The Criminal charges of “Conspiracy and Fraud” are served against Nancy Pelosi

American Grand Jury ^ | November 18, 2009

[Man50D]

Rest of the title: in US District Court, Nashville, Tennessee

The Criminal charges of “Conspiracy and Fraud” are served against Nancy Pelosi in US District Court, Nashville, Tennessee

RELEASED BY: American Grand Jury

Charges filed with multiple State Election Commissions claiming Election fraud by Pelosi and Obama.

American Grand Jury has incorporated the Nancy Pelosi/Barack Obama criminal complaints within its Presentments. The Presentments were served on the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville, TN on November 6th, 2009. A Response in the form of an “Order” has been issued by Judge Todd Campbell and received by American Grand Jury this week. American Grand Jury will answer the response in the form of a Motion. The American Grand Jury Motion and a copy of the Court’s Order will be published on the AGJ website within the next few days.

If acted upon, the Grand Jury Presentments would require that Pelosi and Obama be criminally indicted for “Fraud, Conspiracy and Treason.”

American Grand Jury is actively pursuing the serving of Presentments in a number of United States District Courts in different States.

[Melas]

Noob, you have absolutely no standing here to ask me to leave FR. If Jim ever wants me gone, he can arrange it without your oh-so-valuable counsel.

[CaptRon]

You got that right. And I give you credit for having the courage to say it here.

[IntolerantOfTreason]

Why don’t you ask? I’m sure you’ll find that Jim Robinson sincerely opposes all this “birther nonsense” just as much as you do. Go on, ask, let’s see how long your account lasts once you get under mod scrutiny.

[SatinDoll]

Sounds really, REALLY good. Let’s hope this one makes it to the ‘big time’.

[Mr. Lucky]

You’re right of course. But the screwball faction ain’t gonna like hearing it.

[rxsid]

"The Grand Jury"

The Grand Jury is also known as the people’s panel. Every citizen should know the history and purpose of the grand jury in order to properly protect their fellow man from prosecutorial abuse. When citizens are unaware of their power they cannot exercise that power to uphold justice.
...
The grand jury was originally a body of twelve, and later twenty-three men that served as accusers who presented indictments at the request of not only the prosecutor of the king, but also at the request of individual citizens. In 1681 the grand jury rule of secrecy was adopted. This allowed the grand jury to meet in secret, especially out of the sight of the king’s prosecutors who might interfere. This secrecy provided the grand jury great power as an independent body with oversight over the government.
...
The grand jury served the public in two ways. First, it limited the power of government to prosecute citizens by permitting the grand jury to vote for or against an indictment and second, it had the power to make a presentment. A presentment was a public report of the grand jury’s activity. Through a presentment, the grand jury could make criminal activity known to the public, including criminal conduct committed by government officials, judges, or prosecutors
....
It is significant that the grand jury is not part of any of the three branches of the U.S. government—it is a pre-constitutional institution. Washington attorney John H. Clarke wrote in a motion to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, “Although today the grand jury is more of a prosecutor’s panel, it is still a pre-constitutional institution, and is still a people’s panel, not captive or relegated by the constitution to a position within any branches… and it still serves as a vehicle for effective citizen participation in government.”
...
Citizens often mistakenly believe that because the grand jury meets at the courthouse it is under the judiciary or because the grand jury meets with a prosecutor it is under the executive branch. It is actually an independent institution adopted by the founders to protect the individual from prosecutorial misconduct.
...
From 1789 when the Bill of Rights was ratified, until the codification of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in 1946, the grand jury was not regulated by statute.

All three branches of government shared a common interest in limiting the power of the grand jury—the pre-constitutional institution unregulated by any branch.

Gradually, the executive branch began to limit the power of the grand jury..."

http://www.dcdave.com/article5/070119.htm

A related book on the subject:

The people's panel: the Grand Jury in the United States, 1634-1941 By Richard D. Younger

[fr_freak]

You’re right of course. But the screwball faction ain’t gonna like hearing it.

Here's what you reflex naysayers don't get: just about every single leftist theory for the last 50 years or more has been screwball kookery of the highest order. We've got hippies who believe that 9/11 was an inside job, that Iraq was a war for oil, that the US is the biggest terrorist nation in the world, that capitalism is evil and socialism is paradise, that the Western world is merely a patriarchal conspiracy and on and on. Yet, despite the obvious ridiculousness of this kind of thinking, we currently have a White House AND a Congress dominated by people who believe all of it. Our presidential office holder sat in church for decades with a preacher who claims that the CIA invented AIDS to kill black people and said "godd**n America". The president's close friend is a guy who killed policemen in bombing attacks, his czars are people who believe Marxism is utopia and that children should be taught homosexuality in kindergarten. When our SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE is questioned about the constitutionality of legislation designed to implement government control of all health care, she laughed and said "Are you serious?"

So I ask you, exactly what is it that should deter us from expressing our views and taking action to force some recognition of those views? Is it fear of looking "weird"? When we have the above described people running all three branches of government, should we be concerned that we're not being civil enough, or that they may not approve of our actions? Right now, if you are a veteran of our armed forces and go to church regularly, you have been labeled a potential domestic terrorist. Exactly what level of "sanity" and "normality" do you think we should conform to? And to please whom?

You are stuck in a mode of thinking which says that we are still a sane country, and that all of the normal rules of civility still apply, but you are dead wrong. It is that mode of thinking which has allowed these nutjobs to take over ALL THREE branches of government AND our educational institutions, AND the media. We foolishly play by the old rulebook while they engage in any and every dirty trick they can, and they do it without the slightest remorse or self-doubt. If we all stay thinking as you do, this country WILL die.

Some people want to start a grand jury and indict scumbags like Pelosi for treason (which we all know she truly IS guilty of) and they think they can back it up with some legal justification? I say let 'em at it. Whether they succeed or fail, it serves no interest of mine whatsoever to stand in their way. There may be a legitimate reason for not wanting them to go this route, but I'll tell you what the single most irrational, unintelligent, and sniveling reason is: because you're afraid of what the nutjob leftwing traitors might think.

[votemout]

Great job!

[Melas]

There may be a legitimate reason for not wanting them to go this route, but I'll tell you what the single most irrational, unintelligent, and sniveling reason is: because you're afraid of what the nutjob leftwing traitors might think.

Fear? Why would anyone be afraid? Now, I will grant you that (speaking strictly for myself) that I have a certain amount of pride. What I find laughable is this notion that anyone, anywhere can form a grand jury out of any group of people whatsoever and it's legitimate. The obvious end to this madness would be competing grand juries "indicting" everyone and everything, especially other impromptu grand juries who're "indicting" everyone of opposing political stripes.

[Melas]

Think this through. Can the system work without rules? Can this system work if anyone can form a grand jury of any number of people, drawn from any source? Under such anarchy, what’s to stop me from forming a grand jury in my living tonight with my wife, adult children and some riding buddies? What’s to keep that from happening in living rooms all across town then flooding the Dallas County Courthouse with a couple hundred thousand indictments on Monday morning, effectively shutting the system down with quackery.

[rxsid]

Think this through. Go ahead and form your own grand jury and come up with whatever presentment you want. Take that presentment to an official of the court...which is EXACTLY what the grand jury effort has done.

Now, if the official in the court of law want's to ACT on that presentment, then so be it. There will be a trial then, to hear the evidence. If the court official doesn't act on it...then nothing becomes of it.

Historically, this is (in part) how it happened. Read the history.

[rxsid]

b.t.w. we are all in agreement that "presentments" are statements of "accusations," right?

presentment
": the act of presenting to an authority a formal statement of a matter to be dealt with; specifically : the notice taken or statement made by a grand jury of an offense from their own knowledge without a bill of indictment laid before them"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/presentment

So, go ahead and take your accusations to any court official. This is, after-all, exactly what this grand jury is doing.

[tired_old_conservative]

I'm sorry. This stuff is silly.

I went to the site. I read it. It's silly. I can tell you right now that no legal authority will ever act on any of these “indictments”. If this is your hobby in your mother's basement, fine, but don't expect anyone to take it seriously as a demonstration of your patriotism and devotion to the constitution. As Richard Feynman was wont to say about bad science, "That's not even wrong." It's on par with my saying I have a magic ring and a helpful elf that will remove Obama from office.

I am a veteran who goes to church regularly, and in no way do I consider myself at risk of being labelled a domestic terrorist. That kind of hysterical bedwetting is unbecoming of the land of the free and the home of the brave. It simply makes conservatism look like the abode of cranks.

[surfer]

A weirdo would be someone who isn’t doing everything that they could think of to stop what is happening to our country.

Only someone who doesn’t understand the depth and seriousness of what future generations are going to saddled with in the form of debt and lack of freedom wouldn’t be jumping up and down supporting anything and everything to stop the course we are on.

We should be thankful we still have peaceful options available to us to exercise our rights and be heard.

[surfer]

well said...

[fr_freak]

I am a veteran who goes to church regularly, and in no way do I consider myself at risk of being labelled a domestic terrorist. That kind of hysterical bedwetting is unbecoming of the land of the free and the home of the brave. It simply makes conservatism look like the abode of cranks.

Don't be ridiculous. Have you not been keeping up with things lately? I didn't pull that idea out of my rear end - that was from the Department of Homeland Security memo on domestic terrorism from some months back. The memo specifically used veteran status, religion, and adherence to the Constitution as risk factors.

The fact that you don't know or understand this simply demonstrates my earlier point. We have people supposedly on our side who still think that we are in a polite game of bridge with the neighbors. Your refusal to acknowledge the ideological war we are in is akin to those who refuse to acknowledge that militant Islam is at war with the West, and thus we get the extreme asininity of the Ft. Hood massacre where our politicians mention everything about the shooter but his religion.

[Mr. Lucky]

Pretending to be something you're not (as these members of the “Grand Jury” do) is hardly an efficacious way to challenge the power of Mrs. Pelosi.

[fr_freak]

Pretending to be something you're not (as these members of the “Grand Jury” do) is hardly an efficacious way to challenge the power of Mrs. Pelosi.

You are making quite an assumption here. What, exactly, are they pretending to be? The premise seems to be that there is legal basis for convening a grand jury of citizens. Whether they are correct in this or not, I couldn't say, but they do not appear to be pretending to be anything that they are not.

[Mr. Lucky]

They are pretending to be a grand jury when they are not.

Grand Juries charging a federal crime must be called by a United States District Court pursuant to Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. This group of folks was not convened in accordance with the law, they did not comport their investigation in conformity with the law and their "presentment" to the court necessarily asks the court to try Mrs. Pelosi without due process of law.

[RaceBannon]

Actually, that is not true, a citizens grand jury DOES have standing.

It is getting the authorities to pay attention to it. They are REQUIRED to act on it, however, depending on the political persuasion of those who are reviewing the case, it may not be brought to more than a jury to sit and hear evidence in a citizens grand jury, with a reccomendation to press charges.

The govcernment MUST act on this complaint, itis legit, legal, and perfect acceptable. It just depends on who is in charge as to whether it gets acted upon.

Since the Dhimms run everything, it wont.

But make no mistake, what Man50D posted is perfectly legal and fine in any court of law.