A message to all members of NFOJA

> ----- <

Ron Branson Writes

Thomas Jefferson who wrote the famous words re
Standing Armies;

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered... I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies..." 

‘Ten Commandments Judge’ Roy Moore poised to return to Ala. court

Hi Ron

 

 

Thanks for responding

 

 

How do I get in touch with the organizations, and why is the price so high. I thought about 1 million would needed to be raise.

 

 

Rashid

 

From: Ron Branson [mailto:VictoryUSA@...]
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 4:04 PM
To: rashidemail@...
Subject: Re: initiative

The last I checked, I was given a price of 2.1 million dollars for the complete service to get an State Constitutional Amendment on the California ballot. There are approximately four competitive organization here in CA. willing to accept a contract agreement with you.

Ron Branson
www.jail4judges.org

No Courts, No Justice, No Freedom: 2012 Law Day Theme Will Resonate with Calls for Court Funding

On January 18th, a group called the Open Courts Coalition filled a block of Grand Avenue in Los Angeles and held a rally to support funding for the state judicial system of California.

Yes, you read that right—a rally for our courts that brought together members of the legal profession, the business community and labor leaders. It was a defining moment, and one we hope will be repeated in the coming months as we stand up and speak out for full funding for our judiciary.

State court underfunding is a threat to our system of justice and all we believe in as Americans and as an association. It is harming clients, slowing our nation’s economic recovery and undermining our liberty.

The ABA is organizing what will be a powerful public education event to further highlight this issue for lawmakers and the public at large. The theme and title of Law Day 2012 on May 1 is the message we have taken from Maine to California: “No Courts, No Justice, No Freedom.”

Please join with your state and local bar associations, teachers and business, labor and civic leaders in this year’s celebration of the constitutional freedoms our courts protect, along with the rule of law they nurture. Our ABA call to action has already been sent to state bars, asking them to hold a major public event in every state and territory to highlight the need for adequate funding of our courts.

Since establishing the Task Force on Preservation of the Justice System in 2010, the ABA has gained a wealth of information about the debilitating effects of budget cuts on our courts. The National Center for State Courts, one of our valued partners in raising public awareness of this issue, advises that 42 states cut funding for their judiciaries in 2011. New York closes its courts daily at 4:30 p.m. to avoid overtime costs. Massachusetts has lost 1,100 employees through attrition.

We know that courts have adjusted to the new reality of this difficult economy through efficiency and innovation. But as Kentucky Chief Justice John D. Minton Jr. has said, “We’ve all learned to be resourceful and live with in our means, to change, to evolve, to re-engineer, but state courts are running out of options during the Great Recession.”

And in the face of shrinking budgets, expanding caseloads, political indifference and public ignorance, more people and groups like those in California are saying enough is enough.

The Massachusetts bar has started a new court funding campaign that produced videos and placed billboards along two interstates. The New York County Lawyers Association and the state’s bar association have held court funding programs and issued reports to draw attention to cuts there.

In addition to our Law Day efforts, we have placed columns on judicial funding in 27 state and local bar association publications. The ABA is also building bridges with civic and business associations that care deeply about our nation’s justice system. We have found unprecedented partners—the Chamber of Commerce, the Association of Corporate Counsel and the Federalist Society—and each has joined us to support full funding for our judiciaries.

The ABA has distributed to hundreds of state and local bar presidents and executive directors a tool kit that includes videos and other materials to help build support among legislators and in the community. Our task force, led by David Boies and Ted Olson, recently held a forum at the ABA Midyear Meeting in New Orleans, highlighting strategies that can be used effectively with legislators across our nation. The ABA has also established a new Internet portal on this court funding crisis that can be found at ambar.org/courtfunding.

The preamble of our Constitution says we must establish justice to form a more perfect union. Our courts must be open, available and adequately staffed to accomplish that goal. Let’s work together to achieve it in our time.

Otherwise, No Courts, No Justice, No Freedom.

Where is Sandra Day O’Connor When You Need Her?

April 4, 2012

For years, the scolds that define the “merit” selection campaign have taken to the soapbox to decry “politics” in the courtroom.  So earlier this week when President Obama launched a “pre-emptive strike,” as Politico put it, and “inject[ed] a high-level dose of politics” into the U.S. Supreme Court’s deliberations over the fate of the Obama health care law, you’d expect Sandra Day O’Connor and the Soros-machine to be cranking out condemnations, right?  After all, what could be a greater threat to judicial independence than having the Supreme Court threatened before a ruling has even been issued by the most powerful man in the world? 

Instead, radio silence. 

In fact, some “merit” selection cheerleaders joined in the unprecedented attack on the Supreme Court.  As usual, the New York Times set the bar for hysteria, warning Chief Justice Roberts that a decision to strike down Obamacare would be equivalent to the Court “declaring itself virtually unfettered by the law” and hyperventilating that no court has shown itself “less restrained in signaling its willingness to replace law made by Congress with law made by justices.”  With her characteristic charm and wit, Times columnist Maureen Dowd dismissed the Roberts’ Court as a bunch of “hacks dressed up in black robes.” Roberts himself is labeled a “crimson partisan”; Justice Scalia is branded as “venomous”; Justice Alito mocked as “insufferable”; and Justice Thomas accused of having “lied his way onto the court.” 

But wait a minute.  Isn’t this the same paper that applauded the Iowa’s Supreme Court decision to “replace law made by Congress [in this case, the Iowa legislature] with law made by justices” when it overturned the state’s defense of marriage act?  Didn’t the Gray Lady admonish Iowa voters just weeks before election day that exercising their constitutional right not to retain three of those justices would amount to “a chilling message to  judges beyond Iowa’s borders to beware of rendering opinions that some voter blocks might dislike”? 

For her part, former Justice O’Connor rushed to the defense of the Iowa Supremes, stumping on their behalf in a failed attempt to prevent them from being unceremoniously dumped by the state’s voters.  But if she roused herself to defend the integrity of her former colleagues, I haven’t heard about it. 

Of course, it’s her right to sit on the sidelines when the President of the United States and the “paper of record” launch political attacks on the nation’s highest court.  But her deafening silence – along with the rest of the Soros crowd – gives the lie for all time to the nauseatingly self-righteous pretense that “merit” selection has anything to do with keeping “politics” out of the courtroom.

Posted by Dan Pero

“Where is Sandra Day O’Connor When You Need Her?”

1. Ron Branson  April 6th, 2012 5:49 pm

   My, my, my, so do we now have an exposure of Sandra Day O’Connor within this article? It was this Sandra who came out blasting the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law on the ballot of South Dakota back in 2006 when she stated that this would disrupt Judicial Independence in America. She gained worldwide media attention on this within the Wall Street Journal.

   Her story was even picked up by CNN in which CNN inquired if I would be willing to come on the air to present the opposing view to her espousal of her doctrine of Judicial Independence. She denigrated Judicial Accountability with the words, “They even call it JAIL4Judges.”

   So, Sandra, where is your voice now that the issue of Judicial Independence is front and center within the news? Were we not disputing this issue together in 2006? Have you now changed your mind and come to see the error of your ways?

   Ron Branson

What fault do you find with the holdings of the courts as cited below? 

The problem of We the People lies in the lack of power to force prosecutors to charge judges and prosecutors with crimes.

I believe courts have held that law enforcers have no particularly duty to prevent a person from injuring or committing a crime against another.  In other words, law enforcers get qualified immunity for their failure to behave as a Good Samaritan would respecting crime.  I naturally dissent with this.  Government exists primarily to prevent injustice, and law enforcers constitute the front line of that prevention.

That applies with respect to crimes by government employees, particularly crimes against We the People.

And yet when the very government employees We the People rely upon for prevention of injustice COMMIT the injustice, does not the citizen have the right to bring this fact to the grand jury, or to conduct the prosecution without the assistance of an official prosecutor?

Clearly America needs new state and federal constitutional provisions redefining the nature of grand jury investigation, providing a formal method free of government interference for the public to bring evidence of crimes to the attention of the grand jury, and a method of forcing prosecutors to show cause why they shouldn’t suffer a penalty for failing to prosecute a crime, particularly one by government employees.

