Grand juries are always held in secret.
I don't think hardly anyone on this forum understands how secret grand jury and perjury trap indictments work. In a secret indictment, the grand jury will indict anyone a prosecutor wants indicted as only the prosecution is heard. The ONLY time secret grand jury indictments are legitimate is when dealing foreign nationals or mobsters/gang members who might go into hiding. That Mueller ONLY uses secret grand jury indictments is evidence that truth and justice is irrelevant to him and that he is fundamentally corrupt.
SSssssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhh
That public knowledge was supposed to be secret
Grand juries are always held in secret.
No, generally the accused is giving opportunity to appear. Only corrupt prosecutors seek secret indictment unless there is reasons such as I gave.
A few years ago I received a letter from a grand jury to appear to answer the change of theft. The situation was that I had bought a printing press (used) that I immediately learned was stolen. I managed to stop payment on the check and returned the printing press to the true owner. Fortunately, I was given opportunity to tell my side of the story - and the members of the grand jury literally applauded for my having returned the press to the true owner and instead indicted the accuser for selling stolen property.
But what if the grand jury had not given me opportunity to appear? Then I would only have heard the thief's side and I would have been indicted for felony theft and arrested. IF I had enough money for a bondsman (10% and that is NOT refunded), I would have sat in jail until if lucky the prosecutor spoke to me or my attorney and had agreed to withdraw the indictment. Still, I would have the arrest on my record, had spent time in jail and lost the bondsman's fee.
I don't think hardly anyone on this forum understands how secret grand jury and perjury trap indictments work. In a secret indictment, the grand jury will indict anyone a prosecutor wants indicted as only the prosecution is heard. The ONLY time secret grand jury indictments are legitimate is when dealing foreign nationals or mobsters/gang members who might go into hiding. That Mueller ONLY uses secret grand jury indictments is evidence that truth and justice is irrelevant to him and that he is fundamentally corrupt.
A few years ago I received a letter from a grand jury to appear to answer the change of theft. The situation was that I had bought a printing press (used) that I immediately learned was stolen. I managed to stop payment on the check and returned the printing press to the true owner. Fortunately, I was given opportunity to tell my side of the story - and the members of the grand jury literally applauded for my having returned the press to the true owner and instead indicted the accuser for selling stolen property.
:lol:
No other country including all of Europe has automatic birthright citizenship. The USA Constitution's Bill Of Rights appears to assure that basis of citizenship. However, the Bill Of Rights has been amended many times in the past.
Should the US Constitution's Bill Of Rights be amended to end birthright citizenship - and if you think so, how? For example, requiring one of the parents or the mother to be an American citizen at the time of birth.
Are other countries on earth all wrong to not have automatic birthright citizenship?
This poll is NOT asking what the Bill Of Rights already says, but whether it should be amended.
Vote - and give your reasoning and alternatives.
Another massive fail.
Last one was this
Ah, the old "it was a perjury trap!" excuse.A few years ago I received a letter from a grand jury to appear to answer the change of theft. The situation was that I had bought a printing press (used) that I immediately learned was stolen. I managed to stop payment on the check and returned the printing press to the true owner. Fortunately, I was given opportunity to tell my side of the story - and the members of the grand jury literally applauded for my having returned the press to the true owner and instead indicted the accuser for selling stolen property.
But what if the grand jury had not given me opportunity to appear? Then I would only have heard the thief's side and I would have been indicted for felony theft and arrested. IF I had enough money for a bondsman (10% and that is NOT refunded), I would have sat in jail until if lucky the prosecutor spoke to me or my attorney and had agreed to withdraw the indictment. Still, I would have the arrest on my record, had spent time in jail and lost the bondsman's fee.
I don't think hardly anyone on this forum understands how secret grand jury and perjury trap indictments work. In a secret indictment, the grand jury will indict anyone a prosecutor wants indicted as only the prosecution is heard. The ONLY time secret grand jury indictments are legitimate is when dealing foreign nationals or mobsters/gang members who might go into hiding. That Mueller ONLY uses secret grand jury indictments is evidence that truth and justice is irrelevant to him and that he is fundamentally corrupt.
Uh, no.No, generally the accused is giving opportunity to appear. Only corrupt prosecutors seek secret indictment unless there is reasons such as I gave. The accused may be ordered not to divulge their appearance.
Uh, no.
Prosecutors send out letters informing people they are in fact targets or subjects of an ongoing investigation. Most sane people contact an attorney upon receiving this letter, at which point attorneys will advise you to not answer any questions the government might have for you, should they suspect you're in the pre-indictment phase.
There's something you're leaving out of your story.
A few years ago I received a letter from a grand jury to appear to answer the change of theft. The situation was that I had bought a printing press (used) that I immediately learned was stolen. I managed to stop payment on the check and returned the printing press to the true owner. Fortunately, I was given opportunity to tell my side of the story - and the members of the grand jury literally applauded for my having returned the press to the true owner and instead indicted the accuser for selling stolen property.
But what if the grand jury had not given me opportunity to appear? Then I would only have heard the thief's side and I would have been indicted for felony theft and arrested. IF I had enough money for a bondsman (10% and that is NOT refunded), I would have sat in jail until if lucky the prosecutor spoke to me or my attorney and had agreed to withdraw the indictment. Still, I would have the arrest on my record, had spent time in jail and lost the bondsman's fee.
I don't think hardly anyone on this forum understands how secret grand jury and perjury trap indictments work. In a secret indictment, the grand jury will indict anyone a prosecutor wants indicted as only the prosecution is heard. The ONLY time secret grand jury indictments are legitimate is when dealing foreign nationals or mobsters/gang members who might go into hiding. That Mueller ONLY uses secret grand jury indictments is evidence that truth and justice is irrelevant to him and that he is fundamentally corrupt.
It's the same process.It was a state court grand jury.
There is no defense because nobody has been officially accused of a crime, so no legal counsel representing a client is allowed to speak to the grand jury.Very few people understand the purpose of a grand jury. Essentially it is a tool of the prosecution to present information before a panel of citizens designed to convince them there is a case worth being tried in court.
Many States have a requirement to have potential criminal cases reviewed by a grand jury before being sent to court via their indictment.
It is not designed to determine if a person is innocent or guilty, but rather to test the prosecutor's evidence.
There is no defense presentation. The prosecutor presents his evidence and the Grand Jury votes whether or not to indict.
99% of the time one or more indictments will occur. Then the case is sent for trial.
Mueller is simply using a tool designed for the purpose of testing his evidence before indicting his target.
Very few people understand the purpose of a grand jury. Essentially it is a tool of the prosecution to present information before a panel of citizens designed to convince them there is a case worth being tried in court.
Many States have a requirement to have potential criminal cases reviewed by a grand jury before being sent to court via their indictment.
It is not designed to determine if a person is innocent or guilty, but rather to test the prosecutor's evidence.
There is no defense presentation. The prosecutor presents his evidence and his arguments as to their merit for particular charge counts, and the Grand Jury votes whether or not to indict.
99% of the time one or more indictments will occur. Then the case is sent for trial.
Mueller is simply using a tool designed for the purpose of testing his evidence before indicting his target.
(EDIT: As pointed out elsewhere, Mueller does not technically "indict," as I stated the Grand Jury "votes" to indict. However, the reality is the prosecutor tells the jury what charges he seeks to press, and they typically [with rare exceptions] rubber stamp those charges if there is any evidence to support them.)
Uh, no.
Prosecutors send out letters informing people they are in fact targets or subjects of an ongoing investigation. Most sane people contact an attorney upon receiving this letter, at which point attorneys will advise you to not answer any questions the government might have for you, should they suspect you're in the pre-indictment phase.
There's something you're leaving out of your story.
A few years ago I received a letter from a grand jury to appear to answer the change of theft. The situation was that I had bought a printing press (used) that I immediately learned was stolen. I managed to stop payment on the check and returned the printing press to the true owner. Fortunately, I was given opportunity to tell my side of the story - and the members of the grand jury literally applauded for my having returned the press to the true owner and instead indicted the accuser for selling stolen property.
But what if the grand jury had not given me opportunity to appear? Then I would only have heard the thief's side and I would have been indicted for felony theft and arrested. IF I had enough money for a bondsman (10% and that is NOT refunded), I would have sat in jail until if lucky the prosecutor spoke to me or my attorney and had agreed to withdraw the indictment. Still, I would have the arrest on my record, had spent time in jail and lost the bondsman's fee.
I don't think hardly anyone on this forum understands how secret grand jury and perjury trap indictments work. In a secret indictment, the grand jury will indict anyone a prosecutor wants indicted as only the prosecution is heard. The ONLY time secret grand jury indictments are legitimate is when dealing foreign nationals or mobsters/gang members who might go into hiding. That Mueller ONLY uses secret grand jury indictments is evidence that truth and justice is irrelevant to him and that he is fundamentally corrupt.
You have no clue what you're writing about. Why do you write this joko? To mislead people or because you don't know any better?
All grand juries are by default, secret.
If you were summoned by a grand jury to testify, it was secret.
There are no perjury traps surrounding the Mueller investigation, and there is no evidence of any, and the idea that professionals in the SC would attempt that, is absurd.
There is no evidence of corruption, except you know, in swampy's white house/campaign.
Grand juries decide if evidence is sufficient for indictment, they are composed of citizens to protect from malicious prosecution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_States
Now, please tell me where you heard this information joko, so that we can know what sources to avoid in the future.
I'm 100% fed up with people like you. By now everyone with two brain cells knows that Trump is a sleezy lying crook. So, please spare us these claims of unfair prosecution. Nobody believes Trump is innocent.
Just admit that you don't care if Trump is corrupt. You support public corruption as long as it convenient for you politically. The ends justify the means.
I don't care if that's how you feel. But please stop wasting our time defending Trump and claiming he's some kind of victim. Trump has always been crooked. I'm a New Yorker and we all know Trump is a crook and a conman.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?