Main Menu

The occasional open thread: sigh of relief edition

If you want to sigh as a sign of relief, or just make an Obama Conspiracy comments not related to the current articles here, drop it here. This thread will close in two weeks.

image

473 Responses to The occasional open thread: sigh of relief edition

  1. avatar
    justlw March 4, 2015 at 1:27 am #

    Obligedfriend:
    Is Barack Hussein Obama a Christian name. Was this name legal under the Hawaii Christian name Law. The law was active 1961.

    Reminds of a comment someone threw at me on another site– sort of the complement to the above:

    Well the liar he is, said he was a Christian but I hate to tell you no Christian in this world has a muslim name

    I asked if he could define what a “muslim name” was but got no reply.

  2. avatar
    jdkinpa March 4, 2015 at 1:58 am #

    “no Christian in this world has a muslim name ”

    If you get a chance point that idiot to this url.

    Obama should be proud to be named Hussein

  3. avatar
    Lupin March 4, 2015 at 2:02 am #

    justlw: Reminds of a comment someone threw at me on another site– sort of the complement to the above:

    Well the liar he is, said he was a Christian but I hate to tell you no Christian in this world has a muslim name

    I asked if he could define what a “muslim name” was but got no reply.

    If he means an Arabic-derived name, that is certainly not true; there re plenty of Christians (including the Copts in Egypt) whose surnames sound “muslim”.

  4. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 4, 2015 at 6:02 am #

    It’s Obama because it was a common name from Hawaii, stolen, and the family murdered to completely hide the identity theft because the Medellin cartel was determined to put a foreign King, their man, on the American throne.

    Why else would any of us even be discussing Communist Cuba’s Ted Cruz as our new master?

    Yet, here we are. Yes, you can buy a country when it’s leaders are sniveling, spoiled, spoon-fed cowards.

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 4, 2015 at 8:01 am #

    Bizarre article, for the American Thinker, says Ted Cruz is eligible:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/03/why_ted_cruz_is_constitutionally_qualified_to_be_president.html

  6. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 4, 2015 at 8:02 am #

    Can you give references to any of the other COMMONLY NAMED people from Hawaii named Obama? (Not seriously asking).

    Nancy R Owens: It’s Obama because it was a common name from Hawaii

  7. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 4, 2015 at 8:11 am #

    Nancy R Owens:
    It’s Obama because it was a common name from Hawaii, stolen, and the family murdered to completely hide the identity theft because the Medellin cartel was determined to put a foreign King, their man, on the American throne.

    Why else would any of us even be discussing Communist Cuba’s Ted Cruz as our new master?

    Yet, here we are. Yes, you can buy a country when it’s leaders are sniveling, spoiled, spoon-fed cowards.

    You already played this game. You originally claimed you got it from the bible, you then switched it to claiming it was a family you murdered. There is no record of any family named Obama murdered in Hawaii. There is no record of another Obama family in Hawaii. You lied as you always do.

  8. avatar
    bovril March 4, 2015 at 8:19 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Bizarre article, for the American Thinker, says Ted Cruz is eligible:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/03/why_ted_cruz_is_constitutionally_qualified_to_be_president.html

    Cue BirfoonRep’rt………”OMG the Ebil Regime have gotten to The Stinker” I firmly expect Bird Brain and BS Extreme to be in full denouncement flow shortly……8-)

  9. avatar
    BobJ March 4, 2015 at 9:25 am #

    I am sure this has been asked before, but I am unable to find a definite answer: was Spiro Agnew’s father naturalized before he was born?

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 4, 2015 at 9:40 am #

    See this article, and discussion following:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/09/vp-agnews-parental-citizenship/

    BobJ: I am sure this has been asked before, but I am unable to find a definite answer: was Spiro Agnew’s father naturalized before he was born?

  11. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) March 4, 2015 at 9:45 am #

    Lupin: If he means an Arabic-derived name

    I noticed back in 2011 already that the people at WND were using “Muslim” as if it was some sort of identity that went beyond religion – as a language, as a nationality etc.
    (Now I know one can use expressions like “he speaks perfect Muslim” as a metaphor for “he knows what words to use to appeal to Muslim listeners”, but they were not using it that way.)

  12. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 4, 2015 at 9:53 am #

    What I remember is going to Hawaii with Griselda Blanco and telling her the reason I picked out “Obama,” other than the fact that I was looking for a male child born on the same date as my half-brother, was that the fiche files seemed to have a huge number of “Obama’s,” Being from mainland America, the Obama name seemed strange. I suspect it’s just a common Hawaii name.

    I still managed to get the birth date off because his real birthday (we decided to keep it simple) and his birth certificate date are off by one day. That was my third mistake and more than enough reason to be tossed into an acid bath which was always a danger when working for the Medellin Cartel.

    That and idiot politicians who treated everything like some sort of checkers game for which we are now all paying the price.

    Ted Cruz=Adam Walsh (kidnapped by me), Miami surrendered to Cuban infiltrators played out over and over. Mark my words.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Can you give references to any of the other COMMONLY NAMED people from Hawaii named Obama? (Not seriously asking).

  13. avatar
    Rickey March 4, 2015 at 10:23 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Can you give references to any of the other COMMONLY NAMED people from Hawaii named Obama? (Not seriously asking).

    My database of listed telephone numbers shows 9 people with the surname “Obama” in the United States (of course, President Obama’s family is not included).

    Curiously, there is a phone listing in Antioch, CA for a woman named Michelle Obamah. There is no street address, so it could be a crank listing.

  14. avatar
    justlw March 4, 2015 at 10:37 am #

    Another comment from the same jeenyus on the same GR article: “(Dr. Conspiracy) and Alvin Onaka (State of Hawaii) both worked for the same agency?”

    My close friend Donald Rumsfeld and I had a good laugh over that. We’re tight as can be, you know, because we both worked for the same agency. Well, we were each in the Boy Scouts at one time. Same thing!

  15. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 4, 2015 at 10:53 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Bizarre article, for the American Thinker, says Ted Cruz is eligible:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/03/why_ted_cruz_is_constitutionally_qualified_to_be_president.html

    He may be qualified after a count of the electoral votes, but not eligible.

    Citizenship is a property interest with investments by the government and the individual. Although Ted renounced his interest in Canadian citizenship, Canada maintains its interest in Ted’s Canadian citizenship until the federal cabinet issues an order of revocation and notices Ted it has issued an order of revocation.

    Why would America care if Canada maintained an interest in Ted’s Canadian citizenship after Ted moved to America, pledged an oath of allegiance to the US and renounced his Canadian citizenship?

    It is because we are a nation of laws with respect for the property rights our allies. The US could not expect Canada to respect the property rights of the US if we did not respect the property rights of Canada. Since Canada has not revoked their property rights in Ted’s Canadian citizenship, Ted is ineligible to hold the office of the President of the U.S.

    Like Obama, ineligibility to hold the office of the President does not mean Ted cannot be sworn in as President if he were to obtain the most votes in the Electoral College. The federal courts would not be constitutionally authorized to enjoin Ted from assuming the Office of the President or ordering Ted to vacate the office. But America’s sovereignty would be diminished by electing an ineligible President if you assume America maintained its sovereignty after Obama assumed the office.

    In the case of Elg v. Perkins, SCOTUS ruled Elg was a natural born citizen after Elg was factually determined to be a native born person with dual US/Swedish citizenship. Elg was a natural born citizen because the Nationalization Treaty of 1869 between the US and Sweden agreed the United States maintained a majority interest in Elg’s citizenship with Sweden maintaining a minority interest in Elg’s citizenship while Elg was a permanent resident of the United States.

    The US and Canada do not have a treaty agreeing to a majority and minority interest differentiation with respect to dual citizens. Therefore, Ted is not eligible to be President until Canada issues a revocation order by the federal cabinet.

  16. avatar
    Lupin March 4, 2015 at 10:58 am #

    The Open Thread topics don’t seem to appear on the front page (for me); only through RECENT COMMENTS. Is that normal?

  17. avatar
    y_p_w March 4, 2015 at 10:59 am #

    http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/03/alabama_supreme_court_orders_h.html

    Kind of a continuation of the Roy Moore deal, but the Alabama Supreme Court just ordered probate judges to stop issuing same-sex marriage licenses. I thought maybe in Alabama they understood the Supremacy Clause, but I guess it’s the same state that brought us George Wallace.

    I’m wondering when the US Marshals Service will show up to enforce the federal ruling.

  18. avatar
    Lupin March 4, 2015 at 11:17 am #

    FWIW I found this by searching your National Archives:

    Letter from James Madison to the Minister of the Interior of the French Republic

    Virginia. April 1793

    Sir

    I have recd. your letter of the 10th. of Octr.1 accompanying the decree of the National assembly of the 26. of Augst. last; which confers the title of French Citizen on several foreigners among whom I have the honor to be named.

    In the catalogue of sublime truths and precious sentiments recorded in the revolution of France, none is more to be admired, than the renunciation of those prejudices which have perverted the artificial boundaries of nations into exclusions of the philanthropy which ought to cement the whole into one great family. The recitals of the Act which you communicate, contain the best comment on this great principle of humanity: and in proportion, as they speak the magnanimity of the French Nation, must claim the gratitude & affection of the Individuals so honorably adopted into her citizenship. For myself I feel these sentiments with all the force which that reflection can inspire; and I present them with peculiar satisfaction as a Citizen of the U. S. which have borne so signal a part towards banishing prejudices from the World & reclaiming the lost rights of Mankind; & whose public connection with France is endeared by the affinities of their mutual liberty, and the sensibility testified by the Citizens of each Country to every event interesting to the fortunes of the other.

    To this tribute of respectful affection, I beg leave to add my anxious wishes for all the prosperity & glory to the French Nation which can accrue from an example corresponding with the dignified maxims they have established, and compleating the triumphs of Liberty, by a victory over the minds of all its adversaries.

    Be pleased, Sir, to accept acknowledgts. due to the sentiments you have personally expressed in transmittg. the public act with which you were charged.

    J. M.

    From James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 29 May 1793

    Orange May 29. 93.

    Dear Sir

    I wrote you two or three days ago with an inclosure of Newspapers &c since which I have been favored with yours of the 19th. I thank you for the plans & observations which far exceeded the trouble I meant to give you. The sentiments expressed by Genest would be of infinite service at this crisis. As a regular publication of them cannot be expected till the meeting of Congress, if then, it were to be wished they could in some other mode make their way to the press. If he expressed the substance of them in his verbal answer to the address, or announces them in open conversation, the Printers might surely hand them to the public. The affection to France in hruggles for liberty would not only be increased by a knowledge that she does not wish us to go to war; but prudence would give its sanction to a bolder enunciation of the popular sentiment. I inclose a letter to the French Minister of the Interior which has been written some time. I pray you to look it over with an eye to every proper consideration, and if you find a particle in it wrong or doubtful not to seal & forward it, till I have an opportunity of makg. the requisite variations. I hope your model of the Threshing Machine is by this time arrived & answerable to expectation. You will have much use for it if your harvest should turn out according to the promises of our fields in this quarter. Wheat was never known to be more uniformly excellent. Adieu. Yrs. always & affy.

    Js. Madison Jr

    As it happened, the first letter was in fact forwarded by Jefferson and delivered to Edmond Charles Genet, the French ambassador to the U.S., since the original addressee, Jean Marie Roland de la Platiere, who had initially written to Madison, had in the meantime resigned as Minister of the Interior in France.

    Doc, I thought you might want to archive this somewhere. The link is here:

    http://founders.archives.gov/?q=Volume%3AMadison-01-15&s=1511311112&r=6

    I think it shows that (1) nowhere is the notion of HONORARY citizenship discussed; and (b) Madison as sufficiently aware of the pitfalls of accepting a dual citizenship that he rightly felt the need to clear his letter of acceptance with Jefferson beforehand. And Jefferson decided there was nothing wrong with it and forwarded it.

    Considering the political context of times, rife with potential conflicts of interest with France. I think this is strong evidence that your Founders were not hostile in principle and absolutely to the notion of dual citizenship in terms of it being a factor of ineligibility in a future president.

  19. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 4, 2015 at 11:22 am #

    Nancy R Owens: What I remember is going to Hawaii with Griselda Blanco and telling her the reason I picked out “Obama,” other than the fact that I was looking for a male child born on the same date as my half-brother, was that the fiche files seemed to have a huge number of “Obama’s,” Being from mainland America, the Obama name seemed strange. I suspect it’s just a common Hawaii name.

    You’ve never seen any fiche files and there weren’t a “huge number of Obama’s” in Hawaii. You lied. It wasn’t a common hawaii name.

    Nancy R Owens: Ted Cruz=Adam Walsh (kidnapped by me), Miami surrendered to Cuban infiltrators played out over and over. Mark my words.

    Lol what? Are you really saying Adam Walsh the kid you claimed to have kidnapped and killed is really Ted Cruz and is alive and was born in Canada?

    How do you explain the age discrepancy? Walsh was born in 74 Cruz in 70.

  20. avatar
    dunstvangeet March 4, 2015 at 11:58 am #

    Lupin:
    The Open Thread topics don’t seem to appear on the front page (for me); onlythrough RECENT COMMENTS. Is that normal?

    It is normal. He doesn’t put them up on the main page. However, Up on the menu bar there is a link to the “open thread”, it’s the second-one from the right.

  21. avatar
    Lupin March 4, 2015 at 12:18 pm #

    dunstvangeet: It is normal.He doesn’t put them up on the main page.However, Up on the menu bar there is a link to the “open thread”, it’s the second-one from the right.

    Got it now! Thanks. Never occurred to me to look for them up there.

  22. avatar
    Rickey March 4, 2015 at 12:48 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: You’ve never seen any fiche files and there weren’t a “huge number of Obama’s” in Hawaii.You lied.It wasn’t a common hawaii name.

    I would go so far as to suggest that Barack Obama Sr. was the first Obama to ever live in Hawaii.

  23. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 4, 2015 at 1:43 pm #

    Barack Obama Sr. is the father of the murdered Hawaiian family. He was not home that day and was probably at work. He, the true Hawaiian family man, in fact, still be alive along with some of the relatives.

    The only reason they were targeted is because their son had a birth date, off by one day as I mentioned before, close to my half-brother’s whom I call “Allen” since it is his middle name.

    I very seriously doubt that he would claim my half-brother as his son since we are the reason his family was murdered in the first place.

    But, one thing working for the Medellin Cartel taught me is:

    “You never know. ANYTHING can happen.”

    Rickey: Barack Obama Sr.

  24. avatar
    faceman March 4, 2015 at 1:45 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:

    Citizenship is a property interest with investments by the government and the individual.

    I am not sure I understand you fully. I mean, there used to be laws in some states that only citizens could own property, but those are long gone. And they were state laws, not part of the Constitution.

    Foreigners can and do own property in the US. US citizens are not prevented from owning property overseas.

    Who is the biggest owner (investor) of the US debt (other than the US government itself)? China.

    Perhaps you could expound further on this subject.

    Oh, and as regards Cruz – it is official.

    http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2014/06/no-canada-sen-ted-cruz-has-formally-shed-his-dual-citizenship.html/

    Not that it has any effect on his status as NBC. Either he always has been one, or he never will be one. You can’t retroactively become one at his age.

  25. avatar
    faceman March 4, 2015 at 2:01 pm #

    SvenMagnussen Canada maintains its interest in Ted’s Canadian citizenship until the federal cabinet issues an order of revocation and notices Ted it has issued an order of revocation.

    Your attempts to sound educated with your highfalutin language and philosophical arguments might be better received if you knew the difference between ‘notice’ and ‘notify’. Especially since I’ve mentioned this to you before.

    You can ‘notify’ the government about Obama, or you could ‘give notice’ about him. You can even ‘notice’ that he might be wearing a hat. But you don’t ‘notice’ the government that, in your opinion, he is ineligible.

    There used to be a standup comedian whose ‘schtick’ was using impressive sounding words incorrectly. When you start sounding illiterate, it gives people even less reason to take you seriously.

  26. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 4, 2015 at 2:15 pm #

    faceman: I am not sure I understand you fully.I mean, there used to be laws in some states that only citizens could own property, but those are long gone.And they were state laws, not part of the Constitution.

    Foreigners can and do own property in the US.US citizens are not prevented from owning property overseas.

    Who is the biggest owner (investor) of the US debt (other than the US government itself)?China.

    Perhaps you could expound further on this subject.

    Oh, and as regards Cruz – it is official.

    http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2014/06/no-canada-sen-ted-cruz-has-formally-shed-his-dual-citizenship.html/

    Not that it has any effect on his status as NBC.Either he always has been one, or he never will be one.You can’t retroactively become one at his age.

    Not true. I understand you’ll never believe Obama was issued a CLN in 1968 after he voluntarily renounced and naturalized as an Indonesian, but let’s pretend it happened for the sake of discussion.

    As a native born citizen who was issued a CLN during his minority after naturalizing in a foreign state, Obama retained the right of return to the US until 6 months past his 18th birthday to recapture his US citizenship during his majority. So, Obama would be a natural born citizen until he was 6 years old and then an Indonesian national. Since Obama was living in Hawaii when he turned 18, he could have declared his intent to live in America permanently as a U.S. citizen by filing a petition in the USDC in Hawaii. After stating an oath of allegiance before a judge, he would be a natural born citizen.

    So, you have an example of a person who was a natural born citizen, then he wasn’t, the he was a natural born citizen.

    In Perkins v. Elg, Elg was a natural born citizen until her father moved back to Sweden and voluntarily renounced his US citizenship. The US did not issue him a CLN, so his US citizenship was not lost. The US maintained a minority interest in her father’s citizenship through the Treaty of Nationality of 1869 between the US and Sweden. Elg became a citizen of Sweden when she and her father returned to Sweden. Under the treaty with Sweden, the US recognized Elg’s dual US/Swede citizenship with US recognizing Sweden’s majority interest in Elg’s citizenship and the United States’ minority interest in Elg’s citizenship.

    While Elg lived in Sweden, she was not a natural born citizen because Sweden had a majority interest in Elg pursuant to a treaty between the US and Sweden. Elg, during her minority, declared her intent to return to the US and establish herself as a natural born citizen during her majority. She didn’t do it until 8 mont

  27. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 4, 2015 at 2:19 pm #

    faceman: I am not sure I understand you fully.I mean, there used to be laws in some states that only citizens could own property, but those are long gone.And they were state laws, not part of the Constitution.

    Foreigners can and do own property in the US.US citizens are not prevented from owning property overseas.

    Who is the biggest owner (investor) of the US debt (other than the US government itself)?China.

    Perhaps you could expound further on this subject.

    Oh, and as regards Cruz – it is official.

    http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2014/06/no-canada-sen-ted-cruz-has-formally-shed-his-dual-citizenship.html/

    Not that it has any effect on his status as NBC.Either he always has been one, or he never will be one.You can’t retroactively become one at his age.

    Not true. I understand you’ll never believe Obama was issued a CLN in 1968 after he voluntarily renounced and naturalized as an Indonesian, but let’s pretend it happened for the sake of discussion.

    As a native born citizen who was issued a CLN during his minority after naturalizing in a foreign state, Obama retained the right of return to the US until 6 months past his 18th birthday to recapture his US citizenship during his majority. So, Obama would be a natural born citizen until he was 6 years old and then an Indonesian national. Since Obama was living in Hawaii when he turned 18, he could have declared his intent to live in America permanently as a U.S. citizen by filing a petition in the USDC in Hawaii. After stating an oath of allegiance before a judge, he would be a natural born citizen.

    So, you have an example of a person who was a natural born citizen, then he wasn’t, the he was a natural born citizen.

    In Perkins v. Elg, Elg was a natural born citizen until her father moved back to Sweden and voluntarily renounced his US citizenship. The US did not issue him a CLN, so his US citizenship was not lost. The US maintained a minority interest in her father’s citizenship through the Treaty of Nationality of 1869 between the US and Sweden. Elg became a citizen of Sweden when she and her father returned to Sweden. Under the treaty with Sweden, the US recognized Elg’s dual US/Swede citizenship with US recognizing Sweden’s majority interest in Elg’s citizenship and the United States’ minority interest in Elg’s citizenship.

    While Elg lived in Sweden, she was not a natural born citizen because Sweden had a majority interest in Elg pursuant to a treaty between the US and Sweden. Elg, during her minority, declared her intent to return to the US and establish herself as a natural born citizen during her majority. She didn’t do it until 8 months past her majority. The US government, even though Elg was native born and living in the US after she had been issued a US passport while living in Sweden, was refused a renewed US passport and threatened with a deportation order.

    Elg sued and won a injunction against deportation but lost her bid to have her passport renewed in the District Court. The US government appealed and the Circuit Court affirmed. SCOTUS affirmed the Circuit Court but modified the ruling to remove the Secretary

  28. avatar
    Daniel March 4, 2015 at 2:30 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: I understand you’ll never believe Obama was issued a CLN in 1968 after he voluntarily renounced and naturalized as an Indonesian,

    Why would any sane person believe something claimed without evidence that is highly unlikely, and only promoted by people who themselves are victims of the Dunning Kruger effect.

    Any speculation arising from your conjecture isn’t even in the realm of “for the sake of the argument”. Putting aside the fact that your subsequent conjectures are just wrong, you don’t have an argument to have the sake of.

  29. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 4, 2015 at 2:30 pm #

    faceman: I am not sure I understand you fully.I mean, there used to be laws in some states that only citizens could own property, but those are long gone.And they were state laws, not part of the Constitution.

    Foreigners can and do own property in the US.US citizens are not prevented from owning property overseas.

    Who is the biggest owner (investor) of the US debt (other than the US government itself)?China.

    Perhaps you could expound further on this subject.

    Oh, and as regards Cruz – it is official.

    http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2014/06/no-canada-sen-ted-cruz-has-formally-shed-his-dual-citizenship.html/

    Not that it has any effect on his status as NBC.Either he always has been one, or he never will be one.You can’t retroactively become one at his age.

    Not true. I understand you’ll never believe Obama was issued a CLN in 1968 after he voluntarily renounced and naturalized as an Indonesian, but let’s pretend it happened for the sake of discussion.

    Let’s pretend Obama is a native born person who was issued a CLN during his minority after naturalizing in a foreign state. Obama retained the right of return to the US until 6 months past his 18th birthday to recapture his US citizenship during his majority. So, Obama would be a natural born citizen until he was 6 years old and then an Indonesian national who lost his natural born citizenship after the US issued a CLN. Since Obama was living in Hawaii when he turned 18 as a permanet legal resident alien, he could have declared his intent to live in America permanently as a U.S. citizen by filing a petition in the USDC in Hawaii. After stating an oath of allegiance before a judge, he would be a natural born citizen and considered to be a person who never lost his US citizenship and a person who never lost his natural born citizenship status.

    So, you have an example of a person who was a natural born citizen, then he wasn’t, then he was a natural born citizen.

    In Perkins v. Elg, Elg was a natural born citizen until her father moved back to Sweden and voluntarily renounced his US citizenship. The US did not issue him a CLN, so his US citizenship was not lost. The US maintained a minority interest in her father’s citizenship through the Treaty of Nationality of 1869 between the US and Sweden. Elg became a citizen of Sweden when she and her father returned to Sweden. Under the treaty with Sweden, the US recognized Elg’s dual US/Swede citizenship with US recognizing Sweden’s majority interest in Elg’s citizenship and the United States’ minority interest in Elg’s citizenship.

    While Elg lived in Sweden, she was not a natural born citizen because Sweden had a majority interest in Elg pursuant to a treaty between the US and Sweden. Elg, during her minority, declared her intent to return to the US and establish herself as a natural born citizen during her majority. She didn’t do it until 8 months past her majority. The US government, even though Elg was native born and living in the US after she had been issued a US passport while living in Sweden, was refused a renewed US passport and threatened with a deportation order.

    Elg sued and won a injunction against deportation but lost her bid to have her passport renewed in the District Court. The US government appealed and the Circuit Court affirmed. SCOTUS affirmed the Circuit Court but modified the ruling to remove the Secretary of State’s discretion to not issue Elg a US passport. SCOTUS opined Elg was a natural born citizen in the United States. The modifier “in the United States” is important because SCOTUS recognizes Elg was not natural born citizen while she lived in Sweden, even though Elg is a native born, US citizen while living in Sweden.

    Elg is another example of a person who had a natural born citizenship status, then she lost it and then she got it back. I had an extensive discussion about this with a person who has over 35 years of foreign policy experience and is very knowledgeable about these issues.

  30. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 4, 2015 at 3:15 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Not true. I understand you’ll never believe Obama was issued a CLN in 1968 after he voluntarily renounced and naturalized as an Indonesian, but let’s pretend it happened for the sake of discussion.

    No one will believe it as there is no such document and you can’t present any such document since you made the whole story up.

    It would have been near impossible for him to renounce at age 6 and naturalize in Indonesia. But hey you’ll just pretend it happened anyway.

    SvenMagnussen: As a native born citizen who was issued a CLN during his minority after naturalizing in a foreign state, Obama retained the right of return to the US until 6 months past his 18th birthday to recapture his US citizenship during his majority. So, Obama would be a natural born citizen until he was 6 years old and then an Indonesian national. Since Obama was living in Hawaii when he turned 18, he could have declared his intent to live in America permanently as a U.S. citizen by filing a petition in the USDC in Hawaii. After stating an oath of allegiance before a judge, he would be a natural born citizen.

    That never happened. He wasn’t issued a CLN. He didn’t naturalize in a foreign state and thus didn’t have to “recapture US Citizenship” that he never lost.

    SvenMagnussen: In Perkins v. Elg, Elg was a natural born citizen until her father moved back to Sweden and voluntarily renounced his US citizenship. The US did not issue him a CLN, so his US citizenship was not lost. The US maintained a minority interest in her father’s citizenship through the Treaty of Nationality of 1869 between the US and Sweden. Elg became a citizen of Sweden when she and her father returned to Sweden. Under the treaty with Sweden, the US recognized Elg’s dual US/Swede citizenship with US recognizing Sweden’s majority interest in Elg’s citizenship and the United States’ minority interest in Elg’s citizenship

    Sorry but no, she was a natural born citizen the whole time. Her father renouncing had no effect on her natural born citizenship. There was no need for her to recapture citizenship that she never lost.

    SvenMagnussen: While Elg lived in Sweden, she was not a natural born citizen because Sweden had a majority interest in Elg pursuant to a treaty between the US and Sweden. Elg, during her minority, declared her intent to return to the US and establish herself as a natural born citizen during her majority. She didn’t do it until 8 months past her majority. The US government, even though Elg was native born and living in the US after she had been issued a US passport while living in Sweden, was refused a renewed US passport and threatened with a deportation order.

    There is no such thing as a “majority interest” in terms of citizenship. She was always a natural born citizen at birth. She inherited Swedish citizenship. There was no requirement for her to do anything since she wasn’t a naturalized US Citizen.

  31. avatar
    bgansel9 March 4, 2015 at 3:40 pm #

    I’m late to the party, but if the ObligedRacist would like to explain why quite a lot of “Christian” names have Jewish roots? Even my own derivative name comes from the root name of Elizabeth, which is a Jewish name. Deborah? Jewish. David? Jewish, Ann? Jewish. Joseph? Jewish. Mary? Jewish. What’s so Christian about these names? Sarah? Rebecca? Rachel? Hannah? Abigail? Esther? Joel? Adam? Benjamin? Daniel? Jesse? James (the brother of Jesus, was born before Christianity was taught)?

    Aha, I found one: Paul (a Pharisee and persecutor of Christians, was born before Christian thought, changed his name from Saul (Jewish) to Paul, (Paul is a Roman name, deriving from the Roman Paulus. When you say Christian, what you really mean is Roman.)

  32. avatar
    Suranis March 4, 2015 at 4:06 pm #

    Sven is one of those Liberal Birthers Sean Hannity talked about.

  33. avatar
    faceman March 4, 2015 at 4:20 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Not true. I understand you’ll never believe Obama was issued a CLN in 1968 after he voluntarily renounced and naturalized as an Indonesian, but let’s pretend it happened for the sake of discussion.

    Okay, for the sake of discussion, let’s say that is true. What does that have to do with property rights? And I thought you said an attorney convinced a consular official on behalf of Obama (in the best interests of the child). That’s not ‘voluntarily renouncing.’

    Or, if you’re talking about Cruz, he never lost his US Citizenship.

    In case you’re not up on the topic, some people claim that Obama is not a NBC because his father wasn’t a US citizen (None of us here on the Doc’s blog believe that, but you hear it occasionally at places like the gerbil report). If Cruz was an NBC at birth, despite his dual citizenship, then he never stopped being one. If he was not an NBC at birth, then he could never be one. Your twisted and incorrect logic in regards to Elg would not apply, as even you say Elg was an NBC at birth.

    Sven: “Elg is another example of a person who had a natural born citizenship status, then she lost it and then she got it back. I had an extensive discussion about this with a person who has over 35 years of foreign policy experience and is very knowledgeable about these issues.”

    So you ‘had a discussion.’ What was the result of that discussion? You never said. And, there is a difference between ‘foreign policy experience’ and ‘Immigration, Naturalization, and Citizenship Law experience.’ C’mon, Sven, you have to do better than that.

  34. avatar
    gorefan March 4, 2015 at 4:53 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Not true. I understand you’ll never believe Obama was issued a CLN in 1968 after he voluntarily renounced and naturalized as an Indonesian, but let’s pretend it happened for the sake of discussion.

    For us to pretend that your CLN claims are true, we first need to pretend that Indonesia law would have allowed a six year to become one of its citizens.

  35. avatar
    Notorial Dissent March 4, 2015 at 6:47 pm #

    Svenski Svenski, lying again and displaying your ignorance.

    As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY, Obama could not have renounced his citizenship as a minor, and there was not time when he could have naturalized in Indonesia. So this is a flat out lie by you. He did not have the capacity to renounce during his minority and no one could have done so for him. You are an idiot. Since he was living in HI at the time he was 18, and continued to live there thereafter, any putative citizenship he would have had anywhere else would have expired by action of law and he would have had to do nothing to confirm his status otherwise, as he would have been a Natural Born citizen living in his country of birth. You are quite simply wrong and lying.

    Elg never lost her citizenship regardless of where she lived. She was a Natural Born citizen as a result of having been born here. Her family returning to Sweden did not affect that for the same reason that Obama could not have lost his citizenship during the short time he was out of the country. She was a Natural Born US citizen as well as a Natural Born Citizen of Sweden by virtue of their laws. She chose at her majority to return to the US and maintain her US citizenship as opposed to her Swedish citizenship. She never lost her US citizenship, and the courts up to the Supreme Court confirmed this. The fact that you can’t or won’t read the actual case law is not my problem. You are however, an ignorant idiot poseur.

    Sven has latched on to a very tortured reading of part of the Supreme Court case to justify his totally erroneous conclusions.

    Sven, all you have to do to avoid being called a liar is produce the documents you claim exist, not terribly hard to do. If the documents exist they are public record and you can get a certified copy to prove you’re not a delusional liar, that’s all it will take.

  36. avatar
    Kate March 4, 2015 at 7:25 pm #

    Rickey: I would go so far as to suggest that Barack Obama Sr. was the first Obama to ever live in Hawaii.

    I don’t know if he was the first Obama, it’s quite likely, to live in Hawaii, but his family was the ONLY family by the name of Obama living on any of the Hawaiian islands in 1961. This info is from the 1960 census and I obtained it from the LDS Society in Hawaii. They have odd hours but anyone can feel free to call and check on this. I told Nancy this the last time she made up the story about there being many Obama families but she never answered my question as to why my info was in such direct opposition to hers. It’s a common thread with her.

    I want to know why anyone would travel from Florida to Hawaii to forge a birth certificate there. NRO talks about lax b.c. requirements that she supposedly heard about from Professor Nixon. However, if you have to actually forge a b.c. the idea that she put forth about a family Bible being sufficient for I.D. in lieu of a b.c. is of absolutely no use to her. Why not use the man she calls Barack Obama’s father, her own father, Tom Owens? The idea that he didn’t acknowledge him doesn’t mean a damn thing since they are forging a b.c., anyway. They didn’t need his signature just like they didn’t need anyone else’s, either. They just signed the damn thing themselves, ACCORDING TO NRO, that is. (excuse the caps, they’re for emphasis and by no means do I believe there is any part of her fairy tale that’s true) She knows he’s not a foreigner yet loves to use her stupid line about the cartel putting a foreign king on the American throne. If the cartel had been planning to use someone in that way, they wouldn’t have let him out of their sight. They would have been grooming him to go into politics and their entry date would have been much sooner than 30 years. Escobar’s biographer spoke of how he believed he wouldn’t live to see 50, so I don’t think he’d care what happened after he was gone as far as the U.S. Presidency was concerned. Escobar didn’t become a billionaire by being stupid. He had some intelligence, especially in not living in the U.S. knowing that they couldn’t wait to lock him up forever.

    It all boils down to NRO changing her fairy tale from selecting the name Obama from the Bible to now claiming she went to Hawaii w/Griselda and murdered the entire family whose name she used. She also had originally said she made up the SS# and now is talking about having killed people who knew about it. Of course, that story hasn’t quite evolved yet. Have to give her time to write the next chapter.

  37. avatar
    Notorial Dissent March 4, 2015 at 8:56 pm #

    Kate, not to call you a liar, well, yes actually to, …. the 1960 census has not been released and further will not be released for another almost 20 years. So no one has access to it, not the LDS, not anyone until 2032.

  38. avatar
    bgansel9 March 4, 2015 at 9:13 pm #

    Notorial Dissent is correct. The 1950 Census (not the 1960) will come out in 2022. The 1960 census will come out 10 years after. The 1940 census is currently available to research (as a person involved in genealogical research, this is valuable material). See more here: https://www.census.gov/history/www/genealogy/decennial_census_records/census_records_2.html

  39. avatar
    bgansel9 March 4, 2015 at 9:20 pm #

    Also, LDS has a website where you can search records. Whatever it was you were looking at, Kate, it was not the 1960 census, but in fact, other records (public records such as telephone books and general information that has been recorded in LDS records. There are some Obamas in Hawaii – https://familysearch.org/search/record/results?count=20&query=%2Bsurname%3AObama%20%2Bresidence_place%3AHawaii~

    Also, don’t speculate on the lines below the Blue bar. They are not what you might think. They are records of famous people added into the LDS database.

  40. avatar
    Keith March 4, 2015 at 10:55 pm #

    Kate: I don’t know if he was the first Obama, it’s quite likely, to live in Hawaii, but his family was the ONLY family by the name of Obama living on any of the Hawaiian islands in 1961.

    Maybe she killed them ALL in 1959?

  41. avatar
    John Reilly March 5, 2015 at 12:49 am #

    SvenMagnussen: I understand you’ll never believe Obama was issued a CLN in 1968 after he voluntarily renounced and naturalized as an Indonesian, but let’s pretend it happened for the sake of discussion.

    Let’s see.

    Sven has never presented any documentary proof of any factual assertion he has made.

    Sven has not responded to my comment yesterday that both the court clerk in Los Angeles federal court and Ancestry.com report no records supporting Sven’s factual assertions. None. Nada, Zilch. No records.

    Sven has never explained how any law or rule signed by Obama (or signed near Obama) has changed things so that Sven can’t prove his points.

    But he wants us to assume a fact he refuses to prove.

    Well, Sven, let’s try this. Let’s assume you are a racist and a liar.

    Wait, that’s not an assumption.

    That’s just a proven fact.

    See Sven, how easy it is to discuss things when you limit yourself to facts.

  42. avatar
    Lupin March 5, 2015 at 2:25 am #

    John Reilly: Sven has never presented any documentary proof of any factual assertion he has made.

    In fact, Sven has presented no new facts (other than weird proofs of his paranoid obsessions about sovereign citizenship) since this discussion began.

    It’s quite clear that he has none, and that everything is say is totally made up.

    For all intents and purposes, he might as well argue that Obama is a Martian, it would be the same thing.

  43. avatar
    Lupin March 5, 2015 at 2:28 am #

    SvenMagnussen: I had an extensive discussion about this with a person who has over 35 years of foreign policy experience and is very knowledgeable about these issues.

    And that person told you you were bonkers. You should have listened.

  44. avatar
    Kate March 5, 2015 at 3:03 am #

    Notorial Dissent:
    Kate, not to call you a liar, well, yes actually to, …. the 1960 census has not been released and further will not be released for another almost 20 years. So no one has access to it, not the LDS, not anyone until 2032.

    Then I made a mistake or obviously misunderstood the woman I spoke to at the LDS society. I thought she was looking at census records although I am aware that they wouldn’t have been released now that it has been brought to my attention. Sorry the mind doesn’t always work exactly as I’d like it to and I do forget and make mistakes. The records she was looking at were in regards to families living in Honolulu, HI in 1960. However, I certainly contacted LDS and mentioned my research in a previous thread. I had also looked through Ancestry.com which led me to LDS.

    FWIW, I don’t assume someone is lying when they post something that is incorrect and don’t appreciate the fact that you were so quick to call me a liar. The know-it-all attitude is rarely seen here except among birthers, it’s not necessary, just rude.

  45. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) March 5, 2015 at 4:48 am #

    Lupin: It’s quite clear that he has none, and that everything is say is totally made up.

    I just don’t get why we’re still feeding the troll. Maybe because he’s the only even remotely interesting thing left about birtherism?

  46. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) March 5, 2015 at 4:50 am #

    gorefan: we first need to pretend that Indonesia law would have allowed a six year to become one of its citizens

    What does it matter, Indonesian law does not trump US law when it comes to US citizenship, and there’s no way a minor can lose his US citizenship unless he’s got an Einsteinian IQ to convince a consular officer he knows what he’s doing.

  47. avatar
    faceman March 5, 2015 at 7:53 am #

    The Magic M (not logged in): I just don’t get why we’re still feeding the troll. Maybe because he’s the only even remotely interesting thing left about birtherism?

    Maybe because, as rational thinking people, we assume that once someone has been shown their errors, they will admit them. Like rational thinking people would.

    Or, maybe, its because everyone likes a good train wreck. Think of all the media attention people like Lindsey Lohan get. We see someone who has flushed their once-promising career down the toilet and say ‘Thank god that’s not me.’ Tabloids make a bundle.

    Ever notice how people gather to watch the fire department as they try to put out the fire in a burning building? Same principle.

  48. avatar
    faceman March 5, 2015 at 8:06 am #

    SvenMagnussen: The US government, even though Elg was native born and living in the US after she had been issued a US passport while living in Sweden, was refused a renewed US passport and threatened with a deportation order.

    The US government was refused a renewed passport???

    That’s alright, I know what you meant. And you’re right. ELG was refused a renewed passport. That’s why she had to sue to get one. She didn’t ‘become’ a citizen because of her lawsuit, the court recognized that she had never lost her citizenship in the first place.

    The Magic M – another reason is to see how he will try to explain away the truth, or what crazy new idea he will come up with next. You know, like talk show radio, or the Howard Stearn show.

    As long as he doesn’t get all foul-mouthed or homophobic like the gerbil report, it can be fun.

  49. avatar
    Lupin March 5, 2015 at 8:20 am #

    The Magic M (not logged in): I just don’t get why we’re still feeding the troll. Maybe because he’s the only even remotely interesting thing left about birtherism?

    I think we did get some rather interesting stuff out of him once his back was against the all, as it were.

    Specifically, that behind the veneer of pseudo-erudite legal fantasies and steadfast ignorance of facts stands a real, hard-core lunatic whose real beliefs are far, far crazier than we once thought.

  50. avatar
    Lupin March 5, 2015 at 8:26 am #

    The Magic M (not logged in): I just don’t get why we’re still feeding the troll. Maybe because he’s the only even remotely interesting thing left about birtherism?

    Because now we know he’s taking applications for those wishing to be admitted (or should I say committed?) to his own country.

  51. avatar
    faceman March 5, 2015 at 8:29 am #

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perkins_v._Elg

    Oops. You see what happens when you take something (especially something from Sven) at face value and speak off the cuff without checking your facts first:

    Elg did not apply for a renewed passport. She was living happily in the US, not needing a passport, when the US government (specifically, the US Dept of Labor) tried to deport her. She sued to avoid deportation, not ‘to get a renewed passport.’

    (Though, her father did actually renounce his US citizenship.)

  52. avatar
    J.D. Sue March 5, 2015 at 9:58 am #

    faceman: [Elg’s] father did actually renounce his US citizenship.

    —–

    Which reminds me: Did Sven ever allege that Obama’s mother renounced her own U.S. citizenship? Or would he have us belief that an American woman who values and maintains her own U.S. citizenship would nonetheless seek to renounce only her minor child’s U.S. citizenship? An incredulous idea, but par for the course.

  53. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 5, 2015 at 10:03 am #

    faceman:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perkins_v._Elg

    Oops.You see what happens when you take something (especially something from Sven) at face value and speak off the cuff without checking your facts first:

    Elg did not apply for a renewed passport.She was living happily in the US, not needing a passport, when the US government (specifically, the US Dept of Labor) tried to deport her.She sued to avoid deportation, not ‘to get a renewed passport.’

    (Though, her father did actually renounce his US citizenship.)

    Curcuit Court Opinion:

    ” In July 1936 Miss Elg applied to the Secretary of State for an American passport, which the Secretary refused on the ground that, because of the residence of her father in Sweden since 1922 without the intention of returning to the United States, the Department considered that he had renounced his American citizenship and reacquired Swedish nationality, and that because of her residence with her father she too had lost the one and acquired the other.”

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3381137503537572247&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

    Didn’t Stanley Ann declare to the State Dept on a passport application she planned to stay in Indonesia “indefinately”? Haven’t I posted that Stanley Ann involuntarily renounced in US citizenship? Haven’t I posted Stanley Ann identified Barack Hussein Obama and struck through his name on a passport application to indicate Barack should be removed from her US passport because he naturalized in a foreign state?

    Elg was issued her initial passport after the Secretary of State intervened on her behalf. My whistleblowers tell me that’s an indication the Swedish government informally contacted the US government and asked the US government to provide Elg with a passport after US Embassy personnel refused to issue her a passport. US Embassy personnel were convinced Elg involuntarily renounced her US citizenship.

    Later, after the SoS intervened, she was issued a passport to return to the US. She was issued a CLN and refused a passport. It’s complicated. I explained it in detail to the judge and the judge ignored it.

    Obama was issued a CLN in 1968. He could have recaptured his natural born citizenship status at 18, but chose not too. He was required to naturalize to become a US citizen after he chose not make an election to recapture his US citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.

  54. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 5, 2015 at 10:17 am #

    Kate: This isn’t surprising that he would make such a mistake despite stories of his massive ego from those in school with him.Cruz waited years to renounce his Canadian citizenship which isn’t surprising considering his father only applied & received his U.S. citizenship within the past 10 years or so.We’ll have to take his word regarding his patriotism while he disgustingly lies about President Obama’s lack of the same for the U.S.Rafael Cruz apparently didn’t find it necessary to become a U.S. citizen until a career in politics appeared imminent for his son.Just imagine the outrage among the RW’ers if Barack Obama, Sr. had been in the same position, waiting until his son decided to run for the Senate before he applied for citizenship.

    While birthers have no qualms in their hypocritical stance in finding Ted Cruz eligible, anti-birthers will not suddenly turn birthed.Almost all have agreed since day one that Cruz has always been and will be eligible for the Presidency,

    I am a birther, belief that Obama’s certs are forged and that he is a foreigner, who DOES NOT believe Cruz to be eligible.

    My point here is: Not all birthers believe Cruz eligible.

    Obama’s black mother was not married to his biological white father for the first 18 years of his life. And, not for the first 21 years of his life. In fact, he was married to the white woman who filled out Obama’s school and grant applications, Gladys M Owens, and his black mother was murdered in 1985, so they were never married at all.

    Obama DID have papers, which I saw in the dark of night under the light of a bedroom window in Pablo Escobar’s Lake Okeechobee, Montura Ranch Estates compound which had LoLo’s last name on it, according to Allen, and it was during the time that we were forging Allen’s documents.

    Pablo correctly deduced that American’s would put a black man on the throne before a white woman and before any Hispanic, male or female.

    Obama/Allen did say that LoLo had officially adopted him. When and where, I just don’t know.

    Since it was night, I never really examined the papers that he held to determine if they were truly official adoption papers or not.

    Ironic, of course.

    When forging his documents, Allen DID NOT seek out LoLo to sign on one of the lines of the documents. He sought out our biological father, Thomas B Owens who refused.

    Ultimately, I was myself and a Hendry County Sheriff’s Deputy, Joe Lee (Ukelele) who signed the long form. I signed line one and two. Joe signed line three.

    I signed first, Joe signed next. The last line, which was the second line, was debated and Griselda did not want to sign so I did.

    Lolo was murdered shortly after this to eliminate all potential witnesses and Pablo had decided to commandeer the future educational life of my half-brother for the further advancement of Cuba and Russia whose goals ARE to take over America.

