Obama, Eligibility Update: $75,000 Billboard Campaign, “He’s sort of a god,” TX Grand Jury Presentment, Other News
As WorldNetDaily reports, their now $75,000 billboard campaign intended to establish ads across the country asking, “Where’s The Birth Certificate?” hit another snag:
Lamar Outdoor, one of the largest providers of billboard space in America, has become the second major company to reject an advertising campaign raising questions about Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility for office.
Lamar joins CBS, the No. 1 outdoor advertising company, in prohibiting its salesmen nationwide from accepting leases of billboards for a campaign that asks the simple question, “Where’s the birth certificate?”
“We’re just not going to accept that copy,” Lamar spokesman Hal Kirshaw told WND. “We think it’s a settled matter. We think it’s misleading to indicate there’s any question about the president’s birth certificate. We looked at it and we made the call.”
Kirshaw said he read “independent media reports” and unnamed “newspaper articles” to make his decision. …
“WND’s reporters have investigated this issue more extensively than the rest of the media combined – sending senior staff writer Jerome Corsi to Hawaii and Kenya in search of evidence,” said [Joseph] Farah [Editor and CEO, WND]. “We have commissioned private investigators in Honolulu. There is simply no persuasive evidence to affirm Obama’s claim to a Hawaiian birth. There is no hospital on the island that will confirm the first black president of the United States was born there. It’s all conjecture. And no controlling legal authority in this country has ever asked Obama to provide the proof.”
Kirshaw did say Lamar would re-evaluate the issue if it could be persuaded the issue is legitimate.
“I want Americans to understand that this billboard campaign will be successful with or without CBS and Lamar,” said Farah. “There are still millions of billboards available through other companies eager to take this business. The only barrier to success is money. And I am as determined as ever to keep purchasing billboard space as our budget allows.”
The latest billboard to go up as part of the campaign is in Buena Park, Calif., on Interstate 5, the Golden State Freeway between Los Angeles and Anaheim, a heavily trafficked corridor reaching hundreds of thousands of commuters every week. …
Farah said the sensitivity by large public corporations like CBS and Lamar demonstrates how important this politically charged issue is to the future of the country.
“I never fully realized how dangerous it is that the media in this country are so afraid of government power,” he said. “How are Americans supposed to become aware of controversial issues with this kind of heavy-handed self-censorship in place throughout corporate America? That is the reality of what we face, and the reaction to this campaign should illustrates it better than anything else I’ve seen in my lifetime.”
Yes, with the press fawning over Mr. Obama, you knew it was simply going to be a matter of time before someone would equate the President to the Divine:
I suppose Newsweek’s Evan Thomas should join Chris “tingle up my leg” Matthews in the incense room, eh?
Rev. Sam Sewell presents an update regarding a citizen grand jury’s presentment in the great State of Texas:
![[indictment.bmp]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Cn61JM4kNR8/Si627oPWxkI/AAAAAAAAAWU/zqZqBL6t8jc/s1600/indictment.bmp)
Note to Obots Freaking About Texas Grand Jury
Well I guess you folks could always argue that anyone who believes Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be POTUS is not a credible person.
Before you post another one of your irrational rants full of ridicule and name calling it is only fair to point out that some of the persons serving on the Lone Star Grand Jury are also members of more a conventionally empanelled Grand Jury.
“The grand jury shall inquire into all offenses liable to indictment of which any member may have knowledge, or of which they shall be informed by the attorney representing the State, or any other credible person.”
In Texas the Grand Jury is required by law to “inquire into all offenses” called to its attention.
God bless Texas
As Jeff reports, the press may finally be having enough of this Administration telling them what they can or cannot ask or do:
Assigned Reading: Love or Lust, Obama and the Fawning Press Need to Get a Room (FROM: SFGate.com)
It’s beginning. Slowly but surely, the American people are beginning to wake up. This phenomenal piece by Phil Bronstein shows a bit of this. Other stories, pieces and packages critical of the Obama administrations actions and ideas, by CNN and the Associated Press show the beginnings of disenfranchisement among the press corps. Barack Obama has done too much too quickly, and none of his plans seem to be working.
The key may very well be the press. While I have no doubt they’ll be solidly in his corner as election season approaches, there’s one thing they don’t seem to like, and that’s being scooped. And they are. They’re being locked out of White House events. They’re being told what to ask. Sit down to watch or listen to a Robert Gibbs press conference and you’ll see — despite Gibbs affable nature, the rumblings of hostility are beginning.
Speaking of the Administration, CBS reports that “Some Israelis Insulted By Obama Picture” (click on the referenced link for all the details).
Methinks Mr. Obama needs to get an intelligent person who actually knows protocol, pronto.
And then we have the following commentary from “Kalani,” a commenter at CitizenWell’s blog, where they speculate on the overall picture on eligibility (yes, it’s speculation, so remember that this is someone’s unsubstantiated opinion — in case I really needed to do any disclaiming on that one):
I notice on this topic of Obama’s birth, that no one mentions illegitimacy. Again my opinion is as good as anyone else’s simply because we don’t have the documents to prove or disprove anything.
My hypothesis is that Obama was born illegitimate. (Father unknown — whether Frank Marshall — Malcolm X — Obama Sr — Bozo the Clown. Only a DNA test by digging up bodies will answer the question.)
The facts are that Obama Sr was married in Kenya and couldn’t afford even a good place to live — always attired in the same white shirt. He was only supported by a fund that could pay his tuition and living expenses — with nothing left over. He was a typical starving student — and he simply could NOT afford to take on the responsibilities of getting married.
Along comes Stanley Ann Dunham who is pregnant from father unknown. Ann Dunham’s parents had to find someone to be the father of the illegitimate child simply because of the shame. At that time, there were not many blacks at the UH — and it was easy to spot them on campus. (NOTE: Do not lecture me on the morals and existent conditions at the UH because I attended the UH in the same time frame as Obama/Dunham — and I was born and raised in Hawaii at that time. The moral code for respectable “haoles” was that an illegitimate black child was not acceptable — and notice the choice of an acceptable FOREIGN black, not the unacceptable slave “niggah” black. Pardon the reference, but Hawaii back then was very prudish.)
Obama was paid off and a storyline concocted that Obama simply fell in love after a few weeks (two weeks to be exact) and ran off to Maui to get married. This is about as full of holes as one can imagine — especially since Dunham needed her parents consent because Hawaii law at the time stated that females under 18 need parents consent. Thus the idea of eloping without Madelyn and Stanley Dunham knowing is ridiculous. Second, there is no record of a marriage liccense (which doubles as the marriage certificate when signed) in either Honolulu or Wailuku, Maui.
Furthermore, public records show that Obama Sr and Ann Dunham lived at different addresses at the time of birth — Obama in Kaimuki and Dunham in a cottage on the other side of the island. Getting back to the starving student living in the YMCA — how could he suddenly afford a house in Kaimuki?
After birth, Dunham immediately left for the Washington in Aug 1961 where she enrolled in the Univ of Washington in the fall term of 1961. She remained there (enrolled till the Spring term 1962) until Obama Sr. left Hawaii for Harvard in Mar 1962 whereupon she returned to Hawaii to resume her education at the UH — now a single mother.
The divorce was done by mail in 1964 — and this would give Obama Jr. legitimacy without paperwork. Obama Sr. had no obligations (no alimony/child support) and was free as a bird. But wait…back to the birth certificate. Even with the divorce that gave Obama “proof” of legitimacy, you have the birth certificate that could not be modified without Dunham (and Obama Sr) being accused of perjury — thus voiding the divorce.
They simply let that birth certificate lie — but the first problems appeared when Obama was enrolled in Olamana School for kindergarten. His proof that he was “Barry Obama” is the name on a class photo — but remember to go back to the storyline of Obama’s birth and you see it is still being used. BUT how do you get around the birth certificate needed for school registration? You can’t. That’s why any proof from the school is missing.
I’m not saying the marriage with Lolo Soetoro by Ann Dunham was not a love match, but it conveniently solved the problem the education of Obama Jr. At age 6, he goes to Indonesia and tries to assimilate. The only problem is that Indonesia still considers him a US citizen and he can’t go to public schools. Soetoro’s job cannot afford sending Obama to the expensive international schools in Jakarta. So what to do? He is adopted and as an Indonesian, he enters public schools. But the education is markedly substandard and in 1969 or so the idea is formed to send him back to Hawaii.
It is important to remember that Ann Dunham has worked at the US Embassy teaching a part-time English class so she would be able to ask questions. She would know that interviews to get an S-2 student visa is not normally done for anyone UNDER 13. Thus the plan is set.
Obama’s grandmother in 1970 now has risen to a VP position at Bank of Hawaii and as such has some influence. (We do NOT subscribe to the Obama b.s. that his grandfather’s employer pulled strings because no one has ever found this mysterious employer.) She arranges for an interview at Punahou for her grandson — an INDONESIAN student.
Obama travels to Hawaii on an INDONESIAN passport ALONE for his interview at Punahou in August 1969. Remember that Obama admitted during the nomination process to the question from Sen. Dan Inouye about his attending the “elite” school that he attended on a scholarship.
One cannot believe that Punahou would grant a scholarship to a US citizen with substandard English and lacking in pre-requisite skills to a full scholarship. The only answer is as an FOREIGN student. He passes the interview and is granted admission. (NOTE: The Obama hype that he is a “genius” is pure b.s. At Punahou, Obama was a “B” student. At Occidental he was a “B” student. At Columbia he was a ??? student that graduated WITHOUT Honors. Only at Harvard did he graduate Magna Cum Laude — but there is growing suspicion that Harvard was “paid” for him to gain entry and situations set up to ensure his success. But that’s another story. The fact is that he was NOT on an Academic scholarship because he just did NOT have the grades for it.)
Word is sent back to Indonesia where Ann Dunham remains and the S-2 visa is completed at the Embassy for Barry Soetoro as he doesn’t need to have an interview in person. Remember that an S-2 visa is good until you complete your education — meaning that Obama did NOT have to redo the process if he kept his Indonesian passport current by renewing it every five years. The S-2 would be valid until he completed his doctorate in America if he so chose. (NOTE: The passport leads off onto other topics of its use and renewal — and it is a surprisingly easy process for Indonesians. But this is another topic.)
