Clarification ----Exactly What Is the "Fourth Branch of Government" Justice Antonin Scalia Referenced?

By Anna Von Reitz

Heads up, Grand Jury Movement, but first....

Justice Edwards of Illinois and I have talked about the Continental Marshals and the proper role of the Grand Juries and the limits of the State Superior Court Justice office. We are fully in accord. Please stop giving him H-E-Double Hockey Sticks. He is on track to the extent that he ever left it. 

As for "Marshal Edwards" I am afraid that "he" is a fabrication of my pen and miscommunication of information---which has been too abundant.

The object of all the work I have done and that so many, many others have done is to restore the American Government and see it functioning properly again.

It is not an effort aimed at further undermining the structures of our government or redefining the offices established under it.

Those who support and who operate the actual American Government of the people, for the people, and by the people must make every effort to fully grasp both the enormity of the duty owed and the lawful limits that our system of government imposes on every office and every official.

Checks and Balances are not only supposed to operate between the separate branches of government, but at every level of government.

Why NLA Grand Juries Don't Work--- Unanswered Letters 20a --- for Joseph

by Anna Von Reitz

The Citizens Common Law Grand Jury created at the time the federal government was set up in the late 1700's could only be an American Common Law Grand Jury. The country was at peace--- as it had been for several years  after the signing of the Definitive Treaty of Peace, Paris, 1783--- at the time the actual Constitution was adopted.  There can be no assumption that the references made to the Citizens Common Law Grand Jury set up as the Fourth Branch of Government at that time was operating under any form of Martial Common Law. 

No such circumstance of war or venue of martial law related to the civil government existed at the time.  

Therefore, when we say "Citizens Common Law Grand Jury" and take reference to Scalia's recent ruling re-affirming its validity, there is only one kind of "Common Law" we can be talking about and that is American Common Law as it existed and grew up on this continent for the two centuries prior to the adoption of the Constitution and the creation of the Federal Government.

That being true, the next thing we have to look at is who is competent to serve on a Citizen's Grand Jury under American Common Law, and the first thing that jumps off the page is that the jurors have to be Americans and acting as Americans. They can't be United States Citizens.

You have another vote in our system to control government - The Grand Jury

Follow the links below starting at the top in order to understand the workings of a standing Common Law Grand Jury. Much of this comes from US Supreme Court decisions and over a very long period of time, with some recent decisions that bolster everything that was done previously. THESE ARE CRITICAL to the future of our country!

Most people believe that they only have one vote in our system of government, and that is when they go to the voting booth to elect people to office. There is another vote you have that carries tremendous power. It's called your Grand Jury vote. 

To see a one page primer on what the Grand Jury is and what it's powers are read this from the Fully Informed Jury Website. Click Here

You have several votes that you don't know about. You have your vote in the ballot box, yes, but how do you feel when you come out? Do you feel helpless? Yes, me too.

But you have never been taught about this in the government schools have you?

One of your other votes in our system is your Grand Jury Vote, but have you ever been called to be a juror on a Grand Jury? In Montana the powers that be conned the people into approving a new state Constitution in 1972 or so, and in that Constitution there is a clause that mandates that only a state district court judge can call a Grand Jury. There is great evidence to support the idea that a common law Grand Jury needs NO agent of government, which is what a judge is, to call a COMMON LAW GRAND JURY regardless of what the Montana state Constitution says. Read the links below and you will be pleasantly surprised about the power and duties of a Grand Jury to reign in those very agents of government that want you to believe that only THEY can use the Grand Jury for their own ends. Enjoy,

Sincerely,
Paul Stramer
Lincoln County Watch, 406 889 3183 pstramer@eurekadsl.net

---

The very first thing we need to discuss are the objections that the powers that be will come with to stop the Common Law Standing Grand Jury. When you find out what the objections are you will understand why they are in absolute "shaking in their boots" panic ridden fear of a citizen operated common law Grand Jury. Here is a document that will shed some light on that subject. http://www.lincolncountywatch.org/grandjury/nolegalauthority.pdf

The next part of this subject involves some real filings and writs that outline the function and ability of a Grand Jury to command the agents of government to perform their duty according to their Oath of Office sworn before God Almighty to uphold the US Constitution.
Here is a document issued by a Common Law Grand Jury in the state of New York which covers 18 counties in that state, written to one of the judges of the Supreme Court commanding him to do his duty. This document will give you the background of the Grand Jury as the Supreme Court in Common Law. It quotes all the decisions of various courts including the US Supreme Court that show the Grand Jury is completely INDEPENDENT of government, and does not fall under the control of any court.
http://www.lincolncountywatch.org/grandjury/mandamustojudge.pdf

When an agent of government refuses to do their duty according to the oath they took to follow the Constitution there are serious consequences. One might be an indictment with charges of "official misconduct" which might carrry a fine and jail penalty, and other various charges might follow. But first the Grand Jury can simply command that agent of government to do their duty.
Here is a Writ of Mandamus from that same New York Grand Jury commanding the Chief Clerk of their Supreme Court to do her duty and file the documents. It seems that most of these people around the country fail to have an oath of office on file as they are required to do for the office to be filled. If there is no oath, the office is vacant.

http://www.lincolncountywatch.org/grandjury/mandamustoclerk.pdf

One of the most revealing US Supreme Court cases was a 6 to 3 decision in 1992 where Judge Antonin Scalia outlines the basis for the Grand Jury and says that the Grand Jury IS NOT part of the government, but belongs completely to We the People. http://www.paulstramer.net/2013/12/the-grand-jury-answer-for-corruption-in.html"

If you have read this far you should understand that any so called "law" that abrogates the Constitution for the United States is NULL and VOID. Here is a link to supporting arguments:
http://www.paulstramer.net/2012/11/what-is-really-law-and-what-is-not-law.html

The real question is this. Since the US Supreme court majority opinion in the Williams case confirms that the Grand Jury does not belong to either the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of government, and since Montana accepted the US Consititution as it is and was at the time Montana became a State, how can then a new clause in a new Montana Constitution put in place in 1972 put the Grand Jury under the control of a state district court judge without abrogating the compact with the United States that Montana signed when it bacame a State? Additionally, how can Montana put the Grand Jury owned by We The People under a State district court judge without violating the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, namely the 5th and 7th Amendments, where the jury rights are reserved?
http://www.paulstramer.net/2013/12/the-grand-jury-answer-for-corruption-in.html

The big question then is this. IS MONTANA STILL A STATE? What is good for the goose is good for the gander. A few years back Gov. Schweitzer told the Federal government to back off on gun control because it would abrogate the compact of Montana with the United States. Doesn't that same prinicple work for this issue? How can Montana unilaterally change the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution, or ignore that compact by placing our common law Grand Jury under the control of a Judge in the Judicial Branch of the Montana government, when the US Supreme Court has reminded us all that the Grand Jury is NOT part of the government in ANY of the 3 branches, but is wholly owned by We The People, who are the sovereign in this issue under common law just as the King was the sovereign at the King's bench in England under common law. That is our tradition and history with so many precidents in law that it's difficult to list them all. Yet we continue to put up with this. How long will we let this usurpation of power and the corruption go on. Will this be solved in a peaceful manner, or will this end up going to a war? Is this still the State of Montana, or is this now the Country of Montana?http://www.paulstramer.net/2014/01/which-do-you-prefer-civil-war-or-world.html

We have stated many times that the way our country has been changed into a corporation and is being forced into admiralty and civil jurisdictions rather than the Constitutionally mandated common law, has all been done by fraud, deception, threat, duress, coercion, and intimidation, and is therefore null and void. The Writ of Mandamus is one of the solutions to this horrible situation of judicial corruption as is being exercised above. Read the writs to the judge and clerk above and then the answer to their No Legal Authority argument in the pdf files. Here are the links again.
http://www.lincolncountywatch.org/grandjury/mandamustojudge.pdf
http://www.lincolncountywatch.org/grandjury/mandamustoclerk.pdf
http://www.lincolncountywatch.org/grandjury/nolegalauthority.pdf

These steps are totally lawful and are what is commanded by the 5th and 7th amendments to the US Constitution.

5th Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

7th Amendment:
"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

It seems there are some very severe penalties for public officials who refuse to follow the proper procedure in dealing with presetments of a Grand Jury. You might want to review these cites from title 18 United States Code:http://www.lincolncountywatch.org/grandjury/grandjuryenforcement.pdf

What if the whole purpose of the violence in Ferguson is to destroy the credibility of Grand Juries

Just like with the OJ Simpson trial, where the Jury ' just had to be wrong', what if this whole protest and all the violence was planned to eliminate your 3rd vote in our 4 vote system of government?

Politico had an interesting article about the fraud in Ferguson MO that prompted me to write this article.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/ferguson-fraud-113178.html?ml=m_po#.VHoIjtLF_Sh

You have 4 votes lawfully enshrined in our Supreme Law of the Land.

1. Your ballot box.
2. Your trial jury box.
3. Your Grand Jury box
4. Your cartridge box

If you don't have enough information on how those votes work read the following articles.
The US Supreme Court has ruled over and over on this.

http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/supreme%20court%20cases/US%20v%20Williams.pdf

http://www.fija.org/docs/JG_on_the_grand_jury.pdf

http://fija.org/2014/11/25/3-ways-the-ferguson-grand-jury-illustrates-a-two-tiered-system-of-justice/

You can get much more on the proper use of Grand Juries at this page you are now on, buy typing grand jury in the search box on the right at the top of this page.

Then for the whole history of how our judicial system is being perverted go to www.annavonreitz.com

Paul Stramer

Only "Extremists" Believe They Have a Right to be Left Alone

This article by William Norman Grigg deserves to be reprinted in it's entirety all across this land.

By William Norman Grigg

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/william-norman-grigg/think-you-have-the-right-to-be-left-alone%E2%80%A8/

Ernie Wayne terTelgte is a poor man from a tiny village in Montana who believes that nature gives him a license to live. Barack Obama is a wealthy and privileged man residing at the seat of power who believes his position gives him a license to kill. Naturally, the Tolerance Commissars are pretending that the former is a menace to society, because of the contempt he displays for the system that facilitates the crimes committed by the latter.

Last August, terTelgte was fishing at Three Forks Pond with his eleven-year-old son when they were accosted by Adam Pankratz, who is employed as a warden by the Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Service.

When Pankratz saw terTelgte reeling in a fish, the warden asked if he had a fishing license. TerTelgte replied that he didn’t need one. Pretending to concede the point, the warden persisted in demanding that terTelgte provide identification. When both teTelgte and his son quite sensibly refused the demand, Pankratz called for assistance, and Three Forks Police Officer Colter Metcalf quickly arrived.

Officer Metcalf made a brief and unsuccessful attempt to learn terTelgte’s identity.

Pankratz later said that he and Metcalf were concerned by the fact that terTelgte’s “body language” was “tense,” that his language was “curt,” and that he kept telling them to “walk away” and “just leave me alone.” This is a description of someone whose behavior was defensive. But Pankratz and Metcalf, as representatives of the coercive caste, insisted on escalating the encounter by arresting him for “obstruction.”

“We didn’t want it to go this far, especially with the son … but we couldn’t identify him,” Pankratz complained, assuming that a tax-funded aggressor is entitled to sympathy because of his occupation.

Since terTelgte had no legal duty to present identification (Montana code authorizes “stop and frisk”-style harassment of citizens, but doesn’t specify that citizens have a duty to identify themselves), the arrest was unlawful. As is the case elsewhere, Montana state statutes authorize police to abduct citizens without legal justification if this is done “under the peace officer’s official authority.”

Plucking a fish from a “publicly owned” pond without a license is considered an offense, despite the fact that entailed no violation of property rights. (If it did, who is the victim, and what injury did he sustain?) Violently abducting a human being who has done no harm to anyone, on the other hand, is regarded as a “lawful” act, assuming that the kidnapper is accoutered in the officially prescribed costume.

To his credit, the victim was non-cooperative but non-violent. This wasn’t true of the assailants, of course. After Metcalf threatened to attack terTelgte with pepper spray, Pankratz kicked his legs out from beneath him.

Rather than mounting a violent defense against his captors, terTelgte simply sat motionless on the ground, forcing them to pick him up and carry him to the police car.

During his arraignment before Three Forks Municipal Judge Wanda Drusch, terTelgte refused to defer to her authority or play his expected role as a penitent and submissive suspect.

“I was searching for something to put in my stomach as I am … allowed to do by universal law,” he declared. “I am the living man and I have the right to forage for food when I am hungry.” 

The “trial” last November — if the proceedings merit that description — was attended by 32 police officers from ten agencies, brought together by shared concern that the defendant’s defiance might prove contagious. TerTelgte was denied the right—supposedly protected by the Constitution – to cross-examine witnesses or to introduce evidence on his own behalf.

To the surprise of nobody, terTelgte was quickly found guilty of the supposed offense of obstructing the unwarranted harassment of armed state

functionaries, and refusing to cooperate in his own abduction. Although his jail sentence was suspended, terTelgte later spent 30 days behind bars for “contempt” after he declined to take off his hat in the courtroom during a subsequent appearance on another charge of “resisting arrest.”

TerTelgte is clearly eccentric; he might even be considered obnoxious by some. It is reasonable to conclude that his actions have been unwise, a violation of the principle that each of us has trouble enough and shouldn’t be seeking to borrow more. But he is patently harmless. There is no evidence that he has ever injured or defrauded anybody, which certainly can’t be said of the government functionaries who assaulted and caged him, or the criminal entity that employs them.

It is the zeal to prolong the pretense of the Regime’s legitimacy that led the Southern Poverty Law Center to identify terTelgte as a public enemy, an exponent of what that self-appointed Stasi calls “sovereign citizen ideology.”

Stated in its broadest terms, the “sovereign citizen” concept holds that some people can exempt themselves from the law through the use of esoteric legal concepts expressed in impenetrable language. From that perspective, people who utter or publish the appropriate conjurations can seize the property of others, issue fraudulent financial instruments, and employ lethal violence against those who seek to hold them accountable.

Assuming that this is an accurate description, at least some “sovereign citizens” are attempting to mimic the criminal behavior of those who presume to rule the rest of us. The SPLC and allied “watchdog” groups offer no objections to the routine practice of fraud and exercise of lethal aggressive violence by the most dangerous element of our society. They simply want to preserve that element’s monopoly on the privilege of committing criminal aggression.

This is why the SPLC professes alarm that outrage over the terTelgte case has prompted some Montana residents to create a citizens’ grand jury to investigate allegations of abuse and official misconduct. SPLC flack David Neiwert breathlessly – and perhaps hopefully – writes that this could lead to a rural “showdown” akin to the April 12 confrontation in Bunkerville, Nevada.

William Wolf, who has organized efforts to create the citizens grand jury, has suggested that his group might arrest Rick West, the Justice of the Peace who sent terTelgte to jail for thirty days on a contempt charge. Gallatin County Sheriff Brian Gootkin described this as “unacceptable,” accusing Wolf and his allies of “crossing a line they can’t cross.”

“When there are threats like this, not only does it affect that person, it affects their family,” mewled Gootkin in a television interview. “For someone in the family to live in fear, that’s not the way things work. When you start talking about arresting people and kidnapping people … that’s unacceptable and nothing good comes from that.”

It’s appropriate that Gootkin uses the terms “arrest” and “kidnap” interchangeably, given that the latter is properly applied to what was done to terTelgte. The public record is barren of any recognition by Sheriff Gootkin that terTelgte’s abduction traumatized his eleven-year-old son and made him “live in fear.” Apparently the impact of violence on Mundanes and their children doesn’t concern the Sheriff.

Gootkin also berated members of the proposed citizens’ grand jury for “bypassing” the criminal justice system. The real scandal here is the effective destruction of the grand jury, which was intended to be a citizens’ assembly rather than a government entity.

From the Founding era until the early 20th Century, grand juries were bodies that could carry out independent investigations of official corruption and deliver “presentments” to prosecutors in search of redress. Constitutional scholar Roger Roots observes that the grand jury, “in its primal, plenary sense … was a group of men who stood as a check on government, often in direct opposition to the desires of those in power.”

Writing in the Fordham Law Review, Kevin K. Washburn points out that the grand jury “came to us as an institution that was respected for its profound ability to protect local communities – indeed, possibly rebellious ones – from central government authority. It was, in essence, a local check on Crown authority.” In that capacity, grand juries not only conducted rigorous review of facts, but also “nullification of validly enacted laws,” Washburn continues.

During the reign of FDR, an executive branch Advisory Committee on the Rules of Criminal Procedure – an unaccountable body with no legislative mandate – imposed regulations intended to destroy the independence of grand juries. As a result, “the grand jury is the total captive of the prosecutor, who, if he is candid, will concede that he can indict anybody, at any time, for almost anything, before any grand jury,” wrote federal District Judge William J. Campbell, who urged the formal abolition of the institution in the interests of efficiency.

Judge Campbell offered those observations in 1973. Since that time, the US criminal “justice” system has reached almost Soviet levels of prosecutorial efficiency. Under the reign of Josef Stalin, Soviet procurators were ordered to achieve a 100 conviction rate. In the current federal system, notes Lew Rockwell, the defendant “wins once every 212 times.”

Once the grand jury was re-purposed as an arm of the state, prosecutors were free to commit routine due process violations and destroy what remained of the institution of trial by jury. “Waiving the Criminal Justice System,” a study recently published by the University of Texas School of Law, describes how the adversarial process through which the state must prove the guilt of a defendant has been supplanted with a system of administrative law in which prosecutors extract plea bargains in exchange for relatively lenient sentences. This is why federal prosecutors win well more than ninety percent of their cases through plea bargains, rather than jury trials.

This is a lamentable state of affairs, and, to many observers, a familiar story. This study, however, breaks new ground by showing that prosecutors at both the state and federal levels require defendants to waive due process rights that are vital for post-conviction appeals – such as the right to effective assistance of counsel, and the right to obtain exculpatory evidence that can be used to overturn a conviction or at least obtain a new trial.

In the American tradition, the purpose of a trial was to establish the truth of an accusation against a defendant who is presumed to be innocent. The purpose of our post-constitutional criminal system is to ratify the defendant’s guilt, irrespective of the facts or the law. This is not the doing of eccentrics and “extremists” like Ernie terTelgte, but rather of the respectable people who employ the exercise and the threat of violence to force others to submit to their will – and who can rely on the unconditional support of the SPLC and others of their contemptible ilk.

Roughly a week ago, while the SPLC was pretending that terTelgte and his supporters are a threat to the republic, the US Supreme Court put an end to the illusion that something worthy of being called a republic still exists, or that citizens have any reasonable expectation that, if accused of an offense, they have a right to a trial of some kind.

The High Court refused to hear an appeal filed by Chris Hedges and several other activists challenging a provision of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act under which the president can order the indefinite military detention – without trial or legal recourse — of any U.S. citizen he regards as an enemy of the state.

That provision was struck down as unconstitutional by US District Judge Katherine Forrest, who ruled that it could lead to the seizure and imprisonment of people who exercised rights supposedly protected by the First Amendment. As is their habit, the executive branch’s legal minions greeted that ruling with an indifferent shrug and filed an appeal before a more complaisant federal judge, who ruled that no citizen has legal standing to challenge the NDAA. That ruling was left undisturbed by the Supreme Court.

As a result, summarizes progressive commentator Thom Hartman, the military “now has the power to label us terrorists, capture us, lock us up in jail, and hold us there without any regard for our Constitutional rights to due process or a fair trial.” That power very nicely compliments Obama’s routine practice of executing people without the benefit of trial – including at least one teenaged U.S. citizen.

Ernie terTeglte’s view of sovereignty is that he has a right to feed himself and be left alone. Barack Obama’s view of sovereignty is that of Vladimir Lenin – the supposed right of the Dear Leader to exercise “power without limit, resting directly on force, restrained by no laws, absolutely unrestricted by rules.” Not surprisingly, the SPLC and its allies consider the first view unacceptable, and regard the second as mandatory.

Another issue that just flat won't go away - The Common Law Grand Jury

Much to the chagrin of many in the corrupt judicial system of today, and the corporate government structure the idea

of a standing common law Grand Jury just keeps coming back to haunt them.

Government can only push people so far, and then they start to push back HARD!

That seems to be the case in Gallatin and Park counties.

Read this article, and then pay special attention to the comments below the article, and also to the website link in my comment.

Paul Stramer

Here is the article:

http://www.news.hypercrit.net/2014/01/09/more-on-so-called-common-law-grand-juries/

Here is my comment:

I concur completely with Elias Alias below, as what he said clearly outlines the basis for the Grand Jury, and Mr. Becker should take him seriously and he should continue his studies of this issue, only leave aside the apparent bias he has for the status quo position, and try to arrive at the whole truth.

To that end I would like to offer some research I have accumulated that might help inform.

Here it is, and please follow all the links or you won't 'get it' as they say.

http://www.lincolncountywatch.org/grandjury

And here is the comment from Elias Alias of Oathkeepers if you couldn't find it in the comments section.

Elias Alias

to

Michael Becker,
I applaud your notion to look more deeply into background on stories you may cover for your job as a reporter. I would also like to suggest to you that attacking the character of a person in focus in a story must be carefully done. The topic here was the "common law grand jury". Looking hard to see what side of the political aisle the advocates for common law grand juries chance to be on is risky journalism, imo.

You have quoted a bit of Scalia, which is good. But I would encourage you to dig deeper and look for other Supreme Court pronouncements regarding the common law grand jury. There are actually a number of such cases, cases in which the Supreme Court recognizes what Scalia reiterated - that the Grand Jury belongs to the People and is not subject to the three Federal branches of government. In your conclusion above, you note that the common law grand jury is "illegal". That may prove to be a precocious pronouncement, Amigo. If you continue to dig deeper, you'll come to see this for yourself.

Please allow me to inject a meme into your mindset which could possibly help you in your search for the greater truth on this topic. We look often at the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment states that any powers not delegated by the States to the General (Federal) government are reserved to the States OR to the People. It does not say "AND to the people." It says "OR" to the People. Why would our Founders use the word "or" instead of "and"? Students of the Constitution come to understand that "We The People" are the ultimate source for authority and legitimacy in all government. The People, acting in concert, rebelled against the British government while yet Colonists of Great Britain. They then constituted themselves into States, with sovereignty and international standing, with their respective laws and other infrastructural components common to any nation-state. As independent States, they convened to create a compact called the Articles of Confederation, which elected U.S. Presidents during the period before our Constitution was created and ratified. During that time each State was a republic, was autonomous, and retained autonomous sovereignty as a nation. When they convened again to improve upon the Articles of Confederation, their convention turned into a Constitutional convention, owing to the labors of James Madison, who is generally known as the "Father of the Constitution". One of our fine rivers here is named after him, yes? While just how it happened is a never-ending debate, the convention to modify and alter or improve the Articles of Confederation morphed into a convention which produced our present-day Constitution. Before the States would ratify it, they demanded that the Bill of Rights be in place as the first Ten Amendments, which we yet today refer to as the Bill of Rights. Of course you know all that already. But I'm reminding your readers of that, here, to set the stage for introducing a grand thought which is relative to your concern about common law grand juries. One final hint:
In his Ft. Hill Address of the 1830s, John C. Calhoun gave us one sentence which cuts to the chase in many arguments since he uttered this:

"The error is in the assumption that the General government was party to the compact."

You see, Michael, the States, each of them being at that time an independent, sovereign nation-state republic, signed the compact which created the General (Federal) government. If you look below the Constitution you will find their signatories - but - you will find no signature on behalf of the Federal government on that document.

That is because the General (Federal) government did not exist until the States signed that compact among themselves, with each party-State owning a co-equal status in that compact with every other State in compact. The States created the General (Federal) government.

And the States themselves derived their authority and autonomy and sovereignty from.....whom? From We The People, which is why those three words are the first three words in the document. We _ The _ People. That is why the Tenth Amendment uses the word "OR" instead of the word "AND" in its qualifier phrase, "...to the States or to the People".

One can begin to realize the genius in that perspective when one recalls that our Founders specified a higher authority than the government they created. They did that with the term "unalienable rights", which they said derive from Nature or Nature's God. (Natural rights, which is the basis of "Common Law", which is a totally different form of law from "statutory law". This nation's founders wrote the Constitution to preserve our unalienable rights under Natural (Common) Law. If you look at the Constitution, you'll notice that it is a document limiting the authorities and powers of the General (Federal) government. Article 1, Section 8, tells the government what it should do. The Bill of Rights tells the General government what it cannot infringe upon - which is our unalienable rights. And the Tenth Amendment tells the General government that if it is not listed in Article 1, Section 8, it is reserved to the States or to the People.

Our Constitution is neither "left" nor "right". It is *above* the political fray of factions or "political partiers", which our Founders, especially George Washington, abhorred. (George Washington did not want to see political parties in this country.) For your investigation to focus on political philosophies of involved and named characters in your story in the Chronicle is a bit of a short-coming on your part, but one which is easily understandable to me.

To bring up John Darash's membership in Oath Keepers serves what purpose, if not to fragment the overall presentation of otherwise-facts, by defining his philosophy as a Constitutionalist? That is what Oath Keepers is - an educational group with outreach to police and military and firefighters and Veterans, whom we approach with materials showing the history of the Constitution which they are required to swear or affirm an Oath to before assuming their duties in service to America or the State or the County or the Township. Our membership consists of all walks of American life, both left and right, both centrist and non-opinionated. Like the Constitution itself, Oath Keepers embraces all Americans as co-equal in rights and the protections of the state (government). Contrary to what the SPLC will tell people, Oath Keepers is not a "far-right" organization. Additionally, Oath Keepers has not made any formal policy statement regarding the Grand Jury phenomenon, not at this time, but our Board of Directors, of which I am a member, is now beginning to look into the matter. We are interested in Constitutional questions about this, and we are open-minded about it. If you chance to want to share your own research with me, please use this method to contact me.
1 - Go to http://www.oathkeepers.org/
2 - look under our site's banner and click on "Contact"
3 - Address your contact info to "For Elias"
4 - leave me your email address in that fashion and I'll send you my personal contact info.

That said, perhaps you would like to talk further with me about Constitutional issues, or about Oath Keepers. I am not an authority on Grand Juries, but I am authorized to speak with you publicly or in print about Oath Keepers.

Thanks for your time.
Salute!
Elias Alias, Montana Oath Keepers, Oath Keepers national website editor, member Oath Keepers Board of Directors, Honorably discharged US Marine and Veteran, Vietnam War, Three Forks, Montana

General Cements Plan to End Obama's Reign, but will it do anything at all?

Today WND released an article outlining Ret. Maj. Gen . Paul E. Vallely's plan to muster a vote of "no confidence" against Obama and his minions nation wide but starting in the US House.

You can read that article here:  http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/general-cements-plan-to-end-obamas-reign/

Here are my comments.

First of all, we have been cornered before by other so called conservative leaders over the last 60 years or so, starting with the John Birch Society.  These leaders and their organizations have made a place for those who believe in the US Constitution, and conservatives in general to run to, where they can be contained and controlled. Where they can be made to spend their money, and spin their wheels, and get nothing done.
Where they can be drained of their energy, and where no power returns into the hands of the people who would really do something to reverse the diabolic trend to totalitarianism that has this country in a death grip.

I will give you an example.   In 1967 and 1968 my uncle, Leo B. Landsberger, was the paid state coordinator for the John Birch Society in the State of North Dakota, where I grew up. He had sold his farm and was very concerned about the state of the nation even then, and was determined to do something about it. He chose to use his considerable talents and his money from the farm to do exactly that.

He was a brilliant organizer, and one of those rare people who could be very persuasive and could speak to a live audience for a couple of hours off the top of his head with no notes, and never say the same thing twice. His sister Rosemary was of like mind and talent, and between the two of them and several key people including some of their brothers and myself and some of our family, were instrumental in organizing over 20 new chapters of the John Birch Society in North Dakota over a 3 year period, and along with that we urged many members of that Society to run for public office in the 1968 campaign, the same year that George Wallace ran for president. To that end, we set up 8 offices across North Dakota, 4 on the highline Highway 2, in Williston, Minot, Devils Lake, and Grand Forks, and 4 along the Interstate in Dickinson, Bismarck, Jamestown, and Fargo.  Each and every one of these offices had a national full time WATS line, or Wide Area Telephone System, which in those days was very expensive, at around $2500 per month.

Leo and the crew used those WATS lines to organize political activity for freedom like had never been done anywhere or anytime in US history up to that time, including the pamphleteering of absolutely every town and city in the whole state of North Dakota with a packet of campaign information at every doorstep of every house in those towns.

To make a long story very short, we called that effort the Taxpayers republican Ticket, and ran in the primary election (North Dakota has an open primary).  We had over 100 candidates that covered all the state and national offices of North Dakota, and many of the legislative seats, and all the candidates were members of the Birch Society.

Then in 1968 we organized a caravan to the New England Rally for God, Family, and Country, in Boston MA, at the Marriott Hotel in downtown Boston.  The founder of the John Birch Society, Robert Welch, was at the conference. My aunt Rosemary was a professional artist who was very well known in North Dakota among the art community, and gave art lessons all around the state. Her favorite tools were a photocopier, and a calligraphy pen, and a legal size sheet of colored paper,  and if she had them she was very dangerous to the subversive elements in our country at the time.  We built some flyers at the Hotel in Boston, and started to pamphleteer that convention, and Robert Welch found one, and realized that members of his Society were running for office in North Dakota, with a big effort to get some real power back into the hands of "We The People".  He came completely unglued. He confronted my uncle's wife on the mezzanine of the hotel and made a big public scene, jumping up and down off the floor and screaming at her that we were ruining everything the Birch Society was trying to accomplish by running for office.

After the convention, while we were on the 4 day drive to get home, we found out that Robert Welch had terminated the membership of 6 people from the Society, but this time it was a public announcement, and to my knowledge these are the only 6 people who have ever been kicked out of that Society publicly.
They were Leo Landsberger, his own paid coordinator, Rosemary Landsberger, Joe Shea, Bill Baker,Jeri Baker and myself.  This effectively ended that chance of electing many of the TRT people to office.

There is one thing that this campaign did accomplish however.  When it was time for the people of ND to vote on a new state constitution, in 1972, the same year Montana and a bunch of other states changed theirs for the worst, the people of North Dakota were smart enough to turn theirs down by a vote of 3 to 1, and today they are the single most prosperous state in this nation, retaining many rights that other states gave away, such as the right of the people to call a Grand Jury by petition.

I tell you this story only to outline what could be happening again. If anybody would know how to set up a controlled opposition it would be a military trained crew.

I have some challenges for you Maj. Gen. Paul E Vallely.  General, if your really want to stop Obama, while restoring the US Constitution, you should be using the tools that are already built into our system.
We have 4 votes in our system of government.
1. The Ballot Box
2. The Grand Jury Box
3. The Trial Jury Box
4. The Cartridge Box

You should be urging the people under your influence to talk about setting up grand juries across the country to indict these leftist communist traitors for their crimes, and that includes educating veterans, and active duty military who have sworn the oath to do exactly that, to uphold, obey, and defend that system of law that was authored by "WE THE PEOPLE" for our government to follow, not the other way around.  I can give you some instruction on how to do this, but first here is a link so you can see what this is based upon. It's based on a fairly recent decision by the US Supreme Court in 1992.
http://www.paulstramer.net/2013/12/the-grand-jury-answer-for-corruption-in.html

As you can see, the Grand Jury, as decided by the US Supreme Court, is NOT part of the 3 branches of government. IT IS ENTIRELY OWNED BY THE PEOPLE.  It is designed to be a 4th check against corruption and unlawful power by elected officials who are abusing the power of their office and usurping power they don't have by law. The Grand Jury is the lawful and NON VIOLENT way the people have to hold their government servants in control and prosecute those who abuse their power.
Here is an example of how that is being done in the State of New York right now as we speak.

http://www.paulstramer.net/2014/01/its-time-to-take-power-away-from.html

To put it very bluntly, THIS METHOD HAS REAL TEETH, and it is very dangerous to totalitarian rule.
This method directly and immediately puts the power to correct these abuses BACK INTO THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE.

Another thing you should be doing is to gather up every veteran and active duty service person you can influence and get them ready to be a voice for the efforts of a standing Grand Jury.
No laws have to be changed to make it "lawful" for the Grand Jury to operate. The US Supreme Court says so.Those states who have attempted to suppress the Grand Jury are doing so outside the Constitutionality of the law, and are acting unlawfully, which makes their so called law null and void.
If you don't think so read this.

http://www.paulstramer.net/2012/11/what-is-really-law-and-what-is-not-law.html

Even some of the state constitutions which have clauses that deny We The People access to a standing Grand Jury are outside the law and constitutionality of the US Constitution. Read that 1992 decision in the link above again, and see if you don't agree with me.

The Grand Jury has the power of subpoena, and investigation, and can exclude judges and prosecutors who think they can control the Grand Jury, from the room. They can make findings of fact, and they can issue true bills, or indictments.  They can also command public servants to obey the law under threat of indictment.
That command is called a Writ of Mandamus, which is what is happening in New York right now. Maybe you need to read those documents again:
http://www.paulstramer.net/2014/01/its-time-to-take-power-away-from.html

Another facet of this is the power of just one juror on a trial jury to nullify bad law and to judge the law as well as the facts in any case. For more information and a jury rights handbook go to this link.

http://juryrights.info/

My challenge is this. Are you going to rally everybody to do some useless exercise in political action that spends their money, wastes their time, and never gets any power back into the hands of good people, or are you going to use the tools the founders built into our system to get real power back into the hands of the persecuted good people of this country and put the real traitors in jail where they belong???

Sincerely,
Paul Stramer  Eureka Montana  406 889 3183   pstramer@eurekadsl.net

P.S.   This article was emailed to the Maj. General Vallely directly. So far no answer. Perhaps if everybody reading this comments, and then forwards a link to General Vallely it will sink in that he should answer this.
You can find his email address here:  http://www.standupamericaus.org/

Which do you prefer. A Civil War, or World War III ?

This article is so important that I have published the entire article, and will add my comments below the article.  Please go to the article and read the comments below the original article after you read my comments below on this page.

http://thecommonsenseshow.com/2014/01/05/would-you-prefer-a-civil-war-or-world-war-three/

Would You Prefer a Civil War or World War Three?

January 5, 2014 - Featured, Main, Martial Law - Tagged: civil war, Dave Hodges, martial law, obama, the common sense show, world war III - 79 comments

Dave Hodges January 5, 2014 The Common Sense Show  America is on a collision course with a brutal civil war. We can argue if the coming civil war will be conventional or guerrilla. However, many of us feel that we have reached the point of no return and that civil strife is unavoidable. A political solution to our multiple issues would have been my preferred choice, but that ship sailed a long time ago. I know that the cognitive dissonance crowd will not believe this, however, nobody from that mindset can answer the most important question in the debate based upon the present circumstances:

If a civil war was not inevitable, then explain how the military and this administration are going to get past the fact that this “false flag” President has fired over 200+ military command officers?

And there is a second important question:

Why have 14 state governors restructured their respective state military organizations so that they are not under the control of Obama?

A Military Rebellion Is Unavoidable

Whenever 200+ leaders of any organization are fired in a short period of time, the person doing the firing has formed a group which opposes them. These military leaders had great influence and close ties over those that they have commanded. Obama just did not fire over 200+ military commanders, he alienated, tens if not hundreds of thousands of military personnel who based their professional loyalty to their military commanders and they will resist their foreign born Commander-In-Chief as a result of this betrayal of trust.

This is not a question of some of us in the media who desire for this happen. We have no say in the matter. And father time is defeating many of us, as several of us are too old to fight and too fat to run! It is not up to us as these conditions, which are ripe for a civil war, were forced upon our nation by Obama and his handlers.

Some Questions for the Fence-Sitting Sheep

Do you not think the executive officers under the command of the fired military leaders understood the issues behind the firing of their commanding officers? Was not the entire command structure in Afghanistan alienated from Obama when McChrystal was fired, largely over rules of engagement? Do you not think that all service personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan understand that this buffoon of a President increases their chances of not coming home alive, because of Obama’s treasonous rules of engagement which endangers American soldiers? Do you not think that if many of us in the alternative media can find evidence of a massive Russian troop buildup, including the presence of Russian heavy equipment on our soil, that the military is not already resentful of the fact that they have to wet nurse these future martial law enforcing troops and that they are from a nation that has repeatedly threatened to nuke America in the past 15 months? Do you think  our military commanders are looking forward to the participation of Chinese and Russian soldiers in the upcoming RIMPAC war games? Do you not think that the upper echelon of the military is not scared to death that in a time of civil unrest, or civil war, that we have 200,000 troops, stationed in foreign countries, who will not likely get home? Do you think the Generals in the Pentagon do not know the commanders in Afghanistan, or Iraq? Do you not think there are not close personal relationships in and among our military leaders stationed around the world and there is not an overall awareness in the military that the President is playing for the other side? Do you sheep really believe that the next time our noncommissioned officers send another young American home in a body bag because of the President’s rules of engagement, that the resentment towards this administration does not grow exponentially? Do you not think that present active duty personnel do not hear from their veteran friends who have come back home, that the Obama administration now refers to veterans, in DHS documents, as domestic terrorists and that Obama is going after their guns because he fears them? If we can find out about Obama’s fake birth certificate and his anti-American sentiment, do you not think that our troops have not learned these lessons a long time ago? Most American military commanders are loyal to each other and have been trained to risk their lives on behalf of their fellow soldiers. Why do you think that when someone from the executive branch flies into Afghanistan, that the troops must be disarmed because of previous shooting incidents? Does anyone really believe that our military enjoys sleeping with the enemy? And who do you think they blame? After considering all of these facts, do you sheep still believe that it will not take much provocation to get the troops to act against the modern day KGB in America (i.e. DHS)? Hell, even Ray Charles could see this is fertile breeding ground for a civil war! If this was Stalinist Russia, these military officers would have been shot in the back of the head. Fortunately for these 200+ deposed military commanders, our modern communications system would make it impossible for Obama to purge the military in the same manner as Stalin did without incurring the ire of an entire nation. However, the end result is the same. The military is being purged because it will not act against the American people and you can take that to the bank. The best we can hope for in the present set of circumstances, is a military coup and that, my friends, never ends well and I lose sleep over this possibility. If we do not change course, our greatest fears will be realized because the sides are already drawn and it will not be long until all hell breaks loose across our country.

An Epic Struggle Is Taking Shape

In one corner, we have the DHS led federal agencies accompanied by their muscle; the Chinese, the Russians and the Canadians. If this group prevails in the upcoming struggle, Mao will have to forfeit his title as the most murderous dictator in world history. There are members of the NWO who do not want two stones left together in this country. They want as many of us to die as possible (see the Georgia Guide Stones). They want to leave no trail of the traditional American notions of freedom and independence because these notions are a formidable roadblock to the lethal scientific dictatorship being installed on this planet. Americans are in the crosshairs of history. American Christians will soon become the most hunted game on the planet because we represent freedom, autonomy and obedience to God’s laws and not blind obedience to the dictates of genocidal leaders. In our corner, the other corner, we have a large segment of the American military and some of the American citizenry, largely veterans, who will oppose the attempts to finalize the tyranny being installed across the planet.  This is an all-stakes, winner-take-all battle. Soon, even the sheep are going to be forced to choose sides.

No Pleasant Alternatives

The coming conflict will not have a good outcome no matter who wins. If the military and the American citizens prevail, all we will likely accomplish is to replace one brutal dictatorship with another. If the other side wins, there is nowhere that will be safe. All of us will become, by definition, an endangered species.

Fourteen Governors Have Acquired Some Temporary Courage Against Tyranny

I have previously written that I have recently spoken with a high ranking military officer who was fired because he would not help DHS to completely control a fully integrated state-to-state national guard organization. He was unwilling to voluntarily hand the keys to the car to a communist such as Obama whom he perceived as someone who was dedicated to the destruction of this country. This officer’s resolve was shocking, but now I understand why. In retrospect, he was lucky that he was only fired. Why has DHS armed to the teeth? The answer is simple, Obama is facing opposition to not only his failed policies like Obamacare and he is facing the possibility of organized military resistance at the state level in several locations. There is presently an armed uprising directed at him by the select governors of 14 different states and that number is continuing to grow. To the previous point I raised as to why Obama is moving to nationalize the National Guard Forces, the answer is simple. Fourteen governors are militarily organizing against Obama. States such as Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, Tennessee, Virginia, Louisiana and South Carolina, are saying no to the increasing level of tyranny. These state military entities have been structured in such a way that they cannot become federalized. This is highly significant because the vast amount of federal/DHS resources used to federalize local police forces is now being undermined in these 14 states.

Obama Is Not Just Facing An Armed Rebellion From the Military

Fourteen state governors have reestablished State Defense Forces which includes any and all militias and the national guard. The authority over these troops does not rest with the President and he is furious. Obviously, these 14 governors are talking and planning amongst each other because their actions are so uniform and have happened in such a narrow time frame, that their actions are clearly an act of insubordination to Obama. In 14 states, the 10th Amendment still has life. These actions by the 14 governors are one short step away from armed rebellion. I am confident that any and all attempts on the part of the Hessian troops on American soil to move against dissident Americans and to enforce martial law will be militarily opposed in these 14 states. When will 14 governors militarily opposed to Obama become 30, become 40? I cannot overstate how significant this development is. We are “One shot heard around the world” from all hell breaking lose.

Conclusion

It is clear that the peoples’ closest elected representatives have had enough of this criminal organization as have our military. All citizens in the 36 states who are not militarily rising up against Obama, need to demand the same actions from their respective governors. Obama cannot act against a nation that is unified against him. However, this does mean that the bankers will push for WWIII to bring about their desired result if an internal takeover of America cannot be accomplished.

There is even a third wild card factor that has not been discussed anywhere in the media. Does anyone really think that the military industrial complex supports Obama’s desire to bring down the American military? Will the conquering hordes of Chinese and Russian troops allow these capitalist pigs to make as much as they are under the existing system?

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

MY Answer and comments to the question: 

I would very much prefer a less violent solution. I have always preferred political, social, and legal solutions to these problems. I am not trying to fool myself into thinking that it won't come to violence at some point, but I think we can head off a full blown civil war with the power that the people still have which is contained in the Grand Jury and the Petit Jury.  I fully believe that if it were not for vast resistance on the part of patriots nation wide over the last 10 years, we would already be slaves.

In order to understand that power you will have to do a little study. Here are some links.

Grand Jury power and the basis it rests on.

http://www.paulstramer.net/2013/12/the-grand-jury-answer-for-corruption-in.html

How we might implement the Standing Grand Jury of We The People
http://www.paulstramer.net/2014/01/its-time-to-take-power-away-from.html

The mechanism to implement this is contained in the Writ of Mandamus. See how it is being used in the State of New York as we speak.
http://www.paulstramer.net/2014/01/its-time-to-take-power-away-from.html

Here is how to exercise your power as a juror at the local level.
http://www.paulstramer.net/2009/12/juries-can-stop-runaway-government-you.html

I am saying that with proper understanding we don't have to elect anyone, pass new laws, finance any campaigns, or spend lots of money on political action, but we do need to educate the people as to what their power really is. We need them to understand their 4 votes in our system. 
1.  The Ballot box
2. The Grand Jury box
3. The Trial Jury box
4. The Cartridge box

When is it time to fight?  http://www.paulstramer.net/2009/09/when-is-it-time-to-fight.html

What can you do to help?

1. You can help spread this article far and wide. Send the link. Print it and hand it out. Do everything you can     think of to get people involved.
   Here is the permanent link to this article:
    http://www.paulstramer.net/2014/01/which-do-you-prefer-civil-war-or-world.html
2. You can study these issues and follow all the links in these articles until you understand them thoroughly.
    Then tell your friends and neighbors about their jury power.
3. We do NOT need to wait. We have this power NOW!  If you are called for jury duty, by all means try to     get on the jury, then educate your fellow jurors about their power to judge the law as well as the facts.
4. Visit the Fully Informed Jury website here and get your jurors handbook.
     http://fija.org/
5.  Find your local chapter of the Oathkeepers national organization and join: www.oathkeepers.org
6. Visit and promote the sheriffs across the country who have taken a stand against tyranny and support them here:  http://www.cspoa.org/
7. Tell your sheriff to form up a posse, and tell your governor to form up a state guard under his         own control.  Tell the Sheriff to start with all those in your county that have a concealed carry         permit, and then call all the veterans and get them in the posse.
8. Tell your sheriff to reject all federal funds and repudiate their control over his department.
   He works FOR YOU, not the feds. If it takes numbers to convince him then go in numbers.