Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.More ↓Less ↑
Hundreds of “presentments” – or accusations assembled by citizen grand juries – are scheduled to be given to courts, sheriffs, prosecutors, judges and legislators across the United States by July 4 alleging that Barack Obama is ineligible to be president and his occupancy in the Oval Office constitutes treason.
The accusations are being assembled by the citizen grand juries that have been meeting in recent weeks around the country. One organization, American Grand Jury, now has posted an online procedure that provides a step-by-step instruction manual for those who are concerned about Obama.
American Grand Jury Editor Bob Campbell’s site includes information on the history of grand juries, their powers, rules, evidence, forms, etiquette and how to file the resulting claims.
While there are other groups organizing and holding grand jury meetings, Campbell told WND that his is the largest group, having convened five already along with two state grand juries. It plans to sponsor another half dozen in the next 30 days.
“Sooner or later some court or many courts will formally indict Obama from our presentments or [a] complaint,” he said. “Our goal is to convene and conclude 12 to 13 grand juries before July 4 rolls around and to serve our presentments as many as 200 times with courts, sheriffs, prosecutors, judges or legislators across the land.
“The pressure is mounting and someday
justice will be served or the country will probably explode from loss of faith in
our Constitution,” he said.
If those numbers don’t produce action, he said, the plans are to double, or triple the numbers, and try again.
One such citizens grand jury met recently in a Chicago suburb, literally in Obama’s home territory. There spokesman Richard Keefner told WND, jurors were sworn in, reviewed the evidence and deliberated.
“We all came to a unanimous decision that we felt it should be investigated further and warranted the indictment,” he told WND.
The citizens grand jury is just the latest channel through which Americans are raising protests over a president they believe is ineligible to hold that office.
Many of the challenges have come through the courts. WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.
Adding fuel to the fire is Obama’s persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. While his supporters cite an online version of a “Certification of Live Birth” from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.
The ultimate questions remain unaddressed to date: Is Obama a natural born citizen, and, if so, why hasn’t documentation been provided? And, of course, if he is not, what does it mean to the 2008 election or the U.S. Constitution if it is revealed that there has been a violation?
And the answer could take only minutes: authorization from the president to Hawaiian officials to release his documentation.
A recent presentment from one of the American Grand Jury meetings said there’s not even any question about Obama’s eligibility any longer.
“Article II, Section 1 states: ‘No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the Untied States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President…” says Count One.
“Wherefore, Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ for the
following reasons: 1) Obama was NOT born of mother and father who were BOTH
US Citizens. These facts are not in dispute: Under the British
Nationality Act 1948, Obama’s father was a British
citizen/subject when he was born in the English colony of
Kenya. Obama’s father continued to be such and not a U.S.
citizen when Obama was born in 1961. Under the same BNA
1948, at birth, regardless of where he was born, Obama
also became a British citizen/subject by descent from his
British father,” the charge continues.
“It is public knowledge that Obama has admitted in his
writings and otherwise that when he was born, his father
was a British citizen/subject and not a United States citizen
and that at that time he himself also became such. In fact,
his father was not even a permanent resident of the United
States, but rather only a student who would probably have
been here only on a temporary student visa. Hence, not only
was Obama’s father not a United States citizen but Obama
himself was born a British subject,” it says.
Secondly, the accusation of treason comes from a retired member of the U.S. military officer, Lt. Cmdr. Walter Fitzpatrick III, who has presented his complaint to U.S. Attorney Russell Dedrick in Tennessee, the presentment explains.
In that, he alleged, “Now you [Obama] have broken in and entered the White House
by force of contrivance, concealment, conceit, dissembling, and
deceit. Posing as an impostor president and commander in chief
you have stripped civilian command and control over the military
establishment. Known military criminal actors-command
racketeers-are now free in the exercise of military government
intent upon destruction of America’s constitutional government.
We come now to this reckoning. I accuse you and your
military-political criminal assistants of TREASON. I name
you and your military criminal associates as traitors. Your
criminal ascension manifests a clear and present danger. You
fundamentally changed our form of government. The Constitution
no longer works.”
The American Grand Jury website explained it is clear the U.S. Constitution “intended to give the grand jury power to instigate criminal charges, and this was especially true when it came to government oversight.”
Campbell explained the citizens grand juries are a constitutional movement.
“We endeavor to
teach people about our Constitutional rights, first and foremost. Amendment 1:
the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government
for a redress of grievances – Amendment 5: No person shall be held to answer
for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
indictment of a grand jury,” he said.
“A constitutional grand jury actually hands down ‘presentments.’ That is the
correct term. Indictment is a proper term for a court or judicial grand jury to
use. Presentments are charges,” he said.
To those who say such meetings are ineffectual and lack impact, Campbell said they do not understand the Constitution.
“Any time you assemble real people to conduct a hearing such as
grand jury there are those that are afraid we would speak the truth so they in
fact will deny we are effective or our actions mean nothing,” he said.
Such grand juries, he said, in fact, “are the fourth branch of government.”
“Would we like to see more attorneys with integrity and credibility truly give
credence to the Constitution and offer good suggestions on how to get the courts
to act? The answer is yes! Will they – I would say NO! Attorneys and judges do
not want the average person questioning how they dictate the system that keeps
them in power,” Campbell said.
prevail? The answer is we had better or the United States of America as we know
it will soon be nothing more than a thing of the past. The Founding Fathers were
brilliant in how they put the Constitution together. It was truly God-inspired.
I choose to believe there are enough people out there that want to save our
Republic and maintain the USA as the true beacon of light and freedom that she
so truly is,” he said.
According to the grand jury website, “Sooner or later the court system is going to be inundated with ‘presentments’ against Obama. Sooner or later public sentiment is going to demand these courts act and force Obama to answer to the charnges.”
While an Obama spokesman one time called the allegations “garbage,” the president and his team have withheld other comments. But here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama’s eligibility:
New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn’t properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.
Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.
Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut’s secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
Chicago lawyer Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama’s vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama’s eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama’s citizenship. His case was denied.
In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.
In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama’s citizenship. The case was denied.
In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama’s birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia’s secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters. She also has brought forward several other cases and has conducted several public campaigns to generate awareness of the issue.