by Anna Von Reitz
The Citizens Common Law Grand Jury created at the time the federal government was set up in the late 1700's could only be an American Common Law Grand Jury. The country was at peace--- as it had been for several years after the signing of the Definitive Treaty of Peace, Paris, 1783--- at the time the actual Constitution was adopted. There can be no assumption that the references made to the Citizens Common Law Grand Jury set up as the Fourth Branch of Government at that time was operating under any form of Martial Common Law.
No such circumstance of war or venue of martial law related to the civil government existed at the time.
Therefore, when we say "Citizens Common Law Grand Jury" and take reference to Scalia's recent ruling re-affirming its validity, there is only one kind of "Common Law" we can be talking about and that is American Common Law as it existed and grew up on this continent for the two centuries prior to the adoption of the Constitution and the creation of the Federal Government.
That being true, the next thing we have to look at is who is competent to serve on a Citizen's Grand Jury under American Common Law, and the first thing that jumps off the page is that the jurors have to be Americans and acting as Americans. They can't be United States Citizens.