The proper purpose of a Grand Jury First, what is a grand jury? - what is its purpose?
The purpose of grand juries has been so muddied up that it has become impossible to determine a clear and unambiguous purpose in our time. With the advent of self government, where those persons actually operating the government are subject to bribery and other corruption, a grand jury would be the reasonable means by which the People of the Ujited States would be and are able to hold the government they have created accountable and to keep the government under the control of the People who created the government, as it is all too clear that corruption has so frequently been and is the case in the United States and which corruption has become so widespread that political corruption has become accepted as the norm.
Most often in the United States, where grand juries are still utilized, such juries are totally under the control of the prosecuting attorney. This serves to nullify any ability or inclination of the grand jury to initiate or investigate any matter which the prosecutor does not bring before the grand jury. The grand jury is thereby discouraged and even forbidden from initiating any investigation of its own, which neutralizes any positive effect the grand jury might have is exposing and prosecuting widespread rampant corruption so prevalent in all four levels of government in the United States.
Ideally, any individually concerned person, being of the Posterity of the People of the United States, ought to be able to convene a grand jury on his or her own authority, simply by convincing 22 other such persons (23 being the desired total members), that there is a cause which needs to be examined and a possible prosecution initiated. Once such a body has assembled itself it ought to have (and does currently have) Constitutional authority to proceed to conduct an investigation on its own initiative, without interference or participation or approval of the prosecuting attorney or any other government official or government entity. This would allow the grand jury to examine a prosecuting attorney (and or a sitting judge) who was suspected of corruption. For this reason grand jurys should not allow prosecuting attorneys to participate in or regulate the investigative proceedings of grand juries. This exclusion should extend to all investigations - even those initiated by prosecuting attorneys, as prosecuting attorneys are all too often prone to present only evidence supporting the indictment of individuals the prosecuting attorney elects to prosecute - this is clearly a form of corruption - often used by politicians to embarrass, silence and incarcerate their opposition and to cover up their own corruption.
The failure of the founding fathers to include and define either the grand jury or the petit jury in the body of the Constitution was a serious error and this writer contends that such omission was not a mere oversight but was intentionally excluded, and constitutes a clear and undeniable indication of the ulterior motives of the Constitutional framers and is a manifestation of their intent to maintain their former aristocratic political and social status which they held under King George.
There should be no legislative oversight regulating the authority or creation of grand juries. This writer contends that the second part of the First Amendment, pertaining to redress of grievance, should be understood to provide for the People's right to empanel grand juries on their own authority. It is ofg the utmost significance that this portion of the First Amendment applies to the People's right - not the citizens right - such grand juries should style themselves as grand jurys of the People of the Unites States, otherwise they will have no authority to act as mere citizens of the United States have no such constitutionally established or protected right of redress! This writer further contends that the People have a right to empanel a grand jury is included in the Ninth Amendment.
Cheers,
I'm Eric, WhoRU??