Now we have Obama in Punahou School in 1970 — but he is Barry Soetoro. This is when Obama starts to play the dual citizen game. He is Barry Obama (US citizen) as well as Barry Soetoro (Indonesian citizen). To the scholarshop process, he is Indonesian — to the administration he is Barry Soetoro.
BUT now we get back to the birth certificate. Using the divorce paperwork from 1964 can only stretch so far. The need for the birth certificate MUST be provided. BUT IT SHOWS OBAMA AS ILLEGITIMATE!!! He is listed as “Barry Dunham.” How do we get out of this???
In Dec 1970 Obama Sr returns to Hawaii from Kenya and Ann Dunham Soetoro returns from Indonesia at the same time. Obama Sr. and Dunham stay at the cramped apartment of Madelyn and Stanley Dunham. The trip lasts ONE MONTH. Just about the time it would take to legally change Barry Dunham to Barry Obama. After that Obama Sr. returns to Kenya and Ann Dunham Soetoro goes back to Indonesia.
This is about the time that the name “Obama” was etched into the cement behind the Punahou cafeteria. Obama was now legally “Barack Hussein Obama II” — and at the same time, “Barry Soetoro” for paperwork purposes.
Obama’s fictional life gets even more interesting after that … and then he became President.
If you can get ahold of the long form certificate, you will see that “Barry Dunham” is scratched out and “Barack Hussein Obama II” is penned in. In Hawaii, this is the method legal name changes are affected on the birth certificate.
Anyway, that is my take on Obama’s birth certificate — and until someone gets the birth certificate, my version is just as good as anyone else’s. Why won’t Obama just give us the long form birth certificate so we can stop bickering with each other over the TRUTH.
“Kalani” responds to other commenters; first, here:
Old Salt — I am saying that Obama had a LEGAL name change — from Barry Dunham (illegitimate taking mother maiden name) to Barack Hussein Obama II in Dec 1970. I do not believe it was done by the same lawyer that handled the divorce in 1964 –who I believe still maintains an office in Honolulu — because he would see through the problem of perjury instantly. It was done by someone else who would look at the problem as simply correcting a “mistake” of two individuals who married and divorced without taking care of the paperwork of the illegitimate child through an oversight or whatever reason they offered.
I’m also saying that there are two worlds operating here: The one of Barry Soetoro valid passport holder from Indonesia with an S-2 visa granted by the Jakarta Embassy in 1970. This passport and visa would be renewed in 1975 through the consulate in Honolulu — which changes hands as it is an appointed position. In Indonesia, it only recognized ONE citizenship — as there was no dual citizenship allowed at the time.
In America, Obama was operating under Barry Obama/Barry Dunham as a dual citizen until he became Barack Hussein Obama by legal name change in 1970. The US recognized dual citizenship until Obama attained majority — 18 years in this case — at which time he would be ONLY a US citizen. As Barack Hussein Obama II, he was a US citizen by default even if he didn’t render any allegiance statement.
BOTH WORLDS DID NOT TALK TO EACH OTHER. Why should they? To Indonesia, there was only Barry Soetoro, Indonesian citizen by adoption, with a legal Indonesian passport. Barack Obama did NOT exist. His change of citizenship was NOT registered with the US embassy.
To the America, Barry Soetoro as a US citizen did NOT exist. They only showed Barry Dunham who had his name legally changed in 1970 to Barack Hussein Obama II. He was a dual citizen of the US and KENYA by virtue of his birth. Indonesia does NOT come into the equation.
What is the dual citizenship game? Obama tells the schools for tuition purposes he is Barry Soetoro with proof of a passport and eligible for foreign tuition assistance as a valid student on a S-2 visa. To the registrar’s office. he is a dual citizen and registered as Barack Hussein Obama. The schools have no reason to question this scam as all the paperwork is valid.
All I’m saying is that I may be 100 percent wrong. But in my mind, the pieces of the puzzle seem to fit.
Also, here:
Old Salt — Reread your post and I see how we diverge into very different conclusions — but I once again say that at this point NOTHING is invalid. You’re just as right as me because we don’t have access to Obama’s birth certificate.
Without going into all the facts that I based my conclusions on, I believe that Barry Soetoro is DEAD. I believe that Obama retained his Indonesian citizenship until 1995 when he let it lapse. Under Indonesian law, if someone abroad does NOT renew their citizenship (ie. reissuance of the passport), they lose their citizenship automatically. I believe that Obama used the last Indonesian passport to journey with Michelle Obama to Bali, Indonesia in 1993 to purported finish his autobiography (that I don’t believe for a second that he wrote) and to Kenya in 1993. He allowed this passport to lapse in 1995 — and with it the identity of Barry Soetoro — as he was now entering into Illinois politics and becoming highly visible.
I believe if someone could just prove that the FIRST US passport he was issued in 2003 upon becoming a US Senator, it would end all discussion one way or another. But of course, we all know that his passport agency records have been sealed. They may have been cleansed by his advisor who was running the contract for the State Department, but I’m sure that the issuance documents would be spikes to nail Obama’s coffin.
But the bottom line is that I believe that the Soetoro logic trail to prove Obama is not a legal POTUS is a dead end.
I readily admit that Obama is a US citizen — but I am adamant that he is NOT a natural born citizen following the logic of Leo Donofrio et al. He was born a dual citizen — first US/British — and then in 1963, US/Kenyan. Regardless of him being a native citizen or naturalized citizen, he is NOT a natural born citizen as defined in the Constitution. Our problem though is getting the US Supreme Court — or any federal court to agree to that definition.
Again, we both agreeing to the problem. We just have different views on the solution.
As well as here:
Greg — All I said is that no one — including the private investigators sent out and private parties — have not found any marriage license (which also serves as the marriage certificate when signed). NADA — ZIP — This is really ancient news.
The divorce documents were dug up by private investigators and on there Ann Dunham swears that a marriage took place. That’s the only proof of a marriage — her sworn statement that there was a marriage. As Obama is mentioned by name “Barack Hussein Obama II” giving him legitimacy. This is in black-and-white and also old news.
But you seem to have missed the part where I stated from the inception this “family” of Barack Obama was a farce. There is no way a man who can’t afford a decent place to live and relying on funds from an outside source would get married. Public records show them living at different addresses at the time of Obama’s birth. There are so many things wrong with the picture — starting with why Ann Dunham runs away to Washington State shortly after Obama’s birth — and stays there until Obama Sr. leaves Hawaii. In addition, though Rep Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) says he was an old friend of Obama’s, he will only say that Anne Dunham MAY have been at some weekend parties. However, NONE of Obama’s other friends remember her. In web testimonials of his old “buds” from the East-West Center (Obama Sr. was NOT EWC), there is NO mention of Ann Dunham. Ask yourself if you had a son, wouldn’t you mention it? If your wife ran off with your son, wouldn’t you mention it? My answer is that Obama Sr. had no son — and that is why he never mentioned Obama Jr. to anyone. There is much, much more. This is why I say his being fathered by Obama Sr. is questionable at best — and unbelievable at worst. I take the “unbelievable” stance.
Check it out and see what conclusions you come to.
And, finally, here:
Old Salt — Yes, I am from Hawaii and yes, I attended the UH at the same time as Dunham and Obama.
Nukes? Don’t remember the H-bomb tests you mentioned personally but remember reading about them. Did watch the EMF clouds in Hawaii from a later test — and learned to respect the immense power of the bomb.
As for me personally, I wore a patch with a mushroom cloud on it when I first came into the service — the old 4925th out of Kirtland AFB for atmospheric testing. Remember sleeping with the cockroaches at Barbers Pt, HI to guard our top secret bins carrying coconuts back to Albuquerque. Good times. It was a dream job. It lasted only until LBJ took over then we all got orders for SEA — the start of a 4 1/2 year party for me. Damn that was so long ago.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- Obama’s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
- Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
- Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing
-Phil
Sue,
OK. I’ve already expounded on this. Notary publics only ever certify that a document is legal by virtue of having witnessed someone correctly sign a piece of paper. They don’t claim anything with respect to the actual content of said paper.
-Phil
Sue,
I didn’t originally answer the question because I failed to see the validity of it for the discussion at hand.
However, to humor you, I’ll answer via illustration.
Let’s say I have a Last Will and Testament. Let’s say that all I do is sign and date the document. This is otherwise known as a “holographic” will, in that if the document has the basic, correct language within it (e.g.: it actually states that this is my Last Will and Testament), it is legal because I signed it, but it would be easier to challenge, as nobody actually saw me sign it and that my signature was, in fact, the signature that was to be affixed to the document.
Now let’s say that I take the document to, say, my bank and I sign the document in front of a notary public, and then she subsequently signs and affixes her seal to the document. All that this does is show that my signature was actually witnessed and that my document is certified to be a legal document. This is absolutely not the same as the notary public officially recognizing the actual content of the Will; in fact, notary publics have absolutely no need to actually read the document to which they are attesting.
Now let’s say that I’ve signed my Will and had it notarized. Then, I keel over and die. The executor of my estate knows that my Will is in my safe deposit box and they take it to the Courthouse to be filed. At this point, it’s simply a part of the public record, even if the document were not notarized. As far as the content is concerned, it actually becomes law for my estate, and assuming that its language is appropriate for my State, then my estate is dispersed exactly according to my wishes.
In the case of citizen grand juries, someone has taken a piece of paper to a notary public (who happens to be at a Courthouse) where the notary public witnesses the “foreman’s” (or whomever’s) signature saying that they have paperwork they officially wish to file with the State. So, similarly, all that the notary public has done is witnessed the signing and attests that this is a legally-signed document (but does not and may not attest to the content thereof). Subsequently, said individual — the one approaching the Courthouse with paperwork — files the document with the Courthouse; it (likely) gets assigned a case number. Beyond that, there is no guarantee that this “case” will ever see the light of day.
So, what does this all mean for the purposes of our current discussion? Only that if there is an intent to defraud the public, and someone enforces said alleged fraud, then there would be a problem. But to say that someone has a piece of paper notarized and subsequently filed with the Courthouse doesn’t mean they’re doing something illegal.
-Phil
Sue,
And, so, the whole point of this discussion has been to tell me that there are laws on the books that say that if someone does something illegally, they could be held to account (provided there is an adequate enforcement mechanism)?
Frankly, if this is the case, then you’ve just wasted a bunch of time. I don’t think anyone who has followed the eligibility saga for any length of time is going to disagree with you on this point.
-Phil
Phil,
Here is the answer.
http://www.araceliroa.com/faq.htm#12
F.A.Q. Page
Here are some frequently asked questions about the role and limitations of a Notary Public. Simply click on the question and you will automatically go to the answer.
Phil,
And you didn’t answer my question.
Do you know the difference between a document being notarized and a document being filed for record?
Phil,
“Do you have in your possession an electronic copy or source of what a “real” document looks like? If not, then how do you know that what was presented before the County Courthouse is illegal? After all, I think your point remains that somehow the piece of paper filed/notarized/presented before officials is illegal, which means there has to be a baseline legal document against which to make a comparison. Then, you have to take the presented document and the process by which it was presented to try to figure out whether or not it fits the definition of being illegal.”
This is not the way I interpret the Texas Penal Code 32.48. However, I don’t have to figure out anything. It will be up to the proper authorities to make that determination.
Sue,
I’m not sure how many times and in how many ways I need to ask this question before getting an answer from you, so I’ll try at least a fourth time in eliciting a response from you:
Do you have in your possession an electronic copy or source of what a “real” document looks like? If not, then how do you know that what was presented before the County Courthouse is illegal? After all, I think your point remains that somehow the piece of paper filed/notarized/presented before officials is illegal, which means there has to be a baseline legal document against which to make a comparison. Then, you have to take the presented document and the process by which it was presented to try to figure out whether or not it fits the definition of being illegal.
Seems like a lot of work to do for such an insignificant piece of paper (at least if I am to believe what the opposition has to say about citizen grand juries). But hey, it’s your comment and your time on my blog.
-Phil
Phil,
“So let me yet again see if I understand what you’re getting at. Someone is presenting to the County Courthouse a piece of paper to be notarized.”
Do you not understand the difference between a document being notarized and a document being filed for record?
Sue,
So let me yet again see if I understand what you’re getting at. Someone is presenting to the County Courthouse a piece of paper to be notarized. They’re not being associated with any kind of file number, else that’d be Headliner news, so for all we know, the individuals walk in, get the paper notarized, and walk out.
Tell me again how this is illegal?
Don’t cut-and-paste; you’ve already done this numerous times. Tell me — show me — how the piece of paper these people are having notarized is somehow breaking the law. I want to see the evidence.
-Phil
Phil,
I did get to the point. Filing for record a document that is simulated is violating Texas Penal Code 32.48.
“(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this
section that the simulating document was filed with, presented to,
or delivered to a clerk of a court or an employee of a clerk of a
court created or established under the constitution or laws of this
state, there is a rebuttable presumption that the document was
delivered with the intent described by Subsection (a).”
The recent one “filed” in Williamson County Texas yesterday was “filed” under Misc. filing or “dead file” and none of these “presentments” have been assigned a file number. I also learned today that someone is calling trying to obtain the personal information on real Texas Grand Jurors. Of course, that information was not provided to the caller. If you would like to validate this, here is the Williamson County, Texas District Clerk’s website link.
http://www.wilcogov.org/CountyDepartments/DistrictClerk/tabid/448/language/en-US/Default.aspx
Sarcasm is not my intent. I’m sorry if you feel that I was being sarcastic. I am simply trying to provide factual information regarding this issue.
Again, enjoy your vacation.:)
Sue,
I am fully aware of what Rev. Sewell posts on his blog, and I report on it here, from time to time (you should have already known that by now).
Again, what’s your point?
-Phil
Sue,
Again, your point is what, exactly?
-Phil
Sue,
After watching a few of your comments go across my site, I really have to ask — what’s your point?
I think you think your point is that somehow citizen grand juries are “fake,” in that you apparently think that people cannot get together in a private grouping to come up with what they see as evidence to present to the authorities. If this is what you’re thinking, then do please show me where this is illegal (I’ve now asked you at least twice to do this for me). You’re making the claim that this is somehow illegal, so please back it up (and no, cutting and pasting law on my site does nothing except to show you know how to perform cut-and-pastes of text).
I guess you missed all of my own commentary wherein I’ve said that these citizen grand juries hold absolutely no enforcement power unless and until such time as the authorities take their paperwork and perform further investigation.
If you want to have an intelligent conversation about this issue, then please present the basis for your claims. Otherwise, I find this rather harassing on your part (your commentary reeks of sarcasm, which really doesn’t bode well for anyone attempting to have a reasonable conversation) and would ask that you quickly get to the point.
-Phil
Phil,
This is the article I liked the best regarding these “presentments/indictments.”
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/05/enforcing-grand-jury-indictments.html
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Enforcing Grand Jury Indictments
Removing a prosecuting attorney
“The grand jury shall inquire into all offenses liable to indictment of which any member may have knowledge, or of which they shall be informed by the attorney representing the State, or any other credible person.”
“In Texas the Grand Jury is required by law to “inquire into all offenses” called to its attention.”
Within the Texas Grand Jury jurisdiction.
Phil,
“You really don’t understand context, do you? What — you think “We must make them act!” is synonymous with, “we are going to go to the Courthouse with pitchforks and spears and we’re not leaving until the authorities absolutely take action on this matter?” No, that would be what groups like Code Pink might do (slight sarcasm intended).”
“Instead, I think if you actually read any of what’s being said on my site or Mr. Swensson’s site RE: citizen grand juries, you will find that it is a grassroots movement that even the Secret Service has purportedly said is breaking no laws.”
According to the District Clerk of Lavaca County, Texas, filing a “presentment” from a fake grand jury does fall under the Texas Penal Code, simulating legal process. Maybe he doesn’t know what he is talking about. I’d bet money Phil that you didn’t even bother to read the Texas Penal Code I provided.
http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/32.48.00.html
Texas Penal Code – Section 32.48. Simulating Legal Process
§ 32.48. SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS. (a) A person commits
an offense if the person recklessly causes to be delivered to
another any document that simulates a summons, complaint, judgment,
or other court process with the intent to:
(1) induce payment of a claim from another person; or
(2) cause another to:
(A) submit to the putative authority of the
document; or
(B) take any action or refrain from taking any
action in response to the document, in compliance with the
document, or on the basis of the document.
(b) Proof that the document was mailed to any person with
the intent that it be forwarded to the intended recipient is a
sufficient showing that the document was delivered.
(c) It is not a defense to prosecution under this section
that the simulating document:
(1) states that it is not legal process; or
(2) purports to have been issued or authorized by a
person or entity who did not have lawful authority to issue or
authorize the document.
(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this
section that the simulating document was filed with, presented to,
or delivered to a clerk of a court or an employee of a clerk of a
court created or established under the constitution or laws of this
state, there is a rebuttable presumption that the document was
delivered with the intent described by Subsection (a).
(e) Except as provided by Subsection (f), an offense under
this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(f) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this
section that the defendant has previously been convicted of a
violation of this section, the offense is a state jail felony.
Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 189, § 3, eff. May 21, 1997.
Section: Previous 32.42 32.43 32.44 32.441 32.45 32.46 32.47 32.48 32.49 32.50 32.51 32.52 33.01 33.02 33.021 Next
Last modified: August 10, 2007
But, you are probably right and the District Clerk of Lavaca County, Texas is wrong and probably doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
The alleged comment by the Secret Service cannot be verified. The information I provided can be verified.
Enjoy your vacation.:)
Sue,
Speaking of burden of proof and onus, show how the citizen grand juries are “simulating” an official, properly-convened grand jury. There is absolutely no law that I’ve seen that says that people cannot gather together in a private group according to, say, Robert’s Rules of Order (13th Edition), or any other formality of organization to make decisions. Subsequently, there is no law that says that such private entities cannot do what any other private individual can do, which is to submit paperwork to the authorities for further review.
Now, if it could be shown that what these private gatherings are doing is unlawful, then please enlighten the blogosphere. Speaking of…
You really don’t understand context, do you? What — you think “We must make them act!” is synonymous with, “we are going to go to the Courthouse with pitchforks and spears and we’re not leaving until the authorities absolutely take action on this matter?” No, that would be what groups like Code Pink might do (slight sarcasm intended).
Instead, I think if you actually read any of what’s being said on my site or Mr. Swensson’s site RE: citizen grand juries, you will find that it is a grassroots movement that even the Secret Service has purportedly said is breaking no laws.
-Phil
Phil,
“A few things:
1. I suppose the fact that you’ve added, “Your comment is awaiting moderation.” means that you think that I’m not going to moderate your comments. This action clearly demonstrates that you have never understood the purpose of my site. Unless you’re going to be saying something completely uncivil, why would I moderate your comments? Ah well — go ahead and be paranoid.”
Actually, I copy/pasted my comment from another site. Was being lazy and didn’t want to type it again. Didn’t mean to include “your comment is awaiting moderation.” Sorry.
“2. Your link to the PJ forum does not reference a specific posting, so I’m not sure where you’re getting that a new clerk “has been sent to the Texas AG’s office.”
You misread my post. The link to PJ forum is for the research that has been done on State Laws regarding simulating legal process by various lawyers who comment there. The information regarding the “presentment” filed in Lavaca County, Texas was obtained from the Lavaca County, Texas District Clerk.
“3. I’m not sure how the TX law regarding the intentional falsification of documents has anything to do with an individual approaching the County Courthouse and asking that a document be submitted to the authorities. It is almost as if you’re suggesting that getting a notarized signature on a document is somehow illegal; I guess maybe I’m a little confused on that one.”
Actually, you might want to read the link I posted. This has nothing to do with getting a “notarized signature.” The “presentment was already notarized. Read the link I posted: http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/32.48.00.html carefully.
“So, Sue — I see you’re attempting to pick up the rhetorical slack from where HistorianDude left us? Maybe if you took the energy you’re using to be so negative towards private individuals submitting paperwork over issues they care about (and you and your ilk obviously have real problems over) and instead focus on what you think are real issues, you’d probably go a long way in helping the world.”
I do not even know what HistorianDude posted regarding this. This is not just “submitting paperwork.”
“Remember: if sites like mine are merely dealing with issues that’ll never see the light of day, why waste your time with such veiled threats?”
This was not a “veiled threat.” What I posted was factual information I received from the Lavaca County, Texas District Clerk.
“And yes, what you’ve posted is nothing short of a veiled threat. You are either trying to get me to stop what I’m doing and/or you’re trying to get people to stop what they’re doing RE: citizen grand juries. Besides — if there is something illegal going on (and no, this is no such admission), don’t you think that those people will have to answer for what they do? Have you forgotten that it has been similarly alleged that the Secret Service have visited other such individuals and found that no laws were being broken?”
I am not trying to stop anybody from doing anything. I am just sharing the information I received regarding these “presentments.”
Again, here is the link to the Texas Penal Code.
http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/32.48.00.html
Texas Penal Code – Section 32.48. Simulating Legal Process
These “citizen grand juries” are simulating a official, properly convened grand jury. These “presentments” are simulating a official, properly convened grand jury presentment/indictment.
Read the Texas Penal Code 32.48 Simulating Legal Process carefully.
Then, in their own words at the website:
http://americangrandjury.org/
“Let’s file these Presentments
We must make them act!”
The information I provided can be verified. Link to Lavaca County, Texas District Clerk website:
http://www.co.lavaca.tx.us/ips/cms/districtcourt/districtClerk.html
Sue,
A few things:
1. I suppose the fact that you’ve added, “Your comment is awaiting moderation.” means that you think that I’m not going to moderate your comments. This action clearly demonstrates that you have never understood the purpose of my site. Unless you’re going to be saying something completely uncivil, why would I moderate your comments? Ah well — go ahead and be paranoid.
2. Your link to the PJ forum does not reference a specific posting, so I’m not sure where you’re getting that a new clerk “has been sent to the Texas AG’s office.”
3. I’m not sure how the TX law regarding the intentional falsification of documents has anything to do with an individual approaching the County Courthouse and asking that a document be submitted to the authorities. It is almost as if you’re suggesting that getting a notarized signature on a document is somehow illegal; I guess maybe I’m a little confused on that one.
So, Sue — I see you’re attempting to pick up the rhetorical slack from where HistorianDude left us? Maybe if you took the energy you’re using to be so negative towards private individuals submitting paperwork over issues they care about (and you and your ilk obviously have real problems over) and instead focus on what you think are real issues, you’d probably go a long way in helping the world.
Remember: if sites like mine are merely dealing with issues that’ll never see the light of day, why waste your time with such veiled threats?
And yes, what you’ve posted is nothing short of a veiled threat. You are either trying to get me to stop what I’m doing and/or you’re trying to get people to stop what they’re doing RE: citizen grand juries. Besides — if there is something illegal going on (and no, this is no such admission), don’t you think that those people will have to answer for what they do? Have you forgotten that it has been similarly alleged that the Secret Service have visited other such individuals and found that no laws were being broken?
-Phil
sue says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
June 15, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Before those of you in Texas trot off to file your “presentments”, you might want to read this:
http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/32.48.00.html
Texas Penal Code – Section 32.48. Simulating Legal Process
The “presentment” that was filed in error in Lavaca County, Texas by a new clerk has been sent to the Texas Attorney Generals office. There is a sign posted in all of the Texas county and district clerk’s offices regarding the filing of these fake documents.
Most States have similar laws as Texas. You might want to research the laws regarding this in your State. This website has done extensive research regarding these “presentments” and State laws.
http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/index.php
How you tell when politician lie?
Comrade Pelosi blink
Slick Willy rub nose
Dumb Donkey Gibbs laugh…Hehaw..he..haw..he..haw!
I Igor produce Barrack Milhaus Hussein Obama Birth Certificate at http://www.igormarxo.org
Civis naturaliter natus says:
June 11, 2009 at 8:24 am
Black Lion,
Your canard about the old WND report has been answered definitively. Back then a COLB and a BC were thought to be the same thing by most of us…
And according to the state of Hawaii, the COLB still is considered the same thing as a birth certificate. Besides you guys cannot get around the fact that WND wrote that they “AUTHENTICATED” this document and found it to be legitimate. The document they are discussing states that President Obama was born in Honolulu, HI. It was issued in 2007. The State of HI stated that they only issue COLB’s and have since 2001. So what is so difficult for you to understand.
I didn’t write an article stating that the document that factcheck.org and snopes reviewed was authentic and not a forgery. WND did. And they never retracted that statement. So as much as you want to make remarks at me about a Furher and perfection, it is interesting that you cannot dispute the article.
You wingnuts have never provided one piece if legitimate evidence to contradict the fact that Obama was born in HI. So of course you go to the usual standard of making idioic character comments about President Obama or ridiculous statements like “Back then a COLB and a BC were thought to be the same thing by most of us…”.
You guys make this ridiculous list of demands and wonder why no court will take you seriously. The rules of evidence for a court of law are very simple. You must provide admissible exculptory evidence against President Obama that shows he was not born in Honolulu in order to challenge the COLB that WND authenticated that states he was born where he claims. And you cannot use the rules of discovery as a “fishing expedition” to hope you may find something incriminating. This is what make our Constitution a wonderful thing. We all have rights. Even my “Furher Zero” as you called him.
By the way admissible means something other than an affidavit by a fake PhD, Ron Polarik, an unauthenticated school record that states he was a citizen of Indonesia (which also states by the way that he was born in HI), a tape that his grandmother claims he was born in Kenya (which also has her saying that he was born in HI). And as of this date no admissible evidence has been provided.
Black Lion,
Your canard about the old WND report has been answered definitively. Back then a COLB and a BC were thought to be the same thing by most of us…
Or are you so puritanical as to diss anyone who is not perfect, excepting of course your Furer Zero…
Apply the same standards of demanded perfection to him and see where you end up….
We Have a Chance with Rush!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uyC61xiMAM
Contact Information:
You can e-mail Rush at: ElRushbo@eibnet.com
HOWEVER!!!!
Rush 24/7 Members login above for Private E-mail.
*Join Rush 24/7 and get access to the Members-Only E-mail Address. Increase your chances of El Rushbo reading your message.
You can fax Rush at: 212-445-3963
You can write Rush at:
The Rush Limbaugh Show
1270 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
You can call The Rush Limbaugh Show program line
between 12 Noon and 3PM Eastern Time at: 1-800-282-2882
PHONE AWAY MY FRIENDS!!!!
Go Texas Grand Jury members, go!
I think all of the above scenarios are possible. It is even possible that, if Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a natural-born citizen IF his father was a citizen at the time of his birth. We’re relatively sure that his mother was.
However, if he was born in Kenya or anywhere except the U.S., even if both of his parents were U.S. citizens, he cannot be a natural-born citizen. Again, he might be a U.S. citizen, but not natural-born.
I think his father is someone other than Barack Obama Sr. and he doesn’t want anyone to know that. The American people wouldn’t have a problem with that, but it’s the lies and deceit that will bring Obama down if that is the case. Falsifying the COLB and putting it on the internet as his birth certificate and trying to pass it off as the “real thing” is forgery. And hiding all of his school and medical records will doubtless reveal many things he didn’t want us to know.
I do believe he attended Occidental College on a conveniently-arranged scholarship for foreign students because he had a convenient identity and passport from Indonesia.
All of this stinks. We know something is up, and it takes an incredible narcissistic personality to pull off something like this.
With Rush Limbaugh mentioning it now, it probably won’t be long until it’s really out there in the press. Enough people are looking at his behavior and realizing that it’s very un-American.
Thank you for putting that together. I was going to attempt that but I just don’t the amount of hits you and CW get. So I am glad you have it out there.
Smearing the long-deceased mother of the President. Pathetic.
I find the parts of this article regarding the billboards to be hilarious. It is unbelievable that Joseph Farah could out and lie by saying the folowing:
“WND’s reporters have investigated this issue more extensively than the rest of the media combined – sending senior staff writer Jerome Corsi to Hawaii and Kenya in search of evidence,” said [Joseph] Farah [Editor and CEO, WND]. “We have commissioned private investigators in Honolulu. There is simply no persuasive evidence to affirm Obama’s claim to a Hawaiian birth. There is no hospital on the island that will confirm the first black president of the United States was born there. It’s all conjecture.
Do they not read their own articles? No wonder that Lamar Outdoor did not want to do business with WND. All he needed to do was read the following WND article which I have listed many time for all to read:
“A separate WND investigation into Obama’s birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren’t originally there.”
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214
If there was no evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii, then what was the article written in August? Remember they have never retracted that article, so they must stand behind it. Which makes it contrary to what they are saying now. And then they wonder why reputable companies will not get involved with them. They lie so much they cannot keep their stories straight.
And a hosbital has already come out and celebrated that President Obama was born there. This has also already been discussed on this site in detail. So again Farah is being disingenous. Since he is soliciting “donations” for his billboard crusuade, it goes to think that maybe this is about the money for WND.
As far as these “citizens grand juries” go does anyone really think that any law enforcement agency will listen to them? They can issue a million guilty verdicts and nothing will change. Only Congress can bring charges and put the President on trial. So good luck trying to enforce these imaginary trials.
The site is even offering a plaque to the hospital which officially states and verifies that Obama was born there. So far no takers.
http://www.thebirthers.org/
RJ
Sun Yat-Soetoro Obfuscation of Live Birth
http://www.ofbyfor.us.com/page11/page11.html