Organizers
“Reinstate” Common Law Grand Juries in Pennsylvania
It
feels good to know that all of Arizona’s counties are now reconstituted and we
can move forward in the process—training judges, administrators and jurors.
With
the other countries climbing on board with this, Earth will once again restore
power to The People, and true freedom.
John
Darash of the National Liberty Alliance is an interesting guy to have on an
interview and the information Drake shared about the US constitution being
slyly changed over time to allow lawyers into the government… all of that
nonsense they pulled over on The People is available for those who want to
know.
I’ve
shared several posts including audios and videos about that over the last
couple of years if you want to learn more.
Of
course the feds will try to fight The People on this, but they will not be able
to continue to run the “justice” system their way because The People demand
true justice and transparency. The new energies won’t support that corrupt,
contemptible system any longer. Laws aren’t adopted to make a
criminal out of everyone, which is what the current administration aims to do.
Restitution will be the order of the day. ~ BP
Organizers “Reinstate” Common Law Grand Juries in
Pennsylvania
Organizers in nineteen of Pennsylvania’s counties have gathered to
“turn back the judicial clock to 1789” by reinstating common law grand
juries. Most notable, meetings have sprouted up in Allegheny, Beaver,
Butler, and Westmoreland counties to introduce the concept of the common law
grand jury and seek a vote for its reinstatement.
National Liberty Alliance, based in New York, has been the major
proponent of this movement. Their mission is to institute a common law
grand jury across each of 3,141 counties in the United States. According
to their website, the duty of the common law grand jury is to expose fraud and
corruption whether it is in the judicial or political realm.
Proponents of common law grand juries look to a 1992 United States
Supreme Court opinion to confirm their legitimacy. In U.S. v. Williams,
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his majority opinion that, “the whole theory of
[a grand jury’s] 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.”[1] Supporters claim that the common law grand jury is, in
effect, a fourth branch of government co-ordinate with the executive,
legislative, and judicial branches of government.
John Darash, of the National Liberty Alliance, commented on the
diminution of grand juries today. In an online broadcast, he said, “right
now the grand jury are people who are paid. They get a government
paycheck. They’re controlled by the Courts and the prosecutor gets to
bring the cases, not the grand jury.”[2] He continued, “[grand
juries] don’t seek out cases. They don’t look for justice.” What
powers the common law grand jury would have—that current grand juries do not
have—is the ability to subpoena witnesses, summon grand jury meetings, and make
accusations from independent investigations.
However, some officials question whether common law grand juries
would have any legal standing. Lackawanna County District Attorney, Andy
Jarbola, told a Times-Tribune reporter that such a group would not have any
authority nor would they be able to subpoena anyone.[3] Likewise, Duquesne
University School of Law associate professor, Wesley Oliver, echoed similar
sentiments suggesting that a formal process in the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure has replaced the common law process that once was used in federal
courts.[4]
Both critics and proponents though have not made clear whether
these grand juries would operate on a state or federal level. In the
federal arena, supporters of common law grand juries argue that the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure[5] have anesthetized some of the rights that are
inherent in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically,
they suggest that grand juries are empowered to act independently of courts and
to maintain full use of their investigatory powers. The Supreme Court has
hinted as much. Yet, the Court has not specified whether the independence of
the grand jury refers to a prohibition on courts and prosecutors from
interfering with grand jury decisions or something much broader.[6]
More important, proponents look to the time of the adoption of the
Fifth Amendment as justification for the grand juries broader powers. Before
the American Revolution, colonial grand juries served broader political
functions. They not only investigated criminal activity, but also managed
municipal operations. Road-building, bridge maintenance, and the
operation of local jails were all a part of the grand jury’s oversight
power. However, as administrative agencies began to manage local
activities, the need for a grand jury to oversee public affairs diminished.
Whatever the case may be, the Supreme Court has not held that the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are unconstitutional in how they regulate
grand juries. If anything, the Court has authorized changes to the
Federal Rules to guard against corrupting practices or prosecutorial
misconduct. For example, an amendment to Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure requires that prosecutors be recorded during these
proceedings. Moreover, the textual language of the Fifth Amendment limits
grand jury powers to the indictment of federal felonies; nothing mentions the
powers with which grand juries were invested during the American colonial era.
Despite the limited scope of the Fifth Amendment, the Supreme
Court has been clear on one thing: the Fifth Amendment does not apply to the
states.[7] The perplexing question then is why supporters of common law
grand juries have organized at the county level rather than at the federal
district court level. Perhaps some believe that the “common law grand
jury” system will operate on a county-wide level in their respective states and
that, despite court precedent, they believe the Fifth Amendment still applies
to the states.
However, many states have been playing by their own rules, which
the Supreme Court has regarded as constitutional. Indictments may be
raised in any manner the states devise. In some states, statutes govern
the operation of a grand jury. For example, Pennsylvania’s Consolidated
Statutes Annotated § 4543 provides that a grand jury may be impaneled either
through the initiative of the attorney general’s office or through the
president judge of the court of common pleas.[8] Thus, “in no case shall
the investigating grand jury inquire into alleged offenses on its own motion.”[9]
Other
states have given the legislature the power to abolish the grand jury or to
modify.[10] Ten states have given their legislatures the power to abolish
grand juries, while one state has given the courts the power to abolish the
indicting grand jury (Pennsylvania). Still, twenty-two states explicitly
deny legislatures, or courts, the power to abolish grand juries, and some
stipulate that the grand jury must be used for certain offences. And yet,
others neither deny, nor require, the grand jury.
Looking
at how states authorize grand jury powers demonstrates that the movement
sponsored by the National Liberty Alliance will need more than a blanket
strategy. Even if a more nuanced campaign existed for common law grand
juries, organizers would ultimately have to change the laws in their state
through their legislatures or invoke some other constitutional mechanism such
as a referendum or state constitutional amendment.
Yet,
proponents argue that their state and federal legislatures are corrupt, which
requires the need for common law grand juries—to put these politicians out of
business. These arguments are not new. In the 1970’s, a group known
as the Posse Comitatus, who rejected authority above the county level,
appointed their own judges and ambassadors after organizing a town known as the
“Constitutional Township of Tigerton Dells” in Wisconsin.
As
Daniel Lessard Levin noted in his article, A Law Unto Themselves: The
Ideology of the Common Law Movement, “This idea, they claim, derives from
English common law and all legal powers in the office of the sheriff, while
power to interpret the law is placed in ‘common law associations and Christian
grand juries, composed of only white, Christian males.’ Posse members believe
that the only legitimate law was divinely given in the Bible and manifested in
the United States in the Articles of Confederation and Constitution, which
restate that divine law.”
The
National Liberty Alliance has derived similar theories. On their website,
they offer classes on the Constitution and the common law that espouse these
theories.[11] They also provide courses on how to access courts without
an attorney and how individuals can represent themselves.[12] The next
question, however, is whether the National Liberty Alliance or their organizers
intend to represent themselves if judges ignore their bills of indictment and
whether they see this as important to their strategy.
