Grand Jury Investigation – WHY THIS PROJECT?

Grand Jury Investigation – The Hidden 4th Branch – the Power of the PeopleWHY THIS PROJECT?

by Kelly Z Mordecai

WHY THIS PROJECT? To expose election fraud and possibly expediently! The end result can be arrests, then trial… eventually jail. Another possibility is removing electronic election systems. A citizen can submit a “Petition” 1,2 to a grand jury, and based upon this, the grand jury can investigate on their own and issue their own subpoenas (Hale v. Henkel & other case law). The grand jury wields enormous power to investigate crimes (if the grand jury members know their full power).

This power has been used for holding accountable law enforcement, for example the Rodney King’s abusers. Others held to account include: State judges (Angus Kelly McGinty (TX), Gerald P. Garson (Chief Judge of NY), federal judges (Samuel B. Kent (Tx)3 Robert F. Collins (LA)4 W.L. Nixon (MS)5), U.S. Congressmen (Michael Grimm(NY), House Majority Leader Tom Delay (TX)), and even a president (Nixon – see the “Famous Watergate Seven” indictment of March 1st, 1974). Obviously, this great power can be utilized in exposing election fraud, and bringing those committing the crimes to justice.

The grand jury is composed of everyday people. If you were on the grand jury, would you investigate election fraud? You need not listen to the courts, as the grand jury is not a part of the court:

They [grand juries] are not appointed for the prosecutor or for the court; they are appointed for the government and for the people…”

1906 landmark case, Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906),

See also United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992)

The grand jury is not “owned”, nor controlled by the prosecutor. In fact, the U.S. Attorney Manual (Department of Justice) states to the “prosecutor”, that when in front of the grand jury,

The prosecutor must recognize that the grand jury is an independent body.

USAM Chapter 9-11.010 – Introduction.

What is the purpose of the grand jury? To investigate and find “Probable Cause” that a crime has been committed. When crime is exposed, the grand jury provides “government oversight” by “everyday people.”

“But, in this country, it . . . is for the grand jury to investigate any alleged crime, no matter how or by whom suggested to them, and, after determining that the evidence is sufficient to justify putting the party suspected on trial, to direct the preparation of the formal charge [presentment] or indictment.” Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. – referencing Frisbie v. United States, 157 U. S. 160, (1895) (the word “investigate” underlined for emphasis.)

The grand jury can issue a subpoena based upon “hearsay” (i.e., exit polls) for assurance of an honest election. Do they have this power of satisfying their “assurance” of an honest election?

[The grand jury] can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just because it wants assurance that it is not.U.S. vs. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 642-643 (1950) (emphasis added)

If we were living in the 1800’s, politicians afraid of the grand jury would not even try election fraud, for fear of the people, as the people knew full well of this power and would “petition” a grand jury to hold corruption accountable. In modern times, this knowledge has faded away as powerful corporate interests and corrupt politicians wish not for “the people” to hold them accountable through the grand jury. In fear of the grand jury, the “Powers that Be” have “perpetrated ignorance” upon the American people. Is this the first you have heard of the great power of the grand jury? To counter the “perpetrated ignorance” retired attorney Leo Denofrio (NJ) provided much research and coined the phrase of the grand jury as the “4th Branch of government.”

In light of “perpetrated ignorance”, the good news is that on occasion, some corrupt still get investigated, and indicted, like former Goldman Sacs corporate board member Rajat Gupta:

DOJ Press Release:

Actual Indictment:

This is the power of the people… to “Petition” a grand jury, and the grand jury investigates, and issues “Indictments”, “presentments” 6, and in some states “information(s)/ reports/ accusations”, watching over the government. It is the Hidden 4th Branch of government. The grand jury is alive and well, and the U.S. Supreme Court has only affirmed its power, birthed before the founding of the United States.

California: It should be noted that California has Civil Grand Juries, as required by the state Constitution. These are already investigating election fraud that occurred in the California primary. For more on the power of the grand jury, visit this site:

Kansas, Florida, & Missouri: Have special provisions that are well worth considering.

Theoretically, if the grand jury knows their full power, they could show up at 1:00 pm on election day, grab ballots, and do a “re-count.” Statistically, a 10% count would yield a 90% confidence level for a prediction of the results, for a comparison to the preliminary results by electronic systems.

Let’s get election fraud evidence (from your county) to your county (or state) grand jury!

By Kelly Z. Mordecai, Author, & Board Member of

The Hidden 4th Branch, a Corrupt Government’s Worst Nightmare. (Available on Amazon)

PS: I’ve been before a grand jury utilizing my “Right of Petition.”


  • Study your state statutes to assist you in understanding the grand jury power within your state.

    • Note: Most attorneys will scoff at this, as they didn’t learn much about this in law school. It is doubted if they know the history of the grand jury or the case laws presented above. Attorney Richard Fry was asked his experience with other attorney’s and their knowledge of the grand jury. Counsel Fry said, “Other attorneys are clueless.”

  • Get with an action group, and communicate this approach:

  • Be ready for problems & document them.

  • Ask a local law researcher (or paralegal) to:

    • Study the state statutes on the grand jury, & write a summary for “everyday people.”

    • Prepare a “Grand Jury Power” document, customized to your state. (This will be very important later.)

    • Study the “Right of Petition” in the 1st Amendment, and your state’s Constitution. See the above court cases on “petition.”

  • Prepare a “Petition”/ or a “Complaint”:

    • A several page letter to summarize:

      • Request to appear physically to explain more

      • Provide names & numbers of witnesses (Or people from the action group.)

      • The grand juries power referenced in an attachment.

    • Get evidence from within your county (i.e., exit polls.)

    • Contact Election Justice (Website: for “Declarations” from your state’s primary.

    • Contact Summer Rose (Website: / ph# 415-634-7673)

    • Contact Watch the Vote (Website: )

    • Find DHS documents regarding an acknowledgment of the problem.

    • Find Secretary of State’s documents acknowledging this problem.

    • Find relevant statements of computer programmers of this concern.

    • Include grand jury power from case-law, and state statutes. (If the grand jury does not know their power, all your efforts are a waste of time, as the DA will “mis-advise” the grand jury. (Reference this power in the first page of your letter.)

  • While preparing the “Petition”, organize 15-20 people to go to the courthouse together (many more if possible). This is necessary to get the attention of the DA.

  • While preparing the “Petition”, contact the local paper & tell them what you are intending. (Meet with them, as they will be the first to break the story.)

  • Finalize the “Petition.” (Make many copies.)

  • Submit the Petition to the District Attorney’s Office (in California, submit directly to the Civil

Grand Jury):

    • Group meets on the courthouse steps – all those you have contacted, and the press.

    • In the courthouse, go to the DA’s “front door”, and have the 15-20 people and the press stand behind you in support. (Of course, the DA’s office might not be in the courthouse.)

    • Ring the bell/ Knock on the door. (DA’s office may be locked for security.)

    • When the DA appears, tell him/her that this is a group effort, and you want to appear before the grand jury – personally, under your “Right of Petition.”

    • Introduce to the DA (or deputy DA) the press, and hopefully they will shake hands. Tell the DA, “This is Suzy from the local paper, she is covering this matter to ensure that you will comply with the 1st Amendment “Right of Petition”, and get me before a grand jury.”

    • Summarize the evidence obtained.

    • Verbally request to appear personally before the grand jury.

    • Of course, be respectful & polite.

    • Have one of your witnesses record the entire event with your smart phone’s video camera.

  • Wait a few days for the DA’s office to respond:

    • Follow-up call.

    • Follow-up meeting, where one provides an “Amicus Curia” 7 discussing the “Right of Petition” is also to a grand jury.

    • Wait a few more days.

    • If the DA’s office won’t submit the “Petition”, go to the press – immediately. (This puts pressure on the court if this comes out in a front page news article.)

  • If the DA’s office won’t do anything, file a “Writ of Mandamus” with the court to cause the DA’s office to get the “Petition” to a grand jury. Utilize an “Amicus Curia” to educate the court.

Other Discussion: I would suggest this effort be done in several of the larger counties of the state. If you find a good prosecutor who is honest, and trustworthy, you may find yourself in front of a grand jury very quickly. There, present the “Grand Jury Power” document to the grand jury. This is necessary in the event that a good DA has a “change of heart” from political pressure, and tries to dissuade the grand jury from investigating. When you are before the grand jury, bring a friend (or two, or five) and have them wait out in the hallway. You can tell the grand jury that you have other witnesses or researchers in the hallway ready to testify. Also, tell clearly the grand jury what you want. You can write it down for them. One can even “design the investigation” for them.

The point of bringing a group of people to the DA’s office is to put pressure on them to submit this to the grand jury. The DA may be busy with murder and rape cases, and will probably express they don’t have time for something so “trivial.” The DA might respond to the group and the press, “Well, we just don’t get people before the grand jury like you hope.” Respond, “Respectfully, Mr. DA, can you provide a statute prohibiting this request… prohibiting my ‘Right of Petition’ to a grand jury?” Or, can you find any case law prohibiting this request?” Of course, the DA will respond, “I’ll get back to you.” He won’t be able to find any case law prohibiting your 1st Amendment “Right of Petition” in which you request to appear before the grand jury, personally and physically.

In addition, the DA’s office will, by habit, think they run the grand jury. They do not, unless state statute dictates this (doubtful.) Another “motivating factor” is that, should a good DA work with a grand jury, and they expose a substantial problem, this will greatly increase the chances of the DA getting re-elected, or elected to another position. An open, honest, hard-working DA can rise to the level of “glory”, like John Dewey of N.Y. in the 30’s. He did right, and was elected governor of New York – twice. Or very possibly, by bringing justice that is unique in the field of prosecution, a prosecutor could very well find himself/herself boosted to other political positions.

This might sound like a lot of work, however, for an honest election I hope the reader realizes it is worth it. For the sake of terminating the current electronic election system, we must at least make an attempt. Typically, filing a “petition” to a grand jury through the DA’s office is free.

For assistance, contact Kelly Mordecai @ 530.598.9671

(Particularly if you do get a call or subpoena to appear before the grand jury.)

1 The 1st Amendment “Right of Petition” is also to a grand jury, as the “right of petition” originated to a grand jury (C61 of the M.C.) See Borough of Duryea vs. Guarnieri (No. 09-1476), (2011) (footnotes by Justice Scalia).

2 Adderly vs. Florida 385 U.S. (1966) (See comments by Justice William O’ Douglas.) See also 18 USC §3332.

4 Federal Judge in Louisiana Indicted:

5 Federal Judge in Mississippi Indicted:

6 “Presentment”, as found in the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A “Presentment” is the written findings after a grand jury investigates on their own initiative without the assistance of a prosecutor. A “Presentment” is also a form of “probable cause.” An “indictment” is also a form of probable cause, which both modes of “probable cause” lead to arrest and trial. The difference between “Presentment”, and “Indictment” is found in Volume 4, Chapter 23 of Blackstone’s Commentary of the Laws of England (1765 – 1769). Ask an attorney if they know the difference. Most attorney’s won’t know the difference from not being taught this in law school.

7 A draft amicus regarding the “Right of Petition” is prepared, and cites United States District Court, S.D. New York. April 25, 1985 IN RE GRAND JURY APPLICATION NO. 85 CIV. 2235 (VLB), Borough of Duryea vs. Guarnieri & Adderly vs. Florida See also the last sentence in 18 USC §1504, where one can request to appear before a federal grand jury. I find no “prohibition” of a witness requesting to appearing before a grand jury. I find no justification for denying a witness to appear before a grand jury. Probably none exists with a new “matter”, not under consideration by the grand jury.