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/

[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.

[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