Skip to comments.PHN files Federal Grand Jury Petition
Posted on 08/21/2009 11:22:38 AM PDT by roaddog727
Patriots Heart Network (PHNMedia.com), in the name of our members and represented by Attorney Stephen Pidgeon, along with Carl Swensson (RiseUpForAmerica.com) Robert Debeaux, Robert Pinkstaff, and Dr. Penny Kelso have successfully filed a petition in the US District Court in Washington, D.C. requesting a Federal Grand Jury be assembled to look into high crimes against the United States of America and against our 1st amendment rights. Defendants on the Petition are Barry Soetoro, (aka Barack Obama) Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and the Media. These crimes include Conspiracy, False Personation, Intimidation of Voters, Fraud and False Statements, Fraud and related activity, Treason and Misprision of Treason. The motion for relief seeks the appointment of a Federal Grand Jury by the Chief Judge of the DC Court, Royce Lamberth.
This issue about Natural Born Citizenship status and the eligibility to be President is NOT a fringe issue. It is not mere fodder of the misdirected gullible tin hat clubbers. The mocks of those who attempt to minimize and/or toss away sincere American voices as those who just have no clue. Qualification to serve as President is a SERIOUS Constitutional issue and it is time that We The People get the answers in which We are entitled. We have been ignored, mocked, and laughed at by many. We remain undeterred in our determination to move forward.
(Excerpt) Read more at phnmedia.com ...
As always, have at it.
I wish you luck.
Good luck. Keep the heat on him. Sooner or later, the truth will come out. I hope we still have a country to rescue when it does.
It’s time to take back the country. Let’s start at the top. Where’s the BC?
Since when have constitutional issues ever had any traction?
Ellen Tausher’s little blue dress...
The more we chip away, the more damage done.
Q: How do you eat an elephant?
A: One spoonfull at a time.
“The Media” is named as a defendant?
How delusionally stupid is that?
The US really needs to consider adopting a system where plaintiffs have to pay court costs up-front. (And defendants’ costs when they lose.)
In the petition it describes the grand jury rights of citizens....
This could be a key to allow citizens to keep their government honest. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past.”
the Founders thought the grand jury so essential to basic
liberties that they provided in the Fifth Amendment that federal prosecution forserious crimes can only be instituted by ‘a presentment or indictment of a Grand
Jury.’ United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974), 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).”
4.1 Authority of the Citizens Grand Jury to Bring Presentment
HISTORY OF FEDERAL GRAND JURY POWER
“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.” 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.
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in operative part that “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless
on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.”
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.” Creighton Law Review, op. cit.
The Constitution intended to give the grand jury power to instigate criminal charges, and this was especially true when it came to government oversight. This power has been eroded by the overreach of the legislative branch.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution still contains the same words quoted above, but if you sit on a grand jury and return a “presentment” today, some legislatures have required that a prosecutor or other officer of the court sign it or it may not be allowed to stand in court, rendering the criminal charges such independent grand juries have brought to the court’s attention to be swept away.
And the reason for this can be found in a legislative distortion of the actual underlying facts.
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. In general, an effort was made to conform the rules to the contemporary state of federal criminal practice. 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.