Letter of “Grievance” to Judge Royce C. Lamberth
December 30th, 2009
GO HERE to APPROVE this letter!
Any United States Citizen 15 years
or older may participate.
The Honorable Royce C. Lamberth
Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the District of Columbia
Re: Grand Jury Presentments
Defendants: Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi
Docket Number: Misc. No. 09-346 (RCL)
The sin of the people is to lose faith in their Constitution. The sin of our Judiciary is to procrastinate while enforcing the Constitution.
American Grand Jury
Judge Lamberth, apparently procrastination is now in full force and effect in your Court. Your Honor, the question is, how serious does a Constitutional crisis have to become before the Judiciary will act? Is the workload of the Judiciary so overwhelming that the Constitution has to wait in line to receive recognition or service?
Barack Obama has committed serious crimes against our Nation. The evidence is well documented and published. Barack Obama has admitted in public and his writings that his father was not a US citizen. Clearly, Obama can never qualify as a “natural born” citizen. The Constitution states that only a “natural born” citizen shall be eligible for the Office of the Presidency. It is so simple, a 10 year old child can grasp the truth. Yet power and corruption would seek to quash and deny the truth to the People of the United States. Does the Justice system in this country think that most citizens are so ignorant that they cannot understand a simple clause in the Constitution?
Your Honor, we would imagine these statements are not what you wanted to hear. Matter of fact, we understand that our statements probably make you angry or make you want to reprimand those that challenge your Court or authority. Well, your Honor, get in line. Many are now challenging your intentions. It is now estimated that 60% of Americans want to know the truth about Barack Obama. He has spent close to 2.0 million dollars fighting something like 15 civil lawsuits to hide the truth about his citizenship. Each time a Judge says this is a “jurisdictional” issue or a “standing” issue the People want to throw up. The day the Constitution or the People no longer have jurisdiction or standing in this Country is the day the Judiciary can no longer be trusted to defend or administrate the laws of our land.
Time is no longer a luxury the Judiciary has to waste. Before the Court is a 21-page document that charges Barack Obama with “Eligibility Fraud and Treason.” It further charges Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi with “Conspiracy of Election Fraud.” They are extremely serious criminal charges. These charges can and must be heard in a court of law. If Obama can produce a valid Birth Certificate proving that he was born in the United States, and further prove his birth mother and father were citizens of the United States, then the man’s name will be exonerated and the case closed forever. But this proof has never been offered and the people have the right to know. Obama no longer has the right to conceal the truth, not when it concerns a blatant criminal violation of the Constitution. The charges have been levied against the man. The question is, what is this Court going to do about it?
Judge Lamberth, we fight evil by exposing it. Once the truth is known, evil has no power over you or your Court. The People of this country are a lot stronger than the government would lead us to believe. The talk that our Country could never survive an election scandal is simply an excuse. The truth of the matter is this Country cannot survive an attack on the Constitution by a public criminal when the Judiciary fails to do anything about it.
American Grand Jury and its members have gone to great lengths to study the evidence and hand down our Presentments. We have served your Court with these Presentments and responded to your Orders. “Time is of the essence.” It is now time to act. Talk is cheap and words become meaningless if Judges such as yourself are in a position to act but fail to do so.
Judge Lamberth, we wish you a Happy New Year. We know the decisions before you are not easy. Nothing in life is easy. Our Country was founded on courage, conviction and action. May the Lord guide you in your decisions, may He bless you with strength and courage.
American Grand Jury
American Grand Jury Presentments
Judge Lamberth Orders One and Two
American Grand Jury Motion to Reconsider
American Grand Jury Response to Order
Petition names submitted by ____ United States citizens
GO HERE to APPROVE this letter!
Any United States Citizen 15 years or older may participate.
Here is the perma link if you would like to email it to others:
BORN IN THE USA?
Attorney wants to argue eligibility in Washington
Asks Obama birth-certificate dispute to be decided by D.C. judge
Posted: December 28, 2009
10:17 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A lawyer who has fought government attorneys in courthouses across the nation over the issue of President Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the White House now wants the dispute moved to the nation's capital, since that's where government lawyers have said there would be proper jurisdiction.
Orly Taitz is asking the California judge who earlier dismissed her clients' claims on jurisdictional issues, noting that the proper venue would be Washington, to simply move the case there.
"During the October 5 motion hearing pursuant to the motion to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction, the moving parties, the assistant U.S. attorneys David DeJutte and Roger West have argued that they believe that the proper jurisdiction for this case is the District of Columbia," Taitz argues in a new court filing before Judge David Carter.
"On October 29 this case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction only and was never heard on the merits, as this court noted in the above order that the proper jurisdiction is the District of Columbia court," she wrote.
Taitz told WND today that there could be no opposition from the U.S. attorneys since they had argued for the jurisdiction in Washington, D.C., and the case then could be heard on its merits.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some of the lawsuits question whether Obama was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.
Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment – at a cost confirmed to be at least $1.7 million – of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. That's in addition to the work done by U.S. attorneys defending Obama's eligibility, as in this case.
While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.
The ultimate question unaddressed to date: Is Obama a natural born citizen, and, if so, why hasn't documentation been provided? And, of course, if he is not, what does it mean to the 2008 election or the U.S. Constitution if it is revealed that there has been a violation?
The case brought by Taitz is on behalf of a multitude of individuals in California, including some political candidates in the 2008 presidential election.
WND previously reported, too, when another lawyer representing several clients in the case filed a notice of appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation represents plaintiffs Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson and posed the question at the center of the case: "Whether the court may make a determination of whether the president has met the eligibility requirements for office, whether the 'natural born citizen' clause of the United States Constitution may be enforced by the courts, whether the 'natural born citizen' clause of the U.S. Constitution is a nonpolitical question, whether the court may remove from office a president that was not elected in accordance with the U.S. Constitution."
Carter's dismissal centered on his opinion the plaintiffs lacked "standing" to bring the complaint, although he was worried about the full impact of his decision.
"The court is troubled by the idea that a third party candidate would not have standing to challenge a major party candidate's qualifications, while the opposing major party candidate may be able to establish standing because he or she has a better chance of winning the election," he said.
The judge warned, "Defendants' argument encourages the marginalization of the voice of a third party in what is a dominantly two-party political system and would require the court to pass judgment that plaintiffs are such unlikely candidates that who they are running against would not make a difference.
"This argument also ignores the tremendous effect that a third-party candidate can have on the presidential election. In 2000, many political commentators opined that should Green Party candidate Ralph Nader not have run for presidential office and received less than three percent of the popular vote, Al Gore would have won the election instead of President George W. Bush. Even when third-party candidates themselves may not have a chance of winning, which candidates they compete against can certainly have an effect on the election results," he said.
In her notice of her motion to transfer the case, Taitz asked that the case be moved to the desk of Judge Royce Lamberth in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia.
"The defendants in this case have already argued for the transfer during the October 5, 2009 hearing, stating that the proper venue is the District of Columbia there they cannot argue against this motion," she wrote, "The October 29 order stated that this was the opinion of the court.
"The only reasonable solution and conclusion would be the transfer of the case to the U.S. District Court [in the District] of Columbia, for which the defendants have argued previously and to which the plaintiffs now agree as the only viable alternative," she wrote.
"Transfer of the case to the District of Columbia will resolve any challenges to the jurisdiction on the part of the defendants, and would give the plaintiffs an opportunity to start discovery immediately," she said.
WND also has reported that documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.
Because of the dearth of information about Obama's eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: "Where's the birth certificatE.
The campaign followed a petition that has collected a figure now approaching 500,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.
The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.
Obama took the oath of office on Jan. 20, hours before the complaint was filed. However, Obama also took the oath of office the next day, on Jan. 21, after the complaint was filed, because he stumbled over the words during the Jan. 20 event.
"In order to cure plaintiffs' perceived injury, the court would need to wade deep into the waters of the president's official duties – in fact, it would have to declare that the president could no longer perform any official duties. The separation of powers concerns implicated by this request are grave," Carter wrote.
He also cited the separation of powers doctrine and the Constitution's assignment of the power of impeaching a sitting president to Congress.
But Carter cited Kreep's arguments that Obama never met the constitutional requirements to run for president.
"There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became president of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a president, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment."
Judge Carter, 3 sheets to the wind..
December 29th, 2009
Editorial by Bob Campbell
Folks, I often wondered what possessed Judge Carter in California to tell the world “he wanted to try this case on its merits” and then do a sudden 180 by dismissing the case with prejudice? Does the word “arrogance” come to mind? Did the justice system in California just reach the bottom of the barrel? The performance of Judge Carter was totally disgusting to watch.. Oh, and this whoop-ti-do you heard from folks that Carter would do the right thing because he is an EX-Marine.. what happened? Did honor and his oath get flushed on the way to the bench?
I went back and read some of Carter’s words and was stunned by his lack of knowledge of the Constitution or even a basic understanding of what is really going on here.
Here is the stunner.. the Judge is truly preaching to the liberal loonies when he made this statement:
“There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became president of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a president, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.”
The Judge forgot to mention the fact that Obama committed FRAUD when taking office. Obama knowingly defrauded the public when he placed his name on the ballot and again when he the took the Oath of Office. Obama is a USURPER, not a legal President. The Constitution is VERY CLEAR, no man can serve or be elected to the Office of the Presidency unless he is a “natural born” citizen. The election is basically “null and void.”
Judge Carter can preach till he is blue in the face about Obama being sworn in and now it’s too late. NO SIR, it is never to late to convict Obama for election fraud, even treason. Obama can be removed just as quickly as he took office. All it takes is a criminal prosecution and the Secret Service can march this lying sack of humanity right out of the White House into a 5×8 cell where he so prominently belongs.