What the bleap? Bleap - Bleap - Bleap!!

2009-07-07T22:37:00.001-05:00

BIBLE
CHRISTIAN
Christian/Paranormal News
PROPHECY
MISSIONS
CHRISTIAN PERSECUTION
CHRISTIAN AND FAMILY CONCERNS

NEWSLINKS INDEX

BIBLE

CHRISTIAN NEWS

PROPHECY

MISSIONS

CHRISTIAN PERSECUTION

CHRISTIAN AND FAMILY CONCERNS

WORLD/INTERNATIONAL NEWS

TECHNOLOGY

INTELLIGENCE

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS

WEATHER

ENCYCLOPEDIAS

UNUSUAL

MAGAZINES

PHOTOS

OTHER LISTS OF NEWS SOURCES

Return to Newslinks Index
Prophecy Central Home

2009-07-07T22:21:00.001-05:00

2 Corinthians 10:3
For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does.
2 Corinthians 10:2-4 (in Context) 2 Corinthians 10 (Whole Chapter)
Hebrews 11:7
By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
Hebrews 11:6-8 (in Context) Hebrews 11 (Whole Chapter)
1 Peter 2:11
Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul.
1 Peter 2:10-12 (in Context) 1 Peter 2 (Whole Chapter)

WWI

2009-07-07T22:19:00.001-05:00

Last survivor remembers those lost in World War 1's bloodiest naval battle.(News)

Daily Post (Liverpool, England) | June 1, 2006 | Copyright

War Films
Exclusive War footage & films: Watch'em online 4 Free on Babelgum!
www.Babelgum.com/Films

Civil war news
Find Civil war news In The Largest Newspaper Archive
NewspaperArchive.com/War

World War 1
Find WW I enlistment and regimental history records online.
Ancestry.com/Military

BRITAIN'S oldest man, and last known survivor of the Battle of Jutland, helped launch an exhibition yesterday commemorating the 90th anniversary of the infamous First World War naval fight.

Henry Allingham, 109, was in the Royal Naval Air Service on board HMT Kingfisher when it was ordered to the North Sea battle.

In the fight that followed during the night of May 31, 1916, more than 8,600 lives were lost as 250 British and German ships fought for supremacy of the seas.

Yesterday he joined the Duchess of Gloucester aboard HMS Belfast on the Thames, to unveil a ...

Read all of this article with a FREE trial to HighBeam Research

Related newspaper, magazine, and trade journal articles from HighBeam Research

WWI

2009-07-07T22:17:00.000-05:00

from the Guardian 22 July 2003

Survivor of first world war dies at 108

Jack Davis in 2001

Britain's oldest surviving first world war veteran, Jack Davis, formerly of the 6th Battalion Duke of Cornwall Light Infantry, has died. He was 108.

Mr Davis "just peacefully drifted away" at a nursing home in Stoke Hammond, Buckinghamshire, yesterday morning, said his son Ken.

Mr Davis, who escaped the battle of the Somme in 1916 because he contracted trench fever, was the oldest survivor of the war, said the World War One Veterans Association.

The horrors of the trenches remained with Mr Davis throughout his life, his son said.

"He always expressed the opinion of how futile war can be. He used to say, 'So many soldiers go to their deaths in a war, and in many cases for what reason?' He abhorred war."

Despite his age and frailty, Mr Davis was excited that in April he had met the Prince of Wales, commander-in-chief of his old regiment, at a reunion of the veterans' association.

Mr Davis was born on March 1 1895 in Kentish Town, north London, one of 16 children.

A Horror story too far (from 2001)

What dosen't Resident Obama want you to talk about?

2009-06-26T16:53:00.000-05:00

Flagged Comments, 2009 June 04

The following comments were flagged by the community as off-topic for the posts to which they were attached.

David Hustvedt at 11:24 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles

If the goal of transparency is to “promote accountability and provide information for citizens about what their Government is doing” then the discussion here is a sham as long as the Obama administration refuses to produce a document that demonstrates Obama’s eligibility for the office of President.

It would be an excellent starting point if the Administration produced a birth certificate listing Obama’s place of birth, attending physician, etc.

Phyllis Prather at 11:21 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles

yes its not going away,we the people demand to know the truth,the movement is growing like a storm they are erecting billboards across the country,they can hide all they want but the laesiuts just keep piling up,obumma cant keep hiding the truth forever,he is a fraud,more and more grand juries are being held against him and he will be impeached for treason,none too soon for me either before he hands our country over to our enemies,it makes me sick how he is over there kissing our enemies asses,they laugh at us,they want us dead,all i ever needed to know about islam i learned on 9-11 and that trojan horse fraud will never make me forget what a lie about transparency,all he has to do is show one document and he wont,he is the biggest liar since hitler and as evil to boot

David Farrar at 11:09 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles

Hi Michael,

The reason why these posts seem to be so disjointed, out of sequence, or “off-topic” is because some posts have been surreptitiously removed simply because the owners/operators made a political decision to deny someone their 1st Amendment rights.

Once again, I implore the gods of this website not to remove any posts without leaving proper notification as to why the post was removed and by whom.

Secondly, I would strongly suggest an alternative “Off-Topic” mirror OSTP Blog website be set up so that any and all posts removed from the main OSTP Blog website can be placed, with a link to this web-blog also provided in the removal notification. In this manner, every one’s rights can be preserved while the site is successfully moderated.

It’s easy to talk about transparency. But achieving transparency in the face of perceived political opposition is the only true test of the soundness of the principles of transparency you adopt.

ex animo
davidfarrar

Willard Anderson at 10:55 PM in Transparency Governance

In order to initiate an ‘Open Government Initiative Discussion’ you must first layout and define the limits of the ‘Openess’ of ( ie ‘all questions’ ( as in ‘All Questions’) and the ‘Permitted’ or ‘Non Permitted’) topics open for discussion. As per the current track of this ‘Open Discussion’ it is a falsehood. This ‘Open discussion’, is as currently tracked, a censored discussion.
Please redefine your intentions and commitments to this False ‘Open Discussion’. You have made it impossible to follow with the zig-zag approach to ‘Open’. The manner in which this ‘OPEN’ discussion is currently following is Communistic in it’s nature.
Please redefine.

David Farrar at 6:36 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles

The President being a “natural-born” citizen of the United States, as is required by the Constitution, is the very issue of this data transparency debate. While I, too, am positive, the long-form birth certificate that Hawaiian health officials acknowledge having in their possession does prove that Obama is a natural-born citizen, it has simply not been proven yet by a simple inspection of the record — remember transparency being defined as a verifiable record, with public accessibility, where the law permits. I know of only one person who is blocking the verification of this record, and its public accessibility as a public matter, and that is Pres. Obama, himself.

Further, if the stories are true, Obama’s mother was too young to confer citizenship by birth on Obama, according to the law at that time.

Lastly, I welcome your support for removal notification, as well as the grounds, and by whom, so that proper appeals to a court of competent jurisdiction can be undertaken by any poster who has had their 1st Amendment rights trampled upon here in this forum on government transparency.

ex animo
davidfarrar

I am sorry, the same post above was inadvertently misplaced. I do apologize

David Farrar at 6:32 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles

Further, if the stories are true, Obama’s mother was too young to confer citizenship by birth on Obama, according to the law at that time.

Ronald Smith at 4:43 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles

The President’s nationality is not in question. Even if the President did not have a birth certificate, the lack thereof does not preclude citizenship. All the Constitution requires is that he be a “natural-born citizen” (in addition to age and length of residency). Even if Barack Obama were born outside the US, geography does not determine citizenship. His mother was a citizen, therefore he is a citizen.

Qualifying for the Presidency is not a government service. No law (including the Constitution) mandates the publication/release of “birth certificates”. If you desire such a law, feel free to work towards that goal.

I don’t know who “owns” this website, but if it is a government owned forum, then we all “own” it. In that case, it is not unreasonable to censor postings which are off topic. However, I agree that some kind of justification or acknowledgment that a post has been removed would be in holding with this initiative’s ideals. So I vote that such a scheme be instituted as soon as possible.

David Farrar at 4:27 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles

With all due respect, Mr. Smith,

We are talking about a Constitutional issue, the eligibility of the President of the United States. To date, Pres. Obama’s nationality as per the requirements of the Constitution makes this an issue of governmental data transparency. Pres. Obama’s qualifications to be president of the United States is a public data transparency issue.

I can go further, if I must, to cite examples where ordinary citizens must publish their “private” medical data, i.e., birth certificate, as an aspect to qualify for government services or employment, joining the military as one example, obtaining a driver’s license, et cetera.

Furthermore, please ask yourself, who benefits from this website not publicly acknowledging their own actions in removing posts from this forum, and clearly articulating the reasons for that removal, and by whom? Is it to protect the poster, or is it to protect the the owners/operators of this website from possible litigation for their actions? This is not an accident. These people have deliberately designed this website to be anything but transparent for their own ends. A point we would all do well in exploring further if we are to achieve our goal of developing true transparency principles in government

ex animo
davidfarrar

Ronald Smith at 3:47 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles

I’m certain they are in possession of the original. But that is irrelevant. Most original birth documents (if the child was born in a hospital) contain very private information not necessarily about the individual that should not be made public. As for the original containing additional information such as “the attending physician’s name, foot prints, and other relevant information, the name of the hospital, etcetera”, that is not knowable by you without having seen it. It may contain this information and it may not, but the certification of birth is valid without regard to the style, design, or amount of information provided.

Obviously your point about transparency is well-taken, but this is not the forum to discuss the transparency policies of Hawaiian state health officials. No conclusions reached by the transparency initiative will affect private medical data (which is what a birth certificate contains). We are discussing public data.

Jason Roberts at 3:02 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles

Ronald:
Both president Obama and the state of Hawaii have acknowledged the original long form birth certificate exists. It’s not a semantic issue. As I have stated previously, it is an issue of amount of information contained on the document, the source of that information and the fact that the information is not verified, but accepted de facto from the parent.

David Farrarat 2:58 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles

But Mr. Smith,

Hawaiian health officials have ackowledged they are in possession of Obama’s orginal birth certificate.

Moreover, and contrary to a COLB, the orginial birth certificate has the attending physician’s name, foot prints, and other relevant information, the name of the hospital, etcetera, rather than simply the name and date of someone’s live birth.

Again, the issue here isn’t Obama’s nationality. We all know he is a U.S. citizen. The issue here is governmental data transparency, and access thereof.

ex animo
davidfarrar

Jason Roberts at 2:54 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles

Troy:
Not so. That would be true if I were making allegations. I am not. I am simply saying that in order for the populace to accept in good faith that transparency is real and not contrived, it must start with the beginning, in the basic request for transparency of the birth certificate issue. I make no allegation that Obama was or wasn’t born in Hawaii. I simply don’t know, because no proof has been presented. One cannot know this, because Obama has failed to be transparent from this very beginning issue. The discussion of transparency is rendered farcical and illogical if rules are designed to state that only certain issues are open for transparency. At that, transparency does not exist, but only in the minds of those making an emotional, rather than rational connect. The bottom line is that a cabal of elitist Obama followers forming a discussion of a contrived transparency cause that disallows and excludes certain issues important to the American populace at large is utterly meaningless, and is purely self-serving, resulting in a greater disconnect between government and people.

David Farrar at 2:48 in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles

“An example of generalities not pursuant of a target specific stated attack would strongly suggest the obvious difference to what you are stating.” Huh?

We are here trying to develop, expound, if you will, on transparency principals. The topic of transparency as it relates to Obama’s birth certificate seems to me is relevant to this section.

For an example: The mere fact that a post has been simply wiped off this forum without a trace, without any public notification as to why, or by whom, seems to violate every aspect of the principles of transparency in government. Didn’t we just summarize the fact that providing a verifiable record is at the very corner stone of governmental transparency, and here we have a government agency, or a corporation acting on its behalf, erasing the record of their own actions in an attempt to be anything but transparent.

Doesn’t anyone see the hypocrisy?

ex animo
davidfarrar

Ronald Smith at 2:32 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles

The difference between a “Certificate of Live Birth” and “original birth certificate” is a semantic one. In my state (Oklahoma) there is ONLY a “Certificate of Live Birth”. Other states may call it a “Birth Certificate”, but in many states no other document exists to vouch for my birth. I am only allowed to possess certified copies (essentially photocopies with a stamped seal) of this document. I have no control over where, how and if the original paper document is released, stored, or copied. I have never seen it and I have no idea where it is stored. It is highly disingenuous to suggest that there is some other document out there that addresses the President’s birth which is distinct from his COLB.

Jason Roberts at 2:27 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles

No, his birth certificate HAS NOT been released. Not even a replacement birth certificate. It’s merely a certification of live birth. It is prima facie evidence of nothing more than A LIVE BIRTH OCCURRED. The basic info contained on it is received, unverified from the parent as de facto information. It carries almost no weight. Saying that it’s equal to his birth certificate, is like saying a hand written unsigned Bill of Sale is equal to the original Official Title of a vehicle. I tell you what, how about a compromise. He wants to hide his birth certificate? Okay, then release the school/student aid/student loan records. Oh that’s right, he wants to hide those too. Okay, then release the passport records. Oh shoot, he wants to keep those hidden too. Hmmm … I think logic and common sense prevails here, and should supersede any feel good idea of blindly following Obama like sheep and swallowing the “official” story hook, line and sinker.

Troy Klingspoon at 2:24 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles

An example of generalities not pursuant of a target specific stated attack would strongly suggest the obvious difference to what you are stating. Principles of Transparency in development would not constitute rhetoric on specific allegations, in fact it would be completely off topic to the task.

David Farrar at 2:22 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles

That is certainly true. It is possible to get (buy) a certified (copy) of your birth certificate. That was not what was released by Obama’s campaign. What was released, and what Obama, himself, has thus far refused to even acknowledge is his, is a copy of “his” (COLB) Certificate of Live Birth, not a certified copy of his original birth certificate.

Hawaiian Health officials acknowledge they do, in fact, have the original birth certificate of Pres. Obama, but to date, have not been given the necessary authority to release said document, or allow anyone to simply view it in its original form.

In fact, if some reports are to be believed, Obama has spent millions in legal fees to specifically prevent just such a public inspection of his original birth certificate.

Now, as far as my own personal feelings about this issue are concerned, I consider it a distraction to the important goal of providing more transparency in government. This whole issue can easily be cleared up with Obama’s help. So the animus some feel against the people asking for this issue to be cleared up, posthaste, have only the President to blame, and not the people asking for the simple truth to be offered by the President of the United States.

ex animo
davidfarrar

Jason Roberts at 2:09 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles

If all posts about the birth certificate issue are deleted because they are alleged “duplicate” posts or “duplicate” post topics, then multiple posts about transparency in government must also be deleted, as that would constitute duplication by the same standards. Not gonna be many comments now, are there?

The fact that the birth certificate issue hasn’t been resolved, precludes any possible discussion of government transparency. It is a farce to sit with hands folded and pretend to have some self-righteous discussion about government transparency when Mr. Obama is refusing to be transparent about his birth certificate, passport records, and school records. If his presidency started with his being sworn in, then the transparency must start with him willingly releasing his long form birth certificate. How does he expect the majority of this country to have faith in a man who refuses to be transparent about his birth certificate, and yet claims some mythical transparency in his administration. That’s hypocrisy at its height. This whole situation is utterly nonsensical and illogical. It’s like being on a sinking ship and opening a discussion on what color the life vests should be. We must handle the big problem first. Transparency issue number one, is the birth certificate issue. Any discussion of transparency in the Obama administration before resolving this issue, is a pointless farce and nothing but a “pretend we’re important” load of bologna and an exercise in ignoring the tough issues. This issue will never go away. It will be there, stoked and kept fresh daily, for 8 years if necessary, until it is addressed. And the one to blame is Obama. Those of us asking the question, are not to blame, for we are justified in asking for proof. But Obama is to blame, because he could put this whole issue to rest (and could have months ago) by just releasing (or authorizing the release of) his long form birth certificate which he claimed in his book to own and cherish, and which Hawaii verifies exists. Really, logic prevails here.

And now, let the whiny negative voting begin …

David Farrar at 1:24 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles

In fact, if some reports are to be believed, Obama has spent millions in legal fees to specifically prevent just such a public inspection of his original birth certificate.

ex animo
davidfarrar

Deanne Williams at 12:10 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles

Barack Obama’s birth certificate has been released. Just because it isn’t the “orginal”, doesn’t mean it isn’t a birth certificate.

I lost my birth certificate years ago, but you can’t obtain the original anymore. You get a “new” birth certificate, in the current design.

David Farrar at 12:08 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles

Hi Michael,

I hope you are right. So where is that last post? Does anybody know? I don’t see any sign of it.

Moreover, that was the first post referencing Obama’s birth certificate that I can see. In order to be a duplicate, there has to be at least one allowed to be posted; isn’t that right?

Perhaps I have missed it. But I don’t see one posted.

ex animo
davidfarrar

Deanne Williams at 12:07 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles

When posts are flagged as duplicates or spam, they are removed. This is clearly stated in the moderation policy.

There are currently numerous posts regarding Obama’s birth certificate, so duplicate posts are being flagged and removed in accordance with that policy.

This is a moderated internet forum, there is no freedom of speech here.

James Huston at 11:55 AM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles

So where’s the birth certificate? Any common citizen who wishes to travel outside the country MUST provide one in order to obtain a passport; it is also commonly used as a form of identification to obtain a driver’s license or to determine work eligibility. I don’t think it is unreasonable to expect anyone seeking the top job (which, btw, also involves travel outside the country) to be able to prove unequivocally that he was born in the United States. That’s transparency.

David Farrar at 11:42 AM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles

Oh my God….

What happened to the post asking for Obama’s birth certificate to be made public? Has it been removed? If so, by who, and for what reason? What part of the rules did that post breech? Isn’t this an abridgement of that poster’s 1st Amendment right to free speech?

Please advise?

ex animo
davidfarrar

David Farrar at 11:14 AM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles

I agree, as an exercise in transparency. However, it there is something personally embarrassing in his long-form birth certificate, precautions must be implemented.

Any suggestions?

ex animo
davidfarrar

Dave Thomas at 7:49 AM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles

At the top right of this page it reads.

“Our commitment to openness means more than simply informing the American people about how decisions are made.”

I value the transparency of sincerety, and the “follow me” kind of leadership exemplified by great men in our history as a nation. Our constitution was framed of men with faith in the one true God creator of all, who they trusted to preserve us as a nation. They were not afraid to acknowledge Jesus Christ as His Son, or Israel as the nation God chose to bring to make Him known.

This kind of transparency and faith has made our nation great.

Mr. President: I want to believe in you. I don’t understand, “Why is there an un-resolved issue about your place of birth?”

Sincerely,
Dave Thomas

2009-06-26T16:52:00.001-05:00

Key to Obama health plan blocked by UFO truth embargo?
June 25, 3:10 PM
11 comments
ShareThis
RSS
Email
Print

President Barack Obama delivers remarks on health care reform at the annual meeting of the American Medical Association, Monday, June 15, 2009 in Chicago. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Tiny fragments of a device of apparent extraterrestrial origin may hold an invaluable secret to advancing health care in the US, but open discussion of that fact may be subjected to information policing by the Obama administration.

The sad irony of the situation is that a president who campaigned and won on a platform of truth and openness and who has just presented a comprehensive plan on ABC in prime time to reform the nation's medical care may unwittingly be preventing discussion that could lead to a breakthrough which would revolutionize health care.

Complex miniature devices of unknown and apparent extraterrestrial origin have exhibited a remarkable ability to be assimilated into the human body as foreign objects without inflammation or rejection by the human immune system. The mysterious coating on these objects, if fully understood, could revolutionize organ transplant and other operations that require pins, screws and plates to be implanted in the human body.

The New York Times, however, is reporting that while the Obama administration has asked the public for new ideas with the unveiling of an open-government website, the administration is considering steps to curtail free speech and discussion of the UFO issue on the prejudiced supposition that UFO subjects are somehow 'fringe'—the modern term for heresy, which was considered a crime against the church when Galileo published his findings in opposition to the conventional wisdom of his time.

The White House tried to screen out some of the more unusual comments in the second phase of the process. Ms. Noveck summarized the most significant ideas, then invited comments on them at blog.ostp.gov. Visitors could flag off-topic comments, which were then shunted to a separate part of the site. That reduced the birth-certificate and U.F.O. comments to a relative trickle. — The New York Times

The argument goes—from guys like Clay Shirky, who ought to know better—that important public debate should not be 'hijacked' by a vocal minority. This view is more likely ill informed than disingenuous, but in either case it flies in the face of the facts. The UFO issue can hardly be painted as the interest of a 'fringe' minority. Polls show that 50+% of the American people believe some UFOs are extraterrestrial spacecraft and 85+% believe their government is not telling the truth of the matter.

Suppressing free speech on matters such as physical evidence of UFOs uncomfortable to the psyche of a select few who would monitor the content of the public debate is an insidious form of censorship.

The spirit of the first amendment aside, what is at stake is a health care breakthrough that would save millions of dollars and thousands of lives—if research is funded and accomplished to understand why the mysterious devices exhibit an unusual ability to assimilate themselves inside the human body with no reaction from the immune system.

• • •

The fragments in question are the remnants of an enigmatic device removed from the toe of a subject which was apparently some kind of tagging and tracking unit. Veteran implant-removal specialist Dr. Roger Leir made the announcement at a press conference held by the Paradigm Research Group immediately after the 2009 X Conference in Washington, D.C. Leir's presentation of the biological nature of the mysterious implants was complemented by the results of a material analysis conducted by Dr Alex Moser, Ph.D.

The implications of the material's composition and apparent function are paradigm shifting. At the time, the implant analysis report was overshadowed by Apollo 14 Astronaut Edgar Mitchell's statement of belief that ET has been here for some time and that the elements of the government who actually know this have been keeping that information highly compartmentalized. Since then, however, a highly credentialed physicist has spoken out on the issue, a nationwide radio host has investigated the report and the story has begun to gain legs.

For just-the-facts UFO investigators, Leir and Moser offered the compelling news of the 2009 X-conference press conference: hard evidence that can be analyzed and results that point toward non-human origin of the device.

Due to a number of unusual characteristics documented in the analysis, there are only two conclusions that can be arrived at as to the origin of the implants:

Either an unknown agency of extraterrestrial nature is manufacturing highly sophisticated biomechanical devices and implanting them inside human bodies,

Or some terrestrial agency with enormous resources has achieved nanotechnology fabrication capability beyond currently known limits and is doing the same thing.

Either possibility is unsettling.

That the first possibility is a credible concern alone is enough to be front-page news. The mainstream media truth embargo about UFO/ET evidence or the amount of science required to present the story may account for the fact it wasn't.

• • •

Here is what we know:

Background:

In 2003 a sophisticated use of the Roper Organization by Bigelow resulted in a solid estimate that of about 2% of the population has likely had an experience of the nature termed abduction. In order to avoid any kind of data skewing it was necessary not to telegraph the nature of the inquiry. Certain questions designed to reveal characteristics pointing to abduction were inserted into in three separate Limobus surveys conducted by Roper. A false positive trigger question was included to identify those who could not have been abducted but were giving positive answers.

Successful abductions include selective amnesia of the event and thus accounts of abduction often need to be retrieved by hypnotic regression. A large percentage likely goes unreported.

Roper's representative American sample of about 6000 adults (with a sampling error of 1.4 percent!) showed that one out of every 50 people met the abductee profile. This figure suggests that about 33,000,000 individuals had been abducted in America. A closer look at these specific profiles showed that these people were not "average" at all. — Report on the Roper Analysis Data

A characteristic of the accounts is the implantation of a small device at various locations on the body. The presumed reason for this would be subject tracking and data gathering—a process humans have developed while gathering information about the other species inhabiting our planet. Once you consider an advanced intelligence of some form operating in our biosphere, the notion of small implants for data capture and tracking is a trivial leap.

D. Roger Leir is an acknowledged pioneer in the field of implant detection and removal. Since 1995, he has conducted 15 surgeries to remove enigmatic objects from subjects who reported abduction experience by non-human entities. These surgeries removed miniscule metallic devices detected by X-Ray. The objects themselves constitute some of the rare hard evidence of extraterrestrial origin—and thus technology and thus intelligence—available in the wake of tens of thousands of UFO sightings annually worldwide.

The most recent and significant of the implant removal cases is the object removed by Lier last year and presented at the conference.

The devices:

Dr Roger Leir addresss the 2009 X-Conference press at the National Press Club.

While in the body, a device is identified on X-Ray, located precisely with a CAT scan. It shows up as a metallic object where one should not be. There is no apparent entry point, which implies that the object was either inserted with an advanced form of medical implant technique or somehow grew in place. The latter is highly unlikely given the complex nature of the device.

The devices exhibit a measured magnetic field of 5 mGauss. A refrigerator door magnet, by comparison is 15 mGauss. There are no natural objects in the human body we know of that have magnetic fields anywhere near this strong. There are some magnetic fields associated with the operation of the nervous system, but these are extremely weak (on the order of microGauss, or less). The earth's magnetic field is approximately 300 mGauss, in most areas, so this is about 1/30th of the earth's magnetic field strength.

Alex Moser speculates that the magnetic field of the device may have a function in powering it, via zero-point energy, or in helping to generate the radio signals it was emitting before removal from the subject.

The devices emit RF transmissions on several frequencies, ranging from the extremely low frequency of 9 cycles per second, which corresponds to a naturally occurring human brain wave frequency up to the gigahertz range.

The 9 Hz ELF frequency observed is said to have applications in mind control. The 17 MHz signal is in an aeronautical mobile (aircraft communication) band, and the 20 GHz frequency is in a satellite communication band.

While Moser thinks that the implant may have had mind influencing/control as one of its functions, he also considers it possible that aliens use our communication bands for some of their own (heavily encrypted) messages, perhaps to be able to more easily listen in on human communications.

No recordings of the RF emissions has been made and no attempt made to do signal analysis of the emissions, so what information may be being broadcast, if any, is unknown at this time.

As for power output, Moser reports that “we do not have quantitative data on the signal strength, but an educated guess as to the power output would be 10-100 mWatts. The device was apparently transmitting continuously, unlike an RFID chip, which only transmits a very low-power RF burst, when irradiated by a nearby transmitter. Monitoring of the signals did not take place for a sufficiently long time interval to determine whether the transmissions were influenced by the subject. The signals ceased after removal from the subject. In this case, the cessation of transmission may have been due to the implant breaking into pieces on removal, but the RF signals also ceased in previous implants which were removed intact.”

The power source for these embedded devices is unknown. One assumption is that power for the device is somehow biochemically extracted from the surrounding body. A second theory from Dr. Kootz contends that the low frequency emanations from the device may be the signature of a scalar energy extraction system—which could lead to an understanding of propulsion systems required to travel to the stars.

The interface between the unusual object and the human body is a thin later of material which connects the object with the surrounding tissue in such a way that the foreign body becomes part of the human body. There seems to be a coating on the outer edge of the object that facilitates this process. The potential for this coating to remove the issue of inflammation and rejection of implanted material in the human body is significant. All medical procedure that involves stitching together the human body with pins, screws, stints and plates would benefit from this coating.

No known incident explains the presence of the object in the subject's body. We don't know how it got there, we don't know why it wasn't rejected, we don't know what powers it and we don't know why it is emitting RF transmission on a range specific frequencies.

The material:

Alex Moser, Ph.D explains the unusual characteristics of the 2009 Lier implant to the press at a press conference after the 2009 X-Conference.

Once removed, analysis of the object fragment indicates a level of material fabrication beyond the limits of publicly announced human capability. It also demonstrates material components not consistent with materials found on earth.

Included in the complex structure are carbon nanotubes, small molecular constructions of carbon atoms, which terrestrial science is just beginning to understand and utilize.

One of the most significant indicators of extraterrestrial origin is the variance of isotopic ratios of the composite elements from normal terrestrial elements. If you take an element such as Nickel or Silver, there are several different isotopes of that element available in nature. The isotope of an element refers to the specific arrangement of the electrons orbiting the nucleus, and a moderately heavy element like a metal may have the same number of electrons arranged in different numbers in the bands surrounding the nucleus.

The ratio of common isotopes of an element is fixed and common to the element on earth, however specimens recovered from space exhibit different ratios of the isotopes than terrestrial atoms.

The extracted implant material exhibits isotopic ratios at variance with that of terrestrial elements. If this measurement is correct, the implication is that the only way this material could have been manufactured is if the fabrication facility had access to a supply of extra-terrestrial materials or the technology to produce non-terrestrial isotopic ratio metal—an unlikely possibility.

When researching this kind of UFO evidence, however one must proceed carefully. In an email, Moser expressed a concern that one of the measured isotopic ratio anomalies may be instrumentation or measurement error.

Moser’s caveat is that “as stated in the report, the analysis lab could not give adequate explanation for the Ni isotopic anomaly. However, I am fairly certain the error is derived as described in the report (beam broadening as a result of high nickel loading within the analyzer).”

This does not explain all of the isotopic ratio anomalies, however, and further research is needed.

Prior isotopic ratio anomalies:

The 2009 Leir implant removal is the first time such material has been detected in an obviously fabricated operational device inside a human being, although there have been reports of isotopic anomalies in material alleged to have been recovered from a crashed ET spacecraft.

A 1997 report in CNI News discusses in detail the major prior instance of isotopic anomalies in alleged extraterrestrial material, which has not been followed up with adequate verification research:

On the morning of July 4, 1997, in an auditorium in Roswell, New Mexico, hundreds of news reporters and other interested onlookers came together for what was billed as a press conference on the scientific testing of an object said to have been recovered from the crash of a UFO near Roswell in 1947.

The main speaker, Dr. Russell VernonClark, a chemist from the University of California at San Diego, delivered prepared comments and then immediately left the auditorium, frustrating many journalists who wanted to ask him questions. Even so, VernonClark's announced findings undoubtedly represented the biggest surprise of the weeklong festival called Roswell UFO Encounter 97. —CNI News, 1997

These graphs, from the 1997 CNI News report, reproduced here with permission, shows the isotopic ratio differences in the 1997 sample from naturally occuring elements.

One obvious error in the 1997 results was in the isotopic ratio of Germanium, which has a half-life of a couple of days. This result precluded the sample being old enough to have had an origin in 1947 and was obviously a measurement error of some sort.

Moser explains that “I reviewed a small portion of [VernonClark’s] data set and was concerned of the claims because I felt the analysis method used was inadequate and the data set showed behavior that indicated inadequate sample signal.”

Concerns about the error rate of the measurement on the isotopic ratio evidence make Moser justifiably cautious, but the presence of carbon nanotubes, a magnetic field, and unusual radio frequency (RF) emissions from the embedded device, coupled with the magical ability to reside in the body without provoking a rejection response from the immune system, not to mention the inexplicable origin of the devices make this evidence worthy of considerable scrutiny.

Separate from the isotopic ratios the issue of the ratio of various rare elements indicates a possible extraterrestrial origin of at the least, the raw materials from which the device was fabricated.

Moser states that “The gallium, germanium, and precious metals in the metallic portion of the sample were present in ratios which were very consistent being derived from an iron-nickel meteorite.

There is a lot of this material in our solar system, and it would be a good, naturally occurring magnetic material, which would be inexpensive to an organization with cost effective space flight capabilities. It would be a good base material for aliens to use for fabrication of a device requiring a magnetic field.

There is probably some type of low-temperature melting process involved in getting the carbon nanotube inclusions/components inside the metal of the device, to avoid conversion of the CNTs to iron carbide, if the metal had to be melted at its normal melting point. Some type of automated nanoassembler would also almost certainly be involved in the fabrication of this type of device.”

• • •

The letter of support:

Shortly after the announcement, a letter of support came from a surprising source. Experimental nuclear physicist Dr. Robert W. Koontz, Ph.D. is an expert in carbon nanotube fabrication whose published credentials lend considerable weight to his opinion that this object may represent, among other things, a planetary security issue. That likelihood must, he says, be openly discussed and understood by the public.

In particular, I note the reported non-terrestrial isotope ratios of the putative implant, the reported emissions of electromagnetic energy and the apparent microstructure of the possible device. This is physical evidence that has been and can be analyzed.

I also note that the interviewed scientist seems quite clear-headed and sensible. Furthermore, the scientist has demonstrable knowledge about carbon nano-tubes and appears to indeed be the scientist he claims to be.

I see no reason whatsoever to discount what these men are saying. Indeed, quite the opposite is true: My opinion is that this matter should be taken very seriously and, eventually, should be openly addressed by both federal authorities and by the public. —Dr. Robert W. Koontz, Ph.D.

Moser’s response to the Koontz open letter is positive: “I read the letter and I agree with it in it's entirety. Though I believe it is possible the situation is vastly more complex than most understand.”

The unusual step of publishing his credentials on the web and speaking out on the so called 'fringe' issue is an example of the American citizen no longer willing to let compelling evidence be swept under the rug of ridicule, denial or marginalization by proclamation, such as practiced by Shirky and the New York Times. The issues associated with the increasing evidence of UFO and ET activity in our biosphere must be addressed openly. Anything less leads to a debilitating cultural schizophrenia.

The remaining questions:

The applicable Carl Saganism in this case usually is that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. Dr. Roger Leir has presented extraordinary evidence. At this point the corollary is that extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary investigation.

A research organization wishing to remain anonymous checked a number of subjects with possible implants at a recent UFO convention, using a much more sophisticated radio frequency spectrum analyzer. Activity was detected at the same frequencies (except ELF, which the instrument was not sensitive to) plus some not observed previously. However, according to Moser, a lack of serious funding prevents "the kind of study this evidence requires."

Eisenhower warned that when research is a slave to government funding true intellectual curiosity would be diminished. This is clearly such a case, for the medical benefits of understanding the mystery coating alone would save countless lives. Yet the extraordinary research demanded by these enigmatic objects will never come from a military-industrial complex that seems determined not to allow academic investigation of anything implying an extraterrestrial intelligence operating in our biosphere.

The potential medical benefits aside, the implications of the origin of these devices confront the crumbling paradigm that we are somehow inexplicably alone in a vast universe that is likely teeming with life.

Who made these devices?

Who implanted them in the human subjects without their knowledge, much less consent?

What information is being gathered and who is benefiting from that information?

How many of us are implanted and don't know it?

If it is a form of advanced intelligence, what are they trying to find out about us and how do we deal with the fact that they are?

Can these data gathering devices point a way towards communication with whoever is doing this?

Should SETI be thinking about transmitting on these frequencies messages intended to get a response, in order to let the chipmakers know that we know that they are implanting us?

And if it is not some form of advanced intelligence studying us, then what secret element of our society, what agency is covertly tagging, tracking and studying its own citizens? Who approved the policy? Who provided the funding?

When will a member of the White House correspondents’ corps finally have the temerity to ask a question about this issue?

The Whitley Strieber Interview:

At least one journalist is not afraid to pursue this story on the national stage. Whitley Strieber interviewed Robert Koontz on his Dreamland radio program. The conversation, in light of the questions above, is compelling listening for anyone who understands what has been presented in this article.

One of the things that can be done is to launch a Twitter initiative to ask for adequate funding of research into the 2009 Leir implant remains.

The truth embargo maintained by the powers that be is failing; the race to Disclosure has begun. Discovering and disclosing the extent to which everyday citizens are being tagged and tracked—and by whom—is a critical step.

As part of the recently proposed sweeping health care reform bill, the Obama administration should include funding to detect, extract and study these objects with an eye at the very least to reverse engineering the biological coating.

And someone should tell the Obama administration that suppressing free and open inquiry into aspects of the UFO phenomenon that may hold the key to significant advances in the human condition is not the way to make good on the inauguration day promise of truth and openness.
For more info:
Open Letter On Scientific Evidence for Extraterrestrial Implants
The Whitley Strieber Interview
The New York Times on internet censorship
Follow the story on Facebook

OMB # for census is EXPIRED

2009-06-25T22:58:00.000-05:00

OMB NO: 0607-0810 EXPIRATION DATE: 05/31/2008
RESPS:3,160,610 HOURS:1,917,410 COSTS(000):$0
The American Community Survey
FORMS: ACS-1 ACS-1SP ACS-1PR ACS-1PR(SP) ACS-290 ACS-1GQ ACS-4GQ

EXPIRED

Click here for PDF

2009-06-25T17:15:00.001-05:00

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/SQuest09.pdf

Here is the form from the census. There is an OMB number, but it is expired!

When the census comes, count your family and then tell the census to get lost.

2009-06-25T16:55:00.003-05:00

Are you worried or scared that you will be fined $5000 if you refuse to answer the questions on the new Census' "The American Community Survey" early next year.

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/

http://www.census.gov/

http://2010.census.gov/2010census/

Representative Michele Bachmann (MN-6) says don't fill out this intrusive 28 page nose picking. There is no constitutional right of the government beyond counting the number of Legal American Citizens in the boarders of the country.

But as a politician she failed to say what legal authority would prevent you from being fined $5000 if you refuse.

It's the Paperwork Reduction Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paperwork_Reduction_Act

Any information which the government wants to collect from us must have a valid OMB number on the form and certain rights must be written in plain english somewhere on the form. Check it out for yourself when you receive the form in the mail. Check for and verify the OMB Number on the form.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

new debt clock

2009-05-28T23:11:00.000-05:00

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Grand Jury Recommends: Indict Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama

2009-05-04T20:16:00.000-05:00

Grand Jury Recommends: Indict Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama

AmericanGrandJury.org

Grand Jury Recommends: Indict Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama

Mark S. McGrew

The fifth amendment of the US Constitution states:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on the presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury".

So who or what is a Grand Jury?

Most Americans, including most Judges, most prosecutors and most lawyers think a Grand Jury is a function of the government, at the whim of the government, under the control and direction of the government. However, this is constitutionally false and always has been.

Americans are educated to believe that America has three branches of government: The Judicial, The Legislative and the Executive and that is they who decide our lives. This also is false. There is a Constitutional force which has power, authority and dominance over those three branches.

That is the The Grand Jury of We The People. The Grand Jury was intended to give the people of the United States of America total control over a potentially corrupt government and to enable prosecution of corrupt or criminal government officials, agents and employees, whether they were elected, hired or appointed.

The Constitution of The United States of America was created and designed to give the individual or collective people of America the power to tell the government what to do. The government, including the President of the country has no Rights to make Americans do anything that is not permitted by or is contrary to our Constitution. The US Constitution especially has no provision for an illegal alien to be our President and pass laws that we do not permit or condone.

United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ruled in the case of United States vs. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992):

"Rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, Hannah v. Larche, 363 US 420, 490 (1960) with J. Frankfurter 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 three branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right."

To be crystal clear: The Grand Jury is a Constitutional fixture in its own right.

The Grand Jury is not a tool of government to use against its citizens.

Justice Scalia determined further, to reinforce that there is no question as to the purpose of the Grand Jury:

"In fact, the whole theory of it's foundation is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between Government and the people. Although the Grand Jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, it's institutional relationship with the Judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm's length. Judges direct involvement in the Grand Jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the Grand Jurors together and administering their oath of office".

Besides providing for society to charge individual people for crimes, the Grand Jury is a tool for the citizens to use against a criminal government or our government acting against the designs of our Constitution. And it was specifically designed to prosecute the criminal actions of government employees and their lawyers.

Any judge who tells a jury to "disregard that remark or disregard that evidence" is violating the US Constitution and can and should be indicted by a Common Law Grand Jury.

Any Congressperson, Senator, Governor or police officer who violates the constitution can and should be indicted by a Common Law Grand Jury, without the advice, consent, permission or interference of any government employee.

This is why America has always been promoted as a land where no man is above the law, including the President.

However, in 1946, certain people hijacked the role of our Grand Jury and the courtroom jury and henceforth, embarked on a mission of misinformation, distortions and blatant lies to convince the American people and the entire legal community, that it is the government that determines what is right and what is wrong in the actions of the government or of any elected government officials, employees or agents.

In an article in the Creighton Law Review, Volume 33. number 4, 1999-2000, Roger Roots, Juris Doctorate wrote:

"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 government 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."

Judges and prosecutors and attorneys began using the phrase "runaway grand jury" to create ridicule and scorn upon a jury that chose to think for themselves, which is the Constitutional Right of any jury.

Roger Roots continues,

"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 for 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."

In 1946, The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted. In those procedures, they made a rule to punish runaway grand juries. 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 could throw anyone off a grand jury, or even dis-impanel a grand jury entirely, merely for exercising its own discretion and not doing what the court or prosecutor tells them to do.

All laws in America, whether federal, state, county or city must conform to the framework of the United States Constitution. Laws can be illegal, and many laws are illegal. Rules are not even laws and have no authority if attached to a source that is not in line with the US Constitution. Laws, rules, orders, methods of the government that do not conform to the US Constitution are considered "Fruit from the poison tree" and if challenged as such, and proven not to be Constitutional in nature, must be unenforceable.

Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure has an added "Note 4" which directly conflicts with, ignores and willfully violates the fifth amendment of the US Constitution which states clearly:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on the presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury".

Note 4 of Rule 7 states:

"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". They rewrote the US Constitution to suit their own purposes.

There are only two ways that the US Constitution can be changed:

Method 1:

A minimum of two thirds of the US House of Representatives AND a minimum of two thirds of the US Senate must agree on a proposed change to the Constitution, AND then a minimum of three quarters (38 of the current 50) of the state legislatures OR state conventions must agree to every word, comma, and period of the proposed change to the Constitution. Passage in the state legislatures is by simple majority in the state House AND in the state Senate. Passage in the state conventions is also by simple majority. Typically, a time limit of seven years is imposed for ratification, after which the proposal expires, worthless. This is the only method that has been used to date. The requirement for a state convention has been specified only once.

Method 2:

A minimum of two thirds of the state legislatures (34 of the current 50), House AND Senate, must call for a Constitutional Convention. The convention proposes one or more amendments, which must then be approved by simple majority by a minimum of three quarters of the state legislatures (House AND Senate) OR by a minimum of three quarters of the state conventions. This method has never been used.

Most certainly a bunch of crooked lawyers writing their own rules to corrupt the jury system can not override the US Constitution.

But they did.

And, as Susan Brenner wrote in The Voice of the Community: A Case for Jury Independence, "Now, federal grand jurors cannot return charges in the form of an indictment without a prosecutor's consent."

If a grand jury and a courtroom jury have to do only what the judge and prosecutor say, and a prosecutor can refuse to indict and charge a politician or another lawyer, what is the reason to have any jury? Only to perpetuate a myth that Americans live under a system where no man is above the law. There is no other reason.

As the American Judicial system now operates, judges and prosecutors can pick and choose who they send to prison. And they guarantee that they and their friends can go on with their criminal behavior unmolested.

The American Juror published a commentary regarding Note 4 of Rule 7:

"[Retaining the Constitutional Right of grand juries to determine evidence and witnesses] 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(Prosecutor)"

So, the American government employees took the bold step to violate the US Constitution on a continuing, repeated basis and gave defendants a "jury of their peers" that would and could, only nod to the prosecutor and judge and say only, "Yes sir. No sir. You're right sir. Whatever you say sir."

This kind of behavior was outlawed in the year 1215 by the English Magna Carta, which the founders of the United States of American adopted as their basis for how Americans were going to live and be treated by the government that they would employ.

The authors of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are the true criminals and should have been dragged out of their homes and hanged from the nearest tree.

Now, 63 years later, the American people are fed up with the treasonous acts of their government employees and their rigged courts. And they have found a way to rid this country of the "domestic enemies" that our Constitution warned us to be prepared for.

AmericanGrandJury.org explains the process and how to form a constitutionally acceptable Common Law Grand Jury and bring presentments or indictments in any location in America and begin prosecuting corrupt government employees, at any level of government. No longer should they be referred to as Officials or agents. They are our employees and if they don't want to respect that, they need to find a friendly 3rd world country to live in.

Mr. Carl Swensson of the State of Georgia successfully organized a Common Law Grand Jury and that Grand Jury reviewed evidence against Barry Soetoro AKA Barack Obama and is recommending an indictment. The US Attorney, who was presented with that recommendation has refused to discuss it by saying, "We only deal with lawyers". The Attorney General's office of the State of Georgia has also been presented with that recommendation and has also refused, saying, "We don't represent citizens".

Everyone should call US Federal Attorney, David Nahmias at 404-581-6000 or fax him at 404-581-6181 and tell him to do his job. Every person should also call the State of Georgia Attorney General's office and ask Lilly Thomas why she thinks the Attorney General does not represent citizens and who do they represent. Her number is 404-656-3300.

On Mr. Swensson's website at RiseUpForAmerica.com you can see the process he went through to organize a Common Law Grand Jury.

You will also find that Common Law Grand Juries in Kentucky, Indiana and Ohio also have seen the evidence and are making a presentment to charge the illegal alien Barry Soetoro AKA Barack Obama. More Common Law Grand Juries across American are being scheduled as of this writing.

A 2 hour Internet radio broadcast on April 9, 2009 has Carl Swensson of www.RiseUpForAmerica.com, Bob Campbell of http://americangrandjury.org and the spokesman for American Grand Jury, Sam Sewell explaining the Grand Jury actions against Obama, how Grand Juries can be used to rid local communities of corrupt government employees and how citizens can form their own Common Law Grand Jury groups. That broadcast can be listened to or downloaded at this site:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Sentinel_Radio/2009/04/10/The-Mark-S-McGrew-Show

Please allow a few minutes for this show to start playing.

American people are uniting, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean in the form of "Tea Parties" named after the Boston Tea Party demands of "No Taxation Without Representation" in the year 1773, which helped start the American Revolutionary War with England in 1775. Tea parties are being held for people to object to unconstitutional government acts, taxes and loss of freedoms

In less than 30 days, demonstrations have been organized and are scheduled in 2,000 communities, starting April 15, 2009. Anyone can find information on where Tea Parties are being held or how to form your own Tea Party at FreedomWorks.org

Something World leaders had better understand and understand well: Obama and his mentally deranged friends are not going to destroy America any more than countless other socialist fascist fanatics have tried in the past.

If World leaders want to keep their jobs and keep their nation's economies intact, they would be smart to drop Obama like a hot potato. Obama and his backers are pulling a giant scam on the rest of the World, just as they have on American voters.

Americans have wised up. It is only the major media that keeps pounding the drums of the Obama lie. Ask yourselves a question: Why are many of America's major newspapers that have been in business for over 100 years, filing for bankruptcy and closing every week? If you believe, as major news tell us, that the reason is lowered advertising revenue and more people getting their news from the Internet, you're hallucinating. The real reason is because Americans are thoroughly fed up with the lies, the slanders, the politically correct brain vomit that major news pours out and their astounding absolute refusal to portray any semblance of the truth.

Nothing Obama does will continue. Everything he does will be retracted by a very near future administration.

One thing that is certain, of all that can be observed about the current Obama administration, corporate executive friends of Obama and the American Judicial system: Whether in the boardroom, the courtroom or the bathroom, scum sticks together. When the scum is annoying enough, it is scrubbed, cleaned and thrown in the trash. That's why people have cleansers and society has prisons.

World leaders are making a very dangerous mistake to think that we, the people of America are not making preparations for cleaning house. This house belongs to us, not a gang of decrepit senile old men, pursuing a useless fantasy of a New World Order that has a 2,000 year history of abject failure.

Here's your first clue: The very first line of the US Constitution says, "We the people... establish this Constitution".

Mark S. McGrew may be reached at McGrewMX@aol.com

NOTE: This article may be republished without seeking permission, provided such publication is published in full and NOT altered in any manner. You may change fonts and colors to suit your needs. You may copy the source code on this webpage if you wish. If you wish to paraphrase or quote excerts from this article you may do so as long as you do not quote the excerpt "out of context." Please respect the spirit of this article and not abuse it by taking journalistic liberties at your own discretion.

RETURN to AmericanGrandJury.org

Grand Jury

2009-05-02T22:01:00.001-05:00

BEHIND THE LOCKED DOOR OF AN AMERICAN GRAND JURY: ITS HISTORY, ITS SECRECY, AND ITS PROCESS

MARK KADISH[*]

I. INTRODUCTION
II. THE HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH AND COLONIAL GRAND JURIES: A. The Grand Jury in England; B. The Grand Jury in Colonial America
III. THE ROLE OF GRAND JURY SECRECY: A. The Beginnings of Grand Jury Secrecy; B. Grand Jury Secrecy in Early American Jurisprudence
IV. 1946 CODIFICATION OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
V. INTERPRETATIONS OF THE 1946 SECRECY RULE
VI. PROCTER & GAMBLE: A MISSED OPPORTUNITY
VII. EMERGING CONCERNS OVER ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY ACCESS TO GRAND JURY MATERIALS
VIII. CONGRESSIONAL ACTION: A. The 1977 Amendment; B. 1981 Amendment Proposal
IX. SELLS AND BAGGOT: A. United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc.; B. United States v. Baggot
X. 1985 AMENDMENT TO RULE 6(E)
XI. UNITED STATES V. JOHN DOE, INC.
XII. GRAND JURY SECRECY AFTER DOE.
XIII. THE MARYLAND & VIRGINIA MILK PRODUCERS ASS'N SOLUTION
XIV. CONCLUSION

I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of our Constitution is to create a government that protects people from each other.[1] The purpose of our Bill of Rights is to protect each of us from our government.[2] Fundamental in any ordered system of government is an understanding that the people have the right to be free from crime. But, even more important, the people have a right to be free from a government that takes life, liberty, and property without due process of law.

This Article focuses on whether the development, interpretation, and administration of federal grand jury secrecy provisions has adhered to due process strictures. It suggests that due process concerns have yielded to goals of government efficiency in federal law enforcement. The Article offers a solution that protects historical grand jury secrecy while encompassing the concerns of efficient and effective federal law enforcement. This easily executed solution has eluded the U.S. Supreme Court, Congress, and commentators over the last fifty years. Only one U.S. Court of Appeals decision, Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Ass'n v. United States,[3] has recognized the simplicity and fairness of this solution to both the people and the government. The Supreme Court, however, has never even discussed this critical 1957 D.C. Circuit decision, propounded by the Secretary to the 1946 Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,[4] in its later, seminal decisions on grand jury secrecy.[5] This simple, unnoticed, one-page panel order balanced the interest of the government in efficient and cost-effective civil regulatory investigations against the interests in grand jury secrecy by allowing disclosure of grand jury materials for subsequent civil proceedings only to the extent that they would have been discoverable by government civil investigative devices. To implement this solution, the Supreme Court and Congress should revisit the federal grand jury secrecy rule.

Part II of this Article is an historical analysis. It examines the grand jury system as it originated in England and developed in colonial America. Part II also focuses on the evolution of the grand jury's function from a powerful tool for the monarch to a shield protecting citizens from the king's abuses.

Part III addresses the critical role secrecy has played in the evolution of the grand jury system in America. It examines secrecy interests in the context of the purpose for disclosure, suggesting that when disclosure is sought by the government for use in civil regulatory actions, the courts must consider the defendant's interest in a fair civil trial process.

Part IV focuses on the 1946 codification of the common law rule of grand jury secrecy into Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e).[6] A detailed analysis of the rule's drafting history reveals congressional concerns over illegal or unauthorized use of grand jury information in government civil proceedings and a legislative intent that grand jury materials only be disclosed to government attorneys handling criminal prosecutions.

Part V discusses the different approaches taken by the lower courts in permitting disclosure of grand jury materials in government civil litigation after the codification of Rule 6(e). The most significant of these is the fair process approach taken by Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Ass'n. This rather simple, common-sense concept forms the bedrock for the thesis of this article.

Part VI discusses the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Procter & Gamble Co.,[7] the Court's first opportunity to address grand jury secrecy in terms of civil disclosure. Analysis of Procter & Gamble exposes the problems inherent in parallel civil and criminal investigations. Part VI also examines the nine-year discovery battle between the United States and Procter & Gamble, revealing that disclosure of grand jury material to government civil attorneys provides an incentive for abuse of the grand jury system and can create a substantial imbalance in civil discovery.

Part VII discusses the emerging concern over civil use of grand jury materials in the context of federal administrative agency access to such information. Enabling legislation that created agencies with substantial civil and criminal enforcement powers presented significant grand jury secrecy issues parallel to those examined in Procter & Gamble. Questions also arose concerning the extent to which agency personnel could gain access to grand jury materials by assisting the prosecutor with the grand jury investigation. Part VII also traces case law that eventually prompted legislative action amending Rule 6(e).

Part VIII analyzes the legislative history of the 1977 amendment to Rule 6(e),[8] which demonstrates congressional efforts to limit civil regulatory use of grand jury material,[9] and the 1981 proposed amendment that clarified Congress's intent.[10] The 1977 amendment expanded Rule 6(e) disclosure exceptions and authorized disclosure of grand jury materials to government personnel to assist prosecutors in their duties.[11] The 1981 proposed amendment, ultimately tabled in committee, would have expressly limited the term "attorney for the government" to permit automatic disclosure of grand jury materials only to government prosecutors conducting criminal investigations.[12]

Part IX reviews United States v. Sells Engineering Corp.[1]3 and United States v. Baggot,[14] the seminal Supreme Court decisions that interpreted the 1977 amendment to Rule 6(e). Sells and Baggot clearly held that government civil attorneys are not permitted automatic access to grand jury materials to aid in civil proceedings. Part IX also focuses on the Court's concerns over grand jury abuse and the disparity in civil discovery when government attorneys use grand jury materials in subsequent civil proceedings.[15] Although these cases provided a prophylactic bright-line rule that protects the individual, they failed to adequately balance that interest against the cost to the government of duplicate investigations. As in Procter & Gamble, the Supreme Court failed to consider the fair approach taken in Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Ass'n.

Parts X, XI, and XII trace the evolution of the grand jury secrecy rule since Sells and Baggot, pointing out the ever-competing interests in efficient civil investigations and the need for grand jury secrecy. These sections reveal that grand jury secrecy is being eroded to avoid the extensive costs and delays that occur when governmental agencies must duplicate grand jury investigations for subsequent civil proceedings.

This Article is also a response to Professor Graham Hughes' recent Vanderbilt Law Review article,[16] which proposed coordinating federal compulsory process and modifying the federal grand jury secrecy rule.[17] Professor Hughes thoroughly explored the difficulties and inefficiencies inherent in parallel criminal and civil investigations in light of modern practice and suggested that separation of the two processes is artificial.[18] Professor Hughes recommended eliminating the requirement that disclosure of grand jury materials to the government be made only "preliminarily to a 'judicial proceeding,' " thus allowing disclosure for civil regulatory investigations.[19] He also proposed lowering the standard required for federal civil attorneys to gain access to grand jury materials from a "particularized need" to a "substantial need."[20] While this Article acknowledges the difficulties surrounding parallel investigations, and agrees modification of Rule 6(e) is necessary, it rejects Professor Hughes' solution as not affording citizens the requisite fair process.

Finally, part XIV concludes that the all-or-nothing approach taken by the courts, Congress, and commentators can be avoided by adopting the solution proposed in Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Ass'n, which equitably balanced the interest in cost-effective civil regulatory investigations against the interest in protecting the secrecy of the grand jury process, thus providing fair process to the individual.

II. THE HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH AND COLONIAL GRAND JURIES

The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "our constitutional grand jury was intended to operate substantially like its English progenitor."[21] An historical analysis of the grand jury thus helps to assess the role secrecy plays in the modern American grand jury system. This analysis reveals that grand jury secrecy serves two competing functions, which courts should enforce in a manner that equitably balances both roles.

A. The Grand Jury in England

The earliest progenitor of our grand jury had two main functions: to accuse criminals[22] and to extend the central government throughout England.[23] In twelfth-century England, criminal charges were prosecuted essentially by individuals,[24] with the king acting as "a super-privileged individual."[25] The king was thus personally involved in the medieval criminal justice system. With the promulgation of the Assize of Clarendon in 1166,[26] King Henry II established a system of local informers[27] (twelve men from every hundred[28] or four men from every vill[29]) to tell him who was suspected of "murder, robbery, larceny, or harbouring criminals."[30] The king's system, which superseded baronial and ecclesiastical jurisdiction,[31] made the king the beneficiary of the fines and forfeitures that attended the accusations.[32] The system required the twelve men to report all suspects[33] and fined them if they failed to indict any suspect[34] or even if they failed to indict an acceptable number of suspects.[35] The twelve men secretly named violators to give the sheriff a chance to seize those who were indicted.[36] Those whom the twelve men accused were tried by ordeal, which forced the suspects to prove their innocence by overcoming the laws of nature.[37] Since the "trial" was punishing, if not actually fatal, the accusation by the king's twelve men was the beginning and end of fundamental fairness in the twelfth-century.

The twelve men were also empowered to conduct other business of the monarchy.[38] For example, in 1188, the twelve men became tax assessors for the Saladin Tithe.[39] Shortly after the reign of Henry III ended in 1272, the twelve men were looking into the condition and maintenance of public works, including highways, bridges, and jails.[40] During this same time period, the twelve men were sworn to secrecy.[41] Nevertheless, the twelve men turned the information gathered from their inquiries over to itinerant justices sent by the monarchy.[42] These justices had the power to interrogate each of the twelve men to determine how they arrived at their findings.[43]

Significantly, in 1215, King John was forced by his barons to sign the Magna Carta, which delineated individual protections of life, liberty, and property by order of law.[44] This revered document did not specifically address the issue of grand jury secrecy. It did, however, introduce the concept of due process against which any procedural practice must be measured.[45]

During the reign of Edward III (1312-1377), the twelve men were superseded by twenty-four knights chosen by the county sheriff, who had authority for beginning a prosecution.[46] The knights were called "le grande inquest."[47] Their jurisdiction over the indictment process had no statutory authorization, but rather developed as part of the common law.[48] Meanwhile, the twelve men, having lost their original inquisitorial jurisdiction, became known as the petit jury,[49] which had responsibility for rendering a verdict of innocent or guilty in capital crimes. Therefore, by the fourteenth century, the developing criminal common law included two salient procedural devices: an indicting grand jury and an adjudicating petit jury.

In 1642, the English legal philosopher Edward Coke[50] interpreted the Magna Carta provision "Nullus liber homo capiatur, aut imprisonetur" as preserving life, liberty, and property subject to the "law of the land."[51] William Blackstone interpreted Coke's "law of the land" to require a two-tier process before a person could be deprived of (at least) life.[52] The vote by the grand jury in the first proceeding determined whether there was probable cause to believe that the individual accused was guilty of the crime charged; the vote by the petit jury in the second proceeding determined whether there was enough evidence to convict.[53] The petit jury provided little protection to the innocent accused, however, because the king often fined or imprisoned jurors who refused to convict.[54] Reacting to this monarchical abuse, the grand juries began to shift their focus away from mere accusation to considerations of fairness for the individual accused.[55]

Two celebrated cases became the catalyst for writers to define the rights and powers of English grand juries.[56] When pro-Protestant grand juries in London refused to indict Catholic King Charles II's enemies, Lord Shaftesbury and Stephen Colledge,[57] the grand jury became an institution "capable of being a real safeguard for the liberties of the subject."[58] For the first time, grand juries were positively identified as something other than enforcement agencies of central government; they also existed for the protection of the accused.[59]

B. The Grand Jury in Colonial America

The American colonies were slow to import the grand jury from England. It was not until 1635 that the first regular grand jury was established.[60] Before grand juries, the colonies used "assistants," whom the English monarchy authorized to make the laws, accuse suspects, and sit in judgment of criminals.[61] Having no checks or balances, the assistants were too powerful and abusive. In response to this abuse, one of the first American grand juries charged several of the assistants themselves with violations of the criminal law.[62] Thus, decidedly unlike its English progenitor, the American grand jury originally began, not as an arm of the executive, but as a defense against monarchy. It established a screen between accusations and convictions and initiated prosecutions of corrupt agents of the government. Therefore, the English progenitor upon which the American grand jury was modeled was the more enlightened protective grand jury of the 1600s.

In the early American experience, the grand jury also became more a part of local government than it had apparently been in England.[63] For example, in the early development of the Massachusetts grand jury, town officials were presented[64] for neglecting to repair the stocks[65] and for failing to repair the highway.[66] The Virginia grand juries became part of the county court system in 1662 and met twice a year to levy taxes, oversee spending, supervise public works, appoint local officials, and consider criminal accusations.[67] By the middle of the 1700s, the Connecticut grand jury was helping to levy taxes and conduct other local government work while a public prosecutor took primary responsibility for investigating crime.[68] In the Carolinas,[69] Georgia,[70] Maryland,[71] New Jersey,[72] and Pennsylvania,[73] the pattern was similar: in addition to screening criminal accusations, American grand juries took an active role in local government and had sufficient independence to announce dissatisfaction with government.[74]

As the colonies moved closer to revolution, the grand jury took on a third role: outright resistance to the monarchy.[75] Three successive grand juries refused to indict John Peter Zenger, whose newspaper criticized the withdrawal of jury trials and the royal control of New York.[76] While the King was withdrawing the right to trial by jury[77] and attempting to initiate prosecutions by informations,[78] colonial grand juries responded by making "stinging denunciations of Great Britain and stirring defenses of their rights as Englishmen."[79] Newspapers often republished these criticisms.[80]

After the Revolution, the centralized government was created without a federal grand jury. The Constitution created three separate branches of government and delineated the powers of each, but did not establish grand juries.[81] Nor were grand juries established in the Judiciary Act of 1789,[82] which set up the federal court system.[83] However, after passing the Judiciary Act, Congress approved twelve constitutional amendments[84] for ratification by the states. In 1791, the Fifth Amendment was adopted as part of the Bill of Rights, with its Grand Jury Clause insuring that "[n]o person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . . ."[85] The Grand Jury Clause protected the people against arbitrary and overzealous government by protecting "against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution."[86] Secrecy in grand jury proceedings played a role in that protection.

III. THE ROLE OF GRAND JURY SECRECY A. The Beginnings of Grand Jury Secrecy

In the beginning, the grand jurors' oath established the secrecy requirement. When grand juries were simply the monarch's investigatory bodies,[87] the grand jury oath did not include secrecy.[88] Secrecy was part of the grand jury process to prevent escape by suspected criminals.[89] By the fourteenth century, however, secrecy was a part of the grand jurors' oath.[90] With the shroud of secrecy came independence from the king. By 1681, the monarch's justices could no longer oversee jury deliberations,[91] even though some justices still claimed the authority to conduct the inquiry in public if the king so desired.[92] At this time, the grand jurors' oath[93] resembled the basic form administered to grand jurors in 1946, when the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were first established.[94]

The purpose of the secrecy requirement was, in the earliest days, interpolated primarily by legal scholars. Of the legal scholars writing about the grand jury in the late seventeenth century, John Somers is not only representative,[95] but eminent,[96] having been read in both England and the colonies.[97] In his monograph on the grand jury, Somers described how grand jurors were sworn not to disclose the subjects of the inquiry, the witnesses, or any of the evidence.[98] In addition, grand jurors were sworn not to reveal their own personal knowledge, the knowledge of their fellow jurors, their investigative plans, or their deliberations.[99] The reasons, according to Somers, were first, to prevent the flight of criminals;[100] second, to find out whether witnesses were biased;[101] third, to be free from judicial oversight;[102] fourth, to catch witnesses in their lies;[103] and fifth, to permit the full development of evidence for a possible indictment some time in the future.[104] According to Somers, all of these secrecy interests accrued to the king.[105] However, according to Somers, the interests which benefited the king protected his subjects because the grand jury existed to protect the innocent accused[106] just as much as the innocent victims of crime.[107] Secrecy made possible the discovery of truth[108] and protected individuals from malicious or hateful prosecution.[109] In sum, neither the king, the general public, nor the individual accused could benefit by making public the proceedings of a grand jury.

B. Grand Jury Secrecy in Early American Jurisprudence

The Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment[110] made grand jury secrecy an implicit part of American criminal procedure. The first challenges to the rule of secrecy were made by criminal defendants seeking to set aside their indictments based upon insufficiency of evidence[111] or prosecutorial misconduct before the grand jury.[112] Secrecy, hailed as the protector against monarchical abuse, was, ironically, being challenged as a shield for that abuse.

In one of the first reported secrecy cases, United States v. Smith,[113] decided fifteen years after the Bill of Rights was ratified, a federal district court in New York indicated that an accused could attack the veil of secrecy. In Smith, the defendant filed a plea in abatement challenging an indictment alleged to be based upon illegal evidence.[114] The prosecution argued against lifting the veil of secrecy, claiming a plea in abatement could not be made against grand jury actions because secrecy made grand juries "independent and irresponsible."[115] The defense argued fair process and contended that secrecy should not shield an improper indictment.[116] The court concluded that a challenge to the indictment could be made,[117] implicitly accepting the defense argument that the rule of grand jury secrecy protected the individual accused and, consequently, could be lifted where secrecy defeated that purpose.[118]

As courts continued to adjudicate defendants' motions for access to grand jury material, two interests—other than the defendant's interest in fairness—emerged. First, there was a concern that tampering with grand jurors might occur, eroding public confidence in the grand jury institution.[119] Second, blocking a defendant's access to grand jury materials would allow trials to be free from perjury.[120] The balance between the need for secrecy and the need for disclosure[121] began to tip against the defendant. The majority of these early cases determined that the interests of law enforcement, which favored secrecy, outweighed the defendant's need for disclosure.[122] These decisions were not surprising in the context of the state of criminal law and procedure in the 150 years after the adoption of the Bill of Rights. They were in keeping with the limited rules of criminal discovery[123] and the recognition that a trial by jury should safeguard the defendant.[124]

The issue of grand jury secrecy arose later in a First Amendment context. In 1917, a Rhode Island federal district court addressed the issue of widespread public disclosure of grand jury proceedings in United States v. Providence Tribune Co.[125] The court cited the newspaper for contempt for printing an article divulging information from a grand jury probe.[126] Deciding that the fair administration of justice required a finding of fact that the newspaper was in contempt for making the secret grand jury sessions public,[127] the court held that the mere publication of the article about the continuing grand jury probe was an obstruction of justice.[128] The court analyzed the historical justifications for grand jury secrecy and, perhaps influenced by John Somers' treatise,[129] listed six interests in secrecy: (1) preventing the escape of offenders; (2) preventing the destruction of evidence; (3) preventing tampering with witnesses; (4) preserving the reputations of innocent persons whose conduct comes under the grand jury's investigation; (5) encouraging witnesses to disclose their full knowledge of possible wrongdoing; and (6) preventing undue prejudice of the public jury pool.[130] The interests in secrecy that accrued to the government, the accused, and the grand jury were weighed against the newspaper's First Amendment interest in publishing the grand jury information.[131] The court found that all of the historical interests weighed in favor of secrecy for the fair administration of justice.[132] In this context, no one would benefit from the disclosure, except perhaps the newspaper through increased sales. Thus, the decision fairly protected both the interest in law enforcement and the individuals involved.

In the early 1930s, in United States v. Amazon Industrial Chemical Corp.,[133] a criminal case, and In re Grand Jury Proceedings,[134] a civil regulatory case, the courts addressed problems that did not involve the defendant's access to grand jury matters. In Amazon, the defendant challenged an indictment because a stenographer had been present during the grand jury proceedings and had transcribed the proceedings in violation of the secrecy rule.[135] The defendant claimed that the possibility of improper influence upon the grand jury had violated his constitutional rights.[136] Although it agreed that the opportunity for improper influence was a real threat, the Maryland federal district court nonetheless concluded that a defendant must prove actual prejudice to have an indictment dismissed.[137] The court acknowledged that the grand jury was adopted as a protection against oppressive governmental action. It stated, however, that "[i]n this country, from the popular character of our institutions, there has seldom been any contest between the government and the citizen which required the existence of the grand jury as a protection against oppressive action of the government."[138] Evaluating the reasons for grand jury secrecy set forth in Providence Tribune, the Amazon court concluded that these reasons were for the protection of the grand jury itself as an independent representative of the public for finding truth, and that none were based upon constitutional guarantees for the criminally accused.[139] The court cloaked grand jury proceedings with a presumption of regularity,[140] which inherently placed the fairness of the proceeding in the discretion of a prosecutor, the representative of the executive branch.[141]

The Amazon court's analysis of the purposes for secrecy seemingly contradicts its conclusion that secrecy has no basis in the constitutional rights protecting the criminally accused. Secrecy protects the ultimate truth-finding function of the grand jury.[142] This truth-finding function, however, is intended to protect the individual against unfounded prosecutions. Moreover, the Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be held to answer for a crime unless on an indictment of a grand jury. This constitutional protection also was established to protect the individual against unfounded prosecutions.[143] Therefore, secrecy is arguably based upon the Fifth Amendment right of the individual to be free from unfounded prosecutions.

Like many early decisions, Amazon distinguished between the grand jury process and the stringent due process requirements of a criminal trial.[144] This analysis, when viewed in the context of the unpredictable "secrecy" jurisprudence of that era, erroneously emphasizes that the criminal trial process should serve as a screen against unfounded prosecutions caused by failure of the grand jury process. That error is compounded when the analysis is applied to the civil arena.

The issue of disclosing grand jury materials for use in a civil action was first addressed two years later, in In re Grand Jury Proceedings.[145] In that case, the government initiated regulatory proceedings to revoke Union City Brewing Company's beer license.[146] Prior to these proceedings, prosecutors had conducted a grand jury investigation into possible violations of the National Prohibition Act.[147] The grand jury elicited information relevant to the revocation hearing, and the supervising court, upon the agency's motion, allowed disclosure of the grand jury materials for use in that hearing.[148] The court, citing criminal cases,[149] claimed authority for disclosing grand jury materials to the government agency in the name of justice.[150] The court, almost echoing Amazon, stated:

The rule of secrecy, it will be noted, was designed for the protection of the witnesses who appear and for the purpose of allowing a wider and freer scope to the grand jury itself, and was never intended as a safeguard for the interests of the accused or of any third person.[151]

Therefore, the court refused to accept the contention that a fundamental purpose in protecting the grand jury's "wider and freer scope" of investigation was ultimately to protect the accused against oppressive prosecutions.[152]

The early case law thus began to point out different secrecy considerations in criminal and civil cases, as well as the competing interests of law enforcement and the protection of the individual. When a government attorney seeks access to grand jury materials for use in a civil regulatory proceeding, the central interest from a defendant's point of view is not protection of the investigative role of the grand jury; rather, the interest is whether grand jury information may be used against an individual to initiate a civil enforcement action, where the burden of proof on the government is a preponderance of the evidence rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.[153] An examination of this important question presents due process considerations relating to the fundamental fairness of disclosure of grand jury materials for use in civil proceedings.[154] Congress first began to address these secrecy issues in 1946.

IV. 1946 CODIFICATION OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

The Supreme Court created the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which became effective on March 21, 1946.[155] The purpose of the Rules, as stated in Rule 2, was "to provide for the just determination of every criminal proceeding . . . to secure simplicity in procedure, fairness in administration and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay."[156] The Rules balanced the need for enforcing laws against the necessity of safeguarding fundamental rights of the accused.[157] The Department of Justice believed such a balance was obtained under the new Rules.[158] To achieve this balance, however, a great deal of preexisting common law criminal procedure was simplified, and some outmoded technical rules were completely eliminated.[159] Significantly, the rule of grand jury secrecy was made into positive law in subsections (d) and (e) of Rule 6.[160]

As adopted, Rule 6 included two grand jury secrecy provisions. The first provision limited who could be present during grand jury sessions,[161] while the second imposed a general rule of secrecy with specific and limited exceptions.[162] Civil adjudication and administrative regulation aided by the grand jury process were not widespread common law practices and were not contemplated in the new procedural grand jury rule.[163]

It was even unclear whether the common law permitted prosecuting attorneys in grand jury proceedings when the Constitution was adopted,[164] but the practice had become widespread by 1946.[165] Consequently, Rule 6 contained an exception that allowed automatic disclosure of "matters occurring before the grand jury, other than its deliberations and the vote of any juror"[166] to "attorneys for the government."[167] A second exception allowed witnesses to disclose their own testimony in the interests of justice.[168] The third exception allowed disclosure as directed by the supervising court "preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding."[169] The fourth and final exception, no doubt influenced by the conflict in earlier case law, allowed disclosure to a defendant for the purpose of dismissing an invalid indictment.[170]

When criminal grand jury investigations overlap with civil regulatory inquiries, the government has both procedural and cost-saving incentives to seek grand jury discovery in parallel civil or administrative proceedings.[171] The first and third exceptions allowing disclosure to "attorneys for the government" and "preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding" have therefore resulted in prolific litigation seeking broad judicial construction of the phrases.[172] The drafting history of Rule 6(e) shows how the secrecy requirement was intended to limit grand jury access by Department of Justice civil attorneys and other federal agency attorneys.

The preliminary draft of Rule 6(e) was proposed as Rule 7(e).[173] As distributed to the bench and bar, preliminary Rule 7(e) provided in part that:

A juror, attorney, interpreter, clerk, or stenographer may disclose matters occurring before the grand jury only when so directed by the court preliminarily to or in connection with another judicial proceeding or when permitted by the court at the request of the defendant upon a showing that grounds may exist for a motion to dismiss the indictment because of matters occurring before the grand jury, and in that case disclosure may also be made to the attorney for the government.[174]

Government attorneys and judges were concerned about this language,[175] which seemed to preclude the U.S. Attorney presenting a criminal case to the grand jury from obtaining grand jury transcripts without a court order.[176] Also, when Congress enacted the Rules, the courts were already experiencing the phenomenon of parallel criminal and civil (or administrative) proceedings arising from a common factual nexus.[177] Written comments submitted to the drafters focused attention on the potential use of criminal grand jury information in civil and administrative agency investigations and litigation.[178] In fact, one prescient U.S. Attorney specifically recommended tightening the language to preclude the possibility that any attorney associated with the government, whether presenting a criminal case or not, might lift the shroud of secrecy and gain access to grand jury materials for civil enforcement purposes.[179] The Advisory Committee ultimately changed the language of the draft.[180] As rewritten, the second preliminary draft of what is now Rule 6(e) included a new first sentence that opened the grand jury proceedings to the "attorneys for the government."[181]

As finally adopted, the Rule specified that grand jury materials could be disclosed to attorneys for the government "for use in the performance of their duties."[182] By way of guidance, the Advisory Committee's notes[183] stated: "Government attorneys are entitled to disclosure of grand jury proceedings, other than the deliberations and the votes of the jurors, inasmuch as they may be present in the grand jury room during the presentation of evidence."[184] Otherwise, the Rule required secrecy except under court-supervised disclosure.[185] Given the concerns the Advisory Committee addressed[186]—as well as the underlying purpose of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,[187] the arguably defendant-oriented purpose behind the witness exception,[188] and the lack of a civil enforcement agency exception[189]—the Committee intended the language adopted in Rule 6(e) to allow automatic grand jury disclosure to government attorneys only for criminal prosecutions on which they were working.[190]

V. INTERPRETATIONS OF THE 1946 SECRECY RULE

In the 1940s, the creation of many administrative agencies with overlapping criminal and civil enforcement powers exacerbated the potential use of grand jury information by civil government attorneys.[191] Two issues emerged: first, whether Congress intended Department of Justice civil attorneys and other administrative agency attorneys to have access to grand jury materials for preparation of civil cases (and if so, whether they were to have automatic access as an "attorney for the government"); and second, by what standard would a private party be allowed access to grand jury information. The lower courts disagreed over whether to permit access to grand jury materials, regardless of whether the party seeking disclosure was public[192] or private.[193]

In In re April 1956 Term Grand Jury,[194] the Seventh Circuit vigorously protected grand jury secrecy in a case that continued for almost eight years. The litigation involved criminal and civil investigations of alleged tax evasion.[195] The Department of Justice had appointed Treasury Department agents who were actively involved in both inquiries as "assistants" to the grand jury.[196] The grand jury subpoenaed documents—many of which the Treasury Department had originally requested—turned the documents over to the agent assistants, and then recessed for a week.[197] The targets of the investigation petitioned the federal district court to examine the grand jury minutes, question the grand jurors concerning the conduct of the agents, and hold in contempt any Treasury agents that had perused grand jury materials outside the scope of the grand jury investigation. The district court dismissed the petition, and the targets appealed, claiming that such misuse of grand jury powers violated their Fourth and Fifth Amendment Rights.[198] The Seventh Circuit agreed, holding that opening the envelope of grand jury secrecy to government agents becomes a constitutional violation of Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections the moment that the otherwise-protected grand jury matters are used "in any manner for the purposes" of a civil proceeding.[199] Although the court would not condone interference with the grand jury's actions in making the disclosures to the Treasury Department, it did determine that the targets of the investigation could invoke the court's supervisory powers to protect their constitutional rights.[200]

On the other hand, in In re Petroleum Industry Investigation,[201] a Virginia federal district court adopted the policy urged by the government. The court held that the government should be able to use information gained by grand jury criminal process for civil litigation.[202] The court also found that the absence of other means of gathering the evidence was irrelevant to the court's determination of whether to allow penetration of the grand jury.[203]

The D.C. Circuit articulated a third approach to the secrecy issue in Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Ass'n v. United States.[204] The court adopted a well-balanced solution: it allowed government attorneys to retain and use grand jury materials for subsequent civil proceedings, but only to the extent that those materials would have been discoverable through civil discovery devices.[205] The precise procedure outlined by the court placed the onus on the government to give the defendants notice of its intention to use grand jury materials sixty days before the civil proceeding occurred.[206] Thus, the procedure provided defendants the same opportunity to challenge the requested disclosure that they would have if the government had utilized civil investigatory devices.[207] This procedure fairly weighed the government's interest in civil law enforcement against the interest in protecting individuals from the abusive use of grand jury powers for civil discovery.

In its one-page panel order,[208] the D.C. Circuit provided the linchpin for a fair grand jury process. Although few courts have adopted the language and wisdom of Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Ass'n,[209] its importance to grand jury jurisprudence cannot be overemphasized. The order provided an equitable solution to problematic discovery issues in parallel proceedings. Thus, the court's analysis should profoundly affect the next revisitation of this issue by the Supreme Court's and any lower courts.

Having no guidance from the Supreme Court on this problematic and perplexing issue, however, courts often lifted the veil of grand jury secrecy for civil use in the decade following promulgation of Rule 6(e) by applying a standard that questioned whether "the ends of justice" demanded such disclosure.[210] The government often sought and received disclosure of grand jury materials for preparation of civil cases; consequently, civil defendants often requested reciprocal disclosure to prepare a defense. Many of the decisions granting civil defendants reciprocal access to grand jury materials in the 1940s and 1950s expressed concern for fundamental fairness of process and parity between the parties.[211] But these decisions were inconsistent, confusing, and provided no clear guidance to government counsel or defendants. The Supreme Court was slow to address this critical aspect of Rule 6(e).

VI. PROCTER & GAMBLE: A MISSED OPPORTUNITY[212]

In 1956, twelve years after promulgation of Rule 6(e), the Supreme Court first addressed the civil use of grand jury materials in United States v. Procter & Gamble Co.[21]3 Procter & Gamble was a classic "big case"[214] under the Sherman Antitrust Act.[215] Like all "big cases," this case involved possible criminal and civil liabilities[216] and engendered both criminal and civil investigations. The clash between the civil and criminal rules of procedure and the need for a definitive ruling on the use of grand jury materials in civil litigation compelled the Supreme Court to grant certiorari.

Procter & Gamble began with an eighteen-month-long grand jury investigation into possible criminal violations of the Antitrust Act by the corporation.[217] The grand jury's term expired without an indictment.[218] The United States then filed a civil enforcement action under section 4 of the Sherman Act.[219] Thereafter, the government sought and received from the district court a civil discovery order compelling Procter & Gamble to produce approximately 800 documents.[220] These same documents had been subpoenaed by the grand jury.[221] The government's civil discovery motion, in fact, identified the documents by the very exhibit numbers placed upon them when they were produced for the grand jury.[222] Procter & Gamble produced the documents and then, to prepare for trial, moved for disclosure of the entire grand jury transcript under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.[223]

Procter & Gamble claimed that the ends of justice required reciprocal access because the United States had used and would continue to use grand jury materials in its civil enforcement action.[224] The Department of Justice, arguing against reciprocal disclosure, admitted that the grand jury had been convened to investigate both criminal and civil violations of the Sherman Act,[225] and claimed a right and a duty to use grand jury materials for the preparation of related governmental civil actions.[226] The district court, while acknowledging that the government's use of grand jury materials in the civil case was not at issue,[227] took the government's nonreciprocal use of grand jury material into consideration to determine whether disclosure of the entire transcript to Procter & Gamble was warranted.

Aligning itself with earlier decisions that focused on the "ends of justice" standard in granting reciprocal access,[228] the district court ordered disclosure of the requested grand jury minutes to establish parity in trial preparation.[229] While the government's prior and continuing nonreciprocal use of grand jury transcripts was "perhaps sufficient" in and of itself to justify granting the defendant's discovery request,[230] the discovery benefit in this case, where the government had not even identified the issues for trial,[231] was of primary importance to the court's decision to lift the grand jury veil of secrecy.[232]

The government appealed to the Supreme Court on one issue: whether a private defendant could gain access to grand jury transcripts under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34.[233] The Supreme Court, like the district court, weighed the fair trial objectives of civil discovery against the "long established policy that maintains the secrecy of the grand jury proceedings . . . ."[234] The Court, while acknowledging that the United States was subject to the rules of civil discovery,[235] determined that Procter & Gamble had not met the "good cause" requirement of Rule 34.[236] The Court concluded that the "good cause" necessary to justify grand jury disclosure required a showing of "compelling necessity" without which "a defense would be greatly prejudiced or that without reference to it an injustice would be done."[237] The Court also noted that this necessity "must be shown with particularity,"[238] thus establishing a "particularized need" standard for disclosure. Applying the criteria, the Court held that Procter & Gamble would not be prejudiced merely because use of ordinary civil discovery rules would involve delay and substantial costs.[239]

While the government's use of grand jury transcripts was not directly at issue in the appeal, the Court, recognizing that the district court's decision rested heavily upon that question, noted in dictum that there had been no finding of fact that the government had used the grand jury process solely to elicit evidence for the civil proceeding.[240] The Court also noted, however, that "[i]f the prosecution were using that device, it would be flouting the policy of the law,"[241] and "wholesale discovery" to the defendant would then be an appropriate remedy.[242] Nevertheless, the Court did not find that the government's mere use of grand jury materials in Procter & Gamble presented the same concerns;[243] and, in the final analysis, the case failed to address the real issue of grand jury secrecy.

The holding of Procter & Gamble placed a heavy burden upon civil defendants seeking to gain access to grand jury materials: they either must show particularized need for the material or must prove that the prosecutor subverted the grand jury process. Moreover, the majority provided no standard for assessing either government subversion or the need for access to grand jury materials. Procter & Gamble created a substantial imbalance in civil discovery and left the lower courts in the same state of confusion as before.

Agreeing with the majority that there was no finding by the district court that the government had used the grand jury investigation for a civil purpose, Justice Whittaker, in a concurring opinion, recognized that the Department of Justice probably impaneled grand juries for precisely that purpose in similar cases.[244] Condoning this breach of the secrecy rule would, in his opinion, encourage government attorneys to abuse the grand jury process.[245] Therefore, he concluded that fundamental fairness and concerns of grand jury abuse justified requiring government attorneys to show the same particularized need for access to grand jury materials as any private litigant.[246]

The Procter & Gamble Court missed the opportunity to directly address the critical secrecy issue. The decision foreclosed trial courts from granting reciprocal disclosure to defendants for the purpose of insuring parity in discovery. Consequently, the focus of grand jury disclosure litigation inevitably shifted to the propriety of governmental breaches of the secrecy rule.

Immediately after the Supreme Court's decision, the parties resumed battle in the district court. Procter & Gamble attempted to establish a "finding of fact" that grand jury abuse had occurred.[247] For the next two years, the trial court rendered decisions that interpreted and applied the Supreme Court's guidelines to ever-expanding discovery issues.[248] The trial court first determined that proof of subversion of the grand jury process at some point during the grand jury proceeding only warranted discovery of the minutes transcribed after that time.[249] The point at which the subversion occurred identified the breach of grand jury secrecy; therefore,

[t]he critical question . . . is, when this case first became only "a civil case." From that time on, our highest court has said that using the Grand Jury to elicit evidence in that case would flout the law, would subvert criminal procedure, would require that any advantage thus obtained improperly by the Government be wiped out, by giving the opposing party the use of so much of the Grand Jury transcript as was thus obtained by a criminal procedure in a purely civil case.[250]

The court further concluded that a defendant had the right to discover government information that would prove the point at which subversion of the grand jury began,[251] holding that no presumption of regularity[252] or privilege[253] would bar such discovery.

After discovery compliance by the government revealed evidence of at least partial abuse of the grand jury proceeding, the district court made a "finding of fact" that abuse had indeed occurred.[254] Procter & Gamble immediately moved to suppress or impound all evidence gained through the breach of secrecy.[255] Finding that the Supreme Court had indicated that reciprocal access was the appropriate remedy, the court denied the motion.[256] Therefore, the court granted Procter & Gamble disclosure of grand jury testimony to the extent it had proven grand jury abuse.[257] To do otherwise, the court reasoned, would "put an end to the Government's case" and make it impossible for the Department of Justice to enforce antitrust laws.[258]

Dissatisfied with this decision, Procter & Gamble set out to prove that the government had subverted the entire grand jury proceeding. Through civil discovery, it obtained proof that the Department of Justice had convened the grand jury knowing an indictment was improbable; in fact, the government had always planned to seek a civil remedy.[259] Faced with this clear evidence, the district court granted full disclosure of grand jury transcripts to Procter & Gamble.[260] Nine years of litigation finally ended with proof of grand jury secrecy abuse that required reciprocal access in the name of fairness.

The potential for abuse of grand jury secrecy, while not the focal point of the Supreme Court's decision in Procter & Gamble, at least established such abuse as a critical concern in the context of such epic civil antitrust litigation. However, given the example of Procter & Gamble, the administration of justice would be better served by the equitable approach adopted in Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Ass'n.[261] This approach would serve the needs of civil law enforcement yet still protect the due process rights of the individual by discouraging grand jury abuse.

VII. EMERGING CONCERNS OVER ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY ACCESS TO GRAND JURY MATERIALS

Issues pertaining to the propriety of the Department of Justice's use of grand jury materials for civil litigation were not the only concerns arising from the 1946 codification of Rule 6(e). A similar question about administrative agency access to grand jury materials quickly surfaced.[262] The investigative powers of federal administrative agencies are more limited than those which a grand jury may employ in criminal investigations,[263] and agency actions are statutorily subject to judicial review.[264] Although certain federal statutes grant administrative agencies subpoena powers when they are necessary to carry out the agencies' investigative and adjudicatory functions,[265] gathering information in this manner often proves more costly and frustrating than obtaining the materials from the grand jury.[266] Thus, administrative agencies, like the Department of Justice's own civil attorneys, have attempted to seek information from a particular grand jury to circumvent their more restrictive investigation scheme. This has resulted in Rule 6(e) disclosure litigation.[267]

The Advisory Committee was aware of the agencies' role in law enforcement while drafting the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.[268] Indeed, Congress enacted the Administrative Procedure Act concurrently with the completion of the Rules.[269] Congress created the Act to establish uniform procedures for all federal agencies and to serve as a "check upon administrators whose zeal might otherwise have carried them to excesses not contemplated in legislation creating their offices."[270] Additionally, the Advisory Committee was asked specifically to resolve the issue of administrative agency access to grand jury materials.[271] Unfortunately, Rule 6(e), as finally adopted, did not do so. Thus, trial and appellate court decisions concerning disclosure to federal agencies were far from uniform.[272]

The first and leading appellate case dealing with the disclosure of grand jury material to federal agencies was Doe v. Rosenberry,[273] decided the same year as Procter & Gamble. In Rosenberry, a federal grand jury had been investigating a New York attorney's alleged criminal activity.[274] While the grand jury did not return an indictment, it did refer information concerning the attorney's activities to the New York Bar Association's Grievance Committee.[275] The Committee then sought and obtained a court order for disclosure of grand jury transcripts under Rule 6(e).[276] The attorney challenged the order on the grounds the investigation was not conducted "preliminarily to . . . a judicial proceeding" within the meaning of Rule 6(e).[277] A court cannot grant an order for disclosure, even where particularized need exists, if this threshold criterion is not met.[278] The decision in Rosenberry, therefore, turned upon the meaning of "preliminarily to."

In assessing whether disclosure was appropriate, the court employed a two-prong test: first, whether any hearing before the grievance committee was "preliminary to" any charges of unprofessional conduct that might take the matter into court; and second, whether any court proceeding was a "judicial proceeding" under the Rule.[279] The court defined a "judicial proceeding" broadly to include "any proceeding determinable by a court, having for its object the compliance of any person, subject to judicial control, with standards imposed upon his conduct in the public interest, even though such compliance is enforced without the procedure applicable to the punishment of crime."[280] Finding that the two-prong test had been met, the court upheld the disclosure order[281] but never addressed what standard of need was required before disclosure would be allowed. The court posited a test that balanced the public interest in maintaining the integrity of the bar against the appellant's interest in grand jury secrecy.[282]

Procter & Gamble, however, did set forth the standards of need for private parties seeking disclosure.[283] Whether those same standards applied to federal agencies became the subject of litigation. Initial decisions held that federal agency attorneys were not allowed automatic access as "attorney[s] for the government" under Rule 6(e)[284] and that the "particularized need" standard set forth in Procter & Gamble applied to federal agencies seeking court-ordered disclosure.[285] Some courts were not as certain that they should interpret Rule 6(e) so narrowly, however, especially where a U.S. Attorney sought a disclosure order to acquire assistance from a federal agency attorney on a criminal case being investigated by a grand jury. One case in particular that raised this issue and eventually prompted congressional action was In re William H. Pflaumer & Sons, Inc.[286]

In Pflaumer, the federal district court was confronted with the overlapping enforcement duties of the Internal Revenue Service's criminal and civil investigation divisions[287] in a racketeering and tax case against Pflaumer & Sons' beer distributing company.[288] Surveying the limited case law,[289] Judge Becker found that courts uniformly refused to condone automatic exceptions to grand jury secrecy for the IRS, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Tennessee Valley Authority.[290] However, citing the Advisory Committee's notes for Rules 6(e) and 54(c), the court found no guidance on what the drafters meant by "attorneys for the government."[291] Judge Becker, therefore, decided to grant automatic disclosure to government agency personnel under an "aegis" theory.[292] The disclosure, however, was automatic only for use in the criminal case before the grand jury.[293] In expanding the terms of Rule 6(e), Judge Becker suggested that the rule needed clarification.[294] Apart from Judge Becker's recommendation, there was no apparent urgency behind the resulting proposal to amend the Rule,[295] particularly in light of the work that had already begun on plenary grand jury reform legislation.[296]

VIII. CONGRESSIONAL ACTION

A. The 1977 Amendment

The Advisory Committee prepared five amendments[297] to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in late 1972.[298] However, the amendment proposing to clarify the first sentence of Rule 6(e)[299] was not reported to Congress until April 26, 1976.[300] It was soon afterwards that the Advisory Committee began deliberations to clarify the Rule 6(e) grand jury secrecy exceptions that had caused confusion and that were addressed by the proposed amendment. The primary focus was whether automatic disclosure of grand jury materials could be made to federal agency personnel in furtherance of the grand jury proceeding. If adopted as proposed in 1976, the Rule, it was argued, could have expanded the automatic exception to grand jury secrecy to include any employee within the federal government.[301] According to Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, grand jury investigations were a team effort that required limited secrecy breaches.[302] It was common practice for agency lawyers to be appointed as Assistant U.S. Attorneys[303] and expert witnesses, to explain evidence to the grand jury.[304] To the Department of Justice, the 1976 proposal was simply intended to make all the grand jury evidence available to every legitimate member of the team;[305] thus, the executive and judicial branches did not view Rule 6(e) as foreclosing unauthorized and automatic disclosure of grand jury material to agents of the government at the sole discretion of the prosecuting attorney conducting the grand jury investigation.[306]

Nonreciprocal disclosure of grand jury materials to government agents would have created an unacceptable imbalance between the government and defendants in subsequent civil regulatory proceedings.[307] The 1976 proposal attracted substantial criticism.[308] It was, however, apparent that Rule 6(e) needed congressional attention.[309]

The well-documented abuses of the grand jury process by the executive branch under President Nixon made the legislative branch skeptical of the judicial branch and unlikely to rubber stamp judicial promulgations of new grand jury rules.[310] Consequently, a year later, on April 11, 1977, the House Committee on the Judiciary formally disapproved the substantive amendment[311] to Rule 6(e).[312] The Senate Committee redrafted the Rule.[313] Eschewing the House plan to consider the exceptions to secrecy as part of an overall reform bill,[314] the Senate recommended passage, and Congress finally adopted the proposed amendment, as modified, on July 30, 1977.[315] It parsed Rule 6(e) into enumerated paragraphs,[316] beginning with the general rule of secrecy and delimiting exceptions to that general rule.[317] As explained in the Senate Report recommending passage, subparagraph (A) defined "automatic" but expressly limited disclosure exceptions to "an attorney for the government" and those personnel necessary to assist that attorney in the enforcement of criminal law.[318] The Advisory Committee's notes to the 1977 amendment are in accord with the Senate Report and show an intention to limit disclosure, but only for the criminal case under consideration.[319] To strengthen court supervision and resolve potential claims of improper automatic disclosure, the Senate substitute also added to subparagraph (B) new language that required a record of the personnel obtaining automatic access to grand jury material under subparagraph (A).[320] Thus, the new language of Rule 6(e), congressional intent, and the Advisory Committee's position demonstrate that disclosure is automatic only when the material is sought to aid criminal prosecutions. The 1977 amendment did not affect the court-order exception by which access could be gained for civil use.[321] As part of the inevitable congressional compromise, however, the Senate Report included language that seemingly encouraged court-ordered disclosure for civil or regulatory purposes.[322] Thus, the resolution of the 1977 Rule 6 amendment, which reflected the never-ending dichotomy between law enforcement and the rights of the accused, presented questions for further litigation. The language of the amendment was ambiguous enough to leave open an argument that the criminal law limitation applied only to personnel assisting the grand jury and did not foreclose automatic disclosure to civil attorneys for civil use.[323] Hence, the 1977 Amendment still failed to resolve the questions of civil use that emerged even prior to the 1946 codification.

B. 1981 Amendment Proposal

In October 1981, the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure circulated a thoroughly amended preliminary draft of Rule 6(e) to the bench, bar, and media.[324] The secrecy revisions included:

(1) a definition of "matters occurring" in 6(e)(2);[325]

(2) an express provision limiting disclosure only to an "attorney for the government" for criminal enforcement purposes in 6(e)(3)(A)(i);[326]

(3) an additional exception under 6(e)(3)(C) allowing disclosure when a party in another proceeding has an independent basis for subpoenaing grand jury evidence;[327]

(4) an additional exception under 6(e)(3)(C) allowing disclosure to another federal grand jury;[328]

(5) a new section 6(e)(3)(D) establishing venue for disclosure petitions and affording interested parties notice of the petitions plus an opportunity to be heard;[329]

(6) guidelines in a new section 6(e)(3)(E) for transferring grand jury materials to another federal district;[330]

(7) a new section 6(e)(5) providing for closed hearings on matters relating to grand jury proceedings in order to keep secret past and pending or continuing grand jury proceedings;[331] and

(8) a new section 6(e)(6) requiring grand jury records, orders, and subpoenas to be kept under seal.[332]

Two years later, the Supreme Court transmitted slightly modified versions of proposals four through eight to Congress for adoption.[333] The amendments strengthened the shroud of secrecy surrounding grand jury proceedings but ultimately did not address the civil access issues that have persisted since Procter & Gamble.

The first and third proposals were a response to the confusion over what constituted "matters occurring."[334] The two proposals were withdrawn because, according to the Advisory Committee chairman, they were unnecessary.[335] An examination of the next ten years of reported cases leads to the opposite conclusion, however.[336] Clarifying the definition in the rule would have extended the shroud of secrecy over all the material subpoenaed by a grand jury and would have avoided litigation on the technicalities of how a grand jury uses books, papers, and documents. Instead, litigation over "matters occurring" proliferated, and the resulting decisions have not been uniform.[337]

The second proposal, which would have explicitly limited disclosure to government attorneys "to enforce federal criminal law," was withdrawn by the Advisory Committee because the Supreme Court granted certiorari[338] to decide whether the automatic disclosure exception for "attorneys for the government" extended to government civil attorneys.

IX. SELLS AND BAGGOT

In 1983, the United States Supreme Court finally and directly addressed the government's civil use of grand jury materials in United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc.[339] and United States v. Baggot.[340] Sells dealt with the Department of Justice's use of grand jury material for civil litigation, while Baggot addressed the issue of federal administrative agency access.[341] Both cases, perhaps influenced by the proposed 1982 amendment, and certainly influenced by concerns of fundamental fairness addressed in lower court opinions, tightened the restrictions on civil use of grand jury material.

A. United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc.

In Sells, the Supreme Court revisited the issues presented in Procter & Gamble, which Congress had consistently failed to clarify. The Sells Court definitively determined the standards by which Department of Justice attorneys could gain access to grand jury materials for use in civil actions.

Sells, like Procter & Gamble, involved parallel criminal and civil investigations[342] and consequently raised the issue of misuse of the grand jury process.[343] The case began as an IRS administrative audit of Sells Engineering, Inc. and related parties.[344] The IRS, seeking the production of records in the investigation, issued administrative summonses, many of which the affected parties challenged.[345] The federal district court ordered enforcement of all of the summonses except those pertaining to one partnership.[346] Enforcement of the summonses was stayed pending an appeal of the decision.[347] During the wait, the IRS referred the case to the Department of Justice for investigation into possible criminal charges of fraud and income tax evasion.[348] The Justice Department convened a grand jury, which issued subpoenas[349] that requested essentially the same materials sought by the IRS summonses.[350] The documents were produced for the grand jury and, consequently, the IRS did not pursue enforcement of the administrative summonses.[351]

As a result of its investigation, the grand jury indicted Sells Engineering and two of its officers, Peter Sells and Fred Witte, for conspiracy to defraud the government and for tax evasion. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the indictments, claiming abuse of the grand jury's function.[352] However, late in the evening of the day before the motion was scheduled to be heard, the parties reached agreement on a favorable plea bargain (particularly as to sentencing), and the defendants entered guilty pleas.[353] The defendants also withdrew their complaints of grand jury misuse.[354]

After the pleas were entered, the government moved for disclosure of the grand jury materials to attorneys in the civil fraud division of the Department of Justice for use in a possible civil suit. The district court granted this request on the grounds that the civil division attorneys had automatic access as attorneys for the government under Rule 6(e)(A)(i). On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that civil attorneys only could gain access by meeting the standard originally set forth in Procter & Gamble.[355] The Supreme Court granted certiorari.[356]

Writing for the Court, Justice Brennan focused on the general reasons for grand jury secrecy, the limited policy reasons for granting government attorneys access to grand jury materials in criminal cases, and the legislative history of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 6(e).[357] Analyzing the historical perspective behind grand jury secrecy,[358] the Court revived the forgotten notion that the secret grand jury process was created to protect the individual from unfair and unfounded accusations.[359] Justice Brennan also recognized the grand jury's broad investigatory powers (without which it would be unable to decide whether to indict[360]) as well as its need for secrecy to gather the information necessary to determine whether probable cause existed to indict.[361]

The majority then analyzed the legislative history of Rule 6(e) and concluded that the Justice Department's own representative,[362] as well as the Advisory Committee's notes,[363] demonstrated that Congress had never intended disclosure for civil purposes and that Congress would have to make clear its intention to bypass the important rule of secrecy.[364]

Examining the limited policy reasons for granting government attorneys access to grand jury materials, Justice Brennan questioned the wisdom of giving access at all, even to prosecutors.[365] However, he recognized that a modern grand jury would be severely limited without the assistance of an attorney for the government to present evidence and explain the law; moreover, the prosecutor would have difficulty determining whether to prosecute a case if not informed of the evidence going before the grand jury.[366] Nevertheless, Justice Brennan saw no similar policy reasons for extending disclosure to government civil attorneys.[367] In fact, he noted several reasons to preclude civil attorneys from gaining access to grand jury materials.

First, disclosure increased the number of people having information and thus inherently increased the risk of illegal leaks.[368] Second, disclosure posed a threat to the functioning of the grand jury by raising the possibility an attorney would use a witness's statements against the witness in a later civil forum.[369] Third, disclosure threatened the integrity of the grand jury itself: if prosecutors knew that grand jury information might be helpful to their civil colleagues, they would be tempted to elicit evidence for that purpose.[370] Such misconduct not only would subvert the grand jury process, but also would be difficult to prove if it did occur.[371] Fourth, Justice Brennan found that use of grand jury material for civil purposes would subvert the civil discovery process as well.[372] Discussing this fourth reason, he explained:

To allow these agencies to circumvent their usual methods of discovery would not only subvert the limitations and procedural requirements built into those methods, but would grant to the Government a virtual ex parte form of discovery, from which its civil litigation opponents are excluded unless they make a strong showing of particularized need.[373]

Implicit in this analysis is Justice Brennan's recognition of the fundamental fairness issues presented by the discovery proceedings attacked in Sells. Thus, the Court determined that use of the grand jury process to aid agency civil lawsuits must not undermine grand jury secrecy.

Observing that the primary interest of the government civil attorney was to save time and expense through access to the grand jury investigation,[374] Justice Brennan stated that "[w]e have consistently rejected the argument that such savings can justify a breach of grand jury secrecy."[375] Consequently, the Court held that government civil attorneys must obtain a court order to obtain disclosure of grand jury materials for civil use.[376]

The Sells Court based much of its decision on its apparent acceptance of the Ninth Circuit's premise that automatic disclosure encouraged abuse of the grand jury process.[377] Interestingly, the Department of Justice argued that denial of automatic disclosure to civil attorneys exacerbated the potential for grand jury abuse because Rule 6(e) did not preclude assigning responsibility for both criminal and civil liability to a single attorney.[378] Strict enforcement against disclosure, it contended, would therefore "foster grand jury abuse by encouraging such dual assignments."[379] The Supreme Court left that argument unanswered.[380]

After concluding that a court order was necessary for disclosure, the Court then addressed the standard of need the government had to meet. Finding that the government attorneys must show the same particularized compelling need as private litigants,[381] the Court indicated that the balancing test could take into consideration the "public interest" in disclosure to the government, as well as any alternative discovery tools available to obtain such information.[38]2 Thus, Sells, relying upon the importance of grand jury secrecy, foreclosed automatic disclosure of grand jury materials to government attorneys for use in civil proceedings. The Sells balancing test, which takes alternative discovery devices into consideration, comes close to the test this author advocates;[383] unlike the method proposed in Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Ass'n, however, the Sells test fails to set forth a workable method for weighing these interests. Further, one primary distinction between Sells and the proposed test is that Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Ass'n precludes disclosure for civil purposes of information that government attorneys could not obtain through the government's civil investigative devices. This would ensure that evidence obtainable through use of the grand jury's extraordinarily broad powers but not through civil discovery—such as immunized, self-incriminating testimony—would never form the basis of a civil lawsuit.

B. United States v. Baggot

Having decided in Sells that disclosure to the Civil Division of the Department of Justice required a court order, the Supreme Court turned to interpreting Rule 6(e) as it applied to federal administrative agencies.[384] United States v. Baggot[385] involved a large-scale investigation into possible criminal violations of the Commodities Exchange Act and the Internal Revenue Code.[386] The investigation spanned two grand jury terms and targeted James Baggot.[387] As a result of plea negotiations, Baggot was not indicted but pled guilty to two misdemeanor violations of the Commodities Exchange Act.[388] Part of the plea bargain required Baggot to read to the grand jury a government-prepared statement based upon his confession during the plea negotiations.[389] The Department of Justice then filed a motion for disclosure of the grand jury transcripts to the Internal Revenue Service for use in a tax audit against Baggot.[390]

The government contended that the historical precedent of disclosing grand jury material to the IRS justified its continuation, arguing that the 1977 legislative history showed congressional awareness of the practice.[391] The Baggot Court faced the same issues that arose in Doe v. Rosenberry.[392] The threshold question was thus "whether the IRS's civil tax audit is 'preliminar[y] to or in connection with a judicial proceeding' under (C)(i)."[393] The Court concluded that it was not.[394]

Writing again for the majority in this long-awaited and definitive ruling, Justice Brennan stated that the language of Rule 6(e)(3)(C)(i) "contemplate[d] only uses related fairly directly to some identifiable litigation, pending or anticipated,"[395] stressing that the focus of this exception was on the actual use to be made of the requested materials.[396] The Court found that this language reflected "a judgment that not every beneficial purpose, or even every valid governmental purpose, is an appropriate reason for breaching grand jury secrecy."[397] The Court also noted that because the IRS's tax assessments were self-executing, no necessity existed for a judicial proceeding.[398] Allowing disclosure in this circumstance, where the primary use of the grand jury materials was for an extrajudicial proceeding,[399] would have abrogated the rule.[400] While the Court's decision left unanswered many questions regarding administrative agency access,[401] and apparently was confined to consideration of IRS procedures, it effectively closed the door on agency use of grand jury materials for purely administrative purposes.[402]

As a result of Baggot and Sells, government attorneys who sought access to grand jury materials for civil or administrative use clearly would have to obtain them through a court order. Although these cases provided a prophylactic bright-line rule that protected the individual against government abuse, they did so at the expense of government efficiency. Controversy over these rulings arose immediately.

X. 1985 AMENDMENT TO RULE 6(E)

In 1985, the Supreme Court again strengthened the secrecy language of Rule 6(e) by requiring attorneys for the government to certify to the supervising court that they had expressly advised persons obtaining automatic access to grand jury information under subsection (A)(ii) of their obligation to keep grand jury information secret.[403] In addition to this amendment, Rule 6(e) was at the same time expanded to permit disclosure of information to enhance state criminal prosecutions.[404] This expansion of Rule 6(e) to aid state prosecutions marked the beginning of an executive branch effort to dilute the protective role of the grand jury.

The Department of Justice acknowledged the limitations placed upon their civil investigatory process by Sells and Baggot. The current Department of Justice Manual, citing Sells, clearly instructs that "[d]isclosure to government attorneys and their assistants for use in a civil suit is permissible only with a court order under Rule 6(e)(3)(C)(i)."[405] The Manual further concedes that "it is clear that Rule 6(e) does not authorize disclosure to attorneys for other federal government agencies."[406] The Manual outlines the procedure and standard by which a federal agency may obtain grand jury materials, explaining that "[a] failure to demonstrate sufficient need can result in the denial of a request for otherwise permissible disclosure."[407] While the Department of Justice outwardly indicated its reluctant compliance with the mandates of Sells and Baggot, the Manual also clearly enunciates the Department's "position that the particularized need requirement is inapplicable when grand jury materials are sought for federal law enforcement purposes."[408]

Notwithstanding the certification and state enhancement amendments, a congressional stalemate developed between members who favored strengthening the enforcement/investigative role of the grand jury and those who favored strengthening its protective/investigative role. This clash was epitomized by two diametrically opposed grand jury measures introduced in 1985.

From May 1985 until August 1986, hearings were held in the House of Representatives on Representative John Conyer's Model Grand Jury Act.[409] The purpose of the proposed Act was to inject comprehensive due process safeguards into grand jury proceedings and insure their protective role.[410] The proposal died in committee[411] and was the last major effort by Congress at federal grand jury reform.[412]

The first major legislative effort to undermine the protective role of Rule 6(e) began soon thereafter. On September 18, 1985, Representative George Gekas introduced House Bill 3340, the Grand Jury Disclosure Amendments Act.[413] Two days later, Senator Strom Thurmond introduced virtually the same bill[414] as part of the Reagan Administration's legislative initiative aimed at fraud in government procurement.[415] The Department of Justice initiated the Grand Jury Disclosure Amendments Act[416] to overcome the "impediments" created by Sells and Baggot.[417] The proposed legislation also purported to answer the question left open in Sells by permitting the same federal prosecutor to use grand jury materials in a companion civil case.[418] During the congressional debate over these proposed amendments the Supreme Court granted certiorari in United States v. John Doe, Inc.[419]

XI. UNITED STATES V. JOHN DOE, INC.

United States v. John Doe, Inc.[420] was a case in which the Department of Justice convened a grand jury as part of a criminal antitrust investigation against several American corporations for price-fixing in tallow sales to foreign countries.[421] Although the targeted corporation challenged jurisdiction under the Sherman Act,[422] the grand jury investigation continued for two years, after which time the Department of Justice "tentatively concluded" that the companies had violated the Sherman Act but that it would not seek indictments.[423] After the grand jury's dismissal, the Department of Justice immediately began civil proceedings with the same attorneys who had conducted the criminal investigation.[424] The attorneys issued to the companies Civil Investigative Demands that were "essentially copies of earlier grand jury subpoenas."[425] Two of the companies refused to comply with the Civil Investigative Demands.[426] As a result of the civil investigation, the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department concluded that the companies had violated the Sherman Act and possibly the False Claims Act as well.[427] The Antitrust Division attorneys then requested and received a Rule 6(e) order allowing disclosure of grand jury materials for consultation with the Justice Department's Civil Division attorneys.[428] The "John Doe" corporation moved to vacate the order and requested that the government be enjoined from using grand jury materials in the civil suit.[429] The government attorneys admitted using grand jury materials to prepare for the civil action.[430] The Second Circuit held that the Justice Department's Criminal Division attorneys could not continue to use grand jury materials in the subsequent civil proceeding.[431]

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to answer the question left open in Sells: whether government attorneys who conducted a criminal investigation could continue to use grand jury material for preparation of a civil suit.[432] The second issue on appeal was whether disclosure could be made to the Justice Department's Civil Division attorney's for consultation on the False Claims Act suit.[433] Consequently, the case also presented an opportunity for the Court to apply the "particularized need" test to a request by the government for disclosure.[434]

Addressing the first issue, the Court focused on "the plain meaning" of the term "disclosure" under Rule 6(e)[435] and determined that no "disclosure" occurred where an attorney, who legitimately obtained information from a grand jury, reviewed that information in preparing a civil suit.[436] However, the Court specifically narrowed this ruling to allow only "refamiliariz[ation]" of grand jury material by the attorney who conducted the grand jury proceeding.[437] The Court forbade any use of the materials in the pleadings or proceeding that might disclose the information to any other parties.[438] Although its holding on this issue was narrowly drawn to allow only refamiliarization, the Court, in taking this "plain meaning" approach, ignored the Sells analysis of potential grand jury abuse and concerns of fundamental fairness of process.[439]

Turning to the second issue, and confirming that the government was subject to the "particularized need" test as first set forth in Procter & Gamble,[440] the Court concluded that the test could be more easily met by the government than a private party.[441] Balancing "the public benefits of the disclosure" against "the dangers created by the limited disclosure requested,"[442] the Court identified a public interest in the efficient, effective, and evenhanded enforcement of federal statutes, and focused primarily on avoidance of the costs and delays involved in duplicating grand jury investigations.[443] Balanced against those interests were the concerns of fair process expressed in Sells.[44]4 The Doe Court concluded that the benefit of avoiding the cost and delay of reproducing grand jury material outweighed the interests in grand jury secrecy, and granted disclosure to the Civil Division attorneys.[445]

The Doe Court's reliance upon the law enforcement interest undercut the holding of Sells. It also partially achieved the Department of Justice's goal of overcoming the protective "impediments" of Sells.[446] Justice Brennan, dissenting in Doe, criticized the majority by observing that the focus in Sells was on the "actual use" of grand jury information.[447] The Doe Court, focusing on who accessed the information rather than the purpose of such access, bypassed the very real concerns of grand jury abuse and fundamental fairness of process raised in Sells, as well as the Department of Justice's own admission that the practice of granting dual assignments to one attorney would "foster" such abuse.[448] Further, Doe ignored the Sells Court's concern that abuse, if it occurred, would be virtually impossible to show,[449] particularly where the defendant may be unable to obtain the grand jury transcripts necessary to prove abuse.[450] This unfairness demonstrates the reality that individuals caught in the Doe vice cannot adequately test the merits of the government's theory of liability. In fact, as early as Procter & Gamble, litigants recognized that civil enforcement interests might subvert the grand jury into a civil discovery tool.[451] Moreover, in Sells, Justice Brennan recognized that the exercise of the grand jury's extraordinary powers solely for civil investigations gave an unfair advantage to the government as a civil plaintiff[452] and left the defendant with an extremely difficult case to defend. Consequently, Doe gave the Department of Justice access to grand jury information through the backdoor in a manner clearly prohibited by the Court's prior ruling in Sells.

Perhaps more damaging to the Sells notion of fairness in the civil arena is the Doe Court's conclusion that cost and delay may be sufficient to prove "particularized need" for government access.[453] Procter & Gamble explicitly rejected this justification when a civil defendant sought access to prepare for trial against the government,[454] while Sells rejected cost and delay as a sole justification for government access.[455] As a result of this retreat from Sells, information that may be critical for trial preparation can be granted to the government but denied to the defendant. This imbalance goes directly against the purpose behind the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure[456] and the concept of fundamental fairness. At a time when civil sanctions can be as punishing, if not more so, than some criminal penalties,[457] one must question whether issues of cost and delay alone should outweigh the interests in a fair trial process.

This Article's proposed solution, the Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Ass'n procedure, would take into consideration the cost and delay to the government of duplicating grand jury investigations for a subsequent civil action. Unlike the Doe decision, however, the procedure would require a showing by the government prior to disclosure that it could have obtained the materials through civil investigatory devices. Further, the defendant would receive notice of the potential disclosure, which would enable him or her to challenge the disclosure and raise the issue of grand jury abuse. This process eliminates duplication of investigations to the extent that civil attorneys could have obtained the material, while also eliminating disclosure of those materials that the civil attorneys could not have obtained. Unlike the Doe solution, the method provides no incentive to misuse the grand jury process because civil attorneys will gain no information they could not have gained through their own civil investigatory devices. Also, because materials sought from the grand jury become exposed to the defendant at the disclosure hearing and prior to filing of the civil complaint, the Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Ass'n solution provides more incentive for the government to utilize civil investigatory tools. Further, because the materials are obtainable through civil discovery, the defendant will always gain reciprocal access to fully prepare for trial. The solution would eliminate the imbalance of discovery Doe and Procter & Gamble engendered.

XII. GRAND JURY SECRECY AFTER DOE.

Congress never passed the Reagan Administration bills that were proposed in 1985 to overcome the "impediments" of Sells and Baggot.[458] They did not disappear, however, and surfaced again in a new form in the Senate version of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA).[459] Section 918 of the Senate version included language virtually identical to that proposed in the Grand Jury Disclosure Amendments Act of 1985.[460] When the House and Senate joined in conference, however, they discarded section 918.[461] What survived was an amendment[462] authorizing automatic disclosure of grand jury information concerning a banking law violation to the Resolution Trust Corporation attorney responsible for investigating such violations.[463] The decision to grant automatic access is now in the discretion of the Department of Justice attorney handling the grand jury investigation.[464] Additionally, the FIRREA amendment reduced the Rule 6(e) standard for court-ordered disclosure of banking law violations from "particularized need" to "substantial need" in situations where the Department of Justice declines to grant automatic disclosure.[465] This provision, which runs afoul of Rule 6(e) as interpreted by Sells and Baggot, has not yet been tested in the courts.[466]

The Bush Administration also attempted to get specific disclosure for securities law violations by seeking to include a disclosure provision in The Securities Law Enforcement Act of 1990.[467] The disclosure provision was made a part of the Senate version of the bill but the House did not approve it.[468] In 1994, both the House and the Senate drafted health insurance acts that included FIRREA-like amendments.[469] At the close of 1995, a FIRREA-like amendment to fight fraudulent Medicare practices was included in the Medicare Preservation Act of 1995.[470] Perhaps the most subversive legislative exception to Rule 6(e) secrecy is the International Antitrust Enforcement Assistance Act of 1994 (IAEAA).[471] President Clinton signed the IAEAA into law on November 2, 1994.[472] This remarkable act, which represents a radical departure from the accepted practice of legislative drafting,[473] penetrates the grand jury secrecy protections of Rule 6(e) by expanding the definition of a "state" under 6(e)(3(C)(iv)[474] to include foreign countries, and by defining a "state criminal law" as "a foreign antitrust law" and "an appropriate official" as "a foreign antitrust authority."[475] Given the proliferation of legislation granting specific rights of automatic disclosure for federal agencies' civil use, it seems clear that such legislation is also circumventing the "impediments" and teachings of Baggot.

In his recent article, Professor Graham Hughes questioned whether FIRREA might be the "crack that will eventually cause the collapse of the whole dam" in grand jury secrecy.[476] In light of the recent legislation incorporating disclosure clauses, the answer, unfortunately, appears to be yes. While the legislative provisions have not been constitutionally tested, efforts to enact greater executive branch use of the grand jury process for civil purposes apparently will continue,[477] although not all of them have met with success.[478] The movement toward the erosion of Rule 6(e) hopefully will yield to a more reasoned analysis along the lines of the proposal in Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Ass'n, which would preserve to the greatest extent possible the historical importance of grand jury secrecy.

XIII. THE MARYLAND & VIRGINIA MILK PRODUCERS ASS'N SOLUTION

This Article envisions the use in parallel criminal and civil regulatory investigations of a process that would eliminate the all-or-nothing approach of prior court decisions. This process reaches a compromise between the competing interests of government efficiency and the need to protect individuals from an overreaching executive branch.

If the Procter & Gamble Court had applied the Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Ass'n procedure, it would have eliminated nine years of litigation. Government prosecutors would have been required to notify Procter & Gamble of their intent to disclose grand jury materials to civil attorneys. Having notice,[479] Procter & Gamble would then have had the opportunity to challenge the disclosure at a hearing, where prosecutors would have borne the burden of proving to the court that all information to be disclosed would be discoverable to the government civil attorneys through civil investigative devices. At this hearing, Procter & Gamble would have been given the opportunity to challenge that proof, just as they would have if the government had used civil investigatory devices. All materials the court deemed subject to disclosure at the hearing would likewise have been discoverable to Procter & Gamble under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure once the complaint was filed.[480] Materials the court found were not subject to disclosure at the hearing could not have been used in the subsequent civil proceeding.[481] Any information the government gained without the aid of the grand jury would not have been exposed prior to filing of the complaint.[482] This process would save the cost of duplicate investigations while eliminating the temptation to use the grand jury process as a civil discovery device[483] and would maintain the balance of civil discovery.

Further, the D.C. Circuit's solution would result in a more expeditious determination of civil actions. If both parties knew from the case's inception that evidence is nondiscoverable through either grand jury access or civil investigatory devices, they would be able to gauge the probable trial outcome. Thus, this process would achieve the goals of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and further law enforcement objectives without sacrificing the integrity of the grand jury system.

XIV. CONCLUSION

"The history of American freedom is, in no small measure, the history of procedure."[484] The Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment protects individuals against oppression by the government. The procedural rule governing grand jury secrecy is a substantial part of that protection, yet it has been the subject of extensive litigation where parallel civil and criminal government investigations threaten to compromise that secrecy. When the government seeks to penetrate secrecy to aid civil regulatory actions, courts should balance the interests advanced by the parties against the standard of fairness implicit in constitutional due process. Courts must balance consideration of the costs and delay in compelling the government to duplicate grand jury investigations in parallel or subsequent civil actions against the civil defendant's concern for the secrecy of grand jury proceedings. Use of the grand jury's extraordinary powers will give prosecutors incredible pretrial and trial advantages over future civil targets, especially where those powers are otherwise unavailable through authorized civil discovery tools.

While cost-effective civil law enforcement is a crucial issue in this era of alarming governmental deficits, coalescing the civil and criminal processes in the manner recommended by Professor Hughes is not the most equitable alternative in terms of fair process to the individual. Our justice system has survived on principles that preserve individual civil liberties and due process. From the perspective of those who founded a country by revolution against an overreaching and tyrannical government, arguing for efficiency at the cost of fair process is equivalent to advocating a return to the monarchy.[485]

Application of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) must balance the need for enforcing laws against the necessity of safeguarding fundamental rights. Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Ass'n presented a common-sense solution to the issue of grand jury secrecy in the environment of parallel proceedings. On this fiftieth anniversary of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Supreme Court and Congress should revisit the issue and decisively establish this equitable principle as an amendment to Rule 6(e). The following would modify Rule 6(e)(C)(i) in an appropriate manner:

(i) when so directed by a court preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding upon the following showing:

(a) In civil regulatory proceedings involving the government, the government must prove grand jury matters sought to be used by the government in the civil proceeding would be obtainable through civil investigatory devices. Where the government obtains disclosure under such showing, the private opponent may discover these grand jury materials under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(b) Where the government seeks disclosure of grand jury materials for use in a civil proceeding pursuant to subsection (a), notice must be given to the opponent and an adversarial hearing open only to the prosecutor and potential civil defendant and counsel must be conducted prior to disclosure.

(c) In civil proceedings involving private parties, compelling particularized need for grand jury matter must be shown although the material may be discoverable under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(d) Disclosure determinations for private litigants pursuant to subsection (c) may be ex parte.

APPENDIX

"ORDER"[486]

During the grand jury proceedings which preceded these criminal cases, the United States obtained and copied thousands of documents from the files of the Maryland and Virginia Milk Producers Association. After the cases had terminated favorably to the Association, the Government returned to it the original documents but refused to return the copies, claiming them as its own property and saying it will or possibly may rely upon some of them in the trial of a civil action now pending in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

The Association moved the District Court to require the return of the copies. The motion was denied, the trial judge holding that, as the documents could be reached by the Government through discovery process in the civil action, it would be vain to order the copies delivered to the Association. This appeal is from the denial of the motion.

We hold the United States may retain the copies of the documents in question, subject to the following limitations:

1. That it may use in the trial of the pending civil action only such of the documents, of which it has retained copies, as it could obtain through discovery processes applicable to civil actions, and only such as are enumerated by it as those upon which it will or possibly may rely, in a list to be served upon the Association on or before March 1, 1958, and in no event less than 60 days prior to the commencement of such trial;

2. That the United States may use in the trial of any future civil action against the Association only such of the documents, of which it has retained copies, as it could obtain through discovery processes available to civil actions and only such as are enumerated by it as those upon which it will or possibly may rely, in a list to served upon the Association not less than 60 days prior to the commencement of the trial of any such future civil action;

3. That in the lists the documents intended to be relied upon shall be described and referred to by the identification numbers placed thereon by the Association at the time of their submission.

The order appealed from should be modified to include the foregoing provisions.

2009-05-01T19:09:00.000-05:00

DUE TO THE MONEY INVOLVED!

Local and Federal Government's gross income in 1999 was 8.5 trillion dollars and the entire population's of the USA gross income, "net after taxation" 4.8 trillion dollars.

Would you like to see the Government Accounting Office (GAO) Audit of the IRS?

Then CLICK HERE (to save this file you have to scroll to the end of the report for it to finish uploading then it can be saved)

Jump to page 89 and 90. (Data for the 1999 report gives 1997's info shown)

Personal individual income of the USA is listed as 5 trillion dollars (add across all in Gross Income column) and

Corporate at 15.5 trillion dollars (add across all in Total Receipts column) .

After Corporate deductions it left the largest corporations with about a 1.5% tax bill and

for personal income (page 89) after deductions for the largest personal individual incomes a 27.04% tax bill.

Smile Comrade, it could be worse? Or could it?

2009-05-01T10:19:00.001-05:00

Under the guise of the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, which is a Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, 199 Senate Russell Building, Washington, DC 20510, represented by Democrats Carl Levin Chairman (D-MI), Thomas R. Carper (D-DE), Mark L. Pryor (D-AR), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Jon Tester (D-MT), Michael Bennet (D-CO), and Republicans Tom Coburn Acting Ranking Member (R-OK), Susan M. Collins (R-ME), John McCain (R-AZ), and John Ensign (R-NV), the IRS has merged with certain arrogant government tyrants in the name of the Department of Homeland Security to produce the Biggest Conspiracy I have ever seen. It's got RICO all over it, but because the set of foreign trusts represented as the IRS now extend to the Department of Homeland Security where action have gone international it is bigger than anyone can ever imagine.

BACKGROUND ON THE IRS

It was the Act of July 1, 1862 which created the Office of the Commissioner of the IRS (Glavey v. United States, 182 U.S. 595, 607, 21 S.Ct. 891 (1901)), but that Act (and associated acts) was repealed by the adoption of the Revised Statutes of 1873 and "direct taxes [within the 48 continental united states] without apportionment was forbidden" (See Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 (1895); Chas. C. Steward Mach. Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582 (1937)).

Knowledge of this fact was, in part, the reason we brought our Qui Tam Action (Case No. 08-cv-0280) against the Named Accused "Government Contractor (the IRS)" as the Trust (internal revenue) listed at 31 USC § 1321(a)(2) which was created under the passage of Reorganization Act No. 1189 dated July 2, 1904, and which resulted in the creation of the offices of "Bureau of Internal Revenue" on August 1, 1904.

HOW THIS RELATES TO OUR SUIT AGAINST THE IRS

We identified the Trust listed at 31 USC § 1321(a)(2) simply because (1) it preexisted the similar Trust (Internal Revenue) listed at 31 USC § 1321(a)(62) and (2), the Trust (Internal Revenue) listed at 31 USC § 1321(a)(62) simply extended the same Taxing Powers to Puerto Rico as another of the United States' possessions since 1898, becoming a commonwealth in 1952, and because 50 USC § 1801(o) defines the term "State" so as to have meanings which include any "State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and any territory or possession of the United States" and because, (3) the Act of July 1, 1862 was repealed by the adoption of the Revised Statutes of 1873.

What all of this means in the context of the various sections of US Code including 31 USC § 3801(6) and 26 USC § 7701(a)(1) is that the Trust itself is a "person" liable for the acts of a Commissioner and/or Internal Revenue Officers in which operations exist outside of the Trust's geographical application (i.e., in this case even when the word "State" its' meaning is such that it is limited in terms of the nation's federal district(s) including District of Columbia relative to insular possessions of the United States) and finally, (5) given that (a) the Act of July 1, 1862 was repealed by the adoption of the Revised Statutes of 1873, (b) the taxing authority authorized pursuant to Article 4 § 3(2) involves a jurisdiction of the Trust listed at 31 USC § 1321(a)(2) which is limited in terms of the insular possessions of the United States and/or the District of Columbia (i.e., the nation's federal district(s)), and as such, we have submitted that cases like Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 441, 6 S.Ct. 1121 (1886) are a testimony to our assertions that when Congress has never authorized the Named Accused "Government Contractor (31 USC § 1321(a)(2)) to operate or encroach into 50 States of the Union and is therefore is liable for the acts of a Commissioner and/or Internal Revenue Officers in which operations exist outside of the Trust's geographical application (i.e., limited in terms of the nation's federal district(s) including the District of Columbia relative to insular possessions of the United States) which violate the fundamental rights of the People for which there is protection in the Federal Constitution (see Chas. C. Steward Mach. Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582 (1937)).

And of course, knowledge of all this was a part of the reason my wife and I filed our "public interest suit" which involves many Constitutional Rights Violations including Peonage, Major Fraud, Mail and Bank Fraud, and sets forth thirty-eight pages of Causes of Action, listing fifty-eight separate Causes of Action which have been developed against the IRS as a Government Contractor rather than the United States. Causes of Action include that IRS Officials were involved in the suppression of evidence submitted to the Senate Finance Committee (Exhibit 3), following which IRS Officials publicly announced that WTP Petitions were being responded to with enforcement actions (Exhibit 4). All of this, of course, has been followed by many other enforcement actions essentially meant to overthrow the Constitution and have even been perpetrated upon the District Court in which falsified damages/and IRS falsification of damages (False Claims) includes Fraud upon the Court in a § 6700 suit against our participating organization (United States of America v. Robert L. Schulz, We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc., and We the People Congress (Case No. 1:07-cv-0352)), in violation of our Rights of Privacy and Free Association.

Anyone interested in our case can look at our site at www.greenes.us and ALL of our case documents are presented at http://www.greenes.us/civildocket.html. Our Appeal Brief and the Appendix to Appeal Brief were recorded as having been received the week of 02/26/2009, and now the Appellant Section for the IRS had requested an extension of time of 21 days, to May 11, 2009, and the Order and Scheduling Order #3 has been filed, where the IRS's (Appellee's) brief is expected to be served and filed on or before 05/11/2009. I already got all the ink and paper I will need for the next round of paperwork. After which, the Argument of the Appeal may be heard as early as the week of 06/22/2009, and I'll still need help with the traveling expenses and parking fees, etc., to go down to the Court of Appeal in New York City to present the Appeal.

BUT AGAIN, IT IS BIGGER THAN ANYONE CAN EVER IMAGINE

One must consider the fact that what myself and my wife have gotten into here is bigger than anyone can ever imagine, for now under the guise of the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, which is a Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, 199 Senate Russell Building, Washington, DC 20510, represented by Democrats Carl Levin Chairman (D-MI), Thomas R. Carper (D-DE), Mark L. Pryor (D-AR), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Jon Tester (D-MT), Michael Bennet (D-CO), and Republicans Tom Coburn Acting Ranking Member (R-OK), Susan M. Collins (R-ME), John McCain (R-AZ), and John Ensign (R-NV), the IRS has merged with certain arrogant government tyrants in the name of the Department of Homeland Security to produce the Biggest Conspiracy I have ever seen. It's got RICO all over it, but because the set of foreign trusts represented as the IRS now extend to the Department of Homeland Security where action have gone international it is bigger than anyone can ever imagine.

In spite of all this, we go on and we are now moving again before the 2nd Circuit USCA (08-06284-cv), where we are asking the USCA to Vacate the District Court's most recent Order And REMAND the case back to the USDC For Northern New York, in Albany New York for a second time. If that happens, it will mean that the 2^nd Circuit Court of Appeals agrees with us and allows us to sue the IRS independent of the United States and the case will be opened up for joiners.

I don't know though - I mean the very idea that the IRS is now operating under the guise of the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs seems mind boggling to me. In any event, if the 2^nd Circuit Court of Appeals agrees with us and allows us to sue the IRS independent of the United States, at that point, all joiners will automatically have the signatory status of "Private Attorneys General" (de jure) and guaranteed protections pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, Qualified Criminal Investigators pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1510 and Federal Witnesses pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1512.

Blessings,

Bill

As you might imagine and as you can plainly see from all of the above, this has been a LOT for us (my wife and I) to do, and, at times, it is hard to fully realize that we are not so alone in all this. THANK YOU Each and Every One of You!!! References for further study include http://www.greenes.us/index.html, as well as http://www.greenes.us/aboutus.html, http://www.greenes.us/notanagency.html, http://www.greenes.us/truckdrivers.html, http://www.greenes.us/Karenspage.html,

http://www.greenes.us/karensmessage.html, http://www.greenes.us/karensmessage.html,

http://www.greenes.us/Billspage.html, http://www.greenes.us/services.html,

http://www.greenes.us/contactus.html, http://www.greenes.us/truth_attack.html,

http://www.greenes.us/civildocket.html, http://www.greenes.us/Donate.html.

2009-05-01T10:02:00.002-05:00

New Discovery: 5 Photoshopped images of Obama done by the same user calling her-himself Ducky - one of these 5 images is the Certificate of Live Birth!

by DefendUSx April 29, 2009 01:34

Thanks to Rhonda Parsons who has a BA in graphics and her finding some images across the Internet from Obama's high school days in Hawaii.

I was looking for evidence of image forgery, and to my surprise saw the name 'Ducky' appeared in each image reviewed. I remember seeing 'Ducky' on Obama's Certificate of Live Birth image from his Fight the Smears website way back in August.

This proves that 'Ducky' has forged or changed every one of these images, in one form or another, as an effort to present something likely false by using a Professional image editing software (Photoshop) to make changes.

For those you not that computer-savvy, Photoshop is image-editing software (the most popular). You can virtually superimpose one image onto another etc. Photoshop is often used to put heads on other peoples' bodies (as in the case of some Glam magazines) etc. Even an amateur with this software can make convincing, yet fake photos.

A quick-and-dirty way to find out if an image has been altered in any way, is to open that image in a Hex (or even simple text) editor.

Note: For those of you not so computer-savvy - images when opened in text editors (like Notepad) show the Hexidecimal code for the image. Computers only understand numbers, so it uses Hexidecimal to represent pairs of Binary numbers. Binary numbers are 1's and 0's. A pattern of these numbers together, represent the image to the computer, which converts it to what you see. Hexidecimal is a way of shortening up Binary sequences.

When an altered (or newly created) image is saved in Photoshop, it (Photoshop) will record basic details about the image depending on how the image-saving preferences are set. You can record additional text into the image, such as copyright information, or even a comment. And no, Ducky did not save any copyright information for the images.

Below are the images - shown normally and opened in a Hex editor. You will see 'Ducky' in each one:

Obama Yearbook Mosaic

Obama Birth Notice

High School Steps

Obama Basketball. Notice Coach's right hand, the Belt, and the number changed from the other Basketball image. He went from number 23 to 25. Look at the shadow on the coach's neck and the shadow on Obama's. They are not going the same direction. Obama's head is too big as well.

Last but not least, Ducky's real claim to fame (or lest we say forgery), the Certificate of Live Birth from Obama's Fight the Smears website.

You can save any one or all of these images to your hard drive. Open each image in a text editor and look near the top, you will see "Ducky" stamped in each one.

"Ducky" ties the images to the same single source.

* You can share this artcle via email by clicking the "Email" link at the bottom of the article.

Tags: digital forgery, elgibility

Birth Certificate

[ronpaul-55] A Picture is worth 1000 Words

2009-04-24T21:41:00.002-05:00

click here for posters

2009-04-12T00:36:00.004-05:00

keymanjim

Analyst

What does one TRILLION dollars look like?

I found this on another site. More Posters

Quote:

All this talk about "stimulus packages" and "bailouts"...

A billion dollars...

A hundred billion dollars...

Eight hundred billion dollars...

One TRILLION dollars...

What does that look like? I mean, these various numbers are tossed around like so many doggie treats, so I thought I'd take Google Sketchup out for a test drive and try to get a sense of what exactly a trillion dollars looks like.

We'll start with a $100 dollar bill. Currently the largest U.S. denomination in general circulation. Most everyone has seen them, slighty fewer have owned them. Guaranteed to make friends wherever they go.

A packet of one hundred $100 bills is less than 1/2" thick and contains $10,000. Fits in your pocket easily and is more than enough for week or two of shamefully decadent fun.

Believe it or not, this next little pile is $1 million dollars (100 packets of $10,000). You could stuff that into a grocery bag and walk around with it.

While a measly $1 million looked a little unimpressive, $100 million is a little more respectable. It fits neatly on a standard pallet...

This is going to take two posts.
www.pagetutor.com . . .

__________________
Obama: A shiny new turd that quickly lost it's luster. But there are plenty on this site that will still try to polish it.

Mn Gov for Pres? with Ron Paul V.P.? Thats just me.

2009-04-11T23:52:00.005-05:00

Republican radio address: http://www.youtube.com/rnc.

WASHINGTON – A possible White House contender in 2012 said in the GOP's Saturday address that President Barack Obama and the Democrats who run Congress should lower taxes and hold down spending.

"Let hardworking American families keep more of what they earn by cutting taxes and reining in spending," said Gov. Tim Pawlenty, R-Minn. "It's just common sense."

He said Democratic president's budget will require higher taxes and unfairly loads debt onto future generations. Pawlenty also said Obama has talked about tax relief, but his budget suggests he'll be raising taxes.

"I thought President Obama's proposal to eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses was a pretty good idea. And his pledge to lower taxes for middle-class Americans was something Republicans wholeheartedly supported," Pawlenty said. "But the budget that Congress is considering doesn't provide that tax relief."

Pawlenty said the administration is not eliminating capital gains taxes for small businesses immediately so they can create jobs now but "keeps those taxes high until after Obama's term in office."

"The federal government should keep a lid on taxes, control government spending and borrow less — rather than increase the size and scope of the federal government so much that Washington is guaranteeing future tax increases," Pawlenty said, referring to Obama's $3.6 trillion budget proposal.

Obama's Democratic allies in Congress have embraced providing health care to the uninsured, boosting education and promoting clean energy. But they've had differing views on how to find billions of dollars to finance the president's agenda without further exploding the deficit.

Pawlenty said his anti-tax message would be welcomed with the approach of the April 15 tax deadline.

___

On the Net:

Republican radio address: http://www.youtube.com/rnc

2009-04-09T11:47:00.000-05:00

Who was our first President?

I'm sure that George Washington was your best guess. After all, no one
else comes to mind.

But think back to your history books - The United States Declared its
independence in 1776, yet Washington did not take Office until

April 30, 1789

So who was running the country during these initial years of this young
country? It was the first eight U. S.. Presidents. In fact, the first
President of the United States was one John Hanson.

I can hear you now - John who?

John Hanson, the first President of the United States. Don't go checking the encyclopedia for this guy's name - he is one of those great men that are lost to history. If you're extremely lucky, you may actually find a brief mention of his name.

The new country was actually formed on March 1, 1781 with the adoption of The Articles of Confederation. This document was actually proposed on June 11, 1776, but not agreed upon by Congress until November 15, 1777.

Maryland refused to sign this document until Virginia and New York ceded their western lands (Maryland was afraid that these states would gain too much power in the new government from such large amounts of land).

Once the signing took place in 1781, a President was needed to run the
country. John Hanson was chosen unanimously by Congress (which
included George Washington). In fact, all the other potential
candidates refused to run against him, as he was a major player in the
revolution and an extremely influential member of Congress.

As the first President, Hanson had quite the shoes to fill. No one
had ever been President and the role was poorly defined. His actions
in office would set precedent for all future Presidents. He took
office just as the Revolutionary War ended.

Almost immediately, the troops demanded to be paid. As would be
expected after any long war, there were no funds to meet the salaries.

As a result, the soldiers threatened to overthrow the new government
and put Washington on the throne as a monarch.

All the members of Congress ran for their lives, leaving Hanson as the
only guy left running the government. He somehow managed to calm the
troops down and hold the country together. If he had failed, the
government would have fallen almost immediately and everyone would have been bowing to King Washington.

Hanson, as President, ordered all foreign troops off American soil, as
well as the removal of all foreign flags. This was quite the feat, considering the fact that so many European countries had a stake in the United States since the days following Columbus.

Hanson established the Great Seal of the United States, which all
Presidents have since been required to use on all official documents.

President Hanson also established the first Treasury Department, the
first Secretary of War, and the first Foreign Affairs Department.

Lastly, he declared that the fourth Thursday of every November was to be Thanksgiving Day, which is still true today.

The Articles of Confederation only allowed a President to serve a one
year term during any three year period, so Hanson actually accomplished quite a bit in such little time.

Seven other presidents were elected after him:
1. Elias Boudinot (1782-83),
2. Thomas Mifflin (1783-84),
3. Richard Henry Lee (1784-85),
4. John Hancock (1785-86),
5. Nathan Gorman (1786-87),
6. Arthur St. Clair (1787-88), and
7. Cyrus Griffin (1788-89),
....all prior to Washington taking office.

So what happened? Why don't we hear about the first eight presidents?
It's quite simple - The Articles of Confederation didn't work well.

The individual states had too much power and nothing could be agreed
upon. A new doctrine needed to be written - something we know as the
Constitution. And that leads us to the end of our story.

George Washington was definitely not the first President of the United
States. He was the first President of the United States under the
Constitution we follow today.

And the first eight Presidents are forgotten in history.

YOU HAVE TO BE A LOVER OF HISTORY TO APPRECIATE THIS!!

It took EIGHT years for us to establish a successful government. You
might just remember this when you hear that so little progress has been
made establishing a Government in Iraq.

There you are - another lesson in U.S. History, and you may have learned something new today.

own Gold, You may be a terrorist!

2009-04-06T03:44:00.001-05:00

Gold Dinar vs US Dollar

Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 05:38 PM EST

GoldJames Sinclair - 'Monetary Jihad' will backfire IF Americans wise up
Gold Dinar" is the term for a fairly new development in international finance. It is a second prong to planned Muslim terrorist attacks on the United States, and is intended to annihilate US economic power in a world of rising gold prices and a persistently declining Dollar. With the US government making war on US citizens' liberty instead of terrorists by means of the USA Patriot Acts (versions I and II), by allowing illegal immigrants to overrun our borders unchecked while imposing ever more draconian restrictions on our people at home, by tolerating Mexican military personnel shooting at US Border Patrol agents on US soil, by doing everything to thwart US airline pilots from actually arming themselves after technically permitting them to do so, and by blowing away the US official gold and silver reserves in the name of “supporting” the US dollar, it is doubtful that our elected leaders will come up with a common-sense plan to counter the most serious threat yet to be launched by militant Muslim Jihad warriors against the United States.

Muslim nations, with Malaysia leading the pack, are quietly working on developing a banking and financial infrastructure based on a purely “Islamic” currency, the gold dinar. This system will operate in competition with the current, exclusively fiat-based, world monetary and financial system. This new pan-Islamic currency will be based on gold as the primary medium of exchange and store of value. The emergence of the gold Dinar is a dark omen for the current way in which the US is (and has been) maintaining its predominance in the world fianncial system. However, it can - much to the certain consternation of its Muslim proponents - turn into a massively backfiring gun, leaving the “Jihadis” black in the face and looking mighty stupid.

It all depends on how individual Americans respond - not on how President Bush responds, not on how Congress responds - but on the American people themselves. Let me explain. There are certain aspects of what commonly goes as “modern” economics that only few, if any, outside of the precious metals investment world are aware of, and if they are aware of it they are largely oblivious of the dire and unavoidable consequences of the world's current economic, banking, and financial system. Modern “money” is a pure legal fiction based not on what we commonly perceive as “value,” but rather on its exact opposite: it is based on nothing but debt.

A dollar bill is technically a “note.” If you look on the front of any dollar bill, you will see there printed the words “Federal Reserve Note.” In the old days, the bill said “silver certificate” or Gold certificate.” In legal terms, a note is an instrument evidencing a legal debt. So, what is a dollar “bank note” then? A piece of paper saying that the bank (issuer of the note) owes the bearer (you, if you have it in your pocket) a stated amount of “money.” In the days of the by-gone gold standard, dollar bills were convertible at will to gold or silver. A bank note of those days simply said that you, the bearer, could go to the issuing bank and demand your dollar’s worth in gold, if you so chose. The bank accordingly “owed” the gold to the bearer, and the “note” was redeemable in something generally recognized the world over as a store of value, as well as a medium of exchange - gold.

Compare that to today’s system: Your federal reserve “note” is still an instrument evidencing a debt, but because of our current, world-wide “fiat”(government decree) system of finance, the bank note itself is legislatively declared to be “legal tender.” That means everyone who has a “note” and wants to “redeem” it can do so, but all you will get in return is another note of the same type! In practical reality, this means that the note is backed by nothing but the “full faith and credit” of the United States government. Yes, you can use your note to buy stuff, and you can accept it when you sell stuff, but only because the government forces everyone in the US to accept the “note” (i.e., the evidence of money) as money itself. The problem with this system comes in from several angles:

Angle No. 1:
Internationally, your wealth is in danger under such a monetary regime when all of the debt- based fiat currency exchange rates in the world are allowed to “float” freely in the international monetary system (i.e., the exchange rate is determined by the relative demand and supply of the particular currency). Now it can happen that your government’s “money” (debt instruments) are no longer perceived as such a great credit risk by foreigners, and they sell dollars for other currencies. So your dollar drops in value relative to the other currencies of the world. That means your dollar now buys less foreign goods or services than before, i.e., imports become more expensive.

Angle No. 2:
Domestically, a pure fiat system puts your wealth in danger in either of two ways:

1) When your government decides to “just print” more money whenever its expenditures are too high. So more money goes into circulation, and your dollar buys less (because there now are more dollars “chasing” - or bidding for - the same amount of goods and services in the economy, driving up their price), and

2) When “the Fed” (your friendly federal reserve bank) decides to lower the interest rates regular banks pay for borrowing money from the Fed. That lowers their borrowing costs, which they can now pass on to their customers (you) in the form of lower interest rates. So, individuals and businesses can now afford to borrow more money, because it’s cheaper.

The way “fractional reserve banking” works in a fiat currency system is this: when banks “loan” you money, they don’t really give up anything of value. When you borrow your neighbor’s lawnmower, he foregoes the use of his lawnmower until you return it. When your grandpa borrowed gold from a bank, the bank coughed up the gold, and he had to return it, usually with interest (or the bank parted with cold, hard paper notes that represented an equal claim to gold). In our modern system, your local bank parts with precisely nothing when it loans you money. It creates a bookkeeping entry in your account that says “credit” while at the same time recording that you owe it that same amount of money in its receivables column. You can now use that money to write checks, etc., but you in contrast to the bank, you have to WORK for that money to pay it back to the bank. You give up something of value, and the bank doesn’t, but now you owe the bank interest on top of that. Thus, whenever the bank makes a loan, the domectic money supply is increased in the same amount - out of nothing. Fair deal?

Anyway, this situation (piles of debt piled onto further piles of even more debt) has created an untenable situation for the powers of international finance. The dollar, which is based on debt, was declared the international “reserve currency.” That means that dollar-denominated assets (usually Treasury bonds, another form of debt instruments) are what other countries’ central banks hold “in reserve” to back up the value of their respective (also debt-based) currencies. Debt piled on debt, piled on debt, used to “back up” even more debt. Since 1971, no country in the entire world has been allowed (under current IMF rules) to back its currency with anything other than what essentially amounts to debt. This nightmarish system has become so entrenched in our way of thinking that nobody thinks of it anymore at all - except for pro-American gold bugs ... and certain anti-American Muslims.

These Islamist Muslims have recognized that such a system is inherently vulnerable to attack, and they have figured out the best, most sure-fire means of attacking it. Their plan is to create the gold dinar as an Islamic competitor to this debt based system; a competitor that is based on real value: Gold. It is not hard to see how they could succeed with their plans. Imagine that only about half of all the Islamic countries in the world join together and form this new gold dinar system. Gold is a commodity that rich (and even poor) Muslims have hoarded for generations. They know that gold is ALWAYS accepted as a store of value and a medium of exchange, especially during emergencies when the non- Islamic world is in turmoil and undergoes heavy financial crises.

The gold dinar's primary target is the US dollar, that ultimate symbol of American wealth and economic prowess. The US dollar is already suffering internationally from the consequences of a Bill Clinton/Alan Greenspan-induced credit binge that powered the incredible economic expansion of the mid-to-late nineties through lower interest rates. But credit-induced economic expansions are always relatively short-lived, and always lead to inflation and mal-investment. A series of successive interest rate cuts in the mid-nineties caused more borrowing. In the process of borrowing, more “money” is created out of nothing and loaned into circulation. This new money normally floats around in the domestic economy, driving up prices. However, in the recent credit boom the excess money did not end up in the regular economy, driving up prices there, but served almost exclusively to further balloon an already burgeoning stock market. People loved it, because their stocks went up while prices for other “stuff” stayed low. The 1990s’ inflation happened in the stock markets, not in the goods and services sector. So everybody got high on this credit binge and people even hocked their homes to invest more money in stocks. And foreigners got in on it, sending their money to the US to participate in it all.

But now, everyone is tapped out. Stocks have been dropping for three years in a row, and the economy is teetering. Foreigners stopped sending their money to us, and the dollar’s value keeps dropping as foreigners perceive us to be “not so sterling” a credit risk any longer. Now, with the dollar being the reserve currency of the world’s central banks, if a significant number of these foreign central banks (say, half of the Islamic countries) should find a more secure, more valuable “reserve asset”, they will dump their treasury bonds and buy whatever else they think is more worthy. And the Muslims have correctly recognized that gold is worth more than debt - which is all that the US dollar is based upon. The gold Dinar 'monetary Jihad' would not be so dangerous had the US government not been so foolish as to surrepticiously agree with certain powerful bullion banks to squash the dollar-price of gold whenever it looked like it was going to go up. This was done to 'assure' Americans that it was still safe to spend like crazy and throw more money at the stock market in order to keep the artificial expansion going. In order to control the price of gold, the US Treasury, through the secretive 'Exchange Stabilization Fund' (operated entirely under the president’s executive power, wholly outside congressional oversight) backed the bullion banks’ continuous efforts to sell gold “short”, flooding the market with borrowed gold, lowering its price, and thus scaring skittish little gold investors our of their pants, causing them to sell as well.

This now has almost totally deprived the US Treasury and the Fed of the American citizens’ official gold reserves, making this country even more vulnerable to the Islamists gold dinar attack. For most of US gold has been loaned or “swapped” out. Nobody really knows how much is left - if any. So far, it all looks pretty bad for the good old USA. The official gold is (largely) gone, silver stockpiles are completely gone, the US government is hocked up to the hilt, the stock market is tanking, and the economy is lackluster due to corporate scandals and war fears. Are the "Jihadis" going to win this war against US economic supremacy? Not if Americans wake up for just a little while and pay attention. (I know, it’s hard.) While our stupid government under selfish Bill Clinton (and now under George Bush's failure to expose Clinton’s policies) blew away our official gold holdings, Americans individually now have the chance of a lifetime. If every individual American with any sense at all now goes and privately invests in gold in the same fashion in which we earlier threw money at the stock market, Americans can accomplish two things that will turn out to be the Islamists' undoing:

- They exchange something essentially worthless (paper dollars) into something of absolute value (gold), and

- they make sure that (despite foolish government policies) the US is not left out in the cold in a future world financial system where commerce is based on gold and neither the US government nor individual Americans themselves own any.

For, the great miscalculation of the Jihad-freaks lies in thinking that by giving birth to the gold Dinar, they will topple America itself. Instead, they will help cut out a cancer that has been eating away at not only America, but the entire world of the last three decades; and that cancer is a purely fiat-money, debt-based, financial system. The real question is not: will the gold dinar or the US dollar prevail? The real question is: Which of these two monetary systems will prevail: honest gold, or lying paper? What the Islamists do not understand is that the private ownership of gold, and a financial system based on gold convertibility, is the greatest guarantee of individual Liberty that has ever existed, and individual Liberty is what extremist Muslims are essentially attacking when they attack America, for their own system abhors individual liberty - especially of the religious kind.

Gold cannot be manipulated like paper can. Gold cannot be “printed” at will, and it cannot be loaned into existence, so a gold-based money supply cannot be artificially inflated. That means tHt under a gold standard, governments cannot enrich themselves by imposing the hidden tax of inflation on the people. As a result, governments lose power to the same degree in which Gold re-assumes its role as the foundation of the world financial system. And even with the few true freedoms that still exist in this country (despite the decades-long, relentless onslaught by our political and financial elites), especially when compared to the Islamic world, American industriousness, innovation, and and ingenuity will outperform the Muslim countries any day - as they have, even under a pure fiat system. That is the irony of it all. Instead of bringing America to its knees, the gold Dinar will help Americans cure their country from the fiat-currency cancer, and in the process make America stronger than ever - but this is only true IF individual Americans act now!

The fate of your country is literally in your hands.

| Views: 4670 |

Gold Dinar vs US Dollar | 1 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Gold Dinar vs US Dollar
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 25 2004 @ 12:08 PM EDT
Gold imports more than doubled in Q1
Korea's imports of gold more than doubled in the first quarter of the year, as importers and manufacturers took advantage of tax breaks and rising prices of the metal, a trade group said yesterday. Gold imports reached a record-high $1.57 billion between January and March, a 229.7 percent increase from the same period last year, according to the Korea International Trade Association. The amount surpasses the previous record of $14.2 billion registered in 1997.

Gold became the nation's No. 4 import item following crude oil, semiconductors and natural gas, the trade group said. The group attributes the increase to a two-year tax exemption on transactions of gold products which have been in effect since July last year. Also, domestic gold prices have risen about 13 percent over the past year. Meanwhile, Korea's exports of gold products rose about 295 percent to reach $1.47 billion during the same period. - Korea Herald

The modern Islamic gold dinar (sometimes referred as Islamic dinar or Gold dinar) is a bullion gold coin made from 4.25 grams of 22-carat (k) gold that is a recent revival of the historical gold dinar which was a leading coin of early Islam. It is separate from the currencies of various states that use the dinar as a denomination.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Conversion rate
* 2 Dinar history
* 3 Modern history
* 4 Gold dinar in Malaysia
o 4.1 The IGD Exchange Payment System
* 5 See also
* 6 External links

[edit] Conversion rate

The Islamic gold dinar conversion rate to other currencies is based on gold spot price. International gold spot price is published in troy ounce of 24k gold, while gold dinar is 22k gold measured in grams. Because one kilogram is about 32.15 troy ounce, the International gold spot price is about 7.98 times of gold dinar conversion rate. weight of coin (grams) × purity of coin × troy ounces per kilogram = fraction of spot price per coin

4.25\mathrm{\ g} \times \frac{22\mathrm{k}}{24\mathrm{k}} \times \frac{32.15\mathrm{\ oz}}{1000\mathrm{\ g}} = \frac{1}{7.98}\mathrm{\ oz}

For example, if today gold spot price is €438.90 per ounce, then one islamic gold dinar is about €55 (438.90 divided by 7.98). The current gold dinar was a theoretical coin in the Islamic world until September 2006.

=(31.1034768/1)/((4.25/1)*(22/24)) = 7.98

€438.90 per ounce/7.98 = €54.97 Per one Gold Dinar (4.25 Grams & 22k Gold)

In USD =(31.1034768/1)/((4.25/1)*(22/24)) = 7.98

smile your on camara phone

2009-04-06T01:41:00.001-05:00

In line at a soup kitchen but he has a cell phone.......

First Lady Michelle Obama showed up Thursday as a surprise and welcome volunteer at Miriam's Kitchen, a soup kitchen for homeless poor people not far from the White House.
She brought with her some food donated by White House staff. The first lady served up mushroom risotto and broccoli to a long line of homeless men and women during part of her lunch hour and in these photos poses for a picture by one homeless diner obviously excited to be in the first lady's presence
It doesn't detract from the first lady's generous gesture or the real needs she seeks to highlight to ask two bothersome journalistic questions about these news photos:

If this unidentified meal recipient is too poor to buy his own food, how does he afford a cell phone?
And if he is homeless, where do they send the cell phone bills?

Well is this just not priceless!
Yep, this is where your tax dollars are going! Bet a urine drug screen would be priceless also!

WHAT THE BLEAP no FUCK!

2009-04-06T01:33:00.001-05:00

Where is our money. Who owns the 300 trillion US Gold reserves.

TITLE 31 > SUBTITLE IV > CHAPTER 51 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 5115Prev | Next § 5115. United States currency notes
How Current is This? (a) The Secretary of the Treasury may issue United States currency notes. The notes—
(1) are payable to bearer; and
(2) shall be in a form and in denominations of at least one dollar that the Secretary prescribes.
(b) The amount of United States currency notes outstanding and in circulation—
(1) may not be more than $300,000,000; and
(2) may not be held or used for a reserve.

supremelaw

2009-04-06T01:27:00.001-05:00

United States' DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY

Explained in Simple Language with Questions and Answers

by

Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)

(March 23, 2009 A.D.)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

We have now hyperlinked the DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY
with Exhibits:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm
(please study all Exhibits for a detailed explanation)

The "United States" in Federal law means the Federal Government:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1345.html

The Federal Reserve Banks (“FED”) are private municipal corporations,
created by Congress back in 1913:

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/lewis/

When Congress needs to spend more money than it takes in with taxes,
it sells bonds to the FED. The FED buys those bonds with money
which the FED creates out of thin air.

Congress must repay the bond principal and interest, and
it liens on the American People to do so, with
NOTICES OF FEDERAL TAX LIEN, NOTICES OF LEVY,
NOTICES OF DEFICIENCY, etc. See subtitle F of the
Internal Revenue Code for all enForcement statutes.

We summarized the entire scam in Chapter 8 of "The Federal Zone":

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chapter8.htm
(begin reading at “What gives?”)

The United States is now bankrupt, because it cannot repay all
the money loaned to it by the FED and by other countries.

Moreover, creating money out of thin air is fraud, and
this scam originated way back in 1913:

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/daly/

So, on behalf of our clients, who are presently seeking bankruptcy
protection in the Eastern District of Washington, I do have authority
to represent the United States as a Private Attorney General:

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm

The United States will interplead into that bankruptcy case
on March 31, 2009 A.D., formally to declare insolvency AS TO
each and every obligation -- e.g. U.S. Bond -- which the
Congress "sold" to the FED.

Moreover, because FRNs are legally defined as "obligations of the United States",
that DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY will also have the legal result of
voiding all FRNs presently in circulation anywhere on planet Earth:

All FRNs will need to be recalled systematically, and then destroyed,
after being exchanged -- one-for-one -- with U.S. Notes that are printed
by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing -- withOUT any interest owed or
payable to the FED on those U.S. Notes.

The links in the hyperlinked DECLARATION above will take you to
photographs comparing Federal Reserve Notes and United States Notes.
The latter have been called "red dot" currency, because the Treasury seal
is printed in red ink.

The recall of FRNs and exchange for U.S. Notes are temporary measures,
en route to returning to Constitutional money:

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/vieira/ (both documents are excellent!)

We do not anticipate that U.S. Notes will need to be recalled too:
once there is enough gold and silver to back U.S. Notes,
Congress can simply enact a Law declaring them redeemable.

One of the main reasons for declaring insolvency formally
is the automatic stay authorized by the Federal bankruptcy laws:
no creditor may collect any further principal or interest payments
once a debtor has sought bankruptcy protection from a
U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

Thus, the FED and the IRS will be legally barred (prohibited)
from collecting any more principal or interest payments
on any of the "obligations" of the United States which it "owes"
to the Federal Reserve Banks.

Moreover, since FRNs are also legally defined as such "obligations",
the FED and IRS will also be legally estopped from demanding the
return of any more FRNs e.g. to pay Federal income taxes.

Federal income taxes are being used to pay interest to the FED;
they do NOT pay for any Federal government services.
See the Report of the Grace Commission, for proof:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm#Q29

Last but not least, it is already well established that there
is no liability STATUTE for Federal income taxes imposed
by subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code:

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.estopped.htm

And, the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that a tax liability
may NOT be created by Regulations published in the Federal Register
(again, see links in the DECLARATION above, and below):

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.gif

The obvious conclusion, then, is that income taxes imposed by
subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code are fraudulent to the core,
because there is no Statute at Large (Act of Congress) creating
any specific liability for any of those "taxes":

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/ (see Preface re: 2 court hearings)

In summary, both the FED and the IRS will be legally "out of business"
throughout the United States of America and throughout all Federal enclaves,
territories and possessions as of midnight ending March 31, 2009 A.D.

p.s. Questions and answers are appended below, and
there is much additional (and free) reading
at the links below my name here ...

http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm <-- START HERE
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.estopped.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm

DISCLAIMER: Forwarding email from someone else
does not mean that I endorse any of its contents.

Questions and Answers about the United States’

DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY:

by

Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)

(April 5, 2009 A.D.)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

> How are U.S. Notes any more secure and

> how can they be a preferred currency

> without proof of metal/specie-based assets/collateral?

There is no interest due to the FED on any U.S. Notes.

Even if U.S. Notes are not redeemable in gold or silver initially, the recall of FRNs

and their replacement with U.S. Notes will effectively destroy FRNs as legal tender.

Thus, the issuance of U.S. Notes that are not redeemable is a temporary measure --

to expedite the recall of all FRNs in circulation.

Later, as Treasury builds up its stocks of gold and silver, Congress can

enact a law making U.S. Notes redeemable and thereby eliminating

any need to recall U.S. Notes too.

> Where now does this Declaration position the common man on the street?

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm

An automatic stay went into effect at midnight ending March 31, 2009.
See 11 U.S.C. 362:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/11/362.html

In simple language, whenever an entity seeks the protection of a bankruptcy court,
that statute prohibits any and all further attempts by the creditor(s) to collect
any of the debts owed by the debtor(s).

The Grace Commission has already admitted that Federal income taxes
do not pay for any Federal government services; those "taxes" pay for
interest on the U.S. government debts to the Federal Reserve Banks.

Thus, the implications are explained in the DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY
as follows:

This automatic stay is intended to bar any and all Federal Reserve Banks henceforth from any and all further efforts to collect from the United States, or from the People at Large, either the principal or interest amounts previously owed by the United States to the Federal Reserve Banks.

This intent necessarily also bars the Internal Revenue Service from performing, or claiming any authority to perform, any further collections of income taxes allegedly imposed by subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code. See IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998.

[end excerpt]

In addition to the automatic stay, it is now an established FACT
that Congress never enacted any liability STATUTE(s) for taxes imposed
by IRC subtitle A. This is yet another reason why the IRS and the FED
no longer have any legal authority to enforce collections of those "taxes":

It is now a well established fact that Congress never enacted any Statute(s) at Large creating a specific liability for taxes imposed by subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code. By comparison, Congress has enacted Statutes at Large creating specific liabilities for taxes imposed by subtitles B and C of the Internal Revenue Code. On this key point, see 26 CFR 1.1-1(b) and Commissioner v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87, 4 L.Ed.2d 127, 80 S.Ct. 144 (1959), quoting in pertinent part:

But the section contains nothing to that effect, and, therefore, to uphold this addition to the tax would be to hold that it may be imposed by regulation, which, of course, the law does not permit. United States v. Calamaro, 354 U.S. 351, 359; Koshland v. Helvering, 298 U.S. 441, 446-447; Manhattan Co. v. Commissioner, 297 U.S. 129, 134.

[bold emphasis added]

We mentioned the RRA98 in particular, because
it now renders the Internal Revenue Manual ("IRM") enforceable.
IRS personnel can now be disciplined or terminated
for any of the violations enumerated at section 1203(b) of that Act:

http://www.supremelaw.org/stat/112/RRA98.pdf

This RRA98 was never codified in Title 26, however;
you need to pay attention where it states -- in the margin --
"26 USC 7804 note." That "note" is buried here:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00007804----000-notes.html

Begin reading at "Termination of Employment for Misconduct".

Notice in particular where it itemizes acts defined as "misconduct":

(3) with respect to a taxpayer, taxpayer representative,
or other employee of the Internal Revenue Service,
the violation of —

(A) any right under the Constitution of the United States
...
(6) violations of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, Department
of Treasury regulations, or policies of the Internal Revenue
Service (including the Internal Revenue Manual) for the
purpose of retaliating against, or harassing, a taxpayer, taxpayer
representative, or other employee of the Internal Revenue
Service;

[end excerpt]

Prior to the RRA98, the IRM had no legal force or effect whatsoever:
it was merely a "guideline" that contained no mandatory provisions
prior to enactment of the RRA98:

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/kozinski.htm

Well, Separation of Powers is a Right under the Constitution;
and, Commissioner v. Acker held -- correctly -- that the IRS
may NOT create a tax liability by means of Regulations
published in the Federal Register:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.htm

Also, the Internal Revenue Manual makes it very clear --
in two separate places -- that no "collections" may commence
without a procedurally proper ASSESSMENT:

http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm

Well, IRS is legally BARRED from performing any procedurally
proper ASSESSMENT because they cannot verify same without
committing perjury. See IRC 6065:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/6065.html

That perjury stems from the FACT that there is no liability STATUTE; and,
an ASSESSMENT cannot be verified "under the penalties of perjury"
without the signer committing an act of perjury.

To summarize, all collections of principal and interest payments [to the FED]
must cease immediately, chiefly because of the automatic stay,
but also because there is no liability STATUTE for subtitle A; and,
the IRS is thereby prohibited from creating a tax liability by means of
Regulations published in the Federal Register.

I hope this helps.

> Your reply is much appreciated, and
> is there some way to compel a bank to exchange FRN’s for U.S. Notes
> upon appropriate presentation of a copy of your Declaration to any such bank?

No. We are suggesting that bank customers start "asking"
in such large numbers that their requests get noticed
and forwarded to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/frn.recall.letter.to.banks.htm

There is also a statute [now] limiting the total number of U.S. Notes
presently authorized to circulate: 31 U.S.C. 5115:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/5115.html

(b) The amount of United States currency notes outstanding and in circulation —

(1) may not be more than $300,000,000; and

(2) may not be held or used for a reserve.

And, that's why our template letter above mentions the need
for appropriate legislative changes e.g. amending 5115.

> Regarding the writing to banks for U.S. Notes
> would it be possible for you to write a sample letter?

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/frn.recall.letter.to.banks.htm (HTML)
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/frn.recall.letter.to.banks.doc (WORD)

> I ran these case numbers with the U.S. Bankrupcy court database,
> they didn't match with the cases outlined below.

Sometimes, you must append the initials of the "robe" assigned
e.g. "PCW" = Patricia C. Williams; "PCW7" = Chapter 7; etc.

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/complaint.2009-01-09/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/complaint.2009-01-09/page01.gif
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/complaint.2009-01-09/page01.refused.gif
etc.

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/summons.re-issued.2009-02-09/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/summons.re-issued.2009-02-09/page01.gif
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/summons.re-issued.2009-02-09/page01.refused.jpg
etc.

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/williams/

See also Exhibit "H" here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/williams/nad.affidavit.htm (IN DEFAULT)
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/williams/nad.oath.of.attorney.htm (IN DEFAULT)

It has happened quite frequently during the past 19+ years,
that controversial cases, and controversial pleadings,
somehow "disappear" from the official court records;
of course, this is a felony Federal offense, but that
hasn't stopped the guilty parties from destroying
official court records. To illustrate from sworn statements
recorded by the late Gary Wean, LAPD Detective:

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/wean/gary.wean.article.htm
(search for "Pregerson" and find Harry and Dean -- father and son)

So, I wouldn't put too much faith in some database,
without also cross-checking first -- as you have done
by contacting me.

Moreover, our extensive, ongoing investigation of
missing credentials, assisted by U.S. DOJ in D.C.,
has now assembled proof that confirmed impostors
are the ones most likely to be assigned to "tax" cases
-- as happened with Dean D. Pregerson:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm

For example, all 25 "robes" now seated on the U.S. Tax Court
turned up without any of 4 requisite credentials:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm#TC

If you like, I can request our clients to contact you,
for confirmation, but only at their discretion.

p.s. In my office is a large "banker box" with literally hundreds
of documents that have already been filed in that bankruptcy case.
Thus, the links above will connect you to only 2 of many such
legal documents.

> I read a page and I wonder if this page for declaration of

> bankrupcy of the U.S. banks are real?

Yes. The United States has formally declared insolvency
as to its alleged indebtedness to the Federal Reserve Banks;
but, the DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY does not declare
bankruptcy of any "U.S. banks".

> Can the government reject the declaration of insolvency you filed?

> Is there any legal reason they must be REQUIRED to make the insolvency public?

It is public: it was duly served on the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Eastern District of Washington; and, as such,
it must be filed in that bankruptcy case and
it must be made a permanent record of which
the Clerk of Court is the designated legal custodian.

Those records are "public".

The U.S. Postal Service has also confirmed delivery,
by means of the Delivery Confirmation Track & Confirm
number that was affixed to those documents.

If there is any attempt to obstruct the filing and
entry of same into the Clerk's records, that attempt
would violate 18 U.S.C. 1001 -- a felony Federal offense.

You could help yourself, and help us, by studying
the law rather than asking so many questions
with the expectation that I have all the time
in the world to answer such questions
without compensation. I don't.

I also think you may be assuming, wrongly, that
impostors who lack credentials somehow qualify
as "the government", when the case law is
quite contrary:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions.htm
(all their acts are void)

> I would like to know if this is legit.

Yes: I'll follow with the USPS Delivery Confirmation
confirming delivery to the Clerk of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Eastern District of Washington.

See also:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm (fully hyperlinked version)
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.doc (laser-printer original)

Greetings Ladies and Gentlemen:

As of 5:31 a.m. today, March 31, 2009 A.D.,
the United States officially declared insolvency
as to its obligations allegedly payable to the
Federal Reserve Banks.

See Delivery Confirmation information below,
as provided by the USPS Track & Confirm
Internet system of notification via email.

The fully hyperlinked version of that
DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY
is here on the Internet:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm

The original hard copy is formatted using
Microsoft WORD 2003:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.doc

Please relieve us of the burden of shipping hard copies
by printing either document, and all incorporated Exhibits,
directly from the Internet.

Certified and embossed versions of the .doc version above
can be purchased from my office for a nominal certification fee
of $20.00 each. Please send either CASH or
a BLANK U.S. Postal Money Order to:

Forwarding Agent
7115 N. Division St. #B-354
Spokane 99208
WASHINGTON STATE, USA

Further details and a plain English explanation can be found
in this document:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.explained.htm

Thank you for your professional consideration.

p.s. If you are presently engaged in litigation in either State or Federal Court(s),
please make a point of filing a DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE
of the above DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY. Cf. Rule 201(d) in the
Federal Rules of Evidence ("FREV") for mandatory judicial notice of
adjudicative facts.

From: U.S._Postal_Service_
Date: Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 8:23 AM
Subject: USPS Shipment Info for 0308 0730 0000 7401 7297
To: supremelawfirm@gmail.com

This is a post-only message. Please do not respond.

Paul Mitchell has requested that you receive the current Track & Confirm
information, as shown below.

Current Track & Confirm e-mail information provided by the U.S. Postal Service.

Label Number: 0308 0730 0000 7401 7297

Service Type: Delivery Confirmation(TM)

Shipment Activity Location Date & Time
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delivered SPOKANE WA 99201 03/31/09 5:31am

Arrival at Unit SPOKANE WA 99201 03/31/09 5:30am

Processed SPOKANE WA 99224 03/30/09 8:01pm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

USPS has not verified the validity of any email addresses submitted via its
online Track & Confirm tool.

For more information, or if you have additional questions on Track & Confirm
services and features, please visit the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
section of our Track & Confirm site at
http://www.usps.com/shipping/trackandconfirmfaqs.htm

latest on the bankruptcy follows ...

All "branch" Federal Reserve Banks will also receive Page 1 from
each of the following 2 documents, via U.S. Mail posted today:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.explained.htm

> Many of us at the 912 Project are anxious to know the
> status of the United States Declaration of Insolvency
> that was set to be heard yesterday in the bankruptcy
> court in Washington State. Please advise me of the
> outcome so I may pass it on to them.

No. It was not "set to be heard yesterday"

in the bankruptcy court in Washington State.

It was, however, delivered by the U.S. Postal Service
at 5:31 a.m. yesterday and, as such, it was legally served
at that time.

In point of law, the automatic stay described
in that DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY
went into effect at midnight ending yesterday.

Therefore, the United States is now officially
insolvent as to its alleged debts to the
Federal Reserve Banks, and the automatic stay
authorized by U.S. bankruptcy laws is now in effect.

A simple English explanation is here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.explained.htm

If you will read the DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY and
all Exhibits, you will learn that the personnel employed
by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District
of Washington have either failed or refused to produce
credentials:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm

Thus, it may take quite some time to clean up that
related mess too. There is no point in scheduling
any hearings where so many impostors congregate:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions.htm
("all their acts are void")

FYI: our office has been working with the U.S.
Department of Justice to investigate missing credentials:
Start here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/uoregon.edu/memo.ag01.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/index.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm

Thank you for contacting the Supreme Law Firm.

> I am eagerly awaiting news.

> When should we know the status of the filing and insolvency of FR and IRS?

> Will anything be announced to the general public?

The DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY will take legal effect
at midnight tonight (3/31/2009):

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm

As such, it will activate the automatic stay authorized
by pertinent statutes in the Federal bankruptcy laws.

It has already been received by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
(Delivery Confirmation to follow this message).

Don't expect CNN, Fox News or MSN to report it, however.

Federal Express .. er .. Federated Hardware Stores .. er ..
the "Federal" Reserve might try to terminate the reporters for doing so.

> Some posters are claiming it to be a hoax.

> However, I informed them that they could check the delivery of the doc themselves, and

> how to do it. I checked it out and it WAS delivered just as you said.

> However, on the same site, some are attempting to defame you. Here is one of them: …
> Hope you can either respond to them or give me something to pass on for you.

Defamation is a crime.

Yes, I have used several pen names.

Thank you.

p.s. This is not a hoax: the Federal personnel at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Eastern District of Washington, in Spokane, all failed or refused
to produce credentials. See Exhibits "F" thru "J" inclusive here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm

The staff dba "clerks" also failed or refused to produce credentials,
making it impossible for any Bankruptcy Court "orders" to comply
with 28 U.S.C. 1961:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1691.html

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/benka/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/benka/nad.affidavit.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/benka/nad.oath.of.attorney.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/benka/letter.2009-03-05/refusal.for.cause.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/watkins/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/watkins/nad.affidavit.htm

Because they all lack credentials now, as a Private Attorney General
I exercise more de jure authority than all of them put together!

http://www.supremelaw.org/stat/62/
http://www.supremelaw.org/stat/62/28usc1691.case.law.2.htm

[begin excerpt]

In Peaslee v. Haberstro, 15 Blatchf. 472, Fed.Cas. No. 10,884,
the summons was set aside because not under the seal of court or signature of clerk. ...
To my mind, the word “process,” as used in Rev. St. § 911, means an order of court,
although it may be issued by the clerk.

[Leas & McVitty v. Merriman, 132 F. 510, 511-513]

[(C.C. W.D. Virginia 1904), emphases added]

[end excerpt]

http://www.supremelaw.org/stat/62/28usc1691.case.law.htm

> Thanks, Paul. I read all of you messages posted on Freedom Fight, and
> have urged others to as well. Thank you for being a valued member!

Copy that!!

Anyone could reliably PREDICT that certain agents provocateur
would come out of the woodwork, once this DECLARATION
OF INSOLVENCY hit the fan.

It is NOT a "hoax" by any means: all the missing credentials
at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Spokane, Wash., mean that the
United States could walk right in and effectively OCCUPY
that entire forum -- ALL BY ITSELF. See all incorporated
Exhibits for a partial list of missing credentials:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm

The absence of credentials was also confirmed by this
SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE, which the A.O. failed to answer:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aouscourts/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aouscourts/delivery.instructions.htm

[begin excerpt]

Certified copies of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management Form 61
APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS and OATHS OF OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES JUDGES
(see samples attached) for all Justices, Judges, full- and part-time Magistrates,
Clerks and Deputy Clerks presently employed by the Supreme Court of the United States,
United States Courts of Appeal, District Courts of the United States, United States District Courts,
United States Bankruptcy Courts, United States Court of Federal Claims, United States Tax Courts,
and United States Court of International Trade.

[end excerpt]

And, that's exactly what we did -- OCCUPY THAT FORUM
AND THEREBY ACTIVATE THE AUTOMATIC STAY.

Add to those facts the added PROOF that Obama was
born in Mombasa, Kenya; and, the entire Executive Branch
now has very little delegation of authority: Obama can NOT
exercise the Appointments Clause in the U.S. Constitution!!

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/nad02.htm
(see Official Report by the National Assembly of the Republic of Kenya!)

See Exhibit "K" in the DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/vieira/Obama.Stand.Up.Now.or.Stand.Down.htm

THINK ABOUT THAT ONE "little detail" FOR A MINUTE OR TWO!!!

> WAY TO GO PAUL!!!!!!

> HOPE THEY CHOKE WHEN THEY REALIZE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE.
> COULDN'T HAPPEN TO A BETTER BUNCH OF PEOPLE.
> Now we can all reap the benefits, thanks to you.

Yes!

This one is truly worth VERY WIDESPREAD DISTRIBUTION
e.g. the copies for the regional Federal Reserve Banks
were mailed last Friday, so hopefully they will all receive
their copies by today.

The success of this effort will depend in no small way
upon the participation of the American People too.

The People can begin by inundating their local banks
with requests -- written and verbal -- to exchange
Federal Reserve Notes for United States Notes.

Even though those banks will probably not have
enough U.S. Notes -- at the start of this project --
the public demand will hopefully grow to such
an extent that the Bureau of Engraving and Printing
will have no alternative but to start cranking out
U.S. Notes -- as an interim measure.

There is a link to photos comparing FRNs and U.S. Notes
in the DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm

http://www.ustreas.gov/usss/money_characteristics.shtml

> American People now need to inundate local banks
> with requests to exchange FRNs for U.S. Notes!!

PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY:

The American People now need to begin inundating
their local banks with written and verbal requests
to exchange FRNs for United States Notes.

The United States cannot agree to a global currency,
now that it has declared insolvency, with particular
emphasis on the "United States obligations" known
as Federal Reserve Notes:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12/411.html
("said notes shall be obligations of the United States")

That bankruptcy must now proceed to conclusion,
pursuant to Law; and, the United States has already
stated its policy to exchange FRNs for U.S. Notes --
as an interim measure -- until sufficient gold and silver
("specie") backing can be acquired and archived
by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, in Washington, D.C.

Since Obama cannot exercise the Appointments Clause,
the United States ex rel. has taken the helm away from him,
and his cronies, as a matter of law.

The FRN will die, legally speaking, at midnight tonight.

After that, it's all downhill for the IRS and Federal Reserve Banks,
chiefly because of the AUTOMATIC STAY authorized by
Federal bankruptcy laws, 11 U.S.C. 362:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/11/362.html

p.s. There is much additional (and free) reading
at the links below my name here ...

http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm <-- START HERE
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.estopped.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm

DISCLAIMER: Forwarding email from someone else
does not mean that I endorse any of its contents.

Run Paul Run, See Paul Run. Ron Paul

2009-04-05T23:23:00.000-05:00

RP4409
December 28, 2008

(more info)

(less info)

Who the hell do these people think they are? All police officers are required to have business cards this includes the TSA. I noticed a high number of Homeland Security/TSA agents running amuck ...

Who the hell do these people think they are? All police officers are required to have business cards this includes the TSA.

I noticed a high number of Homeland Security/TSA agents running amuck around the new Phoenix [taxpayer funded 1800's technology locomotive]...errrrr I mean light rail grand opening.

Why were the TSA at the light rail?

I believe the state took matching Federal Funds to build this locomotive so does that in turn give the TSA jurisdiction over the light rail.

Everyone at the grand opening seemed to work for the government and It was a complete and utter Police state.

Sheriffs department mixed with Local police mixed with private security mixed with Homeland security and on and on everywhere.

The TSA officers and even some local police were acting very strange and refused to give me their full name and/or business cards...

One officer told me to go look "at" the phone book for his supervisor....huh WTF

So I ask you is this what we have to look forward to or was this because of this light rail unveiling?

Is wearing black masks to cover their identity next?

Is that when we will know it's over?

Why would they act like this?

2009-04-02T17:47:00.002-05:00