SOLUTION TO TYRANNY-GRAND JURY?

Post links to other websites here. One thread for each website please, so we can discuss them.

Moderators: family_man, LindaJM

annakenc
Posts: 163
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 12:57 pm

SOLUTION TO TYRANNY-GRAND JURY?

Postby annakenc » Fri Dec 30, 2011 4:50 pm

Hey People! I have been completely at a loss to understand how it can happen that a child who is part of my body (yes even though he is not still IN my body) and who I LOVE and who needs ME (Mommy's DO know best)
can be chained by LAW to some unknown government agency at 7 months old. I have been agonizing and perplexed at the same time for 1 and 1/2 years now. On this site I have heard what seems like hundreds of similar stories of anquish and I have been at a complete loss on how to explain how this can happen in America 2010.
Anyone want to discuss how to make changes-I post a link and another to come which tells what I think may help us and the future generations keep their sanity just a little while longer in this crazy world we live in.
Looks like I posted the entire article: hope this makes sense to someone.

The Man that hath no music in himself,Nor is not moved with concord of sweet sounds,Is fit for treasons, strategems, and spoils. - William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice
Greeley Gazette newspaper HomeCommunity

Presidential candidates urged to sign pledge for religious freedom.CAN CITIZENS FORM THEIR OWN GRAND JURY AND INDICT POLITICIANS FOR CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR
Posted by Jim Frazier • July 23, 2010 •
To Governor Hickenlooper: “Stay out of our way”
Tea Party and Progressive Consensus Possible
HICKENLOOPER POSTER BOY FOR UN GROUP THAT SEEKS TO REPLACE US CONSITUTION
How black is the veil between citizens of the USA and their federal government?
.
By Jim Frazier

An organization called the “American Grand Jury.org” has convened a Grand Jury and indicted President Obama for the crime of treason. Will their indictment be acknowledged in a U.S. District court of law? Are common citizens able to indict an elected official?

“Yes,” says Hal Von Luebbert,” author of “Citizen Power Now.” “The US government has no power to bring anyone to trial. The government can NOT find any person guilty of anything. Both of those powers belong to The People through use of a jury.”

The U.S. Attorney’s office in Colorado does not agree. “I don’t think any citizen- convened Grand Jury has power to be enforced in a court of law,” said Jeff Dorschnor, spokesperson for the U.S. Attorneys office in Denver.

Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck echoed the same idea. “I’ve never heard of a Grand Jury called by citizens,” he said.

Mike Saccone, the Colorado Department of Law’s spokesperson, said, “There are no provisions for formation of citizen grand juries in Colorado. That is the way the statues stand now.”

Von Lubbuert disagrees. “Our elected officials have lost the vision of our forefathers. The Bill of Rights is still the supreme law of our land, and that law provides for indictment only by a Grand Jury composed of common people. That law provides for conviction only by a Petit Jury, a jury of your peers. Think about it,” he said. “When you go to a trial, the charges are brought by “The People.” The jury decides whether you are innocent or guilty – not the judge. The jury does not have to follow the law. In fact, the jury can ignore the law and set free an obviously guilty person if they want. The jury is the final word, not the judge, not the prosecutors. The power to create freedom belongs to the jury.”

But the power to convene a Grand Jury is not recognized today in America by most judges. Leo Donofrio, a New Jersey attorney explains. “The constitutional power of ‘we the people’ sitting as grand jurors has been subverted by a deceptive play on words since 1946 when the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were enacted. Regardless, the power still exists in the Constitution and has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court.”
Donofrio says the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides the power for a Grand Jury of the people without reliance upon a U.S. Attorney to concur in such criminal charges.

The issue has been discussed often in legal journals. Roger Roots, writing in the “Creighton Law Review,” stated: “In theory, the grand jury is a body of independent citizens that can investigate any crime or government misdeed that comes to its attention. In practice, however, the grand jury is dependent upon the prosecutor to bring cases and gather evidence.

Thus, while the grand jury still exists as an institution -- in a sterile, watered-down, and impotent form -- its decisions are the mere reflection of the United States Justice Department.

The powers for citizen grand juries have been affirmed by several Supreme Court decisions. Justice Powell, in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974), stated:
"The grand jury's historic functions survive to this day. Its responsibilities continue to include both the determination of whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the protection of citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686-687 (1972)."

In United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992), Justice Scalia, delivering the opinion of the court, laid down the law of the land:

“'[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history,… the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It "'is a constitutional fixture in its own right.'"

Robert Campbell, founder of the American Grand Jury, says that this passage sets the stage for a revolutionary new FOURTH BRANCH of the Government in the United States. “Besides, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches, I submit that there is a fourth branch, THE GRAND JURY, and "we the people” when sitting as grand jurors, are, as Scalia quoted in US v. Williams, “a constitutional fixture in its own right."

He quotes more of Scalia’s opinion regarding the Grand Jury:

In fact, the whole theory of its 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.

“The law is on our side,” Campbell says. “We the People have the right and power under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution to charge this government with crimes whether the US Attorneys or the federal judges agree with us. As the Supreme Court has so brilliantly stated, we are the "buffer between the Government and the people."

Campbell’s American Grand Jury team is actively pursuing decisions in a number of United States District Courts located in multiple jurisdictions including: the District of Columbia, Tennessee, Alabama, Florida, Kansas, New York, Texas, California, Arizona, Connecticut, and others.
Campbell says that a federal judge, Royce Lamberth, U.S. District Court in Washington, DC, has issued two opinions in response to the filings including the statement that the presentments are constitutionally permitted…”

For more information go to www.americangrandjury.org/
To hear more statements by Hal Von Luebbert go to www.CitizenPowerNow.com

Share on Facebook


Tagged as: American, American Grand Jury, Bill Rights, Campbell, citizen, Colorado, Constitution, Court, government, GRAND, Grand Jury, Hal Von Luebbert, judge, JURY, law, right, Supreme, Supreme Court, United States, US .3 Responses »

Mary Adams

July 31, 2010 • 8:44 am .No, citizens can't form their own Grand Juries.

They have no more power than a bunch of people signing up for a tiddlywinks league.

These so-called "citizens grand juries" are no more than lynching mobs - a self-selected group getting together for the sole purpose of convicting someone they don't like.

If these GJs were possible, any bunch of neighbors could form a "jury" and convict another neighbor on specious "evidence".

Here is a link to a REAL Grand Jury:
http://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/grandjury/gjfunction.htm


Hal von Luebbert

August 2, 2010 • 11:52 am .Pretty - no, archetypically so - typical. I have not ever said that a group of citizens could - or should - pick their own Grand Jury and issue indictments. Neither, for reasons I will mention here, is that tactically necessary. Further, however, neither does the state - and its judges and lawyers - have any Constitutional right to control ("A Grand Jury will indict a ham sandwich" - Sol Wachtler, former New York State Chief Judge) either the Grand or Petit Jury.

A jury of peers controlled by the state, its prosecutors and judges is an absurdity in either common law or the logic of our legal system.

Neither would that be possible, not advisable, were the public to have any knowledge or understanding of the history of the two systems. I am an historian, not an attorney (there is a difference between "attorney" and "lawyer"), such that I know the Grand Jury system as well as anybody. And I know, too, that the expression "runaway" Grand Jury is a revealing one, stating as it does that a Grand Jury unwilling to do the prosecutor's bidding, or to investigate on its won is a "runaway." Once impaneled by the court, a Grand Jury has the power to investigate anything it deems appropriate (as one in Colorado not that long ago did having to do with Rocky Flat, something in which I became personally involved). I know that from personal experience, incidentally, having once moved a Grand Jury foreman and Grand Jury to use grand jury power to have a crooked County Attorney indicted and eventually removed from office.

All attorneys, it would appear, aren't necessarily good ones.

If anyone has been misled due my having been misquoted, I certainly apologize. The fact remains nevertheless that control of this country can be returned to the people by means of the system originally established for it by its Founders; and as, none other than Abraham Lincoln noted, " This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."

Neither Grand or Petit Jury is obliged to follow the "instructions" of the court (or, for that matter, its officers). That remains not only a fact of both law and history, it is the only reasonable and just way to proceed in a republic constituted as this one was.


Hal von Luebbert

August 2, 2010 • 12:17 pm .Continuing (a kind of P.S.), I have just written this to my friend Jim Frazier:

P.S. Jim, I just read the “thread” concerning the Grand Jury. I have never, ever said that the public can impanel a Grand Jury, certainly not a national one – or, for that matter (even) a Petit Jury. Neither, nipping in the bud what I’m afraid may come out of my supposed mouth next, have I ever said that common law courts are legal – or, again, advisable, or necessary. That’s all just plain absurd, still another form of the damned “wing-nut” anarchy being inflicted upon us all (have you watched an illegal immigrant rally lately or listened to the proponents of criminal importation?) everywhere in the Land of the Free turned Land of the Fee. And, as I said on the Greeley Gazette site, that simply isn’t necessary (being really stupid, playing right into the hands of the enemy as it does, and the people who promote this crap to the public obviously haven’t the tactical smarts of a Dodo bird).

What this country needs is an educated and informed public, one that participates in the system, including when they serves on juries. What has been called "jury nullification" is as possible and advisable where the Grand Jury is concerned as it is (and where it is more commonly related) with the Petit Jury. A pack of moronic sheep herded by the prosecuting state into a jury room or jury box, to rubber stamp the kind of crap we see everywhere in our courthouse nowadays, is one very representative example of the reasons we are a nation in decline. "Innocence Projects" wouldn't be necessary, and we wouldn't have convicted thousands of innocent men (and, perhaps, even women), were juries - especially Grand Juries - picked from truly sovereign citizens.

The empaneling of Grand Jury of today means only that the state hasn't sufficient proof to warrant a Country Attorney's Information (another abomination of our system foisted upon a public now dumber than your fifth-grader about their country and its history); and I can't imagine, moreover, that any attorney who dares go to church will gainsay what I say in that regard.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

annakenc
Posts: 163
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 12:57 pm

Re: SOLUTION TO TYRANNY-GRAND JURY?

Postby annakenc » Fri Dec 30, 2011 5:00 pm

Here's some more information (sorry obviously I don't know how to post LINKS) Hope this is useful enough to take up this much space on here!
United States
A grand jury investigating the fire that destroyed the Arcadia Hotel in Boston, Massachusetts in 1913.In the early decades of the United States grand juries played a major role in public matters. During that period counties followed the traditional practice of requiring all decisions be made by at least twelve of the grand jurors, (e.g., for a twenty-three-person grand jury, twelve people would constitute a bare majority). Any citizen could bring a matter before a grand jury directly, from a public work that needed repair, to the delinquent conduct of a public official, to a complaint of a crime, and grand juries could conduct their own investigations. In that era most criminal prosecutions were conducted by private parties, either a law enforcement officer, a lawyer hired by a crime victim or his family, or even by laymen. A layman could bring a bill of indictment to the grand jury; if the grand jury found there was sufficient evidence for a trial, that the act was a crime under law, and that the court had jurisdiction, it would return the indictment to the complainant. The grand jury would then appoint the complaining party to exercise the authority of an attorney general, that is, one having a general power of attorney to represent the state in the case. The grand jury served to screen out incompetent or malicious prosecutions.[8] The advent of official public prosecutors in the later decades of the 19th century largely displaced private prosecutions.[9]

While all states in the U.S. currently have provisions for Grand Juries,[10] today approximately half of the states employ them[11] and only twenty-two require their use, to varying extents.[12]

[edit] Current usage in the United States[edit] Federal lawThe Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger . . . ."[13] Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure governs grand juries. It requires grand juries to be composed of 16 to 23 members and that 12 members must concur in an indictment.[14] A grand jury is instructed to return an indictment if the probable cause standard has been met. The grand jury's decision is either a "true bill" (resulting in an "indictment"), or "no true bill".

The grand jury right may be waived, including by plea agreement. A valid waiver must be made in open court and after the defendant has been advised of the nature of the charge and of the defendant's rights.[15]

The grand jury can compel a witness to testify. The target of a grand jury investigation has no right to testify or put on a defense before the grand jury.[16][17] The U.S. Attorney's Manual anticipates the possibility of allowing investigatory targets to testify.[18]

Grand jury proceedings are secret. A judge is not present during the grand jury's deliberations.[19]

Misdemeanors are not presented to a grand jury, and are instead charged by prosecutor's "information." In the United States armed forces, an Article 32 hearing is used for a similar purpose.

The U.S. Attorneys Manual states that prosecutors "must recognize that the grand jury is an independent body, whose functions include not only the investigation of crime and the initiation of criminal prosecution but also the protection of the citizenry from unfounded criminal charges."[20]

[edit] Special grand juryA "special grand jury" is one of two types of grand juries that exist in the U.S. federal system. While a regular grand jury primarily decides whether to bring charges, a special grand jury is called into existence to investigate whether organized crime is occurring in the community in which it sits. This could include, for instance, organized drug activity or organized corruption in government. As provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3331(a), the U.S. District Court in every judicial district having more than four million inhabitants must impanel a special grand jury at least once every eighteen months.[21]

[edit] State lawThe grand jury clause of the Fifth Amendment has not been incorporated against the U.S. states.[22] As a matter of state law, the states of Arizona, California, Idaho, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia employ some form of grand jury.

[edit] CaliforniaThe California constitution requires each county to have at least one grand jury impaneled at all times. Grand juries are governed by Title 4 and Title 5 of the California Penal Code, as well as Government Code 3060 [2] and other more general provisions. In addition, grand juries are not subject to the Brown Act.

Most grand juries are seated on a fiscal cycle, i.e. July through June. Most counties have panels consisting of nineteen jurors, some have as few as eleven jurors, others have as many as twenty-three (see California Penal Code Section 888.2). Due to the length of service grand jurors are usually selected on a volunteer basis.

These county-level grand juries primarily focus on oversight of government institutions at the county level or lower. Almost any entity that receives public money can be examined by the grand jury, including county government, cities, and special districts. Each panel selects the topics that it wishes to examine each year. A jury is not allowed to continue an oversight from a previous panel. If a jury wishes to look at a subject that a prior jury was examining, it must start its own investigation and independently verify all information. It may use information obtained from the prior jury but this information must be verified before it can be used by the current jury. Upon completing its investigation, the jury may, but is not required to, issue a report detailing its findings and recommendations.

The grand jury is required to publish a minimum of one report containing a minimum of one finding and one recommendation. The published reports are the only public record of the grand jury's work; there is no minority report. Each published report includes a list of those public entities that are required or requested to respond. The format of these responses is dictated by California Penal Code Section 933.05, as is the time span in which they must respond.

County grand juries develop areas to examine by two avenues: juror interests, and public complaints. Complaints filed by the public are kept confidential. The protection of whistleblowers is one of the primary reasons for the confidential nature of the grand jury's work.

Most county grand juries in California do not consider criminal matters, though by law they are required to (Penal Code 914.1) [3]. In addition, a decision to present criminal cases to the grand jury may be made by the county District Attorney.

[edit] KentuckyIn Kentucky, grand jurors are empaneled in each county, at the Circuit level (felonies only) for a four-month term (three panels per year). During the trial jury orientation for the given four-month term, the grand jurors are selected from the trial jury pool, although the method of selection is not necessarily random. The meetings are twice a month (however, grand juries in more populous counties generally meet more often), with each meeting usually going through 20-30 cases in a four to five hour period. The indictment rate is about 98-99%; the grand jury can broaden (about 1% of the time) or narrow (about 3% of the time) the counts in the indictment as well. Usually, fifteen or so[clarification needed] grand jurors are required to report to meetings; the hope is that twelve will show to each meeting, which is the number of jurors required to hear cases (extra jurors can leave). It takes nine yes votes to the question of probable cause to sign a true bill of indictment. Fewer than nine yes votes either causes a no true bill or a narrowing of the indictment (depending on the votes per count).

The rules are very similar to the federal process; the grand jury only hears from law enforcement personnel, with the exception of property crimes, where store detectives or actual victims of theft or vandalism are called to testify. The only cases brought to the grand jury are those initiated from the Commonwealth's Attorney's office (the prosecutor for felonies). For the vast majority of cases, the grand jurors generally only hear a recitation of facts from the police report, crime laboratory reports, and other documentation generated during the evidence gathering process. Grand jurors can ask factual questions of the witnesses and legal questions of the prosecutors. The ability to broaden or narrow indictments does technically allow for grand juries to open new avenues of investigation, although since it is dependent on prosecutors for facts, this is very rarely done. Rules of confidentiality apply to grand jurors, which are similar to the federal rules.

[edit] LouisianaIn the state of Louisiana there is a third option, "By pretermitting entirely the matter investigated". This requires nine of the twelve grand jurors to determine there is not enough evidence presented to determine if a person should or should not be charged with a crime.[23]

[edit] MinnesotaHennepin County, Minnesota (which contains Minneapolis) keeps a grand jury impaneled at all times. Each grand jury serves a term of four months, typically meets one day each week, and focuses almost exclusively on homicide cases.

[edit] VirginiaThe Commonwealth of Virginia requires that all felonies be presented to a grand jury either directly or, more often, after certification following a preliminary hearing in General District Court. Grand juries are a part of the Commonwealth's circuit court system and they meet at the beginning of each court term.

[edit] CriticismThe most persistent criticism of grand juries is that jurors are not a representative sampling of the community, and are not qualified for jury service, in that they do not possess a satisfactory ability to ask pertinent questions, or sufficient understanding of local government and the concept of due process.[24] Unlike potential jurors in regular trials, grand jurors are not screened for bias or other improper factors. They are rarely read any instruction on the law, as this is not a requirement; their job is only to judge on what the prosecutor produced. The prosecutor drafts the charges and decides which witnesses to call.[11] The prosecutor is not obliged to present evidence in favor of those being investigated. Grand jury witnesses have no right to have a lawyer or family in the room, and can be charged with holding the court in contempt (punishable with incarceration for the remaining term of the grand jury) if they refuse to appear before the jury[25] and all evidence is presented by a prosecutor in a cloak of secrecy, as the prosecutor, grand jurors, and the grand jury stenographer are prohibited from disclosing what happened before the grand jury, unless ordered to do so in a judicial proceeding.[11]

After a grand jury was commissioned to investigate whistleblowers organization WikiLeaks, grand juries have been accused of being used as an intimidation and persecution mechanism against whistleblowers and anti-war activists.[26]

[edit] "Runaway" grand juryOccasionally, grand juries go aggressively beyond the control of the prosecuting attorney. When the grand jury does so the situation is called a "runaway" grand jury.[27] Runaway grand juries sometimes happen in government corruption or organized crime cases if the grand jury comes to believe that the prosecutor himself has been improperly influenced. Such cases were common in the 19th century but have become infrequent since the 1930s.[28]

The 1935 Runaway Grand Jury in New York City was investigating gambling and mobster Dutch Schultz when jury members complained in open court that prosecutors were not pursuing obvious leads and hinted that the district attorney was possibly receiving payoffs. Thomas E. Dewey was appointed as an independent prosecutor.[29]
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

annakenc
Posts: 163
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 12:57 pm

Re: SOLUTION TO TYRANNY-GRAND JURY?

Postby annakenc » Fri Dec 30, 2011 5:08 pm

AND one more! Lots of reading-hope it's making sense-Hope the solution is in here somewhere.

In Conservative Circles, Calls for ‘Citizen Grand Juries’ Grow
Flathead “Freedom Action Rally” group studying the issue
Earlier this year, protesters hold signs during a Tax Day Tea Party protest on north Main Street in Kalispell. - File photo by Lido Vizzutti/Flathead BeaconBy Dan Testa, 12-09-09
The idea of changing state law, or the state Constitution, to allow citizens to convene grand juries in their counties appears to be gathering steam in some conservative circles of Western Montana. The concept would allow citizens to summon juries comprised of members of the public to investigate alleged crimes – not just judges, as is the case currently.

With a Bitterroot man crafting language for a proposed ballot initiative and a Hungry Horse man forming a group to work on draft legislation, a measure allowing for citizen grand juries, in one form or another, seems poised for broader consideration in the coming year – by either the public or, possibly, lawmakers.

But while supporters of the idea consider it a return to more Constitutional principles, at least one legal expert considers the draft language of the proposed ballot initiative concerning, with the potential to devolve the state’s legal system into “frontier justice.”

“I think that the proposed initiative has really serious problems,” Elizabeth Griffing, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in Montana and an instructor of state Constitutional law at the University of Montana’s law school, said. “When you have a citizen grand jury, you’re really moving into frontier justice and not the rule of law and that is obviously of great concern.”

The proposed initiative is sponsored by Duane A. Sipe of Stevensville. In its draft form, the initiative would amend the Montana Constitution allowing 0.5 percent of the registered voters in a county to sign and submit a petition calling for a grand jury. Composed of 11 people, this grand jury would be obligated to investigate and consider the case advanced by those who signed the petition, but the grand jury would have sole control over the length and depth of the inquiry.

While federal grand juries are closed to the public, Sipe’s grand jury system would be open to the public. If eight members of the grand jury agree to bring an indictment, it must be prosecuted where it occurred by the county attorney. Should a county attorney fail to prosecute an indictment brought by a citizen grand jury within 90 days, the attorney may be indicted for obstruction of justice and criminal misconduct. If the county attorney refused to file charges, the citizen grand jury could then seek assistance from the state attorney general, or hire a private attorney and charge the county for it.

Sipe’s initiative would take effect immediately, upon approval by the electorate, but just to get it on the ballot supporters of the measure would have to gather the signatures of more than 48,000 voters in 40 of Montana’s 100 House districts to qualify.

Because the prospect of gathering so many signatures across the state can prove so daunting, Richard Stevens, of Hungry Horse, is forming a committee within the new conservative political group in the Flathead, Freedom Action Rally, to work on drafting legislation to be carried in the 2011 session. Sen. Verdell Jackson, R-Kalispell, is involved in the group and helped Stevens plan a meeting on the subject earlier this week.

Unlike Sipe, Stevens doesn’t necessarily agree with the idea of a ballot initiative for a measure such as the citizen grand jury.

“It’s still asking for permission from our government and actually, it should be the other way around,” Stevens said. “We’ve got too much government control over our individual rights.”

Stevens views the concept of a citizen grand jury as one that would take more power out of the hands of individual judges and place it in the hands of the public, chiefly as a way to check the power of public officials.

“Select prosecution is what we’ve got going on right now,” he added. “When you’ve got one person to call a grand jury, and it’s at his discretion, it’s totally impossible – you or I couldn’t do it.”

Despite his position as a public official, Jackson agrees that citizen grand juries could serve as a much-needed restraint on government officials, particularly those who aren’t elected.

“It’s sprouting up now because people are frustrated that they don’t have a way of dealing with public officials,” Jackson said. “What can we do about judges that seem to have an agenda? It gives the citizens a means where they can challenge politicians that are breaking the Constitution, that are violating state law.”

Jackson, however, isn’t sure legislation is the best way to advance a measure allowing for a citizen grand jury, since any bill that would amend the Constitution requires a supermajority in the Legislature, which is, by design, difficult to achieve. He is excited, not only about the citizen grand jury committee forming in Freedom Action Rally, which grew out of the summer’s “Tea Party” rallies, but the other issues the group is tackling, a list he said includes: property rights and property taxes; gun rights; health care; states’ rights; and a proposed anti-abortion, or “personhood” amendment.

The notion of citizen grand juries is popular within the Montana Constitution Party, of which Richardson is a member. Kandi Matthews-Jenkins, vice chair of the Montana Constitution Party and an unsuccessful candidate for several public offices in Missoula, sees Sipe’s proposed ballot initiative as a peaceful way for “people to take back control” from the federal government and “it affords the same protection for those that come forward to testify as a government grand jury would.”

“I don’t think it would be seated in the realm of day-to-day law and order; that’s not what it’s about,” she added. “It’s mainly directed at Constitutional issues, Constitutional law and any kind of a public concern.”

But even in these early stages, the concept of a citizen grand jury is drawing critics. Griffing, of the ACLU, said one troubling aspect of citizen grand juries is how legal issues can turn into a political agenda by the people convening the grand jury.

As an example, she cited the formation of a citizen grand jury in Kansas, which sought the medical records of George Tiller, the abortion doctor murdered in May. In Georgia, a group of “birthers,” those who believe President Barack Obama was not born in the United States and so is ineligible to hold the office, formed a citizen grand jury in March to indict Obama, after previous legal moves were stymied by the courts.

“To my mind, that is one of the big problems; the criminal process starts to be used to further a political agenda,” Griffing said. “We have express Constitutional protections against that.”

Furthermore, Griffing is concerned the draft language of Sipe’s initiative fails to take into account what would constitute probable cause for gathering signatures to form a grand jury. She also questions whether a public grand jury investigation could conflict with privacy rights granted by the Montana Constitution and become, “almost a witch hunt.”

In an evaluation of Sipe’s initial draft ballot language, an attorney for the Montana Legislative Services Division wrote that the proposed measure would also impose significant operating costs on counties, particularly the section allowing for citizen grand juries to hire private prosecutors at the county’s expense. State statute limits county budgets.

How any proposed measures allowing for citizen grand juries will fare in the year running up to the 2010 elections and 2011 Legislature remains to be seen. But at this point, those who would arguably be impacted the most by such a measure – county attorneys – are keeping mum. Of the three Western Montana county attorneys contacted by the Beacon for comment on the citizen grand jury measures, two did not return calls. Flathead County Attorney Ed Corrigan said he was not familiar with the issue.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Return to “Websites”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests