Now here is an article readers of this blog might find very interesting.. I did!
Citizens can't take cases to grand jury? Really? Wanna bet!
Did you know 'Only prosecutors, not private citizens, can take complaints of wrongdoing to a grand jury? The New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously ruled as such in April of 2005. (But there has been an update UAV). These 'justices' overturned a lower court ruling giving ordinary citizens access to grand juries and thereby reaffirmed prosecutors' long-held monopoly' over the power to initiate criminal investigations.
by * Justin Plumlee (American) (Libertarian)
Sunday, August 10, 2008
By this act the high court rendered void arguments by an activist attorney that 'citizens needed a direct path to grand juries to expose corruption in scandal-plagued states'.
"Allowing the general public, people with a grudge, to complain to a grand jury would be fraught with abuse," said Justice Barry Albin . This 'Justice' went on to say "In some cases, a private person might be bent on pursuing an ill motive or vindictive agenda; For instance, political candidates, on the eve of an election, might charge their opponents with fraud or some other nefarious activity and request admission to the grand jury." This deliberate attempt to confuse the issue between charges being made by a grand Jury and information or evidence presented to a Grand Jury for review are two different things! And just maybe that political candidate needs to be charged due to evidence of a crime being committed.
Assistant Attorney General Boris Moczula, has also, in times past, argued against grand jury access for private citizens, called the ruling "very good news."
"The opinion shows that for legal, practical and ethical reasons, the criminal justice system is not well-served by creating the equivalent of open-mike night before the grand jury," Moczula said.
The opinion was said to be a ruling further confussing the matter in the minds of those learning of the ruling'. 'Comparing Open-mike night and the presenting of tangible evidence of wrong doing are two different things. Is this their way of maligning those to whom the right of public Grand Jury access rightfully belongs?
'It had been decades since any citizen has gone directly to a grand jury.'
Monmouth County lawyer Larry Loigman demanded this right in 2002, claiming he had evidence of "financial irregularities" in Middletown Township.
The Monmouth County Assignment Judge- Lawrence Lawson- ruled that Loigman could not contact the grand jurors but should instead take his suspicions to the county prosecutor or the attorney general.
Last June, a state appeals court concluded that ordinary citizens have always had a right to bring allegations of wrongdoing to a grand jury, even if it has been little used in recent years.
It directed that a letter containing Loigman's allegations be read to the county grand jury, which could then, if it wished, invite him to testify. At the request of the Attorney General's Office, that ruling was promptly put on hold. (Can you believe that!)
The high court also ruled that Lawson, the trial judge, was right to refuse to "'open the floodgate's to countless requests to appear before a grand jury."
"I'm disappointed," Loigman said. "I have a lot more confidence in the citizens of this state than the Supreme Court does."
When he argued his case before the justices in February , Loigman contended that empowering ordinary citizens to bring evidence of corruption to grand juries would "help restore trust" in a government tarnished by recent scandals.
Albin, however, concluded that is not a job for citizens with no legal training'. (But it was an activist Attorney that began this battle. So, what is the State and their Judges doing but lieing and deceiving the public with their word usage in this 'ruling'. UAV)
"The prosecutors' offices in this state have hundreds of experienced and well-trained attorneys, many of whom have made law enforcement their career," Albin wrote. "We have no reason to believe they cannot be trusted to bring before the grand jury meritorious complaints of potential criminal conduct and to weed out frivolous allegations unworthy of presentation." Are you kidding me??!!
Loigman said, "I think the Supreme Court has exaggerated confidence in the abilities of the attorney general and the county prosecutor to deal with issues of misconduct in government." One need look only to "what has happened in Monmouth County in recent months," he said.
Note: After FBI agents served seven subpoenas on the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office, acting Gov. Richard Codey ordered Attorney General Peter Harvey to find out whether Prosecutor John Kaye had tried to impede a criminal investigation by U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie that resulted in the arrests of 11 public officials.
That "fact-finding review" is still pending, said John Hagerty, a spokesman for the state Division of Criminal Justice.
Loigman, a vocal critic of Kaye, said that to his knowledge, the inquiry is unrelated to the allegations he tried to bring to the grand jury.
If you follow the above logic, then one concludes that legal education produces ethical agendas. Hence, attorneys, such as judges and prosecutors, are the best candidates to approach the Grand Jurors because they are more likely to avoid ill motives and vindictive agendas, especially in light of the fact that so many of them have law enforcement training.
Justice Barry Albin concluded that is 'not a job for citizens with no legal training'. even thou this came via an 'activist Attorney'. Go figure.
And now you know how one of the most powerful and effective rights we, as citizens have, is rendered powerless. Fix this and you fix the country one charge at a time. Leave it as it is and there is no way to control public servant corruption.
Thats all folks..
My two cents ..
That link has really interesting articles.. so of course I'll add it to the list over there >>