In Montana, “Freedom Action Rally” group studying the issue
In Conservative Circles, Calls for ‘Citizen Grand Juries’ Grow
Supporters say citizen grand juries would get back to Constitutional principles, but others say it's a grab for "frontier justice."By Dan Testa, Flathead Beacon, 12-12-09
Earlier this year, protesters hold signs during a Tax Day Tea Party protest on north Main Street in Kalispell. - File photo by Lido Vizzutti/Flathead Beacon
The idea of changing state law, or the state Constitution, to allow citizens to convene grand juries in their counties appears to be gathering steam in some conservative circles of Western Montana. The concept would allow citizens to summon juries comprised of members of the public to investigate alleged crimes – not just judges, as is the case currently.
With a Bitterroot man crafting language for a proposed ballot initiative and a Hungry Horse man forming a group to work on draft legislation, a measure allowing for citizen grand juries, in one form or another, seems poised for broader consideration in the coming year – by either the public or, possibly, lawmakers.
But while supporters of the idea consider it a return to more Constitutional principles, at least one legal expert considers the draft language of the proposed ballot initiative concerning, with the potential to devolve the state’s legal system into “frontier justice.”
“I think that the proposed initiative has really serious problems,” Elizabeth Griffing, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in Montana and an instructor of state Constitutional law at the University of Montana’s law school, said. “When you have a citizen grand jury, you’re really moving into frontier justice and not the rule of law and that is obviously of great concern.”
The proposed initiative is sponsored by Duane A. Sipe of Stevensville. In its draft form, the initiative would amend the Montana Constitution allowing 0.5 percent of the registered voters in a county to sign and submit a petition calling for a grand jury. Composed of 11 people, this grand jury would be obligated to investigate and consider the case advanced by those who signed the petition, but the grand jury would have sole control over the length and depth of the inquiry.
While federal grand juries are closed to the public, Sipe’s grand jury system would be open to the public. If eight members of the grand jury agree to bring an indictment, it must be prosecuted where it occurred by the county attorney. Should a county attorney fail to prosecute an indictment brought by a citizen grand jury within 90 days, the attorney may be indicted for obstruction of justice and criminal misconduct. If the county attorney refused to file charges, the citizen grand jury could then seek assistance from the state attorney general, or hire a private attorney and charge the county for it.
Sipe’s initiative would take effect immediately, upon approval by the electorate, but just to get it on the ballot supporters of the measure would have to gather the signatures of more than 48,000 voters in 40 of Montana’s 100 House districts to qualify.
Because the prospect of gathering so many signatures across the state can prove so daunting, Richard Stevens, of Hungry Horse, is forming a committee within the new conservative political group in the Flathead, Freedom Action Rally, to work on drafting legislation to be carried in the 2011 session. Sen. Verdell Jackson, R-Kalispell, is involved in the group and helped Stevens plan a meeting on the subject earlier this week.
Unlike Sipe, Stevens doesn’t necessarily agree with the idea of a ballot initiative for a measure such as the citizen grand jury.
“It’s still asking for permission from our government and actually, it should be the other way around,” Stevens said. “We’ve got too much government control over our individual rights.”
Stevens views the concept of a citizen grand jury as one that would take more power out of the hands of individual judges and place it in the hands of the public, chiefly as a way to check the power of public officials.
“Select prosecution is what we’ve got going on right now,” he added. “When you’ve got one person to call a grand jury, and it’s at his discretion, it’s totally impossible – you or I couldn’t do it.”
Despite his position as a public official, Jackson agrees that citizen grand juries could serve as a much-needed restraint on government officials, particularly those who aren’t elected.
“It’s sprouting up now because people are frustrated that they don’t have a way of dealing with public officials,” Jackson said. “What can we do about judges that seem to have an agenda? It gives the citizens a means where they can challenge politicians that are breaking the Constitution, that are violating state law.”
Jackson, however, isn’t sure legislation is the best way to advance a measure allowing for a citizen grand jury, since any bill that would amend the Constitution requires a supermajority in the Legislature, which is, by design, difficult to achieve. He is excited, not only about the citizen grand jury committee forming in Freedom Action Rally, which grew out of the summer’s “Tea Party” rallies, but the other issues the group is tackling, a list he said includes: property rights and property taxes; gun rights; health care; states’ rights; and a proposed anti-abortion, or “personhood” amendment.
The notion of citizen grand juries is popular within the Montana Constitution Party, of which Richardson is a member. Kandi Matthews-Jenkins, vice chair of the Montana Constitution Party and an unsuccessful candidate for several public offices in Missoula, sees Sipe’s proposed ballot initiative as a peaceful way for “people to take back control” from the federal government and “it affords the same protection for those that come forward to testify as a government grand jury would.”
“I don’t think it would be seated in the realm of day-to-day law and order; that’s not what it’s about,” she added. “It’s mainly directed at Constitutional issues, Constitutional law and any kind of a public concern.”
But even in these early stages, the concept of a citizen grand jury is drawing critics. Griffing, of the ACLU, said one troubling aspect of citizen grand juries is how legal issues can turn into a political agenda by the people convening the grand jury.
As an example, she cited the formation of a citizen grand jury in Kansas, which sought the medical records of George Tiller, the abortion doctor murdered in May. In Georgia, a group of “birthers,” those who believe President Barack Obama was not born in the United States and so is ineligible to hold the office, formed a citizen grand jury in March to indict Obama, after previous legal moves were stymied by the courts.
“To my mind, that is one of the big problems; the criminal process starts to be used to further a political agenda,” Griffing said. “We have express Constitutional protections against that.”
Furthermore, Griffing is concerned the draft language of Sipe’s initiative fails to take into account what would constitute probable cause for gathering signatures to form a grand jury. She also questions whether a public grand jury investigation could conflict with privacy rights granted by the Montana Constitution and become, “almost a witch hunt.”
In an evaluation of Sipe’s initial draft ballot language, an attorney for the Montana Legislative Services Division wrote that the proposed measure would also impose significant operating costs on counties, particularly the section allowing for citizen grand juries to hire private prosecutors at the county’s expense. State statute limits county budgets.
How any proposed measures allowing for citizen grand juries will fare in the year running up to the 2010 elections and 2011 Legislature remains to be seen. But at this point, those who would arguably be impacted the most by such a measure – county attorneys – are keeping mum. Of the three Western Montana county attorneys contacted by the Beacon for comment on the citizen grand jury measures, two did not return calls. Flathead County Attorney Ed Corrigan said he was not familiar with the issue.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
I drink coffee and not tea, perhaps to my own detriment, and thus have not attended any of these rallies.
Nevertheless, have you ever bothered to read the "Patriot Act" and the follow-up legislation it spawned? There is no "fuzzy constitutional violation" in regards to the wording in that legislation. Rather, the wording is clear and concise, and both the original misnamed act and it's totalitarian-natured progeny are all in direct violation of the Constitution. Most of the Bill of Rights was eviscerated in those bills.
Perhaps your reading list is akin to what Palin confessed to in the Couric interview? Next to nothing?
Here is a question worth pondering. This past week the Department of Homeland Security (a Soviet or Nazi sounding moniker if there ever was one) ordered 200 MILLION rounds of .40 caliber S&W;ammunition from Winchester. That's is correct - 200 million rounds for "our" Federal Governments internal security force. And that order is just for sidearms. What they have ordered in 5.56 NATO would be interesting to know.
That's a fairly significant order for a bureaucracy that supposedly is not engaged in direct combat, don't you think? And since this is an organization whose responsibilities are "internal" in nature, as is the Bush-created NORTHCOM sector of the U.S. Military, against whom would such ammunition be used against?
In truth, I shudder to think, but again, the question leaves very little wiggle room when searching for an answer.
Anyway, perhaps over this beautiful weekend with the snow gently falling to the ground, you could Google up the Patriot Act and the following legislation and read away. By Monday, the country and the world will be a different place, and not because of freshly fallen snow...
200 Million Rounds of .40 Caliber Smith and Wesson. What are they thinking about? "Body Armor" Please?
were you against the initistion of the patriot act when bush jr. was the president. If you were then why wer'ent you "freedom lovers" protesting the largest elimination of citizens rights in history. If you only fight when your political party is not in power then your just partisan and if you cant articulate what you are trying to "take back" then your just beligerent.
I don't know if John was against the "Patriot Act" but I certainly am, have been, always will be.
They rammed it through the Senate, then segued to an IMPORTANT debate about local TV stations having access to satellite providers.
Letters and watch lists? Those clods in Congress don't seem to understand that terrorists only turn to terrorism when they lack access to other avenues for their political and ideological aims.
Part of the reason terrorism is rare in the U.S. is, yep, supposedly we have constitutional protections and ways to redress grievances. The further reality strays from the theory -- it really is a death spiral.
As for this grand jury stuff...I'm not signing any petition to put this on the ballot. No freaking way. This smells too much like liens and Freemen to me.
The bar is set way too low...like for the 0.5 percent of people who actually think grand juries should be called without any sort of limits on the total number per year or how much it will cost.
If a higher percentage, say at least 5 percent or registered voters, was required, and a limit of one inquiry per year per county, it might not be a bad thing to have in the toolbox.
In Montana we already elect all our judges and our county attorneys and our sheriffs. Our laws are passed by an elected part-time legislature. We have elected local goverments that can pass ordinances. We have a very good initiative and referendum process, and recall of elected officials. Are whole court system is based on citizen juries.
Citizen grand juries are b.s. They are another attempt by the Rush Limaugh nut-jobs to stir things up so they come out ahead. The are a toehold for totalitarianism.
You have another terrible spelling error as well - "your" should have been spelled "you're".
And yes Bernie, I was against the Patriot Act before it was introduced simply as a matter of principle. But I must add this - like our members of Congress, it was a tad difficult to totally oppose it because it wasn't even available for them to read. They voted on a "summation" and a "title" that would make any who voted against it look, well, unpatriotic.
Republican and Democrat alike voted overwhelmingly for a bill they hadn't even read. Bernie, I'm opposed to that simply as a matter of principle, regardless of who is in office. Tar and feathers for all as far as I'm concerned.
I cannot fault you for your reaction though. From birth, the lot of us have been successfully indoctrinated to believe in this horrid two-party system as well as the somewhat mythical "Left-Right" political spectrum. Allow me to illustrate.
In 1996, one Pat Buchanan ran for the presidential nomination of the Republican Party. He had strong showings until Arizona, and even though polls showed him leading there, mysteriously, he lost, and lost badly. Now Mr. Buchanan is politically what is referred to as a "Paleo-Conservative", a non-interventionist sort of fellow who also prefers economic protectionism to globalism. The neo-con branch that has taken over the party, the war mongering, globalist types, have their philosophical roots, as they themselves admit, from Leon Trotsky, with their American Godfathers refining and passing such along being the deceased Leo Strauss, and more recently, Bill Kristol's father, Irving.
All not so well and good.
After Buchanan's folded his tent in '96, the now deceased Norman Mailer interviewed Pat at his home in Virginia, and the interview was published in the November 1996 issue of Esquire magazine. During the interview, if anything more of a superbly interesting discussion than an interview, Mailer argued to Buchanan that the so-called "Far Right" (not the one you are thinking about - say Cheney as an example) had more in common with the "Far Left" than the center of the party. He then argued the same point in regards to the "Far Left" and their relationship to the Democratic Party.
The main thrust of Mailers point was that Paleos and whatever label should be applied to a small segment of "liberals" on the left actually agree on more points than they disagree on. I agree. Civil Liberties. Check. Anti-interventionism. Check. Responsible monetary policies. Check. Freedom. Check. When you actually think about it, there are far more commonalities than not. But here again comes the two headed monster of the two-party system. Where is there a home for the philosophically marginalized? A big enough home to matter?
There isn't one. And such a circumstance is no accident. You may have noticed how difficult it is for "third parties" to get ballot access in this self-proclaimed democracy, correct? And that is because the two "Big Kids" on the block, the bought and paid for whores (Baucus and the insurance lobby as a case in point), the one's who spout "Democracy!" abroad do everything they can to limit so-called "Democracy" here in the "Homeland".
Nothing "changes" because it is not supposed to. The latest stooge in the White House is no different than the stooge before him, and before him, and before him ad on nauseum. Same perpetual war for perpetual peace and profits, same Middle East policy since 1948, same rape of the nations coffers by the very privately-owned "Federal Reserve", same everything. And this is how it is supposed to be and shall continue to be, regardless of "Tea Baggers" or anyone else having the audacity to hope for anything.
Perhaps you have read a lengthly tome by historian Carroll Quigley, one of William Clinton's mentors at Georgetown. The book, titled "Tragedy and Hope" is a superb history of the world, with the sections addressing more modern times containing rare insights not found in most other histories. Quigley was allowed access inside certain "Think Tanks" of power and influence, which he referred to as the "Anglo-American Establishment", and of which he also approved. In effect, the later parts of his book argue that the "elite" of this "Anglo-American Establishment" should rule the world. Sad to say, both political parties are in service of this goal regardless of theatrical rhetoric to the contrary.
In his book, and you must "Google" for the exact quote, for I won't bother, He argues that the two-party system is sacrosanct because it can be easily controlled. The top members of each are permanently enconsed, as long as they remain mortal, and effectively share common objectives. The rest is mostly for show and effectively harmless to those with long-term objectives. Having such an orchestrated system allows the lumpen to believe they are involved in the process, that they actually have a voice. It allows for that ridiculous spectacle that happens every couple of years, or whenever disgust and fury finally reaches critical mass, and we "throw the rascals out!"
But nothing changes. Nothing ever does. Curtains are changed, and that is all. "We" foolishly believe that it does. Has anything changed? Did the peace candidate bring peace? Did the G.O.P. balance the budget? And of so-called "Health Care" reform? Why the "corporatist model" is what the Democratic Party is now endorsing, with a "Democratic Government" about to force it's citizenry, even those at the margins, to buy health insurance under the penalty of fines!
80% of the people were against the bailouts. They happened anyway. This is democracy? 70 some odd percent are against this corporatist offering on health-care. And on war. We are so deluged with lies and propaganda by both bought-off sides that it will never, ever end. We are lied to by both parties in serial fashion, and you and so many others maintain "party loyalty" no matter how many times your political spouse openly commits adultery in front of you, both literally and figuratively speaking.
A quote from Bush I to reporter Sara McClendon: "If the American people knew what we have done to them, they would hang us all from the streetlamps."
No. I didn't support any of what Bush I did, nor his feckless and foolish child of a son. Nor Clinton. I do not support anything that Obama has done. Monied forces own them. They are all dishonest men and are beholden to powers and forces greater than they, and not a one has or had the fortitude to fight against such. The last one who did was murdered in Dallas, back in '63.
"It takes five years to change a willing mind." - Garrett Hardin
The vigilantes of Montana were a substantial part of the local population at the time. It wasn't just a few irate cranks after Henry Plummer, for instance, but at least half of the populace.
Never mind that the vigilantes operated in the absence of significant government law-enforcement infrastructure. Furthermore, when the perceived need for vigilance committees went away, so did they, and the members went back to their lives.
As for star chambers...you might be close. But we have those anyway, thanks to the Patriot Act.
Upon close inspection, you will find that the "corporate - government" link you bring up is a truly bi-partisan relationship. I assume you have watched "The Corporation", an excellent four-part documentary by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on the nature and behavior of these "Artificial Persons".
Your suggestion that these "teabaggers" should "turn their semi-automatic weaponry on the link between corporations and government" by themselves is beyond me. Is this issue not, as I argued further above, another one of those issues of common ground between the supposed extremes of the political spectrum. Where is the armed rhetoric of the so-called "Progressives" on this issue? Where are the rallies from the left? Absent. Disarmed, because their fellow is president. It seems as if they've taken a page from "The Gipper" and changed the wording a tad - "Don't speak ill of a fellow progressive."
So far we are witness to a "Progressive" president who is feeding the "military-industrial complex" a bloated diet as usual, with a budget even higher than did his predecessor. Not only is the "Peace Candidate" cum officeholder expanding the war in Afghanistan, but he has found a "Tiger Woods" type infatuation with the killing power of drones as he engages in a slow-motion, remote-control invasion of Pakistan.
Contrary to "progressive" arguments, he has handed trillions to banks and hundreds of billions to those properly evil corporations. All this with the imprimatur of a "progressive" Congress. And of his health care reforms? Why this "progressive" fellow handed it off to Max "I'm a whore" Baucus, who enjoined in discreet liasons with corporatist health care, and they are emerging from their marathon tryst, well, smiling and seemingly satisfied.
Progressive indeed. Where are the rallies against this? Any and all of it? Jay, THE SILENCE IS DEAFENING.
I hear nothing from "Progressives" at all. Oh, perhaps a squeak from Rachel Maddow and an occasional short diatribe from Thom Hartmann, but hey, Obama is a "Progressive" even if everything he's done of substance is no different that the guy before him. So he gets a pass.
I will give him this. He's so smooth that even "Code Pink" now supports the Afghani assault because of "Womens Rights." Their formerly quixotic quest for peace has now turned into a full-blown shooting war for women's rights. Now if that's "Progressive", you can have it. One day protesting like mad and the next day not at all, even though the killing never stopped.
Bring the troops all home, from everywhere.
I hate to say it, but it sure seems that the corporations and the government sure know how to use their money to send the progressives down an infinite number of side trails. And let's not forget that it was Willy Boy Clinton who successfully pushed NAFTA, GATT, and did away with the Bankster and Wall Street regulating "Glass-Steagal Act. " Remember the "giant sucking sound" we were warned about by Perot? And you talk about who weakened the regulatory system? Jay, the first cut was the deepest, and Willie Boy done the cutting.
As you so eloquently put it, "What the hell does a hound dog know about the truth anyway? It just goes where its source of food sends it."
Well Jay, exactly how many of those "progressives" and their pet causes are wallowing around with their lips permanently attached to the teats of the Federal Hog? Just think "Great Society" programs exponential and the bi-partisan war machine. Think "Bankruptcy." It's all over because everyone's a hog. Judging by how things are going, not to mention how they have been, the whole country, left and right alike, is enjoying a big old mud bath and a good feeding in the Big Government hog wallow.
Until there's no food left.
I cannot disagree. When I mention "progressives" I really mean the ghost of the Progressive Movement from a century ago. They were as bi-partisan in their quest for good governance as our current bastards are now in their race to corrupt our representative democracy. I apologize for not being bipartisan in tarring both parties with the same brush, although I believe the sins of omission (liberals) are not as egregious as those of commission (conservatives). Ignorance in this day of media blather, spin and outright lying can be an excuse.