by Barbara Sommer
Foreperson 2009-10 Yolo County Grand Jury
Yolo County is currently seeking members for the 2010-2011 Grand Jury. Nineteen citizens, selected by an interview and random draw, comprise this arm of the judicial system. It is a watchdog organization whose civil job is to investigate corruption, malfeasance, or simply inefficiency in the agencies and offices in its jurisdiction that receive public funds. Are local agencies doing their job? Are they following the rules? Problems are identified on the basis of complaints submitted from the public or from investigations initiated by the Grand Jury itself.
Applicants must be citizens, age 18-years or older, Yolo County residents for at least a year, have a sufficient knowledge of English, be of sound judgment and fair character, with no felony or malfeasance in office convictions. After being interviewed by a Superior Court Judge and the Jury Commissioner, the applicants’ names are entered into a random draw. Nineteen are selected for the Grand Jury, with the remaining applicants as official alternates. Jurors serve for a term of one year, with a possibility of carryover to the next year for five jurors at the courts’ discretion.
Unlike the usual jury for a Court case, the Grand Jury is a more active body. It does its own investigations, including scheduling, data analysis, interviews, oversight visits, and writing reports. The main product of its activity is a public report issued at the end of its term in June. It can investigate any person, agency, or office in local government (city, county, special districts). However, the Grand Jury can neither prosecute nor punish. There is no direct staff support. The work is done by the nineteen members, although they can call on the designated Grand Jury Judge, County Counsel, District Attorney, and the State Attorney General for advice. In addition, a statewide organization (California Grand Juror’s Association) comprised of current and former grand jury members, provides education, training, and general support (see website at http://cgja.org/).
In Yolo County, the jurors also serve as a criminal Grand Jury. The District Attorney may request the Grand Jury to return an indictment – a formal accusation leading to criminal trial. An indictment hearing is an alternative to a preliminary hearing in Superior Court. A key difference is that the Grand Jury hearing is secret. The DA may choose this alternative in order to protect witnesses or the accused, and to get a sense of the strength of a case from a community perspective.
Why serve? You may be able to bring to the jury a needed perspective based on your age or your particular background. Meetings are arranged to accommodate the schedules of people with work and family commitments. A strong Grand Jury is one that is truly representative of Yolo County’s diversity. You will learn much about local government, get an inside view of the criminal justice system, work with fellow jurors of different backgrounds, and learn about group processes and negotiation with colleagues holding different perspectives. The Grand Jury work requires a significant time requirement and can be tedious but a Grand Jury that is able to establish clear goals and procedures early on will be successful and personally gratifying.
For more information and an application, see http://www.yolocounty.org/Index.aspx?page=786
The application deadline is Thursday, April 15, 2010
Barbara Sommer, Foreperson
2009-2010 Yolo County Grand Jury
e-mail: grand-jury (at) sbcglobal (dot) net
voicemail: 530-406-5088
Grand Jury power to charge corrupt/criminal public officials is the solution to bringing honest government back to America
Allow me to share with you why anyGrand Jury has the power and jurisdiction to investigate and charge criminal and corrupt public officials even though some of them are prosecutors, judges and court commissioners. California State
First, the Grand Jury does have the power to bring charges before the accused in the form of a “presentment.” Please see the accompanying copy from the 4th edition of Black’s Law Dictionary where, on page 912 it states: “A presentment differs from an indictment in that it is an accusation made by a grand jury of their own motion, either upon their own observation , or upon evidence before them;…”
In the 6th edition of the Black’s law dictionary on page 1184, it states: ” Presentment. The written notice taken by a grand jury of any offense, from their own knowledge or observation, without any bill of indictment laid before them at the suit of the government. A presentment is an accusation, initiated by the grand jury itself [not by the district attorney], and in effect an instruction that an indictment be drawn.”
In the expanded legal dictionary/digest called “Words and Phrases”, on page 363, it defines the grand jury as: “The ‘grand jury’ is inquisitorial body of county, drawn and summoned from among its best citizens, and must investigate all violations of law under presiding judge’s direction and make presentments in accordance with such investigations.”
In the second column of this page it continues: ” ‘Grand Jury’ is not judicial but accusing body, permitted to act upon knowledge obtained by members from any source.” and “’Grand jury’ is informing and judicial tribunal, exercising functions which are original, complete, and susceptible of being exercised on its own motion [without D.A.’s initiation] and on such knowledge as it may derive from any proper source.”
A California District Court of Appeal, in the case of Samish v. Superior Court, 28 C.A.2d 685 (1938), on the bottom of page 688 and continuing into page 689, quoting from the U.S. Supreme Court and the California Penal Code, fully explains the powers, jurisdiction and duties of the grand jury. I shall quote of a few excerpts:
“But when grand jurors possess personal knowledge or are furnished with reliable information indicating that a crime has been committed by someone within borders of the county, it is the duty of the grand jury to fearlessly and fairly investigate the charges and indict the culpable party if the evidence warrants that finding [from U.S. Supreme court cases of Blair v. United States and United states v. Philadelphia].”, and
“In the Blair case, supra, discussing the rights of a grand jury to investigate crime, Mr. Justice Pitney said: ‘ It is a grand inquest, a body with powers of investigation and inquisition, the scope of whose inquiries is not to be limited narrowly by questions of propriety, or forecasts of possible result of the investigation’”, and
“In the case of United States v. Philadelphia, etc., supra, the court said; ‘ The power of the grand jury extends to the broadest kind of an inquisitorial proceeding, and it may, before a bill of indictment is framed, investigate at the instance of the court or the district attorney, or at its own instance, a suspected or an alleged crime, and determine whether it has been committed, and if so, who committed it. The grand jury has jurisdiction to proceed under its inquisitorial powers without any specific charge against a particular person or corporation being before it.” and
“The grand jury has authority and it becomes it’s duty to inquire into all public offenses “committed or triable in the county’ in which the jury is impaneled. (Sects. 915, 923, Pen. Code.) Section 915 [now Section 917] provides:
‘The grand jury may inquire into all public offenses committed or triable within the county, and present them to the court by indictment.” and
“Section 923 [now Section 919] provides in part: “The grand jury must inquire… into the willful or corrupt misconduct in office of public officers of every description within the county [even judges].” and
” Section 903 [now Section 911] of the Penal Code prescribes the form of oath to be administered to the grand jury which clearly contemplates an investigation of all public offenses ‘committed or triable in the county’.”
Judges, prosecutors and court commissioners are public officers. They are not above the law; no one is above the law. Unfortunately, prosecutors, county government lawyers and judges often misinform grand jurors and tell them that the grand jury “has no jurisdiction to investigate judges or courts”, but such a statement would simply be not true.
Page 4 of 5
Waldi, Yamada, Reisg, Partenti, Rosenberg, Yolo Grand Jury
January 26, 2010
Hon. David Rosenberg, we re submit to the grand jury for the third time public corruption allegations that include several judges, other official’s. We re submit all complaint(s) filed to the grand jury in 2005/06 and 2008/09, all GC 26741, accusations filed in 2005 and 2009, 2009, probation citizen complaints that were never responded too, CV06-581 (Yolo) and CV 325550 Calaveras qui tam case(s), case coordination hearing by Sacramento judge, Brian Van Camp. We need to testify to the grand jury this year.
Mr. Waldi, we anticipate a hard copy of the state assembly’s decision to not investigate and we lobby the state assembly to reconsider and “assume an obligation of the highest order to ensure the safety of children in foster care” and either conduct an investigation or join us in asking the FBI to activate their fourth investigative priority: public corruption.
FBI, Drew Parenti, we had a face-to-face with special agent, Hernandez, in 2006,
and ask that the FBI investigate these allegations that are connected to the forced heroine overdose of Calaveras building inspector whistle blower, Steve Weber, (2007), while a state witness in a public corruption trial. We have reported to the FBI that Wallace received three death threats while a candidate for the Calaveras board of supervisor’s. And like Steve Weber, everyday that Wallace draws a breath is anther day to advance these worthwhile causes. An ‘accidental death’ like Steve Weber, would be fatal to these allegations.
Yolo DA Jeff Reisig, we have called dozens of times and mailed certified allegations with direct admissible evidence for years. As a result we allege that the district attorney’s office has willfully failed to protect the public interest and perform their lawful duties. Similar to issues filed by Yolo DA investigator’s Randy Skaggs and another “Yolo County District Attorney Investigator Randy Skaggs is suing DA Jeff Reisig and Chief Investigator Pete Martin for revealing personal information after blowing the whistle on Reisig”.
On Martin Luther Kings birthday we had a meeting with CHP officer’s Scott Fryer and Mark Maniord, from the Risk Assessment Unit. We asked the state police to investigate the Yamada and Steve Weber complaints; and they refused. The state police stated they would hand a CD pdf documents to the governor’s staffers who would then refer them to the appropriate state agency’s. These officer’s through email and calls have not confirmed that this took place.
Page 5 of 5
Waldi, Yamada, Reisg, Partenti, Rosenberg, Yolo Grand Jury
January 26, 2010
Assembly member, Mariko Yamada, outlined in the Rules complaint we don’t know exactly what actions you may or may not have taken with regard to these criminal allegations. We have lobbied you as an assembly member and social worker to compel a transparent thorough investigation. We have no knowledge that you have done so. As an elected official with the Manzanar experience we are baffled as to your apparent inactions. We simple want that investigation. Your staffer stated that we must go to the Yolo district attorney’s office, which you would know has already concealed the criminal allegations. We want that investigation.
Jake Wallace
Federal Bureau of Investigation
J. Edgar Hoover Bldg
935 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20535
The Honorable Barbara Boxer
United States Senate
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-0505
Eric Holder
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Page 3 of 5
Waldi, Yamada, Reisg, Partenti, Rosenberg, Yolo Grand Jury
January 26, 2010
Please take a close look also at the case of Lorenson v. Superior Court, 35 C.2d 49 (1950), where the California Supreme Court ruled on page59 and 60 of the case that “A conspiracy with or among public officials not to perform their official duty to enforce criminal laws is an obstruction of justice an indictable offense at common law.” This means that if judges deliberately fail to report criminal violation by other, such as judges, as they are required by California Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3D, the silent judge just joined a conspiracy to obstruct and pervert justice.
(http://www.jurypower.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6&Itemid=)
In the expanded 31d legal dictionary/digest called “Words and Phrases”, on page 363, it defines the grand jury as: “The ‘grand jury’ is inquisitorial body of county, drawn and summoned from among its best citizens, and must investigate all violations of law under presiding judge’s direction and make presentments in accordance with such investigations.”
In the second column of this page it continues: ” ‘Grand Jury’ is not judicial but accusing body, permitted to act upon knowledge obtained by members from any source.” and “’Grand jury’ is informing and judicial tribunal, exercising functions which are original, complete, and susceptible of being exercised on its own motion [without D.A.’s initiation] and on such knowledge as it may derive from any proper source.”
A California District Court of Appeal, in the case of Samish v. Superior Court, 28 C.A.2d 685 (1938), on the bottom of page 688 and continuing into page 689, quoting from the U.S. Supreme Court and the California Penal Code, fully explains the powers, jurisdiction and duties of the grand jury.
WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE
SECTION 270-286
270: Except as provided in Section 69906.5 of the Government Code, there shall be in each county the offices of probation officer, assistant probation officer, and deputy probation officer. A probation officer shall be appointed in every county. Probation officers in any county shall be nominated by the juvenile justice commission or regional juvenile justice commission of such county in such manner as the judge of the juvenile court in that county shall direct, and shall then be appointed by such judge.
Jacob Tyler Wallace
1210 N. Cherokee Avenue #316
Hollywood, CA 90038
January 26, 2010
Jon Waldi
CAO Assembly and Senate
Assembly Rules Committee
State Capital, Room 3016
Sacramento, CA 95814
Mariko Yamada
State Assembly
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0008
Jeff Reisig
District Attorney
301 Second Street
Woodland, CA 95695
Drew S. Parenti
FBI Special Agent in Charge
4500 Orange Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95841
Hon. David Rosenberg
Presiding Judge
Superior Court of California
725 Court Street
Woodland, CA 95776
Yolo County Grand Jury 2009/2010
PO Box 2142
Woodland, CA 95776-2142
We filed a September 2009, Rules Committee complaint that was confirmed and then lost. The complaint was re filed with CAO Jon Waldi, and the issues were misunderstood or misrepresented and we were not allowed to sit down and discuss the issues in depth. (Waldi’s email attached).
The Yolo County foster care is not the issue. The issues are the due process and civil rights of state foster youth and the state’s criminal justice system and the state assembly’s responsibilities as cited below
Page 2 of 5
Waldi, Yamada, Reisg, Partenti, Rosenberg, Yolo Grand Jury
January 26, 2010
W&I Code:
16000.1. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(1)The state has a duty to care for and protect the children that the state places into foster care, and as a matter of public policy, the state assumes an obligation of the highest order to ensure the safety of children in foster care.
CAO Jon Waldi and the state assembly’s legal council have opted to send the complaint back to Yolo, which is the same as concealing the complaint as we allege Yolo & Calaveras official’s have failed to perform their official duties and have concealed these criminal allegations. We submit that Yamada as an assembly member has continued to conceal these criminal allegations outlined in public documents that cited direct admissible evidence. (CV06-581, CV 32550, GC 27641, & Grand Jury Statues). That Yamada would have never been elected to the state assembly if Yamada and colleagues had not thwarted a 2005, GC 27641, accusation on county council, now judge, Steve Basha, and county council/CAO Robyn Drivon Truitt, who held a private meeting with the Hon. Steve Basha and failed to have the district attorney or an outside agency investigate the accusations that were resubmitted last year and thwarted again. That the Hon. Donna M. Petre, presiding judge and Yamada, and colleagues knowingly hired Calaveras probation chief, Don L. Meyer, out from under a falsified felony foster abuse investigation in Calaveras. Yamada, colleagues, probation, county council, were notified that Chief Meyer had falsified the investigation on chief Meyer, weeks prior to Yolo’s appointment of Chief Meyer. That Yamada, colleagues, the Yolo state court, Yolo district attorney, along with their colleagues in Calaveras jointly hired, Angelo, Kilday and Kilduff, a Sacramento law firm with public funds and used their special powers to thwart two qui tam case(s) after all lawful resources exercised by a state licensed group home were thwarted.
That Yamada’s acts as a Yolo supervisor were also acts on behalf of the state and the state assembly, therefore, the technical fact that Yamada wasn’t an assembly member at the times of the alleged criminal acts is moot as Yamada as an assembly member continues to use the office’s special powers to nix an investigation. That the Hon. David Rosenberg, a former Yolo county supervisor, later used the grand jury as an arm of the court, identical to the Hon. Donna M. Petre, hand-hand with Yolo district attorney, Jeff Reisig, and assured the grand jury would not investigate. That grand jury complaint filed in 2005/06 and 2008/09 were thwarted by the Yolo state court, district attorney, county council and that Yamada knows this and has depended on these subversions.
Yolo Grand Jury Foreperson, Ms. Summer, when will the GJ acknowledge these criminal allegations complaints?