The Federal Grand Jury (5th Amendment)
Leo Donofrio, Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, expressed his legal opinion on grand juries. I agree with Mr. Donofrio in that these facts are definitely worth reading and understanding.
The grand jury has its origin in the 5th Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. [emphasis mine]
Update: Commenter “scott” points readers to the following link showing the “anatomy” of a federal grand jury:
See here: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/grandjuryrules.htm
—
HOW CONSTITUTEDGrand 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.
—
And there’s a lot more at the url.
[I originally posted this essay at my Citizenspook blog back in 2005.]All of us may one day serve as grand jurors in federal court, and I hope this article will educate the reader to his/her true power as granted by the Constitution. For that power, despite having been hidden for many years behind the veil of a legislative fraud, still exists in all of its glory in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. The US Supreme Court has confirmed and reinforced that power.
So please, copy this report and paste it far and wide. It is not spin. It is not false. It is not for sale, it is not copyrighted by me, so paste and quote it freely. This report is the truth and we need truth, now, more than ever.
The Constitutional power of “we the people” sitting as grand jurors has been subverted by a deceptive play on words since 1946 when the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were enacted. Regardless, the power I am going to explain to you still exists in the Constitution, and has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court despite the intention of the legislature and other legal scholars to make our power disappear with a cheap magic trick.
Repeat a lie with force and repetition and the lie becomes known as truth. In the case of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, the power of the grand jury, to return “presentments” on its own proactive initiation, without reliance upon a US Attorney to concur in such criminal charges, has been usurped by an insidious play on words.
Most of this article is going to quote other scholars, judges and legislators as I piece together a brief but thorough history of the federal grand jury for your review. But the punch line is my personal contribution to the cause:
UNITED STATES CITIZENS SITTING AS FEDERAL GRAND JURORS ARE THE FOURTH BRANCH OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.My input into this vital fight is no more than the analysis of a few carefully used words. It only took a small sleight of pen back in 1946 to hide our power, and it won’t take more than a few words to take that power back. But a proper overview is necessary for most of you who are unfamiliar with the issue at hand. So let me provide you with some history and then we’ll see what went wrong and how to correct it.
HISTORY OF FEDERAL GRAND JURY POWERI want to draw your attention to a law review article, CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW, Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000, 821, IF IT’S NOT A RUNAWAY, IT’S NOT A REAL GRAND JURY by Roger Roots, J.D.
“In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without governmental influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past.”
The 5th Amendment:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.”
An article appearing in American Juror, the newsletter of the American Jury Institute and the Fully Informed Jury Association, citing the famed American jurist, Joseph Story, explained :
“An indictment is a written accusation of an offence preferred to, and presented, upon oath, as true, by a grand jury, at the suit of the government. An indictment is framed by the officers of the government, and laid before the grand jury. Presentments, on the other hand, are the result of a jury’s independent action:
‘A presentment, properly speaking, is an accusation, made by a grand jury of its own mere motion, of an offence upon its own observation and knowledge, or upon evidence before it, and without any bill of indictment laid before it at the suit of the government. Upon a presentment, the proper officer of the court must frame an indictment, before the party accused can be put to answer it.’ “
Back to the Creighton Law Review:“A ‘runaway’ grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today’s “runaway” grand jury is in fact the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact “runaways,” according to the definition of modern times; they operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself.”
So, it’s clear that the Constitution intended to give the grand jury power to instigate criminal charges, and this was especially true when it came to government oversight. But something strange happened on the way to the present. That power was eroded by a lie enacted by the legislative branch. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution still contains the same words quoted above, but if you sit on a grand jury and return a “presentment” today, the prosecutor must sign it or it probably won’t be allowed to stand by the judge and the criminal charges you have brought to the court’s attention will be swept away. And the reason for this can be found in a legislative lie of epic proportions.
Mr. Roots weighs in again:“In 1946, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted, codifying what had previously been a vastly divergent set of common law procedural rules and regional customs.[86] In general, an effort was made to conform the rules to the contemporary state of federal criminal practice.[87] In the area of federal grand jury practice, however, a remarkable exception was allowed. The drafters of Rules 6 and 7, which loosely govern federal grand juries, denied future generations of what had been the well-recognized powers of common law grand juries: powers of unrestrained investigation and of independent declaration of findings. The committee that drafted the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provided no outlet for any document other than a prosecutor-signed indictment. In so doing, the drafters at least tacitly, if not affirmatively, opted to ignore explicit constitutional language.“[88]“
Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP):“An offense which may be punished by death shall be prosecuted by indictment. An offense which may be punished by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or at hard labor shall be prosecuted by indictment…”
No mention of “presentments” can be found in Rule 7. But they are mentioned in Note 4 of the Advisory Committee Notes on the Rules:
“4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts.”
The American Juror published the following commentary with regards to Note 4:“[W]hile the writers of the federal rules made provisions for indictments, they made none for presentments. This was no oversight. According to Professor Lester B. Orfield, a member of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, the drafters of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 6 decided the term presentment should not be used, even though it appears in the Constitution. Orfield states [22 F.R.D. 343, 346]:
‘There was an annotation by the Reporter on the term presentment as used in the Fifth Amendment. It was his conclusion that the term should not be used in the new rules of criminal procedure. Retention might encourage the use of the run-away grand jury as the grand jury could act from their own knowledge or observation and not only from charges made by the United States attorney. It has become the practice for the United States Attorney to attend grand jury hearings, hence the use of presentments have been abandoned.’ “That’s a fascinating statement: “Retention might encourage…the grand jury [to] act from their own knowledge or observation.” God forbid, right America? The nerve of these people. They have the nerve to put on the record that they intended to usurp our Constitutional power, power that was intended by the founding fathers, in their incredible wisdom, to provide us with oversight over tyrannical government.
And so they needed a spin term to cast aspersions on that power. The term they chose was, “runaway grand jury”, which is nothing more than a Constitutionally mandated grand jury, aware of their power, and legally exercising that power to hold the federal beast in check, as in “checks and balances”.
The lie couldn’t be inserted into the Constitution, so they put it in a statute and then repeated it. And scholars went on to repeat it, and today, as it stands, the grand jury has effectively been lied into the role of submissive puppet of the US Attorney.
The American Juror publication included a very relevant commentary:“Of course, no statute or rule can alter the provisions of the Constitution, since it is the supreme law of the land. But that didn’t prevent the federal courts from publishing a body of case law affirming the fallacy that presentments were abolished. A particularly egregious example:
‘A rule that would permit anyone to communicate with a grand jury without the supervision or screening of the prosecutor or the court would compromise, if not utterly subvert, both of the historic functions of the grand jury, for it would facilitate the pursuit of vendettas and the gratification of private malice. A rule that would open the grand jury to the public without judicial or prosecutorial intervention is an invitation to anyone interested in trying to persuade a majority of the grand jury, by hook or by crook, to conduct investigations that a prosecutor has determined to be inappropriate or unavailing.’ [7]
What is the result? Investigating seditious acts of government officials can be deemed inappropriate or unavailing by the prosecutor, or the judge can dismiss the grand jurors pursuing such investigations. Consequently, corrupt government officials have few natural enemies and go about their seditious business unimpeded.
By the way, they made a rule to take care of runaways too, in 1946: Rule 6(g):
‘At any time for cause shown the court may excuse a juror either temporarily or
permanently, and in the latter event the court may impanel another person in place of the juror excused.’ Now judges can throw anyone off a grand jury, or even dis-impanel a grand jury entirely, merely for exercising its discretion.”Now let me add my two cents to this argument:
Most of the discussion about Note 4 to Rule 7 of the FRCP takes for granted that the common law use of “presentments” (as codified in the 5th Amendment) was made “illegal” in 1946 by this act. Nothing could be more false. Note 4 does not contain language that makes the use of presentments “illegal”, although it had chosen its words carefully to make it appear as if that is what the legislative branch intended. But let’s look at Note 4 again:
“4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts.”
The key word is, “obsolete”. Obsolete means “outmoded”, or “not in use anymore”, but it does not mean “abolished” or “illegal”. And therein lies the big lie. The legislature knew it could not directly overrule the Constitution, especially with something so clearly worded as the 5th Amendment, which grants a power to the people which has a long and noble purpose in criminal jurisprudence. But the federal beast legislative branch sought more power to protect themselves from the oversight of “we the people”, and in its vampire like thirst for more governmental control, it inserted this insidious Note 4 in the hope that scholars and judges would play along with their ruse, or in the alternative, their ruse would appear to be legally viable.
Let’s look at some authoritative legal resources which discuss Note 4:
Susan Brenner, THE VOICE OF THE COMMUNITY: A CASE FOR GRAND JURY INDEPENDENCE:
“Finally, federal grand juries’ subservience to prosecutors was exacerbated when the federal system eliminated the use of presentments, which allowed a grand jury to bring charges on its own initiative. (N35) Now, federal grand jurors cannot return charges in the form of an indictment without a prosecutor’s consent. (N36) Elimination of the presentment demonstrates the historical trend towards elimination of proactive features in the grand jury system.”
Did Brenner fall for the lie or did she cleverly further it when she said, “[T]he federal system eliminated the use of presentments”? The federal system did no such thing. Note 4 said the use of presentments was “obsolete”. First of all, Note 4 is not a law in itself. It is a Note to a law, and the law as written, does not have anything to say about presentments. You see the leap Brenner has made? The Constitution provides for “presentments”, then the FRCP are enacted and the Rules therein do not mention presentments, nor due they ban presentments, and if they did, such a ban would be unconstitutional, since an administrative enactment regarding procedure can not overrule the Constitution.
Regardless, it’s irrelevant, since the FRCP does not mention “presentments”. Note 4 simply states that “presentments” allowed for in the 5th Amendment of the Constitution have become “obsolete”, or outmoded, which is not to say that they were “eliminated”. Shame on you Susan Brenner. You know damn well that the Constitution can only be changed by an official Amendment to it. Nothing can be “eliminated” from the Constitution by an administrative note.
The use of presentments had become obsolete because the grand jurors were not aware of their power. So the use of “presentments” became more and more rare, and then in 1946 the legislative branch seized upon the moment to make this power disappear by waving its magic wand over the Constitution.
Mr. Root got it wrong in the Creighton Law Review as well:“Before the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure — which made independently-acting grand juries illegal for all practical purposes — grand juries were understood to have broad powers to operate at direct odds with both judges and prosecutors…”
The FRCP did not make it “illegal for all practical purposes”. That’s patently false. I don’t know if Mr. Root, and/or Susan Brenner, were acting as the magician’s assistant, but I can’t imagine how these educated scholars could be so incredibly ignorant of basic Constitutional law. Give me a damn break.
But if enough people repeat the lie, the lie appears to be the truth.
But we have it on good authority, the Supreme Court, that the lie has no legal effect.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).”
The Note 4 lie is smashed on the SCOTUS altar, “The grand jury’s historic functions survive to this day.” Take that Note 4!
Antonin Scalia effectively codified the unique independent power of the Fourth Branch into the hands of all citizens sitting as federal grand jurors. In discussing that power and unique independence granted to the grand jury, the United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992), Justice Scalia, delivering the opinion of the court, laid down the law of the land:“‘[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). ‘ “
I submit to you that this passage sets the stage for a revolutionary knew context necessary and Constitutionally mandated to “we the people”, THE FOURTH BRANCH of the Government of the United States. Besides, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches, I submit that there is a fourth branch, THE GRAND JURY, and “we the people” when sitting as grand jurors, are, as Scalia quoted in US v. Williams, ” a constitutional fixture in its own right”. Yes, damn it. That is exactly what the grand jury is, and what it was always intended to be.
Scalia also stated, that “the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside…” Id.
And finally, to seal the deal, Scalia hammered the point home:
“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. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504 U.S. 36, 48] “
This miraculous quote says it all, “…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.” The Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, gives rise to a FOURTH BRANCH of Government, THE GRAND JURY. We the people have been charged with oversight of the government in our roles as grand jurors.And at this critical time in American history, we must, for the protection of our constitutional republic, take back our power and start acting as powerful as the other branches of government.
The law is on our side. So please spread this knowledge as far and wide as you can. We the people have the right and power under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution to charge this government with crimes by returning presentments regardless of whether the US Attorneys or the federal judges agree with us. As the Supreme Court has so brilliantly stated, we are the “buffer between the Government and the people.”
Take the reins America. Pass it on. The Fourth Branch is alive and kickin’.
