SO BRING THEM THE EVIDENCE!
by Sharon Rondeau
(Jan. 28, 2011) — The Post & Email has reported previously on the intended function of the grand jury as laid out in the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The powers which the grand jury were given have been usurped by judges, prosecutors and court personnel, reducing it to a weak, subservient arm of the local or state government.
However, even today’s grand juries still possess the power to issue subpoenas. If citizens could educate grand jury members on their intended powers, could the grand jury as a body be restored to its origins in America “as a defense against monarchy?”
According to Attorney Roger Roots, “the grand jury is supposed to act as a check on the government — a people’s watchdog against arbitrary and malevolent prosecutions. By and large, however, federal grand juries rarely challenge federal prosecutors.”
Have state and federal Rules of Criminal Procedure been allowed to trump the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Do these rules act to restrict or expand citizens’ constitutional, inalienable rights? Why have prosecutors and judges assumed so much power?
Why have state courts issued Rules of Criminal Procedure when each state has a constitution, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which provide the basis for governance of the citizenry?
In the 1946 Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, presentments from a grand jury are deemed “obsolete.” Why? Whose decision rendered grand jury presentments obsolete? Was Congress simply trying to neutralize the power of the Fifth Amendment without the necessary number of state legislatures agreeing to an amendment?
Were these “rules” put in place to diminish the power of the people to oversee their government? If so, what is the result? Was Congress trying to make itself more powerful (page 7)? And why were prosecutors barred from grand jury deliberations, “but the practice had become widespread by 1946?”
Have attorneys exploited the power of the people, thereby weakening the powers of the grand jury? Is the American Bar Association correct when it states:
Since the role of the grand jury is only to determine probable cause, there is no need for the jury to hear all the evidence, or even conflicting evidence. It is left to the good faith of the prosecutor to present conflicting evidence.
Do we have honest and upstanding judges? Do we have a Supreme Court which rules according to strict constitutional guidelines or one which rules according to feelings, interpretations, and without regard to the limitations placed on it by the U.S. Constitution? The Framers stated in Article III that “The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour…”
How are judges behaving in Monroe County, TN?
Could a constitutional grand jury be stood up such that a prosecutor would be indicted himself for failing to pursue substantiated evidence of criminal activity in government?
Some examples of evidence which could be presented to a sitting federal grand jury:
- Documentation showing that Barack Hussein Obama has usurped the presidency by virtue of the fact that he claims a British father and therefore does not meet the definition of “natural born Citizen” in Article II, Section1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution;
- Evidence of judicial corruption in Tennessee, Washington, and any other state where citizens have identified clear violations of the law, the constitution and rights granted by the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights;
- Evidence indicating that those charged with investigating crime are not doing their jobs;
- Affidavits by citizens who have been victims of police brutality and other abuses by rogue law enforcement officers;
- Credible reports of any crimes committed by public officials at all levels as well as by anyone in the community.
Find out where a federal grand jury sits in your state and bring them the evidence!
© 2011, The Post & Email.