If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by Sharon Rondeau

If freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures was guaranteed by the Framers in 1791, why should activist judges be able to take it away now?

(May 27, 2011) — The state of Indiana has local grand juries which hear testimony on criminal charges, issuing indictments if the evidence presented warrants it.

While some states have eliminated grand juries, substituting them with an “investigative panel” consisting of judges, Indiana is not one of them.

A New York Times article from 1862 described a presentment which had been issued by a district federal grand jury located in Indiana which determined that a soldier’s enemy must be “disarmed or destroyed.”

Grand juries are mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, but rather, in the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which states:

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 offence 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.

Historically, grand juries investigated all types of evidence involving petty crimes and government corruption without any guidance from a government official or an attorney.

A Georgia citizen submitted a criminal complaint to his county grand jury against federal judges whom he alleges are corrupt, stating, “Your best hope is a grand jury…”

Jeff Langley, a new district attorney in Enotah Judicial District, told The Post & Email last January that when he presents evidence to the county grand jury, he leaves the room so that the members can deliberate without his influence or presence.  He also stated that the grand jurors select their own foreman, which is not the practice in Tennessee.

In Tennessee and other states, the judiciary has demonstrated that it is out of control, having co-opted the county grand juries and reappointing the same foremen for decades in some cases.  These grand juries do not function as designed by the Framers, but rather, toe the government line, issuing indictments without proper evidence and empaneling jurors who cannot legally serve per state law to obtain the results desired by the judges.  As a result, hundreds, and possibly thousands, of people have been incarcerated  in Tennessee who could be innocent.

If the people do not have a free press which reports impartially on the activities of government, corruption will reign, and the tools put in place by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution will be rendered useless in defending the rights of the people against tyranny.

Can the citizens of Indiana approach the grand juries in their respective counties with evidence of a crime? Is there a gatekeeper or prosecutor who controls what the grand jury can review?  If so, why?  According to the Fifth Amendment, grand juries did not follow the lead of anyone in the government, but rather, acted autonomously, as often they were investigating the conduct of government officials.

Did Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Steven David, along with two other judges agreeing with his opinion, commit a crime by decreeing that law enforcement could enter people’s homes without a warrant?  The decision appears to violate not only the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, but also a section of the Indiana constitution:

Section 11. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.

Section 19 of the Indiana constitution states that “In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.”  In many courts today, the judges have advised the jurors that their job is to judge the facts, while the judge reserves the right to judge the law.  Many modern jurors are not aware that historically, they possessed the power to judge both the facts and the law in order to “oversee the government.”

Section 25 states that “no law shall be passed, the taking effect of which shall be made to depend upon any authority, except as provided in this Constitution.”  Since judges do not make law but rather, issue opinions, what is the value of the May 12 opinion issued by the three judges of the Indiana Supreme Court?

Are phone calls and emails to the activist judges enough?

If the three judges of the Indiana Supreme Court have violated their oaths of office to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution and the constitution of their state, have they committed treason by issuing such a ruling?

If so, could treason charges be brought against the judges by large numbers of citizens by filing criminal complaints with their county grand juries?  If people came together and presented evidence of any crime to the grand jury, would it not be incumbent upon that body to review the evidence and decide whether or not a presentment is warranted?

Is the destruction of the people’s Fourth Amendment rights a reason for them to approach the grand jury, or are the people willing to “be deprived of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against ‘unreasonable searches and seizures’ enjoyed to at least some degree by people in other states and under federal law”?

If one county grand jury in Indiana could indict the three judges, could it also be done in Monroe County, TN, where criminality on the part of the judiciary is commonplace, even “expected?”  Could grand juries across the nation begin fulfilling their original constitutional purpose?

Which is more important:  “legal arguments” or “public opinion?”  Will Indiana legislators choose to uphold the Constitution or side with judges who overstep their constitutional authority?

What if every citizen in every state began the effort to take back the power of the grand jury so that liberty could be preserved for future generations rather than taken away?  What do we have to lose except our God-given, inalienable rights?

Are the people of Indiana willing to fight back against judicial tyranny?




Join the Conversation

1 Comment

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. In the same fashion we’re hoping to challenge and overturn the state’s ungodly and unconstitutional seat belt law. Like the forced apartment intrusion, such laws violate the 4th Amendment.