The people themselves may petition a court to convene a grand jury to investigate Bush's corrupt administration. Such a panel will have the power of the subpoena and the indictment.
It's not just 911 that such a panel might investigate. An overwhelming number of those favoring Bush's impeachment say that there is "plenty" to warrant Bush's removal from the office he seized.
But, given the recalcitrance of Congress, how are "the people" to proceed? I recommend the following handbook for the would-be activist: Facts About Grand Juries
In the year 2005, a growing majority of Americans were not only opposing the disastrous war against Iraq, they were opposing Bush on almost every issue from illegal government wiretapping to this government's planned theft of Social Security. It was in that year that a majority of Americans said that they supported the impeachment of George W. Bush. Even fewer support Dick Cheney. Others oppose impeachment and removing Bush simply because it would leave something even worse in his stead: Dick Cheney.
President Bush registers the lowest approval rating of his presidency-making him the least popular president since Nixon-in the new NEWSWEEK Poll.
June 21, 2007 - In 19 months, George W. Bush will leave the White House for the last time. The latest NEWSWEEK Poll suggests that he faces a steep climb if he hopes to coax the country back to his side before he goes. In the new poll, conducted Monday and Tuesday nights, President Bush's approval rating has reached a record low. Only 26 percent of Americans, just over one in four, approve of the job the 43rd president is doing; while, a record 65 percent disapprove, including nearly a third of Republicans.
It's been some two years and nothing has been done. The situation is increasingly dangerous and demands a real investigation followed by impeachment, trial, and removal from office. Depending upon the specific charges, a criminal trial of Bush/Cheney's should begin immediately. Following that trial, Bush should be turned over to the International Tribunal at the Hague to stand trial for war crimes, crimes against the peace and crimes against humanity.
How frustrating it must be for thousands of bloggers, activists, journalists and writers to raise the issue of war crimes and high treason knowing that the odds of anything being done by officialdom are slim to none. Too often I am asked: you may be right but what the hell can we do about it? Too often I am left advising people to educate and agitate. At a time when not only the White House but Congress itself seems complicit in the ongoing war crime in Iraq, my answers are inadequate. Indeed, what can be done when the House of Representatives will not adequately investigate 911 let alone begin impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush.
On the other hand, a grand jury investigating the Bush White House would have sweeping powers to define the scope of its own investigation and the power of the subpoena to back it up. For example, Michael Moore wants the images made by hundreds of cameras trained on the Pentagon released. It would clear up the question: what did strike the Pentagon. Only a guilty government would not want you to know. It occurs to me that a Grand Jury could simply demand those items. Failure to comply is a crime.
Of course, Bushies will cite "national security" as did Nixon in Watergate. Bush prefers brinkmanship and, thus far, the Democrats have always backed down. But a Grand Jury is not the Congress. It does not have to stand for re-election. Would Bush really prefer to stonewall knowing that the issue would go straight to the Supreme Court? Would Bush risk a purely legal decision on the merits of the case?
In most instances, grand juries investigate issues brought to them by a prosecutor. In those cases, charges are returned in an indictment. Some states allow grand juries to act on their own. In those cases, charges are returned in what is called a "presentment". A presentment has the same legal effect and weight as an indictment, that is, both initiate a criminal case.
I want to know why a Federal Grand Jury was not convened to investigate 911 in the first place. Never mind! I know why! Bushco had a cover story to peddle. A real investigation would have only muddied the water. It would have delayed the onset of a war that Bush was hellbent and desperate to wage on behalf of his sponsors. Getting Bush out of the Oval Office is a matter of very real urgency.
There are remedies. The people waited patiently for a Democratic majority. Having got one, we are constantly disappointed. There must be millions, like me, who are sick to death of waiting for justice, millions like me who feel disenfranchised and abandoned by this "government of the people". The people simply must not wait for Congress to begin a real investigation.
Unless every judge in every state, in every county, in every town or city is crooked or, in other ways, bought and paid for by Bush's crooked gang, there may be a way to convene a Grand Jury that will fully investigate the events of 911 and bring charges against administration officials who may have facilitated or helped plan it. Simply, the people may petition a judge to convene a grand jury.
The time has come to brush up on some basics, in this case, the Grand Jury system. Here is a great link: Using a Grand Jury to Investigate the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks. What is often called a "runaway" Grand Jury could be useful right now. As pointed out in the article, Federal grand juries have already played central roles in the investigations of the Oklahoma City bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and the bombing of two US embassies in Africa.
Grand juries are typically summoned by a court when an attorney general or a district attorney's motion is granted by the chief judge to empanel the body. But a court may also summons a grand jury upon its own motion and grand jurors are summoned from the same pool as trial jurors.
Abortion-Rights Opponents File Petition For Grand Jury To Investigate Death Of Woman Who Received Abortion At Kansas ClinicAbortion-rights opponents on Friday submitted a petition with 7,754 local signatures to a Sedgwick County, Kan., court to convene a grand jury to investigate the death of a woman who died three days after undergoing an abortion at the Women's Health Care Services clinic in Wichita, Kan., the AP/Wichita Eagle reports (Hegeman, AP/Wichita Eagle, 4/7). Kansas law allows a grand jury to be formed within 60 days of a petition filed with a state district court if the petition has at least 100 more signatures than 2% of the number of people in the county who voted in the most recent gubernatorial election.
The point being --the people may petition a court to convene a grand jury. Here's an excerpt from just such a petition:
"We, the undersigned qualified electors of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, petition the Court to immediately call a Grand Jury to convene in Oklahoma County for the purpose of conducting a thorough investigation into all aspects of the operations of the Police Department of Midwest City, Oklahoma; and, in addition to investigate into the offices, affairs, and conduct of the City Manager, Mayor, and City Council of Midwest City, Oklahoma; and, in addition, to investigate into any and all other matters called to the attention of the Grand Jury."
14 We cannot determine as a matter of law that the petition for grand jury is a witch hunt based upon speculation or conjecture by the circulators and signers of the petition, nor can we carte blanche impugn their motive. This is the function of the grand jury. While the grand jury may, after investigation, return indictments, ouster proceedings, or otherwise make critical written reports as to the condition and operation of these offices, they may on the other hand submit a complimentary report on those officials and their offices. In any event, the discretion and authority lies with the grand jury as an inquisitorial body.
Grand Juries typically meet in secret and there have been instances in which "runaway grand juries" abused their power and authority. But it was a runaway grand jury in the 1930s that investigated widespread mob corruption in New York and returned a number of bona fide indictments against mafia bosses. Recently, a grand jury in California almost closed down a county when it indicted almost every member of the government.
Len Hart is a Houston based film/video producer specializing in shorts and full-length documentaries. He is a former major market and network correspondent; credits include CBS, ABC-TV and UPI. He maintains the progressive blog: The Existentialist Cowboy
It is a wonderful idea and a positive thought of delivering all of our nuclear war fighting elite up to a Grand Jury.
One question is; "Under what legal authority would it be convened?"
The authority of the government of the Unites States of America ended in 1946 when the decision was made to go ahead with a full scale nuclear build up.
The decision to go ahead with a full scale nuclear build up included the still Secret "Master plan" to genocide the mass of humanity in an all out nuclear holocaust.
Connect a few dots folks, and you may begin to understand why "ET" dropped one of his aircraft at the only nuclear bombing base on the planet located in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947.
A guess is that "ET" was sending us a message as to the "Magnitude of the deception." Our nuclear war fighting elite are at this moment still trying to get a full blown nuclear war underway.
We are the Living Dead.
To convene a lawful Grand Jury may first require us to create a legitimate authority. There is no aspect of lawful authority within any department of the previous government of the United States of America.
By moving forward with a plot to exterminate humanity with the use of nuclear weapons, all legal authority ended. We are in a pure form of an extortion murder racket.
We are the Living Dead.
by
Patrick (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments)
on Monday, July 2, 2007 at 9:12:32 PM
It is a wonderful idea and a positive thought of delivering all of our nuclear war fighting elite up to a Grand Jury.
We gave that power to Bush!!! I don't see how a grand jury, if it consisted of straw suckin' simpletons, could do worse!
To convene a lawful Grand Jury may first require us to create a legitimate authority.
There are only about three ways in which grand juries are convened. A petition to a judge is one of them. The people may petition a judge to convene a grand jury and judges have always had that authority. Such a grand jury is like any other grand jury, has the same authority, the same weight, the same power. It IS a grand jury. Period!
by
Len Hart (131 articles, 173 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 549 comments)
on Tuesday, July 3, 2007 at 2:31:35 AM
That is not my blog, but rather the blog of a retired lawyer. I came across that a couple of years ago.
As regards your question, in order to empanel a federal grand jury, you would need to get a federal judge to go along with it. I would suggest getting a group of experienced criminal and constitutional lawyers, currently admiited to the bar, to start the process. I don't know any such efforts, other than
You are correct. My article is about petitioning a judge. In one of my articles I referred to such a judge as a "friendly" judge. Obviously, a citizens group would waste their time seeking out judges whose record might indicate that they would be entirely unsympathetic.
Thanks for the links....they are a great resource.
by
Len Hart (131 articles, 173 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 549 comments)
on Wednesday, July 4, 2007 at 1:37:07 AM
If you look at the list of defendants in the Fargo ND case, you will find included there James Baker, George Herbert Walker Bush, FRANK Carlucci, William Jefferson Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, ALBERT “AL” GORE andJOHN KERRY among others. You will find missing in the list, Richard Cheney and George W. Bush. I presume that there were no direct links to them in this case.
In any such case, it is far easier to go after the surrounding side players, rather than the people at the top. It does not mean that they were not involved or did not benefit, but only that the direct linkages end a few rungs lower.
The fact that they can be listed in the list above may also explain the actions of some of these players.
by
Bleeding Heart Liberal (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 48 comments)
on Wednesday, July 4, 2007 at 10:11:33 AM
I posted your article with link at Sound Off Current Events myway.com and here's the response I got....
Not to throw cold water on the fantasy party here but, what standing would a private citizen have to bring charges against Bush in a court of law?
Standing is a legal principle that has a real definition. If that author want's to show us how to bring charges against Bush, why doesn't he talk about that issue...solve THAT problem for us? It will be the FIRST question out of the Judge's mouth: What standing do you have?
You can always tell a fantasy. It is devoid of large pieces of reality.
Can you please answer his question?
by
RocknRebel (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Wednesday, July 4, 2007 at 7:34:11 PM
The response you got is just plain ignorant Some one on another board posted something about getting a "legitimate authority"....sheesh I have NO patience with idiots who must have fallen asleep during "civics" class.
TELL YOUR CRITIC: last time I checked, a Federal Judge IS a legitimate authority...so is Federal Grand Jury APPOINTED by the frickin' judge. A Federal Grand Jury can indict just about anybody it wants to...including a mere "President".
Sheesh! No wonder this country is going to hell under Bush. There was a time when that kind of basic knowlege of the operations of government were required to get out of high school. Over the period of time in whcih the GOP (going back to Reagan) has been in its ascendancy, the educational standards have gone to hell. I cite the cases of Texas (ranked DEAD LAST in Education) and the so-called "Houston Miracle" ( a fraud ) in evidence.
by
Len Hart (131 articles, 173 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 549 comments)
on Thursday, July 5, 2007 at 1:51:17 AM
The right of people to petition is guaranteed them in the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Aside from the fact that a Federal Judge has the authority to convene a Grand Jury upon HIS OWN MOTION...that is "standing enough". In other words, a Federal Judge may not even require that he/she be petitioned by a group of citizens. The popular petition is only one of about three methods by which Grand Juries come about. Once formed, a Grand Jury HAS "standing" de facto, and it can subpoena anyone it wants.
Finally, according to Joseph Storey, whose comments on the Constitution, are often cited in numerous SCOTUS decisions, established the legal significance of the Preamble to the Constitution, which begins, "We the people...." In other words, the Constitution itself is the creation of the people. As opposed to the great Monarchies of Europe, exemplified by Louis XIV who said 'L'Etat, C'est Moi!", the people of the US themselves are themselves SOVEREIGN. I call that "standing". And, in the case of Bush, they have standing in that his policies have HARMED the people in concrete and describable ways. Moreover, because the people themselves are "sovereign", the harm done them by Bush is HIGH TREASON!
That principle is called "popular sovereignty" and it is firmly established in our Constitution (a creation of the people) and in shelves full of case law. That is "standing" enough.
The Declaration of Independence itself proclaims: "...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"
There was a time, not too long ago, when ignorance might have been excused. But today there is no excuse. Obviously, your 'critic" had access to the internet. And anyone with access to the internet can access every SCOTUS decision on record.
by
Len Hart (131 articles, 173 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 549 comments)
on Thursday, July 5, 2007 at 2:39:35 AM
Well let's just devastate that argument piece by piece:
Aside from the fact that a Federal Judge has the authority to convene a Grand Jury upon HIS OWN MOTION...that is "standing enough". LOLOL Even if the judge's "standing" was relevant, he cannot just wake up one day and convene a Grand Jury. There has to be a case at bar that REQUIRES a Grand Jury. There actually has to be something for them to do!! But in this case we talk about the standing of the Plaintiff......not the judge. Sorry. In other words, a Federal Judge may not even require that he/she be petitioned by a group of citizens. Again there has to be a case at bar.......a Plaintiff IS a petitioner. The popular petition is only one of about three methods by which Grand Juries come about. Once formed, a Grand Jury HAS "standing" de facto, and it can subpoena anyone it wants. Again, the "standing" (if there even is such a thing for Grand Juries) of the Grand Jury isn't the issue here and is totally irrelevant. Subpoena power is a power......NOT a "standing".
