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, 2005
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 rschwaneberg@starledger.com 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.htm
JAIL 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!
To be Added or Removed, write to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
 
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless
minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
 
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
striking at the root."                         -- Henry David Thoreau    <><

Return To JNJ 2005

To JNJ Library Index for All Years