Grand Juries, the right they took away without you knowing.

Imagine, if a group of citizens could get together, pool information and come to a conclusion that they had the necessary evidence to file for a warrant of arrest of a corrupt politician?

Imagine if I told you, this was how warrants were originally done?

Imagine if I told you, that this was one of the first rights your government took away from you?

Current day use of Grand Juries. I will be learning as I write this. I have gleaned some knowledge on the use of Grand Juries in the past and present, but I wanted to do a little more delving into the subject.

A couple links-

History of the Grand Jury

Grand Juries

Grand jury-wikipedia

One thing you will notice, on most of the sites linked you will hear the argument that because of the secret meetings, this is supposed to be possibly a bad thing. Tell me, does the government LEO's make their requests for warrants out in the open?

From wikipedia link-

In the common law, a grand jury is a type of jury that determines whether there is enough evidence for a trial. Grand juries carry out this duty by examining evidence presented to them by a prosecutor and issuing indictments, or by investigating alleged crimes and issuing presentments. A grand jury is traditionally larger than and distinguishable from a petit jury, which is used during a trial.

Alright, now for historical usage of Grand Juries.

From the wikipedia link-

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 12 of the grand jurors, so that for a size of 23 a bare majority would be 12. Any citizen could bring a matter before it directly, from a public work that needed repair, to a delinquent official, to a complaint of a crime, and they 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, who could bring a bill of indictment to the grand jury, and 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, then by returning the indictment to the complainant, it appointed him 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.[4] The advent of official public prosecutors in the later decades of the 19th century largely displaced private prosecutions.

Notice the difference between now and then.

Private citizens could bring any complaint to a Grand Jury and get an indictment if the Grand Jury decided that enough evidence called for it. Kind of different now right?

With this indictment, warrants would be issued for the arrest and then presentment to a jury trial. Private individuals could be assigned the duty of arrest or a peace officer could be appointed. I believe this is where the use of citizen's arrest came into play.

Now, I just began to look into this historical use of Grand Juries and have found that there existence must be one of the things feared in the past, by corrupt and tyrannical politicians. I can see why this had to be eliminated to further the reach of the central government. It would not bode well for criminals in government if this was still around.

I am going to stop here with the thread and do some more research. I was hoping to get a few ideas from posters to see if they had insight into the history of Grand Juries and there usage. Any avenues of research anyone has would be appreciated.


edit to add-I forgot one of the most important parts.

From the Bill of Rights-

* Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

* Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for any 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; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

* Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

* Seventh Amendment

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


[edit on 5/16/2010 by endisnighe]

Great thread, this is something I never would have looked into.

It's interesting how they have eliminated Grand Juries everywhere but in the US:

Grand juries are today virtually unknown outside the United States. England abandoned grand juries in 1933 and instead uses a committal procedure, as do all Australian jurisdictions. In Australia, the State of Victoria maintained, until 2009, provisions for a grand jury in the Crimes Act 1958 under section 354 Indictments, which had been used on rare occasions by individuals to bring other persons to court seeking them to be committed for trial on indictable offenses. New Zealand abolished the grand jury in 1961. Canada abolished it in the 1970s. Today approximately half of the states in the U.S. employ them, and only twenty-two require their use, to varying extents. Most jurisdictions have abolished grand juries, replacing them with the preliminary hearing at which a judge hears evidence concerning the alleged offenses and makes a decision on whether the prosecution can proceed.

Thank goodness for the 5th Amendment.

A grand jury is meant to be part of the system of checks and balances, preventing a case from going to trial on a prosecutor's bare word.

It's also awful convenient that the Supreme Court has decided that the establishment clause does not apply to Grand Juries.

Unlike many other provisions of the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court has ruled that this requirement was not incorporated to apply to state courts via the Fourteenth Amendment, and states therefore may elect not to use grand juries.

They force everything else on the states, so why not this?

Runaway grand jury

Occasionally, 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. 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.

I guess they're afraid the people might see through the political motivations or biases of prosecutors and force them to actually prosecute those who committed crimes, no matter how politically connected they are.

They also might throw out cases in which no-one was harmed, saving some poor accused from the burden of exorbitant legal fees.

But we all know our prosecutors wouldn't let political pressures affect their decisions right?

One grand juror reported, "We no-billed 12 cases in 11 weeks, 4 percent of those presented. But prosecutors wanted us to no-bill more than half of these. They were cases with some political sensitivity where the district attorney felt the need to be able to blame the decision on the grand jury."

Wickipedia

[edit on 5/15/10 by FortAnthem]

reply to post by FortAnthem


Now, I knew about grand juries because of the Republic of Wisconsin still uses them. I love saying Republic.

Anyway, yes the things that keep popping up are really infuriating. The ol onion analogy. Layers and layers of deceit.

I have been calling for DA's and AG's to start doing their frelling jobs. Imagine if we still had the power of Grand Juries.

From the Fifth Amendment-

No person shall be held to answer for any 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; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Besides this being a right of protection, it was also a right of receiving justice for a wrong committed against the people.


The 14th amendment to due process of law, IMO is one other one of the NASTY unintended consequences. Or was it? Unintended I mean.

So, are we citizens protected under the Constitution or are we oppressed under the 14th by removing some of the previous protections and rights!?

Thanks for the comment.

[edit on 5/16/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by endisnighe


To be honest the idea of a grand jury is just an excuse to avoid the courts. Usually when a group fo people fail to get a lawsuit through court, they insist on forming their own grandjury to somehow do it themselves and declare an individual guilty, hence the birthers and their own grand juries. They know that their arguments would not fly in court so they conveniently move forward to form their own trials where they will not have their arguments challanged, its a joke.

In anycase if a group of citizens or an individual has solid evidence against another individual there is nothing stopping them from presenting in court. For example, if you have solid evidence that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, if you can bring in the health director to deny that he was born in Hawaii, if you can bring in a Kenyan citizenship official to confirm his birth on record there and if you can prove that his 8 month pregnant teen mother managed to some how afford and make the 7 day flight to Kenya (you'd need flight records from that time), there is nothing stopping you from presenting it to court. Better yet, you have your Republican representitives? So why not forward the evidence to them?

You don't have the right to make a citizens arrest of somebody because you don't hold that authority. A person is innocent until proven guilty, and we have courts to deal with that matter. A group of citizens cannot all of a sudden have the authority to arrest who they want. I have no problem with a group of people gathering and bringing evidence against somebody, so long as they take it through the court system. To me the idea of a grand jury with the kind of authority your discuss in your OP is just an excuse for disgruntled voters to get their way because the legal system and laws prevent them from doing so.

On the grand juries I have been on, the prosecutor basically guided us through the ones he wanted indicted. When he wanted someone no billed he would call the person harmless.

Hope to see more members chime in on this

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by endisnighe

 

To be honest the idea of a grand jury is just an excuse to avoid the courts. Usually when a group fo people fail to get a lawsuit through court, they insist on forming their own grandjury to somehow do it themselves and declare an individual guilty, hence the birthers and their own grand juries. They know that their arguments would not fly in court so they conveniently move forward to form their own trials where they will not have their arguments challanged, its a joke.

I did not bring up Obama, you did. Sorry, you are COMPLETELY off base. Did you just read the title and not the OP? Did you look at any of the links? Did you even bother to read anything? Or is this an obfuscationary trick to divert this to another Obama hack frelling thread?

Since you did not read the OP, Grand Juries DO NOT FIND GUILT! Reread the OP!

In anycase if a group of citizens or an individual has solid evidence against another individual there is nothing stopping them from presenting in court. For example, if you have solid evidence that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, if you can bring in the health director to deny that he was born in Hawaii, if you can bring in a Kenyan citizenship official to confirm his birth on record there and if you can prove that his 8 month pregnant teen mother managed to some how afford and make the 7 day flight to Kenya (you'd need flight records from that time), there is nothing stopping you from presenting it to court. Better yet, you have your Republican representitives? So why not forward the evidence to them?

You don't have the right to make a citizens arrest of somebody because you don't hold that authority. A person is innocent until proven guilty, and we have courts to deal with that matter. A group of citizens cannot all of a sudden have the authority to arrest who they want. I have no problem with a group of people gathering and bringing evidence against somebody, so long as they take it through the court system. To me the idea of a grand jury with the kind of authority your discuss in your OP is just an excuse for disgruntled voters to get their way because the legal system and laws prevent them from doing so.

Since you are not interested in reading the OP. I am going to ask the mods to delete your comment. If you want to address the OP on another comment, I might respond.

reply to post by jam321


Thanks for the comment.

Yes, where they use Grand Juries, it is all up to the prosecutor what they want to do.

I find this highly political and inherent in a government controlled court system.

Where in the beginning of the country, if a group of people had the evidence and a Grand Jury was convened, the court was forced to hear the case.

Now we have the priest class lawyers and prosecutors making the decisions of who gets justice or charged with a crime.

Imagine what the Grand Jury system of old could do with the Bankster crooks?

Originally posted by endisnighe
I did not bring up Obama, you did.

Yes I did. Im using the case on Obama and the birthers as an example because this is where I have seen the use of Grand Juries for the most part. You bring up the topic just in time now as well as pastor manning is holding his own grand jury on the president, along with the birthers.

Since you did not read the OP, Grand Juries DO NOT FIND GUILT!

Then what exactly is an indictment? You also argued the right for these grand juries to bring the person supposedly guilty in, to make the arrest:

'With this indictment, warrants would be issued for the arrest and then presentment to a jury trial. Private individuals could be assigned the duty of arrest

These juries have the right to issue a warrant? Imagine a group of citizens having the ability to deny another citizen of his or hers 5th ammendment rights. I am sorry but that does not sit well with me. If the police do so, they do through proper guidelines and laws inacted in this land. Grand juries can be for the most part disorganized, can vary in protocol.

In anycase you still have not addressed my point. If a group of people have solid evidence against somebody else, what is stopping them from taking it directly to court?

Some claim that this type of action can still be done with:

Quo warranto

In the United States today, quo warranto usually arises in a civil case as a plaintiff's claim (and thus a "cause of action" instead of a writ) that some governmental or corporate official was not validly elected to that office or is wrongfully exercising powers beyond (or ultra vires) those authorized by statute or by the corporation's charter.
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by endisnighe
I did not bring up Obama, you did.

Yes I did. Im using the case on Obama and the birthers as an example because this is where I have seen the use of Grand Juries for the most part. You bring up the topic just in time now as well as pastor manning is holding his own grand jury on the president, along with the birthers.

Since you did not read the OP, Grand Juries DO NOT FIND GUILT!

Then what exactly is an indictment? You also argued the right for these grand juries to bring the person supposedly guilty in, to make the arrest:

'With this indictment, warrants would be issued for the arrest and then presentment to a jury trial. Private individuals could be assigned the duty of arrest

These juries have the right to issue a warrant? Imagine a group of citizens having the ability to deny another citizen of his or hers 5th ammendment rights. I am sorry but that does not sit well with me. If the police do so, they do through proper guidelines and laws inacted in this land. Grand juries can be for the most part disorganized, can vary in protocol.

In anycase you still have not addressed my point. If a group of people have solid evidence against somebody else, what is stopping them from taking it directly to court?

You are still trying to deflect this to Obama. If you bring this up again I will not address you.

You even include the action that a Grand Jury makes. That there is enough evidence to bring this to TRIAL. Not to court but to TRIAL. Let me say that once more, TRIAL. Where the evidence is presented.

Did you know that Grand Juries are ALWAYS held in secret? This is not so that it is like a lynching. It is so that the accused, if there is not sufficient evidence, the information is not put out.

You using the propaganda trial as an example is asinine.

A Grand Jury could be used for the purpose of such things like the AIG debacle. Or the Goldman Sachs debacle. Or other such things as mega corps and the government complicitness in corruption.

It was to protect the people. But I guess your partisan rhetoric cannot see past your blinders.

What forces a judge to hear a case? What forces the cops of doing anything if a complaint is made? What forces a DA to bring charges?

Nothing forces them. It is their decision and their decision only. I guess you think citizens have no rights. Pffft. I guess next people are not going to be allowed freedom of speech if it infringes on your partisanship, huh?

Either address the OP or frell off!



[edit on 5/16/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by zzombie


Thanks for the link, I will read up on that and get back to you. This is the kind of stuff I was interested in.

Like I stated in the OP. I have only just started looking through this conspiracy.

I believe it to be a big loss of rights and protection when the government removed this.

Now we have to hope a DA or a LEO will actually listen to us. Now if it is a problem with the government themselves, I guess we are crap out of luck.

Thanks for the comment.


edit to add, I will have to look into some other links in regards to that component. It sounds an awful lot like what is written in the Bill of Rights here.

From my second link-

Grand juries usually have two primary functions: investigation and indictment. Grand-jury investigations usually involve crimes. However, some states allow grand juries to investigate alleged misconduct of public officials, corruption, prisons, public records, and other public offices or facilities. Investigatory grand juries may subpoena witnesses, invoke the court’s contempt power, and perform other similar duties to obtain information and make a decision. The indicting function involves screening possible criminal cases for trial or, at a later stage in the proceedings, reviewing the prosecutor's charges and returning a "true bill." While grand juries have a long legal history, today the term "indictment" usually refers to any grand-jury accusation, whether presented on its own or based on information from the prosecutor.

So, thanks for the quo warranto, I will look into that some more.

[edit on 5/15/2010 by endisnighe]

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Since you did not read the OP, Grand Juries DO NOT FIND GUILT!

Then what exactly is an indictment? You also argued the right for these grand juries to bring the person supposedly guilty in, to make the arrest:

'With this indictment, warrants would be issued for the arrest and then presentment to a jury trial. Private individuals could be assigned the duty of arrest

In the common law legal system, an indictment (pronounced /ɪnˈdaɪtmənt/ in-DITE-mənt) is a formal accusation that a person has committed a criminal offense. Wickipedia

A civilian Grand Jury would be able to decide that a person could be charged with a crime and should be arrested.

Once that person was arrested, that person would still have the right to bail and a trial just as would any accused arrested by the police.

The difference here is that the people decide if an offence is a crime or not, not some biased government agency.



[edit on 5/15/10 by FortAnthem]

Originally posted by endisnighe
You even include the action that a Grand Jury makes. That there is enough evidence to bring this to TRIAL. Not to court but to TRIAL. Let me say that once more, TRIAL. Where the evidence is presented.

Did you know that Grand Juries are ALWAYS held in secret? This is not so that it is like a lynching. It is so that the accused, if there is not sufficient evidence, the information is not put out.

Again what is the point of having a grandjury when you already have the evidence to take a person to court? This fact still is not explained. Gathering a group of people to make judgement upon a person based on evidence, and then giving another citizen the authority to bring that person in, it leaves so much open to abuse in my opinion. I am sure you know what a lynching mob is, sometimes the consensus of a large group of people is not fair and logical. What will stop a grand jury of citizens from abusing the authority to make a citizens arrest?

What forces a judge to hear a case? What forces the cops of doing anything if a complaint is made? What forces a DA to bring charges?

What prevents a person from bring a lawsuit against somebody? Are you saying to cannot bring a lawsuit in this country even with solid evidence? What examples do you have where the courts have failed?

I guess you think citizens have no rights.

On the contrary, I think the idea of giving grand juries such authority endangers the rights of an individual. Essentially a person can be arrested on the bases of what a mob disguised as a grand jury decides. Even if the arrest is to bring the person into trial, and a warrent is issued by the grand jury, what is stopping the grand jury of citizens from abusing that power for certain reasons?

Originally posted by FortAnthem
A civilian Grand Jury would be able to decide that a person could be charged with a crime and should be arrested.

So you can essentially have an angry mob of people conclude that somebody is guilty and arrest them? And what will stop them from abusing this power? I can have a large group of people, form my own civilian grand jury, and we can all come to the conclusion that Ron Paul is guilty of stealing money based on... little to no evidence, from there we can issue a citizen to make an arrest on Ron Paul to appear in court. What will stop me and my civilian grand jury from doing this?

The difference here is that the people decide if an offence is a crime or not, not some biased government agency.

So this is really based on your dissatisfaction with not getting your way through the court system? While I agree government agencies have their faults, so do citizens. The people in those government agencies are just as human as the citizens of this nation. Atleast though with the government agencies there is protocol and guidelines to reference, with civilian grand juries there is no obligation to follow protocol or lawful guidelines. Just a mob of angry citizens making an conclusion.

Can you give me examples of where you feel the courts failed that there was a need for civilian grand juries?

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Again what is the point of having a grandjury when you already have the evidence to take a person to court? This fact still is not explained. Gathering a group of people to make judgement upon a person based on evidence, and then giving another citizen the authority to bring that person in, it leaves so much open to abuse in my opinion. I am sure you know what a lynching mob is, sometimes the consensus of a large group of people is not fair and logical. What will stop a grand jury of citizens from abusing the authority to make a citizens arrest?

What is to stop a DA from abusing their authority? What is to keep an AG from abusing his authority? What is a person to do when the police or others will not go after a criminal? We could do this what if stuff, all night.

What prevents a person from bring a lawsuit against somebody? Are you saying to cannot bring a lawsuit in this country even with solid evidence? What examples do you have where the courts have failed?

Lawsuits are civil trial. They are different than criminal. I am not going to give you examples of anything. I am going over the OP, not what you want me to go over.

On the contrary, I think the idea of giving grand juries such authority endangers the rights of an individual. Essentially a person can be arrested on the bases of what a mob disguised as a grand jury decides. Even if the arrest is to bring the person into trial, and a warrent is issued by the grand jury, what is stopping the grand jury of citizens from abusing that power for certain reasons?

Have you ever heard of unlawful detention? If such a thing occurred such as you are suggesting, the Grand Jury could be brought up on charges.

Just an example. A DA is bringing charges of terroristic threat to an 8th grader for drawing stick figures, one with a gun pointing a gun at the other with the name of the teacher above.

Yes, your system is working so well right now.

[edit on 5/15/2010 by endisnighe]

Originally posted by endisnighe
What is to stop a DA from abusing their authority? What is to keep an AG from abusing his authority? What is a person to do when the police or others will not go after a criminal?

The DA by the least is a known nation wide government agency that is held accountable and known by the citizens of this nation, by internal affairs. As to the other agencies and government organizations, each of them have representitives, citizens, private groups watching over them.

Just who will be watching over the 10,000's of civilian grand juries being formed? Essentially a grand jury can find somebody guilty without holding themselves accountable to the evidence. With the DA, police and so forth, the reasons are stated, are recorded, they are forced to reference their evidence. Civilian grand jury's do not have to follow protocol or lawful guidelines other than their own.

We could do this what if stuff, all night.

Well you just admitted it didn't you? That your idea of a grand jury is no more of a trustworth organization as the government agencies you complain about. Essentially you contradicted your OP.

Lawsuits are civil trial. They are different than criminal.

Lawsuits, criminal trials, what is stopping a person from bring forward evidence to the courts? If you have solid evidence against somebody why the need to gather a mob to bring that person in? Why not through the courts where they will be held accountable without the need for overstepping anybodies constitutional rights.

Have you ever heard of unlawful detention? If such a thing occurred such as you are suggesting, the Grand Jury could be brought up on charges.

Some people just want to see another person get arrested, or be taken in by a mob. They don't necessarily have to be charged for anything, so the charges against these groups will not stop the abuse. Essentially your saying it would be fine and dandy to drag what could be an innocent person down the street, and it would be 'ok' because the grand jury will get charged with it after anyway. That is not right. We should be preventing people from being unlawfully arrested, searched, unlawfully having their privacy invaded.

A DA is bringing charges of terroristic threat to an 8th grader for drawing stick figures, one with a gun pointing a gun at the other with the name of the teacher above.

Yes, there are faults in the system, but that does not mean the civilian grand juries will do any different or better, You will have 1000's of splinter groups that will need to be under the scope and charged for possible abuses of this right. It would be a nightmare to law enforcement, to the privacy of people, to 5th ammendment rights.

Yes, your system is working so well right now.

I never once said the system was perfect so please don't put words in my mouth.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


One last reply since you avoided it before.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

Why do you hate rights for the people?

Why do you love criminals in government?

Why do you love criminals in multi national corporations?

reply to post by endisnighe


Tell you what!
How about I get together some friends and form one of your pretend Grand Juries,and indict YOU!
Then try you in our pretend Court?
That's Ok with you, right?
Or are you one of those 'patriots' that doesn't give a crap about rights for people that don't agree with you? You know, the "patriot' that is just another authoritarian, eager to lock up and kill those that don't meet your high moral standards. Freedom for some, but not all eh?
Please post your picture, of course your BIRTH CERTIFICATE, your adress, THE Storm Troopers, uh, My Grand Jury needs to have a few words with you!

[edit on 15-5-2010 by OldDragger]

Originally posted by endisnighe

I'll assume these are rhetorical questions, but I'll address them anyway since you have the complete lack of ability to stay your ground in a proper argument.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

I respect the constitution. I respect the 5th ammendment rights of the individual. I don't see why on earth you want to ignore those rights so that a mob of people can drag an innocent person down the street.

Why do you hate rights for the people?

I respect the rights of the people.

Why do you love criminals in government?

Why do you feel the need to put words into what I say? Are you unable to make an honest argument?

Why do you love criminals in multi national corporations?

Another rhetorical question.

When your finished here, get back to me on my previous argument.

[edit on 15-5-2010 by Southern Guardian]

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Honest?

Really, you did not even read the OP. You go off on a tangent right off the bat, make points that are directly opposite of what is in the OP, you quote the 5th amendment like that has anything to do with anything.

Explain to me what the 5th amendment argument you have is?

C'mon, you can make the argument can you not?

The Bill of Rights and Common Law allows Citizen Grand Juries. They call it right there in the Constitution.

I make an argument on why did the government eliminate them.

You gave me your opinion. Fine, I get it, you like the government to have all the power in the world and the people to have NO RECOURSE against the government.

I get it. You like the citizens to be ruled by tyrants. As long as you agree with the tyrants, you are okay with it. I assume you love the Federal Reserve. I assume you love Goldman Sachs. I assume you love AIG. I assume you love GW Bush. I can assume this because of your argument.

I get your opinion.