Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NATIONAL "GRAND JURY" INDICTS OBAMA FOR FRAUD AND TREASON
AmericanGrandJury.org ^ | 4/29/09 | Sam Sewell

Posted on 04/30/2009 7:53:28 AM PDT by classical artist

(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).

(Excerpt) Read more at americangrandjury.org ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: akaobama; bho; bho44; birthcertificate; birthers; bo; certifigate; citizen; colb; constitution; democrats; donofrio; eligibility; fraud; grandjury; illegitimate; indicted; ineligible; leodonofrio; liecheatandsteal; lies; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; obama; obamanoncitizenissue; obamatruthfile; teasonandfraud; treason; usurper

1 posted on 04/30/2009 7:53:29 AM PDT by classical artist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: classical artist

2 posted on 04/30/2009 7:55:48 AM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: classical artist

3 posted on 04/30/2009 7:56:35 AM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: classical artist

Which court/judge seated this Grand Jury? That may help understanding the legal channels they will go up until they reach a court with the proper authority on this (ie, if it was a federally seated grand jury, it may have only a couple of steps for a court hearing, if it where a local court, it would be more steps before an official hearing.)


4 posted on 04/30/2009 8:00:31 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: classical artist

So what does this mean for Zero? What are the next steps?


5 posted on 04/30/2009 8:01:43 AM PDT by IrishPennant (Obama: Succeeding Where Bin Laden Failed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

Is that the “Don’t Taze Me, Bro” guy?


6 posted on 04/30/2009 8:05:53 AM PDT by Thrownatbirth (.....Iraq Invasion fan since '91.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: classical artist

Oh, good GRIEF.


7 posted on 04/30/2009 8:06:22 AM PDT by Constitution Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: classical artist

Wow, that was fast: Mojave and stormer dropped in and gave what I’m starting to believe is their usual worship of the status quo.


8 posted on 04/30/2009 8:06:52 AM PDT by veracious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: classical artist

Sounds good to me! Let’s roll! What’s next now after the Grand Jury?


9 posted on 04/30/2009 8:09:24 AM PDT by battletank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: veracious

No ping, naturally.

Sam Sewell, the “National Spokesperson” for this group of self-appointed “jurors”, is also a “Pastoral Psychotherapist.”


10 posted on 04/30/2009 8:11:07 AM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: battletank
What’s next now after the Grand Jury?

Regularly, in if a Grand Jury true bills an indictment, that bill will be handed over to the District Attorney or judge to establish a court hearing date and/or issue any warrants necessary to get the accused in court. I'm wondering about my question above, what court, district, or judge actually seated this grand jury, it will make a difference in the process and we can also see how favorable they may be to Zero.

11 posted on 04/30/2009 8:11:43 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: veracious
Wow, that was fast: Mojave and stormer dropped in and gave what I’m starting to believe is their usual worship of the status quo.

I guess the fact that there is no legal standing for the findings of such a 'grand jury' isn't a deterrent to you and others.

12 posted on 04/30/2009 8:14:58 AM PDT by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: classical artist
Interesting website.

If only ...

13 posted on 04/30/2009 8:28:28 AM PDT by Fast Moving Angel (There are no points for second place.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
I'm wondering about my question above, what court, district, or judge actually seated this grand jury, it will make a difference in the process and we can also see how favorable they may be to Zero.

The answer to your question is none, nada, zilch. In fact, this whole thing was done online. This makes American Grand Jury as valid as American Idol.
14 posted on 04/30/2009 8:30:28 AM PDT by drjimmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: drjimmy

A Grand Jury can only be seated by a court, that term is describing a legally appointed and recognized officer of the court. If they are using that term, they must have been seated by a court or they are improperly using the term.


15 posted on 04/30/2009 8:31:49 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

It’s the old “common law jury” scam.


16 posted on 04/30/2009 8:36:19 AM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
It’s the old “common law jury”....

Like all those blogs that 'indicted' President Bush for war crimes?

http://yourcommonlawcourt.blogspot.com/

17 posted on 04/30/2009 8:40:40 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mnehring; IrishPennant

Phil from the RightSide of Life keeps an update on the eligibility issue & he comments on this case http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=5863#more-5863
mnehring -you know more than I do. Thank you for your input.


18 posted on 04/30/2009 9:50:58 AM PDT by classical artist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: classical artist

Right now I wouldn’t dare say I know more, just a lot of questions..


19 posted on 04/30/2009 9:53:48 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
BUT, President Bush's “indictments” for war crimes was FRONT PAGE NEWS....in papers, mags, network and cable news, radio, and Hollywood.

Every conspiracy claim was given credibility, Michael Moore's moonbat movie was promoted by Peter Jennings, etc, and attended by the MSM/DNC war room.

20 posted on 04/30/2009 9:56:51 AM PDT by roses of sharon (Pray Hussein fails!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
It’s the old “common law jury” scam.

Would that be sort of like a citizens arrest? I know it's not at that point but is there a legal argument to be made that a citizens arrest could be made against Bo? Not that the DC cops or any other would carry it out obviously.

Right now he thinks he is above the law. He can ignore all the calls for a legal birth certificate proving he's an American born citizen.

21 posted on 04/30/2009 9:57:14 AM PDT by uncitizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon

They still are...


22 posted on 04/30/2009 9:58:01 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

Sounds like me and a buncha ma homies sittin’ round drinking Mickies Big Mouths and solving the world’s problems.


23 posted on 04/30/2009 11:13:36 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (Defending RINOs is the same as defending Liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: classical artist

obumpa


24 posted on 04/30/2009 12:55:22 PM PDT by Dajjal (Obama is an Ericksonian NLP hypnotist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: uncitizen
Would that be sort of like a citizens arrest?

More like impersonating an officer.

25 posted on 04/30/2009 2:54:24 PM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: classical artist

Yikes... what sort of nonsense will they come up with next?


26 posted on 04/30/2009 2:58:01 PM PDT by Ramius (Personally, I give us... one chance in three. More tea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

that’s one of his crimes. question is what can we do to stop him?


27 posted on 04/30/2009 3:16:49 PM PDT by uncitizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: uncitizen; All

“Would that be sort of like a citizens arrest? I know it’s not at that point but is there a legal argument to be made that a citizens arrest could be made against Bo? Not that the DC cops or any other would carry it out obviously.”

Not all states recognize “citizen arrest.” I don’t think “citizen’s arrest” has ever existed at the federal level. Even where recognized, it is a risky thing to do. If the actually law enforcement personnel don’t back you up, you can be charged with, I believe, “false detainment?” or “kdnapping?”. So, a person making a “citizen’s arrest” could themselves be arrested by law enforcement. Need a lawyer here......


28 posted on 04/30/2009 3:22:40 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas

thanks for replying. i know the idea isn’t the greatest, but was meant more to get us all to think outside the box. Cuz the box just isn’t working for us.


29 posted on 04/30/2009 3:25:32 PM PDT by uncitizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
I'm wondering about my question above, what court, district, or judge actually seated this grand jury, it will make a difference in the process and we can also see how favorable they may be to Zero.

None-- it's a bunch of guys sitting around in their basement who decided to call themselves a "grand jury." If they're lucky, everyone will ignore them; if they're unlucky, a real grand jury will indict them for "simulating legal process."

30 posted on 04/30/2009 3:28:20 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


31 posted on 04/30/2009 3:42:17 PM PDT by yield 2 the right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
An example of what to do with a DA who refuse to do his duty.

§ 7A‑66. Removal of district attorneys.

The following are grounds for suspension of a district attorney or for his removal from office:

(1) Mental or physical incapacity interfering with the performance of his duties which is, or is likely to become, permanent;

(2) Willful misconduct in office;

(3) Willful and persistent failure to perform his duties;

(4) Habitual intemperance;

(5) Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;

(6) Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the office into disrepute; or

(7) Knowingly authorizing or permitting an assistant district attorney to commit any act constituting grounds for removal, as defined in subdivisions (1) through (6) hereof.

A proceeding to suspend or remove a district attorney is commenced by filing with the clerk of superior court of the county where the district attorney resides a sworn affidavit charging the district attorney with one or more grounds for removal. The clerk shall immediately bring the matter to the attention of the senior regular resident superior court judge for the district or set of districts as defined in G.S. 7A‑41.1(a) in which the county is located who shall within 30 days either review and act on the charges or refer them for review and action within 30 days to another superior court judge residing in or regularly holding the courts of that district or set of districts.

If the superior court judge upon review finds that the charges if true constitute grounds for suspension, and finds probable cause for believing that the charges are true, he may enter an order suspending the district attorney from performing the duties of his office until a final determination of the charges on the merits.

During the suspension the salary of the district attorney continues. If the superior court judge finds that the charges if true do not constitute grounds for suspension or finds that no probable cause exists for believing that the charges are true, he shall dismiss the proceeding. etcetera

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_7a/gs_7a-66.html

32 posted on 05/05/2009 5:55:40 PM PDT by plenipotentiary (Free the Oil, Topple the Saudis. Confiscate Putins money. Disconnect Siberia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
"A Grand Jury can only be seated by a court"

Interesting. Can you provide the law/statute/amendment that states this?

33 posted on 05/11/2009 5:20:16 PM PDT by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon
"BUT, President Bush's “indictments” for war crimes was FRONT PAGE NEWS....in papers, mags, network and cable news, radio, and Hollywood."

True. History has shown us though, that no 'officer of the court' took their indictments (presentments). So, their indictments went nowhere.

34 posted on 05/11/2009 5:22:56 PM PDT by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
"if they're unlucky, a real grand jury will indict them for "simulating legal process."

Perhaps that's (one of) their intent.

35 posted on 05/11/2009 5:25:10 PM PDT by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Regarding a Federal Grand Jury, it is Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Article III, Rule 6. Also, 28 U.S.C. § 1867 offers a provision to even nullify a bill (dismiss an indictment) by a Grand Jury if said Grand Jury was not properly seated in accordance to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or didn’t meet other qualifications.

It is the basic definition of a Grand Jury, they are a function of a court, not just a generic group of people getting together to file a petition.


36 posted on 05/11/2009 5:46:03 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
That's the federal rule (which of course, a rule doesn't take precedence over the 5th Amendment) from 1946.

Can you cite, prior to 1946, by what authority Grand Jury's were convened?

Thanks.

37 posted on 05/13/2009 9:44:58 PM PDT by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
"if they're unlucky, a real grand jury will indict them for "simulating legal process."

"Perhaps that's (one of) their intent."

Actually, Commander Fitzpatrick is saying just that...

"Navy Commander Charges Obama with Treason! ~~~ “Come Arrest me if I am wrong! I challenge you Obama!” says Walter Fitzpatrick. ~~~ “They either have to come and get me or get Mr. Obama’s eligibility proved. I am an officer in his military saying he is guilty of trespassing on the Constitution,” " MP3 download of a show he's recently been a part of: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/PatriotsHeartNetwork/2009/05/11/The-Chalice-Show.mp3?localembed=download

So there is Commander Fitzpatrick, allegedly 4 additional military personal joining in his criminal (treason) complaint: http://www.riseupforamerica.com/ and there are nearly 100 citizens in the various Grand Jury's that have levied a charge of treason on Barry.

The original charge was 2 months ago.

Question: Why are none of them sitting in a federal prision and/or military brig for such charges against a sitting POTUS? Is that not a most serious accusation? Fitzpatrick was allegedly visited by the secret service. But that's it. A meet and great. Nothing further. Why?

Could it be because Barry's team knows that if they were to charge any of them with something, that they would of course then get their day in court and discovery would be a part of it?

Perhaps Barry's strategy all along has been to simply stall and ignore...knowing full well the main media outlets wouldn't report on this. Why no media coverage of a military officer charging the POTUS with treason (a first in our country's history)? That's not major news?

38 posted on 05/13/2009 9:59:05 PM PDT by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Furthermore, with the exception of the “National” Grand Jury, these have all been State level Grand Jury’s which the 1946 Federal rules would not apply to so far as I know.


39 posted on 05/13/2009 10:03:52 PM PDT by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson