I will point out that Leo Donofrio didn't come up with the "Citizen Grand Jury" idea first either. That was Stephan Pidgeon who came up with it, and promply dropped it and scrubbed his site when the fantasy tiddlywinks league started up.

I will point out that Leo Donofrio didn't come up with the "Citizen Grand Jury" idea first either. That was Stephan Pidgeon who came up with it, and promply dropped it and scrubbed his site when the fantasy tiddlywinks league started up.

... Leo was not the father of the "citizens'/peoples'/common-law grand juries". He argued for "runaway" grand juries, grand juries that take up issues beyond what a prosecutor puts before them, but these are real, legally impaneled, grand juries. His first blog article on the subject began, "All of us may one day serve as grand jurors in federal court, and I hope this article will educate the reader to his/her true power as granted by the Constitution." The fathers of the "citizen's grand juries" quoted some of Leo's writing, but Leo is not responsible for the idea that a gang can become a grand jury by self-declaration. Leo -- correct me if I'm wrong on this -- never suggested 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 ...

This is what you need to run with the ball, USA. If your Government is breaking laws, then start using the law that is available to you.
ISSUE PRESENTMENTS AS A FEDERAL GRAND JURY EMPOWERED BY THE 5TH AMENDMENT.
USE IT OR LOSE IT.

Here is an update from Stephen Pidgeon, the attorney that filed suit in
Broe V Reed. Thanks to the Right Side Of Life for the update.

“>> Currently we have the following activities taking place:

* A London Solicitor is working on the UK connection
* We have Operatives on both coasts looking for the POE information
* We have SERIOUS leads in Seattle
* A few leads in DC are being followed
* Related to the Document number released earlier, there is follow-up
underway. (Nope, no document yet… but this is NOT discouraging news….)

Orignal post: 3/25, 1:45pm CT - Just received this in my in-box; email addresses verified. I.O. reports; we will all decide later, after more is known. In any case, we should pray for all those whose necks are outstretched. And, as in the "Spartacus" effect, we should all be standing up, craning our necks in due circumspection, and loudly communicating reality, vs. the insurgency's lies and cover-ups.

Stephen Pidgeon in imminent danger of arrest by Homeland Security
Wednesday, March 25, 2009 1:26 PM

From: "Carmen"
To: "'Carmen'"
Cc: [numerous recipients]

I just received this directly from Constitutional Attorney Steven Pidgeon who was working on cases to determine the natural born citizen status of Obama. Prayers are in order for his Safety.

If anyone has contacts, pls notify them.

Carmen
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [email address of Stephen Pidgeon]
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 1:00 PM
To: Carmen
Cc: [numerous recipients]
Subject: Stephen Pidgeon in imminent danger of arrest by Homeland Security

I am writing this now as three black suburbans with HS personnel in camo are moving in to my neighborhood. I suspect arrest here shortly. In the event that you do not hear from me by tomorrow morning, please continue to contact by me email, as we will try to monitor. If not, contact Cesar Velasquez in Bellevue, WA (a Washington lawyer) for status.

Stephen Pidgeon

Update: 3/25, 4:29pm CT - Email from Stephen Pidgeon's 2nd email address:
Yes, this is true. We are currently being tailed by Snohomish County Sheriffs and the Everett Police Dept. They are also tracking my associates.

Question had been emailed to Pidgeon:

Stephen, is the report of the black suv from HS and the men in camo true, then?

An email from your other account was sent to Carmen, who sent it out to others including me.

Please reply as soon as convenient, thanks. Blessings.

Arlen

PS: Carmen also relates that [highlight]another citizen's grand jury colleague[/highlight] has seen the same thing in his neighborhood and the son of another was arrested peculiarly, last night or this morning. -- ??

If I'm right, and I think I am, then whether he intended it or not, Leo WAS the father of the Fake Grand Jury, at least as far as the birthers are concerned, because of the way the birthers interpreted that second article. Though I admit, he may have heard of the idea when he was a 9/11 truther, and adapted it for the birther movement.

In that article, the points he made, that the grand jury was a fourth branch of government, and that it was available to 'we the people,' and that it was to counter the federal government when the feds were breaking the law, IMHO became the guiding philosophy of the fake grand jury movement.

I immediately phoned their office and was later contacted by a staff attorney (who shall remain nameless). The staff attorney and I had a long conversation. The relevant facts I need to relay are thus:

1. IRLI admitted the misquote after my call and then contacted the Supreme Court to inform them, but last I spoke to the staff attorney no supplemental brief correcting the quote had been submitted.

2. While the brief bears the name of Michael Hethmon, Esq., it was actually written by Patrick J. Charles. Mr. Charles operates the Charles Law and History Blog. Mr. Charles was made aware of the misquote by the staff attorney. But as of this morning, despite his blog having one article entitled, “Representative Sandy Adams and Revisionist Founding Era History“, Mr. Charles has not addressed the misquote at his blog.

3. [highlight]IRLI felt that even though the quote was incorrect, it did not change their position and therefore the misquote was not important in context[/highlight].

I explained to the staff attorney that this misquote was very problematic to me and the readers of my blog since this “of parents” issue is the core topic of my blog. I directed him to my blog. At this point, I was prepared to let the issue go since I had been informed that the Supreme Court would be properly notified. Although the misquote seemed a bit too “accidental”, I had nothing else to go on. But after the staff attorney went to my blog, he suddenly recalled a message he received about this blog a couple of weeks ago. I was then informed that…

[highlight]IRLI WAS HEAVILY INVOLVED IN DRAFTING THE COMPACT BETWEEN STATES PERTAINING TO ARIZONA SENATE BILL 1308[/highlight].

Remember my report on Arizona Senate Bill 1308? [highlight]That’s the compact between numerous states which slyly defines “natural born citizen” as a person born in the US to one citizen parent[/highlight].

Well hey now. What have we here? [highlight]The same people who misquoted Bingham, are responsible for sanitizing Obama’s eligibility[/highlight].

The staff attorney was suddenly on the receiving end of… shall we say, many many difficult questions. To his credit, he tried to defend the position of the compact as not having any direct legal effect on Article 2 Section 1. [highlight]I was informed that the compact was not intended to help Obama or to change the Constitution as to eligibility[/highlight]. Obviously, that would take an amendment. But the compact is a pseudo amendment in that it includes a bunch of states and it must be approved by Congress.

Should these compact bills pass, the public would not be able to tell the difference. Intense damage would be done to the legal argument that a person not born of citizen parents isn’t eligible to be President.

I explained all of this to the staff attorney, and he agreed to send an email out to his superiors.

He continued to assure me that the words [highlight]“natural born citizen” in Article I of the compact were only there to distinguish between “born citizens” and “naturalized citizens”[/highlight]. I told him that they could have accomplished the same goal by deleting the word “natural” and just using “born citizens”. I also told him that his superiors – should they truly care for the Constitution – must delete the word “natural”. He told me that it wasn’t up to them. It was up to each state.

He agreed that the compact could be changed, but that the states would have to agree on it. He also told me that IRLI could suggest such a change.

The next day we had a similar conversation and while we were speaking he sent out a second email to his superiors on this issue. At this point, despite my belief the staff attorney was not in on anything clandestine, I felt there was something rotten in Denmark.

[highlight]The staff attorney promised to get back to me, but he didn’t. Yesterday marked a week with no response. I phoned him yesterday but didn’t receive a call back[/highlight].

Something is very shady about this situation. The misquote combined with the compact emits a dangerous radiation. This radiation is covering our nation and it’s a symptom of disease. The country is dying. It is being killed from within. If IRLI is not part of the disease, they should come forward and make both issues right.

Well, not exactly. Here's a video of a presentation from 03 June 2006, entitled, "9/11 Citizens Grand Jury and Other Strategies". Apart from their motivating case, they're very much the same as the birthers, saying many of the same stupid things, citing and misunderstanding the same judicial opinions, and buying the same myth that "presentment" means indictment by a self-proclaimed grand jury.

If you think that's irrelevant to our thing, you might still enjoy 0:20 - 0:25. Yes, that's Phil Berg, but he doesn't speak in this video. If you make it to the end -- and I have to warn you it's rather dull -- the video shows "Part One of Four Parts", and lists more speakers, including Berg. I haven't located the other parts.

Foggy wrote: If I'm right, and I think I am, then whether he intended it or not, Leo WAS the father of the Fake Grand Jury

I think the nation has been sold out to foreign powers, many of whom have representation as stockholders in the Federal Reserve Bank and that America is not run by Americans except other than in the most surface of appearances.

So let's get our own little "grand jury" together, and indict Taitz, Rondeau, Fitzpatrick and the rest of them for sedition. And being really, really crazy.

It wasn't his first article on the subject (which as I point out on his Homepage, was originally written in 2005). It was his second article, found here. In that one, he clearly implies, without coming out and saying so, that "We the People" can form our own federal grand juries without federal authority (other than the 5th Amendment itself). Read it again and see if you disagree. It says:

My grand jury 5th amendment “power of presentment” articles were meant to educate people as to their power ONCE SWORN IN AS A FEDERAL GRAND JUROR in a federal court.

The articles weren’t meant to encourage citizens to form their own grand juries and prosecute at will. There is no such guarantee in the Constitution.

[Emphasis in original: http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/ ... rand-jury/ ]

If I'm right, and I think I am, then whether he intended it or not, Leo WAS the father of the Fake Grand Jury, at least as far as the birthers are concerned, because of the way the birthers interpreted that second article. Though I admit, he may have heard of the idea when he was a 9/11 truther, and adapted it for the birther movement.

they other parts may be here. Didnt download.

http://www.archive.org/details/rosenblatt

I don't think Leo had any idea people would read into his articles that they could form their own grans juries. That stupid idea came from elsewhere. It is completely unfair to hold an author responsible for how idiots misconstrue his writing. Justice Scalia is as at least as much the father of the "citizens grand juries" as is Leo Donofrio.

This is what you need to run with the ball, USA. If your Government is breaking laws, then start using the law that is available to you.
ISSUE PRESENTMENTS AS A FEDERAL GRAND JURY EMPOWERED BY THE 5TH AMENDMENT.

Leo said:

It's ambiguous whether, when he was saying "run with the ball ... start using the law ... ISSUE PRESENTMENTS ..." he really only "meant to educate people as to their power ONCE SWORN IN AS A FEDERAL GRAND JUROR in a federal court." It sure sounds to me like he's not limiting his "call to action" to sworn-in federal grand jurors.

Not all birthers can get on a federal grand jury. In fact, AFAIK, there's no way to get yourself appointed to a federal grand jury by volunteering or submitting an application. Leo's "call to action" was directed toward the birther community. I can't convince myself that he intended that call to action to apply only to actual federal grand jurors. Why would he expect any of them to read it? Or did he think a lot of birthers could get themselves on federal grand juries in a hurry?

But it IS ambiguous. When I get back to editing that page, I'll change it to "Leo was (inadvertently?) the Father of the Fake Grand Jury." That oughta make everybody happy.

“The grand jury may distrain and oppress the government in every way in their power, namely, by taking the homes, lands, possessions, and any way else they can until amends shall have been made according to the sole judgment of the grand jury.”

Sir Walter Raleigh, so the legend goes, once threw his cloak over a mud puddle that sullied the path of Queen Elizabeth I. His chivalrous gesture served to keep Her Majesty's dainty feet free of dirt and to shield the ugly puddle from the Queen's and her loyal subjects' view. Although such gallantry is rarely seen today, we witness a similar display of devotion as the media fawns and covers for the present ruler of Camelot."[...]

However, IRLI, with no indication, omitted from their brief the two words underlined: "of parents." The omission clearly changes the meaning of the quote, and is very interesting considering it was the IRLI who helped draft the "Interstate Birth Certificate Compact" model legislation which restricts "birthright citizenship" and grants the status of "natural born" to babies born with only one citizen parent.

Words do matter, and the undisclosed omission of two critical ones in a legal brief to the highest court in the land is uncomfortably reminiscent of Professor Solum's cloak-throwing gallantry. The error, unintentional or not, impacts analysis of Presidential eligibility, proposed "birthright citizenship" legislation, and the constitutionality of the states' "birther" bills.

Past Presidents have analyzed the meaning of even tiny words like "is" under more dire circumstances. Prepositions are equally important: were Obama's "dreams" "of" or "from" his father? And which should precede "birth" when defining the eligibility term "natural born citizenship? Is the requirement "at" birth or more properly "from" birth, implying the birthplace as crucial as subsequent changes in allegiance?

Not all birthers can get on a federal grand jury.

Words do matter, and the undisclosed omission of two critical ones in a legal brief to the highest court in the land is uncomfortably reminiscent of Professor Solum's cloak-throwing gallantry. The error, unintentional or not, impacts analysis of [highlight]Presidential eligibility, proposed "birthright citizenship" legislation, and the constitutionality of the states' "birther" bills[/highlight].

Maybe he's sore 'cuz I got a healthy start on his page in the HPP ...