Finally, according to Joseph Storey, whose comments on the Constitution, are often cited in numerous SCOTUS decisions, established the legal significance of the Preamble to the Constitution, which begins, "We the people...." In other words, the Constitution itself is the creation of the people. As opposed to the great Monarchies of Europe, exemplified by Louis XIV who said 'L'Etat, C'est Moi!", the people of the US themselves are themselves SOVEREIGN. I call that "standing". And therein lies the problem........YOU "calling" something "standing". I'm sorry to inform you but standing isn't something you can make up or invent when you need to. It has a specific legal definition that you will need to learn BEFORE you use that word. Sovereignty isn't standing. And, in the case of Bush, they have standing in that his policies have HARMED the people this maybe as true as the sunrise Rock, but the court isn't going to care much about how it "harmed the people". The Judge is going to insist that YOU show how it harmed YOU. If YOU have a loss.....a personal loss.....because of something Bush did, THEN the judge will be able to rule that YOU have standing. You can PROVE beyond any doubt that Bush threw a brick and hit ME in the head..........but it won't give YOU standing to petition the court for redress of greivances. It ain't YOUR greivance! THEREFORE, you don't have STANDING! in concrete and describable ways. Moreover, because the people themselves are "sovereign", the harm done them by Bush is HIGH TREASON! That sounds good but it's totally false. High treason doesn't have anything to do with "the people" being "sovereign". Sorry.
That principle is called "popular sovereignty" and it is firmly established in our Constitution (a creation of the people) and in shelves full of case law. That is "standing" enough. Well I don't need shelves full of case law......I only need to see ONE CASE where standing was determined by "popular sovereignty". Take as much time as you need to find that case. I already know it's not there.
by
RocknRebel (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Friday, July 6, 2007 at 8:36:06 AM
Well that's all well and good Rock and you're right, a Federal Judge IS a legitimate authority. Trouble is he is an authority on the LAW. And he's an authority on LEGAL PROCEDURE, too. And he has the authority to throw out nuisance suits and frivolous suits. And he won't let this case of yours into his courtroom unless and until YOU know what you are talking about. He simply doesn't have the time for foam and hysterics.
Again.........what standing do you or I have to bring suit against Bush?????????? (Hint: that's a procedural question.)
I can C&P what oto wrote (his reply to Len Hart, the author of the article in dispute, or I could invite Len Hart here to MyWay to speak to Oto himself, but either way I don't want to be the middle man.
My opinion is that Len was referring to a group of people, certainly more than one person, bringing a case to court against bush. Meaning.... WE THE PEOPLE, not I the person.
Len's article was referring to the "process of law" under those conditions and stating that IT IS possible for WE THE PEOPLE to take Bush to court.
I also think Oto's term "standing" meant "on what grounds". And that's where I was stumped and why I brought it back to Len.
So now I'll leave it up to Oto if he wants to pursue this further. Or maybe Oto could just click on the link and talk to Len at the site there.
Why would I bother to talk to a guy who doesn't have the slightest idea what the first problem would be if he ever stood before a judge with a case like this????????????? And especially a guy who pretends to tell us how....and doesn't know how??????
You loaded your gun with blanks, again, Rock.
500 people.............or 500,000 people.........are NOT "we the people".
IF you want to hear from "we the People" run down to your local courthouse and listen to the Prosecutor say, "The People are ready to proceed, Your Honor." or "The People rest, Your Honor."
by
RocknRebel (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Friday, July 6, 2007 at 8:47:16 AM
The draft indictment was authoried by Elizabeth de la Vega, a former Federal Prosecutor with some 20 years experience. I rather suspect that with some 20 years experience charging miscreants with crimes, she knows the difference between "standing" and "probable cause". I can tell you that her stock and trade was PROBABLE CAUSE!
And she also knows how Grand Juries are empaneled.
by
Len Hart (131 articles, 173 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 549 comments)
on Friday, July 6, 2007 at 3:17:46 PM
This crap about "standing" is laughable and completely irrelevant. That terminology applies to lawsuits. Probable cause is required to being any investigation of a crime.
Even if the judge's "standing" was relevant, he cannot just wake up one day and convene a Grand Jury. There has to be a case at bar that REQUIRES a Grand Jury. There actually has to be something for them to do!!
That confuses criminal investigations with lawsuits. The legal standard for a Grand Jury is PROBABLE CAUSE --not "standing". A lawsuit may be dismissed if a plaintiff has not "standing". Nothing said about "standing" is relevant to this discussion. The legal standard for any criminal investigation, including those conducted by any grand jury is PROBABLE CAUSE. A Grand Jury investigation of a crime is NOT a lawsuit.
But in this case we talk about the standing of the Plaintiff......not the judge.
Again, the comment is not relevant. We are not talking about Plaintiffs, we are not talking about lawsuits in which a plaintiff, with standing, brings a case against a defendant. The issue here, rather, is that of a criminal investigation by a panel of some 25 citizens empaneled by a bona fide judge upon PROBABLE CAUSE that a crime has been committed. A District Court may empanel a jury upon its own motion. .
Again there has to be a case at bar.......a Plaintiff IS a petitioner.
Irrelevant. We are NOT talking about plaintiffs and lawsuits! At issue is Grand Jury investigations of felonies for which the legal standard required to begin an investigation is PROBABLE CAUSE!
Probable cause is where known facts and circumstances, of a reasonably trustworthy nature, are sufficient to justify a man of reasonable caution or prudence in the belief that a crime has been or is being committed. (reasonable man definition; common textbook definition; comes from Draper v. U.S. 1959)
See also:
"The United States Supreme Court in Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959), has defined probable cause in the following terms:
'Probable cause for an arrest exists where the facts and circumstances within an arresting officers knowledge and of which he had reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed.'
--GRIMES v. STATE, 1974 OK CR 214, 528 P.2d 1397, Case Number: F-73-425
Decided: 11/27/1974
Here's OFFICIAL information from the US Justice Department:
The function of the grand jury is to investigate possible criminal violations of the federal laws and to return indictments against culpable corporations and individuals where there is probable cause to believe that a violation has occurred. In performing this function, "the grand jury is to inquire into all information that might possibly bear on its investigation until it has identified an offense or has satisfied itself that none has occurred."(1) The grand jury "is a grand inquest, a body with powers of investigation and inquisition, the scope of whose inquiries is not to be limited narrowly by questions of propriety or forecasts of the probable result of the investigation, or by doubts whether any particular individual will be found properly subject to an accusation of crime."(2) The grand jury is rooted in several centuries of Anglo-American history and "has the dual function of determining if there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and of protecting citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions."(3)
...
Empaneling the Grand Jury
Empaneling provision
District courts are authorized to empanel grand juries under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(a), which provides:
The court shall order one or more grand juries to be summoned at such time as the public interest requires. . . .
This provision empowers the court to empanel one or more grand juriesin addition to those other grand juries that already may be sitting. The empaneling should be in open court unless extremely unusual circumstances require exclusion of the public.(16)
by
Len Hart (131 articles, 173 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 549 comments)
on Friday, July 6, 2007 at 3:06:50 PM
Now for the benefit of those who don't know the difference between a lawsuit and a criminal case, a CRIMINAL CASE against the FELON-IN-CHIEF, George W. Bush:
The IndictmentUnited States v. George W. Bush et al.
By Elizabeth de la Vega
Assistant United States Attorney: Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen. We're here today in the case of United States v. George W. Bush et al. In addition to President Bush, the defendants are Vice President Richard B. Cheney, former National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice -- who's now the Secretary of State, of course -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
It's a one-count proposed indictment: Conspiracy to Defraud the United States in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371. I'll explain the law that applies to the case this afternoon, but I'm going to hand out the indictment now, so you'll have some context for that explanation. Take as long as you need to read it, and then feel free to take your lunch break, but please leave your copy of the indictment with the foreperson. We'll meet back at one o'clock.
***
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Criminal No. Plaintiff, ) ) Conspiracy to Defraud v. ) the United States ) GEORGE W. BUSH, ) 18 U.S.C. Section 371 RICHARD B. CHENEY, ) CONDOLEEZZA RICE, ) DONALD M. RUMSFELD, and ) COLIN POWELL, ) Defendants )
INDICTMENT
THE GRAND JURY CHARGES:
Click the link to read the entire DRAFT INDICTMENT.
by
Len Hart (131 articles, 173 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 549 comments)
on Friday, July 6, 2007 at 3:15:00 PM
I hope it was of some help. It was obvious that the "criticism" you were getting was not even on topic...but, sadly, that relects a failure of our educational system AND the media. Is there another country so arrogant about it form of government yet so ignorant of it? I doubt it. Glad to be of help.
In the meantime, the people must find a way to get Bush out of the White House. This gang will not go willingly...and, unless corporations are deprived of the rights that, by right, belong ONLY to human beings, fascists will simply reply Bush with another puppet!
by
Len Hart (131 articles, 173 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 549 comments)
on Sunday, July 8, 2007 at 1:25:02 PM
20 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
