Columbine
Victims Cry Out for
Exposure of the Truth!
by Ron Branson - JAIL4Judges
Yesterday, (Sunday afternoon) I traveled down from Los
Angeles to Orange County to meet with some important people in
respect to plans for the future of JAIL4Judges. Three different
angle cameras were set up and we discussed the fraud going on in
our country and within our judiciary here in California. I
pointed out that a poll taken by our California Judicial Council
in 1996 revealed that 52% of Californians were less than pleased
with the then current judicial system. Since 1996 it has only
gotten much worse, and now California is facing bankruptcy with
the courts screaming that they are having to close courtrooms
because of the lack of money. We are being told via the media
that without courts, we are going to suffer the lack of justice.
I discussed the fact that within our efforts to establish
Judicial Accountability in South Dakota in 2006, we encounter
lies, deception, fraud and cover-up involving the entire South
Dakota Legislature, to include State Attorney General Long,
Chief Justice David Gilbertson, Tom Barnett, head of the S.D.
Bar Association, and illegally turning the entire capital
building in Pier, S.D. into a campaign office against the
passage of Judicial Accountability on the ballot in S.D.
Financially assisting in this cover-up was the banks, the oil
industry of Exxon and Mobil, and also the insurance industry.
This warfare is documented blow by blow on the website of
www.sd-jail4judges.org.
I travel back to L.A. and after a night's rest, I woke up and
checked my emails. On top of my list was an email from the
victims of the Columbine Massacre which drew so much attention
in our country a few years ago. This event was taken up in
Congress with every media in the world covering it. Rather than
me enter my own description of what happened, it is more
appropriate that I show the email I just received.
Folks, there is so much fraud that is going on within our
country, and particularly within our judiciary, that it is
beyond comprehension.
We, the families of the Columbine victims, ask for your
assistance in our super high profile tragedy. We have learned a
tremendous amount of disturbing information since the tragedy.
Please review our website - Google Columbine
family request. What is most disturbing is the depth of the
cover up. We learned that the Columbine shooters had been raped
during an arrest months before the tragedy. NO ONE in the
position of trust will call for an investigation of our
concerns.
We have documented proof that even President Clinton refused to
act upon our report that the shooters were raped, and instead
protected the pedophile rapist.
Our list includes;
* District Attorney Dave Thomas,
* Colorado Attorney General Suthers,
* Interior Secretary Ken Salazar,
* Ex Governors Owens and Ritter,
* Present Gov. Hickenlooper,
* Colorado Supreme Court,
* Many federal judges,
* Sitting Rep. Lamborn,
* Rep. Tancredo et al.
The info that we have is backed up by forensic psychologist
Leeza Bippert,, Attorney John De Camp (Franklin coverup), and
many others.
We have a Common Law expert volunteering and would like to have
your support in order to force our concerns into a common law
court.
I hope you can see that this is tremendous opportunity to fight
for the protection of our children. This institutional
protection of pedophiles MUST END.
Please call ASAP. Our children are depending on us to protect
them.
Back in the
early 80's when I pastored North Hollywood
Bible Church, I invited Pastor Lindsey
Williams in as a guest speaker. This was
shortly after he had published his new book,
"The Energy Non-Crisis."
We found him to be very sincere and an
educated man of God, in which he testified
that he had gained his experience as a
Chaplain on the Alaskan Pipeline.
I very highly recommend everyone pursue every
opportunity to become acquainted with this
man's work and ministry. Your will find it
immensely enlightening.
The following links are to two short
presentations by Lindsey, and another
recently featured on Coast to Coast Radio. The
substance of his three presentations are in
regards to what is imminently about to happen
in this country, and around the world.
Based on his inside resources, we are about to
see a major collapse in the derivatives market
and the collapse of JP Morgan Bank. Any astute
person should be able to discern the coming
Handwriting On The Wall.
Every election cycle I am approached as a supposed authority on
judges to state a list of the judges for whom I recommend the
electorate vote for. Just this past Saturday, April 26, 20012 I
was approached by an attendee prior to my speech at a seminar of
the judiciary to "Please state for us a short list of the judges
they should vote for."
After taking my position at the podium and getting the
introduction out of the way, I recounted for the audience this
request for my short list of judges. I told the audience that I
recommend that no one vote for any judge who accepts that his or
her Oath of Office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the
United States is subject to the doctrine of judicial immunity. I
explained as to what judicial immunity is, and that is if judge
chooses to violate the Constitution, so what, they are nonetheless
covered by Judicial Immunity and not liable, a doctrine affirmed
by the U.S. Supreme Court for all judges in the United States. I
then demonstrated my short list with an ever-closing gap between
my thumb and forefinger down to nothing.
Many of you are familiar with the prison incident of Attorney
Richard I. Fine, a former U.S. prosecutor who just spent seventeen
months in the Los Angeles County Men's Central Jail for
embarrassing all the judges in Los Angeles County for bringing a
successful lawsuit against all the judges of L.A. County for
illegally and unconstitutionally taking bribes from the County of
Los Angeles in the name of "double-salary."
While I do respect Attorney Richard Fine for exposing this
horrendous financial scandal, not to speak of its influence on
judicial corruption of swaying almost a perfect 100% of the cases
in the County's favor in which the County was a party, either as
plaintiff or defendant for the last twenty years, I disagree with
Mr. Fine's recommendation to the voters of California that we just
vote out the judges who took the bribes. His cause is only an
example of an extremely much greater scandal, and that is judicial
immunity protection for all judges within this nation.
Every judge in America is required to swear by an Oath to give
allegiance to the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land
on one hand, and on the other, that whatever a judge does, no
matter how evil, unlawful, or unconstitutional, and even if such
corruption is done with absolute malicious intent to do someone
in, his actions, as a judge, are covered by judicial immunity.
I have those who argue with me that judges are not immune for
their actions if their actions be without jurisdiction, and they
cite to judicial decisions on this, but as one who has years of
experience within the judicial system, these are words only for
public consumption, and are not real decisions on which anyone may
rely in suing a judge. Believe me, as a practical matter, every
judge is immune for their actions no matter what, unless it be for
something like rape.
Let us remember from whence we came, and is that it was said of
the King of England, "The King can do no wrong!" We found this
attestation to be revolting, and we had a American revolution over
this attestation. See our Declaration of Independence!
Well, believe it our not, our judges has slowly, but surely,
decision by decision, little by little adopted this very same
policy under the theory that judicial immunity comes for England
endorsed by "Common Law." In other words, "Judges can do no
wrong!" I have tested this doctrine in the courts time and time
again, and it matters not whether judges do their dirty deeds
within or with jurisdiction. I have even had a federal judge say,
"Even if it be true, as Mr. Branson alleges, that Patricia
Schwartz acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction, she did
not know that she did not have jurisdiction, therefore, she is
covered by judicial immunity." In other words, "Since Judge
Patricia Schwartz was too ignorant to know about the law of
gravity that gravity pulls down, therefore she is not subject to
law when she stepped off the edge of a ten story building." I am
not kidding. This is the stuff of which we get children's Saturday
morning cartoons from. Just look a Wiley the Coyote and the
Roadrunner. This is the exact same "authority" underlying judicial
immunity. Judges are immune from whatever evil or corruption for
which they contend!
It is for this reason that the judiciary so fears the prospects of
the passage of J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law)
because they hate to even have to discuss judicial immunity
outside a defense to a lawsuit before another judge with judicial
immunity, because they know the doctrine is so preposterous,
ridiculous, and indefensible in open daylight judged by the
public.
So, to answer the question, "Which Judges Should I Vote For?" the
answer is easy. It is ease to tell a bad judge from the good ones.
The bad judges wear a black robe!
Ron Branson
National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief VictoryUSA@...
P.S. - As a courtesy to Attorney Richard Fine, I am placing his
proposed remedy below in its complete form.
CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL
INTEGRITY ASKS CALIFORNIA
VOTERS TO
REJECT JUDGES WHO TOOK ILLEGAL PAYMENTS
The Campaign for Judicial
Integrity is a non-partisan
grassroots organization concerned about the decline of the
state of the
integrity of our judiciary and its failure to provide a fair
and equal judicial
system to the American public.The
Campaign’s goal is to restore
and achieve integrity in the judiciary and the
administration of justice in the
United
States
and the individual states.
The Campaign works to increase the
public’s awareness of
the danger to our society resulting from the failure of
members of the
judiciary to obey constitutional provisions, laws, codes of
judicial conduct
and their oaths of office, which protect our fundamental
rights.
Its founder and Chairman is Richard I.
Fine, PhD, a
recognized leader in anti corruption and fighting judicial
corruption.
Fine stated:
“California
has a judicial crisis. According
to a California Judicial Council
Report
to the State Legislature, over 90% of the state elected California Superior Court
judges received
illegal payments from counties
or
courts in addition to their state compensation. This occurred even though California
judges are the highest paid in the country.
The Report showed that the illegal payments are approximately $34 million per year. Since the late
1908s, [I believe this is a typo and really should state
"the late 1980's" - RB] the Campaign estimates that
illegal payments
have been approximately $350
million,
in Los AngelesCounty
alone. If the judges paid the illegal payments to the state, we would not
have a budget shortfall and no
courts
would have to close. However, we know that this will not happen, since they haven’t
done so for over
25 years.”
Fine continued:
“Traditional methods to remove these
judges failed due to political
cronyism and prosecutorial
inaction. The only way to restore fairness
and integrity to the judiciary is for citizens to exercise
their right to vote and
vote out those judges who
received the illegal payments.”
Fine
explained the Campaign’s action:
“As a public service to the voters in
the California June
5, 2012 Primary
Election, the Campaign
published the names of the 34 California
counties
where California state elected Superior Court judges receive illegal payments from counties or
courts in
addition to their state
compensation.
The
34 California counties are: Alameda, Butte, Calaveras, Contra
Costa, Fresno, Glenn,
Kern, Kings, Los
Angeles, Mariposa, Mendocino,
Monterey, Napa,
Nevada, Orange, Placer, Riverside (payments
phasing out), Sacramento, San Bernardino (payments phasing out), San Benito, San Diego, San
Francisco, San
Joaquin, San Luis
Obispo, San Mateo,
Santa Clara, Siskiyou, Solano, Sonoma, Trinity,
Tulare, Tuolumne, Ventura and Yolo (payments phasing out).”
Fine explained the illegality of the
payments:
“The
payments from
counties were held to violate Article VI, Section 19 of the California Constitution in the case of
Sturgeon v. County
of Los Angeles.
Additionally, counties are parties before the judges. Payments by parties in a case to a judge were
held to be “bribes” and
to violate the federal
criminal statute
of the “intangible right
to honest services, 18
U.S.C. Section 1346, in the cases
of U.S. v.
Frega, U.S.
v. Adams and U.S. Malkus,
in which the judge
and the parties were sentenced
to jail.
Additionally, the judge was removed from office in the case of Adams
v. Commission
on Judicial Performance”
Fine explained the judges’ political
move to obtain
retroactive immunity for their illegal acts and federal
prosecutors refusal t
act:
“After the Sturgeon decision, the
California Judicial
Council and the California
Judges
Association sponsored Senate Bill SBX 2 11, which was enacted on 2/20/09. SBX 2 11 gave the judges
retroactive immunity from
state criminal prosecution,
civil liability and disciplinary
action
for having taken the illegal county payments and acknowledged that the payments were criminal.
Federal
prosecutors ignored the
violations
of federal law and refused to prosecute.
The result is that California
has the largest judicial scandal in American
history and a judicial system which is corrupted from a case involving a county traffic
ticket, to
family law and child support cases,
to
criminal cases, to any case
in which a
county is a party, a witness
or has
an interest.
The effect is so devastating that LA
County Counsel Annual Litigation
Reports from FY 2005 through FY
2010 showed that only 3 cases
were won
against LA County when a Superior Court judge made
the decision. Approximately 650-850 cases per year were filed
against LA County
according to the annual
reports.”
Fine concluded:
“The Campaign asks every person to
exercise their right to
vote. Go to the
Campaign web site,
determine if judges in your county receive illegal
payments, and if so, vote! If you desire a fair judicial system with integrity, only
you can
achieve such by voting out the judges
who
received the illegal payments.
We ask you to be active in the
Campaign; post the web site
on your face book page
and twitter
about it; send the web site to family, friends,
work mates; ask them
to pass it on to
others, post it and twitter
about it and
vote.
In the end, we are the only ones who
can institute change.
By exercising our right
to vote, we will
achieve a fair judicial system and a
judiciary with integrity.”
When is the Law not the Law? This is the challenge asserted by Mr.
Don Bird of Tehama County, California, in which he is cited for
fishing in California. The California Constitution, Article I,
Section 25 states as follows;
"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."
Mr. Bird's position is that the later provision has
not been violated, and thus, the State of California cannot make a
crime out of his right under the Constitution to fish upon the
public lands of California.
Below is Mr. Birds' declaration to the Superior Court of Tehama
County. Those wishing to contact Mr. Don Bird regarding this issue
may do so at patriot@....
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 havea 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.
Contempt of Court: When
is it Appropriate?
Judges Contempt Handbook
Attached is the California Judges Contempt Handbook describing
when contempt is appropriate or inappropriate. Gary L. Zerman,
JAIL4Judges attorney, deems it appropriate that information be
posted on the internet in light of how "Contempt of Court" is
being thrown around liberally by judges these days. A pertenant
jurisdictional issue is whether the particular contempt is
criminal or civil.
Ron:
See the below e-mail (which apparently did not go thru,
as I got a message stating such), and the attachment (judges
handbook re contempt).
Justice, Who Always
Supported
Police Action, Attacked By Police
“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 ..."
Thomas D. Raffaele, a 69-year-old justice of the New York State
Supreme Court, encountered a chaotic scene while walking down a
Queens street with a friend: Two uniformed police officers stood
over a shirtless man lying facedown on the pavement. The man’s
hands were cuffed behind his back and he was screaming. A crowd
jeered at the officers.
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. .....
California Innocence Project
225 Cedar St.
San Diego, CA. 92101
(619) 515-1530
Judicial Insanity At Play!
Gentlemen:
I am Ron Branson of JAIL4Judges.org [Judicial Accountability
Initiative Law]. Attorney Gary L. Zerman, my associate, has
suggested that I write this email in relation to the last case
which I brought against the Los Angeles County Superior Court and
the City of Los Angeles, and to request whatever assistance you
may have to offer. We are familiar with your Banks case at http://www.californiainnocenceproject.org/images/stories/FeaturesDocs/banks.habeas.petition08.15.2011.pdf
and encourage others to familiarize themselves therewith.
Attorney Zerman, and myself are very well familiar with the fraud
and corruption taking place within our judicial system, both
locally and nationwide, and are spokespersons relating to this
ever-expanding court corruption.
You are to be honored in seeking to assist the helpless who have
been swallowed up by an uncontrollable judicial system. Our hats
are off to you.
Here are the facts regarding a ridiculous so-called "conviction"
regarding myself that commenced back in November 2009, and has
proceeded all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court with not one
court, state or federal, deciding an issue presented. The Supreme
Court just recently declined to accept Cert. and I am appending a
copy of that Cert. via attachment.
In short, I am the victim of a criminal proceeding in which there
was no magistrate, no determination of Probable Cause, no
appearance at an arraignment, no criminal charges presented, no
notice, and no plea. Yet I was "convicted," followed by
imprisonment in the Los Angeles County jail. When I got out, I
appealed and found within the appellate record a so-called Minute
Order of 11/24/2009 that alleges that I was present at an
arraignment and entered a plea to the criminal charges upon which
I ultimately spent time in jail.
I contacted the court reporter named within that Minute Order and
was informed by her that no such proceeding took place, and
therefore it was impossible for her to prepare a transcript of
that proceeding.
I asked her is she would prepare and sign a sworn declaration as
to what she had just told me, and she did so. From that time all
the way through to the U.S. Supreme Court, not one court has
acknowledged her sworn declaration, nor refuted it.
Ultimately, after four federal judges recused themselves from the
case, the fifth federal judges dismissed my suit for relief saying
that I could refile the federal suit when I overturned the
conviction.
This, of course, raises the question, how can I overturn an
criminal charge when there was not any of the above stated
processes present. Such is impossible.
I appealed this dismissal to the Ninth Circuit, and it was as if
they were prepared for its coming as the moment I filed the Notice
of Appeal and paid the $455 fee, I was noticed by the Clerk of the
intent to sustain the judgment of dismissal.
Now how can there be a determination on appeal with no Record on
Appeal, no Opening Brief, and no questions presented for
determination. Yet that is exactly what happened.
The rest can be seen in the Supreme Court Cert. attached.
Thank you very much. I look forward to hearing from you.
Fear of Police Presence
May Be Cause For Reasonable Suspicion
"[C]onduct designed to evade contact with
police
may itself establish reasonable suspicion."
State v. Starkey (S.D. Supreme Ct.)
Have you ever realized that police were present, and you
took evasive steps to avoid contact with them?
In light of the current finding by the South Dakota Supreme Court
that fearing police may be interpreted as reasonable suspicion to
justify police action, I would like to refer you to a real life
situation.
A friend of mine here in California whose name is Max, who
managed a printing business in Hollywood, commuted daily over the
hill via Laura Canyon. He took this route daily, with included on
the downhill side a right-turn shortcut. In this particular day,
unknown to Max, the police had set up a secluded observation point
to catch "speeders."
Now you must understand that everyone must ride their brakes down
the hill to negotiate the curves, but apparently according to this
police officer, Max was not riding his brakes hard enough. So a
hot pursuit ensued as Max made his typical right turn shortcut,
allegedly fleeing the cop. The cop hastily "caught" Max, pulling
up at Max's driver window with his gun drawn, and Max looking down
the barrel of a loaded police special in the hands of an irate
police officer who said, "I caught you."
Max was taken by surprise, wondering what this was all about, only
to find out that the police officer was accusing him of causing a
hot police pursuit in an attempt to evade the police. It was the
imagination of this police officer that made him believe he was
the hero in capturing a get-away suspect who was evading police.
To Max, this was his normal daily event of driving home from work,
and it was being transformed into a life and death situation.
Our illustrious mayor of Los Angeles says, "There can never be too
many police officers in L.A." We beg to differ with him.
we citing to our Founding Fathers. In our Declaration of
Independence, passed unanimously by Congress on July 4, 1776, they
penned these words, "He [King George III] has erected a multitude
of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our
People, and eat out their substance." This hardly bears up the
words of Mayor Antonio Vigarlarosa that there can never be too
many police officers. Was or original Congress in fear of police
action. You better believe it.
Keep in mind when these police officers were then harassing the
People back in 1774, they were not speeding over the speed limit
on the super highways, nor making illegal left hand turns, failing
to wear a set belt, or signal. They did not even fail to purchase
auto insurance, or pay their tab fees. So what was the charges for
which the People were then being harassed? It is hard to imagine,
but we know this one think, it was cleaning our the financial
livelihood of the People, and wrecked their economy. This proves
the point. In all ages, and at all times, and under every
circumstance, the abundance of police officers are detrimental to
society, and brings its economy down. Police will always find
something to which the People are in violation of, and the People
will therefore owe money to government bureaucrats who are
enriching themselves.
“Looks like you’re doing a lot of work trying to avoid me,”
quipped Officer Fletcher as he pulled over Ms. Starkey. It was 2
a.m. in downtown Rapid City the summer before last.
The officer had observed Ms. Starkey driving
suspiciously and apparently trying to evade him. He turned
on his sirens and stopped her vehicle after following her
down Mount Rushmore Road, through an empty church parking
lot and back to near a bar. Seeing evidence of alcohol
consumption, the officer arrested her for driving under
the influence (DUI).
Initially, the local circuit judge dismissed the
arrest since the officer had failed to observe any actual
traffic violations, such as speeding. “I am unable to
discern specific and articulable facts which taken
together with rational inferences from those facts,
reasonably warrant this stop. There were no traffic
violations that should have prompted the pursuit,” he
ruled.
The judge’s order was appealed and the South Dakota
Supreme Court reversed the decision. The court held that
the traffic stop was legal, even though no actual traffic
violations had been observed.
In the days of the Dragnet TV show, Sergeant Joe
Friday probably would have reached the same conclusion.
State vs. Starkey recognized that the Fourth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution places limits on the ability of
the police to search, seize, and even make brief
investigatory stops of citizens. Law enforcement must have
at least “reasonable suspicion” based on specific facts
before pulling over a driver. But conduct designed to
evade contact with police may itself establish reasonable
suspicion.
One of the important factors for the Court in
upholding Ms. Starkey’s traffic stop was the setting in
which it occurred. Eventually, after remaining stopped in
her lane of traffic several car lengths behind the officer
and circling through downtown at closing time, she ended
up back near a bar.
An interesting contrast can be found in State v.
Rademaker, decided in April of this year. There, the Court
held that a driver’s avoidance of a sobriety checkpoint,
standing alone, cannot justify a traffic stop. In that
case, however, the driver had executed a wide turn, then
sped away at 70 miles per hour on a gravel road, so the
traffic stop that followed was indeed Constitutional.
The level of suspicious facts required to justify a
police officer stopping a vehicle is less than that
required to justify an actual arrest. Reasonable suspicion
is all that is necessary for a police officer to stop
someone. Probable cause is required before an arrest can
be made. Because an arrest is much more intrusive than a
quick stop, a greater showing of specific facts is
required in order to comport with the Fourth Amendment.
Not uncommonly, an officer will identify additional
facts which justify an arrest after making a stop (empty
beer cans in view, for example). Otherwise, the officer is
required to end the stop and allow the citizen to depart.
In the Starkey case, the South Dakota Supreme Court
quoted from a United States Supreme Court case concluding
that a suspect’s unprovoked headlong flight from officers
in an area known for heavy narcotics trafficking could
justify a stop (though not an arrest).
Dragnet’s Sergeant Joe Friday was a pillar of common
sense. He would have agreed with balancing the rights of
citizens against the ability of officers to put two and
two together before turning on their sirens.
Arnie, your questions and comments below take a number of
twists and turns, but if I am understanding you correctly, you
are right on point. The People are too dumb to know the lie
from the truth. So as not to complicate matters, just accept
the lies being fed to them. The is a book, the title of which
correctly states the situation, "Sweet Lies and Bitter Truth."
We appeal to natural logic, that which we see and know to be
true from our own experiences, i.e., birds fly, the sun
shines, water is wet, gravity pulls down, etc. It is
inconceivable in our simple minds that things could be
otherwise. But, I have the unpleasant calling of teaching
People the converse as described in Proverbs 14:25, "There is
a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are
the ways of death."
Arnie, we all think we understand the difference between light
and darkness, and no one can be confused between the two. This
is simple logic. Why should we then even have to engage in a
discussion between the differences? But we do. "Woe unto them
that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for
light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and
sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own
eyes, and prudent in their own sight!" Isaiah 5:20, 21. Are we
here talking about demented dumbbells? Not at all. We are
talking about the wisest of men, men held in highest of
esteem, men who are the cream of the crop, men who are in the
highest of offices, men whom we elect and we call "Master,
Teacher."
Are you telling me, Ron, that the men whom we trust the most
are these ones you are describing? Yes Sir! That is what I am
telling your, Arnie. These are the ones I am describing. But
how can this be? "Where is the wise? [Professors?], where is
the scribe? [Lawyers?], where is the disputer of this world?
[Scientist?], hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this
world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom
knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching
to save them that believe." I Corinthians 1:20, 21. So now we
must engage in a dispute with the so-called intellectuals whom
we set over us on the benches to dispute with them as to the
distinction between light and darkness.
We chose the vilest of all evil men to decide matters of
utmost importance involving the future of our country, our
children, our homes, and our businesses, men who are incapable
of discerning between good and evil, light and darkness, and
between bitter and sweet!
Indeed, I think we might have a better run country if we
placed young children in charge rather than Members of the
Bar. I think they would do a better job of discerning the
difference between good and evil, light and darkness, and
bitter and sweet. At least we might have a chance that half of
the time they would make a right decision, if even only by
accident.
It is George Washington who is credited with the quote,
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force.
Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
Most everyone I dispute with makes the basic mistake of
assuming that government is reason, and then basing their
conclusion upon this erroneous foundation. Yes, Arnie, we are
taught that 2 + 2 = 4, but not to the highest of government
officials, men of whom we elect to run our country, and to
those whom we permit to ascend unto the bench, men whom we
call "honorable," men whom we "pray to for relief." Yea, to
those who have a conflict of interest, 2 + 2 = Whatever they
wish it to be!
Thank you for your kindness and your patience in
enduring my stupidity. I just don't get some of this legal
stuff.
I was always of the impression that all law was to be
presented at a level where any common person could understand
it. It seems like when the, "Rules of Procedure," were
enacted in 1946, members of the judiciary took that
opportunity to begin to deliberately construct a fraud against
the people. Is this my imagination?
As to the following issue, I still don't get
it...sorry to be so persistent....Please bear with
me....paraphrasing the statute listed below:
All public
(Federal/State/County/Local) agencies only exist to conduct
the people's business.
Have I interpreted this
definition correctly? If so...
By what authority would our fiduciaries/agents in the
courts refuse to execute their fiduciary responsibility to
manage the people's affairs with respect to the manor in
which of our elected officials conduct the people's
business? Especially those who were empowered by the people
by being elected for that specific purpose?
Would not such a refusal to act on behalf of the
people (your previous response to my question listed
below):
Arnie,
accepted clarification.
2 + 2 =
4 only if accepted. - Ron
breach the fiduciary responsibilities of the offending
public servant? In this case a judge?
My further understanding is that a judge is acting in
the proper role as a referee when they supervise the legal
proceeding. They have also have a fiduciary responsibility
to protect the interests of the people . It is their job to
ensure the judicial process was conducted properly but not
to engage in the actual legal decision-making process; that
is reserved for the people who are the ultimate arbiters of
justice. Am I correct on this point?
If I understand the process, failure of the courts,
our agents with specific fiduciary responsibilities to the
people by whom they were elected, would be depriving the
people of "Due Process."
I am further led to understand, that under the law,
depriving the people such a basic requirement would in
itself place those members of the courts in conflict with
their own fiduciary responsibilities and subject them to
exposure to prosecution. That would be because committing
as such an act would place their conduct out of their lawful
scope of judicial performance and strip away any such
self-conceived type of immunity on the grounds of judicial
misconduct.
Of course to clarify the point of immunity....I find
it ludicrous to even consider an argument that those within
the judiciary would even begin to suggest the people would
be so stupid as to accept the notion the judicial system can
confer immunity upon themselves. That is a ridiculous and
obvious conflict of interest. As members of the judiciary
they of all people would know this. Merely suggesting such
blatant malfeasance stagers one's sensibilities.
In my opinion here Ron, It goes without saying that
any member of the judiciary making such a suggestion should
be immediately removed from any responsibility within the
judicial system. such legal reasoning should be considered
an unlawful act of treason and a criminal offense.
BERKELEY,
Calif. (KGO) -- An Alameda County Superior Court
judge has found himself on the wrong side of the law and is
facing criminal charges. Judge Paul Seeman was arrested
Thursday and charged with stealing $1.5 million from a
97-year-old neighbor over a period of several years. She has
since passed away.
57-year-old Seeman made his first court appearance
Friday, facing charges of systematically looting his
neighbor of her financial fortune. He had nothing to say.
"We have no comments to make. I haven't seen any of the
discovery. We haven't even had a chance to read the
complaint or the amended complaint that we just received,
and have no comments beyond that at this time," said
attorney Michael Markowitz.
Court papers filed by the Alameda County district
attorney accuse Seeman of siphoning his neighbor of her
fortune. According to the documents, Seeman befriended his
neighbor, 97-year-old Anne Nutting, who died two years ago,
in 1998. By 2004, he had taken over almost all of her
finances, adding his name on her bank and investment
accounts which at the time, totaled $2.2 million.
Prosecutors are also charging Seeman with perjury for
failing to disclose annual income required by law.
In a statement that
reads in part, the Alameda County district attorney said, "The
alleged conduct of Judge Seeman is both disturbing and
disappointing. His alleged conduct is in no way a reflection
of the outstanding caliber of judicial officers serving
Alameda County."
Seeman did not enter a plea. His next court
appearance is July 3.
This year as in past years, the state's Commission on
Judicial Performance published a report chronicling the bad
behavior of California's judges. And like previous surveys, what
this year's report shows most dramatically is how rarely judges
are disciplined.
As of 2011, there were 1,786 judges on the bench. But over the
past half century, only 25 judges have been removed from office
and just 48 were publicly censured. Some of those punished had
accumulated a long laundry list of commission admonishments.
Others were caught in egregious behavior, like Judge Patrick
Couwenberg of Los Angeles County Superior Court, who in 2002 was
found to have lied about his judicial credentials and service in
combat. And impairment sometimes contributes, as in 1977 when
Supreme Court Justice Marshall F. McComb was found to be
suffering from senile dementia.
Comments by Ron Branson
The above article of the California Lawyer Publication was
brought to my attention by Attorney Gary Zerman. Here are some
facts which I would like to emphasis from this article. It draws
to our attention a reports on the California Commission on
Judicial Performance over the last fifty years.
This report tells us that over the last fifty years only 25
judges have been removed from the bench. That is only one judge
per every two years. What is interesting to note is that there
are approximately one thousand complaints per year filed against
California judges with the Commission on Judicial Performance.
So to place this in perspective, there is only one judge removed
from the bench on the average for every two thousand complaints
that are filed against judges.
I have in the past stated that this is a very heavy financial
burden upon the California taxpayers in that several million
dollars budgeted annually to run the CJP. I have proposed,
tongue in cheek, that the CJP be abolished, and allow death to
take it natural course as the means of cleaning up the bench.
When a judge falls off the bench dead, we just pick up the
corpse and haul it off. In this manner, we reap a 100% effective
measure of discipline for judges with no cost beyond hauling off
the corpse.
As to censorship (chewing out disobedient judges), there is
publically censored by the commission approximately one judge
per year out of every thousand judges complained about to the
CJP. That equals one tenth of one percent.
It is stated that judges are to be held to a higher standard of
ethics than the average person, and that "no man is above the
law." At this same ratio applied to us, our jails and prisons
would be practically empty with only one person per thousand
being incarcerated.
But with judges, we are not talking about jail time, but merely
losing a judicial post. Nor are we considering the retirement
benefits for rest of their lives for these judges after being
removed from the bench. Imagine if we got paid for the rest of
our lives after being fired from our jobs. Our Constitution,
Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that we all will receive "equal
protection of the laws," but it is clear that there is a
completely different standard for judges who are supposed to be
held to a higher standard.
Throughout the largest court building in the United States, the
Los Angeles Superior Court Building, there was posted on every
floor of it nine-stories, a notice of free help for judges
overtaken with drug and alcohol addiction. Remember, it is these
very same judges who are sending away non-judge violators to
their prison and jail cells for partaking in these same evil
vices.
Alarm Over Costs of South
Dakota Prisons By Ron Branson
Below is an article published within the South Dakota Argus
Leader. Those unfamiliar with the back ground of South Dakota and
JAIL4Judges may be curious as to why I am particularly interested
in this article, and why I am furthering it to our readers.
The name "Ron Branson" and "JAIL4Judges" is all to familiar with
the officials within South Dakota when Judicial Accountability
Initiative Law hit the South Dakota Ballot in 2006. A special
website was set up that recounts that event. It is all documented
for the world to see.
The entire government, including every state legislator, Chief
Justice David Gilbertson, the governor, the state attorney
general, and the assorted counties and cities took aim at judicial
accountability to defeat it. The illegally turned the state
capitol building in Pierre into a campaign office, and gained the
aid of the oil industry, the bankers, and the union of insurance
companies to bring judicial accountability down.
Because of their lies that "Ron Branson's objective was to release
all felons within the South Dakota prisons so that they could go
after the jurors that convicted them," I started doing a little
research. Here is what I found. Out of all nations of the earth,
America holds the record by far as to having the greatest
incarceration rate. There is not even a close second.
Having so ascertained this fact, I then found that of all 50
states in America, South Dakota had the highest prison rate per
capita of all states. Thus, South Dakota has held the highest
prison rate per capita within the world.
I further found that one of their state senators held all of the
commissary rights throughout all the prisons in South Dakota that
was making him immensely wealthy.
It became apparent why the politicians of South Dakota became so
threatened by the prospect of bringing judicial accountability to
the ballot in South Dakota, even to the extent of buying up the
media and telling everyone that I was seeking to empty their
prisons of felons so they could go after the jurors that convicted
them. The plan was to scare everyone in South Dakota from voting
for judicial accountability.
Well, now we see that they were able to maintain their record of
being the prison capitol of the world per capita, they are now
faced with a different threat, this one of finances. Ironically,
one publisher there in South Dakota mocked me when I predicted an
financial collapse of the entire economy in one of my articles
written in 1996. It was said, "If you want to know what Ron
Branson believes, take a look at one of his nightmare predictions
that he states will happen to America. Lo and behold, as I stated,
we shortly thereafter saw the massive housing foreclosure
predicted, and the loss of jobs, and the closing of businesses.
Whether it be classified as a nightmare, or not, it was definite
truth that came to pass.
Had JAIL4Judges passed in South Dakota, I can assure you that
things would certainly be different today in this country, as
South Dakota would have been the first in the line of dominoes
bringing about constitutional principles directly to the People in
the creation of an Independent Special Grand Jury that would have
changed America immensely. See for yourself how frightened the
South Dakota politicians were at the prospects of accountability
in South Dakota, www.SD-JAIL4Judges.org
Correction: The cost of the increased prison
population would be $224 million over 10 years. The time
period was wrong in the original version of this story.
A South Dakota committee will examine rising prison
costs and the state’s exceptionally high lockup rate in an
effort to reform the criminal justice system and save money.
“This is not about being hard or
soft on crime. This is about being smart on crime,” Gov. Dennis
Daugaard said Wednesday from Pierre.
Daugaard said the state’s inmate population has grown
from 600 in 1980 to 3,600 today and that corrections has
become a $100 million annual burden in the state budget. He
said that at present rates, the inmate population would
increase another one-fourth to 4,500 the next 10 years at a
cost of $224 million. The state within five years would need
two new prisons, one each for men and women, costing $126
million to build and an additional $98 million in operation
costs.He said
he had no preconceived notions about whether studying the
problem would lead to shorter lockup times. But a report he
cited notes that South Dakota has a prison population that
increasingly consists of low-level offenders convicted of
nonviolent crimes, and that the rising corrections budget “has
not yielded commensurate improvements to public safety.”
Daugaard spoke in a news conference from the Capitol in
which he announced an 18-member panel he is calling the
Criminal Justice Initiative work group. The group includes six
legislators from both parties, three judges and others from
the legal system or the governor’s office. They met Wednesday
morning for the first time. They will reconvene monthly to
produce policy recommendations by November that Daugaard can
take to the Legislature in January. The group is working with
the Pew Center on the States, a Washington, D.C., organization
that analyzes state government issues.
Several officials spoke after
Daugaard in the news conference.
Rep. Brian Gosch, a Republican
from Rapid City, said South Dakota would be among at least 20
states that are implementing prison reforms.
David Gilbertson, the state’s chief justice, said various local
jurisdictions have treatment and probation programs that might
be able to serve the entire state.
“Violent people need to be
behind bars — other people, perhaps not,” Gilbertson said.
“This is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. I know we can
improve public safety, hold offenders accountable and reduce
spending.”
Daugaard said South Dakota has
crime rates similar to neighboring states but a higher
percentage of the population behind bars. The state has 415
inmates per 100,000 residents, a ratio about double the 226
per 100,000 in North Dakota and 185 per 100,000 in Minnesota.
He said he’s never understood
that and began to look at the issue during the 2010 campaign.
“It confounded me, and it
bothered me,” he said.
But it might not automatically
indicate a problem, he said.
Group members will look at how
procedures in the prison system, including probation and
parole, contribute to South Dakota’s situation, but they will
not focus on why criminals break the law in the first place.
“This isn’t about sociology.
It’s about economics. It’s about public safety, and it’s about
accountability,” he said.
Asked whether the state can use a
high lockup rate as a badge of honor, Daugaard said, “It’s
emotionally satisfying to say we’re tough on crime. When you’re
tough on crime, you’re being the protector. There’s also a group
that offends that maybe is low-risk and nonviolent that we can
hold accountable and keep people safe without keeping them
behind bars.”
Is the Largest Judiciary in
the Western World Crumbling?
By althepal55 | Posted July 23, 2012
| Shasta County, California
7/25/12 - Update
Alan Ernesto Phillips
By all accounts the state of California has the
largest judiciary in the Western world. Just the thought
brings about visions of a colossal, well-oiled machine
churning away flawlessly in the best interests of its
citizenry. Surely the leadership and management
practitioners must be of the highest caliber and
unimpeachable character to maintain the highest of
standards of such a behemoth of juris prudence.
Sometimes called the "foxiest Chief Justice in the
country," California Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye
felt the sting of mounting complaints of corruption and
mismanagement by her own Administrative Office of the
Courts and Judicial Council. The elephant in the closet
wouldn't sit still and Justice Cantil-Sakauye did what
must have seemed like a sure bet: She doubled-down calling
for aStrategic Evaluation Committee (SEC),
and appointed a one year evaluation period by the
esteemed group of her peers - with a call for
recommendations for improvements, if needed.
A former barmaid and blackjack dealer in Tahoe,
CA., the current California Chief Justice - and
Arnold Schwarzenegger appointee - seemed over her limit on a
bet that didn't pan out as she may have expected, amid
strong and active protests for a recall.
The SEC investigated and uncovered rampant
"irregularities" and clear abuses of tax payer funded
programs and projects. AOC programs such as the
questionable "Assigned Judges" program that affords
retired judges a 90% income from their last salary, on top
of their full pension and platinum parachutes, for part
time work. That program that was specified as an
"emergency need basis" to assist with court overload for
30 to 60 days.
One judge from Shasta County, CA has been named in
the Judicial Council Watcher blog. 85-year-old Jack Halpin
has been characterized by many published accounts as the
poster child of judicial abuse. According to the blog,
Halpin is a 19-year veteran 'assigned judge'. An
assignment that was designed to only be 30 to 60
days long. In contrast to the state constitution that allows
for election processes and retention cycles, as an assigned
judge there are limited oversight and accountability
measures afforded given the specified short assignments -
and no elections: In... or out.
Currently court closures, lay offs of rank and
file workers, and the recent discovery that California tax
payers are also paying $10,000 per month for a
telecommuting consultant living in Switzerland has caused
many judges, and now legislators, to take notice. In
a time when outsourcing American jobs is under greater
scrutiny, it only seems to get worse when a tax payer
funded, $500 million dollar computer-based Court Case
Management System (CCMS) that has gone nowhere, with nothing
to show for the half a billion dollar boondoggle.
With such a questionable hemorrhagic bloodletting of
funds many are left wondering why the state of California
hasn't acted much sooner.
The lack of reporting in mainstream media has kept the
tax paying public out of the game, while the knowledgeable
wonder why the SEC recommendations are currently being
ignored by the Chief and her AOC and Judicial Council. It
appears those officials now want a re-do. However the SEC,
the Association of California Judges as well as most jurists
have now dealt an asserted opposition.
During a recent 30-Day Public Comment period
ending July 22, according to the most esteemed judges from
throughout the state, an immediate adoption of the SEC
recommendations must be immediately implemented. Dire
consequences are indicated by many learned practitioners
in that esteemed group of commenters if this
recommendation continues to be stalled and ignored.
While complaints are now circling about the AOC
gatekeepers removing public comments from promised
publishing, jurist commenters are hopeful that an
immediate implementation of the SEC recommendations are
necessary to find a restoration of the crumbling public
trust.
###
Sources and link to the Public Comments to the
Chief Justice, et al:
The God-Given Right to
Contract
v.
The U.S. Commerce Clause
Arnie, I can faithfully say that I am a constitutionalist in
every sense of the word. However, I am very much a Bible
Believer. When the two come in conflict with one other, it is
obvious which authority I must yield my allegiance to.
When our Forefathers wrote into the Constitution, Article I,
Section 8, Clause 3, their supposed powers to govern
commercial activity, I do believe they over stepped their
bounds.
Commercial activity preexisted governments, and was
established by God Himself. Hence, it follows that since
commercial activity is purely within the providence of God, it
is beyond the powers and authority of governments to detract,
diminish, or expand upon this God ordained activity. Christ
Himself stated "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which
are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."
Matthew 22:21. Commercial activity is clearly an activity
which exists within the powers of contract. You and I have the
unlimited power to contract with one another without the
interference of governments. This is so even if you are on one
side of the border and I on the other of a state. The power to
enter into the question lies only if the one of us beseeches
government settle a dispute that might lie between us, but not
to legislate the powers to contract.
The Constitution is in contradiction with itself on the powers
of the right to contract. Article I, Section 10, Clause I sets
forth "No state shall ... pass any ... law impairing the
obligation of contracts." While we understand these words, we
do not follow them. For instance, we have the California
Contractor's License Bureau that authorizes one to contract
with another. But we ask these questions, is California a
State? If yes, then is the law governing the Contractor's
License Bureau a law? If yes, then does the Contractor's
License Bureau deal with the right to contract? If yes, then
is not California violating Article I, Section 10, Clause I of
the U.S. Constitution? The answer to this is quite clear, YES!
How do they get away with this? Either no one is challenging
it, or the courts are not respecting the Constitution. Of
course, you know my opinion on that, and it is the latter.
I fully agree with Article I, Section 10, Clause I that it is
not within the powers of state governments to interfere with
the God-given right to contract. But then what about the
federal commerce law. The only way it can be argued is that
the federal government can interfere with the God-given right
to contract, but the states cannot. That's like me saying that
you cannot violate the laws of God, but I can. God's laws are
God's laws, and being a confirmed covenant, no man may add
thereto, nor diminish therefrom, Galatians 3:15. Either the
laws preventing states from interfering with the right of
contract must also apply to the feds, or both my interfere
with the God-given right to make covenants.
In I Thessalonians 4:10, & 11, God commands us to work
with our hands, "[W]e beseech you, brethren, that ye increase
more and more; And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your
own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded
you;" Now where do we see therein any authorization by
Congress or the Constitution to obey or not obey this command?
There is none, nor can there be one. In fact, Congress is
forbidden from making any such law, "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof," First Amendment. So what does the
word "NO" mean? It means that the God-given right to contract
is off-limits to both Congress and the states, for the states
cannot argue that they can make laws respecting the
establishment of religion, but Congress cannot.
So, the U.S. Constitution is contradictory. Am I going to
therefore throw it out? No. But I still refuse to recognize
that particular mandate as within the powers of government.
As to your question, I do believe you have a right to argue
this point within either state or the federal courts. But you
very well know what I believe when it comes to reliance on the
honesty and integrity of our judicial system. Hence, your
question is within the subject of the establishment of
JAIL4Judges. When things get bad enough, maybe the People will
pay attention to what I am saying. Until then, everyone is
going to have to go along with the governments view that it
has the powers to overcome God's Word.
You are held in a very high position of esteem
based upon my perception of your knowledge of the law. From
a previous exchange, we have already established I am just a
typical person, uneducated in the law. Therefore may I pose
the following question for you to answer drawing upon your
infinite legal wisdom and expert knowledge of the law.
Admittedly, Mr. Branson, I may be way off here but
some of these things simply do not make any sense. Can you
please explain why a private company in America, the "Land
of the Brave" and "Home of the Free," must even bother to
spend time, effort and money, to file suit against the
federal government just to be free to conduct business on a
fair competitive basis against other companies which might
be owned by Muslims? Muslims, who are exempt from the same
requirement this company had to file suit to achieve this
measure of equality.
Even putting this direct discrimination, based on
unfair competitive reasons, aside, are not these types of
undue burdens the very same types of restrictions placed
upon the colonies and precipitated the issuance of the
"Declaration of Rights," circa 1765?
Besides being outright discriminatory based on a
class distinction, Islam being a cult, does this not also
constitute restraint of trade? Does this not interfere with
our inalienable or unalienable rights bestowed upon us by
our creator and the Constitutional protections to earn a
living by imposing an unreasonable burden on all of we the
sovereign citizens?
By the way, according to Senator Feinstein....The
U.S. Constitution, (organic) is current in effect.
Steven, your position is accurate. The answer is quite simple,
but the problem is the willful ignorance of man. As the
Scripture states, "My people are destroyed for lack of
knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also
reject thee." Hosea 4:6. Also, Jeremiah 5:31, "The prophets
prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and
my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end
thereof?"
So how does one inform those who refuse to hear? Christ
explained it this way, "[T]hey seeing see not; and hearing they
hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled
the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear,
and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not
perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears
are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at
any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their
ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be
converted, and I should heal them." Matthew 13:13-15.
I have been many years at explaining how simple the answer is,
but to date, other than an occasional person shoving a bill in
my pocket, I have never received any personal financial support
for the truth I have advocated over the years. I even presented
the situation in a parable;
Behold, a bus load of people needed to get to a destination on
an imperative journey, or loose out. A man, who owned a luxury
bus, and hearing of the need, offered the free use of his new
air conditioned luxury, but explained that they would have to
come up with the diesel fuel for the trip.
The bus arrives and the people anxiously loaded aboard raring to
go. This bus was really luxurious with every seat having its own
TV and earphones in which every passenger could independently
watch their own TV. After everyone got settled down and
comfortable, the sponsor of the trip announced his thankfulness
for the donation of the owner for the use of this bus, but
explained that this use was conditioned upon the passengers
financing the money for fuel. Everyone agreed, and a hat was
passed, and they came up with fifty-eight cents. A reprimand was
issued, and there was a re passing of the hat. The people
collected another four dollars.
Now this trip was most important and of a life and death
urgency. They did get the bus to the filling station that was
just next to their loading point, and they placed in the tank a
total sum of $4.58 in diesel fuel. That got them to the freeway
entrance where the bus stalled and was totally out of fuel. The
engine having stopped, there was no longer air conditioning. The
people began to complain about the heat and cursed the owner of
the bus and the leader of the group. They also complained about
the inadequacy of this bus that took them nowhere but to a
freeway entrance only to stall. After hours of sitting there,
suggestion were made that they call for a tow truck to have the
bus towed in so that they have it fixed, but no one offered the
funds to tow the bus.
The bottom line was, the passengers get nowhere, confusion
resulted. The people cursed their situation for not getting the
trip on their way. The effort of everyone was lost, and trip was
a total failure.
"And for the support of this declaration, with a firm
reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually
pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred
honor." Declaration of Independence.
The above parable was sent out all over this country, but the
result was, no one understood, or could see what was happening,
and so the entire country is now going down the tubes to its
demise, the people cursing all the way. The people are still
looking for an answer that free shall never come.
I
believe I should explain our only solution to what I wrote
to you below.
We
have to believe as we believe you do that most of the Union
state representatives can only be operating as our lawful
representatives because everything that was done to create
the System and the Money (De facto Funny Money) that drives
it was all created without any delegated authority.
That
being true then all we have to do is get enough People to
act collectively so that we can get all of our Union state
Representatives to start acting as if they represent us the
collective sovereigns under the organic Federal Constitution
and the Union state Constitutions that are required to
provide everyone inhabiting within the borders of the Lawful
Union state a ‘Republican Form of Government’ as documented
in Section. 4 of Article.
IV of the [Constitution
for the United States of America][1]
The United States shall guarantee to
every State in this Union a Republican Form of
Government, and shall protect each of them against
Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the
Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against
domestic Violence. ....
I am not
an Attorney, nor profess to be one, but in my opinion jail4judges is the only way and for
attorneys to grow a set of (cajones) and confront these
crooked judges, and not lay in bed with them.
. I recently had a judge deny every motion I
presented to the court because I was Sui juris, including
motions demanding to show jurisdiction. I was arrested and
jailed for CONTEMPT OF COURT for requesting justice.
If you all are looking for complete backing by
local communities, forget it, they are ignorant of what is
happening, and for the most part, afraid to speak out
because of the threat of being targeted as I was for
speaking out unprotected on injustices on behalf of
Abilene, Texas and popular4people.
There is a need for a National Campaign to bring
this dirty secret out in the open. Time for discussion is
over.
TYRANNY CANNOT PREVAIL, REMEMBER THE BOSTON
COMMONS AND DON'T BE AFRAID.
Michayl Lamar Mellen, 67 years
Past President and Chairman of the Board WEST
TEXAS LEGAL SERVICES
Zena, I am seeking the same type of support as
sought by our Founding Fathers in the establishment of
this nation when they said, "[W]ith a firm reliance on the
protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to
each other our lives, or fortunes and our sacred honor." I
suppose the answer to your question would be based upon
one's view as to whether they were anarchists or lent
sympathetic ears
to their plight by working within prescribed channels.
Ron
Zena Crenshaw wrote:
Ron,
I don't say this to be critical, but
Jail4Judges reflects such an exclusion of institutional
support from government that it seems only anarchists or
near anarchists could consider its execution
manageable. Are anarchists and near anarchists your
intended base of support?
A
Taste For Blood
By Ron Branson
National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief
Well said is the truth that Truth is
Eternal. It is written, "And ye shall know the truth, and the
truth shall make you free." John 8:32. A couple years ago, as
a result of the many truthful articles published, an attempt
was made to eradicate JAIL4Judges' from the internet word.
J.A.I.L's computer was hacked into through some very high-tech
work, and years of work was eradicated from the J.A.I.L.
computer. Even our technician located in Las Vegas, Nevada,
stated prior to this incident, that he had never seen such a
massive work done on a home computer system with thousands of
files on most every subject. What happened was that every work
that had anything to do with judicial accountability was
deleted, the password changed, locking me out. I had to have
the computer counter-hack into it to gain access. I even found
J.A.I.L.'s external terabyte back up system that was
professionally set up to automatically save everything three
times every week, had nothing on it whatsoever. It was totally
blank. Every email address had been erased, causing me to have
to reconstruct an address book from those who wrote J.A.I.L.
Obviously, someone out there really finds JAIL4Judges a
threat.
I decided to enter my own name in an internet to search and
see what could be found out there. In that search, what had
become apparent is that truths spoken many years ago are just
as pertinent today as when the truth was first spoken. An
example is an article written over ten year ago on June 29,
2002, namely, "At Taste For Blood" which was found on
someone's website.
June 29, 2002 —
Everyone knows the difference between the family dog and a fox.
From a farmer's perspective, foxes are known for raiding the
chicken house and killing the chickens, and thus must be killed,
while the family watchdog is supposed to guard the chicken
house.
Once in a while, it becomes the family dog that
kills the chicken, and having tasted the blood, they develop a
taste for another. After all, killing a chicken is easy, and the
benefit great, as he is rewarded with a fresh warm meal for the
killing.
This, of course, places the farmer in a
predicament of having to kill the family dog, for what is the
difference between a fox killing the chickens or the dog killing
the chickens? The result is the same — dead chickens. In such
cases, however, the family dog is more of a threat than a fox at
large.
To make the analogy, governments were
instituted among men to protect their God-given right to own
property. But, just as with the watchdog above, our Founding
Fathers were fearful of the government eventually becoming the
very threat to property ownership that it was instituted to
protect. They set forth in the Constitution, "No person shall...be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
Fifth Amendment.
To safeguard this constitutional guarantee of
protected property rights, they instituted the judiciary as a
watchdog to call the government to account when the government
fox transgresses upon the sanctity of property rights.
John Adams, in recognizing the sanctity of
property ownership, said,
"The moment the idea is admitted into society
that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there
is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy
and tyranny commence."
Now imagine for a moment if both the judicial
watchdog and the government foxes developed the same taste for
blood in plundering and pillaging people's property for their
common benefit. After all, the kill is easy, and the reward is
great, for they can acquire property costing 30 years of labor
with just the stroke of a pen, leaving the people destitute and
floundering from their death-blow.
Once the government acquires a taste for
confiscated property without the interference of the judiciary,
then — hey, go for it! One property, two properties, ten
properties, five hundred properties, etc., etc. They develop an
addiction for stealing properties at little to no cost to
themselves.
While a common thief may steal contents from a
house, it is the government that steals the entire house. Bovard
said,
"While many people are terrified of private
crime, they have neglected to notice how government actions cost
them far more than private criminals...The Justice Department
estimated that total losses from the 7,885 bank robberies
nationwide in 1994 was approximately $28 million. The same year,
federal prosecutors confiscated $2.1 billion in property...that
year."
Such findings lend credibility to the statement
that if we seek to reduce crime in America, we must reduce the
size of government. At least our right to own property would be
much less at risk!
Having thus said, it will only be through the
passage of J.A.I.L in this
country that will curb the watchdog's insatiable taste for the
blood of your private property.
"[T]he
prosperity of fools
shall destroy them." Proverbs 1:32
As we know that cities, counties, and states all around the U.S.
are facing financial bankruptcy. They are crying out for funds.
Nowhere is this situation more acute than in the Golden State of
California. No justice or judge in this country is "earning" more
than those sitting on the bench in California, who are racking in
more than the those sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court. As shown in
the recent media, we have had a city manager drawing $800,000 a
year, and the highest paid city councilmen in the nation.
Years ago a friend of mine joined me in at a Denny's Restaurant
where we were enjoying lunch. He brought with him a number of
newspaper clippings for me to read. Sitting in the booth next to
us were two L.A.P.D. officers. My friend asked me to read aloud
just the headlines from these clippings, which I did. It was one
article after another that placed the police in a bad light, even
expressed grievances by the cops union. Then I read one headlines
was about the L.A. City ticket writers getting paid more than the
the police did. Then police called for the waiter and asked if
they could be seated elsewhere, in which they were accommodated.
Here in the California we have become famous for closed
businesses, foreclosures, and joblessness. I have personally
witnessed the need for aid to the homeless double and even triple,
even seeing a lack of tables and chairs to seat the homeless.
Homelessness has become the most predominate single listed
"occupation" on applications.
Now witness the below headlines from the Orange County Register,
"Hermosa Beach Meter Maids Making Nearly $100K?" It appears that
the modus operandi of those in government is, "Get yours before
somebody else grabs it first!" We have a massive number of
destitute people who would jump at the opportunity to work for
just $10 an hour with no benefits. We have
truly become a society engaged in a race for the bottom.
When contemplating the many reasons cities in
California and elsewhere are venturing closer to bankruptcy,
look no further than the relatively lucrative and
often-unjustifiable salaries bestowed on municipal employees –
and the lofty pension benefits attached to the high pay.
One of the latest examples comes from the California
coastal city of Hermosa Beach, where some community service
staffers who collect money from parking meters and manage
their operations – positions once widely known as “meter
maids” – are making nearly $100,000 a year in total
compensation, according to city documents.
There are 10 parking enforcement employees for the
1.3-square-mile beach city southwest of downtown Los Angeles,
and they pull down some disproportionate compensation,
considering their job functions. In fact, the two
highest-earning employees for fiscal year 2011-12 are
estimated to have made more than $92,000 and $93,000,
respectively, according to city documents provided by Patrick
“Kit” Bobko, one of five council members and who also serves
as mayor pro tem. Those two have supervisory roles. The other
eight parking-enforcement employees make from $67,367 to
$84,267 in total compensation.
There are four qualifications for being a city
“community service officer,” Bobko told me: “You have to be
able to drive a standard transmission; you have to able to
handle large animals; you have to read and interpret statutes
and regulations; and you have a high school diploma or
equivalent.”
According to the city’s job description, these
community service officers are supposed “to enforce meter and
other regulations governing the parking of vehicles on streets
and municipal parking lots; to enforce animal regulations; may
drive city buses; collect meters and perform minor meter
repairs; perform related work as required.”
The section of the job description that gives examples
of job duties reads as follows: “Patrols streets and municipal
parking lots and checks vehicles for parking violations;
issues citations for parking violations; impound vehicles in
certain cases; collects and transports stray dogs to
designated holding facilities; investigates complaints for
animal control violations; may drive city buses; meter
collection and minor meter repair.”
Bobko also wrote in a memo that the retirement costs
for these 10 employees “from [fiscal year 2011-12] through
their retirement age at 62 was nearly $1.6 million, and the
medical costs for these employees from this fiscal year to
their retirement at age 62 would be $1,353,827.” Excluding
salaries, the [retirement] contributions and medical costs for
the 10 employees performing parking enforcement will cost, on
average, nearly $300,000 apiece.”
Aside from the personnel costs, there has been
criticism from Hermosa Beach Treasurer David Cohn that parking
meter operations have been mismanaged. Cohn cited
nonfunctioning parking meters, a backlog in disputed parking
tickets and problems with the accounting for revenue.
Bobko told me that his concern is that, when taxpayers
learn that city employees “are making high wages for
low-skilled jobs, they are not OK with it.” That’s especially
true when considering these jobs easily could be at least
partially automated or even outsourced, for less money.
Bobko is pushing a plan to outsource the city’s parking
enforcement operations, which he says will save money, reduce
maintenance costs, relieve the city of accounting functions
related to parking enforcement, increase efficiency and,
perhaps most importantly, increase revenue and “reduce the
city’s pension and salary obligations.”
There has been opposition to the outsourcing proposal
from Hermosa Beach’s Police Chief Steve Johnson and Councilman
Howard Fishman. Both expressed concerns about letting go
full-time city staff. Bobko accurately characterized the
resistance: “When you outsource, you take away union jobs.”
In this case, outsourcing parking-enforcement duties
would benefit the taxpayers among Hermosa Beach’s population
of slightly less than 20,000. For an example of how such a
switch might work, Hermosa officials could travel about 45
miles south along the coast to Newport Beach, where the city
successfully moved to outsource parking enforcement last year.
“We have seen increased revenues with the private
company operating the meter program,” Newport Councilwoman
Leslie Daigle said.
Since Newport made the move, the city “has seen a 24.4
percent increase in parking-meter revenues over last year and
salary savings of approximately $500,000 from outsourcing
parking meter operations,” according to Tara Finnigan, a
spokeswoman for the city.
Privatizing parking meter duties also is a national
trend, as detailed in a recent study by the libertarian Reason
Foundation. Chicago and Indianapolis have had success with
outsourcing parking enforcement, and other cities including
New York, Pittsburgh, Sacramento, Memphis, Tenn., and
Harrisburg, Pa., are considering privatization proposals.
Indianapolis City Councilman Ben Hunter told me, “The
privatization of the parking meter system in Indianapolis
allowed for an immediate upgrade of a poor system.”
Back in Hermosa Beach, “We can’t keep making promises
with money we don’t have to people we are paying well above
what the market would pay them,” Bobko said.
Public employee compensation and retirement costs are
proving unsustainable. More cities in the Golden State and
elsewhere need to accept that reality and act on it to avoid
fiscal calamity, perhaps starting with the meter maids.
I agree with your premise, Dick Marple, that nothing will
be done until we defeat the Federal Reserve System. In one of
my public presentations I asked the audience how many of them
believed the Federal Reserve was unconstitutional. Everyone in
the audience raised their hands. I then said, Then the answer
is quite simple. Why don't we just bring an action against the
Federal Reserve in Federal Court and challenge its
constitutionality? I then gave a dramatic pause for everyone
to think on that. Then I said, The constitutionality of the
Federal Reserve has indeed been challenged many times in
Federal Court. So why do we still have a Federal Reserve
System after all these many years?
I then pointed out that the problem was not the Federal
Reserve, they were only doing what they could get away with,
but the Federal Judiciary covering for the Federal Reserve. So
long as we have five attorneys in black robes sitting on the
U.S. Supreme Court supporting the existence of the Federal
Reserve, we shall continue to have an unconstitutional Federal
Reserve controlling our monetary system, which we all agree
upon should be abolished.
I have point out that every evil of which we find egregious,
is continuing because the courts have established it to be so.
One gentleman on my left lifted his hand and I recognized him.
He said that he did not believe that God was so disturbed by
the courts as He was about murdering babies. He thus made my
instant point. Why are we murdering babies? It is because of
the case of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, which declared that it
is alright and proper to murder babies, and we have no right
to prevent such debauchery. So, so long as the Federal Courts
say it is okay to murder babies, the practice of murdering
babies shall continue, as also will an unconstitutional
Federal Reserve Banking System. If we defeated the Federal
Reserve, but continued murdering babies, would we be
satisfied? Absolutely not! This is why I contend that we shall
continue on our downward course until we the People enforce
JAIL4Judges. There are thousands of unconstitutional laws on
the books. Must we fight each and everyone piecemeal? And
would not such wicked men just continue to pass
unconstitutional laws, leaving us to constantly put out brush
fires? We thus could never accomplish anything but trying to
stop those who Rep us from Reping us.
We need not "repeal" the Federal Reserve Act as it was never a
constitutional law in the first place. The Constitution is
extremely clear on who must exclusively control our monetary
system, and that power is not transferable to private
banksters! If everyone believes a lie, does that make it the
truth? "The general misconception is
that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance
of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution
is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid,
must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the
Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must
prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional
statute, though having the form and name of law is in
reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any
purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of
it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision
so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal
contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been
passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports
to settle just as it would be had the statute not been
enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the
general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers
no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority
on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts
performed under it.....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a
valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to
supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a
statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it
is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law
and no courts are bound to enforce it."
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256. Shall we also
"repeal" Roe v. Wade?
Ron Branson
* * *
Dick Marple wrote:
RON... TO COMPLIMENT HOSEA 4-6, LET ME ADD....I have
hi-lighted #12 which I find most inspiring...
Ephesians
6:10-18
King James Version (KJV)
10 Finally,
my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the
power of his might. 11 Put on the whole
armour of God, that ye may be able to stand
against the wiles of the devil. 12 For
we wrestle not
against flesh and blood, but against
principalities, against powers, against the
rulers of the darkness of this world, against
spiritual wickedness in high places. 13 Wherefore take unto
you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able
to withstand in the evil day, and having done
all, to stand.
Sum
that up as "Government", which created
the Federal Reserve System of unredeemable fiat
currency andwhat is the foundation of
all corruption. It is said that NOTHING CAN, nor
WILL CHANGE, until the Federal Reserveis
repealed and in the dust-bin of History.
Dick
Marple
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 08:19:02 -0700
From: VictoryUSA@...
To: kjs420@...
Subject: Despairing Situation - So what are we going to do
about it?
Kirk, I agree with
you that nothing will be done until the rule of law
prevails. However, the rule of law will never prevail so
long as we have a judiciary that is free to violate that
"rule of law" at whim, based upon their assertion that
they are covered by judicial immunity, and do need not
honor their Oaths of Office or the supreme law of the
land.
In order to accomplish judicial accountability, we need
JAIL4Judges, as enforced by you and me. How can we
ascend higher than ourselves in that enforcement? If not
us, then Who? If not Now, then When? Without us,
enforcement of "The Rule of Law" are only words! We have
found the enemy, and the enemy is us. "My people are
destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast
rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee." Hosea 4:6.
The Satanic Planning of
The Social Security System
In the words of Colonel Edward Mandell
House, in creating the Federal Reserve in 1913.
“Very
soon, every American will be required to register their
biological property in a national
system designed to keep track of the people and
that will operate under the ancient system of pledging.
By such methodology, we can compel people to submit
to our agenda, which will affect our security as a charge
back for our fiat paper currency.
Every
American will be forced to register or suffer being unable
able to work and earn a living. They will be our chattels
and we will hold the security interest over
them forever, by operation of the law merchant under
the scheme of secured transactions.
Americans,
by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the
bills of lading to us will be rendered
bankrupt and insolvent, secured by their pledges.
They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial
value designed to make us a profit and they will
be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could
ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or
two should figure it out, we have
in our arsenal plausible deniability.
After
all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by
floating liens and debts to the registrants in the form
of benefits and privileges. This
will inevitably reap us huge
profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every
American a contributor to this fraud, which we will call
“Social Insurance.”
The Illuminati bankers rule the world through debt, which is
money they create out of nothing. They need world government to
ensure no country defaults or tries to overthrow them. As long
as private bankers, instead of governments, create money the
human race is doomed. These bankers and their allies have bought
everything and everyone. Henry Makow
The Tide Is Going Out On
the Collapsing, Corrupt US Government
When the tide goes out, it reveals a lot of ugliness that was
hidden under water. In times of prosperity (or apparent
prosperity), weakness, duplicity, and corruption is hidden from
view or is deliberately overlooked. Few want to point out the
fallacies - after all, everyone is doing so well and having such a
good time. Why argue with success, even if it comes with a bit of
corruption? Surely the success is worth a bit of corruption.
The apparent prosperity is gone and increasingly viewed as a fraud
that would do Charles Ponzi proud. It was ( and still is) centered
in our financial system and encouraged by the political class.
Nests were feathered while the public was looted.
Each ebbing of the tide brings more corruption to the surface.
Covering up the fraud becomes more difficult as government's
ability to throw money at the problems decreases. Our banking
system still pretends to be solvent, although that too will be
shown to be hollow at a later stage in the crisis.
The most recent debate is the scandal involving our government
sponsored Fannie and Freddie. Add another $6 Trillion of
liabilities to the tab of our government, but that is government
obfuscation. Taxpayer, you have been raped again.
* * *
If you want justice, go to a brothel. However, if you want
to get screwed, go to court!
Appended hereto is an amazing video of the torture Lieutenant
Commander Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III, was put through for
exposing a con game from local government all the way through to
the President of the United States.
His testimony demonstrates precisely the reason we must have an
Independent Special Grand Juries in order to recover from our
downward decent in America. Lt. Cdr Fitzpatrick filed a complaint
with his local country Grand Jury about internal corruption within
government, only to learn that the Foreperson on the County Grand
Jury had, in practice, a permanent position of 20 years of
steering the Grand Jury as part and parcel of corruption of the
judges and the prosecutors, and conducted a his own Citizen's
Arrest of the Foreman of the County Grand Jury, for fraud.
Knowing this potential with Grand Juries aforehand, I wrote the
Judicial Accountability Initiative Law in 1995 with paragraphs
that would not allow such conflicts to occur. These paragraphs are
as follow;
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....
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....
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. 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.
The below is the first in a series of videos over the next 2 or
3 weeks. Very interesting.
There have been many explanations of
the banking system seeking to make it easy to understand.
While I do not wish to demean these explanations, I would
like to try my hand at explaining the banking system so that
even a child can understand it.
There are natural laws of economics that we must give heed
to, or we will pay the consequences, and banking is no
exception. We all labor to earn a profit and make money for
a living by doing so. It comes down to trading our labor for
payment therefrom. This is logic so very easy to understand.
However, when we seek to change this elementary rule, we
naturally are headed for disaster.
Would you pay your boss just so you can say you have a job?
Absolutely not! That would be insane. We must apply this
very same logic to your local bank.
Why do seek out the services of a bank anyway? The theory is
that you do not want to maintain the risk of keeping your
wealth in your home under your mattress, or in the ground in
your backyard. Someone may break into your home while you
are away and steal all your wealth, therefore, you would
rather hire the services of a bank who has a very secure
vault to keep your money. After all, banks have alarms and
security guards to keep your valuables safe.
So we deem the services of hiring a bank beneficial to our
own interests. So economic logic tells us that you owe your
bank for his services of keeping your wealth safe. If a bank
were honest, he might say that it will cost you 5% of your
wealth deposited with him for his services. This would be an
honest payment for an honest service, which makes honest
economic sense.
However, this is not the way the "banking" system works.
Instead of charging you his services, he offers to pay you
to keep your money safe. Such defies economic sense.
Suppose you are my next door neighbor and I come over to
your house and offer you $15 if I can cut your lawn. You
would wonder if I had slipped a cog. After like manner,
suppose I offered you $10 an hour if I could come to your
house and wash your dishes and clean your house.
This is precisely the same logic that runs our entire
banking system when they offer you 5% of your deposit to
keep your money safe. You say, "This doesn't make sense." No
it doesn't. But this is the explanation of our banking
system made easy. Why are the banks willing to pay you for
their services of keeping your money safe? There can be only
one answer, and that is, they do not keep your money safe.
They gamble with it. They are involved in risk-taking with
your money, and hoping to win on your buck without you
getting a cut of the win, if there is a win.
I don't know about you, but if I am going to lay my money on
the gambling table, I would rather be present and do it
myself, and not being paid a measly 5% commission on the
risk of my own money. After all, if the banks win, they are
going to keep 100% of the winnings, and not share any of
that with me. They are only on the hook for the 5% they
agreed to pay you. But what if they lose on the risk? They
will just take the other guy's money whom they also agreed
to pay 5% and pay you just to shut you up, and then hope the
other guy will not come into the bank wanting his money.
What the banks fear worse is a run on the bank, i.e.,
everyone wants their money at the same time, because they
don't have it.
In other words, the banks exist on a giant Ponzi scheme.
They are all effectually involved in a Bernie Madoff type
deal. They are all alright so long a not everyone comes into
the banks and want their money out.
Banks are only required maintain a very small percentage on
the deposits to cover those who want to make a withdrawal.
That amount is approximately only 3%. This means that banks
they can only account for $3 for every $100 you placed in
their banks. It is a shell game which can go on forever
until they are made to turn up all three shells and reveal
what is under them.
Allow me to make another illustration of what is going on in
the banking system. I have a vehicle storage yard to keep
people's vehicles safe. It would make sense if I charged
each of my customers $60 per month for them to store their
vehicles in my storage lot. But applying the above banking
principles to this storage lot, I might offer to pay each
customer who stores their vehicle in my lot $5 per month.
You can't believe the deal I am offering to keep your
vehicle safe. It just sounds to good to be true. But then
you you investigate what is really going on.
I am leasing out everyone's vehicle to strangers and
charging them $20 per day, plus mileage, to use your
vehicle, and placing all that money in my pocket. Every
month I reach into my pocket and pull out a $5 bill and give
it to each customer for keeping their vehicle safe. This is
what is going on within the banking industry.
We just experienced a major banking bailout to save the
banks. What happened? The banks took risks with your money
and lost. The debt came due and they did not have the money
you placed in their trust, and therefore the entire banking
fraud was about to revealed and collapse.
But due to the generosity of your U.S. Senators and your
Congressmen, they voted to bail out (cover) for the banks
fraud with your money, otherwise known as that which you
entrusted to your public servants in what is commonly called
taxes.
Of course, this money given to the bankers to cover their
risk, is going to have to be replaced. And just who is going
to have to replace it? Not the bankers. They gave themselves
bonuses of millions and even billions. You, your children,
and your children's children are on the hook for the
gambling losses of these bankers, which will last for many
years to come. Meanwhile, these bankers are home free living
high on the hog.
With this information, you know can understand our current
banking system. But I have one last tip to share with you. I
wish explain how you can to identify an honest banker. An
honest banker will tell you that his security services of
protecting your money is going to cost you. If you come upon
a banker who is willing to pay you to keep your money safe,
grab your money and run. Find one who is going to charge you
for his services.
"Judges" running a private "for Profit" business out of which
they own called "Courthouse Corporation" which are posing as
public property which are floating bonds and making them
hundreds of millions of dollars at taxpayer's expense.
In my promotion under the First Amendment of cause JAIL4Judges
in Van Nuys, CA. on "Courthouse Property," I was run off by the
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office because I was told that I
was "trespassing on private property." The First Amendment
distribution of material does not apply to private property.
One of the Sheriff's Deputies later told me that one of the
judges noticed he had one of my printed materials in his pocket,
and the judge aggressively approached him and snatched the
material out of his pocket and strongly chided him for
possessing such material. I noted that this Deputy was quite
shaken because of this incident by this judge. The Deputy acted
as though he was forbidden to talk with me even though I was
standing outside the boundary of the private courthouse property
distributing literature.
I think that one should be careful not to "major on the minors,
and minor over the majors." I am in agreement with your below
commentary, but think the matter is perhaps a semantical issue.
The word "citizen" is more than a mere inhabitant of a
geographical location. He has rights, etc. which come from the
Creator, and it is basically a religious issue, at least in a
Christian society. I looked up the word "citizen" in my
Webster's 1828 dictionary, and it didn't elaborate that well in
my opinion, but it was still okay.
Webster's 1828:
"5. In the U. States, a person, native or naturalized, who has
the privelege of exercising the elective franciises, or the
qualifications which enable him to vote for rulers and to
purchase and hold real estate. If the citizens of the U. States
should to be free and happy, the fault will be entirely their
own. Washington.
A lawyer, Tommy Cryer and I would chat oftentimes about
Secession from the Union, and I aplan writing a booklet on that,
but begin with a couple of articles. Edwin Vieria wrote against
it (we never met), but if I am to have a "point-counterpoint"
view to the thing, I didn't find enough substance to his
article. If you are against secession, perhaps you could write a
counterpoint. I think this is important to fully discuss the
issue. Kind of like the federalist papers, or the
anti-federalist papers, though I haven't the resources and ins
to accomplish that large of a project. The essence is that if
the federal government persists in being a curse upon the
people, in that they exceed their authority enumerated in the
Constitution, then we should consider secession. The idea is not
that we actually do so, but give the feds perhaps three years to
change their ways. Tommy suggested that Louisiana and Texas were
likely prospects to begin the movement. Other disaffected states
could join in, and the media would have a though time ignoring
it.
The worsening of the economic depression would make it more
difficult to label us as a bunch of kooks, like they tried with
the Tea Party. Louisiana controls the mouth of the Mississippi and
have all those wonderful natural resources, like gas and oil.
Tommy expounded on that quite wonderfully. I would like to know
your thoughts, if you were to be of a mind to share them.
Jim Kerr
Is Secession The Answer?
Ron Branson
Jim Kerr, you have inquired of me on the subject of succession,
saying, "I would like to know your thoughts, if you were to be of
a mind to share them." It is my pleasure to address this issue of
Secession from the Union as an option" with you.
Here is the question that must be established first. Are we
discontent with the Constitution as given unto us by the Founding
Fathers, or is it that we are discontent with the way the
Constitution is being interpreted by our courts? I would be the
first to say that while we do not have a perfect Constitution, I
am not ready to discard it and start over. Yes, I would just love
to be on an editing committee to make revisions to our
Constitution, but we are hardly in a current state of our nation
to attempt that.
I believe our current state is not so much the fault with the
words of our Constitution as written by our Founding Fathers, but
rather the way our Constitution has been twisted and perverted by
the judiciary. For instance, where in our Constitution did our
Founding Fathers intend to provide for gay marriage, or a right to
kill our unborn, or for the exclusion of God from our nation's
affairs? Have we not abandoned God according to Psalms 9:17? "The
wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget
God."
Men may oppose and lie against the truth, but this is not grounds
for abandoning the truth and proceed in a search of "another
truth." Indeed, we are told of the acts of men in Isaiah 5:20,
"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put
darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for
sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Is this an indication that something
is wrong with the "good," or "light," or "sweetness?"
John Adams wrote, "Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and
speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone,
which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely
stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue,
and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater
Measure than they have it now, They may change their Rulers and
the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting
Liberty. They will only exchange Tyrants and Tyrannies. (June, 21,
1776). Further, he said, "Our Constitution was made only for a
moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the
government of any other." The answer is not to forsake those moral
values which once made our nation great, but to seek adherence to
the restoration of those moral values.
I have spoken time and time again that what we need is not more or
other laws, but enforcement of the laws. We already have too many
on the books, we need no more. The supreme law of this land is our
Constitution. Every public servant is required by the Constitution
to raise their right hand and give their allegiance thereto. But
few public servants have ever read, must less, understood what the
Constitution says. We have reduced this solomn Oath to mere
perfunctory words.
We must consider the words of God in Isaiah 1:7, "Your country is
desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land, strangers
devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by
strangers. .... v.13, Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an
abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of
assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn
meeting.... v.15, And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide
mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not
hear: your hands are full of blood."
It is for the above reason God moved upon my heart to write the
words found in JAIL4Judges. It is not to overthrow our
Constitution, but rather to establish it. In Article I we have the
Who, What, When, Where, and the Why of the Legislature. Just so
with the Executive (Article II), and the Judicial (Article III).
But we lack a Article IV (The People in the forum of the Grand
Jury). We are left totally on our own to speculate. There is only
one mention of the Grand Jury, and that is in the Fifth Amendment.
In that vacuum, we have allowed our "public servants" to rob us of
our autonomous power within the forum of the Grand Jury.
JAIL4Judges seeks to provide the Who, What, When, Where, Why and
How left out of our Constitution.
People are so ignorant. When it comes to the J.A.I.L. Initiative,
arguments have been made, but it would take two years before it
would take effect. Yes, two years, but consider now how many two
years cycles have already gone by the board since its founding in
1995. Let's see, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010,
2012. Wow! That's nine opportunities in the past lost. Now, like a
carrot in front of a donkey, we are only two years from victory.
They have also argued that the Judicial Accountability Initiative
is too expensive. But these same people propose revamping our
entire Constitution and starting from new again. It's too bad we
do not have some of our Founding Fathers still alive today to
testify to us about the cost was was for them to establish our
Constitution. Perhaps we could look to their words in the
Declaration of Independence to give us a clue. "And for the
support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the
protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other
our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."
If we must, beyond financially supporting JAIL4Judges, it will be
worth it to "Mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes
and our sacred honor." Like Noah's Ark, there is no other way for
us to escape! "For as in the days that were before the flood they
were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until
the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the
flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of
the Son of man be." Matthew 24:38, 39.
No, Jim, I am not in favor of junking our Constitution by means of
secession and starting from the beginning again. Also I am not in
favor or a Constitutional Convention. These are neither cheaper,
quicker, easier, nor a better option!
Computer
Programmer Testimony He Was Requested to Write Code to Rig U.S.
Elections
Clinton Eugene Curtis, a computer programmer from Florida,
testified before a congressional panel that there are computer
programs that can be used to secretly fix elections. He explains
how he created a prototype for Florida Congressman Tom Feeny
that would flip the vote 51%-49% in favor of a specified
candidate.
Our
origin goes back to April 1995. We have held public national
attention, including drives in the State of California to
place JAIL4Judges on the ballot, as well as the State of South
Dakota. We have held positions within JAIL4Judges all fifty
states, Washington, DC, Australia, and Canada as
JAILers-In-Chief over their respective domains. Having been
the founder of JAIL4Judges since 1995, my position is
recognized nationwide as the National JAIL4Judges
Commander-In-Chief. I would suggest you also look at http://www.sd-jail4judges.org
which records our legal battle within that state that raised
the attention of this entire nation, bringing in the Oil
Companies, the Banking institutions, and a National Union of
Insurers. This battle was not performed within a corner. Can I
just simply rise up out of nowhere and claim title of Exxon
Oil Company and start doing business in that name? Absolutely
not! I would be a fool to even try!
I have appeared in this position in publications that include
those outside of this country. Some noteworthy publications
include the Daily Journal, the largest legal newspaper in the
country, if not the world. Also, the cause of JAIL4Judges has
appeared in the Wall Street Journal, with U.S. Supreme Court
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (Ret.), who has done legal combat
with me over what she calls "Judicial Independence" and I
representing "Judicial Accountability." I have also appeared
on the worldwide network of CNN. I was the subject of the
April 24, 2006 Los Angeles Times article on JAIL4judges. Our
Organization has appeared in a number of legal and Lawyer's
magazines. There is no way on earth that anyone can lay claim
to the identity of JAIL4Judges without being exposed as a
intruder, as we have thousands who can testify of their
extended knowledge of the existence of JAIL4judges going back
several years.
This why that this attempt to claim the name of JAIL4judges by
Hansen, Ltd will result in a super joke. As to your suggestion
that perhaps they may have similar interests as ours in
JAIL4judges is so preposterous as to be beyond everyone's
imagination. We can assure you that there is absolutely no
other operation on par with the objective of JAIL4judges. We
are not a marketing business, but purely one of enforcing
obedience of the judges to their Oaths of Office by the
establishment of nationwide Special Grand Juries within all
fifty states, and also to the Congress of the United States.
This corporation has already stated that obtaining the name of
JAIL4judges is important to them because they wish to market
commercial products under the name of JAIL4judges. What a
mockery!
There could be only one objective, and that is that they wish
to assault our Organization, which gives me a hunch that they
are clandestinely motivated by the judges behind them to try
to disrupt our exposure of evil and corrupt judges. Our name
says it all. To suggest perhaps they have an common objective
with us is absolutely ridiculous. The title J.A.I.L. is the
acronym for "Judicial Accountability Initiative Law" as it
applies to the states, and "Judicial Accountability &
Integrity Legislation" as it applies to Congress and
non-Initiative states. This corporation of Hansen, Ltd will
not be able to fool anyone with their crazy antics.
There will doubtless be many others who will be contacting you
on the silliness of this idea of claiming the name of
JAIL4judges. This effort to do harm to JAIL4judges is not an
innocent ploy, and is likely to turn into an international
joke! Yes, we at JAIL4judges would like to challenge the
hostile takeover of our JAIL4judges, and wish to take whatever
process is necessary to accomplish that.
<big><big>Asia/Cn domain name & Internet Keyword</big></big>
Dear Manager,
Based on your company having no relationship with them, we
have suggested they should choose another name to avoid this
conflict but they insist on this name as CN/Asia domain
names (.asia/.cn/.com.cn/.net.cn/.org.cn) and internet
keyword on the internet. In our opinion, maybe they do the
similar business as your company and register it to promote
his company.
According to the domain name registration principle: The
domain names and internet keyword which applied based on the
international principle are opened to companies as well as
individuals. Any companies or individuals have rights to
register any domain name and internet keyword which are
unregistered. Because your company haven't registered this
name as CN/ASIA domains and internet keyword on the
internet, anyone can obtain them by registration. However,
in order to avoid this conflict, the trademark or original
name owner has priority to make this registration in our
audit period. If your company is the original owner of this
name and want to register these CN/ASIA domain names
(.asia/.cn/.com.cn/.net.cn/.org.cn) and internet keyword to
prevent anybody from using them, please inform us. We can
send an application form and the price list to you and help
you register these within dispute period.
Arnie, there are two standards at play here. One is the
correct and legal process, and the other is reality, i.e., the
way things are. The bottom line is that when there is a
conflict between these two wills, People vs. government, it is
the will of the People that must prevails This is precisely
what JAIL4judges assures when the People decide they want to
take actually charge over their future affairs and not just;
march on Washington, grandstand, make platitudes and speeches
of high-sounding words, sable rattle, have meetings of Meet,
Greet, Eat, Retreat, and Repeat, huff and puff to blow their
enemies houses down, etc, et al.
Now, let me talk practical (reality) about your below
prescribed "remedy," on the truth of the matter and how it
really is. You are correct that the judges and politicians are
"bound" by their Oaths of Office, but who is going to enforce
it? We would like to think that it is enforceable by the
courts and by the sheriffs. We hope that another judge will
recognize our plight and pass down a judgment against the
offender of their sacred duty. But we have to face reality.
I have brought suit against the offender's bonds. So what
happened? Reality was, the bondholders was dismissed from the
lawsuit on the first court appearance, and that issue was
preserved for later on appeal.
So everyone believes against reality that the Appellate Court
will hear the argument on appeal. But, again, we have to face
reality, a hearing for justice on reality is not going to
happen.
Oh sure you can take this petition on up further on appeal,
but reality is, they are definitely not interested. Just how
do you think we got in this mess anyway in the first place? It
was not by the courts, Appellate Courts, and even the U.S.
Supreme Court, listening to our petitions.
From thereon, we can wish for justice until we get frustrated
and decide to take matters into our own hands. JAIL4judges
came about by this very means, i.e., someone (I think his name
was Ron Branson) got frustrated and decided that we have to
take matters into our own hands. This man developed a remedy,
but what this man, Ron Branson, found out the People were not
ready to exercise a remedy. Ron Branson found out that that it
was not the judges that was the real problem, but dumb People.
This cycle shall continue to go around in circles in
frustration seeking a "legal" way out of their dilemma until
they ultimately get more frustrated and decide to go to arms.
This is the reality of where we are now, searching for a
remedy that does not involve the principles set forth within
JAIL4Judges. So we now have this guy, Ron Branson, sitting by
watching People get frustrated in looking for a remedy. This
cycle shall continue going around and around without a remedy
until the People actually go to arms, not just talk about it,
for lack of a remedy. But arms is not really a remedy, but the
evidence of the lack of a remedy. But the reality is, we are
not without an actual remedy, it is just that the People hope
against hope that a revolution will be cheaper, faster, and
more successful than the actual remedy proposed by this guy,
Ron Branson.
The following quote is credited to Pogo, "We have met the
enemy and he is us." The remedy is, we must defeat this evil
enemy spoken of by Pogo who stands in the way of victory.
Until we do, we shall be like a jack ass pursuing a carrot
dangling from a string, and continue to go around and around
and around and ....."
Thank you for your feedback on this matter. In
conversations with many patriots, it appears that we the
people must make demands to affect changes and ensure
compliance with our wishes.
This is based upon the fiduciary relationship
between public servants and our employees. By accepting
their oath through a registered process we establish this
relationship and a contract. A contract that binds them to
their oath through their bond.
It is my understanding we can file a suit against
the individual representative who by their actions or
inactions violates this agreement or breaches the fiduciary
responsibilities. Monetary damages will be awarded to the
successful litigant. Further, two suits against a given
elected official disqualifies them to run for future office
as the bond issuers will not issue any further bonds.
Is any of this consistent with your knowledge of
the processes?
Arnie
Available 24/7 - Defending freedom has become a full-time
job! arnie@...
714-964-4056
714-501-8247 - mobile
On Sep 22, 2012, at 12:42 AM, Ron Branson <VictoryUSA@...>
wrote:
Arnie, here is my
take on this. We are in desperate times which calls
for desperate measures. Since the laws and the
Constitution is chosen to be ignored, I do not see
any reason to believe that whatever measures we
stake are "illegal." That being said, there is no
such thing as a "Criminal/Civil" action.
Are criminal proceedings are entered at the
discretion of the prosecutor. All that part of the
complain will return is that the court has no
jurisdiction of honor such filing. I have gone
through this before and that was exactly what I got.
True, a Civil action may be filed, but you already
know how I view the courts when it comes
particularly to suing the government. But, what the
hey, why not go for it?
I still view that the only why to restore our
government is through the Special Independent Grand
Jury in making the judges accountable directly to
the People. The reason I say "Special" in reference
to the Grand Jury is because with our current Grand
Jury they my indict all they want, but it is still
the prosecutor that has the last word on whether to
prosecute. Within J.A.I.L. this matter is taken care
of through a Special Prosecutor that works for the
Grand Jury, and is independent of all governments.
Ron
Arnie wrote:
Ron,
Please review. Seems well presented but what do I
know? <LOL>
Would you be in a position to modify the complaint
to meet requirements for submission by Californians?
I certainly relate to her frustration. What was going through
the minds of those on the senatorial panel was, "Oh, brother,
here we have to listen to another one of our disgruntled
constituents who does not appreciate our services we are
providing them. We have to give up ten minutes of our valuable
time appearing to care. We can hardly wait until her time is
up so we can say, 'Thank you, Ms. Capogrosso, we will follow
up on this.' "
The problem, Bill, and I speak from
experience, she, as well as many of us, is seeking redress
from the very ones interested in keeping things just the way
they are. One of the last things they want is judicial
accountability, because once the judges are accountable, then
they will have to be accountable. Hear this. The judges are
but the protective alligators swimming around in the mot
surrounding their Legislative and Executive Castle. They are
in this tyranny all together. No one in any branch of
government wants to see accountability brought to bear, for
accountability would derail their gravy train for them all and
embarrass all those in government. They are in a competitive
contest with one another to get the bootee before some other
public official feeding at the same troff gets theirs.
Consider the city manager of a small town "earning" $800,000 a
year to hold the title of city manager.
What I now state, I state to you all. We have to wake up and
realize you are addressing a self-interested body who is does
not care about your plight. Their only concern is that
hopefully these frustrated People will not rise up and take
matters into their own hands and that they loose their cushie
job with all its perks and benefits. This is all they are
concerned about.
When will we learn that if there is to come about real change
on behalf of the People, it must come directly from the
People, and from nowhere else. We must be the Alpha and the
Omega, the first and the last when it comes to public
accountability. We must dictate the specific terms and
conditions without consulting them on the wisdom of our ways.
This is why our Founding Fathers provided within our
Constitution a Grand Jury system. However, we gave ear to
these self-interest servants, and we let them dictate to us
the When, Where, and circumstances in which have access to our
Grand Juries. In affect, we allowed them to steal away, "with
our permission mind you," our most powerful weapon, the
unreviewable independent
Grand Jury system. It is the Grand Jury power that must be
restored to us at any cost!
This is precisely what JAIL4Judges will accomplish, nothing
more, and nothing less. The problem is, the People are too
ignorant to recognize what they have done, must less, how to
fix the problem. The "fix" has already been provided for them
within JAIL4judges, but the People still are ignorant as to
what they have done.
To accomplish restoring our freedom, the People must exercise
our power within the Constitutional Initiative Process as
provided us in Article II, Sec. 1 of the California
Constitution, "All political power is inherent in the people.
Government is instituted for their protection, security, and
benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when
the public good may require." Other states have similar
language.
If I may give the Branson expanded version, it is, "All
political power is absolutely inherent in the People
exclusively, and in no other. Their public servants, to whom
they have lent conditional consent, have only the limited and
temporary power granted to them to defend our rights.
Notwithstanding this, the People retain the absolute right and
power to alter and/or reform everything respecting their
future affairs at any time they so choose."
This directive is also permanently scribed in our Declaration
of Independence, to wit; "That to secure these rights,
governments are instituted among men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed..."
Governments have no permanent or enduring power whatsoever.
Rather, we retain the power even to dismiss our servants at
will. To help you understand what I am saying, I suggest
everyone read the homepage of http://www.sd-jail4judges.org.
Ron... a copy of my
post to Bob Grundstein... he is an attorney who is fighting
the WA State Bar... here is my reply to him.... please
consider the last paragraph.
Mr. Grundstein, all that you say here I have found to be true
through my own experience with the WSBA. And I have learned, by
searching the Web, that what happens in WA State is happening all
over this country. For example NY... just listen to Eleanor
Capogrosso, ESQ., in her testimony before the NY Senate Judiciary
Committee BACK in 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ38bwjpSuA
Nothing, in NY, was done! Why? I can only guess that the "power
players" ...are in firm control of this corrupt system.... and it
reaches deep and wide into our judicial, legislative and executive
branches. IT IS A PROBLEM OF BEING TOO BIG TO FAIL (to fix).
Consider this .... as government gets bigger so does it liability
insurance. Said another way as government get bigger so will the
number of lawsuits filed against the government for which it must
defend. Who is on the hook to pay for these lawsuits? Insurance
companies, taxpayers. How does government protect its own
liability exposure and the coast on taxpayers.... it rigs the
system -- likely with the help of insurance companies.
Arnie, there are two standards at play here. One is the
correct and legal process, and the other is reality, i.e.,
the way things are. The bottom line is that when there is
a conflict between these two wills, People vs. government,
it is the will of the People that must prevails This is
precisely what JAIL4judges assures when the People decide
they want to take actually charge over their future
affairs and not just; march on Washington, grandstand,
make platitudes and speeches of high-sounding words, sable
rattle, have meetings of Meet, Greet, Eat, Retreat, and
Repeat, huff and puff to blow their enemies houses down,
etc, et al.
Now, let me talk practical (reality) about your below
prescribed "remedy," on the truth of the matter and how it
really is. You are correct that the judges and politicians
are "bound" by their Oaths of Office, but who is going to
enforce it? We would like to think that it is enforceable
by the courts and by the sheriffs. We hope that another
judge will recognize our plight and pass down a judgment
against the offender of their sacred duty. But we have to
face reality.
I have brought suit against the offender's bonds. So what
happened? Reality was, the bondholders was dismissed from
the lawsuit on the first court appearance, and that issue
was preserved for later on appeal.
So everyone believes against reality that the Appellate
Court will hear the argument on appeal. But, again, we
have to face reality, a hearing for justice on reality is
not going to happen.
Oh sure you can take this petition on up further on
appeal, but reality is, they are definitely not
interested. Just how do you think we got in this mess
anyway in the first place? It was not by the courts,
Appellate Courts, and even the U.S. Supreme Court,
listening to our petitions.
From thereon, we can wish for justice until we get
frustrated and decide to take matters into our own hands.
JAIL4judges came about by this very means, i.e., someone
(I think his name was Ron Branson) got frustrated and
decided that we have to take matters into our own hands.
This man developed a remedy, but what this man, Ron
Branson, found out the People were not ready to exercise a
remedy. Ron Branson found out that that it was not the
judges that was the real problem, but dumb People. This
cycle shall continue to go around in circles in
frustration seeking a "legal" way out of their dilemma
until they ultimately get more frustrated and decide to go
to arms.
This is the reality of where we are now, searching for a
remedy that does not involve the principles set forth
within JAIL4Judges. So we now have this guy, Ron Branson,
sitting by watching People get frustrated in looking for a
remedy. This cycle shall continue going around and around
without a remedy until the People actually go to arms, not
just talk about it, for lack of a remedy. But arms is not
really a remedy, but the evidence of the lack of a remedy.
But the reality is, we are not without an actual remedy,
it is just that the People hope against hope that a
revolution will be cheaper, faster, and more successful
than the actual remedy proposed by this guy, Ron Branson.
The following quote is credited to Pogo, "We have met the
enemy and he is us." The remedy is, we must defeat this
evil enemy spoken of by Pogo who stands in the way of
victory. Until we do, we shall be like a jack ass pursuing
a carrot dangling from a string, and continue to go around
and around and around and ....."
... Attempting to get people to do anything, unless
they're directly, and, adversely effected, is a depressing,
thankless, grueling exercise in pounding ones head against a
solid object, repeatedly.
We, theoretically, have Grand Juries, why do we have to be
"allowed" access to them? Or, have to ask "permission" to submit
evidence, or initiate an investigation? Are these the "peoples"
Grand Juries? Or, the Government's? I don't have to ask
permission to use my own bathroom, why do I need permission to
report a crime to someone who can deal with it?
Calling the police on a judge who's clearly on a criminal
rampage doesn't get the expected results. In fact the result can
be rather negative.
The court system is so dysfunctional right now, unless
jail4judges is enacted immediately, it too will be disregarded
as a "formality," just as the law in general is ignored,
bypassed, modified, misapplied, distorted, and contorted
presently.
I've been a supporter of jail4judges for awhile, if not
monetarily, morally, and spiritually, due to employment, or the
lack of, for the past two and a half years. But, dang it Ron,
this has to be the best thing that could happen to this country
if the masses would only realize it.
I'm afraid that ship has sailed. If you could just get on
American Idol and subliminally somehow put jail4judges out there
before a captive audience, while doing a Michael Jackson number
(that'll get you a call back) or something?
If you need any help campaigning, I'd love to help out anyway I
could, mailing lists or whatnot, just put out the word. Thanks
for your time, and your efforts in this noble quest.
Kirk Schwoebel is correct, the only
way to recover our country and our freedoms is through the
Grand Juries. However, the People have been just too
ignorant to recognize what they have allowed. In reality,
the Grand Juries are us from beginning to the end, and has
not a thing to do with government, except the giving of our
permission to lodge a complaint. Then it is we, the People,
that assesses we will allow our public servants access to
proceed with a prosecution.
Absolutely every felony is required constitutionally to gain
our permission whether we will allow access to prosecution.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or
otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
indictment of a Grand Jury..." Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
What has happened is, we have allowed ourselves to be
deceive by a play on words. Therefore, many "crimes" which
do not even have a victim, nor are even crimes, are being
classed by government as felonies, such as failing to report
our assets when transporting our own money outside of the
country, or exercising our Second Amendment right to keep
and bear arms. While these are crimes, we are allowing then
to prosecute us for innocent activities.
Now notice, the Constitution does not say regarding
felonies, "No person can be convicted," but rather. "No
person shall be held to answer." Until we the People
determine Probable Cause, not a one of us may be held to
answer (enter a plea) for such accusations by government.
Do you recognize what would happen if we, the People,
enforced this constitutional provision? Our prison
population would be greatly reduced, and we could close down
several prisons, followed by a lower tax support, followed
by more spendable reserves for ourselves, followed by more
production and more jobs. Instead, we merely joke about
prosecutors being able to indict a ham sandwich through the
government's Grand Juries. As Mr. Schwoebel says, "Are these
the "peoples" Grand Juries? Or, the Government's?"
Then we have our servants playing with the meaning of words
for the purpose of distortion. Prosecutors are bringing
prosecutions in the name of their own "Presentments," and
not getting an indictment of the Grand Jury at all.
Then there is out and out fraud performed in the name of
Grand Juries. For instance, it has even been brought to my
attention that some prosecutors have kept within their desk
drawer a rubber stand signature of the Foreperson of the
Grand Jury to be able to obtain an "Indictment" by just
sliding open their desk drawer and pulling out that rubber
stamp and hitting the rubber stamped signature on the
supposed indictment.
One thing I am seeing in my exposures drawing attention to
the Grand Juries, is that I am seeing more responses
acknowledging the need for Grand Juries. Perhaps I am being
used to change People' perspective that Grand Juries do not
belong to the government, but rather are US. Perhaps we the
People should start a department store chain call, "GRAND
JURIES R US just to publically get the point across. We are
the Grand Juries! We are the first, and we are the last! We
are the beginning, and we are the end when it comes to
governments, for it is self-evident truth that establishes
that we are endowed by our Creator with such unalienable
rights, for God has ordained it so. We cannot appeal to any
higher Authority! God is first, then us, and WE ARE THE
GRAND JURY! No man can come to felony prosecution except by
US.
This is precisely why we must install JAIL4Judges within all
governments. The JAIL4Judges Initiative creates a Special
Independent People's Grand Jury of US. Access to this
Special Grand Jury of US in through the regular Grand
Juries. A Fourth Amendment is brought by US directed to the
prosecutor. The prosecutor has only 120 days to present the
complaint of criminal conduct to a regular County Grand Jury
for indictment and begin his prosecution of the judge
complained of, or else the matter may be presented to this
Special Grand Jury, ie., US, for an indictment and
prosecution. This provision is set forth in Paragraph 17 of
the Initiative, to wit;
Initiative
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.
JAIL4Judges provides
for three strikes and you are out! Government has their three
strikes and you are out for us, so we believe we should have a
three strikes and you are out for all judges. This is
provision is found in paragraph 18, to wit; 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. That's right, we mandate
they vacate their office with their tails between their legs,
giving up 50% of all the judicial retirement funds. This will
save us untold amount of tax dollars. Also, through
JAIL4Judges the People ultimately will be allowed to run for
the bench themselves, which is foreclosed presently to all but
exclusive Bar Members of the Association.
So, I ask one more
time, when are we going to wake up to the fact that WE ARE THE
GRAND JURY?
Send Email
