We all know politics can be a dirty business, and it’s probable that politically motivated special interest factions will use any tool available to achieve their political ends — including this initiative. If, for example,they disliked a statewide official — the Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, etc., after passage of this initiative they could theoretically go from county, to county, to county fishing for a People’s Grand Jury which would indict based on false, trumped up charges. Public servants with statewide authority could be flooded with a combination of reasonable and/or nuisance lawsuits which could not only bog down the court system and prohibit smooth functioning of their office, but also degrade the very purpose of this initiative.
The solution … when a public servant has direct authority over more than one county, the charge of Betraying their Oath of Office must be evaluated by unbiased jurists represented by all counties affected.
County officials charged with Betraying their Oath of Office – such as sheriffs, police officers, tax assessors, county clerk, etc, have direct authority over a single county and would not need to utilize Multiple County Jurisdiction.
Yet, for example, assume my state representative, who services several counties, voted for and passed a what many believe might be an unconstitutional law — such as civil forfeiture — which resulted in my property being seized without cause, charges, a trial, or with my ability to face my accusers and defend myself. Assume I wanted to charge my representative with Betraying their Oath of Office forcing them to defend the constitutionality of their actions in court before a jury of the people. It’s only fair that a People’s Grand Jury composed of jurors from each county represented determine the probability of the charge.
Likewise, if the governor, for example, passed and promoted a what seemed to be a blatantly unconstitutional law which caused direct harm to a citizen of the state, charges that the governor Betrayed their Oath of Office should be heard by a People’s Grand Jury representing all 83 counties within the state of Michigan, not a single county which could be hostily biased against the governor for totally unrelated reasons.
Overview: Charges of Betraying Your Oath of Office brought against Public Servants with direct authority over multiple counties will be heard and decided, as probable or not, by a People’s Grand Jury composed of jurors from all counties involved. The makeup of this Multiple County People’s Grand Jury is based on the concept of the electoral college where each county involved has at least one vote with the larger counties receiving proportionally larger representation.
Multiple County People’s Grand Juries will be random, unbiased and a true cross section of the jurisdiction involved. When each county People’s Grand Jury is convened, the appropriate number of jurists will be assigned to represent the county in each of three Multiple County Jurisdictions consisting of the state house district, state senate district, and entire state.
Once selected, these Multiple County People’s Grand Juries will meet as often as the caseload dictates to evaluate the probability of the charge of Betraying Your Oath of Office against Public Servants. If the charge is found probable, then the Public Servant will be scheduled for a trial before a jury of the people in the county circuit court in which the Complainant resides.
Specific Details:
Section 3(e) MULTIPLE COUNTY JURISDICTION: Charges of Betraying Your Oath of Office against Public Servants representing multiple counties will be heard before a People’s Grand Jury composed of jurors from all counties affected. People’s Grand Juries must be convened in at least 25 percent of the counties comprising a multiple county jurisdiction to convene a Multiple County People’s Grand Jury.
The objective of the People’s Grand Jury is to fairly and honestly evaluate charges of abuse by Public Servants. If the Public Servant has authority over multiple counties, it’s important that representatives from all the counties affected be able to evaluate their behavior. Assume, for example, that a state wide officer was accused of Betraying their Oath of Office. Assume also that only a single county Peoples Grand Jury was convened within Michigan. It would not be reasonable or fair for this single county to charge, and perhaps try, this officer without deliberation and evaluation from individuals residing in other regions throughout the state. It’s possible this county had a personal vendetta against the officer, and wanted them removed regardless of their actions. Without having judgment and review by a true cross section of jurors throughout the state to counteract possible bias, justice would not be served. The requirement that at least 25% of the counties within a Multiple County Jurisdiction District participate in the Multiple County Peoples Grand Jury addresses this concern.
In the above example, at least 21 counties (83 * 25%) would need to have convened People’s Grand Juries, and participate in the statewide People’s Grand Jury to evaluate charges against a statewide officer.
Section 3(e) 1: The three multiple county jurisdictional districts include the state house of representatives, state senate, and the entire state. Cases pertaining to Public Servants representing more counties then within these three jurisdictional districts will default to the jurisdictional district of the entire state.
This initiative defines the three Multiple County Jurisdictional Districts commonly used within Michigan Government – state house, state senate, and entire state. If, for whatever reason, the charged officer has jurisdiction over counties exceeding one of these three districts — such as covering a federal house district, then jurisdiction would default to the statewide Multiple County People’s Grand Jury.
Section 3(e) 2: Immediately after convening the county People’s Grand Jury, the county Board will select jurors to participate in the three Multiple County Jurisdictions through a random blind draw without bias. If additional county People Grand Juries convene this representation may change;
The jurors to serve from each county People’s Grand Jury to serve on the various Multiple County Jurisdictional People’s Grand Jury will be chosen at random immediately after the county jury is convened. Since the selection of jurors by county is totally random, and the selection of these jurors for the Multiple County Jurisdictional jurors is also random, the makeup of the multiple-county juries will also represent a true, random, unbiased, cross section of the multi-jurisdictional district.
It’s possible that additional county People’s Grand Juries may convene or that some existing county People’s Grand Juries may disband. If this be the case the juror participation rate by county in the various Multiple County Jurisdictions must be adjusted to accommodate the change prior to initiating a session of an affected Multiple County People’s Grand Jury.
Section 3(e) 3: The number of jurors to serve from each county People’s Grand Jury on each multiple county jurisdiction People’s Grand Jury will be computed by dividing the population of the county by the total population all counties within the district which have convened a People’s Grand Jury, multiplying this percent by 26, then rounding up to the next whole number, which could exceed 26. Population totals will be drawn from the most recent U.S. Census;
This is an example of how a jurors would be selected for a Multiple County People’s Grand Jury pertaining to Michigan’s State House District 103 — which consists of 5 Counties (Kalkaska, Crawford, Missaukee, Roscommon, and Ogemaw):
1: Compute each county’s Population % (Column C) by dividing the population of each county (Column B) by the total population of all Counties within the District which have convened county People’s Grand Juries. For this example we’ll assume all counties have convened People’s Grand Juries.
2: Compute the number of Multiple County Grand Jurors to be selected by county (Column D) by multiplying the computed Population % (Column C) by 26. This result contains fractions of jurors, with the total selected equaling 26.
3) A juror must be a whole person. Therefore the “Fractional Jurors” computed in Column D must be rounded up to the next greater whole number (column E) which represents the total jurors to be selected by county.
Based on the 2010 census, the State House District 103 Multiple County People’s Grand Jury would contain 28 members as detailed below.
| (A) County |
(B) Population |
(C) Population % (County Population / District Population) |
(D) Fractional Jurors (26 jurors * Population%) |
(E) Jurors rounded up to highest whole number |
| Kalkaska | 17,196 | 18.8142102% | 4.891694657 | 5 |
| Crawford | 13,904 | 15.2124203% | 3.955229269 | 4 |
| Missaukee | 15,051 | 16.4673574% | 4.281512927 | 5 |
| Roscommon | 24,014 | 26.2738104% | 6.831190713 | 7 |
| Ogemaw | 21,234 | 23.2322017% | 6.040372433 | 7 |
| District 103 total | 91,399 | 100% | 26.00000000 | 28 |
Based on the 2010 census, the entire State District including all 83 counties would contain 94 members as detailed below.
| (A) County |
(B) Population |
(C) Population % (County Population / State Population) |
(D) Fractional Jurors (26 jurors * Population%) |
(E) Jurors rounded up to highest whole number |
| Alcona | 10,578 | 0.1068958 | 0.027792897 | 1 |
| Alger | 9,522 | 0.0962244 | 0.025018336 | 1 |
| Allegan | 112,531 | 1.1371797 | 0.29566671 | 1 |
| Alpena | 29,091 | 0.2939785 | 0.076434407 | 1 |
| Antrim | 23,370 | 0.236165 | 0.061402911 | 1 |
| Arenac | 15,487 | 0.1565036 | 0.040690924 | 1 |
| Baraga | 8,695 | 0.0878671 | 0.022845456 | 1 |
| Barry | 59,097 | 0.5972035 | 0.155272908 | 1 |
| Bay | 106,832 | 1.0795885 | 0.280693018 | 1 |
| Benzie | 17,428 | 0.1761183 | 0.045790755 | 1 |
| Berrien | 155,252 | 1.5688958 | 0.407912913 | 1 |
| Branch | 43,649 | 0.4410941 | 0.114684453 | 1 |
| Calhoun | 135,012 | 1.3643609 | 0.354733841 | 1 |
| Cass | 51,910 | 0.5245754 | 0.136389607 | 1 |
| Charlevoix | 26,129 | 0.2640461 | 0.068651976 | 1 |
| Cheboygan | 25,726 | 0.2599736 | 0.067593124 | 1 |
| Chippewa | 38,696 | 0.3910416 | 0.10167082 | 1 |
| Clare | 30,569 | 0.3089144 | 0.080317741 | 1 |
| Clinton | 76,739 | 0.7754844 | 0.201625931 | 1 |
| Crawford | 13,904 | 0.1405066 | 0.036531711 | 1 |
| Delta | 36,905 | 0.3729427 | 0.096965102 | 1 |
| Dickinson | 26,098 | 0.2637328 | 0.068570525 | 1 |
| Eaton | 108,348 | 1.0949084 | 0.284676193 | 1 |
| Emmet | 33,140 | 0.3348956 | 0.087072849 | 1 |
| Genesee | 415,376 | 4.1975734 | 1.091369092 | 2 |
| Gladwin | 25,493 | 0.257619 | 0.066980934 | 1 |
| Gogebic | 15,916 | 0.1608388 | 0.041818089 | 1 |
| Grand Traverse | 89,987 | 0.9093617 | 0.236434051 | 1 |
| Gratiot | 41,968 | 0.4241067 | 0.110267753 | 1 |
| Hillsdale | 46,101 | 0.4658727 | 0.121126898 | 1 |
| Houghton | 36,225 | 0.366071 | 0.095178454 | 1 |
| Huron | 32,224 | 0.325639 | 0.084666128 | 1 |
| Ingham | 282,234 | 2.8521098 | 0.741548535 | 1 |
| Ionia | 64,073 | 0.6474884 | 0.168346972 | 1 |
| Iosco | 25,429 | 0.2569722 | 0.066812778 | 1 |
| Iron | 11,516 | 0.1163747 | 0.030257421 | 1 |
| Isabella | 70,436 | 0.7117895 | 0.185065274 | 1 |
| Jackson | 160,369 | 1.6206056 | 0.421357445 | 1 |
| Kalamazoo | 256,725 | 2.5943291 | 0.674525563 | 1 |
| Kalkaska | 17,196 | 0.1737738 | 0.045181192 | 1 |
| Kent | 621,700 | 6.2825763 | 1.633469831 | 2 |
| Keweenaw | 2,191 | 0.0221411 | 0.005756687 | 1 |
| Lake | 11,386 | 0.115061 | 0.029915856 | 1 |
| Lapeer | 88,389 | 0.8932132 | 0.232235427 | 1 |
| Leelanau | 21,747 | 0.2197639 | 0.057138601 | 1 |
| Lenawee | 99,188 | 1.0023422 | 0.260608984 | 1 |
| Livingston | 184,443 | 1.8638849 | 0.484610063 | 1 |
| Luce | 6,502 | 0.0657058 | 0.017083514 | 1 |
| Mackinac | 11,061 | 0.1117767 | 0.029061943 | 1 |
| Macomb | 854,769 | 8.6378502 | 2.24584104 | 3 |
| Manistee | 24,450 | 0.247079 | 0.06424053 | 1 |
| Marquette | 67,700 | 0.6841409 | 0.177876641 | 1 |
| Mason | 28,605 | 0.2890672 | 0.075157479 | 1 |
| Mecosta | 43,108 | 0.435627 | 0.113263017 | 1 |
| Menominee | 23,791 | 0.2404195 | 0.062509057 | 1 |
| Midland | 83,919 | 0.8480417 | 0.220490839 | 1 |
| Missaukee | 15,051 | 0.1520976 | 0.039545367 | 1 |
| Monroe | 150,376 | 1.5196215 | 0.395101591 | 1 |
| Montcalm | 63,105 | 0.6377063 | 0.165803625 | 1 |
| Montmorency | 9,350 | 0.0944862 | 0.024566419 | 1 |
| Muskegon | 171,008 | 1.7281177 | 0.449310614 | 1 |
| Newaygo | 48,001 | 0.4850731 | 0.126119005 | 1 |
| Oakland | 1,231,640 | 12.4463121 | 3.23604115 | 4 |
| Oceana | 26,245 | 0.2652183 | 0.068956757 | 1 |
| Ogemaw | 21,234 | 0.2145797 | 0.055790733 | 1 |
| Ontonagon | 6,322 | 0.0638868 | 0.016610578 | 1 |
| Osceola | 23,259 | 0.2350433 | 0.061111267 | 1 |
| Oscoda | 8,379 | 0.0846738 | 0.02201519 | 1 |
| Otsego | 24,129 | 0.2438351 | 0.063397127 | 1 |
| Ottawa | 272,701 | 2.7557742 | 0.716501297 | 1 |
| PresqueIsle | 13,062 | 0.1319978 | 0.034319419 | 1 |
| Roscommon | 24,014 | 0.242673 | 0.063094973 | 1 |
| Saginaw | 196,542 | 1.986151 | 0.516399272 | 1 |
| St.Clair | 160,469 | 1.6216161 | 0.421620187 | 1 |
| St.Joseph | 60,964 | 0.6160704 | 0.160178309 | 1 |
| Sanilac | 41,823 | 0.4226414 | 0.109886776 | 1 |
| Schoolcraft | 8,247 | 0.0833399 | 0.02166837 | 1 |
| Shiawassee | 68,900 | 0.6962675 | 0.18102955 | 1 |
| Tuscola | 54,263 | 0.5483536 | 0.142571937 | 1 |
| Van Buren | 75,455 | 0.7625089 | 0.198252318 | 1 |
| Washtenaw | 354,240 | 3.5797649 | 0.930738866 | 1 |
| Wayne | 1,775,273 | 17.939984 | 4.664395831 | 5 |
| Wexford | 32,645 | 0.3298934 | 0.085772274 | 1 |
| Total State of Michigan | 9,895,622 | 100.00000 | 26.000000 | 94 |
Section 3(e) 4: When a state house district or state senate district overlap the same counties, a single multiple county Grand Jury may be convened from the affected counties to address complaints pertaining to both jurisdictional districts.
A few counties within Michigan have the exact same counties contained within the state house and senate districts. For example Michigan House District 74 includes Kent and Ottawa counties. Michigan Senate District 30 contains the same two counties – Kent and Ottawa. Since the House and Senate districts overlap the exact same counties, there is no reason for either of these two counties to allocate jurors to both a Michigan House and Michigan Senate multi-county People’s Grand Jury. A single multi-county Grand Jury could be used instead.
Section 3(e) 5: The Boards of the county People’s Grand Juries within the district will decide and determine the date, time, and location of the initial session of the district’s Multiple County People’s Grand Jury where the assigned jurors will organize and convene.
After randomly selecting the jurors which will populate the various Multiple County Grand Juries, the Boards of the counties included will coordinate between themselves when and where the initial session of the Multiple County Grand Jury will be held. At this initial meeting the selected jurors will elect a board which can then coordinate the future operation of this jury.
Section 3(e) 6: All the operational requirements pertaining to the county People’s Grand Jury apply to each Multiple County Jurisdiction People’s Grand Jury;