Special Message to Scott County, Iowa Grand Jurors

Special Message to Scott County, Iowa Grand Jurors

Dear Scott County, Iowa Grand Juror:

Now that you are a grand juror you may be wondering, "Now that I'm a grand juror, what are my responsibilities?"
"It is made the special duty of the grand jury to inquire into: the unlawful misconduct in office in the county of public officers and employees!" (Rule 2.3(4)j(3))*

As a grand juror, YOU are the peoples' greatest defense against UNLAWFUL MISCONDUCT in office. That means if someone from the public has a complaint against an elected or appointed person within government, for example, a politician or a police officer, YOU have the power to start your own investigation into the incident!

When the people need to call the police ON the police for bad or abusive behavior, YOU are the peoples' true authority in investigating; and if you find evidence and testimony credible, you have the power to file criminal indictments against these public employees abusing their power in office! (Rule 2.4)

Did you know you had this power? And what's more:"The grand jury shall meet upon the request of a majority of the grand
jurors!" (Rule 2.3(4)j)*

You don't need the permission of the county attorney or a judge to meet, in fact,"Neither the prosecuting attorney nor any other officer or person except the grand jury may be present when the grand jury is voting upon the finding of an indictment." (Rule 2.3(4)d)*

You meet in secret! "...and the grand jury may at all reasonable times ask the advice of the prosecuting attorney or the court."
(Rule 2.3(4)d)*

They work for YOU!

Are you ready to investigate corruption within your local government? The people need you!
You have been given a special opportunity to serve the people of your
community and protect against injustice in your community when called!

You are a Grand Juror.

For more information or questions, please contact the Chairman of Iowans For Accountability: Michael Elliott @ 563-570-5395 or go to:
scottcountyifa.blogspot.com/.* Iowa Rules of Criminal Procedure, Chapter 2, Rule 2.3 The Grand Jury.

Is pet licensing legal and Constitutional in IOWA?

The Story

On July 19, 2012, Defendant David Rericha's pet Yorkie, Mickie, escaped from Mr. Rericha's home at 818 W. 17^th St. and was subsequently struck by a car. Mickie was one and a half years old at the time of the accident. A neighbor saw the dog and called Animal Control because Mickie was not wearing an ID tag at the time of the accident. Mickie was taken to the Animal Emergency Center in Bettendorf, received treatment, and was then taken to the Humane Society animal shelter at 2802 W Central Park Ave. On July 21, 2012, Mr. and Mrs. Rericha received news that a Yorkie had been taken to the Humane Society and that he was in good health and went to collect him. Upon verifying the identity of Mickie, Mr. Rericha promptly paid the medical bill of $378.78 and a boarding fee of $30. At this point, an Animal Control Officer asked Mr. Rericha if Mickie was licensed with the City of Davenport. When Mr. Rericha answered in the negative, the Animal Control Officer issued Mr. Rericha a citation for violating § 6.04.020. At the time of the citation, Mickie met the requirement for obtaining a license, i.e he was vaccinated for rabies at 19 weeks on May 3^rd, 2011 and again on April 21, 2012 at Kimberly Crest Veterinary Hospital located at 1423 E. Kimberly Rd. This last vaccine is a three-year vaccine lasting until April 21, 2015.  

Larry Bell Update and Request by John

We visited Larry today in Jail by video   Larry said he had a hearing yesterday on the driving while barred.  Larry said he challenged jurisdiction.  Larry has a pretrial hearing on Jan 2.  I advised him to request a trial by Jury.  I also advised him to file criminal charges in the Federal Court in Davenport with the Dep of Justice.

   IOWA HWY Patrol is not cooperating with my request for the Videos  Audios and written reports of Larry's arrest on Nov 23.  Larry is taking my advise and giving me limited power of attorney so I can request the videos  audio and written records.    How about some heat from all of you out there to get TROOPER ANDREW PEDERSEN OFF THE STREET.

      

     Larry is filing criminal assault and battery against the Trooper with the Sheriff.  I sent Larry 4 copies of complaint form he requested to file against Iowa employees.  EVERYONE IN Iowa SHOULD REQUEST THESE FORMS FROM THE RISK MANAGEMENT DIV OF IOWA FOR YOUR OWN FUTURE USE.  You must do this first before you sue to exhaust your administrative remedy.  SAVES A 12B1 KICKBACK FROM FED COURT.  $350.00 savings 

HELP HELP HELP  I want everyone In Iowa that knows Larry travels by private conveyance  NOT DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE to get a Notarized Affidavit to that effect.  ALSO that he is a living breathing being (or such in your own words) and not the all caps fiction.  THIS IS CRITICAL FOR HIS DEFENSE TO BREAK THE PRESUMPTION. 

      Everyone that can Affirm by Notarized Affidavit that Larry always wears a seat belt when traveling should do so.  THIS IS NEEDED TO TAKE AWAY FROM TROOPER Andrew Pedersen's opinion Larry was driving without a seat-belt. 

I AM NOT COACHING ANYONE, JUST STATING WHAT I will do and recommend everyone else do it also in their own words.  PLAN ON COMING ON Jan 2 to testify you did in fact sign the Affidavit. 

     I BELIEVE OUR AFFIDAVITS WILL BREAK ANY PRESUMPTION THE COURT HAS ABOUT Larry being a Corporate Fiction, His Travelling by Private Conveyance rather than operating a motor vehicle. PROOF OF THAT IS THE FACT Larry BOUGHT THE CAR WITH $25.00 SILVER COINS. SEND AFFIDAVITS TO John E. Wiese C/O General Delivery Blue Grass Iowa  Zip Exempt per DMM (DOMESTIC MAILING MANUAL)

    Thanks for your support, John Wiese

World Peace is simple! Give everyone the freedom to worship their Creator,
as they see fit. Treat everyone as you would like to be treated.
Servant of the People, Steward of the Republic

John-Edward:Wiese

UPDATE on Larry Bell

  There were 12 of us that supported Larry Yesterday.  He was put in a room next to the jail.  We were crowded into a small room and watched on computer.  Hwy patrolman Andrew Pederson was the only one to testify except the Parole Officer.  Larry did a great job.  He pointed out the parole officer wasn't there and could only presume.  Larry maintained he was traveling by private conveyance every time Judge James Twedt.  IMPORTANT. Larry's stand by counsel came out afterward and told Suzzi, Larry's mother, to wave to the Judge.  Larry made a great point he is taking care of his elderly mother and she would have to go into a nursing home at state expense.  Larry stated he never hurt anyone etc.  

WE THAT HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF LARRY ALWAYS WEARING A SEAT BELT SHOULD POINT THAT FACT OUT.  LARRY IS A PEACE FULL MAN AND THAT IT WOULD BE A WASTE OF $32,000.00 FOR HIS INCARCERATION AND HAVING SUZZI PUT IN A NURSING HOME AT STATE EXPENSE. 

     Everyone missed Larry's best defense of the people's right to travel by private conveyance and not operating a motor vehicle.  Larry got the trooper to admit under perjury his citation was true complete and correct, then pointed to the wording on the citation and other persons reasonably believe.  Cheers for Larry.  Larry pointed out the Parole officer was not present at the beating and could only presume, but had no facts he personally could verify. 

     Larry got his pictures, pictures of his car and plates and his documents breaking the trust, his right to travel the car was paid for with $25.00 in silver coins etc   Larry even got to enter the Bill of Exceptions we filed when Larry didn't get a fair hearing in 2010.  Best part of all was Larry wasn't tricked at the end when the Parole officer made the pitch to put Larry back in prison   The judge asked Larry I take it as a yes that you were operating a motor vehicle while barred.  Larry stated emphaticly no I wa traveling by private conveyance   Thanks to all who attended,  Larry spoke with me tonight from jail and thanked everyone for their support.  

TOGETHER WE WIN, DIVIDED WE LOSE.  WE NEED EVERYONE TO E-MAIL ON A WEEKLY BASIS TO EVERY IOWA LEGISLATURE AND FED LEGISLATURES PICTURES OF THE BRUTAL BEATING OF LARRY UNTIL THEY GIVE UP AND WE GET JUSTICE.  

God Bless all of you. Thanks John Wiese  PS Larry's continuance is until Jan 13 2013.  Larry will be kept in the Scott Co Jail.  He would appreciate letters so lets show him we care.  The bummer of the day was Larry was forbidden to have the handcuffs off so he could handle this paperwork and Patrolman stated when he came up behind Larry he saw his plate "right to travel" and knew he was a Sovereign and a Terrorist.  Folks in my opinion Andrew Pedersen is a Domestic Terrorist and the evidence in with the pictures when Larry was beaten into unconsciousness  

KEEP THE PICTURES OF LARRY GOING AROUND THE COUNTRY.  WE WILL GET THEM TO LEAVE US ALONE AND RESPECT OUT RIGHTS.  

God Bless the united states of America.

 

World Peace is simple! Give everyone the freedom to worship their Creator,
as they see fit. Treat everyone as you would like to be treated.
Servant of the People, Steward of the Republic

John-Edward:Wiese

Supreme Court Appoints Committee to Review Expanded Media Coverage Rules

Des Moines, December 7, 2012— Today, the Iowa Supreme Court appointed a committee to review the Expanded Media Coverage (EMC) Rules that allow audio and video recording and photography of courtroom procedures. The EMC Rules were first approved by the supreme court in 1979 and have been slightly modified since that time.

 "As a district judge I enjoyed a good relationship with the members of the media covering high profile trials," Iowa Supreme Court Justice and Committee Chair Bruce Zager said. "Working with radio, television and print media was a collaborative effort that generally worked well. Today, judges and court staff are faced with requests from the media to use new technology in the courtroom such as laptops and smartphones for blogging and twitter. Those types of technologies and media are not specifically addressed in current rules which can cause some confusion in implementing the EMC Rules. The efforts of this committee will help both members of the media and members of the court navigate through media requests unheard of 10 years ago."

Prior to 1979, recording equipment and cameras were only allowed in the courtroom for ceremonial proceedings or educational purposes. The rules were changed because of the improvement in equipment and procedures used by the media and the desire of the supreme court for the judicial branch to be more open and accessible to the public. The EMC rules were first approved for a one year pilot period. The first trial covered under EMC Rules was a first degree murder trial in Black Hawk County, in 1980. The rules were made permanent after a successful pilot period.

"Most Iowans do not have the time to attend court proceedings, so they depend upon the media to keep them informed of the work of the courts," Justice Zager said. "For more than 30 years, the courts have worked with the media to allow audio and video coverage to the fullest extent possible without impinging the rights of litigants to a fair trial."

The Expanded Media Coverage Rules Committee members are:

Honorable Bruce Zager, Supreme Court Justice, Waterloo, Chair   

Honorable Robert Hanson, District Judge, Des Moines

Honorable Christine Dalton, District Associate Judge, Davenport    

Kent Wirth, District Court Administrator, Council Bluffs

Jennifer Miller, Marshall County Attorney, Marshalltown                   

Gregg Jones, Woodbury County Public Defender, Sioux City          

Elaine Fehseke Gray, Attorney, Fort Madison

O. Kay Henderson, Radio Iowa, Des Moines

Peggy Senzarino, Mason City Globe Gazette, Mason City

Amanda Lewis, KCCI-TV News, Des Moines                           

Zack Kucharski, Cedar Rapids Gazette, Cedar Rapids

Tim Hynds, Sioux City Journal, Sioux City

Nancy Raffensperger Newhoff, Waterloo Courier, Waterloo

Kathy Richardson, Iowa Freedom of Information Council, Des Moines

Steve Davis, Court Liaison, Des Moines

Do not fight the courts!

I have won as Pro Se... it is about fighting bad law and making your case clear enough they can understand what the hell you are talking about.

Many times I see Pro Se litigants who want to fight jurisdiction do it ALL wrong.   In the end as the confusion sets in, the Pro Se litigant ends up fighting with the courts rather than the accuser.  This is bad and prevents any real chance of winning their case.

You cannot be hostile towards the courts because someone filed against you.... its like getting mad at the referee on a game field because the other team showed up to play the game.... makes no sense!

The question of jurisdiction is on the accuser, not the courts.   The courts are merely a means in which to handle a dispute.   If the accuser filed in the wrong court, then say that... if it's the right court but the accuser's understanding of the law is perverted then say that.... if the accuser is misapplying the law, then say that!  If the Constitution prohibits the accuser(if it is a government agent of department) from violating a natural right, then say that!

When I teach people on how to fight a case, I start with explaining that pre-trial is the part of the trial where you challenge the law itself, rather than the facts of the case.  I have rarely challenged the facts of the case, because if the law is applied as is, I am guilty.  But my beef is with the law, not the facts.

In pre-trial, your first motion to dismiss, is the start of your file in supreme court.  You write your brief as if you are already at supreme court and are challenging the law.   The challenges are based on the contradiction and unconstitutionality of the use and application of the lower law you are being accused of violating.   You must establish natural law as supreme and the proper role of government to protect those rights, without that, the government become the enemy of rights rather than the protector and we spiral into anarchy as the government become the criminal we originally established government to protect us from.  A counter productive scenario for government.  Without the government protecting the natural rights of all, you cannot have law and order because there can be no legal claims to life, liberty or property when they are violated.

When you end up fighting the courts instead of the accuser, you destroy the impartiality of the courts in your case.   And yes, sometimes you have to ensure they are maintaining impartiality at all times and are merely applying court procedure equally to both sides without opinion or interest in the outcome of the case.   Should you feel you have evidence of prejudice on their part, you should rise and object by saying that because of the judge's current statement or actions, you no longer feel that you will be guaranteed a fair trial in this case.   Either the judge can recuse himself at this point or the trial be dismissed.  If not, you add this to your case as well, while moving forward.

But never get into an argument or battle with the judge.  It is a waste of time, and you should never allow the judge to argue either, since he is not the prosecutor and has a duty to remain as a moderator/referee.   If a judge starts to argue on behalf of the prosecutor, kindly ask him/her if they have an interest in the outcome of the case?  This should make them realize they are dangerously close to the edge of where they don't belong.

Anyways, I am currently helping as friend fight pet licensing laws in Davenport, and while obstacles were initially placed in his way, we have quickly knocked them all down and now we are finally actually arguing the law at hand and its violation of private property rights.

The courts are there as neutral grounds to handle disputes peacefully, rather than out in the street with guns.  Let's make sure our courts remain neutral while we fight against bad laws.

 



For Liberty,

 

Michael D. Elliott

"The  R3voﻠution  is Now"

563-570-5395

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." - John Quincy Adams

Letter to your local Grand Jury

WHAT IF YOU SENT YOUR LOCAL COUNTY GRAND JURORS THIS LETTER? Relevant only in the State of Iowa, similar laws may exist in other States.

Dear Grand Juror within my County,

Now that you are a grand juror..... 

Instead of now what, how about... guess what?

It is made the special duty of the grand jury to inquire into.... wait for it.....

The unlawful misconduct in office in the county of public officers and employees! (Rule 2.3(4)j(3))

As a grand Juror, YOU are the people's greatest defense against UNLAWFUL MISCONDUCT in office. That means, if someone from the public has a complaint against an elected or appointed person within government, let's say like a politician or a police officer, YOU have the power to start your own investigation into the incident!

When the people need to call the police ON the police for bad or abusive behavior, YOU are the people's true authority in investigating and if you find evidence and testimony credible enough, you have the power to file criminal indictments against these public employees abusing their power in office! (Rule 2.4)

Did you know you had this power?!?! And guess what else??

The grand jury shall meet upon the request of a majority of the grand jurors! (Rule 2.3(4)j)

You don't need the County Attorney or Judge to meet... in fact!....

Neither the prosecuting attorney nor any other officer or person except the grand jury may be present when the grand jury is voting upon the finding of an indictment. (Rule 2.3(4)d)

You meet in secret! ...and the grand jury may at all reasonable times ask the advice of the prosecuting attorney or the court. (Rule 2.3(4)d)

They work for you!

Are you ready to investigate corruption within your local government? I hope so, the people need you!

You have been given a special opportunity to serve the people of your community and protect against injustice in your community when called!

You are a Grand Juror!