FL – Foreperson of the Grand Jury charged with ‘simulating a legal process’

Posted on by
A few weeks ago, the airwaves were buzzing with predictions that the new Common Law Grand Jury in Dixie County Florida was going to bring an end to all ‘evils’. The foreperson of the real grand Jury, a person named Terry Trussell was upset that the judge and the state attorney were following the State law and complained to the Judge who apparently removed Trussell from the Grand Jury. Soon there after he was arrested and charged with ‘simulating a legal process’ for his involvement in the ‘Common Law Grand Jury’ which has no legal relevance.
One of the True Bills of Presentment charged State Attorney Jeffrey A. Siegmeister with Obstruction of Justice and Tampering with the Jury.
In a clear effort to retaliate against Terry Trussell’s Bill of Information and the True Bill of Presentment which
charged the State Attorney with serious and unlawful activity, Siegmeister filed a Petition to remove the Foreman from his responsibilities on the Dixie County Grand Jury.  Judge Greg Parker granted his petition and removed Terry from the Grand Jury. [1]
Several days later, Terry Trussell was arrested and charged with “simulating a legal process.”
It’s good to hear that the States are responding fast and decisively against these foolish actions.
At the NLA Florida message board DavidG realizes the relevance of the recent developments. He sounds worried for good reasons as these ‘common law grand juries’ have popped up all around the US and have engaged in what may be ‘simulation of a legal process’… Ouch
Dixie County grand jury foreman arrested for reporting a crime.

http://www.jasonwhoyt.com/blog/2014/9/3/breaking-dixie-county-fl-whistle…

We need advice for damage control over this arrest if we want others to join the grand jury.

Anyone know if he is out of jail?

And no, the foreman was not arrested for reporting a crime. That’s another misunderstanding.

[1] 905.01 Number and procurement of grand jury; replacement of member; term of grand jury.—

(2) The chief judge of any circuit court may provide for the replacement of any grand juror who, for good cause, is unable to complete the term of the grand jury. Such replacement shall be made by appropriate order of the chief judge from the list of prospective jurors from which the grand juror to be replaced was selected.

 

24 thoughts on “FL – Foreperson of the Grand Jury charged with ‘simulating a legal process’”

  1. Terry Trussell, chief of staff for Operation American Spring…

    Seems he has a way to get involved in failures.

  2. To my way of thinking the Dixie Co. judge would need to empanel an entirely new grand jury to examine Trussel’s actions. The previous one, even with a replacement foreman, would be tainted by his actions in the CG. Maybe even have the charges brought by a different State’s Attorney in order to remove any semblance of bias. The charges in Walt’s case in TN were brought by a different GJ.

  4. The issue of a grand jury being tainted requires a bit more than one may imagine. The courts have ruled that the Grand Jury may very well be biased, however that their oath requires them to rule in a fair manner. The charges against the former foreperson are not related to his performance during the grand jury and he never accused the grand jury members.

    Furthermore, it may not even be necessary to get an indictment from the grand jury as under Florida law, the prosecutor only needs to involve a GJ in case of first degree murder cases.

    I doubt therefore that a GJ was even involved and the AG recused himself.

    It’s helpful that the NLA has carefully documented the simulation of a legal process by the Dixie County “common law knitting club”.

    As to Trussell, he should never have divulged what happened inside the GJ in a public document. There is such a thing as secrecy and the Grand Jury.

  5. A grand juror will not communicate to family, friends, associates, or anyone concerning any matter that takes place in the grand jury room. The only time this veil of secrecy may be lifted is by order of the court after a full hearing, and then only in exceptional cases.

    Oops.

  6. As an expert on Grand Juries, I offer: the only elements of a grand jury requiring secrecy from the public are: juror’s identities; deliberations; voting. All other information becomes public when a true bill is produced. In the Dixie County case, the issue was never presented due to Siegmeister’s inappropriate and illegal control over the ‘independent’ process. I read Trussell’s letter to Judge Munkittrick. He did exactly what he was instructed to do; he reported Siegmeister’s antics to the Court and the Court did nothing. He also reported the problem to the Court Clerk and Sheriff and they did nothing. The Chief Judge of the Circuit (who was unknown to Trussell, and located in the next county), finally responded a week later, blaming Trussell for not reaching out to him when Siegmeister sabotaged the jury and its process. The People’s Grand Jury was formed in an effort to protect Trussell from incompetent and corrupt public officials.
    Trussell was arrested for ‘criminal actions under of color of law’, or ‘impersonating a public officer under color of law’. His arrest warrant was never signed. The judge’s order, based on an unsworn statement, did not even mention arresting Trussell. From the legal standpoint: Trussell was kidnapped, imprisoned unlawfully, and was only released after paying the ransom demand. His persecution appears to be politically-motivated.
    This is a case that bears watching. It’s interesting how looking for truth changes your perspective, rather than just following an agenda–eh, NBC?

  7. I have been following the follies of the NLA and others who have argued in favor of a “Common Law Grand Jury” with great bemusement as there is no foundation in federal or state law for their claims.

    So let’s have a look at the secrecy statute first:

    905.24 Proceedings of grand jury to be kept secret.—Grand jury proceedings are secret, and a grand juror or an interpreter appointed pursuant to s. 90.6063(2) shall not disclose the nature or substance of the deliberations or vote of the grand jury.

    Proceedings are a secret and if Trussell had followed the Statutes he could have involved the Chief Justice who was available during the deliberations for just such purposes.

    Why Trussell made his email to the judge public information is a choice that he made. The judge, in response, advised Trussell that he is available to discuss his complaints.

    The Court ‘did nothing’ because the Judge first needed to be involved legally. And contrary to your claims, the judge did remove Mr Trussell from the Grand Jury. What Trussell had forgotten is that the State Attorney plays a significant role in the Grand Jury, a role our friend apparently refused to allow. In addition Trussell was confused as to who appoints the foreperson and the vice-foreperson. What you see as sabotage is just proper procedure of informing the Grand Jury of its legal duties and limitations.

    The ‘people’s grand jury’ has no legal relevance in the State of Florida or any other US state. What Trussell believed to be incompetence was mostly lack of knowledge on his part.

    Trussell was arrested for filing the “presentment” of the unlawful “People’s grand jury’ with the court under Florida Statute 843.0855 Criminal actions under color of law or through use of simulated legal process.—

    As to the absence of a signature on his arrest warrant, such a signature could be electronically made. In the end, many a ‘sovereign’ citizen has shown that he does not understand how the legal system works So until we have a legal validation of your claims, we should not presume that errors were made. He was also released on his own recognizance according to the reports.

    His persecution (sic) is based on his foolish behavior abusing a ‘common law grand jury’. Speaking of looking for the truth, it seems that you are unfamiliar with some key aspects.

    Starters: There is no legal foundation for the concept of a Common Law Grand Jury, and no US v Williams does not even get close to such a position, although it has been misunderstood by many for quite some time. And yes I have read US v Williams.

    So far, the facts are simple and admitted to by Trussell: He convened a ‘common law grand jury’ who filed two presentments as if they were legal documents. That’s sufficient for a violation of 843.0855 Criminal actions under color of law or through use of simulated legal process.—

    Let me quote:

    (3) Any person who simulates legal process, including, but not limited to, actions affecting title to real estate or personal property, indictments, subpoenas, warrants, injunctions, liens, orders, judgments, or any legal documents or proceedings, knowing or having reason to know the contents of any such documents or proceedings or the basis for any action to be fraudulent, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

  8. The Chief Judge of the Circuit (who was unknown to Trussell, and located in the next county), finally responded a week later, blaming Trussell for not reaching out to him when Siegmeister sabotaged the jury and its process.

    First of all, Siegmeister never sabotaged the jury, he properly informed them of the extent of their duties and while the foreperson had a political objective to use his power to indict many for such foolish ideas as Agenda 21 and Common Core etc, the real Grand Jury was quickly and properly informed. So, it was not Siegmeister who was sabotaging the jury, but rather those who wanted to take it beyond what it was legally charged to do. Under Florida Statute 905.01, the judge could replace any grand juror who for good cause is unable to complete the term.

