Obama Indicted under a citizen Grand Jury!

Examiner.com ^ | April 1, 10:03 AM | Al Ritter

[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 Attorney’s Office in Northern Georgia. The jurors were picked, sworn in, and informed of all official procedures.

On Swensson’s 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!

[BP2]

Interesting thread .... but ... who can convene a grand jury?

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.

What does a Free Person do when he feels his government is not enforcing the "Rule of Law"? He could work outside of the system to "fix" it (e.g., Revolution, Secession or other method), OR work WITHIN the system to the best extent possible.

The (Citizens) Grand Jury is such a method...

[knarf]

Thaaaank you !

[1035rep]

bttt

[MHGinTN]

Bamaration

[Red Steel]

Justice Scalia's viewpoint on the subject:

-----------

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 arm’s 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.

http://www.cusc.org/editorial/3563.htm

[BP2]

Power to The People.

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 us—or to our chief justicicar if we are absent from the kingdom—to 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.

[freedomwarrior998]

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”.

Read the whole case, not just a small except. Learn to separate dicta from the holding.

[freedomwarrior998]

Power to The People. 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 us—or to our chief justicicar if we are absent from the kingdom—to 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.

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.

[Freedom2specul8]

Not an april fools joke?!!

[BP2]

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?

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.

So the documents that ties the Magna Carta (and the Grand Jury process) to our modern-day process can be simplified thusly:

Magna Carta, thence the Confirmatio Cartarum, thence the US Constitution

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

[knarf]

Many years ago, I decided FreeRepublic was a college education.

I add now, graduate school.

Thank you, BP2

[null and void]

See #30.

[conservativegramma]

We need to take back the House in 2010. Stunts like this do not help the cause.

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!

[Red Steel]

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.

[Polarik]

Bottom line, BP2. What we need is a grand jury indictment of ZERO on several counts of felony document fraud.

I find it particularly revolting that we have members of Congress citing that bogus COLB image as proof, and referring to Snopes and Factcheck for verification. The only way this nonsense is going to change is by having everyone here contacting their own State Senators and Representatives as well as the same Congressmen who mentioned these false sources in response to WND's question about ZERO's eligibility.

I am going to direct my attention to the research I did on the original "scan image" (since that is what they cited as evidence) and create a one page synopsis highlighting all of its anomalies and making the case for it being a phantom document . If all they do is parrot what they read off the AP's news ticker, then all the more reason to create something short, direct, and to the point.

In case you did not get a chance to read the WND article, here is a sampling of what our legislators had to say about O's eligibility:

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.: "Thank you for your recent e-mail. Senator Obama meets the constitutional requirements for presidential office. Rumors pertaining to his citizenship status have been circulating on the Internet, and this information has been debunked by Snopes.com, which investigates the truth behind Internet rumors."

Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio: "President Obama has provided several news organizations with a copy of his birth certificate, showing he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961.

U.S. Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla.: "The claim that Barack Obama is not a citizen of the U.S. is false. This rumor is simply election year politics." She referred questioners to Snopes for documentation.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.: "President Obama demonstrated his citizenship during his campaign by circulating copies of his birth certificate, which showed he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961."

Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa.: "Mr. Obama has posted a copy of his birth certificate on his campaign website and submitted an additional copy to the independent website FactCheck.org. The birth certificate demonstrates that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii in 1961, thereby making him a natural-born citizen eligible to be president."

U.S. Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif.: "While I may disagree with President Obama on a multitude of issues, he has been elected as President of the United States through a fair process and has shown sufficient documentation, via a state birth certificate, that has been verified as being authentic. In short, therefore, I do not believe sufficient evidence was brought to light to conclude that President Obama was ineligible for the office."

U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes, D-N.H.: "President Obama publicly posted his birth certificate on his campaign website which confirms that he was born in Hawaii in 1961. This birth certificate confirms that President Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States...If you would like to view President Obama's birth certificate, I encourage you to go to the website http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate."

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.: "On June 13, 2008, the Obama campaign released a copy of his birth certificate after numerous claims were made about his eligibility to hold the office of President. The released copy created additional questions, because it contained a blacked out department file number and was apparently missing a seal, and it was impossible to detect raised text, a common characteristic of official documents. There were satisfactory answers to such questions, however: the department file number had been blacked out to prevent hackers from breaking into the Health Department's system, and the State places the seal on the back of the certificate. The website Factcheck.org investigated the matter and...it has been concluded that President Obama has met the constitutional qualifications to be President of the United States."

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.

[azishot]

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.”

[seekthetruth]

“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?

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.

http://riseupforamerica.com/
http://www.cusc.org/editorial/3563.htm

[stockpirate]

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.

[knarf]

"These 'stunts' as you call them ARE ALL WE HAVE LEFT!"

Not really ... but we're desperately trying to keep away from confrontation.

[BP2]

No prob -- I help where I can... especially when I read an freakin' obtuse headline like: "Birthers form 'citizen grand jury,' 'indict' Obama." It makes my blood boil!

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 weren’t “good stewards” of taxpayer money when they paid John D. Stephens about $2 million more than the school district’s 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)

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)

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."

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. ;>)

Generally, the only people who bad-mouth Grand Juries are the politicians and public officials who can be reigned in by the them! And of course, an "out of control" ham sandwich...