Emilio Ippolito's Complaint against the Grand Jury

THE GRAND JURY OF THE PEOPLE
GJ NUMBER _____________
GRAND JURY FOREMAN _________________________

"COMPLAINT"
EMILIO L. IPPOLITO, Complainant
v.
Grand Jury Foreman GERALD S. SHEEHAN and CAROL HIXON; ERNEST F. PELUSO, STEPHEN M. KUNZ and MONK, AUSA, The Entire Panel of the Grand Jury # 95-2; U.S. District Judge STEVEN D. MERRYDAY; Magistrate Judge THOMAS B. McCOUN III; 13th Circuit Chief Judge F. DENNIS ALVAREZ and Circuit Judge GASPAR J. FICARROTTA; US District Judges ROBERT R. MERHIGE and ANNE C. CONWAY; Magistrate Judges DAVID A. BAKER and DONALD P. DIETRICH; US District Judge VAUGHN R. WALKER; MICHAEL J. YAMAGUCHI, US Attorney; THOMAS W. TURNER, THOMAS CARLUCI, SANDRA TETERS, RICH L. JANCHA, AUSA Attorneys; DIANE MESSER and TIMOTHY CAMUS, IRS Agents; THOMAS A. YOWELL, Special Agent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement and many others known and unknown including ROBERT E. CARROLL, FBI Special Agent, and subject parties to be investigated.

APPLICATION and AFFIDAVIT
For the return of a True Bill Grand Jury Indictment with sworn written statements of probable cause of the nature and cause of the accusations of all the essential facts that lead to the commission of a crime in violation of the "constitutional oath" by public servants of the government who also usurped the authority of the grand jury and the grand jurors who are public servants of the people, and who also usurped the authority of the Common Law Court of the People.
A constitutional common law demand to vacate the grand jury Indictment returned by Grand Jury #95-2 and signed by Grand Jury Foreman Carol Hixon and AUSA Ernest Peluso and Stephan M. Kunz.

INTRODUCTION OF THE COMPLAINT
Application and affidavit for the return of a Grand Jury True Bill Indictment is being made by the Complainant, a free sovereign American in propria persona, demanding an appearance before the grand jury in an open public proceeding, witnessed before the people, who are the masters of our constitutional form of government. The Complainant is currently incarcerated by the Bureau of Prisons in FCC Coleman Medium, Colman, Florida.
This application and affidavit is being filed in good faith and concern for all subject parties to be investigated and for the release of the Complainant who was prosecuted, convicted, sentences, and incarcerated in federal prison on an unlawful grand jury Indictment. It is also designed to bring true common law justice of the people provided by the law of the land for the peace and tranquility of the country and it’s people. Further, it is not designed to punish public servants who have violated their "constitutional oath" to preserve, defend, and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights and who are also in violation of the separation of powers doctrine, whereby a public servant of the government is prohibited to serve more than one branch of government simultaneously, even though these public servants took action against free sovereign Americans that constitutes giving aid and comfort to domestic and foreign enemies, which they may have done unknowingly.
This application and affidavit is also designed to fully inform you, the grand jury and jurors who are public servants of the people, that all public servants must be accountable to the people within the scope of the law of the land and any rights not enumerated in the Constitution remain with the people to govern themselves, as stated in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights.

"THE PURPOSE AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GRAND JURY"
The Grand Jury is charged with the responsibility of investigating my complaint brought before them by a complainant [accuser] regarding a subject party or subject parties to be investigated for the purpose of returning a "No Bill" or a "True Bill INDICTMENT" of the nature and cause of the accusation against the accused, for the criminal prosecution of anyone that has been physically injured or his property damaged or taken, before the Grand Jury may return an indictment against any subject party for criminal prosecution. The only exception is whoever gives aid and comfort to a domestic or a foreign enemy can be charged with criminal acts of treason.
The Grand Jury is an accusatorial body that is sovereign with no peers or superiors who are answerable only to the people if they violate their "constitutional oath" or refuse to take the oath. However, they must be informed that as public servants of the people, they are obligated to take the oath.
The Grand Jury has no authority to return an indictment that makes judgments of guilt, conclusions of low or conclusions of fact. The Grand Jury must investigate all matters brought before them and must also investigate the intervention of the people of issues and matters of great public importance that may affect all Americans.

"The Complainant Further States the Following:"
The Complainant was unlawfully prosecuted, convicted, sentenced and incarcerated by the return of a Grand Jury Indictment by Grand Jury, No: 95-2, that was signed by Grand Jury Foreman, Carol Hixon and two assistant United States Attorneys, Ernest F. Peluso and Stephen M. Kunz. The indictment was incorporated within the style of the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, and was filed with the clerk of the court the 15 day of March, 1996, charging the Complainant with 18 counts that make judgments of guilt, conclusions of law, and conclusions of fact which were orchestrated by the assistant U.S. attorneys without any authority, and constructed the indictment in favor of the government’s prosecution, a copy of the Grand Jury Indictment is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "A" and is incorporated herein as part of the Complainant’s claim and for the original record of the Grand Jury.
The Complainant hereby accuses all subject parties who are public servants of the government and the people and named in Complainant’s complaint for the violation of their "constitutional oath" in giving aid and comfort to domestic and foreign enemies and who are also in violation of the separation of powers doctrine.
Further, the Complainant demands that the Grand Jury affords the right of the subject parties to confront their accuser [the Complainant] as provided in the Bill of Rights, so that they may be permitted to respond to the complaint’s claims and accusations.
In support of Complainant’s complaint, the Complainant states the following issues and arguments which on its face show and prove that the Complainant was persecuted with an unlawful indictment.

"NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST SUBJECT PARTIES"
The following issues and errors are but a few of the arguments that show that the Complainant was persecuted by an unlawful indictment. In comparison to hundreds more that may be found in the original record of the Grand Jury and the original record of the United States District Court trial of the Complainant.
1). The Grand Jury was not afforded the obligation as public servants of the people to take the "Constitutional Oath" to preserve, protect, defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and the Amendments to the Bill of Rights.
2). A Grand Jury Indictment must be constructed by the Grand Jury Foreman with the aid of all other Grand Jurors and must contain all the names of the jurors that voted for the Indictment.
3). Ernest F. Peluso and Stephen M. Kunz, the assistant US attorneys who orchestrated the return of the Grand Jury Indictment also constructed the indictment and deputed the allegations for the benefit and in favor of the government’s persecution. These United States attorneys who are in violation of their "Constitutional Oath" are also in violation of the separation of powers doctrine, because the attorney as public servants of the executive branch of government and as officers of the judicial branch of government are prohibited from serving two branches of government simultaneously.
4). The US District Court and the US attorneys usurped the authority of the Grand Jury and incorporated the unlawful Indictment within the authority of the court, giving the illusion that the court has authority of the Grand Jury Indictment.
5). The Grand Jury Foreman and the US attorneys never give notice to the Complainant that he was a subject-party of a Grand Jury Investigation and never gave him any notice to appear before the Grand Jury and be confronted by his accusers, and be able to respond to his accusers of the nature and cause of the accusations against him.
6). Count one of the indictment makes judgments of guilt against the Complainant that exceeds the Grand Jury’s authority. In making judgments of guilt, the Grand Jury has convicted the Complainant without benefit of a trial. The statement of guilt in the indictment reads as follows:
"The Constitutional Court of We the People in and for the United States of America" [also known as the Constitutional Common Law Court, also known as the Constitutional Common Law Court of We the People, in and for the United [sic] States of America] [hereinafter "CLC"] was a pseudo judicial, non- governmental and unofficial enterprise which was created and established by Emilio L. Ippolito, Susan L. Mokdad and certain unindicted co-conspirators, on September 17, 1992, in Tampa, Florida...
Also, a True Bill Indictment must contain all the essential facts of probable cause that lead to the commission of a crime and must always be constructed in favor of a defendant in order that he may be able to properly prepare a defense.
Further, court one of the indictment makes conclusions of law and judgments of guilt by citing many violations of sections of the United States Code of Title 18 without authority, such as the following:
"Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 876; Title 18 U.S. Code, Section 1503; Title 18 U.S. Code, 1505; Title 18 U.S. Code, Section 1512; Title 18 U.S. Code 371."
7). Counts 2 through 18 you will find more citing of Title 18 of the U.S. Code and many more judgments of guilt and conclusions of facts, such as the following:
CONSPIRACY; Kidnapping; threatening public servants; obstruction of justice; mail fraud; possession of weapon; mail fraud; taking something of value from the government and many others...
8). The Grand Jury is prohibited from returning an indictment in a dispute between the government and the people. In such a dispute, the people must prevail otherwise you will have government tyranny with the people living in bondage as subject slaves. The Indictment reveals only a dispute between the government and the Complainant. It does not reveal a crime of violence, where there is a victim, with injury to a person’s body or property.
9). The Grand Jury never provided the Complainant with a copy of the application and affidavit upon which an investigation was made for the return of an Indictment.
10). The Grand Jury Indictment was returned behind closed doors and not in an open public forum as provided by the 6th Amendment to the Bill of Rights.
11). All public servants of the government are prohibited from making applications and affidavits to secure an indictment because the government was established to protect the people, not to punish them in our Constitutional Republic form of government.
12). The Grand Jury Indictment was incorporated in the style of the United States District Court, which constitutes an unlawful collaboration between the court and it’s officers, who are public servants of the government and the jurors of the Grand Jury, who are public servants of the people, and also collaborating with the office of the United States Attorney who used his assistant attorney in signing the Grand Jury Indictment.
13). The Grand Jury who is the creator of the indictment has the sole authority to dismiss the indictment, or make changes in the indictment with proper resubmission of application and affidavit with good lawful cause.
14). The court and the United States Attorneys are prohibited from making any changes in the indictment, even when the court may deem the changes to be frivolous, or immaterial or striking out any words or names of any subject parties named in the indictment.
15). The United States District Courts are admiralty/maritime courts and do not have any authority or jurisdiction of the people and are prohibited from the prosecution and conviction of the Complainant or any other subject party under investigation, because the courts are not Common Law Courts of the People.
16). The prosecuting United States Attorneys and all other governmental agents, who prepared and prosecuted the Grand Jury Indictment are employed by the government and are also the accusers. The style of the court also shows that the Plaintiff is the government of the United States of America, and the court itself is the United States of American. This creates a conflict of interest that give aid and comfort to our domestic and foreign enemies, which constitutes criminal acts, because all of these public servants are in violation of their "constitutional oaths."
17). The Grand Jurors who are public servants of the people have the sole authority of representing the people in the style of the Grand Jury Indictment and must show their authority with the names of the complainants/accusers and the names of the subject parties named in the Indictment, such as the following:
We The People v. Name of Subject-Parties
Complainant/Accuser Indicted
18). The Grand Jury did not afford the Complainant with the right to be confronted by his accusers, rendering the Indictment null and void.
19). The Grand Jury is a sovereign entity, to serve for a period of time with its own common law authority of the will and mandate of the people and with the law of the land. The Grand Jury has no superiors or peers. They are answerable only to the PEOPLE, and only when they violate their "constitutional oath."
20). A Grand Jury Indictment must be constructed by the Grand Jury Foreman with the approval of all the Grand Jurors that voted on all the issues of the nature and cause of the accusations against the subject-parties.
21). A Grand Jury can not consider or return a Grand Jury Indictment without an accuser.
22). A Grand Jury Indictment must be supported by the Constitution of the United States of American and the Bill of Rights. Unless an Indictment is in conformity with the law of the land, it becomes null and void.
23). A Grand Jury can dismiss an indictment for lack of prosecution in a timely fashion or for any other reason that it may deem proper in the name of justice.
24). A Grand Jury has the obligation to investigate counter-claims by a subject-party.
25). A Complainant has the right and obligation to file complaints of treason against any public servant who has violated his "constitutional oath" and against any person who has given aid and comfort to a domestic or foreign enemy.
26). Any communication to the Grand Jury of a common law demand to appear before the Grand Jury and or any petition or complaint of a Complainant in seeking relief and remedy for redress of grievances must be afforded to all people.
27). The Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights obligates whoever owing allegiance to the United States of America and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be disclosed and make known the same to the people, to the President, or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular state, is guilty of treason.
28). The Grand Jury does not have any authority to return an indictment on ones ideology or political beliefs.
29). The Grand Jury does not have any authority to return an indictment on here say testimony.
30). The Grand Jury must afford all subject-parties to be free on a reasonable bond pending trial.
31). The Grand Jury has the obligation to be fully informed by the Complainant and by the subject-parties under investigation.
32). The only qualification of a juror to serve as a public servant of the people on a Grand Jury is to have a common knowledge of the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights, and to agree to take the "constitutional oath."
33). Recently the 10th United States District Court of Appeal returned a ruling that the United States prosecuting attorney that participated in a plea bargain agreement with a co-defendant was in essence buying witness for a lesser charge and sentence to testify on issues that were favorable to the government’s case for prosecution. This ruling further supports the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the matter of George M. Bain Jr., Habeas Corpus Petition that ruled that the Fifth Amendment. Jurisdictional Indictment can not be charged without re-submission to the Grand Jury and further ruled that the trial on the charged indictment was null and void.
The Supreme Court of the United States on the George M. Bain, Jr. matter stated the following in part:
"When this indictment is filed with the court no change can be made in the body of the instrument by order of the court, or by the prosecuting attorney, without a resubmission of the case to the grand jury. And the fact that the court may deem the change immaterial, as striking out of surplus words, makes no difference. The instrument, as thus changed, is no longer the indictment of the grand jury which presented it."
The Supreme Court of the United States is further affirming the fact that the grand jury as the creator of the indictment is the only authority that can decide all matters of the indictment with its own sovereignty.
35). The United States District Court, with the participation of the Assistant United States Attorneys, Ernest F. Peluso and _____ Monk, with the United States District Judge Steven D. Merryday, and with the aid of the court appointed attorneys, unlawfully made many changes in the Grand Jury indictment that prosecuted and convicted the Complainant by entering into plea bargain agreements with two (2) co-defendants, John J. Gentz and Jack M. "Marty" Franz and removing their names from the indictment and the allegations against them. The court also removed the name of another co-defendant, Larry M. Myers, and the allegations against him because he could not be found for prosecution.
36). The Complainant and the other co-defendants named in the indictment by Grand Jury #95-2, gave absolute voluntary jurisdiction to the "Constitutional Court of We the People, in and for the United States of America." commonly known as the "Common Law Court" (CLC). All of the public servants of the government and all of the public servants of the people serving as jurors of the grand jury. A sovereign entity, usurped the authority of the Common Law Court of the People and in doing so gave aid and comfort to a domestic and foreign. The United States Supreme Court cases makes this criminal act of treason very clear in the following case: Cohen vs. Virginia, 6Wheat[on] 264, L. Ed 257 [1821], also see U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 66 L. Ed 392, 2t Pg. 406, which states the following:
"We [courts]" have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, then to usurp that which is not giver. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution..."
The Complainant has listed 36 courts of violation of public servants "constitutional oath" that also involves violating of the separation of power’s doctrine and mane hundred more may be found in the original record to Grand Jury #95-2.
Additionally, many more violations of public servants "constitutional oath" may be found in the original record of the trial court, for the United States District Court.
The trial court can provide transcripts whereby Grand Jury Foreman, Gerald S. Sheehan, left the authority and scope of the Grand Jury authority to engage in an unlawful collaboration with government agents, abandoning the position of a public servant of the people to engage in a criminal act with government agency.
Also, March 30, 1996, the Complainant filed a "Constitutional Common Law Jurisdictional Challenge with "Judicial Notice" of memorandum of law as ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III," a demand to Grand Jury #95-2 to dismiss the Grand Jury Indictment alleging many of the issues and arguments outlined in this Complainant’s Complaint for the Return of a Grand Jury Indictment against all subject-Parties named herein. A copy of the jurisdictional challenge is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "B: and is incorporated herein and made a part of this complaint and to be made a part of the original record of the above styled Grand Jury.

"ISSUES OF GREAT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE"
The Complainant’s complaint outlines issues of great public importance that in time will affect all Americans that would have grave significance in the administration of justice, that will command the right and the obligation of all people to intervene.

"CONCLUSION"
The Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights demands that the Grand Jury afford the right to the Complainant to come before the Grand Jury to testify and to answer any and all questions that all jurors may have to investigate all issues of this complaint in becoming fully informed for the return of a Grand Jury Indictment in making all public servants accountable for their unlawful actions against the Complainant, the country and it’s people.

CONSTITUTIONAL COMMON LAW ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF COMPLAINANT’S COMPLAINT OR APPLICATION AND AFFIDAVIT "FOR THE RETURN OF A GRAND JURY TRUE BILL OF INDICTMENT."
We the following common law witnesses do hereby certify that we personally know the affiant to be Emilio L. Ippolito and further identify the affiant with the I.D. card of the Bureau of Prisons who is also known as #19965-018 to be the person that signed this complaint in our presence. We further certify that we also witnessed the mailing of the complaint by United States Postal Service, certified registered return receipt requested, and also certify that this complaint was prepared in triplicate originals with one of the originals being mailed to the Grand Jury Foreman, Middle District of Florida, on this 1st day of September, 1998.
Emilio L. Ippolito (signed) Reg.#19965-018-FCC Coleman, Medium C-1,
Complainant P.O. Box 819, Coleman, Florida 33521-0819
Witnesses... several
Return to Florida Common Law Court