Obama Treason Charges Advance In Tennessee Grand Jury

Originally posted by merkaba93

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by 4nsicphd

 

Thanks VERY much for the update!
Big surprise! Another frivolous attempt to negate the vote goes down in flames. So now posters can start the paranoia fest about how Obama did this, our rights being taken away etc.
You can't deny ignorance to those that prefer ignorance.

Ignorance denotes a lack of knowledge or understanding due to that knowledge or understanding being unavailable to learn or acquire in some other manner.

It would seem that the folks bringing these lawsuits/juries etc. are trying to eliminate their ignorance by acquiring more information through forcing the person in employ of the government of the US (We the People), as POTUS, to provide adequate proof of his eligibility to hold said post.

Full of it, like out the ears

Potus provided what was required by the law---

This is a case of BSing so hard you forget the truth, you-

I wouldn't give any of you the time of day

[edit on 1-12-2009 by Janky Red]

reply to post by OldDragger


So you know why he sealed his records?
You think it is good for America?

reply to post by Janky Red


Thanks but you just did please move along so we can stay on the subject, your personal views on the people of this thread is not needed nor does it bring any worthy information on the subject.

[edit on 1-12-2009 by OpTiMuS_PrImE]

reply to post by Donny 4 million


Again, look at the other threads. Repeating the same thing over and over is tiresome.
The President ( whoever he/she is) has the exact same right to privacy as you do!
McCain refused to release his wife's tax returns, Bush's military records mysteriously dissappeared, etc.
IF the government came to you and bemanded to see your "records" without warrant or a legal reason to see them, you would be crying to high heaven!
Obama's ONLY obligation is to satisfy the Constitutional requirements, he has done so. Anything else is his choice, a choice you seem eager to take away. And your only reason for demanding these things is...you want them!
Sorry, as I said Obama has the same right to privacy as you! Don't be a hypocryte!

reply to post by OldDragger


What privacy? If a police officer stops you randomly on the street for no reason and ask for your ID and you fail to show it you go to jail no doubt about it, whether you did anything or not. Same applies here he should show his documents and quit hiding them.

If he has nothing to hide it should not be a problem but hes hiding it from everyone.

[edit on 1-12-2009 by OpTiMuS_PrImE]

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by Donny 4 million

 

Again, look at the other threads. Repeating the same thing over and over is tiresome.
The President ( whoever he/she is) has the exact same right to privacy as you do!
McCain refused to release his wife's tax returns, Bush's military records mysteriously dissappeared, etc.
IF the government came to you and bemanded to see your "records" without warrant or a legal reason to see them, you would be crying to high heaven!
Obama's ONLY obligation is to satisfy the Constitutional requirements, he has done so. Anything else is his choice, a choice you seem eager to take away. And your only reason for demanding these things is...you want them!
Sorry, as I said Obama has the same right to privacy as you! Don't be a hypocryte!

I don't work for the people of the Untied States. I am not paid by taxpayer money. I did not CHOOSE to run for POTUS. I am not elected to the most powerful position in the world for the sole purpose of serving the people of the United States.

If one wants complete privacy, one should not become a publicly-elected official.

PS - McCain refusing to release his WIFE's tax return is a weak argument. Nobody is asking for Michelle's credentials.

Originally posted by OpTiMuS_PrImE
reply to post by Janky Red

 

Thanks but you just did

please move along so we can stay on the subject, your personal views on the people of this thread is not needed nor does it bring any worthy information on the subject.

[edit on 1-12-2009 by OpTiMuS_PrImE]

I was talking POTUS...

Frankly there is not any worthy information to add to this faux witch hunt, it is a steaming pile of politics and lies.

IT IS A WASTE OF PUBLIC $$$$ AND RESOURCES, maybe I found something worthy after all.

Long Live Jeff Davis!



[edit on 1-12-2009 by Janky Red]

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by OpTiMuS_PrImE
reply to post by Janky Red



IT IS A WASTE OF PUBLIC $$$$ AND RESOURCES, maybe I found something worthy after all.




[edit on 1-12-2009 by Janky Red]

Just about anything to do with the government is a total waste of time and money these days

reply to post by OpTiMuS_PrImE

Not a great analogy.
A cop is supposed to ask for ID in the performance of official duties, not random curiousity.
A better analogy is some random person asking you for ID.
You are not asking Obama in an official capacity, but just as some guy.

reply to post by OldDragger


As well are government officials, military personnel, and many more people and as a American citizen i have the right to want to know if our president is a real citizen or not. Just like you have the right to keep up your stupid babble here over and over about why we should not use our rights under the constitution to ask these questions.

[edit on 1-12-2009 by OpTiMuS_PrImE]

reply to post by lpowell0627


You are just being headstrong.
You have no argument really, as a citizen ( Obama is also an American citizen), your curiosity does not trump someone elses rights.
This is just a trumped up non issue created by Worldnet Daily and other far right folks to smear the President. Fact is even the right has pretty much conceeded the whole idea is silly, just because you persist means nothing.

reply to post by OldDragger


Whatever it means a lot to the majority of the US and the people in the thread, its a right of the American people to ask these questions, at least they are acting upon their rights whether you approve or not is no concern to me.

reply to post by OpTiMuS_PrImE


How dramatic can you be?
God, yeah I'm trying to take away your rights.
You made a big point of just posting to create discussion at the start of this thread, now you are just throwing a hissy fit. Doesn't help your credibility.
You know pal, you win some, you lose some!

Our legal system was devised in such a way as to give power to the commoner. That is is the entire concept behind "jury nullification". (which btw is a serious issue that very few people know or understand)

If this man who wishes to file suit against Obama has met the requirements of the legal system, then he should get his day in court. A Grand Jury vote is one of the three votes afforded to the citizens of the US and it should be taken seriously. If the current man being treated as POTUS has committed a crime, then it should be taken seriously.

In all of the previous cases concerning Obama's legitimacy the judge's dismissed the case before any evidence has been permitted to be seen by a grand jury, thus the lack of an indictment and the lack of discovery. (which leads to the records in question and Obama's legal right to not have people view them)

I am not an Obama fan, at all, but I still believe in the core of our legal system. We still have rights and we still have a way to win this battle. I think that Obama should come clean on the issue, but methinks that Obama has one too many bones in his closet to actually come clean.

For the guy posting about the congress and seating the president etc...etc...

If congress makes any law that contradicts the US Constitution then said law is not constitutional. period. the end. no more questions good sir.
That is why taking an oath to be on a jury is not constitutional, because we can vote however we want to vote and no oath is compelling us to change that vote.
Our legal system has turned into a house of smoke and mirrors. More people need to educate themselves on what is the actual law of the land and not what happens in court rooms. Courtrooms are under various jurisdictions according to the type of court.

Jurisdiction is what the real question should address.
Is the current US government not compelled to follow the Supreme Law of the Land because it is of a separate jurisdiction?

Find the truth....

And I hope that Obama loses. In court.

reply to post by Josephus23


First of all, the other cases have mostly been Civil cases. Grand Juries have nothing to do with Civil.
I'm the guy you are reffering to I guess.
Most cases have been tossed for not following proceedure or lack of standing, as they should have been.
You guys live in a dream world. Reality seems to bear out my comments eh?

Not all of the cases have been civil cases (see below), if you were to actually research the issue then you will see that several people have charged Obama with treason and several of these cases have been combined into one case.

Regarding the civil cases:
The many judges in question threw out all of the evidence before any of it could be seen in order to decide what kind of case was actually in question. If Obama was illegitimate then his orders are as well and if that resulted in the deaths of any innocents then he is guilty of treason under US law and war crimes under international law.
That would mean that everyone who follows his orders concerning this "war on terrorism" has also committed the same crimes.

This is the slippery slope that these judges are trying to stop.

You are correct that the legitimacy of the president is a civil case dealing with contract law (and if you have half a clue what you are talking about then I would love to debate you on the issue of the UCC)

You see...

The case that drew the most attention was the case concerning the gentleman who refused to deploy due to his questioning of the legitimacy of Obama (which btw... is a criminal case).
And instead of risking the exposure that would inevitably occur during discovery the Pentagon withdrew his deployment orders.
But that is off topic so let us get back to the civil cases to which you are referring.

If a case concerning Obama is chosen to be heard in civil court, then the natural progression concerning Obama would be to charge him in Criminal court (see the slippery slope argument above).
It is easier for Obama to keep his records hidden in civil court than in criminal court.
Keeping this in civil court is the only way that Obama can win because...

Contract law is decided by judges. Criminal law is decided by the people.

Your arrogance only shows your ignorance.

reply to post by Josephus23


Ya know, this is getting just as tiresome and ridiculous as the people that to this day, insist that Bush "stole" the elections. It's really a long dead horse.
You can present your ideas and legal analysis till the cows come home, Obama IS the President, and will not be removed by the courts barring some impeachable act, then Congress can do its job.
Thats really the bottom line.

Let me add to the last post.
Contract law (US civil law) is decided by the people if and only if it goes to a jury (which is a bitch to have happen in civil court, or any court for that matter). Thus the lack of a grand jury, which is exactly how the bankers want it. This is Roman Civil Law, from which all of this stems.

This law was designed to keep the slaves in their place and this type of law forms the backbone for the 14th amendment.
We have literally contracted our rights to the federal government.

Like I said in the last post, as long as this is a civil case then TPTB have no worries.

reply to post by OldDragger


Like I said before, this is a jurisdictional issue.

If the people of a state find him guilty of treason because he is not qualified to be the POTUS then he is not the president and congress no longer has jurisdiction over him or the case.

This is how the law works, and saying that it doesn't matter because he is president simply doesn't fly in a court of law.

Now....

If the federal government just comes right out and says, "we have original jurisdictional and he is the president and that is the final word", then I will buy your last bit of bullying, but that has not happened and until it does I will have faith in the current system of law in the US.

Thank you and good day.

reply to post by OldDragger


Lack of standing, which implies that no one in this country has the right to question, and that is false. His votors should have the right, his non-votors should have the right.

It is the people that pay the bills, pay their paychecks, and it is the people he should answer to. Not the other way around.