Grand Jury Forman Letter
From R-KIDS of MN and GPF
Contents |
ORIGIN OF THE MINNESOTA GRAND JURY
The origin of the grand jury dates back to 12th century England. King John recognized it in the Magna Carta at the demand of the people. The grand jury itself, “rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history,”36 is “an ancient institution of the common law,”37 the heritage of which may go back as far as Athens,38 but safely can be traced back to the fourteenth century reign of Edward III, when “the modern practice of returning a panel of twenty-four men to inquire for the county was established and the body then received the name ‘le graunde inquest.’”39
36. United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 47 (1992) (quoting Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result)).
37. United States v. Gill, 55 F.2d 399, 400 (D.N.M. 1931) (citing 4 BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE, TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS, OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES; AND OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA (Rothman Reprints 1969) (1803); Charge to Grand Jury, 2 Sawy. 667 (1872), reprinted in 30 Fed. Cas. 992 (1897)).
38. GEORGE J. EDWARDS, THE GRAND JURY: AN ESSAY 1 (1906).
39. Id. at 2. Two centuries prior, Henry II’s reign was responsible for the Constitutions of Clarendon and the Assize of Clarendon. M.M. KNAPPEN, CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND 185–86 (1942); Ric Simmons, Re-Examining the Grand Jury: Is There Room for Democracy in the Criminal Justice System?, 82 B.U. L. REV. 1, 4–5 (2002). These documents laid the groundwork for what would become the grand jury. See id. at 5. The Constitutions of Clarendon (1164) offered to a layperson who was being charged in an ecclesiastical court the protection of a state-governed “accusing jury” when no public accuser had made charges against him or her. Id. at 4. This provision FAIRFAX_4FMT 12/22/2006 11:01:15 AM
The grand jury institution followed the English common law to the American colonies and quickly established itself as a buffer between the colonists and the King.
From the ORIGINAL Constitution of the State of Minnesota
Democratic Version Signed August 29, 1857
Bill of Rights: Article 1 7th No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense unless on the presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases of impeachment or in cases cognizable by Justices of the Peace, or arising in the Army or Navy, or in the militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger, and no person for the same offense shall be put twice in jeopardy of punishment, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. All persons shall before conviction be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses when the proof is evident or the presumption great; and the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require.
The MN constitution WAS purportedly AMENDED in 1905 so that arrest warrants could be used (based upon probable cause) instead of grand jury indictments. The common law right to the GRAND JURY was then codified within the statutes. (It is interesting this purported change happened right after the grand jury took down the corrupt politicians in Mpls. in 1902-03). THE CONSITUTION WAS NOT AMENDED in 1905 to remove the grand jury. The actual bill for the amendment, passed in 1903 DOES NOT repeal the language of the grand jury from Article 1 Sec. 7 of the Minn. constitution.
NORTHWEST ORDINANCE
Sec. 14 Art. 2. The inhabitants of the said territory shall always be entitled to the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, and of the trial by jury; of a proportionate representation of the people in the legislature; and of judicial proceedings according to the course of the common law.
The right to a grand jury and its power is contained within the common law, set forth in the Northwest Ordinance, then the Minnesota constitution and now the Minnesota Statutes. Colonists lacked a representative government; absent a representative government, the colonists used the grand jury to challenge royal authority. In Georgia, the grand jury claimed power to challenge to inquire into any matter that it saw fit. Despite a court ruling to the contrary, grand juries continued to act as local representative authorities. After the Revolution, grand juries continued to perform civil oversight functions as they had in colonial America. Frontier states especially relied on grand juries. Similar to their role in the Colonial era, grand juries sometimes served as the only representative government body to which citizens could bring grievances. They used the indictment power to “bring order and decorum to boisterous frontier communities.” Some states expanded grand jury powers beyond the indictment. (Like Minnesota) On their own initiative, some grand juries audited accounts of county officials and denounced or indicted officials guilty of corruption. (See YOUNGER supra note 15, at 72)
WHAT OUR LEGISLATURE SAYS ABOUT THE GRAND JURY
From M.S. CHAP 628:
M.S. Sec. 628.02 REPORTS BY INDICTMENT. The grand jury shall inquire into all public offenses committed or triable in the county, and report them to the court by indictment. History: (10621) RL s 5279; 1979 c 233 s 28
M.S. Sec. 628.61 MATTERS INQUIRED INTO. The grand jury shall inquire: (1) into the condition of every person imprisoned on a criminal charge triable in the county, and not indicted; (2) into the condition and management of the public prisons in the county; and (3) into the willful and corrupt misconduct in office of all public officers in the county. History: (10625) RL s 5283
M.S. Sec. 628.56 FOREPERSON; JURY SWORN; CHARGE BY COURT. From the persons summoned to serve as grand jurors and appearing, the court shall appoint a foreperson, and it shall also appoint a foreperson whenever one already appointed shall be discharged or excused before such jury is dismissed. The grand jury shall then be sworn according to law, and the same oath shall be administered to any grand juror afterwards appearing and admitted as such. The grand jury shall then be charged by the court, who, in doing so, shall read to it the provisions of sections 628.01, 628.02, 628.60 to 628.66, and rules 18.06, subdivisions 1 and 2 , and 18.08 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and may give it such other information as it may deem proper as to the nature of its duties, and any charges for public offenses returned to the court, or likely to come before the grand jury; but it need not charge it respecting the violation of any particular statute unless expressly made its duty by the provisions of such statute. History: (10617) RL s 5275; 1Sp1981 c 4 art 1 s 184; 1986 c 444
M.S. Sec. 628.57 JURY TO RETIRE; CLERK; DUTIES. The grand jury shall then retire to a private room and inquire into the offenses cognizable by it. It shall appoint one of its clerks, who shall preserve the minutes of its proceedings, but not of the votes of the individual members on an indictment. History: (10618) RL s 5276; 1979 c 233 s 31
M.S. Sec. 628.68 DISCLOSURE OF TRANSACTIONS OF GRAND JURY. Except as otherwise provided in rule 18.08 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, every judge, grand juror, county attorney, court administrator, or other officer, who, except in the due discharge of official duty, shall disclose, before an accused person shall be in custody, the fact that an indictment found or ordered against the accused person, and every grand juror who, except when lawfully required by a court or officer, shall willfully disclose any evidence adduced before the grand jury, or anything which the juror or any other member of the grand jury said, or in what manner any grand juror voted upon any matter before them, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Disclosure may be made by the county attorney, by notice to the defendant or the defendant's attorney of the indictment and the time of defendant's appearance in the district court, if in the discretion of the judge notice is sufficient to insure defendant's appearance. History: (10050) RL s 4862; 1969 c 197 s 1; 1979 c 233 s 33; 1986 c 444; 1Sp1986 c 3 art 1 s 82
AUTHORIZATION FOR GRAND JURY TO CONVENE
MINNESOTA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (the Court Rules) Rule 18. Grand Jury
Rule 18.01 Summoning Grand Juries Subd. 1. When Summoned. The district court, without regard to the beginning or ending of a term of court, shall order that one or more grand juries be drawn at least annually. The grand jury shall be summoned and convened whenever required by the public interest or whenever requested by the county attorney. Upon being drawn, each juror shall be notified of selection. The court shall prescribe by order or rule the time and manner of summoning grand jurors. Vacancies in the grand jury panel shall be filled in the same manner as provided by this rule. Subd. 2. How Selected and Drawn. Except as otherwise provided by this rule with respect to St. Louis County, the grand jury list shall be composed of the names of persons selected at random from a fair cross-section of the residents of the county who are qualified by law to serve as jurors and shall otherwise be selected as provided by law. The grand jury shall be drawn from the grand jury list as prescribed by law. In St. Louis County a grand jury list shall be selected at random from a fair cross-section of the residents of each of the 3 districts of the St. Louis County Court district as defined by Minn. Stat. § 487.01, subd. 5(1) who are qualified by law to serve as jurors. The grand jury list shall otherwise be selected and the grand jurors shall be drawn from the list as provided by law. Each grand jury so drawn shall serve only in that district of the St. Louis County Court district from which the members of the jury are drawn.
The Minnesota Supreme Court decided a LONG time ago, that the Citizens have the right to go directly to the grand jury.
It has been held by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Wild v. Otis that: “[4] The comment to Rule 2.02, Rules of Criminal Procedure, states that "Rule 2.02 leaves to other laws the question of the available remedy when a local prosecutor refuses to approve a complaint " One obvious available remedy is for the aggrieved citizen to try to appear before the grand jury and persuade it to indict. While a citizen does not have a right to appear before the grand jury, he is free to attempt to get the grand jury to take action, and under Rule 18.04, Rules of Criminal Procedure, the grand jury can permit an aggrieved citizen to appear as a witness for this purpose. The grand jury under Rules 18.01 and 18.03 consists of 16 to 23 members, randomly selected from a cross section of the county. Permitting citizens to take complaints directly to this body serves as a kind of "safely valve" and has much to commend it. See, commentary to §2.1 of the A. B. A. Standards Relating to the Prosecution Function.”(emphasis added)
RIGHT AND DUTY OF THE GRAND JURY
I have the entire list, but have just taken these for you to look at:
The Right & Duty to investigate and indict any government official or anyone else who violates anyone's constitutional rights or interferes with the Rights & Duties of the Grand Jury; all violations of Title 18 USC Sections 241 & 242, as per Title 18 USC Section 3231; and sue them for any civil damages under Title 42 USC Section 1983 as per Title 28 USC Section 1343. Your Authority: Hardwich v. Hurley, 289 F 2d 529; Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 US 388; and: “The innocent individual who is harmed by an abuse of governmental authority is assured that he will be compensated for his injury." Owen v. City of Independence, 100 S Ct 1398 (1980)
The Right & Duty to check oppressive government and protect the innocent from government abuse by safeguarding fellow citizens from unwarranted indictments, especially under bad, unfair, unjust laws. This is the most important function of the Grand Jury. See: An Essay on the Trial by Jury, by Lysander Spooner; The Jury Instructions given by Chief Justice John Jay in State of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 Dall 1; Twelve for the People, by Claire Kelley & W. Vaughn Ellsworth, which includes Excerpts From the Trial of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase; all of which wholely substantiate that Grand Juries and Petit Juries (Trial Juries) have the absolute Right and Duty to Decide the Law, Facts, and Admissibility of Evidence in all Grand Jury investigations and all Jury Trials.
CORRUPT JUDGES INDICTED
The Grand Jury is using their power to protect the Citizens in other states. We need our Grand Jury to do the same.
FROM OHIO:
The Warren County Grand Jury on January 14, 2005, indicted Judge Dallas Powers on 13 felony and three misdemeanor charges, including sexual battery and retaliation, based on evidence compiled during a four-month investigation by Attorney General Jim Petros' Office. Additionally, the Grand Jury indicted former court employee Libbie Gerondale on three misdemeanor and four felony charges, including theft. Petros' Bureau of Criminal Identification & Investigation launched the probe into allegations of criminal activity at the Warren County Court in September, 2004 at the request of Warren County Prosecuting Attorney Rachel A. Hutzel and Sheriff Tom Ariss.
FROM CALIFORNIA:
California’s grand juries have been extensive and aggressive in their duty to investigate corruption of public officials. Various grand juries in San Francisco rooted out corruption in the District Attorney’s Office, uncovering bribery by machine bosses and the police department. As one commentator observed, early grand juries proved that they could, “if necessary, unseat an entire municipal administration and using their power of indictment, take over a city and run it in the name of the people.” “Reports of grand juries are much more essential…in these days when government at all levels has taken on a complexity of organization and of operation that defies the best intentions of the citizen to know and understand it. What is not known and understood is likely distrusted. What cannot be investigated in a republic is likely to be feared. The maintenance of popular confidence in government requires that there be some body of laymen which may investigate instances of public wrong.” State v. Fary, 117 A.2d 499, 503 (N.J. 1955) (quoting Chief Justice Vanderbilt in In re Camden County Grand Jury, 89 A.2d 416, 443 (N.J. 1952)) Recently a grand jury in California indicted Michael S. Carona, the elected sheriff-coroner of Orange County, naming a wide-ranging corruption indictment that accuses him and several close associates of scheming to exploit Carona’s position for personal benefit, including accepting cash and appointing to the position of assistant sheriff an unqualified businessman who paid bribes.
