Marilyn Writes

Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 year banking career, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, and other major industry publications. The American Bankers Association (ABA) published Barnewall’s Profitable Private Banking: the Complete Blueprint, in 1987. She taught private banking at Colorado University for the ABA and trained private bankers in Singapore.

Sunday, January 03, 2016





By Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall
January 3, 2016

As I think back over the past year – the past 7 years, to be more precise – we have lost the most important commodity possible: Truth.

Veritas. Truth. It’s been missing in action for a long time.

One symptom of lost truth is what Republican Presidential candidates refer to as “political correctness.” The only reason political correctness exists is so people can avoid truth. It is why we have no meaningful laws in our courtrooms. It is behind much of the post traumatic stress suffered by so many of our soldiers. They have no idea about government corruption until they serve their country and find the government cares more about the lives of the enemy than its own warriors and veterans.

A few months ago, I wrote an article stating the political establishment has no idea how badly it had damaged America by making it apparent the government cannot be trusted to act in the public, rather than the political, interest. The anger we see towards the political establishment in the current election is a mere reflection of that anger – and it is only the tip of an iceberg.

Political correctness has brought the American public to the brink of revolt (which is a bad idea... the other side controls all of the weapons of war). The loss of truth has caused a social upheaval that has wreaked havoc in the hearts of people worldwide and does harm far beyond our shores. What is political correctness if not accepting as truth various opinions your common sense tells you are not true? That is what Donald Trump (University of Pennsylvania) sees so clearly and what he very capably tells the American public. He has common sense and a lack of fear of the crowd from Yale... the skull and bonesmen.

Knowing what we know about the Skull and Bones club at Yale, why would we ever even think of electing to office anyone who graduated from that school? (By the way, only two Presidential candidates are Yale grads: Dr. Ben Carson and Hillary Clinton... and neither were skull and bonesmen).

What do we know about Yale graduates?

We know Prescott Bush was a Yale skull and bonesman... class of 1917. We know E. Roland Harriman was part of the same class as Bush – 1917. We know Averill Harriman was Roland’s brother and we know Prescott Bush and Averill formed an American investment bank and that they funded the Nazis during World War II. Though their banks were taken from them because of the treason they perpetrated against us, neither was prosecuted – and their losses from the confiscation of their property weren’t really losses because the money was returned to them. The lack of prosecution is a big red flag that these two men were not operating independently.

Some people say the treachery against America started with F. Trubee Davison who graduated from Yale a year after Bush and Harriman... 1918. Yes, Trubee was also a skull and bonesman. He became Assistant U.S. Secretary of War, a State Representative in New York, and, after World War II, the first Personnel Director at the newly-formed CIA. Prescott Bush, a former OSS chief, was heavily involved in structuring the CIA and Prescott's son, George Herbert Walker Bush, became the Agency’s 11th Director just prior to becoming Vice President of the United States.

Ronald Reagan rejected G.H.W. Bush (a Yale grad and skull and bonesman – so is his son, George W.) as his running mate in the 1980 election. The same Republican National Committee that is working so hard today to make you want Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio (neither went to Yale) and to reject electable conservative candidates insisted Reagan accept Bush or do without funds to take the Presidency from Jimmy Carter.

Within months of becoming President of the United States, an assassination attempt badly disabled Reagan. Bill O’Reilly documents this well-researched fact in his book, Killing Reagan. Many of the decisions pushed through the Congress came from Bush, not Reagan. Yes. I refer specifically to the Contra dirty laundry, guns for oil, guns for drugs, the drug routes and air landing sites, etc.. Bill Clinton is a good friend of G.H.W. Bush and the family. Ollie North, now with Fox News, worked for G.H.W. Bush, not President Reagan.

The loss of truth did not begin with the Obama administration. It merely became more apparent during the past 7 years. It began long ago, largely with the Rothschild era, but it has been carried on enthusiastically by those who think of themselves as progressive. It boggles the brain that so many people who think they are intellectually superior to the average American can watch the social order being dragged back to the cave post haste and think their ideas and ideals are “progressive.” What they are doing could not be more regressive!

Being educated has little to do with common sense. Being knowledgeable is quite different from being informed and/or educated. Knowledge requires hands-on experience implementing information and seeing whether it benefits or harms the objective to be achieved. One cannot gain wisdom from ideas and philosophy about what ought to work. That comes only from experience... and from there common sense derives.

We have let them steal our common sense. We didn’t fight very hard to keep it.

When people motivated by power close in on their objective of exercising total world power, they become careless in their arrogance. What pleasure does power offer, after all, if one must wear it with humility... quietly like a shadow sneaking through the darkness? Power brings wealth, but wealth can be boring. There are only so many things you can buy, so many trips you can take, so many cruises on which you can embark... eventually a wealthy ego wants to be recognized for achievements it probably did little to achieve. That is what has happened during the past 7 years. Arrogance now reigns supreme.

Does listening to truth-based common sense make you a racist or a homophone or a religious zealot? No. There is nothing racist or homophobic or religious about the truth and that is the greatest lesson we should all learn from 2015.

Is political correctness everyone else’s fault? No. It is the fault of people who are afraid of being thought racist or homophobic or religious fanatics. When your common sense tells you that you are not a homophobe, stand up at your next school board meeting and object to teachers who want your third graders to be told how wonderful the homosexual lifestyle is. Those who think you are homophobic or anti-religious or racist in the obvious face of opposing logic are the ones with a problem, not you. Do your research and object on reasons of common sense, not opinion.

Here are some things you need to keep in mind about truth (which is merely a set of facts that provides evidence of the existence of truth):

          1. To find truth you must have a deep and abiding desire for it and when you find it, test it (gain experience) to verify it.
          2. Recognize that many things are not what they seem to be. Others want to convince you that what they say is true so you will support their message of untruth. They will use deceit to achieve that goal. Trust but verify.
          3. Question your own assumptions and premises as strongly as you question those of others who disagree with you.
          4. Truth is like an onion. It is often buried beneath several layers. The deeper it is buried, the more important it is to strip away that which covers it. Those who have dark secrets cover their lies with layers of deception. The greater the deception, the deeper is the cover. That should explain why so many political candidates convince people they will support conservative causes, then vote liberal or neo-conservative (RINOs). Too few layers of the truth onion were peeled back.
          5. Truth has nothing to do with “feelings” or “emotions.” Just because something feels right or good doesn’t make it true. Base your views on facts and objective reality. In this day and age of misinformation and disinformation, it is critical to look at ALL facts, not just those that support your opinions.
          6. Require all people (including yourself) to be accountable for their lies and opinions because people are hurt when untruths are used to achieve an objective. Being accountable doesn’t mean saying “I’m sorry.” It means paying for and correcting problems lies create. It’s called “justice.”
          7. Challenge the motives of those in positions of power – that includes politicians, teachers, nurses, policemen, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, etc. The powerless are often attracted to positions of power (though the great majority choose their careers for the right reasons). When they do something that doesn’t make sense, question it. Never fear asking your doctor to read you the side effects of any prescribed medication, for example.
          8. Welcome dissent. Debate and responding to criticism sharpens your mind. Don’t argue; rather, discuss. Passion is okay; anger is not.
          9. To be humble does not mean lying down and letting others use you as a doormat. It means keeping an open mind. An expert who closes his/her mind to changes in their area of expertise loses the status of “expert.” Be clear in defining the words you use.

If more of us would just stop letting fear motivate us, political correctness would be quickly sent to the woodshed.

It is time for us to give common sense the respect it is due. Remember, though, that common sense is based on a perception of truth That is why returning to a truth-based society is so important. Without truth, there is no sane concept of common sense. Without truth and common sense, we cannot get rid of political correctness.

Why fight if you can live without fighting?

If you don’t fight (and I do not refer here to a lawless revolt against authority), you’ll lose your freedom and live life as a slave. If that’s what you want for you and your kids, okay... but don’t complain about the chains that come with lost freedom. You asked for it.

© 2016 Marilyn M. Barnewall - All Rights Reserved


Sunday, November 15, 2015



By Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall
November 15, 2015

How do we get our country back?

We get our country and our Republic back the same way we lost it: One politician at a time, one judge at a time.

Mostly, we get our country back by realizing there are two forms of government working at any one time: Corporate and Constitutional.

The country is incorporated. Your state is incorporated. Your local county is incorporated. Your city is incorporated. And every department within each of those entities is incorporated, from the public library to the courts to the Sheriff’s department. Do you have any idea what that means?

Has government left the constitutional system behind, embracing instead the corporate system? Government now chooses when it will function under the jurisdiction (authority) of the Constitution and when it will function under the jurisdiction of a corporation. The two are sometimes intermingled. For example, remember when the IRS’s Lois Lerner testified before Congress about withholding tax exempt status from conservative groups? She made a statement and then took the Fifth, refusing to answer questions.

Law authorities across the nation shouted that she could not do that. She gave up her right to declare her rights to not testify against herself under the Fifth Amendment when she made her opening statement.

When Lerner made her statement, she was wearing her corporate hat. She removed that hat and replaced it with her constitutional hat and took the Fifth. Can she do that? Please note that nothing has ever been done to force Lerner to testify. I rest my case.

Watch for the word “of” to give you a clue as to which hat a government employee or office is wearing. When they choose to function as a corporation, they represent the County of ABC. When they function constitutionally, they represent ABC County. You may live in Colorado (the constitutional state) – or, you may live in the State of Colorado (the corporate state). When you hear the word “of,” you know you are functioning under the jurisdiction (authority) of a corporation... the corporate version of government. Is that important? Only if you think your constitutional rights are important. You see, corporations don’t operate under a constitution; corporations are governed by by-laws.

Read the two articles I did on this subject a year ago. They explain why we have Equity rather than Constitutional courts. They explain that incorporated counties and states and federal governments function under by-laws, not under a Constitution and provide links so you can use them to check the accuracy of the information.

There are experts on the Constitution and the protections it provides American citizens. They lecture around the country about how it is unconstitutional for this or that to happen. But the things they mention in their examples are happening to people who are being abused and government calls it lawful. On the one hand, the constitutional experts say what they are doing to people is unconstitutional; on the other, courts are doing what the experts say is unconstitutional. When that happens, it is called tyranny. No judges or law enforcement personnel ever go to jail... so who is right? The constitutional experts; or the judges and law enforcement?

If a court is functioning as a corporation, it is functioning under by-laws, not a constitution. Thus it has no obligation to observe anyone’s constitutional rights. If only those who go into court to fight unlawful foreclosures understood this, their outcomes would often be different. If you have wondered how courts can get away with making so many decisions that violate the constitutional rights of people appearing before the courts, this answers your questions.

These constitutional “experts” don’t get it... even many who agree that the federal, state, county and city governments are incorporated. I’ve said it many times, but let me say it again as clearly as it can be said. When any form of government functions as a corporation, it functions under the laws of the Uniform Commercial (UCC) or Maritime Law. It functions under corporate by-laws, like every other corporation. Its court is a court of equity – or contract law – not common law as recognized by the Constitution.

Are equity (contract) courts lawful? According to “them,” they are; but then, I don’t know a crook or con man who won’t try to convince you that what he/she is doing is lawful... whether they are involved in child abuse, fraud, rape, theft, or murder. There’s always a very good reason to justify their non-justifiable actions. Read Part II of my article about how and why cities, counties, states and the federal government became incorporated to understand why equity courts are, according to the Constitution, unlawful... but why they are required. It has to do with fiat currency.

No corporation functions under a constitution. When you go into a courtroom and the American flag has gold fringe around it, all who enter that courtroom are being told that the court’s jurisdiction is the UCC/contract or Maritime Law. It has no jurisdiction (authority) in matters involving the Constitution or your rights under the Common Law of the Constitution. Read my 2011 NewsWithViews article about fringed flags.

How did we become such a politically corrupt country?

We lost the single protection given us by our founding fathers to prevent government corruption when we lost our rights as individual citizens to call a Grand Jury investigation and have it recognized by law enforcement as a legitimate legal action.

One good way to get our country back is to get rid of Rule 6 (g), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Before the 1950s, the People could call a Grand Jury without the involvement of judges, district attorneys or prosecutors. We didn’t need government’s approval to legally investigate government misdeeds and corruption. That changed when the Federal Rules Advisory Committee gave us Rule 6 (g). Pardon my language, but no damned committee has the right to remove the constitutional rights of American citizens!

Read about how the Grand Jury system is supposed to work on behalf of the people, not the government, [here] (Leo C. Donofrio, J.D.) and [here] (Roger Roots, Creighton Law Review).

Before Rule 6 (g), citizens could hold government’s feet to a fire of constitutional law. If we do away with Rule 6 (g), America regains the fourth leg of government given us by our founders... legislative, executive, judicial and citizen grand juries. They removed the latter when Rule 6 (g) was unlawfully forced on us.

If we get rid of Rule 6 (g) – which many legal experts believe is unconstitutional – the people can call grand juries and the people can run them without being controlled by judges and prosecutors. Citizen Grand Juries can hand their County Sheriff an indictment and the Sheriff must pay attention to it. As long as Rule 6 (g) is on the books, County Sheriffs have no jurisdiction (authority) to take action on the findings of Citizen Grand Juries.

Without Rule 6 (g), the people lawfully can investigate government misdeeds and the evidence presented does not require the approval of a judge or district attorney or prosecutor. Don’t tell me we’d be in this mess if Rule 6 (g) didn’t stand in our way. I don’t believe it! Rule 6 (g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is the major tool used to protect government officials from the justice they deserve.

Balance is required to achieve unity. When something is in a state of imbalance, it cannot be unified. We live on a planet wherein the laws of nature dictate that for every equal there is an opposite. Light/dark, love/hate, male/female, give/take, dry/wet – everything comes in opposing twos so balance can be created.

Politically, we have liberals and we have conservatives – equals and opposites. It is one of the reasons we have two primary political parties. The two parties are supposed to be at opposite ends of the social and political spectrums. Only then are the needs of all people met, not just those of conservatives or liberals. We are intended to fight one another for political dominance – and we are expected to fight fairly. No media manipulation, no lies, just honest debate. For those who do manipulate and lie, justice must be swift and severe.

As most Americans know, we do not have two political parties with opposing views; we have two established political parties who have a singular purpose: One World Government. The new conservatives sent to Congress in 2014 are hauling a heavy load right now... there are only a few who oppose establishment types who are dependent on their RNC or DNC committees to get funding for re-election. That should tell you that it’s stupid to send money to the RNC or DNC. Send money to individual candidates you support.

We need to get rid of Rule 6 (g); we need to implement state banks which will help reduce the power of the Federal Reserve System. We need to get rid of the government corporations, one at a time, beginning at the county level. If there were Conservatives working to make their counties constitutional, we would make real progress towards reclaiming our Republic. There are lawful ways to do it – ways that unify us!

The place to start is your own county. Work from the bottom up, not the top down. Do you have a constitutional county? Not if it is incorporated. Not if the Sheriff’s Department and the Public Library and the County Courts are incorporated. Read my articles on how we became a nation of government corporations at all levels. Check for yourself to see if your county is incorporated... the article tells you how. Bear in mind that the weakness of any corporation is that it can be dissolved... including government corporations.

I don’t know about you, but I’m tired. I’m tired of getting articles from people telling me what the problems are. I know what the problems are. Most of us know what the problems are. I’m tired of no solutions being offered to solve the problems. I’m tired of the faithful who write to tell me that everything is in the hands of God.

I agree with the statement but I do question the view people seem to have of what God is supposed to do versus what our responsibilities are. I don’t view God as my personal ATM who was made part of my life so He could serve me – save the freedom He so graciously gave us when he gave our ancestors America. I believe I was put here to serve Him... to show my appreciation for His gift of a beautiful country founded by true believers who willingly pledged their lives, their wealth, their blood and their reputations to give freedom to those who would come after them.

I often wonder if God sits in heaven watching people put the responsibility on Him to not only provide the country and the freedom but also to defend it.

It’s one thing to believe and to have faith. It’s another thing to avoid responsibilities that belong to We, the People, not to our Creator.

Our Republic can be regained but We, the People, will have to give up reality television and become active in our local political parties... take them back.

Would you rather have freedom or Dancing with the Stars? Do you want to continue reading stories about the problems, or would you rather find solutions?

Click here for part -----> 12,

© 2015 Marilyn M. Barnewall - All Rights Reserved

Friday, November 13, 2015

The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government

by Leo C. Donofrio, J.D.
January 22, 2009

About the Author
Mr. Leo Donofrio is a semi-retired New Jersey attorney who brought a case in 2008 against the New Jersey secretary of state for allowing threelegally unqualifiedpresidential candidates to be placed on the general election ballot in that state. This case was reviewed and dismissed by the Supreme Court of New Jersey, and then was reviewed by all nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court in aprivate closed-doorsession. At least five of the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices felt that this case should not be heard in a public session of the Court.
In addition to being a prominent legal scholar and essayist, Mr. Donofrio is also a nationally known chess champion, poker champion and musician.

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:


"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."


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.


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 theAdvisory 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.'"

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 dis-impanel 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:

"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 do 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 darn 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 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 altar of the U.S. Supreme Court, "The grand jury's historic functions survive to this day." Take that Note 4!

Antonin Scalia 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 new 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, darn 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 kicking.