Power Independence Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register

 Moderated by: Joe Kelley
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
NLA - Citizen Grand Juries  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Mon Feb 20th, 2017 01:40 pm
  PM Quote Reply
1st Post
geraldsmith
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Hello,
I know this is a silly question, but if the "Common Law Grand Jury" has the power to order a district judge to sign a writ, why don't they have the power to sign the writ themselves? You know, cut out the middle-man.
Putting it differently, what's the point of inventing a fantasy legal system in which you need judges to sign things for you if you can invent a fantasy legal system in which there are no judges and you can just sign things yourself?
Thanks in advance


About Me: I have worked with multiple firms
You can check , one of my work.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Feb 21st, 2017 04:50 pm
  PM Quote Reply
2nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6408
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Thanks for the thoughtful response.

I can try to add to the thought process, but my viewpoint may appear to be foreign, and my viewpoint may appear to be misdirecting the intention behind the question.


First:

"...the "Common Law Grand Jury" has the power to order..."

That appears to be an error to me: in thinking. There is no entity knowable as the Common Law Grand Jury, as if said entity was one thing, one power, by which this one entity can exert power and that power is then causing other people to act against their own power of will.

In other words the concept in question (law) is based upon the concept of voluntary agreement among individuals who are responsible and accountable for their own power to act.

I can try to rephrase the question in order to help me discover the intention behind the question:

Original:

"I know this is a silly question, but if the "Common Law Grand Jury" has the power to order a district judge to sign a writ, why don't they have the power to sign the writ themselves? You know, cut out the middle-man.
Putting it differently, what's the point of inventing a fantasy legal system in which you need judges to sign things for you if you can invent a fantasy legal system in which there are no judges and you can just sign things yourself?"

Removing some words in the effort to get closer to the meat of the question:


"...if the "Common Law Grand Jury" has the power to order a district judge to sign a writ, why don't they have the power to sign the writ themselves? You know, cut out the middle-man...

and

...what's the point of inventing a fantasy legal system in which you need judges to sign things for you if you can invent a fantasy legal system in which there are no judges and you can just sign things yourself?"

My adjusted question:

...if people agree to discover the facts in a case (said common law grand jury) where someone claims that an injury to an innocent individual victim (or individuals constituting a group of innocent victims) has occurred in time and place, will they do so, so as to set in motion a discovery of facts concerning the named perpetrator (or perpetrators) of that claim of injury, and if those people have the power to do so (because they agree to do so), then will they do so?

I do not know why fantasy is introduced into the question.

I can ask.

Why is fantasy introduced into the question?

I answer in this way because there appears to be a missing element involved in this conversation here and now.

Is there ever a power by which people help each other defend each other, voluntarily, against harm done to each other, so as to deter harm done to each other effectively, efficiently, and expediently, and if not, then is it a good idea to authorize ourselves to do so here and now?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Feb 10th, 2021 08:58 am
  PM Quote Reply
3rd Post
Butcher
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
geraldsmith wrote:
Hello,
I know this is a silly question, but if the "Common Law Grand Jury" has the power to order a district judge to sign a writ, why don't they have the power to sign the writ themselves? You know, cut out the middle-man.
Putting it differently, what's the point of inventing a fantasy legal system in which you need judges to sign things for you if you can invent a fantasy legal system in which there are no judges and you can just sign things yourself?
Thanks in advance


About Me: I have worked with multiple firms
You can check , one of my work.

A grand jury is a panel of jurors who deliberate on the merits of a criminal charge brought by the public prosecutor and decide whether the defendant should be tried. The functioning of these panels established by courts of first instance is typical for common law countries where there is no preliminary investigation or enquiry due to the absence of such procedures in the criminal procedure law. In cases prescribed by law, the verification of the validity of the charges is entrusted to citizens who are members of grand juries. During grand jury proceedings, citizens perform some of the functions of preliminary investigation bodies. Hence, the grand juries are sometimes called "juries of enquiry or investigatory juries", similar to coroner's juries. Given that grand juries also decide whether an accused is brought to trial, these bodies are often also referred to as juries of accusation.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed Feb 10th, 2021 02:18 pm
  PM Quote Reply
4th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6408
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"...brought by the public prosecutor..."

Is that true?

If that is true, why is the word "public" in front of the word "prosecutor"?

I ask because I have read this:

The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Page 40
Private Prosecutors
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury."

Page 42
Law Enforcement as a Universal Duty
"Law enforcement in the Founders' time was a duty of every citizen. Citizens were expected to be armed and equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned. And when called upon to enforce the laws of the state, citizens were to respond "not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities [were] convenient and at hand. Any person could act in the capacity of a constable without being one, and when summoned by a law enforcement officer, a private person became a temporary member of the police department. The law also presumed that any person acting in his public capacity as an officer was rightfully appointed."

So...

The term "public prosecutor" means what exactly?

Does it mean that only someone special has the power to defend innocent people with a demand to try a criminal case involving an accused (but not yet tried by jury) individual accused of intending to or harming an innocent victim?

Or...

Anyone has the lawful power to help defend innocent people as a public service provider known as a prosecutor, therefore The Law places everyone on a legal equal footing, and no one is disenfranchised so as create two groups within the body of the whole people: Those with lawful power, and those who do not have lawful power, to prosecute suspects, suspected of harming innocent people, so as to defend and serve the innocent victims targeted by criminals, especially criminals claiming to be protecting and serving the whole people as one.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

Current time is 01:36 am  
Power Independence > National Liberty Alliance > NLA General Discussion > NLA - Citizen Grand Juries Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems