Townhall Tuesday attempt 3

The Spaces centers on constitutional foundations of judicial power, due process of law, and the limits of municipal prosecution authority. Dave Jose, Jaron, and Noble Day examine how judicial authority derives from constitutional grants and must be exercised according to settled maxims. They emphasize that due process of law means the administration of justice by a settled course of judicial proceedings (common-law maxims), not administrative “hearings.” Noble raises Minneapolis’s practice of city attorneys prosecuting state matters; Jaron reframes the controversy around pre-political rights and the necessity of grand jury indictments before prosecution, urging reliance on the original Minnesota Constitution and maxims that amendments do not annul fundamentals. The discussion shifts to practical enforcement: using sworn affidavits to compel officials, create liability, and demand proof of constitutional authority, with Dave recounting Arizona’s post-2020 audit as a legislative redress of grievance achieved via affidavits and bypassing courts. They conclude with guidance on tone and precision—standing on rights, avoiding anger, and keeping arguments provable and simple.

Due process, constitutional grants, and municipal prosecutions: a structured recap

Who’s who in the conversation

• Dave (likely Dave Jose): Host/moderator for much of the space; drives the “maxims + rights-first” framework; shares the Arizona election-audit redress story; emphasizes affidavits and plain-language, provable claims.
• Jaron (also transcribed at times as Jared/Jerin): Primary legal analyst throughout; develops the “grant and form” theory, due process of law via settled maxims, and rights-centered litigation strategy; offers concrete affidavit tactics and grand jury arguments.
• Noble (referred to as Noble Day): Participant with an active case in Minnesota; raises questions about municipal authority to prosecute and the absence of a grand jury; seeks guidance on framing and enforcement.
• Moderator/Co-host (unidentified; possibly a co-host who managed the room when Dave disconnected): Facilitates handoffs, mentions connection issues, and closes the space.

Core theme 1: Constitutional power as a grant bound by its “form” and the maxims of law

• Jaron’s framing:

  • Constitutions operate as trust instruments: they grant/delegate powers, impose duties, prohibit certain actions, and reserve rights outside government.
  • Judicial authority exists where the constitution vests it (e.g., Oklahoma Constitution Article 7 for courts; U.S. Constitution Article III). Judges can only act according to the nature of that grant.
  • Legal maxims control how a grant can be used: authority must be used according to the nature of the grant and cannot be exercised contrary to it. The nature of judicial power is judicial—not administrative or legislative.
  • “Due process of law” is defined (citing Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th ed.) as the administration of justice according to settled maxims; those maxims are “baked into” proceedings. When government departs from the maxims, it signals a non-judicial act on its face.

• Dave’s reinforcement:

  • “Form” matters: if a form is prescribed, using a different form renders proceedings a nullity.
  • Anchor every challenge in due process of law (not simply “due process”); insist on maxims that “sanction the court” and reveal departures.
  • Practical question to expose defects: “What maxim are you using to sanction this court or prosecution?” If officials can’t answer, he argues they are out of bounds.

Core theme 2: Rights-first strategy and simplicity over “the rabbit hole”

• Jaron’s rights-led approach:

  • Start with the Bill of Rights (state and federal) and draw the controversy around an invasion of a right; avoid affirming adverse frameworks (e.g., conceding municipal “authority” and then fighting over its scope).
  • “Keep it simple”: articulate a bright-line claim, e.g., “I have a right to due process of law; you are prosecuting me without a grand jury indictment; where does the constitution authorize this?”
  • Avoid broad, hard-to-prove assertions; speak only what you can swear to and prove. Let the other side attempt to justify an exception in writing.

• Dave’s tactical minimization:

  • Use plain, foundational questions that make contrary answers look unreasonable or non-judicial.
  • He cautions against adopting administrative vocabulary and frameworks that dilute judicial standards (e.g., APA 1946-style “you got a hearing” vs. “trial by jury in a court of record”).

Core theme 3: Due process of law vs. administrative process; “court of record” fundamentals

• Dave’s checklist of judicial hallmarks:

  • Due process of law is rooted in settled maxims, not mere “notice and hearing.”
  • A real court of record, trial by jury, an independent judge (not a mere referee), and a tribunal capable of bringing the case—all distinct from administrative hearings or legislative tribunals.
  • Statutes often use the word “court” to mean non-judicial tribunals; the legislature can designate locations for inferior tribunals but cannot dictate how judicial power is exercised.

• Jaron’s “deference vs. discretion” point:

  • If a judge says he will “defer,” that implies discretion; discretion in contexts where none is afforded can indicate non-judicial conduct and a due-process-of-law violation.

Core theme 4: Municipal prosecutions and non-delegable authority in Minnesota

• Noble’s concern:

  • Asserts the Minnesota legislature lacks authority to grant a municipal corporation (e.g., City of Minneapolis) power to prosecute state cases; believes only the Attorney General’s office is constitutionally delegated that authority.
  • Raises two maxims: (1) authority delegated cannot be redelegated; (2) no action outside the scope of the grant.

• Jaron’s reframing around the right and the form:

  • The focal issue: Can a municipal corporation—created and subordinate to the Minnesota Constitution—alter due process of law by prosecuting without a grand jury indictment?
  • Emphasizes avoiding deeper doctrinal tunnels; instead, present a simple rights-based conflict and force the government to justify its departure in writing.

• The grand jury as the prescribed form:

  • Jaron cites historical doctrine and a 1906 grand jury essay by G.J. Edwards (noting it is rich with footnotes and used by courts) to argue that criminal prosecutions require grand jury indictments and that indictments anchor the authority to prosecute. Even subtle changes in wording can void a prosecution.
  • He invokes Justice Clarence Thomas’s description of liberty as “pre-political,” arguing legislative/statutory offices (e.g., city attorneys) cannot interfere with pre-political rights without following the common-law-prescribed form (grand jury indictment).
  • Suggests municipal entities that systematically violate rights can be subject to judicial dissolution.

• Minnesota constitutional text and the “original” constitution:

  • Noble asserts that Section 7 of the original, unamended 1858 Minnesota Constitution (Bill of Rights) states no warrant shall issue and no person shall be held to answer without a grand jury indictment. He prefers to rely on the original text “as ratified without subsequent amendments,” claiming later changes weakened rights.
  • Jaron’s caution: Use maxims to argue that amendments do not annul fundamental principles; avoid sweeping claims (“every amendment takes away rights”) unless you can document them. Stand on provable ground: cite the original text and the maxim preserving fundamentals.

Core theme 5: Affidavits and oath practice as the enforcement lever

• Core tactic (Jaron and Dave):

  • Reduce the controversy to an affidavit sworn under penalty of perjury that asserts: (a) the right to due process of law, (b) the requirement of a grand jury indictment for criminal prosecution, and (c) that the municipality is prosecuting without such an indictment.
  • Serve it by certified mail on all relevant actors—city “prosecutor” (if any), presiding judge, county court, state supreme court justice(s), legislative judiciary chairs (House and Senate), Attorney General, and Governor—to “dirty everyone’s hands” and distribute liability.
  • Demand a sworn, point-by-point rebuttal. If unrebutted, assert the facts stand as truth in law for purposes of the controversy. Refuse to proceed on unsworn assertions.

• Oath-related maxims:

  • “No one is to be believed in court but upon his oath” (used to challenge lawyers’ unsworn filings). If statutes purport to treat statements of attorneys as if under oath by presumption, question the legislature’s power to override the common-law requirement of an oath.

Core theme 6: Marbury v. Madison and “inferior tribunals”

• Jaron’s interpretation:
  • Congress’s power to “constitute inferior tribunals” (e.g., Article I, Section 8) identifies locations where Article III power may be exercised; it does not instruct the judiciary how to judge.
  • Rebuts the common teaching that Marbury established “judicial review,” arguing instead that the Supreme Court asserted inherent judicial authority independent of statutes prescribing its functions. Cases and controversies, not statutes, confer jurisdiction.

Core theme 7: Enforcement and redress of grievances (beyond courts)

• Dave’s Arizona case study:

  • After alleged irregularities (e.g., pens vs. markers, “box # 3” handling), he organized 127 affidavits to the legislature and local officials, bypassed traditional election contests, and sought legislative subpoenas and an audit despite no explicit audit provision in the Arizona Constitution.
  • Anchored the ask in constitutional text (Article 7, Section 7: the candidate with most legal votes is elected), arguing an audit was necessary to ascertain legality of votes.
  • Claims success in compelling a full audit of 2M+ ballots via legislative action, framing this as redress of grievances through the legislative branch. Emphasizes blocking courts when they would limit discovery and leveraging legislative powers and procedure (Mason’s Manual) to act.

• Separation of powers and practical politics:

  • Dave distinguishes executive roles (e.g., Secretary of State Katie Hobbs) from legislative authority and describes tactics to bypass the executive’s policy control by mobilizing the legislature.
  • He recounts attempts to assist high-profile litigants (Carrie Lake, Trump team) with standing strategies and affidavit practice, arguing that rights-based positioning is essential but often neglected by counsel.

Tone and conduct: provable claims, composure, and precision

• Advice to Noble (from Jaron and Dave):
  • Keep the argument at the lowest common denominator; avoid affirming adverse premises and avoid administrative vocabulary.
  • Maintain composure; do not let anger or sweeping rhetoric (“treason” or “every amendment removes rights”) undermine credibility or shift the burden of proof.
  • Always speak to what you can swear to; let maxims and original constitutional text do the heavy lifting.

Practical takeaways for Noble’s Minnesota matter

• Framing:

  • Lead with: “I am guaranteed due process of law (settled maxims). The City of Minneapolis is prosecuting me without a grand jury indictment. Where does the Minnesota Constitution authorize this?”
  • Use the 1858 Minnesota Constitution text (as originally ratified) to anchor the indictment requirement; pair with the maxim that amendments cannot annul fundamental principles.

• Action steps:

  • Draft an affidavit stating: (1) right to due process of law; (2) prescription that criminal prosecutions require a grand jury indictment; (3) facts showing prosecution without indictment; (4) demand for sworn justification and identification of the maxim or constitutional provision authorizing the deviation; (5) notice that continued action absent indictment is ultra vires and void ab initio.
  • Serve the affidavit (certified mail) on: the city attorney/prosecutor, presiding judge, county court administrator, Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice, House and Senate Judiciary chairs, Attorney General, and Governor.
  • In court, insist on sworn replies; object to proceeding on unsworn allegations; avoid case law/statutes unless to highlight their inferiority to rights/maxims or lack of constitutional authorization.
  • Ask in writing: “Where does the Minnesota Constitution grant municipal corporations authority to afford due process of law or to prosecute state criminal offenses?”
  • If appropriate, raise the remedy of judicial dissolution (or other relief) for entities committing rights violations, while staying focused on immediate relief: dismissal for lack of indictment and lack of judicial form.

Points of consensus

• Due process of law is not merely notice-and-hearing but adherence to settled maxims; courts of record, trial by jury, and judicial independence are core features.
• Authority must be exercised in the form and scope of the constitutional grant; deviations are nullities.
• Strategy should be rights-first, maxim-driven, sworn, and simple; complexity and administrative framing benefit the government.

Nuances and cautions raised

• Verify constitutional text with primary sources (e.g., 1858 Minnesota Constitution) and avoid reliance on secondary summaries that may omit language.
• Avoid broad claims that are hard to substantiate; lean on maxims that protect fundamentals from being amended away.
• Be precise with terms (e.g., “action,” “judicial,” “court of record”) and avoid adopting administrative labels that mask non-judicial proceedings.

References cited by speakers

• Black’s Law Dictionary (4th ed.) for “due process of law” definition.
• Legal maxims (variously referenced as “Weissman/Weisman’s work,” sections on grants and amendments; exact publication unspecified in the audio).
• G.J. Edwards (1906) essay on the grand jury (cited as rich in footnotes and historical authority).
• Marbury v. Madison (1803), with a focus on page 491 language (“where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them”) and the cases-and-controversies basis of jurisdiction.
• Justice Clarence Thomas’s writings describing liberty as “pre-political.”

Open questions and follow-ups

• Minnesota text: Precisely locate and authenticate the 1858 Section 7 language regarding indictments/warrants; preserve certified copies for the record.
• Scope of municipal authority: Identify any Minnesota constitutional provisions for municipal courts or charter authority and assess whether they can afford “due process of law” in the constitutional sense.
• Grand jury practice exceptions: Confirm Minnesota’s current constitutional and statutory posture on felonies and complaints; reconcile any discrepancies between historical text and modern practice.
• Affidavit logistics: Determine the correct offices and officials for service, and local rules on entering sworn affidavits into the record.

Closing

• Noble signaled he would refine conduct and framing, focusing on a calm, rights-based approach when engaging the prosecutor and tribunal. The room agreed on the value of staying on fundamentals, leading with sworn rights-based claims, and making the government either follow the prescribed form (grand jury indictment for criminal prosecutions) or expressly justify any departure in writing under oath.