Tweet
Obama Above The Law: Supreme Court Denies Another Obama Identity Fraud Case
Birther Report
2/20/2013
Excerpt:
[I]U.S. Supreme Court Denied Another Obama Identity Fraud Case
By Montgomery Blair Sibley
Below is my letter to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees written in response to the denial of my Petition for Certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court on February 15, 2013:
Greetings:
I write to Petition the Judicial Committee to take up the significant issue of the usurpation of legislative power by the Executive – with the express aid of the Judiciary – which power is expressly delegated to Congress by the Constitution. I deem this usurpation “significant” as it both: (i) trespasses upon the sole right of Congress to make the law and (ii) the People’s retained and reserved fundamental right to present evidence to a Grand Jury of the malfeasance of public officers. Let me explain.
The 91st Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. §3332(a) which states:
The background for §3332(a) is set out at 2 U.S. Code Cong. & Adm. New, House Report No. 91-1549, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. (1970) at 4015: “Any such attorney who receives information of an alleged offense from any person must, if requested by the person, inform the grand jury of the alleged offense, the identity of the person who conveyed the information, and his own action or recommendation.”
Initial judicial interpretation of §3332(a) followed its plain mandate that the U.S. Attorney was obligated – “shall” is an imperative auxiliary verb after all – to “inform the grand jury of such alleged offense”. See: In the Matter of In re Grand Jury Application, 617 F. Supp. 199 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)(“Since the United States Attorney has been requested to present certain information to the Grand Jury he must do so. I will not relieve him of a duty which Congress has seen fit to impose. 18 U.S.C. §3332(a) imposes a ‘plainly defined and peremptory duty’ on the part of the United States Attorney to present the plaintiffs’ information concerning the alleged wrongdoing of the other defendants to the Grand Jury.”)
By enacting §3332(a), Congress was simply confirming the status quo which, from the commencement of our Republic, retained and reserved to the People under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments the right to present evidence of criminal behavior the Grand Jury. Take note that in 1895, Justice Brewer in Frisbie v. United States, 157 U.S. 160, 163 (1895) described a system relying on an energetic Grand Jury: “n this country the common practice is for the Grand Jury to investigate any alleged crime, no matter how or by whom suggested to them, and after determining that the evidence is sufficient to justify putting the party suspected on trial, to direct the preparation of the formal charge or indictment.” (Emphasis added). Plainly, one of the historical purposes of the Grand Jury was to investigation government corruption. For example, although the infamous Tweed Ring in New York City was attacked by many well intentioned reformers, it took a New York City grand jury to actually break the Ring in 1872. The grand jury members conducted their own investigation, independent of the district attorney's office. See: United States District Attorney George Z. Medalie, Grand Juries Value, The Panel, Mar.-Apr. 1931, at 185.
As is well known, at his Press Conference on April 27, 2011, Barack Hussein Obama, II made the following statement regarding his Certificate of Live Birth (“COLB”): “As many of you have been briefed, we provided additional information today about the site of my birth. Now, this issue has been going on for two, two and a half years now. I think it started during the . . . We've posted the certification that is given by the state of Hawaii on the Internet for everybody to see.”
Whether or not Mr. Obama’s COLB is – and if he knew it to be – a forgery is not the issue of this Petition. I reviewed the matter personally, consulted with those with greater experience in such matters and concluded that it was a forgery. Coupled with significant questions surrounding Mr. Obama’s refusal to produce his: (i) college applications and transcripts from Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School, (ii) U.S. Passport application, (iii) Social Security application, and (iv) Selective Service registration, I came to the conclusion that a federal crime had been committed and I deemed it appropriate upon my taken-oath to defend the Constitution from, among others, domestic enemies, to present that evidence to the Grand Jury in Washington, D.C.
Accordingly, upon the above-cited historical and legislative authority, on January 12, 2012, I properly “requested” Ronald C. Machen Jr., the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, to inform the Grand Jury that Barack Hussein Obama, II may have violated a Federal criminal law, to wit, 18 U.S.C. §1343, “Fraud by wire, radio, or television”. Receiving no response from Mr. Machen, I then filed suit in the U.S. District Court against him seeking a court order to compel Mr. Machen to present my evidence to the Grand Jury.
In response, the District Court held that: “18 U.S.C. §3332 cannot be enforced by private individuals.” This stunning response apparently grafted on to §3332 a requirement that only government officials can invoke §3332 – something that is asinine when government officials are the subject of the alleged criminal offense. I properly took an appeal of this issue to the D.C. Circuit Court which – refusing to me both briefing and oral argument – summarily affirmed the District Court’s order. I then timely filed a Petition for Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court which on February 15, 2013, denied my Petition thus confirmed a new rule that 18 U.S.C. §3332 no longer is the law of this Nation. See: U.S. Supreme Court Case #: 12-736.
Thus my task is done, for I can do no more, and yours – upon your oath of office – has just begun. Will you stand by and allow this usurpation of the fundamental and statutory right of the People to petition a Grand Jury to investigate criminal behavior be deleted by the Executive and Judicial cabal? Or, instead will you promptly address this grotesque affront to the Congressional authority to make the law and see it enforced as written? I trust the latter will be your course and will pray for this Republic’s future if you chose instead the former.
I am of course available to speak to these matters in greater detail and provide the referenced documents.
yours,
Montgomery Blair Sibley - http://amoprobos.blogspot.com/2013/0...-congress.html
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
Birther Report
2/20/2013
Excerpt:
[I]U.S. Supreme Court Denied Another Obama Identity Fraud Case
By Montgomery Blair Sibley
Below is my letter to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees written in response to the denial of my Petition for Certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court on February 15, 2013:
Greetings:
I write to Petition the Judicial Committee to take up the significant issue of the usurpation of legislative power by the Executive – with the express aid of the Judiciary – which power is expressly delegated to Congress by the Constitution. I deem this usurpation “significant” as it both: (i) trespasses upon the sole right of Congress to make the law and (ii) the People’s retained and reserved fundamental right to present evidence to a Grand Jury of the malfeasance of public officers. Let me explain.
The 91st Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. §3332(a) which states:
It shall be the duty of each such grand jury impaneled within any judicial district to inquire into offenses against the criminal laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within that district. Such alleged offenses may be brought to the attention of the grand jury by the court or by any attorney appearing on behalf of the United States for the presentation of evidence. Any such attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the grand jury of such alleged offense, the identity of such other person, and such attorney's action or recommendation. (Emphasis added).
The background for §3332(a) is set out at 2 U.S. Code Cong. & Adm. New, House Report No. 91-1549, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. (1970) at 4015: “Any such attorney who receives information of an alleged offense from any person must, if requested by the person, inform the grand jury of the alleged offense, the identity of the person who conveyed the information, and his own action or recommendation.”
Initial judicial interpretation of §3332(a) followed its plain mandate that the U.S. Attorney was obligated – “shall” is an imperative auxiliary verb after all – to “inform the grand jury of such alleged offense”. See: In the Matter of In re Grand Jury Application, 617 F. Supp. 199 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)(“Since the United States Attorney has been requested to present certain information to the Grand Jury he must do so. I will not relieve him of a duty which Congress has seen fit to impose. 18 U.S.C. §3332(a) imposes a ‘plainly defined and peremptory duty’ on the part of the United States Attorney to present the plaintiffs’ information concerning the alleged wrongdoing of the other defendants to the Grand Jury.”)
By enacting §3332(a), Congress was simply confirming the status quo which, from the commencement of our Republic, retained and reserved to the People under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments the right to present evidence of criminal behavior the Grand Jury. Take note that in 1895, Justice Brewer in Frisbie v. United States, 157 U.S. 160, 163 (1895) described a system relying on an energetic Grand Jury: “n this country the common practice is for the Grand Jury to investigate any alleged crime, no matter how or by whom suggested to them, and after determining that the evidence is sufficient to justify putting the party suspected on trial, to direct the preparation of the formal charge or indictment.” (Emphasis added). Plainly, one of the historical purposes of the Grand Jury was to investigation government corruption. For example, although the infamous Tweed Ring in New York City was attacked by many well intentioned reformers, it took a New York City grand jury to actually break the Ring in 1872. The grand jury members conducted their own investigation, independent of the district attorney's office. See: United States District Attorney George Z. Medalie, Grand Juries Value, The Panel, Mar.-Apr. 1931, at 185.
As is well known, at his Press Conference on April 27, 2011, Barack Hussein Obama, II made the following statement regarding his Certificate of Live Birth (“COLB”): “As many of you have been briefed, we provided additional information today about the site of my birth. Now, this issue has been going on for two, two and a half years now. I think it started during the . . . We've posted the certification that is given by the state of Hawaii on the Internet for everybody to see.”
Whether or not Mr. Obama’s COLB is – and if he knew it to be – a forgery is not the issue of this Petition. I reviewed the matter personally, consulted with those with greater experience in such matters and concluded that it was a forgery. Coupled with significant questions surrounding Mr. Obama’s refusal to produce his: (i) college applications and transcripts from Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School, (ii) U.S. Passport application, (iii) Social Security application, and (iv) Selective Service registration, I came to the conclusion that a federal crime had been committed and I deemed it appropriate upon my taken-oath to defend the Constitution from, among others, domestic enemies, to present that evidence to the Grand Jury in Washington, D.C.
Accordingly, upon the above-cited historical and legislative authority, on January 12, 2012, I properly “requested” Ronald C. Machen Jr., the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, to inform the Grand Jury that Barack Hussein Obama, II may have violated a Federal criminal law, to wit, 18 U.S.C. §1343, “Fraud by wire, radio, or television”. Receiving no response from Mr. Machen, I then filed suit in the U.S. District Court against him seeking a court order to compel Mr. Machen to present my evidence to the Grand Jury.
In response, the District Court held that: “18 U.S.C. §3332 cannot be enforced by private individuals.” This stunning response apparently grafted on to §3332 a requirement that only government officials can invoke §3332 – something that is asinine when government officials are the subject of the alleged criminal offense. I properly took an appeal of this issue to the D.C. Circuit Court which – refusing to me both briefing and oral argument – summarily affirmed the District Court’s order. I then timely filed a Petition for Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court which on February 15, 2013, denied my Petition thus confirmed a new rule that 18 U.S.C. §3332 no longer is the law of this Nation. See: U.S. Supreme Court Case #: 12-736.
Thus my task is done, for I can do no more, and yours – upon your oath of office – has just begun. Will you stand by and allow this usurpation of the fundamental and statutory right of the People to petition a Grand Jury to investigate criminal behavior be deleted by the Executive and Judicial cabal? Or, instead will you promptly address this grotesque affront to the Congressional authority to make the law and see it enforced as written? I trust the latter will be your course and will pray for this Republic’s future if you chose instead the former.
I am of course available to speak to these matters in greater detail and provide the referenced documents.
yours,
Montgomery Blair Sibley - http://amoprobos.blogspot.com/2013/0...-congress.html
View the complete Birther Report presentation at: