Obama Treason Charges Advance In Tennessee Grand Jury

reply to post by sirbikesalot06


well if you all must know i voted for Obama since you 3 are all deadset on me being a Obama hater i was not.

Personally hes hiding stuff that he does not want to be seen, just as argentus stated.

Why would you hide it if you have nothing to fear?

Since he became president more stuff about him i do not like has came out, but you 3 are free to make your own opinions so be it have fun with them.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by OpTiMuS_PrImE]

Originally posted by Libertygal

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by Libertygal
americangrandjury.org...


There were several state grand juries that formed and found him guilty. The above website has lots of information.


[edit on 30-11-2009 by Libertygal]

Oh=Oh, somebody missed too many days of civics class. Only a slope-headed slack=jawed mouthbreathing fool believes that grand juries find anyone guilty. They indict. Juries, or maybe lynch mobs led by this poster find people guilty. That basic fact of American law has been stated multiple times in this thread. Repeating the ignorant, foolish and obviously racist lie that Obama has been found guilty by several grand juries must be an intentional lie! I bet Liberty gal lives in or near Selma, AL, Jackson, Miss, or Tuscaloosa, AL and misses the good old days.Why else repeat a groundless lie. You probably are cute. So much more the tragedy.

There has to be a presumption of probable cause, read guilt, to indict.

I just posted the link as information, if you don't like it, too bad.

And screw off with the personal attacks.

Thanks LibertyGal these 3 or 4 people could be very well the same person under different accounts which i would not put pass.

Yes I suppose all eyes will be on Tenessee as yet one more frivolous nonsensical claim is once again thrown from the courtroom.

the only treason I see is Americans who clog up the court system and bray like foolish mules on anti-american news channels.

Originally posted by OpTiMuS_PrImE
reply to post by andrewh7

 

Sorry were not all so called lawyers, i guess next time i make a thread i'll call my attorney so i can be sure it meets your standards

Please do. That would save us a lot of wasted bandwidth and prevent the obvious ignorance from being promoted in this forum, contrary to its purpose.

Yuk.

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by j2000
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

 

Grand Juries do not determine either guilt or innocence but instead determine whether or not there is compelling evidence to bring an accused suspect to trial.

Correct as to the first part about guilt and innocnce but the standard is not "compelling evidence" but simply the standard of proof to indict for trial is by a preponderance of evidence, or "more likely than not".
An indictment usually follows an arrest. The most common steps in a criminal case are:
1. Arrest (pursuant to warrant or by police on probable cause)
2. Presentment (Advise of charges and rights, set bail, etc)
3. Preliminary hearing to determine if enough evidence to send to a grand jury
4. Grand Jury
5. Trial to determine guilt
6. Sentencing Hearing
7. Appeals
A Prosecutor (not a citizen ) can seek a "Direct Indictment", skipping the first three steps. A citizen can ask him to but there is no right of a citizen to presen t to a grand jury.

If a preponderance of evidence would compel a Grand Jury to indict a suspect then it is indeed, compelling evidence. In terms of there being no right of a citizen to present to a grand jury, this is categorically and demonstrably false. The Grand Jury does not function as a tool of any prosecutor but is put in place to serve as a check to any prosecutor. While it is rare that a Grand Jury will go beyond the jurisdiction of a prosecutor, they can and have done so. Hence the term, an unfortunate and in my humble opinion a term most likely coined by prosecutors, "runaway Grand Juries".

A citizen is not helpless in their efforts to have a criminal arrested. They are not bound to a system by which only an officer of the law and a prosecutor can bring charges against a person. The citizen can, by verified oath, bring a complaint against another. If that person has sworn by verified oath that another has committed a crime then all law enforcement officials are bound by law to act upon this verified oath. Any failure to do so is tantamount to obstruction of justice. If a prosecutor is willfully obstructing justice a citizen can indeed appeal to a Grand Jury, that being a citizen panel, to act on the matter themselves. That Grand Jury most certainly has the authority to do so and is not restricted to any prosecutors presentment alone.

To suggest that a citizen in the U.S. does not have the right to present evidence to a Grand Jury is to suggest that the people are separate from the government of which they ordained by Constitution. While Grand Juries were primarily created to keep malicious prosecutors from arresting people with out any regard for due process of law, they are also capable of investigating crime on their own and given any lack of effort by a prosecutor can indict a person based on their findings. When a person swears by verified oath that another has committed a crime then they are best served by presenting that verified oath to a duly elected Sheriff who is bound by Constitution to uphold the law, if that Sheriff fails to act, the person swearing by verified oath can appeal to a prosecutor but if that prosecutor also ignores this very real process of law, then that person who has sworn a verified oath has a right to attract the attention of the Grand Jury and demand that justice be ensured. This is the purpose of the government the people have ordained.

reply to post by Libertygal


Uh, can you not read?
These "Grand Juries" are not anything more than a bunch of clowns getting together and calling themselves a "Grand Jury". The have zero legal standing.
I could get together with my friends and indict Libertygal for anything I wanted.
WOULD YOU GIVE A FLYING RIP?
Incidentally, REAL Grand Juries only decide if there is enough evidence to indict. It has NOTHING to do with guilt or innocence. That is what a trial is for.
This whole thing is insane, and only supported by those that are completly ignorant of The Constitution, law in general and have no grasp on reality!
Jeeeez H !!!!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


thanks for bringing that back up i was just going through the thread looking for it

reply to post by andrewh7


I think I got it before you did Andrew. I would've thought that a member of the legal body such as yourself would defend this issue with something more worthy than the race card that you valiantly flashed in your earlier posts.

Then you go on to ressurect Glenn Beck, who incidentally was never charged, nor a suit brought against him. RIGHT? HAd that been the case, it still wouldn't pertain to this thread and this issue.

I think you're out of gas, counselor. I respect your profession, and respect your sharing your experience with us, truly, but I think it would be more useful if you would break down the process by which a sitting President can be removed from office.

Let us all see that it cannot be done by anyONE or anyTHING except the SCOTUS or Congress. That way, the remorse for the "one that got away" can really sink in for those of us who merely want easy to answer questions addressed.

Why do you fight so hard for this simple thing? Why does anyone?

Please pardon my rhetoric. I'd self-elected to stop frustrating myself with this issue. I would like to believe the President, and I would like to stand behind him, for whatever that's worth to the nation.

Will the evidence ever be heard? No, right? It will never be heard. It was strategically quashed just in the nick of time and continued to after the election, and then it was too damn late, wasn't it?

No malice intended Andrew, in spite of my passion. I bled for some of those values and while that is an archaic notion in these charged times, it means something to me. The Constitution means something to me. It feels as though it has been archived, and the document has no merit for enforcement.

thanks for the reply. Always good to talk with legal professionals. I learned something from you, and for that I thank you.

cheers

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by Libertygal

 

Uh, can you not read?
These "Grand Juries" are not anything more than a bunch of clowns getting together and calling themselves a "Grand Jury". The have zero legal standing.
I could get together with my friends and indict Libertygal for anything I wanted.
WOULD YOU GIVE A FLYING RIP?
Incidentally, REAL Grand Juries only decide if there is enough evidence to indict. It has NOTHING to do with guilt or innocence. That is what a trial is for.
This whole thing is insane, and only supported by those that are completly ignorant of The Constitution, law in general and have no grasp on reality!
Jeeeez H !!!!

Read the post above this one, I think you may be the one that is mistaken. I can read just fine.

And I do not have to shout to prove my pioint, I can just scroll up.

Originally posted by OpTiMuS_PrImE
reply to post by December_Rain

 

never heard of her was it something to do with the Cali case?

She is the Soviet born, Israeli educated dentist/real estate agent/lawyer who when she's not pulling teeth or selling houses is the peroxide queen of the birther movement, representing military personnel , who, like Nidal Hasan, are cowards, trying to get out of deployment by claiming Obama is not qualified to be Commander in Chief. I'd say they, and all who support them, are not qualified to be Americans

Originally posted by djusdjus
Yes I suppose all eyes will be on Tenessee as yet one more frivolous nonsensical claim is once again thrown from the courtroom.

the only treason I see is Americans who clog up the court system and bray like foolish mules on anti-american news channels.

And when it's thrown out, they all will cry about the Judge ignoring The Constitution, that the PTB is behind this massive cover up!
That will be instead of the obvious, the whole thing is BS orchestrated by
right wingers that hate Obama AND are nuts to boot!

Old Dagger is right.

A grand jury is not able to indict the President for treason. That power lies only with Congress, who's the supreme authority of the land.

Look, for all of you Obama "he's not a natural-born citizen" people: get over it...

He's our President. I didn't like Bush as President, but I said the same thing about the stupid impeachment movements for him. You don't need to like Obama, but many of you have to stop this nonsense that the man isn't a natural-born citizen.

He was born in Hawaii. Multiple state government, colleges, hospitals, and much more collaborate that he was born in Hawaii. Not one single proven birth certificate has come out yet that shows he was born elsewhere.

That means, any birth certificate that shows he was born in Kenya or Indonesia have been proven to be hoaxes.

He's legally allowed to be the President.

reply to post by OldDragger

And when it's thrown out, they all will cry about the Judge ignoring The Constitution, that the PTB is behind this massive cover up!
That will be instead of the obvious, the whole thing is BS orchestrated by
right wingers that hate Obama AND are nuts to boot!

I think you post stands on its own without my interference, however I'll point out that while neither of us are posting evidence here, only one is resorting to name-calling and broad-brush generalizations.

You might be interested to know that I, and many others who are asking a SIMPLE question, are.................... wingless -- neither left nor right.

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by j2000
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

 

Grand Juries do not determine either guilt or innocence but instead determine whether or not there is compelling evidence to bring an accused suspect to trial.

Correct as to the first part about guilt and innocnce but the standard is not "compelling evidence" but simply the standard of proof to indict for trial is by a preponderance of evidence, or "more likely than not".
An indictment usually follows an arrest. The most common steps in a criminal case are:
1. Arrest (pursuant to warrant or by police on probable cause)
2. Presentment (Advise of charges and rights, set bail, etc)
3. Preliminary hearing to determine if enough evidence to send to a grand jury
4. Grand Jury
5. Trial to determine guilt
6. Sentencing Hearing
7. Appeals
A Prosecutor (not a citizen ) can seek a "Direct Indictment", skipping the first three steps. A citizen can ask him to but there is no right of a citizen to presen t to a grand jury.

If a preponderance of evidence would compel a Grand Jury to indict a suspect then it is indeed, compelling evidence. In terms of there being no right of a citizen to present to a grand jury, this is categorically and demonstrably false. The Grand Jury does not function as a tool of any prosecutor but is put in place to serve as a check to any prosecutor. While it is rare that a Grand Jury will go beyond the jurisdiction of a prosecutor, they can and have done so. Hence the term, an unfortunate and in my humble opinion a term most likely coined by prosecutors, "runaway Grand Juries".

A citizen is not helpless in their efforts to have a criminal arrested. They are not bound to a system by which only an officer of the law and a prosecutor can bring charges against a person. The citizen can, by verified oath, bring a complaint against another. If that person has sworn by verified oath that another has committed a crime then all law enforcement officials are bound by law to act upon this verified oath. Any failure to do so is tantamount to obstruction of justice. If a prosecutor is willfully obstructing justice a citizen can indeed appeal to a Grand Jury, that being a citizen panel, to act on the matter themselves. That Grand Jury most certainly has the authority to do so and is not restricted to any prosecutors presentment alone.

To suggest that a citizen in the U.S. does not have the right to present evidence to a Grand Jury is to suggest that the people are separate from the government of which they ordained by Constitution. While Grand Juries were primarily created to keep malicious prosecutors from arresting people with out any regard for due process of law, they are also capable of investigating crime on their own and given any lack of effort by a prosecutor can indict a person based on their findings. When a person swears by verified oath that another has committed a crime then they are best served by presenting that verified oath to a duly elected Sheriff who is bound by Constitution to uphold the law, if that Sheriff fails to act, the person swearing by verified oath can appeal to a prosecutor but if that prosecutor also ignores this very real process of law, then that person who has sworn a verified oath has a right to attract the attention of the Grand Jury and demand that justice be ensured. This is the purpose of the government the people have ordained.

If we're going to prosecute the sitting president,I'm sure there's a long line of former presidents as well.


I'm willing to bet these treason charges are seriously spun crap, especially when they try to paint obama as a madman who passes laws against the american people at all hours of the day.


This isn't going to go anywhere and all of you right wingers will call it a conspiracy and that he's a nazi blah blah blah


who cares

Originally posted by Libertygal

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by Libertygal

 

Uh, can you not read?
These "Grand Juries" are not anything more than a bunch of clowns getting together and calling themselves a "Grand Jury". The have zero legal standing.
I could get together with my friends and indict Libertygal for anything I wanted.
WOULD YOU GIVE A FLYING RIP?
Incidentally, REAL Grand Juries only decide if there is enough evidence to indict. It has NOTHING to do with guilt or innocence. That is what a trial is for.
This whole thing is insane, and only supported by those that are completly ignorant of The Constitution, law in general and have no grasp on reality!
Jeeeez H !!!!

Read the post above this one, I think you may be the one that is mistaken. I can read just fine.

And I do not have to shout to prove my pioint, I can just scroll up.

Aww. libertygal, you are a peach.
I read the post, and.....what am I mistaken about?
Great, you don't shout! BUT, you also, uh....don't have a point to make.
But you are still a peach!

Originally posted by OpTiMuS_PrImE
reply to post by Beaux

 

lol you have no idea on my views towards our President, i did not write the accusations or articles they are merely being posted for discussion. Some of you people are just not right in the head i believe, especially the way you attack posters over something they found on the web its pretty pathetic

Now if i manipulated the information that would be just cause but for sharing info found on the web with source is no reason for personal attacks.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by OpTiMuS_PrImE]

You keep trying to distance yourself from the garbaage contained in yur original post. But you gave it the title, "Obama treason charges advanceadvance, and not the title, " Birther idiot lawyer picks wrong court." Picking a title like that is spinning or manipulating the info.
If you have the fortitude, disavow the garbage you spread. Or adopt it, so we'll know. But don't just whimper like an infant in urine soaked jammies, "Don't pick on me. I'm just telling you what somebody said. Come on. Man Up. Oops - gender assumption. You can also roar like a woman.

reply to post by Mak Manto

"Investigating seditious acts of government officials can be deemed inappropriate or unavailing by the prosecutor, or the judge can dismiss the grand jurors pursuing such investigations. Consequently, corrupt government officials have few natural enemies and go about their seditious business unimpeded."

Roger Roots, J.D.

"In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without governmental influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past."

An article appearing in American Juror, the newsletter of the American Jury Institute and the Fully Informed Jury Association, citing the famed American jurist, Joseph Story, explained :

"An indictment is a written accusation of an offence preferred to, and presented, upon oath, as true, by a grand jury, at the suit of the government. An indictment is framed by the officers of the government, and laid before the grand jury. Presentments, on the other hand, are the result of a jury's independent action:

'A presentment, properly speaking, is an accusation, made by a grand jury of its own mere motion, of an offence upon its own observation and knowledge, or upon evidence before it, and without any bill of indictment laid before it at the suit of the government. Upon a presentment, the proper officer of the court must frame an indictment, before the party accused can be put to answer it.' "

Back to the Creighton Law Review:

"A 'runaway' grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today's "runaway" grand jury is in fact the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact "runaways," according to the definition of modern times; they operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself."

So, it's clear that the Constitution intended to give the grand jury power to instigate criminal charges, and this was especially true when it came to government oversight. But something strange happened on the way to the present. That power was eroded by a lie enacted by the legislative branch. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution still contains the same words quoted above, but if you sit on a grand jury and return a "presentment" today, the prosecutor must sign it or it probably won't be allowed to stand by the judge and the criminal charges you have brought to the court's attention will be swept away. And the reason for this can be found in a legislative lie of epic proportions.

Mr. Roots weighs in again:

"In 1946, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted, codifying what had previously been a vastly divergent set of common law procedural rules and regional customs.[86] In general, an effort was made to conform the rules to the contemporary state of federal criminal practice.[87] In the area of federal grand jury practice, however, a remarkable exception was allowed. The drafters of Rules 6 and 7, which loosely govern federal grand juries, denied future generations of what had been the well-recognized powers of common law grand juries: powers of unrestrained investigation and of independent declaration of findings. The committee that drafted the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provided no outlet for any document other than a prosecutor-signed indictment. In so doing, the drafters at least tacitly, if not affirmatively, opted to ignore explicit constitutional language."[88]"

And so they needed a spin term to cast aspersions on that power. The term they chose was, "runaway grand jury," which is nothing more than a Constitutionally mandated grand jury, aware of their power, and legally exercising that power to hold the federal beast in check, as in "checks and balances."

The lie couldn't be inserted into the Constitution, so they put it in a statute and then repeated it. And scholars went on to repeat it, and today, as it stands, the grand jury has effectively been lied into the role of submissive puppet of the US Attorney.

And finally, to seal the deal, Scalia hammered the point home:

"In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm?s length. Judges'direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504 U.S. 36, 48] "

This miraculous quote says it all, "the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people." The Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, gives rise to a FOURTH BRANCH of Government, THE GRAND JURY. We the people have been charged with oversight of the government in our roles as grand jurors.

americangrandjury.org...





[edit on 30-11-2009 by Libertygal]

reply to post by piddles

If we're going to prosecute the sitting president,I'm sure there's a long line of former presidents as well.

Very likely true. If they've broken the law, they should be prosecuted.

I'm willing to bet these treason charges are seriously spun crap, especially when they try to paint obama as a madman who passes laws against the american people at all hours of the day.

I'm inclinded to agree with your bet in the sense that the definition of treason seems to only very thinly apply, and there are surely more worthy political pundits whose alleged treason is more founded.

This isn't going to go anywhere and all of you right wingers will call it a conspiracy and that he's a nazi blah blah blah

It IS a conspiracy, IF a non-natural-born person is elected President of the United States. I agree that it isn't going to go anywhere -- the window for that action (for the evidence to be heard) was continued through the point at which President Obama was sworn in. It's a done deal.

I'd never call President Obama a "nazi blah blah blah". Of course, I'm not a right winger, nor do I know anyone who claims to be one. I'll defer to you expertise on winged persons.

Originally posted by argentus
reply to post by OldDragger

 

And when it's thrown out, they all will cry about the Judge ignoring The Constitution, that the PTB is behind this massive cover up!
That will be instead of the obvious, the whole thing is BS orchestrated by
right wingers that hate Obama AND are nuts to boot!

I think you post stands on its own without my interference, however I'll point out that while neither of us are posting evidence here, only one is resorting to name-calling and broad-brush generalizations.

You might be interested to know that I, and many others who are asking a SIMPLE question, are.................... wingless

-- neither left nor right.

The "question", if you mean Obama's citizenship, has been asked and answered and the Congress ( according to Constitutional proceedure) has declared him the duly and lawfully elected President. If that doesn't satisfy you, really who cares? Do you think the courts exist for everybody in the country to air their gripes and questions?
But noooo!
Courts exist to decide matters of law. that's LAW, not some Youtube video.
It's over! Done! Obama IS President and will remain so.
It's totally irrelevant what you or the "birthers ' think!
Every court in the US would be clogged with every petty gripe and "theory' on you name it by the "patriot's' reasoning.
If this clown in the OP's strory had any real evidence, he could petetion any member of Congress1 simple as that! If you had any real understanding of the courts, the law or The constitution you would know how darn silly this whole thing is!