Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,142 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,569,048
Pageviews Today: 2,224,462Threads Today: 750Posts Today: 12,622
06:48 PM

Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing

Jury Update: Online Grand Jury Indicts Obama for Fraud, Treason

Anonymous Coward
User ID: 515900
04/30/2009 03:29 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Jury Update: Online Grand Jury Indicts Obama for Fraud, Treason

[link to www.therightsideoflife.com]

(United States of America) – April 29th 2009 - At 8 P.M, ET American Grand Jury convened and conducted a hearing with regard to CRIMINAL activity, complaints and allegations presented before said Jury.

After reviewing the evidence and voting, the 32 member American Grand Jury handed down the presentment(s) recommending that person(s) known as Barack Obama, aka: Barack Obama, Jr., aka: Barack Hussein Obama, aka: Barry Soetoro; aka: Barry Obama; aka: Barack H. Obama, aka: Barack Obama II, presumed President of the United States, be tried in Criminal Court for charges of fraud (eligibility) and treason.

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

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

The American Grand Jury used established public evidence and testimony recognized by expert witnesses with a long professional history of forensic experience in handing down the presentment(s).

Caveat: Grand Jury hearings are secret and all proceedings will remain confidential until released by the courts.

For an unofficial review and summary of the issues that is available in the public domain see: AKA Obama Fans: All together now – say OMG!!

[link to thesteadydrip.blogspot.com]

Comment by American Grand Jury ~~~~~~~~

Never in my lifetime have I been associated with such a motivated group of people. When we put this jury together we went overboard trying to be impartial. These members found out early on, we never asked where they came from, what their political views were, how they made their living or what color, creed or religion they subscribed to.

Personally, I figured this Grand Jury hearing would have a decent turnout and a good voting margin, but nothing like this:

Out of 33 registered jury members (all sworn under oath as to eligibity and service) we had only one person unable to attend the final meeting. The final 32 member roster gave us a unanimous vote. And they worked their butts off to make the decision. Even though they were able to study and review the evidence on their own time in the password protected website, the effort these folks put into this jury was fastastic. We had over 1500 pieces of communication (surveys, chat messages, jury foreman messages) that transpired between the jury members on the website. These people worked close to 8 days in advance to get ready for the April 29th deadline. Their work paid off. Within 30 minutes of convening the final hearing a 100% vote was returned.

Tell you what folks, this is America, and these jury members right now are speaking for America and they are mad and they want action from their lawmakers and the courts. Obama has been presented (indicted) by this Jury on two MAJOR counts of criminal behavior. It is now our duty to get this indictment in the hands of as many court jurisdictions in this United States of America as possible. [emphases original]

As I’ve mentioned many times before on my site, while it is all well and good that private groupings of people are getting together to sift through evidence in order to formally cull together a presentation to be handed to the authorities, the next step will be to get that authority figure to make a move with the data.

There are many who oppose this effort that think these things will be going nowhere. However, I think the “going nowhere” leading conclusion is a time-based one. As far as I’ve seen with the current Administration, it is simply a matter of time before people in authority will begin questioning what’s going on with arguably the most left-wing occupant of the White House to the point that they will be willing to seriously consider formally-aggregated facts.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 515900
04/30/2009 05:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Jury Update: Online Grand Jury Indicts Obama for Fraud, Treason
Eligibility case defendants don't want to answer now

Lawyer for Obama, Congress says representation decision unmade

[link to www.worldnetdaily.com]

Government lawyers defending President Obama and Congress in a lawsuit alleging that he's ineligible to occupy the Oval Office and that members of the House and Senate violated the constitutional rights of citizens by refusing to investigate want still more time to respond to the accusations.

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

It was filed in January by attorney Mario Apuzzo of New Jersey on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. It names as defendants Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 365,000 others and sign up now!

Even though extensions had been granted to an initial round of requests to delay the proceedings, the government now says it needs even more time to prepare a response to a question that could be answered with a five-minute telephone call from the president to Hawaiian officials asking that his birth documentation be made public.

Instead, a request submitted by Ralph Marra Jr., the acting U.S. attorney, and Elizabeth Pascal, the assistant U.S. attorney in New Jersey, explains that the Department of Justice, operating under Obama appointee Attorney General Eric Holder, still is working on a decision on representation for the defendants.

"The failure to file an answer, move, or to otherwise respond before the expiration of the time specified is not the result of any neglect on any of the Defendants' parts," the court filing submitted yesterday said.

"Representation decisions are made by a specialized group of individuals in the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. In order to provide a fair opportunity for the Department to review this matter and to complete the representation determinations, Defendants respectfully request an extension of twenty (20) days from the date of this Order in which to answer, move, or otherwise respond," the court filing said.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

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

Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

The ultimate questions remain unaddressed to date: Is Obama a natural born citizen, and, if so, why hasn't documentation been provided? And, of course, if he is not, what does it mean to the 2008 election or the U.S. Constitution if it is revealed that there has been a violation?

And the answer could take only minutes: authorization from the president to Hawaiian officials to release his documentation.

Apuzzo, on his website, says the issue "is of utmost national importance."

"Every passing day Mr. Obama takes executive action that significantly impacts on the lives of Americans. The USA and Obama have already been granted one extension to answer to May 5, 2009. They have therefore been given 77 days to answer," he said.

"This is enough time for them to answer. With an extension to June 21, 2009, USA and Obama are asking for 124 days and the Congressional defendants are asking for 117 days to answer. Court rules only allow them 60 days. Such delay is not in the national interest and not acceptable," he said.

He told WND that since the attorneys for the government earlier were granted extensions for Obama and Congress to respond, there should be no further delay, and the statements should be required May 5 as planned.

In a comments section on his website, a contributor told Apuzzo, "It's part of their stonewalling effort. They will do everything they can to stop or otherwise slow the path to justice down to snail's pace."

A similar situation developed in a California case raising a challenge to Obama's eligibility that was filed on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes. The complaint was filed by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation in early November, but it didn't get court action until March, months after the actual election that it challenged.

That case now is on appeal.

The case being handled by Apuzzo was launched in New Jersey and focuses on the alleged failure in Congress to follow the Constitution.

That document, the lawsuit states, "provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral College Electors."

Get the new Whistleblower magazine, called "YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE? Why dozens of lawsuits and millions of Americans want Barack Obama to prove he's constitutionally qualified to be president."

It provides, the lawsuit said, "If the president-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the vice president elect shall act as president until a president shall have qualified."

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

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

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

In the Russian publication Pravda, commentator Mark S. McGrew addressed the subject:

"The United States Congress is required, under the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, to count the Electoral College votes for president and vice president, ask if any member of Congress objects to the count and hear that Congressman's objection. This is under Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 15, 'Upon such reading of any such certificate of paper, the president of the Senate shall call for objections, if any,'" he wrote.

Several of the various disputes around the nation have been brought to the U.S. Supreme Court on emergency motions because of the gravity of the contentions, but none yet has been given an actual hearing.

A state official, Hawaiian Health Director Chiyome Fukino, said, "I, and Dr. Alvin Onaka have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures." But officials have rejected requests for access, saying Obama would have to authorize any access, and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?

Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born. At one point a Kenyan ambassador said Obama's birth place in Kenya already was recognized and honored.

While an Obama spokesman one time called the allegations "garbage," the president and his team have withheld other comments. But here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:
New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.

Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.

Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.

Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.

Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.

Chicago lawyer Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.

Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.

In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.

Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.

In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.

In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.

California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters. She also has brought forward several other cases and has conducted several public campaigns to generate awareness of the issue.

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:
In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.

In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.

In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.

In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.

In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.