Ferguson Grand Jury Evidence May Not Be Released After The Indictment In The Michael Brown Case (Video)

Evidence presented to the Grand Jury in Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson's case may or may not be released after their decision is released. It's up to the judge to make the evidence available.

As you will see in the video below, the judge has reserved all rights to with hold evidence in the Michael brown case. However in the second video Forensic Pathologist Cyril Wecht discusses Michael Brown's autopsy report. He indicates the Officer Wilson used excessive force.

There was a leaked report by Fox28 news in Indiana that officer Darren Wilson has been indicted in the Ferguson, Missouri death of Michael Brown and then take the story down as shared in the third video below.

Could the Grand Jury be getting ready to indict Darren Wilson? 

Cyril Harrison Wecht best know for his consulting in numerous high-profile cases and for his criticism of the Warren Commission's findings concerning the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He has been the president of both the American Academy of Forensic Science and the American College of Legal Medicine, and currently heads the board of trustees of the American Board of Legal Medicine. He served as County Commissioner and Allegheny County Coroner & Medical Examiner serving metro Pittsburgh.

For the moment, we’re all still waiting for a grand jury decision on whether Ferguson, Missouri police officer Darren Wilson will face a trial in the killing of 18-year-old Mike Brown. It would seem, though, that one local Fox affiliate either has insider info the rest of the planet doesn’t or, more likely, that somebody there accidentally hit “publish” instead of “save” on of those news items you just don’t want to be making a mistake with.

If Wilson is not charged, there will, undoubtedly, be a backlash. Many people consider an indictment as a step for justice -- not only in this individual case -- but in the larger effort of balancing the racial inequities in our justice system.

Conversely, a failure to indict Wilson will be seen as an indictment of the system. But that point of view is not only wrong, it is dangerous.

I fear that pinning significant civil rights issues to the facts of this case may serve only to foster more mistrust in the system. It will create a greater racial divide, and it will create another generation of disenfranchised young black men and women who are less willing to become police officers or legislators or attorneys or judges at the very time that we need their leadership most.

If the grand jury decides not to indict, they will do so because they concluded Officer Darren Wilson's shooting to be justified based upon his and Michael Brown's actions. While it is considered callous and insensitive to review the actions of a deceased person, it does none of us any good to ignore facts, should they exist. By doing so, we lose the lessons that may be learned from a dispassionate analysis of what actually happened that day, not what we as individuals, or we as communities, want to believe happened.

The decision to indict or not can be a catalyst for us to move further apart, or it can be seen as an opportunity to critically analyze how these tragedies are occurring and how to stop them in the future. That choice, no matter how it may go against the grain of our emotions, is a voluntary one, but we must decide on the latter.

I will be following this Ferguson Grand Jury decision as it unfolds. From what we know so far the decision could go either way. 

Quo Warranto Filed On Every Federal Judge & All 9 US Supreme Court Justices, Big Trouble, PDF (Video)

By Liberty Balance

We the people have the ability to take charge of our government through the use of Quo warranto , this was given to us by our founding fathers for the purpose of removing a power holding office who we deem harmful to our country.

The Line in the Sand – Breaking News November 10, 2014 Unified Common Law Grand Jury in every State files writ_quo_warranto.pdf in every Federal District Court, United States Supreme Court and served upon every Federal Judge and all 9 US Supreme Court Justices. Information in the nature of a quo warranto. A proceeding against the usurper of a franchise or office. Jarman v. Mason, 102 Okl. 278, 229 P. 459, 460.; An extraordinary proceeding, prerogative in nature, addressed to preventing a continued exercise of authority unlawfully asserted. Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., N.Y., 53 S.Ct. 721, 289 U.S. 479, 77 L.Ed. 1331.

The video below walks you through the process step by step. It addresses the threat to the constitution, foreign armies on American soil and many more crimes committed against the American people.

Often times we hear people say, “I wish I knew what I could do to take our country back. This is it, this is the process to follow to take America back. Please spread this information far and wide, it’s time we take America back!

Its A legal proceeding during which an individual’s right to hold an office or governmental privilege is challenged.

Quo warranto  (Medieval Latin for “by what warrant?“) is a prerogative writ requiring the person to whom it is directed to show what authority they have for exercising some right or power (or “franchise”) they claim to hold.

Writ Quo Warranto

The prerogative writ of quo warranto has been suppressed at the federal level in the United States, and deprecated at the state level, but remains a right under the Ninth Amendment, which was understood and presumed by the Founders, and which affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents. Here are a few writings on the subject.

Revival of the writs must be combined with reviving standing for private prosecution of public rights, subverted by the “cases and controversies” doctrine and the decision in Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923), which is discussed in an article by Steve Winter, The Metaphor of Standing and the Problem of Self-Governance.

Although some of these writings are copyrighted, we are assured that all the chapters of all the ones still copyrighted have been attached to pleadings in various cases, and thus made part of the public record, thereby putting them into the public domain.

A writ of quo warranto is not a petition, but a notice of demand, issued by a demandant, to a respondant claiming some delegated power, and filed with a court of competent jurisdiction, to hold a hearing within 3 to 20 days, depending on the distance of the respondant to the court, to present proof of his authority to execute his claimed powers. If the court finds the proof insufficient, or if the court fails to hold the hearing, the respondant must cease to exercise the power. If the power is to hold an office, he must vacate the office.

The writ is unlike a petition or motion to show cause, because the burden of proof is on the respondant, not on the demandant.

By itself, the writ does not seek the support of the court to order the respondant to cease the exercise or vacate the office. That would be an accompanying writ of prohibito or a writ of mandamus. All such writs contemplate enforcement by the people as militia, although that could include the sheriff or constable as commander of militia. The right involved is that of the respondant to present his evidence.

These writs are called prerogative writs because they are supposed to be docketed ahead of all other cases except other prerogative writs. The demandant represents the sovereign, the people, and anyone may appear in that capacity, even without a personal stake in the decision.

A writ of habeas corpus may be regarded as a subset of quo warranto, for cases where the claimed power is to hold a prisoner, but with the addition of a requirement to produce the prisoner in court, not just appear to present evidence of authority.

The prerogative writ of quo warranto has been suppressed at the federal level in the United States, and deprecated at the state level, but remains a right under the Ninth Amendment, which was understood and presumed by the Founders, and which affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents.

Currently the former procedure has been replaced by an information in the nature of a quo warranto, an extraordinary remedy by which a prosecuting attorney, who represents the public at large, challenges someone whohas usurped a public office or someone who, through abuse or neglect, has forfeited an office to which she was entitled. In spite of the fact that the remedy of quo warranto is pursued by a prosecuting attorney in a majorityof jurisdictions, it is ordinarily regarded as a civil rather than criminal action. Quo warranto is often the only proper legal remedy; however, the legislature can enact legislation or provide other forms of relief.

Statutes describing quo warranto usually indicate where it is appropriate. Ordinarily it is proper to try the issue of whether a public office or authority is being abused. For example, it might be used to challenge the Unauthorized Practice of a profession, such as law or medicine. In such situations, the challenge is an assertion that the defendant is not qualified to hold the position she claims—a medical doctor, for example.

In some quo warranto proceedings, the issue is whether the defendant is entitled to hold the office he claims, or to exercise the authority he presumes to have from the government. In addition, proceedings have challengedthe right to the position of county commissioner, treasurer, school board member, district attorney, judge, or tax commissioner. In certain jurisdictions, quo warranto is a proper proceeding to challenge individuals who areacting as officers or directors of business corporations.

A prosecuting attorney ordinarily commences quo warranto proceedings; however, a statute may authorize a private person to do so without the consent of the prosecutor. Unless otherwise provided by statute, a courtpermits the filing of an information in the nature of quo warranto after an exercise of sound discretion, since quo warranto is an extraordinary exercise of power and is not to be invoked lightly. 

Quo warranto is not a rightavailable merely because the appropriate legal documents are filed. Valid reason must be indicated to justify governmental interference with the individual holding the challenged office, privilege, or license.

Quo warranto is a Master Stroke against the CABAL… Many more are to come…… It’s a Great beginning even though late.. better late then NEVER!