The Common Law Office of America is actively pursuing to establish the common law in the executive, legislative and judicial systems. To establish the Common Law Grand Jury in order to discourage and curtail the abuse of authority that has been manifested throughout our government and to make those who violate their oaths accountable to the people for their actions. The videos and information on this page demonstrate that lawful restoration of the constitution is feasible when people come together and assert their rights.
Common Law Grand Jury Re-established |
|
United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992)
NEW YORK IS “GROUND ZERO” – Major grassroots movement in 48 States, Constituting Common Law Grand Juries. In a stunning six to three, 1992 Decision that went unnoticed, until now, Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority said: In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992), Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, confirmed that the American grand jury is neither part of the judicial, executive nor legislative branches of government, but instead belongs to the people. It is in effect a fourth branch of government “governed” and administered to directly by and on behalf of the American people, and its authority emanates from the Bill of Rights, the acts of the Grand Jury is the consent of the people. “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. 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”. — Justice Antonin Scalia “Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present “True Bills” of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a “buffer” the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.” – Justice Antonin Scalia “The grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such “supervisory” judicial authority exists. The “common law” of the Fifth Amendment demands a traditional functioning grand jury.” — Justice Antonin Scalia “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. The grand jury’s functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised.” – Justice Antonin Scalia “The grand jury ‘can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.’ It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even “the precise nature of the offense” it is investigating. The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. It swears in its own witnesses and deliberates in total secrecy.” -- Justice Antonin Scalia “Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said the 5th Amendment’s constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body ‘acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge” — Justice Antonin Scalia “Given the grand jury’s operational separateness from its constituting court, it should come as no surprise that we have been reluctant to invoke the judicial supervisory power as a basis for prescribing modes of grand jury procedure. Over the years, we have received many requests to exercise supervision over the grand jury’s evidence-taking process, but we have refused them all. “it would run counter to the whole history of the grand jury institution” to permit an indictment to be challenged “on the ground that there was incompetent or inadequate evidence before the grand jury.” — Justice Antonin Scalia UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. John H. WILLIAMS, Jr. | LII / Legal Information Institute Respondent Williams was indicted by a federal grand jury for alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. 1014. On his motion, the District Court ordered the indictment dismissed without prejudice because the Government had failed to fulfill its obligation under Circuit precedent to present "substantial exculpatory evidence. COMMON LAW RIGHTS |
Judge Oversteps Her Authority Addressing JuryThe jury came back with a Not Guilty verdict and the judge was upset because in her mind the defendant was guilty. She was powerless because once a jury comes back with a verdict there is nothing the judge can do about it. However, this judge vowed to get back at the defendant because he had another case pending. The jurors made a complaint to the administrative judge who said that if nothing else he would ask the judge to recuse herself from any case involving the defendant.
Jurors need to know that they are the authority in the courtroom and that they can not be bullied by the judge or the prosecutor in order to render a verdict that is acceptable to the State. How To Handle Cops On Open Carry Situation |
Due Process of Law does not mean merely according to the will of the legislature, or the will of some judicial or quasi-judicial body upon whom it may confer authority. It means according to the law of the land, including the constitution with its guarantees and the legislative enactments and rules duly made by its authority, so far as they are consistent with constitutional limitations. Ekern v. McGovern, 154 Wis. 157, 142 N.W. 595, 620 (1913)
It is imperative in this society with so much police corruption and judicial misconduct infested in our system, that the citizen arm themselves with knowledge of the common law and their unalienable divine and constitutional rights. This is the only way for one to obtain justice. |
Due Process of law implies and comprehends the administration of laws equally applicable to all under established rules which do not violate fundamental principles of private rights, and in a competent tribunal possessing jurisdiction of the cause and proceeding upon justice. It is founded upon the basic principle that every man shall have his day in court, and the benefit of the general law which proceeds only upon notice and which hears and considers before judgment is rendered. State v. Green, 232 S.W. 2d 897, 903 (Mo. 1950)
|