Posted on 09/08/2010 7:21:00 PM PDT by butterdezillion
Nancy Pelosi signed one certificate of nomination which was sent to 49 states and another - saying that Obama is Constitutionally eligible - to Hawaii. People have asked why she didn't send the eligibility-certifying one to all the states, but the more pressing question is, "Why did the Hawaii Democratic Party refuse to certify Obama's eligibility?"
This is on my blog but I'll post the whole thing in the first response and the link to the blog post in the 2nd response so the links will be (hopefully) clickable.
If I undersand correctly, the government isn’t currently recognizing Grand Juries as legitimate.
What makes you think the rule of law would have any power in this country? And yes, that is a serious question.
What leads you to this conclusion?
She could shoot your mother in the head on live nation-wide TV, and you still wouldn't have "standing".
I don’t know what happened with Hillary. Anything’s possible. But if Soros owns Hillary then it won’t make any difference which puppet sits in the White House. That’s what America needs to figure out. Soros has said he’s bought and paid for the democratic party and it is his. He’s also said he’s afraid America will win the war on terror because then America and capitalism will be strong.
So we know that the owner of the democratic party who places puppets at will wants America and capitalism to fail.
Seeing the condition of America getting ever weaker and more vulnerable, and seeing our enemies get ever stronger and more in our faces on our home turf, America will either wise up, or we will be literally owned, if we aren’t already.
You got to ask the question as to WHY the handful of SPs, proclaiming they are "Conservatives," and we are NOT, - what are their agendas to ridicule us, attorneys, patriotic military officers, a few brave politicians with cojones and others who are trying to expose Baracka H. Abu Amama's ineligibility after fraudulently got his foot through the door of OUR White House and - "FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" and destroying our capitalistic system that got USSR to crumble?
Why are they so eager to protect their usurper at any cost??
If they are NOT for this impostor why not join those who have Constitutional questions on the issues to get him removed, makes no sense???
Thank you. I sent myself an e-mail of that so I can print it out and read it when I’m on my thinking chair. lol. (If you ever want something to be fully comprehended, put a copy of it in the bathroom. lol)
By the next time I do a major post, expect it to look much, much better. =)
I’m not totally up on this subject, but I thought Grand Juries had been tried and nobody in the legal system ever took them seriously.
But as I said, I’m not really up on this so if somebody knows better I hope they will correct me and bring me up to speed.
Yokels that get together and decide to call themselves a ‘Grand Jury’ have never been taken seriously by any level of government.
Properly constituted Grand Juries convened by state and local authority get taken very seriously.
IIRC, it was a Grand Jury investigation that ultimately lead to Clinton’s impeachment.
Welcome to the theft of our freedom and a dictatorship!
Why is that? Because the Govt doesn't want ordinary people to have the power to indict them and their friends, they reserve that to the DA's who are elected and wield enough power to indict a ham sandwich if they care to or let a bloody murderer with 100 witnesses go free...
No, because yokels act stupidly in groups and will just operate along their own prejudices and misconceptions without any formal rules, structures, standards of evidence or accountability.
How about this “Citizen’s Grand Jury” indictment: http://stj911.org/paul/SDCGJ_HistoricResults.html
How stoked are you about their pronouncement?
That's just about it. Here's a possible partial solution:
(1) Take over both Senate and House via this year's election.
(2) Hold the congressional Pubbies' feet to the fire on the critical issues in the new Congress, even if faced with Obama vetoes.
(3) Get active in the GOP primaries again in 2012.
(4) Vote the 'Rats out of the White House in 2012 and increase the GOP majorities in Congress.
(5) Hold the new GOP administration and GOP Congress just as accountable, starting in 2013.
If I undersand correctly, the government isn’t currently recognizing Grand Juries as legitimate.
What makes you think the rule of law would have any power in this country? And yes, that is a serious question.
Of Grand Juries constituted by statute there are literally hundreds of them meeting all across the United States at this very moment. It was a Grand Jury that indicted Obama’s buddy Rod Blagojevich in Illinois.
“Federal Grand Jury indicts Blagojevich:”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29999778/
Grand juries have the power to investigate crimes and other issues and they have the power to issue indictments. They operate at the local, state and federal levels.
Don’t you remember the Whitewater Grand Jury of Judge Ken Starr or the Valerie Plame affair grand jury conducted by Peter Fitzgerald that indicted Lewis “Scooter” Libby?
Why is that? Because the Govt doesn’t want ordinary people to have the power to indict them and their friends, they reserve that to the DA’s who are elected and wield enough power to indict a ham sandwich if they care to or let a bloody murderer with 100 witnesses go free...
Ordinary people sit on Grand Juries. When a citizen is called for “jury duty,” they might end up on a local, county, state or federal Grand Jury or on a trial jury.
A little info on Grand Juries from Wikipedia
Federal level
Charges involving “capital or infamous crimes” under federal jurisdiction must be presented to a grand jury under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This has been interpreted to allow the grand jury to be bypassed for misdemeanor offenses, which can instead be charged by prosecutor’s information. Some plea agreements also stipulate that the defendant waives prosecution by indictment. However, the defendant must make this waiver in open court and after being advised of the nature of the charge and of the defendant’s rights. The U.S. Attorneys Manual states that prosecutors “must recognize that the grand jury is an independent body, whose functions include not only the investigation of crime and the initiation of criminal prosecution but also the protection of the citizenry from unfounded criminal charges.” It is not altogether uncommon for subjects or targets of the grand jury’s investigation, particularly in white-collar cases, to request or demand the opportunity to tell the grand jury their side of the story. However, the prosecutor has no legal obligation to permit such witnesses to testify, though the Manual warns that a refusal to do so can create the appearance of unfairness. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure prescribe that a grand jury must have from sixteen to twenty-three members and that an indictment may issue only if at least 12 jurors concur.
For members of the United States armed forces, an Article 32 hearing is used for a similar purpose.
State level
Unlike many other provisions of the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court has ruled that this requirement was not incorporated to apply to state courts via the Fourteenth Amendment, and states therefore may elect not to use grand juries.
County level
In the U.S., the states of Arizona, California, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, and Oregon have grand juries at the county level.
In California, each county is required by the state constitution to have at least one grand jury impaneled at all times. Grand juries are governed by Title 4 of the California Penal Code, as well as other more general provisions. In addition, grand juries are not subject to the Brown Act.
Most grand juries are seated on a fiscal cycle, i.e. July through June. Most counties have panels consisting of nineteen jurors, some have as few as eleven jurors, others have as many as twenty-three. All actions by a grand jury require a two-thirds vote. Jurors are usually selected on a volunteer basis.
These county-level grand juries primarily focus on oversight of government institutions at the county level or lower. Almost any entity that receives public money can be examined by the grand jury, including county government, cities, and special districts. Each panel selects the topics that it wishes to examine each year. A jury is not allowed to continue an oversight from a previous panel. If a jury wishes to look at a subject that a prior jury was examining, it must start its own investigation and independently verify all information. It may use information obtained from the prior jury but this information must be verified before it can be used by the current jury. Upon completing its investigation, the jury may, but is not required to, issue a report detailing its findings and recommendations.
The grand jury is required to publish a minimum of one report containing a minimum of one finding and one recommendation. The published reports are the only public record of the grand jury’s work; there is no minority report. Each published report includes a list of those public entities that are required or requested to respond. The format of these responses is dictated by California Penal Code Section 933.05, as is the time span in which they must respond.
County grand juries develop areas to examine by two avenues: juror interests, and public complaints. Complaints filed by the public are kept confidential. The protection of whistleblowers is one of the primary reasons for the confidential nature of the grand jury’s work.
Most county grand juries in California do not consider criminal matters, though by law they are able to. The decision of whether or not to present criminal cases to the grand jury is made by the county District Attorney.
Hennepin County, Minnesota (which contains Minneapolis) keeps a grand jury impaneled at all times. Each grand jury serves a term of four months, typically meets one day each week, and focuses almost exclusively on homicide cases.
Circuit grand juries in Kentucky
In Kentucky, grand jurors are empaneled in each county, at the Circuit level (felonies only) for a four-month term (three panels per year). During the trial jury orientation for the given four-month term, the grand jurors are selected from the trial jury pool, although the method of selection is not necessarily random. The meetings are twice a month (however, grand juries in more populous counties generally meet more often), with each meeting usually going through 20-30 cases in a four to five hour period. The indictment rate is about 98-99%; the grand jury can broaden (about 1% of the time) or narrow (about 3% of the time) the counts in the indictment as well. Usually, fifteen or so[clarification needed] grand jurors are required to report to meetings; the hope is that twelve will show to each meeting, which is the number of jurors required to hear cases (extra jurors can leave). It takes nine yes votes to the question of probable cause to sign a true bill of indictment. Fewer than nine yes votes either causes a no true bill or a narrowing of the indictment (depending on the votes per count).
The rules are very similar to the federal process; the grand jury only hears from law enforcement personnel, with the exception of property crimes, where store detectives or actual victims of theft or vandalism are called to testify. The only cases brought to the grand jury are those initiated from the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office (the prosecutor for felonies). For the vast majority of cases, the grand jurors generally only hear a recitation of facts from the police report, crime laboratory reports, and other documentation generated during the evidence gathering process. Grand jurors can ask factual questions of the witnesses and legal questions of the prosecutors. The ability to broaden or narrow indictments does technically allow for grand juries to open new avenues of investigation, although since it is dependent on prosecutors for facts, this seems very rarely done, if ever. Rules of confidentiality apply to grand jurors, which are similar to the federal rules.
This is true, however I can show where it's not completely applicable. The goal that I'm suggesting is to show how you're being harmed in an individualized or particular way. For example: in suing your local elections officials, you want to show that you're being denied a fair hearing or show that unrestricted information is being withheld from the public (such as documentation to show how Obama was vetted). It's better to avoid asking the court to remove Obama from office or to invalidate the results of the election. I think this would happen on its own, through Congressional impeachment, once it's legally established that fraud has taken place.
My other suggestion is to tackle the standing doctrine head on. It was originally designed as a way to prevent people from asking courts to carte blanche declare pieces of legislation to be unconstitutional. The court said this wasn't their job; that they could only challenge a law if there was evidence of harm or injury. The only problem is that the courts also admitted that there are some areas of government that don't require the principle of standing. In Fairchild v. Hughes, the court said, "Plaintiff has only the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the government be administered according to law and that the public moneys be not wasted. Obviously this general right does not entitle a private citizen to institute in the [258 U.S. 126, 130] federal courts a suit to secure by indirection a determination whether a statute, if passed, or a constitutional amendment, about to be adopted, will be valid." Under this ruling, Obama's eligibility is a general right entitled to EVERY citizen as it is clearly NOT based upon a statute nor constitutional amendment.
So you’ve drawn a conclusion that the Hawaii Democratic Party changed their procedures in 2008 and refused to certify Obama’s Constitutional eligibility based on what evidence?
Where is the evidence? I’ve read your article three times and still don’t see any evidence. You show the letter the HDP submitted but don’t provide letters from previous years to show that both the language of the letter and the procedure for producing it changed between 2000/2004 and 2008. If you can’t scan these previous letters, provide a verbatim transcipt of the language used in 2000/2004.
And you reach the conclusion that an attorney who represented the HDP in three previous lawsuits also advised the HDP not to certify Obama’s eligibility? I realize you think it’s likely, but where’s the evidence?
Although it wasn't widely known in Dec. 2007, we are now aware that Obama almost surely committed perjury back then under Arizona law, since he is indeed almost surely not a natural born citizen. But he undoubtedly knew that the Arizona AG is a Democrat, hence no risk of prosecution for him.
I’m looking at that quote and wondering how in the world these judges have a leg to stand on in any of their rulings. All ANY of the plaintiffs have wanted is to “require that the government be administered according to law”.
Just thinking of the hassles with Alan Keyes, for instance, where the court argued that he had no standing because “he couldn’t have won anyway”. He said he wanted his legal right to have a lawful contest. According to the quote you just gave, that is his right - whether he “can win” or not.
To have our military only be given lawful orders is the right of everybody in this country, according to that quote. Any person would have “standing”.
Every single case where standing has been denied - as if nobody is harmed if our government is lawless - goes against the decision in that case.
So what’s the date on that decision? Do you know if other cases have overruled that principle, or has it been cited in other cases as well? Where are they getting this “standing” crap?
My big thing in all this research has been how vulnerable our entire systems of government, media, and law enforcement are right now. Regardless of what happens with Obama, I will not feel that I’ve accomplished much of lasting value if the nation doesn’t address the vulnerabilities that got us here. And this issue of “standing” is a huge, huge problem.
If the judges have been threatened and so they’re totally screwing up the “standing” issue, then we need to figure out what recourse we, the people have if the judges decide to screw things up.
If what the judges are giving is a correct understanding of “standing” then we need to do something to re-establish the First Amendment right of the people to “petition the government for a redress of grievances” - a right which the courts shouldn’t be able to abridge any more than they can abridge the right to free speech, freedom of religion, or the right to peacably assemble.
It’s our foundations like these that really need to be rebuilt.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge of case law. That isn’t my strong suit and I’m thankful for any heads-up I can get.
Curiouser and curiouser,,
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.