Grand Jury Should Use Presentment Power to Investigate Obamacare Architect - Jonathan Gruber

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury"
5th Amendment - U.S. Constitution

Jonathan Gruber, who has been pushed by the Obama administration as the architect of Obamacare, admitted that the bill was purposefully written to fool the American People.  On multiple occasions, he has been caught on video discussing how the bill was designed to trick the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and "stupid" voters.

We The People Already Have The Power!!

An "infamous crime" has been defined as "fraud and dishonesty".  

Jonathan Gruber's statements, as the architect of Obamacare, is admission that the purposeful design of the "healthcare" law was done with fraud and dishonesty in mind.  As a result, a Grand Jury needs to convene and begin an investigation. 

Keep in mind that a Grand Jury does not have to wait for a state's attorney to convene the Grand Jury to begin an investigation.  We have that power as written in the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  A Presentment is where a Grand Jury, by their own initiative, can begin an investigation.  

We Do Not Have To Wait For Elections To Hold Our Government Accountable! 
More here.

As a result, here is the call-to-action:

1.  If you are on a Grand Jury today, please convene the Grand Jury immediately and begin an investigation.   

2.  If you are not on a Grand Jury, please demand that you speak with the foreman of your local Grand Jury and demand they begin an investigation.  

What does the Supreme Court say about the Grand Jury?

In 1992 (notice I didn't reference some obscure year 150+ years ago), Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion in US v. Williams.  The following represents quotes from this ruling but I've removed all references and citing material so this can be read cleanly and without pause.  For the full opinion including all reference material, visit this link.

"Because the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such "supervisory" judicial authority exists, and that the disclosure rule applied here exceeded the Tenth Circuit's authority."
"[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo American history," the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It " `is a constitutional fixture in its own right.' "
"In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people.
Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm's length. Judges' direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office."

"The grand jury's functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised. "Unlike [a] [c]ourt, whose jurisdiction is predicated upon a specific case or controversy, the grand jury `can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.' "

"The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation,..."

"...nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day to day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. It swears in its own witnesses, and deliberates in total secrecy."
"Even in this setting, however, we have insisted that the grand jury remain "free to pursue its investigations unhindered by external influence or supervision so long as it does not trench upon the legitimate rights of any witness called before it."
"Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said that the Fifth Amendment's "constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body `acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge'. . . ."

"Given the grand jury's operational separateness from its constituting court, it should come as no surprise that we have been reluctant to invoke the judicial supervisory power as a basis for prescribing modes of grand jury procedure. Over the years, we have received many requests to exercise supervision over the grand jury's evidence taking process, but we have refused them all, including some more appealing than the one presented today. In Calandra v. United States, supra, a grand jury witness faced questions that were allegedly based upon physical evidence the Government had obtained through a violation of the Fourth Amendment; we rejected the proposal that the exclusionaryrule be extended to grand jury proceedings, because of "the potential injury to the historic role and functions of the grand jury."
"In Costello v. United States, we declined to enforce the hearsay rule in grand jury proceedings, since that "would run counter to the whole history of the grand jury institution, in which laymen conduct their inquiries unfettered by technical rules."