The Sibley case is a clear example.  Deceiving We the People about credentials for the presidency ought to constitute a crime, and certainly a grand jury ought to get involved and investigate when widespread rumor and publicly known evidence suggests that the President is not a natural born citizen.  Running for office while knowing one cannot prove credentials constitutes a form of making false statements to Government under 18 USC 1001.  The DOJ should have prosecuted Obama for this before he took office.

Judges’ jobs injustice

Last Updated: 11:58 PM, April 7, 2012

Posted: April 08, 2012

If you’re a New York City judge and get caught breaking court rules, not to worry: The state’s Commission on Judicial Conduct is only too happy to give you a pass.

That’s what the panel proved last week when it let Justice Luis Gonzalez off the hook, scot-free — despite finding, in a lengthy report, that he was a flagrant nepotist who clearly violated the court’s rules.

Indeed, the way Gonzalez — the presiding justice of the Appellate Division’s First Department, covering Manhattan and The Bronx — handed out court jobs, he seemed more like a one-man family-and-friends employment agency than a fair-minded, on-the-merits judge of the court.

LUIS GONZALEZ

Among those who got non-attorney jobs: his ex-wife, his secretary’s brother, his driver’s son and cousin, his executive assistant’s nephew and his previous assistant’s nephew.

It’s a wonder he found time for any judicial matters.

And yet, the complaint against him was dismissed without so much as a reprimand.

Why? Because, the commission found, “hiring for non-lawyer positions at the Appellate Division, First Department, has been a closed process for decades.”

In other words, that’s the way it’s always been done in the First Department — so why hold Gonzalez responsible?

What a pitiful excuse.

Frankly, it speaks volumes about the commission itself — and its relationship to the judges it’s supposed to judge.

Never mind that the report noted that “such a practice undermines the judicial obligation to make appointments based on merit, avoiding favoritism and nepotism.”

And that “it diminishes public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the courts, even if every person hired for every job was in fact qualified for it.”

(In the case of Gonzalez’s hires, by the way, that wasn’t even always the case.)

Yet the commission practically made the jurist sound a like a hero — saying that “to his credit, Judge Gonzalez has acknowledged shortcomings in the [hiring] protocol . . . and is open to making meaningful change.”

Gee, how swell of him. He and the other appellate justices swiftly adopted the commission’s recommendations.

But none of this should have been necessary. The court’s rules are crystal clear about how employees should be hired — and Gonzalez, like his predecessors, blatantly ignored them.

No one should pretend that any of them are reformers. They made a mockery of the system — and only further eroded public confidence in it.

As for the Commission on Judicial Conduct, its whitewash only reinforces public cynicism about the court.

Too bad we have not had members of Congress with the strength to put a halt to the usurpation of power taken by the judiciary.   How would you get the judiciary back on track?   I had a recent talk with the senior legislative aide of my Congressman and she said they did not have the power to do more than send my concerns to the Judiciary Committee. 

 

 On one hand the Congressional Oversight Manual, Summary Page, talks about Congress need to make sure laws it enacts are complied with.  On the other hand there is no mechanism for doing so unless a particular committee member wants to investigate allegations of non law compliance.

 

Joe

 

In a message dated 4/13/2012 11:32:27 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, gzerman@... writes:

In England, from which much of our jurisprudence comes from, the judges were referred to the "Lions under the throne", there to protect the King, the Royals, the blue bloods, who divine right could "do not wrong".  

With the whole-cloth invention (no Constitutional authority/basis) by Justice Stephen J. Field of the Doctrine of Absolute Judicial Immunity via his decisions of Randall v. Brigham (1868), 74 U.S. 523 (that excepted corrupt & malicious acts) and Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1872) (which without real  explanation then removed the exception, so the doctrine now included, covered, corrupt & malicious judicial acts), and the subsequest USSC decison of Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (which further expanded the doctrine to cover judicial act of eugenics) - yes, a good argument can be made that the judiciary to some measure became the new aristocracy, or the new Royalty.

See the attachment (paper re The Doctrine of Absolute Judicial Immunty).  GLZ. 

---

From: JOSEPHN126@...
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:58:38 -0400
Subject: Re: [Lawsters:11279] YALE LAW SCHOOL PAPER ON CORRUPTION IN THE COURTS
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com

Years ago I read a portion of a speech in which a Federal Judge said the Federal Judiciary is America's "aristocracy" because they get lifetime appointments and are distinguished by their black robes.  Unfortunately, I lost the speech in a computer melt down.  I believe the Judge was Anderson and was speaking to a Judicial Conference.

 

Joe

 

I

Ron,

 

Can you tell a little about your success in getting this legislation passed anywhere?

 

Janice Johnson

 

Judicial Accountability & Integrity Legislation

(Tennessee J.A.I.L. Bill)

(a) Preamble. We, the Legislature of the State of Tennessee, find that the doctrine of judicial immunity has been greatly abused; and when judges abuse their power, the people are obliged - it is their duty - to correct that injury, for the benefit of themselves and their posterity. In order to ensure judicial accountability and domestic tranquility, we hereby amend Article I of our Constitution with these provisions, which shall be known as "The Judicial Accountability Amendment."

(b) Definitions. For purposes of this amendment:

1. The term "blocking" shall mean any act that impedes the lawful conclusion of a case, to include unreasonable delay and willful rendering of a void judgment or order.

2. The term "judge" shall mean justice, judge, magistrate, commissioner, judge pro tem, private judge, judicial mediator, arbitrator and referee, and every person shielded by judicial immunity.

3. The term "Juror" shall mean a Special Grand Juror.

4. The term "seat" shall mean a situs and facility that is suitable for usage by the Jury.

5. The term "strike" shall mean an adverse immunity decision.

Where appropriate, the singular shall include the plural.

(c) Immunity. Notwithstanding common law or any other provision to the contrary, no immunities shall be extended to any judge of this State except as is specifically set forth in this Amendment. Preserving the purpose of protecting judges from frivolous and harassing actions, no immunity shielding a judge 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 facts, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of Georgia or the United States.

(d) Special Grand Jury. There are hereby created within this State a twenty-five member Special Grand Jury with statewide jurisdiction having power to judge both law and fact. This body shall exist independent of statutes governing county Grand Juries. Their responsibility shall be limited to determining, on an objective standard, whether a civil suit against a judge would be frivolous and harassing, or fall within the exclusions of immunity as set forth herein, and whether there is probable cause of criminal conduct by the judge complained of.

(e) Professional Counsel. The Special Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to retain non-governmental advisors, special prosecutors, and investigators, as needed, who shall serve no longer than one year, after which term said officers shall be ineligible. Notwithstanding the one year, a special prosecutor may be retained to prosecute current cases in which they are involved through all appeals and any complaints for judicial misconduct.

(f) Establishment of Special Grand Jury Seat. Within ninety days following the ratification of this Amendment, the Legislature shall provide a seat for the Special Grand Jury. Such seat shall be reasonably placed proportionately according to population, but shall not be located within a mile of any judicial body.

(g) Annual Funding. The Legislature shall cause to be deducted two and nine-tenths percent from the gross judicial salaries of all judges, which amount shall be deposited regularly into the exclusive trust account created by this Amendment in paragraph (k) for its operational expenses, together with filing fees under paragraph (h), surcharges under paragraph (i), forfeited benefits of disciplined judges under paragraph (q), and fines imposed under paragraph (r).

(h) Filing Fees. Attorneys filing a civil complaint or answer before the Special Grand Jury in behalf of their client, shall at the time of filing, pay a fee equal to the filing fee due in a civil appeal to the State Supreme Court. Individuals filing a civil complaint or answer before the Special Grand Jury in their own behalf as a matter of right, shall, at the time of filing, post a fee of fifty dollars, or file a declaration, which shall remain confidential, stating they are impoverished and unable to pay and/or object to such fee.

(i) Surcharges. Should this Amendment lack sufficient funding through its fines, fees, and forfeitures (including deductions in paragraph (g)), the Legislature shall impose appropriate surcharges upon the civil court filing fees of corporate litigants as necessary to make this Amendment self-supporting.

(j) Compensation of Jurors. Each Juror shall receive a salary commensurate to a trial court judges of general jurisdiction prorated according to the number of days actually served.

 (k) Annual Budget. The Special Grand Jury shall have an annual operational budget commensurate to double the combined salaries of the twenty-five Jurors serving full time, which sum shall be initially deposited by the Legislature into an exclusive trust account to be annually administered by the State Controller. Should the trust balance, within any budget year, drop to less than an amount equivalent to the annual gross salaries of twenty trial judges of courts of general jurisdiction, the State Controller shall so notify the Legislature which shall replenish the account, prorated based on the actual average expenditures during the budget year. Should the trust balance in any subsequent year exceed the annual operational budget at the beginning of a new budget year, the State Controller shall return such excess to the state treasury.

(l) Jurisdiction.   Such Special Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to establish rules assuring their attendance, to provide internal discipline, and to remove any of its members on grounds of misconduct. The Special Grand Jury shall immediately assign a docket number to each complaint brought. Except as provided in paragraphs (s) and (w), no complaint of misconduct shall be considered by the Special Grand Jury unless the complainant shall have first attempted to exhaust all judicial remedies available in this State within the immediately preceding six-month period. (Such six-month period, however, shall not commence in complaints of prior fraud or blocking of a lawful conclusion until after the date the Special Grand Jury become functional. This provision applies remedially and retroactively.) Should the complainant opt to proceed to the United States Supreme Court, such six-month period shall commence upon the disposition by that court.

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

(n) Selection of Jurors. The Jurors shall serve without compulsion and shall be drawn by public lot by the Secretary of State from names on the voters rolls and any citizen submitting his/her name to the Secretary of State for such drawing.

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

 (p) Procedures. The Special Grand Jury shall serve a copy of the filed complaint upon the subject judge and notice to the complainant of such service. The judge shall have twenty days to serve and file an answer. The complainant shall have fifteen days to reply to the judge's answer. (Upon timely request, the Special Grand Jury may provide for extensions for good cause.) The Special Grand Jury shall have power to subpoena witnesses, documents, and other tangible evidence, and to examine witnesses under oath. The Special Grand Jury shall determine the causes properly before it with their reasoned findings in writing within one hundred twenty (120) calendar days, serving on all parties their decision on whether immunity shall be barred as a defense to any civil action that may thereafter be pursued against the judge. A rehearing may be requested of the Special Grand Jury within fifteen days with service upon the opposition. Fifteen days shall be allowed to reply thereto. Thereafter, the Special Grand Jury shall render final determination within thirty days. All allegations of the complaint shall be liberally construed in favor of the complainant. The Jurors shall keep in mind, in making their decisions, that they are entrusted by the People of this State with the duty of restoring a perception of justice and accountability of the judiciary, and are not to be swayed by artful presentation by the judge. They shall avoid all influence by judicial and government entities. The statute of limitations on any civil suit brought pursuant to this Amendment against a State judge shall not commence until the rendering of a final decision by the Special Grand Jury. Special Grand Jury files shall always remain public record following their final determination. A majority of thirteen shall determine any matter.

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

(r) Indictment. Should the Special Grand Jury also find probable cause of criminal conduct on the part of any judge against whom a complaint is docketed, it shall have the power to indict such judge except where double jeopardy attaches. The Special Grand Jury shall, without voir dire beyond personal impartiality and relationship, cause to be impaneled twelve special trial jurors, plus alternates, which trial jurors shall be instructed that they have power to judge both law and fact. The Special Grand Jury shall also select a non-governmental special prosecutor and a judge with no more than four years on the bench from a county other than that of the defendant judge. The trial jury shall be selected from the same pool of jury candidates as any regular jury. The special prosecutor shall thereafter prosecute the cause to a conclusion, having all the powers of any other prosecutor within this State. Upon conviction, the special trial jury shall have exclusive power of sentencing (limited to incarceration, fines and/or community service), which shall be derived by an average of the sentences of the trial jurors.

(s) Criminal Procedures. In addition to any other provisions of this Amendment, a complaint for criminal conduct of a judge may be brought directly to the Special Grand Jury upon all the following prerequisites: (1) an affidavit of criminal conduct has been lodged with the appropriate prosecutorial entity within ninety (90) days of the commission of the alleged conduct; (2) the prosecutor declines to prosecute, or one hundred twenty (120) days has passed following the lodging of such affidavit and prosecution has not commenced; (3) an indictment, if sought, has not been specifically declined on the merits by a county Grand Jury; and (4) the criminal statute of limitations has not run. Any criminal conviction (including a plea bargain) under any judicial process shall constitute a strike.

(t) Public Indemnification. No judge complained of, or sued civilly by a complainant pursuant to this Amendment, shall be defended at public expense or by any elected or appointed public counsel, nor shall any judge be reimbursed from public funds for any losses sustained under this Amendment.

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

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

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

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

 

*   *   *

My Dear Mr. Branson,

Thank you for sharing this very enlightening revelation with regard to the intentional violation of California State law by those whose job is to enforce the law.  It appears in the case of Mr. Servin, there may be a possibility that justice will be served, After all.

But then what explains the lack of justice being served on much more serious matters?  Matters like national security? Matters like the violations of the Constitution of the United States of America? Matters like the violations being committed by those very same people entrusted with the responsibility of representing the people of the United States, in making our laws?

Mr. Branson, it is obvious your knowledge of the law is quite evident.  In fact, your grasp of the basic legal principles would seem to far surpass, any demonstration of any more sophisticated legal principles displayed by any and all members of any levels of the judiciary...nation-wide.  

Perhaps we, as just common, ordinary plain vanilla variety Americans can call on you to propose just how we, the American people can deal with the greatest Constitutional crisis deliberately engineered by our elected officials in Congress, who seem determined to compound their acts of treason with untold measures of treachery.  

So Mr. Branson, may we call upon you for a simple solution by which we can restore our republic?  I suspect most Americans would be eternally grateful!

Arnie
 
Available 24/7 - Defending freedom has become a full-time job!
arnie@...

I hate to disagree with you Ron, about JAIL, because you are the expert on it and if I'm wrong in my disagreement with you, I trust that you will point out why I'm wrong; but JAIL does not directly accomplish, and probably will not indirectly "enable Americans to restore our Republic" as Arnie surmises.  This is because the most damageing creations of judicial "law", special privileges and immunities for government, are left in placem with JAIL, except for judicial immunity itself.   In a real sense, the major issue is not on going judicial corruption, but rather, in having enstablished and reestablishing the relationship between government and governed into the future, the judiciary will continue to follow the false law that it has institutionalized.  To be sure, a corrupt judiciary created that false law, but now that false law is accepted as the "rule of law" and any judge so ruling in favor of any immunity except their own, would be found by a JAIL jury to have ruled according to law.
 
That is why I stress in Democratizing the Judiciary, that the jury must have the right to judge the "law" under the Constitution, as it is written (as opposed to as judicially interpreted).  In point, having studied the matter, they is no way that government could sell immunity to a jury instructed or sworn to the Constitution.  Go ahead.  I dare you to try to come up with a reasonable argument that government immunity is consistent with the Constitution. 
 
Wolf

---

Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 18:47:19 -0700
From: VictoryUSA@...
To: arnie@...
CC: VictoryUSA@...
Subject: Re: Mr. Branson, may we call upon you for a simple solution?



Yes, Arnie, you have stated a fair representation of J.A.I.L. While I might wish to expand upon your presentation, I will just say that you have well stated my position in few words.

Ron Branson



Arnie Rosner wrote:

Mr. Branson,

Thank you for your efforts in this matter.  I am not very knowledgable in this area so please feel free correct me.  

In my limited understanding, the significance of your contribution, as in-acted, will help Americans restore our out-of-control judiciary to its proper role.  In turn, this is also an important step to enable Americans to restore our republic. Therefore, all Americans should strongly support the passage of your proposed legislation.

Did I get this right?

Arnie
 
Available 24/7 - Defending freedom has become a full-time job!
arnie@...
714-964-4056
714-501-8247 - mobile

On May 8, 2012, at 10:44 PM, Ron Branson wrote:

Arnie, my answer to your question is in the affirmative. However, what I have done is placed this same legislation in a state initiative form for each state's legislature to place on their state ballot in which to make it a constitutional amendment. Without it being a constitutional amendment, the judges of each of these particular states may simply declare the legislature's passage by statute to be unconstitutional.

Within the people's initiative states, the people may freely place it on their ballots and vote it into function by constitutional amendment, such as California.

I wish to thank you, Arnie, for you inquiry into this matter.

Ron Branson


Arnie Rosner wrote:

Mr. Branson,

Thank you for your amazingly simple solution.  Since the Congress is obviously beyond the ability to supervise their own activities with any sure degree of integrity, is this proposed legislation something by which the separate states could invoke?

Arnie
 
Available 24/7 - Defending freedom has become a full-time job!
arnie@...
714-964-4056
714-501-8247 - mobile

On May 7, 2012, at 8:14 PM, Ron Branson wrote:

Mr. Branson, may we call upon you
for a simple solution by which we can restore our republic?  I suspect most Americans would be eternally grateful!

Arnie Rosner wrote:

My Dear Mr. Branson,

Thank you for sharing this very enlightening revelation with regard to the intentional violation of California State law by those whose job is to enforce the law.  It appears in the case of Mr. Servin, there may be a possibility that justice will be served, After all.

But then what explains the lack of justice being served on much more serious matters?  Matters like national security? Matters like the violations of the Constitution of the United States of America? Matters like the violations being committed by those very same people entrusted with the responsibility of representing the people of the United States, in making our laws?

Mr. Branson, it is obvious your knowledge of the law is quite evident.  In fact, your grasp of the basic legal principles would seem to far surpass, any demonstration of any more sophisticated legal principles displayed by any and all members of any levels of the judiciary...nation-wide.  

Perhaps we, as just common, ordinary plain vanilla variety Americans can call on you to propose just how we, the American people can deal with the greatest Constitutional crisis deliberately engineered by our elected officials in Congress, who seem determined to compound their acts of treason with untold measures of treachery.  

So Mr. Branson, may we call upon you for a simple solution by which we can restore our republic?  I suspect most Americans would be eternally grateful!

Arnie
 
Available 24/7 - Defending freedom has become a full-time job!
arnie@...

Ron Writes:

Arnie, you must realize that as the days become more evil, everything gets turned Topsy-tervy. That which is important is totally disregarded, and that which is of little relevance is pursued to the fullest extent of the law. Take for instance, the Federal Reserve scam swallows up this entire county, and is obviously unconstitutional, yet its atrocities are ignored by everyone in power. A Mexican hits up a liquor store getting away with only a small pocket money, and the police, in their zeal to come up with a perpetrator, blows away a black man nearby in his garage as he was getting out of his car because "He looked suspicious. Besides, if he didn't do it, he is probably guilty of something." This is a real live example reported in the Los Angeles Times that actually happened. It is too bad this man was not a lawyer in a three-piece suit in Washington, District of Criminals, ripping off millions of dollars from the sucker taxpayers.

Anyway, I wrote, and presented to Congress the below Bill for their consideration at the turn of this century. Were any of them excited? Absolutely not. Dare anyone propose enacting legislation restoring the Constitution and power to the People.

Below is that very propose legislation which is filed in their Library of Congress. Perhaps you can motivate the People to be eternally grateful, telling them that we must absolutely get this legislation passed so that we can get back to the constitutional republic envisioned by our fore Fathers. If the People receive not this Judicial Accountability Bill, neither will they be convinced though another attempted Bill for Judicial Accountability be proposed.

Ron Branson
VictoryUSA@...

Judicial Accountability & Integrity Legislation

(Judicial Bill Written for Congress)

Filed in the Library of Congress

 

            (a) Preamble. The House of Representatives and Senate Assembled find: that an inordinate and ever-growing number of complaints for willful misconduct have been lodged with Congress involving federal judges across this nation; that the current Title 28 U.S.C. §372(c) (Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act) is in many cases inadequate due to conflicts of interest of judges judging themselves; that judicial integrity is of major importance which affects all areas of our American society. Be it therefore resolved that the House of Representatives and Senate Assembled hereby enact the following legislation which shall be known as the "Judicial Accountability and Integrity Legislation."

            (b) Definitions. For purposes of this statute:

1. The term "blocking" shall mean any act that impedes the lawful conclusion of a case, to include unreasonable delay and willful rendering of a void judgment or order.

2. The term "federal judge" or "judge" shall mean any federal justice, judge, magistrate, commissioner, or any person shielded by judicial immunity.

                        3. The term "Juror" shall mean a Special Federal Grand Juror.

4. The term "strike" shall mean an adverse immunity decision based upon bad behavior as set forth by paragraph (c), or a criminal conviction as set forth in paragraph (r).

Where appropriate, the singular shall include the plural, and the plural the singular.

            (c) Immunity. Notwithstanding common law or any other provision to the contrary, no immunities shall be extended to any federal judge except as is specifically set forth in this statute. Preserving the purpose of protecting judges from frivolous and harassing actions, no immunity shielding a federal judge 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 facts, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitution of these United States, all violations of which shall constitute bad behavior.

            (d) Special Federal Grand Jury. There is hereby created within the District of Columbia a twenty-five member Special Federal Grand Jury with full federal geographical jurisdiction having power to judge on both law and fact. Their responsibility shall be limited to determining, on an objective standard, whether a civil suit against a federal judge would be frivolous and harassing, or fall within the exclusions of immunity as set forth herein, and whether there is probable cause of criminal conduct by the federal judge complained of.

            (e) Professional Counsel. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to retain non-governmental advisors, special prosecutors, and investigators, as needed, who shall serve no longer than two years, after which term said officers shall be ineligible. However, with permission of the Special Federal Grand Jury, a special prosecutor may prosecute their current cases through all appeals and any applicable complaints to the Special Federal Grand Jury.

            (f) Establishment of a Special Federal Grand Jury Seat. A Special Federal Grand Jury seat is hereby created, which seat shall be located in excess of one mile of any federal judicial body.

           

            (g) Filing Fees. Attorneys representing a client filing a civil complaint or answer before the Special Federal Grand Jury, shall at the time of filing pay a fee equal to the filing fee due in a civil appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Individuals filing a civil complaint or answer before the Special Federal Grand Jury in their own behalf as a matter of right, shall, at the time of filing, post a fee of one hundred dollars, or file a declaration, which shall remain confidential, stating they are impoverished and unable to pay and/or object to such fee.

           (h)  Annual Funding. Should this statute lack sufficient funding through its filing fees under paragraph (g), and fines imposed under paragraph (q), which amount shall be deposited regularly into the exclusive trust account crated by this statute in paragraph (j) for its operational expenses, Congress may impose appropriate surcharges upon the civil court filing fees of corporate litigants as necessary to make this statute self-supporting, or they may appropriate any and all the necessary funds for the full implementation of this statute by legislation.

            (i) Compensation of Jurors. Each Juror shall receive a salary commensurate to fifty percent of a federal district judge prorated according to the number of days actually served.

            (j) Annual Budget. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall have an annual operational budget commensurate to twenty times the combined salaries of the twenty-five Jurors serving full time, which sum shall be initially deposited by Congress into an exclusive trust account to be annually administered by the Controller. Should the trust balance, within any budget year, drop to less than an amount equivalent to the annual gross salaries of fifty federal district judges, the Controller shall so notify Congress which shall replenish the account, prorated based on the actual average expenditures during the budget year. Should the trust balance in any subsequent year exceed the annual operational budget at the beginning of a new budget year, the Controller shall return such excess to the United States Treasury.

            (k) Jurisdiction.   The Special Federal Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to establish rules assuring their attendance, to provide internal discipline, and to remove any of its members on grounds of misconduct. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall immediately assign a docket number to each complaint brought before it. Except as provided in paragraph (r), no complaint of judicial misconduct shall be considered by the Special Federal Grand Jury unless the complainant shall have first attempted to exhaust all judicial remedies available in the federal courts within the immediately preceding six-month period. Such six-month period, however, shall not commence in complaints of prior fraud or blocking of a lawful conclusion until after the date the Special Federal Grand Jury becomes functional. This provision is intended to apply remedially and retroactively.

