Michael Becker,
I applaud your notion to look more deeply into background on stories you may cover for your job as a reporter. I would also like to suggest to you that attacking the character of a person in focus in a story must be carefully done. The topic here was the "common law grand jury". Looking hard to see what side of the political aisle the advocates for common law grand juries chance to be on is risky journalism, imo.

You have quoted a bit of Scalia, which is good. But I would encourage you to dig deeper and look for other Supreme Court pronouncements regarding the common law grand jury. There are actually a number of such cases, cases in which the Supreme Court recognizes what Scalia reiterated - that the Grand Jury belongs to the People and is not subject to the three Federal branches of government. In your conclusion above, you note that the common law grand jury is "illegal". That may prove to be a precocious pronouncement, Amigo. If you continue to dig deeper, you'll come to see this for yourself.

Please allow me to inject a meme into your mindset which could possibly help you in your search for the greater truth on this topic. We look often at the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment states that any powers not delegated by the States to the General (Federal) government are reserved to the States OR to the People. It does not say "AND to the people." It says "OR" to the People. Why would our Founders use the word "or" instead of "and"? Students of the Constitution come to understand that "We The People" are the ultimate source for authority and legitimacy in all government. The People, acting in concert, rebelled against the British government while yet Colonists of Great Britain. They then constituted themselves into States, with sovereignty and international standing, with their respective laws and other infrastructural components common to any nation-state. As independent States, they convened to create a compact called the Articles of Confederation, which elected U.S. Presidents during the period before our Constitution was created and ratified. During that time each State was a republic, was autonomous, and retained autonomous sovereignty as a nation. When they convened again to improve upon the Articles of Confederation, their convention turned into a Constitutional convention, owing to the labors of James Madison, who is generally known as the "Father of the Constitution". One of our fine rivers here is named after him, yes? While just how it happened is a never-ending debate, the convention to modify and alter or improve the Articles of Confederation morphed into a convention which produced our present-day Constitution. Before the States would ratify it, they demanded that the Bill of Rights be in place as the first Ten Amendments, which we yet today refer to as the Bill of Rights. Of course you know all that already. But I'm reminding your readers of that, here, to set the stage for introducing a grand thought which is relative to your concern about common law grand juries. One final hint:
In his Ft. Hill Address of the 1830s, John C. Calhoun gave us one sentence which cuts to the chase in many arguments since he uttered this:

"The error is in the assumption that the General government was party to the compact."

You see, Michael, the States, each of them being at that time an independent, sovereign nation-state republic, signed the compact which created the General (Federal) government. If you look below the Constitution you will find their signatories - but - you will find no signature on behalf of the Federal government on that document.

That is because the General (Federal) government did not exist until the States signed that compact among themselves, with each party-State owning a co-equal status in that compact with every other State in compact. The States created the General (Federal) government.

And the States themselves derived their authority and autonomy and sovereignty from.....whom? From We The People, which is why those three words are the first three words in the document. We _ The _ People. That is why the Tenth Amendment uses the word "OR" instead of the word "AND" in its qualifier phrase, "...to the States or to the People".

One can begin to realize the genius in that perspective when one recalls that our Founders specified a higher authority than the government they created. They did that with the term "unalienable rights", which they said derive from Nature or Nature's God. (Natural rights, which is the basis of "Common Law", which is a totally different form of law from "statutory law". This nation's founders wrote the Constitution to preserve our unalienable rights under Natural (Common) Law. If you look at the Constitution, you'll notice that it is a document limiting the authorities and powers of the General (Federal) government. Article 1, Section 8, tells the government what it should do. The Bill of Rights tells the General government what it cannot infringe upon - which is our unalienable rights. And the Tenth Amendment tells the General government that if it is not listed in Article 1, Section 8, it is reserved to the States or to the People.

Our Constitution is neither "left" nor "right". It is *above* the political fray of factions or "political partiers", which our Founders, especially George Washington, abhorred. (George Washington did not want to see political parties in this country.) For your investigation to focus on political philosophies of involved and named characters in your story in the Chronicle is a bit of a short-coming on your part, but one which is easily understandable to me.

To bring up John Darash's membership in Oath Keepers serves what purpose, if not to fragment the overall presentation of otherwise-facts, by defining his philosophy as a Constitutionalist? That is what Oath Keepers is - an educational group with outreach to police and military and firefighters and Veterans, whom we approach with materials showing the history of the Constitution which they are required to swear or affirm an Oath to before assuming their duties in service to America or the State or the County or the Township. Our membership consists of all walks of American life, both left and right, both centrist and non-opinionated. Like the Constitution itself, Oath Keepers embraces all Americans as co-equal in rights and the protections of the state (government). Contrary to what the SPLC will tell people, Oath Keepers is not a "far-right" organization. Additionally, Oath Keepers has not made any formal policy statement regarding the Grand Jury phenomenon, not at this time, but our Board of Directors, of which I am a member, is now beginning to look into the matter. We are interested in Constitutional questions about this, and we are open-minded about it. If you chance to want to share your own research with me, please use this method to contact me.
1 - Go to http://www.oathkeepers.org/
2 - look under our site's banner and click on "Contact"
3 - Address your contact info to "For Elias"
4 - leave me your email address in that fashion and I'll send you my personal contact info.

That said, perhaps you would like to talk further with me about Constitutional issues, or about Oath Keepers. I am not an authority on Grand Juries, but I am authorized to speak with you publicly or in print about Oath Keepers.

Thanks for your time.
Salute!
Elias Alias, Montana Oath Keepers, Oath Keepers national website editor, member Oath Keepers Board of Directors, Honorably discharged US Marine and Veteran, Vietnam War, Three Forks, Montana

Michael, your bias jumbs from the title of your piece "So-called".

The cited desion in US v Williams is a misdirect. The same decision says, "True, the grand jury cannot compel the appearance of witnesses and the production of evidence, and must appeal to the court when such compulsion is required. " The NLA folks believe that they have the power to indict, convict and punish, all by themselves. they want to be a kangaroo court.

I must remind everyone here that Article 5 of the Bill of Rights says:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury"

To anyone who says demanding a Grand Jury is akin to being a Wack Job or radical, I ask you to argue our Founding Fathers and the protections the Bill of Rights establishes. (For those that don't know...the Bill of Rights gives you no rights, it tells the government what it WILL NOT do.)

The Common Law Grand Jury ended in 1791 with the ratification of the Constitution with the Bill of Rights. It established many things one of which was the servitude of the government to the people that can not, shall not and WILL not be abridged. Period.

So to all those naysayers out there who don't want a Grand Jury's protection.....What are you going to do when your on the governments hit list because your opinions no longer walk in step with theirs?

Or legal system is corrupt. If you want to do a real story, if you have the courage, why not do one on CUSIP Bonds and prison sentences? How, the CAFR (official Montana financial report) confirms our prisons are making massive profits by selling the prison sentence of the convicted on wall street for the benefit of their retirement. But I suspect that would be a very damning story against the "clean and honorable" legal system.

Feel free to contact me at anytime about this or the upcoming formation of the Montana Home Guard, yes the lawful militia!

"If you want to do a real story, if you have the courage, why not do one on CUSIP Bonds and prison sentences? How, the CAFR (official Montana financial report) confirms our prisons are making massive profits by selling the prison sentence of the convicted on wall street for the benefit of their retirement."

Nothing quite says "Wack Job" like a belief in these two sovereign-citizen myths.

Gatsby is a known user or participant with the group known as "TheFogBow.Com" to which has been investigated and dimed "Obots" President Obama groupies and some have been investigated being paid by DARPA to spread disinformation The same sheriff teams that have been investigating claims into obama birth certificate has been looking into that same group as being paid to spread disinformation, slander/liable on ones character ( sorta like how this report tends to lean that way attack someone character and not the facts) as well as send life threats to reporters who cover anything to do with talking about obama birth details. If you look up the term "Madisonville Hoax" you will see the name "Foggy" <-- guy who is the admin of TheFogBow.com that and I also have proof stored myself of this users actions :)

You're delusional. Enough said.

gatsby...if you care to refute the information, it would be better served by constructing a coherent argument rather than a limp ad hominem.

Delusional sovereign citizen-types don't deserve anything more.

I totally agree and you are 150% correct....

"Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish" Or as applied to both these commentators, "Wack Job" and agreement. Let's not feed the trolls.

Great follow up in Sunday's paper.....the only update to the story from a week ago is 50 people showed up. And how dare they tell the press they can't photograph a public event held in a publicly owned building? What or who are they trying to hide? Maybe do a story on that. Once again, no specific complaints of what they're trying to fix!

John Darah's real name is John Vidurek. And one "common law grand jury" was convened in Florida by a man who had tried to take over a real grand jury when he was adventitiously selected to serve on it and volunteered to be grand jury foreman.

When the real grand jury and the State's Attorney counseling it refused to go along with the foreman's agenda, he was tossed off, started his own grand jury, and indicted "Common Core" and a raft of officials including the State's Attorney who opposed him.

That clown's name is Terry Trussell and he's being prosecuted on 14 felony counts including impersonating a public official, threatening a public official and simulating legal process. Trussell has gone all "Sovereign Citizen," plans to defend himself at his trial in February, and faces what is essentially a life sentence since he's 71 years old.

Darash/Vidurek is the leader of a cult of seditionists. They've never heard of something we have called "elections."

This user and Gatsby are both from FogBow ... both of which should be ignored and dismissed lol look up "foggy" and "MAdisonville Hoax" that group was the cause of it

I beg to differ. These gentlemen speak the truth. Darash's real name is Vidurek. He hides his real name because he has lost a number of cases in court under his real name pushing his crazy sov cit nonsense and he doesn't want the NLA suckers to know that.

I concur completely with Elias Alias below, as what he said clearly outlines the basis for the Grand Jury, and Mr. Becker should take him seriously and he should continue his studies of this issue, only leave aside the apparent bias he has for the status quo position, and try to arrive at the whole truth.

To that end I would like to offer some research I have accumulated that might help inform.

Here it is, and please follow all the links or you won't 'get it' as they say.

http://www.lincolncountywat...

No mention of her dissatisfied involvements with law enforcement or the judicial system, yet the story makes top fold, front page. "Citizens" doesn't constitute 1 person. Now that you've admitted to making a mistake, will there be a story in tomorrow's paper letting your readers know your editors didn't do enough research, or will you simply let the story run its course. I can't wait to read the follow-up story on this one person meeting in Sunday's paper.

How do we hold the press in check to assure they are reporting credible stories? At least private business man Folkvord apologized publicly to Wheat MT fans when he stepped on it. I know, as the free press, you aren't held to the same standards as other professions.

It's sad you send your under-paid reporters out to interview anyone about anything just to fill your paper.

I rather agree with the both of you. Becker is right to say the the story was placed inappropriately. I also think that it was improper to run a story promoting a group which is the equivalent of the infamous "Freemen" of the 90's. These days you have to work hard to keep up with your wackaloons.

Hey Rat, why don't you give us some direct associations so we can see how you justify lumping the Grand Jury advocates into a grouping with the "Freemen of the '90s"? You're just using a psyche-game copyrighted by the SPLC and MHRN, loosely associating known public memes with people to shift uneducated perceptions in the public. So do tell - in what way are these Grand Jury advocates like the "Freemen of the '90s"?
Salute!
Elias Alias, Oath Keepers

Ah the Oath Keepers, another group which comes from the same ideological wellspring.

Well, Rat, you've forgotten to answer my question/request. I'll repeat it for you. "In what way are these Grand Jury advocates like the "Freemen of the '90s"?

Regarding Oath Keepers, Oath Keepers is an association of military, police, firefighters, and Veterans who will honor their Oath to the Constitution. We are non-partisan and apolitical, in the tradition of the US Military and all levels of State and Local Peace Officer agencies and departments. The Oath is required in Article VI of the Constitution for the united States of America. That is our ideological wellspring. Please say how you can possibly have a problem with that. And do remember to answer my question - it's just good manners, yes? Thanks for your time.

Salute!
Elias Alias, Oath Keepers

Rat, I'd like to have you answer E.A. questions? And why must labels be associated with a pure intentioned solution? I am not political in the least. I have no loyalty to any party, union, one way or another. I just want to be left alone to live in peace without fear of government, poking into my business where they have no authority to do so. I am a big girl and unless I injure another, intentionally or otherwise, I have committed no crime. And if I did, I have the RIGHT to be judged by my peers for judgement and punishment.

Sure, it's to be expected that people conditioned by the system will find those challenging the system to be strange, even if that system is predatory.

No, there's not going to be a printed follow up in tomorrow's paper. Nothing about the story was wrong, but its placement was, in my opinion, not ideal. There may have been more to research, but it was not incorrect.

We'll decide whether to cover the meeting later in the week as we plan our weekend coverage.

How do you hold the press "in check"? As with any other business, you choose to consume our products or not. I'd rather people let us know their dissatisfaction with letters to the editor and phone calls, though.

sadly for the size of this county the limited response from people like Gatsby shows that most do not understand their Constitutionally protected rights. It is the responsibility of all Americans with a voice, such as a reporter or editor, to help honestly, without bias, educate the populace. That sir I would suggest be your challenge. How will history remember you and your part in protecting Constitutional rights?

Giving these sovereign-citizen types any publicity for their whackadoodle ideas was a mistake. The FBI considers them potential domestic terrorists.

Yes and the FBI considers fundamental Christians as terrorist also. Odd how judges and cops can violate the law with impunity yet someone who wants to up hold the Constitution are considered wackjob terrorist.
I put the same question to you, when the time comes to be remembered as a Constitutional Patriot or a Constitutional Traitor, how will history record you when all the records are exposed and it is proven that the American people were abused and used as a profit making tool?
Best look in the mirror, the exposing and changing of the Montana Constitution is upon us. Look for 3 Constitutional Amendments that will strip the abusive power from the courts and cops.

I would ignore gatsby .. he is with the form group called "TheFogBow" listed under "foggy" there whole form is dedicated to President Obama and supporting him while spreading dissinformation about anyone who stands against him. The cold case posse even investigated them as having ties to Tax Payer funds to do such things

Ruby Ridge

Of course Common Law Grand Juries are ILLEGAL that's the point. They are however LAWFUL.
The LEGAL SYSTEM itself is UNLAWFUL.
It is a criminal enterprise.
We need Common Law, even if it has a few minor flaws (which can be fixed later) it still beats the fake laws of a fake government.

Concluding with: If in fact the Bankers never released the United States from it's LOAN -then the collateral asset still belong to the "lenders"
Which means ALL DOCUMENTS, TREATIES, LAWS, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, CAN BE DISPATCHED AND THE PEOPLE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION AS TO THE RULE OF LAW IN A NON NATION - WE ARE A TERRITORY UNDER THE LEAGAL DEFINES OF DEFACTO REALITY-

A well written researched document reciting the missing signatures as well as an outdated timeline. However Of what I believe is significant is the Identification of These United States. are we a free standing legally constituted Republic, governed by the "Organic " Constitution or was that Constitution replaced by an "arrangement" of the 41st Congress that feared national insolvency and in fact SOLD OUT TO THE VERY SAME BANKERS THAT HAVE CAUSED SUCH GREAT PAIN TODAY - If in fact we are a Corporation ( In Caps) UNITED STATES in Caps
Then "HOUSTON" we have some serious problems, it would seem that everything that our body politic produced since 1781 as ratified by the 41st Congress in 1783-

In my jurisdiction the claims of the National Liberty Alliance
would be viewed as comedy by the learned judges and dismissed for wasting their time. They definitely do not have what would pass as adequate knowledge of the legal system, the quoted sections of the legal system in an inconsistent manner which has no legal logic to it. Those involved are just mere querlants, who are misguided and perhaps has some delusions about having their day in court.

Ed Edwards Thank
you for the reply, the rudeness, though eloquently put, was
unnecessary. Right or wrong; I am doing something to bring justice back
to "WE THE PEOPLE", therefore I am right in my actions. It is my right.

The expression "WE THE PEOPLE" are also used by some so called child protection advocates who no more than a scam (a confidence game or other fraudulent scheme, especially for making a quick profit; swindle). preying on those who are at their most vulnerable moments.

Besides mine of today the last comment was 21 days ago. It's a MT discussion that shouldn't be dropped. Not with all the recent MT local govt corruption coming to light. Seems that what's happened in MT will no longer STAY in MT!