Obama Committing Fraud and Treason: Multiple Grand Juries

By Neil B. Turner

What everyone knows:

Most of America knows (beyond any reasonable doubt) that Barry Soetoro (aka Barack
Hussein Obama) is not Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President of
the United States (POTUS) and Commander in Chief (CinC) (per Article II, Section 1
of the Constitution of the U.S.).

Most of America also knows (beyond any reasonable doubt) that the members of
Congress (all 535 of them), the Federal Courts, the Supreme Court, and ALL the
Media (including FNC) are either ‘in the tank for’ or ‘paid off or intimidated by’
the illegitimate, criminal and Treasonous presumed President and Commander in
Chief, Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Hussein Obama) and his coterie of thugs.

Origins, history, and applicability of the citizen’s Grand Jury:

The 5th Amendment of our U.S. Constitution provides that: … ‘No person shall be
held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a
presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.’ It doesn’t say ‘Federal’ Grand Jury, a
‘Grand Jury called and impaneled by a Judge, Special Prosecutor, or District
Attorney’, nor does it say a ‘Government impaneled’ Grand Jury.

The concept of a Citizen’s Grand Jury dates all the way back to the Magna Carta in
1215, and was included by the founders in our Constitution and Bill of Rights as a
means for the people to reign-in an elected government run amok. It goes without
saying that when a government is committing criminal and un-Constitutional acts,
it can hardly be relied upon to bring charges and indictments against itself.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in a 1992 ruling stated:

"Rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, … 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.."

*
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."

Thus is the situation that we Americans find ourselves in now – the proverbial
‘fox’ is in charge of the ‘henhouse’, and it is devouring the rooster, the hens,
the chickens, and their eggs – on a daily basis!

The Citizen’s Grand Jury was a common feature of early American jurisprudence, but
fell into disuse about 100 years ago, as the Government passed more and more un-
Constitutional laws and acts. In the mid 1940’s, some devious lawyers and judges
felt they should try to bury the concept and any possibility of a Citizen’s (or
People’s) watchdog group looking over their nefarious shoulders any longer, so
they wrote into their system of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures the
following:

(Common Law Grand Jury) ‘… presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions

are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal Courts.’

The trouble is, you cannot change the U.S. Constitution by merely writing a rule!
It must be by Amendment, a time-consuming, laborious and people-enlightening
process, requiring ratification of the change, spelled out in detail, and the
reasons therefore, by ¾ of the States (38 of the current 50 states at this time).
Obsolete indeed!

NOTE: Typically, courts and the judiciary issue ‘Indictments’, while Citizen’s
Grand Juries issue ‘Presentments’, which, when formally presented to those sworn
to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution, they must, by law, then issue an
Indictment, and failure to do so makes them guilty of misprision of treason (the
concealment of a treason or felony and failure to report it to the prosecuting
authorities, by a person who has not committed it). As a result of this act of
‘misprision’, they could then be indicted themselves by future Citizen’s Grand
Juries convened for just this purpose, much like the entire 535 members of
Congress could be indicted for certifying the electoral votes for a known
Constitutionally ineligible candidate for the presidency.

Early in 2009, a brilliant Constitutional lawyer, Leo Donofrio, wrote a detailed

dissertation on the renewed use and viability of the Citizens’ Grand Jury,
especially in light of the dumbing-down of the American populace, and their
adulation of a mesmerizing, opaque, and criminal Imposter usurping the Presidency
(and Commander in Chief-ship) of the United States. By pulling off the greatest
hoax in the 230+ years since the founding of our Country, Barry Soetoro (aka
Barack Obama) puts Ponzi and Madoff to shame.

http://americangrandjury.org/history_power.html

First Citizen’s Grand Juryof the 21st century

Oddly enough, before the on-again, off-again Leo Donofrio could convince his
readers that the Citizen’s Grand Jury wouldn’t apply in the case of ousting this
particular usurper/imposter, a number of motivated patriotic Americans had already
seized upon the concept, and the 21st Century Citizen’s Grand Jury was born!

On March 28th, 2009, Mr. Carl Swensson convened a panel of 25 sworn jurors in
Stockbridge, GA, saying, ‘I’m no lawyer, and I’m not exactly sure what I’m doing,
but I’m doing it anyway!’ Following an hour+ long presentation of documented
evidence of fraud, forgery, corruption, money laundering, stolen SS numbers,
perjury, and Treason by both Barack and Michelle Obama (and their many aliases)
given by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. (by phone, as she was in CA), the GA Citizen’s Grand
Jury deliberated for an hour, and then came down with indictments/presentments (or
a ‘True Bill’) against the presumed President of the United States, Barry Soetoro,
aka Barack Hussein Obama.

Dr. Taitz’ entire presentation of evidence was videotaped (by myself), and can be
seen in its entirety @ youtube for use by anyone convening a Citizen’s Grand Jury
anywhere in the U.S. The entire 150 page ‘dossier’ on the criminal and un-
constitutional acts of these two hoax-sters has been sent to all 50 States’
Attorneys General. One of these dossiers is available for all who wish to be
informed @ orlytaitzesq.com/blog1. No one can say, “but I didn’t know."
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=C48E5634034519C1

First Online Citizen’s Grand Jury

The following month, using the power of the government-developed internet (how
ironic), the world’s first online Citizen’s Grand Jury was launched by American
patriot Bob Campbell of AZ, and the www.AmericanGrandJury.org was born. The first
group of 25 vetted and sworn jurors studied the evidence online for a week, and on
29 April they voted a ‘True Bill’ of Presentments of Fraud (eligibility) and
Treason against the defendant: presumed president of the United States, Barry
Soetoro, aka Barack Hussein Obama.

This was followed by 6 more online Grand Juries (to date, June 24, 2009). All have
issued formal presentments of charges of Fraud (ineligibility) and Treason, and
have begun to ‘Serve’ these indictments to Law Enforcement, Sheriffs, District
Attorneys, Attorneys General, and District Courts all across the country. (I
personally served my charges from being a juror on the May 9th, 2009 American
Grand Jury, at the historic 1911 Williamson County District Courthouse in
Georgetown, TX, while visiting there from CA on June 15th, 2009. My report on this
‘Serving’ can be seen at:

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/06/another-texas-obama-indictment-
filed.html).

In the 2 ½ months since Carl Swensson’s first modern-day Citizen’s Grand Jury on
March 28, 2009, there have been numerous online and on-the-ground State Grand
Juries impaneled and deliberated (including TX, AR, & IL), with ‘True Bill’
indictment/presentment verdicts reached in every single one, and with over 200
‘servings’ having been made so far. Soon there will be thousands served, too many
for the press and media (Radio, Newspapers, & TV*) to ignore. Imagine the pressure
on Mr. & Mrs. Soetoro (aka Obama) as they await that OMG moment when the truth
that they have spent over a $million dollars to hide suddenly exposes them for the
Treasonous frauds they are.

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/04/aka-obama-fans-all-together-now-say-
omg.html

To show by example just how treacherous the American Main Stream media is, even
Fox News, the "champion of truth" will not show America the truth of Obama's
birth, as evidenced by their silence on the phony Certification of Live Birth and
their outright lies about it:
* Fox News Channel’s TV news anchor Shepard Smith recently announced that he is
apparently the defacto expert on Barack Obama’s citizenship when he said on-air on
June 10, 2009:

“There are these crazies out there who want to pretend [Obama’s] not a citizen of
the United States, who want to pretend that his religion is something they see as
in some way troublesome to them and all of us.

And there is a group perpetuating this thought, and there is a culture to which
you can attach yourself very easily through the Internet. We know it’s absolutely
– there is no truth whatsoever – zero – to any of those ideas, yet they live
within the computer and they fester in people’s minds.”

These insulting and ignorant-of-the-facts statements, broadcast publicly to

millions of viewers by Mr. Smith, will soon come back to haunt him, when he and
FNC are subpoenaed into court to show proof of the source of these outrageous
statements. This year’s July 4th

Independence Day celebrations should have some unusual fireworks indeed.

Suspension of Posse Comitatus/Mutiny or Treason?

On March 10th, 2009, a frightening event took place in Samson, AL, when a deranged
gunman went on a shooting spree. This led to an un-constitutional suspension of
the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (18 U.S.C. Section 1385), as a contingent of armed
U.S. military forces took over the town in pursuit of this lone gunman. This
blatant and treasonous violation of our Constitution and our laws was the last
straw for Lt. Commander Walter Fitzpatrick, III, U.S. Navy, Retired (West Point
1975), subject to lifetime recall.

So on March 17, 2009, LCdr Fitzpatrick served charges of Treason against the
usurping Commander in Chief, knowing full well that if his criminal charges
against the POTUS and CinC were false, he would have to be charged with Mutiny*!
But if true, the usurper would have to be charged with Treason*, and if the
prosecuting authorities who were aware of these charges failed to issue an
indictment, they would also be complicit in (and guilty of) these acts of Treason!

* NOTE: Both Mutiny and Treason can be punishable by death.

Commander Fitzpatrick has yet to be charged with Mutiny (over 3 months later), and
Mr. Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Obama) has therefore, by his silence in this matter,
‘admitted’ to the charge of Treason. Commander Fitzpatrick’s criminal charges of
Treason have been served, either on their own or in conjunction with the American
Grand Jury presentments, all over the country, and can be downloaded after
registering here, so that each and every patriotic American can serve these
charges wherever they are in the U.S. as well.

Never let a crisis go to waste

Remember the infamous words of the Great Imposter’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel
when he said: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste, and what I mean by
that is an opportunity to do things that you didn't think you could do before.”

Well, we have a serious Constitutional crisis here, and YOU have an opportunity to
do things that you never thought you could do before: OUST the IMPOSTER!

All we need is for just ONE honest and patriotic judge, anywhere in these 50
United States, to order DISCOVERY!

So when someone asks: ‘What can I, as just one person, do to help save our
Constitution?’, don’t ask if it’s a rhetorical question or do they really want to
know. Just send them to the www.AmericanGrandJury.org where they can click on ‘How
To Serve Presentments’.

Now let’s get to work and ‘Take Our Country Back!’ One County at a Time
(www.CitizensGrandJury.org).

Obama Committing Fraud and Treason by Neil B. Turner

Capt., United States Army-Aviation (1957-1964)

www.YouTube.com/IroquoisChief

Part 2......http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107912-0/
Part1........http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/01-07-2009/107897-
Obama_Fraud_Treason-0

Pravda.Ru
_____________________________

http://americangrandjury.org/

Would any of you out there like to join in the movement to get rid of the
Usurper? Becoming an American Grand Jury member is the best way to take action. Go
to the link http://americangrandjury.org/ and send us a message telling us you
would like to serve on a Grand Jury.

For those of you out there that don’t think our goal is possible, just
remember this:

During the American Revolution 70% of the citizens were loyal to the King
or apathetic. The other 30% founded a Nation.

If you think we don’t have enough patriots in this country to remove the
usurper from office, think again!

_____________________________
AmericanGrandJury.org

Grand Jury Presentments and Serving

What is a Grand Jury?

A Grand Jury when convened is responsible for reviewing evidence, naming a

defendant and handing down presentments. A Grand Jury can only hear criminal
charges. A Grand Jury is NOT a trial jury. Grand Juries can only hand down
presentments, they cannot hand down a verdict like a judicial trial jury can.

What are presentments?

Presentments are the actual charges handed down by a Grand Jury against the
defendant. The presentments are reduced to writing so they may be served with a
court or other party. The term "presentments" comes from the United States
Constitution under Amendment 5 of the Bill of Rights.

What do you do with presentments once handed down?

You serve a court with the presentments. The court turns the presentments into a
formal indictment and sets the criminal case over for trial. The court prosecutes
the defendant named in the presentments or indictment.

Can presentments be served to others?

YES. The court may be the final destination but presentments can be served on such
parties as a sheriff, magistrate, police chief, mayor, judge, prosecutor, district
attorney, legislator or others. Will these other parties be able to prosecute the
case? NO. Only a court or court appointed prosecutor can prosecute the case. So
why serve others? Other parties such as a sheriff, police chief or District
Attorney have enormous powers when it comes to prosecuting criminals through the
court system.

What does "serving" the presentments mean?

People often confuse "filing" with "serving." American Grand Jury presentments are
not a lawsuit, complaint or other such legal documents. Presentments are served or
delivered to a court, sheriff, District Attorney, etc. We DO NOT file anything. We
deliver or serve presentments.

The job of the court is to accept the presentments and act upon them. This is a
very key issue. By Constitutional law a court MUST accept the presentments. Will
they always comply? NO. The courts like to think they are responsible only to
their own rules, procedures or state laws. If the court operates under the Supreme
law of the land, the Constitution, they can and should accept Constitutional Grand
Jury presentments.

How to get started serving presentments?

# First decide WHO you want to serve

# You can serve more that one party if you wish
# Research the address(es) for each party you want to serve
# Print and complete "presentments" for serving each party
# Physically deliver the presentments or mail them to each party

What is it like serving presentments?

Any responsible person can serve American Grand Jury presentments. It is not
difficult to serve presentments but does require a certain personality that is
willing to experience a little discomfort when marching into a clerk's office to
serve that court. I won't lie to you. Sometimes it is a piece of cake. Other times
you run into court clerks that are ignorant, trying to run interference or just
plain breaking the law should they refuse a service.

Two best methods for serving presentments?

# Serve the documents in person

# Mail documents by certified, return receipt

When you personally serve documents you actually hand-deliver the presentments to
the party. You are like a "process-server" with no pay.

If you live close to a court or sheriff and don't need to spend much in gas,
personally serving documents can be exciting.

If time and expense are a problem then you should go to the Post Office and mail
the presentments by Certified, Return receipt. Mailing by Certified is not
expensive, only about $7 to $8 per mailing.

I am ready to serve presentments. How do I get the

documents from American Grand Jury?

We have streamlined the process of getting an American Grand Jury "presentments"

package. You can simply download the most current presentments in .PDF format,
print them from your computer and you are ready to go. The download includes all
instructions on how to complete the documents for serving.

We have (3) command centers within the United States to help you if you have
problems or need additional information. Contact information is included in the
instructions.

Go to AmericanGrandJury.org
to request the presentments from American Grand Jury.

_____________________________

Another Texas Obama Indictment Filed - June 15th

ARE YOU BEING SERVED?

It was a broiling-hot 99 degree day in Georgetown, Texas, when I found myself in

front of the Williamson County Courthouse, ready to ‘SERVE’ the May 9th, 2009
Grand Jury Presentments of Fraud and Treason against the ‘presumed’ President of
the United States, Defendant Barack Hussein Obama, aka: Barry Soetoro.

The receptionist informed me that there was no notary in the building, but
directed me across the street to the Bank of America (recently cited and singled
out by myself and other patriotic Americans for boycotting - for blatantly and
openly giving home loans to illegal aliens in recent years). Undaunted and feeling
like ‘it serves them right’, I ventured forth into the 99 degree heat to have a
FREE welcoming cup of coffee and a FREE notarization of my ‘presentment’ cover
letter by a pleasant and unquestioning ‘designated notary’ at the otherwise
infamous B of A.

I then returned to the historic Williamson County Courthouse, where the

receptionist asked if the ‘complaint’ was civil or criminal. ‘CRIMINAL,’ I said,
and she then directed me to the Courthouse Annex 3 blocks away. Another gentlemen,
who had stepped back from his discussion with the receptionist (she told him she
had been serving me just before him) said, “I wish you well, sir!”

I proceeded by air-conditioned vehicle the 3 blocks to the Courthouse Annex, and

found it just behind the Williamson County Jail! Feeling slightly intimidated, I
ventured forth to the Courthouse Annex, where I was turned back at the 3-guard
security checkpoint due to the knife on my keychain. After returning the offending
weapon to my vehicle, I passed the checkpoint with flying colors, and proceeded to
the District Clerk’s office, and presented my 11 page ‘Indictment’ to the clerk at
the desk labeled ‘CIVIL’ (there was no ‘CRIMINAL’ sign, so I figured, WhatEVER!)

She went to ask her supervisor what to do with it, and returned shortly to ask me
to take a seat and wait. In order to speed things up, I gave her a copy of the
Cover Page of the Lavaca County (Texas) Presentment by a Representative of Lone
Star Grand Jury, Texas, and said, “I would like it filed like this one”.

As I waited, I took some videos of the offices, the clerk taking my presentment to
an office in the rear, and the CIVIL sign, then sat down. Shortly thereafter, I
was approached by a security guard who came from the back office where my
presentment was being discussed (I was, like Commander Fitzpatrick, hoping to be
arrested so as to lead to ‘discovery’), and was asked if I was taking pictures
there. I said ‘yes’, and was told that I could not take pictures in that facility.
I said, ‘OK’. ‘The camera is put away.’ And he left.

After about a 15 minute wait, the clerk (a nice and pleasant young lady) returned
with a copy of my FILED stamped Cover Page (plus my Lavaca County FILED page), and
said ‘There you are.’ I smiled my best smile, said, ‘thank you very much’, and
left.

I also smiled broadly at the receptionist in the hall, and at the Security Guards
who observed my departure from askance. Upon exiting the building, I made a small
leap into the air as I let out a well-known Texas ‘YIPPEE!’

So here it is: The State of TEXAS, Jurisdiction: Williamson County; Grand Jury
Presentments Re: Fraud (eligibility) and Treason.
FILED at 10:46 o’clock am, June 15, 2009
/s/ Lisa David District Clerk, Williamson Co, TX

Respectfully submitted,

Neil B. Turner, Juror of May 9th, 2009 American Grand Jury

Read the evidence against AKA Obama:

Somehow, you know its coming. That OMG moment is just around the corner. You can
feel the inescapable reality creeping up on you. Something will leak. Someone will
spill the beans.
“For nothing is hid that shall not be made manifest, nor anything secret that
shall not be known and come to light.” Luke 8:17

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/04/aka-obama-fans-all-together-now-say-
omg.html

Some people who do not read posts before they comment need to be reminded that AKA
Obama and his co-defendants, the leaders of the Deomcratic Party, are open to a
charge of election fraud in every jurisdiction that has a voting machine. Our goal
is to present indictments in every jurisdiction of the union.

It is highly unlikely that not even one jurisdiction will take action on the
indictment. All we need is one jurisdiction to order “Discovery.” The case against
AKA OBAMA is unique because it will be over in the Discovery phase, as the first
step in a criminal complaint. The goal of the project I support is not to convict
and punish AKA Obama but to discover what AKA OBAMA doesn’t want us to know, and
why he doesn’t want us to know it. Our goal will be achieved without a trial or a
verdict.

Even if an independently convened grand jury is mistakenly seen as merely people

assembling to exercise their Constitutional right to “redress their grievances,”
or report crimes, that is no small thing.

Hundreds of people in such “assemblies” will be examining evidence and presenting

the results of their investigation to appropriate county, state, and federal
authorities, some of whom will almost certainly form more conventional grand
juries to indict AKA OBAMA.

Can one honestly surmise that there is not one prosecutor or judge in the entire
nation who questions AKA OBAMA’s eligibility to be President?

The American Grand Jury organization with which I am affiliated is using

recognized expert witnesses with a long professional history of forensic
testimony.

The guiding principles for the project are the usual protocols of epistemology,
scientific methodology, and rules of evidence. Any prosecutor or judge who ignores
such evidence and testimony is at risk of being seen as acquiescent.

_____________________________

The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government

by Leo C. Donofrio, J.D.
January 22, 2009

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 do 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 darn 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 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 altar of the U.S. Supreme Court, "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, darn 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 kicking.