Rise up for America

Your Honor,

   As our once great nation struggles to redefine constitutional practices, and maintain a free Republic, a definite encroaching cancer is discovered at many levels of power.

   One such cancer has been uncovered in Tennessee, in Monroe County, whose seat is Madisonville. 

   Monroe County has usurped the People’s right to a fair and impartial Grand Jury.  Your ruling that the Grand Jury belongs to the People and is sacrosanct has no meaning in Monroe County Tennessee.
 
   I fear since the corruption has gone unchallenged for over 25 years that other counties may very well be trying to usurp the Grand Jury process or  have already cemented precedents (Nelson v. State, 499 SW 2d 956 - Tenn: Court of Criminal Appeals 1972 499 S.W.2d 956 (1972) Thomas P. NELSON, Appellant,) to make certain the courts can control the outcome of nearly any indictment.  This enslaves the People as you so forcefully illustrated in your ruling:

   " '[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It "'is a constitutional fixture in its own right.'" United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). ' "

                                                        And

   Justice Powell, in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974), stated:
"The institution of the grand jury is deeply rooted in Anglo-American history. [n3] In England, the grand jury [p343] served for centuries both as a body of accusers sworn to discover and present for trial persons suspected of criminal wrongdoing and as a protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action. In this country, the Founders thought the grand jury so essential to basic liberties that they provided in the Fifth Amendment that federal prosecution for serious crimes can only be instituted by 'a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.' Cf. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 361-362 (1956). The grand jury's historic functions survive to this day. Its responsibilities continue to include both the determination whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the protection of citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686-687 (1972)."

   Your Honor, since 2009, Lt. Cmdr Walter Fitzpatrick III (Ret) has been trying to get an impartial hearing before a Grand Jury.  The Grand Jury denied him response despite  Fitzpatrick’s ability to prove criminal activity.  Since he is the American and soldier that is in every true patriot, Mr. Fitzpatrick became suspicious of the Grand Jury, and requested public court documents on appointments and tenures of Grand Jurists from the court clerk. It became very apparent that Mr. Pettway is a functionary of the Court and has been for 27 years.  All the evidence of Mr. Pettway’s tenure points to an illegal Grand Jury due to the foreman being repeatedly extended in that position thereby owing favor to the Court for his appointment extensions.  If no record of his extension can be found, then Monroe County has already, in practice thrown out the Grand Jury process and is clearly providing an illusion of the process to secure any outcome of the Grand Jury.

   Your Honor, if that were the extent of the damage, we The People would have already sought remedy.  Concerning this very matter, the following agencies have been alerted to this injustice:

• Tennessee Governor Bredesen
• Monroe County Judge Ross (accomplice)
• Monroe County District Attorney (accomplice)
• Monroe County Sheriff (accomplice)
• Monroe County court clerk (accomplice)
• Monroe County Grand Jury (accomplice)
• Tennessee State Troopers (District One) Stated no jurisdiction
• Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (Stated only District Attorney could initiate investigation)

   Every agency named has turned a blind eye or has emphatically stated they have no jurisdiction.

   Mr. Fitzpatrick had no choice but to perform a “Citizen’s Arrest” in accordance with Tennessee State law.  Mr. Fitzpatrick in the execution of the intended arrests (he could not secure warrants from the clerk, although the arrest affidavit was accepted and stamped) was himself arrested.

   In Tennessee, it has been held that a private citizen has the right to arrest when a felony has been committed and he has reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested committed it. Reasonable grounds will justify the arrest, whether the facts turn out to be sufficient or not. (See Wilson v. State, 79 Tenn. 310 (1833).


   40-7-109. Arrest by private person — Grounds. — 

    (a)  A private person may arrest another:  
  
  
       (1)  For a public offense committed in the arresting person's presence;  
  
    
       (2)  When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in the   arresting person's presence; or  
  
    
       (3)  When a felony has been committed, and the arresting person has reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested committed the felony.  
  
  
  
  (b)  A private person who makes an arrest of another pursuant to the provisions of §§ 40-7-109 — 40-7-115 shall receive no arrest fee or compensation for the arrest.  
  
  

[Code 1858, § 5042; Shan., § 7002; Code 1932, § 11541; Acts 1965, ch. 279, § 1; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 40-816.]

   During the attempted execution of the citizen’s arrest affidavit on Mr. Pettway, (While the illegal Grand Jury was in session)  an arrest paper of some sort emerged from the court directing the arrest of Mr. Fitzpatrick on charges of inciting a riot, disturbing the peace and in the process of arresting him, resisting arrest.  Mr. Fitzpatrick was the incarcerated for 5 days WITHOUT FORMAL CHARGES.
 
   Mr. Pettway remains in the position of Grand Jury foreman.

   On the day of Mr. Fitzpatrick’s bond hearing, patriots PEACFULLY and LEGALLY announced their intent to uphold the Constitution and show support for Mr. Fitzpatrick were stopped by a large show of force by law enforcement agencies from multiple jurisdictions with the obvious intent of intimidation.  The support included a man by the name of Darren Huff.  Darren was stopped at the city limits on a Felony stop for apparently rolling through a stop sign. He cooperated with the police and stood by his rights making declarations and citing appropriate law and did not consent to searches without a warrant. He was not apprehended because he knew his rights and was polite and respectful. The bond hearing was rescheduled.

   Mr. Pettway remains in the position of Grand Jury foreman.

   Darren Huff was arrested on April 31st and was held in the Blount County, TN detention facility for three days before being released. He is charged with the Federal crime of inciting to riot.  The warrant for his arrest was issued in GA by the FBI prior to his leaving for TN for the purpose of talking to Sheriffs in various counties about the Arrest warrants issued by lt. Cmdr. Fitzpatrick and exposing the corruption in Monroe County, TN.  It is clear that law enforcement agencies are acting against citizens in an abuse of power.

   Plus, Judge Ross has issued an order to the Grand Jury restricting them from deliberating certain topics. (see Attached)

   Mr. Pettway remains in the position of Grand Jury foreman.

   To that extent, I bring your attention a travesty of justice from a DC Federal Court Chief Judge: (see attached for full ruling)

   Docket Number: Misc. No. 09-346 (RCL)

   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.

   Your Honor, I ask that you enforce your ruling.  I ask that you issue a rebuke to the lower courts that have made a mockery of the 5th Amendment, your ruling and the law.  Your Honor and Justice Powell have determined  the Law of the Land on this topic, and have done so clearly.  I ask by what authority do the lower Courts defy your rulings?

   I ask your Honor, to help the citizen’s of the United States regain our Constitutional Republic by peaceful means.

Obama Confirmed Ineligible for Office?

Were ANY of the Founding Fathers “natural born citizens” of the United States?

No… they were not. Not even one of the Founding Fathers was a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America, even though some of them had indeed been (native) born on what would become U.S. soil.

None of them were “natural born citizens” because all of the Founding Fathers were born prior to the existence of the United States of America. No one could be the “natural born citizen” of a nation that did not yet exist.

America declared its independent status as a sovereign nation on July 4, 1776, breaking away from England and British rule. But the United States of America was not formed until September of 1787, with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. The Founders had no choice but to exempt themselves from Article II—Section I—Clause V of the Constitution they wrote and ratified. But there would be no other exemptions or exceptions from that moment forward.

So, how could any of them become President of the United States?

The Founders made this possible with this portion of Article II—Section I—Clause V; - “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution;”

They included a grandfather section in the clause pertaining to constitutional qualifications for the office of President, - A ONE-TIME exemption from the “natural born citizen” requirement for president.

They clearly separate themselves “citizens” from others who had to be “natural born citizens” in order to hold the office of president. Citizens, who were not “citizens” at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, would forever after need to be “natural born citizens” to reside in the Oval Office.

Excluding citizens at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, who shall be eligible for the office of president?

“No person except a natural born Citizen”

We know why they had no choice but to exempt themselves, but why did they exempt only themselves? What was so important about “natural born citizen” status that they made it possible for only a “natural born citizen” to hold the office of president after the adoption of the constitution?

What did the Founders mean by the term “natural born citizen?”

As with all written laws or contracts, they are a collection of carefully chosen written words of known specific meaning or definition. Any time you study documents, you must use definitions of words as they existed at the time the document was written, as words occasionally change definition over time. In the case of a document as important as the U.S. Constitution, it is vital that we have the proper meaning or definition of those words at the time of the writing and ratification of the document, in order to properly interpret the document.

I am using Webster’s 1828 First Edition Dictionary to define the written words, as it is the closest I have access to for the era 1776-1787.

The word BORN is defined by this dictionary as—“To be born, is to be produced or brought into life”

This word is simple enough and few people want to debate what the word means.

The word Citizen is defined by the 1828 Dictionary as—“The native of a city, or an inhabitant who enjoys the freedom and privileges of the city in which he resides; the freeman of a city, as distinguished from a foreigner, or one not entitled to its franchises.”

This word is also widely accepted and seldom debated. However, ONLY as it relates to the current resident of the White House, Barack Hussein Obama, there seems to be great confusion over the meaning of the word “natural,” as it relates to whether or not Barack Hussein Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president of the United States.

Yet the word NATURAL is no more complicated than the words born or citizen.

Clearly, due to the Founders grandfather clause, any “citizen” could hold the office of president at the time of the adoption of the constitution. But after that, “No person except a natural born Citizen” could hold the office of president, or vice president for that matter.

The word NATURAL is defined as follows, in the 1828 Webster’s dictionary—“Pertaining to nature; produced or effected by nature, or by the laws of growth, formation or motion impressed on bodies or beings by divine power. Thus we speak of the natural growth of animals or plants; the natural motion of a gravitating body; natural strength or disposition; the natural heat of the body; natural color; natural beauty. In this sense, natural is opposed to artificial or acquired.”

Natural (Pertaining to nature - In this sense, natural is opposed to artificial or acquired)

Born (To be born, is to be produced or brought into life)

Citizen (The native of a city, or an inhabitant who enjoys the freedom and privileges of the city in which he resides)

As these were likely the actual definitions in play at the time these words were drafted into the U.S. Constitution, this is most likely exactly what the Founding Fathers meant by these words.

In case you have the urge to challenge the 1828 definition of “natural,” the current definition of “natural” is essentially the same—“existing in or formed by nature (as opposed to artificial)”

As a quick aside, for those having trouble with Obama’s alleged birth place, it is only the term “NATIVE” which refers to place of birth.

Native—“Conferred by birth; as native rights and privilege - Pertaining to the place of birth; as native soil; native country; native graves - One born in any place is said to be a native of that place, whether country, city or town.”

Is Barack Hussein Obama a “Natural Born Citizen” of the United States?

Although NO authenticated evidence has been offered to support the claim, those who claim that Obama was born in Hawaii would be claiming only that Obama is a “native born citizen” of the United States. As “native born citizen” is NOT the requirement for president in the Constitution, this is an argument of no real consequence.

Being born in Hawaii would make Obama a “native born citizen,” but not necessarily a “natural born citizen” of the United States.

Even if we accept the notion that Obama was “native born” to Hawaii, which was a U.S. state at the time of Obama’s alleged birth in August 1961, we would only be accepting the notion that Obama is a “native born” citizen, not a “natural born citizen.”

If Article II—Section I said - “No person except a native born Citizen” shall hold the office of president, an authentic birth certificate from Hawaii would indeed solve the problem, although no such birth certificate has ever been offered by Obama. This terminology would have qualified some of the Founders as well, without the need for a grandfathered exemption.

However, “No person except a natural born Citizen” shall be eligible for the office of president.

As a result, a Hawaiian birth certificate would not be enough to qualify Barack Hussein Obama, II - as eligible for the office he currently holds. Something else would be required…something more.

Obama supporters shouldn’t feel unfairly singled out however, as without the grandfather clause, no Founding Father could have held the office of president either, and they were all white men. In fact, all white men would have to meet the exact same requirements as Obama today. Article II—Section I mentions nothing about color or race.

What is required to be a “natural born citizen?”

In a word, nature… as in, natural law, or as the 1828 Webster’s dictionary puts it—“Pertaining to nature; produced or effected by nature, or by the laws of growth, formation or motion impressed on bodies or beings by divine power.”

WOW!—“impressed on bodies or beings by divine power.”—“produced or effected by nature, or by the laws of growth”

In terms of “nature’s effect” on human beings, what we know is the reproductive system and time honored natural laws pertaining to “birthrights.”

Webster’s 1828 definition establishes birthright as—“Any right or privilege, to which a person is entitled by birth, such as an estate descendible by law to an heir, or civil liberty under a free constitution.”

Such as, a child inherits his/her father’s name automatically at birth, as well as heir to his fortune and his citizenship.

No man-made laws are needed. In every civilized nation on earth, the “natural born child” automatically inherits their father’s name and all other related birthrights upon birth, with no statute required.

If Barack Hussein Obama’s father had been a legal citizen of the U.S. at the time of Barack II birth, Barack II would enjoy not only his father’s name, but his citizenship in the United States as well, and no man-made law could block his birthright to status as a “natural born citizen” of the USA.

However, Obama’s father was at no time a citizen of the USA. He was at all known times in his life, a citizen of Kenya, which at the time was still under British rule.

Barack Hussein Obama II father was a legal citizen of Kenya. As the “natural born” son of Barack Hussein Obama I, Barack Obama II is the “natural born citizen” of Kenya, which is why his family, friends and the press referred to him as “Kenyan Born” all the way up until he decided to run for the office of president.

From that moment forward, Obama, his friends and the press has denied that he was a “natural born citizen” of Kenya, and claimed that he was a “natural born citizen” of Hawaii.

But here’s the problem—Even if Obama was born in Hawaii, a “native born” citizen of the United States (which has yet to be proven), he was still the “natural born citizen” of his father, and Kenya.

This would have made Barack Obama II a “dual citizen” of both the USA and Kenya.

And this is why the Natural Born Citizen clause exists in the U.S. Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama is the poster-child for why the Founding Father’s placed Article II—Section I—Clause V in the U.S. Constitution.

Dual citizenship means dual or divided national loyalties. That’s why the qualification for the highest office in the land is “natural born citizen.” An individual with NO reason for dual or divided national loyalties…

It is on the basis of this research and further research into the history of the term “natural born citizen”—that I wrote The Bottom Line on Natural Born Citizen and make the claim that DC Knows that Obama is Ineligible for Office.

American citizens had better wake up and take action fast, as there is little time left to right their ship!