of Mackenzie, concluded the Perez court, to rest that decision on the theory that “a citizen’s assent to denationalization may be inferred from his having engaged in conduct that amounts to an ‘abandonment of citizenship …. , ”

    The decision in Perez instead rested on the alternative rationale suggested by Mackenzie: that Congress had, as an attribute of sovereignty, denationalizing power exclusive of expatriation. Because Congress possessed the implied constitutional power to regulate international affairs, it could legislatively withdraw citizenship from one who engaged in acts that might embarrass the national government in the diplomatic arena or put the country in a position of potential conflict abroad.

    Perez DID NOT discuss the topic of a citizen renouncing citizenship. In more familiar terms: Perez said boss can sack the worker, but was silent on whether or not the worker can resign.

    Furthermore, remember that 1865 law that said that deserters would lose their citizenship?

    In Trop v. Dulles 356 U.S. 86 (1957), the Court again split five to four, but this time held unconstitutional section 401(g) of the Nationality Act of 1940, which provided for loss of citizenship upon conviction of desertion in time of war. Chief Justice Warren now wrote in the
    majority, but to the extent that he would base the Trop decision on the impotence of Congress to legislate loss of citizenship, he still failed to sway a majority of the Court. The majority in Trop could agree only that whatever power Congress might have to remove one’s citizenship, it could not employ denationalization as a punishment.

    That 1865 law (and the similar provision in the 1940 Nationality Act) are unconstitutional What ever argument you thought it made for you is moot.

  236. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 19, 2014 at 10:29 am #

    Keith:

    Read my message carefully.

    In 1865, Congress passed a Congressional Act providing for the US to forfeit its interests in a person’s citizenship after they abandoned their military committment with the US. Once the US terminates its interest in your citizenship obtained as a birthright or through naturalization, then you are not a citizen of the US.

    The 1865 statute set up guidance for policy to regulate foreign affairs in 1868. Only the Executive branch is Constitutionally authorized to implement foreign policy. The policy provided guidance from the Congress to the President outlining Congressional approval for a US citizen to terminate their US citizenship to negate the necessity of joining the Army and desserting.

    Its important to understand that moving out of the country and relinquishing and then requesting a CLN is a matter of foreign policy. Only the Executive branch is Constitutionally authorized to conduct foreign policy.

  237. avatar
    Keith August 19, 2014 at 10:33 am #

    Furthermore:

    The turning point for congressional denationalization came nine years later in Afroyim v. Rusk 387 U.S. 253 (1967). when the Court in still another five-to-four split held that the Constitution did not empower Congress to deprive a person of his citizenship simply because he had voted in a foreign election. Justice Black wrote the decision, finding that the fourteenth Amendment with its sweeping grant of citizenship would not countenance government action that would take away citizenship without the concurrence of the citizen. Perez v. Brownell was expressly overruled.

    Do you see how the entire discussion is about “government action that would take away citizenship without the concurrence of the citizen”? And do you see that none of this train of thought has to do with how a citizen can renounce citizenship?

    The history of expatriation law in the United States makes it clear that an American Citizen can renounce his citizenship and thereby eliminate his obligation of loyalty and obedience to the state.

    That is simply not the question that is addressed by the chain of laws and Supreme Court challenges that you invoked in your argument.

    The laws and cases in your argument address the opposite question:

    The government, however, does not enjoy that same freedom of action. The state cannot unilaterally disrupt the relationship between itself and its fourteenth amendment citizens, but it can acquiesce in the expatriating act of the individual.

  238. avatar
    Keith August 19, 2014 at 10:37 am #

    By the way, that paper was from 1979. Since then, there have been other cases and other laws. The only way for a citizen to ‘lose’ citizenship now is to renounce it. Naturalizing in another country, and voting there, does not qualify as an implied renunciation. I believe that serving in a foreign government may, perhaps serving in the military (though I think Americans can serve in the Israeli military without losing their citizenship, so that could be wrong).

  239. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 19, 2014 at 10:45 am #

    Keith: Perez v. Brownell had NOTHING to do with the law of 1868. It was a challenge to provisions of the Expatriation Act of 1954 which allowed the United States to withdraw citizenship from individuals who performed certain acts, such as treason against the United States, serving in the military of a foreign nation, or even voting in a foreign nation.

    From the article linked to in my earlier post:

    Perez DID NOT discuss the topic of a citizen renouncing citizenship. In more familiar terms: Perez said boss can sack the worker, but was silent on whether or not the worker can resign.

    Furthermore, remember that 1865 law that said that deserters would lose their citizenship?

    That 1865 law (and the similar provision in the 1940 Nationality Act) are unconstitutional What ever argument you thought it made for you is moot.

    Perez v. Brownell: ” … Congress in 1868 formally announced the traditional policy of this country that it is the “natural and inherent right of all people” to divest themselves of their allegiance to any state.”

    The Expatriation Act of 1868 was a Congressional Act concerning the fundamental right to renounce one’s citizenship. It states that “the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people” and “that any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.”

  240. avatar
    Keith August 19, 2014 at 10:46 am #

    SvenMagnussen: In 1865, Congress passed a Congressional Act providing for the US to forfeit its interests in a person’s citizenship after they abandoned their military committment with the US. Once the US terminates its interest in your citizenship obtained as a birthright or through naturalization, then you are not a citizen of the US.

    That is incorrect.

    The first statute governing denationalization was passed by Congress on March 3, 1865, and provided that Union deserters and draft evaders “shall be deemed and taken to have voluntarily relinquished and forfeited their rights of citizenship and their rights to become citizens …. .”

    Read the text in the act carefully – it is the part in quotes. It is clearly defining punishment for the acts of desertion and draft evasion. That punishment is forfeiture of their rights of citizenship. Such punishment was ruled unconstitutional in the early 1950’s.

    The act certainly doesn’t have anything about the U.S. ‘forfeiting’ ITS rights – it says the deserter is forfeiting his rights. The Boss is firing the employee for insubordination, not allowing him to resign.

    The 1865 act has nothing to do with making it “easy” for potential deserters or draft evaders to escape punishment for their act. What government would do such a suicidal
    thing during time of war?

  241. avatar
    Jim August 19, 2014 at 10:52 am #

    And yet Sven, you have yet to shown that the President has done anything to renounce his citizenship. You’re still left holding a bag full of sh*t.

  242. avatar
    Keith August 19, 2014 at 10:54 am #

    SvenMagnussen: The Expatriation Act of 1868 was a Congressional Act concerning the fundamental right to renounce one’s citizenship. It states that “the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people” and “that any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.”

    I repeat from the same source:

    The Act [of 1868] declared that executive [i.e. Presidential] pronouncements which impaired expatriation were inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the American government and guaranteed to naturalized citizens the same diplomatic protection as was afforded the native-born.

    The Act of 1868 was a guarantee made by Congress to naturalized American Citizens. The United States government would intercede on behalf of a naturalized American who, during a visit to his homeland, was called upon to perform duties arising from his previous allegiance. In that sense, the legislation provided direction for the Executive, particularly the Department of State. The diplomatic protection of Americans abroad would no longer be suspended when they returned to their native land. The reciprocal thesis that the United States government must accede in the decision to terminate allegiance made by one of its own citizens was not as clearly established beyond the narrow confines of treaty provisions to that effect.

  243. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 19, 2014 at 11:59 am #

    This is something I noticed years ago, and why I don’t engage Sven in discussion.

    Jim: And yet Sven, you have yet to shown that the President has done anything to renounce his citizenship.

  244. avatar
    Dave B. August 19, 2014 at 3:38 pm #

    Great quote from Chief Justice Warren in that case:
    “Citizenship is not a license that expires upon misbehavior.”

    Keith: In Trop v. Dulles 356 U.S. 86 (1957), the Court again split five to four, but this time held unconstitutional section 401(g) of the Nationality Act of 1940, which provided for loss of citizenship upon conviction of desertion in time of war. Chief Justice Warren now wrote in the
    majority, but to the extent that he would base the Trop decision on the impotence of Congress to legislate loss of citizenship, he still failed to sway a majority of the Court. The majority in Trop could agree only that whatever power Congress might have to remove one’s citizenship, it could not employ denationalization as a punishment.

  245. avatar
    Keith August 19, 2014 at 4:37 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: This is something I noticed years ago, and why I don’t engage Sven in discussion.

    Agreed. I took the bait and gave him way too much oxygen.

  246. avatar
    Northland10 August 19, 2014 at 11:12 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Obama’s naturalization records are sealed

    Then how do you know they even exist? How?

    Not, is it possible, but how do you know they exist? Simple question unless you just want to troll some more,

  247. avatar
    The Magic M August 20, 2014 at 5:07 am #

    Who cares about Sven’s continuously shifting arguments anymore? Just because he can write longer posts than “john”?

    He claimed 8 USC §1481 allowed a minor’s citizenship to be renounced by his parents prior to 1986. I proved him wrong by citing the text of the law before 1986, he ignored it and switched to another false claim.

  248. avatar
    Rickey August 20, 2014 at 9:57 am #

    Northland10: Then how do you know they even exist?How?

    Voices in his head tell him so?

  249. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 20, 2014 at 10:27 am #

    Northland10: Then how do you know they even exist?How?

    Not, is it possible, but how do you know they exist?Simple question unless you just want to troll some more,

    I won’t have to prove it. According to my source(s), a person or group of persons who post on Obama Conspiracy Theories wrote FBI Director James B. Comey a letter to formally notify the FBI, an agency of the Department of Justice that President Obama is in violation of the Eligibility Clause because he naturalized in 1983.

    Allegedly, President Obama was deposed on Tuesday night/Wednesday morning.

  250. avatar
    Lupin August 20, 2014 at 10:31 am #

    SvenMagnussen: that President Obama is in violation of the Eligibility Clause because he naturalized in 1983.

    I strongly doubt this. In fact I’m tempted to simply call you a liar.

    We know that Obama attended Occidental College in California for two years as an undergraduate from 1979-81.

    We (in France) also know that he visited France (more specifically Southern France) as a tourist in holidays under a US passport during that very time. (This was documented in a short documentary put together by TV channel Canal-Plus made for Obama’s visit to Strasbourg for the NATO Summit in 2009.)

    These established facts clash with your fanciful notion that he became naturalized only in 1983.

    You are really full of sh*t, aren’t you?

  251. avatar
    Rickey August 20, 2014 at 10:40 am #

    SvenMagnussen: I won’t have to prove it. According to my source(s), a person or group of persons who post on Obama Conspiracy Theories wrote FBI Director James B. Comey a letter to formally notify the FBI, an agency of the Department of Justice that President Obama is in violation of the Eligibility Clause because he naturalized in 1983.

    Allegedly, President Obama was deposed on Tuesday night/Wednesday morning.

    Voices in your head are not sources.

    President Obama arrived in Martha’s Vineyard at 5:50 p.m. Tuesday night and he is still there this morning.

  252. avatar
    John Reilly August 20, 2014 at 10:44 am #

    Lupin: You are really full of sh*t, aren’t you?

    Our French colleague, Lupin, referring to Sven.

    I write to note tat we have similar words in English equally applicable to Sven’s ravings.

    Sven has, once again, ducked providing any evidence. He has added an allegation that the President was at a deposition earlier this week on this topic.

    You would think this would make the news.

  253. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 20, 2014 at 10:50 am #

    The Magic M:
    Who cares about Sven’s continuously shifting arguments anymore? Just because he can write longer posts than “john”?

    He claimed 8 USC §1481 allowed a minor’s citizenship to be renounced by his parents prior to 1986. I proved him wrongby citing the text of the law before 1986, he ignored it and switched to another false claim.

    Your’re misinterpreting Elg. SCOTUS ruled Elg cancelled the first stage of US citizenship forfeiture by requesting a US passport and returning to the US. Since voluntary relinquishment was cancelled during her minority, the CLN issued to her in her majority was a violation of her Constitutional right to maintain her US citizenship. We can reasonably infer Elg was issued a CLN because the Sec. of the Dept of Labor and Commissioner of Immigration initiated deportation proceedings against.her.

    In contrast, Obama returned to the US to establish residency after issuance of a CLN. He did not request his US citizenship to be reinstated after he was apprehended at a Port of Entry, Hawaii Intl. Airport, and charged with inadmissibility as an Unaccompanied Alien Child. 8 U.S. Code § 1182(a). His voluntary relinquishment, by an through his mother, remained intact even though Obama sought a waiver pursuant to 8 U.S. Code § 1182(a)(1)(B). Consequently, his fundamental right to forfeit his US citizenship was not violated when he did not contest the CLN by filing a complaint in US federal court. Instead, he chose to seek a waiver and was granted a waiver with the understanding he could recapture his US citizenship until 6 months past his 18th birthday. He chose not to recapture his US citizen. In 1983, he changed his mind and naturalized as a US citizen.

  254. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 20, 2014 at 11:06 am #

    Lupin: I strongly doubt this. In fact I’m tempted to simply call you a liar.

    We know that Obama attended Occidental College in California for two years as an undergraduate from 1979-81.

    We (in France) also know that he visited France (more specifically Southern France) as a tourist in holidays under a US passport during that very time. (This was documented in a short documentary put together by TV channel Canal-Plus made for Obama’s visit to Strasbourg for the NATO Summit in 2009.)

    These established facts clash with your fanciful notion that he became naturalized only in 1983.

    You are really full of sh*t, aren’t you?

    Permanent Resident Aliens are permitted to travel outside of the United States and return to the United States using their unexpired “Green Card,” Form I-551. After the Permanent Resident Alien naturalizes, he or she is entitled to a US passport.

  255. avatar
    Jim August 20, 2014 at 11:07 am #

    Sven, Sven, Sven…your imaginary narration about the President is only in your head. But, I have good news for you…even though you’ve proven not to have a lick of sense about our Constitution and our court precedence, your opinion still has value. It’s worth 1 vote. You lost, the President will serve out his term and will be remembered as the President who saved the country from the total mismanagement by the Pubs. The birthers won’t even be a footnote in history and you’ll pass on a bitter old man. I can live with that. :D

  256. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 20, 2014 at 11:09 am #

    Rickey: Voices in your head are not sources.

    President Obama arrived in Martha’s Vineyard at 5:50 p.m. Tuesday night and he is still there this morning.

    He wasn’t deposed at the White House. I assume he went to the White House to confer with staff and legal counsel before the deposition. If I were the President, I would want my conversation with legal counsel about my ineligibility to take place where I was confident I could speak freely.

  257. avatar
    Lupin August 20, 2014 at 11:10 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Permanent Resident Aliens are permitted to travel outside of the United States and return to the United States using their unexpired “Green Card,” Form I-551. After the Permanent Resident Alien naturalizes, he or she is entitled to a US passport.

    Nope. Not true. You’re lying again.

    If you were a foreigner, to enter France before the signing of the 1985 Schengen Agreement, you needed a valid passport. Hence Obama had a US passport in 1980.

  258. avatar
    roadburner August 20, 2014 at 11:10 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Obama’s naturalization records are sealed and Orly will need a court order to unseal them.

    so you can tell us the number of the court order sealing those documents, what judge signed it, and in what court and on what date this happened.

  259. avatar
    Lupin August 20, 2014 at 11:18 am #

    For argument’s sake it is possible to suppose that Obama entered France in 1980 using a different passport, but there is a problem with this theory.

    The only likely passport Obama might have held (under the birthers’ crazy theories) would have to be an Indonesian passport.

    While Americans could enter France with ONLY a US passport, Indonesians required a visa. (It’s what i used to sarcastically call the “superior races exception” in law school.)

    Now he couldn’t have been granted such a visa by the French Consulate in Los Angeles; he would have had to travel to Indonesia and get his visa from the French Embassy or Consulate there.

    Since no such travel has been proved to have happened, it is/was therefore virtually impossible for Obama to have entered France as an Indonesian.

    Plus, following Occam’s razor, if Obama had been traveling under an Indonesian passport & visa, he wouldn’t have been referred to as an American by the hotelier who remembered him when interviewed.

    I don’t mind Sven raving about implausible legal theories or splitting hairs about legal interpretations, but here he is upping his game by purely and simply LYING about easily provable facts, ie that Obama had a US passport in 1980.

  260. avatar
    Rickey August 20, 2014 at 11:30 am #

    SvenMagnussen: He wasn’t deposed at the White House. I assume he went to the White House to confer with staff and legal counsel before the deposition. If I were the President, I would want my conversation with legal counsel about my ineligibility to take place where I was confident I could speak freely.

    And you don’t believe that the President can speak freely in the Oval Office? Regardless, you are wrong again. Obama spent Tuesday afternoon meeting with his economic advisors, and he left for Andrews Air Force Base to catch his plane to Martha’s Vineyard at 4:05 p.m., leaving no time to prep him for your mythical Tuesday evening deposition.

  261. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 20, 2014 at 11:46 am #

    Lupin:
    For argument’s sake it is possible to suppose that Obama entered France in 1980 using a different passport, but there is a problem with this theory.

    The only likely passport Obama might have held (under the birthers’ crazy theories) would have to be an Indonesian passport.

    While Americans could enter France with ONLY a US passport, Indonesians required a visa. (It’s what i used to sarcastically call the “superior races exception” in law school.)

    Now he couldn’t have been granted such a visa by the French Consulate in Los Angeles; he would have had to travel to Indonesia and get his visa from the French Embassy or Consulate there.

    Since no such travel has been proved to have happened, it is/was therefore virtually impossible for Obama to have entered France as an Indonesian.

    Plus, following Occam’s razor, if Obama had been traveling under an Indonesian passport & visa, he wouldn’t have been referred to as an American by the hotelier who remembered him when interviewed.

    I don’t mind Sven raving about implausible legal theories or splitting hairs about legal interpretations, but here he is upping his game by purely and simply LYING about easily provable facts, ie that Obama had a US passport in 1980.

    Check your facts. Obama went to Indonesia to “visit his mother” and then travelled to Pakistan. There was a great discussion on this at Free Republic because Obama’s mother was living in the US in 1980.

  262. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 20, 2014 at 11:52 am #

    Jim:
    Sven, Sven, Sven…your imaginary narration about the President is only in your head.But, I have good news for you…even though you’ve proven not to have a lick of sense about our Constitution and our court precedence, your opinion still has value.It’s worth 1 vote.You lost, the President will serve outhis term and will be remembered as the President who saved the country from the total mismanagement by the Pubs.The birthers won’t even be a footnote in history and you’ll pass on a bitter old man.I can live with that.

    I heard a rumor FBI Dir Comey was given free Constitutional advice with notification of Obama’s ineligibility.

    FBI Director Comey and AG Holder were appointed by Obama in violation of the Appointments Clause. Any adverse actions by any appointee of an ineligible President is objectionable by any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, including the President.

    President Obama won’t have to fire FBI Dir Comey, the District Court will remove Comey for violation of the Appointments Clause after Dir Comey presents evidence Obama is ineligible.

    A private Attorney General is the only way to proceed.

  263. avatar
    Jim August 20, 2014 at 11:54 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Check your facts.

    BWAHAHAHAHA!!! This from a person whose whole imaginary scenario consists of “I assume”, “I think”, “I guess”, and no evidence or facts. Why don’t you get back to us when you get some provable facts…it would be a definite improvement. :lol:

  264. avatar
    Lupin August 20, 2014 at 11:55 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Check your facts. Obama went to Indonesia to “visit his mother” and then travelled to Pakistan. There was a great discussion on this at Free Republic because Obama’s mother was living in the US in 1980.

    My facts are not at all in question. Yours, on the other hand, are entirely made-up.

    To begin with, there is zero evidence that Obama ever applied for a French visa in Indonesia.

    Second, a tourist visa such as the one that would have been granted to him would typically have been valid for only three months after issuance. So even under your far-fetched scenario, it would have been impossible for Obama to be in France in the Summer of 1980 unless he had been in Indonesia to get his visa no later than Spring of 1980. But in fact, he went there in 1981. So the timeline doesn’t work, and you’re just trying to confuse the issue.

    I’ll repeat it again: this isn’t a legal theory. According to a preponderance of the evidence, Obama did have a US passport in 1980 when he traveled to France that summer.

    You are a liar who are simply making things up.

  265. avatar
    Lupin August 20, 2014 at 12:08 pm #

    What Obama said, by the way, very kindly is:

    “The last time I was in the South of France – or the first time, rather – was as a college student, and I’ve never forgotten the extraordinary hospitality of the French people and the extraordinary views that are available here.”

    I found the exact quote.

  266. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 20, 2014 at 12:24 pm #

    Lupin:
    What Obama said, by the way, very kindly is:

    “The last time I was in the South of France – or the first time, rather – was as a college student, and I’ve never forgotten the extraordinary hospitality of the French people and the extraordinary views that are available here.”

    I found the exact quote.

    All international agreements between the US and a foreign country that contain a clause about US citizens entering the country or exiting the country also contain a clause recognizing the US grants limited rights, privileges and duties to Permanent Resident Aliens with unexpired Green Cards. The Green Card serves at the passport.

    Some Green Card Holders sought asylum from a country that threatened them and the US offered them asylum as an act of humanity. How humane is it to tell a Green Card holder that must return to their hostile country, wait 3 month for a Visa to be issued by France, and then travel to France.

  267. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 20, 2014 at 12:29 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:

    A private Attorney General is the only way to proceed.

    And the SovCit nonsense begins.

  268. avatar
    Dave August 20, 2014 at 12:35 pm #

    I find it ironic that Sven wants to argue birtherism on this thread. Because Taitz’s immigration lawsuit contains zero birtherism.

    So, Sven, think about that. The Queen of the Birthers doesn’t want her lawsuit tainted with birther stuff. What does that tell you?

  269. avatar
    Jim August 20, 2014 at 1:06 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: I heard a rumor FBI Dir Comey was given free Constitutional advice with notification of Obama’s ineligibility.

    BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh Sven, you’re priceless. Ever think about getting a writing gig? You’re humor is so far-fetched the RWNJs will love you.

    “I heard a rumor” is nothing. As far as I know, you heard this rumor from your dog. But that would make sense, at least your dog is smart enough to realize he’s pulling (or humping) your leg. Rumors and innuendo is all you’ve got, and the President will serve out his term. Back to your imaginary world with you! :D

  270. avatar
    Benji Franklin August 20, 2014 at 2:49 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: President Obama won’t have to fire FBI Dir Comey, the District Court will remove Comey for violation of the Appointments Clause after Dir Comey presents evidence Obama is ineligible.

    Full of hate and a profound disregard for the Constitution, if they construed such an event would harm Obama, Birthers like Sven could probably parse the New Testament into a narrative reading indistinguishable word-for-word from a conventional reading of the text of the Wizard of Oz.

    Next you’ll legally change your first name to “The” and your last name to “Attorney General of the United States” and then tell us that creates a Constitutional loophole allowing you to serve a 3rd 4 year term as POTUS.

    You have achieved that depth of Birtherism, which makes reasonble people feel that even DISGUST, is wasted on you.

  271. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG August 20, 2014 at 3:23 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: I heard a rumor FBI Dir Comey was given free Constitutional advice with notification of Obama’s ineligibility.

    Dude, if your “facts” are ball faced lies, why the hell would be be interested in entertaining any “rumors” you might have made up?

  272. avatar
    DaveH August 20, 2014 at 5:20 pm #

    Orly Taitz should be paying Sven big money to write her briefs. I truly believe that!

    Please, Orly Taitz. You need to get Sven to help you. It appears he has many magic words and also rumors that are better than rumors you have that you can use as ebidence.

