All Episodes
Previous Next
June 5, 1995 - Bill Cooper
58:50
Kansas – Common Law Grand Jury[Q]
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
*Dramatic Music* He was a young man in his thirties.
Once upon a time, there was a group of young men.
Oh, yeah.
See.
Oh, yeah.
I'm William Cooper.
the the you're listening to the hour of the time i'm william cooper well folks uh...
the conference is over Everybody drug out of here between Saturday morning and sometime this morning.
And after the all-night session Friday night, Saturday morning was finished, I hit the rack and I stayed there.
That plum wore me out.
In the meantime, in Kansas, something was going on.
And I'm going to read you the press release that came out dated June 4th, 1995.
It says, and I quote, Let the record show your National Common Law Grand Jury, having convened in Wichita, Kansas on June 3rd, 1995, heard testimony and reviewed evidence to require the government show just cause within sixty days
As to why it has operated outside the clear bounds of the Constitution of these United States of America since March 9, 1933, under the pretense of a national emergency.
A war measure known as the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, was used to usurp the constitutionally secured rights of the American people.
Section 5B of this Act was amended to include almost all domestic transactions placing the American people in the same class with alien enemies.
Thus allowing the federal government to rule by statute in all cases whatsoever.
That evening, 8.15 p.m.
Central Time, in closed deliberations, the juror from New York made a motion to the jury for a yes or no vote on the question, Do we have sufficient evidence to require the government to show just cause?
It was also understood that more evidence could be considered and added later.
The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
The National Common Law Grand Jury, they voted unanimously That they did have sufficient evidence and spent the rest of the evening working on the wording of their finding of facts, pending final approval Sunday morning.
And so it begins.
On this historic day, June 4th, 1995, the National Common Law Grand Jury proclaimed their finding of facts to their country and the world and recorded their proceedings on videotape for posterity.
So let the word go forth to friend and foe alike, that a new generation of Americans have picked up the torch of liberty to proclaim, Let freedom ring, let freedom ring.
End quote.
Nothing like originality at the end of that.
I think they plagiarized a part of John F. Kennedy's famous inauguration speech.
Well, is that really what happened, ladies and gentlemen?
See, I was invited to attend that, and I didn't go because I had great reservations.
Quite a bit of resolution, which I voiced to many different people.
And I was concerned and talked to some of the leaders who would be there about my concerns about the evidence being presented concerning the United Nations Treaty, UN Participation Act, and the resolutions and treaties and involvements and the Bretton Woods and all of these things that basically make all these other things sort of inconsequential.
We're going to find out, because tonight we're going to talk to one of the jurors who sat on this so-called Common Law Grand Jury, and before, they assured me that it would be a Common Law Grand Jury.
I've since found out that it was not a Common Law Grand Jury, and that there may have been an awful lot done under the table, or over the table, that was wrong.
Don't go away.
We'll be right back, and you want to hear every bit of this, I guarantee you.
Thank you.
I know that all the Sureinä Everybody knows Everybody knows
You love me baby Everybody knows That you really do And everybody knows That you don't think Oh, people are You may go too Everybody knows To the fingers To the devil
So man I can't Never have to Out your clothes To the hands To the devil Ladies and gentlemen we have with us tonight Kurt Howarth and his wife Sonia who were at the Wichita, Kansas Common Law Grand Jury meeting and we're going to be discussing for the rest the hour with them."
What was supposed to happen, what they went there to try to accomplish, and then, in their estimation, in their viewpoint, what actually happened.
So, welcome to the Hour of the Time.
Good evening, Bill.
Hi, Bill.
Hi.
First of all, let's start off, what did you know about this in the beginning?
I mean, what did you hear about this and how did you even, how did you get involved in it?
Well, the first that I heard of this was on your program, as a matter of fact, in your interview with James Schroeder.
I'm familiar with the War Powers information that he's doing a good job of trying to educate people into.
He does an excellent job.
He does.
I felt like this would be an opportunity to try to help straighten the problems out that we all know are in this country today.
So, I guess before I go any further, it was a toss-up after you announced your conference whether we would go do what we believe to be our constitutional duty to work on for your educational conference.
But, as you know, you know what went on out here.
Yes, and of course that's an individual choice and people have to make those kinds of choices.
What made you feel that that was going to be something significant?
Basically, Gene Schroeder added a great amount of credibility to it, in my mind.
Well, you know, Gene Schroeder was not one of the organizers of that.
Well, I didn't realize that at the time, Bill, but I do know that now.
He was actually called to present the evidence of what he knew about the War Powers Act.
And based upon that, all of us thought that there was going to be a line of evidence produced right up to the present day, which showed, of course, the treason and subversion of the How about you Sonia?
What did you think going into this?
Why did you go?
Well, the reason I went is I feel like that we have every responsibility to try to exercise every opportunity we can to peacefully the reason I went is I feel like that we have every responsibility And I felt like this was one way of making a lawful attempt at doing that.
I didn't know what would come from it, but I felt like it was a chance to lawfully try to remedy a problem and make our voice heard that there was a problem.
Now, both of you, I know, have had the background in at least a cursory, if not more, if not a deeper level of examination of the common law and the law that was in existence when this nation was founded and how it's been perverted and how Article III courts if not a deeper level of examination of the common law and the law that was in existence when this nation was Thank you.
We've been studying these kinds of issues for several years now.
And try to pursue any information that appears legitimate in an effort to try to get a full understanding as to what's going on.
And that was what this attempt was.
This is why I followed Kirk's suggestion and was supportive of him of wanting to go.
I didn't know much about it.
We obviously didn't have enough questions before we got there, but we went anyway with the intentions of trying to see some things come on the table.
With the knowledge that you already possess, what did you think was going to happen when you got there?
What did you see happening?
You must have had some idea.
Before we went?
Yes.
Do you want to answer that first?
Well, I felt, I wasn't quite sure how it was going to be administered.
I didn't know if it would be a single grand jury or if they would convene several to hear different issues.
I actually was under the impression that it was going to be for indictment purposes.
It turned out it was only for alleged presentment purposes.
I really didn't know who all the parties that would be named in the The accusations, I had some suspicions that obviously it would be Bill Clinton and his staff possibly, maybe some Congress members, so on and so on.
Spitting in the wind.
Those are just the front men.
I understand that.
They're just the puppets.
They're not the ones who brought all this about.
They're the weak links who do what they're told and they're rewarded handsomely for that in whatever way strokes their ego or fills their pockets or makes them feel like Whatever makes them feel like doing that kind of thing.
I think quite a few of us realize that but as we've progressed in what we're doing what we've come to realize is that there are many people that are aware of what's going on and there are a lot of people that aren't aware of what's going on and a lot of congressmen are clueless and I know in my mind I thought this would be a good opportunity Well, I agree with you 100%.
to get some of this information at their feet, although I know that attempt has been many times.
Pride, just one more time.
I don't think you can ever stop trying to wake people up, and that's kind of what was in the back of my mind.
Well, I agree with you 100%.
We can never stop trying, and we have to take every avenue that we possibly can.
Did you think that it was kind of strange that they were going to present all this evidence over, well, actually since about 1913 all the way up to the present day, and they were going to do all this on one day?
Yes.
I was very concerned over the fact that it was a weekend.
I mentioned that several times to Kirk.
But, you know, we went with an open mind.
We wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt and we just went with an open mind.
I didn't realize that this thing was going to be more along the lines of a conference rather than a grand jury.
I fully expected to have at least two full days going in and possibly even more time if the grand jury needed more deliberation.
I went with that mindset.
That was one of my main objections to the whole thing and one of the reasons why I didn't go because I knew that that can't be done.
with a decision all within a six to eight hour period of time, or give or take an hour or two.
That was one of my main objections to the whole thing and one of the reasons why I didn't go, because I knew that that can't be done.
There could not be one single juror sitting on that jury who could adequately understand what was presented, nor would there be time for the evidence that needed to be presented.
And of course, as we discussed earlier, it wasn't.
And so how this thing could be done legitimately rather than symbolically was beyond my comprehension.
In fact, I was so concerned about it that I made my concerns known to several of the leaders And they assured me that that would not be the case and that all the evidence would be properly presented and there would be time for the jury to assess what it meant and be able to deliberate on it.
When did you guys arrive there?
And that was the night before everything took place?
Yes, sir.
And as you voiced to me, there was a great air of optimism and everybody was really excited about what was going on.
What occurred the next morning?
How long did this optimism hold?
Well, in all truthfulness, Bill, the optimism held all the way through the concert.
There was a certain amount of electricity in the air.
You could feel it.
I'm speaking uplifting and optimistic and people there were full of hope that we were actually going to accomplish something with this.
So why don't you start at the beginning of the day and let's go through it and we've got a whole hour so let's make sure that we give justice to everybody concerned in this and tell everything that happened exactly the way it happened so that the listeners will have an idea of what transpired there and what's likely to come of this.
Let me preface this by stating that I truly believe that definitely the majority of the people there, their intentions were true.
They have good hearts.
Some pretty sharp minds were there in different fields and obviously along the large field.
We met some people there that we're really impressed with and for that we're glad we did attend.
How did you know that to begin with?
How did you know that it wasn't going to be closed like the Grand Jury should be?
I didn't know that.
And it started appearing to me almost immediately that this really was not a closed session grand jury type of atmosphere that we thought we were going into.
How did you know that to begin with?
And how did you know that it wasn't going to be closed like a grand jury should be?
I didn't know that.
I assumed that it was.
When did you find out that it wasn't going to be closed?
Well, when we walked in, it was pretty apparent that the convention center was basically open all the way across and if they were going to convene a grand jury in secrecy, they were going to have to find some other place to put it because this is one large open building.
And the stage was set up and it was basically set up as a conference for more purposes than Grand Jury.
Uh-huh.
And we immediately amongst ourselves discussed at that time that we were a little disappointed that it wasn't what we expected to see when we walked into that area.
By the way, Sonia, if you have anything to add at any time, just jump in.
Well, my impression when we came in, I mean, I expected things to be clean and professional and someone to be in charge and to get down to business right away.
Because as you were stating, you know, we had a lot of information to cover and a lot to do in a weekend.
And it was real apparent that there was a lot of confusion.
We were hearing about people that were listed on, that had an agenda that looked like it was all speakers and so forth, which threw us, you know, we didn't come to hear speakers.
We weren't there for a rally.
We were there to convene a grand jury.
I mean, just within the first 30 minutes, it was just real clear that people weren't there that they were expecting to be there, and they just weren't able to pull it under and get it started.
And when they did, as it began, it started as speakers.
And how long did the speakers go?
Well, variously throughout the day, actually.
Now how could people be participating in this grand jury process and presenting evidence and sitting as jurors if they're expected to be listening to speakers at the same time?
Well they began with speakers and they began with speakers and kind of got everybody really motivated and then they had everybody break up according to their states.
According to their states?
Yes.
Why?
But this was supposed to be a criminal law grand jury convened in Wichita, Kansas.
What did this have to do with the states?
Well, you tell me.
There were a number of things that did not make sense.
And as it progressed, they'd move forward and make a decision and start to do something.
And then someone would say, no, this isn't right.
We should have done this first.
And then they'd back up and say, oh, yeah, that's right.
Maybe we should do this.
I mean the whole morning kind of progressed like that.
Well if they were really concerned about proper procedure I really can't find fault with that.
Well I guess I did because in my opinion for something this serious.
It should have been planned right from the first.
There should have been someone there that knew how to sit a grand jury and how to properly go about it before they laid this out and got everybody there.
There shouldn't have been decisions made on the floor by various people on the floor as to what was correct or not correct.
I think somebody should have known.
Yeah, well, you're absolutely right about that.
My point was that if they found that they were doing something wrong and then they tried to correct it, then that's the right thing to do.
But you're right.
They should have known what they were doing from the beginning.
They should have been planned.
There wasn't enough time for that kind of shenanigans.
The other thing I had fault with that was, as things progressed and I was concerned, I would question.
I went up and questioned people about certain things.
The constant excuse to me was, you know, this has never been done before.
We're all learning.
We're all in a learning experience.
You didn't believe that, did you?
No.
That's my statement.
This is not the first time this has ever been done before.
We have history behind us.
There are books to reference and court cases to reference, and I didn't agree with that.
Well, you're right, because they were wrong.
It's not the first time this has ever been done, and they are clear precedences in the books, in the law, in court cases, just exactly as you have outlined.
Now, what did these state caucuses do?
Well, it was interesting.
You know, when I walked in, I fully expected all the names to be dropped in the hats of the eligible jurors, or people eligible to be jurors, and a drawing of 23 names out of the hat to seat the grand jury from.
Well, as we arrived and we found, you know, the show went on for a little while and then they divided the state up into their state caucuses, states into their own caucuses.
Uh, requesting each of the states to select a juror and a juror alternate.
And, uh, I should clarify this.
I actually was the alternate for our state.
Anyhow, uh... But you did sit with the jury.
I did sit with the jury.
And went through all the deliberations with the jury.
The, uh, the two delegates, as we were called, were sent down from the state caucus to the stage floor or just below the stage floor where the grand jury was seated.
And immediately upon all the parties arriving, they announced that there was a quorum of the states there.
Now this sounds extremely dangerous to me.
What did they mean by a quorum of the states?
Well, in all honesty, Bill, you know, I was caught up in the time and I didn't really think clearly about it and I didn't actually think about it.
about it that seriously and it just rolled on through.
I didn't start asking those questions until later and we can get to that later if you'd like.
Okay.
So they announced that they had a quorum of the states.
Oh man.
It was just like a big rally and people were excited and they were counting how many states were there and that was just kind of a statement that flowed out of everything that was happening and of course everybody on the floor got excited.
Oh yes, you know, there's a quorum.
Nobody really thought about the meaning of those words.
A quorum has definite meaning under the law, doesn't it?
Yes, yes.
And you want to talk about that?
Well, maybe later.
Okay.
Let's keep going and maybe we can...
I heard this tremendous sigh from Kurt.
Well, as we...
As we progressed through the day, Bill, shall I continue on through?
Yes, go ahead.
As we progressed, the evidence was presented, and this was another problem that I started having because as I got back and started researching common-law grand juries, it appears to me that all the evidence and all the proceedings of the grand jury are to be in secrecy.
That's correct.
And this was wide open to the public and to the airwaves.
I feel comfortable about disclosing that because it was public.
Otherwise I would have a problem with discussing out loud across the airwaves what took place during that time frame.
But it was made public so I feel that I can do that myself.
Well, I have to interject something here.
We owe our first allegiance to the Constitution and to the Bill of Rights.
And anything that contradicts that we don't owe allegiance to.
Even if we're sworn to secrecy.
And if being sworn to secrecy and the acts being conducted behind that secrecy are illegal, are unlawful, are not right, are against the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, we have to talk about it.
I know.
I know you both.
And by the way, folks, I know these two people very well, and they are honest, very concerned people, and they certainly wouldn't be telling us these things if they didn't really have a huge, tremendous weight on their conscience about what happened in Wichita, Kansas.
So why don't you continue and tell us what happened next, and then we'll proceed from here.
Okay, I guess we should back up a second.
Immediately after convening the grand jury, we had to, went into deliberation to appoint a jury foreman.
And that appointment was made, named, excuse me, the jury foreman was named to be Daryl Freck.
He convened the grand jury, took the podium, I just want to be sure the facts are correct.
Okay, just jump right in.
Okay, it wasn't Daryl Frech that appointed his wife.
I just want to be sure the facts are correct.
Okay, just jump right in.
Okay, it wasn't Darryl Freck that appointed his wife.
One of the organizers of the event, his name was Jay Schechter, offered to the floor his wife, Mrs. Freck, as the clerk.
And he just wanted to appoint her.
And I love you, Dennis.
After that, a number of the grand jurors stood up in opposition to that and demanded that they elect their own.
There were, I believe, five nominees for that position, and Mrs. Frack didn't win.
Actually, a lady named Candace Turner did.
There were really no people asking for qualifications other than just a general statement.
One sounded basically as good as any other.
But Cannon did prevail.
This story will change towards the end here about Cannon, which is the thing that really set me off.
As the meeting progressed forward, the grand jury progressed forward, the witnesses came up.
What was her last name?
Beasley.
And she was attempting to bring evidence out to show that it was directly related to the United Nations, their activities, the power structure that's behind there, and how the war powers have evolved into putting this country subservient to the United Nations.
That's right.
Those were my main concerns and that's why I called the leaders and talked to them about that.
They assured me that this would be presented and it would be heard.
So, continue.
What happened?
Well, within three to five minutes there was a great amount of opposition to even hearing her information before she even had an opportunity to speak.
There were several of the jurors that jumped up and said we don't want to hear this and they sent her off the stage in essence.
Who were the main people in opposition to her presenting this evidence?
I think it was, if I remember correctly, I think the first one that spoke up was the attorney.
I need you to speak louder, Sonia.
I can barely hear you.
I believe that they had assigned a man to be sort of the advisor to the proceedings.
Is that correct?
That would be a correct statement.
And I don't recall his name.
He was, I think, from California, and he was either an ex-attorney.
I think he was an ex-attorney.
And he was the first gentleman that stood up and interrupted Ms.
Beasley within the first three or four minutes of her beginning to testify and stopped her and said that her evidence was not pertinent and they were here only to hear evidence directly related to the war powers.
And then the jury foreman backed him up.
And needless to say, they set her down and they ended up bringing another witness to discuss the monetary system and how it's been affected by the Federal Reserve.
Then the third witness I believe that stuck up was Gene Slaughter.
Gene Slaughter did a good presentation, as you would expect.
basically covered the war powers.
He did it rather fast, entered a number of documents into the evidence.
And there was another witness that took Larry B. Crafts' place who was making a presentation.
Yeah, yeah.
And I'm not sure what the...
I think Larry prepared a letter for him to read.
And basically that's what he did.
He worked for them.
I believe he worked for Ray B. Kraft's letter.
As, I guess, a hearsay witness, if you want to call it that.
Right, somewhere in the midst of all that.
Now let me ask you something that we skipped.
How many grand jurors were there?
I'm sorry, I should have said that.
There were 32 states represented there.
And there were 32 alternate jurors.
There may have been one or two states that only had the primary juror and not the alternate.
I don't recall specifically.
So there were at least 32 primary grand jurors and almost that many alternates.
Now, how many are supposed to sit on a grand jury?
Twenty-three, the best I can tell from my research.
And it's never been more, and it should be never less than twelve.
Okay.
Okay, let's pick up where you left off.
I just wanted the listening audience to know that from the get-go, this thing was all wrong.
Right.
That's right.
Are we still on there, Bill?
Yeah, I'm sure we are.
Okay.
So... Wait a minute, let's take a little break here.
Take a couple minutes and I'm going to do my thing here.
Be right back folks, don't go away.
There is a war between a rich and poor A war between the man and the woman There is a war between the one Who savor the war and the one who savor the war
What's going on?
What's the reason of that war?
Once we come on Back to the wall Ah, yes, I live here with a woman and a child The situation makes me kind of new Well, ladies and gentlemen, you already know that time is money.
Thank you.
But I want to tell you about the greatest money of all time, gold.
It's real money, and unlike dollar bills or blips on a computer screen, Gold alone has stood the test of time, and now it's time to seize a golden opportunity.
Before time runs out, you see, folks, today we're living on borrowed time and borrowed money.
But that can't last forever.
Substance, you see, always triumphs over symbolism in the long run.
So here's my advice.
Put time on your side.
Call Swiss America for a copy of Real Money Perspectives, their latest newsletter.
That's Real Money Perspectives.
Call 1-800-289-2646.
That's 1-800-289-2646.
1-800-289-2646.
That's 1-800-289-2646.
Ask for your copy of Real Money Perspectives.
It will untangle the reasons why the dollar keeps plunging and quality gold coins keep rising as much as 35% in just the last year.
Call 1-800-289-2646 right now for this valuable resource.
Supplies are limited, folks, so don't procrastinate.
Don't delay.
Don't waste time.
Remember, time is money.
Call 1-800-289-2646.
Take it from me.
Time may represent money, ladies and gentlemen, but gold is real money.
Thank you.
Thank you.
To the wall.
You know.
What do we got, my boy?
Beautiful.
You cannot send what I've been calling.
What's the perfect gentleman I would propose?
I was so easy to the beat.
I was so easy to control.
I couldn't even know, yeah, what they saw.
But don't you come on over to the wall.
I saw you come on Well, we're back.
Kurt, Sonny, are you there?
Yes, sir.
Alright, let's continue.
What happened next?
Anyhow, we then retired into deliberation and basically we just occupied one corner of the convention center there.
The grand jury was presented a proposed presentment for show cause.
Or show cause presentment, probably proper.
And basically I think they expected us just to sign it and turn it back and then true bill it or whatever you want to call it and then go ahead and adjourn the grand jury.
That didn't happen.
The grand jury ended up picking this particular document apart which was in excess of 60 pages.
The deliberations went until 10 o'clock Saturday night and the better part of the day on Sunday as a matter of fact.
During the deliberations and coming in and out of the breaks, and of course the main convention was ongoing and we could hear a lot of what was going on because we literally could see most of it from where we were.
Periodically, especially on Sunday morning, I started seeing a lot of frantic activity going on in and around the newly appointed court clerk.
And, um, numbers of people started gathering and, um, Daryl Fregg was called out of the grand jury to go meet with him.
Shortly thereafter, I followed to find out what was going on.
And there was some major discrepancies by the court clerk.
She was refusing to accept some of the documents and enter them on the docket sheet as it was prepared and given to her.
She was concerned that it actually took us into Admiralty jurisdiction and she kept expressing her opinion.
They confided in a Dennis Smith which apparently has some knowledge of common law litigation.
The net result of that, I don't really know because I ended up after about five minutes expressing my primary concern because I did see that they were moving us into a legislative tribunal or comparing us to a legislative tribunal, which I had a real problem with.
And then I expressed that opinion and I went and returned back into the deliberations.
Deliberations proceeded through the day.
Everybody felt like we finally resolved some of these issues that we each had.
And the final draft was finally given to us.
However, I doubt anyone really read it, but that's not fair to say.
I did not.
I did sign off on it, feeling that they had made all the corrections.
And the jury at that time, you need to understand this was getting late on Sunday.
By this time, jurors were threatening to walk out because they had airplanes to catch.
Everything was rushed and hectic.
It was an enormous amount of pressure to resolve this issue and resolve it quick because a number of jurors said we don't have to leave here in the next 30 minutes or an hour.
So basically... Those are the worst circumstances in the world.
They are.
And I felt extremely bad that we were in that position that we had to come up with that document that quick without proper time to review and That's correct.
So basically at that point the Grand Jury went out and the announcements were made of the findings of the Grand Jury and the convention at that time quickly closed up.
Another speaker I believe or two kind of gave closing remarks.
I went through a picture session and then immediately thereafter the majority of the people left and started leaving the convention center.
And that's what brings me to start questioning in my mind everything that took place.
Shortly thereafter, actually the majority of the people had already left, and I turned back and I could hear voices that were coming louder, and it was Daryl Freck and Candace Turner, which was the court clerk, discussing something.
And I walked up to listen in, and the gist of the conversation was that Daryl Freck had told Candace Turner that they had appointed Dennis Smith as her deputy in the grand jury meeting, I mean, when the grand jury was in deliberation.
And did that in fact occur?
I honestly do not recall that happening.
I think I recall Dennis Smith being appointed to be an advisor for the purpose of drafting that document, and that was the extent.
I may be wrong there, but that's what I recall, and I did bring that issue up, and Daryl Freck didn't argue, so he honestly couldn't remember either.
But what he was, in essence, demanding Candace to accept was Dennis Smith as her deputy, and to do as he told her to do.
and Candace's arguments were valid, and she basically said that she wasn't going to sign her name to anything and be liable for something that someone else created and was ordering her to do.
And I supported her in her argument there.
Well, the argument was getting louder and louder.
Isn't it extremely unorthodox for them to tell her to obey the orders of someone they had appointed as her deputy?
Yes, and I guess I should back up a second.
The whole Grand Jury was dismissed.
At that point in time, Daryl Frack had no more authority than the man in the moon.
I mean, to tell Candace anything.
She'd already been given her assignment and her duties, and it should have progressed forward and allowed her to do her job.
So he was way out of order at that point.
Then he immediately sent someone out to gather whatever Whatever jurors they could find, and he was going to reconvene that grand jury, in essence I believe, to have her dismissed.
Sounds to me like children on a playground.
Yes, but as I've kind of come to see later, she was basically the odd man out here.
She definitely had an opinion.
So they had an agenda, and her trying to do the right thing wasn't going to get in the way of that agenda.
That's my belief.
Because of the way that issue was handled, Well, a number of the jurors came back in and they were definitely pro-Durrell, so whatever he said, they backed up.
There may have been a few there that didn't, but there was no one verbally supporting her other than myself.
And the pressure was just too great.
She finally, after, I don't know, 10 or 15, 20 minutes, she finally broke down and just conceded and resigned.
I believe she resigned under duress.
But that particular instance made me start to reevaluate everything that we had just done.
On the way home, on the flight, I started talking to my wife about what she had experienced on the outside.
We started putting the pieces of the puzzle together.
This kind of led me to our conversation earlier today.
I don't believe that we were involved in a grand jury at all.
Much less a common law grand jury.
Well, after what you've told me, if everything that you've told me is true, you absolutely did not participate in a common law grand jury, or any grand jury as far as I can determine.
But you may have participated in something extremely dangerous.
Do you want to talk about that?
Yeah, I do.
From the documents and some of the things that I had seen, like on the docket sheet, which was in deliberation, Maybe Sonya should tell you about that real quick because she was on the outside during a lot of these arguments with these different parties, Dennis Smith and Candace, and she'd be better to tell you about some of those arguments.
OK.
Sonya?
I guess he's referring to the question of the docket sheet.
There were real strong objections made to the docket sheet and just because of, I don't know, I happen to be involved in all that.
The people that were involved and that were in control of everything were not concerned about the properness of the headings of that docket sheet at all.
And although they were saying that they would be willing to do whatever it was that we were wanting to do, they would not agree that it was improper, but couldn't really document
What they were saying was proper and every time we raised the issue of the impropriety of it, it was Pam Beasley who questioned it and her advisor, myself, and the clerk, Candace Turner.
We had specific problems with different parts of the wording.
I had several people come up to me and basically they said to me that this is a common law court and what counts as the intent of the people, nothing more and nothing less, and so the wording is not, you know, that we weren't making too big a deal out of it.
And I do believe that the net result of it ended up fine because they took it to the grand jury and because Kirk was in there, he was able to get them to word that, make those corrections appropriately.
However, my concern is now that Candace Turner is not the clerk anymore, will those corrections still be made on that docket sheet?
From my experience with some of these people, all kinds of things are liable to change between the time you left there and the time anyone sees those documents again.
I'm not saying that they will.
I'm saying I've seen this kind of stuff before.
Well, I don't know if they will or they won't, but I do know that we're concerned.
Because the people that were concerned about the proper wording and the proprietiness of everything are no longer involved in any of the paperwork.
All those people have been dismissed or forced to resign or no longer involved in that.
Isn't that convenient?
It's a concern.
It's a concern.
and it may not be legitimate, and if it's not, then, you know, it's okay that at least it's been resolved or been brought up and we can address it if there is no concern.
But we need to find out.
Well, I think there's always a concern when the people that you see removed from a process are those people who are most concerned about the legitimacy and the properness of the conduct of the procedure and the wording that's used in the documents.
I think that that is more than a legitimate concern.
I think it points to an agenda that may not have been legitimate from the beginning.
And I think because this whole thing was presented in two days, and such a short time was allowed for the presentation of evidence, and they convened a quorum of the states with thirty-two members sitting on a supposed common law grand jury, there could be all kinds of things at play here, all of which would be bad for the American people.
You're talking, in essence, when they use words like a quorum of states, you're talking about a constitutional convention.
Well, that issue was raised several times.
That question was made several times at several people and it was a very huge underlying current out on the floor that I don't believe any of the jurors were aware of because they were off to the side, had their own agenda that they were taking care of and they were not out on the floor seeing or feeling
Well, tell them about the speakers that were presenting the resolutions and encouraging the states to enter into caucuses for the approval of these resolutions.
Yeah, there were two speakers that carried Sunday and they began The caucuses began actually over the headings of those dockets.
The Texas caucus formed to discuss the heading of that docket.
And from there, I really never really heard actually how it happened, but all these caucuses started forming all over the floor.
And I did not hear this.
I don't know if it's true.
Someone told me that when those caucuses were starting and those speakers started to speak, that they said they began listing resolutions and that there would be a vote of the resolutions on the floor.
But later on, there was someone that came and confronted the speaker about the voting of the resolutions and whether or not this was a con-con.
And they backed down and said there would be no vote taken and everybody would go back home and discuss these issues in their own states and, you know, that was backed off.
So, I don't know if it was opened that way or not.
I did not hear the opening of the speakers and when those resolutions began, but there was definitely caucusing going on and, you know, just the whole atmosphere was very, very inappropriate.
So, they were going to present resolutions?
They did present resolutions.
Yes, they did.
But they weren't voted on?
They ended up not being voted on, whether or not they were intended to be.
Were they presented to the jury?
No.
No, they were not.
Okay, good.
Somebody.
Somebody.
They were not presented to the jury.
Well, there were a number of parties, apparently, that were speaking up when these resolutions were coming out that were concerned that they may be actually participating in a constitutional convention, and they apparently kept calling the speakers to the floor about this and saying, what are you doing?
And from what Sonia told me, the speakers started backing down, and that issue was kind of dropped.
Well, they may have prevented a disaster.
But I should back up one second.
And Pam Beasley eventually did get her evidence in.
I didn't say that earlier, but during the initial entrance of evidence, she was allowed like 15 minutes to come out and give her evidence.
She had the most evidence of all the parties, more than all the parties combined.
and I don't know how many documents, fifty?
About thirty-six.
Thirty-six books and documents.
She had a stack that was probably a foot high.
All she did was go through there and name the document and entered in her evidence.
She didn't discuss it to any great detail of what it actually was.
It was a major injustice on her part, I believe.
You mean on their part towards her?
Yes, I'm sorry.
I would like to hear more of her information because I think it was definitely pertinent.
And I'm not even, to this day, absolutely sure that her evidence is still in evidence.
I have my doubts from what I've heard that some or part of her evidence was ordered out by the jury format.
Now, that may be correct, may not be.
Well, we were told today by her advisor that she brought with her this weekend that her summary, which was the most critical part of all of her presentation, was rejected and sent home with her before she left on Sunday.
So all she got, well, first she was kicked out and said she couldn't present any evidence, and then later, I guess, some people put some pressure on and prevailed, and she was given 15 minutes to do something absolutely impossible, and then her summary was and she was given 15 minutes to do something absolutely impossible, and then her summary was rejected, which means that they didn't go through any of the documentation because they couldn't have possibly done it in No, they wouldn't have had time.
It took her, they gave her 15 minutes.
Well, I am extremely upset about this because they assured me that the evidence concerning the United Nations would be presented, would be heard, and that I had nothing to worry about on that score.
for that.
Well, I am extremely upset about this because they assured me that the evidence concerning the United Nations would be presented, would be heard, and that I had nothing to worry about on that score.
So they lied to me.
Bill, there was a man that does air a talk show program this evening that was involved I didn't hear the whole subject matter because I just flipped the radio on, but his quote went something to the fact that the first national constitutional convention, or common law convention, was convened in 1774.
Later it would be known as the First Continental Congress.
Well, I think after what you told me, it obviously is.
And we'll just have to see what's going to happen.
and he may not have known what he was actually saying, concerns me greatly because, in essence, this could be the same thing.
Well, I think after what you've told me, it obviously is.
And we'll just have to see what's going to happen.
But I'll guarantee you some people are going to have a hard time answering the questions that I'm going to be asking.
And the members of the Constitution Party are going to put some tremendous weight on these people for some answers.
We're not going to let this slide by.
This looks to me like another Hegelian dialectic used against the American people for some hidden agenda that stinks to high heaven to me.
Bill, if I may real quick, I am going to rescind and revoke my signature on that document.
The reason I contacted you is because I don't really have a method to get out to most of the jurors that were involved, but I felt they needed to know about the improprieties on the jury foreman's part after everyone had left.
There had been a great number of people I think that would be upset about that.
I think the next order of agenda would be to remove him from his position.
But I also wanted to give the other jurors the opportunity, possibly, to do the same for their signatures, if they are concerned.
I would like to see this thing drop below the quorum, as far as if we can remove, what, three or four jurors from the... Well, I would too, and being as it is not a common law grand jury at all, The whole front that this is a common law grand jury and all of this stuff is ludicrous.
It's not a common law grand jury.
It's exactly what they said.
It's a quorum of states, which is dangerous and should not be allowed by the American people.
And I'm shocked that so many people who were in attendance, our patriots who are supposed to understand all of these things, actually allowed this to happen.
You know, one of the things that Kirk and I would like to say is to encourage any of the jurors that are listening to refer to their Blackstone commentaries and look up Grand Jury and they can document for themselves exactly how this should have been handled and they can see for themselves what the improprieties are and help that to make their decision whether or not they want that signature to stand on that document.
Well, I would encourage them to do the same.
We're out of time.
I want to thank you both for having the courage to come forth and voice your concerns and let the American people know what happened in Wichita, Kansas over the weekend.
Good night, folks, and God bless you all.
Thank you, Bill.
Thank you.
And the hope I find the hope.
Two by one.
Two in the sunshine.
Two in the night time.
Thank you.
I know.
▲
Export Selection