Obama's aunt angry at Trump (Now she claims family got letter from BHO Sr. in Hawaii)

I don’t necessarily agree. Tremendous research has been done, and too many people on the other side know the score. Sooner or later, I am sure it will be made public.

For some reason I cannot explain, I am convinced of this. It’s only a secret because those who know aren’t saying anything at this point.

The criminal conspiracy cannot continue forever.

Detractors fling around the word “conspiracy” as though the meaning of “conspiracy” is “kookdom paranoia that is untrue”. Here are the actual dictionary meanings of the word.

Conspiracy

Two online dictionaries:

1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.

1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.

1. a secret plan or agreement to carry out an illegal or harmful act, esp with political motivation; plot
2. the act of making such plans in secret

Legal definitions:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/conspiracy

An agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors.

Conspiracy is governed by statute in federal courts and most state courts. Before its Codification in state and federal statutes, the crime of conspiracy was simply an agreement to engage in an unlawful act with the intent to carry out the act. Federal statutes, and many state statutes, now require not only agreement and intent but also the commission of an Overt Act in furtherance of the agreement.

Conspiracy is a crime separate from the criminal act for which it is developed. For example, one who conspires with another to commit Burglary and in fact commits the burglary can be charged with both conspiracy to commit burglary and burglary.

Conspiracy is an inchoate, or preparatory, crime. It is similar to solicitation in that both crimes are committed by manifesting an intent to engage in a criminal act. It differs from solicitation in that conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more persons, whereas solicitation can be committed by one person alone.

Conspiracy also resembles attempt. However, attempt, like solicitation, can be committed by a single person. On another level, conspiracy requires less than attempt. A conspiracy may exist before a crime is actually attempted, whereas no attempt charge will succeed unless the requisite attempt is made.

The law seeks to punish conspiracy as a substantive crime separate from the intended crime because when two or more persons agree to commit a crime, the potential for criminal activity increases, and as a result, the danger to the public increases. Therefore, the very act of an agreement with criminal intent (along with an overt act, where required) is considered sufficiently dangerous to warrant charging conspiracy as an offense separate from the intended crime.

According to some criminal-law experts, the concept of conspiracy is too elastic, and the allegation of conspiracy is used by prosecutors as a superfluous criminal charge. Many criminal defense lawyers maintain that conspiracy is often expanded beyond reasonable interpretations. In any case, prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys alike agree that conspiracy cases are usually amorphous and complex.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c103.htm

CONSPIRACY

18 U.S.C. 371 makes it a separate Federal crime or offense for anyone to conspire or agree with someone else to do something which, if actually carried out, would amount to another Federal crime or offense. So, under this law, a ‘conspiracy’ is an agreement or a kind of ‘partnership’ in criminal purposes in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member.

In order to establish a conspiracy offense it is not necessary for the Government to prove that all of the people named in the indictment were members of the scheme; or that those who were members had entered into any formal type of agreement; or that the members had planned together all of the details of the scheme or the ‘overt acts’ that the indictment charges would be carried out in an effort to commit the intended crime.

Also, because the essence of a conspiracy offense is the making of the agreement itself (followed by the commission of any overt act), it is not necessary for the Government to prove that the conspirators actually succeeded in accomplishing their unlawful plan.

What the evidence in the case must show beyond a reasonable doubt is:

First: That two or more persons, in some way or manner, came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, as charged in the indictment;

Second: That the person willfully became a member of such conspiracy;

Third: That one of the conspirators during the existence of the conspiracy knowingly committed at least one of the methods (or ‘overt acts’) described in the indictment; and

Fourth: That such ‘overt act’ was knowingly committed at or about the time alleged in an effort to carry out or accomplish some object of the conspiracy.

An ‘overt act’ is any transaction or event, even one which may be entirely innocent when considered alone, but which is knowingly committed by a conspirator in an effort to accomplish some object of the conspiracy.

A person may become a member of a conspiracy without knowing all of the details of the unlawful scheme, and without knowing who all of the other members are. So, if a person has an understanding of the unlawful nature of a plan and knowingly and willfully joins in that plan on one occasion, that is sufficient to convict him for conspiracy even though he did not participate before, and even though he played only a minor part.

Of course, mere presence at the scene of a transaction or event, or the mere fact that certain persons may have associated with each other, and may have assembled together and discussed common aims and interests, does not necessarily establish proof of a conspiracy. Also, a person who has no knowledge of a conspiracy, but who happens to act in a way which advances some purpose of one, does not thereby become a conspirator.

A combination or agreement of two or more persons to join together to attempt to accomplish some unlawful purpose. It is a kind of ‘partnership in criminal purposes,’ and willful participation in such a scheme or agreement, followed by the commission of an overt act by one of the conspirators is sufficient to complete the offense of ‘conspiracy’ itself even though the ultimate criminal object of the conspiracy is not accomplished or carried out. To establish the offense of ‘conspiracy’ the Government must prove:

(1) That two or more persons in some way or manner, came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, as charged in the indictment; (2) That the person willfully became a member of such conspiracy; (3) That one of the conspirators during the existence of the conspiracy knowingly committed at least one of the methods (or ‘overt acts’) described in the indictment; and (4) That such ‘overt act’ was knowingly committed at or about the time alleged in an effort to effect or accomplish some object or purpose of the conspiracy.

A person may become a member of a conspiracy without full knowledge of all of the details of the unlawful scheme or the names and identities of all of the other alleged conspirators. So, if a person has an understanding of the unlawful nature of a plan and knowingly and willfully joins in that plan on one occasion, that is sufficient to convict him for conspiracy even though he had not participated before and even though he played only a minor part.

Of course, mere presence at the scene of a transaction or event, or the mere fact that certain persons may have associated with each other, and may have assembled together and discussed common aims and interests, does not necessarily establish proof of a conspiracy. Also, a person who has no knowledge of a conspiracy, but who happens to act in a way which advances some purpose of one, does not thereby become a conspirator.

An agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act or an act which may become by the combination injurious to others. Formerly this offence was much more circumscribed in its meaning than it is now. Lord Coke describes it as ‘a consultation or agreement between two or more to appeal or indict an innocent person falsely and maliciously, whom accordingly they cause to be indicted or appealed and afterwards the party is acquitted by the verdict of twelve men.’

The crime of conspiracy, according to its modern interpretation, may be of two kinds, Damely, conspiracies against the public, or such as endanger the public health, violate public morals, insult public justice, destroy the public peace, or affect public trade or business.

To remedy these evils the guilty persons may be indicted in the name of the commonwealth. Conspiracies against individuals are such as have a tendency to injure them in their persons, reputation, or property. The remedy in these cases is either by indictment or by a civil action.

In order to render the offence complete, there is no occasion that any act should be done in pursuance of the unlawful agreement entered into between the parties, or that any one should have been defrauded or injured by it. The conspiracy is the gist of the crane.

By the former laws of the United States, a willful and corrupt conspiracy to cast away, burn or otherwise destroy any ship or vessel with intent to injure any underwriter thereon, or the goods on board thereof, or any lender of money on such vessel, on bottomry or respondentia, is made felony, and the offender punishable by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars and by imprisonment and confinement at hard labor not exceeding ten years.

By the old Revised Statutes of New York it is enacted that if any two or more persons shall conspire either: 1. To commit any offence, or; 2. Falsely and maliciously to indict another for any offence, or; 3. Falsely to move or maintain any suit, or; 4. To cheat and defraud any person of any property, by any means which are in themselves criminal, or; 5. To cheat and defraud any person of any property, by means which, if executed, would amount to a cheat, or to obtaining property by false pretences, or; 6. To commit any act injurious to the public health, to public morals, or to trade and commerce, or for the perversion or obstruction of justice, or the due administration of the laws; they shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. No other conspiracies are there punishable criminally. And no agreement, except to commit a felony upon the person of another, or to commit arson or burglary, shall be deemed a conspiracy, unless some act besides such agreement be done to effect the object thereof, by one or more of the parties to such agreement.

When a felony has been committed in pursuance of a conspiracy, the latter, which is only a misdemeanor, is merged in the former; but when a misdemeanor only has been committed in pursuance of such conspiracy, the two crimes being of equal degree, there can be no legal technical merger.

Pinging a few to the real meanings of the word “conspiracy” and not one of them is “kookdom paranoia that is untrue”.

Oops, forgot Fred Nerks.

...There was a man named Roman Obama who attended Patrice Lumumba Friendship University in Moscow in, IIRC, the early 80s, a photo of him has been posted on FR, he’s a dark fellow, looks as though he could easily be the dark boy grown up. Could easily be the son of the Kenyan Obama - dark coloring, round face, solid build. I believe his whereabouts may be known...

ROMAN OBAMA AT THE LUMUMBA UNIVERSITY, MOSCOW, 1992.

LAW STUDENT, AGED 31.

LINK TO ORIGINAL ARICLE

Oops, early 90s, not early 80s.

A key player, I’d say. What do you think about my possible reasoning for “David” to be presented in the Dreams Myth?

CONSPIRACY 18 U.S.C. 371 makes it a separate Federal crime or offense for anyone to conspire or agree with someone else to do something

I virtually have no doubt that people have secretly colluded in illegal purposes that Obama has personally benefited.

1) Where do you think the original BHO is? Who is he today or is he dead? Why the need to give the imposter his ID?

Better question might be...who were the parents and why the NEED for an ID? Where do I THINK he is? See previous comment

2) I keep going back to David. Not that I believe a word of "Dreams" but why the heck would Ayers go so far as to include that David was the spitting image of the usurper? Why all the secrecy surrounding David? Then there's the motorcycle accident and the usurper's head scars, etc.

Because he HAD to be related...and therefor he HAD to look like him, and it was a good way to get rid of one boy too many? The dark boy apparently ended up in Ghana, he added EKUA to his name, which in swahili, means 'pushed or shoved aside'

Motorcycle accident? I very much doubt it...

3) Is there any relation between this and Sarah's statement (subject to interpretation, whatever) of some baby passing through her hands and other relatives stating the same?

Think about the headline of this Post. The family DID receive a letter. That child DID end up in Kenya to start with, so why wouldn't it have 'passed through her hands'?

What's up with Mark posting that picture and not taking it down?

The two boys he identifies as David and Mark appear to me to be zero and the Dark Boy. Draw your own conclusions? Surely he would know who those children really are?

Funny how the accepted common meaning of the word “conspiracy” is now “kook fringe wingnut paranoia that some kook wingnuts believe in”.

Odd.

... It would make it clear to people.

LOL! And then the question would be, 'and which one was the child of Stanley Ann Dunham?' Try telling anyone that she wasn't anyone's mother (other than Maya) and you're back to square one.

You can counter the disparaging use of the "kook conspiracy" label is to turn it around on them by using it in the context of crime. As in "conspiracy to commit" fraud.

It isn’t that they are not interested. It boils down they are interested in keeping the whole truth from public knowing. Soros and other enablers own control of the media and can take care of what is published.

I’m going to be winding down on FR to a large degree but I will save that and if I see anyone using the word “conspiracy” in the usual manner I will respond with that.

I don’t have the know-how, but has anyone tried lightening the background of the “going away” picture just to see what might be there?

http://www.seasite.niu.edu/indonesian/Obama-Bocah-Menteng.htm

Dated January 22, 2007, 3 weeks before official announcement run for prez:

Translation from Indonesian to English - “At that time, he was a Muslim but after marrying Michelle, he converted.”

Boggles the mind why so many are aiding and abetting.

Very interesting. “Converted” just like a lot of the other members of the Trinity Church who remained Muslim.

Pinging a few names to bgill’s little translation from Indo.

I don’t have the know-how, but has anyone tried lightening the background of the “going away” picture just to see what might be there?

Not that I know of, and I don't know how to either...

There was a man named Roman 0bama who attended Patrice Lumumba Friendship University in Moscow in, IIRC, the early 80s

See # 2,024 for more, also check out photos.

.

14) A few (1 or 2) instances where an “official’s” name is blocked out (WHY? would that be?)

These pages were gone over with a fine toothed comb before being released and most likely the official is still alive. Can't have him/her being tracked down and spilling the beans.

He looks more like Obama Sr than Jr does!