Federal Judge Denies Citizen Grand Jury Presentment Filing
In a recent article, I reported that a number of concerned citizens had visited the USDC for DC and submitted a citizen grand jury presentment to Chief Justice Royce Lamberth in hopes that he would issue a response to the paperwork. His order was made July 2, 2009 (h/t TheJAGHunter):
Quotes relevant to the citizen grand jury movement, going forward, include the following:
…And although presentments are constitutionally permitted, there is no authority under the Rules of Criminal Procedure or in the statutes of the United States for this Court to accept one. …
Furthermore, grand juries are convened by the court for the district in which they sit. … Grand jurors are also to be selected at random from a fair cross section of the district in which they are convened. … The individuals who have made this presentment were not convened by this Court to sit as a grand jury nor have they been selected at random from a fair cross section of this district. Any self-styled indictment or presentment issued by such a group has no force under the Constitution or laws of the United States. …
Further, though the papers presented to the Clerk of Court shall not be filed, they shall be assigned a miscellaneous number along with this Order for the court’s record.
My non-attorney opinion on this issue is that it was a positive learning experience, if for no other reason than to get a Court’s ruling on the matter. Obviously, while presentments are clearly constitutional, it is similarly true that an actual grand jury would have had to have been convened by a Court in a specific jurisdiction in order to be legally enforceable (most of us following this story knew that already).
However, there is nothing to stop concerned individuals from submitting paperwork far and wide to officials in all branches of government. At this stage and at the very least, the presentments are meant to raise awareness of the eligibility issue.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- Obama’s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
- Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
- What’s the Difference Between a Birth Certification Versus a Birth Certificate?
- Obama Citizenship Facts
- The State Department and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10, 2008)
- Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing
-Phil
Thanks for the praise Phil, but my glorious commentary has a minor flaw, being that the powers that be, the lawyers and prosecutor’s in their unlawful power grab have usurped the power of the grand jury, their independence, and the all mighty presentments we were blessed with in the constitution.Underhandedly writing some rules where presentments can only be heard if signed off on by the prosecutor in the case. And since its the government the prosecutor is representing, and it’s the government that would be on the receiving end of some of these uppity, know it all grand jurors presentments…its kind of the ole “fox guarding the hen house” situation.
How can those unconstitutional rules written to do away with presentments be changed? Since when can an amendment to the constitution be “ammended” defacto by a few
power hungry lawyers back in 1946 when they wrote the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure unknowingly(wink wink) leaving out presentments as a tool to be used by the grand jury? How would any presentments be heard today unless we hit the jackpot with both a prosecutor and judge that were sympathetic to jurors and originalists in there interpretation of the constitution? and getting both to be so inclined in the same case at the same time…seems pie in the sky to me… your thoughts?
Oh and one more little thing…
Since my thought is that these so called “rules” that basically removed independent thought, presentments, and a myriad of other powers from being used by grand jury’s today are unconstitutional,is there any bright young lawyer willing to take up this case and get these rules changed thereby restoring our 4th branch of government to the people once again?
Phil asked me:
Responding to the sentences in order: I’m getting at what I’ve consistently stated; correct; and correct. “Making fun of them” I did, but it was a method and not the true purpose.
I’ve made no secret of my M.O, and I thought I was clear that I don’t expect to convince you.
Fair enough. My reasons: Foremost, I believe my comments to be true, and though you note “the kinds of comments [I've] been making lately”, my recent comments are consistent, in both content and tone, with those I’ve been making all along.
Why am I “so adamant”? Again, I already explained that. Barack Obama is entitled, under the U.S. Constitution, to due process of law, and though I long ago acknowledged that these make-believe grand juries enjoy First-Amendment protection, they are not grand juries convened in accordance with due process. I am adamant that the rules for Ronald Wilson Reagan are the rules for Barack Hussein Obama; it’s due process; it’s in the Constitution.
As for why I spend so much time on what I call nonsense, I explained that too, but I admit it’s still a bit of a mystery. As I said, it’s a hobby. If your point is that I don’t choose to spend my time in the most productive ways, well, you got me.
Well, the first sentence there is understated and second is wrong. We saw the particular ruling, and it contained clues that your side did not seem to take. Did you hear the American Grand Jury’s following show on Blog Talk Radio show?
I’ve always intended my comments to be rational. If I’m hence forth to be censored out here, that’s your right. Phil, I have lauded you for allowing dissenting comments, and for nothing else. I have made no secret of what I think of your cause.
In particular here, from the start these so-called “grand juries” struck we obots as silly. They seem to be real citizens’ groups with petitions, but they pretend to be grand juries with legal indictments. Playing make-believe is how get taken more seriously?
Have you considered the implications of accepting their premises, let alone their conclusions? If you can use such a mechanism, so can your opponents. Every major public figure would be perpetually indicted many times over.
There is an update on it on the 7-12-09 The Chalice Show. http://www.patriotsheartnetwork.com/
Apparently I need to define the word, “seriously.” In other words, you think the issue is serious enough that you must not only spend time on my blog reading about it, but you go even further by taking the time to post a comment on it, thereby giving the issue some sort of personal legitimacy as far as usage of your time is concerned.
Yes, you do take it seriously.
What’s that word you use to describe when someone tells you what you know (or think or feel)?
Oh, yes: psychobabble.
brygenon,
So what are you getting at? I’ve seen a number of comments by you and others trying to rhetorically stymie the citizen grand jury process by presenting it as something not worth pursuing, but then turning around and enjoying people pursuing it for the sake of making fun of them.
What gives? What’s your modus operandi in all of this? I think you already know that nobody’s going to back down from doing these things.
I’ll tell you what. If you can give me some reasonable response as to why you’re so adamant about the kinds of comments you’ve been making lately (especially since, if these things are all imaginary, it really shouldn’t be worth your time and energy to bother with them), then I’ll think twice before deleting any further comments coming from you and others who are doing nothing but repeating essentially the same verbiage over and over again.
A presentment was given to a Judge, and he made a ruling upon it. What could be gleaned was gleaned from it. Unless you have something rational to add to it, I’d stop before trodding down this path much further.
-Phil
Phil says:
Now you’re talking about an imaginary grand jury.
Good old First Amendment. We had explained that too.
Phil says:
Oh look: here are organizers calling for participants, and stating rules which include enforcement powers: http://www.riseupforamerica.com/peoplepower.html
And Phil, you reported the enforcement claims:
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=5118
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=5229
earl,
Good point and I stand corrected. The overall point remains the same: the presentments are constitutional, and can coceivebly be ultimately empaneled under the correct set of circumstances.
-Phil
Phil says:
July 11, 2009 at 10:47 am
“If the Judge were to have, essentially, “overseen” the process (by virtue of having been in the process of empanelling the jury), we would be having an entirely different discussion.”
Judges don’t empanel, oversee or have anything to do with the grand jury process. They don’t accept indictments or decide what cases to prosecute. The process is controlled by prosecutors and US Attorneys. It’s an executive branch function, not judicial branch.
Bob,
Assuming that you’re correct that somehow someone thinks that citizen grand juries outside the auspices of the Judiciary have any sort of enforcement power, I think it would be great to see the issue go to SCOTUS. I’d be the first one to freely admit that there would be zero chance of a writ being granted.
Apparently I need to define the word, “seriously.” In other words, you think the issue is serious enough that you must not only spend time on my blog reading about it, but you go even further by taking the time to post a comment on it, thereby giving the issue some sort of personal legitimacy as far as usage of your time is concerned.
Yes, you do take it seriously.
-Phil
brygenon,
Technically, that’s not entirely correct. If the Judge were to have, essentially, “overseen” the process (by virtue of having been in the process of empanelling the jury), we would be having an entirely different discussion.
Remember: the presentment, per se, is entirely constitutional.
-Phil
July 10, 2009 at 8:27 pm
“But one small fact has been overlooked in the exchange on this thread.
THE JUDGE DID ACCEPT THE PRESENTMENT, ”
One small fact, no, the judge did not accept the presentment.
What part of this didn’t you understand? “there is no authority under the Rules of Criminal Procedure or in the statutes of the United States for this court to accept one.” Or this: “Leave to file this presentment is hereby denied.” Or this: “the papers presented to the Clerk of Court shall not be filed”. He made it very clear the Court had not accepted anything.
If you read the decisions he cited in his ruling you would know that he also said that judges don’t accept grand jury presentments or decide what cases to prosecute. Separation of powers gives that discretion completely to prosecutors and US Attorneys.
McGrew has made much commentary about common law/citizen grand juries, he is not an organizer of them (as far as I know)
McGrew’s guests on his podcast were Bob Campbell (of the American Grand Jury), Sam Sewell (The Steady Drip), Carl Swensson (of the Georgia common law grand jury) (Swensson is here as well). Swensson, for example, in no uncertain terms, said that a common law grand jury has the ability to subpoena documents, and if its subpoena is ignored, it may file a case with SCOTUS.
In fact, as Rev. Sewell has recently said on my site, he never expected them to [have such enforcement power].
The podcast, as well as prior posting and subsequent commentary, suggest otherwise.
don’t take this stuff so seriously
Never had; never will.
C.N. Natus wrote:
The court denied leave to file, so there’s nothing to contest. There were no motions from the opposition; it failed unopposed.
We told you they weren’t really grand juries.
Did you read the order? It’s status is “miscellaneous”.
earl,
Good. Then you won’t risk getting your commentary deleted.
-Phil
qwertyman,
Even moderators of bodaciously kewl web sites are imperfect from time to time.
-Phil
Whilte there remain a hand fulll of Obots to contest the gran juries, there are hundreds of patriots participating in them.
But one small fact has been overlooked in the exchange on this thread.
THE JUDGE DID ACCEPT THE PRESENTMENT, though not as a presentment.
But he did accept it.
My question to patriots who are laywers, is:
Under what criteria or category did the judge do this, or could he have done this? Do this mean that the presentment enters in the legal record of the court? What status does it have?
And if you are an Obot, please have the gentility to avoid responding to my question…thank you…
Phil says:
July 10, 2009 at 3:44 pm
“flame bait”, “getting people’s ire up”
Not at all. Merely informing people who may not know where terms like “organic constitution” and “laws of men” come from.
Phil,
I’m disappointed. Argument via ridicule? Surely you must know that is a classic logical fallacy. You’re usually better than that.
For those of you curious about what the Judge gas slam-dunked here, all the different “American Grand Jury” presentments (if you can call them that) are identical, further proving that the “presentments” themselves are bogus boilerplate, rubber stamped by prejudiced members who end up having no genuine say in what will result. Here is just one example. All of them are identical except for the dates and the members.
[Re-posting in the comment section from AmericanGrandJury.org on my site is not necessary. Anyone can freely go to the site to find out further information if they so choose. Let's move on, please.]
earl,
I see that you’re trying to get folks’ ire up via especially the following:
When any of these allegations can actually be proven, then you might have a case. However, someone speaking on behalf of the citizen grand jury movement who chooses to quote from an earlier posting on another web site about the potential for enforcement if done within the confines of the law does not necessitate law-breaking, which, I think is what you’re getting at.
Either way, this has now been my second explanation to you of what’s up. If you wish to continue citing such quotes for the sake of flame bait, I’ll deal with your commentary appropriately.
-Phil
“Christian Patriots employ elaborate and convoluted conspiracy theories and pseudo-Constitutional arguments to justify confrontations with law enforcement, public servants and civil rights advocates. Based on racist notions about citizenship Patriot activists file “sovereignty” or “state” citizenship documents declaring themselves immune from federal authority; they create “warehouse” or “alternative” banking institutions to launder money; they form common law courts and citizen grand juries to assert legal authority; and armed militias to enforce their bogus decrees. ”
http://albionmonitor.com/freemen/gunsgavels.html
“At the front end, it’s picking up lots and lots of people by hitting on issues that have wide appeal, like gun control and environmental restrictions, which enrage many people here out West. – ( The eligibility of the President? ) – Then you go a little bit further into the funnel, and it’s about ideology, about the oppressiveness of the federal government. Then, further in, you get into the belief systems. The conspiracy. The Illuminatti. The Freemasons. Then, it’s about the anti-Semitic conspiracy. Finally, at the narrow end of the funnel, you’ve drawn in the hard core, where you get someone like Tim McVeigh popping out…. [T]he bigger the front end of the funnel is, the bigger the number that get to the core.”
http://albionmonitor.com/freemen/ci-view.html
earl,
I have neither confirmed nor denied any such allegation.
-Phil
Phil says:
July 10, 2009 at 12:56 pm
But you don’t disagree with what direction “Organic Constitution” and “Christian Patriotism” point. I’m just giving my prediction of where Swennson’s heading. Let’s watch and see if his buds follow suit.
Bob,
(Apparently, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia became a “birther” before his time, eh?)
Seriously, though, welcome back to posting a comment on my site, Bob. I actually missed wading through your commentary on my site.
And as far as enforcement is concerned, while it is true that Mr. McGrew has made much commentary about common law/citizen grand juries, he is not an organizer of them (as far as I know), and simply because Rev. Sewell (who actually speaks on behalf of the citizen grand jury movement) chooses to post such links to audio (I think it was) on his site doesn’t mean that Rev. Sewell says that a citizen grand jury does, in fact, have such enforcement power. In fact, as Rev. Sewell has recently said on my site, he never expected them to.
Again, welcome back to my site. Just remember — don’t take this stuff so seriously. After all, according to most in the opposition, this is all fantasy that has been decided back in 2008.
-Phil
earl,
I think it’s time for you to back off the threatening-to-go-over-the-top hyperbole and take a few minutes to think about what you want to post before making your next comment. Having an opinion is one thing, but to draw a leading conclusion to the point of making completely unsubstantiated sweeping generalizations will cause similar commentary to be pruned from my site.
In other words, proceed forward civilly, or I’ll delete the commentary.
I think we’ve confronted the “let’s stay civil” issue before.
-Phil
I won’t expect you to understand that nobody who has been heading up these private groupings ever claimed that they were enforceable by law.
Posted by Aristotle the Hun on The Steady Drip: How to enforce a people’s Grand Jury.
So Swennson is talking about the “organic Constitution”. Now who hadn’t guessed where Swennson’s thinking really lay, but this confirms it. His new call to the “organic” Constitution is a racism dog whistle.
Organic Constitution = No change to the Constitution after the Bill of Rights is legal or recognized.
Organic Constitution = code speak = “Christian Patriotism” = good old Southern revivalistic racism.
Organic Constitution = The 13th and 14th amendment are illegal. Slavery was never legally abolished and the “sovereign citizens”, white, male, landholders are the only true citizens who can make laws and hold elected office. The “other” citizens, under the 14th amendment are subservient to the sovereign citizens and have fewer rights.
“The upshot of the myth of the divinely inspired organic Constitution is that Christian Patriot sovereigns can do whatever they want if they convince other sovereigns that such an action is “constitutional.” According to the Christian Patriots, no other laws apply but the ones that they recognize. ”
http://albionmonitor.com/freemen/ci-roots.html
And you still insist that it’s not about race for many birthers? It’s apparent where Swensson is headed. Will Sewell and Campbell follow? If so, I would submit that anyone who continues to be involved with the grand jury movement is a racist.
Sue you are confused.
The Judge is speaking about US Federal Law as codified, the Grand Jury folks are talking about the Constitution and common law. The judge is not going to go out on the limb to take a presentment which is not according to the Federal Rules and Proceedures. He has to, thereofre, deny that it has equivalent status. His opinion that it is in toto unconstitutional is just that, an opinion, as only SCOTUS can interpret the Constitution.
qwertyman,
Opinions are like butt holes — everyone has one.
-Phil
Black Lion,
Since you weren’t around my blog when I originally began covering citizen (at the time, called “national” or “common law”) grand juries, I won’t expect you to understand that nobody who has been heading up these private groupings ever claimed that they were enforceable by law.
-Phil
Phil,
“nobody who is organizing these grand juries has ever claimed that they have any kind of enforcement power”
It is my opinion, based upon reading the AGJ/CGJ blogs, that these individuals do appear to think/believe these “presentments” have some force of law. Based upon comments on these blogs, it also appears that the AGJ/CGJ is planning on “filing a motion to reconsider” before Judge Lamberth. I’m sure some of the attorney’s on this website could comment on the legal aspects of this?
It has amazed me to watch how these individuals and lawyers who claim to uphold the Constitution and Rule of Law, continually do just the opposite because it fits their agendas. It has also amazed me how many people claim to be “constitutional lawyers” and “constitutional experts” these days.:)
It will also be interesting to see if you publish their next attempt on your blog which will speak volumes in my opinion.
Here is a good article you might want to read regarding this issue.
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/grand-jury-presentments-and-the-governments-right-to-ignore-them/
Grand Jury Presentments and the Government’s right to ignore them
Donofrio’s first published article regarding grand juries is the inspiration for these AGJ/CGJ as published on their websites/blogs; however, as published here, Donofrio “condemned” these AGJ/CGJ and these individuals (in the comments section), turned on Donofrio.
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=5243
Leo Donofrio “Condemns” GA Common Law Grand Jury
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Phil,
Evidence to back my claim? How about the fact that on the site that’s organizing these things, they were setting up flyers claiming how they’re going to indict Obama on July 4, before it happened, suggesting that anybody who was going to be there already knew how they were going to decide this.
Their tarring of Shepard Smith, a Fox News reporter who disagrees with the birther movement. Do you think that anybody who disagrees with the birther movement would look at that on the front page, and then agree to spend their time with a group of these people to consider evidence against Obama? Certainly not.
Their front page also has a story demanding Obama’s resignation.
Again, this is a site explicitly for people who believe that Obama is ineligible for the presidency (which makes up a tiny fraction of the general public), wants people to volunteer for these so-called grand juries and brags about what they are going to do before they do it. Grand juries are supposed to be solemn bodies, not groups of like-minded people who have prejudged the matter.
Again, there is no chance that any of these so-called grand juries represents a true cross-section of any community.
Phil says:
Wherever they got it, the organizers of the pretend grand jury claimed it:
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=5118
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=5229
Refuted by your own articles. Ouch!
Phil,
“nobody who is organizing these grand juries has ever claimed that they have any kind of enforcement power”
Based upon visiting their blogs and websites, it sure appears to me they thought they did.
Phil,
“nobody who is organizing these grand juries has ever claimed that they have any kind of enforcement power”
Hmmm, guess you must not have seen these.
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/05/enforcing-grand-jury-indictments.html
http://americangrandjury.org/the-grand-jury-the-fourth-branch-of-the-government
http://americangrandjury.org/category/agj-spokesperson
http://americangrandjury.org/category/constitution
http://www.riseupforamerica.com/
Based upon their own websites/blogs, it sure appears to me that they thought they did.
The most important statement made in the court’s ruling was the following….
“Furthermore, grand juries are convened by the court for the district in which they sit. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(a)(1). Grand jurors are also to be selected at random from a fair cross section of the district in which they are convened. 18 USC § 1861. The individuals who have made this presentment were not convened by this Court to sit as a grand jury nor have they been selected at random from a fair cross section of this district. Any self-styled indictment or presentment issued by such a group has no force under the Constitution or laws of the United States.”
