FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: RELEASED BY: PRESSAGENT@NATIONALLIBERTYALLIANCE.ORG
PRESS RELEASE
NEW YORK IS “GROUND ZERO” - Major grassroots movement in 48 States, Constituting Common Law Grand Juries. In a
stunning six to three, 1992 Decision that went unnoticed, until now, Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority said:
In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992), Justice
Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, confirmed that the American grand jury is neither part of the judicial, executive
nor legislative branches of government, but instead belongs to the people. It is in effect a fourth branch of government
"governed" and administered to directly by and on behalf of the American people, and its authority emanates from the
Bill of Rights, the acts of the Grand Jury is the consent of the people.
“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. 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”. -- Justice Antonin Scalia
“Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present "True Bills" of indictment to a
court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a
"buffer" the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.” --
Justice Antonin Scalia
“The grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it
clear that, as a general matter at least, no such "supervisory" judicial authority exists. The "common law" of the Fifth
Amendment demands a traditional functioning grand jury.” -- Justice Antonin Scalia
“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. The grand jury's functional independence from the judicial branch is evident
both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised.”
-- Justice Antonin Scalia
“The grand jury 'can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance
that it is not.' It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even "the precise nature of the offense" it is investigating.
The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, 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. It swears in its own witnesses and deliberates in total secrecy.” -
- Justice Antonin Scalia
“Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said the 5th Amendment's constitutional guarantee presupposes
an investigative body 'acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge” -- Justice Antonin Scalia
“Given the grand jury's operational separateness from its constituting court, it should come as no surprise that we have
been reluctant to invoke the judicial supervisory power as a basis for prescribing modes of grand jury procedure. Over
the years, we have received many requests to exercise supervision over the grand jury's evidence-taking process, but we
have refused them all. "it would run counter to the whole history of the grand jury institution" to permit an indictment
to be challenged "on the ground that there was incompetent or inadequate evidence before the grand jury." -- Justice
Antonin Scalia
New York Supreme Court Judges v. The People - - - - SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT
Uniiffiied New York Common Law Grand Jury
Psa 89:14 Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.
• Fax (888) 891-8977
October 15, 2013
MEMORANDUM
TO be distributed to “All” County Clerks, “All” Chief Court Clerks, “All” Administrative
Judges, and, “All” District Executives. Without delay!
FROM: Bronx, Columbia, Dutchess, Greene, Kings, Monroe, Nassau, New York, Niagara, Orange,
Putnam, Queens, Rockland, Schenectady, Suffolk, Ulster, and Westchester Counties
Common Law Grand Juries.
SUBJECT: Common Law Grand Juries and their unalienable right of consent.
MESSAGE: On October 11, 2013 the Unified Grand Jury dispatched a small committee to five
counties to test the access into the People’s courts and was to file the same day, indictments upon
clerks and judges if access was not achieved. Although access was not achieved due to extenuating
circumstances the committee decided to call together the Grand Jury because it was observed by the
committee that the clerks were under a strong hold by the judges. The Grand Jury after hearing the
report agreed and decided that to indict the court clerks would be unjust considering they were not
elected or appointed and were acting under “orders” from judges and the threat of losing their
employment. We also decided that the Elected County Clerks were not in a position to prevent or permit
the people access into their buildings either.
It is the intention of the Grand Jury to file indictments against Judge A. Gail Prudenti, Judge Michael V.
Coccoma, Judge C. Randall Hinrichs, and Judge Allan, D Scheinkman if they fail to step aside by the end
of the week.
We ask that all the recipients of this memorandum read the attached letter in order that they
understand the “Constitutional Crisis” America is facing.
ATTACHMENTS: Copy of letter sent to Judge A. Gail Prudenti, Judge Michael V. Coccoma, Judge
C. Randall Hinrichs, and Judge Allan, D Scheinkman:
LETTER OF REASON PAGE 1 OF 7
Uniiffiied New York Common Law Grand Jury
Psa 89:14 Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.
• Fax (888) 891-8977
October 15, 2013
Judge A. Gail Prudenti
Judge Michael V. Coccoma
Judge C. Randall Hinrichs
Judge Allan, D. Scheinkman.
.
Dear Servants;
The People of New York are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights1. To secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the “CONSENT OF THE
GOVERNED”. Whenever any appointed or elected servant becomes destructive of these ends, it is the
Duty (Right) of the Consentors (Grand Jury) to remove such servants and appoint or elect new servants.
Prudence indeed dictates that presentments against elected and appointed servants should not be
charged for light and transient causes; but, when a long train of abuses and usurpations finds the People
under absolute Despotism, it is the right, it is the duty of the People (Grand Jury) to remove such
disobedient servants and provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient
sufferance of the People of New York; and such is now it may be necessary to change the guard by a
“True Bill”. To prove this, let the Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Judge A. Gail Prudenti, Judge Michael V. Coccoma, Judge C. Randall Hinrichs, and Judge Allan D.
Scheinkman have conspired to supplant the unalienable right of We the People to lawfully
assemble as consentors under a common cause to protect the unalienable rights of the People
of New York as constitutionally prescribed and protected under the Fifth and other
Amendments.
Judge A. Gail Prudenti, Judge Michael V. Coccoma, Judge C. Randall Hinrichs, and Judge Allan D.
Scheinkman have refused their Assent to the Law of the Land, the most wholesome, and
necessary for the public good.
Judge A. Gail Prudenti, Judge Michael V. Coccoma, Judge C. Randall Hinrichs, and Judge Allan D.
Scheinkman have blocked the Peoples’ access to take their rightful seat as Consentors.
Judge A. Gail Prudenti, Judge Michael V. Coccoma, Judge C. Randall Hinrichs, and Judge Allan D.
Scheinkman have opposed the rights of the People to consent or deny.
1 Declaration of Independence - We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed
by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--
LETTER OF REASON PAGE 2 OF 7
Judge A. Gail Prudenti, Judge Michael V. Coccoma, Judge C. Randall Hinrichs, and Judge Allan D.
Scheinkman have obstructed the Administration of Justice by the People.
Judge A. Gail Prudenti, Judge Michael V. Coccoma, Judge C. Randall Hinrichs, and Judge Allan D.
Scheinkman have obstructed the Consentors access to the court by conspiring, reporting false
charges, and issued orders to reject Grand Jury filings to all New York Court Clerks and County
Clerks.
Judge A. Gail Prudenti, Judge Michael V. Coccoma, Judge C. Randall Hinrichs, and Judge Allan D.
Scheinkman have abused their powers by filing false reports with the FBI in an effort to
intimidate the People into submission.
Judge A. Gail Prudenti, Judge Michael V. Coccoma, Judge C. Randall Hinrichs, and Judge Allan D.
Scheinkman have abused their powers by sending the FBI on a fishing expedition in the hope of
finding evidence, that does not exist, in order to charge the People with a crime.
Judge A. Gail Prudenti, Judge Michael V. Coccoma, Judge C. Randall Hinrichs, and Judge Allan D.
Scheinkman have abused their powers by accusing the People of terrorist acts and causing them
to be interrogated as such.
Judge A. Gail Prudenti, Judge Michael V. Coccoma, Judge C. Randall Hinrichs, and Judge Allan D
Scheinkman have misinformed the elected clerks of the counties of New York and the employed
clerks of the courts of New York claiming that the 5th Amendment has been legislated away and
therefore the People’s right to consent is void, thus allowing the judges to continue in their acts
of contempt of the People.
We have warned the judges of New York, from time to time, of attempts by their administrative courts
to not extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Law of the Land
and their duty to obey it, i.e., honor their Oath to hold their office in good behavior. We have appealed
to their native justice and magnanimity. They have been deaf to the cries of the injured for justice. We
the People must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity of holding them in contempt of Natural Law
(Common Law).
We, therefore, the People of New York, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the
rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of New York, solemnly
publish and declare, that New Yorkers are, and of Right ought to be free and sovereign People, with a
firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.
CONSPIRATORS’ SUPPLANTING & CONTEMPT OF COMMON LAW
In a memorandum to all county and court clerks dated 9-26-13, prepared by John W. McConnell and
Paul McDonnell, council for the conspirators, giving their “flawed” opinion of law concerning the
LETTER OF REASON PAGE 3 OF 7
Common Law Grand Jury, claimed that the New York Constitution Article I §14 supplanted the common
law powers of the Grand Jury.
It is difficult to believe that all four judges and counsel could be so ignorant of the law as they face
charges of “high treason”, whereas they rest in the following bogus claim:
“Although a New York State grand jury derives its authority, in part, from the State
Constitution, the common law was only continued in New York "subject to such
alterations as the legislature shall make… quoting Wood v Hughes, 9 NY2d 14 (1961) the
Legislature manifested a clear intent to supplant whatever common law powers the
grand jury may have possessed”.
This is a gross misinterpretation of Article I §14 which actually said (paraphrased); Common law and the
acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, including resolutions and the convention that formed
the law on April 19, 1775 and in force on April 20, 1777, which have not since expired, been repealed or
altered shall be and continue the law of this state, but all such common law, acts, or parts thereof as are
repugnant to this Constitution [April 20, 1777] are hereby abrogated and subject to such alterations as
the legislature shall make concerning the same.
In other words on April 20, 1777 when the Constitution was adopted, any laws in force from April 19,
1775 through April 20, 1777 that were repugnant to the April 20, 1777 Constitution were abrogated and
therefore subject to alterations as the legislature shall make [key words ] concerning the same. It
does not claim that legislators had authority to supplant the Common Law Grand Jury, nor would they
be able to as they would then need to negate the Declaration of Independence and even more
importantly, “Natural Law”, and by that action they would be in contempt of God.
Furthermore, the New York Constitution Article I §6, which statutory counselors failed to cite, states
“The power of grand juries to inquire into the willful misconduct in office of public officers, and to find
indictments or to direct the filing of information in connection with such inquiries, shall never be
suspended or impaired by law”. The New York Judiciary, without authority, has negated this power of
the People. The actions of said conspirators clearly proves that their puppet statutory BAR members
(judges and prosecutors) controlled juries will never investigate (self police) criminally dishonest BAR
actions in the Peoples Courts, that were designed for justice2. Whereas the people are blocked from
accessing we the People’s independent common law Grand Juries to constitutionally redress their
injuries and protect their rights from criminally malfeasant officials who act under color of law. It is an
intolerable tyrannical condition that will no longer be allowed to continue.
2 JUSTICE. [Bouvier's Law, 1856 Edition] The constant and perpetual disposition to render every man his due. Just. Inst. B. 1, tit.
1. Toulli er defines it to be the conformity of our actions and our will to the law. Dr. Civ. Fr. tit. prel. n. (5) In the most extensive
sense of the word, it differs little from virtue, for it includes within itself the whole circle of virtues. Yet the common distinction
between them is that that which considered positively and in itself, is called virtue, when considered relatively and with respect
to others, has the name of justice. But justice being in itself a part of virtue, is confined to things simply good or evil, and
consists in a man's taking such a proportion of them as he ought.; * Luke 6:19 And the whole multitude sought to touch him:
for there went virtue out of him, and healed them all.
LETTER OF REASON PAGE 4 OF 7
Furthermore, in support of our view of Wood v Hughes, 9 NY2d 14 (1961) Judge Frosessel, writing in
dissent, said: “This practice continued in New York as part of our common law down to the time of the
adoption of our first Constitution in 1777, and indeed to the present day. In that Constitution it was
provided (art. XXXV) that "such parts of the common law of England * * * and of the acts of the
legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on [April 19, 1775],
shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of
this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same. That provision has remained in our
Constitution to the present time (art. I, § 14). Thus the grand jury's power at common law to file reports
is not a "mooted question", nor may we "rightfully neglect the common law", as the majority would have
us do”.
Chief Judge Desmond also dissents (Wood v Hughes, 9 NY2d 14 (1961)) saying: “Inasmuch as the
Legislature has not changed the common-law right of grand juries to make presentments, how can we
say they are now unauthorized? Looking to the decisions of other States will not help us, for they are
governed by their own laws. Nor will it serve any useful purpose to review the conflicting decisions of our
courts of first instance, many of which do not deal with the precise problem before us, as it is true that
the grand jury in this State derives its powers from our Constitution (including the common law
incorporated therein) and our statutes and, in the absence of a clear constitutional or legislative
expression, they may not be curtailed (People v. Stern, 3 N.Y.2d 658, 661). In our first Constitution no
reference was made to the grand jury, and it thus continued as at common law. In subsequent
Constitutions the grand jury is recognized, but it’s power to make presentments for the information of
the public has never been abrogated — either by Constitution or by statute — and so it remains to this
day.”
Clearly the actors that contrived the majority decision of Wood v Hughes were progressives with a
concealed motive in place of Justice. We the People of the unified Common Law Grand Jury are acutely
aware of the widely practiced fictional venue that defrauds the People daily, and now We the People
intend on reclaiming our Heritage, so robbed by progressives.
To suggest that common law could be “supplanted” from We the People which is based on the
Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, as well as our United States Constitution, places these
conspirators in the highest form of dishonor. For not to recognize those unalienable rights is to say that
this state and nation are no longer under control of those sublime documents, having been abrogated
by the opinion of progressive judges and legislators. and that the People are no longer sovereign
consentors but slaves to enemy interests.
When it was discovered that the NSA was monitoring all communications last year the administration’s
quip was ”If you’re not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about”. We have to ask
ourselves what is going on that our government officials would fear the people (Grand Jury) looking into
things? For them to so vigorously resist the will and right of the people to impanel a Common Law
Grand Jury of, for, and by the People to investigate, We the People in like fashion so say; “If you’re not
doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about”.
LETTER OF REASON PAGE 5 OF 7
“The grand jury’s historic functions survive to this day. Its responsibilities continue to include both the
determination of whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the
protection of citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions.” -- United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S.
338, 343 (1974), Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686-687 (1972).
We the People caution you, our public servants, to seek well your counsels. As judges, you are expected
to know the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and why the Bill of Rights was written as
well as the statutes protecting why We the People, the true sovereign authority, have a right to bring
Peoples’ oversight any time it is required under the law of necessity.
Be advised that your continued blocking of We the People’s unalienable right, protected under the 5th
Amendment, to consent or not to your actions will have regrettable judicial consequences, for it is
unconscionable for government officials to control a Grand Jury or tell them that any one is immune to
their examinations, therefore step aside now while we can still offer you grace.
BY WHAT AUTHORITY WE, PEOPLE OF NEW YORK, ACT
We the People have the sole authority to Constitute and administrate3 Grand Juries as an unalienable
right secured by the 5th Amendment. In the majority opinion of U.S. v. Williams we read:
“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”4.
The People have a right to claim and exercise without government interference5, sanction, or penalty6
their unalienable rights protected under the 5th Amendment. Clearly legislators and judges have no
authority to alter unalienable rights as Judge A. Gail Prudenti, Judge Michael V. Coccoma, Judge C.
Randall Hinrichs, and Judge Allan D Scheinkman, hereinafter conspirators’, shamefully claim. Nor can
said rights be licensed or turned into a crime7. The People have the unalienable right to act as Grand
Jurists independent of either prosecuting attorney or judge8.
3 Because the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think
it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such "supervisory" judicial authority exists… United States v. John H. Williams, Jr.;
112 S.Ct. 1735; 504 U.S. 36; 118 L.Ed.2d 352; No. 90-1972.
4 [United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (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, 98 S.Ct. 72, 54 L.Ed.2d 83 (1977).; United States v. John H. Williams, Jr.; 112
S.Ct. 1735; 504 U.S. 36; 118 L.Ed.2d 352; No. 90-1972.]
5 “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”. Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218, 80 S.Ct. 270, 273, 4
L.Ed.2d 252 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61, 26 S.Ct. 370, 373, 50 L.Ed. 652 (1906); United States v. John H. Williams, Jr.;
112 S.Ct. 1735; 504 U.S. 36; 118 L.Ed.2d 352; No. 90-1972.
6 There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitution rights. [Sherar vs. Cullen 481 F
2D 946, (1973)]. "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would
abrogate them" [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491]
7 The claim and exercise of a constitution right cannot be converted into a crime. [Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486 at 489].
8 Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said that the Fifth Amendment's "constitutional guarantee presupposes
an investigative body 'acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge '. . . ." Id., at 16, 93 S.Ct., at 773 (emphasis
added) (quoting Stirone, supra, 361 U.S., at 218, 80 S.Ct., at 273).; United States v. John H. Williams, Jr.; 112 S.Ct. 1735; 504 U.S.
36; 118 L.Ed.2d 352; No. 90-1972.
LETTER OF REASON PAGE 6 OF 7
Therefore, the conspirators’ arrogant denial, after being warned to step aside so that the people may
take their proper seat as consentors within their own brick and mortar buildings9, will not be tolerated.
Such a servant is in dishonor and in breach of their Oath and is no longer constitutionally fit to serve.
Furthermore, the conspirators’ feeble position is nullified by the following:
SUPREMACY CLAUSE - “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall
be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in
every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to
the contrary notwithstanding.” -- US Constitution
“… Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and
strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law
repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are
bound by that instrument.” after more than 200 years this decision still stands … “If any
statement, within any law, which is passed is unconstitutional, the whole law is
unconstitutional.” -- Marbury v. Madison: 5 US 137 (1803):
"Since the constitution is intended for the observance of the judiciary as well as other departments of
government and the judges are sworn to support its provisions, the courts are not at liberty to overlook
or disregard its commands or counteract evasions thereof, it is their duty in authorized proceedings to
give full effect to the existing constitution and to obey all constitutional provisions irrespective of their
opinion as to the wisdom or the desirability of such provisions and irrespective of the consequences, thus
it is said that the courts should be in our alert to enforce the provisions of the United States Constitution
and guard against their infringement by legislative fiat or otherwise in accordance with these basic
principles, the rule is fixed that the duty in the proper case to declare a law unconstitutional cannot be
declined and must be performed in accordance with the delivered judgment of the tribunal before which
the validity of the enactment it is directly drawn into question. If the Constitution prescribes one rule
and the statute the another in a different rule, it is the duty of the courts to declare that the
Constitution and not the statute governs in cases before them for judgment.” -- 16Am Jur 2d., Sec.
155:,
The State did not give the People their rights and thus cannot take them away as it chooses. The State
did not establish the settled maxims and procedures by which a People must be dealt, and thus cannot
abrogate or circumvent them. It thus is well settled that legislative enactments do not constitute the law
of the land, but must conform to it.
“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law
constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to
be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be
9 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. United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343, 94 S.Ct.
613, 617, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974); Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 6(a).; United States v. John H. Williams, Jr.; 112 S.Ct. 1735; 504 U.S. 36;
118 L.Ed.2d 352; No. 90-1972.
LETTER OF REASON PAGE 7 OF 7
PRESS RELEASE
NEW YORK IS “GROUND ZERO” - Major grassroots movement in 48 States, Constituting Common Law Grand Juries. In a
stunning six to three, 1992 Decision that went unnoticed, until now, Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority said:
In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992), Justice
Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, confirmed that the American grand jury is neither part of the judicial, executive
nor legislative branches of government, but instead belongs to the people. It is in effect a fourth branch of government
"governed" and administered to directly by and on behalf of the American people, and its authority emanates from the
Bill of Rights, the acts of the Grand Jury is the consent of the people.
“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. 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”. -- Justice Antonin Scalia
“Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present "True Bills" of indictment to a
court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a
"buffer" the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.” --
Justice Antonin Scalia
“The grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it
clear that, as a general matter at least, no such "supervisory" judicial authority exists. The "common law" of the Fifth
Amendment demands a traditional functioning grand jury.” -- Justice Antonin Scalia
“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. The grand jury's functional independence from the judicial branch is evident
both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised.”
-- Justice Antonin Scalia
“The grand jury 'can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance
that it is not.' It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even "the precise nature of the offense" it is investigating.
The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, 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. It swears in its own witnesses and deliberates in total secrecy.” -
- Justice Antonin Scalia
“Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said the 5th Amendment's constitutional guarantee presupposes
an investigative body 'acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge” -- Justice Antonin Scalia
“Given the grand jury's operational separateness from its constituting court, it should come as no surprise that we have
been reluctant to invoke the judicial supervisory power as a basis for prescribing modes of grand jury procedure. Over
the years, we have received many requests to exercise supervision over the grand jury's evidence-taking process, but we
have refused them all. "it would run counter to the whole history of the grand jury institution" to permit an indictment
to be challenged "on the ground that there was incompetent or inadequate evidence before the grand jury." -- Justice
Antonin Scalia
New York Supreme Court Judges v. The People - - - - SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT
Uniiffiied New York Common Law Grand Jury
Psa 89:14 Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.
• Fax (888) 891-8977
October 15, 2013
MEMORANDUM
TO be distributed to “All” County Clerks, “All” Chief Court Clerks, “All” Administrative
Judges, and, “All” District Executives. Without delay!
FROM: Bronx, Columbia, Dutchess, Greene, Kings, Monroe, Nassau, New York, Niagara, Orange,
Putnam, Queens, Rockland, Schenectady, Suffolk, Ulster, and Westchester Counties
Common Law Grand Juries.
SUBJECT: Common Law Grand Juries and their unalienable right of consent.
MESSAGE: On October 11, 2013 the Unified Grand Jury dispatched a small committee to five
counties to test the access into the People’s courts and was to file the same day, indictments upon
clerks and judges if access was not achieved. Although access was not achieved due to extenuating
circumstances the committee decided to call together the Grand Jury because it was observed by the
committee that the clerks were under a strong hold by the judges. The Grand Jury after hearing the
report agreed and decided that to indict the court clerks would be unjust considering they were not
elected or appointed and were acting under “orders” from judges and the threat of losing their
employment. We also decided that the Elected County Clerks were not in a position to prevent or permit
the people access into their buildings either.
It is the intention of the Grand Jury to file indictments against Judge A. Gail Prudenti, Judge Michael V.
Coccoma, Judge C. Randall Hinrichs, and Judge Allan, D Scheinkman if they fail to step aside by the end
of the week.
We ask that all the recipients of this memorandum read the attached letter in order that they
understand the “Constitutional Crisis” America is facing.
ATTACHMENTS: Copy of letter sent to Judge A. Gail Prudenti, Judge Michael V. Coccoma, Judge
C. Randall Hinrichs, and Judge Allan, D Scheinkman:
LETTER OF REASON PAGE 1 OF 7
Uniiffiied New York Common Law Grand Jury
Psa 89:14 Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.
• Fax (888) 891-8977
October 15, 2013
Judge A. Gail Prudenti
Judge Michael V. Coccoma
Judge C. Randall Hinrichs
Judge Allan, D. Scheinkman.
.
Dear Servants;
The People of New York are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights1. To secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the “CONSENT OF THE
GOVERNED”. Whenever any appointed or elected servant becomes destructive of these ends, it is the
Duty (Right) of the Consentors (Grand Jury) to remove such servants and appoint or elect new servants.
Prudence indeed dictates that presentments against elected and appointed servants should not be
charged for light and transient causes; but, when a long train of abuses and usurpations finds the People
under absolute Despotism, it is the right, it is the duty of the People (Grand Jury) to remove such
disobedient servants and provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient
sufferance of the People of New York; and such is now it may be necessary to change the guard by a
“True Bill”. To prove this, let the Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Judge A. Gail Prudenti, Judge Michael V. Coccoma, Judge C. Randall Hinrichs, and Judge Allan D.
Scheinkman have conspired to supplant the unalienable right of We the People to lawfully
assemble as consentors under a common cause to protect the unalienable rights of the People
of New York as constitutionally prescribed and protected under the Fifth and other
Amendments.
Judge A. Gail Prudenti, Judge Michael V. Coccoma, Judge C. Randall Hinrichs, and Judge Allan D.
Scheinkman have refused their Assent to the Law of the Land, the most wholesome, and
necessary for the public good.
Judge A. Gail Prudenti, Judge Michael V. Coccoma, Judge C. Randall Hinrichs, and Judge Allan D.
Scheinkman have blocked the Peoples’ access to take their rightful seat as Consentors.
Judge A. Gail Prudenti, Judge Michael V. Coccoma, Judge C. Randall Hinrichs, and Judge Allan D.
Scheinkman have opposed the rights of the People to consent or deny.
1 Declaration of Independence - We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed
by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--
LETTER OF REASON PAGE 2 OF 7
Judge A. Gail Prudenti, Judge Michael V. Coccoma, Judge C. Randall Hinrichs, and Judge Allan D.
Scheinkman have obstructed the Administration of Justice by the People.
Judge A. Gail Prudenti, Judge Michael V. Coccoma, Judge C. Randall Hinrichs, and Judge Allan D.
Scheinkman have obstructed the Consentors access to the court by conspiring, reporting false
charges, and issued orders to reject Grand Jury filings to all New York Court Clerks and County
Clerks.
Judge A. Gail Prudenti, Judge Michael V. Coccoma, Judge C. Randall Hinrichs, and Judge Allan D.
Scheinkman have abused their powers by filing false reports with the FBI in an effort to
intimidate the People into submission.
Judge A. Gail Prudenti, Judge Michael V. Coccoma, Judge C. Randall Hinrichs, and Judge Allan D.
Scheinkman have abused their powers by sending the FBI on a fishing expedition in the hope of
finding evidence, that does not exist, in order to charge the People with a crime.
Judge A. Gail Prudenti, Judge Michael V. Coccoma, Judge C. Randall Hinrichs, and Judge Allan D.
Scheinkman have abused their powers by accusing the People of terrorist acts and causing them
to be interrogated as such.
Judge A. Gail Prudenti, Judge Michael V. Coccoma, Judge C. Randall Hinrichs, and Judge Allan D
Scheinkman have misinformed the elected clerks of the counties of New York and the employed
clerks of the courts of New York claiming that the 5th Amendment has been legislated away and
therefore the People’s right to consent is void, thus allowing the judges to continue in their acts
of contempt of the People.
We have warned the judges of New York, from time to time, of attempts by their administrative courts
to not extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Law of the Land
and their duty to obey it, i.e., honor their Oath to hold their office in good behavior. We have appealed
to their native justice and magnanimity. They have been deaf to the cries of the injured for justice. We
the People must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity of holding them in contempt of Natural Law
(Common Law).
We, therefore, the People of New York, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the
rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of New York, solemnly
publish and declare, that New Yorkers are, and of Right ought to be free and sovereign People, with a
firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.
CONSPIRATORS’ SUPPLANTING & CONTEMPT OF COMMON LAW
In a memorandum to all county and court clerks dated 9-26-13, prepared by John W. McConnell and
Paul McDonnell, council for the conspirators, giving their “flawed” opinion of law concerning the
LETTER OF REASON PAGE 3 OF 7
Common Law Grand Jury, claimed that the New York Constitution Article I §14 supplanted the common
law powers of the Grand Jury.
It is difficult to believe that all four judges and counsel could be so ignorant of the law as they face
charges of “high treason”, whereas they rest in the following bogus claim:
“Although a New York State grand jury derives its authority, in part, from the State
Constitution, the common law was only continued in New York "subject to such
alterations as the legislature shall make… quoting Wood v Hughes, 9 NY2d 14 (1961) the
Legislature manifested a clear intent to supplant whatever common law powers the
grand jury may have possessed”.
This is a gross misinterpretation of Article I §14 which actually said (paraphrased); Common law and the
acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, including resolutions and the convention that formed
the law on April 19, 1775 and in force on April 20, 1777, which have not since expired, been repealed or
altered shall be and continue the law of this state, but all such common law, acts, or parts thereof as are
repugnant to this Constitution [April 20, 1777] are hereby abrogated and subject to such alterations as
the legislature shall make concerning the same.
In other words on April 20, 1777 when the Constitution was adopted, any laws in force from April 19,
1775 through April 20, 1777 that were repugnant to the April 20, 1777 Constitution were abrogated and
therefore subject to alterations as the legislature shall make [key words ] concerning the same. It
does not claim that legislators had authority to supplant the Common Law Grand Jury, nor would they
be able to as they would then need to negate the Declaration of Independence and even more
importantly, “Natural Law”, and by that action they would be in contempt of God.
Furthermore, the New York Constitution Article I §6, which statutory counselors failed to cite, states
“The power of grand juries to inquire into the willful misconduct in office of public officers, and to find
indictments or to direct the filing of information in connection with such inquiries, shall never be
suspended or impaired by law”. The New York Judiciary, without authority, has negated this power of
the People. The actions of said conspirators clearly proves that their puppet statutory BAR members
(judges and prosecutors) controlled juries will never investigate (self police) criminally dishonest BAR
actions in the Peoples Courts, that were designed for justice2. Whereas the people are blocked from
accessing we the People’s independent common law Grand Juries to constitutionally redress their
injuries and protect their rights from criminally malfeasant officials who act under color of law. It is an
intolerable tyrannical condition that will no longer be allowed to continue.
2 JUSTICE. [Bouvier's Law, 1856 Edition] The constant and perpetual disposition to render every man his due. Just. Inst. B. 1, tit.
1. Toulli er defines it to be the conformity of our actions and our will to the law. Dr. Civ. Fr. tit. prel. n. (5) In the most extensive
sense of the word, it differs little from virtue, for it includes within itself the whole circle of virtues. Yet the common distinction
between them is that that which considered positively and in itself, is called virtue, when considered relatively and with respect
to others, has the name of justice. But justice being in itself a part of virtue, is confined to things simply good or evil, and
consists in a man's taking such a proportion of them as he ought.; * Luke 6:19 And the whole multitude sought to touch him:
for there went virtue out of him, and healed them all.
LETTER OF REASON PAGE 4 OF 7
Furthermore, in support of our view of Wood v Hughes, 9 NY2d 14 (1961) Judge Frosessel, writing in
dissent, said: “This practice continued in New York as part of our common law down to the time of the
adoption of our first Constitution in 1777, and indeed to the present day. In that Constitution it was
provided (art. XXXV) that "such parts of the common law of England * * * and of the acts of the
legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on [April 19, 1775],
shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of
this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same. That provision has remained in our
Constitution to the present time (art. I, § 14). Thus the grand jury's power at common law to file reports
is not a "mooted question", nor may we "rightfully neglect the common law", as the majority would have
us do”.
Chief Judge Desmond also dissents (Wood v Hughes, 9 NY2d 14 (1961)) saying: “Inasmuch as the
Legislature has not changed the common-law right of grand juries to make presentments, how can we
say they are now unauthorized? Looking to the decisions of other States will not help us, for they are
governed by their own laws. Nor will it serve any useful purpose to review the conflicting decisions of our
courts of first instance, many of which do not deal with the precise problem before us, as it is true that
the grand jury in this State derives its powers from our Constitution (including the common law
incorporated therein) and our statutes and, in the absence of a clear constitutional or legislative
expression, they may not be curtailed (People v. Stern, 3 N.Y.2d 658, 661). In our first Constitution no
reference was made to the grand jury, and it thus continued as at common law. In subsequent
Constitutions the grand jury is recognized, but it’s power to make presentments for the information of
the public has never been abrogated — either by Constitution or by statute — and so it remains to this
day.”
Clearly the actors that contrived the majority decision of Wood v Hughes were progressives with a
concealed motive in place of Justice. We the People of the unified Common Law Grand Jury are acutely
aware of the widely practiced fictional venue that defrauds the People daily, and now We the People
intend on reclaiming our Heritage, so robbed by progressives.
To suggest that common law could be “supplanted” from We the People which is based on the
Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, as well as our United States Constitution, places these
conspirators in the highest form of dishonor. For not to recognize those unalienable rights is to say that
this state and nation are no longer under control of those sublime documents, having been abrogated
by the opinion of progressive judges and legislators. and that the People are no longer sovereign
consentors but slaves to enemy interests.
When it was discovered that the NSA was monitoring all communications last year the administration’s
quip was ”If you’re not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about”. We have to ask
ourselves what is going on that our government officials would fear the people (Grand Jury) looking into
things? For them to so vigorously resist the will and right of the people to impanel a Common Law
Grand Jury of, for, and by the People to investigate, We the People in like fashion so say; “If you’re not
doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about”.
LETTER OF REASON PAGE 5 OF 7
“The grand jury’s historic functions survive to this day. Its responsibilities continue to include both the
determination of whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the
protection of citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions.” -- United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S.
338, 343 (1974), Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686-687 (1972).
We the People caution you, our public servants, to seek well your counsels. As judges, you are expected
to know the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and why the Bill of Rights was written as
well as the statutes protecting why We the People, the true sovereign authority, have a right to bring
Peoples’ oversight any time it is required under the law of necessity.
Be advised that your continued blocking of We the People’s unalienable right, protected under the 5th
Amendment, to consent or not to your actions will have regrettable judicial consequences, for it is
unconscionable for government officials to control a Grand Jury or tell them that any one is immune to
their examinations, therefore step aside now while we can still offer you grace.
BY WHAT AUTHORITY WE, PEOPLE OF NEW YORK, ACT
We the People have the sole authority to Constitute and administrate3 Grand Juries as an unalienable
right secured by the 5th Amendment. In the majority opinion of U.S. v. Williams we read:
“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”4.
The People have a right to claim and exercise without government interference5, sanction, or penalty6
their unalienable rights protected under the 5th Amendment. Clearly legislators and judges have no
authority to alter unalienable rights as Judge A. Gail Prudenti, Judge Michael V. Coccoma, Judge C.
Randall Hinrichs, and Judge Allan D Scheinkman, hereinafter conspirators’, shamefully claim. Nor can
said rights be licensed or turned into a crime7. The People have the unalienable right to act as Grand
Jurists independent of either prosecuting attorney or judge8.
3 Because the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think
it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such "supervisory" judicial authority exists… United States v. John H. Williams, Jr.;
112 S.Ct. 1735; 504 U.S. 36; 118 L.Ed.2d 352; No. 90-1972.
4 [United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (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, 98 S.Ct. 72, 54 L.Ed.2d 83 (1977).; United States v. John H. Williams, Jr.; 112
S.Ct. 1735; 504 U.S. 36; 118 L.Ed.2d 352; No. 90-1972.]
5 “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”. Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218, 80 S.Ct. 270, 273, 4
L.Ed.2d 252 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61, 26 S.Ct. 370, 373, 50 L.Ed. 652 (1906); United States v. John H. Williams, Jr.;
112 S.Ct. 1735; 504 U.S. 36; 118 L.Ed.2d 352; No. 90-1972.
6 There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitution rights. [Sherar vs. Cullen 481 F
2D 946, (1973)]. "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would
abrogate them" [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491]
7 The claim and exercise of a constitution right cannot be converted into a crime. [Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486 at 489].
8 Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said that the Fifth Amendment's "constitutional guarantee presupposes
an investigative body 'acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge '. . . ." Id., at 16, 93 S.Ct., at 773 (emphasis
added) (quoting Stirone, supra, 361 U.S., at 218, 80 S.Ct., at 273).; United States v. John H. Williams, Jr.; 112 S.Ct. 1735; 504 U.S.
36; 118 L.Ed.2d 352; No. 90-1972.
LETTER OF REASON PAGE 6 OF 7
Therefore, the conspirators’ arrogant denial, after being warned to step aside so that the people may
take their proper seat as consentors within their own brick and mortar buildings9, will not be tolerated.
Such a servant is in dishonor and in breach of their Oath and is no longer constitutionally fit to serve.
Furthermore, the conspirators’ feeble position is nullified by the following:
SUPREMACY CLAUSE - “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall
be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in
every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to
the contrary notwithstanding.” -- US Constitution
“… Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and
strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law
repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are
bound by that instrument.” after more than 200 years this decision still stands … “If any
statement, within any law, which is passed is unconstitutional, the whole law is
unconstitutional.” -- Marbury v. Madison: 5 US 137 (1803):
"Since the constitution is intended for the observance of the judiciary as well as other departments of
government and the judges are sworn to support its provisions, the courts are not at liberty to overlook
or disregard its commands or counteract evasions thereof, it is their duty in authorized proceedings to
give full effect to the existing constitution and to obey all constitutional provisions irrespective of their
opinion as to the wisdom or the desirability of such provisions and irrespective of the consequences, thus
it is said that the courts should be in our alert to enforce the provisions of the United States Constitution
and guard against their infringement by legislative fiat or otherwise in accordance with these basic
principles, the rule is fixed that the duty in the proper case to declare a law unconstitutional cannot be
declined and must be performed in accordance with the delivered judgment of the tribunal before which
the validity of the enactment it is directly drawn into question. If the Constitution prescribes one rule
and the statute the another in a different rule, it is the duty of the courts to declare that the
Constitution and not the statute governs in cases before them for judgment.” -- 16Am Jur 2d., Sec.
155:,
The State did not give the People their rights and thus cannot take them away as it chooses. The State
did not establish the settled maxims and procedures by which a People must be dealt, and thus cannot
abrogate or circumvent them. It thus is well settled that legislative enactments do not constitute the law
of the land, but must conform to it.
“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law
constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to
be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be
9 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. United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343, 94 S.Ct.
613, 617, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974); Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 6(a).; United States v. John H. Williams, Jr.; 112 S.Ct. 1735; 504 U.S. 36;
118 L.Ed.2d 352; No. 90-1972.
LETTER OF REASON PAGE 7 OF 7
No comments:
Post a Comment