LATEST: Go to for the latest Article II eligibility news ...
Wednesday, February 20, 2013

U.S. Supreme Court Denied Another Obama Identity Fraud Case
By Montgomery Blair Sibley

Below is my letter to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees written in response to the denial of my Petition for Certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court on February 15, 2013:


I write to Petition the Judicial Committee to take up the significant issue of the usurpation of legislative power by the Executive – with the express aid of the Judiciary – which power is expressly delegated to Congress by the Constitution. I deem this usurpation “significant” as it both: (i) trespasses upon the sole right of Congress to make the law and (ii) the People’s retained and reserved fundamental right to present evidence to a Grand Jury of the malfeasance of public officers. Let me explain.

The 91st Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. §3332(a) which states:

It shall be the duty of each such grand jury impaneled within any judicial district to inquire into offenses against the criminal laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within that district. Such alleged offenses may be brought to the attention of the grand jury by the court or by any attorney appearing on behalf of the United States for the presentation of evidence. Any such attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the grand jury of such alleged offense, the identity of such other person, and such attorney's action or recommendation. (Emphasis added).

The background for §3332(a) is set out at 2 U.S. Code Cong. & Adm. New, House Report No. 91-1549, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. (1970) at 4015: “Any such attorney who receives information of an alleged offense from any person must, if requested by the person, inform the grand jury of the alleged offense, the identity of the person who conveyed the information, and his own action or recommendation.”

Initial judicial interpretation of §3332(a) followed its plain mandate that the U.S. Attorney was obligated – “shall” is an imperative auxiliary verb after all – to “inform the grand jury of such alleged offense”. See: In the Matter of In re Grand Jury Application, 617 F. Supp. 199 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)(“Since the United States Attorney has been requested to present certain information to the Grand Jury he must do so. I will not relieve him of a duty which Congress has seen fit to impose. 18 U.S.C. §3332(a) imposes a ‘plainly defined and peremptory duty’ on the part of the United States Attorney to present the plaintiffs’ information concerning the alleged wrongdoing of the other defendants to the Grand Jury.”) [...]





New Ad - AZ Sheriff Arpaio - Obama Birth Cert & Draft Reg Card Are Forged! Wash Times Natl Wkly - 12 Ma...