Archives for posts with tag: 5th Amendment

To whom it may concern,

On the eve of the closing argument by the defense lawyers I am compelled to offer this last minute advice to Mr. Zimmerman directly and allow him to instruct his defense lawyers thusly.  Mr. Zimmerman must remember that ultimately he is in charge of his defense lawyers and has the final say. In effect, a defense lawyer is the employee of the client.
I offer this information solely based upon the facts that I’m aware of, and the prosecutor’s lack of facts, which convince me that Mr. Zimmerman acted appropriately, and but for the unethical, immoral, and illegal actions of those in the media, politics, and the legal system, specifically the prosecutors, Mr. Zimmerman would only be facing the anguish of having been forced to take another’s life, in self defense, while acting as a community caretaker.
“The prosecutor’s duty is not to seek convictions, but to see that justice is done.”
 My advice to Mr. Zimmerman is as follows; expose the hypocrisy of this duty in your case.  It was never the facts or evidence of the case that was ever your biggest obstacle. Rather know that it was always the prosecutor’s action that ultimately you had to contend with.
Why is this important? At the beginning of any trial the prosecutor enters the courtroom with the added benefit of being perceived by the jury as one whose only concerns are about justice and that which are correct and right and legal. Conversely, the jury will almost always tend to have a preconceived notion or belief that the defendant did something wrong. The common thought is “he/she would not be here is they didn’t do something wrong.” It’s not right, but it is reality.
Since 1997 and 1999 respectively, I went from being a Top police sergeant to having to become an expert in both public and legal corruption.  One of the consistent problems was that almost as a norm, prosecutors routinely broke the law to sadistically target the innocent. Furthermore, the prosecutor is rarely held responsible or are their actions exposed before or during a trial, this trial being a good example. This is because defense lawyers simply refused to do so.  If this is nefarious conduct is really the reason for the trial, it becomes its own arguing point FOR the defendant. If the accused is actually innocent, than the accused truly has no defense other than to explain to the jury that the ONLY reason he is there is BUT FOR the misconduct by the prosecutor. a defendant is under no obligation to counter false charges and it is a sound and wise path to prove persecution when appropriate and justified. When this aspect is presented to the juror to think about, to consider the motive and intent of the Prosecutor, NOT of the defendant, they can then measure all that the prosecutor offered (or didn’t offer) as evidence, then things such as why stories, opinions, innuendos, witnesses with nothing to offer, and a trial with no POINT, begins to make sense. If this is not done by the defense, then the juror will not have this additional option and will have to rely on the earlier belief, that prosecutors only seek justice and do not lie or prosecute the innocent, and only submit credible information facts, and evidence.
In trials where the defendant is literally actually innocent, it is not sufficient to only defend against the charges and accusations.  Indeed, the single most important act for any defendant of such a trial is to insert into the mind of a jury that not only is the defendant not guilty, but in fact it is the prosecutor who is in the wrong for bringing this matter before the jury and why. When being persecuted, the best strategy is a strong offense, not defense.
The true role of a jury must be highlighted also, to the jurors! The role of a jury is to not only to determine guilt, it is also to PROTECT against bad prosecutors and to protect the wrongly accused! Pound this into the jury!
If Mr. Zimmerman gets this information, he will have to quickly choose whether or not to instruct, or if necessary order, his defense lawyers to target and identify that the trial is really about prosecutorial misconduct and malicious prosecution so the jury has this to consider during their deliberation.  To make this claim after trial and in the unlikely event of a conviction, it becomes a redundant argument, and regardless of its validity, much weakened.
There have been many cases wherein I have been borrowed and pleaded with the defense lawyers of victim-accused individuals, like Mr. Zimmerman, to heed my advice.  When it was refused it was/is the victims that suffered, not the defense lawyers.

Dear Senator Runyan,

As you know, one of the job descriptions and one also included in the oath of office you had to take, is the requirement and duty to protect the U.S. Constitution “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…” I am calling on it now. Now more than ever the Country needs accountability.
I discovered that our Constitution was “amended” without a legal Amendment. I am including my own writing describing what could be considered an act of treason, and a violation of numerous federal crime statues. Worse, I learned of this alteration after 15+ years of fighting massive public and legal corruption originating out of Burlington County, that has resulted in deaths, illegal prosecutions and unlawful imprisonment of actually innocent people, illegal searches and seizures, and a litany of other civil/criminal federal violations, aside from the State ones.
Please advise if you will take action to 1. Help me first stop the rampant offenses against citizens and prevent more as is ocurring and 2. Help those victims I have personnally vetted with my police training and experience, but especially the ones who are incarcerated yet are actually innocent and 3. Correct the area of the Constitution targetted and strengthen it to make it secure, viable, and usable.

Here is the description via my article. I am at your disposal for any questions you will have.

We don’t need no stinkin’ Amendment to change the Constitution!

If you were a dirty government employee like a politician, judge, prosecutor, IRS, etc., you’d want to remove any legal threat to your person or position if you could, right? Even if its part of the Constitution? Well, they did it!

