The summary of our methods provides details of how we have used the authority of the Constitutions, national and state, as both the foundation and authority for all of our methods and arguments. When one bases his positions in the authority of the Supreme Law, it is extremely difficult for his opponent to disavow, deny, contradict and oppose the document to which he has sworn or affirmed his oath and the Citizen's constitutionally based arguments.
As the description of the presumptive letter states, it is an honorable way to attempt to resolve a situation before it becomes necessary to go court to resolve it. The presumptive paragraphs are crucial, because they provide lawful warning to public servants regarding their unconstitutional actions, committed pursuant to their oaths, and require these public servants to rebut all charges and claims made in the presumptive letter. If they fail to do so, then, they admit to everything stated in the letter, fully binding upon them in any court, without their protest, objection or that of those who represent them. Everything stated in the letter must be true, correct, based only in fact, valid law and evidence, and one must be able to support everything he states. No fabrications or exaggerations are permitted in a valid presumptive letter.
In our presumptive letters, all of our charges, claims and statements are based upon the specific unconstitutional actions committed against us by public officers, pursuant to their oaths. The oath also requires public officers to uphold valid state laws, so these violations can also be cited. When we point out our charges, we also point out that the unconstitutional actions were committed without lawful authority, therefore, are null and void. We spell out the fact that the public officers are required to abide by their oaths in the performance of their official duties and execute their duties only within the lawful scope of their limited, delegated authority, as discussed above. Obedience to the oath is not optional; it is mandated by Law.
In our experience, it is best to write down, in notes or draft form, all of the infractions committed by public officers and/or agencies/agents, cite all of their improper behavior/actions, and fine tune each charge, claim or statement we wish to put in the letter, so that the charges stated are comprehensive, direct, clear, simple and to the point. We avoid vagueness, redundancy and ambiguities. Clean, clear, direct charges and language are needed in order for the letter to be effective and taken seriously. It is best to try to keep emotionalism and personal attacks out of presumptive letters, and instead compose them with professionalism and clearly demonstrate factually provable charges.
The attached summary of our methods and the description of the affidavit are self-explanatory.
Our Constitutional Court Challenges are extremely important to use during court procedures, if the Citizen wants to protect his Constitutionally secured rights, have due process of law afforded to him, and intends to hold the presiding judge and opposing attorney(s) to the Constitutional mandates contained within their oaths. There are a series of numbered challenges which could be used, with explanations accompanying each challenge. The most important of these challenges are 1A, 1B and 2, which we and our students successfully use in each court appearance, or even within administrative proceedings. Once you read them, and the accompanying explanations, you should have a firm understanding as to why we use these three positions.
Every public officer is required to take an oath to the federal and state Constitutions and those who do not have this requirement work under agent-principal oath, meaning they work under their superior(s)' oath(s). Each oath taker is required to abide by his oath in the performance of his official duties. This means he or she must act only within the LIMITED delegated scope of his/her duties and authority. When s/he acts outside the specifically delegated limited authority, then, s/he essentially acts on his/her own, as a renegade. The Constitutions, federal and state, are very specific regarding authority. What is not authorized in the Constitutions is prohibited by the Constitutions. There is no authority, in any form, whatsoever, that permits an oath taker to engage in actions which contradict, defy and oppose the very documents to which he or she swore or affirmed his or her oath. It all comes down to these very simple principles and lawful mandates. The oath taker either abides by the Constitutional mandates imposed upon him or her, by and through his or her oath, or he or she does not. The Constitutions are the "textbooks" for how government, federal and state, can lawfully operate. Any actions conducted in violation of the Constitutions are unlawful. We reduce everything to these very simple, specific, but lawfully powerful points.
