When a de jure court stands on the land the de facto court MUST PACK Its bags! In 1866 there was an action objecting to this and the Supreme Court in Milligan Ex Parte handed down a decision that said, “Wherever the American Common Law courts are operating it is unconscionable and unnecessary for there to be any form of military law exercised and any such courts must shut down.
* * *
The people’s remedy against CORRUPT Government was wonderfully clarified by the likely assassinated Anton Scalia of the DE FACTO DC UNITED STATES Corporate Supreme Court
We have it on good authority, the Supreme Court, that the lie told the American people that they can not form common law Grand Jurys has no legal effect.
· Justice Powell, in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974), stated: "The institution of the grand jury is deeply rooted in Anglo-American history. [n3] In England, the grand jury [p343] served for centuries both as a body of accusers sworn to discover and present for trial persons suspected of criminal wrongdoing and as a protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action. In this country, the Founders thought the grand jury so essential to basic liberties that they provided in the Fifth Amendment that federal prosecution for serious crimes can only be instituted by 'a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.' Cf. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 361-362 (1956). The grand jury's historic functions survive to this day. Its responsibilities continue to include both the determination 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)."
· The Note 4 lie is smashed on the altar of the U.S. Supreme Court, "The grand jury's historic functions survive to this day." Take that Note 4! Antonin Scalia effectively codified the unique independent power of the Fourth Branch into the hands of all citizens sitting as federal grand jurors. In discussing that power and unique independence granted to the grand jury, the United States Supreme Court, 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, Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), 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.'" United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). ' "
· I submit to you that this passage sets the stage for a revolutionary new context necessary and Constitutionally mandated to "we the people," THE FOURTH BRANCH of the Government of 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." Yes, darn it. That is exactly what the grand jury is, and what it was always intended to be.
· Scalia also stated, that "the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside." Id.
· And finally, to seal the deal, Scalia hammered the point home:
· "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. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm's length. Judges' direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504 U.S. 36, 48] "
· This miraculous quote says it all, "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 Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, gives rise to a FOURTH BRANCH of Government, THE GRAND JURY. We the people have been charged with oversight of the government in our roles as grand jurors.
· And at this critical time in American history, we must, for the protection of our constitutional republic, take back our power and start acting as powerful as the other branches of government.
· The law is on our side. So please spread this knowledge as far and wide as you can. We the people have the right and power under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution to charge this government with crimes by returning presentments regardless of 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."
· America has already taken the reins. The Fourth Branch is alive and kicking and you will be judged if you wrong the American people! Govern yourselves accordingly!
TURN OFF THE TV - unlearn - re-educate - study English Common Law, American - English Exclusive Equity! This is the law of America - NOT BAR foisted ROMAN CIVIL LAW OF DC - ROME I & II!
* * *
Common Law Grand Jury, Constitutional Questions addressed to the California Common Law Grand Jury concerning the issues raised in this complaint.
Since a corrupt government can not investigate itself as the FBI recently verified for the American people in the recent Clintonista Crimes, and the Clinton Foundation, Pizza gate crimes against humanity fiasco, the American people clearly have the job of investigating these crimes for ourselves.
This requires the resurrection of the de jure 4th Estate that the murdered Justice Scalia verified was the traditional check and balance on Rogue Government. This is a body of the de jure Body Politic of the People standing as a de jure common law Grand Jury, a Constitutional appendage of we the people government, as is required as a tool to hold the first so called three branches of government (in name only) in check, according to murdered Anton Scalia, “The Grand Jury Belongs to The People”.
In alignment, Major grassroots movements are in effect in 48 States, Constituting Common Law Grand Juries as encouraged by Justice Scalia who in a stunning six to three 1992 Decision that went unnoticed, and un-reported by the bought and paid operation mockingbird media, Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority said:
In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, [cf. United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992);
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, confirmed that the American grand jury is neither part of the judicial, executive nor legislative branches of government, but instead belongs to the people. It is in effect a fourth branch of government “governed” and administered to directly by and on behalf of the American people, and its authority emanates from the Bill of Rights, the acts of the Grand Jury is the consent of the people.
“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. 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”. — Justice Antonin Scalia
“Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present “True Bills” of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a “buffer” the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.” — Justice Antonin Scalia
“The grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such “supervisory” judicial authority exists. The “common law” of the Fifth Amendment demands a traditional functioning grand jury.” — Justice Antonin Scalia
“Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. The grand jury’s functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised.” - Justice Antonin Scalia
“The grand jury ‘can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.’ It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even “the precise nature of the offense” it is investigating.
The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. It swears in its own witnesses and deliberates in total secrecy.” – Justice Antonin Scalia
“Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said the 5th Amendment’s constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body ‘acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge” — Justice Antonin Scalia
“Given the grand jury’s operational separateness from its constituting court, it should come as no surprise that we have been reluctant to invoke the judicial supervisory power as a basis for prescribing modes of grand jury procedure. Over the years, we have received many requests to exercise supervision over the grand jury’s evidence-taking process, but we have refused them all. “it would run counter to the whole history of the grand jury institution” to permit an indictment to be challenged “on the ground that there was incompetent or inadequate evidence before the grand jury.” — Justice Antonin Scalia
The American National and State Coup’d judiciary has of course sort to make sure the people never organized the Peoples Grand Jury because those in the cross hairs will be corrupt government, judiciary, attorneys et al as has already been the case in those now reformed Grand Jurys now exposing corrupt government and Coup’d judiciary across the entire US court system!
In case you thought Government had any rights to rule over the people on the states or the physical states read below and read my other notes relating to the Lex Fori for a states - which is also the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA!
Sample Public Notice:
Regarding Meeting for Reinstatement of a County Common Law Grand Jury
The Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Williams, 112 S. Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L. Ed. 2d 352 (1992), with Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, confirmed that the American grand jury is neither part of the judicial, executive nor legislative branches of government, but instead belongs to the People. It is in effect a fourth branch of government, “governed” and administered to directly by and on behalf of the American People, and its authority emanates from the Common Law of England [cf. Calif. Civil Codes, 5 and 22.2], including the Magna Carta, A. D. 1215 (specifically Clauses 52 and 61); and, the Bill of Rights (specifically the Fifth, Seventh and Ninth Articles of amendment) to the de jure Constitution for these united States of America (as lawfully amended in A. D. 1819).
Rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history [see: Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490, 80 S. Ct. 1502, 1544, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1307 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result)], 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.” [cf. United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825, 98 S. Ct. 72, 54 L. Ed. 2d 83 (1977)]. 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 [cf. Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218, 80 S. Ct. 270, 273, 4 L. Ed. 2d 252 (1960); also see: Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61, 26 S. Ct. 370, 373, 50 L. Ed. 652 (1906)].
Please take Notice: In full accord with the foregoing United States Supreme Court decisions, a meeting will be held at [time] on [date], A. D. 2014, at [location] to discuss and implement the lawful procedures for the reinstatement of a common law grand jury within the geographic boundaries of [Name] county, California (de jure).
“Whenever people are well-informed they can be trusted with their own government” - Thomas Jefferson
Please be advised: Anyone interested in attending the meeting is welcome, but only people living within the geographic boundaries of [Name] county may participate in the election for the reinstating of the common law grand jury here in [Name] county.
For further information contact:
Ex parte Milligan (1866)
In Ex parte Milligan (1866), the Supreme Court ruled that a prisoner's ability to challenge his or her detention could only be suspended for a brief and finite period of time, and only if the situation compelled it. The Court also ruled that military tribunals generally lack jurisdiction over civilians who are not connected with or engaged in armed conflict. Assessing the rights of an Indiana citizen accused of plotting against Union forces during the Civil War, the basic rules defined in Milligan are quite relevant today.
On October 5, 1864, Lamdin P. Milligan was taken into custody by the U.S. government on various charges of insubordination against the Union. The government accused Milligan of joining "a secret society known as the Order of American Knights ... for the purpose of overthrowing" the government, "holding communication with the enemy; conspiring to seize munitions of war stored in the arsenals; to liberate prisoners of war; [and] resisting the draft." Though he was an American citizen and resident and citizen of the state of Indiana, Milligan was tried before a "military tribunal" in Indiana and convicted on all charges. He was then sentenced to death by hanging and moved to a military prison.
Days before his scheduled execution, Milligan petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in a local federal court. The term "habeas corpus" is Latin for "you [should] have the body," and a "writ of habeas corpus" is a court order to release a prisoner being held unjustly by the government. In his petition, Milligan argued that the military tribunal had no jurisdiction (power) to try him because he was an American citizen living in a non-rebellious state (Indiana) and the laws thus gave him a right to a criminal trial in a civilian court. In 1866, shortly after the end of the Civil War, the Supreme Court agreed to review Milligan's petition. (In 1863, the Court had effectively ducked a similar case, ex parte Vallandigham, holding that since no act explicitly granted the Court jurisdiction over the military tribunals, it lacked jurisdiction to review the appeals of those convicted under their auspices.)
The Supreme Court ruled that the military tribunal lacked jurisdiction over Milligan and that he should have been tried in a federal civilian court. The Court first noted that Milligan was an American citizen who was a resident of a non-rebellious state, Indiana, during the Civil War. The Court also noted that Milligan was not connected to the armed forces and had not been fighting Union forces when he was captured, and that the civil courts of Indiana were operational at the time. Accordingly, the Court also argued Milligan was denied basic constitutional rights in being subjected to a military tribunal. These included the right to trial by jury, the right to be sentenced separately from trial, and various evidentiary and procedural rights incident to civilian trials. Together, the Court concluded that the laws and Constitution demand that Milligan, as with any other civilian, not be tried by a military tribunal if, as in this case, there is a civilian court available instead. To find otherwise, the Court opined, would mean that "republican government is a failure, and there is an end of liberty regulated by law." The Court warned that "Martial law" in such a system "destroys every guarantee of the Constitution, and effectually renders the 'military independent of and superior to the civil power.'" Ex parte Milligan was a stalwart affirmation of basic rights and liberties most Americans take for granted today.
Subject: We the people Governance
1st michigan assembly -