Eric Williams makes a statement in which he disagrees with what appears to be the basis of the NGJM’s position on the power of the Grand Jury

Eric Williams makes a statement in which he disagrees with what appears to be the basis of the NGJM’s position on the power of the Grand Jury

Posted on June 30, 2014 by Jean

Does U.S. vs. Williams actually provide as presumed?

It seems the National Grand Jury Movement is basing its position and application of the power of the Grand Jury, created in the Fifth Amendment, on what the SCOTUS wrote in U.S. vs. Williams.

When reading court cases it is very important to understand there are basically two issues to keep in mind, (1) what is the issue being examined and what is the court’s ruling in regard to that issue and (2) What part of the writing in that case is nothing but the court’s explanation of the basis of its ruling, known as DICTUM. 

What I write herein below was my original thought on the Williams case, the first time I read it, several years ago.

The ruling of SCOTUS, in Williams was limited to determining whether or not the prosecutor had erred in failing to present exculpatory evidence to the Grand Jury.  Everything else mentioned in that case was mere Dictum.  The Grand Jury explanations being no more than part of the reasoning that brought the SCOTUS to its decision.  None of the information included in regard to the Grand Jury was determinative of the cause of the existence of the GJ or in determining the authority of the GJ.

Webster’s New World Dictionary, DICTUM:  a formal statement of fact or opinion; In law, a judge’s statement of opinion on some legal point not essential to and other than the principal issue of the case.

My very large three volume edition of BOUVIER’S Law Dictionary has two full pages, four columns of explanation, essentially doing nothing more than expanding on the Webster’s meaning.

If SCOTUS was to include in its dicta as an example, that placing your hand in a bucket of water caused your hand to become wet, would that information then be claimed to be an official SCOTUS determination and ruling that water is wet?  Or merely the Court’s use of a self evident fact to illustrate that some matters are determined by simple reasoning and application of relevant self evident information?

In the matter of the Grand Jury, its existence and creation in the Fifth Amendment is self-evident.  The fact that is was not created in the body of the Constitution is self-evident.  The fact that its creation in the Fifth Amendment causes it to be outside the regulatory authority of the courts or legislature is self-evident.  Based on the foregoing, the fact that it is autonomous is a reasonable conclusion not requiring any determination by the SCOTUS.  As there are no restrictions or establishment of the basis of the operation of the Grand Jury in the Fifth Amendment, the presumption that the GJ would operate under the principles of the common law is reasonably self-evident, and is not ruled upon by SCOTUS in Williams .

This fairly well establishes that the SCOTUS references to the creation and authority of the GJ in the Williams case did not, in and of themselves, in any way establish any factors in regard to the Grand Jury, any more than would a mention by the SCOTUS that water is wet and fire is hot, determine such to be true.  In order for the court to make determinations, the matter being determined must be an item in contention that the court was asked to resolve.  As the origin and function of the GJ was NOT an issue in the Williams case, the mention of origin of the Grand Jury in Williams does NOT constitute any GJ ruling by SCOTUS!

This brings me to the determination of the principles of the common law.  There is a case in the current news about voters in a foreign country having their fingers cut off because they insisted in voting in a manner they had been authoritivly instructed not to.  Where can there possibly be any properly established authority to mete out such punishment?  Where can there possibly be any properly established authority to authoritivly instruct voters how to vote?  Or, to get to the real bottom line, Where can there possibly be any properly established authority to require others to conform to the outcome of a vote? 

Questions that must be answered:

Where is there any authority for a GJ created under the Constitution to assign itself authority to require courts to prosecute anyone or to respond to subpoenas issued by any GJ? 

As the common law is unwritten, from where does the authority arise to determine how the Fifth Amendment GJ shall operate?

In answering these questions, those striving to reconstitute the People’s Grand Jury would be well advised to consider the following:

Where is the control of all the power now exercised in the United States situated?  Is it not firmly exercised by instructions of the now existing courts?  How can the People’s Grand Juries reasonably expect to re-establish themselves when people like John are allowed to be in control and loudly espouse the intention of the GJ is to indict any and all judges who do not jump through his hoop? 

I am Eric Williams, The Radical In The Twilight Zone

For the National Liberty Alliance 9pm EASTERN, Monday National Conference call:

For those who might want to have access to the type chat and the call, go to the below web site and click in the telephone image at the left of the page:

http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/mondaycall 

To Phone in and listen:

DIAL (559) 726-1300 – ENTER ACCESS CODE 385698; 

If you have technical problems with the above try  (877) 482-5838

 If you get a message “all lines are busy” try (805) 360-1075 and follow the instructions.

  PRESS *6 TO MUTE/UNMUTE

Share this:

http://jhaines6.wordpress.com/2014/06/30/eric-williams-makes-a-statement-in-which-he-disagrees-with-what-appears-to-be-the-basis-of-the-ngjms-position-on-the-power-of-the-grand-jury/