GRAND JURY: Police Officer Darren Wilson NOT Indicted 12/1/2014

Grand Jury: Police Officer Darren Wilson NOT Indicted

(“No True Bill” returned by Grand Jury for killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri)

Posted: Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Revised: December 1, 2014

by John-Henry Hill, M.D.

retired physician

e-mail: JohnHenryHill@Yahoo.com

Blog: http://JohnHenryHill.Wordpress.com

The United States (and the state of Missouri) is the only COMMON LAW jurisdiction (meaning that the Common Law supersedes and is superior to the U.S. Constitution and all federal and state legislated acts as statutes, codes, regulations, ordinances, by-laws, etc.) in the world that continues to use the grand jury (23 people from that County) to screen criminal indictments.

“The judgment of a court of record [a court operating under the Common Law only; NO statutes allowed] whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court [the U.S. Supreme Court] would be. It is as conclusive on this court [the U.S. Supreme Court] as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it.” U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]

A grand jury may issue an indictment for a crime, also known as a “TRUE BILL” only if it finds, based upon the EVIDENCE that has been presented to it, that there is PROBABLE CAUSE to believe that a crime has been committed by the “accused”. A grand jury (typically having twenty-three (23) or more members) serves for a sustained period of time in all or many of the cases that come up in the jurisdiction – generally a COUNTY.

While the County PROSECUTOR usually presents to the Grand Jury the case AGAINST the “accused”, any member of a Grand Jury can ask any questions he wishes and can take the case wherever it leads, even against the wishes of the prosecutor. Prosecutors do NOT like this independence and often call it a “Runaway” grand jury. However, the Grand Jury process is based on the COMMON LAW under a COUNTY SHERIFF; and thus is PRE-CONSTITUTIONAL and INDEPENDENT of the Judicial, Legislative and Executive branches of government (and all their legislated acts; statutes; codes, rules, etc.) at any level. No judge is present; the prosecutor can “guide” the Grand Jury, but he can NOT limit the scope of its investigation! When a Grand Jury exercises independence from a prosecutor, a grand jury is acting according to its prerogative under the Common Law. Thus, a grand jury can compel a witness to testify, even if the prosecutor does NOT want that witness to testify. (United States v. Gardner, 516 F.2d 334 (7th Cir. 1975) and U.S. Attorneys Manual (9-11.152)

1.) What did NOT SURPRISE ME was Police Officer Darren Wilson was NOT indicted – the Grand Jury returned a No True Bill. Why not? Because the actual killing was NOT on VIDEO! WHEN has a police officer ever been severely reprimanded, suspended, fired or indicted when there was NO supporting VIDEO evidence of abusive or unlawful behavior by the police officer?

As modern advertising has proved, people react to a much greater degree to IMAGES than to WORDS. “In felony trials in the federal courts—where grand juries are required under the Fifth Amendment unless waived by the defendant—the U.S. Attorney’s Office secures indictments at a rate of more than 99 percent.” (published research by Mary M. Stolberg, 1995) A grand jury is sometimes referred to as the passive collaborator of a prosecutor or a rubber stamp” for an indictment, especially if simple acceptance of the bill of indictment is returned as a “true bill”. If a “No True Bill” is presented by a grand jury the case is usually dropped. Grand jurors often hear only the prosecutor’s side of the case and are usually persuaded by them. Grand juries almost always indict people on the prosecutor’s recommendation alone.

(W. Thomas Dillard, Stephen R. Johnson, and Timothy Lynch (13 May 2003). “Cato Policy Analysis No. 476: “A Grand Façade: How the Grand Jury Was Captured by Government” – Executive Summary”. The Cato Institute. Retrieved 7 October 2012); and Brenner, Susan; Lori Shaw (2003). “What is a “runaway” grand jury?”. University of Dayton School of Law. Retrieved 2007-03-29).

In St. Louis County there have been at least a dozen fatal police shootings in the county since 1991 when County District Attorney McCulloch took office, but NOT a single prosecution, NOT a single indictment. (from research and published articles of Dana Milbank of The Washington Post)

2.) What SURPRISED ME in this Grand Jury was the fact that Police Officer Darren Wilson was ALLOWED TO TESTIFY before the Grand Jury – which is MOST UNUSUAL !!! In almost ALL cases, ONLY the prosecutor presents his case AGAINST the “accused”. The DEFENSE usually gets to present NO evidence to a Grand Jury. The target of a grand jury investigation has NO right to testify OR put on a defense before the grand jury. (United States v. Gardner, 516 F.2d 334 (7th Cir. 1975) and U.S. Attorneys Manual (9-11.152)

The DEFENSE must wait for the TRIAL to present “exculpatory evidence”. Grand Jury proceedings are SECRET. Indeed, the defendant (“accused”, Darren Wilson) has NO RIGHT to:

a.) present his case to the Grand Jury;

b.) have an attorney with him at the Grand Jury; or

c.) (in many instances) even to be informed of the proceedings at all against him.

A chief judge of New York State’s highest court, Sol Wachtler, once said that grand juries were so pliable that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.”

And William J. Campbell, a former federal district judge in Chicago, noted: “[T]oday, the grand jury is the total captive of the prosecutor who, if he is candid, will concede that he can indict anybody, at any time, for almost anything, before any grand jury.”

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

NOTES:

The Verdict-Decision of a COURT OF RECORD (a court operating under the Common Law ONLY; NO statutes allowed) Overrules even the U.S. Supreme Court

Excerpted from my ESSAYS: The PEOPLE are supreme over the various States and the United States; and the United States Corporation and Your Right to Forcefully Resist Unlawful Arrest (as stated by U.S. Supreme Court) and other essays on my web site: https://johnhenryhill.wordpress.com

“The judgment of a court of record [a court operating under the Common Law only; NO statutes allowed] whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court [the U.S. Supreme Court] would be. It is as conclusive on this court [the U.S. Supreme Court] as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it.” U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]

The topic of JURISDICTION has filled numerous volumes and is too complex to discuss here. Suffice it to say that there are two relevant ancient maxims in law, “If you fail to object, you have consented.” and “A presumption NOT rebutted becomes a fact in law.” for that particular case currently before any court. It is a matter of right that one may demand to be tried in a court of record”, which by definition means that the court must proceed according to the Common Law (NOT statutory law). The only way that a court can suspend that right is by the prior agreement of the parties. For tactical reasons the state prefers to proceed according to statutory law rather than common law. The only way it can do that is to obtain the prior agreement from the parties. That is the primary (but hidden) purpose of the arraignment procedure. During arraignment the administrative-statutory court offers the “Defendant” three choices for pleading (guilty, not guilty, nolo contendre). But each of these three choices leads to the same jurisdiction, namely statutory jurisdiction, NOT Common Law jurisdiction. That is to say, in an administrative-statutory jurisdiction, the question to be decided is whether or not the statute was violated; NOT whether another man suffered injury and the Common Law violated. In a true Court of Record (a Common Law court – a true judicial court), the man brought before the tribunal is called the “Accused”. And he may plead using the term “Innocent”, since under Common Law, the accused is “innocent until proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers.” Further, by filing a COUNTER-CLAIM challenging the jurisdiction of the court, the “accused” (called the “defendant” by the administrative-statutory court), the accused can become the “plaintiff” with the judge and court personnel becoming the “defendants”. And under Common Law the plaintiff, the man as a sovereign can preside over his own court – it becomes YOUR court in which YOU act as the TRIBUNAL (decider of FACTS and the LAW in this particular case ONLY, thus BOTH judge and jury). The judge becomes merely an administrator in YOUR court and is NOT allowed to make any rulings or impose sanctions (such as fines or detention). If the judge decides to issue rulings or sanctions, YOU as the tribunal can simply written judicial orders (called “writs”) to invalidate the judge’s actions. The new defendant’s – the judge and other court personnel – sole option is to request a 12-person JURY to act as the TRIBUNAL (decider of FACTS and the LAW in this particular case ONLY. Thus, either YOU (as the Plaintiff in your COUNTER-CLAIM) act as the tribunal in YOUR court or a 12-person JURY acts as the tribunal in YOUR court. Finally, the judgment of a true “Court of Record” tribunal operating under Common Law is absolutely final (where either the plaintiff by counter-claim or a jury acts as the tribunal) and can NOT be questioned or over-turned by any statutory or constitutional in the land. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the superior authority of a true “Court of Record”. Whether it be an appellate or supreme court – including the U.S. Supreme Court! – NO court can overturn the judgment of a “Court of Record” tribunal.

“The judgment of a court of record [a court operating under the Common Law only; NO statutes allowed] whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court [the U.S. Supreme Court] would be. It is as conclusive on this court [the U.S. Supreme Court] as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it.” U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]

“We [the U.S. Supreme Court and all inferior courts] have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution.” (Cohen vs. Virginia, 6 Wheat 264, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821); also see: U.S. vs Will, 449 US 200, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, at pg. 406).

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ADDENDUM

December 1, 2014

Reply to Finn McCool:

Finn McCool wrote: “TimTruth, officer Wilson should sue the Brown family for all they have.”

Posted on Thursday November 27, 2014 at 11:13 PM

++++++++++++++++++

My Response: Sue the Brown family for WHAT??????   A Grand Jury is a Common Law process (pre-Constitutional and non-statutory; NOT overseen by the Executive, Judicial or Legislative branches of government at any level) but simply “guided along” by a federal, state or county prosecutor (County District Attorney, in this case). ONLY the County Sheriff is the REAL power behind the Grand Jury process

It is a process PERFORMED FOR THE PEOPLE by the STATE. (It is similar to being prosecuted for stealing someone’s car – the STATE files a CRIMINAL complaint. The Brown family OFFICIALLY had absolutely NOTHING to do with the Grand Jury process! The Brown family did NOT file a CIVIL suit against Darren Wilson; the STATE initiated and conducted a Grand Jury hearing seeking an indictment for prosecution by the STATE.

So, just WHAT would your sue the Brown family for doing? Expressing their opinions under the First Amendment??????

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Interestingly, under the Common Law, before state prosecutors took over too much control, ANYONE could convene a Grand Jury of twenty-three (23) people residing in a county, the process overseen by the County Sheriff — NOT a judge or prosecutor. If 12 or more (a majority of the Grand Jurors voted a “True Bill” – that is, voted for an indictment, the County Prosecutor would be REQUIRED to prosecute that person. This was what used to be called a “Private Prosecution” – where a CIVILIAN begins the Grand Jury process; NOT a County District Attorney.

BTW: If a prosecutor takes your case before a federal Grand Jury, there is over a 99% chance that you will be indicted. (See my earlier post for the source of this information.) Quote: “In felony trials in the federal courts—where grand juries are required under the Fifth Amendment unless waived by the defendant—the U.S. Attorney’s Office secures indictments at a rate of more than 99 percent.”

John-Henry Hill, M.D.

retired physician

http://JohnHenryHill.Wordpress.com

+++++++++++ END OF ESSAY ++++++++++++

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: