It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldDragger
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]


I see you did not read the OP or any of the comments so far. Address the OP or GOODBYE.




posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   

For those that did not read the OP, I will post it again!




Originally posted by endisnighe
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 therexistence 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.


Will you read it this time?



[edit on 5/16/2010 by endisnighe]



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:55 PM
link   
The Grand Jury would "indict a ham sandwich"...

Today's Grand Juries essentially do what a prosecutor tells them to do. Southern Guardian, as is usually the case, is way off base, and pretending that Grand Juries are not used by the government to prosecute people. "an excuse to avoid the courts" my left foot! Grand Juries have been so perverted by a corrupt system that uses the Grand Jury to railroad innocent people, and does so under the color of law. So, where S.G. offers merely opinion, and that opinion is steeped in the concern that Grand Juries could be used to trample over peoples rights, it is clear to anyone paying attention that Grand Juries are being used to destroy peoples lives. Consider the Duke Lacrosse case:




“The grand jury system in this state is a joke,” said Bannon. “The day of the lacrosse indictments, there were 82 indictments in 96 minutes. And there is no duty to provide exculpatory evidence.” Clearly, with that kind of time crunch, coupled with no pressure to produce evidence, and no written records of the proceedings, there exists the possibility that anyone could be indicted in this state.


Or consider the words of a member of the Grand Jury for the Oklahoma City Bombing:




The Hoppy Heidelberg Story. This video provides evidence of how the Federal Grand Jury investigation into the Oklahoma City bombing of the Alfred Murrah Federal Building on April 19, 1995, was manipulated and obstructed. Why? Why the secrecy surrounding this terrorist attack that killed 168 men, women and children? One courageous Grand Jury member, Hoppy Heidelberg, stood up and began asking questions that rogue Federal prosecutors preferred to avoid answering. In this video, you'll get a rare glimpse into the inner workings of our corrupt judicial system. Risking his freedom, family and his fortune, Hoppy speaks out and tells us how things really were. You'll see how rogue prosecutors manipulate and control the outcome of Grand Jury inquiries to make sure Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were indicted


Further, consider and compare these two websites; one is the website for the Los Angeles County Grand Jury:




The Criminal Grand Jury consists of 23 members and a designated number of alternates. It is impaneled monthly and the term of service is typically 30 calendar days unless otherwise required by the District Attorney’s Office. The Criminal Grand Jury is selected at random from the petit jury list to ensure that a reasonable representative cross-section of the entire county is eligible for this jury service. All persons qualified for Criminal Grand Jury service have an obligation to serve when summoned.


Now compare that with the words of the Los Angeles Superior Court:




On July 5, 2000, the Superior Court began impaneling an additional criminal grand jury, in addition to the civil grand jury. This selected criminal grand jury will be impaneled throughout the year according to the District Attorney's needs, and shall have exclusive jurisdiction to return criminal indictments when impaneled. Such a criminal grand jury will be selected at random from the petit jury master file list in such a manner that a reasonably representative cross-section of the population that is eligible for jury service is summoned.


Perhaps we change the name of the Los Angeles Superior Court to the Smug and Arrogant Court of Los Angeles. If S.G. was truly so concerned about mob rule then perhaps some concern could be showed for the number of Superior Court Judges that are at a prosecutors disposal to issue indictments in L.A. County:




Because Los Angeles County has the largest population of any county in the United States, it also has the largest Superior Court. The Los Angeles County Superior Court is organized into dozens of highly specialized departments dealing with everything from moving violations to mental health. It handles over 2.5 million legal matters each year, of which about 4,000 terminate in jury trials; this works out to about 4,300 matters per judge. Its 429 judges are assisted by 140 commissioners and 14 referees.


Now that's a bona fide mob, and while they don't wear the pointy white caps made infamous by the KKK, they certainly like to dress up in robes and declare their superiority over people.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Well let me clarify, are we talking about a civilian juries that is held accountable by law to the courts and authorities? Or completely independent civilian grand juries formed by civilians, with no accountability? I am arguing the latter as I assume the OP is as well.

The OP clearly argued the rights of an independent grand jury, seperate from the courts, formed by civilians, to hold the authority to bring somebody in, to make an arrest in preparation for a trial following the conclusion of this grand jury. Essentially we can have a mob come together, conclude somebody is guilty with little to no evidence, then arrest them and bring them in. This is the abuse I am arguing here, that an individual citizen with 5th ammendment rights can be ignored on the basis and conclusions of another group of citizens, and taken in. That is an invasion of privacy, and these independent civilian juries need not necessarily assure the evidence for this arrest as the OP clearly argues that they do not need to be held accountable to the courts or authorities (because they are corrupt).

I have no doubt that the states do use civilian juries, obviously they do, but this is under the guide and watchful eye of the authorities as there is less risk. These juries also hear evidence from independent outside parties before they make a judgement and are chosen at random. Independent civilian grand juries are not obligated to and can form from a group of members, not at random. There is a significant increase in danger of bias within these independently formed civilian juries.

Essentially what is being argued here is that the court and law enforcement agencies cannot be trusted, there for we need indepedent self regulated civilian juries to make judgements, with nobody watching and holding them accountable, with no outside party needed to make a defense. Ultimately the power is held to the civilian jury that gets together, and they hold the power to arrest somebody. This is not at risk of being abused? Who will exactly regulate the 10,000's of independent civilian grand juries?

[edit on 16-5-2010 by Southern Guardian]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldDragger
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]


Go for it. At the initial appearance I will ask waive the right to a jury trial but not the waive the right to a speedy trial. I will ask that all evidence be presented to me at that time. I will take about 3 minutes to go over the lies and get it all thrown out. Then I will ask the case to be dismissed with prejudice. I will then ask the court by the evidence provided to issue a bench warrant for the arrest of all those in the Grand Jury that found their to be sufficient evidence and anyone else involved. The charge would be unlawful arrest. Then I will commence to get your ass thrown in jail.

Not so hard, I know the LAW, pretty well now.

Getting pretty damn knowledgeable.

You using your time wisely?

Or you here to whine that the government is our buddy and you do not like us citizen/slaves to act up?



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Well let me clarify, are we talking about a civilian juries that is held accountable by law to the courts and authorities? Or completely independent civilian grand juries formed by civilians, with no accountability? I am arguing the latter as I assume the OP is as well.


Where in the OP, did I say there is no accountability? Placing words in my mouth again? This is why I get short with you SG.



The OP clearly argued the rights of an independent grand jury, seperate from the courts, formed by civilians, to hold the authority to bring somebody in, to make an arrest in preparation for a trial following the conclusion of this grand jury.


Here again, you put words in my mouth. Please post the entire quote from my OP that I argued this point. I was talking in historical reference. You are inferring something that I never stated. I was stating how things worked in the beginning of the nation. Please, if you are going to argue this to not be true, please give me a link to record that proves this. Since I did post links to references, maybe you should do the same.



Essentially we can have a mob come together, conclude somebody is guilty with little to no evidence, then arrest them and bring them in. This is the abuse I am arguing here, that an individual citizen with 5th ammendment rights can be ignored on the basis and conclusions of another group of citizens, and taken in. That is an invasion of privacy, and these independent civilian juries need not necessarily assure the evidence for this arrest as the OP clearly argues that they do not need to be held accountable to the courts or authorities (because they are corrupt).


Here again putting words into my mouth. Where did I ever say that they would or could not be held accountable? You are using as reference what is happening out there in the world to SUPPOSEDLY what I believe. Are you a mind reader now?



I have no doubt that the states do use civilian juries, obviously they do, but this is under the guide and watchful eye of the authorities as there is less risk. These juries also hear evidence from independent outside parties before they make a judgement and are chosen at random. Independent civilian grand juries are not obligated to and can form from a group of members, not at random. There is a significant increase in danger of bias within these independently formed civilian juries.


So do you even know how Grand Juries operate? Maybe you should read some of the links. Or is that not the right procedure for you? You just come here and claim a bunch of crap and assume anyone reading will think you are right? So, are you arguing there is no bias in government? Still not getting it there SG? The courts are biased towards the government, that is why I am researching this. Sorry to tell you, the universe does not revolve around the SG avatar.



Essentially what is being argued here is that the court and law enforcement agencies cannot be trusted, there for we need indepedent self regulated civilian juries to make judgements, with nobody watching and holding them accountable, with no outside party needed to make a defense. Ultimately the power is held to the civilian jury that gets together, and they hold the power to arrest somebody. This is not at risk of being abused? Who will exactly regulate the 10,000's of independent civilian grand juries?


Here you go, making more assumptions of my intent AGAIN! Law is accountable. If a prosecutor can be charged with frivolous charges, could not a civilian Grand Jury not be charged with the same?

And then of course you bring in the ever present government tyrant argument.

REGULATION. The whole thing is about protecting the rights against tyrants in government, government agencies, and their cohorts in crime-the mega corps.


[edit on 5/16/2010 by endisnighe]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


My friend, you are clearly ignoring the links I provided in order to continue pretending that only Grand Juries not sanctioned by legislation are a threat in terms of mob justice. The 429 Superior Court Judges of L.A. represent mob justice in its truest sense. I get that you are a sycophant of government, and will no doubt reject that argument, but you make many claims that are just not rooted in fact. Consider this remark of yours in a previous post:




You don't have the right to make a citizens arrest of somebody because you don't hold that authority.


This remark reveals much about your view of government and the People. You clearly have no respect for the Preamble of the Constitution for the United State:




We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


And, of course, since I mentioned L.A. county, I will stay with the Great State of California, and post their own constitutional preamble:




We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.


Certain Inalienable Rights of the People as enumerated by the California constitution should also be given deference in this matter:




SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.


~Article I, Section 1, Declaration of Rights, California Constitution~




SEC. 3. (a) The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good.


~Article I, Section 3, Declaration of Rights, California Constitution~

And, of course, to address you valid concerns that any citizen could just arrest another without impunity, there is this:




SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;


~Article I, Section 7, Declaration of Rights, California Constitution~

Further, on the matter of Citizen's Arrest:




Each state, with the exception of North Carolina, permits citizen arrests if the commission of a felony is witnessed by the arresting citizen, or when a citizen is asked to assist in the apprehension of a suspect by police. The application of state laws varies widely with respect to misdemeanors, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party. American citizens do not carry the authority or enjoy the legal protections held by police officers, and are held to the principle of strict liability before the courts of civil- and criminal law including but not limited to any infringement of another's rights.

Though North Carolina General Statutes have no provision for citizens' arrests, detention by private persons is permitted and applies to both civilians and police officers outside their jurisdiction. Detention is permitted where probable cause exists that one has committed a felony, breach of peace, physical injury to another person, or theft or destruction of property. Detention is different from an arrest in that in a detention the detainee may not be transported without consent.


While Wikipedia loves to frame the authority of the People in what is or isn't "permitted" by government, even this site acknowledges the right of citizen's arrest. So, to balance out Wikipedia's bias, I offer bias from the other side with this article on citizen's arrest, and this, and this, this, this, and this.

Frankly S.G., the research involved in refuting your erroneous claims can often take up much time, so I am going to post this now, and give you an opportunity to respond before taking up more of you erroneous claims.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join