Why Would the FBI be Calling on Me to Ask if I Know Anyone Who is Organizing Independent Common Law Grand Juries?
Click HERE to view post in PDF format with photos.
This
past Thursday, February 16 (2014), the FBI came calling to my doorstep. This is
a home that I have been leasing for less than two years, where I have few
visitors and never answer to unexpected knocks at the door, and at where I get
no important mail since I have used a post office box for numerous years. When
I looked out of the window, I caught an angle on two huge guys at my front
door. Just five minutes earlier I had just finished a phone confirmation that I
would be leaving soon for a meeting with someone for further media planning on
exposing government corruption throughout Michigan. Since my son was home from
school with a head cold, I asked him to talk through the door to find out who
the men were and what they wanted. It was FBI Agent John Brand, and he asked
that I call him back at his Detroit area office phone number.
About 10 minutes after these FBI agents left my
driveway, I left for my meeting with a prospective media sponsor from the
northern section of the state, who is a man with resources and a commitment
using them to support a newly organizing media network of alternative Internet
print, podcast radio, and digital television designed to expose Michigan
government corruption. He lives not far
from former Michigan Supreme Court “Chief” Justice – turned-whistle-blower – Elizabeth
Weaver. She had resigned from the
Michigan Supreme Court in 2010 with a press conference announcing an
exceedingly level of corruption at Michigan’s highest levels of judicial
administration.
I
have had many hours of phone conferencing with Justice Weaver, and she is truly engaged in advocacy for judicial
reforms. Last year in 2013, she published her memoirs – including notes on
secretly recorded closed meetings and behind-the-scenes actions of the Michigan
Supreme Court covering a couple of decades of political maneuvering and high-profile
decision-making between judicial and executive branches – exposing extraordinary
levels of government corruption and what amounts to treason against the People
of Michigan by judges of the Michigan Supreme Court, and by those employed as
the State Court Administrator, by the Michigan Attorney General and his staff,
and by the Michigan Governor. The 2-inch thick book with 765 pages is being
sold by Justice Weaver at no profit for less than $20 in a mere attempt to
expose the corruption to the public. Her book is titled, Judicial Deceit: Tyranny and
Unnecessary Secrecy at the Michigan Supreme Court.
So what did FBI Agent John Brand want to talk
with me about? I telephoned Agent Brand upon my return home from a very
productive media planning meeting. In short time, he revealed his awareness of
the suicide six months ago of my dear friend and one of Michigan’s most
dedicated activists, Trish
Kraus, who he claimed had networked connections to others that had caught
the attention of the FBI that might be associated with the formation of grand juries that were “unauthorized by the courts.” Agent Brand
also admitted that it was Trish Kraus’ estranged former husband who, in
retaliation for her announcing her separation and divorce from him, had
(falsely) report to the FBI that Trish and I were somehow involved in a “domestic terrorist” organization called Lawless
America.
Lawless
America Michigan got started by Trish’s and my participatory assistance to
a man named Bill Windsor,
who uncovered criminal government corruption in the federal judiciary of the
Atlanta, Georgia district and properly reported his findings to other
government authorities, who then did nothing about his reports of “crimes committed from the bench” by
judges. Frustrated by that repeated occurrence, Mr. Windsor found legitimate
access to his local grand jury and had received the grand jury’s invitation to
come back after he had taken the opportunity to briefly report to them the
surmounting evidence he had of these judicial crimes occurring in their greater
community. When he returned however, he was barred by threat of assault and
arrest by building security, prosecutors and others of the executive branch
feloniously interfering with these grand jury proceedings. About that same
time, judges were responding to his repeated petitions for redress by also
barring him from filing any further grievances
against his government adversaries, under threat of heavy sanctioning.
