Obama Committing Fraud and Treason: Multiple Grand Juries (Part I)

Most of America knows (beyond any reasonable doubt) that Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Hussein Obama) is not Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President of the United States (POTUS) and Commander in Chief (CinC) (per Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the U.S.).

Most of America also knows (beyond any reasonable doubt) that the members of Congress (all 535 of them), the Federal Courts, the Supreme Court, and ALL the Media (including FNC) are either ‘in the tank for’ or ‘paid off or intimidated by’ the illegitimate, criminal and Treasonous presumed President and Commander in Chief, Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Hussein Obama) and his coterie of thugs.

The 5th Amendment of our U.S. Constitution provides that: … ‘No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.’ It doesn’t say ‘Federal’ Grand Jury, a ‘Grand Jury called and impaneled by a Judge, Special Prosecutor, or District Attorney’, nor does it say a ‘Government impaneled’ Grand Jury.

The concept of a Citizen’s Grand Jury dates all the way back to the Magna Carta in 1215, and was included by the founders in our Constitution and Bill of Rights as a means for the people to reign-in an elected government run amok. It goes without saying that when a government is committing criminal and un-Constitutional acts, it can hardly be relied upon to bring charges and indictments against itself. Justice Antonin Scalia, in a 1992 ruling stated:

"Rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, … 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.."

"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."

Thus is the situation that we Americans find ourselves in now – the proverbial ‘fox’ is in charge of the ‘henhouse’, and it is devouring the rooster, the hens, the chickens, and their eggs – on a daily basis!

The Citizen’s Grand Jury was a common feature of early American jurisprudence, but fell into disuse about 100 years ago, as the Government passed more and more un-Constitutional laws and acts. In the mid 1940’s, some devious lawyers and judges felt they should try to bury the concept and any possibility of a Citizen’s (or People’s) watchdog group looking over their nefarious shoulders any longer, so they wrote into their system of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures the following:

(Common Law Grand Jury) ‘… presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal Courts.’

The trouble is, you cannot change the U.S. Constitution by merely writing a rule! It must be by Amendment, a time-consuming, laborious and people-enlightening process, requiring ratification of the change, spelled out in detail, and the reasons therefore, by ¾ of the States (38 of the current 50 states at this time). Obsolete indeed!

NOTE: Typically, courts and the judiciary issue ‘Indictments’, while Citizen’s Grand Juries issue ‘Presentments’, which, when formally presented to those sworn to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution, they must, by law, then issue an Indictment, and failure to do so makes them guilty of misprision of treason (the concealment of a treason or felony and failure to report it to the prosecuting authorities, by a person who has not committed it). As a result of this act of ‘misprision’, they could then be indicted themselves by future Citizen’s Grand Juries convened for just this purpose, much like the entire 535 members of Congress could be indicted for certifying the electoral votes for a known Constitutionally ineligible candidate for the presidency.

Early in 2009, a brilliant Constitutional lawyer, Leo Donofrio, wrote a detailed dissertation on the renewed use and viability of the Citizens’ Grand Jury, especially in light of the dumbing-down of the American populace, and their adulation of a mesmerizing, opaque, and criminal Imposter usurping the Presidency (and Commander in Chief-ship) of the United States. By pulling off the greatest hoax in the 230+ years since the founding of our Country, Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Obama) puts Ponzi and Madoff to shame.

Oddly enough, before the on-again, off-again Leo Donofrio could convince his readers that the Citizen’s Grand Jury wouldn’t apply in the case of ousting this particular usurper/imposter, a number of motivated patriotic Americans had already seized upon the concept, and the 21st Century Citizen’s Grand Jury was born!

On March 28th, 2009, Mr. Carl Swensson convened a panel of 25 sworn jurors in Stockbridge, GA, saying, ‘I’m no lawyer, and I’m not exactly sure what I’m doing, but I’m doing it anyway!’ Following an hour+ long presentation of documented evidence of fraud, forgery, corruption, money laundering, stolen SS numbers, perjury, and Treason by both Barack and Michelle Obama (and their many aliases) given by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. (by phone, as she was in CA), the GA Citizen’s Grand Jury deliberated for an hour, and then came down with indictments/presentments (or a ‘True Bill’) against the presumed President of the United States, Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Hussein Obama.

Dr. Taitz’ entire presentation of evidence was videotaped (by myself), and can be seen in its entirety here for use by anyone convening a Citizen’s Grand Jury anywhere in the U.S. The entire 150 page ‘dossier’ on the criminal and un-constitutional acts of these two hoax-sters has been sent to all 50 States’ Attorneys General. One of these dossiers is available for all who wish to be informed here. No one can say, “but I didn’t know!”

I thought that I'd give you a taste of what I've been writing today:

We live in the Digital Age of communication and the virtual world of the Internet that has not only changed the way we send and receive information, but also how we interpret that information. Our interpretation of information on the Internet is heavily influenced by the trust we place in the sender of that information. We have seen instances where the exact, same information that has been sent by two different sources has produced entirely different responses that range from full agreement to total disbelief.

The Internet is primarily a visual medium and its visual imagery tends to evoke more polarizing responses than auditory ones.

The Internet permits hundreds of millions of people to view the same images, and to interpret them in the same way as they were intended to be. The deciding factor, however, in how images are perceived is contingent on the context in which they appear. The people who design the visuals we see, whether it’s on the Internet, on TV, or in print, pay particular attention to structuring the context in ways that convey their own interpretation. The extent to which the public will accept or reject another person’s interpretation depends on the amount of trust that viewer places on its source.

For a great many people, any media that bears the name of Barack Obama, that also bears testimony to his legitimacy as President, will be treated as the unadulterated truth, no questions asked. Barack Obama has a special personal image that he and the media go to great lengths to preserve. Obama engenders the kind of following that a rock star would envy, and being ranked as the top celebrity in America only confirms this status. Part and parcel to that popularity, in the minds of his followers, is the belief that Obama’s biographical narrative is totally true. That is why, whenever that biography is challenged, his followers take it as a personal affront to them.

Nowhere is this phenomenon more apparent than in the digital image purported to be a copy of Barack Obama’s original birth certificate. His followers are incensed that their leader’s legitimacy is being questioned. Conversely, they see no disconnect nor hypocrisy in delegitimizing John McCain in regards to his stated birthplace, his activities as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, his patriotism, his voting record, and most egregious of all, discriminating against him on the basis of his age. Yet, this is a typical characteristic of Obama’s followers in that they can maintain a double standard while simultaneously denying that one exists.

Yet, the cold, hard facts remain that Barack Hussein Obama has hidden from public scrutiny any concrete proof that would validate both his life’s narrative and more importantly, his Constitutional eligibility to serve as President of the United States.

Instead of spending $12 to obtain a certified paper copy of his birth record and presenting it to any government official, be it state or federal, Barack Obama has posted on his website, a fabricated image an abridged version of a birth certificate known as a “Certification of Live Birth” (COLB).

Instead of spending $12 to obtain a certified paper copy of his birth record and presenting it to any government official, be it state or federal, Barack Obama has illegally used $1 million in campaign contributions in legal fees to prevent his real, original birth certificate from ever being seen.

The fabricated image posted on Obama’s own website now become one of the most recognizable and infamous images in political history, and the historical storyline that goes along with this iconic symbol of secrecy is equally as compelling. It’s as if a President declared war, but never expected to fight one.

Yet, for the past year, the battles continue in a war of words and legal wrangling between Obama, his legal team, and his plausibly deniable shills at Factcheck, and We the People, the citizens of the United States, who literally live and die by the Constitution, who wanted nothing more than for both candidates who ran for President to be equally forthcoming when their Constitutional status was in doubt.

I doubt if anyone reading this document would allow an unknown person into his or her home after refusing to provide a legal form of identification. In essence, we allowed an unknown person to occupy the office of President who has also refused to identify himself.

Just as might be the case when you let an unknown stranger into your home and then find all of your possessions stolen, so, too, have Americans let an unknown stranger into their governmental home, and are only now learning how much of our money and freedoms have been stolen.

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.