Grassroots Grand Jury Movement Confronts Five New York Judges pb

“YOU CAN’T GET RID OF COMMON LAW”

by Sharon Rondeau

(Oct. 26, 2013) — On October 11, members of the New York Common Law Grand Jury visited five county courthouses with the purpose of indicting judges by presentment for their lack of adherence to the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The movement seeks to reinstate the common law grand jury in all 50 states in order to return sovereignty to the people, government to being the people’s servant, administer justice as was intended by the Founding Fathers by the Fifth Amendment (on video), and expose fraud and corruption.

A century ago, grand jurors investigated evidence of crimes, including those of government officials, and worked without a prosecutor, lawyer or judge prompting or providing oversight to their activity.  After the revisions to the 1946 Rules of Criminal Procedure by Congress, Fifth Amendment common law grand juries were marginalized and their presentments labeled “obsolete.”  Thereafter, prosecutors gained control of the grand jury at both the county and federal levels.

One of the organizers told us, “They’re trying to say we’re some type of organization, but we’re not:  we’re the people.  The people are doing it themselves.  There are organizers, but the whole thing is run by people.  We are unified; we do call ourselves ‘unified grand jury.'”

Another said, “We want to emphasize that we have a right to assemble to discuss anything.  We’re really on the last stages of freedom here.  Everybody should continue to go forward and organize their juries:  not only in the state, but everybody in the nation.  This should turn into a movement of, by, and for the people.”

“The key thing is we’re trying to teach people to step up, stand up and take control, and each grand jury or trial jury is all on its own in that room.  They can figure things out by themselves.  We just want to give them principles upon which to act,” an organizer previously interviewed by The Post & Email recently told us.

The common law grand jurors believe the people in every county have the ability to restore the loss of unalienable rights to those who have been deprived of them unlawfully.  They assert that presentments from common law grand juries must be accepted and filed by court clerks in keeping with U.S. Code.

As of this writing, the people have formed common law grand juries in 48 states.  Based on the Fifth Amendment’s requirement that a grand jury review criminal evidence before a person can be charged, and relying on the premise expressed by U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia in United States v. Williams, common law grand jurors assert that government abuse of the citizenry can be stopped “within 30 days or less” (7:59 in video) if their peaceful approach is adopted.

A Letter of Reason explaining the jurors’ position states that “The State did not give the People their rights and thus cannot take them away as it chooses.”

The New York Common Law Grand Jury had planned to name court clerks on the October 11 presentment but decided that since the clerks are unelected and perform the judges’ bidding, only the judges would be called out for constitutional violations.

“We were going to file the presentment in the last county, but by the time we made our rounds [to the five counties], we realized we shouldn’t be going after the court clerks.  They’re hired help; they don’t take an oath; they’re not elected, and they’ll be fired if they don’t obey.  So we realized we were going after the wrong people there.  So we sent an email out to our members and administrators both in- and out-of-state emphasizing that the judges are the ones standing in our way.”

Letter to all Clerks

List of Defendants

Presentment

Unified letter

The organizer reported that on October 11, the grand jurors entered the respective courthouses and were able to “speak to people.”  “They wouldn’t let the cameras in, and they wouldn’t allow tape recorders,” he said.  “Generally speaking, they were running away from us and hiding.  They were alerting everybody that we were there.”  He added that the common law grand jurors were “the talk of the state” because of their activity that day.

The Post & Email asked, “How did you state your purpose?” to which the organizer responded, “We told them we were the common law grand jury and wanted access to the grand jury room.  We were denied; we had some conversations.  We’ve heard from others who spoke to the clerks that the buzz of the day was that everyone was ‘concerned’ about what was going on…it was an hour-by-hour, minute-by-minute report coming down from the queens and kings of our state.  You could tell they were distressed; you could tell they were frightened; you could tell they were concerned.  When we walked in, we spoke with authority, and they accepted that and backed off.  They answered every single question we asked.  The only ones who lied to us were the cops because they came to each one of the meetings.  There was a police force inside the building everywhere we went.  I’ve been in court buildings for years now, and the cops never followed us.  But in this, we’d show up to the place and the cops would be waiting and coming from different directions.  I questioned them, ‘Are you guys being sent here to follow us?’…’No, no, no, we just happened to be here.’  But it was so obvious.  Gerard thought that maybe some of these cops were curious themselves; I don’t know.

“After the first two counties we stopped in, we were able to speak with the chief clerk, but after the second one, from that point forward, they were not available.  As a matter of fact, the courthouses were like ghost towns with maybe one or two people in the area.  They ran away.

“When you came in and went through their metal detectors, one of the cops would go to the phone, and I know I heard it clearly, and others heard it in other places; they’d say, “OK, we’re sending them up right now.”  I asked them, ‘Are you talking about us?’ and they denied it, but there was nobody else there.

“The point is that they were nervous, frightened and upset.  So we’re making a splash here in the sense that we have a little bit of an authority appearance to them.  Now it’s the judges.  They’ve been behind the eight-ball; they came out and said things before they actually got our positions and thoughts.  I guess they just don’t know what to do.  They tried to trap us with their lawyers.  They said that there would be “regrettable legal consequences” if we didn’t seek counsel.  When you read through our letter, we kind-of said the same thing to them.  The last thing we want is their legal statutory counsel.”

Page 5 of the Letter of Reason states, in part:

We the People caution you, our public servants, to seek well your counsels. As judges, you are expected to know the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and why the Bill of Rights was written as well as the statutes protecting why We the People, the true sovereign authority, have a right to bring Peoples’ oversight any time it is required under the law of necessity.

The Common Law Grand Jury gave the judges until October 18 to “step aside” to allow the grand jurors “access to our brick and mortar buildings.”  “That also gave us the opportunity to answer their letter in which they had a very feeble position,” the organizer said.

“It was worse than feeble,” another said, “because they have been deceiving the people for many, many years.”

The first speaker then explained:

They have taken the New York State Constitution, Article I, subsection 14, and a case, Brown v. Woods, and they combined those two things to say that they proved that the legislators have the authority to get rid of natural law and ultimately, God.  So we went and we read those things, and it didn’t say such a thing at all.  It is quite clear what Article 1, Subsection 14 says.

There were three dissenting judges in that decision, which was a New York Supreme Court case, and two of the dissenting judges wrote a paper on it.  We took what they wrote and put it into our letter, because they made it clear that this was a gross misunderstanding of interpretation.  You can’t get rid of common law.  On top of that, this is only a New York Supreme Court ruling, but the U.S. Supreme Court trumps all state courts in rulings, especially in interpretation of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and so on.  We have a lot of material in that area.

On October 21, a presentment was filed charging five judges with 15 violations of the New York Penal Code and U.S. Code, respectively, including the charges of “high treason” and “conspiracy.”

In closing, our contact said, “I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but you may have heard that one of the Rothschilds said, “Give me control of a nation’s money, and I care not who makes the laws.”  What he failed to say, and of course, it’s a big secret, is that just getting control of the money can’t control the nation; they have to control the courts.  Even controlling the money, laws are made, and if they’re trying to do crooked things, the courts will take them down.  So they have to control the courts.  That’s why the Bar Associations are the minions of this New World Order.  Without the courts, they cannot survive.  This is the kingpin in this whole thing; if you pull it out, the whole thing unravels.  They lose total control.  That’s the key to what we’re doing; it’s extremely powerful.  They kind-of realize what we’re doing now, although I don’t know if they’ve put two and two together to come to the realization that ‘If we lose our courts, we lose everything.'”