  273. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 20, 2014 at 8:00 pm #

    Dave:
    I find it ironic that Sven wants to argue birtherism on this thread. Because Taitz’s immigration lawsuit contains zero birtherism.

    So, Sven, think about that. The Queen of the Birthers doesn’t want her lawsuit tainted with birther stuff. What does that tell you?

    One of my supporters on OCT asked me how I intend to prove Obama naturalized in 1983. I heard a rumor someone or a group of people who post on OCT wrote a letter to FBI Director Comey stating Obama was a naturalized citizen and requested an FBI investigation. A source of mine has told me Obama has been deposed. Obama’s deposition will be used to justify a subpoena for Obama’s naturalization records.

    Obama was not punished or removed when his appointments to the Natl Labor Rel. Board were ruled a violation of the Appointments Clause. Obama is not at risk for punishment or removal for violation of the Eligibility Clause. Consequently, he may stipulate he naturalized in 1983 and is in violation of the Eligibility Clause so he can get back to the Oval Office or golf course to continue service as the President of the United States. Obama’s appointees and career professionals in violation of Article VI are the ones who will lose their jobs.

    Since Comey began an investigation after he was notified President Obama was ineligible and in violation of the Constitution, his liability for a violation of holding his office in violation of the Appointments Clause will be limited to removal. Those who have chosen not to investigate or mocked or belittled concerned citizens will be held professionally and personally liable for violations of Article VI of the US. Constitution.

  274. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 20, 2014 at 8:20 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:

    One of my supporters on OCT asked me how I intend to prove Obama naturalized in 1983.

    You have supporters? Here? I think not.

    SvenMagnussen:

    I heard a rumor…

    A source of mine has told me…

    You cannot be so obtuse that you don’t see how ridiculous this makes you look.

    SvenMagnussen:
    Obama has been deposed. Obama’s deposition will be used to justify a subpoena for Obama’s naturalization records.

    The “depostion” never happened. But by all means, issue that “subpoena.”

    SvenMagnussen:
    Obama was not punished or removed when his appointments to the Natl Labor Rel. Board were ruled a violation of the Appointments Clause.

    Of course he wasn’t; he committed no crime. That “violation” was because the Senate was playing procedural games and pretending they weren’t recessed when they were. The Roberts court, the most partisan court in over a century, provided cover for them.

    SvenMagnussen:

    Obama is not at risk for punishment or removal for violation of the Eligibility Clause.

    Of course he isn’t. His eligibility is well-established.

    SvenMagnussen:

    Consequently, he may stipulate he naturalized in 1983 and is in violation of the Eligibility Clause

    Why would he do that? The President has been a Natural Born Citizen of the United States from the day he was born until today. He never relinquished that state, and he certainly never “naturalized,” except in your racist fever dreams. So why would he stipulate such a thing?

    SvenMagnussen:

    Since Comey began an investigation after he was notified President Obama was ineligible and in violation of the Constitution, his liability for a violation of holding his office in violation of the Appointments Clause will be limited to removal.

    You realize this only happened in your imagination… right?

    SvenMagnussen:

    Those who have chosen not to investigate or mocked or belittled concerned citizens will be held professionally and personally liable for violations of Article VI of the US. Constitution.

    Does that include me? For calling you a senile old fool?

    Bring it on, dimwit.

  275. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 20, 2014 at 8:30 pm #

    DaveH:
    Orly Taitz should be paying Sven big money to write her briefs. I truly believe that!

    Please, Orly Taitz. You need to get Sven to help you. It appears he has many magic words and also rumors that are better than rumors you have that you can use as ebidence.

    After Orly introduces herself to the court at the hearing on Aug. 27, Orly should state, “President Obama is ineligible to hold the Office of the President of the United States and the plaintiff in this matter objects to violations of the U.S. Constitution. Sec. Johnson, Sec. Burwell, Dep Dir Kisor and AG Holder hold their offices in violation of the Appointments Clause and the plaintiff objects and seeks relief. Plaintiff moves for defendants’ answer to be stricken from the record for cause. Plaintiff moves for Dep Kisor and AUSA Hu to be denied an appearance in this court for violations of Article VI Plaintiff suggests a sua sponte motion to subpoena President Obama’s complete immigration file possessed and controlled by the DHS and President Obama’s records on file with HHS, Office of Refugee Resettlement, after his apprehension as an Unaccompanied Alien Child in 1971 so the court can make a determination on how to proceed,”

    Worst case scenario is the Judge denies the suggestion for sua sponte motion. Ignoring an objection to violations of the Constitution will lead to a quick remand on appeal.

  276. avatar
    Paper August 20, 2014 at 9:06 pm #

    Question is, will you disavow and stop relying upon your source once you find out this source is not telling you the truth?

    SvenMagnussen: A source of mine has told me Obama has been deposed. Obama’s deposition will be used to justify a subpoena for Obama’s naturalization records.

  277. avatar
    bob August 20, 2014 at 9:07 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:

    Worst case scenario is the Judge denies the suggestion for sua sponte motion.

    I see your point: Normally, if a litigant makes a bat-shit crazy motion (as Sven suggests), the judge thinks the litigant is nuts and doesn’t believe a word said.

    But Taitz already is nuts, and no one believes what she says. So: nothing to lose because Taitz already has nothing.

  278. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 20, 2014 at 9:10 pm #

    Paper:
    Question is, will you disavow and stop relying upon your source once you find out this source is not telling you the truth?

    Ah, but since the source and the deposition and the subpoena are all super-duper Double Top Secret, Sven never has to admit error.

    Not that he ever would; he is shown daily, on this very blog, to be in error, and never, ever acknowledges it.

  279. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 20, 2014 at 10:16 pm #

    Bonsall Obot: Of course he wasn’t; he committed no crime. That “violation” was because the Senate was playing procedural games and pretending they weren’t recessed when they were. The Roberts court, the most partisan court in over a century, provided cover for them.

    Actually, it was the House that was playing the games.

    In order for the Senate to recess, it must ask permission from the House of Representatives. Since the House did not agree to the recess of the Senate (because of procedural games specifically made to strip the presidency of the recess appointments power), the Senate could not legally adjourn.

    The Senate at the time was controlled by Democrats, the House was controlled by Republicans.

  280. avatar
    Dave August 20, 2014 at 10:22 pm #

    Let me interrupt Sven’s views on what Taitz should do with a comment about what Taitz in fact is doing.

    As expected she got a response from the US Attorney today. As I expected, she got pretty much nothing of what she asked for. She demanded that all the defendants testify, and be available for deposition before the hearing; she got a promise that representatives of three of the four defendants would be present, a witness list would be filed shortly, and no mention of depositions. She demanded a ludicrous list of documents; she get a long list URLs of documents available on govt websites that, while relevant to the case, do not as far as I can tell address any of the eight specific topics she demanded.

    Here’s the part that surprised me: Taitz is not pitching a fit about this. Her post is quite complacent. I had my hopes up for a furious motion to compel, but she doesn’t even seem cognizant that she just got nothing that she asked for.

    First she files a lawsuit that completely abandons birtherism (contrary to Sven’s excellent advice). Now the US Attorney gives her discovery demands the finger, and she just meekly sits there and does nothing. All I can say is, who are you and what have you done with Orly Taitz?

  281. avatar
    Lupin August 21, 2014 at 2:46 am #

    SvenMagnussen: All international agreements between the US and a foreign country that contain a clause about US citizens entering the country or exiting the country also contain a clause recognizing the US grants limited rights, privileges and duties to Permanent Resident Aliens with unexpired Green Cards. The Green Card serves at the passport.

    Not true at all. You cannot enter the EU with an American green card without a valid passport. In fact you may need a visa on top of it depending which country your passport belongs to.

    I think you MAY enter Canada and Mexico with only a green card, but not the EU.

    Anyone reading this, do NOT listen to Sven if you plan to travel aboard.

    http://traveltips.usatoday.com/can-permanent-resident-travel-europe-visa-108350.html

  282. avatar
    Lupin August 21, 2014 at 2:50 am #

    Sven:

    Summing up, the fact (which so far you have not been able to undermine) is that, because of when and where he traveled, Obama had to have had a US passport prior to 1983; I have established that the only alternative (an Indonesian passport) would have been virtually impossible.

    You are therefore wrong and your fanciful scenario is pure hogwash.

  283. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 21, 2014 at 3:00 am #

    Lupin: Not true at all. You cannot enter the EU with an American green card without a valid passport. =In fact uyou may nee a visa on top of it depending which country your passport belongs to.

    I think you MAY enter Canada and Mexico with only a green card, but not the EU.

    Anyone reading this, do NOT listen to Sven if you plan to travel aboard.

    http://traveltips.usatoday.com/can-permanent-resident-travel-europe-visa-108350.html

    Your desperation sounds like the country of France providing cover for a usurper in America. Shame. Shame. France is supposed to be an ally of the United States. You can’t be a friend of the United States if you do not support the U.S. Constitution.

  284. avatar
    Lupin August 21, 2014 at 3:14 am #

    SvenMagnussen: All international agreements between the US and a foreign country that contain a clause about US citizens entering the country or exiting the country also contain a clause recognizing the US grants limited rights, privileges and duties to Permanent Resident Aliens with unexpired Green Cards. The Green Card serves at the passport.

    I want to return to this because it shows how ignorant Sven is. A US permanent resident card (“green card”) can only be delivered to a non-US citizen with a valid passport from another country.

    When that person chooses to travel to a third country, the immigration authorities of said county only care about the underlying nationality & passport of the traveler; they could care less if he resides legally in the US or not. That is literally irrelevant to them.

    If he is a Brit with a green card, he’ll be treated like a Brit; he is Indonesian, like an Indonesian — that is to say vastly differently.

    That Sven does not even understand this most elementary fact is an illustration of his ignorance and mental confusion.

  285. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 21, 2014 at 3:21 am #

    Not only should Orly object to Sec. Johnson and Sec. Burwell for violations of the Appointments Clause after an appointment by an ineligible President, Orly should object to amendments to the US Code signed into law by an ineligible President.

    Orly should reference Pub. L. 113–4, title XII, §§ 1261–1263, Mar. 7, 2013, an amendment to 8 U.S. Code § 1232 – Enhancing efforts to combat the trafficking of children adding section B to F.

    A careful review of DACA, an executive order by President Obama, indicates President Obama realizes Public Law. 113-4 is objectionable because it was signed into to law by an ineligible President and is objectionable. President Obama issued an executive order to implement sections B to F of 8 U.S. Code § 1232 by executive order.

    If Public Law 113-4, XII, §§ 1261–1263, is unobjectionable, then DACA is unnecessary. Obama’s appointees could merely implement the amended law.

  286. avatar
    Arthur August 21, 2014 at 3:35 am #

    SvenMagnussen: You can’t be a friend of the United States if you do not support the U.S. Constitution.

    In that case, you should take Mitt Romney’s advice and self-deport.

  287. avatar
    bovril August 21, 2014 at 4:13 am #

    Poor old deluded Sven….

    As a holder of a real live Green Card I can state a fact not svenbabble that a green card provides exactly zero travel usage outside of the USA. No passport, no exit, no entry.

    The only useful thing a GC holder can use their status for would be in the case of say the US government providing emergency evacuation out of a country in turmoil. An example would be if I had been in Rwanda during the Hutu-Tutsi massacres and I couldn’t get to my own countries embassy. As a PRA I could get that consular support from the USA.

    Don’t try and bullshit about yet more things you have no concept for Sven….

    ps need a passport to get in and out of Mexico and Canada even with a GC, done both.

    pps green cards are not green but a rather ugly beige, the best part is the embedded hologram with Lady Liberty mind control rays shooting out of her torch and bathing the US…. 😈

  288. avatar
    Lupin August 21, 2014 at 4:18 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Your desperation sounds like the country of France providing cover for a usurper in America. Shame. Shame. France is supposed to be an ally of the United States. You can’t be a friend of the United States if you do not support the U.S. Constitution.

    You truly are a pedantic idiot.

    Your statements make no sense whatsoever. If Obama was an American when he traveled abroad while in college, he had an American passport. If he wasn’t an American, as you believe, then green card or not, he had another country’s passport. And to travel abroad, not just to France, he would have to show his passport. And if he had an Indonesian passport, he would have had to get a visa beforehand.

    These are relatively simple concepts. The fact you don’t seem to grasp them is frankly beyond my understanding.

  289. avatar
    Paper August 21, 2014 at 6:01 am #

    Here is what Canada has to say about it:

    “As a U.S. Green Card holder, you do not need a temporary resident visa to travel to Canada. At the Canadian border, you will need to present your valid passport and Green Card.”

    http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?q=593&t=16

    And here is what Mexico has to say:

    “US Permanent Residents traveling by air, land or sea to Mexico are required to present a valid Permanent Resident Card. Plus a valid and not expired passport or travel document. If you do not have that card consult other documentation also accepted to prove the US Permanent Residence status (Link).”

    http://consulmex.sre.gob.mx/sanfrancisco/index.php/visas-traveling-to-mexico

    Lupin:

    I think you MAY enter Canada and Mexico with only a green card

  290. avatar
    Paper August 21, 2014 at 6:07 am #

    Here is what the US has to say on the topic:

    “In general, you will need to present a passport from your country of citizenship or your refugee travel document to travel to a foreign country. In addition, the foreign country may have additional entry/exit requirements (such as a visa). For information on foreign entry and exit requirements, see the Department of State’s webpage.”

    http://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-green-card-granted/international-travel-permanent-resident

    As well as:

    “U.S. LPRs do not need a passport to enter the United States as per (8 CFR 211.1(a)), however, they may need a passport to enter another country. Please contact the embassy of the foreign country you will be traveling to for their requirements. ”

    https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/1191/~/traveling-outside-of-the-u.s.—documents-needed-for-lawful-permanent-residents

  291. avatar
    The Magic M August 21, 2014 at 6:16 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Orly should object to amendments to the US Code signed into law by an ineligible President

    Generalized grievance, no standing, dismissed. NEXT!

  292. avatar
    The Magic M August 21, 2014 at 6:27 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Your’re misinterpreting Elg.

    I’m telling you what 8 USC §1481 said before 1986.
    Any SCOTUS case you cite is irrelevant since SCOTUS did not rule 8 USC §1481 unconstitutional, it therefore stands as the law of the land, and did so before 1986. No legal way for Obama to lose his citizenship as a minor. Period.

    And why are you citing Elg anyway? Previously you claimed 8 USC §1481 allowed Obama to lose his citizenship as a minor. Are you at least clearly admitting that claim was wrong?

  293. avatar
    Lupin August 21, 2014 at 6:45 am #

    What always amazes me about the birthers, is that they build elaborate and intricate theories, like inverted pyramids, around a factoid, often obscure but easily demonstrated to be false.

    Take Apuzzo and the “two citizen parents” folks. Their entire legal construction is based on a misinterpretation of Vattel that is immediately apparent to ANY French native and for which they cannot find any support in 200+ years of scholarship–and yet, blinded by racism & xenophobia, they persist in their absurd theories.

    The same applies here to Ace Sventura, Passport Detective. His entire complicated & delusional theory relies on Obama becoming naturalized as a US citizen in 1983. But if so, what passport did he hold BEFORE that date, if not a US one? He couldn’t have traveled to Europe on an Indonesian passport without a visa, and we’ve established he couldn’t materially get one then.

    Like the Kenyan birth scenario which was so competently disproved on this site a while ago, we have established that Obama had to have had a US passport before Ace Sventura’s cut off date in order to have made the trips he did.

  294. avatar
    Keith August 21, 2014 at 7:06 am #

    Lupin: When that person chooses to travel to a third country, the immigration authorities of said county only care about the underlying nationality & passport of the traveler; they could care less if he resides legally in the US or not. That is literally irrelevant to them.

    My wife and I traveled to Mexico several years ago. She is Australian and had a ‘green card’. At Mexican immigration, the officer noted that she indicated that she was returning to the US, but that she didn’t have a re-entry visa in her passport. “That’s right”, she said. “How are you going to get back into the States?” She pulled the green card out of her wallet. “Right”, the officer said, stamped her passport and said “next!”.

    That is all they were interested in: before we let you in, how are you going to get out.

  295. avatar
    Lupin August 21, 2014 at 9:16 am #

    Keith: My wife and I traveled to Mexico several years ago. She is Australian and had a ‘green card’. At Mexican immigration, the officer noted that she indicated that she was returning to the US, but that she didn’t have a re-entry visa in her passport. “That’s right”, she said. “How are you going to get back into the States?” She pulled the green card out of her wallet. “Right”, the officer said, stamped her passport and said “next!”.

    Sure, but they wanted to see her Australian passport first, didn’t they?

    Also, it’s a neighboring country entered through the US border, so returning to the US was an option. If you’d gone to, say, Germany, I don’t think they would have cared about whether she had a green card or not.

  296. avatar
    Rickey August 21, 2014 at 10:46 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Check your facts. Obama went to Indonesia to “visit his mother” and then travelled to Pakistan. There was a great discussion on this at Free Republic because Obama’s mother was living in the US in 1980.

    Really? The Freepers were having a “great discussion” about that? To what end? In January 1981 Obama’s mother began working for the Ford Foundation in Jakarta, and Obama visited her there and then went to Pakistan in the summer of 1981. Where she was in 1980 has no relevance.

    As Lupin has pointed out, Obama could not possibly have obtained a visa from Indonesia in 1980 because he wasn’t in Indonesia in 1980.

    Since you have an inability to get basic facts straight, it’s no wonder that you are unable to arrive at plausible conclusions.

  297. avatar
    y_p_w August 21, 2014 at 12:16 pm #

    Lupin: Sure, but they wanted to see her Australian passport first, didn’t they?

    Also, it’s a neighboring country entered through the US border, so returning to the US was an option. If you’d gone to, say, Germany, I don’t think they would have cared about whether she had a green card or not.

    Legally, a green card is all that’s required to travel between the US and Canada, Mexico, or most Caribbean cruises via surface travel. A passport isn’t a requirement. They don’t even care about the nationality of the green card holder either. The current green card form only contains the country of birth, which for any number of reasons (naturalization or jus sanguins nationality) might not represent the nationality of the holder.

  298. avatar
    BillTheCat August 21, 2014 at 12:17 pm #

    Rickey: Really? The Freepers were having a “great discussion” about that?

    I know right? STOP THE PRESSES, GAME OVER, because it was discussed on Free Republic, lol.

  299. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 21, 2014 at 12:24 pm #

    The Magic M: Generalized grievance, no standing, dismissed. NEXT!

    The First Amendment guarantees Orly the right to sue in federal court to seek relief from the laws, rules, regulations, executive orders and appointments of a sitting President currently in violation of the Eligibility Clause, appointees currently in violation of the Appointments Clause and US federal officers in violation of Article VI of the US Constitution. Appointees holding their office in violation of the Appointments Clause are pleading with the court to support an ineligible President adversely impacting the plaintiff. Plaintiff objects to violations of the US Constitution by appointees and US federal officers and request the court grant her relief.

    Orly’s requested relief should not seek the removal of the ineligible President. Only the impeachment process can remove a sitting President.

    Orly’s requested relief should include a declaration President Obama’s appointees hold their office in violation of the Appointments Clause and US federal officers are in violation of Article VI. Defendants pleadings should be stricken from the record for cause. Defendants counsel should be removed from the proceedings for cause.

  300. avatar
    Dave B. August 21, 2014 at 12:36 pm #

    Some years back I traveled to Mexico, for strictly moral purposes, with a very nice lady from New Zealand, who is a permanent resident of the United States. I got myself a visa at the border, same as always, but the Mexican border official, with whom I had some unfortunate prior history, wouldn’t issue her a visa (which was required for travel in Mexico past the area of the border) there. Said if she held a passport from any of a number of OTHER (European) countries, he could issue the visa; but being as she WASN’T, she had to get the visa at the Mexican consulate. And he was VERY firm and, for a Mexican border official of that time, inflexible on that point.
    So we made our way to El Paso, crossed into Juarez and spent a mostly moral night there and returned to the United States, to visit the Mexican consulate and get her visa. A very nice but somewhat annoyed young lady issued the visa but asked us why we didn’t just get it at the first crossing.

  301. avatar
    gorefan August 21, 2014 at 12:51 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: The First Amendment

    Only problem with your theories is we know that President Obama is eligible as he was never an Indonesian citizen.

    We know that based on the transcript of the Pengadilan Negeri which refused to recognize the “alleged” adoption by Lolo Soetoro. Under Indonesian law the approval of the Pengadilan Negeri is necessary for the granting of citizenship to children younger than five years. Children older than five years have to wait until they are eighteen years to petition for Indonesian citizenship. The Pengadilan Negeri based their decision in part on the sworn affidavit of US Vice Consul Alphonse F. La Porta.

  302. avatar
    sfjeff August 21, 2014 at 1:15 pm #

    Sven

    Tell us the next chapter of Sven and the Pirates.

    Right after you prove to us that Barack Obama ever forfeited his U.S. citizenship.

    Details- evidence- that kind of stuff.

    Everything you make up is based upon your fantasy of Obama forfeiting his U.S. citizenship.

    Since you duck that question every time, I cannot credit you with being delusional- if you were merely delusional, you would try to rationalize an answer.

    But since you just refuse to answer it, I am forced to believe that you are deliberately lying to us.

  303. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 21, 2014 at 1:52 pm #

    You’re in the groove man, in the groove.

    gorefan: Only problem with your theories is we know that President Obama is eligible as he was never an Indonesian citizen.

  304. avatar
    Rickey August 21, 2014 at 2:56 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:

    Orly’s requested relief should include a declaration President Obama’s appointees hold their office in violation of the Appointments Clause and US federal officers are in violation of Article VI. Defendants pleadings should be stricken from the record for cause. Defendants counsel should be removed from the proceedings for cause.

    It is fascinating that Orly Taitz, arguably the worst attorney in the United States, is too smart to take your advice.

  305. avatar
    Paper August 21, 2014 at 3:54 pm #

    Canada and Mexico say officially that green card holders do need their passports. The green card, per their instructions, just allows one to skip the visa requirements they might face given their foreign passport. See above. Is there some unwritten looseness in certain circumstances?

    y_p_w: Legally, a green card is all that’s required to travel between the US and Canada, Mexico, or most Caribbean cruises via surface travel.A passport isn’t a requirement.They don’t even care about the nationality of the green card holder either.The current green card form only contains the country of birth, which for any number of reasons (naturalization or jus sanguins nationality) might not represent the nationality of the holder.

  306. avatar
    Paper August 21, 2014 at 3:57 pm #

    The First Amendment guarantees the right to speak, not however to be given the time of day, nor to be taken the slightest bit seriously.

    SvenMagnussen: The First Amendment guarantees Orly the right…

  307. avatar
    y_p_w August 21, 2014 at 4:41 pm #

    Paper:
    Canada and Mexico say officially thatgreen card holders do need their passports.The green card, per their instructions, just allows one to skip the visa requirements they might face given their foreign passport.See above.Is there some unwritten looseness in certain circumstances?

    I’ve seen conflicting info on this. The CIC website says that a passport and green card are necessary. However, the Canadian Border Services Agency says differently for land travel – that a green card alone is sufficient (doesn’t say one can’t do this for air travel either).

    http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/publications/pub/bsf5023-eng.html#s2x5

    U.S. permanent residents

    Permanent residents of the United States may travel to Canada from the United States or Saint-Pierre and Miquelon without passports, travel documents or visas provided they produce satisfactory evidence of their identity and status. However, if these persons travel to Canada from any other part of the world they require passports (or travel documents) and are visa-exempt (provided they can substantiate their status as a U.S. permanent resident).