Here is the first successful attack upon our Constitution, and so far, it has been successful. It was perpetrated domestically, by bad men who removed the ultimate anti-corruption tool our founding fathers gave us to deal with bad government, but it remains MIA because good people do nothing about it. It is the last chance measure before the need to change the Government becomes a necessity.

Why is this one aspect so important? Especially in light of all the other threats to other parts of the Constitution, like the 1st Amendment (Government seizing media records illegally), the 2nd Amendment (the overreaching of Government in barring, restricting, or even banning ownership of firearms), the 4th Amendment (NSA’s illegal monitoring and gathering of private information), and the 5th Amendment (Government perverted the Indictment process by targeting the innocent, protecting the guilty, etc.), and far too many others.

Because the Presentment Grand Jury was intended to be used against the offenders of ALL OF THE ABOVE VIOLATIONS! When Government IS the violator, this allows the People to bring it to account, and get it back in line. Government was never intended to have the final say on the People, the People always have the final say on Government, and this tool is specifically included in the Constitution to ensure just that!

So when those who are, and should be most threatened by the Presentment tool, like politicians, prosecutors, and JUDGES, subvert that tool, it makes the case as to intent and motive. In other words, it would be like the MOB arranging for the ending of RICO laws; Law Enforcement eliminating internal affairs; or the President removing the Impeachment process. Self protection and preservation of that which must not be protected or preserved!

There are explanatory links below, but so you can speak from personal knowledge and not third-party, everyone should do what I did; go see it for yourself. For the less Internet savvy, I include a guide further on below.

First, what does the Constitution actually empower and say?

The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says in part as follows: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . . .”

What is the difference between a presentment and an indictment?

An indictment is a written accusation of an offense presented, upon oath, as true, by a grand jury, VIA the initiation of the government. Presentments, on the other hand, are the result of a jury’s independent action:

A presentment, is an accusation, made by a grand jury of its own mere motion, of an offense upon its own observation and knowledge, or upon evidence before it, and WITHOUT any bill of indictment laid before it BY the government.

In other words, a Presentment Grand Jury doesn’t use a Prosecutor or Judge to influence or direct WHO or WHAT does, or nowadays, DOES NOT get investigated. When needed, it is compromised much like the juries every American is familiar with, especially when the receive notices to report for jury duty. But after being formed, the similarities end as the Presentment jury is not overseen by a judge, nor is it led and fed by a Prosecutor. It is an investigative body with full subpoena powers.

The Founding Fathers wrote the grand jury into the Fifth Amendment, to specifically address bad government. These were men with more decency, integrity, intelligence, and patriotism in their little toes than all the politicians and judges combined! They would be outraged to have this last line of defense against tyranny messed with by those whose conduct it was intended to be used against.

Its use may have became less as America grew more “civilized” and the Indictment process became the more prominent tool, probably simply as a cost-saving move, or to avoid redundancy at a time when it was believed that the integrity of government wouldn’t need it, or that the three branches would keep a check on each other, or that there would always be honest prosecutors to indict the corrupt public officials. But simply because it wasn’t used, does not mean that is a basis to obstruct it, and intentionally use misdirection and slight-of-pen to change the Constitution!

What say you? Bolderdash you chide. Its well known that any change to the Constitution must be done legally and openly through an Amendment procedure! Au contrare my friend, not if you are of the despicable, craven kind, and you do it secretly, with a pen and via an obscure court rule.

How the dastardly wolves in robes committed the change.

Here is Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP): “An offense which may be punished by death shall be prosecuted by indictment. An offense which may be punished by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or at hard labor shall be prosecuted by indictment. . . .”

No mention of “presentment.” because Note 4 of the Advisory Committee Notes on the Rules says this: “4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts.”

Oh really? So sayeth the Federal court? As if Presentments and Indictments are both sides of the same coin?

Don’t take my word for it, see for yourself. Use on of the two guides I prepared.

Your helpful guide: just cut and paste “Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure” into your browsers search bar, and scroll down to Notes, specifically #4.

Or super helpful guide: Google the “Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure” and in the Table of Contents, it shows the Rule dealing with Grand Juries, which is Rule 6, and it starts on page 7. Extra help – “Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure” (copy, paste, and insert into your browser) :

On page 4 of the Forward of this Rule booklet, at the very end, it explains that if you want to see more details of a particular Amendment, to go to TITLE 18, APPENDIX—RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (if you Googled that, this is the link that would appear);

Note 4 is on page 42 and literally says that the part of the Constitution, the 5th Amendment, is being changed (aka amended) to NOT use “Presentments” because its “obsolete!”

Nothing in the Constitution ever becomes “obsolete.” Whether unused or not relevant to the current times, all such parts remain if only as a threat that can be used, and used if needed.

So while men and women, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, sacrifice(d) some or all, then or now, while that which they sought to protect was violated by the very people it was intended to be used against, the new organized mob, aka our government.

The sacrifices will have been in vain if you do nothing, starting now.

So, there you have it explained. The presentment power is “obsolete” because the Court so sayeth, and Government is a bunch of outlaws holding the sheriff hostage. Now whatcha gonna do bout it…? Rescue the sheriff is the only answer!


The US Constitution

Federal Rules Rules of Criminal Procedure

Source articles:

Comply with oath of office

Comply with oath of office