IMPEACHMENT OUTLINE The Second American Revolution PATRIOTS FOR AMERICA PFA IMPEACHMENT GRAND JURY TEAM AS A NATIONAL GRAND JURY EMPOWERED BY THE 5TH AMENDMENT NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS, SUBMISSIONS, TEXT, FILES, VERBAL, EMAIL, FAX AND OR OTHER COMMUNICATIONS BY ANY AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE PFA IMPEACHMENT GRAND JURY TEAM (TEAM), ARE TO BE SEQUESTORED WITHIN THE TEAM AND MAY NOT BE EXPOSED, LEAKED, DISCUSSED OR OTHERWISE COMMUNICATED TO ANY PARTY OR OTHER PERSON, OUTSIDE OF THE TEAM.
Transcript
IMPEACHMENT OUTLINE The Second American Revolution
PATRIOTS FOR AMERICA
PFA IMPEACHMENT GRAND JURY TEAM AS A NATIONAL GRAND JURY EMPOWERED BY THE 5TH AMENDMENT
NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS, SUBMISSIONS, TEXT, FILES, VERBAL, EMAIL, FAX AND OR OTHER COMMUNICATIONS BY ANY AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE PFA IMPEACHMENT GRAND JURY TEAM (TEAM), ARE TO BE SEQUESTORED WITHIN THE TEAM AND MAY NOT BE EXPOSED, LEAKED, DISCUSSED OR OTHERWISE COMMUNICATED TO ANY PARTY OR OTHER PERSON, OUTSIDE OF THE TEAM.
2
Forward: Today we lay out before you certain requests, foundations and guidelines for the establishment of the most sweeping impeachment effort ever sought in America’s 233 years of existence. No one could have foreseen the extraordinary times, conditions and events that require us to take this journey but it is with great pride in our Founding Fathers and with reverence to the U.S. Constitution that we realize that America has no other option. There are extraordinary moments in history that demand action by the keepers of the Public Trust, Freedom, Liberty and our Constitutional Republic. The actions we will recommend cannot be entrusted to a corrupt or unlawful government. The guiding principles and foundation of our mission and the bedrock of all of our efforts and legal authority is and always has been the Constitution of the United States. In normal times and under normal conditions the three branches of government are charged with the responsibility of safeguarding the Constitution, national sovereignty and public trust by being separate but equal. At the Federal level of government, the Constitution lays out three separate levels of protection for this nation. In blatant disregard and contempt for the Constitution all three branches of government have, by their actions and deeds, demonstrated that their officers and employees charged with administering these protections have come to have little or no actual responsibility or duty to their Oaths to the Constitution. The Constitution also provides yet another layer of protection at the state level. But here again, this level of government has been mute and even complicit in the Federal level violations of Trust and Oaths to defend and protect the Constitution, by their repeated and individual refusal to address the issues that affect our citizens and their Constitutional rights. Constitutional Authority for a Civilian Impeachment Grand Jury: Pursuant to the Constitution of the United States of America, the gatekeeper and ultimate enforcer of the Constitution and every word therein is, in fact, the American people. The power entrusted to the people, is superior to any Federal or State agency. Thus “power entrusted to the people”, therein authorizes and requires the people to organize, act and stand as the sole responsible party within the Constitution, to safeguard this nation from an unconstitutional government and process, that would otherwise infringe upon the people’s rights, trust, expectations, fiduciary wealth and or national and or state sovereignty. There are those who that claim “only the House of Representatives” may bring charges of impeachment and or impeach federal elected and or appointed officials. They also claim that only the Senate can convict or acquit persons impeached by the House of Representatives. Their interpretations are so narrowly construed as to require the strictest adherence to the US Constitution. Thus, their interpretations do not consider that the Founding Fathers of this nation could not have imagined that the government they created would one day become so polluted with a proliferation of Breach of the Public Trust, Professional Misconduct, Unethical Conduct,
3
Corruption, Fraud, Professional Incompetence, Dishonor, Theft, Racketeering, Seditionist Acts, and according to some outright Treason. Nor do such interpretations give any credence to Constitutional provisions that the people are the final owners of the right to power and the right to control any and all government duties. One could argue that there are two separate ways in which impeachment may be employed. The second option is based upon the legal precedence that the rights granted to the Congress or any other branch of government by the Constitution cannot be and are not superior to the rights of the American People, under the provision of civil rights for petition of redress. The constitutional power and authority of We the People, sitting as grand jurors, has been subverted since 1946 when the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were enacted. Regardless, the power still exists in the Constitution, and has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court despite the intention of the legislature and some judges, that such power disappear by fiat. That is, to repeat a lie with force and repetition to the point that the lie magically morphs into the truth. In the case of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, the power of the Grand Jury to return “presentments” on its own proactive initiation, without reliance on a US Attorney has been usurped in this way.
Regardless, the power still exists in the Constitution and has been upheld by the United States supreme Court despite the intent of the legislature and other legal persons, to wit; Repeat a lie with force and repetition and the lie becomes accepted as the truth. In the case of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, the power of the grand jury to return Presentments on it's own proactive initiation, without reliance upon a US Attorney to concur in such criminal charges, cannot be usurped by deliberate obfuscation of the law. The following articles provide quotes and cited scholars, judges and legislators as a brief review of the history of federal grand jury processes: UNITED STATES CITIZENS SITTING AS FEDERAL GRAND JURORS ARE THE FOURTH BRANCH OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. My input into this vital fight is no more than the analysis of a few carefully used words. It only took a small sleight of pen back in 1946 to hide our power, and it won’t take more than a few words to take that power back. But a proper overview is necessary for most of you who are unfamiliar with the issue at hand. So let me provide you with some history and then we’ll see what went wrong and how to correct it. HISTORY OF FEDERAL GRAND JURY POWER I want to draw your attention to a law review article, 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. “In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law
4
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.” The 5th Amendment: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” An article appearing in American Juror, the newsletter of the American Jury Institute and the Fully Informed Jury Association, citing the famed American jurist, Joseph Story, explained : “An indictment is a written accusation of an offence preferred to, and presented, upon oath, as true, by a grand jury, at the suit of the government. An indictment is framed by the officers of the government, and laid before the grand jury. Presentments, on the other hand, are the result of a jury’s independent action: ‘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.’ “ Back to the Creighton Law Review: “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.” So, it’s clear that the Constitution intended to give the grand jury power to instigate criminal charges, and this was especially true when it came to government oversight. But something strange happened on the way to the present. That power was eroded by a lie enacted by the legislative branch. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution still contains the same words quoted above, but if you sit on a grand jury and return a “presentment” today, the prosecutor must sign it or it probably won’t be allowed to stand by the judge and the criminal charges you have brought to the court’s attention will be swept away. And the reason for this can be found in a legislative lie of epic proportions. Mr. Roots weighs in again:
5
“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]“ Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP): “An offense which may be punished by death shall be prosecuted by indictment. An offense which may be punished by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or at hard labor shall be prosecuted by indictment…” No mention of “presentments” can be found in Rule 7. But they are mentioned in Note 4 of the Advisory Committee Notes on the Rules: “4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts.” The American Juror published the following commentary with regards to Note 4: “[W]hile the writers of the federal rules made provisions for indictments, they made none for presentments. This was no oversight. According to Professor Lester B. Orfield, a member of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, the drafters of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 6 decided the term presentment should not be used, even though it appears in the Constitution. Orfield states [22 F.R.D. 343, 346]: ‘There was an annotation by the Reporter on the term presentment as used in the Fifth Amendment. It was his conclusion that the term should not be used in the new rules of criminal procedure. Retention might encourage the use of the run-away grand jury as the grand jury could act from their own knowledge or observation and not only from charges made by the United States attorney. It has become the practice for the United States Attorney to attend grand jury hearings, hence the use of presentments have been abandoned.’ That’s a fascinating statement: “Retention might encourage…the grand jury [to] act from their own knowledge or observation.” God forbid, right America? The nerve of these people. They have the nerve to put on the record that they intended to usurp our Constitutional power, power that was intended by the founding fathers, in their incredible wisdom, to provide us with oversight over tyrannical government. And so they needed a spin term to cast aspersions on that power. The term they chose was,
6
“runaway grand jury”, which is nothing more than a Constitutionally mandated grand jury, aware of their power, and legally exercising that power to hold the federal beast in check, as in “checks and balances”. The lie couldn’t be inserted into the Constitution, so they put it in a statute and then repeated it. And scholars went on to repeat it, and today, as it stands, the grand jury has effectively been lied into the role of submissive puppet of the US Attorney. The American Juror publication included a very relevant commentary: “Of course, no statute or rule can alter the provisions of the Constitution, since it is the supreme law of the land. But that didn’t prevent the federal courts from publishing a body of case law affirming the fallacy that presentments were abolished. A particularly egregious example: ‘A rule that would permit anyone to communicate with a grand jury without the supervision or screening of the prosecutor or the court would compromise, if not utterly subvert, both of the historic functions of the grand jury, for it would facilitate the pursuit of vendettas and the gratification of private malice. A rule that would open the grand jury to the public without judicial or prosecutorial intervention is an invitation to anyone interested in trying to persuade a majority of the grand jury, by hook or by crook, to conduct investigations that a prosecutor has determined to be inappropriate or unavailing.’ [7] What is the result? Investigating seditious acts of government officials can be deemed inappropriate or unavailing by the prosecutor, or the judge can dismiss the grand jurors pursuing such investigations. Consequently, corrupt government officials have few natural enemies and go about their seditious business unimpeded. By the way, they made a rule to take care of runaways too, in 1946: Rule 6(g): ‘At any time for cause shown the court may excuse a juror either temporarily or permanently, and in the latter event the court may impanel another person in place of the juror excused.’ Now judges can throw anyone off a grand jury, or even dis-impanel a grand jury entirely, merely for exercising its discretion.” Now let me add my two cents to this argument: Most of the discussion about Note 4 to Rule 7 of the FRCP takes for granted that the common law use of “presentments” (as codified in the 5th Amendment) was made “illegal” in 1946 by this act. Nothing could be more false. Note 4 does not contain language that makes the use of presentments “illegal”, although it had chosen its words carefully to make it appear as if that is what the legislative branch intended. But let’s look at Note 4 again: “4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts.”
