All of the Things a Constitutional Grand Jury Could Do

SO BRING THEM THE EVIDENCE!

by Sharon Rondeau

Has U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts exhibited "good behaviour" since his appointment?

(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.[3] 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?

According to one writer, “The 5th Amendment still says what it has always said.”  Even with all of the “rules” which have been enacted, look at the power the grand jury has!

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!

7 Responses to "All of the Things a Constitutional Grand Jury Could Do"

  1. dotdotcom   Saturday, January 29, 2011 at 6:27 PM

    I’ve been thinking about that lately…Roberts messed up the public swearing in so they did another one in private the next day…I’ve been thinking maybe they did that on purpose because Roberts is in on this and they had to use Barry’s REAL NAME to swear him in??? As far as I know, no one can find any records showing where he changed his name from Barry to Barack so maybe Barry is still his legal name. Also, Barry met with the Supremes in private before he was sworn in and no one knows why…maybe it was about his name??? I don’t know, this is just a theory on my part but these days, I don’t know what to believe.

  2. Joe Maine   Saturday, January 29, 2011 at 1:22 PM

    Sharon, where did “Researcher” go?

    No articles on Abercrombie’s foolishness or the continued search for the “written” original birth record (= no hospital birth)?

    I tried to email you, but again you must have my old email address on block. Haven’t talked to you in at least 2 months.

    JM
    —————
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Can you try editor@thepostemail.com with a new email address? Something might have happened when we migrated to a different host; I know our list of subscribers was lost. I have not heard from Researcher lately.

  3. 68Truthseeker   Saturday, January 29, 2011 at 12:53 PM

    Hannity Has No Problem With People “Asking To See Obama’s Birth Certificate 1-27-11

  4. js   Saturday, January 29, 2011 at 10:27 AM

    It is clear that the duty to uphold the constitution…a sworn oath that all lawyers and judges employed by the DoJ…must take…that every sitting member of the Supreme Court..must take…and an oath that every employee of every state and federal government…and every congressman and every senator… must take…which demands that they defend the constitution…against all enemies…foreign and domestic…is ignored in the behavior of these men…who refuse to validate the eligibility of the man who sits in the Office of POTUS…
    That it is a willful failure to perform…in good faith…the duty of their offices…which demands they defend the constitution and the united states…against all enemies…foreign and domestic…not to defend the man in the office…sitting as POTUS…without sufficient proof of his eligibility…instead of defending the office which he holds…against usurpation…it is…a constitutional duty…that these members of our government are obliged to perform…without reservation…to insure that the eligibility of the POTUS…is verified…prior to his taking office…
    So, without the grand jury….without that power by wielded by the citizens of the USA…that power given without reservation by the US Constitution…they have no reason to perform in accordance with their obligated duties…no cause to protect the constitution, except that it be a convenience for them to retain the power that they so gleefully usurp from the people and the states to which such power belongs…
    And…to bring them into compliance…with the moral obligation to perform the duties sworn to in their oaths that they willingly took when they accepted those positions of power…we must find a way to charge each and every one of them…with the breach of such trust…no matter if it is just the few who stand directly before the courts defying their obligations….or the entire federal government…which has failed in its obligation to follow the Constitution that our forefathers died to pass on to us…to protect and preserve the same constitution for future generations…

  5. Spaulding   Saturday, January 29, 2011 at 12:55 AM

    Now Mrs Rondeau has pointed us at another facility provided by our framers, and one which some of us have no knowledge of. There it is in the 5th Amendment.

    I’m sure others noticed that, while no one would expect the justices to be candid about their reasons, the three originalists chose not to attend the address by the chief executive, the one who is not constitutionally a president. Their hands may be tied, presumably by Robert’s weakness – he knew Obama was born a British Subject but swore him in. The term is, I believe, “misprision of felony.” It could be treason, but is certainly not “good behavior.”

    The research question is by what authority a grand jury could raise the eligibility challenge? Where is an honest and brave constitutional attorney when we need one?

  6. Bob1943   Friday, January 28, 2011 at 8:56 PM

    How about a Grand Jury look at this very believable information about why the media is silent on Barry’s ineligibility?

    http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/white-house-insider-warns-of-dire-consequences-from-eligibility-issue

  7. Bob1939   Friday, January 28, 2011 at 6:59 PM

    Another excellent article Sharon, and I’m not a legal expert by any stretch, but I certainly do know right from wrong, and so do a lot of the folks. I therefore feel that we had best depend on our grand juries in future “by the people” rather than the Supreme Court and its gang of do-nothing-judges. “You just can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear”. I really do think that we are quite on our own now, and must pull all patriots together to get the job done. Look at what the most honorable Pastor James David Manning did single-handedly with a very few patriots, and precious little help from anyone else… http://atlahmedianetwork.org/?p=10572

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.