    The following documents are proof of permanent residence:

    U.S. Permanent Resident Card (see Appendix I, item 11).

    A temporary I-551 machine-readable immigrant visa (MRIV) bearing the statement: “UPON ENDORSEMENT SERVES AS TEMPORARY I-551 EVIDENCING PERMANENT RESIDENCE FOR 1 YEAR” directly above the machine-readable zone, when contained in an unexpired passport and endorsed with an admission stamp, constitutes a temporary I-551, valid for one year from the date of endorsement on the admission stamp [see Appendix I, item 12. (a)].

  308. avatar
    y_p_w August 21, 2014 at 4:51 pm #

    And there are conflicting messages for Mexico.

    Consulate in New York City:

    http://consulmex.sre.gob.mx/nuevayork/index.php/component/content/article/228

    US Permanent Residents traveling by air, land or sea to Mexico are required to present:

    *Permanent Resident Card, or

    *Temporary Permanent Resident Card expired, plus the Notice of Action (I-797 Form), indicating that the status has been extended, or

    *U.S. Immigrant Visa, or

    *U.S. Re-Entry Permit (I-327 Form), or

    *Transportation Letter issue by the U. S. Government, or

    *Alien Documentation, Identification and Telecommunication Stamp (ADIT) on the passport or on the I-94 Form, or

    *U.S. Refugee Travel Document.

    Consulate in San Francisco:

    http://consulmex.sre.gob.mx/sanfrancisco/index.php/visas-traveling-to-mexico

    2. US Permanent Residents traveling by air, land or sea to Mexico are required to present a valid Permanent Resident Card. Plus a valid and not expired passport or travel document. If you do not have that card consult other documentation also accepted to prove the US Permanent Residence status.

  309. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 21, 2014 at 5:08 pm #

    Rickey: It is fascinating that Orly Taitz, arguably the worst attorney in the United States, is too smart to take your advice.

    Or … Orly read NGUYEN V. UNITED STATES 540 U.S. 935 (2003) and will raise an Appointments Clause challenge at the Supreme Court.

  310. avatar
    Rickey August 21, 2014 at 6:30 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Or … Orly read NGUYEN V. UNITED STATES 540 U.S. 935 (2003)

    Which has absolutely nothing to do with your preposterous claims.

  311. avatar
    Keith August 21, 2014 at 7:33 pm #

    Lupin: Sure, but they wanted to see her Australian passport first, didn’t they?

    Of course. That’s what they stamped. I guess I jumped over a few steps. Sorry.

    Also, it’s a neighboring country entered through the US border, so returning to the US was an option. If you’d gone to, say, Germany, I don’t think they would have cared about whether she had a green card or not.

    Unless she indicated on the immigration form that she was taking a direct flight from Frankfurt to New York maybe? Dunno if that question is asked by Germany; it was asked by Mexico.

  312. avatar
    Lupin August 22, 2014 at 2:38 am #

    Some of what I read above re easy or difficult entry into a country strikes me as the aforementioned “superior races exception” at work.

    To the extreme, a Swede supermodel can go anywhere without being harassed by bureaucrats; a small Algerian male need a suitcaseful of documents.

    In the less enlightened days of the early 1970s, the Prefecture of Police of Paris, which handled (still does) resident permits, etc. had officialized the system. Someone with a US passport was directed to the nice office where a polite civil servant would attend him/her; a scruffy Algerian was directed to the dirty basement office where he’d wait 3 hours before a hostile bureaucrat would roast him over the spit.

    In 1973 I had an Italian-American friend from Boston named Risotto (not making this up) who looked like a hippy from southern italy. He liked to give only his name (not show his passport) at the entry lobby, upon which he’d be directed to the basement office, and wait gleefully until they realized (upon presentation of his passport) that he actually belonged to one of the superior races, upon which they would apologize and obsequiously redirect him to the nice office.

    He used to enjoy that, but then he had a wicked sense of humor.

    Getting back to the point, there is no dispute that if Obama had been traveling under an Indonesian Passport while in college, he would have had to have a visa to enter Europe in the early 1980s. That’s unarguable.

    OTOH if he had a superior race passport (ie: US), then he didn’t need a visa. Again, unarguable.

    There is a preponderance of the evidence that leads to the conclusion that Obama had a US passport before the alleged naturalization postulated by Ace Sventura. Everything else after that falls apart.

  313. avatar
    The Magic M August 22, 2014 at 6:22 am #

    Lupin: To the extreme, a Swede supermodel can go anywhere without being harassed by bureaucrats

    Just don’t tell Al Quaeda, they might get ideas…
    If terrorists ever learn to not let their recruits from Western countries (quite a few Germans, actually) grow beards and look like they were born Taliban, they might greatly improve their chances of smuggling [evil thingy] into the US.

  314. avatar
    The Magic M August 22, 2014 at 6:28 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Orly’s requested relief should include a declaration President Obama’s appointees hold their office in violation of the Appointments Clause

    Again, generalized grievance, no standing. A “declaration” is useless anyway, so you’re effectively asking the court for a legal opinion on a matter where it has no subject jurisdiction; no court in the country (or the world, for that matter) will entertain that.
    The legal response is: Dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
    “Telling you what the court thinks” is not relief.
    If you want legal expertise, pay a lawyer. Courts don’t do that for you for free.

    SvenMagnussen:Defendants pleadings should be stricken from the record for cause. Defendants counsel should be removed from the proceedings for cause.

    So you’re suing somebody and then tell the court to disregard defendant’s replies and throw out his lawyers because you are right, therefore you win.

    By your logic, a President cannot defend himself against the claim that he is ineligible because he is presumed ineligible and therefore can’t defend himself as the President.

    That’s so gonna work. In your dreams. Or maybe a Kafka novel. Or Soviet Russia.

  315. avatar
    Dave August 22, 2014 at 9:45 am #

    Taitz has a post up: she asked Pinal Co. Sheriff Paul Babeu to testify at her hearing, and his office responded that he couldn’t because he was scheduled to talk to Fox News that day.

    There is just so much awesomeness in that.

  316. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 22, 2014 at 10:15 am #

    The Magic M: Again, generalized grievance, no standing. A “declaration” is useless anyway, so you’re effectively asking the court for a legal opinion on a matter where it has no subject jurisdiction; no court in the country (or the world, for that matter) will entertain that.
    The legal response is: Dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
    “Telling you what the court thinks” is not relief.
    If you want legal expertise, pay a lawyer. Courts don’t do that for you for free.

    So you’re suing somebody and then tell the court todisregard defendant’s replies and throw out his lawyers because you are right, therefore you win.

    By your logic, a President cannot defend himself against the claim that he is ineligible because he is presumed ineligible and therefore can’t defend himself as the President.

    That’s so gonna work. In your dreams. Or maybe a Kafka novel. Or Soviet Russia.

    An ineligible President represents the interests of the majority who have elected him as their leader in spite of or because of his ineligibility. The majority wants or does not care parts of the Constitution are or will be ignored.

    The people have delegated limited rights, privileges and duties to the US federal government by and through the US Constitution to establish and maintain a Constitutional republic to form a more perfect union. A violation of the US Constitution provides an opportunity for those who object to said violation to object and seek relief to protect their property interest obtained by right through the 14th Amendment.

    Appointees and career professional US federal officers must state an oath to support the Constitution pursuant to Article VI. Appointees and career professional US federal officers do not have the opportunity to acquiesce to the usurper in spite of the fact they may be fired or suffer economic harm. They are paid to support the Constitution and not the ineligible President.

    Dep. Dir. Kisor, an appointee of Obama, and AUSA Hu, a career professional compensated and discharged with the duty to support the Constitution, may be objected to as counsel for other appointees of an ineligible President and removed for cause.

    The majority has the right to vote for and install an ineligible President, but the President does not have the right to dismantle the Constitutional republic over the objections of the minority who wish to maintain the Constitutional republic. Johnson, Burwell, Kisor and Hu should be standing with Orly or step aside and not pleading on behalf of the usurper.

    Not to mention Judge Hanen. Judge Hanen cannot use the US Constitution to express a separation of powers doctrine while the Constitutional republic is dismantled by an ineligible President. Judge Hanen takes an oath to support the US Constitution and is in violation of his oath if an objection to an ineligible President is heard. An ineligible President is not entitled to deference by an Article III tribunal. A US federal officer holding their office in violation of the Appointments Clause does not represent the interest of the United States because the United States is a Constitutional republic. Judge Hanen is not Constitutionally authorized to hear a pleading or testimony or examine evidence presented by the usurper’s accomplices because they are attempting to dismantle the Constitutional republic under the false narrative they represent the United States.

    FBI Director Comey understands this.

  317. avatar
    Jim August 22, 2014 at 10:20 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Not to mention Judge Hanen. Judge Hanen cannot use the US Constitution to express a separation of powers doctrine while the Constitutional republic is dismantled by an ineligible President.

    Judge Hanen can, however, use the US Constitution to put a bunch of deranged idiots who think the President was/is ineligible in their place when they bring fictitious evidence and imaginary demons into his court to try and overturn a Constitutionally elected and confirmed president. And those of us who understand the Constitution and the dumbness of your imaginary rantings are free to laugh at your feeble attempts at removing him.
    BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

  318. avatar
    Dave August 22, 2014 at 10:50 am #

    Sven, I can’t help noticing that you have not posted any of your excellent advice over at her blog. As I mentioned earlier, it is remarkable that her filings so far in this case have not brought up the subject of the Obama’s eligibility for office. Don’t you think her argument that the DACA should be tossed would be enhanced by this approach?

    Taitz won’t listen to me — I’m just an Obot — but coming from a Patriot like you she might listen. So I urge you to post your views at her blog. In case you don’t have it, the URL is orlytaitzesq.com.

  319. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 22, 2014 at 10:57 am #

    Dave:
    Sven, I can’t help noticing that you have not posted any of your excellent advice over at her blog. As I mentioned earlier, it is remarkable that her filings so far in this case have not brought up the subject of the Obama’s eligibility for office. Don’t you think her argument that the DACA should be tossed would be enhanced by this approach?

    Taitz won’t listen to me — I’m just an Obot — but coming from a Patriot like you she might listen. So I urge you to post your views at her blog. In case you don’t have it, the URL is orlytaitzesq.com.

    I choose to post here. Or has Obama cancelled the First Amendment?

  320. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 22, 2014 at 11:09 am #

    SvenMagnussen: I choose to post here. Or has Obama cancelled the First Amendment?

    Implying that posting on Doc’s site is a First Amendment right.

    I love it when people justify an argument by citing the First; it’s a tacit admission of defeat. All they’re saying is “my statements are not illegal!”

  321. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 22, 2014 at 11:19 am #

    Bonsall Obot: Implying that posting on Doc’s site is a First Amendment right.

    I love it when people justify an argument by citing the First; it’s a tacit admission of defeat. All they’re saying is “my statements are not illegal!”

    Doc’s site? The website belongs to WordPress.

  322. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater August 22, 2014 at 11:56 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Doc’s site? The website belongs to WordPress.

    Umm no. The content is created by Doc C. The site is paid for by Doc C, the .org is owned by doc c

  323. avatar
    roadburner August 22, 2014 at 11:57 am #

    SvenMagnussen: You can’t be a friend of the United States if you do not support the U.S. Constitution.

    well where does that leave you then sven?

    you either accept the whole constitution or not, you don´t get to pick and choose which parts you like.

    and as you obviously have no respect nor support of the full faith and credit clause of the u.s. constitution which authenticate your president´s BC´s and the letters verifying your president´s BC´s (and with the lack of evidence proving they are not authentic), you are obviously no friend of the united states

    `seditionist´ probably fits you better.

  324. avatar
    Jim August 22, 2014 at 11:58 am #

    SvenMagnussen: I choose to post here. Or has Obama cancelled the First Amendment?

    Really Sven? Is that what Gerbil Report, Orly, Freeper, etc. etc. etc are doing? Are you accusing all those sites of breaking the law and the Constitution since they will not let me post there?

  325. avatar
    Majority Will August 22, 2014 at 12:00 pm #

    Ignore the troll.

  326. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 22, 2014 at 12:02 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Doc’s site? The website belongs to WordPress.

    I assure you that BMW does not own the car I’m driving, nor does George Zimmer own the suit I’m wearing.

    You are just so utterly, fractally, granularly wrong about everything, Sven.

  327. avatar
    Dave August 22, 2014 at 12:08 pm #

    Perhaps you’ll enlighten us as to how the First Amendment prevents you from also posting at Taitz’s blog.

    Or, perhaps you won’t.

    SvenMagnussen: I choose to post here. Or has Obama cancelled the First Amendment?

  328. avatar
    Paper August 22, 2014 at 12:12 pm #

    As pointed out to you, this site belongs to Doc, not WordPress. But as an advocate of the First Amendment, you may wish to recall that it protects your right to speech from the government, not from individuals. No person, nor even a company, is obligated to give you a venue.

    SvenMagnussen: I choose to post here. Or has Obama cancelled the First Amendment?

  329. avatar
    Rickey August 22, 2014 at 12:31 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: I choose to post here. Or has Obama cancelled the First Amendment?

    If you want to exercise your First Amendment rights, I suggest that you start your own blog.

    You have no First Amendment right to post on Doc’s blog. Neither do I.

    If you believe that you have a First Amendment right to post on anyone’s blog, you should sue Orly for banning you.

  330. avatar
    Reality Check August 22, 2014 at 12:37 pm #

    You mean we have a First Amendment right to comment at Orly’s blog and Gerbil Report? Who knew? Someone please tell Bob Nelson, Head Gerbil, and Orly.

    SvenMagnussen: I choose to post here. Or has Obama cancelled the First Amendment?

  331. avatar
    Dave August 22, 2014 at 12:53 pm #

    Not only that, but Sven’s comment leads me to fear that the First Amendment perhaps bars us from commenting here — he cites the First Amendment as the reason he doesn’t post anything at Taitz’s blog.

    Reality Check:
    You mean we have a First Amendment right to comment at Orly’s blog and Gerbil Report? Who knew? Someone please tell Bob Nelson, Head Gerbil, and Orly.

  332. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG August 22, 2014 at 12:53 pm #

    Reality Check:
    You mean we have a First Amendment right to comment at Orly’s blog and Gerbil Report? Who knew? Someone please tell Bob Nelson, Head Gerbil, and Orly.

    Oooh! You got him right in the fallacy! That’s gonna leave a mark!

  333. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 22, 2014 at 1:00 pm #

    Rickey: If you want to exercise your First Amendment rights, I suggest that you start your own blog.

    Posting on his own blog is how Sven unmasked his true identity. It was a wholly unnecessary own-goal, the product of a disordered mind.

  334. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 22, 2014 at 1:37 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Umm no.The content is created by Doc C.The site is paid for by Doc C, the .org is owned by doc c

    Carefully read the Editorial Policy of “Doc’s site.”

    Last I heard, “everyone” includes me. Why don’t you start your own blog and take some of the posters who want the block opposition posts with you?

  335. avatar
    y_p_w August 22, 2014 at 1:37 pm #

    Paper:
    As pointed out to you, this site belongs to Doc, not WordPress.But as an advocate of the First Amendment, you may wish to recall that it protects your right to speech from the government, not from individuals. No person, nor even a company, is obligated to give you a venue.

    I found the rules for the public (really quasi-public but that’s another discussion) University where I graduated. They’re known for a little something called the Free Speech Movement that some former actor governor tried to quash.

    But the crux is that now anyone can actually go to the administration building and they will actually provide amplification on request to speak on the front steps. Again – it’s quasi-public. They are publicly funded and chartered, but the amount of public funds they receive these days isn’t much more than many private colleges.

  336. avatar
    Arthur August 22, 2014 at 1:44 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Carefully read the Editorial Policy of “Doc’s site.”

    You mean like this statement: “It’s a free country, but this is not a free blog.”

  337. avatar
    Paper August 22, 2014 at 1:49 pm #

    Indeed. Carefully read the part that says: “It’s a free country, but this is not a free blog.”

    You may want to note that Doc does ban certain posters. He bans a poster called Hermitian, for instance, though Doc does allow an occasional post, or partial post, through.

    None of us can rely upon the First Amendment in order to post here. Just imagine this blog is like someone’s house. I can kick any private person out of my house anytime I want. I am not required to suffer fools. Separately, the government is restricted in its ability to enter uninvited.

    SvenMagnussen: Carefully read the Editorial Policy of “Doc’s site.”

  338. avatar
    Dave August 22, 2014 at 1:51 pm #

    So, why aren’t you commenting at Taitz’s site? Seriously, your great advice would be invaluable for her. Wouldn’t take much of your time, you could just cut and paste the stuff you wrote here.

    And, no, the First Amendment does not prevent you from posting there. So you don’t need to make that excuse again; it made zero sense the first time.

    SvenMagnussen: Carefully read the Editorial Policy of “Doc’s site.”

    Last I heard, “everyone” includes me. Why don’t you start your own blog and take some of the posters who want the block opposition posts with you?

  339. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 22, 2014 at 1:57 pm #

    Arthur: You mean like this statement: “It’s a free country, but this is not a free blog.”

    Many years ago I followed Doc’s request for those wished to support his blog financially to make a donation to one of his favorite liberal charities. So, I did.

    Where’s your donation, mouth?

  340. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 22, 2014 at 2:12 pm #

    Sven has alluded to Orly’s refusal to approve his comments.

    SvenMagnussen:

    Many years ago I followed Doc’s request for those wished to support his blog financially to make a donation to one of his favorite liberal charities. So, I did.

    Pics or it didn’t happen.

    SvenMagnussen:

    Where’s your donation, mouth?

    Careful there, Skippy; you’re not anonymous any more, and some people aren’t as patient as others.

  341. avatar
    Arthur August 22, 2014 at 3:30 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Where’s your donation, mouth?

    Oh Sven,

    I just love you, man! I mean, it’s so damn birther of you to, when presented with a concrete piece of evidence that demonstrates how feeble your argument is, you change the subject and attack the messenger.

    Anyway, as Dr. C. has suggested, I donate to the site Archive.org. I enjoy listening to Old Time Radio and they have a great archive of shows, including my favorite, Jack Benny.

  342. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater August 22, 2014 at 3:39 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Carefully read the Editorial Policy of “Doc’s site.”

    Last I heard, “everyone” includes me. Why don’t you start your own blog and take some of the posters who want the block opposition posts with you?

    Umm no you used to be more interesting when you made up fiction called Barry & the Pirates. Now you’ve just gotten boring. Nice change of subject there. Doc owns the site you claimed he didn’t. You were wrong just like you are with everything else.

  343. avatar
    sfjeff August 22, 2014 at 4:59 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Obama naturalized in 1983

    SvenMagnussen: 1) allege President Obama is ineligible to hold the Office of the President of the United States due to a violation of the Eligibility Clause after he naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1983.

    What evidence do you have that this happened?

    Pretty straight forward- you base your entire fiction on that claim.

    So other than your creative mind- what evidence do you have to support that claim?

  344. avatar
    Keith August 22, 2014 at 9:10 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Doc’s site? The website belongs to WordPress.

    WordPress or Doc C, doesn’t matter. Neither of them is the Government, Congress, or the President.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    The first amendment does not say that you can say whatever you want wherever you want. It only says that Congress cannot restrict what you say or where you say it.

    Both WordPress and The Doc are absolutely free to abridge your freedom of speech on this site if they so choose.

  345. avatar
    Dave August 22, 2014 at 11:02 pm #

    Taitz seems to be having difficulty getting any witnesses for her hearing. Not clear what testimony she’s looking for. But there are so many anti-Latino bigots in this country, it shouldn’t be that hard. How about Bill Gheen at ALIPAC?

  346. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 22, 2014 at 11:30 pm #

    She lives in Orange County and she’s nuts; seems like B-1 Bob Dornan would be a perfect choice. He’s just as nuts and hates all the same people she does.

  347. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) August 23, 2014 at 4:42 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Judge Hanen takes an oath to support the US Constitution and is in violation of his oath if an objection to an ineligible President is heard.

    His oath also comprises to “faithfully execute the laws”, including those that concern standing.

    SvenMagnussen: A violation of the US Constitution provides an opportunity for those who object to said violation to object and seek relief to protect their property interest obtained by right through the 14th Amendment.

    As often as you repeat that, I repeat that SCOTUS has consistently held that “a violation of the Constitution” is a generalized grievance and thus doesn’t confer standing.

  348. avatar
    Lupin August 23, 2014 at 5:07 am #

    sfjeff: SvenMagnussen: 1) allege President Obama is ineligible to hold the Office of the President of the United States due to a violation of the Eligibility Clause after he naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1983.

    What evidence do you have that this happened?

    Pretty straight forward- you base your entire fiction on that claim.

    So other than your creative mind- what evidence do you have to support that claim?

    Besides how could he have “naturalized” in 1983 if he already had a US passport before that date (which I think we have adequately proven).

    Sven is like a scratched cord: even when proven wrong he continues to whine.

  349. avatar
    Notorial Dissent August 23, 2014 at 9:18 am #

    Svenska thank you again for giving me the opportunity to say what an idiot you are.

    You see the thing is any idiot, which specifically means you and La Taitz, can go in to court, and make any asinine outlandish claim, allegation, that you your diseased, depraved, and demented little heart wants to make, within relative limits, but, and I say but, the big hurdle is YOU gotta prove the allegations, the court isn’t going to do it for you or help you, that isn’t what the court system is for. So you want to claim that Obama was naturalized in 1983, fine, you find some proof of it and then you go to court. Otherwise, you got nada. Just like La Taitz has nada.

  350. avatar
    Rickey August 23, 2014 at 10:25 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Carefully read the Editorial Policy of “Doc’s site.”

    Last I heard, “everyone” includes me. Why don’t you start your own blog and take some of the posters who want the block opposition posts with you?

    The Editorial Policy says that the blog should be “accessible” to everyone, not that everyone is entitled to post whatever they want. Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.

    In case you missed it, the Editorial Policy goes on to say “Commenters whose sole purpose is to pick a fight will be banned.” That means trolls.

  351. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG August 23, 2014 at 10:33 am #

    Sven’s poor reading comprehension is exactly why he believes half the stupid crap that he does.

  352. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 23, 2014 at 11:42 am #

    Rickey: The Editorial Policy says that the blog should be “accessible” to everyone, not that everyone is entitled to post whatever they want. Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.

    In case you missed it, the Editorial Policy goes on to say “Commenters whose sole purpose is to pick a fight will be banned.” That means trolls.

    So, Doc could ban me but has made a choice not to. Isn’t your grievance with Doc? Is that why you and many other regular posters have withheld donations to Doc’s favorite charities as per his requests for those who wish to financially support this site?

    Maybe you should start you’re own site and ban me from posting opposition messages on your site. In fact, you could ban anyone who didn’t agree with you. You’ll soon have millions of followers agreeing with everything you say and believe.

  353. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 23, 2014 at 11:53 am #

    SvenMagnussen: So, Doc could ban me but has made a choice not to. Isn’t your grievance with Doc?

    No, you dishonest dimwit. No one has a grievance about you being permitted to beclown yourself every morning. You claimed you had a constitutional right to post here, and it was pointed out to you how absurd that idea is.

    SvenMagnussen

    Maybe you should start you’re own site and ban me from posting opposition messages on your site. In fact, you could ban anyone who didn’t agree with you. You’ll soon have millions of followers agreeing with everything you say and believe.

    You just described every Birfer site, ever. You know… your philosophical allies.

  354. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 23, 2014 at 12:21 pm #

    Bonsall Obot: No, you dishonest dimwit. No one has a grievance about you being permitted to beclown yourself every morning. You claimed you had a constitutional right to post here, and it was pointed out to you how absurd that idea is.

    You just described every Birfer site, ever. You know… your philosophical allies.

    No one has a grievance? If you actually read the messages Doc has posted with respect to me, then you would know Doc has posted specific instructions with respect to responding to me and others posting opposition messages.

    Maybe you should start your own site and see what it feels like to have “supporters” ignore your specific instructions and withhold donations to your favorite charities to support the site financially while the “supporters” obsessively try to control the content on the your site.

    As opposed to banning me, I think Doc would like for you and others to respect his wishes and follow his specific instructions..

  355. avatar
    Paper August 23, 2014 at 12:28 pm #

    Speak, speak!

    The First Amendment is also about allowing even the most inadequate arguments into the light of day, the better to be rejected.

    Are there any candidates you support or endorse for the 2014 elections, who will represent your positions?

    SvenMagnussen: No one has a grievance?

  356. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 23, 2014 at 12:36 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: No one has a grievance? If you actually read the messages Doc has posted with respect to me, then you would know Doc has posted specific instructions with respect to responding to me and others posting opposition messages.

    Maybe you should start your own site and see what it feels like to have “supporters” ignore your specific instructions and withhold donations to your favorite charities to support the site financially while the “supporters” obsessively try to control the content on the your site.

    As opposed to banning me, I think Doc would like for you and others to respect his wishes and follow his specific instructions..

    But you don’t actually post “opposition messages,” do you? You post racist fantasies, long on speculation, short on facts. You are simply a troll, trying to get a rise out of people. You are one of the very best examples of the quality of “opposition” the President faces: bereft of ideas, consumed by hate.

  357. avatar
    Rickey August 23, 2014 at 12:41 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: So, Doc could ban me but has made a choice not to. Isn’t your grievance with Doc?

    Do you have a persecution complex? I have never raised a “grievance” about you.

    Is that why you and many other regular posters have withheld donations to Doc’s favorite charities as per his requests for those who wish to financially support this site?

    You have no idea what donations I or any other regular posters may or may not have made, so quit pretending that you do.

    You’ll soon have millions of followers agreeing with everything you say and believe.

    65,915,795 American voters agreed with me on November 6, 2012. It’s time for you to get over it and do something productive with the rest of your life.

  358. avatar
    Arthur August 23, 2014 at 1:24 pm #

    Sven, with respect to your recent posts, having failed to argue anything successfully in the past, you now appear to be trying to prove you’re a petulant cry baby.

  359. avatar
    Jim August 23, 2014 at 1:27 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: So, Doc could ban me but has made a choice not to.

    Why would Doc ban you? You’re the shooting gallery clown on his site, every time you pop up with another of your bigoted, idiotic ideas…someone shoots you down. No one takes you seriously and everyone laughs at you with each fall. Most people with any sense of self-worth would realize they’re just a joke and leave…idiots keep coming back for more. I think you’ve proven yourself. :lol:

  360. avatar
    Dave B. August 23, 2014 at 1:37 pm #

    Uh, isn’t this about enough already of this “it’s all about me” digression?

  361. avatar
    Paper August 23, 2014 at 2:50 pm #

    Good point.

    Dave B.:
    Uh, isn’t this about enough already of this “it’s all about me” digression?

  362. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 23, 2014 at 5:20 pm #

    I consider you a tradition.

    SvenMagnussen: So, Doc could ban me but has made a choice not to.

  363. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 23, 2014 at 5:25 pm #

    Speaking of productive, I worked on a Habitat house this morning. On the unproductive side, I’ve been arguing with Tracy Fair at WND. :(

    Rickey: . It’s time for you to get over it and do something productive with the rest of your life.

  364. avatar
    Dave B. August 23, 2014 at 7:01 pm #

    Yeah, I saw some of that. They’re a mess. So much in error, yet so certain.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Speaking of productive, I worked on a Habitat house this morning. On the unproductive side, I’ve been arguing with Tracy Fair at WND.

  365. avatar
    sfjeff August 23, 2014 at 8:45 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: No one has a grievance?

    sfjeff: SvenMagnussen: 1) allege President Obama is ineligible to hold the Office of the President of the United States due to a violation of the Eligibility Clause after he naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1983.

    What evidence do you have that this happened?

    Pretty straight forward- you base your entire fiction on that claim.

    So other than your creative mind- what evidence do you have to support that claim?

  366. avatar
    Rickey August 24, 2014 at 12:14 am #

    SvenMagnussen: No one has a grievance?

    I have a generalized grievance against birthers, but I don’t have the standing to do anything about it.

  367. avatar
    Keith August 24, 2014 at 4:00 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Speaking of productive, I worked on a Habitat house this morning. On the unproductive side, I’ve been arguing with Tracy Fair at WND. :(

    They have an unFair advantage though Doc.

    They just have to repeat “No sir, un-huh” to every thing you say. You have to actually be coherent.

  368. avatar
    bovril August 24, 2014 at 6:48 am #

    Svenny dear

    Still waiting on a reality based response

    Since both CLN’s and records of naturalization are public record (I provided a link earlier), do tell, where is Obama’s record. I mean with such certainty on your part, you must have seen said records?

    Ps naturalization records such as they don’t get “sealed” in any of the scenario’s you posit

    Or are you simply a monstrous bullshitter?

  369. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 24, 2014 at 6:57 am #

    The word I get is “flawed” regarding every court decision from US v. Wong and Ankeny to her own losses in Maryland.

    Keith: They just have to repeat “No sir, un-huh” to every thing you say. You have to actually be coherent.

  370. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 24, 2014 at 9:58 am #

    Keith: They have an unFair advantage though Doc.

    They just have to repeat “No sir, un-huh” to every thing you say. You have to actually be coherent.

    That’s the procedure. The court ordered the government to show cause why it shouldn’t grant Orly’s application for stay.

    For some oddball reason, Orly is scouring the net looking for witnesses to convince the court it should grant her application. All she needs to do is poke holes in the government’s answer by a preponderance of the evidence.

    Here’s how:

    1) The Executive branch is Constitutionally authorized to executive the laws, rules, policies, and executive orders of the United States with respect to border control and foreign policy.

    2) The President, a unitary executive of the Executive branch, holds the Office of the President of the United States in violation of the Eligibility Clause.

    3) The President appoints US federal officers to assist the President in executing the laws, rules, regulations and executive orders of the United States with respect to border control and foreign policy.

    4) Appointees of an ineligible President are in violation of the Appointments Clause and subject to objection and removal for violation of Article VI of the US Constitution.

    5) The Framers of the Constitution never intended for border to be unsecure if the American people elect an ineligible President. A Private Attorney General must be appointed by the court pursuant to the Appointments Clause. (“… the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”)

    6) 28 U.S. Code § 1251(b)(3) … The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of … (3) All actions or proceedings by a State … against aliens.

  371. avatar
    Dave August 24, 2014 at 10:19 am #

    Sven, when Taitz doesn’t get her stay, it will be all your fault. You knew what she needed to do, and you didn’t tell her.

  372. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 24, 2014 at 11:54 am #

    The question I have is whether Orly got as far as she has by NOT interjecting the birther angle. At this late stage, would a judge feel uncomfortable letting a birther-themed complaint go forward, when it could be (and probably should be) dismissed sua sponte, even when he is sympathetic in the underlying controversy?

    SvenMagnussen: 2) The President, a unitary executive of the Executive branch, holds the Office of the President of the United States in violation of the Eligibility Clause.

  373. avatar
    Jim August 24, 2014 at 12:23 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:
    2) The President, a unitary executive of the Executive branch, holds the Office of the President of the United States in violation of the Eligibility Clause.

    YES, YES Sven! I keep telling her she HAS to send in the Georgia DVD and the testimony! She needs to do it IMMEDIATELY or she’ll miss this very small window she has left…THE JUDGE HATES OBAMA! This is her ONE HONEST JUDGE! THIS IS THE CASE!!!

    Unfortunately Sven, she’s going to miss the short time she has to get it in. Imagine Sven, the one time she has to finally get the President, she’s not going to recognize the one honest judge was sitting right in front of her. She doesn’t understand that if she does that one thing she didn’t do, she might have changed a couple of her losses. Oh well, I think the Georgia DVD would have done it.

    So what do you think she should do next Sven? Blame the President for the all the debris from Japan blowing onto the west coast, or blame him for the Volcano in Iceland blowing soot over the east cost?

  374. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 24, 2014 at 12:41 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The question I have is whether Orly got as far as she has by NOT interjecting the birther angle. At this late stage, would a judge feel uncomfortable letting a birther-themed complaint go forward when it could be (and probably should be) dismissed sua sponte when he is sympathetic to the underlying controversy?

    There’s more to it, Doc. Hint: Fifth Circuit, Appointments Clause challenge, Flores v. DHS

    Some of the folks on Fogbow are alluding to it.Dig deeper, Doc. A Pulitzer prize awaits.

  375. avatar
    Arthur August 24, 2014 at 2:20 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Some of the folks on Fogbow are alluding to it.Dig deeper, Doc. A Pulitzer prize awaits.

    If he followed your advice, he’s more likely to win a Darwin Award.

  376. avatar
    Keith August 24, 2014 at 2:53 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: That’s the procedure…

    No sir, Un-huh.

  377. avatar
    Keith August 24, 2014 at 2:53 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: There’s more to it, Doc. Hint: Fifth Circuit, Appointments Clause challenge, Flores v. DHS

    Some of the folks on Fogbow are alluding to it.Dig deeper, Doc. A Pulitzer prize awaits.

    No sir, Un-huh.

  378. avatar
    sfjeff August 24, 2014 at 5:07 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: 2) The President, a unitary executive of the Executive branch, holds the Office of the President of the United States in violation of the Eligibility Clause.

    Prove it Sven.

    Prove it.

  379. avatar
    Arthur B. August 24, 2014 at 5:45 pm #

    sfjeff: Prove it Sven.

    Prove it.

    Come on, he said he heard a rumor.

    That’s not good enough for you?

  380. avatar
    Thomas Brown August 24, 2014 at 10:30 pm #

    Man, that is so friggin’ funny. Sven actually thinks the president is ineligible and some day that phantom reality will break free and prove him right. It’s in his tone; what a crack-up. Seriously… reading Sven, LOL really means LOL!

  381. avatar
    Notorial Dissent August 25, 2014 at 12:08 am #

    It still boils down to any idiot, in this case Svenska or La Taitz, can go in to court and allege any asinine ridiculous thing they want to, and they have, and the courts are rife with hoards of such cases that never get out of the starting gate because they are nonsense. The problem comes down to when they have to actually prove their allegations they promptly fall flat on their faces for lack of any evidence, credible or otherwise. Svenska and La Taitz have never gotten past the point of just because they really really want to believe something is true doesn’t make it so stage. Which is why they are failures in general and specific, and always will be.

  382. avatar
    Benji Franklin August 25, 2014 at 2:07 am #

    SvenMagnussen: 2) The President, a unitary executive of the Executive branch, holds the Office of the President of the United States in violation of the Eligibility Clause.

    Well, Sven, since essentially no one in authority officially agrees with you on that score, you are not stating a fact that is conceded by the general public or the consensus of experts.

    So what you really meant was that YOU THINK that the President, a unitary executive of the Executive branch, holds the Office of the President of the United States in violation of the Eligibility Clause.

    And of course, no one in authority cares what you think!

  383. avatar
    nbc August 25, 2014 at 3:44 am #

    Benji Franklin: Well, Sven, since essentially no one in authority officially agrees with you on that score, you are not stating a fact that is conceded by the general public or the consensus of experts.

    Reality has never interfered with Sven…

    This is just hilarious to watch… And sad at the same time.

  384. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) August 25, 2014 at 4:23 am #

    Thomas Brown: Sven actually thinks the president is ineligible and some day that phantom reality will break free and prove him right.

    He might have better chances switching over to theoretical physics and invent a machine that will take him to the parallel reality where Obama is ineligible, or, even simpler, one where no black man ever became President in the first place.
    (Which, in turn, is much simpler than building a time machine, which, in turn, is much more likely than birthers coming up correct.)

  385. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 25, 2014 at 7:08 am #

    Since the court has ordered the government to show cause, Orly should focus on her cross-examination of the government’s witnesses, as opposed to proving the court should grant her application.

    Orly should ask the witness from DHS:

    1) What does the DHS do when an unaccompanied child enters a border control processing station and claims to be an American with a parent, grandparent, aunt or uncle waiting to pick them up?

    2) Is the alleged American child apprehended by the federal government or are local police called to investigate a child abandonment case?

    3) Has an unaccompanied child with US citizenship been apprehended by the federal government?

    etc …

    And then the HHS witness is cross-examined, Orly should ask:

    1) is a US citizen, unaccompanied child at a border control processing center ever transferred to a contractor with the Office of Refugee Resettlement?

    2) How does HHS determine an unaccompanied child at a border control processing station is not a US citizen abandoned by their parents?

    3) Has President Obama ever been apprehended and charged with inadmissibility as an unaccompanied alien child?

    4) Was President Obama ever determined to be unaccompanied alien child abandoned at a border control processing station with custody transferred to the Office of Refugee Resettlement?

    etc …

    sfjeff: Prove it Sven.

    Prove it.

  386. avatar
    Dave August 25, 2014 at 7:20 am #

    Sven, you never get done with the “Orly should…” And I think we can all agree that the best thing that could happen is for Taitz to follow your advice. So I ask, again, why you choose to not bring any of this to her attention?

  387. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) August 25, 2014 at 7:32 am #

    SvenMagnussen: 3) Has President Obama ever been apprehended and charged with inadmissibility as an unaccompanied alien child?

    4) Was President Obama ever determined to be unaccompanied alien child abandoned at a border control processing station with custody transferred to the Office of Refugee Resettlement?

    And when the answer is “no”, what should Orly do then? Hold her breath until the witness changes its answer?

    You know that one of the first things a trial lawyer learns is to never ask a question he doesn’t already know the answer for, and to never ask a question where the answer would undermine his case.

  388. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 25, 2014 at 8:08 am #

    The Magic M (not logged in): And when the answer is “no”, what should Orly do then? Hold her breath until the witness changes its answer?

    You know that one of the first things a trial lawyer learns is to never ask a question he doesn’t already know the answer for, and to never ask a question where the answer would undermine his case.

    Your assuming a failure to obtain a stay terminates the action. It’s more important to get the US federal government on record, under oath, stating unaccompanied children with US citizenship abandoned at a border control processing center are not apprehended.

    Orly alleged violations of the Constitution and the US code in her application for the stay. Without a verifiable method to determine the unaccompanied child’s citizenship, it’s probable children with US citizenship are apprehended, in country, and charged with inadmissibility.

    Let the discovery begin. Start with President Obama’s encounter at the port of entry, Hawaii International Airport, 1971.

  389. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 25, 2014 at 8:34 am #

    For Sven, and not a few others, Bloody Orly’s Texas Adventure is merely Birfer porn; the foregone conclusion is beside the point. It’s the process that gets him excited.

  390. avatar
    Keith August 25, 2014 at 8:35 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Since the court has ordered the government to show cause, Orly should focus on her cross-examination of the government’s witnesses, as opposed to proving the court should grant her application.

    No sir, un-huh.

    Since the Government’s show cause argument will be accepted, the case will never get to deposition stage, let alone hearing. There will never be any witnesses to whom to pose your questions.

  391. avatar
    Dave August 25, 2014 at 8:43 am #

    I disagree — there is no “birther” in this case. Nowhere in her filings has she said one single birther thing. This is the case where Taitz abandoned the birthers.

    Bonsall Obot:
    For Sven, and not a few others, Bloody Orly’s Texas Adventure is merely Birfer porn; the foregone conclusion is beside the point. It’s the process that gets him excited.

  392. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater August 25, 2014 at 9:06 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Orly alleged violations of the Constitution and the US code in her application for the stay. Without a verifiable method to determine the unaccompanied child’s citizenship, it’s probable children with US citizenship are apprehended, in country, and charged with inadmissibility.

    Let the discovery begin. Start with President Obama’s encounter at the port of entry, Hawaii International Airport, 1971.

    One thing has nothing to do with the other. Since the case has no relation to Obama’s citizenship discovery wouldn’t give you what you want.

    Regarding Hawaii being the port of entry. Are you sure there was a direct flight to Honolulu which would make it the initial entrance in the United States.

  393. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 25, 2014 at 9:20 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: One thing has nothing to do with the other.Since the case has no relation to Obama’s citizenship discovery wouldn’t give you what you want.

    Regarding Hawaii being the port of entry.Are you sure there was a direct flight to Honolulu which would make it the initial entrance in the United States.

    It’s called discovery so facts can be discovered. If facts, not allegations, were a prerequisite, then it would be called verification.

    There is no statute of limitations on violations of the US Constitution.So, if Obama was apprehended and charged with inadmissibility in 1971, then he was an alien or he was a US citizen and his Constitutional rights were violated.

  394. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 25, 2014 at 9:33 am #

    Dave:
    I disagree — there is no “birther” in this case. Nowhere in her filings has she said one single birther thing. This is the case where Taitz abandoned the birthers.

    We’ll see. Somehow, I can’t imagine Bloody Orly getting through whatever time is allotted her without mentioning the birf certificate or social security number.

    Regardless, what I meant was, the fantasy of “discovery” and of even implying during cross-examination that the President somehow sneaked into the country as a child is all Sven needs to achieve his happy ending.

  395. avatar
    Dave August 25, 2014 at 9:53 am #

    I remain hopeful. If, as many suspect, the judge wants to use this hearing for his own wingnut grandstanding, he will look like a total fool if Taitz starts questioning DACA on birther grounds.

    But I also remain astonished that none of the flying monkeys have noticed that Taitz’s filings leave all their pet theories out.

    Bonsall Obot: We’ll see. Somehow, I can’t imagine Bloody Orly getting through whatever time is allotted her without mentioning the birf certificate or social security number.

  396. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 25, 2014 at 10:04 am #

    Dave:
    I remain hopeful. If, as many suspect, the judge wants to use this hearing for his own wingnut grandstanding, he will look like a total fool if Taitz starts questioning DACA on birther grounds.

    This is exactly what I envision; the synergy between these two loons promises great entertainment. I am taking Wednesday off work.

    Dave:

    But I also remain astonished that none of the flying monkeys have noticed that Taitz’s filings leave all their pet theories out.

    I envy your ability to still be surprised by Birfer behavior.

  397. avatar
    JoZeppy August 25, 2014 at 11:24 am #

    SvenMagnussen: It’s called discovery so facts can be discovered. If facts, not allegations, were a prerequisite, then it would be called verification.

    Discovery has to be reasonably related to the complaint (which mind you, Orly hasn’t even filed one). As the President’s origins are not at issue, they are beyond the scope of any discovery.

  398. avatar
    sfjeff August 25, 2014 at 1:01 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Since the court has ordered the government to show cause, Orly should focus on her cross-examination of the government’s witnesses, as opposed to proving the court should grant her application.

    Why not answer the question Sven?

    Like I said before- if you were delusional you would attempt to make some kind of rationalization of proof.

    So if you are not delusional, the only other option is that you are lying.

    Give us proof to your claim that President Obama naturalized, or admit you are lying.

  399. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG August 25, 2014 at 2:22 pm #

    And by proof, Sfjeff means actual evidence. Not birther hearsay, previously debunked lies, or pseudo-legal gobbledygook!

    Tom Baker’s right…that IS a fun word! Gobbledygook!

  400. avatar
    Dave August 25, 2014 at 3:30 pm #

    Good news — Taitz has apparently located some witnesses. She has posted a motion asking Judge Hanen to sign emergency subpoenas for four border patrol officers. She has found four who want to testify — and she says they will testify to all kinds of unlikely stuff — so you might ask, why does she need a subpoena? She says these officers have a “gag order” from their superiors.

    About that “gag order,” IANAL, but I believe it’s pretty typical that law enforcement officers are only permitted to testify about their jobs in civil cases when subpoenaed.

    I presume the motion has attachments with more specifics which she didn’t post.

  401. avatar
    Rickey August 25, 2014 at 4:18 pm #

    Dave:
    Good news — Taitz has apparently located some witnesses. She has posted a motion asking Judge Hanen to sign emergency subpoenas for four border patrol officers. She has found four who want to testify — and she says they will testify to all kinds of unlikely stuff — so you might ask, why does she need a subpoena? She says these officers have a “gag order” from their superiors.

    About that “gag order,” IANAL, but I believe it’s pretty typical that law enforcement officers are only permitted to testify about their jobs in civil cases when subpoenaed.

    I presume the motion has attachments with more specifics which she didn’t post.

    I have been attending civil trials off and on for 40 years and I have never seen a law enforcement officer testify who was not subpoenaed.

    First of all, they generally get paid for their time (and they receive overtime when they have to testify on a day off) when they are subpoenaed to testify.

    Second, no attorney wants a favorable witness to testify without being subpoenaed. It is presumed that anyone who volunteers to testify is biased. You like to make it appear that the witness is at least somewhat reluctant and only came to court because of the subpoena. Of course, Orly would have no way of knowing this because her skull is impenetrable.

    I do not know what they local rules might be about providing adequate notice. The hearing is in less than 48 hours.

  402. avatar
    Jim August 25, 2014 at 5:43 pm #

    She hasn’t sent in the Georgia DVD yet? Orly, you’re missing your chance. This is the One Honest Judge! Get it sent in!

  403. avatar
    bob August 25, 2014 at 10:32 pm #

    The judge granted Taitz’s motion and ordered the clerk to prepare Taitz’s subpoenas.

    I think it is fair to say that these border patrol agents have not cleared their testimony with their superiors, and may be in for quite a surprise when permission is not given for them to testify (or if they testify without prior authorization).

  404. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG August 25, 2014 at 10:47 pm #

    bob:
    The judge granted Taitz’s motion and ordered the clerk to prepare Taitz’s subpoenas.

    I think it is fair to say that these border patrol agents have not cleared their testimony with their superiors, and may be in for quite a surprise when permission is not given for them to testify (or if they testify without prior authorization).

    Hey, if they’re stupid enough to ruin their careers for the Chicken Lady’s crusade, then so be it.

  405. avatar
    Keith August 26, 2014 at 12:17 am #

    bob: I think it is fair to say that these border patrol agents have not cleared their testimony with their superiors, and may be in for quite a surprise when permission is not given for them to testify (or if they testify without prior authorization).

    Or it may be that they have indeed cleared their testimony with their superiors and Ms. Taitz may not like that testimony. On the other hand, I’m sure the judge is interested in getting HIS biases against the border patrol confirmed; he may just use the occasion for more grandstanding.

  406. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) August 26, 2014 at 4:39 am #

    Dave: But I also remain astonished that none of the flying monkeys have noticed that Taitz’s filings leave all their pet theories out.

    They will tell themselves it’s all part of some brilliant masterplan that Orly will reveal at the last minute in true Matlock fashion.

  407. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) August 26, 2014 at 4:41 am #

    SvenMagnussen: It’s more important to get the US federal government on record, under oath, stating unaccompanied children with US citizenship abandoned at a border control processing center are not apprehended.

    And how would that prove anything w.r.t. Obama? You might as well get the Kenyan government on record, under oath, that underage US citizen mothers with newborn black babies are not detained at the airport when trying to leave the country, it would still not prove one iota of “Obama was born in Kenya”.