Here is yet another reason why we need J.A.I.L., as Ron Loeber, the JAILer-In-Chief of our New York Chapter has found out straight from the "Horse's Mouth." As Ron says, the New York Commission on Judicial Conduct views judicial violations and deprivations with all the seriousness of angels dancing on the head of a pin. Folks, it's time for reality to set in regarding judicial tyranny running rampant. Our thanks to Ron for his active participation at this meeting in Albany.
Today (12/11/02) I attended a meeting at the NYS Bar Association in Albany, NY. The subject of the meeting was "Judging the Judges", with three panelists representing the Commission on Judicial Conduct and one guest speaker from California.
The meeting was moderated by:
Lorraine Power Tharp, Esq.
President, New York State Bar Association
The panelists were:
Hon. Juanita Bing Newton
Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for Justice Initiative
Former Member, NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct
Robert H. Tembeckjian, Esq.
Deputy Administrator & Deputy Counsel
NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct
Stephen R. Coffee, Esq.
Member, NYS Commission On Judicial Conduct
Hon. John T. Racanelli
Presiding Justice, California Court of Appeal (Ret.)
Former Chair, California Commission on Judicial Performance
Some of the speeches pertained to the conduct/misconduct of judges in the areas of political acts, personal acts, and administrative acts. Noticeably absent was any discussion or recognition by the panel members of violations of law, deprivations of the rights of litigants, or violations of the Oath of Office by judges.
After listening to the speakers for two hours, the spectators were given the opportunity to ask questions. Because the content of Squire Coffee's speech gave me a little more understanding of the workings of the commission, I addressed my question to him. I was clear and specific in the formation of my question.
RON: "How many times may a judge maliciously and willfully violate the law and the rights of litigants, and illegally jail litigants... and still remain a judge?" Is it 3, 5, 7, 22 times? I just want to know the number in order to have a clearer understanding of the workings of the Commission.
COFFEE: "Thats like asking how many Angels may dance on the head of a pin. Though it may appear obvious the answer is 1, it really depends. It really is like asking how many angels may dance on the head of a pin."
Well folks. There you have it. Straight from the Horse's Mouth. And remember... he was speaking in his OFFICIAL capacity as a "member" of the NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct. I wonder if the Official Position of the Commission is the belief in Tooth Fairies, too.
I don't think it is difficult to believe that I have never seen an Angel, on the head of a pin or otherwise... except in the fantasies of the mind as portrayed in the movies and on TV. But many of us have been witness to the malicious and willful violations of law and deprivations of our rights by numerous judges. And the members of the NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct view those violations and deprivations with all the seriousness of Angels dancing on the head of a pin?
It's just one more reason among many for all of us to support J.A.I.L.
PS: Just thought you might like to know that Judge Newton is even afraid to go to the New York State Bar Association Headquarters in the State Capital without the security of her armed bodyguard. What does it tell you when a judge won't even be seen in public without armed security? I wonder if she carries a gun, too? By the way, her bodyguard seemed like a decent and responsible guy when we chatted on the way out.
J.A.I.L. is an acronym for Judicial Accountability Initiative Law JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope! JAIL is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire! JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability! JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603 To subscribe or be removed: add-remove-jail@... E-Groups sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join Open forum to make your voice heard JAIL-SoundOff@egroups.com Ask not what J.A.I.L. can do for me, but ask what I can do for J.A.I.L.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." -- Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><
J.A.I.L. is the only effective non-violent means left for the people!
The following is an excellent report by We The People Foundation showing evidence of record of the refusal of government to provide the people redress of grievances. Judges avoid questions on the Constitution by calling it "a political question" to be addressed by Congress. Congress either stonewalls the question(s) altogether as WTPF has proven on the record, or if it speaks at all on the Constitution, it states that constitutional requirements are "inappropriate and anachronistic."
The people must now act to throw off this tyrannical abuse, but is withholding funds from government the only non-violent means left for the people?? That method does not provide corrective measures!
WE SAY: J.A.I.L. IS THE ONLY EFFECTIVE NON-VIOLENT MEANS LEFT FOR THE PEOPLE!
* * *
The American People are witnessing the real-time meltdown of the Constitution. The judges aid and abet the process. The representatives know it is wrong. Clearly, it is past time for the People to exercise their unalienable right to wrestle an errant government back into the limits unambiguously prescribed in our Constitution. -WTPF
Any reasonable man would agree that every citizen has standing to sue if the cause of action is an alleged violation of the Constitution. In other words, the court's determination of the constitutional question affects each and every citizen. However, the courts have developed a "standing doctrine" as a way of avoiding certain questions. The standing doctrine says that for a plaintiff to have standing to bring an action he must show injury "different in kind and degree" from the injury suffered by everybody else. Otherwise, the court says, the plaintiff's question is a "political question" for Congress to decide. -WTPF
There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. - Chairman Henry Hyde [Congress]
12-31-02
The power to tax and the power to wage war are the two most potent enumerated powers; most sought after by government; most potentially harmful to individual Liberty; most in need of citizens' scrutiny.
As further justification for the People to stop sending money to the federal government, this article reports on the treasonous behavior that occurred in the halls of Congress on October 2 and 3. 2002, regarding the unconstitutional commitment of this nation to war.
The government's disdain and disrespect for the Constitution came out into the open on October 3, 2002, in the House of Representatives, during the second day of a two-day hearing on the Iraq Resolution (H.J. Resolution 114), "AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ."
Congressman Ron Paul reminded the Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on International Relations that the Constitution required a congressional Declaration of War before the armed forces of the United States could be applied in hostilities overseas, not H.J.R 114, a congressional Resolution authorizing the President to decide if and when to apply that force.
However, Chairman Henry Hyde is quoted, for the record, "There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them.There are things no longer relevant to a modern society.Why declare war if you don't have to?.We are saying to the President, use your judgment.So, to demand that we declare war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn't done anymore.."
The 50-member Committee then went on to vote against the substitute amendment offered by Rep. Paul, which read simply (after the resolving clause), "That pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, a state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the Government of Iraq and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the United States Armed Forces to carry on war against the Government of Iraq and to bring the conflict to a successful conclusion."
The Committee then went on to approve H.J. Resolution 114, which was eventually approved by Congress.
If anyone has lingering doubts about the corruption of the Legislative and Judicial branches and the devolution of our Constitutional system of check and balances into the instrumentalities of the powers that truly run our nation, the proof is now put before you.
The processes of limited government, defined by the Constitution are, indeed, no longer relevant and have been neutered to the extent that today only the shadow of a bona fide Constitutional government exists.
Our legislative leaders and federal judges feel so comfortable working outside the Constitution that they now no longer even hesitate to talk of such matters on the record. They make contemptible judicial decisions and strong-arm the workings of the legislative process to achieve their ends, knowing that the tentacles of power will protect them, their careers and their benefactors.
Indeed, the two most significant powers a People can grant its government are the power to tax and the power to commit to war. These are the most critical elements of government. As we sit today, our federal government is in gross violation of the strict limits the People have delineated around these crucial powers.
As many know, this Foundation has led the foremost public challenge put forth to date, to enforce the 1st Amendment's guarantee of our individual right to petition for redress of grievances regarding these matters. We have petitioned repeatedly regarding hundreds of specific legal and Constitutional issues surrounding the income tax system of this nation and put forth a petition publicly exposing the fraudulent legislative process that may shortly deliver this nation into war.
On the question of moving the federal Judiciary to challenge the unconstitutional declaration of war, the Foundation presents for your review a summary of the lawsuit brought by Bob Schulz and several others in 1999 seeking redress, through the courts, for the unlawful application of the armed forces of the US in hostilities in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999. Click here to read the Memorandum of Law, dated 7/7/99, written by Bob Schulz. Click here to read the Verfied Compliant, dated 5/28/99, against the President, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
Any reasonable man would agree that every citizen has standing to sue if the cause of action is an alleged violation of the Constitution. In other words, the court's determination of the constitutional question affects each and every citizen. However, the courts have developed a "standing doctrine" as a way of avoiding certain questions. The standing doctrine says that for a plaintiff to have standing to bring an action he must show injury "different in kind and degree" from the injury suffered by everybody else. Otherwise, the court says, the plaintiff's question is a "political question" for Congress to decide.
The case against the use of force in Yugoslavia without a declaration of war was dismissed for lack of standing. In other words, according to the court, the plaintiffs had to take their complaint to Congress - the very people who violated the Constitution, and who obviously were not going to listen to the plaintiffs.
In other words, Congress gets to change the Constitution (but in a way not authorized by the Constitution).
Finally, to see how redress actually proceeds in the courts, please read the article by Stephan Archer of World Net Daily entitled "Balkans war suit thrown out. Judge dismisses lawsuit, says plaintiffs lack standing."
On the matter of petitioning the Legislature about unconstitutional abuse of the law making process and their oaths of office, the Foundation offers an insightful analysis contributed by Mike Bodine analyzing the two-day October 2002, House International Relations Committee hearing "authorizing"
(unconstitutionally) the President to initiate war against Iraq.
Consider the full implications of the comment made by Chairman Henry Hyde:
"It is fascinating to go back in history and see how our Constitution
was drafted and what it means. There are things in the Constitution
that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one."
Also of particular note in the proceeding's transcript is Rep. Ron Paul (Texas) who, although brave enough to publicly, and aggressively, confront the Constitutional problems arising out of the Committee's actions, failed to have the fortitude to actually vote for his own proposed amendment which was a direct, formal, and constitutionally proper, declaration of war against Iraq.
The American People are witnessing the real-time meltdown of the Constitution. The judges aid and abet the process. The representatives know it is wrong. Clearly, it is past time for the People to exercise their unalienable right to wrestle an errant government back into the limits unambiguously prescribed in our Constitution.
Indeed, the government's refusal to grant redress at every turn leaves us but ONE peaceful option - keep our money out of Washington.
[J.A.I.L. refutes this claim]
In the October hearing referred to above, Chairman Hyde makes the following admission which he reiterates:
"Now, the Congress always has the last word in war and peace
because we control the purse strings."
Not so. This Foundation reminds everyone that it is the People, not Congress, that ultimately control the purse strings.
We The People have not just the right, but also the duty to protect our Republic from those forces that would destroy it. We must not allow the use of our own money to fund the destruction of that which so many of our countrymen have died for.
We call on all Americans to join us, educate yourselves and your families and prepare to engage in a peaceful, but pro-active mass movement to stop income tax withholding, filing and payment across our land.
History will attest to the moral certainty and righteousness of these actions. Together, we will stem the flow of the money that is enabling the silent overthrow of our Constitutional Republic.
It is un-American to fund tyranny, treason and despotism.
We love our country but we have come to despise our government because of its growing disrespect of the People and our Constitution.
It is time to put a collective foot down against the government's abuse of its power.
For questions and comments on the above report, email bob@.... Our thanks to Jackie Juntti of WGEN for sending this report to J.A.I.L.
J.A.I.L. is an acronym for Judicial Accountability Initiative Law JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope! JAIL is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire! JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability! JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603 To subscribe or be removed: add-remove-jail@... E-Groups sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join Open forum to make your voice heard JAIL-SoundOff@egroups.com Ask not what J.A.I.L. can do for me, but ask what I can do for J.A.I.L.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><
Is prosecutorial misconduct the root of the problem? The judiciary could put a stop to prosecutorial misconduct real fast-- if they wanted to. Is there an investigative journalist willing to conduct a study on JUDICIAL misconduct? Since the judiciary are the gatekeepers of the "justice" system, being the final link on the tyranny chain, why not conduct a study on the ultimate tyrants? Note: they're asking to hear from, among others, JUDGES regarding prosecutorial misconduct. Judges are the ones that allow it to happen! Let's quit hacking at the branches, and start striking at the root.
Prosecutorial Misconduct Study
Steve Weinberg, a veteran investigative journalist, is researching specific cases of prosecutorial misconduct that lead to wrongful convictions. He would like to hear from anybody--prisoners, their families and friends, lawyers, expert and lay witnesses, jurors, medical examiners, police officers, judges--with evidence of prosecutorial misconduct.
Weinberg, who lives in Columbia, Mo., is a former newspaper reporter and magazine staff writer turned book author. For this project, he is working with the Center for Public Integrity, a consortium of journalists, lawyers and researchers in Washington, D.C., that specializes in uncovering systemic problems. Working closely with Weinberg is a Center staff lawyer, Neil Gordon, who is based in Washington, D.C. Funding for the prosecutorial misconduct project is coming from several sources, most prominently the Open Society Institute, New York City.
The research will be disseminated by the Center for Public Integrity, quite possibly in the form of a book from a major publisher. Weinberg and Gordon plan to name names of prosecutors who cross the line, especially in jurisdictions where wrongful convictions have occurred repeatedly.
Weinberg can be contacted in these ways:
E-mail: weinbergs@... Telephone: 573 882-5468 Fax: 573 882-5431 Home address: 807 West Blvd. South, Columbia, Mo. 65203
Thanks to Ron Loeber, New York JAILer-In-Chief, for forwarding this to J.A.I.L. and to Suzanne LeBoeuf, California Associate JAILer-In-Chief, the original sender of the article.
J.A.I.L. is an acronym for Judicial Accountability Initiative Law JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope! JAIL is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire! JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability! JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603 To subscribe or be removed: add-remove-jail@... E-Groups sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join Open forum to make your voice heard JAIL-SoundOff@egroups.com Ask not what J.A.I.L. can do for me, but ask what I can do for J.A.I.L.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><
Dave Donley, Vermont JAILer-In-Chief, davedonley@..., tells of his feverish attempts to help open the eyes of people to the scope and extent of judicial corruption, but losing patience with those who remain "intentionally ignorant." To those of you having a similar experience, be not discouraged, for we are hearing from hundreds of people daily whose eyes have been opened and realize the need for the solution, i.e., J.A.I.L.
The old saw is true "there are none so blind as he who will not see." -Dave Donley
....
I hope you realize the problem (legal abuse) is so large in scope it really does require a two-prong approach: Challenging them in the courts with their own statutes, (which they pick and choose which they will abide by and/ or ignore) with well-documented cases like yours, and legislation.
If we win in our own individual cases, that is great-- but rare without PUBLICITY and/or a whole lot of money. Legislation can correct the situation for more people and have a broader impact on the "legal extortion racket" (a phrase Clint Eastwood employed in testimoney before Congress about his experiences with, and opinion of, the "Americans with Disabilities Act") the legal community has created for itself.
Also, the J4J website helps get the PUBLICTY we need to ensure our suits go forward. Recall that it was the site that brought us together; and through it and the article about your case, we have accumulated others of like minds and information. It is worthy of any and all support we can give it.
There are a lot of people ... out there to whom I try to give useful information, but [who] really [are] blind to the scope and extent of the corruption. [They don't] realize crooked lawyers and judges have been working for years enacting legislation to accomplish their ends -- immunities, protections, privileges for their fraternity, access to the state and federal coffers. [These people] really think individual cases are going to blow the lid off the pot of judicial corruption and it will change over night. That is how we all felt about our cases until time and experience proved we might be able to get them to sacrifice a few scapegoats, but nothing changes for the rest of the people or "system."
The jail4judges site and legislation really is worthy of our support. In addition to providing many useful testimonies, it provides a gathering ground for the enemies of our enemy "corrupt judges" that allow the "legal abuse" to go unchecked.
When you have the time, please forward to A... and let him know I sympathize with his situation (which is why I have spent time trying to educate him to the extent of the corruption), but I really don't have time or patience for those that are, as Ashcroft says in his speech "Judicial Despotism" (available in the www.jail4judges.org library stacks), the "intentionally ignorant."
If he thinks legislation will take too long, he really doesn't realize the extent or depth of the problem. I have already been over the ground he is treading and know from experience that is why the J4J legislation identifies the problem "the Doctrine of Judicial Immunity has been greatly abused." Even when a party can get a case past the initial hurdles, after draining every penny and ounce of will to fight, judges dismiss cases claiming immunity. As Linda Kennedy (J4J lawyer) points out in her article "Litigation Vortex" the whole system is designed to do nothing more than drain everyone of every dime they can.
The courts are not halls of justice. They are money mills for the legal fraternity. The ABA sponsors their members' political campaigns knowing lawyer/legislators will enact legislation to make business for the courts and lawyers. A... could be more effective for himself and others if he posted a short story about the "Solidarity" movement in Poland, his experiences there and in our legal system. Maybe you can convince him-- I give up. The old saw is true "there are none so blind as he who will not see."
J.A.I.L. is an acronym for Judicial Accountability Initiative Law JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope! JAIL is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire! JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability! JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603 To subscribe or be removed: add-remove-jail@... E-Groups sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join Open forum to make your voice heard JAIL-SoundOff@egroups.com Ask not what J.A.I.L. can do for me, but ask what I can do for J.A.I.L.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><
Judges Are Becoming Aware That J.A.I.L. Is Out There
We wish to share with J.A.I.L. News Journal subscribers, and others, the story about what happened to Attorney Elsebeth Baumgartner of Ohio. First is a response by David Donley, our JAILer-In-Chief for Vermont J.A.I.L., which emphasizes the need for accountability in all areas of authority. But the focus must be on the judiciary, as the Baumgartner story shows. For those of you who have not heard that story, we include it below Mr. Donley's piece. We certainly extend our thanks to all those who were able to show up in Ohio in support of Ms. Baumgartner, and we attribute much of that success to Attorney Linda Kennedy, whom we now refer to as National J.A.I.L.'s Missionary of Mercy! See her report below.
Yet another prime example of what is wrong with the "system" and why we need independent oversight of the judiciary. If the "system" worked and those (mal)administering justice obeyed their own rules and doctrines like "Judicial Restraint," we wouldn't need a show of numbers and publicity to obtain justice. The law would operate to ensure that basic Constitutional protections were preserved and the Boards policing the profession would not be able to "target" voices for the People as the old King's courts did, to silence critics.
If only more people realized how much of their heritage has been stolen from them by those they trusted to "uphold the Constitution" (actually most have, that 60% eligible to vote that don't are tired of the choice of the lesser of two evils.) They know the major parties' (Rep.& Dem.) chosen candidates don't represent them so much as the lobbying-- euphemism for bribing-- special interests.
The First Amendment was intended to protect speech critical of government. The legal community has worked over the years to subvert the intent of that major check against government abuse of authority by keeping complaints against politicians, lawyers and judges secret. As John Adams asserted, "the people have a right to know about the character and conduct of those that would represent them."
We have all seen what the lack of accountability has done to the Catholic Church. In deference to self-protection they ignored the blight of the children being abused by priests, and now they face massive class-action suits. Cardinal Law (who discovery documents proved knew for years but chose to "cover up") has finally resigned, and all the abused victims that hid in shame, as a result of their abusers' violations, are now coming forward to tell of their ordeals.
The lack of accountability and oversight of Wall Street accounting firms allowed unscrupulous greedy corporate executives to bleed their investors dry and "cover it up" with shady accounting practices. It took massive public outcry and investors withdrawing their money from the stock market to get OUR public servants (there's a misnomer) Congress to FINALLY address the problem of WHITE COLLAR crime.
If you read Gerry Spence's book, "With Justice for none - Destroying a Great American Myth" -he makes the points- "White collar criminals cost this country more than all the larcenies, burglaries,..., and Congress stands mutely by with their hands in their pockets, wherein their true interests lie,..., the ubiquity of the most venal pettifoggers,..., the ultimate injustice - to surrender to the status quo,..., NOBODY is WATCHING the JUDGES."
What happened to Miss Elsebeth Baumgartner, and all too many, is a good example of former President Jimmy Carter's assertion in an article he did for the N.Y. Times "Why Some People Distrust the 'System'" - "it is time for America's Legal system to correct itself.... unfortunately, reform voices are muted."
P.S. WANTED CANDIDATES FOR OFFICE that will honor their oaths and serve the Public welfare, not the special interests. J4J legislation would attract a large constituency!!!!!!!!!!
----- Original Message ----- From: WBFLegal@... To: WBFLegal@... Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 8:40 AM Subject: BAUMGARTNER FREED!
Update on Elsebeth Baumgartner--BAUMGARTNER IS FREE! (SEE DAY 2 BELOW)
ATTENTION: Anyone planning to attend the Elsebeth Baumgartner hearing-THERE IS NO NEED AS ALL FURTHER HEARINGS ARE CANCELLED AS OF THIS DATE. Kennedy is back in Virginia giving this report. Anyone who had planned to attend on the 14th, should contact Kennedy for names of other activists in Ohio you may not know. Follow up with a meeting b/c you all have the momentum --don't lose it! You made a difference in Ohio!
UPDATE DAY 1: On January 3, 2003, Attorney Elsebeth Baumgartner, a whistle blower who was exposing massive corruption in the legal profession, was at a motions hearing on whether to dismiss the felony "escapee" allegation against her. For those who have followed this matter, the story is ridiculous as to how a soccer mom Valedictorian could have such a thing happen to her. (If you have not followed the case, please see my website below and go to the lower right side and click on all of Baumgartner's info, including audio interviews. Also go to "national hall of shame" on left side of site and click and then look under Ohio).
The judge came into the courtroom as cocky as ever and made every indication that he was going to find against Baumgartner. He even argued the case against her for the attorney general's office. It was gross. But, one thing he did not count on was a courtroom full of white and black people
angrily making eye contact with him at all times. Unexpectedly, he took a break. When he came back, he totally changed his tune and found for Baumgartner.
Most everyone is certain he made a phone call to Columbus, Ohio during the recess, where the Supreme Court sits (Baumgartner has accused the Supremes in Ohio of massive corruption) and they have been calling all the shots on her lynching. He did not want to be the fall-guy on this one friends. Wise move! He came back out and dismissed the felony allegations. So the Jan 14th hearing was cancelled (which was her trial on same).
DAY 2: JAN 9TH, 2003 Instead of having a hearing on Jan 14, on the felony charges (which were dismissed on Day 1), the courts decided to blind side her with an alleged probation violation hearing to be held on Jan 9, 2003, without even telling her what the alleged violations were. They also would not send out her subpoenas so she would be there with no witnesses--another trial by ambush.
Instead of having 22 people present like on Day 1, we had approximately 45 people present on Jan 9, 2003! The cowardly judge delayed for a full hour before coming out. Then when he finally did appear, he came out without his robe, and mumbled (even with a mic on), as we all strained to try to hear
what he was saying. This was the same judge who earlier (before Baumgartner had any court watchers), was so loud and arrogant that he did not need a mic at all.
By the end of this short hearing, Baumgartner, (whom this crooked judge held for over 100 days without a hearing, when she was supposed to have one within 24 hours), let her walk free! Yes, E. Baumgartner is free!
There is so much to this story that is not in this writing; but most importantly, we need to realize that people still matter! These crooks were caught imprisoning an innocent person in a failed attempt to silence her whistle blowing against them. They knew they were caught and even their face-saving attempts were obvious to everyone!
These crooks were shamed when the people showed up in mass and made sure the judges knew that the people were aware of what they were doing and would have no more of it!
Are you stirring up your states friends? Do you have your leadership in place? It still matters! Thanks to all who took part both physically, spiritaully and financially in this effort to free a leader in the movement. Also, listen to Hotseat for Judges tonight, Jan 13, 2002, when E.J. Baxter (the brother of the Ohio Prosecutor at the center of all this corruption), who will talk about the corruption in the Ohio prosecutor's office. Yes, OHIO Judge Paul Moon and Judge John Adkins, you removed yourselves from the Hotseat by doing the right thing in spite of yourselves, but guess what-- Prosecutor Kevin Baxter--WELCOME TO THE HOTSEAT! This is your lucky day! Kennedy
And our heartfelt thanks to Linda Kennedy, Virginia JAILer who spreads herself thin to other parts of the country to help those in need, such as Elsebeth Baumgartner and Jim Traficant. She is truly National J.A.I.L.'s Missionary of Mercy and because of her tireless efforts, we are seeing some great results such as the above report. Let's give Kennedy a hearty round of applause!! (CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP)
J.A.I.L. is an acronym for Judicial Accountability Initiative Law JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope! JAIL is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire! JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability! JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603 To subscribe or be removed: add-remove-jail@... E-Groups sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join Open forum to make your voice heard JAIL-SoundOff@egroups.com Ask not what J.A.I.L. can do for me, but ask what I can do for J.A.I.L.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><
One thing is for certain; there will never be reform without reformers willing to make a fight if necessary. Or at least a group of decent, honest people that are just sick and tired of being criminals.
Yes, that's right. I, R. Lee Wrights, being of sound mind and aging body, do solemnly acclaim and justly affirm that I am a criminal. And, if I do my job correctly, by the time you finish reading this you will realize that you are a criminal also; and, that something needs to be done about it.
My premise is simply that government, not only at the federal level but in particular at the state and local level, has grown so gorged and bloated that it has become virtually impossible for any of us to remain "law-abiding citizens." In order to be law-abiding, one must first know and understand the law. Now I ask you, in today's society how many people really know, let alone understand, "the law?" Moreover, how many policemen really know or, more importantly, understand the law? Do the lawyers and judges, who are charged with the protection of America's most sacred document, even understand the law? Judging from the number of appealed judgments these days, it would appear that even these "protectors of justice" are unable to effectively untangle the thicket of jurisprudence created by the endless loads of fertilizer produced by the various legislatures.
Just the number of laws one would have to familiarize themselves with in order to become adequately knowledgeable makes the task near to impossible. Why, we would all have to go to law school just to get to a proper starting point of understanding the law. Last year, in North Carolina alone, 519 new laws were passed by the General Assembly. Sixty new laws took affect in the Old North State on January 1st of this year. Add these to the tens of thousands of laws already on the books and you begin to see the enormity of the endeavor to properly understand justice and how its principles are to be applied. And that is just in one state, folks. I wonder how many "new" laws have been instituted where you live this year?
Still skeptical? Take an afternoon and go to the nearest law library. Even the name "law library" should send a chill down any thinking person's spine. I am not talking about a corner of your local public library where you'll find a shelf or two stocked with reference books about a particular subject. No, I mean a whole library devoted to cataloging all the things you and I are not allowed to do. Whole rooms filled wall-to-wall and floor-to-ceiling with a seemingly endless array of laws, statutes, and regulations. Shelf next to shelf, volume upon volume, and page after page, creating a twisting, turning maze of decisions, rulings and appeals. This is where you go when you seek comprehension of the chains that fetter your pursuit of happiness. Have a seat and look around at what you must learn if you really want to be an honest, up-standing, law-abiding citizen.
Government has simply made it too easy to break the law for us not to be criminals. I mean, you are required to have a license or permit to do practically everything. That means that you must go to a bureaucrat somewhere and ask their permission before you proceed or you become a criminal. If you want to drive to work, you must first have a paper from the State that says you are allowed to operate a vehicle. If you want to improve your home, you are required to go downtown and stand before your elected rulers and beg their indulgence so that you can add that patio or finish your basement. If you want to get a job to support your family, you cannot do so without a number supplied by the benevolent nannies that soil the seats of CONgress. How long does this list have to be before you realize that if you have to ask permission to do everything, not only will you eventually slip up and become a criminal, but you have also ceased to be free? With every new law enacted another little piece of liberty dies.
Perhaps nothing exemplifies my point more so than a personal experience I had about 6 or 7 years ago. I was invited by a friend to accompany him on a fishing expedition to one of the local lakes owned by the county where we both reside. Being the careful individual that I am, I researched the laws concerning wildlife management, as well as, the regulations adopted by the county. I found that if I only fished using live bait, the law did not require that I obtain a fishing license as long as I remained in the county of my residence. I was very pleased with myself that I had found a way to save a few bucks on what promised to be an enjoyable outing.
However, the day was not to go unspoiled. Not long after we had launched our boat and found what we thought looked like a promising spot, we were approached by a game warden. I remained unconcerned as we chatted and I proudly showed him that I was only using live bait and therefore required no state sanction. He asked for proof of my residence, which I supplied via business cards and a recent tax bill that I was going to pay on my way home. It was then that he informed me that I was in violation of state law. I was beginning to protest that I was in full compliance of the wildlife management code when the warden told me he was not referring to the wildlife code. It was then that I learned I was in violation of state law for appearing in public and not possessing a picture ID. At that moment, the veil was lifted from my eyes as my day of personal enlightenment dawned.
I realized that every time I set foot off of my own property, I became a criminal. I violate the law each and every time I take a leisurely stroll around my neighborhood. In almost half a century on this earth, I have never been arrested, much less convicted of a crime; and yet, all I have to do to become a criminal in the eyes of the State is leave home! Why? Because I do not have a snapshot of myself, taken by a state-sanctioned bureaucrat, in my pocket when I go out in public. I must ask you, am I really free? Are you really free? Are your papers in order? Are you a criminal?
There are laws regulating everything from what color you can and cannot paint your house to what kind of sex in which two consenting adults are allowed to engage. Why is it like this? Crime is big business, that's why. In fact, crime is government's biggest industry.
Surprised to see me say that? It really isn't all that odd when you consider that the State derives revenue on both sides of the law. Remember, all those licenses and permits you are required to obtain are accompanied by fees. While on the flip side, every breach of the never-ending, self-perpetuating, always-growing bureaucracy carries a fine. You are forced to pay in order to abide by the law so you can avoid having to pay for breaking the law.
Therefore, as the beast has grown, it has become the State's own self interest that drives legislators to constantly search for new sources of revenue. That's why 519 laws were passed in my home state last year. That is why 500 new laws will probably be passed this year, and again next year, and again the year after that. The only way a government can realize greater income than it does today is either by accelerating tax increases; or, by creating new ways for us to become criminals and providing the appropriately-priced bounties required to avoid becoming criminals. So you see, every new law not only nibbles away at your freedom while further gorging an already bloated beast Bureaucracy, it also becomes a new source of revenue for the State.
So, we are left with the question, "What can been done about it?" Take my advice, do yourself a favor and educate yourself. Do a little digging and find out all the different options made available to you, by your friends in government, for becoming a criminal. Then perhaps we will see the emergence of what is needed to reverse the encroachment of the law - Reform. You have to get fed up with the foolishness of endless legislation and do something. Speak against further regulation at every opportunity in any venue that opportunity provides. Run for public office as a truly reform-minded candidate, or support such candidates wherever they can be found. One thing is for certain; there will never be reform without reformers willing to make a fight if necessary. Or at least a group of decent, honest people that are just sick and tired of being criminals. Come on folks, enough is enough!
* * *
R. Lee Wrights is a writer and political activist living in North Carolina. He is co-founder and editor-in-chief of the free speech online magazine "Liberty For All" and an editor at Free-Market.Net.
Note: A similar Texas law requiring one to produce his ID when asked for it by any Officer was thrown out as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in "Brown vs. Texas", 443 U.S. 47 (1979).
Our thanks to Rick Toms, North Carolina JIC, ricktoms@..., for sending this to J.A.I.L. If we had Mr. Wrights' email address, we would invite him to join J.A.I.L.'s email list, and to become a North Carolina JAILer.
The above article reminds me of when I worked for the DA's office, I asked a senior deputy why the laws are so numerous and so complicated, and he responded (to the effect) "That's done on purpose, so you and I can have this job, and so that attorneys in general and their staffs can make money." He said, "If the law were simple to understand, there would be no need for attorneys to figure it out for the public. We'd be out of a job." [Not an exact quote, but close] Well, he was honest on that score! -Barbie
J.A.I.L. is an acronym for Judicial Accountability Initiative Law JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope! JAIL is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire! JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability! JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603 To subscribe or be removed: add-remove-jail@... E-Groups sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join Open forum to make your voice heard JAIL-SoundOff@egroups.com Ask not what J.A.I.L. can do for me, but ask what I can do for J.A.I.L.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><
Law School - Sowing the Seeds of Judicial Corruption
Students are taught that law is not what the Law says,
but what the Court says the law says.
J.A.I.L. will end this practice!
Another red letter day in the law was when I heard that the judge who cheated me out of $100,000 claimed that although he broke the law, he was "immune." I asked the court how this could possibly be Constitutional. They said that "judges have absolute immunity."
-- Lawrence C. Agee
[By Lawrence C. Agee, Oregon JAILer]:
I appreciated the post from JAILer Jim L. [Jim Lorenz, Utah] He stayed in law school one year. This is my second.
I chose to go to law school after being defrauded by lawyers three times. I agree with Jim. The professors speak of "the law" and pontificate that they know "the law." Yet when some are challenged with "the law" they often seem to find an excuse why "the law" does not apply. Most professors will not look you in the eye when they are forced to explain why "the law" has clearly failed in a case. There is always an excuse to justify their position.
To illustrate, I was once insulted by my Contracts professor when I
challenged why a man who was not a father was forced to pay child support for a child determined not to be his. I still do not understand.
I was speaking to a student the other day who is taking immigration law. There is a test that immigrants take to become U.S. citizens. She asked me one of the questions on the exam "what is the supreme law of the land?" I answered "the Constitution, of course." This was correct! Yet, I am amazed to see the Constitution is rarely mentioned in law school, except in Con Law.
I met a man at the judicial retention hearings I attended. He was an immigrant from Sicily, has a great family, 3 nice kids. He took that oath. The lawyers foreclosed on his home after a $66,000 judgment against him for asking his neighbors not to run over his children. Of course the money that may have sent his kids to college is now in the pocket of a lawyer who shortly thereafter dropped dead. He will tell you the Constitution looks like a good document but the judges didn't acknowledge it. He calls it "the big lie." He is now very regretful he came to America.
I recalled one of my own cases. When I had my opportunity to present my side of a case in 1998, I began to speak. After 3 minutes, I was cut off. An award of $100,000 was given, essentially sending me into bankruptcy. I said this was unconstitutional. They said it was not. My appellate lawyer told me "hey, people lose $70,000 in the stock market everyday" and to "put it behind you." I told him what I thought of him and walked out of his office. (The award has subsequently grown to 100k due to 12% interest on the lien on my home which I can't pay). Of course, when it came to the $700 balance on his $10,000 bill, there was no limit to the extremes he would go to to collect "what was his." And of course he dumped my case before the appeal was completed.
The other thing I was always dismayed to hear were the comments by numerous other lawyers: "Perjury, ha! It happens all the time." I walked out of several other offices upon hearing this. This is contrary to the things I learned in legal ethics. I guess real lawyers quickly forget that class.
Another red letter day in the law was when I heard that the judge who cheated me out of $100,000 claimed that although he broke the law, he was "immune." I asked the court how this could possibly be Constitutional. They said that "judges have absolute immunity." Then they said something about saying some magic words and I didn't understand how the magic words made a difference. The judge who cheated me by the way, sits on the "Supreme Court" of the state where this occurred and it would seem to me that he must have heard of "due process." Apparently not.
The topper though was when they cheated me out of my ability to earn a living. I guess suing judges is frowned upon in our society. I understand the "public interest" demands that judges be left alone so they can do their jobs. I wonder why I am not entitled to the same considerations? I guess that old "equal protection clause" is also a little antiquated.
They tell us here in law school we must learn to "think like lawyers." I don't seem to be getting the hang of it. I'm now $40,000 poorer, but I still think perjury is wrong and that there is no reason to protect judges who help their lawyer buddies steal money. I guess I am just a little slow. I guess both Jim and I see somthing the rest of them don't.
[Response from Dave Donley, Vermont JAILer-In-Chief]
Looks good, Dr. Agee. We need to educate the public and shatter the myths. This could be another example of how the www.jail4judges.org web site benefits us all with public education, awareness and providing a "gathering ground" for the enemies of our enemies- corrupt treasonous, thieving, lying judges and lawyers serving their self-serving agendas rather than the "ends of justice" or public welfare!!!
Have you found the copies of the letters I sent former Governor Dean and Gerry Spence yet? I quoted from Spence's book, "With Justice for None - Destroying a Great American Myth," some of his thoughts about misinformed, self-aggrandizing and deluded law professors. There is much fodder there for destroying the myth that the courts are halls of justice. The Vermont Bar Journals attached to the Spence letter demonstrate the practice of law in Vermont is "less a science" and more a business and practice of Political demagoguery.
I wrote that letter to Spence when I heard he was coming to Vermont Law school to speak at their Graduation ceremonies in 2001. As you will see in the letter I let him know "Vermont's judiciary is nothing to be proud of." His response and speech indicated he agreed (get a local lawyer, soon!!!) He missed a good opportunity to challenge some Bar brain who spoke before him brainwashing the new recruits with admonishments of "overlooking judges' and jurors' bias, you'll have that occasionally." They all turn a blind eye to the excesses of their brethren at the BAR (how many corrupt, perjuring, embezzling, conniving judges or lawyers have you heard of going to jail in this land of "equal justice under the law"?), to maintain their self- serving bench-made power structure (professional courtesy you know).
Spence did thunder out a few good thought provokers though. He pointed out "the law can be a bully!,..., if you are going to work for the dead-government or Corporations, I don't want anything to do with you,..., if you are for people, I am there,... what is justice, well that might be difficult to explain,..., what is injustice, that is easier to identify, your forefathers knew what injustices were, they FOUGHT WARS over INJUSTICES!!!"
One of the BAR association talking points is that we are anarchists for challenging the inequities of the "status quo." I would counter that they are the anarchists for not abiding by the "Supreme law of the Land-- the U.S. Constitution" .....
Advocating for legislation as proposed by www.jail4judges.org is the reasonable alternative to what is brewing all across the nation as evidenced by the many "property, children, family, ..., rights" groups and Marches forming in direct response to "judicial tyranny." The big question is, will the powers- that-be learn from the lessons in history and what an attitude of indifference and "let them eat cake" results in? Or, will the "reasonable man standard" prevail and open-public debate be allowed to better insure the "general welfare, common defense, domestic tranquility, the Supreme Law of the Land - the U.S. Constitution."
J.A.I.L. is an acronym for Judicial Accountability Initiative Law JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope! JAIL is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire! JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability! JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603 To subscribe or be removed: add-remove-jail@... E-Groups sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join Open forum to make your voice heard JAIL-SoundOff@egroups.com Ask not what J.A.I.L. can do for me, but ask what I can do for J.A.I.L.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><
Former federal judge, upon hearing about New Jersey's overwhelming corruption, states in defense that N.J.'s corruption is no greater than anywhere else in the United States.
Herbert Stern, who was U.S. attorney here in the early 1970s
and later a federal judge, said New Jersey's political corruption
is no worse than in other states. ...
Locking Up N.J.'s Bad Guys
Los Angeles Times, February 27, 2003
A rookie federal prosecutor finds success not by chasing the mob,
but by taking on the Garden State's corrupt politicians
By Josh Getlin
Times Staff Writer
[Excerpts]
NEWARK N.J. -- James W. Treffinger was the political boss of Essex County and one of New Jersey's most powerful Republicans. When rumors circulated that he might be the target of a federal corruption probe, he scoffed, boasting to an associate that the rookie U.S. attorney wouldn't know a law book from a cookbook.
Treffinger could not believe that a newcomer like Christopher J. Christie would actually take on New Jersey's political big shots and crack down on the corruption that has long been a fixture in the Garden State. Critics joked that the fledgling prosecutor had been watching too many episodes of "The Sopranos."
But no one's laughing any more. The U.S. attorney indicted Treffinger on 20 counts of extortion, fraud and conspiracy, and the indignant official was hauled into court in leg irons and hand-cuffs. ...
....
The arrest and humiliation of one of New Jersey's most influential politician last year stunned many here.
....
Christie filed 26 cases against a multitude of office holders in 2002, more than any other U.S. attorney's office, and won 17 convictions or guilty pleas. He promises that new indictments will be announced in coming months, but for those New Jersey officials who might be his next targets, the really bad news is that Christie... seems to be enjoying himself immensely.
....
.... In a state where the governor commands unusual power-- appointing all constitutional officers, state judges and many lesser office holders-- New Jersey's sole U.S. attorney enjoys a striking degree of autonomy.
"I didn't anticipate coming in that we would be making this kind of crime a focus," Christie said recently in his Newark office, which commands sweeping views of Lower Manhattan. "But once I got here, it became clear that the activity involving corruption would be brisk. We've been breaking cases almost every other week, and I'm amazed. There is so much of this stuff everywhere you look."
Christie .... has put New Jersey political corruption at the top of his agenda.
Triggering shock waves from Princeton to Perth Amboy, his office has established a zero tolerance for bribery, extortion and other crimes by politicians, no matter how minor the offense. ...
Christie has had no shortage of cases to prosecute, experts say, because of New Jersey's fragmented political structure. ...
Given the state's booming suburban growth, observers say, there are many opportunities for officials to cross the line. Some of them pocket small cash bribes from developers, convinced they will never be found out. In other cases, people shower local politicians with huge campaign contributions in a brazenly open "pay to play" culture of buying access-- and municipal contracts-- in exchange for cash and other personal favors.
The corruption is pervasive, "almost an epidemic," said Christie, who has been investigating officials from the top rungs of state politics down to the obscure power brokers in small New Jersey towns. ...
....
Herbert Stern, who was U.S. attorney here in the early 1970s and later a federal judge, said New Jersey's political corruption is no worse than in other states. ...
Given such history, New Jerseyans can't be blamed for thinking that corruption is unavoidable. In 1981 and 1988 surveys by the Eagleton-Rutgers poll, a majority said half of local politicians are corrupt. [They appear to have overlooked the other half. -ed.] ...
....
But even the most jaded observers were surprised by the number of small-town politicians caught up in Christie's crackdown last year.
.... "You have mayors and other officials in New Jersey with broad discretion to give contracts, often without any bids. You have many governmental bodies, all with big pots of money to spend."
As new subdivisions, roads and shopping centers spring up across the state, there are more opportunities for ethically challenged local officials to "turn the corner, to cross the line" and either accept or solicit bribes, he said. And the psychological pressures that cause someone to travel down this path are distressingly common.
"We've seen so many cases where an official has been approving contracts for years that make developers, highway construction firms, and other people quite rich," he said. "And then, one day, this person asks: 'What's in it for me?' "
That's what happened to Janiszewski, a powerful ... official in Hudson County who was thought to have a bright future in party politics. But he was caught accepting a developer's $5,000 cash bribe at an Atlantic City hotel by FBI agents who burst into the room minutes after their hidden camera recorded the transaction. ...
....
Other officials have fought back, angrily proclaiming their innocence and denouncing Christie for being overzealous. ...
....
Terrance D. Weldon had similar thoughts in Asbury Park, believing he could shake down developers without getting caught, and his fall has even Christie shaking his head. The most puzzling stories, he says, are those where an official who has it all tries to steal some more.
Weldon, a community leader and former Asbury Park fire chief, helped craft a sweeping redevelopment plan for the shabby, deteriorating beach town made famous by Bruce Springsteen. Weldon was simultaneously the town's city manager and the mayor of nearby Ocean Township, hugely respected in both communities.
....
According to prosecutors, Weldon accepted three bribes totaling $64,000 from developers seeking approval for housing construction near the Jersey shore.
In one case, he had taken $3,000 from a developer, and then sought an additional $2,000 explaining that his family was going on vacation and needed cash.
When federal agents raided his home, they found $50,000 stuffed in the vest pocket of a jacket hanging in his attic. Weldon agreed to plead guilty, though he is not cooperating with authorities, and will face up to 20 years in prison when he is sentenced later this month.
The Asbury Park case, Christie said, is distressingly typical of many local corruption stories.
"They all remind me of an old saying-- that you can judge somebody's character by what they do when they think that nobody else is watching," he said. "We have to change that mind-set here in New Jersey and tell politicians that when we catch them, they won't be getting their wrists slapped. They're going to jail."
All we can say is thank God that the judges in New Jersey are above political corruption and bribe-taking. -Ron Branson
J.A.I.L. is an acronym for Judicial Accountability Initiative Law JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope! JAIL is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire! JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability! JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603 To subscribe or be removed: add-remove-jail@... E-Groups sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join Open forum to make your voice heard JAIL-SoundOff@egroups.com Ask not what J.A.I.L. can do for me, but ask what I can do for J.A.I.L.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><
Attempts To Flee Accident She Caused Cited for drunk driving and hit-and-run
And she's addressed as "Your Honor"??
