Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: jamese777
Ah, RedSteel is playing “have fun with cut and paste!” Just a link would have sufficed.

Actually dingbat, I back up my statements. What you do is spout non sequiturs and cut and paste willy nilly in an attempt to imply things that are not so or to mislead.

So I guess all that verbiage boils down to RedSteel STILL telling us that it’s a waste of time to formally investigate whether Obama committed any criminal acts that would be impeachable offenses because of flaws in the Grand Jury system.

"All that verbiage" proves what I stated before OBot, as to

"Who runs grand juries these days? That would be government prosecutors"

While you spew nonsense as in that I saw some "movie" or something about "cameras and traffic lights" - you are idiot. I can walk the talk.


Who knew that Grand Juries are “one size fits all?”

Grand juries were the fourth branch of government to keep in check corrupt government official who were in the branches, but not so today. To quote the Creighton U. Law Review again:

"The federal courts were quick to uphold the federal rules when it came to deciding matters relating to the grand jury. In almost cyclical logic, the federal courts have claimed in near unison that presentments accusing unindicted persons of crime cannot be allowed, absent judge or prosecutor approval, "past unchallenged practice" notwithstanding.[100] Thus, hundreds of years of grand jury jurisprudence was overthrown by codification.[101]"

Gooberment officials did not like the idea of being investigated for wrong doing by grand juries, therefore, they are now controlled by the prosecutors.

In lieu of a criminal investigation by a skilled prosecutor, let’s roll out a few more civil suits with plaintiffs who don’t have standing so that a few more judges can summarily dismiss those lawsuits. We’re at ninty dismissals as of now.

Hello Obot, an honest judge would let Obama defend his presidency on the merits of his case instead of hiding behind the court doctrine of standing.

208 posted on 02/16/2011 8:39:01 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies ]


To: Red Steel

While you spew nonsense as in that I saw some “movie” or something about “cameras and traffic lights” - you are idiot. I can walk the talk.


But I’m betting that you can’t chew gum at the same time.

Hello Obot, an honest judge would let Obama defend his presidency on the merits of his case instead of hiding behind the court doctrine of standing.

Good attorneys know how to “judge shop” for honest judges who might be more amenable to their issue. I guess birthers haven’t found a good attorney yet.

Good attorneys also know how to find and present plaintiffs who will be granted standing.

Not a single one of the major conservative law firms in America has represented a birther plaintiff. For example, why isn’t Mark Levin’s Landmark Legal Foundation representing Obama ineligibility plaintiffs and doing it “pro bono?”


214 posted on 02/16/2011 9:16:44 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson