Citizenspook

by **Fearless** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 6:04 pm

THURSDAY, JULY 28, 2005 TREASONGATE: The Controlling Law - Big Trouble For The White House Staff. The controlling law for Treasongate has been greatly ignored by the main stream media and the blogosphere. This article seeks to clarify the controlling law. To determine the controlling law, all one needs to do is read the non-disclosure agreement Karl Rove and all of the members of the Bush administration with security clearance signed which included the following statement: "I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, 952 and 1924, Title 18, United States Code, the provisions of Section 783(b), Title 50, United States Code, and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982." Sanctions for a breach of the non-disclosure agreement are provided for by Executive Order, but those sanctions are ancillary to the United States Code provisions cited in the paragraph above which stand alone. Please notice that the Title 18 United States Code statutes are separate statutes that precede the first mention of the "Intelligence Identities Protection Act". The complicated "Intelligence Identities Protection Act" of 1982 which has been exclusively discussed by the media is not controlling. Rove and company may be guilty of violating that act, but prior United States Code statutory law and Federal case law, specifically 18 USC 793 as interpreted by United States v. Morison (and related cases) has been breached and should lead to convictions under the facts known to the public at large. 18 USC 793 provides for a maximum of ten years in prison to those convicted under this statute. Analysis of the law and precedent regarding 18 USC 793 indicates that the facts known to the public in the Plame case may be sufficient to guarantee convictions because the statute does not require that the information leaked be "classified". Certainly, the information leaked in the Plame case was classified as "SECRET" in a State Department memo circulated from and to White House staff, but that classification is not necessary for convictions under sections of Title 18 statutes. 18 USC 793 does not require that officials responsible for disclosing information about Valerie Plame had to know she was "covert" or under cover. Discussed in great detail below, the statute only requires that the information leaked be related to the national defense and that the individual responsible for disclosing that information have a reasonable belief that the information could be used to the detriment of the USA. Ths legal test is much easier to meet than the test put forth in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Furthermore, the highest courts in the USA that have studied this issue already address the defensive arguments forwarded in Treasongate. And it is clear that arguments which might stand a chance in a defense to the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, will fail as a defense to charges brought under 18 USC 793, 794 and 641. [If 18 USC 794 has also been breached, that statute provides a maximum sentence of the death penalty for those convicted "in a time of war". Analysis of 18 USC 794 and 18 U.S.C. @ 641 will be the subject of a future article by this author. The focus of this study will center upon 18 USC 793(d), which is the statute most likely to return convictions in the Plame matter. Sections 794 and 641 may also have been violated, but those issues are slightly more difficult to prove. Please note that in 2002, the Bush administration used 18 U.S.C. @ 641 to convict Jonathan Randel for leaking to the media non-classified information about Drug Enforcement Administration files.] It has been reported in various publications that a State Department memo was circulated among members of The White House staff indicating that the paragraph containing Valerie Plame's name was marked with an "[S]" meaning the information in that paragraph was classified as "Secret". EXECUTIVE ORDER 13292, signed by President Bush on March 25, 2003 explains the various levels of classified information: "2) "Secret" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe. " con't below

by **Fearless** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 6:06 pm

The classified State Department memorandum central to the federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a certain indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified. 18 USC 793(d) states: "d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing...or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, ....[s]hall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." Part (e) states, "Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to....", and is thereafter identical to section (d). (This section could possibly lead to a conviction of Novak as well and will be the subject of a future article.) Please note that the statute does not require the information be "classified", it only requires that the info be related to "national defense". Valerie Plame was working on weapons of mass destruction for the CIA. Nothing could be more related to national defense. The application of this law has been clearly and concisely handled in United States v. Morison, 844 F.2d 1057 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 US 908, 109 S.Ct. 259, 102 L.Ed.2d 247 (198<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> . <a href="http://www.mtsu.edu/~lburriss/morison.html">www.mtsu.edu/~lburriss/morison.html</a> John Ashcroft cited this case in his letter to Congress of October 22, 2003, "Although there is no single statute that provides criminal penalties for all types of unauthorized disclosures of classified information, unauthorized disclosures of classified information fall within the scope of various current statutory criminal prohibitions. See United States v. Morison, 844 F.2d 1057 (4th Cir. 198<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> ." Samuel Loring Morison was charged with releasing copies of three photographs, classified "secret ", to Jane's Defense Weekly ("Jane's"), a British magazine. Count I of the Indictment charged that Morison wilfully caused the photographs, which allegedly related to the national defense, to be transmitted to a person not entitled to receive them, in violation of 18 U.S.C. @ 793(d). The court stated: The relevant law under which Morison is charged in Counts I and III is found in 18 U.S.C. @ 793(d) and (e), part of a broader espionage statute. Section 793(d) provides that whoever, having authorized possession or control of a document or photograph, relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense, which information the possessor had reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States, and who wilfully delivers it to any person not entitled to receive it,...is guilty of the offense..." Notice the standard, "could be used to the injury of the United States". Obviously, "could" is a much broader standard than "would". In plain language, the statute says, if it was reasonably foreseeable that the information disclosed could possibly effect the national defense, the person responsible for the leak is guilty under the statute. Morison argued that the term 'national defense" was too vague, but the court didn't buy it, stating: "Morison's first attack on Sections 793(d) and (e) is that the term "relating to the national defense" is impermissibly vague and fails to give fair warning of what documents are covered by the statute. This argument relies heavily on the Supreme Court's reasoning in Gorin v. United States, 312 U.S. 19, 85 L. Ed. 488, 61 S. Ct. 429 (1941)... The government has responded to this assertion by noting that the statute does contain an intent requirement, although not the same requirement that was contained in the Gorin statute. Sections 793(d) and (e) require that the acts be done "wilfully;" if the transmitted item is "information", "which information the possessor had reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States"... The government contends that if a defendant, "such as Morison, wilfully transmits photographs relating to the national defense to someone who is known by the defendant not to be entitled to receive it, the defendant has violated 793(d) no matter how laudable his motives." According to the plain language of the statute, the government's interpretation is correct. Thus, although there is an intent requirement, the "delimiting" intent to injure the United States is not present in this statute and defendant argues that it is therefore impermissibly vague. Unfortunately for the defendant's argument, the Fourth Circuit has addressed this issue and found that a similar statute was not unconstitutionally vague. In United States v. Dedeyan, 584 F.2d 36 (4th Cir. 197<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> , the Fourth Circuit construed 18 U.S.C. @ 793(f),... " PLEASE PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE COURT'S FOLLOWING TWO PARAGRAPHS: "As the District Court noted in Dedeyan, "certainly injury to the United States could be inferred from conduct of the sort charged," whether that conduct involves photographing documents by one foreign agent or release of national defense information to the press and public, where many foreign agents and governments can have access to the information. In Dedeyan, the defendant was accused of knowing that the document had been abstracted by his cousin, a Russian spy, and failed to report it. Here, the situation is slightly different because it does not involve a foreign agent or the classic spy scenario. Rather, the defendant is accused of releasing classified information to the press, thus exposing that classified information to every foreign agent and government, hostile or not, in the world." That is directly on point as to the leak of Plame's name to Novak and others. con't below

by **Fearless** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 6:08 pm

The court's decision in Morison further stated: "Finally, the danger to the United States is just as great when this information is released to the press as when it is released to an agent of a foreign government. The fear in releasing this type of information is that it gives other nations information concerning the intelligence gathering capabilities of the United States. That fear is realized whether the information is released to the world at large or whether it is released only to specific spies." The acquiescence to abide by the Government's determination of classified information of those who sign this agreement was discussed by the Morison Court: "Defendant next argues that the phrase "not entitled to receive" is also unconstitutionally vague, in that it fails to inform a citizen of whether his conduct is prohibited... The government has responded by pointing out that under no circumstances is that statute unconstitutionally vague when applied to this defendant, who clearly knew by virtue of his security clearance and his signing of an agreement that classified information and documents were not to be transmitted to outsiders....Applying that same principle here, it seems clear that authorization to possess documents and entitlement to receive them may be determined by reference to the classification system under which the defendant worked. " Clearly, Bush administration officials had knowledge that the Government's decision as to what is classified and what is not, could not be circumvented since they signed the non-disclosure agreement. Those following the issues raised by the non-disclosure agreement should not get bogged down by the sanctions provided for in EXECUTIVE ORDER 13292 because the more serious legal breaches are contained in the United States Code which has a settled line of case law discussing everything the media pundits are now spinning. The Morison Court continued the discussion: "Congress has recognized the classification system and given its support to the determination by Executive Order of who is authorized to possess and who is not authorized to possess classified information,... Since these executive orders are issued in fulfillment of the President's Constitutional responsibilities, they have the force and effect of law....The phrase "not entitled to receive" is not at all vague when discussed in reference with the classification system, which clearly sets out who is entitled to receive (those with proper security clearances and the "need to know") and Morison was certainly aware of the proscripts of the classification system. Defendant has argued that even if this construction is given to the statute, the statute is impermissibly vague because then an individual would be left to make the determination of who has the "need to know," and therefore the right to receive classification information. There can be no argument of such vagueness here, where the defendant released the information to Jane's, which had neither a security clearance or a need to know.... " THE INTENT OF THE TREASONGATE LEAKERS IS IRRELEVANT It matters not that Rove and others may claim they were just setting the record straight regarding details of Ambassador Wilson's trip. Regarding this type of defense, the Court in Morison stated: "Morison urges that the requirement that acts be done wilfully translates to a requirement that they be done with some evil purpose and that if he acted with an intent to inform the public he did not have the requisite evil purpose. He urges this Court to adopt a construction of the word wilfully used in Hartzel v. United States, 322 U.S. 680, 686, 88 L. Ed. 1534, 64 S. Ct. 1233 (1944). In that case, the court, noting that the statute was a highly penal one restricting freedom of expression, held that the word "wilful" must be taken to mean "deliberately and with a specific purpose to do the acts proscribed by Congress." In another sentence, the Court referred to this "evil purpose;" however, in the rest of the opinion the court refers only to the specific intent to do the evil prohibited by the statute, i.e., causing or attempting to cause insubordination, disloyalty, or mutiny. That case did not require"evil purpose" as the defendant reads it, but only required that the prohibited acts be done deliberately and with a specific purpose to do that which was prohibited. In Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d at 919, the court discussed the trial court's instruction that "wilfully" meant "not prompted by an honest mistake as to one's duties, but prompted by some personal or underhanded motive" and apparently approved such an instruction. It seems clear that the defendant here will not find much comfort in his defense that he did what he did with good intentions, unless he can also assert a defense that he did not do so "wilfully." So, Karl Rove and others involved who may have shared classified information cannot assert a defense that they had "good intentions" since their activities were "willful" in that they intended to share the classified information (or even unclassified information relating to the national defense which "could" lead to the USA being injured). The reasons Bush administration officials may have had for willfully sharing information about Valerie Plame's status at the CIA is totally irrelevant as is the distinction between offering her name to the press as oppopsed to simply confirming for a reporter that she worked at the CIA, regardless of whether her CIA status was covert. I reiterate, if any Bush administration officials disclosed or confirmed any information relating to the national defense that could possibly injure the USA, such official is guilty of violating 18 USC 793. They are guilty whether they saw the classified State Department memo or not under the simple test of 18 USC 793 as set forth by the Court in Morison. Of course, if they did see the State Department memo classified as SECRET, the conviction is that much esier to prove and the penalty will probably be more severe. Now we turn our attention to United States v. Squillacote, 221 F.3d 542, 556 (4th Cir. 2000) . <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2000/0responses/2000-0969.resp.html">www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/....resp.html</a> In that case, the question presented to the court was, whether the district court improperly defined the terms "connected with the national defense" and "relating to the national defense" for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 793 and 794. The Court's decision in that case cuts right through the media talking point alleging that Valerie Plame's status was not covert. Indeed, the issue of public knowledge of the classified information is not relevant to the issue of whether the leaker broke the law. The Court stated: "The term "national defense" is a broad term which refers to the United States military and naval establishments and to all related activities of national preparedness. To prove that documents, writings, photographs or information relate to the national defense, there are two things that the Government must prove. First, it must prove that the disclosure of the material would be potentially damaging to the United States or might be useful to an enemy of the United States. And second, it must prove that the material is closely held by the United States government. To prove that documents, writings, photographs or information relate to the national defense, there are two things that the Government must prove. First, it must prove that the disclosure of the material would be potentially damaging to the United States or might be useful to an enemy of the United States. And second, it must prove that the material is closely held by the United States government. " con't below

by **Fearless** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 6:11 pm

This first test is met if the disclosure "might" be useful to an enemy of the USA. Valerie Plame was working on weapons of mass destruction issues at a time of war. The paragraph her name appears in on the State Department memo was officially classified as SECRET by the US Government. EXECUTIVE ORDER 13292, signed by President Bush defines SECRET: "Secret" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe." The information regarding Valerie Plame in the State Department memo is statutorily defined as information which could reasonably be expected to cause serious damage to the national security of the USA. There is no argument available to the future defendants which can change that status. For purposes of part two of the test announced by the Court in Squillacote, it is irrelevant whether Rove or others saw the memo including the paragraph with Valerie Plame's info marked as SECRET because the classification in the memo of that information as being SECRET proves that the material is closely held by the United States government. Disclosure of that information was potentially damaging to the USA according to 18 USC 793(d) and Executive Order 13292. The court further stated: "This Court has never held that information in classified government documents ceases to "relat[e] to the national defense," within the meaning of the espionage statutes, whenever such information may be found somewhere in the public domain. Nor has any court of appeals made such a holding." So, it will not do those involved in Treasongate any good to argue that some people in the public domain knew Valerie Plame was a CIA agent. The court went on to address a very similar fact pattern: "The Second Circuit did not hold, as petitioners suggest, that a closely held government document ceases to "relate to the national defense," for purposes of the espionage statutes, whenever the information in the document may be found in the public domain... The court of appeals explained that "there is a special significance to our government's own official estimates of its strengths and weaknesses, or those of a potential enemy," because such estimates "carry with them the government's implicit stamp of correctness," which "in and of itself is a fact that would be highly valuable to other countries... Finally, if the government had to bear the burden of proving that the information on which an espionage prosecution is based "was not lawfully available in the public domain" at the time of its dissemination, as petitioners urge (Pet. 15 (emphasis omitted)), the government's ability to bring such prosecutions would be severely impaired. The government would effectively be required "to prove, at least as to some piece of information contained in the document, that no person anywhere in the world had ever publicly speculated about that information"... As the court of appeals recognized, "[r]equiring that kind of 'proof of a negative' would unduly hamper the government's ability to protect sensitive information and would render successful prosecutions in cases involving closely-held documents nearly impossible." Ibid. No court has suggested that the government must bear such a burden." The law does not create an exception for releasing classified information that may already be in the public domain. It makes no difference if Valerie Plame was known to some people somewhere in the world as a CIA Agent. The applicable statutes were violated regardless. In conclusion, I find it quite incredible that the main stream media, and for that matter the blogosphere as well, has failed to bring these very applicable statutes and court decisions to the immediate attention of the People of the USA. <a href="http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_citizenspook_archive.html">citizenspook.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_citizenspook_archive.html</a> Citizen Spook is a pacifist who renounces all forms of violence. The revolution can be won with words and the law, which is on our side. I believe in the Constitution. I also believe that the majority of our local, state and federal law enforcement services, as well as our military, are brave patriots who will never be corrupted by the tyrannical neocon fascist regime. Unfortunately, the chain of command has been hijacked by an illegal junta, so it is our job to educate our fellow citizens to the law. This is the only role Citizen Spook seeks to play -- educator of laws and facts. Citizen Spook does not accept adveritising or payment of any kind for writing this blog. [bold]You are welcome to repost entire articles or links.[/bold] Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=fearless@rigorousintuition>Fearless</A> at: 10/12/05 4:15 pm

by **Fearless** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 6:31 pm

MONDAY, AUGUST 01, 2005 TREASONGATE: July 18th Chicago Subway/Dirksen Federal Courthouse Bomb plot involving British MI6 assets -Part 1:CHICAGO POLICE IMPLICATED IN COVER UP? by Citizen Spook August 1, 2005 <a href="http://www.citizenspook.blogspot.com">www.citizenspook.blogspot.com</a> New evidence and questions emerge after multiple eyewitness accounts have surfaced indicating that the July 18th, 2005, Chicago subway bomb scare caused the most chaotic Chicago Transit Authority travel day in the last ten years and was the subject of a media black out. And, contradictory Police reports have been published in conflicting Chicago Tribune stories while relevant alerts about the bomb scare, posted on the Chicago Transit Authority's official web site, have disappeared. Also, interviews with Chicago Transit Authority spokespeople and Chicago Police department officials from the Division of News Affairs reveal conflicting accounts of the events of July 18th and the Red line shut down by Police request on July 29th, 2005. [LATE UPDATE: CITIZEN SPOOK HAS INTERVIEWED OFFICIAL CTA SPOKESPEOPLE AND CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICERS FROM THE NEWS AFFAIRS DIVISION. THOSE INTERVIEWS WERE GUARDED AND THE RESPONSES COMPLETELY CONTRADICT EACH OTHER. THE INTERVIEWS WILL BE THE SUBJECT OF A FOLLOW UP STORY LATER THIS EVENING. IM STILL WAITING FOR A FEW MORE SOURCES TO ISSUE STATEMENTS BEFORE I GO PUBLIC WITH THE REST OF THIS STORY] RECAP On July 19th, 2005, Tom Heneghan & Stew Webb reported: "French Intelligence and The U.S. Marshall Service Monday night July 18, 2005 caught eight of Tony Blair's British MI-6 Agents trying to bomb the Chicago Subway system. A shoot out killed 4 British Agents. Four were captured in the act of Terrorism and arrested. The British Agents part of Bush & Blair's Al Quaida network were charged in Federal Court today with explosives. The British MI-6 Terrorist Cell Operated out of Laidlaw Corp in Chicago." <a href="http://stewwebb.com/">stewwebb.com/</a> On July 22nd, 2005, Heneghan was interviewed by Lenny Bloom and Sherman Skolnick of Cloak and Dagger Internet Radio <a href="http://www.cloakanddagger.de">www.cloakanddagger.de</a> <a href="http://www.cloakanddagger.de/shows/webcast/_JULY_A/_cloak_shop_7_22_05F.mp3">www.cloakanddagger.de/sho...22_05F.mp3</a> The story was updated in that interview to reflect that the incident took place in the subway that runs beneath the Dirksen Federal Courthouse where Patrick Fitzgerald, the Treasongate special prosecutor, is conducting his investigation into the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity. Between July 19th and July 26th, the story was not reported in the main stream media or anywhere else in the blogosphere except that it was reposted in various internet forums and was relentlessly attacked as being false. The premature debunking of this story centered on allegations there were no news reports detailing any interruption in service within the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) on July 18th, 2005, let alone something of the magnitude allleged by Heneghan and Webb. Having heard the interview with Heneghan, Bloom and Skolnick, I became intrigued by the story. It didn't seem logical that a story of this magnitude, if true, could remain hidden from the main stream media, Chicago citizens and the Blogosphere. So, I looked for official reports of service interruptions or bomb scares that might have occirred on July 18th, 2005. I found two small Chicago Tribune recaps which partially confirmed aspects of Heneghan's account. And on July 26th, I wrote an article titled, "MI6 Chicago Subway Bombing UPDATE! - partial confirmation" and posted it at <a href="http://www.tomflocco.com">www.tomflocco.com</a> <a href="http://tomflocco.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=829">tomflocco.com/modules.php...opic&t=829</a> [Since then I have gone live with my own blog... <a href="http://www.citizenspook.blogspot.com">www.citizenspook.blogspot.com</a> ...please see the virgin story from July 28th...TREASONGATE: The Controlling Law - Big Trouble For WH Staff] NEW EVIDENCE AND QUESTIONS HAVE EMERGED The July 26th update of the Chicago subway bomb scare story focussed on two small recaps which appeared at The Chicago Tribune web site, one on July 19th, by Kyra Kyles and another on July 22nd by Virginia Groark. The Tribune stories confirm that the Red line of the CTA was shut down at the Roosevelt station due to a bomb scare on July 18th, 2005. The Red line runs in close proximity under the Dirksen Federal Courthouse where Patrick Fitzgerald's Grand Jury investigation is centered. July 19th Trib story: <a href="http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/index.html?ts=1122997263">pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chic...1122997263</a> search "Kyles" July 22nd Trib story: <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/nearwest/chi-0507220219jul22,1,5178487.story?coll=chi-newslocalnearwest-hed">www.chicagotribune.com/ne...arwest-hed</a> The Tribune articles state that the Red Line was shut down for about 40-45 minutes and commuters were very confused by the CTA's inability to redirect or inform them. Commuters were given no direction on how to make their way home and the CTA was unable to tell them why the subway was shut down. THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE STORIES CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER There's an unusual discrepancy between the two Tribune stories. Kyra Kiles' story of July 19th stated that the station was shut down because of a "suspicious package" left on the platform. But Virginia Groark's story of July 22nd contradicted this, stating that the station was shut down due to a bomb threat which was "phoned in" to the Police. So the Tribune accounts, running three days apart in the same newspaper, completely contradict each other. And just yesterday, July 31st, I became aware of an alarming number of eyewitness accounts, reported by angry Chicago commuters to a blog called The CTA Tattler which testify to the unprecedented chaos caused to commuters because of the Red Line shut down. This chaos wasn't addressed sufficiently in the Tribune accounts and was the subject of a comprehensive media blackout. The confusion between the Kyles and Groark stories is not cleared up or even addressed by Virginia Groark in her story of July 22nd. If Kyra Kyles' story was wrong, and there was no suspicious package left on the platform, why wasn't that issue addressed by Virginia Groark in her later story of July 22nd? From Kyra Kyles Trib story: "A report of a suspicious package left on the platform of the CTA Red Line station at Roosevelt Road and State Street caused an underground station evacuation and rerouting of subway service for approximately 40 minutes on Monday, according to Carlos Herrera, Police spokesman... Members of the police bomb and arson as well as the canine unit reported to the scene and investigated a package near a garbage can, according to Herrera... The package was determined to be an item left behind by an unidentified passenger, and underground service at the station was restored shortly after 5:30 p.m., Herrera said." Why didn't they mention what the "item" was that the unidentified passenger left behind? From Virginia Groark's July 22nd Trib story: "CTA customers pointed to an incident Monday night when someone called in a bomb threat for the Red Line's Roosevelt stop, prompting Chicago Police to close the station for 45 minutes... "Monday's incident began shortly before 4:40 p.m. when someone phoned in a bomb threat, police said." The contradictions are disturbing because the source is the Chicago Police Department. Kyles' and Groark's accounts contradict each other because their source, the Chicago Police Department, has contradicted itself. In Kyles' story of July 19th, Carlos Herrera of the Chicago Police is on the record claiming there was a "suspicious package" left on the platform which was examined and found to be harmless. But Groark's July 22nd story quotes the Chicago Police as stating that a bomb threat was "phoned in". Groark's story does NOT mention a suspicious package. There are no contradictions between the time and location of the bomb scare, so the conflicting Chicago Police accounts, as to whether the Red Line was shut down because of a "suspicious package" versus a "phoned in" bomb threat, indicate that Chicago Police might be implicated in a cover up. This theory is supported by the incredible facts that have emerged (see below) indicating that neither the CTA nor the Chicago Police had any idea what was going on in their subway system on July 18th, 2005. Or in the alternative, they were instructed not to inform the citizens of Chicago what the problem was. The July 19th expose posted at <a href="http://www.stewwebb.com">www.stewwebb.com</a> does not include the Chicago Police in their account of the alleged shoot out between British MI6 agents and the US Marshal aided by French intelligence agents. And according to Sherman Skolnick, the official record pertaining to the arrest of four MI6 agents has been sealed by Fitzgerald's Grand Jury. If the Chicago Police and the CTA were in the dark concerning the events of July 18th, such confusion might have been deliberate by Federal agents ordered to prevent a Diplomatic nightmare scenario while various Governments investigate the facts. CTA CONFUSION From Virginia Groark's July 22nd story: "Riders acknowledged it was a difficult time of day but said they were not given information to make intelligent choices about the best way home. Some said CTA employees still didn't know what was going on more than hour after the threat was reported. Matt Greer, 28, arrived at the Grand stop on the Red Line about 5:05 p.m. and was greeted by two Chicago police officers working there who said the station was closed... 'They were completely uninformed about the whole situation, so that was frustrating," Greer said. "For all I knew, the whole system was down. They wouldn't tell us anything'... Monday's incident began shortly before 4:40 p.m. when someone phoned in a bomb threat, police said. Police shut down the Roosevelt Station from 4:40 to 5:25 p.m., but no bomb was discovered and no arrests have been made." Groark's story highlights another contradiction regarding the timeline for the Red Line shut down. The Chicago Police are on record stating the entire shut down lasted just 45 minutes, between 4:40 p.m. when the alleged bomb threat was called in and 5:25 when the Red Line was reopened. But Groark's report also states: "Some said CTA employees still didn't know what was going on more than an hour after the threat was reported." That statement is been supported by numerous eyewitness accounts from Chicago commuters posted at a web site that deals specifically with the Chicago Transit Authority, The CTA Tattler. <a href="http://kjo84.typepad.com/cta_tattler/2005/07/messy_rush_hour.html#comment-7442204">kjo84.typepad.com/cta_tat...nt-7442204</a> con't below

by **Fearless** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 6:33 pm

From the CTA Tattler, July 19, 2005: 'Messy rush hour caused by unattended package What a mess rush hour was last night on CTA rail lines. An unattended package forced evacuation of a Red Line train at Roosevelt at about 4:45 pm. Passengers were herded off the train and then led to the elevated tracks in the Loop, where Red Line trains were sitting above ground taking on delayed passengers..." The final sentence of the CTA Tattler account is chilling: "The CTA was its usual reticent self. Though it did post this terse announcement on its Web site." It's chilling because the so called "terse announcement" has been removed from the CTA's official site and the link provided by the CTA Tattler leads to a dead end. <a href="http://www.transitchicago.com/news/whatsnewA.wu?action=displaynewspostingdetail&articleid=123250">www.transitchicago.com/ne...eid=123250</a> The official CTA web site archive, which goes all the way back to 1998, does not exhibit information about the July 18th service disruptions and neither does its "customer alert" archive. <a href="http://www.transitchicago.com/news/ctaandpress.wu">www.transitchicago.com/ne...ndpress.wu</a> The Bulletin Board from ( <a href="http://www.lifeduringwartime.net)">www.lifeduringwartime.net)</a> Life During Wartime holds the following commentary: "In the midst of my commute home yesterday I was stopped from getting on the redline by a cop. Snapping out of my end of the day stupor I noticed that all the train entrances were blocked by cops and a crowd of bewildered commuters was swiftly forming. Most people were asking the cops about directions, other routes, etc. I asked what the deal was. 'Sir, if someone told me I couldn't do something I wouldn't waste my time asking why'. Uh, okay. 'Well, I was just curious as to why...' 'Sir, you know what they say happened to the cat. You might have heard about the bomb-ing? The one in Lon-don?' 'Yeah so was it a bomb threat then or what?' 'Sir, if I knew that the train station was closed I'd be smart enough to just get away from the area'. "Alright. Thanks jackass." Of course I was walking away when I said the jackass part. If theres a threat, shouldn't they just tell people?... When I got home after a ride on the most ridiculously over packed bus I've ever been on I checked the cta site. It said something about the redline being closed for a police activity...Nothing about it on the news last night either." <a href="http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/lifeduringwartime/vpost?id=545730&trail=20#3posted">www.websitetoolbox.com/to...20#3posted</a> by joshden Apparently, the CTA site didn't mention a bomb scare being "phoned in" nor did it mention a "suspicious package" having been left on the platform. It apparently said the Red Line was close for "a police actvivity." Other incidents the week prior to July 18th were handled in a routine manner by an informed CTA and Chicago Police. Confusion was not the protocol. Pay attention to the following eyewitness accounts (posted at the CTA Tattler site) of Chicago commuters. Reading the statements posted, one gets the impression July 18th was an unprecedented evening of chaos. Commuters report that the CTA and Chicago Police were unable to tell hem what was happening or how to get home. The following two anecdotes describe a "crime scene" at Roosevelt Station: "I also entered the CTA "system" after 5PM yesterday and heard an unintelligible announcement being made on the "PA". I asked a CTA employee what had been announced and he informed me that the Red Line trains were running on the elevated tracks instead of in the subway but he didn't know why...When I de-trained (a Frank Kruesi term) at Roosevelt I found State Street had been cordoned off as a 'crime scene' and mucho polizei walking about. Also some News cameras were present - but no body seemed to know what was actually going on..." <a href="http://kjo84.typepad.com/cta_tattler/2005/07/messy_rush_hour.html">kjo84.typepad.com/cta_tat..._hour.html</a> posted by Ron It looks like the media was there and chose not to report it, so further verification is necessary. And: "...I went to the Grand Red Line station at about 5:05 and noticed Chicago police officers stationed at all four entrances with swarms of angry commuters shouting at them. I asked one of the officers if it was only the Grand stop that was closed or if it was the entire Red Line. He just shouted "I can't tell you what I don't know!" Nothing about the Red Line being rerouted, no CTA employees directing us to alternatives, we were just left hanging there..." <a href="http://kjo84.typepad.com/cta_tattler/2005/07/messy_rush_hour.html">kjo84.typepad.com/cta_tat..._hour.html</a> posted by Matt This previous comment tells us that the Grand Station was also surrounded by Police. A scan of the CTA map of the area shows that Grand is six stops from Roosevelt on the Red Line. <a href="http://www.transitchicago.com/maps/maps/F2004D.html">www.transitchicago.com/ma...2004D.html</a> So, if there was a "suspicious package" left at the Roosevelt stop, why would they have the Grand station surrounded by Police? And how many other stations were surrounded by police? The broad police activity does not make sense if the incident was caused by a package left behind on the Roosevelt Station platform, a package that turned out to be harmless. Perhaps it was the public realization of the massive service interruption which caused the authorities to change the official story with the July 22nd Tribune piece. A "phoned in" bomb threat would provide a more logical excuse for shutting the system down in such an expansive manner. The following two comments contradict the official timeline. The first claims there was no service on the Red Line until 6:35 p.m., a full hour later than the time given by Chicago Police: "Unaware of what was going on, I arrived at a Loop Red Line stop at 5:40 p.m. last night. There were no CTA personnel or authorities keeping people away from the station. There were no announcements made. Nobody knew what was going on, or that we might want to consider an alternate route home. The first train in the subway arrived at 6:35 p.m... <a href="http://kjo84.typepad.com/cta_tattler/2005/07/messy_rush_hour.html">kjo84.typepad.com/cta_tat..._hour.html</a> posted by Norm And: con'd below Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=fearless@rigorousintuition>Fearless</A> at: 10/12/05 4:35 pm

by **Fearless** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 6:37 pm

"The CTA said the trains were back to normal by 5:26pm, but at 5:50pm 2 red line trains stopped at clark/lake and I saw another one go around the loop." <a href="http://kjo84.typepad.com/cta_tattler/2005/07/messy_rush_hour.html">kjo84.typepad.com/cta_tat..._hour.html</a> posted by cmama The confusion is well documented: "...I watched all 5 9/10 pm news broadcasts and saw nothing, although it seemed CBS-2 did a tease right before 10, but I didn't see the actual story. I can't believe how fast these stories disappear! This is probably the WORST delay I've faced in 10 years of almost-daily CTA travel... I don't know when we stopped just before North, but I checked my watch and it was 6:15. So, we were easily there 20 minutes or more... So we spent about a half-hour stalled less than a block from my stop (North/Sedgwick). I seriously considered asking if the windows opened so I could crawl out... When the train started again, I eagerly leapt up--and the train DIDN'T STOP AT NORTH!... Again, we never got any announcement about 1) what happened with the subway tracks, 2) why everything was so slow, 3) what stops we'd stop at. Of course it didn't stop at Armitage either. So we finally got to Fullerton. And after a 90-min ride that should have been 25 minutes... And then, as if the inept/arrogrant CTA...weren't bad enough, the news media doesn't care enough to report it..." <a href="http://kjo84.typepad.com/cta_tattler/2005/07/messy_rush_hour.html">kjo84.typepad.com/cta_tat..._hour.html</a> posted by Katherine More about the CTA employees not knowing what was going on: "Monday I got on a north bound brown line train at Randolph/Wabash at about 5:10pm but didn't get off at Armitage until 6 freaking PM!!! One automated announcement while we sat and simmered on the packed train. When I got off at Armitage (not even my stop but I couldn't stand on that train any longer) and asked the attendant what the delay was, he YELLED at me that he didn't know. Excuse me?..." <a href="http://kjo84.typepad.com/cta_tattler/2005/07/messy_rush_hour.html">kjo84.typepad.com/cta_tat..._hour.html</a> posted by JM And: "...Fortunately I didn't have to ride last night, but as I turned onto State Street to get to Union, I saw the lady screaming at the driver and banging on the windows. And the only uniformed type person I saw at all was at the top of the stairs that are in front of Marshall Fields, holding a walkie talkie and telling someone "no I don't know what's going on, all I know is the train isn't running". <a href="http://kjo84.typepad.com/cta_tattler/2005/07/messy_rush_hour.html">kjo84.typepad.com/cta_tat..._hour.html</a> posted by Jenn And: "A lot of last night's congestion would have been reduced if people had just been informed what was going on so they could have made alternate arrangements..." <a href="http://kjo84.typepad.com/cta_tattler/2005/07/messy_rush_hour.html">kjo84.typepad.com/cta_tat..._hour.html</a> posted by Christine con't below Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=fearless@rigorousintuition>Fearless</A> at: 10/12/05 4:45 pm

by **Fearless** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 6:47 pm

HTML Comments are not allowed Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=fearless@rigorousintuition>Fearless</A> at: 10/12/05 4:54 pm

by **Fearless** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 8:57 pm

Test

by **Fearless** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 8:58 pm

HTML Comments are not allowed

by **Fearless** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:02 pm

I GIVE UP

by **dbeach** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 10:31 pm

HTML Comments are not allowed

by **Fearless** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:00 pm

HTML Comments are not allowed

by **antiaristo** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 4:25 pm

Monday, August 22, 2005 TREASONGATE: The Challenge of 18 USC 794... [UPDATE: United States v. Morison is a district court decision, but it was upheld by the Supreme Court, Rehnquist delivered the decision] CHALLENGE TO JOE WILSON: “Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames.” That was Joe Wilson speaking to David Corn in The Nation on July 16th. Joe Wilson, if he does not want to remain looking like an obvious Bush facilitator of Treason, should demand the Bush administration be prosecuted under 18 USC 794 for Treason since that is the law which sent Aldrich Ames away to prison for life. CHALLENGE TO DAVID CORN and "THE NATION": "Corn then published a detailed exploration of the law to ensure that other journalists, as well as regular readers of The Nation, understood all of the legalities involved." (From Page 349 of Wilson's book, "The Politics of Truth".) David Corn, you are challenged to publish a genuine "detailed explopration of the law to ensure that other journalists, as well as regular readers of The Nation", understand all of the legalities involved, particularly 18 USC 794 which you have ignored? CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRATICUNDERGROUND.COM: A thread at Democraticundergound.com was locked yesterday when the moderators challenged Citizen Spook to provide a "reliable source" for my reporting. DU, I have given two reliable sources: Source #1: Title 18 of our United States Code, 18 USC 794. See my analysis of it here It's an impeccable source, but for some reason your site does not have any discussion or analysis on it. Why not? Source #2: The District Court's decision in United States v. Morison (upheld by the US Supreme Court) <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=486&invol=1306">caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/sc...invol=1306</a> I suggest you read my sources carefully and then report back to your readership with your own analysis. CHALLENGE TO NATIONAL REVIEW: Clifford May did an excellent job of analyzing David Corn's outing of Plame's status, but May and the National Review have failed miserably to cover the applicable laws to the Treason before us, 18 USC 794. Why? CHALLENGE TO AMERICA Don't get distracted by the pundits America. The law is the only source you need. Anybody who truly wishes to see the Bush administration and its facilitators pay for their Treasons against this country should analyze 18 USC 794 carefully and then ask why none of the pundits from the Conservative media or the Liberal media have brought a detailed, impartial analysis of this law to your attention. The USA is the victim of Treason here, not the Wilson's. We suffer for this destruction of national intelligence assets. Our security has been challenged. This is a very simple issue. We have laws against Treason, why won't the the main stream media or the main stream blogosphere discuss the law our Government has enacted to punish Treason? There are other scandals that deserve your attention; election fraud, The Downing Street memo and the continuing Iraq war, but demanding a national debate on the violations of 18 USC 794 in the Plame leak and the Khan leak outweigh those issues right now because convictions are easily attainable under 18 USC 794 based on just the facts we know. Start there America, get the indictments sorted out through pressuring the media to cover the law, and the rats will roll over on each other faster than you can imagine. The law is clear, concise and available to the Special Prosecutor and the sitting grand juries as well as future grand juries. I also challenge all American citizens to learn about your Constitutional powers as the Fourth Branch of US Government. Citizen Spook's identity is irrelevant, as is the merit of any "political" analysis of 18 USC 794...the law stands alone. Media traitors can be located, spotted and outed based upon their decision to cover or not cover 18 USC 794 and United States v, Morison. America, demand a national debate concerning these laws. Since the media was so driven to analyze the IIPA, why is that same media involved in a total black out of 18 USC 794? If Joe Wilson and David Corn are not in cahoots with the White House, they can discredit Citizen Spook's allegations by publishing exhaustive analysis of 18 USC 794, discussing previous convictions under that law and and analyzing the line of cases that have used the law.

by **antiaristo** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 4:31 pm

TREASONGATE: The Federal Grand Jury, FOURTH BRANCH of the US Government If Patrick Fitzgerald is somehow illegally removed as Special Counsel in the Treasongate proceedings, the grand jury(s) he has impaneled will serve at the mercy of Fitzgerald's replacement, an individual who will have been brought in to shield the Bush administration from criminal prosecution for its many treasons. If that grand jury is aware of their true Constitutional power, it's possible they might stand up, fight, and win a legal battle that is long overdue. Furthermore, 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. For that power, despite having been hidden for many years behind the veil of a legislative fraud, still exists in all of its glory in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. The US Supreme Court has confirmed and reinforced that power. So please, copy this report and paste it far and wide. It is not spin. It is not false. It is not for sale, it is not copyrighted by me, so paste and quote it freely. This report is the truth and we need truth, now, more than ever. The Constitutional power of "we the people" sitting as grand jurors has been subverted by a deceptive play on words since 1946 when the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were enacted. Regardless, the power I am going to explain to you still exists in the Constitution, and has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court despite the intention of the legislature and other legal scholars to make our power disappear with a cheap magic trick. Repeat a lie with force and repetition and the lie becomes known as truth. In the case of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, the power of the grand jury, to return "presentments" on its own proactive initiation, without reliance upon a US Attorney to concur in such criminal charges, has been usurped by an insidious play on words. Most of this article is going to quote other scholars, judges and legislators as I piece together a brief but thorough history of the federal grand jury for your review. But the punch line is my personal contribution to the cause: UNITED STATES CITIZENS SITTING AS FEDERAL GRAND JURORS ARE THE FOURTH BRANCH OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. My input into this vital fight is no more than the analysis of a few carefully used words. It only took a small sleight of pen back in 1946 to hide our power, and it won't take more than a few words to take that power back. But a proper overview is necessary for most of you who are unfamiliar with the issue at hand. So let me provide you with some history and then we'll see what went wrong and how to correct it. HISTORY OF FEDERAL GRAND JURY POWER I want to draw your attention to a law review article, CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW, Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000, 821, IF IT'S NOT A RUNAWAY, IT'S NOT A REAL GRAND JURY by Roger Roots, J.D. "In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without governmental influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past." The 5th Amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury." An article appearing in American Juror, the newsletter of the American Jury Institute and the Fully Informed Jury Association, citing the famed American jurist, Joseph Story, explained : "An indictment is a written accusation of an offence preferred to, and presented, upon oath, as true, by a grand jury, at the suit of the government. An indictment is framed by the officers of the government, and laid before the grand jury. Presentments, on the other hand, are the result of a jury’s independent action: 'A presentment, properly speaking, is an accusation, made by a grand jury of its own mere motion, of an offence upon its own observation and knowledge, or upon evidence before it, and without any bill of indictment laid before it at the suit of the government. Upon a presentment, the proper officer of the court must frame an indictment, before the party accused can be put to answer it.' " Back to the Creighton Law Review: "A 'runaway' grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today's "runaway" grand jury is in fact the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact "runaways," according to the definition of modern times; they operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself." So, it's clear that the Constitution intended to give the grand jury power to instigate criminal charges, and this was especially true when it came to government oversight. But something strange happened on the way to the present. That power was eroded by a lie enacted by the legislative branch. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution still contains the same words quoted above, but if you sit on a grand jury and return a "presentment" today, the prosecutor must sign it or it probably won't be allowed to stand by the judge and the criminal charges you have brought to the court's attention will be swept away. And the reason for this can be found in a legislative lie of epic proportions. Mr. Roots weighs in again: "In 1946, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted, codifying what had previously been a vastly divergent set of common law procedural rules and regional customs.[86] In general, an effort was made to conform the rules to the contemporary state of federal criminal practice.[87] In the area of federal grand jury practice, however, a remarkable exception was allowed. The drafters of Rules 6 and 7, which loosely govern federal grand juries, denied future generations of what had been the well-recognized powers of common law grand juries: powers of unrestrained investigation and of independent declaration of findings. The committee that drafted the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provided no outlet for any document other than a prosecutor-signed indictment. In so doing, the drafters at least tacitly, if not affirmatively, opted to ignore explicit constitutional language."[88]" Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP): "An offense which may be punished by death shall be prosecuted by indictment. An offense which may be punished by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or at hard labor shall be prosecuted by indictment..." No mention of "presentments" can be found in Rule 7. But they are mentioned in Note 4 of the Advisory Committee Notes on the Rules: "4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts." The American Juror published the following commentary with regards to Note 4: "[W]hile the writers of the federal rules made provisions for indictments, they made none for presentments. This was no oversight. According to Professor Lester B. Orfield, a member of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, the drafters of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 6 decided the term presentment should not be used, even though it appears in the Constitution. Orfield states [22 F.R.D. 343, 346]: 'There was an annotation by the Reporter on the term presentment as used in the Fifth Amendment. It was his conclusion that the term should not be used in the new rules of criminal procedure. Retention might encourage the use of the run-away grand jury as the grand jury could act from their own knowledge or observation and not only from charges made by the United States attorney. It has become the practice for the United States Attorney to attend grand jury hearings, hence the use of presentments have been abandoned.' " That's a fascinating statement: "Retention might encourage...the grand jury [to] act from their own knowledge or observation." God forbid, right America? The nerve of these people. They have the nerve to put on the record that they intended to usurp our Constitutional power, power that was intended by the founding fathers, in their incredible wisdom, to provide us with oversight over tyrannical government. And so they needed a spin term to cast aspersions on that power. The term they chose was, "runaway grand jury", which is nothing more than a Constitutionally mandated grand jury, aware of their power, and legally exercising that power to hold the federal beast in check, as in "checks and balances". The lie couldn't be inserted into the Constitution, so they put it in a statute and then repeated it. And scholars went on to repeat it, and today, as it stands, the grand jury has effectively been lied into the role of submissive puppet of the US Attorney. The American Juror publication included a very relevant commentary: "Of course, no statute or rule can alter the provisions of the Constitution, since it is the supreme law of the land. But that didn’t prevent the federal courts from publishing a body of case law affirming the fallacy that presentments were abolished. A particularly egregious example: 'A rule that would permit anyone to communicate with a grand jury without the supervision or screening of the prosecutor or the court would compromise, if not utterly subvert, both of the historic functions of the grand jury, for it would facilitate the pursuit of vendettas and the gratification of private malice. A rule that would open the grand jury to the public without judicial or prosecutorial intervention is an invitation to anyone interested in trying to persuade a majority of the grand jury, by hook or by crook, to conduct investigations that a prosecutor has determined to be inappropriate or unavailing.' [7] What is the result? Investigating seditious acts of government officials can be deemed inappropriate or unavailing by the prosecutor, or the judge can dismiss the grand jurors pursuing such investigations. Consequently, corrupt government officials have few natural enemies and go about their seditious business unimpeded. By the way, they made a rule to take care of runaways too, in 1946: Rule 6(g): 'At any time for cause shown the court may excuse a juror either temporarily or permanently, and in the latter event the court may impanel another person in place of the juror excused.' Now judges can throw anyone off a grand jury, or even disimpanel a grand jury entirely, merely for exercising its discretion." Now let me add my two cents to this argument: Most of the discussion about Note 4 to Rule 7 of the FRCP takes for granted that the common law use of "presentments" (as codified in the 5th Amendment) was made "illegal" in 1946 by this act. Nothing could be more false. Note 4 does not contain language that makes the use of presentments "illegal", although it had chosen its words carefully to make it appear as if that is what the legislative branch intended. But let's look at Note 4 again: "4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts." The key word is, "obsolete". Obsolete means "outmoded", or "not in use anymore", but it does not mean "abolished" or "illegal". And therein lies the big lie. The legislature knew it could not directly overrule the Constitution, especially with something so clearly worded as the 5th Amendment, which grants a power to the people which has a long and noble purpose in criminal jurisprudence. But the federal beast legislative branch sought more power to protect themselves from the oversight of "we the people", and in its vampire like thirst for more governmental control, it inserted this insidious Note 4 in the hope that scholars and judges would play along with their ruse, or in the alternative, their ruse would appear to be legally viable. Let's look at some authoritative legal resources which discuss Note 4: Susan Brenner, THE VOICE OF THE COMMUNITY: A CASE FOR GRAND JURY INDEPENDENCE: "Finally, federal grand juries' subservience to prosecutors was exacerbated when the federal system eliminated the use of presentments, which allowed a grand jury to bring charges on its own initiative. (N35) Now, federal grand jurors cannot return charges in the form of an indictment without a prosecutor's consent. (N36) Elimination of the presentment demonstrates the historical trend towards elimination of proactive features in the grand jury system." Did Brenner fall for the lie or did she cleverly further it when she said, "[T]he federal system eliminated the use of presentments"? The federal system did no such thing. Note 4 said the use of presentments was "obsolete". First of all, Note 4 is not a law in itself. It is a Note to a law, and the law as written, does not have anything to say about presentments. You see the leap Brenner has made? The Constitution provides for "presentments", then the FRCP are enacted and the Rules therein do not mention presentments, nor due they ban presentments, and if they did, such a ban would be unconstitutional, since an administrative enactment regarding procedure can not overrule the Constitution. Regardless, it's irrelevant, since the FRCP does not mention "presentments". Note 4 simply states that "presentments" allowed for in the 5th Amendment of the Constitution have become "obsolete", or outmoded, which is not to say that they were "eliminated". Shame on you Susan Brenner. You know damn well that the Constitution can only be changed by an official Amendment to it. Nothing can be "eliminated" from the Constitution by an administrative note. The use of presentments had become obsolete because the grand jurors were not aware of their power. So the use of "presentments" became more and more rare, and then in 1946 the legislative branch seized upon the moment to make this power disappear by waving its magic wand over the Constitution. Mr. Root got it wrong in the Creighton Law Review as well: "Before the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure — which made independently-acting grand juries illegal for all practical purposes — grand juries were understood to have broad powers to operate at direct odds with both judges and prosecutors..." The FRCP did not make it "illegal for all practical purposes". That's patently false. I don't know if Mr. Root, and/or Susan Brenner, were acting as the magician's assistant, but I can't imagine how these educated scholars could be so incredibly ignorant of basic Constitutional law. Give me a damn break. But if enough people repeat the lie, the lie appears to be the truth. But we have it on good authority, the Supreme Court, that the lie has no legal effect. Justice Powell, in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974), stated: "The institution of the grand jury is deeply rooted in Anglo-American history. [n3] In England, the grand jury [p343] served for centuries both as a body of accusers sworn to discover and present for trial persons suspected of criminal wrongdoing and as a protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action. In this country, the Founders thought the grand jury so essential to basic liberties that they provided in the Fifth Amendment that federal prosecution for serious crimes can only be instituted by "a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury." Cf. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 361-362 (1956). The grand jury's historic functions survive to this day. Its responsibilities continue to include both the determination whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the protection of citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686-687 (1972)." The Note 4 lie is smashed on the SCOTUS altar, "The grand jury's historic functions survive to this day." Take that Note 4! The wonderful irony of the situation concerns the ultimate neocon Justice, one known as Antonin Scalia, who effectively codified the unique independent power of the Fourth Branch into the hands of all citizens sitting as federal grand jurors. In discussing that power and unique independence granted to the grand jury, the United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992), Justice Scalia, delivering the opinion of the court, laid down the law of the land: "'[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history," Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), 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.'" United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). ' " I submit to you that this passage sets the stage for a revolutionary knew context necessary and Constitutionally mandated to "we the people", THE FOURTH BRANCH of the Government of the United States. Besides, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches, I submit that there is a fourth branch, THE GRAND JURY, and "we the people" when sitting as grand jurors, are, as Scalia quoted in US v. Williams, " a constitutional fixture in its own right". Yes, damn it. That is exactly what the grand jury is, and what it was always intended to be. Scalia also stated, that "the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside..." Id. And finally, to seal the deal, Scalia hammered the point home: "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. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). 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. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504 U.S. 36, 48] " This miraculous quote says it all, "...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." The Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, gives rise to a FOURTH BRANCH of Government, THE GRAND JURY. We the people have been charged with oversight of the government in our roles as grand jurors. And at this critical time in American history, we must, for the protection of our constitutional republic, take back our power and start acting as powerful as the other branches of government. The law is on our side. So please spread this knowledge as far and wide as you can. We the people have the right and power under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution to charge this government with crimes by returning presentments regardless of whether the US Attorneys or the federal judges agree with us. As the Supreme Court has so brilliantly stated, we are the "buffer between the Government and the people." Take the reins America. Pass it on. The Fourth Branch is alive and kickin'. by Citizen Spook PLEASE REPOST and LINK

Citizenspook

Citizenspook

Re: Citizenspook

Re: Citizenspook

Re: Citizenspook

Re: Citizenspook

Re: Citizenspook

Re: Citizenspook

Re: Citizenspook

Re: Citizenspook

Re: Citizenspook

Re: Citizenspook

Re: Citizenspook

Re: Citizenspook

Re: Citizenspook 18 USC 794

Re: Citizenspook Grand Jury - Fourth Branch of US Govt.

Who is online