The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that "[n]o person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury."
Constitutional framers considered this protection "a bulwark against oppression" due to the grand jury's historic powers to investigate the government and deny government indictments.
The grand jury of the eighteenth century usually consisted of twenty-three people acting in secret who were able to charge both on their own (an accusation known as a "presentment") and upon the recommendations of a prosecutor.
In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without governmental influence.
These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government.
The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was a primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past.
THE MODERN GRAND JURY IN COMPARISON
Today's grand jury hardly fits the image of a noble and independent body.
As a practical matter, it is little more than an audience for summary government presentations. Grand juries often do little more than listen to "a recitation of charges by a government witness."
Prosecutors, unchecked by a grand jury in its modern misconstruction, can easily obtain whatever result they seek in the grand jury room.
"Today, the grand jury is the total captive of the prosecutor," wrote one Illinois district judge, "who, if he is candid, will concede that he can indict anybody, at any time, for almost anything, before any grand jury."
The current popular paraphasing suggests that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Such is the influence of the prosecutor.
Supreme Court Justice William Douglas wrote in 1973 that it was "common knowledge that the grand jury, having been conceived as a bulwark between the citizen and the Government, is now a tool of the Executive."
At least one scholar has suggested that the problem of grand jury subordination may be so institutionalized that its very structure violates due process. The critics are unanimous in their condemnation of the modern grand jury process as little more than an elaborate ritual used only to justify by ceremony the decisions of the government.
Commentators disagree on whether to describe the grand jury as the prosecutor's "indictment mill," "rubber stamp," "tool," or "playtoy."
The U.S. Justice Department has tacitly conceded that there is almost no such thing as grand jury independence. A 1983 report by DOJ's Office of Development, Testing and Dissemination concluded that the imbalance of power between the courts and prosecutors on one hand and the grand jury on the other "makes grand jury effectiveness largely dependent on the good will and ethics of the courts and prosecutors."
Traditional grand juries embraced secrecy as an inherent power of their own, independent of any other governmental institutions. Modern Grand Jury secrecy is court imposed and aimed at aiding the prosecutor in gaining an indictment.
Based on the argument that those who are accused in grand jury documents are denied due process rights which the courts have a duty to protect, it was argued that allowing the continuance of common law grand jury powers would expose countless persons — many of them government agents — to unanswerable accusations in the public eye.
Protecting public officials from public scorn thus won out over upholding the traditional powers of grand juries.
The effectiveness of early American grand juries in ferreting out the shortcomings of public officials "can be gauged from the long lists of grand jury presentments" of early America.
APPLICATION TO THE PRESENT SITUATION IN PENNSYLVANIA RAISES SEVERAL ISSUES WHICH SEEM TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE AUTHORITY WHICH CALLED THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY GRAND JURY OVERSTEPPED THEIR AUTHORITY AND INTERFERED WITH AND USURPED THE AUTHORITY OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH - AN OVERREACH OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY
The Judicial Branch has ordered the Executive Branch to not enforce the laws of the Legislative Branch.
This was done by two secret orders from two secret courts.CONCURRENT ACTIONS TO STIFLE/SUPPRESS THE INFORMATION AND PREVENT THE INVESTIGATION BY THE PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL.
The information which has been published in the news media is speculative as the Grand Jury has not released that information. It is a distraction from the actual events which are taking place and are being manipulated and controlled by the Judiciary under the supervision of a Special Prosecutor who is married to a judge. Of course, the Attorney General may not disclose what the Grand Jury is investigating SO SHE MAY NOT CORRECT THE DISINFORMATION.
Apply Healy v Healy, Healy v Miller and the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6
- the evidence exists within the Montgomery County Courts and the County offices
- additional information has been concealed, prevented and denied which related to intrusive surveillance authorized by the judiciary in an investigation which existed to harass.
- Surveillance and wiretaps must be authorized and signed by the Superior Court of Pennasylvania.
- When the Constitutional issue became clear to the court - and the litigant was taken seriously - the efforts to conceal the information, interference with the administration of justice, denial of constitutional rights, occurred and can be demonstrated on the record of the Superior Court.
- Secret orders were issued by secret courts to prevent Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane from lawful involvment. Notice was provided pursuant to the law and procedure which indicates that the attorney general must be informed where a matter will be raising the issue of unconstitutional law(s).
- A Grand Jury was called to threaten, intimidate and investigate the Attorney General. The grand jury called NOT by the prosecutor but by the Judiciary- at the direction of Chief Justice Ron Castille.
- Chief Justice Castille had been advised of the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 and the unconstitutional effect on litigants which caused the loss of rights and denied any protection of the law.
- The entire Pennsylvania Legislature had been advised of the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 and the actions which necessitated it.
- The Governor was advised of the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 and personally handed a copy of the documents.
- The Judiciary Committees of the Pennsylvania Legislature were notified and provided documentation.
- Every Sheriff in Pennsylvania was sent copies of the documentation.
- The American Bar Association was sent a cease and desist letter in September 2014 addressing their involvment in the sedition of the judiciary.
- The US Attorney General and EVERY United States Attorney was notified of the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6.
- EVERY state Attorney General was served with the Constitutional Challenge filed in Federal Court in August 2013. The failure of every Attorney General to Answer indicated their default in the matter. By fraud, a document was filed which caused the matter to be subject to acts in the furtherance of fraud which while unsubstantiated incorrectly indicated the matter was dismissed. There is no signature by any judge on any document indicating the matter was dismissed. Signed copies were not provided or available.
- The Third Circuit Court of Appeals handled the Constitutional Challenge similarly, without any proceeding and without any signatures.
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania handled three different appeals similarly - neglecting with deliberate intent to address the lack of subject matter jurisdiction for the order upon which was based all three lower court actions - without and proceedings and without any signatures. As there is no evidence of the involvement of the Superior Court Judiciary, and none has been provided when requested, a Complaint was filed indicating the denial of access to the courts, the interference with the administration of justice and the violations of Pennsylvania law by the Central Legal Staff of the court.
Where it was not the Litigant's intention for the Appeals to demonstrate the unconstitutional actions experienced, the actions which occurred violated procedures, the law and the constitutional rights of the litigant. Those actions could only have been executed by the court staff. Where they may attempt to conceal those actions pursuant to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information, the unconstitutional affect of Rule 1.6 is PROVEN.
| Why would the Central Legal Staff not provide the Appeal to the Judiciary? Why would the judiciary allow this to occur? When Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio issued her defective and void order of May 9, 2011, the actions was in the complete absence of subject matter jurisdiction. She then neglected to correct the error when promptly informed. Carluccio then retaliated issuing further orders based on her defective order. Absolute Judicial Immunity is available in all situations EXCEPT ONE. In the Absence of subnect matter jurisdiction, Absolute Judicial Immunity is NOT available to the judge. Any judge who properly indicates the lack of jurisdiction for the defective and void order CONCURRENTLY exposes the liability of Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio. Any judge who enforces the defective and void order is additionally subject to liability without the protection of absolute judicial immunity. So the Central Legal Staff of the Superior Court handles the appeal paperwork, affirms the lower court decisions, ignores the lack of jurisdiction, fails to apply the law, violates the judicial canons in documents forged and attributed to the judiciary - BUT NOTHING IS PROPERLY SIGNED. The Central Legal Staff is protecting the judiciary from liability. BUT, where Rule 1.6 may have permitted their actions to remain confidential, Rule 1.6 is instead demonstrated to be unlawful and unconstitutional. As the Superior Court actions cannot be attributed to any member of the judiciary or panel, the judiciary escapes the liability for their actions. The Superior Court Judiciary has not stepped with signed documents which would indicate responsibility for the decisions and liability for the enforcement of a void order, which would relieve the Central Legal Staff of criminal liability. The Judiciary have painted themselves into a corner where their corruption and the undoing of their authority has been exposed. |
Further Grand Jury Information...
No comments:
Post a Comment