Skip to search.

Breaking News Visit Yahoo! News for the latest.

×Close this window

jail4judges · J.A.I.L. -- The Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - A proposed law to increase the accountability of our judiciary.

The Yahoo! Groups Product Blog

Check it out!

Group Information

  • Members: 1582
  • Category: Law
  • Founded: May 20, 2000
  • Language: English
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Hear how Yahoo! Groups has changed the lives of others. Take me there.

Messages

Advanced
Messages Help
Messages 1376 - 1405 of 1785   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Messages: Show Message Summaries Sort by Date ^  
#1376 From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:31 am
Subject: This Land is Their Land -- Now
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
 

This land is their land -- now

A Colorado couple use a rarely invoked law to take part of a neighbor's lot. The squatters' rights case sparks outrage.
By DeeDee Correll, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
December 3, 2007
BOULDER, COLO. -- For more than 20 years, a retired judge and his lawyer wife trespassed on a vacant lot next door to their home.

They planted a garden there and stacked their firewood. They say they held parties there and walked the land so often they wore a path in the grass.
 
Last year, Richard McLean and Edith Stevens claimed the land as their own under Colorado's adverse possession law, once known as squatters' rights.

In October, a district judge awarded them one-third of the lot, which its owner values at $1 million.

Although the couple won in a court of law, they have not fared well in the court of public opinion in this university town, where the case has become a cause celebre, sparking a protest and calls for change to the law.

The doctrine of adverse possession, which says a person can gain possession of property after using it without challenge by the owner for a certain length of time, isn't a new or obscure legal doctrine. Still, its application in this case has the residents of this university town fuming.

"This scares the hell out of landowners," said Don Kirlin, the man whose property was taken away. He said he and his wife first took it as a joke when he heard of the former judge's designs on their land.

In 1984, Kirlin, a commercial airline pilot, and his wife, Susie, a former teacher, bought two adjacent lots on the southern edge of the now-pricey city. They lived in a home a short distance away, but hoped to someday build their dream house on their vacant land, which abuts city-owned open space, a rolling expanse of ponderosa pine and native grasses.

They frequently walked their dogs past their vacant land, but say they never saw any sign that anyone was using it.

Nor did they think to worry about such a thing, Susie Kirlin said. After all, they paid their property taxes and homeowner fees. They sprayed for noxious weeds and repaired fences. What else did an owner have to do?

That attitude speaks to misconceptions about property ownership, said Eduardo Peñalver, a law professor at Cornell University.

"There's a mythology of land ownership -- that if you own land, you can do anything you want," he said. Property rights are limited, he said. "This is one of those limitations: If you're not vigilant, it could be taken."

The law is based on a philosophy that land should be used, Denver real estate lawyer Willis V. Carpenter said. "If you don't use it and someone else does, they'll end up owning it," he said.

Every state in the country has an adverse possession law, although the requirements for bringing a case differ widely. For example, the length of time that a person must show uninterrupted use of another's land varies from five to 30 years.

In California, people who want to claim someone else's land must not only use it for at least five years, they also must pay property taxes on it. That's also the case in a handful of other states.

One reason for that requirement is to alert the owner that someone is using the property. "Most courts are not disposed to easily give land away," said Spencer W. Weisbroth, a San Francisco lawyer.

Because of that requirement, he said virtually all California cases fail.

The majority of cases involve minor boundary encroachments in which neighbors aren't sure where the borders of their land are, Peñalver said. Most are resolved without litigation; the owner issues a warning and the encroaching neighbor withdraws. "It's a rare case that gets litigated."

It's an even rarer case that makes the news.

That happened this year in New York, when a land dispute prompted the state Legislature to pass a law preventing someone who knowingly occupies someone else's land from acquiring it. The governor later vetoed the law, saying efforts to prove the person's state of mind would lead to more litigation.

Most states don't make a distinction between people who unknowingly occupy another person's land and those who do it deliberately, Peñalver said. But many people are more understanding when someone unknowingly uses someone else's land, he said.

Public reaction also depends on who's claiming the land.
In a highly publicized case in London, a homeless man this year won ownership of a small plot in a tony neighborhood where he had lived in a shack unchallenged for 21 years. He was seen as a sympathetic figure.

That wasn't the case in Colorado, where Boulder District Judge James C. Klein -- who has served since 2005 in the same judicial district where McLean served from 1981 to 1997 -- ruled the couple had demonstrated that their attachment to the land was "stronger than the true owners' attachment."

"Whereas defendants were unaware of plaintiffs' use of the disputed land during virtually their entire 22-year period of ownership, plaintiffs have efficiently used the land on a daily basis," Klein wrote in his opinion.

The judge granted McLean and Stevens one-third of the lot next to them. That decision rendered it too small to sell or to build a home on, Kirlin said.

The Kirlins and McLean and Stevens each say that they made efforts to settle the matter -- but that the other party would not accept the offers.

In addition to the specifics of the dispute, the Kirlins take issue with the application of adverse possession law itself, saying it has its place but wasn't intended for cases such as this.

Many in the community seem to agree. When the news hit, residents reacted in an Internet-fueled fury. Bloggers ridiculed McLean and Stevens as land-grabbers who used their knowledge of the law to steal from an unsuspecting neighbor.

Last month, more than 200 people flocked to the property, where they hoisted signs with slogans such as "Thou shall not steal" and shouted "shame" and "thief" at the McLean/Stevens home, the Denver Rocky Mountain News reported.

State Sen. Ron Tupa, a Democrat from Boulder, said he had received a flood of e-mails about the case; he and Rep. Rob Witwer, a Republican from Evergreen, intend to propose a change to the law, although they haven't settled on the specifics.

"If the law allows this kind of taking, then it needs to be changed," Tupa said.

A change in state law wouldn't affect the Boulder case, which the Kirlins say they intend to appeal. Regardless of the outcome, they say they still want to build a home on the second lot that was not affected by the decision, where Susie Kirlin recently stapled a sign to the fence.

Facing the home of McLean and Stevens, it reads, "You will never enjoy a stolen view."

deedee.correll@...
 
Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times

#1377 From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:26 am
Subject: [JAIL-Legal-Discussions] New Jail4Judges Oregon Web site
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
 

From: JAIL-Legal-Discussions@yahoogroups.com [mailto:JAIL-Legal-Discussions@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of LAWoman
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 1:13 AM
To: JAIL-Legal-Discussions@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [JAIL-Legal-Discussions] New Jail4Judges Oregon Web site

Check it out. Oregon Jail-In-Chief: Sherree Lowe, has a new web site

www.oregonjail4judges.org

Let her know what you think.

Angela Stark

LAWoman [angelastark@...]

Culver City, CA. Warden


 


#1378 From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:07 am
Subject: Double Standard
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
 
 
Double Standard
 
In normal non-judicial DUI cases, defendants are compelled to make good on the damages they caused, but often face jail time as well as being fined often in large sums such as $7,000, have their car impounded, and placed on probation. But with most cases with judges, they merely face a rebuke and suffer no harm.
 
In Washington State their Supreme Court Justice Bobbe Bridge, driving under the influence of liquor, side-swiped a parked vehicle and continued to drive off. "SEATTLE -- Supreme Court Justice Bobbe Bridge was arrested on charges of drunken driving and hit-and-run Friday after leaving the scene of an accident about a mile from her home in the Magnolia neighborhood, according to the Seattle Police Department." Sunday, March 2, 2003 Seattle Post. When she was caught, she merely had to face the embarrassment of the situation.
 
And in Ohio their Supreme Court Justice, Justice Robie Resnick in December of 2005 received only a slap on the wrist for DUI.
 
Drunken driving is very common among judges. They live social lives and often associate with the high society wherein drinking is in vogue. I have already mentioned two Supreme Court Justices above. And again I site for the record California Supreme Court Justice Joyce L. Kennard's DUI case in October of 1999.
 
I recommend clicking on http://www.jail4judges.org/JNJ_Library/2005/2005-02-24B.html  This is also true with lawyers.
 
Posted on the bulletin board in the Superior Court County of Los Angeles were signs that said, Confidential help for judges and attorneys having problems with drugs and alcohol. It provided a special 1 (800) number for them to call. I retrieved a copy of the poster and mass produced them for people to view. I still have a few of those posters around somewhere.
 
One can readily see that if they have to post such notices on the bulletin board, it tells you how common the problem is. But the hypocritical part is that these judges sit in judgment over others having the same problems as they are having, and render harsh penalties and judgments against the defendants. 
 
- Ron Branson
 

 
2 judges in DUI crash are rebuked
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
12/18/2007
Judges Fiss and Young
St. Clair County judges Jan V. Fiss, left, and Patrick M. Young

CHICAGO — Two St. Clair County judges involved in a drunken-driving accident last year won't be stripped of their black robes.

The two, Jan V. Fiss and Patrick M. Young, stood before a seven-member judicial discipline board Monday afternoon and apologized for their roles in a drunken-driving case that threatened their jobs and reputations.

The Illinois Courts Commission reprimanded the judges at a hearing in Chicago. The reprimands carry no consequences other than public embarrassment. The two will be allowed to remain on the bench, receive their salaries and, when they retire, their pensions. They could have been censured, suspended without pay, removed from office or not penalized at all.

According to a complaint filed by the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board, Young drank eight beers and two Bloody Marys before getting behind the wheel and crashing head-on with another man's pickup.
Fiss sat in the passenger seat and was spotted by a police officer hiding a beer can in his coat after the wreck. According to the complaint, Fiss had six beers and two Bloody Marys that day.

"I'm totally sorry," Fiss said Monday before the commission.

The beer can disappeared. Police officers never were able to find it after Fiss was first spotted with it.

According to a police report, Fiss said he was told to get rid of it. A Belleville police officer reported after the accident that Fiss refused to say who told him to dispose of the can.

The judicial complaint, filed this year, accused both judges of "conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice" and "brought the judicial office into disrepute."

Young's voice quavered as he spoke before the panel Monday.

"I certainly owe the judiciary an apology," said Young, who also apologized to his community and his family.

Clyde Kuehn, a former appellate judge representing Young, said his client has stopped drinking since the accident.

"It's a sad day he had to do this to the judiciary," Kuehn said. "It was a complete aberration of the kind of man he is."

Kuehn said the reprimand was fair.

"It will always be a mark against their name," Kuehn said. "This will always get brought up."

John Gallo, who prosecuted the case for the Judicial Inquiry Board, said the reprimand is consistent with past punishments. In 2001, a circuit judge from LaSalle County was reprimanded for trying to use her influence to avoid a drunken-driving arrest.

Ed Murnane, president of the Illinois Civil Justice League, a pro-tort reform lobby, said he accepted the commission's finding, although "a harsher penalty could've been given." Murnane had called for the judges to be removed from office when the accident happened.

The judges went to a Rams football game in December 2006 before heading to Tim & Joe's tavern in Belleville. They left the popular St. Clair County political hangout before the collision with the pickup.

Abel Muhammad, the man in the pickup, had to be freed from the truck by emergency responders. He suffered a broken leg and spend several days in a hospital.

Young, 59, was charged with driving under the influence. In a plea agreement, Young was given two years of court supervision and a $1,500 fine.

Fiss, 65, pleaded guilty to a charge of illegal transportation of alcohol and was fined $500.

In the wake of the accident, Fiss stepped down as chief judge of the 20th judicial circuit.

npistor@... | 618-624-2577

#1379 From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:30 am
Subject: * * * Despotism By Default * * *
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
Judicial  Accountability  Initiative  Law
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                              December 20, 2007
A Public Service Announcement to America
(To be removed from this PSA see instructions below)
___________________________________

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?


 Despotism By Default

By Barbie, ACIC, National J.A.I.L. 

victoryusa@...

 

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

(Edmund Burke, 1729-1797)

This is why we have in America despotism--  Despotism By Default. The People did nothing to see to it that their Liberty and other unalienable rights were secured by enforcing their Power By Consent via the Constitution. The Constitution memorializes their consent in writing directed to a protective government they were intended to institute pursuant to the laws of nature and of nature's God --an immutable, self-evident truth written into our Founding document, the Declaration of Independence, framing The Great American Experiment. 

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."  (Wendell Phillips, 1811-1884)

 

The term "default" is defined as "By its derivation, a failure. (citation). An omission of that which ought to be done. (citation). ..." Black's Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Ed. The forfeiture of the People's Power By Consent resulted in the immediate takeover of tyrannical Power By Conquest, discussed in Forfeiture of The Great American Experiment http://www.jail4judges.org/JNJ_Library/2007/2007-12-07.html.  Therein we stated:

The People must remain eternally vigilant to maintain the use of that right, otherwise it will be lost by forfeiture and the vacuum left will at once be filled by Power By Conquest (despotism), by default.

If  the People allow themselves to be manipulated and controlled by a power foreign to our Constitution, foreign to the Laws of Nature, foreign to decency and morality, by our complacency, laziness, and ignorance of truth, we forfeit our sovereignty and rights with which we were born and give it over to the Foreign Power under the guise of "government" who seizes it by Conquest. We become enslaved under a "might-makes-right" mentality. We are ruled by fraud and deceit under secret international societies. By busyness, amusement, and distraction, it's as if we've been drugged, and we don't realize what's happening to us as a society.  But we'd better shake off our stupor immediately!  

 

Keep the following prediction in mind.  It's more real today than when it was made over fifty years ago --its effects are now more obvious than ever on everyday American life:  

"We shall have world government, whether or not we like it," declared international banker James P. Warburg (CFR) in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1950. "The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest." The Price of Losing by William P. Hoar  http://reformed-theology.org/jbs/html/price_of_losing.htm

 

Obviously "world government" won't be achieved by consent, so it will be   achieved by conquest --if the People remain complacent and  allow it to develop furtherThe future of America is up to the People!  But the People must be informed of the truth, as we are doing, before they can act on it.

 

The People can thank the advent of the internet as the most valuable means of  exposing the truth that the mainstream media attempts to cover up. Indeed, that is how J.A.I.L. got off the ground. Now that the truth is getting out to the People, the Lie Brokers managing the Power By Conquest are desperately resorting to heavy propaganda --their only weapon-- to keep their power afloat and prevent Power By Consent of the People from taking hold. That weapon will work only as long as the People remain ignorant of the truth in which case they will be destroyed under absolute despotism. "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge..." Hosea 4:6.

 

However, "knowledge" in and of itself is not sufficient to overcome the propaganda. The People must obtain particular knowledge to discern truth from error, for without that discernment, the People will continue to remain in bondage by forfeiture to the Power By Conquest conducted by the conquering regime, the Foreign Power. In other words, the People will be "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." II Tim.3:7. It is knowledge of truth that accomplishes freedom from despotism. "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:32.

  

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance ~  

it is the illusion of knowledge."   (Daniel Boorstin).

 

The enemy is wise in its deceits against the People, which was well illustrated in South Dakota last election. Visit www.sd-jail4judges.org for details. Spewing propaganda throughout all media outlets, including the internet, and blocking sources of truth (such as a Voters' Guide) from the People were the major strategies used. Tom Barnett of the South Dakota Bar Association, who led the anti-J.A.I.L. campaign in S.D., told the Florida Bar Association shortly after the election, that one poll showed that allowing jurors to be sued [under J.A.I.L. --a lie, of course] was opposed by 86 percent of the voters. “It’s a very, very powerful message,” he said. “That’s why we used that.” See The Looming War For The Minds of Americans http://www.jail4judges.org/JNJ_Library/2007/2007-01-10.html. South Dakota was the test state for J.A.I.L. and we learned a lot from that experience we wouldn't have otherwise. It  served as the proverbial "two-by-four" hitting us between the eyes that woke us up  to the Foreign Power! 

 

The internet is fraught with articles exposing the biggest fraud scheme ever devised against the American People resulting in Despotism by Default. Despotism is a result, not a cause. It developed as a result of the People's lack of vigilance in protecting their rights, particularly their Liberty. They defaulted in seeing to it that the protection of their rights could and would be enforced by them through a provision written into the Constitution. Thus, the People would have maintained their inherent Power By Consent, enabling them to exercise their duty to throw off such despotism, if it arose, and to provide new guards for their future security. (Declaration of Independence).

 

The resulting Power By Conquest, or Despotism by Default, can be maintained by the conquerors, i.e., the Foreign Power, only in secret by fraud on the American People because it is a counterfeit power, wantonly usurped from the People under color of lawThere is no hiding of the fact that it is an "elaborate scam" on our People, one that no matter how elaborate, how big, how far-reaching, and how long it has existed, is null and void ab initio (from its inception) --of no validity or effect  as a matter of law.

 

The People's Power By Consent is their inherent authority to institute government for the protection of their rights under the laws of nature. The fact that the People defaulted on the vigilance of their Liberty does not make that Liberty and the protection thereof any less inherent and immutable. The Power By Conquest that has usurped control of our beloved country is nothing less than organized crime on an international scale. The fact that it is indeed happening makes it no less organized crime!

 

That is why the People must claim their inherent authority and make sure that it is enforced. Today, that enforcement provision is J.A.I.L. When J.A.I.L. comes into effect, the alleged defendant-judges will be free to argue the facts establishing the organized crime as their defense to try to justify their actions in alleged willful violation of the Constitution. The Special Grand Jury will then determine whether or not the judge acted under this, or any other, fraudulent scheme. It won't be difficult to prove the fraud perpetrated on the American People. Why do you suppose the perpetrators, especially the legal fraternity and their corporate sympathizers, are in such a panic over J.A.I.L.? You see what happened in South Dakota --we now know why. The crooks have been rooted out into the full light of day and they're scared!   

 

It's time that this matter be confronted with the truth by the People, and J.A.I.L. is the only way that will happen. The People deem the Constitution the supreme law of the land, as it states, and it must be enforced by them. The People must wake up and become passionate about truth, about the protection of their rights, about claiming their Power by Consent and enforcing it. We must become passionate about J.A.I.L. and rid this country of Despotism by Default!  

 

 


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

To manage subscription, place the word Subscribe or Unsubscribe

in 'subject' line and hit reply. Your request will be automatically & instantly

processed. (Note: Program will not permit re-subscribes once unsubscribed.)

 

Our Founding Fathers said, "...with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine

Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and

our sacred honor." Declaration of Independence. We are a ministry in great need of your financial support. Send your donations for this vitally important work to:

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 i
s

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

 
 

 


#1380 From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Mon Dec 24, 2007 3:52 am
Subject: Officer Shoots Innocent Customer With Taser Gun
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
 
Officer Shoots Innocent Customer
With Taser Gun
 
MSNBC News

Officer uses Taser to tame Best Buy customer

Sides split on what happened; review begins

updated 2:38 p.m. PT, Fri., Dec. 21, 2007

DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. - A review is under way in the case of a Florida police officer who used a stun gun on a woman who had yelled at her.

Last month's incident began as Elizabeth Beeland, 35, tried to buy a CD player at an electronics store, and stepped outside to talk on her phone, leaving her credit card behind. A store clerk became suspicious, and suspected Beeland was using a stolen card. When police officer Claudia Wright approached, she said Beeland became "verbally profane" and "abusive."

Wright said she warned Beeland to calm down or face arrest. The officer hit Beeland in the stomach with the Taser darts and arrested her on charges of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

In a video, the customer is seen backing away, then crumpling to the ground after being tasered.

Police later verified that Beeland was using her own credit card, but she was arrested for disorderly conduct and resisting a police officer without violence. She has since pleaded not guilty.

Two sides to story, video
Daytona Beach Police Chief Mike Chitwood defended the officer's actions, which he said avoided use of other weapons.

"Even if you look at the video, when the officer stepped toward her after announcing she's under arrest, she's flailing her arms and retreating from the officer," Chitwood said. "Police work isn't pretty. It doesn't look pretty, but from where we sit, interviewing civilian witnesses and people may or may not agree, but she followed our policy, she followed FDLE (Florida Department of Law Enforcement) guidelines."

Cop Watch's George Crosley sees the incident in a different way. His group polices police actions. He said he is stunned by the store surveillance video. 

"This is wrong, this shouldn't have happened that way," Crosley said. "When the officer starts toward her, you don't see her threatening the officer, you see her backing off with her hands up," he said. "If she couldn't figure out how to handle it, she should have called for back up. The truth of the matter is, people have died as a result of being tased."

State prosecutors are reviewing whether to pursue the case against Beeland. Beeland's attorney is also reviewing the incident.


Comments by Ron Branson

It should be noted the key factor here, as in any situation, is Probable Cause for the original action of the commission of a crime. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard of people being arrested for resisting arrest. This presents the chicken or the egg syndrome when it comes to what came first.

Had the lady above committed, or was she in the commission of a crime?  This is the first question that must be dealt with. The argument above is that the woman became verbally abusive. So now we come to the question as to whether there was any external action which precipitated why the woman became verbally abusive, if indeed verbal abuse is a crime. (Verbal abuse is not a crime, but the argument is that she exhibited disorderly conduct.)

Anyone can approach a stranger and provoke them to verbal abuse, and especially so when that person is wearing a uniform and badge asking probing questions. One my seek to justify the actions of the officer by saying, "Officers have a right to ask probing questions!" But then we return to the question of Probable Cause for provoking a person to "verbally abuse," and thus exhibiting "disorderly conduct." 

Let's suppose there were no police officer here. Independent of that fact, is there, or was there a crime committed? Absolutely not! No one was damaged, injured or defrauded, nor was there disorderly conduct. The supposed "crime" was only precipitated by the actions of the police officer acting absent Probable Cause pursuant to the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Now we add in a taser gun. We are told "Police Chief Mike Chitwood defended the officer's actions, which he said avoided use of other weapons."  What? A taser gun was appropriate in order to avoid us of other weapons? But then again I ask, what was the crime committed that called for the use of weapons, lethal or non-lethal?

Try and experiment. Approach a strange lady in a crowded mall and tell her you want to search her purse. I guarantee you that she is likely to respond with some unpleasant words. Does her unpleasant words provide grounds for use of a weapon? "Gee, she must be hiding something in her purse that I might find incriminating to justify my actions," I say.  Thus, everyone is guilty of whatever they might be suspected of them until they prove themselves innocent. This violates the very concept of American principles, guilty until proven innocent.

On the TV news just two days ago was a police chase. When they finally caught the man, he was charged with fleeing the police. I immediately asked myself what was the Probable Cause that precipitate the police chasing the man.

Whenever police shoot and kill a person, they generally claim they "feared for their lives." This is a standard police buzz word every police officer in the country knows and practices. So I turn this around and ask, is it possible that one may fear the police because of a former police action, and rather than shooting, they merely flee the presence of the police? If fear is a justified reason for shooting a person, then how about fear justifying fleeing? 

In armed guard training classes often films are shown that allows the trainee to interplay with given situations. In one of these training films I saw, a report came in of suspicious behavior by a man down by the railroad tracks. The trainee responds to the call, and finds a young man approaching him from across the tracks. You issued an order to freeze. The young man continues to approach you. You draw you gun and re-issue your command.

The young man approaching you now reaches into his back pocket. You are called upon to decide whether protective sleeve identifying himself as a legal deaf-mute and cannot hear anything. If you chose to shoot, you killed an innocent 17 year old deaf-mute seeking to tell you that he suffered total hearing loss and could not hear you.

A social worker was placed into this training course, and every person she shot and killed was totally innocent, but she killed everyone of them out of fear.

- Ron Branson
 
 

#1381 From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Mon Dec 24, 2007 6:40 am
Subject: New World Order Christmas CD
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
 
 
New World Order Christmas CD
Nine Free New Songs for 2004!


Get yours today!

Send Property Forfeitures, copy of your National ID, retina scan, and complete set of fingerprints to:


NWO CD
Homeland Security
C\o Gestapo Division
Washington, DeCeived 00666


Bring back holiday memories with old time favorites such as...


It's Beginning To Look A Lot Like Russia
Deck The Streets With Mics And Cameras, Tra La La La La La Lalala
What Child Is This With No Microchip?
Oh Christians Flee, Oh Christians Flee
God, Rest Ye Merry Jack-Booted Thugs
....
Ashcroft, The Nazi Overseer
O Come All Ye Commies
Silent Night, Kristallnacht
Blow Up The World! World War Has Come!
Little Caesar Boy
Jay-El Cells, Jay-El Cells
O Little Clown Of Washington
I'm Dreaming Of A New World Order
I Saw Mommy Take the Pox Vaccine
Hark!  The Clinking Clanking Chains
I Saw Three Tanks Come Rolling In
Mushroom Clouds We Have Seen on High


Plus Nine New Songs:


Martial Law Is Coming To Town
It's The Most Wonderful War of the Year
It Came Upon Terror and Fear
Nuclear-Winter Wonderland
All I Want for Christmas is Iraqi's Oil Fields
Today, We're in Danger, the Bill of Rights are Dead.
Saddam Got Run Over By Illuminati Profiteers
Osamy, The Show Man
Good King Georgesenseless
Plus many other holiday hits!


Copyright- Illuminati Tunes

------------ --------
We Want to Give it to you!
Get Yours TODAY!
Or Else.


#1382 From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:43 am
Subject: * * * J.A.I.L. Sues Florida Bar In U.S. Supreme Court * * *
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
 J.A.I.L. News Journal
Judicial  Accountability  Initiative  Law
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                              February 10, 2008
A Public Service Announcement to America
(To be removed from this PSA, see instructions below)

______________________________________________________

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?


J.A.I.L. Sues Florida Bar

in U.S. Supreme Court 

 

On January 7, 2008, a petition for writ of certiorari was docketed in the United States Supreme Court titled Florida JAIL4Judges, Petitioner v. The Florida Bar, Respondent, prepared and filed by Montgomery Blair Sibley, Attorney for Petitioner, on behalf of Florida JAIL4Judges and Florida JAILer-in-Chief (JIC), Nancy Grant, ngrant@....

 

The background of this lawsuit is quite interesting and goes back to the South Dakota 2006 ballot. For a history see www.sd-jail4judges.org. Therein we explain the shenanigans that went on in South Dakota to misrepresent the J.A.I.L. Amendment before the electorate. As a result, J.A.I.L. went down allegedly 89% against to 11% in favor. Thereafter Attorney Tom Barnett, the Director of the South Dakota Bar Association and leading the opposition campaign rushed down to Florida to address the Florida Bar, bragging on how they "defeated" JAIL4Judges in South Dakota. This event is documented

at  http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/JNNews01.nsf/8c9f13012b96736985256aa900624829/7a6a21fb7adc02748525725d0057227d?OpenDocument on the Florida Bar website. See The Foreign Power Planting Seeds of Destruction http://www.jail4judges.org/JNJ_Library/2007/2007-01-19B.html.

 

South Dakotans were eager to get judicial accountability to the People, and J.A.I.L. held a 3 to 1 lead throughout the campaign for over a year. Below is the article about Tom Barnett, who led the campaign against J.A.I.L. in South Dakota, sowing the seeds of deception in Florida, after his claimed "success" in South Dakota. Read it carefully to see the intentional fraud and deceit, amounting to voter intimidation: (See especially portions marked in red)

 

The Florida Bar
651 E. Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300
(850) 561-5600
January 15, 2007 
Despite SD loss, J.A.I.L.4Judges targets Florida
Attorneys urged to be prepared for the fight
By Gary Blankenship
Senior Editor

(Excerpts):

If backers of an amendment known as J.A.I.L.4Judges succeed in getting their constitutional amendment on the Florida ballot, the state’s lawyers should be ready to lead a campaign to defeat it.

The public face of that campaign should not be judges and lawyers, but rather regular citizens who would be adversely affected by the amendment ...
Tom Barnett, executive director of the State Bar of South Dakota, gave that advice to the Bar Board of Governors at its December [2007] meeting. Barnett led the campaign last year that resulted in the defeat of a J.A.I.L.4Judges initiative in South Dakota that wound up failing by an 89-to-11 percent margin.


“When we planned our campaign, we immediately decided that the worst people to talk about attacks on judges were judges and the second worst people were lawyers,” Barnett said. “What we needed were people on the street.” ...

The Florida chapter of the organization (its Web site is
http://floridajail4judges.org ) is already trying to get signatures for an initiative petition. It provides that judges and those who act in a judicial capacity can lose immunity from civil and criminal prosecution in some cases. Under the amendment, the losing party in a case, civil or criminal, can file a petition with a special statewide grand jury once all appeals have been exhausted. The grand jury can ... make the judge subject to civil or criminal liability.
...
Barnett said one poll showed that allowing jurors to be sued was opposed by 86 percent of the voters. “It’s a very, very powerful message,” he said. “That’s why we used that.”

...
[T]he anti-amendment campaign was able to get financial and political support from bankers, insurance companies, car dealers, and even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and tort reform groups that recognized the potential mayhem from the amendment, Barnett said.
...
He advised the Bar to begin preparing early for the potential campaign, and outlined how the anti-amendment campaign was waged in South Dakota.
...
Early last year when Barnett geared up the campaign against the amendment, initial polls showed that voters had a favorable impression of the measure by a 3-1 to 4-1 margin.
...
With more money, Barnett was able to begin television and radio ads. Those emphasized that convicted criminals could use the amendment to harass jurors and try to get out of jail, ...

© 2005 The Florida Bar
 
This rhetoric spewed out by Barnett so enraged Florida Bar member Montgomery Sibley that he brought suit against the Florida Bar for illegal and unlawful use of Bar membership dues. The nature of the lawsuit filed in the Florida Supreme Court, which was three-pronged, alleges that any entity that advocates for or against a State Constitutional Amendment must be registered as a Political Action Committee (PAC). Florida JAIL4Judges, pursuant to this law, is an officially-recognized PAC with a State-assigned number. However, its opposition (The Florida Bar) is not. The lawsuit seeks to compel the Florida Bar to comply with Florida law and register as a PAC, albeit pointing out that the Florida Bar is a duly-recognized official arm of the Florida Supreme Court and the second prong is that the Florida Bar is precluded by Florida law from involving itself in State initiatives.
 
The third prong asks that the seven justices of the State Supreme Court recuse themselves because their own official arm is the defendant. This of course placed the Florida Supreme Court in a real catch-22 situation which they stalled upon ad infinitum, refusing to make a decision on their own conflict. Finally by compulsion the Florida Supreme Court determined that they were not the proper court to decide the question before them. Another motion followed by Attorney Sibley calling on them to decide the question before them or state why they did not have jurisdiction to make a ruling. The motion was denied and the instant matter is now brought before the United States Supreme Court.
 
The current petition, assigned Case No. 07-885, may be read at http://www.jail4judges.org/state_chapters/fl/Petition.pdf.  What we now know is that the entire State of Florida, including its Supreme Court, is incapable of deciding a matter in which it has a conflict of interest. Left to be decided by the United States Supreme Court is whether Florida JAIL4Judges has a forum available to it for redress of grievance (First Amendment, U.S. Constitution). Maybe even more basic is, do we have a U.S. Constitution? We shall soon find out. If in the negative, J.A.I.L. has made a prima facie case to all Americans as to the universal need for the passage of J.A.I.L. in this country. We ask, without J.A.I.L. does America even have a future?
 
The national media, to which this is being sent, should be very interested in following this case.
 
-Ron Branson-
 

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

To manage subscription, place the word Subscribe or Unsubscribe

in 'subject' line and hit reply. Your request will be automatically & instantly

processed. (Note: Program will not permit re-subscribes once unsubscribed.)

 

Our Founding Fathers said, "...with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine

Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and

our sacred honor." Declaration of Independence. We are a ministry in great need of your financial support. Send your donations for this vitally important work to:

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 i
s

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

 

#1383 From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 3:28 am
Subject: No License to Drive in South Dakota
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
 
No License to Drive in South Dakota

(Ron's Response Below Article)
 
02/28/2008

Follow-Up: No License To Drive

 

Click to watch video
Read Comments
Post Comment
109
Posts

It could shock you to know how many people are on the road and don't have a drivers license, either because it was taken away or they simply never got one. On Wednesday night’s Eye on KELOLAND we showed you people driving away from the Minnehaha County Courthouse after pleading guilty for not having a license. 

So what are the penalties and why aren't they being enforced? 

As people walked out to their cars just minutes after being in court for not having a drivers license, KELOLAND's Lou Raguse asked why they were breaking the law, again. 

We caught them easy enough, so why isn't law enforcement doing the same? 

Minnehaha County State’s Attorney Dave Nelson says, “I don't think there's any question but that we can be and probably should be much more aggressive, particularly with repeat offenders.” 

Nelson says the number of people who drive with a revoked or suspended license is astounding.
He says, “We have people driving on the streets of Sioux Falls, on the streets on South Dakota that aren't eligible to get a drivers license for the next five years or longer because of their history of driving while suspended, or driving while revoked, or driving without proof of insurance.” 

Nelson says this class two misdemeanor can send a person to jail for 30 days...or even up to a year. But he says that rarely happens. 

“Driving without a license is a very foolish reason to go to jail. Some people do when they repeat enough, but typically that's not what the penalty is,” Nelson says. 

Nelson says he's tried to fix the serious problem before.

He says, “We experimented with that several years ago where I had members of the Police Department come over to courtroom 1A and follow these people out into the parking lot and cite them and we were successful in doing that. But again that's a very very labor intensive and expensive and time consuming proposition.” 

He says it essentially comes down to money, and it would be too expensive to put everybody who drives without a license in jail. 

We contacted judges who see people daily for driving without a license and asked them what they think could be done to keep them from behind the wheel. Two we spoke with on the phone didn't want to comment on camera. And one told us it happens every day. Sheriff Mike Milstead says they just don't have enough resources to make sure those without a license don't drive away from court.

Kelli Grant
© 2008 KELOLAND TV. All Rights Reserved.
 
 
Ron Branson's Response:
 
It is interesting that South Dakota is now having problems enforcing their driving licenses laws. During the 2006 election cycle the subject of driving licenses was brought up in the legislature's alleged "Resolution" against South Dakota JAIL4Judges http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2006/bills/HCR1004p.htm wherein it is said:
 
"WHEREAS,  the author of Amendment E has publicly stated that with the passage of Amendment E, Judicial Accountability Initiated Law members from across the country will "purposely drive to South Dakota...just for the privilege of getting a traffic ticket so you can demand a jury trial."
 
So now South Dakota is finding it difficult to enforce their driver's license law against unlicensed drivers. J.A.I.L. raised the question during the election as to how they were going to enforce the law against unlicensed drivers by obeying their Oath's of Office in providing a Jury trial to each and every driving offense as provided in the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Sec. 2, clause 3, "The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury." Once one determines that driving offenses has nothing to do with impeachment, it becomes incumbent upon all judges to respect the Constitution regarding jury trials, or out they go with the loss of half their retirement. No wonder they feared the passage of J.A.I.L. so much in South Dakota. If it became so in South Dakota, it would have subjected the entire judiciary to the same constitutional standard in all fifty states.  J.A.I.L. is the only way we the People are going to turn around this nation once again accountable to the People.
 
- Ron Branson
 
 
 
 

#1384 From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Mar 8, 2008 2:09 am
Subject: Federal Judiciary Panicing Over JAIL4Judges
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 


Federal Judiciary Panicking

Over JAIL4Judges


-----Original Message-----
From: Montgomery Sibley [
mailto:mbsibley@...]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 11:39 AM
To: JAIL4Judges
Subject: FW: Open letter to Chief Justice Roberts re judges' adoption on March 11 of rules for self-exemption from discipline


Ron,

FYI Jail4Judges is putting the federal judiciary in a panic.  I will have more thoughts on this for you later.

Montgomery

-----Original Message-----
From: dr.richard.cordero.esq@...
[
mailto:dr.richard.cordero.esq@...]
Sent: 03/05/2008 1:20 PM
To: mbsibley@...
Subject: Open letter to Chief Justice Roberts re judges' adoption on March
11 of rules for self-exemption from discipline


            Federal Judges are Ready to Adopt on March 11
            Rules Enabling Them to Continue Dismissing Systematically
            Misconduct Complaints Against Them
            Thus Self-Exempting from Any Discipline


Dear Mr. Sibley,

The open letter below to Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts concerns the
Revised Rules for processing misconduct and disability complaints against
federal judges filed under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act by
anybody. The Revised Rules are pending for adoption next March 11 by the
Judicial Conference of the U.S., which is the highest policy-making body of
the Federal Judiciary and presided by the Chief Justice.

This open letter is being submitted as an incentive for your media
organization to investigate this important matter and as an Op-Ed,
modifiable, if requested, as a letter to the editor of your online and print
publications.

Indeed, the official statistics on the disposition of such complaints
against judges show that during the 10-year period 1997-2006, there were
filed 7,462 judicial complaints, but the judges had only 7 investigated by
special committees and disciplined only 9 of their peers!

By the judges' own categories, the dismissed complaints dealt with
misconduct and disability such as:

* conflict of interests
* bribery
* corruption
* abuse of judicial power
* bias
* prejudice
* incompetence
* mental or physical disability preventing the discharge of official duties.

Despite the seriousness of these complaints, the judges systematically and
without any investigation dismissed 99.88% of them. Thereby they
self-exempted from any discipline for their misconduct and disability and in
practice deprived the people of a right conferred upon them by an Act of
Congress.

Such abuse prompted Congress to criticize the judges and propose the
establishment of an inspector general for the judiciary. To ward off
Congressional supervision, the Late Chief Justice Rehnquist set up a
committee chaired by Justice Breyer to study the handling of such
complaints.

The Breyer Committee held no hearings, published no comments submitted to
it, and did not release even the redacted complaints on which it based its
knowingly false conclusion that the judges "have properly implemented the
Act in respect to the vast majority of the complaints filed".

Next March 11, Chief Justice Roberts and the top judges on the Judicial
Conference will meet to adopt the Revised Rules for implementing the Breyer
Committee recommendations. Far from stopping the systematic dismissal of
complaints, these Rules authorize it as the official policy of the
Judiciary, as shown below in the open letter.

Judges who exercise enormous power over people's property, liberty, and even
life and self-exempt from any discipline wield absolute power, which
corrupts absolutely. Wouldn't your audience want to know more about having
their rights decided by judges who have so little respect for the rule of
law that they will in all likelihood adopt the Rules in defense of their
arrogated "Unequal Position Above Law"?

To show you that if you decide to investigate this matter I can provide you
with information and data that can help you hit the ground running, I have
prepared the list of Judicial Conference members, addresses, and phone
numbers, which can prove very useful to conduct phone interviews to begin
with. You can retrieve it through:
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/judicial_complaints/Jud_Confer_contact
_info.pdf.

The Revised Rules, the statistics, the Breyer Report, etc., and their
analysis can be downloaded through:
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/judicial_complaints/DrCordero_revised_
rules.pdf.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@...
tel. (718)827-9521
59 Crescent Street
Brooklyn, NY 11208
********************************************************


OPEN LETTER
(sample of the letter sent to each member of the Judicial Conference of the
U.S.)

February 9, 2008

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
Presiding Officer
Judicial Conference of the U.S.
c/o Supreme Court of the United States
Washington, D.C. 20543


Dear Mr. Chief Justice Roberts,

I am writing to you as member of the Judicial Conference, which next March
11 will consider the adoption of the Revised Rules for processing judicial
misconduct and disability complaints. These Rules, just as the current ones
that they are supposed to replace, are irremediably flawed as part of the
inherently biased system of judges judging judges

Indeed, the official statistics on the disposition of such complaints show
that during the 10-year period 1997-2006, there were filed 7,462 judicial
complaints, but the judges had only 7 investigated by special committees and
disciplined only 9 of their peers! This means that the judges systematically
dismissed 99.88% of all complaints.

The Late Chief Justice Rehnquist and the Breyer Committee knew about these
statistics, yet pretended that the Act had been satisfactorily implemented.
Likewise, the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability pretends that if
only the rules are reworded, judges will handle complaints against
themselves as anything other than a dismissible nuisance. However, its Rules
only authorize the continuation of such systematic dismissal by:

Rule 2(b) allowing the non-application of any rule by the judges handling
complaints, thus rendering the Rules optional rather than mandatory and
ensuring their inconsistent and capricious application;

Rule 3 and its Commentary depriving the official Commentaries of any
authoritative status as well as the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges and even
mandatory rules on gifts, outside income, and financial disclosure reporting
of any guidance value;

Rule 13 Commentary pretending that special committees may be barred from
disclosing information about judges' criminal conduct to prosecutors and
grand juries, thus providing for cover ups.

My comments at
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/judicial_complaints/DrCordero_revised_
rules.pdf
(accompanied by all relevant documents or links to them) show that these are
but some of the most blatant provisions to ensure the Rules'
ineffectiveness.

They also show how they are procedurally flawed, for the facts establish the
intentional circumvention of the requirement of "giving appropriate public
notice and opportunity for comment".

Therefore, I respectfully request that you and through you the Conference:

1) take cognizance of my comments, hereby submitted to both;

2) not adopt the Revised Rules;

3) in the interest of justice and the public's trust in the integrity of
judicial process, call on Congress to replace the current system of judicial
self-discipline inherently flawed through self-interest with an independent
citizens' board for judicial accountability and discipline, neither
appointed by, nor answerable to, any judges; otherwise,

4) submit the Revised Rules to public scrutiny through appropriate notice
and make public all comments thereupon submitted as well as all those
already submitted by judges and others in what was supposed to be a process
of public comment rather than a veiled opportunity for judges to indicate to
its drafting peers and the Conference how to turn the practice of
systematically dismissing judicial complaints into the official policy for
defeating the Act through self-exemption from all discipline.

Looking forward to hearing from you, I remain,

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@...


#1385 From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:24 pm
Subject: Seeking A Remedy
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
 
 
Dear Don Rufty, you have requested to know if the below is an accurate summary of J.A.I.L.  I shall endeavor to answer your request within your below paragraphs in color.  God bless.  - Ron Branson


From: DonRufty@... [mailto:DonRufty@...]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 7:06 AM
To: JAIL4Judges
Subject: Fwd: Strategizing Re: [AMOJ_MAIN] Attorney David Limbaugh ADMITS some JUDGES...

Ron,
    Is this an accurate summary?
        Don Rufty
 
 
In a message dated 3/5/2008 11:03:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, jrogins@... writes:
The disagreements over what needs to be done come from the lack of
understanding of the problem.   That is why I want to try and arrive at
an agreement on the nature of the problem we face.  If and when we do
it, the identification of the solutions will be made easier.  

NATURE OF THE PROBLEM / EXAMPLE 1
For over ten years an organization with which most of you are familiar,
JAIL4JUDGES  ("J4J"), attempted (not sure still is) to pass a so-called
Judicial Accountability Initiative(?) Legislation ("JAIL") as a ballot
initiative.  JAIL would permit suits by alleged victims of judicial malice
against the alleged culprit judges where the claimants have established
a prima facie case of judicial malice before the special grand juries,
likewise created and empowered by JAIL.    
 
The criteria of J.A.I.L. is not malice, but rather willful violations of the law. See paragraph 2 of the J.A.I.L. Initiative.
 
 

After considerable tries, J4J succeeded at putting its initiative on the
ballots for the Year 2006 in South Dakota ("SD"), a state of small population,
which made the task of signature gathering achievable.    Those who
followed what happened thereafter could attest that the State Bar,
the Attorney General's office,  the media, even "Justice" O'Connor
brutally attacked JAIL, J4J and its leader, Ron Branson, claiming
the organization was a bunch out-of-staters coming to cause havoc
in SD.  They completely misrepresented the essence of JAIL and
claimed disastrous consequences would ensue if JAIL were passed.
The media campaign was in large part underwritten by SD banks!!! 
The SD Attorney General (if I remember correctly) threatened that
if JAIL passed, his office would immediately file a court challenge to
it on constitutional grounds.  At the voting places the South Dakotas
received a printed message that blatantly misrepresented the nature
of JAIL and employed scare tactics.   JAIL was "soundly defeated"
in SD at the ballot box.   
 
 
The signatures gathered in South Dakota were gathered by South Dakotans whom we hired for that purpose at the rate of $2.56 each. Despite this fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that while non-citizens of other states may not sign the ballot they circulate, gathering signatures for a ballot measure is a First Amendment right. Therefore, the argument made by the state of South Dakota is purely mute, as they too are bound by Oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution!
 
 

QUESTION:  1)  What if anything does this example teach us about
the nature of the problem we are facing in trying to bring about judicial
accountability and the forces in opposition to us in this regard? 

Jacob Roginsky
P.S.  Based on my understanding of the problem that we face, I  had predicted 
perfectly what happened in SD, namely that JAIL would be attacked and
misrepresented by the state government, the lawyer interests, the media, and
the corporations, and would be challenged in court if it by a miracle survived
the attacks and misrepresentations, which it did not. 
 
 
What I have learned as a result of the South Dakota experience is that when dealing with the government, they are not playing with a full deck.  It is not a contest of "may the best man win," but rather, "our guns are bigger than yours."  I was mistaken in presuming that all fifty states provided a voter's guide to all the voters so that they would know exactly what they were voting for. This is the way we do it in California. In South Dakota, everyone must trust the representation made by the Attorney General.  This is a pure conflict of interest in that the Attorney General is the official attorney representing all of the judges in the state when judges face a legal confrontation by the people.  It is like the attorney for the other side sitting on the bench adjudicating the dispute.
 
 

Jonathon Moseley wrote:


Okay, with complete sincerety and agreement, how do we start? 

I would imagine that mapping out where the problems are (where the enemy forces are deployed like in battle planning) might help locate their weakest spots.

I think it is obvious to me so far that direct action educating and mobilizing the public has the virtue of not depending on anyone else to assist us and not allowin anyone else to block us.

My concern, again, is that by trying to find "the one and only" root cause of the problem and "the one and only" solution we set ourselves up for debating each other endlessly to decide which is the "ONLY" root cause and action item.  I just don't want to see us going around and around endlessly trying to find "only one" real problem, when this may be an endless debate. 

 

The chief problem in this country is the doctrine of judicial immunity "passed" into "law" by the judges themselves. Any other "remedy" that does not bear upon judicial immunity leads to frustration and spinning of wheels. Obviously, any "remedy" that does not curb judicial immunity will face judges deciding the validity of the matter while they are themselves protected by judicial immunity. It is like my request that I be granted a single wish in which I can have whatever I want. My wish will be that I will have unlimited wishes. Absolute power will always assure it retains absolute power forever.

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jacob Roginsky
Sent: Mar 4, 2008 9:21 PM
To: AMOJ_MAIN@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [AMOJ_MAIN] Attorney David Limbaugh ADMITS some JUDGES BIASED

If we are to make this an utmost productive discussion, we must be brief, to the point, and direct -- euphemisms and redundancies do not belong in such a
scheme.  

Jonathan says. "... I think that these points can be made best by giving examples of what we should do instead of what we should not."  We need to talk about both,
and I started doing that.  We need to talk about the things we should not do because we need to mobilize those who do such things for doing what we should do, and, in any event, quit distracting those of us who can do what we should be doing.

What we should be doing, in my opinion  (as I already said), is first educate ourselves about the problem that we face, then strategize and create a plan of action, then act.   Until we understand the problem, we are not able to intelligently articulate solutions or understand the relevance of the solutions articulated by others.   This conversation is a good beginning,

Jacob Roginsky 

 

The Scriptures teach us in II Timothy 3:7, that people are "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."  Hosea 4:6 tell us, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee,"  

This describes the patriot movement to a "T". Patriots will always be seeking a remedy, but never able to come unto the knowledge of the truth. God forbid they should stumble upon the truth and see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and lest they discover a remedy to the saving of this nation. So long as patriots behold "another" remedy, they shall pursue it, for wheresoever their treasure is, there will their heart be also.


Jonathon Moseley wrote:

On this, I completely agree.  We must plan for a strategy that does not depend upon the cooperation of anyone.

I believe that if you hone our skills at dealing with the media (as with legal action) we maximize our chances of getting through.

But Jacob is correct.  We cannot win by hoping that someone else will suddenly decide we are right and out of the goodness of their heart come to our rescue. 

Plans that expect a journalist or a politician or anyone else to have a "Eureka" / light bulb moment and suddenly decide we are right are not likely to succeed.

I have always said that  IF anyone else is going to help you it will be because it suits THEIR goals and interests, not because they suddenly see you as a shining example of goodness and light and are persuaded by your rhetoric.

But I also agree with Jacob that the best plan of all is one that depends only on us.  If anyone else helps, great.  But if they don't, we are not blocked from further progress.

However, I think that these points can be made best by giving examples of what we should do instead of what we should not.

And I also think that this movement is paralyzed with disputing and trying to find "THE ONE" perfect solution.   Since there is merit in a great many possible actions, this (in my opinion) generates endless disputes. 

It is one thing to say that Plan J is clearly the best.

But to try to argue that Plans A through I, and K through Z are all "bad" is not sustainable or plausible.

It is far easier to argue that Plan J is the best plan, than it is to plausibly say that all other plans are completely lacking in merit.  They may all be inferior to Plan J (for example) but they all may have appeal in their own way.

Jon Moseley




 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jacob Roginsky
Sent: Mar 4, 2008 9:34 PM
To: AMOJ_MAIN@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [AMOJ_MAIN] Attorney David Limbaugh ADMITS some JUDGES BIASED

The assumption on this list is that there is no point in 
trying because no one in the media will be interested 
or will report on these things.

Maybe this is an assumption with some, not all.  There
are people on this list who just do not get it, who think
our problem with getting media coverage is a matter of
bad luck, or a matter of our just having learned how to
approach the media correctly. 

I never claimed that we can't  get media coverage --
AMOJ had some media coverage, including from
Richmond Times Dispatch and FoxNews when we
demonstrated in Richmond 5-6 years ago.   My position 
is merely that we would not receive enough attention to
reach the signal-to-noise ratio threshold, so that our
message will have no lasting impact.   I am using the
term "signal-to-noise ratio"  here notionally, and to
that extent it applies here no less than the corresponding
concept in signal processing.   

I gather from some of the preceding posts that some folks are of the impression that I do not think we should do anything.
Nothing could be further from the truth.  My only position
in this regard is that we must stop wasting time on efforts
whose success depends on the cooperation of the powers
that be, the elites, and their media;  if such efforts target
something of significance to us, we will receive no collaboration
from them, because there our interests are adverse to their
interests.   We need a much bigger vision. 

Jacob Roginsky
 

Jonathon Moseley wrote:



The brother of Rush Limbaugh, an attorney, just admitted that some judges are biased and throw cases.

DO YOU THINK IT WOULD DO NO GOOD TO CONTACT HIM AND GIVE HIM MORE EXAMPLES FROM REAL LIFE?

The assumption on this list is that there is no point in trying because no one in the media will be interested or will report on these things.

Here a columnist, brother of Rush Limbaugh, just published this (and off topic where he did not even need to say it in the column):

QUOTE:
It reminds me of certain jury trials I've witnessed where the trial judge was noticeably prejudiced against one side and projected his feelings -- in body language, words and attitude -- to the jury. The less-favored litigant had little chance. And it was outrageously improper.
UNQUOTE

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25260!



 


#1386 From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed Mar 12, 2008 1:44 am
Subject: Being Faithful Followers
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
 
Being Faithful Followers
 
 
It is with an earnest conviction that I know that God has raised up J.A.I.L. for such perilous times as this for the purpose of opening a door of deliverance to America against the powers of darkness that we face. While it is true that this battle will not be won by carnal weapons, "Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts," it is incumbent upon me to tell you that our Constitution and By-Laws calls for a semi-annual financial support of National J.A.I.L. during the months of March and September. This provision, as found in our Constitution, provides the following:
 
 
Article VII.   National J.A.I.L. Support:

J.A.I.L. hereby imposes a National J.A.I.L. semi-annual financial support of ten ($10) dollars on each and every JAILer payable during the months of March and September of each year. Such support shall be made payable to "J.A.I.L." and sent to:

 

P.O. Box 207, No. Hollywood, Ca. 91603. *

 

* Comments:

            Thomas Paine said in 1777, "Those who expect to reap the blessing of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." Should we expect to achieve Victory in America without supporting it, we seek something that has never been, nor ever shall be. From the Founder's personal viewpoint, J.A.I.L. is a cause certainly worthy of at least 5% of their gain to which God has entrusted them. Notwithstanding this fact, it is hoped that this miniscule amount of ten dollars will inspire all JAILers to donate more than the minimum $10 according as they have been blessed by J.A.I.L.'s outreach. J.A.I.L. is the hope of the future of this nation, and certainly worthy of your financial support!

 
I am sure I need not remind you that J.A.I.L. has no corporate financial underwriters to pay its bills. It is dependent upon you, the JAILers, for its support. So please get out your wallets and checkbooks to contribute to this very important mission of bringing judicial accountability to this nation.
 
Further, I ask you to pray about what the LORD would have you donate over and above the $10 called for in our Constitution & By-Laws.  I Timothy 5:18, "For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward." I also cite to remembrance, "[T]he righteous giveth and spareth not." Psalms 21:26. God bless you all.
 
- Ron Branson



#1387 From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:56 am
Subject: Threats Up Against Federal Judges
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
 
USA Today 3/11/08
Threats up against federal judges, lawyers
U.S. District Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow attends her husband's funeral in March 2005. Lefkow's husband and mother were murdered in her home.
By Jeff Roberson, AP
U.S. District Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow attends her husband's funeral in March 2005. Lefkow's husband and mother were murdered in her home.
WASHINGTON — Threats against federal judges and prosecutors are on pace to rise for the fifth consecutive year, according to statistics from the U.S. Marshals Service.

In response, federal officials are expanding their surveillance efforts to include suspects who have threatened state and local authorities and who represent a possible danger to federal court officials.

The U.S. Marshals Service, the agency assigned to protect 2,000 federal judges and more than 5,000 prosecutors across the USA, tracked a 69% increase in "inappropriate communications" with federal officials from fiscal years 2003 to 2007. Those can include outright threats or a pattern of suspicious mailings. The numbers rose each year even though investigators in 2007 began counting multiple threats from the same suspect as one case.

This year is on pace to exceed 2007, logging 503 threats through Feb. 9.

Authorities say they increasingly are seeing suspects begin by lashing out in public venues such as city council chambers and then escalating their activities to target federal judges and prosecutors.


#1388 From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:58 pm
Subject: As It Was In The Days of Noah
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
 
As It Was In The Days of Noah
(By Brian Lyons)
 

God sees all. J.A.I.L. has passed in God's sight as in Noah's days.

 

Dear Brian Lyons, it is interesting that you have broached this issue in the manner you have done. Inasmuch as all things are open unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do, when God sees a nation setting itself up for judgment, He raises up a man to apprise that nation of such pending judgment. Amos 3:7 "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."

Noah was such a man to the world that then was, as was Jonah to Nineveh. etc. God has promised,  "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." I Corinthians 10:13.  God in His faithfulness and mercy always offers the people a true means of escape before He releases His judgment.

God never teases regarding His offer of escape. It is always a genuine remedy. However, He merely offers a door of escape, not a compulsion, in which the people may chose to avail themselves of such door. God, having provided a warning to those facing judgment, shows Himself to be just, "for then how shall God judge the world?" Romans 3:6.

Just so, God in His faithfulness, offers to this nation through a man of His choosing, a genuine means of escape, if they will receive it. Of such a man this nation does well to give heed, for "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." John 13:20

Now how do we know that God will send us a "Noah" before His judgment. We know it because God said so. Luke 17:26 "And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all."  The point made here is not as to this nation's particular sins, but as to it's specific sin of materialism. "Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; but the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all." Luke 17:28, 29. There is nothing inherently wrong with eating, drinking, marrying, buying, selling, planting, and building. These things we all do, but judgment was brought upon them because of their devotion to "Things," i.e., not putting God first in their lives. "But seek ye fist the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these THINGS shall be added unto you." Matthew 6:33.

So if we be in the last days, and God has prophesied that in the last days it will be comparable to the days of Noah, has God raised up a Noah for this country? I shall leave the answer to that question for your spiritual discernment. God bless you.
 
- Ron Branson
 
 

#1389 From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:11 am
Subject: State Justices Worried Over Judicial Budget Cuts
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
 
 
State Justices Worried Over Judicial Budget Cuts
 
Mar 17, 2008
Reporter: Morgan White
Email Address: morgan.white@...
 

Several areas of the court system are in jeopardy this this week as officials try to determine how to make ends meet.

WBKO spoke with Kentucky Supreme Court Justices who are worried about how it will all play out.

"We are very concerned about the judicial branch budget," said Kentucky Supreme Court Justice John D. Minton.

Kentucky Supreme Court Justice John D. Minton is worried about the newest cuts in the Kentucky budget.

The Judicial Branch passed a budget in the House early last week leaving the Court of Justice $55-million short in its funding.

"Just like every other branch or office in government, we were fully expecting some serious belt tightening, but as the budget now stands, the judicial branch is going to take a very serious cut in its budget," explained Minton.

The Court of Justice will receive a one time funding opportunity for $30-million, till leaving them $25-million short.

State Supreme Court Justice Bill Cunningham explains how this will effect the state.

"One of the main things were concerned with is getting the deputy circuit clerks a pay raise. These deputy circuit clerks are maybe the most important people in our system, and that's in jeopardy now. Our drug courts which have been highly successful across the state are in jeopardy," Cunningham stated.

Although in a bind, Justice Cunningham hasn't given up hope that things may turn around.

"We're hoping that maybe we can have some changes made, and the court system won't suffer from these cuts," he said.

Still, in the mist of these possible budget cuts, Justice Minton can't help but question what caused this situation.

"There must have been surely some misunderstanding as to what the needs of the Judicial Branch are." exclaimed Minton.

The lack of funding would cause several problems including state-wide layoffs, the possible elimination of Drug Courts and courthouse construction projects.


#1390 From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sun Mar 23, 2008 9:41 pm
Subject: Receiving MicroChip Implants
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
 
 
Receiving MicroChip Implants
 
Watch video
 
 
 
Bible Context: 
 
"And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image."  Revelation 16:2
 
Once the mark is fully implemented and in place, which will control all commercialism everywhere, God is going to make these implants to explode internally in the body. This will will cause a very grievous sore upon all who receive them. Further, this event will cause total financial havoc everywhere because everyone's personal account assigned to them will be suspended, i.e., no one will not be able to buy or sell anything.
 
 

#1391 From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:15 am
Subject: How The Open Net Closed Its Doors
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
 

 
March 25, 2008

How the open net closed its doors
By Clark Boyd
Technology correspondent, in Boston

China net cafe
China blocks many Western media websites
A new book details the extent to which countries across the globe are increasingly censoring online information they find strategically, politically or culturally threatening.

Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering challenges the long-standing assumption that the internet is an unfettered space where citizens from around the world can freely communicate and mobilise. In fact, the book makes it clear that the scope, scale and sophistication of net censorship are growing.

"There's been a conventional wisdom or myth that the internet was immune from state regulation," says Ronald Deibert, one of the book's editors.

"What we're finding is that states that were taking a hands-off approach to the internet for many years are now finding ways to intervene at key internet choke points, and block access to information."

Mr. Deibert heads The Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. The Lab, along with Harvard Law School, the University of Cambridge, and Oxford University, has spent the last five years testing internet access in some 40 countries.

We are starting to see something more like the China Wide Web, the Pakistan Wide Web, and the Iran Wide Web
John Palfrey, director of Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet and Society

The book highlights Saudi Arabia, Iran and China as some of the most aggressive nations when it comes to net filtering. They use a variety of technical techniques to limit what their citizens can see online. But they reinforce that filtering with other methods, such as net surveillance.

"Surveillance is a huge deterrent," says The Citizen Lab's Nart Villeneuve. "If you talk to dissident groups in these countries, they'll tell you that they're under surveillance, that they're concerned for their safety, and that it definitely influences their online behavior."

And even as human rights and internet rights groups fight to raise awareness about internet censorship, countries such as China have responded by getting smarter in what they block, and when they block it.

'Selectively blocking'

"We call it 'just-in-time' filtering," Mr. Deibert says. "Countries are selectively blocking access to information around key events, such as demonstrations or elections. They are clamping down on the internet during times that it suits their strategic interests to do so."

As an example of this kind of filtering, he points to China's recent blocking of YouTube after videos of Tibetan protestors appeared on the video-sharing site.

Google protestor
Google has been criticised for working with Chinese authorities

Belarus, Cambodia and Burma have all engaged in this kind of selective censorship as well.

And then there is the case of Pakistan, which recently caused the entire YouTube service to go down worldwide for a couple of hours because of a government order to block material.

According to John Palfrey, director of Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, the Pakistan case points to certain weaknesses inherent in the very architecture of the internet.

"It was designed by a bunch of friends in essence - academics and military people - who were just creating a local network. Now, it has scaled globally.

'Informal protocols'

"But it's still based on some fairly informal protocols. It turns out that when one censor in one country messes around with something, he can bring down access to entire parts of the internet."

Mr Palfrey points out that some countries are considering whether or not to bypass the World Wide Web all together by creating what amounts to their own local area networks. "We are starting to see something more like the China Wide Web, the Pakistan Wide Web, and the Iran Wide Web."

But The Citzen Lab's Ronald Deibert does not think the evidence points to a complete "balkanization" of the net by sovereign states.

"I don't think it's a stretch to say that a person in Iran experiences a much different Internet than a citizen in a country like Canada," he says.

"But it's not a simple equation with territorial boundaries. Maybe the best analogy is with the old Middle Ages, where you had multiple and overlapping layers of authority. I think that's the future of the net."

That future is being complicated by the increased use of mobile phones, PDAs and other devices to access information online. For citizens, these devices mean more ways to access the internet, and therefore more potential ways around government blocking.

But Jonathan Zittrain, chair in Internet Governance and Regulation at Oxford University, says that governments are already starting to realize the potential threats from mobile devices as tools to access and spread information.

"In fact, when it comes to mobile devices," Zittrain says, "you may see common cause among China, the United States and Europe, all of whom would like another lever they can pull that will enhance their control over the net, whether they're looking for terrorists, subversives or political dissidents."

"I'd hate to think that the technological advances, say, in America, turn out to be exactly the advances, wrapped in a bow, the technologies China might use to squash dissidents."


 


#1392 From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Fri Mar 28, 2008 5:38 pm
Subject: Courts Going Down For The Count
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
 
Courts Going Down For The Count
 
If you have caught the drift of the message of J.A.I.L. it is that either the courts are going to have to go down, or the People will have to go down, there is absolutely no middle ground. The fact is, the present state of the economy is related to an unaccountable judiciary. If you are asking, "How so?" it is a simple deduction that only by the judiciary has our country abandoned our sound money system of silver and gold as established by our Founding Fathers in the Constitution in favor of a fiat paper currency. There is a basic rule at play here, and that all paper "money" invariably returns to its intrinsic value, and that is the price of paper. So the calculation here is, "What is the price of paper?" Once our country established paper as the money of account, the collapse of our economy was sealed as certain as the natural law of gravity, and it was only a matter of passage time. Have we hit the bottom yet? The answer to this question turns on whether we have hit the point where paper "money" is the same value as the paper it is printed on. If the answer is "NO," then we shall certainly sink further until we get there!
 
It should also be further noted that when the money of account is debauched, crime rises until it becomes uncontrollable. In other words, no amount of hired additional police forces will be able to bring crime under control. As I have always said, "J.A.I.L. is the only answer," unless you believe revolution is the only answer. We are faced with either J.A.I.L. or a revolution. But even if the later be consider the answer, J.A.I.L. will still be essential!  
 
- Ron Branson 
 
 

California's top judge pleads for judiciary funds

By Crystal Carreon - ccarreon@...

http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/812334.html

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

As California struggles with a multibillion-dollar deficit, the lead judge of the nation's largest state court system pleaded his case at the Capitol on Tuesday for funds to pay for new courthouses, improved security and more judges.

California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George, in his 13th annual State of the Judiciary address, acknowledged the current budget strain and said he was not asking for "sweeping new initiatives." But he stressed the need for resources "essential to the very integrity of the justice system."

"The failure to provide sufficient resources and personnel for the court system risks depriving California of an effective public civil justice system," George said. "I believe we all agree that a functional court system is not a luxury – it is an essential component of state government."

But the judiciary has reached a point where support is vital to ensure safety and the smooth operation of the courts, which, as George pointed out, often set precedents for the country.

Unlike other addresses in recent years, George's State of the Judiciary arrived as the state is facing a budget shortfall of at least $8 billion. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed across-the-board cuts of 10 percent to most state agencies and is looking to cut up to $245 million from the judicial branch.

That means that no new judges will arrive this year to any bench in California, including the six that were scheduled to arrive in Sacramento County, which handles one of the largest caseloads in the state.

"We were desperate before, and this is simply going to make the desperation put over for another year," Sacramento Presiding Court Judge James Mize said before the session. "The courts that need the most will be suffering the most by this delay."

In his address, George said California ranks at the bottom of comparable states in the number of judges on the bench in proportion to the state's population.

The Central Valley and the Inland Empire are particularly affected, he said, pointing out that Riverside – for the second year in a row – had to close down its civil courtrooms and use those judges to handle criminal cases.

Mize said Sacramento County has resorted to similar practices, creating up to a yearlong backlog now in the civil courts.

Courthouse security was another prominent theme of George's speech, coupled with his renewed call for new courthouse construction and renovations of current buildings.

A proposed bond measure that had been discussed last year for placement on the November ballot has taken a new form in Senate Bill 1407, sponsored by Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata.

The pending bill seeks $5 billion in revenue bonds to support upgrades and construction.

About the writer:

  • Call The Bee's Crystal Carreon, (916) 321-1203.

#1393 From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:21 pm
Subject: Police Denounce Website
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
 
Police denounce area Web site that rates officers' performance
 
By Rachel Uranga, Staff Writer

 


#1394 From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed Apr 2, 2008 6:05 am
Subject: VeriChip Implants Plan Stock Options
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
 
 
A Medical ID Business, Much Criticized, Plans a Stock Offering
Published: February 5, 2007

Applied Digital Solutions has made headlines in recent years, and appalled privacy advocates, with its technology to implant radio chip into humans.

Applied Digital Solutions

A reader, when placed within inches of an arm, responds to the VeriChip.

Now Applied Digital, of Delray Beach, Fla., is about to test Wall Street’s interest with an initial public offering as soon as Thursday in the nascent business, the VeriChip Corporation. But some analysts are finding the effort to raise about $30 million from public investors nearly as disconcerting as the privacy advocates find the technology.

“People ask if there is a bubble in the I.P.O. market, and I say no,” said Francis Gaskins, president of IPODesktop.com in the Marina del Rey section of Los Angeles, which tracks companies selling shares to the public for the first time. “This is one of the first I’ve seen recently that doesn’t make money and doesn’t have a clear path to break even.”

VeriChip is primarily marketing the chip as the most secure and reliable way to link people with their medical records because it cannot be lost and can identify patients even when they are not conscious or lucid.

The company, which has not yet reported fourth-quarter data, lost $3.45 million on sales of $20.34 million in the first nine months of 2006. The revenue came primarily from businesses that make external radio tags for keeping track of babies in hospitals and elderly patients in nursing homes — businesses with plenty of competition.

By contrast, the implanted chips have gained almost no traction in the marketplace since the Food and Drug Administration approved their sale in 2004.

Applied Digital plans to issue at least 4.3 million shares of VeriChip for $6.50 to $8.50 a share, leaving it with 47.4 percent to 53.6 percent of the stock, depending on whether the three underwriters exercise their rights to buy additional shares, according to its registration statement. VeriChip would net $27 million if the shares sold at $7.50, the filing said.

Its technology requires the injection of a rice-grain size capsule into a user’s upper right arm. The chip inside contains a coded identifying number that is linked to whatever the user authorizes — whether his or her name, address, emergency contacts and important medical records. The chip can be energized and then scanned by a hand-held reader that has to be positioned within inches of the arm to work reliably.

For the most part, the company has been giving hospitals and doctors the gear needed to read the chips and link the encoded numbers in them to patient information. In documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, VeriChip said that total revenue from the device and the services tied to it was less than $100,000.

VeriChip said that more than 1,200 doctors had registered to take part in VeriMed, as the company calls the medical application of its implant, as of the end of 2006, and that close to 400 medical facilities had been equipped with scanners and supporting gear. It said that only 222 patients have had the device implanted.

The company acknowledges that it relies mostly on patients to provide the information linked to their identification numbers and that health care workers may not be fully confident about its reliability until doctors or members of their staffs supervise the data entry, one of many essential steps that may not occur. No insurers reimburse doctors for participating.

Scott R. Silverman, the chairman of Applied Digital and, since December, chairman and chief executive of VeriChip, has no shortage of vision of how the chips may eventually be embraced. He has referred to them as the “natural successor to the dog tag” for the armed forces and recently proposed that all immigrants and guest workers have the implants. But VeriChip also says that it intends to build the market with voluntary programs like VeriMed, a gesture to privacy concerns that has done little to mollify critics.

Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said: “This technology sends the Orwell meter into the red zone. There’s almost no scenario under which the benefit can’t be obtained from an anklet or a bracelet. The only reason to implant it is so that it can’t be removed voluntarily, which makes it a human rights issue.”

Applied Digital may be running out of time to overcome the critics and doubters. It has been keeping the VeriChip business alive with a steady stream of loans and a favorable supply contract with the Digital Angel Corporation, a publicly traded subsidiary that sells similar implantable devices for identifying and tracking pets and livestock. How long Applied Digital’s creditors and long-suffering shareholders would support this largess is unclear.

In its filing, VeriChip said that $7 million would go toward repaying money lent by Applied Digital and that $8 million to $10 million would be invested in developing VeriChip over the next two years.

 

Sent out by www.jail4judges.org

VictoryUSA@...


#1395 From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed Apr 2, 2008 10:20 pm
Subject: * * * The Judicial System v. Godly Principles * * *
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
Judicial  Accountability  Initiative  Law
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, CA                                                April 2, 2008
A Public Service Announcement to America
(To be removed from this PSA see instructions below)

______________________________________________________

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?


The Judicial System v. Godly Principles 

Congratulations To Phil And Mary Long

By Ron Branson - National J.A.I.L. CIC
 
I have personally known Phil and Mary Long for several years antecedent to the foundation of the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law Organization in 1995. Having fought many battles in the courts here in California, Phil has been a great supporter of J.A.I.L.'s policies and of me, its founder. No one knows better than the Long family of the evils of our judicial system. They are independent thinking people, including educating their children independent of our failing public school system. Phil has been the target of much government harassment and has spent time in jail many times for his courageous stand.
 
Because of his latest court battle, a number of churches have expressed concern regarding his latest case wherein California Judge Walter Croskey ruled that no one has a constitutional right to educate their children at home despite the clear command of God in the Scripture to the contrary, "And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates. Deuteronomy 6:6 thru 9. 
 
For those of you who wish to congratulate the Longs, you may reach them by writing marylong8@...
 
- Ron Branson
 

 

Chieftain.com

http://www.chieftain.com/editorial/1207116000/1

April 2, 2008
Another coup
EDITORIAL
THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN

A CALIFORNIA court ruling that home-schooling is unconstitutional is one of the latest palace coups coming out of the nation’s judiciary.

A Southern California couple, Phillip and Mary Long, were home-schooling their children through a program at a Christian school. Such schools and home-schooling organizations provide curricula for parents to follow, and most avail themselves of these aids.

The family came to the attention of Los Angeles County social workers when one of the children claimed the father was physically abusive. An attorney representing the two youngest children asked the Juvenile Dependency Court to order that they be enrolled in public or private school to protect their well-being.

Justice H. Walter Croskey ruled that parents who educate their children at home without state teacher certification could be criminally liable under California law because parents “do not have a constitutional right to home-school their children.” According to the decision, “The home-schooling the children were receiving was lousy, meager and bad.”

In another setting, a judge could have ruled that kids in some public schools receive education that is “lousy, meager and bad.” In many cases, that’s precisely why parents choose to home-school their kids.

Besides, this was an individual case of child protection - hardly a test case on home-schooling. But this overzealous California judge decided to expand his reach.

Home-schooled students are often high performers on standardized tests. Colleges recruit them because of their high SAT scores. A number of kids who compete in the National Spelling Bee and other similar venues do exceptionally well.

This isn’t the first time home-schooling has come under assault. In 1994 the federal government attempted to require certification of home-schooling parents until hundreds of thousands of calls inundated switchboards on Capitol Hill in protest.

The Longs’ case brought delight to the California Teachers Association. Home-schooling - like charter and private schools - cut into the teachers union’s monopoly.

The California Court of Appeals has agreed to reconsider the case. We won’t hold our breath for a favorable outcome for the Golden State’s home-schooling parents yet.

But, in this land of individual choice, we believe that parents who home-school their kids - or send them to charter or private schools - ought to prevail. It’s worth the fight.


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

been in existence for over 12 years, and is in all 50 states and several foreign countries.

To manage your email, place the word Subscribe or Unsubscribe

in 'subject' line and hit reply. Your request will be automatically & instantly

processed. (Note: Program will not permit re-subscribes once unsubscribed.)

 

Our Founding Fathers said, "...with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine

Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and

our sacred honor." Dec. of Independence. We are a ministry in great need of

your financial support. Donate to this vitally 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 i
s

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

 

 

#1396 From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Apr 5, 2008 2:32 am
Subject: Government Stakes Claim To Every Child's DNA
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
 
 
Government stakes claim to every newborn's DNA
'We now are considered guinea pigs, instead of human beings with rights'

April 03, 2008
 
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

An Orwellian plan that has state and federal governments staking claim to the ownership of every newborn's DNA in perpetuity is advancing under the radar of most privacy rights activists, but would turn the United States' citizenry into a huge pool of subjects for involuntary scientific experimentation, according to one organization alarmed over the issue.

"We now are considered guinea pigs, as opposed to human beings with rights," Twila Brase, president of the the Citizens' Council on Health Care, a Minnesota-based organization familiar with the progress in that state.

She warned ultimately, such DNA databases could spark the next wave of demands for eugenics, the concept of improving the human race through the control of various inherited traits. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, advocated for eugenics to cull those she considered unfit from the population.

In 1921, she said eugenics is "the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems," and she later lamented "the ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all."

Lawmakers in Minnesota recently endorsed a proposal that would exempt stockpiles of DNA information already being collected from every newborn there from any sort of consent requirements, meaning researchers could utilize the DNA of more than 780,000 Minnesota children for any sort of research project whatsover, Brase said.

"The Senate just voted to strip citizens of parental rights, privacy rights, patient rights and DNA property rights. They voted to make every citizen a research subject of the state government, starting at birth," she said. "They voted to let the government create genetic profiles of every citizen without their consent."

The result will be that every newborn's DNA will be collected at birth, "warehoused in a state genomic biobank, and given away to genetic researchers without parent consent – or in adulthood, without the individual's consent. Already, the health department reports that 42, 210 children have been subjected to genetic research without their consent," Brase told WND.

She said although her organization works with Minnesota issues, similar laws or rules and regulations already are in use pretty much all across the nation.

The National Conference of State Legislatures, in fact, lists for all 50 states as well as the District of Columbia the various statutes or regulatory provisions under which newborns' DNA is being collected.

Such programs are offered as "screening" requirements to detect treatable illnesses. They vary as to exactly what tests are done but the Health Resources and Services Administration has requested a report that would "include a recommendation for a uniform panel of conditions."

Further, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., is on record proposing a plan that would turn the program into a consolidated nationwide effort.

"Fortunately," he said at the time, "some newborn screening occurs in every state but fewer than half of the states, including Connecticut, actually tests for all disorders that are detectable. … This legislation will provide resources for states to expand their newborn screening programs…"

His plan specifically would provide millions of dollars for educating and training health care professionals in "relevant technologies," and set up standards for updating tests and maintaining the quality of test results.

So what's the big deal about looking into DNA to hunt for various disease possibilities?

Nothing, said Brase, if that's where the hunt would end.

However, she said, "researchers already are looking for genes related to violence, crime and different behaviors."

"This isn't just about diabetes, asthma and cancer," she said. "It's also about behavioral issues."

"In England they decided they should have doctors looking for problem children, and have those children reported, and their DNA taken in case they would become criminals," she said.

In fact, published reports in the United Kingdom note that senior police forensics experts believe genetic samples should be studied because it may be possible to identify potential criminals as young as age five.

"If we have a primary means of identifying people before they offend, then in the long-term the benefits of targeting younger people are extremely large," Gary Pugh, director of forensics at Scotland Yard, was quoted saying. "You could argue the younger the better. Criminologists say some people will grow out of crime; others won't. We have to find who are possibly going to be the biggest threat to society."

The United Kingdom database already has 4.5 million genetic samples and reportedly is the largest in Europe, but activists want to expand it. Pugh said that it is not possible right now to demand everyone provide a DNA sample, but only because of the costs and logistics.

One published report cited the Institute for Public Policy Research, which is suggesting children from 5-12 in the United Kingdom be targeted with cognitive behavioral therapy and Pugh has suggested adding the children in primary schools, even if they have not offended, to the database.

There, Chris Davis of the National Primary Headteachers' Association warned the move could be seen "as a step towards a police state."

But Pugh said the UK's annual cost of $26 billion from violent crime makes it well worth the effort.

Brase said such efforts to study traits and gene factors and classify people would be just the beginning. What could happen through subsequent programs to address such conditions, she wondered.

"Not all research is great," she said. "There is research that is highly objectionable into the genetic propensities of an individual. Not all research should be hailed as wonderful initiatives."

It can identify some tendencies for potential problems, and that is one of its downfalls, she said.

"It lends itself to be the beginning of discrimination and prejudice," she said. "People can look at data about you and make assessments ultimately of who you are."

Further, the invasion of privacy is huge. DNA is the most intimate identifier that exists, she said.

"This, however, says our DNA is not ours but the government's," she said. "It says our values, our ethics, belief systems have to be [subjected] to the interests of the government."

Right now various states obtain DNA under different plans, and keep the information for varying time periods. In Minnesota, the legislature is working on legal authorization for the state government to take it without consent, keep it forever, and use it for whatever purposes the state desires – all without obtaining consent or even letting people know.

A mandatory sample of a newborn's DNA also pulls back the veil on information about the parents as well, Brase told WND.

"It's like they're collecting information on the whole family," she said.

The Heartland Regional Genetics and Newborn Screening is one of the organizations that advocates for more screening and research.

It proclaims in its vision statement a desire to see newborns screened for 200 conditions. It also forecasts "every student … with an individual program for education based on confidential interpretation of their family medical history, their brain imaging, their genetic predictors of best learning methods…"

Further, every individual should share information about "personal and family health histories" as well as "gene tests for recessive conditions and drug metabolism" with the "other parent of their future children."

Still further, it seeks "ecogenetic research that could improve health, lessen disability, and lower costs for sickness."

"They want to test every child for 200 conditions, take the child's history and a brain image, and genetics, and come up with a plan for that child," Brase said. "They want to learn their weaknesses and defects.

"Nobody including and especially the government should be allowed to create such extensive profiles," she said.

The next step is obvious: The government, with information about potential health weaknesses, could say to couples, "We don't want your expensive children," she said.

"I think people have forgotten about eugenics, the fact of the matter is that the eugenicists have not gone away. Newborn genetic testing is the entry into the 21st Century version of eugenics," she said.

"This is in every state, but nobody is talking about it. Parents have no idea this is happening," she said.


#1397 From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed Apr 9, 2008 8:42 pm
Subject: To Elect or to Appoint Judges! Is There an Answer?
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
To Elect or to Appoint Judges!
Is There an Answer?
By Ron Branson - National J.A.I.L. CIC
 
The above question has been mulled over time and time again by intelligent men without a resolution. The fact is there is no irrefutable answer because of the corrupt nature of mankind. If elected, judges must look to donors for support, which are often law firms to whom the judges owe a political debt. If appointed, judges must serve a politically correct agenda. In either case, justice towards the populace is threatened.
 
The position of JAIL4Judges is that the only answer that will curb judicial immunity of judges, whether elected or appointed, is J.A.I.L. in which judges thereunder shall be held accountable to the laws and to the Constitution they have sworn to uphold through an independent Grand Jury of plain citizens.
 
Much has been tried in an effort to make judges accountable to legal standards starting with impeachment. But what has happened thereunder is stated by Thomas Jefferson, "...the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the Constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its 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."
 
In 1960 our state legislators, acknowledging that judges judging judges does not work, invented independent state judicial commissions supposedly to bring judges into account. However, there is not one "independent" judicial commission in this country that is curbing judicial unaccountability, nor one that even pretends to deal with the doctrine of judicial immunity. The fact is, that before there were independent judicial commissions, judges could be called to account before Grand Juries, but after the creation of these independent judicial commissions, the duty of oversight of judges was taken by legislation from the Grand Juries and committed to these independent commission where nothing is being accomplished.
 
Lately, there has arisen an effort to establish an Office of Independent Inspector General for judges. While such a title of being "independent" sounds interesting,  one can guess where this will eventually lead. It shall fair no better than all the "independent" judicial commissions currently in operation throughout this country in all fifty states, nor than a self-controlled "independent" judiciary.
 
Below, we are posed with the unanswerable question, "Judicial Selection: Does Any Method Work?" The honest conclusion is, "It really does not matter!" The bottom line is whether elected or appointed, there cannot be any solution beyond that of JAIL4Judges. 
 
*   *   *
 
Simple Justice

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2008/04/09/judicial-selection-does-any-method-work.aspx

Judicial Selection: Does Any Method Work?

From Dirk Olin at Judicial Reports, word leaks out of a conference held yesterday at Fordham Law School of judicial reformers trying to figure out how best to select state court judges.  The conference, entitled "Enhancing Judicial Independence, Accountability, and Selection for the State Court Judiciary: A Program for Reform,: wasn't your usual group of do-gooders or self-serving sitting judges arguing to protect their seats. 
The room was packed with the brightest of legal luminaries — from Sandra Day O'Connor and Stephen Breyer to the Chief Justice of Ghana. Academic and bar heavyweights were all around. A forum of self-congratulatory blather? Hardly. The real subject was nothing short of saving Western Civilization.

Heavy hitters indeed.  If only Dirk had given a heads-up before this symposium, as this sounds like the sort of thing I would have like to attend.  Note that I did not receive an engraved invitation.

Former Supreme Sandra Day O'Conner opened with a recap of the current judicial atmosphere:

O’Connor was not absolving the bench of the need for accountability, noting that the spread and debasement of judicial elections are at least as responsible for systemic woes as any particular ideology. “We’ve put cash in the courtroom, and it’s just wrong,” she said. “No other nation in the world has it.”

The retired justice led off the proceedings by reminiscing about her early days in Arizona, when she saw placards calling for the impeachment of then-Chief Justice Earl Warren. But recent years, she lamented, have seen far more virulent attacks — judges threatened with violence during the Terry Schiavo life support case in Florida, members of Congress advocating legislated circumscription of judicial authorities, a highly political proposal to slash the terms of sitting judges in Colorado, and, most notoriously, the recently failed “Jail4Judges” campaign in South Dakota to have citizen grand juries sit in judgment on members of the bench and actually imprison some based on individual rulings.

Americans are nothing if not imaginative in finding ways to get what they want.  And what they want, apparently, is a judiciary whose decisions comport with the common man's common sense view of common wisdom.  Justice O'Conner's point was that these attack on judicial independence impair the ability of judges to do their job without fear of public denigration or retaliation, often for lack of understanding of the law.

At the same time, independence is under assault internally, by the need for money to mount judicial campaigns and its insidious implications for the integrity of the judiciary.

One particularly tawdry manifestation of the downward electoral spiral that O’Connor recounted involved her recent conversation with “top-notch trial lawyers in Texas.” The group told her that their first action upon hearing of their assignment to a judge was to research their opposing counsels’ campaign donations to the jurist — so they could match them.

“It’s like nothing I’ve seen in my very long life,” she said. “Judicial independence is a bedrock principle, and we’re losing it.”

Justice Breyer then noted that the flip side of the equation, appointment of judges rather than election, offers no panacea either.

Breyer similarly bemoaned the decline of respect for judges within the commonweal, though he stressed that non-elective systems could be just as corrupted. “That might be worse because everyone appoints his cousin.”

He recounted a trip to Russia soon after the ascent of Boris Yeltsin where he heard about “telephone justice” — the practice of officeholders with judicial appointment powers “calling judges and telling them how to vote.” But America has at least the “appearance” of the same problem, he added, “because half the country thinks judges decide cases any way they want.”

The lawprofs then took over with proposals to cure the disease.

[Widener School of Law Professor Michael] Dimino called for a compromise — the imposition of “lengthy, nonrenewable term limits” for state judges, which he said would balance their need for “decisional independence” against fears that they’d devolve into the equivalent of “pollsters.”

Dimino suggested that we do things backwards in New York, where trial level judges should be appointed (rather than elected, as they now are) and Court of Appeals judges should be elected (rather than appointed, as they now are), since the rulings of the latter create the precedent that are "more akin to those of a governing body."

This proposal was shot down hard by James Sample, Counsel to the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, who argued that Dimino's changes were a little too drastic to be a realistic possibility. 

So he called for incremental reforms that would improve both electoral regimes and appointive systems.

Sample pitched public finance for campaigns, arguing that First Amendment concerns should be balanced against due process considerations for litigants who might well fear that they were being denied access to a fair and impartial venue. He also called for much stricter rules promoting recusals, to counter a spreading perception of “pay-to-play” justice.

“The rule of law needs a tourniquet,” he concluded, “and it needs it now.”

While Sample's proposal is slightly more pragmatic than Dimino's (though only slightly), it touches on only one of the negative influences on judicial selection, the "cash and carry" judiciary.  While true that putting judges through the electoral process necessarily creates the need to beg for money for campaigns, thus giving rise to the appearance, if not reality, that judges will show their appreciation for campaign contributions in the exercise of their authority, it's not the only problem.

Sample overlooks the more fundamental problem that electing judges puts enormous control into the hands of a few party leaders, who (by definition) are unmitigated whores.  The political process of becoming a party nominee reflects the worst of all worlds, internal favoritism by paying off political debts or favors with a judicial nomination without regard to merit, or even basic competence.  Licking envelopes for a party boss is not a primary qualification for being a judge.  It is, however, for being a judicial nominee. 

So while the surface mechanics of judicial selection, the stuff we can all see and know about because it happens before our faces, might be changed to give the appearance of a less graft-ridden system, the ugly underbelly goes on unabated and untouched.  Is it better to elect unqualified political hacks to the bench with public or private money?

And the second problem is the nature of popular election of judges itself.  There is not now, nor has there ever been, any method devised that would enable the public to have the slightest clue who would be the best candidate for a judgeship.  Put aside the speech limitations on judicial campaigning, an inherently silly endeavor designed to protect the appearance of integrity at the expense of actual integrity, and ask what Aunt Sadie knows about an individual's qualifications to be a judge? 

A while back, the 
Feerick Commission tried to come up with ways to restore the appearance of integrity to the judicial election process.  The solutions offered were worthless, and even then undercut by the political implications of giving the public any hope of basing their vote on any meaningful criteria. 

I feel badly for the judges and potential judges who have to go through this process.  It's not their fault that the process sucks, and it's not like they have an alternative, dignified and meaningful.  Just because they do what is necessary to run for office doesn't make them unqualified, or bad people.  It just doesn't do the opposite either.

So at the end of the day, we're left with the same problem.  And no solutions.  Perhaps this has a little something to do with the bad attitude toward the law?


#1398 From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Apr 12, 2008 2:15 am
Subject: The Plan for Social Security Numbers
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
 
The Plan for Social Security Numbers
By Ron Branson - National J.A.I.L. CIC
 
Unfortunately many people are ignorant of the ultimate goal of "government" regarding the Social Security Number. It is generally viewed by people as an innocent retirement program wherein the government will take care of you until you are lowered into your grave. However, reality is much more dastardly that most could ever imagine.
 
Back in 1936 when Social Security Numbers were first issued it faced attack by those accusing it as being the Mark of the Beast pursuant to Revelation Chapter 13. However, the government went to bat seeking damage control by assuring everyone that the Social Security Number would always remain voluntary and would never be used for identification. To affirm this position, they even printed on every Social Security Card the words, "Not To Be Used As Identification."
 
However, we now know that this was a lie in development, for they thereafter removed the words from the Social Security Cards, "Not To Be Used As Identification," and have now turned to requiring the number as identification for everything, including turning on utility services, driver's licenses, getting a license to get married, working, getting a credit card, and traveling on an airplane, to name a few. Believe it or not, I have even seen the Social Security Number  mandatorily and insanely required to exercise the "privilege" of defecating while  being held in incarceration because of religious views in which a formal complaint resulted with a finding that such denial is the policy, practice and custom of government.
 
The ignorance of people is truly amazing. Hosea 4:6 describes our current status of this nation, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee."
 
It used to be that everyone was entirely open with their Social Security Number. If a man taking tickets at a theater entrance asked for a Social Security Number, people would get out their wallet and read off their number. Since the entire economy of this nation has become based upon a Social Security Number, people are now encouraged to keep their Social Security Numbers private and share it only with those authorized to acquire it. The problem now has become, "Who is authorized to your Social Security Number?" Is is a private security guard? the dog catcher? a store clerk? Everyone who looks like or asserts a right to know your Social Security Number?
 
We are now constantly told to guard or identity because there are many identity thieves out their willing to steal the use your identity. Why has identity become so valuable? It is because government made it valuable. Before identification was required for everything, few valued the need for identification. Now that it is required, everyone values it, including clandestine thieves who will do anything to steal it.
 
Now comes the mind-blower. What would you say if I said that evil governments are appreciative of identity thieves? You gasp and say."Why?" I will tell you why. The ultimate goal is to make it impossible for thieves to steal your identification. You say, "What?" Have you ever heard of the Hegelian Dialectic? THESIS, ANTITHESIS, and SYNTHESIS? It is the art of creating a problem,  then creating a remedy for the problem created, and bring about a result that would not other wise be acceptable. If we aren't faced with a huge identity theft problem, no one is going to be interested in a remedy. Government must "innocently" create a vast problem of identity theft everywhere to get everyone to cry out for the government's remedy. They already know what the remedy is. It  is a micro chip implant in ever man, woman, and child. "And he cuseth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their forehead." But the conspirators of this world cannot accomplish its purpose without getting everyone to cry out for its remedy.
 
Above we described the "innocence" of the early Social Security Card. Now let's consider what is being planned for everyone as described below. 
 
*   *   *
 
 
http://www.restoretherepublic.com/content/view/627/71/

Social Security Surveilllance Act Enters House
 
Written by Gary Franchi   
Tuesday, 04 March 2008

Kirk with an original SS card.RTR Libertyville, IL - Under the guise of protecting seniors and our national security, Congressman Mark Kirk of Illinois 10th District and Peter Roskam of the 6th District are setting the wheels in motion for another crack at a national ID card.  The “Social Security Identity Theft Prevention Act” (H.R. 5405) more appropriately titled the “Social Security Surveillance Act” was likely spurred by high opposition to the failing Real ID Act.  This act would be an adequate run around to implement Real ID yet in another form.  They claim their reasons for introducing this act is to curb the high rate of identity theft in Northern Illinois.

The new Social Security Surveillance (SSS) card will retain the standard features of the Social Security card such as the name and account number of the card holder, but will now include beefed up security measures also commonly used by law enforcement to track criminals, and hackers to falsify and clone sim cards.  

The surveillance features of the card include: a digital image displayed of the card holder on the surface of the card and an "encrypted, machine-readable electronic record which shall include records of biometric identifiers unique to the individual to whom the card is issued, including a copy of any digitized facial image printed on the face of the card."

sss-card.jpgManufacturing of the card will be out-sourced to the Department of Homeland Security and utilize the facilities that create the B1/B2 Visa and the Permanent Resident Card. 

At a recent Libertyville, Illinois Town Hall Meeting on Saturday March 1st, 2008, Congressman Kirk explained to a packed room of concerned residents that participation is optional.  Gary Franchi, managing editor of Republic Magazine, a political publication that advocates constitutional rights and limited government, asked Kirk during the Q and A session when the "optional" card would become mandatory.  Kirk responded that the bill had not left the house yet.  Not quite the answer found when reading the text H.R. 5405.

The bill clearly states the new surveillance cards are to be issued to social security account holders upon reaching the age of 16.  

Massive new biometric databases of every American will be created to assist in tracking and authenticating the new SSS card.  The US Government has a tarnished record of managing databases.  The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs lost a laptop and external hard drive to thieves jeopardizing the identities of 26.5 million veterans. The Metropolitan State College in Denver, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Los Angeles' Department of Social Services have each fallen victim to their databases being plundered.  Foreign intelligence hackers, high tech terrorists, and identity thieves would have a one-stop-shop of every American in a Social Security database no longer just rich in numbers, but now biometric data.

When asked by Franchi about private firms controlling and tracking the databases Kirk pushed the responsibility of management to the Social Security Administration.  However, as with Real ID, private companies like Viisage were contracted with to maintain the Real ID infrastructure.  This will likely be the case with the Social Security Surveillance Card unless the bill is stopped.  The bill is set to take effect two years from enactment, yet it is currently in the house, and has yet to be voted on.

A proponent, of the new SSS card, asked Kirk, “Can you share what information’s on there that’s freaking everybody out about a national ID card, what’s being stored on there that the Government doesn’t already know?”

He responded, “Just about everything the government already knows.” 

Kirk with Korean President and First Lady at Chicago CFR luncheon.

Standard operating procedure is in effect here.  Using fear tactics on uninformed senior citizens, and the usual excuse of national security in a post 9/11 world, another member of the DC boys club is attempting to slip a national ID card into the hands of a terrified populous.  This is another attempt to ratchet down the American people into a coded world of control where being asked for “your papers” is as common as the next tasing video.   However, Kirk and Roskam have failed to consider the ever increasing masses of freedom loving Americans who are dusting off their constitutions and putting the shackles back on our public servants. 

Video bellow. 

Full text of H.R. 5405 can be viewed here: VIEW BILL

 

Posted on NO_SSN@yahoogroups.com


#1399 From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Mon Apr 14, 2008 7:44 pm
Subject: Lawsuit Challenges Prosecutors' Immunity
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 

 
 
Lawsuit challenges prosecutors' immunity
 
The Supreme Court has been asked to rule where responsibility lies in instances of wrongful convictions.
By David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
April 13, 2008
 
WASHINGTON -- Prosecutors have long been shielded from lawsuits brought by people who were wrongly convicted. Even if a defendant is later shown to be entirely innocent, the prosecutor who brought the charges cannot be held liable for the mistake.

The Supreme Court has ruled that "absolute immunity" is needed so that prosecutors -- and judges -- can do their jobs without fear of legal retaliation.
 
But a California case that the high court is considering taking could open a back door for such lawsuits. Prosecutors in Los Angeles are urging the court to block a suit from a man who was wrongly convicted of murder because, they say, it will allow "a potential flood" of similar claims across the nation.

Last year, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals set off alarms among prosecutors in the West when it ruled that supervising prosecutors could be sued for alleged management failures that led to a wrongful conviction. Its ruling cleared the way for Thomas L. Goldstein to sue former Los Angeles Dist. Atty. John K. Van de Kamp.

The suit does not allege that Van de Kamp, the county's chief prosecutor from 1975 to 1983, played a direct role in Goldstein's wrongful conviction for a shotgun murder in Long Beach in 1979. Indeed, Van de Kamp said he was unaware of the details of this case until decades later when the conviction was reversed.

Rather, the suit alleges that Van de Kamp and his top deputy, Curt Livesay, failed to set up a system to monitor the use of testimony from jail informants.
 
The Los Angeles County district attorney's office, the nation's largest prosecution office, once made regular use of jail informants, but at the time it had no system for sharing information among prosecutors countywide about which informants were reliable and what they had been promised.

Goldstein was ordered released after 24 years in prison after the sole eyewitness recanted and doubts emerged about a supposed confession by Goldstein to an informant. Years after his conviction, Goldstein learned that his jailhouse accuser -- a three-time felon -- had lied in court when he denied having received promises of special treatment from another county prosecutor in exchange for his testimony.

"This suit is 29 years in the making, and it's about accountability," said Goldstein. "[It] will put every prosecutor's office on notice that they need a system for sharing information. And by doing so, it will result in fewer wrongful convictions."

In 1982, Van de Kamp was elected California attorney general. He served two terms. He ran unsuccessfully for governor in 1990 and has been a lawyer in private practice in Los Angeles since.

"I had never been sued in all my years in public office. But if this were the law, defense lawyers and civil counsel would be suing all the time. You can always allege a 'failure to train' or a management failure," Van de Kamp said.
Though Van de Kamp is personally named in the suit, legal experts said Los Angeles County would pay any judgment if Goldstein won. Public officials sued in the course of duties are indemnified by their agencies.

"John is not paying a dime," said Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

Regardless, the immunity rule should be preserved as an important judicial safeguard, Levenson said. "We don't want [prosecutors] looking over their shoulders. In order to be independent and to make tough calls, they can't be worrying about whether they will be sued."

Prosecutors are not immune from all sanctions. The state bar can discipline them for violating the code of conduct. And outside the courtroom, they open themselves to lawsuits if, for example, they make inflammatory statements to the press.

In December, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley, the California District Attorneys Assn. and the National District Attorneys Assn. joined lawyers for Van de Kamp in petitioning the Supreme Court to review the 9th Circuit's ruling. They said the appellate ruling was a dramatic shift in the law. Complaints against prosecutors could easily become management-related suits against supervisors, they argued.

W. Scott Thorpe of the California D.A. group said the ruling created a perverse situation in which absolute immunity would shield a trial prosecutor who committed an "intentional violation of civil rights" yet a supervisor could be held personally liable for "unintentional violations" related to policies.

The justices may announce as soon as Monday whether they will hear Van de Kamp vs. Goldstein. If the court takes up the case, it will be argued in the fall.

If the appeal petition is rejected, leaving the 9th Circuit's decision in place, lawyers for Goldstein plan to question Van de Kamp and Livesay, also named in the suit, under oath. The lawyers want to determine what steps, if any, were taken in the 1970s to protect defendants from false testimony from jailhouse informants.

In 1972, the Supreme Court overturned a man's conviction in a forgery case because an unwitting prosecutor had told the jury that a business partner had not been promised anything in exchange for his testimony. In fact, an assistant prosecutor had promised the business partner that he would escape prosecution if he testified for the government. In its ruling, the high court said "the prosecution's office is an entity," and it had a duty to disclose the full truth about its dealings with informants.
Lawyers for Goldstein say that ruling in Giglio vs. United States put prosecutors on notice of their responsibilities.

"An informant has a huge incentive to make up a story, to say they heard the defendant confess. That's what was going on here," said David McLane, a lawyer in Pasadena. "It seemed like every murder case in Los Angeles in the 1970s had testimony from a jailhouse informant."

"As to whether the district attorney had knowledge of what happened, that's not the issue in this case," he added.

Van de Kamp sees a note of irony in the situation. He is the chair of the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, a group set up to prevent wrongful convictions. It has pressed for a law that would require corroboration before testimony from a jailhouse informant could be used in a criminal trial.

The Legislature approved such a bill last year, but it in October Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it. He called the measure "unnecessary" because this "perceived problem . . . arises in very few criminal cases."
 
Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times

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

 

 


#1400 From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:41 pm
Subject: Judicial Elections Are An Imperfect, Best Option
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
JS OnLine

Judicial elections are an imperfect, best option

By RICK ESENBERG
Posted: April 12, 2008

As someone who teaches and loves the law, judicial elections make me cringe. I know that complicated issues will be misrepresented and that campaign ads will be saturated with nonsense. There are times when I wonder whether we would be better off appointing, rather than electing, judges.

But then I think of Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) at Senate confirmation hearings. Whenever someone is nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court (or, increasingly, for lower federal courts), misrepresentation and nonsense are on the hoof. Elections aren't perfect, but the proposed "solutions" are no better.

Our recent election for the state Supreme Court was nasty. Two men who, the last time I saw them, seemed to be reasonable lawyers with deep philosophical differences, were portrayed as corrupt bobble heads and sepia-toned champions of sexual predators. In this, I am afraid, judicial elections don't differ much from every other election in the overwrought, angry politics of our day.

There is a serious academic debate about the compatibility of electoral politics and the judicial function. In brief, the argument is that judges are charged to apply the law without regard to whether the outcome is popular. Indeed, some legal principles - for example, the constitutional rights of criminal defendants and of freedom of speech - are intentionally countermajoritarian. They cannot be denied because those who claim them are unpopular.

To what extent are judges influenced by fear of the electoral consequences of an unpopular decision? In a study focusing on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, my Marquette University colleague, Jason Czarnezki, found that, for the most part, justices are not more likely to rule against criminal defendants as they near re-election or after a closely contested race. But the data did suggest that justices who are initially appointed to vacancies are less likely to vote in favor of criminal defendants after facing the voters and that justices who are generally more favorably disposed to the claims of defendants are less likely to rule in favor of criminal defendants as they near re-election. The results of studies in other states have been mixed.

The possibility is troubling. Unlike legislators, judges aren't supposed to consider popular opinion when rendering their decisions. Although the impact of an approaching election may be limited, any departure from impartiality is cause for concern.

Some scholars argue that appointed judges are more likely to adopt expansive notions of the role of the judiciary. Judges who need not answer to the voters may be more likely to adopt approaches to the law that expand the discretion and authority of the judges to pursue their own policy goals.

The poster case for this approach is, of course, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roe vs. Wade. Perhaps almost all abortions ought to be legal. But more than one legal academic has driven herself to the brink of insanity trying to find a constitutional mandate for that view that doesn't leave judges free to create whatever rights they want.

Appointment may serve impartiality, but at the expense of accountability. This lack of accountability - if it contributes to an "imperial" judiciary - is just as problematic as electoral threats to impartiality, threatening to impinge upon the prerogatives of the executive and legislative branches.

And it attracts political attention. When judges believe that they can read the law in light of their political predilections, it is only natural to expect that people will come to care passionately about the ideologies of judges.

This is, in large part, responsible for the way in which battles over the confirmation of judges have turned into little Armageddons. Appointment doesn't drive out politics; it just moves it from the campaign trail to the hearing room and, of course, the back room.

Although appointment for life may eliminate political concerns once a judge assumes the bench (at least if the judge doesn't aspire to higher office), that impartiality comes at the price of a lack of accountability. Nor is greater impartiality ensured. More than one commentator has remarked upon the tendency of appointed judges to migrate toward approaches favored by what Justice Antonin Scalia called the "law profession culture."

If appointment turns out to present its own problems, a common fallback position of those disturbed by the tone of judicial elections is to embrace severe restrictions on campaign finance (generally a combination of public financing with severe limitations on third party spending) or a construction of the Judicial Code that severely restricts what candidates for judicial office may say.

There are constitutional problems with these approaches. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects both robust debate in judicial elections and the right of groups concerned about issues to be heard at the time of an election.

In any event, these approaches amount to a desire that judicial candidates shut up about philosophical differences for fear that they will not discuss them responsibly or that the public will not be able to understand them. The result, as with most campaign finance "reform," is incumbent protection.

I, too, am tired of being told that I should call Michael Gableman or Louis Butler and tell them that their mothers regret the day that they were born. But I hope (and actually suspect) that, through all the drama, voters did get some sense of the legitimate difference between the candidates.

The proposed cures are worse than the disease.

Rick Esenberg is an assistant law professor at Marquette University and author of the blog www.sharkandshepherd.blogspot.com

 

J.A.I.L.
P.O. Box 207
North Hollywood, CA. 91603
 
Passage of Jail4Judges solves the above imperfect dilemma.

#1401 From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:47 pm
Subject: Florida JAILer, Bob Hurt, Hits The Lime Light
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
Florida JAILer, Bob Hurt,
Hits The Lime Light
 
The Liberty Sentinel
April 2008

Are Florida’s judges for real?

A Florida lawyer armed with evidence of widespread
criminal activity in the judiciary is finally bringing
attention to the issue after making the accusations on
national TV. The implications of the law could bring
the state government to a standstill. Experts say the
federal government may even need to step in.
 
Paul Symons
Sentinel Staff Writer

 

MIAMI -- Chief Judge Joseph Farina of Florida’s 11th Judicial Circuit has commissioned a criminal investigation of Judge Dava J. Tunis for allegedly having a forged loyalty oath filed on her behalf. Additionally, her oaths were not notarized as required by law, a crime that could carry severe penalties.
 
According to attorneys and legal researchers, the violation is actually a statewide problem. “There may be other judges in the state as well who have not complied with this crucial law, so this may be a scandal that engulfs Florida’s bench,” Attorney Jack Thompson said. “This thumbing of their noses by judges at the law and the Constitution is what we are increasingly seeing from judges at all levels, state and federal.”
 
The case against Tunis was brought to light by Thompson after a scuffle with the video game industry resulted in disciplinary proceedings against him under the judge in question - this is despite Thompson’s good standing with the Florida Bar for over 30 years. The law requires all public officers to swear notarized loyalty oaths to both the State and Federal Constitutions, so Thompson maintains that Tunis is not eligible to collect a paycheck or use the title “judge,” let alone make rulings.
 
The Christian attorney is well known for his campaigns to stop the peddling of objectionable music or video games to children. He says that because of his successes, the “big money” of his wealthy opponents is being used to try and stop him from practicing law. The Florida Supreme Court assigned Tunis as the referee in Thompson’s disbarment proceedings, so he sought to have her
disqualified because of her alleged prejudice against him.
 
He said his investigation led to an expert witness who will testify that Tunis allowed someone to forge her signature on the loyalty oath required by Florida Statute 876.05 and United States Code Title 4 sections 101 and 102. He is seeking what is called a “judgment of ouster” in accordance with Florida law if Tunis cannot prove her right to hold office.
 
Additionally, Thompson claims to have discovered that Tunis did not even have a
valid oath on file at the beginning of her current term. The governor made the appoint, but he failed to require her to swear the oaths prior to allowing her to start performing duties or collecting pay. According to Florida legal researcher Bob Hurt who has studied the issue and even written a book that helped draw attention to the problem, someone in the State Department ordered the notarization requirement removed during Jeb Bush’s first term as governor.
That omission rendered the forms null and void because the U.S. and Florida
Constitutions require the oath, and the law requires that it be properly notarized.
 
In the summer of 2006, Hurt unearthed what he calls a massive scam involving the loyalty oaths. Without the signature and seal of a notary, a public officer cannot legally prove that they actually swore the oath, so it is not recognized as valid, he said. Without being legally bound to the law which protects the rights of the people, Florida’s judges were allegedly running rampant.
 
“It could have been signed by a spouse or friend for all anyone knows,” Hurt explained. “So the people of Florida, through the legislature, require the proper, notarized oath,” he said. According to Hurt, the missing ‘jurat’ means none of the elected officials who swore the oath between 2000 and summer 2007 can prove it, and therefore did not even qualify for office.
 
The only notarized loyalty oaths on file for the judges in Alachua County and the entire 8th Judicial Circuit were all filed in late 2007 or early 2008 as well. No documents stretching back to 2000 were immediately available, supporting the allegations being made by a growing body of Florida activists, researchers
and attorneys. Thompson might even be entitled to special compensation for blowing the whistle on Tunis, Hurt said. By accepting compensation while allegedly not being legally qualified for office, Tunis owes all that money back to Florida’s Chief Financial Officer.
 
Thompson has already asked Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum to file an
action against Dava Tunis under the False Claims Act. McCollum will probably refuse to do it, Hurt expects, so Thompson may eventually file it himself. The False Claims act entitles him to a 15% whistle blower reward. “Jack lucked out by obtaining the evidence that her oath is a forgery,” said Hurt. “This puts Dava Tunis in a unique category of people with invalid oaths.”
 
Thompson, Hurt and many other attorneys and legal researchers in the state have
suggested that the violation may involve more than just judges. “None of the officials elected or appointed since 2000 have a valid candidate oath. That
includes the Governor, Attorney General, Supreme Court justices, legislators, State Attorneys, County Commissioners, Sheriffs, Tax Collectors – in short, everyone,” Hurt said.
 
He claims that every elected and appointed official without a valid candidate oath, public officer’s oath, and public employee’s oath on file for the current term is guilty of violating three criminal Florida statutes under the chapter on Treason and criminal anarchy:
 
1. 876.10 and 837.012 – 1st degree misdemeanor - False swearing and perjury outside an official proceeding (for swearing they had qualified when they had not) 2. 839.18 – 2nd degree misdemeanor – Taking office before qualified
3. 843.0855 – 3rd degree felony – obstruction of justice by impersonating a public officer.
 
Thompson actually faces an even bigger hurdle that came to light during Hurt’s
research. As a result, he has encouraged Thompson to take matters to federal court and officially challenge Florida’s form of government. Hurt believes the government of Florida does not constitute a republic as guaranteed to the people by Article IV Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution for two reasons:
 
1. The failure of Florida’s elected and appointed officers to have valid loyalty oaths on file serves as a fundamental destruction of the Florida Republic because Florida has no duly constituted government – every elected and appointed officer is an imposter as defined by law; and
 
2. The action of the Florida Supreme Court to make the Florida Bar part of
the Judicial Branch of government violates the separation of powers. “In 1949 the Florida Supreme Court absorbed and integrated the Florida Bar with the court, making the Bar and all its members also members of the Florida judiciary,”
Hurt explained. Article II Section 3 of the Florida Constitution prohibits members of one branch of government from working in any other branch. “It makes exceptions of the Attorney General and State Attorneys, but it shouldn’t,” Hurt continued. The implications of this have been called “earth-shattering” by
observers.
 
 Hurt is hoping the US Department of Justice will “come down hard on the government of Florida for tolerating a judicial oligarchy and using it to abuse the people and minimize the other branches of government,” he said. Thompson might function perfectly in bringing the issue to the DOJ and U.S. Supreme Court.
 
“Jack has the motivation, the professional need, and the raw lawyering skills to push this issue all the way to the top,” he said. “He won’t do it now because he first has to obliterate the efforts to disbar him. If and after he prevails, maybe he’ll accept the challenge.” Another Florida attorney who spoke with The Liberty Sentinel said he considers Thompson somewhat eccentric, but that he raises very important points on this issue.
 
 More troubling to others is that the failure to comply with the legal requirements
for oaths of office has come during a time when our constitutional form of government has come under attack. “Of the first ten amendments that compose
The Bill of Rights, I can think of only one that hasn’t been explicitly or implicitly
violated – that being The Third Amendment, which prohibits the quartering of soldiers in private homes,” said Miami Attorney and constitutional law expert Elaine McKillop.
 
The U.S. Supreme Court and the Attorney General of Florida have ruled that the loyalty oath is constitutional, and that it must be complied with strictly. Ignorance of the law is also not considered an excuse for violating it, so experts say penalties could be stiff.
 
Hurt runs an online group about legal issues at groups.google.com/group/Lawmen
 
*   *   *
 
Comment by Ron Branson
 
This article touches upon a currently dormant enforcement factor written within the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law, and that is regarding Judicial Oaths of Office. Many so-called "judges" just do not have a legitimate Oath of Office on file. In such cases, the "judge" is not a judge under any stretch of imagination. Once J.A.I.L. takes effect, persons whose lives have been ruined by an imaginary "judge" may go back and reopen their cases that have been "closed," and challenge the jurisdiction of the "court" under J.A.I.L. This means for example that all properties taken under false pretenses may be recovered, etc.
 
Please remember J.A.I.L.
P.O. Box 207
North Hollywood, CA. 91603
 

#1402 From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:40 am
Subject: Citizen Issues Parking Ticket to Cop
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
 

Turning the Tables

Citizen Issues Parking Ticket to Cop

The Portland Mercury
April 20, 2008

A CITIZEN who watched a cop illegally park, then walk into a Chinese restaurant to wait for his food, has issued the officer a series of citizen-initiated parking violations.

Eric Bryant says he was sitting in the SanSai Japanese Grill on NW 21st and Hoyt on March 7 when he witnessed Officer Chad Stensgaard pull up and park his patrol car illegally, next to a "No Parking" sign.

Stensgaard walked into the restaurant wearing his police uniform, but did not make any arrests or citations. Instead, he turned his attention to the basketball game on television, according to Bryant. When Bryant asked Stensgaard about his vehicle, Stensgaard allegedly acknowledged being in a no-parking zone but asked Bryant, "If someone broke into your house, would you rather have the police be able to park in front of your house or have to park three blocks away and walk there?"

Bryant returned to his seat, and says shortly afterward he watched a restaurant employee hand the officer a plastic bag before he left. Unfortunately for Officer Stensgaard, Bryant had recently passed the Oregon bar exam, and decided to pursue the matter further.

"If he had acknowledged and corrected his error, we could have avoided this whole thing," says Bryant. "But instead, he kept watching basketball and told me he wasn't doing anything wrong."

 Now, using ORS 153.058, Bryant—as a private citizen—has initiated violation proceedings against Officer Stensgaard. Bryant alleges Stensgaard was in violation of state statutes on illegal parking, illegal stopping, obeying parking restrictions on state highways, and illegal operation of an emergency vehicle or ambulance—the violations carry fines totaling $540.

Officer Stensgaard has received a Multnomah County summons to appear in traffic court on May 23. Meanwhile Bryant denies he is just stirring up trouble.

"Citizens should be concerned that he used his status as an officer of the law as justification for breaking the law," he says.

Stensgaard declined comment through the cops' office of public information.

*   *   *

Please Remember

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

#1403 From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:15 pm
Subject: * * * The Selling of the Judiciary * * *
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
Judicial  Accountability  Initiative  Law
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, CA                                        April 23, 2008
A Public Service Announcement to America
(To be removed from this PSA see instructions below)

______________________________________________________

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?


 The Selling of the Judiciary

 
Brennan Center For Justice
at New York University School of Law
O’Connor & Breyer on Judicial Independence

Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor encouraged her staff to enjoy whitewater rafting, Mexican take-out brunch and tours of the Smithsonian. Justice Stephen Breyer loves to read French manuscripts and cultivated his distaste for footnotes during his clerkship to Arthur Goldberg. Such details were plentiful as Professor John Feerick introduced Justice O'Connor and her former colleague Justice Breyer to a well-heeled audience of lawyers and law students at Fordham Law School yesterday morning.

The two justices, and co-hosts of the day's symposium, sat together at a small table for their introductory panel, "Judicial Independence and Impartiality." Sandra Day O'Connor, dressed in a violet suit with gold buttons, her blonde hair now a shock of snowy white, frowned as she tried to twist the top off her water bottle, then leaned over towards Breyer and held it out to him. He wordlessly took it, unscrewed the top, and handed it back.

Sally Rider, Director of the William Rehnquist Center at the University of Arizona, kicked things off with a series of questions. Why, she asked O'Connor, did she decide to convene this conference on judicial independence in the first place?

O'Connor said she remembered seeing  "Impeach Earl Warren" signs in New Mexico and Arizona when she was growing up, and said that in her final years on the Supreme Court, attacks on judges increased, including proposals for mass impeachments of judges involved in the Terri Schiavo case, or proposals to cut judicial terms short, or a particularly disconcerting movement towards "Jail4Judges," a campaign to allow citizen panels to review rulings from the bench, with the ability to even imprison—as the name tantalizingly implies—those who made bad decisions. These developments were "very depressing," she said, and so she decided to use her retirement to call attention to these attacks on judges.

"An independent judiciary is an essential bedrock principle, and we're losing it."  The reason was in part the fact that civics and government are not a requirement for high school graduation. "One third of Americans can't name the three branches of government, but two thirds can name a judge on American Idol!"

Money has been pouring in to state judicial elections in recent years, including races for State Supreme Court justices. A 2004 campaign for a seat on the Illinois Supreme Court brought in a record-setting $9.3 million in political contributions, including hundreds of thousands of dollars from State Farm, a company with a case pending before the court. And just recently,  Wisconsin voters were subjected to over 11,000 televised campaign ads in the weeks before their state's Supreme Court race, over ninety percent of which were purchased by special interest groups (racking up a bill of well over 3.6 million dollars). Said O'Connor, "We put cash in the courtrooms, and it's just wrong." She then pointed to the room of lawyers and students. "You should take this seriously." (A later panel backed up O'Connor's concerns. New York Times legal correspondent Adam Liptak, Brennan Center attorney James Sample and Professor Michael Dimino discussed evidence that judges tend to rule in favor of their campaign contributors.)

She went on. "No other nation in the world elects judges." She pointed to Georgina Woods, the chief justice of Ghana, sitting in the front row, as if to illustrate her point.

"Why are we tolerating this? What are we going to do about it?" Then, seeming to remember that the initial question posed to her several minutes before was "why did you convene this conference," she added, "That's why," and sat back in her chair. The audience laughed and applauded.

Breyer took the floor next. Keeping state courts impartial is a major issue, but try talking about it with people "and they're asleep after five minutes." He recounted a trip to Russia he had made when serving as an appellate judge for the First Circuit after he was appointed by Carter. Meeting with Russian judges from across the country, he was surprised to hear their accounts of "telephone justice," when the party boss calls and tells judges which way to vote. "They asked me, ‘do you have telephone justice in the United States,' and I had to explain to them that no, the President wouldn't call you. He'd be crazy to do that."

More and more people today think that judges make decisions based on politics rather than the law, he added. O'Connor began to interrupt, then changed her mind. "No, no," she said, waving her hand at him, "you tell them."

He continued. "It's extraordinary that three hundred million people have agreed to settle disputes using the law, not sticks and stones on the street, like they do in some places."

Sally Rider asked what people who are concerned about judicial independence can do. "It takes concerned citizens" said O'Connor. And it takes activism from the business community, because "legislators will listen to them more than the average housewife." Breyer said this was a difficult message to get across to people. "That's why the people I like talking to the most are 9th and 10th graders, because they want to know about this stuff."

He encouraged the audience to get involved any way they could—writing to newspapers, or volunteering at schools to talk about the law. "Our method of resolving disputes in this country, what a treasure it is."

"That's a good place to stop," O'Connor nodded. "I totally agree."


New York Times
Editorial Observer

The Selling of the Judiciary: Campaign Cash ‘in the Courtroom’

Published: April 15, 2008

“We put cash in the courtrooms, and it’s just wrong,” Sandra Day O’Connor, the former Supreme Court justice, declared at the start of a conference in New York last week on a growing threat to judicial independence and integrity: the escalating millions that special interests are pouring into state judicial elections in an effort to buy favorable rulings.

The substance of her remarks was no surprise. Since retiring in 2006, Justice O’Connor has devoted herself to spreading the word about assaults on judicial independence and the bedrock principle of impartial justice — including from big-money state judicial campaigns. Still, it was startling to hear a former member of the nation’s highest court speak about the problem in such stark terms. No question, her alarm is well-founded.

Thirty-nine states elect at least some of their judges. On top of the inappropriate judicial involvement in partisan politics, recent years have seen the dawn of a grubby new era of multimillion-dollar campaigns for important state judgeships. They include 15- and 30-second attack ads, a staple of competitive races for top executive and legislative posts. These slugfests are largely underwritten by well-heeled interest groups — including insurance companies, tobacco firms, the building and health care industries, unions and trial lawyers — that have seized upon judicial contests as a promising avenue for influence-peddling.

The implications for the nation’s justice system are enormous. About 95 percent of cases are handled by state courts rather than appointed federal judges, notes Justice Stephen Breyer, who appeared at the Fordham Law School conference with his former colleague. Experts expect that 2008 will be another banner year for raucous and expensive judicial races.

The perception that money is corrupting the courts would be damaging enough. But often, it seems, special interests are finding that buying up judges likely to side with them in big-dollar cases is a good investment — the real-life grist for John Grisham’s new fictional legal thriller, “The Appeal.”

Events this month in Wisconsin and West Virginia only deepen these concerns. On April 1, the first and only African-American member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Louis Butler, lost his seat after a nasty, racially charged campaign in which his opponent, Michael Gableman, was aided by a barrage of TV advertising, paid for by the state’s largest business lobby.

In West Virginia, meanwhile, the State Supreme Court’s handling of a case involving a large coal company, Massey Energy, took on a decidedly farcical flavor. For the second time, the appellate court threw out a $50 million verdict against Massey.

The court decided to rehear the case after photographs publicly surfaced of its chief justice, Elliott Maynard, vacationing in Monte Carlo with Massey’s chief executive, Don Blankenship, in 2006, while the matter was pending in the Supreme Court. The chief justice disqualified himself from the rehearing. So did another justice, Larry Starcher, because he had publicly criticized Blankenship and his company. The 3-to-2 outcome in favor of Massey was unchanged from the first round, which might not have been noteworthy except that the deciding vote was cast once again by Justice Brent Benjamin, who declined to recuse himself despite owing his election to the court to more than $3 million spent by Mr. Blankenship.

In response to such travesties, judicial reformers have stepped up their call for public financing and strict fund-raising rules for state judicial contests or a switch to a nonelective merit selection system.

But with states in no rush to make these changes, a new report from the Brennan Center for Justice smartly focuses on an effective if less sweeping antidote that would be more achievable in the short-term: persuading jurisdictions to strengthen their recusal rules.

Surely special interests would be less inclined to invest so heavily in judicial elections if they knew the recipients of their largess likely would be barred from sitting on their cases.


Ron Branson, author of JAIL4Judges, states:

Justice O'Connor comments what is sticking in her craw, "O'Connor said she remembered seeing ... a particularly disconcerting movement towards "Jail4Judges," a campaign to allow citizen panels to review rulings from the bench, with the ability to even imprison—as the name tantalizingly implies—those who made bad decisions."

Justice O'Connor's "finding" is indicative of what is wrong with the judges in this nation. They are incapable of squaring with truth and dealing with the facts before them. The JAIL4Judges Special Grand Jury (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) is not at all about "citizen panels to review rulings from the bench," but rather, as the Initiative states in paragraph 2, "Exclusions of Immunity," to wit, "...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 State Constitution or of the United States."

Since when is punishing a judge for deliberately violating the law and deliberately violating the Constitution an attack upon the "rulings from the bench?" Further, how is it that criminally indicting judges and establishing trials for violating statutory law tantamount to imprisoning judges for making "bad decisions?"

What O'Connor is advocating is that judges should be free to mock the laws, hold contempt for the Constitution, and should never be held accountable. In other words, continue to enjoy the protections of judicial immunity. This is what is sticking in Justice O'Connor's craw, for which she has chosen to now travel this country coast to coast to condemn JAIL4Judges, which seeks to pass Judicial  Accountability into law in America. 

 


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

been in existence for over 12 years, and is in all 50 states and several foreign countries.

 

To manage your email, place the word Subscribe or Unsubscribe

in 'subject' line and hit reply. Your request will be automatically & instantly

processed. (Note: Program will not permit re-subscribes once unsubscribed.)

 

Our Founding Fathers said, "...with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine

Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and

our sacred honor." Dec. of Independence. We are a ministry in great need of

your financial support. Donate to this vitally 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 i
s

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

 

 

#1404 From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Fri Apr 25, 2008 1:57 am
Subject: Judges Tossing Felony Cases
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
Mercury News

Felony cases tossed due lack of judges in Riverside County

The Associated Press

RIVERSIDE, Calif.—More felony cases are being dropped in Riverside County because there aren't enough judges to hear them.

Supervising Superior Court Judge Helios Hernandez this week dismissed two more felony cases—one of them an assault case, the second for burglary. Prosecutors immediately refiled the cases.

Seventeen cases have been tossed by the calendar-clogged court in the past 16 months. Riverside County courts have a backlog of more than 1,000 criminal trials.

The county has 56 judges and 20 commissioners, but the state Judicial Council says nearly double that number are needed. The county was scheduled to get another 14 judges over the next two years, but the positions have been stalled because of a tight state budget.

 
Please Remember J.A.I.L.:
P.O. Box 207
North Hollywood, CA. 91603



#1405 From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Thu May 8, 2008 8:32 am
Subject: I Have My Own Plan .... Revolution - by Paul Clark
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
I Have My Own Plan .... Revolution
By Paul Clark

From: Paul C. Clark [mailto:clark@...]
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 8:52 AM
To: JAIL4Judges
Subject: Re: Dealing with Judicial Misconduct

I have my own plan. .... I believe the only possible way to restore the constituion will prove to be a bloody revolt. As our constitution permits us to do, we can remove the tyrannical government when it becomes so dispotic that it no longer serves the people as it is supposed to do. The fact is that all of these groups varied issues would be resolved if the constitution was restored to its original power to limit government and restore the equality of every citizen.  
 
Our constitution does not permit an elite class of people, those not subject to all laws equally, therefore immunity for judges or government officials can not exist, they are responsible for their actions, the same as anyother citizen. We also need to realize the value of citizenship is the rights that only citizens can claim. It is our constitution and our bill of rights and until you are a citizen you are not entitled to enjoy those rights. When you are a citizen you can demand those rights and they must be recognized, That is the guarantee of the constitution and the reason it exists. Either we restore the constitution or we let our nation be destroyed.  
 
This corrupt government will not go quietly or without a fight. It no longer listens to our complaints. Therefore it no longer functions as a servant of the people and does not rule by consent. It is currently positioning itself to become master and this can not be allowed. If we can not rise up as a nation and throw off this government we will all fall together in to slavery. The time to act is NOW. 
 
Paul C. Clark [mailto: clark@... ]
 

 
Dear Paul Clark. It is undoubtedly true that America will descend into an outright bloody revolution if the people of this country stand-by waiting for it. However, the cause of JAIL4Judges is to restore our Constitution to its original state by passing a State Constitutional Amendment which will give force and effect to every Constitution in this country, both state and federal. Of course, this is going to take non-violent participation of enough people to pass it into law. It will take approximately $400,000 to pick a state and make it happen. So I ask, can the people of this country carry on the alternative of a national revolution for less than $400,000? I hardly think anyone believes that can be accomplished.
 
And this only presupposes the money issue, and does not consider the lives of our sons, daughters and fathers, and the ruination of most everything in this country, etc.  "And for the support of this declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, or fortunes and our sacred honor."
 
What you are suggesting is sitting back and letting nature take its course, and when it gets bad enough, somebody may decide to do something.  I always ask such people who advocate revolution who they plan to take out first, and will they be firing the first shot. I always receive the same response, which is non-response, or the Little Red Hen response, "Not me said the pig, not me said the cow, not me said the dog."
 
If revolution is your answer, then I challenge you to start by appearing in the newspaper headlines this coming week.  The only danger facing the people placing J.A.I.L. into effect is tripping and skinning their knee on the way to the poll to vote. I do not consider contributing financially to the passage of J.A.I.L. as a grave "danger facing the people."
 
- Ron Branson
 
 

 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 11:26 PM
Subject: Dealing with Judicial Misconduct



Dealing with Judicial Misconduct - Unity Needed


To all,

Please read the emails below.  Your response will be greatly appreciated.


Marie (Shahidah) Musawwir

Jail4Judges has established a plan already for the purpose of prosecuting and convicting judges who violate their Constitutional Oaths.  Perhaps this may be a plan that we all can promote.


I haven't read it entirely yet due to being tied up with a court matter.  I think we should all read it to see if this is something we can all support and promote collectively.


The plan of jail4judges may not have all of the answers, but may contribute to some of the changes that are needed.  We need a plan of action that we all can unify behind and promote.


Let's continue our correspondence with each other and make suggestions until we can come up with something that we can all agree upon. Jail4judges may be considered a long term plan.  We need short term, intermediate and long term solutions for judicial reform.

Dr. San Jani has come up with some plans immediate plans for combating judicial misconduct in his state and nationwide.  He has sent our emails.  Everyone on our list should have received them.

We should not rely on others (apathy among our government officials) to do what we can do for ourselves.

Marie (Shahidah) Musawwir



I, Ron Branson, am often faced with the above short-term / long-term question. Some one the other day asked me what can be done in an certain instant situation. I knew that if I said, "Passage of JAIL4Judges" I was going to get, "No, we need something now, not years from now."  So I answered the question that the remedy today is the same remedy I proposed 13 years ago when I wrote J.A.I.L. for the short-term matters back then. My response averted the certain come-back that would have otherwise come had I answered differently.

For thirteen years people have been looking for a short-term remedy to the judicial problem. The questions presented are always still the same as it was 13 years ago, and they are still looking for a "short-term" solution. This dilemma is cited perfectly in the Bible,  "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." II Timothy 3:17. Those who cannot discover the knowledge of truth in thirteen years will never find the truth in one-hundred and thirty years because they do not recognize the truth when it stares them in the face.

The fact is, there shall never be any short-term remedy other than JAIL4Judges. Of a truth I say unto you, God has called me to this purpose and committed this cause into my hands. Those who will not listen are doomed to their own devices. They shall continue to descend into their own economic abyss.

- Ron Branson

VictoryUSA@...


Messages 1376 - 1405 of 1785   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Add to My Yahoo!      XML What's This?

Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines NEW - Help