 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
From:
The People's Panel
The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 - 1941
Richard D. Younger
Historical News:
"THE GRAND JURY originated in England as the accusing body in the administration of criminal justice. At the Assize of Clarendon, in 1166, Henry II provided that twelve knights or twelve "good and lawful men" of every hundred and four lawful men of every vill disclose under oath the names of those in the community believed guilty of criminal offenses. Members of this inquisitorial body were obliged to present to the judge sworn accusations against all suspected offenders. Unlike petit juries, grand juries were not to pass upon guilt or innocence but were to decide only whether an individual should be brought to trial. At first all accusations originated with the members of the inquest themselves, but gradually the juries came to consider accusations made by outsiders as well. The jurors then heard only witnesses against the accused and, if they were convinced that there were grounds for trial, indicted him. They also passed upon indictments laid before them by crown prosecutors, returning a "true bill" if they found the accusation true or "no bill" if they found it false. However, the juries never lost their power to accuse on their own knowledge. This they did by making a presentment to the court. The presentment represented an accusation on the jury's own initiative while an indictment represented a charge that originated outside the membership. Under their power of presentment English grand juries could and did investigate any mater that appeared to them to involve a violation of the law."
The people, through a working grand jury which is not stacked, or controlled, by the very people who are perpetrating crimes under the color of law, such as corrupt prosecutors and corrupt judges - the people themselves - have common law legal jurisdiction both civil and criminal, to investigate possible crimes, subpoena witnesses against the accused, and put alleged criminals to trial by jury according to the common law (see Bill of Rights): not Admiralty Court Plea Bargain (let's make a deal) Kangaroo Trials.
More from The People's Panel:
"They proved their effectiveness during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods in helping the colonists resist imperial interference. They provided a similar source of strength against outside pressure in the territories of the western United States, in the subject South following the Civil War, and in Mormon Utah. They frequently proved the only effective weapon against organized crime, malfeasance in office, and corruption in high places.
"But appreciation of the value of grand juries was always greater in times of crisis, and, during periods when threats to individual liberty were less obvious, legal reformers, efficiency experts, and a few who feared government by the people worked diligently to overthrow the institution. Proponents of the system, relying heavily on the democratic nature of the people's panel, on its role as a focal point for the expression of the public needs and the opportunity provided the individual citizen for direct participation in the enforcement of law, fought a losing battle. Opponents of the system leveled charges of inefficiency and tyranny against the panels of citizen investigators and pictured them as outmoded and expensive relics of the past. Charges of "star chamber" and "secret inquisition" helped discredit the institution in the eyes of the American people, and the crusade to abolish the grand jury, under the guise of bringing economy and efficiency to local government, succeeded in many states."
More News from History, and this news report is from Thomas Jefferson in his Notes on the State of Virginia.
"The state is divided into counties. In every county are appointed magistrates, called justices of the peace, usually from eight to thirty or forty in number, in proportion to the size of the county, of the most discreet and honest inhabitants. They are nominated by their fellows, but commissioned by the governor, and act without reward. These magistrates have jurisdiction both criminal and civil. If the question before them be a question of law only, they decide on it themselves: but if it be of fact, or of fact and law combined, it must be referred to a jury. In the latter case, of a combination of law and fact, it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right, which is casual only, is less dangerous to the state, and less afflicting to the loser, than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system. In truth, it is better to toss up cross and pile in a cause, than to refer it to a judge whose mind is warped by any motive whatever, in that particular case. But the common sense of twelve honest men gives still a better chance of just decision, than the hazard of cross and pile. These judges execute their process by the sheriff or coroner of the county, or by constables of their own appointment. If any free person commit an offence against the commonwealth, if it be below the degree of felony, he is bound by a justice to appear before their court, to answer it on indictment or information."
Notice the agreement between the people who nominate and the governor who commissions. What if it turns out that the governor is corrupt? That then is a statewide matter, concerning everyone in each county. The people in each county can employ a common law or "Constitutional" Sheriff, someone of the people, by the people, and for the people. The same question concerning the governor applies in each county: what if it turns out that the Sheriff in a county is corrupt?
How many Constitutional (common law?) Sheriffs showed up in support of the Bundy Family during the aggressive attack upon them by imposters claiming to be the government?
In a Constitutional (common law?) County, with a representative of the people in the form of a Sheriff who is duty bound to protect all the people from harm, the imposters claiming to be the government do not tread, crime does not pay in those counties.
Criminals avoid areas where rule of law is based upon the facts: the truth.
Where are the indictments from the grand juries in those Constitutional counties, where those Constitutional Sheriffs are employed in the necessary work of making crime pay less, and less, until criminals can no longer afford to perpetrate crimes in those places?
Why are the people who murdered Lavoy Finicum insulated from official investigation and indictment, by the people?
Have the outlaws made it a crime to employ rule of law in America?
Are those few Constitutional (common law?) Sheriffs in those American counties preserving rare sanctuaries against harm done to innocent people by criminals, including criminals posing as the government?
Can Ryan Bundy as governor of Nevada turn this lost soul America around, returning Americans to rule of law, one county at a time?
Will Ryan Bundy, as Governor of Nevada, allow the people to stack their grand juries with the most discreet and honest inhabitants, commanding jurisdiction both civil and criminal, and thereby be authorized to put any law breaker, including corrupt judges, corrupt Sheriffs, corrupt Prosecutors, corrupt congressmen, corrupt senators, and a corrupt president on trial?