The Georgia Citizens Grand Jury Must Be Condemned

I have received letters from the people who ran the citizens grand jury in Georgia, and while I appreciate their frustration in that our Government has failed to protect the Constitution by allowing a President to be sworn in who is not a “natural born citizen”, I do not agree that this citizens grand jury has any legal authority whatsoever to demand the removal of a sitting President or to even force the review of his qualifications.

The separation of powers in the Constitution has delegated that power to Congress who in turn enacted the District of Columbia Code provision for Quo Warranto.  Sections 16-3501, 16-3502, and 16-3503 are the only Constitutional means available to see the President removed or to even have him face an inquiry as to his eligibility.  (See parts 1, 2 and 3 of my legal brief on quo warranto.)

Furthermore, there is very disturbing language (thanks to Phil at The Right Side of Life for highlighting this today) used by this citizens grand jury which discusses the taking of property and suggests other violent means by which they intend to enforce their presentments.  This language is frightening and totally illegal:

“The grand jury may distrain and oppress the government in every way in their power, namely, by taking the homes, lands, possessions, and any way else they can until amends shall have been made according to the sole judgment of the grand jury.”

 

That’s criminal insanity right there.  Have people lost their minds?

Let it be known that I condemn any such activity as described above.

You can’t protect the Constitution by destroying it.  Just because somebody may have become President who isn’t eligible does not give any citizen the right to take the law into their own hands and to form lynch mobs and confiscate property.  There is a Constitutional way to challenge the President, but this citizens grand jury manifesto is not it.

We the people are getting beat up by criminal political actions which subvert the Constitution.  If we are to fight back, we must do so within the boundaries of the Constitution.  This is because Constitutional criminals are more than happy to see citizens violating the Constitution.  They can enforce your crimes with law enforcement.  They can even put you on trial for issuing such language as that cited above.

But you can’t do the same to them.

You will be squashed like a bug.  Therefore you need to be smarter and more Constitutionally creative than they are.  Find the path within the Document or the USA is no more. A true enemy of the Constitution will claim victory if the only way you can stop their crimes is by doing more damage to the Constitution.  Either way, the Constitution is destroyed.  Try to see that for God’s sake.

Since the people who have brought this citizens grand jury have written to me and told me personally that my writing on the power of the citizens as grand jurors was their inspiration, I feel the need to disassociate myself from them and their objectives.

When I wrote of the subverted power of the Grand Jury as to bringing “presentments” in my articles;

- The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government

- Scotus on the unique power of grand jurors

…I was not doing so in regard to the POTUS eligibility issue. In fact, the first article above was written by me back in 2005 and published at my previous blog.  This article had NOTHING to do with Obama’s eligibility.

We are governed by our Constitution, not common law.

My grand jury 5th amendment “power of presentment” articles were meant to educate people as to their power ONCE SWORN IN AS A FEDERAL GRAND JUROR in a federal court.

The articles weren’t meant to encourage citizens to form their own grand juries and prosecute at will. There is no such guarantee in the Constitution.  And I am a true believer in the Constitution.  Are you?

The Constitution provides in the 5th Amendment that a grand jury can return a “presentment” without the acquiescence of a Federal Prosecutor.  I have encouraged people who are sworn in on Federal Grand Juries to use this power to investigate Government crimes even when the Prosecutor has not led them to such crimes. This is the power I was speaking of, and I first wrote about it in 2005 with regard to Constitutional crimes of the Bush administration.

Imagine 25 grand jurors who really know their power sitting in a DC court room… The Government can’t indict without a grand jury so they must have a grand jury empanelled at all times.  If the citizens of this nation understood their true power, then once sworn in as grand jurors they could investigate ANY crime that was undertaken by Government.

THIS IS THE POWER I SPEAK OF.

Learn about it, spread it, use it or lose it. It’s a real power.

This citizens grand jury thing is not real.  It’s a dog and pony show and a certain distraction from the true education and true power available which will surely confuse the issue and make it easier for the Government to further subvert the true power we the people hold as grand jurors.

When I first read about the Georgia citizens grand jury I thought, “Well, the relief they seek is not Constitutional and since they read my blog they must know that quo warranto is the only Constitutional way to remove the President…so this will simply be an educational PR stunt to foster discussion of the eligibility issue.”

But I can’t agree with that anymore.

The language they’ve published about taking people’s property and “other” enforcement options is complete and utter criminal bullshit.

Any activity which subverts the Constitution is criminal to me.  I don’t care if it’s ineligible Presidential candidates or citizens who are frustrated thereby.

If this citizens grand jury is citing my writing as inspiration, then they’ve clearly misunderstood my writing.

Leo C. Donofrio

April 2, 2009

[Feel free to leave comments on this article.  But please understand that I am very busy right now and cannot promise I will have the time to moderate and post comments.]

About these ads

89 Responses to “The Georgia Citizens Grand Jury Must Be Condemned”

  1. naturalborncitizen Says:

    Wow. I just saw where The Evil Conservative blog just posted my Grand Jury articles – almost in their entirety – on the power of grand jurors, but they removed my name entirely from their article so anybody reading it would have no idea where the writings come from.

    They are simply attributed to “OPINION 1″ and “OPINION 2″. Thanks Evil Conservative, much appreciated. Not.

  2. Mr. Donofrio. Look around you. These are not people within people’s bodies anymore (if they ever have been). They don’t know how to think. They don’t have that ability. Your statement to disassociate yourself from them won’t change anything. People will write about them and still say they were inspired by you because that’s what is being claimed. It’s sensational fluff, and they like that, because they are not real people Leo.

    I wrote a comment on Dr. Taitz’s page regarding a video being made called Barack Obama vs. the Law. I said that Apuzzo is ruining the case and public perception concerning the eligibility issue, because in the trailer of the video Apuzzo says that if Barack would just show his Birth Certificate then the all of his troubles would blow away in the wind.

    Now how is it that these lawyers over this many months keep vomiting this crap? Because Leo… they’re not real people. They can’t be…

    [Ed. I know Mario personally and he is a real person and a smart lawyer who I respect. Furthermore, Mario's pleadings in the case he is working on are centered upon the legal definition of nbc not just the BC issue. Now, if Mario was quoted as saying that Obama's troubles would all just go away with the wind if he would just show his BC... then Mario has changed course and I couldn't disagree with that statement more. Even if Obama shows a perfect BC witnessing his birth in Hawaii, HE'S STILL NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN SINCE HE WAS A BRITISH CITIZEN AT BIRTH.

    Mario's interviews bear witness to this. If the video was edited in a way which cheapens the arguments Mario made and distorts them, then I would encourage Mario to get in touch with the film maker and have those comments edited to reflect his real position as is laid out in various pleadings. ]

    Moreover, my comment never got posted, so I sent another one telling about my frustration about my comment not being posted, and that comment was posted with a moderator’s untruthful, nasty reply. And I know why: because I won’t be a loyal dog to just anyone who has something negative to say about Obama.

    At least you posted my comments, even when we disagreed.

    You’re a real person. Caring, precise, dogged. Able to comprehend and investigate information and carry the Truth til the end (and stick to it, which is a rarity). That’s what a real person does in instances like this. Morals matter.

    Well, I’ve invited you to check out my web page when I post it. It’s called The Multiple Minds of David. The address is:

    http://themultiplemindsofdavid.netau.net/

    I’m still building the site, but I thought I’d give you the address, so you could check back once in awhile to see if it’s up and running fully. I’m seeking bloggers to add in articles. Not just on Barack Obama, but other instances as well. Maybe you could write a blog in the Fun and Games section about Poker.

    Any updates about the letters you sent to Holder and Taylor would be appreciated.\

    [Ed. No updates so far. If anybody has received an update or response from their Taylor or Holder letters, please send it to me.]

    Peace.

  3. Leo is blowing hot and cold again.

    Scalia tells us that the Citizen Grand Jury is NOT under the supervision of the courts nor any prosecutor.

    Where does it state that a citizen federal Grand Jury must be empaneled or sworn in by a federal magistrate? It is because of the misfeasance of the courts and both political branches that the citizen Grand Jury is needed. How can it be dependent upon the very criminalized government institutions it is empowered to investigate and indict to provide it with its authority?

    Does a criminal have to authorize a prosecutor or court to investigate or try him/her? I am having trouble with Leo presenting his opinions as the only possible way to proceed while everyone else is criminally stupid. If he’s so damned smart, why iosn’t he helping to lead this fight and not standing back and criticizing every effort made by others to try to save our country.

    Gordon

    [Ed. As Scalia's holding verifies, the Grand Jury has the function to investigate crimes, it does NOT have the function to prosecute crimes or take property or kill people. Get a damn grip. You're letting your emotions guide you instead of a cold rational view of the law.

    The law already provides for the mechanism by which the Government has empowered the people to investigate the Government. The Grand Juries are ALREADY empanelled which can do the investigations necessary.

    - The problem ISNT that we don't have grand juries, we do.

    - The problem IS that the grand jurors don't know their power.

    The Government couldn't prosecute any crimes without grand juries. The grand Jurors need to know they can take over the process. They don't know that.
    A citizens grand jury like that in Georgia has NO enforcement power so you can blowhard all you want, but it will do nothing except perhaps see people that meant well to be arrested by the Government for using such disturbing language as was used in the Georgia case.

    There is no short cut... we the people need to start educating one another as to our 5th Amendment rights as grand jurors... and then that power needs to be tested in the Courts. That's how you do it within the text of the "Document"... the provisions are there. The grand juries already exist.

    WE THE PEOPLE NEED TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR HAVING ALLOWED OURSELVES TO BE PUT TO SLEEP.

    We have the power. We need to use it. You can't protect the Constitution by subverting it. We the people have allowed our 5th Amendment presentment power to be subverted like a muscle that has become atrophied. Now you feel alarm bells going off and you want to take that power back, but this citizens grand jury idea is not enforceable and will certainly cloud the issue as it is doing now.

    Everything this citizens grand jury is trying to do, can be done by actually sworn in Grand Jurors sitting in Federal Courts at this very moment in time. The problem is that those grand jurors are not educated as to their power. The Government has no problem with those jurors sleeping... the question is, how do we wake we the people up?

    I originally liked the citizen grand jury idea as a good PR/educational stunt to get people talking, but it certainly has no force of federal law. Furthermore, the threats of taking property, life or liberty are dangerous and must be condemned.

    And the eligibility cannot be handled by a GJ, it is a civil quo warranto issue.]

  4. Here’s the link to the video trailer…

    [Ed. snipped. Sorry, I can't link to that other site and I won't click the link. There are other interviews available which you may compare his voice to.]

  5. David Sanford Says:

    Leo,
    I remember when the term “law abiding citizen” had true meaning. Now it is “law interpreting citizen”.

    Thank you for keeping the record straight.
    – David

  6. I have followed this from the beging and when Leo hit the federal grand jury issue I felt right then, that the way to solve now and future problems was to educate people. The people that listen to all the radio shows that have patriots tuning in should be told over and over what their rights are when on a federal grand jury. Sooner or later one of the people that has this information will be selected for a F G J and will know what to do.

    [ed. Exactly. We have to educate each other. And we must take some of the responsibility and shame for allowing the situation to be what it is.]

    The perfect opp. will be the investigative powers that can issue the powers that can retrieve any docs. that they ask for and can achieve the proper evidence to hand down an indictment to the members of congress which then has the option of the Quo warranto or hearing the case theirself .

    [Ed. No. Quo Warranto, by the very text of the statute, is a civil case. That's why all grand jury activity is useless. Furthermore, Congress has already acted by enacting the statute which can remove a usurper. They are out of the picture now and have no further say. The statute governs the removal process. I snipped the rest of your comment because it would have clouded the issue. Congress is out of the picture because they have enacted the process of QW via the statute. Now you have two options -- use the US Attorney in DC, Jeffrey Taylor or AG Holder or, if that fails bring a private suit under 16-3503. That's it. Congress is out of the decision. This is not a criminal action. It says "civil action" in the QW statute. ]

    Ok Leo explain to me what I may not understand and help educate myself and others on my thoughts.

    Thanks,

    Richard

  7. Oh yah. I forgot about your unyielding contention with (achoo! you know who). Here’s a user-friendly link.

    I’d rather not guess if you can tell me for sure. If it’s not him, do you know who it is?

    [ed. Just as I thought and as I dedicated a previous entire blog post to, that person you speak of is Steve Malzberg. Mario is the other man in the tie who makes the excellent point that no hospital will say Obama was born there. Mario correctly points out that any hospital where the President was born would probably have a plaque or something to commemorate his birth.

    Of course, nothing requires a person to be born in a hospital... which is something worth considering. Right? Maybe he was born at home. It's just another reason why I don't focus on the BC issue... a good lawyer never bases his entire case on a question he doesn't have the answer to. But as I stated, Mario's pleadings use both the BC and the nbc legal arguments. Regardless, the law suit he brought will be denied b/c of the separation of powers issue.]

  8. Thanks for clearing that up. I’ll edit a post on the myspace page to untaint Apuzzo’s name.

    I’m fully aware the BC, where Obama was born, etc., don’t matter. It’s the bond he shares through his non-American-citizen father that dictates his type of citizenship Barack Obama Jr. has. Everyone actually listening to this issue should be fully aware of this by now (and that’s why I can’t accept those who don’t as real people). Of course, those new to the information are excused. You said it best, when you said on the Plains Radio Network show that if Barack was born on the White House steps, he still wouldn’t be eligible.

    You really have had some memorable, poetic orations.

  9. Joss Brown Says:

    i wondered when you would speak up about the issue. good that you did. when i read about this citizens grand jury i was appalled. a complete misunderstanding of your articles, unconstitutional, disrespectful and aggressive language. stupidity is endless, i guess… the other cult.

  10. Leo,
    Thank you so much for being a natural born teacher!!

    I have a question… is Stephen Pidgeon wasting his time with his national grand jury?? Since the only option we have is QW, his grand jury will also be a dog and pony show??

    [Ed. If the object of the national GJ thing is to have a Court challenge Obama's Presidential eligibility, then it's a total waste of time and resources. If the object is to investigate a crime and use the GJ as a means by which to get publicity as a spotlight then I suppose it might serve a purpose as an educational tool. But it's never going to have the legal authority to resolve the Presidential eligibility issue.]

  11. [...] Donofrio, attorney and Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, posted a rebuke of certain comments made by the Georgia common law grand jury as reported by WorldNetDaily: [...]

  12. Where does it state that a citizen federal Grand Jury must be empaneled or sworn in by a federal magistrate?

    Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 6(a)(1).

  13. Article V clearly doesn’t stipulate “Federal” Grand Jury. It simply states “Grand Jury.” Simply because the Constitution is usurped or otherwise infringed upon by the politicians, doesn’t mean a ‘Citizens’ Grand Jury is Unconstitutional.

    [Ed. It actually says that nobody can be prosecuted for a crime unless by Indictment or presentment of a grand jury. It does NOT say that citizens my start their own grand jury whenever they like. The Constitution is federal law and it also lists the separation of powers...see my comments below.]

    According to GA Citizens Grand Jury site (presumably), they have a presentment of an indictment of BHO, to which they’ve given the presentment to various lawmakers, law enforcers and A.G.’s in their state. Presumably, it is they (lawmakers, A.G.’s) who could take legal action on this presentment.

    [Ed. No state law enforcement officer has any authority whatsoever with regard to removing a sitting President. ]

    As for the seizing of property (etc), I too find that disturbing language. Do we know for a fact that that is indeed their intended course of action if one of the state officials don’t take action on their presentment?

    [Ed. That's the quote taken directly from their page and it's listed as one of the rules of the Grand jury proceeding. ]

    I hope not, as is mentioned…that would be illegal. Perhaps, it’s only a piece of the language that’s been around for centuries (in the Common Law Grand Jury)…and they really don’t intend to take that path?

    [Ed. Then why list it under the rules of the GJ? Just for shits and giggles?]

  14. Leo,
    Thank you so much for being a natural born teacher!!

    I have a question… is Stephen Pidgeon wasting his time with his national grand jury?? Since the only option we have is QW, his grand jury will also be a dog and pony show??

    [Ed. If the object of the national GJ thing is to have a Court challenge Obama's Presidential eligibility, then it's a total waste of time and resources. If the object is to investigate a crime and use the GJ as a means by which to get publicity as a spotlight then I suppose it might serve a purpose as an educational tool. But it's never going to have the legal authority to resolve the Presidential eligibility issue.]

    True..unto itself it wont. However, IMO, the ultimate goal of all this “dog and pony” shows is to:

    1. Bring national attention to the matter (i.e. Midstream Media)
    and
    2. As a result of #1, bring pressure on Congress to take action on this matter. Afterall….2010 is just around the corner :)

  15. Hello Leo,

    Have you seen this article, it’s was written August 10, 2008. I never found a Part 2.

    http://www.nolanchart.com/article4470.html

    “Whatever happened to the Grand (Old) Jury? Part 1″

    Excerpt:

    ” Thus, not only are presentments ignored by federal rules, the prosecutor may also ignore the grand jury with impunity.

    Restoring the purpose

    If grand juries performed their independent duties as envisioned by the Framers, the possibilities for rooting out corrupt government officials are mindboggling.

    Fortunately, they can, since the absence of rules about presentments does not eliminate them altogether. Title 28 U.S.C. Ch. 131 2072(b) states as much: “Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right.”

    Thus, the “substantive right” of the Bill of Rights’ provision for grand jury presentments cannot be abridged. Regaining the power of the grand jury is a matter of education: people become informed as to what a grand jury is, what it is supposed to do, and how it performs its duty. And whenever a government official obstructs a grand jury in the performance of its duties, that official is charged with sedition and tried.

    And that’s how the people can begin to root out official corruption and tyrannyjust as the Framers intended. ”

    He does point the education issue and seems to have good points and intentions. What do you think of his analysis?

    [Ed. Thanks for pointing that out. That article form 2007 is in accordance with the views I published on this topic in 2005. Perhaps they read my article form my old Citizenspook blog.]

  16. da verg Says:

    tell evil site that the material is copyrighted to you….
    and go from there. (assuming it is….)

    howeer, you left out the most important part

    “IF the GOVERNMENT does not amend the error within 40 days after being shown the error, then the four members shall refer the matter to the remainder of the grand jury,”

    …government….pretty vague here as it is just a empty non specific term, and by what measure do they have enforcement? None.

    The rest of it (see you porst) consists of “may” do this that or the other thing.

    It’s not official , it’s conjecture and along the same lines of

    “oh oh stop all those lawsuits or we will start charging you a fee for filing the lawsuits against the plaintiffs….” is that unconstitutional too?

    This is no more than a publicity stunt to bring further recognition and publicity to the Grand Jury decision. Nice try, I don’t see it in the news anywhere. It must be frustrating as the loonie toons in Vermont and Texas got more media press on their completely ignoramus Bush/ Cheney BS “rulings” which were completely and totally bogus.

    While at least the GA Grand Jury has the Constitution on it’s side, but as yet no friendly judge or prosecutor as of yet.

    [Ed. The Constitution is not on its side at all. Snipped the last paragraph. Too insulting. Sorry. Trying to keep it civil.]

  17. John Jay Says:

    It saddens me to see individuals use this Constitutional crises for their own purpose. With respect to what is being attributed as Marios comments the video that is posted …[Ed. snipped web site URL...] alludes to that by the following: 1. The background is Obamas COLB. 2. They show the COLB with the writing “One simple question.” 3. A Mario look alike is shown stating “Obama could make this go away like that” and he snaps his fingers. That individual looks somewhat like Mario but does NOT sound like him. 3. The third scene in the video shows the same look alike asking “why doesn’t he show his BC?….
    Because most don’t know Mario they are assuming he is the one requesting Obama show his BC. The video is very deceiving, and IMHO this was not a coincidence.

    [Ed. I don't think so. Steve Malzberg is very well known on the East Coast. It's not an attempt to set Mario up. Malzberg is on one of the biggest radio stations in New York City...everybody knows him here.]

  18. Roy Bleckert Says:

    i have ask the ? many times under what authority do these citizen gj have any power ,so far i have not seen or heard of any law that would give them any power to do anything…in my opinion,understanding ,theory, I also have stated that we need to play offense with the legal football, i.e the constitution, grand juries, political process etc., and i have stated many times ultimately it is we the people that have let this country get in the shape its in,we as a people need to grab the bull by the horns and get involved in the public , political process… there are many constitutional ? out there , like what power does the congress or the pres. have to take tax money from the people and give it to private co., or directly get involved in the running of private co., or give the treasury secretary power to spend taxpayer money however he chooses i.e. the bailout bill….we need reps like Bachman to ask constitutional ? of these people that that are doing end runs around the constitution http://politicalblogs.startribune.com/bigquestionblog/?p=1291 look at Geithner & Bernake side step the constitutional ?… we need to elect men and women of exceptional character to office from the local level to potus and hold there feet to the fire once there in office to get this country back on the right track… my take is that if we as a people do not stand up for the constitution , the alternative is unacceptable , if we the people do not tun this county around, we will have let down our founding fathers , the men an women who have fought and died to keep this a free country ,giving us the individual right to pursue , peace , prosperity and the free will to live our lives as we see fit

    [Ed. Bravo! Nice one reader. I couldn't agree more. I am doing some research into the GJ thing, not as to the eligibility issue but more as to the money being taken and given to bankers. This is not socialism, it's classic corporate fascism. I'm no socialist but in that ideology the idea is that you take from the rich and give to the poor. In 2009 America we're allowing the Govt to take from the poor and middle class and give to the rich... this is truly sick.]

  19. TollandRCR Says:

    Thanks, Leo. I strongly disagree with you on the probable outcome of a Quo Warranto civil proceeding in DC District Court. I think you are dead wrong on what “natural born citizen” means.

    However, of all of those with understandings other than mine, you seem to be the most competent as an attorney, to truly uphold the Constitution and the law above your personal beliefs and preferences, and to be capable of educating people. I think that you would accept a Quo Warranto finding that was counter to your expectations; that is what being a law-abiding citizen means. It is not your fault that most doubters and anti-Obama people have chosen not to follow your lead.

    By the way, I also much appreciated your formal notification to the authorities of the legal hazards to which members of the military were being seduced.

  20. Leo
    You are absolutely wrong about being right. Yes, we are people who should be living by the laws and our Constitution. Yes you are right in encouraging all to work within the framework of the Constitution.
    However I must point out that the SCOTUS completelly ignored the Cnstitution. Congress completelly ignored the Constitution. Every Court to this day completelly ignored the Constitution.
    So it seems that in order for us to gain back our Constitution, with must do it outside of the Constitution, since within it, we the people have no option left to us within the Constitution.

    [Ed. No. They've just beat us at the game and we must accept responsibility and not drop to their level. If every citizen was armed with the knowledge of their grand juror power then we would have a proper balance. We've allowed our children to become dumbed down as to what the Constitution means and it's powers and this failure has passed on from generation to generation. Constitutional history and law should be part of grammar school and high school curriculums. The children will have no problem understanding the law. It's certainly not as difficult as biology, a foreign language or calculus.

    As for the courts and Congress, we haven't exhausted all of our possibilities yet. There are potentially hundreds of thousands of plaintiffs who may challenge POTUS eligibility via the QW statute or in collateral attacks via the Andrade case in the DC Court of Appeals.]


    Yes you say, we must only resort to the Quo Worrento, however it too is being ignored just like all other parts of the Constitution.

    [Ed. Time will tell. It hasn't told yet. ]


    [Ed. snipped for suggesting violence is the answer... sorry but that view is not allowed here. Violence is not the answer.]

  21. michael Says:

    what constitution, by the time they get done there will be nothing left to defend. you have to understand sometimes we must break the rules a little to get what we want.
    [ed. Snipped for encouraging destruction of the Constitution.]

  22. michael Says:

    Can We Pressure Congress to challenge him.

  23. Sir,

    You have expressed a certain disdain for lawful authority (the word “wussy” comes to mind), and in that regard I feel that you provide aid and comfort for vigilantism.

    [Ed. Oh geez... you think wussy is providing encouragement for a violent overthrow of the Government? Get real. Sarcasm is not a call to arms Rambo.]

    I believe that this threatening grand jury language is empty rhetoric. Nevertheless, there are some pretty “out there” fringe groups in the country. Those who play with fire sometimes get burned.

  24. Too late to walk it back now, CS. You are the one that got them riled up. This post will be ignored by them just as they ignored the crux of your original, very well articulated opinion on the power of a Federal Grand Juror.

    I will say, however, I’m glad to see that you’re attempting to disassociate yourself from the idiocy of this “citizens grand jury”.

    There’s still hope for you. I’m looking forward to the day that you shake this obsession you have with applying foreign opinion to American law.

    An old friend…..

    [Ed. I didn't apply it to American Law. It was Obama that said he was a British citizen at birth. He applied it... I just repeated what Obama applied. He chose the word "governed", not me.]

  25. ned2012 Says:

    Leo,

    Here is an interesting article which suggests that there is not a single clause in the Constitution that sates that a sitting US President cannot be indicated and it also cites precedent of a sitting Vice President having been indicted previously:

    http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3820

    So, I would appreciate it, if you research more on the issue and point to any clause in the Constitution that states that a sitting US President cannot be indicted by a Common Law Grand Jury, before condemning the courageous and patriotic [Ed. And really stupid in its use of criminal intent...] actions of this Grand Jury. The statutes that you have pointed to, so far, only state how Quo Warranto can be used to question the authority of a sitting POTUS.

    [Ed. Not being eligible is not a crime. Show me the criminal statute. The only federal statute which punishes ineligibility is the quo warranto statute. The statute says that the proceeding is a civil law matter in its very text.]

  26. Leo,

    I have filed at the USDC Western Dist. OKla, file civ-09-343-f

    Civil Rights Claim w/Application for Class Action w/ Application to Challenge Constitutional Statute w/Writ of Mandamus.

    Claims Civil Rights Violation due to the Congress’ Failure to ‘make Uniform the Laws of Naturalization in that they failed to respect the Two (2) forms of Citizenship enunciated in the Constitution; therefore, by ‘Exclusion of Distinctions and Omissions of Acknowledgement’ my rights, and the Class, have been Violated.

    You can read the initial filing at http://foundersowndreams.blogspot.com/

    I put private at the top incase you do not want to post this.

    Your excellent work and education you gave sparked this direction and I hope that you find it a worthwhile endeavor.

    [Ed. the court you filed with has no power under the Constitution grant you relief. Your case will be dismissed.]

  27. ned2012 Says:

    Leo,

    The only argument that you gave in response to my earlier comment, where I requested you to provide pointers where the Constitution states that a sitting President cannot be indicted by a Common Law Grand Jury (CLGJ) is that “being ineligible” to be POTUS does not constitute a crime. How about wire fraud to solicit campaign donations, on the basis of showing a forged online posted COLB, supposedly showing Obama’s elgibility to be POTUS?

    [Ed. Don't use bold print please. You've made the mistake again of assuming that Obama needs a BC to run for President. He doesn't. The Constitution doesn't require it. Furthermore, even if Obama was born in Nicaragua like Roger Calero to Nicaraguan parents...it was not a crime for Roger Calero to run for President. So it was not a crime for Obam to run even if not born in Hawaii. Furthermore, you have no proof Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. The COLB has never been questioned by any official Hawaii state officer or agency. Not only that, Hawaii has backed him up 100%. All you have are partisan "experts" as to the validity of the COLB. And even if you had wire fraud, you couldn't remove him for it because the constitution only allows the President to be removed by Congress.

    No court can enforce the GJ presentment. So it's end of story. Nobody seems to understand the separation of powers issue. You're filled with emotion. I talk of law. I spent months trying to bring this before the courts. I wanted the issue solved, but it didn't happen and now the Constitution makes it much harder for that to happen.]

    Again, the following link that I had cited earlier shows that the Constitution DOES NOT STATE anywhere that a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted by a CLGJ:

    http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3820


    [Ed. There's no enforcement ability for a CLGJ verses a sitting President. Furthermore, even if he were indicted for some crime, he can't be removed as a sitting President by any branch but Congress through impeachment and conviction in the Senate. If the issue is that he isn't eligible, that in itself is not a crime and so the only way he can be removed is through a quo warranto. Make all the CLGJ action you want... it's going nowhere and that's a perfect 100% certain promise I make from me to you. I guarantee no CLGJ will ever remove Obama or see any actual enforcement to any of its presentments.]

    So, I would suggest, that after researching adequately on this issue, if you find Obama’s indictment by a CLGJ a Constitutional option, please assist the courageous folks who would like to use this option against the unconstitutional acts of the usurper, instead of condemning their actions.

    [Ed. Show me where it says in the Constitution the words "common law grand jury". Furthermore, under no circumstances could such a body, even if enumerated in the Constitution, which it is not, ever enforce an indictment or presentment... the GJ is a completely an investigative function with no power to enforce anything and that's the main problem I have with this CLGJ, their language stating how they are going to start kicking ass and taking property in 40 days if their presentments are not enforced... the executive branch is the law enforcement branch... this is dangerous and those people better be careful or they are going to find themselves in prison. ]

  28. if the american revolutionists had this attitude

    [Ed. snip - you want to talk about taking up arms against the Government, do it somewhere else. You don't like my attitude about preserving the Constitution and fighting within the boundaries of the Document... then go somewhere else. You're not welcome here. That goes for anybody talking about using violence. This is a legal blog facing a difficult legal question. If you don't want to talk about the law, then go away. I am not your friend.]

  29. Leo (and dedicated readers),

    I have received back my green Return Receipt notifications from the letters that I sent to both US Attorney Taylor and Attorney General Holder. So with luck one or both of them will find it in them to actually respond to my plea that they institute a QW proceeding at their earliest possible opportunity.

    I’ll keep you posted if I do get a response.

    Thanks

    [Ed. Thanks so much for the update and for writing. I wonder if every member of the citizens grand jury took the time to write and get a green receipt as you did. Perhaps they will put them all up on their web sites and show them. This gives m an idea... watch this blog.]

  30. Rule of the mob is wrong whether it be by Obama or by Orly.

    [Ed. Here here. I second that.]

  31. Actually, Obama admitted that at birth he had dual-citizenship because of where he was born (United States of America), and by virtue of his father being Kenyan (British).

    Do you believe that the first seven Presidents of the United States weren’t eligible to be President knowing that they had British parents also?

    [Ed. Your comment is utterly false and has been proved so ad nauseum in previous blog posts should you care to do proper research.

    As for the first few Presidents, they were exempt due to the grandfather clause in A1 S2 C5 which says one must be a nbc "or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution"... the rest of the first seven Presidents were all born to parents who had become US citizens by the time the child was born on american soil. In order to be a nbc, your parents don't have to be born in the US, but they have to be citizens of the US when the child is born on US soil.]

  32. If existing Federal Grand Juries are a route by which a “presentment” can be made, ie a report written by a grand jury concerning an offense and based on the jury’s own knowledge and observation, then isn’t the correct route to contact all those currently sitting and make them aware of their power, and the nature of any offense committed by Obama? Notices, Picketing, requests to adress/petition the Grand Juries Directly?

    Do sitting Grand Juries hav a duty to persue any prima facie case presented to them?

    Also, most jurisdictions have abolished grand juries, replacing them with the preliminary hearing at which a judge hears evidence concerning the alleged offenses and makes a decision on whether the prosecution can proceed.-Wikipedia

    In the early decades of the United States grand juries played a major role in public matters. During that period counties followed the traditional practice of requiring all decisions be made by at least 12 of the grand jurors, so that for a size of 23 a bare majority would be 12. Any citizen could bring a matter before it directly, from a public work that needed repair, to a delinquent official, to a complaint of a crime, and they could conduct their own investigations. In that era most criminal prosecutions were conducted by private parties, either a law enforcement officer, a lawyer hired by a crime victim or his family, or even by laymen, who could bring a bill of indictment to the grand jury, and if the grand jury found there was sufficient evidence for a trial, that the act was a crime under law, and that the court had jurisdiction, then by returning the indictment to the complainant, it appointed him to exercise the authority of an attorney general, that is, one having a general power of attorney to represent the state in the case. The grand jury served to screen out incompetent or malicious prosecutions.[4] The advent of official public prosecutors in the later decades of the 19th century largely displaced private prosecutions, but also led to their capturing grand juries and using them in ways for which they were not originally intended.[5]

    Jon Roland has argued that most grand juries as they are set up and used today are unconstitutional, and that there should be a return to grand jury practices closer to those that prevailed during the founding era. This would mean grand juries of 23 unpaid citizens each serving no more than 3,000 people, open to having anyone bring any matter before them, with no preferential treatment of public prosecutors, and deciding every question by a vote of at least 12.-Wikipedia

    County grand juries develop areas to examine by two avenues: juror interests, and public complaints. Complaints filed by the public are kept confidential.-Wikipedia

    Why not find a suitable complaint and make it directly to the Grand Jury?

    [Ed. I have no problem with any of this. I do have a problem with people forming lynch mobs and taking property, life or liberty in the name of their own personal citizens grand jury... there is investigation and there is enforcement... the GJ role is to investigate. Period.]

  33. And yes, if you rely on Vattel’s opinion, then you are applying foreign opinion to American law.

    [Ed. That's cute but it's not intellectually honest. The question isn't whether we should apply Vattel's opinion, the question is - DID THE FRAMERS APPLY VATTEL'S OPINION? And it certainly appears they did.]

    I admit, the Framer’s choice of words were frustrating. And I don’t have the legal knowledge to sufficiently duke it out with you about literal interpretations of what was going on in the minds of the Framer’s of the Constitution.

    But, I do know that the American public was well aware of Barack Obama’s ancestry well before the election. They knew that his mother was American and his father was Kenyan. And a clear majority of Americans made the decision that it was unimportant due to the fact that Barack Obama demonstrated that his allegiance was to America. When it comes to choosing our leader, I’ll trust American opinion over foreign opinion.

    [Ed. But that's not how our legal system works... what you are describing is mob law. You are saying, "I don't care what the framers intended, the people can overrule the Constitution." The people can't do that unless by a Constitutional Amendment. You are an enemy of the Constitution if you suggest such a thing.]

  34. Does the ceo for gm now have standing for some kind action.

    [Ed. For a collateral attack on the decision to have him fired? Yes, I believe that under the Andrade holding from the DC Court of Appeals, the GM CEO could sue on the ground that Obama is not eligible to the office of POTUS. But this would not be a quo warranto and it couldn't remove Obama, but it could get the guy his job back if he won.

    Quo Warranto = direct attack on eligibility

    suing to reverse an official POTUS action = collateral attack ]

  35. MadeinAmerica Says:

    Having followed this for 5 months, I don’t understand why the Supreme Court, FBI, state Reps, etc. haven’t resolved this matter. Obama still remains in office. What needs to be done, Leo? [Ed. snipped comment about other lawyer...]

  36. ned2012 Says:

    Leo,

    My take on the usage of the Citizens’ Grand Jury or the Common Law Grand Jury, which is in accordance with your earlier blogs about the subject, is that it can be used to investigate any crimes or criminal intent and issue presentment(s) on that.

    There is precedent of the usage of a Citizens’ Grand Jury, most recently, to investigate the truth behind the 9/11 attacks, as the following links show:

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=116×11968
    http://www.archive.org/details/pentz
    http://www.911busters.com/aLA_GJ.htm

    Also, while researching on this topic I found precedent of the usage of another kind of a Citizens’ Grand Jury, called the Citizen-Petitioned Grand Jury, which are convened by a Citizen Petition drive. This kind of jury is authorized by statutes in state law in the states of Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska and Nevada. [Ed. No more bold print, please.] The highest profile crime that this kind of Jury was used to investigate was the Oklahoma City bombing. Here is an article in the San Francisco Chronicle that provides more information on this kind of Grand Jury:

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/18/MNBSUH518.DTL

    I would greatly appreciate, if you can let us know your legal opinion on the above options, since I am not a lawyer and I’m sure a lot of the folks who are exploring this option are in the same boat. We can all benefit from your well researched legal opinion.

    [Ed. I have no problem with the State laws you mention and the GJ process thereunder, nor do I have a problem with a Citizens grand Jury in theory doing an investigation and handing their findings over to law enforcement... my problem is that the CLGJ from Georgia threatened to enforce their presentments by taking property and liberty and using "other" measures to complete such enforcement... The GJ function is to investigate stuff. The GJ has no power of enforcement... If you live in a state that allows a GJ by petition, by all means use it and if you find a "State" crime then hopefully your findings will be enforced by law enforcement. As to Obama's eligibility, no state level GJ has any authority to remove a sitting President. Only Congress can do that. As for indictments of federal law under a GJ impanelled by a State statute, I don't think that's going to fly.]

  37. naturalborncitizen Says:

    had to move this comment by Dr. Conspiracy and my answer to this thread:

    ————————————————-

    Dr. Conspiracy said:

    I am interested in your thoughts on my article http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/de-vattel-for-dummies/ (please don’t be put off by the title). My decoding of de Vattel is that “natural born citizen” means “citizen by natural law” which explains why he describes those born in England of alien parents who are natural born subjects of England as “naturalized”.

    [Ed. I think you've got it totally wrong. See my article "Two Minute Warning Vattel Decoded".]

    I would also apprise you of my article about Founder Charles Pinckney’s brief explanation of constitutional requirements for president here: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/framer-speaks-on-natural-born-citizenship/

    and the South Carolina act of 1712 here: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/natural-born-in-south-carolina/

    The Naturalization Acts of New York here: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/naturalization-acts-of-new-york-1770/

    and the Georgia Charter of 1732 here: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/natural-born-in-georgia/

    By the way, have you ever publicly commented on Lynch v. Clarke?

    Feel free to leave comments on any of these articles (my blog’s not moderated), reply by email, or ignore me entirely.

    [Ed. None of those changes my mind in any way at all. New York courts have no power to define the meaning of "natural born citizen"... they prove that there are differing opinions as to the meaning of the nbc clause and they bear further proof that we need a solid legal definition for the sake of the nation's sanity. The greater amount of authority is that a nbc must be born on the soil to two parents who are citizens... But due to the fact that there are historical references not seeing it that way, it's important that people understand Obama could not have committed a crime or fraud as to the pure legal nbc issue... he had every right to view himself as a natural born citizen... even if I do not agree at all that he is. That's why I don't call him a "usurper", he knows he is on sketchy ground, but assuming he was born in Hawaii, there was no fraud perpetrated by his assuming being born on US soil was enough...

    However, Obama knew as sure as anything that his British birth could easily have kept him out of the White House. I do not appreciate his putting the nation through this when he should have, if he were a true patriot and statesman, raised the issue before the American people and discussed it openly...debated it openly, talked about Vattell and Marbury v. Madison and the comments of Framers of the 14th Amendment... etc. Where was the national dialogue on this issue? He cleverly published a sexy green COLB and placed the British birth issue below it and I honestly believe that up until late October 2008 when my case hit the street... he believed he would never have to face this issue.]

  38. naturalborncitizen Says:

    Dr. Conspiracy said:

    “But while Lynch is, as you say, a New York case, it is cited over and over again in other cases in other states, and by the United States Supreme Court in Wong, et al. And Lynch being a New York case, and Chester A. Arthur being a New York lawyer, I wonder how much air is left in the Arthur “cover up” balloon.”

    [Ed. After studying Wong Kim Ark intensively, Justice Horace Gray's opinion cannot be reconciled in any way with his prior opinion in the Elk case. Something is rotten in Denmark on that front. Is that rotten stench the Chester Arthur issue? I don't know for sure, but this is a great example of why we want a POTUS who is beyond question eligible to be POTUS. The stench of ineligibility taints all it comes near.

    As for Chester Arthur, he lied through his teeth to keep his parents heritage hidden. No NY case can change that fact of history. ]

    “I’ve done a lot of reading and the ONLY thing I’ve ever found that makes me think there was ever question anywhere about the relevance of parents to natural born citizenship was that one little comment in Minor v Happersett, and for the life of me I don’t know what authority or case they got it from.”

    [Ed. Although the holding in Elk was concerned with "indians not taxed" the dicta published by Justice Horace gray was not limited to indians... it was clear as the sun Gray stated that a child born on US soil to foreign parents was NOT a citizen. Something made him do an about face when it came time for Wong Kim Ark... and even in that case, Gray held back from saying that Wong Kim Ark was a nbc and eligible to be President.]

  39. Leo,

    FYI, I too have received back from US Attorney Taylor’s office the green Post Office signed proof of receipt.

    Thomas

  40. Leo,

    I agree with your argument that the GJ has no power to enforce their presentments.

    My understanding of the authority wielded by the GJ is that they are used to determine whether enough evidence exists to conduct a trial. This is in accordance with the wikipedia information on the Grand Jury, which states the following:

    In the common law, a grand jury is a type of jury that determines whether there is enough evidence for a trial. Grand juries carry out this duty by examining evidence presented to them by a prosecutor and issuing indictments, or by investigating alleged crimes and issuing presentments.

    So, I don’t see it specified anywhere that the Grand Jury can be used to investigate only “crimes”. In fact, the wikipedia info specifies how Grand Juries have been used in the past and I quote below a snippet from that section:

    In the early decades of the United States grand juries played a major role in public matters. During that period counties followed the traditional practice of requiring all decisions be made by at least 12 of the grand jurors, so that for a size of 23 a bare majority would be 12. Any citizen could bring a matter before it directly, from a public work that needed repair, to a delinquent official, to a complaint of a crime, and they could conduct their own investigations.

    So, I don’t agree with your assertion that Grand Juries can be used to only investigate “crimes”.

    [Ed. You've misstated my point completely. The only reference made to Grand Juries in the 5th amendment concerns criminal prosecutions. My articles and comments were based on the 5th Amendment. My writings have been restricted to that provision's meaning. Its mention of presentments is strictly related to the crimes it discusses in the language of the 5th Amendment:

    "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on 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 offense 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."

    You may discuss common law grand juries all you like and how they were used to investigate all sorts of things, but the Constitution itself does not provide for anything of the sort.]

    Also, I don’t agree with your assertion that a Citizen-Petitioned Grand Jury can be used to only investigate crimes under State Law.

    [Ed. Again, you misstate my point. My point was that a grand Jury empanelled under a "State statute" would not have any federal authority over crimes not committed in that state.]

    The wikipedia info does not mention this as a restriction. What I understand from that info is that State and County Grand Juries defer from Federal Grand Juries in their primary focus with respect to the level of government institutions that they conduct oversight on. The State or County Grand Juries are not restricted from investigating violations of Federal Law.

    [Ed. ...violations that happen in that State's jurisdiction. The eligibility issue is not a criminal issue, as much as people want to keep fairytailing that it is. It's a civil issue and no grand jury has any authority over it... only the DC Code has the authority to review POTUS eligibility.

    This conversation is just throwing smoke over the only possible way to get the job done, 'cause it surely will NEVER get done by a citizens grand jury or any other grand jury for that matter. You're hallucinating if you think it will.]

    I will change my opinion on this, if you can point me to a legal clause, which states that State or County Grand Juries cannot investigate violations of Federal Law.

    [Ed. Technically, under the 1st Amendment, people can get together and discuss and investigate whatever they like... but at the end of the day, it's not going to accomplish a damn thing as to POTUS eligibility. There is no crime and even if there was, there is no court other than the DC District Court which has the authority to do a damn thing about it. And no Grand Jury can change that.]

  41. you wrote
    “the GM CEO could sue on the ground that Obama is not eligible to the office of POTUS”

    what about the GM shareholders, GM bond holders, the DM board of directors. These individuals as a whole have lost a ton of money becasue of the end run around their own rules. Obama doesn’t even own a share or interest of the company ! They have more standing than a CEO who walked away with millions, God Bless him. (where were the union bosses going down? no where to be seen).

    [Ed. I see no problem with such a law suit and it's the sheer volume of possible law suits which should encourage the US Attorney to bring the quo warranto to settle clear title.]

  42. FaithKeeper Says:

    Leo,
    I feel we have the perfect opportunity to spread the word and educate many more American.. About Quo Warranto, and the 4th branch of Govt.

    On April 15th there will be American Tea Parties across America.. We can get the Quo Warranto information to each of these organizers.. Requesting that they and many print and hand out this information to all who gather.. This is too important….. We need to distribute this information far and wide to get the attention of those who may be already serving on a Federal Grand Jury..

    I started an e-mail that I wanted to send to the organizers of these Tea Parties… While using your words as reference, I thought, It should be you who drafts such a letter.. One that we can all print or send to organizers… Or Print and hand out ourselves at the Tea Parties..

    We know you do not want credit but we also know that no one else has done the exhaustive work as you have… Your excellent work should be written by you.. Without others putting their own spin on it.. (“Common Cense”) Please consider this is an excellent avenue to educate. An opportunity that I feel we must not let pass by… We can do this America..

    May the Force Be with You..

    [Ed. I don't believe in form letters. Just get the information out using the resources at this blog and encourage people to write their own letter. Use bullet points etc. I have put it all out there in the easiest language I could muster. But I'm still a lawyer and I write like a lawyer so somebody else should distill the info in more simple terms.]

  43. FaithKeeper Says:

    LOL (Common Sense”) by Thomas Paine…LOL You don’t want me writing it….

  44. Leo, something that you said weeks ago has stayed with me. It certainly seems prescient and insightful now: You said that a person with “standing” would be someone who lost his or her job through action of the POTUS.

    To date, has any U.S. attorney been changed? The one in my area hasn’t.

    [ed. I know what you mean. As far as I can tell, Obama has not fired any USAttorneys.]

  45. ned2012 Says:

    Leo,

    I concur with your citation of the 5th Amendment, which makes mention of Grand Juries only concerning criminal prosecution, but there is no clause in the Constitution that prohibits Grand Juries from returning presentments on non-criminal violations of Law and in fact, precedent exists in the early decades of the US for Grand Juries having been used to return presentments on violation of other law.

    Thanks for clarifying what you meant by “state” crimes. Now, we are on the same page and I concur with you on the fact that State Grand Juries can be used to return presentments on crimes committed in the Jurisdiction of the State.

    Do you think that presentments returned by State or Federal Grand Juries on crimes committed by Obama can be used to bolster the request for initiation of Quo Warranto or other Criminal Prosecution?

    I can already list some crimes that were possibly committed by Obama and his henchmen:
    Wire Fraud committed by using a forged online posted COLB. An independent forensic expert can be assigned to verify this.
    There are atleast a couple of well-documented instances of Obama’s violation of the Logan Act, which constitutes a felony offense. These instances have been documented at Texasdarlin blogs, here and here.
    There is evidence obtained via an audit of the balance sheets posted on the Federal Reserve website, where $82 billion of the money that was withdrawn from the Institutional Money Funds in September ’08 to trigger the current financial crisis, has been traced back to the credit lent by the Fed under a program introduced by current Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. I have detailed this extensively on my blog site, with appropriate links. Tim Geithner can be investigated atleast for public corruption (I haven’t researched enough here to determine, if a crime was committed) to orchestrate the financial crisis, via money laundering, to get Obama elected. Obama can be charged as a co-conspirator, here.

  46. Leo,
    I have also received back from US Attorney Taylor’s office the green Post Office signed proof of receipt. Dated March 24,2009
    Texas

  47. MadeinAmerica Says:

    You snipped the name of the other attorney, but millions of us still have this question: Having followed this for 5 months, we don’t understand why the Supreme Court, FBI, state Reps, etc. haven’t resolved this matter. Obama still remains in office. What needs to be done, Leo?

    [Ed. see my latest blog and write to US Attorney Taylor, and tell everyone you know to write.]

  48. French Montrealer Says:

    What do you think of Dr Edwin Vieira, PhD, J.D., statement:

    “Seventh: If Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. ”

    [Ed, Quo warranto is not impeachment. I expected Dr. Vierira would weigh in on the quo warranto DC Code issue by now, but so far I haven't seen anything from him on it. Furthermore, as stated in the DC Code, ineligibility got a United States Office - aka usurpation - is a civil matter, not criminal... that's actually in the statute.]

    OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN

    http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm

  49. Don’t know if this has been addressed yet, but the deliberations by Grand Juries both State & Federal are supposed to be SECRET. It is a violation of both State & Federal Laws to disclose information about the deliberations of a Grand Jury. No doubt all of your readers have heard of the precept that is the foundation of our Criminal Justice System, “Innocent until proven guilty.”

  50. Gary R. Anderson Says:

    Let us NOT blog our time away with “dueling lawyers” and the veracity of a CGJ. If there are 25 or 30 concerned citizens in 50 states, who wish to meet as a congress of zealots calling themselves a CGJ, what harm is there in it? Would they emerge LESS knowlegeable of their founding document? I say these could embellish the counsel of those professionals who are in our camp. Just because the state of Georgia has issued some “State” indictment against a Federal official does not mean that 49 others need follow along blindly. We will learn from our missteps as surely as the covey of plaintiffs who have visited the scotus’ revolving door. In the end, however, it may not be “we” who call for the production of a COLB; the brokers of facism may decide that for us, in tossing Barry Soetoro aside like a used teabag, once they have squeezed out all they can. — So, to CGJ or NOT to CGJ, is not the question, but the power that is generated in awakening the slumbering masses. Therefore I will re-baptize the acronmym as meaning “Citizen’s Group of Juris Prudence”, a fellowship of Constitutional interns.

  51. John Jay Says:

    Steve Malzberg is not well known in the west coast and that is where the rumor originated. I viewed the video on the web site after I read the comments that it was Mario that was requesting BO show his BC.
    I don’t know Malzberg from Adam and I am assuming the individuals that continue to insist it is Mario don’t know him either. Thank you for identifying him. It appears I am becoming a bit paranoid about what I read and see in that particular web site. In the future I’ll get a grip.

  52. French Montrealer Says:

    You say: “usurpation is a civil matter, not a criminal.”

    But he took an oath on the 20th of January, isn’t that a perjury? And a perjury is considered a criminal offense by law. So then what?

    [Ed. Obama is entitled to believe he's eligible. He is entitled to take a view of the nbc clause which makes him eligible... as no court has decided the issue, even though I believe that view is wrong and he isn't eligible, he did not commit perjury by taking an oath.]

  53. Leo is correct, at this point, all the cases lawfully filed in lawful Courts against Obama et al are Civil not Criminal.

    That may change, but it will not change by lawyers [ed. snipped name and substituted "lawyers] going from State to State where they are not licensed and can never be licensed to practice law and inciting angry mobs to violate State and Federal Laws. I am not going to state what I think will happen as a result of their actions. I think intelligent people are responsible for their actions. Ignorance of the Laws is not a defense to criminal prosecution. Nor are you excused of criminal violations because of bad advice from a lawyer unlicensed in your State to represent you. You don’t even have the benefit of Attorney/Client Privilege in such a case.

    As Leo has stated, they can’t preserve our Constitution by violating it.

  54. ned2012 Says:

    Leo,

    For one of my earlier comments, you had asked me, where in the Constitution the words “common law grand jury” were specified. I have been researching more on this and have found that although the words “common law grand jury” is not in the constitution, but the constitutionality of the CLGJ is implicitly provided by the fact that Article III of the Constitution states that the judicial Power of the United States shall extend to all cases in Law (meaning Common Law) and Equity. When the Constitution was drafted, American society was infused with common‐law ideas and so the “Law” in the phrase “Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution” in article III refers to common law,

    [Ed. Scalia recently said "the common law is dead". But you can tell him otherwise if you can get before him. I'm sure you'll get far.]

    since the same sentence additionally separately specifies “the Laws of the United States”. This concept is well explained in this article on answers.com.

    Now, coming to the following snippet… [Ed. snipped quote about CLGJ taking property and using "other" means...]

  55. French Montrealer Says:

    You said “Obama is entitled to believe that he’s eligible”

    Don’t you think that if he would really think he was elible, that he would have gladly show us all of his records and particulary his long form Birth Certificate.? I do not blieve a minute that he believes he was eligible… he studied Constitutional law… so he knows he is not eligible.

    [Ed. I believe he always knew his eligibility could be a problematic issue, but it would be impossible for him to "know" for sure whether he was eligible (assuming he was born in Hawaii) since no court has ever ruled on the exact definition of the nbc clause. As for why he won't show the BC, I believe he used it as a smokescreen to cover the genuine British birth issue. I also believe that as late as October 2008 he expected the plan was going to work and after the election he may have even intended to show the BC, but my suit and others came along and the issue got switched on him. Now he could show an original BC but it still wouldn't solve his eligibility issue. Furthermore, if he comes out with a real BC now, he proves me (and others) to be very accurate about the situation. he's got himself in a place he didn't want. he can't show the BC now even if he has it.]

  56. so then, what about the Accountability Clause of the First Amendment?

    what about the founders’ statement in regards to the only other peaceful means by which oppression can be remedied?

    The founding fathers, in an act of the Continental Congress in 1774, regarding Petitioning for Redress of Grievances said:

    “If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, [the People] may retain [their money] until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility.”

    ALL branches of Federal Government have now ignored our Petitions for Redress of Grievances. SCOTUS has also failed in its own duty to define the Accountability Clause.

    what other legal and peaceful means of returning the Federal Government to its Constitutional limitations WITHOUT enacting an all out “Tax Strike” as the founders advised when a government acts outside of the rule of law?

    of course, the practical question arises, “how does one keep from being put into prison for standing up to such a corrupt government in such a way?”

    hopefully, this question will be addressed in the upcoming Continental Congress 2009.

    for more info, check out GiveMeLiberty.org.

  57. Gary R. Anderson Says:

    BERNARD; The Constitution came before lawyers learned to confound language to the point of non-comunication. You make valid simple points. If the end statement of the founding document is that you have no cause nor freedom, it is a signal that your interpretation is in error. So then withholding the tax until redress has been satisfied IS logical, but HOW is complicated. Mass non-filing is significant, but not publicly authenticated, and ultimately painful. FICA already takes most of the tax, from the individual and the employer, therefore we must target it. The FairTax plan (HR25) replaces the IRS and all Federal taxes, with a 23% sales tax, that we CAN control, first by our purchases, and also by STATE legislation to withhold within the State for just cause, thereby putting control on the Fed. This is a REAL and powerful weapon we will need, for nothing gets done so long as the IRS has power over you. End the IRS and watch them begin to listen.

  58. French Montrealer Says:

    You said: “As for why he won’t show the BC, I believe he used it as a smokescreen to cover the genuine British birth issue.”

    How could it have been just a smokescreen, since Obama had already admitted publicly that he was a British Citizen at birth?

    See this article:

    OBAMA ADMITS HE WAS A BRITISH CITIZEN “AT BIRTH” – AS SUCH, OBAMA IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES AND NEITHER WERE THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION, HENCE THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE IN ARTICLE 2. SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5 OF THE US CONSTITUTION

    http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/article/29871.html

    [Ed. It's called hiding in plain site... think of it this way - up until I filed my law suit on October 27, 2008, nobody was talking about his British birth as a problem, EVERYBODY and every law suit was singularly concentrated on the BC issue... only week before the election while for two years everybody just looked the other way as to his British birth. Whether intentional or not, the truth was in point of fact hidden... in plain site.]

  59. We do not want a Citizens Grand Jury. That is not correct.

    We do want a People’s Grand Jury. From We the People.

    As explained elsewhere the power of the People’s Grand Jury comes from We the People as per the Magna Carta which is over and above the Governement. We must step up above the Gov.

    Donofrio is trying to work within the Gov. The GJ wants to step up to the power of the people above the gov.

    Here is the order of power.

    People are the highest power. Well except for god.
    Gov is next and comes from the people. But is subject to the people.
    Citizen is subject of the gov. We can not solve the problem as a citizen.

    When we took independence from Britain. We were each person Sovereign just like a king. We the people. We decided to form a limited gov. which over 230 years is now trying to take over all power.

    This was all explained somewhere in the discussion elsewhere on the internet with regard to our problems.

    So I ask you.

    Are you a person or a citizen. If you are a person sovereign like a king or a subject of the governement as a citizen.

    For me I choose to be a PERSON with full power of a sovereign like a king.

    Donofrio must consider this. If the Grand Jury is made up of sovereign citizens then they have the power of kings. They can do as they choose. They are above the government. Read the Magna Carta. This is legal under the Magna Carta. The power must be so stated in the Magna Carta. I have not read the Magna Carta but I will bet the power is there.

    The power of the Magna Carta is very close to the term Common Law. But Magna Carta adds the power in my mind.

    [Ed. We the people are the Government. You fail to acknowledge that we the people have failed to exercise our power as citizens. That is on each and every one of us. It's our fault. I am not a victim. I am taking responsibility for my own personal failure as a citizen. Are you? Everything we the people needed to run this country free from tyranny was put into that Document called the Constitution. We the people let the framers down by allowing our power to be given by proxy to political parties and professional politicians... We have become fat and content and many who are so opposed to Obama were perfectly content to allow the Bush administration tell the world it was OK to crush the testicles of children in the fight against terrorism... We the people are totally to blame. So now you want to blame the Constitution and try to tell us that the magna carta will be our law and give us what we need. That's a load off shit. Own up to it. You failed as a citizen. I failed. We all failed and now we're going to reap what we sowed unless we find a way to correct this situation within the Constitution. Personally, I believe the nation has been judged for its wickedness and that the republic is going to be killed off. I'm still fighting, but I don't see a good end to this and the one you propose is never going to happen.]

  60. Good Info for Grand Jurors:

    Grand jury proceedings are secret because:
    Anyone being investigated cannot interfere with witnesses or otherwise tamper with the investigation.
    Secrecy decreases the likelihood someone who is about to be indicted will escape before indictment.
    Reluctant witnesses can speak more freely when their remarks will not be made public nor reach the target of an investigation.
    Secrecy protects anyone who might be implicated, but who is not indicted.

    http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/grand_jury_2.htm

  61. Good Info for your Grand Jury:

    Grand jury proceedings are secret because:
    Anyone being investigated cannot interfer with witnesses or otherwise tamper with the investigation.
    Secrecy decreases the likelihood someone who is about to be indicted will escape before indictment.
    Reluctant witnesses can speak more freely when their remarks will not be made public nor reach the target of an investigation.
    Secrecy protects anyone who might be implicated, but who is not indicted.

    http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/grand_jury_2.htm

  62. Follow these steps…

    1: Barack Obama uses BC as smokescreen to hide NBC status.
    2: NBC status revealed, so now he is trapped.
    3: To protect himself and his power-status, Obama continues down [ed. word changed to fascist]fascist path…
    3a: Promises to the poor (savior indeed).
    3b: Enacts civilian national security force (requirement of citizens).
    3c: Control of private sector (basically ousts Chrysler CEO).
    3d: etc…
    4: States pass bills to declare Sovereignty because Federal Government unlawfully meddling in States affairs (over 30 states have done so).
    5: Obama approves plans to tighten control on States more.
    6: States succeed from Union, disbanding America.
    7: After awhile, States begin competing against each other for resources, etc.
    8: State residents turn against other state residents to vie for resources (like Kansas vs. Louisiana, etc. If you think this is preposterous, consider how some fans act when rival sports teams play against each other.).
    9: Tensions between states build while Federal Government acts like they’re rescuing the situation by sending in whatever military they can to “maintain peace”.
    10. America becomes like Iraq, in which there are different factions fighting against each other, but it will be the Californians against the New Mexicans, Gangs against other Gangs for higher stakes, etc.
    11. South American and North American governments combine into North American Union and combine military strength to hold down the warring “terrorist citizens”.
    12. The Global Bankers who bought the government officials and guided them in the first place, sit back in their chair and smile as their gross fantasies of euthanasia transpire and chaos ensues.
    13. The Global Bankers make trillions of dollars off weapon deals, food rations, and whatever products are made by the companies they forced into bankruptcy through their own bad deals then they bought up.
    14. The Global Bankers look forward to the day that the “terrorist citizens” submit to the North American Military, and all become emotionally and physically enthralled.

    [Ed. snip the web site info... you've made a good case here and let's leave it at that. I think what you've posted above is not all that far from actually happening... and I do listen to that person you mentioned some times, for years now...but I don't want to allow links there as he continues to avoid the eligibility issue and that's just wrong...]