    (2) The chief judge of any circuit court may provide for the replacement of any grand juror who, for good cause, is unable to complete the term of the grand jury. Such replacement shall be made by appropriate order of the chief judge from the list of prospective jurors from which the grand juror to be replaced was selected.

    If Trussell had studied that Juror Handbook he would have realized that

    It occurs sometimes, however, that even the best of advisors may be in error. If a difference of opinion arises between the state attorney (or the statewide prosecutor) and the grand jury and it cannot be resolved amicably, the matter should be brought before the presiding judge for a ruling.

    I have followed the excitement around the ‘insider’ of the Dixie County Grand Jury for some time and it was just a matter of time before he would overstep his bounds. There was no need to talk to the Chief Judge, just the presiding Judge who was available for exactly such purposes. It is unfortunate that Trussell was apparently not aware of this.

    But those were relatively minor mistakes for which the Chief Judge used his powers to dismiss a grand juror for cause as it was clear that the foreperson was not going to be able to work together with the State Attorney, as prescribed by Florida law:

    905.19 Duty of state attorney.—The state attorney or an assistant state attorney shall attend sessions of the grand jury to examine witnesses and give legal advice about any matter cognizable by the grand jury. The state attorney may designate one or more assistant state attorneys to accompany and assist the state attorney in the performance of her or his duties, or the state attorney may designate one or more assistant state attorneys to attend sessions, examine witnesses, and give legal advice to the grand jury. The state attorney or an assistant state attorney shall draft indictments.

    Legal advice about matters cognizable… That should have been a first hint…

  9. If Trussell had read the Grand Jury handbook he would have known that

    The grand jury may not act arbitrarily. Investigations shall not be based upon street rumor, gossip, or whim, and the investigations cannot be the subject of a grand jury presentment. The grand jury can only investigate those matters that are within its jurisdiction, geographic and otherwise. The limitations of the grand jury’s jurisdiction have been set forth for you by the court in its instructions.

  10. As “reported” by the sovcit sites

    The arrest was the product of a brief Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigation which was initiated by the request of the Dixie County Sheriff. Mr. Trussell’s conversation with the FDLE a week prior to his arrest showed the agency’s interest and somewhat misdirected approach to a Grand Jury Presentment.

    So it was the Sheriff who initiated the arrest. Fascinating details are starting to emerge which paint a slightly different picture.

    The simulated legal process?

    Realizing and understanding how the present jury was now corrupted, Mr. Trussell organized and met with other people in Dixie County and accepted volunteers to form a new Grand Jury. This new People’s Grand Jury convened in the court room at the Dixie County Court House and heard two cases. The first case dealt with the corruption of the first Grand Jury and resulted in a Presentment recommending criminal charges be brought against the State’s Attorney, Jeffery A. Siegmeister for the crimes of, but not limited to, Obstruction of Justice and Tampering with the Grand Jury. The second case heard that day also resulted in a Presentment and recommended criminal charges be brought against the Dixie County School Board and Superintendent and listed many more possible defendants including Florida Governor Rick Scott and two former governors.

    Ouch, they are so helpful in providing all the necessary data that led to their arrest.

  11. More

    But the actual charges have yet to be revealed and multiple visits to the Sheriff’s office and the clerk of the court have proved fruitless in obtaining the truth or the original warrant. This is certainly curious that the afore mentioned offices don’t have that information yet reported communication from the public defender’s office expose that there are, so far, 10 felonies being charged

    So the truth as to the original warrant has yet to be determined?… 10 felonies? Well that could very well match the number of victims of the simulated legal process.

    What is so hilarious is that the Sheriff had started investigating their actions and they actually believed that he could not point to anything they had done wrong… As if they are providing legal advice

    People’s Grand Jury Update: We had a very good meeting with Sheriff Hatcher this morning. He called the FDLE after we left wanting to know if what we are doing is legal. We spent two and a half hours in FDLE’s office in Tallahassee explaining why we could do what we’re doing, and they could not find anything wrong with our point. That’s as good as an endorsement, to me.

    Oh here is the statute describing the duties

    905.16 Duties of grand jury.—The grand jury shall inquire into every offense triable within the county for which any person has been held to answer, if an indictment has not been found or an information or affidavit filed for the offense, and all other indictable offenses triable within the county that are presented to it by the state attorney or her or his designated assistant or otherwise come to its knowledge.

    offense triable within the county… Supporting Common Core is hardly a triable offense… Speaking of political… It’s quite obvious who is playing politics here.

  12. The conclusion of the Dixie County Grand Jury Foreman’s Bill of Information states, “Therefore, as the Grand Jury Foreman, I, Terry G. Trussell, have no confidence in the Grand Jury Process under these rules and as corrupted by State Attorney, Jeffery Siegmeister. I, Terry Trussell, therefore declare this Grand Jury in Dixie County, Florida un-lawful, Null and Void ab initio. Nothing has been done by the State Attorney Jeffery Siegmeister which complies to the Grand Jury Process as is demanded by the 5th nor 7th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution nor the explanation of Justice Scalia in U.S. v. Williams.”

    First of all US v Williams has no relevance to Florida, furthermore, Trussell does not have the authority to declare the jury to be un-lawful. The poor guy just does not understand his powers as a foreperson of a Grand Jury in Florida. Declaring a jury null and void is not one of them. Filing it as a “Bill of Information” only adds to the list of failures.

    There is just nothing in this ‘bill of information” which has any legal relevance.

  13. As to State Attorney Siegmeister, a retired prosecutor observes:

    State Attorney Siegmeister has properly recused himself from the case and called on the Governor to appoint an outside prosecutor to handle the case. It will be interesting to see whether the outside prosecutor opts to prosecute the “common law grand jurors” under the racketeering statute. So far the only charges leveled have been third degree felonies calling for a maximum five year prison sentence.

    http://bobdekle.blogspot.com/2014/09/in-my-last-blog-i-made-light-of.html

  14. You may also want to read the very informative essay by a former prosecutor

    In the second place, there is not now nor has there ever been a legally recognized “common law grand jury.” We derive our law from two sources: statutory law and common law. We can distinguish common law from statute law by its origin—common law comes from judges, statute law comes from legislatures (and historically from kings). As I will demonstrate, grand juries were not created by common law but by statute law. We’re going to have to look at a little history for me to make myself clear.

    http://bobdekle.blogspot.com/2014/08/grand-juries-common-sense-and-common-law.html

  15. As an expert on Grand Juries, I offer

    Hi JY (Jim/John)… You are hardly an expert on much of anything. next time post under your true handle…

  18. Perhaps all of you may give a thought to what a common-law Grand Jury is; it IS the people; and the State Attorney may wish to consider his actions. For an ultimate view, and education for some of you, on a Grand Jury, will the words of a Supreme Court Justice be sufficient? Here’s what S. Crt. Justice Scalia has to say about the system of the Grand Jury; IT BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE(!), NOT the justice system and that includes the Florida Attorney General.

    The Grand Jury Belongs to The People–Antonin Scalia (1992)
    Dec 8, 2013 by Edken

    United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992)
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/504/36

    NEW YORK IS “GROUND ZERO” – Major grassroots movement in 48 States, Constituting Common Law Grand Juries. In a stunning six to three, 1992 Decision that went unnoticed, until now, Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority said:
    In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992),
    Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, confirmed that the American grand jury is neither part of the judicial, executive nor legislative branches of government, but instead belongs to the people. It is in effect a fourth branch of government “governed” and administered to directly by and on behalf of the American people, and its authority emanates from the Bill of Rights, the acts of the Grand Jury is the consent of the people.
    “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. 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”.

    — Justice Antonin Scalia
    “Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present “True Bills” of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a “buffer” the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.” –

    Justice Antonin Scalia
    “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. The “common law” of the Fifth Amendment demands a traditional functioning grand jury.”

    — Justice Antonin Scalia
    “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. 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.”

    – Justice Antonin Scalia
    “The grand jury ‘can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.’ It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even “the precise nature of the offense” it is investigating.
    The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, 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. It swears in its own witnesses and deliberates in total secrecy.” –

    – Justice Antonin Scalia
    “Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said the 5th Amendment’s constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body ‘acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge” — Justice Antonin Scalia
    “Given the grand jury’s operational separateness from its constituting court, it should come as no surprise that we have been reluctant to invoke the judicial supervisory power as a basis for prescribing modes of grand jury procedure. Over the years, we have received many requests to exercise supervision over the grand jury’s evidence-taking process, but we have refused them all. “it would run counter to the whole history of the grand jury institution” to permit an indictmentto be challenged “on the ground that there was incompetent or inadequate evidence before the grand jury.” — Justice Antonin Scalia

  19. Yes, Scalia accepts that a Grand Jury consists of people randomly selected, under the administration of the Court and that the Court cannot insist that the prosecutor brings all evidence in front of the Grand Jury.

    You have confused his words to mean that any group of people can just pretend to be a Grand Jury and deliver a presentment or indictment.

    You have failed to appreciate that Scalia is not supporting anything of that kind.

    There is no such thing as a “common law grand jury” because the Grand Jury has always been a statutory creature. There is no such thing a a “common law grand jury” where some disgruntled people can serve legally binding presentments. At best the “Common Law Grand Jury serves as a way to petition the government for redress and such presentments should be brought before a prosecutor or real grand jury.

    However, so far I have seen no compelling scenarios where such a “common law grand jury” did anything useful Some tried to indict our President because they did not like his politics, in other cases the indictments are directed at people who refuse to take some people seriously, or they serve to indict people for such foolish issues as Agenda 21, Common Core and other initiatives.

    Scalia is right, the Grand Jury has existed separate from the constituting court but requires a constituting court to summon them. The prosecutor has no duties to bring exculpatory evidence to the Grand Jury. And finally, the Grand Jury is randomly selected from a fair sample of people, not some likeminded people who are intent on changing the course of our Nation.

    Pretending to be a lawful grand jury and filing legal papers, is in many states illegal and punishable as “simulation of a legal process”, other states have made it illegal to file false liens against people with whom you disagree.

    Furthermore, you do understand the concept of State Rights and the fact that the right to a Grand Jury indictment has not been extended to States? So in other words, while Scalia is describing the Federal Grand Jury system, where he accepts that the prosecutor has no duty to bring exculpatory evidence in front of the Grand Jury, and thus holds incredible powers over the outcome, the different States have either abandoned the Grand Jury or restricted its use.

    Funny how some have totally misunderstood Scalia’s words and ruling to mean that any likeminded knitting club could file presentments. Imagine how foolish such a position is: All you need is a few friends to indict someone who has ‘wronged’ you and said person can return an indictment against you with the help of a few friends as well.

    You may believe that a “common law grand jury” should exist but not in our legal system, where even Scalia has not argued in favor of the “Common Law” aspect, on the contrary.

    Scalia also states

    It is axiomatic that the grand jury sits not to determine guilt or innocence, but to assess whether there is adequate basis for bringing a criminal charge. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S., at 343 . That has always been so; and to make the assessment, it has always been thought sufficient to hear only the prosecutor’s side. As Blackstone described the prevailing practice in 18th-century England, the grand jury was “only to hear evidence on behalf of the prosecution[,] for the finding of an indictment is only in the nature of an enquiry or accusation, which is afterwards to be tried and determined.” 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries 300 (1769); see also 2 M. Hale, Pleas of the Crown 157 (1st Am. ed. 1847). So also in the United States. According to the description of an early American court, three years before the Fifth Amendment was ratified, it is the grand jury’s function not “to enquire . . . upon what foundation [the charge [504 U.S. 36, 52] may be] denied,” or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine “upon what foundation [the charge] is made” by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O.T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented. See 2 Hale, supra, at 157; United States ex rel. McCann v. Thompson, 144 F.2d 604, 605-606 (CA2), cert. denied, 323 U.S. 790 (1944).

    So, while the Grand Jury is independent from the prosecutor, their role is to determine if the charges made by the prosecutor should be denied. Furthermore, Scalia is clear that while the Grand Jury is separate from the Court, it is convened and administered by the Court.

    All in all, there is no foundation for a “common law grand jury”

  20. By the common law presentments can be made by the grand jury only when they are summoned to attend a court of criminal jurisdiction for that purpose

    The Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut: As Revised and Enacted by the General Assembly, in May 1821 : to which are Prefixed the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Connecticut S.G. Goodrich, & Huntington & Hopkins, 1821

  21. Florida’s Constitution outlines that a prosecutor only needs to bring a case involving first degree murder before the Grand Jury. The Florida Grand Jury is an agency of the court that has summoned them and is independent from the court in so far as it does not exceed its authorities and privileges. For example, a County Court Grand Jury only has jurisdiction over cases that have taken place in the jurisdiction of the court.

    Charges of crime may be brought to your attention in several ways: by the court; by the state attorney; from personal knowledge brought to your body by any member of the grand jury; and by private citizens who have a right to be heard by a grand jury in formal session and with the grand jury’s consent.

  22. So far, there is nothing in Florida’s Constitution or Statutes which provides for a ‘Common Law Grand Jury”, and one should not be surprised because the Grand Jury has been a statutory creature.

    Section 15. Prosecution for Crime; Offenses Committed by Children.

    (a) No person shall be tried for capital crime without presentment or indictment by a grand jury, or for other felony without such presentment or indictment or an information under oath filed by the prosecuting officer of the court, except persons on active duty in the militia when tried by courts martial.

    Florida Statutes Title XLVII Chapter 905, outlines the Grand Jury, and outlines how the Grand Jury is to be summoned.

  23. Hurtado v. California, 110 US 516 – Supreme Court 1884

    if the people of the State find it wise and expedient to abolish the grand jury and prosecute all crimes by information, there is nothing in our State Constitution and nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which prevents them from doing so.”

    And as to the grand jury itself, we learn of its constitution and functions from the Assize of Clarendon, A.D. 1164, and that of Northampton, A.D. 1176, Stubbs’ Charters, 143-150.

    Clearly statutory…

    and

    n reference to this mode of proceeding at the common law, and which he says “is as ancient as the common law itself,” Blackstone adds (4 Com. 305):

    “And as to those offences in which informations were allowed as well as indictments, so long as they were confined to this high and respectable jurisdiction, and were carried on in a legal and regular course in His Majesty’s Court of King’s Bench, the subject had no reason to complain. The same notice was given, the same process was issued, the same pleas were allowed, the same trial by jury was had, the same judgment was given by the same judges, as if the prosecution had originally been by indictment.”

    All in all, the case for a Grand Jury is not to be found easily in “common law” and the right to a grand jury found in the US Constitution does not extend to the States.

  24. Finally, Judge Lambert ruled as follows:

    There is no Statute for courts dealing with presentments, or in other words, presentments no longer are a viable method until statutes are changed.

    The Fifth Amendment provides that “no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury. . . .” U.S. CONST. amend. V. And although presentments are constitutionally permitted, there is no authority under the Rules of Criminal Procedures or in the statutes of the United States for this Court to accept one. United States v. Briggs, 514 F.2d 794, 803 n.14 (5th Cir. 1975); Gaither v. United States, 413 F.2d 1061, 1065 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 1969); see also United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d. 167, 184 (5th Cir. 1965) (Brown, J., concurring).

    Grand juries are convened by the court, selected at random from a fair cross section…

    Furthermore, grand juries are convened by the court for the district in which they sit. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(a)(1). Grand jurors are also to be selected at random from a fair cross section of the district in which they are convened. 18 U.S.C. § 1861. The individuals who have made this presentment were not convened by this Court to sit as a grand jury nor have they been selected at random from a fair cross section of this district. Any self-styled indictment or presentment issued by such a group has no force under the Constitution or laws of the United States.

    As such, leave to file this presentment is hereby DENIED. Further, though the papers presented to the Clerk of Court shall not be filed, they shall be assigned a miscellaneous number along with this order for the Court’s record.

    No force under the Constitution or the laws.

    Bummer and Scalia would have approved…

Comments are closed.