Clicky

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.

Sincerely

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!‘

SHARE

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *