JUDGES REJECT “UNALIENABLE RIGHT” ASSERTED BY COMMON LAW GRAND JURORS

Released by PressAgent@NationalLibertyAlliance.org

(Oct. 23, 2013) —  New York is “ground zeroA major grassroots’ movement that started in New York with the constituting of its first Common Law Grand Jury on July 18, 2013 has taken America by storm, spreading to 48 States in just a few months. New York has constituted Grand Juries in the Bronx, New York, Kings, Queens, Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Rockland, Putnam, Orange, Sullivan, Ulster, Dutchess, Columbia, Greene, Schenectady, Monroe and Niagara counties in just three months, by people keen on setting the brush fires of freedom in the minds of men.

On the other hand, our hired servants prefer the status quo, thereby they’re not too keen to receive the People back in control of the Peoples judicial and political processes. Lysander Spooner, author of Trial by Jury (1852) said: “any government, that is its own judge of, and determines authoritatively for, the people, what its own powers are over the people, is an absolute government, of course. It has all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There is no other, or at least, no more accurate definition of despotism than this”. Thomas Jefferson in writing the Declaration of Independence said: “That to secure Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”. It is the People (Grand Jury) that consent to government. To dismiss the Common Law Grand Jury is to dismiss the Bill of Rights and reject our founding document, the Declaration of Independence.

The Common Law Grand Jury is an unalienable right, protected under the Law by the Fifth Amendment. Common Law is synonymous with Natural Law which can never be codified or supplanted, for Common Law is our American Heritage, born of the Declaration of Independence. But four New York Supreme Court Judges would have us believe that Common Law can be superseded by four progressive judges in the (1961) case Wood v Hughes. To the contrary, in a stunning six to three (1992) Decision that went unnoticed, until now, Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority said: “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”… “Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby, created a “buffer” the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.”… “The common law of the Fifth Amendment demands a traditional functioning grand jury”… “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”. Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present “True Bills” of indictment to the court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding.

Furthermore, on “Constitutional Issues” the United States Supreme Court rulings are the “Law of the Land” (unless repugnant to the same) and therefore over rules all State Supreme Court rulings.

Judge A. Gail Prudenti, Judge Michael V. Coccoma, Judge C. Randall Hinrichs and Judge Allan D. Scheinkman have taken it upon themselves to prevent the 18 New York constituted Common Law Grand Juries from taking their inherited seats as consentors. These judges have filed false reports with the FBI on at least three different occasions and have threatened We the People, claiming there would be “Regrettable legal consequences” should We the People continue in pursuit of our unalienable right to consent, established under the Declaration of Independence and protected under the Fifth Amendment.

On October 15, 2013 the Unified (18) Common Law Grand Juries answered Judge A. Gail Prudenti, Judge Michael V. Coccoma, Judge C. Randall Hinrichs, and Judge Allan D. Scheinkman with a final letter, citing acts of treason and giving them until Friday, October 18th to obey the People and step aside or face the consequences of indictment by presentment of a True Bill.

On Thursday, October 17th 2013, at 3:22 PM Judge A. Gail Prudenti, Judge Michael V. Coccoma, Judge C. Randall Hinrichs, and Judge Allan D. Scheinkman replied … “your correspondence is based on an erroneous reading of the law, and is hereby rejected”. Therefore said True Bill was filed with the court Monday October 21, 2013, by certified mail. —-> COPY OF PRESENTMENT

————————

For more information, please see the National Liberty Alliance website.

Click for PDF copy

Update, October 28, 2013:  An update of this post appears here, with new video.

Join the Conversation

2 Comments

Your email address will not be published.

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

  1. The Presentment is probably the best written legal document I have ever read! It is factual, well documented and very well thought out. It is what was intended by our Forefathers and the documents that support what is America.

    Words are fine. However, without the resolve and the means to enforce what the document portends, there will be no resolution.

    All that remains after that is that the people actually act and enforce the basics of “We the People”.

  2. I am now a member of the NY Common Law Jury. I am happy to see this movement progressing. It is high time that the Presentment and Indictment powers of “We the People” be dusted off,vigorously utilized and adamantly reclaimed from the errant rule makers who unconstitutionally claimed them to be “Obsolete” in 1946 when they wrote rule 6 of the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure.

    “There can be no Legislation, law or rule making that would abrogate a right secured by the Constitution”-Miranda v Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court.

    “Any Law that is repugnant to the U.S.Constitution is null and void”-Marbury v Madison,(1803),U.S. Supreme Court.