FIFTH AMENDMENT FRAUD: INDICTMENT BY GRAND JURY
PAGE 2 (Continued) THE ORIGIN OF THE CAUSE
In 1681 Lord Shaftesbury and Stephen Colledge were "no-billed" for treason. The indictment had been requested no less than by the King of England himself, Charles II. After the first "no bill" was returned, Charles managed to get another grand jury convened in Oxford. The two were duly indicted. Lord Shaftesbury fled to the Continent (Europe) and Stephen Colledge was beheaded.
Government attorneys tried to get Colledge to implicate others to save himself. He refused. Sometime later the fellow who held Janet Reno's job in England wrote the following:
That is, under the English practice, prosecutors were not allowed in the grand jury room, either for investigations or deliberation (voting). This is true in the state of Connecticut even to this day. Cobbs v. Robinson, 528 F. 2d 1331, 1338 (2nd Cir. 1975).
This was the same practice in the United States 15 years after the Fifth Amendment was adopted.
This case is found in the published opinions as United States v. Burr, Fed. Case No. 14, 892 (C. Ct. D. Ky. 1806).
In England allowing a prosecutor in the grand jury room was considered violation of the grand juror's oath. Proceedings against the Earl of Shaftesbury 8 Howell State Trials 759, 773 (1681)
By the latter part of the 19th Century the "sappers and miners of the Republic," as Thomas Jefferson referred to federal judges, had begun to undermine the grand jury system. One judge in Tennessee went so far as to state that the function of the government prosecutor was to protect the accused from the grand jury. In re Dist. Atty. of U. S., Fed. Case No. 3925 (C.C. Tenn. 1872).
A recent Supreme Court case bears quoting:
Unfortunately not a single politically-appointed semi-competent legal parasite (federal judge) sitting on the bench today, including the Supreme Court nine, has any idea of what the common law protectors of the grand jury were. Or, if they do, they are being very careful not to recognize them.
Quotes from two Supreme Court cases bear repeating:
The constitution is a written instrument. As such it meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now. South Carolina v. United States, 26 S.Ct. 110, 111 (1905).
A lower court quote attributed to Justice Harry Blackmun also bears repeating:
Harry Blackmun, you will recall, is the mental giant who wrote the "majority opinion" in Roe v. Wade, introducing concepts that had never even occurred to those who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment (the Amendment relied upon for the decision).
The Executive Branch is headed by the President.
The Attorney General is his underling, who in turn controls all United States Attorneys. The fact is that the executive branch never had any "legitimate. . . activities" before the grand jury
The constitution was framed in the language of the English common law. Jacoby, The American Prosecutor: A Search for Identity, page 7 (1980).
Until 1853 there was nowhere general organized control of Federal prosecution. Id. at 20.
In England every private person had the same rights as the Attorney General to initiate a prosecution. Once a case had been presented to the grand jury, it was entirely out of the prosecutor's hands. Stephen, A History of the Criminal Law of England, Vol. I pages 493-502 (1883).
The Department of Justice was not created until June 22, 1870. At the time the only authority the Justice Department had was to investigate postal crimes and compile crime statistics.
In the early days of our Republic "prosecutor" was simply anyone who voluntarily went before the grand jury with a complaint. United States v. Sandford, Fed. Case No. 16, 221 (C. Ct. D.C. 1806).
Almost a century later a private citizen could still have an arrest warrant issued. In re Price, 83 F. 830 (C. Ct. S.D.N.Y. 1897). Back then grand jurors themselves were the only ones competent to ascertain who was the prosecutor. United States v. Farrington, 5 F. 343, 346 (D.C.N.Y. 1881).
The rise of the "public prosecutor," both at the federal and state levels, has drastically altered grand jury statistics.
For example, of 448 cases examined in 1838, there were 80 "no bills." 1 The Law Rptr 215 (Suffolk County Mass. 1838).
In 1976 there were 23,000 federal indictments returned. There were 123 no bills. Hearings on H.R. 94, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 738 (1977).
Congressman Joshua Eilberg, the author of H.R. 94 (The Grand Jury Reform Act), failed to get his bill passed. The Justice Department then retaliated against him by suing him for running up too much of a telephone bill while he was a member of Congress. United States v. Eilberg, 536 F. Supp. 514 (E.D. Pa. 1982).
The absurdity of the present system was recognized over a century ago.
The fact is, allowing career civil service bureaucrats into the grand jury room has rendered that part of the Fifth Amendment (as the statistics prove) a nullity.
As a federal judge stated over a century ago, "The moment the executive is allowed to control the action of the courts in the administration of criminal justice, their independence is gone." In re Miller, Fed. Case No. 9, 552 (C.Ct.D. Ind. 1878).
Michael H. Brown, Author of The Erwin Rommel School of Law: How to Defeat an Illegal Legal System
This page was updated on November 29, 2006