Or as the Democratic Underground blog said: “BWAHA – American Grand Jury gets Chief Judge’s boot right up the ass.”
The Court said:
… grand juries are convened by the court for the district in which they sit. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 6( a)( 1). Grand jurors are also to be selected at random from a fair cross section of the district in which they are convened. 18 U.S.C. § 1861. The individuals who have made this presentment were not convened by this Court to sit as a grand jury nor have they been selected at random from a fair cross section of this district.
These self-appointed jurors fail to understand the legitimacy they lack, but more seriously they are deluded into thinking that they are somehow representative of their communities, rather than the irrational fringe.
While it was obvious from the start that the do-it-yourself grand jury movement was going nowhere, it’s nice to hear it from a judge.
But, but, Orly told me it was perfectly legal. After all, she’s a dentist so she knows what she’s doing.
I’m going to complain about this to her. She’ll do something about that mean judge.
Unrelated, but:
DoJ files a “statement of interest” in Keyes v. Obama, but Taitz is coy as to the particulars of this statement. (But I’m guessing the government does not concede proper service of the summons and complaint.)
Ask and ye shall receive (and be recognized as correct).
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Keyes-Obama-7-7-09.pdf
Discuss here:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/07/government-weighs-in-on-keyes-lawsuit/
A cookie for the first person to find the typo in the judge’s order.
You mean, “Willey S. Drake”?
It’s worth noting that Judge Lamberth was appointed to the Federal Court by Reagan, in case any of the birthers assume that he’s a “liberal activist.”
Perhaps in the minds of some of the birthers, Reagan may be considered a liberal?
“It’s worth noting that Judge Lamberth was appointed to the Federal Court by Reagan”
It just shows how vast is the conspiracy. After all, Cheney is part of it, too.
The judge’s order doesn’t mention Mr. Drake, so, no, not that.
Dear Doctor C,
The lack of intellectual integrity required to instigate, condone, or glorify “Grand Juries” made up exclusively of individuals who hate the named target and volunteer to participate, only to charge that target with crimes, is a threat to civilization itself.
The willingness of the Birther crowd to wound and contaminate respected venerable instruments of justice is alarming going forward, in a way that transcends any one issue.
An unforseen outcome of the Internet is seen in the Birther phenomenon, as it could be observed no where on earth outside of a mental health facility. Widely scattered unstable and irrational people can virtually “assemble” here into an impressionable crowd whose madness is amenable to, and seemingly seeking, perverse, politically steered orchestration.
Selective readings and alterations of History forge a new record substantiating a new reality for them. They console, encourage and sustain each other from hundreds of miles away, and thus survive what before the days of the Internet, would have been the reality check that rejection by their local soapbox audience normally provided through the ages as a guard against irrational anarchy.
They pool their money and their hatred into a accusatory stink pot that beckons the strangest among us, and presents their political opponent as a threat to the nation which must be stopped by any means necessary. How could they not be contributing to the odds that a sick mind will try to harm the President?
The non-stop hatred evident in their written diatribes makes it apparent that the whole movement is a collectively satisfying attempt to symbolically assassinate the President.
Many cheerfully imply they welcome a 2nd civil war if that’s what is needed to get their way. To me, it all is a jarring spectical to see gracing the National Street Corner which the Internet has created here in the Land of the Free.
Benji Franklin
Benji, an unintended consequence of the internet is the complete disregard for the Constitution and illegal occupation of the Whitehouse. 2nd Civil War? We’ll see now, won’t we. ‘Nuff said!
And yet it is those who want to have a duly elected President removed through non-Constitutional means. Weird… Have you read up on de facto officer doctrine btw as you still seem to be confused about ‘illegal occupation’?
be more respectful to the bigot, call him Mr. Bigot.
Darn. Was going to ask for oatmeal-and-chocolate-chip.
He actually means a computer cookie. He’s going to record your information…
*eyeshift*
Was I not suppose to tell, Bob?
*whistles innocently*
Please make clear your loyalty here. Are you a part of the government that seeks to destroy all of your rights as a citizen or are you a true American that actively participates in your government, ensuring your rights are not eliminated?
Throwing useless pieces of paper at a court is not “active participation.”
It is important to know since your article is written as if your pleased with the outcome of that hearing. Further, have you done any research on the subject?
Has it been appealed in any way? If so, was it granted?
It appears to me that the judge left this case wide open for reconsideration and additonally to challenge the United States on its finding that it’s not Constitutional.
If you care to educate yourself so that your future publications do not make you appear to be foolish, here are some links that you can begin with to educate yourself on the history of the Grand Jury, it’s powers, and the illegal acts that deceitfully hid the powers of the “We the People Grand Jury”
http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/recent/lawrev.htm
http://americangrandjury.org/history_power.html
Perhaps you can answer this question; Why don’t attorney’s sit on Grand Juries? I can help you:
It is because the judge and prosecutor fear that the juries would learn of their true powers within the court system and as an arm of the government, thereby bringing a checks and balance into the corrupt system.
Now to verify what the judge actually said:
The fifth amendment provides that no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on the presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.
And although presentments are constitutionally permitted, there is no authority under the Rules of Criminal Procedure or in the statutes of the United States for this court to accept one.
Enlightenment: Presentment by a citizen grand jury is in the constitution. It is a power still held by citizens in this country. However, when the Rules of Criminal Procedure was written in 1946, they chose to omit that portion of the text for fear of a runaway grand jury.
I want to draw your attention to a law review article, CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW, Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000, 821, IF IT’S NOT A RUNAWAY, IT’S NOT A REAL GRAND JURY by Roger Roots, J.D.
“In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without governmental influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past.”
The 5th Amendment:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.”
An article appearing in American Juror, the newsletter of the American Jury Institute and the Fully Informed Jury Association, citing the famed American jurist, Joseph Story, explained :
“An indictment is a written accusation of an offence preferred to, and presented, upon oath, as true, by a grand jury, at the suit of the government. An indictment is framed by the officers of the government, and laid before the grand jury. Presentments, on the other hand, are the result of a jury’s independent action:
‘A presentment, properly speaking, is an accusation, made by a grand jury of its own mere motion, of an offence upon its own observation and knowledge, or upon evidence before it, and without any bill of indictment laid before it at the suit of the government. Upon a presentment, the proper officer of the court must frame an indictment, before the party accused can be put to answer it.’ ”
Back to the Creighton Law Review:
“A ‘runaway’ grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today’s “runaway” grand jury is in fact the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact “runaways,” according to the definition of modern times; they operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself.”
So, it’s clear that the Constitution intended to give the grand jury power to instigate criminal charges, and this was especially true when it came to government oversight. But something strange happened on the way to the present. That power was eroded by a lie enacted by the legislative branch. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution still contains the same words quoted above, but if you sit on a grand jury and return a “presentment” today, the prosecutor must sign it or it probably won’t be allowed to stand by the judge and the criminal charges you have brought to the court’s attention will be swept away. And the reason for this can be found in a legislative lie of epic proportions.
So, I have no way to address you by name, I suppose you may be hiding behind your article.
Your facts and story implications tells me you are unamerican and rejoiced over this conclusion. Otherwise you wouldnt have written a piece such as this. So I conclude you are not quite as brilliant as you have portrayed yourself to be in your words.
Debra Bryant
California
The two law reviews you cite are both referring to duly constituted grand juries.
Where in the common law were grand juries allowed to organize themselves?
Even Donofrio knew these citizen “grand juries” were a farce without legal force.
Check out the Visitor’s Guide for more information on this blog.
Debra, a bunch of volunteers cannot call themselves a “grand jury” any more than I can call myself “president”. That’s your fundamental error of thinking and the reason your entire argument is unhinged from real law and from the Constitution. The Constitution does not define the terms it uses; they come from common law. This is why rather kookie views arise from a naive reading of the Constitution.
And yes, I was pleased to see the (inevitable) outcome of the hearing, and to receive the affirmation that the loonies do not run the asylum. Try to imagine what things would be like if any group with a gripe could call themselves a grand jury and drag anybody into court to face criminal charges. It would be bedlam [check out the derivation of that word, if you don’t know it].
You know what you get when you take a volunteer grand jury, a volunteer judge and a volunteer jury? A lynch mob.
By the way, here is the actual Motion that was submitted to Lamberth this week. His Order written by his law clerk we a total crock. It is going to be interesting to see how the Court responds to the Motion.
Motion to Reconsider
American Grand Jury (hereinafter “AGJ”) hereby files this “Motion to Reconsider” before the United States District for the District of Columbia requesting that the Honorable Royce C. Lamberth reconsider his Order to not allow the AGJ presentments to be accepted by the Court.
Introduction
On July 2nd this Court issued an Order. In that Order the Court stipulated that presentments were constitutionally permitted. [“And although presentments are constitutionally permitted..]
However, the Court went on to say that there was no authority under this Court to accept presentments. [“there is no authority under the Rules of Criminal Procedure or the Statutes of the United States for this Court to accept one..] and further stipulated that grand juries only sit before the respective court which would convene them. [“Furthermore, grand juries are convened by the court for the district in which they sit..]
This Order further concluded that the presentments from AGJ were not legal or constitutional. [“presentment by such group has no force under the Constitution or the laws of the United States..]
The common citizen when reading this Order may be led to believe, “the court does not recognize constitutional presentments when the court itself does not authorize such an action.”
Argument
The Court Order first admitted, “And although presentments are constitutionally permitted..”
So let’s review the foundation and concept of the grand jury:
Justice Powell, in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974), stated:
“The institution of the grand jury is deeply rooted in Anglo-American history. [n3] In England, the grand jury [p343] served for centuries both as a body of accusers sworn to discover and present for trial persons suspected of criminal wrongdoing and as a protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action. In this country, the Founders thought the grand jury so essential to basic liberties that they provided in the Fifth Amendment that federal prosecution for serious crimes can only be instituted by ‘a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.’ Cf. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 361-362 (1956). The grand jury’s historic functions survive to this day. Its responsibilities continue to include both the determination whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the protection of citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686-687 (1972).”
In discussing that power and unique independence granted to the grand jury, the United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992), Justice Scalia, delivering the opinion of the court, laid down the law of the land:
” ‘[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It “‘is a constitutional fixture in its own right.'” United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). ‘ ”
Justice Scalia also stated, that “the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside.”
-2-
And finally, to seal the deal, Justice Scalia hammered the point home:
“In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906).
Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974”
The Court Order contradicted its first statement of “and although presentments are constitutionally permitted..” by making this statement:
“presentment by such group has no force under the Constitution or the laws of the United States.”
This is wrong. The Court Order by Judge Lamberth should have stipulated without reservation that the AGJ presentments are constitutionally permitted. The Constitution did not give the Court the right to inadvertently rule on the legality of grand jury presentments.
As reaffirmed by the Supreme Court and Justice Scalia, we believe the Court must concur that the grand jury is part of the “Bill of Rights” and preserved even to this day as a basic right for “we the people” and not constitutionally set aside or granted to the Judiciary as an exclusive venue or a proprietary arm of the Court.
To get around the Constitutional issue the Court cited AGJ’s non-compliance with the Rules of Criminal Procedure as the primary reason that they could reject the presentments.
Before we solve the mystery behind the Rules of Criminal Procedure lets offer the Court this review:
In the CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW, Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000, 821, IF IT’S NOT A RUNAWAY, IT’S NOT A REAL GRAND JURY by Roger Roots, J.D.
“In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence
-3-
at any time and to investigate public officials without governmental influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past.”
The Court should consider this: If the Judiciary were the only legal entity in our Country with the power to convene a grand jury, what then would preclude a Court from failing to indict a “known criminal” because of political pressure or other considerations? In other words, if the Court refused to convene a grand jury in a case where the public overwhelming demanded they do such, where is the oversight in our judicial system? There is none as the balance of power is gone.
It is our contention that the Rules of Criminal Procedure are obliged to govern a Court indictment, but not the presentments handed down by a “Constitutional Grand Jury.”
An article appearing in American Juror, the newsletter of the American Jury Institute and the Fully Informed Jury Association, citing the famed American jurist, Joseph Story, explained:
“An indictment is a written accusation of an offence preferred to, and presented, upon oath, as true, by a grand jury, at the suit of the government. An indictment is framed by the officers of the government, and laid before the grand jury. Presentments, on the other hand, are the result of a jury’s independent action:
‘A presentment, properly speaking, is an accusation, made by a grand jury of its own mere motion, of an offence upon its own observation and knowledge, or upon evidence before it, and without any bill of indictment laid before it at the suit of the government. Upon a presentment, the proper officer of the court must frame an indictment, before the party accused can be put to answer it.’ ”
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Where in the Constitution does it say that the Judiciary must force a grand jury to subscribe to the Court’s administrative rules when handing down its presentments? The answer to that question is, “no where.”
-4-
Just to be sure, let’s review the Rules of Criminal Procedure:
In 1946, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted, codifying what had previously been a vastly divergent set of common law procedural rules and regional customs. In general, an effort was made to conform the rules to the contemporary state of federal criminal practice.
Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP):
“An offense which may be punished by death shall be prosecuted by indictment. An offense which may be punished by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or at hard labor shall be prosecuted by indictment.”
No mention of “presentments” can be found in Rule 7. But they are mentioned in Note 4 of the Advisory Committee Notes on the Rules:
“4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as it concerns the Federal courts.”
Did a Federal rules advisory committee just tell “we the people” that “presentments are obsolete?” Did a mere “note” in Rule 7 just rewrite the Constitution thereby abolishing law as ratified in Amendment 5 of the Constitution?
Amendment V of the Constitution, Bill of Rights states:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury..”
Most of the discussion about Note 4 to Rule 7 of the FRCP takes for granted that the common law use of “presentments” (as codified in the 5th Amendment) was made “illegal” in 1946 by this act. Nothing could be further from the truth. Note 4 does not contain language that makes the use of presentments “illegal.”
Note 4 used the word “obsolete.” Obsolete means outmoded or not in use anymore. The Rules of Criminal Procedure never said that Grand Jury presentments are “illegal” or “abolished.”
The Constitution provides for “presentments.” When the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were enacted they did not mention presentments, nor do they ban presentments, and if they did, such a ban would be unconstitutional, since an administrative enactment regarding procedure cannot overrule the Constitution.
-5-
The Court erred in its Order by ruling that Constitutional presentments can be barred or rejected simply because they don’t comply with an administrative rule.
Summary
The Court Order refused to accept the AGJ presentments citing unconstitutionality and rules of procedure. We have respectfully argued that:
1) The AGJ presentments are indeed legal and constitutional. In fact, they may be the more legal and constitutional than many government “appointed” grand juries. The Grand Jury is only mentioned in the Bill of Rights. It is not a power or institution that was expressly granted to any of the 3 Branches of Government. The Grand Jury is an institution unto itself, not an institution exclusive to the Judiciary.
2) The Rules of Criminal Procedures are a valid part of American jurisprudence, however, in the Court Order the “rules” are being cited as a roadblock to the peoples’ rights to exercise “free assembly” and to further restrict or discourage the “handing down” of grand jury presentments as provided for under the Constitution. By telling grand juries they must comply only with the Rules of Criminal Procedure or their presentments will be barred, the Court, in effect, usurps the laws of the Constitution and destroys the balance of power between the people and the Judiciary.
3) “Administrative rules” do not trump the laws of the Constitution of the United States. The Order of this Court should not attempt to do the same.
American Grand Jury has done everything in its power to be above board and forthright with the Court. We have done our part in handing down presentments and justifiably can pull from a huge amount of evidence to affirm said presentments. In order for the Court to retain credibility and power it must first serve the very people it represents with equity in justice. American Grand Jury is a qualified group of 173 people that need to be represented and heard.
So what is holding the Court back? The most famous reason is “this is not within our jurisdiction to act.” Doesn’t every Judge in our Nation swear an “Oath” to the Constitution? The “jurisdiction” here is the very Constitution itself, that jurisdiction alone gives every responsible Court the right to act upon the AGJ presentments. It is simply a matter of accepting the presentments, appointing a prosecutor, reviewing the evidence and proceeding toward an indictment. That is the way the Founding Fathers envisioned things to be. That is what our Constitution is all about. No one citizen or court should be above the “jurisdiction” or laws of the Constitution of the United States.
-6-
Conclusion
We ask that the Court and the Honorable Judge Royce C. Lamberth review our findings and apply their common sense and honesty by setting aside the “deny” Order to now allow the Court to accept our presentments. Our presentments are valid and legal. We stand ready to provide any and all evidence necessary to back up the allegations and charges within the AGJ presentments.
We humbly and respectfully await the Court’s response.
Executed this 16th day of July, 2009 by Robert J. Campbell and Mack Ellis.
Copyright 2009 by American Grand Jury. No part of this document may be copied or
redistributed without written permission of American Grand Jury.
“You know what you get when you take a volunteer grand jury, a volunteer judge and a volunteer jury? A lynch mob.”
Blackstone wrote, “But the founders of the English law have, with excellent forecast, contrived that . . . the truth of every accusation, whether preferred in the shape of indictment, information, or appeal, should afterwards be confirmed by the unanimous suffrage of twelve of his equals and neighbors, indifferently chosen and superior to all suspicion.”
Orly’s grand juries fail to meet that standard.
From Creighton’s Law Review: http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/runaway.htm
60. Note, 4 STAN. L. REV. at 77.
In 1906 the United States Supreme Court dealt with the question of whether grand juries could be restricted from straying into investigations of issues not formally presented to them by prosecutors. See Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1916). The Court held that it was “entirely clear . . . under the practice in this country,” that grand jurors may proceed upon either their own knowledge or upon the examination of witnesses brought before them, “to inquire for themselves whether a crime cognizable in the court has been committed.” Hale, 201 U.S. at 65. Thus, in some respects, the “runaway” grand jury, though not given such a name at the time, has been upheld by the nation’s highest court. It is therefore debatable whether the modern Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which have limited federal grand jury action since 1946, are constitutional. See infra notes 87-128 and accompanying text (discussing the constitutionality of Rules 6); See also FRANKEL & NAFTALIS, supra note 12, at 111 (mentioning that Rule 6’s language “sounds like an inescapable and unambiguous barrier to the grand jury’s proceeding without an attorney. . . . [b]ut people learned in the law have seen means of escaping and possibly overriding barriers that appear insurmountable at first. While the barriers here still stand, the debate may not be over.”).
A “runaway” grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today’s “runaway” grand jury is in fact the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact “runaways,” according to the definition of modern times; they operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself.[7]
Early American common law placed far more power and investigative judgment in the hands of grand juries than does the criminal procedure of the twentieth century.
Although in 1946 the drafters of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure looked with horror at the prospect of grand juries that “could act from their own knowledge or observation,”[14] long-standing common law precedent upholds the power of grand juries to act “independently of either the prosecuting attorney or judge.”[15] At common law, a grand jury could freely “investigate merely on [the] suspicion that the law [was] being violated, or even because it want[ed] assurance that it [was] not.”[16] In light of the historic independence of the grand jury, the perfidy of the Federal Rules Advisory Committee in limiting the institution through codification can only be seen as willful subversion of well-settled law.[17]
The article finally, will argue that the modern loss of “runaway” or independent grand juries is unconstitutional and recommend a restoration of the grand jury’s historic powers.
THE GRAND JURY’S HISTORIC FUNCTION
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that “[n]o person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.”[20] Constitutional framers considered this protection “a bulwark against oppression” due to the grand jury’s historic powers to investigate the government and deny government indictments.[21] The grand jury of the eighteenth century usually consisted of twenty-three people acting in secret who were able to charge both on their own (an accusation known as a “presentment”) and upon the recommendations of a prosecutor.[22] In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without governmental influence.[23] These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government.[24] The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past.[25]
Justice Powell, in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974), stated:
“The institution of the grand jury is deeply rooted in Anglo-American history. [n3] In England, the grand jury [p343] served for centuries both as a body of accusers sworn to discover and present for trial persons suspected of criminal wrongdoing and as a protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action. In this country, the Founders thought the grand jury so essential to basic liberties that they provided in the Fifth Amendment that federal prosecution for serious crimes can only be instituted by ‘a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.’ Cf. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 361-362 (1956). The grand jury’s historic functions survive to this day. Its responsibilities continue to include both the determination whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the protection of citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686-687 (1972).”
The United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992), Justice Scalia, delivering the opinion of the court, laid down the law of the land:
” ‘[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It “‘is a constitutional fixture in its own right.'” United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). ‘ ”
I provided the link to this paticular article and there is more, read it.
1. See, e.g., STEPHEN A. SALTZBURG & DANIEL J. CAPRA, AMERICAN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 696 (5th ed. 1996) (reprinting New Jersey’s model grand jury instructions which contain the open acknowledgment of this: “Citizens in general have only a vague idea of what a grand jury is and what its functions are.”); see also Susan W. Brenner & Gregory G. Lockhart, FEDERAL GRAND JURY: A GUIDE TO LAW AND PRACTICE 2 (1996) (“Surprisingly, given the power it wields, the grand jury, is an often-overlooked and little understood phenomenon in American law.”).
5. Modern grand jury proceedings are normally conducted in the grand jury room, but at common law they could be conducted in private houses or other places for protection of the witnesses. See, e.g., United States v. Smyth, 104 F. Supp. 283, 300 (N.D. Cal. 1952); United States v. Gilboy, 160 P. Supp. 442, 458-59 (M.D. Pa. 1958). However, modern grand jury charges tend to limit this power, or even overtly conceal it from the grand jurors. See, e.g., Louis E. Goodman, Charge to the Grand Jury, 12 F.R.D. 495, 499-501 (N.D. Cal. 1952) (arguing against such freedom of movement and ordering the grand jury to “hold its meetings and conduct its investigations and deliberations in quarters provided by the Court and in no other places”).
6. See Tony Mauro & Kevin Johnson, Grand Jury ‘Very Lonely’ For Witnesses, USA TODAY, March 3, 1998, at 1A (stating that during Independent Prosecutor Kenneth Starr’s grand jury proceedings against President Clinton, there were up to a “half-dozen” government attorneys and staff people sitting opposite the witness).
7. See CHARLES H. WHITEBREAD & CHRISTOPHER SLOBOGIN, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: AN ANALYSIS OF CASES & CONCEPTS 546 (3d ed. 1993) (stating that the grand jury has authority to act as a “watchdog” over government operations).
12. This writer has sought in vain to trace the term to its origins. Nothing about “runaway” grand juries appears in legal dictionaries, Supreme Court opinions, or any major legal encyclopedia. The first widely disseminated mention of the term “runaway grand jury” appears to be Professor Orfield’s references to the term by the Advisory Committee’s Reporter in 1946. See infra note 14 and accompanying text. The case law is similarly sparse of references to “runaway” grand juries until recently. But see United States v. Worcester, 190 F. Supp. 548, 559 (D. Mass. 1960) (stating rather imaginatively that “[a] grand jury can roam almost at will. It often does. What else is meant by the phrase ‘a runaway grand jury’?”); Fields v. Soloff, 920 F.2d 1114, 1118 (2d Cir. 1990) (stating that “runaway” grand juries existed in the 1930s in New York); In re Martin-Tragona, 604 F. Supp. 453, 459-60 (D. Conn. 1985) (admonishing that “‘[r]unaway grand juries’. . . may have a certain romantic allure, but federal law leaves little or no room for that species of romance”); United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 174 F. Supp. 233, 236 (D.N.J. 1959) (mentioning that a “runaway” grand jury is an unusual situation).
15. See, e.g., United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 49 (1992) (citation omitted) (emphasis omitted); Note, Powers of Federal Grand Juries, 4 STAN. L. REV. 68, 69 (1951) (“The grand jury was appointed to protect community welfare, not merely to aid prosecutor or court.”).
17. Prior to the 20th Century, the grand jury itself was often the initiator of investigations and conducted their activities in both shield and sword functions essentially the same way. See BRENNER & LOCKHART, supra note 1, at 26.
18. See generally DAVID BURNHAM, ABOVE THE LAW: SECRET DEALS, POLITICAL FIXES AND OTHER MISADVENTURES OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE passim (1996) (stating that the U.S. Justice Department now operates with few structural limitations and has become increasingly unaccountable).
21. WHITEBREAD & SLOBOGIN, supra note 7, at 546. Historically, the grand jury was regarded as a primary security for the innocent against malicious and oppressive persecution. See Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, 389-391 (1962).
22. See 1 ORFIELD’S CRIMINAL PROCEDURE UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES 392 (Mark S. Rhodes ed., 2d ed. 1985) [hereinafter ORFIELD’S];
Under the Constitution the grand jury may either present or indict. Presentment is the process whereby a grand jury initiates an independent investigation and asks that a charge be drawn to cover the facts if they constitute a crime. Since the grand jury may present, it may investigate independently of direction by the court or the United States Attorney. Proceeding by presentment is now obsolete in the federal courts. Id.
Orfield’s noted that “the common law powers of a grand jury include the power to make presentments, sometimes called reports, calling attention to actions of public officials, whether or not they amounted to a crime.” Id. at 392 n.16 (citing In re Grand Jury 315 F. Supp. 662 (D. Md. 1970).
23. See, e.g., Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 64 (1906) (recognizing that common law authority stood for the proposition that “none but witnesses have any business before the grand jury, and that the solicitor may not be present, even to examine them”). Although widespread practice in the federal system had been to allow a government attorney to present evidence to the grand jury, this was by no means a steadfast rule.
25. See ORFIELD’S, supra note 22, at 389; In re Special February 1975 Grand Jury, 565 F.2d 407 (7th Cir. 1977); United States v. Smyth, 104 F. Supp 283, 288 (N.D. Cal. 952). When functioning properly, the grand jury is supposed to be an ever-present danger to tyranny in government. See ARTHUR TRAIN, THE PRISONER AT THE BAR 128 (1926) (stating that the grand jury filled a need as a barrier between the powerful and the weak and as a tribunal before which the weak could accuse the powerful of their wrongs).
37. See Mark Kadish, Behind the Locked Door of an American Grand Jury: Its History, Its Secrecy, and Its Process, 24 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 1-78 (1996).
48. Statistical figures showing a higher prevalence of grand jury reluctance to follow the government in ages past are almost nonexistent. However, a table of felony arrests in New York County between 1900 and 1907 found on page 111 of the 1926 book The Prisoner at the Bar by Arthur Train provides some rare illumination. In those seven years, some 5,214 out of 57,241 people were arrested by the police on felony charges whom New York state grand jurors decided not to indict. Interestingly, the rate of indictment rose significantly in those seven years. See TRAIN, supra note 25, at III.
49. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, for example, has promoted a grand jury “bill or rights” to be enacted by Congress, which would include these and other reforms. See Gerald B. Lefcourt, High Time For A Bill of Rights For the Grand Jury, 22 APR CHAMPION 5 (Apr., 1998). Lee Hamel, a former federal prosecutor in Houston, has gone even further by suggesting that Congress should specifically make it a crime for the prosecution to mislead a grand jury by such conduct as withholding exculpatory evidence. Lee Hamel, Prosecutorial Responsibility, TEXAS LAWYER, June 15, 1992, at 13.
50. In some state jurisdictions, including California and South Carolina, grand juries can hire experts such as accountants to assist them in conducting special investigations, especially where the activities of public officials are being investigated. See U.S. DEPT. OF JUSTICE, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE, MONOGRAPHS: GRAND JURY REFORM: A REVIEW OF KEY ISSUES 23 (1983).
59. See id; Note, Powers of Federal Grand Juries, 4 STAN. L. REV. 77 (1951). [T]he grand jury developed at a time of small rural communities, when the government had not yet assumed responsibility for enforcing the criminal law. Private persons could initiate prosecutions. The grand jury ensured that privately instituted proceedings would not go forward until a representative body of men of the neighborhood had checked the facts and found a reasonable basis for prosecution.
The Chief Judge of the Second Circuit observed that the constitutional grand jury was one that was intended to operate substantially like its English progenitor. United States v. deary, 265 F.2d 459, 460 (2d Cir. 1959) (stating that the grand jury “has remained as free of court-made limitations and restrictions as it was in England at the time the Fifth Amendment was adopted”). Yet the practice in grand jury proceedings in the United States deviates in many ways from that known in England. See generally Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906). This is especially true in the finding of bills of indictment. Thus, by English colonial standards, the modern federal grand jury would seem to be unconstitutional. But see ORFIELD’S, supra note 22, at 390 (suggesting that “the grand jury has remained as free of court-made limitations and restrictions as it was in England at the time the Fifth Amendment was adopted”).
85. The Populist era of the early 20th Century saw some attempts to revitalize the grand jury. During that period, ex-jurors acted to protect the grand jury’s powers by forming associations. The Grand Juror’s Association of New York was founded in 1912, and began publishing The Panel, a pro-grand jury periodical, in 1924. Chicagoans founded the Grand Juror’s Federation of America in 1931, and associations apparently sprang up in other localities. See Renee B. Lettow, Reviving Federal Grand Jury Presentments, 103 YALE L.J. 1333, 1342 n.50 (1994).
88. See Lettow, 103 YALE L.J. at 1334 (suggesting that the power of presentment is a constitutional right of grand juries).
Note that the ‘American’ Grand Jury is not a runaway Grand Jury. Furthermore, the argument that the runaway Grand Jury should be restored as it was rejected in violation of the Constitution is at best an academic exercise. It all comes down to what SCOTUS accepts.
However, what is correct is that the AGJ is in no way resembling the Grand Jury as described in the Constitution and implemented in US law.
And I forgot to add that the Grand Jury is there to protect the accused from the Government. In other words, before being accused people have the Constitutional right to have their case presented to the Grand Jury. This does not mean however that the Grand Jury has the right to indict just anyone. I am not sure if the Constitution can be reinterpreted to grant a right to Grand Juries to be heard.
NBC
Apparently you did not read the above thoroughly. NOTE I didnt say it was a Runaway Grand Jury. The Grand Jury is in the Constitution. You should not be trying to debate something you haven’t any knowledge about. Therefore, your comments mean nothing to me.
Your attack immediately tells me you care nothing about finding out the truth or that you are a genuinely concerned individual regarding this topic.
If you would have read the above and understood it you would have noticed that more than four judges have ruled in the Supreme Court that it is what I said it was.
Educate yourself.
Debra, what is your point?
The various “Grand Juries” that the birthers have assembled are not real Grand Juries, and are not what is referred to in the 5th Amendment. A Grand Jury is a group of citizens empaneled by a Court, and whatever power they have is drawn from the Court that empaneled them. That is true now, and that was true at common law.
The DC court made it quite clear the difference between a “real” grand jury and some folks play acting. 1) Real grand juries are lawfully constituted (as opposed to people representing themselves) and 2) they are a random cross section representative of their communities (instead of volunteers whose only purpose is to indict a particular person representing only a fringe minority.)
Quoting a jurist: the ultimate ignorance is the rejection of something you know nothing about, and refuse to investigate.
You Must go and Listen to This Interview of the KENYAN AMBASSADOR!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SebxDwji__I
The doings of American grand juries are notoriously misunderstood and unknown by most sectors of the public. Obviously you must be one that doesnt understand. You will also note it is a right given to us in our constitution and deceitfully removed when they created the The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. That was illegal. This is fact also. It is clearly presented in the above information.
NBC-To correct your factual statement: the Grand Jury is there to protect the accused from the Government. In other words, before being accused people have the Constitutional right to have their case presented to the Grand Jury.
DEBRA-People have no need of a Constitutional Right to have their case presented before a Grand Jury before they are accused. First they must be charged with a crime, and enough evidence must exist to call for a trial, before the modern day Grand Jury is even necessary.
What do you mean the Grand Jury doesn’t have the right to indict just anyone? You should really go back and read before you comment. The Grand Jury submits PRESENTMENTS. Not the same thing as an indictment.
This is from:
CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW, Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000, 821
SCHOOL OF LAW
CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY
OMAHA, NEBRASKA
This University was established in 1878. SCHOOL OF LAW.
THE GRAND JURY’S HISTORIC FUNCTION
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that “[n]o person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.”[20] Constitutional framers considered this protection “a bulwark against oppression” due to the grand jury’s historic powers to investigate the government and deny government indictments.[21] The grand jury of the eighteenth century usually consisted of twenty-three people acting in secret who were able to charge both on their own (an accusation known as a “presentment”) and upon the recommendations of a prosecutor.[22] In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without governmental influence.[23] These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government.[24] The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past.[25]
NBC-what law school did you attend?
This information presented is not my opinion or my words. It is facts.
I have no confidence in our current government, nor do I believe that they have my best interest in mind. If you own a house, are retired, on social security, have a retirement fund, are the future heir to an estate, or have a job, you would do well to not attack someone that may be working for the benefit of all to keep what they now have. Further, if you like the idea of redistribution of wealth, and living in a communist country, then by all means do not change your mind. If you like the idea that the government can take half of your salary and give it to the poor, well then do not change your mind.
The average American voter may indeed be stupid enough to buy Marxist Obama-nomics, but clearly, investors aren’t.
Obama has taken to the air waves nearly every day since becoming Resident. He has contradicted himself, caught in his own web of silly lies on almost every occasion. Average American voters continue to place their faith in an empty suit with a blank résumé and a secret past, who is leading by committee, surrounded by well-known anti-American advisors who believe in Karl Marx, not Thomas Jefferson.
Your silence or your defense of the Obama administration is your concent up until now. Clearly, as long as you are not prepared to fight, they are not finished taking. They won’t be finished taking until there is nothing left to take, or until you decide to fight back, while you still have something left.
Thirty Two states have now filed state legislative resolutions reclaiming state sovereignty and states rights, in an effort to remind the fed that it exists only at the pleasure and benefit of the states and the people, not the other way around, as Obama seems to think…
The American economy was driven into the ditch by Democratic Socialists running the US Congress; history is very clear on that. But how many Americans know history anymore? Most don’t even remember that capitalism is nothing more than economic freedom, or that Democrats are currently engaged in the very activities our founding fathers told us to never allow.
John Adams – “I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.”
Consider this if you can: If you need to pay your mortgage, do you
1. get a loan that you will have to pay in addition to your mortgage payment which you cannot pay now, plus interest.
2. borrow from family
3. stand on street corner with sign “Will work for Food”
4. make necessary cutbacks and determine not to start new projects until your mortgage is caught up?
If you can rightly divide nonsense from logic, your answer is number 4.
If you are Obama you choose answer number 1.
after all you won’t have to pay it your grandchildren and their grandchildren will pay, leaving no opportunity for future generaltions to achieve nothing.
Exactly where do you suppose that 700 Billion Bailout money came from? Do you even know?
Do you know Obama has not only violated our constitution, but federal, state and international law?
Do you know almost all of his advisors are known criminals and anti-american?
Did you know that only 2% of illegals actually work in the fields? What about the other 98% what jobs do they have? And no they are not holding executive jobs, they are collecting welfare courtesy of We the People, and politicians that needed their illegal vote.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489
Did you also know on January 21, 2009 Obama signed Executive Order 13489?
his very first day in office, Barack Obama implemented and signed into law Executive Order 13489.
For those of you who can’t take the time to read it. here is the section that applies:
“Sec.2
Notice Of Intent To Disclose Presidential Records
When the Archivist provides notice to the incumbent and former Presidents of his intent to disclose Presidential records pursuant to section 1270.46 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist, using any guidelines providied by the incumbent and former Presidents, shall identify any specific materials, the disclosure of which he believes may raise a substantial question of executive privilege.”
Now for all of you who think that we were no more that right-wing nut jobs, that this thing about Obama’s birth certificate was a non-issue, and those of you who tried to shift the focus of the stories, doesn’t this strike you as just a little odd?
That the first order of business Obama took care of on day one of his Presidency was to sign off on an Executive Order that states that only the records he chooses to be made public will be released?
This is the subject that was at the absolute top of his agenda?
If this isn’t proof that Obama is hiding something, I don’t know what is.”
If your wondering why the topic of discussion changed from AGJ to Obama it is because that is what it is all about at the moment.
“I have no confidence in our current government, nor do I believe that they have my best interest in mind. ”
Then your remedy is in the voting booth. This Grand Jury foolishness is yet another thinly veiled tactic to attract the kind of angry, disenfranchised-feeling folks like that woman at the town hall meeting with the auspices of something legal. Citizen Grand Juries is a trapping of the white supremist, Christian Patriot movement. Citizen Grand Juries, like the birth certificate thing, are attempts to diminish the legitimacy of a President you don’t happen to like. Tough luck, try harder to get your guy elected next time.
In Re to the executive order – every President since Reagan has signed one just like it. You should do a little research before you come here and regurgitate talking points you read at birther sites. And I hope you feel better after your “it’s all Obama’s fault” rant. He has already said he’s OK with people blaming it all on him. Get to work on finding someone better for 2012, and getting the people you like into the Congress in 2010.
â—¦Expelliarmus says:
July 22, 2009 at 5:59 am
Debra, what is your point?
The various “Grand Juries” that the birthers have assembled are not real Grand Juries, and are not what is referred to in the 5th Amendment. A Grand Jury is a group of citizens empaneled by a Court, and whatever power they have is drawn from the Court that empaneled them. That is true now, and that was true at common law.
What do you mean what is my point? I believe it is well documented and clear. Further your information on the Grand Juries is incorrect. That is two of you now that did not read the facts provided to you before you hastily commented.
Common Law Grand Juries were not empaneled by the court, nor did their power derive from the court. What do you suppose power is reserved to the states and the people means?
May I ask that you not use the ignorant birthers term. If your going to participate in a meaningful discussion it is quite rude to label individuals for having a paticular opinion. Should I call you thugs? That is an equivalent term for the administration Obama has chosen, and you are defending him like they are. By thugs I mean most of his administration is anti-american and criminal/marxist.
Show me as I have provided you facts that prove that the 5th Amendment is what and how you describe it.
Further if Grand Juries were empowered by the courts how is it that the courts would need there services? Come on…let’s engage the brain.
Lets say that a jury finds a defendant not guilty when the court is looking for a guilty verdict, is that defendant guilty or not guilty.
It is not guilty by the power of the Grand Jury and the court cannot reverse that finding.
my last question is What is a Real Grand Jury? I can give you hint, it is in the information above.
The first indication that the grand jury doesn’t know the first thing about the law if they actually considered taped testimony from the ambassador. Read the actual rules of Evidence, and you’ll know why this won’t get in. Especially the 800 Rules (801, 802, 803, etc…). It’s called Hearsay!
“That is two of you now that did not read the facts provided to you before you hastily commented.”
No, that is one of you that is repeating incorrect information and trying to call it “facts”. You won’t fool anyone here. Your diatribe about “what Obama is doing to this country” gave you away. We know what you’re really about. It’s not about justice or liberty or the Constitution, it’s about trying to undermine the legally elected President. Why do you think a few hundred of you participating in these make-believe grand juries are going to undo the will of the American people? Your remedy is in the voting booth.
“Further, if you like the idea of redistribution of wealth, and living in a communist country, then by all means do not change your mind. If you like the idea that the government can take half of your salary and give it to the poor, well then do not change your mind.”
But that isn’t what the government does, is it?
The “government” under GW took a mortgage on the future to kill more than a million Iraqis. That disturbs me!
It bothers me that the US has roughly 5% of the earth’s population, 25% of the world’s wealth, and accounts for 47% of all military spending. Doesn’t that seem to be just a little out of wack?
Even WND acknowledhed that the Kenyan ambassador retracted his statement.
Common Law Grand Juries were not empaneled by the court, nor did their power derive from the court.
And can you cite some actual common law to back up that assertion? Or do you believe that because someone on Internet said so?
Debra: Quoting a jurist: the ultimate ignorance is the rejection of something you know nothing about, and refuse to investigate.
How ironic
First of all, the fact is that the ‘american’ grand jury knitting circles have no foundation in US Law or Constitution and fail to meet the requirements outlined by FRCP and US Law.
Secondly, Attorney Generals do not have to accept the findings of the ‘american’ grand jury.
Thirdly, the Grand Jury does not exist to initiate indictments/presentments against someone but rather to protect people from the Government.
Debra: That the first order of business Obama took care of on day one of his Presidency was to sign off on an Executive Order that states that only the records he chooses to be made public will be released?
As I said, it’s funny that you refuse to do research
By thugs I mean most of his administration is anti-american and criminal/marxist.
Hahahaha. I needed a good laugh.
I’ve spent hundreds of hours investigating before I publish material on this blog. I heard the Kenyan Ambassador’s comment THE DAY AFTER HE MADE IT. I know what he said and I also know that he didn’t mean what the nObama’s claim, because his office issued a statement to that effect the next day.
“American Grand Juries” are not grand juries.
Exactly which of your citations allow people to appoint themselves as “grand juries”?
It is apparent none of you care anything about this country, otherwise you would have different attitudes and ears that were open.
I have provided you a mound of facts you apparently didn’t read so why should I provide more.
Further several of you have assumed what facts are held regarding eligibility that are not correct, and I will allow you to keep thinking just as you are.
Your attitudes will change when martial law hits the streets, then what? Don’t answer me cause I will not read anymore of your comments, just ask yourself.
Debra: It is apparent none of you care anything about this country, otherwise you would have different attitudes and ears that were open.
Translation, since you do not agree with me, you must be evil people… Of course, there is another possibility. Given the lack of facts in your claims, people are reluctant to blindly follow your suggestions and challenge you. It seems you are not up for it.
Debra: Your attitudes will change when martial law hits the streets, then what? Don’t answer me cause I will not read anymore of your comments, just ask yourself.
Goodbye.
You are wrong. We care about our country and want the legally elected President to be successful in reforming this country. We are appalled that some very vocal malcontents are trying to sully the reputation of the President. You have taken up space with birther talking points, a mound of sh!t, not facts. Drop us a line when you get rounded up and sent to the FEMA camp.
By the way, thanks for playing since you say you’re pulling a Palin and quitting after what, one day?
Your mound of facts, which is indeed a mound, and are indeed facts, to not lead to the conclusion that these play grand juries have anything to do with real grand juries.
It would seem to me that people who are involved with the grand jury movement are actually trying to subvert the country, and drag it into lawlessness and hooliganism.
Have any of you seen Mr. Obama’s Birth Certificate?
Go check it out on americangrandjury.org
NBC
I just seen your TRANSLATION of what I said. What college did you attend to get your psychology degree? That is not what I said, nor what I meant. However, it may be the only thing you can perceive out of my words. That would be due to false notions and beliefs in your own interpretation of anothers statement. We can only see in others, as far as our own understanding of yourself. For instance the fact that you have no knowledge about me, my education or my life experiences you so boldly assume that you can interpret my statement based on what those you hold in high regard has told you, or you actually believe that based on your own personal experience, because you, know you, better than anyone else. Therefore, this is what you felt and assumed when another was in disagreement with your opinion. DO you see how your mind can only perceive as far as you have allowed it to develop.
Based on all the evidence, which I freely provided, that quoted actual court cases and gave links to verify my statements. I did not post some abstract notion in my mind.
My post was according to what I have learned this past year about American Law, Common Law, the 2008 election, the evidence that exists, in documents that are valid in a court of law. I listened to your points and perception of the law and then gave you the benefit of the doubt and researched your claim and found you to be lacking in knowledge regarding the very government you defend. I even went so far to ask you to provide me with the links or prove to me that I was wrong as I provided to you. my challenge was ignored because you didnt have any facts to back your claim, you only provided what you have heard from someone else, otherwise you would have been able to provide the facts to back your opinion. Yes, that is all you contributed to this debate…personal opinion with no actual knowledge to assert your claims.
In your reply you begin a statement “Given your lack of facts in your claim” Excuse me, but did you actually read my claims? If so you would not have made that foolish statement because as anyone can see I provided a full web page of facts and case law that supports my statements. So judging by the facts we have here you just like to argue, and have no real knowledge regarding the facts surrounding Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as the president of the US.
Now my statement was based on the knowledge that I have, of people here in the United States, that have been the receipent of Freedom and liberty in this country and have never given it a second thought. They are not concerned with it because they didnt put their life on the line for it. They did not regard their ancestors stories of how they survived through the war, or depression. Indifference, argumentative, without natural and logical reason, given to impulses, emotional needs that were unmet in childhood, thus deprived you of the ability to see life realisticly, and use the mental abilities you were born with.
Ask any american right now if they think Obama is eligible to be president, and I guarantee you, you will not hear anything like you provided above.
The reasons you wont is because Obama has turned this nation upside down. He has no intentions of helping blacks out there on welfare, it is only a front to get their vote. He thinks they are stupid. Judging by their beliefs it may be that he is right on this one. He has no common sense. How many presidents have you heard declare to a national audience that law enforcement is stupid. His assumption like yours, was biased, and based on little facts. For that he was ridiculed and scorned and made of himself equivalent to a fool thats answers a matter before he hears the entire story.
Now, that is what i meant by it is apparent that none of you have any concern for our country. It is of certainty you have no schooling on your duties and obligations as a citizen of this country. It is doubtful you have the fortitude to even inquire in such matters.
You have to work harder to be lame. If you just react with normal honest emotions, you will at least be true to yourself.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” – Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House on August 1, 1776.
Well Debra, geeee just about every republican has seen the Obama Birth Certificate stating that President Obama was born in Hawaii, not counting the 1961 birth announcement in a Hawaii newspaper announcing the birth of Obama in HAWAII.
First of all, the “birth cert” supplied by Obama was not a birth certificate, it was a certification of live birth. These are so easy to get by people not born in Hawaii that they aren’t accepted as proof of citizenship for a drivers licence, a passport or anything else legal. Read the Hawaiian laws! There are 4 ways to get this “short form” and one of them is for the individual to merely state that he/she is Hawaiian born!! How rediculous. Now we know why they aren’t taken for passports, etc.
2nd – The birth announcement in the paper can be placed by anyone for anyone. No documents are required to have the announcement printed. As a matter of fact, many people at that time would place the announcements for their foreign born relatives as a way to try to get US govt benefits such as welfare, etc.
But the point is – if he’s born in the US, just release the official long form BC. Any why, as his very first executive order, did he seal ALL of his records?? Not just his BC, but all of his school records? Including his grade school records? The answer is simple ….. and you know it.
Do you make this up as you go? You are wrong on three counts. 1) it is the de facto birth certificate of Hawaii 2) people not born in Hawaii would not get one which shows them born in Hawaii 3) the COLB is sufficient for getting as US passport
How do you manage to be so ignorant?
ray regurgitates:
yes, the answer is simple … as long as you ignore the 1,083 pesky details surrounding the fact that the election was not contested by a single person that mattered.
not a single elector out of 538 disputed the vote. not a single member of congress out of 435 representatives and 100 senators filed or raised an objection to the certification of the vote, not even the vice president, darth cheney, who’s tasked with fielding such objections. the chief justice of the 9-member supreme court swore in the winner. twice, in fact — to forestall any complaints.
so yes, the answer is simple, but only if one thinks grand conspiracies are simple …
but allow me to hazard an even simpler answer. obama is a natural born citizen and the legitimate president — and everybody who matters knows it. all those pesky details just disappear. see how easy that was?
I count 9 separate total lies & fabrications in Ray’s post.
On a scale of 1-10 for stupidity, I give it 11.
Ray, Ray, Ray. So very wrong. I have read the Hawaiian laws — there are links to them here. You obviously are reading something else because virtually nothing you say is true. I suggest, Ray, that you poke around the articles here, clicking on that link (right sidebar) that says “Birth Certificate”. After you read those well-documented articles and the primary sources they link to, perhaps you will get your brain detoxified.
What you will find is:
The Certification of Live Birth is the document the State of Hawaii issues and no other. And yes, they are good for drivers licenses and passports. What you call the “long form” is no longer available from the State.
You say “no documents are required to have the announcement printed” but you just made that up, or somebody else made it up. The birth announcements came from the department of health. They couldn’t be placed by private individuals.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2009/Jul/28/ln/hawaii907280345.html
You will also find that none of the records you are interested in were sealed by the Obama executive order. There are links to the order here, and you will find that it does not apply to anything except papers he generated as President, and this policy is common to all modern administrations. I have read the order and I speak with confidence and authority. You have obviously not read the order and so you are just spreading false rumors.
I really don’t appreciate nonsense being posted on my web site. I really don’t. And I really don’t respect people who parrot stuff without verifying it.
Now you have two choices. You can cover your years and say “nyah, nyah, nhay, I’m not hearing you” or you can take more care about where you get your information becoming a thoughtful person and not a sheep.
[You can find literally dozens of web sites parroting the same misinformation that Ray stated. It’s a disgrace.]
Indeed, the willingness of some to be the tools of others to spread rumors and falsehoods is quite worrying.
How gullible some people can be is quite amazing to me.
It’s these kind of stupid comments that make me realize how lost you are to reality.
Honest emotions, perhaps but then again, honest emotions come in many forms, yours suggest a dark source.
nbc [commenting on a comment by Ray]: your [emotions] suggest a dark source.
It comes from the darkest of dark sources: WorldNetDaily. They just published a new article.
But Doc haven’t you noticed that these people pop in on on some old topic- restate the lies- and then disappear.
It happens so regularly- and rarely with the current threads that I wonder at how they manage it. It takes a certain pigheaded stupidity to not only repeat lies that have been disproven many times, but to find some months old thread to interject them into.
Tomorrow or the next day, someone else will post the same idiocy on some thread from March or in the middle of one from May. 3 or 4 people will point them to the truth- but to badly paraphrase Jack Nicholson- these people neither can handle nor have any interest in the truth.
unfortunately for you, nbc ‘s post is perfectly correct, the COLB is not a long-form birth certificate. However, this is not the most important issue in the ineligibility of BHO for POTUS, whether he was born in Hawaii or not still does not make him a natural born citizen since one has to have 2 parents who are US citizens and Obama only had one (his mother) since his father was a British citizen. (Kenya)
The two parent rule only exists in the imagination of some, even Vattel accepts that one citizen is sufficient to be a native or indigenous of the country.
Natural born, per US Common Law history does not depend on the citizenship of the parents. See Wong Kim Ark
Dear Froggy,
You have a reasonably arguable theory that two parents are required, – a theory that no controlling legal authority agrees with you about. That makes you functionally WRONG about this issue. It is intellectually obnoxious to state beliefs as though they were laws. That’s why Birthers have become a laughingstock to the legal profession and the media.
Benji Franklin
Under US law and pursuant to the Constitution, any person born in the US is a natural born citizen, no matter what the citizenship of their parents. This is a long-established and almost uniformly accepted principal of law.
Only in birfistan does another rule apply.
usfrog: whether he was born in Hawaii or not still does not make him a natural born citizen since one has to have 2 parents who are US citizens
Does too.
[If somebody makes an unfounded assertion, no reason to make a complex reply.]
Zounds! The President is an agent of King George III! Call the minutemen! Grab your muskets! To arms! To arms!
1/28/2010
Obamas first year: still President;
Dow Jones over 10,000 for the past several months;
AGJ dead on arrival, all quiet;
birther lawsuits 100% failed;
Orly Taitz fined $20,000, all quiet now;
CABar reviewing numerous complaints;
Major Cook unemployed civilian;
3 court-martials of birthers successful;
Birthers no longer getting press coverage;
No Martial Law;
Fords first profitable year since 2005;
Bailout recipients repaying ahead of schedule;
Unemployment claims slowly dropping;
Trains running, schools in session, no FEMA camps!
Damn glad I’m not a conspiracy nut, I’d feel like a total dumbass right now!
You forgot that the government hasn’t confiscated all private guns and President Obama hasn’t announced that he is really a Muslim.
I was really hoping he was going to confess to being a Kenyan Muslim at the SOTU last night, just to see if THAT would get the Republicans to applaud.
It’s all a conspiracy by the media and liberals. (a paraphrase of Spiro Agnew, the epitome of the GOP)
I agree with most of what you said, madmardigan, except on one issue – crazy Orly is definitely being anything but “quiet” lately. In fact, she’s been quite prolific still in issing filings.
Granted, many of them are now more focused in various “birther v birther” conflicts. But she’s still ranting and filing her crazy claims and trying to flog a dead horse on her actual birther suits.
In fact, she just submitted another pathetic “Quo Warranto” attempt against Obama:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25814311/Orly-s-Quo-Warranto-in-DC-1-25-10
Did you notice who served Orly’s summonses? None other than Christopher Earl Strunk!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25988977/TAITZ-v-OB-AMA-5-RETURN-OF-SERVICE-AFFIDAVIT-of-Summons-and-Complaint-Gov-uscourts-dcd-140567-5-0
Yep… How is has case/cases doing 😉
Orly and Strunk, some may argue that they deserve each other.
Still can’t deny that Obama is queer, can you? Dr. Conspiracy probably [expletive deleted, Doc C.].
Vattel is very clear and you Obama [expletive deleted, Doc C.] s licking fools are damned liars.
Joseph, you have been banned for your use of obscenity and disrespect for this online community. You are entitled to your opinions, but this blog is not a public rest room.
“Still can’t deny that Obama is queer”
I can’t deny he is heterosexual either- neither is relevant- to me or eligibility.
Next time remember to vote.
And yet you are using insults and name calling. Who are you trying to fool Joseph?
This is reply to the one that said like Palin runs out before the coversation is finished or something akin to that. I only said I wouldnt argue with you anymore since you have not even considered the facts I presented but instread only repeated what you have heard and lined yourself on the side of the name callers-well the Birthers have not had any justice in Court nor has anyone that has tried to get this issue cleared up the right way, the legal way. Just for info here, the Birthers don’t care if Obama is black or white; in fact he is both. What the Birthers are concerned about is Obama’s immediate slide into the communist way of doing things and the fact that he declared on national television that this isnt a christian nation. I agree probably most don’t live like Christians should; but do we stop being a Christian Nation because one man that has publicly declared that he is Muslim stole the presidency, to not serve the US and her people but instead, to destroy the US so that the One World Government can move into place. Now, if you still disagree with me, tell me how most of America is going to be able to pay any of the Carbon Taxes? If you think that you will, I pray you open your mind just a little and do some research. What Obama is doing and has done from the moment he took office is plunge the US into the deepest depression it has ever known, and everyone isn’t feeling the effects of it just yet. And to correct an earlier statement unemployment is rising in this county not dropping, When you listen to the nightly news listen to what is being said. In reality in California in the San Joaquin Valley unemployment has risen to almost 45%, and the same story is being told all over this country. Why is it that in the beginning everyone got on band wagon of Nancy Pelosi and began slinging names and insults at the people that had a different opinion than that of the MSM or DP or even the RP. If your staying with the issue, they no longer are saying that the Birthers are nuts. What are they saying?
It’s not a theory, as the reporter says. It’s a real, demonstrated conspiracy. Anyone who asserts otherwise is the crackpot, the lunatic. I wouldn’t go so far as to say they are crackpot or luniaic, But I would ask them to please stop and evaluate the new evidence and it is still coming in. It is so sad for the United States and every one that lives here, whether you agree or not with our beliefs one thing is for certain, by not finding out the truth, by repeating what the MSM says, or pro-Obama supporters, your life is going to change and whether you like it or not will not matter because you will no longer have the God given rights that you have become so accustomed to your entire life. Taking guns from citizens doesnt stop violence, rape, murder, assault or burglary, what it does do is leave people defenseless and easy prey for anyone that does have a gun, or has intentions to harm you or your family. Global Warming is all a scam perpetrated by those in power. I haven;’t a clue why they are doing this but what I do know is it is not in our best interest.
Did Obama take the oath to serve the United States by putting his name on the preesidential ballot? IS sitting on the Board of the United Nations a conflict of intrest for the President of the United States? If you dont know it is. No man can serve two masters, yet, Obama is lining himself and the United States up with UN Laws and Policies, have you not asked yourself why? I promise you it is not good for any of us and the very people they will use and have used to bring about this one world government will be useless to them after they have acomplished what they are set to do. As far as the FEMA Camps go, don’t take anyone’s word for it, google it. They’re all over the US, old ones recently renovated and a host of new ones that they are staffing right now. The National Guard is the ones running the ads and hiring these individuals. Why are they staffing empty complexes with 24/7 guards and calling them interment Specialists. What does that mean Internment Specialist, and why do we need those? I dont know of any group or group of people that would require the services of an Internment Specialist that is located in a building that is surrounded by barbed wire 3 layers thick with the wire pointing inward nbot to keep people out but to keep people in. These new government complexes also have very large gas furnaces not to heat the building with either, they are not that kind of furnace, they are to burn something in, I dont know what they intend on burning in those furnaces but by the size of them it must be alot, gigantic porportions of something. If Global Warming was true, then why have they purchased these humongous burners when they won’t even let people use their own fireplaces for heating their home. Wouldn’t that be a pretty sizeable contribution to the pollution factor if they began burning as much as the size of these monsters permit?
It is easy to sit back and just repeat what you have heard but you have a responsibility to yourself and anyone that depends on you to know the facts, don’t you agree. If not then all I can say is God have mercy on all of us.
As far as the American Grand Jury goes, if I had not took the time to check out these claims then I would have never known that at one time in this country the Grand Jury was the only thing that kept the government in check, now I find out they didn’t really obtain that power legally, they deceitfully did it. Haven’t you ever encountered anything in your life where you were up against a monster legally but felt powerless to do anything about it? You know why you were powerless, you haven’t done your homework, and instead of looking for the answer yourself you relied on the good old news to inform you except you didnt hear about the ownership change of the all of major tv and radio companies did you. They can only report what they are told to report and nothing more . Even if it is lies thats what they have to report.
I suppose you think that 9-11 disaster was pulled off by by terrorists. Who are the terrorists that keep repeating these same assaults against America?
Arent they the very ones Obama is protecting with our tax dollars? I believe it is.
Does charity begin at home. It is and always has. But our new president thinks it begins with banks and insurance giants and wall street, thats why your taxes are going up regardless of the compaign promises Obama swore to keep, is never going to be kept.
The Carbon Tax will be the feath of all of us. Obama has arranged for your students to rat you out if you violate any of the New Carbon Tax Laws and they get a reward for it. You don’t have to believe me but you will see unless by some miracle we who are able to turn this thing around. Enough of that said, on with the Obama eligibilty issue, and it isn’t about the color of his skin, please this is the 21st century if their are people that are racist it isnt the United States, it could be the Arabs, or Muslims, or even the Jews, but not people here. The people of the United states has bent over backward allowing other people’s religions, customs and differences have place in this country, so don’t pull the old Obama racist bit, it just is out of fashion and simply not true in this country.
The Obama camp had been using the defense that the DNC had properly vetted and certified Obama’s eligibility for over a year now. Judge after judge had used that claim and the fact that Obama’s COLB (Certification of Live Birth) had been “Snoped – FactChecked – blogged and twittered” as “legal proof” that Obama was eligible for office, despite the very real fact that Obama has never released any authenticated proof on the subject.
Then we find out that the DNC did NOT certify Obama as eligible under Article II – Section I of the Constitution, in 49 of 50 states. The DNC had only filed such certification in the state of Hawaii, Obama’s alleged birth place. The other 49 states received a Certification of Nomination which did NOT certify Obama as constitutionally eligible for office.
Both docs were real and both docs had been filed with Election Commission offices
Only the doc filed in Hawaii certified Obama as constitutionally eligible
Nancy Pelosi did in fact sign both documents, indicating awareness
Both documents had been used before by the DNC, in 2000 and 2004
Different states have different state statutes on the matter
But the Constitution is clear, and the DNC ignored it
It further appears that this Certification of Nomination which includes text concerning constitutional requirements is the basis for statements made by Hawaii officials, who have proclaimed that Obama is a “natural born citizen” on the basis that Nancy Pelosi said so in her false Certification of Nomination. Ouch!
After all, NO actual birth certificate has ever been released by Obama. A COLB, which anyone born anywhere in the world could purchase from Hawaii in 1961, in fact at least two different COLB’s from Hawaii, are all that has been offered by Obama. Ask yourself why two different COLB’s have been presented. Which one is the real COLB, or is either one the real one, or, do you have two different Birth Certificates and if you do, doesn’t that imply that you are, have or going to commit some type of fraud by possessing two different documents of one legal event?
For those that are of the understanding that a COLB is the only Birth Certificate that Hawaii provides, I want to recall your attention to Obama’s book, which he claims is written by him, he states he found his Birth Certificate.
On Page 26 of “Dreams of My Father”, Obama writes:
“I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school,”
While this brief quote does not state WHAT article it is that Obama found, it does mention that he found it WITH his BIRTH CERTIFICATE. This would have been in the mid 70’s, so this birth certificate would not have been a computer generated document. Further, even if he had lost this same Birth Certificate at any time he would be able to obtain another exactly like it, because if he was born in Hawaii, Hawaii at one time did issue Birth Certificates and they still do, But according to a recent statement by Hawaii’s Director of Health they now issue the COLB’s, but that was not so in the 50’s when Obama was born. That is all assuming he actually was born in Hawaii.
After releasing Parts I and II of this ongoing investigative report, literally hundreds of American citizens have taken it upon themselves to call their state Election Commission office and request copies of what the DNC filed in their state. Many of those documents have since been faxed or emailed to Canada Free Press, verifying that the statements are indeed facts.
In all cases except Hawaii, the DNC form without certification of constitutional eligibility was filed by the DNC. Meanwhile, everywhere we look, the RNC used one universal certification document which included full certification of constitutional eligibility in every state, in 2000, 2004 and 2008.
The following explanations have been offered on the subject:
Only Hawaii has a state statute requiring such language-FALSE
Other states don’t require certification of constitutional standing for office-FALSE
The DNC certified Obama during the primary process-FALSE
Certification is “implied”-FALSE
Obviously, while Hawaii’s statute requires that such language be there in the certification of nomination, no state statue requires that such language not appear in the document. So, why didn’t the DNC use one universal doc like the RNC?
In California,
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL
SEC. 16. The Legislature shall provide for circulation, filing, and certification of petitions, nomination of candidates, and the recall election.
ELECTIONS CODE
SECTION 6460-6461
6460. Every candidate whether selected pursuant to Section 6340, or unselected as referred to in Section 6343, who wishes to have a delegation of electors pledged to his or her candidacy in accordance with the result of the presidential preference primary or who wishes to have an official California delegation at the Republican National Convention shall form a delegation in compliance with Section 6461.
6461. (a) The delegation of each candidate shall be composed as follows:
(1) Seventy-eight percent of the delegation, or the nearest whole number thereto which provides for a total number of district delegates equal to at least three times the number of congressional districts within the state, shall be composed of three delegates selected for each congressional district.
(2) The remainder of the delegation shall be composed of delegates selected at large from throughout the state. The names of the persons chosen as delegates shall be submitted to the Secretary of State, by the candidate or his or her designee, no later than 30 days before the presidential primary election for certification. Remember we covered the words implied and certified above. To be certified requires the examination of all the required documents to infact certify that they are authentic and contain all of the required information to allow the candidate to run for the Office of President of the United States.
Upon further investigation, we did indeed learn that some state primary filings do include language of constitutional eligibility by each candidate. However, that is a statement made by each candidate, not a certification of compliance made by the Party which had vetted the candidate and certified.
And, I can’t believe that anyone needs me to explain the significant difference between “implied” and “certified?” A personal check “implies” that you have money in your account, which may or may not be true. But a “certified” check guarantees that you have that money in your account.
We are talking about the highest office in this land and the most powerful office in the world. “Implied” won’t cut it when the US Constitution itself has very specific requirements for this office,as do the 50 states in this country, albeit that conflicts wirth Obama’s claim that this country has over 57 states, even if Snopes, FactCheck and Obama bloggers don’t care, the rest of America should.
Title 34 of the Idaho Code:
34-711. CERTIFICATION OF CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT, VICE PRESIDENT AND
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS. The state chairman of each political party shall certify the names of the presidential and vice-presidential candidates and presidential electors to the secretary of state on or before September 1,
unless a five (5) day extension is granted by the secretary of state, in order for them to appear on the general election ballot. The secretary of state shall certify such candidates to the county clerks at the same time as certification of political party candidates nominated for state and federal
offices by the voters in the primary election.
AGAIN CERTIFY! Certify, who did’nt certify his eligibility? Only those that might stand to gain or was in direct line of someone that would gain and we all know how that story goes.
We have a corrupt government to the core but you insist that Obama is eligible. Ok let’s say he is. Is he a good president doing what he promised he would? Is he listening to the people of this country?
Did you get a bailout? Do you believe the banks paid back that money? Why do you believe that when they are blocking audting the fed every which way they can. If they fear an audit, and the banks needed a bailout of those porportions it isnt logical that it is paid back, most every homeowner in the uS is being foreclosed on and cars being impounded by the hundreds, everyday, so where did they get the funds to pay that back with inrterest?
That is the equivalent of loaning your neighborhood theif that you know has no money, loaning him several thousands dollars and suddenly he can pay you back and with interest and before it it is due. You have to wonder who he ripped off to pay you back right?
Just research the laws and see how they are shringing in size and who they make provisions for, I guarantee it is you or me, I have been doing it for 10 years now. California Work Comp laws went from incomprehensible and so large not even work comp attorneys didnt know the whole law but it can be found on one page now. It isnt written in the best interest of the employee which is what it is suppose to be all about in the first place. Now it is all about the insurance company-you know the dudes that got the bailouts.
I apoligize for the spelling errors and punctuation errors.
Wow. Pretty much everything except a trial going on in Santa Ana this very minute, dead bodies of people WHO KNOW TOO MUCH, and reptilians. But nice job. Next time try to work in chem trails and the nuclear testing that caused the Haiti Earthquake.
Debra,
A. Take a quarter and go buy yourself some punctuation. Some periods, some commas, and most definitely, some carriage returns and tabs. Paragraphs are your friends.
B. Seek professional help.
They are back, sorta
See the Jaghunter’s site for more ‘information’
Is that the best you can come up with?
UPDATE(3/5/10): Obama & Gang respond to the Arizona Bill; report and video HERE:http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-gang-respond-to-arizona-bill.html
Nearly half the members of the Arizona House of Representatives already have signed on in support of a measure that would require presidential candidates to document their constitutional eligibility for the office in 2012, but Barack Obama apparently isn’t paying any attention.
A question about Obama’s eligibility was raised at today’s White House news briefing, and as before, spokesman Robert Gibbs turned it into a joke.
But 40 of the 90 members of the Arizona House are co-sponsors of the plan, HB 2441, and it already has been approved at the committee level. Such a requirement by a single state could impact an election nationwide, since that state’s decision to allow a candidate on – or keep him off – a state ballot certainly would draw attention from coast to coast…
4 more states, Florida, South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Indiana have joined Arizona in proposing bills requiring proof of Article II Eligibility for POTUS. Does this mean this is no longer a crazy, fringe conspiracy theory movement, Started by the so called Birthers?
Wow! The Birthers were right! Can you say…”I was Wrong” ?
Question:
Have any of you started seriously looking in to the issue and putting your opinions aside?
Have you read the Health Care bill?
If you have not, as a fellow American, I urge you to do so. I only stand for freedom and liberty. Isn’t it wonderful that any of us can post anything on our mind and it is still legal?
Perhaps, you are fighting on the wrong side. Not a crime, unless you refuse to see that you could be wrong.
By now most of the American People, are sorry that they voted for Obama, and that really is a trivial thing, since he and Bush both won the elections by cheating, concerning the votes.
Most of those that side with me on the Obama issue are opposed to my views on Bush. He was a very bad president and corrupt. Many believe he was a good president and felt safe under his command, but I believe we were not safe and Bush was partners with those that are the mastermind of 9-11.
Thats my opinion, and time will tell who was the right thinkers. Everybody can think and have an opinion, but in the end only those that were right, in their assessment of our political and security situation can be given credit for using their brain correctly.
There is something to be said for logic, wisdom, critical thinking. They are the criteria that matters, not name calling, or just picking a side to argue against.
Debra: Such a requirement by a single state could impact an election nationwide, since that state’s decision to allow a candidate on – or keep him off – a state ballot certainly would draw attention from coast to coast…
States have in the past refused ballot position to ineligible presidential candidates and that fairly passes for a “little known fact.” Of course if a serious candidate were to suffer this fate, then it would be attention getting. However, the major parties in the United States don’t put forward ineligible candidates, so the whole thing is moot. But answer me this, suppose this Arizona measure passes, and Barack Obama is on the ballot for president in Arizona in 2012, would you also agree that this too will “draw attention from coast to coast” and make the birthers look pretty silly?
Debra: Have you read the Health Care bill?
I will only answer that question to someone who has them self read it.
Debra: Perhaps, you are fighting on the wrong side
No, I’ve been running this blog for 15 months and I’ve read over 34,000 uncensored comments by folks on both sides including yours. I can confidently say that I am on the right side.
Debra: Is that the best you can come up with?
Is that the best you can come up with?
Debra: By now most of the American People, are sorry that they voted for Obama
So how come he has a 50% approval rating (Gallup Poll March 31, 2010) among everybody, those who voted for him and those who didn’t?
I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you’re not making sense.
Jeff,
I come back to my original posting for many reasons which you apparently haven’t tried to compute.
1. To update any information that has developed since the original post, because like any productive discussion, isn’t finished until all the stats are in. How can one logically continue to participate in a discussion that I have exhausted my knowledge on, until further information becomes available. Make sense? I thought you would agree.
2. It makes no sense to come back just to argue for the sake of arguing. But when the facts have changed, then you can resume your discussion.
3. We don’t stay, for several reasons.
We don’t have much input into the topics you are in support of. We don’t seek you out, but find you among the millions of internet blogs online. When they surface into areas we support and are participating in, not by blogs, but actual physical participation in the events we blog about. We are not typewriter jockeys, repeating information posted. We particiapte in our government.
4. I’m not a Democrat or Republican. I’m not for the socialist agenda, I like to keep what I earn.
If you are for the socialist agenda then I can tell you what your income level is and how long it has been like that.
The only Americans supporting Obama’s Marxist Dive is those that are dependant on the system to provide their daily needs and have no plans to change it. Why do you think they are letting the illegal immigrants stay in this country? Their vote, which is illegal but what has this administration done that complies wirth the law?
To close I would like to educate you a little if I may. If you don’t like living in a free country, instead of trying to change this countries Constitution, why don’t you move to a country that has socialism established already, then you will feel right at home.
Our country isn’t based on what democrats or republicans believe or stand for.
Our country is a Republic, not a democracy.
But the MSM will tell you different. Thats their job, of late, to keep you ignorant to the real facts. Looks like they are doing a swell job on those that can be fooled.
However, if you go back into time when JFK was president, and listen to the most educated men of those times you will learn about the corruption that is going on in this country and what all they have done to make you unaware of their agenda. (Why was he assassinated?) Sorry to tell you, but you are an easy pawn in their pocket. Shame on you for not knowing. Shame on you for not protecting what was handed to you on the day you were born on this soil. That my friend is why the President of the United States needs to be a natural born citizen, so that they have no other alegance to any other country or person.
Even a 5th grader understands that.
Educate yourself, and comeback with some legitimate facts that are important to our current situation.
My points were not directed to Dr. Conspiracy. Why are you answering for those that began a conversation and not letting them finish it? I didn’t address you in my reply, nor was my comment put in an area to indicate it was directed at you.
Dr. Conspiracy:
tell jeff his facts are wrong. Ford didn’t take any bailout money.
Oh my…. Nothing specific just some vague assertions.
That’s the hallmark of the ill informed
Dr. Conspiracy:
No one will make sense to you as long as you believe the MSM gives the unbridled truth. Not even God himself could convince you. If you have not become aware of the lies the 111th Congress has spewed out of their mouths along with Obama, then, you are totally unaware and do not want to know the truth.
What happened to Obama’s transparency? Is he a Christian or Muslim? He first said he was Christian but months after he was elected he states he is Muslim. Was the lie ok? I could go on but frankly my fingers are tired and I have other things to do. If you genuinely wanted to know the truth then you would be worth the time and effort.
I came back to update my original post for those that might want to know the truth.
The only thing you do is argue. You dont discuss or consider facts that others present. That is ignorant!
I liked that decision. Potty mouths are unnecessary.
UPDATE:
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
High-Ranking Military Officer Under 4 Star General George Casey Wants Truth About Obama’s Eligibility to be POTUS. Got Records!?
UPDATE(s) BELOW:Via Steve at GiveUsLiberty; The officer questioning Obama’s status is Lt Col T. Lakin, Flight Surgeon. He is on the staff of 4 star General Geo. W. Casey, the Army’s Chief of Staff. I believe that is the second highest job in the U.S. Army. Gen. Casey is stationed at the Pentagon in Washington D.C. For a Pentagon Officer such as Lakin, on the staff of such a prestigious General as Gen Casey, to speak out against Obama is quite remarkable.
It’s akin to treason within the highest echelons of the Palace Guard.
Perhaps this act which occurred today was the reason for Obama’s earlier message this morning, about not questioning his eligibility. Obama must have heard it was coming and is trying to do damage control. It also explains Fox’s Gretta Van Sustrand doing a piece with Newt Gingrich, in which she called the birther’s space cadets.
Well add one more, a highly decorated Pentagon staff officer in top standing with the Army, who happens to be a very skilled Doctor. How do I know this? They don’t let dum dums handle gold plated 4 star Generals, second in line for overall command of the Army.
Welcome Aboard the Space Ship Doctor, glad to have a Flight Surgeon with us. BTW we refer to ourselves Constitutionalists, it’s derived from the document we revere and cherish.
What a bunch of mindless drivel. Some random Lt. Col. who happens to be stationed in DC, and it’s like Gen. Casey himself was becoming a birther. The Lt. Col. was such the insider that they were shipping his butt off to Afghanistan. Sounds like a real palace coup to me. There are plenty of Army doctors stantioned in DC. It doesn’t make them special or insiders. Apparently this Lt. Col. thinks he is special and can refuse deployment orders. We’ll all learn pretty quickly just how not so special he is when he is given the choice of getting on the plane or hanging up his uniform for good.
Debra says:
Welcome Aboard the Space Ship Doctor, glad to have a Flight Surgeon with us.
Dr. Lakin won’t be happy to be with you if he actually follows through on his “threat” to disobey orders. An Army court-martial isn’t going to care about Obama’s birth certificate. Obama is Commander-in-Chief, but he is not Lakin’s commanding officer.
Lakin may well be a fine doctor, but if he is on General Casey’s staff he didn’t get the job because of his political acumen.
And Lakin has presumably been following orders for the past 14 months since Obama was inaugurated. Why have those orders been legitimate, but an order deploying him to Afghanistan is somehow illegitimate?
He’s never claimed to be a Muslim. Every time he discusses religion, he refers to his Christianity.
Debra, when you make sense they try to berate ” ”
,,,, …. !?
Nice work keep hammering
Debra: You dont discuss or consider facts that others present. That is ignorant!
After 34,000 comments, I have pretty much “discussed” all there is to discuss. However, you don’t present facts to discuss. You present unsupported assertions, unverifiable claims. There’s nothing to discuss until you put up some evidence. For example, “months after he was elected he states he is Muslim.” Where did that come from?
You say: “No one will make sense to you as long as you believe the MSM gives the unbridled truth.” I believe that the newspapers of record in this country do a pretty good job vetting the factual information they present. If you reject the MSM, you are left with the jumble of the Internet and email rumors, where it is very difficult to tell the cranks from anybody else. Indeed, I have found that much of Obama denialism is founded on misplaced trust in rumors. If you are going to reject the mainstream media, then you should be prepared to rigorously defend whatever alternative you advocate. Or are you claiming that you have actually read the entire Health Reform law?
You’re right. The only person she made sense to is you. I wonder why? I know. It is because you are both delusional. We are still waiting for you to factually support your allegations. Debra comes up with some mindless drivel which would confuse even Sven and you say that she is making sense. Come on. You people are the same folks that somehow think a half term former governor that quit is some sort of real leader. I mean she is so dumb that she needs to write her talking points down on her hand.
The D’s are doing a great job distracting the public by ridiculing anyone who dare ask about Obama’s eligibility under Article II of the US Constitution. The questioning American Patriot has been labeled ”birthers” “right-wing crazies” “nut jobs”. Well, if you are one of those who agree with this hateful and distracting ridicule, allow this Constitutionalist to set you straight. The concern by 47% of Americans, and growing, is and always has been about our national security and the safety of the men and women who serve in our military.
Do this nation a favor, remove the scales from your eyes that the mainstream propaganda machine has intentionally placed and learn what these rascals are truly keeping away from you, the American citizen.
Oh, and btw, stop the juvenile ridicule. It isn’t working. Instead it makes you look rather silly.
The T-Room proudly stands with the American Patriot Foundation and Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin
Press Release
DECORATED ARMY PHYSICIAN REFUSES ALL MILITARY ORDERS BECAUSE PRESIDENT REFUSES TO DOCUMENT HIS CONSTITUTIONAL ELIGIBILITY
Court Martial Likely, Legal Defense Fund Established
Washington, D.C., March 30, 2010. “I am today compelled to make the distasteful choice to invite my own court martial, in pursuit of the truth about the president’s eligibility under the constitution to hold office”, said active duty Army Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin. The American Patriot Foundation, a non-profit group incorporated in 2003 to foster appreciation and respect for the U.S. Constitution, immediately announced it has set up a legal defense fund and will provide Lt. Col. Lakin with a top-flight defense team. Details are available on the foundation’s website, http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com.
Article II, sec. 1 of the U. S. Constitution explicitly provides that only “natural born” citizens can serve as president and commander-in-chief. Mr. Obama’s continuing refusal to release his original 1961 birth certificate has brought Lt. Col. Lakin to the point where he feels his orders are unlawful, and thus MUST be disobeyed.
Lakin has today informed his superiors that he cannot understand how his oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” does not permit military officers to pursue proof of eligibility from his commander-in-chief. Lt. Col. Lakin’s efforts to seek affirmation of the president’s eligibility have been rebuffed with legal evasions. Given the Obama Administration’s “transparency” initiative, many U.S. citizens are also demanding release of the original birth certificate.
Lakin serves as Chief of Primary Care and Flight Surgeon for the DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic and is lead Flight Surgeon charged with caring for Army Chief of Staff General Casey’s pilots and air crew. His numerous awards and decorations include the Army Flight Surgeon’s Badge, Combat Medical Badge, the Bronze Star Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal with three Oak Leaf Clusters, the Army Achievement Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters, the National Defense Service Medal with Bronze Service Star, the Armed Forced Expedition Medal, the Army Reserve Component Achievement Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon and the NATO service medal.
Washington, D.C., March 30, 2010. “I am today compelled to make the distasteful choice to invite my own court martial, in pursuit of the truth about the president’s eligibility under the constitution to hold office”, said active duty Army Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin. The American Patriot Foundation, a non-profit group incorporated in 2003 to foster appreciation and respect for the U.S. Constitution, immediately announced it has set up a legal defense fund and will provide Lt. Col. Lakin with a top-flight defense team. Details are available on the foundation’s website, http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com.
Article II, sec. 1 of the U. S. Constitution explicitly provides that only “natural born” citizens can serve as president and commander-in-chief. Mr. Obama’s continuing refusal to release his original 1961 birth certificate has brought Lt. Col. Lakin to the point where he feels his orders are unlawful, and thus MUST be disobeyed.
Lakin has today informed his superiors that he cannot understand how his oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” does not permit military officers to pursue proof of eligibility from his commander-in-chief. Lt. Col. Lakin’s efforts to seek affirmation of the president’s eligibility have been rebuffed with legal evasions. Given the Obama Administration’s “transparency” initiative, many U.S. citizens are also demanding release of the original birth certificate.
Lakin serves as Chief of Primary Care and Flight Surgeon for the DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic and is lead Flight Surgeon charged with caring for Army Chief of Staff General Casey’s pilots and air crew. His numerous awards and decorations include the Army Flight Surgeon’s Badge, Combat Medical Badge, the Bronze Star Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal with three Oak Leaf Clusters, the Army Achievement Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters, the National Defense Service Medal with Bronze Service Star, the Armed Forced Expedition Medal, the Army Reserve Component Achievement Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon and the NATO service medal.
Where are you living? It has been announced by the MSM, and all over the internet. Further, the information on the internet has truth and fiction, it is up to the individual to decide for his or herself which is which!
By the way, Jeff, Ford Motors didnt receive any bailout money, so now what? Many of your assertions in that paticular post is incorrect, you need to go back and look at them.
Conclusion: The words I write support your rights to be free. The words you write side with the enemy, to condemn even yourself!
How smart is that? I hope you open your eyes. That is all.
Typewriter Jockey
Oh, Mercy, If you call the facts presented above nothing specific, then you are mentally challenged. I hope you realize others see your post and sum up your integrity by your comments. You are providing ammunition to others by forming opinions against concrete evidence in support of the Obama Administration.
You must be totally dependant on the government for all of your needs, otherwise you would have the opinion you have. I suppose you think the millions of people that marched on D.C are crazy also.
By your assertions, you believe your smarter than the majority of Americans that want Obama out of the White House. You criticize the 4 star general and have you ever served a day in the military or defended your country at any time?
No you have not. But you won’t answer these questions, you will come back with insults and disinformation.
Now I know how this site was established and who is your boss!
How does it feel to be a traitor? Does it pay alot?
I have no more posts for this site or discussions with you.
You indicated yourself, you have been here since halfway of 2009. Got it!
Obama cronies.
More like yammering.
Lakin is a fool that is allowing is misguiding dislike for the President cause him to ruin his career. There is no way a military court martial will allow him to compel the President to produce anything. Hemmingway thinks he has found away around the Cook debacle but he is wrong. Just like Capt. Rhodes realized this is a non starter. You can be on the side of this traitor all you want. All that means is that you will be supporting the losing side.
Debs daaaarling
QUOTE
You criticize the 4 star general and have you ever served a day in the military or defended your country at any time?
UNQUOTE
Assumptions and FAIL.
First
I would recommend that you READ the postings BEFORE commenting.
The putative complainant is a Lt Colonel not a 4 star general….slight difference in rank, responsibilities and pay scale. Hint, they are not the same person……
Second
Military service denotes that one has served in the military, it does not automatically denote that you are an inherently smarter, better, more moral or better informed.
Individuals in the military may well be, but that is a personal characteristic and not a native attribute…..This is stated by someone who has been, seen, done and got several of the T-shirts as soldier, NCO and officer.
Next
QUOTE
You must be totally dependant on the government for all of your needs, otherwise you would have the opinion you have. I suppose you think the millions of people that marched on D.C are crazy also
UNQUOTE
Again with the assumption and FAIL
Lets see, I am willing to bet real cash money that most if not the majority of the folks who post here have a real live job.
Your assumption is that anyone who receives a governmnet or military pension, or works in the military or government or in this economic climat is currently unemployed is somehow a deluded sub human drone….says rather more about you doesn’t it..?
As for “the millions” who marched….not even close dear, not even the T-Bag crew post that sort of cack
And finally
QUOTE
Now I know how this site was established and who is your boss!
How does it feel to be a traitor? Does it pay alot?
UNQUOTE
Ahh the sweet and sweaty smell of paranoia…are you sure you’re not an avatar of Orly…you have the whole “if you disagree you are a traitor” thing down pat.
The fact that folks disagree with you in what is generally speaking a civil-ish manner denotes not some nefarious BS about NWO/Soros/Illuminati/Papist/Communist/Trilateral Commission/Marxist-Fascist plot but a healthy democratic process at work.
Don’t like it, go to some cosseted, closetted Birther cocoon, drink the Kool-Aid, stick your fingers in your ears and loudly shriek LALALALALALALA…..I CAN’T HEAR YOU…..
I would like to point out that the real traitors are the ones that want to overthrow a duly elected President because they don’t like him. These traitors would rather believe in lies like Kenyan Birth Certificates, so called fake Baptist ministers, phony travel bans, edited tapes, and a farfetched theory about a 9 month pregnant woman flying over 10,000 miles to a third world country in a non jet plane to have a baby. And just in case that is not farfetched enough, they want you to believe that somehow the definition of a common English term somehow comes from a relatively unknown Swiss philoshper that did not even publish in English. Really now? And we are the ones that are “traitors”? Amazing.
Deja vu, anyone? And in the same comment, no less.
The comment about Ford wasn’t from Jeff, it was from madmardigan. Neither asserted that Ford received bailout money (semicolon is used as a separater, not as a qualifier). What do you claim has been announced by the MSM?
Exactly.
Debra says: “I suppose you think the millions of people that marched on D.C are crazy also.”
And what “millions of people” would this be?
The last time that the number of people gathering in Washington for any “movement” type purpose got anywhere near or exceeded a million, let alone “millions” was when Obama was inaugurated as President.
That’s what happens when birthers cut and paste instead of putting forth their own ideas.
See photos:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/increasing-citizenship-concern-over-obama-eligibility/
Bovril: Lets see, I am willing to bet real cash money that most if not the majority of the folks who post here have a real live job.
I think you would win that bet. Here are two interesting data points from alexa.com.
I personally am 55-64, have children, am graduate school educated and browse this site from home. At least for now I have a full-time job. Nobody pays me or provides any financial support for this web site. I do it because the idiocy of this topic drives me to distraction.
Debra says:
You must be totally dependant on the government for all of your needs, otherwise you would have the opinion you have.
You realize, of course, that your latest hero, Lt. Col. Lakin, is dependent upon the government for all of his needs? He is on the government payroll, receives a government housing allowance, receives free medical care, etc. And if he is court-martialed, the government will provide him with an attorney, free of charge.
You criticize the 4 star general and have you ever served a day in the military or defended your country at any time
I spent four years in the Navy during the Vietnam War. I served under officers who were brilliant and officers who were idiots. I personally handled a message from an admiral who had concocted a “caper” (his exact word) whereby the aircraft carrier I was on would launch a surprise bombing mission on Laos while we were headed to Singapore for some much-needed R&R after six consecutive weeks of flying daily bombing missions in Vietnam. Fortunately, more senior admirals had their heads screwed on correctly and they refused to approve the “caper.”
What have you done for your country, Debra?
Y’know, that’s kinda lame given that you had two months to work on a response.
Debra: You are providing ammunition to others by forming opinions against concrete evidence in support of the Obama Administration.
It has never been the purpose of this web site to “support” the Obama Administration. I think you would be hard pressed to make a case that it does. All this web site has concluded is what the history books already say: Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States.
Debra: You must be totally dependant [sic] on the government for all of your needs, otherwise you would have the opinion you have
You know, I have a hard time remembering whether it is “dependent” or “dependant”, so I use a spell checker. You should use a spell checker too (and even more importantly a fact checker). On the other hand, I have no problem recognizing an ad hominem argument when I see one. Cluck, cluck.
Debra: You criticize the 4 star general
What 4 star general?
Debra: By your assertions, you believe your smarter than the majority of Americans that want Obama out of the White House. By your assertions, you believe your smarter than the majority of Americans that want Obama out of the White House.
And you got that from where? Obama’s approval rating is at 50%, which is not much different than the percentage of the vote he got in the election. I was a member of Mensa, so yes, I have an IQ greater than 94% of Americans, but that doesn’t make me right (and not necessarily smart either).
Debra: Now I know how this site was established and who is your boss!
Now that is a curious comment. First it really doesn’t say much, lacking any specific claim of how the site was established, or who my “boss” is. It’s the kind of vague smear that is so typical of denialist thinking. If you REALLY know how this site was established, then I commend your research, which must have led you to this article on the site founding from January of 2009 or perhaps this article. As far as the blog is concerned, I am “self employed.”
Debra: How does it feel to be a traitor? Does it pay alot [sic]?
You’re asking the wrong person. Let me see, you were the one who was complaining about insults, right?
Debra: I have no more posts for this site or discussions with you.
Since you had nothing to say, I’m surprised you lasted this long.
Debra: You indicated yourself, you have been here since halfway of 2009. Got it!
This web site started in December of 2008.
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Debra: The D’s are doing a great job distracting the public by ridiculing anyone who dare ask about Obama’s eligibility under Article II of the US Constitution. The questioning American Patriot has been labeled ”birthers” “right-wing crazies” “nut jobs”.
Conservative Republicans are saying the same thing.
Debra: Lakin has today informed his superiors that he cannot understand how his oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” does not permit military officers to pursue proof of eligibility from his commander-in-chief
I’m sure the Army will explain it to him.