I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. up>a ^b 5 U.S.C. § 3331, Oath of Office)    

~~~    

The T-Room’s previous post 1946: The Year the Federal Government Illegally Usurped American’s Constitutional Protections featured a 60-minute audio interview with former/active Marine Sgt. Tim Harrington, exposing the illegal usurpation of the citizen’s right for redress as protected by the powers granted Grand Juries under the Fifth Amendment. 

Harrington’s primary investigative focus on the issue of Grand Jury ‘Presentments,’  led him to believe our original civil system of ‘Presentments’ was replaced with the military’s system – specifically Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) – “Rules of Criminal Procedure.” The UCMJ system appears to mirror the civil system in that it only allows Grand Juries the power to hand down ‘Indictments’ to a prosecutor, and strips away their prior powers to act independently – sans prosecutor. 

This single act of replacing civil procedure with military procedure denies citizens their First Amendment right to address grievances with any local, state or federal government actor through the Constitutional American Grand Jury System, whose powers are guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment. How and why this occurred is the mission of much investigative work, and the reason for publishing this series at The T-Room. 

Prior to 1946, an American citizen could file a criminal complaint directly with a Grand Jury. According to a January 22, 2009, article by Leo Donofrio, J.D., the Grand Jury, operating separately from the courts, had broad powers to function as both investigators and accusers, without a prosecutor or judge involved. Their powers also allowed them to proceed to a presentment, and/or an indictment, based solely on their independent, investigative findings. This functioned as a sort of checks and balances system that provided for the People’s oversight of the government. 

However, post 1946, the government, operating under a lie enacted by the legislative branch, rendered citizen ‘Presentments’ “obsolete” in Federal Courts. Today, only a minority of local Grand Juries in a few states still retain the original power of criminal prosecutorial ‘Presentments.’ Otherwise, the vast majority of state and all federal Grand Juries recognize “the lie” and must return “Indictments” to a prosecutor. We’ll address how they pulled this off later in the article. Let’s first look at what prompted this shift in powers. 

What was it exactly that necessitated or prompted this shift in Grand Jury powers resulting in the loss of our First Amendments rights? More appropriately said, the perception that we believe we have lost our First Amendment rights. Let’s revisit both the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment before we go on. 

The First Amendment reads:   

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  

The Fifth Amendment reads: 

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” 

After that quick refresher, is it surprising the federal government felt it had to make a move?   It’s easy to see in Donofrio’s brief explanation below, the threat the power of the People represented to the government, particularly the independent power Grand Juries once enjoyed, as lawfully provided to them in The Bill of Rights. 

 “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.” 

I was surprised to find mention also in Donofrio’s article the outward admittance of the importance of federal grand juries by Supreme Court Justice Scalia, and felt it important to include it here. Scalia says, as quoted in US v. Williams, “a constitutional fixture in its own right”  He also stated, that “the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts DO NOT preside.” (emphasis mine) It belongs to no branch of government. From this we see the kind of power wielded by the People and why it was and is deemed such a threat. 

Without a doubt, it was this threat of power, and unbeknownst to us until now, a more sinister agenda looming in our futures, that prompted the federal government, including the Supreme Court Justices, to render citizen “Presentments” obsolete, in whatever manner they could. 

We’re led to believe, read deceived, the Federal Government sought to bring uniformity to the criminal rules for state, local and Federal Grand Juries just as they had done in 1938, with civil procedure rules. With the adoption of The Sumners Courts Act in 1944, the first Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure  were subsequently enacted in 1946, by most state and local governments. The result of the adoption of this act essentially relieved the Grand Juries of their investigative powers, laying it squarely and solely in the laps of prosecutors. Notice I said “relieved.” No legal amendment to the Constitution has been made changing the power of the Grand Juries. NONE.  This move ultimately gave the Federal government what they desire most – less power in the hands of the people and more power in the hands of the government. I can’t help but wonder if being in the midst of WWII during this time had any bearing on this. 

Evident by my ongoing discovery of the usurpation of the power of the federal government, this body of work serves to continue to awaken the People to the fact that the global elite began as early as 1946, patiently and methodically laying the foundation for their ultimate goal – a One World Government. They have since worked steadfastly to further strip the People of their liberties and freedoms, and erode the powers guaranteed them in the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. 

Shockingly, the People’s First Amendment protection for redress is hiding in a footnote of the 1946 Commission’s Report. The power of the Grand Juries have also been hidden from the People’s sight.  

Naturally, we ask ourselves how did they do this? Well, they simply removed the words related to “Presentments” and placed it in their Committee “footnotes” indicating the Committee’s decision to remove it. That’s how! Of course, you and I were always taught no changes could be made to the US Constitution without the citizens voting on said changes. Therefore, this strike of a pencil would appear to be illegal under Constitutional law. But, is it? Does it find its lawfulness under the provisions for Martial law. More on that later. 

For the record, here are the Committee’s footnotes to Rule 7 – pay special attention to item 4: 

CORNELL LAW  – NOTES TO RULE 7  

NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES – 1944  

 Note to Subdivision (a).  

 1. This rule gives effect to the following provision of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: “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 infamous crime has been defined as a crime punishable by death or by imprisonment in a penitentiary or at hard labor, Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 427; United States v. Moreland, 258 U.S. 433. Any sentence of imprisonment for a term of over one year may be served in a penitentiary, if so directed by the Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 753f (now 4082, 4083) (Commitment of persons by any court of the United States and the juvenile court of the District of Columbia; place of confinement; transfers).  Consequently any offense punishable by imprisonment for a term of over one year is an infamous crime. 

 2. Petty offenses and misdemeanors for which no infamous punishment is prescribed may now be prosecuted by information, 18 U.S.C. 541 (see 1) (Felonies and misdemeanors); Duke v. United States, 301 U.S. 492.  

3. For a discussion of the provision for waiver of indictment, see Note to Rule 7(b), infra.  

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. 

Hard to believe isn’t it? Poof. Gone. In the blink of an eye – the citizen’s constitutional right for redress through a Grand Jury process was removed.  The powers that be reduced it to a footnote in the newly adopted Rules of Criminal Procedure.  

Many scholars and laymen alike, have written on this very subject. But, I know of no one, other than Sgt. Tim Harrington, who has made, or attempted to make, the connection between military “Uniform Code of Military Justice – Rules of Procedure” with civilian “Rules of Criminal Procedure.”  In part 1 of this series, Harrington linked his comparative theory to the works of Col. William Winthrop and his Two Volume Set of  Articles of War, which, in turn, is easily traced back to the reign of Britian’s King George III.  

Quoting Winthrop on Page 20, Volume 1 – 

“The necessity of constantly comparing the two, and passing from the one to the other in order to ascertain and harmonize the law, was at least inconvenient, and that the body of law thus dissevered was not sooner consolidated and simplified must remain a matter of surprise to the American student.” 

Through careful observation, Harrington concludes “Today, America’s military and civilian/criminal justice systems mirror one another and the one common denominator lacking between both is constitutional law.” Today, the People’s justice system, military and civilian, are deviously built upon Winthrop’s War Articles and as Fitzpatrick rightly pens “…the contemporary variant of the American articles.”  Fitzpatrick goes on and states in “Winthrop’s Curse” – “War Articles serve Kings”  “Constitutions serve People”   

Between learning We the People, over many decades, allowed critical constitutional protections  end up as a footnote is striking. And now to learn America’s entire criminal system is actually rooted in Britian’s War Articles and both civilian and military criminal systems are nearly identical is tyranny.  

Now, how did these government criminals, elected by the People, whittle away, ever so slowly the People’s protections without our screaming from the rooftops? These criminals are sly ones, oh yes, they are. Here’s just a snippet from Fitzpatrick’s post “Winthrop’s Curse”.  

“In the United States of America, no person or assembly is lawfully sanctioned to strip a fellow citizen the protection of a constitutionally constructed jury.  

And yet, the Attainder Act of 1789, remains undisturbed in its essentials. (Martial Law)

We are left instead with Winthrop’s subversion, treason and betrayal. Winthrop’s 1886 bloodless coup de grace forced a military amendment on the Constitution and on its people.”   

(Note: the history behind Martial Law is a post itself. The T-Room will feature a post on this topic in the coming days. Why? Because, NO PRESIDENT since Lincoln’s assissination has ever rescinded the Attainder Act of 1789. Stay tuned.)

Two Dad’s, Two Brothers, Two Oaths 

Retired Commander Fitzpatrick and former/active Sgt Harrington teamed up years ago to research and put into practice, their oath to the Constitution by exercising their protections guaranteed them under the First and Fifth Amendment.     

On 17 March 2009 retired Navy Commander Walter Frances Fitzpatrick III filed a Complaint of Treason against the President of the United States at the Monroe County Courthouse in Tennessee. Undaunted, and unstoppable, “Operation American Freedom” was launched in “real-time”. Their decision was made only after learning the county of Monroe, Tennessee, the Commander’s hometown area, Grand Jury still accepted citizen “Presentments,” one of the few left in the nation.   

Operation AF’s mission is simple ~ Return Constitutional Law to the United States of America and ALL her citizens by IMMEDIATELY rescinding the Attainder Act of 1789.   

Since 17 March 2010, much has happened YET nothing has happened to get the Complaint of Treason before the Monroe Co. Grand Jury. The much = learning Tennessee’s Code of Criminal Procedure, the Monroe County Judicial system and how it works, study of standard practices for random selection of Petite and Grand Jury duty, working with the Clerk of Court and her staff and more. The nothing = 15 months to the day, of nonsensical delay and obstruction by the current Foreman of the Monroe County Grand Jury, Gary Pettway, and Assistant District Attorney Stutts who by all appearance is conflicted. Yet these two American citizens of Monroe County have done a helluva job impeding justice.   

Without having to dig to hard, Fitzpatrick learned a disturbing truth about the identities of the individuals who continue running interference ensuring the Complaint is not heard by the Grand Jury.

Asst. DA Stutt’s, Foreman Pettway and Foreman Davis’ ongoing nonsensical attempt to delay, obstruct and/or oppress Fitzpatrick’s Complaint of Treason only seems to dig a deeper hole to dig out of.    

Now, why on earth would two Foremen and an Asst. DA obstruct Fitzpatrick’s protection to a Grand Jury hearing? Well, let’s take a look at Tennessee Code (Annotated) 22-2-314. Limitation on jury service.    

 “A juror who has completed a jury service term shall not be summoned to serve another jury service term in any court of this state for a period of twenty-four (24) months following the last day of such service: however, the county legislative body of any county, may, by majority vote, extend the twenty-four month period.”    

Unless I’m mistaken, it appears the two Foremen managing the 2010 Grand Jury’s to date may very well be serving the Monroe County Grand Jury illegally.    

Tennessee law, above, clearly states “A juror who has completed a jury service term shall not be summoned to serve another jury service in any court for a period of 24 months…” Yet, current Foreman, Mr. Gary Pettway, records show he started serving 04 January 1990. How do the Judges who oversee Juror random selection lotteries explain this? Rationalize this? Nineteen years in a row, Pettway has been randomly selected through a lottery system?  

A Ms. Angela Davis’ Monroe County Jurist records, on the other hand, show her last day of Jury service being June 2009 after serving on a Petite Jury (see Pay Schedule) in Judge Reedy’s court.  Don’t tell me there are more than two Angela Davis’ who look the same dwelling in Monroe County, TN. I’ve already checked. I have learned no such person exists. Stunningly, Ms. Davis received this Order from Judge Reedy dated 02 June 2010 to serve as Grand Jury Foreman for the 03 June 2010 “Special” Grand Jury proceeding. (note: Jaghunter in his current post, The Jury Laundry, states Ms. Davis is not eligible to serve on the Monroe County Grand Jury until the calendar year of 2011)

Fitzpatrick appeared, and informed this “Special” Grand Jury they were meeting unlawfully, due to the fact that Foreman Davis, was serving as a jurist illegally. Stutt’s was conflicted and this volunteer “pool” of juror’s representing Grand Jury Panel B served as eyewitnesses to Fitzpatrick’s earlier attempt to conduct a lawful and legal citizen’s arrest of Foreman, Gary Pettway. Clearly the “Special” Grand Jury demonstrated open hostility toward Fitzpatrick throughout the hearing. Why? Because their friend, colleague and boss is being rightfully and legally accused of breaking TN law and obstructing justice. One juror aggresively questioned him ending with the question – if [Fitzpatrick’s] actions had anything to do with Gary Pettway being black. What on earth does this woman not get about Tennessee’s Constitutiton let alone the US Constitiution?

Mr. Pettway appears to be a rather smart man, therefore, why on earth demean his character further by charging racism? I find this line of questioning rather insulting to Mr. Pettway and I hope you do as well.

But there was a reason for this line of questioning – low and behold on 08 June 2010 at 10:34 am Monroe County Sheriff’s arrest Fitzpatrick outside his home. Detective Captain Michael Morgan, Chief Jailer Trent Proct and another Sheriff conducted the arrest.

The Monroe County Grand Jury issued their Presentment,  with Foreman Davis, who appears to be in violation of Tennessee State Code, affixed signature to the Grand Jury Presentment NOT AN Indictment BUT a PRESENTMENT charging Fitzpatrick with the following:

1. TCA 39-16-510: Retaliation of past action (Felony)

2. TCA 39-17-309: Civil Rights Intimidation (Felony)

To read the entire Presentment of Charges 03 June 2010. There are five more bogus, smoke and mirror, charges.

The good news is the Monroe County Grand Jury INDEED issues PRESENTMENTS.  The bad news is Fitzpatrick’s arraignment date is 28 June 2010. The Judge, likely Reedy, and the Assistant DA will be Stutts. Do you have the same feeling I do?

Fitzpatrick is being taken for a ride by the Monroe County judicial system for two reasons: first, to obstruct and oppress the Criminal Complaint of Treason and secondly, as has been clearly demonstrated in this essay, Mr. Gary Pettway, serving as Grand Jury Foreman for at least 20 years, 19 too long, serving both Panel A and B, acting as an employee of the Monroe County Courts, then his service has violated Tennessee Code. Imagine what these facts mean to at least 20 years of criminal cases heard by the Monroe County Grand Jury, whether rendering Indictments or Presentments, were found guilty and are serving jail time now or ever served jail time? Think about it.

More importantly, Monroe County, is not the only County in Tennessee who is in violation of Tennessee’s law. A short survey was conducted only to find several surrounding counties are too breaking the law.

Therefore, no Indictment or Presentment issued by the Monroe County Grand Jury stands on solid legal footing since January 1, 2010 (at a minimum). Thus, the charges above should immediately be dismissed. Instead, spending hard earned resources trashing Commander Fitzpatrick’s good name, I might suggest the state conduct a thorough criminal investigation into the corrupt Grand Jury system throughout Tennessee and at last, hold a Grand Jury hearing, once and for all, to take up Fitzpatrick’s Complaint of Treason against Barack/Barry Hussein Obama/Soetoro/Suharto. 

Tennessee can lead We the People back to Constitutional Law. Are you up for it? Do you stand by the People or do you stand by the Federal Government? There is a slight crack in the door, and I strongly encourage you to take it.       

In summary, I challenge you, the reader, to ponder and then act on the following questions –

1. Do you want to live and raise your families under Constitutional Law OR King George III’s “contemporary” Rules of Procedure?
2. Do you want to continue to have your Constitutional protections removed surreptiously OR do you want to exercise your right to vote for change?
3. Do you want to a 21st Century President to rescind the Attainder Act of 1789 immediately upon taking office?
4. Do you want to continue to be driven apart from your brothers and sisters who challenge you and beg you to learn what they are learning OR do your loyalties lie with the Dem or Rep Corporations?
5. Are you willing to support and stand shoulder to shoulder with Harrington and Fitzpatrick to return our nation to Constitutional Law by rescinding the Attainder Act of 1789?

What are some questions I’m missing? Let us know if you want to help out here. We need to take care of those who are fighting for us. Right? Right!