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:
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:
