Skip to search.

Breaking News Visit Yahoo! News for the latest.

×Close this window

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

The Yahoo! Groups Product Blog

Check it out!

Group Information

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

Yahoo! Groups Tips

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

Messages

Advanced
Messages Help
Messages 685 - 714 of 1790   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Messages: Show Message Summaries Sort by Date ^  
#685 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Wed Mar 5, 2003 4:10 am
Subject: ** Grand Jury Doing What It Is Supposed To Do **
jail4judges@...
Send Email Send Email
 
 J.A.I.L. News Journal
_____________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                        March 4, 2003
 
HotSeat4Judges/M-Th/5pmPT   TheJAILerMakers   What?MeWarden?
T-ShirtMe!
                FedJAIL4FedJudges                   E-mail&hosting
 
Grand Jury Doing What It Is Supposed To Do

 
 
SFPD indictments shock the city
ANGRY JURORS: Panel apparently broadened case

Chuck Finnie, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, March 1, 2003

Click to View

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@....


 




Thanks to Henry Jake Morgan, Florida JAILer, henrymorgan1@...
for forwarding this 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    <><

#686 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Fri Mar 7, 2003 4:23 am
Subject: * The "Preferred" Juror - A Puppet of The Judge *
jail4judges@...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
___________________________________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                        March 6, 2003
 
HotSeat4Judges/M-Th/5pmPT   TheJAILerMakers   What?MeWarden?
T-ShirtMe!
                FedJAIL4FedJudges                   E-mail&hosting
 
 
The "Preferred" Juror-
A Puppet of The Judge
 
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@...
 

Informed public helps system
Times Union ~ Albany, NY ~ Sunday, March 3, 2002
 
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 direVoir 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    <><

#687 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Tue Mar 11, 2003 4:48 am
Subject: **Judge Edith Jones Reveals The Truth**
jail4judges@...
Send Email Send Email
 
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
_____________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                         March 10, 2003
 
HotSeat4Judges/M-Th/5pmPT   TheJAILerMakers   What?MeWarden?
T-ShirtMe!
                FedJAIL4FedJudges                   E-mail&hosting

 
Judge Edith Jones Reveals The Truth About Our Legal System


American Legal System Is Corrupt Beyond Recognition, Judge Tells Harvard Law School
By Geraldine Hawkins
March 7, 2003
 
 
 
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    <><



#688 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 6:55 am
Subject: JAILer John Kinney Writes...
jail4judges@...
Send Email Send Email
 
 
JAILer John Kinney Writes...
 
----- Original Message -----

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!
 
Ron Branson
Commander-In-Chief
 

#689 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 9:35 pm
Subject: Government In New York Collapsing
jail4judges@...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
_____________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                               March 25, 2003

HotSeat4Judges/M-Th/5pmPT   TheJAILerMakers   What?MeWarden?
T-ShirtMe!
                FedJAIL4FedJudges                   E-mail&hosting

 
 
Government In
New York Collapsing
 
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 Times
March 21, 2003
 
The Three Budgeteers
 
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    <><

#690 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 12:22 am
Subject: Infected With Black Robe Disease
jail4judges@...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
_____________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                        March 28, 2003
 
HotSeat4Judges/M-Th/5pmPT   TheJAILerMakers   What?MeWarden?
T-ShirtMe!
                FedJAIL4FedJudges                   E-mail&hosting
 
 
Infected With Black Robe Disease
 
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. 
 
Ron Loeber
JAILer-In-Chief
New York J.A.I.L. 

 
Coleman's not only one discredited
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.

Contact Fred LeBrun at 454-5453.


#691 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Thu Apr 3, 2003 6:24 am
Subject: Legislatures Isolating Themselves From The People
jail4judges@...
Send Email Send Email
 
 J.A.I.L. News Journal
_____________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                                    April 2, 2003

HotSeat4Judges/M-Th/5pmPT   TheJAILerMakers   What?MeWarden?
T-ShirtMe!
                FedJAIL4FedJudges                   E-mail&hosting

 
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
 
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 6:46 AM
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.

Find information on these and other bills online at
www.azleg.state.az.us.

===================
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    <><

#692 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 7:25 am
Subject: * * America, The Land of the Free! * *
jail4judges@...
Send Email Send Email
 
 J.A.I.L. News Journal
_____________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                                    April 7, 2003

HotSeat4Judges/M-Th/5pmPT   TheJAILerMakers   What?MeWarden?
T-ShirtMe!
                FedJAIL4FedJudges                   E-mail&hosting

 
 
America, The Land of the Free!
 
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?

© 2003 - NewsWithViews.com - All Rights Reserved
http://www.newswithviews.com/fredinburg/fredinburg9.htm

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    <><

#693 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 11:32 pm
Subject: CVS Newspaper Reports On J.A.I.L.
jail4judges@...
Send Email Send Email
 
 J.A.I.L. News Journal
_____________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                                    April 7, 2003

HotSeat4Judges/M-Th/5pmPT   TheJAILerMakers   What?MeWarden?
T-ShirtMe!
                FedJAIL4FedJudges                   E-mail&hosting

 
Connecticut Valley Spectator Reports On J.A.I.L.

 
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....
 
Regards,
Dave Donley,
Paralegal, JIC VT Jail4judges
http://www.jail4judges.org
 

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    <><

#694 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 7:42 pm
Subject: Re: JAIL4Judges and Million Dad's March, June 8
jail4judges@...
Send Email Send Email
 
 
Dear Lessman and Baskerville:
 
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.
 
      - Ron Branson -
J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief
 
 
 

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 10:26 AM
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!

Thomas Lessman
Chairman of the Million Dads March
www.MillionDadsMarch.org


Quoting Stephen Baskerville, baskerville@...:

Ron,
 
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.
 
Stephen Baskerville

#695 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 1:15 am
Subject: Military Courts vs. Civil
jail4judges@...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
_____________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                               April 22, 2003

HotSeat4Judges/M-Th/5pmPT   TheJAILerMakers   What?MeWarden?
T-ShirtMe!              FedJAIL4FedJudges                  WebHostingServ
 

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    <><

#696 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:38 am
Subject: $licing Up Judge's Pie
jail4judges@...
Send Email Send Email
 
 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
PHOTO 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    <><

#697 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 2:12 am
Subject: * * * Learning The Need For J.A.I.L. * * *
jail4judges@...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
_____________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                                April 29, 2003

HotSeat4Judges/M-Th/5pmPT   TheJAILerMakers   What?MeWarden?
T-ShirtMe!
                FedJAIL4FedJudges                 WebHostingServ

 
Learning
The Need For J.A.I.L.
 
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. ....
 
Alfred Norman Adask,
Author and Editor of www.suspicions.info,
and Antishyster News Magazine....
 

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    <><
               

#698 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 7:20 pm
Subject: Supreme Court vs. God's Commandments
jail4judges@...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
_____________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                               April 29, 2003

HotSeat4Judges/M-Th/5pmPT   TheJAILerMakers   What?MeWarden?
T-ShirtMe!                FedJAIL4FedJudges                 WebHostingServ

Supreme Court vs.
God's Commandments
(God Loses)
 
Supreme Court Rejects Appeal on Ten Commandments
DAILY NEWS ~ By James Vicini ~ April 28, 2003

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    <><

#699 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Mon May 5, 2003 6:52 am
Subject: Fw: bad judge
jail4judges@...
Send Email Send Email
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2003 3:44 PM
Subject: bad judge

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. 

#700 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Tue May 6, 2003 5:26 am
Subject: Judges Who Crossed The Line -- Or Erased It
jail4judges@...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
_____________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                                   May 5, 2003

HotSeat4Judges/M-Th/5pmPT   TheJAILerMakers   What?MeWarden?
T-ShirtMe!                FedJAIL4FedJudges                 WebHostingServ

Judges Who Crossed The Line -- Or Erased It
 
The Injudicious
Judges who crossed the line -- or erased it

Gail Diane Cox
The National Law Journal
05-05-2003


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.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1051121825488



 
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    <><


#701 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Tue May 6, 2003 9:04 pm
Subject: Federal Prosecutors Break Laws For Convictions
jail4judges@...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
_____________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                                      May 6, 2003

HotSeat4Judges/M-Th/5pmPT   TheJAILerMakers   What?MeWarden?
T-ShirtMe!
                FedJAIL4FedJudges                 WebHostingServ

 
Federal Prosecutors Break Laws For Convictions
(Sent by Att. Gary Zerman,
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 THE COURTS

January-February 1999

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@...>.

The Chicago Tribune report is on-line at <http://www.ndsn.org/JANFEB99/www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/>, click on "Trial
and Error" on the left-hand side. Contact authors Ken Armstrong - E-mail: <karmstrong@...>,
Tel: (312) 222-4661 or Maurice Possley - E-mail: <mpossley@...> , Tel: (312) 222-3401.

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    <><


#702 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Wed May 7, 2003 3:03 am
Subject: ** California JAILer Stands Tough on "Dog Off Leash" Case**
jail4judges@...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
_____________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                               May 6, 2003
 
HotSeat4Judges/M-Th/5pmPT   TheJAILerMakers   What?MeWarden?
T-ShirtMe! 
               FedJAIL4FedJudges                   E-mail&hosting
 
 
California JAILer Stands Tough
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.  
...
...
 
Michael
California JAILer, Los Angeles County


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    <><
 
      
 
 
 

  
 
 

      
 
 
 

 
 
 

 



#703 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Sun May 11, 2003 3:14 am
Subject: *** Lifer, Without Possibility Of Parole, Speaks ***
jail4judges@...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
_____________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                                   May 10, 2003

HotSeat4Judges/M-Th/5pmPT   TheJAILerMakers   What?MeWarden?
T-ShirtMe!                FedJAIL4FedJudges                 WebHostingServ

 
Lifer, Without Possibility Of Parole, Speaks
(By Bob Lokey, savbabys@...)
 
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.
 
-Ron Branson-
 

 
----- Original Message -----
From: B. Lokey
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2003 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: Odds Of Obtaining Justice In Court

Welcome to reality, Scott.  Been there, done that. 
 
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.  
 
Lokey 

Attorney Gary Zerman Comments
 
Scott:

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. 
 
Attorney Gary L. Zerman

 
Odds Of Obtaining Justice In Court
Worse Than Win In A Casino
(By Scott Huminski, Vermont JAILer)
 
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.  ....

Scott Huminski
scotth@...

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    <><
 
 

#704 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Mon May 12, 2003 9:44 am
Subject: Judges Being Secretly Trained To Resist Constitution
jail4judges@...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                             May 11, 2003

HotSeat4Judges/M-Th/5pmPT    TheJAILerMakers   What?MeWarden?
T-ShirtMe!                   FedJAIL4FedJudges                WebHostingServ

 
Judges Being Secretly Trained
To Resist Arguments Based on Constitution

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

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.

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


Continuing Education Credit Prejudices Judges

by June Wisniewski

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.

Copyright © 2001 June Wisniewski

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

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    <><


#705 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Wed May 14, 2003 6:28 am
Subject: Trial Lawyers on Trial
jail4judges@...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
_____________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                                 May, 13, 2003

HotSeat4Judges/M-Th/5pmPT   TheJAILerMakers   What?MeWarden?
T-ShirtMe!
                FedJAIL4FedJudges                 WebHostingServ

 
The Club for Growth

Trial Lawyers on Trial

Stephen Moore
Scripps Howard News Service May 2, 2003

This is a story of one of the greatest heists in modern American history. Five years ago a small group of trial lawyers became fabulously wealthy off of other people's pain and suffering, and it looked like they got away with it.

But maybe not.

I am referring to the 1998 tobacco litigation agreement reached between states and tobacco companies. This famous legal settlement required the tobacco companies to reimburse states nearly $250 billion over 25 years for the smoking-related health care costs incurred by state financed Medicaid programs.

In that deal, a small gang of several hundred trial lawyers walked off with settlement money of an estimated $10-to-$15 billion. If you filled Madison Square Garden with people who made $1 million, their total wealth would be slightly less than what the trial lawyers received in these settlements.

And so, as it turns out, the grand winner from these tobacco settlement cases was not the smokers who got cancer or heart disease. It was not their families. It was not taxpayers. It was not states and cities, which bore the health costs. It was lawyers - about 500 of them. Some lawyers received more than $50,000 an hour in contingency fees for lawsuits that never even went to court.

Never before have so many billionaires been created out of thin air overnight. And in the past five years these tobacco lawyers have bought luxury yachts, Rolls Royce autos, Citation jet planes, and politicians (through millions of dollars of campaign contributions). "These fees were outrageously excessive," fumes Michael Horowitz, a legal expert at the Hudson Institute. "This money should have gone to states, not to make billionaires out of lawyers."

But this grotesque story of lawyer avarice may have a happy ending after all. Last month, two Republican senators - Jon Kyl of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas - decided to take on the trial bar by demanding that a good chunk of the tobacco settlement lawyer fees be returned to states from whom it was pilfered. Senators Kyl and Cornyn have discovered that the multi-billion dollar settlements awarded the trial lawyers violate legal ethics rules.

Under decades of legal precedent, lawyers are prohibited from receiving fees that are "excessive or unreasonable." If there were ever a case of unreasonable fees it is this one. As a Missouri Court has ruled: "Reasonableness is an implied term in every contract for attorney's fees."

Here is what Kyl and Cornyn propose. If a reasonable fee of $400 an hour were to be applied, and if the tobacco lawyers were permitted to receive settlement money that paid them a contingency fee of even five times that amount (i.e. $2,000 an hour in fees), the states will be able to recapture a net present value of an estimated $9 billion from the tobacco lawyers. And that is money that many indebted states can use to help balance their budgets that are awash in red ink.

Kudos to Kyl and Cornyn. They are trying to right an egregious wrong.
They have come up with a formula in which everyone wins. States win because they get $9 billion. Children win because some of this money will be used for anti-smoking campaigns to educate school kids on the dangers of smoking.

Our health care system wins because some of this money can be used to develop cures for cancer and heart disease.

And trial lawyers still win a magnificent pot of gold - just one that will make most of them millionaires, rather than hundred millionaires.

They will still receive fees that will pay them more for an hour's work than what many American workers earn in a month. And for this the bar association will moan and complain about the injustice of it all. ....

 



Want to let your Representative know how you feel? Write a letter.




#706 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Wed May 14, 2003 11:01 pm
Subject: * * * Reality vs. The Constitution * * *
jail4judges@...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
_____________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                               May, 14, 2003

HotSeat4Judges/M-Th/5pmPT   TheJAILerMakers   What?MeWarden?
T-ShirtMe!
                FedJAIL4FedJudges                 WebHostingServ

 
Reality vs. The Constitution
(By Ron Branson - Nat'l J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief)
 
So many times I have attested that America's political power, in reality, is "vested" in the judiciary of this country, and not in Congress; that all the attention given to Congress and to the passing of legislation is off point.
 
Back as early as 1996 I stated, "Give me just five men that I can place within government any place I wish, and I could completely control America. With these five people I could overthrow America and bring it to ruins, or with these same five people I could restore this nation to the glorious country envisioned by our Founding Fathers. Would I arm these five men with guns? No! Would I give them tanks, jets and bombs? No! No! No! And where would I place these five people to accomplish this mind-boggling task? In Congress? No! The Presidency? No! I would place them on the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
 
Did the people heed my voice back then? No, not really. A few may have, but most ignored me and went on spending their money trying to get good legislators elected; seeking to influence Congress; and striving to gain the attention of Congress in obtaining redress of grievances. Here we are years later, and these people are still appealing to Congress, and spending millions of their dollars on the electorate, but now we are no better off, but worse. Why? Because they believe not the truth that it is the judiciary that controls America, not Congress! It will not be until the people of America focus their attention upon the judiciary that they will realize a change in American politics!
 
It is for this very reason that America's ills will never be remedied through political parties that seek to the legislature as a cure, for at best, were it even possible to bring the legislature over to their party, their good efforts would be overridden by those who hold the political powers of this nation, i.e., the judiciary. 
 
I once addressed a Second Amendment group, and here are my words on that speech. "All I have heard here tonight is the effort to get good legislators elected into Congress. Now why do you want to get good legislators elected to Congress? Oh, you say, you want them to write good gun laws. Well how about a gun law that says something like, 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed?' Does that sound like a good gun law? But wait a minute, that sounds familiar. Now where have I heard that before. Oh, you say, 'That's the Second Amendment of the Constitution.' Oh, yes, you're right, it is the Second Amendment! But that's been on the books for over two-hundred years. Why are we still here today arguing over the Second Amendment? Is there something wrong with it? Do we need to amend this Amendment? or must we pass some kind of a new law through our good legislators want to get elected into Congress that says the Second Amendment means what it says?
 
But wait a minute, doesn't the Constitution carry more force and effect than a law? Oh, you say, 'But the courts do not respect the Second Amendment of the Constitution, and we need to pass some good laws in order to get the judges to respect it.' Really now! Do you honestly believe judges who hold no respect for the Constitution, are going to respect the law if it says the same thing? Oh, but you want to clarify the Constitution, you say. So what you really believe then is that the judges of America are just too stupid to understand the Second Amendment, and just need to be educated by a good law written by good legislators that we get elected to office.
 
Folks, if out of two-hundred years of American history the judges of America cannot understand the Second Amendment, then they are not going to understand any good gun legislation no matter what it says.  Wake up! You are fighting against a corrupt judiciary who will never see or respect anything that does not fit their preplanned political agenda. We need judicial accountability, not more gun laws, or more education! You're wasting your time."
 
Did they wake up! No! Not one person approached me afterwards, or said anything about "You're right," or "I enjoyed what you said," or "I disagree with you," or "Go fly a kite!" Not a thing! Zilch! It was if I had spoken to a brain-dead audience of zombies. And so they go on week after week, month after month, and year after year collecting dues and seeking to "get good legislators elected to Congress."
 
The subversives plotting against America just love these people! They know what they are doing, "Watch the birdie." "Watch Congress." Never mind the  judiciary, you don't even know their names anyway. Just punch the ballot ignorantly for that man on the bench. Keep him in there. He's got such a nice smile. They know that the real power of legislation is from the bench, and that it is always easier to pass laws from the bench than to bother with Congress. They leave you to monkey with Congress.
 
Now our Constitution sets forth in its preamble, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice..." What does that say? "Establish justice?" The very highest of all priorities of our Founding Fathers in writing the Constitution was to "Establish Justice!" And where, in our form of government, is "Justice" supposed to be brought to bear? By laws passed by Congress? No! For why then did our Founding Fathers create a judiciary to be a check and balance upon Congress if all laws wrought Justice merely by the fact that they were passed?
 
