Monthly Archives: January 2009

Federal Grand Jury, 4th branch of government, Leo Donofrio, 5th Amendment, US Constitution, Constitutional power, We the people, US Supreme Court has upheld, Creighton Law Review, American Juror, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 1946, Rule 7

From Leo Donofrio:

The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government

[I originally posted this essay at my Citizenspook blog back in 2005.]

All of us may one day serve as grand jurors in federal court, and I hope this article will educate the reader to his/her true power as granted by the Constitution. For that power, despite having been hidden for many years behind the veil of a legislative fraud, still exists in all of its glory in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. The US Supreme Court has confirmed and reinforced that power.

So please, copy this report and paste it far and wide. It is not spin. It is not false. It is not for sale, it is not copyrighted by me, so paste and quote it freely. This report is the truth and we need truth, now, more than ever.

The Constitutional power of “we the people” sitting as grand jurors has been subverted by a deceptive play on words since 1946 when the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were enacted. Regardless, the power I am going to explain to you still exists in the Constitution, and has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court despite the intention of the legislature and other legal scholars to make our power disappear with a cheap magic trick.

Repeat a lie with force and repetition and the lie becomes known as truth. In the case of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, the power of the grand jury, to return “presentments” on its own proactive initiation, without reliance upon a US Attorney to concur in such criminal charges, has been usurped by an insidious play on words.

Most of this article is going to quote other scholars, judges and legislators as I piece together a brief but thorough history of the federal grand jury for your review. But the punch line is my personal contribution to the cause:

UNITED STATES CITIZENS SITTING AS FEDERAL GRAND JURORS ARE THE FOURTH BRANCH OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.

My input into this vital fight is no more than the analysis of a few carefully used words. It only took a small sleight of pen back in 1946 to hide our power, and it won’t take more than a few words to take that power back. But a proper overview is necessary for most of you who are unfamiliar with the issue at hand. So let me provide you with some history and then we’ll see what went wrong and how to correct it.

HISTORY OF FEDERAL GRAND JURY POWER

I want to draw your attention to a law review article, CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW, Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000, 821, IF IT’S NOT A RUNAWAY, IT’S NOT A REAL GRAND JURY by Roger Roots, J.D.

“In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without governmental influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past.”

The 5th Amendment:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.”

An article appearing in American Juror, the newsletter of the American Jury Institute and the Fully Informed Jury Association, citing the famed American jurist, Joseph Story, explained :

“An indictment is a written accusation of an offence preferred to, and presented, upon oath, as true, by a grand jury, at the suit of the government. An indictment is framed by the officers of the government, and laid before the grand jury. Presentments, on the other hand, are the result of a jury’s independent action:

‘A presentment, properly speaking, is an accusation, made by a grand jury of its own mere motion, of an offence upon its own observation and knowledge, or upon evidence before it, and without any bill of indictment laid before it at the suit of the government. Upon a presentment, the proper officer of the court must frame an indictment, before the party accused can be put to answer it.’ “

Back to the Creighton Law Review:

“A ‘runaway’ grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today’s “runaway” grand jury is in fact the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact “runaways,” according to the definition of modern times; they operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself.”

So, it’s clear that the Constitution intended to give the grand jury power to instigate criminal charges, and this was especially true when it came to government oversight. But something strange happened on the way to the present. That power was eroded by a lie enacted by the legislative branch. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution still contains the same words quoted above, but if you sit on a grand jury and return a “presentment” today, the prosecutor must sign it or it probably won’t be allowed to stand by the judge and the criminal charges you have brought to the court’s attention will be swept away. And the reason for this can be found in a legislative lie of epic proportions.

Mr. Roots weighs in again:

“In 1946, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted, codifying what had previously been a vastly divergent set of common law procedural rules and regional customs.[86] In general, an effort was made to conform the rules to the contemporary state of federal criminal practice.[87] In the area of federal grand jury practice, however, a remarkable exception was allowed. The drafters of Rules 6 and 7, which loosely govern federal grand juries, denied future generations of what had been the well-recognized powers of common law grand juries: powers of unrestrained investigation and of independent declaration of findings. The committee that drafted the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provided no outlet for any document other than a prosecutor-signed indictment. In so doing, the drafters at least tacitly, if not affirmatively, opted to ignore explicit constitutional language.“[88]“

Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP):

“An offense which may be punished by death shall be prosecuted by indictment. An offense which may be punished by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or at hard labor shall be prosecuted by indictment…”

No mention of “presentments” can be found in Rule 7. But they are mentioned in Note 4 of the Advisory Committee Notes on the Rules:

“4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts.”

The American Juror published the following commentary with regards to Note 4:

“[W]hile the writers of the federal rules made provisions for indictments, they made none for presentments. This was no oversight. According to Professor Lester B. Orfield, a member of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, the drafters of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 6 decided the term presentment should not be used, even though it appears in the Constitution. Orfield states [22 F.R.D. 343, 346]:

‘There was an annotation by the Reporter on the term presentment as used in the Fifth Amendment. It was his conclusion that the term should not be used in the new rules of criminal procedure. Retention might encourage the use of the run-away grand jury as the grand jury could act from their own knowledge or observation and not only from charges made by the United States attorney. It has become the practice for the United States Attorney to attend grand jury hearings, hence the use of presentments have been abandoned.’ “

That’s a fascinating statement: “Retention might encourage…the grand jury [to] act from their own knowledge or observation.” God forbid, right America? The nerve of these people. They have the nerve to put on the record that they intended to usurp our Constitutional power, power that was intended by the founding fathers, in their incredible wisdom, to provide us with oversight over tyrannical government.

And so they needed a spin term to cast aspersions on that power. The term they chose was, “runaway grand jury”, which is nothing more than a Constitutionally mandated grand jury, aware of their power, and legally exercising that power to hold the federal beast in check, as in “checks and balances”.

The lie couldn’t be inserted into the Constitution, so they put it in a statute and then repeated it. And scholars went on to repeat it, and today, as it stands, the grand jury has effectively been lied into the role of submissive puppet of the US Attorney.

The
American Juror publication included a very relevant commentary:

“Of course, no statute or rule can alter the provisions of the Constitution, since it is the supreme law of the land. But that didn’t prevent the federal courts from publishing a body of case law affirming the fallacy that presentments were abolished. A particularly egregious example:

‘A rule that would permit anyone to communicate with a grand jury without the supervision or screening of the prosecutor or the court would compromise, if not utterly subvert, both of the historic functions of the grand jury, for it would facilitate the pursuit of vendettas and the gratification of private malice. A rule that would open the grand jury to the public without judicial or prosecutorial intervention is an invitation to anyone interested in trying to persuade a majority of the grand jury, by hook or by crook, to conduct investigations that a prosecutor has determined to be inappropriate or unavailing.’ [7]

What is the result? Investigating seditious acts of government officials can be deemed inappropriate or unavailing by the prosecutor, or the judge can dismiss the grand jurors pursuing such investigations. Consequently, corrupt government officials have few natural enemies and go about their seditious business unimpeded.

By the way, they made a rule to take care of runaways too, in 1946: Rule 6(g):

‘At any time for cause shown the court may excuse a juror either temporarily or
permanently, and in the latter event the court may impanel another person in place of the juror excused.’ Now judges can throw anyone off a grand jury, or even dis-impanel a grand jury entirely, merely for exercising its discretion.”

Now let me add my two cents to this argument:

Most of the discussion about Note 4 to Rule 7 of the FRCP takes for granted that the common law use of “presentments” (as codified in the 5th Amendment) was made “illegal” in 1946 by this act. Nothing could be more false. Note 4 does not contain language that makes the use of presentments “illegal”, although it had chosen its words carefully to make it appear as if that is what the legislative branch intended. But let’s look at Note 4 again:

“4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts.”

The key word is, “obsolete”. Obsolete means “outmoded”, or “not in use anymore”, but it does not mean “abolished” or “illegal”. And therein lies the big lie. The legislature knew it could not directly overrule the Constitution, especially with something so clearly worded as the 5th Amendment, which grants a power to the people which has a long and noble purpose in criminal jurisprudence. But the federal beast legislative branch sought more power to protect themselves from the oversight of “we the people”, and in its vampire like thirst for more governmental control, it inserted this insidious Note 4 in the hope that scholars and judges would play along with their ruse, or in the alternative, their ruse would appear to be legally viable.

Let’s look at some authoritative legal resources which discuss Note 4:

Susan Brenner, THE VOICE OF THE COMMUNITY: A CASE FOR GRAND JURY INDEPENDENCE:

“Finally, federal grand juries’ subservience to prosecutors was exacerbated when the federal system eliminated the use of presentments, which allowed a grand jury to bring charges on its own initiative. (N35) Now, federal grand jurors cannot return charges in the form of an indictment without a prosecutor’s consent. (N36) Elimination of the presentment demonstrates the historical trend towards elimination of proactive features in the grand jury system.”

Did Brenner fall for the lie or did she cleverly further it when she said, “[T]he federal system eliminated the use of presentments”? The federal system did no such thing. Note 4 said the use of presentments was “obsolete”. First of all, Note 4 is not a law in itself. It is a Note to a law, and the law as written, does not have anything to say about presentments. You see the leap Brenner has made? The Constitution provides for “presentments”, then the FRCP are enacted and the Rules therein do not mention presentments, nor due they ban presentments, and if they did, such a ban would be unconstitutional, since an administrative enactment regarding procedure can not overrule the Constitution.

Regardless, it’s irrelevant, since the FRCP does not mention “presentments”. Note 4 simply states that “presentments” allowed for in the 5th Amendment of the Constitution have become “obsolete”, or outmoded, which is not to say that they were “eliminated”. Shame on you Susan Brenner. You know damn well that the Constitution can only be changed by an official Amendment to it. Nothing can be “eliminated” from the Constitution by an administrative note.

The use of presentments had become obsolete because the grand jurors were not aware of their power. So the use of “presentments” became more and more rare, and then in 1946 the legislative branch seized upon the moment to make this power disappear by waving its magic wand over the Constitution.

Mr. Root got it wrong in the
Creighton Law Review as well:

“Before the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure — which made independently-acting grand juries illegal for all practical purposes — grand juries were understood to have broad powers to operate at direct odds with both judges and prosecutors…”

The FRCP did not make it “illegal for all practical purposes”. That’s patently false. I don’t know if Mr. Root, and/or Susan Brenner, were acting as the magician’s assistant, but I can’t imagine how these educated scholars could be so incredibly ignorant of basic Constitutional law. Give me a damn break.

But if enough people repeat the lie, the lie appears to be the truth.

But we have it on good authority, the Supreme Court, that the lie has no legal effect.

Justice Powell, in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974), stated:

“The institution of the grand jury is deeply rooted in Anglo-American history. [n3] In England, the grand jury [p343] served for centuries both as a body of accusers sworn to discover and present for trial persons suspected of criminal wrongdoing and as a protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action. In this country, the Founders thought the grand jury so essential to basic liberties that they provided in the Fifth Amendment that federal prosecution for serious crimes can only be instituted by “a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” Cf. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 361-362 (1956). The grand jury’s historic functions survive to this day. Its responsibilities continue to include both the determination whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the protection of citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686-687 (1972).”

The Note 4 lie is smashed on the SCOTUS altar, “The grand jury’s historic functions survive to this day.” Take that Note 4!

Antonin Scalia effectively codified the unique independent power of the Fourth Branch into the hands of all citizens sitting as federal grand jurors. In discussing that power and unique independence granted to the grand jury, the United States Supreme Court, in
United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992), Justice Scalia, delivering the opinion of the court, laid down the law of the land:

“‘[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history,” Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It “`is a constitutional fixture in its own right.’” United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). ‘ “

I submit to you that this passage sets the stage for a revolutionary knew context necessary and Constitutionally mandated to “we the people”, THE FOURTH BRANCH of the Government of the United States. Besides, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches, I submit that there is a fourth branch, THE GRAND JURY, and “we the people” when sitting as grand jurors, are, as Scalia quoted in US v. Williams, ” a constitutional fixture in its own right”. Yes, damn it. That is exactly what the grand jury is, and what it was always intended to be.

Scalia also stated, that “the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside…” Id.

And finally, to seal the deal, Scalia hammered the point home:

“In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504 U.S. 36, 48] “

This miraculous quote says it all, “…the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people.” The Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, gives rise to a FOURTH BRANCH of Government, THE GRAND JURY. We the people have been charged with oversight of the government in our roles as grand jurors.

And at this critical time in American history, we must, for the protection of our constitutional republic, take back our power and start acting as powerful as the other branches of government.

The law is on our side. So please spread this knowledge as far and wide as you can. We the people have the right and power under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution to charge this government with crimes by returning presentments regardless of whether the US Attorneys or the federal judges agree with us. As the Supreme Court has so brilliantly stated, we are the “buffer between the Government and the people.”

Take the reins America. Pass it on. The Fourth Branch is alive and kickin’.”

Philip J Berg V Obama, January 21, 2009, Application for stay denied, Justice Scalia, Obama not eligible, Obama not Natural Born Citizen, Case 08A505

The corrupt, biased, inept, UnAmerican, US Supreme Court
has denied the Application for stay in the Philip J Berg
Vs Obama case. Yes, the same court that has as Chief Justice
John Roberts, the man that swore in an ineligible president
yesterday.

That’s right, the buck stops here. There will be no politically
correct BS on this blog. The US Supreme Court should have ruled
on several matters months ago, including but not limited to,
the following:

  • State responsibilities in presidential elections.
  • Clarification of the provision in the US Constitution requiring
    a president to be a natural born citizen.

This is part of their responsibility and they failed us.

From the US Supreme Court

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2009
ORDERS IN PENDING CASES
08A505
BERG, PHILIP J. V. OBAMA, BARACK, ET AL.
(08-570)
The application for stay addressed to Justice Scalia and
referred to the Court is denied.

For more on this case and other court cases:

http://www.therightsideoflife.com

Joe Biden president, Obama not qualified, Inauguration hoax, January 20, 2009, 20th Amendment rules, US Constitution, Evidence surfaces, John Roberts and Obama stumble, US Congress decides, Obama Indonesian citizen

Joe Biden

is

President

Until further notice

The 20th Amendment to the US Constitution states “or if the
President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice
President elect shall act as President until a President
shall have qualified
;”.

Barack Obama is not qualified to be president and therefore
per the 20th Amendment, Joe Biden is president until Congress
makes a further determination. Furthermore, aside from the
vast evidence that we have that Obama is not a Natural Born
Citizen and no legal evidence to the contrary from Obama, a
little birdie tells me that some new certified evidence has
come to the surface that is conclusive evidence against Obama
being qualified.

Amendment XX

Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall
end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators
and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January,
of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article
had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall
then begin.

Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every
year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of
January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of
the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice
President elect shall become President. If a President shall not
have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his
term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then
the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President
shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the
case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect
shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President,
or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and
such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice
President shall have qualified.

 

Amendment XXV

Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or
of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become
President.

Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice
President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall
take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of
Congress.

Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro
tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to
discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he
transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such
powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as
Acting President.

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either
the principal officers of the executive departments or of such
other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the
President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House
of Representatives their written declaration that the President is
unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice
President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the
office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro
tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists,
he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the
Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of
the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by
law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore
of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their
written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the
powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide
the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if
not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after
receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not
in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to
assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the
President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his
office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as
Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers
and duties of his office.

 

Philip J Berg, Press release, January 20, 2009, Sad day for America, Obama usurper, Obama not qualified, Berg vs Obama active, Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Hoax, Nothing more important than our U.S. Constitution

Here is the latest press release from Philip J Berg:

“01/20/09: PRESS RELEASE – Berg states that the Inauguration of Obama today will be recognized as a “Sad Day” for America when it is proven that Obama is “not qualified” pursuant to the U.S. Constitution to be President. Today begins a “Usurper” as President Obama is “ineligible” to be President as Obama is “not” “natural born.” We are headed for a “Constitutional Crisis.”

(Contact information and PDF at end)

(Lafayette Hill, PA – 01/20/09) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States and his case, Berg vs. Obama, in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals is still pending as well as two [2] other cases regarding the question as to whether Obama is constitutionally qualified to be President.
Berg stated, “It is a Sad Day for America as Obama is ‘not qualified’ to be President pursuant to ‘our’ United States Constitution.  Today, unfortunately, a ‘Usurper,’ Obama, takes the oath of office as President and every law he signs and appointment he makes will be void.  It is regretful that Obama has permitted this to happen as he knows he is ‘not natural born’ and this is the greatest ‘Hoax’ ever placed upon the citizens of the United States of America in 230 years.”

Berg continued, “I am committed to keeping our efforts going to continue litigation until the truth of Obama being ‘not qualified’ for President comes out.  There is nothing more important than ‘our’ U.S. Constitution and we will fight on!”

For copies of all Court Pleadings, go to obamacrimes.com

For Further Information Contact:

Philip J. Berg, Esquire           

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12                                                     
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL  [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659
Cell (610) 662-3005

philjberg@obamacrimes.com    “

 

Inauguration, January 20, 2009, A nation in distress, US without a president, Larry Sinclair, Obama Indonesian citizen, larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com

From Larry Sinclair:

“Tuesday, January 20, 2009

A NATION IN DISTRESS: The US without a President

 

A NATION IN DISTRESS

Today, January 20, 2009 at 12:oo PM the United States of America will become for the first time in our Nations history, a Nation without a legal or valid President and the White House will be occupied by an Indonesian citizen, a murderer and a fraud.

This is in deed an Historic moment in our Nation! We are knowingly allowing a man to be sworn in as President under a name that is not even his legal name, a man who the world knows is not a citizen of the United States but one of Indonesia. Today we make History by giving the keys to the White House to a fraud, the biggest fraud ever to be committed on the American people.”

Read more here:

http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com/

Philip J Berg, Press release January 19, 2009, Oprah Winfrey letter, Obama withdraw name, Obama not eligible, Constitutional Crisis, Obama not natural born citizen

For Immediate Release:  – 01/19/2009
 
For Further Information Contact:
 
Philip J. Berg, Esquire           
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12                                                     
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005                
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL  [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659
 
philjberg@obamacrimes.com
Berg sends 2nd letter to Oprah, stressing that she is one that can have Obama withdraw his name to avoid
damage to racial relations in the U.S. for years to come
because when the truth comes out that Obama does “not” meet the “qualifications” for President
as Obama is “not” “natural born”
we are headed for a ‘Constitutional Crisis’ by having an ‘ineligible’ President
 
 
(Lafayette Hill, PA – 01/19/09) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States and his case, Berg vs. Obama, in the U.S. Supreme Court is still pending as well as two [2] other cases, announced today that he wrote a 2nd letter to Oprah requesting her to speak with Obama to withdraw his name before our country is in a Constitutional Crisis as Obama’s lack of ‘constitutional qualifications’ for President.  1st letter was dated November 7, 2008 and the 2nd today, January 19, 2009.  [A copy of the two [2] letters are at the end of this Release]
 
Berg said, “I wrote to Oprah on November 7, 2008 hoping that she would peacefully resolve the issue of Obama’s lack of ‘qualifications’ and thereafter, Obama should withdraw his name before our country enters into a Constitutional Crisis.”
 
“I hoped that Oprah, because of her closeness to Obama and her significant role as a national leader, would review the facts I sent to her, and speak with Obama and then come to a resolution for the best interest of our great nation.  I had hoped and still hope that Obama, because he knows he is ‘not constitutionally qualified,’ should hold a Press Conference and Obama should state that I, as a black African American, received more votes than anyone else on November 4, 2008 for President and on January 8, 2009 the Joint Session of Congress counted the Electoral College votes and announced that I am President-elect, but because of things in my background, I cannot be sworn in as President.
 
However, apparently Obama is not man enough to state the above! 
 
Accordingly, I told Oprah that I am committed to keeping our efforts going to continue litigation until the truth of Obama being ‘not qualified’ for President comes out.
 
The Obama candidacy is the biggest ‘HOAX’ ever put forth to the citizens of the United States in 230 years.
 
There is nothing more important than ‘our’ U.S. Constitution and we will fight on!”
 
The letters I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, sent to Oprah follows:
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                        January 19, 2009
 
 
 
Oprah Winfrey
Harpo Studios, Inc.
1058 West Washington Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois 60607
 
           
Re: Obama
 
Dear Oprah:
It is unfortunate that you did not take my suggestion set forth in my letter that I sent to you on November 7, 2008 by FedEx and received on 11/11/08 by J. Craft, Jr.  I have enclosed a copy thereof. 
  
I hoped that you would review the issue of Obama’s lack of ‘constitutional qualifications’ with Obama and thereafter, have Obama withdraw his name before our country enters into a Constitutional Crisis.  Also, I believe racial relations will be damaged for years to come when the truth of Obama is discovered, that being that Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be President.
 
I hoped that you, Oprah, because of your closeness to Obama and your significant role as a national leader, would review the information I sent to you, and speak with Obama and then come to a resolution for the best interest of our great nation.  I had hoped that Obama, because he knows he is ‘not constitutionally qualified.’ that he should hold a Press Conference and Obama should state that I, as a black African American, received more votes than anyone else on November 4, 2008 for President and on January 8, 2009 the Joint Session of Congress counted the Electoral College votes and announced that I am President-elect, but because of things in my background, I cannot be sworn in as President.
 
Accordingly, Oprah, I am committed to keeping our efforts going to continue litigation until the truth of Obama being ‘not qualified’ for President comes out.  The Obama candidacy is the biggest ‘HOAX’ ever put forth to the citizens of the United States in 230 years.
 
 
 
 
There is nothing more important than ‘our’ U.S. Constitution and we will fight on!
 
Thank you.
 
Respectfully,
 

Phil
 
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
[cell] (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
e-mail:  philjberg@gmail.com
* * ** * *
For copies of all Press Releases and Court Pleadings, go to
 
obamacrimes.com

Obama not president, January 20, 2009, US Constitution, 20th Amendment, Joe Biden president, Obama not qualified, Chief Justice, John Roberts, US Supreme Court, Oath of office

US Supreme Court
Chief Justice

John Roberts

and

President Elect

Barack Obama

 

According to the US Constitution, the supreme law of the
land, Barack Obama will not be President of the United
States at 12:00 noon on January 20, 2009. No Chief
Justice administering the oath of office, no oath sworn
by a “president elect” makes one president. There are 3
mandatory requirements to achieve a legal inauguration.

  • A qualified president elect.
  • Sufficient votes by the Electoral College.
  • Certification and count of Electoral College votes by
    Congress.

 

At noon on January 20, 2009, Joe Biden will be president
until a president shall be deemed qualified. This comes
direct from the 20th Amendment to the US Constitution.
“or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify,
then the Vice President elect shall act as President until
a President shall have qualified;”

Further reading of the 20th Amendment reveals that Congress
may also determine if the vice-president is qualified. This
is part of the scenario of a constitutional crisis that
Philip J Berg and others have warned of. The language of
the 25th amendment includes options that may further heighten
the crisis level.

Amendment XX

Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall
end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators
and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January,
of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article
had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall
then begin.

Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every
year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of
January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of
the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice
President elect shall become President. If a President shall not
have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his
term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then
the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President
shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the
case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect
shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President,
or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and
such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice
President shall have qualified.

 

Amendment XXV

Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or
of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become
President.

Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice
President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall
take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of
Congress.

Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro
tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to
discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he
transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such
powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as
Acting President.

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either
the principal officers of the executive departments or of such
other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the
President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House
of Representatives their written declaration that the President is
unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice
President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the
office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro
tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists,
he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the
Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of
the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by
law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore
of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their
written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the
powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide
the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if
not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after
receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not
in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to
assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the
President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his
office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as
Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers
and duties of his office.

 

William Ayers turned back at Canadian border, January 19, 2009, Toronto Star, Weather Underground, Professor of education, University of Illinois, Chicago, Border guards, Canadian border

William Ayers,  Professor of education,  University of Illinois, Chicago, former Weather Underground bomber and long time associate of Barack Obama, has been refused entry into Canada. This is a good start. Now we need to deport the illegal alien Obama.

” William Ayers turned back at Canadian border”

“Jan 19, 2009 11:22 AM


Staff Reporter

An American education professor, one of the founders of a radical 1960s group known as the Weather Underground, which was responsible for a number of bombings in the United States in the early 1970s, was turned back at the Canadian border last night.

Dr. William Ayers, a professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago and a leader in educational reform, was scheduled to speak at the Centre for Urban Schooling at University of Toronto’s Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. But that appearance has now been temporarily cancelled.

“I don’t know why I was turned back,” Ayers said in an interview this morning from Chicago. “I got off the plane like everyone else and I was asked to come over to the other side. The border guards reviewed some stuff and said I wasn’t going to be allowed into Canada. To me it seems quite bureaucratic and not at all interesting … If it were me I would have let me in. I couldn’t possibly be a threat to Canada.””

Read more here:

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/573462

Obama inauguration, January 20, 2009, Chief Justice John Roberts, Obama not eligible, Treason, US Constitution, Natural Born Citizen, Kenya, Indonesia, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, US Supreme Court, Electoral college, FBI arrest, Citizens arrest

US Supreme Court
Chief Justice

John Roberts

and

President Elect

Barack Obama

Chief Justice Roberts:

You have been forewarned and informed of the eligibility
issues surrounding Obama. Such excuses as the people have
chosen are meritless in regard to your responsibility to
uphold the US Constitution. The Electoral College was
designed to protect the American people from just such
a constitutional crisis. You are certainly aware that
Obama has spent huge sums of money and employed an army
of attorneys to prevent being held accountable to the
US Constitution and American people.

Barack Obama is not eligible to be President of the United
States under the natural born citizen provision of the US
Constitution and until credible proof is provided, is not
even a US citizen.

Chief Justice Roberts, answer this question
for me and the American public.

If you swear in Barack Obama and Obama takes the oath,
can you explain to me and the American people why one of
the following should not occur?

  • Both you and Obama should be arrested by the FBI or the
    military for treason and High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
  • Both you and Obama should be arrested for the same offenses
    under the citizen’s arrest provision of common law and
    Washington DC statutes.
  • Both you and Obama should be Impeached for the same offenses.

We have been waiting.

We are still waiting.

** Addendum **

The following comments on this blog are so revealing of the
judicial travesty taking place and the outrage that typical
Americans are experiencing, that I was compelled to add them
to this post.

Commenter Therese:

“Let me add to this I no longer consider we have a government after
January 20,2009. I will no longer look to this government to solve
our problems since it clearly and deliberately turned its back on
the American people.

Not until every elected and appointed official on this current slate
is publicly exposed, removed. arrested, tried, and sent to jail for
misrepresentation, conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, and treason
will I ever again acknowledge this government.

Hence forward the nine Supreme court judges, all the Senate, all
Congress, and all judges who dismissed lawsuits against Obama on the
basis of standing are proven criminals who are getting away with more
crimes against the American people. They need to be named. Their
crimes need to belisted after their names, We need to let them know
not only will we never vote for them in another term, we will do
everything in our power to take them out of office before their term
ends.

Just what was the January 14, 2009 meeting between Justice Sh*t head
Roberts and Obama and Biden about? How to make more deals to rape the
Constitution and rip off America and get away with it?

Commenter Reese in response to above:

““Just what was the January 14, 2009 meeting between Justice Sh*t head
Roberts and Obama and Biden about? How to make more deals to rape the
Constitution and rip off America and get away with it?”

To say I was floored when I read the news item is an understatement.
A ‘ceremonial’ meeting between a president elect and justices of the
Supreme Court is somewhat traditional. HOWEVER, in this instance, it’s
flat out wrong. Chief Justice Roberts has cases on the docket where
Obama is the defendant or is the subject of the litigation. Roberts
and the other eight justices have already held two ‘Distribution for
Conferences’ on the Donofrio and Wrotnoski cases on Obama’s citizenship
ineligibility.

Does anyone see major conflict of interest here? How can Chief Justice
Roberts meet with Obama behind closed doors under such circumstances?
Even if they just chatted up the weather, it is highly inappropriate
in my humble opinion. Roberts should have notified Obama that under
the circumstances, he would not be able to meet with him, private or
with photogs in attendance. There must be zero appearance of any bias
or preference when it comes to judges and justices of the Supreme Court.

When a defendant in a case before the supreme court decided to fly one
of the judges, in the company jet, up for a few rounds of golf, and the
press reported it (because the judge in question was particularly hated
by the reporters), the judge was asked to “abstain” from the proceedings.
The court’s response was “get bent”. Do you remember the impeachment
proceedings held by congress? No? There weren’t any.

If a judge can take a bribe, in public, and suffer absolutely no
repercussions (not even waste a day in a congressional hearing), what
reason is there to not “take things into his office”?

If it wasnt for the huge amount of potentially ill gotten dollars obama
has been spreading around he would be a poor second for dog catcher. Now
it looks like he is buying supreme court judges, there is no way the
truth about him will surface if he has bought all parties that can shed
some truth on the fiction he is spewing.

He will be untouchable.

This is not how the system is supposed to work. I feel sorry for America
and the dim witted dolts that fell for his lies.”

RestoreTheConstitutionalRepublic.org, Restore the Constitutional Republic website, January 17, 2009, Dean Haskins Chairman, Blog, Forum, Videos, US Constitution, Obama not eligible, Obama not natural born citizen

Dean Haskins, Chairman of Restore the Constitutional Republic has
just notified me that the new website is up. We have been working
with Dean and the group to inform congress, other officials and the
American public of the eligibility issues surrounding Barack Obama
and the importance of upholding the US Constitution. Even if Obama
is inaugurated, there is a groundswell of concern over violation
of the US Constitution, degradation of the rule of law and disregard
for this country. Please visit the new site and get involved in
saving this country.

New website description:

Welcome to Restore the Constitutional Republic

Restore the Constitutional Republic is an organization dedicated to those patriots who recognize that our government has become unresponsive to the will of those who desire . . . no demand . . . that our Constitution be upheld, defended, and preserved.

Our Beginnings . . .

During the latest presidential campaign, it became apparent to many Americans that there were some questions surrounding Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president of the United States. Several lawsuits were filed simply asking that he produce the necessary documentation to prove his “natural born” qualifications, as required by our Constitution. Article II 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; 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.

Barack Obama Hired Lawyers

Instead of doing what every one of us has had to do (by just showing his birth certificate), Mr. Obama chose to fight the more than twenty lawsuits filed across the country (a number that continues to grow).

Knowing that common sense dictates that one doesn’t fight to hide something he doesn’t want kept secret, Restore the Constitutional Republic was born. We believe it is time to hold our government accountable, or to reclaim it for “We the People.”

Please join us in our forum and volunteer to help us take back America!

From the blog:

Shall They Now Have Died in Vain?

January 17th, 2009

Dean C. Haskins

Before now, I never felt compelled to regard myself as a “patriot.” It’s not that I didn’t consider myself patriotic; it’s that nothing had occurred in my 49 years that even remotely challenged my deep, abiding trust in our Constitution. My national naivety ended in 2008. My political innocence was the victim of a brutal rape. The media-fueled presidential campaign that ubiquitously ravaged the senses and sensibilities of our general public, held remotely in its grasp a deceptively shrouded secret―an obfuscation so wily, so destructive of the pristine document that had brilliantly guided our republic, that only the most astute, watchful amongst us chose to voice their very founded concern.

Simply put, the Democratic National Committee chose a candidate for president who had never been required to produce even the most basic proof that he was constitutionally eligible to hold the office. That party cavalierly assumed that merely contriving a campaign with all the glitz and glitter of a broadway production would blind the common sense of common people (you know, those “smelly” Washington, DC tourists), and amidst the cunning smoke and mirrors in which they shrouded the ascension of their modern day messiah, they believed all the palm frond waving through which their deity entered the Jerusalem gates would preclude any possible question about his qualifications from those so far beneath them.”

Read more here:

http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.org/