AND HOW MANY MORE WILL FOLLOW?
by Sharon Rondeau
(Sep. 4, 2011) — Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC recently granted the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment in the case of Taitz v. Astrue, stating that Obama’s right to privacy is covered by FOIA exemption #6 in regard to his social security number. While Lamberth’s ruling said that Atty. Orly Taitz had not requested the name of the person in possession of the social security number in question, but rather, the date of application, zip code and gender of the applicant, he also said that because the number belongs to “a living individual,” it could not be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act.
However, Private Investigator Susan Daniels told The Post & Email that Obama is using a social security number which had originally been assigned to a person from Connecticut born in 1890. Atty. Taitz has contended that “We already have paperwork from SSA saying that this number was never assigned.”
How, then, could Obama be using the number legally?
Two of Obama’s relatives have been resisted deportation, and a third, his father, was expelled from the country for practicing polygamy and the apparent embarrassment he brought to Harvard University during the 1960s.
Judge Lamberth had issued an opinion in response to a complaint naming Obama in the commission of treason submitted by Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III as part of the American Grand Jury presentments which were hand-delivered to his court during the summer of 2009. Lamberth’s response to the criminal complaint stated that “the petitioners lack standing to enforce the criminal laws of the United States.”
The American Grand Jury website is no longer online. The Post & Email had reported the organization’s joining of forces with Dr. James David Manning, who convened a citizens’ grand jury in May 2010 to hear charges against Obama for sedition and fraud. Manning will be holding another trial in May 2012, rescheduled from October 2011, to evaluate the birth certificate presented by Obama to the public on April 27, 2011, which many analysts have deemed to be a forgery.
Fitzpatrick stated on his blog that “Lamberth has been treacherously protecting OBAMA since 2 July 2009.” However, Fitzpatrick said that because Lamberth did not question the merits of the complaint itself, the complaint was deemed to be “meritorious” rather than “dismissed,” as some have claimed.
“As a former member of the military, I could have been arrested for mutiny,” Fitzpatrick said, “had Lamberth found the complaint defective in any way.”
Another federal judge, Judge Todd Campbell of the U.S. District Court in Nashville, TN, had issued a statement almost identical to Lamberth’s after receiving the American Grand Jury presentments and criminal complaint expressing his opinion that the group presenting the charges against Obama “did not meet under the supervision of any district court” rather than that the charges themselves were defective. Both Campbell and Lamberth indicated that the presentment “shall be assigned a miscellaneous number along with this Order for the Court’s record.”
The citizen who served the presentment to Campbell’s court told The Post & Email, “The ruling was made about 7 days after I served the presentment to the court; that would have been in late October or early November of 2009. I also served presentments to the eastern district (court and district attorney) in Knoxville as well as the western district in Memphis in early December 2009. They were ignored. In October 2009 US District Court Judge Todd Campbell (Clinton appointee) in Nashville, TN also ruled against taking any action against Obama’s fraud and treason by regurgitating Lamberth’s ruling. It is published in the court’s rulings.”
Here Fitzpatrick explains his presentation of the complaint to Lamberth and what transpired afterward.
LCDR FITZPATRICK: Because Lamberth knew over two years ago that the criminal complaint for treason was meritorious and actionable, he could have done something with that. But he chose not to. He filed it as “miscellaneous.” He just kind-of buried it.
MRS. RONDEAU: That was filed with the American Grand Jury presentments, correct?
LCDR FITZPATRICK: Yes. You will recall that Bob Campbell, Tim Harrington and I were on a BlogTalkRadio show one evening in late March or early April 2009 discussing that the criminal complaint dated 17 March 2009 was on the street. I have it in a link in my recent article. That was at the center of Bob Campbell’s Super Grand jury that was brought to the attention of Royce Lamberth back in the summer of 2009. I was in Frederick, MD during that time, and I was prepared to go to Royce Lamberth’s courtroom and appear to testify as the accuser naming Obama in treason. I was talking to Royce Lamberth’s clerk in the day, and I was trying to find out what day and time I needed to be in the courtroom. It was at that point that Lamberth’s clerk called me about the judge’s ruling of 2 July and said, “We’ll send you to this electronically.”
