Comments on: Where Is the MSM On Grand Jury Presentments Handed Down in Washington DC

By: news across

news across — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 05:07:06 +0000

In a mountain of Supreme Court precidents, the Court has consistantly ruled just the opposite of both of your "points."

Nice try, but no cigar.

We the People will never again allow you neocons to control our Government nor will we ever allow you any significant influence. You only have 40 seats in the Senate and there is a good reason for that…and that is the most you will ever have again. Get used to it!

By: news across

news across — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 07:30:55 +0000

Hey Shawn,

I've got my popcorn ready, however this thing already fizzled when twice the Supreme Court refused to hear it. Besides…

…only the House of Representatives can indite a sitting president (impeachment), and only the Senate can convict and remove a sitting president.

Let me know when the fireworks start…I have my popcorn ready…but I don't think its every going to happen…not unless you can get the Democrats to impeach…and they won't.

See ya in the funny papers!

By: Shawn

Shawn — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 06:39:25 +0000

Sorry, that's www.americangrandjury.org

By: Shawn

Shawn — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 06:37:05 +0000

lol.....I wouldn't want to be the one to call his grandma a liar...or the Kenyan Parliament. If he had nothing to hide, he sure has spent a whole lotta bucks on "transparency". In the meantime the perfect storm is brewing so sit back, get some popcorn, and watch. Visit the American Grand Jury website www.americangrandjury.com to learn more about your Constitutional rights and see what some of the members of the Supreme Court had to say about it. Then visit www.tenthamendmentcenter.com and learn why over 35 states are passing legislation based on the 10th Amendment to protect their state soveriegnty. Lots of state representatives involved in protecting your rights and the rights of your state who actually do know the Constitution. God Bless America!

By: Bobbi85710

Bobbi85710 — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:44:11 +0000

This subject really bothers you, then this other legal doc is bound to do the same http://www.docstoc.com/docs/4784592/1961-hawaiian...

By: news across

news across — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:06:49 +0000

Bobbi,

I checked you links. The first is to a case that will never be heard by the supreme court…so it means nothing. The second and third are to opinion pieces that have no qualification and are merely empty opinions.

The fact is your claims are meaningless. But hey…its a free country…you can say all the crazy things you want to say, but that won't change a thing. Have fun with it!

By: news across

news across — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:02:24 +0000

In addition, only the House of Representatives can issue and incitement (impeachment) of a sitting president. They won't be doing that. Sometimes folks forget that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, only the Supreme Court had the authority to legally interpret that constitution, and that constitution says only the House of Representatives has the authority to indite a sitting president (impeachment).

So the conservatives can discuss this all they want. They make all the crazy claims they want, and they can continue to lose elections all they want. None of that will change anything except to insure that conservatives have no political power.

By: news across

news across — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 23:57:27 +0000

nick,

Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii is a State of the United States. There are a mountain of supreme court precidents and Federal laws that have established that any person born in the United States is a natural born American citizen. His original birth certificate was thoroughly examined by FactCheck.org and other independent investigators and all have certified that the birth certificate is real. It was also certified by the State of Hawaii. In addition, the Supreme Court has twice now rejected the outrageous claims of the right wing regarding the President's birth certificate. That so-called Grand Jury is not a real grand jury, was never sworn in by a sitting Federal Judge, and has no authority what so ever. In addition, only the House of Representives can indite (impeach) a sitting president and only the Senate can convict and remove a sitting President.

Those are the facts. You don't have to like them, but they are the facts all the same. At this point all the right-wing is doing by continuing to whine and cry about this crazy nonsense is embarrassing themselves and driving the voters right into the lap of the Democrats.

By: Bobbi85710

Bobbi85710 — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:30:45 +0000

More news http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=6504 & Craig v. United States: Citizenship Definition Case in 10th Circuit, SCOTUS Conference GRAND JURY INDICTMENTS WILL BE HEARD IN THE US DISTRICT COURT - Patriot's Heart Broadcasting Network http://www.patriotsheartnetwork.net/forum/topics/... http://www.patriotsheartnetwork.net/profiles/blog...