I would like to refer here is excerpts from a May 7, 2003 article entitled, "What do courts solve," by Columnist Al Knight, alknight@..., as found in the Denver Post, and I quote: 

"Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor spoke to a college group the other day and commented on some social and political problems that deserve a closer look.

Justices, as everyone knows, typically don't say much during their speeches for fear of commenting on something that might eventually come before the court. That's why they tend to stick to generalities with which almost no one can disagree.

Most of O'Connor's remarks were in that category - with one exception. O'Connor said the Supreme Court hadn't quite "solved" the problem of race. There are two important implications to this remark: It is up to the court to "solve" the problem and that, given some more cases, it can somehow do so.

Many people might find this comment perfectly reasonable since they hold the view that it is up to the courts to decide important matters and up to the rest of us to follow instructions. This view is consistent with the commonly held belief that the Supreme Court is a kind of super-legislature which is supposed to resolve the really tough questions that face the nation. These would include whether there is a right to die; whether and where God may be mentioned in public; when life begins; and what society must do to redress the ancient wrongs of the slave trade. .... 
....
As it is, the nation is stuck with a broken judicial selection system precisely because it is too widely assumed that each appellate nominee is no more than a front for the pet projects of a political party. The answer to this puzzle should be obvious: The first step is to make the courts less, not more, important." (unquote.)

In conclusion, I quote from Article I, Sec. 1 of the U.S. Constitution, "All legislative power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States..." This is and has been the law of this Land for over 200 years.

But reality is as set forth by one of the most famous lawyers in this country today, Gerry Spence, who says the "...Power in this country is vested not in Congress, but, as usual, in the black-robed, wily, silent minions of Power. All the lobbying in Congress, all the maneuvering and wrangling for bills, all the positive, creative, reformatory legislative labor, is for naught -- for the ultimate power, rests in the hands of the judiciary." ~ Attorney Gerry Spence, -- With Justice For None, (1989) ISBN 0-14-013325-9.

I now rest my case on "Reality vs.. The Constitution. - 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    <><


#707 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Fri May 16, 2003 5:25 am
Subject: * Just Enough Crumbs Of Justice*
jail4judges@...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
_____________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                          May 15, 2003
 
HotSeat4Judges/M-Th/5pmPT   TheJAILerMakers   What?MeWarden?
T-ShirtMe! 
               FedJAIL4FedJudges                   E-mail&hosting
 
 
Just Enough Crumbs Of Justice
By Henry "Jake" Morgan, Florida JAILer
 
The legal system, like a Ponzi scheme or a slot machine, pays out just enough crumbs of justice to keep the suckers coming - to keep hope alive that the "system can work."  As long as people have even a little hope that the system can be made to work, they will work like banshees trying to get it to work by conventional means.
 
It usually isn't until they have thrown themselves against the rocks to the point where they are exhausted and almost dashed to pieces, that they finally admit defeat, admit that the system IS broken.  (Look how long it took Ron to reach that point - 18 years was it Ron? Hee hee hee!)
For those people, it is only then that they are open to the possibility that the system must be changed. Why?
 
Because for the average person, looking at the prospect of "fighting something in court" is daunting enough; but they can sometimes manage to muster up enough courage to do it.  But for them to consider that there is a flaw in the Constitution that needs fixing, is like asking them to confront climbing Mt. Everest. It's overwhelming!  It requires them to put themselves on a level with the Founders and Framers.
 
Often, they don't really understand the Constitution well enough to allow them to do that. The Constitution, Founders and Framers are often held in reverence and awe by many who understand the Constitution very little. Gradually, through their unsuccessful attempts to get justice, working within the system, they become more and more familiar with the Constitution, because they keep thinking, "that Judge can't do that - why it's against the Constitution - I'm pretty sure..."  and they obtain a copy of the Constitution and look it up which forces them to study it and get real familiar with it.  They then become convinced that "judges really ARE ignoring their oaths wholesale."
 
Their education in the School of Hard Knocks finally brings them to a high enough level of understanding the Constitution to know what you are talking about (and not be terrified) when you suggest an improvement. They are then competent enough to consider the suggestion rationally and know that they can make a good assessment of the ramifications of the suggestion you are making (i.e., J.A.I.L.).
 
Until then, your suggestion sounds blasphemous, sacrilegious, pompous, dangerous, ARROGANT, and  SCARES THE H--- OUT OF 'EM.  They "KNOW" that they aren't competent to even consider the possibility that the Constitution has a flaw. What to do with such folks?
 
I tell 'em once that they're beating a dead horse. When they resist - I just say, "Hey man - maybe you're right."  "You go get'em champ!"  "Wade right in there and have at 'em!"  "GO FOR IT!!!!!"  (I've learned by experience not to waste my time.) Then I go back to "Sowing Dragon's 
Teeth."
 
Fortunately, there are lots of folks out there who have already figured out that the system is busted; who aren't "too smart by half"; and who can "see" the beauty of J.A.I.L. immediately. They are the ones who will roll up their sleeves and get this show on the road.
 
Then there are those other guys who have to keep beating their heads against the wall because they are so blind that they can't see the open door three feet over to the right.  Some of them will come on board later when they see we're making headway and they aren't; some won't come on board until AFTER J.A.I.L. passes--then they WILL make use of it; and some will NEVER come on board. Your ability to influence them is slim to none. It's like trying to lead a horse out of a burning barn - almost impossible.  Don't waste your time.
 
Just keep "Sowing Dragon's Teeth" - finding the ones who can see it right away. There are lots and lots of them.  It's impossible to know in advance who they are, so you just gotta make sure EVERYBODY gets one (Dragon's Tooth). 
 
 [Henry wrote a JNJ titled "Sowing Dragon's Teeth" which depicts putting out thousands of J.A.I.L. business cards which he suggests everyone can create locally. Recently Ron Loeber, our New York JAILer-In-Chief, has offered to sell a quantity of high quality J.A.I.L. cards to anyone who would like them. For details, contact him at ron@....]
 
Meanwhile, those other guys who are running headlong at the system will be getting lots of publicity about specific incidents of "Judicial Corruption" - thereby making the guy on the street that much more susceptible to the "Dragon's Tooth" you hand him.  When you run into them (those other guys), tell 'em, "Hey, saw that newspaper article about the corruption you are exposing - you guys are doing GREAT!!!!!  GO MAN GO!!!!  ATTABOY!!!!!"  FAN THEIR FIRE WITH A VENGEANCE!!!
 
They are making our market.
 
Think about it!
 
You wouldn't really want to stop them from doing that, would you now?
 
Best Regards,
Jake
[Respond directly to Jake at email address beneath the title of this 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:  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    <><

#708 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Thu May 22, 2003 1:33 am
Subject: * * * Regulators andd Zoning Laws * * *
jail4judges@...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
_____________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                               May, 21, 2003

HotSeat4Judges/M-Th/5pmPT   TheJAILerMakers   What?MeWarden?
T-ShirtMe!                FedJAIL4FedJudges                 WebHostingServ

 
Regulators and Zoning Laws
By Bill Monroe, Tennessee J.A.I.L.
 
I still like to read and occasionally write about the quotes of our founders and earlier justices.  The following quotes seem appropriate re: Knoxville zoning changes and the possibility of this coming to us. 

"Now what liberty can there be where property is taken away without
consent?" - Samuel Adams (Nov 20, 1772)

"Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist." John Adams
("Discourses on Davila," 1790)

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as
sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and
public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'Thou
shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of
Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before
it can be civilized or made free."  - John Adams, "A Defense of the American Constitutions," 1787

Jefferson wrote "The true foundation of republican government is the
equal right of every citizen in his person and property, and in their
management." To which he added - the defense of private property is
the standard by which "every provision" of law, past and present,
shall be judged. (Bergh, Albert Ellery, ed. "The Writings of Thomas
Jefferson, 2d ed. rev." Washington Thomas Jefferson Memorial
Association, 1907, p. 1532.

In The Federalist (number 79, by Alexander Hamilton) it is written
that "In the general course of human nature, a power over a man's
subsistence [i.e., property] amounts to a power over his will."

"Property" is more than just the physical thing-the land, the bricks,
the mortar-it is also the sum of all the rights and powers incident
to ownership of the physical thing. [t]he right to use the physical
thing to the exclusion of others is the most essential and
beneficial. Without this right all other elements would be of little
value.'" Dickman v. Commissioner, 465 U.S. 330, 336 (1984).

"Each of us has a natural right to defend his person, his liberty,
and his property."   -- Frederic Bastiat

As Justice Bryon White noted,  "A man's right to defend his property has long been recognized at common law...[P]erhaps a government edict barring one from resisting the loss of property is the constitutional equivalent of taking such property in the first place..."  

We call a tyrant the leader whose only law is that of his own whim, who
expropriates the property of his subjects, and then drafts them to go
take that of their neighbors. -- Voltaire, "Tyrannie", Dictionnaire
Philosophique, 1764

"It is too bad that the overall value to human beings of their basic
right to private property is so widely and prestigiously denied. It is
one of the most beneficent institutions and certainly the bulwark against any kind of tyranny, be it that of a ruling party, a dictatorship, or even of
a democratic majority." - Tibor Machan, Hoover Institution Research.

 
No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public
use without just compensation." (Zoning) --Article 5, The Bill of Rights 
When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things
to be bought and sold are legislators.  -- P.J. O'Rourke [Also city councils and county commissions. --Bill Monroe]
"In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as
possible from one class of citizens to give to the other."---Voltaire 
Shakespeare said a rose by any other name is still a thorn. Likewise stealing by any other name is a thorn in the side of mankind.
                                                                         --Bill Monroe

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within
limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add
"within the limits of the law," because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
                                                                  - Thomas Jefferson

The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are
constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere
of action but for the legislature and executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch. To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.... The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.
                                                                  - Thomas Jefferson 

Judicial Accountability Imitative Law (legislation) is an idea whose time has come. Stop judicial immunity.  Ron Branson 1995 California attorney
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." -- Frederic Bastiat, The Law, 1846

"The sacred rights of property are to be guarded at every point. I call
them sacred, because, if they are unprotected, all other rights become
worthless or visionary. What is personal liberty, if it does not draw after it the right to enjoy the fruits of our own industry? What is political liberty, if it imparts only perpetual poverty to us and all our posterity? What is the privilege of a vote, if the majority of the hour may sweep away the earnings of our whole lives, to gratify the rapacity of the indolent, the cunning, or the profligate, who are borne into power
upon the tide of a temporary popularity?" -- Judge Joseph Story, 1852 
  
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who think they are free." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." - Thomas Jefferson
(1743-1826) 

"IN GOD WE  TRUST," politicians pay cash. --Bill Monroe

Sincerely,  Bill Monroe
Maynardville,  Tennessee 37807-0355
 

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    <><
 
All good endeavors start with an idea. Ideas develop into goals, and goals develop into realities.    -Ron Branson (July, 2000)

#709 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Mon May 26, 2003 6:07 pm
Subject: Is Social Security Constitutional?
jail4judges@...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
_____________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                               May, 22, 2003

HotSeat4Judges/M-Th/5pmPT   TheJAILerMakers   What?MeWarden?
T-ShirtMe!                FedJAIL4FedJudges                 WebHostingServ


Is Social Security Constitutional?
 
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/attarian7.html

Is Social Security Constitutional?
by John Attarian

May 24 marks the 66th anniversary of Helvering v. Davis (1937), in which the Supreme Court found Social Security constitutional. With Social Security's prospects shaky, and overhaul inevitable, this is an
appropriate time to re-examine Helvering v. Davis and Social Security's constitutionality.

Helvering v. Davis was heard when the Court faced the worst crisis of its history. Indeed, the most important thing about this case is its political
context.

Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal was immensely popular with the public and he dominated the lopsidedly Democratic Congress. Only one thing thwarted Roosevelt: the Supreme Court.

Four Justices, George Sutherland, Willis Van Devanter, Pierce Butler, and James McReynolds, believed that the Constitution should be interpreted conservatively, according to the intent of the Framers. In their view, the federal government could not intervene in economic or local matters, and the Tenth Amendment - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" - narrowly confined its legitimate activities. So the New Deal was invalid. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and Owen Roberts often concurred. The liberal
Justices, Harlan Fiske Stone, Louis Brandeis, and Benjamin Cardozo, believed that the Constitution had to be interpreted flexibly, to meet changing circumstances. A clause in Article I, Section 8, empowering Congress to impose and collect taxes "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States," they believed,authorized New Deal laws. 
....
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court hammered the New Deal. On May 27, 1935, in a crushing defeat for Roosevelt, it voided the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Frazier-Lemke Farm Bankruptcy Act. It struck down the Agricultural Adjustment Act on January 6, 1936, the Guffey Coal Act on May 18, and the Municipal Bankruptcy Act and a New York state law setting minimum wages for women on May 25.

Enraged, Roosevelt decided to subdue the Court. His megalomania inflated by his 1936 landslide, on February 5, 1937 he abruptly asked Congress to enact a bill empowering him to appoint one additional Justice for every one who turned 70 and did not retire, for a maximum of six, thus enlarging the Supreme Court from nine Justices to up to fifteen.

A firestorm ensued. Critics rightly called Roosevelt's proposal a plan to pack the Court. Even liberals who deplored the Court's decisions, including many congressional Democrats, opposed it.

Its arm cruelly twisted by Roosevelt's threat to its independence, the Supreme Court began surrendering in self-preservation. On March 29, the Court upheld a revised Frazier-Lemke Act; the National Firearms Act;
the Railway Labor Act, which promoted collective bargaining; and a Washington state law providing for minimum wages for women.

Then cases arose involving the blatantly pro-labor Wagner Act and the Social Security Act. The Court was in a hideous bind. Most of the Justices opposed the expansion of government power which these laws
entailed - but if they voided them, Congress would probably enact Roosevelt's Court pack.

On April 12, the Court upheld the Wagner Act. On May 18, Van Devanter announced his imminent retirement, enabling Roosevelt to nominate a Justice.

The case for his bill was weakening. But Roosevelt would not quit.

Such was the situation when the Supreme Court considered the Helvering v. Davis case. On November 12, 1936, George Davis, a stockholder of Edison Electric Illuminating Company of Boston, sued, alleging that the Social Security tax was unconstitutional, and asking that the company be kept from paying it. The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts upheld the tax, but the Circuit Court of Appeals reversed it. IRS Commissioner Guy Helvering asked that the case go to the Supreme Court.
....
Among the issues to be decided, it stated, were whether Social Security's taxes were valid exercises of the taxing power in Article I, Section 8; whether providing the benefits was valid under the "general welfare" clause; and whether Titles VIII and II, the tax and benefit titles for old-age benefits, taken together, are an exercise of powers not granted by the
Constitution.
....
Arguing before the Court on Davis's behalf of May 5, Edward McClennen demolished the claim that Social Security's tax was simply for raising general revenue. Taxing the smallest wage earners and exempting income above $3,000 a year is, he observed, an odd way to
raise general revenue. And if that was the goal, why not tax laborers exempted from the Social Security tax? Obviously, because the benefits would be "limited to the same classes of people." The Justices ignored
McClennen's points.
....
So the Court ducked the core issue of whether Social Security is an unconstitutional government insurance program. Why?
....
The majority of the Helvering v. Davis majority, Hughes, Roberts, Van Devanter, and Sutherland, were conservatives. Most had bitterly criticized the New Deal. Can anybody really believe that they found
Cardozo's half-baked opinion, mostly lifted from the Administration's brief, an adequate expression of their views on Social Security's constitutionality?

McReynolds and Butler dissented - but wrote no opinions. Did they have nothing to say? Or were they afraid of Roosevelt?

In saving Social Security, the Court saved itself - and people knew it. The decision, the Washington Post opined, drove "another nail in the coffin of the President's plan to enlarge the court's membership.
Roosevelt's Court pack failed, and Helvering v. Davis was a factor.

But its validity is shaky. Cardozo's opinion is laughably weak: leaning on a brief full of duplicitous arguments, ignoring McClennen's exposure of Social Security's true purpose, and ducking the main issue. Clearly, the Court upheld Social Security for one reason only: Roosevelt was holding a gun to its head. Helvering v. Davis was a political act of self-preservation, made under duress. We know what things obtained under duress are worth.

Given all that, the issue of Social Security's constitutionality, far from being settled, remains wide open. Somehow I doubt that the Framers, who after all meant the Constitution as a fetter on expansive government and not a blank check for it, intended the Constitution to authorize a tax-devouring engine of dependence on the State like Social Security. The
purported constitutionality of Social Security rests on sloppy argument, willful evasions of reality, and, ultimately, frightened submission to one of the worst acts of tyrannical bullying in the federal government's history. Here again the reality of Social Security is radically at variance with the myths. The case for holding this program inviolate collapses
accordingly.

May 23, 2003

John Attarian (send him mail) is a writer in Ann Arbor, Michigan, with a Ph.D. in economics. His book Social Security: False Consciousness and Crisis, which treats the myths and realities of Social Security in detail, has just been published by Transaction Publishers.

Copyright © 2003 LewRockwell.com

"And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had ... the number of his name. ... And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who ... receiveth the mark of his name." Rev. 13:16, 17, 14:11.
 
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    <><

#710 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Thu May 29, 2003 6:37 am
Subject: * Court Retreats From Miranda Rights *
jail4judges@...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
_____________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                               May, 28, 2003

HotSeat4Judges/M-Th/5pmPT   TheJAILerMakers   What?MeWarden?
T-ShirtMe!                FedJAIL4FedJudges                 WebHostingServ


Court Retreats
From Miranda Rights

Court Gives Leeway to Interrogate
Justices deal a blow to Miranda right, say a person can be forced to talk in bid for evidence.
By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer
May 28th, 2003

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court narrowed the right against self-incrimination Tuesday, ruling that police and government investigators can force an unwilling person to talk, as long as those admissions are not
used to prosecute them.

The 6-3 opinion undercuts the well-known Miranda warnings, in which officers tell individuals of their right to remain silent. It appears to allow more aggressive police questioning of reluctant witnesses in the hope of obtaining evidence. While a person's words cannot be used against him or her in court, evidence can be.

Tuesday's decision also could prove useful to the government in the war on terrorism. The FBI agents who fanned out around the country after the terrorist attacks in New York and at the Pentagon mostly wanted
information, not criminal convictions.

Most immediately, however, the decision throws out part of a lawsuit brought on behalf of a gravely wounded farm worker in Oxnard who was questioned in a hospital emergency room by a police supervisor.

The officers who shot Oliverio Martinez in the face and back can be sued for using excessive force, and possibly for "outrageous conduct" at the hospital, the court said. But the justices ruled that the police
supervisor who repeatedly questioned Martinez did not violate his 5th Amendment rights in doing so.

Civil libertarians worried that the decision signals a retreat from the Miranda rulings of the past. Already, the court has agreed to hear three Miranda cases in the fall, one testing whether police can deliberately
violate the right to remain silent.

"When the court handed down Miranda [in 1966], it set out clear lines. When you crossed the line, you violated the constitutional right," said Charles Weisselberg, a UC Berkeley law professor. "Now Miranda has become something else - a rule of evidence, but not a constitutional right. I fear that means it will have less respect from police, judges and the criminal justice system."

Police advocates applauded the ruling.

"This is a good win for the law enforcement community," said Charles L. Hobson of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Sacramento. "It will be the rare case where an officer is ever held liable for questioning. This shows that Miranda is just about excluding evidence at a trial," he said, not about setting constitutional rules for questioning.

Since December, when the court took up the farm worker's case, the justices have been reconsidering the reach of the Miranda decision and the right against self-incrimination.

The Martinez case examined whether the Constitution protects a person when he is being questioned by police, or only later at a future trial.

In past decades, the more liberal Supreme Court had said that suspects and witnesses had a right to remain silent. The 1966 decision in Miranda vs. Arizona held that police officers must tell people of their rights
before questioning them.
....

What is interesting in this Martinez Case decision is that, in effect, the 5th Amendment, according to the Supreme Court, is different than it was,  although it has not been amended. And in this manner, every provision of the Constitution can be amended by the courts without amending it.
 
As a historical background of the Miranda case, the police burned Mr. Miranda on the back repeatedly with cigarette butts in order to compel him to speak. He brought suit for this act, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which determined that no one can be compelled to talk.
 
What the Supreme Court is now saying in this Martinez Case, is that if there is not intent to prosecute criminally, then the 5th Amendment does not protect people's rights, and police can now force people to speak against their will.
 
But what the Supreme Court is overlooking is the intent of our Founding Fathers, namely the 1st Amendment. It protects the right to speak, and the right not to speak, for the right to speak, of necessity, also includes the right not to speak!
 
In one of my jail experiences, every time I said, "I stand on my Constitutional Rights," the police turned on electricity, and tortured me with four electric probes they shot into my body.
 
Under this Martinez standard, are we now to entertain this as appropriate police action to compel people to speak so long as they are not prosecuted criminally? Is this not like the archaic practice of raping a man's wife in front of him, or slaying his children before his eyes in order to compel him to speak? Only on the Martinez standard, you cannot prosecute him, just compel him to speak!
 
How oft have I said that their can be no police state in this country without concurance of the judiciary. This is way we must have judicial accountability, and soon. When, Oh, When, America, are you going to wake up? Our country is in grave Peril without the passage of J.A.I.L.!Must we lose all our protected rights first?

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    <><

#711 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 7:06 am
Subject: Who Is Judging Whom?
jail4judges@...
Send Email Send Email
 
 J.A.I.L. News Journal
_____________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                               
                      June 9, 2003

 
Who Is Judging Whom?
 
Linda Kennedy, (WBFLegal@...) a Virginia JAILer attorney whose law license is being called into question, argued her case before the Supreme Court of Virginia this past Wednesday, June 4, 2003.
 
Her argument below is recounted by Texas JAILer Ed Truncellito, who himself faced a similar disbarment proceeding for his law license within Texas for speaking out for integrity.
 
Evidence is mounting that every Attorney Bar and Judicial Commission is really about weeding out ethical members among themselves who cling to honestly and integrity, and is not about discipline corruption with their own ranks.
 
As a result of the insurmountable corruption within our justice system, many attorneys are becoming fed up, and are now challenging the very system of which they belonged to based upon honesty and integrity. Thus, honest attorneys and judges are now facing disbarment and/or removal from the bench like never before. The message being sent is, "No honest man need apply to the legal profession!"
 
It is for this very reason that the judicial accountability, as presented by J.A.I.L., is bound, in due time, to come about as sure as a starving nation will revolt for food. J.A.I.L. is as a candle light within a cave. The darker the cave, the brighter the candle appears. All the darkness in the world cannot dispel light, but light, no matter how small, dispels all darkness.
 
-Ron Branson-

Whistleblower Puts Virginia Supreme Court on Trial June 5, 2003
___________________________________________________

by Ed Truncellito, JD
justicejustice@...
__________________________________________________
 
Yesterday seven Justices of the Virginia Supreme Court were put on
trial in their own court by attorney Linda Kennedy, who was disbarred last year.  The Justices had the spotlight turned around on them when Kennedy addressed them from the podium. Kennedy was there to appeal her Disbarment for violating the First Unwritten Rule of Virginia Legal Ethics: do not embarrass the Virginia Bar by blowing the whistle on    white-collar crimes they commit against an unwitting Virginia public.  
 
Kennedy began by throwing Chief Justice Leroy Rountree Hassell, Sr.,   off guard. She complimented him saying she heard him preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ at Regent University. Maybe he momentarily forgot that   a similar tactic was used by the Apostle Paul to subdue King Agrippa.  
 
The Justice straightened up and beamed with pride as he was reminded   of the distinction that Regent bestowed upon him in the eyes of his   black community by honoring him as a professor of law and theology.
 
Next Kennedy quoted a second one of the Justices, a woman, who was   published as stating that legal process must always be above suspicion. Kennedy thanked her for the statement, but added that the message apparently has not yet reached the Virginia Bar.
 
Kennedy silenced a third Justice by interrupting his question and asking that the Justices not ask her any more questions. She said they had a copy of her written brief, and she wanted to use her entire 15 minutes to explain to them in person how their legal system has become disgracefully corrupt. And if that did not convince them, then nothing ever would.
 
Nonetheless, a moment later a fourth Justice, another woman, interrupted to ask if she understood correctly that Kennedy did not want to answer their questions, perhaps implying that Kennedy had something to hide. But Kennedy rebuked her. Kennedy said it could not have been made any plainer: "no questions." The Justice pushed herself back in her chair showing consternation, but she had nothing more to say.
 
Having silenced the Justices, Kennedy then proceeded - shall we say    "earnestly" - to "chew their butts," as plain folk in Virginia would call it. Good for you, Kennedy, because the buck stops here. These Justices are the senior officers of the Virginia Bar whose lawyers are trying to cover up the fact that Kennedy caught them red-handed falsifying the very court record that these Justices had sitting right there under their noses on the bench. The legal process that brought them the case record was not merely suspicious - it was blatantly fraudulent.
 
Kennedy had fished through the trial court's trash cans and found the trial court's handwritten notes that the trial judge had approved falsifications of the trial record to cover up perjury by the lawyer who heads the Virginia Bar's Ethics Committee.
 
Kennedy has audio tapes that prove what the Ethics leader really said, in his own recorded voice. But the trial court cut out the part of the record where the trial judge refused to allow those audio tapes to be played. Ironically, the trial judge's comments were falsified in the record claiming he said he would have exonerated Kennedy if only she could have proved what the audio tapes in fact do prove.
 
Talk about smoking guns. But this is just one of the more glaring cases. It is an open secret that records are being falsified routinely in cases all over the state and all over the country while the high courts hear it with a deaf ear. Zed McLarnon, a forensic audio-visual expert, has documented that transcripts in Massachusetts courts are altered with the knowledge of court personnel. In Indiana, Rebecca Rohrs has conclusively documented literally thousands of alterations in hearing transcripts in a child custody case. "This is criminal misconduct," attorney Eugene Wrona says of similar practices in Pennsylvania, "and these people belong in jail."
 
Further, it is notorious that lawyer whistleblowers can all expect to share Kennedy's fate. Law students are misled like the public, being told in law school that law is an honorable profession. Not until they begin practicing do they discover how money really changes hands. Only after they have invested years in their law school education are they taught that they must maintain an unwritten code of secrecy. Then they shut up - or they are disbarred.
 
After Kennedy's 15 minutes, Chief Justice Leroy Rountree Hassell, Sr.  told her the time was up. Kennedy announced that there was no need for her to listen to her opponent's excuses or comment on them. Then she   walked out with some of the 30 supporters who accompanied her,   including pastors and lawyers.
 
The Justices in this case will pronounce a verdict on themselves. If they order a full investigation and a new trial of her disbarment, then the Justices will have pronounced their innocence. Otherwise, Regent ought to reconsider whom they allow to preach to our youth.
 
Ed Truncellito, JD
Texas JAILer


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    <><


#712 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Wed Jun 11, 2003 6:11 am
Subject: * * Corruption of the Judicial System * *
jail4judges@...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
_____________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                          June 10, 2003

TheJAILerMakers                      What?MeWarden?
T-ShirtMe!
                FedJAIL4FedJudges                   E-mail&hosting

 
CORRUPTION OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM
 
http://www.worldnewsstand.net/2002/article/7-18.htm

Of the three branches of the federal government, the most important, in terms of preserving liberty, is the federal judiciary. It was designed to be the ultimate bulwark against injustice. The final resolutions of all controversies in law and government in America, no matter how small, are eventually determined by judges. Judges are supposed to enforce the limitations on lawmaking power upon the other two branches as dictated by the Constitution. They do not have the power to make law, but to strike down unconstitutional legislation and edicts of the executive branch.

Of the three branches, the judiciary is supposed to be the most impartial and the least political, since its members are not directly elected by the people. Sadly, almost all constitutional safeguards and restraints on judicial misconduct are now dead. For decades, until just this year, Federal judges were nominated, unconstitutionally, by the American Bar Association (ABA), an organization controlled by a committee of left-leaning, anti-constitutional attorneys. As of this year, nominations once again publicly come from the President, but the ABA still maintains its control through key allies in the Bush Justice Department. Judges are confirmed by the Senate in a very politicized process as well, also controlled by the ABA. The result is that, regardless of the party in power, the vast majority of judges who are confirmed are strongly liberal. Although a small percentage of judges are conservative, these judges have a reliable track record of taking orders from higher judges when necessary--thus, their conservative leanings are easily overridden.

Despite increasing public evidence of judicial misconduct, Congress has refused to invoke the constitutional remedy of impeachment to remove a judge, at least for many, many years. State watchdog agencies remove, on average, only 10 judges a year, compared to the approximately 10,000 cases of alleged abuse reported annually--and most abuse is never even reported.

There are two types of corruption with judges: individual corruption and systematic, or institutionalized, corruption. The only type you will ever see evidenced in the media is the individual or "rogue" type of corruption. The Powers That Be want you to believe that the judicial system is above reproach, an honored profession, and that only an isolated judge here and there would be caught taking a personal bribe, or bending the law to protect crime.

The same is true regarding the woefully corrupt police system: the establishment only admits to the occasional rogue cop, never to systematic corruption. But strangely, even rogue judges--blight that they are on the sterling reputation of the courts--usually receive only a token slap on the hands, and they almost never serve jail time. This is because the bribe they were caught taking is usually only the tip of the iceberg, if they are part of a broader conspiracy to protect government illegal operations.

The PTB in the Justice Department work overtime to make sure the systematic corruption and collusion of these judges is kept hidden so as not to expose the broader and deeper conspiracy for government control--of which judges form an integral part. The judges who do get harsh punishment, sadly, are usually the rare few who obstinately refuse to go along with the systematic corruption of the judicial system, and these are set up in some form of sting operation to remove them "for cause."

Significantly, there have been almost no defectors from the judicial ranks who have admitted to the institutionalized corruption in the system. That’s because these judges know exactly what kinds of penalties and threats they would face if they did so. One of the most significant ways in which judges aid and abet the conspiracy within government is to participate in the "take down" of federal agents and military personnel who get cold feet about illegal activities.

When the CIA or FBI wants to silence an agent who is threatening to expose corruption within the dark side of government, they almost always set him up for prosecution by giving him orders to carry out a secret operation that, like many before, is illegal and corrupt. Only this time, instead of ensuring that the operation is protected, the agency anonymously calls the police and has the agent compromised and arrested. In the ensuing legal proceeding, presided over by one of "their" judges, they disavow any relationship with the accused. The two most common illegal practices used by federal judges to assist in the prosecution (and conviction) of the defector are: 1) deny as inadmissible the introduction of crucial evidence pointing to the accused’s employment as a government agent, and 2) give carefully crafted, prejudiced instructions to the jury, dictating a narrow course of action that can only end in a guilty verdict.

At least one defector from the high ranks of the CIA has detailed the system of payoffs the government makes to judges through gambling casinos and foreign banks. Such details, plus many more specific stories of federal criminal activity, are found in Rodney Stich’s blockbuster book, Defrauding America (1-800-247-7389). I have mentioned this book numerous times before in my briefs because it is perhaps the most complete catalog of government crimes and cover-ups presented in a single volume. It obviates the need to read a dozen other books. This is one that should be in every library. Many of you complain about how hard it is to convince your friends that a conspiracy really exists. Hand them this book, and if they have even half an honest heart, they will come away shaken. If they don’t believe Stich’s documentation, they won’t believe until the thugs are at their door. Stich’s exposé not perfect, but at least he has done independent verification of the stories that no other author has done.

 

 
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    <><

#713 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Sun Jun 15, 2003 7:44 am
Subject: **Pre-J.A.I.L. Survival**
jail4judges@...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
____________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                           June 14, 2003
 
HotSeat4Judges/M-Th/5pmPT   TheJAILerMakers   What?MeWarden?
T-ShirtMe!
                FedJAIL4FedJudges                   E-mail&hosting
 
 
Pre-J.A.I.L. Survival
Living in Tyrant-Infested Waters
The Mission of Attorney Linda Kennedy (Virginia JAILer)
by Barbie - victoryusa@... 
 
What a rich and rewarding experience it was for Ron Branson and me to finally meet in person Attorney Linda Kennedy who needs no introduction for most of J.A.I.L.'s subscribers. She likes to be called "Kennedy" and so we shall do so in this report. Kennedy has been the host of HotSeat4Judges on CrusadeRadio.com for approximately a year, and she is probably best known for her writing "Holodeck Law -- Litigation Vortex" which was posted as a J.A.I.L. News Journal, February 22, 2002, and is pasted below for review and reference. Also pasted beneath that is a followup JNJ dated March 2, 2002.
 
Since we posted those two JNJs, the positive feedback we received was tremendous. One person even said in essence that if Ms. Kennedy endorses J.A.I.L., that's good enough for him.  Kennedy has greatly contributed to the integrity of J.A.I.L. by opening people's eyes to the truth of what we are really facing in the judicial system today, thus evidencing the dire need for J.A.I.L.
 
Kennedy arrived in Los Angeles just before midnight on Friday, the 13th. We then asked if she had time to stop for something to eat and visit, and without hesitation she said "Absolutely" --even though she was operating on eastern time, 3 hours earlier than our time. So when we arrived at Denny's Restaurant enroute to the hotel at close to 1:30 a.m., her system was on 4:30 a.m. But she was as bright and chipper as she could be!
 
Folks, it was hard to imagine that she was going through the legal battle of Disbarment Proceedings and had just finished appearing in the Virginia Supreme Court. Her spirits were flying high, which evidenced the fact that whatever tactics she is using, is working!  She gave us a synopsis of what happened in front of the "Supremes" (as she calls them), and it was like listening to a comedy skit. She was having a ball, putting the Supremes on the spot time after time, one punch followed by another, embarrassing them to the point of speechlessness. She explained how important it was to know ahead of time what they would be up to, and "beat them to the punch" every time. She had her ducks all in a row, and every time the Supremes tried to pull their punches, Kennedy was able to block it and throw a few of her own at them.
 
I wish we could have been there to watch the charade!  I'm sure it would have been worthy of an Oscar, from what she described to us. Kennedy has become an expert in "Litigation Chess," always thinking several steps ahead of the opposition, including the court. She disclosed the fact that she has learned the pattern used in exercising their tyranny-- and she said once you learn that "secret" --you're always on top. She's learned how to prepare ahead of time for the legal fraud that was sure to be forthcoming in the proceedings, and how to use it against them!
 
The only way this could be done was to have the benefit of plenty of experience in the system, knowing the actual law and how they would twist it around, and being ready to foil them in the act-- boldly stopping them right on the spot and exposing for the record what they were really doing. One thing she said is that you cannot be intimidated or afraid to speak up immediately-- no more Mr. Nice Guy-- and state exactly the fraud that is going on while it is happening. She said that's how the system operates, by catching people off guard-- never expecting what was about to happen to them. Once it is after the fact, and it has been allowed to "happen" --you're cooked.
 
Let me tell you, Kennedy is putting her writings into practice and finding that she's definitely on the right track. What's important to her is to educate the people on how to successfully fight in the tyrannical judicial system themselves-- not relying on an attorney. That's the downfall of many. Attorneys are not able to do for their client what the client can do for himself.
 
So, she says her mission is to train people to first, have the right mindset-- realize we are at WAR with the legal system, and that it's a matter of survival against the evil powers, especially those in black robes. As Kennedy says repeatedly-- "No more Mr. Nice Guy." Know who the real enemy is and be prepared to fight the war! Kennedy described it as empowering the people to do battle-- be bold. Soon people will come to know what actual cowards the enemy is, when they can no longer succeed in pulling their stunts and later change the record to cover up the fraud. As Kennedy says, there is a pattern that people can learn to expect, and be prepared to stop the game plan before it actually happens.
 
Ron made the interesting observation that Kennedy is from the east coast, and we're on the west coast-- which shows that this game plan is universal. It doesn't matter where you live. Kennedy said that she is willing to go wherever she is needed, so long as her travel, food and lodging are taken care of.  As she put it-- "If people can get me there and back, I'll be there." She is committed to teaching people what she knows in order to save the victims from being devoured in the sea of tyranny. 
 
Kennedy is filling an important gap while we wait for the passage of J.A.I.L.  As she pointed out to us, she sees the program as a two-pronged process (A) teaching people how to survive the holodeck system at this time, and (B) passing J.A.I.L.  While she knows that J.A.I.L. is the final answer, she also knows that people must know what to do NOW!  And that has been a real source of frustration for us, with countless people writing to J.A.I.L. and asking "What do we do now?  We can't wait for J.A.I.L."  And we can't deny they have a legitimate concern. We just didn't know how to advise them as long as all we have is a broken system to work with-- how can you get justice out of a tyrannical system?  All we knew to do was refer people to our J.A.I.L. Legal Discussions Group for suggestions others could give them. That was indeed one aspect with which we felt very helpless, and we were sorry that J.A.I.L. wasn't happening soon enough to stop the legal carnage going on daily across this nation.
 
Then came Kennedy!  Kennedy to the rescue!  Yes-- indeed the J.A.I.L. movement is a two-pronged approach, as Kennedy points out. And that first prong is important.
 
Kennedy's website is www.WBFLegalReform.com and I'll close by quoting what she has written as part of her email signature:
" 'There are moments in history when a door for massive change opens. Great revolutions for good or for evil occur in the vacuum created by these openings. It is in these times that key men and women, even in entire generations, risk everything to become the hinge of history, that pivotal point that determines which way the door will swing...'  --Lou Engle."  Certainly Kennedy has become a "hinge of history" for J.A.I.L. for which we are so grateful!  Thanks to Kennedy from all of us!
 
-Barbie-  (see the referenced JNJs beneath the J.A.I.L. signature)

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    <><


 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
____________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                          February 22, 2002
 
 
Holodeck Law -- Litigation Vortex
By Attorney Linda L. Kennedy

The "Holodeck Law" where nothing is as it appears, and where the plaintiff is never to be seen again -- with money.
 
When you voluntarily go into court you will find that many times, you will lose even though the law is clearly on your side.  Then, after the loss, due to your sense of right and wrong, you begin filing lawsuits or complaints against judges, you appeal decisions, and spend time and other resources thinking of other legal strategies for seeking recourse, etc. 
 
In essence, everyone is asking the judges to find themselves corrupt, and this logically just will not happen. Even worse, they become occupied for years on a course that costs them money and keeps them busy with very little to show for it, except perhaps high blood pressure. Most often, they become more broke than when they innocently started their path many years before. Simply stated, this is what I call the "Litigation Vortex" where nothing is as it appears and where the plaintiff is never to be seen again--with money. 

I will tell you that I have actually found ways to win in court. It is not impossible, but unless you know the "real" rules of court, you will not be able to endure and succeed in it. This strategy takes a lot of understanding of the facts, the law, and the real strategies of the opposition. It requires 
a thorough understanding of the overall corruptness of the system, and an understanding of military strategies. It  becomes very case specific and tailored and must be tweaked as the case progresses.  I will tell you that this strategy is also a very dangerous one, especially for lawyers who use it, since by implementing it, you are  showing the other side that you know their game and are not willing to play. An attorney or citizen may get to use this strategy between two to four times before he/she is exposed as the enemy of the state (not playing along with their game on their court or turf).  This is when they will implement the "and two" part of the "Triangle and Two Defense," which I discuss elsewhere.

These submissions are vignettes which I hope will help you understand where you are in your litigation, what happened if you are already through your litigation nightmare, or will help you understand that this battle has to be fought off of the courts' turf. 
 
This writing is fairly short and not all inclusive, but I think it will help us be more effective and help us not continue doing the same things our poor predecessor citizens have unsuccessfully tried because they did not understand the real rules or the real game. We must know what the opposition is doing, so that we know how to combat it in all legal, nonviolent ways available.

"THE STORY OF THE LITIGATION VORTEX"

To summarize the "Litigation Vortex," whether you enter in willingly (suckered though naively -- don't feel bad, attorneys have done it too), or whether you get sucked into the vortex (like some alleged "criminals" and some attorneys on alleged "disciplinary" charges), you enter into the "legal holodeck" where nothing is as it appears. 

You are a hard working man, hardly ever missed a day of work in your life. Unsuspectingly, you are in the legal system where your grade school teacher taught you justice would be served. You learn to research your case, and try to make everyone understand your facts and why justice should be served by finding in your favor. Initially, everyone seems to understand. The Judge, and sometimes even the opposing attorney appear to want to understand and get to justice . . . and the clerk was so pleasant. You know she saw that you were an honest man.  And the "legal holodeck" stage is set. . .

Having no reason not to believe what you heard in grade school was absolutely true, you spend your money on filings, legal advice (even if an attorney will not take the case), or legal fees, if an attorney will take it. Sometimes you even "count yourself blessed" that you have found an attorney who is willing to help you -- so you think. You know your case is a slam-dunk win. And thus the curtain of the court-holodeck opens and the bait-and-switch begins . . .     

Certainly the first couple of rulings must have been a misunderstanding you think. I have to do more legal research and write more clearly you may tell yourself. They will certainly see that I have been wronged. So you continue to spend your money, and your time. You even miss increasing amounts of work because you are in this thing to right a wrong just like your grade school teacher has taught you. You certainly can't turn around now--you've come too far, and you are just getting the hang of the legal research.
 
You may still cry when the National Anthem is sung--and you certainly put your hand over your heart like any good American would. Perhaps you even fought to defend our freedom like so many honorable men and women like you have. By now, they have you in the clutches of the "Double B." What is the "Double B" you ask? "Busy and Broke!" Due to the bait and switch maneuver, you are now on the defense even though you are listed as the plaintiff.  Next comes the final preparations for the dog and pony show -- the final preparation for your day in court on  the holodeck stage -- and the implementation of the "Triple C" is ripe and ready . . .

As you get thoroughly busy and go more broke trying to answer the defense's frivolous motions, you continuously have to show that it is they that have lied, and not you, as they have accused you. You spend day and night trying to explain yourself to the court. You answer their accusations by repeatedly explaining, for example, that you did not claim your wife on your income tax form because she did not work; or that you injured your back 10 years ago in a LEGITIMATE workers' compensation injury, or that you and your wife went to a marriage counselor 15 years ago after your youngest son died. 
 
Yes, the "Triple C" is being implemented against you just in its proper time. What is the "Triple C" you ask again?  This is when good citizens, who's only crime is that they naively asked the courts to rule justly, are made into either (1) criminals (who will believe him, he is a criminal tax-evader), (2) con-man (who will believe him, he lied on his tax return, and was a malingerer from work), and/or (3) c(k)ooks (who would believe him, he went to a shrink and is a paranoid delusional--(get an I.M.E.--[Independent Medical Exam] quick and get this psycho diagnosed. "Call some doctor who needs our repeat business," yells the defense attorney back stage). The "Double B Triple C" is in full effect now. 
 
You are not only exhausted, but now you have to worry about your reputation, the IRS audit that is bound to happen due to the allegations made, or an insurance company claiming you were fraudulent in that workers' compensation injury so long ago. As the labyrinth of the Litigation Vortex sucks you down further and further into its clutches, you can no longer see the path in which to exit. "What have I gotten myself into, and how did I get here," you think as your friends start expressing that maybe you are a little too obsessed about your case?

As soon as the dust settles, albeit for a moment, you finally begin to realize that maybe your grade school teacher missed something. By then you are thoroughly engulfed in the "Litigation Vortex" and the only way out is to ask your "mast-a" if it please the court, if you could be excused from the case. The Judge rules that you are dropping the case as he slams down his loaded gavel. You then learn that you are indeed a money maker --but for the other side as he rules that you must pay the other side's legal fees for filing such a frivolous law suit in the first place. (Usually known as displaying "vexatious conduct"), and in confusion and with a cold, tightly knotted anger in the pit of your stomach which will not go away, you quietly and sadly bend your knee and humbly go back to picking the "master's" cotton.  
 
And so it goes with the Litigation Vortex on the stage of the holodeck court where nothing is as it appears, and where a plaintiff is never to be seen again--with money.

This description of course, is just the beginning of the Vortex, because now, you decide you are going to appeal, file a complaint against the judge, and continue asking the judges to find themselves corrupt.  Although you now know that your grade school teacher was wrong, there is still something in you that cannot accept it. So you continue in the Vortex. I liken these subsequent filings to someone who is a compulsive gambler who only wants to win his money back. His biggest problem is that he has not realized that the odds are against him and that the deck has been stacked. 
 
We must not be like that gambler who refuses to accept reality. We must know that in the "Holodeck Law" the odds are against us and the deck is stacked in the Litigation Vortex.
 
In the "Triangle and Two Defense," which I have written, which may be particularly interesting for anyone who has ever played basketball I try to help you learn who your real enemy is. I describe who really has you turned upside down in the centrifuge of the court while you spin violently until every last dime is centrifugally spun from your pockets. Thanks and I hope you now understand the Story of the "Litigation Vortex."
....

Copyright, 2001, Linda L. Kennedy, Esq.,
Virginia JAILer
 


 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
____________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                        March 2, 2002
 
 
Author of "The Holodeck Law"
Responds to Inquisitive Law Student
 
Attorney Linda L. Kennedy, Virginia JAILer, wbflegal@... has done a masterful service for many victims of the judicial system, and for those who have been fortunate enough to learn through others' tragic experiences without themselves being ground to bits in the legal meat grinder (i.e., being sucked into the "litigation vortex").  As she says, there's no formula in trying to survive the H-system (Holodeck), but it's truly an art-- just as witchcraft, magic, and sorcery. "Nothing is as it appears."  Thank you again, Kennedy, for your words of wisdom on this difficult philosophical strategy. It helps us to know that we're not the crazy ones in this game!          -Barbie- 
 

From:   e_law01@...
Date:    3/2/2002
Subj:    Re: The "Holodeck Law"

Well stated (of course). I am a 1L California law school student. I have some highlights AND questions below (w/ in the body of your Email message
) in case you are interested. 
 
As a law student, I am interested in finding ways to beat the odds. Military strategies definitely have their place along with everything else you can pluck out of the air (or wherever) which will be effective, if not in the short run, in the long run. Also, judges are not totally immune, and I have heard (Michael Brown a long time ago) that "They've got to Know you can hurt them." 
 
Do you think this could be a factor? At least in criminal defense, you are to vigorously represent your client in the midst of the conviction mills (the courts appear to work for the RailRoad) which violate the right to a fully-informed Jury (of true peers --- Ha!), the maxim (and in accord w/ "supreme law") of being innocent until proven guilty, and not being proven guilty except beyond a (true) reasonable doubt rather than conveniently via mere inferences (even where your client is charged w/ a specific intent crime), etc. 
 
The good thing about Criminal Defense, besides having (perhaps) more latitude to vigorously represent your client, is appeals on constitutional issues, and thus making needed positive changes in Con Law for the sake of true Justice, and actual Liberty (as well as getting your client off or in an improved position).   
---------------------------------------------------
 
Dear elaw:  Some of what you ask is what I have learned in years of experience, observation, the study of other topics like Military history, an ability to play some really good poker and chess, and having a strong belief in God. 

I will try to explain a little but realize that I teach at a law school and your questions are topics for entire semesters (and still--this is not a formula but an art).  But I caution you, any time you focus on what the law says--you set yourself up for the same defeats that most everyone in this movement has already experienced--thus the movement's inception. 
 
Also, you mentioned Mike Brown.  Little did either of us know, that we each use the same strategies and thought processes, his in criminal and mine more in civil courts.  Mike is one of the few that I would consider able to hold his own in the courtroom b/c (1) he understands what is really going on and (2) he is not an attorney, so is not subject to bar punishment.  If you are an attorney and try these tactics---2-4 times is all you get--then you go through the bar's disciplinary process for upsetting the holodeck and the rapists' money machine. 

The "real" rules of court that I refer to is the holodeck system.  If you have not read Triangle and Two Defense, that is another chapter out of holodeck law and if you need it, I will send it to you.  Other than this, the rest is in a book called "Holodeck Law" which I am still finishing.  Your first step needs to be to learn what is really going on.  If you slip even once and think it is about justice--you are very vulnerable to its sucking motion. 

Your question on how you enforce a commercial lien is the same question everyone else has about the facts of their case.  That is why organizations like J.A.I.L. exist.  There are going to be times that you have no choice but to enter in the Vortex, but you must understand thoroughly the real game being played.  Mike Brown's courses are very good.  Hopefully if I can get this book out, my book will also help. 
 
Also note, if you have big dollars, and you are not connected, then you are prime meat for the Vortex--just be careful and know what is really at work b4 you enter. Then take all precautions and think of strategies to get what you need out of there--then get the heck out.  So many want me to give a formula, and it is not a formula but an art backed by a lot of experience and understanding.

There are some basic things I can share that may help. In any battle you must know your real enemy. You must put your enemy into division and fear before hand (there are legal ways to do this--but it has nothing to do with filing complaints against judges). They must have a lot of false information they rely on before hand. You must take them by surprise, etc. (military strategies need to be learned here).  Then you need to find out what each court/all courts are most afraid of--then you use it to your advantage. 
 
J.A.I.L. exists b/c they know what the courts are most of afraid of--having the light shown on their darkness and having the people wake up and realize en masse that these courts are not acting on behalf of the people.  There are ways, but I can't summarize in an email what I can barely summarize in a book or a semester.

Keep observing, reading, learning--if you plan to go into the most evil profession on earth, you will need this information if you intend to be honest.  Kennedy, Att, VA  wbflegal@...


 
*   *   * 
 

#714 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Thu Jun 19, 2003 11:01 pm
Subject: Restoring America Through "JAIL Sales!"
jail4judges@...
Send Email Send Email
 
Revised & Updated: Post # 1, JAIL_SALE_USA@yahoogroups.com
(See P.S. particularly.)
 
Restoring America Through "JAIL Sales!"
(By Ron Branson, CIC)
 
As the National Commander-In-Chief of J.A.I.L., I find my mind is always active looking around the curve to the future on ways to improve J.A.I.L.   Oft times as I drive down the highway, I meditate and ponder upon this very thing, hoping to recall them when it becomes convenient to reduce those thoughts to paper and ink.
 
As I was traveling in route to an appointment, an idea popped into my head, and I am hereby reducing this idea to paper.
 
Ironically, having been minded to publish this article this day, I took a look at my beginning point in handling today's emails only to find an email posted on our JAIL-SoundOff Group from Suzanne LeBoeuf. She writes, "Subject: [JAIL-SoundOff] Re: Help -- office staff for J4J's needed. .... How can we strengthen J4J's?  I think one thing we must work on nation-wide is how to raise money for an office staff, and how can we make information about J.A.I.L. spread faster? Thank you to all who join this thread.  Suz,  CAAJICSuzanne@..."   It was as if Suzanne and I were attuned to the very same thinking process.
 
Now here is my idea of a way we, as JAILers nationwide, can all both make J.A.I.L. better known, and make money for J.A.I.L. at the same time, while having fun doing it. I am looking for the downside of my idea.
 
Everyone in America knows and recognizes the term, "Garage Sale," or "Yard Sale." Some people are even actually addicted to them. I was once driving behind an automobile that had a bumper sticker that said, "This Vehicle Stops At All Garage Sales," a take-off of "This Vehicle Stops At All Railroad Crossings." What I am proposing is conditioning America to thinking "JAIL Sale."
 
Here are the particulars of my proposal. It is no secret, as Suzanne has pointed out, that J.A.I.L. headquarters is in extremely great need of daily operational funds in order to meet the overwhelming demand of processing the numbers of people wishing to join with JAIL. (It, right now, requires a full-time person to attend to just that alone - time which we do not have.)
 
While most businesses have a place, but lack customers, J.A.I.L. has the opposite problem, that of having too many "customers," but no place or staff to handle them. Further, I anticipate that eventually all 50 states will be in need a state headquarters and their own staff.
 
Most Americans have stuff sitting around their house that they do not use, and who can use that space it takes up. The Salvation Army and Good Will take full advantage of American's nature to redistribute these things. However, here, J.A.I.L. will not need "official" redistribution points. Most everyone has a driveway or a front yard that can be used for this purpose, and can even have fun while they and J.A.I.L. make money to advance our nationwide cause, and restore freedom to or nation.
 
The single point-person, to whom I will here call the "J.A.I.L. organizer," will receive a flat $35 or 10% of the take after costs for their day of dedication in handling this local affair. The cost of running a newspaper ad, and perhaps coffee, cool-aide, cookies, and/or donuts or sandwiches will all be taken off the top of the days' take. (J.A.I.L. shall not in any wise incur overhead charges, nor shall it incur a debt by means of the day's expenses exceeding that day's intake.)
 
The remaining will be divided as follows: 20% to running J.A.I.L.'s National Headquarters, 20% to run the state J.A.I.L., and the remaining 60% to the local J.A.I.L. operations.
 
Here are the advantages. JAILers and/or non-JAILers alike get rid of unneeded items which others will buy. The J.A.I.L. organizer earns money, (the more sold, the more earned), as does the local, state and national J.A.I.L.  We never miss an opportunity to get the name of J.A.I.L. out. Every "JAIL Sale" will offer business cards, a sign-up J.A.I.L. roster to join, and perhaps may offer the sale of J.A.I.L. T-Shirts and bumper stickers, or other J.A.I.L. materials, and become informed of when and where the next J.A.I.L. event will be held. (The money received from In-House J.A.I.L. items will be held separate for restocking, and are not to be considered in computing the JAIL Sale proceeds.)
 
Think of those "JAIL Sale!" newspaper ads among the yard and garage sale ads. People will even come out of curiosity just to see what a "JAIL Sale!" is. Oh, yes, and let's not forget about those "JAIL Sale!" signs posted on both ends of the street, or around the corner!
 
Now one "JAIL Sale!" may not seem like a big deal, but multiply that times the number of cities, times the number of counties, times the number of states, and times the number of weeks, and gee, we will have enough cash to run our National J.A.I.L. Headquarters, and to save up money to target our next state for the passage of J.A.I.L.
 
Oh, yes, and let's not forget, a lot of us JAILers have positive marketable work talents that could be sold. How about if JAILers donated to J.A.I.L. a certificate worth two hours of their work talent per month, less costs. That would mount up for J.A.I.L. fast, and there would be no out-of-pocket expense. And let's consider those of you JAILers who have a merchandise business advertising your products for sale at these tables  with 25% going to J.A.I.L. You get advertisement, and J.A.I.L. gets 25%. Hey, most every merchant knows that advertisement is among his biggest costs. If J.A.I.L. sold 15 of your units local to you at a JAIL Sale, and even if you got nothing out of it but advertisement, you can rejoice in the fact that you have contributed to the cause of restoring freedom in America. How much is that worth to you, your country, and the future of your children? What good is saving wealth with no future? In effect, what we are looking at here is, "He that saveth his wealth, shall lose it, and he that spaireth his wealth, shall save it."
 
Let's hear a nationwide discussion among the JAILers on "JAIL Sales!" What's the pitfalls, how can we make improvements, who are the volunteers? Can we make America "JAIL Sale!" conscience? 
 
-Ron Branson-
Nat'l J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief
 
PS -   All the contacts from JAILers, save one, are favorable of the idea, and I am pleased to tell you that National J.A.I.L. Headquarters has already received the cash proceeds as the result of the JAIL Sale Program. There is absolutely no end to the financial potential here. Let's get JAIL Sales rolling throughout every county in every state with the vision of America's Day of Deliverance. 
 
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    <><

Messages 685 - 714 of 1790   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Add to My Yahoo!      XML What's This?

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