Tuesday, April 3, 2012

OK for Government Witnesses to Lie to Grand Jury: Supreme Court

Dees Illustration
Joe Wright
Activist Post

The Supreme Court continues to erode every protection Americans have come to expect as their guarantee under the law of the land, known as the U.S. Constitution.

In addition to ruling 5-4 this week to allow prison strip searches for minor offenses, they now have ruled that government witnesses -- informants -- can lie to Grand Juries and, in so doing, will be immune from civil lawsuits by the wrongfully accused.

Justice Alito concurred with the strip search opinion above, and he is at the forefront of this current ruling, which I believe sets a horrible precedent that lying even to a Grand Jury carries no penalty whatsoever.

The ruling makes an argument that Grand Jury cases often involve violent criminal elements, which seek to go after witnesses, and that civil lawsuits would only seek to publish their identity, putting witnesses in harm's way.  Furthermore, Alito argued that suits could deliberately be filed specifically to uncover a particular identity.

While this particular reasoning seems logical at first glance, the case upon which this ruling was established was not one where the above scenario would apply.  In other words, the precedent-setting case is one that establishes the broadest possible framework.  The case is Rehberg vs. Paul in which:

The civil suit had targeted an investigator for a Georgia district attorney who testified that accountant Charles Rehberg had harassed officials at Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital. Rehberg claims the investigator lied, and he started the investigation as a favor to the hospital after Rehberg sent a series of faxes criticizing its management. The investigator had testified before three grand juries in a matter of months, resulting in three indictments that were each dismissed. (Source)
This only illustrates the type of behavior that is bound to take place under such a system of mandated lying: an increasing number of indictments with an increasing number of case dismissals -- once again burdening the judicial system and taxpayers with a growing pool of the wrongfully accused.

While the Supreme Court ruled unanimously, some of my questions are echoed in the first two comments to be received at the ABA Journal website where the ruling was announced:
Joe writes:
Am I missing something here? If, hypothetically, a witness was caught lying, and is prosecuted for perjury, the defendant who was wrongly accused/imprisoned wouldn’t have the right to sue? How would barring that defendant the right to sue discourage people from acting as witnesses? If you tell the truth, there should be no reason for you to be afraid of a lawsuit.
JR writes:
Did it ever occur to Justice Alito and his ivory tower colleagues that, through subpoenas, parties can compel witnesses to testify?  Immunity only fosters lying.  As for perjury, the court should read its own precedents to see the difficulties of prosecution. As the NY Times wrote, this court has fewer judges with practical experience than in history.
The U.S. Constitution is a document that is supposed to guarantee that one is innocent until proven guilty.  This ruling by the Supreme Court seems to completely invert that concept and give license to false indictments, without recourse to those who have been brought in under some level of presumed guilt. You can read the full opinion here:  PDF.

What do you think about this ruling? Please leave your comments below.

Read other articles by Joe Wright here

You can support this information by voting on Reddit:  http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/rrok9/ok_for_government_witnesses_to_lie_to_grand_jury/


This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.


If you enjoy our work, please donate to keep our website going.


Anonymous said...

this is exactly why america has to turn things around at the local level -- look at these clowns!

Anonymous said...

What "government"????The district of corruption is NOT a part of the united States And has NO jurisdiction on the States.Wake up people.They are flim-flammers using trickery on all of you.

Anonymous said...

The conservative justices (what a misnomer) obviously do not believe in democracy and are trying to kill it. For this alone, they should be impeached!

Very Dumb Government said...

I don't like to be so negative, but the court system is an intellectual sewer. It never has risen to the level most of us thought of in school. In fact, those who work in the government are as the excrement of little chickens born out of wedlock.
It is best to just stay away from these people if it is at all possible. I don't think voting does any good, because you'll get the same creeps just the style will be different.
I believe that the Constitution of the United States is an evil document because of the use of the oath in two places. It is the oath that starts the it.

With that in mind, nothing good will come from any state that uses it.

Anonymous said...

Does anybody really think that a judge who was specifically picked by any of the last few presidents would have any integrity or honor? They were certainly all picked to continue their tyrannical agenda. That is why I would be surprised to see Obamacare overturned.

