Peoples Grand Jury of Jefferson County

PEOPLES GRAND JURY OF JEFFERSON COUNTY

Investigate Government and Corporate Overreach, and Grievances Brought by the People, Including:

Rising crime, drug abuse, child trafficking
Safety in community food, environment, and health
Upgrading school curricula and insuring cultural integrity
Assuring truth in government and investigating corruption
Maintaining election integrity
Promote the general welfare, establish justice, and secure the blessings of liberty

Why a Peoples Grand Jury?

Currently citizens do not have actionable access and redress of grievances through the Iowa criminal grand jury. The Peoples Grand Jury gives citizens a fair platform to address abuses and ensure accountability which otherwise goes unchecked.

What Is a Peoples Grand Jury?

An investigative and accusatory body to hold government and citizens accountable for negligence and misdeeds. It is not a trial jury; it cannot convict, but only accuse and bring charges for trial where necessary.

Its Purpose

Our Community Watchdog to safeguard the wellbeing of our lives, health, safety, and general welfare. Report on the condition of roads, jails, public books and accounts, and other concerns.

The Peoples Grand Jury Follows the Principles of Natural Law:

All laws must be just, reasonable, not arbitrary, serve the common good, treat all equally, litigation must be procedurally fair, laws can go no further than necessary to remedy a perceived harm. Absent harm there need be no law. Laws must be constitutional respecting natural rights and principles of justice.

Vote “Yes” on the Petition for the People’s Grand Jury

Your help is needed and requested for this project.

Sponsored by the Committee for the Peoples Grand Jury

Contact Richard at rew4455@gmail.com

A MORE DETAILED EXPLANATION: THE PEOPLES GRAND JURY

1. WHAT IS A COMMON LAW GRAND JURY?
The common law grand jury is an investigative body that can accuse anyone of a crime, including government servants. The purpose of the grand jury is to protect and watch over the public morals, health, safety, peace, general welfare, and comfort of the county. It is found in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which states: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury …”.
The grand jury is also the watchdog of a community (e.g. it can even report on the condition of the roads) [Google “grand jury condition of roads”].

"In many states grand jurors are required by statute to examine into the condition of jails, asylums and other public institutions; examine the books and accounts of the various public officials in the county, fix the tax rate, and have a general supervision over public improvements." [The Grand Jury, George Edwards, p. 121]

It is free to pursue its investigations on any subject free of external influence or supervision so long as it does not tread upon the legitimate rights of witnesses called before it.[U.S. v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 48 (1992)].
A grand jury sits not to determine guilt or innocence, but assesses whether there is an adequate basis for bringing a criminal charge, and only hears evidence on behalf of the prosecution, since the finding of an indictment is only in the nature of an inquiry or accusation, which, afterwards, is to be tried and determined by a trial jury. [The Grand Jury, George Edwards, p. 140]

Judge King, in 1845, described the extraordinary modes of criminal procedure which may be pursued by a grand jury, in the following words:
“The first of these is, where criminal courts of their own motion call the attention of grand juries to and direct the investigation of matters of general public import, which, from their nature and operation in the entire community, justify such intervention. The action of the court on such occasions rather bear on things than persons; the object being the suppression of general and public evils, affecting in their influence and operation communities rather than individuals and therefore, more properly the subject of general than special complaint. Such as great riots that shake the social fabric, carrying terror and dismay among the citizens; general public nuisances affecting the public health and comfort; multiplied and flagrant vices tending to debauch and corrupt the public morals, and the like. …
“The third and last of the extraordinary modes of criminal procedure known to our penal code, is that which is originated by the presentment of a grand jury. A presentment, properly speaking, is a notice taken by a grand jury of any offence from their own knowledge or observation, without a bill of indictment being laid before them at the suit of the commonwealth. Like an indictment, however, it must be the act of the whole jury, not less than twelve concurring on it, except that it emanates from their own knowledge, and not from the public accuser, and except that it wants technical form. It is regarded as instructions for an indictment. That a grand jury may adopt such a course of procedure, without a previous preliminary hearing of the accused, is not to be questioned by this court.” The Grand Jury, George J. Edwards Jr., p. 106-108 (1906). [http://www.constitution.org/gje/gj_00.htm]

The government cannot be in charge of deciding for themselves whether or not they should indict themselves on criminal charges. This is precisely why we have so much corruption in our government. It is the duty of the people to stand up as the faithful and wise stewards and bring the servants who think themselves master back into subjection.

2. AUTHORITY TO IMPANEL A COMMON LAW GRAND JURY
The legal authority for the common law grand jury comes from the Magna Charta of 1215, paragraph 61, which requires 25 jurors, 4 of which are administrators.[http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/magna.htm paragraph 61.] It can be distinguished from all other forms of grand juries since they have less than 25 jurors and thus are not founded on the Magna Charta. It was affirmed in 1296 as the common law. [http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/cartarum.htm
]

The Magna Carta provides that the barons may elect at their pleasure twenty five barons from the realm, who will observe, and cause to be observed, the peace and privileges granted by the King by this charter. If the King or any one of his servants shall have transgressed the people's rights, and this is shown to four barons of the twenty five, those four barons shall show the King or his people their error, and ask them to amend it without delay. If they do not amend it within forty days, the four barons shall refer the matter to the remainder of the twenty five barons, who with the whole land in common, shall distrain and oppress the King in every way in their power until amends shall have been made according to their judgment. Moreover, if those twenty five disagree among themselves or are unwilling or unable to be present, the majority of those present shall decide what is binding and valid, just as if all the twenty five had consented to it. [Different versions of Magna Carta were issued, in 1215, 1216, 1217, and 1225. The Charter of 1225 was reissued in 1297 and confirmed as part of England's statute law. The Cartarum applies to the 1297 version which does not have the paragraph 61 enforcement clause of the 1215 version. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta.]

The common law grand jury is independent of government like a fourth branch of government, administered directly by and on behalf of the American people, and the People don't need government's permission to conduct it. This is discussed in the case of United States v. Williams.

3. SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE
Definition of citizen: One of the sovereign people. A constituent member of the sovereignty, synonymous with the people. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914 Ed. p. 490. [Note: Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856, 1897, and 1914 editions, as well as Black's Law Dictionary 4th Ed., Cochran's Law Dictionary (1888), and Osborne's Law Dictionary (1927) are all available for download from books.google.com.]

Definition of sovereignty: Abstractly, sovereignty resides in the body of the nation and belongs to the people. But these powers are generally exercised by delegation. … Strictly speaking, in our republican forms of government the absolute sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation; and the residuary sovereignty of each state, not granted to any of its public functionaries, is in the people of the state. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914 Ed. p. 1016.10
Definition of Republic: [W]e may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic. It is sufficient for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified; ... . James Madison, Federalist Papers, No. 39 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed39.asp.

Definition of Republic: [W]e may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic. It is sufficient for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified; ... . James Madison, Federalist Papers, No. 39.

In this country as we will see, the people are sovereign; but if there was no mechanism to exercise it, the notion of sovereign people would be meaningless. The grand jury exercises that sovereignty for the governance and protection of society. While on the grand jury, remember that you are the government, exercising the sovereignty of the people.

Following is a random sampling of state constitutions; these samples all mention that the people ordained and/or established the constitution, while most but not all mentioned that political power is inherent in the people:

Alabama: “We, the people of the State of Alabama, … do ordain and establish the following Constitution ...” … That all political power is inherent in the people, … and … they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to change their form of government in such manner as they may deem expedient.”

Arkansas: “We, the People of the State of Arkansas ... do ordain and establish this Constitution.” … “All political power is inherent in the people and government is instituted for their protection, security and benefit; and they have the right to alter, reform or abolish the same, in such manner as they may think proper.”

California: “We, the People of the State of California ... do establish this Constitution.” … “All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.”

Iowa: “WE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF IOWA … do ordain and establish a free and independent government,... .” “All political power is inherent in the people. … and they have the right, at all times, to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it.”

Kentucky: “We, the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, … , do ordain and establish this Constitution.” “All power is inherent in the people, … and they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may deem proper.”

Michigan: “We, the people of the State of Michigan, … , do ordain and establish this constitution.” … “All political power is inherent in the people.”

New York: “We The People of the State of New York, DO ESTABLISH THIS CONSTITUTION.”

Texas: “... the people of the State of Texas, do ordain and establish this Constitution.” … “All political power is inherent in the people ... ” … “they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.”

United States: “We the People of the United States … do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The Treaty of Paris of 1783 brought an end to the American Revolutionary War. All Americans ceased to be subjects of King George the Third, and became sovereign; here is Article 1 of the treaty:

His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof. [See a summary at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_(1783); see the actual text at
http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/paris.shtml.
Here are a few citations, mostly from court opinions: [See http://famguardian.org/taxfreedom/CitesByTopic/sovereignty.htm for a large number of citations.]

The people of this state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his prerogative. Through the medium of their legislature they may exercise all the powers which previous to the revolution could have been exercised either by the king alone, or by him in conjunction with his parliament; subject only to those restrictions which have been imposed by the constitution of this state or of the United States. Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9, 20 (N.Y.) (1829)

It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the Prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a Court of Justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and grant derives all franchises, immunities and privileges; it is easy to perceive that such a sovereign could not be amenable to a Court of Justice, or subjected to judicial controul and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability became incompatible with such sovereignty. Besides, the Prince having all the Executive powers, the judgment of the Courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory to him, and a capacity to be advised, is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the Prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects ... and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty. [Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall (U.S.) 419, 454 [p. 113] (1793) emphasis added]

We of this mighty western Republic have to grapple with the dangers that spring from popular self-government tried on a scale incomparably vaster than ever before in the history of mankind, and from an abounding material prosperity greater also than anything which the world has hitherto seen.

As regards the first set of dangers, it behooves us to remember that men can never escape being governed. Either they must govern themselves or they must submit to being governed by others. If from lawlessness or fickleness, from folly or self-indulgence, they refuse to govern themselves then most assuredly in the end they will have to be governed from the outside. They can prevent the need of government from without only by showing they possess the power of government from within. A sovereign cannot make excuses for his failures; a sovereign must accept the responsibility for the exercise of power that inheres in him; and where, as is true in our Republic, the people are sovereign, then the people must show a sober understanding and a sane and steadfast purpose if they are to preserve that orderly liberty upon which as a foundation every republic must rest. [President Theodore Roosevelt; Opening of the Jamestown Exposition; Norfolk, VA, April 26, 1907; emphasis added]

In our country the people are sovereign and the Government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship. Our Constitution governs us and we must never forget that our Constitution limits the Government to those powers specifically granted or those that are necessary and proper to carry out the specifically granted ones. Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 257 (1967)

In the United States, sovereignty resides in the people, who act through the organs established by the Constitution. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 471; Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 Dall. 54, 93; McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 404, 405; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370. The Congress as the instrumentality of sovereignty is endowed with certain powers to be exerted on behalf of the people in the manner and with the effect the Constitution ordains. The Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the people to override their will as thus declared. Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935)

“…a government which is founded by the people, who possess exclusively the sovereignty… .” … “In this great nation there is but one order, that of the people, whose power, by a peculiarly happy improvement of the representative principle, is transferred from them, without impairing in the slightest degree their sovereignty, to bodies of their own creation, and to persons elected by themselves, in the full extent necessary for all the purposes of free, enlightened and efficient government. The whole system is elective, the complete sovereignty being in the people, and every officer in every department deriving his authority from and being responsible to them for his conduct.” [James Monroe, Second Inaugural Speech March 5, 1821; http://bartleby.com/124/pres21.html]

Thomas Jefferson said:
“The constitutions of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, both fact and law, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved) or they may ask by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person; freedom of religion; freedom of property; and freedom of the press.” [Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright; June 5, 1824; “The Thomas Jefferson Papers,”
http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-4313

But it is very common for the courts to refer to the states and united states as being sovereign, and cannot be sued without their consent. Still, we have seen that the people are sovereign, and a grand jury can nullify any act of their servants that they deem unjust.

4. POWERS OF A GRAND JURY
The following gives you an idea of the power of a grand jury. George Edwards, in his book The Grand Jury15 (1906) said:

"That the grand jury is an irresponsible body is admitted and it is this want of responsibility which the opponents of the institution seize eagerly upon in their endeavor to show why the institution should be abolished. An American writer thus expresses his views: “The principal objection which can be urged against the grand jury, as now constituted, is the absolute personal irresponsibility of the individual juror attendant upon the performance of his duties. He is a law unto himself; no power can regulate him and no power can control him. He can be called before no earthly tribunal, except his own conscience, to account for his action. He can pursue an enemy for personal motives of revenge; he can favor a friend or political associate; he can advance and maintain before the jury by argument ideas that he would never father in any other place; he can shirk responsibility by voting to turn the guilty loose, pleading for mercy for the confessed criminal and the next moment cast his vote to indict the innocent, but friendless accused; ignoring in order to do so his oath and every distinction between hearsay and competent evidence. The state's attorney is powerless to protest against or prevent these insane antics upon the juror's part, and the court is as equally unable to prevent the denial of justice." Edwards, p. 40.

If you are dealing with a statutory crime, find the underlying principle, and see if the statute is in alignment with the natural laws enumerated below. Be sure the law goes no further than necessary to remedy the perceived harm. This is what makes this a free country.

If you are dealing with a crime that is not wrong, but merely prohibited (e.g., running a red light), determine if the facts of the case justify that there was harm or threat of harm to society. If there is no traffic, consider that there may be no justification for conviction. Note that under the common law there are no prohibited acts (mala prohibita), only acts that are wrong as such (mala in se).

It is the duty of the Common Law Grand Jury to expose all fraud and corruption whether it is in the political or judicial realm and stop it.

Vote “Yes” on the Petition for the People’s Grand Jury

Sponsored by the Committee for the Peoples Grand Jury

Contact Richard at rew4455@gmail.com