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.

[tired_old_conservative]

Are you talking about “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” (IA-0257-09, April 2009)? If so, I've read it. Have you? It doesn't say what you claim.

Hysterical bedwetting. In my days in the military, we'd have been slapped silly for such a lack of fortitude and composure.

[Lurking Libertarian]

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.

They have not posted the text of the judge's Order. Does anyone doubt that it was a direction to the Clerk not to file anything from this make-believe grand jury?

[Melas]

Told ya so.

ORDER

The Court is in receipt of certain documents identified as “Grand Jury Presentments,” filed by Mack H. Ellis. The documents purport to represent grand jury presentments for fraud, treason and election fraud against President Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic National Convention.

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. Although presentments are constitutionally permitted, there is no authority under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 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).

Furthermore, grand juries are convened by the court for the district in which they sit. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(a)(1); In re Grand Jury, 490 F.3d 978, 986 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (“the district court itself convenes and supervises the grand jury proceedings.”). Grand jurors are also to be selected at random from a fair cross section of the district in which they are convened. 28 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. In addition, the individuals who have made this presentment did not meet under the supervision of any district court and, in fact, convened online rather than in person. 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

TODD J. CAMPBELL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

[Lurking Libertarian]

Just what I thought (see my post #142).

[fr_freak]

Are you talking about “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” (IA-0257-09, April 2009)? If so, I've read it. Have you? It doesn't say what you claim.

Really? You've read it, eh? Well, let me help you out with some direct quotes:

-"The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."

Now, I'd love to hear how you are able to interpret this in any other way than the way I described it: that DHS uses veteran status as a risk factor for domestic terrorism. Either you lack reading comprehension, or you are being deliberately disingenuous. Additionally, "Disgruntled Military Veterans" get their own section later on in the document.

By the way, which branch of the military you were in, and what was your MOS? If you were to get slapped silly in your days in the military, it would be for your lackadaisical attitude toward the foundation of the country you were supposed to be protecting.

[Melas]

By the way, which branch of the military you were in, and what was your MOS?

Does it matter what branch he was in? Is there a wrong branch to serve in? Just for the record, I didn't have an MOS, I had a rate as I believe Jim Robinson did as well.

[Melas]

See 143, they do not. I wouldn’t recognize such an indictment against me.

[Melas]

The fact that the FReepers above recognized this for the sham it was is heartening. I have 50 bucks that says Judge Campbell and his clerks had a lot of laughs over this. Some folks just weren’t born with the good sense to be embarrassed by stupidity I guess.

[fr_freak]

Does it matter what branch he was in? Is there a wrong branch to serve in?

Well, since you asked, I'll answer. The way that guy worded his reply suggests to me that he was full of s***, kind of like the type who says "I'm a lifelong Republican, but...". Just a hunch.

[Dead Corpse]

File it under "exhausting all peaceful means of redress". The naysayers are right, it isn't going anywhere meaningful. However, legally... it is right to try this venue.

Soap. Ballot. And now Jury. Efforts like this fail...

Bullet Box is next on the list.

[tired_old_conservative]

Just the typical out-of-control rage and arrogance that passes for conservatism these days.

MOS? Get a life. As I recall it was 11B for job and 4 for rank, but that's not exactly a treasured part of this draftee's memory. Wounded twice doing what infantry do, even lost two fingers for good. RINO stuff, I know. A real conservative surely would have lost a limb, or at least one major organ.

If you'll read the report in context, you'll see it's talking about recruitment of military veterans by already established extremist organizations, which has actually happened. If you are a combat veteran, you know full well a small but definite percentage of them come back with psychological maladjustments (for obvious reason) that can make them susceptible to, or easy prey for, any number of unfortunate things. The government is not targeting church-going veterans.

[fr_freak]

File it under "exhausting all peaceful means of redress". The naysayers are right, it isn't going anywhere meaningful. However, legally... it is right to try this venue.

I agree about the due diligence aspect. I also don't mind people saying "That's not going to work", but saying we shouldn't try it because it will make us look weird/stupid/crazy is plain wrong and defeatist. That's what I object to.

[fr_freak]

MOS? Get a life. As I recall it was 11B for job and 4 for rank, but that's not exactly a treasured part of this draftee's memory. Wounded twice doing what infantry do, even lost two fingers for good. RINO stuff, I know. A real conservative surely would have lost a limb, or at least one major organ.

Now who's being hysterical? Someone disagrees with you and now you're crying "woe is me, people are accusing me of not losing enough limbs!" When the heck did that ever come up? Get a grip on yourself.

If you'll read the report in context, you'll see it's talking about recruitment of military veterans by already established extremist organizations, which has actually happened...The government is not targeting church-going veterans.

There are a lot of different kinds of people who have been recruited into various outlaw organizations. For instance, police officers have probably been recruited here and there. Why, then, no mention of watching out for rogue police officers? I'll tell you why - because they don't consider police officers to be a susceptible enough group to recruitment by "right wing extremists" to warrant any particular mention. Their inclusion of veterans as a group is precisely because they believe veterans to be a higher risk group than say, police officers, firefighters, teachers, nuns, etc. Their specification of this group implies that this group would be more susceptible both in number and attitude to recruitment than every group of people not mentioned.

In fact, the government's special publication of a profile of "right wing extremists" implies that the government see more danger in the right wing than, say, the left wing. If the government saw them as equal threats, we'd be looking at two documents: one would be "right wing extremists" and the other would be "left wing extremists". However, since we only have the one, we have to conclude that this government does not consider left wing extremists to be nearly the threat that right wingers are, and when it breaks down the composition of "right wing" and who might be susceptible to "right wing extremism", it singles out veterans as one of the primary groups, above all other groups.

Now, anyone who has done basic logic, where A=B and B=C therefore A=C, will then understand that the government is implying that veterans are more of a threat than rabid environmentalists, La Raza, and other assorted commies.

By the way, your military record sounds impressive. What division were you assigned to?

[tired_old_conservative]

I do realize my language was harsh earlier as well. I just get frustrated anymore when I see, rightly or wrongly, conservatives losing it and going over the top with paranoia and invective. That's what we rightly used to criticize the left for.

[tired_old_conservative]

Not woe is me. Just a little sarcasm at the ease with which conservatives these days write off their fellows for ever more rigid and unrealistic dreams of ideological purity. I'd be a very rich man if I had a buck for every time the acronym RINO is spuriously thrown about here.

DHS has done reports on left-wing extremist threats. This report specifically looks at a threat pool of groups that have historically recruited ex-military personnel. They are correct to say that combat skills acquired in Iraq and Afghanistan are of interest to violent groups, even if they are simply mercenaries. It's a top-level intelligence analysis that quite frankly doesn't say much of anything new. It hardly amounts to either targeting or denigrating of veterans.

[dcwusmc]

Bump

[American Constitutionalist]

" You think people who support the constitution and the rule of law are weirdos? "

In the present day minds of liberals, anti Americans, Marxist they do.

[American Constitutionalist]

So let me get this right, if a group of people go to a state prosecutor, present there case, and according to the state's laws, the group of people and the state's prosecutor can file or bring the case to the court and the judge has the responsibility to have a grand jury convene if they take the case ? is that the basic understanding of a Grand Jury ?
So if a state's prosecutor takes the case and presents it to a court and the court takes the case, then, it's all legitimate ?( regardless of what the naysayers here are saying on FR ).
In essences, a Grand Jury basically protects the people ( Citizens ) from governmental prosecution if it is a false accusation ? or over zealous prosecution from the government ? or to bring justice to corrupt government officials ?

[Nik Naym]

"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."

You are replying to #39. If you would go back and look, you will see that I included Jim Robinson in the "to" field as he is mentioned in that reply. So I DID ask.

You will notice I am still here.

It is considered poor form to talk about a freeper in a post without including them in the "to" field. If you look up you will see that I included him in this one too since he is again mentioned.

I see you are new here so I can understand why you were not aware of that.

Now that that is out of the way, please tell me where you get the idea that I am "opposed to all this birther nonsense"?

I think I have made myself clear here in a number of replies. I am not going to keep repeating myself. If people want to keep attributing words and ideas to me that they are pulling out of the clear blue sky there isn't much I can do about it.

[fr_freak]

Not woe is me. Just a little sarcasm at the ease with which conservatives these days write off their fellows for ever more rigid and unrealistic dreams of ideological purity. I'd be a very rich man if I had a buck for every time the acronym RINO is spuriously thrown about here.

Maybe, maybe not, but I don't see what that has to do with our discussion, or me. You're upset about people who throw "RINO" around? Take it up with them. You and I had a discussion going about whether veterans were targeted by the fed as potential terrorists, and you made a bunch of remarks about how it was all just hysteria and you'd get slapped in the military for saying that. Now you want to claim anger over someone calling you a RINO?

As far as the DHS's supposed equal concern about left wing extremism, here's a little write-up on that for you:

http://hotair.com