Bill
Windsor’s solution was to turn to the “court of public opinion.” He thus sought
to establish an interactive Internet talk-show, and later to produce a movie
documentary by the same name of “Lawless
America” by which he would travel around the nation gathering testimonies
from each state demonstrating that judicial and other government corruption is
institutionalized and systemically abundant in every state. My and Trish
Kraus’ involvement occurred by our use of a local Public Access television
studio to host two solid days of capturing individual testimonials from
people who had experienced judicial and other corruption. These were
individuals who had trustingly turned to government officials for intervention
and with the expectation that they would honor their solemn Oaths and execute
their Duties of offices, only to find instead the dereliction of those duties
and the cover-up of the government crimes about which these individuals were
reporting. (See the “Lawless
America Channel” on YouTube.)
In clarifying the types of people he was seeking, FBI
Agent said he is disregarding Bill Windsor. What he wanted to talk about were “sovereigns,”
and most particularly the ones he believed were residing in greater Detroit. Specifically,
he associated them with “Republic of
Michigan” and the “Wayne County
Assembly.” These were people supposedly consisting of “Moors,” as people of color, who claim an indigenous status that
exempts them from having to conform with or be subject to the jurisdiction of
state or federal laws. Mr. Brand elaborated further to characterize these types
of people as those who see no problem in using unauthorized papers as substitutions for driver’s licenses, who
defraud the U.S. Treasury with unauthorized
bonds, promissory notes, or whatever; and who are engaged in get-out-of-mortgage schemes by taking money from others so to teach them how to do
the same. His ultimate concern was that these so-called sovereigns are also willing to financially harm the de facto government and otherwise causing
innocent “sheep”, “slaves”, “citizens”
to lose their homes to lawyers and their corporations when taking part in these
types of illegal schemes. He was looking for people who believed so strongly in
their so-called “sovereignty” that
they would physically harm those in government who are merely doing their jobs,
such as by fighting back against or shooting police officers making traffic
stops of these types of individuals. Brand’s concern was that grand jury
members may also seek to enforce
their indictments on government officials through other private means.
I
pardoned myself early in this hour-and-a-quarter conversation so to question if
Agent Brand or the FBI had taken consideration of the number of innocent drivers
who have been needlessly stopped, harassed, or victimized by police brutality in
comparison to the number of those who have actually fought back or killed
police officers making such types of traffic stops. He declined to reflect upon
my statement any further than to reply that it would be an interesting
comparison if we had the statistics.
I doubt
that Agent Brand was taking notes, though he was likely recording our
conversation as he further elaborated upon his characterization of the classic sovereign by his definition. He
described the person as one who locates a single code or statute and uses it to
justify one’s own exemption from being subjugated to the chain of other written laws. This is the person who propagates
wrongful information while relying upon just that one statute and a limited
interpretation of the law, even though such an interpretation might be entirely correct. His concern was the disregarding
of the greater context of other laws, either leading up to or encompassing the
one being referenced by the sovereign;
and that they were encouraging others to join in on relying upon such a limited
interpretation of the law while breaking other laws. In regard to those who are
undermining and circumventing the laws to form their own grand juries, Agent
Brand insinuated that some of those involved in this movement appear to be people
who might have fought numerous court battles and emerged as “disgruntled litigants” (like Bill
Windsor) who simply did not like the results of the judicial rulings against
them.
I
began my reply by stating that I was indeed familiar with the words he
referenced with such interest and concern, such as republic, sovereign, and grand juries. The Pledge of Allegiance still refers to the Republic for which the flag is supposed to symbolize. I told
him that my past year and a half of doctoral research into American History has
included changes in state and federal sovereignty
relationships, common law constitutionalism, judicial and other
government corruption, private prosecutions, and the history of common law grand juries. I asked Agent Brand
if he had ever heard of the U.S. v. Williams
ruling by the United States Supreme Court, as delivered by Justice Antonin
Scalia. He replied that he had not.
So I referred him to the website of the National Liberty Alliance in
New York as having a site chock full of educational material for people like
him that are not well-informed about the functional independence of grand
juries being free to operate as a “fourth
branch of government” outside of the control or influence of any of the
other legislative, judicial and executive branches. (This is in contrast to the
systematic institutionalization of the “silent partnership
of the traditional (mainstream) media,” or the “administrative
state,” or the communist/socialist
undercurrent of the government of China as the alternative choices of de
facto corporations in defining the “fourth
branch.”)
I chuckled
at Agent Brand talking about people being disgruntled
by their experiences in the courts. When I told him that I had been repeatedly
and publicly mischaracterized by my government defendants, and by state and federal judges issuing rulings that I
was a “vexatious litigant” merely
because I had met each criminal obstruction
of justice by government with the exercise of my First Amendment right to a
civil redress of grievances,
FBI agent Brand confessed that he had researched some of my court cases and had
already found that out about me prior to calling on me.
Thus,
I told Agent Brand that his characterization of sovereigns appeared prejudicially
stereotypical, with a view of otherwise very patriotic people as being
similarly rendered through a very limited interpretation and outside of the
greater context of the actual facts. I added that, even if what he were stating
about sovereigns were true, these
people might not be behaving any differently than from others in government,
that I had witnessed for years by firsthand experience in the state and federal
courts, who seek to fraudulently “litigate,”
to publicly publish their judicial rulings with gross omissions, misapplication
of the laws, or misstatements of facts, and who refuse to see the larger “chain” of actions that demonstrate the “meeting of the minds” of a true “conspiracy” by government.
I told FBI Agent
Brand how I had repeatedly found that my named government defendants, including
the Michigan Attorney General and U.S. Attorney as well as judges, had written their
court “briefs” and abbreviated rulings, decisions, judgments, orders, opinions, and memorandums
in such way that deliberately cherry-picked
from the plethora of unconstitutional laws that were on the books while
disregarding the mounds of solid evidence I had otherwise presented along with
other more relevant laws. I told him that it was clear that these “officers of the court” were conducting
themselves in such a deceptive fashion, in order to fraudulently justify their
reasons for continually dismissing my persistent claims about government
corruption. I told him that even now while we have a former Michigan
Supreme Court justice-turned-whistle-blower who is reaffirming what I have been
crying out for years from the grassroots as a so-called “disgruntled” or “vexatious” litigant, nobody from government
is doing anything about these TREASONOUS crimes. This would arguably include
Agent Brand himself, who has seemingly approached me under his own purported
sworn Oath of duty under the Constitution while upholding a
biased agenda and a prejudicial objective
when inquiring into these so-called sovereign
behaviors and other citizen reactions.
I
told Agent Brand that what I have found – and have discussed with the full
admission of a Michigan lawyer who has watched me when not representing me in
many of these court battles against government – is that judges repeatedly
ignore common sense, relevant laws, the state and federal constitutions that
are designed to restrict and guide their actions, and the evidence to focus
upon color of law and their interpretation of whatever case law they
select – so to “litigate” just a
minutia of the actual facts and disregard the so many other more relevant laws.
I could not count for this FBI agent the number of times I had presented a
mountain of facts along with a plethora of supporting evidence that was entirely
ignored by judges, just so they could determine “no government wrongdoing;” or so to deliver the award of immunity in the event there is any
remote possibility of an inadvertent wrongdoing on government’s part.
Put simply, I told the FBI agent that there is a “revolving door” between the
judicial and executive branches of state and federal government operating in
Michigan, with both branches committing an overabundance of crimes and nobody
in command holding their peer group of cronies
accountable for their criminal actions. I also cited two key examples such corrupt government
officials: The first being Michigan Court of Appeals judge Richard Bandstra
moving from the judiciary to become the “lead
counsel” for the Michigan Attorney General, whose DUTY it is to investigate
and remove corrupt judges from office; and second, being U.S. Attorney Stephen
Murphy who denied investigating my complaint into judicial corruption and
declined to allow me access to a grand jury just prior to his slipping through
the revolving door to become a U.S. District Court judge. I asked, how can “checks and balances” ever be properly
applied with this type of thing going on at the state AND at the federal level
within the very same regional district? The “sovereignty” is neither at the state level NOR at the federal level
in such cases when ALL of the individuals being referenced here are members of
the very SAME State BAR of Michigan? It
rests at the individual level with both the executive and judicial branches
awarding “governmental immunity” to
one another for their criminal enterprise!
In
addressing Agent Brand’s concern about independent grand juries springing up in
Michigan without the authorization of these very same (corrupt) judges (and
their counterparts in the executive branch), I reasoned that I and others
across Michigan and the United States have enough evidence to show that We
The People have no other means of accessing any other state or federal
grand juries for reporting these government crimes. As case-in-point, I referred
to my own numerous case demands to both the judicial and executive
branches of both state and federal government for access to the real government of “the People,” by way of either petit or grand juries, and as both a
civil “plaintiff” and as a bona fide
“crime victim.” I also described how
I have thereafter been repeatedly denied such access to anyone outside of
government (i.e., “the People” of a
petit or grand jury) by both the courts and the prosecutors. I pointed out that
I have had so many denials of grand juries by the judicial branch that the
latest responses to my demands, at both the state and federal levels, have been
to threaten me with sanctions if I file such a court action again clarifying
and redressing my demand of this all-important recognition that government
crimes are being committed…in spades.
I
told FBI Agent John Brand that similar
obstructions of the rights of others have long been generated by
both state and federal prosecutors as the “gatekeepers”
to accessing grand juries. I stated that I had personally collected complaints
from numerous proclaimed government crime
victims, as submitted by these victims directly to the U.S. Attorneys
operating in districts at both sides of Michigan. I told Agent Brand that these
victims had all deliberately cited 18 U.S.C. § 3332 in demand that their
reports of crimes be related to the federal special grand jury; and I told him that
I have also collected the written responses returned to these government crime
victims by these same U.S. Attorneys, all DENYING those requests. I suggested
that this particular evidence was extremely significant given the purposeful
wording of 18
U.S.C. § 3332.
When
I asked Agent Brand if he knew anything about 18 U.S.C. § 3332, he
confessed that he did not. He was compelled to look it up for himself while I
continued with my discussion about the significance of my evidence reflecting a
“pattern of corruption” by multiple
district offices of the U.S. Attorney in Michigan. I suggested that the range of criminal
complaints against government is too broad for such a pattern of denial to be a
pattern characterizing the complainants. Except for the likelihood that a
common complaint exists about a particular judge or about the Michigan Attorney
General (or in the case of University of Michigan, the university president Sue
Coleman and the governing Board of Regents), the only thing these diversified cases
have in common are their purposeful reference to 18 U.S.C. § 3332 as a
statutory requirement for the U.S. Attorney to perform their duty to present
these reports of crimes to the special grand juries which, as an antecedent,
have the DUTY to “inquire about”
crimes being reported within their respective federal districts. Agent Brand read back to me over the phone from 18 U.S.C. § 3332 (“Powers and Duties” of the Special
Grand Jury) as follows:
The cover letters of
Camille McMillan, Sally Borghese, Teresa Goin, and Karen Stephens, as well as
their corresponding answers from the U.S. Attorneys speak for themselves, as
does my cover letter to the U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade for the Eastern District
of Michigan where I live, and her “agent’s”
answer. I told Agent
Brand that the First Amendment of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights
maintains that “We (the People)” not
only have the right to assemble and to discuss or investigate a “redress” of government corruption based
upon our own incriminating testimonies and evidence, “We (the People)” also have the right to freely publish our findings
in the form of a presentment or indictment. In fact, as found in both Michigan
legislation (of MCL 750.10) and in the federal jury
handbook (i.e., see p.8 of 24), an
indictment is merely a formal
proclamation of a criminal charge, whether issued by an individual or a group
of individuals. [The caveat is that the
government will simply not act on it unless someone deemed as being one of
their own, such as a government prosecutor,
signs off on it; however, the research into challenges
to prosecutorial inaction and private
prosecutions at the state level by those not employed in government is a
significant consideration for Private
Attorney(s) General(s).] In regard to his concern about people taking
private measures to enforce grand jury findings, I am sure that Agent Brand is
already aware that common people have always had the right, if not also the
duty, to conduct private citizen’s
arrests under state laws.
Altogether, the videos recorded for the Lawless
America documentary testimonials throughout 2012 and into 2013 demonstrate the
broad spectrum of complaints and the wide range of means by which government
can perpetrate their crimes upon the unsuspecting public in their course of
their jobs and in the empty name of “the
People.” Though each case of
criminal accusation against government official(s) needs to be adjudicated
independently, what is common about these thousands of individual
testimonials is that the cases were all “resolved”
by government administrators
and never brought before the real government of “the people of the jury,” whether it be a petit jury or a
grand jury. The government wants it that way, and that is why we are seeing a
revival and an enhancement of what took place a century and a half ago with the
Reconstruction Acts. “[T]he Civil
Rights Act, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Ku Klux Klan Act [as] major acts
of Reconstruction were informed by and grounded in distrust of state action
against private citizens and against state institutions’ ability to protect
private citizens’ from harm...As such, every [federal government] step to
protect individual rights was coupled with measures to vest protection of those
rights in some federal institution, or at the very least, to ensure federal
oversight.” (McKinley, 2011)
That time, following the end of the
Civil War, was when common law
practices, jury nullification, and state sovereignty were lost to federal
sovereignty. This time, individual rights are being “assured” by the oversight of government institutions that simply do
not operate constitutionally, and judicial reviews for these departmental and agency
actions just give award priority to the fact that these iconic institutions of
our society are believed to something of a necessary
evil. Thus, cases
involving public administrators are being ruled on in such way as to reflect
what legal analysts see as the dichotomy between “liberal” social values (i.e., ideological values of representative
government, separation of powers, and due process) and “progressive” social values (i.e., making government more
scientifically and bureaucratically efficient through delegation of
decision-making authority to unelected administrators) that is inherent in administrative law. As a result of the
U.S. Supreme Court’s inability to “implement
principles that place administrative government into a constitutional framework”
(p.395) – and aside from the outright corruption of the judiciary – many people
today have lost confidence in both the administrative process and the
judiciary. (Shapiro & Levy, 1987) Meanwhile,
government gets bigger as new industries and methods of regulating are introduced,
and regulatory administration of public services and the executive office of
the President gets stronger as administrative law grows today to also encompass
international regulations.
Many know that the constitutional
battle is dauntingly overwhelming. Simply put, the government believes itself
too big to fail. If you can believe it, FBI Agent Brand suggested that despite
the surmounting number of constitutional violations by government officials not
actually constituting crimes of “treason” against the People, that in light of what
we could agree on as being an overwhelming number of crimes taking place
against individuals and against families in the American populace, it would
appear that even more government is
needed to remedy the problem.
I was adamant that more government
was not the solution. Instead,
I said that more of “We (the People)”
like those stepping up to the plate from the grassroots, willing to volunteer
and donate their time to the construction of common law grand juries are what
we need. I suggested that Agent Brand imagine the possibility that, police and prosecutors
might not have to be so overwhelmed by surmounting crimes, leading them to necessarily ignore many others (i.e.,
those committed by governments against the People as their sovereign Creators having the right to abolish government that does
not actually work for them constitutionally by guaranteeing at MINIMUM all
rights covered by the Constitution’s Bill
of Rights). I stated that any perceived animosity of the People toward
government is the likely result of the people seeing police and prosecutors
dealing mostly with those cases being simply perceived as against government and for which there is actually no harmed party, such as with traffic and
property ordinance citations (or by Agent Brand’s own time spent researching me
and driving from Detroit with another agent from Detroit all the way to my home
in the suburbs unannounced), instead of helping to mediate between disagreeing
parties of people (i.e., rather than
between people and corporations with both being treated as “persons” under definition of the 14th
Amendment, and with the administration
of weighted “justice” issued
accordingly in favor of “what is in the
best interest of the majority,” which is always viewed in EQUITY COURTS
rather than COMMON LAW courts under the limited scope as the larger corporation rather than the American
populace).
I asked Agent Brand to imagine
prosecutors working with grand jury volunteers to ease their investigative workloads.
How nice it would be if prosecutors would then stand up for the People against
tyrannical government instead of being a part of it. If they did the People
would certainly have their backs.
As it pertains to the assertions of
private individuals that judges are committing crimes from the bench, the FBI
knows very well how to investigate these types of matters by the agency’s federal
probe of court corruption in the early 1980’s of Chicago, with Operation
Greylord resulting in the indictments of 17 judges, 48 lawyers, 8 policemen, 10 deputy sheriffs, 8
court officials, and one state legislator. So again I ask again, “Why would the FBI be calling me to ask if I know anyone that is
organizing independent common law grand juries?” It is evident that the FBI
should otherwise have its hands full in looking into these other matters of
helping the federal administration of the United States government to at least distinguish
between those judges who are in it for politics, the power and the greed, such
as those spotlighted by former Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Weaver has
written about, and those who are simply struggling to put a square peg in a
round hole by not properly adjudicating constitutional violations of the rights
of individuals by administrative forms of government. Must “We (the People)” do everything ourselves
to get it right? I say a resounding, “yes”
and we need more of us to be involved, because in all of the cases above
the judges are acting as an unconstitutional form of government; and that is
TREASON against (the) US.
*
Please direct all correspondence to the host for this article.
David Schied is
a former Hollywood stuntman, victims’ rights activist, and professional
educator. A partial list of his film and television stunt, acting, and crew
credits is listed with the Internet
Movie Database. His credits also include a season on the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, various
nonunion stunt contracts, co-producing an independent national commercial,
numerous university internships as production crew, and innumerable independent
roles in film, television, and live stunt performances. He also studied and taught
briefly as a substitute teacher at the UCLA Theatre Department under Tom Orth.
From the
mid-to-late 1980’s David served as a founding advisory board member alongside
Doris Tate, mother of the Manson-murdered actress Sharon Tate. Her Coalition On Victims’ Equal Rights
(C.O.V.E.R.) petitioned nationally for the victims’ rights legislation that is now
found in many state constitutions. From near that time until the present, Mr.
Schied also taught self-defense, protections against dating violence, rape
avoidance, and children’s safety and fitness. After spending a year of study of
university study in Nagoya, Japan where he also competed in Judo, Mr. Schied
went on to graduate USC’s School of Cinematic Arts. He authored two self-published
books on home and personal protection, and developed an interactive learning
DVD for women and adolescents. For the past decade, Mr. Schied has been a
court-watcher and plaintiff activist,
submitting a multitude of cases chock full of evidence and naming numerous
government officials at all levels of power for their high crimes and
misdemeanors. In 2009, David was one of three elected Michigan delegates at the
Continental Congress 2009, which drafted the Articles
of Freedom. His last nearly two years has been spent in doctoral
research on American History (i.e. that which is not typically taught in public
schools), common law constitutionalism, private prosecutions, judicial
corruption, and common law grand juries.
As a
professional educator, Mr. Schied holds a Master’s in Education and currently
holds four (4) Michigan special education teaching endorsements (CI, LD, EI,
and OHI) and one Educational Technology teaching endorsement. In 2010, Mr.
Schied co-founded The (Roger)
Sherman Institute, a private association of instructors seeking to provide
a broad, liberal arts curriculum based on the classical standard, and a
theology program centered on scripture.
