MR. KANSAGRA: Thank you. Welcome, Mr. President, to India. As a fellow Kenyan...

Well, well, well! It appears that the Kerchner et al v. Obama et al POTUS eligibility case is not going to be so easily dismissed like so many other cases have (unfortunately) been through the "lack of standing" excuse.

Please see the latest post about the case:

Kerchner et al v Obama et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari Distributed to the U.S. Supreme Court Justices for Conference Scheduled for 23 Nov 2010
posted by cfkerchner at A Place to Ask Questions to Get the Right Answers - 2 hours ago
Kerchner et al v Obama et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari Distributed to the U.S. Supreme Court Justices for Conference Scheduled for 23 Nov 2010 See the new activity on the U.S. Supreme Court Docket at...

While reading the preceding blog post at "A Place to Ask Questions to Get the Right Answers," I followed a link to this big gem of information:

Scribd.com: Puzo1 - Document Collections

Also see Political Punch: Odd Little Moment at the CEO Meeting.

Hat Tips to all links.

Vandals Tore Down the 76 Year-Old Mojave Cross

So...this is how those who lose a Supreme Court case against the existence of a cross in the Mojave Desert to honor the service and sacrifice of Veterans who gave their lives in the service and protection of our country act in revenge?

DESPICABLE!!

I hope and pray that the vandals are caught, arrested, tried and jailed for their acts of desecration to a Christian symbol at the graves of the war dead.

Excerpt:

Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 11:35 AM

Horrible. Vandals tore down the 76 year-old Mojave Cross just days after the Supreme Court ruled that the religious symbol could remain atop Sunrise Rock.On April 28th the Supreme Court ruled against the anti-Christian ACLU when they decided that the Mojave Cross did not have to be taken down.

Hat Tip:

Gateway Pundit

Justice Thomas: "We are evading that one, the eligibility issue"

Originally, I added the topic of this new post in an update to my previous post about Rush and his reply to the arrogant ObaMARXIST. However, I now think that it deserves a post all its own.
I first heard about the video clip between Justice Thomas and Representive Serrano over at a site called "Above Top Secret" (found via The Obama File). Spent some time reading the comments there and they were quite interesting. Much speculation was being bantered about by different people posting comments at that site.

However, the best explanation that I have read was written by Attorney Mario Apuzzo at his blog - A Place to Ask Questions to Get the Right Answers: The Court and Congress Expected the Other to Resolve the Obama Eligibility Question.

Before going over there to read Attorney Apuzzo's take on the incident, spend one minute, fifteen seconds viewing this brief video clip:

YouTube Video: Justice Thomas: We are evading the eligibility issue

Ever since I first watched that video early this morning, I have been thinking about this incident throughout the day. When I read Attorney Apuzzo's explanation, it made the most sense. Here is the rest of my comment at his blog:

This "joking" between Justice Thomas and Rep. Serrano appeared to be confusing at first, but your explanation is excellent and makes the most sense. It certainly demonstrates and explains why no one wants to get involved with settling this issue.

Personally, I don't find it funny - at all! It makes me terribly sad for our nation. What a huge letdown these people are! They are supposed to be at the forefront in protecting our liberty and freedom! The checks and balances that the Framers devised are not working because of what...political correctness? Political expediency? Fear of being called "racist?" The race-baiting and false accusations of racism against ordinary Americans who don't want socialism is happening anyway. What would we have to lose? Nothing!! What we would gain is the truth about Obama. Americans WANT the truth. We The People are so sick of all of the lies!!

I already knew that we had two branches of gangster government with ObaMARXIST and this radical progressive Congress. But hearing a justice of the Supreme Court actually "joke" about such a serious issue made my jaw drop and my heart sink.

I'm disgusted, disappointed and appalled!


Hat Tips:

Above Top Secret

A Place to Ask Questions to Get the Right Answers

Letter From Concerned USAFR MC U.S. Citizen

The following letter is posted over at Orly Taitz' blog. It states everything that I would have wanted to say, if given the chance to present such an argument to the powers that be in Washington, D.C.

Here is the letter in it's entirety:

Quote:

From: Dr. David A. Earl- Graef LtCol. USAFR

Date: 1 Feb 2009,

Dear Senator Warner,

I am in receipt of your letter of 26 Jan 2009. While I thank you for taking the time to respond I can’t express in words my disappointment in your response. I have given much thought to this issue and take offense in so much as you would apparently dismiss my concerns without a thorough investigation into the validity of my questions. So it is that I am again compelled to write to you and ask your re-consideration. Please do not dismiss prima fasciae, as if this has already been addressed, but read what I have to say.

The requirement to be a “Natural Born” citizen is very specific as you point out in Article II, Section 1, and Clause 5 as it applies to the office of the POTUS. The Framers in their construct recognize there IS a difference between a Citizen and a Natural Born Citizen. The requirement was instituted to provide a safeguard that the POTUS would have undivided loyalty to the United States. I share the opinion of Attorneys Orly Taitz and Phil Berg who are among the Constitutional Attorneys bringing these cases to the State, Federal and Supreme Court that Natural Born status also requires that BOTH parents be citizens; a condition we know is NOT the instance in the case. This is not a trivial question left for Legal Academics to debate, it is about our Constitution and a matter for Congress and our Supreme Court.

To date, no case challenging the qualifications of President Obama to hold that Office has been heard on its merits. I have pleaded with Chief Justice Roberts to answer on the merits of the case and will continue barring action by the Congress to address my concerns. Most of the lawsuits are brought by concerned Citizens rightfully questioning if our Constitution is being followed and have been dismissed on lack of standing allowing questions to remain. The same lawsuits President Obama or those speaking for President Obama have referred to as Garbage!

I ask you now; is this the response you would also give the citizens addressing their concerns? Would you tell us our concerns are Garbage? I will trust in your integrity and believe it is not how you yourself would respond, if informed, as evidenced by your response to me to date. I believe you would simply give us what we need to reassure us. Given this could be put to rest by easily producing the supporting documents President Obama has sealed, do you think this is an appropriate response for a person in a position of public trust ?

There is much misinformation in the media. Even during the Inauguration, I heard it stated by Rick Warren that President Obama’s father was an “immigrant” from Kenya, yet it is known he was NOT an “immigrant “ and never had U.S. Citizenship at any time of his life. There are many other legitimate questions regarding the Constitutional qualifications of the POTUS. This is being aggravated by the President spending hundreds of thousands of dollars by reasonable estimates and using teams of attorneys to block the release of documents to support his qualifications. This includes the vault copy of the Official Birth Certificate held by the State of Hawaii you mentioned in your letter.

While I believe you answered my inquiry in good faith, I believe you misstate the facts in your letter. To my knowledge, at no point has the Hawaii Department of Health stated that he was actually BORN there. They stated they have his official Hawaii Birth Certificate on file and nothing more. Are you aware that Hawaii Statute allows one to obtain a Certificate of Live Birth ( i.e. the one Mr. Obama submitted as his ONLY “proof” to us on HIS web site ) on the unsubstantiated information provided by a single parent ? Are you aware that one may obtain this for a specified period of time even if born outside the US? Are you aware that if President Obama was born in Kenya, as some assert , his mother did not meet the legal requirements to even confer US citizenship on her son? Who was it that provided the information for the Hawaii certificate? Is there a Physicians signature on the original or not ? What was the Hospital where he was born? Not what his SISTER says but what is on the official document.

Does it not stand to reason President Obama should make it public so that competent authority can verify its authenticity? Does it not stand to reason that if everything is in order and there is nothing to hide this would have been done long before the election when this became a question rather than fight in the courts? Do you yourself not want to know the answers to these questions? Does the Constitution still matter ?

This situation by analogy would be like me giving a Hospital my Medical School Diploma and when they ask for my transcripts as a source document, I hire teams of attorneys to block the Hospital from getting it and start taking care of patients anyway. Then to make matters worse I tell them their efforts to require me to produce my transcripts are Garbage. How much more important is it that the person who has control of our military to produce supporting documents when asked ? This is absolutely absurd and an outrage to those of us who are informed, place our very lives at the feet of Liberty and are simply asking to have this issue settled. There are many other questions that remain unanswered which my attorney, Dr. Orly Taitz, would be happy to discuss with you.

I can’t imagine the demands currently placed upon your time and I am sympathetic to you. Nevertheless, you must also realize the potential catastrophic consequences to our Country if indeed we are already into a Constitutional crisis. This is a National disgrace if we allow our Constitution to be ignored simply because someone, perhaps in the DNC , did not do their job in properly vetting the candidates in this last election.

Please understand, I do not intend to convey any disrespect to you in any way, but I can’t contain my sense of betrayal that to date elected officials seem willing to let this pass without reasonable due process. It is also disappointing to me that you do not seem to appreciate the tremendous difficulty that this issue places upon each and every American soldier. Although I have over 15 years of credible military service I am at this moment struggling to decide if I must resign my commission as I can’t reconcile my Oath to defend the Constitution while being in doubt that those above me have respected it in word and deed. I know that I am only one Officer but there must be more, as they learn of this and they will, they will be faced with the same impossible decision. This is a classic Hobson’s choice for which the only hope of redemption is to know the truth.

Our History is replete with the memoirs of American soldiers and Statesman who have, due to the failure of their leaders or at the hand of destiny itself faced similar difficult decisions. One such soldier was Robert E. Lee who found himself divided between family loyalties to the South and loyalty to his Oath of Office. He then under extreme duress resigned his commission so that he would not be conflicted. As you know he chose his FAMILY heritage for which to take a stand.

Make no mistake, while the particular situation facing Gen. Lee was different in circumstance, in essence it is the same as we now face in the military and the same as is at the heart of the Natural Born Citizen requirement . I do not believe abandoning our Constitution is our destiny to forward the interests of a partisan Government but instead the failed actions of our leaders to address a legitimate issue regarding our Constitution.

My loyalty to the Constitution of the United States as per my Oath is and has been un-wavering. I have to this point and will continue to act in good faith as a United States Air Force Officer. I am only asking that this Constitutional issue be resolved, so that I may be able to continue in my service to my country and my President freely, without doubt or reservation.

If there is no problem with the qualifications of the POTUS this can be discovered very quickly by a full investigation by the Congress and we can all go about the business of daily life. Furthermore, the decisions you must make regarding the problems we face will actually have meaning and will not have to be redressed. They are difficult enough, I should think you would not what to have do make them again.

I continue to trust and it is my hope, as is the case with most Americans, you have a trusting heart and nature and that you have simply been misled. I implore you to bring this before the Congress. You have the right and I believe the responsibility to do this as I watched the proceedings on 8 Jan 2009 and as a Point of Order the Constitution was not followed for the opportunity to voice objections to the Electoral College was not given. This is too important to ignore and hope it will go away because it will NOT. If for any reason our concerns have merit with each stroke of the pen we get deeper and deeper as none of the actions of POTUS will have the force of law. Have you read some of the foreign press who are aware of this and may question the validity of treaties that may be signed? I have seen it myself. The potential harmful implications are staggering.

I do not believe you want in any way to have not acted and to make absolutely certain beyond any doubt we are not in the very midst of a Constitutional crisis. I do not believe you would want this, if the worst is true, to be the legacy of YOUR service to our Country. As difficult as this may be for you to bring to the attention of the Congress, it also is nothing less than the opportunity for you to take a stand and be counted among the Great Leaders of our Nation who have come before and risked their fortunes and their lives for the sake of Liberty and our sacred Constitution.

I heard it said many times during the long Campaign to the Presidency that if ever in our History we needed leadership it is now ! I am convinced that this is true. We need our Leaders to possess not only the wisdom of our Founding Fathers but the strength of conviction to see the challenges through in the face of daunting opposition if we are to survive as a sovereign Nation . Please investigate this more. I am confident that when you do you will appreciate the gravity of the situation and be compelled to act in defense of our Constitution.

Very Respectfully,

Dr. David A. Earl-Graef USAFR MC /quote

*******


The Meaning of Our Symbol

The U.S. Air Force symbol honors the heritage of our past and represents the promise of our future. It retains the core elements of our Air Corps heritage -- the "Arnold" wings and star with circle -- and modernizes them to reflect our air and space force of today and tomorrow.

The symbol has two main parts. In the upper half, the stylized wings represent the stripes of our strength -- the enlisted men and women of our force. They are drawn with great angularity to emphasize our swiftness and power, and they are divided into six sections which represent our distinctive capabilities -- air and space superiority, global attack, rapid global mobility, precision engagement, information superiority, and agile combat support.

In the lower half are a sphere, a star and three diamonds. The sphere within the star represents the globe. It reminds us of our obligation to secure our nation's freedom with Global Vigilance, Reach and Power. The globe also reminds us of our challenge as an expeditionary force to respond rapidly to crises and to provide decisive aerospace power, worldwide.

The area surrounding the sphere takes the shape of a star. The star has many meanings. Its five points represent the components of our Total Force and family -- our active duty, civilians, Guard, Reserve and retirees. The star symbolizes space as the high ground of our nation's air and space force. The rallying symbol in all our wars, the star also represents our officer corps, central to our combat leadership.

The star is framed with three diamonds, which represent our core values -- integrity first, service before self and excellence in all we do. The elements come together to form one symbol that presents two powerful images -- at once it is an eagle, the emblem of our nation, and a medal, representing valor in service to our nation.

*******

Dad - this post is presented here in honor and remembrance of you and your service to our nation in the United States Air Force during World War II. If you were alive today, I'm certain that you would have written a similar letter of concern about the ineligibility (if Obama Jr.'s real father was, in fact, Obama Sr.) of Barack Hussein Obama for POTUS because of the fact that he cannot be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America because his father was Kenyan and never a citizen of our nation.

Love you dad...

Miss you...

Your loving daughter,

"Sweetie Pie"

*******

Related posts and articles.

Update 2/2/09 at 8:49 a.m. PT:

Over at The Betrayal I found a great letter of request written and sent to Senator Patty Murray that I think, ultimately, will be difficult to ignore!

Quote:

Posted on February 2nd, 2009 by David-Crockett

Natural Born Citizen…Orly? published:

Download Copy Here

1 February 2009 Sunday

U.S. Senator Patty Murray, (D - WA)Washington, D.C. Office173 Russell Senate Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20510Phone: (202) 224-2621Fax: (202) 224-0238via Fax: (202) 224-0238

Re: U.S. Constitution; FIRST CONGRESS; THIRD CONGRESS

Dear Senator Murray:
Your representation as a U.S. Senator is formally requested within this letter. Due to a rapidly growing concern among voters in the State of Washington there appears to be a developing crisis requiring your membership in the U.S. Congress to fully cooperate with the voters and address four questions below.

In the official copies of the THIRD U.S. Congress (1795) are margin notes that state “Former act repealed. 1790. ch. 3.” referencing the FIRST U.S. Congress (1790).

The actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states,“…children of citizens [plural, i.e. two parents] of the United States…shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…” [THIRD CONGRESS Sess. II. Ch.21. 1795, Approved January 29, 1795, pp. 414-415] [Document margin note: “How children shall obtain citizenship through their parents” Document margin note: Former Act repealed 1790 ch.3] (Attachment A)

The actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 states,“…children of citizens [plural, i.e. two parents] of the United States…shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…” [[FIRST CONGRESS Sess. II Ch.4 1790, Approved March 26, 1790, pp. 103-104] [Document margin note: Their children residing here, deemed citizens. Document margin note: Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, & c. Exceptions.] (Attachment B)
The actual text of the Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789, and subsequent official printings, of the Constitution of the United States of American: Article II Section 1 Clause 5 states,“No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United Statesat the time of the adoption of this Constitution,shall be eligible to the office of President…” (Attachment C)

The actual text in a January 26, 2009 letter issued by United States Senator, Mark R. Warner cites

“…the Immigration and Nationality Act (P.L. 82-414) …states that‘…A person born…after April 30, 1900 is a CITIZEN (emphasis added) of the United States at birth….’” (Attachment D)

U.S. Senator Patty Murray, (D - WA)
1 February 2009 Sunday
Page Two

WE, voters in the State of Washington, witness to these four documents cited, i.e.:
The actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795
The actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790
The actual text of the Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789

The actual text in a January 26, 2009 letter issued by United States Senator, Mark R. Warnerand we also witness the apparent denial in the current United States Congress to address the phrase “natural born citizen.”

THEREFORE, WE formally request a comprehensive answer from your position as Senator to the following four questions:

ONE
As a U.S. Senator, how did you define the term “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” versus “CITIZENS” in regard to the 2008 U.S. Presidential election; as so stated in the U.S. Constitution, the FIRST and the THIRD Congress of the United States?

TWO
Are children of citizens (plural) of the United States granted citizenship if one parent is not a citizen of the United States; as the phrase “…children of citizens of the United States…” is so stated in FIRST and THIRD Congress of the United States?

THREE
To be a “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” of the United States is a person required to be a child of “citizens (plural) of the United States” as the phrase “natural born citizen” is so stated in the U.S. Constitution, and the FIRST Congress of the United States?

FOUR
On behalf of voters in the State of Washington, will you provide us with comprehensive clarification from United States Senator Mark R. Warner regarding the legal difference between the legal term/phrases “CITIZEN of the United States” and “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the United States?”

In advance, I thank you for your prompt and comprehensive response to these four questions.

Very truly yours,
Michael Angelus

Attachments:
A: Image of original document THIRD CONGRESS Sess. II. Ch.21, 1795, p. 415

B: Image of original document FIRST CONGRESS Sess. II. Ch.3, 1790, p. 104

C: Image of original document Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789:

D: United States Senator Mark Warner (Virginia) January 26, 2009 letter to Dr. David Earl-Graef

Congress Sued

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Congress sued to remove
prez from White House
'Defendants had to ensure
the Constitution is upheld'

Posted: January 31, 2009
12:00 am Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A new lawsuit is challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, and this one targets Congress as a defendant for its "failure" to uphold the constitutional demand to make sure Obama qualified before approving the Electoral College vote that actually designated him as the occupant of the Oval Office.

The new case raises many of the same arguments as dozens of other cases that have flooded into courtrooms around the nation since the November election.

It is being brought on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. and names as defendants Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 193,000 others and sign up now!

As WND has reported, dozens of lawsuits have been filed over Obama's eligibility to assume the office of the president. Many have been dismissed while others remain pending.

The cases, in various ways, have alleged Obama does not meet the "natural born citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the legal challenges have alleged Obama was not born in Hawaii, as he insists, but in Kenya. Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Several details of Obama's past have added twists to the question of his eligibility and citizenship, including his family's move to Indonesia when he was a child, his travel to Pakistan in the '80s when such travel was forbidden to American citizens and conflicting reports from Obama's family about his place of birth.

Perhaps the most perplexing detail, however, has been Obama's refusal to allow the public release of a signed "vault" copy of his original birth certificate.
The new case was launched in New Jersey, and focuses on the alleged failure in Congress to follow the Constitution.

That document, the lawsuit states, "provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral College Electors."
In provides, the lawsuit said, "If the president-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the vice president elect shall act as president until a president shall have qualified."

"There existed significant public doubt and grievances from plaintiffs and other concerned Americans regarding Obama's eligibility to be president and defendants had the sworn duty to protect and preserve the Constitution and specifically under the 20th Amendment, Section 3, a Constitutional obligation to confirm whether Obama, once the electors elected him, was qualified."

"Congress is the elected representative of the American people and the people speak and act through them," the lawsuit said.

The defendants "violated" the 20th Amendment by failing to assure that Obama meets the eligibility requirements," the lawsuit said.

In the Russian publication Pravda, commentator Mark S. McGrew addressed the subject:
"The United States Congress is required, under the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, to count the Electoral College votes for president and vice president, ask if any member of Congress objects to the count and hear that Congressman's objection. This is under Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 15, 'Upon such reading of any such certificate of paper, the president of the Senate shall call for objections, if any,'" he wrote.
Several of the cases – including those brought by Orly Taitz, Cort Wrotnowski, Leo Donofrio and Philip Berg, already have been heard in conference at the U.S. Supreme Court, which has failed to have a hearing on any of the merits involved.

Taitz, in fact, is requesting information from the Supreme Court about a meeting eight of its justices held with Obama, a defendant in her case, before the justices reviewed the issues of the case in a private conference.

Several of the cases not scheduled for hearings at the Supreme Court still remain active at lower court levels, from which emergency requests to the high court were launched.

"I know that Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally qualified natural born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of president of the United States," Berg said in a statement on his ObamaCrimes.com website.
"Obama knows he is not 'natural born' as he knows where he was born and he knows he was adopted in Indonesia; Obama is an attorney, Harvard Law grad who taught Constitutional law; Obama knows his candidacy is the largest 'hoax' attempted on the citizens of the United States in over 200 years; Obama places our Constitution in a 'crisis' situation; and Obama is in a situation where he can be blackmailed by leaders around the world who know Obama is not qualified," Berg's statement continued.

Go to WND for a partial list of pending cases. I have heard that there are now over 40 cases!

Article conclusion:

WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi had gone to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.
The biggest question was why, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, Obama hasn't simply ordered it made available to settle the rumors.

The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?

Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born. There have been other allegations that Obama actually was born in Kenya during a time when his father was a British subject. A one point a Kenyan ambassador said Obama's birth place in Kenya already was recognized and honored.

Hat Tip: WorldNetDaily

*******

Update:

I have placed several helpful links in my sidebar under the title, "Why Natural Born Citizen For POTUS Matters."

The following are two comments that help to explain "natural born citizen" status requirement for POTUS in Section II, Article 1, clause 5 of the United States Constitution.

Quote:

There is a lot of fuzzy thinking in the legal opinions being rendered which seek to equate "Natural Born Citizen" of the Constitution's Article II, with the ever-changing "citizenship at birth" provisions of 8 U.S.C. 1401. This simplified analysis is to suggest that these terms should be seen as separate and distinct. The only way that Obama might claim he is a "Natural Born Citizen" is if his mother was, in fact, unwed at the time of his birth and he was, in fact, born in Hawaii or any other state where the U.S. has sole jurisdiction.

While his father might have "acknowledged" him, it would not have been enough under the British Nationality Act of 1948 to impart citizenship to him. That Act clearly had provision governing "legitimated children" which held that the offspring of British subjects would, even after birth, take claim to British citizenship rights effective with the date of the marriage.

Tracing NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP
Emerich deVattel's 1758 treatise "Law of Nations" can be proven to have been in extensive use by the framers from the time that they declared Independence up through the time they were drafting the Constitution (1787) and as per a letter from Benjamin Franklin to Charles Dumas, who had reprinted the treatise in 1774, thanking him for an additional copy and mentioning the uses to which copies were being put.

[blog.barofintegrity.us]

Here is that definition, as found in CITIZENS AND NATIONS chapter, paragraph #212, of de Vattel: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it."

The term "natural born citizens" was obviously meant to be defined differently that merely "citizens" since the Constitution uses the former term in describing part of what it takes to be eligible for POTUS, while it uses the latter term in carving out a "grandfathering clause" for the founding fathers and others born at the time of the Constitution's adoption (who would have been "natural born" as British subjects in colonial America pre-Revolution) and also in other Articles and clauses having a bearing upon "citizens" as solely such, including the requirement of only "citizenship" for those running for office in Congress.

Much is made of the 1790 law where "natural born citizen" again appears. The Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided, in part, that "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens"

[memory.loc.gov]

This 1790 law is mentioned in the "research" put together by Laurence Tribe and Ted Olson which was intended to help John McCain argue his way out of his own ineligibility; and it was alluded to in the Senate Resolution 511 which Sen. McGaskill introduced with co-sponsors Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to assist McCain in April 2008, after the legally devastating (and probably accurate) research of Prof. Gabriel Chin had exposed the fact that McCain most likely wasn't even a citizen at birth, much less one who was natural born. How should the words "considered as" be interpreted? Are they to mean that only birth to two citizens is enough to make up the definition? Or, are they to be interpreted as having created an EXCEPTION and to have meant the children were to be treated as" natural born despite their manifest lack of a critical element: birth inside the country?

What got overlooked by Tribe-Olson and McGaskill, Clinton, Obama etc. was how short-lived the 1790 law was. It got repealed, and there may well have been a recognition that it had overstepped constitutional boundaries or that it created impermissible laxity for the one job where "natural born" criteria must be met -- POTUS. And so it was that the Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795 (1 Stat. 414) repealed and replaced the language of the Naturalization Act of 1790, so that the virtually identical sentence then read: "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as Citizens." The two words NATURAL BORN were stripped out.

Flash forward into the 20th Century and one finds the case of Perkins v. Elg (1939) where female infant Elg is found, in the SCOTUS ruling (and not dicta), to be a "natural born citizen" because she was born in the U.S. (New York) of parents who were "then naturalized" as U.S. citizens. A layman reading the case might ponder if only the father was naturalized after the parents had emigrated from Sweden, since the factual recitation mentions that he became a U.S. citizen in 1906 and baby Elg was born in 1907 and no mention is made of the mother, other than that she was also a Swedish immigrant who returned to Sweden with the baby in 1911 while the father remained in the U.S. until the 1920's. But the court also states in the ruling that the parentS (plural) were "then naturalized" -- which prompts proper scholarship to do a look-up on
naturalization laws in effect. Prior to 1922, derivative citizenship was common and that was the case with Mr. and Mrs. Elg. The husband's naturalization operated to also "naturalize" the wife as a U.S. citizen.

For those who would argue that the definition of Natural Born Citizen has never been decided, or is somehow cloudy, the response should be: "No, it isn't. What more do you need than a U.S. Supreme Court ruling?"

Tracing CITIZENSHIP

Citizens are mentioned in the original Constitution. The power of Congress to devise a "uniform rule of Naturalization" to create citizenship is also one of the explicit functions laid out in the Constitution. Prior to the time that the 14th Amendment was passed, it was often the case that the individual states
established who constituted their citizens while the federal statutory schemes dealt with immigrants and periods of necessary residency (originally 2 years per the 1790 law, then 5 years per the 1795 law, and even 14 years per a 1798 law) prior to qualifying to "naturalize" -- along with protocols of giving prior notice of "intent" to naturalize. The aftermath of the Civil War found the Congress grappling with a situation that was unusual -- recognition of former slaves as citizens. It could not be argued that these former "non-citizens" were "immigrants" since they had been born on U.S. soil over many generations. And thus there arose the need to pass the 14th Amendment which defined the term "citizen" explicitly. All legislative enactments which further refine the terms for citizenship would appear to draw upon the 14th Amendment as their wellspring.

It is noteworthy, moreover, to find that the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause of the 14th Amendment found Native Americans excluded from citizenship despite their birth within the confines of the United States' borders, and by reason of their not meeting the terms of the "subject to the jurisdiction"
clause whose author described it in Senate debate as meaning "sole jurisdiction" and "sole allegiance." Tribal jurisdiction and allegiance was felt to be the kind of impermissible duality which excluded American Indians -- a situation which remained the case until 1924 when laws were passed that allowed Indians to become U.S. citizens.

If any of the "natural born" cases should ever reach a Court willing to rule on the merits, it is to be expected that those who would argue in favor of looser eligibility standards will trot out the statutes at 8 U.S.C. 1401 and claim that the statutory term "citizen at birth" is synonymous with "natural born citizen."
Those who would like to see the originally intended eligibility restrictions envisioned by the Framers enforced will argue that a "citizen at birth" is simply one form of a person able to take "citizenship" and that "natural born" has followed its own separate path of definitional integrity from 1787 into the 20th Century.

It is interesting to note that Barney Frank introduced a proposed Constitutional Amendment in 2000 to remove the "natural born" requirement for POTUS eligibility while, in 2003, and possibly with an eye to his friend John McCain's fragile eligibility problems (which were first brought to light in a 1998 item in the Washington Post, prior to McCain's first foray of 2000 into the GOP primaries),
Orrin Hatch introduced another proposed Amendment to remove the "natural born" restriction. Neither went anywhere.

Since Bobby Jindal will face the same impediment, this should serve as fair warning if the GOP trots him out as their candidate of choice. People who believe in "rule of law" and in the notion that Americans should be just as outraged by end-run games around the Constitution as they would be by an
alteration of the rules of baseball at the bottom of the 9th should be prepared to challenge Jindal or any candidate of any party who is simply NOT ELIGIBLE.

Or, if people believe it's time to let the voters decide based on the known public record of candidates, and some period of residency and naturalization sufficient to foster "attachment" to this country, then get busy and change the rules of "political baseball" the right way. Amend the Constitution.

Posted by: Forseti
Dec 30, 09:32 AM

/quote

Second comment - Quote:

Copied with permission from www.vibe.us

Mr. Obama claims that he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. As his only evidence that he meets the Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a President be a natural born citizen, he produced a document called a "Certification of Live Birth," which he posted on his website under the title: "Barack Obama's Official Birth Certificate."

At first blush, it is case closed. A closer examination of the facts, however, reveals that Mr. Obama failed to point out on his website that his posted "Official Birth Certificate," as he called it, is actually a 2007 computer-generated, laser-printed summary document of his 1961 birth record on file with the Hawaii State Department of Health. To date, he has refused to produce his 1961 birth record, despite numerous lawsuits (Keyes v. Bowen, Berg v. Obama, Donofrio v. Wells, and Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz).

To understand what this 1961 birth record is that he refuses to produce, one needs to understand Hawaiian "Birth Certificates." An analysis of Hawaiian Birth certificates is made in the Keyes v. Bowen lawsuit. Paragraph 75 of the Keyes complaint reads, in part:

In Hawaii, a Certificate of Live Birth resulting from hospital documentation, including a signature of an attending physician, is different from a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. For births prior to 1972, a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth was the result of the uncorroborated testimony of one witness and was not generated by a hospital. Such a Certificate could be obtained up to one year from the date of the child's birth. For that reason, its value as prima facie evidence is limited and could be overcome if any of the allegations of substantial evidence of birth outside Hawaii can be obtained. The vault (long Version) birth certificate, per Hawaiian Statute 883.176 allows the birth in another State or another country to be registered in Hawaii. Box 7C of the vault Certificate of Live Birth contains a question, whether the birth was in Hawaii or another State or Country.

