ACCESS TO GRAND JURIES
- View SourceACCESS TO GRAND JURIES
Dear Thomas Bumgardner:
I am honored that you have shared with me concerning Grand Juries. It is exciting to see more and more People are having their eyes opened as to the purpose and value of Grand Juries. (Until the People center on Grand Juries, they have not yet entered the portals of the front lines.)
I just sent out to everyone "The Federal Judicial Accountability & Integrity Legislation." It deals very much with the subject and objective of your email, which is access to the Federal Grand Juries.
Because governments are aware of the exclusive power and authority of Grand Juries, they have subtly conveyed away Grand Juries from the People. What they wish to keep the People ignorant of, and the subject of which I center upon, is that the Grand Juries are us, the People. They would have us think that when a person is selected to serve upon the Grand Jury they, all of a sudden, become exclusive of the People, and work only for the government. This is not only not so, but is contrary to the Constitution. The salient portion is the Fifth Amendment, to wit; "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury ..." So we instantly see an exclusiveness of the operation of the Grand Jury which no other entity within our system of justice, whether state or federal, can attain unto.
When I wrote the J.A.I.L. Initiative, I was asked by the California Legislative Analyst under the authority of which branch of government; Legislative, Executive, or Judicial, does the Special Grand Jury operate. I told the Legislative Analyst that it operated under none of the branches of government, rather that the Grand Jury was the People, and that the People do not function under the authority of any government, rather, that the three branches of government derive their just powers from the consent of the People. They then asked me that since no judge under the jurisdiction of the Special Grand Jury may sit in judgment upon the Constitutionality of the Initiative, who did I propose should sit in such judgment. I responded that I am unable to advise you as to how the Initiative can be attacked, but our defense will be Article II, Sec. 1 of the Constitution, to wit; "All political power is inherent in the People. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good my require."
Now, coming back to access to Grand Juries. It is easily discerned that no capital or infamous crime (felony) against anyone may proceed without the participation of the Grand Jury. This proceeding is recognized in the Constitution as "Probable Cause." The subject of Probable Cause is identified in the immediately proceeding Forth Amendment, "The right of the People to be secure in the persons, houses papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
In other words, all governments are totally impotent without the Probable Cause permission of the People in the forum of the Grand Jury. This accords with the wording of our Declaration of Independence, "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ..." The Grand Jury is the power of the People to act both as a shield and as a sword. A "presentment" refers to to the shield, and the indictment refers to the sword. In either case, the proceeding begins and ends with the People. We are, in affect, the Alpha and the Omega when in comes to all felonies. Outside of felonies, the only other class of crimes is misdemeanors. There are no such things as "Infractions," within the Constitution. In lesser crimes of misdemeanors we authorize magistrates, sitting not as judges, and who are independent of court jurisdiction, to determine Probable Cause. But whether high crimes or misdemeanors, determination of Probable Cause is an absolute! This is why all traffic matters are unconstitutional because they are conducted in the absence of Probable Cause. (They are further absent a jury trial as required in Article III, Sec. 2, Clause 3.)
"Indictments" are exclusively and solely the Power of the People sitting as Grand Jurors. They have the power to go after anyone, within their exclusive judgment, they believe should be brought before the People in a criminal trial. This raises the question, how is the Grand Jury to be informed when the subject for their consideration to be indicted, are government officials? Did our Founding Fathers intend that only government may make a "presentments" against government, and preclude the People access to themselves as Grand Jurors? Such conclusion would be absurd, as such though would give only the government the right to determine if its own actions are justified. Obviously, such conclusion would be that all power resides within government, and that if they do not wish to seek an indictment against themselves, too bad for the People. While I do believe that such an argument is Constitutionally absurd, it is this very point I was very careful to make ever so clear within the J.A.I.L. Initiative. Once J.A.I.L. is incorporated into our Constitutions, governments can no longer make, or fantasize such absurd conclusion. We must not loose sight of the fact that,
"All political power is inherent in the People....They have the right to alter or reform it when the public good my require."
National JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief
-------- Original Message --------
Mister Branson, I must add a personal experience pertaining to the Grand Jury.
Several years ago I wanted to bring charges against federal officials. Recommendations were made as to whom I should call and my final telephone call was to the federal prosecutor in Charleston, West Virginia.
The prosecutor advised me that the location and date of all federal grand juries were confidential, that I could have no access to them for any matter.
The enumerated powers makes it very clear that only Congress makes Rules for all federal government activities. Who maintains that no cameras are allowed in the Supreme Court? Who maintains that a defendant's lawyer may not address a Grand Jury? Who maintains that a judge may sentence any person to prison in the United States with the sole exception of treason?
The Greatest Story Ever Told hinges not on politics, but religion.
My final book hinges on politics, not religion. A title choice now under consideration is The Greatest Legal Story Ever Told. Its principal theme is trial by jury. It attacks a lot of P's; politics, press, principles and principals, prostitutes and preachers.
I wonder how a preacher's sermon would change if, --under the Constitution's The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury,-- all whores subjected to criminal charges were publicly tried?
Thomas E. Bumgardner