-Phil
I THINK A NATIONAL GRAND JURY IS A GREAT IDEA. I WOULD BE HONORED TO SERVE ON ONE.
I AM FROM WASHNGTON STATE AND A RETIRED SHERIFF. MY TIME IS MINE.
IF I SEND IN THE FORM , PLEASE GIVE ME A CONSIDERATION WHEN THE TIME COMES. I CAN BE REACHED AT JER999@COMCAST.NET .
THANK YOU, JER M.
Scott,
If you are so insistent on forming your own grand jury, by all means give it a try. Where are you going to find a judge to swear your jurors to their oaths? Where are you going to find a courtroom? How are you going to receive instruction as to the law? How are you going to compel witnesses to appear? How are you going to subpoena documents? What will you do if a witness fails to comply — how will you enforce it? Do you know what rules of evidence apply and which ones do not? And when you arrive at your presentment or indictment, then what? Who will prosecute it for you?
The grand jury exists as a check and balance on prosecutors. They don’t work “for” the prosecutor, and the prosecutor does not work “for” the grand jury. They are independent, and that is what is meant by the grand jury being the fourth branch. It is figurative, not literal.
Citizens cannot, on their own, declare themselves to be a grand jury. You have to work within the existing framework.
If the grand jury is independent then a US Attorney isn’t required to call a grand jury. A common law grand jury of 25 persons can form together and that process is something the American people have forgot about. Any presentment by a grand jury must go to a prosecutor and the prosecutor must sign it.
Like we both said (differently) a prosecutor must be involved and his work is dependent on the grand jury’s decision. The prosecutor works for the grand jury.
Please make a thorough examination of Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992), and point to the language that states that a grand jury can be convene by anyone. You will be hard pressed, but nevertheless, take a look and then post that language.
The issue in Williams was this: “Whether an indictment may be dismissed because the government failed to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.” The Tenth Circuit, from which the government took an appeal, answered the question in the affirmative. After the language that Leo Donofrio quoted, the Supreme Court continued: “Imposing upon the prosecutor a legal obligation to present exculpatory evidence in his possession would be incompatible with this system.” Scalia reasoned that if the prosecutor had presented exculpatory evidence, and if the grand jury has chosen to disregard it (i.e., judicial nullity), the resulting indictment would nevertheless have been valid. THAT’S the point that Scalia was making.
Justice Scalia also wrote this: “It is axiomatic that the grand jury sits not to determine guilt or innocence, but to assess whether there is adequate basis for bringing a criminal charge. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S., at 343.”
What this means is that, at the end of the day, grand jury or no grand jury, you still need a US Attorney to prosecute.
It doesn’t seem so from Scalia’s words. The jury is separate from the three branches of government and the prosecutor works for the grand jury, not the other way around.
Wrong. A court must convene a grand jury, and it is done at the request of the prosecutor. The jurors are drawn from the jury pool — citizens who have been selected for jury duty — and the court swears them in and charges them with instructions.
You need to persuade a US Attorney to request a grand jury. Citizens cannot do it on their own. What you are proposing is considered vigilante justice.
I have posted a few comments under some of the comments but after looking them over I decided to put them all into one Comment and post it all together….. So, WE THE PEOPLE must convene a FEDERAL GRAND JURY, of the 25 the PEOPLE (Grand Jury) of the UNITED STATES must convene and IN A (preferably) COURT ROOM and start the process. I would be willing to go to the Federal Court in Reno, NV and press for a Court Room to be provided to us and I would be more than willing to start this process and be among the 4 to personally press Obama for the documents of proof of eligibility. Wee must get together on thsi ASAP. email me at cltvcoyote@aol.com and lets get moving…. my name is Claudia VanLydegraf
WE THE PEOPLE FORM OUR OWN FEDERAL GRAND JURY, we appoint a person who is a citizen to be the JUDGE, we get a Court House Room, we appoint the JURY from a list that we gather from ORDINARY LAY PERSON CITIZENS, and IF need be, during the time that we do this we do it all for FREE, because I don’t have the money to pay for people sitting on a Grand Jury and neither do any of you, but we must do this, and then we start holding hearings on what things we want Obama, et al to produce, we hold hearings on the legality of Pelosi going to places and omitting treason while we are/were at war with the countries she visited, same with Obama, we challenge Biden on his legitimacy for VP based on his being on the ticket with Obama and possibly having knowledge of wrongdoings, we challenge all the people who are trying to subvert our country to Socialism on the things like removal of rights and others breakings of laws of the Constitution….. lets get started NOW!!!!
