• Georgia Citizens Continue to Assert Their Rights and Press Governing Officials for Action

    January 23, 2023
    No Comments

    Georgia Officials Need to Be Reminded Who Grants Them Power

    Please Follow us on Gab, MindsTelegramRumbleGab TVGETTR, Truth Social, Twitter

    In recent months, Georgia residents have become increasingly aware that government officials often do what they wish, sometimes without regard to the wishes and interests of their constituents.

    Take for example the following letter from Hon. Paul Nally (ret.) to the District Attorney in Savannah Georgia, which details several concerns including reports of the DA’s conduct before that jurisdiction’s Grand Jury and for failing to timely advise the Grand Jury of a Petition submitted several months ago by Mr. Nally and Mr. G. Howard.

    Georgia citizens are now helping their government officials remember the true source of their power: The People of Georgia.

    January 20, 2023

    Ms. Shalena Cook Jones

    District Attorney

    133 Montgomery St # 600

    Savannah, GA 31401

    Dear Ms. Jones,

    By way of introduction, I am 77 years old and retired from Lockheed and the Ga. Department of

    Transportation. Previously, I served my neighbors of this State in military service, as a Justice of

    the Peace (before the 1983 Constitution merged that court), and in law enforcement as a county

    deputy and Chief of Police for the City of White, Georgia. I am also a law school dropout.

    It has been an objective in my life to be a friend to all who I meet, and if not a friend, at least a

    good acquaintance. However, I shall be to all others what they chose to make me,

    An allegation of a most unfortunate situation has come to my attention.

    It has been alleged to me that, at a recent meeting of the Chatham Grand Jury, you presented

    yourself before the Grand Jury and engaged in, what may only be described as, an angry tirade

    upon the Jurors, in which you were incensed at the fact that the Grand Jury Foreman’s cell phone

    number was provided to a Petitioner. You are further alleged to have threatened the Grand

    Jurors with criminal prosecution for that act.

    As you should be aware, given the present state of a lack of proper written Rules of Practice and

    Procedure, there are limited opportunities for citizens to inform their Grand Juries of any

    knowledge or discovery they may have. Further, the Grand Jury is a public body to which all

    citizens have a protectable Right to approach, by whatever legal means available, to present their

    discovery for their sworn neighbors’ consideration. Additionally, you and the Grand Jurors

    should be aware that all communications with Grand Jurors are privileged and confidential

    matters by law and excludes even DAs and Judges. You, on the other hand, have a sworn duty to

    protect that Right of Choice and Right of Access, as it is your PARAMOUNT sworn duty to do!

    You have no authority in Law to act as a Gatekeeper of those Jurors. The Grand Jury is NOT

    your tool or that of any other DA or judge, to be used or abused for your political ends; it is the

    Article I Court of Inquiry, established in the First Article of our Constitution; a Court separate

    and distinct from the Article VI Courts and the Article V Executive Branches of our government.

    It is the People’s Court, as are all their Rights enumerated in that Article, to manage their

    Government and protect their Rights and those of their neighbors.

    Since I was not present to personally witness that alleged incident, I cannot say factually it

    happened; however, I do not doubt for a moment, the veracity of my source. Therefore, I adjure

    you to consider immediately appearing before that body and offer your apology, and as one of

    the Grand Jury’s legal advisors, fully inform them of the full scope of their duties and obligations

    consistent with their Official Oath.

    A failure to comply with this request shall result in a Petition to the General Assembly for

    Articles of Impeachment, a criminal complaint to the Chatham Grand Jury, a federal criminal

    complaint, and/or a State Bar Complaint. Alternatively, you may respond, in writing or via

    email, to the effect that such an incident did not take place. Please see; O.C.G.A. § 24-14-23

    (concerning “communications”, your filed public oaths constitute correspondence).

    Also, as you should be aware, there is pending a Petition from myself and Mr. J. Gregory

    Howard to the Chatham Grand Jury from which we have heard nothing lo these past months.

    We understand that Petition languishes in your Office. Please see that the Jurors are informed of

    that Petition also and that they are fully informed of their first duty to determine their jurisdiction

    in that matter. If they find jurisdiction to exist, as the previous Grand Jury did in Ms.. Majeroni’s

    Case, they must inform us of a date and time certain to entertain our appearance and presentation

    of evidence so that they will not violate their Official Oath of Office. Alternatively, they may

    find jurisdiction lacking, but in either case, they must inform us in a prompt and timely manner.

    Thank you for your consideration. I understand that your law schools were grossly negligent in

    teaching the full scope, authority, and independence of Grand Juries; if you have any questions,

    particularly as to state or federal laws, or case law precedents as to Grand Juries in Georgia, or

    your obligations per, inter alia, Ga. Const., Art. I, §I, par. II, or Amend. XIV, §I (second

    sentence), please do not hesitate to contact me.


    Paul L. Nally

    P.S. Since some unenlightened minds might consider Prosecutorial Vindictiveness toward the

    Jurors or this letter, please permit some edification as to limits placed upon 1st Amend. Speech.

    Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 359 (2003), "True threats" encompass those statements where

    the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of

    unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals. [emphasis added]

    Harrell v. State, 778 S.E.2d 196, 200 (2015), A "true threat" may be conditional, need not be

    explicit, and the threatened violence need not be imminent. United States v. Turner, 720 F.3d

    411, 424 (2d Cir. 2013). "A true threat `convey[s] a gravity of purpose and likelihood of

    execution so as to constitute speech beyond the pale of protected vehement, caustic ...

    unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.'

    ‘NO AD’ subscription for CDM!  Sign up here and support real investigative journalism and help save the republic!‘



    William Quinn

    Bill spent 25+ years managing businesses in the Information and Technology sector. His career includes positions with Philips Electronics, CompuCom, AT&T and IBM. Since 2019 he has been investigating and researching business, health and political issues in order to make truthful information available to the American people.

    The latest


    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments

    Follow Us

  • magnifier