In June of 1996, a grand jury returned a twenty-one count indictment against San Diego Superior Court Judges Malkus and Adams. The judges were convicted, and when the judges appealed, only a small part of the conviction was overturned. (see USA v FREGA )
FROM PENNSYLVANIA:
Judge Michael Joyce was indicted by the grand jury in August of 2007, in a thirteen- page indictment.
“Another state court under investigation by the feds.” KDKA has learned that federal agents have started a major investigation into potential corruption in the Allegheny County [PA] Courthouse. Sources say judges are the focus of the case, which involves allegations of influence peddling. The allegations are that high profile lawyers were given court appointed cases and, in exchange for those cases, the lawyers paid expenses for judges including, trips, country club fees and even bar tabs. Sources confirm federal agents have been to the Grant Street Tavern Downtown -- a long time courthouse watering hole known as a hangout for judges and lawyers...." (KDKA 01.24.2007).
FROM NEW JERSEY:
June 06, 2007 N.Y. Judge Sent To Prison In Bribery Scandal A disgraced New York Supreme Court Justice previously suspended by the state’s administrative judge was whisked away in handcuffs to serve a prison sentence for accepting bribes from a shady lawyer to fix cases in his favor.
Judge Gerald Garson, whose law-breaking antics were captured on surveillance videos over five months, accepted cash, drinks, fancy meals and expensive cigars in exchange for rulings that favored the clients of a corrupt attorney friend.
FROM RHODE ISLAND:
In 1991 a state grand jury indicted Judge Antonio S. Almeida . The judge was sentenced to six years in prison in 1992 for taking bribes from a lawyer in exchange for favorable rulings.
FROM KENTUCKY:
In 2005 a grand jury indicted the governor of Kentucky, along with 8 other people. This is a WILD case, if you want to follow it, here’s the link: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/kentuckydocket.php
“Charges against ex-judge dropped, his wife pleads guilty.” In an unusual plea deal, the Kentucky attorney general's office yesterday agreed to dismiss all charges against a former Shelby County judge accused of paying his wife for work she didn't do -- on the condition that he never seek appointment or re-election to the bench. As part of the agreement, former Judge William Stewart's spouse, Sarah Dutton, pleaded guilty to two misdemeanors -- one count of theft under $300 and one count of unlawful access to a computer -- and received a 12-month sentence that was conditionally discharged for two years. She entered an Alford plea, meaning she denied her guilt while acknowledging there was evidence to convict her...." (Louisville Courier-Journal 08.02.2006).
FROM TEXAS:
A federal grand jury in Houston returned an indictment against attorney and former Mercedes, Texas, Municipal Court Judge Ernesto Flores, Jr. for violating the constitutional rights of four female victims by sexually assaulting them, the Justice Department announced on January 23, 2002. Specifically, the indictment alleged that Flores fondled and kissed family members of defendants in exchange for the defendant's reduced bail or release from jail. Additionally, the indictment alleged that he fondled a woman in exchange for a favorable disposition of her traffic citation. In March, 2003, Judge Flores was sentenced to two years in federal prison for civil-rights violations stemming from his voluntary plea agreement. According to a statement released by the U.S. Department of Justice, "the former judge admitted he had coerced two women in May, 1999 and July, 2001, respectively, to engage in sexual acts with him in exchange for reducing bonds of their family members."
FROM ILLINOIS:
Convicted judge gets no pension, no refund of contributions. [Cook County Judge Thomas] Maloney was convicted in 1993 on racketeering, extortion and other charges for taking bribes to fix cases. The following year, retirement system officials voted to terminate his pension benefits. In 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that judges who lost their benefits due to felony convictions could get a refund of the money they had contributed to their own retirement accounts. After that decision, Maloney sought a refund [of his contributions of $72,855]." What result? Held, by an Illinois appellate court, reversing a trial judge, the time for appealing the 1994 decision terminating his pension has long since passed and the judgment is final. (Chicago Tribune 07.30.2006).
FROM NEW YORK:
May 2, 2003 - NY DAILY NEWS The state's highest court ordered Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Reynold Mason removed from the bench yesterday because of misconduct, marking the latest taint to the borough's judiciary. Annals of judicial selection: 'How my ex-hubby paid to be judge.' "In a shocking new twist in the exploding 'judgeships for sale' scandal, [Tessa Abrams Mason,] the ex-wife of a disgraced Brooklyn Supreme Court judge[, Justice Reynold Mason,] has revealed details of a systematic payoff scheme that bought her husband his seat on the bench. Tessa Abrams Mason alleges the couple spent nearly $100,000 -- some of it bribe money -- to boost the legal career of her then-husband, former Supreme Court Justice Reynold Mason...Mason, 57, now a real estate agent in Georgia, has been ducking court-ordered child support payments for years...Reached by telephone last week, Mason vehemently denied the charges...." (N.Y. Daily News 01.23.2007)…..Former Justice Mason has since been arrested and jailed. January 14, 2007 Brooklyn prosecutors are seeking to indict deposed Brooklyn Democratic Party chairman Clarence Norman for allegedly selling a judgeship for at least $50,000 in cash and $6,000 in postage stamps:confused: (Christmas cards?), it was reported yesterday. The alleged corruption, detailed by The Village Voice, has the potential to shake the Brooklyn political establishment and push the Legislature to overhaul how state Supreme Court judges are selected. Norman - already sentenced to two to six years behind bars for unrelated felony campaign corruption - will be indicted by a grand jury for allegedly demanding payoffs to elevate former Civil Court Judge Howard Ruditzky to the state Supreme Court, The Voice says. Sources told the Daily News that Ruditzky was granted immunity and recently testified before a grand jury, where he revealed he paid $70,000 for the judgeship. “A sitting judge told a grand jury that he paid Clarence Norman $70,000 for the nomination," one of the sources said.
New York Post August 7, 2007 Justice Gerald Garson gave free advice, lucrative court appointments and client referrals to his good pal, Paul Siminovsky, who was Levi's lawyer. Garson was found guilty of accepting bribes in April. In June, the disgraced judge began serving a 3- to 10-year prison sentence.
FROM MISSISSIPPI:
July 2003 The author of the article first states: MISSISSIPPI---Last in education, last in children's health care, last in wage scale, but first in Judicial Corruption… “You go Mississippi Bar Association" More info here: http://www.mississippiwebsite.com/judicialscandals.htm
THE SUN HERALD The grand jury indictments allege that state Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz Jr., former Circuit Court Judge John Whitfield and former Chancery Court Judge Wes Teel made rulings in exchange for money and loans from Paul Minor, a multimillionaire lawyer.
FROM THE U.S DEPT. OF JUSTICE:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/mow/progress_report.pdf
Jeffrey Sayre, a former Associate Circuit Court Judge in Sullivan County, was convicted of taking a bribe to fix a narcotics case. Sayre, who also admitted to obstructing justice by conspiring to kill the person who paid the bribe and later cooperated with federal authorities, was sentenced to four years in federal prison without parole.
Deborah A. Neal, a former Kansas City, Mo., municipal court judge, was sentenced to two years and four months in federal prison without parole. Neal pleaded guilty to a fraud scheme that involved soliciting money from attorneys and others, including attorneys with cases in which she presided.
FROM WEST VIRGINIA:
“By application to the circuit judge, whose duty is to insure access to the grand jury, any person may go to the grand jury to present a complaint to it. W. Va. Const. art. 3, § 17." Syl. pt. 1, State ex rel. Miller v. Smith, 168 W. Va. 745, 285 S.E.2d 500 (1981). By adopting a rule that would require citizens to bring their complaints first to the prosecuting attorney or the appropriate law enforcement agency, private citizens are not left without a remedy if the prosecutor refuses to initiate criminal proceedings. As pointed out by the petitioner, this Court has specifically recognized that, pursuant to W. Va. Const. art. III, § 17, by application to the circuit judge, any person may go to the grand jury to present a complaint to it. State ex rel. Miller v. Smith, 168 W. Va. 745, 285 S.E.2d 500 (1981). The court pointed out in State ex rel. Miller v. Smith that under W. Va.Const. art. III, § 17, "[t]he courts of this State shall be open, and every person, for an injury done to him, in his person, property or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law; and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay." 168 W. Va. at 752, 285 S.E.2d at 504. Citing State ex rel. Skinner v. Dostert, 166 W. Va. at 752-53, 278 S.E.2d at 631, the Court stated:
“As criminal offenses are offenses against the State which must be prosecuted in the name of the State, W. Va. Code § 62-9-1 (1977 Replacement Vol.); Moundsville v.Fountain, 27 W. Va. 182 (1885), the prosecutor, as the officer charged with prosecuting such offenses, has a duty to vindicate the victims and the public's constitutional right of redress for a criminal invasion of rights. The "spirit of law" has long been and it has been long held that "[t]he public has rights as well as the accused, and one of the first of these is that of redressing or punishing their wrongs." Ex parte Santee, 2 Va. Cas. (4 Va.) 363 (1823).'168 W. Va. at 752-53, 285 S.E.2d at 504 (citation omitted). The Court stated that the grand jury must be open to the public as a matter of constitutional right, and if it is only available to the prosecuting attorney with all complaints passing through him or her, then "the grand jury can justifiably be described as a prosecutorial tool." 168 W. Va. at 753, 285 S.E.2d at 504.
The West Virginia constitution Article III Sec. 17: “The courts of this State shall be open, and every person, for an injury done to him, in his person, property or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law; and justice shall be *administered without sale denial or delay.”
The Minnesota constitution Article I section 8: REDRESS OF INJURIES OR WRONGS. Every person is entitled to a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive to his person, property or character, and to obtain justice freely and without purchase, completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, conformable to the laws.
FROM MINNESOTA:
In 1903 a grand jury brought down the corruption in Minneapolis. The jury foreperson fired the prosecutor after the prosecutor refused to press charges, and handled the case himself. The folks in Virginia use this to teach their Citizens about grand juries. Here is the link: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~am482_04/grant/Shame%20of%20Minneapolis.html
The Minnesota Supreme Court has even stated the Citizens have the right to bring evidence before the Grand Jury and to persuade it to indict.
From the Minnesota Supreme Court case Wild v. Otis:
“[4] The comment to Rule 2.02, Rules of Criminal Procedure, states that "Rule 2.02 leaves to other laws the question of the available remedy when a local prosecutor refuses to approve a complaint " One obvious available remedy is for the aggrieved citizen to try to appear before the grand jury and persuade it to indict. While a citizen does not have a right to appear before the grand jury, he is free to attempt to get the grand jury to take action, and under Rule 18.04, Rules of Criminal Procedure, the grand jury can permit an aggrieved citizen to appear as a witness for this purpose. The grand jury under Rules 18.01 and 18.03 consists of 16 to 23 members, randomly selected from a cross section of the county. Permitting citizens to take complaints directly to this body serves as a kind of "safely valve" and has much to commend it. See, commentary to §2.1 of the A. B. A. Standards Relating to the Prosecution Function.”(emphasis added)
Even though the Minnesota Supreme Court has said the Citizens have the right to bring evidence before the Grand Jury, the Minnesota Judiciary has blocked the Citizens from bringing evidence of corruption in the Ramsey County Judiciary. The judges are closing ranks, and trying to protect their crimes from being exposed to the Ramsey County Grand Jury.
Our Ramsey County Grand Jury must find the courage and fortitude to uproot the corruption in our courts, as other Grand Juries have done for the Citizens in other states.
