The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government
[I posted a similar article to my previous blog in 2005.]
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.
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.
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.
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 reliance upon a US Attorney to concur in such criminal charges, has been usurped by an insidious play on words.
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:
UNITED STATES CITIZENS SITTING AS FEDERAL GRAND JURORS ARE THE FOURTH BRANCH OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.
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 we’ll see what went wrong and how to correct it.
HISTORY OF FEDERAL GRAND JURY POWER
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.
“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.”
The 5th Amendment:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.”
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 :
“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:
‘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.’ “
Back to the Creighton Law Review:
“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.”
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. 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 will be swept away. And the reason for this can be found in a legislative lie of epic proportions.
Mr. Roots weighs in again:
“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]“
Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP):
“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…”
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:
“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.”
The American Juror published the following commentary with regards to Note 4:
“[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]:
‘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 jury hearings, hence the use of presentments have been abandoned.’ “
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 intended by the founding fathers, in their incredible wisdom, to provide us with oversight over tyrannical government.
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”.
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.
The American Juror publication included a very relevant commentary:
“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:
‘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 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]
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 seditious business unimpeded.
By the way, they made a rule to take care of runaways too, in 1946: Rule 6(g):
‘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, or even dis-impanel a grand jury entirely, merely for exercising its discretion.”
Now let me add my two cents to this argument:
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 presentments “illegal”, 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:
“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.”
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 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 to be legally viable.
Let’s look at some authoritative legal resources which discuss Note 4:
Susan Brenner, THE VOICE OF THE COMMUNITY: A CASE FOR GRAND JURY INDEPENDENCE:
“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.”
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 procedure can not overrule the Constitution.
Regardless, it’s irrelevant, since the FRCP does not mention “presentments”. Note 4 simply states that “presentments” allowed for in the 5th Amendment of 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.
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 this power disappear by waving its magic wand over the Constitution.
Mr. Root got it wrong in the Creighton Law Review as well:
“Before the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure — which made 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…”
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.
But if enough people repeat the lie, the lie appears to be the truth.
But we have it on good authority, the Supreme Court, that the lie has no legal effect.
Justice Powell, in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974), stated:
“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).”
The Note 4 lie is smashed on the SCOTUS altar, “The grand jury’s historic functions survive to this day.” Take that Note 4!
Antonin Scalia 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 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:
“‘[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). ‘ “
I submit to you that this passage sets the stage for a revolutionary new context necessary and Constitutionally mandated to “we the people”, THE FOURTH BRANCH of the Government of the United States. Besides, the Legislative, 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 was always intended to be.
Scalia also stated, that “the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside…” Id.
And finally, to seal the deal, Scalia hammered the point home:
“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] “
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.
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.
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.”
Take the reins America. Pass it on. The Fourth Branch is alive and kickin’.
January 22, 2009 at 10:01 AM
[...] Donofrio, Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, expressed his legal opinion on grand juries. I agree with Mr. Donofrio in that these facts are definitely worth reading and [...]
January 22, 2009 at 10:51 AM
Thank you for this post. It is wonderful information. How does one get selected to serve on a Federal Grand Jury? I am 75 years old and all my life I have been active in civic affairs but I have never met anyone who has served on a Federal Grand Jury.
January 22, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Once again thank-you Leo. What an education I get when I come to this site. We are living in perilous times for this nation. A country I love is systematically being taken apart piece by piece by the political,business,education and media elites. The common citizen doesn’t stand a chance in this environment. We all know how this drama will end. Our courageous forefathers wrote a prequel over 200 yrs. ago. My generation seems weak and ill prepared to take up this responsibility, except for a few like yourself. Please continue to elaborate on ways that we may take back what is rightfully ours and I will do my part by spreading the word wherever and whenever I can. May I suggest an article on jury nullification and your thoughts on the 2nd and 10th amends.
January 22, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Dear Leo, as a fellow musician, non lawyer, does this have any significance to you or your heart as a lawyer?
The question is: Should Obama, or the Federal Courts or the Supreme Court or Congress for that matter be allowed to be the “amending body” of the Constitution due to the “changes of the Times” or dismissals of direct challenges to actions of certain individuals which are in direct conflict with the Constitution.
The Constitution has provisions to allow the “people” and not even the Legislature or the Courts to be the “amending” body.
What this means simply is taking to the Courts the “eligibility” issue based on requests of a “stay”, in actuality gives the Court, with a [“ruling” of dismissal” based on the “election being over” or “choice of the Electorate”, or “no Standing”] the ability to Circumvent, Article 2 Section 1 of what IS a natural born citizen without determining if the citizen was qualified, and rather allowing the voters, the DNC, the SOS, the Press, the electors through malfeasance, [in the case of the DNC, SOS, and Press] and fraudulent facts [in the case of the voter] to determine and violate Article 2 section 1, and for all intents and purposes amending, then –[ Article 5.] If a candidate at the time of election cannot be determined to be qualified, it behooves the Court, to require the records, so as not to violate, or become, inadvertently, the amending body, to the Constitution.
So a dismissal ruling from a Federal Court, becomes the legal framework for the challenge to the Supreme Court.
If the Court should be inclined to make a dismissal ruling, they must be challenged beforehand in the appeal that through Omission of full disclosure by the Candidate and dismissal by the Lower Courts, the public, (a citizen) has been denied their rights through Article 5, as the only “amending body” by presenting evidence to the Court (admission of Dual Citizenship) that shows, the candidate, is in fact questionable and in violation of Article 2 Section 1. If the candidate refuses to give the records of his/her own free will, it may be surmised, then by the challenging party, that the candidate, has, blocked the procedure, by using Privacy issues. However, the candidate, lost the issue of Privacy, when it was revealed that his citizenship was questionable, through his own admission. In the case of McCain, Senate Resolution 511, clearly showed, that members of the Senate felt that “more definition” to Article 2 was required, and so, they as well acted as an “amending body” should McCain have been elected instead of Obama. In both instances, neither candidate has proven that they are eligible.
Non-action is equally, by the Courts, inherently, in certain constitutional arguments, acting as an “amending body”. This is how Presidents for 40 years have managed to send our troops to “undeclared wars”. Non action by the Courts in these matters citing among other reasons, that they do not rule on issues which have become “political”, IS, ACTING BEYOND THEIR JUDICIARY SCOPE, by allowing through INACTION, Articles to not be interpreted, which in effect, is full denial of the Article. Denial of an Article challenge by the lower courts through refusal to act upon the challenge, in this instance the Article 2, Section 1, in effect allows the Constitutional rights of all citizens to be placed in a constitutional “limbo”. There is no redress to dismissal, unless dismissal can be shown to violate, the Constitution, and in effect, be the cause for a Dismissal pertaining to ruling on the violated Article as it then becomes, effectively, moot.
Article 5, may provide the protection for this,
if and when it can be determined, that Judicial malfeasance in the Lower Courts, has effectively, shown, that Court to be through dismissal acting as the Amending Body. Because the election has transpired, and the Supreme Court dismissed the stay, it can be argued, to the Supreme Court, that because the election was not “stayed” by the lower court– that the lower courts denied the citizen/States their constitutional rights to amend the constitution and instead allowed a citizen, who was ineligible under Article 2 Section 1 to be on all ballots nationally. The citizen, not being qualified under Article 2 Section 1, through admission of Dual Citizenship, created through usage of monies, campaign handlers, the DNC, and various other outlets, a systematic ratification of a new Article, that does not fit the current Article as defined in the Constitution by a majority election, rather than through Article 5.
The Constitutional rights of all individuals are being denied as long as the Courts refuse to address issues directly related to issues of the Articles in the Constitution, this non act of preserving the Constitution through abdication of judicial duty has allowed the Constitution to not be preserved, which in effect, “alters” it, and is in direct conflict with Article 5 which exists solely for the people/States to determine. Therefore any citizen may in effect petition the Supreme Court for the severe loss of a Constitutional right, should an ineligible candidate assume any federal office, and numerous Courts fail, to make such ruling, and instead rule that the citizen had “no standing” and/or the election was over. Elections are not by design meant to undermine the Constitution, however when a result that is in direct conflict with the Constitution is allowed to Stand, all citizens who have tried unsuccessfully to determine the eligiblility of candidate Obama, who have been denied, due to lack of standing may ultimately determine that the Courts rulings in this matter deny the rest of the citizenry, their rights as the amending body of the Constitution under Article 5 should such a case as Senator Obama’s be allowed to proceed and he become the President. Article 5 is another means that allows the leverage needed by the citizens to challenge the Courts of Law, who refuse to address their grievances, and in effect, through this refusal allow a breach of the Articles of the Constitution to remain operant, while in direct conflict with the Instrument itself.
January 22, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Hey there, man it’s great to see you rested. Congrats on your winnings! Now a big “Thank You”. I’m off to spread the word!!!
God Bless,
Linda
January 22, 2009 at 1:10 PM
[...] The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government « Natural … [...]
January 22, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Leo: Great presentation. Do we have a method of bringing this to court? In other words, when the presecutor fails to sign on as the prosecuting party? Do we need to create some kind of action to expose this 5th Amendment presentment as a tool of the People?
Thanks for taking the time to update the site for us lay law students. We’re learning what our schools and colleges never knew or taught us.
January 22, 2009 at 2:29 PM
[...] “The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government [...]
January 22, 2009 at 2:29 PM
[...] “The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government [...]
January 22, 2009 at 2:31 PM
[...] “The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government [...]
January 22, 2009 at 2:31 PM
[...] “The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government [...]
January 22, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Leo
Thanks for the education on Grand Jury…
It is amazing to see how with time, new generations simply ignore or destroy that which history has shown to be essential to us all.
Do you believe that forming a Grand Jury outside of a Prosecutors control is even possible with the corrupt legislative and jusicial systems in place now??? I know it will be a hard choice, but you should use media such as Plains Radio, to get this message out. You are respected, turn the other jeek with ED HALE, because as much as he is at times strange, his heart is truly at the riught place…
Thanks Leo
January 22, 2009 at 3:58 PM
[Ed. Fixed. Thank you.]
I believe that “knew” should be “new” in the following:
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.
January 22, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Leo,
So how do we assemble a grand jury to deal with the Usurper Obama and the corrupt party officials, and the corrupt elected officials? What is the process to get the Grand Jury under way?
God Bless
January 22, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Leo,
Welcome back and thank you for excellent analysis.
I am impressed with your analytical mind, aptitude, intellectual curiosity, and incredible desire to call-out the wrong.
Leo, I think your calling is to use your attributes and legal training to educate and motivate your fellow citizens to reclaim their Rights and their Constitutional Republic. Heck, you started the national conversation on “Natural Born Citizen” and that was not a small matter. Do you not find that more rewarding than chess or poker championship titles?
I hope, you and Dr. Edwin Vieira get your own Blogtalk radio show and start the movement.
January 22, 2009 at 7:37 PM
Leo, This is great news. I will pass it along at http://www.impeachcongress.org. My question to you, though, is how do we form a grand jury? Can the people form it or does a judge need to call it? Do the people on the grand jury then need to be sworn in by a judge?
Here’s what I’m getting at. What if we were to modernize the concept of the grand jury with a web application that allowed us to have members from around the country sit on it and investigate the criminal activities of government with the power built into it, to draft criminal presentments, and to literally bring impeachment proceedings directly.
If you think this is possible, we have the know-how to write the applications. I started http://www.impeachcongress.org for exactly this purpose. To follow the politicians in government and rate them on the level of corruption and criminal activity and eventually have people vote on their impeachment. The problem I was having was whether or not we could have any authority to effect any change. I love the idea of being able to legally blind-side these assholes.
Please email me offline if you would like to discuss this idea further. I am not an attorney and could certainly use your input and knowledge.
-Mark
January 22, 2009 at 7:39 PM
Leo, you are such the poker player to the bone. You didn’t catch the nut by the turn, so you folded. That’s a great strategy in tournament poker. I wish this were just a poker game and not the fate of our country and Constitution. Sometimes, you just have to chase that hand to the river. I really wish you would have been a little more of a river dawg about this instead of a tourney player.
January 22, 2009 at 8:27 PM
Leo, as usual, brilliant work.
Congrats on your winnings.
Now we need your guidance. How do we go about assembling a Grand Jury?
[Ed. This isn't as clear as the fact that once a GJ is assembled, they are an independent branch of Go0vernment and if they know this, they can take the reigns. Not much more to say about it right now. But the GJ power of the people as is codified in the Constitution and by the SCOTUS (who I have lost all faith in) is the only chance the Country has of ever being lawful again.]
Stay with us, Leo. We desparately need your help. We are all willing, but you have the knowlegde.
January 22, 2009 at 9:28 PM
Leo, I am not a lawyer, but you laid out the Fourth Branch of Gov’t with such clarity that it was easily understood, and I am beside myself with hope that we can yet get back the power that we the people were intended to have, and are still entitled to, by our Constitution.
I think perhaps while you were kicking back and enjoying your chess and poker, your brilliant mind was deep in thought and analysis at a subconcious level, perhaps. You remembered what you wrote 3 or 4 years ago and it came bubbling up to the surface with power and timeliness as we face this national crisis. You have been given a gift of strategizing. Obviously it comes through in your chess and poker games, but it would be a waste for you to not use it in this hour of dire need.
If you want to orchestrate a presentment grand jury against the usurper in office, I hereby volunteer to serve! I’m serious!
January 22, 2009 at 9:37 PM
Be careful Leo, don’t show them your cards. The blogs are thick with Obots.
January 22, 2009 at 10:49 PM
Leo,
Thank you for the very enlightening post. I would like to understand more about how a grand jury would be formed on its own accord and independent of the court.
Our founders did everything they could to put checks in balances into the Constitution to ensure that our republic stayed in tact. Too bad they could not foresee the erosion of our liberties through the dumbing down of our citzenry. Noone seems to care or to understand anymore about the first priniciples that made this country great.
January 22, 2009 at 11:04 PM
Leo, great tool, that Grand Jury. How do we as citizens get them seated independently in the face of widespread corruption where they would have the force of law (enforcement) behind them?
Thanks for the illuminating writings.
January 22, 2009 at 11:17 PM
Hello All,
I just visited the Supreme Court On-Line Docket.
I found the following Taitz info posted as of 11:17 PM Thursday, 01.22.09:
==
No. 08A524
Title:
Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants
v.
Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State
Docketed:
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of California
Case Nos.: (S168690)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 12 2008 Application (08A524) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008 Application (08A524) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 29 2008 Application (08A524) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jan 7 2009 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 23, 2009.
Jan 7 2009 Application (08A524) referred to the Court.
Jan 13 2009 Suggestion for recusal received from applicant.
Jan 22 2009 Supplemental brief of applicant Gail Lightfoot, et al. filed. (Distributed)
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioners:
Orly Taitz 26302 La Paz (949) 683-5411
Counsel of Record Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Party name: Gail Lightfoot, et al.
==
Here is the link to the SCOTUS site and Taitz Documentation:
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a524.htm
January 23, 2009 at 12:33 AM
Hi Leo,
Glad to see you back and blogging.
M. Publius Goat
January 23, 2009 at 12:35 AM
chester arthur
fyi, see the swearing in of Obama – Roberts/Obama gaffe – a redo like they did for Chester Arthur…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012103685_pf.html
January 23, 2009 at 1:08 AM
Most of the blogs which i read daily are no-follow and i just use them for getting useful information and industry news.
Thanks agains!!!
January 23, 2009 at 4:14 AM
GLAD TO HAVE YOU BACK!!! LEO!!! -old glory
January 23, 2009 at 8:17 AM
Leo
As you of course realize, none of us have the answers as to the potential outcome of this Grave Constitutional Dillema that stares us in the face, as without knowing all the questions (that seem to pop up on a daily basis, my question to you is this. Having a great deal of respect for you and your ability to make sense out of what info we are privy to, I would be curious as to you what you think the Overall Goals of those manipulating the strings (primarily the World Banking System) of Obama and others is in the Long Run. I read about the Population Control theory regarding World Population Control and it’s reduction of 80% or so of the non useful peeps, leaving 5-700 million of those that are of purpose to serve the 3-700 individuals that lay claim to their absurd idea’s of Total Control over the planet Earth. Do you believe that the Eugenics Policy of past generations is still the driving force behind the crisis that the world now faces, or do you see something even “Darker” tugging on the Fig Tree of Human Life. I would be most interested in what you think the Bottom Line Thinking of this Conspiricy is and a Ball Park Timeline in the minds of this “Insane Group of Elites”.
Thank you again Leo for your Time and Effort spent Educating us that look toward you and a few others for your observations and Facts that I believe will in time guide us as a People to make decisions that will change the course of History.
Chance
January 23, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Leo, the Lion, welcome back bud. Please would you lead the charge. WE THE PEOPLE NEED YOU! AND YOU NEED WE THE PEOPLE. Lets take our country back.
January 23, 2009 at 2:55 PM
thanks for the education. Now all we have to do is assemble a Grand Jury.
Let me know how>
January 23, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Excellent and thank you. I think we should empanel a federal grand jury composed of representatives from all 50 states, or 3/4 of the states, as we the people. Develop an independent media presence on this with the studious research as presented here; convene the grand jury/4th branch, sopoena key people like pelosi, and issue indictments right about October 25, 2010. Full agenda of transgressions. Warrents for citizen arrests? ok, one at a time.
Thank you again.
January 23, 2009 at 3:17 PM
can you correct me that the Grand Jury is legal in 42 states and can be assembled by so many signatures?
[Ed. Constitution makes it legal in all states as far as I can tell.]
January 23, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Here is a lengthy treatment:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:19ciKdhk1zIJ:law.fordham.edu/publications/articles/500flspub12252.pdf+Federal+Grand+Jury+assemling+in+early+America&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us
January 23, 2009 at 3:43 PM
Leo,
I was relieved to see that you have not lost all faith! when I talk about the things that i have learned here, and from my continued research, Most people think I am a little nuts (or alot). I am so convinced of the righteousness of this cause that I don’t care! The discussions made during the hearings for Resolution 511 incriminate a whole bunch of Senators who heard testimony about NBCs as the product of Citizen ParentS. It is pulic record, as here between Leahy and Chertoff:
EXCERPT OF SECRETARY CHERTOFF TESTIMONY FROM APRIL 2, 2008:
***
Chairman Leahy. We will come back to that. I would mention one other thing, if I might,
Senator Specter. Let me just ask this: I believe–and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President. I fully believe he does. I have never had any question in my mind that he meets our constitutional requirement. You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind–I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?
Secretary Chertoff. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.
Chairman Leahy. That is mine, too. Thank you.
First, what is the legality of suing Senators for what they do in the course of government business? Aren’t they in violation of Article 6 if they are on record as defining NBC as the product of citizen parents, and did not block Obama from running? They are clearly NOT upholding the Constitution. Maybe this could be an avenue of attack with a Fed. GJ?
January 23, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Leo,
I surely hope that you are in touch with Dr.Edwin Vieira on this matter!
This is an amazing break through, and i’m sure that Dr.Vieira and his colleagues in this fight would be more than willing to entertain the idea of a Federal Grand Jury, especially if they had the backing of thousands of Patriots.
God Bless America!
January 23, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Leo,
You give hope to many. Glad to see you make some dollars at what you love.
Any chance you will take another shot at the SCOTUS on the Obama matter ?
If you have gotten this in another post never mind… you get so many and such good posts it is hard to read them all and still have time to post.
I wish you would run for some political office … maybe POTUS.
January 23, 2009 at 6:26 PM
Apparently an anti-abortion group in Sedgwick County, Kansas has been successful petitioning for a “citizens grand jury”. They may not have gotten the results they wanted, but in the case of BO’s NBC, visibility is the key
http://www.arkcity.net/stories/102707/com_0004.shtml
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?hint=2&DR_ID=47348
January 23, 2009 at 9:59 PM
I think the Grand Jury is a great Idea. We should get Phil Berg, Alan Keyes, Orly Taitz, Cort, Citizen Wells, the WND Staff (Chuck Norris would be a real big help), and everyone else remotely involved to pull efforts to make this happen. I don’t have much but will give what I can. What do you think?
January 23, 2009 at 10:41 PM
Thank you Leo, for coming back. I have checked faithfully every few days to see if there hasbeen something new added to your blog site and hoped that you were simmering something while you were out playing in Vegas. (At least that was where I figured you were, and I was right to a certain extent).
So, as others have asked, 1) could you please get in touch with Edwin Vieira, as I am almost positive that he would be receptive of any help you may offer and possibly be able to guide you a bit along the way, and with both of you and maybe DrKate, (I noticed she posted here also, above) and Devvy Kidd and Ed Hale, Dr. Orly Tiatz and several others who are still trying to get something going, we, you and us, might be able to seal the deal on Obama. We would owe a whole world to you, and I am sure that you would be loved and welcomed into each of our respective homes whenerver you might want to be around this group of people that you have shown so much too…..
and 2) could you please show us the way to convene a Grand Jury and the process that we would need to follow to get action and an outcome to make the decisions stick and get Obama removed as being the Usurper that he is.
We more than need you, we respect and cherish you, your brain and intellict and courage as well as all of your inciteful ideas that are just sitting in that hed of yours, waiting for some prodding to come out and play with us laypeople who need your help.
January 24, 2009 at 2:42 AM
aloha leo…
read the grand jury post & hear your words “4th branch is alive & kickin’” i understand it to be empowering–yet for all of us lay people we do NOT get it’s magnitude 100% w/o further conversation. it’s not our forte as it is yours…alongside your artistic personality.
sorry –yet the SAME way you educated people re: nbc…we NEED to GET this 110% brah!
you are a student of poker, chess & the arts — no problemo!!
yet leo..sometimes we have innate gifts we dis’ for whatever reason…doesn’t make the gift less–yet mostly it’s a tap on the shoulder for whatever reason.
YOU have a gift of educating–like it or not!
PULEEEZE at least pt us to further direction/reading/resources..or another attorney who *may* be willing to fill in the blanks! no problemo.
like it or not leo …you have 2 callings…your right brain creative side (arbie) AND your left brain analytical side! (elbie) …sorry easy terms for hemisphere dominance
so be it — no worries–yet, if you are unavailable for further assistance at least point us in a conducive direction-please avoid dumping us all together to fend on our own sans legal/constitutional intelligence!
bottomline request: if you need time to go *arbie* then at least point the many of us willing to do the grunt work to the “elby” resources.
peaceFULLness to you & love/passion for all you venture into!
[Ed. I do not know of any way to empanel a citizens GJ. But if you can get on one, you can make a stand. Honestly, I don't have all the answers on this front. I suggest the topic for brainstorming. The right to issues "presentments" is alive in the Constitution. And the SCOTUS (Scalia) has said the Federal GJ is a separate form of Government outside the three branches... there's aplenty to work with there. Start talking and make a dialogue. That's was my intetnion when releasing this post again. To start a dialogue. ]
January 24, 2009 at 8:58 AM
Whether Dr. Viera and collegues would “entertain the idea of a Grand Jury” seems irrelevant.
GJs aren’t initiated by plaintiffs or lawyers or the public.
They are called in trials for “capital and other infamous crimes”. By judges.
You can’t just “have” one because you’d like one.
Once called, they MAY go “runaway” and explore “presentments” of their own choice, but you can’t just decide to have a “runaway” GJ because you want one.
[Ed. The cult calls it a "runaway" GJ. But that's BS. A GJ should investigate where it seems right to do so whether the Govt tells them to or not and their findings should be respected and acted upon. If the GJ system is good enough for the GOVT when putting we the people on trial for crimes... it ought to be good enough when we the people want to put the Govt on trial for crimes.]
January 24, 2009 at 9:24 AM
What powers and resources does a GJ have? Can it issue subpoenas? Direct investigation of a particular issue or question? I gather it can proceed with an indictment wanted by prosecutors, or return a “no true bill” rejection, but it would have to have some ability to request and demand information to be effective.
[Ed. The GJ can issue subpeonas and direct an investigation. They have that power as long as they know they have it. A true GJ is now called a runaway grand jury. How do you like that?]
January 24, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Leo, I posted a comment here days ago and don’t see it. Did you moderate it?
[ed. I'm sorry if I didn't get to it. There are hundred of comments in the back folder that I havn't got to yet. The latest comments appear at the top of this folder so I've been going through those 2 and 3 at a time... but I just don't have the time right now to get through 300 comments. I apologize. Eventually I'll get through them all. I didn't check in here for a few weeks and the comments just got mobbed. Apologies.]
January 25, 2009 at 2:11 AM
[...] Read the rest… [...]
January 25, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Leo, can the British Nationality Act of 1948 be used to prove Obama is a British citizen, instead of trying to prove he is not a Natural Born Citizen under US Constitution law. If it can be proved he is British the NBC cases are won via the back door.
January 25, 2009 at 3:39 PM
Leo i talk to Cort on the radio fri he seems to be interested in getting back in the game are you interested in doing some brainstorming on this GJ deal with some attorneys and constitutional scholars to discuss this issue
[ed. I would be happy to discuss this with others, of course.]
January 26, 2009 at 8:18 AM
[...] on the unique power of Grand Jurors My recent post concerning the 5th Amendment right of we the people to use the “presentment” power to investigate criminal activity on our own volition to review Government activity and bring all [...]
January 26, 2009 at 12:48 PM
[...] recent post concerning the 5th Amendment right of we the people to use the “presentment” power to investigate criminal activity on our own volition to review Government activity and bring all [...]
January 26, 2009 at 8:06 PM
A member of the “US Patriots” group and I have been going back and forth about whether a GJ can call itself; I’ve been saying it can’t. But she trumped me with the precedent of GJs set up by public petition, e.g. the McVey GJ. So there is a route to create of them.
Game on!
January 26, 2009 at 8:07 PM
err: “route to creation of them”
January 26, 2009 at 8:19 PM
But, re my question about investigative powers and subpoenas above, note Scalia:
True, the grand jury cannot compel the appearance of witnesses and the production of evidence, and must appeal to the court when such compulsion is required. See, e. g., Brown v. United States, 359 U.S. 41, 49 (1959). And the court will refuse to lend its assistance when the compulsion the grand jury seeks would override rights accorded by the Constitution, see, e. g., Gravel v.United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972) (grand jury subpoena effectively qualified by order limiting questioning so as to preserve Speech or Debate Clause immunity), or even testimonial privileges recognized by the common law, see In re Grand Jury Investigation of Hugle, 754 F. 2d 863 (CA9 1985) (same with respect to privilege for confidential marital communications) (opinion of Kennedy, J.). Even in this setting, however, we have insisted that the grand jury remain “free to pursue its investigations unhindered by external influence or supervision so long as it does not trench upon the legitimate rights of any witness called before it.” United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1973). Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said that the Fifth Amendment’s “constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body `acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge’. . . .” Id., at 16 (emphasis added) (quotingStirone, supra, at 218).
There is a logical and legal problem here, which is that the GJ depends upon appeal to the courts to order testimony. It then comes down to whether the court considers someone’s rights are being violated, which is murky waters.
So in practice the “independence” is limited.
[Ed. I do no understand your statement in light of the quoted text form Scalia. Feel free to elaborate and I will comment.]
January 26, 2009 at 9:05 PM
Leo,
Here is some info I came across. I hope you have a backup for your website or mirror site, because you have too much here to be hacked.
http://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/forum/topics/websites-in-potential
January 27, 2009 at 1:02 PM
The very first sentence.
Then, “unhindered by external influence or supervision so long as it does not trench upon the legitimate rights of any witness called before it.”
So the court’s opinion of witness rights is always at issue, and the GJ is dependent every step of the way on the court’s agreement and resources.
[Ed. Well, of course it's a limitation but you're not going to avoid testifying just because your dog looks at you with sad eyes when you leave the house... etc. Not mocking you here, but the key word is "legitimate... rights of any witness". The battle is tough enough without having to worry about all of the different ways a witness could possibly claim his rights are violated. If they set a standard of denying to enforce testimony then that standard could later be used against them when they are trying to prosecute as well.]
January 28, 2009 at 1:21 AM
True, but it seems that the hook that Obonobo is hanging his refusal to show his vault BC on, for example, is privacy. If that level of “privacy” is considered a “legitimate right”, then very little is open to investigation.
January 28, 2009 at 8:54 PM
interesting post. thanks. If We the people is to be a force then it will require teachiing it in the context of the Constitution anfd the Bill of Rights for more than two days a year.
January 31, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Leo, did you see this: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87622
Congress, et al, is being sued over Obama’s presidency!
[Ed. yes, I blogged about this case last week.]
February 5, 2009 at 6:44 PM
Those people are just wasting their time and are probably trying to attract attention to themselves via the media. Obama won’t get removed from office over that :/
-Jack
February 15, 2009 at 7:12 PM
Hope!
February 16, 2009 at 5:34 PM
[...] 22, 2009 article Attorney Leo C. Donofrio discusses the history of the Federal Grand Jury System (The Grand Jury is the Fourth Branch of government). The wonderful Federal Grand Jury system, created within the Fifth Amendment was a valuable tool [...]
April 30, 2009 at 7:45 PM
Please read this info re Obama eligibility:
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=10616
September 15, 2009 at 1:42 AM
Mr. Donofrio,
I sent you a letter today via snailmail to PO Box 93 about urgent topic regarding 4th Branch of Government and requesting a reply. Please let me know if for some reason you also wish it sent to an email address. Thanks.
[Ed. Dan, I no longer use that PO Box. Just send it to me via comments here with the word PRIVATE at the top and I will not post it to the blog. Many people correspond with me this way...I use the comments like e mail. All comments are moderated.]
October 14, 2009 at 3:03 AM
[...] Revive the Grand Jury System, here and additional work here. [...]
November 5, 2009 at 2:07 AM
[...] and day-to-day actions available to citizens in exercising their Seventh Amendment rights. And this site has excellent information on this subject. As with all the components of the Bill of Rights, [...]