Grand Jury Presentments Served In Washington D.C.

Rise Up For America ^

[MindBender26]

Please be so kind as to have your learned father tell us where the 5th Amendment authorizes and empowers these “Citizens’ Grand Juries” and give us the citation where they have ever acted with any authority or under any color of law.

[Bob J]

Idiot shat like this is whatmakes conservatives...and FR, look like, well, idiots.

[Blackacre]

The idea that a random group of citizens can form their own grand juries is certainly... original.

Not based in any law, but certainly original.

[Bob J]

Why are we protesting ?

1. To get the attention of the mainstream media.

They'll ignore you.

2. To demand That Obama Provide proof that he is eligible to be president.

Probably the worst reason to hold a "million person march". (Why did you forget the ladies?)

3. To demand that Congress and the Supreme court uphold our constitution.

Good luck.

4. To inform the public on the issue of Obama’s ineligibility to be president of the USA.

Wasn't that covered in #2? Redundant.

5. To demand that they can not take our constitutional rights away.

Try stamping your feet a little harder. And wasn't that covered in #3? Double redundant.

If these are the hazy and unfocused reasons you're asking a million "people" to go to Washington, I question the experience and sanity of the organizers.

[patriot08]

It’s ‘whine and do nothing’ attitudes like this that got us a Marxist/Muslim in the White House.
Every March, every tea party, every grand jury, every law suit is a poke in the eye of the usuper- and helps to awaken the ignorant masses to the distruction of America by Obama.

[Man50D]

Please be so kind as to have your learned father tell us where the 5th Amendment authorizes and empowers these “Citizens’ Grand Juries” and give us the citation where they have ever acted with any authority or under any color of law.

Please show me where in the 5th Amendment, including the excerpt below, prevents citizens from convening a Grand Jury?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury

Being an attorney, you should be aware the concept of the grand jury originates from the Magna Carta for the purpose of protecting against government abuse. Additionally, you should also recognize Roger Roots assessment of a Grand Jury as cited in the CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW, Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000, 821. To quote Mr. Roots:

""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.

'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.' "

"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."

As a lawyer you should also know in 1946 the Courts attempted to completely change the Grand Jury concept with the adoption of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure thereby trying to eliminate citizens powers to form a grand jury outside the courts

Back to Mr. Root's position:

"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]"

Rules created by the judicial system do not supersede the Constitution. That's premise of my father's agreement with the common law/citizens Grand Jury per the website.

[Blackacre]

Please show me where in the 5th Amendment, including the excerpt below, prevents citizens from convening a Grand Jury?

You can convene whatever you want, but don't expect anyone to take seriously any demands such a body might issue.

[Man50D]

Idiot shat like this is whatmakes conservatives...and FR, look like, well, idiots.

It's only idiotic to respond with blanket statements void of any specific credible information to the contrary, clearly failing to read any of the information provided at the American Grand Jury website and despite my father using his more than 55 years of legal experience while reviewing AGJ for more than two hours before agreeing with the information.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

As I generally ask on these silly threads, please name the last person imprisoned on charges arising from a ‘citizen Grand Jury’.

[Man50D]

You can convene whatever you want, but don't expect anyone to take seriously any demands such a body might issue.

I won't take seriously anyone who doesn't bother to invest time to understand the power the Constitution provides the people against government abuse.

[Petronski]

Nuttier than a six acre pecan pie.

[Petronski]

This how Conservatives get identified with the lunatic fringe.

Next, some idiot will think they are somehow “special” and try to “serve” Obama or some other protected official, and get shot in the process. Or they will “indict” Obama and get a serious visit from the USSS in the process.

This IS the lunatic fringe.

You damn right. You nailed it.

[Blackacre]

And if the targets of such a “grand jury” decide to ignore its demands (which they will), what will you do then?

If one of these bodies sent me a “presentment” or demanded that I do anything, I’d laugh myself silly.

[Man50D]

As I generally ask on these silly threads, please name the last person imprisoned on charges arising from a ‘citizen Grand Jury’.

Your question clearly shows you do not understand the court system attempted to thwart Citizen's Grand Jury in 1946 by taking over the process contrary to the fifth amendment, giving the impression it can't be done not resulting anyone being imprisoned by a citizen grand jury in modern times. American Grand Jury is merely asserting the fifth amendment right the court system system attempted to remove. I suggest you thoroughly read the information at the website before falling into the same trap as other naysayers.

[Man50D]

Nuttier than a six acre pecan pie.

Another ludicrous statement lacking any coherent thought.

[Petronski]

Stop projecting. I’m not the one posting the moonbattery.

[Man50D]

And if the targets of such a “grand jury” decide to ignore its demands (which they will), what will you do then?

If one of these bodies sent me a “presentment” or demanded that I do anything, I’d laugh myself silly.

Why don't you try actually freaking try to read the website? Once an indictment is handed down then it is referred to a court of law. You'll be in contempt of court and find yourself laughing all the way to jail.

[Petronski]

Why don't you try actually freaking try to read the website?

Plowing through that pseudo-legal word salad (complete with the spastic HTML formatting) was amusing in a pathetic sort of way.

Once an indictment is handed down then it is referred to a court of law.

I've never seen a sitting judge rolling on the floor laughing his ass off, but that would be one sure way to do it.

[Man50D]

Stop projecting. I’m not the one posting the moonbattery.

You reduce your comments to insults lacking any cogent thought and yet some how I'm projecting! LOL!!! If people asserting the Constitution to prevent a tyrannical government form of government from usurping it is moonbattery then so be it. Doing nothing is tantamount to condoning the act.

[Man50D]

Plowing through that pseudo-legal word salad (complete with the spastic HTML formatting) was amusing in a pathetic sort of way.

That pseudo-legal word salad is the rule of law. BO rejoices at the likes of you knowing you couldn't care less about the rule of law while he tramples all over it.