The Grand Jury Belongs to The People–Antonin Scalia (1992)
Dec 8, 2013 by Edken
United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992)
NEW YORK IS “GROUND ZERO” – Major grassroots movement in 48 States, Constituting Common Law Grand Juries. In a stunning six to three, 1992 Decision that went unnoticed, until now, Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority said:
In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992), Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, confirmed that the American grand jury is neither part of the judicial, executive nor legislative branches of government, but instead belongs to the people. It is in effect a fourth branch of government
“governed” and administered to directly by and on behalf of the American people, and its authority emanates from the Bill of Rights, the acts of the Grand Jury is the consent of the people. “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”. — Justice Antonin Scalia
“Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present “True Bills” of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a “buffer” the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.” —
Justice Antonin Scalia “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. The “common law” of the Fifth Amendment demands a traditional functioning grand jury.” — Justice Antonin Scalia “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.”
— Justice Antonin Scalia “The grand jury ‘can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.’ It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even “the precise nature of the offense” it is investigating.
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.” – – Justice Antonin Scalia
“Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said the 5th Amendment’s constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body ‘acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge” — Justice Antonin Scalia “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. “it would run counter to the whole history of the grand jury institution” to permit an indictment mto be challenged “on the ground that there was incompetent or inadequate evidence before the grand jury.” — Justice Antonin Scalia
Justice William J. Brennan Jr., explained in U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (494 U.S. 247, 288, 1990): “The term ‘the people’ is better understood as a rhetorical counterpoint ‘to the government’… that rights that were reserved to ‘the people’ were to protect all those subject to ‘the government.’ … The Bill of Rights did not purport to ‘create’ rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be pre-existing.” In U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), the Supreme Court stated: “‘The people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community. … The Fourth Amendment’s drafting history shows that its purpose was to protect the people of the United States against arbitrary action by their own government.”
AMENDMENT 1 - U.S. CONSTITUTION - REDRESS OF GREVIENCES - PROACTICAL ACTION AND USE.
EXAMPLE OF - A RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT INDEPENDENT CITIZENS GRAND JURIES
Whereas -The Founders of the United States of America understood the nature of all men, when given power was to use their positions in government to corruptly rule over their people and take the people’s liberty and freedom from them.
Whereas -The writers of the Declaration of Independence recognized that the people would need a legal method of removing corrupt officials from power and created that means in the foundational statement of that revered document, quote. “ We hold these truths self evident: that if government becomes destructive of these ends (the people’s God given rights) it is the right of the people to alter and/or abolish…”, and made that the primary law of the United States in the annotated legal code as Section one as organic or permanent unchangeable, undeniable federal law.
Whereas -The Constitution of the United States was and is a set of government rules to support this specific People’s Power, as can be seen in it’s beginning authority “We, the people of the United States..”, a statement that means nothing without the people’s power and authority stated specifically in the Declaration’s primary law statement and recognized as foundational law.
Whereas -The use of Independent Citizens Grand Juries have been a fixture in the government of the United States from the beginning and before to the 1600s and recognized in their specific authority and power to adjudicated corrupt officials as they saw fit and was thus codified in the 5th Amendment and affirmed multiple times by the United States Supreme Court.
Whereas as recent as 1991, and 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that citizens have this right to form Independent Citizens Grand Juries, free of government control, designated a 4th branch of government, unaccountable to any other branch of government. (112 S.Ct. 1735 504 U.S. 36 118 L.Ed.2d 352 UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. John H. WILLIAMS, Jr.)
Whereas -The recent decades government denial of this legal method of holding our government officials accountable for their illegal actions, rulings, decrees, and programs have taken the freedoms and liberties of our citizens, reducing them to mere subjects and surfs of an increasingly corrupt and overbearing government.
Therefore , Be it Resolved, that we, the People of the United States recognize the validity of all Independent Citizens common law Grand Juries and will support their actions and defend them against all attempts by government officials to silence, coerce, attack, and/or disband them, and will support their actions to make corrupt government officials, policies, and programs accountable to the people as has been and is the People’s legal and irrevocable right to do. We also support U. S. federal law that makes any attempt by government officials to do the above a crime by them personally and subject to adjudication as well. In addition, it is also recognized that any refusal to indict a citizens common law grand jury indictment presented to government prosecutors is also an illegal and corrupt act and can by legally prosecuted by the people in their above rights.
PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON ACCOUNTABILITY JUDGEMENT INDICTMENT
Due to, but not limited to, the abdication of responsibility of the government of the United States to make Hillary Rodham Clinton, her aids, and family accountable to the rule of law for crimes against the United States thus doing severe damage to that rule of law, the people of the United States as is their right and duty take the following action, to wit:
Whereas the rule of law is paramount to the existence, peace and tranquility of the United States of America and that rule must be applied to all citizens equally.
Whereas, in her official duties with the United States, Hillary Rodham Clinton has grossly violated that law and put the United States at peril and danger from within and without by illegally selling access, allowing foreign powers that access to the state department and national secrets, lying under oath , and taking away the right of the American People to the security of her offices.
Whereas the government of the United States has stated same but abdicates it’s responsibility to make her accountable for these subversive and treasonous actions while evidence has been openly presented that this is true, taking away the American People’s right to government accountability to the rule of law.
Whereas the Declaration of Independence legal notice in section one of the United States legal code annotated under organic or permanent law gives the people of the United States the right to alter and/or abolish those in government who violate the people’s rights as a sovereign right to them against government and its individual members and legally unaccountable to government in any way as stated in law and affirmed by the United States Supreme Court.
Therefore, The people of the United States, having in multiple venues, determined the guilt of Hillary Rodham Clinton , her aids, and family in seditious, subversive and Treasonous activity to the United States of America, do hereby find her guilty of the aforesaid and sentence her herewith to receive the penalty customary for those crimes down through history and as has been levied also by the United States, and additionally legally declare them enemies of the Constitution of the United States, punishment to be carried out by any person or people of the United States. In addition reminding those who took an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States of America from all enemies, both foreign and domestic and to obey all lawful orders” that this is such a lawful order under the above jurisdiction and authorize them to act in accordance with it to preserve the rule of law and this United States of America so that a nation of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth.
FIRST AMENDMENT - REDRESS OF GREVIENCES -
The Right to Petition was central to constitutional law and politics in the early United States. It is the First Amendment’s capstone:
“Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people …
to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The Right to Petition is unknown to most Americans, or if known, considered to be an extension of the first four rights, and not a right that stands on its own. This ignores Chief Justice John Marshall’s declaration:
“[N]o provision of the Constitution was meant to be without effect…” Marbury v. Madison,(1803)
The Petition Clause has its own distinct history and English roots different than other First Amendment provisions. The Right to Petition has been, in many ways, the First Amendment’s poor relation. It may have been an early casualty as power accumulated in Washington.
he Right to Petition the “Government” for Redress of Grievances As Parliamentary supremacy grew in England it both received petitions and responded. The tradition of petitioning the legislature grew in the American colonies. Under the American Constitution, with government functions divided among three co-equal branches of government, legislative supremacy did not exist. Thus, the First Amendment’s Right to Petition the GOVERNMENT for Redress of Grievances grew from the history but was inherently different. The Petition Clause does not say Congress, the President or the Judiciary. The Clause includes all branches. The Constitution’s Article I vests legislative power in Congress; Article II, the “executive Power” in a President; and Article III “the judicial Power” in the judiciary. Article I, Section 8’s final clause describes a “government” of “powers vested” in three separate branches. The Petition Clause use of the term government acknowledges an individual’s right to invoke government’s “powers” by way of a petition for redress of grievances. The clause thus affirms the right to invoke the government’s “judicial Power” by petition for redress. The Petition Clause and Sovereign Immunity With the Petition Clause comes a right to petition the judicial branch for redress of grievances against the government. The Petition Clause created a constitutional right. Since less than 1% of Americans even know the Clause exists, it is not surprising that the right has been ignored by the government and largely trumped by the judicially adopted concept of “sovereign immunity”. The idea of Sovereign Immunity is that a government cannot be sued in its own courts absent its consent. The Petition Clause is at odds with that idea. The Petition Clause gives a citizen a right to sue the government for redress of grievances, but Sovereign Immunity says the government has to consent to such a suit. The idea of such immunity is inconsistent with both a republic and the Constitution itself. The Petition Clause is part of the First Amendment. Sovereign Immunity is found nowhere in the Constitution. The people through The Tenth Amendment reserve all power not delegated to the federal government. There should be no subject matter of a Petition for Redress that is dismissed by a court based upon Sovereign Immunity, nor kept from a decision by a jury.. The Petition Clause Stands on Its Own as a Limit on Government The 800 year history of petitioning for redress found expression in the First Amendment. The Petition Clause acknowledges distinct rights separate and apart from religion, speech, press and assembly. There are no provisions of the Constitution meant to be without effect. The Petition Clause has come to be without effect because Americans have allowed it to happen. Further Reading: The Right to Petition is surely the least known and certainly least understood guarantee of the Bill of Rights. To learn more: How the Judiciary Stole the Right to Petition, John E. Wolfgram Sovereign Immunity and the Right to Petition, James E. Pfander The Vestigial Constitution: The History and Significance of the Right to Petition, Gregory A. Mark Reclaiming the Petition Clause, Ronald J. Krotoszynski.
Short Answer- The Redress of Grievance can be specifically directed and a date certain it must be accomplished. ;If ignored or date not met, that person or group of government officials can be adjudicated , tried, convicted, sentenced, and sentence carried out by "THE PEOPLE" WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE AND WITH IMMUNITY FROM GOVERNMENT BLOWBACK !!