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?

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.

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.

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’ve made no secret of my M.O, and I thought I was clear that I don’t expect to convince you.

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.

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.

A presentment was given to a Judge, and he made a ruling upon it. What could be gleaned was gleaned from it.

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?

Unless you have something rational to add to it, I’d stop before trodding down this path much further.

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.

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.

Remember: the presentment, per se, is entirely constitutional.

Good old First Amendment. We had explained that too.

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

brygenon [wrote],

We told you they weren’t really grand juries.

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.

Now you’re talking about an imaginary grand jury.

Remember: the presentment, per se, is entirely constitutional.

Good old First Amendment. We had explained that too.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

don’t take this stuff so seriously

Never had; never will.

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

We told you they weren’t really grand juries.

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

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’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.

Whilte there remain a hand fulll of Obots to contest the gran juries, there are hundreds of patriots participating in them.

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.

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?

Did you read the order? It’s status is “miscellaneous”.

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.

Good. Then you won’t risk getting your commentary deleted.

-Phil