Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure rule 6:
(a) Summoning a Grand Jury.
(1) In General. When the public interest so requires, the court must order that one or more grand juries be summoned. A grand jury must have 16 to 23 members, and the court must order that enough legally qualified persons be summoned to meet this requirement.
Here is what the Colorado rule 6 says respecting summoning a grand jury:
(a) The chief judge of the district court in each county or a judge designated by him may order a grand jury summoned where authorized by law or required by the public interest. We've learned so much about the criminal conduct of the IRS and about the judges themselves, who out there has been notifying the federal judges, in particular, the Chief Judge, of the need to impanel a grand jury to investigate both the judges themselves, the US attorneys, and the IRS for stuff like treason to the Constitution, violations of 26 USC § 7214, or deprivations of rights under color of law under 18 USC § 241 or 242?
Since the issues are complex, shouldn't we be allowed to brief grand jury members on the law as it is being misapplied? I think we should. Without having studied this, it would seem that we would need to explain in an
abbreviated manner what crimes we have knowledge of involving federal actors to the judge that we are asking to impanel the grand jury. An affidavit might be most effective. Maybe the demand to the judge would include a deadline for acting and a warning respecting treason to the Constitution.
It would also seem that we should have backbones made of steel. If you are already under the IRS microscope anyway, it would seem like this would not be a problem.
If the federal judge refuses to impanel the grand jury to hear our testimony, I think that is misconduct on her part and probably treason to the Constitution. Maybe the notice to the judge respecting the -public interest- of crimes committed by a judge, including the treasonous act of refusing to impanel a grand jury to hear about crimes by IRS, should be put right back in front of the same judge. It would say something like, I now want you to impanel a grand jury to hear about crimes you committed by refusing to impanel a grand jury.
The idea of appearing before the grand jury and explaining why what the federal actors did was a crime is very appealing to me. I also like the idea of sending a copy of the request to the accused actor along with a demand that a new impartial judge/investigator be appointed for your case on the basis of the request alone.
It is time for us to start putting the evils of the revenue collectors in front of our fellow Americans on our terms before they drag us into a tribunal and prevent us from doing so on their terms by using things like motions in limine etc.
How does the IRS get it before a grand jury and convict? Answer: A pattern of behavior with an associated pattern of evidence. Why not use the same thing on them? Take a revenue officer….find a few people he's targeted …and whammo.
For example consider "willful misconduct" which the IRS is famous for using. Scroll back a post or two and find it. Highlight the key words….mislead….conceal….substantial evidence…violation of a known legal duty. Now apply it to them.
By willfully sending forms—such forms intended to be used for the government of the United States or those upon the territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America--onto innocent and ignorant parties that have no nexus to same, with an intention to mislead and conceal, your agents are violating a known legal duty. The substantial amount of these forms serves as evidence of same. So pervasive is the propaganda and general ignorance of the general population's legal counsel, that their misapplication is "made possible only because the wrongdoer agent is clothed with the authority of (territorial) law". [Walsh, 194 F.3d at 51].