Lindsey Springer here and today I am depositing into your library a question to ask and how to locate the answer regarding the Fifth and Sixth Amendment. But first, the question:
Where is the specific place our founding fathers and their families intend the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to apply, standing alone, as a right to be exercised, when they agreed these words to be so important as to propound them within the First Ten Amendments known as the Bill of Rights in their Constitutional agreement as Amended in 1791?
In other words, where was the Fifth and Sixth Amendment, by themselves and with no other words, intended to be adhered to in the protection of our reserved right to a Grand Jury Indictment, Jury Trial, Counsel if needed, and confront witnesses involving any criminal claims alleged against you?
For those of you who do not think you should be concerned with the word "criminal" or "crime" because you would never do anything that could be construed as a "crime" then think again. All speeding tickets are "crimes." All car accidents are "crimes" if occurring on City, County, State or Interstate Highways. No insurance because it expired or lapsed, yep, a crime. Not paying child support, you guessed it, a crime. Ever did any drugs? Even if you did not inhale, such was a crime. Ever had a few drinks at a Christmas party at the office or after work and then drove home? You are a criminal. Ever filled out a tax return and overstated your expenses just a little? In the U.S. theory of a crime, you did it. Most everything today prohibited is some sort of crime. Soon, driving with a cell phone on in your car will be a crime. I gave this minimal list just so any hypocrite amongst us would seek hibernation so my true intent can be realized. By the way, England thought all the Citizens of the first 13 States were committing treason against the Crown and probably still do deep in the mind of the Crown.
The Sixth Amendment says:
"In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and caused of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."
Some later versions reproduced remove the capital "S" in the word "State" to reduce the dominance of this word in the Sixth Amendment. Soon, you will discover why this subtle change was sought. Remember, we are trying to determine the place the Sixth Amendment applied. In other words, who was violating these words in the Sixth Amendment if the subjects of speedy jury trial in the State did not occur, for example, with or without counsel of choice.
Remember, Article III, Section 2, Clause 3:
"The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the State where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed."
The Supreme Court said in PATTON v. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 276, 288
50 S.Ct. 253, that "the federal Constitution contains two provisions relating to the subject" which subject is "jury trial."
For the purpose of answering the question as to where or what place the Sixth Amendment was to apply, it would seem obvious, the "two provisions" show that the jury trial of all crimes was to be held in the "State" where the "said crimes" shall have been committed. The Jury was to be drawn from the same place where the trial was to occur. In every State Law and Constitution for that particular State, the trial is to take place in the County where the "crime" was said to have been committed and the jury is to be drawn from that County. The term "Grand Jury" is defined in like manner and is required to be drawn from the County where the "crime" was said to have been committed. For this explanation, a crime must be fully committed in order for a County to have jurisdiction to prohibit by indictment and trial. I realize when the term "crime" becomes "crimes" this changes to more than one County possibly and such can change how a State chuses to direct the people in that State convene in Grand Jury and for the purpose of empaneling a jury for trial of the Grand Jury claims.
The Supreme Court stated in UNITED STATES v. BALSYS, 524 U.S. 666, 672 (1998) that
"Balsys relies in the first instance on the textual contrast between the Sixth Amendment, which clearly applies only to domestic criminal proceedings, and the Compelled Self-Incrimination Clause, with its facially broader reference to "any criminal case." Here the Supreme Court is suggesting the term "criminal case" and "domestic criminal proceedings" are distinguishable.
In PORTUONDO v. AGARD, 529 U.S. 61, 65 (2000) Agard argued that Portuondo’s claims had "no historical foundation, neither in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was adopted, nor in 1868 when, according to our jurisprudence, the Fourteenth Amendment extended the strictures of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the States."
By this clear understanding, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments were not "extended" to apply to State Criminal Charges for violating State Laws until 1868. Yet, the year 1791 was when the Fifth and Sixth Amendments were declared. If the Sixteenth Amendment is valid then so is the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Follow?
So, prior to 1868, the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendments did not apply to State Criminal Prosecutions. Yet the Sixth Amendment says "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the STATE and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law..."
If the impartial "jury" was to be drawn in 1791 "of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed" then how does that square with the same Sixth Amendment did not apply to States until 1868? You are starting to get close to the answer.
To understand what words mean today that appear in the Bill of Rights you must agree that the terms appearing in any "Amendment" must have had clearly established meaning when it, the subject of any Amendment, first appeared. Or how else would the words articulate a right reserved if the words had no established meaning.
The Supreme Court in Thompson v. Utah, 170 U.S. 343, 350, (1898) reversed the conviction of a defendant charged with grand larceny by a jury of eight men, saying: "It must consequently be taken that the word `jury' and the words `trial by jury' were placed in the Constitution of the United States with reference to the meaning affixed to them in the law as it was in this country and in England at the time of the adoption of that instrument; and that when Thompson committed the offence of grand larceny in the Territory of Utah — which was under the complete jurisdiction of the United States for all purposes of government and legislation — the supreme law of the land required that he should be tried by a jury composed of not less than twelve persons."
So, when Utah became a State how did that change what happened on the "land" known as Utah? Words are given the meaning they were meant at the time they appeared in 1791. How else would reserving Power and delegating or enumerating power work if words were not given their meaning at the time they were uttered. Can you imagine. You sign a contract in 2000 and in 2009 the legal words appearing in the Contract were redefined and so your rights now are not what they were in that Contract in 2000 but you are still bound by the "contract"? Who has the power to redefine the words uttered in 1791? Nobody unless the Constitution is amended.
If the Sixth Amendment does not apply from 1791 to 1868 to any Trial of any violation of any State Law, then between 1791 till 1868, where would the Sixth Amendment have reserved the power for each person in a State to have such jury drawn from the State and district, Counsel if one chuses, or to confront witnesses against you or present witnesses for your defense?
When you get to the United States District Courts you run into 28 U.S.C. § 1861 which is a statute entitled "DECLARATION OF POLICY" and says:
"It is the policy of the United States that all litigants in Federal courts entitled to trial by jury shall have the right to grand and petit juries selected at random from a fair cross section of the community in the district or division wherein the court convenes."
In TAYLOR v. LOUISIANA, 419 U.S. 522, 528-529 (1975) the Supreme Court stated
"Shortly prior to this Court's decision in Duncan v. Louisiana, supra, the Federal Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 was enacted. In that Act, Congress stated "the policy of the United States that all litigants in Federal courts entitled to trial by jury shall have the right to grand and petit juries selected at random from a fair cross section of the community in the district or division wherein the court convenes.’ 28 U.S.C. § 1861. In that Act, Congress also established the machinery by which the stated policy was to be implemented. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1862-1866. In passing this legislation, the Committee Reports of both the House and the Senate recognized that the jury plays a political function in the administration of the law and that the requirement of a jury's being chosen from a fair cross section of the community is fundamental to the American system of justice. Id. at 530
Who ever is entitled to a "trial by jury" shall have the right to Grand and Petit Juries selected at random from a fair cross section of the community? I will address this "fair cross section of the community" later on.
First, what is the meaning of policy? Black’s Law, Sixth Edition defines policy to mean "the general principles by which a government is guided in its management of public affairs or the legislature in its measures." If the Fifth and Sixth Amendments were powers reserved by you and me then how could Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1861 as a policy? Furthermore, isn’t the right not to be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on indictment of a Grand Jury in the "Bill of Rights"? Isn’t the right to a trial by jury of the State and district in which the crime was alleged to have been committed in the "Bill of Rights"?
If you agree that is where those rights were reserved (should be in your heart) then why are they not "Rights" when you are being held to answer for an infamous crime in a United States "District" Court? Why are they simply the "policy"? You are on the brink of a major break through if you are still with me.
Remember the Sixth Amendment which says the jury is to be derived from the "State and district" where the alleged crime occurred? In 28 U.S.C. § 1861 the jury pool from which the Grand and Petit Jury is to derive is to come from a "cross section of the community." These words do not appear anywhere in the Sixth Amendment.
Congress created United States Districts in 1948 (28 U.S.C. sections 81 through 131) and then divided those "Districts" into descriptions identifying the names of "Counties" with the names of Counties from each State (unless no divisions were made). When a "District" has 23 Counties in it then the words "cross section of the community" means from those 23 Counties. So, in the United States, a Grand Jury and Petit Jury pool is drawn from all the Counties in the United States District instead of from the single "County" where the allege crime occurred. Drawing the jury pools from 23 Counties instead of the County the alleged crime occurred is a huge disparity. Also, where does the United States get their names to draw? One issue that soon will show how people were tricked by causing a waiver of the Bill of Rights.
Since the Sixth Amendment is a right and the respective juries, Grand and Petit, are to be drawn from the "State and district" it would appear on the surface, what the United States Congress said at 28 U.S.C. § 1861 mirrors what the Sixth Amendment says. But that is not true and the difference could not be more clear.
The Tenth Amendment reserves all Power not surrendered to the United States for the States and the People therein. The Constitution "draws a basic distinction between the powers of the newly created Federal Government and the powers retained by the pre-existing sovereign States." COOK v. GRALIKE, 531 U.S. 510, 519 (2001) "On the one hand, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, ‘it was neither necessary nor proper to define the powers retained by the States. These powers proceed, not from the people of America, but from the people of the several States; and remain, after the adoption of the constitution, what they were before, except so far as they may be abridged by that instrument." Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122, 193 (1819). The text of the Tenth Amendment delineates this principle:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
On the other hand, as Justice Story observed, "the states can exercise no powers whatsoever, which exclusively spring out of the existence of the national government, which the constitution did not delegate to them." 1 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 627 (3d ed. 1858) (hereinafter Story). Simply put, "[n]o state can say, that it has reserved, what it never possessed." Ibid.
In order for Congress of the United States to have the power to rewrite the Fifth and Sixth Amendment, or implement those "Rights" by policy, they would need to show how they were enumerated with such power to make such policy. "The constitutional right to be charged by a grand jury is a personal right of the defendant and does not go to the district court's subject matter jurisdiction because it may be waived." McCoy v. U.S., 266 F.3d 1245, 1249 (11th Cir. 2001) "[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history," Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. U.S. v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 47 (1992)
The "Grand Jury" "has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles." Id. It "`is a constitutional fixture in its own right.'" United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. Williams, supra; See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906).
Each of these cases above demonstrates that every time you and I see "jury" be it Grand Jury or Petit Jury, such is a right reserved by you and me. This is what the Fifth and Sixth Amendment "Bill of Rights" occupants intend and reserve by the words therein and as the Tenth Amendment clearly says.
Remembering the question being answered is where did the Fifth and Sixth Amendment words "reserved" by you and me and our founding fathers and mothers apply between 1791 and 1868? They did not apply in the State Courts until the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment yet the word State is clearly in Article III, Section 2, Clause 3 for the "jury trial" "of all crimes" occurring in "any State" and the jury shall be drawn from the State and district so sayeth the Sixth Amendment. The words "Grand Jury" were not enumerated to the United States so Congress has no right to claim any power to regulate their usage anywhere the Fifth Amendment would apply.
Just trying to find where it did apply from when it was written until 1868. To advance from here you must ask and answer a serious question. Can you possibly ever be said to have committed a crime against the laws of the United States while at the same exact moment that said crime is to have occurred, you were found in one of the 50 States? If you answer this truthfully, you will find the answer is yes.
In a United States Court, involving a violation of a law of the United States, it is not the Fifth and Sixth Amendments that control (reserve your right to such protections) when and how juries for a Grand or Petit Jury are empaneled. 28 U.S.C. § 1861 and its Federal Policy are the patriarch of that suggestion.
In a State Court, involving a violation of a criminal provision duly enacted by any of the 50 States you may have be found there within, at the time the alleged violation took place (how could you not be in a place and violate that places laws), it was said by the Supreme Court from 1868 onward that the Fourteenth Amendment made the Fifth and Sixth Amendment applicable to the States.
Both of these specific jurisdiction and venues (State and United States) are not any place where the Fifth and Sixth Amendments were intended to reserve certain rights for you and me from the moment they were declared the law until 1868 (truly, till now they remain in tact but the search is to find where they apply standing alone).
The term "crime" in Article III, Section 2, Clause 3, means "offense against the laws of the United States" duly enacted. An enactment without authority can be a burden to whoever must challenge its authority but none the less is a waste of time and paper and otherwise not truly enforceable. But you would need to know why such would be unenforceable.
Article III, Section 2, Clause 3, says the jury "trial" is to be held "in the States where the said crimes shall have been committed;" The Sixth Amendment says the jury making up that "jury trial" is to be empaneled from the "State and district" where the alleged federal offense occurred.
In short, the Fifth and Sixth Amendment, along with Article III, Section 2, Clause 3, reserved your and my right to have any State, that any such possible violation of any laws duly enacted (all powers by Congress flow from the Constitution only) by the United States Congress may have been transgressed, enact laws exercising such State Power to determine how a Grand Jury is convened and empaneled, as well as any subsequent need for a Trial Jury to be empaneled in such State legislated manner.
In short, Article III, Section 2, Clause 3, the Fifth and Sixth Amendment, apply standing alone, when a State Citizen is accused of violating a duly enacted law of Congress written within its Tenth Amendment enumerated powers, IN THE STATE TRIAL PLACE OVER THOSE UNITED STATES TRANSGRESSIONS. This is where these provisions were to apply from 1789, with Article III, Section 2, Clause 3, and from 1791 as to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
You are not in any "State" when you are in a "United States" Court. This is why it is a policy of the United States that you have a right to a Grand Jury selected from a cross section of the community and not a "Right" standing alone from the State and district as the Sixth Amendment specifically reserves from the County the allege acts took place.
Think about the concept of "reserving power" and ask yourself how you can reserve power in a place that you have no power to reserve? How could you have reserved power in 1789 in a place not in any State to have a trial according to certain conditions as stated in the Fifth and Sixth Amendment? These Amendments were not even thought of for two more years. You simply could not and our founding fathers and mothers could not make this more clear than when they reserved for the Citizens of every State that the State was enumerated with the Power to decide the guilty or innocense of any Citizen within its borders accused of violating any law of the United States while being found within that particular State.
When you look at power given to the United States you must break that enumeration into either Legislative, Executive or Judicial. "The first eight Amendments to the Constitution set forth self-executing prohibitions on governmental action," City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 527 (1997), and the first Ten Amendment are known as "the Bill of Rights" adopted in 1791, Portuondo v. Agard, 529 U.S. 61, 65 (2000)
"The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the constitution." United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 270 (1990) "The Constitution enumerates and separates the powers of the three branches of Government in Articles I, II, and III, and it is this "very structure" of the Constitution that exemplifies the concept of separation of powers. INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 946 (1983). Quoted in MILLER v. FRENCH, 530 U.S. 327, 341-342 (2000) While the boundaries between the three branches are not "`hermetically' sealed," see id., at 951, the Constitution prohibits one branch from encroaching on the central prerogatives of another, see Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748, 757 (1996); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 121-122 (1976) (per curiam).
So, to understand fully what I am attempting to show you, you must understand that simply because the States enumerated certain "legislative" power to the United States over certain issues previously within the States Power to legislate, does not mean that the same States enumerated their executive and judicial power over those same legislative areas surrendered. If this was not true then there would have been no need to separate them into three separate branches. It could be known as one great big Article of Power. We could call it the GREAT ARTICLE.
To explain this further, when a person is "indicted" by a "United States Grand Jury" the claims always say the alleged crimes occurred within some United States District, i.e: the Northern District of Georgia. Most people think that the "Northern District of Georgia" is in the State of Georgia but it is not. If the place the allege crimes occurred said they happened in the "United States District of Georgia" most people would have recognized that the United States District of Georgia and the State of Georgia were not in the same place.
You cannot be in the State of Georgia and the United States District of Georgia at the same time. The words "United States" proceeding the word Georgia shows this "Georgia, " 28 U.S.C. § 90, is not the same place as the State of Georgia. Remember the 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Right to a Trial by Jury was "reserved" by the States and in the States involving any alleged United States crime alleged to have been committed by any Citizen, in that particular State, at the time the United States Law was alleged to have been violated.
The Right to a Grand Jury was "reserved" by the States and in the States involving any alleged United States crime committed by any Citizen, in that particular State, at the time the United States Law was alleged to have been violated.
The Right to be tried in the State for any such violation was "reserved" by the State, to the State, in which ever State, at the time the United States Law was alleged to have been violated in such particular State.
I have used Georgia for my example of where the Fifth and Sixth Amendments were reserved to apply between 1791 and 1868. 28 U.S.C. § 1861 did not exist in the year 1868. 28 U.S.C. § 90, named Georgia, did not exist until 1948. But the State of Georgia was one of the original 13 States that joined in the creation of the United States in 1789. It gave some of its inherent powers specifically to the United States in order to survive the issues standing alone the State of Georgia would not have survived. Or at least would not have survived to the extent being banned together with 12 others would offer.
In Article I, Section 1 of the State of Georgia’s Constitution, Paragraph XI reads "Right to trial by jury; number of jurors; selection and compensation of jurors. (a) The right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate, except that the court shall render judgment without the verdict of a jury in all civil cases where no issuable defense is filed and where a jury is not demanded in writing by either party. In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury; and the jury shall be the judges of the law and the facts.
Subsection (b) of the same section in the same Article reads "A trial jury shall consist of 12 persons; but the General Assembly may prescribe any number, not less than six, to constitute a trial jury in courts of limited jurisdiction and in superior courts in misdemeanor cases. Subsection (c) states that the "General Assembly shall provide by law for the selection and compensation of persons to serve as grand jurors and trial jurors."
Georgia Code, Title 15, Chapter 12. 15-12-40. (a) Nonmechanical procedure. (a) Nonmechanical procedure. (1) At least biennially, unless otherwise directed by the chief judge of the superior court, the board of jury commissioners shall compile, maintain, and revise a trial jury list of upright and intelligent citizens of the county to serve as trial jurors and a grand jury list of the most experienced, intelligent, and upright citizens of the county to serve as grand jurors. In composing the trial jury list, the board of jury commissioners shall select a fairly representative cross section of the intelligent and upright citizens of the county. In composing the grand jury list, the board of jury commissioners shall select a fairly representative cross section of the most experienced, intelligent, and upright citizens of the county. In carrying out revisions of the trial jury list and grand jury list on or after July 1, 2002, the board of jury commissioners shall make use of all of the following.
15-12-61. (a) A grand jury shall consist of not less than 16 nor more than 23.... (a) A grand jury shall consist of not less than 16 nor more than 23 persons. The votes of at least 12 grand jurors shall be necessary to find a bill of indictment or to make a presentment.
Although the State of Georgia has mirrored the United States in the number of Grand Jurors and the number required to indict, the United States pulls these prospects from its "United States Counties" instead of the single County the alleged crime occurred.
Most States require 12 of 15 or 13 of 15 or as in Georgia 12 of 23. The phrase "Grand Jury" cannot mean a part of a group of people. It must mean the whole group or nothing. This was a reservation of Power from the beginning. When you say you had a right to something who has the power to minimize that something to half or a lessor percentage than the whole?
The United States and the States in this regard rely upon you and I not objecting to this process as a "waiver" of the Constitutional Right. Hoping you never have to endure this process ignores what our founding fathers and mothers understood to be the most important Rights when dealing with a Government out of control. People, we have that Government out of control before our eyes every day.
The reason why the United States Government is out of control is because we have not been enforcing or policing Grand Jury and Jury Trials. The Supreme Court explained "the need to give intelligible content to the right of jury trial. That right is no mere procedural formality, but a fundamental reservation of power in our constitutional structure. Just as suffrage ensures the people's ultimate control in the legislative and executive branches, jury trial is meant to ensure their control in the judiciary." BLAKELY v. WASHINGTON, 542 U.S. 296, 306-307 (2004); directing Letter XV by the Federal Farmer (Jan. 18, 1788), reprinted in 2 The Complete Anti-Federalist 315, 320 (H. Storing ed. 1981) (describing the jury as "securing] to the people at large, their just and rightful control in the judicial department"); John Adams, Diary Entry (Feb. 12, 1771), reprinted in 2 Works of John Adams 252, 253 (C. Adams ed. 1850) ("[T]he common people, should have as complete a control . . . in every judgment of a court of judicature" as in the legislature); Letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Abbé Arnoux (July 19, 1789), reprinted in 15 Papers of Thomas Jefferson 282, 283 (J. Boyd ed. 1958) ("Were I called upon to decide whether the people had best be omitted in the Legislative or Judiciary department, I would say it is better to leave them out of the Legislative"); Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227, 244-248 (1999).
In general, "[i]n an adversary system of criminal justice, the public interest in the administration of justice is protected by the participants in the litigation." Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 383 (1979). "We allow waiver of numerous constitutional protections for criminal defendants that also serve broader social interests." See, e.g., Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 275 (1942) (waiver of right to jury trial); Johnson, 304 U.S., at 464 (waiver of right to counsel).
The cases on the subject of waiver are too numerous to mention here. All that is wrong with our "system" resulting from the Constitution of the United States is one big gigantic mistake of waiver.
Look at it this way. When the powers were reserved was this "reservation" when the United States was legislating in the States or when the People of the States were in the United States? For those of you who do not understand the States are separate from the United States then such confusion may be the reason some overlooked this error. Words have meaning and not just when they are pointed at you. They also have meaning when you point them at others.
The Fifth and Sixth Amendment are pointed at others and for your protection from theories like a Grand Jury can indict a ham sandwich. It is time we put the Fifth and Sixth Amendment between each of us and the United States by rejecting United States Courts acting like they are in the States when clearly they are not.
If you wish to have the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, as well as Article III, Section 2, Clause 3, upheld, then you must find the place they apply, standing alone, and a place where if they are not adhered to, you may sue any Government person for intentionally violating either Amendment. Don’t hand out Constitutional handbooks but rather take the time to learn exactly what the words Grand Jury and Jury mean in your State. Look up where the allege crimes are to be tried. That will be the same place a Grand Jury can investigate. It is County in most instances and not Counties. It is State and district within a County. Not Counties within a United States District. The issue is about Amendments to the Constitution not statutes written to mirror those words with clear alterations to trick or lull you into some silent waiver.
And last but not least, do not trust what licensed attorneys say without checking for yourself the validity of what they say. It took much deception to get away with Tyranny by Waiver expressed above. When it comes to your rights verify, verify, verify. The reason why I give quotes from the Supreme Court and Constitution is so you can verify for yourself. Trust but verify, and if you cannot verify, do not trust.
So, the answer is the Fifth Amendment, standing alone, without any other words, apply to a Grand Jury Indictment deposited with a State Court asserting claims arising under laws of the United States by a group of fellow Citizens living in the County the alleged "crime" is said to have occurred.
The answer as to the Sixth Amendment, standing alone, without any other words, applies to a State Court where claims arising under laws of the United States are at issue and to where the Petit Jury is to be drawn from a group of fellow Citizens living in the County the alleged "crime" is to be proven occured beyond a reasonable doubt.
The difference between what happened after the Fourteenth Amendment in regard to the State Courts being subject to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments is whether the alleged crime allegedly violated a State Law or a Law duly enacted by the United States Congress within its enumerated creature 10th Amendment Powers.
Thank you for taking your time to help me help you make this Constitutional Adjustment for the future of the rule of law inside the 50 States.
Lindsey Springer, 1.4.09