A few years back I wrote an article about George Lee Kindred and his experience with a Grand Jury:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. George Lee Kindred, living in Pinckney, Michigan, had traveled about the country giving lectures concerning the Constitution of the United States, the Bill of Rights, and various governmental functions. On the date 25 March 1977, a "swat-like raid on the home and environs" of Mr. Kindred and his family was conducted by "personnel from the United States Marshal, the Internal Revenue Service, the Michigan State Police, the Livingston County Sheriff's Department, and the Pinckney Village Police, with shotguns and other automatic weapons at the ready." There was an entourage of nine cars and twenty-four men. Mr. Kindred was arrested and taken to Detroit to the federal District Court for arraignment on an indictment from a federal Grand Jury in Iowa, charging him with aiding and abetting the filing of false and fraudulent W4 forms with several individuals, named in the indictment. Mr. Kindred explained that while he was in the holding area waiting for arraignment, he met two individuals who had been there for "a couple of weeks and hadn't been up to court for arraignment or anything." They had asked if there was something that they could do. Mr. Kindred explained the process of Habeas Corpus to them, and told them to ask the trustee for a pad of paper and a pencil, and he would make one out for them. Mr. Kindred noted: "You know, they were out before I was the next morning!"
Upon arraignment, Mr. Kindred received a copy of the indictment, and claimed that he did not know any of the individuals mentioned. He pled not guilty to the charges, obtained a recognizance bond, and went home to begin the process of motion hearing. Mr. Kindred explained that he had sought removal of the case from Iowa to Michigan so that he would not have to travel so far, and at the removal hearing, in Michigan, one of the witnesses for the government, Thomas Walton Jr., who was listed as one of the individuals that he had helped in the filing of "false and fraudulent W4 forms", stated, on the witness stand, that Mr. Kindred was the one who had helped him to do this. Mr. Kindred, without counsel, and acting "in my own proper person", cross-examined the witness, and determined that the individual had been in an audience where he had spoken, along with other speakers, and when Mr. Kindred asked him if he had sat down with him and had shown him how to fill out and file a W4 form, Mr. Walton said that he had not; that he had only been in an audience, and was not even sure that Mr. Kindred had even spoken about W4 forms; that it might have been one of the other speakers. Mr. Kindred was informed, by the judge, that the removal hearing was for identification purposes only, and that the witness, having identified Mr. Kindred as the one listed in the complaint, he would have to appear in Iowa for trial. Mr. Kindred then applied for a copy of the material that would be used against him at trial. He was told that his own law course, which was on tape, would be used against him. He knew that if the prosecutor had listened to the tapes, they would know that he discusses against the filing of fraudulent W4 forms, and proceeded to write to the prosecutor, and the federal district judge, of his findings at the removal hearing, and of his statements in the law course. The prosecutor then filed, in the federal district court in Iowa, a motion for dismissal of the charges against Mr. Kindred, complaining that it was the Internal Revenue Service that had instigated this whole affair against Mr. Kindred. Mr. Kindred found that the individuals declared in the complaint as those who he was supposed to have "aided and abetted", had been indicted for the false and fraudulent filing of W4 forms, and for their cooperation with Internal Revenue Service, and a lesser penalty, they would implicate Mr. Kindred in "aiding and abetting".
Mr. Kindred then filed a criminal complaint. He charged, on behalf of the United States, the crime of perjury, as defined in 18 USC § 1621, "and making false declarations before a federal grand jury, as defined in Title 18 United States Code, Section 1623". He described, in the complaint, the indictment made against him, and filed a copy of it with the complaint. He stated that the indictment was based upon testimony, given under oath, by the persons named therein. He enclosed a copy of the order of dismissal of the indictment made against him, and a copy of the motion for dismissal entered by the federal prosecutor, which had declared, in part, that Mr. Kindred "did not actually counsel or induce said witnesses to file the false withholding statements with their employer, and that witnesses will state that their filing of the false statements was not directly the result of anything George Kindred said or did." Mr. Kindred filed, along with the complaint, and the attached documents, a letter to the magistrate, which declared:
"Dear Sir, You will find attached hereto a criminal complaint for perjury naming those cited in the five count indictment , CR 77-1004, filed against myself March 24, 1977. A cursory perusal of the three exhibits attached hereto can leave no doubt that at least the crime of perjury was committed before a federal grand jury by the parties named in my complaint. Also, you will find attached hereto a petition for a grand jury investigation because their is a distinct probable cause that the crime of subornation of perjury has been committed, as well as the crime of conspiracy against the rights of the citizens. I have complied with Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Quote "The complaint is a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. It shall be made upon oath before a magistrate." Now I trust you, the United States attorney, and the grand jury will do your duties to justice with the same enthusiasm and dedication which was evidenced in obtaining the erroneous indictment against me."
The complaint was notarized, and copies were sent to the press. He filed, along with the complaint, a petition for a "federal grand jury inquiry and investigation with the purpose of discovering evidence which will lead to indictments against certain personnel of the Internal Revenue Service, the United States Attorneys office, and others, charging Subornation of Perjury, as defined in Title 18 United States Code § 1622, and Conspiracy Against Rights of Citizens, as defined in Title 18 United States Code § 241." He explained, in his petition:
"That as a result of the fraudulent indictment, which was premised on perjured testimony, the Petitioner was subjected to false arrest; false imprisonment; assault with dangerous and deadly weapons; unlawful trespass upon his person and property; defamation of character and taints of ill repute as a result of press releases by the Internal Revenue Service which were published in the local press and elsewhere; mental anguish; disturbance of family peace of mind and tranquility; personal mental anguish; expense of defense; and the injuring, oppressing, threatening and intimidating of the Petitioner in his free exercise and enjoyment of the rights and privileges secured to him by the Constitution of the United States of America, and the laws in pursuance thereof."
The matter was referred to the United States attorney for the district. On the date 8 February 1978, Mr. Kindred received a letter from James H. Reynolds, United States attorney, explaining that the matter would be submitted to a federal grand jury convening in Cedar Rapids, Iowa on the date 13 February 1978; and he explained that it was not mandatory that Mr. Kindred be present. Mr. Kindred did attend. He explained that the first thing that he had to do was to find out who the foreman of the grand jury was. Mr. Reynolds had taken over the jury and was giving the oath to the witnesses. Mr. Kindred lectured the grand jury on their rights and duties, admonishing them for their ignorance. He believes that as a consequence of his lecturing, and with a little help from the United States attorney, the jury voted not to indict; the whole thing was just a "big mistake"; Mr. Kindred was not harmed; he didn't have to go to trial. Mr. Kindred noted that, although he was disappointed with the outcome, he learned a lot from the experience. He just wished that jurors had more backbone than they do; and that the foreman would handle the examinations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
