How to Use the 5th Amendment
Leo Donofrio, Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, presents a follow-up to his first article (as linked on this site), “The Federal Grand Jury (5th Amendment).” In this article, Mr. Donofrio deals with the “how” of the concept of a federal grand jury…
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1972.ZO.html
My recent post concerning the 5th Amendment right of we the people to use the “presentment” power to investigate criminal activity on our own volition to review Government activity and bring all criminality to justice was very well received. It seems to have woken alot of people up to the possibility of reviving the Constitution. The power of “presentment” is not some fanciful concept but a very real provision stated unequivocally in the 5th Amendment. There’s no legal reason why we can’t use it.
That being said, the question of how we can use it must be tackled. But always keep this in mind when the naysayers start harassing you. 25 people sitting on Grand Juries is the way we do all criminal indictments in the US. If somebody is facing the death penalty or life in prison, they must first be brought before a Grand Jury and if 13 of the 25 agree that the person should stand trial then that’s what happens.
IF THE GRAND JURY IS GOOD ENOUGH AND TRUSTWORTHY ENOUGH FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO IMPRISON OR KILL WE THE PEOPLE THEN THE GRAND JURY SYSTEM IS ALSO GOOD ENOUGH AND TRUSTWORTHY ENOUGH TO INVESTIGATE THE GOVERNMENT FOR CRIMES.
This will be your mantra. Don’t forget it. Say it every day.
And as a teaser let me present to you some interesting SCOTUS language.
In United States v. Morton Salt, 338 U.S. 632 (1950), Justice Jackson said this:
The only power that is involved here is the power to get information from those who best can give it and who are most interested in not doing so. Because judicial power is reluctant, if not unable, to summon evidence until it is shown to be relevant to issues in litigation, it does not follow that an administrative agency charged with seeing that the laws are enforced may not have and exercise powers of original inquiry. It has a power of inquisition, if one chooses to call it that, which is not derived from the judicial function. It is more analogous to the Grand Jury, which does not depend on a case or controversy for power to get evidence, but can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just because it wants assurance that it is not.
Ok, now let’s review the obstacle in our path. Read my first article again and educate yourself regarding Note 4 to Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure wherein this Note to a Rule has been used as the executioner of our Presentment rights. Basically, this note – which has no legal power to reverse a Constitutional provision – has been used to declare our 5th Amendment “Presentment” power as “obsolete”. Obsolete is a clever use of wording. Obsolete doesn’t mean “illegal” or “cancelled by law”… obsolete simply means that it hasn’t been used recently, but “not being used” doesn’t mean we can’t use it. We can.
In UNITED STATES vs. WILLIAMS 504 U.S. 36 (1992) the Court discussed a case wherein the defendant in a criminal action sought to overturn a Grand Jury indictment since the Prosecutor failed to provide exculpatory evidence to the Grand Jury. Defendant relied on a rule which the 10th Circuit had enacted which required disclosure of exculpatory evidence by the prosecutor to the Grand Jury. But SCOTUS did not accept the argument. Justice Scalia wrote the following:
Respondent does not contend that the Fifth Amendment itself obliges the prosecutor to disclose substantial exculpatory evidence in his possession to the grand jury.
Ah, please note the Court’s concern for the construction of the 5th Amendment. SCOTUS tells us here that the 5th Amendment trumps the 10th Circuit disclosure Rule. Scalia goes on:
Instead, building on our statement that the federal courts “may, within limits, formulate procedural rules not specifically required by the Constitution or the Congress,” United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 505 (1983), he argues that imposition of the Tenth Circuit’s disclosure rule is supported by the courts’ “supervisory power.” We think not. Hasting, and the cases that rely upon the principle it expresses, deal strictly with the courts’ power to control their own procedures. See, e. g., Jencks v. United States,353 U.S. 657, 667-668 (1957); McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943). That power has been applied not only to improve the truth finding process of the trial, see, e. g., Mesarosh v. United States, 352 U.S. 1, 9-14 (1956), but also to prevent parties from reaping benefit or incurring harm from violations of substantive or procedural rules (imposed by the Constitution or laws) governing matters apart from the trial itself, see, e. g., Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914). Thus, Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250 (1988), makes clear that the supervisory power can be used to dismiss an indictment because of misconduct before the grand jury, at least where that misconduct amounts to a violation of one of those “few, clear rules which were carefully drafted and approved by this Court and by Congress to ensure the integrity of the grand jury’s functions,”United States v. Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66, 74 (1986) (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment).
We did not hold in Bank of Nova Scotia, however, that the courts’ supervisory power could be used, not merely as a means of enforcing or vindicating legally compelled standards of prosecutorial conduct before the grand jury, but as a means ofprescribing those standards of prosecutorial conduct in the first instance — just as it may be used as a means of establishing standards of prosecutorial conduct before the courts themselves. It is this latter exercise that respondent demands. Because the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such “supervisory” judicial authority exists, and that the disclosure rule applied here exceeded the Tenth Circuit’s authority.
So what does that mean to the Presentment issue? It means that no Federal regulation can trump the Constitution. The Constitution says we the people can bring “Presentments”. A footnote to a Rule of procedure that attempts to set aside a Constitutional power granted to we the people has no legal effect whatsoever.
Then check out Scalia as he goes on to cement the fact that the Grand Jury is a separate branch of Government:
“[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) (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). 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. SeeUnited States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 6(a).
The grand jury’s functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised. “Unlike [a] [c]ourt, whose jurisdiction is predicated upon a specific case or controversy, the grand jury `can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.’ ” United States v. R. Enterprises, 498 U. S. ___, ___ (1991) (slip op. 4) (quoting United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 642-643 (1950)). It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even “the precise nature of the offense” it is investigating. Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273, 282 (1919).The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, see Hale, supra, at 59-60, 65,nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day to day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. See Calandra, supra, at 343. It swears in its own witnesses, Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 6(c), and deliberates in total secrecy, see United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc., 463 U. S., at 424-425.
True, the grand jury cannot compel the appearance of witnesses and the production of evidence, and must appeal to the court when such compulsion is required. See, e. g., Brown v. United States, 359 U.S. 41, 49 (1959). And the court will refuse to lend its assistance when the compulsion the grand jury seeks would override rights accorded by the Constitution, see, e. g., Gravel v.United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972) (grand jury subpoena effectively qualified by order limiting questioning so as to preserve Speech or Debate Clause immunity), or even testimonial privileges recognized by the common law, see In re Grand Jury Investigation of Hugle, 754 F. 2d 863 (CA9 1985) (same with respect to privilege for confidential marital communications) (opinion of Kennedy, J.). Even in this setting, however, we have insisted that the grand jury remain “free to pursue its investigations unhindered by external influence or supervision so long as it does not trench upon the legitimate rights of any witness called before it.” United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1973). Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said that the Fifth Amendment’s “constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body `acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge’. . . .” Id., at 16 (emphasis added) (quotingStirone, supra, at 218).
This is what you need to run with the ball, USA. If your Government is breaking laws, then start using the law that is available to you.
ISSUE PRESENTMENTS AS A FEDERAL GRAND JURY EMPOWERED BY THE 5TH AMENDMENT.
USE IT OR LOSE IT.
-Phil
Kathleen, just a short response to your well written and crafted letter to our phony congressmen who claim to represent us…I agree with your position wholeheartedly and iam praying to my God as i know Him that this fraud in the white house is not part of God’s plan for the final prophecy of armageddon to befall the United States,….If it is, just know that in the end, WE WIN!!!…bill
AmericaMustKnow says:”I don’t see how a “vigilante” type grand jury would accomplish anything. Nobody is going to listen to that. That’s pretty ‘radical’ and people don’t like radical. Don’t get me wrong. I like radical, but people don’t listen to radical.”
I would agree with you That a common law or “runaway” grand jury would be considered radical in this day and age,and would be bashed from every corner of the nation as illegal and a joke(at least the 20-30% that love the one).It would probably finally get covered in the main news media and would inform those not in the obama trance to what is happening.And really, what is there to lose? Have people listened to anything civil and proper that has been done up to this point? I would say no. The extreme left seems to get things done pretty well being “radical” and have pretty much cleaned our conservative clocks, being as extreme as they are.
I have done a lot of reading about common law Grand juries and they were being used successfully and commonly into the middle of this century. Then the courts hijacked them in 1946,replacing them with their Federal grand jury…completely controlled and contained by the judges and prosecutors to be used to go after a certain object they have targeted(making sure they were not instructed as to their true power) and then placed back on the shelf. It was they that made common law grand juries seem “radical” even naming them “runaway” to reinforce that moniker.They placed them right up there with Militias, or the minutemen now protecting or southern border, and true constitutionalists, seeking payroll tax relief or dissolvement of the fed bank or our token currency.We have been conditioned to think of these groups this way. Is it not interesting that they labeled all of these things that are expressly written in our founding document as Radical? And what a surprise, they are the exact parts that were written for “the people” to keep the government in check.Why is civics no longer taught in school? A coincidence? I don’t think so.They have trained us to think and act as we have in the last few elections in growing numbers. Unthinking,uninformed, Sheeple.
So yes a Federal grand jury that has the complete consent of the court and Prosecutor would be ideal, but I don’t see how that could ever come about. Seeing how no court will even look at the merits of the cases that have been brought so far, it seems unlikely. I do agree that we need A couple wicked smart Lawyers to do this. Along with some very good pr people to explain to the media what they are doing. This will be won or lost in the court of public opinion. And getting the correct terms and real issues out in the media without them twisting it BEFORE it gets out would be critical.
AmericaMustKnow,
Two things:
1. There will always be a certain segment of the population that distrusts technology, more because of its unfamiliarity than for substantial reasons. Further (unfortunate, but true), until something breaks the proverbial dam on, say, eligibility, it will remain a niche issue. That’s why being consistent and persistent are the keys to any kind of huge endeavor
2. I don’t think Leo Donofrio is suggesting anything more than what he has thus far said RE: grand juries. In my view, I would consider it to be a potential way to get a legal remedy if, in fact, a grand jury were to ever be empaneled for 5th Amendment-type charges
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to kill the discussion. I don’t see how a “vigilante” type grand jury would accomplish anything. Nobody is going to listen to that. That’s pretty ‘radical’ and people don’t like radical. Don’t get me wrong. I like radical, but people don’t listen to radical.
Let me throw this out there: What would really help ‘the cause’ would be the education of the elderly (50-80). They got money. They vote. However, they don’t peruse the internet, nor do they care for internet news. This whole eligibility thing was born and bred on the internet, and they don’t trust it. And I don’t blame them. These people need to be educated. But how? They sit down at 6pm everyday and listen to the bologna on the news. They won’t believe it until their precious little Katie Curic says it. I guess that goes for all ages. Just a thought.
Regarding the grand jury stuff: I wish Donofrio would just come out and say what he’s suggesting. I appreciate all the history and the case he’s made for the resurrection of the full power of the grand jury. I think he’s waiting for someone to take his idea and run with it. And he is right. We need some real ingenuity and some brains if this is ever going to survive.
Any brains out there? Anybody got any brains? When is the last time a presentment was used to “force” a prosecution?
I should add that Oklahoma is one of very few states that permits citizens to petition for a grand jury to be convened. That is a state, not a federal, grand jury BTW. Timothy McVeigh was indicted by an Oklahoma grand jury that was convened in such a fashion.
People, do your legal homework before making grand plans.
Thank you, PHil. Very well articulated.
My 7 year old daughter just wrote this:
The Soldier’s Brute
Oh dear Lord, I give you me,
That I may learn at the light of our General’s plea,
With the Life of Liberty. Amen.
Oh dear Lord, I give you my life,
As the night is bright, and in the morning if I die,
Then I will be with my Lord on high. Amen.
I think she’s a patriot. Bless her heart.
I think it’s pretty good for seven years old.
From a non-attorney perspective, I would also like to reiterate that SCOTUS is not saying that grand juries are a completely independently operating branch of the federal government (e.g.: one cannot go out, find 25 people, and declare that one has spontaneously empaneled a grand jury). Rather, their authority or power to make requests concerning the issue at hand is what is independent on their part.
In my view, Mr. Donofrio is merely pointing out the fact that grand juries have a lot of latitude in what they can legally accomplish; while existing within the confines of the Judiciary (as a matter of practicality), they form a buffer between the functionality of the Judiciary (e.g.: prosecutor, DA, judge, etc.) and the People, per se. I believe he is further saying that the specifically enumerated power of the grand jury is such that they could literally be seen as an ad hoc “fourth branch” of the federal government (ad hoc in the sense that when they convene — as stipulated by the 5th Amendment — they have certain power and authority under the auspices of the rest of the Constitution).
It’s important to note that — as with the rest of the federal government — grand juries are restricted in what they can do; in my view, this is the reason why the 5th Amendment specifically spells out under what circumstances a grand jury can be empaneled.
-Phil
Opps, My bad. I was up too late with the baby last night.
Sorry, but in criminal law, nonompliance is not an admission of anything. To suggest otherwise would be a violation of the Fifth Amendment.
You are correct that the grand jury needs a court. First, the grand jury is convened by a court, at the request of the prosecutor. Second, the grand jury needs a court to issue subpoenas — it has no inherent power to do so on its own. Also, the grand jury needs a court to enforce a subpoena. If a witness refuses to comply, only the court can compel compliance or hold the witness in contempt. Finally, a court’s jurisdictional reach is only so far. A grand jury in Nevada needs a subpoena in Hawaii to be “commissioned” by a Hawaii court. Therefore, a grand jury needs the cooperation of multiple courts.
Finally, a grand jury only returns a presentment or indictment. It does not and cannot prosecute. Prosecution is the realm of the US Attorney.
You are going to have to figure out a way to persuade a US Attorney to take on your case. I will dispense some free legal advice here … DO NOT APPROACH A GRAND JUROR or you will find yourself in the back of a US Marshal’s van with a matching pair of bracelets.
That’s a phenomenal way to get yourself arrested for jury tampering.
Hey Phil,
How are your other cases doing?
He he he
glacialhills,
I’m “Phil in GA,” not Phil Berg from obamacrimes.com.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
Sorry Phil, I just remembered it was Cort Wrotnowski that I talked to On Plainsradio the other night and not you. But I did send you a donation.
Hi Phil, I talked to you on Plains radio the other night about the Grand Jury. You asked where would one be convened “in Hawaii?”I think that the impeachment trial going on right now in Illinois for Gov. Blago would be a great location for a number of reasons.
To convict and sentence Blago wont they need to convene a grand jury?It will already have the inappropriate behavior of the obama senate seat scandal and what Barry knew of illegal activity and this whole mess in the forefront and so would not seem so off topic or far reaching to the court when the jurors make a presentment about Soreto.I think this would give a great boost to the legitimacy of a “runaway” grand jury and them introducing presentments of this nature.Since presentments are all but outlawed by judges these days The Grand jury would need to know that they can dismiss the judge if he objects or refuses to hear them.(they can throw the judge and Lawyers out of the courtroom to deliberate, they are that powerful.)
Every news media will be there already and will go nuts when this happens and will need to get explained to them what is happening with the help of some really good pr people that we would have placed, that will know exactly about grand jury rules,presentments and the 5th amendment inside and out.The news media will want to slam the jurors right off and try to squash the notion right away and without some well versed people to tell what is happening they will succeed as we have seen with Sarah Palin recently. The Legitimacy issue will be the biggest hurdle any grand jury will face when they “leave the reservation” and become a “runaway” or what the grand jury was always supposed to be.They would need to have a quite a few PR people right there in place the first day to explain what they are doing and why the 5th amendment allows this and really hammer home the truth about the grand jury system and this constitutional right that has been all but taken away from us by the courts.These days, the courts keep the grand Juror’s in the dark as to their power and right’s and what they can do as grand jurors to keep them in check and to be used only as the prosecutors pawns.Once the grand jurors are instructed to their power and abilities to gather information and reveal any corruption they want revealed,Even ultra left wing Grand Jurors would have a hay day if they could present a presentment in the corrupt state Of IL.
Then you would just need one of them that wants to know the truth about barry to start making presentments on the NBC and everything. After that, this grand jury will be able to bust right through all of the road blocks and subterfuge thrown up by the dnc, barry, acorn and the SCOTUS.
That’s very reassuring, but it still sounds like the courts could kind of make it up as they went along, or just decline to issue the warrants/subpoenas, no? They (judges) seem to have a kind of ‘vested interest’ here in hamstringing GJs that aren’t under their control.
Brian H,
Someone’s “legitimate rights” happen to be similar to the following. Imagine that a grand jury is requesting specific information from an informant that’s currently a CIA spook that is infiltrating a terrorist organization somewhere. The court could very well decide that said information would violate the informant’s ability to conduct business as a matter of national security, and, as such, that information would be properly deemed as unavailable.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
GJs have been formed by public petition, e.g. the McVey one. So that’s a possible route. But to compel testimony or evidence, GJs need the co-operation of the courts, which may be withheld if someone’s “legitimate rights” are violated, whatever that means, as noted in the Scalia quote.
The crux would be “are O’bonobo’s rights being violated by exposure of his vault BC, or any other documentation of past citizenship status”? So He or His minions would have to prove they were, which would be at least tacit admission of non-compliance with the NBC rule.
If anyone is as disgusted with their ineffective and uncaring Congressmen as I have been, feel free to use any part of my letter to send to your own Congressmen:
Dear Congressman_________,
Thank you for your two letters dated Jan. 13 and 14 of 2009. Since the Jan. 14 nullified the Jan. 13 letter, I will address the former.
First, the 14th Amendment makes no distinction between natural-born citizens and naturalized citizens. They are both, of course, citizens of the U.S.; however, the Constitution does make the distinction and clearly specifies that one of the eligibility requirements to be POTUS is to be a “natural-born” citizen, not a naturalized one. Obama is, by his own admission and due to inheriting his father’s British citizenship, either a naturalized citizen, or an illegal alien, if he never was naturalized as a U.S. citizen after his adoption as an Indonesian.
Also, in regards to Ms. Fukino’s statement on the birth of Obama, as you know she only states that Hawaii has his original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures. It doesn’t take even a careful reading to know that she nowhere states that he was born in Hawaii.
You state that you believe it is fully appropriate that citizens receive official verification of credentials for office holders. You sir, had the authority to do just that on the behalf of Colorado citizens at the electoral count held in the Congress on Jan. 8, 2009. You failed to do that, even after you had been petitioned to do so.
You did not need to wait for a favorable outcome of the SCOTUS Dec. 8, 2008 hearing of one of the many lawsuits on Obama’s ineligibility to take action as a Congressman. The Congress has authority vested in that body to take action independent from the office of President or the Supreme Court, but you and all the other members of Congress turned a deaf ear to your constituents.
I am only writing to let you know that I received both your letters, and that I will not be petitioning you or any member of the impotent Congress again. Congress and the Supreme Court have showed the American people that both branches of government are really unconcerned with upholding and defending the U.S. Constitution as every member of both bodies swore to do. And we have a usurper posing as President in the third branch of government, so you’ve all collectively put us in a place where we have to take matters into our own hands.
What an unforgivable travesty has been brought down on this country. An ineligible man of questionable character and associations has been enthroned as a usurper ruler over this land, while the corrupt, self-serving Congress and Supreme Court fiddle away and play soothing and self-medicating tunes to themselves while a fire has been set under America.
You will be hearing from us at the polls next time around on this matter. We are through with elected officials wooing us until they get elected and then just ignoring us. That will stop.
There is a revolution that We The People are joining to take back the power that has been vested to us in the Constitution. It will be done peacefully and in accordance with the law, but it will set this country upside down. The clarion call has gone out and we the people are responding and we will be in this fight for the long haul.
I’m sorry you could not see past your own self-interest to be a part of this historic movement. You sir, will find yourself to be on the wrong side of history in this matter.
Sincerely,
[...] My recent post concerning the 5th Amendment right of we the people to use the “presentment” power to investigate criminal activity on our own volition to review Government activity and bring all criminality to justice was very well received. It seems to have woken alot of people up to the possibility of reviving the Constitution. The power of “presentment” is not some fanciful concept but a very real provision stated unequivocally in the 5th Amendment. There’s no legal reason why we can’t use it. Read the full post here… [...]
Hey, folks, I think there is some confusion on the issue of a presentment grand jury. Read and absorb what Leo wrote on his current and previous article on the subject. His blog is http://www.naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/ From my understanding, it would be a new and separate grand jury of the people without need for a federal prosecutor’s involvement. Leo has stated the whole thing very cleary so that even I, a lay person, can understand the tremendous power that lies resident in the Constitution for We The People.
Please educate yourself on this. If we have power and don’t use it, we lose. It’s time we took back what the Congress, SCOTUS, and now a bogus potus have stolen from us. Knowledge is power; action is redemptive!
I live in Las Vegas and have been all over Reid’s A$$ for months about the citizenship issue to no avail. I have faxed, sent letters, e-mail and today I called for the 2nd time demanding that he provide me with his proof that shows Obama to be a “natural born” citizen. I don’t expect to hear from him in this lifetime and I certainly don’t want to meet up with him in the next where I think he might be headed. It gets mighty hot down there from what I have heard!!!
AmericaMustKnow made a good point.
What is the actual procedural mechanism? Both the low and high courts are hell-bent to protect BHO’s secret.
The old administration was not interested and the new one will be even less inclined.
Is this at all feasible, without, at least, the support of the GOP?
For those of you in Pelosi’s district or Reid’s district, take issue with their affirmation of Obama’s citizenship. From there, use the grand jury to subpoena the signatories’ evidence to say Obama is or is not a natural born citizenship.
Likewise, this could likely work against any of the secretaries of the sovereign states who passed the buck on citizenship issues.
Perhaps it can work.
Me again.
I love it. It’s great. But my question is still unanswered. I know there’s some people that are working on it that invited me to discuss in private. I’m not at liberty to do that right now. I’m still waiting for open discussion on how this can TANGIBLY be utilized.
How can a citizen submit a case to a Federal Grand Jury, without the impedance from government officials.
“Hey Mr. Flimflam, uh, I got a case here. I believe that Obama is a total fraud.”
“Okay, you got your paperwork? Great. I’ll give it to the judge.”
“No, no, no! I don’t want you to give it a judge. I want you to give it to a grand jury.”
“Huh?”
“Yeah, it’s my right, under the 5th Amendment”
“Oh okay, of course it is. No problem. We can do that, but it has to be approved by a judge.”
“No, no, no! You don’t understand. I need to go straight to a grand jury independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge as Mr. Donofrio has taught us.”
“Uh… well… let me ask the judge and see what he thinks.”
You understand what I’m saying. Will someone in the know paint a picture as to how this actually happens or could actually happen.
I think Donofrio is saying that all we need to do is to approach any already constituted Federal Grand Jury, and ask them to investigate, since their constitution by law empowers them to investigate ANY apparent breach of Federal Law or of the Constitution.
Therefore you do not need to be a gran juror.
You do not need to ask one to be constituted.
You need a savvy lawyer and to approach an existing grand jury, constituted for whatsoever other purpose, and get them to begin the investigation with presentements. Then you need to defend their right to remain in existence when the DA and District court judge attempts to shut them down.
That’s what Donofrio’s implying….in my opinion…
I can and certainly will travel to any location to convene as a jurist, count me in.
Wow, people seeking jury duty! Let’s do it!
What do we do and when do we start?? I’m not an attorney but I would love to be a Grand Juror!!!