Citizens Access to a Grand Jury

 

The right of a citizen to present a complaint directly to a grand jury in West Virginia is established by State ex rel. Miller v. Smith, 168 W. Va. 745 (1981).

While most "Miller" searches lead to the famous 1995 "Plain Error" case, this 1981 decision is the foundation for the "Open Courts" provision regarding grand juries.

---

The Core Ruling: State ex rel. Miller v. Smith (1981)

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals ruled that under Article III, Section 17 of the West Virginia Constitution (the "Open Courts" clause), any person has a constitutional right to present a complaint to a grand jury.

Syllabus Point 1: "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."

Key Rules from the Decision

• The Prosecutor Cannot Block You: A prosecuting attorney does not have the power to stop a citizen from appearing before a grand jury. Their role is to assist the grand jury, not to act as a "gatekeeper" who can unilaterally deny access.

• The Judge is the Gatekeeper: If a citizen wants to present evidence or a complaint, they must apply to the Circuit Judge, not the prosecutor.

• Protecting the "Sword and Shield": The Court emphasized that the grand jury serves a dual function: a "sword" to investigate crime and a "shield" to protect citizens from unfair prosecution. Allowing citizens to petition directly ensures the "shield" stays intact even if a prosecutor is biased or indifferent.

---

Modern Clarification: In re: Dreyfuse (2020)

Because the 1981 Miller ruling was so broad, the Court clarified the process in 2020 to prevent people from "clogging" the system with frivolous or abusive complaints.

The Current Process

1. Written Application: The citizen must file an application with the Circuit Court.

2. Prosecutor Review: The judge gives a copy to the prosecutor. The prosecutor can then decide to investigate the claim themselves or decline.

3. In-Camera Hearing: If the prosecutor declines or fails to act, the judge holds a private (in-camera) hearing to listen to the citizen and the prosecutor.

4. Judicial Discretion: The judge can deny the application if it is found to be frivolous, abusive, or intended to obstruct justice.

---

Summary Table

Case	Year	Impact on Citizen Rights
State ex rel. Miller v. Smith	1981	Established the constitutional right of citizens to bypass the prosecutor and petition the grand jury via a judge.
In re: Dreyfuse	2020	Added procedural guardrails allowing judges to block applications that are "abusive" or "frivolous."

Would you like me to help you draft a formal application to a circuit court, or do you need the specific syllabus points for a legal brief?

Proposed Request for Investigation

 

TO: The Honorable Circuit Court of Pocahontas County, West Virginia / Office of the Prosecuting Attorney

SUBJECT: Formal Request for a Grand Jury Investigation into Alleged Criminal Conspiracy, Antitrust Violations, and Statutory Breaches by the Pocahontas County Solid Waste Authority (PCSWA).

This document serves as a formal petition requesting an immediate legal investigation into the actions of the Pocahontas County Solid Waste Authority (hereinafter "SWA") and its principal officers. Evidence suggests the SWA has engaged in a coordinated effort to circumvent West Virginia state laws, monopolize local commerce, and obscure its actions from public scrutiny regarding the multi-million dollar waste management transition planned for 2026.

We respectfully request a review of the following alleged violations:

COUNT I: Antitrust Violations, Monopolistic Practices, and Restraint of Trade

The SWA is allegedly attempting to establish an illegal private monopoly for waste disposal by partnering with a single private entity, Allegheny Disposal (operating as JacMal, LLC, controlled by Jacob Meck).

• Illegal Implementation of "Flow Control": To guarantee the financial success of this private partnership, the SWA intends to mandate "Flow Control," a rule dictating that all municipal solid waste generated in the county must be processed through the Allegheny Disposal facility.
• Restraint of Trade: This mandate explicitly prohibits local residents and independent commercial haulers from seeking more affordable tipping fees in neighboring counties. By eliminating all market competition, the SWA is constructing a private monopoly that restricts interstate/inter-county commerce and acts as an illegal restraint on trade.
• Usurpation of PSC Jurisdiction: The SWA does not possess the statutory authority to unilaterally enforce flow control. Under West Virginia Code §24-2-1h, the authority to mandate flow control resides exclusively with the Public Service Commission (PSC), which must first conduct a rigorous evaluation of the public necessity and economic impact.

COUNT II: Procurement Fraud and Evasion of Competitive Bidding

The SWA has allegedly conspired to bypass mandatory state procurement and bidding laws to award a lucrative contract to a pre-selected private vendor.

• Violation of Statutory Thresholds: The SWA approved a 15-year agreement with JacMal, LLC/Allegheny Disposal valued at an estimated $4,120,000. This was done without soliciting competitive bids, in direct violation of West Virginia Code §20-14-10 (which mandates bidding for services exceeding $25,000) and the Fairness in Government Procurement Act under §5-22-1 (which mandates competitive bidding for construction projects over $50,000).
• Use of a Straw-Man Entity: To unlawfully circumvent these laws, the SWA and its attorney, David Sims, characterized the deal as a "public-private partnership". The SWA engineered a scheme to transfer approximately two acres of public landfill property to the Greenbrier Valley Economic Development Corporation (GVEDC) to act as an intermediary, allowing the private contractor to build the facility and lease it back to the county at $16,759 per month. This maneuver appears designed specifically to evade public scrutiny and procurement transparency.

COUNT III: Violations of the Open Governmental Proceedings Act

The SWA has allegedly exhibited a pattern of suppressing public participation and violating the spirit, if not the letter, of state transparency laws.

• Suppression of Public Comment: During a highly contentious public hearing held in a courtroom on March 19, 2026, the SWA strictly limited citizen commentary to "green box" fees alone. The board explicitly refused to allow the public to question or discuss the underlying construction or hauling contracts that were driving those very fee increases.
• Violation of Legislative Intent: West Virginia Code §22C-4-1 dictates that waste management conflicts must be resolved in a "local governmental forum where citizens can most easily participate in the decision-making process". The SWA's exclusionary tactics, including limited public engagement during the 2023 Stakeholder's Group, violate this statutory mandate.

COUNT IV: Statutory Overreach and Illegal Taxation Attempts

In an attempt to fund its privately operated transfer station, the SWA explored unlawfully expanding its taxation authority over Pocahontas County citizens.

• Illegal Fee Assessments on Vacant Land: In March 2026, the SWA’s attorney proposed forcing every deeded property in the county, including unimproved and vacant land, to pay the mandatory "Green Box" waste fee. This is a blatant violation of West Virginia Code §22C-4-10, which restricts such fees solely to persons "occupying a residence or operating a business establishment".
• Prohibited Property Tax Integration: The SWA additionally investigated integrating these solid waste fees directly into the county's ad valorem property tax system to force collection, a practice strictly prohibited under West Virginia tax code.
• Governance Defects: The SWA board has conducted binding votes while operating with illegal vacancies that exceeded the 60-day statutory limit for replacement (§22C-4-3). Furthermore, critics have alleged that SWA Chairman Dave Henderson has been operating and voting under an oath of office that expired in 2015.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF Given the severity of these allegations, which include the unauthorized creation of a monopoly, the avoidance of competitive bidding for a $4.12 million public commitment, and the suppression of citizen oversight, we request that the Circuit Court and the Prosecuting Attorney:

1. Initiate a formal Grand Jury investigation into the SWA’s contracting practices with JacMal, LLC / Allegheny Disposal.
2. Issue an injunction halting the transfer of public lands and the execution of the lease agreement until a full legal review of the bidding process is completed.
3. Investigate the SWA board's governance structure, including expired oaths and procedural violations, to determine the legal validity of their recent votes.

If the prosecuting attorneys is unable or unwilling do so, we request that all citizens who wish to make a presentation be allowed to do so. 

Critical Comment Period

  

Written Comments: The public may submit written comments regarding the green box fee to the Solid Waste Authority office until April 6, 2026, at 4:30 PM.

Based on the information you've provided regarding written comments, I have compiled a complete visual of the public notice for the West Virginia Pocahontas County Solid Waste Authority.

---

Written Comments:

The public may submit written comments regarding the green box fee to the West Virginia Pocahontas County Solid Waste Authority office until April 6, 2026, at 4:30 PM.

---

Public Notice Contact Details

For your reference, here is the official contact information and background context based on my verification:

Office & Contact Information

The Solid Waste Authority (SWA) business office is located within the courthouse complex in Marlinton.

• Physical Address:

  Pocahontas County Courthouse (Basement Level)

  900-H Tenth Avenue

  Marlinton, WV 24954

• Mailing Address:

  P.O. Box 224

  Marlinton, WV 24954

• Phone: (304) 799-6262

• Email: pcswa@frontier.com

• Website: pocahontascountyswa.yolasite.com

Landfill Closure Notice

It is crucial to note that the Pocahontas County Landfill (located at Landfill Road in Dunmore) is estimated to close in the fall of 2026 due to reaching its permitted capacity. Following this closure, the SWA is planning a transition to a transfer station model, which is expected to result in significantly higher Green Box fees to cover the costs of transporting waste to another county's landfill.  

Salt Shaker Press (i.e. Norman Alderman) will FOIA all your letters from the SWA.  

March 26 Hearing Summary

 

The following is a summary of the Pocahontas County Solid Waste Authority hearing held on March 26, 2026. This meeting addressed the proposed construction of a transfer station and changes to the "green box" waste disposal fees.

Solid Waste and Fee Proposal

The primary focus of the meeting was the impending closure of the county landfill and the transition to a transfer station model.

• Landfill Status: Officials stated that the current landfill is nearly full and attempts to expand on adjacent land failed years ago [00:18].

• Transfer Station Plan: The authority proposed an agreement with Jackal Properties LLC (owned by Jacob Meck) to build a transfer station. This is structured as a public-private partnership involving the Greenbrier Valley Economic Development Corporation to reduce costs through property tax abatement [22:33].

• Green Box Fees: There was significant discussion regarding raising the "green box" fee (residential waste fee) to fund the new system. Residents expressed concern that fees could rise from $130 to $300 or more annually [01:09:59].

Public Concerns and Opposition

The hearing was marked by intense public opposition and frequent interruptions.

• Affordability: Many residents, particularly those on fixed incomes or Social Security, stated they could not afford the proposed fee increases [09:02], [01:13:22].

• Lack of Competitive Bidding: Citizens repeatedly questioned why the multi-million dollar contract was a "no-bid" deal given to a single private entity rather than being opened for public bidding [27:18], [01:33:06].

• Monopoly Allegations: Residents expressed fear that the mandatory disposal regulations would create a monopoly, forcing them to use the new facility and making it illegal to take trash to neighboring counties where it might be cheaper [52:30], [58:39].

• Transparency: Speakers requested access to the financial analysis and full contract documents, which officials stated would require a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request [01:13:36], [01:18:51].

Board Actions and Governance

Despite the vocal opposition, the board moved forward with several procedural votes:

• Board Vacancies: The public pointed out that only three of the five board seats are currently filled [41:50].

• Approved Motions: The board voted 3-0 to approve the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Greenbrier Valley Economic Development Corp and Jackal Properties in its current form [33:34]. They also authorized the chairman to execute the lease agreement with Jackal Properties once legal reviews are finalized [35:51].

• Mandatory Regulations: The board voted to approve the mandatory solid waste disposal regulations [40:19].

Deadlines for Public Comment

• Written Comments: The public may submit written comments regarding the green box fee to the Solid Waste Authority office until April 6, 2026, at 4:30 PM [15:43].

• Board Applications: The County Commission is accepting applications for the vacant board seats until April 3, 2026 [01:31:57].

Buy Now, Pay Later Plan

 

 

Let me help structure a 'Buy Now, Pay Later' plan for this specific bag of garbage.

To help us create the most accurate and realistic plan, could you tell me a little more about the contents of the garbage bag?

Understanding the "value" of the contents will help us determine a appropriate payment schedule.

Proposal: 'Trash to Cash' - Installment Plan for (Insert descriptive name for garbage bag contents here)

Customer: (Your Name/Organization)

Product: One (1) bag of garbage, as described: (Insert description of garbage here, e.g., "Contains approximately 10 pounds of household food scraps, discarded packaging, and various non-recyclable items, all secured in a standard black garbage bag.")

Price: (Insert Proposed Total Price)

Proposed Payment Terms: (e.g., 4 Bi-weekly payments of [Price/4], starting [Date of first payment])

Justification for Purchase: (This section should briefly explain why this garbage is being purchased on these terms. Consider highlighting its potential value to the buyer, even if seemingly unusual.)

• Unique Content: (If applicable, mention any unique or high-value items within the garbage.)

• Environmental Responsibility: (If the garbage can be recycled or repurposed, this is a strong point to emphasize.)

• Historical Significance: (Is this "historical garbage" from a specific time or place?)

• Other Potential Uses: (Explain how the buyer intends to use the garbage, e.g., for art, research, or a specific collection.)

Vendor’s Benefit:

• Immediate Liquidity: (Provide a small initial payment or highlight the commitment of future payments as beneficial.)

• Future Sales Potential: (Is there potential for the vendor to sell other, similar items in the future?)

• Waste Reduction: (By offering this payment plan, the vendor is encouraging responsible disposal or repurposing, contributing to waste reduction.)

Next Steps:

This proposal is designed to initiate a conversation about potential partnership and terms. I'm available to discuss this further and look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Please share more details about the garbage, and I can help you refine this proposal!

That information is certainly crucial. To make this an attractive proposition, let's explore how we can reframe these items as valuable resources.

Proposal: 'Sustainable Solutions' - Installment Plan for (Insert descriptive name for garbage bag contents here)

Customer: (Your Name/Organization)

Product: One (1) bag of mixed waste, specifically including: (e.g., Household solid waste, used diapers, spoiled milk, and remaining food waste.)

Price: (Insert Proposed Total Price)

Proposed Payment Terms: (e.g., 4 Bi-weekly payments of [Price/4], starting [Date of first payment])

Justification for Purchase:

This proposal focuses on the acquisition of the stated items with a specific purpose that offers significant value, both environmentally and educationally.

• Composting Potential: (Describe how the half-eaten meals and potentially some parts of the solid waste can be composted, creating nutrient-rich soil.)

• Renewable Energy Generation: (Briefly explain how anaerobic digestion can convert organic waste (food, milk, diaper material) into biogas, a renewable fuel.)

• Material Research & Development: (Highlight how the various materials within the waste, particularly the diaper components, can be analyzed for material properties or tested for new recycling and processing techniques.)

• Educational & Demonstration Projects: (Explain how the waste could be used to demonstrate waste management processes, decomposition rates, or the challenges and opportunities in recycling mixed materials.)

• Environmental Impact Studies: (Mention the potential to use the waste for studying the environmental impacts of specific disposal methods or evaluating the effectiveness of alternative waste treatment solutions.)

Vendor’s Benefit:

• Innovation and Opportunity: (Showcase the unique and pioneering nature of the project and how it places the vendor at the forefront of waste management innovation.)

• Brand Image: (Emphasize the vendor's commitment to sustainability and responsible waste solutions.)

• Collaboration: (Highlight the potential for future collaboration on projects that benefit both parties.)

Next Steps:

This proposal aims to create a mutually beneficial agreement that not only addresses a common challenge but also drives positive environmental and scientific advancement. I'm excited about the possibilities this presents and am eager to discuss the terms with you further.

Once you've filled in the proposed total price, we can refine the payment terms and finalize the proposal. What price are you thinking?

Given the low proposed value of $310 per year, this proposal must be structured as a low-cost service agreement, not a traditional "buy now, pay later" retail plan. The value derived from this waste is experimental or educational, rather than a resellable commodity.

Here is the refined proposal structured around a symbolic, low-cost installment model.

---

Proposal: 'Sustainable Innovation Pilot Program' – Service & Acquisition Agreement

Customer: (Your Name/Organization)

Vendor: (Name of the Entity Currently Possessing the Waste)

Product (Specified Waste Stream): Ongoing acquisition of one (1) large (approx. 13-gallon) standard black trash bag per week (approximately 52 bags per year) containing mixed residential waste, including:

• Solid Waste (packaging, non-recyclables)

• Used, soiled diapers

• Spoiled dairy products (milk, yogurt)

• Half-eaten meals/food scraps

Proposed Total Annual Price: $310.00

---

Proposed Payment Terms (Installment Plan):

To facilitate easy budgeting and project continuity, the annual cost will be split into a series of automatic, deferred payments.

• Option 1: Monthly Small Payments (12 Installments)

  • Payment: $25.83 per month.

  • Best for: Consistent, small budget allocation.

• Option 2: Quarterly Installments (4 Installments)

  • Payment: $77.50 every three months.

  • Best for: Quarterly project reviews.

• Option 3: Semiannual Installments (2 Installments)

  • Payment: $155.00 every six months.

  • Best for: Minimal administrative overhead.

All payments will begin on (Insert Start Date) and will be automated via (Insert Payment Method, e.g., credit card).

---

Justification for Purchase:

This acquisition represents a highly specific research and demonstration resource.

• Composting and Anaerobic Digestion Research: The high organic content (food scraps, spoiled milk, some diaper fibers) makes this ideal for testing small-scale compost pile management and methane capture efficiency (biogas production).

• Material Degradation Studies: Analyzing the decomposition rates of mixed materials (diaper plastic vs. organic matter) when exposed to environmental variables.

• Educational Demonstrations: Using the actual waste mix to teach concepts of waste sorting difficulties, contamination, and alternative waste-to-energy pathways (material realism).

• Pilot Program Evaluation: This pilot program allows the buyer to evaluate the logistical, safety, and operational requirements of processing this specific waste stream at a minimal cost.

Vendor’s Benefit:

• Waste Management Savings: Diverts a significant, consistent portion of bulky residential waste from the landfill or standard sanitation stream, reducing the vendor’s disposal costs.

• Operational Cash Flow (Deferred): Provides a slow, consistent income stream ($310) that covers administrative or handling costs without requiring a large upfront commitment.

• Innovation Branding: Allows the vendor to claim participation in or support of a cutting-edge waste-to-resource sustainability pilot project.

• Guaranteed Take-Back: Ensures a consistent, reliable destination for a specific, often challenging, segment of residential waste.

---

Next Steps:

This proposal outlines a low-barrier-to-entry collaboration focused on experimental sustainability. We believe $310 is a appropriate valuation for this pilot phase, structured to be highly convenient for the customer.

I am eager to finalize the payment option and collection details to begin this initiative.