The Einhorn (Unicorn) Press

The secret history of Barack Hussein Obama was revealed by the Honorable  Dr. James David Manningin before the recent Columbia Obama treason and sedition trial—attended to by the American Grand Jury .

He claimed Barack Hussein Obama was a CIA operative who used Columbia University as a cover up to go to Pakistan in 1981 when the United States and the Taliban worked together against Russia.  In a video posted on YouTube, he said:

I am James David Manning, Senior Pastor of the Atlah World Missionary Church in Harlem, New York.  I am also the originator of the Columbia-Obama trial scheduled for the 14th of May, the year 2010.  Due to the growing, threatening circumstances surrounding this trial, I must now release the full transcript we wish to present, document, and prove at the Columbia Obama trial later this year.

Obama was recruited in 1980 by the CIA while a student at Occidental College in Los Angeles, California.  The CIA needed Muslims who were fluent in Farsi and other Islamic customs and understandings.  Obama was perfect as an undercover agent.

The CIA then later enlisted Columbia University to extend its foreign student program to Barack Hussein Obama that he might enroll in the universities around Karachi and in Pakistan, and also the Patrice Lamumba school in Moscow.  With a perfect cover and the US student identity, Obama became the lead agent in the arms and money supply to the struggling Taliban army against the Soviet war machine.  Obama's cover was flawless, and his skills as an agent incredible.  He was more than integral to the Taliban victory later on that decade.

Now I will be presenting documentation to all that I say here in this announcement.  But it is public knowledge that Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981.  We don't know how often he traveled between Pakistan and Russia, or his return to America and back to Pakistan, and back to Columbia University off and on, during his undercover operation in Afghanistan, training and being a money supplier and interpreter for the CIA to the Taliban during those war years.  The state Department or the State Department records have been scrubbed and the State Department employee who scrubbed these records was killed to cover the passport office break-in April of 2008.  His name was Lieutenant Quarles Harris, a young African American who was found shot dead in front of the Judah Praise Baptist church in northeast Washington, DC.

Obama learned his Islamic language skills while he spent six years in Indonesia with his stepfather and mother Lolo Soetoro.  When he returned from his CIA assignment in the mid 1980s, he pressured the State Department to allow him to enter Harvard Law School.  He excelled at Harvard, became the Editor of the Law Review, where upon his graduation he could have become a Supreme Court clerk or a multi-million dollar salary would have been offered to him at America's best law firms, except for one thing...he did not have a legitimate background as a citizen or as a student from Occidental or Columbia. A diligent investigation by a personnel agency of a major law firm before hiring Obama would have revealed he was not a US citizen.  And how could a "C" student go from Occidental College to America's fifth most difficult school to enter into, Columbia University, and then from there three years later enter into the world's most difficult laws chool, Harvard Law School?

So what does a former CIA operative do, when he cannot pass a personnel test?  Obama becomes a "Community Organizer" on the South side of Chicago, where no background check was needed.  His marriage to Michelle Robinson, a lawyer and connected Chicago politician, albeit a convenient marriage, now gives him citizenship and the beginning of a solid background.  He takes a job at the same law firm where Michelle Robinson becomes his trainer and supervisor, a law firm that is heavily influenced by small time criminal named Tony Rezko.  Michelle Robinson again controls the personnel records, and his hiring takes place without a hitch.  When questions were raised during the 2008 campaign for presidency about his Columbia years, he spun those questions and the media by declaring himself to be an Ascetic, a monk, even a hermit, going days on end without speaking or interacting with anyone, and he did not live on campus with the regular Columbia college students.  Today, Obama who is a man who loves the limelight and can hardly tear himself away from any camera that he passes by, wants us to now believe that he was once a monk or hermit with no interaction with anyone.

Michael Wolf, former NTA Chairman and graduate of Columbia says he remembers Obama as very smart and a great debater while he was at Columbia, and he was very active in student activities.  Now it appears that Michael Wolf remembers things about Obama that Obama does not remember about himself.  FOX news, during the 2008 campaign, when questions were raised about Obama's Columbia years, interviewed more than 400 people on campus during the years of 1980 to 1984—students, nurses, librarians, custodians, people within the environs, shopkeepers alike, and they discovered in their investigation of the 400 people they questioned that not one of the 400 people remembers Barack Hussein Obama during his alleged Columbia years.

The Reagan Bush administrations and the Bush 43 administration all know this about Barack Obama as a CIA operative,

and his help to win the war there for the Taliban in Afghanistan during the Russian invasion.

They just did not expect Barack Obama to win the Iowa Caucus.

When he won that, there was no way they could assassinate him, remove him from the scene.

They had to allow him to march over the Clintons and over John McCain that he might be the president, for whatever information he now holds or interaction he holds with the Soviet Union and over the American people as a threat.

We as a government and as a people are being held hostage by this former CIA operative Barack Hussein Obama who has heavy, heavy Muslim beliefs,

Marxist politics, and has an intense hatred for this nation called America.

Now, at the trial, on the 14th of May, I will document all of these statements that are not general public knowledge that I have stated today, when the trial is finally enjoined.  But, as stated previously, I must, because of growing threatening circumstances, present my case to the American people now.  I am James David Manning, Senior Pastor of the Atlah World Missionary Church in Harlem, and also the host of the Manning report.

At issue is whether Barack Hussein OBAMA or any of his representatives have furnished sufficient documentation to prove his eligibility for the office of President of the United States under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution that 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.”

Presently, OBAMA occupies the White House as the Chief Executive Officer of the United States of America. As president, he is the commander-in-chief of our armed forces and ultimately responsible for the security of the United States. Any person of reasonable sensibilities would logically believe that his eligibility status has long been established by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) or those in positions of oversight for such matters. But has it?

In order to be as comprehensive as possible, my investigative findings include important background information into the legal definition of a “natural born citizen” as applicable to Article II of the U.S. Constitution. This background information is provided to clear up many common misconceptions about the eligibility controversy, and to explain why so many people are confused and easily misled over this issue. After thoroughly investigating this matter, I have found demonstrable evidence that this confusion is a deliberate and highly effective tactic used to divert attention from a constitutional issue and thus, the rule of law, to the detriment of American citizens.

This report will also provide insight into the reasons for the largely ignored yet unprecedented legal fight by Barack Hussein OBAMA II, his representatives and assigns, against any release of the authenticated copy of his long form birth certificate and a multitude of other relevant historical documents.

Natural Born Citizen Qualification: The Facts

Based on extensive research, there are two separate but equally relevant legal issues that involve the specific eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II to legally serve as President of the United States. First is the U.S. Constitution which was adopted into law on 17 September 1787. As noted by Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution, an individual born after 1787 cannot legally or legitimately serve as U.S. President unless that person is a “natural born citizen” of the United States.

The second issue is the precise definition of a “natural born citizen.” The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, adopted on 9 July 1868, furnishes a rather broad definition of who qualifies as a “natural born citizen.” Specifically, who qualifies as a natural born citizen legally qualified to hold the office of President of the United States under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution lies at the core of the eligibility argument. For the sake of clarity in advance of potential ancillary arguments, it is noted here that the Twelfth-Amendment to the U.S. Constitution mandates that Vice-Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents.

Obviously, there is no legitimate controversy over the eligibility status of Barack Hussein OBAMA in terms of his age and length of residency within the U.S. Despite popular belief by many to the contrary, there is, however, an unresolved issue over his status as “a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States.”

While many constitutional scholars hold different beliefs over the intent of the natural born citizen qualifier, I submit that an extraordinarily prescient illustration of logic behind this qualification can be found in a brief letter from John JAY, a founding father of the United States and the first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court to George WASHINGTON dated 25 July 1787:

Dear Sir,

Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.

I remain, dear sir,

Your faithful friend and servant,

John Jay.

A study of the Federalist Papers and the writings of our founding fathers clearly indicate a concern for the security of the United States stemming from “threats from within,” or to prevent foreign enemies from becoming commander-in-chief. Given the nature and various enemies we currently face, the brief but ominous note to George WASHINGTON would certainly appear as relevant today, if not more so,  as it was over 200 years ago.

Three years after that note was written, Congress affirmed in 1790 that a person born abroad whose parents are both citizens of the U.S. is, in fact, a U.S. citizen. In the years that followed, there have been many legal arguments to further define a natural born citizen. Based on extensive research, it would appear that the “next best” definition originates from an 1874 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874). The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if an individual is born in the United States and both parents are U.S. citizens at the time of birth, that individual is, in fact, a natural born citizen. That same Supreme Court decision also addressed the issue of a person born in the United States where one of the parents is not a U.S. citizen at the time of the birth of the child. The ruling noted that in such a case, the child’s natural born citizenship status is “in doubt.”

In any event, subsequent rulings by Congress and enacted by federal statute affirm that children born abroad by parents who are both U.S. citizens are not only U.S. citizens themselves, but are recognized as “natural born citizens.” On the other hand, individuals born in the United States or elsewhere by one or more parents who are not U.S. citizens are not likely to be eligible to hold the office of President of the United States absent of federal statute affirming their eligibility. Therein lays the current situation of Barack Hussein OBAMA II and the need to establish his citizenship status through authenticated documents.

Presidential eligibility; historical & current oddities

Since the U.S. Constitution was adopted into law, every elected U.S. president who was born after 1787 was born in the United States of parents who were both U.S. citizens except two: Chester Alan ARTHUR and Barack Hussein OBAMA II. It is interesting to note that when Chester Alan ARTHUR was born, his father, William ARTHUR was a British subject and not a U.S. citizen. There is ample authenticated historical evidence to substantiate that ARTHUR deliberately and publicly misrepresented his family lineage during his campaign and following his election in 1880 as the 21st President, took steps to destroy evidence, including family and birth records.

Barack Hussein OBAMA II has publicly admitted that his father was a Kenyan native and a British citizen who never became a U.S. citizen. Based on that admission and further verification of his father’s nationality, OBAMA’s status as a natural born citizen and thus, his eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States is questionable at best, at least according to the aforementioned Supreme Court ruling of Minor v. Happersett. This issue becomes more prescient and ominously nefarious when one investigates the overt and covert behavior of OBAMA as a candidate, his actions following his election, the duplicity of the media, members of the U.S. Congress, the Federal Elections Commission and other factors by those who appear to be working individually or in concert to purposely misdirect the core Constitutional argument.

It is obvious that not all presidential candidates are treated equally in terms of their eligibility, as illustrated during the 2008 election. During the 2008 campaign, a lawsuit was filed petitioning the removal of Presidential candidate John McCAIN from the ballot. Ironically, the suit stemmed from the questions over McCAIN’s constitutional eligibility as his natural-born status was in doubt.  To put to rest any doubt, McCAIN responded by providing an authenticated copy of his long form birth certificate to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) and Congress. Despite the early rumblings of controversy over OBAMA’s origins, OBAMA did not.

Although McCain provided his long form birth certificate and took proactive measures to ensure his eligibility to hold office, many political and media pundits remained unsatisfied. Before the term “birther” became synonymous with racist conspiracy theorist, an article published on 28 February, 2008 in The New York Times titled McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out questioned McCAIN’s eligibility.

On that same day, Senator Claire McCASKILL, a Missouri democrat introduced a bill titled Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act. Oddly, the bill was co-sponsored by both Senators Barack Hussein OBAMA II and Hillary Rodham CLINTON, both who were running against McCAIN at the time the bill was introduced. Despite the specificity of its title, the bill (SB 2678) was an attempt to change the legal definition of a natural born citizen as referenced by Article II, Section I, clause V of the U.S. Constitution, a move that by default, would arguably and preemptively take away any constitutional challenges against the eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II.

Although the bill failed to progress in the Senate, the same lawmakers introduced a non-binding resolution (Senate Resolution 511) on 10 April 2008 to again ostensibly recognize McCAIN as a “natural born citizen,” the resolution contained broad language that could be applied to OBAMA.

The controversy surrounding the eligibility of John McCAIN to hold office continued, at least in the media. On 11 July 2008, an article was published in The New York Times under the title A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue. The article cited a law professor from the University of Arizona who concluded, in a detailed analysis “that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.” The law professor cited in that article, Gabriel J. Chin, published a sixty-two page discussion paper in August 2008 titled Why Senator John McCain Cannot be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship (Arizona Legal Studies, Discussion Paper 08-14).

The status of Barack Hussein OBAMA, however, remained unquestioned by the majority of academia.

Arguments over importance & relevance: “Birthers” are born

Like the layers of an onion, one must peel back the layers of hyperbole, political agendas, accusations of racism, and other types of detractions and distractions to arrive at the very core of the argument, which is simply this: Is Barack Hussein OBAMA in fact legally eligible, under the United States Constitution, to serve as President of the United States?

There are many who claim that the issue of Obama’s eligibility is unimportant and irrelevant, or an unnecessary distraction to the “real” crises facing America, including but not limited to OBAMA’s policies and actions as President. It is an interesting dichotomy that some of the most vocal proponents of the first amendment are the same who appear to disregard the fourteenth amendment, a practice especially virulent among those in the media. There are also those self-proclaimed conservative media pundits who have the collective audience of millions of Americans who flatly refuse to discuss, let alone demand answers to a legitimate legal question as defined by the U.S. Constitution.

Others claim the argument is moot, as the President was duly elected by the will of the people. Those people are in need of a history lesson as that argument is technically flawed at the most fundamental level.  Others assert that questioning the eligibility issue is rooted in racism and bigotry, at which point the rule of law is ultimately lost in a flurry of deliberate distractions presented in the form of incendiary accusations.

Perhaps the most calculated and methodical approach in use today to dissuade people from addressing this issue is the labeling of anyone who believes that American citizens deserve to know whether Barack Hussein OBAMA meets the eligibility requirements as a “birther.” The negative connotations of this label are vast and incisive, and the evolution of this term has grown to include ancillary questions of OBAMA’s past.

The popular but erroneous perception is that “birthers,” often lumped together with “9/11 truthers” and others who have legitimate questions and concerns about important issues either live in a world where conspiracies dominate their thoughts, or are simply branded as kooks seeking answers to non-existent questions. The fact is that there are indeed legitimate unanswered questions about the events of 9/11 as there are legitimate unanswered questions about the background and overall eligibility of OBAMA. Individuals asking rational, fact based questions about either subject are intentionally combined with others whose questions are obviously well beyond the realm of reason.

In particular, it is not only the absence of authenticated evidence regarding OBAMA’s citizenship status at birth that cause rational people to question his eligibility status under Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, but the manner in which OBAMA and those in positions of government oversight have responded to legitimate inquiries. It is also how some members of the media have chosen to report on this issue, misreport or otherwise distort the issue, or not report on it at all.

Whatever arguments are used to understate or even mock the importance of this matter, it cannot be denied that the rule of law is being ignored and as a result, the Constitution of the United States is being trampled. If the fourteenth amendment is permitted to be exploited, ignored or violated, it might not be long before other amendments, along with the entire Constitution, become nothing more than a footnote in American history. As such, questions surrounding this matter must be taken seriously.

The Obama eligibility issue: has it already been answered?

No. It has been a common tactic to refute questions about OBAMA’s eligibility by citing the Internet publication of a Certification of Live Birth (COLB), also known as a “short form birth certificate” purportedly issued by the state of Hawaii. The controversial document was originally posted on the Internet at http://www.dailykos.com, a political website on or about 12 June 2008 as questions about OBAMA’s place of birth and eligibility status began to become a popular Internet topic. As there was no certification of authenticity that accompanied the alleged document, its provenance could not be established.

Subsequent to the document being posted on the aforementioned website, the “Fight the Smears” website reproduced the document here.  While many believe “Fight the Smears” website is an independent organization dedicated to separating fact from fiction, it is actually owned and operated by “Organizing for America,” the successor organization to “Obama for America.” Clearly, it is far from independent.

Yet another website purported to be an independent arbiter of truth is “FactCheck.org,” which claims that the eligibility status of OBAMA has long been satisfied. Like the previous site, it is important to understand who owns or operates the site in order to assess the reliability of the site. The Fact Check website is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. It receives its primary funding from the Annenberg Foundation. It is relevant to note that Barack Hussein OBAMA II was a founding member, chairman, and past president of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was also funded by the Annenberg Foundation. Accordingly, it is reasonable to challenge the neutrality of the information provided by that site.

Since then, the image, including variations of the image, have appeared on the Internet to “prove” that Barack Hussein OBAMA meets the eligibility requirements under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution.  Since its original posting, numerous individuals and websites have sought to disprove the authenticity of the document, which was posted as an image in JPEG format, through analysis of the image or by other means (e.g. sequencing of certificate numbers, absence of state seal, etc.).  Although there appears to be sufficient evidence suggesting the document is not a valid certificate and has been falsely created or the image has been deliberately altered, limiting discussion at this time to the merits of the COLB detracts from a much larger issue: OBAMA’s massive and unprecedented campaign to keep sealed his actual birth certificate (and other relevant records) from public view.

This is not to say that the publication of the COLB document is unimportant. In fact, quite the opposite is true if the matter of legal eligibility is ever properly and thoroughly investigated by a legitimate court of inquiry within the United States. As agents, representatives or the assigns of Barack Hussein OBAMA have publicly asserted that the question of eligibility has been officially answered by the publication of the COLB as listed on officially sanctioned web sites, and it is ultimately proven that the document is deliberately deceptive by any means, an inquiry into violations of the United States Crimes Code, 18 USC Section 1028 encompassing fraud and other related activity involving identification documents might apply.

Since the initial COLB was first published in June 2008, there have been at least two additional incarnations of the document, each containing revisions that bear additional information allegedly “supporting” its authenticity. Accordingly, the Certification of Live Birth is consistently cited by individuals, the media and others to prove the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA.  Nonetheless, even an authenticated and genuine Certification of Live Birth is legally insufficient for the purpose of proving eligibility, as it merely represents that OBAMA’s birth record is on file in the state of Hawaii. It falls short of providing the information necessary to determine constitutional eligibility in at least two areas: it does not offer any information regarding who supplied the information, nor does it confirm the authenticity of the information provided. Again, it merely indicates that the information is “on file.”

Hawaii officials declare Obama eligible

Yet another deception levied against the American people is the assertion that the Hawaiian officials have confirmed Barack Hussein OBAMA’s “eligibility” through a statement issued on 27 July 2009 by Dr. Chiyome FUKINO, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, which declared Obama Hawaiian-born and a “natural-born American citizen.” Those who claim that the 2009 press release by Dr. FUKINO must understand that FUKINO has absolutely no statutory authority to make such a statement. Accordingly and based on the rule of law, that statement cannot be considered as evidence or legal documentation either to support or deny OBAMA’s eligibility status.

Hawaii birth announcements: anecdotal evidence of eligibility

Many who argue that Barack Hussein OBAMA II was born in Hawaii not only point to the COLB as direct evidence of eligibility, but they also point to two separate birth announcements that appear in the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin in 1961. Those doing so either fail to understand the legal definition of a natural born citizen as it applies to the eligibility factor, or are guilty of intentionally misdirecting the core issue. A birth announcement is simply that – a public announcement that a baby was born. The birth announcements do not provide any information about the child’s citizenship, cannot be authenticated, and hold no weight of evidence to support either side of the eligibility argument.

Part II of an investigative series

 

No Proof

 

In the first part of this investigative report [above], background was provided to identify the core legal and constitutional arguments in the matter of Barack Hussein OBAMA II’s eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States. Using my investigative experience, I performed this investigation in compliance with the same “industry standards” that apply to performing background investigations of individuals selected for corporate positions by Fortune 100 companies.

 

As noted in my initial report, the primary intent of this investigation has been to establish whether Barack Hussein OBAMA has indeed furnished the necessary proof to confirm his eligibility to assume the position of the President of the United States, and whether that proof has been properly authenticated. In other words, this investigation sought to determine whether there are any legitimate questions or concerns over the eligibility issue, or whether the matter has been sufficiently resolved. Or to put it yet another way, is there a legitimate reason to mock, belittle, marginalize, or otherwise consider the so-called “Birthers” as kooks living on the fringe of conspiracy?

 

Despite assertions by politicians, media pundits and others, this issue is far from having been resolved. Investigation found that those who will not discuss this issue or mock the questions and those asking the questions either do not fully understand the issue, or have agendas that conflict with the truth being disclosed. This part of the investigation will provide detailed information outlining how that conclusion has been reached, and will offer additional information of relevance pertaining to the narrow scope of the issue of eligibility itself. Additional investigative results in the form of supplemental reports will address the methods being presently employed – and identify those who are employing them – to keep the truth from being made known to the American people.

 

It is the conclusion of this investigator that Barack Hussein OBAMA II has not only failed to provide proof of eligibility, but has and continues to fight efforts to release the proof necessary to confirm that he is legally eligible to occupy his current position as the president of the United States.

 

To be clear, it is important to understand that there is a vast and significant difference between the meaning of the words evidence and proof, although most people use the terms synonymously. While Black’s Law Dictionary offers the legal definition of both terms, they can be easily summarized for the purpose of this investigation as follows: Evidence is something that offers the basis for belief or disbelief, or knowledge on which to base belief, while proof is the establishment of facts by evidence.

 

Clearly, the United States Constitution requires the higher standard of proof and not merely evidence of eligibility to hold the office of President. Contrary to the assertions of representatives speaking on behalf of OBAMA, media accounts and numerous reports on various Internet sites, OBAMA has provided absolutely no proof that he meets the eligibility requirements as of the date of this investigation.

 

Before proceeding, it’s important to understand that the distinction between evidence of proof is neither petty nor is it “mere semantics,” as the legal definitions between evidence and proof are exceptionally clear, especially in a court of law and especially when considering someone to assume the highest position in U.S. government. In fact, it is this distinction that is being methodically exploited to misrepresent the facts of this case, and to pejoratively label anyone who continues to demand proof as a “birther.”

 

 

 

“Certification of Live Birth” as proof

 

Clearly, the image of the Certification of Live Birth is a large part of the eligibility question. Much debate and discussion has taken place over the image’s authenticity and provenance. As noted, that document first appeared in JPEG image format on or about 12 July 2008 on the political website DailyKos, and was subsequently published on the OBAMA-backed website “Fight the Smears” and also on www.FactCheck.org.

 

Controversy became rampant as numerous analyses of the image at each site suggested that in certain cases, alterations to the image were made. The controversy became exacerbated by the obvious revisions made to that image that appeared on various web sites to such an extent that the accusations distracted from the most basic of issues: The Certification of Live Birth, even if authenticated, is not legally sufficient to be considered proof of citizenship and therefore, is legally insufficient to be prove the eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II. Accordingly, the “long form,” or “vault copy” of the actual birth certificate needs to be released for the legal burden of proof to be satisfied.

 

The release of the authenticated “long form” of OBAMA’s birth certificate will identify the parents, the exact location of birth, as well as the source of the information provided on that form. By virtue of the legal definition and standards of proof, it is the only document suitable to meet the legal definition of proof, and the only document that will contain all of the necessary information to prove or disprove his eligibility to hold office.

 

While investigation of possible alterations of the JPEG of the COLB posted and presented as “genuine” on a site sanctioned by OBAMA or those representing him could become relevant in a separate criminal investigation, the topic is subordinate to and detracts from the primary issue of OBAMA’s eligibility. Analysis of the JPEG image purported to be that of OBAMA’s Certification of Live Birth is beyond the scope of this investigation, especially since the document itself (and not a JPEG image of the document) has not been made accessible for review. Nonetheless, allegations of alteration must be properly investigated as any evidence of alterations with the intent to deceive, done by an individual or group acting in an official capacity, can be used to illustrate a course of conduct that might later prove useful in the venue of a criminal investigation.

 

 

The authenticity of the Certification of Live Birth notwithstanding, it is the conclusion of this investigator that OBAMA has not only failed to produce the appropriate form necessary to prove eligibility (the vault copy or long form birth certificate), but has gone to significant lengths to keep that form from being released.

 

Investigation into this area has produced sufficient evidence to indicate that representatives of Barack Hussein OBAMA II, either at his direction or with his knowledge and consent, posted or caused to be posted the Certification of Live Birth at the Fight the Smears website, claiming the document is incontrovertible proof of his citizenship status and thus, his eligibility to hold the office of President. At that site, the Certification of Live Birth is improperly labeled and presented to the visitors as “Barack Obama’s Official Birth Certificate.” It is, in fact and reality, no such document. 

 

When one considers the text above the image as shown [in the link] above, it is reasonable to question the intent of the site operators with regard to improperly representing that the document is something it is not, and to allege that those “claiming Barack Obama doesn’t have a birth certificate aren’t actually about that piece of paper — they’re about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen.” It would appear that the actual manipulation is not originating from anyone asking reasonable, fact-based questions, but by those who deceitfully represent that the image of the COLB is an actual birth certificate.

 

 

Arguments used to deflect the truth

 

To be sure, there are numerous individuals and groups who claim that the presentation of the Certification of Live Birth is sufficient to prove Obama’s Constitutional eligibility. In January 2009, Janice OKUBO, director of communications for the Hawaii Department of Health, stated that the COLB provides sufficient information to answer all of the questions surrounding OBAMA’s eligibility. To illustrate her assertion, she noted that the COLB lists OBAMA’s location of birth as Honolulu, Hawaii:

 

“If you were born in Bali, for example, you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate.”

 

As noted in the previous section of this report, it is important to understand that the COLB does not provide the critical information pertaining to OBAMA’s parents, the exact location of birth, or the source of information provided. Only one document (of current relevance) will provide that information: an authenticated copy of the long form or vault copy of the birth certificate of Barack Hussein OBAMA II.

 

In an article titled “Born in the U.S.A originally published on 21 August 2008 and updated on 1 November 2008, FactCheck.org also attempted to quell further questions of OBAMA’s eligibility by commenting on the Certification of Live Birth:

 

“FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as “supporting documents” to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.”

This assertion is a bit more misleading, as the author refers to the Certification of Live Birth as a “birth certificate.” In other words, the “staffers” examined the COLB, not the long form or vault copy of the birth certificate of Barack Hussein OBAMA II. The affirmation that the COLB is genuine notwithstanding, only one document (of current relevance) will provide that information: an authenticated copy of the long form or vault copy of the birth certificate of Barack Hussein OBAMA II.

 

In summary, arguments over the authenticity of the COLB are nothing more than a distraction from the primary issue: the Certification of Live Birth, even if authenticated, is not legally sufficient to be considered proof of citizenship and therefore, is legally insufficient to be prove the eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II. Accordingly, the “long form,” or “vault copy” of the actual birth certificate needs to be released for the legal burden of proof to be satisfied. And THAT is the document that Barack Hussein OBAMA II continues to fight against being released.

 

 

Nomination without proof

 

It is reasonable to ask how any individual could successfully secure the nomination of their respective party if they did not furnish the necessary proof of eligibility as required by the U.S. Constitution. This question is especially relevant considering the intense examination of Senator John McCAIN as candidate for the Republican Party. A follow-up and equally reasonable question is who would allow such an event to occur absent of such proof, and who would have had to know about the potential controversy in advance?  A prevailing, yet erroneous, theory is that for one to believe that Barack Hussein OBAMA II is not constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President of the United States, there must be a massive conspiracy that involves numerous individuals and multiple levels of government.

 

Although one would reasonably suspect that there had to have been a large number of “co-conspirators” involved in such an act, the opposite is actually true.

 

An investigation into this issue found that only the chairperson of each party (the party’s national convention that nominates the candidate) has to sign an “Official Certification of Nomination,” which is the recognized legal instrument that affirms that the party’s candidate meets all of the eligibility requirements to hold the office of President. In the case of Barack Hussein OBAMA II, that responsibility fell with Ms. Nancy PELOSI. It is a surprisingly simple process that is completed following the official nomination of the candidate for office, and is usually filed immediately after the close of the party’s convention.

 

 

In the case of Barack Hussein OBAMA, PELOSI signed the affirmation of eligibility in her capacity as Chair of the Democratic National Convention along with Alice GERMOND, the Secretary of the Democratic National Convention. Her signature, affixed and notarized to this legal instrument, was viewed as “sufficient documentation” by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) “that both OBAMA and BIDEN were duly nominated and met the Constitutional eligibility requirements,” according to an official interviewed by this investigator at the FEC in Washington, DC. According to this FEC official, “no further verification was required or performed at any level [within the FEC].”

 

Unsurprisingly, repeated attempts by this investigator to secure information from Ms. PELOSI’s Washington, DC office for information about the eligibility and background verification process were not answered as of the date of this report. Meanwhile, one Washington insider with ties to the FEC told this investigator that the process of filing the Official Certification of Nomination is “easier than getting a DC driver’s license. No one asks any questions and the process is nothing more than a mere formality,” stated this source.

 

 

 

 

Oddities surrounding the “Official Certification of Nomination” affidavits

 

One very suspicious circumstance verified during the course of this investigation involves the production and filing of the “Official Certification of Nomination” forms. Numerous web sites and open sources have furnished two images of the same affidavit as best illustrated at the web site operated by Reverend James David MANNING (at this link). Under the heading of “Exhibit 6” at this location are two nomination documents, each with different wording as to the certification of the candidates.

 

This investigator took steps to verify the authenticity of the original documents and not the Internet copies. Using a federal index system of certified election documents, the authenticity of both documents was established and it was verified that both exist on file. Additionally, this investigator and Judi McLeod, founder and editor of Canada Free Press, interviewed Reverend MANNING in February 2010 about this and other matters, in a further attempt to secure bona fide documentation about OBAMA’s background and the authentication of documents. Reverend MANNING noted the discrepancies in the wording, and has since conducted his own inquiries of these documents.

 

Interestingly, the wording within the certifications is significantly different; one contains the Constitutional certification clause within the body of the document, while the other does not. The different wording of these two separate documents is detailed as follows:

 

 

Document “with” Constitutional certification clause:

 

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado, on August 25 through 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”

 

 

 

Document “without” Constitutional certification clause:

 

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado, on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively.”

 

During the course of this investigation, attempts were made by this investigator to have the differences between documents explained by various government officials within the Federal Elections Commission (FEC). Despite numerous attempts, no explanations were obtained. The absence of the “constitutionality clause” remains of significant concern to this investigator and is an area that requires further exploration.

 

This discrepancy was also addressed in an article written by Canada Free Press columnist JB Williams on 24 April 2010. In that article, Mr. Williams accurately described the difference in documents:

 

“Note that the language which certifies that Barack Hussein Obama meets all constitutional qualifications is missing in the DNC documents filed in 49 of the 50 states. The certification of constitutional qualification for the office of president was filed only in Hawaii. That text is missing in the DNC certification filings for all other states.”

 

“Whereas the RNC filed the exact same certification document, including the constitutional text for John McCain in all 50 states, Obama was technically certified in only one state, Hawaii.”

 

 

Prior knowledge of eligibility problems

 

That the process of filing the “Official Certification of Nomination” is indeed a simple one and rests on the sworn statements of two individuals, it is not intended to mean that others did not possess prior knowledge of OBAMA’s failure to provide sufficient proof of eligibility. In fact, as early as 2005, some individuals presently serving in his administration appear to have known that the eligibility issue relative to his citizenship might become a future problem.

 

A twenty-six page article written by Sarah P. HERLIHY was published in the Chicago-Kent Law Review, Volume 81:275 titled “Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle.” The date of publication is 22 February 2006, although the article appears to have been written by HERLIHY in late 2005. As the title implies, the author argues that Article II of the U.S. Constitution inhibits “globalization” of the U.S.  She further opines that the provision is discriminatory, outdated, and undemocratic. On page fifteen of her article, HERLIHY references several hypothetical arguments that bear an eerie likeness to the not-so hypothetical implementation of policies we are witnessing under the OBAMA administration.

 

The “HERLIHY BRIEF,” as I have labeled it, is interesting on several levels, but relevant on one level in particular: HERLIHY was employed as an associate by Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, a Chicago, Illinois based law firm with offices worldwide. Further investigation found that a senior partner of that same firm, Bruce I. ETTELSON, was a former member on the finance committee of Barack Hussein OBAMA II when he was a Senator in Illinois. Could this be a mere coincidence, or perhaps an attempt to break psychological barriers while grooming a future President?

 

That, combined with legislative efforts during the 2008 campaign involving McCAIN’s eligibility (as documented in Part I of this report), appear to suggest a broader level of knowledge among individuals that the issue of eligibility as it relates to the U.S. Constitution, might present a future problem.

 

 

 

A mission gone wrong?

 

John O. BRENNAN is currently the assistant to President OBAMA and Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Until he began working for OBAMA, BRENNAN was the CEO of a firm called the Analysis Corporation, a government subcontractor whose work involved providing intelligence-related consulting services to federal agencies. In 2008, a contract employee of BRENNAN’s firm was caught inappropriately accessing certain passport files in the State Department’s passport office. BRENNAN’s firm was “cited” in March, 2008 for breaching sensitive files, including the passport files of Hillary Rodham CLINTON, John McCAIN and Barack Hussein OBAMA.

 

On 21 March 2008, U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack confirmed that the contractor from BRENNAN’s company had accessed the passport files of the presidential candidates that included OBAMA. It is significant to note that the passport files include a virtual treasure trove of personal information, including an applicant’s name, social security number, date and place of birth. The files would likely contain additional information including original or authenticated copies of birth certificates, naturalization certificates, or oaths of allegiance for U.S.-born persons who adopted the citizenship of a foreign country as minors.

 

It should be noted that at the time of the incident, BRENNAN was working as an unpaid adviser to the Obama campaign and was said to have virtually unfettered access to the candidate. BRENNAN, of course, denounced the actions of the employee.

 

The nature of the “breach,” according to intelligence sources close to this investigator, confirmed that the target of the unlawful access was the file containing documents related to Barack Hussein OBAMA (a fact that was originally reported in an article written by Ken Timmerman for NewsMax.com). This is significant, of course, as OBAMA has not permitted the release of his passport records or the documentation contained in that file.

 

It is important to note that this was not the first breach, nor the only one. At least two other incidents that resulted in the termination or other disciplinary action took place in the several months around this same time period. This breach, however, was different, and the difference between this incident and the others must not be dismissed as it is directly related to the potential disclosure of personal information of Barack Hussein OBAMA II, including his original, “long form” birth certificate. This incident involved more than a curious subcontractor worker; it involved other co-conspirators, including an unidentified contact within the U.S. State Department itself.

 

Research into the three separate incidents was performed, noting that two of those incidents were somewhat limited in terms of what was accessed. The breach that involved HARRIS, however, as often happens with “the use of unmanageable criminal assets,” went dangerously awry.

 

Following this incident, federal investigators identified a cooperative witness with direct information about the breach of the passport records – allegedly by accident. That individual, identified as Lieutenant Harris Junior, 24, was stopped for a minor traffic infraction on 25 March 2008, and was found to be in possession of stolen credit cards and documents that were traced back to the breach of the passport records. (Copy of arrest record here in PDF format) HARRIS, known to DC police, began working with federal authorities to strike a deal as they expanded their investigation into the passport incident. According to a review of the arrest record, HARRIS admitted to investigating officers that he obtained the documents from (an unnamed) co-conspirator “who works for the U.S. Department of State” [emphasis added by this author].

 

Less than a month later, HARRIS was found with a single bullet wound to his head on Thursday, 17 April 2008, inside of his car that was parked in front of the Judah House Praise Baptist Church in Washington, DC. HARRIS was described as “an important witness in the breach of the passport records.” While his death was attributed to an increase in violence in the city, at least one detective interviewed by this investigator is not too sure. “It’s an awfully big coincidence, and you know how I feel about coincidences,” stated this homicide detective. “I’ve considered that it was someone tying up loose ends,” he added. The murder of HARRIS remains unsolved.

 

 

 

Legal stonewalls

 

From an investigative perspective, the reluctance of Barack Hussein OBAMA to release an authenticated copy of his actual long form birth certificate is as revealing as it is troubling. The exact number of lawsuits filed within the last two years to legally compel Barack Hussein OBAMA to release a copy of his authenticated, long form birth certificate is unknown. According to Canada Free Press columnist JB Williams in an article he wrote on 24 April 2010 discloses that OBAMA has spent “in excess of $2 million in legal fees” [to prevent the release of that document]. Mr. Williams stated “nobody spends $2 million in legal fees to hide an authentic birth certificate. At least no one who is not hell bent on hiding information of significance.”

 

 

Mr. Williams also notes that “[I]n every instance, the lawsuits were dismissed prior to discovery, or the legal process that in these cases, permit the petitioning party to review evidence relevant to the lawsuit.”

 

 

From an investigative perspective, the most obvious and nagging question is why Barack Hussein OBAMA II has refused and continues to refuse to authorize the release of that document for review. Consistent with the background investigations I have conducted on behalf of Fortune 500 and 100 companies, such a refusal would be sufficient cause to automatically dismiss the individual seeking the high-level executive position from such consideration. By comparison to the 150 or so investigations of this type I have performed over the last 25 years, I have yet to find anyone under consideration for such a position to refuse this most routine and basic request. Moreover, I have never experienced anyone who has not only refused to do so, but spent extraordinary sums of money in legal fees to fight against such disclosure.

 

The authenticated long form birth certificate is not the only document of interest that OBAMA refused to provide, but it is the most salient and direct method of furnishing proof to answer the eligibility issue once and for all.

 

 

Barack Hussein OBAMA II promised transparency to the American people during his campaign and if elected, during his time in office of President. Yet, that promise of transparency has been replaced with walls of lawyers and an administration of individuals who have mounted an unprecedented campaign of opacity. In addition to his actual birth certificate, OBAMA has refused to release the following records that would provide insight into the individual currently occupying the highest office in the United States:

 

• Official U.S. passport records

• Medical records

• Occidental College records & transcripts

• Columbia College records & transcripts

• Harvard College records

• State of Illinois Bar Records

• Private practice law client list

 

Each of the above records would be considered relevant to his position as President, and most previous presidents have themselves authorized the release of such information for public review. Requesting the release of the above records is certainly reasonable, and is consistent with the requests of previous administrations.

 

Of course, cursory research of various web sites will provide lists of other documents undisclosed by OBAMA, including but not limited to his natural parent’s marriage license, records from overseas primary schools, and even his Baptismal certificate, if one even exists. Also included by some sites are his adoption records, various grade school and high school transcripts, and published articles that he would have authored while enrolled in college. While the release of such records would indeed prove enlightening, they are not necessarily intrinsic to the issue of his Constitutional eligibility.

 

 

The production of a single document could put this entire controversy to rest: the long form birth certificate. As noted in this investigative segment, it is that single document that OBAMA has not only refused to release or authorize to be released, but has spent an estimated $2 million to keep under wraps.

 

Coming next: The money & people behind the fight

 

 

---

Biography:

Douglas Hagmann is the Director of the Northeast Intelligence Network and the CEO of Hagmann Investigative Services, Inc. He has 20 years of experience performing investigations in the private sector for many Fortune 500 companies and is a well known surveillance specialist. He is the author of Tactical Surveillance, a training manual for investigators who perform covert surveillance assignments.

 

 

Hagmann has received certification in Email Tracing, Internet Profiling, and Threat Assessment in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He is also a graduate of the Laboratory of Forensic Science and is certified in Bloodstain Pattern Analysis. He has been used as an operational asset by federal law enforcement and various police departments.

 

 

Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, Hagmann began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism as an unpaid volunteer from the private sector and established the Northeast Intelligence Network, which monitors terrorist websites so that another 9/11 can be avoided.   But judging from the photos above, here he has a much bigger problem on his hands than the Obama birth certificate issue and Barack's eligibility to assume the United States presidency.

 

 

American Grand Jury http://AmericanGrandJury.org

Research and Background The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government   by Leo C. Donofrio, J.D. January 22, 2009 About the Author Mr. Leo Donofrio is a semi-retired New Jersey attorney who brought a case in 2008 against the New Jersey secretary of state for allowing three legally unqualified presidential candidates to be placed on the general election ballot in that state. This case was reviewed and dismissed by the Supreme Court of New Jersey, and then was reviewed by all nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court in a private closed-door session. At least five of the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices felt that this case should not be heard in a public session of the Court. In addition to being a prominent legal scholar and essayist, Mr. Donofrio is also a nationally known chess champion, poker champion and musician.   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:             "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."     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.'" 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 do 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 darn 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 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 altar of the U.S. Supreme Court, "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 new 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, darn 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 kicking.

American Grand Jury This is a FREE document. The author, Mr. Leo Donofrio has authorized its content to be freely distributed. This is also a "standalone" webpage. All the code and css is included in a single page source. Feel free to cut and paste the source code anywhere you wish. The American Grand Jury website deems this information to be accurate and educational. However, we advise you to consult an attorney if anything in this "research" document needs to be further clarified by you. Our only advice is listen to your heart if legal courts or officers of the court try to tell you that the Consitutional 5th Amendment or a "runaway" Grand Jury has no proper or legal standing. They would be wrong. The American Grand Jury cannot give you legal advice as we are not attorneys. As such we must disclaim any information herein, but that doesn't mean we are not going to share whatever information we have which may help people setup and organize a Grand Jury within their state, county, city, town or other jurisdiction. The Grand Jury has judicial rights provided for under our Constitution. Learn those rights and use them to the best of your ability to TAKE BACK America. Just because a man is elected into government office doesn't mean he cannot be held accountable to the people. The Grand Jury is one way of dealing with corruption in government. God Bless each and every one of you. God Bless our great nation, the United States of America. The American Grand Jury seeingright[AT]gmail.com

 

The Post & Email very recently reported that Dr. Manning has proof that Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible to occupy the United States Presidency, and that the evidence will be presented at the upcoming Obama Treason and Sedition trial being held at Columbia University in New York City from May 14th through the 19th of 2010—or longer if need be!  This article (interview with Dr. Manning) reveals a lot of background on the shady past of Barack Hussein Obama and why he did not—in fact—attend Columbia University as claimed.

 

 

In “Short Takes (Brief Clips of the News),” Jon Christian Ryter says:

 

Birthers are right...from March 26, 1790

 

  

 
May 11, 2010—On March 26, 1790 the 1st Congress of the United States, session II, Ch.4 thought it necessary to define precisely what an Article II citizen was to prevent those not legally defined as an Article II citizen from running for, or winning the office of, President of the United States since as a non-citizen, they are not eligible to do either. In the records of the 1st Congress, second session, Congress enacted the guidelines which determined that people not born here while what became the United States was under the thumb of England, who applied for, and were granted citizenship rights, would be construed as a "naturalized" citizens as would any children with them who were under the age of 21 years. These children may have been born in this country, but because their parents were not natural born they were also deemed to be naturalized, not natural born, citizens. They had voting rights, and the right to run for Congress, but not the office of President. I would like you to pause for a moment and think about the pregnant illegals that steal into the United States specifically to have anchor babies here. In the mid-1930s, social progressive Franklin D. Roosevelt decreed, by Presidential Proclamation, that they are construed to be natural born, allowing their parents to use their "anchor status" to get green cards which allowed them to stay in the country. The most prominent illegal in this country today has two anchor children, and a natural born anchor wife. His name is Barack Obama. If his name sounds familiar it's because he's the illegal alien who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania in Washington, DC.

 

 

 

According to the law enacted by the 1st Congress, session II, Ch. 4, whether he was born in the State of Hawaii or not, he is ineligible to run for, or be elected to, the office of President of the United States because the law stated" "...the children of citizens (both parents) of the United States, shall be considered natural born citizens; provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any State, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of that State in which such a person was proscribed. (a) Approved, March 26, 1790." What does that mean? It means the father must be a be a citizen to transmit citizenship to a child of his seed who was born in this country. If he is a natural born citizen, he will transmit that right to his offspring. If he is a naturalized citizen, he transmits that right. He cannot transmit a right he does not possess. Thus, if he is not a citizen of the United States, he cannot transmit citizenship rights of any type to his offspring since he has none to bequeath. Which means any illegal alien cannot transmit US citizenship rights to an illegal offspring since they lack citizenship. The parents, and their US-born offspring are legally subject to deportation.

 

 

Barack Hussein Obama's father was born in Kenya and was never a citizen of the United States, thus he could not transmit citizenship rights to his son—except Kenyan citizenship rights. Which he did. England claims Barack Obama is a citizen of Kenya. He is also a citizen of Indonesia since his step father, Lolo Soetero, who legally changed Obama's name to Barry Soetoro, renounced both any claim Obama had to US citizenship through his mother, or Kenyan citizenship through his father. Obama traveled on an Indonesian passport which suggests the international community viewed him not as an American but an Indonesian. As did Occidental College which, it now appears, gave him a foreign exchange student scholarship.

 

 

While Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, was a naturalized citizen, under federal law she would have had to be 19-years of age when she gave birth to be able to transmit citizenship rights to a foreign-born son. She was 18-years, 8-months and 5-days old when her son was born on August 4, 1961. Because his father was not a natural citizen of the United States he could only transmit the type of citizenship he possessed. Since he was not a US citizen, he could not even transmit naturalized citizen status. And, since his mother was 3-months and 25-days shy of being able to transmit natural birth status to her first born son, any legal status is in question even if Obama was born in Hawaii—which the effort, and money being spent by Obama to conceal his birth records, together with statements by Kenyan Minister of Lands, James Orengo and Kenyan Minister Bonny Khalwale who claim Obama is native born in Kenya, suggests that the only actual, legitimate long form, birth doctor-affirmed birth certificate Obama has is Kenyan. And thus, even though US law was changed in 1986, he would at least have had a citizenship argument even though he could still not have gotten around the lack of standing of his father to qualify as a natural born citizen. The law was further diluted in 1994, 33 years after his birth. But, once again, too little, too late.

 

 

This explains why our rogue rulers are pushing for a free pass for illegal aliens.

 

 

And their chief undocumented worker, Barack Hussein Obama, is slouching back and demanding more illegal action—with his Shiite shoes rudely riding the majestic mahogany in the Oval Office.

 

 

---

 

Verdict of the Columbia University Trial

 

 

May 19, 2010:  To a question in another long interview by Sharon Rondeau with Miki Booth, published in The Post & Email, the U.S. Congressional candidate revealed:  “Now that the trial has found them guilty on all of these charges, the American Grand Jury will be serving not presentments, but indictments.  It’s going to take a couple of weeks to get this done, but the American people are going to be serving these indictments on governors, sheriffs in every single county where we can, elected officials, attorneys general, and district attorneys.  There are so many people coming on board, and the news is traveling like wildfire throughout the United States.  We’re going to have so many numbers of people who have been waiting, asking “What can we do?”  This gives them something specifically to do, because Barack Obama and the president of Columbia University were found guilty of the 14 or so charges brought [actually 17].”

 

 

 

Chelsea Schilling's article in WorldNetDaily—Oklahoma firecracker takes on Obama eligibility—provides the Nashville Tea Party Convention story of Miki's presentment of irrefutable evidence challenging the legitimacy of Barack Hussein Obama's so-called Hawaiian COLB (Certificate of Live Birth) or birth certificate, the poor forgery (below) posted as legitimate proof on the Internet.

 

 

Nevertheless, with the Columbia University Treason Trial verdict in—containing such important charges as “mail and wire fraud, obstruction of justice, disclosure of state secrets, and sedition against the people of the United States of America,”

 

 

—the Muslim usurper Barack Hussein Obama belongs in jail,

 

 

 “with his mug shot friends” or supporters brandishing his diabolical image.

 

 

June 30, 2010:  The Globe, a widely circulated national magazine, has now taken issue with Obama’s eligibility to serve as U. S. President and Commander-in-Chief.  According to WND: The Globe published comments from someone it referred to as a “Beltway insider” who noted, “This is huge, and it's got a lot of people in Washington worried.  If these comments turn out to be the smoking gun everyone has been talking about from the beginning, Obama will have some very serious problems on his hands.”

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

July 21,2010

 

    An open letter to America

                                                                                                              "ONCE UPON A CRIME'

 

                                                                                    A tale of a "flawed" birth certificate now threatening

                                                                                            Our Constitution and Our Country.....Part II

                                      

                                                     

  Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution: "No person except a natural-born citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President...."                                           

 

 

    

     U. S. Army Bronze Star recipient LT. Col. Terrence Lakin, with 18 years of faithful service to our Country, has refused to accept re-deployment to Afghanistan until Barack Obama produces his original Hawaiian birth certificate to satisfy millions challenging his claim of having been eligible to seek the Presidency of the U.S. LTC Lakin's formal letter to Obama, requesting proof, was ignored. In standing up for Our Constitution he now awaits court-martial and possible imprisonment. This tragic tale begins below.

 

     Previously, to satisfy all challenges to his eligibility, Obama posted a document on the "Daily Kos" website, claiming it to be a true copy of his original Hawaiian birth certificate. Was this the "transparency" he promised America? It seemed so until questioners pointed out that his posted document, titled "Certification of Live Birth"(COLB) had the birth certificate number blacked out, contained no birth hospital name, no attending physician, no birth witnesses, etc. All required....all missing! An actual 1961 Certificate of Live Birth contained approx.41 "fill in" items. Obama's document....13 !  When his deception was uncovered he immediately had his records declared off limits to anyone. "Transparency" flew out the window.

 

     The only Hawaiian document conferring natural-born status was a Certificate of Live Birth, which would have had all the above missing information on it. A "Certification of Live Birth (COLB) only confers, at best, a naturalized-citizenship status. Obama, a Constitutional scholar, was aware of this and knew that he could not allow the Hawaiian Dept. of Health original birth certificate to be seen for if it agreed(as he claimed) with the COLB he had posted on Daily Kos he was ineligible to seek the Presidency; hence, a reason for his spending(to date) over two million dollars (I repeat-over two million dollars) in legal fees to prevent disclosure! Had it been a true "Certificate of Live Birth" he would have posted it immediately.....unless it contained something incriminating.

 

     Federal Judge James Robertson (U. S. District Court-Wash. D.C.) threw out one lawsuit saying Obama's citizenship was "thoroughly vetted and massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during his two year Presidential campaign." False-then Senator Obama had his attorneys block the release of any documents which may have confirmed (or denied) his eligibility. The Judge could not have seen any of the documents since he and all of America never were given access to them. Also, candidates are not vetted by "America's vigilant citizens." The Constitution spells out the requirements and procedure.

 

     To each Supreme Court member I sent copies of six respectful letters (over nine months), which I had written on this issue. Fifty-four copies in all, yet not one response or even acknowledgment. Did I miss the obvious implication of their actions? It is said that Silence often serves as a simple way of avoiding truth.

 

                                                                                                                      Media Culpability

 

     Bill O'Reilly of Fox News repeatedly mocked anyone asking Obama to release his original birth certificate to public scrutiny, falsely telling his National audience that Fox "could have easily obtained a copy of it, yet never explained why this never happened. It was because Obama had his records sealed from view, including viewing by Fox News. O'Reilly was either woefully ignorant of this, kept it hidden, or was restrained from mentioning it. He also boasted that his show was "fair and balanced" and "the spin stops here." Praise-worthy attributes but always absent when the eligibility issue arose. Most saddening was when he and Megyn Kelly did a recent show on LTC Lakin's impending court-martial. The entire segment consisted of their sarcastically denigrating LTC Lakin, causing me to reflect on another of Bill's slogans: "We're looking out for you.". With such friends the Colonel needed no enemies!

 

     Virtually every Major Media Outlet quietly ignored the eligibility issue, pretending it didn't exist. I earnestly suggest that people call or write, reminding them that they are supposed to report the news-not just their views.

 

                                                                                                                 A Diorama of Deception

 

     Obama knowingly posted a false (or limited) COLB on a website, in an attempt to deceive anyone who might challenge him !

 

     Whenever his attorneys appeared in court to defend him they always seem to have forgotten to bring a copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth, instead claiming Plaintiffs or Courts had "no standing." If that's true who is left "with standing"-only Obama?

 

     Every document, from Obama's Original Birth Certificate, School records, passport, medical records, etc. he keeps hidden from everyone. Must a house fall upon us to wake us up?.Keep in mind that if that happens we may not wake up in time.

 

     Millions clamored for Obama to produce a Valid Certificate of Live Birth, yet, at a recent meeting he asked that people stop asking for it. What a pathetic response to a burning issue. He travels all over the World to combat criticism but won't make one telephone call to the Hawaiian Health Dept. to combat discord.

 

     Some argue that if the lawsuits presently in various courts force Obama to release documents confirming that he is not a "natural-born" American citizen there will be riots in the streets if he is removed from Office. Why, I ask, if he obtained the Office unlawfully by deception or fraud, should he be rewarded. Are Truth and Honesty no longer desired attributes in a candidate?

 

     If the withheld documents would truly confirm Obama's eligibility, as his supporters contend, why won't any member of the Democratic Party (particularly the vocal ones who dismiss the eligibility issue) suggest that the documents be made public?

 

    When Obama defenders claim eligibility arguments are racially motivated, are they including the lawsuit of Alan Keyes and all other Blacks who are challenging Obama and would they also include all whites who voted against him.

 

     Recently, "Globe" Magazine offered to donate $100,000 to the United Negro College Fund if Obama discloses his Hawaiian Original Birth Certificate, etc. Now there's a "stimulus" package which should warm his heart for it would help many young black men and women yet Globe's phone still hasn't rung.

 

                                                                                                                      CONCLUSION

 

     LTC Lakin made one simple request of Obama:  In light of the National furor please produce a valid Birth Certificate confirming your eligibility and I will gladly deploy to Afghanistan. If, to prevent disclosure of his sealed records, Obama would destroy the career of a dedicated Officer, what more damning proof must the Military "experience" to realize that, if necessary, he would "throw anyone under the bus" rather than jeopardize his own status. We don't want future historians writing:  "For want of a valid birth certificate a Republic was lost."

 

                                                                                                                                                     MAY GOD BLESS AMERICA

 

                                                                                                                                                                  Robert Quinn

 

                                                                                                                                                                   

                                                                                                                                                                    

 

PS: My “eligibility" writing is driven by Our Constitution, for without it we will invite anarchy.

 

---