“As such, leave to file this presentment is hereby DENIED. Further, though the papers presented to the Clerk of Court shall not be filed, they shall be assigned a miscellaneous number along with this order for the Court’s record.”
You notice where it says “Any self-styled indictment or presentment issued by such a group has no force under the Constitution or laws of the United States.” So no matter how many Citizen Grand Juries, Super Grand Juries, or Fantasy Grand Juries and no matter how many “presentments” they issue, it is not close to being legal or enforceable. I know you will say that it is good for them to get this issue out there, and I would agree. I love seeing these “hanging juries” being created and their “presentments” being issued. It is pure comedy. More hilarous is that they actually think that some DA or prosecutor will act on them or enpanel their own grand jury. I guess it is a nice distraction for these individuals. It allows people to get together and espouse their hatred in a forum so that we can all identify these people.
brygenon,
You do know where that quote comes from, right? Allow me to cite it:
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/grandjuryrules.htm
It appears that you are now 0 for 2. I will restate the premise of the argument once more, allowing you a third time to attempt to defeat it:
“nobody who is organizing these grand juries has ever claimed that they have any kind of enforcement power”
-Phil
qwertyman,
You made the claim, so I would suggest that you present the evidence to back up your claim. I am not obligated to prove your claim; I would not expect you to source a claim of mine if I were to make one.
-Phil
Aristotle the Hun,
Mr. Alinksy also dedicated his book to the ultimate rebel, Lucifer; this explains much.
However, Lucifer has one big, huge problem that will ultimately be rectified when the time-space continuum comes to its end — God is in control and is infinitely beyond anything that the fallen one could ever be (kind of makes me wonder why in the world Lucifer ever thought he could be better? Anyway, I digress…).
One of the biggest antidotes to the “ridicule” option is to “turn the other cheek,” as the Bible puts it. While those in the opposition will even ridicule that tactic on the side of truth, turning the other cheek is not synonymous with taking no action. Rather, it is synonymous with the image of a palm tree versus an oak tree.
In a debate, when the other party has clearly lost the rational part thereof (and, by definition, Rule 5 admits to being irrational), the other party — if they are not after the truth — will react with much castigation, ad hominem attacks, and so on. If you are an oak tree, while you do have a very deep root system, you’re much more likely to crack under the pressure, as an oak tree does not yield much at all to the winds. Rather, be a palm tree. They are reasonably rooted into the ground, and every time a hurricane of a reaction comes along, then bend all the way to the ground if they have to, wait for the storm to pass, and pop back up.
Being meek is mutually exclusive from being a door mat.
-Phil
Phil says:
Obviously the exact quote is:
“The grand jury may distrain and oppress the government in every way in their power, namely, by taking the homes, lands, possessions, and any way else they can until amends shall have been made according to the sole judgment of the grand jury.”
So you must be expecting me to quote just that bit, and be ready with some response — I even had that light (and true) note about learning the word “distrain”. How are you going to argue that “nobody who is organizing these grand juries has ever claimed that they have any kind of enforcement power”, when they specifically included those enforcement powers in their rules?
Taking homes, lands, possessions? Obviously that’s nuts, but they did say it, and Phil, you put it right here on your blog.
Oh, Brygenon, never one to distain using misinformation and lies,
What documentation can you cite and link for us that shows that the name “grand jury” can only be applied in circumstances wherein the Federal Rules and Proceedures, or State Rules are followed?
Also, are you saying that there is no common law basis for grand juries?
Or are you just dictating to us what we ought to think.
The minor chatter against Phil on this matter, only weakens your own reputation, as a man or woman of honor does not enage in petty squabbling.
It is obvious for anyone with a noodle, that a group of citizens meeting to cull evidence without any legal guidance, and a group of citizens, even volunteers, with legal guidance and following established rules, to do the same, will put together a much better document than the former. Nor is it evident at all to reasonable men, that such a latter group is somehow morally suspect.
As for the Obots here, which of you condemn the Grand Jury which met in Philadelphia to condemn George Bush and Cheny for war crimes?
Seeing that you all have never shown 1 once of integrity to distance your argumentation from your political affiliation, it will surprise me if any of you do, but for the record, sound off..
Phil,
Any response to my point that there is almost certainly a 0% chance that these so-called grand juries represent a cross-section of any community?
brygenon
Your comments reek of ridicule. “As explained long ago, it’s not the getting together. It’s the make-believe that they’re a grand jury that sends us into fits (of laughter).”
Ridicule is one of the lower forms of logical fallacy and would disqualify you for a grade school debate team.
Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.
Description of Appeal to Ridicule.
The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an ” argument.” This line of ” reasoning” has the following form:
1. X, which is some form of ridicule, is presented (typically directed at the claim).
2. Therefore claim C is false.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: “1+1=2! That’s the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!”
Examples of Appeal to Ridicule
1. “Sure my worthy opponent claims that we should lower tuition, but that is just laughable.”
2. “Support the ERA? Sure, when the women start paying for the drinks! Hah! Hah!”
3. “Those wacky conservatives! They think a strong military is the key to peace! There’s a tin foil hat idea. LOL”
4. The ubiquitous LOL is one of the most common forms fo this low level debate tactic.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Click the link below for the punch line:
http://images7.cafepress.com/product/278928847v114_350×350_Front.jpg
See Saul Alinsky rule below…
RULE 5: Ridicule is mans most potent weapon. There is no defense. Its irrational. Its infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
(Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear. I can remember when liberals were nice people who were just wrong about most things. Now they are wrong and nasty.)
The “progressive movement” has shown itself to be a cesspool of intolerant bullies. The trademark personal insult, name calling, ridicule, and ad hominem attacks characterize the debate style of Obama’s people That tactic has worked quite well on the ignorant and those who value feeling more than reason. Uninformed voted Obama –
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2008/12/uninformed-voted-obama-informed-voted.html
This is not new, transformational politics. This is the rise of a New American Fascism.
You might consult an article on this blog entitled. Spot false arguments and make strong ones.
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2008/11/spot-false-arguments-and-make-strong.html
brygenon,
Do share an exact quote that contradicts what I’ve bracketed as context for your counter-claim. I’ve reviewed both links and have found exactly the opposite — my continued commentary that enforcement specifically cannot originate from a citizen’s grand jury.
On the contrary, you seem to continue to make my point.
-Phil
Phil wrote:
As explained long ago, it’s not the getting together. It’s the make-believe that they’re a grand jury that sends us into fits (of laughter).
They can present their opinions as a petition, which it is, from a citizens group, which they are, or as a pretend indictment from a make-believe grand jury. Why choose the latter over the former? I asked that some time ago; never got a straight answer.
Phil, you featured articles that refute you on that:
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=5118
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=5229
Why not? I had a good laugh and learned the word “distrain”.
Phil says:
July 8, 2009 at 9:08 pm
earl,
I don’t see where we disagree on this matter. I’m simply astounded that you seemed to indicate, at the first, that what the Judge said wasn’t what the Judge said.
You aren’t saying the judge said ‘fix some things and I’ll accept your presentment’? Good. That’s not what the judge said.
(Directed to all readers)
Apparently the concept of common, everyday citizens getting together in private groupings is causing all kinds of folks all kinds of fits.
As has been repeated on my site and others over and over again, nobody who is organizing these grand juries has ever claimed that they have any kind of enforcement power, nor have they claimed that it would be a smooth and unencumbered process of getting the authorities to take the presentments and put them on the record to further investigate the matter.
For being ridiculed as never working, something must be; folks are even claiming that my site is full of errors and based on all sorts of rumors and innuendo.
Yet, the opposition returns with yet more commentary about how bogus this site is.
-Phil
Vincet Omnia Veritas,
While creative, that must be the mother of all circular logic
-Phil