    Not to share with English-speaking natives. To take over and secure for THEIR children.

    [Moved to the Open Thread. Doc.]

  55. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 5, 2015 at 10:20 am #

    J.D. Sue: —–

    Which reminds me:Did Sven ever allege that Obama’s mother renounced her own U.S. citizenship?Or would he have us belief that an American woman who values and maintains her own U.S. citizenship would nonetheless seek to renounce only her minor child’s U.S. citizenship?An incredulous idea, but par for the course.

    Yes I did. Stanley Ann voluntarily renounced when she declared on her passport application she would not be returning to the US and planned to stay in Indonesia “indefinately.” Since she was not issued a CLN, Obots shouted me down because she did not lose her US citizenship and continued to renew her passport. But the State Department will continue to issue a passport as long as they haven’t issued a CLN.

    And having Barack’s name struck is evidence Obama naturalized in a foreign state. Obots don’t want to believe it (and the judge in my case) so they refused to accept it. And now Obots want my whistleblowers exposed so they can refuse to believe additional evidence Obama naturalized in 1983. In contrast, the judge in my case didn’t want to hear my whistleblowers or see their evidence. Probably because it would have proved my allegations. But we’ll never know because it was dismissed with prejudice.

  56. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 5, 2015 at 10:44 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Didn’t Stanley Ann declare to the State Dept on a passport application she planned to stay in Indonesia “indefinately”? Haven’t I posted that Stanley Ann involuntarily renounced in US citizenship? Haven’t I posted Stanley Ann identified Barack Hussein Obama and struck through his name on a passport application to indicate Barack should be removed from her US passport because he naturalized in a foreign state?

    So because she at one time said she was that isn’t the same as a renunciation. There is absolutely no proof that she renounced her citizenship. One cannot have their Citizenship removed from them based on living somewhere else. Especially one who was born a citizen like Ann Dunham. So you were wrong again.

    SvenMagnussen: Elg was issued her initial passport after the Secretary of State intervened on her behalf. My whistleblowers tell me that’s an indication the Swedish government informally contacted the US government and asked the US government to provide Elg with a passport after US Embassy personnel refused to issue her a passport. US Embassy personnel were convinced Elg involuntarily renounced her US citizenship.

    Incorrect. She got it normally it was only upon the renewal did the government decide to deny it and she had to sue them. Lol your non-existent whisleblowers don’t actually know how to read the case either since this did not happen.

    She never renounced. Now you’re claiming it was involuntary. Elg could not have her citizenship renounced on her behalf by living elsewhere. You lied again.

  57. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 5, 2015 at 10:45 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Yes I did. Stanley Ann voluntarily renounced when she declared on her passport application she would not be returning to the US and planned to stay in Indonesia “indefinately.” Since she was not issued a CLN, Obots shouted me down because she did not lose her US citizenship and continued to renew her passport. But the State Department will continue to issue a passport as long as they haven’t issued a CLN.

    You need to make up your mind just in your last post you claimed she involuntarily renounced now you’re claiming she voluntarily renounced. Saying you’re going to live in another country isn’t enough to remove one’s citizenship. She would have had to actually renounce which there’s no proof she ever did.

  58. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 5, 2015 at 10:47 am #

    SvenMagnussen: And having Barack’s name struck is evidence Obama naturalized in a foreign state. Obots don’t want to believe it (and the judge in my case) so they refused to accept it. And now Obots want my whistleblowers exposed so they can refuse to believe additional evidence Obama naturalized in 1983. In contrast, the judge in my case didn’t want to hear my whistleblowers or see their evidence. Probably because it would have proved my allegations. But we’ll never know because it was dismissed with prejudice

    No that’s not evidence of that but rather that he possibly used his own American passport. What whistleblowers? There are no whistleblowers to expose. I’ve spoken to your “whistleblowers” they say you’re lying.

  59. avatar
    J.D. Sue March 5, 2015 at 10:55 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Stanley Ann voluntarily renounced when she declared on her passport application she would not be returning to the US and planned to stay in Indonesia “indefinately.”

    —-
    Moving “indefinitely” out of the country does not equate to renouncing citizenship.

    If Stanley Ann struck her child’s name from her passport, it likely indicates that she got her child his own passport.

    BTW, when the judge dismissed your suit with prejudice, did the judge say it was because you “failed to state a claim”?

  60. avatar
    faceman March 5, 2015 at 10:58 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Curcuit Court Opinion:” In July 1936 Miss Elg applied to the Secretary of State for an American passport,

    Yes, but (according to your own reference):

    in April 1935 she was notified that she was an alien illegally in the United States, and was ordered to leave the country and threatened with deportation if she did not.

    She was threatened with deportation. Everything she did was to avoid being deported. Yes, the situation was complicated, and she did end up applying for a passport in an attempt to prove her citizenship. But you contend that the passport application came first. It did not.

    And, your ‘whistleblowers’ were alive and in government service in the 1930s?

    And, ‘planned to stay in Indonesia “indefinately”’ is not renouncing her citizenship. Not if she planned to stay there ‘indefinitely’, either.

    Since your response is apropos to J.D. Sue’s comment, I suppose we have to let that one slide. But remember that just because you ‘post’ something doesn’t make it true.

  61. avatar
    bovril March 5, 2015 at 11:19 am #

    Of course Dear Svennie also neglects to inform, us how, if the infant Obama had, on his own recognizance, attempted to convince the embassy official that he wished to renounce his citizenship managed to pass the hurdle that it don’t happen if the individual would therefore be rendered stateless.

    Oh, and he is aware of course that due to the seriousness of the action, consular offices and officers are explicitly prohibited from performing this act..?

    It has to go to at least the level of a division chief in the Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State.

    Oh and lets not forget, since Obama did not have an Indonesian passport, he would, EVEN if he had achieved US renunciation, have been deported by Indonesia, as an illegal immigrant, back to the US where he would have been held as….. an illegal immigrant.

    The amount of newsprint that would have been consumed on this wondrous state of affairs would have out the moon landings to shame.

  62. avatar
    John Reilly March 5, 2015 at 11:30 am #

    So Sven is back.

    Without evidence.

    Again.

    Without a case number.

    Again.

    Afraid for his whistle blowers, whose identities were revealed in is mythical case in court, but whose identities he has to protect from us.

    Again.

    And now his principal evidence is that Ms. Dunham moved to Indonesia for an indefinite time and that someone at some point crossed young Barack’s name from a passport.

    And he’s surprised and distressed that a judge dismissed his case.

    Just like we told him would happen.

    And dismissed it with prejudice, meaning that there is nothing he can do to improve on his silly allegations.

    Again.

    So Sven, instead of exposing somewhere what he thinks is the crime of the century, is going to keep his evidence a secret. Take it to his grave.

  63. avatar
    Jim March 5, 2015 at 11:33 am #

    I’m just laughing my butt off thinking about a 7 year-old walking into a consulate and saying “I don’t wanna be an American anymore!”

    They’d give him a sucker and send him home to mom.

  64. avatar
    Rickey March 5, 2015 at 11:39 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Stanley Ann voluntarily renounced when she declared on her passport application she would not be returning to the US and planned to stay in Indonesia “indefinately.”

    That is impossible.

    A high school classmate of mine was doing graduate work at the University of Idaho in the early 70s when she fell in love with an Australian man. They got married in the U.S. and had a daughter. When they completed their graduate work she was issued a passport and they moved to Australia with the intention of living there indefinitely. My classmate has now lived in Australia for over 40 years and she is still a U.S. citizen. I know that because she showed me her U.S. passport when she visited New York ten years ago.

    Her daughter, who has visited the U.S. only twice since she was a young child, also is a U.S. citizen.

  65. avatar
    y_p_w March 5, 2015 at 11:43 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: So because she at one time said she was that isn’t the same as a renunciation.There is absolutely no proof that she renounced her citizenship.One cannot have their Citizenship removed from them based on living somewhere else.Especially one who was born a citizen like Ann Dunham.So you were wrong again.

    Yeah – I figure that all the long-term American expats I’ve met who have indefinitely stayed overseas and returned to the US must be doing something odd since they managed to retain their US citizenship. Saying you’re not sure when you’re coming back certainly isn’t the same as renouncing citizenship.

  66. avatar
    y_p_w March 5, 2015 at 11:44 am #

    Rickey:
    Her daughter, who has visited the U.S. only twice since she was a young child, also is a U.S. citizen.

    Ah. One of those pesky dual nationals.

  67. avatar
    J.D. Sue March 5, 2015 at 11:55 am #

    y_p_w: Yeah – I figure that all the long-term American expats I’ve met who have indefinitely stayed overseas and returned to the US must be doing something odd since they managed to retain their US citizenship. Saying you’re not sure when you’re coming back certainly isn’t the same as renouncing citizenship.

    —-
    And “indefinitely” continue to be subject to U.S. income tax, for incomes earned overseas….

  68. avatar
    faceman March 5, 2015 at 12:22 pm #

    bovril: Of course Dear Svennie also neglects to inform, us how, if the infant Obama had, on his own recognizance, attempted to convince the embassy official that he wished to renounce his citizenship managed to pass the hurdle that it don’t happen if the individual would therefore be rendered stateless.

    Hate to stick up for Sven, but US law does allow for someone to renounce citizenship and become stateless.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renunciation_of_citizenship

    But I agree that a 6 or 7 year old Obama would not have been able to renounce his citizenship voluntarily, and I agree with the rest of your comment as well.

  69. avatar
    faceman March 5, 2015 at 12:28 pm #

    Also, here:

    http://travel.state.gov/content/travel/english/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/renunciation-of-citizenship.html

    “Persons intending to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware that, unless they already possess a foreign nationality, they may be rendered stateless and, thus, lack the protection of any government. They may also have difficulty traveling as they may not be entitled to a passport from any country.”

  70. avatar
    Kate March 5, 2015 at 1:02 pm #

    J.D. Sue: —-
    Moving “indefinitely” out of the country does not equate to renouncing citizenship.

    If Stanley Ann struck her child’s name from her passport, it likely indicates that she got her child his own passport.

    BTW, when the judge dismissed your suit with prejudice, did the judge say it was because you “failed to state a claim”?

    Although I doubt it will mean anything to Sven, isn’t there a section in one of Obama’s books where he describes going through customs upon returning from Indonesia and is asked are you a citizen? After affirming that this was correct, the customs official waves him through and directs the next group, a family to the correct area for non-citizens entering the U.S. for whatever purpose they may have. Barack Obama described his grandparents as being there waiting for him at customs. Does Sven expect us to believe this was written to counter any alleged future claims that may arise when he ran for President, as conspiracy theorists cite that rising to the Presidency was part of the great plan that was in the works for decades? Well, Sven? Was Obama covering his bases in his book or was he innocently describing his travels as a young boy and his return from living in Indonesia for a few years?

  71. avatar
    gorefan March 5, 2015 at 1:08 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Haven’t I posted Stanley Ann identified Barack Hussein Obama and struck through his name on a passport application to indicate Barack should be removed from her US passport because he naturalized in a foreign state?

    Haven’t you ignored the fact that Indonesian law requires that someone naturalizing must be 21 years of age?

  72. avatar
    gorefan March 5, 2015 at 1:11 pm #

    Kate: Although I doubt it will mean anything to Sven, isn’t there a section in one of Obama’s books where he describes going through customs upon returning from Indonesia and is asked are you a citizen?

    Yep.

    My grandparents laughed and pointed at me and waved some more until the customs official finally tapped me on the shoulder and asked me if I was an American. I nodded and handed him my passport.

    “Go ahead,” he said, and told the Chinese family to step to one side.

  73. avatar
    justlw March 5, 2015 at 1:19 pm #

    gorefan: “Go ahead,” he said, and told the Chinese family to step to one side.

    “谢谢你,奥’马。”

  74. avatar
    faceman March 5, 2015 at 1:31 pm #

    gorefan: Yep.My grandparents laughed and pointed at me and waved some more until the customs official finally tapped me on the shoulder and asked me if I was an American. I nodded and handed him my passport. “Go ahead,” he said, and told the Chinese family to step to one side.

    Let’s see. What year would that have been? Was that before or after 1968 when, according to Sven, Obama was issued a CLN? Or do Sven’s whistleblowers claim that he was traveling on a forged passport even then? Does it mean that we have identified one of Sven’s whistleblowers – the official who inspected Obama’s passport (And let him go even though it was a forgery).

    Oh, wait. I forgot. Sven objects to Obama’s personal remembrance because he has a ‘personal, vested interest.’

  75. avatar
    Kate March 5, 2015 at 1:58 pm #

    faceman: Let’s see.What year would that have been?Was that before or after 1968 when, according to Sven, Obama was issued a CLN?Or do Sven’s whistleblowers claim that he was traveling on a forged passport even then?Does it mean that we have identified one of Sven’s whistleblowers – the official who inspected Obama’s passport (And let him go even though it was a forgery).

    Oh, wait.I forgot.Sven objects to Obama’s personal remembrance because he has a ‘personal, vested interest.’

    Sven will likely claim that Obama used the remembrance, that I think is supposed to be from his permanent return to Hawaii, to protect himself from future allegations of fraudulent citizenship which would undoubtedly occur when he ran for President and after he was elected. This is because Obama was either clairvoyant or due to the great conspiracy plan began in 1961 with the MuslimKenyanIndonesian infant with the funny name!

  76. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 5, 2015 at 2:42 pm #

    Rickey: That is impossible.

    A high school classmate of mine was doing graduate work at the University of Idaho in the early 70s when she fell in love with an Australian man. They got married in the U.S. and had a daughter. When they completed their graduate work she was issued a passport and they moved to Australia with the intention of living there indefinitely. My classmate has now lived in Australia for over 40 years and she is still a U.S. citizen. I know that because she showed me her U.S. passport when she visited New York ten years ago.

    Her daughter, who has visited the U.S. only twice since she was a young child, also is a U.S. citizen.

    Termination of US citizenship is a two step process: 1) voluntary renouncement (signing and dating a declaration that you intend to leave the US and do not plan to return is a voluntary renouncement). 2) The President or the SoS signs a CLN with the citizen’s name who previously voluntarily renounced.

    Without a CLN, US citizenship continues and the State Department will continue to renew the passport until the President or the SoS signs a CLN. The US citizen can withdraw the voluntary renouncement if a CLN has not been issued. Withdrawing a voluntary renouncement includes signing and dating a declaration the citizen withdraws their voluntary renouncement before an federal officer of the US or moving back to the US and establishing yourself as a permanent resident with the intention of exercising the rights, privileges and obligations of any US citizen.

    Many people voluntarily renounce and are not issued a CLN. Anyone who voluntarily renounces US citizenship is still a US citizen required to file yearly US individual income tax returns, register with Selective Service and keep current address updated if you are a male, aged 18-49, may register to vote at the US Embassy as an expatriate, exercise your constitutional rights on US government property (participate in an evacuation if the President orders US citizens to evacuate, or not participate), etc. All rights, privileges, immunities and obligations continue until a CLN is issued.

    This is the reason Ted Cruz is not eligible for President. He is still a Canadian citizen until the federal cabinet of Canada issues him an order of citizenship revocation. Even though Ted has sworn allegiance to the US and renounced his Canadian citizenship, he is still a Canadian citizen until Canada issues an order of revocation which voluntarily dissolves Canada’s property interest in Ted’s citizenship.

    It is also the reason Obama (and Arnold Schwartzenegger) is ineligible. Obama has sworn an oath of alliance to the US and voluntarily renounced his Indonesian citizenship at The Shrine Auditorium, Sept. 16, 1983 to naturalize as a US citizen. Indonesia maintains a property interest in Obama’s Indonesian citizenship. Indonesia has a legal right to make certain demands on Obama because he voluntarily petitioned to become a naturalized Indonesian in 1967 and affirmed his Indonesian citizenship choice when he reached the age of majority, 1979. If Obama had elected to recapture his US citizenship within 6 months after his 18th birthday, the US would have restored his natural born citizenship status and terminated Indonesia’s claim to any property rights with respect to Obama’s citizenship on his behalf. Obama forfeited any opportunity for the US to dissolve Indonesia’s claim of property interest in Obama’s Indonesian citizenship when he participated in a naturalization ceremony at The Shrine Auditorium.

    Ted Cruz forfeited any opportunity for America to intervene on his behalf when he waited until many years after he reached the age of majority to renounce his Canadian citizenship. Now, he’s a US Senator and Canada literally owns a piece of him.

  77. avatar
    Rickey March 5, 2015 at 2:55 pm #

    faceman: Let’s see.What year would that have been?Was that before or after 1968 when, according to Sven, Obama was issued a CLN?Or do Sven’s whistleblowers claim that he was traveling on a forged passport even then?Does it mean that we have identified one of Sven’s whistleblowers – the official who inspected Obama’s passport (And let him go even though it was a forgery).

    Sven may have forgotten this, but he used to claim that Obama returned to the U.S. as a refugee, so he didn’t have a passport. He then was turned over to Catholic Charities in Connecticut, which according to Sven is how he got a Social Security Number with a Connecticut prefix.

    It has been quite a while since we last heard Sven spin that particular fantasy.

  78. avatar
    Rickey March 5, 2015 at 3:06 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Termination of US citizenship is a two step process: 1) voluntary renouncement (signing and dating a declaration that you intend to leave the US and do not plan to return is a voluntary renouncement). 2) The President or the SoS signs a CLN with the citizen’s name who previously voluntarily renounced.

    Unsurprisingly, you don’t know what you are talking about.

    You claim that Obama’s mother renounced her citizenship when she applied for a passport and indicated that she was going to be in Indonesia indefinitely. She was in Hawaii when she applied for her passport. According to the State Department, she could not have renounced her citizenship while she was in the United States.

    U.S. citizens cannot effectively renounce their citizenship by mail, through an agent, or while in the United States.

    A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:

    1. appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer,
    2. in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and
    3. sign an oath of renunciation.

    Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect.

    http://travel.state.gov/content/travel/english/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/renunciation-of-citizenship.html

  79. avatar
    y_p_w March 5, 2015 at 3:11 pm #

    J.D. Sue: —-
    And “indefinitely” continue to be subject to U.S. income tax, for incomes earned overseas….

    Rules can change sometimes.

    I remember a HS classmate telling me about the time that his family moved to Sweden for less than two years. His claim was that his parents didn’t have to pay taxes for a certain period because the US no longer required taxes to be paid after leaving for over a year and Sweden required two years before an expat was required to pay taxes there. He could have been mistaken or misunderstood. I’ve always heard that it’s more complex and the US will assume that one must pay taxes in the US until such time as the US citizen is required to pay taxes in another country.

    I know of plenty of long term permanent residents of the US, and they most definitely only paid income taxes in the US. There are a few income tax havens like Monaco.

  80. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 5, 2015 at 3:14 pm #

    faceman: Yes, but (according to your own reference):

    in April 1935 she was notified that she was an alien illegally in the United States, and was ordered to leave the country and threatened with deportation if she did not.

    She was threatened with deportation.Everything she did was to avoid being deported.Yes, the situation was complicated, and she did end up applying for a passport in an attempt to prove her citizenship.But you contend that thepassport application came first.It did not.

    And, your ‘whistleblowers’ were alive and in government service in the 1930s?

    And,‘planned to stay in Indonesia “indefinately”’ is not renouncing her citizenship.Not if she planned to stay there ‘indefinitely’, either.

    Since your response is apropos to J.D. Sue’s comment, I suppose we have to let that one slide.But remember that just because you ‘post’ somethingdoesn’t make it true.

    Perkins v. Elg is extremely important foreign policy precedent.

    The Court affirmed the District Court’s opinion that Elg was a natural born citizen “of the United States.” That means Elg was a natural born citizen of the US when she lived in Sweden and Sweden maintained a controlling interest in Elg’s dual Swedish/US citizenship by way of The Nationalization Treaty of 1869 between the US and Sweden.

    SCOTUS “affirmed and modified” the Circuit Court’s holding. SCOTUS concluded Elg was a natural born citizen “in the United States.” That means Elg was a natural born citizen when she lived in the US and not when she lived in Sweden. So, when Elg lived in the US from birth until 4 years of age, she was a natural born citizen. When Elg lived in Sweden from 4 years of age until 21 years and 8 months of age, she was not a natural born citizen. When Elg lived in America from 21 years and 8 months of age until her demise, she was a natural born citizen.

    Further, Elg was a US citizen from birth to 4 years of age. Elg was a dual Swedish/US citizen from 4 years of age until her demise. Since Sweden and the US had a treaty describing which country controlled citizenship property interest for dual Swedish/US citizens, Elg could be a natural born citizen for part of her life, not a natural born citizen for part of her live and a natural born citizen again from 21 years and 8 months until her demise.

    To complicate matters further, SCOTUS found Elg did voluntarily renounce her US citizenship while living in Sweden and then withdrew her voluntary renouncement when she moved back to the US and began living as a US citizen. The SoS issued her a CLN after she returned to the US and SCOTUS ruled the CLN invalid because Elg withdrew her voluntary renouncement before the CLN was issued by moving back to the US to live as a US citizen.

    My whistleblowers have been very helpful to me on this. I understand they are fielding calls from all over the world because there aren’t too many people who understand the complicated nuance of foreign policy with

  81. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 5, 2015 at 3:17 pm #

    faceman: Yes, but (according to your own reference):

    in April 1935 she was notified that she was an alien illegally in the United States, and was ordered to leave the country and threatened with deportation if she did not.

    She was threatened with deportation.Everything she did was to avoid being deported.Yes, the situation was complicated, and she did end up applying for a passport in an attempt to prove her citizenship.But you contend that thepassport application came first.It did not.

    And, your ‘whistleblowers’ were alive and in government service in the 1930s?

    And,‘planned to stay in Indonesia “indefinately”’ is not renouncing her citizenship.Not if she planned to stay there ‘indefinitely’, either.

    Since your response is apropos to J.D. Sue’s comment, I suppose we have to let that one slide.But remember that just because you ‘post’ somethingdoesn’t make it true.

    Perkins v. Elg is extremely important foreign policy precedent.

    The Circuit Court affirmed the District Court’s opinion that Elg was a natural born citizen “of the United States.” That means Elg was a natural born citizen of the US when she lived in Sweden and Sweden maintained a controlling interest in Elg’s dual Swedish/US citizenship by way of The Nationalization Treaty of 1869 between the US and Sweden.

    SCOTUS “affirmed and modified” the Circuit Court’s holding. SCOTUS concluded Elg was a natural born citizen “in the United States.” That means Elg was a natural born citizen when she lived in the US and not when she lived in Sweden. So, when Elg lived in the US from birth until 4 years of age, she was a natural born citizen. When Elg lived in Sweden from 4 years of age until 21 years and 8 months of age, she was not a natural born citizen. When Elg lived in America from 21 years and 8 months of age until her demise, she was a natural born citizen.

    Further, Elg was a US citizen from birth to 4 years of age. Elg was a dual Swedish/US citizen from 4 years of age until her demise. Since Sweden and the US had a treaty describing which country controlled citizenship property interest for dual Swedish/US citizens, Elg could be a natural born citizen for part of her life, not a natural born citizen for part of her live and a natural born citizen again from 21 years and 8 months until her demise.

    To complicate matters further, SCOTUS found Elg did voluntarily renounce her US citizenship while living in Sweden and then withdrew her voluntary renouncement when she moved back to the US and began living as a US citizen. The SoS issued her a CLN after she returned to the US and SCOTUS ruled the CLN invalid because Elg withdrew her voluntary renouncement before the CLN was issued by moving back to the US to live as a US citizen.

    My whistleblowers have been very helpful to me on this. I understand they are fielding calls from all over the world because there aren’t too many people who understand the complicated nuance of foreign policy with respect to renouncement, CLNs and natural born citizenship status.

    People ask my whistleblowers, “Who is Sven Magnussen?”

    And the whistleblowers respond, “I don’t know. I’ve never heard of him.” Ha ha ha!

  82. avatar
    Benji Franklin March 5, 2015 at 3:18 pm #

    Rickey: SvenMagnussen wrote: Termination of US citizenship is a two step process: 1) voluntary renouncement (signing and dating a declaration that you intend to leave the US and do not plan to return is a voluntary renouncement).

    Rickey, you responded, in part : Unsurprisingly, you don’t know what you are talking about.

    Sven never responds to the obvious debunking and/or refuting of his extra-legal or incompetently contemplated legal attack premises against Obama. Deities don’t have to, you see? Like they don’t have to finish a game of chess or concede when they see that they’re beaten. They just majestically declare the rules are flawed, make up new rules, assert non-existent rules exist, just because “they ought to” or never mention their ploy again after abandoning it when it didn’t work. Or they shamelessly suggest, having lost but not admitted it, that the same stakes should depend on a new game they now propose to play.

    Like Rickey from my childhood – the only boy when we played cops and robbers, who never had to “fall dead” when “shot” point blank, because he had an elaborate “just-so” table-turning explanation that allowed him to triumph over the previously-agreed-on rules that created the ‘playing’ reality of the game. Everyone hated him, but we let him continue playing with us, because he was, like Sven, so easy to ‘kill’ within the contemplation of the rules, and because his predictable flight from the plainly obvious consequences of the rules he instead had claimed rescued him, became amusing.

    Like I’m sure many of us do with Sven, we watched his antics in appalled fascination.

    Some of us patiently respond to Sven because he represents a set of persons who are potentially a great menace to liberty because liberty so depends on a measure of sanity. We think saying the right thing to literate maniacs might get them back on track, and defuse the pupa-stage danger they represent to those we care about.

    Unfortunately, we probably just make him feel a kind of power over us which life has denied him in every other venue, because we keep responding to his silliness. Sure he’s losing through the entire process, but he’s making us dance, and he can SAY at the end, that he knew with his Obama attacks, almost everything coming out of his mouth was crap.

    So congratulations to Sven, the political sniper shooting blanks at huge targets and leaving his mark on the side of a barn.

  83. avatar
    Daniel March 5, 2015 at 3:18 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Without a CLN

    You mean the CLN you claim exists, but cannot actually produce?

  84. avatar
    Daniel March 5, 2015 at 3:22 pm #

    Nancy R Owens: But, one thing working for the Medellin Cartel taught me is:

    “You never know. ANYTHING can happen.”

    And the more crazy you are, the more likely that is to be.

  85. avatar
    faceman March 5, 2015 at 3:32 pm #

    Sven, you must not have been paying attention. It is official:

    http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2014/06/no-canada-sen-ted-cruz-has-formally-shed-his-dual-citizenship.html/

    And, as I have said, renouncing his Canadian citizenship has no effect on his status as an NBC. Either he has always been an NBC from birth, or he will never be an NBC. He cannot retroactively become an NBC at his age regardless of what he does. Natural BORN Citizen.

    And please don’t bring up Elg again. I think we’ve beaten that dead horse enough.

    But I am still waiting for you to elaborate on what ‘property rights’ have to do with citizenship. Foreigners can own property in the US, and US citizens can own property overseas. The biggest owner of the US Debt, after the US government itself, is China.

    (Is there an echo in here? I’m sure I’ve said this before in this very thread.)

    I’ve just had a thought: Are you saying that citizens are the property of the government? What a heinous idea. I thought that the 13th amendment abolished slavery.

  86. avatar
    gorefan March 5, 2015 at 3:36 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Indonesia has a legal right to make certain demands on Obama because he voluntarily petitioned to become a naturalized Indonesian in 1967

    Barack Obama could not have petitioned for naturalization as an Indonesian citizen because he didn’t meet the requirements of Indonesian Law (Law 62 of 1958)

    Article 5.

    (1) The citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia because of naturalization is acquired with the validity of the decree of the Minister of Justice who grants this naturalization.

    (2) In order to present a petition for naturalization, the petitioner shall:

    a. have reached the age of 21;

    b. be born within the territory of the Republic of Indonesia or at the time of presenting the petition be domiciled in said region for at least the last 5 consecutive years or in total 10 inconsecutive years;

    President Obama only spent 3 1/2 years in Indonesia.

  87. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 5, 2015 at 3:45 pm #

    Rickey: Unsurprisingly, you don’t know what you are talking about.

    You claim that Obama’s mother renounced her citizenship when she applied for a passport and indicated that she was going to be in Indonesia indefinitely. She was in Hawaii when she applied for her passport. According to the State Department, she could not have renounced her citizenship while she was in the United States.

    U.S. citizens cannot effectively renounce their citizenship by mail, through an agent, or while in the United States.

    A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:

    1. appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer, 2. in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and 3. sign an oath of renunciation.

    Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect.

    http://travel.state.gov/content/travel/english/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/renunciation-of-citizenship.html

    You’re quoting bluff and blunder from the State Department to discourage disgruntled Americas from voluntarily renouncing. The federal courts avoid court orders instructing the State Department, an Executive Branch agency, to change its policy directives in violation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine.

    The State Department’s voluntary renouncement policy was challenged in the District Court in 2012, Fox v. Clinton. The District Court found in favor of the State Department due to a doctrine of Chevron Deference. Chevron Deference is a doctrine where the Executive branch and its agencies are entitled to deference by the courts with respect to some policy decisions.

    Fox appealed in the Circuit Court and the District Court’s ruling was remanded with instructions and not orders for the State Department. The Circuit Court found the State Department was not entitled to Chevron Deference with respect to voluntary renouncement because it is a basic right of all US citizens to move out of the country and renounce. Declining a citizen’s declaration they intend to voluntarily renounce in the near term because the citizen made the declaration on an application for a passport to obtain the very passport they are required to leave the US and denaturalize is absurd.

    Of course the State Department ignored the court’s instructions because they were advice and not orders. Nevertheless, the State Department’s policy with respect to voluntary renouncement remain “arbitrary and capricious.”

  88. avatar
    Kate March 5, 2015 at 3:52 pm #

    gorefan: SvenMagnussen: Indonesia has a legal right to make certain demands on Obama because he voluntarily petitioned to become a naturalized Indonesian in 1967

    Sven, you apparently don’t believe anything that is relayed to you by anyone in the U.S. government except for your whistleblowers. Are you inclined to believe what Indonesia says? Or I should say, what the Indonesian gov’t. says regarding Barack Obama’s status as an Indonesian citizen?

    If you inquire at the Indonesian embassy or call the Indonesian embassy and ask if Barack Obama relinquished his Indonesian citizenship, they will tell you he never held any citizenship in Indonesia. Will you believe the Indonesian embassy? Try calling them.

  89. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 5, 2015 at 4:03 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: 1) voluntary renouncement (signing and dating a declaration that you intend to leave the US and do not plan to return is a voluntary renouncement).

    No it is not. A declaration of leaving the country and staying overseas isn’t a renunciation. You lied again.

  90. avatar
    J.D. Sue March 5, 2015 at 4:37 pm #

    y_p_w: Rules can change sometimes.

    —-
    They sure can. Over the last few years, every expat I know has been sweating all the new tax reporting/collection procedures/requirements. Conceptually, it all started with a need to crackdown on wealthy people/companies hiding huge assets overseas. But as a practical matter, it is affecting everyone–new forms, new reporting requirements, new penalties for failure to comply.

    See, e.g., http://www.ustax.bz/getting-back-track-overview-irs-amnesty-programs/

  91. avatar
    J.D. Sue March 5, 2015 at 4:57 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: You’re quoting bluff and blunder from the State Department to discourage disgruntled Americas from voluntarily renouncing.

    —-
    I guess you couldn’t be bothered to follow Ricky’s link, which states at the top of the page:

    “A. THE IMMIGRATION & NATIONALITY ACT

    Section 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(5)) is the section of law governing the right of a United States citizen to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship. That section of law provides for the loss of nationality by voluntarily

    “(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state , in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State” (emphasis added).”

    http://travel.state.gov/content/travel/english/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/renunciation-of-citizenship.html

  92. avatar
    Keith March 5, 2015 at 5:41 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Didn’t Stanley Ann declare to the State Dept on a passport application she planned to stay in Indonesia “indefinately”?

    There is no such question on the passport renewal form. The answer is really none of the State Department’s business.

    I know this for a fact because I recently renewed my passport and I am living in Australia ‘indefinately’.

  93. avatar
    faceman March 5, 2015 at 5:45 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: You’re quoting bluff and blunder from the State Department to discourage disgruntled Americas from voluntarily renouncing.

    And what is it that you are doing?

    Any citizen may voluntarily renounce their citizenship. This much is true. But it requires going to an embassy and making a formal declaration of their intent to do so. Saying, while you are still in the US, that you intend to stay in Indonesia for ‘an indefinite period of time’ doesn’t meet that requirement.

    A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:

    1) appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer,
    2) in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and
    3) sign an oath of renunciation

    Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect. Because of the provisions of Section 349(a)(5), U.S. citizens cannot effectively renounce their citizenship by mail, through an agent, or while in the United States. In fact, U.S. courts have held certain attempts to renounce U.S. citizenship to be ineffective on a variety of grounds, as discussed below.

    (I have already provided the link above)

    And I’m still waiting to hear back on that property rights issue.

    And I’m still waiting for you to acknowledge that Cruz received the official letter from Canada acknowledging that he had given up his citizenship.

    And we’re still waiting for the paperwork trail on the alleged 1983 Naturalization.

    And we’re still waiting to see that CLN.

    And I’m still waiting for some scientist to invent the trans-warp drive.

    Wonder which will happen first?

    Who am I kidding? These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise….

  94. avatar
    Rickey March 5, 2015 at 6:36 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: You’re quoting bluff and blunder from the State Department to discourage disgruntled Americas from voluntarily renouncing…The State Department’s voluntary renouncement policy was challenged in the District Court in 2012, Fox v. Clinton.

    Please. Fox v. Clinton is not analogous to the scenario you dreamed up. And even if it were analogous, the decision in Fox v. Clinton punctures your balloon with this paragraph:

    Even prior to the 1986 amendments to the INA, however, the law was clear that an American citizen could not lose his or her nationality absent a showing that he or she committed an “expatriating act” with a specific “intent to terminate United States citizenship.” Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252, 263 (1980)

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cadc.uscourts.gov%2Finternet%2Fopinions.nsf%2F0E0B84A6A298A92385257A1B004EF146%2F%24file%2F11-5010-1378147.pdf&ei=r-T4VKWIE4vegwSJt4BY&usg=AFQjCNE757COUVDBauMWoQpU3IQwCH7AnA&bvm=bv.87611401,d.eXY

    Fox demonstrated a specific intent to terminate his U.S. citizenship. Stanley Ann Dunham did no such thing.

  95. avatar
    John Reilly March 6, 2015 at 12:37 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Haven’t I posted Stanley Ann identified Barack Hussein Obama and struck through his name on a passport application to indicate Barack should be removed from her US passport because he naturalized in a foreign state?

    Nope. What there may be is a passport application with a line through someone’s name. Who drew the line is not known. The meaning of the line is not known. If you found a piece of lint on Pres. Obama’s passport you would draw wrong inferences from it.

  96. avatar
    John Reilly March 6, 2015 at 12:44 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Obama has sworn an oath of alliance to the US and voluntarily renounced his Indonesian citizenship at The Shrine Auditorium, Sept. 16, 1983 to naturalize as a US citizen. </blockquote

    I see your point on this. After all, those people all look alike anyway. Just yesterday I flew from LAX to O'Hare and I sat next to Shaq. But I thought he was Chris Rock. They do all look alike, right? Just like Eric Holder came to Georgia to put the fix in on Dr. Taitz's case before Judge Land.

    You might post a link and tell us when and where you see Obama at the Shrine.

  97. avatar
    gorefan March 6, 2015 at 2:04 am #

    John Reilly: You might post a link and tell us when and where you see Obama at the Shrine.

    He picked that day because it is the day Arnold Schwarzenegger became a citizen.

  98. avatar
    Lupin March 6, 2015 at 5:37 am #

    Sven reminds me of the famous Groucho Marx quote, asking, “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”

    The evidence of Obama traveling with a US passport prior to 1983 is blindingly obvious, but no,Sven somehow wants us to believe he has secret evidence to the contrary, which he won’t disclose despite making it public in a lawsuit (which he won’t disclose either) because… why exactly???

    Another quote from Groucho might seem appropriate when dealing with Sven’s book-length posts:

    “From the moment I picked up your book until I laid it down, I was convulsed with laughter. Some day I intend reading it.”

  99. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 6, 2015 at 5:55 am #

    Continental Congress 1781. Naturels is Natural born. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28jc0216%29%29

    Article III French naturels

    3 English natural born

    [Moved to the Open Thread. Doc.]

  100. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 6, 2015 at 9:16 am #

    Lupin:
    Sven reminds me of the famous Groucho Marx quote, asking, “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”

    The evidence of Obama traveling with a US passport prior to 1983 is blindingly obvious, but no,Sven somehow wants us to believe he has secret evidence to the contrary, which he won’t disclose despite making it public in a lawsuit (which he won’t disclose either) because… why exactly???

    Another quote from Groucho might seem appropriate when dealing with Sven’s book-length posts:

    “From the moment I picked up your book until I laid it down, I was convulsed with laughter. Some day I intend reading it.”

    I alleged in my lawsuit Obama went to Indonesia before he went to Pakistan and cited an ABC News online article as the source. What I had hoped to develop through discovery, after a discussion with my whistleblowers, was that Obama applied for an Indonesian passport a year or six months before his trip. His stop in Indonesia was to retrieve his Indonesian passport and other travel documents applied for many months earlier.

    During the campaign in 2008, Obama campaign workers explained that Obama went to Indonesia before his trip to Pakistan to visit his mother and sister. After Obama was elected it was revealed Stanley Ann was living in Hawaii at the time going through the process of divorcing Lolo. Obviously, Obama went to Indonesia to pick up his passport and other travel documents he had applied for months earlier.

    It is not uncommon for an asylee to have difficulty obtaining a passport or travel documents while they are a permanent resident alien in the US. Consequently, the greencard holders must obtain an I-131 re-entry document from Customs and Border Patrol. Only foreign nationals obtain an I-131 for re-entry into the US after they’ve travelled internationally. The greencard and the I-131 obtained before the foreign national leaves the US is a guarantee the foreign national will be allowed to re-enter the US. The I-131 is further proof Obama was a foreign national living in the US from 1971 to 1983.

  101. avatar
    J.D. Sue March 6, 2015 at 9:16 am #

    Lupin: Sven reminds me of the famous Groucho Marx quote, asking, “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”

    —-

    Yes! I often find myself using a variation of this quote when I react to right-wing speeches. “Here I am, just believing my lying eyes instead of them.”

  102. avatar
    faceman March 6, 2015 at 9:24 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Perkins v. Elg is extremely important foreign policy precedent.

    No, its not. It is important, but it has nothing to do with foreign policy. It has to do with recognizing who is a citizen, which is as un-foreign as you can get.

    And the court did not say that she stopped being a citizen while living in Sweden. It was the Dept of Labor/INS that said that. And the SCOTUS told them that they were wrong.

    Sven:Since Sweden and the US had a treaty describing which country controlled citizenship property interest for dual Swedish/US citizens, Elg could be a natural born citizen for part of her life, not a natural born citizen for part of her live and a natural born citizen again from 21 years and 8 months until her demise.

    Utter and total hogwash. Complete malarkey. Y’know – BS. But just out of curiosity, can you provide a link to such a treaty? Didn’t think so.

    And you still haven’t explained what you mean by ‘citizenship property interest.’

  103. avatar
    Bovril March 6, 2015 at 9:31 am #

    SvenMagnussen: It is not uncommon for an asylee to have difficulty obtaining a passport or travel documents while they are a permanent resident alien in the US. Consequently, the greencard holders must obtain an I-131 re-entry document from Customs and Border Patrol. Only foreign nationals obtain an I-131 for re-entry into the US after they’ve travelled internationally. The greencard and the I-131 obtained before the foreign national leaves the US is a guarantee the foreign national will be allowed to re-enter the US.

    Utter bollocks Sven, not even within a country mile of reality

    Guess what, I have a green card and I have replaced my passport when it expired whilst living in the US and surprise

    1. I never had to leave the USA to get my passport replaced from my country of origin
    2. I never have or have had to get a “I-131” to leave or re-enter the US as a permanent resident

    So, be a good chap and feck off and peddle your nonsense over at StormFront

  104. avatar
    John Reilly March 6, 2015 at 9:42 am #

    SvenMagnussen: I alleged in my lawsuit Obama went to Indonesia before he went to Pakistan and cited an ABC News online article as the source. What I had hoped to develop through discovery, after a discussion with my whistleblowers, was that Obama applied for an Indonesian passport a year or six months before his trip. His stop in Indonesia was to retrieve his Indonesian passport and other travel documents applied for many months earlier.

    Sven is back. No link to his alleged lawsuit. No link to any other alleged “facts.”

    Sven hasn’t responded to my post that the court clerk in Los Angeles and Ancestry.Com both report no records of an Obama or Soetoro naturalization.

    Sven hasn’t produced the naturalization papers he says he has.

  105. avatar
    Lupin March 6, 2015 at 9:49 am #

    SvenMagnussen: I alleged in my lawsuit Obama went to Indonesia before he went to Pakistan and cited an ABC News online article as the source. What I had hoped to develop through discovery, after a discussion with my whistleblowers, was that Obama applied for an Indonesian passport a year or six months before his trip. His stop in Indonesia was to retrieve his Indonesian passport and other travel documents applied for many months earlier.

    We’ve been through this once before. The dates don’t match. If Obama had picked up his visa in Indonesia in the summer of 1981 as you claim, when he was there, such visas being limited to 6 months, he would have to enter Europe within these six months, or the visa would have been invalid and he would have been refused entry.

  106. avatar
    Lupin March 6, 2015 at 9:54 am #

    SvenMagnussen: It is not uncommon for an asylee to have difficulty obtaining a passport or travel documents while they are a permanent resident alien in the US. Consequently, the greencard holders must obtain an I-131 re-entry document from Customs and Border Patrol. Only foreign nationals obtain an I-131 for re-entry into the US after they’ve travelled internationally. The greencard and the I-131 obtained before the foreign national leaves the US is a guarantee the foreign national will be allowed to re-enter the US. The I-131 is further proof Obama was a foreign national living in the US from 1971 to 1983.

    And BTW that is absolutely NOt true.

    I was a US green card holder for many many years and never ever had to obtain an I-131. And I traveled under my French passport to Finland, Russia, Europe, Canada and lots of other places, returning to the US without any problems every time.

    You’re just completely bonkers, making up sh*t as you go.

  107. avatar
    J.D. Sue March 6, 2015 at 10:02 am #

    SvenMagnussen: It is not uncommon for an asylee to have difficulty obtaining a passport or travel documents

    —-
    Are you now suggesting that Obama was an “asylee” from Indonesia? And that he returned to Indonesia to get his documents?

    “Asylee. An alien in the United States or at a port of entry who is found to be unable or unwilling to return to his or her country of nationality, or to seek the protection of that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution.” http://www.uscis.gov/tools/glossary/asylee

  108. avatar
    Lupin March 6, 2015 at 10:04 am #

    On March 16th — ten days — join me all in celebrating the 264th birthday of that great Frenchman, James Madison!

    Doc, I hope you’ll mark the event! 🙂

  109. avatar
    Lupin March 6, 2015 at 10:05 am #

    J.D. Sue: Are you now suggesting that Obama was an “asylee” from Indonesia? And that he returned to Indonesia to get his documents?

    I tell you, he’s just making it up as he goes, out of sheer desperation seeing his web of lies unravel one after the other.

  110. avatar
    faceman March 6, 2015 at 10:36 am #

    J.D. Sue: —-Are you now suggesting that Obama was an “asylee” from Indonesia? And that he returned to Indonesia to get his documents?“Asylee. An alien in the United States or at a port of entry who is found to be unable or unwilling to return to his or her country of nationality, or to seek the protection of that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution.” http://www.uscis.gov/tools/glossary/asylee

    He just liked the sound of that word, and thought that if he worked it into his blathering it would make him sound more impressive/convincing. Like the way he likes to throw ‘sua sponte’ around all the time.

    Sound and fury, signifying nothing. (McBeth, Shakespeare)

  111. avatar
    J.D. Sue March 6, 2015 at 10:53 am #

    faceman: He just liked the sound of that word, and thought that if he worked it into his blathering it would make him sound more impressive/convincing. Like the way he likes to throw ‘sua sponte’ around all the time.

    Sound and fury, signifying nothing. (McBeth, Shakespeare)

    —-

    He sneaks so many phrases and suppositions into his baseless and long-winded pontifications, it’s hard to keep up. I did notice the “sua sponte” nonsense–where he says that he or the government attorney sought to move the court “sua sponte”. Of course, “sua sponte” is when the court moves itself, without a motion from one of the parties.

  112. avatar
    Lupin March 6, 2015 at 11:09 am #

    Bruce Bartlett, former adviser to President Reagan and Bush I, had this to say on MSNBC about the current crop of Tea Party conservatives and other CPAC attendees:

    “But yes, they are really rather stupid and not very well read.”

    As always the Monster turns on Dr Frankenstein.

  113. avatar
    Rickey March 6, 2015 at 11:22 am #

    SvenMagnussen:

    During the campaign in 2008, Obama campaign workers explained that Obama went to Indonesia before his trip to Pakistan to visit his mother and sister. After Obama was elected it was revealed Stanley Ann was living in Hawaii at the time going through the process of divorcing Lolo. Obviously, Obama went to Indonesia to pick up his passport and other travel documents he had applied for months earlier.

    Wrong again.

    Stanley Ann’s divorce from Lolo Soetoro was filed on August 20, 1980 and was finalized on November 6, 1980.

    Obama’s visit to Indonesia and Pakistan took place in the summer of 1981.

    Are you not embarrassed about being wrong about so many things?

  114. avatar
    justlw March 6, 2015 at 11:37 am #

    Lupin: Sven reminds me of the famous Groucho Marx quote, asking, “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”

    Hmm. I always thought that was Richard Pryor. It’ll probably turn out to be Vattel.

  115. avatar
    Arthur B. March 6, 2015 at 12:12 pm #

    justlw: Hmm. I always thought that was Richard Pryor. It’ll probably turn out to be Vattel.

    Or the mailman.

  116. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 6, 2015 at 12:27 pm #

    Rickey: Wrong again.

    Stanley Ann’s divorce from Lolo Soetoro was filed on August 20, 1980 and was finalized on November 6, 1980.

    Obama’s visit to Indonesia and Pakistan took place in the summer of 1981.

    Are you not embarrassed about being wrong about so many things?

    Stanley Ann (Dunham) Soetoro’s US passport expired on June 1, 1981. You’re desperate to resolve all controversies before discovery of all evidence and rely on selective releases of information. The federal court is authorized to resolve controversies and not validate the defense after selective release of evidence.

    If the court had allowed discovery and ignored the US Attorney’s suggestion of dismissal sua sponte to avoid a sovereign immunity challenge and Appointments Clause challenge by the plaintiff, then I could have subpoenaed Obama I-131 re-entry application, 1981. Only foreign nationals apply for and are issued I-131 documents. The I-131 is primary sourced evidence Obama was a foreign national living in America in 1981.

    Of course, we can’t do that because I have to prove Obama wasn’t using a US passport in 1981 before I can obtain the documents in discovery to prove Obama was using a greencard and form I-131 in 1981.

  117. avatar
    Rickey March 6, 2015 at 12:49 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Stanley Ann (Dunham) Soetoro’s US passport expired on June 1, 1981.

    Yet another non sequitur from Sven.

    You claimed that Obama didn’t see his mother when he visited Indonesia and Pakistan in the summer of 1981 because his mother was in Hawaii getting her divorce. But, as I pointed out, her divorce was finalized in November, 1980, so she had no need to be in Hawaii in the summer of 1981.

    What does the expiration of his mother’s passport (assuming that what you say is correct, which is quite a reach considering your track record) have to do with anything? She was in Indonesia in the summer of 1981. In fact, it has been documented that in May, 1981 she wrote a letter from Jakarta to Tom Kessinger of the Ford Foundation stating that she wanted to use her educational travel for dependent children so Obama could visit her in July.

  118. avatar
    faceman March 6, 2015 at 1:19 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Stanley Ann (Dunham) Soetoro’s US passport expired on June 1, 1981. You’re desperate to resolve all controversies before discovery of all evidence and rely on selective releases of information. The federal court is authorized to resolve controversies and not validate the defense after selective release of evidence.If the court had allowed discovery and ignored the US Attorney’s suggestion of dismissal sua sponte to avoid a sovereign immunity challenge and Appointments Clause challenge by the plaintiff, then I could have subpoenaed Obama I-131 re-entry application, 1981. Only foreign nationals apply for and are issued I-131 documents. The I-131 is primary sourced evidence Obama was a foreign national living in America in 1981. Of course, we can’t do that because I have to prove Obama wasn’t using a US passport in 1981 before I can obtain the documents in discovery to prove Obama was using a greencard and form I-131 in 1981.

    See, there you go again throwing in terms like ‘sua sponte’ again, and yet you still refuse to explain what you mean by a government having a ‘property interest’ in its citizens.

    Did you have a chance to check out that link that has a copy of Canada’s official letter in re the Cruz renunciation of citizenship? We’re all waiting with baited breath for to actually admit you were wrong about something. In case you need it, here it is again.

    http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2014/06/no-canada-sen-ted-cruz-has-formally-shed-his-dual-citizenship.html/

  119. avatar
    y_p_w March 6, 2015 at 1:20 pm #

    Bovril: Utter bollocks Sven, not even within a country mile of reality

    Guess what, I have a green card and I have replaced my passport when it expired whilst living in the US and surprise

    1.I never had to leave the USA to get my passport replaced from my country of origin
    2.I never have or have had to get a “I-131″ to leave or re-enter the US as a permanent resident

    So, be a good chap and feck off and peddle your nonsense over at StormFront

    To be fair to Sven (not sure why) – he was referring to someone seeking asylum.

    There are various documents that are issued to permanent residents, including the Permit to Re-enter the US and the Refugee Travel Document. The former is supposed to be for a permanent resident who is planning to return the US after more than a year. However, I know someone who was an R.O.C. citizen but used that to enter Hong Kong for some reason. I think it was easier to get a visa, and he showed me the visa stamp in the reentry permit. The latter is pretty self-explanatory, and would be issued because the country of origin would refuse to issue a passport for an asylum seeker/refugee or perhaps the country is in chaos.

    Of course that he may have one detail right doesn’t mean his premise is right.

  120. avatar
    Notorial Dissent March 6, 2015 at 1:23 pm #

    Poor Svenski, not only can’t keep his facts straight, can’t even keep his lies and fantasies straight.

  121. avatar
    gorefan March 6, 2015 at 1:38 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Stanley Ann (Dunham) Soetoro’s US passport expired on June 1, 1981.

    Wrong again. It was renewed in April, 1981 and again in March, 1986.

    Keep pedaling.

  122. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 6, 2015 at 2:11 pm #

    It is reported that oral arguments have been scheduled in the case of Joseph Arpaio et al v. Barack Obama et al. This is the immigration suit. Case number 14-5325 in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

  123. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 6, 2015 at 2:13 pm #

    gorefan: Wrong again.It was renewed in April, 1981 and again in March, 1986.

    Keep pedaling.

    gorefan: Wrong again.It was renewed in April, 1981 and again in March, 1986.

    Keep pedaling.

    We have controversy. I allege it expired in June, 1981. In order to prevent the State Department from alleging Stanley Ann involuntarily renounced, she would not have allowed it to expire without renewing it while in Indonesia. You say I’m wrong.

    Courts solve controversies. After discovery is complete, a clearer picture will emerge. You’re relying on selectively released information controlled by individuals who will lose their jobs if America’s sovereign immunity is challenged successfully.

  124. avatar
    Thomas Brown March 6, 2015 at 2:30 pm #

    You can allege all you want. It’s meaningless fluff. Facts are what count, and you don’t have any.

  125. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 6, 2015 at 2:38 pm #

    We already have “discovery” on this point through the Freedom of Information Act. The passport application linked below (obtained by me personally through FOIA) that Passport Z3037221 was issued to Stanley Ann Dunham on 4/28/1981 in Jarkarta, Indonesia. This document also documents that she divorced Lolo Soetoro on August 28, 1980 and was residing in Jakarta on April 27, 1981.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Dunham-Passport-1981.pdf

    The “controversies” that courts decide do not include differences of opinion on the Internet.

    SvenMagnussen: We have controversy. I allege it expired in June, 1981. In order to prevent the State Department from alleging Stanley Ann involuntarily renounced, she would not have allowed it to expire without renewing it while in Indonesia. You say I’m wrong.

    Courts solve controversies. After discovery is complete, a clearer picture will emerge. You’re relying on selectively released information controlled by individuals who will lose their jobs if America’s sovereign immunity is challenged successfully.

  126. avatar
    faceman March 6, 2015 at 2:45 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: In order to prevent the State Department from alleging Stanley Ann involuntarily renounced, she would not have allowed it to expire without renewing it while in Indonesia.

    But the State Dept could not allege she involuntarily renounced. She would have had to take affirmative action to give it up.

    On the other hand, I thought you said she voluntarily renounced when she applied for her original passport while still in Hawaii. (Staying in Indonesia ‘indefinately’. Remember that?)

    If that’s your story, you’re not sticking to it.

    Now, about Cruz voluntarily renouncing his Canadian citizenship…..

  127. avatar
    gorefan March 6, 2015 at 4:12 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: I allege it expired in June, 1981

    Her passport application in April, 1981 proves you wrong. You cannot manufacture a controversy simply by saying there is one.

  128. avatar
    faceman March 6, 2015 at 5:46 pm #

    I have not investigated the issue at all, but is it possible that her passport had an expiration date of June, and she renewed it a few months early in order to avoid a ‘gap in coverage’, as it were. This might explain Sven’s confusion. Of course, if that were the case, having been just renewed, the new passport would not have expired in June. What about it Sven? Are you willing to admit you might have been mistaken?

    But aside from that, Sven, you have painted yourself into 2 separate indefensible corners. You have alleged that:
    1) She voluntarily renounced when she was still in Hawaii when she said she would be remaining overseas for an ‘indefinate’ period on her initial application (However, the law does not allow someone to renounce while IN the US)
    2) She renewed her passport so that the State Dept could not allege that she had involuntarily renounced. (Someone cannot lose their citizenship by ‘involuntary renouncing’ it)

    Not only are these two allegations indefensible, they are not consistent with each other. If she had renounced, then she couldn’t apply for a renewal. She wouldn’t have one in the first place.

    So which is it Sven? Pick one, and admit that the other was a lie.

    SvenMagnussen:
    I allege it expired in June, 1981. In order to prevent the State Department from alleging Stanley Ann involuntarily renounced, she would not have allowed it to expire without renewing it while in Indonesia.

  129. avatar
    justlw March 6, 2015 at 5:51 pm #

    faceman: (Someone cannot lose their citizenship by ‘involuntary renouncing’ it)

    This is why you must always thoroughly read any and all click-to-accept verbiage.

  130. avatar
    faceman March 6, 2015 at 6:00 pm #

    I was looking back at the previous open thread for something, and came across this comment by Sven:

    Obama naturalized as a US citizen on Sept. 16, 1983 after filing a petition to naturalize as a US citizen in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In 2008, AG Michael B. Mukasey, former Chief Judge, retired, USDC, SDNY, cancelled the certificate of naturalization issued in 1983. Mukasey was recruited in 2007 by VP Dick Cheney, SCOTUS CJ John Roberts, Jr. and other senior Bush administration officials to retire as Chief Judge and accept an appointment as AG in the Bush administration.

    It just struck me – Sven was alleging that Cheney, Roberts and other senior Bush administration officials were part of the conspiracy to hide Obama’s ineligibility. Can you believe it?

  131. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 6, 2015 at 10:02 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    We already have “discovery” on this point through the Freedom of Information Act. The passport application linked below (obtained by me personally through FOIA) that Passport Z3037221 was issued to Stanley Ann Dunham on4/28/1981 in Jarkarta, Indonesia. This document also documents that she divorced Lolo Soetoro on August 28, 1980 and was residing in Jakarta on April 27, 1981.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Dunham-Passport-1981.pdf

    The “controversies” that courts decide do not include differences of opinion on the Internet.

    My whistleblowers have indicated to me the red dot in the upper left corner of the FOIA released document means its been marked as sensitive, not classified. In other words, it’s a fake.

    All federal employees/ contractors and appointees have their jobs on the line if the President is found out to be ineligible. The President won’t be fired, but they will be. And they are not going to let that happen through an FOIA. And as I found out, it won’t be exposed after a sovereign immunity challenge and an Appointments Clause challenge is made is federal court.

  132. avatar
    Keith March 6, 2015 at 10:12 pm #

    faceman: And you still haven’t explained what you mean by ‘citizenship property interest.’

    SovCit hogwash (to use your term just to keep things ‘polite’)..

  133. avatar
    Arthur B. March 6, 2015 at 10:15 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: My whistleblowers have indicated to me the red dot in the upper left corner of the FOIA released document means its been marked as sensitive, not classified. In other words, it’s a fake.

    Your whistleblowers are regular dei ex machina, aren’t they!

  134. avatar
    Keith March 6, 2015 at 10:16 pm #

    Lupin: I tell you, he’s just making it up as he goes, out of sheer desperation seeing his web of lies unravel one after the other.

    Of course he is. Its a performance.

  135. avatar
    Keith March 6, 2015 at 10:25 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Stanley Ann (Dunham) Soetoro’s US passport expired on June 1, 1981.

    And mine expired in March 2014. I had my new passport in my hand eight calendar days after I mailed the renewal form (with new photo and correct fee) to the Embassy in Canberra. They had to do all the checking up on me and get the new booklet printed in the USA (I assume) and shipped back to them in that time.

    Renewing a passport is probably the simplest and quickest interaction you can possibly have with the US Federal Government.

  136. avatar
    J.D. Sue March 6, 2015 at 10:29 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: And as I found out, it won’t be exposed after a sovereign immunity challenge and an Appointments Clause challenge is made is federal court.

    —-
    What you should have “found out” is that your “challenges” failed to state a cause of action. No justiciable case or controversy. Frivolous suit. Case dismissed. (see first day of law school).

  137. avatar
    Keith March 6, 2015 at 10:33 pm #

    faceman: Now, about Cruz voluntarily renouncing his Canadian citizenship…..

    Apparently he actually did that and Canada has publicly acknowledged it and accepted it.

    Now my question is, can Cruz ever enter Canada again? It is my understanding that if an American renounces his/her citizenship, the State Department will not allow that person a visa (for whatever reason – spite, I suppose). I don’t believe that US Citizens require a visa to enter Canada, but they do check ID at the border, don’t they?

    I wonder, would it not be embarrassing to have a President who could not enter our nearest and friendliest neighbor? Shouldn’t this contribute to the unelectability of Compadre Cruz?

  138. avatar
    Rickey March 6, 2015 at 10:41 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    We already have “discovery” on this point through the Freedom of Information Act. The passport application linked below (obtained by me personally through FOIA) that Passport Z3037221 was issued to Stanley Ann Dunham on4/28/1981 in Jarkarta, Indonesia. This document also documents that she divorced Lolo Soetoro on August 28, 1980 and was residing in Jakarta on April 27, 1981.

    That is consistent with the published information that she wrote to the Ford Foundation from Jakarta in May, 1981 about Barack coming to visit her that summer.

  139. avatar
    Rickey March 6, 2015 at 10:45 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: My whistleblowers have indicated to me the red dot in the upper left corner of the FOIA released document means its been marked as sensitive, not classified. In other words, it’s a fake.

    Do you deny that Stanley Ann’s divorce was finalized in 1980?

  140. avatar
    gorefan March 6, 2015 at 11:04 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: My whistleblowers have indicated to me the red dot in the upper left corner of the FOIA released document means its been marked as sensitive, not classified. In other words, it’s a fake.

    Is that the same as the red arrow you put on your blog? To indicate that it was fake blog?

  141. avatar
    John Reilly March 6, 2015 at 11:43 pm #

    faceman: It just struck me – Sven was alleging that Cheney, Roberts and other senior Bush administration officials were part of the conspiracy to hide Obama’s ineligibility. Can you believe it?

    I suspect that most of the folks on this blog would believe in any conspiracy that involves Cheney, Roberts and other Bush Administration officials.

  142. avatar
    justlw March 6, 2015 at 11:46 pm #

    John Reilly: I suspect that most of the folks on this blog would believe in any conspiracy that involves Cheney, Roberts and other Bush Administration officials.

    That’s quite a broad brush you’re painting with, don’t you think?

    I suspect that most of the folks on this blog have summarily dismissed many a conspiracy theory involving the Bush Administration, most specifically those involving planes, towers, jet fuel, and a total rejection of the laws of physics.

  143. avatar
    John Reilly March 6, 2015 at 11:46 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: And as I found out, it won’t be exposed after a sovereign immunity challenge and an Appointments Clause challenge is made is federal court.

    “Sovereign immunity” means that a government cannot be sued absent its consent. It would be a defense to a claim against a government. Sven’s claim of a sovereign immunity challenge makes no sense unless the government, in defending against Sven, defended alleging it was immune from suit.

    But, of course, Sven knows his claim of a sovereign immunity challenge is word salad.

  144. avatar
    John Reilly March 6, 2015 at 11:48 pm #

    justlw: total rejection of the laws of physics

    I think you will find that Vattel rejected the laws of physics in section 666. Lupin can translate.

  145. avatar
    justlw March 6, 2015 at 11:51 pm #

    John Reilly: I think you will find that Vattel rejected the laws of physics in section 666.Lupin can translate.

    No need; I looked it up through my fillings WiFi connection.

  146. avatar
    justlw March 6, 2015 at 11:53 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: My whistleblowers have indicated to me the red dot in the upper left corner of the FOIA released document means its been marked as sensitive, not classified. In other words, it’s a fake.

    In a very tough field, that statement stands out as perhaps the most transparent and desperately ridiculous things I’ve heard a birther go dancin’ with. Kudos.

  147. avatar
    John Reilly March 7, 2015 at 12:01 am #

    SvenMagnussen: My whistleblowers have indicated to me the red dot in the upper left corner of the FOIA released document means its been marked as sensitive, not classified. In other words, it’s a fake.

    That statement is in the category with the assertion that if the typed letters line up, it’s a fake, and if they don’t it’s a fake. In other words, a lie.

    I know it’s all the fashion to say “indicated,” but indicated means someone pointed at something. If a witness said that the red dot means it wasn’t a purple dot, then he said so. He didn’t indicate it. Having testified often enough, and watched others, using the word “indicated’ is a sure sign you don’t got nuttin’. More word salad. About non-existent whistle blowers.

  148. avatar
    John Reilly March 7, 2015 at 12:02 am #

    justlw: That’s quite a broad brush you’re painting with, don’t you think?

    Yes, it was just meant to be tongue-in-cheek. No offense intended.

  149. avatar
    justlw March 7, 2015 at 12:24 am #

    John Reilly: Yes, it was just meant to be tongue-in-cheek.No offense intended.

    Well, you know us libruls: touchy as hell.

    Q: How many libruls does it take to change a lightbulb?
    A: THAT’S NOT FUNNY!

  150. avatar
    Lupin March 7, 2015 at 2:04 am #

    When Sven says “my whistleblowers”, I’m supposed to read “my invisible friends” or “the voices in my head”, right?

  151. avatar
    Lupin March 7, 2015 at 2:09 am #

    SvenMagnussen: We have controversy.

    No we do not.

    You have that insane belief that just because you say the Moon is made green cheese and everyone else says it’s a rock in space, we suddenly have a controversy. No, we don’t.

    What we have is a delusional lunatic who can’t even get his facts straight and talks to invisible friends.

  152. avatar
    Whatever4 March 7, 2015 at 2:27 am #

    Keith: Apparently he actually did that and Canada has publicly acknowledged it and accepted it.

    Now my question is, can Cruz ever enter Canada again? It is my understanding that if an American renounces his/her citizenship, the State Department will not allow that person a visa (for whatever reason – spite, I suppose). I don’t believe that US Citizens require a visa to enter Canada, but they do check ID at the border, don’t they?

    I wonder, would it not be embarrassing to have a President who could not enter our nearest and friendliest neighbor? Shouldn’t this contribute to the unelectability of Compadre Cruz?

    Not true about Americans. from the WSJ:

    You might find travel more complicated. World-wide travel might require getting more visas, Fragomen’s Ms. Weintraub notes, and you might not be able to re-enter the U.S. without one. Once here, it may be hard for you to spend more than 120 days a year (on average) in the U.S., and you must not appear to be using your visitor status to live in the U.S.

    There is more: Under the “Reed amendment,” named after a Democratic senator from Rhode Island, U.S. officials may bar entry to any person who renounced citizenship for tax reasons. This provision is rarely, if ever, invoked—Ms. Weintraub has never heard of a case—but it is on the books. Experts say the attention surrounding Mr. Saverin’s case could revive it, and recently lawmakers proposed raising the exit tax.

  153. avatar
    Keith March 7, 2015 at 6:46 am #

    Whatever4: Not true about Americans. from the WSJ:

    Thanks for the correction. I didn’t think ‘spite’ was a useful response to a visa request.

  154. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 7, 2015 at 7:24 am #

    J.D. Sue: —-
    What you should have “found out” is that your “challenges” failed to state a cause of action.No justiciable case or controversy.Frivolous suit.Case dismissed.(see first day of law school).

    Pre-trial motions for dismissal are rooted in the FRCP. The FRCP is US Law signed into action by an alleged ineligible President pursuant to the Presentment Clause and held in trust by the Archivist of the United States after an appointment by the ineligible President. The FRCP is amended, added to and deleted through the delegation doctrine prescribed by the Judiciary Act, as amended. The Judiciary Act, as amended, is held in trust by the Archivist of the United States as evidence of US law. The Archivist of the United States is appointed by the President. The President is alleged to be in violation of the Eligibility Clause. As such, appointments by an alleged ineligible President are objected to as a violation of the Appointments Clause. Further, the US Attorney, Assistant US Attorneys and all other federal officers, including the judicial officers in court, are alleged to be in violation of Article VI of the US Constitution after notice and failure to investigate and act upon the allegation the President is in violation of the Eligibility Clause.

    etc …
    etc …
    etc …

    I would close with, “Your Honor, before entertaining a suggestion of dismissal, sua sponte, from the US Attorney, who has a vested personal interest in the outcome of this trial, I respectfully suggest all active federal officers and appointees and lawyers, after swearing an oath to support the Constitution, recuse so that retired federal officers not in service on Jan. 20, 2009 may hear my objections and rule upon them before proceeding. Otherwise, it looks as if your just saving your own bacon and covering up the greatest fraud ever committed on the United States.”

  155. avatar
    John Reilly March 7, 2015 at 8:10 am #

    Sven is back complaining about the rules of civil procedure without explaining how things would be different if the court used the rules which were in effect in 2008.

    Sven is back claiming that the government side has a stake in the outcome and thus can’t be trusted. Well, (a) Sven has a stake (at least I allege he does) because he wants to secede from the US without consequence, and (b) sides in court typically have a stake in the outcome; that’s an effect of the case or controversy clause of the Constitution. The federal courts are not a rhetorical debating society.

    Last, Sven says that what has happened is the greatest fraud ever committed in the United States, but he refuses, just plain refuses, to show a copy of his now dismissed complaint or his evidence, because, apparently, unmasking this great fraud is not as important as in keeping the evidence secret so Obama does not find out and retaliate, except for the fact that Obama’s judge and U. S. attorney already know. Huh?

  156. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 7, 2015 at 8:24 am #

    faceman:
    I have not investigated the issue at all, but is it possible that her passport had an expiration date of June, and she renewed it a few months early in order to avoid a ‘gap in coverage’, as it were.This might explain Sven’s confusion.Of course, if that were the case, having been just renewed, the new passport would not have expired in June.What about it Sven?Are you willing to admit you might have been mistaken?

    But aside from that, Sven, you have painted yourself into 2 separate indefensible corners.You have alleged that:
    1)She voluntarily renounced when she was still in Hawaii when she said she would be remaining overseas for an ‘indefinate’ period on her initial application(However, the law does not allow someone to renounce while IN the US)
    2) She renewed her passport so that the State Dept could not allege that she had involuntarily renounced.(Someone cannot lose their citizenship by ‘involuntary renouncing’ it)

    Not only are these two allegations indefensible, they are not consistent with each other.If she had renounced, then she couldn’t apply for a renewal.She wouldn’t have one in the first place.

    So which is it Sven?Pick one, and admit that the other was a lie.

    A person who voluntarily renounces does not have their citizenship terminated until a CLN is issued. In Canada, citizenship is not terminated until an order of revocation is issued after a voluntary renouncement.

    Voluntary renouncement does not end the obligations of the citizen, i.e. they are still required to file tax returns and pay taxes. Most mistakenly believe they do not have to file because they voluntarily renounced and do not pay taxes. Their obligations to their home country continue until their home country issues a CLN or, in Canada, an order of revocation.

    Since obligations continue until a CLN is issued, so do the benefits. Citizens who have voluntarily renounced are entitled to a US passport, evacuation if the President orders US citizens to evacuate, and any other protection provided by the government to its citizens.

    Ted Cruz’s allegiance to the US is not questionable, its the fact Canada maintains an interest in Ted’s Canadian citizenship and is entitled to make demands of Ted, i.e. file tax returns, pay taxes, fight in their wars, etc… We ask Canada to respect our rights to oblige our citizens in return for protection and their well being. Consequently, we should respect Canada’s right to oblige its citizens.

    America makes exceptions for minors who have had their US citizenship voluntarily renounced by their parents. Upon reaching the age of majority, they may elect to recapture their US citizenship. Since it is the first time the citizen has been able to decide for themselves, America constructively terminates any obligations the country of the parents may have had on the minor.

  157. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 7, 2015 at 8:41 am #

    John Reilly:
    Sven is back complaining about the rules of civil procedure without explaining how things would be different if the court used the rules which were in effect in 2008.

    Sven is back claiming that the government side has a stake in the outcome and thus can’t be trusted.Well, (a) Sven has a stake (at least I allege he does) because he wants to secede from the US without consequence, and (b) sides in court typically have a stake in the outcome; that’s an effect of the case or controversy clause of the Constitution.The federal courts are not a rhetorical debating society.

    Last, Sven says that what has happened is the greatest fraud ever committed in the United States, but he refuses, just plain refuses, to show a copy of his now dismissed complaint or his evidence, because, apparently, unmasking this great fraud is not as important as in keeping the evidence secret so Obama does not find out and retaliate, except for the fact that Obama’s judge and U. S. attorney already know.Huh?

    You’re ignoring the part about the FRCP and the FRE is US law. All US law is held in trust as evidence of law by the Archivist of the US. The Archivist is appointed by the President. If the President is ineligible, then the appointments of the President are a violation of the Appointments Clause.

    The evidence locker has been left open. The evidence of law is suspect and will have to be audited by a person who objects to an ineligible President’s appointees failing to support the Constitution. The Judiciary Act, which provides authority for the District Court, is suspect as the evidence of law has been tainted by appointee of an ineligible President.

    The US Attorney and the Assistant US Attorneys are bound by oath to support the Constitution. Rather than moving to dismiss cases alleging the President is ineligible, they should support the Constitution by articulating how they have researched the allegations and what conclusions they have made. The DoJ has evidence Obama had a certificate of naturalization in 2008 because it was the AG who canceled the certificate in 2008. Further, it was the AG who investigated the CCD breech in 2008. The CCD held evidence of Obama’s I-131 and I-151 in 2008. The US Attorney or the AUSA can conduct a thorough investigation by looking at its own records.

  158. avatar
    John Reilly March 7, 2015 at 8:51 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Rather than moving to dismiss cases alleging the President is ineligible, they should support the Constitution by articulating how they have researched the allegations and what conclusions they have made. The DoJ has evidence Obama had a certificate of naturalization in 2008 because it was the AG who canceled the certificate in 2008. Further, it was the AG who investigated the CCD breech in 2008. The CCD held evidence of Obama’s I-131 and I-151 in 2008. The US Attorney or the AUSA can conduct a thorough investigation by looking at its own records.

    The U S Attorney researched your allegations. He determined you were bat sh*t crazy. And that there was no evidence of any of your allegations. And that you are a liar and a nut.

    If I’m wrong about that, you will do the courageous thing and post your evidence, complaint, and the papers filed by the U S Attorney. Otherwise, from our perspective, you made all this up. Wilfully lied.

  159. avatar
    faceman March 7, 2015 at 9:16 am #

    Lupin:
    When Sven says “my whistleblowers”, I’m supposed to read “my invisible friends” or “the voices in my head”, right?

    No, he invented his whistleblowers so that he can say “I’m not alleging that really ridiculous idea, someone else told me about it” after we blow it out of the water.

  160. avatar
    faceman March 7, 2015 at 9:29 am #

    SvenMagnussen: A person who voluntarily renounces does not have their citizenship terminated until a CLN is issued.In Canada, citizenship is not terminated until an order of revocation is issued after a voluntary renouncement.

    Voluntary renouncement does not end the obligations of the citizen, i.e. they are still required to file tax returns and pay taxes. Most mistakenly believe they do not have to file because they voluntarily renounced and do not pay taxes. Their obligations to their home country continue until their home country issues a CLN or, in Canada, an order of revocation.

    Since obligations continue until a CLN is issued, so do the benefits. Citizens who have voluntarily renounced are entitled to a US passport, evacuation if the President orders US citizens to evacuate, and any other protection provided by the government to its citizens.

    Ted Cruz’s allegiance to the US is not questionable, its the fact Canada maintains an interest in Ted’s Canadian citizenship and is entitled to make demands of Ted, i.e. file tax returns, pay taxes, fight in their wars, etc… We ask Canada to respect our rights to oblige our citizens in return for protection and their well being. Consequently, we should respect Canada’s right to oblige its citizens.

    America makes exceptions for minors who have had their US citizenship voluntarily renounced by their parents. Upon reaching the age of majority, they may elect to recapture their US citizenship. Since it is the first time the citizen has been able to decide for themselves, America constructively terminates any obligations the country of the parents may have had on the minor.

    You’re moving the goalpost again, Sven. If she wanted to renounce it in Hawaii (Which she couldn’t do anyway), why would she apply for a passport renewal so that it wouldn’t be ‘involuntarily renounced’ by the State Dept (Which couldn’t happen anyway)? Either she wanted it renounced, or she didn’t.

    Canada NO LONGER MAINTAINS ‘an interest in Ted’s Canadian Citizenship’ (whatever that means). They already sent their equivalent of a CLN (they call it something else). If you’d click on the link I provided, you’d see a copy of it.

    And parents can’t renounce their child’s US citizenship under any circumstances. The minor has to do it himself, by convincing a consular official that he fully understands the ramifications of his action.

    C’mon Sven, you’ve conceded this point before, when you tried to claim that the parents had to hire an attorney to argue on behalf of the ‘best interest of the child’. Maybe you should write things down so that you can refer to your prior claims before saying the exact opposite of what you’ve already said.

  161. avatar
    faceman March 7, 2015 at 9:32 am #

    faceman: No, he invented his whistleblowers so that he can say “I’m not alleging that really ridiculous idea, someone else told me about it” after we blow it out of the water.

    My wife uses the same principle whenever asked to do something she doesn’t want to do. She says ‘My husband doesn’t want me doing that.’

  162. avatar
    faceman March 7, 2015 at 9:36 am #

    Sven, here it is AGAIN:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/229039536/Canadian-Renunciation-Letter

    (Or are you claiming that its a forgery?)

    They call it a ‘Certificate of Renunciation of Canadian Citizenship’ (CRCC).

  163. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 7, 2015 at 10:03 am #

    SvenMagnussen: We have controversy. I allege it expired in June, 1981. In order to prevent the State Department from alleging Stanley Ann involuntarily renounced, she would not have allowed it to expire without renewing it while in Indonesia. You say I’m wrong.

    You need to make up your mind you keep switching from claiming she voluntarily renounced and then claiming she involuntarily renounced. There is absolutely no proof she ever renounced, period.

  164. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 7, 2015 at 10:05 am #

    SvenMagnussen: My whistleblowers have indicated to me the red dot in the upper left corner of the FOIA released document means its been marked as sensitive, not classified. In other words, it’s a fake.

    Your whistleblowers have affirmed to me that you are lying and making stuff up again.

  165. avatar
    Jim March 7, 2015 at 10:47 am #

    SvenMagnussen: My whistleblowers have indicated to me

    Sven’s whistleblowers…Harvey the Rabbit and Spongebob Squarepants

  166. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 7, 2015 at 11:10 am #

    Jim: Sven’s whistleblowers…Harvey the Rabbit and Spongebob Squarepants

    And don’t forget “The ghost who never lies”!

  167. avatar
    faceman March 7, 2015 at 11:34 am #

    SvenMagnussen: My whistleblowers have indicated to me the red dot in the upper left corner of the FOIA released document means its been marked as sensitive, not classified. In other words, it’s a fake.</P

    Since when does ‘sensitive’ = ‘fake’?

    ‘Sensitive’ information is information that the government doesn’t want to be common knowledge. Information that is classified ‘Confidential’ is sensitive information, a lower classification than Secret or Top Secret (which is information which, if disclosed, could result in ‘serious harm’ to the country). Which you (and your whistleblowers) would know if you (or they) ever worked with classified materials. I did while in the Navy. Some of what I worked on was classified ‘Confidential,’ meaning that it was sensitive. (It had to do with the technical specifications of a fire control system which is no longer in service)

    Any information obtained under a FOIA which has ‘sensitive’ data in it would have the sensitive data in it redacted.

    More ‘bluff and bluster’ from someone who doesn’t know what he is talking about.

    In this case, I know whereof I speak, as OPSEC was drilled into us repeatedly. Do your ‘whistleblowers’ even know what OPSEC is?

  168. avatar
    Notorial Dissent March 7, 2015 at 11:52 am #

    Svenski, Svenski, Svenski, you’re lying AGAIN. When someone goes in to an embassy and voluntarily renounces their citizenship, it is a done deal from that point. The renunciation is forwarded to the State Department which issues the final certificate, but it is effective at the time it is given. One further point that you seem to conveniently forget, at the time of renunciation, the person’s passport, since they would have had to have been outside of the United States to do so and used it for identification, would have to have been surrendered and would have been immediately cancelled by the embassy to be returned along with the renunciation document(s) to the State Department. So you are not only ignorant, but lying again.

    The situations under which citizenship can be involuntarily lost are few, and specific. Durham did not, and could not have effected any of same, so you are lying yet again. The verifiable fact, something you are woefully short on, is that her passport was renewed and that would not/could not have happened if she had renounced.

    Your last and stupidest statement “America makes exceptions for minors who have had their US citizenship voluntarily renounced by their parents.” is again a lie. THERE. ARE. NO. EXCEPTIONS. Parents CANNOT through ANY mechanism whatsoever renounce their children’s citizenship. CHILDREN. CAN. NOT. RENOUNCE. THEIR. CITIZENSHIP. A minor does not have the legal capacity to renounce, and no one can do it for them. You’ve been told this repeatedly and you refuse to acknowledge it. By law a citizen can only renounce their citizenship by being of legal age and competence, going to an embassy in a foreign country, and formally renouncing their citizenship in front of an embassy official charged with that authority. In order to effect this they must state their intention, identify themselves as a US citizen and provide proof, the passport, verbally make and then sign the renunciation after having surrendered their passport.

    So what part of Durham didn’t/couldn’t have renounced her citizenship, or that Obama couldn’t have renounced his either at any point before he was an adult, and that your fantasy that he went to Indonesia and was magically converted in to a citizen there. At which point he hadn’t lived there for years, and I would suspect that the period of time required to become an adult citizen would have been comparable to the length of time it takes to become a US citizen, specifically living there a specified amount of time and passing their citizenship requirements and tests, simply did not exist. That there was in fact no reason whatsoever for him to want to become an Indonesian citizen at that time seems to have equally eluded you. Just another in your long line of lies.

    SvenMagnussen: A person who voluntarily renounces does not have their citizenship terminated until a CLN is issued.In Canada, citizenship is not terminated until an order of revocation is issued after a voluntary renouncement.

    Voluntary renouncement does not end the obligations of the citizen, i.e. they are still required to file tax returns and pay taxes. Most mistakenly believe they do not have to file because they voluntarily renounced and do not pay taxes. Their obligations to their home country continue until their home country issues a CLN or, in Canada, an order of revocation.

    Since obligations continue until a CLN is issued, so do the benefits. Citizens who have voluntarily renounced are entitled to a US passport, evacuation if the President orders US citizens to evacuate, and any other protection provided by the government to its citizens.

    Ted Cruz’s allegiance to the US is not questionable, its the fact Canada maintains an interest in Ted’s Canadian citizenship and is entitled to make demands of Ted, i.e. file tax returns, pay taxes, fight in their wars, etc… We ask Canada to respect our rights to oblige our citizens in return for protection and their well being. Consequently, we should respect Canada’s right to oblige its citizens.

    America makes exceptions for minors who have had their US citizenship voluntarily renounced by their parents. Upon reaching the age of majority, they may elect to recapture their US citizenship. Since it is the first time the citizen has been able to decide for themselves, America constructively terminates any obligations the country of the parents may have had on the minor.

  169. avatar
    faceman March 7, 2015 at 1:05 pm #

    Notorial Dissent: CHILDREN. CAN. NOT. RENOUNCE. THEIR. CITIZENSHIP. A minor does not have the legal capacity to renounce, and no one can do it for them.

    Not to defend Sven, but there is a legal procedure for minors to renounce their citizenship. It involves having an interview with a consular official and being able to convince that official that they fully understand the ramifications of their action. It’s designed more for someone who is older, buy not yet 18. And the individual would, as Sven says, be able to repudiate the renouncing and reclaim their citizenship within 6 months of their 18th birthday. By no means would it apply to a 6 or 7 year old child. Think of it as the equivalent of having a minor tried as an adult in a criminal case. The judge has to be convinced that the minor is mature enough to understand the consequences of his actions.

    You are correct that parents cannot renounce their children’s citizenship on their behalf.

    http://travel.state.gov/content/travel/english/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/renunciation-of-citizenship.html

  170. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 7, 2015 at 1:21 pm #

    faceman: Since when does ‘sensitive’ = ‘fake’?

    ‘Sensitive’ information is information that the government doesn’t want to be common knowledge.Information that is classified ‘Confidential’ is sensitive information, a lower classification than Secret or Top Secret (which is information which, if disclosed, could result in ‘serious harm’ to the country).Which you (and your whistleblowers) would know if you (or they) ever worked with classified materials.I did while in the Navy.Some of what I worked on was classified ‘Confidential,’ meaning that it was sensitive.(It had to do with the technical specifications of a fire control system which is no longer in service)

    Any information obtained under a FOIA which has ‘sensitive’ data in it would have the sensitive data in it redacted.

    More ‘bluff and bluster’ from someone who doesn’t know what he is talking about.

    In this case, I know whereof I speak, as OPSEC was drilled into us repeatedly.Do your ‘whistleblowers’ even know what OPSEC is?

    It’s difficult to keep up with rapidly changing laws and interpretations. I was not aware Canada amended the Canadian Citizenship Act in 2009 to issue a notice of renunciation to natural born citizens and an order of revocation for citizens who have naturalized. Consequently, Ted Cruz has been released from his obligations as a Canadian citizen and is eligible.

    SCOTUS recently ruled in favor of whistleblowers over rules for disclosing sensitive documents.

    SCOTUS: Whistleblower law trumps rules guarding sensitive data

    http://www.federaltimes.com/story/government/management/oversight/2015/01/21/supreme-court-air-marshal/22113375/

    In my lawsuit, I requested an order of protection so that I could communicate openly and freely with my whistleblowers without fear of reprisal or interference. My whistleblowers are protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act. I am not. I am, however, protected my the First Amendment. I’ve free to discuss events I’ve been told and formulated an opinion on. Without an order of protection, proof was discussed but not given to me. You’re free to disagree and demand proof be posted on the net.

  171. avatar
    faceman March 7, 2015 at 1:52 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: It’s difficult to keep up with rapidly changing laws and interpretations. I was not aware Canada amended the Canadian Citizenship Act in 2009 to issue a notice of renunciation to natural born citizens and an order of revocation for citizens who have naturalized. Consequently, Ted Cruz has been released from his obligations as a Canadian citizen and is eligible.

    ‘Can’t keep up with rapidly changing laws’? You’re the one who’s been insisting that his citizenship wasn’t officially renounced until Canada issued the notice of renunciation.

    As for ‘now he’s eligible’. That is incorrect. Either he has ALWAYS been eligible, being an NBC at birth, or he will never be eligible, not being an NBC at birth. That’s what the ‘B’ stands for: ‘Born’.

    But, hey, everybody, I got Sven to admit a mistake.

  172. avatar
    faceman March 7, 2015 at 2:00 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: SCOTUS recently ruled in favor of whistleblowers over rules for disclosing sensitive documents. SCOTUS: Whistleblower law trumps rules guarding sensitive data

    I’m not going to even try arguing that with you, you’ll dream up some imaginary reason. Just let me leave you with a few names: Rosenberg. Walker. The Falcon and the Snowman.
    Besides, what’s your point? Are you now admitting that ‘sensitive’ data IS classified? All I was trying to convey to you is that ‘sensitive’ does not equate to ‘fake.’

  173. avatar
    Notorial Dissent March 7, 2015 at 2:41 pm #

    Faceman, with all due respect, I said children, and I meant children. Obama was only in Indonesia a short time, leaving at the tender age of what ten?, and returning to the US on his US passport. IIRC he remained in the US from that point on, so the point you make is irrelevant except to Svenski who will try to spin it to his fantasy. While I will grant you, there is a procedure for it, I sincerely doubt that the embassy people would go along with it. If the minor is close enough to majority, and most likely wouldn’t if they weren’t. I suspect in both cases they would say wait until you are legally an adult and refuse to go any further. In any event the child would have to already have another passport and proof of nationality before they would continue.

  174. avatar
    faceman March 7, 2015 at 3:23 pm #

    Relax, I’m sure its just a misunderstanding. At first you said children, and then you said ‘minor’. I am hypersensitive to subtle distinctions when it comes to Sven, so that he can’t come back with a ‘gotcha.’ Call it a ‘Svengali’ effect. (Not that he’s an actual Svengali)

    Of course, at age 7, which is when Sven claims that Obama received his CLN, Obama would not have been able to renounce his citizenship.

  175. avatar
    Suranis March 7, 2015 at 4:38 pm #

    Well then they should have no problems coming forward themselves rather than operating through some nobody from the internet.

    Oh dear

    SvenMagnussen: SCOTUS recently ruled in favor of whistleblowers over rules for disclosing sensitive documents.

  176. avatar
    faceman March 7, 2015 at 4:48 pm #

    Here’s something I recently came across. Nothing to do with birthers, but it is about a good conspiracy:

    http://www.conspiracy-gov.com/the-new-world-order/bush-family/

    Yes, those Bushes. It’s something that might sell well on the gerbil report, except for….. well, read it and decide for yourself.

  177. avatar
    Notorial Dissent March 7, 2015 at 5:42 pm #

    Faceman, granted I used the term minor, but in the sense of a child, perhaps not quite as clear as it should have been, but I still meant in the sense of a child. Svenski will ignore the distinction relgardless of intent.

  178. avatar
    Rickey March 7, 2015 at 7:16 pm #

    faceman: Since when does ‘sensitive’ = ‘fake’?

    ‘Sensitive’ information is information that the government doesn’t want to be common knowledge.Information that is classified ‘Confidential’ is sensitive information, a lower classification than Secret or Top Secret (which is information which, if disclosed, could result in ‘serious harm’ to the country).Which you (and your whistleblowers) would know if you (or they) ever worked with classified materials.I did while in the Navy.Some of what I worked on was classified ‘Confidential,’ meaning that it was sensitive.(It had to do with the technical specifications of a fire control system which is no longer in service).

    You are correct, of course. I was in Navy Communications from 1967 to 1970. These were the classification levels from low to high:

    Unclassified
    Unclassified EFTO (unclassified, but transmitted over encrypted channels)
    Confidential
    Secret
    Top Secret

    Subcategories included NOFORN (no foreign nationals can see – there were some trusted foreigners who had Confidential clearances) and Officer’s Eyes Only. I had a Top Secret clearance, but I was enlisted so I couldn’t see material which was marked Officer’s Eyes Only.

    Anything classified Confidential or above was sensitive information. An example of a Confidential message would be a ship’s logistic requisition prior to arriving in port. Secret messages included Strike Plans (e.g., a list of bombing targets in Vietnam). Most of the Top Secret material I saw was nuclear weapons related, but occasionally it would be something operational.

    I too don’t understand how “sensitive” equates to “fake.” However, Sven’s obtuseness is there for anyone to see. No security clearance is required.

  179. avatar
    Keith March 7, 2015 at 7:46 pm #

    faceman: In this case, I know whereof I speak, as OPSEC was drilled into us repeatedly. Do your ‘whistleblowers’ even know what OPSEC is?

    Is it “loose lips sink ships”?

    Seriously, though, I always laugh when somebody says the have “classified” information or they can’t tell me something because its “classified”.

    Classified how? Public? Secret? Bullpoop?

    Anything can be “classified” as something or another. I classify Sven as “Top BS Dispenser”.

  180. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 7, 2015 at 7:51 pm #

    Rickey: You are correct, of course. I was in Navy Communications from 1967 to 1970. These were the classification levels from low to high:

    Unclassified
    Unclassified EFTO (unclassified, but transmitted over encrypted channels)
    Confidential
    Secret
    Top Secret

    Subcategories included NOFORN (no foreign nationals can see – there were some trusted foreigners who had Confidential clearances) and Officer’s Eyes Only. I had a Top Secret clearance, but I was enlisted so I couldn’t see material which was marked Officer’s Eyes Only.

    Anything classified Confidential or above was sensitive information. An example of a Confidential message would be a ship’s logistic requisition prior to arriving in port. Secret messages included Strike Plans (e.g., a list of bombing targets in Vietnam). Most of the Top Secret material I saw was nuclear weapons related, but occasionally it would be something operational.

    I too don’t understand how “sensitive” equates to “fake.” However, Sven’s obtuseness is there for anyone to see. No security clearance is required.

    Apparently, you didn’t read the information in the article concerning the disclosure of sensitive information. I said the information was sensitive, not classified. After reading the article, I should have used the terms “sensitive, disclosure not prohibited by statute and protected speech under the Whistleblower Protection Act pursuant to recent SCOTUS opinion.”

    It’s sensitive, disclosure by the whistleblower is not prohibited by statute, because it is a fake document distributed in response to an FOIA request. Distribution of fake documents in response to FOIA request is prohibited by statute. Whomever created, conspired to create and distributed the fake document broke the law. Thus, the red dot is sign to any federal government employee it is a fake document and processing, discussing or handling the document may be incriminating and they may be indicted.

    Now, please demand I produce evidence Stanley Ann wasn’t in Indonesia when Obama went there to pick up his Indonesian passport and travel documents because the State Department’s fake documents prove I’m wrong.

  181. avatar
    Keith March 7, 2015 at 8:20 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: It’s difficult to keep up with rapidly changing laws and interpretations. I was not aware Canada amended the Canadian Citizenship Act in 2009 to issue a notice of renunciation to natural born citizens and an order of revocation for citizens who have naturalized. Consequently, Ted Cruz has been released from his obligations as a Canadian citizen and is eligible.

    As faceman said, either he’s always been eligible or he was never eligible and never will be eligible.

    Canadian law does not trump US law with regard to citizenship. American citizenship law is irrelevant to Canadian citizenship law and Canadian citizenship law is irrelevant to American Citizenship Law.

    Ted Cruz was a natural born citizen of Canada. Ted Cruz was a natural born citizen of America. Ted Cruz may have been a natural born citizen of Cuba as well.

    Both citizenships operated simultaneously; he was a dual citizen; the two citizenship claims do not interfere with each other and are not mutually exclusive. One is simply irrelevant to the other.

    When dealing with American citizenship law over Ted Cruz, American citizenship law couldn’t give a flying fornication about Canadian Citizenship Law and whether or not Cruz has a claim to Canadian citizenship of any kind. And vice versa.

    The only time that one country would care about the other country’s citizenship with respect to one of their citizens is when someone is renouncing their citizenship. Under international law, persons cannot lose their citizenship if it is going to leave them stateless.

    So Cruz had to prove that he held citizenship in another country before Canada would allow the renunciation. By the way, I want to see Ted Cruz long form DS-240. If he cannot produce the DS-240 then he is NOT am American citizen, he lied on the renunciation, and he has committed election fraud many times over. And I don’t want to see some photoshopped POSFCRBA either.

    Also, I have never heard of Cruz renouncing his Cuban citizenship.

  182. avatar
    faceman March 7, 2015 at 10:28 pm #

    It’s sensitive, disclosure by the whistleblower is not prohibited by statute, because it is a fake document distributed in response to an FOIA request.

    ‘Sensitive’ does not equal ‘fake.’ But your imaginary whistleblowers know that it is ‘sensitive’ and therefore ‘fake’ because it has a red dot up in the corner,

    SvenMagnussen: My whistleblowers have indicated to me the red dot in the upper left corner of the FOIA released document means its been marked as sensitive, not classified. In other words, it’s a fake.

    Tell me, oh font of wisdom (cough, cough), why would they release a document under the FOIA request with that ‘fake’ identifier on it? Seems to me that if they went to all the trouble of preparing a fake passport application they wouldn’t leave the telltale identifier on it when they released it.

    As Judge Judy would say, ‘It doesn’t make sense. And if it doesn’t make sense then it isn’t true.’ Sorry, it doesn’t pass the smell test. You do not pass go. You do not collect $200.

    It’s sensitive, disclosure by the whistleblower is not prohibited by statute, because it is a fake document distributed in response to an FOIA request.

    If I read what you say right, you are saying that whistleblowers are protected by law when they release fake information. Sounds like your ‘whistleblowers,’
    alright. Maybe I should have called you ‘Oh font of fake information.’

  183. avatar
    Suranis March 8, 2015 at 4:11 pm #

    Welt, thats a pickle. So you claim that you’re whistleblowers can’t handle the fakes without federal prosecution and so can’t come forward.

    but here’s a solution. They cant handle them… but you can. So you walk with them and hold then when they are reading them to the special prosecutors and the reporters!!

    MAKE THAT SACRIFICE TO SAVE AMERICA!!!!

    If you don’t then you are an Obama enabler and hate freedom.

    SvenMagnussen: Thus, the red dot is sign to any federal government employee it is a fake document and processing, discussing or handling the document may be incriminating and they may be indicted.

  184. avatar
    Benji Franklin March 8, 2015 at 4:46 pm #

    Suranis: Essentially Suranis wrote – Sven, so you claim that your whistle blowers can’t handle the fakes without federal prosecution and so can’t come forward.

    but here’s a solution. They can’t handle them… but you can. So, Sven, you walk with them and hold the documents when the whistle blowers are reading them to the special prosecutors and the reporters!!

    MAKE THAT SACRIFICE TO SAVE AMERICA!!!!

    If you don’t then you are an Obama enabler and hate freedom.

    Oh, Suranis, Sven would make that sacrifice in a minute, but he can’t get through the courtroom door; his brain is way, way, too big!

  185. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 8, 2015 at 4:52 pm #

    What’s this about sacrificing Sven? There a big wheel with all of the elder gods on it that we have to spin, or is first come first serve?

  186. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 8, 2015 at 6:40 pm #

    Suranis:
    Welt, thats a pickle. So you claim that you’re whistleblowers can’t handle the fakes without federal prosecution and so can’t come forward.

    but here’s a solution. They cant handle them… but you can. So you walk with them and hold then when they are reading them to the special prosecutors and the reporters!!

    MAKE THAT SACRIFICE TO SAVE AMERICA!!!!

    If you don’t then you are an Obama enabler and hate freedom.

    I provided FBI Director Comey with a detailed sworn statement Obama was ineligible because he naturalized in 1983. FBI investigators interviewed Obama in the White House. One of my whistleblowers informed me Obama admitted he naturalized in 1983 to the FBI.

    I filed a lawsuit and notified a sitting federal judge Obama was ineligible because he naturalized in 1983. The case and my request the judge recuse because he had a vested, personal interest in the outcome of the trial were dismissed as frivolous.

    And you think an allegation the State Department created a fake document to manipulate the public in a response to an FOIA request will bring the house of cards tumbling down? Ha ha ha ha. That’s a good one.

  187. avatar
    Suranis March 8, 2015 at 9:01 pm #

    There’s 119 people named Obama in the United States right now. I looked up his name on a website link I found on fogbow. Of those, only 1 is Named Barack

    http://howmanyofme.com/

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Can you give references to any of the other COMMONLY NAMED people from Hawaii named Obama? (Not seriously asking).

  188. avatar
    Suranis March 8, 2015 at 9:12 pm #

    Really? Comey has only been FBI director since Se[t 4th 2013. When was your case again?\

    Oh sorry, you wont tell us becasue that would mean revealing you r real name. But since the vast majority of your articles on your blog are before that date, I think its safe to guess it was before Comey took up the position.

    Facts keep slamming into your fantasy life, don’t they?

    SvenMagnussen: I provided FBI Director Comey with a detailed sworn statement Obama was ineligible because he naturalized in 1983. FBI investigators interviewed Obama in the White House. One of my whistleblowers informed me Obama admitted he naturalized in 1983 to the FBI.

  189. avatar
    Suranis March 8, 2015 at 9:18 pm #

    Oh and why s there nothing about your whistleblowers on your Blog, nor is the information you heard from then that President Obama admitted he was a duuurty userper??

    You also admitted that Sven is not your real name…

    http://svenmagnussen.blogspot.ie/2013/02/complete-index-of-articles-by-sven.html

    Where did you say that Sven was not your real name?

    http://svenmagnussen.blogspot.ie/2013/04/blog-wars-orly-attacks-sven-magnussen.html

  190. avatar
    faceman March 8, 2015 at 9:28 pm #

    Hundreds, if not thousands, of people have made sworn statements such as::
    -They were abducted by aliens,
    -They encountered Bigfoot
    -They believe the Earth is flat
    -The moon landing was faked
    -The Bush administration was complicit in 9/11
    -Global warming is a conspiracy
    -Rape cannot cause pregnancy
    -Sarah Palin said, when asked about Russia, “They’re our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska”:
    -And Sven alleges that Obama ‘naturalized’ in 1983.

    Pop quiz: which of the above is true?

    Sven: “And you think an allegation the State Department created a fake document to manipulate the public in a response to an FOIA request will bring the house of cards tumbling down? Ha ha ha ha. That’s a good one.”

    See, even Sven can’t take himself seriously.

  191. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 8, 2015 at 9:41 pm #

    So, Cuban mini submarines being run IN South Florida’s Lake Okeechobee during the Reagan administration while the Bush’s were busy budding it up with Pablo Escobar in the cocaine fields would be classified as what?

    Let me guess.

    Bush’s response: “It never happened.”

    How many people realize these classifications are nothing more than a way to keep the criminals in power, I wonder?

    Rickey: You are correct, of course. I was in Navy Communications from 1967 to 1970. These were the classification levels from low to high:

    Unclassified
    Unclassified EFTO (unclassified, but transmitted over encrypted channels)
    Confidential
    Secret
    Top Secret

    Subcategories included NOFORN (no foreign nationals can see – there were some trusted foreigners who had Confidential clearances) and Officer’s Eyes Only. I had a Top Secret clearance, but I was enlisted so I couldn’t see material which was marked Officer’s Eyes Only.

    Anything classified Confidential or above was sensitive information. An example of a Confidential message would be a ship’s logistic requisition prior to arriving in port. Secret messages included Strike Plans (e.g., a list of bombing targets in Vietnam). Most of the Top Secret material I saw was nuclear weapons related, but occasionally it would be something operational.

    I too don’t understand how “sensitive” equates to “fake.” However, Sven’s obtuseness is there for anyone to see. No security clearance is required.

  192. avatar
    Rickey March 8, 2015 at 9:47 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:

    Now, please demand I produce evidence Stanley Ann wasn’t in Indonesia when Obama went there to pick up his Indonesian passport and travel documents because the State Department’s fake documents prove I’m wrong.

    I never said that the State Department’s documents prove you’re wrong (although they do just that).

    I said that the Soetoro divorce documents prove you’re wrong . The divorce was finalized in November, 1980. Stanley Ann was not “in Hawaii at the time going through the process of divorcing Lolo” in the summer of 1981, as you have claimed.

    I said that the letter which Stanley Ann sent to the Ford Foundation from Jakarta in May, 1981 proves you’re wrong.

    You’re wrong about so many things, I hardly know where to begin.

  193. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 8, 2015 at 11:11 pm #

    Nancy R Owens: So, Cuban mini submarines being run IN South Florida’s Lake Okeechobee during the Reagan administration while the Bush’s were busy budding it up with Pablo Escobar in the cocaine fields would be classified as what?

    Let me guess.

    Bush’s response: “It never happened.”

    How many people realize these classifications are nothing more than a way to keep the criminals in power, I wonder?

    Probably because it never happened. What were these mini submarines that you used to get in a box of cereal that used baking soda? Because no real subs would have fit in the lake.

  194. avatar
    Rickey March 8, 2015 at 11:22 pm #

    In other news, John Dummett’s SCOTUS petition has been distributed for a conference on March 20. The California Secretary of State waived his right to file a response and no justice called for a response, so the denial is a foregone conclusion.

    I didn’t realize that Pamela Barnett also has a pending SCOTUS appeal, docket no. 14-930. The California SOS waived his right to respond on February 11 but it hasn’t been sent to conference yet.

  195. avatar
    Daniel March 9, 2015 at 12:16 am #

    SvenMagnussen: I provided FBI Director Comey with a detailed sworn statement Obama was ineligible because he naturalized in 1983. FBI investigators interviewed Obama in the White House. One of my whistleblowers informed me Obama admitted he naturalized in 1983 to the FBI.

    Well… you DO think you’re important…. don’t you…

    ROFLMAO

  196. avatar
    Kate March 9, 2015 at 1:19 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Probably because it never happened.What were these mini submarines that you used to get in a box of cereal that used baking soda?Because no real subs would have fit in the lake.

    Must have been a bit difficult to get any subs, mini or not, into Lake Okeechobee considering it’s landlocked. It defeats the whole purpose of using subs. This story is one of several from which Nancy may have imagined that mini-subs were being used. It also negates quite a few of the tales she has promoted:

    http://mentalfloss.com/article/29396/profiles-scourges-pablo-escobar

  197. avatar
    Keith March 9, 2015 at 2:11 am #

    Kate: Must have been a bit difficult to get any subs, mini or not, into Lake Okeechobee considering it’s landlocked.

    Didn’t you know? Okeechobee is just another ‘cenote’ like they have in Yucatan. There is another in the Jardines del Rey region of Cuba. They are all linked by a secret tunnel system built by the ancient astronauts and now known only by the gray lizards from Betelgeuse that walk among us in disguise.

  198. avatar
    Lupin March 9, 2015 at 3:18 am #

    SvenMagnussen: I provided FBI Director Comey with a detailed sworn statement Obama was ineligible because he naturalized in 1983. FBI investigators interviewed Obama in the White House. One of my whistleblowers informed me Obama admitted he naturalized in 1983 to the FBI.

    Comey wasn’t yet in office when your fantasy began to take shape, so you’ve beencaught into nother lie.

    But as (bad) luck (for you) would have it, Comey just gave a rather long and candid interview to the press last Thursday (you can check if you’d like) and a journalist asked him afterward about Arpaio, the FBI, the birthers, etc. (your so-called claim included) and Comey dismissed the matter laughingly saying there is not an ounce of truth to what you read on the internet. They don’t have time to waste with that sort of things.

    So one more lie from you pulverized.

  199. avatar
    faceman March 9, 2015 at 8:02 am #

    Nancy R Owens:
    So, Cuban mini submarines being run IN South Florida’s Lake Okeechobee during the Reagan administration while the Bush’s were busy budding it up with Pablo Escobar in the cocaine fields would be classified as what?

    Let me guess.

    Bush’s response: “It never happened.”

    How many people realize these classifications are nothing more than a way to keep the criminals in power, I wonder?

    I think someone might be jealous of all the attention ‘Sven’ has been getting lately.

  200. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 9, 2015 at 9:59 am #

    Nothing birther on the first 3 pages of Orly’s web site this morning.

  201. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 9, 2015 at 11:07 am #

    Suranis:
    Oh and why s there nothing about your whistleblowers on your Blog, nor is the information you heard from then that President Obama admitted he was a duuurty userper??

    You also admitted that Sven is not your real name…

    http://svenmagnussen.blogspot.ie/2013/02/complete-index-of-articles-by-sven.html

    Where did you say that Sven was not your real name?

    http://svenmagnussen.blogspot.ie/2013/04/blog-wars-orly-attacks-sven-magnussen.html

    I provided my real name, address and phone number to FBI Director Comey with a detailed, sworn statement concerning Obama’s current citizenship status.

    I have not provided Orly Taitz with my real name. Orly believes Sven Magnussen is a citizen of Sweden and an employee of the State Department. SvenMagnussen never identified his employer (his mom, working out of his mom’s basement) or his citizenship to Orly Taitz. So, she made it up.

    Fortunately, FBI Director Comey has chosen to mock and belittle witnesses with personal knowledge of Obama’s current citizenship status without publicly identifying the individuals he is mocking and belittling. I’ve already been notified by the IRS a fraudulent tax return has been filed in my name. That means I’ll be dealing with identity fraud issues in the near term and possibly in the long term. My whistleblowers and I have chosen not to publicly identify ourselves to avoid additional problems with identity fraud. FBI Director Comey was provided with current identification and contact information in the sworn statement.

  202. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 9, 2015 at 11:08 am #

    Oh, yes they would and they did. You did catch the “mini” part of my description, didn’t you.

    Shhhh…

    It never happened and George Bush, Jr. was the greatest president….like….ever!

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Probably because it never happened.What were these mini submarines that you used to get in a box of cereal that used baking soda?Because no real subs would have fit in the lake.

  203. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 9, 2015 at 11:13 am #

    Yep, landlocked.

    And, I guess those were just “imaginary” government planes flying loads of cocaine over the Everglades swamp.

    Duh.

    If you can fly cocaine, you can bring in a mini sub. Not that they had to. Due to the one million acres planted with sugar cane belonging to the US Sugar Co., Clewiston had more than it’s fair share of welding and fabrication shops, one of which was less than a few blocks from where the Escobar family used its Cuban sicarios, of which I was one, to practice running their subs.

    Shh….

    It’s “Super Secret” which means it never happened and the Cold War is over.

    Shh…..

    “Super Secret.”

    Kate: Must have been a bit difficult to get any subs, mini or not, into Lake Okeechobee considering it’s landlocked.It defeats the whole purpose of using subs.This story is one of several from which Nancy may have imagined that mini-subs were being used.It also negates quite a few of the tales she has promoted:

    http://mentalfloss.com/article/29396/profiles-scourges-pablo-escobar

  204. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 9, 2015 at 12:00 pm #

    Kate: Must have been a bit difficult to get any subs, mini or not, into Lake Okeechobee considering it’s landlocked. It defeats the whole purpose of using subs. This story is one of several from which Nancy may have imagined that mini-subs were being used. It also negates quite a few of the tales she has promoted:

    Oh look another article about Pablo that mentions Jung and Lehder who first time around she claimed she never heard of.

  205. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 9, 2015 at 12:02 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Fortunately, FBI Director Comey has chosen to mock and belittle witnesses with personal knowledge of Obama’s current citizenship status without publicly identifying the individuals he is mocking and belittling. I’ve already been notified by the IRS a fraudulent tax return has been filed in my name. That means I’ll be dealing with identity fraud issues in the near term and possibly in the long term. My whistleblowers and I have chosen not to publicly identify ourselves to avoid additional problems with identity fraud. FBI Director Comey was provided with current identification and contact information in the sworn statement.

    So personal that you give vague details, can’t ever prove a single claim and when asked questions you balk and change the subject. Your whistleblowers told me you’re lying and never provided anything to Comey.

  206. avatar
    Punchmaster via Mobile March 9, 2015 at 12:29 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Nothing birther on the first 3 pages of Orly’s web site this morning.

    I guess that gravy train went off the rails. She seems to have moved onto “Everything Obama does is illegal!”

  207. avatar
    y_p_w March 9, 2015 at 12:59 pm #

    Keith:
    The only time that one country would care about the other country’s citizenship with respect to one of their citizens is when someone is renouncing their citizenship. Under international law, persons cannot lose their citizenship if it is going to leave them stateless.

    There is the possibility of conscription when one is a dual national. However, it is avoided by staying out of the country where the conscription is possible. This is vaguely mentioned in US passports on the information page. I’ve also heard that some countries are deferential to dual nationals where one nationality is of the US – even if that person is settled in the other country. However, the US likely wouldn’t care.

    There’s also cases where certain countries don’t accept dual nationality and consider parental actions on behalf of a child to be the equivalent of an adult choosing. There’s that case of an Indian Foreign Service employee whose kids were born in the United States and whose husband is a US citizen. Among other things, that the kids have US passports has become an issue for her career. I suppose the kids can’t really have their US citizenship renounced by their parents, but it might mean something to the Indian government if their parents took that step.

  208. avatar
    Lupin March 9, 2015 at 1:02 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Fortunately, FBI Director Comey has chosen to mock and belittle witnesses with personal knowledge of Obama’s current citizenship status without publicly identifying the individuals he is mocking and belittling. I’ve already been notified by the IRS a fraudulent tax return has been filed in my name. That means I’ll be dealing with identity fraud issues in the near term and possibly in the long term. My whistleblowers and I have chosen not to publicly identify ourselves to avoid additional problems with identity fraud. FBI Director Comey was provided with current identification and contact information in the sworn statement.

    From what I gather Comey (assuming he ever actually saw anything from you, which I doubt, because crank letters from lunatics such as you are routinely discarded) never undertook ant interviews or investigation, properly treating your so called affidavit with the contempt it deserves.

    Read my lips (or rather Comey’s lips): There was no investigation! No action taken! No interviews of Obama or anybody else! You made it up! There is no controversy, no court case, nothing.

    You have nothing.

  209. avatar
    faceman March 9, 2015 at 1:11 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: I provided my real name, address and phone number to FBI Director Comey with a detailed, sworn statement concerning Obama’s current citizenship status.

    I have not provided Orly Taitz with my real name. Orly believes Sven Magnussen is a citizen of Sweden and an employee of the State Department.SvenMagnussen never identified his employer (his mom, working out of his mom’s basement) or his citizenship to Orly Taitz. So, she made it up.

    Fortunately, FBI Director Comey has chosen to mock and belittle witnesses with personal knowledge of Obama’s current citizenship status without publicly identifying the individuals he is mocking and belittling. I’ve already been notified by the IRS a fraudulent tax return has been filed in my name. That means I’ll be dealing with identity fraud issues in the near term and possibly in the long term. My whistleblowers and I have chosen not to publicly identify ourselves to avoid additional problems with identity fraud. FBI Director Comey was provided with current identification and contact information in the sworn statement.

    Sven, it was fun for a while, then it got old, now its getting downright pathetic. All you do is bluster on about some legal mumbo-jumbo tlhat has no credibility what soever, and without a shred of proof. You just ignore anything that doesn’t conform to your (dare I say it) delusions, or change the subject.

    http://svenmagnussen.blogspot.com/2013/01/constitutional-authority-of-us-congress.html

    Now I visit your blog, and find out that they’re not even your ideas to begin with. You merely repeat (name redacted)’s allegations, using the same syntax and grammatical errors. He’s the only other person I’ve ever come across to misuse the word ‘notice’ the way you do. Either all you’re doing is cut and paste, or you’re his sock puppet. As for your ‘whistleblowers,’ it seems that their ‘whistleblowing’ consists of just repeating (name redacted)’s allegations.

    In regards to Cruz’s renunciation, you’re the one who demanded the official letter from Canada. I had to provide you with the link to it 5 times before you finally conceded the point, and then had the gall to pretend that you ‘didn’t know it was necessary’ because you ‘weren’t up to speed’ on the ‘rapidly changing’ law that was enacted in 2009.

    Like many others before, I’ve taken my turn with you. There’s a saying about arguing with a donkey. You and Nancy ARE two of a kind.

  210. avatar
    justlw March 9, 2015 at 2:15 pm #

    faceman: Pop quiz: which of the above is true?

    FWIW, a bit about the provenance of the “Russia” quote. It’s true, of course — but I think it’s worth a recap because there’s so much it reveals.

    The earliest instance I can find is actually from Steve Doocy on Fox and Friends, on August 29, 2008, when Palin’s name was one of many being mentioned as a possible McCain VP choice — but still hours before he made the announcement:

    But the other thing about her, she does know about international relations because she is right up there in Alaska right next door to Russia.

    Its next utterance is out of the mouth of Cindy McCain, talking to George Snuffleupagus on his August 31st show:

    You know, the experience that she comes from is what she’s done in government, and remember, Alaska is the closest part of our continent to Russia. It’s not as if she doesn’t understand what’s at stake here.

    And finally, on September 11th we get the Candidate Her Own Darn Self, as quoted above. So, she’s actually only the third person to drop this bomb, although she does of course put her own special dressing on the word salad.

    But she really throws herself into it when she talks to Katie Couric two weeks later:

    Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of… We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It’s very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state.

    My question is where it actually was thought up. Was Doocy fed this idea by the campaign, or did they hear him say it and start asking each other, “Well, better than anything else we’ve got. Anyone? Go with this? Is this her foreign policy résumé? Cindy, try it out on Sunday morning and see if George laughs right in your face or not.”

  211. avatar
    faceman March 9, 2015 at 2:59 pm #

    justlw: FWIW, a bit about the provenance of the “Russia” quote.It’s true, of course — but I think it’s worth a recap because there’s so much it reveals.

    Actually, I was hoping someone might confuse it with the ‘I can see Russia from my house’ urban legend. Of course, that was said by Tina Fey on SNL.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/russia.asp

  212. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 9, 2015 at 4:44 pm #

    y_p_w: There is the possibility of conscription when one is a dual national.However, it is avoided by staying out of the country where the conscription is possible.This is vaguely mentioned in US passports on the information page.I’ve also heard that some countries are deferential to dual nationals where one nationality is of the US – even if that person is settled in the other country.However, the US likely wouldn’t care.

    There’s also cases where certain countries don’t accept dual nationality and consider parental actions on behalf of a child to be the equivalent of an adult choosing.There’s that case of an Indian Foreign Service employee whose kids were born in the United States and whose husband is a US citizen.Among other things, that the kids have US passports has become an issue for her career.I suppose the kids can’t really have their US citizenship renounced by their parents, but it might mean something to the Indian government if their parents took that step.

    In the early 80’s, it would not have been unusual for a District Court judge to receive a Notice of Intent to Naturalize as a US Citizen by a native born person who was currently a permanent resident alien of the US.

    In 1977, President Carter issued E.O. 11967 granting a pardon to former US citizens convicted of a violation of the Military Selective Service Act to allow re-entry into the US as a permanent resident alien. Eventually, the pardoned, native born person would file a notice of intent to naturalize in the early 80s and then a petition to naturalize.

    And E.O. 11967 closes with …

    “Any individual offered conditional clemency or granted a pardon or other clemency under Executive Order 11803 or Presidential Proclamation 4313, dated September 16, 1974, shall receive the full measure of relief afforded by this program if they are otherwise qualified under the terms of this Executive Order.”

    So, there are many examples of native born persons who return to the US as permanent resident aliens and then naturalize as US citizens.

  213. avatar
    justlw March 9, 2015 at 4:51 pm #

    faceman: Actually, I was hoping someone might confuse it with the ‘I can see Russia from my house’ urban legend. Of course, that was said by Tina Fey on SNL.

    Heh. My first draft of that post started with “Clearly, you’re trolling for ‘Tina Fey said that!’ responses, but… .”

    So as not to spoil your fun, I decided to wait a day instead, in case you got some bites.

  214. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 9, 2015 at 5:06 pm #

    Oh, please. You know as well as I that I’ve hardly posted in the past two or three weeks. No offense, but, they’re really wasn’t a lot of new news worth commenting on. BR’s blog has been regurgitated ad nauseam.

    Sven just another on of those they roll out as a distraction when people start focusing too much on the real truth.

    faceman: I think someone might be jealous of all the attention ‘Sven’ has been getting lately.

  215. avatar
    Dave B. March 9, 2015 at 5:21 pm #

    Latest crazy stuff from Ed Noonan:
    http://www.americanresistanceparty.org/2015/Mar/misledfedjudge.pdf

  216. avatar
    Crustacean March 9, 2015 at 5:26 pm #

    Very interesting. Doocy may well be Patient Zero, but my bet would be that he got it from Roger Ailes. I doubt that Doocy has two brain cells to rub together to form an original thought.

    Of the three quotes you added to your comment, Doocy’s is the one I think bears the closest resemblance to Fey’s “I can see Russia from my house!”

    justlw: The earliest instance I can find is actually from Steve Doocy on Fox and Friends, on August 29, 2008, when Palin’s name was one of many being mentioned as a possible McCain VP choice — but still hours before he made the announcement:

  217. avatar
    Dave B. March 9, 2015 at 5:42 pm #

    Oh yeah?

    SvenMagnussen: In the early 80’s, it would not have been unusual for a District Court judge to receive a Notice of Intent to Naturalize as a US Citizen by a native born person who was currently a permanent resident alien of the US.

  218. avatar
    justlw March 9, 2015 at 5:57 pm #

    Crustacean: Very interesting. Doocy may well be Patient Zero, but my bet would be that he got it from Roger Ailes. I doubt that Doocy has two brain cells to rub together to form an original thought.

    Of the three quotes you added to your comment, Doocy’s is the one I think bears the closest resemblance to Fey’s “I can see Russia from my house!”

    Yep to all of the above. Cindy McCain, who I think is quite intelligent, at least softens it a bit so that it parses to nothing more overreaching than, “It’s very likely Sarah Palin is aware that Russia exists.”

    But the Couric interview quote — isn’t that great? Wouldn’t you love to get a look at any essays Palin may have written in high school or college?

  219. avatar
    Keith March 9, 2015 at 6:18 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: In the early 80’s, it would not have been unusual for a District Court judge to receive a Notice of Intent to Naturalize as a US Citizen by a native born person who was currently a permanent resident alien of the US.

    In 1977, President Carter issued E.O. 11967 granting a pardon to former US citizens convicted of a violation of the Military Selective Service Act to allow re-entry into the US as a permanent resident alien. Eventually, the pardoned, native born person would file a notice of intent to naturalize in the early 80s and then a petition to naturalize.

    E.O. 11967 doesn’t say anything about ‘former US citizens’. It had to do with pardoning those who had moved, usually to Canada, in protest of the Viet Nam War and to avoid conscription in that war.

    The only mention of ‘aliens’ in E.O. 11967 is a reference to 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(22) which discusses reasons aliens can be excluded from entry to the U.S. This is obviously intended to refer to the case where a non-citizen who was eligible for the draft (immigrant, permanent resident for example) might have fled to Canada.

    Some American citizens may have qualified for Canadian citizenship and renounced their American citizenship, but they would be in the extreme minority. Just moving to Canada is not a renunciation act.

    You continue to invent troubled waters under oil slicks.

  220. avatar
    justlw March 9, 2015 at 6:26 pm #

    One for the “faux quote” file: Rick “The glasses, they do nothing!” Perry recently got caught attributing this one to Thomas Paine:

    The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from his government.

    As someone at the National Thomas Paine Historical Association pointed out, Paine actually was “for a strong central government with redistribution of wealth.”

  221. avatar
    Rickey March 9, 2015 at 6:57 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: In the early 80’s, it would not have been unusual for a District Court judge to receive a Notice of Intent to Naturalize as a US Citizen by a native born person who was currently a permanent resident alien of the US.

    In 1977, President Carter issued E.O. 11967 granting a pardon to former US citizens convicted of a violation of the Military Selective Service Act to allow re-entry into the US as a permanent resident alien. Eventually, the pardoned, native born person would file a notice of intent to naturalize in the early 80s and then a petition to naturalize.

    Are you suggesting that all draft evaders who left the U.S. to avoid the Vietnam War draft lost their U.S. citizenship?

    If that is what you are suggesting, you are wrong, wrong, wrong. I suggest that you read up on Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez.

  222. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 9, 2015 at 7:28 pm #

    Nancy R Owens: Oh, please. You know as well as I that I’ve hardly posted in the past two or three weeks. No offense, but, they’re really wasn’t a lot of new news worth commenting on. BR’s blog has been regurgitated ad nauseam.

    Sven just another on of those they roll out as a distraction when people start focusing too much on the real truth.

    Define hardly? You haven’t posted multiple crazy rants in one day but you have posted. You also posted on other sites as you usually do when you disappear from here.

  223. avatar
    y_p_w March 9, 2015 at 8:18 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: In the early 80’s, it would not have been unusual for a District Court judge to receive a Notice of Intent to Naturalize as a US Citizen by a native born person who was currently a permanent resident alien ofthe US.

    In 1977, President Carter issued E.O. 11967 granting a pardon to former US citizens convicted of a violation of the Military Selective Service Act to allow re-entry into the US as a permanent resident alien. Eventually, the pardoned, native born person would file a notice of intent to naturalize in the early 80s and then a petition to naturalize.

    And E.O. 11967 closes with …

    “Any individual offered conditional clemency or granted a pardon or other clemency under Executive Order 11803 or Presidential Proclamation 4313, dated September 16, 1974, shall receive the full measure of relief afforded by this program if they are otherwise qualified under the terms of this Executive Order.”

    So, there are many examples of native born persons who return to the US as permanent resident aliens and then naturalize as US citizens.

    I do not think it means what you think it means. US nationals/citizens by definition are allowed to enter the United States. Now male permanent residents residing in the United States were required to register just like US citizens or nationals. I went to high school with a lot of permanent resident aliens, and they all registered with the Selective Service when they turned 18 and could have been subject to conscription just like anyone else. Heck – even those who aren’t legally permanent residents may need to register and be subject to conscription.

    That order only made it possible for such permanent residents to reenter the US without that as a bar to reentry. It might not have specifically applied to refugees and probably didn’t apply to illegal aliens.

    Here’s the E.O.:

    http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/11967.html

  224. avatar
    Kate March 9, 2015 at 9:07 pm #

    Nancy R Owens:
    Oh, please. You know as well as I that I’ve hardly posted in the past two or three weeks. No offense, but, they’re really wasn’t a lot of new news worth commenting on. BR’s blog has been regurgitated ad nauseam.

    Sven just another on of those they roll out as a distraction when people start focusing too much on the real truth.

    You’re still spewing that b.s.? You wouldn’t recognize the real truth if it jumped up and smacked you square in the face because it has happened repeatedly. Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, HI on August 4, 1961 to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama, Sr. He lived there until the age of 19, except for 3 years he spent in Indonesia, when he went to Occidental College for 2 years, followed by Columbia for 2 years. He graduated in 1983 from Columbia, worked in Chicago as a community organizer for several years and then went to Harvard Law for his J.D., graduating magna cum laude in 1991. His years in Hawaii are well documented by interviews with his teachers, fellow students, in yearbooks and more. There are only discrepancies in the minds of those who don’t wish to believe the truth.

    I still think you saw a picture of Maya Soetoro as a child or someone remarked on there being a similarity between the two of you and you took it and ran with your fairy tales, embellishing as you went, changing stories over time. That’s the only reason you claim you are his half-sister. Yet it’s clearly obvious that the girl in the picture is years younger than Barack Obama unlike you, who claims to have been born within a year of his birthdate. She also has brown eyes and your are hazel. You’ve been asked frequently but never even attempt to explain how this is possible because you’re caught in the first of many lies from day one.

  225. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2015 at 9:10 pm #

    In retrospect, Tina Fey’s quote clearly has the most truthiness.

    faceman: Actually, I was hoping someone might confuse it with the ‘I can see Russia from my house’ urban legend.Of course, that was said by Tina Fey on SNL.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/russia.asp

  226. avatar
    Dave B. March 9, 2015 at 9:14 pm #

    People for the American Way’s offer to Joseph Farah:
    “If President Obama refuses to allow a constitutional transfer of power to his successor, we will join you at the barricades. If the American republic miraculously survives, you will stop polluting the public discourse with toxic nonsense. Deal?”

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/birther-joseph-farah-wants-pfaw-help-block-third-obama-term-let-s-make-deal#sthash.wQk577hN.dpuf

  227. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 9, 2015 at 9:55 pm #

    Rickey: Are you suggesting that all draft evaders who left the U.S. to avoid the Vietnam War draft lost their U.S. citizenship?

    If that is what you are suggesting, you are wrong, wrong, wrong. I suggest that you read up on Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez.

    Mendoza-Martinez lost his case seeking an injunction against AG Kennedy from issuing him a CLN. SCOTUS affirmed stating the Medoza-Martinez trial and conviction did not prevent the government from ordering his deportation after the issuance of a CLN. Mendoza-Martinez was a US citizen when he was released from prison and received an order of deportation years after his release.

    In contrast, Dr. Cort was denied a US passport for moving out of the country to avoid military service. SCOTUS found the termination of Dr. Cort’s US citizenship was unconstitutional because he was denied due process. Both cases were decided in 1963.

    The Military Selective Service Act of 1967 made provisions for due process to avoid constitutional challenges. Jolley v. INS, 441 F.2d 1245 (5th Cir.), 404 U.S. 946 (1971). Jolley’s renouncement in Canada did not comply with the formalities of the current INA regulations, section 1481(a)(6), but he was later deported from the US after draft resistance.

    Jolley was eligible for pardon in 1977 and could return as a legal resident alien.

  228. avatar
    Suranis March 9, 2015 at 10:41 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Jolley v. INS, 441 F.2d 1245 (5th Cir.), 404 U.S. 946 (1971). Jolley’s renouncement in Canada did not comply with the formalities of the current INA regulations, section 1481(a)(6), but he was later deported from the US after draft resistance.

    I looked up Jolley here http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1759602366771448807&q=Jolley+v.+INS&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1

    I direct you to footnote 6

    [6] Recognizing that a citizen has a right to renounce his citizenship, Congress has provided in 8 U.S.C.A. § 1481(a) (6) formal procedures for doing so. Jolley’s renunciation satisfied these procedures.,,

    looking at that we find

    “(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—

    (2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years;”

    Yep Jolley wasn’t stripped of his nationality. He gave it up voluntarily then tried to pretend he was only joking.And despite your expert testimony here, the renunciation actually DID follow the regulations.

    Barack Obama could not have done so becasue he had not attained the age of 18 years

    Whoever you copy and pasted that from is as full of shit as you are

  229. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 9, 2015 at 11:26 pm #

    Dave B.:
    People for the American Way’s offer to Joseph Farah:
    “If President Obama refuses to allow a constitutional transfer of power to his successor, we will join you at the barricades. If the American republic miraculously survives, you will stop polluting the public discourse with toxic nonsense. Deal?”

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/birther-joseph-farah-wants-pfaw-help-block-third-obama-term-let-s-make-deal#sthash.wQk577hN.dpuf

    He’d sooner light his mustache on fire than accept a bet he cannot win.

  230. avatar
    RanTalbott March 10, 2015 at 8:11 am #

    Lord Monkfish has published a daffydavit at WorldNutDaily in which he combines the Clueless Clown Posse’s mistakes with his own incompetence to “mathematically prove” the LFBC is a forgery.

    It’s as hilarious as Zullo’s and Shrimpton’s, though. Just make sure your irony meter is disconnected before browsing it: I hear there’s a long lead time on getting replacements.

  231. avatar
    Northland10 March 10, 2015 at 9:18 am #

    Bob at Fogbow was rereading the footnotes of the Congressional Research Service and found the following.

    I was rereading Maskell’s report, and I found footnote 100 (on page 22) to be interesting:
    Quote
    “The English phrase “natural born citizen” in early French translations of the U.S. Constitution’s Article II, §1, cl. 5, however, was interpreted as either “citoyen-né” ([a “born citizen”] John Stevens or Warren Livingston, EXAMEN DU GOUVERNEMENT D’ANGLETERRE, COMPARE AUX CONSTITUTIONS DES ÉTAT-UNIS,” at 257 (Paris 1789)), or “citoyen né dans les États-Unis,” ([a “citizen born in the United States”], L.-P. Conseil, MÉLANGES POLITIQUES ET PHILOSPHIQUES, “Constitution Des États-Unis,” at 160 (Paris 1833), and M. Du Ponceau, EXPOSÉ SOMMAIRE DE LA CONSTITUTION DES ÉTATS-UNIS D’AMÉRIQUE, at 45 (Paris 1837)), or in more recent French translations, “citoyen de naissance” (“citizen at birth”). None of these French expressions for the English term “natural born citizen” were used by Vattel.”

    bob: That bears repeating: In 1789, the French translated “natural-born citizen” into “citoyen-né.”

    I reprinted here for the benefit of Lupin, should he wish to comment.

  232. avatar
    Lupin March 10, 2015 at 9:47 am #

    Northland10:
    Bob at Fogbow was rereading the footnotes of the Congressional Research Service and found the following.

    I reprinted here for the benefit of Lupin, should he wish to comment.

    Actually I have mentioned Maskell’s excellent report several times here, as well as his footnotes which I dare say completely support “my” interpretation of Vattel, which let’s face it, has been everyone’s interpretation for centuries and truthfully not that difficult to figure out.

    (For instance Maskell easily grasps the use of a group plural in “citoyens parens” something that none of the birthers have so far understood..)

    If you recall, one of the arguments I’ve been repeating ad nauseam has been that Vattel’s terminology of “naturels” and “indigene” should not blindly be assumed to mean “natural-born citizen”, especially if somehow one wishes to introduce a difference (which doesn’t exist in French) between born-citizen and natural-born citizen.

    People like Meretricious Mario who claims there are THREE categories of citizenship instead of TWO and rely on the word “natural-” taken out of proper Vattelian context are simply wrong.

    This bears repeating.

  233. avatar
    Rickey March 10, 2015 at 12:11 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Mendoza-Martinez lost his case seeking an injunction against AG Kennedy from issuing him a CLN. SCOTUS affirmed stating the Medoza-Martinez trial and conviction did not prevent the government from ordering his deportation after the issuance of a CLN. Mendoza-Martinez was a US citizen when he was released from prison and received an order of deportation years after his release.

    In contrast, Dr. Cort was denied a US passport for moving out of the country to avoid military service. SCOTUS found the termination of Dr. Cort’s US citizenship was unconstitutional because he was denied due process. Both cases were decided in 1963.

    The Military Selective Service Act of 1967 made provisions for due process to avoid constitutional challenges. Jolley v. INS, 441 F.2d 1245 (5th Cir.), 404 U.S. 946 (1971). Jolley’s renouncement in Canada did not comply with the formalities of the current INA regulations, section 1481(a)(6), but he was later deported from the US after draft resistance.

    Jolley was eligible for pardon in 1977 and could return as a legal resident alien.

    More non-sequitur from Sven. Unsurprisingly, you did not answer my question.

    Draft evaders who fled to Canada and formally renounced their citizenship did in fact lose their citizenship. And most of them still live in Canada.

    However, draft evaders who did not renounce their citizenship did not lose their citizenship. After they were pardoned they could return to the U.S. and no naturalization was required.

    I suggest you read “The Citizenship of Draft Evaders after the Pardon” by Joseph W. Dellapenna, Associate Professor of Law, Villanove University School of Law, in the Villanova Law Review, 1977.

    And you are wrong about Mendoza-Martinez. He originally lost his declaratory judgment action, but it was remanded by the Supreme Court and the District Court then ruled that the statute under which Mendoza-Martinez was to be stripped of his U.S. citizenship and dep0rted as an alien was unconstitutional. The District Court ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court. But then you are wrong about so many things.

  234. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 10, 2015 at 1:12 pm #

    Rickey: More non-sequitur from Sven. Unsurprisingly, you did not answer my question.

    Draft evaders who fled to Canada and formally renounced their citizenship did in fact lose their citizenship. And most of them still live in Canada.

    However, draft evaders who did not renounce their citizenship did not lose their citizenship. After they were pardoned they could return to the U.S. and no naturalization was required.

    I suggest you read “The Citizenship of Draft Evaders after the Pardon” by Joseph W. Dellapenna, Associate Professor of Law, Villanove University School of Law, in the Villanova Law Review, 1977.

    And you are wrong about Mendoza-Martinez. He originally lost his declaratory judgment action, but it was remanded by the Supreme Court and the District Court then ruled that the statute under which Mendoza-Martinez was to be stripped of his U.S. citizenship and dep0rted as an alien was unconstitutional. The District Court ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court. But then you are wrong about so many things.

    There are pervasive myths about voluntary renouncement that will never go away, but I like a good fight with no chance of a win. First of all, your statement, “Draft evaders who fled to Canada and formally renounced their citizenship did in fact lose their citizenship,” is a myth that won’t quit. US citizenship is not lost until a CLN issued. Move out of the country … burn your draft card … vote in a foreign election … join a foreign army and take up arms against the US … tell people you hate the US and will never return … sign and date a sworn an oath of renunciation that convinces a foreign affairs officer that you are voluntarily renouncing … you’re still a US until a CLN is issued because the US maintains an vested interest in your citizenship.

    Draft evaders and all other citizens who haven’t been issued a CLN are entitled to apply for and receive a US passport even though they have voluntarily renounced their US citizenship. If they use their new US passport to return to the US and begin activity to resume their US citizenship in country, such as obligating themselves to a permanent domicile in the US, then they are considered to have withdrawn their voluntary renouncement before a CLN could be issued. A withdrawn voluntary renouncement forecloses the opportunity for the issuance of a CLN. Since voluntary renouncement could be withdrawn by applying for a US passport and returning to the US to set up a permanent domicile, then a pardon is not necessary.

    A pardon is necessary for those draft evaders who had been issued a CLN after their due process rights had been fully adhered to through the Military Selective Service Act of 1967. Following the 1967 law avoided a constitutional challenge which found the Military Selective Service Act of 1942, section 401j, unconstitutional. The pardon allowed drafter evaders who had been issued a CLN to return to the US as permanent resident aliens. Permanent resident aliens are entitled to seek status as a naturalized citizen. Consequently, you have a situation in the early 80s where a native born person filed a notice of intent and a petition to naturalize in the USDC.

    The State Department issues policy directives that are bluff and blunder because there are so many myths about citizenship that won’t quit. For example, the State Department tells a citizen they must convince a foreign affairs officer or their renouncement isn’t voluntary and they haven’t lost their citizenship. The truth is they haven’t lost their citizenship because a CLN hasn’t been issued and the foreign affairs officer is really telling the renunciant, “I will be writing a report to the SoS which recommends that the US not issue a CLN because I think you’ll change your mind or your just renouncing to avoid paying taxes.”

    I did read the “The Citizenship of Draft Evaders after the Pardon.” That is where I got the Jolley v. INS cite. Jolley, a native born citizen, did not formally renounce in Canada and was issued a CLN. After the CLN was issued, he was arrested in the US for illegal entry and deported. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, cert denied, the District Court’s opinion that Jolley’s deportation was not a violation of his civil rights.

    As with Mendoza-Martinez, SCOTUS ultimately affirmed the District Court’s decision that Mendoza-Martinez deportation was not relevant to the constitutionality of Military Selective Service Act, section 401j. Mendoza-Martinez was tried and convicted of violation of section 11 of the Military Selective Service Act and deported several years after he was released from prison.

  235. avatar
    Crustacean March 10, 2015 at 1:38 pm #

    OK, that’s a little odd. But you’ve come to the right place, Sven!

    SvenMagnussen: I like a good fight with no chance of a win.

  236. avatar
    Dave B. March 10, 2015 at 1:42 pm #

    “Thereafter, on May 16, 1967, Jolley went before the United States Consul in Toronto and stated: “I do not wish to break the laws of the United States. These laws (Selective Service) conflict with my beliefs.” Jolley then formally executed an Oath of Renunciation of United States citizenship.” Jolley v. INS, 441 F.2d 1245 (5th Cir.)

    SvenMagnussen: Jolley, a native born citizen, did not formally renounce in Canada and was issued a CLN.

  237. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 10, 2015 at 1:50 pm #

    Hmm….that was interesting. I was initially bored by the statistics that he was spouting. But, then, when the numbers were brought together on his list, I found it fascinating.

    It did jar more memories. Dyess is the one who provided the typewriter.

    I think I’ll spend a little more time reading it later today.

    RanTalbott:
    Lord Monkfish has published a daffydavit at WorldNutDaily in which he combines the Clueless Clown Posse’s mistakes with his own incompetence to “mathematically prove” the LFBC is a forgery.

    It’s as hilarious as Zullo’s and Shrimpton’s, though. Just make sure your irony meter is disconnected before browsing it: I hear there’s a long lead time on getting replacements.

  238. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 10, 2015 at 2:05 pm #

    August 4th or August 5th. I erred by one day in 1985 when searching the Hawaiian fiche roles as I had been taught to do at Palm Beach Community College (Journalism) so keep that in mind.

  239. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 10, 2015 at 2:28 pm #

    Dave B.: Jolley v. INS, 441 F.2d 1245 (5th Cir.)

    Let me rephrase …

    Initially, Jolley alleged he did not voluntarily renounce, but the Circuit Court declined Jolley’s request for a transfer to the District Court for a evidentiary hearing and found Jolley’s renouncement was a personal choice and voluntary. Jolley then conceded his renouncement was voluntary.

  240. avatar
    Suranis March 10, 2015 at 4:33 pm #

    … which explains why Jolley filed appeals right up the chain contesting it. As MY link to the case YOU cited shows very clearly.

    And he never received your precious CLN so your statement;

    “US citizenship is not lost until a CLN issued. Move out of the country … burn your draft card … vote in a foreign election … join a foreign army and take up arms against the US … tell people you hate the US and will never return … sign and date a sworn an oath of renunciation that convinces a foreign affairs officer that you are voluntarily renouncing … you’re still a US until a CLN is issued because the US maintains an vested interest in your citizenship.”

    is purest Bovine gas.

    You should be careful where you Cut and paste from as you keep letting in proof of your lying. You look pretty pathetic right now.

  241. avatar
    faceman March 10, 2015 at 4:34 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Let me rephrase …

    Initially, Jolley alleged he did not voluntarily renounce, but the Circuit Court declined Jolley’s request for a transfer to the District Court for a evidentiary hearing and found Jolley’s renouncement was a personal choice and voluntary. Jolley then conceded his renouncement was voluntary.

    That doesn’t sound like ‘rephrasing’, which is something you do something you’ve said might be ambiguous or subject to misinterpretation.

    “Jolley did not formally renounce…” does not rephrase to “Jolley then conceded his remouncement was voluntary.”

    If you had said “Jolley claimed he did not renounce” you would have a better case, ( as first he denied, but later admitted it was voluntary) but you flat out say: “Jolley’s renouncement in Canada did not comply with the formalities of the current INA regulations.”

    Seeing as how the one is the exact opposite of the other, what you’re doing is admitting that you lied.

  242. avatar
    Dave B. March 10, 2015 at 4:36 pm #

    So where does that leave your point?

    SvenMagnussen: Let me rephrase …

    Initially, Jolley alleged he did not voluntarily renounce, but the Circuit Court declined Jolley’s request for a transfer to the District Court for a evidentiary hearing and found Jolley’s renouncement was a personal choice and voluntary. Jolley then conceded his renouncement was voluntary.

  243. avatar
    Suranis March 10, 2015 at 5:21 pm #

    I suppose its best to quote the actual case that says not-actually-Sven is lying so he can change his story to fit the new facts

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1759602366771448807&q=Jolley+v.+INS&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1

    A hearing was held before a Special Inquiry Officer pursuant to Immigration and Nationality Act § 242(b), 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(b). That officer found that petitioner was an alien excludable for entering the country without an immigrant visa and for remaining outside the country to avoid military service. Petitioner was ordered to depart voluntarily within 90 days or be deported to Canada. Jolley then appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 242.21, challenging the findings of alienage and of excludability. The Board, following oral argument, affirmed the decision and order of the Special Inquiry Officer. Jolley now petitions for review in this court under Immigration and Nationality Act § 106(a), 8 U.S.C.A. § 1105a.[4]

    II.

    In order for petitioner, a United States citizen by virtue of his birth, to be subject to deportation the Government must demonstrate that he has lost his United States citizenship through expatriation and assumed the status of an alien. Moreover, because of the precious nature of citizenship, it can be relinquished only voluntarily, and not by legislative fiat. Afroyim v. Rusk, 1967, 387 U.S. 253, 87 S.Ct. 1660, 18 L.Ed. 757; see United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890; Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 1249*1249 1963, 372 U.S. 144, 83 S.Ct. 554, 9 L.Ed.2d 644. It is precisely this point to which petitioner directs his main argument, for he contends that his expatriating act was involuntary.[5] While admitting that he executed a formal, unequivocal renunciation of citizenship before a United States Consul in Canada,[6] Jolley argues that his renunciation was made under duress. The coercion, according to petitioner, was his desire to avoid breaking the Selective Service laws of the United States.

    The world wonders whether Sven will be arguing water is dry…

  244. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 10, 2015 at 10:31 pm #

    Nancy R Owens:
    August 4th or August 5th. I erred by one day in 1985 when searching the Hawaiian fiche roles as I had been taught to do at Palm Beach Community College (Journalism) so keep that in mind.

    You erred in your story since none of this crap happened in 1985 other than you attending community college.

  245. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 11, 2015 at 12:46 am #

    Dave B.:
    So where does that leave your point?

    As I mentioned earlier, I read the Villanova article cited by Rickey and not the Circuit Court’s opinion for Jolley v. INS. The Villanova article states Canada did not require a person intending to naturalize as a Canadian citizen to renounce the citizenship of the home country. Further, the article states draft evaders are still US citizens after they naturalized as a Canadian citizen. The article did not mention Jolley formally renounced and your initial reply was a surprise to me. The article leads the reader to believe draft evaders who went to Canada became dual Canadian/US citizens.

    The INS adverse action of deporting Jolley after he was arrested for illegal entry in the US and naturalizing as a Canadian citizen led me to believe the government’s position was Jolley renounced his US citizenship informally, but voluntarily, after naturalizing in a foreign state. You cited a fact found by the Circuit Court to indicate Jolley was not a dual Canadian/US citizen.

    The Villanova article did not make it clear, but the record clearly states Jolley initially stated his formal renouncement was coerced and involuntary by threat of adverse action for avoiding the draft. Since the Canadian government did not required him to renounce his US citizenship to naturalize, the only reason he would have formally renounced was because he felt threatened by adverse action for evading the draft. A person who feels threatened is not a person who voluntarily renounces.

    I rephrased my initial statement the US government’s position that Jolley informally and voluntarily renounced should be Jolley conceded he voluntarily renounced after the Circuit Court denied him an evidentiary hearing to determine his current citizenship status.

  246. avatar
    Rickey March 11, 2015 at 12:50 am #

    SvenMagnussen:

    As with Mendoza-Martinez, SCOTUS ultimately affirmed the District Court’s decision that Mendoza-Martinez deportation was not relevant to the constitutionality of Military Selective Service Act, section 401j. Mendoza-Martinez was tried and convicted of violation of section 11 of the Military Selective Service Act and deported several years after he was released from prison.

    Considering that you have been shown to be wrong about the Jolley case, I’d like to know what evidence you have that Francisco Mendoza-Martinez was ever deported. Since SCOTUS ruled that he never lost his U.S. citizenship, I would like to know on what grounds he was deported.

    I certainly haven’t been able to find any evidence that he was deported.

  247. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 11, 2015 at 1:05 am #

    Suranis:
    … which explains why Jolley filed appeals right up the chain contesting it. As MY link to the case YOU cited shows very clearly.

    And he never received your precious CLN so your statement;

    “US citizenship is not lost until a CLN issued. Move out of the country … burn your draft card … vote in a foreign election … join a foreign army and take up arms against the US … tell people you hate the US and will never return … sign and date a sworn an oath of renunciation that convinces a foreign affairs officer that you are voluntarily renouncing … you’re still a US until a CLN is issued because the US maintains an vested interest in your citizenship.”

    is purest Bovine gas.

    You should be careful where you Cut and paste from as you keep letting in proof of your lying. You look pretty pathetic right now.

    The US government is only required to make a reasonable effort to notify the former US citizen a CLN has been issued in their name. Generally, a reasonable effort is considered to be made by mailing a copy of the CLN to the renunciants last, known address. A failure to receive a copy of the CLN does not invalidate the government’s position it has forfeited its interest in the citizen’s citizenship after the citizen voluntarily renounced.

  248. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 11, 2015 at 1:19 am #

    Rickey: Considering that you have been shown to be wrong about the Jolley case, I’d like to know what evidence you have that Francisco Mendoza-Martinez was ever deported. Since SCOTUS ruled that he never lost his U.S. citizenship, I would like to know on what grounds he was deported.

    I certainly haven’t been able to find any evidence that he was deported.

    I’ve never stated all immigration records are publicly available. That is from other individuals who think an FOIA can you any record the US possesses.

    Mendoza-Martinez was issued a deportation warrant by an investigator with the US Attorney General. Mendoza-Martinez appealed the warrant the the US Attorney General. The AG upheld the warrant. Mendoza-Martinez appealed to the Bureau of Immigration Affairs and they declined to intervene. Mendoza-Martinez filed a complaint in the District Court.

    SCOTUS opined Mendoza-Martinez was tried, convicted and jailed for violation of section 11 of the Military Selective Service Act of 1942 after section 401j of the Military Selective Service Act of 1942 had been found unconstitutional. SCOTUS opined Mendoza-Martinez complaint he was being deported after section 401j had been found unconstitutional was irrelevant because he had been tried, convicted, jailed and released several years earlier for violation of section 11.

    I then took a leap of faith Mendoza-Martinez the warrant for deportation was executed after years of exhaustive appeals.

  249. avatar
    Rickey March 11, 2015 at 2:31 am #

    SvenMagnussen:

    I then took a leap of faith Mendoza-Martinez the warrant for deportation was executed after years of exhaustive appeals.

    You took a leap of faith to make a statement which you insisted was factual?

    The sole basis for Mendoza-Martinez’s deportation order was that he had lost his U.S. citizenship because he had moved to Mexico to avoid being drafted during WWII.

    On October 18, 1960, the U.S. District Court ruled as follows:

    Section 401(j) of the Nationality Act of 1940, a 1944 Amendment, under which defendant claims the plaintiff lost his United States nationality and citizenship, is unconstitutional, both on its face and as applied to the plaintiff herein.
    [192 F.Supp. 3]. The plaintiff is now, and ever since the date of his birth has been, a national and citizen of the United States; and judgment should be entered accordingly.

    The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the District Court.

    Mendoza-Martinez never lost his U.S. citizenship and therefore was not subject to deportation.

    So you were wrong about Jolley and you were wrong about Mendoza-Martinez. You just make things up.

    http://www.leagle.com/decision/1960193192FSupp1_1193.xml/MENDOZA-MARTINEZ%20v.%20ROGERS

  250. avatar
    Lupin March 11, 2015 at 3:06 am #

    Rickey: So you were wrong about Jolley and you were wrong about Mendoza-Martinez. You just make things up.

    And when he’s been caught with his pants-on-fire down on one topic, he then moves on to another topic.

    At this point, it really IS trolling.

  251. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 11, 2015 at 6:09 am #

    Rickey: You took a leap of faith to make a statement which you insisted was factual?

    The sole basis for Mendoza-Martinez’s deportation order was that he had lost his U.S. citizenship because he had moved to Mexico to avoid being drafted during WWII.

    On October 18, 1960, the U.S. District Court ruled as follows:

    Section 401(j) of the Nationality Act of 1940, a 1944 Amendment, under which defendant claims the plaintiff lost his United States nationality and citizenship, is unconstitutional, both on its face and as applied to the plaintiff herein.
    [192 F.Supp. 3]. The plaintiff is now, and ever since the date of his birth has been, a national and citizen of the United States; and judgment should be entered accordingly.

    The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the District Court.

    Mendoza-Martinez never lost his U.S. citizenship and therefore was not subject to deportation.

    So you were wrong about Jolley and you were wrong about Mendoza-Martinez. You just make things up.

    http://www.leagle.com/decision/1960193192FSupp1_1193.xml/MENDOZA-MARTINEZ%20v.%20ROGERS

    At first you cited Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez and now you’re citing Mendoza-Martinez v. Rogers. Rogers was the AG before Kennedy. The Mendoza-Martinez case went to SCOTUS twice. Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez was the second time the Mendoza-Martinez case went to SCOTUS.

    SCOTUS, 1963:

    Held: The judgments are affirmed. Pp. 372 U. S. 146-186.

    1. Although Mendoza-Martinez amended his complaint so as to add a prayer for injunctive relief before the third trial of his case by a single-judge District Court, it is clear from the trial record that the issues were framed and the case handled so as actually not to contemplate any injunctive relief. In these circumstances, it was not necessary for the case to be heard by a three-judge District Court convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2282. Pp. 372 U. S. 152-155.

    2. The trial and conviction of Mendoza-Martinez for violating §11 of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 by going to Mexico “on or about November 15, 1942 . . . for the purpose

    Page 372 U. S. 145

    of evading service” did not involve any determination of his citizenship status, and therefore did not estop the Government from denying his citizenship subsequently. Pp. 372 U. S. 155-158.

    SCOTUS affirmed the Mendoza-Martinez v. Kennedy District Court ruling which did not provide for injunctive relief from a deportation order. The case was captioned Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez at SCOTUS because Kennedy appealed the District Court’s ruling on the unconstitutionally of section 401j of the Selective Service Act of 1942.

    SCOTUS affirmed the US government could not be prevented from executing a deportation order for Mendoza-Martinez and section 401j was unconstitutional.

    You wrote, “The sole basis for Mendoza-Martinez’s deportation order was that he had lost his U.S. citizenship because he had moved to Mexico to avoid being drafted during WWII,” and SCOTUS opined his draft evasion, draft evasion trial and conviction had nothing to do with his deportation order issued several years after he was released from prison. Mendoza-Martinez was a native born person who was deported for some other reason than draft evasion.

  252. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 11, 2015 at 6:32 am #

    RE: HI on August 4, 1961..

    Then the birth certificate that I faked would say August 5th.

    Again, it’s off by one day and this is jarring a memory. We had settled on finding a child whose birth date was exactly the same as Allen’s.

    When I search the Hawaii scrolls in 1985, the “Obama” child was the closest I could come and I was nervous doing what I was doing and just wanting to get the whole thing over with as quickly as possible.

    If I recall, I think at the time I decided that my brother shouldn’t have any problem remembering his birth date plus or minus as day.

    As I said earlier, once settling on this little boy, it became necessary to kill him to eliminate every potential witness.

    Kate: You’re still spewing that b.s.?You wouldn’t recognize the real truth if it jumped up and smacked you square in the face because it has happened repeatedly.Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, HI on August 4, 1961 to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama, Sr.He lived there until the age of 19, except for 3 years he spent in Indonesia, when he went to Occidental College for 2 years, followed by Columbia for 2 years.He graduated in 1983 from Columbia, worked in Chicago as a community organizer for several years and then went to Harvard Law for his J.D., graduating magna cum laude in 1991.His years in Hawaii are well documented by interviews with his teachers, fellow students, in yearbooksand more.There are only discrepancies in the minds of those who don’t wish to believe the truth.

    I still think you saw a picture of Maya Soetoro as a child or someone remarked on there being a similarity between the two of you and you took it and ran with your fairy tales, embellishing as you went, changing stories over time.That’s the only reason you claim you are his half-sister.Yet it’s clearly obvious that the girl in the picture is years younger than Barack Obama unlike you, who claims to have been born within a year of his birthdate.She also has brown eyes and your are hazel.You’ve been asked frequently but never even attempt to explain how this is possible because you’re caught in the first of many lies from day one.

  253. avatar
    Northland10 March 11, 2015 at 9:17 am #

    Wrong again. They said conviction under section 11 did not involve citizenship status so the government would not prevented from a future denial of citizenship. However, in the third part of the syllabus that you omitted, they stated the the section the government used to try and deport the plaintiff was an unconstitutional breech of due process.

    In short, the court said the conviction did not prevent future deportation but the lack of due process n the section the used did.

  254. avatar
    John Reilly March 11, 2015 at 10:03 am #

    Can we get Lord Monkfish to calculate the probability of Sven being wrong so many times in a row?

  255. avatar
    Rickey March 11, 2015 at 10:54 am #

    SvenMagnussen: At first you cited Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez and now you’re citing Mendoza-Martinez v. Rogers. Rogers was the AG before Kennedy. The Mendoza-Martinez case went to SCOTUS twice. Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez was the second time the Mendoza-Martinez case went to SCOTUS.

    You really are stupid.

    Wiliam Rogers was the Attorney /General in October, 1960. By the time the case was appealed to the Supreme Court, he had been replaced by Bobby Kennedy. Hence, the caption of the appeal is Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez rather than Rogers v. Mendoza-Martinez.

    It’s the same case, you doddering fool.

    And you’re also a serial liar.

  256. avatar
    faceman March 11, 2015 at 11:15 am #

    SvenMagnussen: The article leads the reader to believe draft evaders who went to Canada becamedual Canadian/US citizens.

    The INS adverse action of deporting Jolley after he was arrested for illegal entry in the US and naturalizing as a Canadian citizen led me to believe the government’s position was Jolley renounced his US citizenship informally, but voluntarily, after naturalizing in a foreign state.

    I rephrased my initial statement the US government’s position that Jolley informally and voluntarily renounced should be Jolley conceded he voluntarily renounced after the Circuit Court denied him an evidentiary hearing to determine his current citizenship status.

    Maybe that’s why you should check your facts before running off your mouth.

    And your initial statement was not ‘ the US government’s position that Jolley informally and voluntarily’. Your initial statement was ‘Jolley’s renouncement in Canada did not comply with the formalities of the current INA regulations.’ That was YOUR position, not the government’s. There was no ‘informally’ about it.

    No amount of fast-talking will obscure the fact that once again you proved yourself a liar.

  257. avatar
    faceman March 11, 2015 at 11:21 am #

    SvenMagnussen: A failure to receive a copy of the CLN does not invalidate the government’s position it has forfeited its interest in the citizen’s citizenship after the citizen voluntarily renounced.

    Not only is that the exact opposite of what you have been saying about the renouncement isn’t official until the CLN is received, but

    The government doesn’t ‘forfeit its interest in the citizen’s citizenship’. It’s the citizen who forfeits his citizenship.

  258. avatar
    Rickey March 11, 2015 at 11:24 am #

    SvenMagnussen:

    SCOTUS affirmed the US government could not be prevented from executing a deportation order for Mendoza-Martinez and section 401j was unconstitutional.

    Wrong again.

    By ruling that Section 401 was unconstitutional, the Supreme Court upheld the District Court ruling that Mendoza-Martinez had been a U.S. citizen from birth and still was a U.S. citizen. Therefore there was no basis for deporting him.

    A natural-born U.S. citizen cannot be deported. Ever.

  259. avatar
    faceman March 11, 2015 at 11:24 am #

    SvenMagnussen:
    I then took a leap of faith Mendoza-Martinez the warrant for deportation was executed after years of exhaustive appeals.

    You took ‘a leap of faith’ and argued something was a fact without checking first. Like the ‘leap of faith’ you take every time your ‘whistleblowers’ tell you something?

  260. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 11, 2015 at 12:17 pm #

    Nancy R Owens: RE: HI on August 4, 1961..

    Then the birth certificate that I faked would say August 5th.

    Again, it’s off by one day and this is jarring a memory. We had settled on finding a child whose birth date was exactly the same as Allen’s.

    When I search the Hawaii scrolls in 1985, the “Obama” child was the closest I could come and I was nervous doing what I was doing and just wanting to get the whole thing over with as quickly as possible.

    If I recall, I think at the time I decided that my brother shouldn’t have any problem remembering his birth date plus or minus as day.

    As I said earlier, once settling on this little boy, it became necessary to kill him to eliminate every potential witness.

    Hawaii doesn’t have “scrolls”. You didn’t have access to Hawaiian records. You claimed to pull the name out of the bible then claimed it was another family that didn’t exist at the time. You lied as usual.

  261. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 11, 2015 at 12:37 pm #

    Fishe files. Same thing. I just can’t ever remember how to spell “fishe, fiche, fische, etc. and I was too lazy to look it up. I did have access to the “Fishe” scrolls as did everybody else.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Hawaii doesn’t have “scrolls”.You didn’t have access to Hawaiian records.You claimed to pull the name out of the bible then claimed it was another family that didn’t exist at the time.You lied as usual.

  262. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 11, 2015 at 12:41 pm #

    faceman: Not only is that the exact opposite of what you have been saying about the renouncement isn’t official until the CLN is received, but

    The government doesn’t ‘forfeit its interest in the citizen’s citizenship’.It’s the citizen who forfeits his citizenship.

    You’re confusing Canadian law with US law. Canada requires the renunciant to be notified that Canada has forfeited its right to impose obligations upon the individual. US law only requires a reasonable effort to notify the renunciant the US has forfeited its right to impose obligations upon the individual. The District Court and the Circuit Court have repeatedly ruled the State Department is only required to mail a copy of the CLN to the renunicant’s last known address.

    Consequently, it’s possible the CLN was mailed to Obama’s last known address and Obama didn’t receive it. Someone else received it and turned it over to a whistleblower. The US government thinks it has shredded all the evidence and there is a copy of CLN in a whistleblower’s possession. If a judge would allow a federal officer of US government to testify under oath a search has been conducted and a CLN issued to Obama cannot be found, then a rebuttal witness may be available to testify they are in possession of a CLN issued to Obama and submit the evidence to the court.

    But we’ll never know because my case was dismissed with prejudice and the whistleblower is unable to find a licensed attorney willing to present the case.

  263. avatar
    J.D. Sue March 11, 2015 at 12:50 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: the whistleblower is unable to find a licensed attorney willing to present the case.

    —-

    Duh!

  264. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 11, 2015 at 12:56 pm #

    You lie. Show me where I claim I chose the name out of a Bible. After the name was chosen, Griselda made the comment that it was a good name since it was in the Bible. I did not chose it because it was in the Bible. I chose it for the nearly similar birth dates.

    I also said that, according to Prof. Nixon of the Palm Beach Community College, an acceptable secondary form of ID would be a family Bible.

    A newspaper clipping and a family Bible.

    That’s it. That’s all that’s required by HI to prove USA citizenship.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Hawaii doesn’t have “scrolls”.You didn’t have access to Hawaiian records.You claimed to pull the name out of the bible then claimed it was another family that didn’t exist at the time.You lied as usual.

  265. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 11, 2015 at 12:58 pm #

    Northland10:
    Wrong again.They said conviction under section 11 did not involve citizenship status so the government would not prevented from a future denial of citizenship.However, in the third part of the syllabus that you omitted, they stated the the section the government used to try and deport the plaintiff was an unconstitutional breech of due process.

    In short, the court said the conviction did not prevent future deportation but the lack of due process n the section the used did.

    Actually, the second and final SCOTUS ruling affirmed the District Court’s ruling that Mendoza-Martinez was not entitled to injunctive relief from a deportation order that had been issued to him several years after he served time for draft evasion.

  266. avatar
    Kate March 11, 2015 at 1:17 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Hawaii doesn’t have “scrolls”. You didn’t have access to Hawaiian records. You claimed to pull the name out of the bible then claimed it was another family that didn’t exist at the time. You lied as usual.

    When NRO talks about the info she received that was allegedly so helpful in regards to the birth certificate, her story falls apart even further. The info was supposed to be that a birth certificate was not necessary in Hawaii to get a Driver’s License or other I.D. as long as you had a family bible and there was a birth announcement in the newspaper. How the hell can that be any assistance or lead someone to forge a birth certificate from Hawaii when the big find is supposed to be that you don’t need a b.c.?

    The posters on here have proven, repeatedly, that you’re lying. There was no short form, there’s the discrepancy in ages between you and the little girl in the photo with Obama that you claim is you, the verified history of Obama growing up in Hawaii, etc.
    The only thing more disturbing than your lies is the way you talk about killing people as if they are meaningless and on top of that you pretend to be seeking justice for events that you allegedly participated in without being aware that your actions are as despicable as those you claim should be prosecuted. If there were any truth to these stories, you’d be in prison. As it is, you need the assistance of a mental health practitioner. I’m sure they will be able to give you all the attention you’re seeking.

  267. avatar
    Jim March 11, 2015 at 1:41 pm #

    The government has filed its appeal on the immigration case in Texas…
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_1EZYYUgAAmb6f.jpg

    Can’t wait till it gets posted…will be MUCH more interesting than Sven. 😆

  268. avatar
    faceman March 11, 2015 at 1:42 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: You’re confusing Canadian law with US law. Canada requires the renunciant to be notified that Canada has forfeited its right to impose obligations upon the individual. US law only requires a reasonable effort to notify the renunciant the US has forfeited its right to impose obligations upon the individual. The District Court and the Circuit Court have repeatedly ruled the State Department is only required to mail a copy of the CLN to the renunicant’s last known address.

    You sure do have a problem with your reading comprehension. The US cannot take away someone’s citizenship. To ‘rephrase’, the government cannot ‘forfeit its right to impose obligations upon the individual.’

    Yes, the government discourages people from renouncing their citizenship. Because once they give it up, then cannot get it back.

    It is the citizen who forfeits the rights and benefits of being a citizen.

    SvenMagnussen: Termination of US citizenship is a two step process: 1) voluntary renouncement (signing and dating a declaration that you intend to leave the US and do not plan to return is a voluntary renouncement). 2) The President or the SoS signs a CLN with the citizen’s name who previously voluntarily renounced.

    Without a CLN, US citizenship continues and the State Department will continue to renew the passport until the President or the SoS signs a CLN. The US citizen can withdraw the voluntary renouncement if a CLN has not been issued.

    Many people voluntarily renounce and are not issued a CLN. Anyone who voluntarily renounces US citizenship is still a US citizen

    Not according to the Jolley case.

  269. avatar
    Daniel March 11, 2015 at 1:54 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: But we’ll never know because my case was dismissed with prejudice and the whistleblower is unable to find a licensed attorney willing to present the case.

    And that should tell you something….. but I’m guessing it won’t.

    Just curious; at what point of every actual expert, every knowledgeable amateur, every elected official, every judge…. pretty much everyone on the country who is sane….. at what point with everyone telling you you’re wrong, do you ever consider the possibility you might just be…. wrong?

    Is that ever going to happen?

  270. avatar
    y_p_w March 11, 2015 at 2:27 pm #

    faceman:
    Yes, the government discourages people from renouncing their citizenship.Because once they give it up, then cannot get it back.

    It is the citizen who forfeits the rights and benefits of being a citizen.

    It’s possible to get it back, but it would be convoluted. However, the individual would then be in the same situation as any other prospective immigrant. File for an immigrant visa, wait your turn in line, and then naturalize. It’s a long drawn-out process to do it, and it would be a lot easier just to keep one’s US citizenship. I’m actually kind of curious if there’s any case where it’s been done, and whether or not one could be both naturalized and natural born.

    Also – Sven is wrong that the issuance of a CLN determines when a loss of nationality is final. It’s purely an administrative procedure.

    http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-10510.html

    Sec. 358. [8 U.S.C. 1501] Whenever a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States has reason to believe that a person while in a foreign state has lost his United States nationality under any provision of chapter 3 of this title, or under any provision of chapter IV of the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended, he shall certify the facts upon which such belief is based to the Department of State, in writing, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of State. If the report of the diplomatic or consular officer is approved by the Secretary of State, a copy of the certificate shall be forwarded to the Attorney General, for his information, and the diplomatic or consular office in which the report was made shall be directed to forward a copy of the certificate to the person to whom it relates. Approval by the Secretary of State of a certificate under this section shall constitute a final administrative determination of loss of United States nationality under this Act, subject to such procedures for administrative appeal as the Secretary may prescribe by regulation, and also shall constitute a denial of a right or privilege of United States nationality for purposes of section 360.

    Although it is an administrative procedure, it’s one that can have practical consequences for perhaps returning on an unexpired passport. It doesn’t mean someone hasn’t lost citizenship.

    http://travel.state.gov/content/travel/english/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/renunciation-of-citizenship-right-of-residence.html

    Pursuant to Section 358 of the INA, the renunciation of one’s U.S. nationality does not result in one’s expatriation until the Department of State approves a Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the United States (CLN).

  271. avatar
    Dave B. March 11, 2015 at 2:28 pm #

    What kind of a dumbass are you?

    SvenMagnussen: Dave B.:
    So where does that leave your point?

    As I mentioned earlier, I read the Villanova article cited by Rickey and not the Circuit Court’s opinion for Jolley v. INS. The Villanova article states Canada did not require a person intending to naturalize as a Canadian citizen to renounce the citizenship of the home country. Further, the article states draft evaders are still US citizens after they naturalized as a Canadian citizen. The article did not mention Jolley formally renounced and your initial reply was a surprise to me. The article leads the reader to believe draft evaders who went to Canada became dual Canadian/US citizens.

    The INS adverse action of deporting Jolley after he was arrested for illegal entry in the US and naturalizing as a Canadian citizen led me to believe the government’s position was Jolley renounced his US citizenship informally, but voluntarily, after naturalizing in a foreign state. You cited a fact found by the Circuit Court to indicate Jolley was not a dual Canadian/US citizen.

    The Villanova article did not make it clear, but the record clearly states Jolley initially stated his formal renouncement was coerced and involuntary by threat of adverse action for avoiding the draft. Since the Canadian government did not required him to renounce his US citizenship to naturalize, the only reason he would have formally renounced was because he felt threatened by adverse action for evading the draft. A person who feels threatened is not a person who voluntarily renounces.

    I rephrased my initial statement the US government’s position that Jolley informally and voluntarily renounced should be Jolley conceded he voluntarily renounced after the Circuit Court denied him an evidentiary hearing to determine his current citizenship status.

  272. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 11, 2015 at 2:38 pm #

    I really don’t know whether Hawaii was using microfilm reels or microfiche in 1961. The only thing a private citizen could have access to of this nature was the 1961 newspaper archives at the public library, which list the Obama birth, but not the first name.

    Nancy R Owens: Fishe files. Same thing. I just can’t ever remember how to spell “fishe, fiche, fische, etc. and I was too lazy to look it up. I did have access to the “Fishe” scrolls as did everybody else.

  273. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 11, 2015 at 2:53 pm #

    In this exchange with Dr. Ken, you answered “Yes” to a question as to whether you had gotten the name out of the Bible:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2015/01/the-occasional-open-thread-la-usurpadora/#comment-347419

    in 2014 you said:

    “The name “Obama” was chosen because it was in the Bible and because there were a ton of families by that name in the Hawaiian files.”

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2014/11/word-salad/#comment-344701

    In 2013 you said:

    “‘Obama’ is not his name and both certs are fake. The ‘Obama’ comes from the Bible and this was the con used to lead the Christian sheeple in ’84.”

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/taitz-involved-in-criminal-conspiracy/#comment-238748

    Nancy R Owens: You lie. Show me where I claim I chose the name out of a Bible.

  274. avatar
    Kate March 11, 2015 at 2:59 pm #

    Nancy R Owens:
    You lie. Show me where I claim I chose the name out of a Bible. After the name was chosen, Griselda made the comment that it was a good name since it was in the Bible. I did not chose it because it was in the Bible. I chose it for the nearly similar birth dates.

    I also said that, according to Prof. Nixon of the Palm Beach Community College, an acceptable secondary form of ID would be a family Bible.

    A newspaper clipping and a family Bible.

    That’s it. That’s all that’s required by HI to prove USA citizenship.

    You’ve said on your videos online and on RC’s radio show that you chose the name Obama from the Bible. You were even asked where you saw it in the Bible but you ignored that question and rambled on about something else. You said the reason for choosing it from the Bible was because it was a “con job for the Christian sheeple” and those were your words, nobody else said it. Dr. Ken isn’t lying, you are and you spoke about how you forged the b.c. for over a year and a half before you embellished the story with a trip to Hawaii and murdering the family. As I said in the other post, there was absolutely no reason for you to choose Hawaii over any other state. Their regulations were not different from the other 49 in any way that you know of that would allow you to make it easier to forge a birth certificate there vs. Florida, for instance. Show us this rule that Professor Nixon allegedly told you about. It should be among their rules posted online. I know that before the days of birth certificates, people used family bibles to prove birth dates, place, etc. but let’s see it in writing.

  275. avatar
    Retired Lawyer March 11, 2015 at 3:58 pm #

    y_p_w: It’s possible to get it back, but it would be convoluted.However, the individual would then be in the same situation as any other prospective immigrant.File for an immigrant visa, wait your turn in line, and then naturalize.It’s a long drawn-out process to do it, and it would be a lot easier just to keep one’s US citizenship.I’m actually kind of curious if there’s any case where it’s been done, and whether or not one could be both naturalized and natural born.

    Also – Sven is wrong that the issuance of a CLN determines when a loss of nationality is final.It’s purely an administrative procedure.

    Although it is an administrative procedure, it’s one that can have practical consequences for perhaps returning on an unexpired passport.It doesn’t mean someone hasn’t lost citizenship.

    Hi all,
    I actually knew a person who was born in the US and was a NBC who moved to Europe while a child, that was so incensed at US policy in Viet Nam that she went to the trouble of renouncing US citizenship at the embassy, keeping her Danish? citizenship. Then a number of years later, she met, fell in love with, and married a US soldier. They eventually moved back to the US, where she obtained US citizenship as the spouse of a US citizen.

    Once in a while, according to her, this came up when she needed to go on base for something and found out that some of what her husband was doing was classified at a level that U.S. born citizens could be present, but naturalized U.S. citizens could not.

  276. avatar
    faceman March 11, 2015 at 4:01 pm #

    y_p_w: It’s possible to get it back, but it would be convoluted.However, the individual would then be in the same situation as any other prospective immigrant.File for an immigrant visa, wait your turn in line, and then naturalize.It’s a long drawn-out process to do it, and it would be a lot easier just to keep one’s US citizenship.I’m actually kind of curious if there’s any case where it’s been done, and whether or not one could be both naturalized and natural born.

    You are, of course, correct. As you point out, someone could always go through the naturalization process as any foreigner could. I am also given to understand that there is an appeals process.

    To rephrase, the oath of renunciation is irrevocable.

    “Finally, those contemplating a renunciation of U.S. citizenship should understand that the act is irrevocable, except as provided in section 351 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1483), and cannot be canceled or set aside absent successful administrative or judicial appeal. ” (Sect 351 refers to those who renounced as a minor)

    http://travel.state.gov/content/travel/english/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/renunciation-of-citizenship.html

    Unlike Sven-is-not-my-real-name, I appreciate it when someone keeps me on my toes.

  277. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 11, 2015 at 4:18 pm #

    RE: . How the hell can that be any assistance or lead someone to forge a birth certificate from Hawaii when the big find is supposed to be that you don’t need a b.c.?

    Here is the chain of possession.

    1. Griselda Blanco has blank form.

    2. Nancy Ruth Owens types in blank green form.

    3. Griselda Blanco retakes possession of forged form.

    4. *additional steps not being disclosed until affidavit completed and submitted*

    5. Pablo Escobar decides to commandeer the forged documents and the future of “Allen” sired by Thomas Beauchamp Owens (reportedly and witnessed by Ida Delgado, mother of Medellin Cartel member, “Popeye” currently serving time for bombing of aircraft, Pres. Galan target (Bombing may or may not be true due to conspiracy of certain members of Congress.)

    In other words, in was a group effort and, at some point, a judge from Chicago (Scalia) came down to take possession of his own personal hitman.

    Presumably, it was Escobar and Scalia who moved Obama’s ball forward. Escobar is dead so you’ll have to ask Scalia.

    Regaining memories, Owens last recalls seeing her half-brother lying in the Hendry County Hospital, dead or alive memory still blank, having suffered a head concussion from a tree hanging and subsequent release of noose via a knife used by Owens and provided by Popeye, Pablo as witness.

    The answer is that, as stated over and over again, the BC was needed so that Obama could attend college as an American citizen thus be granted four years of college instead of the two years alloted by Reagan’s educational programs.

    I guess you keep forgetting this simple fact in your attempt to twist the evidence, a false bread crumb trail laid out long ago for suckers like you to follow should any investigation ensue, to your extremely skewed favor.

    Maybe next time, Orly, you’ll grow a set and not scream at me when I call you, if I call you at all.

    ;0)

    Kate: . How the hell can that be any assistance or lead someone to forge a birth certificate from Hawaii when the big find is supposed to be that you don’t need a b.c.?

  278. avatar
    y_p_w March 11, 2015 at 4:41 pm #

    Retired Lawyer: Hi all,
    I actually knew a person who was born in the US and was a NBC who moved to Europe while a child, that was so incensed at US policy in Viet Nam that she went to the trouble of renouncing US citizenship at the embassy, keeping her Danish? citizenship.Then a number of years later, she met, fell in love with, and married a US soldier.They eventually moved back to the US, where she obtained US citizenship as the spouse of a US citizen.

    Once in a while, according to her, this came up when she needed to go on base for something and found out that some of what her husband was doing was classified at a level that U.S. born citizens could be present, but naturalized U.S. citizens could not.

    I would have thought that things would be different by now, as many non-native born US citizens have access to sensitive information. I know of many naturalized US citizens who worked in the defense industry. Heck – at least two US Secretaries of State were foreign born – Kissinger and Albright. I do know of one National Park Service site that’s restricted to US citizens and permanent residents because it’s on an active military installation.

    http://www.nps.gov/poch/planyourvisit/permits-and-reservations.htm

    Military Ocean Terminal Concord is a controlled access area. All visitors to the site must be U.S. Citizens or permanent residents.

    And the case you cite brings up some interesting possibilities should a US citizen renounce. I work with a lot of naturalized US citizens and those with ties to other countries even when born in the US. I’ve also followed recent “birth tourism” stories. There are immigration categories that have no specific quotas nor waiting lists. An adult child (at least 21) can sponsor a parent for an immediate green card, as can a spouse. If someone renounces US citizenship and has a US citizen spouse or adult child, it might be possible to immediately get sponsored for permanent residency. In the case of spouses, there’s even an accelerated schedule for possible naturalization.

    That might be interesting if the State Dept gets an application and their file indicates that the person recently renounced citizenship.

  279. avatar
    Crustacean March 11, 2015 at 4:45 pm #

    Nancy R Owens: Owens last recalls seeing her half-brother lying in the Hendry County Hospital, dead or alive memory still blank, having suffered a head concussion from a tree hanging and subsequent release of noose via a knife used by Owens and provided by Popeye, Pablo as witness.

    I have to confess: I just use the recipe off the back of the Toll House bag, but when I want to go ‘top shelf’ I substitute Ghirardelli semi-sweet chips for the Nestle ones. Definitely use butter, not margarine. Sometimes I even like to go 50/50 with chocolate chips and peanut butter chips. Enjoy!

    Love,
    Crusty

  280. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 11, 2015 at 5:48 pm #

    Nancy R Owens:
    Fishe files. Same thing. I just can’t ever remember how to spell “fishe, fiche, fische, etc. and I was too lazy to look it up. I did have access to the “Fishe” scrolls as did everybody else.

    fishe files? You have no clue what you’re talking about. You had no access to the fiche files. You’re too lazy to create a coherent story which is why we keep calling you on it.

  281. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 11, 2015 at 5:49 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    In this exchange with Dr. Ken, you answered “Yes” to a question as to whether you had gotten the name out of the Bible:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2015/01/the-occasional-open-thread-la-usurpadora/#comment-347419

    in 2014 you said:

    “The name “Obama” was chosen because it was in the Bible and because there were a ton of families by that name in the Hawaiian files.”

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2014/11/word-salad/#comment-344701

    In 2013 you said:

    “‘Obama’ is not his name and both certs are fake. The ‘Obama’ comes from the Bible and this was the con used to lead the Christian sheeple in ’84.”

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/taitz-involved-in-criminal-conspiracy/#comment-238748

    Damn doc did you really have to drop the hammer? So once again Nancy is shown proof that her story continues to change and is entirely full of crud.

  282. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 11, 2015 at 5:52 pm #

    Nancy R Owens:
    2. Nancy Ruth Owens types in blank green form.

    Umm in this case you wouldn’t be typing in a blank green form. Since the green background is merely security paper that the original was copied onto.

    So even in your claims of forgery you can’t get something that simple correct.

    And you didn’t answer Kate’s question.

  283. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 11, 2015 at 5:54 pm #

    Kate: When NRO talks about the info she received that was allegedly so helpful in regards to the birth certificate, her story falls apart even further. The info was supposed to be that a birth certificate was not necessary in Hawaii to get a Driver’s License or other I.D. as long as you had a family bible and there was a birth announcement in the newspaper. How the hell can that be any assistance or lead someone to forge a birth certificate from Hawaii when the big find is supposed to be that you don’t need a b.c.?

    I thought she claimed the BC was necessary to get Obama student loans in 1985 because Reagan? That’s what she claimed on RC Radio.

    Lol nowhere in Hawaii law can you use a family bible to get a driver’s license.

  284. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 11, 2015 at 5:56 pm #

    Nancy R Owens: The answer is that, as stated over and over again, the BC was needed so that Obama could attend college as an American citizen thus be granted four years of college instead of the two years alloted by Reagan’s educational programs.

    Ah this chestnut again? What was the “educational program” Reagan had that required 4 years instead of two?

    You have a problem though since your timeline is off. Obama already graduated from Columbia before the period of time you claimed to forge the short form which you claimed you originally forged in 1985.

  285. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 11, 2015 at 6:05 pm #

    Newspaper archives on microfiche, perhaps. That’s the term that sticks in my head because that’s the term used during my studies of Journalism. When I requested the records at the front desk of the local library, if I recall correctly, what I requested was the microfiche. And, that’s what I was presumably given.

    Now, what I signed in as is most likely my AKA identity, “Molly Ayala.”

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I really don’t know whether Hawaii was using microfilm reels or microfiche in 1961. The only thing a private citizen could have access to of this nature was the 1961 newspaper archives at the public library, which list the Obama birth, but not the first name.

  286. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 11, 2015 at 6:09 pm #

    Yeah, in your dreams. Did Scalia or Nancy D’Alessandro Pelosi alter the official records? It’s certainly possible and highly probable. As for graduating from any college prior to 1985 plus two to four years, not on your life!

    Newspaper archives on microfiche, perhaps. That’s the term that sticks in my head because that’s the term used during my studies of Journalism. When I requested the records at the front desk of the local library, if I recall correctly, what I requested was the microfiche. And, that’s what I was presumably given.

    Now, what I signed in as is most likely my AKA identity, “Molly Ayala.”

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I really don’t know whether Hawaii was using microfilm reels or microfiche in 1961. The only thing a private citizen could have access to of this nature was the 1961 newspaper archives at the public library, which list the Obama birth, but not the first name.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Ah this chestnut again?What was the “educational program” Reagan had that required 4 years instead of two?

