Boneheaded "Patriot" Birthers Busted In Tennessee

[Walter Ego]

This happened on April 1st... :eye-poppi though apparently it was not a joke, at least an intentional one.

[A] Tennessee man was arrested after walking into his local county courthouse to try to effect a citizen's arrest of a grand jury foreman who had refused to investigate President Obama's legitimacy to serve -- an encounter partially caught on video. That enraged one Georgia-based member of the far-right OathKeepers group. Responding to a call from an extremist leader, he drove to Tennessee with an AK-47 in a bid to get his comrade released -- only to wind up getting arrested himself.

The bizarre sequence of events began on April 1, when Walter Fitzpatrick walked into the Monroe county courthouse in Madisonville, Tenn., and approached Grand Jury foreman Gary Pettway. "I'm charging you with official misconduct," Fitzpatrick calmly told Pettway. "I'm placing you under arrest. You must now come with me."

Why was Pettway targeted? Fitzpatrick, a retired Navy commander, is a leading member of the American Grand Jury (AGJ), a group of self-declared constitutional experts that seeks to convene a grand jury of citizens to indict President Obama for treason, on the grounds that he's not a natural-born U.S. citizen. Fitzpatrick had previously tried unsuccessfully to get Pettway, an African-American, to convene a grand jury to investigate charges of voter fraud in connection with President Obama's election, according to an online account written by Carl Swensson, another AGJ leader. In response, AGJ accused Pettway of violating state laws governing the length of time that a grand jury foreman can serve -- giving Fitzpatrick the basis for his attempted citizen's arrest.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/right-wing_extremists_take_on_local_law_enforcemen.php

There is of course a video.

-JV80ppr7z4

The stupidity quotient is pretty high among these "self-declared constitutional experts." Legal experts can help me out here but if Obama is indeed not an American citizen, could he be legally indicted for treason?

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

[Darth Rotor]

if Obama is indeed not an American citizen, could he be legally indicted for treason?
Not a legal expert, but the idea of indicting a non American for treason against America makes no sense.

So does much else the lunatic fringe get into ...

DR

[Brainster]

This reminds me of the Troofer dolts who are constantly nattering on about Misprision of Treason.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

This happened on April 1st... :eye-poppi though apparently it was not a joke, at least an intentional one.

There is of course a video.

-JV80ppr7z4

I love how the blond girl behind the counter at first is barely paying attention, then when she starts listening, she has a "Like, whatever, dude, I have to text my boyfriend" look on her face.

Anyone wanna bet this guy is a teabagger and loves Palin?

:dl:

[KingMerv00]

The bizarre sequence of events began on April 1, when Walter Fitzpatrick walked into the Monroe county courthouse in Madisonville, Tenn., and approached Grand Jury foreman Gary Pettway. "I'm charging you with official misconduct," Fitzpatrick calmly told Pettway. "I'm placing you under arrest. You must now come with me."

Excuse me sir, that's not an arrest, that's kidnapping.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Excuse me, that's not arrest, that's kidnapping.

What would have been really funny is if the black guy had said "Dammit! You finally got me".

[Brown]

The stupidity quotient is pretty high among these "self-declared constitutional experts." Legal experts can help me out here but if Obama is indeed not an American citizen, could he be legally indicted for treason?It's been a while since I've looked at this question, but I'm not sure that the President can be indicted until he is impeached and removed from office (or until he leaves office by other means).

Treason is a ground for impeachment. The Constitutional power to impeach a President resides exclusively with the House of Representatives, and the power to try a President upon an impeachable offense is exclusively in the Senate. Conviction removes the President from office, but the (now-former) President becomes "liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

[Brown]

To follow up on my previous post:

An impeachment is like an indictment. An indictment is a formal accusation of a crime. (In many jurisdictiions, there are multiple ways in which a formal accusation may be made. One is by a grand jury, whichy issues an indictment. Another is by the prosecutor making the indictment on his/her own authoritah. The latter type of accusation can be called by a variety of names, such as a formal charge, or a laid charge, or an information.)

Formal accusations tend to be one-sided. The target of the accusation often has no right to tell his/her side of the tale. The body that makes the accusation basically asks, "Is there enough evidence to make this a formal accusation that would support a conviction?"

An accusation is not a conviction. The accused gets a trial, as which the accused has the right to tell his/her side of the story. The tribunal hearing the case can then decide whether the evidence warrants a conviction.

Thus, a vote for impeachment is similar to an indictment. It is a formal accusation. But it differs from an indictment in three key respects: One, it can only be made by the House; Two, the offense need not be a crime, strictly speaking; and Three, there is no criminal penalty (criminal fine or getting tossed in the pokey) that results from conviction by the Senate.

In any event, where do citizens' arrests and citizens' self-ordained grand juries fit into this scheme? They don't. At all.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

To follow up on my previous post:

An impeachment is like an indictment. An indictment is a formal accusation of a crime. (In many jurisdictiions, there are multiple ways in which a formal accusation may be made. One is by a grand jury, whichy issues an indictment. Another is by the prosecutor making the indictment on his/her own authoritah. The latter type of accusation can be called by a variety of names, such as a formal charge, or a laid charge, or an information.)

Formal accusations tend to be one-sided. The target of the accusation often has no right to tell his/her side of the tale. The body that makes the accusation basically asks, "Is there enough evidence to make this a formal accusation that would support a conviction?"

An accusation is not a conviction. The accused gets a trial, as which the accused has the right to tell his/her side of the story. The tribunal hearing the case can then decide whether the evidence warrants a conviction.

Thus, a vote for impeachment is similar to an indictment. It is a formal accusation. But it differs from an indictment in three key respects: One, it can only be made by the House; Two, the offense need not be a crime, strictly speaking; and Three, there is no criminal penalty (criminal fine or getting tossed in the pokey) that results from conviction by the Senate.

In any event, where do citizens' arrests and citizens' self-ordained grand juries fit into this scheme? They don't. At all.

These patriots aren't interested in your liberal mamby-pampy "analysis". Dammit, they know what the Constitution says, and they intend to enforce it. Although, they often wonder why the Second Amendment is #2, when it is, in fact, the only amendment.

[Upchurch]

Just finished reading the article.

un-freakin'-believable.

I am not against people having guns. I'm against crazy, irrational people having guns. (which isn't precisely a contradiction, but close.) These guys are birthers so, they are definitely in the latter group.

[Brown]

These patriots aren't interested in your liberal mamby-pampy "analysis". Dammit, they know what the Constitution says, and they intend to enforce it. Although, they often wonder why the Second Amendment is #2, when it is, in fact, the only amendment.Doesn't it make you feel nice and secure to know that the US armed forces allows individuals of such intellect to reach such high rank within the organization?

In another thread, I took a prominent clergyman to task for certain recently publicized remarks packed with idiocy, and took the position that he ought not to be excused from criticism of his foolishness merely because he has the title Reverend. (I subsequently further took the position that he ought not to be excused from criticism merely because he has spearheaded charitable work.)

I now extend the principle to individuals who have earned their titles through military service. No passes for them. I don't care if this guy was an officer in the Navy; if he said something stupid, being a formal Naval officer does not entitle him to any deference or respect upon issues of government.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Doesn't it make you feel nice and secure to know that the US armed forces allows individuals of such intellect to reach such high rank within the organization?

In another thread, I took a prominent clergyman to task for certain recently publicized remarks packed with idiocy, and took the position that he ought not to be excused from criticism of his foolishness merely because he has the title Reverend. (I subsequently further took the position that he ought not to be excused from criticism merely because he has spearheaded charitable work.)

I now extend the principle to individuals who have earned their titles through military service. No passes for them. I don't care if this guy was an officer in the Navy; if he said something stupid, being a formal Naval officer does not entitle him to any deference or respect upon issues of government.

100% agree.

[fitzgibbon]

Do you Yanks not fear that you're becoming a creeping theocracy?

[tyr_13]

Do you Yanks not fear that you're becoming a creeping theocracy?

I fear that it will lead to a small violent insurgency that will ironically lead more people to become less religious. But a theocracy? No. Many people in the US support theocratic ideas until it's explained to them that most other citizens don't share their specific religious ideas.

[Piggy]

Do you Yanks not fear that you're becoming a creeping theocracy?

I don't.

And that's saying something, because I live in the heart of the Bible belt (pardon the mixed metaphor).

Our Constitution has weathered many storms, including plenty of "awakenings". It will almost certainly weather this one.

Most people here are sane enough to understand that separation of church and state actually protects their freedom to worship.

[Chaos]

I fear that it will lead to a small violent insurgency that will ironically lead more people to become less religious. But a theocracy? No. Many people in the US support theocratic ideas until it's explained to them that most other citizens don't share their specific religious ideas.

I don´t think that most of those "many people" are put off by other people having different ideas. For example, none of the Bible whackos seem bothered by more secular people when trying to ram their fundamentalism down everyone else´s throat.

[tyr_13]

I don´t think that most of those "many people" are put off by other people having different ideas. For example, none of the Bible whackos seem bothered by more secular people when trying to ram their fundamentalism down everyone else´s throat.

But they are bother by someone else's fundamentalism being rammed down their throats.

[Gawdzilla]

Do you Yanks not fear that you're becoming a creeping theocracy?

No, and for good reason. Most Americans are no more religious than any other people I've meet in my travels. And less so than many. They do know what they're supposed to say on polls, however. So the numbers reflect an imaginary situation where they go to church as often as they're supposed to. I used to drive around on Sunday morning quite a bit, to clear my head. At one time time I surveyed church parking lots for fun. Counted number of space available against spaces used. In Los Angeles county most churches had 75% of their spaces free on any given Sunday morning.