Yahoo! Groups

There is little more upsetting than to discover that you have been scammed for your entire life-savings and for everything you owned. Notwithstanding this fact, you can take hope in the fact that this is the Land of "Liberty and Justice For All," and so you can always count on your day in court to prove your case! Right? Wrong!

Here in America, we are all laboring under the illusion that for every wrong, there is a remedy. At least that is what we are taught. But, as I have often stated, "If you think your enemy has done you wrong, wait until you get the remedy." I have figuratively likened the remedy in this country to a man who, because of a the actions of a cop who broke his little finger, is taken to the hospital for setting his finger, and winds up being rolled out on a gurney in a full body cast. What took only five minutes to cause, winds up taking five years of court litigation with numerous attorneys on both side at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars with no satisfactory conclusion in the end. All that can be said on the positive side is that you learned a very expensive lesson, i.e., don't ever expect to receive justice in a court.

We have all heard of the fiasco that happened when untold thousands of people trusted the prevailing news that Enron investors would be reaping fortunes! But they were taken by fraud. Now they have spent more of their money in bringing a suit against the banks who were involved in the scam. However, this past Monday, March 19, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the defendants, and in favor of the involved banks, and dismissed their lawsuit. The court ruled that even if the banks knowingly and purposely defrauded the investors of their fortunes in the Enron Corp. fiasco, they have no remedy via their $40,000,000,000 lawsuit against these banks.

The banks are very pleased with the Monday's decision. But you have to ask yourself how you would feel if you were the victim on such a scam? Not only would one lose faith in the justice system, but it would likely lead one to take unpredictable actions. -Ron Branson, National J.A.I.L. CIC

~ ~ ~

Court: Enron shareholders can�t proceed

http://localnewsleader.com/jackson/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=79564

Staff and agencies
21 March, 2007

By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN, Associated Press Writer Mon Mar 19, 6:54 PM ET

NEW ORLEANS - A federal appeals court ruled Monday that Enron Corp. shareholders cannot proceed with a class-action lawsuit against investment banks for their alleged role in the accounting fraud that led to Enron�s collapse.

"As we have recognized, class certification may be the backbreaking decision that places �insurmountable pressure� on a defendant to settle, even when the defendant has a good chance of succeeding on the merits," the 5th Circuit opinion said.

Shareholders� attorneys argue that Merrill Lynch & Co., Credit Suisse Group and other investment banks that did business with Enron should be held liable for billions of dollars in damages.

"We think it is unfair and wrong under the law," he said. "The basic holding of the court is that even if the banks participated knowingly in a scheme to defraud investors in Enron�s collapse, you cannot have a class action against the banks."

Lerach said he and other shareholders� attorneys are likely to appeal Monday�s ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court U.S. Supreme Court "as quickly as possible." A trial for the shareholders� $40 billion lawsuit was set to start next month, but Lerach said the 5th Circuit�s ruling will force it to be postponed.

Merrill Lynch spokesman Mark Herr said the company is pleased with the 5th Circuit�s ruling, but he declined to make further comment.

The Securities and Exchange Commission already has won tens of millions of dollars in settlements with Merrill, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup Inc.

Andrew Fastow, Enron�s now-imprisoned former finance chief, testified in the shareholder litigation this fall. He acknowledged that some of the transactions Enron conducted with its investment banks created the false appearance of profits and cash flow.

Barclays Bank PLC also is named as a defendant in the shareholders� suit. "Barclays is very pleased with the 5th Circuit�s ruling and grateful that the 5th Circuit agreed with its views," company attorney David Braff said.

The attorneys general supporting the shareholders are from Texas, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont and West Virginia.

By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN, Associated Press Writer Mon Mar 19, 6:54 PM ET

J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) www.jail4judges.org

To be automatically added to future mailings, place the word Subscribe

in the subject line and email to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org

We are a ministry in great need of your financial support. Please donate to this important

work at "J.A.I.L." P.O. Box 207, North Hollywood, CA 91603

J.A.I.L. is a unique addition to our Constitution heretofore unrealized.

JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!

E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join

Visit our active flash - http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm

* * *

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 is

striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1234

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Mar 24, 2007 4:01 pm
Subject: The Positive Effect J.A.I.L. is Having on America

jail4judges_...

Send Email

The Positive Effect

J.A.I.L. is Having on America

(Now reaching 20,000 plus Americans)

Until I started reading your posts carefully, I did not realize how corrupt our judicial system had become. Even now "Equal Protection Under The Law" inscribed above the columns of the US Supreme Court is of no real meaning. I'm told they have listed the Ten Commandment of Exodus 20 on the doors entering into their court room, and that they
also have statues of Hammurabi and Moses to symbolize Lawgivers in the court room. Now, they don't even rely on the Constitution for their decisions, but they rely on what Foreign Law says. ....

GOD HELP AMERICA BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!

Robert Littlejohn

my_kids_forever@...

A victim of the McCracken County, KY Family Court

.... now living in Chicago, IL.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.17/731 - Release Date: 3/23/2007 3:27 PM

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1235

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:03 am
Subject: * * * Understanding Infractions * * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California March 27, 2007

______________________________________________________

The Battle Lines are Drawn: J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power

A Power Foreign to Our Constitution

Mission Statement JNJ Library Federal J.A.I.L.

FAQs What?MeWarden?
www.sd-jail4judges.org

Understanding Infractions

By Ron Branson - National J.A.I.L. CIC

What is an infraction? 99.9 % of the American people do not understand the word "infraction;" therefore, this presentation is going to be of most interest to all. Infraction is not a medical term for a broken bone, nor is it a descriptive term of a mathematical equation. Many describe it as something that is a little bit wrong. But like death or pregnancy, there is no such thing as "a little bit wrong." Either it is absolutely wrong or it is absolutely not wrong, there is no in-between. So, if something is absolutely wrong, is it a violation of criminal law or is it a violation of civil law? You say, "I don't know!" If you cannot answer this question, you need the information this article is going to teach you.

Civil (contracts) and criminal jurisdictions cannot mix. It absolutely must be either one or the other. In order to determine whether something is criminal or civil, you must consider how the jurisdiction is enforced. If it is enforced with a badge and gun you know you are in a criminal jurisdiction. If is being enforced by your signature on a document, you know it is contract jurisdiction. So when the police officer walks up to your driver's window with a gun and badge and demands to see your papers, you know he is exercising police powers. This is true even if the situation is an Animal Control Officer knocking at your front door asking you about your dog license, or a city official entering your business asking you about your business license. But beyond this is where these officials merge criminal and contract jurisdictions when they order you, "Sign here."

If it be criminal, then the Fourth Amendment applies: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...." Hence, when the nice officer demands to see your papers and licenses, you can constitutionally tell the officer to bug off unless he has a warrant based upon probable cause, signed under oath or affirmation; and in such case, you must submit to his arrest. But then he is mandatorily required to take you, an arrestee, before a magistrate for a determination of probable cause. Upon a finding of probable cause by the magistrate, then, and only then, can a prosecutor draw up an accusatory pleading upon which you can enter a plea and be tried. Of course, constitutionally, then you are entitled to the right of the assistance of counsel, and a trial by jury.

Let's not forget that our subject here is "Understanding Infractions." You say, "But when I am cited for an infraction, I am not taken before a magistrate, nor am I given a probable cause determination, nor is there an accusatory pleading signed under oath filed against me, nor am I allowed the right to the assistance of counsel, nor am I given a jury trial." If that is what you are saying right now, you are certainly correct. You see, in the Constitution there are but only two types of crimes, and they are high crimes and misdemeanors. Constitutionally, there is no such thing as an "infraction," nor can there be.

"Infractions" are the 1968 brainchild of the California legislature wherein they decided that all the criminal protections of the Constitution, i.e., probable cause, accusatory pleadings under oath, right to the assistance of counsel, and trial by jury, were too costly, and burdensome, and so as a cost-cutting measure, they decided to eliminate all these rights, but as a "trade-off," they legislated that under no circumstances could anyone cited for an "infraction" ever be subject to jail or incarceration. Everyone was supposed to live happily ever after. In other words, the People were supposed to rejoice that the legislature now made it possible for them to waive their rights to a jury in exchange for security from being thrown in jail by the cops for almost any reason.

Beginning January 1, 1969, Penal Code Section 19.6, the new "law," took effect in California, and eventually spread throughout the entire United States. Thus, a new class of crime was born for all Americans. All the legislatures of the other forty-nine states thought this was a very good shortcut around all those costly Constitutional mandates, and followed suit with California, in which everyone's constitutional right to a trial by jury was eliminated by renaming the misdemeanor "an infraction." Does renaming a cow a "fish," make it a fish?

First, I wish to take up the constitutional problems with this new "crime" of "infractions," and then cover it from a practical point. First, constitutionally: As you should know, the Constitution mandates that every government official, state and federal, must swear by a solemn oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States as the supreme law of the land, Art. V, Sec. 3. This supreme law of the land says, "The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury." Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2. So the simple question is: Does the legislature of California, or any of the fifty states, have the authority to invent a new class of crimes called "infractions" in which they can eliminate the constitutional mandate of a trial by jury? Now there is but only one exception in the Constitution, and that is in cases of impeachment. So I now ask: Does a so-called "infraction" charge meet that qualification of being an impeachment? Careful now how you answer this question, for if you say "no," then you have indicted every single legislator and every single judge in this country, unless you can show that they have individually vehemently opposed and fought this unconstitutional oppression upon the People of these United States. All others officials are subject to impeachment for their willful violations of their oaths of office.

Now we know why the "government" establishment is so afraid of the J.A.I.L. Initiative. If J.A.I.L. is passed into law, and adopted as part of the Constitution, it will totally eliminate this newly invented "crime" called "infractions," and this entire country will have to go back to before 1969, when the People were entitled to the right to a jury trial.

You may be thinking about now, how have they been able to get away with this

deprivation of jury trials for so long? Good question. After the legislature of California invented this new class of crimes, the California courts took over, and determined that under the King of England the People were often deprived of jury trials; and thus, argues the courts, since it could be done by the King of England under English Common Law, it follows that it can likewise be done within the current-day United States.

But what the courts overlook is that we have had an American Revolution, in which our Founding Fathers acknowledged such jury deprivation, and determined that never again would it be so in this country. They correctly indicted the King of England for his deprivations of jury trials in our Declaration of Independence, "For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury," and to assure us that it will never happen again in this country, they instilled indelibly the words of Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 3, "The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury."

The courts were not going to let the Constitution get in their way of depriving everyone of a jury trial, so they came up with the case of People v. Oppenheimer, (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d Supp. 4, 6 in which they justified the legislature in depriving Americans of their right to a jury trial in criminal cases.

In the recent unpublished case in the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division 2, Trotter v. Baca, B-188431, filed February 6, 2007, is stated the following:

"In People v. Oppenheimer, supra, 42 Cal.App.3d Supp. 4, the court recognized that Penal Code section 19.6 (formerly section 19c) and 1042.5, which provide court trials for infractions, conflicted with Penal Code section 689, which provides in part that '[n]o person can be convicted of a public offense unless by verdict of a jury.' The Oppenheimer court stated: 'Section 689, however, was originally enacted in 1872 and last amended in 1951. In accordance with ordinary principles of statutory construction we must read all of the sections of the Penal Code together, give effect in case of conflict to the latest enacted sections, and construe the provisions of the sections according to the fair import of their terms with a view to affecting their objective and to promoting justice.' " There you have it folks! Right out of their own mouths, the courts noticed a conflict in statute because one statute states that a conviction is not a conviction unless it be by verdict of a jury, and the other that says that no trial by jury shall be allowed. In order to resolve the statutory conflict, the court reasons that the latter statute must overrule the former. Thus, the court rules, everyone must be denied a verdict by jury in order to resolve this statutory conflict.

Now, let me come to the practical application. Keep in mind that no one can now be thrown in jail on an "Infraction" charge, so it says. So let's test this "principle." This author was traveling through the City of Pasadena and entered into an intersection in the inside lane in which he found himself trapped behind a stalled older model car. The gentleman was furiously trying to start his car so he could proceed out of the intersection. Since he could not move, it forced me to have to wait in the intersection until all the on-coming cars on my right had passed, allowing me to go around him. In that waiting time, the light turned red, and allowed me the freedom to get around him and move on through to clear the intersection.

Immediately thereafter, a cop chased me down, and cited me for "running a red light." I pointed back to the person who was still stalled in the intersection, and told the cop that I was trapped behind that stalled vehicle, pointing to it, and had to wait until the light had changed before I could proceed. Nonetheless, he cited me for "running a red light." When I went to court, I decided not to fight the ticket on the merits, but upon the lack of Constitutional process. My first argument was that there was lacking a decision by a magistrate establishing probable cause for the traffic arrest, and that the commissioner on the bench was not qualified under California law to be a magistrate, nor was he seeking anything but a plea to a required, but non-existent, accusatory pleading. This commissioner refused to hear anything I said but demanded I say either "guilty" or "not guilty." But since it was impossible for me to enter a plea to a non-existent pleading, he became angry and proceeded to act as my "attorney" and "entered a plea" of "not guilty" on my behalf, and then demanded that I sign my name to an agreement that I would be present for a trial on the "plea" he entered "for me" to a non-existent charge. When I refused, he ordered the bailiff to throw the handcuffs on me. I was taken behind the courtroom where I was manacled to five other arrestees, loaded on a bus, and taken downtown where it took the next eight hours to process me in as a prisoner. I was chest x-rayed, they took blood, they gave me a jail uniform, and after several hours I eventually was able to bed down in an extremely overcrowded room of perhaps a couple hundred prisoners, the bunk beds aligned side by side, head to head.

But wait! Did we not clearly establish that by statute, under an "infraction" charge, no one could possibly be incarcerated? The allegation against me was that I "ran a red light." If it was not possible for me to be jailed in an infraction, then what was I doing in jail? I sued the commissioner for kidnapping me, holding me hostage, and demanding ransom, (my signature.) In that case I completely dismantled the traffic courts in California in every way and at every turn using the Constitution and laws of California in the case of Branson v. Martin, (56 Cal.App.4th 300, now cited in U.S. Supreme Court cases). They knew that if Branson should win, the State of California would lose untold hundreds of millions of dollars in traffic revenues annually. The Branson case went on for over five years, all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. Absolutely no judge along the way wanted to touch any of this author's arguments, except California Supreme Court Justice Stanley Mosk, who voted to review the Branson case, in that the decision of the lower courts turned all prior existing California law on its ear.

While I would be delighted to go on with the details here, I believe for the present time I have said enough. So what have I established? I have established that in the Constitution, there are only two type of offenses, high crimes, and misdemeanors. There is no such thing as "Infractions." I have established that the term "infraction" is the invention of the California legislature, and that the new "law" conflicted with statute that provides that a conviction can only be valid if is brought by a jury. I have established that the courts have resolved this conflict that says the new "law" denying jury trials must supersede the statute requiring jury trials. I have established that the new mandate that no one can be jailed on a charge for an "Infraction" is pure nonsense and hypocritical. I was jailed on a infraction, and I can truthfully tell you that in the end, the "infraction" was totally dropped, and nothing came of it. But, of course, nothing came of my lawsuit against this commissioner. The courts "found" that he was covered by judicial immunity, which must admit that he did indeed falsely imprison me for no cause and in violation of statute.

Having now established how ridiculous things get, I have but one more point. When one gets off track, and refuses to give ear to the truth, things only get more out of hand. Now read the ridiculous story of the People of Florida being subject to losing their homes over a $5.00 parking ticket. I would love to tell you my account of the parking ticket that never was, when I received an accusation in the mail that I was illegally parked in a place I was not at, enforcing a "no cruising law," that took five years and a hundred thousands dollars of taxpayers' money, but I will forbear. The following news article will shock you!

Florida: City to Seize Homes Over a $5 Parking Ticket
Brooksville, Florida proposes to foreclose homes and seize cars over less than $20 in parking tickets.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1664.asp

The city council in Brooksville, Florida voted this week to advance a proposal granting city officials the authority to place liens and foreclose on the homes of motorists accused of failing to pay a single $5 parking ticket. Non-homeowners face having their vehicles seized if accused of not paying three parking offenses.

According to the proposed ordinance, a vehicle owner must pay a parking fine within 72 hours if a meter maid claims his automobile was improperly parked, incurring tickets worth between $5 and $250. Failure to pay this amount results in the assessment of a fifty-percent "late fee." After seven days, the city will place a lien on the car owner's home for the amount of the ticket plus late fees, attorney fees and an extra $15 fine. The fees quickly turn a $5 ticket into a debt worth several hundred dollars, growing at a one-percent per month interest rate. The ordinance does not require the city to provide notice to the homeowner at any point so that after ninety days elapse, the city will foreclose. If the motorist does not own a home, it will seize his vehicle after the failure to pay three parking tickets.

Any motorist who believes a parking ticket may have been improperly issued must first pay a $250 "appeal fee" within seven days to have the case heard by a contract employee of the city. This employee will determine whether the city should keep the appeal fee, plus the cost of the ticket and late fees, or find the motorist not guilty. Council members postponed a decision on whether to reduce this appeal fee until final adoption of the measure which is expected in the first week of April.

The full text of the ordinance is available in a 605k PDF file at the source link below.

Source: Ordinance No. 743 (Brooksville, Florida City Council, 3/19/2007)

J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) www.jail4judges.org

To be automatically added to future mailings, place the word Subscribe

in the subject line and email to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org

We are a ministry in great need of your financial support. Please donate to

this important work at "J.A.I.L." P.O. Box 207, North Hollywood, CA 91603

J.A.I.L. is a unique addition to our Constitution heretofore unrealized.

JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!

E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join

Visit our active flash - http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm

* * *

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 is

striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau ><)))'>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1236

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:57 pm
Subject: * * * Just Following Orders * * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California March 31, 2007

______________________________________________________

The Battle Lines are Drawn: J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power

A Power Foreign to Our Constitution

Mission Statement JNJ Library Federal J.A.I.L.

FAQs What?MeWarden?
www.sd-jail4judges.org

"Just Following Orders"

By Ron Branson - National J.A.I.L. CIC

In the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office the deputy DAs say when a new political policy is passed down to them from the Board of Supervisors that they are mandated to follow, and that is, "It's not for us to reason why, only for us to do or die."

In the Nuremburg trial of Nazi war criminals under Adolf Hitler that took place beginning November 20, 1945, every person brought up on war crimes took the witness stand and stated that they were just following orders, and that they were only doing what they were told to do. Likewise, in the Viet Nam war, Lt. William Calley was placed on trial for the March 16, 1968 My Lai Massacre in which numerous innocent women and children were slaughtered that had no part in the war. As his defense, he argued that he was just following orders. In both circumstances, this defense argument did not avail. It was thus well established that everyone has an overriding duty to think for themselves and act accordingly based upon self-evident truth. When Cain rose up against his brother Abel and slew him, there being yet no law against murder, was Cain thereby justified? No! God asked Cain, "Where is Abel thy brother, Able?" Cain responded, "I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?" (Genesis 4:9).

A number of years ago I was engaged in a lawsuit against the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), and as a vindictive act, the DMV took my vehicle registration fees but refused to issue registration. As a result, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) pulled me over on Highway 14 for lack of vehicle registration. I showed the officer proof of payment for registration, and the law that states that he is prevented from issuing a citation when proof is shown that registration was paid. Nonetheless, he cited me and stated that I should appear in court and show the judge my proof and he will dismiss the citation. The officer was challenged on the basis of his knowing violation of the California Vehicle Code. His response was, "I'm just doing my job!"

Indeed, when I showed up in court, the judge observed the law, and told the prosecution, "Mr. Branson is right, I have to dismiss this charge!" I said to the judge, "I need a copy of the judgment of this court." He said that he could not do that as he had no jurisdiction. The nonsense of that statement is countered by law that sets forth that every court has jurisdiction to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction of the case, but he refused to reduce his judgment to writing for the record.

Thereafter, I filed a claim against the CHP officer based upon the prima face proof that he willfully chose to violate the California law that governs his conduct, stating to me that he was "Just doing his job!" His official defense on the record was that he cannot be held liable when he is executing the orders given him by his superiors, and indeed California backed him up stating that he was merely carrying out his orders as given to him, and thus could not be held liable for his violation of the Vehicle Code.

I then amended my complaint and charged the State of California with issuing its officers by policy, practice and custom, instructions to willfully and contemptuously violate the laws of the State of California, accompanied by a sworn declaration of the ruling of the judge, who refused to reduce his ruling into a written order. The State of California then argued that I could not sue them because my action was not taken within six months. That six months was caused by their own stalling of time in coming forth with their ultimate argument that it was the official duty of the CHP officer to violate the law of California, and that he had no other option available to him. In other words, the Nuremburg defense, that he was not allowed to think for himself - CHP policy preempts state law. Thus, it is established that the State of California has a policy that law enforcement officers have an official duty to violate the law in "enforcing" policy. My response is, if the laws of California are not important enough to enforce, then why are we the People hiring law enforcement officers to enforce them? California has no answer to this dilemma.

Just this week, March 27, 2007, I published an article titled, "Understanding Infractions." Therein I documented that the new unconstitutional class of crimes that denies all Americans the right to a jury trial was born January 1, 1969, and was the brainchild of the California legislature. The courts covered for the California legislature during a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of denials of jury trials in criminal cases, and the court ruled they were called upon to reconcile a contradiction in California statute that stated that no conviction is valid unless it was brought by a jury.

Without consideration of the U.S. Constitution that mandates jury trials in all criminal cases, i.e., "The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury," Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 3, the court, in contravention of this U.S. Constitution provision said, "In People v. Oppenheimer, supra, 42 Cal.App.3d Supp. 4, the court recognized that Penal Code section 19.6 (formerly section 19c) and 1042.5, which provide court trials for infractions, conflicted with Penal Code section 689, which provides in part that '[n]o person can be convicted of a public offense unless by verdict of a jury.' The Oppenheimer court stated: 'Section 689, however, was originally enacted in 1872 and last amended in 1951. In accordance with ordinary principles of statutory construction we must read all of the sections of the Penal Code together, give effect in case of conflict to the latest enacted sections, and construe the provisions of the sections according to the fair import of their terms with a view to affecting their objective and to promoting justice.' " This is a very profound finding of the court. Essentially, the court found that the Constitution was irrelevant in that it was written some two hundred years prior to this new legislation created by the State of California.

Thereafter, in the "Understanding Infractions" article, I pointed out that since the State of California was getting away with denials of jury trials in criminal cases, all the other state legislatures decided to do the same by also adopting unconstitutional laws that deny jury trials in criminal cases. Most of you perhaps thought that what is now going on in this country always was, and is therefore, constitutional. However, to put this in perspective for those of you living in 1969, while we were all watching with interest Neil Armstrong land on the moon ("One small step for man, and one great step for mankind") the California legislature had just imposed a sinister plot to overthrow the U.S. Constitution. What is more, all the other legislators of the forty-nine states joined in this sinister plot with the State of California to do likewise.

Obviously, such law will one day have to be declared unconstitutional, and in so doing, it does not become unconstitutional by declaring it so, but since its inception. Imagine all of the fifty states being forced to roll back to pre-1969 constitutional standards of jury trials!

Now, I address everyone of you police officers out there. Is it not true that you had to take an Oath of Office prior to your assuming your position as a police officer, in which you solemnly swore to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic? Did you mean that Oath, or were you perjuring yourself?

Before you turn on your red lights and siren, ask yourself if the driver ahead of you committed a crime for which the victim must justly be compensated. And ask yourself if this person you are about to pull over will receive a trial by jury on what you are about to charge him with. If neither is the case, you have a constitutional duty and mandate to refrain from citing him. Remember, "Just doing my job," in contravention of Constitution, is not the work of a police officer, but a terrorist overthrowing this country. This is America, not Nazi Germany, and under your Oath of Office, you have a duty to defend the Constitution for the United States of America.

If policy dictates that the person you are about to cite is not going to receive a jury trial, you have a responsibility and a duty to defend that person against the sinister plot that has been perpetrated against every American in this country, designed only to financially profit the politicians who have created policy that supersedes our Constitution. As I documented above, it is insane for us to hire police officers on the road with the instructions that it is there duty to uphold and defend departmental policy and ignore the policy of denying the constitutional provision that everyone is entitled to a jury trial.

If you police officers want to make a difference in this country, uphold your Oath of Office as a police officer, and refuse to arrest anyone for non-jury offenses, and sustain this practice until the legislators who devised this plot, reinstate the constitutional right of a jury trial. May God give you the strength, fortitude, and courage to do what you know is right! The future of your children are at stake. -Ron Branson

J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) www.jail4judges.org

To be automatically added to future mailings, place the word Subscribe

in the subject line and email to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org

We are a ministry in great need of your financial support. Please donate to

this important work at "J.A.I.L." P.O. Box 207, North Hollywood, CA 91603

J.A.I.L. is a unique addition to our Constitution heretofore unrealized.

JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!

E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join

Visit our active flash - http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm

* * *

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 is

striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau ><)))'>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1237

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Thu Apr 5, 2007 12:53 am
Subject: * * * The Politics of Changing a Light Bulb * * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California April 4, 2007

______________________________________________________

The Battle Lines are Drawn: J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power

A Power Foreign to Our Constitution

Mission Statement JNJ Library Federal J.A.I.L.

FAQs What?MeWarden?
www.sd-jail4judges.org

The Politics of Changing a Light Bulb

By Ron Branson - National J.A.I.L. CIC

Life is a series of problems and solutions, some trivial and some major. One of the trivial problems we in society face is that light bulbs do not last forever. The solution is quite simple: you purchase a new light bulb, remove the old one, and replace it with the new one. Now, this isn't complicated, is it? But now let us enter police, lawyers, and politics into the equation of changing a light bulb.

In my eighteen years of legal research and fourteen cases to the United States Supreme Court, (no I am not an attorney), I came across a case that involved a woman driving through the City of Burbank, California. She was stopped by a police officer because she had a tail light out, unbeknownst to her.

As a result, the officer asked to see her drivers license, and as many women having two purses, she realized that her drivers license was in her other purse.

She was arrested, taken down to the police station where she was fingerprinted, photographed, and endured the humiliation of a strip-search, which also included a cavity search.

Thereafter, she brought suit against the City of Burbank and its police department. As a result of her suit, she established that neither the fact of a light bulb being out, nor the absence of the presence of a drivers license justified probable cause to conduct a strip and cavity search of her body.

While we can all easily figure this out as it is dictated to us by common sense, after many untold hundreds of thousands of expended dollars, lawyers fighting each other on both sides, plus years of court litigation, the bulb was replaced. Problem solved!

[We still do not know whether the City of Burbank was looking inside the woman for a light bulb, or a drivers license. And what did the City Council of Burbank learn from this experience? They learned that they are going to have to raise taxes in case there are future lawsuits of this nature.]

Now you may very well be thinking that this is just an isolated incident, and you are thankful that it is not the norm. Well, I am here to tell you that these types of litigation are all too common.

Take, for instance, the recent experience of Henry Nicolle of Ventura, California just last month, March, 2007. Quoting excerpts from Mr. Nicolle's testimony, he states:

"I was going home at about 10:45 in the evening, an early evening for me. I noted a car behind me for the last few blocks before my house, but it appeared to be a compact, not a full size, and when the red and blue lights came on, I was a little surprised. I finished my turn, went about a quarter block and turned into a small business office complex and parked.

"The young female officer approached my rear left side and said she had stopped me for the unlighted license plate. I said, 'Oh golly, I think I have a replacement, let me get in the glove box and I'll fix it right now and we can all go home, happy.' She said, 'No, I don't care about that, let me see your drivers license and registration.' "

His response was limited to questioning the officer as to whether he had committed a crime and was being placed under arrest. Continuing quote: "Her backup arrived and her sergeant arrived and took over the interrogation. We then established...that I had been stopped for a traffic infraction, that I could not answer the license question, that I was not free to go, that I was detained and arrested, there was no warrant and...that I had committed a crime. ...I then closed the conversation by the demand that I need to speak with my counsel and had nothing else to say until I had the advice of counsel."

Henry says that when he stated that he needed counsel prior to answering their questions, they handcuffed him and placed him into the police car. Then, he said, a police officer took each side of the car, searching it thoroughly with three additional officers searching the trunk for approximately fifteen minutes. They sifted through oil containers, tools, donated clothing for charity, and his

Congressional campaign materials (he was a congressional candidate). Then, prior to completing the search, he was transported to jail, and thereafter in his absence, the car impounded. Within an hour of impounding, the owner of the car (Mr. Nicolle was not the owner), was forced to pay $455 to obtain his car following the one-hour impound.

"So, then I entered the booking section. 'Stand here, look there, take off your shoes, ... answer these questions and sign this.' Sorry, I cannot do either of those without the advice of counsel." ... They replied that if I did not talk and sign I would never see counsel nor would I see a magistrate. ...

"They had me strip naked and locked me in the 'medical observation cell.' This is a standard 8 or 12' X about 15' cell, but with nothing to disturb the pleasant pea green 1/4-inch-thick urethane industrial, self-skinning foam which blankets every surface except the 10 X 18 inch barred hole in the floor which serves as both a universal toilet and a drain for the hose-down cleanup. Believe me, the effect of the foam on the bare flesh and bone is little different that ordinary concrete or wood.

"Over the following 8 or 9 hours, I shivered and dozed on the cold, hard floor while a variable parade of the curious visited my cell window. I heard the arresting officer and another female, and probably a dozen different male voices with conversations along these lines: Casually - 'Who's the guy in the penalty box?' 'Oh that's Henry Nicolle, one of those Liberty People.' 'Oh? Why did we arrest him?' 'Just a license plate light infraction.' (incredulously) 'An infraction? Why do you have him in there?' 'He won't answer our receiving questions and he won't sign the inventory without advice of counsel and he wants to see the on-call magistrate.' 'Oh. Well, those guys are all nuts anyway.'

"...Our conversations reject the concept that the green rubber room, or Penalty Box, had anything to do with psychiatric or medical observation. Its function and deliberate use are a form of torture, and not self-torture. You have no choices.

You will talk and sign or you will stay in here all night.
You will talk and sign or you will stay in here all night and all of tomorrow and not see the magistrate in the morning.
You will answer our questions and sign our documents or you will NEVER leave this room.
You can see your counsel after you sign and answer our questions, but not before. ....

"About 7-8 AM, a sergeant opened the cell and threw a set of jail clothes to me.

'Get dressed, I'm going to move you to another cell.' I was moved to the next sequential cell which had two phones, a bench and a standard prison toilet. ...

Eventually I was released about 1 AM the following morning. (Wednesday). ...
Henry Nicolle."

Let us not forget, the problem was simply a broken bulb over the license plate which the owner was able to replace after paying $455 to get his car out of impound.

This publication is written to educate you on the inner workings of "government," and "The Politics of Changing a Light Bulb."

For those of you who wish to email Mr. Henry Nicolle about this light bulb experience, he may be contacted at henry@...

J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) www.jail4judges.org

To be automatically added to future mailings, place the word Subscribe

in the subject line and email to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org

We are a ministry in great need of your financial support. Please donate to

this important work at "J.A.I.L." P.O. Box 207, North Hollywood, CA 91603

J.A.I.L. is a unique addition to our Constitution heretofore unrealized.

JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!

E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join

Visit our active flash - http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm

* * *

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 is

striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau ><)))'>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1238

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Thu Apr 5, 2007 2:59 pm
Subject: ***The Constitution is Valid for Today***

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California April 5, 2007

______________________________________________________

The Battle Lines are Drawn: J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power

A Power Foreign to Our Constitution

Mission Statement JNJ Library Federal J.A.I.L.

FAQs What?MeWarden?
www.sd-jail4judges.org

The Constitution is Valid for Today

By Barbie, ACIC National J.A.I.L.

victoryusa@...

Ever since the South Dakota J.A.I.L. election fiasco, we were shocked to learn, as it happened in real time, that we do not have a government in that state, but a foreign power in control as we discovered from the utter fraud, deception, and propaganda perpetrated on South Dakotans throughout the J.A.I.L. (Amendment E) 2006 campaign. It is fully documented on record at www.sd-jail4judges.org. As a result, we placed on our JNJ heading: "The Battle Lines are Drawn: J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power; A Power Foreign to Our Constitution." Our mission since has been to inform the People of this foreign power so that they will no longer be the ignorant masses upon which the foreign power depends for its survival. J.A.I.L., through an informed People, will throw off the foreign power; and they know it!

"Foreign to our Constitution" is taken from our Declaration of Independence which lists one of the many grievances as "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." In this country, "he" is not the king, but the judiciary. That's exactly what happened in South Dakota. Every act done by the South Dakota Foreign Power during the J.A.I.L. campaign was in violation of the Constitutions, both state and federal, as well as state law, and assented to by the judiciary. http://www.jail4judges.org/VoteFraud/SouthDakota/StegmeierVrsLongAffirmation.html

Our attention is now drawn to the theory that "We have no Constitution." I say "theory" because it would be impossible for the People to exist as an ordered society without a supreme law of the land to govern them. With all of its imperfections, we certainly do have "The Constitution for the United States of America" which society has accepted as The Supreme Law of the Land. The legitimacy of the Constitution is reported in a Law Review "Legitimacy and The Constitution" by Richard H. Fallon, Jr.

http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/118/April05/FallonFTX.pdf

(excerpts) "... As measured by sociological criteria, the Constitution or a claim of legal authority is legitimate insofar as it is accepted (as a matter of fact) as deserving of respect or obedience ... In the Weberian [Max Weber] sense, legitimacy signifies an active belief by citizens, whether warranted or not, that particular claims to authority deserve respect or obedience for reasons not restricted to self-interest. ... [T]he question of the Constitution�s moral legitimacy presupposes its legal legitimacy. If the Constitution were not positive law, the question of its moral legitimacy would not arise. Today the presupposition that the Constitution is valid law is undoubtedly correct. ... The Constitution�s moral legitimacy, like that of the constitutions of most nations, arises from the facts that it exists, that it is accepted as law, that it is reasonably (rather than completely) just, and that agreement to a better constitution would be difficult if not impossible to achieve. ... "

John Locke, whose philosophy centers around the inherent rights of mankind based on the laws of nature, was the mentor of Thomas Jefferson when he wrote the Declaration of Independence which finds its basis on the separate and equal standing to which people are entitled under "the laws of nature and of nature's God." Locke has much to say about the laws of nature indicating the necessity of mankind to form a power of community (government) for the effective protection of their property in society. He points out that the only effective way people could institute such government for their protection is by their own consent under a written compact, which in America is titled "The Constitution."

Some particular points made by Locke in his Second Treatise on Government, in

Chapter VIII : Of the Beginning of Political Societies, he states

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/locke2nd-b.html#Sect.%20122

that no one can be put out of the state of nature and into the bonds of civil society without his own consent (Sect. 95); that such consent to unite into one political society must be recorded by compact, only by which could give beginning to any lawful government (Sect. 99). In Chapter IX: Of the Ends of Political Society and Government http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/locke2nd-c.html

he states that the first want of mankind in putting themselves under government is an established constitution allowed by their consent (Sect. 124); that government is bound to govern by established standing laws guided by the Constitution (Sect. 131).

Despite all of that self-evident truth regarding not only the historical existence and sociological acceptance by American society of our Constitution, but the necessity for it according to the laws of nature as explained by John Locke; plus the fact that it is recorded in the Declaration of Independence that the people in colonial America separated themselves from Great Britain due to facts showing the repeated injuries and usurpations by the king; yet there is a worldly evil empire purportedly consisting of Great Britain and the Vatican plus several "secret societies" that claim "ownership" of the USA and that the American People are their slaves.

This evil empire dates back centuries before the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution, and alleges that neither the Declaration nor the Constitution mean what they say; that the founding fathers were not interested in the People when creating those documents; that the People are not a party to the Constitution and therefore has no application to them. Some historians claim that it was written to fool the People into believing they were free in order to quell them after popular uprisings and unrest during that colonial period.

There are many essays on the internet regarding this fraudulent history involving our country. This evil world empire is the ancestry of the foreign power operating here in America. Because it alleges that the People are not a party to the Constitution, the foreign power here is "a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution" as it was in Great Britain. Instead of the king, the judiciary are at the helm of the foreign power operating under the guise and color of "government" here under the false illusion that they are justified in disregarding the Constitution and the People's rights because they take their orders from England. See Federal Judge States in Court that He Gets His Orders From England by Stephen Kimbol Ames http://www.peoples-rights.com/doc15England.htm

Mr. Ames has authored The Ultimate Delusion which gives all the sordid details of this evil world empire. It appears on several websites which you can choose for yourselves to read for your information and education. But brace yourselves--it is shocking and unbelievable! J.A.I.L. does not endorse this information, as it is based entirely on fraud and fictions intentionally designed as a sinister, evil plot to deceive the American People. J.A.I.L.'s purpose is to unveil this deception.

Joseph Clark, author of "Once Upon a Time There Was No Money" in referring to the essay by Mr. Ames, said what the People must do to eliminate the system:

Elimination of the system: I will give you the answer here; we must stop giving the systems that be lip service and start ignoring them and stop believing in it because as we fear it and fight with it we give our power away to it. This causes the systems to see we are both in need of it and that we want it to continue to run or should I say ruin our lives. It is our own fault the system exists as it does and it is up to us to rid ourselves of it.

Some people believe in the legitimacy of this evil propaganda. As long as they continue to give lip service to the fraud, it will continue as it has for so many years. They make it difficult for the rest of us who don't believe in it and want to get J.A.I.L. passed and hold the judiciary accountable under the Constitution that does exist and will continue to exist as long as it is sociologically accepted as the Supreme Law of the Land by practice, custom and usage in society. It is taught in history, ruled on (rightly or wrongly) by judges, shown in documentaries, oaths purportedly taken to defend it, given to the public in booklet form free of charge by state officials. In public, there is a Constitution; in private and secret, there is none; "the People aren't a party to it." As long as the foreign power publicly leads the People into believing we live under constitutional law, that's the standard which becomes sociologically accepted by the People and under which the foreign power will be held accountable. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. (Mt.7:2)

We keep telling those people that judges will be given the opportunity to present their defense to the Special Grand Jury of why they willfully violated the Constitution as alleged. If their defense is based on anything relating to the contents of the essay "The Ultimate Delusion," or any other fraud and fiction, it will be deemed unacceptable and the judge will be subject to trial, stripped of judicial immunity, if pursued by the petitioner. "There is no Constitution" is not a valid argument, and we, the People, better understand why. Learn the truth-- don't continue believing the lie and giving sustenance to the foreign power!

J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) www.jail4judges.org

To be automatically added to future mailings, place the word Subscribe in the subject line and email to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org

We are a ministry in great need of your financial support. Please donate to this important work at "J.A.I.L." P.O. Box 207, North Hollywood, CA 91603

J.A.I.L. is a unique addition to our Constitution heretofore unrealized.

JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!

E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join

Visit our active flash - http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm

* * *

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 is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1239

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Fri Apr 6, 2007 3:03 pm
Subject: * * * The Judiciary Under Attack as Never Before * * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California April 6, 2007

______________________________________________________

The Battle Lines are Drawn: J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power

A Power Foreign to Our Constitution

Mission Statement JNJ Library Federal J.A.I.L.

FAQs What?MeWarden?
www.sd-jail4judges.org

The Judiciary Under Attack

as Never Before

By Ron Branson - National J.A.I.L. CIC

"The former justice [Sandra Day O'Connor] also said

she is hearing more criticisms about the judiciary

than any other time in her lifetime."

As a result of bringing Judicial Accountability to the ballot last year, 2006, in the State of South Dakota, former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has traveled the country taking every opportunity she can to condemn and castigate JAIL4Judges as a great concern to her. Her theme is, and has been, that J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) undermines the independence of the judiciary. As a result, her ravings have appeared in various news publications around the country, including the Wall Street Journal, as well as on CNN TV, who contacted this author and asked if I would be available to appear at their television studios to provide the opposing view to Justice O'Connor. I accepted their offer and went on national TV opposite her.

What Justice O'Connor fails to understand is that J.A.I.L. does not affect in any way the independence of the judiciary. I should know, obviously, since I am the author of the initiative who made very sure of that from the very first day the Lord moved upon my heart in 1995 to write it. I placed into this all-important Initiative the judicial independence wording, "...no petition of misconduct shall be considered by the Special Grand Jury unless the petitioner shall have first attempted to exhaust all judicial remedies available in this State within the immediately preceding six-month period." � 11, South Dakota J.A.I.L. Amendment.

That phrase is a crown jewel of the J.A.I.L. Initiative that makes it stand apart from all other judicial legislation going all the way back to our Founding Fathers who were seeking some means of instituting judicial accountability without interfering with the decision-making powers of the judiciary.

Ultimately, our Founding Fathers instituted two means in our Constitution to curb judges: the impeachment process, and the ability to define limits upon their jurisdiction. They wrote, "In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." Art. III, Sec. 2. That phrase was very important to them, but nonetheless, Thomas Jefferson was still not satisfied. He expressed his objections this manner, "...the Federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing it's noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction..."

The beautiful thing about J.A.I.L. is that the Special Grand Jury within it has no jurisdiction to act in any way, or interfere with the jurisdiction of the courts until after the courts have completely and entirely finished making every and all decisions they are going to make, and there is nothing more that can or may be decided. J.A.I.L. is exactly what Thomas Jefferson needed and would have ordered if he had known of the J.A.I.L. option.

J.A.I.L. might be described as a television camera recording the events of an Olympic event, and only after the race is finished could the television recording be viewed for determining the legitimate winner. By any stretch of the imagination, could it be argued that the camera interfered with outcome of the event? But this is precisely what former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is implying. Horse races are commonly recorded. In the history of horse racing, has it ever been argued that any horse lost the race because the event was recorded, or that the recording interfered with the independence of the horse race?

Only after all of the judges and justices in a case have finished making their rulings, and jurisdiction has been exhausted, can a petitioner petition the Special Grand Jury to consider claimed offences that constitute deliberate violations 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 the State or United States. (�2)

Do we not establish laws for the obedience of those subject to them? Does not every judge swear by an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof? Does not the Good Book say, "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged." Matt. 7:2. As I have pointed out, even our Founding Fathers instituted certain constraints upon the judiciary.

Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is propagating false and misleading charges against JAIL4Judges in seeking to undermine the obvious need for Judicial Accountability in this country. But people are gradually waking up. Yes, she is right about one thing: the judiciary is under attack as never before in her lifetime, nonetheless, we have but only begun. The subject of Judicial Accountability shall grow and grow and grow until it dominates every other political issue, and takes center stage. This is what frightens Sandra Day O'Connor and the judiciary of this country so much.

- Ron Branson

Former justice visits law school

O'Connor describes proposed Web site

Mark Norris, Editor In Chief,

mnorris@... 4/5/07

http://media.www.smudailycampus.com/media/storage/paper949/news/2007/04/05/News/Former.Justice.Visits.Law.School-2825000.shtml

Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the best way to teach young people about the civics and the importance of the judiciary is through modern media, such as interactive Web sites and computers. The comments came during a brief speech at an SMU conference about judicial independence and accountability.

"When civics and government are taught, they have the dullest books you've ever read in your life," O'Connor said. "And kids don't like to read anyway, so I don't think that's a winner."

O'Connor said she is in the middle of creating a Web site that will teach children of all grades about the judiciary and its importance to American life. The site could be used in classrooms across the nation, she said.

Arizona State University has offered to host the Web site and have designers create it. A committee is in the process of being selected to produce the content.

She said the best way to have informed citizens is to make sure they learn about civics while in school. O'Connor said No Child Left Behind's emphasis on math, science and reading has had unintended consequences for civics and history classes - schools either dropping them or reducing the amount of time spent on them.

She mentioned a survey conducted by the American Bar Association that found more people could name the Three Stooges than the three branches of government.

Accordingly, O'Connor said the Web site will be a totally interactive program that will be free of charge.

"Children today will sit endlessly in front of a computer," she said. "We need to put this knowledge in this format."

The former justice also said she is hearing more criticisms about the judiciary than any other time in her lifetime.

She mentioned recent elections in South Dakota and Colorado that challenged the independence of judges in the state. Both propositions failed before voters, but she said the root of those issues comes from people not having an understanding of the judicial system.

"If jurisdiction stripping is a punishment, then that's where you get worried," O'Connor said.

She said Minnesota v. White, a case that was decided while she was on the court, has created problems for an independent judiciary. The result of the case allows justices to answer policy or issue questions when running for office.

O'Connor said single-issue advocacy groups are targeting justices and pressuring them.

"I wasn't aware that I was serving with a bunch of activist judges," O'Connor said, citing one of the tactics such groups has taken.

O'Connor was the first female justice on the Supreme Court, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1981.

J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) www.jail4judges.org

To be automatically added to future mailings, place the word Subscribe

in the subject line and email to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org

We are a ministry in great need of your financial support. Please donate to

this important work at "J.A.I.L." P.O. Box 207, North Hollywood, CA 91603

J.A.I.L. is a unique addition to our Constitution heretofore unrealized.

JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!

E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join

Visit our active flash - http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm

* * *

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 is

striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau ><)))'>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1240

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:23 am
Subject: An Act to Repeal the Existence of the New Hampshire Bar Association

jail4judges_...

Send Email

An Act to Repeal the Existence of the

New Hampshire Bar Association

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2007/HB0670.html

HB 670 – AS INTRODUCED

2007 SESSION

07-0115

10/03

HOUSE BILL 670

AN ACT relative to repealing the incorporation of the New Hampshire Bar Association.

SPONSORS: Rep. L. Christiansen, Hills 27

COMMITTEE: Judiciary

ANALYSIS

This bill repeals the corporate status of the New Hampshire Bar Association pursuant to language in the original incorporation act adopted in 1873.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.

Matter removed from current law appears [~~in brackets and struckthrough.~~]

Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.

07-0115

10/03

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Seven

AN ACT relative to repealing the incorporation of the New Hampshire Bar Association.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 New Hampshire Bar Association; Repeal of Incorporation; Intent. The general court finds that part II, article 83 of the New Hampshire constitution specifically enumerates free and fair competition by the people in all of their commercial endeavors. This right is to be preserved by the duty imposed on the legislature by their action to remove any monopoly or conspiracy which tends to hinder or destroy this right. The general court by this act therefore:

I. Finds that the New Hampshire Bar Association as established in 1873, chapter CXV, has become a constitutionally prohibited monopoly and conspiracy of power in the practice of law.

II. Relies on section 6 of the laws of 1873, chapter CXV to repeal the charter and corporate status of the New Hampshire Bar Association, and upon its dissolution, the unlawful accumulation of any and all assets of the monopoly shall escheat to the state.

2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/752 - Release Date: 4/8/2007 8:34 PM

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1241

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:31 am
Subject: JAIL4Judges Sues Florida Bar Association

jail4judges_...

Send Email

JAIL4Judges Sues

Florida Bar Association

Ron, Barbie and all JIC's,

I am forwarding the first article that has been printed regarding the Florida JAIL4judges vs. Florida Bar action. I believe Rachel did an excellent job and I responded thanking her for her thoughtful work.

I've been in communication with Montgomery Sibley for almost a year. He contacted me informing me of his support for JAIL4judges and judicial reform. When I read in the Florida Bar News the negative propaganda being printed about Florida JAIL4judges I mentioned to Mr. Sibley that I thought something should be done to stop it. Mr. Sibley accepted to file "pro bono" providing Florida Jail4judges pay the filing fee. All the JIC's in this country should be encouraged by what is happening here, because we are going to be successful.

OUR PLANS:

Starting April 25th Florida JAIL4judges will be at a different county courthouse every Wednesday collecting petitions, forming committees from volunteers then filing the signed petitions with the county Supervisor's of Elections.

See www.floridajail4judges.org for the Petition Drive Schedule.

We are becoming united force to standup for our God given rights that have been trampled upon for so long.

ANNOUNCMENT:

The Florida Bar is a defacto entity that infiltrated (took over) the Supreme Court in 1949. It is not legal, has no standing or official authority. but, NOW there exists a lawful Florida Bar Association, Inc. that was recently formed and is registered with the Department of State, Division of Corporations. The President of the (lawful) Florida Bar Association, Inc. is a gentleman named Andrew Mooney in Bradenton, Florida.

COMING EVENT:

Florida JAIL4judges will soon be doing "a shout out" (announcement) on our Florida JAIL4judges website asking all the attorneys in Florida who support judicial reform to join the LAWFUL Florida Bar Association.

Sincerely,

Nancy Grant, Jailer in Chief

Florida JAIL4judges

http://jacksonville.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories/2007/04/16/story7.html?b=1176696000%5e1445714&surround=etf

Committee sues Florida Bar, hopes for dissolution

Jacksonville Business Journal - April 13, 2007

by Rachel Witkowski

Staff Writer

The Florida Bar Association is being sued by a political action committee that wants to create a system to sanction judges.

The Florida Judicial Accountability Initiative Law for Judges, based in Arcadia, advocates amending the state constitution to remove immunity from judges and establish juries with the power to indict them. The committee recently filed a petition in the Florida Supreme Court with four claims against the Florida Bar regarding its political activity.

The claims against the Florida Bar are about editorials in its publications. The committee states in the petition that the Florida Bar "engaged in direct and indirect political activities," specifically by publishing content about J.A.I.L. for Judges. The committee claims that the Florida Bar should not be politically active because it's an arm of the state's Supreme Court and not a political action committee recognized by the Florida Department of State, Division of Elections.

"I expect the Florida Bar to be dissolved," said Montgomery Sibley, attorney for J.A.I.L. for Judges. The committee wants a new "lawful" Bar that is not engaged in political activity.

Equal space

J.A.I.L. for Judges further stated in its petition that the Florida Bar should "give equal space in its publications" and should be required to register as a political action committee.

"If they are going to express an opinion, they need to be registered," said Nancy Grant, director of the committee. "Since they're not going to do that, they need to shut up."

The Florida Bar is not speaking about the suit until the Supreme Court issues an order on whether it will hear the case filed Feb. 21, said Paul Hill, general counsel. The Bar is prepared to speak if called to do so by the court.

A Florida Bar News editorial dated Jan. 15 stated that if the amendment reaches the Florida ballot, "the state's lawyers should be ready to lead a campaign to defeat it."

The amendment would create two 25-member special grand juries that could sanction judges accused of misconduct and issue fines, forfeitures or removal from the bench for third-time offenses. The program would be funded by a 2.9 percent tax on all state judges' gross salaries.

'Probably in violation'

The top state judge in Jacksonville does not expect the initiative to succeed. "Even if it gets passed on the Florida Constitution, it's probably in violation of the federal Constitution," said Fourth Judicial Circuit Court Chief Judge Donald Moran.

Hill said the Florida Bar is acting as though the amendment will make the ballot. There is a concern that fewer individuals would seek judicial office in the state if voters approve the amendment.

Sibley said the committee is working to get the 611,000 verified signatures in the state to place the amendment on the ballot in 2009.

There are attorneys in the state who support J.A.I.L. for Judges, Grant said, but they can't publicly support it because they could be disbarred.

She said the committee will come to Downtown Jacksonville soon to collect petitions in front of the Duval County Courthouse. Grant is also seeking support from at least one elected official in every county in Florida.

rwitkowski@... | 265-2219

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/760 - Release Date: 4/13/2007 8:04 PM

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1242

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Tue Apr 17, 2007 6:31 am
Subject: * * * South Dakota Holds World Record for Per Capita Imprisonment * * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California April 16, 2007

______________________________________________________

The Battle Lines are Drawn: J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power

A Power Foreign to Our Constitution

Mission Statement JNJ Library Federal J.A.I.L.

FAQs What?MeWarden?
www.sd-jail4judges.org

South Dakota Holds World Record for Per Capita Imprisonment

By Ron Branson - National J.A.I.L. CIC

The State of South Dakota holds the infamous title of being the greatest per capita imprisonment capital in the world. There are many despotic regimes throughout this world that are run by cruel and evil dictators, but whether fascist or communistic, there is no country on earth that has anywhere close to the percentage of its own population incarcerated behind bars than in the United States of America. In fact, there is no close second. It has even been pointed out that the Law Enforcement Growth Industry of America is rivaled by none other than General Motors.

The Law Enforcement Growth Industry of America (LEGIA) touches absolutely every other profession that exists. Cops must maintain their record of arrests to prove they are earning their money, prosecutors compete with one another for the greatest number of convictions, judges are generally former prosecutors, and work to assist their former colleagues in acquiring convictions. Then there is at stake the future financial interests of bailiffs, clerks, bus drivers, mechanics, insurance agents, building contractors, steel manufacturers, guards, gun manufacturers, the food industry, bunkbed makers, plumbers, doctors, nurses, the pharmaceutical industry, shipping industry, television manufacturers, telephone companies, paper industry, printing, computer manufacturers and techs, toiletry supply houses, etc., etc. And this list could go on indefinitely until absolutely every service and product in civilization is involved, even naming services and products that General Motors would have no need for. Job security dictates that LEGIA shall never ever diminish, but it shall grow and grow and grow until there is a financial collapse. How large can a balloon be blown? How big is BIG? It has gained some two million prisoners in approximately the last twenty years!

Now coming to South Dakota. We have already established that America, as a nation, has the highest percentage of its people behind bars. So now we turn to the fifty states. Among the fifty states, evidence shows that South Dakota is the fastest growing prison state. One would think that South Dakota would be more interested in corn, milk and cattle, not prisons. Nonetheless, the greatest commodity of South Dakota is buying, selling and trading prisoners with other states. It deals in supplying prisoners for the private prison industry which is big business in South Dakota.

When JAIL4Judges first acquired ballot status in South Dakota, we started hearing about J.A.I.L. messing with their prison industry, such as, "J.A.I.L. will be letting prisoners out of prisons to harass the jurors that voted to put them in there." We were wondering what in the world our opposition was talking about. As a result of trying to find out, I became aware that South Dakota's greatest asset is its prison industry. Then I found out that one of their foremost State Senators owned a catering industry that held a contract with South Dakota for supplying the concessions to all the prisoners in the state. That senator became the foremost verbal opponent to passing Judicial Accountability in South Dakota.

Then I found out that these prisons offer incentives for their prisoners to build more prisons. Then I found out that those prisoners who did not build prisons, are offered incentives to work in manufacturing goods such as cabinets, flooring, printing, etc. I said to myself, "WOW! They are turning their civilization into a prison-manufacturing industry, and they are afraid that J.A.I.L. will disrupt their massive cash-cow industry by bringing justice to South Dakota!"

Below are excerpts from today's April 16, 2007 Argus Leader news article, in which they can think of a 1001 reasons to justify why South Dakota is number one in prison growth throughout the world.

http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070416/NEWS/704160320/1001

Prisoner numbers to grow, study says

But state officials say count leveling

By Terry Woster

twoster@...

Published: April 16, 2007

PIERRE - South Dakota led the nation in prison population growth in 2005, and a new national report said that trend is likely to continue, driven by drug-related crimes, parole violations and a steady rise in women inmates.

It's part of a larger national surge in prison population, the result of a public galvanized by the fear of criminals and lawmakers who have responded with tough sentencing guidelines.

Corrections Secretary Tim Reisch downplayed the study, saying South Dakota's growth has leveled off. More nonviolent prisoners are being paroled, and new programs to help drug addicts are helping to lower parole violation numbers, he said. ....

Growth predictions

The new Pew report, "Public Safety, Public Spending: Forecasting America's Prison Population 2007-2011," is based on long-term trends, and it paints a much different picture.

It predicts South Dakota's prison population growing 23 percent by 2011. The report, called a first-of-its kind projection, forecasts growth of 13 percent during the time period, triple the projected growth of the United States population in general.

By 2011, one in every 178 Americans, more than 1.7 million inmates, will be in prison at projected rates, the report says.

"If you put them all together in one place, the incarcerated population in just five years will outnumber the residents of Atlanta, Baltimore and Denver, combined," it says.

That includes more than 192,000 new inmates, the study says, a population explosion that will require $15 billion in new operating costs and $12.5 billion in new construction costs to handle. ....

Reach Terry Woster at 605-224-2760.

The full story may be read at http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070416/NEWS/704160320/1001

J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) www.jail4judges.org

To be automatically added to future mailings, place the word Subscribe

in the subject line and email to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org

We are a ministry in great need of your financial support. Please donate to

this important work at "J.A.I.L." P.O. Box 207, North Hollywood, CA 91603

J.A.I.L. is a unique addition to our Constitution heretofore unrealized.

JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!

E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join

Visit our active flash - http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm

* * *

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 is

striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau ><)))'>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1243

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Thu Apr 26, 2007 3:49 am
Subject: ***J.A.I.L. or Anarchy?***

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California April 25, 2007

______________________________________________________

The Battle Lines are Drawn: J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power

A Power Foreign to Our Constitution

Mission Statement JNJ Library Federal J.A.I.L.

FAQs What?MeWarden?
www.sd-jail4judges.org

J.A.I.L. or Anarchy?

It's Up to The People

By Barbie, ACIC National J.A.I.L.

victoryusa@...

J.A.I.L. is an offer, not a mandate.

Despite the fact that Mr. Branson sees J.A.I.L. as God's answer for the People in these days of despotism, he publicly states that J.A.I.L. is but only God's offer to the People of this country, not a mandate. Whether or not J.A.I.L. is received and put into practice is entirely up to the People. J.A.I.L. is designed as the "consent of the People" to hold the judiciary, and hence all of government, accountable to them under strict constitutional standards specifying seven procedural violations in particular, to wit: (1) any deliberate violation of law; (2) fraud or conspiracy; (3) intentional violation of due process of law; (4) deliberate disregard of material allegations; (5) judicial acts without jurisdiction; (6) blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case; and (7) any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of the state or the United States. See �2 of the J.A.I.L. Amendment.

J.A.I.L. relies on the fact that government is instituted by the People to protect their property consisting of their God-given inherent, inborn rights; and that it derives its just powers from the consent of the People, as confirmed in our Founding Document, the Declaration of Independence. J.A.I.L. is based on the premise that each of the above seven specified violations by judges, as defined in the Amendment, violates --fails to protect-- the People's inherent rights, hence, is destructive of the role of government which fails to exercise its just powers as consented by the People. J.A.I.L. stands for the principle that a violation of just one individual's rights is a violation of the rights of the People generally, of society as a whole; that the rights even of People who have never sought redress of grievances are nevertheless violated daily in our courts across this beloved

country. Therefore, J.A.I.L. is offered to the People as a means by which they may renew their consent to effect the proper role of government and diminish further violation of their rights. It's left purely to the People to accept or reject this offer.

That choice rests upon the People's right to vote.

The People's vote determines our survival as an ordered society. Without it, society will degenerate into anarchy. That's why the question: "J.A.I.L., or Anarchy?" The answer to that question depends on the People preserving their right to vote.

The vote is the "voice of the People" especially regarding their government-- it's the means of giving its consent to government. When the Declaration says it is the duty of the People to throw off such government, meaning the power in control by abuses and usurpation and reducing the People under absolute despotism (in other words, a counterfeit government), isn't that done by the voting process? The state Constitutions of the initiative states acknowledge that the People have the right to alter or amend their forms of government as they deem necessary. Isn't that done by the initiative, passed by the voting process?

The People (the governed) giving its consent to government is a right-- that's the way government is supposed to operate, by consent of the governed. That has to be done by their vote. Rights are not created by constitutions. They exist despite constitutions, even without constitutions. I see the right to vote as a natural inherent right of the People, as a necessary means to express their consent for government. That's how J.A.I.L. will become a reality, by the People amending their state Constitution in a manner they deem necessary by voting for it, state by state. The right to vote necessarily includes the right to vote intelligently-- the right to be informed of the issues to be voted on without interference by any power or influence. The right to vote in South Dakota was interfered with by the counterfeit government that should have been thrown off by the People of South Dakota last November, and new guards established (J.A.I.L.) for their future security.

This raises the question, which I asked Ron, how can a counterfeit government, that should be thrown off by the People as their duty to do, actually INTERFERE with the People's duty to throw it off? Clearly, we are living under tyranny, whether the People as a whole realize it or not. All it will take is enough People who are informed of this truth, and the truth about J.A.I.L., to throw off the counterfeit government by voting for J.A.I.L. which will provide the new guard for their future security as the Declaration instructs us. That's how close we are, and the enemy knows it. That's why they're so scared of J.A.I.L. and are doing anything and everything imaginable, through fraud, lies, and deceit, to defeat it. The People must rise above these shenanigans. It's up to them to do so if they wish to accept the offer of J.A.I.L.

I asked Ron, "What if there aren't enough People knowledgeable to accomplish this duty?" and he said that the only alternative to tyranny (the status quo), without the J.A.I.L. solution, would by nature lead to anarchy." I have to agree with that conclusion. The choice is J.A.I.L. or Anarchy-- which will it be?

Have the People gained any knowledge since the South Dakota election fiasco?

Probably the most significant fact that has been exposed by the South Dakota fiasco is that the state is run by a foreign power, not government. We have a number of J.A.I.L. News Journals reporting on that evidence. One of them is

J.A.I.L. Has Exposed the Foreign Power Running South Dakota

J.A.I.L. will always have a purpose For The People

http://www.jail4judges.org/JNJ_Library/2007/2007-01-19A.html in which we report:

South Dakota was the pioneer state for J.A.I.L. in which the People qualified the Amendment for their ballot in 2006. To get a measure passed by the People requires the basic right to vote without interference by any power, civil or military. (SD Const. Art.VII �1). Little did we know or suspect that the Power running South Dakota would interfere with the election process, resulting in a "Show-Election." "Show-Election" in South Dakota 2006, resulting in the annihilation of the People's right to reform their government (SD Const. Art.VI �26) and their right to a fair election (SD Const. Art.VII �1).

Another one, in which we describe the foreign power, is What Did the "Show-Election" in South Dakota REALLY Show? It showed that we are being run by a Foreign Power! http://www.jail4judges.org/JNJ_Library/2007/2007-01-11.html

I closed that JNJ with the following questions:

In the JNJ "Show-Election" in South Dakota 2006 I posed the question:

"What happens when the constitutional remedy to reform government by the People is blocked by the very government sought to be reformed?" Based on what we have learned above, the answer rests on the fact that we're dealing with a FOREIGN POWER. That foreign power is not bound by either the United States nor the South Dakota Constitution. There is no "constitutional remedy to reform government" under that power. So the question might be rephrased:

"What happens when a foreign power that has taken over control in this country prevents the People from exercising their inherent rights?"

The answer to my previous question, "What happens when a foreign power that has taken over control in this country prevents the People from exercising their inherent rights?" is that the People must decide what method of change is required "to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." One thing we know: Change is necessary; change will happen. The Laws of Nature will demand it. Being under the control of a Foreign Power is not in accordance with the state of nature, and it cannot remain that way by Nature.

J.A.I.L. Has Exposed the Foreign Power Running South Dakota (supra)

To decide what method of change is required, the People must first determine if change is necessary, and if so, determine "the nature of the power in control," as I stated in that same JNJ:

In order for the People to be able to exercise their rights to reform government and to vote, they must first know what kind of entity is controlling those processes that can block those rights. We're referring specifically to getting J.A.I.L. passed by lawful means. J.A.I.L. is still the only remedy for the People. The People will have to determine, based on evidence, the nature of the power in control in order to decide what method is necessary to carry out the mandate set forth in the Declaration of Independence: "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." (Id.)

We have received objection from a few of our readers to our usage of the term "foreign power" saying that most people won't understand it, that it's above most people's heads, etc. It's high time they DO understand it for the sake of this country! That's exactly WHY we are reporting on it, with plenty of evidence to substantiate it. Since the South Dakota election fiasco, we have changed the motto in our heading to: "The Battle Lines are Drawn: J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power. A Power Foreign to Our Constitution."

Whatever it is called, we are referring to the power that must be thrown off by the People, described in the Declaration as one that manifests "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce [the People] under absolute despotism." It could be referred to as a "counterfeit government," but use of the word "government" at all misses the point that we have no government whatsoever which we have substantiated by the writings of John Locke in his Second Treatise on Government. Government ceases when it ceases to protect the People's rights. People's rights being routinely violated by the power in control is, by definition, not of government, but of a foreign power-- a power foreign to our Constitution that has reduced the People under absolute despotism.

The dissolution of government, according to Locke, results in anarchy. See "Will J.A.I.L. Lead to Anarchy?" 2/10/06

http://www.jail4judges.org/JNJ_Library/2006/2006-02-10A.html in which we report:

Anarchy happens when "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, [i.e., no provision by which the People can enforce the Constitution] or provide for the necessities of the public" resulting in the absence of government and the people becoming "a confused multitude, without order or connexion." Anarchy results from the effectual dissolution of government by its failure and refusal to protect the People's rights. The Second Treatise of Civil Government (1690) by John Locke, at Chapter XIX "Of the Dissolution of Government" Sec. 218. http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr19.htm

When the government has ceased protecting the rights of the People and thereby has ceased to exist as government, the People are at liberty to provide for themselves by reforming and restoring government to what it was meant to be when originally instituted for their safety and happiness. (supra) Sec. 220.

John Locke, known as the "Philosopher of Freedom" had the greatest influence on our Declaration of Independence. "Government, according to John Locke, will lose its right to exercise its power, however, when government abuses its people worse than any imaginable group of marauders that might be operating in the absence of a government. ... Further, in Lockean theory, if government abuses the exercise of the power given it by the people, why then, the people have a natural right to rebel, as did the people of New England in 1776." The Theory of Government, By Peter Landry. http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/BluePete/Government.htm

Conclusion

I stated above that all that was necessary for the possibility of passing J.A.I.L. was that the People become knowledgeable of the fact that we have a foreign power (a counterfeit government) in control in this country and must rise above the fraud, lies, and deceit used by the foreign power to defeat J.A.I.L. The People must understand that the only thing sustaining the foreign power is the ignorance of the People, nothing else. No matter how much money and other resources is pumped into the enemy propaganda machine, the People can overcome it by acting on the knowledge of truth.

However, some of our readers have expressed doubt that we'll be able to pass J.A.I.L. by the vote, since the People are not in control of the voting process. Joseph Stalin said "He who votes decides nothing; he who counts the votes decides everything" which brings the question,Who is counting the votes? We were told that in South Dakota on election night, the percentage results (89% against, and 11% in favor of J.A.I.L.) did not change or vary all evening, from about 7:30 p.m. to about 11 p.m. Up until election day, J.A.I.L. was on top. Suddenly the bottom dropped out in one day. So it's the counting or tabulating of the votes that is the crucial factor in the voting process. Clearly, there is a conflict of interest in having the counterfeit government, that is to be thrown off by the People through their vote, count that vote!

In California, there is a maxim of jurisprudence that states "The law never requires impossibilities." (Civil Code �3531). If that's true, the law must provide

that a neutral entity be delegated the responsibility of counting the votes. If we can't rely on the vote to throw off a despotic government, the result will be throwing it off by anarchy which, by nature, will eventually lead to the establishment of a new government. Nevertheless, at some point, an honest voting process will have to be established for the People to keep a new government in check, i.e., "to provide new guards for their future security."

J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) www.jail4judges.org

To be automatically added to future mailings, place the word Subscribe in the subject line and email to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org

We are a ministry in great need of your financial support. Please donate to this important work at "J.A.I.L." P.O. Box 207, North Hollywood, CA 91603

J.A.I.L. is a unique addition to our Constitution heretofore unrealized.

JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!

E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join

Visit our active flash - http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm

* * *

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1244

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 6:46 am
Subject: * * Money Connected to Over 80% of Judicial Seats * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California April 23, 2007

______________________________________________________

The Battle Lines are Drawn: J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power

A Power Foreign to Our Constitution

Mission Statement JNJ Library Federal J.A.I.L.

FAQs What?MeWarden?
www.sd-jail4judges.org

NorthJersey.com

Political donations often pave way to seat on the bench

Sunday, April 22, 2007

By Kibret Markos

Staff Writer

More than 80 percent of judges appointed to the bench in North Jersey in recent years have donated thousands of dollars to senators who held the fate of their candidacies, records show.

The practice is legal and has been followed for decades. Many judges, attorneys and senators strongly defend it, stressing that the selection process -- far from being a form of pay-to-play -- has produced an effective judiciary.

But others say it's an unfair means of choosing candidates for an institution looked upon as the bastion of fairness.

New Jersey courts aren't getting the most qualified candidates, they say, but rather the most qualified among a small pool of loyal insiders.

"Over the years, some very qualified people who aspire to go to the bench ask me how they could do it," said Barry Epstein, former president of the New Jersey State Bar Association. "I tell them, 'You have to find a senator to support your candidacy.' "

Several judges declined comment on the practice, referring questions to their supervisors.

Reached by phone, Bergen County's chief jurist, Assignment Judge Sybil Moses, declined comment.

"The selection of judges is strictly a legislative and executive determination," she said, before hanging up. ....

Entire article may be seen at:

http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2MDcmZmdiZWw3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTcxMjA1OTYmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXky

Kibret Markos may be reached at markos@...

According to the above report, in New Jersey less 20% of those applying for a judgeship obtain that judgeship who did not first fork over money to the decider.

History is replete with numerous occasions in which governors and politicians have accepted "donations" from those who wanted intercessions on their behalf. Of course, when cornered on the subject, everyone denies that the money given them affected their decisions.

In California, the FBI in pursuing bribery investigations, found that California legislators had unofficially established a "Green Day." A Green Day was a code name for a certain day of each week in which a "patron" would enter their legislator's office and present the legislator with an envelope. The unofficial rules were that no one was to discuss on Green Day proposed legislation or advocacy associated with the envelope. They were to come back later in the week, or the next week on a "Non-Green Day" to discuss what it was that they wanted. The objective was obvious - avoidance of detecting that the envelope was tied to the constituent's objective.

I recall a past incident in which the acceptance a bribe by a judge became the subject in which the judge admitted to accepting a bribe, but denied that the money he had taken influenced his decision. In his defense, he argued that he had taken a bribe from both sides in the case that was in the approximate same amount of $5,000 and thus, the bribes cancelled each other out and made a level playing field.

J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) www.jail4judges.org

To be automatically added to future mailings, place the word Subscribe

in the subject line and email to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org

We are a ministry in great need of your financial support. Please donate to

this important work at "J.A.I.L." P.O. Box 207, North Hollywood, CA 91603

J.A.I.L. is a unique addition to our Constitution heretofore unrealized.

JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!

E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join

Visit our active flash - http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm

* * *

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 is

striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau ><)))'>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1245

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:37 pm
Subject: New pro-JAIL4Judges article

jail4judges_...

Send Email

From: LarryFarma@... [mailto:LarryFarma@...]
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 5:48 PM
To: JAIL4Judges
Subject: New pro-JAIL4Judges article

Ron,

The article is at --

http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2007/04/jail4judges-founder-debates-former.html

Best wishes

Larry Fafarman - Association of Non-Censoring Bloggers

http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/

http://noncensoringblogs.blogspot.com/

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date: 4/24/2007 5:43 PM

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1246

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed May 2, 2007 8:12 pm
Subject: * "I Don't Care What The Judge Said!" *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

The Conservative Voice

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=24518

by Joel Turtel

“I Don’t Care What the Judge Said!”

April 22, 2007 02:00 PM EST

“Look, Mr. Straun, John, can I call you John? We’ve been at this for 25 days. We’re all sick of this. We all want to go home. You’re the only one left. You’re the one keeping us here. I got things to do at home. I got to go to work and make a living. All of us do. The judge is mad as hell at us. You’re going to hang this jury. You’re going to make this three-month trial into a farce and waste of time. You have no right to vote acquittal. You heard the judge’s instructions. The jury is not allowed to judge the law, only the facts.”

“The fact are clear as day, aren’t they?” Dillard ranted. “You even admitted that to us. The guy was found with marijuana in his car. That’s against the law. And the guy admitted the marijuana was his. What more do you need?” said Raymond Dillard, the jury foreman. Raymond Dillard was tall, beefy, in his 30’s, and he was getting mad, so mad he wanted to beat John Straun’s head in.

Straun was a small, slim man in his 30’s, with a straight back, dark brown hair, large, steady eyes, and a firm mouth. He seemed not to care at all about all the trouble he was causing. And he seemed to be fearless.

John Straun said, “I don’t care what the judge said. I happen to know for a fact that a jury has the right to judge the law. Jury nullification has a long history in this country. A jury has the right to judge the law, not just the facts.”

Raymond Dillard and a few other jurors sneered. Dillard said, “Oh, are you a lawyer, Mr. Straun? You think you know more than the judge? What history are you talking about?”

John Straun said calmly, “No, I’m not a lawyer. I’m an engineer. But in this particular case, I do know more than the judge. When I found out I was going to be on this jury, I did a little research about the history of juries, just for the hell of it. Most people don’t know this, but jury nullification has been upheld as a sacred legal principal in English common law for 1000 years. Alfred the Great, a great English king a thousand years ago, hung several of his own judges because they removed jurors who refused to convict and replaced these courageous jurors with other jurors they could intimidate into convicting the defendant on trial.”

“Jury nullification also goes back to the very beginning of our country, as one of the crucial rights our Founding Fathers wanted to protect. Our Founding Fathers wanted juries to be the final bulwark against tyrannical government laws. That’s why they emphasized the right to a jury trial in three of the first ten amendments to the Constitution. John Adams, second President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, third President and author of the Declaration of Independence, John Jay, First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and Alexander Hamilton, First Secretary of the Treasury all flatly stated that juries have the right and duty to judge not only the facts in a case, but also the law, according to their conscience.”

“Not only that, more recent court decisions have reaffirmed this right. In 1969, in “US. vs. Moylan,” the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the right of juries to judge the law in a case. In 1972, the Washington, D.C. Court of Appeals upheld the same principal.”

Raymond Dillard said, “Yeah, if that’s the case, how come the judge didn’t tell us this?”

“That’s because of the despicable Supreme Court decision in “Sparf and Hansen vs. The United States in 1895.” John Straun said. “That decision said juries have the right to judge the law, but that a judge doesn’t have to inform juries of this right. Cute, huh? And guess what happened after this decision? Judges stopped telling juries about their rights.”

“The judge knows about jury nullification. All judges do. But they hate letting juries decide the law. They hate juries taking power away from them. That’s why judges never mention a jury’s right to judge the law, and most judges squash defense attorneys from saying anything about it in court. Remember when Jimmy Saunders’ defense lawyer started talking about it? The judge threatened him with contempt if he didn’t shut up about jury nullification.”

“And since you asked me,” Straun continued, “I’ll tell you a little more about jury nullification. Did you ever hear of the Fugitive Slave Act? Did you ever hear of Prohibition? Do you know why those despicable laws were repealed? Because juries were so outraged over those laws that they consistently refused to convict people who violated them. They refused to convict because they knew that these laws were unjust and tyrannical, that Congress had no right making these laws in the first place. So, because juries wouldn’t convict, the government couldn’t make these laws stick. They tried for many years, but finally gave up.”

“What do you think this mad War on Drugs is that we’ve been fighting the last sixty years? It’s the same as Prohibition in the 20’s. It’s the same principle. A tyrannical government is telling people that they can’t take drugs, just like in the 20’s they said people couldn’t drink liquor. What’s the difference? A tyrannical law is telling people what they can or can’t put in their own bodies. Who owns our bodies, us or the self-righteous politicians? Does the government own your body, Mr. Dillard? Do you smoke, Mr. Dillard? Do you drink beer?”

Dillard nodded his head, “Yeah, I do.”

“Well, how would you like it if they passed laws telling you that can’t smoke or drink a beer anymore. Would you like that, Mr. Dillard?”

Dillard looked at John Straun, thought about the question, then admitted, “No, I wouldn’t, Straun.”

John Straun turned to the others around the table. “You, Jack, you said you’re sixty-five years old. You like to play golf, right? What if they passed a law saying anyone over sixty-five can’t play golf because the exercise might give him a heart attack? You, Frank, you said you eat hamburgers at McDougals all the time. What if they passed a law saying fatty hamburgers give people heart attacks, so we’re closing down all the McDougal restaurants in the country, and they make eating a hamburger a criminal offence? You, Mrs. Pelchat, I see you like to smoke. Everyone knows that smoking can give you lung cancer. How would you like it if they passed a law banning all cigarettes? What if they could crash in the door of your house without a warrant to search for cigarettes in your house, like the SWAT teams do now, looking for drugs? Mrs. Pelchat, how would you like to be on trial like Jimmy Saunders because they found a pack of cigarettes you hid under your mattress?”

“Do you all see what I mean? If they can make it a crime for Jimmy Saunders to smoke marijuana, why can’t they make golf, hamburgers, and cigarettes a crime? If you think they wouldn’t try, think again. They had Prohibition in the 20’s for almost ten years, till they finally gave up. The only reason they haven’t banned cigarettes is because there are thirty million cigarette smokers in this country who would scream bloody murder. They get away with making marijuana and other drugs illegal only because drug-users are a small minority in this country. Drug users don’t have any political clout.”

Raymond Dillard sat down in his chair. The others started talking among themselves. John Straun started seeing heads nodding in agreement, thinking about what he had said.

“OK, Straun,” Dillard said. “Maybe you’re right. Maybe Jimmy Saunders shouldn’t go to jail for smoking marijuana. Hell, probably most of us tried the stuff when we were young. Clinton said he smoked marijuana in college. Bush said he tried drugs in college. Probably half of Congress and their kids took drugs one time or another. O.K. we agree with you. But what about the judge. He said we can’t judge the law.”

John Straun stood up. He was not a tall man, but he stood very straight, and he looked very sure of himself. He looked from one to another of them.

He said, “If you agree with me, then I ask you all to vote for acquittal. You are not only defending Jimmy Saunders’ liberty, but your own. You are fighting a tyrannical law that is enforced by a judge who wants the power to control you. I told you that many juries like us in the past have disregarded the judge’s instructions. They stood up for liberty against a tyrannical law. Are you Americans here? What do you value more, your liberty, your pride as free men, or the instructions of a judge who doesn’t want you to judge the law precisely because he knows you’ll find the law unjust? Will you stand with those juries who defended our liberty in the past, or will you give in to this judge?”

“Here’s another thing to think about,” John Straun said with passion. ”What if it was your sister or brother on trial here? Do you know that if we say Saunders is guilty, the judge has to send him to prison for twenty years? I understand this is Saunders third possession charge. You know the “three strikes and you’re out” rule, don’t you? The politicians passed a law that if a guy gets convicted three times on possession, the judge now has no leeway in sentencing. He has to give the poor guy twenty years in prison. What if it were your sister or brother on trial? Should they go to jail for smoking marijuana, for doing something that should not be a crime in the first place? Do we want to send Jimmy Saunders to prison for twenty years because he smoked a joint, hurting no one? Can you have that on your conscience?”

“Do you know that there are almost a million guys like Jimmy Saunders in federal prisons right now, as we speak, for this same so-called “crime” of smoking marijuana or taking other drugs? These men were sent to prison for mere possession. They harmed no one but themselves when they took drugs. How can you have a crime without a victim? When does this horror stop? It has got to stop. I’m asking you all now to stop it right here, at least for Jimmy Saunders. The only thing that can stop tyrannical laws and politicians is you and me, juries like us. If we do nothing, we’re lost, the country is lost.”

“I’m asking you all to bring in a not-guilty verdict, because the drug laws are unjust and a moral obscenity. I’m asking you all be the kind of Americans our Founding Fathers would have been proud of, these same men who fought for your liberty. That’s what I’m asking of all of you.”

John Straun sat down and looked quietly at Dillard and all the others around the table. They looked back at him, and it seemed that their backs began to straighten up, and they no longer complained about going home. They were quiet. Then they talked passionately amongst each other.

Fifteen minutes later, they walked into the courtroom and sat down in the jury box. When the judge asked Raymond Dillard what the verdict was, he was stunned when Dillard, standing tall, looking straight at the judge, said “Not guilty.” Over the angry rantings of the red-faced judge, all in the jury box looked calmly at John Straun, and felt proud to be an American.

Sent via JAIL4Judges.org

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/784 - Release Date: 5/1/2007 2:57 PM

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1248

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed May 9, 2007 5:58 am
Subject: * * * A Self-Indictment of the Judicial System * * * (Revised)

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California (Revised) May 3, 2007

______________________________________________________

The Battle Lines are Drawn: J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power

A Power Foreign to Our Constitution

Mission Statement JNJ Library Federal J.A.I.L.

FAQs What?MeWarden?
www.sd-jail4judges.org

A Self-Indictment of the Judicial System

Below are excerpts from the official report on the State of the New York courts. This report is not made up or biased from an opponent's view-point! Read it, believe it. Can they be wrong? After you have read this report, you justifiably may wonder if New York really has a judicial system at all. While this report fails to reveal the failing judicial system nationwide, you can reasonably surmise that our entire judicial system is totally screwed up from top to bottom in every state in the nation. This is why we must have J.A.I.L. passed in all fifty states throughout this country, and without it, America is done for.

- Ron Branson

A COURT SYSTEM FOR THE FUTURE:

THE PROMISE OF COURT RESTRUCTURING IN NEW YORK STATE

A Report by the Special Commission on the

Future of the New York State Courts February 2007 ....

On July 17, 2006, New York State Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye appointed the Special Commission on the Future of the New York State Courts to assess the effectiveness of the state’s current court structure and to propose appropriate reforms. The thirty member Commission was comprised of judges and court administrators; academics; representatives from the business community, bar organizations and good government groups; and some of our state’s leading legal practitioners.

During the ensuing seven months, the Commission conducted an intensive study of the New York State court system. As part of this effort, the Commission and its staff reviewed the voluminous body of literature that exists on the subject of court structure and past reform efforts, and compiled various statistics and other data to assess the functioning of our court system.

The Commission also met with dozens of judges, government officials, leaders of the business community, bar groups, Family Court practitioners, victims of domestic violence, court administrators, and a variety of others with experience in our courts. The Commission met, not only with those who have been supportive of court restructuring, but also with those who have in the past opposed such reforms. ....

New York State has the most archaic and bizarrely convoluted court structure in the country. Antiquated provisions in our state Constitution create a confusing amalgam of trial courts: an inefficient and wasteful system that causes harm and heartache to all manner of litigants, and costs businesses, municipalities and taxpayers in excess of half a billion dollars per year. ....

New York...continues to operate a blizzard of overlapping courts: Supreme Courts, County Courts, Family Courts, Surrogate’s Courts, a Court of Claims, New York City Criminal and Civil Courts, District Courts, City Courts, and Town and Village Justice Courts.

New York has eleven separate trial courts; by contrast, California, a state that has twice our population, has only one. This complex structure is not simply a matter of academic or historical interest. It imposes significant harm and costs on our state and its people. These include, for example:

• Injured individuals, large and small businesses, and state agencies that must litigate cases simultaneously in the Supreme Court and the Court of Claims whenever the state and a non-state actor are named as parties in a personal injury, medical malpractice, or commercial dispute.

• Families in crisis, which are forced to run from court to court when a single problem is fragmented among the Supreme Court, the Family Court and a criminal court for separate adjudication of matrimonial, custody and domestic violence matters.

• Children and others in guardianship cases, in which proceedings must be initiated simultaneously in the Surrogate’s and Family Courts to address related matters in the case of an orphaned child.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

"The judicial article of the Constitution begins: ‘There shall be a unified court system for the state.’ The reality is otherwise. New York has no unified court system. It is a constitutional fiction. New York has an inheritance of a colorful but confused and sprawling mass of 11 trial courts." – Chief Judge Charles D. Breitel, February 1974

....

More fundamentally, the fragmented nature of our courts prohibits the judicial system from efficiently managing cases in a way that would be natural and obvious in any rational business organization. A backlog that develops in one court, for example, cannot be readily ameliorated by transferring cases from that court to an underused but perfectly capable court across the street. .... What this means is that, in the millions of cases that are handled in our state courts every year, people waste countless hours making redundant court appearances, filing unnecessary papers and briefs, and suffering through delays caused by courthouse backlogs and inefficiencies. In addition to confusion and anguish, the practical effect of this is lost wages, lost productivity, and higher costs and attorneys’ fees for individuals, businesses and government entities. Given the number of cases affected (3.7 million cases are resolved annually in the state courts) these hidden costs add up to $502 million per year.

For decades, commissions, scholars, legislative panels and others have decried the inefficient and wasteful structure of the New York courts, and have advanced myriad proposals for reform. Time after time, these efforts have stalled, not for lack of popular support, but for lack of political will. In this arena, generations of good ideas have been undone by the inertia of the status quo.

In the last ten years, New York State’s Office of Court Administration ("OCA"), the administrative arm of the state court system, has developed a number of initiatives that have attempted to ameliorate the structural inefficiencies of the court system by way of administrative fiat. These include the introduction of the Commercial Division, a specialized unit within the Supreme Court that focuses on resolving complex business disputes; the Integrated Domestic Violence Courts, which attempt to bring together the separate cases that can arise out of a single family in crisis; and Community Courts, which look more holistically at the related criminal, housing, and family problems that can face litigants in a particular community. These innovations and others have met with

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"The state’s courts are a mess, impossibly complicated and inefficient. . . . If [court restructuring does not occur,] [c]itizens will continue to struggle with the most complicated court system in the nation."

– Still Time to Overhaul the Courts, New York Times, June 17, 1998

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

tremendous success, and have garnered widespread attention inside and outside of the state. These administrative initiatives, however, do not diminish the need for more fundamental change. Such successes have been achieved, not in lieu of, but in the absence of, structural reform. Indeed, if anything, they have demonstrated how much more productive the entire system could be if these types of efficiencies were instituted on a statewide scale. In other words, the administrative achievements of the past decade have made even more compelling the case for statutory and constitutional reform. ....

This is our Report.

"We have an organizational flow chart no business executive would be caught dead with - and no state judiciary should either. . . . We say we want the public to trust and respect our system of justice, but then we hand them this jurisdictional maze that requires a roadmap and compass to navigate."

– Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye, October 1997

"The words ‘court system’ are probably a misnomer for it is difficult to recognize any system in the conglomeration of courts throughout the State. A mere enumeration of the courts is sufficiently bewildering to justify the conclusion that some simplification, some system, is necessary."

– Tweed Commission, Subcommittee on Modernization and Simplification of the Court Structure (1955)

....

In recent months, the groundswell of support for court reform has grown stronger, with Governor Eliot Spitzer announcing in his first State of the State Address his intention to introduce a constitutional amendment "to consolidate and integrate our balkanized courts."

.... "New York has the most complex and costly court system in the country, a system that too often fails to provide justice while imposing an undue burden on taxpayers." – Gov. Eliot Spitzer, January 2007

....

* * * *

We believe that our court system is at a tipping point. Over time, virtually all constituencies with a stake in our courts have called for the system to be restructured. The consensus in favor of reform has grown stronger in recent years, as our system has become increasingly unworkable and complex. Our recommendations have been endorsed by a number of influential organizations, and we expect many more groups to follow suit as our Report is released. Recently, Governor Eliot Spitzer has expressed a keen interest in court restructuring and has announced his intent to submit a constitutional amendment to the Legislature. ....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Below are the comments on the above by Ron Branson - National J.A.I.L. CIC:

The Scripture in II Timothy 3:7 describes those "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." They realize that "something" must be done, but "what" that something is they know not. And when truth stares them in the face, they say, "Oh no, we couldn't go for that." Hence they go on time after time, year after year seeking for a remedy which they know not. Though they amass throngs of professionals and great men, they always come up with something that will serve their own political purposes and desires. They are unwilling to acknowledge that they are the problem, and that until they get out of their own way in trying to figure things out, they will continue as the blind leading the blind.

The answer is quite simple, and it is all done for them, which remedy has been presented to them, but to date they have failed to even acknowledge its existence. Allow me to take this time to thank them for their great report in acknowledging that they have a very deep and fundamental problem with their judicial system in New York. May all the other forty-nine states do likewise. Knowing and acknowledging one has a problem is the first step towards solutions. But like Governor George Pataki said in April 2000, "It’s critical that we pass a constitutional amendment [relating to court reform] this year, so that we don’t lose another four years." That was in 2000, and here it is 2007, seven years later and they still have not arrived at placing into effect whatever they believe that "something" is, which they still do not know. You can count on that "something" being more government solutions to problems they created, and dealing with the question, "What's in it for me?" Can a leopard change its spots?

Here is the real solution for New York's problems. Will you receive it?

Judicial Accountability & Integrity Legislation (J.A.I.L.)

(New York Legislation - Version 2-7-07)

Preamble. We, the Legislature of the State of New York, find that the doctrine of judicial immunity has been greatly abused; that when judges abuse their power, the People are obliged - it is their duty - to correct that injury, for the benefit of themselves and their posterity. In order to ensure judicial accountability and domestic tranquility, we hereby amend our Constitution by adding the following provisions as [Section #] to [Article #], which shall be known as "The J.A.I.L. Amendment."

1. Definitions. To avoid absurd results, words shall be given their plain, ordinary and literal meanings; and where appropriate, the singular shall include the plural and vice-versa. For purposes of this Amendment, the following terms shall mean:

a. Judge: A judicial officer hearing and adjudicating legal actions and proceedings within the judicial branch of government (to include arbitrator, mediator, or a private judge, any of whom is assigned by a court to hear involuntary proceedings). This definition shall not be construed to mean trial juror, prosecutor, or any administrative official.

b. Material allegations: Statements essential to the claim or defense presented in a pleading filed in court.

c. Blocking: Any unlawful act that impedes the lawful conclusion of a case, to include unreasonable delay and willful rendering of an unlawful or void judgment or order.

d. Corporate litigant: A party holding a corporate charter, as distinguished from a business license.

e. Juror: A Special Grand Juror.

f. Strike: An adverse immunity decision or a criminal conviction against a judge.

2. Exclusions of immunity. 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

New York or the United States. The foregoing judicial misconduct shall not be construed to mean court decisions made within the authorized capacity of a judge.

3. Special Grand Juries. For the purpose of returning power to the People and ensuring the integrity of the judiciary, there are hereby created within this State three twenty-five member Special Grand Juries with statewide jurisdiction having inherent power to judge both law and fact. This body shall exist independent of statutes governing county Grand Juries. Their responsibility shall be limited to determining, based on the evidence shown on the record, whether any civil lawsuit against a judge would be frivolous or harassing, or fall within the exclusions of immunity as set forth in paragraph 2, or whether there is probable cause of criminal conduct by the judge against whom a petition/complaint is brought before the Special Grand Jury.

4. Professional Counsel. Each Special Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to retain non-governmental advisors, special prosecutors, and investigators, as needed, who shall serve no longer than one year, and thereafter shall be ineligible to serve; except a special prosecutor may be retained to prosecute to conclusion ongoing cases through all appeals and any complaints to the Special Grand Jury. Each Special Grand Jury may hire clerical staff, as needed, without time limitation.

5. Establishment of Special Grand Jury Facilities. Within ninety days following the passage of this Amendment, the Legislature shall provide a suitable facility for each Special Grand Jury. Each facility shall be reasonably placed proportionately according to population throughout the State, but no facility shall be located within a mile of any judicial body.

6. Annual Funding. The Legislature shall cause to be deducted two and nine-tenths percent from the gross judicial salaries of all judges, which amount shall be deposited regularly into an exclusive trust account created by this Amendment in paragraph 10 for its operational expenses, together with filing fees under paragraph 7, surcharges under paragraph 8, forfeited benefits of disciplined judges under paragraph 18, and fines, if any, imposed by sentencing under paragraph 16.

7. Filing Fees. Attorneys representing a party filing a civil petition or response before the Special Grand Jury shall, at the time of filing, pay a fee equal to the filing fee due in a civil appeal to the State Supreme Court. Individuals filing a civil petition or response on their own behalf before the Special Grand Jury as a matter of right shall, at the time of filing, post a fee of fifty dollars, or file a declaration, which shall remain confidential, stating that they are impoverished and unable to pay and/or object to such fee, pursuant to First Amendment right of redress.

8. Surcharges. Should this Amendment lack sufficient funding through its fines, fees, and forfeitures (including deductions in paragraph 6), the Legislature shall impose appropriate surcharges upon the civil court filing fees of corporate litigants as necessary to supplement the funding of this Amendment so as not to be chargeable to the public.

9. Compensation of Jurors. Each Juror shall receive a salary commensurate to that of a New York Supreme Court judge, prorated according to the number of days actually served by the Juror.

10. Annual Budget. The Special Grand Juries shall have an annual operational budget commensurate to double the combined salaries of the seventy-five Jurors serving full time, which sum shall be initially deposited by the Legislature into an exclusive trust account to be annually administered by the State Treasurer. Should the trust balance, within any budget year, drop to less than an amount equivalent to the annual gross salaries of fifty New York Supreme Court judges, the State Treasurer shall so notify the Legislature which shall replenish the account, prorated based on the actual average expenditures during the budget year. Should the trust balance in any subsequent year exceed the annual operational budget at the beginning of a new budget year, the State Treasurer shall transfer such excess to the state treasury. Except for the initial year, no expenses in paragraphs 6, 7, 9 and 10 of this Amendment shall be chargeable to the public.

11. Jurisdiction. Each Special Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to appoint a foreperson, establish rules assuring their attendance, to provide internal discipline, and to remove any of its members on grounds of misconduct. The Special Grand Jury shall immediately assign a docket number to each petition/complaint brought before it, unless such case is transferred to another Special Grand Jury to achieve caseload balance. A transfer shall not prejudice a docketing deadline. The Special Grand Jury first docketing a complaint shall have sole jurisdiction of the case. Except as provided in paragraphs 17 and 22, no petition of misconduct shall be considered by any Special Grand Jury unless the petitioner shall have first attempted to exhaust all judicial remedies available in this State within the immediately preceding six-month period. (Such six-month period, however, shall not commence in petitions of prior fraud or blocking of a lawful conclusion until after the date the Special Grand Juries become functional. This provision applies remedially and retroactively.) Should the petitioner opt to proceed to the United States Supreme Court, such six-month period shall commence upon the disposition by that Court.

12. Qualifications of Jurors. A Juror shall have attained to the age of thirty years, and have been nine years a citizen of the United States, and have been an inhabitant of New York for two years immediately prior to having his/her name drawn. Those not eligible for Special Grand Jury service shall include elected and appointed officials, members of the State Bar, judges (active or retired), judicial, prosecutorial and law enforcement personnel, without other exclusion except previous adjudication of mental incapacity, imprisonment, or parole from a conviction of a felonious act.

13. Selection of Jurors. The Jurors shall serve without compulsion and their names shall be publicly drawn at random by the Secretary of State from the list of registered voters and any citizen submitting his/her name to the Secretary of State for such drawing. The initial Special Grand Juries shall be established within thirty days after the fulfillment of the requirements of paragraph 5.

14. Service of Jurors. Excluding the establishment of the initial Special Grand Juries, each Juror shall serve one year. No Juror shall serve more than once. On the first day of each month, two Jurors shall be rotated off each Special Grand Jury and two new Jurors seated, except in January it shall be three. Vacancies shall be filled on the first of the following month in addition to the Jurors regularly rotated, and the Juror drawn to fill a vacancy shall complete only the remainder of the term of the Juror replaced.

15. Procedures. The Special Grand Jury shall serve a copy of the filed petition upon the subject judge and notice to the petitioner of such service. The judge shall have twenty days to serve and file a response. The petitioner shall have fifteen days to reply to the judge's response. (Upon timely request, the Special Grand Jury may provide for extensions of time upon the showing of good cause.) In criminal matters, the Special Grand Jury shall have power to subpoena witnesses, documents, and other tangible evidence, and to examine witnesses under oath. Each Special Grand Jury shall determine the causes properly before it with their reasoned findings in writing within one hundred twenty calendar days, serving on all parties their determination as to whether or not immunity shall apply as a defense to any civil action that may thereafter be pursued against the judge. A rehearing may be requested of the Special Grand Jury within fifteen days with service upon the opposition. Fifteen days shall be allowed to reply thereto. Thereafter, the Special Grand Jury shall render final determination in writing within thirty days. All allegations in the petition shall be liberally construed. The Jurors shall keep in mind, in making their determinations, that they are entrusted by the People of this State with the duty of restoring judicial accountability and the perception of justice. The standard of authority by which the Jurors shall be guided in making their determinations shall not be opinions of courts, but shall be the Constitutions of New York and of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof. The Jurors shall avoid all influence by judicial and government entities. The statute of limitations on any civil suit brought pursuant to this Amendment against a judge shall not commence until a final determination by the Special Grand Jury. Special Grand Jury files shall always remain public record following their final determination. A majority of thirteen Jurors shall determine any matter.

16. Indictment. Should the Special Grand Jury also find probable cause of criminal conduct on the part of any judge against whom a petition is docketed, it shall have the power to indict such judge. The Special Grand Jury shall, without voir dire beyond personal impartiality, relationship, or lack of fluency in English, cause to be impaneled twelve special trial jurors, plus alternates, which trial jurors shall be instructed that they have power to judge both law and fact. The Special Grand Jury shall also select a non-governmental special prosecutor and a judge with no more than four years on the bench from a county other than that of the defendant judge, having jurisdiction solely to maintain a fair and orderly proceeding. The trial jury shall be selected from the same pool of jury candidates as any regular jury. The special prosecutor shall thereafter prosecute the cause to a conclusion, having all the powers of any other prosecutor within this State. Upon conviction, sentencing shall be the province of the special trial jury, and not that of the selected judge. Such term of sentence shall conform to statutory provisions.

17. Criminal Procedures. In addition to any other provisions of this Amendment, a complaint for criminal conduct against a judge may be brought directly to the Special Grand Jury, when all of the following conditions have been met: (1) an affidavit or declaration of criminal conduct has been lodged with the appropriate prosecutorial entity within ninety days of the commission of the alleged crime; (2) the prosecutor declines to prosecute, or one hundred twenty days have passed following the lodging of such affidavit or declaration, and prosecution has not commenced; (3) an indictment, if sought, has not been specifically declined on the merits by a county Grand Jury; and (4) the criminal statute of limitations has not run. Any criminal conviction (including a plea bargain) under any judicial process shall constitute a strike.

18. Removal. Whenever any judge has received three strikes, the judge shall be permanently removed from office, and thereafter shall not serve in any State judicial office. Judicial retirement for such removed judge shall not exceed one-half of the benefits to which such judge would have otherwise been entitled. Retirement shall not avert third-strike penalties.

19. Public Indemnification. No judge against whom a petition/complaint is brought, or sued civilly by a complainant pursuant to this Amendment, shall be defended at public expense or by any elected or appointed public counsel, nor shall any judge be reimbursed from public funds for any losses sustained under this Amendment.

20. Enforcement. No person exercising strict enforcement of the findings of a Special Grand Jury shall be held liable civilly, criminally, or in contempt.

21. Redress. The provisions of this Amendment are in addition to other redress that may exist and are not mutually exclusive.

22. Challenges. No judge under the jurisdiction of the Special Grand Jury, or potentially affected by the outcome of a challenge hereto, shall have any jurisdiction to sit in judgment of such challenge. Such pretended adjudication shall be null and void for all purposes and a complaint for such misconduct may be brought at any time, without charge, before the Special Grand Jury by class action, or by any adversely affected person.

23. Preeminence. Preeminence shall be given to this Amendment in any case of conflicts with statute, case law, common law, or constitutional provision. The foreperson of each Special Grand Jury shall read, or cause to be read, this Amendment to the respective Jurors semi-annually during the first week of business in January and July. Should any part of this Amendment be determined unconstitutional, the remainder shall remain in full force and effect as though no challenge thereto existed.

* * *

The above is my gift to you, the Legislature of New York in facing your crisis. A thank you is not necessary, but if you give one, I respond, "You are welcome."

- Ron Branson

J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) www.jail4judges.org

To be automatically added to future mailings, place the word Subscribe

in the subject line and email to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org

We are a ministry in great need of your financial support. Please donate to

this important work at "J.A.I.L." P.O. Box 207, North Hollywood, CA 91603

J.A.I.L. is a unique addition to our Constitution heretofore unrealized.

JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!

E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join

Visit our active flash - http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm

* * *

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 is

striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau ><)))'>

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/784 - Release Date: 5/1/2007 2:57 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/785 - Release Date: 5/2/2007 2:16 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.6/794 - Release Date: 5/8/2007 2:23 PM

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1249

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sun May 13, 2007 6:26 am
Subject: * * * Is There a Way Around the Need for J.A.I.L.? * * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California May 13, 2007

______________________________________________________

The Battle Lines are Drawn: J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power

A Power Foreign to Our Constitution

Mission Statement JNJ Library Federal J.A.I.L.

FAQs What?MeWarden?
www.sd-jail4judges.org

Is There A Way Around

The Need For J.A.I.L?

By Ron Branson - National J.A.I.L. CIC

A day or two ago I received an email claiming to have found a way to accomplish what the passage of J.A.I.L. would accomplish in America in lieu of having to pass J.A.I.L. into law. I always love these type of challenges because they make excellent springboards into discussions on just how vitally important it is to pass J.A.I.L. into law in this country. I have always maintained that there is no substitute for J.A.I.L. to avoid the inevitable collapse of America due to judicial corruption.

Having composed a carefully-thought-out response to this instant challenge, it dawned upon me that my answer was worthy of much more that just an obscure response, but contains important profound ramifications for everyone everywhere to consider.

Below is the challenge to J.A.I.L., followed by our response.

Dear Jailers,

My name is Ron Hammar and I live in Northern California in the city of Redding.
I have been following JAIL and wanting to make a change in the way we all

have been abused by our Government.

In searching how one can form a "Citizen's Grand Jury," I came across this web page about how Mr. Joe Citizen can start IMPEACHMENT of elective persons, from the local city level all the way to Washington.

This would be one way to go around the passing of a JAIL bill and go right into action. Also it would make the Citizens feel more powerful because they are making things happen and still going through the way the Constitution provides.

Take Care
Ron Hammar

rhammar@...

J.A.I.L.'s Response:

Dear Mr. Hammar:

There is absolutely no way around the "passing of the J.A.I.L. Bill." Here is the downside of your above proposal. Grand Juries are not allowed to investigate judges. The government has seen to that, to protect their evil empire. They say complaints against judges must be submitted to the judicial commissions created for that purpose, which here in California is the Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP).

By creating these commissions, the system's plan is to sandbag all complaints against judges, by sending the complainant a form letter dismissing their complaint. This is done routinely except when the matter is reported in the media and causes embarrassment to the system, forcing them to act to save their butts.

I have followed the judicial-complaint trail by personal experience and have trapped them in a "round-robin" circular process. I filed a criminal complaint against a Los Angeles County judge before the County Grand Jury. I was informed that they had no jurisdiction over the matter, and that I should direct my criminal complaint to the CJP. Thereafter I personally traveled 500 miles

from Los Angeles to the CJP office in San Francisco where they admitted that they were not criminal prosecutors, but that criminal complaints must be brought to the State Attorney General, who is the State prosecutor.

I then traveled 100 miles across the state to the State Attorney General's Office in Sacramento where the receptionist at the Public Relations Office told me that I must go to the CJP with my judicial complaint. I informed her that I had just come from the CJP, having been instructed by them to take it to the State Attorney General's Office. There was no sense in driving back another 100 miles to the CJP office, so under the circumstances I persisted in speaking to someone in the AG's office, and finally, I persuaded them to allow me to see their PR official, Virgil Chapman. He listened to me for 2 1/2 hours as I presented my extensive written records as evidence. He took photocopies of selective portions of that evidence and stated that I had come to the right place and their office would handle this matter "on an expedited basis." I thanked him and drove the 500 miles back home to Los Angeles. Having heard nothing on the matter, I followed up by phone and was instructed by the telephone receptionist of the PR office that I had to take my complaint against a judge to the CJP (obviously for sandbagging).

Despite the explanation of my 2 1/2-hour meeting personally with their PR official, Mr. Chapman, and my insisting to speak with him on the phone to follow up, it soon became very clear that the AG's Office was intending to avoid me and shield Virgil Chapman from any communication with me.

I then made another 500-mile trip back to Sacramento and went to the Governor's Office where I spoke with Attorney Sandra Maceil. She stated that the Governor could not get involved since the Attorney General was elected to office just like the Governor, and their office was barred from interference. I then opened my California Constitution to Art. V, �13 and read to her, "Subject to the powers and duties of the Governor, the Attorney General shall be the chief law officer of the State. It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to see that the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced." After I read that to her, she asked, "How can I help you, Mr. Branson?"

She listen intently, as if interested, and told me that they would look into the matter and get back to me. (Sounded familiar). After a passage of about two weeks, I followed up by telephone to Sandra Maceil's office, and again it was handled in the same manner as with Virgil Chapman. In other words, if you are insistent in pursing your charge against a judge, you are going to get the "round-robin" treatment, i.e., the run-around.

In another matter before the State Attorney General's Office in Los Angeles in which I was given the shine-on, I walked out of their office and entered the elevator. Right on my heels was a deputy AG who wanted to talk with me. He joined me in the elevator and said, "Mr. Branson, you want this office to go after judges. We cannot do that. We are counsel for the judges here in California and we have a conflict of interest. When we bring action on behalf of the State in the courts, we want the judges on our side. We cannot be going after judges." With that, we reached the ground floor, the door opened, and we each went our ways. Is this not an admission that in reality there exists no forum in which to hold judges accountable? While I call to witness the policies of the State of California, I dare say that these same policies exist throughout the United States, including the federal system. The citizens will never get anywhere in the current system without the passage of J.A.I.L. Most people never realize this circular round-robin game of keep-away because they fail to pursue and trap their resisters with "check mate."

So my criminal complaint went from the Grand Jury in Los Angeles, all the way through the CJP in San Francisco (500 miles), to the AG in Sacramento (100 miles), back home to L.A. (500 miles), and back again to Sacramento to the Governor's office (500 miles) where it was ditched, and nothing became of my criminal complaint against the judge who committed the crime.

As to the Grand Jury going against other branches of government other than the judiciary, when an indictment of an official or entity is too hot, they "deep-six" the indictment. All indictments, excluding the J.A.I.L. process, depend entirely upon the sole discretion of the prosecutor. If he elects not to prosecute the offending government official or entity, that is the end of the matter, and the Grand Jury is rendered totally helpless.

As a couple of examples of the above, in 1981 a Utah Federal Grand Jury indicted all twelve branches of the Federal Reserve Bank for fraud. The prosecutor vehemently refused to accept their indictment. Then the Grand Jury tried to do an end-run around the prosecutor and went straight to the judiciary, where they met another roadblock. The judiciary likewise refused to accept the Grand Jury indictment, turned on the Grand Jury, and ultimately dismissed every one of those Grand Jurors, reprimanding them, and ordering them to keep their mouths shut. Further, in another case involving a Grand Jury indictment against a large industrial complex, the indictment was dismissed by the prosecutor, and the judge ordered each of the Grand Jurors to keep their mouths shut or face contempt charges. Fear fell upon all the Grand Jurors who were now facing contempt charges if they even mentioned what had happened to them.

In our current Grand Jury system, you can count upon the Grand Juries to operate only as a hammer in the hands of the prosecution, not as a corrective measure of the People against government corruption. J.A.I.L. is designed to do an end-run around this limitation of the operations of current Grand Juries, for the J.A.I.L. Special Grand Juries have their own Special Prosecutors of their own choosing, and the subsequent trial of the defendant-judge must be conducted before a petit trial jury who not only has the power to convict, but also to sentence the judge.

Rest assured that the system will never hold government accountable, and any facade claiming otherwise is but window dressing for public consumption! Hence, the passage of J.A.I.L. is absolutely necessary, and, contrary to your suggestion,

there is no way to "... go around the passing of a JAIL bill!"

-Ron Branson

VictoryUSA@...

J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) www.jail4judges.org

To be automatically added to future mailings, place the word Subscribe

in the subject line and email to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org

We are a ministry in great need of your financial support. Please donate to

this important work at "J.A.I.L." P.O. Box 207, North Hollywood, CA 91603

J.A.I.L. is a unique addition to our Constitution heretofore unrealized.

JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!

E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join

Visit our active flash - http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm

* * *

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 is

striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau ><)))'>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1250

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Mon May 14, 2007 8:14 am
Subject: Mocking The Alaska Bar Convention

jail4judges_...

Send Email

Mocking The Alaska Bar Convention

By Frank Turney - Alaska JIC

From: Frank Turney [mailto:fturney@...]
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 6:59 PM
To: JAIL4Judges; fturney@...

Ron Branson

Mocking the Alaska Bar Convention lawyers and judges in a peaceful civil
disobedience act was my primary intent.

Wearing a judges robe, a white whistle, and a sign "JAIL4JUDGES.ORG, " I received more mileage than going in dancing with the brotherhood.

I handed out JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY packets in front of the Fairbanks Wsetmark Inn where the convention was being held from May2nd 3rd and 4th.

The main event was the Friends Community Church on May 4th at 730 pm till 10:00 pm. Chief Justice John Roberts keynote speaker at the Alaska Bar Convention awards banquet. Only one way in and one way out, I arrived at 5:30 pm in front of the property of the church and was greeted by the Secret Service and Justice Roberts, and over 500 hundered lawyers across Alaska .

They couldn't help but notice a man in a black robe with a sign JAIL4JUDGES. ORG. The Fairbanks Police came over just to check to see if I was ok!

More to come! I will be sending some photo's I took with my little throw-away camera. As far as the press goes, there is alot of apathy in the Media.

A quote from Kenneth Quade. You give the people what they want to know, not what they ought to know"

Sincerely,

Frank Turney

JAILer-In-Chief / Alaska
fturney@...

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.0/801 - Release Date: 5/12/2007 6:40 PM

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1251

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Tue May 15, 2007 5:34 am
Subject: ~ In-Fighting In Florida Courts ~

jail4judges_...

Send Email

In-Fighting In Florida Courts

Broward court blog is going too far, critics claim

Others call it `open forum'

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-cblog13may13,0,1498387.story?page=1&coll=sfla-news-broward

By Tonya Alanez
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Posted May 13 2007

A weblog created to constructively look at Broward judges' performances on the bench is now raising concerns that the comments have gone too far.

Critics say what they viewed as funny and informative discourse about doings at the county courthouse has degenerated into bitter and vile attacks on judges and attorneys. The growing concern has pitted factions of the courthouse against one another and launched charges of censorship.

"They're trying to shut down the blog," said defense attorney Sean Conway. Conway is the target of an anonymous complaint lodged with the Florida Bar over a posting carrying his name last Halloween. The post, which Conway neither admits or denies making, called Broward Circuit Judge Cheryl Alem�n an "evil, unfair witch" and questioned her mental stability and adherence to law.

Some viewed that as an example of criticism gone too far.

Conway thinks the complaint with the bar is a scare tactic initiated by a small group of judges.

"They don't like what it stands for. It shakes up their good-ole-boy system, and it's opening the way for more people to run for judge."

He said he is unfazed by the complaint and continues to post using his name.

The Justice Advocacy Association of Broward blog (jaablog.jaablaw.com) went up late last summer. Bill Gelin, an attorney who helped launch the blog, says it has the power to break courthouse "traditions of cronyism and nepotism."

It quickly gained an audience with its open dialogue and platform for venting about perceived judicial injustices, and by calling on local lawyers to run against sitting judges. Readers say it tapped into the pulse of the courthouse community.

Then, things turned prickly. As postings became more strident, some began to question the blog's effectiveness.

Broward Chief Judge Dale Ross, a frequent target of postings, has said the blog is out to "undermine" the judiciary.

A string of recent gaffes by judges provided great fodder for the blog. They included comments deemed racially and culturally insensitive, a marijuana bust and what was viewed as buffoonish behavior in a nationally televised case.

Of almost two-dozen judges called to comment on the blog, seven responded. Of those, only one said she had never read it.

Some use it as an unfiltered view of their work.

"Very rarely will people say [to a judge] you're terrible, or you're this or you're that," said Circuit Judge Jeffrey Levenson. "It gives me a sense of how can I do a better job."

Administrative Circuit Civil Judge Thomas M. Lynch IV is an occasional reader. He sees the blog as "informative and entertaining" but also thinks it obsessively targets Ross and tries to hurt judges in general.

"It has a very brutal and nasty way of saying things sometimes," Lynch said. "But you know, this is America, and I love the First Amendment."

Freedom of speech is what drives frequent posters like Conway.

His attorney, Fred Haddad, says the bar complaint about his client is nothing more than an attempt to quell that freedom.

"I certainly have the right to call the president of the United States a moron, or the former governor stupid, or the entire House of Representatives buffoons and that is fully protected," Haddad said. "I can't believe that one is going to have a lawyer censured for criticizing a judge. These people were appointed to the bench, not anointed to an office. They're not cardinals."

Some attorneys have said they loved the blog's initial stated intentions, but have since taken a step back. The tipping point: when postings began to appear last fall about alleged romantic relationships between judges and attorneys and jabs about Stacy Ross' appointment to the bench. She is the chief judge's daughter.

Attorney Michael Ahearn said he was addicted to the blog, visiting maybe 10 times a day. Now, he's on blog detox, he says, and has cut back to a few times a week.

"People get turned off by continued negativity," he said. "You have to be able to show that there's a positive alternative, and I don't think they do that. They just pour gasoline on the flames."

South Florida has two other court-oriented blogs.

On the Southern District of Florida Blog, Miami-based attorney David Oscar Markus strikes an even-handed, statesman-like tone and tends toward observation rather than critique. The Justice Building Blog, authored by another Miami-based attorney who posts anonymously, cloaks its jabs with humor.

Broward's blog differs in that several authors post. Comments are open to everyone, anonymous or not.

Folks are torn about anonymous postings.

Administrative Criminal Circuit Judge Ana Gardiner, for one, says she's "never been in favor of anonymous statements," adding that she's looked at the blog maybe three times at most.

"Especially if you're reading something about yourself, it doesn't feel that good to read anonymous comments," she said. "If you feel your comment is a legitimate concern, then why not put your name to it? If your goal is to promote a positive change, then why not put your name on it?"

Attorney Jeff Ivashuk, a frequent poster who uses his name, says he understands the impulse to post anonymously.

"Historically, whenever change is instituted there have been anonymous writers," he said. "I think anytime the powers are challenged, there are people out there that are going to feel more comfortable doing it anonymously, and I think that's just human nature."

Tonya Alanez can be reached at tealanez@... or 954-356-4542.

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.0/803 - Release Date: 5/13/2007 12:17 PM

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1252

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed May 16, 2007 4:04 pm
Subject: *** The Right to Redress --Not "Petition" ***

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California May 16, 2007

______________________________________________________

The Battle Lines are Drawn: J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power

A Power Foreign to Our Constitution

Mission Statement JNJ Library Federal J.A.I.L.

FAQs What?MeWarden?
www.sd-jail4judges.org

The Right to Redress

--Not "Petition"

By Barbie, ACIC, National J.A.I.L.

victoryusa@...

Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right

of the people ... to petition the government

for a redress of grievances.

First Amendment (pertinent portion)

An organization, We The People Foundation (WTP), brought a federal lawsuit that has been ongoing for the last five years on whether the People have the right to petition government for redress of their grievances. The decision by the Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, decided May 8, 2007, may be found at

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200705/05-5359a.pdf

If there was ever a case that screamed out for the J.A.I.L. solution, this one is it! There are two issues to be discussed here. (1) Analysis of the Petition Clause; and (2) The court's reliance on Supreme Court precedents.

1. The court fails to consider the material portion of the Petition Clause

This issue is so simple to figure out, that the court's decision is baffling. It states:

   These scholars [referring to Law Review authors] note that the

    Petition Clause by its terms refers only to a right �to petition�;

    it does not also refer to a right to response or official consideration.

    (Pg.9)

The Petition Clause reads: "... to petition the government for a redress of grievances." In ruling on the merits of this clause, the entire clause must be read and considered --not just one or two words. In fact, the most significant part of that clause was not considered by this court. "To petition" is qualified by "government" and "for a redress of grievances."

The first qualifier, "government," indicates to whom the petition is made. It doesn't specify any particular branch or agency, nor does it limit the term. The subject matter of the issues of petition would determine which branch or office of government is addressed by petition. The second qualifier, "for a redress of grievances," is the one that gives meaning to the entire clause. Without that qualifier, there is no meaning whatsoever to the Petition Clause. There must be an objective, a purpose, a reason,

indicated for petitioning. A petition for nothing is not a right.

The phrase "to petition" or even "to petition the government" is not a complete thought. The logical missing ingredient is "why"? "for what purpose"? Without an objective to be sought by petitioning, it is no right at all. The phrase "for a redress of grievances" provides the objective for petitioning. It is the objective complement which completes the thought of the entire clause and gives it meaning. Ignoring that phrase is not an option.

The core ingredient of the right of petition is "redress." The modifiers indicate the kind of redress (of grievances) and who is responsible to provide that redress (government). "To petition" is merely the means by which the objective (redress) is sought from government by a petitioner. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

To rule that the right to petition does not necessarily include within that right the right to a response or consideration of that petition is unconstitutional on its face, since it fails to consider (1) the objective of petition, to wit, "redress of grievances" and (2) to whom the petition for redress is addressed, to wit, "government." Government is responsible for considering and responding to a petition for redress of grievances, and thus, for providing the redress sought by the petition, within the prima facie meaning of the Petition Clause as stated.

Having failed to grant that right, the appellate judges involved have violated the First Amendment Petition Clause, rendering their decision null and void as repugnant to the Constitution. They, as well as the trial court judge(s), are prime candidates for the J.A.I.L. process when it becomes available, if petitioners elect to pursue it in the future after exhausting the USSC and the violation is not corrected. See Federal J.A.I.L. Bill, http://www.jail4judges.org/state_chapters/dc/DC_initiative.html

2. The court fails to rely on the Constitution as its supreme authority.

The final full paragraph of the decision states:

We need not resolve this debate, however, because we must

follow the binding Supreme Court precedent. See Tenet v. Doe,

544 U.S. 1, 10-11 (2005). And under that precedent, Executive

and Legislative responses to and consideration of petitions are

entrusted to the discretion of those Branches. (Pg.9)

Rather than rely on the entire Petition Clause as provided in the Constitution, as aforesaid, this court abandons that consideration and turns to "binding Supreme Court precedent" which holds that "Executive and Legislative responses to and consideration of petitions are entrusted to the discretion of those Branches." As the guardian of petitioners' rights, the federal court had the responsibility of overruling that "precedent" as violative of the Constitution. Court precedent is not binding if it violates the Constitution.

The concurring judge even stated:

Even where the plain text yields a clear interpretation, the Supreme

Court has rejected a pure textualist approach in favor of an analysis

that accords weight to the historical context and the underlying purpose

of the clause at issue. (Concurring Opinion, Pg.1)

Rather than considering the Constitution for what it clearly says in its text, this court turns to "weight to the historical context" and "underlying purpose of the clause at issue." The clear "underlying purpose of the clause at issue" in this case is shown in the clause itself. No other "underlying purpose" need be conjured up. The "weight to the historical context" can mean whatever the judges want it to mean--that's a very vague and subjective standard not deserving of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson said:

"Let no more be heard of confidence in men, but rather bind them down by the chains of the Constitution."

The Constitution stands on its own except with reference to the Declaration of Independence upon which it is based. The DOI sets forth the origin of government, to wit, "...That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ..." This institution of government is done by charter, i.e., the Constitution which establishes the consent of the People to their government. The Constitution establishes everything anew and does away with the historical tyranny under English law. It does not require any crutch, such as an "historical context" in the subjective opinion of judges, upon which to maintain its integrity. Indeed, all judges are bound by their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. They do not take an oath to uphold and defend "Supreme Court precedent."

Relying on anything other than the Constitution, and going beyond the limitations of the Constitution in making this decision renders it null and void. One need not look beyond the Petition Clause itself to determine its full meaning and intention.

J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) www.jail4judges.org

To be automatically added to future mailings, place the word Subscribe in the subject line and email to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org

We are a ministry in great need of your financial support. Please donate to this important work at "J.A.I.L." P.O. Box 207, North Hollywood, CA 91603

J.A.I.L. is a unique addition to our Constitution heretofore unrealized.

JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!

E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join

Visit our active flash - http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm

* * *

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1253

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat May 19, 2007 5:59 pm
Subject: ***Jury Trials Becoming Extinct***

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California May 19, 2007

______________________________________________________

The Battle Lines are Drawn: J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power

A Power Foreign to Our Constitution

Mission Statement JNJ Library Federal J.A.I.L.

FAQs What?MeWarden?
www.sd-jail4judges.org

Jury Trials Becoming Extinct

Another constitutional guarantee disappearing

by a power foreign to our Constitution!

Cases Keep Flowing In, But The Jury Pool Is Idle http://www.lexisone.com/news/nlibrary/n043007d.html by Adam Liptak The New York Times
Trials are on the verge of extinction. They have been replaced by settlements and plea deals, by mediations and arbitrations and by decisions from judges based only on lawyers' written submissions. Federal courts conducted about 3,600 trials in civil cases last year, down from 5,800 in 1962. That is not an enormous drop� until you consider that the number of cases has quintupled in the meantime. In percentage terms, only 1.3 percent of federal civil cases ended in trials last year, down from 11.5 percent in 1962. The trends in criminal cases and in the state courts are broadly similar, though not always quite as striking. But it is beyond dispute that even as the number of lawyers has grown twice as fast as the population and even as the number of lawsuits has exploded, actual trials have become quite rare. Instead of hearing testimony, ruling on objections and instructing jurors on the law, judges spend most of their time supervising the exchange of information, deciding pretrial motions and dealing with settlements and plea bargains. There is, of course, nothing wrong with settlements, at least when they are the product of reasoned and sensible compromise between evenly matched adversaries. But trials are not disappearing simply because more cases are being settled. Instead, they are increasingly being replaced by summary judgments, in which judges evaluate evidence submitted to them on paper. ''During the last years of the 20th century, summary judgment in the federal courts moved from a small fraction of dispositions by trial to a magnitude several times greater than the number of trials,'' Marc Galanter, who teaches law at the University of Wisconsin and the London School of Economics and Political Science, wrote last year in The Journal of Dispute Resolution. Professor Galanter elaborated in an interview. ''Summary judgments are being asked for in about 17 percent of cases and granted in about 9 percent,'' he said, citing recent data from the Federal Judicial Center. That is a big jump from 1960, when no more than 1.8 percent of federal civil cases ended in summary judgment, according to data from the administrative office of the federal courts analyzed in a 1961 law review article. ''We've moved in a way to a more European way of decision-making, by looking at the court file rather than through encounters with living witnesses whose testimony is tested by cross-examination,'' Professor Galanter said. In criminal cases, the vast majority of prosecutions end in plea bargains. In an article called ''Vanishing Trials, Vanishing Juries, Vanishing Constitution'' in the Suffolk University Law Review last year, a federal judge questioned the fairness of the choices confronting many criminal defendants. Those who have the temerity to ''request the jury trial guaranteed them under the U.S. Constitution,'' wrote the judge, William G. Young of the Federal District Court in Boston, face ''savage sentences'' that can be five times as long as those meted out to defendants who plead guilty and cooperate with the government. The movement away from jury trials is not just a societal reallocation of resources or a policy choice. Rather, as Judge Young put it, it represents a disavowal of ''the most stunning and successful experiment in direct popular sovereignty in all history.'' Indeed, juries were central to the framers of the Constitution, who guaranteed the right to a jury trial in criminal cases, and to the drafters of the Bill of Rights, who referred to juries in the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendments. Jury trials may be expensive and time-consuming, but the jury, local and populist, is a counterweight to central authority and is as important an element in the constitutional balance as the two houses of Congress, the three branches of government and the federal system itself. In an article titled ''Why Summary Judgment Is Unconstitutional,'' published last month in the Virginia Law Review, Suja A. Thomas, a law professor at the University of Cincinnati, makes the perfectly plausible argument that the procedure violates the Seventh Amendment, which reserves the job of determining the facts in civil cases to juries. When judges decide summary judgment motions, Professor Thomas wrote, they intrude on that job. The theory of summary judgment is that judges may rule for one side or the other only after finding that no ''genuine'' issues of ''material'' fact are in dispute. They must determine, as the Supreme Court has put it, whether ''a reasonable jury could return a verdict'' for the party defending against a motion for summary judgment. All of that pushes judges right up to and sometimes across the constitutional line of determining the facts for themselves. In 2004, in the process of revitalizing the role of the jury in criminal cases, Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court wrote that there were good arguments for ''leaving justice entirely in the hands of professionals.'' But that is not the theory of the Constitution, he continued, which enshrined ''the common-law ideal of limited state power accomplished by strict division of authority between judge and jury.'' The jury trial is a distinctively American tradition in a cultural sense, too. Almost all civil jury trials in the world take place here, and 90 percent of the criminal ones. But that tradition, which Prof. Paul Butler of George Washington University calls ''as fundamental a part of our culture as jazz or rock 'n' roll,'' is dying. I was on jury duty last week, in a state criminal court in Manhattan. During the orientation on Wednesday, a court officer, with mixed pride and hyperbole, said his was the busiest courthouse in America. I never saw so much as the inside of a courtroom. After a couple of days of milling around in an assembly room with more than 100 other potential jurors, the State of New York thanked us for our service and sent us home. Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

For a current example of the deprivation of jury trials, see http://www.jail4judges.org/state_chapters/ca/Other/DonBird.htm

J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) www.jail4judges.org

To be automatically added to future mailings, place the word Subscribe in the subject line and email to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org

We are a ministry in great need of your financial support. Please donate to this important work at "J.A.I.L." P.O. Box 207, North Hollywood, CA 91603

J.A.I.L. is a unique addition to our Constitution heretofore unrealized.

JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!

E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join

Visit our active flash - http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm

* * *

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1254

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed May 23, 2007 2:28 am
Subject: New York JIC, Patrick Brady, Hits TV

jail4judges_...

Send Email

New York JIC, Patrick Brady, Hits TV

From: kpatbrady [mailto:kptbrady@...]
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 5:46 AM
To: JAIL4Judges
Subject: Re: Lone leafletter in a black Dress

Ohhh and such a stunning lil' black dress it is, wooden you agree?

Thanks guys, for the spotlight...again.....but you know what?
I think the jailers would appreciate the following link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unVz2AO_PoI

KPB

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lone Leafleter in a Black Dress

Pat Brady, New York JIC

----- Original Message -----
From: kpatbrady

To: fturney@...

Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 8:51 AM

Subject: Mocking the Bar

Frank........That IS a terrific idea. I bought my own 'black dress' about a year ago

intending to become 'a lone leafleter' but I really thought I would wind up in JAIL myself.

But now that someone has successfuly opened the 'issue of first impression'

this 'lone leafleter' will be seen this summer at many ballgames, festivals, flea markets, etc.

I would say our cause is really kicking into high gear.

Please dont forget to send your photos.

KPB

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/814 - Release Date: 5/21/2007 2:01 PM

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1255

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Tue May 22, 2007 6:30 pm
Subject: * * * Mafia, or the Courts: Which is Worse? * * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California May 22, 2007

______________________________________________________

The Battle Lines are Drawn: J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power

A Power Foreign to Our Constitution

Mission Statement JNJ Library Federal J.A.I.L.

FAQs What?MeWarden?
www.sd-jail4judges.org

Mafia, or the Courts:

Which is Worse?

By Ron Branson - National J.A.I.L. CIC

Above, I ask the question, "Mafia, or the Courts: Which is Worse? But is there really a difference? I can think of a few. When the mafia pulls off its heists, no one argues that their acts are criminal. Further, when the mafia hits a home, they do not alter records to assume legal ownership of the property, nor do they sell the home off to the highest bidder. Further the mafia never holds anyone in contempt, or throws anyone in jail for speaking out for their rights. The mafia merely takes what they came for and leaves.

And there is one other good distinction about dealing with the mafia. If you have the guts to do so, you can always shoot back! But, I ask, where is one's redress of grievance when the courts alter and falsify court records in pulling off their heists? Then there is the comforting factor that the mafia is never shielded by "judicial immunity," nor even "mafia immunity," and can be sued.

Let there be no doubt that everything our country has stood for, namely "Liberty and Justice for All," is being underminded slowly but surely by our nation's judiciary. Hear the testimony of one principled attorney when the judge was challenged that he was being unfair; the judge leaned over the bench, looked down, and responded, "Counselor, whoever informed you that a judge has to be fair?" In a similar vein, a judge told this author, when a plaintiff in court, "Mr. Branson, I have never read a single paper you have filed in this court." And here, it is the complaint that establishes the jurisdiction of the court. Another judge retorted in a case, "If you bring up the Constitution one more time in my courtroom, I am going to hold you in contempt!" This kind of vulgar attitude is expressed time and time again all over this country by judges, and is a far cry from what one observes on TV with the entertainment judges.

This nation faces an emergency and is in dire need of judicial accountability that will come about as a result of the passage of J.A.I.L., state by state. It's time all Americans get serious and see to it that it is passed! Read the below Miami Herald article which just a sample of similar reports made to J.A.I.L.

-Ron Branson

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MiamiHerald.com

http://www.miamiherald.com/884/story/112651.html

Posted on Sun, May. 20, 2007

COURTS

No wrong found in false court records

Secret dockets, missing files and deleted records play into investigation of judicial misconduct.

BY DAN CHRISTENSEN AND PATRICK DANNER

dchristensen@...

An investigation into the planting of false court records by two Miami-Dade judges found no wrongdoing, even though the phony information remains on the public docket in one case.

The Judicial Qualifications Commission's inquiry also missed evidence of false records in another case after the clerk's office deleted it from the public docket.

A spokeswoman for the JQC, an independent agency that investigates complaints of judicial misconduct, declined to comment.

The JQC opened an inquiry into the actions of Miami-Dade Circuit judges Daryl Trawick and Victoria Sigler after receiving a complaint from a Broward circuit judge in February.

The complaint alleged ''judicial misconduct based on the falsification of records,'' according to a Feb. 21 letter written by JQC Executive Director Brooke Kennerly. In Florida, it is a crime for anyone, even a judge, to falsify court records.

In the case handled by Trawick, 10 phony docket entries purported to show that criminal charges were dropped against a defendant who was cooperating with prosecutors and police. In fact, the informant pleaded guilty to laundering drug money.

In the case handled by Sigler, an informant pleaded guilty to attempted murder and kidnapping, but the plea was not docketed.

And for nearly a year, misleading entries were added to the docket that made it appear that a trial was pending.

Through a court spokeswoman, Trawick and Sigler acknowledged last month that they approved altering the court dockets. They explained the secrecy was supposed to be temporary and wasn't intended ``to arbitrarily conceal case activity.''

''In both instances, both the defense and the prosecution approached the court and jointly requested the placement of temporary entries on the docket to protect defendants cooperating with law enforcement,'' said court spokeswoman Eunice Sigler, who is not related to the judge.

DEAD-END INQUIRY

The JQC began to check out the Feb. 13 complaint against the two judges, but its inquiry went nowhere fast, according to a letter that offers a rare glimpse of how the secretive JQC does its job.

''A review of the dockets for the two cases you listed does not reveal any factual basis for action by the commission,'' Kennerly wrote to the complainant, Broward Judge Robert Lance Andrews.

By then, the phony records in Trawick's case had been erased from the public docket.

Eunice Sigler said the false entries were deleted by ``a supervisor within the Clerk of Courts, most likely after receiving notice of an error in the docket.''

Still, the JQC could have found the records if it had requested access to the clerk's non-public docket.

Mike Henderson, a top assistant to clerk Harvey Ruvin, said the deleted false entries in the case of Salim ''Johnny'' Batrony still exist on a non-public side of the clerk's electronic docket.

He gave a copy of that information to reporters.

The JQC, which can issue subpoenas, has the authority to obtain such information, but never sought access to it, according to Ruvin and Henderson.

The false information was on the public docket for more than four years before it was deleted between late August and October after The Miami Herald asked about it.

Now the case file also is missing.

According to court spokeswoman Eunice Sigler, clerks typically insert into the file a written explanation as to why docket changes were made.

''But because the original file cannot be located, the clerk's office has no way of giving us further information,'' Sigler said.

'PHONIED UP' DOCKET

Batrony's Miami lawyer, Paul Petruzzi, has said the clerk's office ''phonied up'' the docket at the direction of Trawick and an assistant state attorney to allow Batrony to work undercover. Trawick now is assigned to the civil bench.

The JQC's inquiry regarding Judge Sigler involved the docket in the case of Michael Scott Segal. Kennerly's letter said the JQC found no evidence of false docket entries. But a recent review by The Miami Herald shows the false entries remain on Segal's public docket.

Segal, who cooperated with authorities, pleaded guilty to attempted murder and kidnapping at an unusual secret hearing at a Miami-Dade police station on May 13, 2003, according to a transcript obtained by The Miami Herald.

Segal's plea, taken by Sigler, was not docketed.

Kennerly declined to be interviewed because JQC investigations are confidential until formal charges are filed. If no charge is filed, they remain confidential forever. Andrews, the judge who filed the complaint, did not comment.

The Florida Supreme Court has said it is examining the falsification of court records to protect informants -- a practice Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fern�ndez Rundle's office said has gone on quietly for decades.

J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) www.jail4judges.org

To be automatically added to future mailings, place the word Subscribe

in the subject line and email to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org

We are a ministry in great need of your financial support. Please donate to

this important work at "J.A.I.L." P.O. Box 207, North Hollywood, CA 91603

J.A.I.L. is a unique addition to our Constitution heretofore unrealized.

JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!

E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join

Visit our active flash - http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm

* * *

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 is

striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau ><)))'>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1256

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Mon Jun 4, 2007 3:23 pm
Subject: *** More O'Connor Propaganda ***

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California June 4, 2007

______________________________________________________

The Battle Lines are Drawn: J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power

A Power Foreign to Our Constitution

Mission Statement JNJ Library Federal J.A.I.L.

FAQs What?MeWarden?
www.sd-jail4judges.org

More O'Connor Propaganda

By Barbie, ACIC National J.A.I.L.

victoryusa@...

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce [the People] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government..." Declaration of Independence.

We must constantly pound this into the heads of the People from now 'til Kingdom come, because it is what the People must do for the sake of liberty and justice for all in this country. The Declaration admonishes the People of their duty "to throw off such government" when "a long train of abuses and usurpations" designed to place the People "under absolute despotism" comes along and does exactly that.

The People must remember that, although the Declaration uses the term "such government" to describe the despotic entity operating by "abuses and usurpations," it is a non sequitur, for "such" government is not government at all. At best, it is "such so-called government." The Declaration establishes the purpose of government thusly: "That to secure these [unalienable] rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." Securing our unalienable rights does not equate with despotism, nor with abuses and usurpations. Nor do the latter terms comport with the consent of the governed.

Part of discarding their cloak of ignorance, the People must come to realize that they don't have a government protecting their rights, and haven't had for a long time. The "long train of abuses and usurpations" has pulled into the Station of America and has been docked there for at least the lifetimes of everyone reading this article. This "train" has been emitting poisonous fumes infecting everyone in this country-- some more than others-- and the longer it remains, the more toxic our lives become. It's been a poisoning gradual enough so that many people have grown accustomed to it and have even become somewhat immune, not even realizing that they have been poisoned. If we had a government in place, the People wouldn't be exposed to this plague of injustices that has now reached epidemic proportions. The People cannot afford to continue to sleep in ignorance. Its crippling effects have become unbearable.

Our Constitution is designed to form a government that will function according to the purpose for which it was instituted by the People with power derived from their consent as set forth therein. However, the power in force has no regard for the Constitution as we can observe from its actions. It is foreign to the Constitution, and hence it is a foreign power. "Such government" is a foreign power that must be thrown off by the People if we are to restore America to health.

The People must further realize that our court system sits at the helm of this foreign power, operating its control panel and causing it to continue to emit its poisonous fumes of absolute despotism upon the People , not unlike the "wizard" behind the curtain in "The Wizard of Oz." The top echelon operating the control panel in this country is the United States Supreme Court, the case precedents of which is the "Supreme Law" of the foreign power rather than the Constitution. As was stated by the Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, in the Right to Petition lawsuit by We The People Foundation, "We need not resolve this debate, however, because we must follow the binding Supreme Court precedent."

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200705/05-5359a.pdf

This, despite the fact that all judges take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution-- not "Supreme Court precedent." However, the proof is "in the pudding" when we read decisions like that one.

Now, because of the threat of J.A.I.L. being passed by the People in carrying out their duty to throw off "such government," the foreign power has arranged to have an influential spokesperson to sell its poison --its "snake oil"-- to the People. And who better to fill that role than retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, that kindly grandmotherly-appearing image, dressed in a fashionable red dress to offset her silver coiffure, comfortably seated in an easy chair with her hands neatly relaxed in her lap? Would someone that lovely, so loving of her family, so concerned for the children in this country, LIE to the American people?

Before even considering the content of that interview, the People should consider the fact that no equal time opportunity was offered to any spokesperson for J.A.I.L. No rebuttal to be allowed by a J.A.I.L. representative? Ask yourselves, is there something dishonest about that arrangement-- regardless of what was said? How can the truth of O'Connor's word be tested without rebuttal? Is O'Connor's word presumed to be the truth simply by virtue of her high position? If that is so, then because of her high position, she was able to say anything she pleased --including LIE-- without the possibility of qualified rebuttal. That's exactly what happened!

O'Connor has already been on the circuit during the South Dakota campaign, going around speaking against J.A.I.L. on the premise that in all her years on the bench she has never experienced such a broad negative attitude by society against the judiciary. She lays claim to that bewilderment on people "not liking the decisions that judges make." She then gives an example, bringing up the election in South Dakota where "there was a proposal on the ballot to amend the State's Constitution called jail for judges..." She never explained the J.A.I.L. acronym. She said that this proposal would "punish" judges for decisions they would make, although J.A.I.L. says NOTHING about "decisions." See JNJ dated November 22, 2006, titled "Decisions, Decisions, Decisions!" http://www.jail4judges.org/JNJ_Library/2006/2006-11-22.html.

Now this lovely-appearing distinguished lady wouldn't deliberately state to the American people on national television that this proposal provided something that

really wasn't in that proposal, would she? Did she have a copy of the proposal with her from which she could read aloud to the American people the portion she was discussing? Did the interviewer ask if she had a copy of it, or could provide it? I didn't see any direct reference to the J.A.I.L. Amendment at any time during that interview, and yet no rebuttal opportunity for J.A.I.L. was even offered.

As a retired Supreme Court Justice, why wouldn't O'Connor provide evidence of what she was stating to the American people on national television? Her profession consisted of reviewing evidence to prove issues-- ergo, why wouldn't she, by virtue of her profession, automatically realize the importance of providing evidence of her issues regarding J.A.I.L.? Would a retired Supreme Court Justice simply not think of it? or wouldn't it occur to her? This refined professional lady wouldn't allow such irresponsibility to mislead the American people on national television, would she?? Would a responsible national television news station, like FOX News, allow this misleading of its audience without any opportunity of rebuttal? How many times have you heard on television, "We invited XYZ to respond, but they declined"? Was J.A.I.L. invited to respond?

People, these are things to think about whenever you hear anything regarding J.A.I.L. Don't just assume that what you're hearing is the truth without PROOF, and the best proof --the only proof-- is the J.A.I.L. Amendment itself. The foreign power relies on you NOT requiring proof of its contentions against J.A.I.L. They relied on that in South Dakota, and because the People did not demand proof, the propaganda ruled the roost. Are the People of America going to jeopardize their future by continuing to allow this to happen?

J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) www.jail4judges.org

To be automatically added to future mailings, place the word Subscribe in the subject line and email to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org

We are a ministry in great need of your financial support. Please donate to this important work at "J.A.I.L." P.O. Box 207, North Hollywood, CA 91603

J.A.I.L. is a unique addition to our Constitution heretofore unrealized.

JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!

E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join

Visit our active flash - http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm

* * *

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1257

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Thu May 31, 2007 6:37 pm
Subject: ** Judge Hides Behind "Judicial Canons" **

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California May 31, 2007

______________________________________________________

The Battle Lines are Drawn: J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power

A Power Foreign to Our Constitution

Mission Statement JNJ Library Federal J.A.I.L.

FAQs What?MeWarden?
www.sd-jail4judges.org

Judge Hides Behind "Judicial Canons"

Judges find all kinds of hiding places to keep from being accountable for their actions. The most common shield is "judicial immunity" which is the most widespread abuse, preventing a judge from being sued-- even in cases where judicial immunity isn't supposed to apply. The problem, of course, is that judges rule the roost for redress and judges determine whether judicial immunity will apply in any case against their brethren. The judicial system is a closed club for tyrants, where the gavel finally comes down securing the Foreign Power (usurped government authority) instead of the rights of the People (legitimate government authority). It is standard operating procedure.

However, there are rare exceptions when a judge will order another judge to mete out justice, as in the Massachusetts case reported below. The trial court judge (ironically, Patrick Brady-- we have a "Pat Brady" --any relation Pat?) could have prevented the chaos in the courtroom by ordering the defendant be kept restrained during the proceedings, as requested by the prosecutor, due to his history of courtroom violence in the past. But Judge Brady said "No" to the prosecutor's request, and the result is told. The judge refused to comment on the matter, citing "judicial canons" as justification to remain silent. "Judicial Canons" also require judges to be fair and impartial on the bench, but seldom do judges pay attention to the Canons in that regard. As part of the Foreign Power, judges can pick and choose if, when, and what standards will apply to their conduct at any time. Nice, huh?

-Barbie

victoryusa@...

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=1002318&format=&page=1

Chaos in courtroom on rise: Defendant allegedly slugs elderly juror
By Laurel J. Sweet and Jessica Van Sack
Monday, May 21, 2007 - Updated: May 22, 2007 12:12 AM EST

In yet another shocking outburst of courtroom violence, an accused cop shooter allegedly sucker-punched an elderly juror Friday after a judge refused a prosecutor�s request to keep him shackled. Defendant Richard Glawson will find out today if the judge has enough compassion left to declare a mistrial.

�This behavior is absolutely unacceptable,� Suffolk District Attorney Daniel Conley railed yesterday about Glawson�s alleged juror jab. �We will present the matter to the grand jury this week for possible indictment on juror intimidation charges.�

Sources said Glawson had to be pulled off the man, who appeared dazed but not seriously injured.

Chaos in Massachusetts courts, where the officers are unarmed, is becoming almost as common as jury duty. Court officers had to break up a fight between relatives of a murdered Braintree mother and a Dorchester man who allegedly violated her restraining order in Quincy District Court on Friday.

In February, accused rapist Che Sosa allegedly stabbed his own lawyer with a homemade knife in Dedham Superior Court and had to have a SWAT team assigned to him at subsequent appearances.

A year ago, John Gomes jumped his lawyer in a Suffolk Superior courtroom and had to be pried off his throat by officers.

�There�s no question the level of violence in Massachusetts courtrooms has been escalating,� said David Frank, a former prosecutor who works for Lawyers Weekly. �Things have taken a turn for the worst in the last 12 months.�

Glawson, 46, a former contractor, is on trial for a bizarre two-day crimespree in 2001, during which, Conley�s office charges, he robbed a Roxbury home, started a shootout at the Chestnut Hill Mall, carjacked a woman, broke into a home, shot a disabled man�s dog, carjacked two more vehicles and shot a Dedham cop in the hand.

Sources told the Herald the 16 jurors seated for Glawson�s 2-day-old trial in Suffolk Superior Judge Patrick F. Brady�s courtroom were just beginning to file past the defendant at the close of testimony Friday afternoon when Glawson inexplicably lashed out �a glancing blow� to one, knocking him to the ground.

Because of Glawson�s violent history, including having flipped over a table in court, prosecutor Rahsaan Hall wanted him kept under lock and key throughout the trial, but Brady said no.

Citing judicial canons that prevent him from speaking about an ongoing case before him, Brady yesterday declined to comment on the courtroom calamity.

Glawson�s defense attorney, Joseph Griffin Jr., could not be reached.

State Jury Commissioner Pamela Wood said she has not noticed any trends emerging regarding juror abuse in the courtroom.

�These things do happen, rarely. Thankfully, very, very rarely,� Wood said. But Frank sees the rise in overall court violence attributable to defendants who want to get the media attention they perversely crave.

�It�s embarrassing and it�s shameful,� said attorney and victims rights advocate Wendy Murphy, of courtroom violence. �There�s very little courtroom safety aside from screening entrants.� Murphy said the judicial system could do a better job creating �an atmosphere that reflects safety� to prevent courtroom assaults.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=1002496

Case continues despite attack: Judge refuses to let courtroom chaos end in mistrial
By Laurel J. Sweet
Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - Updated: 12:41 PM EST

A tough-as-nails judge yesterday sent a message to courtroom clowns seeking to disrupt their trials, denying a defendant who cold-cocked a juror a mistrial and instead ordering him chained to the floor.

�It is becoming increasingly common for violent� offenders to try to �derail� their trials by creating chaos, said Suffolk Superior Court Judge Patrick F. Brady. But accused cop shooter Richard Glawson, 46, would not prevail as a martyr of mayhem.

Though �they saw everything that transpired� Friday when Glawson laid out a male juror as the others tried to run or were trapped trembling and weeping, Brady refused to release the remaining panelists or question them as to whether they could still decide the case without prejudice.

�The court can only do so much to provide a fair trial� to a defendant who does something �as extreme as attacking a juror in open court,� Brady said. �To me, the central issue is whether the court should allow a defendant to get away with manipulative behavior.�

Glawson, his hands chained to his waist and leg irons fastened to the floor, tried telling Brady that �voices� in his head commanded him to throw the punch.

Brady saved his sympathy for the juror: a thin, softspoken gray-haired man who confessed yesterday to feeling �nervous� in Glawson�s presence. The man, whose identity Brady impounded, was dismissed from duty after judge and juror shook hands.

�I�m very, very sorry it happened,� Brady told him.

Brady has assigned two court officers to stand on either side of Glawson for the remainder of his trial. Glawson, who Brady would not allow to be photographed, faces multiple charges in connection with a two-day crime spree in 2001 that culminated with him allegedly shooting and wounding a Dedham police sergeant.

Among recent examples of disorder in the court he cited, Brady recalled one year ago witnessing a murder defendant pounce on his attorney and try to choke him.

By not declaring a mistrial, Glawson�s defense attorney, Joseph Griffin Jr., told Brady he was risking �a miscarriage of justice� because no matter how he tried to make the jury feel safe, given what they saw, �I don�t think there are any instructions the court can give that�s going to cleanse that.�

But one fed-up court officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, was glad to see Brady draw a line in the sand.

�It�s getting worse and worse,� the officer said, blaming latter-day generations who�ve been raised with no respect for the law.

�I think the commonwealth has been lucky. Until someone gets hurt very seriously, things aren�t going to change. And it won�t be a court officer getting hurt. It�ll take a judge or a district attorney.�

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=1002564

Mistrial declared in chaos case
By Laurel J. Sweet
Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - Updated: 12:40 PM EST

After refusing to derail proceedings one day earlier, a Suffolk Superior Court judge unexpectedly declared a mistrial today in the case of an accused cop shooter who punched out a juror.

Judge Patrick F. Brady was asked to question jurors in the case today and several said they could not remain partial. The questioning was ordered by the state Supreme Judicial Court following an appeal [an emergency petition] by the defendant�s attorney.

On Friday, Richard Glawson, 46, laid out a male juror as the others tried to run or were trapped trembling and weeping.

Yesterday, the judge ordered Glawson�s hands chained to his waist and leg irons fastened to the floor.

The one juror who was assaulted was dismissed and the trial commenced. After today�s mistrial, it will have to start all over again.

Glawson faces multiple charges in connection with a two-day crime spree in 2001 that culminated with him allegedly shooting and wounding a Dedham police sergeant.

Glawson�s attorney, Joseph Griffin Jr., filed an emergency petition with the SJC asking it to intervene.

J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) www.jail4judges.org

To be automatically added to future mailings, place the word Subscribe in the subject line and email to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org

We are a ministry in great need of your financial support. Please donate to this important work at "J.A.I.L." P.O. Box 207, North Hollywood, CA 91603

J.A.I.L. is a unique addition to our Constitution heretofore unrealized.

JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!

E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join

Visit our active flash - http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm

* * *

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1259

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Tue Jun 19, 2007 3:07 pm
Subject: * * * Red Light Cameras Declared Unconstitutional * * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California June 19, 2007

______________________________________________________

The Battle Lines are Drawn: J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power

A Power Foreign to Our Constitution

Mission Statement JNJ Library Federal J.A.I.L.

FAQs What?MeWarden?
www.sd-jail4judges.org

Red Light Cameras

Declared Unconstitutional

By Ron Branson - National J.A.I.L. CIC

VictoryUSA@...

Finally, the courts are catching up with what most everyone already suspected, that is, that those red light cameras placed at intersections are unconstitutional. The problem is, it is such a money-maker for cities that, like drugs, it is hard to get off their addiction. Some years ago a judge in San Diego County California declared the cameras a violation of the Constitution, yet such violation seemed to continue unabated in California.

Throughout this country, local governments have reaped untold hundreds of millions of dollars for years from the people, but there appears to be no mass voluntary offer to pay it all back to everyone from whom they took it. The message conveyed is that it is alright to steal if you can get away with it, and if you get caught, you have only to restore the booty taken from the victim - provided he has the money to hire an attorney and go to court and sue for the return of his stolen money.

While the three below articles will be a delight to the ears and eyes of millions who have been victimized, the problem is much more immense than described. Back in 1968 the California legislature decided that California could make a lot more money if they totally eliminated jury trials in all traffic cases, and so, effective January 1, 1969, they "eradicated" the U.S. Constitutional provision of Article III, Section 2, Clause 3 that specifically provides, "The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury." Since California was able to pull off this heist and reap hundreds of millions of dollars, the enticement was too great for other states to resist. They, like bank robbers, likewise decided to participate in the heist, and enjoy the booty of stolen money without consideration that they were in direct violation of their sworn Oaths of Office and the Constitution. Indeed, "Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant." Proverbs 9:17.

As the author of J.A.I.L. I have afore-considered how ironic it will be if the downfall of evil and corrupt government is found in parking tickets, cameras and traffic citations. By no stretch of anyone's imagination can red light cameras fit the constitutional jury trial exception of "except in cases of impeachment." I have been castigated in the media for my position saying, "If Mr. Branson has his way, there will be a jury trial for not having a dog license." My response has been, "I did not write the Constitution, I am only interested in seeing it is adhered to by those who have sworn to obey it." Do we not constantly hear the mantra, "You will obey the law!"? I can think of no greater poetic justice than obedience to the standards established for those who love to impose standards on us. "For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers." Matthew 23:4. "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged." Matthew 7:2. With the passage of J.A.I.L. in this country, the Frankenstein they have created will come home to roost.

-Ron Branson

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1688.asp

Minnesota Supreme Court Strikes Down Red Light Cameras
The Minnesota Supreme Court delivers a unanimous decision striking down the legality of red light cameras.

The Minnesota Supreme Court today delivered the highest-level court rebuke to photo enforcement to date with a unanimous decision against the Minneapolis red light camera program. The high court upheld last September's Court of Appeals decision that found the city's program had violated state law (read opinion).

The supreme court found that Minneapolis had disregarded a state law imposing uniformity of traffic laws across the state. The city's photo ticket program offered the accused fewer due process protections than available to motorists prosecuted for the same offense in the conventional way after having been pulled over by a policeman. The court argued that Minneapolis had, in effect, created a new type of crime: "owner liability for red-light violations where the owner neither required nor knowingly permitted the violation."

"We emphasized in Duffy that a driver must be able to travel throughout the state without the risk of violating an ordinance with which he is not familiar," the court wrote. "The same concerns apply to owners. But taking the state's argument to its logical conclusion, a city could extend liability to owners for any number of traffic offenses as to which the Act places liability only on drivers. Allowing each municipality to impose different liabilities would render the Act's uniformity requirement meaningless. Such a result demonstrates that [the Minneapolis ordinance] conflicts with state law."

The court also struck down the "rebutable presumption" doctrine that lies at the heart of every civil photo enforcement ordinance across the country.

"The problem with the presumption that the owner was the driver is that it eliminates the presumption of innocence and shifts the burden of proof from that required by the rules of criminal procedure," the court concluded. "Therefore the ordinance provides less procedural protection to a person charged with an ordinance violation than is provided to a person charged with a violation of the Act. Accordingly, the ordinance conflicts with the Act and is invalid."

Article Excerpt:

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN SUPREME COURT
A06-568
Filed: April 5, 2007

Hanson, J.
State of Minnesota, Appellant,

vs.

Daniel Alan Kuhlman, Respondent.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/18/1804.asp

Red Light Cameras on Trial in South Dakota, New Mexico
Class action lawsuits against photo enforcement systems in Sioux Falls, South Dakota and Albuquerque, New Mexico moved forward this week.

Class action lawsuits against photo enforcement systems in Sioux Falls, South Dakota and Albuquerque, New Mexico moved forward this week. Motorist I.L. Wiedermann and his attorney, Aaron Eiesland, argued yesterday before Circuit Judge Kathleen Caldwell that Sioux Falls must refund $1.7 million worth of red light camera tickets it has issued since May 2004. The city and its red light camera vendor countered that anyone who paid $86 is not entitled to his money back.

Wiedermann's attorney cited the recent Minnesota Supreme Court decision striking down red light cameras as illegal (read opinion) as well as a Minnehaha Circuit Court ruling that found it unconstitutional for a city to provide no appeal from its rulings on the facts of a case. There is no appeal allowed from a city hearing officer decision in a red light camera case.

Albuquerque likewise may be forced to refund the $9.3 million worth of tickets it has issued if it loses the class action lawsuit that District Court Judge Valerie Huling recently certified. Plaintiffs argued that the city's camera program created an unfair, city-controlled process to appeal citations using a "nuisance" ordinance to bypass traditional due process protections.

"They've essentially set up a parallel court that has no legal standing," plaintiffs' attorney Rick Sandoval explained to the Albuquerque Tribune newspaper.

Australian red light camera vendor Redflex (ASX:RDF) is in charge of both ticketing programs.

Source: City seeks limits on red-light lawsuit (Sioux Falls Argus Leader (SD), 6/13/2007)

http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070613/NEWS/706130330/1001

City seeks limits on red-light lawsuit

Vehicle owners who paid $86 ticket shouldn't be included, lawyer argues

By Josh Verges

jverges@...

Published: June 13, 2007

A judge heard arguments Tuesday in a class-action lawsuit against the city of Sioux Falls and Redflex Traffic Systems, the company contracted to photograph vehicles passing through red lights in downtown Sioux Falls.

I.L. Wiedermann of Sioux Falls is fighting the camera enforcement on behalf of himself and 20,000 vehicle owners who also have received $86 tickets since May 2004.

Circuit Judge Kathleen Caldwell listened to lawyers for the city and Redflex who, respectively, wanted the case significantly limited or thrown out altogether. She said she would rule on the motions within two weeks.

Bill Garry, representing the city, said that when the thousands who paid their fines did so, they waived their right to contest their tickets. Only Wiedermann and one other man who took his appeal to an administrative hearing officer and then to circuit court should be permitted to fight their tickets, he said.

Richard Casey, a Redflex lawyer, said Wiedermann's claims involve the city, not Redflex, so the company should be removed as a defendant.

Wiedermann and Rapid City lawyer Aaron Eiesland have accused the the city and Redflex of:

- Failing to enact an ordinance prohibiting a right turn on red;

- Altering the timing of stoplights;

- Illegally imposing civil penalties;

- Denying due process.

Eiesland said in court Tuesday that the case is all about money. With what Sioux Falls pays Redflex, the city could man the 10th Street and Minnesota Avenue intersection with police officers 24 hours a day.

In that case, however, Eiesland said the fine money would be funneled through the state and be shared with the public schools. The camera system allows the city an easy and sizeable revenue source.

Part of Wiedermann's claim is that the city has no authority to regulate traffic in a way not outlined by state law. That argument won over the Minnesota Supreme Court, which in March struck down photo cops along Minneapolis streets.

When Wiedermann filed his lawsuit last year, he argued that his due process rights were stripped by a system that punishes a vehicle's owner, not necessarily the driver.

An unrelated Minnehaha Circuit Court ruling since then boosted the due process argument. Judge Bill Srstka in January ruled in favor of Daniels Construction, which complained that the city's appeal system is unconstitutional and gives them no opportunity to argue the facts of their case on appeal.

Garry said Tuesday that because the $86 penalty is so small, the city's hearing officer provides sufficient due process.

The 10th and Minnesota location was selected for cameras because it has a large number of offenses and because a pedestrian was killed at the intersection.

Edie Adams, 58, an Argus Leader employee, was killed in April 2003 when she was struck by a car.

Reach Josh Verges at 605-331-2335.

J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) www.jail4judges.org

To be automatically added to future mailings, place the word Subscribe

in the subject line and email to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org

We are a ministry in great need of your financial support. Please donate to

this important work at "J.A.I.L." P.O. Box 207, North Hollywood, CA 91603

J.A.I.L. is a unique addition to our Constitution heretofore unrealized.

JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!

E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join

Visit our active flash - http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm

* * *

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 is

striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau ><)))'>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1260

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Fri Jun 22, 2007 8:13 pm
Subject: ***Propaganda: The Weapon of Mass Deception***

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California June 22, 2007

______________________________________________________

The Battle Lines are Drawn: J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power

A Power Foreign to Our Constitution

Mission Statement JNJ Library Federal J.A.I.L.

FAQs What?MeWarden?
www.sd-jail4judges.org

Propaganda:

The Weapon of Mass Deception

When the technique has been perfected, every government

that has been in charge of education for a generation

will be able to control its subjects securely

without the need of armies or policemen.

-Bertrand Russell (1953)

The most important subject of which the People must become knowledgeable and well informed is the technique of Propaganda. Propaganda is the instrument used by the foreign power, the usurpers of government, to hold sway over the People in order to maintain its existence. Without propaganda, the foreign power will surely dwindle and die! Propaganda is their only tool; and a propagandized, brainwashed populace is the only fodder sustaining the life of the foreign power in America. That's ALL they have! If the People will conquer the propaganda, they will conquer the enemy!

Ladies and gentlemen, we are at war! It is a war for the minds of the People. If we expect to perform our duty to throw off the despotic power that has overtaken our country by the long train of abuses and usurpation, as directed in our Declaration of Independence, it is necessary for the People to know and understand the rules of engagement in countering the Weapon of Mass Deception (Note: I say "Deception" not Destruction) used by the foreign power in this domestic war; and that is "government" Propaganda! The term "government" is itself part of the propaganda machine. The People must realize that it isn't a legitimate government in power at all in America. Rather, it's a power foreign to our Constitution, the same from which we declared our independence in 1776, to wit, "He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution..." Declaration of Independence.

We appreciate the following article of Bertrand Russell. It is at least one of the most important subjects for the People of America today-- it is vital! The evils have become insufferable, and the People must KNOW and UNDERSTAND how and why this has happened, in order to combat it immediately before it gets any worse-- and it WILL get worse, unless the People take intelligent and effective action to stop it.

Become knowledgeable and aware of "government" Propaganda.
Make sure your Right to Vote is preserved, free from interference by any power.
Get J.A.I.L. passed in at least one state as soon as possible!

-Barbie, ACIC, National J.A.I.L.

victoryusa@...

* * *

Title: Bertrand Russell - A Philosopher King speaks

http://www.freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=55121

"Many people would sooner die than think. In fact they do."

"I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology.... Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called 'education.' Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the press, the cinema, and the radio play an increasing part.... It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment."

"Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen."
- Bertrand Russell, "The Impact of Science on Society", 1953

"Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy. . . . It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fitche laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished."

"Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible."

"Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton."
- Bertrand Russell, "The Impact of Science on Society", 1953, pg 49-50

"In like manner, the scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women, and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities, probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researches of psycho-analysis, behaviourism, and biochemistry will be brought into play.... All the boys and girls will learn from an early age to be what is called 'co-operative,' i.e., to do exactly what everybody is doing. Initiative will be discouraged in these children, and insubordination, without being punished, will be scientifically trained out of them."

"Except for the one matter of loyalty to the World State and to their own order, members of the governing class will be encouraged to be adventurous and full of initiative...."

"On those rare occasions, when a boy or girl who has passed the age at which it is usual to determine social status shows such marked ability as to seem the intellectual equal of the rulers, a difficult situation will arise, requiring serious consideration. If the youth is content to abandon his previous associates and to throw in his lot whole-heartedly with the rulers, he may, after suitable tests, be promoted, but if he shows any regrettable solidarity with his previous associates, the rulers will reluctantly conclude that there is nothing to be done with him except to send him to the lethal chamber before his ill-disciplined intelligence has had time to spread revolt. This will be a painful duty to the rulers, but I think they will not shrink from performing it."
- Bertrand Russell, "The Scientific Outlook", 1931

J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) www.jail4judges.org

To be automatically added to future mailings, place the word Subscribe in the subject line and email to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org

We are a ministry in great need of your financial support. Please donate to this important work at "J.A.I.L." P.O. Box 207, North Hollywood, CA 91603

J.A.I.L. is a unique addition to our Constitution heretofore unrealized.

JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!

E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join

Visit our active flash - http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm

* * *

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1262

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Jun 23, 2007 5:05 pm
Subject: How Can We Stop These Bastards When They Control The Judiciary?

jail4judges_...

Send Email

How Can We Stop These Bastards When They Control The Judiciary?

From: sammyerichardson [mailto:sammyerichardson@...]
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2007 7:51 AM
To: JAIL4Judges

How can stop these bastards from taking our rights away when they control the Judiciary Re: ***Propaganda: The Weapon of Mass Deception***

Sammy Richardson, you are raising the age old question, "Which came first, the chicken, or the egg?" I have brought at least fourteen lawsuits against the government and/or the judges, and it was always, every time, a judge who covered for the government corruption, and/or in the case of another judge, who covered for the prior judge via "judicial immunity." I found that every time, and in every situation, the chief culprit was the doctrine of judicial immunity invented by the judges themselves to cover for their own actions. Therefore, that is why JAIL4Judges targets exclusively that doctrine of judicial immunity. So long as that doctrine reigns supreme, it is impossible to return America to freedom and liberty and its original state, and to humbly turn again and serve the God of heaven who gave us all things, for it is impossible to reverence and serve both God and Baal.

This is why I constantly say, "J.A.I.L. is the only answer!" Even the churches of America do well to give heed to what I say.

Every law passed by Congress or by the state legislators is subject to the "interpretation" of a judge. They have the last word. In our country, it is the U.S. Supreme Court that has the final authority among all judges as to what the law of this land is. Hence, our country is run by at least five lawyers in black dresses.

There is no manifest human power upon this earth in America supreme to their power. When you say "they," you must identify who the "they" are. I am telling you who the "they" are. 'What J.A.I.L. seeks is to make those "five" controlling lawyers subject to the People when it comes to accountability. No People control of the judiciary, equals no People control of anything else in this life. This is why J.A.I.L. is the absolute and only remedy, unless we seek direct divine intervention from the Hand of God.

I contend that J.A.I.L. is that divine intervention from the Hand of God, albeit, not direct. If so, we do well to obey God's authority unless we, as a nation, are going to willfully choose to rebel against God and suffer the consequences. When God desired to deal with the City of Nineveh, he sent Jonah, not direct intervention. "Now the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the son of Amittai, saying, Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness is come up before me." Jonah 2:1. If God dealt with Nineveh through Jonah, is His Hand shortened today that He cannot deal with America through another? Or shall we just sit around and wait for God to rain brimstone down from heaven upon America? He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

-Ron

VictoryUSA@...

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California June 22, 2007

______________________________________________________

The Battle Lines are Drawn: J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power

A Power Foreign to Our Constitution

Mission Statement JNJ Library Federal J.A.I.L.

FAQs What?MeWarden?
www.sd-jail4judges.org

Propaganda:

The Weapon of Mass Deception

When the technique has been perfected, every government

that has been in charge of education for a generation

will be able to control its subjects securely

without the need of armies or policemen.

-Bertrand Russell (1953)

Become knowledgeable and aware of "government" Propaganda.
Make sure your Right to Vote is preserved, free from interference by any power.
Get J.A.I.L. passed in at least one state as soon as possible!

-Barbie, ACIC, National J.A.I.L.

victoryusa@...

* * *

Title: Bertrand Russell - A Philosopher King speaks

http://www.freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=55121

"Many people would sooner die than think. In fact they do."

J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) www.jail4judges. org

To be automatically added to future mailings, place the word Subscribe in the subject line and email to VictoryUSA@jail4jud ges.org

We are a ministry in great need of your financial support. Please donate to this important work at "J.A.I.L." P.O. Box 207, North Hollywood, CA 91603

J.A.I.L. is a unique addition to our Constitution heretofore unrealized.

JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!

E-Group sign on at http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/jail4judge s/join

Visit our active flash - http://www.jail4jud ges.org/national _001.htm

* * *

Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/862 - Release Date: 6/22/2007 3:04 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/862 - Release Date: 6/22/2007 3:04 PM

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1263

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:10 am
Subject: **Judges Digging Their Own Pit**

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California June 23, 2007

______________________________________________________

The Battle Lines are Drawn: J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power

A Power Foreign to Our Constitution

Mission Statement JNJ Library Federal J.A.I.L.

FAQs What?MeWarden?
www.sd-jail4judges.org

Judges Digging Their Own Pit

By Ron Branson - National J.A.I.L. CIC

VictoryUSA@...

As corruption abounds more and more in the judiciary, so does the inclination to expose the actions of such judges. There is a saying that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Since judges are protected by judicial immunity for all that they do, they are inclined to pull the stops out, for they say within themselves. "What the heck, no one can sue me." While this may be true from what has become our established legal principles that one cannot sue a judge, judicial immunity does not protect judges from criticism from the media. In fact, judges are quite vulnerable outside of their courts, and can be ripped into as a deer by a pack of jackals. Obviously, then, this challenges the judges to maintain the hide of a rhinoceros and at least appear impervious.

But what happens when these "rhinoceroses '" start yelling "Ouch," and want to go to court and sue? Back in 1998 ABC News aired a videotape of interviewees who claimed that California Judge Bruce Dodds consulted his crystal ball in deciding his cases. Judge Dodds became upset and went to court and sued ABC Network for their report. The end did not turn out well for Judge Dodds. It presented quite a stir and an embarrassment. His federal lawsuit in Los Angeles was quickly dismissed, and he appealed. As little respect that I have for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, they did get this one right. They ruled that a judge could not sue ABC for libel based on reports that he used a crystal ball to make his decisions. This case is versed at http://www.rcfp.org/news/1998/0615g.html. The court stated, "Wise judges, even when wounded by unfair assaults, have learned that the best policy is ordinarily to dismiss the attacks as part of the baggage of their jobs. Abusive criticism simply goes with the territory. Often it is best not to dignify the assaults or to fall into the traps set by one's critics," Reinhardt wrote.

But due to the increasingly unaccountable actions of these judicially-anointed potentates these days, the exposure heat has been turned up on the judges which has gotten them steaming upset and hopping mad. They are abandoning the principles advised by the Ninth Circuit that essentially restates the maxim, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Judges are starting to go into other courts and sue their accusers and are terribly embarrassing the judicial system with every kind of judicial conflict heretofore unheard of. For instance, we are told in the article below, "...many addressing [Judge] Thomas as "Your Honor," even though he was the plaintiff, not the judge in the case. But when lawyers for the newspapers sought to cross-examine the justices about the disciplinary case that was the subject of the newspaper's columns, they refused, invoking what was later upheld on appeal as a "judicial deliberation privilege."

Obviously, if a judge is going to bring a lawsuit against a media defendant, they cannot then claim a type of immunity because they are judges, when the media attorney goes to cross-examine them on their lawsuit they brought.

Long ago the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U.S. 274 (1876) dealt in its most harshest of terms with this perspective. The government, in seeking to deny a defendant the right to defend, argued "It is alleged he was in the position of an alien enemy, and could have no locus standi in that forum. If assailed there, he could defend there. The liability and right are inseparable." In other words, there can be no such thing as a forum in which one may be assailed, but in which the other side cannot maintain a right to a defense.

-Ron Branson

Press Frets as More Judges Sue for Libel

http://www.law.com/jsp/law/LawArticleFriendly.jsp?id=1182416757114

Tony Mauro
Legal Times
06-22-2007

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once said judges should adopt a "rope-a-dope" posture when criticized, taking the hits passively until their adversaries wear themselves out.

But with 25 judges suing for libel in 2005 alone -- nearly 10 percent of all libel suits filed nationwide -- that form of judicial restraint is fading, raising questions about the role, and the ethics, of judges and whether they have a right to be as litigious as everyone else.

Last week the news media began to push back, questioning when and whether judges should be able to use their own court systems as a tool to retaliate against the media.

"It's time for us to ask, 'When should judges sue for libel, and when shouldn't they?' " says Bruce Sanford, a leading libel lawyer for news organizations and authors, and a partner in Baker & Hostetler's D.C. office. "If these suits lead the public to feel that judges are taking care of their own, it will only add to cynicism about the judicial process."

Sanford's Connecticut Avenue offices are turning into something of a war room in the growing battle against judicial libel suits.

Sanford and local lawyers for the Kane County Chronicle, a small Illinois newspaper, filed a federal civil rights suit June 12, claiming the paper cannot receive a fair hearing in its appeal of a libel suit that was filed and won by the man who rules the state judiciary: Illinois Chief Justice Robert Thomas. Thomas won a $7 million verdict against the paper -- later reduced to $4 million -- in a dispute over opinion columns in the Chronicle that suggested that political "shimmy shammy" influenced Thomas' handling of a disciplinary case against a local prosecutor.

Thomas' dogged pursuit of the lawsuit -- which included calling his Supreme Court colleagues as character witnesses -- has "compromised the independence and integrity of the Illinois judicial system from top to bottom," Sanford's brief says. The state Supreme Court, in fact, is now so compromised that it cannot hear any final appeal of the judgment against the newspaper.

The newspaper's complaint, in the form of a Section 1983 civil rights suit, asks the federal court to stay the newspaper's appeal until after Thomas leaves the bench -- which will be 2010 or later, if Thomas chooses to stand for re-election.

Meanwhile, earlier this month, the Boston Herald, another Baker & Hostetler client, wired $3.4 million to Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Ernest Murphy, after losing final appeals in a libel suit before that state's Supreme Judicial Court. The money represented an award plus interest that Murphy won in his suit over Herald stories alleging he made insensitive remarks about a rape victim.

"Fifteen years ago that case would not have been brought," Sanford says. "We're in a whole different climate now."

JUDGES AS WITNESSES

The Thomas and Murphy suits are among the most successful libel suits of recent years -- adding, media lawyers say, to the suspicion that judges have an edge when their libel awards are appealed. Murphy's was the highest libel verdict in Massachusetts since 1980, according to the Media Law Resource Center, and Thomas' was the largest compensatory award for defamation in Illinois history, Sanford's brief claims.

Sanford says that judges should not be barred completely from filing libel suits, but they should be reserved for the most serious claims of damaged reputation. But Thomas' complaint is far more trivial, Sanford insists -- partly because he is suing over opinion columns, which are usually immune from libel suits anyway, and partly because they only accused him of being political, which is hardly unusual in Illinois. Thomas, a one-time place kicker for the Chicago Bears, suffered no damage because of the columns, Sanford says, noting that he was named chief justice by his colleagues after the columns appeared.

In spite of all this, Sanford says, Thomas chose to subject the Illinois judiciary to unnecessary charges of favoritism. "He could have made a public statement denouncing the columns, rather than suing," Sanford says.

"That's a joke," says Thomas' lawyer, Joseph Power Jr., of Chicago's Power Rogers & Smith. The columns, in effect, accused Thomas of illegal conduct, Power says, and Thomas was entitled to go to court to repair his reputation.

"The last time I looked, the Seventh Amendment did not contain an exception for judges," says Power, referring to the constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right to civil jury trials. "As a judge, as a human being, you don't give up your rights."

The 2006 trial of Thomas' lawsuit in Geneva, Ill., was, by all accounts, unusual. "It managed to push more unique buttons than any libel case I ever studied," says Sandra Baron, executive director of the Media Law Resource Center, which aids the media in defending against libel and privacy suits.

Six current and former state Supreme Court justices testified on his behalf, many addressing Thomas as "Your Honor," even though he was the plaintiff, not the judge in the case. But when lawyers for the newspapers sought to cross-examine the justices about the disciplinary case that was the subject of the newspaper's columns, they refused, invoking what was later upheld on appeal as a "judicial deliberation privilege."

The newspaper's brief alleges that "the Illinois judiciary barricaded itself behind a wall of privilege that made it impossible for the Chronicle defendants to defend themselves."

Another problem, in the newspaper's view: the same appellate judges who endorsed the privilege were assigned to hear the newspaper's appeal. And that assignment came from the Illinois Supreme Court, five of whose justices have recused themselves from hearing the final appeal. With no quorum, the state Supreme Court cannot hear the case. Having a fair and complete appeals process available is especially important in libel cases, says Sanford, because U.S. Supreme Court precedent calls for de novo review of the facts on appeal.

"The chief justice could have seen from day one that his lawsuit would contort the Illinois judiciary in ways it has never seen before," says Bruce Brown, another Baker & Hostetler partner working on the judicial libel cases.

At trial, one of Thomas' claims was that the 2003 columns he objected to deprived him of a spot on President George W. Bush's short list for a U.S. Supreme Court position. To counter that, the newspaper called Eleanor Acheson, former President Bill Clinton's judge screener, as a witness. She voiced doubt that Thomas was ever on such a list and said the opinion columns would have made no difference. "It would not stop his appointment," Acheson testified.

'EMBOLDENED TO SUE'

The rise and potency of judicial libel lawsuits also highlights the increasing role of judges as First Amendment players. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that judges can say more about their views during election campaigns without violating ethics rules, and the American Bar Association recently added a new model rule that allows judges to respond to criticism -- or to ask third parties to defend them.

"Judges are more emboldened to sue nowadays," says Gary Hengstler, director of the Reynolds National Center for Courts and the Media at the National Judicial College. Hengstler holds workshops for judges on how to handle the media, and often hears complaints about the press.

But Hengstler hopes the ABA's new rule allowing judges to respond to criticism will act as a safety valve. "If judges employ that rule and respond to criticism publicly, that will get covered," Hengstler says. "Hopefully, that will alleviate the need for libel suits."

One way or another, lawyer James Goodale, former vice chairman of The New York Times, also hopes judges will stop suing newspapers.

"When judges judge judges, there is a built-in conflict of interest ... It would be the better part of valor for judges not to bring these cases," Goodale wrote in a recent New York Law Journal column. "Once they are brought, they may find themselves in the comic opera posture of the Illinois Supreme Court."

J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) www.jail4judges.org

To be automatically added to future mailings, place the word Subscribe

in the subject line and email to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org

We are a ministry in great need of your financial support. Please donate to

this important work at "J.A.I.L." P.O. Box 207, North Hollywood, CA 91603

J.A.I.L. is a unique addition to our Constitution heretofore unrealized.

JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!

E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join

Visit our active flash - http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm

* * *

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 is

striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau ><)))'>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1264

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:27 pm
Subject: J.A.I.L. Is Unique!

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. Is Unique!

Several years ago we sent out a J.A.I.L. News Journal entitled "J.A.I.L. is Absolutely Unique" (See below). This title here is not to be confused with that JNJ. - Ron

From: rcutting14@... [mailto:rcutting14@...]
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 10:08 PM
To: JAIL4Judges
Subject: Re: Hi Ron or Barbie:

Roberta Cutting states:

I understand that J.A.I.L is unique and stands on its own, Barbie, but so does "Citizen's Against Legal and Moral Abuse." I just thought we are all in this together for truth and justice and you would support our organization just like I would support yours.

There are no hard feelings, but I would like you to understand where I am coming from. If you wouldn't allow a link on your site to mine, then I would not want to put a link of yours on my site as it just doesn't seem right that I would do that when you obviously would not support our efforts either.

I even went to J.A.I.L.'s rally in Bartow and helped out and even got a few signatures signed, but I feel sort of betrayed that you would not want the support to go both ways.

Thanks for writing and letting me know where you are coming from.

Roberta

Roberta, this is Ron Branson. Due to this common viewpoint of many others on this subject, I have deemed it appropriate for me to publicly deal with your concern, and in that regard, you can thank me for giving you the publicity you desire.

You could not imagine the number of candidates and organizations that think of themselves as unique and worthy of J.A.I.L.'s promotion. I find myself as the leader of JAIL4Judges being made a point of contention mostly by political candidates, but also organizations, of unreasonably refusing to promote their campaign or cause. I am not referring to unknown people or organizations, but to my friends, those on whom I wish the best.

I have become the object of contention by my doing nothing in involving myself in contested governors races and in bids for the office of president, or other causes. Perhaps I should be pleased that people deem my approval of them so important. But the fact still remains, I cannot allow J.A.I.L to become diffused into diverse fronts. If I am to be condemned for so taking such a stand, so be it. This is nothing personal against you, or anyone, it is just a position that just has to be.

My experiences go back many years to the end of the 70's. I have attended thousands of seminars, meetings, speakers on most every subject under heaven, and have collected volumes of materials on everything that have accumulated in stacks along the walls. Many of the famous speakers and leaders are gone - that is - they are no longer with us on earth. What my past experiences have done is inform me on the problems that our country is facing, and I thank God for such an education.

As with most anyone, eventually, I reached a saturation point at which no more known truth would excite me as to prospects of a remedy to the problem. Indeed, I found myself to have to hold my peace when I wanted to ask the speakers, "So now that we know the problem as you have described, what is the solution?" When I have indeed asked, I would watch them squirm for a response like, "Write your congressman," or those magical two words as the "solution" to all problems, "sue 'em."

You may consider it arrogance on my part, but I am past all that. If there is one fact over the years that I found to be consistent among the "conservative movement" for lack of another title, it is that they can never get focused on anything. I liken it unto one firing a shotgun full of salt - they hit everything, and affect nothing. They can peel the paint off all of the walls, but the wall itself is unphased.

This factor overwhelmed me to the point that I determined that something had to be done that absolutely no one else was doing, and that I had to focus upon that, and nothing else. It is because of that position, I often face criticism. I am told that I now deem myself "King of the Hill," I am "living on my own island," I think that I am "better than everyone else," I believe "I have the only answer," I "refuse to work with anyone else," I am a "separatist, and cooperate with no one else," etc. Roberta, I have had to make myself impervious to what others may think about me in this regard.

But ironically, if I am indeed so evil and so egotistical, why in the world would anyone want or seek the blessings and endorsement of J.A.I.L? If such were the case, you would think that everyone would like to stay as far away from J.A.I.L. as possible, lest they be tainted with the likes of J.A.I.L. The attention of Ron Branson would be as desirous as leprosy. But that is not the case, as you yourself give evidence to. Why would you want Citizens Against Legal and Moral Abuse to be pulled down by J.A.I.L? Obviously, you believe that J.A.I.L.'s endorsement of CALMA would be a great benefit to you and your organization, and I agree with your position. Indeed, as I say, you can give praise to the LORD for my using your present communication as a springboard to all who hear or benefit from this message.

Now let me deal with some of the particulars of your communication. You say that you thought we were all in this together and would be able to work together. At this present time, I have nothing against CALMA. I presently know of nothing by which I might condemn your efforts. But that is true with any number of other efforts.

You must understand that if J.A.I.L. were to link to everyone else's efforts, it would become merely a clearinghouse for everyone's cause. You do not have to link to us if it is not in your heart to do so. But thousands have already done so. By typing "jail4judges" in Google it will reveal thousands of references to J.A.I.L. and quotes galore to your heart's content. Yet not a one has been paid or asked to be linked to us. Every link to www.jail4judges.org is totally voluntary.

Now this is not to say that I am against paid advertisement, paid staff, or even a salary for myself. I have to deal with reality - the financing is not there. Perhaps one day I will be able to say that I have been paid for my labor, and that we have paid advertisement. But does this not reveal an amazing phenomenon? We have grown throughout the United States and have operations in every state. We reach most every media source in the nation, and are in high demand. I have been called to appear on national television to rebut a former United States Supreme Court Justice. J.A.I.L. is the subject of several states' 2007 State of the Judiciary messages. When you mention the name JAIL4Judges most anywhere, people have at least heard of us. There is no doubt that J.A.I.L. has become a common national movement in this country, and yet without any measurable financial support. That is absolutely amazing! I think you would admit to that!

No, Roberta, I am not sitting here lonely on my own island with no friends or no attention, disjoined from everyone as captain of my own hill. J.A.I.L. is for everyone, everywhere and at all times, and in all circumstances. It is so fundamental to truth and righteousness that it should have existed 230 years ago during the time of our Founding Fathers when they wrote the Constitution. It is like the Declaration of Independence for this current corrupt age.

And further, J.A.L.L. is about Amendments to our States' Constitutions. Amendments do not get behind organizations, rather organizations get behind amendments. Is such an Amendment Republican, or is it Democrat? Is it third party? What organizations do Amendments advance? Yea, it is like high-tide that raises all ships, and benefits no one's ship in particular.

So Roberta, I trust you have grasped what I have just said. J.A.I.L. just is! It is not dependent on any other cause, nor can it be. God bless you.

-Ron Branson

VictoryUSA@...

J.A.I.L. News Journal
_____________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California September 28, 2003

J.A.I.L. Absolutely Unique

(By Ron Branson, Author/Founder)

"I believe trial by jury is the only anchor yet imagined by man which can hold a government to the principles of its constitution."

Perhaps no man influenced the infrastructure of the foundations of our new experiment known as a Constitutional Republic in America more so than did Thomas Jefferson. America history is rife with quotes of him, the above being no exception. Jefferson has received praise from all walks of life, and statues have been erected to him, including the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C. There are even those who proclaim themselves to be "Jeffersonians."

After the order of Thomas Jefferson, and our other Founding Fathers, two-hundred and nineteen years later, (April, 1995), J.A.I.L. ("Judicial Accountability & Integrity Legislation") has come into existence on the American scene. While not yet recognized for its full value, it is as important as our original Constitution itself.

Now while some of you are picking yourself up from the floor where you have been laying and holding your chest while gasping for air, let me explain. There is absolutely no competition between the U.S. Constitution and J.A.I.L., for neither can be complete without the other. I know some of you are saying, "These are hard words," while others murmur "Treason," noting that our country has existed for over 200 years without the existence of J.A.I.L., and so we have.

But the fact remains, unless you have been living on another planet, that our Constitution, after 200 years of existence, has been reduced to just a piece of paper given political lip service, cited as authority only when it serves one's political agenda. All government officials, in theory, give solemn oath to it, pledging to uphold and defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic, while few of these people have ever read it in their life, and even fewer understand it.

Thomas Jefferson said, "Let no more be heard of confidence in men, but rather bind them down by the chains of the Constitution." Most politicians accept the idea, as adopted by many judges in our courts today, that our Constitution was intended by our Founding Fathers to be rubberized, and those links of "chains to bind them down," spoken of by Thomas Jefferson, are made of elastic.

In the quote of Thomas Jefferson above, "I believe trial by jury is the only anchor yet imagined by man which can hold a government to the principles of its constitution," we note that the intent of Jefferson's words was holding government to the principles of the Constitution. He said, "I believe trial by jury is the only anchor yet imagined by man, and in 1776, he was correct. But then came along J.A.I.L. two centuries later as "another anchor imagined by man to hold government to the principles of the Constitution!"

In the days of Thomas Jefferson, he had a limited knowledge of options, and based thereon, he determined that a trial by jury was the only anchor imagined by man to hold government to the principles of the Constitution. Had Thomas Jefferson then been enlightened to the concept of J.A.I.L., notwithstanding its current title, history would doubtless record Thomas Jefferson as the author of J.A.I.L.

In fact, even in his day, Thomas Jefferson, disappointed in the lack of a provision in our current Constitution, was searching for some Constitutional measure, such as J.A.I.L., that would result in judicial accountability of judges. He said, "At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed us in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping little and little, the foundations of the Constitution, before anyone perceived that invisible and helpless worm had been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."

In the founding of our country, and in the providence of God Almighty working in hearts of our Founding Fathers, the revelation of J.A.I.L. was not yet to be revealed. But now in this generation, God, according to the good pleasure of His will, has chosen to reveal the concept of J.A.I.L. to this, and other nations.

Above I stated that J.A.I.L. was equally as important as is the original Constitution itself. How so? you say. It was Thomas Jefferson himself that expressed the lack of a means of security of the very Constitution he had a part in writing, stating that he feared the politically motivated Judiciary Industry would completely undermine the Constitution until it became just a worthless piece of paper.

Thomas Jefferson warned us as surely as if it were printed in today's newspapers, "...the Federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing it's noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. ... when all government ... in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1821.

So, we arrive at the question, which is of the greater value, the preservation of the principles of our original Constitution, or the means by which it is protected? They are inseparable, and neither can exist without the other. As a practical matter, everyone should respect the existence of J.A.I.L. as if it were authored by Thomas Jefferson himself, and I believe he would have been delighted to have his name associated with it. I realize it is hard to conceive of a document outside of the Constitution that is so important as is our Constitution itself, but God has now brought to light the revelation of J.A.I.L. to this nation, and calls upon America to support it for its very future's sake.

There are many groups, organizations, political parties, and coalitions with their own agendas throughout America which pay little or no attention to J.A.I.L. This does not concern me in the least, for I know by the Grace of God, one of these days all these causes will have to reckon with the validity of the value of J.A.I.L. being equal to that of our Constitution itself, and in that day we will have the opportunity to move in unity for the restitution of the government envisioned by Thomas Jefferson.

* * *

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.8/869 - Release Date: 6/25/2007 5:32 PM

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1265

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Tue Jun 26, 2007 11:20 pm
Subject: *** One Answer ***

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California June 26, 2007

______________________________________________________

The Battle Lines are Drawn: J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power

A Power Foreign to Our Constitution

Mission Statement JNJ Library Federal J.A.I.L.

FAQs What?MeWarden?
www.sd-jail4judges.org

One Answer

By: Barbie, National J.A.I.L.

victoryusa@...

Is there one person who can answer these questions? Yes, I can:

(See questions below)

These questions (below) relate to seeking a remedy (redress of grievances) in the current judicial system. Unfortunately the system is broken because we no longer have government. We have a foreign power that has taken over this country, usurped authority, and routinely violates the People's rights. This is a power foreign to our Constitution and to the interests of the People. The power that has taken control in this country is a counterfeit power, totally alien to our Supreme Law of the Land. That has happened because there was no mechanism placed in the Constitution for the People to enforce the Constitution on their public servants who take an oath to uphold and defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. This foreign power is our domestic enemy, bringing down this country and its People to helpless, inert masses.

Is there an answer? YES, there is. We've been telling People for ten years what that answer is, and it is J.A.I.L., the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law, or Judicial Accountability & Integrity Legislation. The judiciary sit at the pinnacle of this foreign power and are the final authority for it. The People, in the current system, are not able to exercise their sovereignty over government which they have instituted because of this systemic takeover by usurped power. The Declaration of Independence says when this takeover happens, the People have the right and the DUTY to throw off such government and provide new guards for their future security.

The People of South Dakota tried to do that by passing J.A.I.L. last November, but we have discovered that this foreign power operating under the guise of "government," has violated numerous constitutional provisions and state laws to prevent the passage of J.A.I.L. They severely interfered with the voting process which itself is a serious violation of the People's rights. See the South Dakota website, www.sd-jail4judges.org

especially the pre-election portion, that records the evidence of the many violations by the South Dakota power force against the People. The People were helpless to do anything about it, although we encouraged them to take some kind of legal action just to show an effort of protest against the criminal cabal --not that it would have produced a remedy, but it would have sent a message to the nation and warned other people to prepare them for future such violations which are sure to come.

The crossroads we're now at is protecting our Right To Vote without interference by any power. To throw off this despotic power, the People must be able to vote it out by voting J.A.I.L. in. The People must be made aware of this domestic enemy and prepare for whatever it'll take to get J.A.I.L. passed in at least one state.

-Barbie

victoryusa@...

Questions follow:

NewsWithViews <news10@...> wrote:

Is There One Person Who Can Answer These Questions?
Can we bring civil actions under RICO against local, state and federal officials and those in business with whom they are colluding to deny us our rights under the Constitution and Laws of the United States? Can we bring civil actions against sanctuary city officials for refusing to obey and enforce federal laws using U.S. Code-Title 42, Sec. 1983. �Civil Action For Deprivation of any Rights, Privileges, or Immunities secured by the Constitution and Laws�, but denied by state and local officials such as in sanctuary cities?........

IS THERE ONE PERSON WHO CAN ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS?

By Andrew C. Wallace
June 24, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

Workable Answer to one Question could Save America

1. Is there anyway to force government to protect us from invaders and Anarchy as guaranteed in the United States Constitution?

2. Is there any way to charge government officials with Treason without going through the U.S. Attorney?

3. Anarchy by public officials exists at all levels of government leaving citizens with no recourse to government, can citizens appeal directly to U.S. Supreme court for redress?

4. Can we bring civil actions under RICO against local, state and federal officials and those in business with whom they are colluding to deny us our rights under the Constitution and Laws of the United States?

5. Can we bring civil actions against sanctuary city officials for refusing to obey and enforce federal laws using U.S. Code-Title 42, Sec. 1983. �Civil Action For Deprivation of any Rights, Privileges, or Immunities secured by the Constitution and Laws�, but denied by state and local officials such as in sanctuary cities?

6. Can we charge any legislator with corruption who votes to support illegals and we can prove they received money from employers of illegals?

7. The so called amnesty bill seeks to legalize unconstitutional actions and non actions, is the law then unconstitutional?

8. Is there any way to force government officials to obey the constitution and laws of the United States?

9. Our Constitution is the basis for all government power, so do government officials who refuse to follow the constitution have any legitimate power?

10. Can we challenge in court, the vote of officials in congress if we can prove they were on the take?

11. Do American citizens have any way to be compensated for the thousands who were murdered, raped, robbed and molested by illegal invaders supported and protected by business and government contrary to our constitution and laws?

12. Can we force Federal Government to withhold all federal funds in accordance with the law from sanctuary cities that refuse to obey and enforce federal laws for the benefit of local officials and criminal employers?

13. Sanctuary City Officials are nullifying federal laws and the Constitution of the United States. Nullification by state and local officials was a primary cause of our bloody Civil War. Can we assume that these greedy officials are trying to incite a Civil War?

14. Is there no legal recourse for the millions of Americans who will lose their Social Security, Medicare, Veterans and all other benefits because officials gave their benefits to illegal invaders to increase profits of criminal employers?

15. Is there no legal recourse for the millions of poor Americans who have lost their jobs to illegals who are encouraged to invade our country by criminal employers and protected by government officials?

16. Can Government Officials at all levels do whatever they please by ignoring the Constitution and Laws of The United States ?

17. Do we have any legal options against an agenda driven media that reports propaganda and refuses to report the truth?

18. Does the constitution of The United States make any provision for the lawful removal of government officials for failure to obey The Constitution and Laws of The United States other than appeal to these same traitors, or waiting till the next election?

It is my sincere prayer that someone out there can answer one or more of these questions quickly in a way that will save this country. Just a very few of the facts that support my need for prayer are as follows:

    1. There is no such thing as any economic benefit from illegal invaders they will cause abject poverty for Americans.
    2. Every illegal head of household costs taxpayers $19,588 a year, over and above any taxes paid.
    3. Taxpayer support of illegals is money that ends up in the pockets of criminal employers and government officials.
    4. Business and government officials want cheap labor and abject poverty for Americans.
    5. Using the Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America, SPP, Criminal elites in business and Government are stealing our sovereignty so we can be slaves of Business.
    6. Business must have open borders for cheap labor and control, that is why government has refused to obey our constitution and laws, even framing Border Patrol Agents for doing their jobs.
    7. It is obvious from their actions that elites, born into wealth, hate America, and the corporations they control do not give a damn about this country.
    8. Corporations and government officials are sharing the blood money they get from hiring and protecting illegal invaders which is looting the resources of our country. It is blood money because 25 Americans die every day, on average, at the hands of illegals.
    9. Twenty nine percent of convicts in state and federal prisons are illegal invaders at a cost to us of $1.6 billion a year. They are only 4% of our population.
    10. Forty seven per cent of cited/stopped divers in California have no license, no insurance, and no registration. 92% of these people are illegals.
    11. Seventy one percent of all apprehended cars stolen in 2005 in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California were stolen by illegals.
    12. Ninety five percent of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegals.
    13. Without question, there is anarchy in California, Americans are leaving California in droves. Only a complete idiot would even visit such a lawless and dangerous place.
    14. California is the most glaring example of the total, and deliberate failure of all levels of Government to obey the Constitution and Laws of the United States.

We must defeat this Amnesty bill and every politician who supported it. They are guilty of Treason. We must demand that government deport every last illegal on sight and return this country from Anarchy to Constitutional Government and the Rule of Law. Our Constitution guarantees us a hell of a lot more than we are getting.

� 2007 Andrew Wallace - All Rights Reserved

Andrew C. Wallace is a former Kentucky State Trooper, Kentucky Native, Korean War Veteran, Commercial Pilot in Alaska, University of Kentucky Undergraduate in Business, Four years of Graduate School in Economics and Marketing at University of Kentucky and University of Iowa., Assistant Professor, Thirty years as Director of Marketing Firm developing and implementing national Marketing programs for manufacturers and now retired doing research and writing.

E-Mail: natlmktg@...

J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) www.jail4judges.org

To be automatically added to future mailings, place the word Subscribe in the subject line and email to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org

We are a ministry in great need of your financial support. Please donate to this important work at "J.A.I.L." P.O. Box 207, North Hollywood, CA 91603

J.A.I.L. is a unique addition to our Constitution heretofore unrealized.

JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!

E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join

Visit our active flash - http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm

* * *

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

Messages 1233 - 1265 of 1784 Oldest | < Older | Newer > | Newest

What's This?

Messages

Start Topic
Just address an email to jail4judges@yahoogroups.com

Jump to a particular message

Search Messages Advanced

Yahoo! Groups

Breaking News Visit Yahoo! News for the latest.

The Yahoo! Groups Product Blog

Check it out!

Group Information

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...

Messages

Court: Enron shareholders can�t proceed

http://localnewsleader.com/jackson/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=79564

Committee sues Florida Bar, hopes for dissolution

Jacksonville Business Journal - April 13, 2007

by Rachel Witkowski

Staff Writer

Equal space

'Probably in violation'

Growth predictions

Judicial Accountability & Integrity Legislation (J.A.I.L.)

Posted on Sun, May. 20, 2007

No wrong found in false court records

Secret dockets, missing files and deleted records play into investigation of judicial misconduct.

Yahoo! Groups

Breaking News Visit Yahoo! News for the latest.

The Yahoo! Groups Product Blog

Check it out!

Group Information

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...

Messages

Court: Enron shareholders can�t proceed http://localnewsleader.com/jackson/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=79564

Committee sues Florida Bar, hopes for dissolution

Jacksonville Business Journal - April 13, 2007 by Rachel Witkowski Staff Writer

Equal space

'Probably in violation'

Growth predictions

Judicial Accountability & Integrity Legislation (J.A.I.L.)

Posted on Sun, May. 20, 2007

No wrong found in false court records

Secret dockets, missing files and deleted records play into investigation of judicial misconduct.

Court: Enron shareholders can�t proceed

http://localnewsleader.com/jackson/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=79564

Jacksonville Business Journal - April 13, 2007

by Rachel Witkowski

Staff Writer