Messages: Show Message Summaries Sort by Date

#758 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Tue Dec 2, 2003 1:25 am
Subject: * J.A.I.L. Founder To Speak At WTP Conference * jail4judges@...
Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
_____________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California December 1, 2003

J.A.I.L. Founder To Speak At

WTP Conference January 22-24

We The People Foundation For

Constitutional Education, Inc.

2458 Ridge Road, Queensbury, NY 12804

November 20, 2003

Mr. Ron Branson

J.A.I.L. For Judges

11304 Chandler Blvd., #207

North Hollywood, California 91603

Dear Ron:

I am both proud and pleased to extend this formal invitation to you to participate as a speaker in "Give Me Liberty 2004," the first annual conference sponsored by the WTP organization. The three-day conference will be held January 22-24 in Arlington, Virginia.

The central theme of the conference is "The Right to Petition for Redress: Re-discovering the 'capstone' Right." The conference structure will feature six 2-3 hour panel discussions covering the history, nature and contemporary application of this "forgotten" Right.

The opening conference panel will be an overview of the history, evolution and power of the Right to Petition. The subsequent panels will cover the subject matters of our organization's four federal Petitions for Redress including the Iraq Resolution, the Federal Reserve, the USA Patriot Act and the individual income tax. The final panel will investigate the role of the media in relationship to the Petitioning process and will address a spectrum of constitutional abuses that could exercise the Right to Petition to secure remedies.

The preliminary agenda ... includes many subject matter experts and nationally renowned public figures that have all been invited to lead the conference.

Hutton Gibson, the conservative father of world-renowned actor, director and producer Mel Gibson, will address the convention. Discussions have been initiated with Mel Gibson to speak at the convention along with his father.

I am also enclosing a WTP brochure. It provides an overview of our Foundation's philosophy, mission, on-going initiatives and our uniqueness among liberty-minded organizations, which is due to our commitment to both civic education and civic activism and the emphasis we are placing on our Right to Petition the government for a Redress of our Grievances.

Please let me know as soon as possible if you will be able to attend and participate in the Conference as one of our featured speakers and, if so, what assistance we could render by way of an honorarium and expenses.

I may be contacted at the address above, at 518-656-3578 or at Bob@....

Sincerely,

[signed Bob]

Robert L. Schulz,

Chairman

The preliminary agenda may be viewed at

http://www.givemeliberty.org/convention/agenda.htm

Ron considers this invitation an honor and privilege and has accepted.

He is currently scheduled as one of the speakers on the Sixth Panel, the final panel of the conference, which will address solutions to current problems, on Saturday, January 24, 2:00 p.m. Ron encourages as many of you as possible to attend, and wear your J.A.I.L. T-shirts in a show of unity. The J.A.I.L. organization is grateful to Bob Schulz and the WTP organization for extending this meaningful opportunity to us.

Thank you Bob!

J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
JAIL is a unique addition to our form of gov't. heretofore unrealized.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
JAIL is taking America like a wildfire! AddRemove@...
JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability!
E-Groups sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Donate offerings to J.A.I.L., P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603

"..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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#759 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Wed Dec 3, 2003 11:24 pm
Subject: Bad Cops Bounce From City To City jail4judges@...
Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
_____________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California December 3, 2003

Bad cops bounce from city to city

BY TRISHA L. HOWARD AND HEATHER RATCLIFFE Post-Dispatch http://tinyurl.com/xdb8
11/30/2003

Family members phoned for help after a bloody Elliot Smith arrived home one night 14 months ago and said a cop had shot him.

It was the first that St. Louis police had heard about the incident. Their officer, Stanley Davis, hadn't called it in, although he later said he had exchanged shots with a fleeing man. ....

Soon, Davis was carrying a new police badge - for Moline Acres. That lasted, the city's police chief said, until Davis got caught with stolen property.

After he was forced to resign, Davis landed on the force in Beverly Hills, a tiny north St. Louis County municipality. He later resigned but still holds a police license entitling him to work for any department in Missouri.

Davis' job-shifting is common enough among the 123 municipal police agencies across metro St. Louis that insiders have a name for it: "the muni shuffle."

It is a two-step dance. First, a department lets a problem officer go without completing a formal investigation that might cost him his police certificate. Then another department, eager to find an already-trained recruit at a bargain wage, hires him without asking too many questions. ....

The muni shuffle is a symptom of a system that doesn't always hold police officers to high standards. But not every officer in trouble has to do the shuffle. Some departments just give them chance after chance. ....

The Jeff Crisel case

By the time Brooklyn Officer Jeff Crisel accidentally ran over and killed a traffic violator he was chasing this year, he had worked at nine departments in a 15-year career marked by numerous allegations that he beat suspects with a flashlight.

The alleged beatings prompted at least three lawsuits, including one filed by a Macoupin County sheriff's deputy who said he was injured by Crisel when he tried to intervene on a suspect's behalf.

Village officials found that Crisel had left some previous employers off his application. On that basis, Brooklyn fired him. ....

The Stanley Davis case

Crisel's police career ended, at least for now, with an episode of violence. In Davis' case, violence is how it began.

Just three months out of the academy, Davis had a reputation as a tough guy, said Anthony Gray, Smith's lawyer. That was the reason, Gray said, that several men on a street corner in September last year scattered at the approach of Davis' St. Louis police car.

Smith was running through a gangway when he was shot four times in the back and legs by Davis, according to court documents. No other officers saw it happen. Davis did not tell his dispatcher. "That's more telling to me than anything. He never called for backup," Gray said. "Elliot was unarmed and running for his life." Davis later claimed that Smith had fired first. Prosecutors accused Smith of assaulting a police officer but then dropped the charges, citing unspecified problems with the case.

The St. Louis police fired Davis, but because he was still on probation, the department was not required to report the incident to the state authorities who license officers.

In Moline Acres, which pays officers about two-thirds as much as the city, Davis was caught with a stolen radio taken from a towed vehicle and fired, said Moline Acres Police Chief G. Thomas Walker - and again, with no report to the state.

Walker told state officials that Davis had resigned, but the chief didn't tell them why. Later, Walker said he didn't mention the incident because Davis left before the internal investigation was completed. ....

Officials are broadly aware of the muni shuffle.

"The less professional departments with problems tend to have a revolving door," Normandy Police Chief John Connolly said.

But the practice is impossible to quantify. Smaller departments hardly brag about taking on other agencies' discards. Misconduct is seldom reported to the state. Department personnel records are not public.

Post-Dispatch reporters documented at least a dozen examples of officers who repeatedly shifted among departments and at some point ended up in difficult circumstances that drew public attention. Most were accused of behavior the public would not expect from a profession generally held to higher standards.

Among them are:

Craig T. Inman, whose records show was fired from the Waterloo Police Department in 1999 for omitting more than a dozen traffic violations from his employment application. The omission came to light after Inman initiated two high-speed pursuits in two years that resulted in the deaths of four people. Inman is now an officer in Jennings.

James Fitzgibbon, who kept his job as a Pine Lawn detective after he was convicted in October of making harassing phone calls to a driver after a road rage incident in March. Since Fitzgibbon began his police career in 1986, he also has patrolled streets in Glendale, Country Club Hills, Jefferson County and Wellston. Fitzgibbon declined comment.

Marvin Shannon, who was charged with misdemeanor assault after police said he cut a student with a knife at Riverview Middle School, where he worked as a security guard. Shannon has worked at eight departments on both sides of the river despite a string of criminal charges and a felony conviction....

Officer J.D. Patton, was fired from two police agencies in Washington County, Ill., both times after fellow officers arrested him for various offenses, including DUI and fighting at a local bar. According to court records, Patton has misdemeanor convictions for the DUI and for providing alcohol to minors. He remains certified in Illinois and was recently given a temporary full-time police position in Washington Park.

Roy White, according to police records, shot and killed an unarmed man during a traffic stop in 1989 while he was working for the St. Louis police. The city fired him for violating policies, saying that he should have taken cover or called for backup. After his termination, he continued to work in law enforcement. He is now a part-time sergeant in Hillsdale. ....

Officer William E. Garrett, who started working in Venice in 1998, was convicted in 1987 of first-degree assault for shooting at a car during a road rage incident. Garrett's felony was removed from his record after he completed five years of probation. He is currently facing a misdemeanor battery charge filed three years ago in Madison County Circuit Court after he allegedly beat his girlfriend. ....

Supply and demand

Police chiefs say they fear the legal repercussions of providing negative job references. And they say it wastes time and money to complete an internal investigation against someone who has gone. Those factors create a supply of certified officers with questionable backgrounds.

On the demand side, small departments with small budgets and low pay are eager to get applications from people already certified. That saves them from paying tuition and wages for up to 15 weeks of training time. Chiefs doing the hiring may not know what they're getting; they may not even want to know.

Only after Crisel and Inman got into trouble did their bosses find significant omissions from their applications.

"The last thing cops want, unfortunately, is to be held accountable," said Clarence Harmon, who served 27 years with the St. Louis police before retiring as chief and later becoming mayor.

"A lot of these smaller departments kind of don't want to know because they have limited capacity and lower salaries," he said. "It's beneficial for them not to have to fund that training. That's the major driving force behind why agencies would hire somebody with a problematic background."

McCulloch, the St. Louis County prosecuting attorney, said he is frustrated that police chiefs tacitly endorse the muni shuffle by the way they fire and hire.

"It's way too many times that someone moves from department to department when a problem arises and that problem is never addressed," he complained. ....

Some don't shuffle

While some departments cast out misfits to be snared by another community, others are known to keep officers working despite repeated accusations of misconduct.

"Then these officers continue to engage in the behavior, and oftentimes the deviance escalates," said Victor Kappeler, a professor at Northern Kentucky University who studies police misconduct. "It doesn't serve an agency's interest to uncover an act of deviance because it tarnishes the organization."

Since Brian Britton joined the Calverton Park police in April 1996, he has been sued four times in federal court, accused of brutality and misconduct. ....

East St. Louis Officer Brett Rodgers got suspended eight times during his five years on the force.

The city paid $550,000 to a man who lost an eye after Rodgers and another officer beat him during a traffic stop in 1996. But Rodgers stayed on the force until 1999, when he was arrested for shooting a security guard in the leg at an East St. Louis nightclub. ....

Reporter Trisha L. Howard

E-mail: thoward@...

Phone: 618-659-3640

Reporter Heather Ratcliffe

E-mail: hratcliffe@...

Phone: 314-863-2821

ARE COPS CONSTITUTIONAL?
Roger Roots*

ABSTRACT

Police work is often lionized by jurists and scholars who claim to employ "textualist" and "originalist" methods of constitutional interpretation. Yet professional police were unknown to the United States in 1789, and first appeared in America almost a half-century after the Constitution's ratification.

The Framers contemplated law enforcement as the duty of mostly private citizens, along with a few constables and sheriffs who could be called upon when necessary.

This article marshals extensive historical and legal evidence to show that modern policing is in many ways inconsistent with the original intent of America's founding documents. The author argues that the growth of modern policing has substantially empowered the state in a way the Framers would regard as abhorrent to their foremost principles.

PART I

INTRODUCTION

Uniformed police officers are the most visible element of America's criminal justice system. Their numbers have grown exponentially over the past century and now stand at hundreds of thousands nationwide.1

Police expenses account for the largest segment of most municipal budgets and generally dwarf expenses for fire, trash, and sewer services.2

Neither casual observers nor learned authorities regard the sight of hundreds of armed, uniformed state agents on America's roads and street corners as anything peculiar � let alone invalid or unconstitutional. Yet the dissident English colonists who framed the United States Constitution would have seen this modern 'police state' as alien to their foremost principles. Under the criminal justice model known to the Framers, professional police officers were unknown.3

The general public had broad law enforcement powers and only the executive functions of the law (e.g., the execution of writs, warrants and orders) were performed by constables or sheriffs (who might call upon members of the community for assistance).4

Initiation and investigation of criminal cases was the nearly exclusive province of private persons. At the time of the Constitution's ratification, the office of sheriff was an appointed position, and constables were either elected or drafted from the community to serve without pay.5

Most of their duties involved civil executions rather than criminal law enforcement. The courts of that period were venues for private litigation � whether civil or criminal � and the state was rarely a party. Professional police as we know them today originated in American cities during the second quarter of the nineteenth century, when municipal governments drafted citizens to maintain order.6

The role of these "nightly watch" officers gradually grew to encompass the catching of criminals, which had formerly been the responsibility of individual citizens.7

While this historical disconnect is widely known by criminal justice historians, rarely has it been juxtaposed against the Constitution and the Constitution's imposed scheme of criminal justice.8

"Originalist" scholars of the Constitution have tended to be supportive, rather than critical of modern policing.9

This article will show, however, that modern policing violates the Framers' most firmly held conceptions of criminal justice. The modern police-driven model of law enforcement helps sustain a playing field that is fundamentally uneven for different players upon it. Modern police act as an army of assistants for state prosecutors and gather evidence solely with an eye toward the state's interests. Police seal off crime scenes from the purview of defense investigators, act as witnesses of convenience for the state in courts of law, and instigate a substantial amount of criminal activity under the guise of crime fighting. Additionally, police enforce social class norms and act as tools of empowerment for favored interest groups to the disadvantage of others.10

Police are also a political force that constantly lobbies for increased state power and decreased constitutional liberty for American citizens.

More at the site: http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

J.A.I.L.= Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
JAIL is a unique addition to our form of gov't. heretofore unrealized.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
JAIL is taking America like a wildfire! AddRemove@...
JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability!
E-Groups sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Send donations to J.A.I.L., P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603

"Those who say it cannot be done should not interfere with those of us who are doing it." --S. Hickman

"..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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#760 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Tue Dec 9, 2003 5:49 am
Subject: **The Case Made For J.A.I.L. ** jail4judges@...
Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
___________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California December 8, 2003

The Case Made For J.A.I.L.

Based on "How The Judiciary Stole The Right To Petition"

Written by John E. Wolfgram, B.A., J.D., Constitution Researcher

http://www.Constitution.org/abus/Wolfgram/ptnright.doc

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

A Review by Barbie, Founder's Assistant,

National J.A.I.L., victoryusa@...

It wasn't until I read the formal Invitation from Bob Schulz of We The People Foundation (WTP) to J.A.I.L.'s Founder, Ron Branson, to participate in the "Give Me Liberty 2004" conference, and saw the central theme being "The Right to Petition for Redress: Re-discovering The 'capstone' Right," that I became aware of how much closer to J.A.I.L. patriots are becoming, whether they realize it or not.

That sparked me to remember the treatise written by John Wolfgram, that I started to read and laid aside because of other pressing obligations, which is based on the Right to Petition-- but more provocatively, ties it in with the judiciary! And even more amazingly, I find that it lays the track leading to (I don't want to say "jail") -- but to J.A.I.L. Unlike the Monopoly card that says "go directly to jail," the subject treatise goes directly to J.A.I.L., the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law. It all but mentions the name, but builds the case for J.A.I.L. beautifully! I invite all of you to download it from the URL shown above and read it for yourselves, after you've become familiar with the mission of J.A.I.L. at www.jail4judges.org.

Being heavily involved with the internet, I have watched the WTP organization move across the bridge from the Income Tax cause (one of the many branches on the tree of evil), to the Right to Petition for Redress (a larger branch --one of the boughs-- on that same tree), leading toward the trunk and corrupted root system that feeds it all. The march toward Freedom will eventually come to the courts where the show-down between the People and government will be concluded within the system, i.e., within the tree of evil which the system has become.

When the march reaches that point, the People will begin to realize that the corruption becomes more concentrated and putrid as they reach the trunk and eventually the roots where the judicial system thrives under ground and out of sight, feeding the corruption to the rest of the tree, i.e., the powers that be. The People will soon come to realize, in sufficient numbers, that the tree itself isn't the problem, but it's the ROOTS that thrive under ground, out of sight, in secret, not easily accessed, that are ultimately responsible for the condition of the entire tree. The People will learn that they will have to focus their efforts in ridding the tree of evil of the source of its corruption-- i.e., the root system; and the People will learn by experience, the hard way, that in our system of "government," the judiciary comprises that root system. And finally, the People will learn that it is they who must act to clean up that root system of tyranny. The system is NOT self-cleaning.

As Thomas Jefferson said: "Who will govern the governors? There is only one force in the nation that can be depended upon to keep the government pure and the governors honest, and that is the people themselves. They alone, if well informed, are capable of preventing the corruption of power, and of restoring the nation to its rightful course if it should go astray. They alone are the safest depository of the ultimate powers of government."

The one condition Jefferson states for the People to be capable of acting effectively to restore our Constitutional Republic is "if [they are] well informed." Apparently the People --or at least enough of them-- are not yet well informed of what they must do to save this Republic. I am

now hearing, from several well-meaning patriot sources "We must educate the public." In fact that statement was recently said to me by an outstanding patriot while rejecting the fact that "J.A.I.L. is the only answer."

It must be remembered that the public at large doesn't want to be educated. As the saying goes, "Ignorance is bliss." Mr. Wolfgram states "It is not that government has accomplished the 'impossible' of practically denying the right [of petition], but rather that the 'spirit of liberty' has almost 'wholly disappeared and the people have become servile and debased.' But 'fitness' to exercise the rights of freemen is never determined by the many who have become servile, but by the few who refuse, at any cost, to surrender their rights to government." [p.258] Ironically, some in the latter category are still not convinced that J.A.I.L. is the answer. However, as Ron and I are convinced, it's not IF they become convinced about J.A.I.L., but WHEN.

Apparently more time is needed for the People to continue fighting at the "bough level" of the tree-- at least they have progressed that far-- doing whatever they can to put more pressure on government (executive and legislative departments) to do the right thing, before they will become educated that such efforts will have no effect until they do something about the roots-- yes, the judicial system! The People have to be educated that writing to your congressman, voting for the right officials, withholding payment of taxes, and other pressures at the "bough level" aren't going to matter as long as the roots (the judiciary) remain untouched and allowed to continue feeding the corruption. The obvious conflict of interest within the system will continue as long as the People refrain from removing it. As long as that "feeding tube" remains intact, there will continue to be casualties for demanding, of the corrupt system, government obedience to the Constitution.

We believe that enough of the People already know that the judiciary is the problem. Even knowing that isn't enough however-- they must learn what they can DO about the problem. The People must be educated on the solution-- not on ways to continue fighting and complaining about the problem; and a non-violent solution is already here, waiting to be implemented by the People. It's all set forth in writing, and there is nothing else that meets its effectiveness for the People to actively become that "one force in the nation that can be depended upon to keep the government pure and the governors honest." They must be educated on the solution-- not on fighting the problem. People must become educated that J.A.I.L. is the only answer! Yes, there will always be those who refuse to accept that fact (the naysayers)-- it can't be avoided-- we know that. But that cannot and will not get in the way of progress! It's just a matter of time. We can already see progress being made-- at least to the "bough level."

Again I invite everyone to read the subject item in its entirety written by John Wolfgram. Much insight is given to why the judiciary is responsible for stealing our rights, and especially our Right to Petition for Redress. I review only some of the highlights here, to show by evidence that J.A.I.L. is the answer.

John starts out by saying "Immunity abridges the right to redress grievances with government." [p.258] He goes on to discuss sovereign immunity generally and its origins. Nothing in the Constitution grants sovereignty to government. The Constitution is to protect the unalienable rights of the sovereign people. However, government has organized itself, through enforcement by the judiciary, to protect itself from accountability to the people by granting itself immunity. The most egregious form of immunity is judicial immunity which is the foremost obstruction of judicial remedy and ability of the people to effectively communicate with government. Mr. Branson has been educated through the "School of Hard Knocks" for eighteen years, having become a victim of the abuse of judicial immunity, finally resulting in his creating the solution to it.

As John says, judicial immunity has created a kingship of the judiciary and designed "judicial supremacy" over the Constitution: "[W]e are harnessed with a judiciary that insists on immunity from the people based in the bygone philosophy of 'The Divine Right of Kings.' Per Justice Jay, the 'reason' America adopted that medieval judicial philosophy is his lack of the courage of constitutional conviction. A few years later, Justice Marshall designed judicial supremacy over the Constitution so that it now means whatever The Court says that it means. Between them, they found a novel way to avoid the 'messy business' of amending the Constitution. We can call that 'Constitutional Amendment by Judicial Fiat.' It is not legal, and in effect, it undermines the entire reason for having a constitution at all. That is just cause for grievance with our 'justice system.' The problem: how to capture the government's attention?" [p.269]

I'll bet J.A.I.L. might capture the government's attention!

J.A.I.L.'s Preamble states: (originally written for California) We, the People of California, find that the doctrine of judicial immunity has been greatly abused; and when judges abuse their power, the people are obliged - it is their duty - to correct that injury, for the benefit of themselves and their posterity. In order to ensure judicial accountability and domestic tranquility, we hereby amend Article I of our Constitution to add these provisions, which shall be known as "The Judicial Accountability Amendment."

Note that the objective of J.A.I.L. is judicial accountability and domestic tranquility, i.e., a peaceful revolution without violence. Our Republic deserves a chance at a non-violent method of restoration by the People before resorting to bloodshed. That is a very important entreaty of J.A.I.L. Give J.A.I.L. a chance first-- what is there to lose by doing so? At least it can be said in history that the People attempted to restore constitutional rule by safe and sane methods prior to seeing blood run in the streets. In such case the People can't be blamed for what happens if the peaceful method fails.

It is through judicial accountability that we will attain domestic tranquility. "...that government is accountable under the law for the wrongs that it does to the people... is a fundamental concept of civilization, as we know it. ...'rights' don't mean a thing unless enforceable; people enforce rights, either with bombs and guns, or in a civilized world, through effective compulsory process of law; to wit, the judicial remedy." [p.268] (emphasis added)

I emphasize the phrase "through effective compulsory process of law" which in today's system is NOT the judicial remedy to which the People are entitled. The judicial remedy has eroded into judicial tyranny through its corruption by judicial abuse of power. Therefore, in enforcing their rights by the terms of the Constitution, the people must, in a civilized world, devise an "effective compulsory process of law" as a people's autonomous function (independent of government) in order to transform judicial tyranny into "the judicial remedy" according to law. That "effective compulsory process of law" is J.A.I.L. which will provide the means of obtaining the judicial remedy (i.e., providing Redress of Grievances) by removing the obstruction of abusive judicial immunity (unaccountability) and holding judges accountable to the people. For the sake of the healthy future of this Republic, the people must maintain the fundamental concept of civilization as we know it, if at all possible.

A lot more is covered by Mr. Wolfgram in the above treatise which is also found at 31 UWLA Law Review 258. I hope enough was said here to explain the connection between the Right to Petition for Redress and J.A.I.L. In closing, I will quote two more provocative statements:

"The judiciary is a part of government and government does not want to see an effective Petition Clause because that nullifies arbitrary power at all levels. Effective petition rights create problems for all of government by requiring direct accountability of government officials to the people they injure. ... [T]he judicial theft of the First Amendment Petition of Right is a fact the judiciary has effectively concealed for over 200 years. Why should anyone believe that the judges would change that concealment and denial policy now?" [p.289]

"The point is not merely that the Judiciary usurped powers not delegated to it; but it has become so involved in and biased toward controlling the people for government, that it cannot fairly administer justice. The judiciary is no longer fit to perform its primary judicial function." [p.303]

************************

John E. Wolfgram, B.A. Degree (University of Wisconsin), J.D. Degree (Southwestern University 1977). Wolfgram founded the Constitutional Defender Association in 1989 to advance Petition Clause Principles. Its name derives from the observation that the practical value of a Constitution depends on the effective enforcement of constitutional rights and limits against government, by the people. The Petition Clause is the People's Right to redress government violations of the Constitution. It is The Constitution's Defense system against government usurpation and oppression.

On behalf of National J.A.I.L., I thank John Wolfgram for his dedicated effort in this valuable research and publication. "How The Judiciary Stole The Right to Petition" should go a long way in educating the public. A strong requirement is their willingness to be educated! You may thank him by email at jewolf@... -Barbie-

"..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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#761 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Wed Dec 10, 2003 5:13 am
Subject: * * * Understanding Administrative Law * * * jail4judges@...
Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
_____________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California December 9, 2003

Understanding

Administrative Law

(By Ron Branson, Author/Founder J.A.I.L.)

What you are about to read is very provocative and likely to shock, but educate, many of you. Some of you will likely be inspired to do likewise, but just as you see those disclaimers which say, "Experts - do not try this at home," so I say, "Do not try mimicking this at home. Remember, when reality and common sense run up against politics and money, the former two will not register in the courts."

We have all heard the term "Administrative Law." Administrative Law is everywhere in society, and affects everyone of us. But despite our familiarity, how many people really know what "Administrative Law" is? Most people see the word "Law" and automatically think it is some kind of a special law passed by either Congress, our state legislators, or our city councils, etc. No matter where we are in our experience and knowledge of Administrative Law, we all tend to feel deep down inside, "I just do not like it." It is that same sort of feeling when we drive down the highway and pass a police car with its lights flashing, having pulled over a car. You don't naturally think, "Boy, I'm pleased to see that police officer out here on the highway performing us a public service." Rather, you are more likely to think, "Boy, I'm glad it's him he pulled over, and not me." Just as hearing from the Internal Revenue Service, "public service" is probably the last thing that enters your mind.

Administrative Law demands things of us that intrude into our personal lives, our homes, our businesses. It makes us comply with certain codes, inspects us, demands arbitrary taxes and payment in advance of establishing liability, calls us into account before boards composed of political appointees having conflicts of interests, all without the benefit of a trial by jury of your peers.

Administrative Law governs us, to name only a few, in our relation to our children through CPS, our right to contract through the State Contractor's License Board, our businesses through Business Licenses and Worker's Compensation Boards which provide a feeding frenzy for lawyers, and even our pleasurable moments through Fishing and Gaming Licenses, our travel through DMV, etc., etc, and so on without end. In fact, all of our lives in every area is governed by administrative agencies and their "laws," and there is near nothing that is not regulated and licensed by some agency. It would almost seem that life's existence itself is but a special privilege of government that is revocable upon whim. Whatever happened to "... governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...?

As some of may you already know, none of the protections set forth in the U.S. Constitution has any application whatsoever upon the enforcement and carrying out of "Administrative Law." So we shout with outrage at the government, "You're violating my Constitutional rights," and you ask, "What gives? Is Administrative Law superior to, and above, the Constitution of the United States, which is the supreme Law of this Land?"

I am now going to pull the veil off the mystery of "Administrative Law," and let you in on a secret that no government wants you to know. Some of you are going to laugh at the simplicity of the matter, once I tell you. "Administrative Law" is not some esoteric law passed by some legislative body. "Administrative Law" simply means "Contract Agreement." But if government called it what it really was, everyone would know what is going on. But by the government calling it "Administrative Law," few understand it, and think, "Oh my goodness, I don't want to go to jail because I violated Administrative Law." What you must implicitly remember is that Administrative Law and Police Powers are diametrically opposed to each other. They cannot co-exist in the same context. Like oil and water, they can never mix. But governments do not want you to know that. If there were any form of police power exerted to enforce "Administrative Law," it would clearly fly in the face of the Constitution. So all governments exercise fraud when they take "Administrative Law" beyond "the consent of the governed," Declaration of Independence.