Be aware of the difference between the words "lawful" and "legal". For an act to be lawful, it must fully comply with all requirements of the Constitutions, specific to the Bill(s) of Rights. Unfortunately, most of the "laws" on the books are administrative in nature and rarely, if ever, comply with Constitutional mandates. These so-called "laws" are considered "legal", but unless they fully comply with the Constitutions' mandates, they are not valid law. Sadly, these "legal" administrative statutes, codes, regulations, policies, etc. operate unchecked under what is called "the color of law" until they are challenged Constitutionally. However, since so few people know the difference between lawful and legal, these administrative "laws" are seldom challenged in a manner which would show them inferior to the superior Law of the federal and state Constitutions. Agencies operate on administrative "laws", procedures and policies, which typically violate the rights secured to the people in the Constitutions. There is no Constitutional authority for the creation of administrative agencies, thus, the agencies, themselves, are unconstitutional, therefore, unlawful. Accordingly, actions conducted by such agencies are perpetrated under the "color of law", but are not, in fact, lawful acts.
If we were in your place, we would become extremely familiar with the federal Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights and Article I, Section 8, as well as the parallel sections of your state Constitution. If one is going to speak about his rights, he first must know what those rights are and, secondly, he must know the limitations imposed upon government. Article I, Section 8 covers this regarding the federal government. We would also scrupulously research the powers and authority delegated by the People, through their state Constitution, to the state Legislature. In a Constitutional Republic, such as America, every state is guaranteed a republican form of government, pursuant to Article IV, Section 4. This means that the government operates under the Rule of Law and not the rule of man. In this country and in every state, the Rule of Law is the Constitution, since it is the Supreme Law of the Land, as declared in Article VI. Therefore, since legislative powers are vested in Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 1 of the federal Constitution, and in similar authorized delegations of power to your state legislature, in your state Constitution, then, valid law can only arise by and through the duly enacted legislation of Congress and/or the state legislature. Further, all legislative laws must be Constitutionally compliant specific to the Bill(s) of Rights or they are null and void, without lawful force or effect.
As you likely know, Jack and I have been advocating for and lawfully enforcing ALL of our rights for well over 50 years. Over the past decade, thousands of Americans have learned and applied our Constitutional methods to protect their rights and hold errant governments accountable and liable for their unconstitutional actions. In our view, the People must awaken to their inherent political power and commit to the requirements of SELF-GOVERNANCE, which, by definition, is not a spectator sport!
To that end, we were recently approached by some sincere people in Maine, who know our Constitutional work, asking us for some insights into an action they are planning to take. These folks are disgusted with "business as usual" in Maine, so want to present a Remonstrance to the governor and to the legislature. They sent us some drafts, asked us to look at them and make edits and suggestions, which we did.
We met with them on Wednesday and told them that, in our opinion, based upon five plus decades of experience, IF they cannot demonstrate that large numbers of people in Maine are behind them, supporting their action plan, then, the governor and the legislature will not likely take their Remonstrance seriously and it will have no meaningful effect. I suggested that they step outside of their typical contacts and reach out to various, diverse groups of activists throughout Maine, and explain to these various groups that no matter what the specific individual cause these groups support and advocate for or against, there is ONE specific common issue that is the underlying and overreaching cause of all of these other different issues. That common issue is the FACT that government is not being conducted in compliance with the Constitutions, national and state, and is operating in denial and violation of the People's inherent rights guaranteed to them in both Constitutions. IF the various groups can finally "get" this simple, but profound point, then, a huge consortium of disgruntled Citizens can be brought into the mix to show the governor and the legislature, as well as all of the bureaucrats in all the agencies, that the people have figured out what is wrong, that they're fed up and they want their state to be run Constitutionally and their rights upheld and protected by the public officers to whom they have given the Public Trust, which public officers are bound by oaths to do so.
Attached is the document, entitled A Declaration, Remonstrance and Demand. Please read it and you will see that it touches upon myriad issues, all of which would benefit from a restoration of real Constitutional governance to our state. For a long time, now, Jack and I have presented the recurring theme that the people have allowed these transgressions to take place and we have made it clear that if the people are not willing to stand up, demand and lawfully enforce their own rights and hold their own governments accountable to the Constitutions and to the will of the people, then, the people deserve the screwing they are getting and will continue to get.