Royce Lamberth wrote:
The Fifth Amendment provides that “no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury…”
and he gives the Constitution as a citation. He continues:
And although presentments are constitutionally permitted, there is no authority under the Rules of Criminal Procedure or in the statutes of the United States for this Court to accept one.
And then he gives a citation.
He says here that presentments are constitutional, but that there is no authority under the Rules of Criminal Procedure for Royce Lamberth to accept the complaint which he found to be legitimate. His complaint wasn’t that the complaint was frivolous or malicious or in some other way defective; it was “I can’t take presentments here because they’re no longer authorized under our Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.”
Editor’s Notes: A response to Lamberth’s opinion by Sgt. Timothy Joseph Harrington is here.
The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were amended in December 2010. More information on grand juries, presentments and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure can be found here.
MRS. RONDEAU: Some people believe that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were intended to take away the oversight of the government by the people.
LCDR FITZPATRICK: That’s what you’ll read in the essay which is co-authored by Tim and me in Terry Lakin’s upcoming book.
He then goes on to say:
Furthermore, grand juries are convened by the court for the district in which they sit
and he gives a citation.
Grand jurors are also to be selected at random from a fair cross section of the district in which they are convened.
Citation.
The individuals (the American Grand Jury) who have been this presentment were not convened by this Court to sit as a grand jury…
“The American Grand Jury, who have made this presentment, ‘naming Mr. Obama in commission of treason'” is what he didn’t write. “The American Grand Jury, who have made this formal accusation naming Mr. Obama in commission of treason, was not convened by this Court to sit as a grand jury, nor have they been selected at random from a fair cross section of this district.”
Any self-styled indictment or presentment issued by such a group (the American Grand Jury) has no force under the Constitution or laws of the United States…
because, as he didn’t write, “they’re not my grand jury.”
I’m including here what Lamberth intentionally left out: “As such, leave to file this formal accusation naming Mr. Obama in commission of the crime of treason is hereby DENIED. Further, though the papers presented to the Clerk of Court shall not be filed (because I haven’t given you permission to file this formal complaint), they will be assigned a miscellaneous number along with this order for the Court’s record.”
Lamberth just said that the complaint naming Mr. Obama in the commission of treason is meritorious. He also said it’s actionable; it’s just that he, Royce Lamberth, is not going to act on it. Royce Lamberth is in commission of a crime himself. He didn’t claim that it was frivolous; he didn’t find a defect with it; he said, in fact, “This is a lawful way to bring a criminal complaint…it’s just that it’s not my grand jury doing it. Even if it were, I wouldn’t accept it because the Rules are in the way…” But he did not dismiss the criminal complaint. “Dismissed without prejudice;” “dismissed as frivolous;” “dismissed as malicious…” He didn’t do that. He buried it, and he did not put “treason” in this complaint because he knew how incendiary that is. But did he give this to anybody else? No. He buried it.
It was because of what Lamberth did back in the summer of 2009 that I came back here. I was panicked at one point during my drive back because I was afraid that some day I might run into someone who would have come to me and said, “Walt, have you done everything you could possibly do to advance this complaint?” I was thinking to myself, “Is there anything?” and then it hit me, and this was the moment of stark fear. This was the question that I was afraid to field. “Walt, have you filed this complaint naming Obama in commission of treason with your own grand jury in Monroe County, Tennessee?” And I would have had to answer “No.”
I was trying to lead from the front, and I was trying to do everything I could humanly do, and then I would have been confronted with this question, and it would have been a very embarrassing question to answer had I not actually taken it to my own grand jury.
So on the drive back, I was thinking about it, and I had no idea how it worked, but I knew that the objections that Royce Lamberth had written about were not obstructions or barriers here. I knew that the grand jury was approachable; I could walk in off the street; that was my understanding. I could present the claim here, and it was as actionable here as anywhere else because I was a victim of treason; I was part of this; I could talk about this in terms of being actionable by a state grand jury. I wasn’t afraid about that. I had other complaints which I wanted to bring up about Ray Girouard, which is why I was here. He was the soldier who was locked up in Ft. Leavenworth.
MRS. RONDEAU: Has he been released?
