Petition to Congress: Start immediate investigation of Obama's use of forged IDs and a CT SSN

Petition2Congress ^

[Codetrader]

Start immediate investigation of Barack Obama's use of forged IDs and a CT SSN which was never assigned to him according to e-verify -- 19,362 Letters and Emails Sent So Far.

On April 15, 2010 Obama posted his 2009 tax returns on line. He forgot to flatten the PDF file and his full unredacted Social Security number xxx-xx-4425 became known to the public.

This number immediately raised suspicions of Attorney Orly Taitz, as it started with 042, a digit combination which was assigned to the state of CT and Obama was never a resident of CT. E-verify and SSNVS showed that this number used by Barack Obama was never assigned to him.

We have an individual sitting in the WH as the US president and Commander-in-Chief, in control of our nuclear arsenal, while using a stolen/fraudulently obtained Social Security number from a state where he never resided.

Additionally, former Chief Investigator of the special investigations unit of the U.S. Coast Guard Jeffrey Stephan Coffman prepared a sworn affidavit for Attorney Orly Taitz showing that Obama's alleged application for the Selective Service is a forgery. According to 5 USC § 3328.one is forbidden from holding a position in the executive branch if he did not register for the Selective Service.

Obama never legally registered for the selective service, as his application is a forgery, as such he is forbidden to work as a President in the White House or as a janitor in the White House. According to Obama's school registration in Indonesia he is a citizen of Indonesia.

According to his mother's passport records his legal last name is Soebarkah.

According to sworn affidavits of the Sheriff of Maricopa county, AZ and multiple experts Obama's alleged birth certificate is a computer generated forgery.

Attorney Orly Taitz and her supporters, law abiding U.S. citizens, demand that the U.S. Congress do not engage in treason and do not cover up Obama's usurpation of the U.S. Presidency with forged IDs and a fraudulently obtained SSN.

We demand immediate investigation of Obama's usurpation of the U.S. Presidency to be conducted in the both houses of the U.S. Congress.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Judge Roberts to consider a case concerning the use of a false SS# by Obama on Feb 15th, 2013.

It is real! http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12a606.htm

Respectfully seeking your support to discover the truth. Congress needs to act.

http://www.petition2congress.com/9026/start-immediate-investigation-barack-obamas-use-forged-ids-ct-ssn/

Thank you for reading this post.

[SvenMagnussen]

“Do you have any documentation to back up these assertions ?”

I think you mean facts and not assertions.

You should bookmark http://svenmagnussen.blogspot.com to keep abreast of updates and new information. I just updated the Deconstructing Thomas Wood’s NUMIDENT File post and will continue to post new information, as well as update posts, as the information becomes available.

[masadaman]

Sven, you've posted these seemingly exact biographical notes on Obama for over 4 years now. They are well written, believable and novel, yet without any documentation or reference that would buttress your comments.

Most on this forum agree that we are at genuine risk for keeping our constitutional republic. So, either you are a fiction writer of Tom Clancy caliber or you have (access to) the goods. Isn't it time to show us all more than the lacy fringe of your silk slip?

[SvenMagnussen]

Bookmark http://svenmagnussen.blogspot.com and watch for updates.

[LucyT]

*

.

Ping-a-Ling to a quagmire, and Sven’s updates.

See # 4 , # 10 , # 11 , # 18 .

Also, # 19 , # 20 , # 21 .

Thanks, WildHighlander57.

.

[Don Corleone]

I’ve ‘petitioned’ my congress critter, the two dead-head ‘sinators’ and the subPreme Court, and not one of all of them has even bothered to acknowledge my petitioning. The democrips, black-robed oligarchs, and republicants want this lying sonofabitch, Canadian born, fraud in the White Hut while they end the Republic.

Same here. There is only going to be one way to settle this abomination. "Sic Semper Tyrannis".

[Brown Deer]

Newington News, Thursday July 16, 1981

Thomas L. Wood

Newington – Thomas Louis Wood, 18, of 25 Glenview Dr., died Tuesday at Windham Community Memorial Hospital in Willimantic.
Born in New Britain, he was a lifelong resident of Newington.
Survivors include his parents, Mr. & Mrs. Louis Wood, two sisters, Mrs Sherry Adams of Chippenhook, VT., and De Linda Wood of Wallingford, VT.; and his maternal grandmother, Mrs. Ann Keicher of Newington.
Funeral services will be held tomorrow at 9:30 a. m. at the Newington Memorial Funeral Home, 20 Bonair Ave., and at 10 at the Church of the Holy Spirit. Burial will be in West Meadow Cemetery.
There are no calling hours.
Memorial gifts may be made to the Hartford Regional Center,, 71 Mountain Rd.

[rxsid]

To reiterate, again...

What Sven has been talking about for a long time now, is something that he:

*may* have seen
*may* have heard about from someone else.

*If* there exists a Certificate of Naturalization for Barry/Obama as he has insisted for quite a long time now...*It* will *Not* be used to remove Barry from office.

Why?

Sven's own words, and common sense at this point tells us...

A.

"Unless a court orders its release, Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization on file with the USCIS is a private matter and cannot legally be exposed."

To which Sven has already stated:

2.

"It is a felony to solicit or conspire to illegally obtain documentation protected and secured in a U.S. Federal Government facility. Consequently, I’ll ignore your request and remind everyone Obama will be determined ineligible for the Office of POTUS once his Certificate of Naturalization is legally obtained."

So there you have it folks. Everyone here knows full well there isn't a court in the land that will grant *anyone* access to Barry's records of any kind, let alone an alleged Certificate of Naturalization. And even if Sven has seen such a document, he's already indicated he wouldn't leak it because to do so is a felony.

So round and round we go. The issue of the alleged Certificate of Naturalization is a dead end as far as exposing him while in office because no court will order it's release and if it hasn't been leaked by now, there's no reason to pin your hopes on it ever being leaked.

[Brown Deer]

George Geane
birth date: 4 October 1914
SSN: 092-07-3965
place of issuance: New York
death date: May 1976

[SvenMagnussen]

I don't recall anyone issuing subpoena for a CLN or Obama's Certificate of Naturalization. For that matter, it's Obama's Certificate of Naturalization that automatically disqualifies him from the Presidency. Forged IDs, a fake Selective Service registration and a fake SSN are an important part of the ineligibilty equation, but they aren't automatic disqualifiers.

It's unfortunate so many have convinced a few only certified and corroborated evidence must be presented before a complaint can be filed and heard. As I understand it, a complaint with allegations is filed with the Court and the defendents are noticed. The complaint will offer support for the allegations by citing laws, regulations and legal precedent which supports the theory the plaintiff(s) has(have) suffered an injury due to the actions of the defendant(s). And finally, the complaint must propose a theory the Court has jurisdiction.

If the complaint survives a motion to dismiss, motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; the defendent(s) must file an answer or suffer a default judgement. At this point, subpoenas can be issued. You can waste time auditing HDOH vital records, or his SS-5 and his selective service files, but his Certificate of Naturalization is the disqualifier.

The only time a case on Obama's eligibility went to trial was the administrative hearing in Georgia and Orly proposed to adjudicate the case with her experts and their theories after the Court clearly put the burden of proof on Obama. When Orly mentioned Obama's Indonesian citizenship, the Judge cut her off as presenting something irrelevant.

And here we are. The burden is on Obama to waive his Privacy Rights to expose his immigration record with his Certificate of Naturalization and FReepers are demanding I expose Obama's ineligibilty documents even though it is against the law to do so. And you're right, it is against the law to encourage, conspire or demand others break the law for the good of the cause.

[JohnnyP]

I’d risk a minor felony conviction for releasing personal information if it would prove The Won is not an NBC.

These are the times that try men’s souls.
I regret that I have but one life to lay down for my country.
We pledge our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor.

[edge919]

The only time a case on Obama's eligibility went to trial was the administrative hearing in Georgia and Orly proposed to adjudicate the case with her experts and their theories after the Court clearly put the burden of proof on Obama.

That court did NOT put any burden of proof on Obama. It certainly refused a motion to quash Orly's subpoena's, but no burden of proof was ever put on Obama. The court assumed that burden on his behalf by saying it "considered" that Obama was born in Hawaii.

[edge919]

I’d risk a minor felony conviction for releasing personal information if it would prove The Won is not an NBC.

In Hawaii, under the Uniform Information Practices Act, Obama's birth records could be disclosed to the public under "good faith" and persons are EXEMPT for such disclosures there, meaning ANYONE in the DOH could disclose any and all records on file for Obama. Of course, they won't do this because no one dares stand against "The Won."

[SvenMagnussen]

in “O’BRIEN v. GROSS, Judge Malihi wrote:

Under Haynes v. Wells, 273 Ga. 106, 538 S.E.2d 430 (2000), the burden of proof is entirely upon Respondent to establish affirmatively his eligibility for office.”

from Obamaconspiracy.org

In the cited case, Wells challenged the candidacy of Haynes after Haynes attested he was eligible. The burden of proof shifted to Haynes because he swore he was eligible and could prove it if he was challenged on the issue.

Haynes was challenged by Wells and the burden of proof shifted to Haynes.

It’s very similar to Obama’s OLFBC where Obama’s mother, delivery doctor and hospital administrator attested to the registrar of HDOH the information on the vital record presented to the registrar was true and they could prove it if they were challenged on the issue.

The registrar of HDOH “ACCEPTED” the attestation on Aug 4, 1961. Later, BHO Sr. challenged the Soetoro adoption in Hawaii Family Court and Obama’s mother testified BHO Sr. was not the father in order to preserve the Soetoro adoption. The Court ruled BHO Sr. was the father, the Soetoro adoption was annulled, Barry Soetoro’s legal name will now be Barack Hussein Obama II and ordered the HDOH registrar to file a vital statistic record backdated with a “DATE FILED Aug 4, 1961.”

Generally, when an adoption is annulled, the Court orders OLFBC unsealed from the archives and re-filed as the vital record for the child. The Adoption vital record is sealed and archived.

Since Obama’s mother refused to support her 1961 attestation, the Court order the Soetoro vital record sealed and archived with the OLFBC and a new vital record created to be filed with a date of Aug 4, 1961.

[edge919]

in “O’BRIEN v. GROSS, Judge Malihi wrote:

Under Haynes v. Wells, 273 Ga. 106, 538 S.E.2d 430 (2000), the burden of proof is entirely upon Respondent to establish affirmatively his eligibility for office.”

Obama wasn't involved in O'Brien v. Gross. Your earlier comment was that the court put the burden of proof on Obama, but this isn't the case. What happened is that Orly tried to use this citation to put the burden of proof on Obama. The rest of your post is irrelevant. The actual decision in Georgia was not based on putting ANY burden of proof on Obama, as I already noted.

[SvenMagnussen]

You’re not reading my messages carefully.

Judge Malihi quoted Haynes v. Wells in the O’Brien v. Gross. I mentioned it to demonstrate Judge Malihi’s philosophy on a candidate/respondent duty to prove eligibility when a challenge is properly made to his/her eligibility for the office. Haynes v. Wells is quoted in many candidate eligibility cases by various Judges. It is a standard.

Orly cited O’Brien v. Gross in a letter to the GA SoS as an appeal to overturn Judge Malihi and in an appeal to GA Superior Court. She should have cited the O’Brien v. Gross in a Motion for Summary Judgement to Judge Malihi and have Obama declared ineligible for GA ballot placement.

You can’t admit it, but you’re wrong. Obama, through an authorized agent, attested he was eligible for the office of POTUS. The standard is for the candidate to appear and prove their eligibility when properly challenged. Judge Malihi ruled Obama had been properly challenged and ordered him to appear to prove eligibility and give the plaintiffs an opportunity to impeach his evidence and testimony.

Specifically, Obama’s COLB is dated Aug 4, 1961. Indonesia, a sovereign state, does not recognize Obama’s rights to privacy. Consequently, St. Francis of Assisi, Djakarta, Indonesia, provided Obama’s school record to an AP photographer. The AP photographer published Obama’s record which indicated his legal name and nationality on Jan 1, 1968 was Barry Soetoro, Indonesian. Orly’s clients were entitled to have Obama answer and be cross-examined about his post-1961 biography.

[edge919]

You’re not reading my messages carefully.

You have this backwards.

Judge Malihi quoted Haynes v. Wells in the O’Brien v. Gross.

Yes, and how does O'Brien v. Gross have anything specifically to do with Obama?? Start there. I don't want a game of connect-the-dots-that-aren't-really-connected but a direct quote by Judge Malihi himself saying that Obama had the burden of proof.

Orly cited O’Brien v. Gross in a letter to the GA SoS as an appeal to overturn Judge Malihi and in an appeal to GA Superior Court.

Yes, I've already talked about this when I said: "What happened is that Orly tried to use this citation to put the burden of proof on Obama."

She should have cited the O’Brien v. Gross in a Motion for Summary Judgement to Judge Malihi and have Obama declared ineligible for GA ballot placement.

Thanks for proving my point when I said: "The actual decision in Georgia was not based on putting ANY burden of proof on Obama, as I already noted." If she "should have" cited that quote, then you're admitting that she did NOT put any burden of proof on Obama in the actual GA ballot decision.

You can’t admit it, but you’re wrong.

You just proved me right. Can you admit that?? Show us.

[rxsid]

Sven...come on man. What's the deal?

Let's play the game.

Let's assume that a CLN exists for Barry.

So What?

Tell us Sven, specifically:

• Who would have standing to bring a case to court to compel the court to order the release of such alleged CLN?
• What court would have jurisdiction over such a case?

And, do you base your answers to above on your opinion, or fact/statute law? If the later, please cite.

[SvenMagnussen]

You seem to have a problem with this statement posted by me ...

“The only time a case on Obama’s eligibility went to trial was the administrative hearing in Georgia and Orly proposed to adjudicate the case with her experts and their theories after the Court clearly put the burden of proof on Obama.”

You’re demanding proof of a written order by Judge Malihi stating the burden of proof was on the candidate, Obama, after the Court denied the candidate’s motion to quash subpoena.

I have reviewed the APA and it’s associated case history concerning ballot challenges. It’s clear to anyone who has done the research a candidate assumes the burden of proof after signing an attestation they are qualified for and can prove they are qualified for the office they are seeking. You incorrectly interpreted my statement concerning the Court putting the burden of proof on Obama to mean Malihi wrote an order for it. In fact, it is a standard for the challenged candidate to prove eligibility after the GA Supreme Court ruled in the Haynes v. Wells case.

I tried to explain this to you by citing Malihi’s quote in O’Brien v. Gross concerning a ballot challenge and then you demand I explain why this has anything to do with Obama. Go back to the original statement. Orly chose to adjudicate the case after the Court put the burden of proof was on Obama. The Court has put the burden of proof on the challenged candidate in a ballot challenge. The case history of Haynes v. Wells isn’t waived because Malihi didn’t specifically cite it in an order. Plaintiffs waived it after plaintiffs rejected an offer for a default judgement.

Obots believe an attestation is proof of fact and the burden of proof to the contrary is on a challenger after the challenger submits verified, certified and corroborated evidence to the contrary before a challenge can be heard.

The truth is an attestation is assumed to be proof of fact unless it is challenged by a person with sufficient interest. In a GA ballot challenge, a person with a sufficient interest is a registered voter in the candidate’s district. Once a successful challenge to the attestation is made, the burden shifts to the candidate who has attested he/she is qualified.

You’re wrong on burden of proof for candidates accused of ineligibility and you’re attempting to spread misinformation to protect Obama. I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to admit it.

[freebird5850]

bump to follow and learn

[edge919]

You seem to have a problem with this statement posted by me ...

“The only time a case on Obama’s eligibility went to trial was the administrative hearing in Georgia and Orly proposed to adjudicate the case with her experts and their theories after the Court clearly put the burden of proof on Obama.”

I do have a problem with it. It's not true. Now, YOU have a problem with admitting that it's not. And you're trying to overcompensate by babbling.

You’re demanding proof of a written order by Judge Malihi stating the burden of proof was on the candidate, Obama, after the Court denied the candidate’s motion to quash subpoena.

No, I didn't demand that at all. I said the DECISION does NOT place the burden of proof on Obama. You've tried to come up with previous decisions, but you haven't shown where those decisions were applied to Obama in ANY form or fashion by the court. Why is it so hard to admit that?? It's one thing to say the court didn't follow its own precedents, but you're pretending like it did. Why??

You’re wrong on burden of proof for candidates accused of ineligibility and you’re attempting to spread misinformation to protect Obama.

The administrative court already acted to protect Obama. My explanation that the court did NOT put any burden of proof on Obama is a fact. It's not misinformation and it does NOTHING to protect him. What a stupid, stupid thing to suggest. Sounds like you're projecting your own strategy.