by An Anonymous Law Professor –

SPECIAL REPORT TO TEA PARTY GROUPS & The United States of America’s Constitutional SUPPORTING PATRIOTS –>> INDICTING and PROSECUTING Corrupt President Obama, The IRS Bureaucrats — Like Lois Lerner Etc. Etc. Et. Al. >> – HOW TO <

[Editor’s note: The message I gleaned from the Ferguson Missouri uprising is that if enough low information democrat constituents – morons as far as I am concerned – act in unison, they can get the local Bureaucrats to dance to their demands of lawlessness in the effort to prosecute an innocent police officer.

That example must be taken and used here in the demand for the indictment and criminal prosecution of corrupt politicians and Bureaucrats located in the IRS or any other branch of the Government.]

Either we the educated and informed Americans act together or we will never imprison the corrupt anti-American Politicians and Bureaucrats. So, let’s support Mr. Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments and the States Rights to prosecute public officials.

Lastly, the demands made for the indictment and prosecution of corrupt politicians and Bureaucrats whether federal or State within the States must be complied with by those elected
officials. That is, access to the Grand Juries for criminal complaints must be made easily available to “We The People” or the officials in charge must first be voted out and then prosecuted for obstruction of Justice. Voting them out will get the message through to all of the others that might stand in the way.

We are the life line for America. We must form and then hold that line shoulder to shoulder vote after vote. The future of America is at stake. We can become the Swarm of voters for good.

Down with the democrats and their low information — death to America — violent, destructive constituents. Down with the outlaw Ferguson anti-American activists and black racists.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>
Dedication: to the brave solders of the first American Revolution. Their sacrifice now inspires a second American revolution.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>
All courts are political.”

– Anonymous court clerk


What You Will Get Out Of This Report

This report was written for the purpose of enabling people across America to fight back against government abuse at every level, using the laws that are on the books at the state level to seek criminal prosecution of government officials who commit crimes.

We understand that conflicts exist between state and federal jurisdictions. We believe that with sufficient public pressure these conflicts can be overcome, and precedents exist, cited in this report, for the exercise of state sovereignty to punish crimes by federal actors in state courts. If we do not try, we will never succeed.

No reprisals should be feared.

The same First Amendment right that we are fighting for gives us the right to seek the redress that this project is about. The pages that follow are political dynamite. Use them to blow up bureaucracy and political corruption!



The Coming Battle
Hamilton County, Ohio has the potential to be the next Lexington Common of a peaceful second American Revolution, one where aggrieved Americans use due process of state law to resolve growing Constitutional rights violations under the administration of Barrack Hussein Obama, alias Barry Sotero.

Americans are putting up with an administration that can be as vicious as it is incompetent. It has already been exposed that they track cell phone calls, emails and ordinary telephone calls of virtually the entire population. [Editor – of the USA] The blatant violation of Fourth Amendment rights in a society whose founding fathers revolted to build a free nation has been repugnant to most informed Americans, no matter what pretext has been used for it.

Similarly, our precious First Amendment rights, the right to free speech, has been under siege, as has the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, similarly protected under the First Amendment.

Organizations exercising this right have suffered reprisals by the Internal Revenue Service, which maintains an office in Cincinnati, Ohio (Hamilton County) for the purpose of receiving and processing applications for tax-exempt organizations, including those that simply wanted to enjoy the benefit of tax-exempt status to promote conservative activism.
As even the left-leaning, biased New York Times reported (May 18, 2013):

“During the summer of 2010, the dozen or so accountants and tax agents of Group 7822 of the Internal Revenue Service office got a directive from the manager that a growing number of organizations identifying themselves as part of the Tea Party had begun applying for tax exemptions. The manager was advising the workers to be on the lookout [BOLO] for them and other groups planning to get involved in elections. For months, the Tea Party cases sat on the desk of a lone specialist who used “political sounding” criteria – words like ‘patriot,’ ‘we the people,’ as a way to screen efficiently through the flood of applications for groups that might not qualify.”

The Times’ story made it clear: these organizations were to be stifled in their exercise of rights to exercise their opinions because they were conservative and the Justice Department was going to investigate.

The names Lois Lerner, Mitch Steele, Stephen Seck, Carly Young and Joseph Herr were cited in other accounts, as was Barrack Obama, noted for saying, “reward your friends and punish your enemies.”

Nobody seriously expects the FBI and the Justice Department to do anything about the IRS’ shameful conduct.

However, some people think another route should be sought. The questionable conduct occurred in a state where citizens have an absolute right to contact their county Clerk of Courts.

Here’s an excerpt from a legal opinion on the topic:

Ohio has a process for a citizen to unilaterally initiate criminal proceedings. Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure 3 and 4 provide a process for private citizens to initiate a criminal proceeding.

Ohio Rule of Criminal Procedure 3 (“Rule 3”) defines a complaint as “a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged…[that also] state the numerical designation of the applicable statute of ordinance … [which] shall be made upon oath before any person authorized by law to administer oaths.” Ohio Crim. R. 3. Rule 3 requires that a complaint set forth the essential facts constituting the offense charged. Cincinnati v. Gardner 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 552 (1991).

A complaint that does not contain every element does not charge an offense and is void for subject matter jurisdiction. Id. Pursuant to Ohio Rule of Criminal Procedure 4, if the complaint suggests that there is probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed the alleged offense, a judge or another authorized court officer will issue a warrant or summons. Ohio Crim. R. 4. The probable cause finding may be based, in whole or in part, on hearsay, provided that there is a credible basis for believing the source of the hearsay and for believing that there is a factual basis for the complaint. Id.

Any Ohio citizen may file a complaint. See e.g. State v. Mbodjii, 129 Ohio St. 3d 325 (wife privately filed a complaint charging her husband with domestic violence.). In Re Fetters, 110 Ohio App. 3d 483 (1996) (parents filed neglect action against agency and foster parent based on improper attendance to child’s medical problems). Further, even if a prosecutor privately thinks a complaint is filed without merit, the complainant is entitled to have probable cause judicially determined, provided that the complaint is in the proper form. State v. Moss. Hrometz, Stark App. 2003CA00218.

A person is subject to criminal prosecution in Ohio, if, inter alia, the “person commits an offense under the laws of this state, any element of which takes place in this state… [or] while out of this state, the person conspired or attempts to commit, or is guilty of complicity in the commission of, an offense in this state.” 29 ORC 290.11.

Victims of the IRS or any other government abuse in Ohio can go to their courthouse and complain that their civil rights have been violated.

Thankfully, Ohio is one of the very few states that has its own statute that makes civil rights violations a criminal statute.

ORC 2921.45 Interfering with civil rights

(A) No public servant, under color of his office, employment, or authority, shall knowingly deprive or conspire or attempt to deprive any person of a constitutional or statutory right.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of interfering with civil rights, a misdemeanor of the first degree.

Not only did the IRS agents interfere with the federal civil rights of the Tea Party and other conservative groups, stripping them of their rights violated the Ohio constitution.
§ 1.11 of the Ohio Bill or Rights, dating back to 1851, states that:
“Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right, and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.”

In Hamilton County, Ohio, federal employees of the Internal Revenue Service conspired to abridge that right.

Not only should they be charged with civil rights violations, they should be charged with criminal conspiracy (ORC 2923.01), which mentions conspiracy to engage in corrupt activity specifically. The IRS agents, if convicted under Ohio state law, would face prison time and serious fines.

It would be expected that the powers that be in Hamilton County might balk. They would say this involves federal jurisdiction. It must be pointed out to them that this jurisdiction is not exclusive. See Idaho v. Horichi 266 3d 379 and California v. Dotson.

If the Clerk of Courts or DA balks, remind them that they are elected officials and that, even if you are out of state, you have the right to be politically vocal when they come up for reelection.

Thus, the trip to Cincinnati, Hamilton County, must begin for thousands of Tea Party members who should bombard the clerk with complaints.

This will make the next IRS bully think twice.

A hypothetical Affidavit to be submitted to the Clerk of Courts of Hamilton County is found below. (It is obviously more effective if presented in person.)


John Doe,
in his official capacity as
executive director of the Montana Tea Party Association


Lois Lerner
Internal Revenue Service
6610 Fernwood Court
Bethesada, MD 20817


Holly Paz
5703 Northfield Road
Bethsada, Maryland, 20817


Barrack Hussein Obama aka Barry Sotero
1600 Pennsylvania Ave
Washington DC 20500


Mitchell Steele, Joseph Herr, Stephen Seck, and Carly Young, Internal Revenue Service
Office of Exempt Organizations
650 Main St.
Cincinnati, OH 45202

I, John Doe, hereby do swear and attest to the following:

1. My name is John Doe.

2. I reside at 22 Anyroad, Anytown, Montana.

3. I am executive director of the Montana Tea Party Association, an organization of concerned citizens studying Constitutional rights and educating others on the topics of Constitutional law and government, submitted an application for tax-exempt status to the Internal Revenue Service seeking to be enabled to raise tax-exempt status.

4. The defendants made a criminal conspiracy to deprive the complainant and his organization of rights guaranteed to them by the Bill of Rights Section 1.11, the Constitution of the United States, the First Amendment and for the purpose of enjoying right to assemble freely as guaranteed by law, and to benefit by laws made available to educational and civil organizations.

5. Defendant Barrack Hussein Obama aka Barry Sotero repeatedly met with defendant Lois Lerner for the purpose of sabotaging the application of the complainant and similar persons.

6. Defendants Mitchell Steele, Joseph Herr, Stephen Seck, and Carly Young received and obeyed unlawful, criminal directives from Lois Lerner, who sent directives to these IRS employees to sabotage or hinder applications for Constitutionally oriented organizations.

7. During the summer of 2010, the dozen or so accountants and tax agents of Group 7822 of the Internal Revenue Service office got a directive from the manager that a growing number of organizations identifying themselves as part of the Tea Party had begun applying for tax exemptions. The manager was advising the workers to be on the lookout for them and other groups planning to get involved in elections. For months, the Tea Party cases sat on the desk of a lone specialist who used “political sounding” criteria – words like “patriot,” “we the people,” as a way to screen efficiently through the flood of applications for groups that might not qualify.

8. After filing their initial application, complainant received letters from the IRS requesting additional information that the IRS claimed was necessary in order to reach a determination of their applications for tax exemption.

9. The IRS issued letter requests to complainant based on complainant’s political viewpoints and not based on the applicable criteria set forth in tax-exemption laws or treasury regulations.

10. Various employees and officials within the Department of the Treasury inspected and/or disclosed the information produced by the above-identified plaintiffs in response to the IRS’ requests for additional information.

11. On May 14, 2013, the Treasury Inspector General For Tax Administration released the report of an IRS audit it initiated based on concerns expressed by Congress and the media about targeting of certain conservative political organizations seeking tax-exempt status.

12. Treasury Inspector General For Tax Administration reported that the IRS, both before and during the 2012 election cycle, had done the following:
(a) targeted tax-exempt applications for additional scrutiny and inquiry based on “inappropriate criteria,” including organizational names and policy positions;
(b) significantly delayed the processing of these applications, keeping them open over twice the length of time for processing of other applications requiring additional tax-exempt applications; and
(c) requested additional information from these applicants that was entirely unnecessary and irrelevant to the IRS’ determination regarding the organization’s tax-exempt status.

13. At least as early as February 2010, the IRS began identifying applications for additional scrutiny (including the issuance of letter requests for additional information) from organizations seeking tax exemption whose names included the terms “Tea Party,” “patriots,” “9/12” or other political-sounding names, such as “we the people,” or “take back the country.”

14. All applications from organizations such as the complainants, whose names included the terms “Tea Party,” “patriots,” or “9/12,” were discriminatorily singled out for additional scrutiny as “Tea Party cases.”

15. At least as early as April 2010, defendant Paz, then acting manager EO [?] Technical Unit, was aware of the selective targeting of and discrimination against the “Tea Party cases.”
16. In April 2010, defendant Paz directed the preparation of a sensitive case report regarding “Tea Party cases.”

17. The Technical Unit prepared the sensitive case report in mid-April 2010.

18. Upon information and belief, according to the usual custom and practice, the sensitive case report was shared with Robert Choi, then director, Rulings and Agreements Office, and a summary of the report was provided to the defendant Lerner, director EO Division.

19. Between April and July 2010, defendant Paz and her team worked with other IRS agents and officials, including the unknown named IRS officials, to discriminatorily identify additional “Tea Party” applications and to review letters requesting additional information from “Tea Party” applicants.

20. As further evidence of the unlawful discrimination against the identification “Tea Party” applications was based in part on what the IRS officials, including the individually named defendants herein, internally referred to as a “be on the lookout,” or “BOLO.”

21. During the period from August 2010 through July 2012, the criteria on the BOLO list included, at various times, the following: “… various local organizations in the Tea Party movement” and “political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform/movement.”

22. Mitchell Steele, Barrack Hussein Obama, Holly Paz, Lois Lerner, Joseph Herr, Stephen Seck, and Carly Young all knowingly and deliberately conspired to implement these unlawful acts in violation of Ohio R.C. 2921.45, the Ohio Civil Rights Act and ORC 2903.01, which makes criminal conspiracies illegal.

23. I wish to have the court issue a criminal complaint against them for criminal conspiracy in violation of ORC 2903.01 as they, on information and belief, formed an unlawful combination to engage in corrupt, unlawful misconduct to willfully violate our right to free speech, due process of law and equal protection of the law, maliciously and in reckless disregard of our civil rights.

24. I am requesting a full criminal prosecution of Barrack Hussein Obama, Lois Lerner, Mitchell Steele, Holly Paz, Joseph Herr and any other conspirators.

25. I attach the accompanying exhibits and incorporate them by reference.

Signed this ___ day of __________ 2014,
under pains and penalties of perjury,

John Doe

Notary’s Statement

AnyCounty, State of Montana

I, Mary Moe, a Notary Public of AnyCounty, Montana, herby do attest that John Doe signed the above on his own free will and accord and did provide satisfactory proof of his identity.

Notary Public
My Commission Expires:

We would suggest you affix to your Affidavit a cover letter, copies of your application, IRS correspondence, and newspaper clippings about the scandal at the Cincinnati office.


If there is any question about how out-of-control the government has become, there are plenty of examples. We are only going to give you two.

Basically, the IRS is the world’s largest collection agency. It has few constraints.
While there are many decent, helpful and thoughtful people in the IRS, there are many that are simply sadistic.

Robotically, they implement procedures that have driven Americans to despair, bankruptcy, and in quite a few cases, suicide.

Structurally, the IRS is designed to intimidate and frighten taxpayers.

It is an axiom of due process, a guarantee of the Bill of Rights, that the laws of the land should be understandable so that anybody of average intelligence and education can understand them.

Nevertheless, the Internal Revenue Code in the Code of Federal Regulations is 13,458 pages long and fills 20 volumes.

The part of the tax law written by Congress is “only” 3,387 pages long.

There are so many different government publications that deal with the tax code that it is confusing, even for tax lawyers and CPAs, to figure out what laws apply to what situations. At the Government Printing Office, there are over 453 publications referencing the tax code turning up in their search engine. Moreover, the language of the tax laws appears deliberately designed to make it impossible to comprehend, requiring people to depend on accountants and tax attorneys, who often make mistakes.

In fact, it is known that if you ask the IRS to do your taxes (they will) and ask three different agents, you will likely get three different results.

Or if you ask three different CPAs, you’ll get three different results.

Money Magazine conducted these experiments and found great discrepancies in responses.
Laws that are difficult to comprehend are, as a matter of constitutional law, unconstitutional. The term is “void for vagueness.” Cantwell v. Connecticut 310 US 296; Musser v. Utah 333 US 95.

Sadly, federal judges have fined and/or threatened every single person who tried to raise this argument in court, so don’t try it.

So much for impartiality and intellectual honesty on the federal bench.

Thus the Internal Revenue agents are free to harass, extort and intimidate the American taxpayer, even when they are paying as much as they can.

The case of the late Bruce Barron is illustrative.

Bruce Barron was a New Hampshire lawyer with an IRS debt.

Donna Greeley was an IRS agent who hounded Barron incessantly for bills he could not pay.
She placed liens on the two Barron family homes and sent letters to Barron’s clients saying that they should send payment to the IRS rather than him. She even emptied the savings account of Barron’s 13-year-old daughter.

She also seized his wife’s retirement account and checking account. Mr. Barron, frustrated, humiliated, and fearful of being homeless, drove himself into his garage, left the motor running, and died of carbon monoxide poisoning. He left a note explaining that the IRS had driven him to it.

He left a $200,000 insurance policy, which the IRS seized.

His widow did find a civil rights lawyer who sued Agent Greeley and convinced the IRS to back off. Ms. Barron was able to keep the proceeds of the life insurance policy, and the Treasury Department picked up her legal bill.

But her attorney made it clear that it was only a congressional investigation and the spotlight of the media that convinced the IRS to settle. Otherwise, the IRS may well have won in court.

One weapon in the IRS arsenal is their power to lien.

They can freeze any bank account or piece of real estate without court approval by just mailing a piece of paper to a bank or the Registry of Deeds.

This is despite the Fifth Amendment, which states that due process of law is required to seize any property. Of course, if you try to challenge it in court, the federal judges will likely make you pay legal fees to the IRS!

Yes, that’s right. They will fine you for making an argument they deem “frivolous.” It happens every time somebody tries to challenge the Internal Revenue Code for being void for vagueness. But for years, the world was told that the earth is flat and the stars are revolved around our planet.

But wait, it gets worse.


Donald Scott lived in Malibu, California, on a 200-acre ranch.
This ranch was coveted by state officials who conjured up a fictitious story that the ranch was growing thousands of marijuana plants.

Under local “forfeiture” laws, the California sheriffs could seize the ranch if they could prove that it was used for criminal activity.

On the morning of October 2, 1992, 31 officers of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, Drug Enforcement Administration, Border Patrol, National Guard and Park Service invaded the Scott home, terribly frightening his wife. (There was both state and federal involvement.)

She shouted, “Don’t shoot me! Don’t kill me!”

Scott was just recovering from cataract surgery. He staggered out of the bedroom with a gun and was shot to death by LA Sheriff’s Deputies.

No marijuana plants were found; none existed. An investigation published in a 64-page report by the District Attorney of Ventura Country revealed that the search warrant was based on falsehoods and omissions.

Moreover, the District Attorney concluded that the raid was intended solely to find a pretext for grabbing the ranch under forfeiture laws.

The circumstances of the raid indicated that rather than really looking for drugs, the sheriff’s files focused on real estate valuations and the forfeiture laws.

Mr. Scott’s widow filed a lawsuit against the sheriffs.

Among the evidence was a photo of the sheriff’s deputy who committed the murder (Gerry Spencer) and his partner, who had posed for pictures on the ranch, smiling after the killing of an innocent man.

The lawsuit dragged on for eight years, and filled thirty binders.

Ultimately, the sheriffs paid the family five million dollars. None of the killers was disciplined by his department.

The American people are realizing in increasing numbers that the local, state and federal government no longer respect the Constitutional boundaries that are meant to separate people’s rights from law enforcement, bureaucracy, and the whims of the politicians.

Malicious prosecution, framing of innocent people, illegal surveillance, reprisals for expressing opinions, extortion and harassment are happening in a nation that is slowly showing similarities to the European fascism of the 1930s.

Such examples as the suicide of Bruce Barron and the murder of Donald Scott are not everyday occurrences, yet.

However, American totalitarians are using a process some call “gradualism”: they move from baby step to baby step, until their subjects no longer have the will or ability to resist.

It is important not to allow a feeling of helplessness to overwhelm you in the face of oppressors.

There are millions of American who have endured abuses at the hands of petty tyrants in the form of bureaucrats, law enforcement, government lawyers and politicians.

You are not alone.

By fighting back and uniting with other victims of government abuse, you have the best hope of keeping up your morale and possibly seeing justice.

In this report, we will be writing about the ways the laws of the various states in which welive can and must be utilized to seek redress for the misdeeds of government officials.

In the next few pages, readers will learn about three primary methods available for bringing criminal action against government officials. It is not going to be an easy road, but is a road that must be traveled for the sole reason that the more obstacles those who violate our rights face, the less likely they will be able to keep doing this.

The grand jury system, used by the courts to screen cases for conflict, is one means by which victims of government abuse can, in many states, bring their situation to the attention of their fellow citizens and press for an indictment.

In California, for example, citizens can directly contact the grand jury for their county and give a complaint about official misconduct. Although one county grand jury specifically states on its website (see Appendix) that it does not deal with misconduct by federal employees, it certainly it not due to lack of jurisdiction. In California v. Dotson, 2012 Dist. Lexis 73250 (S. D. Cal. May 24, 2012), reckless driving by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent while on a charge resulted in a state criminal prosecution.

In Idaho v. Horiuchi, 215 F 3d 986 (9th Cir. 2000), an FBI agent involved in the famous Weaver standoff was prosecuted under Idaho state law for involuntary manslaughter.

There is no question that getting anybody in state government to act against federal officials will be an uphill battle. But it is a battle that needs to be fought to preserve our Constitution.
Grand juries in six states (Nevada, Nebraska, North Dakota Oklahoma, Kansas and New Mexico) can actually be convened by a petition of concerned citizens.

In Kansas, citizens who wanted to prosecute pornographers and doctors who perform abortions organized grand juries by petition.

In Oklahoma, citizens who did not believe the government version of the 1995 bombing of the Murrah federal building organized their own grand jury by petition, all under the legal authority of the state of Oklahoma.
In many other states, you can go to your local courthouse and swear out a complaint against lawbreakers and request criminal prosecution.
This does not mean the local prosecutors will accept your complaint and be willing to go forward. It might take significant community interest to make the prosecution go forward, especially if the target is a federal employee.
But the campaign to restore our constitutional rights has to begin somewhere. You can be one of the starting points. If thousands of people bombard them, they’ll go away.

In the pages that follow, we will point out some laws and court rules in various states that seekers of justice may find useful.


For years, the Church of Scientology had an ongoing battle with the Internal Revenue Service concerning its tax-exempt status.

Members filed thousands of civil lawsuits against the IRS claiming religious discrimination.

Ultimately, the Scientologists, love them or hate them or feel indifferent, brought the IRS to its knees and got the IRS to give them tax-exempt status.

The “bombardment” technique, used by activists before, is available to any group of citizens willing to learn the tolls of fighting back.

An excellent source of materials is the Albert Einstein Institution founded by Gene Sharpe, a social scientist who elevated protest to a science to the extent that activists around the world flocked to him (he is now elderly and infirm) to learn how to make change in their countries.

His organization is an outstanding source of information about techniques you will find invaluable for getting the job done. Visit the website at www.aeinstein.org.


The power to convene a grand jury is one among the many important rights guaranteed by the Constitution. While the grand jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment speaks about a “grand jury,” the concept is not specifically defined. We must, then, refer to the common law to find the meaning of the term. See United States v. Warren, 26 F. Supp. 333, 334 (E.D.N.Y. 1939).

In Criminal Procedure: an Analysis of Cases & Concepts 546 (3d ed. 1993), Charles H. Whitebread and Christopher Slobogin state that the grand jury has authority to act as a “watchdog” over government operations. Criminal Law and Procedure, a book by Ronald Bacigal and Mary Tate, quoting Wood v. Georgia, provides the following definition for a grand jury:

“Historically, [the grand jury] has been regarded as a primary security to the innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive persecution; it serves the invaluable function in our society of standing between the accuser and the accused, whether the latter be an individual, minority group, or other, to determine whether a charge is founded upon reason or was dictated by an intimidating power or by malice and personal ill will.”

Supreme Court’s 1991 opinion in United States v. R. Enterprises states that: “The grand jury occupies a unique role in our criminal justice system. . . . [T]he grand jury can ‘investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just because it wants assurance that it is not.’ . . . The function of the grand jury is to inquire into all information that might possibly bear on its investigation until it has identified an offense or has satisfied itself that none has occurred. . . . [T]he government cannot be required to justify the issuance of a grand jury subpoena by presenting evidence sufficient to establish probable cause.”

The grand jury is a 900 year-old institution, but it has gone through some significant changes over the centuries and the many different places where it has been practiced, see Goodman v. United States, 108 F.2d 516, 518 (9th Cir. 1939). United States v. Deary, 265 F.2d 459, 460 (2d Cir. 1959) states that the grand jury “has remained as free of court-made limitations and restrictions as it was in England at the time the Fifth Amendment was adopted.”
The grand jury gained back some of its influence in the early 20th century. Former jurors formed numerous associations aimed at protecting the grand jury’s powers. The Grand Juror’s Association of New York was founded in 1912, and even published The Panel, a pro-grand jury periodical. The Grand Juror’s Federation of America was founded in Chicago in 1931, among other similar organizations elsewhere. (Renee B. Lettow, Reviving Federal Grand Jury Presentments, 103 YALE L.J. 1333, 1342 n.50 (1994).

In their original functions, all grand juries could essentially be considered “runaway” because of their complete and total independence from prosecution or any part of the judicial branch. A grand jury essentially “could act from their own knowledge or observation,” see Lester B. Orfield, The Federal Grand Jury, 22 F.R.D. 343, 346 (1959). Interestingly, under common law, the grand juries of the past were so unconstrained in their actions that they could select a place to convene outside the courthouse. They could even meet in someone’s private home (United States v. Smyth, 104 F. Supp. 283, 300 (N.D. Cal. 1952); United States v. Gilboy, 160 P. Supp. 442, 458-59 (M.D. Pa. 1958). Modern grand jury proceedings are conducted in the courthouse in the grand jury room, and this constitutes one of the many limitations enacted upon the grand jury. For example, a grand jury was supposed to act “independently of either the prosecuting attorney or judge” United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 49 (1992); Powers of Federal Grand Juries, 4 STAN. L. REV. 68, 69 (1951): “the grand jury was appointed to protect community welfare, not merely to aid prosecutor or court.”

The term “runaway” grand jury did not appear in legal literature until the mid-twentieth century. An article in the Creighton Law Review, Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000 goes as far as saying that: “the term [“runaway” grand jury”] would have been inapplicable in the context of previous generations: every American grand jury known by the Constitution’s Framers would be considered a runaway grand jury under modern criminal procedure.

Constitutional framers knew criminal law to be driven by private prosecution and did not contemplate the omnipresence of government prosecutors. Additionally, early American common law placed far more power and investigative judgment in the hands of grand juries than does the criminal procedure of the twentieth century.”

The same article goes on to state that: “Runaway” grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure, at the federal level. 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 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.”

When the terms “runaway” grand jury is found in recent legal documents, it is usually within a somewhat negative context, see Fields v. Soloff, 920 F.2d 1114, 1118 (2d Cir. 1990), which states that “runaway” grand juries existed in New York in the 1930s; In re Martin-Tragona, 604 F. Supp. 453, 459-60 (D. Conn. 1985), “[r]unaway grand juries”. . . may have a certain romantic allure, but federal law leaves little or no room for that species of romance”); United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 174 F. Supp. 233, 236 D.N.J. 1959 mentions that a “runaway” grand jury is an unusual situation.

Furthermore, Supreme Court Justice William Douglas wrote that it was “common knowledge that the grand jury, having been conceived as a bulwark between the citizen and the government, is now a tool of the executive” (United States v. Dioniso, 410 U.S. 19, 23 (1973).

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse provided some disturbing information: of 785 federal grand juries in 1991, the grand jurors voted against the prosecutor in only 16 of the 25,943 matters.

While these facts tend to place the federal grand jury process in a negative light, citizens in many states have the power to initiate grand jury investigations, either by direct petition, as in Kansas, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Nevada, or by contacting the grand jury directly where authorized, as in California and other states.

There is nothing to stop a citizen from writing to a judge or DA and asking for permission to speak to a grand jury with evidence of a crime. Some of the cases cited in the appendix encourage this. Members of a grand jury do not have to take orders from a prosecution. They can investigate, issue subpoenas and indict, whether the prosecutor approves or not.

The grand juries, at least on the state level, have many opportunities to “run away.” These opportunities must be seized when there is real corruption that is not being addressed.

Very often, when an ordinary citizen approaches federal law enforcement about a civil rights violation, the effort is wasted.

Similarly, one is prohibited from approaching a federal grand jury to advise the jurors of a crime. Unfortunately, in the matter of In Re Persico, it was held that “the commencement of a federal criminal case by submission of evidence to a grand jury is an executive function within the exclusive prerogative of the Attorney General (now Eric Holder). See in Re Persico 522 F2d 41 (2d Cir. 1975).

For this reason, I am providing a sampling of state remedies. They certainly can be used in your state to fight local and state officials. It will take mass action to get local officials to bring federal officials who violate the law to justice, but it is likely your only hope. Remember the “bombardment” theory. Lots of people, lots of pressure.

In the pages that follow, I am giving an overview of state laws and practices governing fighting official corruption, accessing grand juries, and swearing out complaints at the courthouse. This list is not complete. Digging around with Google, you’ll find quite a few more remedies.

Very often, you will be told to go to the DA or local police first. Be persistent. If you are ignored, or they play games, come back with five other people.
Involve the media, involve organizations.

Without community pressure, you may face insurmountable obstacles.



Second Nt’l Bank & Trust Co., 234 Ala. 106, 173 So. 498, 499 (Ala. 1937)

“Public policy demands that the citizen, without hazard to himself may freely bring before the grand jury the fact that a crime has been committed, request and investigation and furnish such information as he has in aid of the investigation. In this, the citizen is not a prosecutor…”

Alabama Criminal Code
Criminal Conspiracy: Section 13A 4-3
Obstruction of Government Operations: Section 13A-10-2
Perjury: Section 13A-10-102



“Duty of the grand jury is first to inquire into all crimes committed or triable within the jurisdiction of the court and to present them to the court. AS 12.40.030. A grand juror can ask the grand jury to investigate a crime the DA has not presented to them. AS 12.40.040. Citizens have the right to ask the DA to present evidence of criminal conduct to the grand jury.”

Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 3 appears to allow so, but according to a clerk interviewed in Sitka, it is not done.

Alaska Statutes Article 2 Perjury and Related Offenses
Alaska St.§ 11.56.800 or
False Information Report
Criminal Conspiracy
Alaska Statutes Section 11.31.120


See below:

2010 Arkansas Code
Title 16 – Practice, Procedure, And Courts
Subtitle 6 – Criminal Procedure Generally
Chapter 85 – Pretrial Proceedings
Subchapter 5 – Grand Jury Proceedings
§ 16-85-503 – Scope of inquiry.
16-85-503. Scope of inquiry.

(a) The grand jury must inquire:

(1) Into the case of every person imprisoned in the county jail or detention facility or on bail who has not been charged by indictment or information within sixty (60) days of arrest;

(2) Into the condition and management of the public prisons of the county; and

(3) Into the willful and corrupt misconduct in office of public officers of every description in the county.

(b) The grand jury may inquire into all public offenses committed within the jurisdiction of the court in which they are impaneled and to indict such persons as they find guilty thereof.

(c) If a member of the grand jury knows or has reason to believe that a public offense has been committed within the jurisdiction of the court, he or she must disclose the knowledge or belief to his or her fellow jurors, who must thereupon investigate the offense.

(d) Grand jurors are entitled to free access, at all reasonable times, to public prisons and to the examination, without charge, of all public records in the county.

(e) It is the duty of every grand jury at each term of the circuit court to make careful examination of the condition of the accounts of the collecting officers of the county and any matters relating to the general school fund.


Apparently not.


Arkansas Statute and Codes § 5-52-107
Abuse of Office
Note: statute is remarkable in that if public officials use their office to harm another, they can be charged with a misdemeanor.
Arkansas Code Title 5 Criminal Offenses, 5-3-401 Criminal Conspiracy


California citizens have the right to access their grand juries. Citizens are encouraged to do so. In fact, there is a website (cgja.org) that tells you how to contact them with a complaint, how to become a grand juror, and much more. Each county has its own website, and cgja.org has email addresses of contacts and post office boxes for the grand jury. This is unique.


California Criminal Conspiracy, Penal Code 182
Abuse of Office, Title 82, Chapter 39


Some states allow citizens to contact grand juries by statute, but leave it to the discretion of the judge to allow the citizen to appear before the grand jury. See, e.g. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-5-204 (4) (l) (“Any person may approach the prosecuting attorney or the grand jury and request… to appear before a grand jury…the court may permit the person to testify or appear before the grand jury, if the court finds that such testimony or appearance would serve the interests of justice.”)


Georgia residents can go to their local courthouse and swear out criminal complaints.


Violation of Terms of Public Oath, Criminal Code § 16.10-1
False Statements of Public Officials, Criminal Code § 16.10-8
Malpractice, misfeasance, or malfeasance in office, Criminal Code § 45-11-4
Criminal Conspiracy, Criminal Code § 16-4-8



No enabling authority located.


No. Citizens having knowledge of criminal activity are encouraged to contact state attorney’s office.


§ 720 ILCS 5/33-3 official misconduct

sec. 33-3 official misconduct. a public officer or employee or special government agent commits misconduct when, in his official capacity or capacity as a special government agent, he commits any of the following acts:

(a) Intentionally or recklessly fails to perform any mandatory duty as required by law; or
(b) Knowingly performs an act which he knows he is forbidden by law to perform; or
(c) With intent to obtain a personal advantage for himself or another, he performs an act in excess of his lawful authority; or

(d) Solicits or knowingly accepts for the performance of any act a fee or reward which he knows is not authorized by law.

A public officer or employee or special government agent convicted of violating any provision of his section forfeits his office or employment or position as a special government agent. In addition, he commits a class 3 felony.


Yes: citizens have the right to petition for the convening of a grand jury in any county. Please refer to Kansas code 22-3001.


KSA 21-3902 Official Misconduct
Article 33, Kansas Statutes, Criminal Conspiracy


Witnesses have the right to go before a grand jury and disclose knowledge of a case. State v. Stewart 45 La Ann. 1164 (La 1893).


RS 14:134 Malfeasance in office
Louisiana Revised Statutes
Title 14: RS 14:26 Criminal Conspiracy



While Massachusetts folks cannot access grand juries directly, they do have the ability to go to the district court and swear out complaints for misdemeanors.

Perjury: Ch. 268 § 1
False Reports by Public Officers
Ch. 268 § 6A
Criminal Conspiracy Ch. 274 § 7



§ 768.19 Perjury; acts of officer under oath

Sec. 19 Any officer having taken an oath required by any provision of this chapter who shall knowingly and willfully violate the same or permit the same to be violated, shall, on conviction thereof, be adjudicated guilty of the crime of perjury and subject to all the pains and penalties thereof.

Criminal Conspiracy Chapter 25
State Penal Code



“While a citizen does not have a right to appear before the grand jury, he is free to attempt to get the grand jury to take action, and under [Minnesota court rules], the grand jury can permit an aggrieved citizen to appear as a witness for this purpose.” cert. denied sub nom. Wild v. Otis, 434 u.s. 1003, 98 S. Ct. 707, 54 L. Ed. 2d 746 (1978).


Criminal Conspiracy in Minnesota
609.175.2013 Minnesota Statute
Public Employee Misconduct
Minnesota Statute Ann. § 603



We were told that Mississippi residents can go to “justice courts” and swear out criminal complaints.

Criminal Conspiracy, MS Code § 97-1-1
Alteration of Records, MS Code § 97-11-1
Extortion of Public Officials, MS Code § 97-11-33
Use of Public Position to Gain Unlawful Benefit, MS Code § 24-5-109



§ 29-1410.01 “Any person may approach the prosecuting attorney or the grand jury and request … to appear before a grand jury… The court may permit the person to testify or appear before the grand jury if the court finds that such testimony or appearance would serve the interests of justice.”

Must work with county prosecutors

Nebraska Revised Statutes: § 28-202
Criminal Conspiracy
Official Misconduct CC § 28-924 (knowing violation of any law relating to official duties)
Official oppression of any person, oppression under color of office
Nebraska Revised Statute 29-1401.02
29-1401.02. Grand jury by petition; procedure; failure to call; filing.
The procedure for calling a grand jury by petition of the registered voters of the county shall be as follows:
(1) The petitions shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the district court, comply with the requirements in section 29-1401, and be filed without a filing fee;
(2) Upon receipt of such petitions, the clerk of the district court shall forthwith certify the petitions so filed to the county clerk or election commissioner in the county in which the signers of such petitions are registered to vote and shall request that the signatures on such petitions be validated according to the list of registered voters;
(3) The county clerk or election commissioner shall, within thirty days after receipt of such petitions, determine the number of valid signatures appearing on such petitions and certify the findings along with the total vote cast for Governor at the most recent election for such office in such county to the presiding judge of the district court in which the petitions were filed;
(4) The presiding judge of the district court shall, upon receipt of the certificate from the county clerk or election commissioner, examine the petitions and within fifteen days after the receipt thereof shall determine: (a) Whether the requisite number of valid signatures appear on such petitions; and (b) whether the formal requirements as to the form of the petition have been satisfied;
(5) The determination of sufficiency of the petitions by the presiding judge shall be based solely upon the certification of valid signatures by the county clerk or election commissioner and upon the presiding judge’s personal examination of the form of the petitions. No additional evidence shall be considered by the presiding judge in making the determination of sufficiency and under no circumstances shall any petitioner be required to testify or otherwise present evidence relating to allegations contained in the petitions;
(6) Upon a determination that the requisite number of valid signatures appeared on the petitions and that the petitions otherwise were sufficient as to form, the presiding judge shall call a grand jury forthwith;
(7) If the presiding judge of the district court fails to make a determination as to the sufficiency of the petitions and fails to call a grand jury within fifteen days after the date of delivery of the petitions to the presiding judge, the clerk of the district court shall immediately call a grand jury pursuant to law, notwithstanding the fact that the presiding judge of the district court failed to determine sufficiency of the petitions and did not call the grand jury; and
(8) If the presiding judge or clerk of the district court fails to call a grand jury, the petitioners may file an immediate request with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, or in his or her absence, with any judge thereof, and request that the Chief Justice or judge review the petitions and certifications and call a grand jury. If the Chief Justice or judge of the Supreme Court determines sufficiency of the petitions according to law, the Chief Justice or judge shall order the clerk of the district court to call a grand jury.


Nevada is one of six states that allow citizens to collect signatures on petitions in order to request a county grand jury to convene. NRS 6.130 (Nevada Revised Statutes) governs the process.

An affidavit to summon a grand jury must be filed with the clerk by a committee of petitioners consisting of five registered voters from the county in question. No later than 180 days after the affidavit has been filed, a petition must be filed containing the signatures of registered voters equal in number to at least 25 percent of the number of voters voting within the county at the last preceding general election.
The county clerk is given 20 days from the time that petition is filed to scrutinize and certify the signatures as legal and numerically sufficient. If the petition is deemed to be sufficient, the clerk presents a certificate to that effect to the county court, which must then convene the grand jury requested by the petition.

Permissible summoning of grand jury by filing of affidavit or petition by taxpayer
NRS 6.130 says:

“In any county, if the statute of limitations has not run against the person offending, the district judge may summon a grand jury after an affidavit or verified petition by any taxpayer of the county accompanied by and with corroborating affidavits of at least two additional persons has been filed with the clerk of the district court, setting forth reasonable evidence upon which a belief is based that there has been a misappropriation of public money or property by a public officer, past or present, or any fraud committed against the county or state by any officer, past or present, or any violation of trust by any officer, past or present. The district judge shall act upon the affidavit or petition within 5 days. If he fails or refuses to recall or summon a grand jury, the affiant or petitioner may proceed as provided in NRS 6.140.

Summoning of grand jury by filing of petition by committee of registered voters
NRS 6.132 A committee of petitioners consisting of five registered voters may commence a proceeding to summon a grand jury pursuant to this section by filing with the clerk of the district court an affidavit.


No enabling legislation located.

Rule 7:2-2 Issuance of Arrest Warrant or Summons (New Jersey Court Rule)
(a) Authorization for Process.

Citizen Complaint. An arrest warrant or a summons on a complaint charging any offense made by a private citizen may be issued only by a judge or, if authorized by the judge, by a municipal court administrator or deputy court administrator of a court with jurisdiction in the municipality where the offense is alleged to have been committed within the statutory time limitation. The arrest warrant or summons may be issued only if it appears to the judicial officer from the complaint, affidavit, certification or testimony that there is probable cause to believe that an offense was committed, the defendant committed it, and an arrest warrant or summons can be issued. The judicial officer’s finding of probable cause shall be noted on the face of the summons or warrant and shall be confirmed by the judicial officer’s signature issuing the arrest warrant or summons. If, however, the municipal court administrator or deputy court administrator finds that no probable cause exists to issue an arrest warrant or summons, or that the applicable statutory time limitation to issue the arrest warrant or summons has expired, that finding shall be reviewed by the judge. A judge finding no probable cause to believe that an offense occurred or that the statutory time limitation to issue an arrest warrant or summons has expired shall dismiss the complaint.

The rule was addressed in a decided case in New Jersey. Because a citizen has no authority to issue a summons, rule 7:2-2(a)(1) requires a judge or judicial officer to determine that “there is probable cause to believe that an offense was committed and the defendant has committed it. Before a summons can be issued on a citizen complaint. conversely, when a law enforcement officer makes a complaint, as in this case “[a] summons…may be issued by [that] officer without a finding by a judicial officer of probable cause.” R. 7:2-2(a)(2); see also Gonzalez, supra, 114 N. J. at 605-06, 556 A. 2d at 329-30 (holding that neither public policy nor state or federal constitutions require independent determination of probable cause to support traffic ticket issued by law enforcement officer.)

State v. Fisher 180 N. J. 462, 468-469, 852 A. 2d 1074, 1078, 2004 N. J. LEXIS 713, 15-16 (N. J. 2004).


New Jersey’s Crimes Against Public Administration
New Jersey has laws against perversity the administration of law by means of any independently unlawful act. See below:
New Jersey Statutes 2C:29-1. Obstructing administration of law or other governmental function.

2C:29-1. Obstructing administration of law or other governmental function. a) A person commits an offense if he purposely obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from lawfully performing an official function by means of flight, intimidation, force, violence, or physical interference or obstacle, or by means of any independently unlawful fact. This section does not apply to failure to perform a legal duty other than an official duty, or any other means of avoiding compliance with law without affirmative interference with governmental functions.
b) An offense under this section is a crime of the fourth degree if the actor obstructs the detection or investigation of a crime or the prosecution of a person for a crime, otherwise it is a disorderly persons offense.
L. 1978, c. 95, amended 1986, c. 34, 2000, c. 18, s. 1

Add in changes of criminal conspiracy to violate the right to free expression guaranteed by the New Jersey and federal constitutions, if applicable.

New Jersey Criminal Code 2C:30-2 also provides the avenue for bringing charges of official misconduct against “public servants” who abuse citizens.

2C:30-2. Official Misconduct. A public servant is guilty of official misconduct when, with purpose to obtain a benefit for himself or another or to injure or to deprive another of a benefit:

a. he commits an act relating to his office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of his official functions, knowing that such act is unauthorized or he is committing such act in an unauthorized manner; or
b. he knowingly refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon him by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of his office.

Official misconduct is a crime of the second degree. If the benefit obtained or sought to be obtained, or of which another is deprived or sought to be deprived, is of a value of $200.00 or less, the offense of official misconduct is a crime of the third degree.


New Mexico is one of six states that allow citizens to collect signatures on petitions in order to request a county grand jury to convene.
The process is governed by Article II, Section 14, of the New Mexico constitution, which states in part:

“A grand jury shall be convened upon order of a judge of court empowered to try and determine cases of capital, felonious or infamous crimes at such times as to him shall be deemed necessary, or a grand jury shall be ordered to convene by such judge upon the filing of a petition there[of] signed by not less than the greater of two hundred registered voters or two percent of the registered voters of the county, or a grand jury may be convened in any additional manner as may be prescribed by law.”

Criminal Conspiracy – NM Stat. § 30-28-2


No enabling legislation located.

North Carolina is a state which has perhaps empowered its citizens unlike any other. You’ll read on the website that “the law that allows self-initiated arrest warrants in North Carolina is a topic of contentious debate.”

The NC general statute that makes such arrest warrants possible is 15A-304, which says that judicial officials, which in most cases is the magistrate, may issue an arrest warrant if they are provided with sufficient information to make an independent judgment that there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested committed it.”

Thus, with one trip to the courthouse, if the judge or clerk magistrate agrees with you, you can not only charge a bureaucrat with a crime, but order him or her to be arrested.

What could you charge a bureaucrat with?
The most obvious is criminal conspiracy. In order to be convicted of a North Carolina conspiracy offense, a defendant must be shown to have “entered into an unlawful intervention for the criminal purpose alleged. There are three elements of a conspiracy offense: (1) “that the defendant and [another] entered into an agreement” (2) that the agreement was to commit a crime and that (3) the conspirators intended that the criminal conspiracy go forward at the time that the conspiracy was made. United States v. White 571 F3d 305 (4th Cir. N. C. 2009), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 12-24.
For hypothetical purposes, let us say that you were the victim of a reprisal for exercising your right to free speech and freedom of the press, which is guaranteed by Section 14 of the North Carolina Declaration of Rights and deprived of equal protection of the law in violation of Section 19 of the North Carolina Declaration of Rights.
North Carolina has a common law offense of “abuse of public office” dating back to 1800! See State v. Glasgon N. C. 264, which has never been reversed.

North Carolina has another law which makes perjury a felony in any deposition or affidavit duly administered or concerning any matter whereof such person is lawfully required to be sworn or affirmed (North Carolina statute § 14-209).

This would be an effective tool to use against a government official that offers false charges.

N. C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-626(d) “Any person not called as a witness who desires to testify before the grand jury concerning a criminal matter… must apply to the district attorney or to a superior court judge. The judge or the district attorney in his discretion may call the witness to appear before the grand jury.”

North Carolina has a statute, N. C. Gen Stat. 15A-304, which says that court magistrates can issue arrest warrants of they are provided with “sufficient information, based on oath or affirmation, to make an independent judgment that there is a probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested committed it.”

North Carolina also has many statutory offenses under the category of “crimes against public administration,” ranging from falsely swearing on public reports to misuse of confidential information, see North Carolina statutes Chapter 14, Article 31. These appear to be limited to state or county officials.



North Dakotans have the right to convene grand juries by petition. See North Dakota Century Code 29-101.1-04


North Dakota Century Code 12.1-06-04
Criminal Conspiracy
Official Oppression CC: 12.1-1401


Yes, by petition. See Article 2. Sec. 18 of the Oklahoma Constitution and 38 O.S. 1991 101-108.

Official Misconduct Criminal Code Section 21-343


Yes: Pennsylvania is a politically volatile state and one which “enjoys” significant scrutiny by government officials of its activists.

If those governmental officials go too far and cross the constitutional boundaries between legitimate law enforcement and harassment, there are remedies.
Pennsylvania has a rule that permits citizens to approach D.A.s with affidavits concerning criminal conduct.
Rule 506. Approval of private complaints
(A) When the affiant is not a law enforcement officer, the complaint shall be submitted to an attorney for the Commonwealth, who shall approve or disapprove it without unreasonable delay.
(B) If the attorney for the Commonwealth:
(1) approves the complaint, the attorney shall indicate this decision on the complaint form and transmit it to the issuing authority;
(2) disapproves the complaint, the attorney shall state the reasons on the complaint form and return it to the affiant. Thereafter, the affiant may petition the court of common pleas for review of the decision.

Comment: for the contents of a private complaint, see Rule 504. In all cases where the affiant is not a law enforcement officer, the complaint must be submitted for approval or disapproval by the attorney for the Commonwealth. The district attorney may “transmit” the complaint to the issuing authority pursuant to paragraph (B)(1) by returning it to the affiant for delivery.

Criminal Conspiracy 18 PA Cons. Stat. § 903
Official Oppression 18 PA Stat. Ann. § 5301


Code Ann. §40-12-104(a) “any person having knowledge of proof of the commission of a public offense triable or indictable in the county may testify before the grand jury.


EC TN Code Ann. §8-47-101
CC TN Code Ann. § 39-16-104
CC TN Code Ann. § 39-16-402
CC TN Code Ann. § 39-16-403
CC TN Code Ann. § 39-16-404
Criminal conspiracy, also:

Knowingly and willfully committing misconduct in office, neglecting to perform any duty enjoined upon such officer by laws of the state.

Appearing in public place in a state of intoxication produced by strong drink voluntarily taken.

Public servant, with intent to obtain a benefit or to harm another, intentionally or knowingly:

Commits an act relating to the servant’s office or employment that constitutes an unauthorized exercise of official power;

Commits an act under color of office or employment that exceeds the servant’s official power;

Refrains from performing a duty that is imposed by law or that is clearly inherent in the nature of the public servant’s office or employment;

Violates a law relating to the public servant’s office of employment, or

Receives any benefit not otherwise authorized by law (official misconduct)


Code Ann. § 20.09 “The grand jury shall inquire into all offenses liable to indictment of which any member may have knowledge, or of which they shall be informed by the attorney representing the state or any other credible person.”

Yarborough, 112 Tex. 179, 245 S. W. 676 (Tex. Comm’n App. 1922) “It is unquestionably the right, if not, in fact, the duty, of every one who has knowledge of the commission of a criminal offense… to call to the attention of the grand jury the facts within his knowledge.”

Citizens can swear out a complaint in DA’s office. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 45-018 and Article 45-019.

Texas Penal Code Title 8
Offenses Against Public Administration

Sec. 39-02 Abuse of Official Capacity

(a) a public servant commits an offense if, with intent to obtain a benefit or with intent to harm or defraud another, he intentionally or knowingly:

(1) violates a law relating to the public servant’s office or employment; or

(2) misuses government property, services, personnel, or any other thing of value belonging to the government that has come into the public servant’s custody or possession by virtue of the public servant’s office or employment.

Sec. 39.03. Official Oppression
(a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;
(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful; or
(3) intentionally subjects another to sexual harassment.
(b) For purposes of this section, a public servant acts under color of his office or employment if he acts or purports to act in an official capacity or takes advantage of such actual or purported capacity.
(c) In this section, “sexual harassment” means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, submission to which is made a term or condition of a person’s exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, either explicitly or implicitly.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor, except that an offense is a felony of the third degree if the public servant acted with the intent to impair the accuracy of data reported to the Texas Education Agency through the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) described by Section 42.006, Education Code, under a law requiring that reporting.


CC § 76-8-203
Public servant, with an intent to benefit himself or another or to harm another, knowingly commits an unauthorized act which purports to be an act of his office, or knowingly refrains from performing a duty imposed on him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office (Official misconduct; unauthorized acts of failure of duty)

[EDITORS NOTE:  This is being republished as it is important that it reach as many as possible, in our opinion also the image was missing in the last News Letter.]

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply