Why citizen grand juries haven’t worked up until now:

Why citizen grand juries haven’t worked up until now:

In short, sloppy legal work and overeager but clumsy and misinformed patriots.

There is a very important issue that isn’t being discussed. The obvious problem with AGJ is even if a presentment were accepted by a jurisdiction the first question a judge or prosecutor would ask would be; “How was this Grand Jury formed?” If the question were answered accurately one would need to reveal that a group of citizens with the desire to indict AKA Obama got together and indicted him. So the next question the judge would ask is, “So there was not a random selection of Grand Jury members to insure basic fairness and people found out that the purpose of the Grand Jury was to indict AKA Obama and that is why they volunteered to serve? Is that is how jury members were selected?”

And we would be forced to say, “Yes Your Honor, that is how it was done.” And the judge would rightfully say, “I can’t order a trial on the recommendation of a Grand Jury convened in that manner.” And the jeering would begin.

The citizen’s Grand Juries are impotent if the do not do jury member selection from a random source whose members do not know who it is they are being asked to investigate and indict.
That is why from the very beginning of this effort I have seen AGJ efforts as a thin entering wedge to convene conventional Grand Juries.

Even if an independently convened grand jury is mistakenly seen as merely people assembling to exercise their Constitutional right to “redress their grievances,” that is no small thing. Hundreds of people in such “assemblies” will be examining evidence and presenting the results of their investigation to appropriate county, state, and federal authorities, some of whom will almost certainly form more conventional Grand Juries to indict AKA OBAMA. Can one honestly surmise that there is not one prosecutor or judge in the entire nation who questions AKA OBAMA’s eligibility to be President?

How to legally form a citizen’s grand jury:
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/06/citizen-grand-jury-two-new-videos-from.html

More reasons Citizen Grand Juries haven’t worked.
First, the CIA phony SS# angle is impossible:

Our undercover agents always have legitimate SS# no matter what agency they work for. They are set aside for that purpose so no one will be exposed. I am 69 years old and my legitimate SS# wasn’t issued until 1987. You do the math. I am a member of AFIO.

Agents for other countries as well as other scoundrels have SS#s that don’t check out.
So many things to talk about but let’s start with flaws in the evidence.

Weak or mistaken evidence:

I found two mistakes in evidence being used by Grand Juries. Two important pieces of evidence are wrong on the Grand Jury sites, all of them

1. Orly has the wrong citation on Hawaiian law that could account for Obama being registered as being born in Hawaii. I have it correct in my article:

Laws of the Territory of Hawaii ACT 96 To Provide For The Issuance Of Certificates Of Hawaiian Birth was in effect from 1911 until 1972 and allowed someone who was born outside the Hawaiian Islands to be registered as though he were born in Hawaii. Under that law, someone simply would have presented herself to the Hawaiian authorities and declared that the child was born in Hawaii. The person could have sworn under oath and presented witnesses and other evidence. If the authorities accepted it, that was the end of it.. The only way to know where AKA OBAMA was actually born is to view AKA OBAMA’s original birth certificate from 1961 to see what kind of birth certificate it is, and to examine what corroborating evidence supports what it says about AKA OBAMA’s alleged place of birth. If the birth was in a hospital, as AKA OBAMA has maintained, such evidence would be the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor who delivered him.

Orly cites: BESIDE’S STATUTE 338-17.8 and other’s. see �338-20.5 Adoption; foreign born persons. (a) The department of health shall establish a Hawaii certificate of birth for a person born in a foreign country and for whom a final decree of adoption has been entered in a court of competent jurisdiction in Hawaii, when it receives the followin
g:
Please note that Obama was born in 1961 and Section 338-17.8 only went into effect in 1982. It is always good to know more than the attorney and catch them making a mistake. Makes it look like we know what we are doing.

Phil Berg also has a mistake. Because it was completely wrong I didn’t even mention it in my article. Phil says: Pakistan was so dangerous that it was on the State Department’s travel ban list for U.S. Citizens. Non-Muslim visitors were not welcome unless sponsored by their embassy for official business. A Muslim citizen of Indonesia traveling on an Indonesian passport would have success entering Indonesia, Pakistan and India. Therefore, it is believed Obama traveled on his Indonesian passport entering the Countries.Phil is completely wrong about this and we need to provide accurate information to our members.. We can’t help but look good if we catch lawyer mistakes and correct them.

The truth is that it was neither impossible nor difficult for Americans to visit Pakistan in 1981 according to a contemporary New York Times article http://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/14/travel/lahore-a-survivor-with-a-bittersweet-history.html?sec=travel&spon=&pagewanted=5

And a follow up article written by an American Travel Writer, Barbara Crossette, who visited there: http://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/04/travel/l-indian-guesthouse-037150.html?sec=travel&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

… It is possible to cross from India to Pakistan by train from Amritsar and Delhi, but border procedures can be long and complicated. A road crossing at Wagah is also open for a few daylight hours. Check schedules, and allow several extra hours for border formalities.
Tourists can obtain a free, 30-day visa (necessary for Americans) at border crossings and airports. Transportation within Lahore is plentiful, with taxis, scooter rickshaws and horse-drawn tongas (especially in the old city) readily available.

