This article below is in response to the Publisher's request for research into the court cases cited by the July 2025 cover story subjects Tanawah Downing and Jessica Saxton, and subsequent interview with Mr. Downing. The image above is a slide from a 2017 Northern Illinois University Political Science department presentation, found here.
Supporters of empowering county grand juries in the State of Iowa were likely surprised and excited by remarks made at a Davenport City council meeting on 25 June 2025 by Mr. Tanawah Downing and Ms. Jessica Saxton [~1:14:00 mark].
Publisher's Suplemental Note: The video playback of the entire Davenport City Council meeting on June 25, 2025 was previously available at this link here: https://davenportia.portal.civicclerk.com/event/3933/media. As recent as July 3, 2025 this page displays the text "There is no video for this Event." Sourcing a handful of prior city council meetings on the calendar also produce the same "no video" for that meeting avaialble. The two who spoke that are the subject of this article posted the excerpt from the full meeting of their presentation at their Facebook page, available at this link here: www.rcreader.com/y/tanawah.
Their message was direct and to the point. The 5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution are being violated by legislation passed by Iowa that permits prosecuting attorneys and police to charge by way of information rather than grand jury indictment. And that paying public officials and law enforcement to deprive these rights is also in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law. But both points are grossly in error. And further research shows that Downing has already been informed of his frivolous assertions by a court order.
The first clause of the 5th Amendment states, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, … .” However, the 5th Amendment applies to the federal government, not State governments. The “selective incorporation doctrine” is one whereby the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has held that certain enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights extend as protections to citizens of the United States against State action through the 14th Amendment. The first clause of the 5th Amendment is not currently among those rights SCOTUS has held to be incorporated by the 14th Amendment. In fact, the highest court refused to do so in Hurtado v California (1884), which in 1928 the Court upheld specifically in regards to adjudicating State of Washington in Gaines v Washington (1928), stating in part, “Criminal prosecutions in the state courts may be by information instead of indictment.”
Downing claims to have “served” the Attorney General of Iowa and its Supreme Court Justices in preparation for appearing before SCOTUS. Downing provided a copy of what he claims to have served personally, an (unnotarized) affidavit from Carol Brewer to a staff member in Brenna Bird’s office, one of more than 2 million claimed to be collected throughout the States. Indeed, affidavits may be served by private citizens and may precede applications or petitions regarding legal action. The erroneous and frivolous legal action Downing plans to take is his belief of the violation by ~47 States including Iowa and their prosecutors, judges, and law enforcement of the grand jury clause of the 5th Amendment.
Downing and Saxton both introduced themselves as a “civil rights advocate and litigator.” From the credentials provided, neither has a law degree, practices law, nor is a litigator. Downing has been a “litigant” and represented himself in the State of Washington in regards to domestic violence and his fifth violation of protection orders, both of which he was found guilty and served time. On Facebook, Downing states that he intends to pursue the matter as a RICO case, where private citizens can sue under 18 U.S.C. § 1961, aka the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
Section 26 of the Constitution for the State of Washington reads, “No grand jury shall be drawn or summoned in any county, except the superior judge thereof shall so order.” Downing appears to be inspired by his history with its courts and the impact its ruling has had on his family. Downing stated to the City Council that he is preparing to argue that the SCOTUS incorporate the first clause of the 5th Amendment. Someone with legitimate standing, a workable case, knowledge of the law, and litigation experience must convince SCOTUS to hear the question and overturn two of its own precedents. The argument shall require SCOTUS to agree that the grand jury is essential to the fundamental scheme of ordered liberty.
Indeed, one might argue that the 14th Amendment should incorporate the first clause of the 5th Amendment based on “ordered liberty”. Ordered liberty originated from a decision in Palko v. Connecticut. Palko held that the Due Process Clause protected only those rights that were "of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty." SCOTUS decided whether to incorporate specific portions of the Bill of Rights as justiciable violations arose [Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937)].
The degree to which the grand jury is essential to the fundamental scheme of ordered liberty in part relies upon the extent and history of grand juries being used as part of the legal system from the period of common law of England, the Colonies, the several States that ordained established our Organic Laws: the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and State legislation thereafter. The likelihood of success is higher for rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, which the grand jury clause is one, than any unenumerated rights. One shall need to convince the Court that the grand jury is as essential or more so than rights it has already selectively incorporated since 1937, all after Hurtado and Gaines. It is particularly true after the recent Dobbs decision overturned Roe v Wade, in large part based upon criterion regarding ordered liberty that presumably would apply in a question regarding incorporation.
See also Todd McGreevy's "Is This Crazy-Bait?"
Author
Anonymous (not verified)