Below is the email we sent to two of these folks along with a sample email that can be sent out with the attached Remonstrance document. I know that a combined meeting is scheduled for the 12th in Waterville, and if you plan to attend, it would be great if you could send this document out by email before the meeting to wind opponents and anyone else you think would be interested. It would be a good idea to bring a hard copy with you so you can discuss it with the people at the meeting, and somehow make it clear to them that all of the various issues plaguing Maine could be resolved IF the people take back and then execute their responsibility to hold government officers accountable to them and to their Constitutional oaths.
If you are on board with this action plan, we can send you additional pages for obtaining signatures of others in the wind opponent groups, as well as signatures from as many other individuals and members of any other activist groups you can reach.
Jack and I are happy to help people who want to help themselves by studying and applying the Constitutions, national and state. We hope that the email we just sent regarding Our Methods will be beneficial to you in your endeavors.
Jack and I have been teaching the Constitution(s) for many, many years, but even more than teaching these documents, we demonstrate how we have applied them against corrupt governments and corrupt courts, as an example for those American Citizens with serious intentions of standing up for their inherent rights and holding errant governments and courts accountable.
The U.S. government and all other corporate governments in this nation - and there are well over 180,000 of them - are totally corrupt, fraudulent and despotically evil. However, the American People, from the very beginning of this nation, have allowed this to happen, and now people like you are facing problems, because the American People did not accept the responsibility conferred upon them by the Constitution(s) and refused to hold government in check.
Despite the corruption and the evilness within "the system", we and our students have been successful for many, many years in using the Constitutions against the excesses of government. America is so far gone that the only way, as far as we are concerned, to gain any sense of freedom is to use the Constitutions. Obviously, the national Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and all public officers have taken oaths to uphold it. The Bill of Rights to the national Constitution, as well as the rights secured in state Constitutions, and due process of law secure and protect our inherent, unlimited, unalienable rights, and it is these rights that government officers have sworn, pursuant to their oaths, to uphold. Either they do or they do not. It is that simple. The oath is not optional; it is mandatory. Period! Our constitutional methods, if used properly, can hold government officers to the strict constitutional mandates imposed upon them by and through their oaths. It would be best to thoroughly study and understand these methods and then apply them as needed.
The Bill of Rights is precise, exact and to the point. It has no qualifications, no conditions, and no limitations, whatsoever. This is what government officers have sworn to uphold. Again, the test is whether they do or do not. If they do not, at minimum, they perjure their oaths, and at maximum, if their actions are witnessed by at least two Citizens, they commit treason. Whatever laws, rules, regulations, statutes, codes have been enacted by whatever state or federal agency or entity, they are strictly subservient to the Supreme Law of the Land, namely the national Constitution. An early landmark court case in this nation was Marbury v. Madison, decided in 1803, and never overturned, which basically stated that all laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. It is easy to see that the "laws" which you are accused of violating are repugnant to the Constitution, since they restrict, modify, regulate, limit and deny the people's right to freely travel. [This right was secured in the Articles of Confederation, Article IV, and was such a "given" in the minds of the founding fathers that they did not even think it necessary to include it in the Constitution and subsequent Bill of Rights. It would have been beneficial had they done so.....]
Jack just suffered through a major illness in which he almost died and spent a week in the hospital. He is recovering slowly, but our activities must be severely limited. Nearly two years ago, we announced our retirement, but we are still being inundated with the problems that people face from folks all over the country. Because of the enormous load we have had for many years, the work on behalf of the people, and the ongoing stress that has fallen upon us, we can no longer engage in work for the people on an individual basis. Our priority is to restore constitutional governance to this nation, and to that end, we and some people in Maine created a document entitled A Remonstrance, Declaration and Demand which was presented to the governor and the legislature. That Remonstrance was published in The American's Bulletin, the March/April issue, and was distributed widely throughout America. Our focus must be limited to this pursuit, but we are open to brief questions from those who truly want to help themselves and who are willing to do the work to do so.
In your place, we would thoroughly read, many times over, study and take notes on the Bill of Rights to the national Constitution, namely the first Ten Amendments, and the rights guaranteed in the Michigan Constitution, with a particular emphasis on due process of law, as guaranteed throughout the Bill of Rights, in particular, the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments. If one is going to advocate for his rights, he must know what they are. In today's AmeriKa, if a Citizen does not know his rights, he doesn't have any! This should be a major focus, and keep foremost in mind that all politicians and public officers have sworn oaths to uphold these very rights. We and our students hold them to the conditions of their oaths and demand that they uphold those rights.
JAY PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA, PETITIONER 95-1478 v. UNITED STATES RICHARD MACK, PETITIONER 95-1503 on writs of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit [June 27, 1997]
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented in these cases is whether certain interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub. L. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536, commanding state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers and to perform certain related tasks, violate the Constitution.
We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed.
In a stunning 6 to 3 decision Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, confirmed that the American grand jury is neither part of the judicial, executive nor legislative branches of government, but instead belongs to the people. It is in effect a fourth branch of government "governed" and administered to directly by and on behalf of the American people, and its authority emanates from the Bill of Rights.
We the people have been providentially provided legal recourse to address the criminal conduct of persons themselves entrusted to dispense justice.
In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed. 2d 352 (1992), Justice Antonin Scalia,writing for the majority, confirmed that the American grand jury is neither part of the judicial, executive nor legislative branches of government, but instead belongs to the people. It is in effect a fourth branch of government "governed" and administered to directly by and on behalf of the American people, and its authority emanates from the Bill of Rights.
Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present "True Bills" of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. OurFounding Fathers presciently thereby created a "buffer" the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.
112 S.Ct. 1735
504 U.S. 36
118 L.Ed.2d 352
UNITED STATES, Petitioner
John H. WILLIAMS, Jr.
Argued Jan. 22, 1992.
Decided May 4, 1992.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority:
Because the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such "supervisory" judicial authority exists, and that the disclosure rule applied here exceeded the Tenth Circuit's authority.
"[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history," Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420,490, 80 S.Ct. 1502, 1544, 4 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It " 'is a constitutional fixture in its own right.' "United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA91977) (quotingNixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S.App.D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54(1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825, 98 S.Ct. 72, 5 4 L.Ed.2d 83 (1977). In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch ofthe institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212,218, 80 S.Ct. 270, 273, 4 L.Ed.2d 252 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61, 26 S.Ct. 370,373, 50 L.Ed. 652 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm's length. Judges' direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343, 94 S.Ct. 613, 617, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974) Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a).
The grand jury's functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised. "Unlike [a] [c]ourt, whose jurisdiction is predicated upon a specific case or controversy, the grand jury 'can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.' "United States v. R. Enterprises, 498 U.S. ----, ----, 111 S.Ct. 722, 726, 112 L.Ed.2d 795 (1991) (quoting United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 642-643, 70 S.Ct. 357, 364, 94 L.Ed. 401 (1950) ). It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even "the precise nature of the offense" it is investigating. Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273, 282, 39 S.Ct. 468, 471, 63 L.Ed. 979 (1919). The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, see Hale, supra, 201 U.S., at 59-60, 65, 26 S.Ct., at 373, 375, nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. See Calandra, supra, 414 U.S., at 343, 94 S.Ct., at 617. It swears in its own witnesses, Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(c), and deliberate s in total secrecy, see United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc., 463 U.S., at 424-425, 103 S.Ct., at 3138. True, the grand jury cannot compel the appearance of witnesses and the production of evidence, and must appeal to the court when such compulsion is required. See, e.g., Brown v. United States, 359 U.S. 41, 49, 79 S.Ct. 539, 545, 3 L.Ed.2d 609 (1959). And the court will refuse to lend its assistance when the compulsion the grand jury seeks would override rights accorded by the Constitution, see, e.g., Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 92 S.Ct. 2614, 33L.Ed.2d 583 (1972) (grand jury subpoena effectively qualified by order limiting questioning so as to preserve Speech or Debate Clause immunity), or even testimonial privileges recognized by the common law, In re Grand Jury Investigation of Hugle, 754 F.2d 863 (CA9 1985)(same with respect to privilege for confidential marital communications) (opinion of Kennedy, J.). Even in this setting, however, we have insisted that the grand jury remain "free to pursue its investi-
gations unhindered by external influence or supervision so long as it does not trench upon the legitimate rights of any witness called before it." United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 17-18, 93 S.Ct. 764, 773, 35 L.Ed.2d 67 (1973). Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said that the Fifth Amendment's "constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body 'acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge '. . . ."Id., at 16, 93 S.Ct., at 773 (emphasis added) (quoting Stirone, supra, 361 U.S., at 218, 80 S.Ct., at 273). No doubt in view of the grand jury proceeding's status as other than a constituent element of a "criminal prosecutio[n]," U.S. Const., Amdt. VI, we have said that certain constitutional protections afforded defendants in criminal proceedings have no application before that body. The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not bar a grand jury from returning an indictment when a prior grand jury has refused to do so. See Ex parte United States, 287 U.S.241, 250-251, 53 S.Ct. 129, 132, 77 L.Ed. 283 (1932); United States v. Thompson, 251 U.S. 407,413-415, 40 S.Ct. 289, 292, 64 L.Ed. 333 (1920).
To those interested:
Below are excerpts from two notable U.S. Supreme Court cases, one of which has direct bearing on the ongoing threat to the Second Amendment, and the other upon the Grand Jury issue. Margy and I read these cases a long time ago and recently briefly revisited and scanned some of the major points of interest to us and, hopefully, to the American People. Neither of us has any admiration for the Supreme Court of the United States, which we consider a treasonous court by its own rulings and actions in contradiction to the Constitution. As you know, no Justice has the constitutional authority to defy and oppose the document to which he swore or affirmed his/her oath. If the Supreme Court were truly a constitutional court, then, all decisions would be 9 - 0 in favor of all constitutional positions.
However, from time to time, the court does rule correctly on constitutional matters and offers opinions on matters that
confirm constitutionally secured rights.
In Printz & Mack v. U.S., below, decided in 1997, Justice Antonin Scalia read the majority opinion, the resultant decision of which is included below. The bottom line of this decision is that the federal government has no authority to compel the states to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program, despite policy.
Again, this was decided in 1997, and here we are in 2013 - 16 years later - and this decision has essentially died on the vine, because no one that we know of in this nation is enforcing it upon the unconstitutional government. One would think with the Second Amendment issue being so prominent across this nation that the essential, primary ruling from this case would be used in arguments against governments' regulations, policies and legislation attempting to shred the Second Amendment!
For those of you observing those theoretically arguing insupport of the Second Amendment, the use of this case is a no-brainer and its non-use should call into question thelegitimacy of the arguments being advocated by them and,
ultimately, their true objective. Concentration and direct focus on the specific constitutional positions and arguments must be paramount in any serious effort. Precedents such as these that uphold rights guaranteed in the Constitution must be used to demonstrate that the Supreme Court both upholds secured rights and limits the power of encroaching, overreaching, excessive government- at least in these cases.
Off-point, distracting, secondary issues and arguments, microscopically dissecting statutes, ad nauseum, serve the duty of the judges and the pocketbooks of the attorneys, only.
Please remember that public officers, executives, and legislators have no constitutional authority to oppose, deny and defy the very document to which they swore their oaths. Therefore, it is plainly evident that they have no constitutional authority to create statutes which directly oppose and violate mandates of the Constitution. Those who theoretically argue for the people and the Second Amendment seem to forget the word "authority" and also seem to forget, on purpose, that constitutional authority does NOT exist for government to violate the Constitution(s), as a normal course of business.
Beware of your "leaders", people, because if history repeatsitself, as it always seems to do, they will lead you down the path of destruction, yet, in that effort advance their own agenda, purposes and power.
In the U.S. v. Williams case, below the Printz & Mack case excerpt, Scalia, again, read the majority opinion of the court, and in so doing, made monumental statements about the INDEPENDENCE, AUTONOMY AND FREEDOM POSSESSED BY THE GRAND JURY. It is well worth your time to read this case, if you wish, because this case cites other good case precedents that uphold this position.
Scalia made a point of saying that the grand jury is cited in
the Bill of Rights, is a fixture in its own right, belongs to the
people, is independent of the judicial, executive and legislative branches, and cannot be controlled or influenced by the prosecutor and the court. This opinion was rendered in 1992 - 21 years ago. Despite this fact and despite other rulings that uphold this opinion, governments all over this nation - at all levels and in all forms - have ignored this key ruling and essentially deep-sixed it.
Where are the advocates for the people who want independence and freedom for the grand jury in pursuit of
justice, per constitutional guarantees? Those who have attempted to form grand juries may have had good intent, but they have failed miserably, because they did not use the power of this and other rulings to empower the constitutional authority of their own grand juries, principally because they do not have enough constitutional understanding to enforce constitutional requirements upon treasonous governments.
Those Americans who are serious about forming constitutionally empowered grand juries must use the power of the Constitution(s) to do so, and must demand that their so-called "public servants" abide by their oaths and uphold all constitutional provisions and guarantees. These positions are paramount, because without them, nothing but failure will occur. Remember, Power uses its power ruthlessly against the powerless to expand its all-encompassing power and bring everyone and everything under that power. If serious Americans do not use their own inherent political power and lawfully compel their public SERVANTS - federal, state and local - to recognize and obey the independent authority of the grand jury and, further, demand that they support and prosecute based upon its findings, this effort will be futile. If only a few Americans try to do this, they will get nowhere. It will take many millions of Americans across this nation, with serious intent, persistent focused expertise, and real courage to accomplish this worthwhile and absolutely necessary constitutional objective.
In the American Revolution, approximately 3% of the people participated, although some have said 5%, which is not correct. A little over half of that 3% actually fought the battles, while the rest acted in support, supply and logistical positions. Today, 3% of the American population is slightly more than 9 million people. The type of action Jack and I are suggesting to take back our country from the tyrants and criminals running her into the ground is lawful, constitutional action, and one of the best ways to accomplish this is by and through free and independent grand juries of the people. We do not support, nor encourage, any type of action other than lawful, constitutional action. The question is: Are there 9 or more million Americans across this nation willing to support the Supreme Law of the Land and lawfully enforce their inherent rights, guaranteed therein, by embarking upon a constitutional crusade to establish truly independent, autonomous grand juries throughout this nation? This effort
must demand that public officers not only support the grand juries, but also fully accept, honor and respect their
independence, their power to conduct investigations and
make presentments against errant public officers and other suspected criminals, and most critically, prosecute upon their findings, pursuant to constitutional requirements.
Margy and I have spent over 50 years teaching not only the Constitutions, but also how people can apply them upon
reluctant governments throughout the nation. Jack just
suffered a serious illness and nearly died. This gave him a
lot of time to think and reflect and realize that at this stage
of our lives, it is necessary for us to end the ongoing
enormous stress and anxiety we have endured all these years in our efforts to help America and her people. Nearly two years ago we announced our retirement, but many people across the nation have not taken that seriously, and the demands upon us are still too high. If many people across the nation take this email seriously and want to form independent grand juries and/or pursue efforts to protect the Second Amendment correctly, we will be happy to offer guidance, only, in such efforts, but not lead them.