Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

American Grand Jury serves US District Court, Hartford, CT
December 21st, 2009

The Super II Grand Jury Presentments were process-served upon the US District Court, Hartford, CT.

PRESS RELEASE: December 22, 2009 by American Grand Jury

The Super II Grand Jury Presentments were process-served upon the US District Court, Hartford, CT through the US Attorney’s office. The serve was made by Daniel Hunt, an American Grand Jury member.

Daniel filed this report with American Grand Jury as follows:

I served the Presentments at the U.S. District Court (Abraham Ribicoff Federal Bldg) in Hartford, CT. I initially went to the Court Clerk’s office. I asked for the clerk named on their website. I was told she was in the New Haven, CT, District Court today. The lady asked me why I wanted to speak with the clerk. I explained I was here to serve Presentments of a Grand Jury to the court. I handed her the Presentments upon request. She walked across a large room and handed it to someone sitting at a desk. The lady returned and referred me to the U.S. Attorney’s office on the third floor.

I entered the U.S. Attorney’s office which consisted of a waiting room. The counter was separated by a glass partition. I rang a buzzer on the counter. A lady appeared and I explained I was there to serve the AGJ Presentments. She stated I would need to fill out a form. I informed her this was not a lawsuit but a presentment of criminal charges. She asked me if I was an Attorney. I informed her I was not an Attorney. She asked me for the Presentments. I gave the documents to her.

She then walked away and returned approximately five minutes later and stated it would be reviewed and then notify me. I asked her to stamp the box on the top cover page and give me a copy. She returned after a few minutes with a copy of the whole Presentments including the time and date stamp in the box.

She could not tell me the process or how long it would take. That’s everything that transpired to the best of my recollection. It will be interesting to see how they respond.

Daniel Hunt



Posted by Bob . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Filed in Presentments Served

MinuteMan,

Thank you for the posting on the American Grand Jury presentment in Hartford.

There was an earlier filing with the FBI in Arizona ( http://agjnow.org/ ). The interesting thing about the FBI filing in Arizona was the following statement by Maggie Passaro:

==============

He would not sign on OUR document. Agent Schwartz only had to say to me that [b][i]“ALL PERSONS UP FOR ELECTION ON BALLOTS ARE CHECKED ON THEIR BACKGROUND BY THE FBI…â€

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

FreedomFirst, perhaps you can explain the link between the auto dealers' lawsuit and Barack Obama's Constitutional ineligibility for office - beyond that Leo Donofrio is involved in each of them.

The plaintiffs question Obama's "legitimate authority" to take unprecedented action impacting an entire industry (American automotive manufacturers and their supply and distribution chain) and that questioning invokes both the fundamental issue of Obama's eligibility for the office he holds AND the constraints on the power vested in the office even IF he were to hold it legitimately.

The plaintiffs are able to plead a UNIQUE and PECUNIARY harm (loss of their businesses) which had been lacking in most of the other plaintiffs who came before.

The links, and prior posts that were lengthier, should make the theory of the case pretty clear. The link to the video was to show that there is now some "publicity" attendant to the lawsuit. If my posts need to assume that readers need to be brought forward from Genesis to the New Testament, I'll just stop posting. Thanks!

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

If my posts need to assume that readers need to be brought forward from Genesis to the New Testament, I'll just stop posting. Thanks!

No worries, mate. Keep posting.

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

This is a great piece and very succinctly states the facts. However, in my opinion it doesn't give justice to the bigger picture. IMO, Obama's legal status has become secondary to the deliberate fraud and cover-up during his nomination and subsequent oath of office. High ranking members of our government knew that fraud was being perpetrated and even collaborated in this massive scheme. I want ALL of those who took part in this investigated and convicted! Otherwise, what's the point? This same scenario could be repeated again if the underlying cause isn't decisively dealt with.

Research suggests that both the Democratic party and the GOP may have taken an interest in altering that eligibility criteria in relatively recent times. (Taking things back about a decade.)

Most of the attempts prior to the past decade appear to have related to Constitutional Amendment proposals, of which Wiki reports there have been 26 in total since adoption of the Constitution. The "legislative through laws or resolutions" approach to change the meaning of a three word term-of-art, properly rooted in whatever its intended meaning was at the time it was used, is of later vintage.

The research also suggests that, contrary to the popular notion spread by his supporters, Mr. McCain did not make a prompt disclosure of his own birth certificate but engaged in using members of the press as a smokescreen. If a comprehensive timeline was developed, it might have the following highlights:

1998 -- Potential "first trigger" of interest as McCain's own eligibility issue was raised even before his first foray into the 2000 GOP primaries

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/po ... 070998.htm

2000 -- the Barney Frank proposed Constitutional Amendment, which went to hearings and faced enough opposition it never got rolling along for a Congressional vote nor sent to the states for ratification.

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/ju ... 306_0f.htm

2003 -- the Orrin Hatch proposed Constitutional Amendment -- this was ostensibly for Governor Arnold Schwarznegger, according to some press accounts in the San Francisco newspapers and others, but possibly introduced more because Orrin Hatch might really have had McCain in mind, after the 'natural born' problem surfaced in the 2000 primaries. At the time of its introduction, Schwarzenegger was only running for Governor and hadn't yet been elected. (But Arnold becoming political might have been seen by GOP interests as full of promise of his becoming the next "Reagan" -- a well-known actor becoming a politician.)

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=885

February 25, 2004 -- the "brazen" Congressional attempt to avoid the necessity of amending the Constitution, or to usurp the functions of the judiciary by redefining "natural born citizen" in such a way that the provisions fulfilling its conditions would make it equivalent to 8 U.S.C. 1401. (The statute about "citizen at birth" which should not be confused with a term like 'nbc' since the latter had a known definition at the time the Founders wrote the Constitution and included 'nbc' as a requirement for highest office.) That measure had sponsorship from two Oklahoma Republicans (Nickles and Inhofe) and one Louisiana Democrat (Landrieu), and is hard to interpret other than as lending assistance to some partisan and/or regional interests then known to be brewing. McCain would have had his potential "nbc" issues still lingering and not solved by the earlier attempts in 2000 and 2003 at Constitutional Amendment; Bobby Jindal had attracted notice during his primary bid for Louisiana Governor in 2003; Mitch Landrieu is currently Jindal's Lt. Governor and brother of co-sponsor Mary Landrieu, the Democratic party might be said to have been generally interested in seeing the "nbc" clause changed since the 2000 Amendment's introduction by Barney Frank. A link to a brief notice of the legislative revision attempt.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s108-2128

The text of the bill was lingering only in cache memory on the Internet. There is no present online record of its hearings, although it appears that a date and time were set for hearings and that they occurred (October 5, 2004). People have been working to track down printed testimony from the hearings. The text of the bill makes it appear as though the aim of the legislation was to re-write "natural born citizen" as though it were merely the provisions of the U.S. Code relating to citizenship at birth, and not the term-of-art envisioned by the Framers, subject to its own definition consistent with how they would have defined it in 1787.

http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:-8m ... mmary%2520

This is the text, with explanation, of that bill:

[quote][size=150]Natural Born Citizen Act Summary

PURPOSE: To define the term “natural born Citizenâ€

Thomas Jefferson once wrote: "The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure."

Judges in the cases so far have assumed (mistakenly) that the two-party system produced the agitation necessary to keep the waters pure. The fact that the "political process" is normally expected to seek out and publicize the shortcomings of opposing candidates is the common thread as each decision gets handed down which bows to Political Question grounds. It's the thread that runs through the reasoning behind the FBI not routinely running background checks on elected officials, unlike the work-up the FBI might be called upon to perform on appointed or civil service federal employees. And yet, when each side in a 2-party process had its own weak under-belly of ineligibility problems, what happened in '08 was that each side pulled punches when it came to exposing the other. The media was no Fourth Estate displaying any spirit of independent inquiry, either. A "perfect storm" of the mass of voters being snookered into voting for one or the other of two "imperfect candidates" occurred ...

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

Thomas Jefferson once wrote: "The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure."

Judges in the cases so far have assumed (mistakenly) that the two-party system produced the agitation necessary to keep the waters pure. The fact that the "political process" is normally expected to seek out and publicize the shortcomings of opposing candidates is the common thread as each decision gets handed down which bows to Political Question grounds. It's the thread that runs through the reasoning behind the FBI not routinely running background checks on elected officials, unlike the work-up the FBI might be called upon to perform on appointed or civil service federal employees. And yet, when each side in a 2-party process had its own weak under-belly of ineligibility problems, what happened in '08 was that each side pulled punches when it came to exposing the other. The media was no Fourth Estate displaying any spirit of independent inquiry, either. A "perfect storm" of the mass of voters being snookered into voting for one or the other of two "imperfect candidates" occurred ...

FreedomFirst,

Thanks for both of your last postings. The birth cert links are busted but John McCain's BC can be found here: http://johnmccain.dominates.us/

Juan

Hawaii's DOH is seemingly at odds with the state's own OIP. Click link for complete story. Letter below is from OIP to DOH.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/12/21/ ... request-2/

[quote][size=150]On December 8th, the Office for Information Practices put the Department of Health on notice, with this letter:

Dear Ms. Okubo:

The Office of Information Practices (“OIPâ€

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Please let us talk - no flames, please!
The evidence against Barack Obama II's natural born citizenship is probably (almost) all true. But, so what?

"What is truth?" - Pontius Pilate, condemning Jesus to be crucified.

On Dec. 1, the U.S. Supreme Court is to decide whether to hear Phil Berg's case. Only one or two percent of appeals to SCOTUS are heard, many because of a constitutional question. The question here is about who, if anyone, is empowered to investigate and enforce the qualification clause in Article II, Section I.

"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."

********

Let's see:
1. President Obama signs historical healthcare bill.

2. But sometime down the road, we finally see his
Hawaii long form birth certificate and his Occidental college
in California records.

3. We find out that Obama's Hawaii long form birth certificate
has no doctor name or hospital name on it.

4. We find out that Obama registered as a foreign student or as
Soetoro instead of as Obama at Occidental College in California.

5. Would such information above mean that Obama's signature on
the health care bill is invalid? Enquiring minds want to know.

Mirse, drinking coffee and the caffeine is starting to take effect so let me take a shot at this:

1. President Obama signs historical healthcare bill.

Strictly speaking, illegal POTUS, invalid signature.

2. But sometime down the road, we finally see his
Hawaii long form birth certificate and his Occidental college
in California records.

May only find suspicious information here. However, I have read that nobody in Obama's classes at Occidental remembers Obama attending at all. Zilch. Nada. Suspicious. Perhaps perjury.

3. We find out that Obama's Hawaii long form birth certificate
has no doctor name or hospital name on it.

Smoking gun maybe since he stated that he was born in a hospital in Hawaii. Hospital screw-up? Doubtful.

4. We find out that Obama registered as a foreign student or as
Soetoro instead of as Obama at Occidental College in California.

Very damaging and would be the beginning of the end of BO, aka Barry Soetoro.

5. Would such information above mean that Obama's signature on
the health care bill is invalid? Enquiring minds want to know.[/quote]

Such information, constitutionally speaking, would mean that everything he signed would be invalid, ie; illegal POTUS, illegal everything.

Let me try to put some common sense to all of this. It is widely known in political circles and among a large segment of the voting population that Obama is a usurper to the office. He assumed the office of POTUS through fraud and deception. IMO, the reason that the Judges are throwing out these eligibility cases is that they have the fear of God put into them by Obama's minions. Riots, burning, financial turmoil, civil unrest, constitutional crisis...you name it and they fear it. Yes, we have a real mess on our hands. Some or all of the above may happen if Obama is removed from office. The question is, are we prepared to uphold the law of the land and deal with the ensuing chaos arising from such a revelation?

Originally Posted by mirse

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Please let us talk - no flames, please!
The evidence against Barack Obama II's natural born citizenship is probably (almost) all true. But, so what?

"What is truth?" - Pontius Pilate, condemning Jesus to be crucified.

On Dec. 1, the U.S. Supreme Court is to decide whether to hear Phil Berg's case. Only one or two percent of appeals to SCOTUS are heard, many because of a constitutional question. The question here is about who, if anyone, is empowered to investigate and enforce the qualification clause in Article II, Section I.

"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."

********

Let's see:
1. President Obama signs historical healthcare bill.

2. But sometime down the road, we finally see his
Hawaii long form birth certificate and his Occidental college
in California records.

3. We find out that Obama's Hawaii long form birth certificate
has no doctor name or hospital name on it.

4. We find out that Obama registered as a foreign student or as
Soetoro instead of as Obama at Occidental College in California.

5. Would such information above mean that Obama's signature on
the health care bill is invalid? Enquiring minds want to know.