Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Motion For Summons of Grand Jury
Motion For Summons of Grand Jury
__________________________________
v.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff comes before this honorable Peoples court and keeper of the nations conscience
with this Motion for Summons of one or more independent Citizens Grand Juries (hereafter GJ)
under UNITED STATES v. John H. WILLIAMS, Jr., and FRCP Rule 6(1) to investigate the
obstruction of justice(2), all the evidence thus far suppressed by conspiracy, collusion and
treason(3) between factions within the various branches of government, and previous lower
1
Rule 6 Grand Jury. (1) In General. When the public interest so requires, the court must
order that one or more grand juries be summoned.
2
18 U.S. Code Chapter 73 - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE - Obstruction of justice in
the federal courts is governed by a series of criminal statutes (18 U.S.C.A. 15011517). Two
types of cases arise under the Omnibus Clause involving Obstruction of Justice: The
concealment, alteration, or destruction of documents; and the encouraging or rendering of false
testimony. Actual obstruction is not needed as an element of proof to sustain a conviction. The
Defendant's endeavor to obstruct justice is sufficient. "Endeavor" has been defined by the courts
as an effort to accomplish the purpose the statute was enacted to prevent. The courts have
consistently held that "endeavor" constitutes a lesser threshold of purposeful activity than
a criminal "attempt. Federal obstruction of justice statutes have been used to prosecute
government officials who have sought to prevent the disclosure of damaging information.
(Emphasis added).
3
18 U.S. Code 2382 - Misprision of treason - Whoever, owing allegiance to the United
States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does
not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of
the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of
tax collection on wages, salary or compensation for services of the private working American.
Due to inattention by the American people, and the deliberate dumbing down of students in the
government controlled public school system on the issues, Americans, and the courts, have lost
touch with the constitution and rule of law... something grade school children in our earlier years
were well versed in, and they have been set it all aside as distractions in what appears to be a
1. The IRS is taxing private Americans wages, salary and compensation for services as
income when it is not lawful income, and taxing same outside constitutional parameters
according to the U.S. Supreme Court stare decisis original rulings on this topic, which
have never been overturned or rebutted by government. This means that 100 million
working Americans are being taxed unconstitutionally and illegally under color of law.
3. The IRS is falsely claiming that the 16th Amendment authorizes the income tax, and
authorizes Americans wages to be classified as income when it was never intended to
be according to evidence of record. There is no evidence of record save for U.S. Supreme
Court stare decisis original rulings on this topic that the 16th Amendment did not create
any new tax on Americans. There is no standing law which authorizes a direct
unapportioned tax on wages, salary or compensation for services.
The court and other (with more available) support the allegations of violation of due process of
misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years,
or both.
Treasury Order 150-02 - Organization and Functions of the Internal Revenue Service
CANCELLATION DATE: May 02, 2006
Diversified Metal Products, Inc., v T-Bow Company Trust, Internal Revenue Service and
Steve Morgan, 93-405E-EJL; 4. Denies that the Internal Revenue Service is an agency of
the United States Government.
Plaintiff contends that under standing Supreme Court precedent, and based on 18 U.S.C. 4(4),
4
18 U.S.C. 4 - Misprision of felony: Whoever, having knowledge of the actual
commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon
as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority
under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or
independent motion for one or preferably more GJ or special GJ(6) can be made where clear
evidence is available and presented to any judge of an ongoing criminal enterprise within the
U.S. Government affecting millions of Americans in these united States. Surely there has been
both.
5
42 U.S.C. 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law: Whoever, under color of any
law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State,
Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different
punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his
color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed
in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a
dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if
such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to
commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or
imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
18 USC 245 Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, intimidates or interferes
with...[1] any person because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other
person or any class of persons from
[B] participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity
provided or administered by the United States; [E] participating in or enjoying the benefits of any
program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance; shall be fined under this title, or
imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
42 U.S.C. 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights: Every person who, under color of any
statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of
Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person
within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured
by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity,
or other proper proceeding for redress...
6
18 U.S.C. 3331(a), the U.S. District Court in every judicial district having more than
four million inhabitants must impanel a special grand jury when requested by a designated
official of the Justice Department.
regarding various agencies of the U.S. government, such as the DOJ, the FBI, the CIA, and the
IRS involved with criminal allegations and even hundreds of sealed indictments mounting, to
suggest it is long over due for several GJs to investigate our public servants and hold them
accountable, and bring government back within the confines of the rule of law, the Constitution
Elements which provide convincing and persuasive evidence that a self-serving and protecting
1. The U.S. Government cannot be sued in most cases without its permission according
to statutes created BY government.
2. The U.S. Government cant be sued for punitive damages where they have limited
waiver of immunity. (11 U.S. Code 106 (3)
3. The U.S. government claims Sovereign Immunity from most claims and charges
against it or its employees, but evidence of record disproves this sovereignty is over the
People who created government. (See Exhibit A, Sovereignty of the People above
Governments).
4. The three branches of government... Executive, Legislative and Judicial, have long
protected themselves using statutes and other means to thwart the peoples rights... i.e the
Judicial branch/Department of Justice defends the Executive branch in suits or claims.
6. The IRS has never brought criminal charges against plaintiff despite claims that he has
violated taxing laws which is a criminal offense. This is prima facie evidence of cover-up
of the fraud and preventing a jury from hearing the evidence, and depending on color of
law administrative actions to achieve what it shouldnt by law.
Society's right to seek redress for criminal conduct stands firm in the Constitution.
Unfounded criminal prosecutions (Calandra & Branzburg, infra) for taxation issues on
private wages take place routinely against the People due to color of law activities which
have no lawful foundation or basis. The IRS uses inferior court rulings as evidence of their
position but the supreme Court cases, which bind all lower courts have NEVER been addressed
or rebutted.
In UNITED STATES v. John H. WILLIAMS, Jr., 504 U.S. 36 (112 S.Ct. 1735, 118 L.Ed.2d 352),
"Rooted 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 GJ 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,
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. See 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 court, 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 deliberates in total
secrecy, See United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc., 463 U.S., at 424-425, 103 S.Ct., at
3138.
Even in this setting, however, we have insisted that the grand jury remain free to pursue
its investigations 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.
While Williams clearly shows that the three branches of government cannot control the GJs
ability to freely act, it bring up this statement that the GJ is subject to the courts...
Although the grand jury has not been textually assigned to any of the branches
described in the first three Articles of the Constitution, ante, at 47, it is not an
autonomous body completely beyond the reach of the other branches. Throughout its life,
from the moment it is convened until it is discharged, the grand jury is subject to the
control of the court. As Judge Learned Hand recognized over sixty years ago, a grand
jury is neither an officer nor an agent of the United States, but a part of the court.
Falter v. United States, 23 F.2d 420, 425 (CA2), cert. denied, 277 U.S. 590, 48 S.Ct. 528,
72 L.Ed. 1003 (1928). This Court has similarly characterized the grand jury:
"A grand jury is clothed with great independence in many areas, but it remains an
appendage of the court, powerless to perform its investigative function without the court's
aid, because powerless itself to compel the testimony of witnesses. It is the court's
process which summons the witness to attend and give testimony, and it is the court
which must compel a witness to testify if, after appearing, he refuses to do so." Brown v.
United States, 359 U.S. 41, 49, 79 S.Ct. 539, 546, 3 L.Ed.2d 609 (1959). (Emphasis
added).
This in no way suggests the court has control over the GJ in convening, or in preventing access
to, the GJ, by the public, apart from the three branches, but merely has authority in compelling
Past attempts to expand the court's supervisory role over the grand jury have been
repeatedly rejected by the Supreme Court as counter to the grand jury's independent
role. See e.g., U.S. v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992).
This Court has, of course, long recognized that the grand jury has wide latitude to
investigate violations of federal law as it deems appropriate and need not obtain
Due process of law has been thwarted in all previous court cases Plaintiff filed to not only protect
his rights and assets, but to expose the evidence of ongoing fraud against millions of Americans
never properly adjudicated since original Supreme Court stare decisis (precedent)(7) declarations
on these issues. Such due process depravation renders any past judgments on the issues void(8)
on their face. A judgment is void and should be vacated pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) if the court
that rendered the judgment acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law.(9) Due
process of law... proper adjudication of all the evidence, and evidence in fact provided to rebut
Plaintiffs claims, was never accomplished in any of the past court cases.
The powers for citizen grand juries have been affirmed by several Supreme Court decisions.
7
"Precedent" as a rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type
of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases. Black's Law Dictionary, p. 1059
(5th ed. 1979).
8
A judgment is void if the court that rendered it . . . acted in a manner inconsistent with
due process. Margoles v. Johns, 660 F.2d 291 (7th Cir. 1981) cert. denied, 455 U.S. 909, 102
S.Ct. 1256, 71 L.Ed.2d 447 (1982); In re Four Seasons Securities Laws Litigation, 502 F.2d 834
(10th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1034, 95 S.Ct. 516, 42 L.Ed.2d 309 (1975). Mere error
does not render the judgment void unless the error is of constitutional dimension. Simer v. Rios,
661 F.2d 655 (7th Cir.1981), cert. denied, sub nom Simer v. United States, 456 U.S. 917, 102
S.Ct. 1773, 72 L.Ed.2d 177 (1982). Klugh v. United States, 620 F.Supp. 892 (1985).
9
See Philos Techs., Inc. v. Philos & D, Inc., 645 F.3d 851, 854 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing
Planet Corp. v. Sullivan, 702 F.2d 123, 125 n.2 (7th Cir. 1983); Price v. Wyeth Holdings Corp.,
505 F.3d 624, 631 (7th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). Marques v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Chicago,
286 F.3d 1014, 1018 (7th Cir. 2002)).
The grand jurys historic functions survive to this day. Its responsibilities continue to
include both the determination of whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has
been committed and the protection of citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions.
Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686-687 (1972).
The scope and ramifications of such an inquiry is evident, but has no bearing as to whether a GJ
"It is a grand inquest, a body with powers of investigation and inquisition, the scope of
whose inquiries is not to be limited narrowly by questions of propriety or forecasts of the
probable result of the investigation, or by doubts whether any particular individual will be
found properly subject to an accusation of crime." Blair v. United States, 250 U. S. 273,
250 U. S. 282 (1919).
Of course, such an investigation should be thorough and without bias or prejudicial interference.
The grand jury's investigative power must be broad if its public responsibility is
adequately to be discharged. Branzburg v. Hayes, supra, at 408 U. S. 700; Costello v.
United States, 350 U. S. 364.
Calandra continues:
A grand jury investigation is not fully carried out until every available clue has been run
down and all witnesses examined in every proper way to find if a crime has been
committed. United States v. Stone, 429 F.2d 138, 140 (CA2 1970).
CONCLUSION
The very cases and evidence presented above is prima facie evidence that there must be some
mechanism through which the People have direct access to the GJ to provide evidence of servant
It is plain under original intent that the People are the first branch of government, the three
federal branches follow, and then the GJ is the 5th branch of government processes existing
Plaintiff has pursued exposing the conflicting evidence of record for over 14 years now, to judges
across the juridical spectrum, as well as to Defendants agents, politicians and others, only to fall
on deaf ears. Plaintiff can refer the GJs to at least 10 expert witnesses to include X-IRS agents,
constitutional attorneys and other tax experts, and other professionals with knowledge of the
facts of the issues at hand. They in turn will likely have a list of their own who can testify to the
For this cause, and because the public interest so requires such an investigation, (Rule 6), since
this directly affects millions of private Americans whose lives are negatively impacted on a
regular basis, Plaintiff moves the court to summons several GJs preferably outside the
Washington, DC district, and independent of it. Plaintiff believes truth will be made plain as to
whether Defendant and others so named stand on the constitution, rule of law and original intent,
or not.
When someone or some group is proven wrong with evidence in fact, and admit witting or
However, when the same person or group consistently avoids admission, avoids evidence,
obfuscates the truth, covers-up, distorts and misapplies laws to continue their warring(10)
against the Constitution and sovereign People of America, that is unacceptable for a free and
sovereign people, and is a certain insurrectional national security threat to our rule of law, our
If the government branches and agencies can answer, let them be held to it, regardless of the
ramifications...
Let Justice be Done, though the Heavens may Fall. Fiat justitia ruat caelum.
Maxim of Law, as quoted from Black's & Bouvier's Law Dictionaries.
Respectfully Submitted,
______________________________________
10
No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution
without violating his undertaking to support it. U.S. Supreme Court Cooper V. Aaron, (1958).
What is the penalty for this warring? 18 USC 2381 - Treason; Whoever, owing allegiance
to the United States, levies war against them (the 50 united states... more evidence of a
different definition for United States) or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort
within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be
imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall
be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
970-731-9724
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Jeffrey T. Maehr, Plaintiff, certifies that he has mailed a true and complete copy of this Motion
for Summons of Grand Jury and memorandum of Law on the below named party as counsel for
Sophia Siddiqui