7
The key word is, “obsolete”. Obsolete means “outmoded”, or “not in use anymore”, but it does not mean “abolished” or “illegal”. And therein lies the big lie. The legislature knew it could not directly overrule the Constitution, especially with something so clearly worded as the 5th Amendment, which grants a power to the people which has a long and noble purpose in criminal jurisprudence. But the federal beast legislative branch sought more power to protect themselves from the oversight of “we the people”, and in its vampire like thirst for more governmental control, it inserted this insidious Note 4 in the hope that scholars and judges would play along with their ruse, or in the alternative, their ruse would appear to be legally viable. Let’s look at some authoritative legal resources which discuss Note 4: Susan Brenner, THE VOICE OF THE COMMUNITY: A CASE FOR GRAND JURY INDEPENDENCE: “Finally, federal grand juries’ subservience to prosecutors was exacerbated when the federal system eliminated the use of presentments, which allowed a grand jury to bring charges on its own initiative. (N35) Now, federal grand jurors cannot return charges in the form of an indictment without a prosecutor’s consent. (N36) Elimination of the presentment demonstrates the historical trend towards elimination of proactive features in the grand jury system.” Did Brenner fall for the lie or did she cleverly further it when she said, “[T]he federal system eliminated the use of presentments”? The federal system did no such thing. Note 4 said the use of presentments was “obsolete”. First of all, Note 4 is not a law in itself. It is a Note to a law, and the law as written, does not have anything to say about presentments. You see the leap Brenner has made? The Constitution provides for “presentments”, then the FRCP are enacted and the Rules therein do not mention presentments, nor due they ban presentments, and if they did, such a ban would be unconstitutional, since an administrative enactment regarding procedure can not overrule the Constitution. Regardless, it’s irrelevant, since the FRCP does not mention “presentments”. Note 4 simply states that “presentments” allowed for in the 5th Amendment of the Constitution have become “obsolete”, or outmoded, which is not to say that they were “eliminated”. Shame on you Susan Brenner. You know damn well that the Constitution can only be changed by an official Amendment to it. Nothing can be “eliminated” from the Constitution by an administrative note. The use of presentments had become obsolete because the grand jurors were not aware of their power. So the use of “presentments” became more and more rare, and then in 1946 the legislative branch seized upon the moment to make this power disappear by waving its magic wand over the Constitution. Mr. Root got it wrong in the Creighton Law Review as well: “Before the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure — which made independently-acting grand juries illegal for all practical purposes — grand juries were understood to have broad powers to operate at direct odds with both judges and prosecutors…”
8
The FRCP did not make it “illegal for all practical purposes”. That’s patently false. I don’t know if Mr. Root, and/or Susan Brenner, were acting as the magician’s assistant, but I can’t imagine how these educated scholars could be so incredibly ignorant of basic Constitutional law. Give me a damn break. But if enough people repeat the lie, the lie appears to be the truth. But we have it on good authority, the Supreme Court, that the lie has no legal effect. Justice Powell, in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974), stated: “The institution of the grand jury is deeply rooted in Anglo-American history. [n3] In England, the grand jury [p343] served for centuries both as a body of accusers sworn to discover and present for trial persons suspected of criminal wrongdoing and as a protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action. In this country, the Founders thought the grand jury so essential to basic liberties that they provided in the Fifth Amendment that federal prosecution for serious crimes can only be instituted by “a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” 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).” The Note 4 lie is smashed on the SCOTUS altar, “The grand jury’s historic functions survive to this day.” Take that Note 4! Antonin Scalia effectively codified the unique independent power of the Fourth Branch into the hands of all citizens sitting as federal grand jurors. In discussing that power and unique independence granted to the grand jury, the United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992), Justice Scalia, delivering the opinion of the court, laid down the law of the land: “‘[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history,” Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It “`is a constitutional fixture in its own right.’” United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). ‘ “I submit to you that this passage sets the stage for a revolutionary new context necessary and Constitutionally mandated to “we the people”, THE FOURTH BRANCH of the Government of the United States. Besides, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches, I submit that there is a fourth branch, THE GRAND JURY, and “we the people” when sitting as grand jurors, are, as Scalia quoted in US v. Williams, ” a constitutional fixture in its own right”. Yes, damn it. That is exactly what the grand jury is, and what it was always intended to be.
9
Scalia also stated, that “the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside…” Id. And finally, to seal the deal, Scalia hammered the point home: “In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504 U.S. 36, 48] “ This miraculous quote says it all, “…the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people.” The Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, gives rise to a FOURTH BRANCH of Government, THE GRAND JURY. We the people have been charged with oversight of the government in our roles as grand jurors. And at this critical time in American history, we must, for the protection of our constitutional republic, take back our power and start acting as powerful as the other branches of government. The law is on our side. So please spread this knowledge as far and wide as you can. We the people have the right and power under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution to charge this government with crimes by returning presentments regardless of whether the US Attorneys or the federal judges agree with us. As the Supreme Court has so brilliantly stated, we are the “buffer between the Government and the people.” [As found above, the People have every right] to investigate criminal activity on our own volition to review Government activity and bring all criminality to justice was very well received. It seems to have woken a lot of people up to the possibility of reviving the Constitution. The power of “presentment” is not some fanciful concept but a very real provision stated unequivocally in the 5th Amendment. There’s no legal reason why we can’t use it. That being said, the question of how we can use it must be tackled. But always keep this in mind when the naysayers start harassing you. 25 people sitting on Grand Juries is the way we do all criminal indictments in the US. If somebody is facing the death penalty or life in prison, they must first be brought before a Grand Jury and if 13 of the 25 agree that the person should stand trial then that’s what happens. IF THE GRAND JURY IS GOOD ENOUGH AND TRUSTWORTHY ENOUGH FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO IMPRISON OR KILL WE THE PEOPLE, THEN THE GRAND JURY SYSTEM IS ALSO GOOD ENOUGH AND TRUSTWORTHY ENOUGH TO INVESTIGATE THE GOVERNMENT FOR CRIMES.
