The RIGHT of the Citizens to seek assistance from the National Guard in this matter

To: Lt. Col. Brossart

Fr: The Citizens of the state of Minnesota

Dear Lt. Col. Brossart,

Per phone conversation with Nancy Lazaryan on March 25, 2008, you indicated that you wanted PROOF that the Citizens of the state of Minnesota have the authority to seek the assistance of the Minnesota National Guard in the matter of the Citizens being denied access to the grand jury. And, that you were uncertain as to the authority of the National Guard to “go and get” our grand jury.

First and foremost, “Government is instituted for the security, benefit and protection of the people, in whom all political power is inherent, together with the right to alter, modify or reform government whenever required by the public good.” Constitution of the state of Minnesota. The power to alter, modify and reform government is contained within the PEOPLE. And when those in government are acting to destroy the security and protection of the People, then it is upon Us, the People to act and to call upon those that are in service to Us.

Members of the National Guard have sworn an oath to protect the People and to uphold our constitutions. We are calling the members of the National Guard to fulfill their oaths of office.

OUTLINE of History and some Remedies available to the People:

The Citizens of the state of Minnesota have repeatedly attempted to bring evidence of the corruption of certain judges before their grand juries. Chief judges in various counties refused to allow the Citizens to bring this evidence to the grand juries. The courts repeatedly refused to givethe names of the grand jury members to the people, so that the Citizens could bring evidence

directly to the grand jury members.

In late fall of 2007, a murder indictment was brought down by a Ramsey county grand jury. That indictment was signed by the grand jury foreperson. State Representative Dan Severson and a Minnesota state Citizen then delivered a criminal complaint concerning one case of judicial corruption (of over 40) to the grand jury foreperson. The foreperson gave the complaint to Chuck Balck of the Ramsey county attorney’s office, who then gave the complaint to Chief Judge Greg Johnson. Chief Judge Greg Johnson “buried” the complaint.

Representative Severson then sent the complaint to the Minnesota Attorney General, and the Governor and demanded that a state grand jury be convened to hear the evidence. Representative Severson has been stonewalled.

The Citizens (and numerous Minnesota Legislators) are preparing a RICO and 42 USC § 1983 complaint, which will be filed in federal court this spring. Pursuant to the federal statutes and opinions of the courts, the Citizens will acquire the status of “private attorney generals” by virtue of filing this complaint.

The complaint will seek immediate injunctive relief in the form of an order to convene a state grand jury to hear the evidence of the Citizens against the corrupt judges. It will be necessary that the grand jury be empanelled “open venue” as the standard process to empanel a grand jury is through the district courts, courts which are being investigated for corruption.

In the past, the county sheriff has been directed to “go out and get” a grand (or regular) jury when there have been “problems” with the normal process in acquiring a jury. Named in the federalcomplaint will also be members of the Ramsey county sheriff’s department.

Due to this conflict with the Ramsey county sheriff’s department, we will be seeking from the federal court, specific instruction and order to the Minnesota National Guard to “go out and get” our grand jury. And to assist in the arrest of anyone indicted by the grand jury.

JURISIDICTIONAL BASIS for OUR REMEDIES:

The Minnesota constitution declared our COMMON LAW RIGHT to a grand jury. Purportedly, the People in the state of Minnesota amended our Minnesota constitution in 1905 and removed the grand jury as a right secured by our constitution. This amendment never actually occurred, as the bill that purportedly removed the grand jury from the Minnesota constitution (and was then voted on by the People) says NOTHING about the grand jury being removed from our state constitution.

The Minnesota Secretary of State has erroneously published our Minnesota state constitution absent the declaration of the People of the secured right to a grand jury.  Immediately following this purported “amendment” to our state constitution, the Minnesota legislature codified our COMMON LAW right to the grand jury within our statutes.

Accordingly, the grand jury remains as a secured right of the People, within our common law (codified within the statutes) AND our true state constitution.  The authority of the common law was declared in the Northwest Ordinance:

NORTHWEST ORDINANCE

Art. 2. The inhabitants of the said territory shall always be entitled to the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, and of the trial by jury; of a proportionate representation of the people in the legislature; and of judicial proceedings according to the course of the common law.

The grand jury itself, “rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history,” United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 47 (1992) (quoting Hannah v.Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result)). is “an ancient institution of the common law,” United States v. Gill, 55 F.2d 399, 400 (D.N.M. 1931) (citing 4 Blackstone’s Commentaries: With Notes

Of Reference, To The Constitution And Laws, Of The Federal Government Of The United States; And Of The Commonwealth Of Virginia (Rothman Reprints 1969) (1803); Charge to Grand Jury, 2 Sawy. 667 (1872), reprinted in 30 Fed. Cas. 992 (1897)).

The right of access to a grand jury and its power is contained within the common law, set forth in the Northwest Ordinance, then the Minnesota constitution and now the Minnesota Statutes.

The Minnesota statutes direct our grand jury WILL investigate matters of the corruption of public officials. See the law as follows:

M.S. Sec. 628.61

The grand jury shall inquire:

(1) into the condition of every person imprisoned on a criminal charge triable in the county, and not indicted;

(2) into the condition and management of the public prisons in the county; and

(3) into the willful and corrupt misconduct in office of all public officers in the county. Federal injunctive relief that is afforded and secured by and for the CITIZENS…

…includes (but is not limited to) availing the federal courts for injunctive relief when the rights of the Citizens have be violated by state actors.

See as follows:

Civil Rights Act (42 USC § 1983), giving right of action against person who, under color of state law, custom, or usage, subjects another to deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by Federal Constitution, has several purposes: (1) it overrides certain kinds of state laws; (2) it provides remedy where state law is inadequate; and (3) it provides federal remedy where state remedy, though adequate in theory, is not available in practice.

Monroe v Pape (1961) 365 US 167, 5 L Ed 2d 492, 81 S Ct 473 (ovrld on other grounds by Monell v Department of Social Servs. (1978) 436 US 658, 56 L Ed 2d 611, 98 S Ct 2018, 17 BNA FEP Cas 873, 16 CCH EPD ¶ 8345) and (ovrld on other grounds by Ingraham v Wright (1977) 430 US 651, 51 L Ed 2d 711, 97 S Ct 1401) as stated in Suess Builders Co. v Beaverton (1982) 294 Or 254, 656 P2d 306 and (ovrld on other grounds by Parratt v Taylor (1981) 451 US 527, 68 L Ed 2d 420, 101 S Ct 1908) as stated in Elliott v University of Tenn. (1985, CA6 Tenn) 766 F2d 982, 38 BNA FEP Cas 522, 37 CCH EPD ¶ 35419, affd in part and revd in part on other grounds, remanded (1986) 478 US 788, 92 L Ed 2d 635, 106 S Ct 3220, 41 BNA

FEP Cas 177, 40 CCH EPD 36205 and (ovrld on other grounds by Fair Assessment in Real Estate Asso. v McNary (1981) 454 US 100, 70 L Ed 2d 271, 102 S Ct 177) as stated in Winicki v Mallard (1986, CA11 Fla) 783 F2d 1567, cert den (1986) 479 US 815, 93 L Ed 2d 27, 107 S Ct 70.; McNeese v Board of Education (1963) 373 US 668, 10 L Ed 2d 622, 83 S Ct 1433 (ovrld on other grounds by Fair Assessment in Real Estate Asso. v McNary (1981) 454 US 100, 70 L Ed 2d 271, 102 S Ct 177) as stated in Winicki v Mallard (1986, CA11 Fla) 783 F2d 1567, cert den (1986) 479 US 815, 93 L Ed 2d 27, 107 S Ct 70.

Purpose of federal civil rights statute (42 USC § 1983) authorizing action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceedings for redress of deprivation, under color of state law, of rights secured by Federal Constitution and federal laws, is to interpose federal courts between states and people, as guardians of people's federal rights, and thus to protect people from

unconstitutional action under color of state law, whether that action be executive, legislative, or judicial; in carrying out this purpose, Congress, by expressly authorizing suit in equity as one of means of redress, has plainly authorized federal courts to issue injunctions in § 1983 actions. Mitchum v Foster (1972) 407 US 225, 32 L Ed 2d 705, 92 S Ct 2151.

The state remedy of the Citizens accessing the grand jury is adequate in theory, but not available in practice.

In theory, and in Minnesota Supreme court case law, the Citizens have the remedy to directly bring evidence before the grand juries. The Minnesota Judicial branch is asserting control over the grand juries. Citizens seeking to bring evidence of the corruption of the judges before the grand jury are being denied their state remedy…a remedy available now only in theory and not in practice.

The right of the Citizens to access the grand jury can be enforced through common law, see

as follows:

“There is generally a reluctance "to infer a private cause of action from a statute in the absence of some indication from the Legislature supporting such an inference[,]" Loffredo v. Center for Addictive Behaviors, 426 Mass. 541, 544 (1998), especially where the statute expressly provides particular remedies for its violation, Id. at 547.

However where, as here, a statutory right is given to a certain class of individuals, and not the public at large, and the statute provides no remedy for enforcement of that right, “the right may be asserted by any appropriate common law remedy that is available[,]" so that the statutory right will not prove illusory. Gabriel v. Borowy, 324 Mass. 231, 234

(1949). See Ludlow Educ. Assn. v. Ludlow, 31 Mass. App. Ct. 110, 120 (1991).

The statutory right to access the grand jury is given to a class of people who have grievances against corrupt political officials. M.S. Sec. 628.61 provides no remedy for enforcement of this right of access to the grand jury. Accordingly, the right of aggrieved Citizens to access the grand jury may be asserted by any appropriate common law remedy that is available.

Assistant U.S. attorney and former associate Independent Counsel Miquel Rodriguez was once asked if the members of a grand jury would be able to protect the public from corrupt officials, he replied, “they’re all you’ve got.”

The right of access to the grand jury is a common law right, secured by the United States constitution, and upheld by the U.S. Supreme court. Even the Minnesota Supreme Court decided a LONG time ago, that the Citizens have the right to go directly to the grand jury. It has been held by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Wild v. Otis that:

“[4] The comment to Rule 2.02, Rules of Criminal Procedure, states that Rule 2.02 leaves to other laws the question of the available remedy when a local prosecutor refuses to approve a complaint" One obvious available remedy is for the aggrieved citizen to try to appear before the grand jury and persuade it to indict. While a citizen does not have a right to appear before the grand jury, he is free to attempt to get the grand jury to take action, and under Rule 18.04, Rules of Criminal Procedure, the grand jury can permit an aggrieved citizen to appear as a witness for this purpose.”

Members of the National Guard have sworn an oath to uphold both our state and federal constitutions. The state and federal constitutions are compacts. A compact is a type of contract. The contract is between the People; it is amongst ourselves that we jointly agree how we live together in society. We, the People, are the PRINCIPALS in the contract. The government, and those that work for us in government, are our AGENTS. The PRINCIPALS tell the agents what to do.

An officer's or public employee's duty of loyalty to the public and to his superiors is similar to that of an agent of a private principal. He is bound to impart material information which he has received in the course of his employment and is derelict in his duty when he knowingly allows others to profit by his silence, Coos County v. Elrod, 125 Or 409, 267 P 530. He is further bound to act impartially in matters pertaining to the

administration of his duties, Jaffarian v. Murphy, 280 Mas 402, 183 NE 110, 85 ALR 293.

DUTY of the NATIONAL GUARD

Members of the National Guard have sworn an oath to defend us against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Whenever a judge acts and deprives any person of any of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, that judge had declared war against the Constitution. The courts have declared this, as set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78

S.Ct. 1401 (1958) (“No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.").

Judges have no right to usurp jurisdiction when it is not given to them. Should a judge usurp jurisdiction, it would be treason to the Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld this. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821).

Members of the Minnesota Judicial Branch have declared WAR against our constitution.

The chief judges in Minnesota that have blocked the Citizens access to the grand juries have done so ABSENT jurisdiction. The Minnesota Court of Appeals and the Minnesota Supreme court, fully appraised of the district court chief judges malfeasances, have refused to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the chief judges to give the Citizens access to present their evidence before the grand juries. The Citizens’ right to access the grand jury has already been affirmed by the Minnesota Supreme court. Current members of the Minnesota Court of Appeals and Minnesota Supreme court are denying this right.

The Governor and the Minnesota Attorney General have violated their oaths of office by failing to defend our constitution and statutes, by their refusal to convene a state grand jury to hear our

evidence of corruption within the Judicial Branch.

Denying our access to the grand jury violates the constitution.

“By application to the circuit judge, whose duty is to insure access to the grand jury, any person may go to the grand jury to present a complaint to it. W. Va. Const. art. 3, § 17." Syl. pt. 1, State ex rel. Miller v. Smith, 168 W. Va. 745, 285 S.E.2d 500 (1981).

The West Virginia constitution Article III Sec. 17: “The courts of this State shall be open, and every person, for an injury done to him, in his

person, property or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law; and justice shall be administered without sale denial or delay.”

The Minnesota constitution Article I section 8:

“REDRESS OF INJURIES OR WRONGS. Every person is entitled to a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive to his person, property or character, and to obtain justice freely and without purchase, completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, conformable to the laws.”

It is the duty of the members of the National Guard to restore lawful order in this state.

Lawful order means resorting and defending the rights secured by our constitution. If there were riots in the streets, the National Guard would be bound by duty to restore the law and order. This situation is no different. The constitution of the People of the state of Minnesota is under

attack, and thereby the People are under attack.

We have the right to access our grand juries and bring evidence of the corruption within the Minnesota Judicial Branch. Access to the grand juries is necessary to restore law and order. The National Guard must stand with the People to restore our law and order.

Rightfully, members of the National Guard should perform their duty to protect the People, without the necessity of a federal court order directing them to do so. If necessary, we will seek a writ of mandamus from the federal court, directed to the National Guard to perform their duties

they have sworn an oath to perform.

That we, the People of the state of Minnesota need to beg the National Guard for a meeting to discuss the Guard protecting us and our rights secured by our constitutions, is deplorable.

cc: Members of the Media, concerned Citizens and Legislators