Re: More on Charge Against Bush
- From: "magruder" <smagruder10@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 2 Dec 2006 15:54:45 -0800
Checkers wrote:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/libby/grand.jury.demand.htm
NOTICE AND DEMAND TO CONVEY
VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, ON INFORMATION
TO LAWFULLY CONVENED FEDERAL GRAND JURY
TO: Patrick J. Fitzgerald
Office of Special Counsel
1400 New York Ave., N.W., 9th Fl.
Washington 20530
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA
FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
c/o 501 West Broadway #A-332
San Diego 92101
CALIFORNIA, USA
DATE: December 1, 2006 A.D.
SUBJECT: USA v. Libby, USDC/D.C. Criminal No. 05-394 (RBW)
Greetings Mr. Fitzgerald:
In the course of reviewing standing court decisions which have been
issued in litigation involving the federal criminal statutes at 18
U.S.C. sections 1504 and 3332, my office was very pleased to discover
the correct and well documented decision In re Grand Jury Application,
617 F.Supp. 199 (USDC/SDNY 1985).
We regard this decision as binding judicial precedent throughout the
judicial district of New York State, and therefore in lower Manhattan.
See 28 U.S.C. 112.
A few of the most pertinent abstracts, as published in the United
States Code Annotated ("USCA") and United States Code Service
("USCS"), now follow, to wit:
Private litigant may obtain writ of mandamus to compel U.S. attorney to
present facts concerning alleged criminal wrongdoing to grand jury.
By enacting 18 U.S.C. 3332(a) ... Congress intended to remove
prosecutor's discretion in deciding whether to present information to
grand jury; he retains discretion with respect to how he acts and what
he recommends concerning that information.
Plaintiffs were entitled to writ of mandamus to compel U.S. Attorney to
present facts concerning alleged criminal wrongdoing of certain named
defendants to grand jury, considering that grand jury statute [18
U.S.C. 3332(a)] gave plaintiffs a clear right to relief sought, that
U.S. Attorney had duty to do the act in question, and that no other
adequate remedy was available.
[bold emphases added]
Litigants in pending civil suit had standing to seek writ of mandamus
to compel U.S. Attorney to present facts concerning alleged criminal
wrongdoing of certain named defendants to grand jury, as 18 USCA
3332(a), providing that any attorney appearing on behalf of the United
States before grand jury who receives information concerning alleged
offense from any other person, shall, if requested by such other
person, inform grand jury of such alleged offense, created a duty on
part of U.S. Attorney that ran to the litigants.
18 U.S.C. 3332(a) creates a right in every person to have information
known by them concerning organized crime to be presented to grand jury.
In order to grant a request for mandamus, a court must find: a clear
right in plaintiff to relief sought; a plainly defined and peremptory
duty on part of defendant to do the act in question; and no other
adequate remedy available.
[bold and underlined emphases added]
This erudite decision also does an excellent job of documenting the
relevant Legislative History of 18 U.S.C. 3331 et seq., to wit:
Citizens would be accorded the right to contact the jury, through the
foreman, regarding any alleged criminal act. ...
Act [at 3331(a)] created new sections requiring the appointment of
special grand juries in all judicial districts with over four million
inhabitants.
During the House Hearings, Edward L. Wright presented the views of the
American Bar Association, which were essentially embodied in the Act in
its final form.
[bold and underlined emphases added]
As reported In re Grand Jury Application supra, Mr. Wright wrote:
It is our belief that the prosecutor should properly be vested with the
responsibility of professionally screening allegations of criminal
misconduct. At the same time, we recommend that there be built into
the process a safeguard that will require the prosecutor to give an
accounting of his screening.
House Hearings at 541
[bold emphasis added]
In his holding in that case, the judge ruled as follows:
Since the U.S. Attorney has been requested to present certain
information to the grand jury he must do so. I will not relieve him of
a duty which Congress has seen fit to impose.
DEMAND FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
Accordingly therefore, Mr. Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the United States
(federal government) appearing ex rel. Paul Andrew Mitchell, Private
Attorney General, hereby makes its formal DEMAND that you convey our
previously lodged VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, ON INFORMATION, formally
charging Messrs. George W. Bush, Donald H. Rumsfeld, Richard B. Cheney
and Does 1 thru 100 with multiple felony federal offenses, to a
lawfully convened federal grand jury forthwith.
DEADLINE FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
Your specific performance and detailed compliance with the holding, as
detailed In re Grand Jury Application supra, must be demonstrated by
confirming same in writing to the following mailing location no later
than midnight on the evening of December 31, 2006 A.D.:
Supreme Law Firm
c/o Forwarding Agent
501 West Broadway #A-332
San Diego 92101
CALIFORNIA, USA
Thank you, Mr. Patrick J. Fitzgerald, for your timely and professional
cooperation in this historic matter that now affects so many millions
of inhabitants of planet Earth.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
.
- Prev by Date: Re: "Most educated Israelis are made uncomfortable by the idea that Israel is simply a Jewish state; it sounds a little too like an Afrikaner state or a Catholic state. So the "democratic" is added as a kind of public denial that Israel is an ethnic or religious state. The Jewish and democratic idea is crucially important to Israel and Israelis; it is, for example, the central tenet of the 1992 Basic Law on Freedom and Human Dignity, the nearest thing Israel has to a Bill of Rights. This document defines Israel as a Jewish and democratic state and, in contradiction, also excludes equality as one of its principles That's because most Israelis believe that equality applies only to Jews inside Israel, not to the one in five Israeli citizens who are not Jewish but Palestinian." --
- Next by Date: Re: Some of the other Russian Scientists either publishing in Dingleberry-Breath Durland's 'Journal", or New York Medical College:
- Previous by thread: Re: More on Charge Against Bush
- Next by thread: Re: More on Charge Against Bush
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
