About

I am a Christian (Reformed/Sovereign Grace Baptist type), white American of Western European bloodline, advocate of an agrarian social order, Kinist, White Nationalist, admirer of America’s Founding Fathers and the Boys in Gray, homesteader, indie published author, and amateur historian.
I have indie published several books, all of which are available from Amazon. My Amazon author page may be view at this link: https://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Charles-Putnam/e/B00CRLUO6A/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1
I am a life long resident of rural Orange County, IN –in the part of the Upper South that many would term Greater Appalachia or the Dixie Frontier.
In addition to my blog writings, I am currently gearing up for (at least) two more book projects –one theological and one historical. The theological one will cover the three interpretational views of Daniel’s 70th Week. I hope to have this book in print in late summer 2017. (Hint: I am, not a Dispensational Futurist). The historical book will be a biography of George Rogers Clark (1752-1818). Clark was a noted Virginia militia officer who’s campaigns, including his successful siege of Vincennes, basically took the Old Northwest from Britain during the American Revolution. Clark spent the rest of his life around the river that separates Clarksville, IN from Louisville, Kentucky. I hope to have my Clark bio in print in early 2018

4 thoughts on “About”

  1. Joe,
    I like this. You might also be interested in many of the things I have discovered about our system. For one, the 5th amendment political fix that occurred in 1949. Prior to that, there was a mechanism by which the American people could force an indictment against any criminal and especially an elected official who is derelict in duty, ie: violating oath of office. Drop me a line at the email attached and we can discuss.

    Like

    1. Hello Charlie,
      You appear to be the Freedom Echo that I commented to an article comment forum earlier today.
      First of all, thanks for enjoying my blog. It is always nice when a new reader says hello with a comment.
      Your 5th Amendment criminal, including elected criminal, indictment info sounds interesting. I have read some of Red Beckman’s material on Jury Nullification and assorted legal issues, but I am not familiar with your 5th amendment indictment info.
      Thanks for the invitation for email exchange, but I do not share my email with people that I do not personally know. If you would like to post a synopsis of your info, for me and my readers, feel free to do so as a follow up comment to this comment.
      Thanks,
      Joe

      Like

  2. Joe, yes I am Freedom Echo. The 5th Amendment was hacked by Congress and the Judicial rules changes of 1946.
    Start: First check this https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_7 look at Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1944 Note 4 on Presentments.

    http://www.firstfreedom.net/2.htm
    “”Quoting from an article in the Creighton Law Review, Vol. 33, No. 4, 1999-2000, 821, “If It’s Not A Runaway, It’s Not A Real Grand Jury,” by Roger Roots, J. D:

    “In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without governmental influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past.” ”
    ““A presentment, properly speaking, is an accusation, made by a grand jury of its own mere motion, of an offence upon its own observation and knowledge, or upon evidence before it, and without any bill of indictment laid before it at the suit of the government. Upon a presentment, the proper officer of the court must frame an indictment, before the party accused can be put to answer it.” ”

    (I hate to keep C&Ping but)
    Back to the Creighton Law Review:

    “A ‘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. 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.”

    So it’s clear that the Constitution gives the grand jury power to instigate criminal charges, especially when its focus targets government oversight.

    But something strange happened on our way from constitutional government to the present. A lie enacted by the legislative branch has eroded that power. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution contains those exact same words quoted above, but, should you sit on a grand jury returning a “presentment” today, the prosecutor must sign it or the judge probably won’t allow those criminal charges you’ve brought to the court’s attention to stand, which sweeps them away. We can see that this is based on a legislative lie of epic proportions.

    Mr. Roots weighs in again:

    “In 1946, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted, codifying what had previously been a vastly divergent set of common law procedural rules and regional customs. In general, an effort was made to conform the rules to the contemporary state of federal criminal practice. In the area of federal grand jury practice, however, a remarkable exception was allowed. The drafters of Rules 6 and 7, which loosely govern federal grand juries, denied future generations of what had been the well-recognized powers of common law grand juries: powers of unrestrained investigation and of independent declaration of findings. The committee that drafted the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provided no outlet for any document other than a prosecutor-signed indictment. In so doing, the drafters at least tacitly, if not affirmatively, opted to ignore explicit constitutional language.”

    Quoting Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP): No mention of “presentments” can be found in Rule 7. But they are mentioned in Note 4 of the Advisory Committee Notes on the Rules:

    “Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts.”

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

    “[W]hile the writers of the federal rules made provisions for indictments, they made none for presentments. This was no oversight. According to Professor Lester B. Orfield, a member of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, the drafters of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 6 decided the term presentment should not be used, even though it appears in the Constitution. Orfield states [22 F.R.D. 343, 346]:

    “ ‘There was an annotation by the reporter on the term presentment as used in the Fifth Amendment. It was his conclusion that the term should not be used in the new rules of criminal procedure. Retention might encourage the use of the run-away grand jury as the grand jury could act from their own knowledge or observation and not only from charges made by the United States attorney. It has become the practice for the United States Attorney to attend grand jury hearings, hence the use of presentments have been abandoned.’ ”

    That’s a fascinating remark: “Retention might encourage the grand jury [to] act from their own knowledge or observation.” God forbid! They have the nerve to put on the record that they intended to usurp our Constitutional power, a right the founding fathers in their incredible wisdom intended for us to keep: vigilance against tyrannical government.

    (You can see how and why the general public do not understand this.) Just a start, people need to know we have control of government. When the government violates the law, we can hold individuals accountable.

    Like

    1. Thanks for the info Charlie. While I had read some of Red Beckman’s stuff on Common Law Juries and such several years ago, I was unaware of the 5th Amendment Grand Jury presentment option -let alone it’s (il)legal subversion by “our” Congress back in the 1940s!
      Your info was interesting, and should show thinking Americans -of which there are few- that “our” government has not been acting in our interests for, at the very least, the last seven decades. It is a shame that we no longer have the “presentment” option of Fed Grand Juries.
      Joe

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s