            (l) Qualifications of Jurors. A Juror shall have attained to the age of thirty years, and have been nine years a citizen of the United States , and an inhabitant of Washington , D.C. Those not eligible for Special Federal Grand Jury service shall include elected and appointed officials, members of the Bar, judges (active or retired), judicial, prosecutorial and law enforcement personnel, without other exclusion except previous adjudication of mental incapacity, imprisonment, or parole from a conviction of a felonious crime against persons.

            (m) Selection of Jurors. The Jurors shall serve without compulsion and shall be drawn  by public lot by the Secretary of State from names on the voters rolls and any citizen submitting his/her name to the Secretary of State for such drawing.

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

            (o) Procedures. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall serve a copy of the filed complaint upon the subject judge and notice to the complainant of such service. The judge shall have thirty days to serve and file an answer. The complainant shall have twenty days to reply to the judge's answer. (Upon timely request, the Special Federal Grand Jury may provide for extensions for good cause.) The Special Federal Grand Jury shall have power to subpoena witnesses, documents, and other tangible evidence, and to examine witnesses under oath. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall determine the causes properly before it with their reasoned findings in writing within one hundred twenty (120) calendar days, serving on all parties their decision on whether immunity shall be barred as a defense to any civil action that may thereafter be pursued against the federal judge. A rehearing may be requested of the Special Federal Grand Jury within twenty days with service upon the opposition. Twenty days shall be allowed to reply thereto. Thereafter, the Special Federal Grand Jury shall render final determination within thirty days. All allegations of the complaint shall be liberally construed in favor of the complainant. The Jurors shall keep in mind, in making their decisions, that they are entrusted by the people of these United States with the duty of restoring a perception of justice and accountability of the federal judiciary, and are not to be swayed by artful presentation by the federal judge. They shall avoid all influence by judicial and government entities. The statute of limitations on any civil suit brought pursuant to this statute against a federal judge shall not commence until the rendering of a final decision by the Special Federal Grand Jury. Special Federal Grand Jury files shall always remain public record following their final determination. A majority of thirteen shall determine any matter.

            (p) Removal. Whenever any federal judge shall have received more than three strikes, the federal judge shall automatically be brought up on charges before Congress for Articles of Impeachment by the Special Federal Grand Jury through its special prosecutor for bad behavior and willful misconduct. Congress thereafter shall commence to a vote on such Articles of Impeachment. Upon a conviction, the federal judge shall be permanently removed from office. He may also be held liable under any other appropriate criminal or civil proceeding.

            (q) Indictment. Should the Special Federal Grand Jury also find probable cause of criminal conduct on the part of any federal judge against whom a complaint is docketed, it shall have the power to indict such federal judge except where double jeopardy attaches. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall, without voir dire beyond personal relationship, cause to be impaneled special trial jurors, plus alternates, which trial jurors shall be instructed that they have power to judge both law and fact. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall also select a non-governmental special prosecutor and a federal judge with no more than four years on the bench from a state other than that of the defendant judge, (or outside of the District of Columbia, if the case so be). The trial jury shall be selected from the same pool of jury candidates as any regular federal jury. The special prosecutor shall thereafter prosecute the cause to a conclusion, having all the powers of any other prosecutor within these United States . Upon conviction, the special trial jury shall have exclusive power of sentencing (limited to incarceration, fines and/or community service), which shall be derived by an average of the sentences of the trial jurors.

            (r) Criminal Procedures. In addition to any other provisions of this statute, a complaint for criminal conduct of a federal judge may be brought directly to the Special Federal Grand Jury upon all the following prerequisites: (1) an affidavit of criminal conduct has been lodged with the appropriate prosecutorial entity within ninety (90) days of the commission of the alleged conduct; (2) the prosecutor declines to prosecute, or one hundred twenty (120) days has passed following the lodging of such affidavit and prosecution has not commenced; (3) an indictment, if sought, has not been specifically declined on the merits by a Grand Jury; and (4) the criminal statute of limitations has not run. Any criminal conviction (including a plea bargain) under any judicial process shall constitute a strike.

            (s) Public Indemnification. No federal judge complained of, or sued civilly by a complainant pursuant to this statute shall be defended at public expense or by any elected or appointed public counsel, nor shall any federal judge be reimbursed from public funds for any losses sustained under this statute.

            (t) Redress. The provisions of this statute are in addition to other redress that may exist and are not mutually exclusive.

            (u) Preeminence.  Preeminence shall be given to this statute in any case of conflicts with any other federal statutes, case law, or common law to the contrary. The foreperson of the Special Federal Grand Jury shall read, or cause to be read, this statute to the respective Jurors semi-annually during the first week of business in January and July.

Mr. Branson,

Do you have a suitable response for this?  John Dummett is a candidate for president.

Arnie
 

Begin forwarded message:

From: "John A. Dummett" <jdummett@...>

Subject: Re: Mr. Branson, may we call upon you for a simple solution?

Date: May 10, 2012 9:59:11 AM PDT

To: "blueislandbobsue@..." <blueislandbobsue@...>

Cc: Arnie Rosner <arnie@...>

Greetings

In California we have the initiative process but there is a huge flaw. First the Attorney General must enfoce the people sponsored bill. Proposition Eight was passed by a huge margin but the the AG of California Brown refused to enforce the law. Then the second problem with the initiative process is there is a sunset clause. There is only one way to ensure any law remains and that is by the amendment process. I don't know how other States handle their initiative system.

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

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

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

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

Copyrighted Library of Congress 9/12/03"

The first mistake with the Prop 8 People was in proceeding with a statutory law, Prop 22, as it was easily overturned by the judges. They learned this belatedly, and then they tried Prop 8, which was a constitutional amendment. Well, they were beginning to wake up, but still was not prepared for what was about to happen. The judges declared this constitutional amendment unconstitutional. Have I draw a clear picture that the issue is the People v. the Judges? Now here is where J.A.I.L. is absolutely necessary. It deals with this issue of the People v. Judges. Had J.A.I.L be in place prior to Prop. 8, then all of the judges within California would be liable under the provisions of J.A.I.L. and could be now serving time in jail because of willfully violating a constitutional provision, not to speak of trying to cover their financial losses from a civil suit from which they could not argue judicial immunity.

I could go on, but I am supposed to go on the air on the east coast in seven minutes, so I hereby rest may case on having an answer to the suppose flaw in the Initiative Process.

Ron Branson
VictoryUSA@...

On Wednesday, May 9, 2012, wrote:

Arnie

You have my VOTE....keep me posted as to how we can follow through on this legislation.   Thanks so much.  God Bless.

Love,
Suzanne

---

From: "Arnie Rosner" <arnie@...>
To: "David Taylor" <David.Taylor@...>
Cc: "Roland Clark" <rolandclark@...>, "Ron Branson" <VictoryUSA@...>, "Alicia Lutz-Rolow bellsouth.net>Alicia Lutz-rolow" <theplanetruth1@...>
Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2012 9:46:01 PM
Subject: Fwd: Mr. Branson, may we call upon you for a simple solution?

Fellow Americans:

You may find the following information to be very useful.  For those wishing to restore our republic in a peaceful way, then I urge you to take a few minutes to familiarize yourselves with the legislation proposed by Mr. Branson.  I think you will find it well worth your investment of time.  

If you find you agree with this proposed solution, then perhaps you will join me in adding our overwhelming public support to bring this legislation to life as law.

Arnie
 
Available 24/7 - Defending freedom has become a full-time job!
arnie@...
714-964-4056
714-501-8247 - mobile

Begin forwarded message:

From: Ron Branson <VictoryUSA@...>

Subject: Re: Mr. Branson, may we call upon you for a simple solution?

Date: May 9, 2012 6:47:19 PM PDT

To: Arnie Rosner <arnie@...>

Cc: "Ron Branson - VictoryUSA@..." <VictoryUSA@...>

Yes, Arnie, you have stated a fair representation of J.A.I.L. While I might wish to expand upon your presentation, I will just say that you have well stated my position in few words.

Ron Branson



Arnie Rosner wrote:

Mr. Branson,

Thank you for your efforts in this matter.  I am not very knowledgable in this area so please feel free correct me.  

In my limited understanding, the significance of your contribution, as in-acted, will help Americans restore our out-of-control judiciary to its proper role.  In turn, this is also an important step to enable Americans to restore our republic. Therefore, all Americans should strongly support the passage of your proposed legislation.

Did I get this right?

Arnie
 
Available 24/7 - Defending freedom has become a full-time job!
arnie@...
714-964-4056
714-501-8247 - mobile

On May 8, 2012, at 10:44 PM, Ron Branson wrote:

Arnie, my answer to your question is in the affirmative. However, what I have done is placed this same legislation in a state initiative form for each state's legislature to place on their state ballot in which to make it a constitutional amendment. Without it being a constitutional amendment, the judges of each of these particular states may simply declare the legislature's passage by statute to be unconstitutional.

Within the people's initiative states, the people may freely place it on their ballots and vote it into function by constitutional amendment, such as California.

I wish to thank you, Arnie, for you inquiry into this matter.

Ron Branson

 


Arnie Rosner wrote:

Mr. Branson,

Thank you for your amazingly simple solution.  Since the Congress is obviously beyond the ability to supervise their own activities with any sure degree of integrity, is this proposed legislation something by which the separate states could invoke?

Arnie
 
Available 24/7 - Defending freedom has become a full-time job!
arnie@...
714-964-4056
714-501-8247 - mobile

On May 7, 2012, at 8:14 PM, Ron Branson wrote:

Mr. Branson, may we call upon you
for a simple solution by which we can restore our republic?  I suspect most Americans would be eternally grateful!

Arnie Rosner wrote:

My Dear Mr. Branson,

Thank you for sharing this very enlightening revelation with regard to the intentional violation of California State law by those whose job is to enforce the law.  It appears in the case of Mr. Servin, there may be a possibility that justice will be served, After all.

But then what explains the lack of justice being served on much more serious matters?  Matters like national security? Matters like the violations of the Constitution of the United States of America? Matters like the violations being committed by those very same people entrusted with the responsibility of representing the people of the United States, in making our laws?

Mr. Branson, it is obvious your knowledge of the law is quite evident.  In fact, your grasp of the basic legal principles would seem to far surpass, any demonstration of any more sophisticated legal principles displayed by any and all members of any levels of the judiciary...nation-wide.  

Perhaps we, as just common, ordinary plain vanilla variety Americans can call on you to propose just how we, the American people can deal with the greatest Constitutional crisis deliberately engineered by our elected officials in Congress, who seem determined to compound their acts of treason with untold measures of treachery.  

So Mr. Branson, may we call upon you for a simple solution by which we can restore our republic?  I suspect most Americans would be eternally grateful!

Arnie
 
Available 24/7 - Defending freedom has become a full-time job!
arnie@...

Ron Writes:

Arnie, you must realize that as the days become more evil, everything gets turned Topsy-tervy. That which is important is totally disregarded, and that which is of little relevance is pursued to the fullest extent of the law. Take for instance, the Federal Reserve scam swallows up this entire county, and is obviously unconstitutional, yet its atrocities are ignored by everyone in power. A Mexican hits up a liquor store getting away with only a small pocket money, and the police, in their zeal to come up with a perpetrator, blows away a black man nearby in his garage as he was getting out of his car because "He looked suspicious. Besides, if he didn't do it, he is probably guilty of something." This is a real live example reported in the Los Angeles Times that actually happened. It is too bad this man was not a lawyer in a three-piece suit in Washington, District of Criminals, ripping off millions of dollars from the sucker taxpayers.

Anyway, I wrote, and presented to Congress the below Bill for their consideration at the turn of this century. Were any of them excited? Absolutely not. Dare anyone propose enacting legislation restoring the Constitution and power to the People.

Below is that very propose legislation which is filed in their Library of Congress. Perhaps you can motivate the People to be eternally grateful, telling them that we must absolutely get this legislation passed so that we can get back to the constitutional republic envisioned by our fore Fathers. If the People receive not this Judicial Accountability Bill, neither will they be convinced though another attempted Bill for Judicial Accountability be proposed.

Ron Branson
VictoryUSA@...

Judicial Accountability & Integrity Legislation

(Judicial Bill Written for Congress)

Filed in the Library of Congress

 

            (a) Preamble. The House of Representatives and Senate Assembled find: that an inordinate and ever-growing number of complaints for willful misconduct have been lodged with Congress involving federal judges across this nation; that the current Title 28 U.S.C. §372(c) (Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act) is in many cases inadequate due to conflicts of interest of judges judging themselves; that judicial integrity is of major importance which affects all areas of our American society. Be it therefore resolved that the House of Representatives and Senate Assembled hereby enact the following legislation which shall be known as the "Judicial Accountability and Integrity Legislation."

            (b) Definitions. For purposes of this statute:

Judges Say Bench Watchdog Should Be on Shorter Leash

By Cheryl MillerContactAll Articles

The Recorder

May 4, 2012

• Victoria Henley, Commission on Judicial Performance director
  Image: Jason Doiy/The Recorder

SACRAMENTO — Tension between California's jurists and the Commission on Judicial Performance? That's nothing new. Fits of judicial pique against the watchdog panel have spiked and ebbed ever since state voters created it in 1960.

But 52 years later, frustration — one justice described it as "palpable anger" — with the 11-member commission has grown to such a high level that there's now open, albeit cryptic, talk by two judges associations of forcing changes upon the disciplinary agency.

"There seems to be a scope or mission creep to their work," said California Judges Association President David Rubin, a San Diego trial court judge. "There seem to be significant instances of overdiscipline. And there seem at times to be issues of discipline for errors of law over real substantive violations of canons of ethics."

The CJP appears to offer one of the few topics where the CJA and the Alliance of California Judges share similar views. Alliance Director Thomas Hollenhorst, a justice on the Fourth District Court of Appeal, echoed Rubin's critiques and added what he said is judges' growing resentment over a pointed tone in both the commission's advisory letters and disciplinary proceedings.

"What you're hearing from judges is a concern over what appears to be an attempt to sort of rub judges' noses in offenses," said Hollenhorst, who teaches judicial ethics and has served as a special master for the commission.

Commissioners and CJP Director Victoria Henley say they're perplexed by the claims of overdisciplining. They note that the numbers of admonishments, advisory letters and even ousters ordered each year by the CJP have changed little over the past decade. And with five judges and lawyers serving on the panel, they add, there's significant empathy for what it takes to run a courtroom today.

"Everyone is very aware of the personal effect discipline has on judges," said seven-year commissioner Judith McConnell, the administrative presiding justice of the Fourth District. "The commissioners take their job very seriously."

Weighing judges' criticisms and the CJP's actions in any empirical way is difficult. Only a handful of cases against judges are made fully public each year. About 90 percent of the complaints the commission receives are closed after an initial review. Somewhere between two dozen and three dozen judges a year receive advisory letters or private admonishments — punishments the recipient may share with colleagues but that are rarely, if ever, made public.

The CJP does provide sanitized descriptions of advisory letters and private admonishments on its website; the disciplinary summaries offer limited factual information and no names so as not to identify the targeted judge. Private punishment records can be unveiled later, however, if a judge receives a public chastisement.

Told about criticism that the CJP overcharges some judges, commissioners asked for specifics. But judges were reluctant to offer The Recorder examples of cases where they thought a jurist was disciplined too severely, often saying they didn't want to embarrass a colleague.

Even when a specific case was cited, however, commissioners declined to discuss details. Case in point: the 2006 public admonishment of Judge Paul Zellerbach. The Riverside County judge was taken to task for delaying the reading of a jury verdict in a homicide case so he could attend a baseball playoff game.

One judge called Zellerbach's punishment "a watershed case" that angered a number of judges for "going too far."

Lawrence Simi, whose recent election as chair of the commission makes him the first layperson to lead it, declined to discuss the punishment.

"I'd just invite you to look at the facts of the case," he said.

Simi said commissioners take their work "very, very seriously" and rely on precedent and "a phenomenal staff" in determining discipline for a judge.

"Each behavior is different," Simi said. "The number of behaviors can be different. So we look at precedents."

Judges who believe a commission-meted admonishment, censure or removal order is too severe can petition the state Supreme Court for review. But such challenges are exceedingly rare, a fact that commissioners and Henley point to as affirmation of their work. Judges, not surprisingly, don't see things that way.

"One would hope that the commission would rather self-correct than have people running off to the Supreme Court to correct them," Rubin said.

For more than a year, CJA leaders have been working on the CJP issue behind the scenes, collecting anecdotes from disciplined bench officers and weighing options for, as one judge put it, "making the changes we'd like to see." Those efforts included a meeting last summer between a majority of CJP members and four jurists: Rubin and then-Presiding Judges Kevin Enright of San Diego County, Richard Loftus Jr. of Santa Clara County and Molly Bigelow of Shasta County.

Rubin wouldn't disclose exactly what was said during the closed-door, two-hour get-together. But he described the conversation as free-flowing and "frank," and he said the commissioners were attentive to the judges' concerns.

"My sense is they are aware of the discussions going on in the branch about the CJP," he said.

More recently the Alliance of California Judges announced that they planned to discuss their CJP concerns during an informal meeting between the chief justice and trial court judges in April. That didn't happen, but Hollenhorst and other alliance members say they're still committed to seeking changes.

Just what angry judges can do is unclear. The state Constitution sets out the commission's mission as well as its membership: The Supreme Court names one appellate justice and two trial court judges; the governor picks two attorneys; and the governor, the Senate and the Assembly each choose two laypeople. Members serve four-year terms.

Any attempt to amend the Constitution would be costly, laborious, potentially politically divisive and therefore, unlikely. Judges could try to challenge commission-created rules governing case investigations and the agency's structure. They could also try to play a larger role in influencing commissioners chosen by the Supreme Court.

Rubin would not discuss the CJA's plans.

"We've been working on a strategy to address these issues, not just for the judges' benefit, but for the commission's as well," he said.

Hollenhorst would not rule out the Alliance of California Judges going to the Legislature for help.

"It's not like we're shy about that," he said.

Shawn Mooney:

I wish to thank you for sending the above article to me. However, I, and several others of my elk, have for years been exposing the Commission of Judicial Performance as a watershed for complaints against California judges. Complaints for gross judicial misconduct has been flooding the CJP by the thousands each year, and all we have gotten from them after the following manor, to wit; "Thank you for contacting the Commission of Judicial Performance regarding a complaint of misconduct of a California judge. At out October meeting we took up you issue which you have raised in you letter of complaint, and it was decided that there was no matter of judicial discipline for which this commission should take action. Therefore, we have decided to close this matter. We thank you for contacting the Commission on Judicial Performance.

Signed,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Commission on Judicial Performance

Believe me, having many years having experience within the judicial system dating back as far as 1981, and having filed numerous complaints to the CJP, I have never once seen any variation from the above. And yes, they are all stamped with large red lettering both inside and out with the word, "CONFIDENTIAL". But I ask, confidential from what. Not a one letter I have ever seen from the CJP has stated anything whatsoever. All letters also which I have seen from others resulted in the same ridiculous words. The CJP is a front organization.

The ridiculousness of the very existence of the CJP has even gone so far that I have suggested publically that we should just close down the CJP for budgetary reasons as an unfruitful waste of the taxpayers money, and instead allow the death of California's judges to take its natural course against these corrupt judges. At least death is a means of which is not subject to politics. Let the judges just fall over dead off the bench and we can then just cart off the carcass to where is can be properly disposed of, and in this manor the taxpayers will save millions of dollars with no complaints against judges being lodged, no hearings performed, no cover ups needed, and no judicial commissioners on the payroll.

The documented track record of the CJP is dismal. Knowing this personally, I decided to physically follow a criminal compliant against L.A. County Superior Judge Fields. The matter started with my filing of an affidavit of documented criminal conduct pursuant to the Fourth Amendment with the L.A. County Grand Jury. The L.A. County Grand Jury stated that they did not have jurisdiction to investigate a Superior Court judge, and that I would have have to direct my affidavit to the California Commission on Judicial Performance.

So I personally drove up to the CJP in San Francisco with a file box of documentation to verify my criminal affidavit. I was met personally with a representative of the CJP who sat down with me and told me the matter was a criminal one, and that they were not a criminal prosecuting agency, and that I would have to take my criminal affidavit to the State Attorney General.

So I personally traveled from San Francisco to Sacramento to the State Attorney General's Office where I was faced with another obstacle. The A.G. Office told me that I would have to take my criminal complaint to the CJP in San Francisco. I informed them that that is exactly were I had come from, and they said I would had to come to you, the State Attorney General's Office.

Due to their facing this delima, they finally dug up an A.G. Deputy named Virgil Chapman, a Public Relations Officer. I spent 2 and 1/2 hours with Mr. Chapman, and he complimented me on my documenting an obvious crime, and asked to photocopy the various documents from my files, of which he did. He indeed told me that because of the seriousness of this matter, their office was going to expedite this matter.

I thought perhaps I had performed my mission regarding this criminal conduct of Judge Fields, but I was wrong. Politics kicked in, and I was thereafter prevented any further communications with Mr. Virgil Chapman, and I was again told that I should take this criminal matter to the CJP. I was experiencing a cover up and facing a runaround.

Instead of going back to the CJP, I physically traveled to Sacramento again, but this time to the Governor's Office about this criminal cover up by all involved where I met with Sandra Micelle, the Governors attorney. When I explained to her the cover up, she stated that the Governor's Office has no jurisdiction because the State Attorney General is elected to office by the voters just like the Governor. I then showed her the California State Constitution, Article V, Sec. 13, "Subject to the powers and duties of the Governor, the Attorney General shall be the chief law officer of the State," and I stated to her that the State Attorney General is the bellboy for the Governor, and is constitutionally obligated to perform whatever duty was required of him by the Governor. Her eyes got big and I could tell that I was informing her of a duty she had never saw or realized before, and she then said, "How can I help you, Mr. Branson?"

We explained what was going on, and she stated that she understood my perplexity and why I came to the Governor's Office. However, after my departure from the Governor's Office, I was no longer allowed to communicate with Sandra on this matter. It was like this criminal affidavit against L.A. Superior Court Judge Fields was some kind of a toxic plague that no one wanted to deal with, and there existed in California no such thing as a remedy when judges commit crimes. A Deputy Attorney General even stated to me privately in the elevator, "Mr. Branson, you want us to go after California judges. We cannot do that. We have a conflict of interest. We are the judge's defense attorneys. When you sue them, we appear in their defense. Further, since we are attorneys for the State of California, we bring suits before these judges. We want them to rule in our favor. So there is no way we can get involved in what you are asking of us." At least I was now privately being informed as to the truth of the problem. There truly exists no remedy against wayward judges in California!

I thereafter proceeded to the U.S. Attorney's Office seeking a remedy, and then to the U.S. Department of Justice, who forwarded my matter on to the FBI. The FBI sat on this criminal complaint for almost a year after which they wrote me an said the criminal statute of limitations had run, and so that they were forced to close this matter.

So much for judicial discipline. Prior to 1960, judicial complaints were investigated by Grand Juries. But then in 1960 the CJP was created as a sandbag for judicial complaints to be investigated by a panel mostly made up of judges covering for judges. The entire system is now designed to cover up for judicial complaints, and the only issues acted upon are those coming to media light in which the CJP must save face. I have learned that no judge gets disciplined for wrong doing, rather, judges only get disciplined for embarrassing the judicial system. When that happens, the judicial system must cut it loses by sacrificing one of their own to make it look like the CJP is doing a fine job.

So you can see why I find your article you have just sent me raising the hair on the back of my neck, as it too is nothing but the furtherance of deceptive fraud on the public. We are now to believe the lie that the California judges are complaining that the CJP is taking their discipline of judges too far, and overcharging the judges. This story well serves the cover up for the CJP. What this story really tells me is that exposure of the CJP by the many of us as to what the CJP really is, is disturbing starting to upset them.

In as much as I use to have inside access to the L.A. County District Attorney's Office, I can tell you that two district attorney deputies contacted me about the criminal conduct of two different L.A. County Superior judges of which they were seeking to criminally prosecute, and they were being defeated in their prosecution of these judges because these judges were successfully arguing they were covered by judicial immunity. Now, if you know anything about a judicial immunity defense, it must acknowledge the offense, to wit, "Yes, I committed the felony which you accuse me of, but I am a judge covered by judicial immunity, therefore, there is not a thing you can do about my crime!"

Below is my proposed solution to the many numerous complaints of judicial misconduct, and of crimes committed by judges. Please read it, and give me your comments. Thank you, Shawn Mooney, for taking your time to read my response to what you have sent me. 

Ron Branson
Judicial Accountability Initiative Law Founder
VictoryUSA@...

*   *   *

Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.)

Preamble. We, the People of California, find that the doctrine of judicial immunity has been greatly abused; that when judges abuse their power, the People are obliged - it is their duty - to correct that injury, for the benefit of themselves and their posterity. In order to ensure judicial accountability and domestic tranquility, we hereby amend our Constitution by adding the following provisions as Sec. 32 to Article I, which shall be known as "The J.A.I.L. Amendment."

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

1. Judge: A judicial officer hearing and adjudicating legal actions and proceedings within the judicial branch of government (to include arbitrator, mediator, or a private judge, any of whom is assigned by a court to hear involuntary proceedings). This definition shall not be construed to mean trial juror, prosecutor, or any administrative official.
2. Material allegations: Statements essential to the claim or defense presented in a pleading filed in court.
3. Blocking: Any unlawful act that impedes the lawful conclusion of a case, to include unreasonable delay and willful rendering of an unlawful or void judgment or order.
4. Corporate litigant: A party holding a corporate charter, as distinguished from a business license.
5. Juror: A Special Grand Juror.
6. Strike: An adverse immunity decision or a criminal conviction against a judge.

2. Exclusions of immunity. Notwithstanding common law or any other provision to the contrary, no immunities shielding a judge from frivolous and harassing actions shall be construed to extend to any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material allegations, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of California or the United States. The foregoing judicial misconduct shall not be construed to mean court decisions made within the authorized capacity of a judge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyrighted Library of Congress 9/12/03

*** END ***

"The People shall have the right to fish upon and from the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof, excepting upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the People the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be passed making it a crime for the People to enter upon the public lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any water containing fish that have been planted therein by the State; provided, that the Legislature may by statute, provide for the season when and the conditions under which the different species of fish may be taken."

Superior Court of Tehama County - Declaration to the Court

            I have enclosed documents that support my plea of innocence in this case, and ask the Court to agree and dismiss. If the Court grants a dismissal with an explanation, I will continue this matter with the Fish & Game and the Legislature. The Alternative of what I will enact reads as follows.

            If the Court ignores the well defined wording of Article I, Section 25 of the California Constitution and assess a "Fine", I will then declare that I am unable to pay any fine of any amount. My subsistence is totally dependent on Social Security ($750 monthly). I will declare to the Court that I have provable medical reasons why I am now and in the future unable to perform any community service. It is my sincere hope the Court agrees and finds in my favor.

            My closing statement will better explain my position in this matter.

            If the unconstitutional denial of my 6th Amendment Right had been supported, Article 1, Section 25 of the State Constitution would have been settled. Now we move to the 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The wording clearly indicates "until I am duly convicted of a crime", "Involuntary Servitude" applies to me. The demand for a Jury Trial is also supported in Article I, Section 16 of the California Constitution.

            I will appear for an interview to perform community service. This will be my non-negotiable position:  I am not physically fit to do any work now or in the future. If I am required to present a letter from a doctor, I will require the County to contact my doctor for this information. I will provide my doctor's name and contact number -  nothing more. I will appear for this interview once, and it will be video recorded.

            The Following statements alert this Court as to my primary reason why I will never pay a fine or do any community service.

           
            Article 1, Section 16.  Trial by Jury is an inviolate right and shall be secured to all, but in a civil cause three-fourths of the jury may render a verdict. A jury may be waived in a criminal cause by the consent of both parties expressed in open court by the defendant and the defendant's counsel. In a civil cause a jury may be waived by the consent of the parties expressed as prescribed by statute.

            In civil causes and cases of misdemeanor the jury may consist of 12 or a lesser number agreed on by the parties in open court.

            Amendment XIII, Slavery, Section 1.  Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

            Black's Law, 7th Edition, Crime:  A social harm that the law makes punishable; the breach of a legal duty treated as the subject-matter of a criminal proceeding - Also termed criminal wrong. SEE OFFENSE.

            "Understanding that the conception of Crime, as distinguished from that of Wrong or Tort and from that of Sin, involves the idea of injury to the State of collective community, we first find that the commonwealth, in literal conformity with the conception, itself interposed directly, and by insolated acts, to avenge itself on the author of the evil which it had suffered." Henry S. Maine, Ancient Law 320 (17th ed. 1901).

            " It is a curious fact that all the minor acts enumerated in the penal code of a state like, say, New York are in law called crimes, which term includes both murder and overparking. It is a strong term to use for the latter, and of course the law has for centuries recognized that there are more serious and less serious crimes. At the common law, however, only two classes were recognized, serious crimes or felonies, and minor crimes or misdemeanors." Max Radin, The Law and You 91 (1948)

            Note:  The word "infractions" is never mentioned.

            If this Court is able to produce any evidence that trumps Article I, Section 25 and have  a Jury deliberate the arguments, this issue will be settled. Until that time I will keep on fishing until I am proven guilty by a Jury.

            I have stated all the valid reasons why it would be prudent for this Court to dismiss this citation.

                                                Thank you,

                                                Donald M. Bird

Judge Says He Was Struck by a Police Officer in Queens

Chang W. Lee/The New York Times

Justice Thomas D. Raffaele said a police officer in Queens, enraged at a jeering crowd, hit him in the throat on Friday.

Published: June 5, 2012

The judge, concerned the crowd was becoming unruly, called 911 and reported that the officers needed help.

But within minutes, he said, one of the two officers became enraged — and the judge became his target. The officer screamed and cursed at the onlookers, some of whom were complaining about what they said was his violent treatment of the suspect, and then he focused on Justice Raffaele, who was wearing a T-shirt and jeans. The judge said the officer rushed forward and, using the upper edge of his hand, delivered a sharp blow to the judge’s throat that was like what he learned when he was trained in hand-to-hand combat in the Army.

The episode, Friday morning just after midnight — in which the judge says his initial complaint about the officer was dismissed by a sergeant, the ranking supervisor at the scene — is now the focus of investigations by the police Internal Affairs Bureau and the Civilian Complaint Review Board.

The judge said he believed the officer also hit one or two other people during the encounter on 74th Street near 37th Road, a busy commercial strip in Jackson Heights. But he said he could not be sure, because the blow to his throat sent him reeling back and he then doubled over in pain.

“I’ve always had profound respect for what they do,” Justice Raffaele said of the police, noting that he was “always very supportive” of the department during the more than 20 years he served on Community Board 3 in Jackson Heights before becoming a judge. At one point in the early 1990s, he added, he helped organize a civilian patrol in conjunction with the police. “And this I thought was very destructive.”

The justice, who sits in the Matrimonial part in State Supreme Court in Jamaica, Queens, was elected to the Civil Court in 2005 and the State Supreme Court in 2009. Justice Raffaele was among the judges around New York State who volunteered to perform weddings on the Sunday last summer when New York’s same-sex marriage law went into effect. The judge’s description of the confrontation and its aftermath, which he provided in a series of interviews, was corroborated by two people he knows who described the encounter in separate interviews.

Justice Raffaele and one of the men, Muhammad Rashid, who runs a tutoring center near where the encounter occurred, said they were on the street at that hour because the judge had spent most of that day and night cleaning out his parents’ house and Mr. Rashid had just helped him move two tables; he donated them to the tutoring center.

The judge said his parents had just moved to Houston; he had taken them to the airport that morning and the house’s new owner was to take possession the next day.

The judge said he was in “a lot of pain” and went with Mr. Rashid to the emergency room at Elmhurst Hospital Center, where a doctor examined his throat by snaking a tube with a camera on the end through his nose and down his throat to determine whether his trachea had been damaged. The doctor, he said, found no damage; Justice Raffaele was released and told to see his personal doctor for follow-up care.

When they first came upon the crowd, the judge said, he was immediately concerned for the officers and called 911. After he made the call, he said, he saw that one of the officers — the one who he said later attacked him — was repeatedly dropping his knee into the handcuffed man’s back.  .....

.......