Edwin Meese THE NINTH CIRCUIT

court in turmoil!

 “if I didn’t want money it would cost me my life!”

The question remains:

Why was it so important to shut my mouth about what was in my reply brief that they vowed “If I didn’t want money it would cost me my life”?  

 

That reply brief revealed clear and convincing evidence that the Justice Department had not only joined the conspiracy to deprive my wife and I of our Civil Rights by obstructing justice, it revealed the power of the Grand Jury which was their greatest fear!

 

A Runaway Grand Jury

Is The Greatest Fear of

THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT & JUDGES

 

My reply brief revealed the fact that the Grand Jury is not under the control of any of the other three branches of Governmentbut in fact it holds preeminence over the other three as a fourth branch of Government. This is what the Justice Department and the Judges fear more than anything else; therefore, they wanted to silence me from making this known to those who’s Civil Rights are being violated.

 

Due to the internal policy of the Justice Department of not allowing prosecution of Civil rights violations without their consent our Judges have resorted to RAW JUDICIAL POWER – i.e., legislating according their own fancy without any regard for the law or Constitution.

 

United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia reveals the effect of this TREASON;  revealing how by the use of RAW JUDICIAL POWER our Constitution has been rewritten with CASE LAW, i.e., by the rulings of the Supreme Court.  Therefore, the decision in Roe v. Wade violated the Justices’ oath of office to uphold the Constitution in an attempt to legislate law, now claiming to have made abortion a Constitutional Right!

 

On September 24, 2008 Great Falls Tribune reported on Scalia’s speech in Missoula Montana on page 4, Section M, which article is quoted from with the gracious permission of the staff of the Great Falls Tribune.

 

“The U.S. Supreme Court does not have a liberal conservative split, Justice Antonin Scalia told a University audience on Wednesday.

 

 Rather, Scalia said, the court is divided between justices who believe the Constitution is subject to change from generation to generation and those who are ‘originalists’ believing the Constitution is a legal document that should stand through time. Scalia said he is an originalists and therefore in the minority on the Supreme Court.

 

 The notion of a ‘living Constitution that morphs’ changing as justices exercise their ability to add or remove rights, has taken hold, said Scalia.

 

 ‘It’s not a conservative-liberal fight on the court,’ Scalia said.  ‘It really isn’t. It has to do with what your view of the Constitution is.’  The Judge who believes in the living Constitution is ‘a happy fella’ because in his mind, the Constitution means whatever he thinks it should mean, Scalia said. With originalists in the minority, the Supreme Court rewrites the Constitution term by term, he said . . . It’s a mini constitutional convention whenever you appoint someone new to the Supreme Court,’ he said.” [Emphasis added]


This kind of TREASON to overthrow our entire form of government by the use of RAW JUDICIAL POWER has brought America to the identical strait that King Henry found himself in the 12th century with the Pope, and his ecclesiastical court in England.


America’s problem is not with the Pope, and his ecclesiastical court in England. but with the Darwin ecclesiastical Supreme Court of the United States of America. Our Supreme Court adopted Darwinism and RAW JUDICIAL POWER to replace the Constitution of the United States by ignoring it jurisdictional limitation and started legislating in Roe v Wade .

 

This strangle hold the Justice Department holds over the use of the Grand Jury has so embolden of Judiciary that violating our Civil Rights has become so common no one knows anymore what to do!

 

By the silly notion of one judge; universities are altering the women’s rest rooms to allow a mentally ill man dressed in women’s clothing to barge in on women without any regard for the women’s right to privacy. See how they speak with a forked tongue!!! In Roe v. Wade the court uses the women’s right to privacy as the basis for her right to have an abortion.

 

IS THE CONSTITUTION: A LIVING DOCUMENT?

 

 In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (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 emanates from the Bill of Rights. Ingeniously, the Founding Fathers wanted the grand jury to not be part of the judicial branch in particular, to give citizens the means to seek redress of their grievances without having to ask permission of the sovereign, as the sovereign will nearly always seek to protect its own establishment interests.

 

Thus, the grand juries “True Bills,” that is indictments to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding upon which the accused has full Constitutional right to present a defense and seek to prove her innocence. Importantly, even the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which allow federal prosecutors to present indictments after a grand jury has issued them, does not preclude citizens from so doing.

