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/

[r9etb]

Perhaps he wanted these nitwits to get a clue. Not that they will, of course ... but at least the rest of us can laugh at them, too.

[mlo]

Oh come on. He granted them the sought permission to file the paper, but told them if they bothered to pay the fee and do so it would just be dismissed!

[rxsid]

Interesting thought. I guess I simply don't see any reason what-so-ever that the judge would/should entertain their presentments in any way shape or form by GRANTing them (allowing them) to official file their presents, on file, as part of the court record...IF they had zero ground to stand on.
First he told them (essentially) to go away by dismissing them and not allowing them to file their presentments...now, he has changed his mind by saying sure, this court will now officially accept your presentments...but then goes on to say...I'm telling you before hand I will take no action on them.

Strange reversal on accepting the docs.

[rxsid]

"He granted them the sought permission to file the paper"

Why?

First he told them no, then he tells them yes. Why change his mind?

[mlo]

Saying, “JUDGE ROYCE LAMBERTH GRANTS PREMISSION TO PROSECUTE SOETORO-OBAMA ON CRIMINAL CHARGES OF FRAUD AND TREASON! JUST NOT IN LAMBERTH’S COURT” in response to what the judge actually wrote, is just one more example of Birther lies and distortions. If you can’t believe them about something so simple, why should you believe them about anything?

[mlo]

In light of the fact that he told them in advance he would dismiss it, do you really think that’s the important question? You are grasping at nothing.

[rxsid]

Quite the contrary. It's far simpler than that. He REVERSED his earlier decision to allow them to file their presentment(s) with the court.

Why?

Why not uphold his earlier decision?

[mlo]

"Why not uphold his earlier decision?"

It doesn't matter. He still told them that if they bothered he would dismiss it. That point makes the filing of the paper moot. It completely overrides your question. Who cares why he told them they could file it? It does not matter one little bit.

[r9etb]

Strange reversal on accepting the docs.

Oh, good, lord, man.... He DIDN'T ACCEPT THEM!!!! You're bound and determined to find a pony in that pile of poop, aren't you?

[mlo]

Here's what it really says.

Pending before the Court is the Super American Grand Jury's motion to reconsider this Court's July 2, 2009 order denying the Super American Grand Jury leave to file its "presentments" against President Barack Obama. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration is hereby GRANTED and they are given leave to file their "presentments," upon tendering the filing fee to the Clerk of the Court, however, should the fee be tendered the presentments will be dismissed as the petitioners lack standing to enforce the criminal laws of the United States.

[trumandogz]

[parsifal]

Mmmkdipwuhf.

parsy, whose head is in the sand and his replies are muffled

[Pilsner]

Hey Birthers, after your make believe grand juries fail, and they will, what new, daffy, certain to fail, scheme will you try?

Here is a suggestion: Time. No, not the rag, the passing of same. Try to redefine how long four years is. If we are talking dog years, Obama's four year term is up already!

Will it work? No. But it doesn't have any less chance of working than any of this other BS.

Meanwhile, Obama goes merrily on, selling us out. If you really want to do some good, dedicate 1/10 of the energy you put into this foolishness into working for candidates in 2010, or even now, if you are from a state with 2009 elections.

[Plummz]

b/c it can be turned into an indictment by the vote fo a real grand jury.

[Drew68]

If you really want to do some good, dedicate 1/10 of the energy you put into this foolishness into working for candidates in 2010, or even now, if you are from a state with 2009 elections.

Trying to reverse the entitlement mentality that has taken hold of the American people while nurturing and supporting electable conservatives whose messages resonate with a majority of voters sounds like too much work. I'd rather just send Orly $50. That way, I can look my grandchildren in the eyes and tell them, "I did what I could."

[Sibre Fan]

What does this all mean in idiot’s terms

I think the context helps in understanding what it means.

On July 2, Mr. Swensson filed the first "presentment" with the DC District Court. That same day, Judge Lamberth dismissed the case. July 2 Swensson Order.

On July 23, Mr. Swensson filed a Motion for Reconsideration.

On September 10, the Court responded to the July 23 Motion for Reconsideration by saying that
(a) You can refile the presentment if you pay the required filing fee; but
(b) If you do that, I'll dismiss it anyway. Sept 10 Swensson Order.
Which appears to mean "don't waste your time."

Also on September 10, Judge Lamberth dismissed the Petition for Convening of a Federal Grand Jury, filed by Patriot Hearts Network Media. Sept 10 PHNM Order.

[rxsid]

Exactly!

I'm just simply amazed he didn't do a "ditto" the 2nd time around. That's all.

[rxsid]

LOL. Hey Obot's, I've you'd stop drinking Soetoro's kool-aid, sooner rather than later...we could begin to take our country back.

Call me a dualer by-the-way.

[Sibre Fan]

I'm just simply amazed he didn't do a "ditto" the 2nd time around. That's all.

While it was a lot shorter than Judge Robertson's order in Hollister and Judge Land's order in Rhodes, I think it had the same "snark" factor.

In related news, did you see this new Order from Judge Carter filed today?

[rxsid]

Interesting, but not surprising. Hadn’t seen it yet. Thanks for the mention!