NOW BEFORE THEY GET WIND OF THIS HAPPENING my email is up above in my prior post
You got it, ANYONE CAN CALL A FEDERAL GRAND JURY…. lets get started.
NOW BEFORE THEY GET WIND OF THIS HAPPENING my email is up above in my prior post
WE THE PEOPLE FORM OUR OWN FEDERAL GRAND JURY, we appoint a person who is a citizen to be the JUDGE, we get a Court House Room, we appoint the JURY from a list that we gather from ORDINARY LAY PERSON CITIZENS, and IF need be, during the time that we do this we do it alll for FREE, becuase I don’t have the money to pay for people sitting on a Grand Jury and neither do any of you, but we must do this, and then we start holding hearings on what things we want Obama, et al to produce, we hold hearings on the legality of Pelosi going to places and ommitting treason while we are/were at war with the coutries she visited, same with Obama, we challenge Biden on his legitimacy for VP based on his being on the ticket with Obama and possibly having knowledge of wrongdoings, we challenge all the people who are trying to subvert our country to Socialism on the thigs like removal of rights and others breakings of laws of the Constitution….. lets get started NOW!!!!
You got it, ANYONE CAN CALL A FEDERAL GRAND JURY…. lets get started.
So, WE THE PEOPLE must convene a FEDERAL GRAND JURY, of the 25 the PEOPLE (Grand Jury) of the UNITED STATES must convene and IN A (preferably) COURT ROOM and start the process. I would be willing to go to the Federal Court in Reno, NV and press for a Court Room to be provided to us and I would be more than willing to start this process and be among the 4 to personally press Obama for the documents of proof of eligibility. Wee must get together on thsi ASAP. email me at cltvcoyote@aol.com and lets get moving…. my name is Claudia VanLydegraf
LINCOLN said “Study the Constitution!”
“Let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislatures, and enforced in courts of justice.” Every Liberty Loving American must understand what inalienable Rights our Forefathers knowingly professed and left us. We must not sit on our laurels and let this pass by. I am a Simple Man with Simple Means , but I tell every Citizen to which I was Granted with So Long Ago. Everyone should read the Citizen Rule Book A guide for Jurors.
Warrior4justice,
I can’t. I’m too stretched out right now. I want to fight fight fight fight fight. But right now, I can’t. Or I can’t in this fashion. Please understand. Thanks for the invitation. I pray Godspeed in all your endeavors and God’s mighty hand of protection be upon you.
Do there exist grand jury statutes in state law that would permit the empanelling of such by the commong people or in virute of a writ of mandamus?
And in which states?
AmericansMustKnow
contact me at trthseeker5 (at) gmail (dot) com
we are working on a plan to proceed with this idea…
AmericaMustKnow,
Thanks for the kind words.
In my view, grand juries are typically empaneled when, say, a US Attorney is ready to convict someone over, say, a criminal offense. I would wager that Patrick Fitzgerald will be pulling such a jury together once he is finished compiling evidence against the Illinois Governor over the next few months.
-Phil
That’s very inspiring. I just read a book called ‘The Declaration of Independence’ so I’m kinda gung-ho right now.
However, I’m still curious as to how a grand jury is formed today in this hour. Who forms it? Why do they form it? Correct me if I’m wrong. There ARE grand juries today? What I’m asking is how to we utilize THOSE today? I’m all for revolutionary means of forming our own grand juries, however you do that, but I want to know about the ones that exist today. Am I being to pushy? I thought thousands read this news site. (I’m not calling this a blog, Phil has definitely risen above that four letter word. It’s not the blogoshpere. It’s the patriotsphere)
I am just a lay person, but as I read this I take from it that anyone can call a common law grand jury. So, and this is just my take on this… you could ..let’s say for example have the elks club or local county commission form a grand jury and have a vote from its members to elect 25 jurors within the township or school district…Am I wrong? I think these are the crucial parts of the law that would be important in getting traction…
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.
So as I read this we just need to get some smart people that really can follow these common law rules to the letter and then spread the word about this law and why we are conducting this and then be prepared for the onslaught from the left once they realize where its going.First start with the local acorn digressions that were committed and work your way all the way up to the top. Let’s get on this and get started. I’m in.
A week ago, I was called in for jury duty service here in California. After the movie about being a juror and the collection of the jury papers, a member (older, retired man) of the current Grand Jury stood up and explained what it means to be on the Grand Jury. He was seeking replacements for the current Grand Jury. Apparently, you can volunteer to be a part of such a jury, but you must agree to a two year commitment. You get paid $25.00 (I think) per day. Obviously, no one does it for the money. I would assume that as a member of the Grand Jury, you are on call for cases all the time over the course of the two year period. It is a commitment that is usually taken by retirees – for obvious reasons.
While sitting there and listening to the types of cases that come up (e.g. something as simple as businesses adhering to water conservation requirements) I could not help but think how I would LOVE to see a Grand Jury case regarding Obama’s ineligibility!
This post has given me MUCH more hope that if the SCOTUS continues to dismiss cases, then the Grand Jury option SHOULD be done! I was SO HAPPY to see that we have this additional recourse!
Just like many here, I do not know all the details and procedures that are needed to get our “We The People” grievance against Barack Hussein Obama – the current usurper – into a Grand Jury case, so I await further explanations by those “in the know” here.
Mr. Donofrio,
I see you check in here. I want to thank you for what you are doing for “Us the People”. Please keep the up the fight, you are our Thomas Paine.
Does a grand jury need to stay on the track presented it by the attorney or judge? Does it have the power to divert to issues that it wants to even if it is not related to specific cases that the grand jury was called for? It would seem to me that this is the easiest and most effecient way to start this procedure if possible. Otherwise we have to convince an attorney and a court to put a grand jury together for a specific cause and then the government has it’s authority back, over ruling the power of the people.
I like several others here have questions about a federal grand jury. Mine specifically are: 1)how and why does a federal grand jury come into being? 2)who or what has the authority to call a federal grand jury into session and how does that procedure work? 3)are there specific rules about what can be looked at during such procedures? I’m sure that answers to these questions will bring others, but these might get some of you scholars out there started. Thanks for all that has been provided so far, and here’s hoping it goes much farther.
Garacka,
I would suggest that the remainder of the 5th Amendment seems to define in what situations a federal grand jury is called.
Thanks for the question,
-Phil
scott,
Thanks for the clarification.
-Phil
AmericaMustKnow January 22, 2009 at 2:01 pm:
“How do you get a case into a federal grand jury?”
I’m a layman and have the same question. I will guess, that the Grand Jury” has to be called for by the Courts and it would have be for some specific case, say a murder case. Once formed, they can go look at other issues, and that is when they would be able to exercise the full extent of their 5th Amendment Constitutional roll (power?)
I’m ready to serve on the GRAND JURY! Where do we sign up???
What you speak of is Jury Nullification by which a jury can strike down a law for any reason.
Four years ago I served on a federal grand jury in Virgina. We had a handful of very high profile cases, along with cases that were every day run of the mill. They were all presented by the federal government, ie FBI, ICE, etc. Hope that helps.
Okay, for the sake of getting my question answered, I’ll make it short and sweet and someone hopefully who is in the know can answer.
How do you get a case into a federal grand jury?
What Donofrio’s is showing you is that WE THE PEOPLE must take back our government. The founding fathers knew that in their wisdom. Donofrio is giving you knowledge of the law and the truth which can’t be compromised.
It is the same thing with what the meaning of natural born citizen. It is corroborated by the law and even by people’s actions.
Until the people, with knowledge of the law, galvanize and take back their constitutional republic, then this coup de’tat will continue to exist, money will be lost, a New World Order will come in, an oligarchy of power where there will be only rich and poor will reign.
Now, this new form of government can’t last just like the British Revolution, the French Revolution, fall of the USSR, fall of Empires, because people are not going to tolerate a few getting privileges and the rest getting nothing.
So stand up, galvanize with the truth, and fight in any way possible to reclaim our Constitutional Republic.
Leo,
Welcome back. We need you to help continue the cause with Dr. Taitz, and Phil Berg.
TryingToKeepUp,
I’m becoming more convinced — especially by the incrementally increased traffic to sites such as mine — that it’s not so much that “no one cares about whether laws have been broken or not,” but rather, nobody knows that such laws exist or that there is even a question being posed about laws potentially being broken.
Once people are aware of the importance of issues such as eligibility, they, too, begin to question the authenticity of the claim and subsequently begin doing their own investigating of the issue.
I remain confident that we, the People, will continue to hold this Administration — and Congress — to account.
Thanks for the questions,
-Phil
I’m with you, AmericaMustKnow. I have these same questions.
I’m also wondering what can come of a Grand Jury? It seems that it’s been made clear that no one cares about whether laws have been broken or not. Say a Grand Jury is formed and it is determined that the Constitution has been violated – then what?
(I had a public education too.)
Well, I understand all that stuff. I’m just trying to understand what this means to this cause. Is there some avenue that has been overlooked? Is Donofrio or anybody going to DO something? (that has yet been done?) And if so, what? You realize, it’s similar to the whole “interpretation of natural born citizen” thing. It seems like the Constitution is giving way to precedence and “what we do today” type stuff. You know what I mean?
Anyway, I think my questions are clear. I’ll wait for you or somebody to respond, or I’ll do some research. Thanks Phil.
AmericaMustKnow,
Effectively, a Presentment is a legal — but no longer frequently used (and there is a difference there, as Leo points out) — request from a federal grand jury to pretty much anyone inside or outside of government requiring them to submit to the process at hand and provide information to said grand jury.
Leo makes some excellent points with this, especially with respect to Associate Justice Scalia’s opinion on the matter, and get it good: a federal grand jury, being enacted via the Bill of Rights and not explicitly associated with any Article within the Constitution, per se, means that it’s its own, independent “branch,” as Leo terms it, that has the same power and authority (no rights) as any other branch of the federal government.
How can this be true? For the same reason that a non-federal jury has the power and authority to find guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” and, get this, can theoretically strike down or even make law (no, I don’t have a direct reference to that claim, but cursory research should be able to substantiate that).
Why would these kinds of juries have this kind of power/authority? Because they are, very essentially, “of the People,” and the People of the United States — aside from the several States — are the only legal entities under the framework of the Constitution who have any rights; no other part of the federal government has rights — it only has specifically enumerated powers and authority.
So, as a juror, one has a lot more power and authority to do things than even being the President, a Supreme Court Justice, a Representative, or a Senator has. That’s why juries are a fundamental requirement of our Judiciary, because it’s the fairest way to determine convictions when you have a grouping of people, quite literally, “of the People,” in deciding the Defendant’s fate.
The American constitutional republic is not the most perfect form of government, but rather the least imperfect. A federal grand jury helps to keep it that way.
I hope this helps,
-Phil
Okay, I read the entire article this time and did a little quick reading. I understand everything Donofrio is saying. What I don’t understand is HOW does a case get looked at by a Federal Grand Jury? How is one selected? Who says, “Okay, let’s pass this on the the Grand Jury and let them decide if it’s a case?” Somebody shed some light.
Man, I hate public education!!!!!
This absolutely reaffirms “WE THE PEOPLE” and not “OUR DEAR LEADER” as those responsible for our government.
Fantastic read… copied elsewhere too.
Alright, I’ll take the hit for all us dumber people out there.
What’s a presentment?
What I’m asking is, what does all this mean? What’s a Federal Grand Jury and how does it work? Most people went to public school and don’t know all this stuff. Someone please enlighten us dumb people (me).
Leo is a great Patriot and a hero. He represents all things we should aspire to: creativity, knowledge, diligence, and courage.
We should be so proud to have so many true citizens of this country who value our nation and strive to better our brethren.
Thank you Phil. And thank you all for your diligence in this fight for the truth. We are all warriors in the battle for justice.
Mr. Donofrio,
That is why I’ve called my site, The Right Side of Life — regardless of whether something is right wing, left wing, or wingless, it’s all about getting to the truth.
Thank you, sir, for the comment and everything you’ve done for government accountability.
-Phil
Thanks for reposting the Grand Jury stuff. Nothing is more important.