Skip to comments.Obama Indicted under a citizen Grand Jury!
Posted on 04/01/2009 2:20:46 PM PDT by Red Steel
While many groups have sought by civil actions to force Barack Obama to produce his birth certificate, someone new has emerged onto the scene to use another avenue to force that same production.
Georgia resident Carl Swensson, has used his influence by way of his website RiseUpForAmerica.org to advance a criminal complaint against President Barack Obama. Swensson is using the Magna Carta as his basis for the authority to form this citizens grand jury. The Magna Carta is the bill of rights formed on British Law.
Over the weekend the 25 sworn Jurors took testimony from many sources, and then filed them this morning with the States Attorneys Office in Northern Georgia. The jurors were picked, sworn in, and informed of all official procedures.
On Swenssons website the actions have serious consequences, "If the government does not amend the error within 40 days after being shown the error, then the four members shall refer the matter to the remainder of the grand jury. The grand jury may distrain and oppress the government in every way in their power, namely, by taking the homes, lands, possessions, and any way else they can until amends shall have been made according to the sole judgment of the grand jury.
One can only hope that this may be the legal device to force Obama to produce his Birth Certificate and not just a Certificate of Live Birth, to a forensic analysis expert to be checked for validity. All we want is closure on this issue, he is either a naturalized citizen or not, and the actual Birth Certificate is the ONLY proof of that the proof that Obama will not share with anyone.
All the civil cases that have been denied have been dismissed so far, maybe this is the only avenue left!
Would you like to have some fun?
Get that out ASAP to all of the news outlets in every place that jerk is going on his out of country “Muslim Bonding” and “Bailout-O-Rama Tour.”
The dem senators and the rest of those crooks didn’t have any trouble trying to embarrass a REAL president when Bush was on foreign land.
One more thing. I am not saying that I think any of the Common Law actions make a bit of sense to me, but it would still be a good laugh seeing his people trying not to talk about it.
Considering the Obama's Administration love for international law, why not?????
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides in part 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 . . . . Moreover, the grand jury system is also recognized in the constitutions of many of the states of the Union
It's a foreign document that, while philosophically attractive, has no legal weight in America.
Remember that these kinds of things cut both ways. Once we accept the idea that groups of citizens can organize and proceed to put other citizens on trial, we'll get total anarchy.
Hannity, Morris Agree with Conspiracy People About New World Order
Wait ‘til someone pulls this on you.
People need to stop with the tin-foil-hattery and focus on productive means to take back the government. We need to take back the House in 2010. Stunts like this do not help the cause.
I thought a court, based on a police report, witnesses etc., had the 'right' ?
Are we to understand any group of citizens can form a grand jury?
Have you read this? Very interesting!
Unfortunatly, being a total dumbass is not against any law. OBTW: His tossing of an olive branch to the Taliban was hilarious. I hope it was deburred and sanded nice and smooth because we wouldn’t want it to hurt his anus when it gets removed in an emergency room....
The People can form a grand jury for crimes and provide a "presentment" in accordance with the 5th Amendment to a district attorney.
I believe Scalia has spoken and written about the subject.
Don’t we have that anyway, with the Constitution null and void (or effectively so), only brought out for special occasions? It’s Americas wedding china.. Or we are Easter-Christmas Americans? haha and not so haha. :(
Most likely the jurist Swensson is a stupid FBI agent. Nice try, Sven, you old crooked swede. Now go take a sauna and don’t forget the birch switches.
Search on the internet for:
Federal Grand Jury:
Except a special grand jury impaneled under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3331-3334, is not authorized to investigate situations involving the conduct of individuals, public officials, agencies or institutions that the grand jury believes is subject to mere criticism rather than a violation of federal criminal statutes. Its concern must be devoted solely to ascertaining whether there is probable cause to believe that a federal crime has been committed and to report accordingly to the court.
However, the fact of the matter is that the Courts really do no want to be caught up in "separation of powers" issues. SO, it seems The People must undertake what the Court have NOT the stomach to do.
Compare "Federal Grand Jury" against:
Common Law Grand Jury
Citizens Grand Jury
Civilian Grand Jury
Thomas Jefferson Grand Jury
and other variants
The concept is born from the Magna Carta, establishing a contract between the government and The People. There are "provisions" when The People feel the government has "breached" the contract -- read the translated version of the Magna Carta and you'll see how drastic those provisions can be! Donofrio started the battle cry for the Grand Jury back in January and it might have some merit if done properly.
Over the years, the hallmarks of our Grand Jury developed in England. For example, Grand Jury proceedings became secret, and the Grand Jury became independent of the Crown. As a result, a Grand Jury is able to vote an indictment or refuse to do so, as it deems proper, without regard to the recommendations of judge, prosecutor, or any other person.
When the English colonists came to America, they brought with them many of the institutions of the English legal system, including the Grand Jury. Thus, the English tradition of the Grand Jury was well established in the American colonies long before the American Revolution. Indeed, the Colonists used it as a platform from which to assert their independence from the pressures of colonial governors — just as modern day citizen are compelled to do against a seemingly-corrupt US Legislature and Judicial Branch in dealing with infractions of the current Executive Branch.
The Grand Jury as an institution was so firmly established in the traditions of our forebears that they included it in the Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides in part 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...” Moreover, the Grand Jury system is also recognized in the constitutions of many of the states of the Union.
Thaaaank you !
THE GRAND JURY, and we the people when sitting as grand jurors, are, as Scalia quoted in US v. Williams, a constitutional fixture in its own right. Yes, damn it. That is exactly what the grand jury is, and what it was always intended to be.
Scalia also stated, that the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside Id.
And finally, to seal the deal, 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 arms length. Judges direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504 U.S. 36, 48]
This miraculous quote says it all, 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. The Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, gives rise to a FOURTH BRANCH of Government, THE GRAND JURY. We the people have been charged with oversight of the government in our roles as grand jurors.
This from the Magna Carta:
Namely, that the barons choose any twenty-five barons of the kingdom they wish, who must with all their might observe and hold, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present Charter. Then, if we, our chief justiciar, our bailiffs or any of our officials, offend in any respect against any man, or break any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is notified to four of the said twenty-five barons, the four shall come to usor to our chief justicicar if we are absent from the kingdomto declare the transgression and petition that we make amends without delay.
And if we, or in our absence abroad the chief justice, have not corrected the transgression within forty days, reckoned from the day on which the offence was declared to us (or to the chief justice if we are out of the realm), the four barons mentioned before shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons. Together with the community of the whole land, they shall then distrain and distress us in every way possible, namely by seizing castles, lands, possessions and in any other they can (saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children), until redress has been obtain in their opinion. And when amends have been made, they shall obey us as before.
Read the whole case, not just a small except. Learn to separate dicta from the holding.
Are you a Baron? Are any members of the "Citizen's Jury" Barons?
Once you answer that, please explain how the Magna Carta is legally binding in the United States?
By all means, run with this if you like, wait and see what happens if people start trying to enforce these "indictments" by "seizing property and lands."
That will work out real well.
Not an april fools joke?!!
Once you answer that, please explain how the Magna Carta is legally binding in the United States?
Nobility and castle-storming have nothing to do with what the Georgia Grand Jury (or any other state GJ) is doing.
I posted that excerpt of the Magna Carta to point out that there was a defined consequence to the crown or judicial system if they were non-responsive to legitimate infractions and transgressions of The People.
But many of the inherent powers installed under the MC were used by the Colonists and seeped into our Constitution (Federal and states), even though all three branches of the US government have attempted to weaken this right for redress over the last 100-plus years.
In reaction to the "pre-revolutionary experience," the people of the United States asserted SOVEREIGNTY through the federal and state constitutions, under which the executive, legislative, and judiciary were separate branches subject to the written FUNDAMENTAL LAW. The constitutions, however, were adopted against a common law backdrop. The states had expressly received the common law, assuming that their courts would develop it through application of the common law process -- the process for the "Grand Jury" is in the Georgia Constitution and in other state statutes (except for Louisiana which is based upon Napoleonic Law) to help with the "check and balances" of The People to reign in a corrupt government.
The federal Constitution contained no express reception provision, but it did authorize Congress to establish federal courts with JURISDICTION over cases arising under federal law and between citizens of diverse citizenship. Once the federal courts were established, important and difficult questions arose concerning their power to develop a FEDERAL COMMON LAW. There are MANY, MANY instances of how Federal Common Law can be applied in this manner, such as: interstate controversies; uniquely federal interests that significantly conflict with state law rules of decision; and certain federal rules of preclusion; and other in other areas.
The Constitution "guarantees" one's access to the Common Law. Remember: the Declaration of Independence took place in 1776 and the Constitution wasn't fully ratified in 1789. Furthermore, some scholars will say that TRUE Federal Law wasn't established by the Courts until 1803.
To get into court cases and case-based theory that explores this deeper, take a look at:
THEORY OF FEDERAL COMMON LAW by Tidmarsh & Murray, published in the Northwestern University Law Review
I add now, graduate school.
Thank you, BP2
How do you propose we do that with rampant vote fraud that goes unchallenged? How are we going to 'take back the House' when ACORN has just received BILLIONS of dollars to continue their thievery? I'm really getting tired of hearing that. Any chance of fair and free elections died in November. These 'stunts' as you call them ARE ALL WE HAVE LEFT!
I understand the difference between dicta and holding better than most. Take your complaint to Donofrio; those are his words about Scalia. Scalia’s opinion on the grand jury is clear.
The rest of the answers quote the nonanswer by Hawaii's Director of Health, or the intentional misquote by the Associated Press claiming that Health Director Fukino had verified that Obama was born in Hawaii.
What should be patently obvious is that Senators and Representatives are so incredibly lazy when it comes to reading that they can pass legislation, like PORKULUS, without ever reading it.
This has to change.
Thanks for the ping, null and void.
“The states had expressly received the common law, assuming that their courts would develop it through application of the common law process — the process for the “Grand Jury” is in the Georgia Constitution and in other state statutes (except for Louisiana which is based upon Napoleonic Law) to help with the “check and balances” of The People to reign in a corrupt government.”
BP2....Please correct me if I’m wrong. I’m reading this to mean that the states (except LA) can convene a grand jury and submit their findings to a district attorney. Then what happens? Does a judge have to hear the case?
I really like the phrase “to reign in a corrupt government.”
My understanding is that once the presentment/indictment is submitted to the state district attorney, a response will come within forty days. I am not sure of the next step.
Information can be found at the following links.
While I agree with your position there is one part I disagree with:
“These ‘stunts’ as you call them ARE ALL WE HAVE LEFT!”
We do have one more option, the extreme violent application of the use of the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.
A people unwilling to use extreme violent force to preserve and defend their liberty deserves the tyrants that rule them.
We need to stop being so nice.
Not really ... but we're desperately trying to keep away from confrontation.
Fact of the matter is that the "birthers" seem to be the only ones with the courage and conviction to stand up to a corrupt government, just like only a handful of true patriots originally dared to stand up to the tyranny's of King George in 1776.
The Civil Grand Jury, as it's sometimes called, is allowed for in a general sense in the Georgia constitution, and elsewhere in Georgia statutes. They can have a lot of power, hence, why government would like to limit their power.
Here's a few examples of Civil Grand Juries from recent Georgia headlines:
A civil grand jury released a report in May that found Clayton school board members werent good stewards of taxpayer money when they paid John D. Stephens about $2 million more than the school districts appraisal for 155 acres to build three schools on land he owned in Riverdale. The school board also paid Stephens $7.8 million to grade the property without accepting any other bids for the contract. (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Aug 3, 2007)SO, yes, they can have a lot of power. In fact, it's been said that "a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich if it wants to."
DECATUR -- A civil grand jury looking into a rash of police-officer involved shootings in 2006, including 12 fatal ones involving just DeKalb County police officers, has recommended criminal investigations in three of those cases. "We will act on that investigation," said Gwen Keyes Fleming, the DeKalb County District Attorney. (11Alive.com, Mar 28, 2008)
Of course, this is not possible at the federal level. At present, a ham sandwich can only be indicted in the states of Alabama, Alaska, and Hawaii.
Since the precedent-setting case of Oscar-Meyer v. Meese, federal prosecution of ham sandwiches has become so difficult that it is rarely attempted. Prior to that case, ham sandwiches had been indicted on two occasions by federal grand juries. In one case the prosecution was dropped due to spoilage, and in the other (Baldwin v. Sweden) the ham sandwich was ruled to be acting in the capacity of a foreign ambassador, and was thus protected by diplomatic immunity. ;>)
Thanks for the links. Very interesting reading.
Awright, now you dunnit. Showin' dem poke sannich gone n' hurt dem Muslim's feelin', Y'know.
Rumor has it he does not want "the Roberts court" to be the ones that blew out the first black President. I guess he doesn't realize that by not hearing the case, "the Roberts court" will be the ones that blew out America in favor of white guilt and political correctness.
I really like the phrase to reign in a corrupt government.
Many, if not most, states have the authority for the Grand Jury (if not the "citizen" Grand Jury) explicitly set aside in their state constitution. I understand that California uses Civil Grand Juries A LOT -- as they probably need to given how Judges regularly OVERTURN measures voted for by the electorate. Louisiana may allow for Civil Grand Juries as well, but since their statutes are NOT based upon Common Law, the same argument may not apply with ties to the Magna Carta, per se. I'd have to dig deeper to see if Louisiana has such laws OR if Napoleonic Law has some tie to the Magna Carta (perhaps through centuries of arranged royal marriages between France and England).
However, as Polarik pointed out, we just need ANY Grand Jury indictment -- from ANY state.
Let's say that indictment is based upon a subpoena that successfully "orders" to see a copy of BHO's vault Certificate of Live Birth. That indictment and supporting prima facia can then given to any prosecutor, judge, etc, at the state level (and even beyond) to then go "up the food chain" to the SCOTUS. Really -- the SCOTUS may not be necessary... if it's successfully fought out in the Court of Public Opinion.
So, IMO, you really only need ONE successful Grand Jury to make this happen... The more Grand Juries from different states strengthens and legitimizes the process further, emboldening other states to follow suite, thereby cementing their collective actions and powers.
Thomas Jefferson (among other founding fathers) would tell us today, if they could, how "to reign in a corrupt government." Jefferson clearly understood the awesome power of "jury nullification" and a citizen grand jury, to keep the people in control of government.
Here's some excerpts from an excellent 2004 essay on the subject:
In 1789, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Thomas Paine: I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by men, by which the government can be held to the principles of its constitution.
Jefferson saw trial by jury as the greatest power the people have, and the only way the people had to personally and directly prevent government employees from flagrantly ignoring constitutional restraints and opressing the people with excessive and ridiculous laws and regulations (like we live under today).
Trial by jury, with its inherent right and power of the jurors to veto or nullify bad laws, is the common mans peaceful eraser of legislated and regulated stupidity, theft and tyranny.
From the beginning of trial by jury, most judges have coveted the jurys awesome power to veto bad laws. For a time in the 19th century more and more judges succumbed to temptation and usurped the jurys power by concealment, deception and bluff. A debate on this concealment raged in the judiciary in the mid to late 19th century. Then in a bitter 1894 U.S. Supreme Court split decision, (Sparf and Hansen vs. U.S.), criminal trial judges were given a green light to no longer tell jurors of their inherent power to judge the law itself in any criminal trial. ...
And if Jefferson were here today, would he say that the only anchor is any of the myriad modern issues that people argue about today?
If Thomas Jefferson were here today, and saw a nation where people complain, petition and fight (and usually lose) incessant battles with a corrupt and unresponsive government, saw a nation where the government servants have often become our masters; saw a nation where the citizens most powerful and easily available tool to control government has been gradually concealed and almost hidden by judges; saw a nation where the people impotently complain and whine about government and feel resentful, frustrated and cynical, while the most powerful and available solution we have lies dormant and almost forgotten, perhaps Thomas Jefferson would raise his voice and shout to all of America:
THE JURY, STUPID!
...Jefferson knew that as voters, we are powerless to personally and directly change anything about our government. (He might say: Wake up, Pay Attention changing politicians does not change the government!) As voters, we can only try to elect good politicians and hope they will have the courage to do the right things.
But as jurors, we can personally, directly and immediately reduce the abuses and the power of government by refusing to enforce unnecessary and abusive laws and regulations. And eventually even the size and the expense of government will be reduced because of Jury Nullifications.
Government wields all usurped power, intimidates and controls people by one and only one means: by enforcing bad laws. ...
And, of course, we can already predict how the Obot sycophants will respond once the Grand Jury idea picks up speed.
Let's see, either the Ham Sandwich comparison:
Or, the Witch-hunt comparison:
Both are easily predictable and easily defeated...
Writing letters, working on campaigns for yet more corrupted officials etc. etc. etc. just isn't going to cut it. I know this first hand having 2 years ago sat in my Senator's office watching his aids handle incoming letters and phone calls. What did they do after politely assuring the e-mailers and phone callers the Senator shares their concerns? Deleted the e-mails, trashed the letters, and then joked with other staffers about the 'looser' on the other end of the phone after hanging up.
These people are so arrogant it didn't even bother them that they had constitutents sitting in their office as they did this -- didn't even bother to hide their dislike of the 'people' they were supposed to be representing! The truth is my Senator received NOTHING -- not one e-mail, not one letter, and not one phone call. In fact it is highly likely that these staffers were just doing what they were told to do. And my Senator is Richard Lugar btw.
All I do know is all your 'WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMEN' BS you see on Free Republic over and over amounts to nothing. It doesn't matter. I've witnessed it firsthand. The only thing that matters to these cretens is $$$$$ and how much is going to fund their next campaign. And even then they'll lie to you in order to get that $$$$ and once elected turn on you. Those are the sad facts people. We are living in a corrupted government and it needs to be changed!
I don't even think tea parties are going to do squat to get their attention, although its a good beginning to start gathering together and begin to organize so I do support them. A revolution isn't going anywhere until we get organized.
Hopefully it (the grand jury) will succeed so we don't end up resorting to the violent 'revolutionary' route but I'm not holding my breath on that one.
Okay off my soapbox now, thanks for listening to all my pentup frustrations.
Swensson (I’m sure its him-was announced as the one who was leading this GA action) is going to be on unspun’s
“The Awakening” show
this coming Monday night- 2 hr show begins at 8 est.
You really ought to be catching this show regularly-
he’s had on “A-list” types several weeks in a row now and here he has one again- very timely appearances as these things go.
type “Investigating Obama” in google and the IO blogspot comes up w/ links.