Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 62

Thread: Florida’s state attorney and the prosecutor against Zimmerman, has been indicted

  1. #1
    Regular Member ptrdsmn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Concord, NH
    Posts
    18

    Exclamation Florida’s state attorney and the prosecutor against Zimmerman, has been indicted

    The George Zimmerman defense has recently gotten a lucky break. Angela Corey, Florida’s state attorney and the prosecutor against Zimmerman, has been indicted by a citizens’ grand jury for allegedly falsifying an arrest warrant and the complaint that led to Zimmerman being charged with the second-degree murder of Trayvon Martin.

    The indictment accuses Corey of allegedly withholding photographs of Zimmerman’s head after the incident. Also, Corey allegedly falsely signed an arrest warrant under oath without including the pictures as evidence. Critics claim that Corey rushed the arrest warrant through because activists were rallying around the Trayvon Martin shooting, demanding that Zimmerman be charged with murder. Critics argue that Corey was attempting to secure a reelection with the support of the activists.

    Excerpt ... Read more at


    http://www.opposingviews.com/i/socie...arrest-warrant
    Last edited by John Pierce; 07-08-2013 at 03:12 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    1) has no legal weight - this was a group of citizens making up something that sounded official

    2) trim your fair use quote so you're not infringing on copyright (rule 11)

    3) this has what to do with open carry?

  3. #3
    Regular Member Griz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    3) this has what to do with open carry?
    Much like the other Martin / Zimmerman threads. Probably should be in the Social Lounge, tho.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    A citizen's grand jury, OK

    I read somewhere that this grand jury was composed of bunnies and dolls.

  5. #5
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Larry Klayman, a former U.S. Justice Department prosecutor, a Florida lawyer since 1977, and now the "citizens' prosecutor" who presided over the Ocala grand jury said this: "The Supreme Court has confirmed that the grand jury belongs to the American people, not the three branches of government. (504 U.S. 36, 48 (1992) (quoting United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 292, 297 (1991)).

    http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-...02-905033.html
    It seems that this particular citizen's grand jury may not have made something up. We shall see if this particular indictment goes farther than the Obama birth certificate "indictment" by a different citizen's grand jury.

    It also seems that the cited case above validates the concept of a citizen's grand jury in certain instances.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Florida’s state attorney and the prosecutor against Zimmerman, has been indicted

    Did the SC say that the grand jury belonged to the People and not to the three branches of government meaning that folks could convene a grand jury independent of any government official? Or did they mean something else?

    Until someone demonstrates that they meant that folks could just up and form a grand jury (I strongly doubt that), this story is just another laugher.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153

    Citizens Grand Jury, an interesting website. Thanks.

    TIME TO INDICT THE POLITICAL CLASS

    "With government corruption and treasonous acts running rampant, particularly with regard to President Obama and his administration, many have asked what ordinary American citizens can do to legally mete out justice. Short of violent revolution, there is only one strong legal mechanism that can be invoked. That is the so-called "citizens grand jury," by which Americans themselves can enforce the law..."

    http://www.citizensgrandjury.com/
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Florida’s state attorney and the prosecutor against Zimmerman, has been indicted

    Then convene your silly grand jury and do it.

    Good luck with that.

    *shakes head*


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Did the SC say that the grand jury belonged to the People and not to the three branches of government meaning that folks could convene a grand jury independent of any government official? Or did they mean something else?

    Until someone demonstrates that they meant that folks could just up and form a grand jury (I strongly doubt that), this story is just another laugher.
    Why would you wait around for the government to approve something the citizens can use to restrain government? Something the government co-opted years ago?

    A person can plausibly argue that a self-created grand-jury is more legitimate today than the grand-jury co-opted by government.

    Look, Eye. I been trying to get you to read Dr. Roger Roots' white paper, Are Cops Constitutional. Just read the damn thing. Even if you don't agree with all his conclusions, at least you'll learn a few useful historical points, for example, a few hints about how grand juries used to operate and their original place in the constitutional scheme envisioned by the Framers.

    http://constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

    And, please stop looking to government for validity or legitimacy. Or, at the very least, please stop the invalidation based on that assumption ("this story is just a laugher") Government always finds a way to legitimize what its doing or what its done. Using your approach, the Federal Reserve and its destruction of the economy is constitutional. Using your approach, a national debt stacked to Jupiter is constitutional. Using your approach, drone strikes that kill over 4K innocents while getting a handful of terrorists are constitutional.
    Last edited by Citizen; 07-09-2013 at 08:42 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Florida’s state attorney and the prosecutor against Zimmerman, has been indicted

    I am asking for a specific cite for a specific contention in this thread, not someone else's opinion in treatise form.

    He is not making the contention here that these juries mean something. Folks here are. They need to support the contention with specific citations. Otherwise they are full of it.

    So, someone here is claiming that the SC would recognize the power of this "jury." What ruling? Put up or shut up.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  11. #11
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272

    United States v. Williams - 504

    Paragraph breaks inserted by me to ease reading.
    A

    “[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history,”
    Hannah v. Larche, 363 U. S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J.,
    concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill
    of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has
    not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches
    described in the first three Articles. It “ ‘is a constitutional
    fixture in its own right.’ ” United States v. Chanen, 549
    F. 2d 1306, 1312 (CA9) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U. S.
    App. D. C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F. 2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert.
    denied, 434 U. S. 825 (1977).

    In fact the whole theory of its
    function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional
    Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between
    the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United
    States, 361 U. S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43,
    61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28–32 (1906).

    Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the
    courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship
    with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so
    to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the
    functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to
    the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and
    administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra,
    414 U. S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 6(a).

    http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede...4/36/case.html
    It seems to me, a layperson, that a grand jury is indeed not a function of government and can be called together without government (a judge). We will have to wait and see how this plays out.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    And, please stop looking to government for validity or legitimacy. Or, at the very least, please stop the invalidation based on that assumption ("this story is just a laugher") Government always finds a way to legitimize what its doing or what its done. Using your approach, the Federal Reserve and its destruction of the economy is constitutional. Using your approach, a national debt stacked to Jupiter is constitutional. Using your approach, drone strikes that kill over 4K innocents while getting a handful of terrorists are constitutional.
    Nonsense, the government is the sole source of legal truth, with the SCOTUS being the Grand Arbiters of Fact and Truth. eye95 has made this clear enough that even a -------- like you ought to be able to grasp it.











    Last edited by Grapeshot; 07-09-2013 at 12:41 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Nonsense, the government is the sole source of legal truth, with the SCOTUS being the Grand Arbiters of Fact and Truth. eye95 has made this clear enough that even a -------- like you ought to be able to grasp it.











    I stand properly chastised.....appropriately that is.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 07-09-2013 at 12:41 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153

    Continuing, slightly, from Williams. Very interesting, very enlightening!

    “Unlike [a] [c]ourt, whose jurisdiction is
    predicated upon a specific case or controversy, the grand jury
    ‘can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being
    violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.’ ”
    United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., 498 U. S. 292, 297
    (1991) (quoting United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U. S.
    632, 642–643 (1950)).

    It need not identify the offender it
    suspects, or even “the precise nature of the offense” it is
    investigating. Blair v. United States, 250 U. S. 273, 282
    (1919).

    The grand jury requires no authorization from its
    constituting court to initiate an investigation, see Hale,
    supra, at 59–60, 65, nor does the prosecutor require leave of
    court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day-to-
    day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without
    the interference of a presiding judge. See Calandra, supra,
    at 343. It swears in its own witnesses, Fed. Rule Crim.
    Proc. 6(c), and deliberates in total secrecy, see United States
    v. Sells Engineering, Inc., 463 U. S. 418, 424–425 (1983).
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  15. #15
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,276
    I am not going to get into the legitimacy of a citizens grand jury. But will point out the power of the people to petition a illegal bureaucrat can be exhilarating.

    Mike Nifong! GZ persecution is very similar to the Duke Lacrosse case.

    Nifong Angela Corey!
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 07-09-2013 at 03:09 PM.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  16. #16
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post

    ...Until someone demonstrates that they meant that folks could just up and form a grand jury ...

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    What, exactly does "up and form" mean? I am not trying to be pejorative, but it goes to the heart of the discussion, which is: Can people form a grand jury, or can only a judge form a grand jury?
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    And nothing quoted from the ruling supports a group of citizens up and creating a grand jury whose proceedings mean a damned thing.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    What, exactly does "up and form" mean? I am not trying to be pejorative, but it goes to the heart of the discussion, which is: Can people form a grand jury, or can only a judge form a grand jury?
    Without delving into citations -

    Historically the courts have "played host" to grand juries, by such means as setting terms for them to meet, and providing places for them to meet. Prosecutors have convened "special grand juries" when a) the "regular" grand jury was not in term, or b) when they wanted to showcase an investigation. However, in both cases the prosecutor can only select grand jurors from the same pool of candidates as for the petit jury (the "12 good men and true" who decide guily/not guilt in criminal cases). The courts also supply support services by serving subpeonas, siezing folks who ignore a supeona, and otherwise making sure thast the folks can accomplish their job.

    My edjumicated guess is that any citizen's grand jury would have to be composed of members of the jury pool (no felons, traitors, or (in some jurisdictions only) non-citizens).

    While a "citizen's grand jury" may or may not be different from a "grand jury" grand jury, without the cooperation and collusiuon of the jusicial and executive branches they seem destined to have a hard time functioning. And since it appears this citizen's grand jury indicted without giving the acccused an opportunity to defend themselves they come off as more of a Star Chamber than a grand jury. (The existence and operation of Star Chambers PO'd the English enough to use the Magna Carta to do away with them, and the colonists also complained about their use to the point of specifically mentioning them as one of the several abuses the crown inflicted on them.)

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Without delving into citations -

    Historically the courts have "played host" to grand juries, by such means as setting terms for them to meet, and providing places for them to meet. Prosecutors have convened "special grand juries" when a) the "regular" grand jury was not in term, or b) when they wanted to showcase an investigation. However, in both cases the prosecutor can only select grand jurors from the same pool of candidates as for the petit jury (the "12 good men and true" who decide guily/not guilt in criminal cases). The courts also supply support services by serving subpeonas, siezing folks who ignore a supeona, and otherwise making sure thast the folks can accomplish their job.

    My edjumicated guess is that any citizen's grand jury would have to be composed of members of the jury pool (no felons, traitors, or (in some jurisdictions only) non-citizens).

    While a "citizen's grand jury" may or may not be different from a "grand jury" grand jury, without the cooperation and collusiuon of the jusicial and executive branches they seem destined to have a hard time functioning. And since it appears this citizen's grand jury indicted without giving the acccused an opportunity to defend themselves they come off as more of a Star Chamber than a grand jury. (The existence and operation of Star Chambers PO'd the English enough to use the Magna Carta to do away with them, and the colonists also complained about their use to the point of specifically mentioning them as one of the several abuses the crown inflicted on them.)

    stay safe.
    The 'accused' are never allowed to 'defend' themselves to a real Grand Jury.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by notalawyer View Post
    The 'accused' are never allowed to 'defend' themselves to a real Grand Jury.
    You're right. All I can do is plead it was late and I was trying to get to the Star Chamber bit. Mea Culpa.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Something to think about

    In United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992), Justice Scalia, delivering the opinion of the court, laid down the law of the land:
    “’[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history,… the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It “‘is a constitutional fixture in its own right.’”

    Seems like under common law founding, we don't government permission to form a grand jury. The better question is if the government refuses to recognize this right too.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Read the whole ruling, folks. The part cited begins at "A," but continues for great length thereafter, not saying a thing like what the posters here would have you think. Basically, the ruling is saying that the courts do not control grand juries. But they do call them, swear them in, set them in motion, use the court's subpoena power that the jury does not have, and generally lets them be to do what they will for however long they will.

    Once started, the grand jury is an entity in its own and is only under the prosecutor's control to the extent that the jury allows it--usually ceding complete control to the prosecutor (probably because they don't know any better).

    Nowhere in the ruling is even the implication that folks can just up an call a grand jury and it have any more significance than those of us here getting together and stating that the prosecutor ought to be indicted.

  23. #23
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Read the whole ruling, folks. The part cited begins at "A," but continues for great length thereafter, not saying a thing like what the posters here would have you think. Basically, the ruling is saying that the courts do not control grand juries. But they do call them, swear them in, set them in motion, use the court's subpoena power that the jury does not have, and generally lets them be to do what they will for however long they will.

    Once started, the grand jury is an entity in its own and is only under the prosecutor's control to the extent that the jury allows it--usually ceding complete control to the prosecutor (probably because they don't know any better).

    Nowhere in the ruling is even the implication that folks can just up an call a grand jury and it have any more significance than those of us here getting together and stating that the prosecutor ought to be indicted.
    Certain posters? Quote me and discuss if it is me you are referring to, I have no problem with discussing a difference in opinion.

    I posted this simply to show that a grand jury is not supposed to be connected to governments three branches. Even though now they are pretty much a rubber stamp for the prosecutors wishes.

    Also I was thinking about how for the overwhelming majority of our legal system, around a thousand years of it prosecutors are not the ones who brought the charges against you.....so if two individuals had a problem one thought it raised to the level of criminality how did he bring that charge against you? Something interesting to ponder. If as the opinion states it is a distinct separate entity, how could it be appointed by one of the branches of government yet retain a distinct seperat"ness" especially since it is a function of ancient common law not a specifically spelled out constitutional function.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    "Certain posters?"??? Where the hell did that come from? I mentioned "posters." No adjective. You ain't the only "poster." Get over yourself.

    My post stands on its own.

    Folks, read the actual ruling. Make up your own mind what it says.

    Moving on.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    I am not going to get into the legitimacy of a citizens grand jury. But will point out the power of the people to petition a illegal bureaucrat can be exhilarating.

    Mike Nifong! GZ persecution is very similar to the Duke Lacrosse case.

    Nifong Angela Corey!
    runaway grand jury. (1959) A grand jury that acts essentially in opposition to the prosecution, as by calling its own witnesses,perversely failing to return an indictment that prosecution has requested,or returning an indictment that the prosecution did not request. (Blacks Law Dictionary)

    In regard to soon to be ex-prosecutor Corey. Prominent Law professor and constitutional attorney Alan M. Dershowitz referred to Corey's actions as the most despicable of any prosecutor in the country's history.

    It would also appear that AG Holder will soon join the ranks of Nifong and Corey as over zealous power mongers that have no regard for liberty or justice.

    My .02
    regards,

    CCJ

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •