Citizens group wants common law grand jury in Westmoreland County | TribLIVE

Citizens across this country are fed-up and angry at the legal establishment of lawyers and judges who blatantly lie, file false reports, tamper with evidence, suborn perjury, commit perjury themselves and violate every element of the ethical rules of conduct that these lawyers and judges are to obey.

For example…

REPORT: Jury Rights Billboard Campaign Infuriates Prosecutors

NextNewsNetwork NextNewsNetwork·1,626 videos
Subscribe14,852

Like I dislike this
About Share Add to Transcript Statistics Report
Published on Nov 7, 2013

WASHINGTON DC | A new billboard in Washington, DC is causing controversy with its call to jurors, informing them of their right to jury nullification. The illuiminated advertisment appears at the Juciary Square Metro Station in the nation’s capitol.

The billboards say “Good Jurors Nullify Laws” and “You have the right to ‘hang’ the jury with your vote if you cannot agree with other jurors.” It is in an area where jurors pass on their way to federal courtrooms.

This has upset prosecutors, who believe widespread practice of jury nullification could lower their conviction rate. In courts around the country, government lawyers are asking judges to instruct jurors to judge just the facts in a case to determine guilt and innocence.

Jury nullification allows a juror to judge not just the facts in a case, but the legal basis of the law as well. Jurors have found defendants innocent of crimes throughout western history based on the law being unjust.

The billboards went up in October, and a fury erupted almost immediately.

The controversial ads were designed by graphic artist James Babb. The Philadelphia native organized a fund-raising campaign that collected $3,000 to run the advertisements. Babb is now placing similar ads near courtrooms in cities around the nation.

James Babb is our guest on the show today. He is here to talk to us about his ad campaign, the history and rise of the jury nullification movement, and opposition to his ads.

Another such individual who is taking on these corrupt lawyers and judges is John Darash of New York. Darash believes that any citizen can call a grand jury to weigh evidence and hand down indictments. This would take “power” away from the lawyers and judges who at this time are the only ones able to call a grand jury. Darash believes that a grand jury callable by a citizens is the only TRUE FORM of citizen oversight of government.

Citizens group wants common law grand jury in Westmoreland County | TribLIVE.

Published: Saturday, Nov. 9, 2013, 12:01 a.m.

A citizens group filed court documents on Friday seeking to convene a common law grand jury in Westmoreland County, but legal experts say such a body has no real authority.
It’s the latest of a number of similar filings throughout the nation by people wanting to empanel investigating grand juries that are separate from the government. Citizens in the group would seek jurors from the local population, then make presentments to prosecutors.
Locally, groups in Allegheny and Beaver counties have issued the same call.
The move, however, is not backed by the law, according to a local official and a legal scholar.
“This is a rogue band of citizens with no legal authority,” said Wes Oliver, associate professor and director of the criminal justice program at Duquesne University School of Law. “To what extent there was ever a common law grand jury system that was self-creating, there no longer is.”
The Westmoreland group, founded by Tom Altman of Greensburg, wants to convene a grand jury that is not presided over by a judge and/or convened by county or state prosecutors.
Altman claims his grand jury is legitimate under the law and the Constitution.
But legal experts say that in 1946, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were established, doing away with the common law grand jury model.
District Attorney John Peck said grand juries must be approved by the courts.
“I don’t know there is a statute or procedural rule that allows citizens to convene grand juries,” Peck said.
Altman filed documents with Clerk of Courts Bryan Kline seeking to formalize the grand jury process. Kline said he was required under state law to accept the filing.
Altman said he paid the $21.40 filing fee under protest.
“We’re working to undo tyranny that’s been done,” he said. “We’re stirring a pot that’s real big, but it has to be stirred.”
Unless common law grand juries are officially recognized by the courts, prosecutors offered presentments or individuals subpoenaed by the self-formed grand juries would not be legally compelled to cooperate, Oliver said.
Rich Cholodofsky is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 724-830-6293 or rcholodofsky@tribweb.com.

Read more: http://triblive.com/news/westmoreland/5031867-74/grand-jury-law#ixzz2l0rtu0T4
Follow us: @triblive on Twitter | triblive on Facebook

2 Comments

  1. “This is a rogue band of citizens with no legal authority,” said Wes Oliver, Associate Professor and
    director of the criminal justice program at Duquesne University School of Law. “To what extent there
    was ever a common law grand jury system that was self-creating, there no longer is.”
    In regard to your above statement – What principles of law are you using?
    From Bouvier’s law encyclopedia:
    PRINCIPLES. “By this term is understood truths or propositions so clear that they cannot
    be proved nor contradicted, unless by propositions which are still clearer. They are of two kinds,
    one when the principle is universal, and these are known as axioms or maxims; as, no one can
    transmit rights which he has not; the accessory follows the principal, &c. The other class are
    simply called first principles… First principles have their source in the sentiment of our own
    existence, and that which is in the nature of things. A principle of law is a rule or axiom which is
    founded in the nature of the subject, and it exists before it is expressed in the form of a rule.
    [Emphasis added] Domat, Lois Civiles, liv. prel. t. 1, s. 2 Toull. tit. prel. n. 17. The right to defend
    one’s self, continues as long as an unjust attack, was a principle before it was ever decided by a
    court, so that a court does not establish but recognize principles of law…”
    Once again the definition of PRINCIPLES: By this term is understood truths or propositions so
    clear that they cannot be proved nor contradicted and We hold these truths to be self-evident,
    1. (a) that all men are created equal,
    (b) that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,
    (c) that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
    2. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from
    the consent of the governed. (note consent is properly used here as a noun – not a verb)
    3. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the
    people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles
    and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and
    happiness. (In case you may have overlooked it, these guys were abolishing a destructive form of
    government and instituting new government laying its foundation upon such principles…)
    To alter or to abolish most certainly includes Grand Jury investigations based upon information
    given to the Grand Jury directly from people, as the principles state, regarding any officer, agent or
    employee in or near government. Founding principles recognize the people’s right to determine if
    criminal activity in government should to be put to trial. The powers found in any form of government
    cannot commandeer the principles that organized its powers.
    Who can pretend that a form of government is stronger than the principles it is expressed from?
    Your above statement makes no sense whatsoever. How can one teach that principles are subordinate
    to form? Can a stop sign rule become greater than the life it is meant to protect? Obviously you do not
    hold the founding principles. Your own hand testifies to that fact. It is clear that you are instructing
    students and staff with the only principle left that could explain your bizarre statement. “If the supreme
    proletariat can conceive it, then it has the legal power to do it”. Communist principles are foreign and
    war with the founding principles of the United States of America.

    • Patrick McGilvery
      To Me
      Dec 12 at 12:29 PM
      Hello Bill,
      Please understand that principles exist before its form. The
      founding principles are listed in that letter to Wes Oliver. The form
      from these founding principles is the constitution. Please understand
      this and you will find the right to a Grand Jury in our founding
      principles and also expressed in form: the 5th amendment. Form cannot
      commandeer principles and Callner knows or should have known this.


      Patrick McGilvery
      Reading, Michigan
      The United States of America

      “The Romans figured it out 3,000 years ago!
      Why waste money on schools and universities!
      They just built coliseums because they knew
      a dumbed-down people are easier to rule”

      Reply, Reply All or Forward | More
      Me
      To Patrick McGilvery
      Dec 12 at 2:48 PM
      Patrick, have you been turned away from presenting evidence to a grand jury? In WA state a person can, on his own relation, indict by filing an information. This power given to a person, under RCW 7.56, renders the whole ‘grand jury’ notion a duplication of the very same process. So I don’t see any “form” that runs counter to Article 5 in WA state. HOWEVER ‘laws’ only mean something if the “legal establishment” plays by the same rules. The problem here is there are no checks upon the legal establishment; and they simply do what they want. THIS is the issue…. gaining lay-person oversight of the legal profession.
      Show message history
      Reply, Reply All or Forward | More
      Patrick McGilvery
      To Me
      Dec 12 at 6:15 PM
      Good Evening Bill,
      Yes government rules here (without the consent) bar people from talking to a seated Grand Jury when not in deliberation. However that rule is in violation of founding principles. I found RCW 10.27.100 and the phrase “or otherwise come to their knowledge” is very similar to early America charges given to Grand Juries by a judge in a time when ordinary lay people could appear before a Grand Jury with information. (Gentlemen of the Grand Jury, 2 vol. 1520 pages, Stanton Krauss) From such information the Grand Jury would determine to investigate further or not. RCW 7.56 has to do with Quo Warranto which I understand to mean “by what authority”. You are absolutely spot on with needing lay-person oversight of the legal profession but what you may not understand is that all law or rule is a form expressed by principles. Our constitution is expressed from (not with) founding principles. Founding principles declare the people’s right to review actors in government which “or otherwise come to their knowledge” alludes to. If not alluding to, then by which principle supports the rule barring people or commandeering their Grand Jury? Such a principle of commandeering the peoples Grand Jury wars with founding principles and is treason.

      RCW 10.27.100

      Inquiry as to offenses — Duties — Investigation.

      The grand jurors shall inquire into every offense triable within the county for which any person has been held to answer, if an indictment has not been found or an information filed in such case, and all other indictable offenses within the county which are presented to them by a public attorney or otherwise come to their knowledge. If a grand juror knows or has reason to believe that an indictable offense, triable within the county, has been committed, he or she shall declare such a fact to his or her fellow jurors who may begin an investigation. In such investigation the grand juror may be sworn as a witness.
      [2010 c 8 § 1022; 1971 ex.s. c 67 § 10.]

      Patrick McGilvery
      Reading, Michigan
      The United States of America

      “The Romans figured it out 3,000 years ago!
      Why waste money on schools and universities!
      They just built coliseums because they knew
      a dumbed-down people are easier to rule”
      On 12/12/2013 5:48 PM, Mr Bill Scheidler wrote:
      Show message history

      Reply, Reply All or Forward | More
      Me
      To Patrick McGilvery
      Dec 13 at 9:12 AM
      Patrick, We are both on the same page… my lawsuits against “lawyers” whether in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity are all based upon Art 1, Sec 1 of WA states constitution and Art 1, Sec. 25 (codified in RCW 7.56) …. The problem is the “lawyers” — not any deficiency in the power of the people. If “lawyers”, whether in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity, want to “protect their fiefdoms” they have the power and means to deny people their inherent powers. If we can gain control of the “legal profession” WE RECLAIM our power that they are DENYING us.

      You’re right RCW 7.56 the quo warranto cause of action, is, by what authority do you “intrude, deny, or do any such act the violates Art 1, Sec 1, or their oath, or do any other act in violation of law that raises an issue of government’s “just powers.” Because “just powers” is an issue of fact a “jury” is a right under Art 1 Sec 21 and further defined in RCW 4.40.060.

      The problem I’m having is my ‘quo warranto’ is against the legal establishment and they (the legal establishment) are using “court rules” to prevent the ‘quo warranto’ information from being tried as required by RCW 7.56.050. Of course this is also a violation of the conflict of interest statute RCW 2.28.030(1). But again it is the “legal establishment” that has “total control” of our judicial br and it is this “profession” we must “expose” “focus our efforts against” and “BLAME” for the ills of our society.
      Show message history
      Reply, Reply All or Forward | More
      Patrick McGilvery
      To Me
      Dec 13 at 11:38 AM
      Hello Bill,
      We are definitely on the same page and I respect your efforts, which are greater than mine, so much but I just want you to see the power in our founding principles. Here is the definition of PRINCIPLES 1856 Bouvier’s and I have a hard copy (3 vol.) of Bouvier’s 1914 which prints the same. Our founding principles are called “First Principles”.
      http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_p.htm
      PRINCIPLES. By this term is understood truths or propositions so clear that they cannot be proved nor contradicted, unless by propositions which are still clearer. They are of two kinds, one when the principle is universal, and these are known as axioms or maxims; as, no one can transmit rights which he has not; the accessory follows the principal, &c. The other class are simply called first principles. These principles have known marks by which they may always be recognized. These are, 1. That they are so clear that they cannot be proved by anterior and more manifest truths. 2, That they are almost universally received. 3. That they are so strongly impressed on our minds that we conform ourselves to them, whatever may be our avowed opinions.
      2. First principles have their source in the sentiment of our own existence, and that which is in the nature of things. A principle of law is a rule or axiom which is founded in the nature of the subject, and it exists before it is expressed in the form of a rule. Domat, Lois Civiles, liv. prel. t. 1, s. 2 Toull. tit. prel. n. 17. The right to defend one’s self, continues as long as an unjust attack, was a principle before it was ever decides by a court, so that a court does Dot establish but recognize principles of law.
      3. In physics, by principle is understood that which constitutes the essence of a body, or its constituent parts. 8 T. R. 107. See 2 H. Bl. 478. Taken in this sense, a principle cannot be patented; but when by the principle of a machine is meant the modus operandi, the peculiar device or manner of producing any given effect, the application of the principle may be patented. 1 Mason, 470; 1 Gallis, 478; Fessend. on Pat. 130; Phil. on Pat. 95, 101; Perpigna, Manuel des Inventeurs, &c., c. 2, s. 1.
      So I hope you can see that court rules, all rules, laws, are expressed from principles. Principles come first, (court) rules come second. Question for you: Do these court rules war with founding principles and if so, take leave and mandamus the principles the Judges or panel used for the court rules that they authored and use. Please read and understand thoroughly our 5 expressly stated founding principles in our Declaration of Independence. I listed them out to Wes Oliver. Washington state was admitted on an equal footing to the original sates. Our founding principles are on an amazing and happy path. Stay on that path.

      Patrick McGilvery
      Reading, Michigan
      The United States of America

      “The Romans figured it out 3,000 years ago!
      Why waste money on schools and universities!
      They just built coliseums because they knew
      a dumbed-down people are easier to rule”
      On 12/13/2013 12:12 PM, Mr Bill Scheidler wrote:
      Show message history

      Reply, Reply All or Forward | More
      Me
      To Patrick McGilvery
      Dec 13 at 2:33 PM
      Patrick, I’ve attached my “reply brief” to the 9th circuit court of appeals…. it may be like waking into the middle of a conversation but you’ll gather from some of my points that the 9th circuit will etiher come down on the side of “people over government” or on the side of “government over people”

      Again, the legal profession is at the root of all of our troubles, and they are hell bent on acquiring as much power as they can steal from us.so that our constitutional/statutory/common law rights are at their permission.

      I’d like to copy and re-post our email conversation (with some editing) on my web site if it is ok with you…. or you can do the same if you want.
      let me know.
      Show message history
      1 AttachmentDownload attachment
      REPLY Brief to Ninth Circuit (1)-signed.pdfDownload
      Reply, Reply All or Forward | More
      Patrick McGilvery
      To Me
      Dec 13 at 2:55 PM
      Certainly OK by me posting what I / we say. You and I want liberty restored as many other Americans do and anything that will help that along I am for. I will read your reply brief tomorrow.
      Thank you,
      Patrick McGilvery
      Reading, Michigan
      The United States of America

      “The Romans figured it out 3,000 years ago!
      Why waste money on schools and universities!
      They just built coliseums because they knew
      a dumbed-down people are easier to rule”
      On 12/13/2013 5:33 PM, Mr Bill Scheidler wrote:
      Show message history
      Reply, Reply All or Forward | More
      Patrick McGilvery
      To MeJohn@NationalLibertyAlliance.org
      Today at 7:47 AM
      Good Morning Bill,
      Here are the founding principles of the United States of America:

      We hold these truths to be self -evident,
      1. (a) that all men are created equal,
      (b) that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
      (c) that among these, are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
      2. That, to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.
      3. That, whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
      These have been written into our founding document when the colonies separated from the Crown and became free and independent states. Attached is the order of congress adopting the Declaration of Independence on page 516 1776 Journals of Congress. Please read to whom it was ordered to be distributed to. Nations have traded with us after the War. The principles are here to stay and any action otherwise would be “without the consent”. Notice consent as a thing, a noun, not a verb requiring 2 each holding a right while all are men created equal. But created equal requires correlative obligations to each right claimed. Fail in these obligations and one can place an unalienable right they hold in jeopardy. Otherwise all men are not created equal.
      The hierarchy of laws, statutes, rules and regulations.
      “…organizing its Powers in such form…” Can you see the U.S. Constitution is the form expressed by the founding principles shown above?
      Article I – The Legislature Branch
      Section 1 –
      The Legislature
      All legislative Powers herein granted shall be…
      Article II – The Executive Branch
      Section 1 –
      The President
      The executive Power shall be…
      Article III – The Judicial Branch
      Section 1 – Judicial Powers
      The judicial Power of the United States, shall be…
      Accordingly, a constitution requires principles that it can be expressed from such as our present constitution does as shown above. A law or treaty requires a constitution, that rests upon its principles, and written in pursuance of. A statute, rule or regulation requires a law it can be written from. No matter what interpretation given of either constitution, law, rule or regulation the interpreter has to use a principle interpreting it. Is that principle they are using foreign to founding principles? Communist Russia had no constitution (form) for 19 years until 1936. It used the obvious and only principle left to it “if we can think of it, we can legally do it” which wars with our founding principles of course. Correct interpretations of rules have a direct path to its founding principles like traffic stop sign regulations. It is very important the principles be clearly understood because they have been purposely skewed out of perspective for all Americans. Happily, they are truth so we can find our way back to the good path. It cannot be said enough on how well the five self-evident truths were written. They require no tweaking whatsoever as I foolishly tried in 2012 but I just did not fully understand what they were stating. We are writing a book just on these principles and have over 400 pages and I realize it cannot be that large and will need pared down some but I know enough now that these principles are from a very special place. I mention this to you as caution to not do what I did and read over these principles quickly. I hear a common and incorrect expression by people when they say all men created equal did not include women. Or sometimes people say what was meant was mankind instead of all men. This mindset has been done to lure the lazy mind into tweaking what our principles are as I fell for awhile back. Take my word for it that they are written perfectly and the principles positively include women. What is needed is understanding to what our founding principles state.
      I hope you won’t mind me copying John Darrash as he wants what you and I want too. These founding principles united our nation once and can unite it again because truth never dies.
      Patrick McGilvery
      Reading, Michigan
      The United States of America

      “The Romans figured it out 3,000 years ago!
      Why waste money on schools and universities!
      They just built coliseums because they knew
      a dumbed-down people are easier to rule”
      On 12/13/2013 5:33 PM, Mr Bill Scheidler wrote:
      Show message history
      1 AttachmentViewDownload attachment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*