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


by Sharon Rondeau

The Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that grand juries must review criminal evidence against a potential defendant before he is charged with a crime

(Oct. 15, 2013) — Late last week, one of the organizers working to reconstitute Fifth Amendment grand juries spoke with The Post & Email to describe its activity and progress, particularly in the State of New York.

The National Liberty Alliance teaches people how they can establish a common law grand jury and challenges the People in every county in the United States and provides a step-by-step process in how to accomplish it.  The principles it embraces are those of America’s Founding Fathers and God in seeking a firm foundation based on “honor, justice and mercy.”

The organization, the New York Common Law Grand Jury, seeks to reestablish a review of evidence and the power of presentment utilized by the American colonists before a person could be charged with a crime.  Grand juries have their origin in the Magna Carta.

Grand juries are mentioned nowhere in the U.S. Constitution, but rather, only in the Fifth Amendment, and were once a powerful means by which citizens decided whether or not enough evidence existed to indict an individual without the presence or influence of an attorney, prosecutor, or judge.

Referencing the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Williams articulated by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the administrators of the New York Common Law Grand Jury movement told us that Scalia had invoked the term “common law” within the context of the Fifth Amendment.

“We’re filling in the blanks where the others have missed,” he said, citing others’ efforts to reestablish common law grand juries in Michigan and Florida which he said “were not getting acknowledged” because they are not “operating out of a court.”  He said that such groups do not “speak with authority” but nevertheless are a step toward restoring grand juries to their once-prominent place in the administration of American justice.

Efforts to re-establish common law grand juries have recently been reported in the mainstream media in Pennsylvania, and popular interest in the grand jury appears on various websites.

The Post & Email has reported on dysfunctional and compromised grand juries in the states of Michigan, Tennessee, and Georgia.  The state of Connecticut legislated away the grand jury in 1983 except under “certain circumstances,” replacing it with a three-judge panel.

CDR Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III (Ret.) has discussed in detail the lack of a grand jury in the military system of justice, which often denies constitutional protections to defendants.  At the federal level, Fitzpatrick has been prevented from accessing a grand jury to present evidence of crimes committed in Monroe County, TN over the last several years.

“A lot of other people have tried to do a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach by organizing one big grand jury to cover the country or the international realm.  I don’t know where they get the authority for that,” the spokesman said.  “We’ve taken a different approach. Going back to basics, working off of Scalia’s decision, it leads us back to the First Amendment and the Magna Carta, common law, and where rights come from.  People are trying to create grand juries and pick on one item at a time to bring corrections, and they are getting some success, but only what they’re allowed to get.  When they go for the big stuff, they’re blocked.”

The spokesman noted that today’s grand juries are controlled by a prosecutor, who is “controlled by the court.”

He continued:

We realize, by the grace of God, that if you take the grassroots of the judicial process back through the grassroots, and in the process, repair the grassroots and bring justice back into our courts of injustice, you bring justice to all of America, from the lowest level to the highest level.

Let’s take New York.  New York has one supreme court, and that supreme court has trial courts, the appellate courts and court of appeals.  That’s basically the system in New York.  We have 62 locations for the convenience of the people.  So we have 62 county supreme courts, and each county has one elected “supreme court” justice whom we call a judge.  It’s a court set up with statutes and rules, and the judge follows the statutes and rules and things go according to his will.  How is it that the servants are no longer the master when you go into a court?  It’s an upside-down system.

When you tell people the truth about how it really works, they get really confused.  It just doesn’t seem right.

It boils down to the county, that one courthouse.  If you can turn that courthouse into a court of justice, if you can require that supreme court judge to obey the law, and the law being common law practiced within that courtroom, then you have taken control of the judicial system, and you mete out justice, not him.  In order to accomplish it throughout, you have to do it in every county to give the whole state back to the republic.  You have to do it in every state to get the entire nation back.

It’s a biblical principle that in order to take over the house you must first find who stole it.  The strongman of the house is the judge, and the thing that binds him is the Constitution.

The first order of business in our process is to get a seat in the courthouse.  Without having a seat in the courthouse, you can’t put things in order.  That’s a matter of filing papers and demanding it.  We’re in the middle of that battle now, and I believe we’re going to achieve that.

Once you get a seat in the courthouse, you then can call out to the judge and say, “Are you doing anything unlawful?”  If you walk into any courtroom, you see nothing but law-breaking all day long. It’s worse than a mafia; it’s organized crime at its best.  You sit down with the judge and let the judge know in no uncertain terms that he now needs to obey the Constitution.  He’s living and acting off of rules and regulations, codes and statutes, and common law doesn’t act under those things.  The purpose of those things is to control the bureaucrat, not the individual.  That’s the purpose of statutes.

Once you bring the judge under control and he understands that he can no longer go outside the constitution, that he has to act within the common law, it’s going to be a big culture shock for them.  Once you lay down the law under penalty of indictment for disobeying, you now have taken over the house.  The prosecutor is a no-brainer; he’s a really simple guy to deal with; he’s hired help.  He doesn’t have any real court authority.  Right now he does, because he controls it.  The judges are depending on the prosecutors – it’s a political connection here – to prevent any indictment that would go up against them, so the prosecutors control the grand jury.  They indict who they want to indict; the grand jury is just a group of slaves being chosen to administer psychological testing and continue the system; then they throw them out and keep moving them.  They don’t keep them in, but they have to get people under control.  Like any other slave, they obey, and nobody of any real value is indicted.  So the judge is protected.

Our interview with one of hundreds of organizers will be continued.


This post was updated on October 16, 2013 at 9:20 p.m. EDT.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published.

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

  1. Presentments,Part II:

    …They are not “Obsolete”.In fact,in Miranda v Arizona the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “There can be NO Rulemaking,legislation or Law that would abrogate a right which is secured by the Constitution”. Presentments are secured by the Constitution in the Fifth Amendment,USConst:

    “No person shall be held to answer…Crime…UNLESS on a Presentment OR Indictment of a Grand Jury”.

    The Parties who commandeered the house were the errant F.R.Crim.P. rule makers. Again, Presentments are NOT “Obsolete”. The errant rule makers thought that they could make Presentment Juries disappear by making that constritutionally repugnant claim. In Marbury v Madison,the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “ANY law which is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void”. That includes an unlawful and patently unconstitutional Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure that was enacted upon a falsely claimed obsolescence of the Presentment.

    We do not have to have a seat in a courthouse to have a “Presentment” hearing. They can be held anywhere that the Pre-requisite number of Citizens can assemble. The Presentment is the first step up the stairwell to the Courts. The Grand Jury is the Second Step where one seeks a “True Bill”. Those errant rule makers illegally deprived “We the People” of the first step and gave that power to the Judges and Prosecutors,when it belongs rightfully with the People. It may not surprise you that Justice Scalia is in accord with the preceding information.

  2. Prior to 1946 when the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure was enacted,the “Presentment” Hearing was in ubiquitous usage everywhere in the United States. It is a right of the People and is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. In 1946 errant rule makers of the F.R.Crim.P. stating that “Presentments are Obsolete”,tried to repeal them. That of course cannot be done without a Constitutional Amendment. While Grand Juries are Judicially empaneled,the “Presentment” Jury is entirely without Judicial or Attorney interference. It is comprised solely of “We the People”. These Presentment hearings never went away but were portrayed as “Obsolete” and illegally taken away from us. But,only God can take back a Right that he endowed upon us. These Juries DO “Speak with Authority” contrary to what the spokesman claims. That authority is the United States Constitution. I said it before, these Presentment Juries need not be re-instituted or restored. They have always been in our repertoire and they must merely be dusted off and utilized.,”We the People” have that Right. A “Presentment” Jury which is Citizen empanelled is not the same as a “Grand Jury” which is Judicially empanelled. Indeed, it was the very Judges and Prosecutors who were frequently being placed “On the Carpet” for their malfeasant activities who, tiring of it, orchestrated the argument that Presentments were “Obsolete”…..