For the sake of my blogging friend, Spud Tooley, who loves to hate my writings, but usually doesn't read my entire blog posts (ignorance is bliss??) let me direct you to Rev. Michael Bresciani's latest post over at American Prophet.org - The Website for Insight where he explains, Obama Documentation Activists – Not Conspiracy Theorists.
Thank you, once again, Rev. Bresciani! I can now officially retire my tin foil hat!
Rev. Bresciani asks a poignant and very important question regarding the controversy surrounding Obama's ineligibility for POTUS because of the "natural born citizen" REQUIREMENT in Article II, Section 1 clause 5 of our United States Constitution:
How long will it take America to realize that its Constitution is the immovable rock of our free republic? The answer to this is up to us. It may take years but it does not have to, it may take only as long as it takes to comply with the law and answer only one or two well placed subpoenas. God help us to get on with it.
The case that is being presented to the nine SCOTUS justices at conference today, January 23, 2009, by Orly Taitz is probably the one case out of all the rest where SCOTUS can't legitimately claim that the plaintiffs "do not have standing." Therefore, they can't use that excuse to get out of accepting the lawsuit. If they do so, however, then we know that all three branches of our government either have been hijacked, paid off, or just plain lazy/scared/fearful/apprehensive (add your own adjective) to take down one of the most popular elected (fraudulently, mind you) candidates in U.S. history.
But facts are facts! When you go to Orly's blog, you will see that 22,664 readers visited it yesterday. People are VERY INTERESTED in what is going on - even though the Lamestream media refuses to cover the story.
One article there, in particular, caught my eye today. Lynn Stuter: SCOTUS message to the American people. Better yet, read the entire article here.
As I write this essay, I will provide links to the original source and/or comments where I found them. Through my travels on the Internet, I am learning more and more as to why Obama and his team of lawyers have been able to skirt this issue for so long. In a nutshell, there is a lot of "deal making" that goes on behind closed doors in our government. Of course, this is not news to those in the know. But it could be news to the naive.
As a former naive person when it comes to politics and government, I now know and believe what my good friend Tammy said to me immediately following the election.
"They are all crooks."
Frankly, I didn't want to believe that statement. I thought that there MUST be some really good people (Sarah Palin comes to mind)in government. What about all of the conservatives? Well, it looks like the "good people" struggle to get elected but do not often make it because they refuse to deal with the crooks!! For more education on this subject, please see Lame Cherry's "Patrician"
Here's just a brief excerpt:
The subject at hand is WND featured Michelle Malkin ripping to shreds Robert Reich in his Congressional statements that Obama's bailout money should not go to skilled white people, but to unskilled unwhite folks too.
Ms. Malkin did a find job shredding Reich in his need to spread wealth around to those he judges ineptly poor which was more important than building sound roads or bridges.
I might add as all three did not address the fact that the stimulus is to stimulate the economy, at least the propaganda from Obama states this.
What all three of these fine people missed though is what the real construction or for that matter all the real employment applications in the United States already operate and are throttled by.
If you ever saw the Rodney Dangerfield movie where he went back to school, and in it he was lecturing an expert professor on how to do business in asking:
Hey, how do you get this thing built without the kickbacks to unions, bribes to politicians, payoffs to the mob?
That is the real state of what business is like in America which Ms. Malkin, Mr. Farah and Mr. Reich have not an inkling of understanding.
The point which is missed in Mr. Reich is not his racial profiling and racism, but the point missed by Ms. Malkin and Mr. Farah is the fact that Affirmative Action already has all federal money flowing into projects which are by mandate already accomplishing what Mr. Reich and his in agreement Congressman Charlie Rangel were attempting to do in funneling money to minorities.
For Reich who was Sec. of Labor to not understand the process and an established professor is "I want his wages back as he didn't do his job". (red lettering for emphasis)
Now, concerning Obama and his refusal to share any of the pertinent documents that would have revealed to the public his true background, there are several reasons why he has been so highly successful (up to this point) in that endeavor.
1. He (and his cohort in crime - George Soros) have paid off A LOT OF PEOPLE.
2. Just like the fact that Obama's blackberry and email will be known to "only a few of the most trusted people" around him, it is probably true that just a small group of people know the facts about Obama's past and are pledged to the death to keep silent about it.
What are they keeping silent about?
All of this:
Mr. Barack Hussein Obama -
The American People want to know, who sent you?
Obama has lived for 48 years without leaving any footprints -- none! There is no Obama documentation -- no records -- no paper trail -- none -- this can't be an accident.
Original, vault copy birth certificate -- Not released
Certificate of Live Birth -- Released -- Counterfeit
Obama/Dunham marriage license -- Not released
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license -- Not released
Soetoro adoption records -- Not released
Fransiskus Assisi School School application -- Released
Punahou School records -- Not released
Selective Service Registration -- Released -- Counterfeit
Occidental College records -- Not released
Passport (Pakistan) -- Not released
Columbia College records -- Not released
Columbia thesis -- Not released
Harvard College records -- Not released
Harvard Law Review articles -- None (maybe 1, unsigned?)
Baptism certificate -- None
Medical records -- Not released
Illinois State Senate records -- None
Illinois State Senate schedule -- Lost
Law practice client list -- Not released
University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None
3. We already know that Obama's book "Dreams of My Father" was ghost-written by the unrepentant terrorist, William Ayers. Since Obama lied about the book's authorship, why should we believe that the truth is being told in the contents? How do we know for certain whether or not the points made in that book are fairy tale accounts or the truth? The list of records above might prove or disprove this.
4. When Philip J. Berg's lastest lawsuit was denied, Citizen Wells called it what it is:
The corrupt, biased, inept, Un-American, US Supreme Court has denied the Application for stay in the Philip J Berg Vs Obama case. Yes, the same court that has as Chief Justice John Roberts, the man that swore in an ineligible president yesterday.
That’s right, the buck stops here. There will be no politically correct BS on this blog. The US Supreme Court should have ruled on several matters months ago, including but not limited to, the following:
State responsibilities in presidential elections. Clarification of the provision in the US Constitution requiring a president to be a natural born citizen. This is part of their responsibility and they failed us.
Some of the best comments there:
Bob // January 21, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Guys –
I still think that SCOTUS is “case shopping.”
They are looking at the sleaves and checking out the merchandise — but they haven’t found one yet that they like.
The cases are getting better, and more mature.
Orly’s Lightfoot v. Bowen has a lot of merit, –but I still think that Keyes v. Bowen is the very best of all.
Don’t mistake what I’m saying — Berg v Obama is an excellent case, but Berg chose to pursue a fraud case, and that requires a lot of evidence that simply has not yet survived the test of a trial, and cross-examination.
This has to become Berg’s motto, now that he is getting into a better court for his arguments:
“No haste, no hurry; no waste, no worry.”
Effective water-boarding can still be done simply by using the steady drip, drip drip, drip drip, drip, drip, drip, drip of the Law.
I, for one, sincerely hope that is true!!
zachjonesishome // January 21, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Just got back. Don’t lose heart about Berg. Berg is still alive in the 3rd Circuit. I would have been surprised if the SC had granted it since they denied the other. I am still hoping with Lightfoot v Bowen, Broe v Reed, and then Berg again. Something will happen. We need to keep the pressure on the Court and making posts on news articles. Keep fighting.
This is true. It may be precisely why SCOTUS denied Berg's case at this moment. The case has been kicked back to the 3rd Circuit, so it is still alive.
However, "Tom Horn" disagrees and thinks that "there is no forum to bring this case before."
Tom Horn // January 21, 2009 at 3:45 pm
You know something, you guys are never going to get to the bottom of this. If the Supreme Court is unwilling to hear this case, and Congress is unwilling to challenge it, unless you think rioting in the streets is viable political solution, which I don’t, this is never going to be resolved. There just is no forum to bring this case before. Maybe some state legislature or Congress will grow a pair and pass some laws that will require appropriate proof of qualifications.
He is wrong. See # 5 below these comments.
no good // January 21, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Linda Starr on obamacrimes says that Barry never had any US Passport, found out by FOIA.
It is a fact that Obama traveled to Pakistan during a time when American citizens were forbidden to do so! See Orly's post for more about this.
zachjonesishome // January 21, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Obama’s first order may be one to resist since it may put our troops in danger.
Obama draft order calls for closing Guantanamo Bay http://news.aol.com/article/obama-draft-order-calls-for-closing/303331?cid=12
I have not read the article.
Our Courts should be acting as a check on Obama’s lack of eligibility.
Does anyone else find this most peculiar?? His first day in office, Obama signs an executive order to close Gitmo!! So...where are we supposed to put these terrorists?
Despite the fact that this issue is extremely serious, on a brief humorous note Glenn Beck suggested sending them all to Alcatraz! You know - Nancy Pelosi's district? That way she can regularly put quarters in the telescopes around the bay and keep an eye on the terrorists! Don't want them swimming across to San Fransicko...now do we? (Sorry...I just thought that was hilarious.)
Back to the seriousness of this issue. GateWay Pundit has a post up that reveals: " Former "Rehabilitated" Gitmo Detainee Becomes Al-Qaeda Chief."
Excerpts:
Great. A former Gitmo detainee has become a leader of Al-Qaeda's Yemeni branch.Said Ali al-Shihri passed through a Saudi rehabilitation program for former jihadists before resurfacing with Al Qaeda in Yemen. Al-Shihri, is suspected of involvement in the deadly bombing of the US embassy in Yemen's capital, Sana, in September.
Of course, Al-Shihri is not the first Gitmo detainee to return to a life of terror...At least 61 Gitmo detainees have returned to terrorism after their release.
Back to the Citizen Wells blog comments.
More on Obama's passport issues:
JeffM // January 21, 2009 at 5:26 pm
no good said:
“Linda Starr on obamacrimes says that Barry never had any US Passport, found out by FOIA.”
Actually he supposedly received a U.S. Passport upon becoming a senator.
That being said, the U.S. State Department site says:
“Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States.”
Q: Well, Mr. Soetoro, how do you explain this???
A: You were born overseas and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in the summer of 1988.
Next, Ted shares:
Ted // January 21, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Yes, it’s likely Roberts DID “screw up on purpose”. Carefully read this thread from advanceindiana.blogspot.com:
* * *
A San Francisco Chronicle story today cites several constitutional scholars as saying President Barack Obama should retake his oath of office because of the misstatement of it by Chief Justice John Roberts. “In giving the oath, Roberts misplaced the word “faithfully,” at which point Obama paused quizzically. Roberts then corrected himself, but Obama repeated the words as Roberts initially said them.”
This would not be a first according to the story. Both Presidents Calvin Coolidge and Chester Arthur did so under similar circumstances. Ironically, Chester Arthur was probably the first and only other president until Obama to skirt the constitutional requirement that a president be a natural born citizen. Arthur lied about his date of birth because his father had not yet become a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth, a fundamental requirement for being a natural born citizen.
Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen at the time of his birth and all times thereafter. Accordingly, he was born with dual citizenship and fails the natural born citizenship requirement. Obama also later became an Indonesian citizen after he was adopted by his step father, Lolo Soetoro. His name was legally changed to Barry Soetoro. It is unclear if or when his legal name was ever changed back to Barack Hussein Obama. I think the NBC issue is of a little more concern than whether the oath was properly recited word for word, but I’m not a Harvard law graduate like Obama and Roberts so what is my opinion worth. And what is the oath worth if the person reciting it didn’t use his actual legal name?
Posted by Advance Indiana
Good comment! Good question! Pay special attention to that last question:
"And what is the oath worth if the person reciting it didn’t use his actual legal name?"
The question of Barry Soetoro being BHO's real name is included in Orly Taitz lawsuit. Let's hope and pray that SCOTUS takes her case!
In addition, a LOT of people noticed that Soetoro/Obama did not place his left hand on the Bible the second time he was sworn in. Hmmmm....
decentAmerican // January 21, 2009 at 5:52 pm
I often wondered what the Usurper is thinking at every moment. When one is doing something illegal, something illegitimate, something truly wrong, i would think that there is a sense of anxiety, of nervousness, of always looking over his shoulder.
Surely, he is aware of all the blogs, surely he reads them, surely he is reading my post right now (and if you are, YOU ARE A FRAUD!!!), and surely he is paying people lots of money to erase his past (did you read “1984″? That’s what the job of the main character was, to erase people from history, just by erasing all past documentation of them).
No doubt the Usurper can’t quit smoking, he would be a nervous wreck! the paranoia!
Trust this, Usurper, the patriots of this country will come out and get you, as careful as you were, there is ALWAYS evidence, and secrets, especially those this huge, will always come to light.
Yesterday was one of the darkest days in American history. I go from losing all hope to having hope. It’s the patriots like Berg and Taitz and CW that give me hope, so please don’t give up this fight.
When we fight for truth and justice, God is always on our side.
I wholeheartedly echo Decent American's sentiments!
da verg // January 21, 2009 at 6:20 pm
9-11 Families outraged at Obama’s draft to close GITMO, maybe some of these people (who have STANDING) will feel impelled the litigate the USURPING sob…..?…..
Families Outraged Obama Call to Suspend Guantanamo War Crimes Trials
Newsflash: Obama's Gitmo blunder just added hundreds of thousands of people to the ever-growing population that will support our "We The People" natural born citizen for POTUS only investigation of Soetoro/Obama.
Now, get this! Comments are being filtered on this subject at an alarming rate over at the Fox Forum!! Most commenters are DISAGREEING with former Judge Napolitano. Also, notice the "happy spin" in the title of the article! That's it! I don't need ANY MORE PROOF that Fox News has been hijacked - big time - by ObamaBorg Spinmeister Bots who are probably now employed as pro-Marxist, pro-Obama moderators!!
JeffM adds:
JeffM // January 21, 2009 at 6:35 pm
And, as I posed the question elsewhere…
Is this Obama’s first MILITARY ORDER? If so, it sure is a controversial one that can be questioned not only on its ethical aspect but also based on his ineligibility, would it not?
Now, it is common knowledge here in the blogosphere that when the ObamaBorg Bots start showing up and making idle threats, you know that what is being discussed is concerning, alarming, and worrying to them!
Take this exchange, for instance:
Janet // January 21, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Here we go, this is the key to why all the Senators, all the Representatives, McCain and the Secretaries of State, and the SCOTUS … this is why they have all reacted the same exact way. Because of this … that someone was brave enough to expose by writing here on this very blog. It’s up above, written by “Politico”. THIS IS THE THREAT THAT HAS KEPT THE MSM et al from further looking into the truth … here it is again below:
#
Politico // January 21, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Your cases will never see the light of day again.
You will be silenced. If you keep trying to destroy our country you may get code Red Alexa status and end up being scratched.
The power that you’re messing with you have NO IDEA how quick and lethal the bite can be. Your putting yourself, your children, your pets, your extended family, everyone you know in lethal danger. I would suggest you behave and it wouldn’t hurt for you to just try to live an honest life and get rid of your computer. That thing will end up being the key to your destruction if you’re not careful.
Janet // January 21, 2009 at 9:30 pm
by the way I just looked up “code red alexa status” on the googly and there was nothing at all there. Not one thing.
Perhaps, politico, you would like to either admit you made that up OR explain to us precisely what you meant.
Trouble is, the ObamaBorg Bots are easily exposed for the LIARS THAT THEY ARE because many of them post such DUMB, IGNORANT, ALBEIT THREATENING comments.
Loved this response:
Bill G // January 21, 2009 at 10:00 pm
The threats posted above seem similar to those levied by King George against the colonial agitators, who we now consider patriots and Fathers of our Country.
There are many, many more great comments over there. You should read through the entire thread.
Now, I want to skip over to what "We The People" can do when the Executive branch, the Legislative branch, and the Judicial branch is found to be failing in our rights as citizens of the United States of America. It is called "The Grand Jury" option.
5. The Right Side of Life: The Federal Grand Jury (5th Amendment).
Excerpt:
Leo Donofrio, Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, expressed his legal opinion on grand juries. I agree with Mr. Donofrio in that these facts are definitely worth reading and understanding.
The grand jury has its origin in the 5th Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. [emphasis mine]
Update: Commenter “scott” points readers to the following link showing the “anatomy” of a federal grand jury:
See here: Grand Jury Rules
HOW CONSTITUTED
Grand jury members must be elected by the people (not citizens) of the jurisdiction in which they are operating.
There are no rules defining a procedure for how they are elected. The people, without the influence of government, decide for themselves how the grand jury members are elected.
There must be 25 members.—And there’s a lot more at the url.
[NOTE: Mr. Donofrio has asked that we cut and paste his entire post and spread it around the Internet. Post on blogs, websites, message forums - everywhere! We need to make people aware of their RIGHTS IN THE CASE AGAINST BARRY SOETORO/a.k.a. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA! You can either read it all at The Right Side of Life (which includes additional links within the post) or just read the text (below) here on Talk Wisdom.]
Read through the entire post at "The Right Side of Life." Read the links. Read the comments. People - THE QUESTIONS SURROUNDING BARRY SOETORO/a.k.a. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA ARE NOT GOING AWAY!!
BREAKING NEWS! Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is scheduled to speak at a news conference at 3:00 p.m. today. Will what he has to say include bad news about Obama? We will have to wait and see...
*******
Update: For Up to date information, see "The Right Side of Life" blog
Latest Post: Updates: Lightfoot v. Bowen, Kerchner v. Obama, Ankeny v. Daniels, Gitmo in the Judiciary
*******
Related posts:
Obama Knew He Wasn't Eligible For POTUS
*******
Hat Tips:
American Prophet.org
Lame Cherry
WorldNetDaily
News With Views
Citizen Wells
GateWay Pundit
Fox News
The Right Side of Life
*******
*Mr. Donofrio's Essay:
Quote:
All of us may one day serve as grand jurors in federal court, and I hope this article will educate the reader to his/her true power as granted by the Constitution. For that power, despite having been hidden for many years behind the veil of a legislative fraud, still exists in all of its glory in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. The US Supreme Court has confirmed and reinforced that power.
So please, copy this report and paste it far and wide. It is not spin. It is not false. It is not for sale, it is not copyrighted by me, so paste and quote it freely. This report is the truth and we need truth, now, more than ever.
The Constitutional power of “we the people” sitting as grand jurors has been subverted by a deceptive play on words since 1946 when the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were enacted. Regardless, the power I am going to explain to you still exists in the Constitution, and has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court despite the intention of the legislature and other legal scholars to make our power disappear with a cheap magic trick.
Repeat a lie with force and repetition and the lie becomes known as truth. In the case of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, the power of the grand jury, to return “presentments” on its own proactive initiation, without reliance upon a US Attorney to concur in such criminal charges, has been usurped by an insidious play on words.
Most of this article is going to quote other scholars, judges and legislators as I piece together a brief but thorough history of the federal grand jury for your review. But the punch line is my personal contribution to the cause:
UNITED STATES CITIZENS SITTING AS FEDERAL GRAND JURORS ARE THE FOURTH BRANCH OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.
My input into this vital fight is no more than the analysis of a few carefully used words. It only took a small sleight of pen back in 1946 to hide our power, and it won’t take more than a few words to take that power back. But a proper overview is necessary for most of you who are unfamiliar with the issue at hand. So let me provide you with some history and then we’ll see what went wrong and how to correct it.
HISTORY OF FEDERAL GRAND JURY POWER
I want to draw your attention to a law review article, CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW, Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000, 821, IF IT’S NOT A RUNAWAY, IT’S NOT A REAL GRAND JURY by Roger Roots, J.D.
“In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without governmental influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past.”
The 5th Amendment:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.”
An article appearing in American Juror, the newsletter of the American Jury Institute and the Fully Informed Jury Association, citing the famed American jurist, Joseph Story, explained :
“An indictment is a written accusation of an offence preferred to, and presented, upon oath, as true, by a grand jury, at the suit of the government. An indictment is framed by the officers of the government, and laid before the grand jury. Presentments, on the other hand, are the result of a jury’s independent action:
‘A presentment, properly speaking, is an accusation, made by a grand jury of its own mere motion, of an offence upon its own observation and knowledge, or upon evidence before it, and without any bill of indictment laid before it at the suit of the government. Upon a presentment, the proper officer of the court must frame an indictment, before the party accused can be put to answer it.’ “
Back to the Creighton Law Review:
“A ‘runaway’ grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today’s “runaway” grand jury is in fact the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact “runaways,” according to the definition of modern times; they operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself.”
So, it’s clear that the Constitution intended to give the grand jury power to instigate criminal charges, and this was especially true when it came to government oversight. But something strange happened on the way to the present. That power was eroded by a lie enacted by the legislative branch. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution still contains the same words quoted above, but if you sit on a grand jury and return a “presentment” today, the prosecutor must sign it or it probably won’t be allowed to stand by the judge and the criminal charges you have brought to the court’s attention will be swept away. And the reason for this can be found in a legislative lie of epic proportions.
Mr. Roots weighs in again:
“In 1946, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted, codifying what had previously been a vastly divergent set of common law procedural rules and regional customs.[86] In general, an effort was made to conform the rules to the contemporary state of federal criminal practice.[87] In the area of federal grand jury practice, however, a remarkable exception was allowed. The drafters of Rules 6 and 7, which loosely govern federal grand juries, denied future generations of what had been the well-recognized powers of common law grand juries: powers of unrestrained investigation and of independent declaration of findings. The committee that drafted the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provided no outlet for any document other than a prosecutor-signed indictment. In so doing, the drafters at least tacitly, if not affirmatively, opted to ignore explicit constitutional language.“[88]“
Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP):
“An offense which may be punished by death shall be prosecuted by indictment. An offense which may be punished by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or at hard labor shall be prosecuted by indictment…”
No mention of “presentments” can be found in Rule 7. But they are mentioned in Note 4 of the Advisory Committee Notes on the Rules:
“4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts.”
The American Juror published the following commentary with regards to Note 4:
“[W]hile the writers of the federal rules made provisions for indictments, they made none for presentments. This was no oversight. According to Professor Lester B. Orfield, a member of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, the drafters of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 6 decided the term presentment should not be used, even though it appears in the Constitution. Orfield states [22 F.R.D. 343, 346]:
‘There was an annotation by the Reporter on the term presentment as used in the Fifth Amendment. It was his conclusion that the term should not be used in the new rules of criminal procedure. Retention might encourage the use of the run-away grand jury as the grand jury could act from their own knowledge or observation and not only from charges made by the United States attorney. It has become the practice for the United States Attorney to attend grand jury hearings, hence the use of presentments have been abandoned.’ “
That’s a fascinating statement: “Retention might encourage…the grand jury [to] act from their own knowledge or observation.” God forbid, right America? The nerve of these people. They have the nerve to put on the record that they intended to usurp our Constitutional power, power that was intended by the founding fathers, in their incredible wisdom, to provide us with oversight over tyrannical government.
And so they needed a spin term to cast aspersions on that power. The term they chose was, “runaway grand jury”, which is nothing more than a Constitutionally mandated grand jury, aware of their power, and legally exercising that power to hold the federal beast in check, as in “checks and balances”.
The lie couldn’t be inserted into the Constitution, so they put it in a statute and then repeated it. And scholars went on to repeat it, and today, as it stands, the grand jury has effectively been lied into the role of submissive puppet of the US Attorney.
The American Juror publication included a very relevant commentary:
“Of course, no statute or rule can alter the provisions of the Constitution, since it is the supreme law of the land. But that didn’t prevent the federal courts from publishing a body of case law affirming the fallacy that presentments were abolished. A particularly egregious example:
‘A rule that would permit anyone to communicate with a grand jury without the supervision or screening of the prosecutor or the court would compromise, if not utterly subvert, both of the historic functions of the grand jury, for it would facilitate the pursuit of vendettas and the gratification of private malice. A rule that would open the grand jury to the public without judicial or prosecutorial intervention is an invitation to anyone interested in trying to persuade a majority of the grand jury, by hook or by crook, to conduct investigations that a prosecutor has determined to be inappropriate or unavailing.’ [7]
What is the result? Investigating seditious acts of government officials can be deemed inappropriate or unavailing by the prosecutor, or the judge can dismiss the grand jurors pursuing such investigations. Consequently, corrupt government officials have few natural enemies and go about their seditious business unimpeded.
By the way, they made a rule to take care of runaways too, in 1946: Rule 6(g):
‘At any time for cause shown the court may excuse a juror either temporarily or
permanently, and in the latter event the court may impanel another person in place of the juror excused.’ Now judges can throw anyone off a grand jury, or even dis-impanel a grand jury entirely, merely for exercising its discretion.”
Now let me add my two cents to this argument:
Most of the discussion about Note 4 to Rule 7 of the FRCP takes for granted that the common law use of “presentments” (as codified in the 5th Amendment) was made “illegal” in 1946 by this act. Nothing could be more false. Note 4 does not contain language that makes the use of presentments “illegal”, although it had chosen its words carefully to make it appear as if that is what the legislative branch intended. But let’s look at Note 4 again:
“4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts.”
The key word is, “obsolete”. Obsolete means “outmoded”, or “not in use anymore”, but it does not mean “abolished” or “illegal”. And therein lies the big lie. The legislature knew it could not directly overrule the Constitution, especially with something so clearly worded as the 5th Amendment, which grants a power to the people which has a long and noble purpose in criminal jurisprudence. But the federal beast legislative branch sought more power to protect themselves from the oversight of “we the people”, and in its vampire like thirst for more governmental control, it inserted this insidious Note 4 in the hope that scholars and judges would play along with their ruse, or in the alternative, their ruse would appear to be legally viable.
Let’s look at some authoritative legal resources which discuss Note 4:
Susan Brenner, THE VOICE OF THE COMMUNITY: A CASE FOR GRAND JURY INDEPENDENCE:
“Finally, federal grand juries’ subservience to prosecutors was exacerbated when the federal system eliminated the use of presentments, which allowed a grand jury to bring charges on its own initiative. (N35) Now, federal grand jurors cannot return charges in the form of an indictment without a prosecutor’s consent. (N36) Elimination of the presentment demonstrates the historical trend towards elimination of proactive features in the grand jury system.”
Did Brenner fall for the lie or did she cleverly further it when she said, “[T]he federal system eliminated the use of presentments”? The federal system did no such thing. Note 4 said the use of presentments was “obsolete”. First of all, Note 4 is not a law in itself. It is a Note to a law, and the law as written, does not have anything to say about presentments. You see the leap Brenner has made? The Constitution provides for “presentments”, then the FRCP are enacted and the Rules therein do not mention presentments, nor due they ban presentments, and if they did, such a ban would be unconstitutional, since an administrative enactment regarding procedure can not overrule the Constitution.
Regardless, it’s irrelevant, since the FRCP does not mention “presentments”. Note 4 simply states that “presentments” allowed for in the 5th Amendment of the Constitution have become “obsolete”, or outmoded, which is not to say that they were “eliminated”. Shame on you Susan Brenner. You know damn well that the Constitution can only be changed by an official Amendment to it. Nothing can be “eliminated” from the Constitution by an administrative note.
The use of presentments had become obsolete because the grand jurors were not aware of their power. So the use of “presentments” became more and more rare, and then in 1946 the legislative branch seized upon the moment to make this power disappear by waving its magic wand over the Constitution.
Mr. Root got it wrong in the Creighton Law Review as well:
“Before the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure — which made independently-acting grand juries illegal for all practical purposes — grand juries were understood to have broad powers to operate at direct odds with both judges and prosecutors…”
The FRCP did not make it “illegal for all practical purposes”. That’s patently false. I don’t know if Mr. Root, and/or Susan Brenner, were acting as the magician’s assistant, but I can’t imagine how these educated scholars could be so incredibly ignorant of basic Constitutional law. Give me a damn break.
But if enough people repeat the lie, the lie appears to be the truth.
But we have it on good authority, the Supreme Court, that the lie has no legal effect.
Justice Powell, in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974), stated:
“The institution of the grand jury is deeply rooted in Anglo-American history. [n3] In England, the grand jury [p343] served for centuries both as a body of accusers sworn to discover and present for trial persons suspected of criminal wrongdoing and as a protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action. In this country, the Founders thought the grand jury so essential to basic liberties that they provided in the Fifth Amendment that federal prosecution for serious crimes can only be instituted by “a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” Cf. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 361-362 (1956). The grand jury’s historic functions survive to this day. Its responsibilities continue to include both the determination whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the protection of citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686-687 (1972).”
The Note 4 lie is smashed on the SCOTUS altar, “The grand jury’s historic functions survive to this day.” Take that Note 4!
Antonin Scalia effectively codified the unique independent power of the Fourth Branch into the hands of all citizens sitting as federal grand jurors. In discussing that power and unique independence granted to the grand jury, the United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992), Justice Scalia, delivering the opinion of the court, laid down the law of the land:
“‘[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history,” Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It “`is a constitutional fixture in its own right.’” United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). ‘ “
I submit to you that this passage sets the stage for a revolutionary knew context necessary and Constitutionally mandated to “we the people”, THE FOURTH BRANCH of the Government of the United States. Besides, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches, I submit that there is a fourth branch, THE GRAND JURY, and “we the people” when sitting as grand jurors, are, as Scalia quoted in US v. Williams, ” a constitutional fixture in its own right”. Yes, damn it. That is exactly what the grand jury is, and what it was always intended to be.
Scalia also stated, that “the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside…” Id.
And finally, to seal the deal, Scalia hammered the point home:
“In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504 U.S. 36, 48] “
This miraculous quote says it all, “…the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people.” The Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, gives rise to a FOURTH BRANCH of Government, THE GRAND JURY. We the people have been charged with oversight of the government in our roles as grand jurors.
And at this critical time in American history, we must, for the protection of our constitutional republic, take back our power and start acting as powerful as the other branches of government.
The law is on our side. So please spread this knowledge as far and wide as you can. We the people have the right and power under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution to charge this government with crimes by returning presentments regardless of whether the US Attorneys or the federal judges agree with us. As the Supreme Court has so brilliantly stated, we are the “buffer between the Government and the people.”
Take the reins America. Pass it on. The Fourth Branch is alive and kickin’. /quote
*******
Update 1/24/09 -
The following link is a comprehensive site that discusses FAQ ON BARACK OBAMA’S HIDDEN BIRTH CERTIFICATE
The site answers most of the objections of those who would still want to label all of the Obama court cases and the supporters of those court cases as "conspiracy theorists."