Austin Citizens’ Grand Jury on 9/11 Crimes

Austin Citizens’ Grand Jury on 9/11 Crimes Citizens’ Grand Juries: The Shield and the Sword of the People The Cornerstone of our Constitution The Fourth Branch of our Government, “The People’s Branch”

A Note on Grand Juries by George J. Edwards, Harvard Law Review, Vol 20, No. 8, June 1907 • The grand jury is an institution of English-speaking countries. It is of historic interest by reason of the obscurity surrounding its origin, its gradual development, and the part it has played in some of the most stirring events in the history of Anglo-Saxon countries; • it is of political interest by its protection of the liberty of the individual from the arbitrary power of the government;

A Note on Grand Juries by George J. Edwards, Harvard Law Review, Vol 20, No. 8, June 1907 • It is of legal interest in that its power and action is utterly repugnant to "the experience and theory of English law." • It has been extravagantly praised as the "security of Englishmen's lives," the conserver of his liberties, and the noblest check upon the malice and oppression of individuals; • it has been bitterly assailed as "purely mischievous" and a "relic of barbarism."

Project Goals • Indict and Prosecute the criminals responsible for 9/11 • Restore Grand Juries’ power to protect the people from unfounded & harassing prosecution by the state • Restore Grand Juries’ presentment power and the peoples’ power to initiate and take over criminal prosecution when state prosecutors either refuse to prosecute or prosecute poorly • Restore the peoples’ right to elect Grand Juries have them recognized by the Courts

Project Goals • Restore the public’s access to existing impaneled grand juries so the people can bring evidence of crimes to these grand juries for consideration • Exercise our right to form our own grand juries to investigate crimes & present charges, especially concerning the crimes of 9/11 • Publicize our presentments and findings in the media to educate the public about 9/11 truth and to increase pressure on Congress and the Justice Department to thoroughly investigate the crimes of 9/11 and prosecute those responsible

Outline of Topics • Grand Juries: Their purpose and function as the shield and the sword of the people • The Magna Carta: Grand Juries are born in England in 1215 • Grand Juries become well - established in England from 1215-1600’s • Grand Juries in pre-revolutionary America: The “Golden Years” of Grand Juries’ power and the crucial function they served in our Revolution • Grand Juries power continues in early post-revolutionary America

Outline of Topics • The imperative role of private prosecution • The decline of grand juries’ power starting in themid-1800’s and the 1946 Procedure Code • 2 modern cases highlighting the importance of grand juries’ power in bringing a halt to govt’ corruption • Recent Supreme Court rulings reviving grand juries’ power and function • Reform to restore proper grand jury function • Citizens’ Grand Juries - return to historic precedent • Media pressure needed today for the 9/11 Citizens’ Grand Juries to have a serious impact

Grand Juries: The Cornerstone of Our Constitution • The grand jury is the cornerstone of our Constitution. When it operates as it was designed by the Framers of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights cannot be infringed upon by the government. Mike Brown, Information for Good Citizenship, http://www.home.earthlink.net/~dlaw70 FOR MORE INFO...

Grand Juries: The Cornerstone of Our Constitution • When it acts as a rubber stamp for the prosecutor, the Bill of Rights are seriously undermined. • By educating those called to be grand jurors, we can begin to reclaim those rights taken away by the federal judiciary. Mike Brown, Information for Good Citizenship, http://www.home.earthlink.net/~dlaw70 FOR MORE INFO...

Grand Juries: The Shield of the People • As a shield, grand juries protect the people from harassing and capricious prosecution by abusive and overreaching power of the executive branch. • In order for anyone to be prosecuted for an “infamous” or “capital” crime, a grand jury must determine that there is sufficient evidence to bring the accused to trial.

Grand Juries: The Shield of the People • Historically, this protection was mainly put in place to prevent the state from railroading people into jail or long and expensive court ordeals simply for being political dissidents or for disagreeing with the state.

Grand Jury Shield: The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution • No person shall be held to answer for a 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 offense 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.

“True Bill” or “No Bill” of Indictment • A grand jury votes on a set of proposed charges submitted by a prosecutor and can return charges in either of two ways. • If the grand jurors decide there is probable cause to support the charges, they vote a "true bill," that is, they vote to return the indictment and initiate a criminal proceeding. • If the grand jurors decide there is not probable cause to support the charges, they vote a "no true bill," which means the indictment is not returned and no criminal case ensues.

Grand Juries: The Sword of the People • The original name for a grand jury was “The Grand Inquisition”. • As a sword, grand juries act as an accusatory and investigative body, mainly into gov’t corruption. • GJ’s may independently investigate corruption apart from a state prosecutor. • GJ’s may conduct proceedings in secret and can question witnesses and examine physical evidence. • GJ’s may submit criminal charges and other findings according to their own knowledge and independent investigation. This is called a “presentment”.

Grand Juries: The Sword of the People • Grand juries NEVER consider any evidence whatsoever that may support the innocence of the accused. • It does not matter one iota if there are mountains of evidence to support the innocence of the accused. Grand juries ONLY look at accusatory evidence. • If there is enough accusatory evidence to support probable cause, that is all that is needed for the grand jury to hand down an indictment or presentment. Any evidence to support someone's innocence is considered by the trial jury, or the petit jury, during the criminal trial.

Grand Juries: The Sword of the People & the 7th Amendment • The 7th Amendment guarantees us all rights established through common law. • Common law developed under the inquisitorial system in England (the Grand Jury system) from judicial decisions based on custom, tradition, precedent, and a history of jurisprudence. • The right and power of grand juries to make presentments to initiate prosecution has been well established through centuries of jurisprudence through common law, therefore this right is retained and protected in the 7th Amendment of our Constitution.

The Seventh Amendment of Our U.S. Constitution • 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 reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

A Note about Common Law, the 7th Amendment, and 9/11 • Common law jurisdiction includes criminal cases as well as civil cases. • Common law deals with property rights. • Most crimes involve a “controversy which exceeds twenty dollars”. • The crimes of 9/11 certainly inflicted property damage exceeding twenty dollars. • We are well within our Constitutional rights to pursue criminal grand jury investigation regarding the crimes of 9/11.

Grand Juries: The Fourth Branch of Government, “the People’s Branch” • It is significant that the grand jury is not part of any of the three branches of the U.S. government - it is a pre-constitutional institution. • In the mid-1800’s Washington attorney John H. Clarke wrote in a motion to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, “Although today the grand jury is more of a prosecutor’s panel, it is still a pre-constitutional institution,

Grand Juries: The Fourth Branch of Government, “the People’s Branch” • and is still a people’s panel, not captive or relegated by the constitution to a position within any branches… And it still serves as a vehicle for effective citizen participation in government.”

Grand Juries: The Fourth Branch of Government, “the People’s Branch” • Citizens often mistakenly believe that because the grand jury meets at the courthouse it is under the judiciary or because the grand jury meets with a prosecutor it is under the executive branch. • It is actually an independent institution adopted by the founders to protect the individual from prosecutorial misconduct, as well as to empower the people to initiate and pursue prosecution.

Grand Juries: The Fourth Branch of Government, “the People’s Branch” • Antonin Scalia effectively codified the unique independent power of the Fourth Branch into the hands of all citizens sitting as grand jurors, including those 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:

Justice Scalia delivers the opinion of the Court in U.S. v. Williams, 1992 • "'[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). ' "

Justice Scalia delivers the opinion of the Court in U.S. v. Williams, 1992 • Scalia also stated, that "the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside..." Id.

Justice Scalia delivers the opinion of the Court in U.S. v. Williams, 1992 • "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).”

Justice Scalia delivers the opinion of the Court in U.S. v. Williams, 1992 • “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] "

“Treasongate: Grand Juries, The Fourth Branch of Government”, by CitizenSpook, August 14, 2005 • 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 ‘our’ own right”. That is exactly what the grand jury is, and what it was always intended to be.

“Treasongate: Grand Juries, The Fourth Branch of Government”, by CitizenSpook, August 14, 2005 • 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. We the people have the right and power under the 5th and 7th Amendments 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.

“If It’s not a Runaway, it’s not a real grand jury” - Roger Roots, Creighton Law Review, Vol 3No. 4, 1999 • A "runaway" grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor. • Today's "runaway" grand jury is in fact the common law grand jury of the past. • Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact "runaways," according to the definition of modern times.

“If It’s not a Runaway, it’s not a real grand jury” - Roger Roots, Creighton Law Review, Vol 3No. 4, 1999 • they operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself.

“The Grand Jury: Its Origin, History and Development” - George J. Edwards, 1906 • The origin of the grand jury has given rise to much discussion among legal scholars. Numerous and widely differing conclusions have been offered. • Some have claimed to find traces of the institution among the Athenians. But if such an institution ever existed in Athens it had become extinct before the existence of Britain became known to the Mediterranean Countries.

“The Grand Jury: Its Origin, History and Development” - George J. Edwards, 1906 • Athenian history does mention practices similar to the Norman’s tradition of trial by a large number of jurors, however there is nothing in Athenian history that mentions an accusatory body of citizens. • Some writers claim the institution has an Anglo-Saxon origin, others urge that juries were unknown to the Anglo-Saxons and were introduced by the Normans after their Conquest of England in 1066. • The Magna Carta is the first major historical document enumerating an accusatory body of the people.

The Magna Carta, the precursor of our Constitution • King John (1199-1216) succeeded his brother Richard I. He lacked his brother’s military prowess and he spent much of his reign attempting to recover lost English possessions in France. To finance his military campaigns, he resorted to harsh taxation of his subjects, which provoked growing unrest. • The Battle of Bouvines in July 1214 marked the end of English hopes of regaining Normandy. Opposition to King John intensified, and he was no longer able to resist the barons’ demand that their liberties be confirmed.

The Magna Carta, the precursor of our Constitution • Abuses by King John caused a revolt by barons who forced him to sign and enact this recognition of rights for both noblemen and ordinary Englishmen. It established the principle that no one, including the king or a lawmaker, is above the law. • On June 10, 1215, the barons took London by force with their “militias” and forced King John to either sign the document or loose his head at the River Thames. In return the barons renewed their oaths of “fealty”, or allegiance, to the king.

The Magna Carta, the precursor of our Constitution • The constitutional importance of Magna Carta lies in the fact that it placed limits upon the absolute power of the King and made him subject to the law. • The most famous of its sixty-three clauses said that no free man could be imprisoned, outlawed, or exiled except by the lawful judgement of his peers, and that justice could not be sold, delayed or denied. • It also contained clauses relating to the treatment of heirs and widows and to the payment of debts.

The Magna Carta, the precursor of our Constitution • It provided for uniform measures of wine, ale, corn and cloth throughout the realm. • It confirmed the liberties of the Church. • It sought to regulate the conduct of all local officials such as sheriffs, bailiffs, and constables, and to ensure that they knew and observed the law.

The Magna Carta, Article 61: The First Accusatory Body of the People • The most significant clause for King John at the time was clause 61, known as the "security clause", the longest portion of the document. • This established a committee of 25 barons who could at any time meet and over-rule the will of the King, through force by seizing his castles and possessions if needed.

The Magna Carta, Article 61: The First Accusatory Body of the People • This was based on a medieval legal practice known as distraint, which was commonly done, but it was the first time it had been applied to a monarch. In addition, the King was to take an oath of loyalty to the committee. • In English law, distraint or distress, is a remedy for non-payment of rent. It involves the seizure of goods belonging to the tenant by the landlord to sell them for the payment of the rent.

The Magna Carta, Article 61: The First Accusatory Body of the People • Using the practice of distraint as the founding principle of the Magna Carta is of significant importance. The barons’ asserted their right to seize the king’s possessions and overrule the king in the event that the king would not make redress of grievances to the people. • This set the precedent that the king as a ruler is a mere tenant, and that the king owed “payment” to the people in the form of redress of grievances in return for the people allowing him to rule. If redress is not made, the people have the right to seize his possessions as payment.

The Magna Carta, Article 61: The First Accusatory Body of the People • Up until this time, the right of the monarch to rule was considered absolute and unconditional. Now, the barons asserted that the king’s ruling authority was not an inherent right but rather a privilege granted by the people, that could be revoked by the people, and furthermore a privilege that required payment to the people in the form of redress of grievances. • If payment was not made, the people had the right to “evict” the king from his ruling position as well as seize all the king’s possessions in lieu of payment of redress of grievances.

The Magna Carta, the precursor of our Constitution • The Magna Carta reversed the tyrannical principle that the power to rule is an in-alienable right of the elite and that the liberties and rights of the people are granted by the ruling elite and can be taken from the people.

The Magna Carta, the precursor of our Constitution • The proper principle was established that it is We the people who are the landlords and owners of the governmental positions of authority, the We the people grant the privilege of authority to the tenants of these government positions, this privilege can be revoked for non-payment of redress of grievance, our tenants can be evicted from their positions, payment seized by confiscation of our tenants’ material possessions, and most importantly it is the liberties and rights of the people that are inherent and in-alienable.

The Magna Carta, Article 61: The First Accusatory Body of the People • “SINCE WE HAVE GRANTED ALL THESE THINGS FOR GOD, for the better ordering of our kingdom, and to allay the discord that has arisen between us and our barons, and since we desire that they shall be enjoyed in their entirety, with lasting strength, for ever, we give and grant to the barons the following security:”

The Magna Carta, Article 61: The First Accusatory Body of the People • “The barons shall elect twenty-five of their number to keep, and cause to be observed with all their might, the peace and liberties granted and confirmed to them by this charter. • If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress.”

The Magna Carta, Article 61: The First Accusatory Body of the People • “If we, or in our absence abroad the chief justice, make no redress within forty days, reckoning from the day on which the offence was declared to us or to him, the four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons, who may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible,

The Magna Carta, Article 61: The First Accusatory Body of the People • with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon. Having secured the redress, they may then resume their normal obedience to us.”

A Side Note: The Invisible Government Speaks • King John had been forced to agree to the Magna Carta, and he immediately attempted to have it annulled by the Pope, who issued a papal bull saying that it was ‘as unjust and unlawful as it is base and shameful’. • Pope Innocent III annulled the "shameful and demeaning agreement, forced upon the king by violence and fear." He rejected any call for rights, saying it impaired King John's dignity. He saw it as an affront to the Church's authority over the king and released John from his oath to obey it.

Civil War Ensues • King John had no intention to honour Magna Carta, as it was sealed under extortion by force, and clause 61 essentially neutered his power as a monarch, making him King in name only. He renounced it as soon as the barons left London, plunging England into a civil war, called the “First Barons’ War”.

“Grand Juries are a Second Amendment Issue” - Michael Badnarik • The only reason the barons were able to assert and enforce their rights was because they were armed and the king had squandered his army on imperialistic and unsuccessful war campaigns. • The only reason we haven’t had all our rights taken away is because we have the right to bear arms. • We have the power to exercise and enforce our rights only as long as we can defend ourselves.

“Grand Juries are a Second Amendment Issue” - Michael Badnarik • Historically, one of the first things that tyrannical dictators have done as soon as they gain power is to disarm the people. Once the populace is disarmed, these tyrants can easily take away people’s rights & liberties, install a police state, and begin the process of genocide. • The second amendment was mainly put in place to protect the people from abusive and tyrannical government taking away not only our rights and liberties but our very lives as well. • Self-defense from common street criminals is secondary to this principle.

Austin Citizens’ Grand Jury on 9/11 Crimes