History In The Making: The first Common Law, Citizens Grand Jury has indicted Barack Obama.

At approx. 4:15 p.m. March 28th in the city of Stockbridge Ga. the people of Georgia returned an Indictment against Barack Hussein Obama!!!!!!
25 Jurists, duly sworn in, heard tesitmony and in a unanimous vote,
Indicted the usurper

http://riseupforamerica.com/

The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government

Common Law Grand Jury

Rules

APPLICABLE LAW The government must accept the Magna Carta as common law if pleaded as such. Source: Confirmatio Cartarum, Article 1 Basic requirements and procedures for a common law grand jury: Source: Magna Carta, Articles 52 & 61 HOW CONSTITUTED Grand jury members must be elected by the people (not citizens) of the jurisdiction in which they are operating. There are no rules defining a procedure for how they are elected. The people, without the influence of government, decide for themselves how the grand jury members are elected. There must be 25 members. QUALIFICATIONS The members must be "people" of the jurisdiction and not "citizens" of the jurisdiction. For example, they must be "People of the United States," or "People of California," or "People of the State of California"; not "citizen of the United States," nor "citizen of California," nor "citizen of the State of California." Each member must be sworn in and promise to observe all of these rules and, so far as within his power, cause all the rules to be observed. QUORUM When the grand jury meets, if any are absent after being summoned, then those present constitute a quorum. All decisions of grand jury are decided by majority vote of members present. If any member dies or leaves the country, or in any other way is prevented from carrying out the grand jury's decisions, the remaining grand jurors shall choose another to fill his place and he shall likewise be sworn in. FINALITY OF DECISIONS No decision of a grand jury is reviewable in any court of the government. JURISDICTION Any government transgression against anyone in any respect. Any government breaking of articles of peace or security. Any dispute regarding anyone who has been disseized or removed, by the government without a legal sentence of his peers, from his lands, castles, liberties or lawful right. PROCEDURE I Dispute Settlement If the grand jury is informed of any dispute regarding anyone who has been disseized or removed (by the government without a legal sentence of his peers) from his lands, castles, liberties or lawful right, then the dispute shall be settled by the grand jury. PROCEDURE II Enforcement Four of the members must be shown that because of the government, A. A transgression has occurred against any one in any respect, or B. Some one of the articles of peace or security has been broken The four members must show to the government the government's error. The four members must ask the government to amend that error without delay. If the government does not amend the error within 40 days after being shown the error, then the four members shall refer the matter to the remainder of the grand jury. The grand jury may distrain and oppress the government in every way in their power, namely, by taking the homes, lands, possessions, and any way else they can until amends shall have been made according to the sole judgment of the grand jury. LIMITATION OF POWERS The grand jury may not imprison or execute any government personnel or their children. PUBLIC SUPPORT Anyone (people or citizen) who chooses to help enforce the grand jury decision must first swear that he will obey the mandates of the grand jury, and that with them to the extent of his power he will impose the grand jury's decisions upon the government. The authority to support the grand jury is pre-authorized by the government. If anyone refuses to support a grand jury decision, the government will force him to swear his support of the grand jury. LIMITATIONS ON GOVERNMENT The government is prohibited from doing anything to diminish the effect of the grand jury. If the government does prohibit or diminish the effectiveness of the grand jury, it shall be vain and invalid and may not be used in any later proceeding by the government or anyone else. TERMINATION OF ENFORCEMENT When all issues are settled to the satisfaction of the grand jury, things shall return to normal as they were before. No grudges.

---

Reactivating the Common Law Grand Jury

A Brief Strategy Suggestion

BACKGROUND When the colonies separated from England, King John retaliated by revoking the charters. Technically, the colonies were without any legal authority to operate. However, civics (the branch of political philosophy concerned with individual rights) was generally taught and known by the people who asserted their rights and maintained order by applying the common law. The people united in the form of common law grand juries and continued the functioning of government. As the legislatures matured they slowly increased governmental power while simultaneously reducing personal sovereign power. This was done through a combination of passing pro-government legislation and reducing or eliminating education about civics. Today, two and a quarter centuries later, hardly anyone even knows the meaning of the word, "civics." Despite the fact that the state and federal constitutions still acknowledge the common law as the ultimate law system, people everywhere are conditioned to believe that the statutory law and codes are the only source of law. The only remaining common law term generally known among the public is "common law marriage." The common law grand jury is now dormant only because of the public ignorance of its powers that supercede all other government entities, including the modern statutorily defined grand jury. Awakening the grand jury will not be graciously accepted by the government. A strategy is needed to reintroduce this fundamental protection against tyranny and injustice. STEP 1 - ESTABLISH LEGITIMACY The first step is to get public acceptance. Every dictator in history understood the power of the people and cultivated their support either through enticements or threats. Reactivating the grand jury concept will go through four traditional stages: denial, ridicule, violent opposition, then self-evident acceptance. Theoretically, the grand jury can meet anywhere, anytime. But that is hardly good image. One way to get public acceptance and minimize denial, ridicule, and violent opposition, is to hold the grand jury sessions in the public court house. The foreman could apply to a court administrator for use of one of the rooms in the public courthouse. If it is refused, then the court administrator should, under common law procedures, be sued for his dereliction of duty. STEP 2 - GAIN PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE The second step is to start small. The grand jury could take on issues which anyone can easily see should be prosecuted. As public acceptance increases, the grand jury can enlarge its field of inquiry. The grand jury should have a strong public relations program for this step. STEP 3 - TAKE ON LARGER PROJECTS The third step is to take on grander objectives. If the first two steps are well executed, then this step will be the easiest. With both legitimacy and acceptance established the grand jury can make itself felt.

Turkey must not be allowed to accede to the European Union.

If Turkey is allowed to join the EU, its citizens will be allowed free movement within the countries of the Union. Turkey is a Muslim country, where there are possibly hundreds of honour killings every year. If people with this kind of philosophy are allowed to freely move to the UK, they will bring their tribal customs of violence towards women with them. This must not happen. The government of Turkey should be told that as long as women are being killed in the name of honour, they are not welcome as part of the Union. I know we have problems with honour killings in the UK already, but it is probably much easier in this country for women to find help and refuge. We do not need the tribal mentality of the men shown in this video.



On this second video we see a man who shot his step-mother and her lover, apparently on the orders of his family, for the sake of honour. The step-mother survived, but her lover died. The man was given a two and a half year sentence for murder. Until quite recently honour killing received a reduced sentence on the grounds of provocation (hard to believe, but true!) but the law has changed and honour killing now carries a mandatory life sentence. This has led to an alarming new development, which has seen women being forced to commit suicide. Istanbul has one of the highest rates of honour killing in the country, with an average of one every week, but the number of young women committing suicide is growing at an alarming rate. The high number of deaths by honour killing and suicide is thought to be a result of migration of people from villages into the towns, bringing their tribal customs with them. Villages to towns to the rest of the EU. No! It must not happen.

Truth is the new hate speech: Helsinki City Councilman, Jussi Halla-aho, on blasphemy charge.

From the Vasarahammer blog and posted in translation by Atlas Shrugs

Here is Helsinki City Councilman, Jussi Halla-aho's post that the Finnish state wants him prosecuted for. It is addressed to Mika Illman, the Finnish state prosecuting attorney, in response of the Finnish state's prosecution of Seppo Lehto last year.

State prosecutor Mika Illman’s winning streak continued a few days ago, when a specialist of rude humor Seppo Lehto was sentenced for two years and four months imprisonment and to pay tens of thousands of euros in damages for several accounts of gross defamation, incitement against an ethnic group and for religious worship (TT: blasphemy). The issue has been discussed around the internet so much that I probably don’t have to repeat the self-evident facts:

a) Filth blogs created by Lehto fulfill all possible criteria for “gross defamation” but

b) Nobody has ever been sentenced for two years and four months for these kind of crimes. I don’t blame Mika Illman, he is obviously a man worthy of his last name, who does what he thinks he is supposed to do, but those district courts that have lamely given Mika everything he dares to ask have a reason to be ashamed of themselves.

c) Illman’s selection of plaintiffs and recipients of damages consisted only of his fellow prosecutors and members of parliament, and not, for example, Teemu Lahtinen, to whom Lehto’s filth blogs possibly caused real damage during the last parliamentary election. The thinking in which public figures deserve more protection than regular citizens has so far been alien to the democratic state and rule of law.