By: Lynner

Lynner — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:53:30 +0000

Ignoring the Constitution? FIRST POINT: Amendment 5 of the Bill of Rights says: " No person shall be held for a captial, or otherwise 'infamous' crime, unless on a PRESENTMENT or indictment of a Grand Jury………." Presentments are drawn up by Citizen Grand Juries. Citizens can gather together and form a grand jury. They do not need the permission of government agents (DA;s Atty General's, etc.) to do so. They then file their PRESENTMENTS (indictments) with the court and the court, constitutionally must act on them. Just because this process has been IGNORED for the past 60 years or so, doesn't negate the right. The Constitution has not been 'amended' to remove this ability. It exists and is part and parcel of the protection the Founders established to insure government does not operate illegally. (The jury is the final protection for all citizens and the jury is not beholding to any judge or court. The jury to this day has the right and the obligation to judge the facts and the LAWS! http://www.fija.org (Fully Informed Jury Association.))
TWO: the Constitution in Article 2, section 1 paragraph 6 states: "NO PERSON BUT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN , OR A CITIZEN AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION SHALL BE ELIGIBLE TO THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT." The definition of natural born is having both parents as citizens! It is not us 'independents' or us 'conservatives' you so casually deride that are ignoring and violating our Constitution. This is a deception by Obama and the Democrat National Committee to deliberately commit treason and insultingly think there would not be enough informed patriots around to notice. Well, you demonstrated how uniformed you are and swallowed Obama's feel-good rhetoric hook line and sinker and you have become co-conspiritors in this tyranny. Benjamin Franklin warned us that it will take a vigilent, well-informed citizenry to preserve this Republic. Being vigilent also means not allowing yourselves to be deceived.

By: maggie

maggie — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 08:36:21 +0000

you are not part of "WE THE PEOPLE" if you dont approve of the right to question any and all public officials , and processes. the fact that many are over looking is that NO matter where Obama was born…( He could've been born in Abraham Lincolns mothers lap for that matter) and it does not change the fact that obamas daddy was a british subject / citizen when Obama jr. was born. Thats it in a nutshell, cut and dry, black and white, no if's, and's, or butt's about it. With hid daddy being a NON us citizen there is no magic in the world that can call Obama a "natural born" ….its an impossibility, based on that one simple fact that has been verified by Barack obama himself…he said "my father was a british citizen when i was born…" see he slipped up a while back and doesn't think we were paying attention…also back in 2008 before the election, his legal team in response to a suit requesting discovery ( of his records) it was stated that " if these records were madfe public it would cause 'SERIOUS' injury and extreme EMBARASSEMENT to Obama and the DNC….now why and what? do you suppose could have been so harmfull, and yet we are not to be concerned….excuse me…do you think it could be that the item of embarassement might prove not only his lack of being"natural born citizen" but maybe not "any" form of US citizen at all.??just something to ponder…hhmmmmmm

By: maggie

maggie — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 08:21:18 +0000

Both ,the atty general and us atty (remember he reseigned recently) had been sent requests for quo warranto….with all evidence…both have refused so far , and as far as i know from recalling whats been written on this issue….additional steps are being taken to advance through the red tape of obsticles and legal jargon .To me thats where the problem lays is in this over the top technical details…written in a fashion to thwart off any and all who might go against Government control.I dont see why it must be so twisted in legal verbage and terms that it sets up a system meant to fail , for those who cannot read through the loopholes and interpretations. i don't like writings that are left up to "semantics".

By: Bobbi85710

Bobbi85710 — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 01:49:38 +0000

Sage advice Nick, I will certainly pass this link on with your info.

By: Nick

Nick — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 00:15:38 +0000

Note that Royce Lamberth is not the chief magistrate judge. Magistrate judges rank under district judges. Judge Lamberth is the chief U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Columbia; he's more powerful than a magistrate judge. See http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/lamberth-bio.html for his biography.

It's important to get this information into his possession, but I don't think he has any legal power to act on it of his own motion. Don't forget about quo warranto in the D.C. Code. § 16-3501 of the D.C. Code says: "A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action."

Judge Lamberth is the chief judge in the very court mentioned by the D.C. Code as the one to preside over the quo warranto. § 16-3502 of the code goes on: "The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person. The writ may not be issued on the relation of a third person except by leave of the court, to be applied for by the relator, by a petition duly verified setting forth the grounds of the application, or until the relator files a bond with sufficient surety, to be approved by the clerk of the court, in such penalty as the court prescribes, conditioned on the payment by him of all costs incurred in the prosecution of the writ if costs are not recovered from and paid by the defendant."

Of course, the Attorney General and U.S. Attorney for Washington D.C. have failed to bring quo warranto. § 16-3503 of the code says: "If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person on his compliance with the condition prescribed by section 16-3502 as to security for costs."

So if there is someone out there who requested of either the Attorney General or U.S. Attorney for Washington D.C. that a quo warranto be brought on THEIR (the person's) behalf, and they didn't do so (and of course, we know they didn't), that person can now ask the court (over which Judge Lamberth presides) to institute quo warranto under § 16-3503 of the code. Though it would be wise to have an attorney handle the specifics; I'm thinking Leo Donofrio would be best.

So the question is, is there such a person out there who has documentation to prove that they made such a request to either the Attorney General or U.S. Attorney for Washington D.C.? And if not, perhaps someone should make that request now, and if the two relevant authorities refuse to act then the matter can be moved to a § 16-3503 request as aforementioned.

By: news across

news across — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 02:10:39 +0000

Dee and Bobbi,

The Supreme Court refuses to hear this nonsense, and frankly, We the People won't allow you to overturn our elections. Your party (the Republican Party…and spare me your "I'm an independent" speech)…is finished. It has collapsed to nothing but a minor 3rd party composed of ultra-right wing nut cases.