Please Support the Constitution Club   

 Click Here

Here's another update: Wednesday, Oct 15th, 2014;

Terry George Trussell is an outstanding member of the Dixie County Community with a record of positively contributing to the community in many ways. Additionally, he is an Army veteran, a courageous Patriot, a loving husband and father, as well as a retired business person. He loves his country and his community deeply. He is now being severely punished for doing the duty he was asked to do by his county government as the Foreman of the Dixie County Grand Jury.
1. In April of this year, Terry was asked to serve as a grand juror for Dixie County, was sworn in, and selected to be the Foreman of the Grand Jury.
2. Terry read the Florida rules for grand juries and the Florida Grand Jury Handbook. He understood his duties as Grand Jury Foreman.
3. As Foreman, Terry had a sworn duty to bring any criminal complaints he became aware of to the attention of the Grand Jury in Dixie County.
4. Terry learned about alleged criminal behavior of Dixie County Public Officers and State officials regarding the deployment of Common Core curriculum into the public schools, where after money was paid, the agreement was made to change the curriculum before the new curriculum was published. Terry brought before the Grand Jury this complaint of official wrongdoing (bribery) associated with the adoption of the Common Core curriculum.
5. In the process of bringing the complaint in front of the Grand
Jury, 3rd Circuit Court State Attorney Jeffrey Siegmeister breached multiple Florida statutes by interfering with the official work of the Foreman and manipulating the Jury, thereby causing the Jury to become tainted.
6. Terry documented the events and put the evidence in the form of a Bill of Information into the public record and also gave a letter to Judge Munkittrick, the presiding judge who empaneled the Grand Jury.
7. As Grand Jury Foreman, Terry now faced a difficult problem: he is duty bound to bring forward two criminal complaints, one on Common Core curriculum and the other on Jeffrey Siegmeister’s unlawful and illegal behavior. However, the sitting Grand Jury was already tainted by Siegmeister’s actions. Terry knew that Florida is a Common Law state, so he set up a meeting with We the People of Dixie County to ask if they wanted to reestablish their Constitutionally-guaranteed Common Law Grand Jury. The People voted yes to move forward.
8. The Common Law Grand Jury was renamed The People’s Grand Jury Under Common Law in Dixie County and convened to consider the two criminal complaints. They handed down two True Bills of Presentment, which meant that they believed enough evidence existed to require investigation into both issues. The two True Bills were entered into the public record.
9. Through interviews with members of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), it became clear that Terry, because he did his duty as Grand Jury Foreman, was now under attack by the judicial system and FDLE in a systematic effort to engineer a cover-up of Siegmeister’s alleged crimes. In other words, simply because he did his duty and the Grand Jury voted two True Bills of Presentment, he was being charged with 10 felonies for “simulating a legal process,” the possible penalties if convicted of 70 years in jail. In fact, Terry did nothing but what was his sworn duty to do. The evidence clearly shows he DID NOT simulate a legal process.
10. On September 2nd, Terry was arrested and jailed based on a fatally flawed affidavit. Judge Hankinson’s then issued an order, and warrant for the arrest of TERRY GEORGE TRUSSELL. A Void Judgment True Bill was drafted and filing was attempted in both Dixie County Court Clerk Office as well as with the Court Clerk in Perry (seat of the Circuit Court where Judge Hankinson is assigned), both clerks refused to file these important legal papers in terry’s defense. Additionally, it was discovered that the Court Clerk in Dixie County, Dana Johnson, removed and altered, or had removed and altered, official paperwork that Terry had filed previously into the public record.
11. This past Thursday, October 9th, Terry was prepared and present for his 10:00 AM arraignment at the Dixie Court House when at about 9:30 AM, the Deputy Sheriff delivered a 3-page document to Terry and told him the Judge stated if Terry wanted to speak at his own arraignment, he would be required to sign the document. Terry knew if he signed this document, he would be giving up his Constitutionally-protected right to a trial by a jury of his peers. He, therefore, declined to sign it.
12. In the courtroom at 10:00 AM, Judge Hankinson asked “Is Terry George Trussell here, and if yes, please step forward.” Terry was sitting in the courtroom, and he stood up in a clear voice and said “I am here to speak on this matter.” The Judge responded with a question “Are you Terry George Trussell?” As Terry began to respond, the Judge began speaking over Terry and, once again, asked “Is Terry George Trussell here?” Once again, Terry responded affirmatively. The Judge ignored Terry’s response a second time. Finally, the Judge asked once again with which Terry responded “For the record, I am here to speak on that matter.” The Judge then said, “Let the record show that Terry George Trussell has not appeared,” and ordered his arrest on Failure to Appear while also suspending his bond. Terry then said in a very clear and loud voice, “I object! I am here.” The Sheriff Deputies walked over and took Terry by his arms out of the courtroom, handcuffed him, and took him to jail. There are 26 signed, sworn, and notarized affidavits from people who witnessed the events in Judge Hankinson’s courtroom that day. You may click on this link to hear an audio file of these court proceedings at Terry’s arraignment.
13. According to the Florida Grand Jury Handbook provided at, a Grand Jury Foreman has complete immunity for his actions except in the case he breached the rights of a witness. Because there were no witnesses, brought before the Jury, Terry George Trussell maintained his immunity.
The evidence in this case is clear: if you report a crime by a government official in Dixie County, you will be prosecuted as a criminal. Every action Terry took was based on the Constitution for the united States, the US Supreme Court decision in the case of US v Williams (1992) and as well as the Florida Grand Jury Instructions and the Florida Grand Jury handbook.
Terry is now suffering the loss of his Constitutionally-protected rights for doing his duty. The Dixie County judicial system is working hard to cover up the alleged criminal behavior of Jeffery A. Siegmeister, Judge Munkitrick as well as Dana Johnson. They are instead prosecuting Terry George Trussell on phony charges.
I believe the critical question is: Does the Constitution still apply in Dixie County?
Once you listen to the judges own words, it becomes clear he had no interest in dispensing justice during Terry’s arraignment. His mission was to punish a person who had the courage to report criminal behavior by a corrupt State Attorney. Please don’t forget that Florida Statutes say clearly that the Grand Jury Foreman has complete immunity for his actions with only one exception, breaching the rights of a witness. The reason the foreman has immunity is to protect him from the retribution by those in power.
Because of separation of powers, you as Dixie County commissioners can not address the corruption that has surfaced in the court directly, but you can begin the work of cleaning it up by simply recognizing the fully Constitutional People’s Grand Jury Under Common Law in Dixie County. It is The People’s Grand Jury Under Common Law in Dixie County that has handed down the two True Bills that Terry is now being punished for.
If you do so vote, the PGJ will investigate the alleged criminal activity that occurred during Terry’s arraignment and insure that Terry and ALL the People in Dixie County do receive Due Process of Law.

Views: 694

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It is “TIME” to hold all judges accountable we are “NOW” venturing into a massive campaign to expose the out of control judicial corruption (RICO) across America. We will be serving “every” federal judge and filing in 90 district courts across America simultaneously. NOW IS THE TIME to pay attention and become active.


And then I added these names and contact numbers if anyone want to send a FAX to these county Commissioners.

County Commissioners Numbers

Commission District 1 Wade E. “Gene” Higginbotham Phone: 352.542.9157 Fax: 352.498.1207

Commission District 2 Marvin E. Hunt Phone: 352.542.8779 Fax: 325.498.1207

Commission District 3 Jody Robson Phone: 352.356.0403 Fax: 352.498.1207

Commission District 4 Jason Holifield Phone: 352.498.3035 Fax: 352.498.1207

Commission District 5 J. Ronnie Edmonds Phone: 352.498.5497 Fax: 352.498.1207

Go to sign up to become a jurist.

It is “TIME” to hold all judges accountable we are “NOW” venturing into a massive campaign to expose the out of control judicial corruption (RICO) across America. We will be serving “every” federal judge and filing in 90 district courts across America simultaneously. NOW IS THE TIME to pay attention and become active.

It seems that some people still have not learned from their mistakes which is unfortunate but not totally unexpected. The NLA has been sending out its foolish petitions for quite some time with no success to speak of, and eventually the courts may decide that an example has to be made when such filings start to become violations of law themselves.

The County Commissioners can do nothing to change the legal system, for the same reason that the self described 'people grand jury' has no legal relevance as it fails to meet the statutory requirements of a grand jury. Instead of serving the courts, such time is best spent on changing the laws through petitioning the government. But such is hard and tedious work, and yet, shortcuts will fail to work.

The National Liberty Alliance is just not getting any recognition. And they all bought the wonderful embossed seals... What a waste of good money... At least Staples will recognize their contribution to 'the cause'

"Sheriff" Mack just announced that won't endorse NLA.
John "Darash" also contacted Alex Jones and they weren't interested.

And the NLA's filings in New York were all stricken by the court

ORDER TO STRIKE the following documents: Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Dkt. No. 7), Submission from non-party filers (Dkt. No. 8), Submission from Non-party filer (Dkt. No. 9), Letter from Dean Carpenter (Dkt. No. 10), Amended Motion for Writ of Mandamus (Dkt. No. 11), File on Demand/True Bill/Memorandum of Law (Dkt. No. 12), File on Demand/Bill of Information (Dkt. No. 13) and File on Demand/True Bills (1-9) (Dkt. No. 14) in the above-entitled action are all stricken from the docket and those documents will not be considered by the Court as there is no case pending in this Court. This case was ordered administratively closed on 5/23/14 (Dkt. No. 6) for the plaintiffs failure to pay this Courts filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 7/29/14. (lmw)(Copy served upon pro se plaintiff via regular mail) (Entered: 07/29/2014)

Please don’t forget that Florida Statutes say clearly that the Grand Jury Foreman has complete immunity for his actions with only one exception, breaching the rights of a witness.

I prefer accurate information instead of false and misleading information wherever the stark difference between the two are found.

Those words make no sense to me unless much too much assuming on my part is done to construct sense out of those words. Terry as Grand Jury Foreman can start on a rampage of serial murder and he has total immunity with only one exception, breaching the rights of a witness?

That cannot be true in any sense of the word law, as far as I can tell.

When on a jury it becomes clear to those who care to know that there is no fence to sit on in a trial by jury case. The accused faces injury if found guilty. If the unanimous agreement among the jurists is wrong, then the injury done to the accused is criminal injury done by the say so of the 12 jurists.

That fact becomes very clear to jurists as they deliberate, at least for those who care to know the truth. If there is a sense of immunity, then that can be explained by someone sensing said immunity, as no such thing happened to me, the seriousness of making an error either way was weighing very heavy on my mind during trial by jury.

An obvious alternative to making any mistake ever, the obvious alternative to punishing an innocent accused individual on trial, is to never, in any case, find anyone guilty.

That punishes the innocent victim who was injured by the guilty criminal in that case, so the obvious alternative to making any mistake ever in punishing an innocent accused individual on trial does not work.

There is no fence.

Either the trial goes according to the facts, and the guilty one is found guilty, or the guilty one is not found guilty and in that case the innocent victim is wrongly punished by the jurists in the jury, which is in that case a very serious crime, as serious a crime of failing to hold the guilty to account for their crime.

The idea of giving the jurists immunity, in any case, ought to be reconsidered as a very serious error in judgment. If the idea was, or is, and anyone can confess to having and holding this idea of immunity, if the idea was to encourage people to volunteer for jury duty, by giving them immunity, then that supposed idea can be explained by those people having, and holding, that idea.

The reason the foreman has immunity is to protect him from the retribution by those in power.

That is clearly not the same reason as an idea by which potential jurists are encouraged to volunteer to be jurists.

That idea goes along the same lines as trusting in the fact that the criminals themselves will, in fact, take over governments.

Again, from my view, there would be no Grand Juries, no need for them, if criminals never infested the offices of government, on the government payroll, making money, or earning a living, or being compensated justly for their contributions, as employees working for the public thing, or the Republic, in whatever form the Republic may be formed, such as a City, County, State, or Federation, a court, a military, a police force, a sheriff, a judge, a prosecutor, a garbage man or woman.

If there were no criminals in government then trial by jury, which was known as the common law, which was known as legem terrae before English was a language, which was known as the law of the land, which was known as due process of law, if there were no criminals in government then everyone, everywhere, would be afforded due process merely according to their say so as they accuse anyone of wrongdoing anywhere, and the obvious impediment to abuse of said power would be knowable as a crime of false accusation and the jurist randomly selected by lot would, if they do their job, find those guilty of false accusations guilty, and the obvious fine would be for the guilty to pay the damages done to the one who is falsely accused, plus court costs, which are obviously going to include compensation paid to the jurists for their costs in volunteering to be jurists.

Obviously, in that light, the tactic of paying less than any true measure of just compensation, or earning, or the falsely named "minimum wage," to jurists is a serious impediment for many people who would otherwise be able to afford to be jurists, which prices potential jurists out of the market.

Who are priced out of the market as potential jurists?

Those whose earnings are just barely enough to cover their costs of living are those who will suffer greatly if they are giving their time and energy to the Public Thing during a trial by jury, whereby they are not then earning their living at their profession, or their day job, or night job, or regular job.

How convenient is it for some segment of the population to have "workers," priced out of the market of justice?

Workers paying all their taxes without fail, barely making ends meet, can't afford to be on a jury to defend fellow workers, producers, which constitute the good faith and credit of the American people, and those same workers cannot afford a lawyer in any case where someone firmly placing their hand in the false government cookie jar is attacking the worker through abuse of the concept of law.

How convenient is it to set aside and to disenfranchise jurists in trial by jury?

The reason the foreman has immunity is to protect him from the retribution by those in power.

The reasoning stated is a presupposition that government can be, and often is, taken over by criminals, which was common sense, common knowledge, at least at the time when Thomas Paine penned Common Sense, and at least at the time when the first organic federal government people penned a Declaration of Independence, where both were dated in 1776, in America.

In America the people were, at one time, presupposing that governments will be infested, from time to time, with criminals. Other people, as was the actual case, were the criminals infesting government, and they preferred to censor any notions by anyone who may thing that criminals may, ever, infest government.

So the concept of Grand Jury due process, which presupposes that criminals will infest government, existed in America, in the minds of those who had such ideas, such as George Mason, and perhaps in the mind of James Madison, when the 5th Amendment was penned, and ratified, and Amended the fraudulent Construction of 1787.

Not only did Patrick Henry smell a rat, but obviously so did George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, Robert Yates, and many other Federalists who were falsely labeled as Anti-Federalists.

The reason the foreman has immunity is to protect him from the retribution by those in power.

That does not mean complete immunity for anyone who may perpetrate any crime anywhere anytime. That means precisely what it means, and that does not mean anything other than precisely what that means. When a Grand Jury due process is in place the presupposition is such that criminals will infest government. The Grand Jury people are not immune, they are protected against false punishment by criminals who infest government.

That is precisely what is happening right now in many places and the due process that works to nullify, to amend, to offer to the criminals infesting government retribution, is a Grand Jury assembled by people other than the criminals infesting government.

Who, in any sane state of mind, would ever claim that the criminals infesting government are credited with the power to judge their own conduct according to their own sense of morality?

If the payoff for the sycophants who give credit to the criminals who infest government is their share of the stolen loot, then that makes reasonable sense, and that is known by the criminals who infest government, as the criminals who infest government order into action dictates that cause jurists to be priced out of the market of justice, and those same dictates are enforced by those same criminals who infest government which steal from each earning the wealth needed to defend each earner as jurists, or as an accused who cannot afford effective council by someone who understands just how serious the infestation of government is, as the criminals have infested government in fact.

The reason the foreman has immunity is to protect him from the retribution by those in power.

That is far and away from a supposed immunity in any modern sense of the word immunity, such as the often repeated claim that some people are politically immune, such as the supposed Diplomatic Immunity term may suggest to some people. A license to kill. It is OK for that one to torture people, he is immune from prosecution, etc. Hollywood movies.


