chalice|patriot's heart network - emergency: petition – for redress before the mchenry county...

8/14/2019 CHALICE|PATRIOT'S HEART NETWORK - EMERGENCY: PETITION FOR REDRESS BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY G

1/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT(Second Appellate District)

FOR MCHENRY COUNTY, ILLINOISCase No.:

SHARON ANN MERONI (aka Chalice Jackson)PATRIOTS HEART MEDIA NETWORK, )INC., Members JOHN DOES and JANE )DOES 1-20, Registered Voters and Members )of PATRIOTS HEART MEDIA NETWORK, )INC., (728 NW HWY, Fox River Grove, IL )60021 847-304-8800) )

EMERGENCY:PETITION FOR REDRESS BEFORE THEMCHENRY COUNTY GRANDJURY

Petitions,

MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY )FOREMAN AND GRAND JURY MEMBERS )

The matter of Voter Fraud is an emergency of the utmost importance to our County, State

and Country. Petitioner seeks an EMERGENCY appearance before the McHenry County

Grand Jury.

I, the undersigned Petitioner, appearing pro se as an individual, as a member of the Press

and as the Founder of Patriots Heart Media Network, Inc (a Citizen run media outlet) in

the role of spokesperson for John and Jane Does, members of Patriots Heart Media

Network, Inc, in accord with the directions of personal convictions and loyalty to the

Constitutional Republic of the United States of America, and the Illinois Constitution, on

oath and before God Almighty, set forth this prayer by way of Petition in the Twenty-

Second Judicial Circuit (Second Appellate District) McHenry County, IL seeking

EMERGENCY redress of grievances as a registered voting member of McHenry County,

to investigate all Criminal and Civil actions that resulted in rampant voter fraud in the

State of Illinois Primary Election, held on Tuesday February 5th

, 2008 and the regular Nov

Page 1 PETITION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY


2/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4th, 2008 Election. In Prima Fascia perspective, Petitioner knows from her research that

this voter fraud potentially reaches into all elected offices in the County and State.

It is noteworthy to state: This petition is not to serve anyone with specific charges. This

Petitioners intent is to communicate with the Foreman and the Grand Jury Members of the

sitting Grand Jury in the 22nd

Circuit Court of McHenry County. Petitioner prayer for

redress, is for appearances before the convened Grand Jury, to present without restrictions

from the Prosecutor or Judge, evidence of pervasive voter fraud in McHenry County and

thus in the State of Illinois. This Petitioner seeks to work with the Grand Jury as a specially

appointed Investigator to compel testimony to determine how this voter fraud was

perpetrated against her, against the residents of McHenry County and of the great state of

Illinois. Petitioner also seeks redress from damages from this voter fraud.

1.0PARTIES1.1 Petitioner is Sharon Ann Meroni, Natural Born American Citizen, longtime

resident of and registered voter in McHenry County, Illinois whose First Amendment

right to cast ballots in an election without impermissible barriers has been deprived.

1.2 Petitioner, Sharon Ann Meroni, a resident of McHenry County is a Citizen

Journalist and Founder of Patriots Heart Media Network, seeking Redress under 1st

Amendment Rights, (US Constitution) and according to similar Illinois Constitution

Rights, URGENTLY seeks appropriate public disclosure of facts attesting to this voter

fraud.

1.3 Voter Registration information: As listed on Petitioners Voter Registration

Card (Exhibit A): McHenry County, Algonquin Township 45, Congressional Dist 16,



3/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Leg District 26, Rep Dist 52, County Board 1 in McHenry County where the Petitioner

cast her ballots in the Primary and General Election, 2008.

1.4 Patriots Heart Media Network is a Media outlet Incorporated in the State of

Illinois, with the primary location of business in McHenry County, Illinois. Sharon Ann

Meroni is the Founder and Owner of Patriots Heart Network. Patriots Heart Network

has been involved in actions seeking redress on this matter. Petitioner is also known as

Chalice Jackson in her Internet role as a Broadcasting Blogger. As spokesperson

Petitioner states she personally knows of thousands of people who are impacted in this

matter.

1.5 Potentially, the path allowing for violation of Petitioners rights occurred in

part from Federal corruption and misdeeds, however the actual usurpation of Petitioners

First Amendment Rights occurred at the Fox River Grove Middle School polling place.

For this reason, Petitioner seeks redress at her County Grand Jury.

1.6 Petitioner will present to the Grand Jury indisputable evidence of massive

voter fraud and severe deficiencies in the current law in securing her constitutional rights.

1.7Petitioner has not entered into this Petition lightly. With her soul, her total

beingness, and before her Lord God, Petitioner affirms she is taking this action

because she is driven to reveal these acts of voter fraud, believing her nation in grave

risk, knowing this is not about a specific political party, and testifying to the Grand

Jury, this is not about political vengeance.

2.0 INTRODUCTION AND STANDING



4/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Petitioner considers voter fraud to have created a County, State and National

EMERGENCY. Therefore Petitioner seeks EMERGENCY handling of this Petition.

Petitioner prays to begin testifying before the Grand Jury on December 3

rd

, 2009.

The denial of standing by the courts in this country on claims against usurpers of federal

office is in itself an impermissible barrier to free speech which violates the First

Amendment right to free association and the right to bring a petition for a redress of

grievances. SeeNAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958); see alsoBuckley v. Valeo, 424

U.S. 1 (1976).

Petitioner has exhausted all reasonable remedies known to her prior to bringing this

petition. Petitioner is prepared to testify to the multiple attempts made. This petition to

the McHenry County Grand Jury is that last bastion of redress available to her.

2.1 Petitioner alleges to have evidence of massive voter fraud which was

perpetrated against her Illinois Constitutional right to a free and equal election.

Article III: SECTION 3. ELECTIONS

All elections shall be free and equal.

(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

2.2 Petitioner is personally traumatized by the lack of Redress. The Petitioner

is an American Patriot who feels obligated by God and Country to protect and

support the US Constitution, and by her love of Illinois, her local homeland.

LITERALLY there is no rest for the Petitioner until this voter fraud issue is

redressed. Petitioners quality of life has been seriously compromised because of



5/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

this issue. Through intense loyalty to God and Country, Petitioner testifies that

there is no relief until this matter is redressed!

Petitioner believes her only form of Redress is to personally testify before the

McHenry County Grand Jury. Petitioner is prepared to testify to how this has

personally impacted her life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

2.3 The US Constitution is one source document guiding Petitioners action seeking

to testify before the McHenry County Grand Jury as the correct place to seek Redress for

the Grievance

1st

Amendment US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of

religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging

the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the

people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for

a redress of grievances.

2.4 The Illinois Constitution, Article 1: Bill of Rights, Sections 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 12, 23

and 24 is the second source document guiding Petitioners action seeking to testify before

the McHenry County Grand Jury as the correct place to seek Redress for the Grievance

Article I: Bill of Rights, Illinois Constitution

SECTION 1. INHERENT AND INALIENABLE RIGHTS

All men are by nature free and independent and have

certain inherent and inalienable rights among which are life,

liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights

and the protection of property, governments are instituted

among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the

governed.


SECTION 2. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property

without due process of law nor be denied the equal protection



6/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

of the laws.


SECTION 4. FREEDOM OF SPEECH

All persons may speak, write and publish freely, being

responsible for the abuse of that liberty. In trials forlibel, both civil and criminal, the truth, when published

with good motives and for justifiable ends, shall be a

sufficient defense.


SECTION 5. RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE AND PETITION

The people have the right to assemble in a peaceable

manner, to consult for the common good, to make known their

opinions to their representatives and to apply for redress of

grievances.


SECTION 6. SEARCHES, SEIZURES, PRIVACY AND INTERCEPTIONS

The people shall have the right to be secure in theirpersons, houses, papers and other possessions against

unreasonable searches, seizures, invasions of privacy or

interceptions of communications by eavesdropping devices or

other means. No warrant shall issue without probable cause,

supported by affidavit particularly describing the place to

be searched and the persons or things to be seized.


SECTION 12. RIGHT TO REMEDY AND JUSTICE

Every person shall find a certain remedy in the laws for

all injuries and wrongs which he receives to his person,

privacy, property or reputation. He shall obtain justice by

law, freely, completely, and promptly.(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

SECTION 23. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES

A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of

civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of

liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people

recognize their corresponding individual obligations and

responsibilities.


SECTION 24. RIGHTS RETAINED

The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rightsshall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained

by the individual citizens of the State.




7/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2.5: Illinois Constitution empowers Petitioner to seek Remedy. Petitioner has tried

various avenues of Redress. Petitioner believes as secured in her Illinois Bill of Rights

McHenry County Grand Jury offers the certain remedy this EMERGENCY requires!





law, freely, completely, and promptly.






law, freely, completely, and promptly.(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

2.6: State Law empowers Petitioner to seek Redress through McHenry County Grand

Jury seeking to conduct investigations into massive voter fraud. Illinois Code dictates

where election fraud is first addressed:

In general, the circuit court shall hear election contests.

Individuals should refer to the particular statute which applies

to their unit of government. (10 ILCS 5/23-4, 23-5)

Additionally, there are other statues that apply.

2.7: Grand Jury instructions permit the Grand Jury to investigate outside of petitions

erved by the Prosecutors. These instructions are found in the following locations:s

A: Illinois Code10.10 GRAND JURY


Grand Jurors shall be summoned to duty by the Jury Commissioners Office.

Grand Jurors shall be assembled and called to serve on the first Thursday

in January, March, May, July, September and November by the Chief Judge.

Their term of service shall be sixty (60) days, unless otherwise ordered.

If any day upon which a Grand Jury is to be called is a legal holiday,

such Grand Jurors shall be called to serve the next court date. After

being impaneled, instructed and sworn by the Court, the grand Jury shall

sit at such times as the Court may order or that the States Attorney or


8/22


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

the Grand Jury foreperson deems appropriate, (emphasis added) and may be

recessed from time to time to a day certain or subject to recall.

http://co.mchenry.il.us/departments/courtadmin/PDFDocs/22ndRules10.pdf

B: Handbook for Grand Jurors

After the foreperson is selected and sworn, the other members of the

grand jury will then take the following oath:

"You and each of you do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be),

that you will diligently inquire into and true presentment make of all

such matters and things as shall be given you in charge, or shall

otherwise come to your knowledge, touching the present service; (emphasis

added) you shall present no person through malice, hatred or ill-will;

nor shall you leave any unpresented through fear, favor, affection, or

for any fee or reward, or for any hope or promise thereof; but in all of

your presentments, you shall present the truth, the whole truth, and

nothing but the truth, according to the best of your skill and

understandin; so help you God.

http://www.state.il.us/court/CircuitCourt/Jury/GrandJuror.asp

C: Powers and Duties of the Grand Jury

The grand jury has the duty of inquiring into matters relating to crime

or corruption in the area it serves. This information generally comes to

its knowledge in the following ways:

1. Information submitted by the Prosecutor.2. Information that may come to its knowledge in the course of its

investigation of other matters.

3. Information called to its attention by the Court.4. Information that it has of its own knowledge.

Most of the cases that you will consider as a grand juror will be brought

to your attention and come before you as a result of investigation and

preparation by the Prosecutor. The Prosecutor will be either the States

Attorney, the Attorney General or an assistant to either of them. He or

she is the officer charged by law with the prosecution of crime in the

county. However, the grand jury possesses broad powers of its own to

inquire into crime and corruption in its jurisdiction. It has a right

under the law to make its own investigation unaided by the Court and

assisted by any prosecuting attorney. On petition signed by the

foreperson and 8 other grand jurors, showing good cause for same, the

Court may appoint an investigator or investigators to assist the grand

jury in its inquiries. Included in this power of investigation is theright of the grand jury to subpoena witnesses and documents.

While neither the Court nor the Prosecutor may limit the scope of a grand

jury investigation, you should remember that these officials are

available for advice and counsel in any investigation the grand jury may

wish to undertake. Ordinarily, the grand jury will not act independently

of the Court and the Prosecutor. However, if these officials may be


9/22


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

concerned in any investigation contemplated by the grand jury, the jury

has a right to seek the advice of the Attorney General. (emphasis added)

2.8 . Petitioner has tried various avenues of Redress and has no other form of Redress

readily accessible. Petitioner has sought redress for grievances from the following places:

Senator Durbin: Phone, email, and personal service

Senator Burris: Phone, email and personal serviceHouse Representatives in Illinois, especially Manzullo: Phone, email, personal

service and direct phone conversation

ALL 535 members of the US Congress: Personal serviceSecret Service: Personal service

FBI: Personal service

DOJ: Attempted personal service Sent to the US District CourtPentagon: Personal service

US District Court: Judge Royce Lamberth - Petitions with DecisionsSenate Sub Committee of Congress: Personal service

Senate Rules and Administration Committee: Personal serviceSpoke to a Hundred Thousand people while with the Tea Party Express

Attended as an embedded reporter, the Continental Congress 2009

Others not mentioned here

2.9 Petitioner identifies this Court as the correct court according to the Illinois

Constitution: Article IV: The Judicary

SECTION 9. CIRCUIT COURTS - JURISDICTION

Circuit Courts shall have original jurisdiction of all

justiciable matters except when the Supreme Court has

original and exclusive jurisdiction relating to redistricting

of the General Assembly and to the ability of the Governor to

serve or resume office. Circuit Courts shall have such power

to review administrative action as provided by law.


3.0 APPEARANCE BEFORE A GRAND JURY AS A REMEDY

The exercise of the Fifth Amendment to appoint grand juries has long been

recognized by the federal courts including the Supreme Court of the United States in

cases as recent as United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992), when the court

said the following:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=504&invol=36http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=504&invol=36http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=504&invol=36


10/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

'[R]ooted 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 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, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S.

825 (1977). ' "

The grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose

functioning the courts do not preside."Id.

"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. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218

(1960);Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-

32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the

courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the

Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arms length. Judges' direct

involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to

the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their

oaths of office.United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992). Also see

United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a).

[504 U.S. 36, 48].

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=504&invol=36http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=504&invol=36http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=504&invol=36


11/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

"The institution of the grand jury is deeply rooted in Anglo-American

history. In England, the grand jury served for centuries both as a body of accusers

sworn to discover and present for trial persons suspected of criminal wrongdoing

and as a protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental

action. In this country, the Founders thought the grand jury so essential to basic

liberties that they provided in the Fifth Amendment that federal prosecution for

serious crimes can only be instituted by 'a presentment or indictment of a Grand

Jury.' United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974), Cf. Costello v. United

States, 350 U.S. 359, 361-362 (1956).The grand jury's historic functions survive

to this day. Its responsibilities continue to include both the determination whether

there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the protection

of citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions.Branzburg v. Hayes, 408

U.S. 665, 686-687 (1972)."

3.1 Authority of the Citizens Grand Jury to Bring Presentment

HISTORY OF FEDERAL GRAND JURY POWER

"In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution,

common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at

any time and to investigate public officials without governmental influence. These

fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the

government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the

primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past." CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW,

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0414_0338_ZS.htmlhttp://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0414_0338_ZS.htmlhttp://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0414_0338_ZS.html


12/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000, 821, IF IT'S NOT A RUNAWAY, IT'S NOT A REAL

GRAND JURY by Roger Roots, J.D.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in operative part

that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless

on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury."

In the newsletter of the American Jury Institute and the Fully Informed Jury

Association, citing the famed American jurist and Supreme Court Justice, Joseph Story,

the difference between and indictment issued by a grand jury and a presentment was

explained as follows:

"An indictment is a written accusation of an offence preferred to, and presented,

upon oath, as true, by a grand jury, at the suit of the government. An indictment is framed

by the officers of the government, and laid before the grand jury. Presentments, on the

other hand, are the result of a jury's independent action: 'A presentment, properly

speaking, is an accusation, made by a grand jury of its own mere motion, of an offence

upon its own observation and knowledge, or upon evidence before it, and without any bill

of indictment laid before it at the suit of the government. Upon a presentment, the proper

officer of the court must frame an indictment, before the party accused can be put to

answer it.' "

"A 'runaway' grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the

accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has improperly been eliminated by

modern criminal procedure. Today's "runaway" grand jury is in fact the common law

grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/runaway.htmhttp://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/runaway.htmhttp://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/runaway.htmhttp://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/runaway.htm


13/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

standard model of American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact "runaways,"

according to the definition of modern times; they operated as completely independent,

self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very

source, including the government itself." Creighton Law Review, op. cit.

The Constitution intended to give the grand jury power to instigate

criminal charges, and this was especially true when it came to government

oversight. This power has been eroded by the overreach of the legislative branch.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution still contains the same words quoted

above, but if you sit on a grand jury and return a "presentment" today, some

legislatures have required that a prosecutor or other officer of the court sign it or it

may not be allowed to stand in court, rendering the criminal charges such

independent grand juries have brought to the court's attention to be swept away.

And the reason for this can be found in a legislative distortion of the actual

underlying facts.

In 1946, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted, codifying

what had previously been a vastly divergent set of common law procedural rules

and regional customs. In general, an effort was made to conform the rules to the

contemporary state of federal criminal practice. In the area of federal grand jury

practice, however, a remarkable exception was allowed. The drafters of Rules 6

and 7, which loosely govern federal grand juries, denied future generations of

what had been the well-recognized powers of common law grand juries: powers

of unrestrained investigation and of independent declaration of findings. The



14/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

committee that drafted the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provided no

outlet for any document other than a prosecutor-signed indictment. In so doing,

the drafters at least tacitly, if not affirmatively, opted to ignore explicit

constitutional language. Creighton Law Review, op. cit.

Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP):

"An offense which may be punished by death shall be prosecuted by

indictment. An offense which may be punished by imprisonment for a term

exceeding one year or at hard labor shall be prosecuted by indictment."

There is no mention of "presentments" in Rule 7. But they are mentioned in Note

4 of the Advisory Committee Notes on the Rules:

4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation,

since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as

concerns the Federal courts.

The American Juror published the following commentary with regards to Note 4:

[W]hile the writers of the federal rules made provisions for indictments,

they made none for presentments. This was no oversight. According to Professor

Lester B. Orfield, a member of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal

Procedure, the drafters of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 6 decided the

term presentment should not be used, even though it appears in the Constitution.

Orfield states [22 F.R.D. 343, 346]:

'There was an annotation by the Reporter on the term presentment as used

in the Fifth Amendment. It was his conclusion that the term should not be used in

http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/usc/ttl18/app/1412/1412/rule7.htmlhttp://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/usc/ttl18/app/1412/1412/rule7.htmlhttp://www.fija.org/fa/aj0403.pdfhttp://www.fija.org/fa/aj0403.pdfhttp://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/usc/ttl18/app/1412/1412/rule7.htmlhttp://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/usc/ttl18/app/1412/1412/rule7.html


15/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

the new rules of criminal procedure. Retention might encourage the use of the

run-away grand jury as the grand jury could act from their own knowledge or

observation and not only from charges made by the United States attorney. It has

become the practice for the United States Attorney to attend grand jury hearings,

hence the use of presentments have been abandoned.'

The statement "Retention might encourage the grand jury [to] act from their own

knowledge or observation" is a usurpation of Constitutional power expressly granted to

the citizens of this nation under both the Fifth and Tenth Amendments to the United

States Constitution, power that was intended by the founding fathers, in their incredible

wisdom, to provide citizens with oversight over tyrannical government. These due

process rights are the preferred mechanism of the constitutional republic for the

combating of tyranny, and there is no time more pressing than our current estate for the

exercise of these rights.

The state, seeking to further alienate the exercise of powers expressly given to

citizens in this country, then went out to brand such an exercise as a "runaway grand

jury." A runaway grand jury is nothing more and nothing less than a constitutionally

mandated grand jury, aware of their power, and legally exercising that power to hold the

federal beast in check, as in "checks and balances." As a result of this statist tactic to

improperly disempower the Fifth Amendment, the grand jury has relegated to the

position of submissive puppet to the US Attorney.

The American Juror publicationAmerican Jurorwent on to say in a very relevant

commentary:

http://_ftn2/http://_ftn2/


16/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Of course, no statute or rule can alter the provisions of the Constitution,

since it is the supreme law of the land. But that didn't prevent the federal courts

from publishing a body of case law affirming the fallacy that presentments were

abolished. A particularly egregious example:

'A rule that would permit anyone to communicate with a grand jury

without the supervision or screening of the prosecutor or the court would

compromise, if not utterly subvert, both of the historic functions of the grand jury,

for it would facilitate the pursuit of vendettas and the gratification of private

malice. A rule that would open the grand jury to the public without judicial or

prosecutorial intervention is an invitation to anyone interested in trying to

persuade a majority of the grand jury, by hook or by crook, to conduct

investigations that a prosecutor has determined to be inappropriate or unavailing.'

As a result, the investigation of seditious, corrupt, or illegal acts of government

officials can be deemed inappropriate or unavailing by the prosecutor, or a judge can

dismiss the grand jurors pursuing such investigations. Consequently, corrupt

government officials have few natural enemies and go about their business

unimpeded. To further authorize this unconstitutional impediment to the exercise of

Fifth Amendment rights of a grand jury to issue a presentment, FRCP authors in 1946

added the following Rule 6(g):

"At any time for cause shown the court may excuse a juror either

temporarily or permanently, and in the latter event the court may impanel another

person in place of the juror excused."



17/22


18/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Constitution and the Illinois Constitution. Potentially having violated that oath, therefore

they have self interest in all matters related to voter fraud in McHenry County and in

Illinois.

SECTION 3. OATH OR AFFIRMATION OF OFFICE

Each prospective holder of a State office or other State

position created by this Constitution, before taking office,

shall take and subscribe to the following oath or

affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (affirm) that I will support the

Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of

the State of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge

the duties of the office of .... to the best of my ability."


3.3 Ring out across the land, the Liberty Bells of We The People

Besides corruption, this issue relates to failed governance and rightfully belongs in

the 4th Branch of Government for redress and remedy especially as relates to securing

Presentments. While Petitioner realizes this is a Common Law usage of the Grand Jury,

she states such usage is allowed by Illinois Law and Statues known to her. Further

Petitioner believes Illinois Article 1 (Bill of Rights) last two sections, Section 23 and 24,

in this matter, guides her directly to the McHenry County Grand Jury in its current role

and its historical Common Law role. Fervently, Petitioner prays with all her heart for

her small voice, like a single bell ringing out Liberty!!! to be heard!

SECTION 23. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES

A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of

civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of

liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people

recognize their corresponding individual obligations and

responsibilities.


SECTION 24. RIGHTS RETAINED

The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights

shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained

by the individual citizens of the State.



19/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


"Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the

inhabitants thereof." (Source: Liberty Bell)

3.4 Illinois Constitution: Article XIII, Section 4 abolishes Sovereign Immunity

Sovereign Immunity as defined:

SECTION 4. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY ABOLISHED

Except as the General Assembly may provide by law,

sovereign immunity in this State is abolished.


4.0 JURISDICTION

Personal jurisdiction over the Petitioner is properly found in this court, since the

Petitioner seeks redress for crimes against her constitutionally protected rights and related

to voter fraud in McHenry County, Illinois where she resides.

5.0 PRESENTMENT OF FINDINGS

Petitioner will establish that voter fraud has brought McHenry County, Illinois

and the United States to an EMERGENCY and crisis point.

Petitioner believes she has sufficient evidence to prove compelling cause exists to

warrant the investigation of McHenry County, State of Illinois and Federal Officials for

voter fraud. Additionally, some of those investigated will be County, State and National

Party Leadership of the Democratic and Republican Parties. Petitioner does not know

how this investigation will end, and seeks permission to work with the Grand Jury to



20/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

investigate. Intended or not, the consequence of the current election processes deprive

We The People of fundamental constitutional rights.

Petitioners last place for redress is before the McHenry County Grand Jury. She

suffers intense distress over this election matter, preventing her from attending to her

normal duties as she feels compelled by God and Country to seek redress until she is

finally granted relief.

Petitioner asserts her right for private testimony before the McHenry County

Grand Jury is Critical. However should that not be possible, Petitioner will work with the

Grand Jury to present evidence as already stated throughout this Petition.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays for relief as follows:

A. That this Petitioner be permitted to testify before the McHenry County

Grand Jury, as is duly and legally in session, to present justification for this

EMERGENCY Petition for appearance before the McHenry Grand Jury.

B. That the Grand Jury allow Petitioner to testify alone without the

Prosecutor or Judge present, to extensive evidence of pervasive voter fraud in McHenry

County and thus in the State of Illinois.

C. That upon being found as a credible witness, the Grand Jury, by way of

remedy and through a vote of 9, members of this Grand Jury agree to investigate this

voter fraud.

E. That upon being found credible, and duly empowered by Illinois law, the

Grand Jury through a vote of 9, ask the Judge to allow Petitioner to be appointed

Investigator as pertains to this matter.



21/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

F. Petitioner has no malice or ill-intent of any type towards Chief Judge

Sullivan or the Prosecutor. Regardless, she believes she is legally justified, and seeks

opportunities to testify to the Grand Jury outside of their presence in pursuit of her

redress.

G. In the first stage of testimony, Petitioner seeks to present to the McHenry

County Grand Jury historical information on Grand Juries, from the Federal, State and

County perspective such that the seated grand jury will have a broader understanding of

Grand Juries. Petitioner has prepared a booklet for this purpose she would like to provide

to the Grand Jury. Petitioner is prepared to distribute this packet to the Grand Jury on

December 3rd, 2009, or ASAP.

H. In this petition, Petitioner endeavors, with all her heart and to the best of her

ability, to present a complicated topic in an orderly and succinct approach. Accordingly,

Petitioner decided not to present specific allegations related to the voter fraud discussed

in this petition, but is fully prepared to do so with a days notice, allowing for her to

gather printed copies of the evidence to distribute to the Grand Jury.

I. Petitioner prays the Court and the Grand Jury will understand she has no

legal training but is eager and completely dedicated to overcome any shortcomings this

petition may have.

J. That the Grand Jury award such other relief in law and equity as they deem

proper and as held forth in the US and Illinois Constitutions.



22/22

chalice|patriot's heart network - emergency: petition – for redress before the mchenry county...

Documents