Dear Yuba County American Independent Party members:

Yesterday a U.S. District Court Judge violated the U. S. Constitution by claiming the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures trumped the United States Constitution. A Citizen's GRAND JURY submitted to the court "presentments" which indicted Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Obama) for fraud and treason for knowing running as a candidate for President when he knew he did not Constitutionally qualify for the position.

The following is a brief filed yesterday protesting Judge Lamberth's preference to be a bureaucrat and bow to rules and regulations, and not be a defender of the Constitution and the rights and liberties of THE PEOPLE.

=====================================================

http://jaghunters.blogspot.com/2009/07/open-response-and-brief-to-order-by.html

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Open response and Brief

To: The Honorable Chief Judge, Royce C. Lamberth

United States District Court for the District of Columbia

In Re: Super American Grand Jury

The review and order through judgment made on July 2, 2009 with regard to a citizen’s presentment by persons representing American citizens under the frame work of the original structure of Grand Juries of this Nation and with regards to the Commander and Chief and his review of eligibility needs to be reviewed by this U.S. court. Withstanding any Federal, State or District court in the land, the constitutional obligation to move forward and should find no district or body within in its writing as a boundary. By oath of office and in standing as representation for the people through the bill of rights that make up the Constitution of these United States.

Judge Lamberth is obligated by his position and sworn oath to the people to act on common English law as stated and set forth by the boundaries for the people in the framers original “presentments” as common citizens as stated in The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights, The Constitution, and set in place and ratified through popular vote for the representation of people.

It was pointed out by the honorable Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth, stated in his decision  “ although presentments are constitutionally permitted there is no authority under the Rules of Criminal Procedures or in the statutes of the United States for this court to accept one.” 

There stands to be a terrible divide within the judiciary and the decisions through opinion that generates policies and not the foundation of law. The Constitution of the United States in its entirety has no verbiage for policies but is and has been set forth as the foundation through amendments for law.

This was also implied as the intent of the framers to separate policy from law as a governing body. This as we know is and was the reason for the separation of power… three independent branches governed by the states representing the people under one direction of law.

The difference of policies is clearly shown in the opinion.  The Honorable Judge Lamberth does concur that the Constitution affords citizens the right of presentment under the Constitution. Then in his opinion uses federal rules for his decision. By doing so, he bypasses the Constitution which he has already admitted in his order exists. He then bases his decision on the federal rules which strips the right of the citizen to be heard.  

The clear distinction and evident discrepancies are and do exist in definition of what has been pointed to by the court. This is the over extension of policies rather than law.

a) Distinction between “Constitutional Criminal Procedure” is a base line for “Constitutional protections” as followed by the actual writings.

b) “Statutory Procedure” falls under “Federal Rules” is made to govern the “process” but in no distinction usurp the power vested in the Constitution of these United States.

Following the precedence revived in Judge Lamberth’s opinion as a means of making his decision and order he uses the following case law and policy to provide the basis of his decision.

Re: United States v. Briggs, 514 F.2d 794, 803 n. 14 (5th Cir. 1975) Gaither v. United Sates, 413 F.2d 1061, 1065 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 1969) Also United States v Cox, 342 F.2d. 167, 184 (5th Cir. 1965)

In reviewing these cases, Judge Lamberth’s focus appears to be on the legalities and “Federal Rules” as applied after 1946 and the committee’s understanding of the newly implemented “rules” of the “Grand Jury”. More to the point, rather than the similarities of the cases reviewed, it appeared to focus on two areas.

1. How the grand jury was now to be governed by proprietorial powers.

2. The premises by the grand jury to be held to these new rules laid out by committee rather than its lineage and tree of its beginnings and the reasons the framers had laid forth for the intervention of the people.

In Briggs v United States, it refers to the Feres Doctrine. This doctrine as written protects government officials or their representatives by their standing or position of office from prosecution to also include the military.

 In the Order from the Honorable Royce C. Lamberth, he supplies no information or precedence on the changes of Federal Rule 6 that governs grand juries and how this application has changed how it is applied to the Constitution and the Fifth Amendment therein. There has never been standing as law, nor has there ever been a constitutional convention for ratification by the then 38 states to change the written words by definition on the origins of the grand jury as defined by the Constitution of the United States. 

A committee vote has no precedence in change. By doing so, it has taken the citizens power to hold any one in government liable. The “Rules of Criminal Procedures” has no legal standing under the Constitution to prevent in any way the acceptance of presentments of a grand jury and the demand that a prosecutor move forward with the court as so stated by the Honorable Judge in his Order and quote of constitutional standing.

The Feres Doctrine has no standing if the person in government employ has no standing to hold the office of the supposed protection of said office. This in it’s entirety becomes a moot point and the only way to process the information to make a sound decision on this particular standing is to move forward with the presentment and commence under article II and III as required by law. Through “ Constitutional Procedure” setting aside Federal Rule 6 as never being ratified under the laws provided by the Constitution.

 The Honorable Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth and the United Sates District Court for the District of Columbia by his own admission has been served with presentments. By the courts own opinion a presentment by the people and under their constitutionally permitted rights the court should have moved forward. This court and all courts with presentments by the American Grand Jury have not only the obligation of oath and placement and moral obligation but also the fiduciary responsibility to move forward on behalf of the citizenry.

The Government agencies that bear the standard of investigatory power and body under Article II are compelled by the law they represent to go forward or admit publicly the Constitution of the United States has no standing and the laws that have been put in place are in fact no law at all.

The oaths of office that is taken by the gate keepers of the Constitution is mandated by these same oaths and with no boundary’s as the Constitution mandates. This court and all the courts at all levels around the country, State attorney Generals, Congressional and Senatorial Representatives and their staffs have an obligation to the people for which they serve.

 We are either a country of laws or we are now in Judge Lamberth’s Order a country of men being ruled by men. This Court needs to revisit this decision and make public the ruling and reasons why a constitutionally permitted act by citizens as natural born and or naturalized by law have no standing. This court will also publicly have to explain why the citizens power for redress and standing has been taken away. This court and all courts who have been given all these presentments are bound by constitutionality to move forward with these presentments by the citizens through the American Grand Jury system.

By inaction they become part of the process and become entangled by their oath in the advancement of crime against the citizenry as a whole.

Respectfully, and still under contract by oath /s/

Sergeant of Marines Timothy Joseph Harrington 

=====================================================

I ask you, the reader, do you feel your constitutional rights to be on a Citizen's Grand Jury just been violated? I do. A "presentment" is merely a demand by the PEOPLE to have the court hear our petition and our indictment. Then it is up to the court to "try" the matter. What is so horrible for "the people" (any group of 15-23 people) to demand a hearing/trial?

God Save Amerika,