 

In the Williams case, the Supreme Court notably held, in a lengthy and well reasoned and clear cut decision:

 

‘Rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history,’ Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (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 four 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 (CA9 1977)quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58,70, n. 54 (1973), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people.’

 

Thus, our Founding Fathers ingeniously created a “buffer” that the people could turn to when our public officials and others, including judges, criminally violate the law; since only the people themselves will take action to hold them accountable. In this way, the “Rule of Law,” not violence, will seek to preserve the Republic, to avoid armed revolt among the people as occurred in 1776.

 

The inception of the Grand Jury

The inception of the Grand Jury took place in the 12th century when King Henry could not get along with the Pope. King Henry’s problem was that the Pope had an ecclesiastical court in England into which many of the important cases involving the crown were shunted.

 

The ecclesiastical court did not charge and prosecute to King Henry’s satisfaction, and he therefore utilized a grand jury to indict those the crown viewed as offenders, whether the offence could be characterized as ecclesiastical or not.

 

The failure of our courts to recognize crimes and allow prosecution as in the days of King Henry, (especially those committed by the various members of the judiciary in acting under the color of law beyond their jurisdiction) must be brought to the attention of the grand jury for indictment.

 

Any U.S. District attorney is required by our Federal Criminal Code to inform the grand jury of any information he receives from any person of an alleged offence. Title 18 U.S.C 3332. requires: 

 

“Any such attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the grand jury of such alleged offense, the identity of such person, and such attorneys action or recommendation.”

 

In Rule 6 Ch.4 sec.101 in footnote 13 the grand jury is eloquently described

 

“The power of the grand jury is not dependent upon the court but is original and complete, and its duty is to diligently inquire into all offenses which shall come to its knowledge, whether from the court, the prosecutor, its own members, or from any source, and it may make presentments of its own knowledge  without any instructions or authority from the court.”

 

“… Its authority is derived from none of the three basic divisions of our government, but rather directly from the people themselves.’ [Citing case law]”

 

In UNITED STATES v. CHANEN,C.A.9th, 1977, 549 F.2d. 1306,1312,the courts held:

 

In our view, tradition and the dynamics of the constitutional scheme of separation of powers define a limited function for both court and prosecutor in their dealings with the grand jury.

But under the constitutional scheme, the grand jury is not and should not be captive to any of the three branches. The grand jury is a pre-constitutional institution,”[citing case law]

 

By a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, the grand jury is not a branch of the judicial, executive or legislative branches of government, but an entity to itself.

 

According to the 1990s ruling in U.S. v. Williams, the Supreme Court determined the federal courts lack the authority to require a prosecutor to present specific information to a grand jury.

 

The opinion rejected the argument that the concept of “checks and balances” allows a court to “exercise supervisory power over grand jury proceedings.” Therefore,  it is the ideal vehicle to bypass all of the political attachments of the judiciary.

 

 Yet the powers of the Grand Juy has been totally limited in the UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS’ MANUAL – TITLE 9–CRIMINAL CODE.  Therein the government attorneys are given full control over the Grand Jury in total disregard to the fact that:

 

“It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the four branches described in the first three Articles. It “is a constitutional fixture in its own right.” 

 

“Justice Antonin Scalia held … that 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,” he wrote.

 

The Founders of the country established the grand jury as an alternative to “violent revolution.”

 

It is a process by which

 

 

“Americans themselves can enforce the law. This is our only recourse to hold the president and his accomplices truly accountable for their actions.”

 

ISA 49:2

 

And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a polished shaft; in his quiver hath he hid me;

 

JUDGES DO NOT HAVE IMMUNITY
WHEN EXCEEDING THEIR JURISDICTION

 

 

In UNITED STATES v. ISAACS 493 F.2d 1124 (1974) the United States Supreme Court gives a clear distinction between judicial immunity and a judge’s vulnerability to criminal prosecution for violation of constitutional law/or Civil Rights.

 

Turning the pages of history, the Supreme Court said in an 1882 decision, United States v. Lee, 106 U.S196,220, 1 S.Ct, 240, 261, 27 L.Ed. 171, that: “No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.” It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives.”

 

The Supreme Court went on at 1143 to apply this to the judiciary:

 

Finally we have O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 94 S.Ct.669, 38 L.Ed.2d 674, decided January 15, 1974. The court, although its language was general and perhaps dictum, touched on the vulnerability of judges to criminal process, and said, 414 U.S.488, 503, 94 S.Ct.669, 680, 38 L.Ed.2d 674: * * *we have never held that the performance of the duties of judicial, legislative, or executive officers, requires or contemplates the immunization of otherwise criminal deprivations of constitutional rights. Cf. Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S.339, 25 L.Ed.676 (1879). On the contrary, the judicially fashioned doctrine of official immunity does not reach ‘so far as to immunize criminal conduct proscribed by an Act of Congress***’ Gravel V. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 627, 92 S.Ct. 2614, 2628, 33 L.Ed.2d 583 (1972).

 

CORRESPONDENCE FROM US ATTORNEYS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

 

Mr. Burrowes, Deputy U.S. Attorney In his January 30, 1986 letter to Mr. Ellingwood, Mr. Burrowes, Deputy Us Attorney, says in part;

“. . . I believe, without question, that Ralph Bouma has been mistreated by the bar and the bench of the State of Montana. Further, I believe that he has had property taken from him illegally and without due process of law, all with the knowledge, assent, cooperation and/or active participation of that same bench or bar.

I urge you to do all in your power to arrange for Mr. Bouma to be given an opportunity to meet with and present an overview of his case to the Honorable Mr. Edwin Meese, and to a special investigator to be appointed to review the circumstances. Some of the events and circumstances he will report to such investigator will seem beyond belief in our legal society today I implore you hear him out.”

Former United States District Attorney for the State of Montana, Doris M. Poppler in her November 8, 1990 letter to Ralph Bouma, Conrad, MT, stated in pertinent part:

“I have carefully reviewed your packet of information, and then conferred with the attorneys in this office who are familiar with the history of the litigation. I am assured that Mr. Burrowes personally went to the Department of Justice and argued on your behalf to the full extent of his ability. I am thus informed that the Department of Justice did not allow this office to proceed. These decisions are binding on our office.”

Sherry Scheel Matteucci, United States Attorney, in her August 12, 1997 letter of to Grand Juror Walter Hammermeister to justify removing him from the Grand Jury because of his knowledge of the Civil Rights conspiracy against Ralph Bouma, and the homicide to cover it up. The first stated reason given was:

“As you know, this matter has been reviewed by two of my predecessors. Mr. Dunbar went to some length to generate support for reopening of the Bouma case. Your accusations regarding the conduct of Justice Department attorneys, which I read as allegations of corruption are particularly troubling.”

 

ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT

 

The UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE has embolden our judiciary to violate any and all of Civil and Constitutional rights by their internal policy that no United States District Attorney may prosecute any Civil Rights violations without consent first being granted by their Civil Rights Division.

By refusing to allow the United States District Attorneys for the State of Montana to present their evidence to a Grand Jury of a conspiracy by several Montana State judges to deprive Ralph Bouma and several others of their Civil Rights they are in-fact “an accessory after the fact.”

 

Any public servant’s failure to act promptly, such as is required by Title 18 USC <3332 and Title  18 <4 is provided for in Title 18 <3, which says:

 

“Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his  apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.”

 

“Except as otherwise expressly provided by an Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one‑half the maximum term of imprisonment or fined not more than one‑half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than ten years.”

 

The author in the book “WAKE UP AMERICA – “The Lord Is God” by Ralph Bouma provides a “Land Mark Case” to set a precedence that the judges, law enforcement agencies, and/or prosecutors whose job it is to protect our “CIVIL RIGHTS” are not above the law, and can be prosecuted to the fullest extent when they are guilty of obstructing justice and/or jury tampering.

 

Bouma has the hard evidence to prove a conspiracy to deprive several individuals of their “CIVIL RIGHTS”  which resulted in a homicide to conceal evidence.  This book explains exactly how United States Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service, our Judiciary, and the financial institutions all play into each others hand to perpetrate the fraud upon “WE THE PEOPLE” of United States of America.

 

The Almighty tells us in JER 5:1:

 

“Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know, and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be any that executeth judgment, that seeketh the truth; and I will pardon it.”

 

Even so much as to say “seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find a man,” i.e., one honest Federal Judge who will allow the indictment of a Citizen’s Grand Jury to go to trial!

 

HOW OUR JUDGES WERE EMBOLDENED

 

 The author in the book “WAKE UP AMERICA” – “The Lord Is God” by Ralph Bouma reveals how United Stats District attorneys Keith Burrowes and Pete Dunbar have pleaded for permission to present the judicial “Civil Rights” violations” committed against Mr. And Mrs. Bouma and others before a Grand Jury, but as Federal Postal Inspector Robert H. Burnett attest, the 

 

Justice Department adamantly refused to give permission to do so.”

 

Arnold A. Anderson, Special agent for the FBI said:

 

“Well Ralph you know that no U.S. attorney can prosecute a civil rights violation without consent from the United States Justice Department. Well for your information, neither is the FBI allowed to investigate a civil rights violation without their permission.”

 

It is through this “Obstruction Of Justice” and “Jury Tampering” by the Department of Justice that Judges have the assurance that they are secure from having to account for their TREASON by replacing our Constitution with “Raw Judicial Power” they are embolden to violate their oath of office in violating our “Civil Rights.” Deputy United States District Attorney for the State of Montana, Keith Burrows, said years ago:

 

“The greatest fear of the United States Justice Department is ‘A Run Away Grand Jury’!” 

 

To control the Grand Jury the Justice Department uses the UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS’ MANUAL – TITLE 9–CRIMINAL CODE.  Therein the government attorneys are give full control over the Grand Jury in total disregard to the fact that:

 

“It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the four branches described in the first three Articles. It “is a constitutional fixture in its own right.” 

 

The US Attorneys are forbidden to obey the Black Letter Of The Law required in Title 18 U.S.C3332 which says:

 

 “Any such attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the grand jury of such alleged offense, the identity of such person, and such attorneys action or recommendation.”

 

 McCracken (a potential defendant in the Civil Rights conspiracy against the Bouma’s) in his infamous October 22, 1979 letter of intimidation to the Pondera County Commissioners to scare them out of asking for a grand jury revealed the legal profession’s worst fear, i.e., what he alluded to as “a runaway Grand jury,” i.e., a fully informed and unrestricted grand jury.  McCracken explained that:

 

“A grand jury consists of not less than fifteen nor more than 20 persons. Its powers and duties are somewhat awesome and once launched, it may be a runaway. As a reference, you might examine the powers and duties of a grand jury provided at 46-11-312 M.C.A.

 

“Among other things, ‘the grand jury may inquire into all public offences…’ If any member of the grand jury knows or has reason to believe that an offence has been committed, he has to declare it to his fellow jurors who must investigate it.

 

A grand jury can also inquire into the condition and management of the ‘public prisons within the county’ and any ‘…willful or corrupt misconduct in office by public officers of every description…’

 

Thus, citizens – that is ordinary Americans – have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present “True Bills,” that is indictments to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding upon which the accused has full Constitutional right to present a defense and seek to prove her innocence. Importantly, even the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which allow federal prosecutors to present indictments after a grand jury has issued them, does not preclude citizens from so doing.

 

 

In my book “WAKE UP AMERICA” – “The Lord Is God” by Ralph Bouma; I reveal how United Stats District attorneys Keith Burrowes and Pete Dunbar have pleaded for permission to present the judicial “Civil Rights” violations” committed against Mr. And Mrs. Bouma and others before a Grand Jury, but as Federal Postal Inspector Robert H. Burnett attest, the  “Justice Department adamantly refused to give permission to do so.”

 Arnold A. Anderson, Special agent for the FBI said:

“Well Ralph you know that no U.S. attorney can prosecute a civil rights violation without consent from the United States Justice Department. Well for your information, neither is the FBI allowed to investigate a civil rights violation without their permission.”


Such acts of treason
embolden our judiciary to overthrow our entire form of government through the use of RAW JUDICIAL POWER; voiding our state and national constitutions by legislating.   

 

Ralph Bouma  601 8th Ave SW
Conrad, Mt 59425

406-278-5888

God Shut the Lions’ Mouths

The new updated e-edition of Wake Up America

God Shut the Lions 'Mouths Cover

Now available on Amazon for your Kindle reader. Priced at $9.75.

Kindle reader is available for your phone, tablet or PC so you can read anywhere!

Wake Up America
Wake Up America

Shipping Included Price