JUDGE LAMBERTH GRANTS PREMISSION TO PROSECUTE SOETORO-OBAMA ON CRIMINAL CHARGES! JUST NOT...

jaghunters ^ | 9/22/2009 | jaghunters

[rxsid]

"JUDGE ROYCE LAMBERTH GRANTS PREMISSION TO PROSECUTE SOETORO-OBAMA ON CRIMINAL CHARGES OF FRAUD AND TREASON! JUST NOT IN LAMBERTH'S COURT

JAG HUNTER HERE:

Judge Royce C. Lamberth grants permission for any recognized Grand Jury holding standing before any judge to formally accuse (present) SOETORO-OBAMA on criminal charges of TREASON and FRAUD!

Judge Lamberth has also vetted the Super Grand Jury presentment for TREASON and FRAUD, found the formal accusations meritorious, and will allow them filed formaly in his criminal court.

Judge Lamberth's singular objection is that the Super Grand Jury approached the federal criminal court in the District of Columbia. Not recognized in Judge Lamberth's District Court, the Judge stated the Super Grand Jury lacked standing in the District of Columbia.

Proofs and evidences Judge Lamberth allowed filed in the Federal Court for the District of Columbia are available for use by any criminal court in the United States.

Judge Lamberth is correct that government prosecutors do enjoy discretion in the prosecution of many criminal cases.

However, the command of a Grand Jury to a prosecutor by way of presentment strips that prosecutor of the authority to refuse to bring the Grand Jury's decided, formal criminal accusation before the Petite Jury in a criminal court.

Judge Lamberth issued his ruling on Thursday, 10 September 2009, just two days before the 2.5+ million people protest in Lamberth's front yard. Mack Ellis was in D.C on 10 September and told the Judge was still working on his response. It's not elsewhere publicly posted. Lamberth's decision is not posted on the D.C. Circuit Court publicly accessible website as-for example- Lamberth's 2 July ruling"

http://jaghunters.blogspot.com/

[rxsid]

Ping!

[GOP Poet]

bookmark

[Lurking Libertarian]

That’s not what the judge’s order says (it’s at the link).

[rxsid]

[Lucky9teen]

[STARWISE]

Translation ?? Positive ?

[Dianna]

Would this be the Grand Jury that isn’t an official grand jury?

[San Jacinto]

Cockamamie jibberish.

[dinodino]

Er, I read the linked document and it says nothing like what the article says.

[rxsid]

Yeah, I’m not sure I agree with his interpretation.

[roaddog727]

OK.

What does this all mean in idiot’s terms

[rxsid]

"Would this be the Grand Jury that isn’t an official grand jury?"

Official by whom? The 5th Amendment? Or, the 1940's judicial rule?

[Parley Baer]

OK, I need a summation of what this is all about.

[Man50D]

Would this be the Grand Jury that isn’t an official grand jury?

A Ggrand Jury does not have to be convened through the judicial system to be official. That is a big myth perpetrated by the judicial system since the mid 1940's.

[American Constitutionalist]

I think it means, it will proceed if another court will take it.

[La Lydia]

It doesn't say that. It says it will "reconsider its July 2 order denying the Super American Grand Jury leave to file "presentments"...motion for reconsideration is granted...should the fee be tendered the "presentments" will be dismissed as the petitioners lack standing to enforce the criminal laws of the United States.

I am so sorry, but there is no way to interpret that to say that it grants any "recognized Grand Jury holding standing before any judge to formally accuse..."

[rxsid]

Good evening roaddog727!

Well, to be sure...I'm not. From what I can tell at this point (a non attorney's point of view), it looks like:

1)The judge GRANTED their leave to file their presentments (i.e. accusations) and therefor "recognizing" them and their right to file the presentments.
and
2)The judge followed up by essentially saying his court is not the proper jurisdiction.

[Lurking Libertarian]

OK. What does this all mean in idiot’s terms

A group of people got together, without any official standing, and called themselves a "grand jury," and voted to charge Obama with all sorts of crimes. They then took their phony "presentment" to a real court, which told them they couldn't file it because they aren't a real grand jury. They then moved for reconsideration and the judge said, "OK, you can file it if you pay the filing fee, but I will then dismiss it as soon as you file it, because you're still not a real grand jury."

In the Bizzaro-world of the Birthers, this passes for a "victory."

[Art in Idaho]

Whoa!

[La Lydia]

There is part of the rub. They will have to start all over again.

[rxsid]

"A Ggrand Jury does not have to be convened through the judicial system to be official. That is a big myth perpetrated by the judicial system since the mid 1940's."

Precisely. Putting the fox (Gov't-prosecutors and judges), in charge of the hen house ("the people") is not the intent of Grand Jury's (i.e. the 5th Amendment).

OK, I know, that's probably NOT the best analogy. Best I could come up with at the moment.

[Dianna]

A Ggrand Jury does not have to be convened through the judicial system to be official.

Well, good luck with that!

[San Jacinto]

What does this all mean in idiot’s terms

Some idiots filed a crackpot lawsuit to have some self-appointed "Super Grand Jury" issue an indictment against Zero and prosecute it in federal court. This crackpot case is now thrown out of court, and an indecipheral statement is issued to confuse and mislead the reader. That's about it.

[La Lydia]

No, it said it will reconsider their previously denied leave to file “presentments. It doesn’t recognize anything, it just says, we’ll reconsider whether they have standing to do this, although we have previously ruled they don’t, in effect, “the longer we can drag this out, the better.”

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

Bump Dat...

[San Jacinto]

No, it doesn’t say it will reconsider anything either. It says the court does reconsider it’s prior order and will now let the “Super Grand Jury” file its “presentment”. Then the Court says it will promptly dismiss the “presentment” again because you can’t just call yourself a “grandjury” yo actually be one.

[RGSpincich]

The judge says go ahead and waste your money on filing fees because you have no standing. Your “presentments” will be dismissed.

[Jemian]

Yes. I need an Impeachment for Dummies, please.

[StarFan]

Good grief are there attachments that I've overlooked? The document I read doesn't come close to what you're describing.

My read: They court has reconsidered the motion, they can file their presentments, pay the fee, and it will ultimately be dismissed due to lack of standing.

[rxsid]

That’s not entirely what it says either. Basically, the court is allowing them to file their criminal complaint (presentments) with the court but that only the AG holds the discretion of whether and when to prosecute.

[null and void]

“Super Grand Jury lacked standing in the District of Columbia.”

Standing.

NO ONE who questions The Onointed One has standing.

[Baynative]

HEY!

LISTEN UP!

Do we need to tell you that a legitimate president of the United States can not during term of office collaterally hold any other government position under the constitution of a foreign sovereign state?

Do you need to be told—without recognizing for yourself—the president of the United States and U.S. commander in chief can not be at the same time president of the United Nations Security Council?

[rxsid]

"The document I read doesn't come close to what you're describing."

It's not what "I'm" describing. Do you not see the quotes around the blockquote? It's what Cmdr. Fitzpatrick is describing.

[San Jacinto]

It actually says the "presentments" can be filed if the filing fee is paid, then the court will dismiss the presentment because only the Justice Dept can initiate proceeding before a duly impaneled Grand Jury.

However, if you were right, when would you expect Eric Holder to get this prosecution going under the Super Grand Jury Presentments.

[roaddog727]

Kind thanks for relieving the pain in my cerebral cortex.

[La Lydia]

It says, and this is a direct quote from the ruling, the court will “...reconsider its July 2 order denying the Super American Grand Jury leave to file...” I don’t know how it could be any clearer than that. The court is going to reconsider its previous ruling. I suspect the outcome will be the same. And I agree, you can’t act as a grand jury just because you declare yourself to be a grand jury. Grand juries are empaneled.

[rxsid]

Exactly, my main response was to your statement: "Then the Court says it will promptly dismiss the “presentment” again because you can’t just call yourself a “grandjury” yo actually be one."

which is, of course, not what the ORDER states but is what you've interpreted it to mean.
Holder won't touch this with the proverbial 10 foot pool. NBPP and voter intimidation being dropped anyone (for but one example)?

[rxsid]

"Grand juries are empaneled."
by virtue of the 1940's judicial rule.

Do you know, or anyone here, if during the time the Bill of Rights was created, Grand Jury's were only empaneled by a judge or prosecutor? Or, were Grand Jury's formed by a committee of concerned citizens to investigate (in part) abuses within the Government? Remember, presentments are charges, or allegations. They are not trials and convictions. Who's to say, our 5th Amendment hasn't been corrupted...like so many other areas? I don't know, thus the question. I'd like to see some history on how and by whom, Grand Jury's were formed during the time that right was written into the 5th Amendment (which has not been amended to date).

[parsifal]

The “American Super Galactic Jury” can pay the court fee, file its whatever, and it will be dismissed for lack of standing.

parsy, who figures they will throw good money after bad

[Lurking Libertarian]

I don’t know what the state practice was before the COnstitution was adopted, but, from the very beginning of the federal courts, grand juries were summoned only by the court, and charges were brought only by the U.S. Attorneys.

[rxsid]

"

The Grand Jury in Colonial America

The American colonies were slow to import the grand jury from England. It was not until 1635 that the first regular grand jury was established.[60] Before grand juries, the colonies used "assistants," whom the English monarchy authorized to make the laws, accuse suspects, and sit in judgment of criminals.[61] Having no checks or balances, the assistants were too powerful and abusive. In response to this abuse, one of the first American grand juries charged several of the assistants themselves with violations of the criminal law.[62] Thus, decidedly unlike its English progenitor, the American grand jury originally began, not as an arm of the executive, but as a defense against monarchy. It established a screen between accusations and convictions and initiated prosecutions of corrupt agents of the government. Therefore, the English progenitor upon which the American grand jury was modeled was the more enlightened protective grand jury of the 1600s.

In the early American experience, the grand jury also became more a part of local government than it had apparently been in England.[63] For example, in the early development of the Massachusetts grand jury, town officials were presented[64] for neglecting to repair the stocks[65] and for failing to repair the highway.[66] The Virginia grand juries became part of the county court system in 1662 and met twice a year to levy taxes, oversee spending, supervise public works, appoint local officials, and consider criminal accusations.[67] By the middle of the 1700s, the Connecticut grand jury was helping to levy taxes and conduct other local government work while a public prosecutor took primary responsibility for investigating crime.[68] In the Carolinas,[69] Georgia,[70] Maryland,[71] New Jersey,[72] and Pennsylvania,[73] the pattern was similar: in addition to screening criminal accusations, American grand juries took an active role in local government and had sufficient independence to announce dissatisfaction with government.[74]

As the colonies moved closer to revolution, the grand jury took on a third role: outright resistance to the monarchy.[75] Three successive grand juries refused to indict John Peter Zenger, whose newspaper criticized the withdrawal of jury trials and the royal control of New York.[76] While the King was withdrawing the right to trial by jury[77] and attempting to initiate prosecutions by informations,[78] colonial grand juries responded by making "stinging denunciations of Great Britain and stirring defenses of their rights as Englishmen."[79] Newspapers often republished these criticisms.[80]

After the Revolution, the centralized government was created without a federal grand jury. The Constitution created three separate branches of government and delineated the powers of each, but did not establish grand juries.[81] Nor were grand juries established in the Judiciary Act of 1789,[82] which set up the federal court system.[83] However, after passing the Judiciary Act, Congress approved twelve constitutional amendments[84] for ratification by the states. In 1791, the Fifth Amendment was adopted as part of the Bill of Rights, with its Grand Jury Clause insuring 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 . . . ."[85] The Grand Jury Clause protected the people against arbitrary and overzealous government by protecting "against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution."[86] Secrecy in grand jury proceedings played a role in that protection.

"

http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/frames/241/kaditxt.html#heading4

[rxsid]

I'm not so sure that's true...

"After the Revolution, the centralized government was created without a federal grand jury. The Constitution created three separate branches of government and delineated the powers of each, but did not establish grand juries.[81] Nor were grand juries established in the Judiciary Act of 1789,[82] which set up the federal court system." found in post #42.

[roaddog727]

Dude,

Give it a rest. Or perhaps your argument (LOL, yeah right) is based on the perceived validity of Barry Zero’s COLB - sorry, used piece of butt-wipe - documentary evidence......

ROTFLMAO!

[parsifal]

I just translated the legal document for you. You ought to be telling me, “Thank you, parsy! That legal stuff can get kinda complicated.”

parsy, who is sniffling with hurt feelings

[La Lydia]

I don’t think people can just empanel themselves into a grand jury and have any legal standing. The whole idea was to prevent persecution by way of criminal prosecution of the innocent by anyone (or a group) with a bone to pick. The grand jury determines whether a crime has been committed. The regular jury determines whether a specific person committed that crime. It is my (very vague) understanding that in some states citizens can petition a court to get a grand jury empaneled. I do know that the grand jury goes back to English law, and that the English did away with them in the 1930s.

[roaddog727]

Dude,

Several others gave a far better translation without the negatives waves.

Hurt feelings are a sad thing. Poke a bong and feel better.

[parsifal]

Good idea. I will pop a valium when I get back.

parsy, who says thanks for the tip

[roaddog727]

Sleep well

[little jeremiah]

I think you should ask many freepers that question about grand juries during the time the Bill of Rights was created. Maybe think of freepers who know that kind of stuff, I’m pinging a few random names. Maybe even do a vanity. I think it is very important (of course I know nothng) but it seems to me a vital issue.