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/

[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.

[little jeremiah]

Hmm, looks as though you found out!

[parsifal]

Heck, now I am up to four limericks:

There once was a guy named Obama.
Who had an American momma.
His father was British.
Which made some folks skittish.
And started the whole “birther” drama.

He said he was born in “H A”
The birthers, they all said “Nay nay!
When he showed them the proof,
They all went thru the roof.
And are still being laughed at today

There once was a lawyer named Orly
Who practiced her legal skills poorly.
Her clients all lost.
The cases got tossed.
The birthers, they all took it sorely.

There once was a lawyer named Taitz
Who fired off lawsuits in spates.
But none of them won.
There were blanks in her gun.
And, Obama WAS born in the States.

parsy, who says you are his Muse

[BP2]

Your “presentments” will be dismissed.

Then they can release the findings to be decided in the Court of Public Opinion.

[roaddog727]

Nice try, yet again.

But still all hypothetical nonsence

[Probonopublico]

Translation: (knowing the Judge professionally)

“Okay you people want to file your silly-ass motion with the clerk pay the $200 and knock yourself out, But the thing is DOA and I will dismiss it seconds after you do because being neither prosecutors nor any other official law enforcement mechanism, you have zero power to prosecute anyone.”

Jesus people, do you have to keep doing stuff like this that betrays an utter ignorance of the court system and makes the rest of us look unhinged?

[Probonopublico]

The orginal grand juries were an offshoot of the Irish system and they were, more or less local governments,having authorities to fix roads levy taxes etc. And yes, any person could bring a criminal indictment before the grand jury and ask that it be prosecuted.

The thing these SUper-Grand Jury folks are missing is that grand juries were NOT self-appointed and any random group of 23 citizens could not simply convene as one. They had to act under a writ of authority from some recognized governmental authority, and the grand jurors were appointed/selected by the same.

[FreeStateYank]

Hmmmm. Looks like this strengthens Orly’s MOD response as it addressed this very issue.

Popcorn time.

[MHGinTN]

Zero’s exhibited CoLB at Factcheck is dated supposedly June 2007, yet it does not have the word ‘Amended’ on it, to reflect the fact that his vital birth records have been amended at least one time if not more prior to 2007. Does any sane person actually believe the lying bastard has ever presented a genuine CoLB?

[MHGinTN]

Parsy, your little demigod has never shown a genuine, valid CoLB or BC to prove his bonefides, at least never shown one that the public is aware of. Oh, to be sure, your hero has proffered one or two fakes, but never a genuine CoLB of BC.

If you need further help understanding the intricacies, just let me know which fraud you have believed is genuine and I'll show you why it cannot be valid as proof of Constitutional eligibility ... though I strongly suspect you wish to remain blissfully ignorant, believing your Pres_ _ent is Constitutionally eligible because of one of the two or three frauds he's posted for your confusion.

[SaraJohnson]

You mentioning the Irish system got me thinking...someone should call Spector and see if we can get this settled using Scot law! American law sure can’t enforce the constiution.