"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.
My bad for the use certain, I mixed that up with another post I apologize. Without the adjective my reply is the same. Seems your are taking my disagreements with you personally lately, maybe you need to follow your own advice.
Even so "posters", please address the poster, and it's not about getting over myself, since I posted a ruling I am thinking you may have been referring to that post and me who posted it. So your remark that I need to get over myself because I thought you were referring to my post is silly when it appears you absolutely were, it would be nice if you address the poster directly if you have a problem with their post.
And yes read the whole post the ruling was snipped not for nefarious reason but to address a point I got out of it. If there was a different point in the ruling (did you read the whole ruling, it is quite long and your reply to my post was fairly quick) feel free to post it.
So I spent the afternoon yesterday because that ruling got me thinking about Grand Juries and left me with too many questions, such as if they are independent how were they to be formed etc. It is actually quite interesting there is no universal standard, some state that anyone can form one, in Oklahoma anyone can petition to form one to this day.
A 1906 book The Grand Jury By George J Edward seems to be the best source for the history and development of the Grand Jury under our common law, from being at first the agents of the state that reported crimes to the King to being one used by civilians to protect themselves from government. At the time of the founding of the U.S. the grand jury's job was to be a buffer between government and citizen. Their very job would be to do exactly as the proposed grand jury in Florida would be, to investigate whether the prosecutors office had committed any crimes.
There were no state/municipality prosecutors positions then most crimes were done by private prosecution. It appears that British subjects and the colonists often did form their own grand juries, that part is still vague to me. George does point out how some states elected two officials that had the duty of forming grand juries out of those in "good standing" these officials were independent of the courts or government and the requirement was often they be of opposing parties. private citizens could then petition that a grand jury be formed to investigate whether or not the complainant had a valid complaint of a crime. Their meeting were to be secret, they had the power to independently investigate matters ( a prosecutor presence would be considered immoral and a taint, which I think is a good reason not to have them involved either), and the power to subpoena
For most of the history of grand juries prosecutors or defending lawyers were absolutely not to be part of the grand jury, this is a modern statist problem with them. That seems to coincide in the era of FDR's messing of the legal system in modeling it after NAZI Germany's Gliechshaltung in the name of making it efficient. It's no wonder that modern day grand jury's are a travesty to justice. And it seems that yet again judges have been complicit in ruining the common law system that had developed as a protection against the state, many rulings after the '40's unsurprisingly rule in favor of the new streamlined Gliechshaltung system over the common law system developed over centuries.
There is still plenty more to learn on this topic and it intrigues me, because it again puts a huge check on government into the hands of civilians and their powers as jurors, both in a petit jury in being able to nullify bad laws, but a grand jury and its traditional power of being able to indict and punish officials and make them pay for their bad actions, which would be more of a hindrance than the allowed "civil suit". I think we should have a revival of the more traditional form of grand jury.
