Grand juries cite Obama for ineligibility, treason

Grand juries cite Obama for ineligibility, treason
Posted on May 21st, 2009 by David-Crockett
Hundreds of ‘presentments’ being handed to prosecutorsBy Bob Unruh
Hundreds of “presentments” – or accusations assembled by citizen grand juries – are scheduled to be given to courts, sheriffs, prosecutors, judges and legislators across the United States by July 4 alleging that Barack Obama is ineligible to be president of the United States and his occupancy in the Oval Office constitutes treason.
Many of the challenges have come through the courts. WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.
Adding fuel to the fire is Obama’s persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. While his supporters cite an online version of a “Certification of Live Birth” from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.
Get the new Whistleblower magazine, called “YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE? Why dozens of lawsuits and millions of Americans want Barack Obama to prove he’s constitutionally qualified to be president.”
The ultimate questions remain unaddressed to date: Is Obama a natural born citizen, and, if so, why hasn’t documentation been provided? And, of course, if he is not, what does it mean to the 2008 election or the U.S. Constitution if it is revealed that there has been a violation?
And the answer could take only minutes: authorization from the president to Hawaiian officials to release his documentation.
A recent presentment from one of the American Grand Jury meetings said there’s not even any question about Obama’s eligibility any longer.
“Article II, Section 1 states: ‘No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the Untied States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President…” says Count One.
“Wherefore, Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ for the following reasons: 1) Obama was NOT born of mother and father who were BOTH US Citizens. These facts are not in dispute: Under the British Nationality Act 1948, Obama’s father was a British citizen/subject when he was born in the English colony of Kenya. Obama’s father continued to be such and not a U.S. citizen when Obama was born in 1961. Under the same BNA 1948, at birth, regardless of where he was born, Obama also became a British citizen/subject by descent from his British father,” the charge continues.
“It is public knowledge that Obama has admitted in his writings and otherwise that when he was born, his father was a British citizen/subject and not a United States citizen and that at that time he himself also became such. In fact, his father was not even a permanent resident of the United States, but rather only a student who would probably have been here only on a temporary student visa. Hence, not only was Obama’s father not a United States citizen but Obama himself was born a British subject,” it says.
Secondly, the accusation of treason comes from a retired member of the U.S. military officer, Lt. Cmdr. Walter Fitzpatrick III, who has presented his complaint to U.S. Attorney Russell Dedrick in Tennessee, the presentment explains.
In that, he alleged, “Now you [Obama] have broken in and entered the White House by force of contrivance, concealment, conceit, dissembling, and deceit. Posing as an impostor president and commander in chief you have stripped civilian command and control over the military establishment. Known military criminal actors-command racketeers-are now free in the exercise of military government intent upon destruction of America’s constitutional government. We come now to this reckoning. I accuse you and your military-political criminal assistants of TREASON. I name you and your military criminal associates as traitors. Your criminal ascension manifests a clear and present danger. You fundamentally changed our form of government. The Constitution no longer works.”
The American Grand Jury website explained it is clear the U.S. Constitution “intended to give the grand jury power to instigate criminal charges, and this was especially true when it came to government oversight.”
Campbell explained the citizens grand juries are a constitutional movement.
“We endeavor to teach people about our Constitutional rights, first and foremost. Amendment 1: the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances – Amendment 5: No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury,” he said.
“A constitutional grand jury actually hands down ‘presentments.’ That is the correct term. Indictment is a proper term for a court or judicial grand jury to use. Presentments are charges,” he said.
To those who say such meetings are ineffectual and lack impact, Campbell said they do not understand the Constitution.
“Any time you assemble real people to conduct a hearing such as grand jury there are those that are afraid we would speak the truth so they in fact will deny we are effective or our actions mean nothing,” he said.
Such grand juries, he said, in fact, “are the fourth branch of government.”
“Would we like to see more attorneys with integrity and credibility truly give credence to the Constitution and offer good suggestions on how to get the courts to act? The answer is yes! Will they – I would say NO! Attorneys and judges do not want the average person questioning how they dictate the system that keeps them in power,” Campbell said.
“Will we prevail? The answer is we had better or the United States of America as we know it will soon be nothing more than a thing of the past. The Founding Fathers were brilliant in how they put the Constitution together. It was truly God-inspired. I choose to believe there are enough people out there that want to save our Republic and maintain the USA as the true beacon of light and freedom that she so truly is,” he said.
According to the grand jury website, “Sooner or later the court system is going to be inundated with ‘presentments’ against Obama. Sooner or later public sentiment is going to demand these courts act and force Obama to answer to the charnges.”
While an Obama spokesman one time called the allegations “garbage,” the president and his team have withheld other comments. But here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama’s eligibility:
New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn’t properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.
Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.
Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut’s secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state’s 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public’s support.
Chicago lawyer Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama’s vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama’s eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama’s citizenship. His case was denied.
In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.
In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama’s citizenship. The case was denied.
In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama’s birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia’s secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters. She also has brought forward several other cases and has conducted several public campaigns to generate awareness of the issue.
In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama’s eligibility include:
In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.
In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.