Judge Cliff Barnes of St. Lucie County Court Florida spoke out against corruption
and is now being attacked by Florida's
Judicial Qualification Committee.
The JQC complaint can only be described as a meaningless act of retribution by
a syndicate of legal practitioners abusing Florida's legal system. When the citizens of
Florida are forced into the legal system it is
the members of The Florida
Bar that reap the benefits.
Criminal convictions force higher taxes and that revenue goes to lawyers, plea
bargains force taxes and that revenue goes to lawyers, it is a monopoly on
justice that has created an injustice against Florida Citizens. When criminal
convictions and plea bargains are accomplished in violation of due process and
the laws it costs us all. Forced taxes due to legal corruption must be stopped
now. When Judges Cliff Barnes spoke out against how his colleagues where
abusing the
system, the law, and the constitution, the system comprised of his colleagues
took action against Judge Barnes in the form of a ill-conceived complaint to
the Judicial Qualification Committee. http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/jqc.shtml
<http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/jqc.shtml>
Even a layman to the law can see the charges against the Judge are superficial;
this is how the corrupted Florida Bar has successfully usurped power from the
citizens of Florida
unchallenged for too long. I implore every reader of this article to read the
JQC complaint against Judge Barnes, become informed and decide your
government's power
over you. Take action and live free, do nothing and you lose the liberties too
many have fought and died to preserve. I believe if WE THE PEOPLE do not
support Judge Barnes it is WE THE PEOPLE who will suffer the greatest lose. It
is when good people do nothing that evil wins.
The State of Florida
is now rated at the bottom in Legal
Fairness (Harris Poll), some 70% of Floridians do not trust
attorney's, the Florida Bar's own statistics state that 14% of
lawyers and judges suffer impairment disorders including cocaine addiction, yet
theses legal practitioners continue shielded by the Corrupt Florida Bar law
with no disclosure requirements to the public.
It is WE THE
PEOPLE who must make our government accountable and when the righteous defend
our freedoms we must defend those with courage who took action. If this is to
be a government formed by "you the people" and for "you the
people" then take 10 to 15 minutes to educate yourself "Google Judge
Cliff Barnes", take action, and let the corrupt know the righteous have
allies. Send this to your friends, write letters to the JQC and Judge Barnes,
let them both know you support Judge Barnes speaking out against the legal
corruption in our court rooms.
The Honorable Cliff Barnes St. Lucie County Court
226 Courthouse Addition 218 South 2nd Street Fort Pierce, FL34950
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.26/598 - Release Date: 12/22/2006 3:22 PM
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.26/598 - Release Date: 12/22/2006
It takes a lot for a California
judge to be disciplined.
Only
31 have been removed or dismissed from office since the establishment of the
Commission on Judicial Performance in 1960. Only 45 have been publicly
admonished. So when the commission does act, citizens should pay attention.
On Nov. 29, commissioners issued a public
admonishment of Superior Court Judge James M. Brooks, a judge for 19 years in
OrangeCounty. They rebuked Brooks' conduct,
but did not remove him from the bench. It's hard to see why not. The evidence
shows that Brooks lacks the appropriate temperament to be a judge.
The
commissioners noted Brooks' "sarcastic, demeaning and intimidating" remarks
in one 2004 case. When Arnold McMahon told Brooks that he failed to show up for
a scheduled deposition because he had chest pains, and his doctor, after giving
him an EKG, told him to immediately go to the nearest hospital, Brooks had this
to say: "Gee. I wonder what's going to happen when we put you in jail, Mr.
McMahon. Your little ticker might stop, you think?"
Brooks
said if McMahon's wife didn't show up on the new date, he'd impose a sanction
of $10,000, adding, "I'd mention jail but it might give her a heart
attack."
The
commission also cited a 2005 case where Brooks questioned the competency of a
woman, Saher Joher, who co-owned a business because, as he referred to her,
"Sosha or whatever her name is ... a lady that, in her own country -- I put
a question mark; I know it's Syria, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon -- probably a very nice
lady, probably doesn't know how much she owns, I don't think." Brooks
wrote that she "in her native Syria (?) probably wouldn't be allowed to
own property."
Such
conduct is not new for Brooks. In 1996, the commission disciplined Brooks for
referring to Hispanic defendants as "Pedro" and issuing a bench
warrant for an Asian defendant for "ten thousand dollars or twenty
thousand yen"; in 1999, for saying in court that if his family was
assaulted he would punch the offender's "lights out" and tell him,
"touch them, you die"; and in 2003, for referring to operators of a
mobile home park as "Nazis" and comparing their actions to the
Holocaust.
The
4th District Court of Appeal also condemned Brooks' conduct in a 2003 case and
ordered a different judge to preside over a retrial. This was a case in which a
worker suffered broken bones and other injuries when his hand was caught in a
bread-making machine at a food packaging plant. After suffering nerve damage in
an alleged botched surgery, he sued. During the trial Brooks said, "It's
too bad this poor gentleman hurt his foot, hand, whatever, but he came here to
work illegally. So he's running the risk of getting injuries. He's running a risk
of getting injured on any job if he is injured and outside the system. Tough.
That's your problem."
As
the appellate court said, immigration status is irrelevant; if an employer
hires undocumented workers, California's
safety and workers' compensation laws still apply.
Who
would want to appear before such a judge? His conduct undermines the basic
fairness and decorum that the public has a right to expect in the courtroom.
The commission has treated him lightly, but that shouldn't obscure the reality.
Brooks needs to find a new line of work.
In my public speeches and in our
J.A.I.L. News Journals, I have commented with tongue-in-Cheek that we could
save a lot of tax dollars by abollishing the Judicial Commissions around the
country. The above is a case in point. The first Judicial Commission in this
country was started right here in California
in 1960. Back then it was called the “Commission on Judicial
Qualifications, and was later changed to “Commission on Judicial
Performance.” Thereafter, the several states
began to design their own Judicial Commissions by assorted names, but the net
result of all of them is that they have great sounding names, but are all short
on results.
As per above, the Commission on Judicial
Performance has been in operation for forty-seven years, and has expended
hundreds of millions of tax dollars, and what have Californians received for
their money. The removal of 31 judges from the bench. My tongue-in-cheek
appeals to a natural law of nature called death. Death has taken hold upon
many, many California
judges, and it was accomplished all with the help or assistance of a Judicial
Commission. It did not cost the taxpayers millions of dollars. It did not
require a form letter from the Commission that states, “During our
October business meeting we took up the subject regarding your complaint
against a Calfornia judge. During that meeting it was decided that there was no
judicial conduct expressed that this Commission should take action. Therefore,
we have closed this case. Thank you for writing to the California Commission on
Judicial Performance,” with a stamp on the inside and outside,
“Confidential – Not for publication.”
Death has resoundedly proven much more effective
than all state’s Judicial Commissions. There is not one judge on record
that has successfully evaded death’s penalty. From my observation of
judges complained of, many are promoted upward to higher judicial promotions.
But with death, there has been not one judge who thereafer was promoted to a
higher position.
I have said in the past that we could
immesely improve our justice system by just flipping a quarter. No lawyers, no
discovery, no appeals, truth and facts don’t matter, just heads or tails.
So, I likewise ask, is there anyone who finds fault with my position that we
should just abolish every Judicial Commission in the country and let death take
its course? Afterall, death’s penalty is final and unappealable, dispite
who their friends were in high places. (Oh, yes, some of you will smile, others
will have a heart attack. The truth is sometimes hard to swallow no matter from
whom it comes!)
To be added or removed, write to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel
Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who isstriking at the
root."-- Henry David Thoreau
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.0/610 - Release Date: 12/30/2006 2:59 PM
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.16.0/610 - Release Date: 12/30/2006
Whether one recognizes it or not, there is
rising to the surface a war in America
– not one of guns and bullets, (although that may not be far behind), but one
of the truth vs. the lie. To be more specific, it is a war of the nation’s
judiciary vs. the truth of JAIL4Judges. In this warfare either the judiciary
will dominate the political future of America, or J.A.I.L. (Judicial
Accountability Initiative Law) will – there shall be no neutral ground.
Aside from external physical aggression
upon a nation, every country has reached its ultimate demise and internal
collapse as the direct result of its judiciary. That is to say that every evil
and political corruption in America
which you can think of is the result of some judge, either state or federal, at
some level, that has sponsored it, whether wittingly or unwittingly.
When J.A.I.L. was first founded in 1995,
there was little to no attention paid to the judiciary of this country. The
political front lines were limited to which of the two parties was going to
dominate the various state legislatures, the Congress, and the Executive. But
those times have changed, and I have watched it happen.
At that time I was informed by a computer
technician, Mr. Greg Brown, that a thorough search of the internet revealed
only one website dealing with the judiciary; and that was one put up by the
judges complaining that they were not getting paid enough for the great work
they were doing. But no judicial expose` websites could be found. Today,
judicial expose` websites are all over the net by the thousands; and one can
hardly miss JAIL4Judges.org. (A Google web search, or any search engine, will
easily reveal J.A.I.L’s influence on America’s political scene today.)
It is because of J.A.I.L’s national
influence that it has drawn public fire from numerous Chief Justices of the
various states such as Missouri, Kansas, Pennsylivania, California, South
Dakota, etc., as well as from the recently retired United States Supreme Court
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. It is getting difficult to keep up with the
publicity that this issue of judicial accountability is generating. If this
subject, as sought to be established by J.A.I.L., is so evil and wrong as it is
being projected by its enemies, then why is all the public hullabaloo sought
for its defeat?
I have been watching the looming warfare
rising to the surface among the various State Bar Associations defending their
fellow lawyer comrades dressed in black robes, that before I can report on one,
two more State Bars are jumping into the fray to lie and deceive all residents
of their respective states about J.A.I.L. These Bar Associations are getting
bolder and bolder in coming out so fast that it is depriving J.A.I.L. of the
opportunity of exposing their plans. Gee, they have publicly pulled the veil
off their plan of action to deceive every American before we even have the time
to unveil what is under the sheet.
The following is a real-life experience. A
secretary in the District Attorney’s Office approached a Deputy District
Attorney using the copy machine, where she asked, “Why is it that everything in
law is so complex and so confusing? Why can’t matters be spelled out plainly?”
He was honest enough to say, “We lawyers make it that way on purpose. It is
called job security. If we made things simple and easy to be understood, the
people would not need us lawyers, and you and I wouldn’t have a job.” This
Deputy District Attorney advanced to become the head deputy over a branch
office of the largest District Attorney’s Office in this nation, Los AngelesCounty.
One of my self-made riddles goes this way.
“What is it that everybody hates, but wants one?” The answer is, “A lawyer.”
As the head of the JAIL4Judges
organization, I am being constantly bombarded with, “Excuse me, but do you know
where I can find a good lawyer?” And these requests are coming from those who
hate lawyers and want nothing to do with them. Ask anyone about their lawyer
experiences. They are considered among the lowest and most despised professions
on earth. There are few professions specifically condemned in the Bible. Two of
them are lawyers and prostitutes. Both do the same thing to their clients –
screw them. Of lawyers Christ said, “Woe unto you also ye lawyers! For ye lade
men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens
with one of your fingers. … for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye
entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.” Luke
11:46 & 52. But of prostitutes, Christ said, “Verily I say unto you, That …
harlots go into the kingdom
of God before you.” Matt.
21:31. One could humorously make an argument that America would be better off if it
stoned its lawyers, and let the harlots write the laws.
There we have it, folks; the Scriptures
pronounce a specific curse upon the profession of lawyers which take away the
key of knowledge, neither enter into the way of truth, and hinder those who
would. They are ministers of lies and masters of deception, farming out their
wares of evil, fraud, and hypocrisy. They plot to overthrow the truth - the
Good Book tells us so. That is their profession!
Now don’t get me wrong, not all lawyers are
evil. Frankly I am surprised at all the lawyers who have come to join
JAIL4Judges. We are filled with them. They are people disenchanted with their
own profession, and I can truthfully say that it could have been just as
possible for them to have written this very J.A.I.L. News Journal. And the flow
of lawyers to J.A.I.L. is increasing. And believe it or not, even judges are
having their eyes opened and made bold enough to express their sympathies with
J.A.I.L., even though they may not openly publicize their affinities with us.
Right here in Los AngelesCounty, a Superior Court
judge secretly called me and told me just that.
Okay, here is the plan to deceive America
respecting JAIL4Judges. These Bar Associations around America know that people do not
like attorneys at all, whether in black robes, or not. Therefore they must draw
J.A.I.L’s objective of holding judges accountable off judges and redirect it towards other matters of which
the public is concerned. One of those goals is to convince the people that
J.A.I.L.’s objective is to punish jurors. After all, most everyone at some
point serves jury duty. If they can convince America that J.A.I.L.’s objective
is to allow convicted criminals to go after jurors for the decisions they made,
then they have gained the concern of every American. No American wants to find
themselves sued, tried or convicted of a crime because they were called upon to
serve jury duty. This is the Bar Associations’ planned plot as ministers of
lies. They are hoping they can pull this off again and again in all states.
Their goal is to employ subtlety so as to
not disclose to the public that this ploy is designed, engineered, and crafted
by lawyers. After all, people hate judges and lawyers. If the public found out
that it was the lawyers that were pulling the strings in the background, it
might very well backfire on them.
In order to maintain their distraction away
from themselves working in the background, they must succeed in convincing the
people that it is them, themselves, engineering the defeat of JAIL4Judges. They
are proposing, for instance, working though bankers, beauticians,
barbers, and bartenders, and every matter in which people naturally find
themselves in their day-to-day activities.
This “Mission Impossible” plot may be
likened to “Operation Deception,” deceiving all America about JAIL4Judges. They are
starting with Florida and the State of Georgia.
I will be covering this plot in Georgia
in an upcoming publication. This plot in Florida
started in April, 2006 during the “show-election” that was placed into
operation in South Dakota
on November 7.
Should their plot succeed, America
will become like third-world nations without a viable or honest election
process. Here we are fighting in foreign nations to secure their rights
to vote; but all the while seeking to overthrow honest elections here in America!
No wonder they are drawing the lines against JAIL4Judges, determining that the
message of judicial accountability in America MUST be defeated at all costs!
To borrow a quote from our Founding Fathers
re: the shot heard ‘round the world, if these lawyers, both in and out of black
robes, mean to have a war, then let it begin here, and let it begin now! We
accept their challenge.
The Florida Bar
651 E. Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300
(850) 561-5600 January 15, 2007
Despite SD loss, J.A.I.L.4Judges targets Florida Attorneys urged to be prepared for the fight By Gary Blankenship Senior Editor
If backers of an amendment known as
J.A.I.L.4Judges succeed in getting their constitutional amendment on the Florida ballot, the
state’s lawyers should be ready to lead a campaign to defeat it.
The public face of that campaign should not be judges and lawyers, but rather
regular citizens who would be adversely affected by the amendment that
nominally seeks to strip civil and criminal immunity from the judiciary in
cases where a special grand jury decides they have acted improperly.
Tom Barnett, executive director of the State Bar of South Dakota, gave that
advice to the Bar Board of Governors at its December meeting. Barnett led the
campaign last year that resulted in the defeat of a J.A.I.L.4Judges initiative
in South Dakota
that wound up failing by an 89-to-11 percent margin.
“When we planned our campaign, we immediately decided that the worst people to
talk about attacks on judges were judges and the second worst people were
lawyers,” Barnett said. “What we needed were people on the street.”
He identified those people as the “four B’s” – bankers, beauticians, barbers,
and bartenders, or “people who talk with people every day.”
“The whole central theme to this campaign was to build coalitions and for the
good of us all, let’s try to maintain those coalitions,” Barnet said. “Build
your coalitions now, because J.A.I.L.4Judges has announced that the next two
target states are Nevada and Florida. Michigan is third.”
The Florida
chapter of the organization (its Web site is http://floridajail4judges.org ) is
already trying to get signatures for an initiative petition. It provides that
judges and those who act in a judicial capacity can lose immunity from civil
and criminal prosecution in some cases. Under the amendment, the losing party
in a case, civil or criminal, can file a petition with a special statewide
grand jury once all appeals have been exhausted. The grand jury can overturn
the outcome of the case and, if it decides a judge acted improperly, make the
judge subject to civil or criminal liability.
While judges might be unpopular, Barnett noted the amendment would have
far-reaching impacts. One is that many locally elected officials, including
city and county commissioners and school board members, can have judicial
duties, and hence be covered under the amendment. So can ordinary residents
when they serve on juries a fact the South Dakota anti-amendment campaign
highlighted as ad after ad hammered that criminal defendants would be able to
harass or sue jurors.
Barnett said one poll showed that allowing jurors to be sued was opposed by 86
percent of the voters. “It’s a very, very powerful message,” he said. “That’s
why we used that.”
In seeking support for its campaign against the amendment, he said opponents
looked to the users of the court system, particularly the business community.
Barnett said he explained the consequences of the amendment, including that
relatively simple matters like repossessions of cars and mortgage foreclosures
could become much more complicated and expensive if the debtors decided to
fight their cases through the special statewide grand jury. That jury, he
added, would be able to nullify contracts which could leave lenders with an
empty bag.
The consequences? Car dealers might find lenders unwilling to finance
automobile purchases and banks might be unwilling to issue mortgages, he said.
Hence, the anti-amendment campaign was able to get financial and political
support from bankers, insurance companies, car dealers, and even the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce and tort reform groups that recognized the potential mayhem
from the amendment, Barnett said.
In Florida,
Barnett said a key factor will be whether the J.A.I.L.4Judges campaign hires
professionals to gather signatures to get its initiative on the ballot. In South Dakota, he said
the effort was headed nowhere until backers hired professional signature
gatherers. The same is likely to happen in Florida.
He advised the Bar to begin preparing early for the potential campaign, and outlined
how the anti-amendment campaign was waged in South Dakota.
The first phase of the campaign, when resources were scarce, was a public
outreach that paired lawyers and judges with laypeople for appearances at civic
and community groups. The emphasis, Barnett said, was on having the nonlawyers
speak, with the legal professionals available to provide detailed answers if
needed.
“Lawyers are very poor explainers of legal issues,” he said. “People expect the
lawyer to be very glib and polished . . . But the hardware store owner they
listened to, he’s not very polished, but people leave persuaded.”
Early last year when Barnett geared up the campaign against the amendment,
initial polls showed that voters had a favorable impression of the measure by a
3-1 to 4-1 margin.
Initially short on funds, Barnett launched the local outreach program and began
building coalitions with various groups. By the early fall, when more money
began coming in, the local outreach program had shifted sentiment to 3-1
against the amendment, but still with over half the voters undecided.
With more money, Barnett was able to begin television and radio ads. Those
emphasized that convicted criminals could use the amendment to harass jurors
and try to get out of jail, and that the amendment did not spring from South
Dakotans but rather was imported from a California group.
In building coalitions, Barnett said he got every major town and city in the
state to pass a resolution opposing the amendment. He reached out to doctors,
hospitals, bankers, insurance companies, accountants, and others and explained
how the amendment could upset the legal system and even allow the reopening of
previously settled and decided cases since the amendment applied retroactively.
“When it comes to a full-scale attack on our court system, they have to be on
our side because they use the court system,” Barnett said.
He estimated that the personal outreach campaign got 60 percent of the voters
to oppose the amendment, and the media campaign raised that to nearly 90
percent. Indeed, the campaign was so successful that while it required 47,000
signatures to get the amendment on the ballot, it got only about 36,500 votes
even though 72 percent of the state’s voters went to the polls.
Even if it appears the J.A.I.L.4Judges organization is weak in Florida, Barnett advised
gearing up for a campaign because of the seriousness of the issue.
“Start building coalitions today,” he said. “Who uses the court system?
Business. Who has the money to do appeals? Business. Tell them this will hurt
the court system.”
To be added or removed, write to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel
Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who isstriking at the
root."-- Henry David Thoreau
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.9/622 - Release Date: 1/10/2007 2:52 PM
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/624 - Release Date: 1/12/2007 2:04 PM
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/624 - Release Date: 1/12/2007
In 1960 California was the first state to came up with
the idea of creating a special commission just for judges. It was then called
the Judicial Qualifications Commission, and later changed to the Commission on
Judicial Performance (CJP). Its supposed purpose was to oversee the discipline
of judges. Since 1960 all other states have followed suit under various names.
It was thought that in order to preserve
the privacy of judges and to protect the integrity of the judiciary, all
matters should be held in strict privacy. Such privacy policy, however, has continually
come under fire over the years from all quarters, arguing that privacy fosters
hidden corruption among the judges who are operating in secrecy. Nonethless,
the idea of secrecy among judges has prevailed under the theory that
secrecy preserves the integrity of the judiciary. Thus, the public is called
upon to blindly accept the argument, “We’re judges, we do it right – just trust
us!”
In Los Angeles,
complaints against judges tops all other complaints asked to be investigated by
the CountyGrand Jury. However, the Grand Jury has
now been specifically precluded by statute from investigating judges. Since the
creation of the CJP, all complaints against judges must now be directed to the
Commission on Judicial Performance, where they are quickly sand-bagged and
hidden forever from the light of day. The result is that the CJP has tons of
indicting information on judges which are safely concealed away in secret
files, and those offending judges can go on doing what they’ve always done as
if nothing ever happened. If the heat gets too hot for any particular judge,
the CJP will shuffle the judges around to another judicial district where they
can start over.
As if a monkey wrench had dropped into the
judicial secrecy gearbox, an Arkansas Appellate Court Judge named Wendell
Griffen has specifically waived his right to privacy and the protection of his
identity during his disciplanary proceeding, and has demanded that his case be
made public, and open to the light of day, rather than conducted in secret.
His demand for openness has caused quite a
stir in the judicial system, which raises the question as to why the court
should continue to conduct proceedings in secrecy when the judge has waived his
right to privacy. This question is now before the Arkansas Supreme Court with
the State’s Judicial Commission arguing that despite the waiver of his privacy,
they must keep the disiplinary proceeding secret in order to protect the
integrity of the judicial system. Hence they deem privacy to be a systemic
issue, not a personal matter. In other words, the Commission doesn’t waive “its
right” to privacy, presuming it has that right in the first place.
This raises the issue of whether the
conduct of any official on the public payroll would properly be a matter of secrecy
at all from the public that pays him. It has been said that open sunlight is
the best disinfectant. The Bible tells us, “…men loved darkness rather than
light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the
light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he
that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest…”
John 3:19-21. Varmints such as rats, cockroaches and creeping things, as with
judges, love darkness, and abhor the light of full disclosure. By nature,
judicial commissions choose to proceed in secrecy because they, too, love
darkness for the same reason.
“What’s there to hide?”
Click on the below URL and check out what
is going on in the courts.
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who isstriking at the
root."-- Henry David Thoreau
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/624 - Release Date: 1/12/2007 2:04 PM
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/624 - Release Date: 1/12/2007 2:04 PM
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/624 - Release Date: 1/12/2007
Entire South
Dakota Supreme Court Recuses Themselves
Most everyone experienced with courts
knows how difficult it is to acquire a recusal of a judge in their case. We
have even witnessed a judge who decided the question involving whether he was
biased, or not. He, of course, found himself not to be biased, and so finding,
he ruled that he was qualified to continue on with the case despite a sworn
declaration to the contrary that was to be heard by another judge!
The below is an unheard-of incident where
all five justices of the Supreme Court of South Dakota have recused themselves
from a case involving the public’s right to know the truth.
Ironically, it is the public’s right to
know that is involved in the recent November 7th election in South Dakota, wherein
the electorate were deprived of the knowledge of the issue regarding Amendment
E, and were left to blindly trust the honesty of State Attorney General Long’s
ballot “explanation.” We anticipate a real legal explosion regarding the right
to vote in South Dakota
to be forthcoming. –Ron Branson
PIERRE (AP) -- All five justices on the South Dakota Supreme Court
have disqualified themselves from hearing an appeal in an open-records lawsuit.
The Argus Leader of Sioux Falls is seeking the names of those
invited to last year's Governor's Invitational Pheasant Hunt.
The justices did not give a reason for taking themselves off the appeal, but a
lawyer in the case had suggested earlier that the justices might disqualify
themselves if they had been invited to the hunt.
Judith Roberts, lawyer for the state's Unified Judicial System, said the
justices don't even tell their staff why they disqualify themselves.
Five lower court judges - Glenn Severson, John Bastian, Jack von Wald, Arthur
Rusch and Steven Jensen - have been appointed as replacement justices in the
case. They could treat the case just as if they were permanent justices,
Roberts said.
"It won't affect it at all. The judges that have been appointed to hear
the case are veterans. They are well qualified," Roberts said.
The governor uses the annual hunt partly to attract businesses to South Dakota.
In April, Circuit Judge Max Gors ruled that because the state is not required
to maintain a list of those invited to the hunt, it is not required to make the
list public. The Argus Leader wants the Supreme Court to look at the larger
issue of the public's right to know.
"We believe that the heartbeat of any democracy in South Dakota, or
anywhere else, is the right of the electorate to know what its government at
all levels is doing," Randell Beck, the Argus Leader's executive editor,
said Thursday.
The list might be a narrow issue, but the case could open future government
actions and make officials more accountable, Beck said.
"It may not directly affect me now, but what about the next time and the time
after that?"
To be added or removed, write to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel
Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who isstriking at the
root."-- Henry David Thoreau
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.4/615 - Release Date: 1/3/2007 1:34 PM
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/624 - Release Date: 1/12/2007 2:04 PM
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/624 - Release Date: 1/12/2007
Taken
from: "Of the Dissolution of Government" Chapter XIX, ¶220
... But the state of mankind is not so miserable that they are not
capable
of
using this remedy till it be too late to look for any. To tell people
they
may provide for themselves, by erecting a new legislative,
when
by oppression, artifice, or being delivered over to a foreign power,
their
old one is gone, is only to tell them, they may expect relief
when
it is too late, and the evil is past cure. This is in effect
no
more than to bid them first be slaves, and then to take care
of
their liberty; and when their chains are on, tell them,
they
may act like freemen. This, if barely so, is rather mockery
than
relief; and men can never be secure from tyranny,
if
there be no means to escape it till they are perfectly under it:
and
therefore it is, that they have not only a right to get out of it,
but
to prevent it. --John Locke
(1632-1704)
For the State of South Dakota, through its
Constitution, to (1) acknowledge that the People have the right
to alter or reform their government (Art. VI §26), and further, (2) officially
recognize their right to vote in order to carry out the former right, stating
that government shall not interfere "to prevent the free exercise of the
right of suffrage" (Art. VII §1), AND THEN INDEED INTERFERE is rather a
mockery than a constitutional provision.
Even more basic election fraud than rigging
the vote count is concealing vital information from the electorate on an
important issue facing the South
Dakota voters in 2006. We, of course, are
referring to Amendment E, the South Dakota J.A.I.L. Amendment. J.A.I.L. cannot
begin to compare with the large corporations, the entire South Dakota government, and the media
regarding financial and advertising resources for this campaign. Nevertheless,
we were confident that this lop-sided advantage would not deter the voters from
seeing through the propaganda, character assassination, voter intimidation, and
various other nefarious activities including CRIME to defeat Amendment E.
Although confident that Amendment E would
not only pass, but would pass handsomely because of its 3-to-1 favorable rating
throughout the year-and-a-half campaign, we nevertheless sent out warning
signals with ample documentation to everyone on our mailing lists, with dozens
of J.A.I.L. News Journals. Mr. Branson also set up a special South
Dakota website, shown in the heading above, containing
intense reporting on the election fraud occurring in South Dakota. The pre-election reporting on
that site is still there, undisturbed, for anyone to read.
All eyes across the nation are now poised on
the South Dakota 2006 election, just two days away, and particularly the
J.A.I.L. Amendment (Amendment E). The American People are relying on The
People of South Dakota to carry out their responsibility to amend their
government pursuant to §26 of the South Dakota Constitution in order "to
provide new guards for their future security" as instructed in the
Declaration of Independence.
South
Dakota was the first state to have the initiative
process; and now it is the first state, through this process, for The
People to be able to do something about out-of-control government that
they have been complaining about for decades all over the country. We now
see that, even with the initiative process, the entire South Dakota government has managed to
interfere with that process through fraud and deceit on its People. The
question is, will The People of South Dakota withstand this election fraud by
their State government? These events will shine the light for
other states to be prepared to deal with this problem of voter intimidation
through government fraud and deceit. No matter what, J.A.I.L. is still the
"Achilles' heel" to curbing a tyrannical government. The
message of J.A.I.L. has gotten out and it will not go away!
Besides the entire South Dakota State
Legislature criminally committing election fraud on the People of South
Dakota, as we have exposed on February 21st in a J.A.I.L. News
Journal "South
Dakota Legislature Forfeits Their Public Trust," as well
as March 5th, "Rogue Miscreant Legislators,"
below is part of an expose` of South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long taken
from the Home Page of the South Dakota website giving
details about the fraudulent misrepresentations regarding Amendment E appearing
in the "Attorney General Explanation" on the South Dakota 2006
ballot.
*
* * *
While the State of South Dakota allowed the
voters to read the "Attorney
General Explanation," which was a fraudulent misrepresentation of
Amendment E on the ballot written as an editorial against the Amendment,
the State did not provide an equal opportunity for the voters to also read for
themselves the official text of
Amendment E so that they would be properly informed of what the Amendment
actually did provide in order to make an intelligent choice when casting their
vote.
It was incredible to me that this unfairness
by the State would actually occur, especially in light of its Constitution that
states under Article VII §1, "Elections shall be free and equal"
and "no power... shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise
of the right of suffrage," so I wrote in South
Dakota 2006 Ballot Contaminated:
We are receiving reports about the
misrepresentations made by South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long; and that
subject is covered at length on the Home Page of our South Dakota website, www.sd-jail4judges.org. However, I wasn't
sure if that misrepresentation actually appeared on the South
Dakota ballot itself, under an explanation of Amendment E, to
"aid" the South Dakota
voters in understanding what they were voting for. And so I decided to
check it out on a Google search, and found the following: Taken from a
sample 2006 ballot for South Dakota
I was shocked to find out that only Long's
negative write-up about Amendment E appeared on the ballot. The matter was
taken to court in an attempt to clear up that fraud, which is reported in JNJ
12/29/06 The South Dakota Election Re J.A.I.L. Was
Fraudulent and Should Be Declared Null & Void. You can read the
snide remarks made by Circuit Judge Gors right on the Order
itself, particularly ¶53:
"The
attorney general could have said with a straight face that the real purpose and
effect of the proposed JAIL amendment is to destroy justice in South Dakota..."
The above is all said and done officially
on behalf of the State of South
Dakota.
Where Are We Now??
I'm wondering what John Locke means when he
says (quoted in the above introduction) But
the state of mankind is not so miserable that they are not capable of using
this remedy till it be too late to look for any. I believe he's
referring to the right of mankind to reform their government when they deem it
necessary, but some of "mankind" is also "government." As
we can see from the South Dakota
fiasco, there is certainly a difference between "mankind" within
government (the government), and "mankind" outside of government (the
People). As can be seen, government --at least in South Dakota-- has usurped its power and is
not serving the People, but is operating against the People. Locke
certainly recognized this difference. In fact he says that when government has
usurped its power, it's no longer "government" but
a "foreign power" - their
old one is gone.
Referring to "this remedy" Locke
described it in the preceding portion as
the people are at liberty to provide for themselves by erecting a new
legislative differing from the other by the change of persons, or form, or
both, as they shall find it most for their safety and good. The South Dakota
Constitution (Art. VI §26) describes it as "they have the right in lawful
and constituted methods to alter or reform their forms of government in such
manner as they may think proper." The sentence But the state of mankind is not so miserable that they are not
capable of using this remedy till it be too late to look for any apparently indicates
that the political state of the People is not so bad that they won't be able to
reform their government according to law before it's too late to find a
remedy. I know there's a "maxim of law" that says "For
every wrong, there's a remedy." It all turns on that word
"remedy."
We are still convinced that SDC Art.VI §26,
and similar provisions in other initiative states, IS THE REMEDY NEEDED
FOR THE PEOPLE TODAY-- AND J.A.I.L. IS THE ONLY MEANS AVAILABLE OF IMPLEMENTING
THAT REMEDY. The "event" in South Dakota called an "election"
in November 2006 hasn't changed that fact; rather, it has strengthened it!
What was really conducted by the State of South Dakota last
November was a "Show-Election," described as an extreme example of electoral fraud
where an election is held purely for show. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show_election.
The only purpose of the show-election was to defeat J.A.I.L. (Amendment E); and
it was carried out by nefarious means in violation of state law. "The 'results' of a show-election are frequently
one-sided to the point of absurdity, with leaders claiming mandates of 90
percent or higher; this rarely occurs in a free democratic election."
There is not an ounce of credibility in the
reported outcome of 89% against the Amendment, and 11% in favor of
it. South Dakotans we have communicated with told us that the voters
weren't even provided the wording of Amendment E so they could read it
before voting on it, although an official opinion against the Amendment
appeared right on the ballot itself which was backed up by South Dakota
courts. The Amendment carried a 3-to-1 favorable polling for a year-and-a-half
before allegedly "plummeting" on the day of election. The
show-election "showed" what the State of South Dakota wanted, but we know that TRUTH
was not in
the picture being shown.
The question that must be contemplated now
is, What happens when the constitutional remedy to reform government by
the People is blocked by the very government sought to be reformed? That's the
crossroad at which the People have now arrived, and it's up to the People to
decide how to get through it. The State Constitution authorized the remedy for
the People, and yet the State was able to make a mockery of that Constitution. Will
it be with impunity? That will determine the future of this country. Will
other states be able to overcome this dilemma?
We will continue to pray about this serious
crossroads in the life of America.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel
Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who isstriking at the
root."-- Henry David Thoreau
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.6/617 - Release Date: 1/5/2007 11:11
AM
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.9/623 - Release Date: 1/11/2007 3:33
PM
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.9/623 - Release Date: 1/11/2007 3:33 PM
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/624 - Release Date: 1/12/2007 2:04 PM
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/624 - Release Date: 1/12/2007
Laws are written by our legislators
theoretically to govern the conduct of men. In some cases specific laws are
written to govern the conduct of judges. In the story below, it deals with laws
specifically written to govern the conduct of judges who were at one time
hiding the truth from the public. As we know, all laws are only as good as
their enforcement no matter who is its intended object. This raises the question
as to whether judges should enjoy immunity from violating the laws that govern
their conduct!
For years this established law against
judicial secrecy has been violated by the judges, causing the need for
initiating very expensive and protracted lawsuits in order to force judges to
comply with the law. On the good side, it might be argued that at last we now
have gotten the judges to comply with the law. But the more important question
is, why was it necessary in the first place for anyone to have to force
miscreant judges to comply with the law?
Imagine if we normal people who are not
judges could say, “Alright, you caught me! So now I move the court to just drop
the matter, and forget it ever happened because I will now obey the law.”
- Ron Branson
Your Courts, Their Secrets
"It's
a new day" as secrecy fades
By Ken
Armstrong, Justin Mayo and Steve Miletich Seattle Times staff
reporters
In King County Superior
Court, requests to seal records used to get approved casually. Often, all the parties
had to do was ask. The defendant wanted to avoid embarrassment? The judge said
OK.
Snubbing rules
established years ago, judges and court commissioners approved even the most
extreme secrecy: sealing an entire file. At least 420 civil suits were sealed
in their entirety since 1990, a Seattle Times investigation found. Those
sealing orders kept the public from knowing about wrongdoing or alleged
negligence by local schools, hospitals, lawyers, churches, state agencies,
manufacturers and others.
At least 266 guardianship
cases were similarly sealed restricting awareness of an obscure legal field
meant to protect the vulnerable. Secrecy helped keep conflicts of interest and
questionable billing practices by court-appointed guardians from public eyes.
And divorce? The whole
file was hidden away in at least 692 cases since 1990, eroding one of the legal
system's most important checks. If the file is sealed, how can anyone know if
the outcome was fair? What's to keep a judge from being unduly swayed by one
side's power or legal muscle?
But since The Times began
reporting on improper sealing practices in March of this year, such secrecy has
evaporated. A recent review of KingCounty court records
failed to turn up even one civil, guardianship or divorce case that has been
sealed in its entirety in the past nine months.
Instead of being hidden
away, files are being opened up.
Files
sealed: then and now
Between 1990 and 2005, KingCounty
judges and commissioners sealed in their entirety:
420
civil cases
266
guardianship cases
692
divorce cases
Total, 1990-2005: 1,378
Cases sealed since The
Times' series began: 0
Source:
Seattle Times
review of state court records
KingCounty judges and commissioners have unsealed 42 cases based
upon a motion or formal request by The Times. In SnohomishCounty,
at least 150 files have been opened with hundreds more likely to follow. Files
in other counties, including Pierce, Spokane
and Whatcom, have also been unsealed.
Even narrow secrecy
requests get scrutinized in ways unimaginable a year ago. Before, parties
routinely made settlement amounts confidential. The courts typically approved,
even though a settlement's terms can provide the public valuable information.
Was the amount a nominal figure easily dismissed as a nuisance settlement? Or
was it something more?
Last year the YMCA of
Greater Seattle was sued in a case with obvious public interest. A Seattle couple alleged
that a teenager working in a YMCA day-care center had sexually assaulted their
son and five other children. The YMCA, accused of negligent hiring and
supervision, elected to settle.
At a hearing last month,
Court Commissioner Kimberley Prochnau was asked about the possibility of
keeping the settlement's terms confidential. Prochnau said things are different
now: The parties' mere desire for secrecy is no longer enough to seal any
document. The settlement amount the YMCA agreed to pay $300,000 to this one
family went into the court file, unsealed.
Prochnau told the
courtroom: "It's a new day."
The cost
of public access
When it comes to open
court records in Washington
state, a substantial divide has separated principle from practice.
The principle abhors
secrecy. "Justice in all cases shall be administered openly," the
Washington Constitution says. State law says court documents can be sealed only
if a judge finds "compelling circumstances" a demanding legal
standard and provides a detailed explanation for secrecy that takes into
account the public interest in open records.
But the practice has been
to accept secrecy with little regard for legal restrictions. At least 97
percent of the sealing orders reviewed by The Times violated secrecy rules
established in the 1980s.
Undoing what should never
have been done has proved challenging and expensive. The Times spent months
identifying and sorting sealed cases across the state. Alerted by the
newspaper, the clerk's office in KingCounty opened 294 cases
that had been sealed by mistake. As for the others? The judges in KingCounty
unlike their colleagues in Snohomish and several other counties took a vote and
refused to unseal lawsuits without a formal motion. So The Times had to go to
court.
Davis Wright Tremaine, a
law firm that specializes in public-records cases, assigned three lawyers to
pursue motions for The Times: Marshall Nelson, Eric Stahl and Lissa Shook. In
eight cases where Davis Wright had a conflict, motions were filed by Shelley
Hall, with the law firm Stokes Lawrence.
Davis Wright moved to
open 32 cases. The firm put in at least 800 hours. Some cases look little time.
Others took months. The lawyers' fees, on average, turned out to be about
$6,000 per case.
Extend that figure to all
420 of the sealed civil suits, and the cost to The Times the cost of public
access would be a staggering $2.5 million. And that's for just one type of
case, in only one county. For the newspaper, costs escalated as obstacles
mounted.
If possible, motions
should be served on all parties to a case. So The Times tried to find
plaintiffs and defendants even though the files were sealed, with crucial
identifying details unavailable to the newspaper.
We tried, to no avail, to
serve one woman with the last name Roe a frequent pseudonym in legal matters,
akin to Doe. But how do you serve someone when you're unsure of her real name? Other
names were common and offered not even a middle initial. How do you serve
someone when dozens of people have the same name?
Other parties were easy
to identify but hard to find. One process server in Wyoming tried to locate a dentist who had
apparently retired there. A separate process server went 10 times to a Seattle address listed for
the dentist. We never did manage to hand him our motion, but a judge eventually
opened the file anyway.
Some parties raised
objections that bordered on the absurd but we had to respond, nonetheless. One
woman asked to have her name stripped out of every document in the lawsuit,
even though she was a named defendant. A commissioner refused. Other cases
required us to rebut arguments based on what was in the file even though we
couldn't see the file for ourselves.
Files
unsealed, secrets revealed
So far we've filed 40
motions to unseal cases in KingCounty. Thirty-six were
granted and two denied. The two others are pending.
In addition, six other
cases were opened in KingCounty by a handful of
judges willing to act without a formal motion.
The unsealed lawsuits
have revealed stories such as these:
A lawsuit filed three
years ago disclosed how a 13-year-old girl came to be raped while in the
state's care. Her story showed bureaucratic bungling by the state's
social-services agency; unheeded warnings by YouthCare, a group-home operator;
and audacity by state lawyers, who claimed the victim was partly at fault for
being raped by a 29-year-old youth worker. A judge had sealed this lawsuit upon
a motion that said the file's contents could embarrass YouthCare and the state.
Five years ago, the NorthshoreSchool District settled a legal claim
that accused four principals of ignoring repeated warnings that an
elementary-school teacher was fondling students. But a secrecy agreement
forbade the young victims from saying anything bad about the teacher or
district and even restricted what they could tell any therapist. After The
Times wrote about this case, the IssaquahSchool District began
investigating one of the principals, Ed Young. He resigned two weeks later as
principal of SkylineHigh School.
When state health-care
regulators settled disciplinary charges against Dr. James H. Greene earlier
this year handing out their lightest punishment they didn't know about a
malpractice lawsuit that accused him of not bothering to examine a pregnant
woman deep in labor. The delivery later went awry, and the baby suffered
devastating injuries. Greene's employer, Group Health Cooperative, settled the
lawsuit for $5.5 million, but the entire file was sealed. The case shows up in
a database used by lawyers, but as Confidential v. Confidential, in countyConfidential.
The family of a diabetic
woman who suffered permanent brain damage accused Medtronic Inc., a
manufacturer, of selling an unsafe insulin pump and the University of
Washington Medical Center of medical malpractice. The file was sealed in 2003,
concealing concerns about the pump and how Medtronic had not reported the case
to federal regulators. The UW, a public entity, settled its part of the lawsuit
for $3.2 million but on condition the plaintiffs not tell anyone, including the
media, how much the university paid or why.
Other unsealed lawsuits
have also proved valuable. One accused a judge of committing legal malpractice
in one of the last cases he tried before joining the bench. Another accused a
respiratory therapist of using a wrong adapter so that oxygen was forced into a
newborn, with no way out. That lawsuit was settled for $7.8 million, described
as a record for birth-injury cases in Washington.
But some files have been
opened under conditions that make it hard to tell what really happened.
Three years ago, a Boeing
manager sued the company, alleging another manager had "sexually assaulted"
her in a hotel room during a business trip. The alleged assailant once the
woman's supervisor had previously said he "wanted her" and told her
how his high-level Boeing friends cheated on their wives, the complaint says.
When the woman reported
the alleged assault to Boeing, "she was told by Boeing personnel that she
had to leave town for two weeks," the lawsuit says. Boeing isolated and
punished her, the complaint alleges.
This file was sealed in
2004 and reopened this year. But the identities of the alleged assailant and
other Boeing officials involved in the case have been blacked out.
Although the court file
refers to the plaintiff only by her initials, she feared being identified if
other information was revealed. So she asked to have all kinds of details
titles, places, dates, names marked out if the file was unsealed.
The Times argued that
this would "have the perverse effect of shielding those who wronged
her." But Judge James Doerty granted the woman's request.
Tim Neale, a Boeing
spokesman, said: "When this occurred the company launched an
investigation, and eventually all matters were resolved to the satisfaction of
both parties. And the person who was accused by [the plaintiff] no longer works
for Boeing. He left the company on June 1, 2003."
A
suspended sheriff's deputy, a disbarred lawyer
The two Times motions
that were denied had been filed to learn more about people who hold positions
of public trust or were professionally licensed.
Three years ago, the David
Brame case illustrated the importance of open records concerning police
officers. In April 2003, Brame, the Tacoma
police chief, shot his wife, then himself. Subsequent news stories revealed
that Brame had once been accused of rape but the details had been sealed in an
employment-discrimination lawsuit.
Three months after this
murder-suicide, Doerty, the KingCounty judge, sealed a domestic-violence petition
against a SnohomishCounty sheriff's deputy.
The file contained "inappropriately explicit, lurid descriptions of
private sexual behavior between the parties," Doerty's order said.
Instead of blacking out
whatever passages he deemed objectionable, Doerty sealed everything. He also
refused to open the file this year.
Through a
public-disclosure request, the Times obtained the records of an internal
sheriff's investigation conducted after the deputy's wife filed her petition.
That file shows the deputy was suspended without pay in 2004 after he admitted
being physically abusive to his wife.
The other Times motion
that was denied concerned a lawsuit filed in 2000 against Adina Atwood, a
lawyer in Kent.
The state disbarred Atwood in 2004, finding she had abandoned her practice
without letting her clients know. She even kept money owed to some clients, the
bar found.
Judge Richard McDermott's
order sealing the 2000 lawsuit failed to meet the legal requirements for
secrecy, saying simply: "This file is hereby ordered sealed." His
refusal this year to open the file was similarly cryptic. McDermott's order said
secrecy was needed to protect "the physical well being of one or both of
the parties."
Changes
in state and federal courts
Since The Times began
reporting on improperly sealed court records, state and federal courts have
adopted a number of changes.
This year the Washington
Supreme Court amended its rules, saying, among other things, that the parties'
wish for secrecy does not, by itself, justify sealing.
The U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington also tightened its rules, saying lawyers
can no longer file pleadings under seal without first getting permission from a
judge.
In KingCounty,
judges and commissioners now receive extensive training on sealing
restrictions. The judges threw out an old sealing form that misstated the law on
secrecy, and took the power to seal away from substitute commissioners.
In SnohomishCounty,
judges initiated an exhaustive review of more than 1,000 sealed cases. They've
opened at least 150 so far and are reviewing dozens more each month. The Times
plans to keep writing about sealed cases. Look for more stories in the months
to come.
MARK
HARRISON / THE SEATTLE
TIMES
King County Court
Commissioner Kimberley Prochnau says courts will no longer seal documents just
because the parties want secrecy.
JOHN
LOK / THE SEATTLE
TIMES
James Degel retrieves an
order to unseal a file from Court Commissioner Kimberley Prochnau. Degel, a Seattle lawyer and
professional guardian, has asked the court to open nearly 50 cases he
previously had gotten sealed. He says recent court decisions and Times articles
on secrecy changed his mind.
Principal Ed Young was
accused of ignoring warnings about a teacher.
Judge James Doerty agreed
to black out details before a file was unsealed.
Permission
to reprint or copy this article or photo, other than personal use, must be
obtained from The Seattle
Times. Call 206-464-3113 or e-mail resale@... with your request.
To be added or removed, write to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel
Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who isstriking at the
root."-- Henry David Thoreau
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.3/614 - Release Date: 1/2/2007 2:58 PM
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/624 - Release Date: 1/12/2007 2:04 PM
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/624 - Release Date: 1/12/2007
We have observed Chief Justice after Chief Justice among
the various states stand up before audiences and publicly denounce JAIL4Judges
as if it were some kind of a threatening plague about to overtake this nation
like the swine or bird flu.
One would think that if J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability
Initiative Law) is so bad as it is being propagated by these highest judges of
this nation, it would be declared public enemy # one! An enemy that deserves to
be castigated in a State of the Union Address, and one that must be eradicated
at all costs, lest it destroy this wonderful judicial system of ours.
Indeed, Chief Justice Ronald George of California who
stated to the Los Angeles Times, (April 24, 2006) that he knows me, attacked
this author with the words that we do not need any extremist trying to tell us
how to run this wonderful judicial system we have here in California. This
author humorously responded to the Times Reporter, Jessica Garrison, at the
Times interview, that perhaps I should give Mr. George a call and arrange to
meet with him for lunch so we could talk about it.
Joining in the list of Chief Justices around the nation
condemning J.A.I.L. is Hawaii Chief Justice Ronald Moon in his January 24 State
of the Judiciary Address to the State Legislature. His message presents nothing
new but the same old deceptive song that J.A.I.L., “would allow citizens
to sue judges for decisions they did not like.” (a precise quote.)
It seems that not a one of these Chief Judges want to
talk about what the J.A.I.L. Initiative really provides for, to wit; ¶2
“Immunity. No immunity shall extend to any judge of this State for any
deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due
process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts without
jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate
violation of the Constitutions of South Dakota or the United States,
notwithstanding Common Law, or any other contrary statute.”
I once stated to an attorney who pronounced himself as
spokesperson for the judges of the California Court of Appeals when he accused
this author of going after judges because these judges made simple mistakes, I
asked him, “Where in this list do you derive that J.A.I.L. is about going
after judges for making simple mistakes?” Just so, I now ask Chief
Justice Moon, “Where in the J.A.I.L. provisions do you find that J.A.I.L.
“would allow citizens to sue judges for decisions they did not
like.”
One could wonder if all these Chief Justices around the
country want judges to “deliberately violate the law, commit fraud,
intentionally violate due process of law, commit acts in violation of their
jurisdiction, and deliberately violate both the state and federal Constitutions
they have sworn to uphold and defend with impunity. In short, want to impugn
the integrity of the entire judiciary before the eyes of all Americans. How to
you respond, Mr. Moon? Are we here about to witness the dark side of Chief
Justice Moon?
Just the very thought of J.A.I.L. causes these Chief
Justices around the country to quiver, lest we bring justice to bear.
Below are excerpts of Chief Justice Ronald Moon’s
State of the Judiciary Address. (The full text may be read by clicking
the URL).
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Chief Justice Moon's State of the Judiciary
Address
… President Hanabusa, Speaker Say, Governor Lingle, Lieutenant Governor
and Mrs. Aiona, distinguished members of the 24th Legislature, fellow judges,
Judiciary and other state employees, judges of the federal bench, members of
local and federal law enforcement, former Washington State Chief Justice
Richard Guy, my fellow members of the Royal Order of King Kamehameha the First,
members of the Hawaiian Royal Societies, other special guests, family, friends,
and fellow citizens:
I am privileged and honored to have this
opportunity to address this joint session of the Hawaii State Legislature and
extend my sincere appreciation for your kind invitation to speak about the
state of the Judiciary. ….
… I continue to be concerned about
the perception of many that our justice system is not functioning as it should
and that some of our citizens, therefore, feel they need to take matters into
their own hands to fix it.
I am, of course, not opposed to our
citizens taking a greater interest in public affairs. In fact, I firmly believe
that we need to find ways to better motivate our citizens to more actively
participate in government and in such civic matters as voting and jury service.
However, I am concerned about some of the initiatives that appeared on other
state ballots in the most recent elections — some of which were proposed
and promoted as a way to fix our justice system.
For example: The citizens of South Dakota
voted on a radical constitutional amendment, entitled Judicial Accountability
Initiative Law — commonly referred to as "JAIL for Judges"
— that proposed, among other things, the creation of a new grand jury
that would allow citizens to sue judges for decisions they did not like.
Although the amendment did not pass, the fact that it was even proposed
underscores fundamental misunderstandings of the duties of legislators and
judges and how judges are held accountable. ….
Nevertheless, as evinced by initiatives
like South Dakota's
JAIL for Judges, an alarming number of our citizens continue to believe that
the role of the courts is to bend to the whims of the press or, at least, those
who have the money to mount advertising campaigns and get press attention.
Thus, when some of our citizens disagree with a judge's decision because it is
not in conformity with what they perceive as the "popular will," they
often cry out for reforms, like the election of judges.
Indeed, rumor has it that this legislature
may be asked to consider proposals calling for the election of judges. And,
although such a proposal is not "new," it seems rather ironic since
many other jurisdictions are attempting to repeal the election process in their
respective states because of the effect judicial elections have on preserving a
fair and impartial justice system.
Under an elective system for judges, there
is the constant threat that an unpopular decision could result in the loss of
popular votes — a consideration that has no place in a judge's
decision-making process. And, sadly, judges in elective jurisdictions who have
adhered to the high standards of fair and impartial judicial decision-making
have paid the ultimate price at the polls — that is, they have lost their
jobs. But, a decision that is made fairly, impartially, and in accordance with
the constitution and the law — even though unpopular — is, in the
words of the late United States Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist,
one of the crown jewels of our democracy. Those who favor electing judges often
do because they believe judges are not held accountable for their actions or
decisions. They are wrong.
Hawaii’s judges are held accountable in
more ways than any other public officer. First, each judge's legal decision is
subject to review and reversal by Hawaii's
appellate courts and, depending on the issues, by the United States Supreme
Court. Each judge's performance, demeanor, and competence are subject to review
and sanction by the Commission on Judicial Conduct, which may recommend a
judge's removal from office. A judge seeking retention is also subject to
review and sanction by the Judicial Selection Commission, which may — and
does -- refuse to retain judges. In addition, the supreme court's Rule 19
committee administers the Judicial Performance Evaluation program under which
each judge's performance is evaluated one or more times during the judge's term
of office.
A Judicial Performance Review Panel
— composed of a retired judge, a retired attorney, and a member of our
lay community — discusses the evaluation results with the judge so that
the judge may improve his or her performance for the benefit of the public. In
addition, the Hawaii’s
State Bar Association conducts its own judicial evaluation program and provides
the results of its surveys to our judges.
Judges are, to the best of my knowledge,
the only public officers in Hawaii’s whose decisions, performance,
competence, and demeanor are subject to probing, professional, and systematic
scrutiny. In short, judges are held accountable by mechanisms that assure
accountability, without undermining the impartiality of our courts. Fair and
impartial courts provide the balance that is essential to the workings of our
government and not only makes our democracy the envy of many of our foreign
neighbors, but ensures equal access to justice for all. Undermining the
impartiality of the courts jeopardizes the very access our citizens expect.
Indeed, without access to the courts, there can be no justice for our
citizenry. ….
He has combined with others to subject us
to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws;
giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation. -
Declaration of Independence
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel
Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who isstriking at the
root."-- Henry David Thoreau
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.8/649 - Release Date: 1/23/2007 8:40 PM
"Foreign power" is a term the People must get used to, because it is a current power shown to exist in South Dakota by its 2006 Show-Election as revealed by J.A.I.L. and supported by our documented evidence. It is not a question of the loss of an election, but under what power it was "lost." Read JNJ 1/11/07 What Did the "Show-Election" in South Dakota REALLY Show? Therein we stated: The show-election in South Dakota has taught us what the real power-conglomerate is made up of that is running the "show" in that state-- and they have shown themselves to be a foreign power, disregarding the law of the state and the nation. It is not only the entire South Dakota "government"
(state, county and local), but also the corporate/industrial complexes extending beyond South Dakota borders (e.g., Exxon, Mobil,Wal-Mart, insurance industry headquartered in D.C.,banking,real estate, utilities, -- and many more, just follow the money). It is not only what poses as "government," but the entire commercial enterprise that does not want judicial accountability to the People. They are quite satisfied with the usurpation of power that has taken over the People, and you can see from the South Dakota fiasco what they'll do to defend it.
Foreign power is not limited to that of other countries, but is determined by its obedience to the Law of the Land of its domain. It is possible for a foreign power to exist in this country if it executes control over the People in disregard of the Constitution, the Supreme Law of our Land. One of the reasons the People of this country declared independence from England was because He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation. - Declaration of Independence. "He" refers to the power in control which, in England, was the King. Here in our country the power in control is revealed in South Dakota as an oligarchy acting under color of government. The judiciary sits at the pinnacle of this oligarchy, acting as its "mouthpiece" and final authority when grievances are brought before it by the People for supposed
"redress."
It's time the People call it what it is-- a foreign power. The power running this country, at least in South Dakota as J.A.I.L. has experienced and we are reporting, is not government because the disregard of laws in this country, especially the state and federal Constitutions, is standard operating procedure. It is a power foreign to our Constitution, and hence, foreign to the People.
What we have experienced in South Dakota is the People exercising their inherent right to reform state government in such manner as they deemed necessary in a "lawful and constituted method," i.e., by Initiative. 48,000 signatures were collected to qualify the reform measure for the South Dakota ballot, 13,000 more than were needed, indicating a very enthusiastic zeal by the People for the measure. The zeal was there! Had we had the time and money, there's no doubt we could have garnered the signature support of 70 percent of the voters to get J.A.I.L. on the ballot, indicating that a November 7th victory would have been a mere formality.
Throughout the year-and-a-half campaign, the measure held a 3-to-1favorable rating, and Tom Barnett of the opposition even acknowledges a 4-to-1 favorability, which is considered by everyone a "landslide." Everything was fine, we thought, even with the propaganda and criminal activity by the foreign power which we have abundantly reported --until Election Day, November 7, 2006. That was the coup-de-grace-- the sudden final blow against the People in South Dakota at the hands of this foreign power, proving what kind of a power it was. Yes, we're talking about what happened to Amendment E, the J.A.I.L. Amendment in South Dakota.
Election Day 2006 in South Dakota was a momentous occasion for this entire country. That was the day when, after carrying a generously favorable rating during the campaign, the "official" count on Election evening on Amendment E was reported as --catch this--
89% AGAINST and 11% FOR!
One South Dakotan told us that he was watching the results from around 7:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. when he retired for the night; and throughout that time, although the actual numbers of votes were changing,
the percentages never changed during that time-span!
Another South Dakotan told us that a few days before the election, he couldn't find Amendment E on the state's website; he called in to tell them, and either later that day, or the next day, Amendment E was suddenly on the site! We've had many people tell us that they had no clue what Amendment E was really about. All they had to go on was what the media and the opposition reported. We found out that the state didn't provide voters with a published Voters Guide stating all the issues with arguments pro and con. Yet, the state allowed a fraudulent misrepresentation of Amendment E to be printed right on the ballot, as an "explanation" by the State Attorney General. This is what the state provided for the People to vote on.
Here we have two inherent rights of the People: (1) to reform their government, and (2) to vote in a fair election, both of which are guaranteed by the South Dakota Constitution! The reported results of that election could have happened only by the interference of a foreign power in direct defiance of the state's Constitution. There were criminal violations committed by this foreign power throughout the campaign which we've reported. See www.sd-jail4judges.org.
Now we hear that Tom Barnett, Executive Director of the South Dakota Bar Association (the South Dakota Judicial Sentry that guards the judiciary like a pack of wild dogs) is exporting its propaganda scheme to the Florida Bar to educate them on the "success" of the foreign power in South Dakota. See JNJ 1/19/07 The Foreign Power Planting Seeds of Deception. Will J.A.I.L. expose a foreign power in Florida if it is on the ballot there? We'll find out.
John Locke, known as the Freedom Philosopher, influenced Thomas Jefferson in writing the Declaration of Independence. Since J.A.I.L. is based on Lockean principles, we refer to him as a source of information for J.A.I.L. principles. Locke used the term "foreign power" at least twice in Chapter XIX of his Treatise, Of the Dissolution of Government:
Sect. 220. ... To tell people they may provide for themselves, by erecting a new legislative, when by oppression, artifice, or being delivered over to a foreign power, their old one is gone, is only to tell them, they may expect relief when it is too late, and the evil is past cure.
One of our JAILers asked us if we had a better name for "foreign power" in this country. If "foreign power" is good enough for John Locke to use regarding a power that the People are "delivered into the subjection of" or "delivered over to," then it's
good enough for us. We highly recommend our readers read the entire chapter about the Dissolution of Government to understand what's happening today.
In Chapter XVI, Of Conquest, Locke teaches us that the sole authority for government is the consent of the People:
Of Dissolution, supra. We ask, Did the People of South Dakota consent to being held ignorant and uninformed about what they were voting on?
If the existing power prevents the People from reforming their government, as happened in South Dakota, government is effectually dissolved, leaving in its wake a foreign power causing anarchy. If there is no remedy, no redress, for the People, there is no government. The late President John F. Kennedy stated in 1963: "Those who make peaceful resolution [J.A.I.L.] impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
As Locke describes it:
Sect. 219. ... This is demonstratively to reduce all to anarchy, and so effectually to dissolve the government: for laws not being made for themselves, but to be, by their execution, the bonds of the society, to keep every part of the body politic in its due place and function; when that totally ceases, the government visibly ceases, and the people become a confused multitude, without order or connexion. Where there is no longer the administration of justice, for the securing of men's rights, nor any remaining power within the community to direct the force, or provide for the necessities of the public, there certainly is no government left. ... Id.
Any foreign power in this country functioning in disregard of the consent of the People, by disregarding the state and U.S. Constitutions and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot legitimately command obedience from the People.
Chapt. 192. For no government can have a right to obedience from a people who have not freely consented to it; which they can never be supposed to do, till either they are put in a full state of liberty to chuse their government and governors, or at least till they have such standing laws, to which they have by themselves or their representatives given their free consent, and also till they are allowed their due property, which is so to be proprietors of what they have, that no body can take away any part of it without their own consent, without which, men under any government are not in the state of freemen, but are direct slaves under the force of war.Of Conquest, supra.
Any power in this country functioning without the consent of the People in disregard of the Supreme Law of the Land, is a Foreign Power and a domestic enemy!
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation. - Declaration of Independence
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who isstriking at the root."-- Henry David Thoreau
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.7/647 - Release Date: 1/23/2007 8:02 AM
During the recent South Dakota campaign regarding Amendment E (J.A.I.L.), our opposition redefined “judges” as including all state administrative agencies, and included “jurors” in their made-up definition.
We refuted our opposition’s redefinitions stating that mixing judges (judicial) functions with administrative functions (executive) was a violation of the fundamental doctrine of the separation of powers. “The powers of the government of the state are divided into three distinct departments, the legislative, executive and judicial; and the powers and duties of each are prescribed by this Constitution.” Art. II, S.D. Const. Nowhere in the S.D. Constitution does it prescribe the executive branch of government as having the power or duties of the judicial branch of government. Quite the contrary, it provides, “All executive and administrative offices, board, agencies, commissions …. shall be under the supervision of the Governor…” Art. IV, §8-9.
Now comes the problem faced by S.D. Judge William Srstka. In a constitutional challenge of the administrative procedures conducted in South Dakota’s largest city, Sioux Falls, it provides for appellate process to the circuit courts for administrative appeals, thus making judges an extension of the administrative (executive) branch of government.
But there is another complicating hitch here. While the law provides for such an appeal, the city has been appearing in court and arguing hypocritically that the courts have no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Former judges ruling in favor of the city have been honoring the city’s arguments and dismissing appeals, thus establishing a system that deprives everyone of their right to an appeal. Of course, this policy, practice, and custom creates a constitutional crisis for every appellant.
But this matter appears to have even further ramifications. I talked today with a South Dakotan in a completely different jurisdiction, who stated that this same policy was carried out in his jurisdiction, opening suspicion that this unconstitutional process found in Sioux Falls, may be being carried out throughout the state.
Now here is the bigger problem. While the city has agreed with Judge Srstka to change their process to make their law accord with the Constitution, such change made now runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution if it is attempted to be applied to all former cases in which citizen’s rights were denied. “No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.” U.S. Const. Art. I, §3. Hence, every administrative procedure since the conception of this unconstitutional law is reversible, for it was void abinitio (from conception.)
Imagine every person therein who had a failed appeal involving such things as Worker’s Compensation cases, business and contrators licenses, all the way down to traffic tickets, parking tickets, dog licenses, and every other so-called administrative process, may go back and challenge the decisions made against them, because the laws under which they were found liable, are now found unconstitutional starting from the inception of this law.
This matter revisits the U.S. Supreme Court case of Windsor v. McVeigh, (1876) 93 US 274,in which the defendant was given a notice of his right to appeal, but when he appeared and demanded to be heard, the lower court denied him his right to be heard. The Supreme Court in its most earnest chastisement chided the lower courts, stating that such ruling defied everything that is even remotely considered to be a judicial process.
I am of the impression that this Sioux Falls case is going to spead statewide, with other cities being found likewise in violation of the Constitution, and who knows to what measure it is going to undo everything everywhere. And keep in mind, that this involves some very well-to-do businesses and corporations who have attorneys anxious to check in on this.
I recommend all of our readers click on to my article, “Understanding Administrative Law.” You will find yourself laughing while you are being educated.See www.sd-jail4judges.org/Administrativelaw.htm
In a ruling that will affect everything from red-light camera tickets to messy lawns, a circuit judge said this month that the city of Sioux Falls is violating the state constitution by denying residents their right to appeal.
Judge Bill Srstka's ruling came out of a dispute involving Daniels Construction, which is fighting an $8,100 city fine for its late completion of the Falls Overlook Cafe renovation project.
After company officials were told of the penalty, they went before Peter Gregory, a city hearing officer, to challenge the ruling.
As he ruled for the city, the hearing officer told Daniels they had a right to appeal his decision. But when Daniels went to circuit court, the city argued that under state law, circuit courts have no jurisdiction over charter cities' decisions.
Srstka agreed.
When Daniels tried again in another circuit court hearing, Srstka began to see the inconsistencies between South Dakota and Sioux Falls laws and the city's promises.
"At the hearing, I learned that the city consistently takes the position that a party does not have a right to appeal, even though the city provides a right to appeal under (its ordinance). The city advises of the right to appeal, and then shows up in court to oppose that right," Srstka wrote in a seven-page ruling.
"The city is guaranteeing a right to appeal that does not exist."
The ruling goes into effect July 1. In the meantime, Srstka provided four options for the city to come into compliance:
·Change the ordinance.
·Go to the Legislature to lobby for a change in the constitution.
·Create a board of directors.
·Change the ordinance to clearly define the public's options.
Interim plan
Not every one is in agreement about what the best option would be.
The July 1 effective date would give the Legislature time to rewrite its statute to give the circuit court jurisdiction to hear administrative appeals, if they so choose.
In the interim, the city has stopped advising of the right to circuit court appeals and is acting as though the ordinance has been changed to guarantee not an appeal, but the more limited "judicial review."
City Attorney R. Shawn Tornow said the issue is "a matter of semantics."
The 1996 ordinance in question states, "The decision of the board or hearing examiner may be appealed to circuit court as provided by law."
Tornow said simply replacing "circuit court" with "judicial review" will fix the problem. He will recommend the City Council make that change in the coming weeks.
Paul Linde, lawyer for Daniels Construction, said such a change would not give people an appeal as meaningful as the existing ordinance apparently attempts to do.
Under a true appeal in circuit court, a judge re-examines the facts of the dispute and might overturn a city decision.
Options under Tornow's preferred "judicial review" give the judge only a narrow look at the decision to make sure the city followed the law in making its decision.
"I don't agree with that if that's the fix. I think it's way bigger than that," Linde said.
The hearing officer system helps keep city decisions out of court. Linde said it would be better for the public to change either the constitution or state law to clearly route appeals to circuit court, where residents would get an impartial appeal.
"They (the city) hire the hearing examiner, they pay the hearing examiner, and the hearing examiner typically rules in their favor," Linde said. "What they want is all the administrative appeals to go to the hearing examiners, and then you get a rubber stamp on their ruling."
Tornow, the city attorney, said that last year, hearing examiners ruled on 120 cases. They involved nuisance property conditions, building condemnations, red-light camera tickets and Board of Adjustment rulings on variances such as too-tall fences, among others.
About a dozen of those were taken to circuit court and subsequently dismissed at the city's request because there is no jurisdiction.
Examiners questioned
A less common method for contested decisions is a hearing before a board of directors from city departments. Tornow said that to avoid the appearance of bias, the city prefers to hire hearing examiners - they are typically private practice lawyers, though Gregory, who ruled against Daniels, is a retired judge.
"It's an opportunity for the city as a governmental body to have a decision reviewed by an independent officer," he said.
Keeping those decisions out of the courts is good for the judges who "are not overly anxious" to take on the extra work, Tornow said.
Linde dismissed that claim, saying, "The judges don't consider that a burden at all."
The validity of the hearing examiners has come up before.
In I.L. Wiedermann's class-action lawsuit against Sioux Falls regarding the red-light camera citations, one of the arguments is that the hearing officers are partial. His lawyers maintain that statistics have shown those who rule against the city get less work.
Aaron Eiesland, a lawyer representing Wiedermann, argued that if the court rules the city has violated the due process right to appeal, every ticket issued is invalid.
"Any change the city makes now is going to be too late for anyone who has been found in violation of this," he said.
Linde, the Daniels Construction lawyer, echoed that point.
"I don't think those guys (hearing examiners) can act because I don't think their ordinance is constitutional. How can you act when there is no right to appeal?" he said.
Tornow said no date has been set for the council to actually make that or some other change.
"The city has acknowledged the judge's ruling, and we're taking steps to address it," Tornow said. "We're hopeful that people understand what their rights are when their hearing is over."
Linde questions why the change wasn't made long ago. The disputed ordinance is 10 years old, and the same concerns were made well-known in 2004 when Circuit Judge Joseph Neiles refused to hear an appeal of the city's decision to take away the massage parlor license from the Hong Kong Massage owner charged with prostitution.
"I think they've known about this problem for a while," Linde said.
America's government institutions derive their "just powers"
from the Constitution, and the Constitution derives its authority
from the consent of the people who have ordained and established it.
Because consent is the only legitimate source of political power,
government must rule according to the rule of law.
--Ronald J. Pestritto, Ph.D
Introductory Message about "Foreign Power"
Dale writes: Just my two cents, I would be concerned about the wordage of "foreign power" and would think a more domestic name. I agree they have created something other than what they were intended to be, but I am not sure using the word "foreign" is the right way. It seems too radical. A more domestic terminolgoy should be substituted, maybe REPLACED POWER or SUBVERTED POWER or USURPED POWER...you get the idea. I think you might scare off some who only see words and not intent.
Dale: Thanks for your concern and interest in J.A.I.L. I'll mention this concern in my upcoming JNJ so that our readers know we're being "advised" about usage of the term "foreign power."
Have you read John Locke's "Of the Dissolution of Government"? I stated in a previous JNJ the following:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John Locke, known as the Freedom Philosopher, influenced Thomas Jefferson in writing the Declaration of Independence. Since J.A.I.L. is based on Lockean principles, we refer to him as a source of information for J.A.I.L. principles. Locke used the term "foreign power" at least twice in Chapter XIX of his Treatise, Of the Dissolution of Government:
Sect. 217. ... The delivery also of the people into the subjection of a foreign power, either by the prince, or by the legislative, is certainly a change of the legislative, and so a dissolution of the government: for the end why people entered into society being to be preserved one intire, free, independent society, to be governed by its own laws; this is lost, whenever they are given up into the power of another.
Sect. 220. ... To tell people theymay provide for themselves,by erecting a newlegislative, when by oppression, artifice, or being delivered over to aforeign power, their old one is gone, is only to tell them, they may expect relief when it is too late, and the evil is past cure.
One of our JAILers asked us if we had a better name for "foreign power" in this country. If "foreign power" is good enough for John Locke to use regarding a power that the People are "delivered into the subjection of" or "delivered over to," then it's good enough for us. We highly recommend our readers read the entire chapter about the Dissolution of Government to understand what's happening today.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I believe it is important to use terms as given by previous respected authorities-- John Locke is certainly one of them, in fact the "father" of J.A.I.L. since he influenced Jefferson in writing the Declaration on which J.A.I.L. is based. Read Locke's "Dissolution" and you'll see J.A.I.L.'s philosophy. The other source is the Declaration itself: "He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction FOREIGN to our constitution, ..." We want to relate to those authorities.
We're majoring now on informing the People about the FOREIGN POWER-- what it is and what it does and doesn't do, and why. I believe that "foreign power" aptly describes what's in control, because it may as well be from another country-- it isn't in line with lawful authority in this country. When you say "scare people off" -- do you think they WANT a foreign power running this country? We're speaking AGAINST the Foreign Power, not advocating it. I would think that "foreign power" would be a greater alarm to wake up the sleeping masses, than "replaced power" or "usurped power."
But I'll acknowledge your concern publicly and explain our position. Thanks again, we appreciate people's concern.
* * * * *
Consent of the Governed explained
Defined:
A condition urged by many as a requirement for legitimate government: that the authority of a government should depend on the consent of the people, as expressed by votes in elections. [emphasis added -j4j]
The consent of the governed must be amended by vote of the People. We saw and heard what happened in the South Dakota 2006 election. The foreign power in South Dakota unconstitutionally interfered in the election process that frustrated the People's ability to amend their consent of the governed in the manner set forth in "Amendment E" (The J.A.I.L. Amendment) pursuant to their inherent right to do so as acknowledged by the S.D. Constitution.
Consent of the governed is a political theory that says a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is, or ought to be, derived from the people or society over which that power is exercised. This theory of "consent" is historically contrasted to the divine right of kings and has often been invoked against the legitimacy of colonialism. Following John Locke's notion of a nation of "free and equal" citizens, the Founders of the United States believed that consent of the governed was the only legitimate basis upon which one "free and equal" citizen could exercise legal authority over another -- otherwise neither equal could overcome the other. Consent of the Governed, supra.
Consent of the governed is obtained through the practice of regular elections that feature the Right to Vote. The People cannot allow a foreign power, or even government itself, to interfere with that right. Government must come before the People at least every two years to establish, in an open and transparent manner, that it has obtained their consent to function accordingly. The foreign power that has usurped government power does not follow, nor recognize, that process as we have experienced in South Dakota.
A more satisfying particularization of consent of the governed is that it is obtained through the practice of regular elections that feature broad or universal suffrage (i.e., rights to vote). That some choose not to vote would not prevent the People as a whole, via majority rule, from establishing their consent via elections, just as the existence of Representatives elected by the People does not mean the laws approved by the Representatives are invalid. Under this approach, the government must come before the People for continuing authority at each election [emphasis added - j4j]
and establish through open and transparent checks and balances that it has achieved the right to exercise authority in a fair and incontestable manner.
The Founders also thought consent of the governed to be conditional, in that there are certain things that the government just can't do, when they are against the interests of the People themselves such that it could not be reasonably deemed that the People had consented to it. Consent of the Governed, supra.
Without the enforcement of rights by the informed consent of the People, elections amount to the ignorant masses following a "seditious ringleader" (i.e., an influential foreign power) "who owes his advancement merely to his own impudence." It's the impudence of a foreign power, together with ignorance of the People, that sustains such power. Tacit consent is not informed consent.
The following excerpts by Dr. Ronald J. Pestritto explains the flow of legitimate power as being first, inherently of the People; second, by their consent set forth in the Constitution; and third, to government from that Constitution. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land which is the vital link (the consent of the governed) between the People and their government.
The Claremont Institute
Constitution DayBy Ronald J. Pestritto, Ph.D Posted September 15, 2000:
...[C]onstitutional government means that our governing institutions — legislatures, executives and executive agencies, and courts — are bound by a higher authority. These institutions can only exercise powers that are first granted to them by the Constitution. As Alexander Hamilton put it in The Federalist Papers, which were written to explain and defend the American Constitution by those who framed it, the Constitution is the "superior" authority and the government is the "inferior"; the Constitution is the "original" power and the government is the "derivative"; the Constitution is the "principal" and the government is the "deputy." This notion of limited, constitutional government means that any exercise of power not authorized by the Constitution is illegitimate.
... [C]onstitutional government is strictly limited because government itself is created by the people. Political power is legitimate only because the people have authorized and established it. This is why the words of the Constitution's preamble merit close attention: "We The People," the Constitution begins, "do ordain and establish this Constitution." Simple logic offers a clear explanation of these words from the preamble, and this meaning is confirmed by an examination of the writings of the founding fathers. All political power, by nature, belongs first to the people themselves. When the people see fit to create a political society, they freely give up some of this power in order to establish a government.
...[L]egitimate constitutional government, therefore, exists only by the consent of those governed. As the Declaration of Independence explains in laying out the principles of the new nation, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." So America's government institutions derive their "just powers" from the Constitution, and the Constitution derives its authority from the consent of the people who have ordained and established it. Because consent is the only legitimate source of political power, government must rule according to the rule of law. In other words, government cannot simply exercise power as it wishes, but must instead exercise power according to rules and laws authorized by the consent of the people.
Why does government exist by the consent of the People? Dr. Pestritto explains:
...[W]hy is it that the people would freely choose to establish government and give it power? Government exists to secure the natural rights of the people. As the Declaration of Independence explains, government is grounded on the truths that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness," and "that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men." It is for this purpose of securing rights that the people consent to the creation of government and authorize it to exercise power over them. When government, therefore, acts without the authority of the Constitution it fails to fulfill the purpose for which the people consented to it in the first place. This is why, after all, the Americans declared independence from Britain — the famous "no taxation without representation" theme from the Revolution is simply a different way of saying that legitimate government must act only upon the consent of the governed for the securing of their rights.Constitution Day,supra.
The foreign power has no separation of powers nor checks and balances among the three branches. There are no branches with the foreign power. It is entirely administrative in nature, including the courts. It is not bound by the Constitution nor by the consent of the People. The following describes the usurpation of power:
In Politics and Administration, [Frank J.]Goodnow criticized the constitutional separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, and suggested instead a two-part division, between politics and administration. The traditional system, he argued, interfered with the national government's efficient operation and kept it limited in scope. His system, by contrast, would free up administration from political interference, allowing administrators wide discretion to regulate the complex modern economy without interference from politicians. Politics, he contended, was "polluted" and full of "bias," whereas administration was all about the pursuit of "truth." He was among the first to join Woodrow Wilson in calling for a powerful central bureaucracy, insulated from political control and equipped with expert authority to enact and enforce regulations.
What does this have to do with the courts today? Goodnow considered courts to be part of the administrative machinery, which distinguished his argument from many other Progressives' and makes it highly relevant to the politics of the 21st century. Administration, he claimed, involves both the "administration of government" (by agencies) and the "administration of justice" (by courts). Administration—made up of agencies and courts—is modern government's focus and the primary means by which Progressivism would be realigned, free from the impeding forms of the Constitution. As he wrote in Comparative Administrative Law (1893), the book that first drew attention to him, "the great problems of modern public law are almost exclusively administrative in character. While the age that has passed was one of constitutional, the present age is one of administrative reform." Leaving the ConstitutionBy Ronald J. Pestritto, Ph.D- A review of Politics and Administration: A Study in Government by Frank J. Goodnow
The foreignpower was not instituted by the People, nor based upon their consent, and to this day it is a power by usurpation; and pursuant to the Founding Charter of this nation, it should be "thrown off" by the People. Length of time does not cure the fraud nor the voidness of this foreign power. It is as void today as it was when it was foisted by fraud upon the People. Looking at the title of Goodnow's "study" it is a misnomer-- if it doesn't comport with the Constitution, it isn't "government" in America.
This is one of the main obstacles we must overcome-- calling the foreign power "government." The existence of the foreign power in this country rests upon the ignorance and gullibility of society at large. As long as the People are willing, intentionally or unwittingly, to believe a LIE, the foreign power will consider the People's "consent" to be in its favor, by silence. That is why the voice of the People must be made clear, through the voting process; and that is exactly why the foreign power is so terrified about J.A.I.L. If J.A.I.L. appears on the ballot, the foreign power in control will thwart, any way it can, the People's right to vote as it did in South Dakota. It knows that J.A.I.L. is the only means by which the People can uncover the TRUTH and annihilate the LIE by which the foreign power operates. Nothing else can touch the Evil Empire-- J.A.I.L. can and WILL!
Years ago I owned a cat that just loved to catch flies. He would lock his eyes onto a fly and lunge out into thin air from a high footing such as the top of the wall furnace and slam into the wall or wham his head on the table corner. Absolutely nothing mattered to him except catching flies in flight.
Such is the attempt of the foreign power in South Dakota operating under color of government with respect to JAIL4Judges. These renegades have become so insanely dedicated to the cause of seeking the destruction of J.A.I.L. that they will do any insane act in their all-out effort to accomplish their goal. There is, of course, a great deal of difference between a dumb cat and an entire state regime.
One might logically expect the espousal of hate speech to flow freely out of the mouth of hate-mongers and racist people, but from their government officials? Moved by hatred for the truth, we find the following words of libel from an official newspaper, to wit, The Aberdeen News, dated February 15, 2006:
"Supporters of the ballot measure argue it is needed to hold judges accountable for intentionally violating people's rights. But Sen. Lee Schoenbeck, R-Watertown, said the proposed constitutional amendment is backed by the same kind of people who killed a U.S. marshal in North Dakota years ago because they hate the American system of government. …
Schoenbeck said Branson and other supporters of the ballot measure apparently want to destroy the American system of government set up by Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and the nation's other founders. 'The reality is Mr. Branson and his people from Hollywood do not like America.' Schoenbeck said." ….
"Schoenbeck said in remarks directed toward Branson, 'We don't need your trash here,' "State Sen. Lee Schoenbeck, R-Watertown, called the proponents a 'posse comitatus nut group' during a speech in the Senate State Affairs Committee." Argus Leader, 2/21/06. ….
Senator Garry Moore says in the February 13, 2006 Yankton Daily Press, "…I am deeply troubled by the plot being brought forward by this totally unresponsive, out-of-state group. This group does not like government of any type. What they want is anarchy…" …. Senator Moore continues to express his hatred in his words, "tell them to go to hell…" Associated Press, February 15, 2006, "I want Amendment E killed," February 23, 2006, Press & Dakotan.
So we have now documented two powerful influential senators showing apparent evidence of having gone mad! So now let us move on to document the rest of the entire state “government” gone mad over J.A.I.L.
By clicking on the official S.D. website of www.sdjudicial.com/downloads/soj/y2007soj.ram you will see the official video presentation of the State of the Judiciary message presented by S.D. Chief Justice David Gilbertson. For the first eight minutes he takes up the subject of slamming J.A.I.L. stating that J.A.I.L. is based upon a lie that judges are shielded by judicial immunity. He praised former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor for traveling the country propagating her statement that the object of J.A.I.L. is not justice, but “judicial intimidation.”
He then turns to praising all 105 legislators before him for sticking together in opposing J.A.I.L, and honors them for passing their resolution condemning this ballot measure. He then praises the South Dakota Bar Director Thomas Barnett for his great work in defeating the S.D. J.A.I.L. ballot measure.
From my perspective, this “State of the Judiciary” message is like a drunken celebration party of everyone patting each other’s back for the great work they have all accomplished working in union together to defeat the J.A.I.L. ballot measure. What Justice Gilbertson fails to acknowledge here is his unlawful appearance and speech at the original anti-J.A.I.L. fundrasing rally that included the South Dakota Bar Association, which action clearly violates four, if not five of South Dakota’s judicial canons of ethics.
But who’s concerned? Certainly not the South Dakota Legislature that openly violated, and despised the South Dakota Constitution, Art. VII, §1, “Elections shall be free and equal, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage (to vote.)” Nor are they concerned about violating their own criminal statute 12-13-16 that states, “Any person knowingly printing, publishing, or delivering to any voter of this state a document containing any purported constitutional amendment, question, law, or measure to be submitted to the voters at any election, in which such constitutional amendment, question, law, or measure is misstated, erroneously printed, or by which false or misleading information is given to the voters, is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.”
No, no, no, these officials are the “government,” and they are certainly not going to let the law get in their way in their madness to defeat the J.A.I.L. ballot measure. Absolutely nothing else is important. J.A.I.L. MUST be defeated at all costs! And this is true even if the state has to go to Hell!
You would think I have spoken my mind and am through. But no, I am not! I have yet to make my strongest point of the insanity and madness of the “government” of South Dakota. Here it is!
Would you believe that specifically because of J.A.I.L. appearing on the South Dakota ballot, the Legislature, in its madness, is now proposing HB1156 to dismantle the current initiative process to avoid a future threat of J.A.I.L. appearing on the ballot?
PIERRE - People hired to get signatures on petitions for political campaigns in South Dakota may not get paid per name in the future.
Legislation sent Tuesday to the floor of the state House would make it illegal to pay by the signature. Petition carriers could be paid by the hour or get a set wage, and they could not be required to obtain a certain number of signatures or face getting fired. The bill, HB1156, also would require petition carriers to be South Dakota residents.
Lawmakers were told that the measure was inspired by questionable tactics used last year in an unsuccessful campaign to strip judges of their immunity for official acts. Tom Barnett of the State Bar said an analysis of the California-based campaign concluded that more than 12,000 signatures on petitions for the ballot measure were phony. "There was George W. Bush. There was Roy Rogers. There was Dale Evans. There were people from out of state signing it," Barnett said.
The bill was endorsed by the House Local Government Committee.
Since the Legislature of South Dakota is proposing the defeat of the initiative process, it behooves me to point out that HB1156 is unconstitutional in the following manner. As the U.S. Supreme Court has pointed out, collection of initiative signatures is a First Amendment right of Redress of Grievances available to all U.S. citizens, and no state can forbid the exercise of such right, regardless of the state in which they live.
Furthermore, the U.S. Constitution sets forth, “No state shall…make any…law impairing the obligation of contracts…” Art. I, §10, clause 1. For the State of South Dakota to pass a law stating that its citizenry cannot enter into a contract to collect signatures is a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution barring such legislation. But what does the Legislature, the Supreme Court, or the Chief Executive care? They have a greater priority: J.A.I.L. MUST be defeated!
Being a Marine and fighting in Vietnam for his country was nothing
compared to Allan Heuton's current battle.
The Lakeland resident and Winter Haven property owner is now trying to show
others about the corruption he says is going on in the judicial system.
"Everything I fought for in Vietnam was not true," Heuton
said. "In my own country, I have no rights. We don't see the corruption
going on in our government until it slaps us right in the face."
Heuton is the primary director of the PolkCounty
branch of Florida Jail4Judges. He wants to be the first point of contact to
help people who are seeking "true reform" of the judicial system in PolkCounty.
Heuton was embroiled in a domestic case that cost him several thousands of
dollars in legal fees. He was charged with an offense, but the case ultimately
was dismissed, he said.
"It is our goal to seek out those members of the judiciary who are
committing crimes against our neighbors and family members and bring them to
justice," Heuton said. "This can only be accomplished by changing
laws that allow those corrupt judicial members to dishonor and malign the
intent of the law and Constitution for the United States of America. The
Florida Legislature has recently passed a new requirement that new initiatives
seeking to be placed on the next election ballot need to collect 611,000
signatures from registered voters. Last year, it was roughly only half of that.
Lately, I have collected more than 100 signed petitions at the Polk County
Courthouse, but we need more."
According to Heuton, most people think their only resource when they are in
legal trouble is to hire an attorney. Part of the mission of Jail4Judges is to
show residents that many of the attorneys in the system don't abide by the laws
they should be held accountable to and that people need to be more aware and
informed. Heuton also wants to provide an organization people can turn to if
they have experienced corruption in the judicial system and refuse to remain
powerless.
Heuton is backing a proposed amendment to the Florida Constitution called the
Florida Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (JAIL). The JAIL initiative is a
movement that first emerged in California
on the heels of judicial scandals that saw many judges and lawyers indicted for
corrupt practices.
The JAIL proposal would create Special Grand Juries to investigate complaints
against judges. These Grand Juries would have the power to discipline judges by
levying fines, removing them from the bench and, where appropriate, subjecting
them to criminal proceedings before special trial juries.
Under current law, Heuton said, the judiciary is entirely self-regulated, and
this has led, in many instances, to intolerable abuses of judicial discretion.
These have involved conflict of interest, denial of due process, withholding of
evidence and other violations of individuals' constitutional rights, including
arbitrary and unjustified fines, sanctions, seizure of property and detention,
he said.
"I saw other Marines die when we were at war," Heuton said. "I
stood right there while they took their last breath and were put into body
bags. They gave their lives so that we could live in a country that upheld our
rights as citizens. I'm going to fight this battle right here on our soil until
changes are made."
United under the banner of Jail4Judges is a broad coalition of people, from all
backgrounds, professions and political persuasions, who are dedicated to the
mission of reforming the judiciary. By means of petition, voters in Florida can compel the
state Legislature to place the JAIL proposal on the ballot for voter approval.
"We'll be having a protest outside the Polk County Courthouse on March 19," Heuton said. "There will be
hundreds at that gathering standing up for their rights and calling attention
to the corruption in our system. My own daughters and many college students
will be attending because they want a different system for their future. It is
the first step in letting our government know that we do have power and we are
going to use it to see that the corruption stops."
Those with questions, those who want to become involved and those with evidence
of judicial abuse or corruption may contact Heuton at 863-651-9297 or go on the
Web to wwwjail4judges.org.
To Subscribe or Unsubscribe write VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel
Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who isstriking at the
root."-- Henry David Thoreau
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.2/641 - Release Date: 1/20/2007 10:24 AM
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.1/640 - Release Date: 1/19/2007
Much of our legal system of justice is based upon the Mosaic Law and more specifically the Ten Commandments. Moses is featured on the pinnacle of the United States Supreme Court in Washington D.C. Also there is a replica of the Ten Commandments etched within the decor of the Supreme Court structure
In Black's Law Dictionary, Rev. Fourth Edition, "Canons of Judicial Ethics," it begins with "Ancient Precedents" and cites from the Law of Moses, "And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great;..." Deut. 1:16-17.
Included in the Ten Commandments are the words "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" (Exodus 20:16), to wit, we are specifically commanded not to lie-- an especially difficult command to lawyers. Nevertheless, this command is unequivocal, mandatory, and unambiguous. Unfortunately for us, we have all, from time to time, transgressed this Law.
However, if we follow the below recommendation of the ABA (American Bar Association), we could all make it much easier on ourselves if we just revise the Ten Commandments slightly to change them "from a mandatory rule to nonbinding advice."
Therefore, the Ten Commandments would become an advisory, and we would thus read the Ninth Commandment, "It is advised that you not bear false witness against your neighbor."
When you cannot attain unto the standard, simply change the standard to fit your liking. For more than eighty years, the judicial system has, in theory, respected the Code of Judicial Conduct. Now, according to the ABA, it is time to soften the Code of Judicial Conduct to one of an advisory nature.
On this point, I recommend that we also change wooden rulers to stretchable rubber. In this manner, we could make the standard to fit our desired measurement. And all the People said "Yeah-h-h-h and Amen!"
A commission of the American Bar Association has recommended that the group weaken its code of judicial conduct by changing, from a mandatory rule to nonbinding advice, an instruction to judges to “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.”
Supporters of the change say disciplining judges for violating a concept as vague as “the appearance of impropriety” is unfair. Opponents denounce any retreat from the longstanding and widely embraced standard, and one critic — Robert H. Tembeckjian, the administrator of the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct — has resigned in protest as an adviser to the A.B.A. commission.
“At a time when the A.B.A. is defending judicial independence from relentless attack,” Mr. Tembeckjian wrote in a resignation letter on Saturday, “I cannot imagine that either the judiciary or the public will applaud the A.B.A. for relegating the ‘impropriety and appearance of impropriety’ standard to a virtually meaningless phrase.”
The change is part of what would be the first comprehensive revisions to the association’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct since 1990; the revisions now go before the group’s House of Delegates, which meets in Miami next week, before they can become formal policy. Individual states often look to the model code as a template for their own judicial ethics codes, violation of which can lead to punishment as severe as removal from the bench.
The change was a late-breaking development, coming more than three years after the commission began a periodic review of the code.
The very first canon of the proposed revisions continues to say that judges “shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.”
But recently added language in the introduction to the code says that while that and other canons provide “important guidance,” judges cannot be disciplined for violating them. The canons are followed by rules that are more specific (judges may not, for instance, use the prestige of their offices for financial advantage), and the new introduction says that only those rules may serve as the basis for discipline.
Cynthia Gray, the director of the Center for Judicial Ethics of the American Judicature Society, a nonpartisan group promoting judicial independence and integrity, questioned the commission’s strategy.
“To leave it in the language and later say the language doesn’t count,” Ms. Gray said, “is strange and inexplicable to us.”
Mark I. Harrison, the chairman of the A.B.A. commission, said the “appearance of impropriety” standard was vague and added nothing to the rules prohibiting specific conduct that remain mandatory.
“We think it’s a step forward,” Mr. Harrison said of the commission’s decision. “It is important as a matter of due process and fairness to make clear what would be the basis for disciplinary enforcement without ambiguity and without confusion.”
Jonathan Lippman, New York’s chief administrative judge, disagreed, saying the “appearance of impropriety” standard was sensible and workable. “I don’t think this is nuclear science,” he said. “Judges overwhelmingly approve of that standard as a basis on which to go about their daily business.”
The association has urged judges since 1924 to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and returned to the subject in 1972 and 1990.
“Every time the A.B.A. addressed this standard, it was strengthened,” Mr. Tembeckjian wrote in his resignation letter. “Until now.”
Victoria Henley, the president of the Association of Judicial Disciplinary Counsel, whose members hear and consider complaints against judges, said the recent revisions were unlikely to gain wide acceptance. “If they basically gut the ‘appearance of impropriety’ standard,” Ms. Henley said, “it’s unlikely that the A.B.A. will continue to be responsible for drafting a model code that will be used by any state.”
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation. - Declaration of Independence
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who isstriking at the root."-- Henry David Thoreau
A new reader writes to us saying she is confused about what I am writing about (basically the South Dakota fiasco). She can't understand why I "seem" to be upset! Please read what she writes (the portion to which she comments), followed by my response to her. I believe this will be helpful to other new readers. -Barbie
From: UNIR1Lynn@... [mailto:UNIR1Lynn@...] Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 2:03 PM To: JAIL4Judges Cc: UNIR1Lynn@... Subject: re: What Did the "Show-Election" in South Dakota REALLY Show? * * *
We won't be reformed! (The reader writes): Who is we? You use it in two different ways here. If you are talking as if the state is saying this, it should be in quotes AFTER you give us some background.
We don't care what the South Dakota Constitution says.
We don't care what South Dakota statute says.
We don't care what the Declaration of Independence says.
We don't care what the U.S. Constitution says. (The reader writes): Barbie: I don't think you mean this. You should say, We, the Government of South Dakota or something - don't care about these two foundational documents, small wonder we have a judiciary, legislative & administration that currently function as if we are not a government based on the rule of law and we don't have a Constitution that is the fundamental agreement between the people and those that represent them. Also, I can't understand by reading this article what you are talking about, what the "Show Election" was and what you are fighting against. It would have been useful to simply state what the election was, what the results were and what you are screaming (using HUGE LETTERS) about. You seem so upset that not only did you get your statistics about the election results backwards but what it means & what you would like us to do about it are unclear. Always start with a simple, unemotional background explanation of what you are talking about. And then make your point.
You say The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform Government. The Right Upon Which All Other Rights Depend and then you say
There's no need for judicial reform in South Dakota. Then what is the problem? For a new reader on this issue, this is totally confusing.
We like it just the way it is, and it'll stay that way. And we'll hold a Show-Election to prove it! What is that?
There's no need for judicial reform in South Dakota.
We like it just the way it is, and it'll stay that way.
And we'll hold a Show-Election to prove it!
That is the message the State of South Dakota has put out to its People and to the world-- (The reader comments): [when & where did they do that?] it will NOT be reformed! As John Locke said in his second treatise "Of the Dissolution of Government," To tell people they may provide for themselves, by erecting a new legislative, when by oppression, artifice, or being delivered over to a foreign power... we must ask ourselves, "Have we been delivered over to a foreign power?"
What is a "foreign power"? The Founding Authority for our country establishes the origin of legitimate power for government as "...governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..." (Declaration of Independence 1776).
Those powers are specified in the 1787 Constitution, written on behalf of "We the people of the United States..." (i.e., the governed), which Constitution establishes that it is the Supreme Law of the Land (Article VI, ¶2) stating in part, "...and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." The State of South Dakota acknowledges this fact in its own State Constitution, to wit: "... And the state of South Dakota is an inseparable part of the American Union and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land." South Dakota cannot stand as an isolated island, independent of the other 49 states. All other states have an interest in what happens in South Dakota.
What if the power in South Dakota, purporting to be "the state of South Dakota," disregards the Supreme Law of the Land, and proceeds against the governed as it did with the Show-Election in November? See "Show-Election" in South Dakota 2006. ( First, an apology for a mistake I made in that JNJ, second paragraph from
the end, where I erroneously stated: There is not an ounce of credibility in the reported outcome of 89% in favor of the Amendment, and 11% against it. You can see the obvious mistake- I had it reversed! It should have been "89% against the Amendment, and 11% in favor of it.")
(The reader finally comments): Please be careful in what you write. Readers don't have your history with the issue & this is just confusing.
(This is her last comment - Barbie)
Barbie's response:
Dear Reader:
Who is we? As used in the introduction of that JNJ, it refers to the power in control of South Dakota during the Show-Election on November 7th. That power is a Foreign Power which is shown by its conduct. Only a foreign power could have pulled off what was done in SD throughout the anti-J.A.I.L. campaign. The entire fiasco consisted of lies upon lies-- not an ounce of truth was stated. The FP kept the People in ignorance of the truth by perpetuating the Lie, plus it failed to provide the voters with a Voters' Guide in which all issues would be set forth with arguments pro and con, with rebuttals, plus the entire text of each measure for the People to read for themselves to be INFORMED voters.
That's what's important in this country-- the right to vote is the voice of the People, and for that voice to be meaningful, it has to be an intelligent and informed voice. When voters are kept uninformed of the issues and both sidesof arguments, the election becomes a sham. It is the responsibility of the state to send out information to all registered voters, informing them of the issues on which they are to vote. In California, we have a generous "Official Voter Information Guide" 192 pages, with ample issue information so that the voters are INFORMED when they go to the polls. That's part of the Right to Vote-- to be INFORMED of what they're voting on.
The fact that the state in South Dakota didn't inform the voters of the issues, i.e., mail them a Voters' Guide like other states do, shows that by such conduct in keeping the voters UNINFORMED, it was a foreign power at the helm-- not a government. A foreign power is not bound by the Constitution, nor by any law-- only by its own edicts. It is entirely administrative in nature, no separation of powers, no checks and balances, no "branches" of power. They're all in the same canoe.
We have reported extensively on the numerous criminal acts that were perpetrated by this foreign power, acting under color of government, and they have not denied any of it. As long as the People of South Dakota do nothing about it, the FP in that jurisdiction will continue to have free reign. It's up to the People to throw off such counterfeit power in whatever way they can. The best way we know of is by J.A.I.L. But that right has been disregarded by the renegade FP in charge in South Dakota.
So we have given plenty of background about this Foreign Power. See www.sd-jail4judges.org for all the information and evidence you could want to show what we're talking about. No, I wasn't quotingthe state-- I was making statements based on their conduct and the evidence we have about it.
How can I say "We, the government of South Dakota..." when there is no government? As I said, it's a renegade power that does not perform the role of government. It does not act in the interests of the People, to respect and protect their rights. The entire Legislature wrote a resolution AGAINST a People's measure-- that's against South Dakota law, as we've shown on the website I referred to above. This was all done at public facilities, using public staff and equipment, and on the public payroll. The People paid for this renegade group to write a resolution AGAINST their interests! This renegade group knew it was aganst the law, but they didn't care!
What was really conducted by the State of South Dakota last November was a "Show-Election," described as an extreme example of electoral fraud where an election is held purely for show. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show_election. The only purpose of the show-election was to defeat J.A.I.L. (Amendment E); and it was carried out by nefarious means in violation of state law. "The 'results' of a show-election are frequently one-sided to the point of absurdity, with leaders claiming mandates of 90 percent or higher; this rarely occurs in a free democratic election."
Read the entire article to get the full flavor of what I'm describing.
Yes, I acknowledged my mistake and apologized for it: ( First, an apology for a mistake I made in that JNJ, second paragraph from the end, where I erroneously stated: There is not an ounce of credibility in the reported outcome of 89% in favor of the Amendment, and 11% against it. You can see the obvious mistake- I had it reversed! It should have been "89% against the Amendment, and 11% in favor of it.")
I don't claim to be perfect, but when I make a mistake, I acknowledge it and correct it, which I did.
Yes, not only do I "seem" upset, I AM upset by the fiasco that took place in South Dakota-- with good reason as we have been reporting throughout the campaign and shown on the South Dakota website. Anyone who loves this country and its Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence that founded this country, and see how it is absolutely mangled by an all-powerful unbridled force, paid at taxpayers' expense, SHOULD be upset! It's high time all People become upset at what's happening in this country, and why it's happening. The Foreign Power is sustained on "good people doing nothing" --on an apathetic People, too ignorant to even be upset, by and large. Some of us are upset-- but NOT ENOUGH! Yes, capital letters!
What you were reading below isn't the "start" of the matter. To the contrary, it's the build-up over more than a year of propaganda to the People of South Dakota, of committing crimes against the People of South Dakota, and the People, as a society,
not knowing what to do. This fiasco affects the entire nation! So, it's not a matter of "starting" with a simple unemotional background at that point. Apparently you aren't aware of what we've been reporting for months! -- well over a year.
Now keep statements in context. "I" didn't say there's no need for judicial reform in South Dakota. That was part of the introductory statements made in italics, mimicking what the Foreign Power in South Dakota said by their actions. You've heard "Action speaks louder than words"? The fact that those several statements were at the beginning of the text of the article, and appeared indented and in enlarged italics, should have shown that this was referring to the power in South Dakota. The following is my first paragraph, explaining those words:
"That is the message the State of South Dakota has put out to its People and to the world-- it will NOT be reformed! As John Locke said in his second treatise 'Of the Dissolution of Government,'To tell people they may provide for themselves, by erecting a new legislative, when by oppression, artifice, or being delivered over to a foreign power... we must ask ourselves, "Have we been delivered over to a foreign power?'"
Those introductory words before the text of the article is the message, not by speech, but by actions of what purports to be the State of South Dakota.
You say you're a new reader. Then you have a lot to learn. First take a look at the website for some background of what happened these past two years in South Dakota regarding J.A.I.L. That'll clue you in quite a bit. As I said, I explained "Show-Election" in my previous news journal, referenced above. Read the whole thing to gain more insight. If you have further questions after reading that and viewing the South Dakota website, let me know.
Another thing I highly recommend you do is go to our JNJ Library on our national site, at www.jail4judges.org and click on J.A.I.L. News Journals in the left-hand column, then click on the year 2006 (even back in 2005), and see the list of journals we have that report on the South Dakota fiasco. Read as many as you can for an abundant history of what took place.
Please be careful in what you write. Readers don't have your history with the issue & this is just confusing.
Oh yes, dear Reader, I am quite careful in what I write. I back everything up with a lot of references from my research on any reported subject. This is not just stuff flowing from my fingers on the keyboard. It is based on authority and evidence which I cite quite often. You should have noticed that when you read the JNJ you're critiquing below.
I believe that most readers, if they are unfamiliar with what they read in our news journals, and don't receive enough knowledge from the references cited, will go to our website, shown at the signature at the end of each journal to garner information and background about this cause. South Dakota is a hot-button issue for us at this time, which is why that website is linked right at the top of our Home Page, www.sd-jail4judges.org. That's where the wealth of information and evidence about SD is located. And then, of course, go to the J.A.I.L. News Journal Library. There's enough information there to fill you with abundant knowledge and reasons for what we report.
So, Reader, there's really no excuse for being "confused" and "don't have [our] history" if you didn't look anything up about it. IF, after looking it up, you STILL don't understand something, THEN let us know and we'll be glad to help you if we can. A lot of questions and remarks you made were answered, had you read through the article and gone to the cited references and web links.
Sorry you were confused. We hope that you will become enlightened after reading our background of material on our website. You can print out articles in which you might be particularly interested. I encourage you to do so.
Thank you for writing and let us know if we can clarify anything else for you.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation. - Declaration of Independence
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who isstriking at the root."-- Henry David Thoreau
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.32/677 - Release Date: 2/8/2007 9:04 PM
For those of us with years under our belt, these famous words need no explanation. However, for the benefit of the generation that has arisen after us who were not alive when these famous words were spoken, these are the words President Richard Nixon, Nov. 17, 1973. He turned directly to the camera and stated, “…people have got to know whether or not their President’s a crook. Well, I am not a crook!”
Now why do I bring this up?Whenever anyone must go on the defensive as to their character, you know they have pretty much lost the debate. For example, if a stranger walked up to you and stated in your face, “I did not rape your daughter!” what would be your response? It might well be, “What do you mean, ‘you did not rape my daughter?’ ” And so the issue of the debate is set.
Thus, the debate is set by the words of South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long regarding the recent November 7, 2006 election in which he argues, I “didn't aid the defeat of the measure, known on the ballot as Amendment E.” (Argus Leader, Feb. 5, 2007).J.A.I.L. accepts Long’s debate issue, and responds accordingly to the question, “Did Attorney General Long aid the defeat of Amendment E?” (Amendment E was the J.A.I.L. Amendment.)
First, it should be noted that the South Dakota J.A.I.L. Initiative has now been revised to combat the total distortion made by A.G. Long of the purpose of J.A.I.L., i.e., to hold judges accountable for the seven specific violations clearly spelled out in the original initiative. They are:¶2 “No immunity shall extend to any judge of this State for any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of South Dakota or the United States, notwithstanding Common Law, or any other contrary statute.”
Are these words clear? A.G. Long argues they are not. We argue they are very clear as to what is prohibited by judges.
We call as our first witness California State Attorney General Bill Lockyer to testify against A.G. Long as to the clarity of what J.A.I.L. means. Mr. Lockyer testifies that this ballot measure means the following:
"JUDGES. RESTRICTIONS ON JUDICIAL IMMUNITY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Supersedes existing judicial immunity and creates three 25-member 'Special Grand Juries' empowered to: determine if a judge may invoke judicial immunity in a civil suit; indict and, through a special trial jury, convict and sentence a judge for criminal conduct; and permanently remove a judge who receives three adverse immunity decisions or three criminal convictions. Disallows immunity for deliberate violations of law, fraud, conspiracy, intentional due process violations, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts outside the court's jurisdiction, unreasonable delay of a case, or any deliberate constitutional violation."
Now compare that with the below explanation of Amendment E (the J.A.I.L. Amendment) by A.G. Long as it appeared on the official ballot in South Dakota. (Keep in mind that while A.G. Long’s “explanation” of J.A.I.L. might differ in wording from that of the California A.G., they are both describing the J.A.I.L. measure.)A.G. Long “explains” the J.A.I.L. Amendment as:
"Citizens serving on juries, school boards, city councils, county commissions, or in similar capacities, and prosecutors and judges, are all required to make judicial decisions. Their decisions may be reversed on appeal, or they may be removed from office for misconduct or by election. However, they cannot be made to pay money damages for making such decisions. This allows them to do their job without fear of threat or reprisal from either side.
"The proposed amendment to the State Constitution would allow thirteen volunteers to expose these decision makers to fines and jail, and strip them of public insurance coverage and up to one-half of their retirement benefits, for making decisions which break rules defined by the volunteers. Volunteers are drawn from those who submit their names and registered voters.
"The proposed amendment is retroactive. The volunteers may penalize any decision-maker still alive for decisions made many years ago.
"If approved, the proposed amendment will likely be challenged in court and may be declared to be in violation of the US Constitution. If so, the State may be required to pay attorneys fees and costs.
"A vote “Yes” will change the Constitution.
"A vote “No” will leave the Constitution as it is."
If you have not caught it yet, Attorney General Long’s “explanation” is not an explanation of the initiative at all, but rather an argument against J.A.I.L. and in favor of the sufficiency of existing laws just the way they are, and the negative consequences of voting for J.A.I.L. --in other words, Long’s so-called “explanation” is a Class 2 misdemeanor under South Dakota law!
South Dakota Codified Law 12-13-16
Publication of false or erroneous information on constitutional amendment or submitted question as misdemeanor.
Any person knowingly printing, publishing, or delivering to any voter of this state a document containing any purported constitutional amendment, question, law, or measure to be submitted to the voters at any election, in which such constitutional amendment, question, law, or measure is misstated, erroneously printed, or by which false or misleading information is given to the voters, is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.
The ballot title and summary are arguably the most important part of an initiative in terms of voter education. Most voters never read more than the title and summary of the text of initiative proposals. Therefore, it is of critical importance that titles and summaries be concise, accurate and impartial. ...
In all states, the summary, whether drafted by proponents, the attorney general, secretary of state, or another state agency, is a concise statement of the main points of the proposed measure. Proposed initiative summaries in all states are required to be impartial and non-argumentative. ...
And what’s all this irrelevant stuff about “juries, school boards, city councils, county commissions,” etc.? We don’t see even a hint of such irrelevant stuff in Lockyer’s explanation of J.A.I.L. Are they describing the same thing? How can a description be so radically different by two Attorneys General?
The main objective of J.A.I.L. is to prevent the abuse of judicial immunity; but there is not one word from A.G. Long about judicial immunity in his so-called ballot “explanation.”
On the other hand, A.G. Lockyer’s explanation flows freely with words describing the application of judicial immunity, e.g., "JUDGES. RESTRICTIONS ON JUDICIAL IMMUNITY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Supersedes existing judicial immunity and creates three 25-member 'Special Grand Juries' empowered to: determine if a judge may invoke judicial immunity in a civil suit; …”Absolutely no one could possibly miss the fact that the J.A.I.L. Initiative is about conditioning the use of judicial immunity for specified violations!
When J.A.I.L. challenged A.G. Long’s false and deceptive description of Amendment E to the voters, we were told that Long did a very good job, and that;“The attorney general could have said with a straight face that the real purpose and effect of the proposed JAIL amendment is to destroy justice in South Dakota…” --true words written in the Order ofJudge Max A. Gore, Aug. 21, 2006.
Can anyone imagine such ridiculous words appearing on a State ballot initiative for a vote? “Are you in favor of destroying justice in this state? Yes or No?” Only by a Foreign Power –foreign to the Constitutions of South Dakota and the United States, and hence, foreign to the voters–could such an act be contemplated!
Such an absurd statement can only come about by a Foreign Power intent on making a mockery out of this last November election because we would dare place J.A.I.L. on the ballot. We saw just how far the Foreign Power would go to defeat judicial accountability to the People. Why not just say that J.A.I.L. is about murdering cute little babies? How about: “A vote for J.A.I.L. will deplete the population. A vote against J.A.I.L. will allow the population to continue to live.”
J.A.I.L.’s second witness against A.G. Long is Tom Barnett, the Executive Director of the South Dakota State Bar. On January 15, 2007 he testifies to the Florida State Bar:
“While judges might be unpopular,” Barnett noted “the amendment would have far-reaching impacts. One is that many locally elected officials, including city and county commissioners and school board members, can have judicial duties, and hence be covered under the amendment. So can ordinary residents when they serve on juries, a fact the South Dakota anti-amendment campaign highlighted as ad after ad hammered that criminal defendants would be able to harass or sue jurors.”
Barnett said “one poll showed that allowing jurors to be sued was opposed by 86 percent of the voters. It’s a very, very powerful message,” he said. “That’s why we used that.”
So now we have an open confession of an unindicted co-conspirator along with Attorney General Long in a plot to deceive the voters of South Dakota, in a criminal violation of the South Dakota Criminal Code as set forth above. Their perpetrated goal, which turned out to be successful, was to keep the focus off of judges, and shift the focus over to harassment of jurors. “It was a very, very powerful message” he said. “That’s why we used that.”
J.A.I.L. now calls to the witness stand its third witness against A.G. Long – Raymond Ehrman, a South Dakota voter.
I hold in my hands a certified 192-page “Official Voter Information Guide” for the State of California dated November 7, 2006 mailed to all California registered voters. Therein, every issue is spelled out in detail complete with arguments for and against, and rebuttals to and against each issue. On page 2 we are told, “Dear California Voter, There is no greater right than the right to vote – to participate in the electoral process, …. In this Voter Information Guide, you will find information to assist you in making informed choices on Election Day. Impartial analyses, arguments in favor and against thirteen measures….”The key word here is “informed choices.”
A Declaration of Raymond Ehrman
The undersigned, under the laws of the United States of America, states the following to be true:
That I am over 21 years of age, that I am an Elector in South Dakota living in Freeman, South Dakota, and that I can make this declaration.
That I was seeking to inform myself, before the election, specifically what all the ballot Amendments, initiatives and referral in the November 2006 election were and exactly what words are to be approved or rejected into law by voters.
That I went to the Secretary of State website to find the wording of the Amendments. I found the summaries declared by Attorney General Larry Long, which I put into a separate word file on my computer, but could not find the full texts of the Amendments, initiatives and referral.
That I then went to search on the internet and found democraticunderground.com that had not only Long's summaries, but also the full texts of the Amendments, initiatives, and the referral.
That on October 22, 2006, I emailed the Secretary of State asking them why one had to go to democratic underground to find the actual texts of the Amendments, Initiatives, and the referred laws.
That this did have Long's summary and, following immediately after each entry, the full text of Amendment E.
That this was not the same information that I first found on the Secretary of State website. The first finding was only the summaries, not the full text.
That this is all I will state at this point.
I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated this 4th day of January, 2007.
An informed choice? Here we have it folks! Only after Ehrman inquired of the Secretary of State sixteen days before the November 7th election did the official website later reveal what it was that the voters of South Dakota were voting on. Now how informed is that?
But the question beyond that is, How many voters own computers? How many voters know how to use a computer? And then, how many voters who own computers know where to go to make an inquiry on what they are voting? Then, we ask, Are voters required to own a computer in order to vote?
From the above declaration and that of another South Dakota voter, we found that there exists no “Official Voter Information Guide” that is mailed to the voters to inform them of what it is they are voting on. They are simply beholden to the honesty and integrity of one man, A.G. Larry Long, to be honest and to tell them the truth about what it is they are voting on. Who could imagine the creation of such a farce?
This is like walking into a dark voting booth blind-folded with a stylus, and relying on your opposing ballot candidate to instruct you where to punch! There can be a no further potential for election fraud than was conducted in South Dakota in November 2006. Attorney General Larry Long argues that he did not steal the election. We say he had every opportunity to do so, and indeed did steal the election. Let us not forget the defense of President Richard Nixon when faced with the facts;
“I Am Not A Crook!”
J.A.I.L recommends that the South Dakotans start a recall of Attorney General Larry Long for election fraud!
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation.
- Declaration of Independence "..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who isstriking at the root."-- Henry David Thoreau
Not long ago all law enforcement officers were referred to as “Peace Officers,” but a transition has slowly set in, in which now all peace officers have become known as “Law Enforcement Officers.” Is this just semantics in title, or is there really a difference? That is the subject of this addition to my “Understanding” series “by Ron Branson” on various items of public service.
To start out, we note that one title contains the word “Peace,” and the other “Enforcement.” Do these two titles denote the same thing, or is there a difference? Most any grade school graduate can understand them to be two different things. But to the naked eye, one might argue that both wear a uniform, have a badge, and carry a gun, and therefore are one and the same.
The distinction is not one of appearance, but rather one of objective. In all of society life is competition, and everything works from three basic positions: “A” versus “B” mediated by “C,” the latter of which is a neutral position that may be called a mediator, an arbitrator, a referee, an umpire, or a judge. Everyone in the competitive society of life is either a player, or a neutral participant. While the competition of “A” and “B” could also include the competition of “D,” “E,” and “F,” there can be only one “C” who absolutely must have no interest in the outcome between A, B, D, E, and F. Once “C” manifests an interest in the competition between A, B, D, E, and F, he automatically forfeits his position as a neutral participant, and becomes a player in the competion.
Every game of sport provides an excellent illustration of the game of life. No judge in an Olympian race can enter himself into the race as a candidate. The moment he does, he forfeits his neutral position as judge because he now has an interest in the outcome.
This illustrates why there can exist no such thing as a “government interest” because the moment government obtains an interest in the outcome, it ceases to be government and becomes a contestant in the competitive world in which someone else must necessarily step up to assume the role of “government.” “Government” must absolutely be neutral, or it ceases to be government!
That is a profound statement I have just made because the courts in America have recognized “an overriding governmental interest,” U.S. v. Lee, 102 S. Ct. 1051 (1982), and Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693 (1986), both dealing with the mandatory numbering of all Americans to support the Social Security Administration. However, any true-thinking person can quickly see that by the very principles of nature itself, there cannot exist a “governmental interest” at all, much less an “overriding” one. Once the existence of such a principle is introduced, there can be no end, for it works like the camel’s nose under your tent; you will soon be sleeping with the camel, or worse yet, be crowded out totally from under the tent, for everything will eventually be done to accomplish “an overriding governmental interest!”
With this as a background, let me explain the distinction between a “Peace Officer,” and a “Law Enforcement Officer.” The objective of a peace officer is peace, nothing more. He has no interest in the cause of A over B, but seeks only peace, which benefits A, B, D, E, and F. In fact, the whole purpose for all government in society is justice which results in peace. Peace is not possible where there is no justice. Said another way, where there is no justice, there can be no peace; and where there is no peace, you can count on the fact that it is because there is no justice. When a peace officer arrives on the scene, his objective is to separate the disputing factors and quell the tension --whether it be a fight between a husband and wife, or feuding neighbors. He has no inherent interest in arresting anyone upon arrival at the scene. Such pursuit of peace is a rewarding objective. The Bible tells us, “Blessed are the peacemakers.” Matt. 5:9.
So now let us discuss a “Law Enforcement Officer.” His interest, as his title indicates, is enforcing the law. Now we have already stated that the objective of all government must be the establishment of peace through justice. So the question now turns to whether law enforcement’s only interest is seeking peace. I state emphatically, “NO!” Let me again illustrate with a sports game – baseball.
Baseball, as with all sports, has rules. The purpose of those rules, which we might here call “laws,” are made to assure that everyone plays on a level playing field and thus keeps the peace. One batter cannot be granted five strikes while another is limited to two. All rules must contribute to the objective of obtaining peace between the competing sides. Obviously, if one side or the other cannot agree as to what the rules are, or to abide by them for the benefit of both sides, there can be no peace, i.e., no game can possibly be played. This natural principle of law is true even where the opponents are fighting in a ring. The objective of all rules/laws must be peace!
Applying this law of nature to all rules and all laws governing society, let us consider the incidents where the rule or the law’s objective is not peace. We accept that the umpire is the decision-maker in baseball; and both sides agree to honor his judgment, whether or not they agree with any particular play. Conceptually, both sides agree that the umpire is trying to keep the peace by being honest and just in calling each and every play, and is not motivated by a personal interest in the outcome, such as a bet on the game.
Now suppose the umpire, pursuant to the authority and permission of the Baseball Commission, imposes a fine against every player in the game for each strike in the amount of $10, (an “infraction,”) and $100 (a “misdemeanor”) for each out, and finally $1000 (a “felony”) for each accumulation of 10 strikes. The “laws/rules” provide that the Baseball Commission receives 90% of the proceeds, and the umpire 10%. It is declared “perfectly legal,” and such practice “is endorsed by the courts” –see, here it is, pointing to the published opinion of “United Baseball Players v. Baseball Commission, 666 U.S. 911, (2069).” Now the enforcement of this rule/law is “enforceable;” and the Commission is within its right to pursue the players for failure to pay this fee/fine, and it is authorized to send forth law enforcement officers with badges and guns to collect this fee or throw the players in jail.
What has happened is, while this enforcement is “perfectly legal,” it has violated the fundamental laws of nature: that all laws must be for the purpose of bringing about peace through justice. Imposing a fine upon the players in a baseball game is neither a pursuit of justice nor peace, but rather the pursuit of the Commission’s own interest --that of collecting fines. And since collecting fines is the Commission’s interest, it then follows that their next step is maximizing those fines, i.e, increasing the numbers and amounts of the fines. Therefore, the “neutral” umpire, who has “no interest” in the outcome, starts “interpreting” more questionable calls in favor of strikes, the Baseball Commissioners, and his own 10% commission. Again I say, show me an umpire that has a “little bit” of interest in the outcome of a game, and I will show you a man that under any natural standard is disqualified as an umpire.
A “Law Enforcement Officer” is contending for the interest of those who hire him to “enforce” their “laws/rules” having nothing to do with peace or justice, only with profits for those who have sent him. The objective is greed-oriented.
The term “law enforcement officer” connotates the mentality of a fascist police state that has no interest in peace—just sheer obedience to the interests of the authority that pays him, i.e., he gets a cut of the profits of tyranny. There is no difference in this scenario than a driver of a get-away car receiving part of the “profits” of a bank robbery when splitting up the booty; except the former is a “legal” heist, while the latter an illegal one. The former is accomplished with an official uniform and badge, while the latter with a mask and bag.
By the very laws of nature, there cannot exist a “Law Enforcement Officer,” for if such were true, then we could all make ourselves “law enforcement officers,” for life itself must be a level playing field for all competive interests. Life is not supposed to be “government.”It is supposed to be about society getting along peaceably with each other as much as is possible; and society needs only so much government as is necessary to bring about that objective, “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”
-- Thomas Paine
So now we know why the foreign power, under color of “government,” has purposely designed the extermination of every reference to “peace officers” to metamorphose them into “law enforcement officers.” The objective is designed to subjugate the American People to obedience to an all-powerful, ever-expanding law enforcement police state. According to the foreign power, there can never be enough “law enforcement officers” —the more, the better! And if there aren’t enough “laws” for these “law enforcement officers” to enforce, do not worry because the foreign power will surely pass more.
Only by judicial accountability to the People through J.A.I.L. will their plans be thwarted!
Ron Branson is the author of a series of “Understanding” articles.
(It is highly recommended that this article be reformated into a brochure and distributed to all “law enforcement officers” in America. And all “L.E.O’s” are encouraged to write for Officer Jack McLamb’s newsletter, “Aid & Abet,” at Jack@....)
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation. - Declaration of Independence "..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who isstriking at the root."-- Henry David Thoreau <><
It seems that no matter where you turn, the term "judiciary" and "Justice" is wrought with fraud. One poll states that more than half of the people in America believe the judiciary of this country is generally corrupted. When a large segment of a society no longer perceive their justice system as honest, the roots of collapse is not far behind.
A very large shift in public opinion has taken place particularly within the last decade regarding courts. The whole purpose of courts is to afford the populace a forum of redress as a peaceable means of settling their differences rather than in the streets.
Below is a story that centers around New York City where it is described that "Justice" is bought and sold to the highest bidder. It should be noted that New York does not hold a corner on the market in this regard. I was called by a Los Angeles Superior Court judge who expressed personal concern about the judiciary in this county of Los Angeles. Even a couple of district attorney deputies called me to likewise express their concerns about the judiciary here. The sad fact is, America is suffering from a judicial crises, and few officials are willing to do anything about it but give political speeches that infer that they are trying to do something about the problem.
The truth is that only by installing Judicial Accountability & Integrity Legislation (J.A.I.L.) will this country every turn around. See this animation - http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm
In the dark corridors of Brooklyn politics, a State Supreme Court judgeship sells for $50,000 stuffed in an envelope, and $6,000 in postage stamps by Wayne Barrett January 13th, 2007 1:37 PM
The haunting whisper in the courthouse corridors of Brooklyn was heard for so many decades it became an axiom, as unchallenged as it was unproven.
It wasn't just that a case could be fixed. The darker secret was that the bench itself had been bought, that its polyester black robes were on a perpetual special-sale rack, that smarmy party bosses, ensconced at 16 Court Street across from the supreme court they ruled, demanded cash tribute to "make" a judge. The district attorney, Joe Hynes, who first heard the rumor 36 years ago when he was a young prosecutor running the office's rackets bureau, said in 2003 that he'd have to be "naive to think it didn't happen," that it was "common street talk that this has been going on for eons."
So for four years, ever since a judge who'd been caught on videotape taking gifts agreed to wear a wire for a meeting with one of the alleged judgeship marketers, Hynes has searched for the fire suggested by what he calls "the smoke" surrounding this legendary allegation. At last he is on the verge of making the case that will shame New York. The saga of this sewer shakedown has all the heightened drama of a trashy novel, with envelopes of cash handed off just days after 9-11 in the shadows of the collapsed towers. When the disturbing details become fully known, Hynes's stunning prosecution may at last force the state legislature to junk the peculiar way New York State nominates the 14-year-term, $136,700-a-year judges who preside at all felony and major civil trials, as a federal court has already concluded we should.
If judgeships have been sold, as Hynes has apparently established, so, too, has the soul of the city.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation. - Declaration of Independence "..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who isstriking at the root."-- Henry David Thoreau <><
I feel the need to share with all, that as a former United States Combat Marine I, as well as many others, fought for those ever so precious words of Rights and Freedom for all Americans. So that "We The People" for all time, could enjoy that which our founding fathers envisioned for its people, to Stand up and fight the corruption which now seeks to destroy from within.Our greatest battle is not outside our Country but within and on the very soil which so many have given of their life to defend. It is up to us,the People, to carry the ball....It is time to Stand up and defeat the enemy with Truth and Justice for all..... JAIL4Judges, Polk County, Florida.
SPOKANE, Wash. -- At a press conference before an event sponsored by the Constitution Party of Washington June 26, Judge Roy Moore stated in three words exactly why Americans are experiencing judicial anarchy.
Former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Moore, who has gained a lot of notoriety in recent years for his refusal to remove the Ten Commandments from his courthouse, was at Shadle Park High School with Constitution Party presidential candidate Mike Peroutka. Judge Moore had been explaining how judges' common practice of changing the meaning of words in their courtrooms is legislating from the bench. He described how this flagrant violation of the separation of powers clause in the Constitution has been institutionalized in the courts of the nation and explains how judges are able to justify unjust rulings.
Idaho Observer editor Don Harkins asked, “What is the power behind all this?”
“The people's ignorance,” said Judge Moore.
* * * * *
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Half the world is composed of idiots, the other half of people clever enough to take indecent advantage of them. --Walter Kerr
Why are we concerned about the ignorance of the People?
It is because that is what the evil forces (the Foreign Power) in control feed upon and what gives it its power, a counterfeit power. As long as the People allow, through ignorance, the Foreign Power to hold them in its grip by usurpation, it will not only continue to do so, but it will become even more oppressive as long as it remains in power.
Edmund Burke said "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Why do good men do nothing? One writer expressed the reason thusly:
I believe that many people place too much responsibility for the human predicament upon the evil designs of cunning and crafty men and women. I suggest that they are abetted in their designs by good people who do not know how to express the goodness they feel within themselves. So they do nothing.
The People, by and large, don't know how to counteract the evil forces. We saw "ignorance in action" on Election Day 2006 in South Dakota. The voters were not informed by a Voters' Guide of the issues on which they were to cast their vote, and so ignorance of the voters was allowed to control their vote. The South Dakota Foreign Power (SDFP) wasted no time in taking full advantage of that ignorance, by enhancing it with endless propaganda consisting of one lie after another about the J.A.I.L. Amendment (called "Amendment E" on the SD ballot). The SDFP knew that it must feed that ignorance and keep it alive for its own survival. The SDFP knew that the moment the ignorance turned into knowledge of the voter, it would spell its demise; and so it couldn't let that happen!
About the frightful condition of "ignorance in action" expressed by von Goethe, supra, Mr. Poll went on to state:
I suspect that the human predicament is as much a product of ignorance about the nature and goals of life, or stupidity in pursuing them, as it is of cunning, conspiratorial craftiness. Of Ignorance and Action,supra.
Yes, we saw ignorance in action by design in South Dakota. The J.A.I.L. Amendment made it to the South Dakota ballot in 2006 by an overwhelming number of signatures on the petition. J.A.I.L. carried a 3-to-1 favorable rating throughout the campaign. We believed that would be enough for victory for J.A.I.L. on the mistaken presumption that the voters knew what J.A.I.L. was truly about. However, we didn't anticipate the extent of propaganda, crime and corruption to which the opposition would go to deceive the voters into "defeating" J.A.I.L. But we found out and we maintain the evidence to prove it. See the South Dakota website, www.sd-jail4judges.org. As Mr. Poll says, the "predicament is as much the product of ignorance about the nature and goals of life" which the J.A.I.L. Amendment would have provided the People of South Dakota, "as it is of [the] cunning, conspiratorial craftiness" of the SDFP.
The SDFP has survived this round and it is carrying on a self-congratulatory post-election "success" story. But it knows its "success" will be short lived. Because of that election disaster in South Dakota, the People's ignorance is already turning into knowledge all across this nation. The "loss" in South Dakota will turn out to have been a blessing in disguise, for it is serving as a valuable lesson to the American People who will have gained sufficient knowledge to make an informed vote in the future. They will be sure to read the J.A.I.L. Amendment before voting on it next time. They will never, never trust the "explanation" or "summary" of any official regarding J.A.I.L. whether it be attorney general, secretary of state, governor, or otherwise. And, certainly, they will not believe anything put out by the Bar Association regarding J.A.I.L., for they will realize that the Bar is actually an integral division of the state Supreme Court, and its members serve as the judicial sentry.
James Madison said "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance..." and since Ignorance of the People is the life-blood of the evil forces in power, the People must turn their ignorance into knowledge. That admonishment applies to any subject matter, however for purposes of this writing, it applies to J.A.I.L. The People must learn for themselves the particulars of the J.A.I.L. Amendment so they aren't fooled into believing the lies of the Foreign Power any more, in whatever form it takes. Once burned, shame on them; twice burned, shame on us.
How is that knowledge of J.A.I.L. gained?
1. The first place to start is read the J.A.I.L. Amendment. The Amendment has been revised this year to clarify definitions and to counter misinterpretations, so be sure you are reading the 2007 revision. If you don't yet have the 2007 revision, go to our main website at www.jail4judges.org and click on the California J.A.I.L. Initiative at the top of the Home Page as a guide. All state initiatives/legislation are patterned after the California Initiative. If there's anything in the J.A.I.L. Amendment you don't understand, please ASK US to explain it.
2. The second step, after you are well informed about the Amendment, go to our South Dakota website at www.sd-jail4judges.org to learn explicit details, complete with documentation, about the fraud committed by the SDFP. With all the links and references on that site, you'll have plenty to read and learn. See especially the link in the left-hand column to "Confronting Head-On the No-on-E Club" for specific lies and propaganda spewed out by the opposition, with our responses thereto. That alone will be quite an education. Mr. Barnett, executive-director of the SD Bar Association who led the campaign against J.A.I.L. has already begun traveling to other states, teaching the Bar Association members of those states "how to do it." See The Foreign Power Planting Seeds of Deception http://www.jail4judges.org/JNJ_Library/2007/2007-01-19B.html
Following those two steps above will certainly turn your ignorance about J.A.I.L. into knowledge of the measure. But simple knowledge is not enough to completely
overcome ignorance. It must be developed into wisdom which is attained by gaining sufficient amounts of the proper and relevant knowledge to become enlightened about the subject at hand, to the point where you could teach others about it. This is important to understand. There are more college-educated derelicts roaming the streets of society than we care to realize. Make sure the subject matter in which you're knowledgeable is relevant to a meaningful purpose in life. And to be meaningful, it must be basic and universal in application, not esoteric. No matter how much one knows about nuclear physics, does that knowledge alone determine the survival of our country? of our life, liberty, and property? or do we need a more basic knowledge leading to the wisdom required to understand the source and meaning of those inherent
qualities?
To realize how important the passage of J.A.I.L. is, after you have studied the measure,the best source of the basic knowledge described above is the Declaration of Independence, which is the foundation —the fountainhead— of J.A.I.L. That Great Charter of this Nation is even more meaningful today than when it was written, because indeed we are now, more than ever, seeing and experiencing "ignorance in action" by the People, a frightful human predicament which has brought about a Foreign Power active in South Dakota and probably in every state of the Union.
The Declaration is built upon the bedrock of the Laws of Nature which Laws are not
legislated nor penned by man —they pre-exist mankind, let alone government. The Declaration teaches us the embryonic beginnings of this country, the point from which we all must start in learning about the inherent qualities that we hold dear, existing even before mankind, by Nature. Just contemplate that thought, putting out of your mind —at least for a moment— all the terrible conditions under which we live. If you dwell at this point on what's happening in society today, it will rob you of the important and indeed precious things to be learned in the first place, before going further in your development of knowledge. The People need this rudimentary foundation before building upon it. How did we get to the terrible stage of life we are in today? The People must learn the answer to that question by gaining knowledge gradually and meticulously through each principle taught by the Declaration in order to know how to counteract the evil forces and be able to do something, rather than nothing, to annihilate the "triumph of evil" —and in doing something, that it not be "ignorance in action."
Why is this important, you ask?
(a) The Foreign Power in South Dakota would have been annihilated by the People had J.A.I.L. passed in the 2006 election, and
(b) J.A.I.L. would have passed the election had there not been "ignorance in action." And, further,
(c) "Ignorance in action" would not have existed had the People gained the knowledge necessary to cast an intelligent vote for the J.A.I.L. Amendment.
We're not talking about learning a hobby or skill, or a game— we're talking about the People abolishing the forces of evil running this country in order to save it from complete destruction— and the People along with it. And the door of opportunity is about to shut forever!
The first principle taught by the Declaration is that, under the Laws of Nature pre-existing mankind, "all men" (i.e., the People) are created by their Creator and endowed
with certain inherent qualities that pre-existed even his own existence. Those inherent qualities, called "rights" in the Declaration, include, but are not limited to, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the latter of which was denominated "property" by John Locke, the mentor of Thomas Jefferson in authoring the Declaration. Certainly, owning property is a "pursuit of happiness."(Remember, don't think about what we're forced to live under today while studying these initial principles. Just know that the Declaration states that these are self-evident truths.)
That initial truth establishes the fact that mankind (the People) are sovereign beings under the Laws of Nature, possessing as part of their being inherent rights that existed prior to mankind and prior to government. Never lose sight of that fact. The People cannot "dispossess" themselves of those rights nor of their sovereignty —they are part of their being. The best that can be said is that mankind can relinquish, by his choice, the exercise of those rights and his sovereign status, as long as it is done knowingly (knowing what he is giving up), intelligently (understanding the consequences of giving them up), and voluntarily (without threat, coercion, or duress). The terms of such relinquishment (length of time, for what purpose, etc.) is up to each individual and cannot be done by society as a whole. Society isn't created all at once, but by each human being individually —another point to keep in mind. These are self-evident truths.
Once mankind appeared "on the scene" and grew into a community or society, John Locke points out that the People needed a government —which, according to Frederic Bastiat, is a "collective force," i.e., "only the organized combination of the individual forces" (http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss2a.html)— to protect their individual rights which they could not do individually. The Declaration teaches us that governments are instituted among men to secure their inherent (unalienable) rights. Since only mankind, as a society, existed before government, it stands to reason that government was "instituted" by mankind, "among men" to secure their individual rights. Whatever the government function entailed, it could be for only one purpose: to protect the People's individual rights. Government was to do for the People what they could not do for themselves individually.
The Declaration then teaches us another self-evident truth, that government derives its just powers from the consent of the "governed," being the People. We later learn that the means by which the People give this consent to government is the U.S. Constitution, the written By-Laws for government to follow —the Supreme Law of the Land. See The Consent of the Governed is the U.S. Constitutionhttp://www.jail4judges.org/JNJ_Library/2007/2007-01-30B.html in which this subject is fully discussed. As stated by Dr. Ronald J. Pestritto:
America's government institutions derive their "just powers" from the Constitution, and the Constitution derives its authority from the consent of the people who have ordained and established it. Because consent is the only legitimate source of political power, government must rule according to the rule of law.
The Declaration next teaches us that whenever government becomes destructive of the purpose for which it was instituted by the People, i.e., it fails to protect the People's individual inherent rights, it is the right of the People to alter or abolish that form of "government" and institute a new government that will serve their safety and happiness. The Declaration advises us, however, that such change should not be hasty or done for "light and transient" reasons, and that the People are likely to avoid any such change as long as the "evils are sufferable." This is also taught as self-evident truth.
At this point, the question arises, "For how long are the evils sufferable?"
The Declaration does not indicate a length of time; however it does acknowledge that there does come a point in time when they are no longer sufferable and instructs us thusly:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
We have given this admonishment over and over in hopes that the People would wake up to the fact that it is self-evident truth that it's time -past time- to make some changes in our form of government. Contemplate how long would that "train of abuses and usurpations" have to be before change is necessary? Is 220 years long enough? or even 90+ years (since that notable year of 1913)? Ask yourselves, have we yet reached the point when the evils are NO LONGER SUFFERABLE in this country? Think about it-- how much thought does it take?
The People of South Dakota believed it was time to alter or reform their form of government, and they signed petitions to place J.A.I.L. on their 2006 ballot for that very purpose, a right acknowledged by the South Dakota Constitution, Article VI §26. We now know the fiasco that took place in South Dakota over the proposed J.A.I.L. Amendment on the 2006 ballot. Not only did the People of South Dakota believe that the evils were no longer sufferable in their state, and that the time was ripe to amend their "government," and accordingly followed the steps required to place the measure on the SD ballot, but they now know, as do the People nationally, that the evils in South Dakota are SO BAD and insufferable that the People's right to cast an informed vote on Amendment E (the J.A.I.L. Amendment) was thwarted by the evil power running South Dakota, by keeping the voters ignorant of the truth of Amendment E, causing the frightful human predicament of "ignorance in action" described herein.
That evil force in South Dakota rammed through at least two SD Constitutional provisions, plus several SD state criminal statutes, and conducted a horrendous propaganda campaign to the voters against the truth of Amendment E. One of the many repeated injuries and usurpations suffered by the People, causing them to declare their independence from the tyranny of England, is:
He (the King) has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation.
As a result of the South Dakota 2006 election fiasco, the South Dakotans have been subjected to a jurisdiction foreign to their Constitution and unacknowledged by their laws, the court giving its assent to their nefarious acts. For instance, click on "Fraud in South Dakota" at the top of the Home Page of our site, www.jail4judges.org, then click on "SD Court Order Permitting Election Fraud..." and then go to ¶53 of the Order:
[¶53.] The attorney general could have said with a straight face that the real purpose and effect of the proposed JAIL amendment is to destroy justice in South Dakota by harassment of public decisions makers with lawsuits...
That was the decision of Presiding Judge, Max A. Gors of the Circuit Court of South Dakota.
Accordingly, it is "clear and simple" that this evil power is a foreign power in South Dakota --a power foreign to the Constitution of South Dakota. It is also "clear and simple" that the People must convert their ignorance into knowledge sufficient to annihilate the foreign power, operating under color of "government" wherever it exists in this country. The survival of our Constitutional Republic is at stake!
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation. - Declaration of Independence "..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who isstriking at the root."-- Henry David Thoreau <><
For More Information Contact: Nancy Grant, Florida J.A.I.L. for Judges Director (863-494-0363) Montgomery Blair Sibley, Attorney for Florida J.A.I.L. for Judges (301-251-5200)
February 21, 2007 For Immediate Release
Florida J.A.I.L. for Judges files suit Against the Florida Bar To Enjoin Illegal Activity
Arcadia, Florida - Florida J.A.I.L. for Judges (www.floridajail4judges.org) today filed in the Florida Supreme Court a petition to enjoin the Florida Bar from engaging in activities related to the drive by Florida J.A.I.L. for Judges to amend the Florida Constitution. Florida J.A.I.L. for Judges seeks to amend the Florida Constitution by a amendment that would be a check against judicial misconduct and abuse of power. The Judicial Accountability Law (J.A.I.L.) creates two statewide Special Grand Juries in Florida for the sole purpose of investigating complaints against judges. The Special Grand Juries will have the power to sanction judges by levying fines and forfeitures against them, and for third-time offenses, removing them from the bench. The Special Grand Juries will also have the power to indict judges and subject them to criminal proceedings before special trial juries who may sentence as well as convict the offending judge.
The suit against the Florida Bar makes four claims. First that the People never delegated to the Judiciary the right to set up a mandatory bar which acts as the "arm" of the Florida Supreme Court engaging -- on behalf of the Florida Supreme Court -- in political activities that the Florida Supreme Court is barred from engaging in. Second, given the monolithic prestige, power and purse of the Florida Bar, it has confiscated the "marketplace of ideas" to such and extent as to deny citizens of this state the fundamental right to petition for redress of grievances. Third, it is unethical for the Florida Supreme Court's arm to engage in political activity when the Justices of the Florida Supreme Court cannot engage in that same activity. Last, Florida J.A.I.L. for Judges has alleged that the Florida Bar is violating Chapter 106 of the Florida Statutes by engaging in political activity without registering with the Department of Elections and reporting its expenditures.
The lawsuit in its entirety is posted as a pdf file at the below URL for all to read, http://www.jail4judges.org/PressReleases/PR_2007-02-21.htm. You will find thereon three documents, 1) "Petition Final," 2) "Motion for Limited Discovery," and 3) "Motion to Disqualify." This lawsuit presents unprecedented issues.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction
foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws;
giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation.
--Declaration of Independence--
That is only one of the many grievances the People had, causing them to declare their independence from England to found this new country, to declare their sovereignty under the Laws of Nature. As sovereign, they would institute a new government to protect their sovereignty and unalienable, inherent rights --a new government that would function in the interests of the People, the governed (i.e., the protected). They would establish and ordain a Constitution by which they would give their consent to the new government by delegating certain enumerated powers to it, to be used for the protection of their inborn sovereign rights --rights which exist by Nature, not by mankind.
Today, some 230 years after the Declaration, the People again grieve because this new government instituted for the protection of their rights, has abandoned that responsibility and subjected them to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our [constitutional] laws; and has given its assent to its acts of pretended legislation. The People grieve today because the government they instituted has abandoned their precious rights wrought by the self-evident truths proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence.
The People grieve today because they have been taken over by the usurpation of a power foreign to our Constitution, by which usurped power they have been reduced under absolute despotism; and further, because they have been prevented by that usurped power, by fraud and deceit, from exercising their inherent right to amend their form of government in South Dakota pursuant to that state's Constitution, displaying an evil contempt for the state Constitution, the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the People.
For those of us who love the Declaration of Independence and the self-evident truths it portrays, they will again grieve when reading the below expose` of how the foreign power developed in this country, starting back in the 1800s according to this article. Dr. Prestritto presents a cogent explanation of how we got to the dismal situation we find ourselves in today. We receive emails from our readers who, with great anxiety, tell us that "judges aren't judicial officers" and that they are "administrative" and that's why they can disregard the Constitution, because we are no longer under constitutional law. As shown by the below article, that situation is not only unconstitutional, but it is anti-constitutional, and has come about by usurpation of power. That is all the more reason we NEED J.A.I.L.
We send you this article as part of your quest for knowledge to overcome ignorance, and hence to overcome this foreign power. Our sincere thanks and respect goes to Dr. Ronald J. Pestritto for his meaningful written contribution that follows. Read it and weep! Look through your tears to J.A.I.L., to rid this country of the foreign power, yes-- to rid this country from the abuse of the iron fist of "administrative" control. We've had enough of this counterfeit regime!
The United States federal courts exercise vast discretionary authority from a position of almost complete independence. The debates triggered by the two recent Supreme Court nominations underscore this truth. High on the list of reasons why elections matter is that the people can influence the courts only by selecting the president who will nominate judges, and the senators who will confirm them.
The courts have the final say over hot-button political issues like abortion and the death penalty. But almost as important is the large discretion with which bureaucratic agencies operate today. The Environmental Protection Agency, for example, influences the day-to-day meaning of property rights, the Food and Drug Administration decides on the legality of the "morning-after" or abortion pill, and the Federal Election Commission tells us what, concretely, free speech means. Politicians who must face the voters in even-numbered years are often more than willing to let life-tenured judges and bureaucrats make hard decisions about such controversial issues.
It's clear that the original design of our Constitution did not allow for essentially legislative authority to be exercised by officials who are not elected legislators. As CRB readers know better than most Americans, the Progressive movement played the decisive role in the long journey from the Founders' Constitution to the modern American state. Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Croly, and John Dewey argued explicitly and energetically that the Constitution was outdated. These Progressive leaders and their allies were the first to reject the Constitution's core principles in favor of modern, big-government liberalism.
[Rejecting the Constitution brings in the Foreign Power - j4j]
When considering, more particularly, the courts' and the bureaucracy's positions of authority in today's liberal state, we ought to look carefully at a Progressive who gets much less attention: Frank J. Goodnow. Transaction Publishers' new edition of Goodnow's Politics and Administration provides valuable insights into the origins of modern liberalism.
Goodnow was the founding president of the American Political Science Association, and helped launch not only political science as an academic discipline but also administrative law and public administration. He was a student of John Burgess, whose political conservatism he did not share; Burgess brought him to Columbia after Goodnow had spent time studying in France and Germany. Although he later went on to serve 15 years as president of Johns Hopkins University, it was at Columbia that Goodnow produced most of his work, including Politics and Administration (1900).
An early advocate of big government, Goodnow understood that the greatest obstacle to it was the Constitution of the United States—especially the separation of powers—and the principles of the Declaration of Independence upon which the Constitution rests. Politics and Administration provided a new vision for America's governing institutions and the arrangement of national power. In subsequent works, such as Social Reform and the Constitution (1911) and The American Conception of Liberty and Government (1916), Goodnow showed how this new vision arose from a critique of the bedrock ideas of American government. He complained about the "reverence" Americans had for their founding, which he regarded as "superstitious" and an obstacle to genuine political reform. In particular, he held that the focus on government's permanent duty to protect individual natural rights had impeded the marked expansion of governmental power that Progressives desired. He objected that the founders' principles were "permeated by the theories of social compact and natural right," which he regarded as "worse than useless" since they "retard development."
A main problem was that Americans believed their rights "unalienable," to use the Declaration's term—i.e., they cannot be defined or taken away by government. This made it difficult for Progressives to put the government in charge of private property, and so Goodnow argued for a positive understanding of rights as granted by government itself:
The rights which [an individual] possesses are...conferred upon him, not by his Creator, but rather by the society to which he belongs. What they are is to be determined by the legislative authority in view of the needs of that society. Social expediency, rather than natural right, is thus to determine the sphere of individual freedom of action.
Such a view of rights would open the door for a new arrangement of national power that would not be so confined by the concern for individual liberty. By suggesting such a new dispensation, Goodnow helped to found today's judicial and bureaucratic regimes.
* * *
In Politics and Administration, Goodnow criticized the constitutional separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, and suggested instead a two-part division, between politics and administration. The traditional system, he argued, interfered with the national government's efficient operation and kept it limited in scope. His system, by contrast, would free up administration from political interference, allowing administrators wide discretion to regulate the complex modern economy without interference from politicians. Politics, he contended, was "polluted" and full of "bias," whereas administration was all about the pursuit of "truth." He was among the first to join Woodrow Wilson in calling for a powerful central bureaucracy, insulated from political control and equipped with expert authority to enact and enforce regulations.
What does this have to do with the courts today? Goodnow considered courts to be part of the administrative machinery, which distinguished his argument from many other Progressives' and makes it highly relevant to the politics of the 21st century. Administration, he claimed, involves both the "administration of government" (by agencies) and the "administration of justice" (by courts). Administration—made up of agencies and courts—is modern government's focus and the primary means by which Progressivism would be realigned, free from the impeding forms of the Constitution. As he wrote in Comparative Administrative Law (1893), the book that first drew attention to him, "the great problems of modern public law are almost exclusively administrative in character. While the age that has passed was one of constitutional, the present age is one of administrative reform."
Even though "administrative" courts and agencies are insulated from political control, Goodnow insisted that they should not be confined merely to implementing policies determined by the people's elected representatives: in interpreting the law, courts and agencies would share in its making. Courts, especially, would not simply be an umpire. Goodnow wanted the courts to be involved in pitching and batting as well. Thus he called for unelected judges who would make law through constitutional interpretation, and unelected bureaucrats who would make policy after congressional delegation to them of legislative powers.
In bringing Goodnow's long out-of-print book to us, Transaction performs a great service—a service that it has repeated with several vital Progressive-era works such as Wilson's Congressional Government and Constitutional Government in the United States, Croly's Progressive Democracy, and Walter Weyl's The New Democracy, to name a few. Other important works are expected in the near future, including The Stakes of Diplomacy by Walter Lippmann and The Business of the Supreme Court by Felix Frankfurter and James Landis. These reprints come with useful new introductions; Sidney A. Pearson's for Constitutional Government and Progressive Democracy are especially worth reading.
John A. Rohr's introduction to Politics and Administration is also quite good. Rohr capably identifies the philosophical inspiration behind Goodnow's assault on the separation of powers: the German philosopher Hegel. "Because of its grounding in the principle of separation of powers," Rohr explains, "the Constitution of the United States would present difficulties for any unity-seeking Hegelian. Goodnow was no exception." This clear-sighted observation is welcome from a writer who has made questionable arguments for the constitutionality of the administrative state. But readers can certainly benefit from Rohr's analysis of Goodnow, and especially from the renewed availability of Politics and Administration, truly a landmark work in our constitutional decline.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation. - Declaration of Independence "..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who isstriking at the root."-- Henry David Thoreau <><
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/694 - Release Date: 2/20/2007 1:44 PM
To receive future mailings, enter "Subscribe" in the subject bar
The idea that it is alright to do a wrong in order to accomplish a right is nothing new. This humanistic philosophy goes back to the beginning of time, and is condemned by the Apostle Paul in his rhetortical question, "Let us do evil, that good may come?" Romans 3:8. Put in modern-day terms, we describe it as "the end justifies the means." It is argued that since the goal is to accomplish a "good cause," it is therefore alright to do evil in order to accomplish that "good cause." In short, this is the theory behind all tyrants and evil empires. Communism argues that since the overriding objective is "universal good for all mankind," it is therefore commendable to use falsehood, subterfuge and lies to accomplish its end. Therefore private rights must be either ignored or surrendered even if it requires bloodshed. (War is good if it accomplishes peace.)
Now why do I say all this? I have said this to lay the foundation for the below Miami Herald article in which government attorneys argue that exposure of government hurts the integrity of government, and therefore it is justifiable to falsify court records to deceive the people and the news agencies to keep the public from knowing what they are doing. Of course, this goal requires the participation of the judges in order to accomplish this desired objective. As I have said for years, the participation of the judiciary is behind everything one hates about government, and without judicial accountability, there is no possibility of correcting the unconstitutional evils of "government" which ceases to be government, but is transformed into a foreign power via usurpation.
LEADING INQUIRY: Court Chief Justice R. Fred Lewis is conducting a statewide inquiry into the hiding of court records after The Miami Herald reported that hundreds of civil and criminal cases, mostly in Broward County, were kept hidden on secret dockets.
Florida's prosecutors are floating a proposal to the Legislature to give them the power to secretly falsify public court records -- with a judge's approval -- for undercover law enforcement purposes.
Spurred by Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernández Rundle, the draft bill would limit the authority to manufacture and plant fake documents in court files to 180 days. But it also provides for an unlimited number of 30-day extensions.
''Judges would be very involved in the monitoring. It all has to go through a judge,'' said Arthur I. ''Buddy'' Jacobs, general counsel for the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association, which supports the bill.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida opposes the idea.
''The fundamental problem is that it so goes against our notion of the way our justice system ought to work,'' said ACLU legislative director Randall Marshall. ``How would we ever be able to trust anything in the judicial record knowing that something could be intentionally falsified with a judicial seal of approval?''
''Even if this is temporary, what if someone testifies during that time and we never get to know they had a criminal conviction? We can't properly cross-examine to develop their motives for giving testimony,'' Daniels said.
The bill has been prefiled with the Florida Senate for the legislative session that begins March 6.
A second, longer version of the bill has been prefiled with the House. It would convey authority to falsify any public record to prosecutors, judges, mayors, sheriffs, coroners and other public officers unless they were acting corruptly.
The Miami Herald reported late last year how judges and prosecutors in Miami-Dade had official court records altered and kept secret dockets to disguise what was happening in some court cases.
Two cases were uncovered in which court dockets were altered to cover up the felony convictions of informants, but more are known to exist. Chief Assistant State Attorney Jose Arrojo said authorities have altered the public records of informants for two decades.
It is a crime for anyone in Florida, including judges and prosecutors, to alter or falsify court records or proceedings. Violators can be sent to prison for a year.
STATE INQUIRY
The prosecutors' push to change Florida criminal statute 839.13 comes amid a statewide inquiry by Supreme Court Chief Justice R. Fred Lewis into the improper hiding of court records. The probe began last summer after The Miami Herald reported that hundreds of civil and criminal cases, mostly in Broward County, were kept hidden on secret dockets.
More recently, Lewis asked the Florida Bar to examine the propriety of falsifying court records and to recommend rule changes by March 1. The high court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on secret and false dockets March 5.
Rundle sent a letter to the chief justice in December defending the practice of altering public court records as occasionally necessary to protect informants and investigations. She also announced that Miami-Dade judges and prosecutors would no longer ''affirmatively'' falsify dockets.
In response, the Florida Public Defenders Association has asked that the practice be banned.
Ed Griffith, a spokesman for the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office, said the bill is a priority for the prosecutors' association, but declined to comment further.
The Senate sponsor is Dave Aronberg, D-Greenacres, vice chairman of the criminal justice committee. The House sponsor is Rep. Julio Robaina, R-South Miami.
''Ultimately, this protects the public against the evil of corruption,'' Aronberg said. ``It's just another tool. How else can you get at a corrupt judge unless you create false pleadings?''
TWO SCENARIOS
In an e-mail to Aronberg's office, Ted Mannelli, executive director to the state attorney, wrote that prosecutors have used the technique in ``two scenarios.''
''In a very, very, very limited number of cases, perhaps less than five over the last two and one half decades in our circuit, bogus court records have been generated in corruption investigations targeting judges,'' Mannelli wrote.
The other scenario Mannelli described involves any case in which defendants plead guilty and sentencing is deferred to let informants work undercover.
Mannelli did not say how many times that has happened.
He wrote in the e-mail and confirmed in a phone interview that prosecutors believe Florida's prohibition on altering court records doesn't apply to them because they have acted ``without corrupt intent.''
The law, however, makes no such distinction. The Florida Supreme Court also has ruled that a lack of corrupt intent does not excuse the faking of court records.
1997 CASE
Broward County Judge Laran Johnson backdated records in an apparent attempt to keep her caseload low. In 1997, the court removed her from office because ``her knowing and repeated acts of falsifying public records strike at the very heart of judicial integrity.''
Today, prosecutors want the law changed to make sure ''these procedures are clearly legal and allow for their continuation,'' Mannelli said in the email.
It is said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I pose the following questions:
Is it justifiable for government to commit crime in order to catch criminals?
Is it justifiable for government to falsify documents in order to catch people who falsify documents?
Is it justifiable to commit fraud to catch people who commit fraud?
Government argues that it is justified only if it is the government doing it, because it is for that infamous "overriding governmental interest." And the judges said "Amen! My Brother Lawyers - preach it!" -Ron
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation. - Declaration of Independence "..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who isstriking at the root."-- Henry David Thoreau <><
(For obvious reasons, identifying factors of this judge have been omitted - Ron Branson)
"I will be leaving the bench in a year and a half. I am not at all pleased with the way things have gone in this state, and the direction the courts have gone. .... There is so much wrong, and I am so powerless and worn down, I just don't want to spend what little strength I have left trying to buck the system.
Like the movie scene from Thelma & Louise, where they realize they are trapped and they floor the gas pedal and drive over a cliff, I feel that the whole system is headed for a breakdown (and deservedly so, for the way it has been mismanaged, and the lack of moral and ethical values, and the astounding lack of practical, common sense). My only comfort is that I will jump out and be well clear of its collection of fools before they disappear in the cloud of confusion and drive over the edge.
I am divorced from the local political scene, and take no joy nor interest in the skullduggery among that ilk. I am just waiting until I can turn in my keys and be a man of leisure, like yourself, even if I never amount to anything. At least I'll have the last laugh, as they send me my retirement checks and I will, at long last, be out from under the cloak which has not allowed me to express opinions or state my views for fear that it would be reported and be interpreted as improper judicial conduct. I've got a lot of bottled up feelings which I'm not allowed to express. Maybe then, I will be able to do so. Until then, it is low profile and make no waves. ....
Keep being who you are, and I will continue to hold you in respect for being the goad in the side of those who practice hypocrisy."
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation. - Declaration of Independence "..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who isstriking at the root."-- Henry David Thoreau <><
By Ron Branson - National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief
As with the Chief Justices of six states, Chief Justice Ronald George takes aim at what he and they identify as the potential threat posed to this nation's judicial system by the National J.A.I.L. Movement. One thing that cannot be denied is that the J.A.I.L. Movement (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) has drawn fire from the judiciary like nothing heretofore. Even former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor traveled the country last year blasting us as posing an attack upon the independence of the nation's judiciary.
Last year I was called by a reporter from the Los Angeles Times by the name of Jessica Garrison. Her first words were to ask me if I knew who Ronald George was, to which I responded, "Sure, he is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of California." She stated, "That's correct. I just talked with him, and he says he knows you." I said, "I'm impressed, but you know that he has nothing good to say about me," to which she agreed. I told her that he stated that I am an extremist out to destroy this wonder judicial system we have in California.
I was asked for an interview, and we met in a restaurant in which during that interview I stated that I think I will give Ronald George a call and ask to meet with him for lunch. She asked me, "Why would you do that?" to which I stated in jest, that since he says that he knows me we should meet together and discuss the prospects of JAIL4Judges in California. As a results of that interview, the Los Angeles Times published a front page article in its B Section entitled, "Activist Wants to See Judges Judged," dated April 24, 2006.
The article, in part, states, "Quite suddenly, Branson - an idiosyncratic populist who call himself the Five-Star National JAIL Commander in Chief and affixes five metal stars to his lapels - found he had captured the attention of judges and lawmakers across the country. They say his plan is a terrible idea and represents nothing less than an attack on the premise of a fair and impartial judiciary that operates independently of pressures from special interests. That's because if judges can be investigated, sued and even jailed for decisions they make, few will be likely to make unpopular decisions, even if that is what the law calls for. "I view efforts such as these as threats to our democratic government," said the chief justice of California's Supreme Court, Ronald M. George, who has begun speaking out against JAIL. Missouri's chief justice has issued similar warnings." [It should be noted that I am a "show-me," born and raised upon the farms of Missouri.]
What can readily be ascertained is how all these judges condemning J.A.I.L., often backed by the media, totally ignore and avoid any discussion whatsoever about paragraph two, which sets the primary focus of the J.A.I.L. Amendment. We are now working on the State of Florida, and I quote from paragraph two of the Florida J.A.I.L. Amendment, "Notwithstanding common law or any other provision to the contrary, no immunities shielding a judge from frivolous and harassing actions shall be construed to extend to any deliberate violation of law, fraud, or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material allegations, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of Florida or the United States. The foregoing judicial misconduct shall not be construed to mean court decisions made within the authorized capacity of a judge."
The reason all these judges do not wish to get into the particulars of the J.A.I.L. Amendment is because of the difficulty of justifying judges committing violations of the seven specified acts, such as deliberately violating the U.S. and state's Constitutions, or the laws of the state. They have no argument, so they change these words to "judicial decisions we do not like," and then attack their own reinterpretations. This judicial tactic merely illustrates the need for J.A.I.L. because they tend to universally restate the arguments before the courts and rule on their own reinterpretations.
Indeed, one of the lawyers representing the California Courts of Appeals contacted me and chided me for going after judges for simply making mistakes. I asked him to show me where in the J.A.I.L. Amendment he saw anything about going after judges for their "mistakes." He could not show me even though I demanded he show me. I told him that I did not mind him attacking J.A.I.L., but his attack must be upon what is written, and not upon how he wishes to reinterpret it. I also told him that he is doing exactly what I have universally experienced the courts doing in my fourteen cases through to the U.S. Supreme Court. They never stayed on point with the issue, but reinterpreted the issue presented before the court.
Due to its length, I am presenting only excerpts of California Chief Justice Ronald George's State of the Judiciary message to California he gave yesterday in which he takes more pot-shots at JAIL4Judges, and indirectly at me, Ron Branson. I will insert an occasional comment for the benefit of Ronald George.
STATE OF THE JUDICIARY ADDRESS DELIVERED TO A JOINT SESSION OF THE LEGISLATURE SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 26, 2007 CHIEF JUSTICE RONALD M. GEORGE
Good afternoon. It is a great pleasure to be here to deliver my twelfth annual State of the Judiciary Address to this joint session of the California Legislature....
With me here today are my six colleagues on the California Supreme Court, Associate Justices Joyce Kennard, Marvin Baxter, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Ming Chin, Carlos Moreno, and Carol Corrigan. Also in attendance are members of the Judicial Council, which I chair and which is the constitutionally created body charged with statewide administration of the judicial branch; the Administrative Director of the Courts Bill Vickrey, his Chief Deputy Ron Overholt, and several members of their staff; and members of the Bench-Bar Coalition....
Over the past decade, the judicial branch of our state has become stronger and more effective — not only because of our own efforts to improve our service to the public, but also because of the great assistance provided by the other two branches of government.
Those of you who have served in prior sessions of this Legislature, and other members who have preceded you, have recognized that an impartial court system, capable of providing fair and accessible justice and adherence to the rule of law, is a cornerstone of our democracy. Each of the three branches — although co-equal and independent — is interdependent and must rely upon the other two in order to fulfill its role in the balanced system of government that our Founders, national and state, so wisely established for us.We in the judicial branch — and, most importantly, the public we all serve — have benefited greatly from the reforms we have jointly instituted....
But the gap between expanding caseloads and the number of judges available to handle them has continued to grow, adversely affecting the administration of justice.Courts have been forced to shut down civil courtrooms — in some cases countywide — because criminal cases facing dismissal have priority under the law and there was an insufficient number of judges to handle all the cases....
[Ronald George, the more injustice citizens experience, the more litigation there shall be. Litigations shall continue to rise until it becomes totally impossible. You will not be able to hire enough judges, or build enough courthouses. This is a result of the natural laws of nature. Back when both you and I were children, courts were simple, there were few judges, and we did not have a back-log of litigation. Further, the public respected the judges we had, and deemed them to be fair and justice, unlike the public perceives the judicial system today. - RB]
The number of self-represented litigants continues to increase, and their needs will, in my opinion, pose the single most challenging issue for the courts in the coming decade. In some counties litigants appear without an attorney in 85 to 90% of family law and landlord/tenant matters. The costs to the judicial system and to the public are high — impairing the ability of self-represented litigants to effectively vindicate their rights, undermining the ability of courts to efficiently process heavy caseloads, and eroding the public’s confidence in our judicial system....
[No, Ronald George, it is not the case load that is "eroding the public's confidence in our judicial system," rather it is the other way around, to wit, the "eroding ... public's confidence in our judicial system" that is causing the problems you are facing. Yes, people have lost their confidence in the judicial system, and in lawyers, and are either forced, due to economic reasons, to go it alone, or because they just do not trust lawyers. They find that the lawyers cheat them and turn on them or compromise their cases.
In one of my cases the lawyer representing the County of Los Angeles argued before the judge that my case was a prime example of why pro ses should be barred from representing themselves in court. His position is that everyone appearing in court should be forced to appear only by a lawyer. Is he so far afield from the thinking of your fellow colleagues, the California Bar Association? Yes, it is the pro ses that are "giving the judges a hard time," because they do not fear urging the real issue before the court and they do not fear being threatened with disbarment for speaking their mind. And both you and I know that it is the pro ses that universally get railroaded by the judiciary! I know. They call me! If the pro se case loads you refer to run at a rate of 85% to 90%, one can pretty much state that that figure pretty well represents the rate of injustice in California, if not higher.]
According to an article that appeared last month in the Los Angeles Times, thousands of self-represented Californians are awaiting a “nasty surprise” — “Many of them are not quite as divorced as they think they are” and some “are even accidental bigamists.”
Moreover, some cases simply are too complex for self-representation, or for particular litigants who are unable to navigate the legal process because of language or educational difficulties....
Each time I attend the Conference of Chief Justices, which I headed a couple years ago, the accomplishments and cordial relationships existing among the three branches in California are the focus of interest — and even envy — from my peers.
The challenges that lie ahead include not only sufficient resources, but also ensuring that our judicial branch remains strong and impartial. Last fall, I was asked by former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and Justice Stephen Breyer to participate in a conference on the independence of the judiciary that they convened in Washington, D.C. Several other justices of the United States Supreme Court and of state Supreme Courts were in attendance as we discussed the increasing threats to this fundamental principle arising from a variety of sources nationwide.
[Ah, yes, it's that guy, Ron Branson, who is running a "Special Interest" organization, and who is attacking the independence of the judiciary, and who is seeking to pressure all the good judges of this country to forsake the law, and to make popular decisions that personally please him. Did I state it correctly, George?]
In this context, I want to stress the function served by an independent and impartial judiciary. That phrase does not describe judges who are unaccountable or free to decide cases based upon their personal preferences or political or social philosophy. To the contrary, it signifies judges who are bound to render decisions founded upon the law and the facts before them, independent of improper pressures and influences — judges whose allegiance is to the law, and not to partisan or special interests. We should expect nothing less of those on the bench.
Yet, increasingly, voices have been heard arguing that judges should follow the preferences of the majority, deciding cases based on popular opinion and not upon the constitutions and laws that govern our state and our nation.
[Yes, yes, George, spit it out. It's that J.A.I.L. Initiative we placed upon the ballot in South Dakota that is sticking in your craw. God forbid that that damnable Initiative should come to California where you and I now live. It's going to screw up the entire kingdom of the judiciary the judges have spent so many years building. Can you imagine the judges being strictly held to the very Constitution they have sworn to uphold and defend? God forbid!]
In South Dakota last fall, an initiative measure placed on the ballot would have abolished immunity of judges from lawsuits, making them personally subject to monetary damages and even criminally liable based upon their judicial decisions — even those upheld in the appeals process. It failed overwhelmingly, but only after every legislator and other elected official and every major newspaper urged a “no” vote and explained the consequences of a subservient bench. Unfortunately, the proponents of this measure are Californians who want to try it out in a few small states before bringing it to their home state....
[What's that George? "... based upon their judicial decisions." How about "deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material allegations, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberated violation of the Constitution..." I know, I know, you would rather not talk about that. It's too indicting. You would rather reframe the issue and make it going after judges for their "judicial decisions." I can only surmise that both you and your fellow colleague, Chief Justice Michael Wolf in Missouri, just cannot read, or you are both being dishonest. I'll leave the answer of that question to the discernment of our readers.]
I and many others in our branch look forward to meeting with you over the coming year to discuss the court system, and to working with you to make it even better. It is a continuing privilege for me to lead the enormously talented and dedicated judges and staff who are the judicial branch. Thank you again for inviting me to speak with you today. And please join us now at a reception in the Capitol Rotunda.
J.A.I.L. is a mechanism by which the informed American People may exercise their inherent right to amend their form of government when they determine such reform is necessary. The important requirement there is "informed." The informed People know and understand that the government of the United States of America is instituted by themselves, delegating certain powers to it by their knowing and intelligent consent-- not a passive or tacit consent-- via the Constitution for the sole purpose of securing their inherent rights which pre-exist government.
The informed American People know that their consent is renewed every two years by the voting process which is the "voice of the People." They know that the governing body, which is the object of such reform, cannot itself legitimately interfere with the People's inherent right to voice their consent for that body in whatever form they deem necessary to maintain the protection of their rights. The informed People know that these rights do not exist because of the Constitution or written laws by man, nor even because of the Declaration of Independence that declares these self-evident truths to be so; but that they exist by the laws of nature and of nature's God. They know that any unlawful and unjustified interference with the People's voice of consent is done arbitrarily and capriciously by usurpation of power which is wielded by a power foreign to our Constitution, and not by a constitutional government.
The People, if they are informed of the truth, know that the result of the 2006 election in South Dakota regarding the J.A.I.L. Amendment came about by the unlawful and unconstitutional interference by the foreign power, operating under color, and in the name, of government in South Dakota, stealing the People's rights by usurpation; and they know, if they are informed, that any unconstitutional act is null and void ab initio [from its inception] and of no force or effect. Nevertheless, if the foreign power of South Dakota is allowed to remain in force, regardless of the nullity of its interference and legitimacy of its operations, the People will continue to be subjected to whatever form of despotism the SDFP decides to impose upon them.
Frederick Douglas in 1857 expressed this eternal principle, with these words:
Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found the exact amount of injustice and wrongdoing which will be imposed on them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.
The only delegated authority for all government in this country is the United States Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the Land. Therefore, J.A.I.L. recognizes only a constitutional government. The Special Grand Juries of J.A.I.L., in making their determinations, shall be guided only by the Constitutions of the state and of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof.
We receive many messages that are based on the results of the foreign power that has taken over our constitutional government by usurpation. It is a counterfeit power, and therefore the People must not recognize it as legitimate. The fact that it exists should not give it credibility or respectby the People. The Declaration of Independence admonishes that it is the right of the People, it is their duty, to throw off such "government" and provide new guards for their future security. The fact that the counterfeit power that is to be thrown off by the People, has --at least in South Dakota-- interfered with the People's duty to do so, makes it no less their duty.
In recognizing this right and duty of the People, they, through J.A.I.L., approach the system on the assumption that it is as it's supposed to be-- a constitutional government instituted by the informed consent of the People for the protection of their inherent rights. Although there is evidence by our experiences that the People are deceived into being controlled by a power foreign to our Constitution, J.A.I.L. does not approach the system on that basis. The People expect the system, and in the case of J.A.I.L., the judiciary, to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, as they have sworn to do by their oath or affirmation required by the Supreme Law of the Land. If the "judge" didn't take such an oath, he is not a judge and must be held accountable under J.A.I.L.
Also, if any judge, as defined in the J.A.I.L. Amendment, is found to have deliberately violated the Constitution, according to paragraph 2, the burden is on the judge to defend himself giving reasons why he committed any of such violations. Of course, as in any legal proceeding, any defense proffered before the Special Grand Jury will have had to be brought up during the underlying proceedings, or it is waived by the judge. Thereby, the judiciary will be made to act with candor and transparency in the performance of their duties in providing redress of grievances to the People according to constitutional law. Without redress for the People, what's left?
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation. - Declaration of Independence "..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who isstriking at the root."-- Henry David Thoreau <><
I have to say "thank you!" for all the work you have done and are doing.Because #1, from the beginning of my conflicts with the courts in 2004, I found your site and your work educated me to the reality of what lies ... within the courts and judiciary itself. Your information was rational, logical, and within the law. ... the courts choose to ignore and even scoff and laugh at the statutes written for the people! .... I admit that if I had not been confronted with this in my personal life, it would have passed me by unnoticed and not an issue.
Apparently there is a reason we have these personal "crises" in order to call our attention to changes that must be made.And judges MUST be held accountable for their actions. It is shocking that the immunities exist and are applied in the first place. It is even more shocking that people don't realize the extent of it, at least not until they are confronted with it. Even then they tend to take it personally rather than apply it to the system of corruption and "elitism" that it really is.
I can only do what I do .... Your messages deserve a lot more recognition than they get and should be networked out through the larger community. ... I'm going to add Jail4Judges as a "member" for the posts that I republish the contents of your digest. I'll figure out how to set it to forward notifications to you when contents or comments (hopefully) are posted. ...
I wish you continued success in your efforts. I was pleased to see that you were "targeted" in that speech. It means what you are doing is extremely effective! Fantastic!
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.5/707 - Release Date: 3/1/2007 2:43 PM
The right of privacy is one of the most sacred and major of all property rights, and champions the right of the freedom of worship. It is inherent with nature. What you do with your own is your business, and no one else's, so long as your right does not affect their rights of others. The California Constitution starts out with these words, "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy." Art. I, Sec. 1.
The above is just basic nature and common sense. Our Founding Fathers wrote in our Constitution, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Fourth Amendment. There cannot be any such thing as a general search warrant, or the initiation of a fishing expedition. Our Constitution also specifies, "Congress shall make no law respecting ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." First Amendment. Of course, the freedom of speech also includes the freedom not to speak. But notwithstanding these prohibitions against government by the Constitution, it is amazing how government has twisted and subverted the truth so that those who have privacy rights have none, and those who do not, have privacy rights.
I am laying a foundation for a the below Alabama Decatur Daily Newspaper. Therein the court agrees with the public officials on public time, using public computers, that they have the right to privacy when accused of mismanaging funds and embezzling the public. J.A.I.L. says, not so.
Try leaving your own country with your own money without declaring the amount you are carrying to the Security and Exchange Commission. Numerous citizens have tried, and are now serving long sentences in federal prisons because they believed their privacy was an inalienable right, there being no victim claiming the money was stolen from them.
I once asked a tax lawyer friend of mine if the material placed on a 1040 form could be used against the signer in a court of law. He said, "Of course." I then asked him if it would not thus follow that according to due process of law, everyone must be informed that anything they place on that form could be used against them, and therefore they must first be Marandized that they could be arrested, jailed, and forced to appear in court to testify against themselves, in which the information they provided could and would be used against them in a court of law. He said, "Yes, that is correct!" However, it is universally apparent that such due process of law is never placed into practice in America. Rather, everyone is left to their ignorance so that fraud may abound, and no one gets due process of law.
Now, what would happen if you said to the police officer who pulled you over and walked up to your window and asked to see your driver's license, and you said, "Well, that's my personal matter, officer." Aren't we taught that not having a driver's license is a crime? Is he going to inform you that under due process of law, you do not have to produce a driver's license? In reality what is going to happen is the officer is going to ignore due process of law and rely upon your ignorance, asking you to provide him with the evidence he needs to charge you with a crime. And and if you fail to provide him with the incriminating evidence he needs, he is going to take you to jail.
Was this not the same tactic used in Nazi Germany when they forced their captives to "confess" to the crime they committed against the state? A confession of a crime against the state was grounds for imprisonment and torture, and not to confess to a crime against the state was an arrest able offense to which you would be imprisoned and tortured. This is precisely the Nazi practice we are employing here in America. Perhaps we could call it, "Nazism - American Style." Instead of manifesting itself as a red and black swastika, it manifests itself as red, white and blue stripes, adorned with stars, and it is explained to us as "bringing one to justice." After all, are we not a country of "liberty and justice for all?"
An acquaintance of mine was compelled by a judge to take the witness stand in a criminal case against himself. When he arose to be "sworn in," they asked him, "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?" he responded, "No! I do not!" The judge threw him in jail for answering his question truthfully. Oh, yes, I know there are going to be some of you who will say so me, "Oh, but the judge cannot do that because the Constitution says, 'No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself ' " And so it does. But my answer to them is, "You mean you honestly believe that the law is going to govern the conduct of such judges? You've got to be kidding!" It's all a joke conducted in the name of "justice."
On the other hand, let's now look at those who have no right to privacy being granted the right to privacy. When government officials are called to answer before Congress about their misconduct involving their public duties on taxpayer's time and money, they lean toward their attorney, and after a whisper, they then straighten up and say, "On advice of my attorney, I cannot answer that question because it might incriminate me," even if the matter is not criminal. This is SOP (Standard Operating Procedure). Let me make it very clear, the Five Amendment against self-incrimination does not, nor could it apply to public officials holding a position of public trust. They are carrying out their duties on the public's time, and functioning on the public payroll with the public's equipment. Their position as a public trustee, i.e., a public servant, places them in the same roll of a servant to his master. They are obligated to give account as an accountant would his boss. This is why a employer may install cameras throughout his work place to monitor all his employees without being held liable for violations on privacy issue.
Have you every once heard a Congressman or Senator retort, Mr. Public Servant, this is not a criminal proceeding, nor is it a court prosecution. We are are here exploring the appropriatness of your conduct in public office while you were working as a public servant. We are asking you to give account to those who have hired you. The Fifth Amendment does not apply under these circumstances.
Now let's look at the below excerpts of a story in which government officials are arguing that the newspapers have no right to investigate or question matters of public trust, or to look into matters of government fraud, with the court agreeing with the government official's argument.
MONTGOMERY — An Arizona county manager accused of buying personal assault rifles and booking an African safari with county money declared his work computer e-mails off limits in an investigation.
The manager said his personal e-mails on his office computer on public time were private and a judge agreed, barring a newspaper’s attempt to look at the records.
In an ongoing Wisconsin case, a public-school teacher accused of using his office computer to solicit sexual contact with children refused to turn over his e-mail records.
In both instances the people accused said their e-mails, sent on public time while on office computers bought with public funds, were private information.
States across the country have questions about who owns the electronic records of people employed in publicly funded occupations and generated on public time and equipment.
Two Alabama legislators expect to introduce — but not necessarily pass — a bill on open records after the Legislature convenes its regular session Monday. Both lawmakers said questions about public access in the electronic age are without easy solutions.
But Lucy Dalglish, executive director of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said average citizens should think hard about taking information from public sources out of the public eye. The reasons, she said, are much broader than whether to give reporters access to information somebody wants to be secret for some reason.
“If you have a situation where you have a pedophile using his office computer to make contact with children, do you want that information to be private?” Dalglish asked.
The lawsuit about access to office e-mails on Morgan County government computers may bring the issue close to home, but Dalglish said Alabama is not alone in dealing with the issue. ....
Judges increasingly act as if the rule of law means people must obey whatever drools down the lips of any social engineer who is cloaked in a black robe. Judges believe that whatever they say is the rule of law, which is a notion they probably picked up during their law school instruction.
There is an open secret that an oath to uphold the Constitution does not mean upholding the non-smudge letters stored at the National Archives. Rather, the oath that judges (and all other politicians) take means, they think, upholding whatever they say the Constitution means.
This prerogative, of course, is not something to be accorded to mere mortals, aka taxpayers and voters. The rest of the population cannot be trusted, they seem to believe, with this sacred process of daily modifying the Constitution.
More and more Americans are seeing behind the curtain, much as in the Wizard of Oz. The Delphic voice of the gods behind the judicial curtain is actually a bunch of guys and gals who have fooled us. Once we look behind the curtain we find out that their wisdom is really a crock of politically correct rubbish which almost always assaults the Constitution rather than upholds it.
What is surprising is that a judge would tell us this. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has been rather candid about the usurpations of his colleagues. Even more surprising is that a sitting state judge Robert H. Dierker, Jr. of the 22nd Judicial District of Missouri has written a book laying out exactly how extensive is the coup d'etat being carried out by the nation's judicial class.
Dierker's book is entitled The Tyranny of Tolerance: A Sitting Judge Breaks the Code of Silence to Expose the Liberal Judicial Assault. If you think that my language is blunt, please read the Judge's book. You should, even if you don't think my language is blunt.
One of the more lucid statements of what the Second Amendment means is found in Dierker's book (page 80): "Until the advent of the liberal judicial imperium, the meaning of the Second Amendment admitted of no doubt. The right to keep and bear arms was seen as a natural right, and the reference to the "militia" was no more than a recognition that every able-bodied male citizen of the age of sixteen constituted the reserve armed force of every state."
The Tyranny of Tolerance is a wide-ranging look at the many perversions of the law that have been perpetrated by the judiciary in our day. It is a wake-up call for voters to ask politicians what kind of judges they are going to place in state and federal judiciaries. If We the People don't make an issue of it, the problem will only get worse.
This is the book that should be Constitutional Law 101 in every law school. More than likely, however, students caught with a copy will face immediate expulsion. They will be treated at least as harshly as a student caught with a gasp gun while on campus. Of course, it would be imprudent to be caught in a jury box with this tome.
As a closing aside, Judge Dierker has penned this volume on his own time while not in any judicial building. When I interviewed him for my Live Fire radio show http://www.gunowners.org/radio.htm, we both got an early start for the day so the Judge could do the show from home. His PC "colleagues" are not happy with his book, and already some are trying to bring him up on ethics charges. Indeed. A judge telling the truth! What is the world coming to?
In a continuing quest to inform the People about J.A.I.L., we discuss more on the Foreign Power that has usurped government and controls the People under absolute despotism. The importance of becoming aware of this Foreign Power (a power foreign to our Constitution) came to light after J.A.I.L. was effectively ousted from the South Dakota 2006 election by keeping the voters ignorant of the truth about the J.A.I.L. Amendment, allowing them to read only the fraudulent misrepresentation of the Amendment propagated on the ballot by the State Attorney General. Only a power foreign to the state and federal Constitutions could such a stunt be pulled off in contravention of the People's right to vote in a clean election, specifically their right to alter their form of government as they deemed necessary for their future security. Where are we when the People are no longer permitted to assert their will by their vote?
Although we currently have proof of its operation only in South Dakota, we know that the Foreign Power is not limited to South Dakota alone. In fact, one of the emissaries of the South Dakota Foreign Power,Attorney Tom Barnett, the Director of the SD Bar Association, was sent to Florida to poison the minds of that state's Bar, tutoring them "how to" in defeating the J.A.I.L. Amendment in the near future,boasting of the propaganda ploys pulled off "successfully" in South Dakota.
As a result, the People there, and throughout this nation, must be informed of the truth of the matter so they can take appropriate action, which is their duty to do, to throw off such counterfeit regime. J.A.I.L. is the only way it can be done, and the enemy knows it-- that's why they are so scared to death of J.A.I.L. that they will go to absolutely any lengths to prevent its passage anywhere in the country, including bringing in the oil cartels, banking institutions, and the nation's multi-billion dollar insurance industries, which form a significant part of that Foreign Power.
After 230 years, J.A.I.L. is history in the making-- the first opportunity for the People to establish a means by which they can enforce the terms of the Constitution, by holding judges accountable under it. J.A.I.L. is the pioneer movement for this country in bringing about power to the People to institute a government with just powers derived by consent of the governed as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, throwing off that foreign power operating against the People and the laws of nature.
[H]ow a wealthy plutocracy during the American struggle for independence from Britain devolved into a criminal cabal. ... Though it is historically common for a small elite to lead any group, it is decidedly not "natural" or commendable for an elite to form into a cabal, "a group of persons secretly united to bring about an overturn or usurpation in public affairs." [the definition from Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary -j4j]
This "cabal" is the Foreign Power controlling this country, which is the object of the second American Revolution discussed below from Completing the American Revolution By Norman D. Livergoodhttp://www.new-enlightenment.com/completing.htm
In reality there were two American Revolutions: (1) the revolt against British oppression by Americans, and (2) the revolt against wealthy American merchants and financiers by the common people of America.
The second American Revolution is seldom if ever taught in our schools. Because it would make clear just what kind of a country this is: a plutocracy--the rule of the wealthy. And it's this second American Revolution which we must now complete.
J.A.I.L. is the only way this second revolution can be completed and won. Going to arms will not eradicate the Foreign Power; for even after a presumed revolution, we would still need the judicial accountability provisions of J.A.I.L. A physical revolution, at most may provide a temporary deterrent, but not an enduring triumph, an effect which is said of the value of the Second Amendment, in Parker, et al. v. District of Columbia, (Case No. 04-7041), (decided March 9, 2007) [Our thanks to WTPF]:http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/MISC/DC-COA-RKBA-Parker--Mar-2007.pdf
[Fn.9 portion] With respect to the right to defend oneself against tyranny andoppression, some have argued that the Second Amendment is utterlyirrelevant because the arms it protects, even if commonly owned,would be of no use when opposed to the arsenal of the modern state.But as Judge Kozinski has noted, incidents such as the Warsaw ghettouprising of 1943 provide rather dramatic evidence to the contrary. SeeSilveira, 328 F.3d at 569-70 (dissenting from the denial of rehearingen banc). The deterrent effect of a well-armed populace is surelymore important than the probability of overall success in a full-outarmed conflict.
The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 had a popular review of government: A council of Censors was to be elected every seven years to review the government's performance and recommended a new constitutional convention if changes in its structure or powers were required. The extent of popular control involved in such a system exceeds that of any American government before or since. Kenneth M. Dolbeare. Democracy at Risk, 1986.
We now know why such provision was not picked up by the forthcoming U.S. Constitution:This [Pennsylvania] constitution is of major importance in American history because it reveals that the working class had a clear vision of government and the intelligence and resourcefulness to gain and use political power. By contrast the later federal Constitution is clearly seen as an elitist document which empowered the wealthy class.Completing the American Revolution,supra.
The makeup of "government" when the Constitution was established:The wealthy merchant class grew fearful of the working class's power and made sure that delegates to the first Continental Congress in Philadelphia in 1774 were selected from the "ablest and wealthiest men in America." John Jay, later to become the first chief justice of the Supreme Court, was elected as president. His sentiment was a forecast of what the Constitution would establish: "The people who own the country ought to govern it."(supra).
The Federalist Conspiracy - Of the fifty-six men who had signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776, only six of those attended the Federal Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 where the specially selected delegates secretly concocted a plutocratic structure of rule. Patrick Henry refused to attend the convention. [Some that did attend]participated in the convention but refused to sign the new constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights and provided inadequate representation of the people.
In 1787, the vast majority of American people lived in a community-oriented culture, on farms or in cities working as artisans and laborers. Their concept of independence was associated with interdependence and cooperation--all for the common good. The wealthy class--shopkeepers, lawyers, bankers, speculators, commercial farmers--(the same class of people that spent millions to oppose J.A.I.L. in South Dakota- j4j )had adopted a completely opposite way of life: .... To common people, freedom meant freedom from the oppression of colonial aristocracy as well as freedom from British rule. They thought in terms of liberation from all oppression, not just "independence from Britain." [T]hey were making it clear that their vision of a new society was not that of the wealthy merchant class. Nevertheless, [t]he first American revolution resulted only in a change in rulers: from the British elite to an American plutocracy. Completing the American Revolution,supra.
Despite the written terms of the Declaration of Independence, a true government instituted to secure the inherent rights of the People never had a chance, since the American plutocracy remained in power when the Constitution was ratified, making a mockery of "the consent of the governed." However, despite the plutocratic Foreign Power, the laws of nature and of nature's God cannot be mocked!See JNJ 2/28/07 J.A.I.L. Recognizes Only a Constitutional Form of Governmenthttp://www.jail4judges.org/JNJ_Library/2007/2007-02-28.html[Excerpt]:
The informed People know and understand that the government of the United States of America is instituted by themselves, delegating certain powers to it by their knowing and intelligent consent-- not a passive or tacit consent-- via the Constitution for the sole purpose of securing their inherent rights which pre-exist government....The informed People know that these rights do not exist because of the Constitution or written laws by man, nor even because of the Declaration of Independence that declares these self-evident truths to be so; but that they exist by the laws of nature and of nature's God. (j4j)
The delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia were selected by state legislatures--not by popular vote of the people. ... Delegates to the Constitutional Convention were instructed that their only job was to amend the Articles of Confederation and that any proposed changes were to be approved by all the states before they were adopted. A conspiratorial junta, led by Hamilton and Madison, had already decided that they would scrap the Articles of Confederation and write an entirely new constitution which would create a centralized government controlled by the wealthy class. The Convention met entirely in secret, and it would be fifty-three years before American citizens were allowed to see the record of what had transpired in this coup d'etat which enshrined mercantile capitalism as the imposed way of life for Americans. Completing the American Revolution,supra. [This accounts for the Commerce Clause in the Constitution -j4j]
Not only were the Articles of Confederation scrapped, but so was "the consent of the governed" at the time of drafting the Constitution. Nevertheless, "[t]oday the presupposition that the Constitution is valid law is undoubtedly correct [because of]wide-spread public acceptance of the new Constitution as legally valid." See the full analysis of constitutional legitimacy from which the following derives: LEGITIMACY AND THE CONSTITUTION Richard H. Fallon, Jr.
[T]he legal legitimacy of the Constitution depends more on its present sociological acceptance than on the (questionable) legality of its formal ratification. ... Today the presupposition that the Constitution is valid law is undoubtedly correct. The situation once was more uncertain. Prior to the Constitution’s ratification, the Articles of Confederation, which linked the thirteen then-existing states, provided that significant changes in their terms required the state legislatures’ unanimous consent. Ignoring this requirement, the Constitution drafted by the Constitutional Convention provided that it would take effect upon ratification by special conventions in, rather than by the legislatures of, as few as nine states. Under these circumstances, it was questionable in 1787 and 1788 whether the prescribed ratification process was legally legitimate and, relatedly, whether the draft Constitution, if so adopted, could establish a legally and sociologically legitimate government. Significantly, the answer to those questions did not come through decisions by the Supreme Court or any other tribunal, but from wide-spread public acceptance of the new Constitution as legally valid.
[W]hen enough people embraced the Constitution as the operative framework of government, there was no need for further questioning whether its ratification satisfied prior law. Its sociological legitimacy gave it legal legitimacy... The Constitution is law not because it was lawfully ratified, as it may not have been, but because it is accepted as authoritative. Similarly, the Articles of Confederation forfeited their legal legitimacy when they lost their sociological legitimacy. After the Articles had lost their sociological legitimacy, the question whether the new Constitution was adopted as required by the Articles became moot for all practical purposes.
Despite the questionable legal ratification of the Constitution, the People accept and recognize it as the Supreme Law of the Land which gives it sociological and legal legitimacy, and through the passage of J.A.I.L., the People will throw off any power that is foreign to the Constitution as is their duty so to do.
Completing the American Revolution By Norman D. Livergood
The first post-constitutional major skirmish in the ongoing battle of the "common people" against the wealthy class, was the passage of the Bill of Rights in 1791. ... [T]he original Constitution and the Bill of Rights omit any protection for common people against corporations or capitalist employees. ... Following the imposition of a plutocratic Constitution on American citizens, there have been continual uprisings by enlightened elements of the working class in America because they have recognized that the nation suffers under an oppressive capitalist class. (Despite the uprisings, nothing like J.A.I.L. was ever proposed by the People.-j4j)
Greider. (1992). Who Will Tell the People?
"At the highest levels of government, the power to decide things has instead gravitated from the many to the few, just as ordinary citizens suspect. Instead of popular will, the government now responds more often to narrow webs of power - the interests of major economic organizations and concentrated wealth and the influential elites surrounding them.
"In place of a meaningful democracy[see below regarding "democracy" -j4j], the political community has embraced a permissive culture of false appearances. Government responds to the public's desires with an artful dance of symbolic gestures - hollow laws that are emptied of serious content in the private bargaining of Washington. Promises are made and never kept. Laws are enacted and never enforced."
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." Henry Louis Mencken.
"These will be some of the features of democracy. . . it will be, in all likelihood, an agreeable, lawless, parti-colored society, dealing with all alike on a footing of equality, whether they be really equal or not."
Plato, The Commonwealth
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill
J.A.I.L. was the victim of serious election fraud in the South Dakota 2006 election. See full reporting on www.sd-jail4judges.org.Only an informed citizenry can do something about this problem. Therefore, the system strenuously seeks to keep the citizens ignorant of the truth, and instead fills them with lies. (We saw this in South Dakota last year).
The Donella Meadows Archive - Voice of a Global Citizen
No one well-meaning person, not even a team of them, not even a president, can overcome the short-term, narrow-focused, me-first system that dominates our capital city. Which is not to say that nothing can be done. As a reporter touring the nation, Greider finds the people full of common sense and democratic instincts, though he would say we aren't anywhere near angry enough, because the information that would make us so is withheld and distorted. [emphasis added]
It is our intention to inform the People of this election-target of the Foreign Power in other states. The People must lift themselves above the ignorant masses that sustains the Foreign Power, by informing themselves about the truth of J.A.I.L. It is byarming themselves with this knowledge of the truth that the People will "slay the dragon" with the passage of J.A.I.L.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation. - Declaration of Independence "..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who isstriking at the root."-- Henry David Thoreau <><
"There is nothing more perverse than to allow PUBLIC SERVANTS with alleged lawful (Constitutional) authority, in an un-Constitutional government environment, to define anyone, especially yourself, as “anti-government.”Be and stay “PRO government." Pro CONSTITUTIONAL government!DEMAND it of everyone in government!They work for us."Invisible Contracts - fn.1
Excellent advice! J.A.I.L. is PRO-Constitution and PRO-government. J.A.I.L. is anti-foreign power --the foreign power does not work for the People's interests, but for their own selfish interests by abuses, usurpation and surreptitious nefarious conduct, which power must be thrown off by the People and constitutional government provided in its stead as the new guard for their future security. The despotism will continue, and only grow worse, as long as the People allow it. Only the People can stop the foreign power by passing J.A.I.L. in as many states as possible, as soon as possible.
The People must be informed of the type of power running this country under the guise of government, and take peaceful means to stop it. We must curb martial law which "is in truth and reality no law, but something indulged rather than allowed as a law. ..." 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 413.
[We need]"the full understanding that the only solution to this growing crisis [despotism in America] is to be informative and peaceful." [emphasis added-- specifically "to be informative and peaceful" is to get J.A.I.L. passed-j4j] "Let us never forget that we are a nation of laws.A nation founded by a 'fundamental' law: the United States Constitution.It is our law, The People’s law for government to obey BEFORE government makes any laws for The People.Martial Law is the logical refuge of an unlawful (unconstitutional) government [i.e., the Foreign Power-- not "government" at all -j4j] to save itself from the rightful owners of this nation --The People.We must not give government reason nor rationale to use this weapon of last resort."Invisible Contracts, supra http://preferredservices.org/free/InvisibleContracts/promo.htm
[A] "legal device"has been brilliantly superimposed and intertwined over and into our statutes, the same as a cancer would stealthily invade the organs of a living body. This “legal device”has cunningly devolved the United States Constitution right before our eyes into nothing more than mere Contractlaw. ... This aforementioned “legal device,” really just a courtroom “trick” based upon fraud,was especially handy when it came to what would otherwise be unlawful(unconstitutional), through taxation, holding of endless future generations of unknowing and unwitting Americans responsible to unknown, malicious, FOREIGN creditors for a premeditatedand FORCED 1933 National Receivership of the federal corporation known as the “United States”.A premeditatedand FORCED but silent National Receivership due exclusively to fraud and incompetence on the part of a few elected government officials starting circa 1900… all the way to today. (supra). [emphasis added -j4j]The Constitution absolutely, by LAW, did not empower Congress for this event.(supra) [Fn.4]
Since the Constitution did not authorize any of this action, it is null and void ab initio.
• Nudd v. Burrows, 91 US 426 (1875), “Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters” • Boyce’s Executors v. Grundy, 3 Pet. (28 US) 210 (1830), “Fraud vitiates everything” • United States v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61, 70 (1878) “Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents and even judgments”
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it. -- 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256.[emphasis added]
In a nutshell, "the Emperor's new clothes syndrome" is what I call the mental affliction of those alleged "judges," alleged "magistrates," alleged "prosecutors," alleged "U.S. Marshals," alleged "IRS agents," and all others similarly involved as alleged "public servants" in the depriving of any of the American people of any of our life, liberty, or property without following, as written, bona fide due process as well as not having the bona fide written delegation of authority to do so. Such alleged "public servants" appear to arrogantly think that because they have, up until now, "gotten away with" their arrogant, hostile and / or abusive "railroading" of victims who have been forced, literally at the point of a gun, into various "courtrooms" and other coerced interactions with those involved in the "legal industry," that nothing can be done by the victims of such "railroading."
Thankfully, such is not the case in bona fide reality. All that such abusive practices have done, and continue to do, is to have created a considerable and growing amount of documented evidence of massive and on-going crimes against the American people, and, as a result, have brought the "legal industry" to the threshold of a massive judicial disaster that is almost beyond comprehension. Think about the monumental ramifications of all of the years of such self-deceiving actions on the part of all such alleged "public servants." In what follows, you will see that there is no statute of limitations on challenging and prosecuting inherently void process and that, as a result, every "arrest warrant," every "trial," every "lien," every "levy," every "indictment," every "traffic ticket," every "assessment," every "plea bargain," etc., etc., ad nauseam, that did not meet the bona fide requirements of bona fide written due process, is inherently void, ab initio, and not worth the paper they're printed on.[emphasis added -j4j]
To properly understand what I've written above about "the Emperor's new clothes syndrome", we need to review some important as-written legal principles.First, take note of the principle immediately below that all political power is inherent in the people. That automatically means that zero political power is inherent in any alleged "public servant," and that the only possible bona fide power or bona fide authority any such alleged "public servant" has must find its originations in a bona fide written delegation of power contained in a bona fide provision of an applicable constitution, no exceptions!!!
The important thing to remember is that everything, disguised as an Act of Congress, a Code, a Resolution, or any alleged "law" that has been allegedly "enacted" over the last 230 years, that is not authorized by the Constitution, is not law, is wholly void ab initio from the time of its inception, and is ineffective for any and all purposes. If it is not by the consent of the People via the Supreme Law of the Land, it's as if it never existed in the first place. The so-called administrative regime, including the courts and judges, is null and void and ineffective for all purposes.The fraud will end when J.A.I.L. is passed into law and the sovereign People will take control of their government under constitutional standards.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation. - Declaration of Independence "..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who isstriking at the root."-- Henry David Thoreau <><
Send Email