Therefore, the only way to verify the exact location of birth is to review a certified copy or the original vault Certificate of Live Birth and compare the name of the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor against the birthing records on file at the hospital noted on the Certificate of the Live Birth.

To sum it up, Mr. Obama produced a 2007 computer-generated, laser-printed Certification of Live Birth (a summary), and posted it on his website. He called it his "Official Birth Certificate," but did not disclose that it derives from a 1961 birth record on file with the Hawaii State Department of Health. Furthermore, it is not yet publically known whether this Certification of Live Birth derives from a 1961 Certificate of Live Birth (resulting from hospital
documentation, including a signature of an attending physician), or a 1961 Certificate of Hawaiian Birth (result of the uncorroborated testimony of one witness and was not generated by a hospital, and could be obtained up to one year from the date of the child's birth). Moreover, Mr. Obama refuses to release this 1961 birth record to clear this up, despite numerous lawsuits asking him to do so. Furthermore, neither the FEC, the DNC, the RNC, nor any court in the United States has subjected his birth certificate evidence to any level of scrutiny. For all intents and purposes, they have just accepted the 2007 computer-generated, laser printout of the summary document Certification of Live Birth as conclusive evidence that he meets the Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a President be a natural born citizen.

Mr. Obama’s birth certificate does indeed call into question his eligibility to be President. However, the most important foundation question is what is any candidate's burden of proof that he meets the Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a President be a natural born citizen?

In determining which standard of proof applies, it important to remember that the goal is to set a stable standard of proof that ensures that, we the people, will get a qualified presidential candidate, now matter who he is, no matter
which party he is from, no matter what political climate dominates the times, and no matter in which election year he runs for office.

Turning now to the foundation question of what is any candidate's burden of proof that he meets the Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a President be a natural born citizen? Burden of proof refers to both the burden of production, and the burden of persuasion.

Burden of production is the obligation to come forward with evidence to support a claim. The burden of persuasion is the obligation to persuade the trier of fact of the truth of a proposition.

The answer to this burden of proof question lies with who has this burden of proof, the candidate, or the people? Allocating the burden of proof, ‘is merely a question of policy and fairness based on experience in the different situations."Keyes v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 413 U.S. 189 (1973). The burdens of pleading and proof with regard to most facts have been and should be assigned to the plaintiff who generally seeks to change the present state of affairs and who therefore naturally should be expected to bear the risk of failure of proof or persuasion. 2 J. Strong, McCormick on Evidence §337, 412 (5th ed. 1999). Moreover, in most cases, the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists.

It seems apparent that a presidential candidate is seeking to change the present state of affairs by wanting to become the new President. The candidate is also the one who is claiming that something exists, which in this case, is that he is a natural born citizen. Furthermore, he is also applying for a job. As such, the burden of proof rests on him.

It takes no stretch of the imagination to understand that it has been a commonly accepted and expected fair practice for any candidate applying for a job to produce evidence that he meets its eligibility requirements. Typically, he produces a resume, certified copies of education transcripts, documents his work history and residences since age 18, and, in cases of classified government jobs, submits to and produces without reservation, documentary evidence such as a birth certificate for use in an extensive and thorough background check. Since the greater includes the lesser, it follows then that a more important job, like being President, would include at least the aforementioned production of documentary evidence of sufficient persuasion. Arguably then, it follows that a presidential candidate has a similar burden of production and persuasion that he meets the eligibility requirements for President. To create a presumption of eligibility that shifts the burden of proof to the People would otherwise defeat the search for the truth about the candidate’s eligibility. This is especially true when the candidate locks down the evidence of his eligibility.

Once some evidence has been produced, the question becomes does the evidence submitted persuade the trier of fact that a candidate meets the natural born citizen requirement of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution?
The degree of proof required depends on the circumstances of the proposition. In this case, the standard that applies should ensure that the candidate meets the eligibility requirements to be President of the United States.

The President of the United States is one of the three branches of government. He is the Executive branch. The nation speaks to all people through one voice, the President's. The President can make treaties, grant pardons, sign and veto legislation, appoint a Cabinet, as well as Supreme Court Justices. In addition to these duties, the President knows the nations' most important and secure secrets, and as the Commander in Chief of the military, has the military's nuclear launch codes at the ready, and who can arguably, either take steps to weaken the nation or even destroy it. In the words of Vice President Dick Cheney, "The president of the United States now for 50 years is followed at all times, 24 hours a day, by a military aide carrying a football that contains the nuclear codes that he would use and be authorized to use in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States. He could launch the kind of devastating attack the world has never seen. He doesn't have to check with anybody. He doesn't have to call the Congress. He doesn't have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in."

So which burden of persuasion should apply to the evidence submitted by a President elect given the job for which he is qualifying? There are at least three major burdens of persuasion - preponderance of the evidence, clear and
convincing, and beyond a reasonable doubt. Let's examine each standard and choose the one that is best suited to ensure that only a qualified President elect becomes President.

Preponderance of the Evidence - (lowest level) This is the lowest standard of proof that uses a more likely than not test. The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. Effectively, the standard is satisfied if there is greater than 50 percent chance that the proposition is true. It is used in civil cases, e.g., personal injury lawsuits.

If this standard is accepted, then arguably the President elect will get the opportunity to prove that he meets the requirements to be President by a little more than the odds of a coin toss. Using this standard also seems to equate the importance of a candidate meeting the Constitutional requirements to become President with giving the right private litigant a chance at winning a lawsuit.

The ramifications and consequences of being wrong in each one are at opposite ends of the spectrum. This standard therefore does not seem high enough.

Clear and Convincing Evidence - (medium level) The person must convince the trier of fact that it is substantially more likely than not that the thing is in fact true. This standard of proof is used in termination of parental rights, and restraining orders, among other civil actions. This standard also does not seem high enough.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt - (highest level) The proposition being presented must be proven to the extent that there is no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a reasonable person. This standard has been traditionally applied to criminal defendants to ensure that an innocent person is not deprived of his life or liberty. True, the Presidential candidate is not a criminal, but the justifications for applying the beyond a reasonable doubt standard are not for proving the guilt of a criminal defendant, but rather to ensure that an innocent person does not lose his life or liberty. Ensuring that these freedoms of life and liberty are given the highest protections rings throughout the justifications for the beyond a reasonable doubt standard being applied to presidential candidates so that the citizens do not lose their lives or liberties at the hands of an unqualified President. For the highest office in the land, and for arguably the most powerful leadership position in the world, it follows that the highest burden of proof that he is qualified to be President of the United States of America should be required of him.

At this point, I would like to conclude that the beyond a reasonable doubt standard should apply to the President elect, but unfortunately, I do not get to decide this issue. Who then, should determine which standard applies? Moreover, who gets to interpret it?

Should the states get to decide this question? If you look to state law for deciding which burden of persuasion applies, then a problem arises because one might foresee not all states using the same burden of persuasion. One might also expect to wind up to 50 different interpretations for each of the three burden of persuasion standards. This could result in as many as 150 different interpretations for the three standards. It's arguable then, that having as many as 3 different standards with up to 50 different interpretations of each one could lead to 150 different possible ways to qualify a presidential candidate.

Arguably, this outcome would favor some candidates over the others, with each election year providing for unequal treatment of the candidates depending upon from which state's record the each candidate seeks to establish his birth (or age), and resulting in unequal risk to the nation that an unqualified President would be elected.

Imagine if one state uses a preponderance of the evidence standard while the other state uses beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Who has the advantage here and what are the risks to the nation and its citizens? Let's assume that two states require clear and convincing evidence, but one state interprets clear and convincing to mean less than the other state's interpretation. The end result would be unequal treatment of the candidates resulting in different states having the power to gain an advantage over the other state's candidate by lessening or lowering the burden of persuasion and weakening its interpretation.

Furthermore, there would be an increased opportunity for planting fraudulent birth records in the states with the weakest burden of proof that have the highest incidents of uncontrolled illegal immigration.

So where does this leave us? Should each state decide what is their native candidate's burden of persuasion? Or should each state agree to have one standard for all candidates? Who gets to decide which standard applies, and who gets to interpret the standard?

Perhaps we should look to the federal courts to establish a standard instead? Keep in mind that the constitutional requirement to be a natural born citizen is a federal one. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes federal law the supreme law of the land. Furthermore, the office of President is one of the three federal branches of government. Perhaps that as such, there should be a federal standard of proof that ensures that only a candidate who meets the Natural Born Citizen requirement of the U.S. Constitution could become President.

Once again, problems arise. There are 13 federal circuit courts in the U.S. Each one could cause the same selection and interpretation problems that were just discussed with the states. Only this time, the candidates would get their advantage or disadvantage by being born in a particular circuit, thus making circuits more or less appealing to the candidates and their respective parties. Furthermore, circuits with a history of identification document fraud by foreign nationals might be more likely to erroneously qualify a foreign born national to be a Presidential candidate. Again, different circuit standards would result in unequal treatment of the candidates, and unequal risks to the nation that an unqualified candidate would become President.

Should we leave it to the Federal Election Committee (FEC)? No. The FEC filed a motion to dismiss in the Berg case admitting that it has no oversight over the Constitution's Presidential Qualifications Clause.

What about leaving it to the candidate’s respective party? Should such a bias organization decide the issue of their candidate’s eligibility? Allowing such a process would be tantamount to the fox guarding the henhouse.

What about leaving it to the Electors? Are they any less bias than their respective parties?

What about the United States Supreme Court? The first paragraph of their own website makes the following promise to the American People - “As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.”

If the Court has this duty to function as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution, then when must it act to qualify the President elect? Before, during or after the election? Should it be barred from deciding this issue
because of timing, i.e, the candidate has already won the election, so it’s too late? Perhaps we should turn to the 20th Amendment for guidance.

“If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”

Section 3 of the 20th Amendment does allow for the possibility that a President elect might not qualify. The language of the Amendment suggests that the qualification period can come between the period when the candidate wins the election and when he is sworn in. As the guardian and interpreter of the
Constitution, it's arguable that the Court must scrutinize the President elect's natural born citizen evidence during this time period. If the Court, instead, turns a blind eye to it, then just who will be the judge of "if the President elect shall have failed to qualify,...?" Furthermore, what will be the fate of the Constitution, the Court, and the country if it is later discovered that Mr. Obama is not a natural born citizen? Will every treaty, law, military act become void ab initio? Will the nation be launched into a state of civil unrest and unyielding division?

As of this post, the Court has not granted a writ to hear the Berg v. Obama case. While we are waiting for this historic news, perhaps we should at least look at Mr. Obama's only submitted evidence of being a natural born citizen - the posted 2007 computer-generated laser-printed "Certification of Live Birth" on his website. So let’s review the facts and his evidence, and then apply the burdens of persuasion. I used my general interpretations of each burden of persuasion since there is no clearly defined one being applied by anyone else, anywhere.

Preponderance of the Evidence - No. What is a computer-generated printout like Obama's Certification of Live Birth? It is a hearsay document that is susceptible to the perils of computer viruses, trojans, spyware, hackers, and chain of custody issues? Read about Computer Records and the Federal Rules of Evidence on the Department of Justice's website.

Furthermore, since it is not clear from which 1961 document this printout derives from, the one with the doctor's signature and other traceable evidence (Certificate of Live Birth), or the one fraught with he potential for fraud, including registering an out of the country birth as an in state birth after the birth (Certificate of Hawaiian Birth), it's arguable that either source is no more likely than the other, so it does not appear to satisfy this more likely than not standard.

Clear and Convincing Evidence - No. If the Certification of Live birth doesn't satisfy the lesser burden of persuasion then it follows it can not satisfy this heightened one.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt - No. One would need to feign ignorance and act with the utmost bad faith to argue that a Certification of Live birth proves that he was born in Hawaii beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, since it doesn't even satisfy the lesser burden of persuasion then it follows it can not satisfy this heightened one.

This is where the road to the White House should end for Mr. Obama. He can not meet any burden of persuasion for becoming President with only a 2007 computer-generated, laser-printed Certification of Live Birth. Unfortunately however, to date, not one single person or agency in the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branches of government has subjected his Certification of Live Birth to any burden of persuasion scrutiny to determine if he meets the United States Constitution's natural born citizen requirement to be President.

I'll close this post with a quote: "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Posted by: No Free Lunch
Dec 23, 02:26 PM/quote

Two Topics Today

I don't watch the news as often as I used to. Too much Obamadroid information for my tastes. However, I was gratified to learn about a democrat senator who thinks that the stimulus package does not contain the right distribution of monies for the purpose of creating jobs. Wow! ObamaFRAUD, PeLIARsi and ReiDELUDED must be fighting mad over that!

Read all about Senator Bill Nelson: Influential Senate Dem Questions Party Support for Stimulus Bill
Sen. Ben Nelson told FOX News he is unsure how many Democrats will support President Obama's $819 billion economic stimulus bill.

Nelson would not agree that the items he thinks should be removed from the bill are "pork." He just surmises that they wouldn't create jobs - which is what the title of "stimulus bill" means. I still think that many of the ones mentioned actually were pork entitlements. That reveals the fundamental differences between conservative and liberal thought.

On to another topic.

This morning, while visiting the Fox News Channel website, I noticed that they have a section for SCOTUS. When I clicked on the page, there was a list of cases and links to articles about lawsuits on docket.

I wonder if the ineligibility cases docketed against Obama were ever listed there? Somehow, I doubt it. But if this were the case, wouldn't it be considered strange not to include them? Again, I just noticed the page today so I am not sure whether or not they were originally listed before the cases were eventually denied by SCOTUS.

While doing some research online, I decided to see how many blogs and websites were actively discussing this particular case. I typed in "supreme court docket 08-570" into a search engine and over 2,460 results showed up. Yahoo had slightly more at 2,940.

As I scrolled down the pages of links, I ran across a Daily Kos article - written last month - about the Berg v. Obama case. I usually do not read that blog, but I was curious as to what was being written about the Obama ineligibility cases from the usual, rabid, liberal-left side of the blogosphere.

I do not want to link to them, so just copy and paste the following link into the address bar if you want to read the entire article.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008
/12/18/143613/19/654/674652

You will notice that the post contains comments by those who are called "freepers" (obviously mocking the commenters at Free Republic) by the Kos author. After a comment which listed of all of those who "don't want anything to do with this case," the truth of the matter comes out:

...the reason this "case" is over is because it never got started. "evidence" has nothing to do with it. the reality is, the court sees this as political nitroglycerin and after the 2000 debacle is not about to get into it. the potential for a true crisis, with paralysis of the succession and uncharted waters as to what next, all in the context of the current politico-economic and foreign threat quagmire, is far too high.

Political nitroglycerin....yup!

But I must state, if it had been George W. Bush's citizenship being questioned (recall the blown-up, out of control reporting on that Dan Rather-gate false report about Bush's National Guard status and duty?) you can bet your life that such an issue would have been exposed LONG AGO!

Why is it that liberal democrats get away with so many instances of fraud, corruption, illegalities, and stomping on our Constitution?

Personally, I do not think that this issue is going away. Some day, some how, some way, the truth will come out. I can't see how they can hide the truth forever.

Another comment:

i would have liked them to make obama put up too, but after he won a clear electoral victory, it was obvious that was just never going to happen.
you see ..., if someone doesn’t care about taking care of it for the future and most of their energy is expended on getting obama out of office, then they never did care about the “problem” in the first place. the problem is not obama, it’s the “process” by which obama got in there. that is the problem.

Another comment:

on the other hand, if someone attack the “real problem” as not having anything to do with obama and having entirely to do with a process that has been
discovered to be deficient — then — this is the constructive solution to the problem (i.e., the state laws to that effect).

we can tell how many are really interested in only obama versus interested in “the problem” (of the process which is deficient) ...
the supreme court knows that after january 20th, only congress can act to impeach the president. they wait until then, consolidate them all and dismiss them all on the basis that only congress has the power to impeach the president (and they don’t even have to consider one ounce of evidence..., just state the constitutional law and “excuse themselves”...).

Another comment:

if anyone thinks that these lawsuits are going to stop without 0bama producing a legal birth certificate they are sadly mistaken. there is too much money and a few too many people who believe that the constitutional requirement of "natural born citizen" is worth fighting for. my money is on the patriots of the usa and not the people who just want this to "go away."

Another comment:

the supreme court knows that after january 20th, only congress can act to impeach the president. they wait until then, consolidate them all and dismiss them all on the basis that only congress has the power to impeach the president (and they don’t even have to consider one ounce of evidence..., just state the constitutional law and “excuse themselves”...).

I don't think that is completely true. If Obama isn't a natural born citizen (which is obvious unless his true father was someone other than Obama Sr.), then his election to POTUS was a fraud and he can be removed from office immediately. It is just a matter of the right case getting a hearing.

Sometimes, I think that SCOTUS is denying these hearings while taking the conferences because they know that eventually, a case about this ineligibility issue must be heard.

Currently, Berg v. Obama has been bounced back to the Third Circuit:

From Obamacrimes.com:

...still pending in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals where Berg just filed a Brief on 1/20/09. Berg said I had bypassed the Third Circuit hoping that the U.S. Supreme Court would hear our case on an expedited basis because of the significance of the case.

The two [2] other cases are in Federal Court and I will advise you shortly about the status of each.

There are other cases going on throughout the country in lower courts. Last I heard, there were about 30 of them.

Again, this subject is not going away. It is just a matter of when and how the truth will finally be revealed.

Hat Tips: Fox News

*******
Related blog posts:

The Right Side of Life: Leo Donofrio: Active Military Suit is Best Chance at Challenging POTUS Eligibility

"We The People" - Not Conspiracy Theorists

As I visit and read the many blogs and websites that are posting information and comments regarding Obama's citizenship controversy, it is becoming more and more evident that the judges in the courts of this nation (including SCOTUS) do NOT want to face this issue and what would inevitably happen when Barack Hussein Obama is found to be ineligible for POTUS.

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."