At this point it may be a good time to explain the functions of independent (voluntary) grand juries, as those groups of volunteers differ from independent (voluntary) trial juries.

A grand jury is meant to be a point at which an individual is given (voluntarily) access to due process of law, and everyone is afforded this access to the same due process of law that works blindly, without prejudice, without bias, fairly, equitably, expediently, efficiently, the highest quality due process, and the lowest cost due process so far invented by mankind.

An individual named John Doe is unable himself to remedy a situation whereby a criminal gang has tortured, raped, and murdered a whole family. The family happens to be the family of Joe Doe; he was at work when the gang perpetrated the crime; massively.

John Doe is incapable of remedying the situation on his own, he needs help. Who does he contact? Does he call 911? What happens, as in the case of the Waco Massacre, when the distressed individual calls 911 and the perpetrators answer the phone?

In actual law John Doe goes to the volunteers who constitute the pool from which a Grand Jury is assembled. John Doe can go to any one of the people in that voluntary pool of magistrates who are also knowable as justices, or justices of the peace.

Data:

"The state is divided into counties. In every county are appointed magistrates, called justices of the peace, usually from eight to thirty or forty in number, in proportion to the size of the county, of the most discreet and honest inhabitants. They are nominated by their fellows, but commissioned by the governor, and act without reward. These magistrates have jurisdiction both criminal and civil. If the question before them be a question of law only, they decide on it themselves: but if it be of fact, or of fact and law combined, it must be referred to a jury. In the latter case, of a combination of law and fact, it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right, which is casual only, is less dangerous to the state, and less afflicting to the loser, than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system. In truth, it is better to toss up cross and pile in a cause, than to refer it to a judge whose mind is warped by any motive whatever, in that particular case. But the common sense of twelve honest men gives still a better chance of just decision, than the hazard of cross and pile. These judges execute their process by the sheriff or coroner of the county, or by constables of their own appointment. If any free person commit an offence against the commonwealth, if it be below the degree of felony, he is bound by a justice to appear before their court, to answer it on indictment or information. If it amount to felony, he is committed to jail, a court of these justices is called; if they on examination think him guilty, they send him to the jail of the general court, before which court he is to be tried first by a grand jury of 24, of whom 13 must concur in opinion: if they find him guilty, he is then tried by a jury of 12 men of the county where the offence was committed, and by their verdict, which must be unanimous, he is acquitted or condemned without appeal."
Notes on the State of Virginia
by Thomas Jefferson

More to the point:

U.S. Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1788
1 U.S. 236 (Dall.)
Respublica
v.
Shaffer
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
February Sessions, 1788
M'Kean, Chief Justice:
"Were the proposed examination of witnesses, on the part of the Defendant, to be allowed, the long established rules of law and justice would be at an end. It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue. If then, you undertake to enquire, not only upon what foundation the charge is made, but, likewise, upon what foundation it is denied, you will, in effect, usurp the jurisdiction of the Petty Jury, you will supercede the legal authority of the court, in judging of the competency and admissibility of witnesses, and, having thus undertaken to try the question, that question may be determined by a bare majority, or by a much greater number of your body, than the twelve peers prescribed by the law of the land. This point has, I believe, excited some doubts upon former occasions but those doubts have never arisen in the mind of any lawyer, and they may easily be removed by a proper consideration of the subject. For, the bills, or presentments, found by a grand Jury, amount to nothing more than an official accusation, in order to put the party accused upon his trial: 'till the bill is returned, there is, therefore, no charge from which he can be required to exculpate himself; and we know that many persons, against whom bills were returned, have been afterwards acquitted by a verdict of their country. Here then, is the just line of discrimination: It is the duty of the Grand Jury to enquire into the nature and probable grounds of the charge; but it is the exclusive province of the Petty Jury, to hear and determine, with the assistance, and under the direction of the court, upon points of law, whether the Defendant is, or is not guilty, on the whole evidence, for, as well as against, him. You will therefore, readily perceive, that if you examine the witnesses on both sides, you do not confine your consideration to the probable grounds of charge, but engage completely in the trial of the cause; and your return must, consequently, be tantamount to a verdict of acquital, or condemnation. But this would involve us in another difficulty; for, by the law it is declared that no man shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offence: and, yet, it is certain that the enquiry, now proposed by the Grand Jury, would necessarily introduce the oppression of a double trial. Nor is it merely upon maxims of law, but, I think, likewise, upon principles of humanity, that this innovation should be opposed."

People in need of protection well beyond their power to exert are afforded equal access (equal footing) to the law power. Their first step may be to a nearby Constable or Sheriff. If said employee is reluctant, not powerful him or herself, those (the injured party and the Sheriff) go to a peace officer, a justice, a magistrate, a justice of the peace, and that justice is duty bound to then decide the matter, and assemble a Grand Jury.

Is that untrue? Is that a fanciful Utopian dream concocted by a conspiracy theorist?

There is much more data to this truth. Those who refuse to see it will get their wish; perhaps.