Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/142726072/Memo-Pts-Auths-Grand-Jury-Amend-4
Timestamp: 2018-02-25 08:09:32
Document Index: 434526691

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 19', '§ 19', '§ 19', '§ 19', '§ 18', '§ 19', '§3', '§ 19', '§ 19', '§ 19', '§ 19']

Memo Pts Auths Grand Jury Amend 4 | Grand Jury | Grand Juries In The United States
Uploaded by James Renwick Manship, Sr.
THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA: THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY James Renwick Manship, Sr.! ! ! !
Petitioner, In Forma Pauperis, Pro Se! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! v.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Commonwealth of Virginia! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! | | | | Case No. CL2013-8314 | |
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES FOR REGULAR GRAND JURY ACCESS BY CITIZEN WITH KNOWLEDGE OF FELONY CRIMINAL ACTIVITY BY A “GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY, AGENCY, OR OFFICIAL” (AMENDED) QUESTIONS PRESENTED: (1) Does Virginia Law allow a Citizen with knowledge of criminal activity by a policeman, or a prosecutor, or a judge; to act with a “legal right” to present that information to the Regular Grand Jury, for either its own Indictment, or its vote to impanel a Special Grand Jury to investigate the alleged criminal activity by government employees? (2) Does Virginia Law empower a judge, or prosecutor, or clerk, to block a Citizen with knowledge of Criminal Activity by police, prosecutor, or even a judge; to deny access to the Regular Grand Jury to present, in person, this information for the Grand Jurors’ vote? Point 1. Code of Virginia, Chapter 13, Grand Jury, § 19.2-191. Functions of a grand jury. states “The functions of a grand jury are twofold:” (1) To consider bills of indictment prepared by the attorney for the Commonwealth and
to determine whether as to each such bill there is sufﬁcient probable cause
to return such indictment "a true bill."
{NOTE: Here the Grand Jury is the part of the “court” that determines probable cause, the vote of a majority of Grand Jurors is de facto and de jure, by this code section. In other circumstances, one Judge is the part of the “court” who determines probable cause. A Grand Jury determination of probable cause requires a minimum of 4 votes, so if 5 members on the Regular Grand Jury, that is 80 per cent, if 6 members, that is 67 per cent, and if the 7 member maximum on the Regular Grand Jury, that is 57 per cent.} (2) To investigate and report on any condition that involves or tends
to promote criminal activity, either in the community or
by any governmental authority, agency or ofﬁcial thereof.
These functions may be exercised by either a special grand jury
or a regular grand jury as hereinafter provided.
The “hereinafter provided” impaneling of a Special Grand Jury § 19.2-206. When impanelled. gives THREE ways a Special Grand Jury MAY be impanelled by GOVERNMENT “actors”: (1) by the Circuit Court on its own motion (not stated, but presumably by the Chief Judge), (2) by a minority vote of the Regular Grand Jury with Probable Cause added by the Presiding Judge (still involving a government actor), and (3) by request of the attorney for the Commonwealth. The FOURTH WAY, (4) when CITIZENS act to have a MAJORITY of the Regular Grand Jury vote in favor, a Special Grand Jury SHALL BE IMPANELED. SHALL means MUST BE DONE. NOTE: The (2) sub-paragraph clause of § 19.2-191. Functions of a grand jury. about criminal activity “by any governmental authority, agency, or ofﬁcial thereof” harkens back to the original purpose of the Grand Jury, to serve as the “Shield and Sword” of the Citizen, to “justify the righteous” Shield (NOT a True Bill) and “condemn the wicked” Sword (True Bill) in relation to accusations brought by the “King” or “Government”, as the attorney for the Commonwealth.
Given that Common Law tradition and the fact that the Common Law is by Code of
Virginia section § 19.2-220. Contents of indictment in general. incorporated into the Code of Virginia, where the Code states: In describing the offense, the indictment or information may use the name given to the offense by the common law, or the indictment or information may state so much of the common law or statutory deﬁnition of the offense as is sufﬁcient to advise what offense is charged. Here is stated that a Code of Virginia section number such as § 18.2-53.1, is not a requirement for a Grand Jury to indict, but rather a Common Man’s Common Law description of the crime, use of a ﬁrearm in the commission of a robbery. This code section shows that the Common Citizen, not just “law enforcement professionals” with the knowledge of specific code sections of the law, may present to the Grand Jury their knowledge or information about criminal activity in the community, using Common Law descriptions, so the Regular Grand Jury may indict directly following the requirements of Virginia Code § 19.2-221. Form of prosecutions generally; murder and manslaughter.; or report the criminal activity for an indictment to be prepared by the attorney for the Commonwealth; or by a majority vote, SHALL impanel a Special Grand Jury to investigate.
By Common Law tradition, and by recent 1991 and 1992 United States supreme
Court decisions, U.S. v Williams 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992) by Justice Antonin Scalia quotes from a unanimous opinion by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in the 1991 case involving criminal activity in Virginia by a company from New York, U. S. v. R Enterprises, 498 U.S. 292 (1991), the Grand Jury must operate independently of the “Government”, even being described by some legal scholars as “the fourth branch of government”, whether in Code of Virginia language, that “governmental authority, agency or official”, be of the Judicial, or Executive, or even the Legislative Branch. The grand jury occupies a unique role in our criminal justice system. It is an investigatory body charged with the responsibility of determining whether or not a crime has been committed. Unlike this Court, whose jurisdiction is predicated on a speciﬁc case or controversy, the grand jury "can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just because it wants assurance that it is not." United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U. S. 632, 338 U. S. 642-643 (1950). The function of the grand jury is to inquire into all information that might possibly bear on its investigation until it has identiﬁed an offense or has satisﬁed itself that none has occurred. As a necessary consequence of its investigatory function, the grand jury paints with a broad brush. "A grand jury investigation 'is not fully carried out until every available clue has been run down and all witnesses examined in every proper way to ﬁnd if a crime has been committed.'" Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665, 408 U. S. 701 (1972), quoting United States v. Stone, 429 F.2d 138, 140 (CA2 1970).
In a 13 May 2013 letter to Chief Judge Dennis Smith of Fairfax County Circuit Court, quotes
from a legal reference work, GRAND JURY PRACTICE by Howard W. Goldstein, at §3.04 [1] at 3.34.: “The Grand Jury has the power to compel witnesses to testify… The Supreme Court has recognized that “the long standing principle that ‘the public has a right to every man’s evidence’ … is particularly applicable to grand jury proceedings. Thus, providing testimony before the grand jury is a witness’s public duty - a duty which all persons under the jurisdiction of the United States are bound to perform. This duty is essential to the administration of Justice 43 even though it may sometimes be onerous.” Therefore, a concerned Citizen with knowledge of criminal activity by government employees must have the avenue to provide information directly to the Grand Jury, NOT blocked by judge or prosecutor.
The loyal Citizen is “bound to perform” the “public duty” to provide “every available clue”, by access to tell the Grand Jury, and such access may not be obstructed by “approval” or “permission” from any judge, or any prosecutor, who indeed, in rare cases, may be aiding and abetting, (or even as seen in the past few years the horriﬁc cases of Pennsylvania judges, now spending time in prison for sending children to privately-owned company-operated jails where the judges hold financial interests in the private companies), or judges are even perpetrating a criminal activity.
The best way for the “Court” to provide for a Citizen to have an avenue to the
Grand Jury is a simple request to the Clerk of the Court to schedule a time on the “docket” before the Regular Grand Jury. In that simple way there is removed any potential for bias by a Public Servant, whether police, attorney for the Commonwealth, or Presiding Judge.
The Grand Jury will “triage” or evaluate the merit of the information by the vote of the
Grand Jurors with majority vote in favor, minority vote in favor, or even a unanimous vote to dismiss. A minority vote in favor, by Code of Virginia, may have added a determination of Probable Cause by the Presiding Judge to impanel a Special Grand Jury. Code of Virginia does provide for penalties to be assigned for frivolous or malicious accusations, so to minimize the potential of unwise cases presented by the Common Citizen wasting the Grand Jurors’ time. Point 3. The Grand Jury does not need to know the precise Code of Virginia sections, but rather may vote for a Special Grand Jury to investigate, and in its report, using Common Law descriptions, and Code of Virginia allows that the Grand Jury require (SHALL be prepared) the attorney for the Commonwealth present any or all necessary Bills of Indictment to a Regular Grand Jury. § 19.2-214. Prosecutions resulting from report. Any bill of indictment for alleged criminal offenses, which may follow as a result of the report of the special grand jury, shall be prepared by the attorney for the Commonwealth for presentation to a regular grand jury.
Point 4. Grand Jurors may of their own knowledge bring information to the entity of the Grand Jury, “of two or more of its own body” and even “If only one of their number can testify as to an offense” but the phrases “or on the testimony of witnesses called on by the grand jury,” and “or sent to it by the court.” show there is a provision for information from sources outside of the randomly selected Grand Jurors themselves, or police, or prosecutors; that a Citizen may appear as a witness, or may send information “for presentation to a regular grand jury” as worded in the code section above. § 19.2-202. How indictments found and presentment made. At least four of a regular grand jury must concur
in ﬁnding or making an indictment
or presentment.
It may make a presentment or ﬁnd an indictment upon the information
of two or more of its own body,
or on the testimony of witnesses called on by the grand jury, or sent to it by the court. he shall be sworn as any other witness.
If only one of their number can testify as to an offense,
When a presentment or indictment is so made or found,
the names of the grand jurors giving the information,
or of the witnesses, shall be written at the foot of the presentment or indictment. The wording of this Code of Virginia section is like an “onion” that needs to be “unwrapped”, with MANY KEY items that can be “extracted” from the clues it provides of Grand Jury powers: (1) At least four regular grand jurors must concur (vote) to make an indictment or presentment. (2) Upon Two or more of its OWN members’ information, it may make a presentment or indictment. (2.1) If only ONE Grand Juror can testify as to an offense, that Juror will be sworn as any other witness. (3) It may make a presentment or indictment on the testimony of witnesses called on by the Grand Jury. (3a) May the Grand Jury work directly with the Clerk of the Circuit Court to call on witnesses? (3b) May a witness with information about criminal activity by a Governmental ofﬁcial work directly with the Regular Grand Jury to be called on as a Witness, or with the Clerk as its agent? (4) Information may be sent to the Grand Jury. But how, through a clerk, prosecutor, or judge?
Secrecy of the Grand Jury proceedings by necessity extends to the Citizen request
through the administrator of the Court, the Clerk of the Circuit Court, who has Jury Management duties, that include management of communications, to or from the Regular Grand Jury, for the Citizens he serves to exercise the ﬁrst amendment right of “petition for redress of grievances” to the entity of the government provided in the ﬁfth amendment, that is the Grand Jury, for as in Goldstein’s GRAND JURY PRACTICE, the loyal Citizen is “bound to perform” the “public duty” to present information to the next scheduled session of the Regular Grand Jury, especially about “criminal activity … by any governmental authority, agency or ofﬁcial”.
For safety of the Citizen-Witness-Informer of the Regular Grand Jury, it is essential
to have secrecy in the method to request time to testify before the Grand Jury as a witness given the alleged perpetrator of crime to be a “Governmental ofﬁcial”, maybe even “armed”.
Likewise, secrecy is essential in the method to send information to the Grand Jury or
Foreman of the Grand Jury “under seal” with assurance that the information provided will not be seen by any “Governmental authority, agency or ofﬁcial”, who may use or abuse their position of trust and power to deny the Citizen’s Motions to the Court, or requests, to be a witness before the Regular Grand Jury; or for the Citizen-Witness, to be protected from police or prosecutor abuse. § 19.2-192. Secrecy in grand jury proceedings. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, every member of a regular or special grand jury shall keep secret all proceedings which occurred during sessions of the grand jury; provided, however, in a prosecution for perjury of a witness examined before a regular grand jury, a regular grand juror may be required by the court to testify as to the testimony given by such witness before the regular grand jury. (1975, c. 495.) NOTE: SECRECY ADOPTED IN 1681 By 1681, the English grand jury adopted the rule of secrecy which allowed it to function out of the sight of the King's prosecutors or other
intermeddlers. It was secrecy that provided the grand jury with its greatest power as an independent populist body, equipped with an oversight power on the government. (see CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW, Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000, 821.) Given that history, and the legal obligations of § 19.2-191 (2) above, to “investigate and report”, the Grand Jury must decide for itself what of its work it desires to remain secret, and what to be made public, that is not to be prescribed or restricted by either a judge or prosecutor, or even by legislators.}
This is not a legal debate between liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, male or
female. A Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt appointed Justice Robert Jackson who wrote in 1950: The grand jury "can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just because it wants assurance that it is not." United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U. S. 632, 338 U. S. 642-643 (1950). Those wise words were quoted by a Justice appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan, the ﬁrst woman justice, a moderate Republican, Sandra Day O’Connor. In her unanimous opinion in U. S. v. R Enterprises, 498 U.S. 292 (1991), Justice O’Connor also wrote at page 293: Additionally, requiring the Government to explain in too much detail the particular reasons underlying a subpoena threatens to compromise the indispensable secrecy of grand jury proceedings. Broad disclosure also affords the targets of investigation far more information about the grand jury's workings than the Rules of Criminal Procedure appear to contemplate. The same logic of necessity of secrecy for “Citizen Witness to Crimes by Governmental Ofﬁcials” must apply so Governmental employee “friends” by chance inform the governmental “targets of investigation”, and a Grand Jury investigation’s indispensable secrecy, is compromised. Point 6.
At the Motions hearing before Fairfax County Circuit Court Chief Judge Dennis Smith on
Friday, 10 May 2013, he read from a page ‘titled’ WHY NEED INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR ??? with the words:
“Where criminal contempt, then std is beyond reasonable doubt transfer to law side substituting Comm. as party advise of criminal rights, including right to atty & trial by jury request commonwealth atty to prosecute if comm. atty declines, appt independent prosecutor This somewhat “cryptic” note is an interesting challenge to a former Navy Cryptology Ofﬁcer. First, why a mention or a discussion of criminal contempt? Who is the person perceived to have committed criminal contempt? The accuser, or the accused? The Petitioner as the ‘accuser’? If so, this Judge’s document is somewhat a tool for potential “Witness Intimidation” or Tampering, by implying a process of charging Criminal Contempt.
If true, or not true, this document contributes to the legal logic for a Citizen to be able to
present in person directly to the Regular Grand Jury without ﬁrst informing the prosecutor or the presiding judge of the “target of investigation” government employee, to elect to “bypass” two powerful government ofﬁcials who could abuse their power to make the life of the Citizen Witness unbearable due to legal assault, or even survival in life threatened, by “agents” of the government authority, agency or ofﬁcial who is involved in criminal activity being reported. Point 7.
Friday, 10 May 2013, he read from a page ‘titled’ WHY NEED INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR ???, an issue NOT raised by the Petitioner, but a valid concern with Crimes by Government ofﬁcials. The text after the cite of YOUNG v. U.S. EX REL VUITTON ET FILS S.A., 481 U.S. 787 (1987) was: “Private attorneys appointed to prosecute a criminal contempt action represent the United States, not the party that is the beneficiary of the court order allegedly violated. As we said in Bloom, “In modern times, procedures in criminal contempt cases have come to mirror those used in ordinary criminal cases.” 391 U.S., at 207. The requirement of a disinterested prosecutor is consistent with that trend, since “[a]
scheme injecting personal interest, financial or otherwise, into the enforcement process may bring irrelevant or impermissible factors into the prosecutorial decision. Between the private life of the citizen and the public glare of criminal accusation stands the prosecutor. That state official has the power to employ the full machinery of the state in scrutinizing any given individual. Even if a defendant is ultimately acquitted, forced immersion in criminal investigation and adjudication is a wrenching disruption of everyday life. For this reason, we must have assurance that those who would wield this power will be guided solely by their sense of public responsibility for the attainment of justice. A prosecutor of a contempt action who represents the private beneficiary of the court order allegedly violated cannot provide such assurance, for such an attorney is required by the very standards of the profession to serve two masters. The appointment of counsel for Vuitton to conduct the contempt prosecution in these cases therefore was improper.” While Chief Judge Smith read this selection as part of his DENIAL of the Petitioner’s Motion, a fair alternate reading is that this case supports the Petitioner’s Motion to present directly to the Regular Grand Jury without “clearance”, “allowance”, or “permission” provided by the Commonwealth Attorney Ray Morrogh who is NOT a “disinterested
prosecutor”, first
because he is, as described in the Code of Virginia, a “governmental authority, agency, or official”, or indeed, arguably all three, who works with other government employees who are in the same status as a “governmental authority, agency, or official”, whose judgment is vulnerable to: [a] scheme injecting personal interest, financial or otherwise, into the enforcement process may bring irrelevant or impermissible factors into the prosecutorial decision. Also, in this case, with this Petitioner, there is not a “disinterested
prosecutor”,
2010, this prosecutor’s office staff pursued prosecution of the Petitioner after the Petitioner assisted a 76 year old man who was subject of false allegations of Assault by a female neighbor. The Petitioner’s intervention in that case was crucial in forcing this prosecutor to “drop” the charges against the 76 year old man, but the judge in the lower court, first filed Unauthorized Practice of Law charges against this Petitioner, but the lower court judge withdrew the UPL charges after
Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss that quoted applicable Virginia supreme Court Rules that permitted his actions helping the 76 year old man. Then the judge substituted the UPL charge with a Contempt of Court charge, that she, the accuser heard, judged and found Petitioner Guilty.
The Petitioner said nothing at the “trial”, but immediately upon leaving the lower court
room directed the Court Appointed Counsel to that day APPEAL to a TRIAL BY JURY. Leaving out the details of defense attorney negligence over the next many months, the final result was the Petitioner in this case, as the Defendant in that case, after filing a Civil Rights Violation Complaint in Federal Court for the assistant prosecutor’s Motion to deny the previously scheduled Trial by Jury, Petitioner, then Defendant, was found NOT GUILTY by Circuit Court Judge Maxfield on 29 November 2010, a legal “victory” over the assistant Commonwealth Attorney who works for prosecutor Morrogh. TWO letters from this Petitioner to Commonwealth Attorney Morrogh about FELONY crimes committed in Fairfax, one in December 2010 and one in December 2012, both were objects of neglect of professional prosecutor’s action of courtesy of a reply.
This same event of this Petitioner winning against a Judge’s charge in or about June 2010 of
Contempt of Court weeks or months after the Petitioner had left the judge’s courtroom, may cause an objective observer to question if Chief Judge Smith can be impartial or unbiased with regard to any Motion presented to the Court by this Petitioner, especially, if Chief Judge Smith may have heard through the grapevine that this Petitioner filed a previous Petition to present in person before the Grand Jury of Winchester, that may have been the cause for Judge Prosser to “retire early”.
Further, Chief Judge Smith may be aware that this Petitioner has been involved to some
extent in the 9 January 2011 arrest by Federal law enforcement authorities of a former Commonwealth Attorney, who after the Petitioner met with a key FBI Special Agent on 17 May 2011, the former Commonwealth Attorney took a Plea Deal on 27 June 2011. That same set of
facts may also known through the “grapevine” by the Fairfax Commonwealth Attorney Ray Morrogh, so to result in a plausible concern that the two ways a Citizen can seek a Special Grand Jury be impanelled, by the “court” by action of the presiding judge, or by request of the attorney for the Commonwealth, are both highly unlikely due to “group identity” or “circling the wagons” fear factor psychology. The only other two ways involve the Regular Grand Jury, where a minority vote, plus a Probable Cause determination by a judge MAY result in the impaneling of a Special Grand Jury, OR, if a MAJORITY of the Regular Grand Jurors vote in favor, then a Special Grand Jury SHALL be impanelled.
This is a “data-rich” case to present a plethora of reasons why a Citizen should be able to
elect to either talk with the Prosecutor, or talk with the Presiding Judge, to ask one or the other to act to impanel a Special Grand Jury, OR alternately, for the Citizen to elect NOT to talk with either Prosecutor or Presiding Judge, for Self-Security reasons, trusting to present and persuade his peers on the Regular Grand Jury of the Probable Cause to either Indict, or to Investigate. Point 8.
The Judge’s notes address yet another “problem”, is that the current practice in the
Courts is that no private citizen (such as the current Petitioner) may initiate a Criminal complaint, only a Civil complaint. Historically, such ban of Citizens ﬁling CRIMINAL complaints was NOT always the case, and has become the de facto practice, if not the de jure standard, since the advent of taxpayer paid public prosecutors, who are “governmental ofﬁcials”, who may have a bias, or “Conﬂict of Interest” in protecting other governmental ofﬁcials.
This possibility is seen in the 9 February 2012 Governmental Ofﬁcial Criminal Activity
in Culpeper County, where an on-duty policeman, Daniel Harmon–Wright, aka Daniel Wayne Sullivan, aka Dan Wayne, shot and killed a woman, Patricia A. Cook who was driving away from the policeman, an acceptable behavior if a sexual advance is perceived by the citizen.
The Virginia State Police initial report falsely stated the woman had closed her window
with the arm of the policeman inside, and dragged the policeman, before he shot and killed the woman. Family and eye witness proved that Virginia State Police statement to be false.
The Commonwealth Attorney Gary Close recused himself ﬁrst, and later resigned, more
due to the Michael Hash case of Prosecutorial Misconduct twelve years before, and criticism by Federal Senior Judge Turk of the role of prosecutor Close in that case.
Another Commonwealth Attorney, Jim Fisher, from Fauquier County, was named as a
Special Prosecutor, and requested a Special Grand Jury be impaneled, that was assisted by Special Agent investigators of the Virginia State Police. The Grand Jury under Virginia Law is equal to the Governor or the Attorney General in its power to task the Virginia State Police to assist the Grand Jury with its investigations. However, in the Cook estate v. Policeman HarmonWright case, the Virginia State Police recommended to the Grand Jury NOT TO INDICT, but the Grand Jurors rejected that “Police Protective” advice, and did INDICT Policeman Harmon-Wright. “Where criminal contempt, then std is beyond reasonable doubt transfer to law side substituting Comm. as party advise of criminal rights, including right to atty & trial by jury request commonwealth atty to prosecute if comm. atty declines, appt independent prosecutor would be more accurately written to describe this case circumstances, as: “Where criminal activity by a governmental official, then Probable Cause is determined by MAJORITY Vote of the Grand Jurors, with no added determination by a judge necessary. then Citizen’s Civil Complaint transfer to law side substituting Comm. as party, as Plaintiff, and substitute the name or names of Governmental officials as Defendants instead of the Commonwealth as Respondent party advise accused governmental officials of rights, including right to atty & trial by jury to avoid any hint of Conflict of Interest, appt independent prosecutor
The Grand Jury did indict the Policeman for Murder, a rare instance where a Policeman on
duty who shot a Citizen was held accountable for Murder. Months later, the Trial Jury convicted him of Voluntary Manslaughter. The Judge gave a 3 year sentence on 3 May 2013. Based on the Virginia State Police investigation alone with its recommendation to NOT to indict, over-ruled or rejected by the Grand Jury, even this frail nod to justice for the Cook family would not have come from the Courts of Virginia, without action by the Grand Jury. Lawyers at MichieHamlett in Charlottesville wrote a fitting Press Release praising the Special Grand Jury for the Cook family: May 30th, 2012, 2:01 pm Patricia Cook’s family releases statement: “We were pleased to learn of the Special Grand Jury’s actions last night, which we hope will lead to answers and justice. This indictment is an important early step in obtaining the answers we so desperately seek to help understand why Patty was taken from us. The efforts of the Special Grand Jury in investigating Ofﬁcer HarmonWright’s actions and, in the process, delivering additional related indictments against his mother, are a perfect example of the power of the citizens of Culpepper to deliver unbiased, reasoned and deliberative justice. We are forever grateful to those eleven citizens for putting their lives on hold to so doggedly pursue the truth. We also thank Special Prosecutor Jim Fisher, the Virginia State Police, and other law enforcement and investigative personnel, whose tireless efforts provided the Special Grand Jury the tools necessary to do its work. Finally, we want to make clear that we do not view the actions of Officer Harmon-Wright, or those alleged of his mother, as being reflective of police or law enforcement generally. The vast majority of those who serve our community do so honorably, and the actions of the few should not taint the dignity of the many. We are eager for the system to get to the bottom of Officer Harmon-Wright’s choices and actions on the morning of February 9th that resulted in our loss, and we look forward to obtaining answers and justice for Patty as the judicial system takes over.”
http://news.fredericksburg.com/newsdesk/2012/05/30/patricia-cooks-family-releases-statement/?repeat=w3tc
The second paragraph could be viewed as “strategic” wording in its thanks to “the
Virginia State Police, and other law enforcement and investigative personnel” because the lawyers at MichieHamlett full well knew that INDICTMENT by the Grand Jury is the ﬁrst step, effective PROSECUTION is a second step, and CONVICTION is the third step, the objective. Police MURDER, or “lawyered down” to Voluntary Manslaughter, gets only 3 years in prison.
Further, if any potential for Conﬂict of Interest is to be minimized, the
aspects of Virginia law where the Commonwealth Attorney provides “legal advice” to the Grand Jury upon its request, when a Citizen Witness indicates for his safety and for secrecy of the Grand Jury the general category of “Criminal Activity… by governmental authorities, agencies or ofﬁcials”, such legal advice by the Commonwealth Attorney should be supplanted by an Independent Counsel, possibly Pro Bono from the local Bar, or paid on the same Per Diem basis as the Grand Jurors, and separate from the eventually named Independent Prosecutor, to provide objective, independent, non-government-protective, non-self-interested, and not self-serving legal advice to the Grand Jury.
Granted all the Points speak to an ideal of Justice in the Fairfax Circuit Court,
and the Authorities, especially of United States supreme Court Opinions, as well as a precise and careful reading of the Code of Virginia, suggest that the ideal of Justice through action of Private Citizens in a Grand Jury is “the law of the land”.
James Renwick Manship, Sr. StatesManship@me.com 703-672-1776
Manship is former Navy Special Duty Cryptology; commanding ofﬁcer of best crypto reserve unit in nation in 1985; White House Fellowship nominee in 1985 & 1986, Special Security Ofﬁcer for around 700 Navy personnel from Baltimore, MD to San Juan, PR. Manship served on the staff of three Inspector Generals doing operational, security and administrative inspections. Manship has been invited to testify to a committee of Congress in 1990, and invited by then Lt. Governor Hager to testify before a Joint Task Force of the Virginia General Assembly in 2001. Manship seeks to revive a once “easy” way that he and other informed Citizens are invited to testify before a Regular Grand Jury.
Documents Similar To Memo Pts Auths Grand Jury Amend 4
United States v. John Furman Walker, United States of America v. Ellis Arnold Phillips, United States of America v. George Cecil Mixon, Jr., United States of America v. Billy Bashlor, 696 F.2d 277, 4th Cir. (1983)
In the Matter of Patricia Grumbles and Donald Bruce Grumbles, 453 F.2d 119, 3rd Cir. (1971)
Study Group Calls for MA Probation Overhaul
Jeremy Roberts File
JRM Letter to Arlington Sheriff Beth Arthur
Neal v. Delaware, 103 U.S. 370 (1881)
United States v. John Bailey, 34 U.S. 267 (1835)
Governor Nathan Deal letter
427 s w 2d 624 at 626
United States v. Arthur King, 879 F.2d 137, 4th Cir. (1989)
Champagne v. Marshal, 1st Cir. (2004)
Jackson V AEG Live July 16th 2013 Transcripts of Arthur Erk (Entertainment Industry Certified Public Accountant)
United States v. John Mingoia and Herbert Richman, 424 F.2d 710, 2d Cir. (1970)
Thomas C. Ramseur v. Howard C. Beyer, Superintendent, New Jersey State Prison, Robert Del Tufo, New Jersey Attorney General, 983 F.2d 1215, 3rd Cir. (1992)
In Re Grand Jury Matter. Garden Court Nursing Home, Inc. And Simon, Sidney D., and Cross Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Revenue, and Cross, 697 F.2d 511, 3rd Cir. (1983)
In Re Maria T. Cueto and Raisa Nemikin, Grand Jury Witnesses, 554 F.2d 14, 2d Cir. (1977)
United States v. Lawrence A. Hogan and Leonard J. Patricelli, 712 F.2d 757, 2d Cir. (1983)
United States v. Thomas Piccini, 412 F.2d 591, 2d Cir. (1969)
Folder 9/14
United States v. Robert Keith Neely, 966 F.2d 1445, 4th Cir. (1992)
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 567 F.2d 1183, 2d Cir. (1977)
United States v. Michael Vincent Catalano and Martin Goldman, 439 F.2d 1100, 2d Cir. (1971)
United States v. Paul L. Robinson, 956 F.2d 1163, 4th Cir. (1992)
United States v. Leifson, 568 F.3d 1215, 10th Cir. (2009)
More From James Renwick Manship, Sr.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES FOR REGULAR GRAND JURY ACCESS BY CITIZEN WITH KNOWLEDGE OF FELONY CRIMINAL ACTIVITY BY A “GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY, AGENCY, OR OFFICIAL”
YouTube/StatesManship "Press Release" of George Washington LIVE, text of statement.
Letter to Atty Gen. Eric Holder complaint of Vote Fraud in SC Democrat Primary
U.S. Constitution PLAN H - HOUSE Vote for President on Friday, 4 January 2013
A History of the American Bar - Google Book 609 pages
Bar = Mandatory Public Sector Union
JRM Reply to Sheriff Arthur Ashlie Bloody Assault Video Release Rev
Jury Rights From Anti-Gov Hdbk
Ltr to VA Atty Gen on Pet Writ Quo Warranto w/ Attachments index
Memo Pts Auths Grand Jury Amend 4 will be available on