Travel AdvisoryPassport Services/Bureau of Consular Affa[irs]Department of State/Washington. D.C. 205__
AUGUST 17, 1981
TRAVEL TO PAKISTAN
BEFORE TRAVELING TO PAKISTAN, AMERICAN CITIZENS SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING] UPDATED VISA REQUIREMENTS: 30 DAY VISAS ARE AVAILABLE AT PAKISTANI AIRPORTS [FOR] TOURISTS ONLY. AS THESE VISAS ARE RARELY EXTENDED BEYOND THE 30 DAY TIME PER[IOD,] TOURISTS PLANNING TO STAY LONGER SHOULD SECURE VISAS BEFORE COMING TO PAKIS[TAN.] ANY TRAVELER COMING INTO PAKISTAN OVERLAND FROM INDIA MUST REPEAT MUST HA[VE A] VALID VISA, AS 30 DAY VISAS ARE NOT REPEAT NOT ISSUED AT THE OVERLAND BOR[DER] CROSSING POINT AT WAGHA.
ANY NON-OFFICIAL AMERICAN WHO IS IN PAKISTAN FOR MORE THAN 30 DAYS MUST REGIS[TER] WITH THE GOVERNMENT’S FOREIGNER REGISTRATION OFFICE. EXIT PERMITS ARE REQUI[RED] FOR THOSE WHO HAVE STAYED LONGER THAN 30 DAYS BEFORE THEY ARE ALLOWED TO LE[AVE T]HE COUNTRY. ALL AMERICANS TRAVELING TO PAKISTAN ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS OR [FOR] PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A VISA BEFORE ARRIVAL, AND, AS [THE] GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN’S CLEARANCE PROCESS IS OFTEN QUITE LENGTHY, WE WOULD URGE TH[OSE] COMING TO APPLY AT THE NEAREST PAKISTANI EMBASSY OR CONSULATE AS FAR IN ADVA[NCE] OF THEIR SCHEDULED ARRIVAL AS POSSIBLE.
THIS SUPERSEDED REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN DEPARTMENT PUBLICATION M-264, ["VISA] REQUIREMENTS OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.["]
EXPIRATION DATE: INDEFINITE.

No travel ban. They even tell you how to do it!

There are Public Relations strategies and there are legal strategies. Sometimes the overlap and sometimes they don’t.

Nobody wants a trial in DC. The chances of getting a conviction against AKA Obama in DC would be like the chances of getting a conviction against OJ in East LA.

The reason most of these presentments are being made at the local level is that the Feds have circumvented the constitution with rule 6 and it would take a SCOTUS fight to accomplish our goal.

Think for a minute. If you were a judge would you take seriously an indictment presented by a Grand Jury that was convened by openly recruiting people for the Grand Jury who wanted to indict the suspect?

AGJ has a very valuable public relations and educational mission. However, AGJ efforts can not result in an actual trial. However, AGJ actions can pave the way for a trial. That is why; from the very beginning I have seen AGJ efforts as a thin entering wedge to convene conventional Grand Juries.

My conclusion is still optimistic: Obama will be indicted and charged very soon. Keep in mind that the role of a grand jury is to determine if enough evidence exists to refer a case to the courts for trial. Can any objective person review information like that being presented to AGJ members and reject the premise that this case needs to be referred to the courts for prosecution?
It is very likely that the American Grand Jury effort will result in an indictment by a conventionally impaneled Grand Jury.

Even if the American Grand Jury was deemed legally impotent, we can still expect a powerfully awakening increase in awareness and outrage on the part of the citizens. There is much potency beyond the legal system.

However, it is highly unlikely that not even one jurisdiction will take action on the indictment. All we need is one jurisdiction to order “Discovery.” The case against AKA OBAMA is unique because it will be over in the Discovery phase, as the first step in a criminal complaint. The goal of the project I support is not to convict and punish AKA Obama but to discover what AKA OBAMA doesn’t want us to know, and why he doesn’t want us to know it. Our goal will be achieved without a trial or a verdict.

Our goal is to present indictments in every jurisdiction of the union for a total of 3,191 opportunities to bring criminal charges against offending politicians.

Even if an independently convened grand jury is mistakenly seen as merely people assembling to exercise their Constitutional right to “redress their grievances,” or report crimes that is no small thing. Hundreds of people in such “assemblies” will be examining evidence and presenting the results of their investigation to appropriate county, state, and federal authorities, some of whom will almost certainly form more conventional grand juries to indict AKA OBAMA. Can one honestly surmise that there is not one prosecutor or judge in the entire nation who questions AKA OBAMA’s eligibility to be President?

Once the American Grand Jury presentments are made, it is likely that many prosecutors and judges will want a copy of the evidence.

I am presently working in my own jurisdiction to have a prosecutor convene a conventional Grand Jury to investigate election fraud in my own county. Gary Kreep is working on a project to convene Grand Juries or Judges to bring charges against DNC leaders and AKA Obama for election fraud in all 50 states.

My research on AKA Obama’s back ground.
Get a snack and a drink. It is over 6000 words.
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/04/aka-obama-fans-all-together-now-say-omg.html