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.

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

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?

People, do your legal homework before making grand plans.

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.

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

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.

How are your other cases doing?

He he he

I’m “Phil in GA,” not Phil Berg from obamacrimes.com.

Thanks for the comment,

-Phil

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.