Austin 9/11 Citizens' Grand Jury Coordination meeting

We are forming a local grand jury here in Austin, Texas to bring forth a presentment of criminal charges concerning the crimes of 9/11. We are having our first meeting on Saturday April 21, 2007 at 4pm 'till about 6pm at Brave New Books, 1904 Guadalupe St. Suite A. There will be a presentation on the history and precedence of Citizens' Grand Juries which will include slides and some video clips from the legal discussion panel concerning 9/11 crimes from the recent conference in Phoenix on 9/11 accountability. We will also be discussing and setting up the election of the members of the Austin Citizens' 9/11 Grand Jury, so please attend if you wish to be a member of the Grand Jury. We will also have a preliminary discussion on potential evidence to be considered and potential charges to present.

This Austin's Grand Jury is to be modeled after and coordinated with the "Citizens' Grand Jury on the Crimes of 9/11"
in Los Angeles. Please visit their website for more info:

You can read their Presentment of Findings here.

The video of the 9/11 Legal Discussion Panel from the February '07 Phoenix 9/11 Accountablility Conference can be seen in its entirety at

Please also visit This group in NYC is taking steps to introduce a ballot initiative for a new 9/11 investigation and to have a special prosecutor appointed. Even if you're not in NYC there is much we can do to help and support them in this crucial task.

Please see our website at, and also our myspace page at

It's unfortunate that the

It's unfortunate that the Grand Jury attempts which you are linking to have been mixed bags or are questionable at best.

The 911initiative webmaster touts the film 9/11 Eyewitness as good evidence but suggests that Steven Jones is intentionally spreading disinformation, which is ridiculous.

The 911truthLA group appears to focus on how a plane didn't hit the Pentagon and has hosted Barbara Honegger at their grand jury who testified at their previous grand jury that Richard Ried the shoebomber is actually Osama -

"In a documentary about a 9/11 conference in Los Angeles last year called Solving the 9/11 Crime: A Citizen's Grand Jury, Barbara Honegger, author of October Surprise and a Reagan White House policy analyst, makes a weak case that Richard Reid and Osama bin Laden are the same person. Her evidence is essentially that they look the same. And actually, they don't look that similar. Maybe he's Bin Laden's lovechild."

I urge you to reference the serious sites regardless of whether they are investigations or not. Unfortunately as far as I can tell no 9/11 Grand Jury site exists which is not unmolested by nonsense.

Some strong sites presenting research which are attempting to stay away from nonsense -
(see - )

Good luck with your event!

Preliminary legal model, not neccesarily an "evidence" model

I would like to respond that I was inspired by the LA grand jury's efforts and other Citizens' grand juries' efforts in other cities in general because the idea of Citizens' grand juries' power to initiate prosecution has been lost and no prosecutor has come forth to prosecute on the crimes of 9/11. I am inspired by 911Initiative's legal activism because they are attempting to amend the New York City charter to have a special prosecutor appointed. I am referencing these sites because I am inspired by their legal activism, not necessarily their discussion of evidence. I am not linking to sites concerning evidence from my Austin Grand Jury website because my focus is on the legal setup of the citizens' grand jury right now, not evidence. Focus on evidence will come when the deliberations start. Grand juries also do not discuss evidence they investigate and review until deliberations are finished.

I have over the last several months been extensively researching grand jury case law, history, and precedent. I was inspired by the La grand jury's election of members and audience participation and some of the legal precedent they incorporated. I think it is a good idea to coordinate grand juries in various cities for a simulcast for media exposure of the issue that the function and power of citizens' grand juries needs to be restored.

The first meeting I am planning on will mainly be a presentation concerning citizen grand jury case law, history and precedent, as well as setting up an election (with the help of for the Austin 9/11 Citizens' Grand Jury. This is not going to be a deliberation of evidence type of meeting. In fact, I don't really plan on discussing much evidence at all, but rather focusing on the proper legal and historical function of grand juries so that people who want to become involved will have a clear idea of just exactly what we legally should do, and have the right to do, concerning citizens' grand juries, and also so that people will know their rights if they are ever chosen to be on a grand jury impaneled by a court. Few people truly understand what grand juries are and how they are supposed to work - 99 times out of 100 prosecutors completely railroad grand juries. The situation is so out of hand it's unbelievable. The rights and powers of grand juries have been called "The Cornerstone of Our Constitution" and "The Shield and Sword of the People" by many legal scholars, yet few people even have a limited understanding of them. I have some lawyers helping me with this to confirm my research and my direction.

I know all about the sites you have referenced, and it is not necessarily the case that I wish to use the "same" evidence that the LA people did. I believe in high standards of evidence myself, and that is why I am embarking on this grand jury movement. The introduction and deliberation of evidence will be for future meetings and hearings of the grand jury. I intend to introduce the most solid evidence possible at the hearings if I am elected to be a member, but everyone needs to keep in mind that part of the power of grand juries is that all the members of the grand jury themselves have the right to introduce whatever evidence they want to bring to the table, and the entire grand jury will then vote on whether or not each piece of evidence is strong enough to meet the requirements for "probable cause".

The standard of evidence for grand juries to bring forth an indictment or a presentment is "probable cause", not "beyond a reasonable doubt". Probable cause in most states means that the evidence reviewed by the grand jury shows that there is a 30%-50% probability that a certain crime was committed by a certain person, while "beyond a reasonable doubt" means usually more than a 90% probability. We only have to establish probable cause by a majority vote of the grand jury members, not a unanimous vote - that is all that is necessary. Some people may not feel comfortable with this and think that this is too "loose", but this is the historical precedent for grand juries for centuries. It is the petit jury, or the trial jury that determines if evidence meets the criteria of "beyond reasonable doubt". Part of the reason that the standard is so low for grand jury indictment or presentment is because the point is to get more investigation done. If probable cause can be determined by a grand jury, then subpoenas can be issued at that point, and more investigation will be done to uncover more evidence that could eventually lead to meeting criteria of "beyond reasonable doubt" for the trial.

Rest assured that if I am elected to be a member of the grand jury I will introduce the strongest evidence possible, but it's not all up to me. The grand jury as a group is who has the power.

I hope I have made myself clear on why I have referenced the LA Grand Jury and 911 Initiative. Some people may not like the "evidence" they discuss, but legally, they are an inspiration to me and others and their actions have inspired me to start a Grand Jury movement here in Austin.

Grand Jury Deliberations and Links to Sites Concerning Evidence

I just wanted to add that once the grand jury begins deliberations and review of evidence, this information will be sealed until deliberations are finished and the presentment is finalized. This means that we will not post or discuss what evidence we are reviewing, nor discuss or post anything concerning our deliberations publicly until we are finished. Part of grand juries' awesome power and protection is their secrecy. Grand juries do not have to make public what evidence is being reviewed or considered during the deliberation process. The reason for this is to prevent outsiders from harassing the grand jury about what evidence is being investigated and considered. The members of the grand jury do not have to (and should not) listen to anyone outside of the grand jury concerning what evidence should or shouldn't be considered or how any potential evidence should be judged. The members only have to listen to each other, and each member has ample opportunity to make their voice heard to the rest of the grand jury.

No links to any websites concerning any evidence whatsoever will be posted on the Austin 9/11 Grand Jury website during deliberations. Once deliberations are finished, we will make our findings and our presentment public. I will however post legal research links and excerpts from my legal presentation on grand jury history and precedence after the first meeting on April 21 to help others who wish to form their own citizens' grand juries.

The reason I posted my original blog on 9/11 blogger is to make a public announcement concerning the formation of the Austin 9/11 Citizens' Grand Jury to inspire as much participation from the public as possible so that the grand jury will not be accused of being "stacked". It would not be in good ethics nor proper precedent to just call together 25 people secretly with no public announcement or opportunity for people to be elected who wish to participate.

I also hope to inspire people in other cities to exercise their rights to form their own citizens' grand juries to investigate 9/11 and bring forth presentments in order to bring the real criminals to justice.