MEMORANDUM ON GRAND JURIES RIGHTS & DUTIES

The Grand Jury has the Right to be informed of their Rights and Duties which include, but are not limited to, the following:

(1) The Right & Duty to hear complaints directly from citizens, and not just through the U.S. and District Attorneys (Miller v. Smith, 12/18/81, West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, see vol. 30 of the Criminal Law Reporter of 1/27/82, page 2319).
(2) The Right & Duty to conduct an investigation of anything they please, whether the U.S. and District Attorneys agree or not; and to raise money (donations, etc.) to finance an investigation if the U.S. and District Attorneys will not allocate the necessary funds to conduct the investigation.

(3) The Right & Duty to subpeona or summon any and all witnesses in all investigations. The Grand Jury, which is under the Judicial branoh of government - court system, does not have the power to delegate the power to summon or subpeona witnesses to the U.S. or District Attorneys who are under the executive branch of government. No one can ever delegate this power (Wilson v. Philadelphia School District, 113 ALR 1401; Scott v. Sanford, 15 L Ed 691): and the U.S. and District Attorneys do not and can not ever constitutionally have this power as it is granted and reserved solely to the Judicial branch of governmemt (the Courts) per the 9th & 10th Amendments and Articles 3 & 6 of the United States Constitution.

(4) The Right & Duty to question all witnesses directly in person with any and all questions, and so disregard, if they choose, all testimony from any witness who did not appear in person before the Grand Jury to give said testimony.

In addition, the Grand Jury should note that all witnesses have the absolute uncontestable Right not to be a witness against themselves per the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution. They can not be forced to answer any question, incriminating or not, unless they voluntarily waive their 5th Amendment Right not to be a witness against themselves in regard to that question. The government may grant use-immunity in regard to testimony (specific questions) from a witness if that witness voluntarily agrees to accept such use-immununity and thus voluntarily agrees to waive his 5th Amendment Rights in regard to answering a specific question or questions; but even so, a witness may excercise his 5th Amendment Right not to be a witness against himself in regard to any or all questions/testimony even if the government will grant use-immunity to that witness in exchange for providing testimony. This is the ABSOLUTE RIGHT OF THE WITNESS, and can not be challenged or contested. (See 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution and Point One - Constitutional Law, on the attached Memorandum on Money.)

(Use-immunity is unconstitutional. It was first passed as statute in 1862,declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1892, then was revived by Nixon in 1970 for "Star Chamber Secret Inquisitions", where, under color of law, witnesses are forced to answer all questions or go to jail for contempt of court and stay there until agreeing to testify. This law is unconstitutional and absolutely Null & Void; and any U.S. or District Attorney or Judge or anyone else who tries to use or enforce it is guilty of violating Title 18 USC Sections 241 & 242, and should be indicted under those statutes for violating that witnesses Constitutional Rights! )

(5) The Right & Duty to not rely on or trust the prosecutors (U.S. and District Attorney's) judgement on the proper order of questions and the proper handling of a witness. The Grand Jury can ask any question they want (and the witness may plead the 5th). If the witness acts suspiciously the Grand Jury has the Right to completely disregard any or all of that witnesses' testimony and to refuse to issue any indictment based on that witnesses' testimony. The Grand Jury must question everything they see and hear, especially that which is contrary to their own good judgement and common sense.
(6) The Right & Duty to seriously question all prosecutorial evidence and methods; and refuse to indict if their questions are not answered satisfactorily.

(7) The Right & Duty to take as much time as they need and want to consider an indictment, and must not allow the prosecutor or anyone else to rush them into making a decision. They must take as much time as needed to ensure no injustice will occur; and that innocent citizens will not be indicted; and that no one will be indicted for violating a bad unfair unjust law; thus ensuring that Justice will be served. If the issues, facts, and laws are unclear, or the Grand Jury is unsure, they must take more time to investigate or else refuse to issue an indictment and not take the risk of indicting an innocent individual or a victim of a bad unjust law.
(8) The Right & Duty to refuse to issue an indictment if they have reasonable cause to believe the accused did not commit tne crime charged or if they feel that the law the accused is charged with violating is a bad, unjust, or unconstitutional law. The Grand Jury has the Right & Duty to decide if a law is good or bad in their opinion, and if they feel that the law is bad they have the absolute Right and Duty to refuse, and must refuse, to issue an indictment.

(9) The Right & Duty to choose to ignore and disregard any or all court precedents-court cases including Supreme Court cases - whether they feel the decisions of the court cases were fair or not! The Grand jury has the absolute Right to question the law and to disregard any or all law/statutes and court cases they feel are unfair or bad, and refuse to indict on that basis. They have the Right and Duty te be guided by common sense and must refuse to apply or enforce a bad, unjust law. "A Grand Jury may vote an indictment or refuse to do so ... without regard to the recommendations of the Judge, prosecutor, or any other person." (Grand Jury Handbook).

(10) The Right & Duty to find probable cause before issuing an indictment, but must refuse to issue an indictment for a bad, unfair, unjust law even if probable cause is found.

Black's Law Dictionary: PROBABLE CAUSE:
"An apparent state of facts found to exist upon reasonable inquiry, (that is, such inquiry as the given case renders convenient and proper) which would induce a reasonably intelligent and prudent man to believe, in a criminal case, that the accused person had committed the crime charged, or, in a civil case, that a cause of action existed."

"A reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a prudent and cautious man to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged."

(11) The Right & Duty to NOT issue an indictment in questionable cases merely to pass the responsibility on to a petit Jury (Trial Jury) to decide. It is the responsibility of the Grand Jury to be absolutely sure beyond a reasonable doubt that an indictment is called for, and that "probable cause" exists, and that the law in question is not a bad unjust law.
(12) The Right & Duty to investigate and indict any U.S./District Attorney IRS Agent, policeman, judge, or any other government official or anyone else who treats or enforces an "executive" summons or subpeona (a summons or subpeona issued by anyone under the executive branch of government) as though it were a valid summons or subpeona; which they are not. The power to issue a valid summons or subpoena is granted and reserved solely to the judicial branch of government, ie., the courts, and can not be delegated. (A summons or subpoena, to be valid, must be issued by a court of law, signed b by the judge and the Court Clerk, and stamped with the seal of the court.)

(13) The Right & Duty to investigate and indict any government official or anyone else who violates anyone's constitutional rights or interferes with the Rights & Duties of the Grand Jury; all violations of Title 18 USC Sections 241 & 242, as per Title 18 USC Section 3231; and sue them for any civil damages under Title 42 USC Section 1983 as per Title 28 USC Section 1343. Your Authority: Hardwich v. Hurley, 289 F 2d 529; Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 US 388; and :

"The innocent individual who is harmed by an abuse of governmental authority is assured that he wlll be compensated for his injury." Owen v. City of Independence, 100 S Ct 1398 (1980)

(14) The Right & Duty to check oppressive government and protect the innocent from government abuse by safeguarding fellow citizens from unwarranted indictments, especially under bad, unfair, unjust laws. This is the most important function of the Grand Jury. See: An Essay on the Trial by Jury, by Lysander Spooner; The Jury Instructions given by Chief Justice John Jay in State of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 Dall 1; Twelve for the People, by Claire Kelley & W. Vaughn Ellsworth, which includes Excerpts From the Trial of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase; all of which wholely substantiate that Grand Juries and Pelit Juries (Trial Juries) have the absolute Right and Duty to Decide the Law, Facts, and Admissibility of Evidence in all Grand Jury investigations and all Jury Trials! (See the enclosed Memorandum on Money and the Booklist for further reference.)

COMPLAINTS TO THE GRAND JURY: A decision has come down from the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals reaffirming the right of citizens to have access to the Grand Jury in order to lodge complaints. The following was printed in Vol. 30 of the Criminal Law Reporter of 1-27-82, page 2319. It is a publication used by attorneys to keep abreast of current decisions on the law.

GRAND JURIES - CITIZENS RIGHT TO PRESENT COMPLAINT TO GRAND JURY - PROSECUTORS, 50.05: Mindful of complaints that the grand jury has become a tool of prosecutors, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals holds that a prosecutor may not prevent a citizen from presenting a complaint to the grand jury. "To fulfill its functions of protecting individual citizens and providing them with a forum for bringing complaints within the criminal justice system, the grand jury must be open to the public for the independent presentation of evidence before it. If the grand jury is available only to the prosecuting attorney and all complaints must pass through him, the grand jury can justifiably be described as a prosecutorial tool...We therefore hold that, by application to the circuit judge whose duty it is to insure access to the grand jury, any person may go to the grand jury to present a complaint to it." Furthermore, the court continues, a prosecutor may not render unsworn testimony in an attempt to dissuade the grand jury from hearing the citizen's evidence. Finally, a writ of prohibition will lie to prevent a prosecutor from attempting to discourage the grand jury from hearing the complaint. (Miller v. Smith; W Va Sup Ct App, 12/18/81).

If a U.S./District Attorney fails/refuses to sign and execute a valid Grand Jury Indictment, the Grand Jury can hold that U.S./District Attorney in Contempt and order the Sheriff to arrest and hold him in jail until he either signs and executes the Indictment or else resigns his job as U.S./District Attorney (Public Servant). This is the absolute power of the Grand Jury, and the Sheriff, as executor of the Grand Jury's Will.

COMPLAINTS TO THE GRAND JURY: A decision has come down from the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals reaffirming the right of citizens to have access to the Grand Jury in order to lodge complaints. The following was printed in Vol. 30 of the Criminal Law Reporter of 1-27-82, page 2319. It is a publication used by attorneys to keep abreast of current decisions on the law.

GRAND JURIES - CITIZENS RIGHT TO PRESENT COMPLAINT TO GRAND JURY - PROSECUTORS, 50.05: Mindful of complaints that the grand jury has become a tool of prosecutors, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals holds that a prosecutor may not prevent a citizen from presenting a complaint to the grand jury.

"To fulfill its functions of protecting individual citizens and providing them with a forum for bringing complaints within the criminal justice system, the grand jury must be open to the public for the independent presentation of evidence before it. If the grand jury is available only to the prosecuting attorney and all complaints must pass through him, the grand jury can justifiably be described as a prosecutorial tool...We therefore hold that, by application to the circuit judge whose duty it is to insure access to the grand jury, any person may go to the grand jury to present a complaint to it."

Furthermore, the court continues, a prosecutor may not render unsworn testimony in an attempt to dissuade the grand jury from hearing the citizen's evidence. Finally, a writ of prohibition will lie to prevent a prosecutor from attempting to discourage the grand jury from hearing the complaint. (Miller v. Smith; W Va Sup Ct App, 12/18/81).

If a U.S./District Attorney fails/refuses to sign and execute a valid Grand Jury Indictment, the Grand Jury can hold that U.S./District Attorney in Contempt and order the Sheriff to arrest and hold him in jail until he either signs and executes the Indictment or else resigns his job as U.S./District Attorney (Public Servant). This is the absolute power of the Grand Jury, and the Sheriff, as executor of the Grand Jury's Will.

West Virginia is unique because a citizen's right to approach a grand jury and present evidence of an offense is a constitutional right. State ex rel. Miller v. Smith, 285 S.E. 2d 500 (W. Va. 1981); W. Va. Const. art. III, 17 states "the courts of this State shall be open, and every person, for an injury done to him, in his person, property, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law; and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay." The Supreme Court of West Virginia stated the following in justifying this right:To fulfill its functions of protecting individual citizens and providing them with a forum for bringing complaints within the criminal justice system, the grand jury must be open to the public for the independent presentation of evidence before it. [Thus], ... any person may go to the grand jury to present a complaint to it. Id. at 504-05.

is this inregards to you going today. If so what happened?

Judge turned me down. The Board's attorney was there to object to my presenting Law and Alice to the grand jury!

We'll be back tomorrow!

Norman
Do you Know if you can actually beat a dead horse to death,or are you just trying to test the theory?

Was wilfong indicted.

No Wilfong was not Indicted. The word is they are not going to charge him and he'll be back to work in a month or so when he drops his lawsuit on the county.

so any word on who all was indicted this time

To The Circuit Judge of Pocahontas County, Joseph Pomponio
926 5th Avenue
Marlinton, WV 24954

From: Norman Lee Alderman, Citizen
HC 82, Box 223a
Marlinton, WV 24954

Dear Honorable Judge:

Pursuant to your order of 28th July, 2009 I appeared before Judge Rowe despite my concerns about his qualifications in an attempt to honor the court and show my respect to you for your attention to this matter.

The assistant prosecuting attorney was present instead of the special prosecutor and proceeded to protest that the matter was not ripe for adjudication because I had no complied with Judicial Order (Local) as entered on May 8, 1991 by Judges Jolliffe and Lobban. I asked him to recuse himself from the proceeding so that I would not be challenged by the school board’s attorney whose agents: Law and Irvine werethe target of my request for a grand jury presentation. He refused to do so and Judge Rowe did not order him to vacate the hearing.

Fortunately, I did not have to disclose my “probable cause” evidence to the assistant prosecutor. Unfortunately, it appeared that Judge Rowe was predetermined to dismiss my action without a fair hearing of the matter.

I must confess that I was confused by your order but grateful that you gave it your attention and permitted me access to the court howbeit Judge Rowe has been previously asked to recuse himself because of the disqualification issue which I have previously raised. My confusion primarily was focused on the fact that I merely had asked for a special grand jury to be convened to investigate the matter.

I realized that I would not be able to personally present to the current grand jury anyway. My presentation involves calling witnesses and taking discovery. Time would be involved in issuing subpoenas, etc. I was hoping for a special prosecutor to be appointed to assist me in the presentation of my allegations and to help me formulate the indictments.

Ms. Meadows-Price, the prosecutor, had previously told me that she had made application to the Prosecuting Attorney’s Institute for a special prosecutor because she was the school board’s statutory attorney. Of course, I agree with her on this issue. As I understand the doctrine of conflict, the conflict of one member of an office is a conflict of all the members hence my request to Mr. Clifton to absent himself from the hearing. I erroneously assumed that Judge Rowe would perceive the conflict himself but apparently he couldn’t understand that point or he would have recused Mr. Clifton himself. This failure on his part concerns me about his basic understanding of the fundamentals of the law, in particular the ethics of representation. Most any person would perceive a conflict that exists between a legal representative of the board and the dual position of prosecuting attorney. One person cannot serve two masters!

I have been before Judge Rowe on two occasions prior to this asking for an opportunity to appear before the grand jury. Judge Rowe has turned me down both times. The question of the local order did not come up in those two situations. The only time it came up of the three times was when the board’s statutory attorney was allowed to argue the case. To me this is prima facie evidence of the prejudice involved in this case in regard to Mr. Clifton.

You will recall that I talked with you on the phone and explained that Ms. Meadows-Price had indicated that I had a good case against Law/Irvine and that she would ask for a special prosecutor because she was the statutory attorney for the board. You indicated that the special prosecutor would be there so I was bothered by the fact that he didn’t show and that Mr. Clifton has usurped his role in the matter.

Ms. Meadows-Price has promised on two occasions to ask for a special prosecutor and I have been faithfully contacting the Institute to see if she has made application. She hasn’t done so. In addition to that I have been going to her office and personally checking. My next to the last visit resulted in a message from her secretary that she had asked the Institute what papers she needed to provide to obtain a special prosecutor.

We both know that she must send a request for recusal to your office for signature which is then forwarded to the Institute for appointment. I believe that she knows this because she did this in the Wilfong matter. But she has not yet formally recused herself. Until she does there can be no special prosecutor appointed.

To my face (and in the presence of other witnesses) she vows that she has a conflict but for weeks now she has failed to follow through with a letter recusal to you. This has greatly slowed the process. My application is over three years old. My contacts with Donna are ongoing by many, many weeks. If she had complied with my efforts I would have been ready for this grand jury and time would have been no problem. As it stands now she sends her lieutenant who argues that I have not complied with the order to have filed the request with the clerk’s office ten days prior.

The legal corundum is that I was expecting her to make the request and hence I would not have been out of compliance with the local order. This has made me a victim of Ms. Meadows-Prices incompetent actions.

Now I am required by Judge Rowe to jump through a hoop that I never requested. I am happy to comply with the local order and this letter is intended to do exactly that. But now I must wait until December to get before a regular grand jury. So I am asking you to empanel a special investigative grand jury for the purpose of taking evidence and testimony. I am asking that this special grand jury be empanelled as soon as possible to protect by Constitutional Rights under W.Va. Const. Art. III, 17 which states that “the courts of this State shall be open, and every person, for an injury done to him, in his person, property, or reputations, shall have remedy by due course of law; and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.”

Judge Rowe “denied” by request and Mr. Clifton inserted delay into the matter.

According to the Supreme Court of West Virginia this procedure is to “fulfill its functions of protecting individual citizens and providing them with a forum for bring complaints within the criminal justice system, the grand jury must be open to the public for the independent presentation of evidence before it.”

See Miller v Smith, 285 S.E. 2d 500 (W.Va. 1981)

I am enclosing a copy of the formal complaint which I submitted to the prosecutor in 2006.

The complaint involves allegations of misappropriation of funds per WV Code 61-3-20, namely that J. Patrick Law and Alice Irvine misappropriated state funds within their trust for the benefit of Jimmie Cutlip. They used funds intended by the state for golfing equipment for travel expenses contrary to WV 11-8-26 which states that funds shall not be used for an “unauthorized” purpose.

I wish to extend my allegations to include perjury against Irvine (false testimony under oath before the WV Grievance Board hearing.)

I will need to seek discovery from the Board regarding the above and take testimony from Law, Irvine, and the State Director of Finance, Joe Pinetta.

Trooper Fleshman has already completed his investigation of the matter and will be able to testify as to his findings.

I will need adequate time to begin the discovery process and would like to know when I can begin requesting it. If you have any special instructions as to how I can obtain the discovery, please let me know. I can reserve testimony until the special grand jury convenes.

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Norman Lee Alderman
Public Citizen