In 1775 the majority of the colonists in America were unwilling to risk everything they had to become a new free and independent nation. They lacked the courage and confidene to fight for their lives, liberty and property.
Then a miracle took place when Thomas Paine published a pamphlet that sold 500,000 copies and convinced the people in order to make their lives worth living, they would need to declare independence and fight for their God given rights.
With a population of less than 2.5 million people, he singlehandedly was responsible for a paradigm shift that led to the creation of a new nation.
Today with a population of 330 million, we would need to deliever our message to 66 million poeple. Witht he advent of the internet, this objective can be achieved in a very short jperiod of time.
We don't need to shoulder a musket, we recapure are freedom, we simply need to awaken our friends and neighbors and restire the principles upon which our nation was founded.
To your first point, no we do not have Citizen's Common Law Grand Juries. We have juries overseen by lawyers and a Judge. The juries are only allowed to consider "the facts before you", "the facts of the case. " "only the facts." http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/BillInfo/FIJAPamphlet.html
Citizens call a Citizen's Common Law Grand Jury. They judge the law as well as the facts before them. Without influence or dictates from lawyers or Judges.
In this case, the citizens did try to re-institute the citizen jury. They were told it is:
"I don't know if there is a procedural rule or statute that allows citizens to convene grand juries.
These were two of the comments from the prosecutors and the D.A.
We need Citizen's Common Law Grand Juries to come back, we need a push from each state.
We could force Hillary and Obama to be tried, just for a few examples. In our hands, this would be powerful.
As to your 2nd point, maybe you could explain it better. I was referring to what is clearly stated in the Declaration as the Law of Nature and Nature's God, and which is also known as natural law, and which is referred to by not only our founders, but Sir Blackstone, whom they cited often. It refers to our rights from God, not man. I consider it to be the spirit of the law, the foundation for the Constitution.
As to the power of the Jury, I refer you to the instructions of testimony, facts, statues, and if the party being tried meets the "Full Intent".
Was it not William Penn, a Quaker, while we were Colonies of England, who was out on trial for not Preaching/Following/Believing only the Doctrine of the Church of England? And was he found "Not Guilty" by a Jury of his peers after a Trial, under The Crown's Law, England's Law, God's Law, Nature's Law?
For a People's Grand Jury, it takes a Constitutional Amendment. The States and their Citizens have the power to create this process and to see if through. It is well explained.
Lynn Bryant DeSpain
What I understand is that in courts where Jury Nullification is allowed, the Judge must direct the jury to vote according to their conscience. That allows for Not Guilty verdicts for the accused, for extenuating circumstances in his life, and also for the law to be judged by the jury as not only constitutional or not, but also whether the law is right (in natural rights' terms and understanding).
The Judge, unless he directs the jury as to their full rights and obligations to judge the law, the case and do it through the lens of their conscience, can throw the verdict out or call for a new hearing.
While Jury Nullification did happen, there are later cases where that option was thrown out, and by none less than Chief Justice Joseph Story in United States v. Battiste, who wrote in denying the jury the power to judge the law:
"If the jury were at liberty to settle the law for themselves, the effect would be not only that the law itself would be most uncertain...but in case of error there would be no remedy or redress to the injured party, for the court would not have any right to review the law as it had been settled by the jury. Every person accused as a a criminal has a right to be tried according to the law of the land and not by the law as the jury may understand it, or choose, from the wantonness or ignorance or accidental mistake, to interpret it."
United States v. Morris "law of the land subverted if furies all over had the power to overrule precedents..."
John Adams wrote the opposite, "[the jury and every man]...has as complete a control, as decisive a negative, in every judgement of a court of judicature, as they have in other decisions of government....ir is his right, his duty, to find the verdict according to his own be understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.
Sparf and Hansen v. United States is another anti-jury nullification example, one that established precedence, along with the Justice Story condemnation above.
It is just one more chink in our rights and powers to redress wrongs by our government. And needs to come back. We may have a very small voice out there where nullification is allowed, but it is overrun by those who discredit that power.