Fitzgerald investigation details.

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Fitzgerald investigation details.

Postby dugoboy » Mon May 22, 2006 11:45 am

i thought i'd start up a topic in relation to jeff's new post. what i have here is some information i was told back in september 2005, <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>about 8 months ago</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->. i mentioned part of this in the comments section but i will just put it out here for discussion. i'm not some troll trying to make you guys idly peddle in a hamster wheel on this but i figure i might as well tell you this now. this needs fact checking.<br><br>i was told bush, cheney, rove are all indicted. and that its hidden. they said there was something about tony blair being supeonaed by fitzgerald 2 months earlier and you can get the court records directly from the Circuit court of Cook county in chicago to prove this. i havn't tried. if your ready to drop into a rabbit hole..click here: <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3388" target="top"><!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START--><span style="text-decoration:underline">Tony Blair's MI-6 Agents Caught Trying To Blow Up Chicago Subway</span><!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END--></a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->. <br><br>this link is what they gave me. ok what this link is about is how they tried to off fitzgerald in a supposed false flag operation by blowing up the circuit court in chicago in the subway system in july. it also has some strange revelations that 'Valerie Plame's CIA Network was further investigating Bush & Cheney's orchestrated attack on America on 9-11-2001.'<br><br>i don't know if this is what jeff was talking about when he was talking about tomflocco.com or not, but what do you guys think? <p>___________________________________________<br>"BUSHCO aren't incompetent...they are COMPLICIT."</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dugoboy@rigorousintuition>dugoboy</A> at: 5/22/06 10:11 am<br></i>
dugoboy
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fitzgerald investigation details.

Postby sunny » Mon May 22, 2006 11:56 am

Here is what I posted at the blog:<br><br>I frequent FDL for the latest Plame news and analysis, which is pretty good for a site wholly uninterested in parapolitics; and a caution has been put forth by some commenters, though not prominently, that those insisting on hero-worshipping Fitz not lay down and wait for Fitzmas, but do something. This seems wise, considering it has lately dawned on me that perhaps Fitz is not interested in the underlying crime-I was denounced as a "concern troll" when I worried that he would, maybe for years on end, continue prosecuting the cover-up and not the crime, and questioning the point.<br><br>It seems to me that the need for satisfaction in this case would be ill-served by such a course of action. So much emotion has been invested in Fitz there and in other places, whatever he does will be justified to the nth degree and denial will prevail.<br><br>That said, I am still patiently awaiting Fitzmas. Hope springs eternal.<br><br>After all, justice, even in small doses, has it's rewards.<br><br><br><br><br>That said, I do not believe for one moment Cheney has been indicted. As for Rove, I don't know. But here is my take on Leopold:<br>I am now obligated to root for him out of my contrary need to root for the underdog. He has been so maligned (see Howie Kurtz and Byron York today) that I can't help but wish that Rove is indicted <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>today</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, or very soon, just so those two corporate lackeys get their faces rubbed in their own fecal matter. <p></p><i></i>
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Fitzgerald investigation details.

Postby sunny » Mon May 22, 2006 12:04 pm

Further, as to any reports coming from Flocco, or for that matter the dearly departed Skolnick, should be discounted because they are never sourced and they <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>never</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> pan out. <p></p><i></i>
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Fitzgerald investigation details.

Postby winsomecowboy » Mon May 22, 2006 2:24 pm

I would like to add this, from the,'should be discounted because they are never sourced and they never pan out.' section.<br>It has the breathless tone of a potbelly thriller.<br>Via daily Kos, <br><br> Last Friday, Judge Reggie Walton, the presiding judge in the Libby trial, deliberated over a case titled "SEALED v. SEALED." There is growing speculation that sealed v. sealed is Fitzgerald v. Gonzales' Deputy, Paul McNulty (Fitzgerald's direct superior).<br><br><br>The Wayne Madsen Report and the Chris Matthews Show have both floated the theory that Fitzgerald had secured indictments against Rove, but Gonzales --via McNulty-- came in at the last second and used his power as Fitzgerald's superior to kill the indictments.<br><br>IF, this theory is true, Fitzgerald would have likely challenged McNulty's decision in court, pointing to an earlier administrative directive from then acting Attorney General James Comey that gave Fitzerald the "authority of the Attorney General." Comey is long gone, however, and was replaced by McNulty. The question then becomes what, if any, value does Comey's administrative directive have today.<br><br>One unfortunate realty of this scenario is that if the judge sides with McNulty, we will never know what really happened, because it will remained sealed. Which, is one explanation about why Rove is acting so smug these days and why the White House has not pulled back his public schedule. <p></p><i></i>
winsomecowboy
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 11:10 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fitzgerald investigation details.

Postby chiggerbit » Mon May 22, 2006 2:49 pm

Can't the Grand Jury act independently of Fitz and the government? <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fitzgerald investigation details.

Postby sunny » Mon May 22, 2006 3:03 pm

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>In some rare instances, the grand jury does break with the prosecutor. It can even exclude the prosecutor from its meetings and subpoena witnesses and issue indictments on its own. This is called a "runaway grand jury." Runaway grand juries sometimes happen in government corruption or organized crime cases, if the grand jury comes to believe that the prosecutor himself has been improperly influenced. They were common in the 19th century but have become rare since the 1930s. [1]<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>**********************************************<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.udayton.edu/~grandjur/faq/faq8.htm">www.udayton.edu/~grandjur/faq/faq8.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>What is a "runaway" grand jury?<br> <br> A runaway grand jury is an exception to this rule--the grand jurors ignore the prosecutor(s) and start making their own decisions. Runaway grand juries were not uncommon in the early twentieth century. The best known of these runaway grand juries is probably the New York grand jury in the 1930's that barred prosecutors from coming into the grand jury room and took off on its own investigation of corruption in New York city government. This grand jury eventually cooperated with Thomas E. Dewey, whom the jurors apparently decided they could trust, and returned many indictments against a variety of defendants, including some well known members of the New York Mafia. Since modern grand jurors tend to be ignorant of their ability to act independently of a prosecutor's wishes, runaway grand juries have pretty much become a thing of the past. There have, however, been a few exceptions: Recently, for example, a California state grand jury indicted all the top county officials, and nearly closed down county government. And a Texas state grand jury began investigating a mayoral candidate and seems to have ruined his reputation sufficiently to cause him to lose the election, even though he was never charged with any crimes.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->**********************************************<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.udayton.edu/~grandjur/faq/faq8.htm">www.udayton.edu/~grandjur/faq/faq8.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>**********************************************<br><br>I try every chance I get to inform people of their right, if they should ever find themselves on a gj, to "runaway" from under the strictures of the prosecutor.<br> <br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sunny@rigorousintuition>sunny</A> at: 5/22/06 1:05 pm<br></i>
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Fitzgerald investigation details.

Postby chiggerbit » Mon May 22, 2006 3:36 pm

Yes, yes YES!!! If the speculation about Abu Gonzales is true, he may have only locked the barn door after the horse was stolen. That first grand jury was pretty independent. I wonder what this one is like. But, who would be responsible for prosecuting? The Justice Department's choice? Ack, I hope not.<br><br>Hey, sunny, what are the chances that Fitz would NOT inform the jury members of their rights, if by chance he is getting the rug pulled out from under him? <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fitzgerald investigation details.

Postby sunny » Mon May 22, 2006 3:57 pm

chigger, as much as I admire Fitz, I don't think he would inform the jurors of these rights. Why? Because he's a prosecutor and would not like to lose control of the process. If someone were trying to pull the rug out from under him, he would simply go about trying to rectify the situation through conventional channels.<br><br>Even if there were a runaway gj, remember the gj in the JonBenet Ramsey case? We never did get an answer as to whether they actually <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>did</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> indict one of the Ramseys. They may have and the prosecutor chose to ignore it. What if the Fitz gj returned an indictment he, or Abu Gonzales, didn't like?<br>**********************************************<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.larryflynt.com/notebook.php?id=91">www.larryflynt.com/notebook.php?id=91</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>The prosecution saw it differently? <br><br>McKINLEY: They sure did. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>They sealed our indictment</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> and said, "We're not going to do that." That scene is described in the book, which is where we got the title The Ambushed Grand Jury. The instructions state that in open court, after deliberations, the grand jury will hand its indictment to the prosecutor, and he shall sign it. Well, we handed it to him, and he refused to sign our indictment.<br><br>Is there some legal loophole that allows a prosecutor to ignore a grand jury's indictment?<br><br>McKINLEY: We're not sure. <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>There are some legal issues in play here that really haven't been tested yet.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> <br>(emphasis mine)<br><br>**********************************************<br><br>I cannot as of yet find legal citations on prosecutors being able to ignore indictments, but I'm working on it. Not saying this is what happened, but obviously there is precedent, regardless of whether it's legal.<br> <p></p><i></i>
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Runaway Grand Jury

Postby antiaristo » Mon May 22, 2006 4:52 pm

Good ol' Citizen Spook made a post about this very subject<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/2005/08/treasongate-federal-grand-jury-fourth.html">citizenspook.blogspot.com...ourth.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br>As an aside, this caught my eye<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>They were common in the 19th century but have become rare since the <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>1930s</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Do you know from where you got your grand jury system?<br>You got them from England.<br>They were a traditional part of the English legal system.<br><br>Until the <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>1930s</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->.<br><br>The CROWN supplanted the grand jury.<br>It was replaced by the CROWN Prosecution Service.<br><br>Decisions that until the 1930's were made by representatives of the commom people, are now made by appointees of the Crown.<br><br>Just one more example of how the Treason Felony Act has been used to progressively stifle democracy in England.<br><br>The Crown Prosecution Service SUCKS. <p></p><i></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Runaway Grand Jury

Postby chiggerbit » Mon May 22, 2006 9:11 pm

So, sunny, what could a grand jury do if it signs a presentment and it is ignored? Can the grand jury bring some action, maybe a suit to force action? Could a grand juror who has been dismissed because he/she is promoting a presentment, bring suit for a violation of the Fifth Amendment? What are the options? <br><br>And thanks anti--excellent reminder. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 5/22/06 7:13 pm<br></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Validity of Presentment, Runaway Grand Jury is TOTAL

Postby StarmanSkye » Mon May 22, 2006 10:54 pm

Winsome, Chigger, Sunny --<br><br>I believe Madsen and Mathews are RIGHT the Hell ON here -- this explains Rove and the WH's high-handed smugness, denying everything despite independant, insider corroboration that the GJ returned a presentment -- If McNulty just didn't sign it, he and the court would likely expect that it would then just die. But as Citizen Spook points out (and which I'd read several months ago but forgot all about!), this is an absolutely WRONG assumption, based on a spurious interpretation circa the 1946 Federal Rules of Criminal Prosecution, which 4th rule was held to mean that the sole authority of the Grand Jury's Presentment independent of an Indictment was rendered 'obsolete'. As Citizen Spook shows us, 'obsolete' does NOT mean 'null-and-void' -- since that would constitute a law or ruling to reverse statute. Through official statute and Supreme Court official's own rulings, Citizen Spook shows us that the original and CONTINUING by-law intent of the Grand Jury was to be a duly-authorized and fully-empanneled 4th branch of Government that has sole discretionary authority -- it doesn't depend on the officers of Court to follow an investigation where it leads or to require a trial.<br><br>The issue here, now, indeed seems to boil down to this question -- whether the Federal Court under Bush's hand-picked toady Gonzalez will or does accept that a GJ Presentment has the full power of law to authorize a criminal trial as does a signed Indictment, and what will happen if Gonzalez holds that a Prosecuter MUST sign a Grand Jury Presentment for it to be valid -- and what happens if he doesn't? <br><br>The intent in the Bill of Rights, and as affirmed by Justices Powell (1973) and Scalia (1992) and others, is that EVERY Grand Jury is a runaway Grand Jury, and a Presentment is every bit equal to an Indictment. A Grand Jury has every authority to operate independent of a court's officers -- including the lead Prosecuter, who is the Attorney General. What this now seems to mean is that we are likely facing yet ANOTHER Constitutional Crisis by the cadre of illegitimate traitors and criminals organized around the Bush/Cheney Cabal, to cover their ass and usurp the proper oversight authority of We, The People to call the other three branches to account, independent of Government corruption and fraud. Thanks to Citizen Spook for his analysis and assembly of facts. While his original question was over how Fitgerald being removed from serving as Prosecuter would affect the Grand Jury investigating charges of Scooter Libby's lawbreaking, his analysis of the stand-alone authority of the Grand Jury and its Presentment is right-on track for the question here about what might have happened to Rove's indictment -- and why.<br>Starman<br>******<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/11546/index.php">colorado.indymedia.org/ne.../index.php</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>--quote--<br>"Justice Powell, in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974), <br>stated: <br><br>"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 <br>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 <br>prosecutions. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686_687 (1972)." <br><br>The Note 4 lie is smashed on the SCOTUS altar, "The grand jury's historic functions survive to this day." <br><br>*****<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/11546/index.php">colorado.indymedia.org/ne.../index.php</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>Sunday, August 14, 2005 <br>by Citizen Spook<br>(Disseminate Widely!!!!)<br><br>TREASONGATE: The Federal Grand Jury, FOURTH BRANCH of the US Government <br><br>If Patrick Fitzgerald is somehow illegally removed as Special Counsel in the Treasongate proceedings, the grand jury(s) he has impaneled will serve at the mercy of Fitzgerald's replacement, an individual who will have been brought in to shield the Bush administration from criminal prosecution for <br>its many treasons. If that grand jury is aware of their true Constitutional power, it's possible they might stand up, fight, and win a legal battle that is long overdue. <br><br>Furthermore, 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. <br><br>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. <br><br>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. <br><br>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 <br>reliance upon a US Attorney to concur in such criminal charges, has been usurped by an insidious play on words. <br><br>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: <br><br>UNITED STATES CITIZENS SITTING AS FEDERAL GRAND JURORS ARE THE FOURTH BRANCH OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. <br><br>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 <br>we'll see what went wrong and how to correct it. <br><br>HISTORY OF FEDERAL GRAND JURY POWER <br><br>I 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. <br><br>"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." <br><br>The 5th Amendment: <br><br>"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury." <br><br>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 : <br><br>"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: <br><br>'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.' " <br><br>Back to the Creighton Law Review: <br><br>"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." <br><br>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. <br>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 <br>will be swept away. And the reason for this can be found in a legislative lie of epic proportions. <br><br>Mr. Roots weighs in again: <br><br>"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]" <br><br>Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP): <br><br>"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..." <br><br>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: <br><br>"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." <br><br>The American Juror published the following commentary with regards to Note 4: <br><br>"[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]: <br><br>'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 <br>jury hearings, hence the use of presentments have been abandoned.' " <br><br>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 <br>intended by the founding fathers, in their incredible wisdom, to provide us with oversight over tyrannical government. <br><br>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". <br><br>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. <br><br>The American Juror publication included a very relevant commentary: <br><br>"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: <br><br>'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 <br>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] <br><br>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 editious <br>business unimpeded. <br><br>By the way, they made a rule to take care of runaways too, in 1946: Rule 6(g): <br><br>'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, <br>or even disimpanel a grand jury entirely, merely for exercising its discretion." <br><br>Now let me add my two cents to this argument: <br><br>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 resentments "illegal", <br>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: <br><br>"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." <br><br>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 <br>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 <br>to be legally viable. <br><br>Let's look at some authoritative legal resources which discuss Note 4: <br><br>Susan Brenner, THE VOICE OF THE COMMUNITY: A CASE FOR GRAND JURY INDEPENDENCE: <br><br>"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." <br><br>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 <br>procedure can not overrule the Constitution. <br><br>Regardless, it's irrelevant, since the FRCP does not mention "presentments". Note 4 simply states that "presentments" allowed for in the 5th Amendment of <br>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. <br><br>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 <br>this power disappear by waving its magic wand over the Constitution. <br><br>Mr. Root got it wrong in the Creighton Law Review as well: <br>"Before the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure - which made <br>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..." <br><br>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. <br><br>But if enough people repeat the lie, the lie appears to be the truth. <br><br>But we have it on good authority, the Supreme Court, that the lie has no legal effect. <br><br>Justice Powell, in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974), stated: <br><br>"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)." <br><br>The Note 4 lie is smashed on the SCOTUS altar, "The grand jury's historic functions survive to this day." Take that Note 4! <br><br>The wonderful irony of the situation concerns the ultimate neocon Justice, one known as Antonin Scalia, who 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 <br>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: <br><br>"'[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). ' " <br><br>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, <br>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 <br>was always intended to be. <br><br>Scalia also stated, that "the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside..." Id. <br><br>And finally, to seal the deal, Scalia hammered the point home: <br><br>"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] " <br><br>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. <br><br>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. <br><br>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." <br><br>Take the reins America. Pass it on. The Fourth Branch is alive and kickin'. <br>by Citizen Spook <br>PLEASE REPOST and LINK <br> <p></p><i></i>
StarmanSkye
 
Posts: 2670
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:32 pm
Location: State of Jefferson
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Validity of Presentment, Runaway Grand Jury is TOTAL

Postby chiggerbit » Mon May 22, 2006 11:50 pm

Don't you just love the ring to that description? <!--EZCODE FONT START--><span style="font-size:x-large;">Federal Grand Jury, FOURTH BRANCH of the US Government</span><!--EZCODE FONT END--> That's what this administrations seems to have forgotten. Government isn't THEIRS, it is OURS. It is for us and by us. WE are THEIR employers. <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Validity of Presentment, Runaway Grand Jury is TOTAL

Postby HMKGrey » Tue May 23, 2006 3:29 am

For some reason, every few weeks, a lot of us slip in to thinking that once caught 'red handed' Bush and Co. will simply hold up their hands and be marched off to prison for their crimes against this country and humanity. <br><br>We have got to absolutely and completely internalize the idea that this is never going to happen. No way. These bastards are playing for keeps, always have been, always will be and they will do anything, <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>anything</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> to protect their own asses. They crossed a rubicon on 9/11 and they know there is no going back from it. <br><br>Of course they will squash Fitzgerald. <br><br>Of course they will twist the laws of the land and the constitution to this end. <br><br>We are not fighting against normal people. (This is probably what the dems simply can't get their heads around)<br><br>We are fighting for our very lives against mad men who will stop at nothing. <br><br>But that's a pretty hard shift of thinking to make. Imagine if you lived the rest of this week knowing absolutely in your heart that you and your family are basically in great peril from a band of mad men and lunatics in power... 'be pretty hard to sit and surf the web, right? <br><br> <p></p><i></i>
HMKGrey
 
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 6:56 pm
Location: West Coast
Blog: View Blog (0)

an aside on CPS

Postby blanc » Tue May 23, 2006 4:17 am

"Crown Prosecution Service sucks". Succintly put anti.<br>Know of many cases in which the CPS has decided not to prosecute paedophiles against whom a viable case has been assembled as "not being in the public interest". (interesting use of the term "public interest") . even more cases where the police hand a pre-f***ed up case to CPS for opinion in order to get the reply that there is insufficient evidence to proceed. Unlike under other legal systems, victims have no rights whatsoever. <p></p><i></i>
blanc
 
Posts: 1946
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 4:00 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: an aside on CPS

Postby antiaristo » Tue May 23, 2006 6:05 am

blanc,<br>You have personal knowledge about the failures to prosecute paedophiles "in the public interest". But the point is that it happens ALL THE TIME in ALL SORTS OF CASES. I'll make a prediction now: the killer that shot de Menezes in a cool calm ritual assassination will not be named, let alone punished, "in the public interest.<br><br>Why? Because Queen Elizabeth personally has taken over the public interest. SHE decides what is in the public interest. It has been getting worse and worse over the years since Queen Mary (wife of George V) did away with them in the 1930's.<br><br>CRIMINALS WORKING FOR THE WINDSORS, OR CRIMINALS THAT HAVE ARRANGED "PROTECTION" FROM THE WINDSORS, ARE NOT PROSECUTED.<br><br>It happened to me, and is something I will describe on the "antiaristo" thread.<br><br>In the meantime see the fifth post on this thread where I talk about the notorious Public Interest Immunity Certificate (PII) which has sent many an innocent individual to prison.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm9.showMessage?topicID=93.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...D=93.topic</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Queen Elizabeth can do this because nobody, BY LAW, can stop her under the Treason Felony Act.<br><br>AMERICANS<br><br>What is happening to your legal system is identical to what has happened to the English legal system. And it is being done by the exact same people.<br><br>Your country has been taken over by those who have sworn allegiance to Her Majesy Queen Elizabeth. HMK Grey is right about the sheer ruthlessness of these people.<br><br>They understand ONLY force. <p></p><i></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to Plame Investigation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests