WHY AREN’T GRAND JURIES HEARING TESTIMONY FROM WHISTLEBLOWERS?
by Sharon Rondeau
(Jun. 28, 2013) —[Editor’s Note: The following is a continuation of The Post & Email’s recent interview with CDR Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III (USN, Ret.), who has made numerous attempts to present evidence to a federal grand jury on government crime, treason committed by government officials, and the unjust incarceration of Darren Wesley Huff.
Fitzpatrick has demonstrated that average citizens no longer have access to grand juries, which are controlled by prosecutors and U.S. attorneys. The government, therefore, will use the grand jury to assist them in obtaining an indictment against an individual, but as gatekeeper, will not allow exculpatory or any other type of evidence to be presented to the same body for review by a member of the public.
The Fifth Amendment states 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…” but the grand jury’s function has been substantially changed since our founding documents were written. Grand juries were historically used to investigate evidence of crime or wrongdoing on the part of public officials, but their modern form has been reduced to acting only on orders of government prosecutors, mainly to issue indictments. Some states no longer use grand juries to examine evidence of a crime, instead legislating a judicial panel for review of “information” against a suspect.
CDR FITZPATRICK: So what do we find? We have a policy statement that says, “You don’t get in.” We have a letter from the FBI, Kenneth L. Moore, a couple of weeks ago that says, “There’s not enough of a case against Mr. Obama for treason.” Well, excuse me, Mr. Special Agent in Charge of the Knoxville Division for the FBI, who says so?
There is so much evidence out there which can be brought in to a federal grand jury to tell them, “We believe that Mr. Obama is responsible for the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya on September 11-12, 2012.” Bring in the unredacted communications; bring in the witnesses that you can bring in; listen to what they have to say, and let We the People determine whether or not Mr. Obama should face the ultimate criminal consequence.
THE POST & EMAIL: So in 2008, when questions about Obama’s identity, background and constitutional eligibility, the people could have shown that there was no evidence that he qualified and a grand jury could have subpoenaed his records.
CDR FITZPATRICK: Any example that you can think of – real-world examples of government corruption – this is the kind of work that a legitimate, autonomous grand jury can take up and oversee and then punish. But you don’t see that now because the government has taken them over. They’re operating a government that we do not find in our Constitution. We don’t find this government in our Constitution. There’s that treason thing again. So we find treason by seeing that the government that we’re supposed to have here on a local basis isn’t working for us, nor is it working for us at the most senior reaches of our government hierarchy. It’s just not working.
In my conversation with the Associated Press reporter last week, you could hear it in his voice; you could hear him thinking out loud…and he said, “I’m going to take this up with my regional editor.” I said, “Why can’t Gary B. Pruitt, CEO of the Associated Press, approach a grand jury and tell them what he knows about what the Justice Department did regarding the invasion of his company’s phone records, the illegal intrusion into the private business records and personal information of his staff?
Mr. Gary Pruitt gave a speech at the National Press Club where he declared to his colleagues that the Justice Department has become judge, jury and executioner. And I said, “Well, why couldn’t Mr. Pruitt take what he knows the Justice Department did to a grand jury? Well, the reporter perked up when that part of our conversation came around…or, for that matter, Sharyl Attkisson, who knows, because of the CBS-employed computer technicians and experts, that her computer was accessed by the government?
We know that Keith Alexander, the four-star general who is in charge of the National Security Agency, has admitted, “Yes, we have been data-mining on a daily basis.” More information is coming out day by day.
And Mr. Snowden…who has brought him under accusation? Was this something that was taken to a grand jury? Is a grand jury going to protect Mr. Snowden from being the whistleblower that he is? The grand jury is being used against the American people to destroy our government; it’s not being used to defend our form of government.
It’s the grand jury that makes us a republic.
Let me give you an example: Did Mr. Snowden have the opportunity to go into a grand jury in a protected room and to tell them what he knew about the corruption in government as he recognized it?
THE POST & EMAIL: No, he didn’t.
CDR FITZPATRICK: The reason is that he would never have gotten through the morass of government attorneys who would have said, “You can’t do that.” He was blocked from going to the grand jury, so instead, he left the country and reported from a safe haven. If you want an example of what happens when a grand jury has been taken away from us, Edward Snowden is “Exhibit A.”
Now take a look at what’s going on with Darren. If they would give me a date, time and a place to be in front of a grand jury, I would go there and report the crimes of the FBI and the Department of Justice. Darren’s days in that prison would then be numbered; he would be coming home soon. It would have nothing to do with an appeal. The grand jury would recognize that he was a victim of crime on the part of government officials and that he was essentially kidnapped at gunpoint. He is being held as a political prisoner, to be sure. The grand jury would recognize that and see to his release instantly. Then in the empty cell that Darren leaves would be placed people such as William Killian, Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano, Barack Obama, or any of the other people we know: the real criminal actors, the people who are treasonous, the tyrants, who are imposing this tyrannical form of government on us.
Darren Huff was a prop. They went after him specifically, and they tried to get other people, too. It just didn’t work out that way for them.
Van Balen stated in his affidavit of April 26, 2010 that on April 20, 2010, he had received reports from the field to the extent that Darren was at the R. Beecher Witt government building with at least 13 other men carrying guns. So according to Van Balen’s statement, he must have some records that are dated April 20, 2010, and he doesn’t, which is to say another way that Van Balen didn’t care about details or getting it right; he just wrote whatever came to mind.
THE POST & EMAIL: He had the county name wrong and the date of “April 2” when it should have been “April 1.”
CDR FITZPATRICK: He didn’t name a single person in his affidavit who had been approached that day because nobody had been. If the FBI had questioned Bill Looman on April 20 about what had gone on during the course of the day, he would have said that he was with Darren all day long and had left Darren in Knoxville that evening and that they never were at the R. Beecher Witt building. The FBI never had a case against Darren; they made it up, and it was just out of desperation. They were chewing Darren up. It was a calculated assault on Darren. The FBI, working with the U.S. attorneys who brought the case into the grand jury, lied outright because they based everything they said to the grand jury upon Van Balen’s sworn affidavit.
THE POST & EMAIL: It appears they did the same thing with James Rosen, where an FBI agent lied, calling him a “criminal co-conspirator” so that the DOJ could obtain his emails, his phone records, and those of his parents.
CDR FITZPATRICK: They used it as an excuse. It’s nothing but the grace of God that Rosen wasn’t prosecuted, but they could have. In the days when it was first revealed that James Rosen was named as a co-conspirator in an indictment in a national security episode, I said at that point, “We don’t know if he’s going to be prosecuted or not.” It wasn’t until about a week later that the Justice Department backed down and said, “We’re not pursuing this.” At the time that the information was leaked, my understanding was that there was still an investigation under way using the subpoena that Eric Holder signed.
We don’t know everything about the Rosen case, but we can look at Darren Huff’s case and speak with absolute precision, force and authority about how the system is supposed to work and how it’s not working. We can make our case against Obama, Holder, Napolitano, and Killian by saying, “This is what they’ve done to an innocent man, a veteran, in America who was trying to stand up for the Constitution. That makes the case as powerfully as it can be made. He was being targeted for defending the Constitution; that’s all Darren was involved in doing.
The grand jury name has been appropriated, and the faction has been changed, just as a citizen’s arrest has. They’ve taken that name and criminalized it, instead calling it “aggravated kidnapping.” That’s what they tried to do to Darren; they said that he was going to attempt a kidnapping, and they did the same thing with me. The TIME Magazine was put together in coordination with what the FBI and the Justice Department already had under way.
Anything that Darren Huff did was in defense of the Constitution as he had been taught in boot camp as a Navy man. He was assembled with other citizens who were concerned about exactly the same things: corruption in government, specifically, a grand jury foreman, professional foreman, for 28 consecutive years.
THE POST & EMAIL: They’re committing crimes against the citizens they are supposed to be serving.
CDR FITZPATRICK: For four years, we’ve been trying to get large numbers of people to stand up and voice concerns. We’ve tried to get veterans together, but that seems to be falling on deaf ears. We need to find that magnet that will pull people together and find an organization that says, “We’ll lead the charge.”
Washington does not convene state grand juries; Connecticut, Michigan, and Nevada have done away with them. What does that say of the power of We the People in those circumstances when we know that the grand jury has been…murdered?
The grand juries have been taken away from us.
It’s the grand jury that makes us a republic. That is how our republican form of government works. So when you don’t have a grand jury operating as it was designed to operate under our republican form of government, and the grand jury is what makes us a republic, you do not have a Constitution or republican form of government. You have something else, which is where the word “treason” comes to work. It’s the operation of a government not found in our constitution. Whenever you have that environment, you have tyranny.
And how is that tyranny exampled? Take a look at Navy veteran Darren Wesley Huff, who is sitting in a federal prison tonight and has committed no crime. Not only did he not commit a crime, but everything that the government said about him is pure fiction.
This was a manhunt. They got Darren, and they were trying to get other people. Brandon Raub…it’s the same thing with him.
How many people do you think we have in government now who would come forward and tell a grand jury what they know if they thought the grand jury would protect them? They’d be coming out of the woodwork.
THE POST & EMAIL: We would have millions standing in line.
CDR FITZPATRICK: Exactly. Because the grand juries don’t work in this country as they’re supposed to, Mr. Snowden had to seek safe haven in another country and tell his story from a distance. If a grand jury was working as it was meant to work, then Mr. Snowden could have gone in confidently and said, “Excuse me, but I don’t think what’s going on is right, and I’m going to tell you about it. Keep the information secret here” – because a grand jury can maintain that level of security, and then Mr. Snowden says to them, “This is what I know. This is what is going on. Here is my evidence.” And then leave it with the grand jury and go back to work, and say, “I’ve done my job here as an American citizen; it’s now up to the grand jury to decide what to do next.”
THE POST & EMAIL: And if they felt that his evidence was strong enough, they could open their own investigation.
CDR FITZPATRICK: And never reveal the identity of the individual who brought the information to them or their own identities, because a grand jury can remain secret, and then start calling people in…”General Alexander, we have accusations here that you, as a military commander and head of the National Security Agency, are data-mining phone calls and emails, violating the Fourth Amendment, and that you’re collecting up this information which is being stored in a facility which has cost us $2B to construct in Utah…is this true, General?”
Or you can bring in all the people who were in Benghazi on September 11 and 12, military and civilians, and ask them questions about what happened. This is the kind of thing the grand jury should be doing. Very few people in the country understand that this testimony should be presented to a grand jury first. It could have been that way with Darren Huff, Mr. Snowden, Mr. Hicks…but the grand juries are now being used as a tool for tyranny.
THE POST & EMAIL: And each case is just as important as another.
CDR FITZPATRICK: That’s exactly correct. One may have happened in a community and the other on a national scale, but their significance to us as a freedom-loving people is the same.
Obama is actively destroying the Constitution; he is not operating under our United States Constitution. Go back and read the treason complaint dated March 17, 2009. Obama sent military troops into a civilian community to enforce the law. You can’t do that. It’s been admitted as a constitutional violation. Do you think if a grand jury were doing its job right now that Mr. Obama would be as arrogant, as dismissive, carefree and cavalier as he has been?
THE POST & EMAIL: I don’t think he would still be in office, because they would have found that he hid his documents, and they would have subpoenaed them, and we would have found out who he really is.
CDR FITZPATRICK: How many attorneys have we asked to go and take this to a federal grand jury? Perhaps the AP reporter is considering the “power of presentment” tonight.
This is the way to take back our government: Any foreman in any grand jury can call you in and ask you to testify. We need to get the word out in our communities. They live in our viconages; they live among us. Any foreman in a state or federal grand jury in this country can make a phone call and ask people if they would come in voluntarily to testify. If not, then the grand jury can place that person or persons under subpoena and require them to come in and tell the grand jury what they can. So the way to get our grand juries working is to get a number of foremen in this country to stand up and do the right thing. So it’s spreading the word by word of mouth. It’s going to take only one to actually get it right, and then after that, it will be the next and the next and the next.
Any foreman or any person who is in a grand jury can approach his foreman and say, “We need to call this person in; we need to call that person in; we have questions about this or that.” A foreman from a grand jury can call all of the people who have been called to testify before Congress. The same military commanders, IRS officials, State Department officials and ask them these questions. Military commanders are just as judiciable by a grand jury as any other U.S. citizen is.
THE POST & EMAIL: So people are using Congressional committees as a grand jury…
CDR FITZPATRICK: You just reminded me of a very important thought. How many legislators, state or federal, have said anything about a grand jury?
THE POST & EMAIL: None of them.
CDR FITZPATRICK: That’s right. They’re pounding their own chests and saying, “We’re the ones who are going to take this under our wing and decide.” Well, no, it’s not you, senator; it’s not you, representative, state or federal; it’s the grand jury. We need to have representatives, state and federal, say, “This is the stuff for a grand jury,” and then stand up, and instead of calling for a special prosecutor, put together a special state, federal or both, grand jury.
Trey Gowdy, former federal prosecutor…Lindsey Graham, former JAG Air Force Colonel in the Reserves, Megyn Kelly from Fox News is a former federal prosecutor. Judge Napolitano, Judge Pirro…and the list goes on of people who have operated in government as either judges or prosecutors or both…. Who among them is calling for the grand jury to look into those things?
THE POST & EMAIL: None of them. And the average American has no constitutional education.
CDR FITZPATRICK: It’s getting together a group of people to protest what has happened with regard to the appropriation of the name of “grand jury” and the changing of its function. Nobody has taken that up as an issue, but that’s the way we fix the problem. Can you imagine if one day, a White House attorney, maybe the host of the Reality Check radio show, got a call from the federal grand jury foreman in the District of Columbia who said, “We have a subpoena for a guy named…Barack Obama”? We want him here Tuesday; we have a couple of questions for him.”
THE POST & EMAIL: It just occurred to me that on June 19, when the Tea Parties had their “Audit the IRS” rally in Washington, DC, they could have said, “Bring evidence against the IRS to a grand jury.”
CDR FITZPATRICK: Or have a grand jury conduct the audit. Then bring Lois Lerner in to a grand jury and have her take the Fifth in front of them, and let her walk out and then have the grand jury formally accuse her, hand down its presentment, for what they know she did based on evidence that was brought to them by other people. Put her under presentment. The Congress does not have the power of presentment.
THE POST & EMAIL: Then they shouldn’t have to be going through all these hearings; they should be saying, “Take this to a grand jury,” and then they could get on with their jobs.
CDR FITZPATRICK: The grand jury is the most powerful law enforcement agency known in our human history as we know civilized history. The grand jury is the most powerful organization. It can see to the removal of any chief executive to include Barack Hussein Obama.
The grand jury is what makes us a republic, and it’s because we don’t have a grand jury working for us tonight as it should that we are not a constitutional republic.
THE POST & EMAIL: So everyone is looking at all the “scandals,” which are really deep-seated corruption, and asking, “How did it get so bad?” No one has been able to root it out. The whistleblowers could not go to a grand jury…
CDR FITZPATRICK: Now we have information about what happened to Darren and we’re being blocked. You have a policy statement from Eric Holder in the form of that letter dated June 14, 2013 that came out of the Eastern District of Tennessee, Killian’s office that is a Justice Department policy statement.
THE POST & EMAIL: “You can’t get to a grand jury; we’re not going to let you. We use that to indict people; you’re not going to try to use it to exculpate someone.”
CDR FITZPATRICK: That brings to mind one of the congressional hearings in which the question to James Clapper was, “Are you tapping my phone? Are you listening in to the conversations of congressmen?” and Clapper came back and said, “Well, you know, it’s not the kind of thing I can talk about publicly. Let’s talk about that behind closed doors; we have to have a special session for that,” and the senator came back and slapped him down and said, “That’s not the right answer.” He said, “The right answer is ‘no.'” It left Clapper bereft of credibility. When a grand jury starts asking those types of questions, your answers take on a whole different function.
THE POST & EMAIL: Perhaps there are a few congressmen who would be willing to review the Fifth Amendment and would then agree and advocate that testimony should be taken by grand juries.
CDR FITZPATRICK: Any foreman in this country can change the entire scope of history by calling any number of people before a federal grand jury and start the process of asking questions.
THE POST & EMAIL: Do you think they would be afraid that the U.S. attorney who acts as their gatekeeper would prevent people from coming in?
CDR FITZPATRICK: The authority of a grand jury foreman can prevent any U.S. attorney from interfering. A grand jury can do this on their own without permission of the prosecutor.
THE POST & EMAIL: What if the U.S. attorney threatens them?
CDR FITZPATRICK: Then the grand jury should hand down a formal accusation against that U.S. attorney for obstructing justice, perverting the course of justice, or jury-tampering, and then order a federal marshal or FBI agent to place that U.S. attorney under arrest.
THE POST & EMAIL: U.S. attorneys work at the pleasure of the person sitting in the Oval Office, which is Obama right now. How likely is it, even if we could get a strong grand jury foreman to understand this, that that U.S. attorney would not try to interfere?
CDR FITZPATRICK: We are in uncharted waters; we will find out the answer to that question together.