Not being an expert in the law the opinion expressed below is based on my best effort at applying basic logic. – Arnie
The text in Judge Lamberth’s court order regarding the validity of the American Grand Jury, reveals the truth. The text underlined in red is from the Constitution. The text portion underlined in purple refers to the ‘rules of procedure.’
The Constitution is clearly the law of the land and Judge Lamberth knows this. His comments referring to there being no authority under the rules of procedure or statute is a clear contradiction. It reveals Judge Lamberth is admitting the court over which he presides is not lawfully installed.
A basic legal well-known principal establishes laws supersede procedures and statutes; that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Therefore, the Constitution trumps any rules, procedures, regulations, infractions and statutes.
Judge Lamberth, in this order reveals the fraud of the courts.
At OBC, the following issue is raised which, I believe, exposes another example of poor reading and/or comprehension skills. The issue is that presentments are constitutionally permitted but not required, and thus, lacking any rules implementing them is not at variance with our Constitution. It’s very simple really. It’s the same with the Secretary of State having the authority to determine eligibility but not a requirement to do so. Perhaps the subtleties of the English language may be lost on some, but I see no real contradiction here. The Federal rules do not provide any authority for the Courts to accept presentments. The route through an indictment. Furthermore, the existence of a ‘citizens grand jury’ has limited foundation (understatement) in our laws. So, even if one could establish that Courts are required to accept presentments, the ‘grand jury’ which supposedly made these ‘presentments’ failed to abide by the rules that guide the Grand Jury. Which makes sense, or otherwise, any group of disgruntled people could establish a ‘grand jury’…