  63. While I feel the frustration and applaud the attempt to rectify some very grevious misdeeds in our government, I agree that I cannot condone using the same wrong methods to right a wrong method. Violence against an individual should not be a consideration. I trust that violence against even a group (such as a civil war) can be avoided also. I am a firm believer and proponent of fighting the destruction of our rights in this country with ideals and persuading those who are asleep to wake up. My preference is that we would find those who will stand for American values and elect them to Congress to make legal peaceful changes and hopefully no violence will be required for any reason. Though one cannot always be a pacifist it is the first choice until all peaceful means have been exhausted.

  64. Initially, I supported Orly & Bob Campbell of AGJ but I do not support statements like the one below by Bob Campbell of AGJ:

    “When the “sleeping giant” finally wakes up there will be a Revolution in this Country and it isn’t going to be enjoyable for those that oppose the patriots. Bob Campbell
    Editor”

  65. Private

    Leo,

    You said; [Ed. the court you filed with has no power under the Constitution grant you relief. Your case will be dismissed.]

    If that is the case then to 10th Circuit Appeal?, then SCOTUS?

    Could the Complaint be structured better to get farther?

    [Ed. No court has the authority to grant you relief...none nada, zilch. The only possible means by which the eligibility issue will be heard in court is via the quo warranto statute...]

  66. Leo,

    I am NOT trying to raise the ‘eligibility’ question. The ONLY question I am seeking to have answered is “What is the Leagl Definition of a Natural Born Citizen?”

    and if there is no legal definition does that mean Art2 sec1 cl5 is without effect?

  67. Forgive me if I seem trite and let me hasten to say I disagree with Leo Donofrio on some legal technicalities but these words from Leo D. are so true that I only wish that I had written them:

    “We the people are the Government. You fail to acknowledge that we the people have failed to exercise our power as citizens. That is on each and every one of us. It’s our fault. I am not a victim. I am taking responsibility for my own personal failure as a citizen. Are you? Everything we the people needed to run this country free from tyranny was put into that Document called the Constitution. We the people let the framers down by allowing our power to be given by proxy to political parties and professional politicians… We have become fat and content and many who are so opposed to Obama were perfectly content to allow the Bush administration tell the world it was OK to crush the testicles of children in the fight against terrorism… We the people are totally to blame. So now you want to blame the Constitution and try to tell us that the magna carta will be our law and give us what we need. That’s a load off shit. Own up to it. You failed as a citizen. I failed. We all failed and now we’re going to reap what we sowed unless we find a way to correct this situation within the Constitution. Personally, I believe the nation has been judged for its wickedness and that the republic is going to be killed off. I’m still fighting…”

  68. I don’t know about the validity of the citizen’s grand jury concept, but certainly they don’t have the power to make up law and become judge and executioner. That language which was used is indeed frightening. One key thing we need to restore as far as juries go is petty jury nullification: something which the founders believed in and was accepted as a principle of common law when the Constitution was adopted, yet has been obscured out of the legal system. I am thankful for the work of the Fully Informed Jury Association on this matter.

    I posted on Dr. Tait’z blog several times making it clear that there is no Constitutional authority for the federal government to prosecute crimes like election and wire fraud against Obama or anyone else. The Constitution uses the word “punish” only a few times, and it’s for things like treason, counterfeiting, piracy and other crimes on the high seas, offenses against the law of nations and members of Congress punishing one another. And Congress has full legislative power over the federal district (Washington D.C.), and it is implied, military tribunals can punish. But that’s pretty much it. Thomas Jefferson talked about this very matter in the Kentucky Resolution of 1798. The federal government has no Constitutional authority to “punish” anyone for election or wire fraud (unless it occurs in federal territory or in the military). If Obama WERE to eventually be prosecuted (he would have to be legally removed from office first), it would have to be done by the states for crimes done in their territory. I made it clear: if we support the Constitution, then we cannot bend the rules and pursue unconstitutional federal prosecutions. Most of what the feds prosecute these days is unconstitutional; we certainly don’t need to make the problem worse.

  69. Leo,

    Thanks to you and Alan Stang for the excellent article in News With Views,

    GRAND JURY POWER, TAKE IT BACK

    by Alan Stang
    April 10, 2009
    NewsWithViews.com

    http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan195.htm

    Your point that potential ‘Local, State and Federal Grand Jurors’ should be educated on what their rights and powers are once they are seated may well be the best hope of getting the Country back from the corruption being played out by both Political Parties today.

    Thanks……..

  70. as i have no legal training, i only ask one question, can this person be impeached? as soon as possible, or we won’t have a country to live in. i am a veteran of ww2, feel as I swore my oath of enlistment on the Constitution, I should understand it, but now 84 and don’t, still ask: Can he be impeached?

    [Ed. Not for Quo warranto violations - ie eligibility. Only for crimes committed while in office. Eligibility is defined in the DC Code as a civil matter.]

  71. Chris Singletary Says:

    In your statement about the only people who have the “right” to inquire about the legal status are only governmental in nature, I totally beg to differ. The constitution itself starts with the Pre-amble of “We the People” and is a contractural document between the people of the US and the Government. If the government is the problem how can THEY be the defender also? To argue that they must be both the defender for the state and the individual is problematic at best and a conflict of interest. At worst, it will be as it is now with a deaf ear falling on the same officials that should have championed this to begin with.

    When it comes to “violence” you are for the most part correct that we should NOT allow violence to enter into our discussion AT THIS POINT. Their does become a time however when the tea must be thrown into the sea. It is our duty to first attain a peaceable solution. If however in every case the will of the people is thwarted and the powers that be continue as they have and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars defending that which could have been remedied with a $.50 photocopy, it is apparent that there is fraud being perpetrated on the American people.

    Honest people do not run from the cops.. Honest people who run for office and have nothing to hide do not spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees hiding it. Therefore they are not honest and it becomes our responsibility to the nation to toss off such a corrupt government.

  72. Hello Leo,
    I sent a letter to Attorney Taylor over a week ago and have not received a receipt of delivery. I don’t know if this may be a sign of an avalanch of letters or anthrax isolation or something else.

  73. I appreciate the work ned2012 did in his linked post http://septembercrisishoax.wordpress.com/

    Great research on financial trickery. Is there any condensed tracking of bribe/lobby $$$ threaded through BANKSTERS and CONGRESS during last 20 years? Contact Ned2012 possible for such info.

    I tend to agree with the general idea that we are robbed, and impotent to do anything. I’ve seen how sherrifs work in their county, how much more feds.

    Our Supreme Court doesn’t uphold the Constitution. Enough said.

    We didn’t stop 1947 -48 case McCollum vs Board of Education .
    Wasn’t Hugo Black the first chief justice to say “I don’t care what the Constitution says, it means what I say it means.”

    All the countries men were busy trying to get back into life, and this cancer got into our law. It affected the boldness of the NEA in guiding curriculum to Dick and Jane nonsense so students would not learn anything worth while.

    See http://christianparents.com/outline.htm

    Larry

  74. Point being, we gave up our children to schools without God’s word, everything else fell with each new generation of children learning absence from God.

    Losing our money finally got our attention. Interestsing.

    Malachi 4:4-6 Except the fathers hearts return to their children……
    a curse like the world has never seen before……

    That’s where we are. We ignored all the laws of the Supreme Judge about training up each new generation. It is a little thing to lose our money along with everything else we already gave up.

    Everson vs Schoolboard is another named case, going through the 14th amendment to distort the 1st amendment.

    http://christianparents.com/histedch.htm

  75. All of you need to read the constitution on Grand Jury. Then search the websites and see what Justice Scalia had to say about the Grand Jury according to the Constitution and you might have a change of mind. Obama is no eligible to be the president of th U.S. The Citizens Grand Jury is a branch of the Constitution. There will be more to come.

  76. jcscuba Says:

    I believe you do not have the facts. Go here to see what the 5th Amendment was actially designed by our forfathers to accomplish. We have been led siince 1946 to believe only the Government could impanel a Grand Jury, nothing could be further from the truth. http://americangrandjury.org/ Jim Campbell
    Great blog, going to put it on my blog roll, lots of great information keep plowing we will get the fraud out of office soon.

  77. jcscuba Says:

    By his own admission as stated on his website and on Factcheck.org, Obama has clearly stated:

    “‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children…”

    1. Barack Obama Sr. was a Britsh subject.
    2. Barack Obama Sr. was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.
    3. Barack Obama Jr. was born to a British subject.
    4. Barack Obama Jr. was also governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.
    5. ‘[S]ubject to the complete jurisdiction thereof’ means ‘complete jurisdiction thereof,’ not owing allegiance to anybody else.
    6. The authors of the 14th Amendment recognized citizenship by birth to those who were not subject to some other foreign power.
    7. On Aug. 4, 1961, Barack Obama Sr. and Barack Obama Jr. were subject to another foreign power.
    8. On Aug. 4, 1961, Barack Obama Jr. owed at least partial allegiance to another foreign power.
    9. Barack Obama Jr. is not a natural born citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment.
    10. Barack Obama Jr. does not meet the Constitutional eligibilty requirement to be natural born citizen.

  78. jcscuba Says:

    I was wondering if you would consider running this article on our group and post a link for your readers. If you wish to participate, make contact below. It requires about 5 hrs of your time to study the charges, an hour to vote. It’s all done on line and has the same legal standing as if you were being asked to participate on a Grand Jury Thanks, Jim Campbell

    “AMERICAN GRAND JURY HANDS DOWN INDICTMENT OF FRAUD AND TREASON AGAINST OBAMA”

    (United States of America) – May 9th 2009 – At 2 P.M, ET American Grand Jury convened a final hearing to vote on criminal charges against Barack Obama.

    The following criminal allegations and complaints were voted upon:

    COUNT ONE:

    That Obama is NOT eligible under the laws of the Constitution of the United States as provided for in Article II, Section 1.

    Said Article II, Section 1 states:

    “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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

    Wherefore, Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” for the following reasons:
    # 1) Obama was NOT born of mother and father who were BOTH US Citizens.
    # 2) Obama was a British citizen ‘at birth.’COUNT TWO:

    The charge of “Treason” against Obama is before the people of the United States of America. That such complaint is CRIMINAL, of high crimes, and extremely damaging against the people.

    Said complaint was formally brought by a Military Officer (retired) of the United States of America. All United States Military Officers are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States and such complaint is valid, explicit and proper; when an Officer is aware of such malfeasance of Treason by an offender it is that Officer’s SWORN duty to come forward and present such accusation and complaint;

    The Military Officer who filed the complaint is Lt. Commander Walter Fitzpatrick, III, retired, United States Navy and a graduate of the United States Naval Academy;

    Lt. Commander Fitzpatrick on March 17, 2009 did hereby make such criminal accusation and complaint against Obama and presented said complaint before the U.S Attorney Russell Dedrick, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Edward Schmutzer, Eastern District, Tennessee;

    An original photocopy of said complaint was submitted to the Grand Jury as evidence for immediate investigation;

    Said original photocopy of the complete criminal complaint is attached as Exhibit “A” hereto and made a part hereof;

    Lt. Commander Fitzpatrick was sworn under oath before the Grand Jury to testify as to the true nature and details regarding said criminal complaint filed against Obama;

    Said criminal complaint by Lt. Commander Fitzpatrick and his “accusation of Treason” is quoted in the excerpts below:

    Now you [Obama] have broken in and entered the White House by force of contrivance, concealment, conceit, dissembling, and deceit. Posing as an impostor president and commander in chief you have stripped civilian command and control over the military establishment. Known military criminal actors-command racketeers-are now free in the exercise of military government intent upon destruction of America’s constitutional government.

    We come now to this reckoning. I accuse you and your military-political criminal assistants of TREASON. I name you and your military criminal associates as traitors. Your criminal ascension manifests a clear and present danger. You fundamentally changed our form of government. The Constitution no longer works.

    Confident holding your silent agreement and admission, I identify you as a foreign born domestic enemy.

    My sworn duty Mr. Obama is to stand against what you stand for. You are not my president. You are not my commander in chief.

    After reviewing the evidence and voting, the 25 member American Grand Jury handed down the presentment(s) recommending that person(s) known as Barack Obama, aka: Barack Obama, Jr., aka: Barack Hussein Obama, aka: Barry Soetoro; aka: Barry Obama; aka: Barack H. Obama, aka: Barack Obama II, presumed President of the United States, be tried in Criminal Court for charges of fraud (eligibility) and treason.

    Said Grand Jury was convened under the power and authority vested with the people as guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States of America, Amendent 5 of the Bill of Rights.

    The American Grand Jury was served by people from different States within the Union, said people being citizens as were sworn under Oath as to Eligibility for and Service in behalf of the Grand Jury.

    The above excerpts from the formal presentments of the May 9th American Grand Jury hearing are hereby released to the public as a PRESS RELEASE. All other details of the Grand Jury hearing, specifically, the jury membership, sworn affidavits of service, testimony, evidence, hearing minutes and records have been sealed as required by law.

    This Grand Jury hearing of May 9th is in addition to the formal presentments, (charges of Fraud and Treason) which were handed down against Barack Obama last week, known as the American Grand Jury hearing of April 29th, 2009. The April 29th presentments are already making their way into the court systems across the United States.

    Please contact American Grand Jury through this website or contact our National Spokesperson below for further information or requests:

    Sam Sewell,
    National Spokesperson for American Grand Jury

    http://americangrandjury.org/

    Email: writerpromo@comcast.net
    Fax (239) 591-1987
    Phone: Clinic Office – (239) 591-4565
    Ask for Dr. Sam
    Tags: against Barack Obama, American Grand Jury, fraud and treason, Indictment

  79. Christina Says:

    Leo, Because the Gov’t has bankrupt Social Security System and literally has stolen from “WE” the people, the “CITIZENS” or my case I am a Natural born citizen. Can we sue the government for “stealing” our money. I have a statement from the Government summarizing how much the government owes me or has stolen/taken from me. Don’t we have any legal rights to sue the government for stealing our money? I have been putting into this pot of money since I first started working at age 17. Can many, many, many citizens sue them? Do we have or can we make a case? I am not a legal person – just your christian layman.

  80. Christina Says:

    FYI! http://www.redstate.com

    Whoops… Entitlement Programs Collapsing Faster than Expected

    Posted: 12 May 2009 03:19 PM PDT

    The Spectator’s Phil Klein alerts us to the release of the Annual Report of the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees. The Trustees have found that due to the recession, benefits paid out are overtaking revenues brought in even faster than projected. The trust funds for these programs will be bankrupt sooner than expected but more importantly, the programs will become a serious drain on the federal budget far sooner than that. That’s because long before the trust funds are exhausted, Uncle Sam will need to take money from general revenues to ‘repay’ the trust funds.

    For years we heard that the trust funds masked the true size of federal deficits; that’s because the government borrowed from the those funds to cover current federal expenditures. Sooner than expected, the flow of funds will reverse, and we’ll be forced to spend hundreds of billions in general revenue to pay for entitlements.

    The Congressional Budget Office recently projected that Social Security will collect just $3 billion more in 2010 than it will pay out in benefits. A year ago, the CBO had projected that Social Security would have a much higher $86 billion cash surplus for the 2010 budget year, which begins Oct. 1.

    The trustees report projected that Social Security’s annual surpluses would “fall sharply this year,” then remain at a reduced level in 2010 and be lower in the following years than last year’s projections. The report said that the Social Security annual surplus would be eliminated entirely in 2016, reflecting increased demands from the wave of 78 million baby boomers retiring.

    That means Social Security will have to turn to its trust fund to make up the difference between Social Security taxes and the benefits being paid out beginning in 2016. The trustees projected the trust fund would be depleted in 2037, four years earlier than the 2041 date in last year’s report…

    While the smaller surpluses that will begin this year will not have any impact on Social Security benefit payments, the government will need to borrow more at a time when the federal deficit is already exploding because of the recession and the billions of dollars being spent to prop up a shaky banking system.

    The jig is up. We’re at the point where any rational observer ought to recognize that when it comes to the federal deficit, we need to quit digging. Barack Obama’s trillion dollar deficits, and his $10 trillion in new debt, make it impossible to address the looming bankruptcy of our entitlement programs. Barack Obama and the Democrats have overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate. It’s time they stopped throwing gasoline on the fire.

  81. Mr. Donofrio,
    I have spoken to Mr. Swensson regarding the “seizure of property”
    language in regards to GA CGJ. He informs me that this has been resolved with you but failed to inform me as to HOW it was resolved.
    I note that you have not commented on this. Could you please address this?
    Thank you for your time,

    [Ed. Yes, Mr. Swenson told me he was changing the language and we had a good talk about it. I will try to get an update out about this.]

  82. Concerned Student Says:

    If we don’t stand up for the letter and intent of the Constitution NOW while we still have a chance, I have no doubt we will live to see a foreign-national sitting as POTUS.

    That is why it is so very important that we follow the letter of the law and find a constitutional and legal way to unseat Obama.

    The Pledge of Allegiance says “…Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” INDIVISIBLE is the key word. We need to stop fighting with those who disagree with us and unite them. No more accusing people of being Obots, no more name calling, no more DIVISION.

    We need to stop attacking and start embracing. If an issue doesn’t help us, then it can only hurt us. Egos aside. Donations aside. Criminal records aside. Web site ownership aside.

    THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS GETTING A VALID, AIRTIGHT, LEGALLY SUPPORTABLE CASE INTO THE RIGHT VENUE, UNDER THE CORRECT JURISDICTION, WITH THE PROPER FILINGS, WRITTEN WITH ABSOLUTE AIRTIGHT PRECEDENT AND SUPPORTING LEGAL POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. ANYTHING LESS IS MERE POSTURING.

    I don’t know about the rest of you. I can only speak for myself. But I’m in this to save my country and the Constitution for which it stands. This is not a popularity contest. We need to conduct ourselves with dignity, maintain our credibility, and above all practice the doctrine of PRINCIPALS BEFORE PERSONALITIES.

    In 20 years it won’t matter who got what documents first, who had a criminal record, who hacked who’s website or received the lion’s share of donations. The only thing that will matter is whether or not we managed to maintain our credibility long enough to legally remove the usurper.

  83. You stated that the only way the constitution can be officially changed is by amendment. Then how has the federal reserve gotten away with it nearly 100 years? “Congress shall have power to coin money and regulate the value thereof” Can you apply Stare Decisis, to Schecter Poultry v US 295 US 495 1935? “Congress cannot abdicate it’s duty and delegate it to another group”.

    [Ed. Agreed.]

  84. jcscuba Says:

    Thanks for stopping by my blog. I’ve been hearing some rumblings that what we are doing has no legal rationale, I use to believe it was under the 14th Ammendment, can you site me case law, I’ll go back and read the 14th Jim

  85. Dear Leo, I bet there is a lawsuit waiting to happen here. Fukino declares Obama a natural born citizen. How did she gain this “standing”.

    http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090727/BREAKING01/90727082/Health+department+tries+to+put+Obama+birth+issue+to+rest

  86. Crussell0967 Says:

    HAWII IS NOT A STATE : see state documents below

    http://www.hawaii-nation.org

    Return to the Hawaiian Independence Home Page, the Legal Index or the Policy Index

    The upside-down flag of Hawaii, which was the flag of the Kingdom as well as the State, symbolizes a “nation in distress” and is a common sight in the islands today…
    Is Hawaii Really a State of the Union?
    [NOTE: The following essay discusses, as a basis for independence, how Hawaii illegally became a state in 1959, but it is important to keep in mind that Hawaii's independence was recognized via treaty by the United States (as well as all major nations of the world in the 19th century) and thus the situation with Hawaii is distinct from all other non-self-governing territories which were placed under Article 73 of the UN Charter. Hawaii should never have been a territory/colony of the United States, and it is not required to undergo a formal decolonization process at this time in order to restore independence. The illegality of the overthrow and annexation are well documented in the United State's own official apology, so the purpose of this essay is to counter the assumption that the 1959 statehood vote legitimized the United States' occupation of Hawaii.]
    The following information provides an historical perspective on how Hawaii came to be integrated into the United States as a state of the Union, and the fact that this status is not and has never been legally valid.
    Obviously America claims that Hawaii is part of their country, and most people, in Hawaii, on the ‘mainland’ and around the world, have tended to accept that as so.
    The common understanding is that in 1959, a plebiscite was held in which the people of Hawaii voted to become a state of the Union, and on August 18, 1959, Hawaii was admitted to the Union.
    What led up to this event?
    In 1945, at the end of World War II, the United Nations was established. In the Charter of the UN, a special provision was made for certain areas of land, including Hawaii, which was placed under CHAPTER XI, DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES
    Article 73
    “Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:
    a. to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;
    b. to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement;
    c. to further international peace and security;
    [d. - concerns "constructive measures of development," research, etc.]
    e. to transmit regularly to the Secretary-General, for informational purposes, subject to such limitation as security and constitutional considerations may require, statistical and other information of a technical nature relating to economic, social, and educational conditions in the territories for which they are respectively responsible other than those territories to which Chapters XII and XIII apply.”
    So Hawaii, under Article 73, was a part of the UN system, and was placed under the administering authority of the United States, which, to reiterate, agreed to “develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions…” with “due respect for the cultures of the peoples concerned…”
    Did the United States fulfill this “sacred trust obligation”?
    Under Section (e) of this article, the United States was responsible to transmit information to the UN regarding Hawaii and the provisions of Article 73.
    Transmission A/2135, from the US to the UN in 1952, states that:
    “Throughout the school system, the social studies programme aims at creating an understanding of American ideals and purposes, knowledge of American history and government, practice and principles of citizenship….”
    Self-government? Due account of the political aspirations of the people?
    At one point, a former territorial senator, Alice Kamokila Campbell, filed suit to halt the spending of public funds to “propogandize and subsidize” the Hawaii statehood campaign. She said, as quoted in a Honolulu Advertiser article, “the illegal expenditures are to the detriment of citizens and taxpayers opposed to statehood … Moneys are now being expended for liquor, luaus, dinners, entertainment and other purposes and objectives contrary to law … the acts and conduct are of a purely political nature.”
    Self-government? Progressive development of free political institutions?
    Then, in 1959, the “plebiscite” was held.
    It is important to consider two central questions:
    What was voted on?

    Who voted?

    ——————————————————————————–

    1) What was voted on?
    The question on the ballot (see below) was:
    “Shall Hawaii immediately be admitted into the Union as a state?”
    Yes or No? Become a state, or remain a territory?
    Why was the option of independence not on the ballot? Did Hawaii not have the option to become an independent country in 1959? In fact it did.
    The document guiding the process for removal of territories from the List of Non-Self-Governing Territories was UN Resolution 742 (VIII). “Factors which should be taken into account in deciding whether a Territory is or is not a Territory whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government.”
    This resolution stated: “…the manner in which Territories… can become fully self-governing is primarily through the attainment of independence…”
    One year after Hawaii’s “plebiscite” vote, on 14 December 1960, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 1514, Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. This resolution includes the following passages:
    All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
    Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
    Immediate steps shall be taken, in trust and non-self- governing territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire…
    These UN resolutions clearly indicate that independence was not only an option at the time, it was the primary option under international principles and the fundamental inalienable right to self-determination, and specifically with regard to non-self-governing territories under article 73 of the UN Charter.
    Not only was the option of independence not on the ballot, it was not even discussed, while statehood was actively propogandized with public funds, and American political ideals were indoctrinated through the schools.
    In truth it was the United States’ obligation to fully inform the Hawaiian people and assist in the attainment of the goal of independence, not to extend their manifest destiny thousands miles across international waters.
    Violating the obligations under the UN Charter, a treaty agreement and “supreme law of the land” under Article VI Section 2 of the US Constitution, is also a violation of the US Constitution itself.
    The United States government did not uphold their “sacred trust obligation.”
    The vote for statehood was not a valid exercise of self-determination and decolonization and has no validity in international law.

    ——————————————————————————–

    2) Who voted?
    Any U.S. citizen who had resided in the islands for a year was allowed to vote, which included large numbers of American military servicemen and their families, who were essentially the occupation force that had illegally held Hawaii since the admittedly unlawful annexation in 1898.
    Native Hawaiians would not have been allowed to vote if they refused to become American citizens. Immigrants from other countries who were not American citizens were not allowed to vote.
    The island of Ni’ihau, which was almost totally Native Hawaiian, and was relatively free from the propoganda of statehood, voted overwhelmingly against statehood, as did the island of Lana’i.
    In 1993 Congress and the President decided they had something to apologize for. Most of Public Law 103-150 deals with the events of the 1893 overthrow and the 1898 annexation. But one important clause relates directly to 1959 and the present:
    “the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum.” (emphasis added)
    “National lands” means the entire archipelago of Hawaii.
    “Inherent” means a birthright, given by Akua, that no one can take away.
    “Sovereignty” means total authority and control over land and natural resources, and is virtually synonymous with independence under international law.
    Sovereignty (partial definition):
    “The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed; supreme political authority; the supreme will; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration; the self-sufficient source of political power, from which all specific political powers are derived; the international independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign dictation; also a political society, or state, which is sovereign and independent.”
    – Black’s Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition)
    In other words, the United States Congress and President have acknowledged that the Hawaiian national population still maintains their birthright to control the land and natural resources of all of Hawaii as an independent country, despite the statehood vote.
    Interpreting the above-quoted clause of the Apology Resolution, international law Prof. Francis A. Boyle (Univ. of Illinois College of Law) stated on Dec. 28, 1993, before the state’s Hawaiian Sovereignty Advisory Commission:
    “Congress is effectively conceding now that the (1959 statehood) vote is meaningless, as a matter of international law and United States domestic law. So you’re not bound by it. Rather I’m suggesting you’re now free to determine your own fate pursuant to the principal of self-determination.”
    America gained possession of Hawaii through a succession of illegal acts, in 1893, 1898, and 1959, and has admitted to fact of these crimes. Hawaiian national sovereignty has never been extinguished. Essentially, the country of Hawaii is currently illegally occupied by a foreign military power.
    The statehood vote, both in terms of the question asked and the people who were allowed to vote, was in no way a valid act of self-determination, and did not legitimize the occupation. Hawaii has never legally been a state of the United States.
    The option of independence for Hawaii exists to this day, and the voices supporting this option are growing steadily.
    Please consider these facts carefully and share them with all who may be interested.
    Mahalo.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Also see: Statehood – A Second Glance

    ——————————————————————————–

    ——————————————————————————–

    Return to the Hawaiian Independence Home Page, the Legal Index or the Policy Index

    tp://www.hawaii-nation.org/statehood2.html

    Return to the Hawaiian Independence Home Page, or the Legal Index

    The upside-down flag of Hawaii, which was the flag of the Kingdom as well as the State, symbolizes a “nation in distress” and is a common sight in the islands today…

    Statehood
    A Second Glance
    Guest essay by Poka Laenui (Hayden F. Burgess)
    plaenui@pixi.com

    http://www.opihi.com/sovereignty

    Remember Statehood Day 1959? Celebration swept through these islands on news of our joining the union of States of the U.S.A. Communities lit bon fires, neighborhoods held impromptu dances, cars blared their horns and people walked the streets with broad grins and greetings, seeing themselves as full-fledged Americans. Hawai`i Democrats and Republicans were together in the quest for Hawaiian Statehood. Hawai`i’s media were in full support as well. Opposition voices were silent.
    One decade later, the modern native Hawaiian rights movement emerged through issues raised over Kalama Valley evictions, Ethnic Studies at the University of Hawai`i, and the outrage over the Kaho`olawe bombings. Another decade later emerged the Hawaiian Sovereignty movement through defenses from prosecutions of Nappy Pulawa (alleged underworld leader), Hayden F. Burgess (lawyer denying American citizenship), Sand Island evictions, Makua evictions, Waimanalo evictions, . . . . The native rights and the sovereignty movements often appeared indistinguishable. As the political rhetoric grew, the Hawaiian language, hula, canoe paddling, and music flourished anew, spreading across racial lines, giving an added dimension to the Hawaiian movements.
    It is 38 years since those celebratory days of Statehood. The Hawaiian movements provide a new basis from which a second glance at the Statehood process and the decision reached in 1959 is taken.
    “A double fraud was committed when Hawai`i was declared a State of the U.S.A.” proclaims a paper from The Institute for the Advancement of Hawaiian Affairs, an early proponent of the Hawaiian movements. Black’s law dictionary defines fraud as “an intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right; . . .” Harsh words indeed to throw at a nation generally seen as a leader in human rights and fundamental freedoms. Yet, they are now thrown more and more in the sovereignty movements.
    This indictment of fraud is rooted in historical events. It is now uncontested by the U.S. government that a unified monarchical government of the Hawaiian Islands was established in 1810 under Kamehameha I, that from 1826 until 1893, the United States recognized the independence of the Kingdom of Hawaii, extended to it full and complete diplomatic recognition, and entered into treaties and conventions with the Hawaiian monarchs. The U.S. Minister along with a small group of non-Hawaiian residents of Hawai`i, some U.S. citizens, conspired to overthrow the Hawaiian government, and in pursuance of this conspiracy, the U.S. Navy landed in an invasion of this country. A puppet government was formed which subsequently “ceded” Hawai`i to the United States in 1898. Two years later, Hawai`i’s was governed under the “Organic Act” as a “Territory of Hawai`i,” its governor appointed directly by the President of the United States.
    Two major wars swept through the world and as the second world war came to an end, there emerged a new international organization, the United Nations. In San Francisco, 1945, leaders of nations gathered to sign a U.N. Charter which called for self-governance of territories under colonial-style conditions. Neither the members of the U.N. nor these “non-self governing” territories were specified in the Charter. But the following year, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 66 in which specific U.N. members and the respective territories under their rule were named. The United States became obligated under a “sacred trust” to bring about self-governance to Alaska, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Panama Canal zone, Puerto Rico and Hawai`i.
    Over the years, the U.N. clarified self-governance to mean giving the people of the territory choices of how they would relate to the U.N. member – integration, free association, or independence. This self-governance process was meant to break the chains of colonization which held territories within the grips of such nations. As a result, many African countries began their emergence from colonization during these years. The Pacific and Asia regions also followed this process.
    In Hawai`i, decolonization went awry. Rather than permitting the three choices called for by the U. N, the United States limited the choice to “integration.” In 1959, it placed before the people the question: “Shall Hawaii immediately be admitted into the Union as a State?” A yes response resulted in Hawai`i’s integration into the U.S. as a State. A no vote would have resulted in continued territorial status in the U.S. – integration. The choices of free association or independence were never presented to the people. No education on these alternatives were presented: no public debates on these matters were conducted. The U.S. appointed governor never raised the issue. The Democrats and the Republicans failed to point out the right to these choices. Nothing came from the campuses of schools and the University of Hawai`i.
    Thus, when the United States reported to the U.N. General Assembly in 1959 that Hawai`i had exercised its right to self-governance and in doing so, elected to become a State, it convinced that assembly to remove Hawai`i from the list of territories subject to self-governance. An intentional perversion of the truth was thus committed to induce the U.N. to deny Hawai`i fundamental right to self-determination.
    The “Statehood Process” for Hawai`i was a double fraud. It not only failed to provide the correct set of choices to be voted upon. The process altered the “self” who could exercise “self determination.” The qualified voters in this process were U.S. citizens who had resided in Hawai`i for at least one year. Since the American invasion and annexation and during its watch, thousands had migrated to Hawai`i, coming from the U.S., Europe, Asia and other Pacific Islands. Many were associated with the U.S. military’s presence in Hawai`i. Others came for employment, education, opportunities or escape. These people who were or took up U.S. citizenship were all permitted to vote. But those who dared to declare themselves Hawaiian citizens, refusing to accept the imposed American citizenship, could not vote.
    The Americans controlled education, economics, media, the judiciary as well as the internal political processes, managing in these years to continually squeeze the Hawaiian identity from public life. This practice of altering the “self” by maintaining control over transmigration, public education and economic dependence is familiar among colonial countries not wanting to lose their colonial possessions. France’s conduct in Tahiti and New Caledonia and Indonesia’s in East Timor, West Papua, and the Moluccas Islands are mirrors of the U.S.’ conduct in Hawai`i.
    Thus, 38 years after the Statehood vote in Hawai`i, the question of Statehood is being revisited, pried open, in fact, by this better understanding in Hawai`i of the rights which should have been accorded the “real” people of Hawai`i entitled to vote on such an important question.
    Among sovereignty advocates, there has been a narrowing of the favorite models. Some are urging a “nation within a nation” model of integration, crafted along the lines of the American Indians treatment by the Federal government. A growing number are urging instead complete independence from the U.S. as Hawai`i had been before the invasion and as we see more and more nations are becoming as they enter the United Nations. Few are suggesting a free association relationship with the U.S., and among those who are, even they suggest it should merely be a transition stage to full independence.
    Who should vote in such a decision? One group suggests voters should be restricted by race whereby only those of the native Hawaiian blood participates. Such advocates generally support a position of integration in which the native Hawaiians are provided a special position within the society. A second suggestion is that the “Hawaiians at heart” should all be able to participate, that is, all those who practice the culture, hula, plant taro, who claims to be “Hawaiian”. This approach, however, faces the obvious difficulties of verification. A third and popular position is to follow the historical and cultural legacy of the Hawaiian nation, that is, Hawaiian citizens under the nation were multi-racial, multi-cultural, but whose national allegiance were dedicated to Hawai`i. Under this approach, there would be a wide range of people becoming “eligible” but the real test would be to choose to undertake Hawaiian citizenship, thus disavowing any other citizenship. Hawaiian independence is the favored position of advocates for this third position..
    The Sovereignty and Native Rights movements are providing fertile ground for reexamining Hawaiian Statehood, the Hawaiian “self”, and the multiple possibilities in Hawai`i’s future. This reexamination raises issues stretching far beyond these islands’ shores and into international political arenas:
    Are claims of self-determination ever closed by events later discovered to have been fraudulent?
    Who are the people to vote in the process of decolonization, citizens of the colonial government or the colonized people themselves?
    For a much longer period, the international community struggled, and continue to do so, with these questions. As we are reminded of the anniversary of Hawai`i’s Statehood, these questions now become central to the people of Hawai`i nei.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Poka Laenui
    (Hayden F. Burgess)
    86-649 Pu`uhulu Rd.
    Wai`anae, HI 96792
    Tel: (808) 696-5157
    Fax: (808) 696-7774
    email: plaenui@pixi.com

    http://www.opihi.com/sovereignty

  87. I also had a dream Says:

    i had a dream last night, or maybe it was a waking dream, i dunno, but I was in the presence of barack, and I had the opportunity to ask a question. I asked him

    why he said we needed a ‘domestic police force just as powerful, just as well funded as our military..’
    Don’t we already have this in our local and state police? Isn’t this their job? Do they need help, or is this a separate thing?
    And as a followup, would it be possible for you to speak in less elaborate terms, kind of on a “one on one basis”, as if we were friends, and I know we aren’t friends, you have immense responsibility, but in lay terms then, do you consider yourself Kenyan by blood.

    Point is, anyone who doesn’t consider themselves american by blood [see ld's 2nd gen. american blurb above], can’t be president.

    But I guess it’s just a dream.

  88. Obama has a contract with the people.

    Fraud voids the contract. That’s true for all contracts. Any gains and profits from fraud must be given to the party that was defrauded.

    There’s a minimum of four elements that make a valid contract. One of those elements is that the contract cannot authorize the initiation of force/harm/violence, threat of force/harm/violence or fraud against anyone’s life or property.

    A key word is “initiate”. It means to start; be the first. A man that points a gun at a stranger has initiated threat of force. If he shoots the person he has initiated force. When the victim shots back he has used force in self-defense.

    All contracts that initiate force, threat of force or fraud against a person’s life or their property are void.

    No man or woman can authorize another person to do that which he himself cannot do. You can’t initiate force thus you can’t hire a hit-man or hire a thief to steal.

    If man is incapable of governing himself then surely he is incapable of governing others.

    We’ve all been massively deceived. Ninety-nine percent of the people don’t initiate force, threat of force or fraud. We get along peaceably. Yet you all authorize government to initiate force, threat of force and fraud against your fellow man and his property. And he against yours.

    A citizen’s grand jury has the duty to indict anyone that initiates force threat of force or fraud against anyone’s life or their property.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: