NoBill.......

I want to agree with you, in part...

But you're just too much of an ignorant fuck! And parts of thine quote post reveal that unequivocally. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Assup, you are too stupid and predjudiced to agree with me. Tell your mom hello !

I will rio. Unlike you, I have a family and we will be celebrating Thanksgiving today.

Enjoy the 7.99 Thanksgiving special at Luby's.

Enjoy the 7.99 Thanksgiving special at Luby's. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Is Luby's open today?

I would think so...

[QUOTE=Yssup Rider;1056077541]I will rio. Unlike you, I have a family and we will be celebrating Thanksgiving today.

Enjoy the 7.99 Thanksgiving special at Luby's.[/QUOTE


Oh the pain, the hurt, the despair. I just found out I have no family.......

Apparently not.

Apparently not. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Assup tell your mom to drop those depends and assume the position. We are gonna make you brother.We hope this one likes girls though.

This is beginning to become quite clear.. Uneducated. Crude. Frustrated. Unable to express himself.

Rioseco is another pimply faced kid living in his Mama's basement.

This is beginning to become quite clear.. Uneducated. Crude. Frustrated. Unable to express himself.

Rioseco is another pimply faced kid living in his Mama's basement. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Look now son, dont slander your Paw like that.

Case made.

Case made. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

by the turd under a rug !

Please explain that expression, rio. You use it often. Some of us may be unfamiliar with the figures of speech that litter your enormously informative and never opinionated musings.

Back on topic, did anyone read Justice Scalia's rules for grand juries? The Ferguson GJ was completely out of order. Wilson was allowed to testify without cross examination, along with other violations. If I were in Ferguson, I wouldn't be violent, but I'd be pissed. The peaceful protesters have a point. Officer Wilson would likely be acquitted at trial, but there should be a trial.

The Ferguson GJ was completely out of order. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. John H. WILLIAMS, Jr., 504 U.S. 36 (112 S.Ct. 1735, 118 L.Ed.2d 352) (1992).

Scalia for the majority:

,,,,,…..the traditional American practice was described by Justice Nelson, riding circuit in 1852, as follows: "No case has been cited, nor have we been able to find any, furnishing an authority for looking into and revising the judgment of the grand jury upon the evidence, for the purpose of determining whether or not the finding was founded upon sufficient proof, or whether there was a deficiency in respect to any part of the complaint. . . ." United States v. Reed, 27 Fed.Cas. 727, 738 (No. 16,134) (CCNDNY 1852).

Here's Scalia's "rule for grand juries" ... as opined for the majority:

"Given the grand jury's operational separateness from its constituting court, it should come as no surprise that we have been reluctant to invoke the judicial supervisory power as a basis for prescribing modes of grand jury procedure. Over the years, we have received many requests to exercise supervision over the grand jury's evidence-taking process, but we have refused them all, including some more appealing than the one presented today. In Calandra v. United States, supra, a grand jury witness faced questions that were allegedly based upon physical evidence the Government had obtained through a violation of the Fourth Amendment; we rejected the proposal that the exclusionary rule be extended to grand jury proceedings, because of "the potential injury to the historic role and functions of the grand jury." 414 U.S., at 349, 94 S.Ct., at 620. In Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 76 S.Ct. 406, 100 L.Ed. 397 (1956), we declined to enforce the hearsay rule in grand jury proceedings, since that "would run counter to the whole history of the grand jury institution, in which laymen conduct their inquiries unfettered by technical rules." Id., at 364, 76 S.Ct., at 409."

The majority voted in Williams to reverse the quashing of an indictment by the United States District Court (affirmed by the Court of Appeals) [aka a FEDERAL INDICTMENT] on the basis that the prosecution "failed to produce" exculpatory evidence to the Grand Jury and rejected the Defendant's claim that it was a violation of the 5th amendment (and due process) for the prosecution to "select" the evidence presented to the Grand Jury.

I have searched for "Scalia's Rules for the Grand Jury" expressed in the last couple of days and his pronouncement that the "Ferguson Grand Jury" was wrong. I have been unable to find such a statement by Scalia made since the "Ferguson Grand Jury" .... No Billed Wilson.

Could you please provide a link to such a statement by Scalia in November 2014?

Here are a couple of "Rules" for the Missouri State Grand Juries:

MO Rev Stat § 540.031 (2012)

Duties of grand jury.
540.031. A grand jury may make inquiry into and return indictments for all grades of crimes and shall make inquiry into all possible violations of the criminal laws as the court may direct. The grand jury may examine public buildings and report on their conditions.
(L. 1989 S.B. 127, et al., A.L. 2005 S.B. 289)
MO Rev Stat § 540.140 (2012)

Rights and privileges of prosecuting or circuit attorney.
540.140. The prosecuting or circuit attorney shall be allowed at all times to appear before the grand jury on his request, for the purpose of giving information relative to any matter cognizable by them, and shall be permitted to interrogate witnesses before them, when they or he shall deem it necessary. No prosecuting or circuit attorney or any other officer or person, except the grand jurors, shall be permitted to be present during the expression of their opinions or the giving of* their votes on any matter before them.
(RSMo 1939 3913, A.L. 1989 S.B. 127, et al.)
Prior revisions: 1929 3524; 1919 3869; 1909 5077

Since I believe in the separation of State and Federal governments .. Scalia's got no business sticking his nose in State Judicial Proceedings .. unless there is a Federal question involved AND a "case" before the SCOTUS to decide ... and then it would be HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE for Scalia to make public comments about a pending case or a case that might be before the Court in the future. In fact, I don't think he would, and I don't think he did.

My personal experience with grand juries (in Texas, although it appears quite similar to Missouri) is invitations are sometimes extended for potential defendants to testify and if someone is foolish enough to do so and it's accepted, then the grand jurors are free to ask questions of the witnesses. If they do or don't, it is within their discretion....and there is no "constitutional" requirement to do so or not to do so.