Judge Royce C. Lambreth Grants Grand Juries Standing ?!?!?!?
Submitted by The South on Tue, 09/22/2009 - 17:02
Judge Royce C. Lamberth grants permission for any recognized Grand Jury holding standing before any judge to formally accuse (present) SOETORO-OBAMA on criminal charges of TREASON and FRAUD!
Any Legal Beagles here now exactly what this means?
I reserve the right, to get too excited about anything anymore ... lol
»
This is
This is interesting,
“Judge Lamberth has also vetted the Super Grand Jury presentment for TREASON and FRAUD, found the formal accusations meritorious, and filed them in his criminal court.”
Good Point
Good point about the terms "TREASON and FRAUD" being brought up in the ruling. I thought a grand jury already ruled on the matter outside of Washington?
This ruling does open a few doors -
Detective Krum Investigates:
http://victory1project.wordpress.com/
http://v1-p.com/
Detective Krum Investigates:
http://victory1project.wordpress.com/
I am not a beagle (IANAB),
I am not a beagle (IANAB), but what I think it means that a grand jury has standing to file papers (presentments) with the court. A presentment is a filling initiated by the grand jury per se, not a district attorney (I think). I also think that all this means is that a filling will just result in them forfeiting their filing fee when the judge rules that the grand jury lacks standing to bring charges, because the US Attorney General does not have authority to impeach.
To me it looks like the judge is saying, go ahead and waste your money if you want to.
Every ruling that that judge has put out has resulted in spurious cries of victory from the birther bloggers.
Uh, not really
You need to read the order closely. It specifically states that if the presentations are made that they'll be dismissed for lack of standing.
OK read it
It means the judge will allow the grand jury to hear the evidence but only if the attorney general brings forth the petition. This is good news though. The judge's rule opens the door - even though the judge says even if the petitioner pays the required fee they lack standing. However - I would suggest filing an amicus curie (friend of the court brief) by the petitioner and then the public needs to hammer the attorney general to get this done.
Detective Krum Investigates:
http://victory1project.wordpress.com/
http://v1-p.com/
Detective Krum Investigates:
http://victory1project.wordpress.com/
Thanks for the translation.
Thanks for the translation. I guess this is better than an outright "NO", at least their motion for reconsideration was granted.