Study Guide

“Which Americans attended the church gathering in Moscow in the fall of 2014?” My stomach clenched. So, the FBI was also monitoring churches? Before I could process that, he asked another question, his gaze as sharp as a scalpel. ‘Were you at the Kremlin?’ He already knew the answer.” – pages 13-14

“My 2022 arrest sent a message around the world that the U.S. can jail its citizens for any reason it deems and can twist religious liberty into a crime. In their self-righteousness, the SDNY destroyed my life for consulting for a local Christian TV station in Moscow eight years earlier.” – page 37

“While the FBI claims it ‘does not categorize investigations as domestic terrorism based on the religious beliefs to include Catholicism,’ an FBI-wide memorandum originating from the FBI’s Richmond Field Office did just that. Under the guise of tackling the threat of domestic terrorism, the memorandum painted certain ‘radical-traditionalist Catholics’ (RTCs) as violent extremists and proposed opportunities for the FBI to infiltrate Catholic churches as a form of ‘threat mitigation.’ The FBI’s Richmond memorandum is a startling reminder that Americans’ civil liberties and core Constitutional rights must be vigorously guarded against government overreach, including in this case from an overzealous law enforcement agency.” – page 47

“Why was I prosecuted in America for practicing my religion? My mission was to help young Russians find a new voice in the mass media by promoting Christian virtues. Why was this criminalized in the U.S.?” -page 23

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against a spiritual wickedness in high places.” —Ephesians 6:1

“As a Christian, I sensed the oppressive presence of evil intentions. Through the Holy Spirit, I prayed silently for God to grant me the wisdom to handle the situation with grace and clarity. Yet terror seized my heart, pushing aside wisdom like an intruder and overpowering my peace.” – page 6 

“And he said, ‘Go out and stand on the mount before the Lord.’ And behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind tore the mountain and broke in pieces the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind. After the wind came an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake, there was a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire, a still small voice.” —1 Kings 19:11–12 (NKJV) page 106

“’I don’t hear voices, and this wasn’t a voice. It was an inner whisper. I believe that moving to Russia is our family’s destiny,’ I confided.” page 106

“Jennifer replied, ‘That’s a bold assumption. I wonder what caused that. Have we lost touch with our spiritual lives?’” page 106

“Every day, I struggle with the belief that if this opportunity were truly from God, I shouldn’t worry about the NSA or FBI. Did God intend for me to do this work far from home? Still, if my ambition only deceived me, then my daily torment would make sense. I should never have agreed. I pray that I will understand this someday.” – page 106-107

“The mantra was constant in my head, ‘If this was your destiny for me, Lord, stop the NSA from listening to me. If this is my blunder, forgive me, Lord.’” – page 107

“I believed the FBI was there to protect Americans and keep us safe. But that morning marked my first encounter with an FBI that was not a neutral law enforcement agency but a relentless force attempting to fabricate a case to serve a political agenda. The FBI should never, under any circumstances, place a parent in fear for their child’s well-being to deter an American citizen from seeking legal advice. How many more injustices must occur before political persecution ends?” – page 23

“The SDNY had months to review everything confiscated during the raid and ample time to build a case tailored to their preferred political narrative.” – page 51

“The president’s order in the State of the Union required them to find someone to charge with a crime, and no negotiation or sense of fairness could distract from the DOJ’s single-minded goal. Judges in New York usually sided with prosecutors, so my chances of clearing my name were slim.” – page 52

“How could this happen in our country, founded on justice and the belief that truth always prevails? I trusted my country to be fair and honest, but this injustice was a cruel, bitter joke. The attorney general sealed my fate. I was just a pawn in a game I could never win. How can this be real? I was an easy scapegoat. The DOJ needed a crime, but without resources or fame, I couldn’t defend myself. Instead, I was manipulated, threatened, and coerced into helping the government sway public opinion in favor of Ukraine. Having a young child was an advantage because, as a caring father, I would do anything to protect my son and avoid a public showdown.” – page 54

In medieval England, during his reign, Henry II issued the legal reform known as the Assize of Clarendon in 1166. This act required groups of local men to swear an oath and report crimes committed in their communities. Their job was not to determine guilt but instead to identify individuals suspected of serious offenses so that they could be brought before royal courts.

This practice created an early form of citizen participation in the justice system and helped the crown gather information about crime across the kingdom. Over time, these sworn groups evolved into what became known as the grand jury, whose role was to review accusations and determine whether there was sufficient evidence to formally charge someone with a crime.

The grand jury system was brought to North America by English colonists in the 17th century, who adapted it from English common law traditions. In the American colonies, grand juries quickly became more independent than their counterparts in England, sometimes refusing to enforce unpopular British laws and even initiating their own investigations.

The UK abolished the Grand Jury system in 1933 as professional courts and prosecutors took over. The U.S., by contrast, preserved it in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, where it still exists today.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states exactly:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

• Critics say it’s secretive, outdated, and favors the prosecution.
• Possible reforms: increase transparency, limit scope, and allow defense input.

• Defendants are usually not represented.
• Secrecy: protects or violates rights? Debate ongoing.

• Theoretically, jurors can subpoena witnesses/documents.
• Judges warn during a trial that, in a jury of 12, no one should conduct their own investigation. In practice, the prosecutor controls the investigation; jurors rarely exercise independent power.

• Defendants cannot usually present evidence of innocence.
• Example: The Sport of Ruining Lives – James indicted without his side being heard.
• Question: Should a grand jury allow defendant participation like in preliminary hearings before a judge?

• What does the Fifth Amendment say? CLICK HERE

• Criticism: used to speed cases, prevent court backlog, but not always ensure justice.

• Secrecy aids the prosecution by hiding its evidence until discovery.

• Increase transparency.
• Limit prosecutorial influence.
• Allow defense input.
• Restrict to serious crimes or replace with preliminary hearings.

“If juries feel that the prosecutor has not proven the charge, they’re inclined to compromise and vote guilty for a lesser crime. The compromise is to give the prosecutors something.” -page 427

• “The justice department can overcharge a defendant and, by doing so, pressure them to accept a lesser charge in exchange for not going to trial,” I continued. “It’s an unfair and unbalanced equation from the beginning because the defendant is the one who has everything to lose. If the prosecutors lose, they still go home at the end of the day, but the defendant goes to jail.”  – page 427
• “You must accept the prosecutor’s view of all events and give up any chance of innocence. The government will force you to admit guilt to whatever they say. On top of that, you need to convince them that you believe you have committed a crime.” – page 54
• “It is one thing to commit a crime, admit guilt, and seek redemption. It is something else entirely to be forced to live as though you are guilty of a crime you did not commit. The conditions were strict and nonnegotiable. I didn’t want to damage my reputation, but I couldn’t challenge the charges.” – page 56
• Department must also counter the misuse of prosecutorial authority against people with far less resources and fame.’  Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo, “Op Ed,” New York Post, January 26, 2025.– page 21

“… the prosecutor’s incentive system encourages them to win at all costs. Winning ensures a post-government career charging large fees in a private law firm. Federal prosecution should not be resume-building for highly aggressive individuals.” – page 427