As your read the story below, ask yourself three questions:
1- What would happen to you or me if we were involved in a hit and run... and blew a 0.22 (three times the legal limit) on a breathalyzer test?
2- What do you think is gonna happen to this judge when she appears before another judge?
3- Regarding your answer to #2... is that one of the benefits of the Divine Right of Kings?
Heh... do you even think she will have to appear? Wanna give me odds that it will be Adjourned in Contemplation Of Dismissal? What are you going to do about it folks? Well... I'll bet each of you know two people who think "that's just the way it is. Can't do nuthin' about it". But you can do something about it. You can put those two people on the J4J email list by sending their email address to AddRemove@... and to your state JIC.
SEATTLE -- State Supreme Court Justice Bobbe Bridge apologized Sunday, two days after she was cited for drunken driving and hit and run for allegedly trying to drive away from the scene of an accident.
Bridge, 58, called her behavior inexcusable and promised to seek a professional evaluation of her alcohol use.
"There are not words to describe how deeply remorseful I am," she said. "I thank God no one was hurt."
Bridge, 58, was arrested Friday night after another driver called to report that a silver Mercedes had struck an unoccupied pickup truck in Seattle, police spokesman Scott Moss said. The Mercedes allegedly continued driving until the witness pulled in front of it and boxed it in, the witness told police.
Bridge took two breath tests, registering blood-alcohol levels of 0.219 percent and 0.227 percent -- nearly three times the state's legal limit of 0.08 percent.
Gov. Gary Locke appointed Bridge to the court in 2000 to replace retiring Justice Barbara Durham. She was elected to a full six-year term after running unopposed last year.
(Follow-up to above article from Bill Wood, North Carolina JAILer woodb01@...)
Why not start an e-mail and letter campaign demanding the same treatment that non-judges and non-lawyers receive. And if the treatment is any different that you will work hard to expose the legal connection / corruption in the state.
This judge is a CRIMINAL that belongs BEHIND BARS and NOT on the bench!
Start writing the newspapers insisting that the judge will get favorable treatment from her connections... That the legal system is filled with insider corruption even worse than politics!
Watch the sparks fly!
Bill has a great idea. Every time you read in the newspaper of a judge being accused of something, send letter to the Editor of that paper... and an email to your own state legislators and judges demanding equal treatment for all. What do you think would happen if your local paper received a few dozen letters on the same incident?
And for those of you with a good sarcastic mind, send a Letter to the Editor explaining why judges and lawyers should be treated with leniency. After all, the very nature of their jobs is all-important and they shouldn't have to worry about all the little things in life which concern the rest of us. This should be another little benefit for those who enjoy the Divine Right of Kings. After all, they really didn't mean to do it and you are sure they are sorry for what they did.
Maybe they will print it and you will have a chance to make the sheeple angry enough to get out the pitchforks and sickles and storm the castle. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
Ron Loeber, NY JIC
J.A.I.L. is an acronym for Judicial Accountability Initiative Law JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope! JAIL is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire! JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability! JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603 To subscribe or be removed: add-remove-jail@... E-Groups sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join Open forum to make your voice heard JAIL-SoundOff@egroups.com Ask not what J.A.I.L. can do for me, but ask what I can do for J.A.I.L.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><
District Attorney Terence Hallinan got more than he asked for when a grand jury returned its indictment of 10 cops, including the upper echelon of San Francisco's police department, sources within the district attorney's office said Friday.
Hallinan "felt like the bombardier on the Enola Gay" when he looked at the indictment prepared by the panel Thursday, one source said, referring to the U. S. plane that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima in World War II.
He thought, "Christ, look what we have just done!"
On Friday, as word of the indictment spread, the outlines of how the SFPD's top command came to be implicated in a case that began with three cops involved in a street fight began to emerge from interviews.
The answer appears to lie in a grand jury with a mind of its own.
According to sources familiar with the case, the district attorney's office,
represented by veteran career criminal prosecutor Al Murray and Hallinan himself, was seeking a more limited indictment when it began grand jury proceedings on Jan. 28.
"You just had a grand jury that ran away," one source said. "It can happen where you say, 'I would like to indict A and B for crimes 1, 2 and 3,' and the grand jury comes back and says, 'We also want to indict C, D, E and F on 4, 5 and 6,' "
Hallinan declined comment, and Murray could not be reached. But, according to one of the sources, Hallinan -- during opening and closing statements to jurors -- invited them to not sit passively as listeners but rather delve into the evidence as they wished.
One of the sources said Hallinan asked the jurors "to operate as investigators," and they apparently took him up on it.
"They asked hundreds of questions" and heard from 42 witnesses, one source said.
By the end, the grand jurors returned felony assault indictments against Officers Alex Fagan Jr., 23, son of Assistant Chief Alex Fagan Sr., Matthew Tonsing, 28, and David Lee, 23, and conspiracy to obstruct justice indictments against Chief Earl Sanders, second-in-command Fagan Sr., Deputy Chief Greg Suhr, Deputy Chief David Robinson, Capt. Greg Corrales, Lt. Ed Cota and Sgt. John Syme.
Fagan Jr., Tonsing and Lee are accused of beating up two men while off-duty outside a Union Street bar at about 2:30 a.m. Nov. 20, after a celebration at a restaurant several blocks away commemorating the promotion of Fagan Sr. to assistant chief.
The others are accused of impeding the police investigation of the alleged assault.
One grand juror who spoke on condition of anonymity said the jury, which was impaneled for four months and heard numerous cases, deliberated fairly in the police department case.
"It was made up of 19 very good citizens, an extremely diverse group," the juror said. "None of us took this lightly. We knew this would impact the city at all levels, it would impact all these people's lives and their family's lives. We knew there was a high threshold."
Of the decision, the juror said, "It had to do with the facts of the case. That's really what we judged the evidence on."
HALLINAN ON HOT SEAT
Next to Chief Sanders and the other nine indicted commanders and officers, the person most on the hot seat as a result of the grand jury's decision is Hallinan, the combative, two-term D.A. who has clashed with Mayor Willie Brown and the SFPD in the past and faces what is expected to be another tough re- election campaign this fall.
One prosecutor in the D.A.'s office said that when a grand jury expands the scope of a prosecution "the big issue is whether there is evidence to support it at trial." If not, the D.A. should dismiss what it can't prove, the prosecutor said.
But "as a practical matter," the prosecutor added, "you made the choice to go to the grand jury, and they decided your case for you."
However, another source familiar with the case said Hallinan became convinced that the grand jury got it right and that the transcript of the proceedings, when it becomes public, will bear him out.
According to the source, the jurors "got a lot more pissed off" about the conduct of the department's command staff than Hallinan himself ever did.
Hallinan had cited the department's alleged failure to thoroughly investigate as his reason for taking the matter to the grand jury.
As an alternative to taking the case to a grand jury, Hallinan simply could have filed criminal charges and taken the case before a judge who would decide at a preliminary hearing whether there was sufficient evidence to place the defendants on trial.
In a preliminary hearing, defense lawyers get the opportunity to cross- examine government witnesses. In a secret grand jury proceeding, no such cross- examination occurs.
POLITICALLY CHARGED CASE
Some legal observers said Hallinan had good reason to employ a grand jury rather than file charges directly in such a politically charged case.
"In political cases, there is a cleansing that goes on when you hand it to a grand jury of citizens and have them decide," San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi said. "Given the fact that prosecutors and police have such a close relationship, it would make sense to have this case go to the grand jury. "
Others questioned whether Hallinan jumped the gun in taking the case to the grand jury, however.
"Terence is a very impulsive guy," said Peter Keane, dean of Golden Gate University School of Law in San Francisco, citing, among other things, scrapes the D.A. has gotten in with San Francisco judges over statements to the press.
"If nothing else, it should be great theater," Keane said. "My first reaction is Hallinan has bitten off a big chunk here, and he better be prepared to chew it and swallow it."
Grand juries have wide authority to act
This is how a criminal county grand jury works in San Francisco:
The grand jury is made up of 19 members from the community and typically meets twice a week for four months. The jurors are chosen by San Francisco's presiding judge. There are three grand juries impaneled a year.
Grand juries go as far back as the Middle Ages. They were used in England to protect citizens from the overreaching authority of the crown.
In San Francisco, 150 people are summoned to duty for each grand jury. Of that number, the judge eliminates anyone with a hardship. Of the remaining prospective jurors, 32 names are randomly pulled from an old iron drum. They are individually questioned by the judge to determine whether they can be objective and impartial. A background check is also conducted to ensure that none of the prospective jurors has a felony conviction. Then the names go back in the drum and 19 are randomly chosen. From that number the judge picks a foreperson.
The grand jury can be used to investigate criminal activity and to issue indictments. It usually hears multiple cases during the four months it is in service and has subpoena power. There must be at least 12 jurors in the room to conduct business. They conduct their business in secret and jurors swear not to discuss their deliberations, even after their service ends, although the transcripts of the deliberations are made public.
Once a prosecutor has brought a case to the jurors, they have far more authority than those hearing a trial. They can grill witnesses, ask for further evidence and conduct their own inquiries.
While no defense attorneys are allowed in the jury room, prosecutors are required by law to not only present damaging evidence but must show anything that is favorable or exculpatory.
It takes 12 jurors, who have heard all the evidence from beginning to end, all to agree before an indictment is issued. The jurors also have the power to indict people other than those brought before the panel.
CHRONOLOGY OF THE CASE
Nov. 19
Alex Fagan Jr., Matthew Tonsing, David Lee and more than 100 other off-duty police officers attend a banquet at House of Prime Rib to celebrate the promotion of Fagan's father, Alex Fagan Sr., to assistant chief.
Nov. 20
(Times are approximate)
12 a.m.: The banquet breaks up. Fagan Jr., Tonsing and Lee go to the Bus Stop bar on Union Street.
2 a.m.: The three officers leave the Bus Stop. About 100 yards away, Adam Snyder --, a bartender, is closing up at the Blue Light bar. He leaves with his friend Jade Santoro.
2:20 a.m.: Two of the officers allegedly accost Snyder and Santoro on Union Street and demand Santoro's bag of steak fajitas. The third drives up in a pickup truck, and a fight ensues.
2:27 a.m.: Snyder calls 911 on his cell phone. "I need some cops fast," he tells the dispatcher. He later tells the dispatcher, "I just got out of work, and they just started fighting us, over nothing."
2:29 a.m.: Police arrive to find Snyder and Santoro bleeding and their assailants gone. The three officers later return to the scene, but the investigating officers allow them to leave without being questioned, tested for alcohol or having their clothing checked for blood or other evidence.
4 a.m.: Capt. Greg Corrales, Tonsing's and Lee's boss at the Mission District police station, is called to Northern Station, where the three officers had been taken. He arrives 40 minutes later to find the three officers are present but have not been interviewed. He said they appeared to be sober. Corrales summons the supervising lieutenant of the night investigations unit and an internal affairs inspector. That investigator does not arrive at Northern Station until after 5 a.m.
5 a.m.: Santoro, who told police he suffered a broken nose, is released from San Francisco General Hospital after doctors staple closed a gash to his head.
7 a.m.: Investigators take urine samples to test for alcohol from Fagan Jr.,
Tonsing and Lee.
Nov. 22
District Attorney Terence Hallinan meets with police officials and declares afterward that "we are upset by the way this investigation has been pursued so far, as are the police officers we spoke with." Police Chief Earl Sanders, who does not attend the meeting, later defends his department and compares critics of the probe to those who vilified Jesus Christ. Mayor Willie Brown suggests the incident was one of "mutual combat."
Nov. 27
Corrales calls the accusations against the officers "ludicrous," but concedes that the initial investigation was lax.
Dec. 2
Police officials reveal that Fagan Jr. had been ordered to undergo anger management after yelling and cursing at a suspect in September. The training was put off after the Union Street incident.
Dec. 5
Police sources say inspectors looking into the initial investigation have been barred from interviewing several officers, examining cell phone records and disciplinary histories.
Dec. 11
Police hand over their findings in the case to Hallinan. The district attorney asks for follow-up inquiries.
Jan. 10, 2003
The FBI says it has started a preliminary investigation into potential civil rights violations stemming from incidents of alleged brutality involving Fagan Jr. The district attorney's office is conducting a similar probe. Three men have filed claims with the city alleging Fagan Jr. and other officers roughed them up during arrests.
Jan. 14
Lt. Joe Dutto, who had been leading the police investigation, is transferred to the vice squad. Dutto's reaction: "You can read between the lines."
Jan. 15
Hallinan blasts Dutto's transfer and says of the SFPD brass, "There's a failure to cooperate here." Dutto says the command staff put obstacles in his way. Police officials insist the transfer was routine and done as part of a larger shakeup.
Jan. 28
Hallinan takes case to criminal grand jury, calling the first of what will eventually be more than 40 witnesses.
Feb. 12
Memo surfaces from Sgt. Vickie Stansberry, Fagan Jr.'s former supervising sergeant, dating from Sept. 19. In it, she warns superiors that Fagan Jr. was a problem officer prone to clashing with suspects and supervisors alike.
Feb. 27
A grand jury returns indictments against Fagan Jr., Tonsing, Lee on assault charges, and seven other members on charges of conspiracy to obstruct justice: Sanders, Fagan Sr., Corrales, Deputy Chief Greg Suhr, Deputy Chief David Robinson, Lt. Ed Cota and Sgt. John Syme.
Chronicle staff writer Suzanne Herel contributed to this report. / E-mail Chuck Finnie at cfinnie@....
J.A.I.L. is an acronym for Judicial Accountability Initiative Law JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope! JAIL is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire! JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability! JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603 To subscribe or be removed: add-remove-jail@... E-Groups sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join Open forum to make your voice heard JAIL-SoundOff@egroups.com Ask not what J.A.I.L. can do for me, but ask what I can do for J.A.I.L.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><
That juror would be capable of heeding most strictly
the judge's admonition to decide the case on the basis of
the evidence presented in court and nothing else.
-Harry Rosenfeld, Editor
Following is an article published a year ago in the New York Times Union about what the "justice" system expects a juror to be. Below the article is a commentary by Ron Loeber, New York JAILer-In-Chief, valortoo@...
When state Supreme Court Justice Joseph Teresi issued a "very strong, strict cautionary" in mid-February to defense and plaintiffs attorneys, he said he wanted to make sure that he would be able to find impartial jurors for the three cases before him arising from allegations of sexual abuse of minors by priests in the Albany Roman Catholic Diocese. He also worried about cases that could come to trial in the future.
His initial 13-page instruction applied to lawyers and apparently to witnesses, including victims and interested parties, to keep them from speaking out publicly. The Albany Diocese making public its disciplining a priest for cause could have fallen under the ban.
As such, his action appeared to be unique among the current spate of legal actions throughout the country connected with charges of sexual misconduct by clergy with minors. In no other jurisdiction had a judge gone that far, as best as could be ascertained.
Since then, the justice in response to a letter from a defense attorney asking for clarification limited his cautionary to the traditional rules governing the conduct of lawyers. Nothing was said about witnesses.
Whoever is included at this stage in the cautionary (its exact scope remains unclear), the likelihood of finding a jury that would not be somewhat acquainted with allegations of clerical abuse seems more than remote. The question really is whether such a "virgin" jury is necessary or even particularly desirable.
Under a certain (and arguably patronizing) view of a perfect jury, people exposed to information about a pending case, whether too much of the good kind (factual) or the bad kind ("rumor, gossip and innuendo") would not be able to properly execute their juror's oath. Taking it to its logical implications, then, the ideal juror would be a person who had neither read, heard nor seen any TV about the matter at trial.
In our day, that means someone so shut out from interest in the life of the community that he or she would not have cared enough to become informed in the least way about such a compelling and heart-wrenching matter as the shocking misbehavior of clergy.
Such an indifferent person should, in fact, be among the least qualified to serve on a jury. He or she would be either a dolt, incapable of discerning grievous wrongdoing, or alienated from the rest of the world, lacking even the minimal empathy required to live successfully among others.
Society is best served if most people are not turned off or uncaring about what is happening in their community. Most people do take an interest when allegations of this sort attain a general credibility, whether it impacts them directly or not.
Especially given the adversarial nature of the justice system, an informed, engaged and intelligent person should constitute the preferred juror. That juror would be capable of heeding most strictly the judge's admonition to decide the case on the basis of the evidence presented in court and nothing else. That juror would have the sophistication and the savvy to keep whatever he or she may have heard, read or seen about the case from interfering with the juror's sworn oath.
A long-ago event, Watergate, was exposed by intensive media coverage over many months of allegations of wrongdoing at the highest level of government. It was those news reports that set in motion the wheels of justice, even though in time they would amount to a superabundance of pretrial publicity.
Despite the barrage of news coverage, several juries were impaneled and able to render justice. No one was deprived of a fair trial. If the accused in Watergate could get fair trials, then it also should be possible to discover fair-minded jurors in Albany County today.
A fair public trial is the cornerstone of American justice. Public engagement with important matters before they come to trial would seem to be a contributing ingredient. If witnesses and potential witnesses were to be silenced by the court, then those with legitimate complaints could be intimidated from coming forward and speaking out.
In cases such as these, some of the claims will be fraudulent; others will involve genuine victims too afraid to speak out before. The justice system, with an interested and informed public looking on, will sort out the allegations.
Harry Rosenfeld is editor-at-large of the Times Union. His e-mail address is hrosenfeld@....
.... I want you to think about the term "jury of your peers" for a moment. If you think about what this country was like when the term was first used, then you have to come to the conclusion those "peers" were intended to be people in your own community; people who were familiar with you; knew you; knew your family; knew your character. That was who sat in judgment of you... and it worked... for decades. It was understood by all that jurors had an awesome responsibility and your "peers" would vote their consciences and not their prejudices. After all, under the Form of Government in which we live, no one may be convicted without the consent of the people... a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Now think about what happens today with use of the device they call voir dire. Voir dire is a game played by government guys called lawyers and judges to select jurors who are NOT your "peers"... jurors who do not know you, do not know your family, do not know you character. Voir dire is a game played by lawyers and judges to select jurors who will do as they are told in the instructions to the jury as given by the judge. The jury selected for the trial of the 4 cops who shot Amadou Diallo said after the trial that based upon the "instructions" of this same Judge Teresi, they had to find the cops Not Guilty even though they felt it was the wrong thing to do.
Joe Teresi "...said he wanted to make sure that he would be able to find impartial jurors for the three cases before him...." Let's think about that for a moment. The Diallo trial was moved from NYC to Albany because the courts determined the cops could not get a fair trial as a result of the newspaper coverage. Said another way, all of the awesome power and resources of government could not find 12 honest people in a city of 8,000,000. Now Joe Teresi is saying that if the newspapers do their job, he may not be able to convene three honest responsible juries in the very Capital of the Empire State with all of the awesome power and resources of government behind him. Is the Empire losing its power? Yeah... right. Give me a break.
Judge Teresi's Order in the case against the Albany Roman Catholic Diocese is the first step in ensuring the voir dire game will be played with the desired result; the selection of jurors who live with their hands over their ears, eyes, and mouth... and will follow his instructions. New York had a monumental problem with the killing of Amadou Diallo and good ole Joe Teresi solved it with a Not Guilty verdict on all charges... and all lesser included charges... against all four defendants. Joe Teresi is about to solve the problem for the Albany Roman Catholic Diocese, too. Joe Teresi is the problem-solver for those who wield power and influence... and it doesn't matter if he has to violate someone's rights to do it. After all, he is one of the Chosen who enjoys the protection of the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings, AKA, judicial immunity.
Ron Loeber
NYJAIL4Judges
PO Box 193
Knox, NY 12107
J.A.I.L. is an acronym for Judicial Accountability Initiative Law JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope! JAIL is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire! JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability! JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603 To subscribe or be removed: add-remove-jail@... E-Groups sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join Open forum to make your voice heard JAIL-SoundOff@egroups.com Ask not what J.A.I.L. can do for me, but ask what I can do for J.A.I.L.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><
The American legal system has been corrupted almost beyond recognition, Judge Edith Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, told
the Federalist Society of Harvard Law School on February 28.
She said that the question of what is morally right is routinely sacrificed to what is politically expedient. The change has come because legal
philosophy has descended to nihilism.
"The integrity of law, its religious roots, its transcendent quality are disappearing. I saw the movie 'Chicago' with Richard Gere the other day. That's the way the public thinks about lawyers," she told the students.
"The first 100 years of American lawyers were trained on Blackstone, who wrote that: 'The law of nature dictated by God Himself is binding in all counties and at all times; no human laws are of any validity if contrary to
this; and such of them as are valid derive all force and all their authority
from this original.' The Framers created a government of limited power
with this understanding of the rule of law - that it was dependent on transcendent religious obligation," said Jones.
She said that the business about all of the Founding Fathers being deists is "just wrong," or "way overblown." She says they believed in "faith and reason," and this did not lead to intolerance. "This is not a prescription for intolerance or narrow sectarianism," she continued, "for unalienable rights were given by God to all our fellow citizens. Having lost sight of the moral and religious foundations of the rule of law, we are vulnerable to the destruction of our freedom, our equality before the law and our
self-respect. It is my fervent hope that this new century will experience a revival of the original understanding of the rule of law and its roots.
"The answer is a recovery of moral principle, the sine qua non of an
orderly society. Post 9/11, many events have been clarified. It is hard to remain a moral relativist when your own people are being killed."
According to the judge, the first contemporary threat to the rule of law comes from within the legal system itself. Alexis de Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America and one of the first writers to observe the United States from the outside looking-in, "described lawyers as a natural aristocracy in America," Jones told the students. "The intellectual basis of their profession and the study of law based on venerable precedents bred
in them habits of order and a taste for formalities and predictability."
As Tocqueville saw it, "These qualities enabled attorneys to stand apart
from the passions of the majority. Lawyers were respected by the citizens and able to guide them and moderate the public's whims. Lawyers were essential to tempering the potential tyranny of the majority.
"Some lawyers may still perceive our profession in this flattering light, but
to judge from polls and the tenor of lawyer jokes, I doubt the public shares Tocqueville's view anymore, and it is hard for us to do so.
"The legal aristocracy have shed their professional independence for the temptations and materialism associated with becoming businessmen. Because law has become a self-avowed business, pressure mounts to give clients the advice they want to hear, to pander to the clients' goal through deft manipulation of the law. While the business mentality produces certain benefits, like occasional competition to charge clients lower fees, other adverse effects include advertising and shameless self-promotion. The
legal system has also been wounded by lawyers who themselves no longer respect the rule of law."
The judge quoted Kenneth Starr as saying, "It is decidedly unchristian to
win at any cost," and added that most lawyers agree with him. However,
"An increasingly visible and vocal number apparently believe that the strategic use of anger and incivility will achieve their aims. Others seem uninhibited about making misstatements to the court or their opponents or destroying or falsifying evidence," she claimed. "When lawyers cannot be trusted to observe the fair processes essential to maintaining the rule of
law, how can we expect the public to respect the process?"
Lawsuits Do Not Bring 'Social Justice'
Another pernicious development within the legal system is the misuse of lawsuits, according to her. "We see lawsuits wielded as weapons of revenge," she says. "Lawsuits are brought that ultimately line the pockets
of lawyers rather than their clients. The lawsuit is not the best way to
achieve social justice, and to think it is, is a seriously flawed hypothesis.
There are better ways to achieve social goals than by going into court."
Jones said that employment litigation is a particularly fertile field for this
kind of abuse. "Seldom are employment discrimination suits in our court supported by direct evidence of race or sex-based animosity. Instead, the courts are asked to revisit petty interoffice disputes and to infer invidious motives from trivial comments or work-performance criticism. Recrimination, second-guessing and suspicion plague the workplace when tenuous discrimination suits are filed creating an atmosphere in which many corporate defendants are forced into costly settlements because they
simply cannot afford to vindicate their positions.
"While the historical purpose of the common law was to compensate for individual injuries, this new litigation instead purports to achieve
redistributive social justice. Scratch the surface of the attorneys' self-
serving press releases, however, and one finds how enormously profitable social redistribution is for those lawyers who call themselves 'agents of change.' "
Jones wonders, "What social goal is achieved by transferring millions of dollars to the lawyers, while their clients obtain coupons or token rebates."
The judge quoted George Washington who asked in his Farewell Address, "Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths in courts of justice?" Similarly, asked Jones, how can a system founded on law survive if the administrators of
the law daily display their contempt for it?
"Lawyers' private morality has definite public consequences," she said. "Their misbehavior feeds on itself, encouraging disrespect and debasement of the rule of law as the public become encouraged to press their own advantage in a system they perceive as manipulatable."
The second threat to the rule of law comes from government, which is encumbered with agencies that have made the law so complicated that it is difficult to decipher and often contradicts itself. "Agencies have an inherent tendency to expand their mandate," says Jones. "At the same time, their decision-making often becomes parochial and short-sighted. They may be captured by the entities that are ostensibly being regulated, or they may pursue agency self-interest at the expense of the public welfare. Citizens
left at the mercy of selective and unpredictable agency action have little recourse."
Jones recommends three books by Philip Howard: The Death of Common Sense, The Collapse of the Common Good and The Lost Art of Drawing the Line, which further delineate this problem.
The third and most comprehensive threat to the rule of law arises from contemporary legal philosophy. "Throughout my professional life,
American legal education has been ruled by theories like positivism, the residue of legal realism, critical legal studies, post-modernism and other philosophical fashions," said Jones. "Each of these theories has a lot to
say about the 'is' of law, but none of them addresses the 'ought,' the moral foundation or direction of law."
Jones quoted Roger C. Cramton, a law professor at Cornell University,
who wrote in the 1970s that "the ordinary religion of the law school classroom" is "a moral relativism tending toward nihilism, a pragmatism tending toward an amoral instrumentalism, a realism tending toward cynicism, an individualism tending toward atomism, and a faith in reason
and democratic processes tending toward mere credulity and idolatry."
No 'Great Awakening' In Law School Classrooms
The judge said ruefully, "There has been no Great Awakening in the law school classroom since those words were written." She maintained that
now it is even worse because faith and democratic processes are breaking down.
"The problem with legal philosophy today is that it reflects all too well the broader post-Enlightenment problem of philosophy," Jones said. She
quoted Ernest Fortin, who wrote in Crisis magazine: "The whole of
modern thought has been a series of heroic attempts to reconstruct a
world of human meaning and value on the basis of our purely mechanistic understanding of the universe."
Jones said that all of these threats to the rule of law have a common thread running through them, and she quoted Professor Harold Berman to identify it: "The traditional Western beliefs in the structural integrity of law, its ongoingness, its religious roots, its transcendent qualities, are disappearing not only from the minds of law teachers and law students but also from the consciousness of the vast majority of citizens, the people as a whole; and more than that, they are disappearing from the law itself. The law itself is becoming more fragmented, more subjective, geared more to expediency and less to morality. The historical soil of the Western legal tradition is
being washed away and the tradition itself is threatened with collapse."
Judge Jones concluded with another thought from George Washington:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the
tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of
human happiness - these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."
Upon taking questions from students, Judge Jones recommended Michael Novak's book, On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense.
"Natural law is not a prescriptive way to solve problems," Jones said.
"It is a way to look at life starting with the Ten Commandments." Natural
law provides "a framework for government that permits human freedom," Jones said. "If you take that away, what are you left with? Bodily senses? The will of the majority? The communist view? What is it - 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need?' I don't even remember it, thank the Lord," she said to the amusement of the students.
"I am an unabashed patriot - I think the United States is the healthiest
society in the world at this point in time," Jones said, although she did concede that there were other ways to accommodate the rule of law,
such as constitutional monarchy. "Our legal system is way out of kilter,"
she said. "The tort litigating system is wreaking havoc. Look at any trials
that have been conducted on TV. These lawyers are willing to say
anything."
Potential Nominee to Supreme Court
Judge Edith Jones has been mentioned as a potential nominee to the
Supreme Court in the Bush administration, but does not relish the idea.
"Have you looked at what people have to go through who are nominated
for federal appointments? They have to answer questions like, 'Did you
pay your nanny taxes?' 'Is your yard man illegal?'
"In those circumstances, who is going to go out to be a federal judge? People who have accomplished nothing. In other words, federal employees."
Judge Edith H. Jones has a B.A. from Cornell University and a J.D. from
the University of Texas School of Law. She was appointed to the Fifth Circuit by President Ronald Reagan in 1985. Her office is in the U.S. Courthouse in Houston.
The Federalist Society
The Federalist Society was founded in 1982 when a group of law students from Harvard, Stanford, the University of Chicago and Yale organized a symposium on federalism at Yale Law School. These students were
unhappy with the academic climate on their campuses for some of the reasons outlined by Judge Jones. The Federalist Society was created to
be a forum for a wider range of legal viewpoints than they were hearing
in the course of their studies.
From the four schools mentioned above, the Society has grown to include over 150 law school chapters. The Harvard chapter, with over 250
members, is one of the nation's largest and most active. They seek to contribute to civilized dialogue at the Law School by providing a libertarian and conservative voice on campus and by sponsoring speeches and
debates on a wide range of legal and policy issues.
The Federalist Society consists of libertarians and conservatives interested
in the current state of the legal profession. It is founded on three principles: 1) the state exists to preserve freedom, 2) the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and 3) it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to state what the law is, not what it should be.
J.A.I.L. is an acronym for Judicial Accountability Initiative Law JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope! JAIL is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire! JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability! JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603 To subscribe or be removed: add-remove-jail@... E-Groups sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join Open forum to make your voice heard JAIL-SoundOff@egroups.com Ask not what J.A.I.L. can do for me, but ask what I can do for J.A.I.L.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><
On a note to our local, or should I say, state level JAIL4Judges groups, if we can send a $10.00 donation to our national group, can't we put the same effort or contribution towards our state program as well?
Ron Branson Replies
Dear John Kinney and all JAILers:
There is absolutely nothing in our J.A.I.L. Constitution and By-Laws that prevents the requisition of local or state funding from its own JAILers. Indeed wisdom dictates that some amount of support be directed to local and state efforts of J.A.I.L. As to what the definition of "some amount" would be is a question of discretion on the part of your state JIC. I would only advise the JICs to use caution and wisdom to not set the bar too high as to discourage those who are merely struggling to exist.
Also, the JICs should assure that the funds collected for their state, or their counties by their Wardens faithfully go to the J.A.I.L. cause. Monetary mismanagement is the downfall of many organizations.
J.A.I.L., as designed, exists on a federal, state and a county level, all in need of substance, each potentially drawing resources from the same well, i.e., the JAILers. As the Commander-In-Chief, I was once criticized by one concerned JAILer that it was immoral for everyone to draw upon my time and resources for nothing. Indeed the Scripture instructs that we are not to muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn, and the laborer is worthy of his hire.
While we have yet to reach the standard of corn for the ox, or worth of my labor, I have indeed imposed $10 twice annually (March and September) for all JAILers to support National J.A.I.L. This amount merely addressed the criticism of everyone in J.A.I.L. receiving a benefit without paying anything for it.
This month being March, it is time for everyone to send their $10 to P.O. Box 207, North Hollywood, CA. 91603, if they have not already done so, and I know that a lot of you have not.
I would remind you that every dollar given to J.A.I.L. is equal to a $1000 given to most any other organization or cause because of the mileage J.A.I.L. gets out of a dollar. I don't suppose their exists an organization on earth that has grown so far with so very little support, (less than a movie ticket), giving rise to the miracle of J.A.I.L.'s existence.
So JAILers, get out your wallets and place that $10 in the mail. You should be happy to have the existence of J.A.I.L. that you can send your money to. Thanks to all of you. Together we shall prevail. There are no armies on earth that can defeat and idea whose time has come!
While the New York Times article below assigns no responsibility to the New York judiciary for its state's pending financial collapse, we thought it interesting for our readers to view how "government works," a euphoniums for, "doesn't work."
One could reasonably suspect that the below fairly describes the financial condition of their own government. For instance, California is facing a $34,000,000,000 debt, that at a best case scenario of raising taxes and cutting services, still fails to meet its budget. Things are taking shape in America, following the trend to eventual collapse of all nations in history - that of financial irresponsibility. -Ron Branson
New York State could run out of cash in May, and government could be forced to shut down. In most states, an emergency like that would lead to action, even if it were just a clumsy attempt to paper over the revenue gaps. Elected officials would be meeting constantly, and leaders conferring intensely. There would be committee hearings and people scurrying around negotiating a path through the looming difficulty. Is that what's happening in Albany these days? Not hardly.
A short-term solution to deal with New York's fiscal Mayday is not available because there are no short-term solutions in Albany. Instead, there is only one big Gordian knot, and in one final burst of energy, that knot is unraveled and everything important on the agenda is knitted together by Gov. George Pataki; Joseph Bruno, the State Senate majority leader; and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.
In the interim, nothing really happens. The two Republicans are trying to goad Mr. Silver into calling for tax increases and agreeing to a lot of borrowing. The lone Democrat - Mr. Silver - is using the desperation of the two Republicans as his strongest piece of string for the final round.
The Legislature itself has almost no role in this game. Some people have elegant titles, leadership posts or positions on the Ways and Means or budget committees. But here the jobs entail special stipends, bigger offices and virtually no functions at all. ....
Behind those walls, like political termites, the big three and their staffs are said to be working away. The big tangled knot in which all issues are entwined for one big end-of-the-year deal is already enormous. It includes the critical budget for public education - Mr. Pataki has publicly proposed a $1.2 billion cut, and educators are leaning on Mr. Silver to save them.
It also enfolds rent control; that has nothing to do with the budget, but Mr. Silver needs it extended and the governor sees it as a trading chip. Because it is in the knot, there is no plan for the committees charged with overseeing rent control to have anything to say about it.
Mr. Pataki wants to borrow against the tobacco suit settlement to help plug the governmental gaps. This is like using your home equity loan to pay for groceries. Mr. Silver wants shorter-term borrowing, which is more like getting a loan from your relatives to buy the groceries.
But Mr. Silver's call for a slightly less irresponsible financial plan is mainly another chip to use in the great bargain to come. These choices are being made on a budget that has a foundation that would get a chief executive arrested. There are more than 40 authorities or entities that operate "off budget," which means that the public has almost no access to the details.
In a document called the state "tax expenditure report," a list of exemptions for various industries totals $29 billion, according to State Senator Liz Krueger of Manhattan, who has made this a personal mission. But the list never comes up for debate because it is not part of the knot.
The real scandal in Albany is that all this secrecy and lack of participation sees to make the decision-making more clumsy and irrational. The budget is late every year. New York's 19 million people are represented by a state government that is neither democratic nor efficient - short-term or long-term. There is no excuse not to open the doors.
Now why is it that we at J.A.I.L. would make an issue of the above report? It is because we desire to show our readers the failure of politics in governing a nation. While the politicians abrogate their responsibilities to openly represent the people for political reasons, political wrangling goes on secretly behind closed doors among three politicians even in view of a pending financial doom that will effect everyone in New York.
J.A.I.L., with its ripple-down effect, will have great positive effect upon all state and local governments, placing priorities on realities for the benefit of the people rather than politics. The fact is, J.A.I.L. should have been written in our original Constitutions, both state and federal.
J.A.I.L. is an acronym for Judicial Accountability Initiative Law JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope! JAIL is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire! JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability! JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603 To subscribe or be removed: AddRemove@... E-Groups sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join Open forum to make your voice heard JAIL-SoundOff@egroups.com Ask not what J.A.I.L. can do for me, but ask what I can do for J.A.I.L.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><
We have been sending you reports of the recent shenanigans of justice dispensers in Albany who enjoy the benefits of the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings. Now even Times Union columnist Fred LeBrun is writing about a "pitbull" judge who is "...infected by the black robe disease" and its effect upon the community.
Will the Commission on Judicial Conduct view Coleman's conduct as unbecoming of a judge? At the very least, an admonition is in order. How else will Cheryl Coleman know that her behavior was inappropriate? We remind you that the incident did not occur at a library or museum, but at a ROCK CONCERT.
By Fred LeBrun ~ Times Union ~ Albany, NY ~ Sunday, March 16, 2003
Cheryl Coleman has screwed up big time.
As in recently elected Albany City Court Judge Cheryl Coleman. In a bizarre and inappropriate confrontation with four fans at a Bon Jovi concert at Pepsi Arena the other night, Coleman managed in one short evening to bring great discredit to herself, strain the credibility of the Albany Police Department and the city's judiciary, and consequently embarrass our fair city.
The shouting, poking and pushing event that started it all is murky in the details. Four women from Orange County, in the their 20s and 30s, were caught up in the concert, and perhaps more than a touch belligerent. Coleman and her boyfriend, Larry Walley, who works security at RPI, were bothered by the four and got into an argument with them. One sweet word led to another and, before long, security was called -- by one of the four women. Coleman, not once but twice, pulled out her business card with "Judge Cheryl Coleman" on it to "educate" the four.
Apparently, Coleman then somehow persuaded the security guard who showed up to deliver the four women to an Albany cop. A complaint was filed, essentially on the strength of her position and say-so, and the four were arrested.
Coleman subsequently said that the incident was unsettling, that she and Walley had tried to avoid a confrontation and that they had availed themselves "of the same rights that any citizen should have and that was to involve law enforcement."
All I can say is I hope Cheryl Coleman got a great deal on business cards.
At this point, let's put the camera on pause, and look at this ridiculous scene.
What judge in his or her right mind would get caught in this situation, except one so infected by the black robe disease that he or she has totally lost perspective?
Any other judge I know, seeing how this confrontation was deteriorating, would have weighed the heat of the moment against law degree, career and the dignity of the bench and quickly walked away. Sorry for the misunderstanding folks; good night.
But no, not Coleman, who apparently can't shake off her manner as a former pitbull assistant Albany County district attorney. She was a terrific, relentless prosecutor. But those are not necessarily the traits you look for in an impartial referee, which is the definition of a judge. So. Let's roll the camera again. Four women were then caught in a low-level nightmare. At least two were handcuffed to a bench to await arraignment. City Court Judge Will Carter was reluctantly drawn in as well, setting bail at $1,000 each. Judge Carter, who is Coleman's colleague on the bench, never should have touched this case, but should have recused himself instead, as all the City Court judges did eventually.
Paper work supposedly was lost, so there were a few hours of jail time. Ominous hints persist that maybe the four were being taught a lesson because they mucked around with a judge. Boy, if that doesn't stink from top to bottom.
Besides, on its worst day, such an altercation between fans at the Pepsi would have netted no worse than an appearance ticket for a violation. Now these four have been dramatically overcharged with misdemeanors -- all because of Coleman.
I'm convinced, after reading the statements sworn to by Coleman and Walley and talking to some of those who know the case, that everything evolved from Coleman's insistent intervention -- not the "crimes" involved. The arrests that the cops would have preferred not to make and usually don't. The awkward involvement of Judge Carter. The time and cost of Albany cops, transportation in the police wagon, the court.
All over a silly non-event foisted on us by an arrogant judge with much to learn before those robes fit right.
Legislatures Going Into Overdrive To Isolate Themselves From The People
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." Declaration of Independence adopted by unanimous consent of Congress, July 4, 1776.
It is no secret that J.A.I.L. is seeking to pass judicial accountability constitutional amendment initiatives within every state that has such process, and through all the legislatures that do not. Ironically, all of a sudden, the various state legislatures are going into overdrive to avert this process in an effort to protect themselves from the very people to whom they are accountable, and to whom they must derive their just powers. Indeed, we are to be a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people," but legislatures, by action, are disputing the premise that governments have no just powers but that which is loaned to them by consent of the people. It is obvious that ultimate power must rest with the people. If not the people, then it rests entirely with an arbitrary government.
Below is a showing that legislators around America are willing to show that they believe that they not only do not need consent of the people, but at their will they may over-power the people, and act as tyrants.
This is why J.A.I.L. must grow to an overwhelming movement of people to counter this type of thinking, and the willingness to make surfs of everyone of us. We must not lose sight of two facts, "All power is inherent in the people; ...they may exercise it by themselves; that is their right and duty," Thomas Jefferson, and that no Army on earth can stop an idea whose time has come. ~ Ron Branson
Subject: A hodge podge of I&R issues / I&R Update 3-28-03
Following are a few issues that I thought I would bring to your attention. This update includes information on current attempts to restrict the initiative process (as reported by I&R watchers across the country). ....
================================================ Attempts to Restrict and Regulate I&R as well as overturn issues adopted by the people. ================================================
Alaska (from Karen Bretz in AK)
The ones to watch out for are HB 31 and HJR 5. These bills are routinely filed by Representative Williams to make it more difficult for petitions to make the ballot. HB 31 would increase the number of signatures that we will have to get from rural areas, which will make signature collecting more difficult and expensive. It will be more difficult for a petition sponsor in the state's largest cities to collect signatures because he will have to get a greater percentage from the rural areas, which are very expensive to get to. The proponents of the bills are selling it as a requirement that before an issue hits the ballot, that it have more broad based support. .... This argument is bogus and obscures the real reason behind the bill.
============== Arizona ....
Bill: HCR 2017. Purpose: Changes the date by which initiative petitions have to be filed with the secretary of state from four months before the election to seven months before the election. Status: Passed the House, held in Senate Judiciary Committee.
Bill: HCR 2018. Purpose: Requires that initiatives that are approved by voters and cause a fiscal impact to the state of $10 million or more in any fiscal year be referred to voters again every eight years. Status: Passed the House.
Bill: HCR 2022 Purpose: Requires that all initiative or referendum measures that need the mandatory expenditure of money must provide for an increased source of revenue that would cover the cost. Status: Cleared committees and awaiting full House debate.
Bill: HCR 2023 Purpose: Requires individuals or groups who are petitioning for statewide initiatives or referendums to get a specified percentage of signatures from at least five counties. Status: Passed the House Judiciary Committee, but never heard in the House Committee on Government and Retirement.
Bill: HCR 2024 Purpose: Would allow the Legislature proportionately to reduce an appropriation to a specific purpose from an initiative or referendum if the money approved for the purpose is insufficient to cover all of its cost. Status: Passed the House, now in the Senate.
Bill: SCR 1003 Purpose: ... would suspend voter protection of state spending in times of fiscal crisis. Status: Cleared committees and awaiting a Senate floor debate.
=================== Colorado (From Pete Maysmith in CO - head of CO Common Cause) ....
Legislators (at least in Colorado) have moved beyond attacking just the process to attacking voters decisions. This is the height of legislative arrogance and I think will continue to destroy confidence in our elected officials and politics. Rational people will ask - "why should I participate if they are just going to undo what I vote for?"
=============== Florida
House bill would allow legislators to ignore voters while voting yes on the bill. Some lawmakers called it an arrogant measure that treats citizens like children. Associated Press / March 21, 2003
=============== Tennessee
TALLAHASSEE -- A House panel on Thursday approved a proposal that would let state lawmakers ignore changes that people make to the state Constitution by petition drive. Lawmakers could also disregard changes voters have already made to the Constitution.... The legislative proposal has a long way to go. Since it would change their right to change the Constitution by citizen initiative, it would have to be approved by voters. To get to the 2004 ballot, the legislation needs approval of three-fifths of the House and Senate. .... the Legislature could decide not to implement constitutional provisions that originate by petition drive if lawmakers think they are too expensive.
Rep. Randy Johnson, R-Celebration, who sponsored the legislation, said .... it's the prerogative of the Legislature to decide what gets funded and what doesn't -- even things mandated by voters, he said. ....
=============== Maine (from an I&R supporter in Maine)
LD389: An Act to Amend the Laws Governing Municipal Citizen Initiatives and Referenda
If this bill passes, it would mean that a "municipal ordinance or bylaw enacted by citizen initiative or referendum may not invalidate, repeal, revoke, modify or have the effect of invalidating, repealing, revoking or modifying any building permit, zoning permit, land use approval, subdivision approval, site plan approval, rezoning, certification, variance or other action..."
In real terms this means that:
.The foundations of a citizen democracy are endangered: all power in land use decisions is suddenly taken from the citizens and given to town planners, zoning officials, and the town council, without question. ....
Often, the process of rezoning happens in a manner purposely aimed at avoiding public attention and scrutiny. If LD 389 passes, not only can citizens been kept in the dark about these decisions, they also have no recourse once the rezoning plans come to light!
Our right to initiative and referendum, although not unique to this state, is a powerful tool given to Mainers through our state Constitution. The assault to our right to initiative and referendum, whether it be minute or a full-scale attack, is an attack on our basic constitutional right to democracy.
================ Massachusetts (from Barbara Anderson in MA)
In Massachusetts. State Senator Stanley Rosenberg (D-Amherst) has filed a constitutional amendment (Senate Bill 362) that would effectively kill the I&R here. It increases the number of signatures required from three percent of the entire vote for governor at the preceding biennial state election to three percent of registered voters.
================ Montana
The Missoulian (Editorial) Legislators jealously guard their power - March 16
SUMMARY: Not content to override voter-approved laws, legislators also are attacking the initiative process itself.
The last election is long past, the next one a long way off. So, we're hearing a lot less of the things legislators say to get elected and getting a closer look at what they really think. The clear message from many lawmakers in Helena this winter is that they, not you, know best.
The contempt that too many elected lawmakers have for citizens is plain to see in the series of bills seeking to override ballot measures approved by voters - term limits, the ban on mining with cyanide, use of tobacco-settlement funds and game farms. .... many of them have every intention of defying the clearly expressed will of voters.
Further evidence comes in the form of House Bill 719, passed by state representatives last month and now pending in the Senate. HB 719 targets the initiative process itself, not any specific law enacted by voters. It would change the deadline for gathering signatures on initiative petitions - to six months before election day, instead of the current four months. .... This bill also asserts greater legislative control over the contents of petitions - requiring inclusion of adversary critiques by legislative staffers, for example. It would also give legislative staffers space in the official voter's pamphlet for their comments. The unmistakable message - already endorsed by a majority of the House, mind you - is that making laws is a job for legislators; the public can't be trusted.
All of this is rather ironic when you consider the fact that in the nearly 95 years that Montanans have had the constitutional right to enact laws by initiative, citizens have proposed scores of measures but approved relatively few - several dozen. Initiatives receive great scrutiny and prompt much debate, and by the time an election is held, the vast majority of voters know exactly what they're voting on. Contrast that to the nearly 2,000 laws legislators propose each session and the hundreds they pass, sometimes with legislators themselves complaining they don't know for what they've voted.
The initiative process is a democratic safety valve. It's a means for citizens to enact laws when politicians aren't responsive or powerful interests wield too much control over government institutions. Montanans have used their initiative powers sparingly and responsibly over the years.
But that's beside the point here. Backers of HB 719 aren't saying the initiative process has been ill-used. They don't like that it's used at all. ================ Nebraska (from Dick Buntgen in NE)
In Nebraska, LB154 has been introduced. It will give the Secretary of State the power to reject petitions if he thinks the language is inadequate. The Petitioners would than have to go to court to over-rule him.
================ North Dakota (from Charlene Nelson in ND)
HCR3016 was a bill that would amend the Constitution and allow the Legislature to pass a law requiring a fiscal statement for every initiated measure that would impact state revenues or expenditures more than $1 million. It was soundly defeated 78-15 on 2-13. On 2-18 HCR3069 was introduced. It is virtually the same bill as 3016 except that it requires a financial statement on all bills, no $1 million impact necessary. After a second round of hearings, the Constitution Revision Committee voted 9-1 Do Not Pass, which usually means the death of a bill. But 3 days later it passed the House 52-38. In just one day it went from the House to the Senate calendar. We were caught unawares, thinking the Do Not Pass recommendation meant the bill was doomed. Once we learned it had passed we had 2 days to marshal our opposition, but it left us too little time to be effective. The bill passed the Senate 29-17.
Now that HCR3069 has passed, it will be placed before the people for a vote on the June 2-04 primary ballot. If the people vote for the amendment then the 2005 Legislature will be authorized to pass a law requiring a fiscal statement on all initiatives. So there are still a couple more phases this has to go through before it affects our I&R rights. We will be battling to preserve those rights at each of those stages. ....
================ Utah (from Bart Grant in UT)
SB28 in Utah has been passed by both houses of the legislature. The session has ended and the Governor has not signed the bill yet, but could any day. SB28 would make it IMPOSSIBLE to even bring an initiative to the ballot. .... Allows ONLY 1 YEAR (instead of the current 2 general election cycles) to qualify initiatives. ....
M. Dane Waters Initiative & Referendum Institute P.O. Box 6306 Leesburg, VA 20178 (703)723-9621 (office - direct) (703)723-9619 (fax) www.iandrinstitute.org www.ballotwatch.org
It's time we, as a nation, take serious our duty to prevent the various state legislatures from closing the door on peoples redress, which is exactly what they secretly are designing to do. When the government fears the power of the people, there will be liberty, and there is nothing that will throw the fear of the people into our public servants more than passage of the J.A.I.L. Initiative / Legislation in all fifty states. Do they mean to have a war? You better believe it! Once the people have installed judicial accountability into their state's Constitution by J.A.I.L., the legislators know that without the protection of the judiciary, their day of reckoning is at hand.
Again, I reiterate, "All power is inherent in the people; ...they may exercise it by themselves; that is their right and duty," and no Army on earth can stop an idea whose time has come. ~Ron Branson
J.A.I.L. is an acronym for Judicial Accountability Initiative Law JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope! JAIL is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire! JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability! JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603 To subscribe or be removed: AddRemove@... E-Groups sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join Open forum to make your voice heard JAIL-SoundOff@egroups.com Ask not what J.A.I.L. can do for me, but ask what I can do for J.A.I.L.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><
We, as citizens of this country, claim America to be the Land of the Free. We say the Pledge of Allegiance using the words, "With Liberty and Justice for all." I fear somehow we, as a country, and as a people, have lost all perspective of what those words mean as used by the Founding Fathers. Have we become a mindless brain-washed public that just uses good sounding words that have no meaning? It's time to wake up.
Right now, America has more percentage of its population imprisoned behind bars by far that any foreign dictator, or country under a tyrant. This includes Russia, China, and add any other nation you want to this list and total them all together. There are no close seconds in any regime in all the world. The American prison growth industry now follows closely behind General Motors as our major industry which keeps law enforcement, courts, judges, prosecutors, attorneys, bailiffs, court reporters, clerks, busing, child protection agencies, and federal and state bureaucrats, etc., connected therewith, fully employed to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars annually. Our country has come to financially depend upon this prison growth industry, and expanding it.
If you will receive it, I am hearing from people who have moved to this country from foreign dictator regimes that have said that things were not as despotic in their countries. I know there will be those who will say, "If you don't like America, then leave it." This might be justifiable to say to those coming to America in search of freedom, but nonetheless, this does raise questions as to what we Americans mean when we use the word "freedom." Could it be we are just being deceived?
Having read the below account of Roger Fredinburg, I trust you will take inventory of what you personally mean when you use the word "freedom." I, for one, as an American citizen, hardly ever having stepped off these shores beyond serving in the military, am unwilling to accept the below descript as the "Land of the Free," offering "Liberty and Justice for all."
This is why I, as the author/founder of JAIL4Judges, a true Red-Blooded American, am working diligently everyday to return our country around to that intended by our Founding Fathers, i.e., a true Land of the Free, offering Liberty and Justice for all. Am I crazy, or is there something rotten in Denmark, or is it I am just unAmerican? You be the judge. If you feel there is something fundamentally wrong in our country, then I ask you to join me and J.A.I.L. in our pursuit of honesty and justice for all. ~Ron Branson
LIBERATE AMERICA NEXT By Roger Fredinburg
April 7, 2003 .... Last Thursday and incident in my offices caused me to make some mental comparisons. Bernice, wife of Monte one of our sales staff came rushing into the office in a panic. It was clear that she was terrified, pale face, clammy skin, shaking and clearly frustrated. She looked as though she had been chased by Saddam's muggers and narrowly escaped. Bernice is in her early 60's, a gentle and kindly woman, 5'9" tall, 115 pounds, she's committed to the Lord and though her life has met with difficult challenges over the past several years, she never shows it. An all American girl, born on a ranch in Montana, well traveled, a working woman who helped her husband run a popular downtown upscale shoe store for many years, raised two children who are successful and looks forward to being a grandma.
Yet here she was, wringing with fear, shaking and distraught. I asked her "What's wrong"? "You look like you just saw a ghost" I said. She responded."The taxes! I have to get these forms out and I can't be late and I need to get Monte to sign them so I can mail them tonight." Trembling, out of breath clearly frightened. (she had mistakenly thought April first was the deadline).
At that moment all of the things that irritate me as an American and a businessman began racing through my mind. The horrendous tax burden I carry, the way taxes are collected, the fear we all share every April 15.
I began thinking about Ruby Ridge, Waco, Donald Scott, long retired stories of government tyranny. I got mad, really mad.
Zoning, planning and building laws and restrictions, parental authority being undermined by the state, anonymous phone calls bringing out the state child snatchers, people being jailed for not paying taxes, ... loss of property rights, the regulations and hurdles put in front of start up businesses, the idiotic bureaucrats wielding their authority like a slave masters whip. I got mad, really mad.
Our hired help has run amuck.
America has more laws and restrictions on the books than any country on earth. More people are incarcerated in America then Red China and Russia combined. More stupidity flows from our supposed free and democratic system than ever envisioned by any civilization in world history.
Even the toilet in your bathroom is regulated now and they can put contractors or property owners in jail or fine them substantially if they put a real toilet in. This is freedom they tell me.
Seat belts, kiddy car seats, motorcycle helmets, laws for child rearing and discipline, firearms regulations, sign codes, licenses, permits and government permission is required for virtually everything we do. Permission needed to peaceably assemble?, Permission to speak and time restrictions on public testimony at open meetings? Warrant-less searches, civil forfeitures, hocus pocus - phony baloney.
It's illegal to be out in public without your "papers". Identification laws prohibit our right to anonymity. If a policeman asks who you are he/she can throw you in jail for simply refusing to cough up your papers and cooperate whether you are breaking the law or just casually resting on your front porch. You will submit to the hired help or face the consequences. As for your drivers license or I.D. card ? Don't leave home without it!
People are routinely denied due process, jury trials, and competent legal council. Tossed in jail on trumped up charges and held on a lie. In court the police are always right even if their testimony is in direct conflict with their written reports. They aren't allowed in court as evidence.... and there isn't anything you can do about it, nothing.
The hired help, those thankless bureaucrats, have the power and use it with a vengeance everyday against unwitting Americans for no other reason than the hired help wanting to send their message of fear to the rest of the "village".
How often have you been casually driving along and spotted a police car in your mirror, grabbed for you seat belt, worried if you had your license, registration, proof of insurance, "your Papers" in order. Is that really freedom? I wonder how many car wrecks causing death and injury result from that tyranny? Will the bureaucrats fund that study?
In many places smoking is now virtually a crime, don't drink in public because police are frequenting bars looking for intoxicated folks, dragging them outside and field testing then....
In Bellville, Illinois the police are wandering around with code enforcement officers walking into private homes unannounced and without warrants to check "occupancy levels"? Those who ask questions or interfere are being dragged off to jail or fined for interfering with a code enforcement officer in the midst of his/her duties? ....
We have nearly a one half trillion dollar trade deficit? We are told deficits are good? Try that one on your bank the next time you bounce a check! Let's get real here folks!
Banks are demanding fingerprints to cash their own checks? Even our local animal hospital demands your thumbprint now if you write a check.
I asked myself as Bernice left the office the other day just how many people die from heart attacks, strokes, panic attacks and suicide every year due to government intervention. I don't suppose the bureaucrats have funded that research project yet? ....
I just want my freedom back. I don't want to overthrow the government, start a civil war, protest in the streets or terrorize my fellow Americans. I just want my freedom back! ....
...I would ask you to consider what freedom is, and what it isn't. Let your congressman/woman and President Bush hear our call to liberate America too, liberate America next. Otherwise what's the point?
Roger Fredinburg is a syndicated radio host heard in more than 140 markets nationwide.
J.A.I.L. is an acronym for Judicial Accountability Initiative Law JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope! JAIL is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire! JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability! JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603 To subscribe or be removed: AddRemove@... E-Groups sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join Open forum to make your voice heard JAIL-SoundOff@egroups.com Ask not what J.A.I.L. can do for me, but ask what I can do for J.A.I.L.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><
The Vermont Chapter of Jail4judges had a meeting on March 29, 2003 which was reported in the April 3, 2003 edition of the "Connecticut Valley Spectator."
The front page news headlined,"WRJ man crusades against court corruption - Jail4judges pushes for accountability law." The reporter and editor Aaron Nobel wrote, "Rampant corruption, cover-ups, destruction of our God-given rights and one fraternity knowingly exploiting the rest of the world for its personal financial gain.
It sounds like a conspiracy novel, but Dave Donley of White River Jct., says it's what has become of the United States of America. 'People have this myth that the legal profession is ethical and it's not,' Donley said. 'Our founding fathers tried to warn us -the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, don't allow any one faction to get (its' members) into power (in sufficient numbers) to enact legislation to benefit themselves (to the detriment of the Republic as a whole).
Donley says that one faction -- attorneys -- paid attention to the founding fathers, exploiting our system's weaknesses, giving themselves immunities, protections, access to state and federal coffers.
JAil4judges is a nationwide organization that crusades against court corruption. Its most immediate and tangible goal is the passing in every state of Judicial Accountability and Integrity Law or 'J.A.I.L.' The law has already been drafted. But Donley warns that increasing infringements on the first amendment, especially in Vermont, are happening right now. 'If people don't wake up soon and start taking notice, we aren't going to have the right to speak out at all.'
Donley said Gov. Dean' ruled Vermont like a despotic dictator.' Dean exerted executive privilege to more freedom of information requests than any governor before him, even act 60 fits into the plan, creating all kinds of litigation and business for the fraternity. 'The courts are not there to ensure truth and justice, its just business to them.'
Donley's general sentiments are echoed in a February, 2003 speech to the Federalist Society of Harvard Law school by Judge Edith Jones of the US Court of Appeals (5th circuit), who said, the judicial system has been corrupted almost beyond recognition. 'The legal aristocracy have shed their professional independence for the temptations and materialism associated with becoming businessmen'.
Fred Davideit of Hillsborough, N.H., the N.H. head of Jail4judges, spoke to the crowd at the meeting. Davideit who is retired law enforcement, said people basically have to forget everything they've ever known. 'We've got to just about wipe the slate clean and start at 7 years old and reread our constitutional rights. Don't give them up.
Davideit makes a clear distinction between 'lawful' and 'legal.' Statutes are absolutely not law if they don't match up with what's required in the Constitution. Court corruption is a hot topic, an internet search for 'legal reform' will bring up some of the top 5% most frequented sites.
Donley said lawyers dominate the judiciary 100%, make up almost 100% of the executive branch and 60% of Congress. The judiciary is supposed to interpret law, not make policy, but it is changing our laws for us, dictating from the bench. The first amendment was intended as a major check against government abuse of authority, but they subvert it with their (secretive)Conduct boards.
Donley says lawyers are too worried about being ostracized by their community if they speak out against their fraternal brothers or sisters. "Everything goes to court eventually, its one big funnel," Davideit said. "They go to court and they don't get what they should, they become disgruntled, and they hate the court. I don't understand why there's not more shootings, myself. I don't know why they don't shoot more judges.
Don't be cowered by all these judges and lawyers. They are nothing. You are a sovereign citizen. You pay their wages. Davideit said the gold fringe at the top of the American flag in a courtroom signifies a military flag, and thus a military court, in which defendants are 'guilty until proven innocent.' ....
There will be a 1 P.M. April 19, gathering of jail4judges of New England at the Hartford Library. The National web site is jail4judges.org"
The Connecticut Valley Spectator is a newspaper for this area. It is enjoying favorable review as it is addressing topics previously ignored by the existing media here. I commend Aaron ( news@...) for having the courage to report on this issue....
J.A.I.L. is returning the favor to the Connecticut Valley Spectator newspaper by advertising for it. I recommend you readers get on your keyboards and flood reporter Aaron, news@..., with high commendations for demonstrating boldness in printing the other side of the news, instead of just establishment pablum. As reporters begin to see the praise generated from the public for writing politically incorrect articles, they will be encouraged to take even bigger bites out of crime.
J.A.I.L. is an acronym for Judicial Accountability Initiative Law JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope! JAIL is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire! JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability! JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603 To subscribe or be removed: AddRemove@... E-Groups sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join Open forum to make your voice heard JAIL-SoundOff@egroups.com "Give me your substance, and I will give you America." - Ron Branson. Ask not what J.A.I.L. can do for me, but ask what I can do for J.A.I.L.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><
This is to acknowledge receipt of your below email, and that I am sending a copy of this response to our JAILers. I am pleased to hear both of you affirm that the plight before all of us within the courts is not a gender issue. I am further pleased to hear that the cause of J.A.I.L. will be echoed at your June 8th Topeka, Kansas demonstration, and at other demonstrations at state capitals around the U.S.
As you state, we all benefit from a coalition effort. But it is on this term "coalition effort" that I wish to make comment. Quite commonly the understanding of a "coalition effort" is where different organizations with differing causes assemble for the common good, having at least one cause that binds them all together.
Now, let's apply that definition to J.A.I.L., which is but a single issue organization -- passage of J.A.I.L. amending all 50 states' Constitutions. The tie that binds, then among the coalition would be passage of J.A.I.L. If any of the organizations within the coalition opposes this objective, there can be no accord, for we differ on the basic purpose of what we are getting together to accomplish.
As a point in background, I have been informed by the leader of one existing prominent coalition of organizations, which is not necessarily a part of your coalition, but probably is, that they oppose J.A.I.L.'s single issue purpose for its existence. Hence, by their own admission, they oppose J.A.I.L. So this experience raises the question of why J.A.I.L. would want to join hands with organizations that hold contrary to its purpose of existence? Isn't this cannibalistic? Does this not promote disunity in the name of a coalition?
I realize the single issue message of J.A.I.L. may come across as egotistical to many leaders and organizations, but we cannot, and will not let this characterization distract us from our mission of passage of J.A.I.L. in all fifty states.
We will have unity of purpose as organizations move in behind and support the sole issue of J.A.I.L. If an organization has a tough time accepting this, they will just have to live with it. J.A.I.L.'s response to these organizations is that they will eventually see the light and move in behind J.A.I.L., for it will become apparent to them that they have no other choice. And for those who have ears to hear, J.A.I.L. IS that coalition everyone is seeking for, but cannot find outside of J.A.I.L! Believest thou this?
Please know that I really appreciate the two of you writing me, and that I have sent this out to the JAILers to respond directly to you on their participation as they will. And lastly, thank you in advance for heralding the message of J.A.I.L. around the country.
Subject: Re: JAIL4Judges and Million Dad's March, June 8
Hello Ron!
On Sunday June 8th there will be a demonstration in Topeka, KS. and other state capitols for victims of the "Family" court systems. These demonstrations include grandparents, mothers, fathers, children, and people from all walks of life.
One great solution to ending the destruction of families is the JAIL initiative. I would like to get word of JAIL4Judges to any participating in or watching our protests. This would help you get more coverage for JAIL, and would help us end the abuses of "Family" courts!
Please advise Ron, our movements will both benefit from working together!
I think your presence would be a great addition to this, and would help create the broad coalition that is needed to make it a major event. It is above all an issue of judicial abuse, and when I speak you can be certain I will put it in those terms.
It is no accident that fathers are being bashed, but some mothers do get it too, so you are right that it is not a gender issue. (My theory, which I cannot yet prove, is that mothers get bashed when the father has political connections: the exception that proves the rule.)
All successful demos in the past have been the work of broad coalitions that do not necessarily agree on every point. You would help bring in others.
Military Courts vs. Civil/Criminal Courts by LINDA L. KENNEDY
I had just recently met with a former Attorney General of the United States. Although he indicated that the judicial system needs fixing, for him it was all about one political party being right, while the other one was wrong. That is absolutely not the problem.
Because this point of view I am presenting will be surprising, coming from a "conservative" attorney (trained at Pat Robertson's Regent University School of Law, I hope you will see how ridiculous the Military Court v. Civil/Criminal Court's debate actually is and the legal fiction the distinction between the two creates.
The public should not be fooled by these "scholars" who try to paint a difference between the two systems which are in all practicality, the same.
Additionally, I have put myself in grave jeopardy because I dare speak out against the "gods" of some of the courts, i.e., some of the judges, and their government agencies, for obvious reasons.
It has been, and still is, professional suicide to say what I have to say and I have certainly "walked the plank" more than just a few times for being so outspoken in a way that is not "big-business friendly." What I have to say must be said however, for the public's best interest.
Most of what I am hearing on the air, which is of concern to some of the constitutional attorneys being interviewed, is that the Military Courts may be unfair because they do not allow for adequate discovery (turning over of evidence to the opposition so that the defense can prepare a case); they have quick trials and secretive hearings; they will incorporate biased judges; they have no juries, and possibly no appeals. The bottom-line is simply: All of this debate has to do with protecting civil rights.
I want to show you why this debate is moot in practicality, and by not having the following view as a part of any discussion, is misrepresenting the real problem to the public.
In comparing these courts, we need to actually look at what civil rights the people are actually receiving and then compare the courts. Let's not look at the situation in a test tube any longer. Here is what I am telling you is happening, not only as a scholar, but as a practicing attorney who gets to see the inside of a courtroom all day-every day.
My claim, which I can support with volumes of hard evidence including testimony, transcripts, etc., is that some of our courts are already unconstitutionally acting as military courts against the people today. Many individual plaintiffs that go into our courts (depending on which courts) get to learn this shocking lesson all by themselves, and then after the dusts settles, they get to try to pick up the pieces of their lives once they have truly experienced the tyranny of our own corrupted system which ignores our Constitutional Rights daily. Because the reality is kept so secret from the public at large, and because many news agencies will not inform the public of the horrendous condition of these courts, the public is totally unaware of the injustices happening daily; only to find out if they are unfortunate enough to get caught up in the "vortex" of the judicial system--with only fleeting hope of ever getting free of it with their shirts still on their backs!
Our civil rights are not protected now, even though the Constitution guarantees them, since some of the courts ignore the Constitution regularly, when it actually secretly, quietly, and quickly dismisses our cases, without so much as a hearing, without so much as a right to an appeal (rubber stamped "denied" without so much as an opinion as to why we lost, which then goes into an "unpublished opinion" file at the discretion of the court so that nobody else (not even attorneys) know that the case existed, and it does not affect precedents). These courts openly and willingly allow one side (usually the defense in civil cases, and the prosecutors in criminal cases) to commit repeated perjury and allow it to thwart discovery requests (the lawful and mandatory turning over of documents which allows the opposition to know what the issues are).
If these examples do not fit into the concerns of the Constitutional "scholars" over the Military Courts what does?
I ask you, why are so many special interest corporations funding judicial and governmental officials to go on trips and to hear "pro- corporation" seminars? Doesn't this sound a little bit like a biased court would result from such junkets? This is happening regularly within our state and federal systems without hardly a word from the media. Why else would the Congress be so concerned over appointments and the personal stands each judge has on issues? It is because Congress knows that an unbiased and impartial judiciary is nonexistent when it comes to special interest groups and any poor plaintiff and/or that attorney that tries to challenge it will pay dearly for daring to do so.
Would you be surprised to hear from two people who actually had their judges fall asleep during the trail, only to take the decision away from the jury once awakened, and then dismiss it without the benefit of due process? Of course, big business won again. The special trips and seminars for judges pay off. One case was dismissed after the judge used 19 facts that were not even admitted into evidence (that is like not allowing for discovery as military courts are professing to do). This is forbidden by law. Appeal was denied, and the opinion was unpublished like about 90% of the opinions in the 4th circuit so that nobody is the wiser.
What about a judge that dismisses a defamation claim against an insurance company saying that the plaintiff should not have filed a suit because money is more important than reputation anyway and that she should read some books because everyone knows that. Doesn't it make you wonder which big- business supported that decision? What about a judge who refuses to acknowledge "blacklisting" as a law, even though Congress/General Assembly made such a law to be enforced by the courts? Would you be surprised that in both of these cases described above, the plaintiff got sanctioned (assessed fines and fees against them) for daring to bring these cases into court? I ask you then, in reality how is our present court system any different from the Military Courts to which so many are taking offense?
Besides me, I know of only one other attorney who is trying to bring these abuses to light. She stepped down from a government position because of all of the corruption for which she did not want a part. She filed suit and clearly showed the corruption of a particular city's police, attorneys, and judges. Not only was she sanctioned for daring to bring such a case forward, but those she exposed placed a gag order on her, every single pleading ever filed is sealed so that nobody can find out about this corruption, and she is regularly arrested by that city's police as punishment. To top it off, although the case was never heard on the merits, she was sanctioned about $18,000, and she has approximately another $200,000 waiting for her in our wonderful 4th Circuit Court. That is what happens to those few of us who dare to expose what is really going on in this corrupt system. Sounds like something we would describe might happen under the reign of the Taliban doesn't it? Certainly this is worse than any military court which will at least have some scrutiny placed on it.
How would you feel if you were judged by a judge who liked to use the word "nigger" and derogatorily acts in a stereotypically "poor black from the 1800's manner" after he finds an African American guilty?
How about a judge who proudly claims that he does not find for employees in employment law cases (how's that for unbiased judges)?
Why then is the issue Military Courts v. Civil/Criminal Courts when, practically, there is no difference? If you look at the statistics, and open your forum to citizens who have been a part of actual court proceedings in certain jurisdictions including federal jurisdictions, you will clearly find that some courts are treating their supposedly open courts as if they were Military Courts--and getting away with it daily. I will show you just one Federal Circuit who routinely violates our Constitutional Rights daily with the blessing of the Court of Appeals, but only one for brevity sake. Please note that this is not my only example.
Take the Federal 4th Circuit located in Virginia. There exists a Title VII statute that allows for a plaintiff in a "protected class" to file suit against employers who treat them wrongly because of their race, color, sex, national origin, or religion. Just in the year 2000 which is the last full year of statistics, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals heard 11 cases on appeal from district courts (not counting unpublished opinions and all the other district court cases which were quietly and secretly dismissed). Of these cases all 11 were decided in favor of the defendant (big-business) at the district court level. One of these was even heard by a jury (Conner v. Schrader-Bridgeort International, Inc., 227 F.3d 179 (4th Cir. 2000)) and the jury found for the plaintiff. Let me explain. Getting to a jury in the 4th Circuit is almost unheard of in employment law cases although it is granted as a right under Title VII. In spite of the jury finding in favor of the plaintiff, the district court judge then proceeded to take the case from the jury and find for the defendant anyway (How's that for due process?) Furthermore, of these 11 cases, all had been decided for the defense on summary judgment (judge refuses to provide for a trial for the plaintiff), or judgment as a matter of law (judge decides that even though the jury may have been present, they do not get to decide the case at all).
Because I have taken part in cases like these and regularly have to tell my client "don't even bother going to this court for justice," I will absolutely guarantee you that much of the evidence was obviscated by the defense and the judge was absolutely no assistant of justice in making the defense turn over the evidence it was hiding. In fact, if the plaintiff gets his/her hands on a document of the employers which could prove the truth; one that the defense is falsely claiming they don't have, the judge then finds that it is "stolen," and makes the plaintiff return the document to the defense. The defense, then can continually claim that the document does not exist even though the court knows that is not true and that perjury has been committed.
Additionally, these judges are repeatedly "wined and dined" by big- business with big corporate interests (Please see "www.Tripsforjudges.com" for my information here).
According to Tripsforjudges.com, judges have been sent on vacations even as far as Israel by big-business. Also the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE) and the Liberty Fund pays for these vacations for judges which are, coincidentally, very close to their headquarters for "seminars." One judge even received a trip for he AND HIS SON, by businessman Mr. Hank Jones. How's that for unbiased Judges?
FREE is a nonprofit organization that advocates reliance on the free market and private property rights, instead of environmental laws to protect the environment. Obviously, any tenant, employee, environmentalist, and anyone else challenging the acts of one of these interests is in for a surprising, and rude, awakening. Judges who attend their lectures are indoctrinated into the emphasis of property rights and market processes according to big-business interests. FREE gets its funding directly from corporations, foundations of large companies, and from prominent conservative foundations. FREE receives 1/3 of its budget directly from corporations such as Shell Oil Company Foundation, Burlington Resources Foundation, General Electric Fund, Temple-Inland Foundation, and Kock Oil (Lambe Foundation). Foundations which support FREE are Sarah Scaife, Carthage Foundations, and the John M. Olin Foundation. These foundations are among the largest supporters of nonprofits that challenge environmental regulations in federal court. How's that for unbiased Judges and the possibility of a citizen of the United States receiving a full and fair hearing under the law?
Liberty Fund was founded by businessman Pierre F. Goodrich. The Liberty fund makes grants directly to conservative and libertarian organizations such as the Cato Institute, the Center for the Study of Federalism, and the Political Economy Research Center. The Liberty Fund not only hosts its own seminars for judges, they also fund those of philosophically aligned groups. The Liberty Fund has over $202 million in assets and in 1997 alone spent $1.6 million (1/5 of their total budget) sponsoring meetings and seminars for federal judges and other government leaders.
If there is any doubt about the biased, unfair, and unconstitutional nature of the judicial make-up and decisions that would rival any military court in the land, then consider that all but one of the judges currently sitting on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals bench has previously worked with a firm whose primary practice area was civil defense (Big Business).
It is unusual that any attorney, let alone a conservative attorney, would dare to speak out against the judicial system and its supporting agencies for several reasons, only some being obvious. But for me to sit in front of some of the news shows night after night, hearing the debate over the woes of the Military Courts and how we are known for our Civil and Criminal Due Process Rights, and at the same time picturing in my mind the many people who have been hoodwinked and even ruined by this so called "just" system, is not tolerable to me. The Constitution is to be honored in that it does provide the citizens of this country with due process and other very valuable rights necessary to keep a society truly free.
Unfortunately, as Thomas Jefferson and many others have warned, the system is only as good as those who oversee it. Unfortunately, those who presently oversee it are "Big-Business" and their advocates. Why else would we be willing to bail out the insurance industry, some of whom regularly deny otherwise valid claims, hire fact-witnesses to lie, change doctor reports, etc., at the expense of the people and with total "selective-ignorance" by the Courts and the State Bars who oversee attorneys who do this? In fact, these attorneys who do this are sometimes our next Bar president or Judge. Only those who fight this system are harassed.
Was the Judge who said money is more important than reputation really telling the truth? Should I just read some books so that I too will believe that is the "American Way?" It sure sounds like it, as it is the present state of affairs which is being selectively ignored by those who should be speaking for the people. The Constitution still exists for the protection of the people through due process and other valuable rights. If we are going to ignore it daily, however, then at least let us not pretend that there is a difference between Military and Civil/Criminal Courts.
As you can see, the Military or Civil Court debate is moot because the Military system is already in place and has been in place for years, applied against our own shocked, but now "court-hardened" citizens. Many of them are speaking out in frustration, because no media dares to expose this oppression which is likened to the sad days of slavery in America. Attorneys also know what I am talking about, but until they value the people more than their own pocket books and their distinguished professional careers, then our profession will continue to claim that the "Emperor Has Clothes" and that there is a difference between the unconstitutional Military Courts and the Civil/Criminal Courts by which the people are continually being terrorized. As President Bush has said, terrorists need to be "rooted out."
In this case, either the media is with the people or with those who practice judicial terrorism at the expense of our citizens.
All Day--Every Day by Linda L. Kennedy, Attorney at Law and Virginia JAILer
Linda L. Kennedy Attorney at Law, Virginia WBFLegal@... 416 London St. Portsmouth, VA 23704 (757) 397-4500 (757) 397-0060-facsimile
Copyright December 2, 2001 by Linda L. Kennedy, Esq., Virginia
J.A.I.L. is an acronym for Judicial Accountability Initiative Law JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope! JAIL is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire! JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability! JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603 To subscribe or be removed: AddRemove@... E-Groups, sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join Forum to make your voice heard JAIL-SoundOff@yahoogroups.com Ask not what J.A.I.L. can do for me, but ask what I can do for J.A.I.L.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><
J.A.I.L. News Journal _____________________________________________________ Los Angeles, California April 25, 2003
NEW YORK POST
April 25, 2003
$LICING UP JUDGE'S PIE
By KATI CORNELL SMITH, MURRAY WEISS and TODD VENEZIA
Gerald Garson
April 25, 2003 -- A Brooklyn divorce court was corrupt right down to the bailiff's badge, officials charged yesterday - as a Supreme Court justice, his court officer, a retired clerk, a lawyer and several court litigants were charged with a scheme to fix divorce cases in return for huge payoffs.
Judge Gerald Garson - who allegedly turned his chamber into a marketplace where justice was traded for cash, trips and dinners - stood silently in Brooklyn Criminal Court yesterday as he was slapped with misconduct charges that could net him up to four years in prison.
Garson, 69, was suspended with pay and will continue to receive his $136,700 annual salary, court officials said.
Also arraigned early yesterday were:
* Lawyer Paul Siminovsky, 46, who allegedly bribed Garson on behalf of clients.
* Nissim Elmann, 43, a store owner who allegedly combed the courthouse corridors soliciting clients for Siminovsky.
* Court officer Louis Salerno, 50, who allegedly assured that bribe cases were heard in Garson's court.
* Avraham Levi, 48, a Brooklyn man who allegedly tried to pay $10,000 to have Garson fix his bitter divorce.
All were freed on $15,000 bail by Judge Alan Meyer at an 11 a.m. hearing at which Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes appeared as prosecutor.
"Gerald Garson, a sitting Supreme Court justice, has been captured on videotape accepting gifts and cash in his chambers," Hynes said in court.
Garson's retired clerk, Paul Sarnell, was arraigned later in the day. His bail was set at $15,000.
Last night, prosecutors finished the sweep by arresting a Brooklyn rabbi, Ezra Zifriani, and his daughter, Esther Weitzner.
Zifriani allegedly tried to get the judge to fix his daughter's custody case. Father and daughter are to be arraigned today.
Two people in the matrimonial clerk's office - Donna Anderson and Janet Ricevuto - were suspended without pay for allegedly routing cases to Garson.
The charges against Garson list a $1,000 payoff he allegedly got from Siminovsky for funneling a client to him - and a box of cigars Siminovsky gave him in return for guidance on what to say during a divorce trial.
According to court papers and law-enforcement sources, the veteran of the Brooklyn bench also allegedly took cash and gifts to fix at least five cases. The swag included cash payoffs of $5,000 and $10,000, a trip to Bali, bottles of Scotch and dinners at Manhattan restaurants such as Nino's and Campagnola.
Sources said Siminovsky may have been fixing cases with Garson for the entire four years Siminovsky appeared in his court.
The alleged bribe ring was busted after an eight-month investigation by the DA's office that began after a woman in a messy divorce reported that she believed her case had been fixed by her husband's lawyer, Simonovsky.
A hidden camera in the judge's "robing room" at 210 Joralemon St. let investigators videotape Garson taking gifts.
Sources in the DA's office said every case over which Garson presided will be examined.
Additional reporting Dareh Gregorian and Denise Buffa
NEW YORK POST is a registered trademark of NYP Holdings, Inc. NYPOST.COM, NYPOSTONLINE.COM, and NEWYORKPOST.COM are trademarks of NYP Holdings, Inc. Copyright 2003 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved.
J.A.I.L. is an acronym for Judicial Accountability Initiative Law JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope! JAIL is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire! JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability! JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603 To subscribe or be removed: AddRemove@... E-Groups, sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join Forum to make your voice heard JAIL-SoundOff@yahoogroups.com Ask not what J.A.I.L. can do for me, but ask what I can do for J.A.I.L.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><
It seems so difficult for people to perceive the depth of the evil of our present day judiciary, or to comprehend the basic principle that it is only though an unaccountable judiciary that all nations crumble from within. To it put in the words of Tinsley Grey Sammons, bastiatlaw@..., "Nothing is easier to defend than truth, yet nothing is more difficult to propagate!" People think, "This is America, not Nazi Germany. It just couldn't happen here!" Yet it is happening here! People just don't want to see it for what it is, because if they really believed it, they would be depressed with the reality of the condition of America, and the disparity of how to combat it. This is why we often say, "J.A.I.L. is the Only answer!"
Below is the testimony of publisher Al Adask from a Missouri jail, (the kind with cold steel bars), who has long exposed corrupt government, and has published many novel articles on how to exercise unique legal footwork in defending yourself in any court or administrative forum imaginable on any subject. Basically, if it is out there, Al Adask has one or more articles on the subject, complete with points and authorities to prove the issue urged. Adask has a very large following that has been trained by him and by others of his ilk.
Unfortunately, like the masses, the light of JAIL4Judges has yet to sink in with Adask's following, namely, that there is no redress of grievances that can be had by principled citizens in our present day judiciary, and that without J.A.I.L., there will continue to be none, no matter what or how it is argued!
I have taken the liberty of faithfully editing the lengthy content of Adask's original letter from jail cell for this publication. His description of his experience within this Missouri jail since September 30, 2002 is fantastic, and well spoken.
After you have read his comments from the inside of his jail cell, I would like to share with you mine at the end.
-Ron Branson, (National J.A.I.L. CIC).
From: "Jeff Penley" lawlawland@... Subject: Letters from Jail by Alfred Adask 3-27-03 Date sent: Sun, 27 Apr 2003
SAINT LOUIS MO 27 MARCH 2003 ( Post Date )
without prejudice;
at arms length, Alfred Adask c/o POB 100 Hillsboro [63050] The state of Missouri The United States of America
Jeff Penley c/o 2921 Robin Hill Lane Garland [75044-5941] The State of Texas The United States of America
3/25/A.D. 2003
Hi Jeff ,
Thanks for your letter and thanks for the affidavit concerning my arrest on September 30th. I appreciate your kind and encouraging words and your prayers. You had a couple of questions which I'll try to answer: 1) Did I receive a Bible? Yes, I have one from the jail. I've read 25% to 30% of that Bible - some parts several times - and I've learned allot. ....
You also asked if I could find you a copy of my habeas corpus. The answer is probably maybe. .... the fact that my first two habeas corpus has been ignored is discouraging. I have a problem staying motivated to try to hand copy yet another habeas corpus so I can send it to judges who don't give a damn about the law. Nevertheless, I shall persevere.
Just now I'm also writing a grievance of undetermined length to be filed with the Missouri's Judicial Conduct Commission. I have a strong suspicion that my trial court judge has fiduciary obligations to me based on his oath of office. If so, I suspect I might be able to use the Judicial Conduct Commission to force the judge to obey the law. ....
In the meantime, I'm a little discouraged, and annoyed by the fact that the system's primary defense is indifference to me, to my rights, to their duties, to God, as if none of that were real. They treat me like a "thing," not a man. They deny me virtually any respect for the fundamental values..... It's as if I were jailed in a foreign country where I and my captors not only don't speak the same language, my captors don't even recognize me as a man with whom conversation is necessary or even desirable. It's the system's arrogant, bored, habitual, institutionalized indifference to concepts like rights or innocence that is most aggravating, shocking and even frightening.
Their gross, blank-faced indifference couldn't be possible unless they knew, with near absolute confidence, that there was no way, no appellate court, no political force that could be activated to force them to do right - or even less unlikely, to hold them personally accountable for violating other people's rights.
The system is somewhat like a band of serial rapists who have raped so many for so long with such impunity that they are no longer even excited by the prospect or act of rape. They are bored by their own violence, indifferent to injustice, and in some sense, almost dead. I feel like a man trying to reason, argue and litigate with a community of zombies. They are as indifferent to my reason, to my passion, to my life as dogs to the color of a fire hydrant.
Their confidence in injustice is so great, so taken for granted, that I can't help believing that any legal strategy I devise or try will be defeated. This may sound extremely pessimistic and "depressed," but it's not. I'm learning a great deal. They are teaching me in no uncertain terms that I dare not trust in my own strength nor in the goodness of the system of administration of justice. ....
As I have stated above, "Well said, Al Adask." Now I would like to share with our readers some of my experiences at the hands of tyrants. It all started with a trumped up felony arrest, because under law the police could not have arrested me on a lower level charge. So the police used a trumped up felony charge as a pretext knowing they would later drop the charge, which act itself has been adjudicated to be totally illegal.
Actually, I was being arrested for "contempt of cop," seeing as they discerned that I knew a bit of law. I have learned that the more law you know, the more you are viewed as a threat, and their treatment of you is adjusted accordingly. When I asked for their probable cause, I was angrily shouted, "You can take your probable cause and shove it," this done with a fist shaking in my face as I leaned back away from his fist having my hands handcuffed behind my back. I was shocked at this behavior and literally feared for my life. I asked them to take me before a magistrate, and they said, "We're taking you to jail." The fact is, I was never taken before a magistrate as is unarguably required by the Fourth Amendment, nor did I ever at any time receive a probable cause hearing for my arrest, making absolutely every single action done by them patently illegal and actionable from its inception.
When I demanded that my rights under the Constitution be respected, I was told, "You have no rights under the Constitution," and I asked if I was in some foreign country, and that I thought I was in the United States.
During my stay, I was shot with four electrical probes from a taser gun and tortured with electricity. Every time I mentioned the word "Constitution" I was tortured with another round of electricity. I was under electrical torture for a total of one and a half minutes. Thereafter, they placed me in a police car and took me to the hospital. At the hospital, the police asked me how the taser gun felt.
After that event two days later, I was threatened with being tortured again with electricity, breaking my fingers and smashing my skull. They had me totally terrorized in fear of my life.
I was strip-searched time after time after time illegally. These strip-searches were based on their general policy of strip-searching felony arrestees for their own safety, a policy that was condemned as inadequate of meeting probable cause, particularly when the arrest did not involve drugs or weapons. But in my case, the police unilaterally dropped the pretext felony as they had planned to do, and violated the statute that mandates that only the District Attorney has the discretion to drop felony charges. In other words, the police usurped the District Attorney illegally, and in doing so, further engaged in the illegal practice of law without a license.
Then the police bicycled me throughout the system, referred to as "Diesel Therapy," and at one point, I was held in a cell incognito without food. Sure, I lived, and perhaps I could have stood to lose some weight, but that is beside the point. I also asked to use the bathroom, and was denied it. I had to use the floor four times in a cell that had not so much as a drain in the floor. I was treated under conditions that are forbidden by the Geneva Convention to prisoners of war.
When I brought up the issue of no probable cause of a magistrate in my federal lawsuit, the federal judge stated, "Well, if they had of taken you to a magistrate for a probable cause hearing, I feel they would have found probable cause." I responded, "Here in court, your honor, we cannot deal with what if they did it right. The fact is, they have clearly violated the Constitution of the United States resulting in liability to me for deprivation of my rights. I win!" He pooh-poohed my response, so not only was I deprived of probable cause required for my warrantless arrest, but denied redress on that denial raised in my civil action against the police for all their illegal and unconstitutional actions against me. -Ron Branson
J.A.I.L. is an acronym for Judicial Accountability Initiative Law JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope! JAIL is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire! JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability! JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603 To subscribe or be removed: AddRemove@... E-Groups, sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join Forum to make your voice heard JAIL-SoundOff@yahoogroups.com Ask not what J.A.I.L. can do for me, but ask what I can do for J.A.I.L.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal by Kentucky of a ruling that barred the display of a large granite monument with the Ten Commandments on the state Capitol grounds in Frankfort.
Without comment, the justices let stand a federal appeals court ruling that the display would violate church-state separation under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.
The governor in 2000 signed into law a resolution adopted by the state legislature that required placement of the monument, which is more than six feet tall and almost four feet wide, outside the Capitol.
At the top of the monument are the words, "I AM the LORD thy God" followed by the commandments, a sacred and religious text for Jews and Christians. At the bottom are two small Stars of David and a symbol representing Christ.
The monument was given to the state in 1971 by the Fraternal Order of Eagles group. It was displayed until 1980, when it was removed to make room for construction. It has remained in storage since then.
The American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, and five individuals, including a rabbi and three ministers, sued in 2000, claiming the required display was unconstitutional.
A federal judge and then the appeals court agreed, barring the state from erecting the monument on the Capitol grounds because it would be an unconstitutional governmental endorsement of religion.
Kentucky Attorney General Albert Chandler appealed to the Supreme Court. He said the 2000 law required an overall public display of historic documents that included the Ten Commandments, a religious symbol.
He said the display was proposed under the law, but it had not yet been designed or installed. He said the appeals court should not have made a constitutional decision based on "speculation and conjecture" over the display's appearance.
Alabama, Indiana, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Utah supported Kentucky's appeal.
The states said the permissibility of governmental displays of the Ten Commandments raised a question of "national importance." They urged the high court to hold that governments may have such displays to acknowledge the Ten Commandments' historical role in American culture and law.
The ACLU replied that the appeal should be denied. It said the appeals court applied well-settled principles of law in determining the monument would impermissibly endorse religion.
Last year, the Supreme Court rejected a similar appeal by Indiana arguing that it should be allowed to erect a limestone monument with the Ten Commandments on the statehouse lawn in Indianapolis.
The following are comments from Ron Loeber, Ron@..., the JAILer-In-Chief (JIC) of New York
Subject: Supreme Court Rejects Appeal on Ten Commandments .
The problem we are encountering today with the courts is the corruption resulting from what they call Judicial Immunity. There is a legitimate reason for Judicial Immunity. But the way it is administered today is nothing more than the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings. It's roots are in the expression "God, save the King" dating back to the days of the old English Kings. This is not a plea to the Almighty to save the King from disaster or to even bless him as some presume. What it does mean is that The Creator is the highest authority "except" for the King. In the days when first uttered, "save" meant "except". So what we have today is the little Kings in Black Robes saving, i.e., exempting, themselves from accountability and responsibility.
Have you ever thought about what it takes to become a judge? Most would say, "yeah... ya have to be appointed or elected". Though this is true, it is not enough. Once the election or appointment is over, the next step is the swearing in ceremony. Suppose the guy says "no... I won't uphold the constitution(s)"? Then he ain't a judge!
Not only must he take an Oath to uphold the Constitution(s), but he must utter the specific words required by those Constitutions. But that still ain't enough... because mere words are like birds. They fly away in the breeze. He must also sign an oath bearing those specific words. But just because he signs it, that still ain't enough.
The law requires that he be able to prove he took the oath... just in case anyone questions it later. He must be able to provide legal evidence he actually is a judge. Makes sense, doesn't it? So... what must he do to prove it? He must file that Oath bearing his signature with the official Keeper of the Record... the County Clerk. But even that is not enough to prove he is a judge. Heck, you or I could file the same thing with the County Clerk. That wouldn't make us a judge. The one who administered the Oath must also file an affidavit, signed under pain an penalty of perjury, with the same Keeper of the Record. And the law requires it be done within a specific time period. If it ain't all done, and done on time, he ain't a judge.
But even this is not enough. When he takes that Oath of Office and utters the required words, he must place his hand upon a book. And that book ain't Humpty Dumpty. That book is the 2000 year old Evidence of the Law. And there is a reason for it. That Evidence of the Law was given to us by the original Giver of the Law. That Oath of Office means he will uphold the Law upon which he has his hand... as well as the Law of the Land.
And now we have a bunch of supreme jackasses saying government cannot publicly display an artistic rendering of the Law upon the Stone Tablets as it was given to us some 2000 years ago - the Law upon which our entire civilization is based. I wonder what would happen if every one of us, when we had to be in court, took with us our own copy of the Law Book upon which the judge placed his hand when he took his Oath of Office?
* * *
J.A.I.L. is an acronym for Judicial Accountability Initiative Law JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope! JAIL is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire! JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability! JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603 To subscribe or be removed: AddRemove@... E-Groups, sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join Forum to make your voice heard JAIL-SoundOff@yahoogroups.com Ask not what J.A.I.L. can do for me, but ask what I can do for J.A.I.L.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><
We have a case here in Arkansas that should get everyone's attention. It began in Alabama, child custody. However, because of an abusive father, though he is not listed on the birth certificate, this case only started in Alabama. Now in Arkansas where we have a judge who claims no jurisdiction, but in the next breath, sentences the abused mother to jail for a contempt of court charge because she has put her 8-year old daughter, who has been sexually abused by this man starting at the age of 3, into hiding to protect her from being returned to him. Now she has been in jail on a 10 day maximum charge, for over 95 days now! Our new attorney, yes we found a new one, by the grace of God, said this case just keeps getting better and better. I don't have any idea how we are going to fight all the injustices here and there, except for small baby steps like this one. One at a time, bit by bit. Thanks for all you can do.
You'd think they'd learn, what with all the shattered careers and yuckfests with Jay Leno presiding.
For Law Day 2003, The National Law Journal offers its list of judges behaving poorly -- or perhaps we should say behaving incomprehensively.
They are cause for celebration, because they were sitting in judgment over the rest of us on May 1, 2002, and this May 1, they weren't.
Each year, some are gone because they retired early while under investigation, in hopes of salvaging something. For some, it worked.
The allegations against an Arkansas judge, Sam Whitfield, were sealed when he agreed to retire effective Aug. 30, 2002 -- leaving behind only a notation that there were investigated complaints of misconduct on and off the bench.
Other judges were ousted by their state judicial conduct commissions with an embarrassing press release but their pensions intact. In a few cases, the judges are sitting out suspensions until their supreme courts decide what to do with them.
One judge who made this year's list of court buffoons has been off the bench since June of last year as a healthful side effect of his being under house arrest.
Ronald D. Bodenheimer Deal gone bad: 4-year-old for a shrimp contract.
Judge Ronald D. Bodenheimer had a dream. It revolved around a scruffy brew-and-bait marina that he owned. Neighbors complained about drug dealing on the premises.
On the opening day of fishing season, a 15-year-old was electrocuted there because of a faulty conveyer belt. But the eyesore could be turned around, Bodenheimer believed, with one major fishing contract. And Bodenheimer, who sat on Louisiana's New Orleans District Court, thought he could use the power of the bench to get it.
A millionaire restaurateur, Al Copeland, had a child custody case against his ex-wife in Bodenheimer's court. Using go-betweens, the judge let Copeland know he could have anything he wanted -- taking the 4-year-old away from his mother on Christmas morning was specifically mentioned -- in return for a healthy contract to supply shrimp. In one phone conversation, the judge warned Copeland's brother that he was planning a rant-and-rave performance for the courtroom and Copeland should not take it personally, it was just necessary to keep the wife from suspecting "the fix is in."
Copeland hasn't been charged in the FBI's courthouse corruption investigation. Bodenheimer, a 50-year-old career prosecutor who won election to the bench in 1999, initially claimed innocence -- until scraps of the FBI bugs of his phone conversations started leaking out.
When another judge refused to quash the tapes, he pleaded guilty. Bodenheimer has been off the bench, and under house arrest, since June 2002.
It turns out that even his attempts to discredit his critics backfired. One of the charges in the indictment is that he planted three of the painkilling pills Oxycontin in a neighbor's truck -- only to find out the neighbor was an FBI informant.
Bruce Van Voorhis This California judge hasn't heard of Emily Post.
Until judge Bruce Van Voorhis came along with his Judge Dread routine, California had never removed a judge for rotten demeanor alone.
But as the state's judicial performance commission observed, Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Van Voorhis took rudeness to new realms that qualified as abuse of authority and embroilment.
One target was a prosecutor, three months out of law school, who was nonplused by erratic evidentiary rulings that the judge forced down her objecting throat. He later insisted it was a sort of tough-love session, designed to show her the importance of anticipating the unexpected even if one has a slam-dunk case.
Rookie female prosecutors had it the worst. One noted for the commission that the young women were the most vulnerable because they felt they had to show that they could "take it" without complaining. But others were humiliated as well.
The judge berated a defense attorney, examining a witness in front of a jury, with, "Now you need to ask him the question that you learned in law school is a legitimate question." He told a deputy public defender who was born in Ecuador that however "charming" his way of speaking, he should "lose the accent."
Jurors wrote complaints after they passed a note to the judge asking for a clarification and instead he did a number on them for a grammar error in the note.
The judge said he is misunderstood. He also admits it's getting worse, not better. In 1992, six years after Van Voorhis was elected, the commission sanctioned him for being harsh with his staff, intimidating with counsel and inflexible with jurors.
In 1994, there was another reproof. Last year he was semi-sidelined, assigned to hear only small claims and fender-bender cases. On Feb. 27, the judicial conduct commission took him off the bench altogether.
Van Voorhis' attorney said he'll ask the state supreme court to rule on whether being a jerk -- by itself -- is ground for a judge to be ousted.
Gerald Trudel A judge with a God complex and a gulag.
The state's judicial conduct board concluded in mid-February that Gerald Trudel, a judge in Michigan Circuit Court, Allen Park, should be removed from office for abusing county workers, taking unearned vacations and faking illness.
He's been suspended since July 2002, pending the Michigan Supreme Court acting on the conduct board's recommendation.
The judge had a fondness for driving his staff into opposing camps with arbitrary rewards and punishments, the board alleges. It says he secretly used city money, without authorization, to rent a second courthouse without running water or working toilets -- and exiled those who were out of favor to the gulag.
Meanwhile, he set out for palmier climes. The board reported that he tried to take seven months vacation in three years, disguising much of it as medical leave for depression, while taking trips to Newport Beach, Calif.
We may be seeing a trend here that helps explain judicial thought. One of the allegations against Trudel is that he referred to himself as "God."
California's Bruce Van Voorhis explained his gush of anger in the courtroom as being comparable to the frustration Jesus felt when he saw the money changers in the temple. And in Texas, Richard W.B. Davis -- a lawyer who almost made our cut -- sent notes about how critics' comments struck him as being like defecation on Mt. Sinai.
Rodney P. Owens Gaining a pension after avoiding the tax man.
Rodney P. Owens fought his judicial conduct commission just long enough -- from his July 2002 suspension until Jan. 6, 2003 -- that it was irrefutable that he had been on the bench for a decade and so would have a vested pension.
Then the district judge from Little Rock, Ark., quit.
The commission urged his ouster for tax avoidance. He had bought a 37-foot, 1989 Vogue IV, a trailer worth about $103,000, and then paid an extra $1,000 to have it fraudulently registered in Oregon, which has no sales or use tax on vehicles.
When he discovered the investigation was under way, Owens paid about $10,000 in taxes, interest and penalties. Now his attorney is appealing, alleging six major errors, e.g., that the trial judge did not give the jury the option of convicting on the lesser offense of failing to register a vehicle.
Charles E. Low Jr. Woman kept 'on the side' while her case was in court.
When April 14 came, so did a reprimand from the judicial conduct commission against Judge Charles E. Lowe, a Pike County, Ky., Circuit Court judge, for having a sexual relationship with a litigant.
"The conduct of the judge shocks the conscience of the commission," said the chairman, Stephen D. Wolnitzek, adding that Lowe could have been removed from office if he hadn't already resigned.
The judge restricted his resignation to one sentence, and has not been available to comment on the sworn declarations that Debbi Mullins gave the commission. She and her husband had adopted a baby girl, and were frightened when the birth mother tried to back out of the agreement. Mullins said a cousin worked for Lowe and told him she would do anything to keep the child.
"He took me up on it," wrote Mullins, adding that she became the judge's "on the side" for five years, the length of time it took the adoption to become final.
Thomas B. Woodard A 'touchy-feely' guy where women were concerned.
The competition is always tough for judicial horndog of the year, but Judge Thomas B. Woodard, 52, of the Pickens County, Ala., juvenile court, wins the title going away.
And going away is just what he did, negotiating his retirement two days before the state's conduct commission was opening hearings into the case it had made against him for touching, hugging and kissing women and girls in his courtroom.
The judge had served a six-month suspension for the same thing eight years earlier, and had been indefinitely suspended again as of August 2002.
In one alleged incident, he held a 10-year-old girl in his arms for 15 minutes while counseling her, concluding with a kiss. In another, he questioned a crying teenager, insisting on knowing how many people she had slept with. When she finally replied, he called her a "whore."
And then there was the troublesome case in which he didn't recuse himself even though he was dating the defendant; he ruled for her in a child support case and, in an assault case against her, sentenced her to probation.
Until the end, his attorney insisted Woodard's only problem was that he was a "touchy-feely kind of guy."
Francis X. Golniewicz Jr. Jurors felt unappreciated, as did lots of others.
Appointed to the bench in 1991 by the Illinois Supreme Court, Judge Francis X. Golniewicz of the Cook County Circuit Court was the son of a respected judge.
But in less than a year, complaints started about his bullying, profane ways, like the time he lectured a black defendant: "When I'm talking to you, boy, you look at me."
The stories finally made it to the judicial inquiry board, and Golniewicz was removed from judicial duties as of June 2002 until his case is resolved.
According to the conduct board, he "engaged in rude, inappropriate, undignified, prejudicial and biased behavior," toward defendants and witnesses, including using profanity in open court.
What he said, his lawyer insisted, was "friggin.' " And for the judge, "boy" is not a racial epithet.
Stories about how Golniewicz derided jurors may pose his biggest hurdle to getting back on the bench. In one case, according to the judicial board complaint, the judge said he was not signing the certificates of appreciation routinely given to jurors for their service.
Remarking that jurors didn't deserve it, Golniewicz purportedly tore up the papers and threw them in the trash in view of the departing jurors.
Joyce Julian A ballet with the bottle falls flat at judges' conference.
OK, the rules we set for each year's list of judicial shenanigans exclude the routine ticket-fixers and those (re)arrested for drunken driving -- because there's usually a dozen of each, and they're pathetic in any case.
But Broward County, Fla., Family Law Judge Joyce Julian's ballet with the bottle qualifies her as anything but a garden-variety drinker. And, voters decided last fall, it also disqualifies her from sitting in judgment on others. It was the first time in a decade that an incumbent Florida judge failed to win re-election.
The incident occurred at the state judges' annual conference, with 450 attendees, at the posh Amelia Island Plantation near Jacksonville, Fla.
Security reports describe the 44-year-old judge cutting quite a figure on the first night: verbally abusing a valet, crashing a private party, announcing she wanted to "pick up a cowboy" and drinking until she was falling down on the lounge dance floor.
She was spotted at 3 a.m. lying on a floor in a hotel corridor, rising to take off her pants and trying to hide behind an ice maker. That's when the really bad stuff started.
By way of cover-up, the half-naked judge told a Nassau County, Fla., sheriff's deputy someone had spiked her drink and sexually assaulted her. In a victim's report, she fingered a man in a long, dark, leather coat. She recanted it, then refiled it.
After a two-week investigation, the authorities concluded that the story was a lie. Her attorney, citing blackout problems, negotiated a stint in rehab, and all charges were dropped.
James I. Aaron Judge sniffs, others smell a big stench from the bench.
When Fresno County, Calif., Superior Court Judge James I. Aaron presided over drug court, he'd order defendants to approach the bench and smell their hair to determine if they were playing by the rules.
It turned out, however, that the stench came from the other side of the bench.
Last July, the state commission issued a public censure that the judge stipulated to as part of his agreement to step down within five days.
Besides deriding the drug-sniffing, the censure states that the judge helped run a ponzi scheme out of his chambers.
A Fresno businessman named Kenneth Roper recruited the judge and gave him a $20,000 finder's fee to bring in investors. The judge talked up the get-rich potential of it, while neglecting to mention to potential suckers that he hadn't put his own money in or that he got kick-backs for everyone he signed up.
Fresno lawyer David Mudridge said he finally invested $2,500 -- but not because he expected to make any money. Mudridge said he'd go for a court appearance and the judge would take him into chambers to discuss investments, so Mudridge finally agreed "to get him off my back."
Aaron told court staff that Roper and any investors had primo access. If they phoned, they were put through to the judge even if he was on the bench.
When the scheme collapsed, Aaron agreed to cooperate with investigators. Roper is now doing time.
Aaron's attorney says the judge and Roper went to the same church, and Aaron never thought the scheme was illegal. He adds that Aaron, 60, was planning to retire anyway.
Danny Ray Wells A judge puts on the bite in West Virginia.
What is it about West Virginia judges putting the bite on people during bail hearings?
To celebrate Law Day 1998, The National Law Journal recounted how Judge Joseph Troisi lost it -- as well as his job -- when he came off the bench after a bail proceeding to bite a defendant on the nose.
This year, Logan County Magistrate Danny Ray Wells was convicted of shaking down those who came to his courtroom to try to help friends and loved ones.
The way it worked -- from January 2000 to last summer -- is that he would tell, say, the mother of an arrestee that she must pay $300 in "special, nonrefundable bonds" to a mysterious man who appeared to be a bondsman or the runner for a bondsman.
Then the judge would free the defendant on a personal recognizance bond, which doesn't require any payment, and pocket the cash. The man, John Nagy, a former court marshal, said that he and Wells would go into chambers afterward and split the take down the middle.
The prosecution initially alleged that Wells, 51, accepted not only cash but also sex. A woman testified that she believed the only way to free her husband was to take Wells up on his offer to have intercourse with him at night in the magistrate's lunch room.
Wells denied all the allegations, insisting that Nagy had run the bond racket by himself. The jury concluded that the prosecution hadn't proved the sex part, but convicted Wells of bribery and extortion.
The state supreme court suspended Wells without pay in October 2002. Two weeks after his March 3 conviction, he resigned.
J.A.I.L. is an acronym for Judicial Accountability Initiative Law JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope! JAIL is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire! JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability! JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603 To subscribe or be removed: AddRemove@... E-Groups, sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join Forum to make your voice heard JAIL-SoundOff@yahoogroups.com Ask not what J.A.I.L. can do for me, but ask what I can do for J.A.I.L.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><
Lt. Commander-In-Chief of J.A.I.L., gzerman@... ) _________________________________________________________________
Federal Prosecutors Break Laws for Convictions, Says 10-Part Series in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; Chicago Tribune Finds Similar Abuses Among State Prosecutors
In November and December 1998, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette published a landmark 10-part series by veteran investigative reporter Bill Moushey on prosecutorial misconduct and corruption. The investigative report alleges that Federal agents and prosecutors across the U.S. repeatedly break the law in pursuit of convictions (Bill Moushey, "Win at all Costs: Government misconduct in the name of expedient justice," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reprint of articles from November 22, 23, 24, 29, and December 1, 6, 7, 8 and 13, 1998).
The two-year investigation by Post-Gazette reporter Bill Moushey found numerous examples of prosecutors lying, concealing evidence, distorting the facts, engaging in cover-ups, paying for perjured testimony, and prosecuting innocent people to win guilty pleas and convictions. In addition, the paper reported that Federal officials were rarely punished for their misconduct. The misconduct caused victims to lose their jobs, their assets and even their families, according to the paper.
The U.S. Justice Department denied the allegations. "Our prosecutors live by strict, comprehensive and effective ethical rules," said spokesperson Myron Marlin.
However, the Justice Department is aggressively seeking the repeal of the Citizens Protection Act (P.L. 105-277, Section 801), passed last year in the Omnibus Spending bill, which requires Federal prosecutors to abide by the bar ethics rule in the states in which they work. The measure is scheduled to take effect in April. The Justice Department argues that the new law would deny them important prosecutorial tactics, such as using wiretaps, informants or other undercover techniques against certain types of suspects (Eric Lichtblau, "Justice Dept. Contends Law Would Handcuff Prosecutors," Los Angeles Times (National Edition), February 2, 1999, p. A3).
CHICAGO TRIBUNE FINDS PROSECUTORS BREAKING RULES AND SUBVERTING JUSTICE
A similar 6-part series in the Chicago Tribune found that overzealous prosecutors across the U.S. are skirting ethical rules and subverting justice. The Tribune reviewed thousands of court records and appellate court decisions across the U.S. and found that since 1963 at least 381 defendants have had a homicide conviction dismissed because prosecutors either concealed exculpatory evidence or presented evidence that was untrue. Sixty-seven of those defendants were sentenced to die. None of the prosecutors involved were convicted of criminal charges or banned from practicing law, according to the paper (Ken Armstrong and Maurice Possley, "The verdict: Dishonor," Chicago Tribune, January 8, 1999; Ken Armstrong, "'True patriot' not quite a shining star," Chicago Tribune, January 9, 1999; Maurice Possley and Ken Armstrong, "The flip side of a fair trial," Chicago Tribune, January 11, 1999; Maurice Possley and Ken Armstrong, "Prosecution on trial in DuPage," Chicago Tribune, January 12, 1999; Ken Armstrong and Maurice Possley, "Reversal of fortune," Chicago Tribune, January 13, 1999; Ken Armstrong and Maurice Possley, "Break rules, be promoted," Chicago Tribune, January 14, 1999).
In an editorial, the Dallas Morning News wrote: "Considering the tens of thousands of cases tried nationwide since 1963, the 381 convictions may seem inconsequential. They aren't. Homicide cases account for only a fraction of all criminal cases. No one knows how many aggravated assault, rape and armed robbery trials may have been tainted by unethical conduct." (Editorial, "Wrongful convictions," Dallas Morning News, January 14, 1999).
[Considering that drug cases are the largest category of cases in the criminal justice system (there were 1.5 million drug arrest in 1996, for example) and that 400,000 prisoners are serving sentences for drug convictions, it is probable that many thousands of such cases were "tainted by unethical conduct." Certainly, the cases examined by PBS's Frontline documentary "Snitch" were so tainted. -- RCT]
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette report is available on-line at <http://www.post-gazette.com/win/default.asp> or contact the paper at 34 Boulevard of the Allies, Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1204, Tel: (412) 263-1100 or (800) 228-6397, Fax: (412) 391-8452.
Bill Moushey - 34 Boulevard of the Allies, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, Tel: (412) 263-1887, Fax: (412) 391-8452, E-mail: <bmoush@...>.
U.S. Department of Justice - 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20530, Tel: (202) 514-2001, Web: <www.usdoj.gov>.
To obtain the PBS Frontline documentary "Snitch," contact Frontline, WGBH-TV, 125 Western Ave., Boston, MA 02134-1008, Tel: (617) 492-2777, Fax: (617) 254-0243, E-mail: <frontline@...>, Web: <www.wgbh.org/frontline>.•
J.A.I.L. is an acronym for Judicial Accountability Initiative Law JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope! JAIL is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire! JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability! JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603 To subscribe or be removed: AddRemove@... E-Groups, sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join Forum to make your voice heard JAIL-SoundOff@yahoogroups.com Ask not what J.A.I.L. can do for me, but ask what I can do for J.A.I.L.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><
On "Dog Off Leash" Case Our thanks to Michael Stephen Chacon, snorahs12@...,
for putting the judiciary to the test in Whittier, California.
* * *
Even though I am viewed as the defendant in this case, the way I am looking at it is this: I am not on trial here, the court officers are.
- Michael Chacon
(By Mr. Chacon):
During my recent exploits in the Whittier Courthouse, I have become quite the fly in the ointment.
For those of you who don't know, in Dec. of 2002, I was cited with a misdemeanor offense of "Dog off the leash".
From Jan. 31st to March 11th it was being prosecuted as a misdemeanor offense until a biased judge "amended" the charge to an infraction after wearying of my constitutional conclusions and self presented grandstanding.
All I really wanted was:
1. a complete written accounting of all of my rights
2. clear unchanging definitions of the offense charged and other legally
substantive text/issues. Definitions that would not be subject to
change as a result of judicial discretion late in the game
3. straight reasonable answers to straight reasonable questions
4. assistance of counsel, not representation of a lawyer
5. a jury trial
6. the unobstructed ability to make my own audio transcript recording
Not too much to ask from a fair and unbiased court interested only in seeing the truth prevail, right?
But yet in one way or another, I've been denied all of it up until this week. Now I am being denied just most of it.
As most of us have learned, not all judges "excrete" their discretions the same way.
As far as I am concerned, my legislated inalienable rights are mine just like a dollar bill in my pocket is mine. No judge is going to use discretion to rule my dollar bill worth only 23 cents. Just try it! With that in mind, it is no small miracle that I have not been rolled up for contempt of court yet.
My case is now back in a court Division geared to hearing infractions under a Commissioner. I like this Commissioner. She seems fair and genuinely interested in making sure that I receive all that I am entitled to by law.
I was in Her court to begin with but when I asked for a jury trial with stenographer present, the case was transferred to a different court with those "accouterments".
My case has since been busted down to an infraction (I maintain unlawfully).
I have made some small gains with the Commissioner. I finally got a couple of motions granted that I could not get passed in the "big bad Judge's court" when the case was being heard as a misdemeanor.
This week I was granted a continuance on the trial date. I had to waive my right to a speedy trial in order to do it. I didn't want to waive a thing but for my purposes, I am certain this was the wisest thing I could do.
The motion I wrote for the continuance clearly and exclusively holds the court's generally uncooperative resistance to affording me the "constitutional defense basics" as the reason for the need to continue the trial date.
Simply put; Pretrial ain't done! Apparently, the court Commissioner agrees.
The Bailiff in the Comissioner's court has shown a friendly interest in my case and has been courteous and helpful. While the motion for continuance was still pending, He approached me privately and explained he wished to help speed things along if he could and asked "How much time do you need?" One week? Two weeks? A month?
I had purposely left a specific time extension request out of the motion with the intent that the court might make an offer. I told the Bailiff I was unsure as to how long it would take to settle all pre trial matters satisfactorily. I said to the effect "A lot depends on how the court responds to my coming motions I suppose".
The court eventually granted a five week continuance without me asking for anything but more time to satisfactorily complete pre trial proceedings. Probably more time than I need but better than not enough.
At the time He asked, I was unable to really pinpoint why I felt so uncomfortable estimating "how long" it might take and then it hit me several hours later when I was at home reflecting. In my recent experiences, the court has been excessively notorious for cutting hearings and discussions short. I am almost certain I could have settled the entire gamut of pre trial issues inside the first two weeks after the arraignment but the judge upstairs jerked me around so much and cut me off before nary an issue was even raised, let alone settled.
Looking back on all of my court experiences over the years, this seems to be the way of the court.
I know that this is a common place complaint made by people being "held on suspicion" of "this" or "that". All too often, defendants unable to make bail go thru hell being shuttled back and forth from the county jail to the courthouses while lawyers and judges casually continue "this" for two weeks and that for "thirty" days.
I can tell you from a very unfortunate personal experience that there is nothing quite like like being rudely and forcefully awakened in your jail cage at 4:00 AM to appear in court at 11:00 AM for five lousy minutes and then have to wait until 5:00PM for the Sheriff's bus to take you back to your cage.
Sleep is the only lawful escape from prison and on a court day, all you get is a cold hard floor to lay on for 8 to 9 hours. A day trip to court sure makes your cage bunk look good!
The time defendants suffer being hereded back and forth could largely and expediently be reduced if the lawyers and judges would just roll up their sleeves and get in the mud like ol' Perry Mason and behave like it was their ass in lock up and not some prison scum criminal.
More things would get done muy pronto I tells ya!
Don't get me wrong, there are some prison scum criminals that do belong in lock up, but they are a very small minority.
I am also of the mind that a fine solution to unnecessary court delays and jail overcrowding would be to work the judiciary 'round the clock on three shifts just like other busy service industries. Hey the cops are always arresting people 24-7. Suspects ought to be taken straight to a judge or magistrate along with any accusing witnesses. If they don't have enough to convict you when they arrest you, you probably shouldn't have been arrested. You'll notice judges need to be just about proven guilty before you can even indict one, let alone arrest one!
Anyway, I am standing tough in a pretty good place right now. I lost a little ground upstairs but I believe I can use it to my substantial advantage in the near future.
I have made some progress and I am working diligently on dropping what I believe will be a significant legal bomb* shortly. ( * symbolic for powerful legal documents.I make this disclaimer because you never know who might be reading this how your words might be twisted! )
I realize that many people are looking at this case like "What the hell is this guys problem? It's a piddly little dog off the leash ticket. Why is he trying to make it into a federal quesadilla?"
My answer is this: The max fine on the infraction is $77.00. The max penalty on a misdemeanor can't be more than a year in the county jail, however there is a law somewhere on the CA. Penal Code books or case law precedence that indicates to the effect that if a plea bargain was offered, the penalty if convicted, can't be more than the plea bargain offer or it suggests that a defendant is being punished for exercising His constitutional rights to contest the charge. I need to research that again. I have it somewhere in my disasterous stack of stuff zone.
I have excessive evidence to prove my innocence conventionally. I have some unconventional whammies that I wish to whup out that must be seriously entertained by the court. If they are not thoughtfully entertained and reasonably considered, it will tend to disturb the very underpinnings of their declared authority in law UNDER GOD.
The bottom line is I know that there is a lot of rotten dirty business going on in there and a lesser equipped person will get screwed 7 different ways from Sunday and not be able to ever articulate exactly how they were swindled.
I see tremendous advantages to being the accused. Especially when I know I am perfectly innocent.
Even though I am viewed as the defendant in this case, the way I am looking at it is this; I am not on trial here, the court officers are.
J.A.I.L. is an acronym for Judicial Accountability Initiative Law JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope! JAIL is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire! JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability! JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603 To subscribe or be removed: AddRemove@... E-Groups sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join Open forum to make your voice heard JAIL-SoundOff@egroups.com Ask not what J.A.I.L. can do for me, but ask what I can do for J.A.I.L.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><
Yesterday, we sent out Scott Huminski's findings, (VT J.A.I.L.), that the odds of obtaining justice in our present-day judicial system is equal to winning the lottery. How often have I, myself, said that we would have a much more greatly improved judicial system over what we now have if we just submitted all decisions to the flip of a quarter. This conclusion is draw upon the reasonable presumption that we at least would be able to obtain justice 50% of the time. (Winning the lottery is a far cry from a 50/50 odds.) And just think of how much cheaper it would be on the taxpayers to run our entire judiciary on the flip of quarters. Imagine -- no attorneys or attorney's fees, no huge lawfirms, no more judges drawing six-digit salaries of $150,000 to $200,000 each, no years of protracted and harassing discovery, no court reporters, no more finagling judicial elections and all the costs associated with it, no more judicial retirements or bookkeepers keeping tabs, and no more influence of politics associated with obtaining justice, etc. Just this consideration alone would greatly catapult America's economy forward like no one could imagine. For those of you who think that justice destined at the flip of a quarter is too ridiculous, then, of course, there is the option of passing J.A.I.L. as an even a more reasonable way to approach justice, resulting in an even greater boost to the American economy.
Checking in on this subject is Bob Lokey, whose life hung twenty years just this side of the Death Penalty as a lifer without the possibility of parole. Bob is now out of prison and placing his energy into reversing the politics of injustice for all by seeking judicial accountability.
Following Lokey are the comments of Attorney Gary Zerman just prior to the reprint of Scott Huminski's findings for the benefit of those who have not yet read Scott's fine article. People would do well to retain this J.A.I.L. News Journal for the benefit of others, and to constantly remind themselves of the depth of the wickedness of our nation's judiciary, and the vital need for J.A.I.L.
Eventually, however, I was quite effective in my pursuits. Indeed, all my hopes were exceeded. However, I did not pursue with any expectation of stirring the mindless behemoth to relief in my behalf, as the legal system is not designed to serve such a purpose.
The thrust of the legal system in America (and I am sure in the rest of the world) is, and heretofore has ever been, to destroy justice, not to preside over its promotion. The judicio-legal system is simply a huge industrial enterprise that warehouses people and otherwise processes them for destruction, much as a slaughterhouse processes cattle, chickens or hogs. The simile is apt all across the board. The judicio-legal industrial complex also serves folks up to be eaten, as cattle, chickens or hogs. Lawyers and judges serve it as butchers serve any animal-slaughtering enterprise. Become entangled in it at peril.
I pursued legal relief in a totally hopeless situation in the same manner and for the same purpose that I would punch somebody back for punching me to begin with, if I were able to land a blow of any kind or magnitude. I have always liked to reign blows on my enemy, especially when he strikes me first. And this was all I did. If I could only spit on him, I spat; if I could but scratch him, I scratched; if I could only glare my loathing at him, I glared.
Miraculously, the Ninth Circuit actually heard my case (that had been many years in the making), issued a very powerful opinion in my behalf, and backed my play even against a U.S. Supreme Court that deliberately, with coldest calculated intent, specifically designed two cases to knock me down, and ruled, "Hey, man, we're sorry, but, gee,.... What can we say, except, 'f... you and yours, and take this shaft directly ... without any grease.'"
The Ninth Circuit didn't dig it, and reinstated my case, then hired a lawyer to assist me, stating that I had action irrespective that 'God Almighty' sitting in Washington had fashioned a booger just for me, and flicked it on me. Of course, the lawyer wasn't much help. It was about like not having one.
However, ere all was said and done, (and principally because the Ninth Circuit unimaginably backed my play from zero to infinity, even against a mightily resisting U.S. Supreme Court), I literally (not figuratively) devastated the State of California's legal system and freed myself from an unjust and arbitrary imprisonment in San Quentin Prison that was calculated to bury me in prison until I was dead (a sentence of life without possibility of parole, of which I actually did about twenty years altogether.)
I fought only because I could (with no expectation of actually winning anything) and because I felt that even if I were able to do little more than spit blood on the shoe of my murderer, I would hit him at least with something. If I could do no more than loathe him and make him see it, I would hit him with that. I struck with any straw available to me.
Eventually, because God amplified my actions (there is no other explanation), I loaded California down with costs that ran into the hundreds of millions of dollars and still counting almost thirty years later. I'm also free of the State of California's most powerful and enduring judgment, short of death in the electric chair, hanging, or lethal injection.
And so, I can tell you, based upon empirical knowledge, that your principle is a good one. Fight the good fight only to feel the crunch of your blows landing wherever they are able, irrespective how large or small. If your cause is righteous, you just may prevail as I did.
You are so correct. It is called "the appearance of justice." Clearly, if no one won, it would be straight black and white. Everyone would know it was corrupt. When you go fishing, you put out bait or chum, to draw in the fish. Las Vegas and Atlantic City broadcast the winners with bells, whistles, sirens, and flashing lights going off.
The truth is, most Americans are tourists in their own country, and take good for granted. Freedom and liberty requires constant vigilance.
There are some good books out there that tell about how bad it is (although they don't go far enough). Catherine Crier's "The Case Against Lawyers," Sol Linowitz's "The Betrayed Profession-Lawyering at the End of the 20th Century," Judge Harold Rothwax's "Guilty-The Collapse of Criminal Justice," Ralph Nader & Wesley Smith's "No Contest [as in a lawsuit] -Corporate Lawyers and the Perversion of Justice in America," Phillip Howard's "The Death of Common Sense - How Law is Suffocating America," Walter Olsen's "The Rule of Lawyers: How the New Litigation Elite Threatens America's Rule of Law," and Dorothy Rabinowitz's "No Crueler Tyrannies: Accusation, False Witnesses and Other Terrors of Our Lives."
You know it's bad. We know it's bad. That's why we started JAIL.
scotth@... / s_huminski@... Subject: Odds Of Obtaining Justice In Court Date: Sat, 10 May 2003
Hey folks .... I had my opponents in such a strong argument that the opposing attorney didn't respond, and the court made one mention to an entire theory of relief, "Denied." My facts are unopposed on the record and my arguments are likewise unopposed. Yet, the government defendants prevailed in the lower court, and if all works as usual, they will win on appeal.
Please be advised to undertake a battle to vindicate your civil rights as a hobby with zero expectation of winning. Otherwise, this type of litigation can be very stressful, depressing and frustrating.
I used to compare these court battles with going to a casino. But, it's more like buying a lottery ticket. Occasionally, somebody gets lucky and the media plays it up as if the system is working. ....
J.A.I.L. is an acronym for Judicial Accountability Initiative Law JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope! JAIL is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire! JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability! JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603 To subscribe or be removed: AddRemove@... E-Groups, sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join Forum to make your voice heard JAIL-SoundOff@yahoogroups.com Ask not what J.A.I.L. can do for me, but ask what I can do for J.A.I.L.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><
Fearful of growing backlash from the public against arbitrary, prejudiced, and even malicious judgments that are protected by judicial immunity, judges have banded together under government sponsorship to devise means of defending themselves from aggrieved and increasingly militant pro se litigants.
The Anti-Government Movement Handbook is a training manual for judges and court staff against pro se litigants, published in 1999 by the National Center for the State Courts (NCSC) in Williamsburg, Virginia. This book, along with Dealing With Common Law Courts: A Model Curriculum for Judges and Court Staff, published in 1997 by NCSC, was developed from an Institute for Course Management (ICM) course on dealing with common law courts, held in Scottsdale, Arizona, February 5-7, 1997.
The curriculum and manuals for this course were prepared with a grant from the State Justice Institute: Award No. SJI-96-02B-B-159, “The Rise of Common Law Courts in the United States: An Examination of the Movement, the Potential Impact on the Judiciary, and How the States Could Respond.” The State Justice Institute (SJI) is a non-profit, 501C(3) corporation that was started in 1986 and funded by Congress to develop courses and training manuals for state courts and judicial training organizations.
This course and training manuals were developed by a group of 27 judges, court clerks, court administrators, and prosecutors in Arizona who examined the history and procedures of the Common Law Court Movement (CLC) and created the training curriculum and responses that courts, judges, and court administrators can use when dealing with common law courts in their own jurisdictions. My contact at the conference said that one of its goals was to identify ways the courts can make preemptive strikes against the CLC movement.
Some of the keynote speakers who helped produce the CLC course in Arizona were Chief Justice Thomas Moyer of Columbus, Ohio, T.C. Brown of Columbus, Ohio (a reporter for the Cleveland Plain Dealer), and Jonathan Mozzochi, Executive Director of the Coalition for Human Dignity in Seattle, Washington. Mozzochi, who distributed Guns and Gavels, a publication of the Coalition, was listed as “a nationally recognized expert on militias and hate group activity.” The Coalition is like a west coast version of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).
I originally found out about this course by watching a videotaped session of the 1996 combined conference of the Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ) and the Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA), held in Nashville, Tennessee in the summer of 1996 and called “Impact of the Common Law Court Movement on the Courts.” More than 50 state Supreme Court justices and state court administrators attended the Tennessee conference. The CLC session was taped with a grant from SJI. Keynote speakers were Michael Reynolds, senior intelligence analyst for the SPLC, and James Reynolds, chief of the Terrorism and Violent Crime Section, U.S. Department of Justice.
The panel discussion included Susan Hansen, senior reporter with American Lawyer, Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Moyer (past president of CCJ), Utah Supreme Court Justice Michael Zimmerman, and Judges Jeffrey Langton and Gregory Mohr from Montana. The taped session was more than three hours long. At the end of the session, one of the speakers mentioned that there was funding for additional CLC conferences. I immediately called ICM, located at NCSC in Virginia, and asked about the additional CLC conferences. My contact told me that a Scottsdale conference was going to take place in about three days. Since those two conferences, there have been additional conferences sponsored by SJI with other organizations.
SJI sponsored a conference with the American Judicature Society in Scottsdale, Arizona in November, 1999 that was closed to the public and the press. There will also be an ICM course in Orlando, Florida on February 5-7, 2001 called “Increasing Access to Justice for Pro Se Litigants,” with that organization's perception of what “access” means.
“Constitutionalists in Court” was held in the St. Paul-Minneapolis, Minnesota area in the summer of 2000 by the National Judicial College (NJC) of Reno, Nevada, and the same course was held again November 13-14, 2000, also at NJC in Reno. This course discusses the history of protest movements affecting the judiciary, identifies typical challenges and ways to handle them, anticipates courtroom security needs, and plans solutions and strategies.
NJC, together with the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), conducted a survey, developed material for their courses from SJI materials and grants, and published a brief report called “Right-Wing Extremist Challenges to the Authority and Jurisdiction of the Court” in 1998. This course and report contains a preemptive plan against pro se litigants and others who may disagree with the court, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Native American protest groups, religious organizations, and anyone else who may take issue with a court decision. The information from NJC is so controversial that NJC has banned its course and conference materials from the public, but their library and the SJI repository is open to the public.
I originally started researching judicial training organizations in 1996 after I was denied an inheritance by the New Jersey court system when my parents died and was also denied entrance to a conference and course materials at NJC in May, 1996, called “The National Conference on the Media and the Courts: Working Together to Serve the American People.” The media conference was closed to the public. Only one New Jersey judge, Martin Kravarick, attended that conference. Judge Kravarick was elected president of the American Judges Association (AJA), a judge's organization under NCSC. AJA publishes a quarterly journal called Court Review, available in your local law library, by subscription, or through interlibrary loan.
I first found out about the judicial movement against pro se litigants and the CLC movement by reading Kravarick's “President's Message” in the Fall, 1996 issue of Court Review. I called Judge Kravarick for more information on what the CLC movement was all about, and he gave me some additional contact information. I called Mike Reynolds of SPLC, and he told me there were four conference proceedings and that the conference was taped. I waited over three months to get a copy of the tape, “Impact of the Common Law Movement on the Courts.” That tape is available through interlibrary loan from NCSC along with the training manuals mentioned above.
Each state has an SJI repository for all publications put out by the organizations they have funded. For example, the repository in Nevada is at NJC in Reno. In New Jersey, the SJI repository is at the New Jersey State Library in Trenton. You can check out these training manuals with a New Jersey library card. You can also find out where your SJI repository is by looking it up on the Internet at http://www.statejustice.org, by calling SJI at 703-684-6100, or by writing to the State Justice Institute, 1650 King street, Alexandria, VA 22314.
SJI is funded by Congress with your tax dollars. If you don't like the courses and materials they are funding, you can write to your senator or congressman, or directly to SJI and ask them to stop funding these materials. SJI gets very few letters from the public, and I'm sure they would love to hear from you. When you get to their Web site, read and download the newsletters. Most of their new grants are in their newsletters.
The National Center for State Courts is an umbrella organization for several judges' organizations such as the National College of Probate judges (NCPJ), AJA, CCJ, COSCA, ICM and others. I have been a member of NCPJ since 1996 and have attended four judges' conferences. The most controversial and harmful material against the public is coming from NJC and NCSC materials, two agencies that compete with each other for SJI and federal government funding.
In the training manuals mentioned above, there are two sections in each book where the writers advise judges and court personnel such as court clerks and guards on how to handle pro se litigants using a step-by-step process. The writers of these manuals reveal a court that is biased and has a dangerous point of view about justice and equal access in the court system.
The Author: June Wisniewski is a legal researcher and journalist in Reno, Nevada, who can be reached at renojune@.... She has written a number of articles on judicial subjects and is author of the book, The Coffin Chasers: An Aggrieved Litigant's Journey Through the Corrupt World of Probate. This article appeared in the January 5, 2001 issue of the Idaho Observer and is reprinted here with knowledge of the author. Its subject matter is the basis of another book, Unequal Justice: The Inside Story of the National Judicial College.
The judicial system is fighting every Constitutional argument imaginable that they see threatening their tyrannical empire. However, they just have not figured out how to resist the rising national movement of JAIL4Judges. This became apparent when a California judge took special note on the record of this organization, stating that this organization sends out thousands of email messages against the judiciary all over the country, and that he too receives them, but does not read them.
The power of J.A.I.L. lies in the fact that it is not based upon a legal argument made before a judge in a courtroom, to which the judges could be trained to resist, but rather in passing a constitutional amendment outside the court's power by a vote of the people.
J.A.I.L. is an acronym for Judicial Accountability Initiative Law JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope! JAIL is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire! JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability! JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603 To subscribe or be removed: AddRemove@... E-Groups, sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join Forum to make your voice heard JAIL-SoundOff@yahoogroups.com Ask not what J.A.I.L. can do for me, but ask what I can do for J.A.I.L.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><
Send Email