10
This will be your mantra. Don’t forget it. Say it every day. And as a teaser let me present to you some interesting SCOTUS language. In United States v. Morton Salt, 338 U.S. 632 (1950), Justice Jackson said this: The only power that is involved here is the power to get information from those who best can give it and who are most interested in not doing so. Because judicial power is reluctant, if not unable, to summon evidence until it is shown to be relevant to issues in litigation, it does not follow that an administrative agency charged with seeing that the laws are enforced may not have and exercise powers of original inquiry. It has a power of inquisition, if one chooses to call it that, which is not derived from the judicial function. It is more analogous to the Grand Jury, which does not depend on a case or controversy for power to get evidence, but can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just because it wants assurance that it is not. Ok, now let’s review the obstacle in our path. wherein this Note to a Rule has been used as the executioner of our Presentment rights. Basically, this note - which has no legal power to reverse a Constitutional provision - has been used to declare our 5th Amendment “Presentment” power as “obsolete”. Obsolete is a clever use of wording. Obsolete doesn’t mean “illegal” or “cancelled by law”… obsolete simply means that it hasn’t been used recently, but “not being used” doesn’t mean we can’t use it. We can. In UNITED STATES vs. WILLIAMS 504 U.S. 36 (1992) the Court discussed a case wherein the defendant in a criminal action sought to overturn a Grand Jury indictment since the Prosecutor failed to provide exculpatory evidence to the Grand Jury. Defendant relied on a rule which the 10th Circuit had enacted which required disclosure of exculpatory evidence by the prosecutor to the Grand Jury. But SCOTUS did not accept the argument. Justice Scalia wrote the following: Respondent does not contend that the Fifth Amendment itself obliges the prosecutor to disclose substantial exculpatory evidence in his possession to the grand jury. Ah, please note the Court’s concern for the construction of the 5th Amendment. SCOTUS tells us here that the 5th Amendment trumps the 10th Circuit disclosure Rule. Scalia goes on: Instead, building on our statement that the federal courts “may, within limits, formulate procedural rules not specifically required by the Constitution or the Congress,” United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 505 (1983), he argues that imposition of the Tenth Circuit’s disclosure rule is supported by the courts’ “supervisory power.” We think not. Hasting, and the cases that rely upon the principle it expresses, deal strictly with the courts’ power to control their own procedures. See, e. g., Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657, 667-668 (1957); McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943). That power has been applied not only to improve the truth finding process of the trial, see, e. g., Mesarosh v. United States, 352 U.S. 1, 9-14 (1956), but also to prevent parties from reaping benefit or incurring harm from violations of substantive or procedural rules (imposed by the Constitution or laws) governing matters apart from the trial itself, see, e. g., Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914). Thus, Bank of Nova Scotia v.
11
United States, 487 U.S. 250 (1988), makes clear that the supervisory power can be used to dismiss an indictment because of misconduct before the grand jury, at least where that misconduct amounts to a violation of one of those “few, clear rules which were carefully drafted and approved by this Court and by Congress to ensure the integrity of the grand jury’s functions,” United States v. Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66, 74 (1986) (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment). [n.6]
We did not hold in Bank of Nova Scotia, however, that the courts’ supervisory power could be used, not merely as a means of enforcing or vindicating legally compelled standards of prosecutorial conduct before the grand jury, but as a means of prescribing those standards of prosecutorial conduct in the first instance — just as it may be used as a means of establishing standards of prosecutorial conduct before the courts themselves. It is this latter exercise that respondent demands. Because the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such “supervisory” judicial authority exists, and that the disclosure rule applied here exceeded the Tenth Circuit’s authority. So what does that mean to the Presentment issue? It means that no Federal regulation can trump the Constitution. The Constitution says we the people can bring “Presentments”. A footnote to a Rule of procedure that attempts to set aside a Constitutional power granted to we the people has no legal effect whatsoever. Then check out Scalia as he goes on to cement the fact that the Grand Jury is a separate branch of Government: “[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo American history,” Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It ” `is a constitutional fixture in its own right.’ ” United States v. Chanen, 549 F. 2d 1306, 1312 (CA9) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F. 2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 6(a). The grand jury’s functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised. “Unlike [a] [c]ourt, whose jurisdiction is predicated upon a specific case or controversy, the grand jury `can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.’ ” United States v. R. Enterprises, 498 U. S.
12
___, ___ (1991) (slip op. 4) (quoting United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 642-643 (1950)). It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even “the precise nature of the offense” it is investigating. Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273, 282 (1919). The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, see Hale, supra, at 59-60, 65, nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day to day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. See Calandra, supra, at 343. It swears in its own witnesses, Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 6(c), and deliberates in total secrecy, see United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc., 463 U. S., at 424-425. True, the grand jury cannot compel the appearance of witnesses and the production of evidence, and must appeal to the court when such compulsion is required. See, e. g., Brown v. United States, 359 U.S. 41, 49 (1959). And the court will refuse to lend its assistance when the compulsion the grand jury seeks would override rights accorded by the Constitution, see, e. g., Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972) (grand jury subpoena effectively qualified by order limiting questioning so as to preserve Speech or Debate Clause immunity), or even testimonial privileges recognized by the common law, see In re Grand Jury Investigation of Hugle, 754 F. 2d 863 (CA9 1985) (same with respect to privilege for confidential marital communications) (opinion of Kennedy, J.). Even in this setting, however, we have insisted that the grand jury remain “free to pursue its investigations unhindered by external influence or supervision so long as it does not trench upon the legitimate rights of any witness called before it.” United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1973). Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said that the Fifth Amendment’s “constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body `acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge’. . . .” Id., at 16 (emphasis added) (quoting Stirone, supra, at 218). (Cite by: Leo C. Donofrio, Esq. Currently admitted to practice law in New Jersey and in Federal District Court) (Cite) The Founders' intent for impeachment was to protect the fundamental principle of “the consent of the governed.” The Constitution carries no title but “We the People,” and impeachment removes from office those officials who ignore that standard. (Recall that the Constitution does not guarantee a federal judge his position for life, but only for the duration of “good behavior.” Art. III, Sec. 1) For this reason impeachment was used whenever judges disregarded public interests, affronted the will of the people, or introduced arbitrary power by seizing the role of policy-maker. Previous generations used this tool far more frequently than today's generation; and because the grounds for impeachment were deliberately kept broad, articles of impeachment have described everything from drunkenness and profanity to judicial high-handedness and bribery as reasons for removal from the bench. (Sixty-one federal judges or Supreme Court Justices have been investigated for impeachment, of whom thirteen have been impeached and seven convicted.) Today's judiciary, not having experienced any serious threat of impeachment as judges in earlier generations, repeatedly flaunts its contempt for the will of the people. It recently has overturned direct elections in Washington, New York, California, Arkansas, Texas, Missouri, etc., simply because it preferred a different outcome. This is not to suggest that the results of all citizen elections are final and infallible, for it is the duty of the Court to protect the Constitution.
13
However, the above elections violated at most the judiciary's ideological leanings rather than any manifest provision of the Constitution (e.g., English as a State's official language, ending government assistance for illegal immigrants, enacting term-limits, prohibiting physician-assisted suicides). National Grand Jury Pursuant to First Amendment (The right of the people peaceably to assemble), the Ninth Amendment (The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people), and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the PEOPLE), this National Grand Jury is convened by natural born citizens of the fifty several states and of the United States of America, seating 50 jurors pursuant to the duties, powers, responsibilities, qualifications as established hereunder for the following purposes: To examine all aspects of the federal government by initiating its own investigations. To serve as ombudsmen for the citizens of the country in respect to constitutional rights. and privileges established under the organic documents of the United States of America, as properly amended from time to time. To conduct criminal investigations of members of the federal government, and, if the evidence is sufficient, issue criminal indictments. The National Grand Jury Process The National Grand Jury, although a part of the judicial system, is an entirely independent body. Judges of the Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeal, and the District Courts of the United States, United States Attorneys, and Congress of the United States may act only as advisors. They cannot prevent National Grand Jury action unless that action violates the duly enacted laws as originally created in the United States. The National Grand Jury shall review and evaluate procedures, methods and systems used by federal governmental agencies to determine whether they comply with the stated objectives of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for the United States of America as properly amended. The National Grand Jury shall review the officers of the federal government to determine whether they are constitutionally qualified to hold office, and to determine if their actions and behavior are consistent with stated objectives of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution for the United States of America as properly amended, and the criminal law as recognized in any of the several states. No individual grand juror, acting alone, has any power or authority. Meetings of the National Grand Jury are not open to the public. All matters discussed before the National Grand Jury and
14
votes taken are to be kept private and confidential. The end result of inquiries into civil matters are released to the public in the form of a final report which is approved, prior to release, by the Foreperson of the National Grand Jury. The National Grand Jury is empowered to:
Inquire into the condition and management of branches of the federal government and its agencies.
Investigate and report on the operations, accounts and records of federal officers, departments, and functions. Inquire into the willful or corrupt misconduct in office of public officers.
Submit a final report of its findings and recommendations, no later than the end of its term, to the Presiding Juror of the National Grand Jury.
Requirements to Become a Grand Juror
National Grand Juror candidates must meet all of the following qualifications: Be a natural born citizen of the United States (born in one of the fifty states of the United States to parents both of whom were U.S Citizens and resident in the United States at that time).
Be at least 18 years old. Be a resident of the state that the Juror represents for at least one year immediately prior to selection.
Exhibit intelligence, sound judgment, and good character.
Cannot have been convicted of malfeasance in office, any felony or other high crime.
Cannot be serving as a public official.
Grand Jury Selection Process There shall be 100 members of the Grand Jury with 50 alternates. Candidates are to be selected from a pool of nominees who shall submit their nomination to the nominating committee. Nominees will be appointed by the affirmative vote of the nominating committee, who shall base their nomination on the following criteria expressed in priority: First - an affidavit of qualification where the nominee asserts that the nominee: Is a natural born citizen of the United States, setting forth the place of birth, the date of birth, the place of birth of the nominee’s father, the place of birth of the nominee’s mother, and the residency of the parents at the time of birth;
15
Is at least 18 years of age; is and has been a resident of the state the nominee seeks to represent for at least one year prior to the application; Is intelligent (demonstrating the ability to read and to write), uses sound judgment (exhibits ability to reason) and is a person of good character (does not engage in misconduct, interpersonal attacks, foul language or disruptive behavior); Is not serving as a public official. Second – the ability to serve as a Juror, where the nominee asserts that the nominee Can and will attend each meeting of the National Grand Jury without absence Can and will render decisions according to the rule of law without prejudice or bias Can and will prepare decisions and recommendations in writing Can and will use electronic technology such as email, blog posting, text messaging, teleconferencing and so on. Third – order in which the application is received Potential grand jurors will be given information about National Grand Jury duties and the time commitment required. The committee shall interview each candidate, usually twice, to reduce the number to 100, two from each of the several states. The final selection is made by the affirmative vote of the majority of the nominating committee. Grand Jury Officers Grand Jury officers and duties are: Foreperson recognizes that the most important responsibility lies in seeing that the Grand Jury as a whole and each of the committees function effectively and efficiently. Foreperson Pro Tem, in absence of the foreperson, assumes all functions of foreperson. Recording Secretary is general assistant to the foreperson in all matters, keeps an accurate record (minutes) of the proceedings of each meeting. Corresponding Secretary is responsible for incoming and outgoing mail. Treasurer provides jurors with reimbursement forms and collects these forms at the end of each quarter, handles all bills received by the Grand Jury.
16
Examples of Judicial Abuses While most are aware of the 9th Circuit's recent decision that saying “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance threatens our American form of government, there are numerous additional examples, some staggeringly unbelievable. For example, in Jane Doe v. Santa Fe, a federal judge ruled that graduation prayers must not include any mention of “Jesus” or other “specific deities” and that any student offering such a prayer would face immediate arrest and up to six months in jail. The judge threatened “violators” by saying they would wish they “had died as a child” once his court finished with them. In a Texas county where conservatives narrowly won multiple seats in an election, a federal judge reversed that outcome by arbitrarily throwing out the 800 votes cast by U.S. military personnel, saying they had no right to vote in local elections. A federal judge in Nashville reviews the verdict of any jury in Tennessee that awards the death penalty. This judge has openly declared his personal opposition to the death penalty and has set aside every jury decision on this issue, despite the Constitution's explicit language to the contrary. The judge even allows nine years to pass, on average, before overturning the jury's sentence, thus disregarding the Constitution's guarantee to a speedy trial. After citizens in a statewide election voted down a proposed tax-increase in Missouri, a federal judge, in direct violation of Article I of the Constitution, unilaterally set aside the election results and instead decreed that the tax be levied in order to finance his own personal plan for education in the State. Interestingly, this judge's plan (which funded the “Taj Majal” of public education) proved to be a dismal failure - at the continuing economic expense of the entire State. There are many other examples; today's judiciary is now so arrogant that the Supreme Court's own Justices have described it as “a super board of education for every school district in the nation,” as amateur psychologists on a “psycho-journey,” and as “a national theology board.” The Supreme Court versus Congress Even though the Constitution gave the lawmaking powers to the Congress, courts have become the predominant policy making body in the nation. In fact, on public tours of the Supreme Court, one often hears the ridiculous claim that “this is the building from which all the laws in the land emanate.” The Supreme Court, fully believing its own propaganda, regularly strikes down or rewrites the laws of Congress to conform to its own predilections and edicts. For example, in 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to correct an earlier Supreme Court decision that weakened a long-standing First Amendment protection for religious groups. That Congressional act reinstituted protection declaring that a government entity must not interfere with a religious body unless it had “a compelling state interest” for doing so. When a Catholic church in Boerne, Texas, sought to accommodate its burgeoning membership but was denied a building permit to expand its facilities, the church invoked relief under RFRA, claiming the city had no “compelling state interest” in denying the church expansion. The Court ruled otherwise, striking down Congress' attempt to protect
17
religious bodies from government intrusion. While most decried this decision for weakening the rights of religious bodies, there was a far greater question at stake. Congress invoked Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution in passing RFRA to protect religious freedoms from further governmental encroachment. Yet even though the Congress had acted on the power explicitly given it in the Constitution, the Court struck down the law, refusing to be corrected by Congress and warning that Congress should not attempt to correct a Court ruling. Significantly, Congress cited the Constitution as its authority for passing RFRA, but the Court did not cite the Constitution as its authority for striking RFRA down. The Court instead pointed to its own previous decisions, thus elevating its rulings higher than the Constitution itself. As it explained, “Any suggestion that Congress has a substantive, non-remedial power under the Fourteenth Amendment is not supported by our case law.” The Court then rebuked Congress, warning that its judicial edicts must be treated “with the respect due them.” In short, we the Court demand that you the Congress adhere to our opinions regardless of what the Constitution says. Obviously, the Supreme Court considers both itself and its decisions supreme over Congress. However, the Constitution disagrees - it deliberately empowers Congress with greater power. For example, the Constitution gives Congress the authority to set the salaries for judges, determine the size of the Judiciary, establish the scope of the Judiciary's jurisdiction and the types of cases which come before it. Furthermore, judges cannot serve without the approval of Congress, and Congress may remove judges with whom it is dissatisfied. These are just some of the “constitutional arms” for Congress' “powers of self-defense” (Federalist 73, Alexander Hamilton). The Constitution clearly places many of the operations of the Judiciary under the oversight of Congress - a power not granted reciprocally to the Judiciary. This is made clear in the Federalist Papers (described by James Madison as “the most authentic exposition of the heart of the federal Constitution”), which confirm that subjugating the Judiciary to Congress was deliberate and intentional. Federalist #51 declares: The legislative authority necessarily predominates. Federalist #78 then proclaims: The Judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power. Furthermore, Federalist #49 declares that Congress - not the Court - is “the confidential guardians of [the people's] rights and liberties.” Why? Because the Legislature - not the unelected judiciary - is closest to the people and most responsive to them. In fact, the Court's own history proves that it is not a proficient guardian of the people's rights. For example, after the Civil War, Congress passed civil rights laws forbidding segregation, but the Court struck down these laws and instead instituted “separate but equal” in Plessey v. Ferguson. (While the Court eventually ended this racial segregation in Brown v. Board of Education, that decision was merely the Court's reversal of its own segregation standard previously established in Plessey.)
18
Moreover, had it been up to the Court, slavery would have never ended: in 1857, the Court declared it unconstitutional for the other branches to end slavery or to free slaves. Fortunately, Congress ignored that decision by declaring freedom for slaves in 1862 and President Lincoln also ignored that decision by issuing the “Emancipation Proclamation” in 1863. All substantive progress in civil rights after the Civil War was accomplished only after Congress used Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution to remove Reconstruction issues from the Court's reach. Indeed, history demonstrates that the Court is less than a faithful guardian of the people's rights, violating the people's liberties as often as it protects them. As Thomas Jefferson pointed out: Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. . . . and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. Today, the Court claims that it is the only body capable of interpreting the Constitution - that Congress is incapable of determining constitutionality. However, the Founding Fathers vehemently disagreed. For example, James Madison declared: [T]he meaning of the Constitution may as well be ascertained by the Legislative as by the Judicial authority. Constitutional Convention delegate Luther Martin similarly attested: A knowledge of mankind and of legislative affairs cannot be presumed to belong in a higher degree to the Judges than to the Legislature. The Founders consistently opposed the Court being the final word on constitutionality. For example, Thomas Jefferson declared: [T]o consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. . . . The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal. He further explained that if the Court was left unchecked: The Constitution . . . [would be] a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please. Allowing the Court to enlarge its own sphere of power beyond what the Constitution authorizes, permitting the Court to usurp the powers of Congress, and tolerating the Courts' disregard of constitutional separation of powers moves America ever further from being a representative republic and ever closer toward the oligarchy against which Jefferson warned. The Court must be resisted in these attempts.
19
Impeachment: The Founders' Solution As noted earlier, judges in previous generations who usurped powers from Congress or the people faced impeachment. But today's critics claim that the use of impeachment would either make the judiciary a “political” branch (as if it were not already a political branch) or that it would violate the “independence of the judiciary.” Yet, as Thomas Jefferson so accurately cautioned, It should be remembered as an axiom of eternal truth in politics that whatever power . . . is independent is absolute also. . . . Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. No judge should ever be so independent that he is unaccountable to the Congress, and thereby the people. As Justice James Iredell (placed on the Court by President George Washington) so clearly explained: Every government requires it [impeachment]. Every man ought to be amenable for his conduct. Iredell further noted that some officials will behave themselves only under “the very terror of punishment” that impeachment provides. Recent events suggest he was right. In 1996, six members of the Supreme Court voted to overturn the Colorado election forbidding special (rather than just equal) rights for homosexuals. Following that flagrant display of contempt for the will of Colorado voters, there was a national call for the impeachment of those six Justices. After this clamor for their removal, those same six Justices suddenly became ardent defenders of the people's elections and in a subsequent decision unexpectedly and unanimously chastised a lower court that had overturned a statewide election in Arizona. (Interestingly, Thomas Jefferson on multiple occasions called impeachment a “scarecrow” - something used to frighten predators - and the threat of impeachment certainly had that effect on the Supreme Court.) Similarly, after a federal judge overturned a binding referendum by the voters of California (“Proposition 209”), national leaders called for the impeachment of that judge. Later, the 9th Circuit ordered the results of the election reinstated and criticized that judge for ignoring the will of the people. Yet, this same 9th Circuit Court had itself shortly before overturned at least three similar elections. Why the flip-flop? The “scarecrow” had been forcefully raised by Congress to make judges accountable for their decisions by returning to the original constitutional uses of impeachment. It is true that impeachment is a cumbersome process, and achieving a conviction is difficult. However, on most occasions, just the threat of impeachment produces results. In fact, there are several examples of federal judges correcting their own decisions after hearing Congressional calls for their impeachment; and an actual impeachment sends an even more powerful message to all other wayward leaning judges. Although Congress is ultimately responsible for the discipline of judges, far too many of our
If an arrest warrant is issued, it should be served by US Marshals, or by the FBI, however, Defendants may be tried in absentia. If tried in absentia, the People shall provide Defense Counsel, should the Defendant not be otherwise represented. The Trial (one Judge and 50 Jurors) or Tribunal (7 Judges) shall reach a majority to convict, upon the agreement of two thirds of the Jury (34 of 50) or Jurists (5 of 7). Standard rules of evidence and discovery shall apply, as will standard Courtroom and trial protocol, legal ethics and decorum.
22
IMPEACHMENT GROUNDS & LEGAL DEFINITIONS: Abuse of Official Capacity: A public servant commits an offense if, with intent to obtain a benefit or with intent to harm or defraud another, he intentionally or knowingly: (1) violates a law relating to the public servant's office or employment; or (2) misuses government property, services, personnel, or any other thing of value belonging to the government that has come into the public servant's custody or possession by virtue of the public servant's office or employment. Abuse of Power: Use of one who possesses a position of power in a manner contrary to law. Improper use of power, distinguished from usurpation of power which presupposes exercise of power not vested in the offender. Swenson v. Cahoon, 111 Fla. 788, 152 So. 203, 204 Abuse of Process: the use of legal process by illegal, malicious, or perverted means. Examples include serving (officially giving) a complaint to someone when it has not actually been filed, just to intimidate an enemy; filing a false declaration of service (filing a paper untruthfully stating a lie that someone has officially given a notice to another person, filing a lawsuit which has no basis at law, but is intended to get information, force payment through fear of legal entanglement or gain an unfair or illegal advantage. Some people think they are clever by abusing the process this way. A few unscrupulous lawyers do so intentionally and can be subject to discipline and punishment. Sometimes a lawyer will abuse the process accidentally; an honest one will promptly correct the error and apologize. Aiding & Abetting: Assisting in or otherwise facilitating the commission of a crime. Amendment - First: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Amendment - Ninth: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. RIGHTS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those.\1\ Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives. ``It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.''\2\ It is clear from its text and from Madison's statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas [[Page 1504]] not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement.\3\ Recently, however, the Amendment has been construed to be positive affirmation of the existence of rights which are not enumerated but which are nonetheless protected by other provisions. \1\The Federalist No. 84 (Modern Library ed. 1937). \2\1 Annals of Congress 439 (1789). Earlier, Madison had written to Jefferson: ``My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights; provided it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration. . . . I have not viewed it in an important light--1. because I conceive that in a certain degree . . . the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted. 2. because there is great reason to fear that a positive declaration of some of the most essential rights could not be
23
obtained in the requisite latitude. I am sure that the rights of conscience in particular, if submitted to public definition would be narrowed much more than they are likely ever to be by an assumed power.'' 5 Writings of James Madison, 271-72 (G. Hunt ed. 1904). See also 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 1898 (1833). \3\To some extent, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments overlap with respect to the question of unenumerated powers, one of the two concerns expressed by Madison, more clearly in his letter to Jefferson but also present in his introductory speech. Supra, n.2 and accompanying text. The Ninth Amendment had been mentioned infrequently in decisions of the Supreme Court\4\ until it became the subject of some exegesis by several of the Justices in Griswold v. Connecticut.\5\ There a statute prohibiting use of contraceptives was voided as an infringement of the right of marital privacy. Justice Douglas, writing the opinion of the Court, asserted that the ``specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.''\6\ Thus, while privacy is nowhere mentioned, it is one of the values served and protected by the First Amendment, through its protection of associational rights, and by the Third, the Fourth, and the Fifth Amendments as well. The Justice recurred to the text of the Ninth Amendment, apparently to support the thought that these penumbral rights are protected by one Amendment or a complex of Amendments despite the absence of a specific reference. Justice Goldberg, concurring, devoted several pages to the Amendment. \4\In United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 94-95 (1947), upholding the Hatch Act, the Court said: ``We accept appellant's contention that the nature of political rights reserved to the people by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments [is] involved. The right claimed as inviolate may be stated as the right of a citizen to act as a party official or worker to further his own political views. Thus we have a measure of interference by the Hatch Act and the Rules with what otherwise would be the freedom of the civil servant under the First, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments.'' See Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 300- 11 (1936), and Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. TVA, 306 U.S. 118, 143-44 (1939). See also Justice Chase's opinion in Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386, 388 (1798), and Justice Miller for the Court in Loan Ass'n v. Topeka, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 655, 662-63 (1875). \5\381 U.S. 479 (1965). \6\Id. at 484. The opinion was joined by Chief Justice Warren and by Justices Clark, Goldberg, and Brennan. ``The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. . . . To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth [[Page 1505]] Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment. . . . Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of right protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution's authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.''\7\ While, therefore, neither opinion sought to make of the Ninth Amendment a substantive source of constitutional guarantees, both did read it as indicating a function of the courts to interpose a veto with regard to legislative and executive efforts to abridge other fundamental rights. In this case, both opinions seemed to concur that the fundamental right claimed and upheld was derivative of several express rights and in this case, really, the Ninth Amendment added almost nothing to the argument. But if there is a claim of a fundamental right which cannot reasonably be derived from one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, even with the Ninth Amendment, how is the Court to determine, first, that it is fundamental, and second, that it is protected from abridgment?\8\ \7\Id. at 488, 491, 492. Chief Justice Warren and Justice Brennan joined this opinion. Justices Harlan and White concurred id. at 499, 502, without alluding to the Ninth Amendment, but instead basing their conclusions on substantive due process, finding that the state statute ``violates basic values implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,'' (citing Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937)). Id. at 500. It would appear that the source of the fundamental rights to which Justices Douglas and Goldberg referred must be found in a concept of substantive due process, despite the former's express rejection of this ground. Id. at 481-82. Justices Black and Stewart dissented. Justice Black viewed the Ninth Amendment ground as essentially a variation of the due process argument under which Justices claimed the right to void legislation as irrational, unreasonable, or offensive, without finding any violation of an express constitutional provision. \8\Notice the recurrence to the Ninth Amendment as a ``constitutional `saving clause''' in Chief Justice Burger's plurality opinion in Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia,
24
448 U.S. 555, 579-80 & n.15 (1980). Scholarly efforts to establish the clause as a substantive protection of rights include J. Ely, Democracy and Distrust--A Theory of Judicial Review (Cambridge: 1980), 34-41; and C. Black, Decision According to Law (New York: 1981), critically reviewed in W. Van Alstyne, Slouching Toward Bethlehem with the Ninth Amendment, 91 Yale L. J. 207 (1981). For a collection of articles on the Ninth Amendment, see The Rights Retained by the People: The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment (Randy E. Barnett, ed., 1989). Amendment - Fourteenth: Rights Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Amendment - Twentieth : Presidential, Congressional Terms. 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin. 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day. 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the
25
manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified. 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them. 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article. 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission. Bicameral: Having, consisting of, or based on two legislative chambers Breach of the Constitution: The breaking or violating of a law, right, obligation, engagement, or duty as held in the United States Constitution and or Bill of Rights, either by commission or omission. Exists where one party to contract fails to carry out term, promise or condition of the contract. Breach of Promise: the willful violation of a promise and or assurance to another, to which a party is therein dependent upon. Breach of the Public Trust: is defined as the violation of expected honor between any public, government and or elected official and the general public, in any attempt to fraudulently appropriate, or attempt thereof, through actions, words, promises, oaths, deeds, or to cover up each other's crimes & transgressions, and or to use their Statutory Powers to enrich themselves or others or other unprofessional ethics, seeks to take, surrender, transfer or otherwise misappropriate unto it’s self, the public property, power, authority, rights or freedoms by a person to whom it has been promised, entrusted, or into whose hands it has lawfully come. The ownership or beneficial interest in the property, rights and or freedoms in respect of which the criminal breach of trust is alleged to have been committed. Civil Rights Violation: any elected official, government employee, agency of any level of government thereof, and or any person within the United States, which seeks to limit and or expunge those rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, including the right to due process, equal treatment under the law of all people regarding enjoyment of life, liberty, property, and protection. Positive civil rights include the right to vote, the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of a democratic society, such as equal access to public schools, recreation, transportation, public facilities, and housing, and equal and fair treatment by law enforcement and the courts, regardless of willingness or sole intent, is guilty of a Civil Rights Violation, which if found within a true bill, requires both civil and criminal prosecution. Constitutional Misconduct: improper and/or illegal acts by a public official which violate his/her duty to follow the law and act on behalf of the public good as obligated within the United States Constitution and or the Bill of Rights. Often such conduct is under the guise or "color" of official authority. Corruption: An act done with an intent to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. The act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others. See: Bribe, extortion. Collusion: An agreement between two or more persons to defraud a person of his rights by the forms of law, or to obtain an object forbidden by law. It implies the existence of fraud of some kind, the employment of fraudulent means, or of lawful means for the accomplishment of an unlawful purpose. Tomiyosu v. Golden, 81 Nev. 140, 400
26
P. 2d 415, 417. A secret combination, conspiracy or concert of action between two or more persons for fraudulent and deceitful purpose. See Conspiracy Compounded Crime: Compounding crime consists of the receipt of some property or other consideration in return for an agreement not to prosecute or inform on one who has committed a crime. There are three elements to this offense in common law, and under the typical compounding statute: (1) the agreement not to prosecute; (2) knowledge of the actual commission of a crime; and (3) the receipt of some consideration. Compounded Felony: Compounding Felony consists of the receipt of some property or other consideration in return for an agreement not to prosecute or inform on one who has committed a felony crime. There are three elements to this offense in common law, and under the typical compounding statute: (1) the agreement not to prosecute and or inform; (2) knowledge of the actual commission of a crime; and (3) the receipt of some consideration. Conflict of Interest: a situation in which a person has a duty to more than one person or organization, but cannot do justice to the actual or potentially adverse interests of both parties. This includes when an individual's personal interests or concerns are inconsistent with the best for a customer, or when a public official's personal interests are contrary to his/her loyalty to public business. An attorney, an accountant, a business adviser or realtor cannot represent two parties in a dispute and must avoid even the appearance of conflict. He/she may not join with a client in business without making full disclosure of his/her potential conflicts, he/she must avoid commingling funds with the client, and never, never take a position adverse to the customer. Congress: Congress of the United States (Congress) is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States of America, consisting of two houses, the Senate and the House of Representative. Article I of the Constitution vests all legislative power in the Congress. Conspiracy: A combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is lawful in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators, or for the purpose of using criminal or unlawful means to the commission of an act not in itself unlawful. A person guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission he: (a)agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct which constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; or (b) agrees to aid such other person or persons in the planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime. Model Penal Code, §5.03 Conspiracy to Defraud: the act of two or more persons which knowingly use deceit, falsehoods or trickery to obtain money, an object, rights, power, authority or anything of value belonging to another. Constructive Fraud: when the circumstances show that someone's actions give him/her an unfair advantage over another by unfair means (lying or not telling the public the full truth about defects in a law or bill, for example), the court may decide from the methods used and the result that it should treat the situation as if there was actual fraud even if all the technical elements of fraud have not been proven. Crimes Against the Nation: the act by any member of any federal branch of the government, which by their acts, acts of omission, calculation, efforts and or deeds deliberately inflict on any group, or the whole of the citizenry, any condition of life calculated to bring and infringe about its financial, liberty, civil rights, enslavement and or physical destruction in whole or in part. Defraud: to use deceit, falsehoods or trickery to obtain money, an object, rights, power, authority or anything of value belonging to another.
27
Dereliction of Duty: abandoning of a assignment, duty, obligation and or fiduciary responsibility. It includes the abandoning of a fundemental responsibility, oath, act, care or mandate. A person may be found guilty of Dereliction of Duty if the act is confirmed to have happened, regardless of the actor is aware of the fact, or not. Dishonor: actions by an elected official and or any other government employee, that by using threats, improper use of process or tricky and/or dishonorable means, by issuing misleading statements as to the material fact or facts, in a public and or private discourse, that puts the Public Good, Public Interest and or Public Safety at risk, or by such means shows a concerted effort to change public opinion and or the public discourse for personal, influence, political and or financial gain, or if found by any panel, committee or court of public standing, to have been found guilty of such actions, he/she therein brings Dishonor upon themselves, their office, position and or agency. Extortion: The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under the color of official right. 18 U.S.C.A. §871 et seq.; § 1951 A person is guilty of theft by extortion if he purposely obtains property of another by threatening to (1) inflict bodily injury on anyone or commit any other criminal offense; or (2) accuse anyone of a criminal offense; or (3) expose any secret tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to impair his credit or business repute; or (4) take or withhold action as an official, or cause an official to take or withhold action; or (5) bring about or continue a strike, boycott or other collective unofficial action, if the property is not demanded or received for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act; or (6) testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another’s legal claim or defense; or (7) inflict any harm which would not benefit the actor. Model Penal Code, §223.4 See also blackmail, Hobbs Act, Loan Sharking, shakedown. Election Fraud: any act of a candidate which is designed to fool, misdirect, confuse or otherwise by such effort, serves to disenfranchise or by such acts violates the public trust or any right of the public voter, such as to run for any elected office when the candidate knowingly is unqualified, disqualifiable or otherwise unfit under any rule, law and or Constitutional mandate. Extrinsic Fraud: fraudulent acts which keep a person from obtaining information about his/her rights to enforce a contract or getting evidence to defend against a lawsuit. This could include destroying evidence or misleading an ignorant person about the right to sue. Extrinsic fraud is distinguished from "intrinsic fraud," which is the fraud that is the subject of a lawsuit. Fiduciary: 1) n. from the Latin fiducia, meaning "trust," a person (or a business like a bank or stock brokerage) who has the power and obligation to act for another (often called the beneficiary) under circumstances which require total trust, good faith and honesty. The most common is a trustee of a trust, but fiduciaries can include business advisers, attorneys, guardians, administrators of estates, real estate agents, bankers, stockbrokers, title companies, government employees, elected officials, government agencies or anyone who undertakes to assist someone who places complete confidence and trust in that person, company or government agency or body, such as a local . Characteristically, the fiduciary has greater knowledge and expertise about the matters being handled. A fiduciary is held to a standard of conduct and trust above that of a stranger or of a casual business person. He/she/it must avoid "self-dealing" or "conflicts of interests" in which the potential benefit to the fiduciary is in conflict with what is best for the person who trusts him/her/it. For example, a stockbroker must consider the best investment for the client and not buy or sell on the basis of what brings him/her the highest commission. While a fiduciary and the beneficiary may join together in a business venture or a purchase of property, the best interest of the beneficiary must be primary, and absolute candor is required of the fiduciary. 2) adj. defining a situation or relationship in which a person is acting as a fiduciary for another. Fiduciary Fraud: a person, group, agency and or organization which while acting as a trustee, agent and or representative of another, commits fiduciary fraud if, what in the discharge of their duties, responsibilities and or oaths, such person, group, agency and or organization employs intentional and or materially intends by the use of deceit, a trick or some dishonest means to deprive any person of his/her/its money, property or a legal right.
28
Fiduciary Malfeasance: the intentional doing something relating to a fiduciary trust which is either legally, ethically or morally wrong which one had no right to do. It always involves dishonesty, illegality or knowingly exceeding authority for improper reasons. This applies to all elected and or public officials that act in any capacity as a trustee for the public wealth and others cloaked with such responsibility. Finding of Fact: In law, a question of fact (also known as a point of fact) is a question which must be answered by reference to facts and evidence, and inferences arising from those facts. Such a question is distinct from a question of law, which must be answered by applying relevant legal principles. The answer to a question of fact (a "finding of fact") is usually dependent on particular circumstances or factual situations. Fraud: the intentional use of deceit, a trick or some dishonest means to deprive another of his/her/its money, property or a legal right. A party who has lost something due to fraud is entitled to file a lawsuit for damages against the party acting fraudulently, and the damages may include punitive damages as a punishment or public example due to the malicious nature of the fraud. Quite often there are several persons involved in a scheme to commit fraud and each and all may be liable for the total damages. Inherent in fraud is an unjust advantage over another which injures that person or entity. Fraud in the Inducement: the use of deceit, a lie, mistruth, material falsehood, threat, promise of unfounded fear or trick to cause the public to act to his/her disadvantage, such as waiving of any right, protection or matter of sovereignty, or by deeding away real property by misleading the public discourse or opinion by the actors words or deeds therein. . The heart of this type of fraud is misleading the other party as to the facts upon which he/she will base his/her decision to act. Fraudulent Conveyance: the transfer (conveyance) of title to real property for the express purpose of putting it beyond the reach of a known creditor. In such a case the creditor may bring a lawsuit to void the transfer. High Crimes & Misdemeanors: the meaning of the phrase in the Constitution at Art. II Sec. 4, "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". I have carefully researched the origin of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons. Under the English common law tradition, crimes were defined through a legacy of court proceedings and decisions that punished offenses not because they were prohibited by statutes, but because they offended the sense of justice of the people and the court. Whether an offense could qualify as punishable depended largely on the obligations of the offender, and the obligations of a person holding a high position meant that some actions, or inactions, could be punishable if he did them, even though they would not be if done by an ordinary person. Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming. These would not be offenses if committed by a civilian with no official position, but they are offenses which bear on the subject's fitness for the duties he holds, which he is bound by oath or affirmation to perform. Perjury is usually defined as "lying under oath". That is not quite right. The original meaning was "violation of one's oath (or affirmation)". The word "perjury" is usually defined today as "lying under oath about a material matter", but that is not its original or complete meaning, which is "violation of an oath". We can see this by consulting the original Latin from which the term comes. From An Elementary Latin Dictionary, by Charlton T. Lewis (1895), Note that the letter "j" is the letter "i" in Latin.
periurium, i, n,, a false oath, perjury. periurus, adj., oath-breaking, false to vows, perjured. iuro, avi, atus, are, to swear, take an oath. iurator, oris, m., a swearer. iuratus, adj., sworn under oath, bound by an oath.
29
ius, iuris, that which is binding, right, justice, duty. per, ... IV. Of means or manner, through, by, by means of, ... under pretense of, by the pretext of, ....
By Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 8, the president must swear: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." He is bound by this oath in all matters until he leaves office. No additional oath is needed to bind him to tell the truth in anything he says, as telling the truth is pursuant to all matters except perhaps those relating to national security. Any public statement is perjury if it is a lie, and not necessary to deceive an enemy. When a person takes an oath (or affirmation) before giving testimony, he is assuming the role of an official, that of "witness under oath", for the duration of his testimony. That official position entails a special obligation to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and in that capacity, one is punishable in a way he would not be as an ordinary person not under oath. Therefore, perjury is a high crime. An official such as the president does not need to take a special oath to become subject to the penalties of perjury. He took an oath, by Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 8, to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States" and to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" to the best of his ability. While he holds that office, he is always under oath, and lying at any time constitutes perjury if it is not justified for national security. Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr erred in presenting in his referral only those offenses which could be "laid at the feet" of the president. He functioned like a prosecutor of an offense against criminal statutes that apply to ordinary persons and are provable by the standards of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". That is not to say that such offenses are not also high crimes or misdemeanors when committed by an official bound by oath. Most such offenses are. But "high crimes and misdemeanors" also includes other offenses, applicable only to a public official, for which the standard is "preponderance of evidence". Holding a particular office of trust is not a right, but a privilege, and removal from such office is not a punishment. Disablement of the right to hold any office in the future would be a punishment, and therefore the standards of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" would apply before that ruling could be imposed by the Senate. It should be noted, however, that when an offense against a statute is also a "high crime or misdemeanor", it may be, and usually is, referred to by a different name, when considered as such. Thus, an offense like "obstruction of justice" or "subornation of perjury" may become "abuse of authority" when done by an official bound by oath. As such it would be grounds for impeachment and removal from office, but would be punishable by its statutory name once the official is out of office. An executive official is ultimately responsible for any failures of his subordinates and for their violations of the oath he and they took, which means violations of the Constitution and the rights of persons. It is not necessary to be able to prove that such failures or violations occurred at his instigation or with his knowledge, to be able, in Starr's words, to "lay them at the feet" of the president. It is sufficient to show, on the preponderance of evidence, that the president was aware of misconduct on the part of his subordinates, or should have been, and failed to do all he could to remedy the misconduct, including termination and prosecution of the subordinates and compensation for the victims or their heirs. The president's subordinates include everyone in the executive branch, and their agents and contractors. It is not limited to those over whom he has direct supervision. He is not protected by "plausible deniability". He is legally responsible for everything that everyone in the executive branch is doing. Therefore, the appropriate subject matter for an impeachment and removal proceeding is the full range of offenses against the Constitution and against the rights of persons committed by subordinate officials and their agents which have not been adequately investigated or remedied. The massacre at Waco, the assault at Ruby Ridge, and many, many other illegal or excessive assaults by federal agents, and the failure of the president to take action against the offenders, is more than enough to justify impeachment and removal from office on grounds of dereliction of duty. To these we could add the many suspicious incidents that indicate covered up crimes by federal agents, including the suspicious deaths of persons suspected of being knowledgeable of wrongdoing by the president or others in the executive branch, or its contractors. The impeachment and removal process should be a debate on the entire field of proven and suspected misconduct by federal officials and agents under this president, and if judged to have been excessive by reasonable standards, to be grounds for removal, even if direct complicity cannot be shown. House of Representatives: United States House of Representatives (the House), is the lower house of the bicameral United States Congress which is the legislative branch of government of the U.S.A. Individual Capacity: by the singular self, person or principle.
30
Intrinsic Fraud: an intentionally false representation (lie) which is part of the fraud and can be considered in determining general and punitive damages. This is distinguished from extrinsic fraud (collateral fraud) which was a deceptive means to keeping one from enforcing his/her legal rights. Malfeasance: Evil doing; ill conduct. The commission of some act which is positively unlawful; the doing of an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; the doing of an act which person ought not to do at all or the unjust performance of some act which the party had no right or which he had contracted not to do. Comprehensive term including any wrongful conduct that affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duties. State ex rel. Knabb v. Frater, 198 Wash. 675, 89 p2d. 1046, 1048. Misdemeanor: Misdemeanors are distinguished from felonies, which can be punished by a state prison term. They are tried in the lowest local court such as municipal, police or justice courts. Typical misdemeanors include: petty theft, disturbing the peace, simple assault and battery, drunk driving without injury to others, drunkenness in public, various traffic violations, public nuisances and some crimes which can be charged either as a felony or misdemeanor depending on the circumstances and the discretion of the District Attorney. "High crimes and misdemeanors" referred to in the U.S. Constitution are felonies. Malpractice: An act or continuing conduct of a professional which does not meet the standard of professional competence and results in provable damages to one or more members of his/her constituency. Such an error or omission may be through negligence, ignorance (when the professional should have known), or intentional wrongdoing. However, malpractice does not include the exercise of professional judgment even when the results are detrimental to the members of his/her constituency. Except in cases of extremely obvious or intentional wrongs, in order to prove malpractice there must be testimony of an expert as to the acceptable standard of care applied to the specific act or conduct which is claimed to be malpractice and testimony of the expert that the professional did not meet that standard. The defendant then can produce his/her own expert to counter that testimony. Professions which are subject to lawsuits based on claims of malpractice include lawyers, elected and non elected public officials. Money Laundering: Money laundering usually consists of three steps: placement, layering, and integration. Placement is the depositing of funds in financial institutions or the conversion of cash into negotiable instruments. Placement is the most difficult step. The easiest way to begin laundering large amounts of cash is to deposit them into a financial institution. However, under the federal Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (BSA), 31 U.S.C.A. §§ 5311 et seq., financial institutions are required to report deposits of more than $10,000 in cash made by an individual in a single day. National Security Risk: Non-US citizens can not obtain a security clearance; however, they may be granted a Limited Access Authorization (LAA). LAAs are grant in those rare circumstances where the non-US citizen possesses unique or unusual skill or expertise that is urgently needed to support a specific US Government contract involving access to specified classified information (no higher than Secret), and a cleared or clearable US. citizen is not readily available, or A person is considered a threat to security, especially somebody whose behavior is thought likely to compromise the security of the country. Official Misconduct: improper and/or illegal acts by a public official which violate his/her duty to follow the law and act on behalf of the public good. Often such conduct is under the guise or "color" of official authority. Presentment: a report to a court by a Grand Jury, made on its own initiative without a request or presentation of evidence by the local prosecutor, that a "public" crime (illegal act by public officials or affecting the public good) has been committed. Political Espionage: Overt, covert, or clandestine activity designed to obtain information relating to a political party, with intent or reason to believe that it will be used to the injury to another political party of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation. For espionage crimes see Chapter 37 of Title 18, United States Code
31
Professional Incompetence: a public servant, government employee and or elected official which is not able, capable or otherwise abuse his/her office, standing, power, authority and or title to manage the affairs, duties, responsibilities or due to mental deficiency (lack of I.Q., deterioration, illness or psychosis) or abuse of power as to cover up a crime or fail o report and or act on a known crime, or to seek to enrich and or to empower themselves at the expense of the general public and or the good of the nation. Professional Misconduct: Behavior by a professional that implies an intentional compromise of ethical standards Quid Pro Quo: What for what; something for something. Used in law for giving one valuable thing for another. It is nothing more than the mutual consideration which passes between the parties to a contract, and which renders it valid and binding. Racketeering: the federal crime of conspiring to organize to commit crimes, particularly as a regular business or effort. Securities Fraud: Securities fraud, also known as stock fraud and investment fraud, is a practice in which investors make purchase or sale decisions on the basis of false information, frequently resulting in losses, in violation of the securities laws. Generally speaking, securities fraud consists of deceptive practices in the stock and commodity markets, and occurs when investors are enticed to part with their money based on untrue statements. Securities fraud includes outright theft from investors and misstatements on a public company's financial reports. The term also encompasses a wide range of other actions, including insider trading and “font running” and other illegal acts on the trading floor of a stock or commodity exchange. Securities fraud includes false information on a company's financial statement and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings; lying to corporate auditors; insider trading; stock manipulation schemes, and embezzlement by stockbrokers. Seditionist Acts: any act or acts by any person, elected official, government agency and or employee thereof, commits the federal crime of advocacy of insurrection against the government or support for an enemy of the nation during time of war, by speeches, publications and organization. Sedition usually involves actually conspiring to disrupt the legal operation of the government and is beyond expression of an opinion or protesting government policy. Sedition is a lesser crime than "treason," which requires actual betrayal of the government, or "espionage." Espionage involves spying on the government, trading state secrets . Senate: United States Senate (the Senate), is the upper house of the bicameral United States Congress which is the legislative branch of government of the U.S.A. Standing: the right to file a lawsuit or file a petition under the circumstances. A plaintiff will have standing to sue in federal court if a) there is an actual controversy, b) a federal statute gives the federal court jurisdiction, and c) the parties are residents of different states or otherwise fit the constitutional requirements for federal court jurisdiction. A state court example: a trade association will have standing to file a petition for a writ of mandate to order a state government agency to enforce a regulation if the association represents businesses affected by the regulation, and it would be impractical for each business to file its own petition. Theft: the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). Theft is synonymous with "larceny." and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used and are separately designated as those types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments. Treason. the crime of betraying one's country, defined in Article III, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution: "Treason
32
against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Treason requires overt acts and includes the giving of government security secrets to other countries, even if friendly, when the information could harm American security. Treason can include revealing to an antagonistic country secrets such as the design of a bomber being built by a private company for the Defense Department. Treason may include "espionage" (spying for a foreign power or doing damage to the operation of the government and its agencies, particularly those involved in security) but is separate and worse than "sedition," which involves a conspiracy to upset the operation of the government or the violation of the allegiance owed to one's sovereign or state; betrayal of one's country True Bill: the written decision of a Grand Jury (signed by the Grand Jury foreperson) that it has heard sufficient evidence from the prosecution to believe that an accused person probably committed a crime and should be indicted. Thus, the indictment is sent to the court. UnAmerican Activities: any activity which the actor or actors, as an individual, partnership or as a conspiracy, regardless of standing or position, seeks to transfers powers vested in a Constitutional Republic, as held in the United States Constitution, form the People to government, or that allows any infringement upon the sovereignty of the United States or its People, or that would transfer the wealth of the People to the government or seeks, attempts or otherwise replaces the United States economy from a free enterprise economy and political system, to any form of Marxist, socialistic or communistic platform, or any attempt to sanction, permit or allow unlawful aliens entry into the United States, or allow employment by illegal aliens, or otherwise benefit or by other means to protect, hide or commingle any such party or parties, with lawful American citizens, or to attempt and or to allow any form of amnesty for illegal aliens, or allow, permit and or sanction any subversive propaganda which could harm job creation, free enterprise, job security and or impact negatively, our business, safety, infrastructure, schools and or hospitals, shall be grounds to be charge under this section. Unethical Conduct: Behavior that falls below or violates the professional standards in a particular field. In law, this can include attorney misconduct, officer misconduct, official misconduct and or ethics violations. The standards for conduct to be observed by attorneys can be found in the Code of Professional Responsibility; members of the judiciary adhere to those found in the Canons of Judicial Ethics. Violation and or breach of any canons of an Oath of Office are considered as prima facie case and evidence of unethical conduct. United States of America: United States of America (U.S.A.), is a federal constitutional republic comprised of fifty states and a federal district and in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law. Use of Public Office for Private Gain: An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or member, and persons with whom the employee has or seeks employment or business relations. Improper conduct includes, but is not limited to: Inducement or coercion of benefits - An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office in a manner that is intended to coerce or induce another person, including a subordinate, to provide any benefit, financial or otherwise, to himself or to friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity. Appearance of governmental sanction - Except as otherwise provided in law, an employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office in a manner that could reasonably be construed to imply that his agency or the Government sanctions or endorses his personal activities or those of another. When teaching, speaking, or writing in a personal capacity, he may refer to his official title or position only as permitted by law. He may sign a letter of recommendation using his official title only in response to a request for an employment recommendation or character reference based upon personal knowledge of the ability or character of an individual with whom he has dealt in the course of Federal employment or whom he is recommending for Federal employment.
33
Endorsements - An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office to endorse any product, service or enterprise except: (1) In furtherance of statutory authority to promote products, services or enterprises;, (2) As a result of documentation of compliance with agency requirements or standards or as the result of recognition for achievement given under an agency program of recognition for accomplishment in support of the agency's mission. Performance of official duties affecting a private interest Vice President: The Officer next in rank to a president and empowered to serve as president in that officer's absence or discharge the President of the United States Senate and is the Presiding Officer of the Joint Session of Congress. Violation of an Oath: Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office. 5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”. The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine. In refusing to obey the law of the Constitution and call an Article V Convention when required to do so, the members of Congress not only violated federal income tax law but their oath of office as well. The Constitution requires that all members of Congress must take an oath of office to support the Constitution before assuming office. In order to comply with the Constitution, Congress has enacted federal laws to execute and enforce this constitutional requirement. The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311. One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration ... of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.” Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. It can only be “altered” by constitutional amendment. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311. Congress has never altered the Article V Convention clause by constitutional amendment. Hence, the original language written in the law by the Framers and its original intent remains undisturbed and intact. That law specifies a convention call is peremptory on Congress when the states have applied for a convention call and uses the word “shall” to state this. The states have applied. When members of Congress disobey the law of the Constitution and refuse to issue a call for an Article V Convention when peremptorily required to do so by that law, they have asserted a veto power when none exists nor was ever intended to exist in that law. This veto alters the form of our government by removing one of the methods of amendment proposal the law of the Constitution creates. Such alteration without amendment is a criminal violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 and 18 U.S.C. 1918. In addition, the members of Congress committed a second criminal violation of their oaths of office regarding an Article V Convention call. 5 U.S.C. 7311 clearly specifies it is a criminal violation for any member of Congress to advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government. The definition of the word “advocate” is to: “defend by argument before a tribunal or the public: support or recommend publicly.” The single intent of the federal lawsuit Walker v Members of Congress (a public record) was to compel Congress to obey the law of the Constitution and call an Article V Convention as peremptorily required by that law, the original
34
intent of which has never altered by constitutional amendment. The lawsuit was brought because Congress has refused to obey the law of the Constitution. Such refusal obviously establishes the objective of the members of Congress to overthrow our form of government by establishing they (the members of Congress) can disobey the law of the Constitution and thus overthrow our constitutional form of government. The word “peremptory” precludes any objection whatsoever by members of Congress to refuse to call an Article V Convention. This peremptory preclusion certainly includes joining a lawsuit to oppose obeying the law of the Constitution and it may be vetoed by members of Congress. That act not only violates the law of the Constitution but 5 U.S.C. 7311 as well. When the members of Congress joined to oppose Walker v Members of Congress their opposition became part of the court record and therefore a matter of public record. Thus, regardless of whatever arguments for such opposition were presented by their legal counsel to justify their opposition, the criminal violation of the oath of office occurred because the members of Congress joined the lawsuit to publicly declare their opposition to obeying the law of the Constitution.
