Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 15, 2016 at 1:57 am.
by Congress:Member:Leslie R. Pastor The Control Paradigm IS NOT Absolute / YOU CAN FIGHT BACK Copyright © 2009
Local Communities Dismantling Corporate Rule
'Community Rights educator Paul Cienfuegos explains how “We The People” are exercising the authority to govern ourselves and fight corporate rule. When small farmers in rural Pennsylvania wanted to say “no” to a corporate factory farm coming into their community, they learned they couldn’t, because it would violate the corporation’s “rights” and state pre-emption laws. So they did something technically illegal — their town passed an innovative ordinance banning corporate factory farming.'
'It worked! The corporation left town. Pittsburgh upshifted the approach: Rather than define what we don’t want, define what we DO want. Their “Right to Water” stopped natural gas fracking in the city. Ordinances like this have been passed in over 150 communities in 9 states.'
'“I’m not aware of any other social movement going on in the US today that has the power to challenge and win against corporate rule, push back and dismantle corporate rights, and enshrine rights for actual human beings,” asserts Community Rights educator and organizer Paul Cienfuegos.'
'Local Community Rights ordinances are not only stripping “rights” from corporations, but asserting that nature has rights. Two Oregon counties have submitted a “Right to Local Food Systems” ordinance which forbids genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and protects heritage seeds. Even more, it asserts the right to fully-functioning natural communities, even requiring a corporation to restore whatever it has disrupted.'
Are these ordinances being challenged? Yes they are, but Paul explains how corporation leaders who want to sue are forced to do so on the community’s terms—a brilliant strategy.
'Did you know that North Dakota is the ONLY state that was wise enough to set up their own state banking? And that North Dakota is not in debt - but has created wealth for the people and the state?'
'Did you know that Coloradoans are working diligently to restore honest banking beneficial to the people in Colorado as well? See the brief below Ellen Brown's excellent article.'
North Dakota’s Economic “Miracle”—It’s Not Oil by Ellen Brown - August 31, 2011
'Colorado Public Banking - The initiative to amend the Colorado constitution and create a publicly owned state bank.'
The Bank Guarantee That Bankrupted Ireland by Ellen Brown - November 2, 2013
The Web of Debt Blog by Ellen Brown - November 2, 2013
The Public Banking Institute Ellen Brown
The Public Bank Solution Ellen Brown
The Irish Public Banking Forum by Séamas Ó Muilleaneoir
Banking and economic regeneration Wales Adfywio bancio ag economi Cymru
The Control Paradigm is not absolute, and it is not autonomous. It operates in secret, comprised of secret associations and it operates openly, hidden in plain site. It is comprised of very powerful individuals, having money, power and prestige, who use their influence to steer knowledge and information towards their goals and aims (in fostering their agenda) of creating a New World Order.
But American citizens are beginning to understand how the game is being played, and they are fighting back. It is illegal for politicians and political figures to meet in secret outside of their official capacity and locations. Americans are beginning to recognize how they work to promote their goals and solicit their various plans of actions. And they are fighting back.
The United States is governed by the US Constitution, and as such we are governed by the ‘law of the land.’ That is precisely why President George W. Bush, in a moment of frustration, exclaimed: " The (US) Constitution is nothing but a ‘piece of paper.’ " President Bush knows that HE is constrained by the US Constitution from becoming an absolute dictator, and that he cannot just do what he wishes. The Founding Fathers in their wisdom, decided to frame a government having ‘separation of powers’ and ‘Constitutional’ constraints and safeguards. It is up to ‘we the people’ to exercise those ‘enumerated’ powers that are granted to us by the US Constitution, for we are the ‘inherent holders of the political power’ ultimately. The Founding Fathers further specifically enumerated (Tenth (10th) Amendment) that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Thus making the individual States (and the individual citizens living within those states respectively) "sovereign" over the Federal Government.
One particular ‘inherent holder of the political,’ decided that she was not going to stand by and allow the abuse and misuse of governmental power. She fought back: "Janet Lee Meisinger"
" After watching many people be harmed in the courts, I decided not to play 'their game'. I started serving these corrupt judges right in their evil pulpits with Constitutional Notice and Demands. I'd immediately follow it up by making a written complaint, naming the several crimes I had first-hand knowledge of the cops and judges committing and serving each Town Council Member with a Constitutional Notice and Demand telling them that:
1. They either refuted my facts within 20 days in writing or it stood as truth, fact and law in any court, any where, any time.
2. That since they were not training their employees correctly - they could be held personally liable!
It took us over 2 years of going round and round with the corrupt cops/judges entrapping our sons and Jim and I standing up to them. By watching us, more and more people came out of the 'fear' these evil cops/lawyers/judges had them in, and started standing up as well. Remember, these are families who are struggling to makes ends meet in the first place. We finally got rid of the corrupt cops and most of the corrupt judges, but not before we also had to encounter more corrupt judges in Weld County Courts. Interestingly, we discovered that once we got rid of corrupt judges - they simply moved to some other small town to start their racket all over again!. We are still dumbfounded by the level of corruption in all the courts - but saw that the reason the lawyers/judges 'thought' they could ignore our rights and constitutions was because the lawyers had coerced town boards of townships to give up their lawful government and turn towns into corporations where people have no 'rights' - only 'privileges' that the 'corporation's lawyers/judges' will allow them. Talk about misconstruction of government!!! So it makes sense that this private, political club's courts are all corporate courts!!! As a result, we have the same corrupt courts from which our forefathers fled in Europe.
Isn't it interesting that Queen Elizabeth of England and her lawyers created the first corporation?"
Oregon Sheriff Gil Gilbertson Gives Federal Agents The Boot: Feds Have No Jurisdiction
Irrigation System Can Grow Crops With Salt Water
Patriots Warn Americans
GOP Plan: Starve The Beast of Obama Care
Who Are The Oath Keepers
Your Remedy Is In The Law
Remarkable, Michigan Governor Recognizes Electorate Motoring Rights!
Boston Tea Party (Wall Street Journal) (August 6, 2008)
Lone Accountant Takes On The IRS AND WINS
References: That clearly identifies how the "Control' Aspects work:
Site:LRP:The Control Paradigm (The Control of the USA by the RTA Inc)
Site:LRP:The Control Paradigm - East (Control via Extermination)
[Significant Online Video Documentation - Aaron Russo & Tom Cryer, J.D.]
COMPLAINT FILED WITH OREGON D.O.J. OVER SECRET MEETING
Achieving Successful Self-Governance (Dale Pond)
CANCER IS A FUNGUS (An Italian Doctor Explains - Provides A CURE)
The Doctor's Website
As you know, the D.C. criminals are working to remove your gun rights again with HR 45. Be sure to fax your congress critter and demand they vote NO! on HR 45.
Our friend, Pat Butler contacted Sheriff Mack who wrote reminding us that this has been tried more than once with the 'Brady' bill which he and 5 other Sheriffs fought all the way to the Supreme Court and won - proving that the Sheriff has the ultimate jurisdiction and the federal government has none within the states and counties. Sheriff Mack is still available for radio interviews SheriffMack@hotmail.com
Sheriff Richard Mack wrote: The County Sheriff:The Ultimate Check & Balance
When the United States of America was founded the framers spent arduous hours devising a Constitution that would protect future generations from tyranny and government criminality. A system of checks and balances was established to keep all government, especially at the federal level, from becoming too powerful and abusive. The Bill of Rights was promulgated to augment the limitations previously placed against the government, to further insure that government would stay in its proper domain. So, what happens when government does not obey its own constitution? What punishment is meted out to politicians who vote for and pass unconstitutional laws? What happens if they appoint unlawful bureaucracies or allow their agents to violate the rights of the American citizen? The answer to these questions is both astounding and lamentable NOTHING!
Now the question becomes even greater who will stop criminal and out-of-control government from killing, abusing, violating, robbing, and destroying its own people? Yes, believe it or not, there is an answer to this one. The duty to stop such criminality lies with the county sheriff. The question needs to be posed to each and every sheriff of these United States will you stand against tyranny?
The office of sheriff has a long and noble history. It dates back over a thousand years and originated in England. The sheriff is the only elected law enforcement official in America. He is the last line of defense for his citizens. He is the people’s protector. He is the keeper of the peace, he is the guardian of liberty and the protector of rights. A vast majority of sheriffs will agree with all of this until they are asked to apply these principles of protection to federal criminals. Their back peddling and excuses will be more plentiful than radar tickets and louder than sirens at doughnut time. Most of the unbelievers, who themselves have taken a solemn oath to “uphold and defend” the U S Constitution, will passionately and even apologetically exclaim that they have no authority or jurisdiction to tell federal agents to do anything, let alone stop them from victimizing local citizens. The truth and stark reality is that it’s just the opposite the sheriff has ultimate authority and law enforcement power within his jurisdiction. He is to protect and defend his citizens from all enemies, both “foreign and domestic.”
Of course, there are those who will maintain that the feds have not and will not commit crimes against law-abiding citizens in this country, the IRS notwithstanding. For the sake of argument, let’s just pretend that the government did nothing wrong at the Branch Davidian church in Waco or at Ruby Ridge, Idaho when citizens were killed. Those incidents have been debated and will be forever. However, the immutable truth about both tragedies remains that if the local sheriff had remained in charge of both incidents, not one person would have died, including federal agents, and the law would still have been enforced.
Despite the frequency or the severity of government abuses, if they were to happen in your county, would your sheriff intervene? Well, don’t look now, but they are already occurring and some sheriffs have indeed taken very courageous stands against the feds coming in to their counties to “enforce” their laws. Cattle, lands, homes, bank accounts, cash, and even children have been seized and prisons filled all in the name of federal enforcement of EPA rules, The Endangered Species Act, IRS rules, (of which there are over 10 million pages) Forest Service and Dept. of the Interior technicalities and the list goes on and on.
The sheriff of NYE County, Nevada stopped federal agents from seizing a rancher’s cattle and even threatened to arrest the feds if they proceeded against his orders. Sheriffs in Wyoming have told the agents of all federal bureaus to check with them before serving any papers, making any arrests, or confiscating any property. Why? because they are doing their jobs that’s why! It’s just another way to provide checks and balances that ultimately protect and help citizens.
Criminality within the IRS has been well documented. Hearings about such crimes were held before congress in 1998. IRS employees testified of hundreds of crimes being committed against law-abiding citizens. Congress did nothing about it. They were too busy checking Monica Lewinsky’s dress. The point remains, if any abuse occurs in your county by federal officials does your sheriff have the guts and the authority to protect and defend you? Does that question not sound redundant? Is he not bound by oath to do just that?
Yes, he has the right and the duty to do so. In Mack/Printz v USA, the U S Supreme Court declared that the states or their political subdivisions, “are not subject to federal direction.” The issue of federal authority is defined even further in this most powerful Tenth Amendment decision. The two sheriffs who brought the suit objected to being forced into federal service without compensation pursuant to some misguided provisions of the Brady Bill. The sheriffs sued the USA (Clinton adm.) and won a major landmark case in favor of States’ Rights and local autonomy. In this ruling by the Supreme Court, some amazing principles were exposed regarding the lack of power and authority the federal government actually has. In fact, this is exactly the issue addressed by the court when Justice Scalia opined for the majority stating, “…the Constitution’s conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discreet, enumerated ones.”
Scalia then quotes the basis of the sheriffs’ suit in quoting the Tenth Amendment which affirms the limited powers doctrine, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution…are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” To clarify this point, we need to understand that the powers and jurisdiction granted to the federal government are few, precise, and expressly defined. The feds have their assignments within constitutional boundaries and the states have theirs, as well. Scalia also mentions this, “It is incontestable that the Constitution established a system of dual sovereignty” and that the states retained “a residuary and inviolable sovereignty.” Scalia even goes so far as to detail who is responsible to keep the federal government in their proper place, if or when they decide to go beyond their allotted authority. In doing so he quotes James Madison, considered to be the father of our Constitution, “The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority [federal government] than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” (The Federalist # 39) Thus, the federal government has no more authority to compel the states or the counties to do anything, no more so than the Prime Minister of Canada has.
But what happens when the inevitable occurs when the feds get too abusive and attempt to control every facet of our lives? The Mack/Printz decision answers this also. “This separation of the two spheres is one of the constitution’s structural protections of liberty. Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the federal government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.” To quote Madison again Scalia writes, “Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” (The Federalist # 51) So the state governments are actually and literally charged with controlling the federal government. To do so is “one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty.” (Emphasis added)
Yes, it is regrettable that a sheriff would be put in this position. The governor and the state legislature should be preventing federal invasions into the states and counties way before the sheriff, but if it comes to the sheriff, then he must take a firm stand. James Madison also said, "We can safely rely on the disposition of state legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority." So when the state legislatures go along to get along and are bought off by political cronyism or the disbursement of federal funds, then the sheriff becomes the ultimate check and balance.
It is time for the sworn protectors of liberty, the sheriffs of these United States of America, to walk tall and defend us from all enemies foreign and domestic. When sheriffs are put in the quandary of choosing between enforcing statutes from vapid politicians or keeping their oaths of office, the path and choice is clear, "I solemnly swear or affirm, that I will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
In 1977 I started my police career as a part-time "meter-maid" in Provo, Utah, while working my way through college at BYU. Upon graduation I applied for the FBI. My father had just retired from the Bureau a few years earlier and I wanted to follow in his footsteps. But, this dream never happened as I had some inexplicable problems with one of the Bureau's entrance tests. So, having gotten a taste of the Provo Police Dept. I decided to try to become a full-time cop there. It was a good department and I really liked the officers and the softball league. I was hired in March of 1979 and immediately became a by-the-numbers jerk. I suppose that I was still a decent person, but the leadership at Provo PD wanted numbers and I was not about to disappoint them. To acquire more manpower, more equipment, more money, etc., we had to show the City Council that we were busy. So we were all about road blocks (checking licenses, safety inspections, registrations, and anything else we could fish for). We had to write tickets and lots of them. We needed arrests and felonies and DUIs and druggies in jail and our efforts supported in the newspapers. I got caught up in all of this and loved it. We literally justified our existence on the backs of the citizens.
In 1982 I was asked by my sergeant to consider going undercover for a one year assignment in narcotics. I was given 24 hours to make this life changing decision and to talk it over with my wife. We had three young children at the time. This assignment would mean much less time at home and spending absolutely NO time with my family in public, including not going to church. I decided to do it, but it was something I so thoroughly hated that it defies description. I never used drugs growing up and only tasted beer a couple of times, and I hated that, too! Now I had to live in the bars, drink, smoke, and act like the biggest partying druggie there ever was (something totally foreign to my conservative Mormon upbringing). But I did it and again, the important thing about this was bringing in the numbers. So I worked hard and got the numbers my sergeant wanted and when I finished I was the happiest man on Earth. While shaving off my beard I looked at the whiskers floating down the sink and thought to myself how happy I was to finally watch my prison doors opening to freedom and my chance to return to my prior life and my family. This was the first time in my life that I personally experienced what it felt like to be free again. Man I was happy! To celebrate I took the family to Disneyland.
This undercover assignment changed my life and it got me wondering about the drug war and law enforcement in general. What was all this for? Why did so many people have to go to jail because of marijuana, especially when it was less harmful than alcohol? Is law enforcement really about public service or public harassment? To find answers to some of these questions I started reading and studying. I paid particular attention to books about drug abuse and treatment for addictions and juvenile delinquency. I am now totally convinced that the "Drug War" is a farce. It provides no benefit to the public and actually makes the drug problem worse.
My studies ultimately lead me to the foundational principles of the making of America. I studied my oath of office, you know the one that every police officer swears to before he can start his job the oath where he swears allegiance to the United States Constitution. I also studied the Constitution. I thought it might actually be worthwhile to study the document I swore to defend and obey. So I did and it amazed me. It was beautiful and easy to understand. Then I started reading about the Founding Fathers and I came to know and love them. It literally changed my life. These were men of principle who dedicated their lives to the well-being and freedom of their fellowmen. I decided that I would never be on the wrong side again. I was quick to gain a complete disdain for abusive government and became sickened with political correctness. I got fed up with the numbers game in law enforcement and with the idea that we, the police, were here to force people to wear their seat belts, and to have their papers (driver's license, registration, insurance, and state inspection) in order before they could ?freely? go about their lives. What I saw at the state capitol and in Washington DC made me even sicker. I looked at the millions of laws being shoved down our throats and I looked at the U. S. Constitution and I saw very little resemblance. The state legislature and the U. S. Congress both violated the Bill of Rights as a matter of routine.
In 1988 I decided to move home to Safford, Arizona and run for Graham County Sheriff. I had never been a cop there and hadn't lived in Arizona for about 12 years. Now I would ask the people there to make me the top law enforcement officer of the county. They did. This election was really quite miraculous. Looking back at it, I still can't believe it. Nevertheless, I was re-elected in 1992 and in 1994 something really crazy happened. I decided that I had had enough! The Brady bill was passed by Congress and signed in to law by President Bill Clinton. This "law" forced each sheriff to become a pawn for the Federal Government and to do their bidding to promote gun control within our jurisdictions. Even more astounding than this was the fact that no funds were allocated for us to do this work and the Brady act contained a provision to arrest us if we failed to comply. Wow! So here's the U. S. Congress making an unconstitutional gun control law, requiring a county official to enforce it and pay for it, and then threatening to arrest him if he refuses! What a country!
Well, to make a long story short, I was the first sheriff in the nation to file a lawsuit to stop the Brady bill and against the Clinton administration to end this nonsense and abuse. I had no idea what a roller coaster ride this would take me on. I received hundreds of calls from the media all over the world and I got hate mail and threats and awards and honors all at the same time. As the case proceeded six other sheriffs from around the country joined the lawsuit Koog from Texas, Frank from Vermont, Romero from Louisiana, McGee from Mississippi, Printz from Montana, and Anders from Wyoming. Sheriff Printz and I ended up at the U S Supreme Court together on December 4, 1996. Then on June 27, 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that the Brady bill was in fact unconstitutional and that the Federal Government could not commandeer state or county officers for federal bidding. This was more than monumental! The feds could no longer just do anything and everything they damn well pleased. The ruling stated at least three times that the States were "not subject to Federal direction." (Don't you wish your State was aware of this?) More importantly, this case proved that local officials have the right, the power, and the duty to stand against the far reaching incursions by our own Federal Government. In the ruling Justice Scalia opined for the majority, "The Federal Government may not compel the states to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program." This means none, nada, zilch, zero! They can't compel the states or the counties or local officials to comply with their stupid regulations. (Yes, the states can still go along voluntarily, and far too often, that is exactly what happens.) But freedom won that day on June 27, 1997, and it started the snowball rolling for each sheriff in this country to stand tall and to protect his or her constituents from "all enemies both foreign and domestic."
This is the ultimate check and balance and it falls squarely on the shoulders of the county sheriff. This booklet will show how you are indeed the last line of defense between your people and the criminals from the streets and from the Federal Government. If we are to get America back, if we are indeed to return to the constitutional Republic we were meant to be, then it will be up to us, yes the sheriffs of America, and hopefully other local officials, as well, who have the guts and dedication to tell the feds that we are no longer going to put up with their intervention, control, meddling, and especially, their criminal behavior within our respective jurisdictions. This booklet will offer proof positive that you have the authority, the power, and the duty to be the ultimate check and balance for the American citizenry in your county and to defend them against all local and federal criminals.
This is the real power of the people!!!
I served on the first Colorado People's Grand Jury called together by Senator Charlie Duke, Dr. Eugene Schroder and others to hear the findings of fact on the misuse of the War Powers Acts.
It was a great experience and much good for the people resulted.
It is time we the people take charge and bring back the real law since the courts have become so corrupt.
Get ready to sign up.
Janet Lee Meisinger
Thanks to: Virginia Brooks
Subject: CALLING FOR A National Grand Jury - The Fourth Branch of Government
Get ready to sign up, people. Spread the word.
In Broe v.Reed - 12 Washington voters sue to set aside the election of Barack Obama in Washington.
Bellevue, WA, December 10, 2008 — The Washington Supreme Court has set a date for the case Broe v. Reed, to be heard en banc on January 8, 2009.
On December 4, 2008, James (Jim) Broe and 11 other Washington voters sued Secretary of State Sam Reed in the Washington Supreme Court, seeking a Writ of Mandamus to require the Secretary to set aside the votes cast for Senator Barack Obama, because at the time of the election, Senator Obama had failed to establish that he was a “natural born citizen” of the United States, failed to establish that he was an American citizen, and that he was not running under his legal name of Barry Soetoro.
Attorney Issues a National Grand Jury Declaration
Submitted by Phil on Mon, Feb 16, 200921 Comments
As reported late last night via DecaLogosIntl.org, Stephen Pidgeon, attorney for Broe v. Reed, has officially announced that he has issued a declaration (audio at link) for a national grand jury:
Pursuant to First Amendment (The right of the people peaceably to assemble), the Ninth Amendment (The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people), and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people), this National Grand Jury is convened by natural born citizens of the fifty several states and of the United States of America, seating 50 jurors pursuant to the duties, powers, responsibilities, qualifications as established hereunder for the following purposes:
To examine all aspects of the federal government by initiating its own
To serve as ombudsmen for the citizens of the country in respect to constitutional rights. and privileges established under the organic documents of the United States of America, as properly amended from time to time.
To conduct criminal investigations of members of the federal government, and, if the evidence is sufficient, issue criminal indictments.
The National Grand Jury Process
The National Grand Jury, although a part of the judicial system, is an entirely independent body. Judges of the Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeal, and the District Courts of the United States, United States Attorneys, and Congress of the United States may act only as advisors. They cannot prevent National Grand Jury action unless that action violates the duly enacted laws as originally created in the United States.
The National Grand Jury shall review and evaluate procedures, methods and systems used by federal governmental agencies to determine whether they comply with the stated objectives of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for the United States of America as properly amended.
The National Grand Jury shall review the officers of the federal government to determine whether they are constitutionally qualified to hold office, and to determine if their actions and behavior are consistent with stated objectives of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution for the United States of America as properly amended, and the criminal law as recognized in any of the several states.
No individual grand juror, acting alone, has any power or authority. Meetings of the National Grand Jury are not open to the public. All matters discussed before the National Grand Jury and votes taken are to be kept private and confidential. The end result of inquiries into civil matters are released to the public in the form of a final report which is approved, prior to release, by the Foreperson of the National Grand Jury.
The National Grand Jury is empowered to:
Inquire into the condition and management of branches of the federal government and its agencies.
Investigate and report on the operations, accounts and records of federal officers, departments, and functions.
Inquire into the willful or corrupt misconduct in office of public officers.
Submit a final report of its findings and recommendations, no later than the end of its term, to the Presiding Juror of the National Grand Jury.
Requirements to Become a Grand Juror
National Grand Juror candidates must meet all of the following qualifications:
Be a natural born citizen of the United States (born in one of the fifty states of the United States to parents both of whom were U.S Citizens and resident in the United States at that time).
Be at least 18 years old.
Be a resident of the state that the Juror represents for at least one year immediately prior to selection.
Exhibit intelligence, sound judgment, and good character.
Cannot have been convicted of malfeasance in office, any felony or other high crime.
Cannot be serving as a public official.
Grand Jury Selection Process
There shall be 50 members of the Grand Jury with 50 alternates. Candidates are to be selected from a pool of nominees who shall submit their nomination to the nominating committee. Nominees will be appointed by the affirmative vote of the nominating committee, who shall base their nomination on the following criteria expressed in priority:
First - an affidavit of qualification where the nominee asserts that the nominee:
is a natural born citizen of the United States, setting forth the place of birth, the date of birth, the place of birth of the nominee’s father, the place of birth of the nominee’s mother, and the residency of the parents at the time of birth
is at least 18 years of age
is and has been a resident of the state the nominee seeks to represent for at least one year prior to the application
is intelligent (demonstrating the ability to read and to write), uses sound judgment (exhibits ability to reason) and is a person of good character (does not engage in misconduct, interpersonal attacks, foul language or disruptive behavior)
is not serving as a public official.
Second – the ability to serve as a Juror, where the nominee asserts that the nominee
Can and will attend each meeting of the National Grand Jury without absence
Can and will render decisions according to the rule of law without prejudice or bias
Can and will prepare decisions and recommendations in writing
Can and will use electronic technology such as email, blog posting, text messaging, teleconferencing and so on.
Third – order in which the application is received
Potential grand jurors will be given information about National Grand Jury duties and the time commitment required.
The committee shall interview each candidate, usually twice, to reduce the number to 100, two from each of the several states. The final selection is made by the affirmative vote of the majority of the nominating committee.
Grand Jury Officers
Grand Jury officers and duties are:
Foreperson recognizes that the most important responsibility lies in seeing that the Grand Jury as a whole and each of the committees function effectively and efficiently.
Foreperson Pro Tem, in absence of the foreperson, assumes all functions of foreperson.
Recording Secretary is general assistant to the foreperson in all matters, keeps an accurate record (minutes) of the proceedings of each meeting.
Corresponding Secretary is responsible for incoming and outgoing mail.
Treasurer provides jurors with reimbursement forms and collects these forms at the end of each quarter, handles all bills received by the Grand Jury.
Mr. Pidgeon states that an application will be posted at the DecaLogosIntl.org web site for those who would be interested in applying. At first, all applicants will have the opportunity to sign up confidentially, though actual names will have to be revealed should a report be issued by the jury (assuming a finding is produced).
The federal grand jury will be held virtually on the Internet with a central location to be decided for when physical meetings are required. Mr. Pidgeon also hints that there will be those who would be willing to enforce any finding that is to come out of a federal grand jury.
It is expected that the federal grand jury’s mission will be completed by the end of summer, 2009, sometime after a Continental Congress is held. This initiative is expected to be fully spearheaded by Mr. Pidgeon.
Please see here and here for postings based on Mr. Leo Donofrio’s research on the 5th Amendment for a backgrounder on the federal grand jury.