Attorney Issues a National Grand Jury Declaration (Updated), Application Form
DecaLogosIntl.org has issued an update per Stephen Pidgeon, attorney for Broe v. Reed, concerning his declaration (audio at link) for a national grand jury (PDF of below):
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Amendment V, Constitution of the United States.
Pursuant to First Amendment (The right of the people peaceably to assemble), the Fifth Amendment (The right of Grand Jury review), the Ninth Amendment (The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people), and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people), this National Grand Jury is convened by natural born citizens of the fifty several states and of the United States of America, seating 50 jurors pursuant to the duties, powers, responsibilities, qualifications as established hereunder for the following purposes:
- To examine all aspects of the federal government by initiating its own investigations.
- To serve as ombudsmen for the citizens of the country in respect to constitutional rights. and privileges established under the organic documents of the United States of America, as properly amended from time to time.
- To conduct criminal investigations of members of the federal government, and, if the evidence is sufficient, issue criminal indictments.
The National Grand Jury Process
The National Grand Jury, although a part of the judicial system, is an entirely independent body. Judges of the Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeal, and the District Courts of the United States, United States Attorneys, and Congress of the United States may act only as advisors. They cannot prevent National Grand Jury action unless that action violates the duly enacted laws as originally created in the United States.
The National Grand Jury shall review and evaluate procedures, methods and systems used by federal governmental agencies to determine whether they comply with the stated objectives of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for the United States of America as properly amended.
The National Grand Jury shall review the officers of the federal government to determine whether they are constitutionally qualified to hold office, and to determine if their actions and behavior are consistent with stated objectives of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution for the United States of America as properly amended, and the criminal law as recognized in any of the several states.
No individual grand juror, acting alone, has any power or authority. Meetings of the National Grand Jury are not open to the public. All matters discussed before the National Grand Jury and votes taken are to be kept private and confidential. The end result of inquiries into civil matters are released to the public in the form of a final report which is approved, prior to release, by the Foreperson of the National Grand Jury.
The National Grand Jury is empowered to:
- Inquire into the condition and management of branches of the federal government and its agencies.
• Investigate and report on the operations, accounts and records of federal officers, departments, and functions.- Inquire into the willful or corrupt misconduct in office of public officers.
- Submit a final report of its findings and recommendations, no later than the end of its term, to the Presiding Juror of the National Grand Jury.
Requirements to Become a Grand Juror
National Grand Juror candidates must meet all of the following qualifications:
- Be a natural born citizen of the United States (born in one of the fifty states of the United States to parents both of whom were U.S Citizens and resident in the United States at that time).
- Be at least 18 years old.
- Be a resident of the state that the Juror represents for at least one year immediately prior to selection.
- Exhibit intelligence, sound judgment, and good character.
- Cannot have been convicted of malfeasance in office, any felony or other high crime.
- Cannot be serving as a public official.
Grand Jury Selection Process
There shall be 50 members of the Grand Jury with 50 alternates. Candidates are to be selected from a pool of nominees who shall submit their nomination to the nominating committee. Nominees will be appointed by the affirmative vote of the nominating committee, who shall base their nomination on the following criteria expressed in priority:
- First - an affidavit of qualification where the nominee asserts that the nominee:
- is a natural born citizen of the United States, setting forth the place of birth, the date of birth, the place of birth of the nominee’s father, the place of birth of the nominee’s mother, and the residency of the parents at the time of birth;
- is at least 18 years of age;
- is and has been a resident of the state the nominee seeks to represent for at least one year prior to the application;
- is intelligent (demonstrating the ability to read and to write), uses sound judgment (exhibits ability to reason) and is a person of good character (does not engage in misconduct, interpersonal attacks, foul language or disruptive behavior);
- is not serving as a public official.
- Second – the ability to serve as a Juror, where the nominee asserts that the nominee
- Can and will attend each meeting of the National Grand Jury without absence
- Can and will render decisions according to the rule of law without prejudice or bias
- Can and will prepare decisions and recommendations in writing
- Can and will use electronic technology such as email, blog posting, text messaging, teleconferencing and so on.
- Third – order in which the application is received
Potential grand jurors will be given information about National Grand Jury duties and the time commitment required.
The committee shall interview each candidate, usually twice, to reduce the number to 100, two from each of the several states. The final selection is made by the affirmative vote of the majority of the nominating committee.
Grand Jury Officers
Grand Jury officers and duties are:
- Foreperson recognizes that the most important responsibility lies in seeing that the Grand Jury as a whole and each of the committees function effectively and efficiently.
- Foreperson Pro Tem, in absence of the foreperson, assumes all functions of foreperson.
- Recording Secretary is general assistant to the foreperson in all matters, keeps an accurate record (minutes) of the proceedings of each meeting.
- Corresponding Secretary is responsible for incoming and outgoing mail.
- Treasurer provides jurors with reimbursement forms and collects these forms at the end of each quarter, handles all bills received by the Grand Jury.
The national grand jury to be held at the federal level will be held virtually on the Internet with a central location to be decided for when physical meetings are required. Mr. Pidgeon also hints that there will be those who would be willing to enforce any finding that is to come out of a federal grand jury.
It is expected that the national grand jury’s mission will be completed by the end of summer, 2009, sometime after a Continental Congress is held. This initiative is expected to be fully spearheaded by Mr. Pidgeon.
Please see here and here for postings based on Mr. Leo Donofrio’s research on the 5th Amendment for a backgrounder on the national grand jury.
Update: Per the requirements, above, here is a copy of the Juror Application Form.
Update: Some commenters, below, are correct about the difference between a “federal grand jury” (which this is not) and a “national grand jury.” Per Mr. Pidgeon’s own commentary:
This is not a “federal grand jury.” This is a National Grand Jury, created by the citizens, for the adjudication of facts and the law in the face of intrinsic corruption within the federal system.
We will be issuing subpoenas pursuant to this process, and the subpoenas will be voluntary in nature. If they are not respected, the matters asserted within the subpoenas will be deemed admitted.
Update: Carol Greenberg (of Greenberg v. Brunner) noted the following Supreme Court cases being used by Mr. Pidgeon as the basis for a national grand jury:
- Branzberg v. Hayes, 408 US 665 (1972)
- US v. Nixon 418 US 683 (1974), specifically Nixon v. Sirica (as found within the opinion)
- US v. Calandra 414 US 338 (1974)
Regarding the concept that the national grand jury could be construed as treason, Ms. Greenberg had the following salient point to make as a push-back to commenter “1Lishell:”
TREASON, DEFINED BY WEBSTER:
1. the betrayal of a trust : treachery 2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign’s family.
I fail to see how a NGJ is treason. There is no attempt to overthrow the government. There is no betrayal of trust. I’m sure there will be no killing of a sovereign. This is merely a fact-finding mission.
An example of what I REALLY see as treason is this:
Media displaying on international TV troop movements in Iraq.
I find it rather curious, 1Lishell; this sure seems like TREASON to me, and these journalists still have their heads.
-Phil
I cannot support this information. I would suggest one question though I have others which reveal a context that is to the detriment of such causes to failure.
The Supreme Court of the United states has repeatedly stated the the Constitution formed and established the government of the United States…what is that relationship to the United States government?
Or do you really think that the law concludes them to be equivalent?
Well,All of this is very nice,but when can we expect to see Mr Obamas documentation ?
Carol who?……….not me!
I mentioned earlier that neither personal or political considerations enter into this discussion for me. I have no position to defend but the truth as it relates to the constitutionality and legality of our government. Who could be an enemy to that ?
1 The Indonesian angle to Obama’s status I consider to be a sidetrack. However I have in fairness to retract and apologize for a factual inexactitude I gave out above. To dispose of the matter I confine myself to facts not in contention:
Obama’s problem:
a The Dunham-Soetoro 1980 divorce record establishes their marriage, with one child over 18 (Barry Soetoro=Obama).
b Immigrating to Indonesia subjected Barry Soetoro to Indonesian authority and law.
c Foreign-born wives are automatically awarded Indonesian citizenship one year after marriage (within one year by statement, on expatriating previous citizenship) and transmit Indonesian citizenship to their children under Articles 7(2) and 13(2) of Indonesian Law 62/1958
d Indonesia only permitted Indonesian citizens to attend their public schools and required foreign children to attend international schools: Barry Soetoro attended a public school.
e Barry Soetoro attended public school (January 1968) soon after arrival in Indonesia.
f Lolo Soetoro is acknowledged as Barry Soetoro’s legal father (Articles 5a, 6, 10, 261-265 Indonesian Civil Code) on his first school registration: information on these registrations was checked with government documents and authorities.
g Barry Soetoro’s first school registration also gives Barry Soetoro’s nationality as Indonesian, which again was checked with government documents and authorities.
The above establishes a preponderance of evidence (ie more likely than not) of the exercise of Indonesian citizenship by Barry Soetoro before January 1968, on the basis that paternal acknowledgement and thus Indonesian citizenship is proved by his immediate admission to public school; or, failing that, transmission of Indonesian nationality by his mother after one year if not sooner. In neither instance did having a prior nationality disqualify. Available evidence indicates that Ann and Barry Soetoro were considered Indonesian citizens by Indonesian authorities before Barry Soetoro’s return to Hawaii in 1971 and his mere return did not expatriate Indonesian citizenship.
This -> needs to be said. A retraction: I researched the status of the 1930 Hague Convention in US diplomacy and found absolutely nothing ! Eventually I came across a 2000 State Department telegram to the North Korean Government in which State reject a NKG citation of the 1930 Hague Convention as having no possible influence on American policy with regard to US citizens naturalizing abroad. (See http://www.state.gov/s/l/16133.htm.) Without question the 1930 Hague Convention cannot be cited against Soetoro-Obama. I cited this Convention in response to 1Lishell and was wrong: for that I apologize to 1Lishell and readers.
The conditional language of INA 1952 S349(a)1 (essentially “while abroad: expatriated but on hold”) permitted Barry Soetoro, on returning to Hawaii before age 25, to resume US citizenship – IF previously entitled. If Ann Soetoro chose ELECTIVE naturalization by statement before the completion of one year of marriage this would have incontrovertibly expatriated her US citizenship.
Various clauses of Article 17 of Indonesian Law 62/1958 are cited as containing acts which might have expatriated Barry Soetoro’s Indonesian citizenship in the United States: no evidence exists that Soetoro-Obama performed any such act until 1996 – assuming he was an American citizen. It is extremely significant that the Soetoro-Obama Selective Service Registration, alleged to date from 1980 and released through FOIA, gives every impression of being fraudulent (1Lishell probably contests that). Anyhow, 1Lishell cannot be serious when he asks us to believe that the Pledge of Allegiance amounts to a legally binding and (Indonesian) expatriating oath or promise when recited by children under school discipline.
If Barry Soetoro resorted OFFICIALLY to Indonesian citizenship abroad in his own behalf after age 18 his consequent expatriation of purported US citizenship was voluntary and conclusive. Soetoro-Obama will not permit Americans to access any information that would allow critical tests to determine his true nationality – he is under no obligation, retort his supporters – but even to think about the issue means juggling the legal systems of four sovereign nations, US, Britain, Kenya, and Indonesia, which all have had competing claims in their respective law upon Obama. Was it to this Obama referred when said in Germany that he was a (quote) “Citizen of the World” ?
Does this profile fit a natural born citizen, who has no undivided loyalties or is not subject to foreign claims ? For many these facts define ineligibility to the Presidency. Anyone who believes the Presidency was designed for US citizens who once were not exclusively US citizens – unless said citizens were alive at the Constitution’s adoption in 1787 nearly 222 years ago – displays an inability to construe the pellucid logic of Article 2 or cares nothing for constitutional government. Had “natural born citizen” (US born citizen of two US citizen parents) equaled “citizen” (US born) there would have been no reason for the Framers of the Constitution to stipulate it: “natural born” had a clear meaning (maximum ius soli et ius sanguinis) for the Founding Fathers that a less literate posterity is anachronistically interpreting.
2 Article 3 of Indonesian Law 62/1958 has been quoted with reference to Barry Soetoro and one hesitates to cause pain. Article 3 applies only to the children of female Indonesian citizens married to foreign husbands. In Indonesia until 2006 citizenship (except via Articles 7 and 13 Law 62/1958) derived from the Indonesian father, not the mother, thus to acquire it children of this type of mixed marriage had to make a special petition. Quite simply, as the son of an Indonesian father and mother this Article is completely irrelevant with regard to Obama. (Google “Marcellina Tanuhandaru” for background.) If not sooner, Barry Soetoro acquired Indonesian nationality under Articles 7(2) and 13(2) of Indonesian Law 62/1958 as soon as his mother did.
3 Expatriation of Indonesian nationality under Article 17 of Indonesian Law 62/1958 follows upon 5 years consecutive residence outside Indonesia beginning from age 18. Article 18 of Indonesian Law 62/1958 requires expatriated Indonesians who return to Indonesia to report within a year of arrival to authorities if they wish to reclaim their status. It’s as simple as that: ask an Indonesian.
4 1Lishell has attributed to me beliefs about Obama’s citizenship which are not mine. My position is that if Obama’s original birth record – for example, those CertificATES he has admitted possessing before CertificATIONs (COLB ) were introduced in 2001 – could pass muster in court they would already be in the public domain: as they are not, nor were referenced by Obama’s attorneys in Hollister v Soetoro, those CertificATES must contain information Obama wishes to prevent becoming public knowledge. I believe all the following statements are true:
1 No birthplace or registration address is ever printed on a Hawaii short form COLB.
2 Obama’s newspaper birth announcements and recent Hawaii DoH statements predicate some as yet unidentified type of birth record from 1961 on file: informant as yet unknown, place and country of birth as yet unknown.
3 One or more entries in Obama’s original birth registration are suspect, possibly fraudulent.
4 Obama has blocked (or not cooperated in terms of) access to his personal records held anywhere, despite protestations of transparency.
5 Forensic analysis of COLBs that Obama’s attorneys (Hollister v Soetoro) reference as evidence details multiple instances of criminal forgery – additionally no envelope(s?) from Hawaii DoH with corroborating post marks have been produced.
6 Legal repudiation by Obama of birth records held in Hawaii is not possible.
7 It is inadmissible to testify as to one’s own place of birth.
8 There are several false statements in the Dunham-Obama and Dunham-Soetoro divorce papers about residency and citizenship.
9 Barack Jnr has written that he discovered his birth certificate and immunization papers while at high school – this certificate has never been released.
10 At the beginning of their relationship Barack Snr did not reveal to Ann Dunham the existence of an ongoing common-law “marriage” (to Grace Kezia ) in Kenya (not recognized in Hawaii) and at some unspecified time later told Ann he was no longer involved.
11 Stanley Ann Dunham dropped out of U of Hawaii late in 1960.
12 Barack Snr informed his father, Hussein Onyango Obama, of the impending marriage and received a letter back expressly rejecting the match.
13 Stanley Ann Dunham had dated Barack Snr to the displeasure of her parents (according to Susan Blake) and Mr and Mrs Dunham did not attend the marriage ceremony on 2 February 1961 (according to Barack Jnr) – it is unknown if Ann received her parent’s consent.
14 Records show that shortly after Barack Jnr’s birth was registered in Hawaii (on 8 August 1961), a witness (Susan Blake) met Ann Obama and Barack Jnr in the last week of August 1961 in Seattle – at which single meeting Ann told many apparent untruths.
15 Ann Obama enrolled at the U of Washington as a student August 1961.
16 No reason has yet surfaced to explain why Ann Obama did not rejoin her husband in Hawaii.
17 Ann D. Obama did not return to Hawaii until 1963 – after Barack Snr had left for post-graduate study at Harvard in 1962.
18 Throughout his life Barack Snr evinced many signs of personality disorder: shallow and manipulative personal relations, alcoholism, violent abuse, grandiosity and self-destructiveness.
19 Ann Dunham from her teen years evinced many signs of personality disorder: low self-esteem, identity issues (due not least to carrying her father’s first name), sexual risk-taking, repeated lying and fabulation, and impulsiveness.
20 Barack Snr compulsively mimicked (vengefully) his father’s behavior – traveled to a distant continent and married a white woman (as Hussein Onyango Obama claimed for himself but never substantiated, except for a single photograph).
21 Ann Dunham compulsively mimicked (vengefully) her parent’s behavior – she married very young (and secretly ?) to a disapproved spouse and moved farther and farther afield.
22 Ann Dunham was peremptorily taken by her parent’s against her will from Washington State to Hawaii in July of 1960.
23 Ann D. Obama’s movements and residences, from February 1961 until late August 1961 (Seattle, WA), are as yet unknown.
24 Barack Snr’s movements and residences for the summer of 1961 are as yet unknown.
25 Barack Snr was an African-Kenyan nationalist.
26 All Barack Snr’s children were born in Africa: Barack Jnr claims (see point 7) to be the exception.
27 Only those may serve as President who are born in the United States to two US citizen parents.
28 Barack Jnr was born to a British (later Kenyan) citizen father from whom he received British (then Kenyan) citizenship at birth.
29 50 Secretaries of State and Congress have vitiated their legal duty to determine Obama’s eligibility to the office of US President.
On the basis of these facts I consider it certain that Obama cannot ever be the legitimate President. These facts also point to the high probability that Obama was born in Kenya; a dispute as to that probability should be resolved by critical test. This test should follow a ruling that Obama’s Certification of Live Birth is legally irrelevant in the determination of the true facts of his birth (see posting above). This ruling would probably come as a result of a challenge to Obama’s eligibility to the Presidency. Those challenges are in preparation; only one is required to succeed; it may come by way of the National Grand Jury, if not sooner.
David E.:
You notice 1Lishell has no answer to your well stated summation.
Ironically, I feel the same way about most, if not all, of the birthers. So far, the courts seem to be agreeing with me.
1Lishell,
Try reading the article I linked to and you’ll realize your errors.
Sharon 2,
Frankly, I’m not sure what you’re talking about, but that’s OK. It certainly cannot be about this site, because it’s only been around since Friday, October 24, 2008.
-Phil
1Lishell,
I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. But, we’ll see.
-Phil
“Just take this for what it is: A warning that what Pidgeon proposes may be illegal. Those interested in the project ought to seek legal advice before participating. Advice from someone other than Pidgeon.”
I wonder at the sincerity of that concern. I’ll try not to be too verbose here. A group of people, myself included, became intensely involved in discussion of politics/world events over a period of a couple of years at a website. The site was not supposed to lean that way, but it transformed over time. The commenters who obviously held different views than the majority gradually engaged in disgusting behavior, creating sock puppets to add to the problem. It became clear that there were some operatives at work. (Actually the site owner was working behind the scenes and knew the commenters were coming from another site.) They were not acting directly on behalf of any political candidate but clearly had an agenda. It isn’t necessary to get into the details here. The whole site had to be shut down. It re-emerged with stricter moderation, but was never the same. (It was interesting to have the flow of limited moderation initially). I don’t see that happening here because comments are moderated strictly now, but what I have noticed is a bit of escalation. When a commenter refuses to agree to disagree and regularly comes back to show us the error of our ways, I start to smell a troll with this agenda: dissuade people by fear. I go back to my initial question: why Bob’s concern? Is Bob like O’Reilly, just looking out for the folks?
I understand if you delete or edit, Phil.
Bob,
Just curious…what are the potential illegalities that have been “proposed”? Are you referring to the gathering of people and information, or the use of that information when contacting political representatives?
In either case, I don’t see how anything mentioned would be “potentially” illegal. I don’t know of any law that prohibits citizens from gathering facts and using those facts to try to influence their representatives’ political decisions. Do you?
1Lishell,
Are you still in law school, or are you already a lawyer? What is so complicated about this?
If Obama has no constitutional right to hold office because he does not meet the constitutional eligibility requirements for that office, then it requires no constitutional act to remove him from the office he occupies.
Can any lawyer walk into a court, sit on the judge’s bench, and preside over a case? No. They must have a legitimate (legal) claim to that position, otherwise they have assumed a power that they cannot and do not rightfully have. It would not require any legal process to demand the lawyer to remove himself from the bench. He would have no legitimate claim to that authority.
You think that an election overrides constitutional eligibility? What if an 18 year-old foreigner ran for the presidency and won the election? Does that mean we must accept said person as the next president, despite the requirements in our constitution? Your claims are entirely inconsistent with the proper understanding of law.
If there are grounds, obviously, he can be impeached. That’s in the Constitution. Ineligibility would be grounds.
What I’m saying is that President Obama does not magically cease to be in office if he is proven to be ineligible. President Obama took office, and he’s there until he’s term-limited out unless there are ground for impeachment.
Bob,
Perhaps you are related to Der Schlick-meister, former President Clinton? That’s what your entire comment sounded like to me.
-Phil
1Lishell,
You said, “An underlying defect in President Obama’s qualifications would not invalidate the fact that President Obama properly holds office as a result of the process outlined in the constitution.”
So you are going on record as saying that if the President is found to be ineligible by way of his birth, nobody could do anything to him?
If that presupposition is true, then you would be saying that impeachment is above even one Barack Hussein Obama.
-Phil
There is no point in my saying that I was wrong
You put words into my mouth that I never said, your attempts now to change the subject notwithstanding. So you were wrong; admitting a minor error is better than subbornly refusing to acknowledge you were wrong in the first place.
Furthermore, suggesting that something will be illegal after the fact is merely some sort of conspiracy theory on your part.
Real slowly: Pidgeon hasn’t yet done anything illegal. There are illegalities in what he proposes to do. Regardless of what actions, if any, Pidgeon does take, the end result is going to be same — nothing.
Just take this for what it is: A warning that what Pidgeon proposes may be illegal. Those interested in the project ought to seek legal advice before participating. Advice from someone other than Pidgeon.
Libby lied under oath. That’s perjury.
Why should Libby be allowed to get away with perjury, and Fitzgerald be disciplined for “prosecutorial misconduct?
Should we have let Clinton get away with perjury and disciplined Kenneth Starr for misconduct?
President Obama is he president. President Obama was properly elected under the Constitutional process for electing a president, and upon taking the oath of office, President Obama assumed the Office of President of the United States.
An underlying defect in President Obama’s qualifications would not invalidate the fact that President Obama properly holds office as a result of the process outlined in the constitution.
“Natural Born: A native born child of the U.S. or one of it’s territories to two American Citizen parents who have U.S. jurisdiction/allegiance.
U.S. Citizen: A native born child of the U.S. or one it’s territories to an American Citizen parent who has U.S. jurisdiction/allegiance. (This is one example. Other rules apply).
Naturalized Citizen: Foreign born who takes the oath of allegiance to th U.S. (Other rules apply).”
This is incorrect. Birthright+ citizenship is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. Birthright citizenship is. Second, a naturalized citizen is a U.S. Citizen. That is the point of naturalization-to confer citizenship upon a person.
Were your definitions to be accepted, Bobby Jindal must be removed from office immediately, as neither of his parents were citizens at the time of his birth, and therefore he cannot be a citizen.
Also, you still fail to explain this:
It would be an absurd result for the Court to find that the Constitution created a three-class system of natural-born, native-born, and naturalized, but then only differentiated between natural-born and naturalized in eligibility for offices, the only time natural-born is mentioned; the native-born class would be superfluous under this theory.
On the other hand, were the Framers to include only two classes of citizens, natural-born per de Vattel and naturalized citizens; that would also be an absurd result: people born in the U.S. but with a foreign parent would be completely barred from citizenship, as “this power granted to Congress to establish an uniform rule of naturalization is, by the well understood meaning of the word, confined to persons born in a foreign country, under a foreign Government. It is not a power to raise to the rank of a citizen anyone born in the United States who, from birth or parentage, by the laws of the country, belongs to an inferior and subordinate class.” Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393,417 (1856). (emphasis added)
Bob,
There is no point in my saying that I was wrong when you have confirmed what any sensible reader could deduce, all along. You cannot claim that anything Mr. Pidgeon is proposing to do is illegal, because it isn’t.
Furthermore, suggesting that something will be illegal after the fact is merely some sort of conspiracy theory on your part. Apparently, you are not alone in this conspiracy of What Might Occur, as most of the opposition to the idea of a national grand jury is promoting exactly the same concept; to wit: “We really don’t know if what Mr. Pidgeon is suggesting he is going to do is really legal or not, but we’ll be waiting in the wings to slam him if, in fact, a legal authority actually agrees to look into his proposed group’s findings. If those same authorities don’t accept any findings by this private group, we won’t do anything, but we’ll continue to parrot the concept that he shouldn’t be doing what he’s doing, because he’s simply a whacko in the first place.”
-Phil
We can split hairs however you wish to do so
We can split hair however you wish to do so; I never said Pidgeon was presently violating the law, your statements notwithstanding. A simple “I was wrong” from you would suffice.
I was merely asking how it would be construed as a crime by you.
What, and ruin all the fun by tipping Pidgeon off? After Pidgeon completes the criminal acts, all will be explained.
If he is found ineligible, no impeachment proceedings would be necessary. If one is unable to hold a particular office by law, then they are not subject to lawful proceedings to remove them from the office they cannot legally hold.
If Obama is ineligible – and therefore a usurper – he would need to vacate the office immediately or be removed by force (the police, not an angry mob with pitchforks). Resigning from office would make no sense and would be irrelevant – he has no legal right to resign from an office he cannot legally hold. How do you resign from an office you never held? It defies logic.
The rest of the process is seemingly accurate, assuming the People do not overthrow the government at that point.
