Thank you Emeritus for sharing with us.
Grand Jury Presentment- A case against President Obama
A group of American citizens have decided to put their efforts into bringing a case against the President of the United States, Barrack Hussein Obama for treason, eligibility of Naturalization and fraudulent paperwork filed by the Democratic National Committee.
Charges similar to these have been served more than 400 times in various ‘jurisdictions’ across the country, according to Neil Turner an advocate for this lawsuit. He continues to report that “there are actually 3,141 jurisdictions in which charges can be served.”
“Lt. Commander Fitzpatrick is now serving these very same charges, which include an original two-page charge of Treason, to a sitting Grand Jury in Monroe County, TN,” Turner explained.
As word of the “birth certificate drama” surfaced on the airwaves last week due to a question posed to Sarah Palin by talk show host Rusty Humphries and reported on by World Net Daily, the drama resurfaced. Palin was asked point blank if Obama’s birth certificate was okay for public fodder. “Yes,” was her answer. According to Palin, American’s have the right to request President Obama’s birth certificate; however, in a statement on her Facebook page Palin defers her opinion on this case. “But at no point – not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews – have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States.”
Those in the know realize that this was a brilliant exposure of the birth certificate issue without Palin having to get behind it. The media would love to bash her for anything, but not this because it would force them to talk about the dubious birth certificate, which they are forbidden from doing – for fear of losing their jobs and their stations losing their FCC licenses.
During the election cycle Palin’s running mate McCain was asked for his birth certificate because he was born in the Panama Canal. And the Senate actually passed a non-binding resolution (S-511) to resolve that McCain was a ‘natural-born’ citizen. They were unable to do this for Obama however.
The people who want this issue to go away have displayed what they say is a Hawaiian birth certificate. However, that piece of paper is not proof of Hawaiian birth. It is a Hawaiian Certification of live Birth, which John Sampson, a 27-year veteran of ICE contends is different from a Hawaiian Birth Certificate.
“When this issue first was raised, in June of 2008, I was intrigued, being ICE’s non- lawyer legal geek for enforcement in Denver. I had an agent who was born in Hawaii bring in his actual Hawaiian birth certificate and I compared it to the document posted on the Daily KOS and Stop the Smears sites,” says Sampson. “It is markedly different from a Certification of live birth. The birth certificate has the hospital or other birthing facility where the birth happened, the doctor’s name, midwife’s name, or other health professional who attended the birth and other information that a certification of live birth lacks. The reason why the certification of live birth does not have this information is because it is issued based upon the unverified report of an adult, usually the parent, or some other person.”
Sampson explains that there is no requirement that evidence be supplied that the birth actually occurred in Hawaii. It is issued simply on the attestation of the reporting party. “Furthermore, Hawaiian law allows for the reporting of a birth of a child born outside the Hawaiian Islands as long as one parent claims to have resided in Hawaii as their principal place of residence for the year prior to the child’s birth. It’s a law that is uniquely Hawaiian.” (This law was in effect from 1911 to 1972)
“I’ve been following this, as I said, since June of 2008. Given what I know and what I’ve seen, I believe there is sufficient evidence to support the belief that Barrack Obama is not a natural born US citizen, applying the law as it existed in 1961,” says Sampson. (And the continuing Article II, Section 1 requirements of the Constitution – since 1779)
He explains that the law changed in 1986 in which the residency requirement was relaxed in the U.S. However, there was no retroactivity of that change in the law in 1986 and as such, assuming he (the president) was not born in Hawaii as everyone has been led to believe, then he’s not a natural born United States citizen. If he is not born here he is not constitutionally qualified or eligible to hold the office of President of the United States.
“One who acquires their citizenship at a later time, regardless of how soon after their birth, either by derivation or by naturalization, although a U.S. citizen, is not a U.S. ‘Natural-Born’ citizen by birth. The best example I can offer is former Secretary of State Madeline Allbright, who was born in Eastern Europe and who became a naturalized U.S. citizen. She is a citizen of the United States. However, she is not a “natural born U.S. citizen” and as such is constitutionally barred from holding the office of President of the United States,” according to Sampson.
“This is very serious stuff and it concerns me deeply because I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, to bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and to faithfully discharge the duties of the office I was entering,” Sampson said. “I took that oath without purpose of evasion or avoidance. I took it seriously then, and I take it seriously now.”
This is one theory into the Obama drama.
However, Turner believes the birth certificate issue is a red herring because “he was not born of two parents who were both U.S. citizens, regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya or Equatorial Guinea (another country that has recently turned up in records research by a former U.S. Immigration official working with Orly Taitz). This is the biggest fraud in the 230 years of this country and will have severe political implications,” Turner explained. “We have a Constitutional crisis on our hands.”
Turner believes all 535 Congress members are responsible for allowing Obama to take office and to this day there is not one member of Congress that has taken a stand against the sitting President on this issue.
Another agency responsible for the travesty says Turner is the Congressional Resource Service (CRS) who is responsible for telling Congress members how to answer different questions various members of Congress may get from constituents. “They told Congress members the birth certificate issue has been resolved, when it hasn’t,” Turner claims.
“Another interesting aspect to the ‘Treason charge,’” according to Turner, “is the fact that Obama failed to register for the draft as required for all male U.S. citizens between the ages of 18 and 26 at that time (1981 for Obama), with the consequence of not being able to ever work for the U.S. Postal Service (big deal) and not being able to work in the Executive Branch of Government (really big deal). In order to ‘avoid’ this consequence, Obama produced a falsified and forged Selective Service Registration for the Draft (sometime in 2008). Details can be found at DebbieSchlussel.com”, Turner said.
In other news regarding Obama’s eligibility it has just been uncovered recently that his Social Security number may have been issued in Connecticut between 1976 and 1977. During this time, Obama was residing in Hawaii and attending prep school. He did not move to the mainland (LA to go to Occidental College) until late 1979. And as far anyone knows Obama never resided in Connecticut. This begs the question how did the president get a Connecticut Social Security card when he never resided in the Constitution State?
Many Americans do not believe in the birth certificate hype, however as the President’s approval ratings plummet many more are taking Obama to task over a simple piece of paper that could solve everything.
For more stories; http://www.examiner.com/x-10317-San-Diego-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner