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 !!
EXAMPLE OF A LEGAL NOTICE SENT TO PAPERS, POLITICIANS, AND SUPPORTIVE GROUPS - THIS GETS IT HIGHLY VISIBLE
THIS WAS PASSED ON BY THE CENTER FOR GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ANONYMOUS (BY LAW) GROUP ( CITIZENS CL GRAND JURY, REDRESS OF GREVIENCE GROUP, ETC- ALL SECRET BY LAW).
This is to notify you and your readers that We the People as authorized by the First Amendment to the Constitution, are demanding
as is our process, that the United States Justice Department begin prosecution of Hilary and William Clinton for Crimes against the
United States including sedition, subversion and Treason in their dealings during their terms of service with the U. S. Federal Government,
Including, but not limited to crimes now reported by Government investigations proof open and available to the public. We herein give the
customary 40 days under this 1st Amendment provision for the Federal Justice department to act and then, if no action is taken by them, we the
people in any number of citizens we choose, may alter and abolish as is our right under primary law in the Declaration of Independence (5th "that
statement of Law as affirmed by the SCOTUS multiple times and previous citizen action precedent in our history). This is our official time
and date stamp notice to the United States Department of Justice and the people of the United States thru media outlets.
Copy sent to the Attorney General of the United States
Passed on by
Center for Government Accountability
ACTUAL LETTER SENT.
David Skaggs, Chairman Allison Hayward, Vice-Chairman
Office of Congressional Ethics
U.S. House of Representatives
425 3rd Street, S.W.Suite 1110
Washington, DC 20024
Be it known that this is legal notice presented from Citizens of the United States pursuant to the prime law of the United States in the Declaration of Independence, 5th part "...that if government becomes destructive of these ends (see "that’s 1-4) it is the right of the people to alter or abolish.....and replace, plus the right of the people in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to "put forth a Redress of Grievance". Therefore:
Whereas: The speaker of the U S House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi, Representatives Adam Schiff, and Representatives Gerald Nadler and their staffs are doing great damage and destruction to the Constitution of the United State and shredding our laws and customs and committing sedition, subversion, and treason in the process of using the impeachment process illegally for political gain
Whereas: These actions are not being addressed as required by law by the Attorney general of the United States or his department thereby allowing this assault on our Constitution and our Nation to continue and to grow
Therefore: We, people of the United States, as citizens thereof, do hereby give legal notice of "Redress of the Grievance" against those who perpetrated this attempted Coup against the President of the United States and His good offices. The proof of which is open information that can be found in Press information, and book information available.
Therefore, pursuant to established law, we are hereby notifying through legal notice in the newspapers, magazines and other outlets that the Attorney General of the United States has 40 days to initiate legal proceedings of sedition, subversion and treason against said perpetrators and if none is thus initiated, it will then be instituted by the We the People to alter or abolish, said perpetrators in their own fashion and at their own discression so prescribed by law in the 5th "that" of the legal portion of the Declaration of Independence and the 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States "grand jury" as affirmed by the 9th and 10th amendments and the Supreme Court of the United States..
Be it also known that any interference with this process to thwart the above will be treated as subversion of the foundational laws of the United Stated and all individuals involved will also be adjudicated and treated as stated above.
This notice of Redress of Grievance has been transmitted to the Attorney General of the United States as prescribed by law and pursuant to this legal action.
Passed on from Citizen action groups by courtesy of:
David L Cook – National and Colorado Coordinator
Center for Government Accountability
ACTUAL LETTER SENT
To: Attorney General of the United States
The following has been sent to national papers, magazines, appropriate individuals and radio talk shows
Please pass this along to your legal notice department. Thank You
Be it known that this is legal notice presented from Citizens of the United States pursuant to the prime law of the United States in the Declaration of Independence, 5th part "...that if government becomes destructive of these ends (see "that"s 1-4) it is the right of the people to alter or abolish.....and replace, plus the right of the people in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to "put forth a Redress of Grievance". therefore:
We, people of the United States, as citizens thereof, do hereby give legal notice of "Redress of the Grievance" against those who perpetrated the attempted Coup against the President of the United States and His good offices. The proof of which is open information that can be found in Press information, and book information (example: Ball of Collusion by Andrew McCarthy). Therefore, pursuant to established law, we are hereby notifying through legal notice in the newspapers, magazines and other outlets that the Attorney General of the United States Who has thus refused to prosicute those in clear widely known violation of treason statutes, has now 40 days to initiate legal proceedings of sedition, subversion and treason against said perpetrators and if none is thus initiated, it is then the duty and right of the people to alter or abolish, said perpetrators in their own fashion and at their own discretion.
The individuals are well known including James Comey et. al, Robert Muller et al., James, Clapper et al., John Brennen et al., and others which are open perpetrators well known in open information and proofs.
This notice is being transmitted to the Attorney General of the United States as prescribed by law.
Passed on from Citizen action groups by courtesy
The Center For Government Accountability
ACTUAL LETTER SENT
REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE SENT FOR SUBVERSION OF EDUCATION
REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE
CITIZEN RIGHT UNDER THE 1ST AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
DATED 22 NOVEMBER, 2019
Whereas the Ordinance of 1787, passed by under the Articles of Confederation and re-passed by Congress under the U.S. Constitution and signed by President Washington still in effect and included in the “ORGANIC LAW” of the United State, Section 1 U S Legal Code, along with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, and is to be followed by law and enforced equally with the other 2 documents.
Whereas it is the duty by law of the legal system of the states to enforce the laws of the United States under a REDRESS OF GREIVENCE within 40 days of receipt of same.
Whereas the Ordinance states in Article 3, Sentence 1 “Religion, Morality, and Knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of instruction shall forever be encouraged.”
Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled multiple times that the Judeo-Christian Religion is the legal religion of record there for the institutions of the United States, all schools and means of instruction being included, must, first of all, teach Christian Religion, Morality, and knowledge, to all students, including the book of Genesis as historical origins instruction .
Whereas schools and the means of instruction in the State f Colorado are teaching secularism and humanism in direct violation of this foundational law the purpose of which is to protect civil and religious liberty and pass it’s foundation along to the next generation, the Colorado Constitution was written requiring same as a condition of Statehood , which it agreed to in law .
Therefore; This is notification of Redress of Grievance to the attorney general of the United States, Colorado, the school board of the State of Colorado, plus the various school district boards and the people of Colorado that the present secularism and humanism subversion of that law and those other portions of education curriculum contrary to and part of that subversion of the Judeo/Christian World View, Morals, Ethics and Values of foundational U. S. and Colorado law be ceased and removed from all education in Colorado and the legal Judeo/Christian World View, Morals Ethics and Values be, once again as law requires, taught in said institutions.
In addition, should the Attorney General of the state of Colorado and the Colorado State School Board not meet their legal and oath of office obligations within the required by law 40 day action period that is part of a Redress of Grievance process, they will be considered in violation of the law faintly and severally and may be prosecuted by a Citizens Common Law Grand Jury (ruled by SCOTUS 1992, 2013 as a legal 4th branch of government, unaccountable to the other 3, or any judge or lawyer) as violating their oaths of office, enemies of the Constitution of the United States and more, and put up for open ALTERATION AND ABOLISHMENT under the rights of citizens in the Declaration of Independence primary statement of law, 5th provision of that law. In addition, all citizens who took an oath “to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC” would be free by SCOTUS affirmation, to make them accountable to subversion and possibly treason against the United States of America, with appropriate action authorized against them.
THIS IS A LEGAL NOTICE TO THE ABOVE PARTIES AND WILL BE DISEMINATED TO OUTLETS OF NEWS THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF COLORADO FOR PRINTING IN THEIR LEGAL NOTICES SECTIONS FOR INFORMATION TO THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
Passed along with permission by the Center for Government Accountability
DAVID L. COOK – COLORADO COORDINATOR
SOME SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AND FOUNDERS STAEMENTS
FROM: “The Glory of our Heritage” By David Barton – historian to U.S. Congress
Patrick Henry - “It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
John Quincy Adams - “The highest order of the American Revolution was that it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”
"Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people, it is wholly inadequate to the Government of any other"
George Washington - “Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that a national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles.” “Do not let anyone claim to be a true American if they ever attempt to remove religion from politics.”
James Madison - (chief architect of the constitution) - “..we have staked the future of all of our political Institutions upon the capacity of all of us to govern ourselves based upon the 10 Commandments of God.”
Charles Finney - (19th century lawyer and evangelist) - If God’s people do not make it into office, God’s Principles do not make it into office.”
Benjamin Franklin - ‘He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of Christianity will change the face of the world..”
John Jay - (first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) - Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”
United States Supreme Court –
(Church of the Holy Trinity vs. the United State - 1892) “Our laws and our Institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teaching of the redeemer of mankind. It is impossible for it to be otherwise, and, inthis sense, and to this extent our institutions are emphatically Christian.” (The Justices used 87 precedents to prove this case. 1947 – Separation of Church and State – 0 precedents – Exists in the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic 1 and 2, it is nowhere in the American Constitution)
(Runkel vs. Winemiller - 1792) – “by our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion...” (Chief Justice John Jay , architect and signor of our 3of 4 founding documents, presiding
From the law libraries of Cornell, Yale, Harvard, and others
FOUNDATIONAL LAW IN UNITED STATES OFAMERICA.
At the foundation of every social order is a concept of law and government. For most of the history of our country this foundation was the Bible — the Word of God — including both the Old and New Testaments. Thus, the American view of law and government is founded on the Biblical view of law and government. This is explicitly made clear in the Declaration of Independence, which makes reference to the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God and The Supreme Judge of the World.
The Declaration, which the U.S. Code calls the “organic law of the United States,” asserts a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence. The Declaration goes on to say that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. AND, to secure these God-given rights, our Founders said that governments are instituted among men. So, our foundational law says clearly — explicitly — that the express purpose of government is to secure — to protect — rights we already have from God.[Interjection – It also gives “the people”: the right to “alter or abolish” when government officials do not do their sworn protective job. That was demonstrated in the Revolution making individuals, personally accountable by “the people” that is the check on corrupt government officials, outside of government control for obvious reasons. Section 1, U S Legal Code Annotated, organic law section.]
It is NOT the role (nor the ability) of government to GIVE people “rights,” but instead, to protect the rights God has already given us as human beings made in His image. We are often told today that America was founded as a secular country, where law and government are, supposedly, neutral and totally man-made. This is false. This is dangerous. This is destructive of liberty, and, as has been demonstrated, this is un-American.
NOTE: The following rules only apply to a republic such as the USA.
For a monarchy such as Great Britain substitute the word "baron" for "people",
and substitute the word "subject" for "citizen".
Also, in the USA, a peer is one of the people (not citizens).
In Great Britain, a peer is one of the nobility.
This website last updated May 18, 2009.
Common Law Grand Jury
The government must accept the Magna Carta as common law if pleaded as such.
Source: Confirmatio Cartarum, Article 1
Basic requirements and procedures for a common law grand jury:
Source: Magna Carta, Articles 52 & 61
Grand jury members must be elected by the people (not citizens) of the jurisdiction in which they are operating.
There are no rules defining a procedure for how they are elected. The people, without the influence of government, decide for themselves how the grand jury members are elected.
There must be 25 members.
( This can be modified to fewer members if "the people" so decide.)
The members must be "people" of the jurisdiction and not "citizens" of the jurisdiction.
For example, they must be "People of the United States," or "People of California," or "People of the State of California"; not "citizen of the United States," nor "citizen of California," nor "citizen of the State of California."
www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/pvc.htm http:// www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/sovreign.htm
Each member must be sworn in and promise to observe all of these rules and, so far as within his power, cause all the rules to be observed.
When the grand jury meets, if any are absent after being summoned, then those present constitute a quorum.
All decisions of grand jury are decided by majority vote of members present.
If any member dies or leaves the country, or in any other way is prevented from carrying out the grand jury's decisions, the remaining grand jurors shall choose another to fill his place and he shall likewise be sworn in.
FINALITY OF DECISIONS
No decision of a grand jury is reviewable in any court of the government.
Any government transgression against anyone in any respect.
Any government breaking of articles of peace or security.
Any dispute regarding anyone who has been disseized or removed, by the government without a legal sentence of his peers, from his lands, castles, liberties or lawful right.
If the grand jury is informed of any dispute regarding anyone who has been disseized or removed (by the government without a legal sentence of his peers) from his lands, castles, liberties or lawful right, then the dispute shall be settled by the grand jury.
Four of the members must be shown that because of the government,
A. A transgression has occurred against any one in any respect, or
B. Some one of the articles of peace or security has been broken
The four members must show to the government the government's error.
The four members must ask the government to amend that error without delay.
If the government does not amend the error within 40 days after being shown the error, then the four members shall refer the matter to the remainder of the grand jury.
The grand jury may distrain and oppress the government in every way in their power, namely, by taking the homes, lands, possessions, and any way else they can until amends shall have been made according to the sole judgment of the grand jury.
LIMITATION OF POWERS
The grand jury may not imprison or execute any government personnel or their children.
Anyone (people or citizen) who chooses to help enforce the grand jury decision must first swear that he will obey the mandates of the grand jury, and that with them to the extent of his power he will impose the grand jury's decisions upon the government.
The authority to support the grand jury is pre-authorized by the government.
If anyone refuses to support a grand jury decision, the government will force him to swear his support of the grand jury.
LIMITATIONS ON GOVERNMENT
The government is prohibited from doing anything to diminish the effect of the grand jury.
If the government does prohibit or diminish the effectiveness of the grand jury, it shall be vain and invalid and may not be used in any later proceeding by the government or anyone else.
TERMINATION OF ENFORCEMENT
When all issues are settled to the satisfaction of the grand jury, things shall return to normal as they were before. No grudges.
Reactivating the Common Law Grand Jury
A Brief Strategy Suggestion
When the colonies separated from England, King John retaliated by revoking the charters. Technically, the colonies were without any legal authority to operate. However, civics (the branch of political philosophy concerned with individual rights) was generally taught and known by the people who asserted their rights and maintained order by applying the common law. The people united in the form of common law grand juries and continued the functioning of government.
As the legislatures matured they slowly increased governmental power while simultaneously reducing personal sovereign power. This was done through a combination of passing pro-government legislation and reducing or eliminating education about civics. Today, two and a quarter centuries later, hardly anyone even knows the meaning of the word, "civics."
Despite the fact that the state and federal constitutions still acknowledge the common law as the ultimate law system, people everywhere are conditioned to believe that the statutory law and codes are the only source of law. The only remaining common law term generally known among the public is "common law marriage."
The common law grand jury is now dormant only because of the public ignorance of its powers that supercede all other government entities, including the modern statutorily defined grand jury. Awakening the grand jury will not be graciously accepted by the government. A strategy is needed to reintroduce this fundamental protection against tyranny and injustice.
STEP 1 - ESTABLISH LEGITIMACY
The first step is to get public acceptance. Every dictator in history understood the power of the people and cultivated their support either through enticements or threats. Reactivating the grand jury concept will go through four traditional stages: denial, ridicule, violent opposition, then self-evident acceptance.
Theoretically, the grand jury can meet anywhere, anytime. But that is hardly good image. One way to get public acceptance and minimize denial, ridicule, and violent opposition, is to hold the grand jury sessions in the public court house. The foreman could apply to a court administrator for use of one of the rooms in the public courthouse. If it is refused, then the court administrator should, under common law procedures, be sued for his dereliction of duty.
The grand jury should follow normal protocol. In other words, if the grand jury begins a process on its own, the resulting accusation is called a presentment. If a prosecutor orginates a process, then the jury returns to the prosecutor an indictment (also called a "true bill") on acceptance, or a "no bill" on denial. [Note: be careful with your words. wrong words may result in inaction! If you call the presentment an indictment, the prosecutor may feel no obligation because he did not initiate the process!]
STEP 2 - GAIN PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE
The second step is to start small. The grand jury could take on issues which anyone can easily see should be prosecuted. As public acceptance increases, the grand jury can enlarge its field of inquiry. The grand jury should have a strong public relations program for this step.
STEP 3 - TAKE ON LARGER PROJECTS
The third step is to take on grander objectives. If the first two steps are well executed, then this step will be the easiest. With both legitimacy and acceptance established the grand jury can make itself felt.
See United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992) for a discussion of separation of powers of government and grand jury.