Let’s stop talking about defamations. Lehto was also convicted of disturbing religious worship. According to the district court Lehto violated muslims’ religious worship by defaming the prophet Muhammad. Professor Jaakko Hämeen-Anttila has confirmed the interpretation according to which Muhammad is a revered figure in Islamic faith.

According to state prosecutor Mika Illman and Tampere district court insulting the prophet Muhammad is illegal, because Muhammad is revered by muslims.

(On the other hand professor Hämeen-Anttila could certainly confirm that in Christianity Jesus and God are holy figures. Of course, this doesn’t prevent anybody to defame Jesus or God freely in the way he or she chooses.)

Next I intend to throw Mika a bait:

Prophet Muhammad was a pedophile and islam revers pedophilia as a religion. Islam is a religion of pedophilia. Pedophilia is Allah’s will.

Are these statements illegal? They certainly insult muslim’s religious feelings. Let’s approach the issue logically:

As a 50 year-old man Muhammad was engaged to six or seven year old Aisha. Their marriage was “consummated” when Aisha was nine years old. It is possible to think that they were living in another age and Muhammad’s deeds must not be judged according to today’s standards, but as we have learned during the last few years, schoolbooks from the 50’s were racist when they spoke about ”negroes” (even if ”negro” was not a racist term at the time by anybody’s standards), it’s equally justified to call a child rapist who lived 1400 years ago a child rapist .´

What has to be done so that the bolded statements were not true? You must insist that

a) ... Quran is not literally true (i.e Muhammad did not have sexual relations with a nine year old girl). This will not do, since according to Islamic doctrine and muslims’ opinion Quran is a literal word of Allah. Consummation and Aisha’s age cannot be denied without insulting muslims.

b) ...Muhammad’s actions were not always acceptable. This will not do either, since according to muslims (and Tampere district court) criticizing Muhammad is the same as criticizing Allah and therefore blasphemy. The penalty is death. Muslim’s believe that Muhammad’s actions were the will of Allah. Because Muhammad had sexual relations with a child, that was Allah’s will as well.

As we see, all the argumentative ways to disprove the bolded statements have been theologically exhausted. The fact that Muhammad was a pedophile and Allah supported pedophilia can only be denied either by denying the literal truthfulness of Quran or Muhammad’s status as a messenger of Allah whose actions are according to the will of Allah.

Therefore I repeat my claim:

Prophet Muhammad was a pedophile and islam revers pedophilia as a religion. Islam is a religion of pedophilia. Pedophilia is Allah’s will.

The next bait reads:

Robbing bypassers and living at taxpayers’ expense as a parasite is a national, possibly genetic characteristic of Somalis.

Is this claim inappropriate? My fellow blogger Kekke filed a complaint to the Media Council for the editorial that appeared in newspaper Kaleva, in which killing people while intoxicated was described as a national, possibly genetic characteristic of Finns. Media Council dismissed the complaint. According to Council secretary Nina Porra:

”The writer probably refers to studies, in which heavy drinking has been observed to be a specific feature in Finnish drinking culture. It has also been observed that there is a correlation between intoxication and violence. The genetic backround of the problem is not handled as a fact, but the writer gives his own opinion.”

Naturally, the decisions made by Media Council are not legally binding so inquisitor Illman doesn’t have to take notice. But on the other hand, “incitement against ethnic group” is a felony and because Illman (whom the matter belongs to) has not reacted to the Kaleva article, it can be concluded that negative ethnic and genetic stereotypes can be published as long as they are not handled as facts.

We can’t think that there are different rules for different people in Finland, can we?
Naturally, not all Somalis commit robberies or live at taxpayers’ expense, but not all Finns kill while intoxicated either.

Somalis who constitute 0.2 per cent of Finland’s total population commit 12 per cent of robberies reported to the Police. One in ten Somalis living in Finland has a job. Committing robberies and living at taxpayers’ expense are a lot more common among Somalis related to their share of the population than killing while intoxicated among the ethnic Finns. Therefore, I present my assumption (that I do not regard as fact):

Robbing bypassers and living at taxpayers’ expense as a parasite is a national, possibly genetic characteristic of Somalis.

With this, I wish Mika a nice day.

With thanks to Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/

Urgent FEMA update with a timeline

Alex Jones TV: Is Obama the next Hitler?

July 25th, 2001: Alex Jones predicts 9/11

Yes, America! You've been sold a pup!!!