Legal Offense The Legal Sword:

"THE GRAND JURY originated in England as the accusing body in the administration of criminal justice. At the Assize of Clarendon, in 1166, Henry II provided that twelve knights or twelve "good and lawful men" of every hundred and four lawful men of every vill disclose under oath the names of those in the community believed guilty of criminal offenses. Members of this inquisitorial body were obliged to present to the judge sworn accusations against all suspected offenders. Unlike petit juries, grand juries were not to pass upon guilt or innocence but were to decide only whether an individual should be brought to trial. At first all accusations originated with the members of the inquest themselves, but gradually the juries came to consider accusations made by outsiders as well. The jurors then heard only witnesses against the accused and, if they were convinced that there were grounds for trial, indicted him. They also passed upon indictments laid before them by crown prosecutors, returning a "true bill" if they found the accusation true or "no bill" if they found it false. However, the juries never lost their power to accuse on their own knowledge. This they did by making a presentment to the court. The presentment represented an accusation on the jury's own initiative while an indictment represented a charge that originated outside the membership. Under their power of presentment English grand juries could and did investigate any mater that appeared to them to involve a violation of the law."
The People's Panel
The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 - 1941
Richard D. Younger

Put that in place, please. Where is it placed?

Remember this:
“It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.”
Lysander Spooner, Trial by Jury, 1852

Now to:
Reviving Federal Grand Jury Presentments, Renée B. Lettow, 1994
Yale Law Journal
Volume 103
Issue 5, Article 4

“In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, English grand juries criticized justices of the peace who accepted excessive fees, constables who were lax in enforcing the law, and other officials who failed to maintain bridges, jails, highways, and other county property. Often these accusations did not include charges of criminal wrongdoing, but many of these breaches of the public trust would be criminal today. WEBB, supra note 10, at 448-56; see also 10 HOLDSWORTH, supra note 8, at 146-51 (1938). This function of watching over public officials was ancient even then. In the thirteenth century, the justices in eyre (on circuit) carried with them a list of questions, called the Articles of the Eyre, to ask local grand juries. "[A] large group of articles relates to the official misdoings of royal officers, sheriffs, coroners and bailiffs." POLLOCK & MAITLAND, supra note 8, at 520-21."

NOTE:
“This function of watching over public officials was ancient even then.”

"The same pattern of grand jury independence crossed the Atlantic to the colonies. Indeed, since the colonies lacked an efficient constabulary, colonial grand juries exercised greater independence than their English counterparts.

“American grand juries had a penchant for presenting government officials. These presentments could be for crimes or noncriminal violations of the public trust. The latter type of accusation would now, and sometimes then, be called a report.

“Colonies that lacked a representative legislature often turned to grand juries as a substitute; grand juries regulated areas higher officials did not address.

“As tensions between the colonies and the mother country grew, grand juries played an increasingly prominent role. They not only refused to indict, but also issued angry and well-publicized presentments and indictments against British officials and soldiers. Because of its boldness and independence in both defending and accusing, the grand jury emerged from the Revolution with enhanced prestige."

Note: “...both defending and accusing...”

“The first regular American grand jury, that of the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1635, took its mission seriously. After listening to the Ten Commandments and hearing Governor John Winthrop's charge to present all crimes and misdemeanors that came before them, the jurors proceeded to present more than a hundred offenders, including several colonial magistrates. Other colonial grand juries followed their example. Plymouth grand juries were especially eager to present officials. YOUNGER, supra note 10, at 6-7.”

NOTE:
“Plymouth grand juries were especially eager to present officials.”

"Although historians typically portray early federal grand juries as mere tools of the central government, an examination of actual charges and presentments reveals a different picture. After the Constitution's ratification, grand jurors continued to take initiative in making presentments.
Given that the Federalists wanted to assuage Anti-Federalist fears of a powerful central government, it is not surprising that ratification documents emphasized the grand jury's shield rather than its sword. Early post ratification charges to and writings about the federal grand jury, however, reveal an equal if not greater concern for the sword. Without fail, judges and justices reminded grand jurors of their oaths to make diligent inquiries and true presentments." Indeed, judges mentioned presentments more often than indictments. In his charge to the first grand jury impaneled for the Circuit Court for the district of Delaware, Justice Wilson urged grand jurors: "[Y]ou will be sedulous that criminals be discovered and punished, and you will be equally sedulous that the innocent be guarded and protected. With regard to both, it will be your zealous effort, as it is your unquestionable right, to make diligent enquiries, and to offer true presentments. In a lecture to students at the University of Pennsylvania, the Justice emphasized the grand jury's independence from the prosecutor:”

Note: “Early post ratification charges to and writings about the federal grand jury, however, reveal an equal if not greater concern for the sword.”

That above is a lot of Data for modern average regular people making ends meet; honest productive live and let live people co-existing in liberty, each individual freely traveling from birth to death avoiding harming other fellow travelers, and finding some time to defend weaker people from harm done to weaker people (such as children) harm done by criminals in or out of government offices.

What about the sword? What happened to the sword? Who is minding that gate? Has the gate been counterfeited? Is the gate now barred: free people are not allowed to employ their independent moral conscience?

What about holding to account the people who routinely murder innocent people while they collect their riches from the loot called The Public Fund? If the jury that found “the government” guilty of conspiracy murder in the Martin Luther King Jr. trial by jury case is too old and irrelevant to some people today, then how about the recent “suicide” of the convicted pedophile Jeffery Epstein?

No one in America is employing lawful authority to investigate and publish an indictment to defend the children harmed by all those well organized pedophiles in Washington D.C.?

No one in American will dare to put before the Public, in a Public Trial, someone (preferably someone at the Top not the bottom) presumed to be innocent, but very likely to be a clear and present danger to yet more children, so as to document the facts that matter in that case where that named individual goes before The People and The people (not the government) decide what is or is not law in that case?

Where is the sword? Where are the indictments? Who is waiting for someone to do the right thing in that case?

What is seen in the mirror?