J.A.I.L. News
Journal
______________________________________________________
Los
Angeles,
California
April
15, 2005
______________________________________________________
Then Citizens Cannot Be Trusted
If one listens and pays
attention to the words of government today, it is one that citizens are
either untrustworthy or incompetent to decide for themselves their own affairs,
and that government must decide for them. The below is a judicial
decision that has just ruled that as it pertains to making complaints
to the Grand Jury. "Allowing any citizen with a
grudge to complain to a grand jury would be "fraught with abuse," Justice
Barry Albin wrote for the state high court."
Grand Juries were created by our Founding Fathers as a powerful check upon arbitrary government. The Grand Jury, in reality, possesses both a spear and a shield, and in both instances, it is an instrument of the Power of the People, and a check upon government. In Amendment V of our U.S. Constitution we are told, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury ...."
What is a "presentment," and what is an "indictment" of the Grand Jury? A presentment is the shield operation of the Grand Jury, such as when the prosecutor presents a case to the Grand Jury, as when he asks the Grand Jury to determine Probable Cause in testing whether they will allow the government to proceed to try a citizen for an accused crime. An indictment is the Sword operations of the Grand Jury, as when the Grand Jury goes after government officials for violations of law. (They are at liberty to also indict non-government people, but going after government is its principle Sword function.)
Now what is the distinction between "a capital offense," and "an infamous crime." A capital offense involves crimes worthy of death, such as murder, and comes from the word capitation, "to behead." An "otherwise infamous crime" means a felony, such as kidnapping, hostage-taking, rape, or black-mail, etc.
Felonies were once all very serious crimes in everyone's estimation. However, the standard of felony today comes to mean just about anything, including victimless "crimes," to wit: ownership and/or possession of guns, failure to file paperwork, moving of one's own funds without reporting it to the government, using privacy techniques to hid actions, for instance, have been "declared" felonies in some jurisdictions, which heretofore, were not even crimes, much less felonies. For fun, I once sat down a constructed a long list of paper "crimes" one could be accused of, and while sounding like the defendant, if convicted, should be placed under the prison, a simple viewing of each one of them revealed that not a one of them were crimes at all. In other words, a thousand zeros equal zero, but it does compose a very long list.
Grand Juries
hold a very, very important function for the correct running of our
form of government, however, our Founding Fathers failed to pen in our
Constitution the full details. They just presumed that future
generations would know the duties of Grand Juries, which was detrimental to
our future. Because of the vagueness of Grand Juries in our Constitution,
government began turning things around by brain-washing the people into
believing that their job as Grand Jurors was to be a sledge-hammer in the
hands of the prosecutor. But from its inception Grand Juries
were to be a forum in the hands of the people to investigate government
corruption, and to go after government officials.
~ ~ ~ ~
State justices rule citizens can't take case to grand
jury
Tuesday, April 12, 2022
BY ROBERT SCHWANEBERG
Star-Ledger Staff
Only prosecutors, not private
citizens, can take complaints of wrongdoing to a grand jury, the New Jersey
Supreme Court unanimously ruled yesterday.
The justices overturned a
lower court ruling giving ordinary citizens access to grand juries and
reaffirmed prosecutors' long-held monopoly over the power to initiate criminal
investigations.
In doing so, the high court turned back arguments by an
activist attorney that citizens needed a direct path to grand juries to expose
corruption in a scandal-plagued state.
Allowing any citizen with a
grudge to complain to a grand jury would be "fraught with abuse," Justice Barry
Albin wrote for the state high court.
"In some cases, a private person
might be bent on pursuing an ill motive or vindictive agenda," Albin wrote. "For
instance, political candidates, on the eve of an election, might charge their
opponents with fraud or some other nefarious activity and request admission
to the grand jury."
Assistant Attorney General Boris Moczula, who had
argued against grand jury access for private citizens, called the ruling "very
good news."
"The opinion shows that for legal, practical and ethical
reasons, the criminal justice system is not well-served by creating the
equivalent of open-mike night before the grand jury," Moczula said.
It had been decades since any citizen had gone directly to a grand jury
when Monmouth County lawyer Larry Loigman demanded that right in 2002, claiming
he had evidence of "financial irregularities" in Middletown Township.
Monmouth County Assignment Judge Lawrence Lawson ruled that Loigman
could not contact the grand jurors but should instead take his suspicions to the
county prosecutor or the attorney general.
Last June, however, a state appeals
court concluded that ordinary citizens have always had a right to bring
allegations of wrongdoing to a grand jury, even if it has been little used in
recent years. It directed that a letter containing Loigman's allegations be read
to the county grand jury, which could then, if it wished, invite him to testify.
At the request of the Attorney General's Office, that
ruling was promptly put on hold.
Yesterday, the high
court ruled that Lawson, the trial judge, was right to refuse to "'open the
floodgate's to countless requests to appear before a grand jury."
"I'm disappointed," Loigman said. "I have a lot more confidence in the
citizens of this state than the Supreme Court does."
When he argued his case before the justices in February, Loigman contended that empowering ordinary citizens to bring evidence of corruption to grand juries would "help restore trust" in a government tarnished by recent scandals.
Albin, however, concluded that is not a job for
citizens with no legal training.
"The prosecutors' offices in this state
have hundreds of experienced and well-trained attorneys, many of whom have
made law enforcement their career," Albin wrote. "We have no reason to believe
they cannot be trusted to bring before the grand jury meritorious complaints of
potential criminal conduct and to weed out frivolous allegations unworthy of
presentation."
Loigman said, "I think the Supreme Court has
exaggerated confidence in the abilities of the attorney general and the county
prosecutor to deal with issues of misconduct in government." One need look only
to "what has happened in Monmouth County in recent months," he said.
After FBI agents served seven subpoenas on the Monmouth County
Prosecutor's Office last month, acting Gov. Richard Codey ordered Attorney
General Peter Harvey to find out whether Prosecutor John Kaye had tried to
impede a criminal investigation by U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie that
resulted in the arrests of 11 public officials.
That "fact-finding
review" is still pending, said John Hagerty, a spokesman for the state Division
of Criminal Justice.
Loigman, a vocal critic of Kaye, said that to his
knowledge, the inquiry is unrelated to the allegations he tried to bring to the
grand jury.
Robert Schwaneberg covers legal issues. He may be reached at
[email protected] or
(609) 989-0324.
If you follow the above
logic, then one concludes that legal education produces ethical agendas. Hence,
attorneys, such as judges and prosecutors, are the best candidates to approach
the Grand Jurors because they are more likely to avoid ill motives and
vindictive agendas, and especially so since many of them have law enforcement
training. Justice Barry Albin "concluded that is not a job for
citizens with no legal training.
"Legal training?" Where
did he get his legal training on prosecuting attorneys and judges are the
only ones qualified to access Grand Juries? Where is that even inferred
to in the Constitution?
J.A.I.L. is written to
clarify in our Constitutions for all time, that Grand Juries belong to the
People, and is their Sword to go after corrupt governments. And this is what
will happen once J.A.I.L. takes effect. Every official will fear what they term
as "a run-away Grand Jury," a Grand Jury that has teeth and bites, and may
come after them. J.A.I.L. will embarrass all Grand Juries in America into action
against all government officials caught with their hand in the cookie jar. That
is what Grand Juries are supposed to do.
J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - href="../../State_Chapters/dc/DC_initiative.doc">www.jail4judges.org
Contribute to
J.A.I.L. at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
See our active flash,
http://www.jail4judges.org/Flash.htmJAIL
is a unique addition to our form of gov't. heretofore unrealized.
JAIL is
powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
JAIL is taking
America like a wildfire!