Interested? Grand Jury Indictments of AKA Obama

Basic Research on What is Behind
Grand Jury Indictments of AKA Obama

• Look at your rights –

You are a citizen and you have the duty to report crimes Remember this important fact: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”.
First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

Getting together to examine evidence of possible crimes by politicians and presenting evidence of such alleged crimes to the judiciary is "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

While citizen convened Grand Juries are not common in modern times they still have the full force of the Constitution and law. Educating modern prosecuting attorneys and judges may be necessary. Here is a law professor’s statement on Grand Juries.

“Grand juries also acted as a sword, seeking out corruption and preferring charges on their own. The classic example of a grand jury’s acting as a sword is a runaway grand jury in New York in the 1930’s; the grand jurors ignored prosecutors and embarked upon their own investigation into municipal corruption. They eventually began cooperating with Thomas E. Dewey, a prosecutor whom they felt they could trust, and returned indictments against a variety of defendants, including well-known Mafia members.

As these examples may illustrate, the rationale for employing grand juries is in some senses analogous to the rationale for using trial jurors; both interject the common sense perspective of the average man or woman into the criminal justice system. For this reason, the grand jury has been described as "the voice of the community," in that it interjects a lay perspective into the earliest part of the criminal justice system, i.e., the investigative and charging processes. When the grand jury functions as it was intended to, the grand jurors both collaborate with prosecutors and act as a check on them. As a check, the grand jurors can either decline to bring charges sought by a prosecutor or decide to bring charges that have not been sought by a prosecutor.

The grand jury – which has also been described as the "Grand Inquisition" – conducts its proceedings in secret and has the power to subpoena witnesses and physical evidence, i.e., to require that testimony and evidence be brought before it. The failure to comply with a grand jury subpoena results in one being held in civil contempt and incarcerated until the witness complies; currently, the record for time served due to civil contempt is eight years. The Supreme Court has refused to apply the Miranda rule to the grand jury, so there is no right to counsel and no right to silence when one is subpoenaed by a grand jury. Witnesses can invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination (which is much narrower than the Miranda rule) and any applicable evidentiary privileges as the basis for refusing to testify or otherwise comply with a grand jury’s demands.

The most unfortunate aspect of the modern grand jury is that because grand jurors tend to be ignorant of their role, they fall under the sway of prosecutors and, to use Sol Wachsler’s infamous phrase, are "willing to indict a ham sandwich" if asked to do so. The secrecy surrounding the role of the grand jury makes it very much a mystery to the general public; citizens’ only image of jurors comes from media and news portrayals of trial jurors, and trial jurors are entirely passive. This has subtly changed the functioning of grand juries over the last century or so, with the result being that they are far less independent than they used to be. This, in turn, is an unfortunate state of affairs, as it undermines the purpose of utilizing the "voice of the community."

http://www.udayton.edu/~grandjur
Susan W. Brenner, NCR Distinguished Professor of Law & Technology, University of Dayton School of Law, Dayton, Ohio. E-mail: Susan.Brenner@notes.udayton.edu
Professor Brenner is the author of Federal Grand Jury Practice (West, 1996).

Let’s examine all of those irrational fear mongers who are trying to discourage people from participating in a Grand Jury. From them, we are hearing things like: “People can’t go around just starting their own ‘pretend’ Grand Juries. That has got to be against the law. You’ll get arrested. You will go to jail for falsifying a court document and impersonating a court official. You have no right to do such a thing!”

Compare such scare tactics aimed at frightening citizens to this clearly stated, rational wording in the Handbook of Texas: “The grand jury's investigation of any matter may be initiated by the court, the district attorney, its own members, or any credible person. The grand jury may summon witnesses by subpoena and examine them under oath. On completion of an investigation the grand jury determines by vote whether or not an indictment should be presented to the court; nine votes are necessary for a decision to indict, and nine members also constitute a quorum.”

I have also heard anti-grand Jury people making emotionally driven arguments like: “Ordinary people can’t just go around making decisions in Grand Juries without being supervised by a lawyer. The whole justice system will fall apart if lawyers aren’t supervising Grand Juries. Who knows what horrible injustices they will commit without a lawyer to guide them?”

In many states governmental lawyers are not only NOT welcome in Grand Jury sessions, they are actually banned by law from any participation in Grand Jury sessions. Take Virginia, for example. The mere presence of a lawyer representing the government will invalidate any decision of a Grand Jury. Without the dramatic rhetoric, see how the State of Virginia explains the Grand Jury’s relationship to any such attorneys. "To keep the Grand Jury free from any pressure from the State, Virginia makes it illegal for any attorney representing the State to appear before the Grand Jury, except as a witness. If, however, members of the Grand Jury have questions about their duties, they may ask the Commonwealth's Attorney for advice. Except for these two cases, if a Commonwealth's Attorney appears in the Grand Jury Room while the Grand Jury is there, any indictment returned "A True Bill" by the Grand Jury is invalid (no good.) Therefore, while a Grand Jury may request the appearance of the Commonwealth's Attorney to testify as a witness or to explain some principle of law about the discharge of their duties, they cannot seek his advice as to whether they should return an indictment as "A True Bill." If a Grand Jury finds that it is in need of advice as to its duties, but does not know if it may invite the Commonwealth's Attorney into the Grand Jury Room to explain, it should notify the judge that it desires further instructions, and it will receive such instructions in open court. "

So, far from citizens not having the authority to form Grand Juries, and far from citizens not being able to function in a grand jury without the advice of an attorney, we discover that the Grand Jury option is designed to be initiated by citizens and to function free from the influence of governmental attorneys.

Although the laws may vary from state to state, Constitutionally Grand Juries are viewed the way United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia sees them, “In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people." Also, United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ruled in the case of United States vs. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992): “Rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, Hannah v. Larche, 363 US 420, 490 (1960) with J. Frankfurter 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 three branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right.”

Clearly stated: The Grand Jury is a separate and equal Constitutional power able to operate without the initiation or supervision of Judicial authorities.

Patriot Grand Jurors need look no further than Bill of Rights to find their Supreme Right to form Citizen Grand Juries with or without judicial approval.

In the First Amendment, we the People are given the unalienable right "peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

In the Ninth Amendment, it is unequivocally stated that, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In the Tenth Amendment, it is clearly stated, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people.

What does that mean in the context of the power of Citizen Grand Jurors?

Simply stated it means that Citizens can form Grand Juries with or without the consent of any branch of the Judiciary, Federal or State. Furthermore, it means that any and all Federal or State Rules or Laws of Criminal Procedure are unconstitutional to the extent that they limit the formation of Citizen Grand Juries to prior or post approval by any Branch of the Judiciary, Federal or State.

It gets better for the Power of the People over their Judiciary in the Eleventh Amendment, "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one the United States by Citizen of another State..."

In reading the Eleventh Amendment as it pertains to Citizens Grand Juries, one must remember the legal context under which it was written. At the time of the ratification of the Eleventh Amendment, most Criminal prosecutions were commenced by Citizens utilizing the services of private Citizen Attorneys.

Seen in its true, original context, the Eleventh Amendment clearly states that Citizens can form Federal or State Grand Juries without interference by the Federal Government.

Furthermore, the Citizen Grand Juries can subpoena any and all of Barack Hussein Obama's personal records held in any State or Federal Government Office or Department and said Office or Department is compelled by the Supreme Law of the Land, Our Constitution, to produce said records for said Grand Juries.

Remember Patriots, the case against Barack Hussein Obama will be over in Discovery, therefore, let us commence with Our Discovery of the Truth regarding the suspect commonly known to us Citizens as Barack Hussein Obama of unknown Citizenship, Allegiance and Alliances.

Mark McGrew nails the Grand Jury Story

Somethings coming - Something big! Obama's going down!
The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Governmentby Leo C. Donofrio, J.D.

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/04/pouring-oil-on-troubled-waters.html
Defining the Grand Jury issue

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/04/aka-obama-fans-all-together-now-say-omg.html
Summary of evidence against AKA Obama