Posted on 08/16/2013 8:30:03 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
21 posts in an 80 post thread? Looks like a troll to me.
Sheriffs and other law enforcement officials can’t issue indictments. That is the job of a prosecutor. In most jurisdictions in America, law enforcement turns over evidence of alleged criminal activity to the City Attorney, the County Attorney, the District Attorney, the state Attorney General, the U.S. Attorney or the Attorney General of the United States depending on the appropriate jurisdiction for the crime that is alleged.
If a prosecutor feels that there is probable cause to convene a grand jury in the hope of issuing an indictment, then the prosecutor will convene a grand jury of citizens. In modern day criminal law practice, if a prosecutor wants an indictment, the grand jury will indict.
There has never been a grand jury investigation in any jurisdiction in the nation looking into any of the alleged crimes concerning Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president.
It does amaze me that no grand jury has been convened over Obama eligibility with so many different crimes being alleged (forgery, document tampering, Social Security fraud, election fraud, identity theft, etc). Those who have challenged Obama’s eligibility have used the civil side of the legal system nearly exclusively, filing more than 200 lawsuits.
Obama could have been running for reelection with a grand jury investigation hanging over his head. That might have changed the outcome of the 2012 election.
I forgot to mention that a controversial but often used type of grand jury investigation is called a “fishing expedition.” Sometimes a prosecutor has limited evidence but convenes a grand jury anyway because when you put people on a witness stand, under oath, with the threat of jail time for perjury staring them in the face, all kinds of new information might be revealed.
The prosecutor casts his line into the murky waters to see what kind of fish he just might catch.
I know that. But the sheriff would have to go to the prosecutor to get the indictment. Why haven't they done that if their evidence is so strong?
It does amaze me that no grand jury has been convened over Obama eligibility with so many different crimes being alleged (forgery, document tampering, Social Security fraud, election fraud, identity theft, etc). Those who have challenged Obama’s eligibility have used the civil side of the legal system nearly exclusively, filing more than 200 lawsuits.
Especially since the requirements for an indictment tend to be very low. Just sufficient evidence to show that a crime may have been committed, and to hear Zullo they should have more than enough evidence to accomplish that. Why haven't they?
And at first I thought they were talking about an actual candidate for governor.
He's the closest thing they've got.
From a former member of the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse:
An Open Letter to Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery
On March 1, 2012, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office held a formal press conference regarding their investigation into the identification documents of President Barack Hussein Obama II. At the press conference it was announced that the MCSO had developed sufficient evidence to indicate that Mr. Obama’s Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth and his Selective Service System registration form were criminal forgeries. To say the least, the findings were shocking.
Many citizens contacted Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett’s office to request that Mr. Obama be kept off the November 6, 2012 ballot as the authenticity of his identification papers were now in question. At Mr. Bennett’s request the State of Hawaii sent a “Verification of Birth” notice in May of 2012. Surprisingly, the one most critical piece of information that was conveniently missing was Mr. Obama’s date of birth. Secretary Bennett, apparently satisfied, even with the lack of this critical information, notified the public that Mr. Obama would be on the November ballot assuming the Democratic National Committee provided the proper nomination form.
On September 10, 2012, the Arizona Secretary of State received the D.N.C. nomination paper for Barack Hussein Obama. On the document, Mr. Obama swore or affirmed that he is “a natural born citizen of the United States and [he] is at least thirty-five years of age…..and meet[s] all other constitutional requirements to hold the office of President of the United States.”
The people of Arizona deserve truthful answers to the predicament that we currently find ourselves. Is Barack Obama eligible to be president? Are his identification documents forgeries? Has a crime been committed in Arizona? And if a crime of fraud and forgery and possible conspiracy have been committed, who would be the one who most likely benefit from such crimes? The answer is obvious.
I think it is now time for you, the Maricopa County Attorney to come to the aid of Sheriff Arpaio and take the MCSO findings to the Maricopa County Grand Jury for review. Let’s turn Sheriff Arpaio’s findings over to the people who have been assigned the task of determining whether a crime has been committed and ultimately who is the beneficiary of such criminal behavior. Lets take the evidence out of the hands of the politicians and let the citizens in the Maricopa County Grand Jury decide the validity of the MCSO findings, prior to the November elections.
Arizona Revised Statute, Chapter 23, Sec. 13-2311 states in part, “…any person who, pursuant to a scheme or artifice to defraud or deceive, knowingly falsifies, conceals or covers up a material fact by trick, scheme or device or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing such writing or document contains any false fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry is guilty of a class 5 felony.”
In the words of former President Richard Nixon of Watergate fame, “people have got to know whether their President is a crook.”
Mr. Montgomery, please request Sheriff Arpaio’s findings about President Obama’s identification documents and submit them to the Maricopa County Grand Jury and let the jurors decide if Mr. Obama benefits from a criminal scheme and should be kept off the November Arizona 2012 ballot. We have the right to know.
Respectfully,
Brian Reilly
Sun City West, AZ
Reply to Brian Reilly from Maricopa County Attorney Montgomery
Dear Mr. Reilly,
Thank you for taking the time to write and for the concerns you have expressed. There are a couple of points of analysis, though, in determining whether a criminal charge can be filed, regardless of the charge or who the suspect might be. The first is whether I have jurisdiction over the case. That requires that some conduct had to have occurred in Maricopa County for me to have jurisdiction. From the Sheriff’s Office investigation into suspect documents produced by the White House to date, that investigation has not revealed any evidence that conduct occurred in Maricopa County. I have discussed this with the Sheriff. As for any issues regarding qualifications or information provided regarding the Presidential Election itself, that is a statewide election. Under Arizona law, the Secretary of State and the Attorney General have jurisdiction over statewide elections. I do not.
I will share with you, as well, that the criminal statute you cited in your message requires additional evidence that the MCSO investigation to date has not uncovered. Specifically, we would need evidence to affirmatively prove that Mr. Obama is not a US citizen. To date, there has been evidence presented leading to speculation that documents have been forged and other documents do not exist. That alone, though, is not sufficient evidence to present to a grand jury and actually have a reasonable likelihood of conviction. I cannot speak for other prosecutors at the state level around the rest of the country or for prosecutors at the federal level but Arizona’s ethics rules do not permit prosecutors to file a charge they can only hope to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt at a later stage.
I stand ready and willing, however, to review any case submitted for charges and, if the evidence is there, I will prosecute regardless of who the suspect/defendant may be.
Sincerely,
Bill Montgomery
Maricopa County Attorney
If they have sufficient evidence to indicate then why don't they have sufficient evidence to indict? And if they have sufficient evidence to indict then why haven't they resquested the prosecuing attorney to issue an indictment? And if they've requested the prosecuting attorney issue an indictment then why hasn't that office done so?
When was that letter dated Nero Germanicus?
By the way, it is best for Arpaio to take it to Congress to investigate since they can remove a president. Don’t you agree?
Something about his handle prevents me from looking at his posts in the search engine
Placemark
I agree, if (and it’s a HUGE “if”) anybody can name the 22 Democrat Senators who might conceivably vote to remove Obama via an impeachment trial. It takes 67 Senators to remove a president from office and there are 45 Republicans in the Senate including the RINOs.
My personal opinion is that a criminal indictment by a Grand Jury is the best way to remove Obama from office. I don’t believe that there are even ten Democrats in the Senate who would vote to convict him under a Bill of Impeachment. An indictment for a crime like forgery or election fraud would force Obama to resign from office like Nixon did and accept a pardon from new President Biden in order to avoid a trial.
But it doesn’t have to be “either/or.” Congressional, criminal and civil actions can work hand in hand.
The letter from Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery to former Maricopa County Cold Case Posse member Brian Reilly was dated September 26, 2012.
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:0eo/index?tab=comments;brevity=full;options=no-change
This may work.
Running on principals ...
Will likely win him tons of support.
Let’s just put it this way, with all of the thousands of workers who have gone through “Area 51” in the intervening decades, you don’t find it the least bit curious that only one or two who “claimed” to have worked there have come forward with stories of UFO’s?
And of those that did, they received absolutely no punitive measures for violating any non-disclosure agreements they would have signed? If they were released from this agreement, why weren’t the thousands of others who could corroborate their stories? This draws their credibility into serious question.
Keeping in mind that those who could possibly refute their stories aren’t going to for various reasons, but namely, they swore they wouldn’t talk about their work unless permitted to do so.
No physical evidence, no documentation, nothing but hand drawn and verbal “evidence” that matches up pretty damn close with sci-fi movies.
What we have seen out of “Area 51” are folks talking about the SR71 and U2 in their early days, when interest in Sci-Fi was probably at its peak. Seeing “weird” looking aircraft fly 3x the speed of sound sure would have been easy to compare to the movies of the time.
So if “Area 51” is used to test new technology, why isn’t it plausible that UFO kooks want to make new aircraft into UFOs? It gets them attention, which draws in more kooks, which draws in the $$$.
Laughable...
“# 49 - Oversized Government.
Several federal agencies can be abolished including the Federal Reserve, the IRS, NSA, DHS, FDA, ATF, and the Department of Education.”
There are a few planks that I really wonder about, but certainly not #49. I would also say that there are more really beneficial positions than there are “fringe” positions.
Are you really in favor of oversized government?
I'm not sure I'm in favor of abolishing the National Security Agency or the Food and Drug Administration.
geez...support is not winning. There are loads of guys/gals I like and would vote for, but they make stupid decisions to stir up a hornets nest when walking away could allow them to win and then nuke the nest, but they spout off and lose. It’s a trait of many in politics...both sides. /rant off
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.