    You have a problem though since your timeline is off.Obama already graduated from Columbia before the period of time you claimed to forge the short form which you claimed you originally forged in 1985.

  287. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 11, 2015 at 6:27 pm #

    The con was Griselda’s and the name was “approved” by Griselda because it was also in the Bible. As you can hear from RC’s radio show, he most certainly did not allow me, like Carl Gallups, any time to fully state my facts.

    The family, again murdered, was chosen because their son had a birth date within one day of Obama’s real birth date.

    At no time did RC ever invite me back. Nor, did he ever publicly acknowledge that I had, indeed, worked on several newspapers as a photo journalist.

    I dare RC to state publicly if I ever was or was not a photojournalist. If he says, yes, then he should concede that he should have, in the name of national security, allowed me to fully develope the background story of Obama’s forged birth certificates, how they came to be, and why.

    RC should also name the newspapers that I worked on AS a photojournalist.

    Simple logic tells you, that, if you are a photojournalist, it is safe to presume you have a full understanding of basic black and white developmental techniques.

    I was, as stated before, almost murdered in 1985 and, with the exception of another four months working as a photojournalist in 1995 or 1996, so I saw no reason, despite my two year studies focusing on journalism, to go back to this career in the job market.

    Instead, I began working as a chemical assistant, primarily analysis of chemical bacterias, dextrans, I believe they were called, for the United States Sugar Corporation.

    Although I still have a copy of my degree, it might as well be sitting on a roll in a public restroom for all it’s worth.

    Journalists in this day and age are fighting an uphill battle if they ever try to bring the truth to light.

    The mailman is from Clewiston and he can easily identity me. You will never overcome that fact unless he decides to continue this lie in a courtroom. I don’t know if he ever has been in court with this “Chicago” statement. Or, if his official records, under seal, give the correct location which is Hendry County.

    The only I know for certain is that Jerome Corsi’s assertion that the mailman witnesses these events in Chicago is a complete falsehood.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    In this exchange with Dr. Ken, you answered “Yes” to a question as to whether you had gotten the name out of the Bible:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2015/01/the-occasional-open-thread-la-usurpadora/#comment-347419

    in 2014 you said:

    “The name “Obama” was chosen because it was in the Bible and because there were a ton of families by that name in the Hawaiian files.”

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2014/11/word-salad/#comment-344701

    In 2013 you said:

    “‘Obama’ is not his name and both certs are fake. The ‘Obama’ comes from the Bible and this was the con used to lead the Christian sheeple in ’84.”

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/taitz-involved-in-criminal-conspiracy/#comment-238748

  288. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 11, 2015 at 7:10 pm #

    Blank as in there was no name, date, signature, etc until I typed them in.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Umm in this case you wouldn’t be typing in a blank green form.Since the green background is merely security paper that the original was copied onto.

    So even in your claims of forgery you can’t get something that simple correct.

    And you didn’t answer Kate’s question.

  289. avatar
    Northland10 March 11, 2015 at 8:12 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Actually, the second and final SCOTUS ruling affirmed the District Court’s ruling that Mendoza-Martinez was not entitled to injunctive relief from a deportation order that had been issued to him several years after he served time for draft evasion.

    Have a citation for that? The case you quoted is Kennedy v Mendoza-Martinez which was argued, re-argued and decided in 1963. There was an earlier case, Mendoza-Martinez v. Mackey which remanded the case back to the district.

    Maybe you were confused with AFROYIM v. RUSK, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), a later case which so helps you point by stating:

    Citizenship in this Nation is a part of a co-operative affair. Its citizenry is the country and the country is its citizenry. The very nature of our free government makes it completely incongruous to have a rule of law under which a group of citizens temporarily in office can deprive another group of citizens of their citizenship. We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to, and does, protect every citizen of this Nation against a congressional forcible destruction of his citizenship, whatever his creed, color, or race. Our holding does no more than to give to this citizen that which is his own, a constitutional right to remain a citizen in a free country unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship.

    That later case does not appear to help your argument.

  290. avatar
    Suranis March 11, 2015 at 8:45 pm #

    Hey havent you all been all up tight and saying that obama declared himself an Indonesian citizen when he was 6?

    And that citiznship cannot be lost till this CLN that you have never shown issent out?

    Now you are saying that the USA MAILED this CLN to a 6 year old that stayed at the same address for 3 years, and the whistleblower MIGHT have plucked it out of the mail and then held onto it for 44 years in-case the 6 year old became president and some loser from the internet who would never to show it to anyone came along?

    Wow, this whistleblower must have had a huge interest in the citizenship of 6 year old boys and must hate the thought of papers being seen by non idiot eyes.

    SvenMagnussen: The US government is only required to make a reasonable effort to notify the former US citizen a CLN has been issued in their name. Generally, a reasonable effort is considered to be made by mailing a copy of the CLN to the renunciants last, known address. A failure to receive a copy of the CLN does not invalidate the government’s position it has forfeited its interest in the citizen’s citizenship after the citizen voluntarily renounced.

  291. avatar
    Benji Franklin March 11, 2015 at 8:51 pm #

    Daniel: Just curious; at what point of every actual expert, every knowledgeable amateur, every elected official, every judge…. pretty much everyone on the country who is sane….. at what point with everyone telling you you’re wrong, do you ever consider the possibility you might just be…. wrong?

    Is that ever going to happen?

    You asked that question of Sven. You might as well have asked it of Adrien Nash. The answer is ‘Yes’. They considered that possibility and rejected it – in part BECAUSE credible and official consensus opinion OVERWHELMINGLY disagrees with them.

    You see, folks like Sven and Adrien have a stake in these discussions that normally sane participants don’t have; their only real point, is that they are more intelligent and wiser than everyone else, especially experts from every field. The more people who disagree with them, the wiser Sven and Adrien are shown to be!

    When the madman is told every sane person on earth disagrees with him, he THEN knows for SURE, he’s the only one who is not mad.

    These folks find, in what should be devastating criticism and disproof of their theories, a kind of almost deifying validation of their superior intellect.

    They are the political version of sociopaths, law-declaring anarchists. Adrien sheepishly claims he’s just championing Mother Nature’s ‘laws’ which transcend US Law; Sven just brazenly tries to claim that his conclusions from a disconnected hodgepodge of misapprehended legal events, procedures, and cases, form not just a lunatic narrative, but can be reduced or expanded to become a cafeteria-like source of ‘Sven’s US Laws and Regulations which allow Sven to chart a triumphant ‘legal’ path to show us all that he is right and we are wrong, if only a tiny chink would appear in our 300 million person-plus conspiracy.

    Neither of them need to really know The Law. They never gave a crap about it until it became an opportunity to demonstrate their personal superiority. No, when you’re a deity, all that matters is what YOU think the law SHOULD be.

    It’s a popular idea with the very common herd public that they think that they are so far superior to; the common sense ideal that if there is no law supporting your personal opinion, then THERE OUGHT TO BE (such) A LAW!

    Ironically, it is as difficult for we commoners to empathize with dieties, as it must be for them to do so with each other. Fortunately, they have no problem empathizing with us because they know exactly how wrong we are; they NOW REMEMBER experiencing that failing in themselves prior to the moment when they realized they were, selectively, infallible.

    Adrien is all in a bit more than Sven, where this nutty extreme is concerned. This difference would become apparent, if an entity almost everyone recognized as ‘GOD’ appeared on Earth working otherwise inexplicable miracles, and confirmed in a booming voice that leveled the Rocky Mountains, Obama is Constitutionally, a Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America.

    Adrien would turn to Sven and say, “God is wrong! He just said Obama is an NBC”, and Sven would reply, “Well, I heard what he said too, and that’s not what I got out of it!.”

  292. avatar
    Rickey March 11, 2015 at 9:37 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Actually, the second and final SCOTUS ruling affirmed the District Court’s ruling that Mendoza-Martinez was not entitled to injunctive relief from a deportation order that had been issued to him several years after he served time for draft evasion.

    You’re wrong again. SCOTUS never said that Mendoza-Martinez wasn’t “entitled” to injunctive relief. SCOTUS ruled that the parties had agreed that the case as framed did not actually contemplate injunctive relief, so it was irrelevant.

    Once SCOTUS upheld the District Court ruling that Mendoza-Martinez was still as U.S. citizen, injunctive relief was unnecessary because a U.S. citizen cannot be deported.

  293. avatar
    Keith March 12, 2015 at 12:29 am #

    Benji Franklin: You asked that question of Sven. You might as well have asked it of a fence post

    FIFY

  294. avatar
    Kate March 12, 2015 at 2:07 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: I thought she claimed the BC was necessary to get Obama student loans in 1985 because Reagan?That’s what she claimed on RC Radio.

    Lol nowhere in Hawaii law can you use a family bible to get a driver’s license.

    But I told NRO long ago that there were no special programs enacted by Reagan. She adds these stories with the belief that nobody will verify anything she claims, that we’ll just be gullible and believe. The whole idea behind getting a b.c. from Hawaii was because their rules were allegedly different. The rule that was different that she quoted, “the Bible and a newspaper announcement” being allegedly accepted as proof of birth has nothing to do with forging a birth certificate. Why would you go to the trouble of going to Hawaii to find someone who supposedly fits the role of your half-brother when you still have to forge a b.c.? What was easier about forging a b.c. that said a child was born in HI rather than one that claimed he was born in FL? There’s no benefit with a Hawaiian b.c. for a forger if the claim was that all you needed was an announcement in the paper for the birth and a family bible that listed the name and date of birth and the DOH would supposedly supply you with a b.c. or I.D.? The cartel (LOL!) could have just as easily forged a b.c. for FL, using the real parents names and forging their signatures. That’s what I was trying to get at, Dr. Ken, when I was asking Nancy about her alleged forgery of the b.c. Hope that makes sense 🙂

  295. avatar
    Kate March 12, 2015 at 2:22 am #

    Nancy R Owens:
    The con was Griselda’s and the name was “approved” by Griselda because it was also in the Bible. As you can hear from RC’s radio show, he most certainly did not allow me, like Carl Gallups, any time to fully state my facts.

    (SNIPPED B.S. THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WAS ASKED, THIS IS TYPICAL OF NANCY WHEN SHE CAN’T ANSWER QUESTIONS)

    The only I know for certain is that Jerome Corsi’s assertion that the mailman witnesses these events in Chicago is a complete falsehood.

    The show Nancy refers to is from 7/13 and is listed on the archives under “The Lies of Mike Zullo and Carl Gallups.” Her call starts about 41 minutes into the show. Listen to her dodge questions and how she thinks a radio interview means she gets to talk nonstop for as long as she likes. Sounds like Orly!

  296. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 12, 2015 at 5:46 am #

    So in other words you have no flippin clue what you’re talking about. His name wasn’t on the newspaper archives. so again doc catches you in another lie.

    Nancy R Owens:
    Newspaper archives on microfiche, perhaps. That’s the term that sticks in my head because that’s the term used during my studies of Journalism. When I requested the records at the front desk of the local library, if I recall correctly, what I requested was the microfiche. And, that’s what I was presumably given.

    Now, what I signed in as is most likely my AKA identity, “Molly Ayala.”

  297. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 12, 2015 at 5:49 am #

    Nancy R Owens:
    Yeah, in your dreams. Did Scalia or Nancy D’Alessandro Pelosi alter the official records? It’s certainly possible and highly probable. As for graduating from any college prior to 1985 plus two to four years, not on your life!

    Newspaper archives on microfiche, perhaps. That’s the term that sticks in my head because that’s the term used during my studies of Journalism. When I requested the records at the front desk of the local library, if I recall correctly, what I requested was the microfiche. And, that’s what I was presumably given.

    Now, what I signed in as is most likely my AKA identity, “Molly Ayala.”

    You’re still going on about Nancy Pelosi who had no relation to your conspiracy theory and whose last name you got bailed on got spelling it wrong. Sorry crazy lady but Obama graduated Columbia a few years before 1985

  298. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 12, 2015 at 5:52 am #

    You were never invited in the first place. You called in. You got a half hour to lie your butt off and got called on each and every one of your lies. So I guess this is your admission that you were wrong to call me a liar when I said you originally pulled the name from the bible. That was your claim and then you claimed it was some other Obama family which didn’t exist at the time. As usual as time goes by you modify your story.

    Nancy R Owens:
    The con was Griselda’s and the name was “approved” by Griselda because it was also in the Bible. As you can hear from RC’s radio show, he most certainly did not allow me, like Carl Gallups, any time to fully state my facts.

    The family, again murdered, was chosen because their son had a birth date within one day of Obama’s real birth date.

    At no time did RC ever invite me back. Nor, did he ever publicly acknowledge that I had, indeed, worked on several newspapers as a photo journalist.

    I dare RC to state publicly if I ever was or was not a photojournalist. If he says, yes, then he should concede that he should have, in the name of national security, allowed me to fully develope the background story of Obama’s forged birth certificates, how they came to be, and why.

    RC should also name the newspapers that I worked on AS a photojournalist.

    Simple logic tells you, that, if you are a photojournalist, it is safe to presume you have a full understanding of basic black and white developmental techniques.

    I was, as stated before, almost murdered in 1985 and, with the exception of another four months working as a photojournalist in 1995 or 1996, so I saw no reason, despite my two year studies focusing on journalism, to go back to this career in the job market.

    Instead, I began working as a chemical assistant, primarily analysis of chemical bacterias, dextrans, I believe they were called, for the United States Sugar Corporation.

    Although I still have a copy of my degree, it might as well be sitting on a roll in a public restroom for all it’s worth.

    Journalists in this day and age are fighting an uphill battle if they ever try to bring the truth to light.

    The mailman is from Clewiston and he can easily identity me. You will never overcome that fact unless he decides to continue this lie in a courtroom. I don’t know if he ever has been in court with this “Chicago” statement. Or, if his official records, under seal, give the correct location which is Hendry County.

    The only I know for certain is that Jerome Corsi’s assertion that the mailman witnesses these events in Chicago is a complete falsehood.

  299. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 12, 2015 at 5:57 am #

    Lol you seem to think posting an image of you being a “photo editor” in a community college newspaper counts as a photojournalist. Also during the time you claim to be one you also claim to have been a drug mule and assassin. The way you retcon your own boring life is hilarious. Now you’re claiming you were a chemist? This is a new story of yours.

  300. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 12, 2015 at 6:01 am #

    Nancy R Owens:
    Blank as in there was no name, date, signature, etc until I typed them in.

    black like the thoughts going through your head. There wouldn’t be a blank security paper for the data to be typed on. You also originally claimed to have made the short form in 1985 despite the short form not being a standard in Hawaii at that time.

  301. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 12, 2015 at 6:56 am #

    Suranis:
    Heyhavent you all been all up tight and saying that obama declared himself an Indonesian citizen when he was 6?

    And that citiznship cannot be lost till this CLN that you have never shown issent out?

    Now you are saying that the USA MAILED this CLN to a 6 year old that stayed at the same address for 3 years, and the whistleblower MIGHT have plucked it out of the mail and then held onto it for 44 years in-case the 6 year old became president and some loser from the internet who would never to show it to anyone came along?

    Wow, this whistleblower must have had a huge interest in the citizenship of 6 year old boys and must hate the thought of papers being seen by non idiot eyes.

    To hear Obots tell it, pre-trial disovery was completed and nothing incriminating was found so the case was dismissed. In fact, all eligibility cases have been dismissed before discovery of the evidence could begin.

    All it takes is one interrogative questionaire for Obama to answer under oath, “Did you naturalize as a U.S. citizen in Los Angeles, CA, 1983?

  302. avatar
    faceman March 12, 2015 at 7:05 am #

    SvenMagnussen: T

    All it takes is one interrogative questionaire for Obama to answer under oath, “Did you naturalize as a U.S. citizen in Los Angeles, CA, 1983?

    And when he answered under oath “No I did not naturalize as a US citizen in Los Angetes, Ca 1983. I never gave up my citizenship in 1968,” are we supposed to believe that you would do an Emily Latella (“Never mind.”)

    And don’t give me any BS about ‘rebuttal evidence’ from your ‘whistleblowers.’ All it would take is to see the alleged CLN now. (Or is this CLN on a par with LDS’s Kenayn BC?)

  303. avatar
    Bovril March 12, 2015 at 7:10 am #

    Actually Svennies’s documents haven’t even managed to rise to the level of either LDS’s or the “Bomford” BC.

    These actually had some visible presence as opposed to the wholly imaginary and invisible documents of Sven

  304. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 12, 2015 at 8:04 am #

    August 9, 2012 “answer of Barack Obama” in the Kentucky ballot challenge of House v. Obama: Barack Obama, through his attorney, J. Scott Wantland, once and for all denies that he was ever a citizen of Indonesia.

    “Obama denies ever becoming an Indonesian citizen.”

    I would remind readers that the US Department of State made a similar denial in another case in 2009.

    Links here:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/10/obama-denies-indonesian-citizenship/

    So, Sven, unless you have some evidence to the contrary, I think this question is settled.

    SvenMagnussen: All it takes is one interrogative questionaire for Obama to answer under oath, “Did you naturalize as a U.S. citizen in Los Angeles, CA, 1983?

  305. avatar
    Lupin March 12, 2015 at 8:08 am #

    Bovril:
    Actually Svennies’s documents haven’t even managed to rise to the level of either LDS’s or the “Bomford” BC.

    These actually had some visible presence as opposed to the wholly imaginary and invisible documents of Sven

    Sven could sort of get away with invisible docs if his scenario made sense, but we have clearly established that there’s no way on Earth things could have happened the way he described.

  306. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 12, 2015 at 8:12 am #

    SvenMagnussen: To hear Obots tell it, pre-trial disovery was completed and nothing incriminating was found so the case was dismissed. In fact, all eligibility cases have been dismissed before discovery of the evidence could begin.

    All it takes is one interrogative questionaire for Obama to answer under oath, “Did you naturalize as a U.S. citizen in Los Angeles, CA, 1983?

    And then all Obama would have to say is no. Then the defense would ask what proof do you have that a natural born citizen like Obama would even need to naturalize and when you present nothing the case is dismissed once again.

  307. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 12, 2015 at 8:50 am #

    I gave you the information. You’re not doing any research.

    Kate: But I told NRO long ago that there were no special programs enacted by Reagan.She adds these stories with the belief that nobody will verify anything she claims, that we’ll just be gullible and believe.The whole idea behind getting a b.c. from Hawaii was because their rules were allegedly different.The rule that was different that she quoted, “the Bible and a newspaper announcement” being allegedly accepted as proof of birth has nothing to do with forging a birth certificate.Why would you go to the trouble of going to Hawaii to find someone who supposedly fits the role of your half-brother when you still have to forge a b.c.?What was easier about forging a b.c. that said a child was born in HI rather than one that claimed he was born in FL?There’s no benefit with a Hawaiian b.c. for a forger if the claim was that all you needed was an announcement in the paper for the birth and a family bible that listed the name and date of birth and the DOH would supposedly supply you with a b.c. or I.D.?The cartel (LOL!) could have just as easily forged a b.c. for FL, using the real parents names and forging their signatures.That’s what I was trying to get at, Dr. Ken, when I was asking Nancy about her alleged forgery of the b.c.Hope that makes sense

  308. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 12, 2015 at 8:51 am #

    I gave you the information. You’re not doing any research.

    Kate: But I told NRO long ago that there were no special programs enacted by Reagan.She adds these stories with the belief that nobody will verify anything she claims, that we’ll just be gullible and believe.The whole idea behind getting a b.c. from Hawaii was because their rules were allegedly different.The rule that was different that she quoted, “the Bible and a newspaper announcement” being allegedly accepted as proof of birth has nothing to do with forging a birth certificate.Why would you go to the trouble of going to Hawaii to find someone who supposedly fits the role of your half-brother when you still have to forge a b.c.?What was easier about forging a b.c. that said a child was born in HI rather than one that claimed he was born in FL?There’s no benefit with a Hawaiian b.c. for a forger if the claim was that all you needed was an announcement in the paper for the birth and a family bible that listed the name and date of birth and the DOH would supposedly supply you with a b.c. or I.D.?The cartel (LOL!) could have just as easily forged a b.c. for FL, using the real parents names and forging their signatures.That’s what I was trying to get at, Dr. Ken, when I was asking Nancy about her alleged forgery of the b.c.Hope that makes sense

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Ah this chestnut again?What was the “educational program” Reagan had that required 4 years instead of two?

    You have a problem though since your timeline is off.Obama already graduated from Columbia before the period of time you claimed to forge the short form which you claimed you originally forged in 1985.

  309. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 12, 2015 at 8:54 am #

    I didn’t say I knew where the blank form had come from. I know what Griselda told me. What HI does and does not use is not relevant and doesn’t make my statements false. From your numerous comments, one thing is very, very clear to me. You are not doing any research.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: black like the thoughts going through your head.There wouldn’t be a blank security paper for the data to be typed on.You also originally claimed to have made the short form in 1985 despite the short form not being a standard in Hawaii at that time.

  310. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 12, 2015 at 8:57 am #

    You are not doing any research. Just shouting out negative statements. It is very clear to me that you are a bullshitter and an Obot. If you were to ever do any research, you’d find my statements about working for US Sugar in the chemistry lab analyzing dextrans is very true. You twisted my facts to somehow magically turn me into a chemist. Did you call up US Sugar and ask if I had ever worked there? No, of course you didn’t. It would defeat the purpose, wouldn’t it?

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater:
    Lol you seem to think posting an image of you being a “photo editor” in a community college newspaper counts as a photojournalist.Also during the time you claim to be one you also claim to have been a drug mule and assassin.The way you retcon your own boring life is hilarious.Now you’re claiming you were a chemist?This is a new story of yours.

  311. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 12, 2015 at 9:00 am #

    You are a true Obot who does not do research. If RC thought I was lying, he wouldn’t have been trying to shut me up like he did. He would have let me continuing talking to gather more info as ammunition. The fact that he wouldn’t let me talk shows that he clearly had something to fear and didn’t want me to get the word out about what’s truly going on.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater:
    You were never invited in the first place.You called in.You got a half hour to lie your butt off and got called on each and every one of your lies.So I guess this is your admission that you were wrong to call me a liar when I said you originally pulled the name from the bible.That was your claim and then you claimed it was some other Obama family which didn’t exist at the time.As usual as time goes by you modify your story.

  312. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 12, 2015 at 9:34 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    August 9, 2012 “answer of Barack Obama” in the Kentucky ballot challenge of House v. Obama: Barack Obama, through his attorney, J. Scott Wantland, once and for all denies that he was ever a citizen of Indonesia.

    “Obama denies ever becoming an Indonesian citizen.”

    I would remind readers that the US Department of State made a similar denial in another case in 2009.

    Links here:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/10/obama-denies-indonesian-citizenship/

    So, Sven, unless you have some evidence to the contrary, I think this question is settled.

    That’s an answer to a complaint where the attorney certifies “this pleading was mailed on the 6th day of September 12, 1012.”

    A pleading is not a sworn statement under oath. A deposition is used to discover facts. At the very end of his pleading, Obama asserted his “right to plea further and to amend as proof dictates.”

    If Obama were asked in a deposition if he naturalized as a US citizen in 1983, under oath, and his answer was, ” I deny I was ever an Indonesian citizens and I assert my right to amend my answer according to the proof presented,” then it is considered an admission that he naturalized as a US citizen in 1983.

  313. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 12, 2015 at 10:45 am #

    FOAD, Sven, just FOAD. Take Nancy and Obligedidiot with you, also those goal posts you keep moving every other minute. Those can go too.

  314. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 12, 2015 at 10:55 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: And then all Obama would have to say is no.Then the defense would ask what proof do you have that a natural born citizen like Obama would even need to naturalize and when you present nothing the case is dismissed once again.

    You are vaguely describing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The FRCP and the FRE are US law. Each time the FRCP and the FRE is amended, the entire FRCP and FRE is written into a Congressional Act. If the Congressional Act does not include changes by the Congress and is written as prescibed by order of SCOTUS, then the Congressional Act is deemed passed pursuant to the Judiciary Act, as amended. Amendments, additions and deletions are noted with a date and a short explanation. Contrary to what the Fogblow lawyers will tell you, there is no severaliability clause in the FRCP or FRE. An amendment to the FRCP or FRE enacted into US law by an ineligible President and held in trust by the Archivist of the US, an appointee of an ineligible President, voids the entire FRCP and FRE. And if you want to take it further, the Judiciary Act is held in trust as evidence of US law by the Archivist of the US, appointed by an ineligible President is voided.

    In a civil suit, an allegation the President is ineligible to hold the office of the President is considered to be true until a determination of the merits of the allegation are determined. The merit of the allegation is determined after a finding of fact after a trial after discovery and after the defendant’s answer. The court must proceed as if the President is ineligible until there is a determination the allegation is without merit.

  315. avatar
    faceman March 12, 2015 at 10:55 am #

    SvenMagnussen:
    If Obama were asked in a deposition if he naturalized as a US citizen in 1983, under oath, and his answer was, ” I deny I was ever an Indonesian citizens and I assert my right to amend my answer according to the proof presented,” then it is considered an admission that he naturalized as a US citizen in 1983.

    1) That’s not what he said. He was reserving the right to respond to further allegations (You know, call rebuttal witnesses)
    2) Even if was what he meant, it is NOT an admission about anything.
    3) It would be easy to settle the issue once and for all if you would just produce the alleged CLN.
    4) Failure to produce said CLN is considered an admission that it does not exist.
    5) Failure to produce documentation of Obama’s alleged naturalization in 1983 is considered an admission that it didn’t happen, either.

  316. avatar
    Suranis March 12, 2015 at 10:58 am #

    Obama also swore that he was a Natural Born Citizen when he submitted his application for election (don’t know what its actually called) the first time around.

    I cant find it right this second, but I remember seeing it. Which is apparently good enough for Sven.

  317. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 12, 2015 at 11:00 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    FOAD, Sven, just FOAD. Take Nancy and Obligedidiot with you, also those goal posts you keep moving every other minute. Those can go too.

    Obama won’t lose his job. The only way the court has authority to take adverse action against a sitting President is after impeachment, trial and conviction in the Senate. Obama is fulfilling the will of the majority and can’t be punished for answering the call of the majority of the American people.

    On the other hand, all executive level federal officers will be fired, fired, and fired for failing to support the US Constitution pursuant to Article VI.

  318. avatar
    Rickey March 12, 2015 at 11:09 am #

    SvenMagnussen:
    If Obama were asked in a deposition if he naturalized as a US citizen in 1983, under oath, and his answer was, ” I deny I was ever an Indonesian citizens and I assert my right to amend my answer according to the proof presented,” then it is considered an admission that he naturalized as a US citizen in 1983.

    If he were asked that question (and it is never going to happen, and certainly not in any action brought by you), his answer would be one word: “No.”

    What’s your next question?

  319. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 12, 2015 at 11:10 am #

    SvenMagnussen: You are vaguely describing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The FRCP and the FRE are US law. Each time the FRCP and the FRE is amended, the entire FRCP and FRE is written into a Congressional Act.

    I’m describing exactly what would happen to you in court if your fantasy ever came true. You can’t just make accusations against the President in court without proof. The onus isn’t on the President to prove you’re wrong, the onus is on you to prove your claims.

    SvenMagnussen: In a civil suit, an allegation the President is ineligible to hold the office of the President is considered to be true until a determination of the merits of the allegation are determined. The merit of the allegation is determined after a finding of fact after a trial after discovery and after the defendant’s answer. The court must proceed as if the President is ineligible until there is a determination the allegation is without merit.

    No it is not. The onus doesn’t magically change in a civil suit. If I accused my neighbor of defecating on my lawn, the onus would be on me to provide camera footage and proof of the incident happening. I would have to show my neighbor was actually doing what I was saying. The onus is not on my neighbor to show he wasn’t the one dropping turd blossoms on my yard. Civil procedure is just another thing you don’t understand. The court wouldn’t proceed under your claim that the President is ineligible. You would have to prove your accusation.

  320. avatar
    Rickey March 12, 2015 at 11:12 am #

    SvenMagnussen:

    On the other hand, all executive level federal officers will be fired, fired, and fired for failing to support the US Constitution pursuant to Article VI.

    That will happen only in your fevered dreams.

    Obama will complete his second term, none of his appointees will be fired, and you will have wasted eight years of your life.

  321. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 12, 2015 at 11:17 am #

    Never produced? Interesting. The way these Obots talk, it’s as if it were out there written in gold somewhere. I figured Nancy D’Alessandro Pelosi and Scalia would have at least made the effort to forge these credentials as well in order to CYA.

    5)FAILURE TO PRODUCE documentation of Obama’s alleged naturalization in 1983 is considered an admission that it didn’t happen, either.

    faceman: 1)That’s not what he said.He was reserving the right to respond to further allegations (You know, call rebuttal witnesses)
    2)Even if was what he meant, it is NOT an admission about anything.
    3)It would be easy to settle the issue once and for all if you would just produce the alleged CLN.
    4)Failure to produce said CLN is considered an admission that it does not exist.
    5)Failure to produce documentation of Obama’s alleged naturalization in 1983 is considered an admission that it didn’t happen, either.

  322. avatar
    Rickey March 12, 2015 at 11:23 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater:

    The onus doesn’t magically change in a civil suit.If I accused my neighbor of defecating on my lawn, the onus would be on me to provide camera footage and proof of the incident happening.I would have to show my neighbor was actually doing what I was saying.The onus is not on my neighbor to show he wasn’t the one dropping turd blossoms on my yard.Civil procedure is just another thing you don’t understand.The court wouldn’t proceed under your claim that the President is ineligible.You would have to prove your accusation.

    Sven read somewhere that in motion practice (e.g., a motion to dismiss for lack of standing) a plaintiff’s allegations are presumed to be true, and from that he concludes that under all circumstances a plaintiff’s allegations are presumed to be true.

    Of course, he doesn’t know what he is talking about. A plaintiff in a personal injury case may claim to have suffered a broken leg, but it isn’t up to the defense to dispute that claim unless and until the plaintiff provides medical records and expert medical testimony to back up his claim.

  323. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 12, 2015 at 11:24 am #

    Suranis:
    Obama also swore that he was a Natural Born Citizen when he submitted his application for election (don’t know what its actually called) the first time around.

    I cant find it right this second, but I remember seeing it. Which is apparently good enough for Sven.

    As I recall, Obama swore an affidavit he was eligible to appear on the ballot. Some states allow a naturalized citizen to appear on the ballot as a matter of exercising their First Amendment right.

    Further, this was right after an Assistant Secretary of State in the Bush administration cancelled Obama’s CLN in 2008 and AG Mukasey cancelled Obama’s certificate of naturalization in 2008. Obama could believe and swear under oath he is a natural born citizen after his CLN and Certificate of Naturalization was cancelled.

    In 2009, a year after Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization was cancelled, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held a cancelled certificate of naturalization did not affect the citizenship status of the subject and only effected the proof the subject was a naturalized citizen. The subject is still a US citizen that needs to correct or amend and replace their certificate. DHS did not update it’s rules and regulations to reflect the Ninth Circuit’s opinion until 2011. Consequently, the US government took the position a cancelled certificate of naturalization adminstratively denaturalized a citizen until 2011 when if officially changed it rules.

    Some (most) people believe their citizenship status is effected when they voluntarily renounce. Not true. Your citizenship status doesn’t change until a CLN is issued. Most likely, Obama believed he was a natural born citizen because his CLN and Certificate of Naturalization were cancelled in 2008.

    Thinking something is true doesn’t make it true.

  324. avatar
    J.D. Sue March 12, 2015 at 11:25 am #

    SvenMagnussen: voids the entire FRCP and FRE.

    —-

    Gee, once you get rid of the FRCP, how do you expect to get anywhere in court?
    Defendants won’t have to answer your complaint or produce discovery, since there will no longer be any rules they must abide by.

  325. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 12, 2015 at 11:34 am #

    SvenMagnussen: As I recall, Obama swore an affidavit he was eligible to appear on the ballot. Some states allow a naturalized citizen to appear on the ballot as a matter of exercising their First Amendment right.

    Which states allow that? Where is that in their laws?

    SvenMagnussen: Further, this was right after an Assistant Secretary of State in the Bush administration cancelled Obama’s CLN in 2008 and AG Mukasey cancelled Obama’s certificate of naturalization in 2008. Obama could believe and swear under oath he is a natural born citizen after his CLN and Certificate of Naturalization was cancelled.

    And who was that who cancelled it? You do know there are about 23 assistant secretaries of state at any given time.

    SvenMagnussen: In 2009, a year after Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization was cancelled, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held a cancelled certificate of naturalization did not affect the citizenship status of the subject and only effected the proof the subject was a naturalized citizen. The subject is still a US citizen that needs to correct or amend and replace their certificate

    Which case was this?

    SvenMagnussen: Some (most) people believe their citizenship status is effected when they voluntarily renounce. Not true. Your citizenship status doesn’t change until a CLN is issued. Most likely, Obama believed he was a natural born citizen because his CLN and Certificate of Naturalization were cancelled in 2008.

    Which has no relevance since Obama was always an American citizen and never renounced.

  326. avatar
    Daniel March 12, 2015 at 11:43 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Thinking something is true doesn’t make it true.

    And the Irony Meter goes OFF THE SCALE!!!!

  327. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 12, 2015 at 11:55 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Thinking something is true doesn’t make it true.

    Do you whisper to yourself in the mirror while you write this?

  328. avatar
    Dave B. March 12, 2015 at 12:18 pm #

    Which once again raises my last question. Geez.

    SvenMagnussen: An amendment to the FRCP or FRE enacted into US law by an ineligible President and held in trust by the Archivist of the US, an appointee of an ineligible President, voids the entire FRCP and FRE. And if you want to take it further, the Judiciary Act is held in trust as evidence of US law by the Archivist of the US, appointed by an ineligible President is voided.

    In a civil suit, an allegation the President is ineligible to hold the office of the President is considered to be true until a determination of the merits of the allegation are determined. The merit of the allegation is determined after a finding of fact after a trial after discovery and after the defendant’s answer. The court must proceed as if the President is ineligible until there is a determination the allegation is without merit.

  329. avatar
    JoZeppy March 12, 2015 at 12:19 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: You are vaguely describing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The FRCP and the FRE are US law. Each time the FRCP and the FRE is amended, the entire FRCP and FRE is written into a Congressional Act. If the Congressional Act does not include changes by the Congress and is written as prescibed by order of SCOTUS, then the Congressional Act is deemed passed pursuant to the Judiciary Act, as amended. Amendments, additions and deletions are noted with a date and a short explanation. Contrary to what the Fogblow lawyers will tell you, there is no severaliability clause in the FRCP or FRE. An amendment to the FRCP or FRE enacted into US law by an ineligible President and held in trust by the Archivist of the US, an appointee of an ineligible President, voids the entire FRCP and FRE. And if you want to take it further, the Judiciary Act is held in trust as evidence of US law by the Archivist of the US, appointed by an ineligible President is voided.

    In a civil suit, an allegation the President is ineligible to hold the office of the President is considered to be true until a determination of the merits of the allegation are determined. The merit of the allegation is determined after a finding of fact after a trial after discovery and after the defendant’s answer. The court must proceed as if the President is ineligible until there is a determination the allegation is without merit.

    As usual, Sven gets everything wrong. The Supreme Court revises the FRE and Fed. R. Civ. P pursuant to an enabling act. Congress then has the option to veto the changes. If Congress does not act, the revisions become part of the Rules.

    Secondly, as has been told to you countless times, you are confusing the standard under a Motion to Dismiss, and the burden of proof in a trial. A Motion to Dismiss is a motion where you are telling the judge that under no set of facts does the opposing party even have a case. In a Motion to Dismiss, facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party (usually the plaintiff), so in that single instant, the facts are generally assumed to be true as pled.

    HOWEVER, at trial, unless stipulated by the parties, a plaintiff must prove every fact they allege. The burden of proof firmly rests on the plaintiff to prove the facts of his case (albeit that in a civil context, that standard is a preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt required in criminal). That is why in every civil (as well as criminal) case, after the plaintiff finishes putting on his case, the defense will move for judgment for judgment as a matter of law (Fed. R. Civ. P. 50). So it is quite possible for a defendant to put no case on whatsoever, and still win. If the plaintiff fails to prove his case, once he rests, a defendant can stand up, and make a rule 50 motion, and if the judge isn’t satisfied with the evidence the plaintiff put forward, dismiss the case before the defendant has to call a single witness or put up a single piece of evidence. As has been pointed out countless times, you are creating a system where a defendant is required to prove his innocence. The idea that any whackadoodle can come off the street, make totally unsubstantiated claims against you, and you are required to disprove them is utter nonsense, if for only the reason that it is more difficult, if at times impossible, to prove a negative.

    And the theme of this story is the same as always. Thank you for playing, Sven, but you’re dead wrong as always.

  330. avatar
    Lupin March 12, 2015 at 12:24 pm #

    Rickey: Sven read somewhere that in motion practice (e.g., a motion to dismiss for lack of standing) a plaintiff’s allegations are presumed to be true, and from that he concludes that under all circumstances a plaintiff’s allegations are presumed to be true.

    Svenlandia’s laws seem suspiciously like the Queen of Hearts’ in ALICE.

    Sven, you’re a buffoon.

  331. avatar
    JoZeppy March 12, 2015 at 12:38 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: That’s an answer to a complaint where the attorney certifies “this pleading was mailed on the 6th day of September 12, 1012.”

    No, what you are describing is a certificate of service, found at the end of most filings…ironically enough, usually not a complaint however, since those are usually served by process servers.

    SvenMagnussen: A pleading is not a sworn statement under oath. A deposition is used to discover facts. At the very end of his pleading, Obama asserted his “right to plea further and to amend as proof dictates.”

    Quite to the contrary, all pleadings are governed by Rule 11, which states that every document an attorney of pro se party signs, the person is certifying, in part, that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, have evidentiary support, or will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation. So by signing a complaint or answer, the person signing is certifying that the information is true to the best of their knowledge.

    SvenMagnussen: If Obama were asked in a deposition if he naturalized as a US citizen in 1983, under oath, and his answer was, ” I deny I was ever an Indonesian citizens and I assert my right to amend my answer according to the proof presented,” then it is considered an admission that he naturalized as a US citizen in 1983.

    And the opposing party would object that the answer was non-responsive, and a court would compel a direct answer. In a deposition you are required to testify about things you know about. So the possible options to the question, are simply, “yes,” “no,” or “I don’t recall.” In this case the answer would be “no.”

  332. avatar
    faceman March 12, 2015 at 12:47 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:
    Some (most) people believe their citizenship status is effected when they voluntarily renounce. Not true. Your citizenship status doesn’t change until a CLN is issued. Most likely, Obama believed he was a natural born citizen because his CLN and Certificate of Naturalization were cancelled in 2008.

    Thinking something is true doesn’t make it true.

    Right back at you, oh ye who think that it doesn’t become official until the CLN is issued.

    Sorry, sockpuppet, the oath of renunciation takes effect when the oath is made. The CLN is merely acknowledgement that a valid oath was taken. A CLN is put on file in case the renouncer later tries to say he didn’t do it. The government does not ‘forfeit its interest’ in the former citizen, the citizen is the one forfeiting all the rights, responsibilities and benefits of being a citizen.

    But weren’t you just saying that a CLN WAS issued, and that it got lost in the mail, or something. I mean, how could it have been cancelled in 2008 if it was never issued?

    So let’s use your own logic: Once the CLN was cancelled, the renunciation was no longer valid. So even if your lie was true, by invalidating the oath of renunciation, his status as NBC was restored. (I mean, aren’t you the one who argued that Cruz became an NBC and eligible to be president when he Renounced his Canadian Citizenship?)

    But, dear sockpuppet, you can very easily settle the debate once and for all (on whether he renounced) by simply providing the (cancelled) CLN and (cancelled) naturalization.

    Failure to do so can only be interpreted as an admission that such documents don’t exist and that he didn’t actually renounce.

  333. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 12, 2015 at 1:11 pm #

    JoZeppy: As usual, Sven gets everything wrong. The Supreme Court revises the FRE and Fed. R. Civ. P pursuant to an enabling act. Congress then has the option to veto the changes. If Congress does not act, the revisions become part of the Rules.

    Secondly, as has been told to you countless times, you are confusing the standard under a Motion to Dismiss, and the burden of proof in a trial. A Motion to Dismiss is a motion where you are telling the judge that under no set of facts does the opposing party even have a case. In a Motion to Dismiss, facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party (usually the plaintiff), so in that single instant, the facts are generally assumed to be true as pled.

    HOWEVER, at trial, unless stipulated by the parties, a plaintiff must prove every fact they allege. The burden of proof firmly rests on the plaintiff to prove the facts of his case (albeit that in a civil context, that standard is a preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt required in criminal). That is why in every civil (as well as criminal) case, after the plaintiff finishes putting on his case, the defense will move for judgment for judgment as a matter of law (Fed. R. Civ. P. 50). So it is quite possible for a defendant to put no case on whatsoever, and still win. If the plaintiff fails to prove his case, once he rests, a defendant can stand up, and make a rule 50 motion, and if the judge isn’t satisfied with the evidence the plaintiff put forward, dismiss the case before the defendant has to call a single witness or put up a single piece of evidence. As has been pointed out countless times, you are creating a system where a defendant is required to prove his innocence. The idea that any whackadoodle can come off the street, make totally unsubstantiated claims against you, and you are required to disprove them is utter nonsense, if for only the reason that it is more difficult, if at times impossible, to prove a negative.

    And the theme of this story is the same as always. Thank you for playing, Sven, but you’re dead wrong as always.

    I’m staying with the FRCP and FRE is US law. Only the President can enact a Congressional Act into US law unless it is vetoed. I’m not familar wth any vetoes being overridden by Congress to enact any federal statutes to US law during Obama’s tenure.

    SCOTUS is not constitutionally authorized to create US law. Under the Doctrine of Delegation of Authority, SCOTUS is authorized to prescribe rules changes to Congress. Congress maintains its authority to enact legislation into a Congressional Act even though SCOTUS is writing the rules changes. Without a veto, only the president can enact Congressional Acts into US law.

    From Wikipedia:

    Early Supreme Court cases also fully endorsed congressional authority to enact rules of procedure, and declined the opportunity to directly claim such authority for the courts under Article III of the United States Constitution.

    Wayman v. Southard, 23 U.S. 1 (1825), based this congressional power in the Necessary and Proper Clause. Livingston v. Story, 34 U.S. 632 (1835) based it in the congressional power to “ordain and establish” the lower federal courts under Article III. Act of Feb. 24, 1933, Pub. L. No. 371, 47 Stat. 904, later codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3772.

    Under the Presentment Clause, all Congressional Acts must be presented to the President for a consideration of a veto of the Congressional Act as a check on the power of the Congress. The President enacts the FRCP and FRE into US law. SCOTUS does not have authority to enact Congressional Act into federal statute and Congress must comply with the Presentment Clause and can only enact Congressional Acts into law after a veto with a 2/3 majority vote. The Presentment Clause forecloses the opportunity for unilateral action for rules of the court. The Presentment Clause only requires the President to sign vetoes. Unsigned Congressional Acts enacted into US law are enacted by the President.

    For the sake of argument, and I brought this up in my complaint to object to the FRCP and FRE, Obama has appointed two SCOTUS justices who vote on amendments to the FRCP and FRE. I objected to those two justices assuming their seats on SCOTUS after a violation of the Appointments Clause after an appointment by an ineligible President. Congress doesn’t have authority to delegate rules changes under the Enabling Act to a panel with two justices who were appointed by an ineligible President.

    All US law, including the FRCP and FRE, and all other federal rules, regulations, executive orders, treaties, and proclamations are held in trust as evidence of law by the Archivist of the US. The Archivist of the US is appointed by the President in violation of the Appointments Clause. An ineligible President voids the trust maintained by his appointee that the constitutional republic is a nation of laws.

    There’s no way around. When it is alleged the President is ineligible, the allegation must be addressed and investigated.

  334. avatar
    Dave B. March 12, 2015 at 1:15 pm #

    Which raises that question once again.

    SvenMagnussen: Only the President can enact a Congressional Act into US law unless it is vetoed.

  335. avatar
    y_p_w March 12, 2015 at 1:20 pm #

    faceman: Right back at you, oh ye who think that it doesn’t become official until the CLN is issued.

    Sorry, sockpuppet, the oath of renunciation takes effect when the oath is made.The CLN is merely acknowledgement that a valid oath was taken. A CLN is put on file in case the renouncer later tries to say he didn’t do it.The government does not ‘forfeit its interest’ in the former citizen, the citizen is the one forfeiting all the rights, responsibilities and benefits of being a citizen.

    As I previously stated, filing the Certificate of Loss of Nationality is but an administrative procedure. You’re absolutely right that it doesn’t affect when the US government considers one’s citizenship to be renounced.

    About the only thing I can find from the State Dept is that they state that they can’t act on keeping out someone who is a US citizen until such time as the CLN is filed. However, if the US government finds that someone took advantage of something that is reserved only for US citizens, then that person may be in a world of hurt for doing something illegal.

    Again, it’s an administrative procedure. The time that A CLN takes to be filed doesn’t affect when a person is officially no longer a US national. On a similar note, the filing date of a birth certificate doesn’t determines the official date of birth of a child, nor does the filing of a completed marriage license determine when a couple has been officially married. Filing a CLN is clerical. Granted, some stuff can slip through the cracks, but they’ll deal with it when they find out.

    Working in Silicon Valley, I work with a lot of Chinese nationals. I know one who got naturalized as a US citizen, was applying for a US passport, but was talking about keeping his unexpired Chinese passport and perhaps using it to get into China and the US passport to get into the US. The point was to avoid having to pay for a visa. Of course the naturalization process meant that he renounced his Chinese citizenship even if it wasn’t before a Chinese consular officer. Additionally, that passport was going to expire, and at that point they might already know. Also – eventually he was going to need to get a Chinese visa, at which point they would have figured out. To the Chinese government, it wouldn’t have mattered when they filed the paperwork, but that this guy did something he wasn’t supposed to do.

  336. avatar
    Jim March 12, 2015 at 1:24 pm #

    Oh look, the president is going to be in Phoenix again…
    http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2015/03/obama_to_visit_phoenix_va.php
    He just comes and goes as he pleases, all the time thumbing his nose at A/Z and the birthers. He must really be scared of A/Z!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

  337. avatar
    Punchmaster via Mobile March 12, 2015 at 1:26 pm #

    Jim:
    Oh look, the president is going to be in Phoenix again…
    http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2015/03/obama_to_visit_phoenix_va.php
    He just comes and goes as he pleases, all the time thumbing his nose at A/Z and the birthers. He must really be scared of A/Z!!!BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    If I remember correctly, birthers made no effort to explain away the last time Obama visited Arizona, without incident.

  338. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 12, 2015 at 1:37 pm #

    JoZeppy: No, what you are describing is a certificate of service, found at the end of most filings…ironically enough, usually not a complaint however, since those are usually served by process servers.

    Quite to the contrary, all pleadings are governed by Rule 11, which states that every document an attorney of pro se party signs, the person is certifying, in part, that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, have evidentiary support, or will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation. So by signing a complaint or answer, the person signing is certifying that the information is true to the best of their knowledge.

    And the opposing party would object that the answer was non-responsive, and a court would compel a direct answer. In a deposition you are required to testify about things you know about. So the possible options to the question, are simply, “yes,” “no,” or “I don’t recall.” In this case the answer would be “no.”

    You begin with a conversation about an answer to a complaint as if it is sworn testimony even though it contains language the answers may change according to proof. And then close with conversation about certification the plaintiff must make with respect to having or will obtain evidence to support the allegations.

    Obots seem to believe discovery is for verification of evidence obtained before the complaint is filed and will obtain does not apply when the President is accused of ineligibility.

  339. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 12, 2015 at 1:43 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Obots seem to believe discovery is for verification of evidence obtained before the complaint is filed and will obtain does not apply when the President is accused of ineligibility.

    You seem to think the standard rules of evidence, discovery and courtroom procedure do not apply when you accuse the president of being ineligible simply because you think he isn’t. You’ve provided no proof, evidence, our logical reason for such belief. Like most birthers you also think discovery means you get to have anything and everything in the President’s life opened up to scrutiny. You also seem to think that you can present absolutely nothing in court and tell the judge “I have proof Obama naturalized but I don’t have to present it.”

  340. avatar
    J.D. Sue March 12, 2015 at 2:03 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: voids the entire FRCP and FRE

    —-

    Sven, I’ll ask you again: Once you get rid of the FRCP, how do you expect to get anywhere in court? Defendants won’t have to answer your complaint or produce discovery, since there will no longer be any rules they must abide by.

  341. avatar
    Jim March 12, 2015 at 2:33 pm #

    And the government files its appeal for the Texas immigration case…
    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/feds-appeal-judges-stay-deportation-deferrals-n322361

    The federal government argues in its filing that the Constitution does not entitle states to intrude in the “uniquely federal domain” of immigration enforcement. “Yet the district court has taken the extraordinary step of allowing a state to override the United States’ exercise of its enforcement discretion in the immigration laws,” the federal government argues.

  342. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 12, 2015 at 2:52 pm #

    J.D. Sue: —-

    Sven, I’ll ask you again: Once you get rid of the FRCP, how do you expect to get anywhere in court?Defendants won’t have to answer your complaint or produce discovery, since there will no longer be any rules they must abide by.

    The Judiciary Act described the conduct of the court and cases prior to the Rules Enabling Act. Discovery was in front of judge. I moved for my case to be transferred to a judge not in active service on Jan 20, 2009.

  343. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 12, 2015 at 3:15 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: The Judiciary Act described the conduct of the court and cases prior to the Rules Enabling Act. Discovery was in front of judge. I moved for my case to be transferred to a judge not in active service on Jan 20, 2009.

    Which will get you nowhere. You don’t get to judge shop.

  344. avatar
    JoZeppy March 12, 2015 at 3:23 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: I’m staying with the FRCP and FRE is US law. Only the President can enact a Congressional Act into US law unless it is vetoed. I’m not familar wth any vetoes being overridden by Congress to enact any federal statutes to US law during Obama’s tenure.
    SCOTUS is not constitutionally authorized to create US law. Under the Doctrine of Delegation of Authority, SCOTUS is authorized to prescribe rules changes to Congress. Congress maintains its authority to enact legislation into a Congressional Act even though SCOTUS is writing the rules changes. Without a veto, only the president can enact Congressional Acts into US law.

    And you would still be wrong. The FRE and Fed. R. Civ. P. are not laws. They’re rules. Thus the word “rules” in each one. The congress passed an enabling act giving the Court the power to promulgate rules of practice (48 Stat. 1064, 28 U.S.C. 2072). It’s nothing unusual, shocking, or requiring legislative or executive action.

    SvenMagnussen: From Wikipedia:

    Early Supreme Court cases also fully endorsed congressional authority to enact rules of procedure, and declined the opportunity to directly claim such authority for the courts under Article III of the United States Constitution.
    Wayman v. Southard, 23 U.S. 1 (1825), based this congressional power in the Necessary and Proper Clause. Livingston v. Story, 34 U.S. 632 (1835) based it in the congressional power to “ordain and establish” the lower federal courts under Article III. Act of Feb. 24, 1933, Pub. L. No. 371, 47 Stat. 904, later codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3772.

    Which is all pretty irrelevant. Congress has the power…but they delegated it to the SCOTUS in 1934 (Pub. L. 415). The Supreme Court writes the Rules.

    SvenMagnussen: Under the Presentment Clause, all Congressional Acts must be presented to the President for a consideration of a veto of the Congressional Act as a check on the power of the Congress. The President enacts the FRCP and FRE into US law. SCOTUS does not have authority to enact Congressional Act into federal statute and Congress must comply with the Presentment Clause and can only enact Congressional Acts into law after a veto with a 2/3 majority vote. The Presentment Clause forecloses the opportunity for unilateral action for rules of the court. The Presentment Clause only requires the President to sign vetoes. Unsigned Congressional Acts enacted into US law are enacted by the President.

    Which is all patently false. In 1934, a statute was passed by Congress and signed by the President giving the SCOTUS the power to prescribe rules of practice. The rules are then sent to Congress. Unless the rules effect a substantive right, no further action by Congress is required. If such action were required, you should be able to point me to an act of Congress, for every year, where it approved changes, because, every year there are usually some minor modifications.

    SvenMagnussen: For the sake of argument, and I brought this up in my complaint to object to the FRCP and FRE, Obama has appointed two SCOTUS justices who vote on amendments to the FRCP and FRE. I objected to those two justices assuming their seats on SCOTUS after a violation of the Appointments Clause after an appointment by an ineligible President. Congress doesn’t have authority to delegate rules changes under the Enabling Act to a panel with two justices who were appointed by an ineligible President.
    All US law, including the FRCP and FRE, and all other federal rules, regulations, executive orders, treaties, and proclamations are held in trust as evidence of law by the Archivist of the US. The Archivist of the US is appointed by the President in violation of the Appointments Clause. An ineligible President voids the trust maintained by his appointee that the constitutional republic is a nation of laws.
    There’s no way around. When it is alleged the President is ineligible, the allegation must be addressed and investigated.

    The rest of is meaningless word salad, that just doesn’t merit a response…I mean it doesn’t even have a foot in the real world.

  345. avatar
    JoZeppy March 12, 2015 at 3:59 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: You begin with a conversation about an answer to a complaint as if it is sworn testimony even though it contains language the answers may change according to proof. And then close with conversation about certification the plaintiff must make with respect to having or will obtain evidence to support the allegations.

    No, I simply pointed out that you confuse a whole series of unrelated things, and get most of them wrong (as usual). All documents filed in Court are subject to Rule 11 which required the attorney/party to have a solid basis in fact to them. You don’t have the option of answering untruthfully and say, “well if they can prove it, I’ll change my answer.” Your options in answering a complaint are pretty much Admit, Deny, or Lack sufficient knowledge (a bit of an oversimplification, but generally). And no, there isn’t language that the answers may change according to proof. Your job in answering a complaint is to answer to the best of your ability, based on the facts you have access to. Courts don’t take kindly in someone inserting weasel words that amount to, “yeah, go ahead and prove it.” Likewise, when asked a direct question that you have personal knowledge of, like, “were you naturalized” the obligation is to answer it truthfully and directly. Again, if you try to waltz around it, give a non-answer, and say, “unless you find other evidence” you will get a big smack down from a judge.

    SvenMagnussen: Obots seem to believe discovery is for verification of evidence obtained before the complaint is filed and will obtain does not apply when the President is accused of ineligibility.

    Birthers seem to think Discovery is a fishing expedition for them to prove up their unfounded nut ball claims, and any other dirt they can dig up. You have to have a reasonable foundation in reality to make a claim (as well as legal standing). If you don’t have the bare minimum to make a legal case, you don’t get to burden the President, or anyone else for that matter, with costly and time consuming discovery.

  346. avatar
    faceman March 12, 2015 at 4:20 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: I’m staying with the FRCP and FRE is US law. Only the President can enact a Congressional Act into US law unless it is vetoed. I’m not familar wth any vetoes being overridden by Congress to enact any federal statutes to US law during Obama’s tenure.

    etc., etc., etc.

    You’re turning into a broken record, sockpuppet. We’ve been over all this before. Maybe you need to see a doctor. They say memory loss could be an early sign of Alzheimer’s.

    You have 2 or 3 basic arguments, none of which have any real merit, that you just keep cycling through. We went through this one on the last open thread.

    I forget who said it, but there’s a saying about how stupidity is repeating the same experiment over and over and expecting a different result. And that’s all you’re doing – repeating the same garbage over and over again, as if this time we’ll all of a sudden get that smack on the forehead and say ‘Now I get it.’

    But let me try: Show us the money. If you can’t produce the (cancelled) CLN or the (cancelled) naturalization paperwork, then one can only assume that it doesn’t exist..

  347. avatar
    JoZeppy March 12, 2015 at 5:39 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: The Judiciary Act described the conduct of the court and cases prior to the Rules Enabling Act. Discovery was in front of judge. I moved for my case to be transferred to a judge not in active service on Jan 20, 2009.

    You just like making stuff up, don’t you?

    Before the FRCP you had the Field Code and New Federal Equity Rules. Which BTW, were replaced by the FRCP pursuant to a statute….one passed by Congress and signed by the President. And here’s a kicker…the New Federal equity Rules were also created by the Supreme Court. Because you know what the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789 actually said? I’m guessing not, so let me clue you in: “That all said courts of the United States shall have power … to make and establish all necessary rules for the orderly conducting business in the said courts, provide such rules are not repugnant to the laws of the United States.”

    And while I am curious under what authority you can revert to a set of rules that were specifically replaced almost a century ago by an act of Congress, signed into law by a President, here’s a little bit from the New Federal Equity Rules on discovery:

    “[the procedure for obtaining discovery] is the same both for actions in law and in equity. Either party to the suit can obtain an order for discovery of documents relevant to the case of the adversary, but a fishing discovery, – that is to say, discovery in order to enable the applicant to fish for a cause of action when he has no materials of his own his disallowed.”

  348. avatar
    y_p_w March 12, 2015 at 7:05 pm #

    faceman: I forget who said it, but there’s a saying about how stupidity is repeating the same experiment over and over and expecting a different result.And that’s all you’re doing – repeating the same garbage over and over again, as if this time we’ll all of a sudden get that smack on the forehead and say ‘Now I get it.’

    Sounds like a variation on “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

    I’ve heard it attributed to Albert Einstein or Ben Franklin, but that’s probably not right. Whoever came up with it will probably be lost to history.

  349. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 12, 2015 at 8:45 pm #

    y_p_w: Sounds like a variation on “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

    My favorite offshoot of that has to be “Computer programming is doing the same thing over and over again and getting different results.”

  350. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 12, 2015 at 8:47 pm #

    That describes my day today.

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: My favorite offshoot of that has to be “Computer programming is doing the same thing over and over again and getting different results.”

  351. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 12, 2015 at 11:29 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    That describes my day today.

    Well, years ago, I used to do amateur game design, in a custom C++ derivative called Acknex(At least I think that’s what it was called. I’ve slept since 2001!), and this would happen surprisingly often.

  352. avatar
    Reality Check March 12, 2015 at 11:44 pm #

    I will second that. It astounds me that sometimes just shutting down a computer a second time and restarting will fix a problem. That seems to defy the laws of physics.

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: My favorite offshoot of that has to be “Computer programming is doing the same thing over and over again and getting different results.”

  353. avatar
    Northland10 March 12, 2015 at 11:50 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    That describes my day today.

    I have been spending the last few weeks with constant testing of a major upgrade to one of our systems.

  354. avatar
    Kate March 13, 2015 at 1:31 am #

    Nancy R Owens:
    I gave you the information. You’re not doing any research.

    I did more than enough research to know that there were no special programs regarding Pell Grants that were changed by Reagan. I also have done more than enough research to know you’re lying about Pablo living in Clewiston. The documentary on him, his biography and many eyewitness accounts talk about his living in Colombia. His greatest fear was to be extradited to the U.S., that is why he built a prison in Medellin for himself. You’ve lied repeatedly about killing people that are still alive. You claim Mark Chapman and John Hinckley are the same person despite one being in prison when the other shot Reagan. You also said you fired your gun in the air at the Reagan shooting and blended back into the crowd around you yet now you’re trying to say that’s you on the front line in the documentary about the shooting because you found someone that slightly resembles you who also happens to have her eyes closed. There were no shots fired before Hinckley fired at Reagan. If there had been, you would have been taken down immediately considering the spot you claim you’re standing at in the clip you posted. There would have been no blending in with the crowd.

    As for other research, you claimed the term serial killer was invented because of the cartel yet it had been around for at least 4 decades. There’s the other ridiculous lie about Mike Moore marrying you so he didn’t have to share any money he made from his great find, the burning off of fingerprints, which you allegedly told him all about. This was yet another tactic that had been around for several decades, nothing new about it.
    JFK, Jr. didn’t have a pilot’s license at the time you said you went to him for flying lessons nor did he have a plane. He was alive and well for 18 years after you said you killed him although that has to be one of the craziest stories you’ve fabricated with you agreeing to jump from a plane after making sure the pilot was incapacitated.

    You had plenty of time to talk on RC’s show. You wouldn’t answer the questions that were asked of you. Instead, you’d ramble on about not being a professional forger and never claiming to be one, or what prisons members of the cartel were in, acid baths, etc. Nobody is afraid of anything you say. You can’t defeat the reality of President Obama’s history in Hawaii with your fairy tales, nor can you get rid of all the people who knew him in Hawaii, teachers, students, friends of the family, etc. or at Occidental, Columbia & Harvard. You can’t do a damn thing about his established history and the stories told by people who knew him, including roommates & teachers. The idea that Pablo was grooming him for the Presidency is ludicrous. If he had been doing so, he wouldn’t have been as nonchalant about the alleged hanging you said you came upon with Pablo where your half-brother was strung up in a tree with his mother and stepfather.

    You ignored the great majority of the questions asked of you, as usual, because you can’t do a thing about all the lies we’ve already brought to your attention. You’ve been caught lying repeatedly and you can never change that fact.

  355. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 13, 2015 at 4:11 am #

    So a parent or guardian is capable of speaking for a child when applying for a Certificate of Citizenship, but not capable of speaking for a child when voluntarily renouncing their US citizenship. And a voluntary loss of citizenship will not happen unless the US government issues a CLN. Consequently, a voluntary renouncement is merely an application for a CLN.

    ————————————————————

    8 CFR 341.1 – Application [for a Certificate of Citizenship].

    § 341.1 Application.
    An application for a certificate of citizenship by or in behalf of a person who claims to have acquired United States citizenship under section 309(c) of the Act or to have acquired or derived United States citizenship as specified in section 341 of the Act must be submitted on the form designated by USCIS with the fee specified in 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1) and in accordance with the instructions on the form.

    [76 FR 53804, Aug. 29, 2011], (amended by an ineligible President! Sad. )

    8 CFR 341.2 – Examination upon application.

    § 341.2 Examination upon application.

    (a) Personal appearance of applicant and parent or guardian—
    (1) When testimony may be omitted. An application may be processed without interview if the USCIS officer adjudicating the case has in the administrative file(s) all the required documentation necessary to establish the applicant’s eligibility for U.S. citizenship, or if the application is accompanied by one of the following:
    (i) A Department of State Form FS-240 (Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States);
    (ii) An unexpired United States passport issued initially for a full five/ten-year period to the applicant as a citizen of the United States, or
    (iii) The applicant’s parent(s)’ naturalization certificate(s).
    (2) Testimony required. Each applicant, when notified to do so, shall appear in person before an officer for examination under oath or affirmation upon the application. A person under 18 years of age must have a parent or guardian apply, appear, and testify for the applicant, unless one is unavailable and the district director is satisfied that the applicant is old enough to provide reliable testimony. The same rule will apply for incompetent applicants. At the examination the applicant and the acting parent or guardian, if necessary, shall present testimony and evidence pertinent to the claim to citizenship and shall have the right to review and rebut any adverse evidence on file, and to cross-examine witnesses called by the Government.

    (c) Proof. The burden of proof shall be upon the claimant, or his parent or guardian if one is acting in his behalf, to establish the claimed citizenship by a preponderance of the evidence.

    8 CFR 341.5 – Decision.

    (b) Approval. If the application is granted, USCIS will prepare a certificate of citizenship and, unless the claimant is unable by reason of mental incapacity or young age to understand the meaning of the oath, he or she must take and subscribe to the oath of renunciation and allegiance prescribed by 8 CFR 337 before USCIS within the United States. Except as provided in paragraph (c), delivery of the certificate in accordance with 8 CFR 103.2(b)(19) and 8 CFR 103.8 must be made in the United States to the claimant or the acting parent or guardian.

    __________________________________

    Why would a natural born citizen be required to take an oath of renunciation? I’m a natural born citizen. I’ve never been required to renounce anyone’s citizenship to be recognized as a US citizen. Why can a parent speak for a child when applying for a Certificate of Citizenship and not speak for a child when applying for a CLN?

  356. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 13, 2015 at 4:20 am #

    elmo:
    Well, sure. But Ted Cruz has not released the document that would prove he was a citizen at birth: his consular report of birth abroad.

    I don’t know why we should just take his word on it. If he runs for president he should release it.

    Ted must show his Certificate of Citizenship to prove he is a citizen. An oath of renunciation must be sworn before a Certificate of Citizenship is awarded. A Consular Report of a birth abroad does not indicate whether or not Ted stated an oath of renunciation to Canada.

    Since Ted only recently announced he sought to voluntarily renounce his Canadian citizenship, then it means Ted did not receive a Certificate of Citizenship or he voluntarily renounced his Canadian citizenship twice.

  357. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) March 13, 2015 at 4:49 am #

    SvenMagnussen: So a parent or guardian is capable of speaking for a child when applying for a Certificate of Citizenship, but not capable of speaking for a child when voluntarily renouncing their US citizenship.

    You are conflating two different things (which again makes me doubt you’re a lawyer):

    In the former case, the child already *is* a citizen and the parent is only involved when the child wants/needs a certificate. So it’s not about changing the status quo, only about documentation.
    In the latter case, the parent would try to change the status quo (citizenship) of the child (which it cannot do itself, either).

  358. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 13, 2015 at 5:38 am #

    How is pointing out where you’ve lied shouting negative statements? You know you’re beat because you’re now making this about me and Kate. I’ve done the research none of it supports your delusions. Yes they never heard of you. I love this new claim of yours to distract away from your previous lies.

    Nancy R Owens:
    You are not doing any research. Just shouting out negative statements. It is very clear to me that you are a bullshitter and an Obot. If you were to ever do any research, you’d find my statements about working for US Sugar in the chemistry lab analyzing dextrans is very true. You twisted my facts to somehow magically turn me into a chemist. Did you call up US Sugar and ask if I had ever worked there? No, of course you didn’t. It would defeat the purpose, wouldn’t it?

  359. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 13, 2015 at 5:42 am #

    Rc wasn’t the one making you look like a fool on the radio, that was me. You should put the blame on the right person before the accusations. The Times you were muted in the chat it was me doing it because I warned you against spamming the same links repeatedly and you ignored it. No one fears you crazy pants. Why should RC have given you more than the half hour to ramble incoherently off subject than you were given?

    Nancy R Owens:
    You are a true Obot who does not do research. If RC thought I was lying, he wouldn’t have been trying to shut me up like he did. He would have let me continuing talking to gather more info as ammunition. The fact that he wouldn’t let me talk shows that he clearly had something to fear and didn’t want me to get the word out about what’s truly going on.

  360. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 13, 2015 at 5:45 am #

    Actually it does exactly tha since it shows you have no idea what you’re talking about. like when you claimed to have signed Ann Dunhams name on the short form in 1985 despite there being no signatures on the short form and the short form not even existing back then

    Nancy R Owens:
    I didn’t say I knew where the blank form had come from. I know what Griselda told me. What HI does and does not use is not relevant and doesn’t make my statements false. From your numerous comments, one thing is very, very clear to me. You are not doing any research.

  361. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 13, 2015 at 6:48 am #

    Yeah, because out of the millions upon millions of potential true Americans who could be chosen, we just can’t find ONE to lead us. It HAS TO BE a Cuban whose daddy worked for Fidel Castro killing white English speaking Americans.

    Right on schedule, Paylo.

  362. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 13, 2015 at 7:05 am #

    Wow! Wikipedia much? I’ve got news for you, they never put the truth out in full when cases are still under investigation. It’s makes it easy to sort out the know-nothings like you from the that-one-knows-the-true-details such as myself.

    Pablo, as well as certain members of the Castro family, lived and thrived in Clewiston, Florida with the blessings of many of our politicians eager to get rich off of the cocaine gold.

    Pablo did intend to groom Obama. However, Obama would not stop coming around the compound where I was to get me to do everything for him so that he could get into college. He became a major nuisance to me. I was trying to stay focused on what was happening around me and came to the point where I realized that Obama was too damned naive about Pablo and how Pablo viewed the world.

    I kept telling Obama, “Go find the answers for yourself.” By the time the hanging occurred, I had had enough and was angry that Obama’s ignorant actions were putting my life in jeopardy.

    He was hung from a tree.

    He was cut down because Pablo said, “Nanny, he is jur brother.” The look on Pablo’s face and his comments told me I needed to make every effort to save my brother from the rope.

    I cut him down with Popeye’s knife.

    He was taken to the hospital.

    The last thing I remember at this time is my father, while at the hospital, taking possession of Obama’s forged birth certificate, folding it up, and putting it in his wallet.

    You won’t find that in Wikipedia either, Kate.

    Kate: I did more than enough research to know that there were no special programs regarding Pell Grants that were changed by Reagan.I also have done more than enough research to know you’re lying about Pablo living in Clewiston.The documentary on him, his biography and many eyewitness accounts talk about his living in Colombia.His greatest fear was to be extradited to the U.S., that is why he built a prison in Medellin for himself.You’ve lied repeatedly about killing people that are still alive.You claim Mark Chapman and John Hinckley are the same person despite one being in prison when the other shot Reagan.You also said you fired your gun in the air at the Reagan shooting and blended back into the crowd around you yet now you’re trying to say that’s you on the front line in the documentary about the shooting because you found someone that slightly resembles you who also happens to have her eyes closed.There were no shots fired before Hinckley fired at Reagan.If there had been, you would have been taken down immediately considering the spot you claim you’re standing at in the clip you posted.There would have been no blending in with the crowd.

    As for other research, you claimed the term serial killer was invented because of the cartel yet it had been around for at least 4 decades.There’s the other ridiculous lie about Mike Moore marrying you so he didn’t have to share any money he made from his great find, the burning off of fingerprints, which you allegedly told him all about.This was yet another tactic that had been around for several decades, nothing new about it.
    JFK, Jr. didn’t have a pilot’s license at the time you said you went to him for flying lessons nor did he have a plane.He was alive and well for 18 years after you said you killed him although that has to be one of the craziest stories you’ve fabricated with you agreeing to jump from a plane after making sure the pilot was incapacitated.

    You had plenty of time to talk on RC’s show.You wouldn’t answer the questions that were asked of you.Instead, you’d ramble on about not being a professional forger and never claiming to be one, or what prisons members of the cartel were in, acid baths, etc.Nobody is afraid of anything you say.You can’t defeat the reality of President Obama’s history in Hawaii with your fairy tales, nor can you get rid of all the people who knew him in Hawaii, teachers, students, friends of the family, etc. or at Occidental, Columbia & Harvard.You can’t do a damn thing about his established history and the stories told by people who knew him, including roommates & teachers.The idea that Pablo was grooming him for the Presidency is ludicrous.If he had been doing so, he wouldn’t have been as nonchalant about the alleged hanging you said you came upon with Pablo where your half-brother was strung up in a tree with his mother and stepfather.

    You ignored the great majority of the questions asked of you, as usual, because you can’t do a thing about all the lies we’ve already brought to your attention.You’ve been caught lying repeatedly and you can never change that fact.

  363. avatar
    faceman March 13, 2015 at 7:27 am #

    Reality Check: I will second that. It astounds me that sometimes just shutting down a computer a second time and restarting will fix a problem. That seems to defy the laws of physics.

    That reminds me of a Dilbert cartoon I actually cut out of the paper and saved. The secretary exceeded her tech support budget and was banished to an agrarian society because, as a cow told her, even cows know to try rebooting before calling tech support.

  364. avatar
    faceman March 13, 2015 at 7:45 am #

    SvenMagnussen: So a parent or guardian is capable of speaking for a child when applying for a Certificate of Citizenship, but not capable of speaking for a child when voluntarily renouncing their US citizenship.

    Amazingly, for Sven, so far, so good.

    SvenMagnussen:And a voluntary loss of citizenship will not happen unless the US government issues a CLN. Consequently, a voluntary renouncement is merely an application for a CLN.

    But here you blow it.

    SvenMagnussen:Why would a natural born citizen be required to take an oath of renunciation? I’m a natural born citizen. I’ve never been required to renounce anyone’s citizenship to be recognized as a US citizen.

    And here you make no sense. You can’t renounce someone else’s citizenship, and you can’t be ‘required’ to renounce your own (That’s why you have to VOLUNTARY renounce).

  365. avatar
    Keith March 13, 2015 at 7:46 am #

    Reality Check:
    I will second that. It astounds me that sometimes just shutting down a computer a second time and restarting will fix a problem. That seems to defy the laws of physics.

    Its the state information that is getting ‘cleaned up’ at shut down.

    Now I’ve got a program that works perfectly on my development machine. When I put it on the production machine it falls over. The previous version works fine (except for all the bugs I’ve fixed in the new version, of course) everywhere.

    That is extremely frustrating. WHAT have I used in the new version that I didn’t use in the old version? Nothing I tell you, NOTHING! Arrrrgggghhhh!

  366. avatar
    faceman March 13, 2015 at 8:48 am #

    SvenMagnussen: unless the claimant is unable by reason of mental incapacity or young age to understand the meaning of the oath, he or she must take and subscribe to the oath of renunciation and allegiance prescribed by 8 CFR 337 before USCIS within the United States.

    That’s why you need to check your facts before running off your mouth. The ‘oath of renunciation and allegiance prescribed by 8 CFR 337’ is where the newly naturalized citizen renounces allegiance to his/her former country and swears to the US. An NBC would not have to take that oath. It’s the oath Arnold took at the Shrine Auditorium in 1983 (not Obama)

    I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic…

  367. avatar
    Lupin March 13, 2015 at 9:11 am #

    Nancy R Owens: Wow! Wikipedia much? I’ve got news for you, they never put the truth out in full when cases are still under investigation. It’s makes it easy to sort out the know-nothings like you from the that-one-knows-the-true-details such as myself.

    Deluded or trolling, I don’t know, but you do realize that no one, but absolutely no one here, believe a single word of what you’re saying?

  368. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 13, 2015 at 9:13 am #

    Nancy R Owens: Wow! Wikipedia much? I’ve got news for you, they never put the truth out in full when cases are still under investigation. It’s makes it easy to sort out the know-nothings like you from the that-one-knows-the-true-details such as myself.

    Notice Kate mentioned nothing about wikipedia. You’re the only one who brings up wikipedia here. The only one not putting the truth out here is you. Nothing out there supports your claims. Notice how every time you ramble on you present no proof of any of your claims? You trip yourself up on easy details and then claim a “fuzzy memory” on others.

    Nancy R Owens: Pablo, as well as certain members of the Castro family, lived and thrived in Clewiston, Florida with the blessings of many of our politicians eager to get rich off of the cocaine gold.

    None of them lived in Florida. Castro? Now you’re saying Fidel Castro and Pablo Escobar worked and lived together in Florida? What happened to General Franco did he live in Florida too with Pablo? There’s no proof to support any of that.

    Nancy R Owens: Pablo did intend to groom Obama. However, Obama would not stop coming around the compound where I was to get me to do everything for him so that he could get into college. He became a major nuisance to me. I was trying to stay focused on what was happening around me and came to the point where I realized that Obama was too damned naive about Pablo and how Pablo viewed the world.

    Pablo didn’t know Obama, you didn’t know Obama. You continue to try to fluff up your boring life to make it sound like you did something when you haven’t.

    Nancy R Owens: He was hung from a tree.

    Obama was hung from a tree? I wondered how long it would take for you to go full racist again. Is that what you people in Florida do for fun? Hang black people?

    So was this the short or long form that supposedly was taken at the hospital?

  369. avatar
    Northland10 March 13, 2015 at 9:13 am #

    Somebody has not yet provided a citation or link for that supposed second and final ruling from SCOTUS in the Mendoza-Martinez case. I guess it was just another one of Sven’s red arrows.

  370. avatar
    Jim March 13, 2015 at 10:28 am #

    Pubs going after birthright citizenship again? Maybe…

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/randy-borntrager/seriously-republicans-tar_b_6856616.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

  371. avatar
    Daniel March 13, 2015 at 11:55 am #

    Nancy R Owens: It HAS TO BE a Cuban whose daddy worked for Fidel Castro killing white English speaking Americans.

    Ummm don’t YOU claim to be someone who worked for a foreign Latino leader, killing white English speaking Americans?

    Or did you forget that delusion for a moment?

  372. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 13, 2015 at 12:09 pm #

    Chucho Castro, my husband Rivi Ayala, who was on the FBI’s most wanted list according to the post office a few miles away, Griselda Blanco, also on the list, Popeye Delgado, Paco, Griselda’s brother, Chino Delgado, Chino’s brother, aka “The Bikini Killer” according to Wikipedia, who most certainly never lived in China, several members of the Gonzalez family, when you think bombs, think Gonzalez, Carlos Lehder, Mickey Munday, Max, John Roberts, Charles Peacock, Timmy Allison, Timmy Ledbetter, Johnny Rourks, Robert Owens, Richard Owens, Tommy Owens, Sam Allison, Jaime Delgado, Humberto Delgado, George Jung ?, Oscar, Mario Sepulchre, the DeCastro family, who specialized in photography, General Noriega, Pablo Escobar, Roberto Escobar, several members of those identified as being from the Cali Cartel, Obama, Freeway Rick, etc.

    And, like, WOW!

    Your flawed logic says that anyone who hangs anybody else from a tree is racist. You’ve never heard of the Texas cowboys where hanging whites was an everyday occurrence? Seriously? How do you manage to make it through the day?

    Again, you won’t find this in Wikipedia.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Notice Kate mentioned nothing about wikipedia.You’re the only one who brings up wikipedia here.The only one not putting the truth out here is you.Nothing out there supports your claims.Notice how every time you ramble on you present no proof of any of your claims?You trip yourself up on easy details and then claim a “fuzzy memory” on others.

    None of them lived in Florida.Castro?Now you’re saying Fidel Castro and Pablo Escobar worked and lived together in Florida?What happened to General Franco did he live in Florida too with Pablo?There’s no proof to support any of that.

    Pablo didn’t know Obama, you didn’t know Obama.You continue to try to fluff up your boring life to make it sound like you did something when you haven’t.

    Obama was hung from a tree?I wondered how long it would take for you to go full racist again.Is that what you people in Florida do for fun?Hang black people?

    So was this the short or long form that supposedly was taken at the hospital?

  373. avatar
    y_p_w March 13, 2015 at 12:24 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Ted must show his Certificate of Citizenship to prove he is a citizen. An oath of renunciation must be sworn before a Certificate of Citizenship is awarded. A Consular Report of a birth abroad does not indicate whether or not Ted stated an oath of renunciation to Canada.

    Total, unadulterated BS. No oath of renunciation is required to be issued a Certificate of Citizenship. A friend of mine in HS got naturalized because both of his parents got naturalized, so he derived his citizenship through his parents. He had to appear before an INS officer, but there was no oath of renunciation. Children under 18 aren’t considered capable of taking the oath. A certificate of Citizenship is also granted to foreign born adoptees who are adopted by US citizens. It’s kind of hard to take an oath as an infant.

    Here’s a photo of one:

    http://www.jcsimmigration.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Certificate-of-Citizenship-1024×826.jpg

    Most of the info has been redacted or covered up, but the photo is of an infant.

    Here’s another story of an adopted child. The Certificate of Citizenship says that the child was born in October 2011, but was considered a US citizen in April 2013. Kind of hard for a kid under two to renounce citizenship.

    http://theredthreadjourney.blogspot.com/2013/06/certificate-of-citizenship.html

    A Certificate of Citizenship is given to those who are entitled to US citizenship. There is no particular test, like the oath of renunciation. It’s all based on evidence of parentage.

  374. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 13, 2015 at 12:41 pm #

    You must be new here.

    WHILE under orders from an agent of the US government, Sermon Dyess, Jr., former Fl State Attorney Joseph P. D’Alessandro, Fl Gov.Charlie Christ, etc., Arkansas Gov Bill Clinton, etc.

    Our whole government is the still very active Medellin Cartel.

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1320&dat=19930417&id=DUJWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=X-oDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2375,5198742

    Daniel: Ummm don’t YOU claim to be someone who worked for a foreign Latino leader, killing white English speaking Americans?

    Or did you forget that delusion for a moment?

  375. avatar
    faceman March 13, 2015 at 1:38 pm #

    y_p_w: A Certificate of Citizenship is given to those who are entitled to US citizenship. There is no particular test, like the oath of renunciation. It’s all based on evidence of parentage.

    You must remember, Sven hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. What Sven is quoting applies only to people who go through the naturalization process. (refer 8 CFR 337) They are required to take an examination and an oath of allegiance to the US (which includes renouncing their allegiance to their former country). Of course, it would not apply to Cruz or Obama (or Sven himself), since they did not naturalize. The oath is what Arnold (not Obama) took in 1983.
    But Svennie sees the words ‘oath of renunciation’ and wants to apply it to everyone in order to obfuscate the issue (like he always does), like he doesn’t think we’ll bother to verify his reference.

  376. avatar
    faceman March 13, 2015 at 2:05 pm #

    By the way, Svennie,

    The general provisions of laws enacted by Congress are interpreted and implemented by regulations issued by various agencies. These regulations apply the law to daily situations. After regulations are published in the Federal Register, they are collected and published in the Code of Federal Regulations, commonly referred to as the CFR.

    http://www.uscis.gov/laws/8-cfr/title-8-code-federal-regulations

    That means that they were not ‘enacted’ by Obama. Not by Congress, either, for that matter.

  377. avatar
    Rickey March 13, 2015 at 2:06 pm #

    Kate: You claim Mark Chapman and John Hinckley are the same person despite one being in prison when the other shot Reagan.

    She also claimed that Sonny Barger was in Clewiston at the same time he was an inmate in a Federal prison in Arizona.

  378. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 13, 2015 at 2:12 pm #

    Rickey: She also claimed that Sonny Barger was in Clewiston at the same time he was an inmate in a Federal prison in Arizona.

    She also claimed that Marco Rubio was Adam Walsh who she claimed to have kidnapped and killed.

  379. avatar
    Dave B. March 13, 2015 at 2:22 pm #

    I’ve been going around on this one with Peter Lettkeman (and either Hugh McInnish or Virgil Goode, I don’t know which one), who thinks an oath of allegiance is required in order for a person born abroad to a US citizen parent to be a US citizen. It isn’t; but an oath IS required, under 8 U.S. Code § 1452(a):

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1452

    for issuance of a Certificate of Citizenship. The oath is waived for persons under the age of fourteen years (among others).

    http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartH-Chapter3.html#S-F

    y_p_w: Total, unadulterated BS.No oath of renunciation is required to be issued a Certificate of Citizenship.A friend of mine in HS got naturalized because both of his parents got naturalized, so he derived his citizenship through his parents.He had to appear before an INS officer, but there was no oath of renunciation.Children under 18 aren’t considered capable of taking the oath.A certificate of Citizenship is also granted to foreign born adoptees who are adopted by US citizens.It’s kind of hard to take an oath as an infant.

    Here’s a photo of one:

    http://www.jcsimmigration.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Certificate-of-Citizenship-1024×826.jpg

    Most of the info has been redacted or covered up, but the photo is of an infant.

    Here’s another story of an adopted child.The Certificate of Citizenship says that the child was born in October 2011, but was considered a US citizen in April 2013.Kind of hard for a kid under two to renounce citizenship.

    http://theredthreadjourney.blogspot.com/2013/06/certificate-of-citizenship.html

    A Certificate of Citizenship is given to those who are entitled to US citizenship.There is no particular test, like the oath of renunciation.It’s all based on evidence of parentage.

  380. avatar
    y_p_w March 13, 2015 at 3:05 pm #

    Dave B.:
    I’ve been going around on this one with Peter Lettkeman (and either Hugh McInnish or Virgil Goode, I don’t know which one), who thinks an oath of allegiance is required in order for a person born abroad to a US citizen parent to be a US citizen.It isn’t; but an oath IS required, under 8 U.S. Code § 1452(a):

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1452

    for issuance of a Certificate of Citizenship.The oath is waived for persons under the age of fourteen years (among others).

    http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartH-Chapter3.html#S-F

    I was kind of fuzzy on the details. I was under the impression that it was 18. In any case, my HS friend didn’t have to go through the standard naturalization process that would include a citizenship test.

    Your link to the US Code also interests me with the mention of a certificate of non-citizenship nationality. The State Department has refused to issue any, citing the lack of demand and that the passports they issue to non-citizen nationals would serve the same purpose.

    http://travel.state.gov/content/travel/english/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/certificates-of-non-citizen-nationality.html

    As the Department has received few requests, there is no justification for the creation of a non-citizen national certificate. Designing a separate document that includes anti-fraud mechanisms was seen as an inefficient expenditure of resources. Therefore, the Department determined that those who would be eligible to apply for such a certificate may instead apply for a United States passport that would delineate and certify their status as a national but not a citizen of the United States.

    Also – some of the language of that section of the code is outdated after citizenship determination functions were transferred from the Dept of Justice to the Dept of Homeland Security. I think there’s probably something in the law that addresses that.

  381. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 13, 2015 at 3:25 pm #

    Another Wikipedia “Expert,” Ignorant of the true facts….

    Site your source of information, Rick.

    Rickey: She also claimed that Sonny Barger was in Clewiston at the same time he was an inmate in a Federal prison in Arizona.

    [For reference, see this comment. Doc]

  382. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 13, 2015 at 3:29 pm #

    What?! Marco Rubio? You do like to twist things up, don’t you?

    I did kidnap Adam Walsh.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: She also claimed that Marco Rubio was Adam Walsh who she claimed to have kidnapped and killed.

  383. avatar
    Kate March 13, 2015 at 3:41 pm #

    Nancy R Owens:
    Wow! Wikipedia much? I’ve got news for you, they never put the truth out in full when cases are still under investigation. It’s makes it easy to sort out the know-nothings like you from the that-one-knows-the-true-details such as myself.

    Pablo, as well as certain members of the Castro family, lived and thrived in Clewiston, Florida with the blessings of many of our politicians eager to get rich off of the cocaine gold.

    Pablo did intend to groom Obama. However, Obama would not stop coming around the compound where I was to get me to do everything for him so that he could get into college. He became a major nuisance to me. I was trying to stay focused on what was happening around me and came to the point where I realized that Obama was too damned naive about Pablo and how Pablo viewed the world.

    I kept telling Obama, “Go find the answers for yourself.” By the time the hanging occurred, I had had enough and was angry that Obama’s ignorant actions were putting my life in jeopardy.

    He was hung from a tree.

    He was cut down because Pablo said, “Nanny, he is jur brother.” The look on Pablo’s face and his comments told me I needed to make every effort to save my brother from the rope.

    I cut him down with Popeye’s knife.

    He was taken to the hospital.

    The last thing I remember at this time is my father, while at the hospital, taking possession of Obama’s forged birth certificate, folding it up, and putting it in his wallet.

    You won’t find that in Wikipedia either, Kate.

    I quoted the documentary and Pablo’s biography quite clearly in my reply to you. Why are you ranting about Wikipedia? Your nonsense about the hanging has also been embellished quite a bit since the first time you told that fairy tale.

    Pablo did not build a palace in Clewiston and if you talk to anyone who is sane and who remembers that time period clearly, they will tell you that. He didn’t live in the U.S. It’s all b.s. that you spew trying to make yourself someone who you think would be considered important, especially associating yourself with every known conspiracy from that time period until now and the assassinations of government officials when you clearly had nothing to do with them. Your stories don’t match up with detailed, recorded history.

    If what you were saying had any truth to it, you would have been shut up permanently the first time you opened your mouth a few years ago. You don’t have anyone protecting you that can match the effects of our government if what you said was true. You’re a pathetic, deluded woman who is seeking attention any way she can get it. You’d rather pretend you killed all these children, women and men and had no pangs of conscience in doing so. There is something seriously wrong with someone who does this type of crap. You’re certainly no better than the people you rant and rave about, whether it’s Bush, Clinton or Dyess. You did their bidding for money according to your story. If that were true, that puts you on the same level of scum as the ones who paid you to commit these horrendous acts.

  384. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 13, 2015 at 4:27 pm #

    I repeat:

    It’s makes it easy to sort out the know-nothings like you from the that-one-knows-the-true-details such as myself.

    Kate: It’s makes it easy to sort out the know-nothings like you from the that-one-knows-the-true-details such as myself.

  385. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 13, 2015 at 5:26 pm #

    I met Barger in 1990 when we killed Pablo Escobar and again in later years where we had a physical altercation.

    They don’t call these things conspiracies for nothing and you’d have to be an idiot to rely on any “government” information.

    *is having an ah ha moment* Thanks, Doc.

    That would certainly explain why Barger never claimed the kill and why Bill Clinton was subsequently punished for claiming the kill was his.

    RE:

    Another Wikipedia “Expert,” Ignorant of the true facts….

    Site your source of information, Rick.

    Rickey: She also claimed that Sonny Barger was in Clewiston at the same time he was an inmate in a Federal prison in Arizona.

    [For reference, see this comment. Doc]

  386. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 13, 2015 at 6:42 pm #

    Nancy R Owens: Chucho Castro, my husband Rivi Ayala, who was on the FBI’s most wanted list according to the post office a few miles away, Griselda Blanco, also on the list, Popeye Delgado, Paco, Griselda’s brother, Chino Delgado, Chino’s brother, aka “The Bikini Killer” according to Wikipedia, who most certainly never lived in China, several members of the Gonzalez family, when you think bombs, think Gonzalez, Carlos Lehder, Mickey Munday, Max, John Roberts, Charles Peacock, Timmy Allison, Timmy Ledbetter, Johnny Rourks, Robert Owens, Richard Owens, Tommy Owens, Sam Allison, Jaime Delgado, Humberto Delgado, George Jung ?, Oscar, Mario Sepulchre, the DeCastro family, who specialized in photography, General Noriega, Pablo Escobar, Roberto Escobar, several members of those identified as being from the Cali Cartel, Obama, Freeway Rick, etc.

    So you’re claiming to be married to someone else now on top of Mike Zullo and Mike Moore? It’s amazing how you never have any idea what you’re talking about. Months ago you had no clue who Carlos Lehder was now you claim to have known him. Just how you magically now remember George Jung after having no idea who he was before.

  387. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 13, 2015 at 6:43 pm #

    Nancy R Owens:
    What?! Marco Rubio? You do like to twist things up, don’t you?

    I did kidnap Adam Walsh.

    I’m just repeating your claims. Oh wait I’m sorry it was Ted Cruz who you claimed was Adam Walsh. I leave the twisting to you Nancy. that’s all you do is try to twist reality.

  388. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 13, 2015 at 6:45 pm #

    Nancy R Owens:
    I repeat:

    It’s makes it easy to sort out the know-nothings like you from the that-one-knows-the-true-details such as myself.

    So you can’t answer what Kate said to you and instead talk about yourself as someone who is a makes-everything-up-and-whines-when-someone-calls-her-out

  389. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 13, 2015 at 7:29 pm #

    George was a late comer and he was not one of the inner sicario members. I was actually surprised to learn about him in 1985 and don’t consider him one of the major players. Did he deal cocaine? Yes. A lot of it? Yes. Was he the muscle behind the cocaine trade. Absolutely not. Did I kill his daughter by leaving her in a freezer. That, I don’t remember. I certainly tried.

    Let’s do this again, shall we: Mike Zullo is Mike Moore.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: So you’re claiming to be married to someone else now on top of Mike Zullo and Mike Moore?It’s amazing how you never have any idea what you’re talking about.Months ago you had no clue who Carlos Lehder was now you claim to have known him.Just how you magically now remember George Jung after having no idea who he was before.

  390. avatar
    Delonglegged Mack Daddy March 13, 2015 at 8:05 pm #

    FUTURISTIC BIRTHER SCI FI

    A CALL TO ARMS

    BY: DelongleggedMackDaddy

    Part 1

    STAR DATE AUGUST 2015

    After nearly seven years of failed attempts Birthers are finally given a hearing before the United States Supreme Court.

    In a Five to Four ruling, the Supreme Court rules that Obama is not eligible to serve as President and forwards its ruling to Congress.

    Birthers and Tea Party members everywhere begin to cheer as they finally come out from behind their keyboards and demand that President Obama be immediately removed from office and arrested.

    Throughout the history of Birtherdom, never has there been such a celebration as drinks are had and God is thanked as Birtrhers Mobilize their truckers, bikes and marchers to March on Washington in a rally to see to it for themselves that Obama, this Son of Satan, this Muslim half breed freak, this usurper is finally removed from office and once and for all brought to Justice !!!

    Congress then informs the Supreme Court and the Birthers that it stands by its determination that Obama meets all requirements to serve as President of the United States, that he is eligible and that the Supreme Court Justices who ruled him not to be eligible can all ride back out on the same Birther horse that they rode in on.

    Congress then immediately passes laws that retroactively render the basis of the Supreme Court ruling that Obama is ineligible useless.

    In a stunning move, Congress further impeaches all Justices who sided with Birthers after which President Obama immediately appoints new Supreme Court Justices to replace them to the horror of stunned on looking Birther marchers who have arrived for the rally.

    Just then, out of the rising dust of total Birther disgust rides Sheriff Joe and his faithful sidekick Cmdr Zullo throughout the mounting anger and indignation shouting for all Birthers to come to arms.

    AND SO IT BEGINS

    To be continued……… in part 2

  391. avatar
    gorefan March 13, 2015 at 8:20 pm #

    the Post & Fail posted a story saying the whitehose.gov copy of the President’s birth certificate has been changed twice in the last several days.

    I wonder how the P&F screwed that up?

  392. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 13, 2015 at 9:07 pm #

    The Twitter feed is back, this time just HTML, and just in time to see a link to a new article by Adrien Nash called “Impaling the Citizenship Lies of Obama’s Ringwraiths.” It’s not very good.

  393. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 13, 2015 at 9:12 pm #

    It hardly seems worth the trouble, but last time this idea went around, I created Dr. Conspiracy’s Hash Tool to make cryptographic digests of files so that electronic documents can be efficiently compared, even if both aren’t in the same place at the same time.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/dr-conspiracys-hash-tool/

    gorefan: the Post & Fail posted a story saying the whitehose.gov copy of the President’s birth certificate has been changed twice in the last several days.

  394. avatar
    Rickey March 13, 2015 at 9:15 pm #

    Kate: .Why are you ranting about Wikipedia?

    Nancy apparently thinks that Wikipedia is the only source of information that anyone has access to. Here is a link to a Phoenix New Times story about Barger’s release from the Phoenix Federal Correctional Institute in late 1992.

    http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1992-12-02/news/look-homeward-angelcycle-icon-sonny-barger-kick-starts-life-as-a-free-man-by-violating-parole/

    Barger was in Federal lockup from 1988 through 1992. Nancy claims that Barger was with her when she supposedly killed Pablo Escobar in October, 1990.

  395. avatar
    Rickey March 13, 2015 at 9:28 pm #

    Here is a Los Angeles Times story about Sonny Barger being convicted of conspiracy in 1988.

    http://articles.latimes.com/1988-10-29/news/mn-358_1_damage-buildings

  396. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 13, 2015 at 10:11 pm #

    Barger WAS NOT in prison in the later month of September or the early part of October. It was Barger and his crew who had possession of Pablo Escobar in a Melbourne Beach, Florida building. I buried a knife in Pablo because it looked they were about to do an interrogation.

    Outside he picked up a tomahawk and was going to bury in the back of my neck but changed his mind.

    I don’t care what the “official” records say.

    Rickey: Nancy apparently thinks that Wikipedia is the only source of information that anyone has access to. Here is a link to a Phoenix New Times story about Barger’s release from the Phoenix Federal Correctional Institute in late 1992.

    http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1992-12-02/news/look-homeward-angelcycle-icon-sonny-barger-kick-starts-life-as-a-free-man-by-violating-parole/

    Barger was in Federal lockup from 1988 through 1992. Nancy claims that Barger was with her when she supposedly killed Pablo Escobar in October, 1990.

  397. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 13, 2015 at 10:53 pm #

    In Pablo’s early years he worked for Anthony “The Greek” Toulis who had connections with people who were associated with “The Iceman.”

    Sermon Dyess, Jr decided that the South Florida motor cycle clubs needed to be targeted if Pablo’s drug trade were to succeed.

    I, and many others, began “hunting” in the MC’s territory of Daytona Beach.

    There was also a concerted effort to force the MC’s into cleaning up their act and this is when the MC’s of south Florida began doing charity runs. Now, they may have been doing this all along.

    It’s something that I kept a close eye on and was keenly aware of.

    Eliminating the MC’s opened up the territory for the Hispanic New World Order, backed by Russia.

    In 1985, the murder of Hayward Bryant and Mac Booth attracted a lot of attention to our area and one year later I was given a paper to sign with a million dollar offer because some of the higher up cartel members had been busted. Most likely set up by Dyess who was very good at playing the “get rid of the middle man” routine.

    Rickey:
    Here is a Los Angeles Times story about Sonny Barger being convicted of conspiracy in 1988.

    http://articles.latimes.com/1988-10-29/news/mn-358_1_damage-buildings

  398. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 13, 2015 at 11:00 pm #

    Yes he was. you lied as you always do

    Nancy R Owens:
    Barger WAS NOT in prison in the later month of September or the early part of October. It was Barger and his crew who had possession of Pablo Escobar in a Melbourne Beach, Florida building. I buried a knife in Pablo because it looked they were about to do an interrogation.

    Outside he picked up a tomahawk and was going to bury in the back of my neck but changed his mind.

    I don’t care what the “official” records say.

  399. avatar
    Kate March 13, 2015 at 11:09 pm #

    Nancy R Owens:
    I repeat:

    It’s makes it easy to sort out the know-nothings like you from the that-one-knows-the-true-details such as myself.

    You can’t handle the fact that I’ve called you out on all your lies. Why won’t you give us the name of the mailman? The only reason you even added a mailman to your story is because of Jerome Corsi’s nutty beliefs regarding Bill Ayers and a man who said he was their mailman and claimed he talked to Obama.

    Tell me how that picture you claim is you could possibly be so when it’s clear the girl in the pic is several years younger than Barack Obama who is holding her? If that had been taken in August as you claim, there’s no way in hell he’d be wearing a suit jacket and tie at a backyard party in the horrible humidity that FL is known for. It’s a picture from his graduation from Punahou Academy in Hawaii. Or did Griselda somehow manage to steal all the yearbooks given out the year he graduated and replace them with yearbooks with his photo in it? Your bullshit has been debunked long ago. You’re an attention whore.

    Nancy R Owens:
    I met Barger in 1990 when we killed Pablo Escobar and again in later years where we had a physical altercation.

    *is having an ah ha moment* Thanks, Doc.

    Rickey: She also claimed that Sonny Barger was in Clewiston at the same time he was an inmate in a Federal prison in Arizona.

    [For reference, see this comment. Doc]

    You continuously claim that Clinton said he killed Escobar. When and where is that written? Back it up with proof. You also said he did that to get into office yet he was already President when it happened. As for Barger, he’s repeatedly said in documentaries and in interviews that he was in prison until 1992. I’ll take his word over yours any day. I also know that Pablo never traveled without several bodyguards, did you kill all of them, too? You’re a liar, Nancy. Delusional? Maybe. A liar? Definitely.
    You have zero credibility as there are far too many people you claim to have killed who are still alive, including Sermon Dyess.

    Nancy R Owens: George was a late comer and he was not one of the inner sicario members. I was actually surprised to learn about him in 1985 and don’t consider him one of the major players. Did he deal cocaine? Yes. A lot of it? Yes. Was he the muscle behind the cocaine trade. Absolutely not. Did I kill his daughter by leaving her in a freezer. That, I don’t remember. I certainly tried.

    Let’s do this again, shall we: Mike Zullo is Mike Moore.

    Why the hell would you have even thought about killing Jung’s daughter? If there had been such a time, she would have been a few years old at most. She has recently reunited with him when he was released from prison and she’s in her early thirties now. You’re a sick, sick woman if you think it’s OK to kill kids even in your fairy tales.

    Zullo is Zullo; Moore is Moore. They are two separate people and I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is. You PROVE they are the same person, since you say you believe it and a check for $10k is yours. Care to match my wager? I doubt it.

  400. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 13, 2015 at 11:13 pm #

    Just because you never heard of him before I mentioned him to you doesn’t make him a latecomer. He was involved in the cartel before you’re magical date of 1985 that you use for your fictional stories. It’s not my problem that you speak about the cartel in your fiction without knowing who the members are. No Nancy Mike Zullo isn’t Mike Moore. They are two totally different people born at entirely separate times in totally separate places. George is one of the major players just as Carlos lehder was one of the major players. Just because you failed to do your research before making up your stories doesn’t make them not major players it just makes you delusional. George’s daughter is still alive, no attempt was made on her life.

    Nancy R Owens:
    George was a late comer and he was not one of the inner sicario members. I was actually surprised to learn about him in 1985 and don’t consider him one of the major players. Did he deal cocaine? Yes. A lot of it? Yes. Was he the muscle behind the cocaine trade. Absolutely not. Did I kill his daughter by leaving her in a freezer. That, I don’t remember. I certainly tried.

    Let’s do this again, shall we: Mike Zullo is Mike Moore.

  401. avatar
    Dave B. March 13, 2015 at 11:22 pm #

    One “Surly Curmudgeon,” upon being informed that Chief Justice Waite’s opinion in Minor v. Happersett didn’t include an ironic reference to Virginia Minor’s eligibility for the presidency:

    “That was the opinion now read the dicta.”

    http://ivn.us/2013/08/13/defining-natural-born-citizen/

  402. avatar
    Kate March 14, 2015 at 1:34 am #

    Nancy R Owens: I met Barger in 1990 when we killed Pablo Escobar and again in later years where we had a physical altercation.

    They don’t call these things conspiracies for nothing and you’d have to be an idiot to rely on any “government” information.

    In Escobar’s documentary, they specifically talk about the fall of 1990 through spring of 1991, when the U.S. sent a special forces team into Colombia to track his associates through his phone calls to them. They were very successful at doing so, capturing and/or killing associates, to the point that Escobar started kidnapping high level gov’t officials in Colombia. He was personally speaking to the gov’t daily to negotiate their release in exchange for Colombia ceasing to work with the U.S. in trying to capture him. He feared extradition to the U.S. This is all well-documented in print and on film over several months time. Escobar was eventually jailed in his own prison from which he escaped, allowing the U.S. to try to track him down again.

    He was NOT IN THE U.S., Nancy. You did not kill Escobar, no matter what you claim and you just reinforce that you’re a lying attention whore every time you repeat your fairy tales. Clinton never said he killed Pablo Escobar although he and Bush, Sr. did allow U.S. Delta Forces to go into Colombia and help train them to assist them in the killing and/or capture of Escobar.

  403. avatar
    Rickey March 14, 2015 at 4:26 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater:
    Yes he was.you lied as you always do

    In his autobiography, Barger says that he was arrested on 6/20/87 and served 59 months in prison. That takes him to the end of 1992, just as the contemporaneous Phoenix New Times article says.

    He never mentions Pablo Escobar or Clewiston. Or Nancy.

  404. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 14, 2015 at 6:25 am #

    Now, now, Katie. Don’t go getting your knickers in a wad. The mailman is from Clewiston. Mike Zullo is still Mike Moore and he is also from Clewiston. We are all from Clewiston. Get used to it.

    I don’t expect Barger to EVER say anything other than that he was in prison. Do you?

    Pablo DID travel frequently without bodyguards when he was in Clewiston or around people he trusted.

    We all know in this business that it’s not the one’s you would expect who will take you under. It’s the one’s you DON’T expect.

    That’s what took Hoffa down. Not some hard core Mafia killer. Yes, yes, I know. There’s a book written that says otherwise.

    Hoffa was taken down by me, little girl weighing a mere 127 lbs there to “service” him, a military daddy who knew how to build pipe bombs, an excellent handler (the cruelest one I’ve ever had who also planned the Jon-Jon, possibly Kennedy, assassination), and a practice victim (Mac Booth.)

    That book on Hoffa was written one year after Billy Corben released his “Cocaine Cowboys” documentary, which I have to say, IS THE MOST ACCURATE THING on the Medellin Cartel out there. THE MOST ACCURATE.

    Rivi does tell a few lies. But, if you know the facts like I do, it’s not hard to pick them out. We were all taught how to set up fall guys and how deceive any investigators who come around from the outside.

    AGAIN, THE MOST ACCURATE.

    Kate: You can’t handle the fact that I’ve called you out on all your lies.Why won’t you give us the name of the mailman?The only reason you even added a mailman to your story is because of Jerome Corsi’s nutty beliefs regarding Bill Ayers and a man who said he was their mailman and claimed he talked to Obama.

    Tell me how that picture you claim is you could possibly be so when it’s clear the girl in the pic is several years younger than Barack Obama who is holding her?If that had been taken in August as you claim, there’s no way in hell he’d be wearing a suit jacket and tie at a backyard party in the horrible humidity that FL is known for.It’s a picture from his graduation from Punahou Academy in Hawaii.Or did Griselda somehow manage to steal all the yearbooks given out the year he graduated and replace them with yearbooks with his photo in it?Your bullshit has been debunked long ago.You’re an attention whore.

    You continuously claim that Clinton said he killed Escobar.When and where is that written?Back it up with proof.You also said he did that to get into office yet he was already President when it happened.As for Barger, he’s repeatedly said in documentaries and in interviews that he was in prison until 1992.I’ll take his word over yours any day.I also know that Pablo never traveled without several bodyguards, did you kill all of them, too?You’re a liar, Nancy.Delusional? Maybe. A liar?Definitely.
    You have zero credibility as there are far too many people you claim to have killed who are still alive, including Sermon Dyess.

    Why the hell would you have even thought about killing Jung’s daughter?If there had been such a time, she would have been a few years old at most.She has recently reunited with him when he was released from prison and she’s in her early thirties now.You’re a sick, sick woman if you think it’s OK to kill kids even in your fairy tales.

    Zullo is Zullo; Moore is Moore.They are two separate people and I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is.You PROVE they are the same person, since you say you believe it and a check for $10k is yours.Care to match my wager?I doubt it.

  405. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 14, 2015 at 6:29 am #

    I don’t always read your posts all the way through since their mostly rants. I do sometimes reread them if I’m bored. So, here’s my answer to you:

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a4f_1399501881

    Would you like to know where to send the check to? Or, are you full of BS like I’m sure you are?

    Kate: You can’t handle the fact that I’ve called you out on all your lies.Why won’t you give us the name of the mailman?The only reason you even added a mailman to your story is because of Jerome Corsi’s nutty beliefs regarding Bill Ayers and a man who said he was their mailman and claimed he talked to Obama.

    Tell me how that picture you claim is you could possibly be so when it’s clear the girl in the pic is several years younger than Barack Obama who is holding her?If that had been taken in August as you claim, there’s no way in hell he’d be wearing a suit jacket and tie at a backyard party in the horrible humidity that FL is known for.It’s a picture from his graduation from Punahou Academy in Hawaii.Or did Griselda somehow manage to steal all the yearbooks given out the year he graduated and replace them with yearbooks with his photo in it?Your bullshit has been debunked long ago.You’re an attention whore.

    You continuously claim that Clinton said he killed Escobar.When and where is that written?Back it up with proof.You also said he did that to get into office yet he was already President when it happened.As for Barger, he’s repeatedly said in documentaries and in interviews that he was in prison until 1992.I’ll take his word over yours any day.I also know that Pablo never traveled without several bodyguards, did you kill all of them, too?You’re a liar, Nancy.Delusional? Maybe. A liar?Definitely.
    You have zero credibility as there are far too many people you claim to have killed who are still alive, including Sermon Dyess.

    Why the hell would you have even thought about killing Jung’s daughter?If there had been such a time, she would have been a few years old at most.She has recently reunited with him when he was released from prison and she’s in her early thirties now.You’re a sick, sick woman if you think it’s OK to kill kids even in your fairy tales.

    Zullo is Zullo; Moore is Moore.They are two separate people and I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is.You PROVE they are the same person, since you say you believe it and a check for $10k is yours.Care to match my wager?I doubt it.

  406. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 14, 2015 at 8:05 am #

    Mike zullo is not Mike Moore you were never married to either man. Pablo was not in the United states. The only person you mentioned from clewiston is your crazy ass self. You’re lying we’re all used to that by now.

    Nancy R Owens:
    Now, now, Katie. Don’t go getting your knickers in a wad. The mailman is from Clewiston. Mike Zullo is still Mike Moore and he is also from Clewiston. We are all from Clewiston. Get used to it.

    I don’t expect Barger to EVER say anything other than that he was in prison. Do you?

    Pablo DID travel frequently without bodyguards when he was in Clewiston or around people he trusted.

    We all know in this business that it’s not the one’s you would expect who will take you under. It’s the one’s you DON’T expect.

    That’s what took Hoffa down. Not some hard core Mafia killer. Yes, yes, I know. There’s a book written that says otherwise.

    Hoffa was taken down by me,little girl weighing a mere 127 lbs there to “service” him, a military daddy who knew how to build pipe bombs, an excellent handler (the cruelest one I’ve ever had who also planned the Jon-Jon, possibly Kennedy, assassination), and a practice victim (Mac Booth.)

    That book on Hoffa was written one year after Billy Corben released his “Cocaine Cowboys” documentary, which I have to say, IS THE MOST ACCURATE THING on the Medellin Cartel out there. THE MOST ACCURATE.

    Rivi does tell a few lies. But, if you know the facts like I do, it’s not hard to pick them out. We were all taught how to set up fall guys and how deceive any investigators who come around from the outside.

    AGAIN, THE MOST ACCURATE.

  407. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 14, 2015 at 8:08 am #

    No-one is going yo to watch your crazy videos. I notice once again you provide no proof to support your fictional stories. You had nothing to do with Hoffa.

    Nancy R Owens:
    I don’t always read your posts all the way through since their mostly rants. I do sometimes reread them if I’m bored. So, here’s my answer to you:

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a4f_1399501881

    Would you like to know where to send the check to? Or, are you full of BS like I’m sure you are?

  408. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 14, 2015 at 8:20 am #

    Not even a video where one of Shurf Arpaio’s investigators, Mike Volin, admits that Mike Zullo is really Mike Moore?

    You certainly will never be taken seriously by an court of law, now will you?

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater:
    No-one is going yo to watch your crazy videos.I notice once again you provide no proof to support your fictional stories.You had nothing to do with Hoffa.

  409. avatar
    faceman March 14, 2015 at 9:15 am #

    Nancy R Owens: I don’t always read your posts all the way through since their mostly rants

    I don’t ever read your posts at all, since THEY’RE completely rants. I only picked up on this one because of Dr Ken’s response.
    (I long ago learned to unplug my irony meter when coming to the Doc’s blog)

    P.S., how does the one-armed man fit into your narrative? And what about the midget with the trained monkey? Could your mother’s brother’s servant have anything to do with it?

  410. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 14, 2015 at 9:23 am #

    faceman: I don’t ever read your posts at all, since THEY’RE completely rants.I only picked up on this one because of Dr Ken’s response.
    (I long ago learned to unplug my irony meter when coming to the Doc’s blog)

    P.S., how does the one-armed man fit into your narrative?And what about the midget with the trained monkey?Could your mother’s brother’s servant have anything to do with it?

    I still want to know where General Franco was during all of this and Paul McCartney

  411. avatar
    Reality Check March 14, 2015 at 10:43 am #

    Actually, the question Volin answered yes as he was trying any way he could to get off the phone with an insane person was “Is Mike Zulu Mike Moore” So you have not tied Mike Moore to Mike Zullo at all.

    Nancy, what you need to do is call Mike Volin again and clear this up. Mike invites folks to call him all the time and gives out his phone number on his web page and on his show, For your convenience his number is 570-394-2570 .

    Nancy R Owens: So, here’s my answer to you:

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a4f_1399501881

  412. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 14, 2015 at 10:52 am #

    So, Gerbil Report had an article about Obama appearing on Jimmy Kimmel.
    Falcon was fuming that Obama was having a good laugh at their expense. Get used to it bird boy! That’s all you guys are good for!

    Falcon is also putting his eggs in the Charles C Johnson basket. Johnson, as far as I can tell, is some unhinged loon, who regularly posts cryptic pro-conspiracy messages on twitter.

  413. avatar
    justlw March 14, 2015 at 12:43 pm #

    To birthers everywhere: happy π Day! Celebrate by being irrational and going on endlessly.

  414. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 14, 2015 at 12:51 pm #

    Nice try, RC. And, according to Mark McDaniel, Volin has been fired. i.e. asked to resign and is no longer a part of this “investigation.”

    I’ve emailed Volin. I’ve called and talked to Volin. I’ve written blogs addressing Volin.

    You might as well take that number and go right it on a bathroom stall some where saying, “For a good time call 570-394-2570.”

    At some point everybody is going to get it through they’re thick heads that there is no investigation.

    The birth certificate is forged and America has a foreign king on the throne.

    Reality Check:
    Actually, the question Volin answered yes as he was trying any way he could to get off the phone with an insane person was “Is Mike Zulu Mike Moore” So you have not tied Mike Moore to Mike Zullo at all.

    Nancy, what you need to do is call Mike Volin again and clear this up. Mike invites folks to call him all the time and gives out his phone number on his web page and on his show, For your convenience his number is 570-394-2570 .

  415. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 14, 2015 at 1:14 pm #

    Nancy R Owens:
    Not even a video where one of Shurf Arpaio’s investigators, Mike Volin, admits that Mike Zullo is really Mike Moore?

    You certainly will never be taken seriously by an court of law, now will you?

    Mike Volin wasn’t one of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigators. Mike Volin was never apart of the CCP. He’s just some guy in Pennsylvania who runs a package store and pays for a blog talk radio subscription. How can we take what you say seriously when you can’t get simple things like that correct?

  416. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 14, 2015 at 1:16 pm #

    Nancy R Owens: Nice try, RC. And, according to Mark McDaniel, Volin has been fired. i.e. asked to resign and is no longer a part of this “investigation.”

    I’ve emailed Volin. I’ve called and talked to Volin. I’ve written blogs addressing Volin.

    You might as well take that number and go right it on a bathroom stall some where saying, “For a good time call 570-394-2570.”

    At some point everybody is going to get it through they’re thick heads that there is no investigation.

    The birth certificate is forged and America has a foreign king on the throne.

    Are you flipping confused? Volin never worked for the CCP so how could he have been fired? Volin has less to do with the CCP than Mark Gillar. At least Mark Gillar got paid to make the videos for the CCP but he was never a member of it. Who is Mark McDaniel? Why should we care what he has to say? It’s amazing how you can’t even get your figures straight.

    The birth certificate is legit. Wait a second you’re claiming Obama is a foreign King? But didn’t you claim he was born in Florida and was your half brother? You really can’t keep your stories straight. Btw America doesn’t have a king.

  417. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 14, 2015 at 1:38 pm #

    Excuse the heck out of me for not one of the inner cons privy to how they’re scamming Americans out of money.

    I think Doc Conspiracy and several others have tried to determine what the CCP’s structure, tax status, legal status, and otherwise, is to no avail.

    If the Doc doesn’t know, how should I?

    In other words, they ain’t tellin’ ’cause, what was it that ZulloMoore once said, “I don’t have to.”

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Mike Volin wasn’t one of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigators.Mike Volin was never apart of the CCP.He’s just some guy in Pennsylvania who runs a package store and pays for a blog talk radio subscription.How can we take what you say seriously when you can’t get simple things like that correct?

  418. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 14, 2015 at 1:41 pm #

    I said he was “raised” in Florida. So, why don’t YOU tell us exactly what each one of these guys do.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Are you flipping confused?Volin never worked for the CCP so how could he have been fired?Volin has less to do with the CCP than Mark Gillar.At least Mark Gillar got paid to make the videos for the CCP but he was never a member of it.Who is Mark McDaniel?Why should we care what he has to say?It’s amazing how you can’t even get your figures straight.

    The birth certificate is legit. Wait a second you’re claiming Obama is a foreign King?But didn’t you claim he was born in Florida and was your half brother?You really can’t keep your stories straight.Btw America doesn’t have a king.

  419. avatar
    Kate March 14, 2015 at 4:00 pm #

    Nancy R Owens:
    Now, now, Katie. Don’t go getting your knickers in a wad. The mailman is from Clewiston. Mike Zullo is still Mike Moore and he is also from Clewiston. We are all from Clewiston. Get used to it.

    I don’t expect Barger to EVER say anything other than that he was in prison. Do you?

    Pablo DID travel frequently without bodyguards when he was in Clewiston or around people he trusted.

    We all know in this business that it’s not the one’s you would expect who will take you under. It’s the one’s you DON’T expect.

    That’s what took Hoffa down. Not some hard core Mafia killer. Yes, yes, I know. There’s a book written that says otherwise.

    Hoffa was taken down by me,little girl weighing a mere 127 lbs there to “service” him, a military daddy who knew how to build pipe bombs, an excellent handler (the cruelest one I’ve ever had who also planned the Jon-Jon, possibly Kennedy, assassination), and a practice victim (Mac Booth.)

    That book on Hoffa was written one year after Billy Corben released his “Cocaine Cowboys” documentary, which I have to say, IS THE MOST ACCURATE THING on the Medellin Cartel out there. THE MOST ACCURATE.

    Rivi does tell a few lies. But, if you know the facts like I do, it’s not hard to pick them out. We were all taught how to set up fall guys and how deceive any investigators who come around from the outside.

    AGAIN, THE MOST ACCURATE.

    My knickers aren’t in a wad, Nancy. I’m just laughing at the lengths you’ll go to and the b.s. you spew to avoid answering questions. You cannot provide any PROOF of anything you say. You won’t reveal the name of the mailman. You’re too pigheaded or stupid to admit that Zullo and Moore are two separate people, 15 years apart in age, living in two separate states, thousands of miles away from each other. You’re a joke and what’s really funny is that you fail to realize it. Do you actually think anyone believes your nonsense? I notice you said nothing in regards to the questions I asked which means you CAN’T answer them. It’s tough keeping up with all those fairy tales you told, isn’t it? No wonder everyone laughs at you.

  420. avatar
    faceman March 14, 2015 at 4:47 pm #

    Nancy R Owens:
    At some point everybody is going to get it through they’re thick heads that there is no investigation.

    I don’t believe it. She actually got something right. Not about getting it through THEIR thick heads (birthers never will), but about there being no investigation. I guess what they say about monkeys and typewrites is true after all.

    PS Nancy, please look up the difference between ‘Their’ and ‘They’re.’

  421. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 14, 2015 at 4:53 pm #

    It has been over three decades since I last saw the Clewiston mailman.

    As for Zullo’s true identity, I’ll will defer to Mike Volin and the video which, as Mark McDaniel’s repeatedly stated, has NOT been doctored.

    What’s the matter, “Kate,” did Russia decide it didn’t want to play their forged birth certificate card anymore?

    One name: Adam Walsh.

    The whole family was innocent in this Russian/Cuban/Medellin Cartel game. What do you think true Americans are going to do when they know the REAL truth?

    Kate: My knickers aren’t in a wad, Nancy.I’m just laughing at the lengths you’ll go to and the b.s. you spew to avoid answering questions.You cannot provide any PROOF of anything you say.You won’t reveal the name of the mailman.You’re too pigheaded or stupid to admit that Zullo and Moore are two separate people, 15 years apart in age, living in two separate states, thousands of miles away from each other.You’re a joke and what’s really funny is that you fail to realize it.Do you actually think anyone believes your nonsense?I notice you said nothing in regards to the questions I asked which means you CAN’T answer them.It’s tough keeping up with all those fairy tales you told, isn’t it?No wonder everyone laughs at you.

  422. avatar
    Rickey March 14, 2015 at 5:06 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Mike Volin wasn’t one of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigators.Mike Volin was never apart of the CCP.He’s just some guy in Pennsylvania who runs a package store and pays for a blog talk radio subscription.How can we take what you say seriously when you can’t get simple things like that correct?

    Volin is originally from New York, but he has lived in Pennsylvania for years and has never lived in Arizona. Far from being an investigator, he owns the beverage store and also works as a truck driver.

    His personal details are no secret. He was written up in the local Press-Enterprise newspaper on 4/28/11, complete with a photograph and the name and location of his store.

  423. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 14, 2015 at 5:52 pm #

    Mike Volin, aka “Sal,” worked as a deputy in Hendry County, Florida under Mike ZulloMoore.

    He moved to Clewiston in 1982 after he witnessed, as a truck driver, the murder, done by me, of two other deputies. Deputy Vance was one of them. I think the other may have been Doug Hagmann’s son.

    I also murdered Volin’s mother and two children who belonged to Volin’s girlfriend who was, if I recall correctly, from Iran. Don’t hold me to that last part. She was not American.

    Rickey: Volin is originally from New York, but he has lived in Pennsylvania for years and has never lived in Arizona. Far from being an investigator, he owns the beverage store and also works as a truck driver.

    His personal details are no secret. He was written up in the local Press-Enterprise newspaper on 4/28/11, complete with a photograph and the name and location of his store.

  424. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 14, 2015 at 6:42 pm #

    We know all of that. What we don’t know is its income and expenses.

    Nancy R Owens: I think Doc Conspiracy and several others have tried to determine what the CCP’s structure, tax status, legal status, and otherwise, is to no avail.

  425. avatar
    Arthur March 14, 2015 at 6:48 pm #

    Nancy R Owens: I also murdered Volin’s mother and two children who belonged to Volin’s girlfriend who was, if I recall correctly, from Iran. Don’t hold me to that last part. She was not American.

    It’s crap like this that needs to be censured.

  426. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 14, 2015 at 6:50 pm #

    Nancy R Owens: One name: Adam Walsh.

    Who you claimed was also Ted Cruz it’s like you lie so much you can’t keep track.

  427. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 14, 2015 at 6:51 pm #

    Nancy R Owens: As for Zullo’s true identity, I’ll will defer to Mike Volin and the video which, as Mark McDaniel’s repeatedly stated, has NOT been doctored.

    What makes McDaniel an expert? No one has any clue who McDaniel even is? An alias you made up?

  428. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 14, 2015 at 6:53 pm #

    Nancy R Owens: Mike Volin, aka “Sal,” worked as a deputy in Hendry County, Florida under Mike ZulloMoore.

    He moved to Clewiston in 1982 after he witnessed, as a truck driver, the murder, done by me, of two other deputies. Deputy Vance was one of them. I think the other may have been Doug Hagmann’s son.

    I also murdered Volin’s mother and two children who belonged to Volin’s girlfriend who was, if I recall correctly, from Iran. Don’t hold me to that last part. She was not American.

    That’s funny considering a few months ago you never even heard of Mike Volin now you magically time traveled and killed his mother and some non-existent children? It’s amazing how you just spin stuff in your head. There’s no proof Volin ever lived in Clewiston Florida. Not everyone lives in Clewiston Nancy.

  429. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 14, 2015 at 7:39 pm #

    Mike Volin, no. “Sal,” yes.

    If I asked you who Jerry Blacksmith was knowing that it was, oh let’s say David Letterman, would you be expected to know who I’m talking about?

    No, of course not.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: That’s funny considering a few months ago you never even heard of Mike Volin now you magically time traveled and killed his mother and some non-existent children?It’s amazing how you just spin stuff in your head.There’s no proof Volin ever lived in Clewiston Florida.Not everyone lives in Clewiston Nancy.

  430. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 14, 2015 at 7:57 pm #

    It’s crap like this that needs to be exposed.

    Arthur: It’s crap like this that needs to be censured.

  431. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 14, 2015 at 7:59 pm #

    I’ll let McDaniel answer that. I’m sure he’s still watching.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: What makes McDaniel an expert?No one has any clue who McDaniel even is?An alias you made up?

  432. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 14, 2015 at 8:00 pm #

    Nancy R Owens:
    I’ll let McDaniel answer that. He’s someone that wants to put both me and the Doc in prison. He pretty much said that’s what his goal is.

    I can’t speak for Kevin. For myself, I told him, “Good luck with that. My family gave me to the Hendry County (FL) Posse in good faith.”

    I’m sure he’s still watching.

  433. avatar
    Kate March 14, 2015 at 8:17 pm #

    Nancy R Owens:
    It has been over three decades since I last saw the Clewiston mailman.

    As for Zullo’s true identity, I’ll will defer to Mike Volin and the video which, as Mark McDaniel’s repeatedly stated, has NOT been doctored.

    What’s the matter, “Kate,” did Russia decide it didn’t want to play their forged birth certificate card anymore?

    One name: Adam Walsh.

    The whole family was innocent in this Russian/Cuban/Medellin Cartel game. What do you think true Americans are going to do when they know the REAL truth?

    It’s been over 3 decades since you’ve seen any of the people that you “claim” you knew in Clewiston. What’s the mailman’s name? You’re so quick to claim you’ve killed so many people, now adding Volin’s mother and children to the mix and you think any one whose family you’ve killed would actually speak to you? You’d be in prison or six feet under, with the latter far more likely, if you had done even 1/10th of the crap you’ve claimed to have done. You need help. You’re sick and twisted to think you can talk about killing people so casually and appear to be unaware that others find what you say to be despicable, whether it is lies or not.

    You talk about things that don’t mesh with detailed, RECORDED history and expect others to believe your fairy tale version of what’s happened in our own country. Your question about Russia and the b.c. makes no sense as usual. You also avoided my questions to you because you have no answers for your lies. Get yourself some help. You’re nothing more than an attention whore.

  434. avatar
    Rickey March 14, 2015 at 10:09 pm #

    Mike Volin’s mother is alive and well. She lives in Nassau County, New York.

    Volin has never lived in Florida.

    Nancy lies again. Or perhaps she is just hallucinating.

  435. avatar
    Arthur March 14, 2015 at 10:32 pm #

    Nancy R Owens:
    It’s crap like this that needs to be exposed.

    Fuck off.

  436. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 14, 2015 at 11:38 pm #

    Nancy R Owens:
    I’ll let McDaniel answer that. I’m sure he’s still watching.

    Who? What makes him an expert of anything?

  437. avatar
    Reality Check March 14, 2015 at 11:38 pm #

    The only thing Nancy ever murdered is the truth.

  438. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 15, 2015 at 1:02 am #

    Nancy’s posts are like those annoying postcard ads you find in magazines. They serve no real purpose, save to annoy you.

  439. avatar
    Lupin March 15, 2015 at 3:49 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    Nancy’s posts are like those annoying postcard ads you find in magazines. They serve no real purpose, save to annoy you.

    I don’t mind them; I just ignore them because anyone can see they’re completely full of rubbish.

  440. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 15, 2015 at 4:55 am #

    To clarify, Billy Corben’s “Cocaine Cowboys” documentaries are the most accurate. Not the book written claiming the Hoffa kill.

    Nancy R Owens:
    Now, now, Katie. Don’t go getting your knickers in a wad. The mailman is from Clewiston. Mike Zullo is still Mike Moore and he is also from Clewiston. We are all from Clewiston. Get used to it.

    I don’t expect Barger to EVER say anything other than that he was in prison. Do you?

    Pablo DID travel frequently without bodyguards when he was in Clewiston or around people he trusted.

    We all know in this business that it’s not the one’s you would expect who will take you under. It’s the one’s you DON’T expect.

    That’s what took Hoffa down. Not some hard core Mafia killer. Yes, yes, I know. There’s a book written that says otherwise.

    Hoffa was taken down by me,little girl weighing a mere 127 lbs there to “service” him, a military daddy who knew how to build pipe bombs, an excellent handler (the cruelest one I’ve ever had who also planned the Jon-Jon, possibly Kennedy, assassination), and a practice victim (Mac Booth.)

    That book on Hoffa was written one year after Billy Corben released his “Cocaine Cowboys” documentary, which I have to say, IS THE MOST ACCURATE THING on the Medellin Cartel out there. THE MOST ACCURATE.

    Rivi does tell a few lies. But, if you know the facts like I do, it’s not hard to pick them out. We were all taught how to set up fall guys and how deceive any investigators who come around from the outside.

    AGAIN, THE MOST ACCURATE.

  441. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 15, 2015 at 5:04 am #

    Has he? Has Sal done anything other than, “We’ll get this in front of Congress.” He’s one of the investigators here. I don’t care what you say.

    Has Sal/Volin taken the time to talk to me? No, he hasn’t.

    Sal/Volin was there during the Cocaine Wars (82). I tried to warn him on several occassions that Dyess, one of his bosses from the Hendry County Sheriff’s Department, wanted him killed and I was the one sent to kill Sal/Volin.

    Instead, I warned him. What he do?

    Essentially he said, “I’ll go talk to Sermon and get this whole thing worked out.”

    Dumb.

    Naive.

    Warned.

    Did not heed the warning.

    Again, it was I who finally got rid of the real problem which was Dyess in the mid 1990’s when Dyess ordered me to kill Timmy Ledbetter which I refused to do.

    Stop wasting everybody’s time, Orly. You’re the one nobody takes seriously.

    Kate: It’s been over 3 decades since you’ve seen any of the people that you “claim” you knew in Clewiston.What’s the mailman’s name?You’re so quick to claim you’ve killed so many people, now adding Volin’s mother and children to the mix and you think any one whose familyyou’ve killed would actually speak to you?You’d be in prison or six feet under, with the latter far more likely, if you had done even 1/10th of the crap you’ve claimed to have done.You need help.You’re sick and twisted to think you can talk about killing people so casually and appear to be unaware that others find what you say to be despicable, whether it is lies or not.

    You talk about things that don’t mesh with detailed, RECORDED history and expect others to believe your fairy tale version of what’s happened in our own country.Your question about Russia and the b.c. makes no sense as usual. You also avoided my questions to you because you have no answers for your lies.Get yourself some help. You’re nothing more than an attention whore.

  442. avatar
    Keith March 15, 2015 at 5:35 am #

    Nancy R Owens:
    Mike Volin, no. “Sal,” yes.

    If I asked you who Jerry Blacksmith was knowing that it was, oh let’s say David Letterman, would you be expected to know who I’m talking about?

    No, of course not.

    It’s pretty clear that you need some help with keeping your characters and their backgrounds straight. As it turns out there is an app for that – or rather dozens of apps to choose from.

    Here is a list of just a few:

    Writer’s Digest Shop: writer’s software

  443. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 15, 2015 at 5:55 am #

    And, this coming from someone who’s too scared to hear the truth and won’t let people talk on his show.

    So, what’s the con here?

    “We’re just trying to keep her safe because if people knew the truth, they’d kill her.” (A lie, of course).

    Or, is it, “The truth will mess up my cocaine buddies trust in me?”

    Or, finally, “Damn! I (Obot) get paid to do this?!”

    Reality Check:
    The only thing Nancy ever murdered is the truth.

  444. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 15, 2015 at 5:58 am #

    My birthday’s in fifteen more days and I would love to have this considering I’ve got a tentative book offer. Why don’t you buy it for me? :0)

    Keith: It’s pretty clear that you need some help with keeping your characters and their backgrounds straight. As it turns out there is an app for that – or rather dozens of apps to choose from.

    Here is a list of just a few:

    Writer’s Digest Shop: writer’s software

  445. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 15, 2015 at 9:21 am #

    Your were given a half hour to ramble incoherently on his show. You couldn’t answer simple questions and instead spewed nonsense. None of your three options are correct the fourth option is that you’re delusional.

    Nancy R Owens: And, this coming from someone who’s too scared to hear the truth and won’t let people talk on his show.

    So, what’s the con here?

    “We’re just trying to keep her safe because if people knew the truth, they’d kill her.” (A lie, of course).

    Or, is it, “The truth will mess up my cocaine buddies trust in me?”

    Or, finally, “Damn! I (Obot) get paid to do this?!”

  446. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 15, 2015 at 9:22 am #

    Ah did wnd allow you to write a fiction book?

    Nancy R Owens:
    My birthday’s in fifteen more days and I would love to have this considering I’ve got a tentative book offer. Why don’t you buy it for me? :0)

  447. avatar
    Reality Check March 15, 2015 at 10:05 am #

    I will take door #4 Monty.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Your were given a half hour to ramble incoherently on his show. You couldn’t answer simple questions and instead spewed nonsense. None of your three options are correct the fourth option is that you’re delusional.

  448. avatar
    Rickey March 15, 2015 at 1:07 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater:
    Ah did wnd allow you to write a fiction book?

    Before she said that Mark McDaniel was going to get her a Congressional hearing. Now she says that he wants her in prison. Nancy can’t keep anything straight.

    I noticed that “McDaniel” (if that is his real name) disappeared from here after refusing to answer if he believes that Mike Moore and Mike Zullo are the same person.

    However, he removed the notice on his Facebook page which said that he was going to be represented by Anthony Basiago, the Seattle attorney who believes that he was teleported back to the Gettysburg Address.

  449. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 15, 2015 at 1:08 pm #

    WND?

    What do they have to do with anything. I know it’s a blog. But, quite frankly, I hardly ever read it because, in my opinion, it lacks credibility.

    You’re implying I have to ask permission or something.

    What’s your point?

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater:
    Ah did wnd allow you to write a fiction book?

  450. avatar
    Kate March 15, 2015 at 2:49 pm #

    Reality Check:
    I will take door #4 Monty.

    Same here, as she now thinks I’m Orly. LOL!

  451. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 15, 2015 at 5:25 pm #

    Nancy R Owens: WND?

    What do they have to do with anything. I know it’s a blog. But, quite frankly, I hardly ever read it because, in my opinion, it lacks credibility.

    You’re implying I have to ask permission or something.

    What’s your point?

    So which imaginary publishing house is giving you a tentative agreement?

  452. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 15, 2015 at 5:54 pm #

    And, why can’t it be both? I don’t know who McDaniel is or what his interest is in these matters. A lot of people were wrongfully set up during Pablo’s years. He may be one of them. That wouldn’t surprise me one bit.

    Rickey: Before she said that Mark McDaniel was going to get her a Congressional hearing. Now she says that he wants her in prison. Nancy can’t keep anything straight.

    I noticed that “McDaniel” (if that is his real name) disappeared from here after refusing to answer if he believes that Mike Moore and Mike Zullo are the same person.

    However, he removed the notice on his Facebook page which said that he was going to be represented by Anthony Basiago, the Seattle attorney who believes that he was teleported back to the Gettysburg Address.

  453. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 15, 2015 at 5:58 pm #

    It has to go through hurdles and there are stipulations that I’m not exactly comfortable agreeing to so nothing in concrete at this point.

    They want it to be written as though it’s a complete work of fiction and I want it to be the absolute truth. They did explain their reasoning and I do understand where they’re coming from and I can’t