LCDR FITZPATRICK: I read an article just a few hours ago which stated that Staff Sergeant Girouard is back on active duty tonight. He has been restored in full and is at Ft. Campbell, KY. I have no idea why he was returned to active duty, but he has been. And this reflects very directly on Sgt. Hutchins‘s case; Hutchins is locked up in the Miramar brig in San Diego, CA, and it also has an effect on Terry Lakin‘s case. I’m here because of Ray Girouard. Something happened, and I don’t know what. The whole thing is being overturned.
Editor’s Note: Ray Girouard was first convicted of negligent homicide for three Iraqi deaths resulting from a terrorist raid in 2006 after U.S. Army prosecutors claimed that Girouard “ordered the unarmed men’s deaths and then tried to stage an escape to cover up the killings.” His conviction was later overturned by a military appeals court. In a startling development to which LCDR Fitzpatrick referred above, Staff Sergeant Ray Girouard has been returned to active duty with full benefits.
LCDR Fitzpatrick has described the court-martial process and the term “attainder” in previous interviews with The Post & Email.
MRS. RONDEAU: Is it possible that the actions you took on his behalf have had an impact?
LCDR FITZPATRICK: I’ve already gotten two guys out of military prison. One of them was Corey Cox, and the other was Sgt. Robert Wiesen. I’ll send you the article. Wiesen was released before it went to print.
So I had information about Ray Girouard, who had been unlawfully incarcerated, that I wanted to take to the grand jury as well as information about Mr. Obama’s treason. I was interested in raising up the issue of the forgery which I’m still burdened with here. So I got back to Tennessee, went into the courthouse, and it was in the middle of the month of August and I had missed the grand jury meeting by a week or so. So for three weeks, I put together a very detailed report for the next meeting of the grand jury on September 3, 2009.
I went back on the 3rd, and they tried to block me from getting in, but I did get in there, and a week later they said, “Your complaints are bogus and we’re not going to listen to them.” In fact, I almost got into a fight with Stutts that day. He said, “You can’t do this; this is a federal case.” And I said, “I’ve been sent here by a federal judge,” and he said, “Who? Who?” I said, “Royce Lamberth.” And I told you before how I had the two-page document, one page on the front of the binder and the other on the back…I said, “Royce Lamberth sent me here. He said it isn’t actionable in his court, so I’m here. I’m going to bring this forward here.” So I got in, and it went nowhere.
But the point is that Royce Lamberth was the force and function for me to walk in to a Tennessee courtroom to meet with the panel of jurors; it was Gary Pettway plus three. If Lamberth had acted on this complaint, then there would have been no need for me to have brought it up with the local county grand jury,
The complaint for treason was on the table then. Through the sequence of events, it’s always been there. Judge Carroll Ross issued a statement that said that the Monroe County grand jury could not act on the charge of treason, either. He said it was a federal matter. But it’s both state and federal, and it is actionable and meritorious. No one has condemned it as being defective.
MRS. RONDEAU: And no one has brought you up on charges.
LCDR FITZPATRICK: That was the challenge to Obama: “You either prove that you’re legit or you come and you lock me up.” And I was prepared to go away if Obama was able to prove that he was a legitimate commander-in-chief; the whole issue would have been resolved. I would have spent some time in Leavenworth, but that was the price to pay. Was it a price worth paying? Yes, I think so. I needed to know if my orders, if they came from him, were legit. But two years later, Mr. Obama has put his stamp of approval on his treason because he has been silent about it.
Lamberth has already committed a crime by failing to act on the complaint for treason, because even though it had been brought in to him by the American Grand Jury, he still could have given it to his own grand jury or turn it over to a federal grand jury here.
MRS. RONDEAU: Could he have given it to a prosecutor?
LCDR FITZPATRICK: Yes. The treason complaint has never, ever been condemned as defective.
MRS. RONDEAU: It appears that others who have filed treason complaints have not been arrested, either.
Editor’s Note: The first state legislator of whom we are aware has now named Barack Hussein Obama in the crime of treason. New Hampshire State Rep. Harry Accornero (R-Laconia) has also condemned the GOP for failing to “call out the RINOs.”
LCDR Fitzpatrick has spoken with Rep. Accornero, who will be a guest on the Niel Young’s “The Advocates” program on Tuesday, September 6, from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. EDT.