RC,
Are you referring to this Libby trial and Fitzgerald case?
Scooter Libby Verdict
Fitzgerald was lucky he wasn’t reprimanded (fired) for prosecutorial misconduct. And no, Plame was not a covert agent at the time – which is probably why the CIA has yet to confirm it. They would look pretty bad if it was discovered that a witch hunt was allowed to happen because of their refusal to admit an error of fact and of judgment.
Bob:
Your words, not mine: “Hmmmm. They all must be ‘in on it,’ eh?”
Was Mr. O a socialist workers party candidate? If so, for what office?
Thank you.
Mr. Nalyeskov,
Did you grow up in the Soviet Union?
If so, what do you personally think is happening in this country today? What concerns you most?
Thank you.
1Lishell:
Your comprehension of the U.S. Constitution is limited in scope. To really understand it, you would have to study the backup materials leading up and forming the U.S. Constitution (other than your civil rights court document citations). Go back and study these documents. You might then have a better understanding of the U.S. Constitution and what it means.
There are three Citizenship Classifications (with good reason):
Natural Born: A native born child of the U.S. or one of it’s territories to two American Citizen parents who have U.S. jurisdiction/allegiance.
U.S. Citizen: A native born child of the U.S. or one it’s territories to an American Citizen parent who has U.S. jurisdiction/allegiance. (This is one example. Other rules apply).
Naturalized Citizen: Foreign born who takes the oath of allegiance to th U.S. (Other rules apply).
Native born is not a classification of citizenship but defines it only as that of a person born on American soil or one of it’s territories.
1Lishell:
Ceremonial??? It was a Senate Resolution for the purpose of vetting Senator McCain for eligibility to run for the Presidential Seat.
Statement of
The Honorable Patrick Leahy
United States Senator
Vermont
April 24, 2008
——————————————————————————–
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY
CHAIRMAN, SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
OPENING STATEMENT
EXECUTIVE BUSINESS MEETING
APRIL 24, 2008
We convene this morning with another full agenda. I trust we will be able to turn to it immediately following my brief opening remarks and those of Senator Specter.
I begin by noting that this is the first business meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee to be webcast live. I am a strong proponent of webcasting and am delighted that now in addition to webcasting our hearings we are able to provide greater access to the American public by webcasting our business meetings, as well.
On our agenda today are several items. We have the bipartisan Kennedy-Specter-Leahy State Secrets Protection Act that we introduced back in January to aid courts when confronting the burgeoning claims of state secrets privilege by the Bush administration. That assertion is being used by the Government to avoid judicial review and accountability by ending cases without consideration of the merits.
We held a Committee hearing on this issue in February after which Senator Feingold, the Chair of our Constitution Subcommittee, and Senator Whitehouse joined as cosponsors of the bill. A number of other thoughtful Senators have joined as cosponsors, as well.
I first listed this matter for consideration by the Committee at our business meeting on March 6. I hope, after holdovers and time for study, that now seven weeks later we can consider it and report it to the Senate.
Next we have a bill that Senator Kohl has introduced to provide federal assistance to state courts so that they may better provide interpreters and thereby do a better job rendering justice. Six of us have cosponsored that bill, including Senator Specter. I do not believe debate on that measure will take long.
Then we can turn our attention to an issue on which a number of us have been working and concerned about. Senator Schumer has introduced a bill to help the administration expedite the naturalization applications for members of the Armed Forces by creating a liaison at the U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services with the FBI and by setting processing deadlines for these applications. The current naturalization backlogs have been a source of concern for many, and without greater efforts, upwards from half a million law-abiding people who have played by all the rules and waited in line and applied for citizenship will see their applications stalled until it is too late to participate in the important upcoming elections this fall. We raised this matter with the FBI Director at our oversight hearing in March, and again with Secretary Chertoff at our oversight hearing in April. The administration’s response remains wanting. Accordingly, I hope the Committee will today give its attention to Senator Schumer’s bill to ensure that the naturalization process for members of the Armed Forces who seek U.S. citizenship is carried out as efficiently as possible.
Then we can turn our attention to a Senate Resolution intended to clarify and recognize that Senator McCain’s birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 while his father was serving in the United States Navy should not disqualify him constitutionally from running for President. I have said publicly that I believe no change in law is needed. In response to my question, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff, a former Federal judge, agreed with me that the circumstances of Senator McCain’s birth should not disqualify him from being considered a “natural born Citizen” under the Constitution. He agreed with me that anyone born to American citizens is a “natural born Citizen” and satisfies the purposes of Article II of the Constitution.
Former Solicitor General Theodore Olson and Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe analyzed the issue and came to the same conclusion based on the Framers’ intent, the purpose of the provision and historical precedent. When we reach the measure, I will make their letter and analysis part of our record. We should pass this bipartisan resolution to put to rest speculation that Senator McCain is not eligible to run for President because of the circumstances of his birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone and that somehow those circumstances adversely affected his citizenship status.
This bipartisan measure derives from Senator McCaskill’s efforts. She introduced the resolution, which Senator Coburn and I have cosponsored, as have both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, and Senator Webb.
There are additional resolutions commemorating Margaret Truman Daniels and Dith Pran for their lifetime accomplishments.
Finally, we have the opportunity today to report three more lifetime judicial nominations to the Federal courts, a U.S. Marshal nomination and the nomination of Senator Martinez’s brother to be a member of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission. The judicial nominees are from those who participated at the hearing that Senator Kohl chaired earlier this month. I thank the senior Senator from Wisconsin.
I have already announced our next judicial nominations hearing to be chaired by Senator Cardin. Now that we have received the ABA peer review and the paperwork is completed on the nomination of Steven Agee to the Fourth Circuit we will proceed to consider that nomination just as I have said we would since we received the nomination in March. In deference to Senator Lugar and Senator Kyl’s requests, I have included judicial nominees from their states at that hearing, as well.
To get through this agenda we will need the cooperation and attention of members from both sides of the aisle.
With that brief opening, I turn to the Ranking Member for his brief opening remarks and then will turn to the agenda.
###
Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
On the “State Secrets Protection Act,” S. 2533
Executive Business Meeting
April 24, 2008
Today, the Judiciary Committee considers the bipartisan State Secrets Protection Act. This important bill would establish uniform procedures for courts examining state secrets privilege claims to ensure that, whenever possible, plaintiffs have their day in court, while at the same time protecting information that could harm national security if publicly disclosed. I am delighted to be working with Senator Kennedy and Senator Specter on this important and much-needed legislation. Senator Feingold and Senator Whitehouse have also joined as cosponsors, along with others.
The state secrets privilege is a common law doctrine the government can claim in court to prevent evidence that could harm national security from being publicly revealed. The privilege has been used, or misused, in recent years to stymie litigation at its very inception in cases alleging egregious government misconduct, such as extraordinary rendition and warrantless eavesdropping on the communications of American citizens.
A recent example of the state secrets privilege short-circuiting litigation is the 2006 case of Khaled El-Masri. Mr. El-Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent, alleged that he was kidnapped on New Year’s Eve in 2003 in Macedonia, and transported against his will to Afghanistan, where he was detained and tortured as part of the Bush administration’s extraordinary rendition program. He sued the government over his alleged detention and harsh treatment. A district court judge in Virginia dismissed the lawsuit on the basis of an ex parte declaration from the Director of the CIA even though the government has admitted that the rendition program exists. Mr. El-Masri has no other remedy. Our justice system is off limits to him, and no judge ever reviewed any of the actual evidence or merits of the claim.
The government has also asserted the state secrets privilege in the litigation over the warrantless wiretapping of Americans that took place for more than five years. There, a district court judge has rejected the government’s claim that the very subject matter at issue was a state secret. The Bush administration is appealing.
The state secret privilege serves important goals when properly invoked. But there are serious consequences for litigants and for the American public when the privilege is used to terminate litigation alleging serious government misconduct. For the plaintiffs, it means that the courthouse doors are closed – forever – regardless of the severity of their injury or wrongdoing. They will never have their day in court. For the American public, it means less accountability, because there will be no judicial scrutiny of improper actions of the executive, and no check or balance.
The State Secrets Protection Act would help guide the courts to maintain the government’s legitimate interests in secrecy while preserving accountability and the rights of citizens to seek judicial redress. The bill does not restrict the government’s ability to assert the privilege in appropriate cases. Where the privilege applies and where the information cannot be disclosed in any form without significantly harming national security, cases may still be dismissed. But the bill would ensure that judges actually review the purported state secret claim and information to determine whether the government’s claim of privilege should be sustained. This is consistent with the procedures for other privileges recognized in our courts.
I hope the Committee will support passage of this important legislation.
###
Bob,
In a previous quote, you said, “Other than the proposed course of action bring a crime, of course.”
Then you said, “Never said that Pidgeon is presently breaking the law…”
We can split hairs however you wish to do so, but the bottom line is that you’re suggesting that if Mr. Pidgeon follows through with assembling a national grand jury, this would somehow be construed as a crime, by you.
I was merely asking how it would be construed as a crime by you. A simple answer — after asking you for the fourth time now — would be great.
-Phil
I do find it interesting that you’ve gone from, “What Mr. Pidgeon is doing is illegal,”
Never said that Pidgeon is presently breaking the law; please don’t put words in my mouth.
I still find it difficult to figure out how a private group of citizens getting together to garner evidence to subsequently contact certain authorities about said evidence is in any way illegal.
Apparently, so does Pidgeon. But if you want to entrust him with your liberty, go right ahead.
Bob,
At least you caught a bit of the sarcasm in my response back to you; apparently, that is progress. However, I do find it interesting that you’ve gone from, “What Mr. Pidgeon is doing is illegal,” to, “What Mr. Pidgeon is doing will eventually violate the law.”
I still find it difficult to figure out how a private group of citizens getting together to garner evidence to subsequently contact certain authorities about said evidence is in any way illegal.
-Phil
Then I shall declare it illegal that what you propose — whatever it is you’re proposing (I’m not going to ask you to define that for a third time) — that what Mr. Pidgeon’s proposing is illegal.
And your declaration has about as much force of law as Pidgeon’s national grand jury. Enjoy.
If you think Pidgeon’s little tea party won’t eventually violate the law, please feel free to test that at your leisure by signing up.
Dear 1 Lishell. What is the word of a candidate? What is a sworn oath? What is a signature on a piece of paper verifying his/her qualifications?
If Obama is not qualified, how can he swear to enforce the Constitution?
I disagree with you on this point only. A candidate is responsible to prove his/her eligibility else why– his/her words/oaths and signatures on documents.
Bob,
You said, “No paranoia; what Pidgeon is proposing is illegal.”
Then I shall declare it illegal that what you propose — whatever it is you’re proposing (I’m not going to ask you to define that for a third time) — that what Mr. Pidgeon’s proposing is illegal. It makes just as much sense.
-Phil
As I see it, the only crimes committed here are an illegal election process and Obama illegally positioning himself as an eligible candidate for the highest office in our country. The other officials involved in placing him in this position may well be at fault as well.
Yet not one government official has charged Obama (or anyone else) — or even hinted at charging anyone — with any crime regarding this “illegal election process.”
Hmmmm. They all must be “in on it,” eh?
I’m asking you to substantiate your apparent paranoia of what Mr. Pidgeon is proposing.
No paranoia; what Pidgeon is proposing is illegal. I take Pidgeon at his word that he isn’t going to take up arms against the federal government; that doesn’t mean his proposed actions legal.
1Lishell,
Like I said, I don’t think anyone knows what would happen, for the scenario has never occurred before.
-Phil
Your poster has apparently never heard of 1L. 1L is another name for the first year of law school, and it truly is hell. It’s also when law students in real law schools take civil procedure and constitutional law. Orly’s school may not have required those, and Berg may have skipped law school the day that they taught law in those courses.
Phil,
I cannot see any way a court would be willing to create the sort of chaos that would result from such a ruling-if President Obama’s judges were ruled invalid, for instance, would their rulings be invalid as well? Would we then need to retry every single case? If those judges had sentenced anyone to prison, would those sentences be overturned? People convicted or fined under laws President Obama signed?
Courts would uphold the laws and appointments, if for no other reason than to avoid that sort of mass confusion and chaos.
“The Natural Born Citizenship Clause is clearly defined and the eligibility of the Office of Presidency is clearly defined in the U.S. Constitution”
You get 1/2 credit.
The only thing the U.S. has to say on the subject:
“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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”
I argue that the definition of natural born is simply born a U.S. citizen.
I restate and make slight revision to my earlier post:
Nor does it seem like any court would need to look outside the Constitution to determine the meaning of “natural-born.” It is enough to compare the requirements for president, the Senate, and the House. Both the House and Senate permit naturalized citizens to hold office, while the presidency requires a natural-born citizen. It would be an absurd result for the Court to find that the Constitution created a three-class system of natural-born, native-born, and naturalized, but then only differentiated between natural-born and naturalized in eligibility for offices, the only time natural-born is mentioned; the native-born class would be superfluous under this theory.
On the other hand, were the Framers to include only two classes of citizens, natural-born per de Vattel and naturalized citizens; that would also be an absurd result: people born in the U.S. but with a foreign parent would be completely barred from citizenship, as “this power granted to Congress to establish an uniform rule of naturalization is, by the well understood meaning of the word, confined to persons born in a foreign country, under a foreign Government. It is not a power to raise to the rank of a citizen anyone born in the United States who, from birth or parentage, by the laws of the country, belongs to an inferior and subordinate class.” Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393,417 (1856). (emphasis added)
Bob,
You’re avoiding the question. I’m asking you to substantiate your apparent paranoia of what Mr. Pidgeon is proposing.
-Phil
Show me where a private gathering of citizens is a crime.
A private gathering isn’t.
But what Pidgeon is proposing isn’t limited to just gathering.
1Lishell:
Your answer to #9 is most interesting.
Bob:
As I see it, the only crimes committed here are an illegal election process and Obama illegally positioning himself as an eligible candidate for the highest office in our country. The other officials involved in placing him in this position may well be at fault as well.
1Lishell:
How can you impeach someone who is not legally sitting in the position? As far as the laws that Obama signed – how can someone illegally in “any” positions sign laws and think that they are valid? Again, your defense of Obama is laughable.
He publically admitted that his father was a Kenyan Citizen. The Natural Born Citizenship Clause is clearly defined and the eligibility of the Office of Presidency is clearly defined in the U.S. Constitution. At best, Obama is a U.S. Citizen and not a Natural Born Citizen. I don’t think that we need to keep rehashing his eligibility. We are past this point. What we need to be studying now is the appropriate vetting process. To say that the electoral process is the vetting process is invalid. The rights of citizens have been violated by Obama being illegally placed on the election ballot and by the media bias squashing very important information. Thus, making the whole election process illegal.
Bob,
You said, “Other than the proposed course of action bring a crime, of course.”
Show me where a private gathering of citizens is a crime.
-Phil
1Lishell,
While I agree with your enumerated process, I think there’d be plenty of Court cases regarding his decisions to that date. After all, if the President were to be found ineligible, then that begs the question as to whether he had the power/authority (remember, no rights here) to enact said decisions.
I’m not saying this is what would happen; I’m saying I don’t think you really know, nor does anyone else, because the situation has never occurred. I am saying that if you think the doubts are rampant now, wait until such a scenario were to occur. You’d probably have to have a legion of blogs 10 times bigger than those out there just to cover it all.
-Phil