Anonymous said...

When you wake-up and realise that all the statutes/rules/codes/laws(ha,ha)apply only to you,will you come to understand the fraud being committed against you!!!.In reality all of the above mentioned apply only to them that have taken the oath of office or similar ceremony that applies in your country.You are part of a community and not a society,unless of course you have joined one knowingly having received full disclosure.The laws of society bind them,not you!unless you consent!!remember that word!!it's very important!!!!!
god bless

Anonymous said...

I think we are living in a country where the rule of law, ethics, morality and every scrap of the Constitution and Bill of Rights has been trampled. Corporate greed rules the government, and judges without honor sit on benches across the country--most especially on the "Supreme Court". I no longer recognize this country.

Anonymous said...

If they are concerned about threats against the witness, then let that witness testify in a separate room, behind a one-way window and distort voice recognition. A video camera, placed in this room, would suffice for proper court recording.

Rick Carufel said...

This clearly shows the Supreme Court has been compromised and are traitors to the American people and the Constitution which they have sworn to uphold. By violating their oaths they have shown they are no longer fit to rule on cases and need to be removed post haste. This is clearly completely inappropriate behavior and grounds for instant removal. They have betrayed their country and the Constitution, commited treason and are traitors to this country. Off to Gitmo with them for a little waterboard re-education.

Anonymous said...

Courts are now businesses, find somebody guilty preferably with money or property, and if he is not, find a way to fine him or send him to a private jail, can buy witnesses, liers, any way to get his money. More at :__legalized corruption___ www.canobs.livejournal.com

Anonymous said...

Judges, prosecutor, politicians, and most presidents are/were lawyers. The lawyers are enslaving the people of the US for their lack of legal knowledge, now they are making tyranny legal. I have a feeling everyone will burn at FEMA camps.

nyctreeman said...

It's pretty much been that way forever....so what's the big deal really?

cases often involve violent criminal elements, which seek to go after witnesses, and that civil lawsuits would only seek to publish their identity, putting witnesses in harm's way.
Furthermore, Alito argued that suits could deliberately be filed specifically to uncover a particular identity.

haven't read the entire ruling yet, but it looks like this prevents suits designed to ID witnesses before the disposition of a case.

I seriously doubt whether this ruling is going to stop people from being prosecuted for the crime of giving false evidence or testimony.

I don't see how preventing a specific kind of suit PRIOR to case dispositions is going to affect the process I just described.

Perjury is still a crime, and will continue to be prosecuted, so there really is no motive provided in this ruling to "lie your ass off", because the ruling only protects the "witness" prior to disposition of the case at hand.

Once that process is concluded, charges of perjury could still be leveled, and law suits in civil court could still go forward.

This sounds like the usual hysteria to me, quite frankly.

Anonymous said...

These evil bastards have no authority over any Americans. They are completely treasonous and when they decided to lie to us about Planet X, they lost any and all authority over us. Shit like this makes me look forward to the total annihilation of America by the SCO, the same day as the next false flag to invade America.

Anonymous said...

Any law repugnant to the Constitution is Null and void in Law..Furthermore,a previous poster was right..When you realize the so called laws ,,statutes,codes,,etc apply to them who have sworn to uphold them,,and not a non corporate man, or woman,,not a corporate fictional all cap letter name.This is who we acquiesce into out of ignorance..

ChewyBees said...

All law is contract. Even the constitution is a social contract, binding 'we the people' to a form of government, outlined in the various articles and amendments of the document. If you can, read the constitution and see if you can find where there is a prescription for an all encompassing Federal banking powerhouse to operate as national dictatorship and overseer.

How can there be a single national statute, code, rule etc. that is not in violation of the constitution? What are amendments for? Is there any use for a Bill of Rights if millions of legislative acts can be used to chip away at it until it is dust?

I want you to ask yourself how is it that you are bound via contract to the constitution. Is your signature on it? Have you sworn oath to it publicly? Has anyone, really? We hear of oaths of office from politicos and military men, but wouldn't their actions be far different if they were truly upholding and defending that doc?

How are you contracted to any law? Did you read it, comprehend it and sign it, along with every other living man? How can a stranger make a law and bind you to it without your direct consent, w/out full disclosure, w/out coercion or prejudice? The truth is they can't, except by presumption of your complete acceptance. Since no one argues the authority of government and its actions, they presume you agree and therefore they treat you as their property. It's a pretty easy setup for them, and if you alone start making waves, they can just beat the hell out of you or shoot you or taser or torture or whatever gets their rocks off. Do that to one or a few men and the masses cower behind drawn shades. History has proven it.

For its entire existence, America has boasted of the ingenuity, bravery, and righteousness of its system and its people. The true test of that is coming in apocalyptic glory. The point of the bayonet will be placed against all of our hearts, and we will all have to decide if we are life to be championed or servants to a trading company. Do we choose to lay down for the lives of each other, or do we get in line to climb into master's boxcars, anthems playing, flags flying and misty eyed zombies hoping there's a stop for a pink goo big mac and shamrock shake.

apeman2502 said...

The SCOTUS is so immoral, they believe our troops are O.K. with murdering people over lies. If the military wants to take the SCOTUS who voted for this decision out behind the SCOTUS building and issue blindfolds, don't let ME stop you. And don't let me stop you from coming home if you are sick of killing and you refuse to murder for a few cents an hour.

Anonymous said...


So in essence the Court now says that it is now legal for the government to commit a crime to protect.......anyone they deem necessary. This of course means that they can lie or have a designate lie to the grand jury to protect the themselves. So I guess this is the legalized version of the get out of jail free card .Now the 1% don't even have to bother going to trial. They get to legally corrupt the system of due process before it ever gets to a jury. Wow that means that the 1% no longer has to answer to the people. Think of the possibilities here people. That means all those crimes that the FED, the Treasury and Wall Street have committed will never ever go to trial. There will never ever be any public awareness. After all those grand jury events are always under gag orders. That means that war criminals like most of the Bush administration and much of Obama's will never ever have to pay for their crimes. In a way this is even better than making corporations people!!!!!

What it does mean is that there is now legally 2 distinct classes of "citizens" within the United States. On the one hand we have the 1% and corporations protected by law and the power of the state. And on the other hand we have the workers, the people paying for all this largess granted to the 1% who don't have the protections under the law. And we don't have the power of the state protecting us. In fact it is just the opposite the job of the state now is clearly to protect the 1% from the rest of us.

Who would have thought that America would so quickly degenrate into an apartheid state? Money of course being the new religion

Anonymous said...

I would replace all legally astute judges on the court for ones with an ounce of common sense. Such judges would be worth their weight in gold.

Anonymous said...

Who is threatening all of these people to make them think and act like "dirt" should be respected for it's age old wisdom?

Anonymous said...

Big Al says: Witnesses testify under oath, and must be prosecuted for perjury when they lie. To deny recourse for a tort of such magnitude is indicative of a judicial mind tormented by fear, bribery and, perhaps, contraband substances.It is absurd to deny a constitutional right on the ground that the plaintiff might become the target of a criminal defendant.

Anonymous said...

that is not a new ruling no witness can be prosecuted for even a blatant lie on the witness stand per the long standing ruling in Haines v Kermer

non501cchurches said...

If pastors were more afraid of god than the IRS, they would wake up the people and tyranny by the three branches of government would not be happening because the people wouldn't stand for it. Churches need to get out of the 501c tax emption and pay their taxes and preach the Word of God like they did in 1776.

non501cchurches said...

Pastors need to pay their taxes and get out of the 501c tax exemption status and start preaching the Word of God again like they did in 1776. If they did a lot of this stuff wouldn't be happening because the people would wake up.

bloodyspartan said...

The time has come to get dispose of all of them.

NO more, lawyers are evil.

Anonymous said...

Part and parcel of the ensuing social unrest that is being pushed to the hilt. Someone should remind them of the French Revolution, but with the stupidity exhibited, it wouldn't matter. What a waste.

Call Me Mom said...

Have they been taking lessons from islam in taqiyya and maruna or what?

Post a Comment