A Grand Jury presupposes that the criminals will infest government, so a reasonable presupposition is such that the criminals who infest government will abuse government power by falsely accusing Grand Jury Foreman, or Grand Jury Jurists, of some nebulous wrongdoing and therefore that understanding is conveyed with words, for all to know, if anyone cares to know, that one position in government is equal to another position in government, checking one with the other, and who decides who is wrong in any case?

In a case where a Grand Jury decides that a trail by jury is needed because a criminal infests government, the accused does not get to decide that the accuser is guilty of the crime of accusing the accused, rather, instead of that falsehood, the Grand Jurists are immune of such nonsense, and instead of the Grand Jurists being falsely accused of perpetrating the crime of accusing the accused judge, or state prosecutor, or garbage man, of a crime, according to the accused, instead of that, the Grand Jurists are immune in that case of that accused claiming that the accused is judge, jury, and executioner upon the accuser, instead of that nonsense, there will be a jury trial based upon the presentment presented by the Grand Jurists in the Grand Jury whereby the Grand Jury is assembled because it is presupposed, in American, at least since 1776, that the criminals will, in fact, infest government.

Terry as Grand Jury Foreman can start on a rampage of serial murder and he has total immunity with only one exception, breaching the rights of a witness?

He commits the crime as an individual not a jurist on the Grand Jury. 

Patricia Anderson,

Thanks for engaging in discussion on this subject matter. From my view I learn best through discussion, and I hope others can find similar benefit.

According to the Golden Rule of Law thereby do I proceed.

I offer what I consider to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, hoping to receive the same in return. An offer.

So I want to add that I do know, as a matter of fact, that I am often wrong, so I offer, again according to the Golden Rule of Law, a request, please, to show me where I have made any error, and please do so in a manner that is precise enough to afford me the opportunity to actually see that error, hoping to get the same in return, I proceed.

He commits the crime as an individual not a jurist on the Grand Jury. 

My intent is to try to understand what those words mean. What is your intention, or what do those words intend to convey as meaning?

I am having a hard time with those words, they are confusing to me.

At what point does Terry stop being an individual and after that point Terry starts being a jurist? The confusion involves the idea that Terry stops being an individual in some way, Terry becomes something other than an individual somehow.

I can assume that your words intend to mean that Terry can only preform certain acts that are then acts performed by a jurist, and if any act, such as breathing, or such as eating a sandwich, or such as murdering innocent people by the dozen, are acts that are outside the brackets, or the set of actions, that are done by a jurists, in any case, by any individual, such as Terry: not acts done by a jurist such as Terry.

Therefore the concept of immunity only applies to the set of actions done by Terry as a jurist, or any individual, not just Terry.

That is reasoned out in time and place as I offer discussion.

He commits the crime as an individual not a jurist on the Grand Jury. 

In this case, and you can help me, because I see a need to resolve some obvious future conflicts, or contradictions, concerning that set of actions pertaining to Grand Jury Jurists like Terry.

Please, this is not someone arguing a specious argument. My concerns arrived in my view in the form of a Court Case that I can link, and I can quote from that link.


February Sessions, 1788

After some conversation with the Grand Inquest, the Attorney General informed the court, that a list of eleven persons had been presented to him by the Foreman, with a request, that they might be qualified and sent to the jury, as witnesses upon a bill then depending before them. He stated that the list had been made out by the defendant's bail; that the persons named were intended to furnish testimony in favor of the party charged, upon facts with which the Inquest, of their own knowledge, were unacquainted; and he concluded with requesting, that the opinion of the court might be given upon this application. The Chief Justice, accordingly, addressed the Grand Jury to the following effect:

M'Kean, Chief Justice.

Were the proposed examination of witnesses, on the part of the Defendant, to be allowed, the long established rules of law and justice would be at an end. It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue. If then, you undertake to enquire, not only upon what foundation the charge is made, but, likewise, upon what foundation it is denied, you will, in effect, usurp the jurisdiction of the Petty Jury, you will supercede the legal authority of the court, in judging of the competency and admissibility of witnesses, and, having thus undertaken to try the question, that question may be determined by a bare majority, or by a much greater number of your body, than the twelve peers prescribed by the law of the land. This point has, I believe, excited some doubts upon former occasions but those doubts have never

Page 1 U.S. 236, 237

arisen in the mind of any lawyer, and they may easily be removed by a proper consideration of the subject. For, the bills, or presentments, found by a grand Jury, amount to nothing more than an official accusation, in order to put the party accused upon his trial: 'till the bill is returned, there is, therefore, no charge from which he can be required to exculpate himself; and we know that many persons, against whom bills were returned, have been afterwards acquitted by a verdict of their country. Here then, is the just line of discrimination: It is the duty of the Grand Jury to enquire into the nature and probable grounds of the charge; but it is the exclusive province of the Petty Jury, to hear and determine, with the assistance, and under the direction of the court, upon points of law, whether the Defendant is, or is not guilty, on the whole evidence, for, as well as against, him.

In other words, as far as I know, and your help in this matter may be very valuable to me, Terry, or anyone acting as a grand jurist, is clearly acting only within a very narrow jurisdiction. Is that narrow jurisdiction clear in your mind, and is that narrow jurisdiction expressed well in those words from your point of view?

So I want to add that I do know, as a matter of fact, that I am often wrong, so I offer, again according to the Golden Rule of Law, a request, please, to show me where I have made any error, and please do so in a manner that is precise enough to afford me the opportunity to actually see that error, hoping to get the same in return, I proceed.

You are welcome.

Adding to false claims of knowing my religious beliefs, false claims of agreements that do not exist, false claims of understanding where all actual evidence proves that there is misunderstanding as to what is or is not understood according to your version of my understanding, is this false claim of credit where there is no credit earned or offered.

The pile of falsehood can expand exponentially.

Sorry to hear that you remain so poorly understood and ineffective.

I am starting to understand Joe's position which appears to be that history should have been rewritten to more properly reflect what Joe believes to be a proper governance. While different sides made the case for their positions, the simple reality remains that in the end, they came together under what is now known as the US Constitution.

It was a binding pact between the people and the government, and while perhaps less than perfect, it has formed the foundation for our government since the late 1700.

Arguing that our Founding Fathers 'got it wrong' certainly may be pursued, although such arguments do little to undermine the lawfulness of our Constitution.

And while a "grand jury" has been a statutory tool used to provide due process to the defendants, it is just that, a tool, and while required at the Federal level due to our Constitution, it is not a state requirement, and in fact it is not necessary to guarantee due process. In fact, we see, at the Federal level, how the grand jury system has become a tool of the prosecutor, strengthened by Scalia's ruling in US v Williams that a prosecutor need to divulge exculpatory information to the Grand Jury.

It is also a historic fact that the Grand Jury is a creature of the Court which convenes it, as it has no power without said court. The supreme court has, more than once, acknowledged this fact. A proper understanding of the Grand Jury system may help us resolve any disagreements with its more recent developments. Since the Grand Jury is a statutory creature, the legislature has some leeway in defining its operations, which provides 'we the people' with the opportunity to amend our laws, rather than find a way to circumvent them. Such a process, while more slowly, is also more fruitful and permanent, and, as it would be truly based on the will of 'we the people', it would provide a more lawful institution than one which is invented by a group of people, apart from the constraints of 'We the People'.

Under common law, the grand jury has been one tool to address due process concerns, and as I and the courts have pointed out, it can be an important tool but is not a required tool to guarantee due process. As early as 1884, the Supreme court in  Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884) provided the following analysis, outlining why the Grand Jury should not be incorporated.

Observing that the fourteenth amendment protects due process

"Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

the court was faced with the question if this meant that states need to provide a grand jury system:

The proposition of law we are asked to affirm is that an indictment or presentment by a grand jury, as known to the common law of England, is essential to that "due process of law," when applied to prosecutions for felonies, which is secured and guaranteed by this provision of the Constitution of the United States, and which accordingly it is forbidden to the States respectively to dispense with in the administration of criminal law.

The court cites:

And the opinion cites and relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in the case of Rowan v. The State, 30 Wis. 129. In that case the court, speaking of the Fourteenth Amendment, says:

"But its design was not to confine the States to a particular mode of procedure in judicial proceedings, and prohibit them from 521*521 prosecuting for felonies by information instead of by indictment, if they chose to abolish the grand jury system. And the words `due process of law' in the amendment do not mean and have not the effect to limit the powers of State governments to prosecutions for crime by indictment; but these words do mean law in its regular course of administration, according to prescribed forms, and in accordance with the general rules for the protection of individual rights. Administration and remedial proceedings must change, from time to time, with the advancement of legal science and the progress of society; and, if the people of the State find it wise and expedient to abolish the grand jury and prosecute all crimes by information, there is nothing in our State Constitution and nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which prevents them from doing so."

The court outlines the opposing view

On the other hand, it is maintained on behalf of the plaintiff in error that the phrase "due process of law" is equivalent to "law of the land," as found in the 29th chapter of Magna Charta; that by immemorial usage it has acquired a fixed, definite, and technical meaning; that it refers to and includes, not only the general principles of public liberty and private right, which lie at the foundation of all free government, but the very institutions which, venerable by time and custom, have been tried by experience and found fit and necessary for the preservation of those principles, and which, having been the birthright and inheritance of every English subject, crossed the Atlantic with the colonists and were transplanted and established in the fundamental laws of the State; that, having been originally introduced into the Constitution of the United States as a limitation upon the powers of the government, brought into being by that instrument, it has now been added as an additional security to the individual against oppression by the States themselves; that one of these institutions is that of the grand jury, an indictment or presentment by which against the accused in cases of alleged felonies is an essential part of due process of law, in order that he may not be harassed or destroyed by prosecutions founded only upon private malice or popular fury.

The court rejects the latter, observing that

This passage from Coke seems to be the chief foundation of the opinion for which it is cited; but a critical examination and comparison of the text and context will show that it has been misunderstood; that it was not intended to assert that an indictment or presentment of a grand jury was essential to the idea of due process of law in the prosecution and punishment of crimes, but was only mentioned as an example and illustration of due process of law as it actually existed in cases in which it was customarily used. In beginning his commentary on this chapter of Magna Charta, 2 Inst. 46, Coke says:

The court provides a well reasoned argument based on common law, the magna carta and our Constitution to reach its conclusion that the States are not obliged by the US Constitution to enact a grand jury clause. Justice Harlan raises a strong objection, however in line with our Constitution, his comments remain a footnote in history.

Common law of course is not static:

In short, as the United States Supreme Court has aptly said, "This flexibility and capacity for growth and adaptation is the peculiar boast and excellence of the common law
- in Rodriguez v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 1974 and 99 similar citations

Joe likes to reference a document based on the notes by Yates known as the Secret Proceedings and Debate of the Federal Convention. 

His apparent objections are that the Constitution was somehow invalid because of the secret nature of some of its proceedings, a secrecy which had been agreed upon by the attendees, in order to facilitate free discussion as any issue was open to raised and re-raised and discussed.

To conclude that therefor the Constitution is somehow unlawful, misses the point, as Joe is conflating lawfulness with 'meeting his beliefs, hopes and expectations'. The constitution was heavily debated and some sides felt that they lost, while others were seen as winners. Such is the nature of these proceedings, and it will be hard to argue that the mere secrecy of the convention somehow affects the signing by the states of the new constitution.

From this flawed premise, Joe is concluding that there exists 'criminals' also know as people with who Joe disagrees, who are playing the system. He seems to be focused on such issues as the Feds and the 1933 act which separated us from the Gold standard, basically saving our nation.

I can accept that Joe disagrees with history however he also continues to separate the world into criminals and victims, without explaining the somewhat irrelevant nature of said descriptions as they appear to be placeholders for 'those who disagree with Joe' and 'those who agree with Joe'.

It should come as no surprise therefor, that Joe has found that his 'arguments' have remained mostly ignored.

Not a very effective communicator. Then again, it's his free choice to engage in a 'debate' on these terms.

Can't anyone be succinct?


© 2018   Created by Keith Broaders.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service