Every time you hear the term "Administrative Law," you must correctly think "Contract Agreement." If everyone thought that way, people would automatically ask themselves the logical question, "Where's the contract?" But government does not want you to think in terms of "Contracts," nor the fact that there can ever be police powers involved in the enforcement of a contract. If you fail to show up for work, can your boss call up the police and send them out to arrest you? No! This is true even if your boss happens to be the city, or the chief of police. Police powers are limited only to criminal acts, never contract disputes. These are totally separate and exclusive jurisdictions.

The U.S. Constitution specifically forbids all fifty states of this country from passing any law that interferes with any individual's right of contract, or, if the persons so chooses, the right not to contract. "No state shall...make any...law impairing the obligation of contracts." Article I, Sec. 10, Clause 1. The right to contract necessarily establishes the right not to contract. Just like the First Amendment to Congress, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" so in Article I, Sec. 10, no state shall make any law that impairs the free exercise of the right to contract or not to contract. Now how does this Constitutional prohibition to states apply to such state administrative agencies as the "State Contractor's License Board?" Ah, yes, and note, we are not here even challenging this as an Administrative Law, but rather the very authority of the State itself to even "make" such an administrative agency that presumes to govern the right to contract. In other words, the Legislature was acting unconstitutionally when they even considered "making" such a law, whether the law passed by a majority vote or not. In other words, it was null and void the very moment it was "passed." One could just imagine the untold hundreds of billions of dollars that would invigorate the entire economy of this country if states could not interfere with, or tax our constitutional right to contract, or not to contract, with whosoever we pleased.

Contracts are very much a necessary part of all of our lives, and we all understand the meaning of agreements and keeping our word. Contracts always must contain a consideration, and are made voluntarily for the mutual benefit of each of the parties entering them.

I am going to explain the legitimate uses of contracts, and then proceed to what they have transmuted into by the State. In a legitimate contract, for instance, and I speak to those married, remember the days when you went out on dates with that special person that made your heart throb? You fell in love and the two of you decided, for the mutual benefit of both of you, to get married. You voluntarily appeared before a minister who asked you the question, "Do you, Sharon, take Steven to be your lawfully wedded husband?" In which you replied, "I do!" You were under no obligation to agree. Remember, wherever one may say "Yes" or "I do" they equally have the right to say, "No," or "I don't," to wit, "Do you, Steven, take Sharon to be your lawfully wedded wife?" which could equally be responded to by, "No, I do not!" Of course, what a way to shock everyone and ruin a marriage ceremony. Without both parties agreeing equally to the full terms and conditions, there can be no "Administrative Law," oops, I mean, "Contract Agreement."

(For the benefit of those of you reading this who are ministers, I would like to take a sidebar. What are those commonly heard words that come from your lips, "...lawfully wedded wife?" I ask you, is there an "unlawfully wedded wife," or an "unlawfully wedded husband?" How did those words get in the marriage vow? Why not just ask, "Do you, Steven, take Sharon to be your wife?" Ah, it is the State trying to stick their foot in the door and become a third party to the marriage "Contract Agreement." I ask you, is it a crime to get married? Must couples have government's permission to get married? The government thinks so. But does the government have constitutional authority to do so? Absolutely not.

Consider the marriage license. A license is a special grant of permission from the government to do that which is otherwise illegal. People are now being convicted of "practicing law without a license," so I ask you, are couples who refuse marriage licenses guilty of practicing marriage without a license? We are instructed in the Bible, "Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD." Prov. 18:22. Yes, and remember that famous quote, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's, Matt. 22:21, and "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Matt. 19:6. Would it not be just as appropriate if God were to say, "What therefore God has 'licensed,' let not man license?" Of course! Are you not therefore rendering to Caesar that which is God's? And are you not doing it "By the power vested in you by the State of [fill in state], I now pronounce you man and wife." And what about this so-called doctrine beaten into our heads by the courts of "Separation of Church and State?" End of sidebar.)

Let's next turn to the "Contract Agreement" of Civil Service Employment. You open the newspaper and see an ad placed by the City of TenBuckTwo, saying "Now hiring." You go and apply for the job and you are hired. Whether it be secretary, street cleaner, or police officer, you enter a Civil Service Contract, and receive a mutual benefit, i.e, a paycheck. If you were to receive no consideration from the city, you would be merely a slave. Neither the city nor you were under duress, you both receive a consideration, and established a legitimate "Contract Agreement." The city wishes to call it "Administrative Law." After being hired, if there arises a dispute, you cannot shout, "My Constitutional Rights were violated," for you are now under Civil Service protection, and are not entitled to a jury trial nor any of the protections of the Constitution, for now it is Administrative Law that controls, and the Constitution has no application whatsoever.

Now let's take this a step further, and talk about a ticket. I once was mailed a ticket through the mail offering me an "Administrative Review." I wrote back to this administrative agency by certified mail with return receipt, and with a sworn declaration attached stating that I had never entered into a "Contract Agreement" with them, and that such contract did not exist. I further demanded that they respond with a counter-declaration stating that I had indeed entered into a "Contract Agreement" with them, and thus bring the question into issue. (An uncontested declaration stands as the truth. No counter-declaration, no dispute.) I also demanded that they attach of copy of the contract we had between us as evidence to support their contention.

This administrative agency just did not know what to do, so they just declared my "request for an Administrative Review" untimely, despite the certified mail proving otherwise. They then stated that I now owed them more than twice the amount they originally demanded of me. However, as you note, I did not ask for an "Administrative Review." Rather my only issue was the appropriateness and legitimacy of the agency "offering" me the administrative review. If you received a letter from Moscow, Russia accusing you of failing to possess a license from the Moscow Aviation Flight Board, and offering you an administrative review, would you ask for an administrative review?

Further, in my communication to this administrative body, which further baffled them, I asked, "When you say you are offering me an "Administrative Review," it implies I am now on appeal. Was there a trial in which I have already been found guilty, and that I now should appeal that decision? I never received a notice of such trial. When was the trial? Who sat in judgment? What was the basis of his or her findings? What is the particular clause in the "Contract Agreement" I have been found guilty of violating?

You see, my questions were entirely logical and practical, but they just did not know how to deal with me. So they just forged ahead with enforcement as if I said nothing. This resulted in my lawsuit against them which went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court twice, once through the state courts, and then all the way through the federal, the issue in federal court being deprivation of due process of law. There was not one court, neither state, nor federal, that would address a single issue I presented in my lawsuit. This suit resulted in five long years of litigation, and the agency admittedly spent over $100,000.00 defending itself, and demanded of me that I should pay them for their time from what started out to be $55.

This case resulted in my filing a criminal complaint against the defendants with the U.S. Attorney, and petitioning Congress to open impeachment proceedings against five federal judges for conspiracy to commit extortion, accompanied with a copy of the proposed Federal J.A.I.L. Bill, with my instant case as an example of why Congress should pass J.A.I.L. into law. Everything grew very quiet. No one would say anything.

All this over the implied assumption that I had entered into a "Contract Agreement" that did not exist, and never did exist.

Here in Los Angeles, the city dispenses bureaucrats throughout the city to your search your home. However, the city likes to refer to it as "inspection." Although the U.S. Constitution provides, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizure shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" [Fourth Amendment], these bureaucrats come to you "for your good," as a "public service." They charge you money for their services, and exercise police power, having neither oath or affirmation, warrant, or probable cause, mandating you "volunteer" to accept their searches. If you refuse to volunteer, they turn you over to the city prosecutor who will prosecute you for failure to comply with the program. If you think these bureaucrats are bribe-free, you have a shock coming. Many hint at and suggest that they can arrange special treatment for you, or that they can make things very bad for you.

We have now come to the point in this country where the public's common acceptance that we are administrative subjects, that a mere suggestion by a government bureaucrat has now become law, and one is guilty by the simple allegation of whatever charge these bureaucrats wish to lay upon them without appeal to the Constitution.

Approximately seven years ago I was stopped by a police officer. He "offered" to engage me into a contract with him. The problem with his contract offer was that it was imposed upon me by the threat of my going immediately to jail, and that of having my car stolen. Under criminal constitutional standards he was required to take me before a magistrate at least within 48 hours of his conducting my arrest. He did not wish to do that however, so for his convenience, not mine, he asked me to enter into a contract with him. But what was my consideration in this contract? Was it that I didn't have to go to jail immediately? Nay, for that is like placing a gun to one's head and asking them to voluntarily write a check, which is called "Robbery" in the criminal codes.

This nice policeman told me that by signing his ticket, I was not waiving any of my rights. I read it, and all it said was that I promised to appear before the clerk of the court authorized to receive bail by a certain date. I went ahead and took the comfortable route, and signed his contract under duress, "agreeing" to appear before the court clerk as opposed to going to jail. I then went to the clerk of the court by the date specified and asked if she was the clerk of the court authorized to accept bail. She said "Yes." I then told her who I was, and that since she was the authorized person before whom I had promised to appear, I needed her signature showing I had fulfilled my promise. She refused. Gee, what's wrong with these people? They demand my signature to show up before them under threat of going to jail. I show up as they ask and request their signature to show that I have complied, and they refuse. They do not respect you for keeping your promise to them. It seems they are not satisfied, and they want something more from you than they made you promise. Hmmm, it seems to me that not all the terms of the contract were revealed when the officer said all I had to do was appear in front of the clerk. I must have been defrauded.

What they really wanted, and now demanded, was that I appear before a commissioner, not a judge, when originally I was entitled under the Constitution to appear before a magistrate for a determination of probable cause of my arrest by the kind police officer. The officer must have lied to me when I was clearly told that I would not be waiving any of my rights. But a waiver of my rights under the Constitution requires my voluntary and knowledgeable consent with a consideration in the pie for me. But I never got the pie. This "Contract Agreement" does not seem to be like saying "I do" at the altar and getting a wife, or "I agree" at the Civil Service interview, and getting a paycheck.

This commissioner bullied me, trying to induce me by force to enter into his offered contract agreement, when in no way was he qualified to act or perform pursuant to the Fourth Amendment requirements of a magistrate.

When he failed to convince me that it was in my best interest that I should voluntarily agree to his contract, he proceeded to unilaterally enter me into his contract whether I agreed to it or not. And of course, it was done with "my best interest at heart." He's an educated man, and has graduated from law school. So why didn't he know that a contract requires my voluntary consent? Having waived my rights for me (which is an impossibility), he now tells me that I am going to appear for trial on the date he chose for me, and that I am going to sign a promise to appear. I told him, "NO! I am not going to sign such a contract agreement!" He became very wroth, and I was immediately arrested, chained to thieves, con artists, and extortionists and thrown into jail for not agreeing to sign.

At least one of the sheriff's deputies handling me expressed disbelief at what she was hearing that I was arrested for not agreeing to sign on to the commissioner's offer. Here they were digging through my pockets and relieving me of all my possessions, and my crime is failing to accept an offer. This could only be a civil charge at best, but refusing to contract is not a violation of a contract. I had not even agreed to the deprivation of a magistrate to appear before this commissioner.

No sooner had they illegally processed me into the Los Angeles County jail system, that they wanted to get rid of me. Under California statute, no person can be jailed on an alleged infraction, but here I was in jail. The fact is, neither the courts nor the administrative boards know how to deal with the rare individual who sensibly raises questions about the existence of a contract, so they just bully forward with police power enforcement, and address nothing.

The deputies told me they were putting me out of jail, but that I must come back to court on the date specified by the commissioner. I told them "No! I did not agree to appear." They told me that if I did not appear, I would be arrested. I said that I was already under arrest, so just keep me in jail until you are finished with me. They said, we can't do that, we don't have the money to keep you here. I said, "I'm not here to save you money. If you want me, just keep me here. If you don't want me, put me out." So they threw me out of jail to get rid of me, and I never showed up later. In the meantime, I commenced suit against the commissioner for kidnapping, holding me hostage and demanding ransom for my release. (His ransom was my signature, for he said when I gave him my signature, I would be free to go. Of course, that was why I was in jail because I did not agree to that.)

In my civil suit against the commissioner, I had him totally defenseless, and the trial judge hearing the case knew it. There was absolutely no way the commissioner could lawfully wiggle off, but since when do judges do things lawfully? The trial judge knew the commissioner was naked, and had no jurisdiction whatsoever for what he did to me. He slammed his hands down on the bench and said, "Mr. Branson, in all my twenty years' career on the bench, I have never met a person like you." He then quoted the words found in my complaint, "Just keep me in jail until you are finished with me."

This judge could see the potential chaotic conditions if every person which was stopped by the cops stated "Just keep me in jail until you are finished with me." I was supposed to fear losing my job, my reputation and companionship and capitulate. He knew that if everybody did what I was doing, the entire system would fall apart. I was suddenly costing government mocho money to the tune of thousands upon thousands of dollars when the whole idea was to make some money from me. This lawsuit continued for years all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, yet not one judge would address the issues of my contract case.

I now refer to a humorous situation that sounds like make-believe. An acquaintance of mine was called into court by one of the ABC "public service" administrative agencies to be cross-examined to discover information from him to be used against him. He was asked to take the witness stand. They asked him to raise his right hand after which the clerk of the court said, "Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?" He responded, "No, I do not!" Everyone in the court gasped. (Remember, the right to say "Yes" also includes the right to say "No!") The judge instructed the clerk to re-read the swearing-in again, supposing that he just did not understand the question. He responded the second time, "I heard you the first time, and my answer is, No, I do not!" You can imagine the uncomfortable and embarrassing situation into which this placed the judge. He asked why he would not swear to tell the truth, and he said, "The Bible says, 'Let God be true, but every man a liar,' " (referring to Rom. 3:4), and "I am a man, and a liar."

The judge came unglued and threaten him with jail if he did not swear to tell the truth. He responded, "Judge, you asked me a straight-forward question requiring either a yes, or a no answer. I gave you a straight-forward answer to your question, and that was No, I do not. You can't say I did not answer your question, for I did answer it, but you just don't like my answer. If you didn't want to hear my answer, then don't ask me the question. And judge, on what basis do you threaten me with jail? Is it because I answered your question truthfully? Or is it because you wanted me to lie, and I didn't do it? Or is it because you believe I am lying to you when I tell you I am a man, and a liar?"

The judge threw him in jail for three days, after which he brought him forth to swear him in again. He said, "Judge, my answer to you is still the same as three days ago. I am still a man, and still a liar, and no amount of jail time can change that. The judge again threaten him with jail, to which he responded, "On what basis do you threaten me with jail? Is it because I answered your question truthfully, and you want me to lie? Or is it because you believe I am lying to you when I tell you I am a man, and a liar?"

The system just does not know how to handle people who question the actions of government when all the government is only trying to get your approval to what they do to you. If you don't agree to the Contract Agreement, then they do you the favor of "agreeing" for you even if it is against your will, without consideration. As I say, this is not quite like you saying "I do" at the alter, but the judge spake and it was so.

Other examples are, when you are called to jury duty, the judge makes you raise your right hand and agree to follow the law as interpreted to you by the judge. But wait, it is not the judge or the jurors who are entitled to a jury trial, but the defendant who is constitutionally entitled to a fully informed and unencumbered jury which must judge on both the law and the facts. Here we have a judge seeking to induce the defendant's jurors to conspire with him against the defendant. How can the judge, in conspiracy with the jurors, agree to waive the rights of the defendant? They can't. It is the defendant that is entitled to a fair and impartial trial, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy ... an impartial jury." Jurors who have been induced to conspire with the judge cannot possible be "an impartial jury." Fifth Amendment, U.S. Constitution.

Then there are the various taxing agencies who want you to enter into a "Contract Agreement" with them. They kindly provide you with a pre-printed line on their forms to agree with their offer of a "Contract Agreement." But if you choose not to accept their offer, can one go to jail? Not constitutionally. However, they somehow want you to believe that if you do not accept their offer, then you are obligated to comply with their "Imposed Criminal Administrative Law," for after all, you don't want to go to jail because you violated the law.

Remember, anything that requires your signature, or a swearing thereto in order to give it application, is not law, but a contract. A contract must entail being fully cognizant of all its terms, agreeing to all those terms, having equal right to say yes or no, offering you a consideration to which you would rather have than retaining your constitutional rights and saying no, being totally done without duress in any way. Anything otherwise fails the test of a contract.

The Solution:

The solution is quite simple, J.A.I.L. I know there will be many naysayers who will seek to convince me that it is for the above reasons that J.A.I.L. will not work because everyone has waived their rights to the Constitution, and thus, we are all slaves of the government. To those, in an effort to cut these Naysayers off, I say, "Please re-read the last two sentences in the above paragraph defining contracts."

Here is how J.A.I.L. will solve the problem. Under J.A.I.L. cases will be brought before judges arguing fraud, deception, and undo influence, by government agents. The judge will be required to apply the proper laws governing these grievances, to which he will have no escape or evasion. If the judge does evade the issue, the party will call the judge on it, and give him his last chance to comply with the law as addressed to the issue presented. (This will satisfy the willful acts requirement of J.A.I.L.)

From there, it is purely a matter of exhausting appeals afforded within the state, keeping the fraud issue alive, and filing a complaint with the Special Grand Jury created by J.A.I.L. The judge will then be served by the Special Grand Jury and told to answer it. The complainant can then reply to the judge's opposition.

They judge may wish to argue that the complainant has no rights of protection by the Constitution because he waived them all. The complainant may reply that the so-called "waivers" to which the judge refers in his defense is but a part of the conspiracy alleged to which the judge was a necessary actor in the conspiracy. Of course, when these Special Grand Jurors hear the judge's argument, it will doubtless occur to them that they too have become the dupes of the same giant judicial fraud and conspiracy to which the complainant, and all other complainants are arguing about.

J.A.I.L. works like quicksand. It increases the judges liability the more he says in an attempt to justify himself. He has now implicated himself in a potential criminal indictment, and may face prison in addition to being civilly liable to the complainant, it which he cannot allege he is covered by judicial immunity. Further, the blabbing of one judge in his defense is more than likely going to indict the entire judicial system and all the judges in one giant sweep, for they are all tied together in the same conspiracy.

In nearly every instance in which I can think, under J.A.I.L. the judge's best defense is to say nothing, for anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law, either civilly or criminally. Judges generally will be best suited to accept the lesser evil of not countering the complaint unless they know they have been totally honest and forthright, and can support their position by the Constitution and the law, which will be very hard to do in these days when most everything is based upon fraud and deception.

The eventual positive impact that J.A.I.L. will make upon this nation on behalf of restoring government back to the people is inestimable involving such a boon to the American economy that it is beyond comprehension. - Ron Branson (J.A.I.L. CIC)

"..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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#762 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Thu Dec 11, 2003 5:16 am
Subject: Redirecting The Heat Towards The Courts jail4judges@...
Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
_____________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                        December 10, 2003

Redirecting The Heat

Towards The Courts

Protesters urged to speak up
Use the vote to make self heard, speakers say
By Susanne Cervenka
scervenka@...
and Laura A. Bischoff
lbischoff@...
COLUMBUS | Former Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes called on voters Friday to speak out and ask their representatives to remove "tyrannical federal judges" who he said are undermining the nation.
"Our politicians call themselves leaders but they are not gonna lead us any place that we don�t take them first," Keyes told a rally outside the Ohio Statehouse.
A crowd of nearly 100 stood in frigid rain for two hours to listen to Keyes and about a half-dozen conservative speakers denounce judicial decisions. Those targeted included Roe v. Wade and the recent Massachusetts Supreme Court decision on same-sex unions.
Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, a Republican candidate for governor in 2006, urged the crowd to correct the problem by becoming active voters.
"Ladies and gentlemen we can�t sit on the sidelines," he said. "This cannot just be a rhetorical show."
The Restore the Law rally was sponsored by Citizens for Community Values, Minutemen United, Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Reform America Coalition and other groups.
"If someone doesn�t do something, what will we be leaving to our children?" asked speaker Dave Daubenmire, director and founder of Minutemen United, a Christian-based reform organization.
State Rep. Diana Fessler, R-New Carlisle, who was at the rally, said, "The one thing that came to my mind was, �Let it begin with me.� �
At a press conference later in the day, Keyes praised Ohioans in Adams County who are continuing to press the case that they be allowed to display the Ten Commandments on public property.
In 1997, residents decided to display the Ten Commandments at the four new high school buildings in the rural county of 28,000 along the Ohio River.
One resident complained and the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit in February 1999, said Ken Johnson, a spokesman for Adams County for the Ten Commandments. After lengthy legal battles, the monuments were removed in June.
Supporters of the Ten Commandments have appealed the removal order. Oral arguments were held Friday before a three-judge panel in the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.
Keyes, who was ambassador to the U.N. Economic and Social Council from 1983 to 1985, called those pressing the case "courageous."

Not too long ago all political attention was focused upon the Executive and the Legislative Bodies of government in seeking relief. However, it is becoming more and more obvious that the heat is shifting toward the judges and the judiciary of this country. We are sensing that all political movements, groups and organizations are slowly moving toward the consciousness that passage of J.A.I.L. is the only answer. We anticipate that we all shall soon see group after group coming into the fold of JAIL4Judges with a united voice to call our nation's judiciary into account, and putting government back into the hands of the People.

J.A.I.L.= Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
JAIL is a unique addition to our form of gov't. heretofore unrealized.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
JAIL is taking America like a wildfire! AddRemove@...
JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability!
E-Groups sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Send donations to J.A.I.L., P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603

"Those who say it cannot be done should not interfere with those of us who are doing it."                                       --S. Hickman

"..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    <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#763 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Fri Dec 12, 2003 7:23 pm
Subject: Where are all the gurus? jail4judges@...
Send Email

This is a question for the egroups out there.

----- Original Message -----

From: Ed Lewis

To: VictoryUSA@...

Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 9:22 PM

Subject: Re: Nick Jesson Needs Encouragement

Dear Ron and Barbie,

I, too, would like to know where all the support is along with Mr. Jesson. There are dozens, maybe hundreds, of tax gurus spread out across this land leading people to the fact that "federal income tax" does not apply to the domestic earnings of American Citizens within the states. In fact, unless completely stupid, they know the IRS or any other federal agency has no authority within the states but only have authority in federal jurisdiction areas, including States of the United States (the island States), the District of Columbia, and areas in which states have ceded jurisdiction, such as for arsenals, Dock-yards, and other federally controlled property and territories.

The gurus have in some cases collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from Americans and, yet, when push comes to shove, they bow out of the issues when confronted by the government. Not all suffer from this lack of spine but most do.

Furthermore, tax courts nor other territorial courts have any jurisdiction over the American people but only over those in territories. The many states are not territories and therefore Article IV courts or any State created courts are not lawful courts in relation to the people.

No American can be held to answer for any crime lacking an indictment issued by a Grand Jury on the complaint from another flesh and blood man or woman that they or their property has been damaged by another and that such damage to person or property is defined as a crime. Lacking a natural person - the prosecutor - making such a claim, there is no crime. In other words, lacking a victim, or a claim of damage by a human, or an indictment based on probable cause that a human or his property have been damaged, there is no crime possible.

Government hasn't any rights to violate as it is an artificial entity, without human rights. And, no creation of an artificial creation (the government) or of the people, has any human rights to be violated, and cannot lawfully sign an Affidavit of Truth.

The whole thing is a scam, from start to finish so the gurus should be flocking out there to help out this man and his family, and the others that are unlawfully "tried", as it would support the facts they give people for a price. Instead, they bicker amongst themselves, quote tens of thousands of statutes that mean absolutely nothing to the American People within the states, and continue inducing others to pay them for their findings, while attorneys simply demand money, and then make deals with their partners, other attorneys.

Not all fall into this but most do. And all fall into the below discussed "fraud upon the court" and the destruction of separation of powers.

So, I ask - where the hell are the gurus with all their expertise? And, this doesn't just refer to tax gurus but also the giants that allegedly understand the difference between federal and state jurisdiction, and the difference between liberty and servitude, and the difference between the one supreme Court, and the territorial District of Columbia's United States District Court.

Where are the experts on jurisdiction and the many frauds perpetrated by the government outside their jurisdiction? Fraud vitiates everything, and every claim made by the IRS is based on fraud, including fraud being that full disclosure is lacked. Fraud on the court is committed in every case, in which their is a "prosecuting attorney" as such did not even exist when the unanimous Declaration of Independence of the thirteen united States of America and the Constitution for the united States of America were written. Thus, such changes the court process and is therefore "fraud upon the court" established by Article III, and such has been defined by the justices in Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985 and in Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); and in 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, �60.23

Thus, the many treasons practiced by officials have led us to think that such actions and "courts" are lawful when they are as criminal as sticking a gun to someone's head demanding their money.

So, I want to know - where are the gurus when Americans are forced by armed and dangerous federal and local law enforcers to appear in non- and anti- constitutional courts to answer to "crimes" that cannot be defined as crimes in the system of justice and liberty established by our founders?

I do not care if you all answer this but what I am really interested in is answers from the alleged "gurus", as I can support every statement I made through American Jurisprudence, the unanimous Declaration of Independence, the Constitution for the united States of America, every state constitution, and through hundreds of supreme court opinions that I realize are not law but that every court must respond in accordance with unless overturned by a higher or equal Article III court of law.

Best regards,

ed lewis

----- Original Message -----

From: VictoryUSA@...

To: VictoryUSA@...

Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 9:53 PM

Subject: Nick Jesson Needs Encouragement

To: All JAILers

California JAILer, Nick Jesson, Needs Encouragement

Last month we put out a reminder to all California JAILers about Nick Jesson's court hearing, giving the date, time, and location, and encouraging as many as possible show up to give Nick and his lovely wife moral support in this oppressive battle. Here's what was sent:

R E M I N D E R

Nick Jesson's Criminal Tax Case Continued

to Friday, Nov. 21st 9:00 a.m.

Nick Jesson, Orange County JAILer, njesson@...,

was happy to see a number of people in attendance last Friday for his preliminary hearing in Dept. W17 of the Superior Court of Westminster, Orange County. His counsel requested a continuance to Friday, November 21st at 9:00 a.m. in order to review and study legal documents in preparation for the hearing.

Let's again show Nick our support by showing up at that time at the following location:

Superior Court

West Justice Center

8141 13th Street

Westminster CA

This is one block east of Beach Blvd., south of Westminster Blvd. and north of Hazard Avenue, in the City of Westminster in Orange County.

Dept. W17 is on the second floor at the rear portion of the courthouse.

Thanks to those who came last week, one from as far away as Simi Valley. We look forward to seeing more of you there November 21st.

-Barbie-

victoryusa@...

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

For those of you who don't know, Nick and his wife are under attack by the California Franchise Tax Board (the state equivalent of the IRS) and his original message below expresses what this has done to him.

The day AFTER we sent out the reminder, Nick emailed us and simply said "Please tell them not to come" without any explanation, as follows:

                         Hello Barbie, would you please e-mail everyone that you have e-mail about our case to please not come on the Nov.21st. Thank you, and may God always bless you and your family, sincerely
        Nick.

Although we had asked him for an explanation because the California JAILers deserved one, we didn't hear from Nick again until day before yesterday (Dec. 8th).

After reading the below, I felt that all JAILers should be aware of Nick's feelings and depression. All of us can empathize with Nick, and many of us can identify with what he is going through, having gone through similar circumstances.

I forward Nick's December 8th message below unedited, just as he wrote it, because of its sensitive nature. Nick will appreciate any words of encouragement as our hearts go out to him and Mrs. Jesson. His email address is NJesson@...

Thank you,

National JAIL4Judges

victoryusa@...

----- Original Message -----

From: Nick Jesson

To: 'VictoryUSA@...'

Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 7:01 PM

Subject: Explanation

                        Dear Ron and Barbie, I'm sorry for not responding before now. However let me see if I can explain

            what is going on.

                        First of all you must know that my children and family come first and for most, other than God. Second

            we are grateful for the few people that take their time to help support this issue. However that is the problem in

            it's self. Only a hand full of people care enough to show up in support.

                        For us that only hurts us because the Judge and DA will do their worse to us, just to show those few

            people what will happen to them if they do the same thing.

                        All of this is so disappointing to Trina and I. With all the groups out there and most of them for ten years

            and longer, no one can seem to get together more than a handful of people for support. What is needed is for

            10's and thousands of people to show up. However after all these groups being around for ten years and longer,

            if they cannot get more than a few people out, then they never will. Which makes it bad for those of us that are

            fighting for their rights and freedom because we are being picked off one by one.

                        When I started this researched ten years ago I believed in the American people and the future of our Country

            and children. I still believe in our children because they are to young to fight for themselves let alone know what's

            going on.

                        I not sure why these groups cannot get more than a handful of people together at one time, while I can see

            50,000 people turn out for other types of events. Even in Tennessee they had enough turn out there to stop the

            State tax. In fact in Tennessee the government cannot even get a conviction on anyone for taxes.

                        My children are only 9 and 11 and stand a great chance of losing the Mother and Father because I decided

            to help stop what I thought was illegal. Little did I know that they would ever turn this into a criminal case and little

            did I know that we would end up with so little support.

                        Over the years we have helped many others with money, travel and what every support we could give. Even

            after our raid 2 1/2 years ago our company has not made a profit in any month since then. You can guess why.

            However when we found out about Dick, we managed to get together at least $200.00 to help him. When Bob need

            money for the U.S.A. we sent him over $17,000.00, when Larry wanted to do his law suit on the 16th amendment

            we sent him $10,000.00 and there where many people we sent a few dollars to here and there.

                        Now since we are broke and cannot help even ourselves, we have heard from only a very few people. My

            e-mail list is over 300 people which I have e-mailed out 4 or 5 times asking for help so that we can hire a lawyer

            that will fight for us. Not one penny has come in nor have I even seen anyone put out a story about what happened

            to us.

                        My heart is truly broken over this, I have put my family and children in great danger thinking I was doing the

            right thing and that if ever needed we would have a lot of support from all over the Country. Now we feel like the lone

            ranger. My lovely wife only said it once, but that was enough, because she saw how hurt I was when she said it. Her

            statement was; where is all your support?

                        I can only thank God day and night for her, for she surely had nothing to do with any of this, yet she trusted

            me and now stands a chance of going to prison right along with me. With all of this and a chance of losing our children

            she is still by my side. She still holds me when I down, she stills smiles when all seems lose, her eyes still light up when

            she see me. And the only thing I can think of is how could I have gotten her into all this trouble. This has broken my

            heart so much that it is hard to even keep going from day to day.

                        We are not criminals, yet we are treated as so, and as I set here writing this e-mail,l you can believe the court

            will do everything they can legally or illegally to put both of use in prison.

                        I pray all day that God will send his Angles to protect us and that he would touch the hearts of thousands

            a pond thousands of people to show up and stop the illegal process of our system. I pray to God that for once that

            every group out there will bond together and have 50,000 people show up when one is in trouble. Without that the

            corruption will just keep getting worse and worse until every person is a slave or in prison.

                        I don't know what else to do any more, the lawyer we have and the only one we can make payments to will

            not fight the tax issue, they will only try and make some deal or they will drop the case. Well I'm sure you know

            what type of deal we will get.

                        The person we want to hire wants $75,000.00 up front, flat fee plus $15,000.00 for travel. Over the last

            2 1/2 years I have sold everything I could to keep this business going and to try and get new customers. However

            the F.T.B. keeps running their own media on us plus now they even put this on our company Dun & Brad credit

            report. That report states that Trina and I were arrested for tax evision and that the State is demanding $500,000.00.

            We have not even had a trial yet and the State has reported this on our company credit. Plus this is personal taxes

            the State is after, which was paid, and has nothing to do with company taxes. In fact the F.T.B. knew we had paid

            the tax for 1997 and 98 yet raided us anyway stating we had not paid. Once we proved that we had paid two out

            of the three years the search warrant covered they took 2 1/2 years to file criminal charges, now stating that we

            under reported what we made. So as you can see they will say or do anything they can and get away with it.

                        I hope this helps you to understand why I ask not to have anyone show up. I also hope you understand that

            until we can get 10,000 or more to stand up and show up they will keep picking us off one buy one.

                        May God always bless you and your family and keep them safe, sincerely, Trina, Nick, family and the lone

            ranger.

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#764 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Sun Dec 14, 2003 3:55 am
Subject: * Ron & Barbie Coming To The East Coast jail4judges@...
Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
_____________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California December 13, 2003

Ron & Barbie Coming To The East Coast Next Month!

What a marvelous opportunity that has been offered to J.A.I.L. through the auspices of Bob Schulz of We The People Foundation in New York! (bob@...). Mr. Branson, who will appear on the Sixth and final Panel of the conference, will address the solution to the denial of the Right To Petition for Redress of Grievances.

We encourage each of you to view the Preliminary Agenda at http://www.givemeliberty.org/convention/agenda.htm and see the line-up of impressive nationally-renowned public figures scheduled, among whom is Mr. Branson. We note in particular that U.S. Rep. Henry Hyde is one of the invited participants. When he was Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, he confirmed the fact that he received a copy of the Federal J.A.I.L. Bill when he wrote the following, almost four years ago:

(To: Tennessee Rep. John Duncan dated April 24, 2000)

Thank you for your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Roberta Hamlin, regarding her request that the Judiciary Committee introduce a bill to address the issue of judicial corruption by federal judges. ..... I am happy to look over her proposed legislation [The Federal J.A.I.L. Bill] and take it into account when issues such as these come before the full Judiciary Committee.

Two years ago, Mr. Branson personally handed the proposed Federal J.A.I.L. Bill to U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, also a scheduled speaker at this conference. Many J.A.I.L. subscribers have told us that they, too, have sent the Bill to their representatives as well, so we know that Congress is well aware that we're "out here." By J.A.I.L. being represented at the WTP Conference in Arlington, Virginia, right next to the District of Criminals, the impact will certainly be felt at the whited sepulchres of D.C.

This first annual conference sponsored by the WTP organization, titled "Give Me Liberty 2004" is sure to be a wake-up call, not only to the People, but to the tyrants as well. Mr. Branson is certainly honored to be invited to participate at the inaugural WTP conference which is just the beginning of such events.

Won't all of you join us in giving Bob Schulz a round of applause for his splendid work in leading The People toward restoring this country to the Constitutional Republic that it was intended to be from the beginning, and for officially recognizing J.A.I.L. as part of that endeavor. What an honor it is!

Ron and Barbie

Judicial Accountability Initiative Law

Judicial Accountability & Integrity Legislation

VictoryUSA@...

www.jail4judges.org

"..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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#765 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:53 am
Subject: Fighting the Good Fight, for Victory is Nigh jail4judges@...
Send Email

Fighting the Good Fight,

for Victory is Nigh

Hello David Nicholson. This is Ron Branson. Your below expressed concerns involve the wounded and the casualties of those who are taking on the usurpers of our government in a head-to-head confrontation. Fighting for truth and liberty in this manor will always result in casualties. Do I empathize with them? Absolutely! I too was once among that group of wounded for many years.

Understand, however, with J.A.I.L. we do not take on the usurpers of government in a "head-to-head" battle. There are no casualties or wounded among those advancing J.A.I.L., because of J.A.I.L. Quite the contrary, J.A.I.L. is challenging the system on an entirely different front.

What you are suggesting is that J.A.I.L. take on a relief effort of the casualties of war on the front lines that does not pertain to J.A.I.L. (Again, I express, it is not that we do not care about the casualties of others, as we certainly do. It is just that caring for the wounded is not J.A.I.L's function, and will never result in bringing about judicial accountability to the People of this country, which is J.A.I.L.'s only function and mission.)

I could hardly express to you the years of anguish and torture Barbie and I endured when we were in the midst of battle ourselves with the powers that be. We were stressed out to the limit. Every day was another horror. Every night involved sleepless thoughts about what was coming in the next day or two. Trips to the mailbox were very stressful. Barbie would literally fall apart. I had to pick her up off the floor. She would labor 13-1/2 hours every day in the law library seeking court cases that supported our position (and she found ever so many), but it was all for naught. Never did the judges or the government respect any of those cases or laws. We were finding ourselves fighting utter lawlessness. There was literally no end to the optimum stress while the usurpers, in the name of government, forged forward with their unfounded enforcement. Nothing stopped them. They would just roll over us mercilessly, leaving us too as "casualties along the road." We are personally well familiar with "being wounded" and left as road-kill by the mindless power-machine. However, we have learned through this experience that lasted some eighteen years. I realized that the problem was systemic and that the People needed a practical and workable solution. The admonition of George Washington came through loud and clear: "Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force; and, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master!"

Then entered J.A.I.L., and the whole picture slowly changed. We had to admit defeat in our former efforts within the system, and turned to the J.A.I.L. solution. We began to run all of our former confrontations with government off the end to their logical conclusion at the United States Supreme Court, with no hint that we would receive redress of grievances. We realized that out of desperation and no remedy, we had to place all our eggs in the J.A.I.L. basket.

Now, all those who are fighting the way we used to do are flocking to us looking for a remedy. My suggestion to them is that they do just exactly what we did, i.e., place all their energy and all their effort into the passage of J.A.I.L., since nothing else will solve the problem. The powers that be have no way of defending themselves against J.A.I.L.

The last thing they want to do is bring attention to J.A.I.L.

J.A.I.L. is the offensive way to fight government, as a defensive method will never accomplish anything but casualties and more stress, into which you are asking us to return for the purpose of dragging out the wounded. With J.A.I.L., Victory is so easy and sure, and we suffer no casualties in the process.

Instead of charging the usurpers directly at their fully-protected fortresses, over which walls they will easily pick each one off, J.A.I.L. places the People inside the walls of the enemy's fortress behind the bureaucratic shooters, where the People can easily bring down the scaffolding that supports those firing over the walls. J.A.I.L. is not in the line of fire!

Believe it our not, government has for years told us their most vulnerable point, and the way to defeat them. They say, "If you don't like the government we have, go to the polls and change it!" Of course, they say this proudly in a cocky manner, thinking it will never happen.

Well, surprise to our enemies, this is precisely how J.A.I.L. shall defeat the enemies of our country through initiative states, to wit, "go to the polls and change it!" Then let us hear the haughtiness of the mighty, as we sing, "How are the mighty fallen..." II Sam. 1:27.

Ironically, it is the government that has properly described the only peaceable means to their demise, i.e., through the voting booth. Therefore, the only casualty one might risk in getting behind J.A.I.L. is tripping and falling on their way to the voting booth to give J.A.I.L. the Victory!

They thought it could never be done, but as Benjamin Franklin put it, behold, there is a God in heaven who rules over the affairs of men.

When J.A.I.L. prevails, we can thank all these bureaucratic government officials for telling us to go to the voting booth and change it.

How many times have you heard me say, "J.A.I.L. is the only answer?" You and your friends haven't enough fingers and toes to count. This is not a cliche, but reality. I ask you to implore those wounded that you want us to help, to flee to J.A.I.L., for why should they get shot up and become causalities in a battlefront they need not fight? If on a personal level someone wants to pass the basket for the truly needy, then that is a personal issue. Am I making sense?

Ron Branson

VictoryUSA@...

----- Original Message -----

From: david nicholson

To: VictoryUSA@...

Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 10:32 PM

Subject: Re: An idea for financial help

Hello Barbie,

Please allow me to add to my comments about financial help for individuals. Your point about financial help was not going to solve the problem is well taken, but my point was helping those who have been "wounded" in their fight to bring about a solution. How many organizations can you think of, besides churches, which do not help their own membership in time of need.

Are we going to ask people to join our J.A.I.L. organization and get involved, and because of their direct involvement, they find themselves financial stressed?

While we are attempting to create solutions, we shouldn't leave the wounded on the roads leading to those solutions. All I'm trying to say is isn't there a way we can pass the basket on a regular basis to help the truly needy?

Respectfully,

Dave

----- Original Message -----

From: VictoryUSA@...

To: dcnicholson@...

Cc: gageserve@...

Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 12:14 AM

Subject: Fw: An idea for financial help

Hello David: (NY J.A.I.L.)

This is Barbie responding. J.A.I.L. is not in the same league, or the same mission as SAP. J.A.I.L. is unique to all other patriot organizations in that (1) it isn't a patriot organization; it's for ALL the people, patriot or not; (2) it doesn't operate within the system, since the system is corrupt; (3) it will operate on the people's turf, independent of government.

Assisting patriots in working within the system (any department) is the antithesis of J.A.I.L. J.A.I.L. is designed to be operated by the people, outside of government, which is the only way the people can be in a position to hold judges accountable to them under constitutional rule. The people are not part of government-- they are superior to it. That's why J.A.I.L. doesn't touch the system at all. We can't approach the system and expect them to consent to being accountable to the people.

Working within the corrupt system is what all other organizations do-- hoping to get a semblance of justice. Reimbursement to the membership, while a nice consideration, is not going to correct the problem. We have to work on the solution-- not keep the problem ongoing. J.A.I.L.'s the only organization that is focused on the solution. The people must take control over this corrupt government, focusing on the judiciary which is the source of all corruption. Did you receive my recent JNJ - about how the judiciary has stolen our right to redress?

I explain it in there by using the "corrupt tree" as illustrating corrupt government, and the roots feeding the corrupt tree as the judicial system. Too many patriots want to continue fighting at the branch level (hacking at the branches) instead of curing the problem by cleaning out the root system with J.A.I.L. Organizations, such as SAP, say only educating the public is going to help-- the only problem with that is, educate them about what?? --continuing to fight the problem, or go after the cure? Read the JNJ "A Case Made for J.A.I.L." sent out a few days ago.

Thanks for your suggestion anyway. Hope you can make it to the WTP conference next month where Ron will be speaking on the 24th. Contact Bill Gage for more information. (gageserve@...)

-Barbie-

victoryusa@...

----- Original Message -----
From: david nicholson

To: VictoryUSA@...

Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 7:55 AM

Subject: An idea for financial help

Hello Ron,

Hope this finds you in good health and high spirits.

It seems everyday someone in the movement is asking for financial assistance in their fight against tyranny. Would you please consider a program similar to the one the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship has which on a monthly basis, extends to one of its members , the equivalent of $10.00 per member times the number of participating members in this program, called the Victory Express. It is estimated that each month, someone damaged by the corrupt system is actually rewarded to the tune of approx.. $150,000. Could you just imagine if we had 100,000 participating members in such a program, we could be creating a millionaire per month, but more importantly, the fight would take on a whole new perspective. The Fellowship can be reached at www.save-a-patriot.org .

Lord bless and have a blessed Christmas.

STAY THE COURSE!

Respectfully,

Dave Nicholson

NY. JAILer

dcnicholson@...

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#766 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 4:55 am
Subject: * * Impunity Immunity * * jail4judges@...
Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
_____________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California December 16, 2003

Impunity Immunity

Impunity Immunity

The Law�s for them, but not for me.

Strip their rights, ignore the rules

� the law is what I say (the fools.)

My mind�s made up. I�ll see no proof.

I�ll set their payments through the roof

Arrearages that I create.

Will make State bonus payments great.

U.S. Title Forty-two

Secures my robe and income too !

What �conflict� ? � Oh no, Not me.

I�m above reproach, you see.

Take their children. Take their money.

�Parental Rights� ? � I think it�s funny.

What recourse have they at all ?

�complain to my friends down the hall ?

Appeal me if you think you can.

The legal maze shall be your end.

One more hearing. Two more motions.

�True & Just� � forgotten notions.

Who dares put me to the test?

Disbar & break them (like the rest).

Want to press it ? You will see

just how futile it will be.

Foxes as the henhouse guard�

Care less whose rights I disregard.

Green incentives surely will

Keep dockets and state pockets filled.

Behind closed doors we shall decide

Who�ll �play ball� and join our side ?

Immunity: our strongest shield.

(My God� what power I now wield)

All may vote� in each election

yet none can thwart my insurrection.

Legislate all day and night

I�ll change it (when the time is right).

I must admit my greatest fear

is of a jury called to hear

how I�ve plundered citizens

And turned �the law� to my own ends.

Lawyers must step carefully

They may again stand before me

But, common folk with common sense

Who sit and hear the evidence�

All unknown until that day

They�d render verdicts then walk away.

How could I control them then ?

My reign would reach a sudden end.

A jury returns too much power

to �The People� I�ve devoured.

They�d hold me like an anchor to

the Constitution I eschew.

I shall remain (until that day)

The King of all that I survey.

- Brutus -

Author: Lee Williams

lwilliams888@...

(Published by permission)

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#767 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Tue Dec 23, 2003 4:09 am
Subject: A Judge With Salt, Takes a Stand! jail4judges@...
Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
_______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California December 22,, 2003

A Judge With Salt,

Takes a Stand!

FREE TRADE MEETING

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/7538538.htm
Dec. 20, 2003

Judge: I saw police commit felonies

A judge who said he witnessed some of the anti-free trade protests
complains in open court about how police handled the demonstrations.

By AMY DRISCOLL
adriscoll@...

A judge presiding over the cases of free trade protesters said in court
that he saw ''no less than 20 felonies committed by police officers''
during the November demonstrations, adding to a chorus of complaints
about police conduct.

Judge Richard Margolius, 60, made the remarks in open court last week,
saying he was taken aback by what he witnessed while attending the
protests.

''Pretty disgraceful what I saw with my own eyes. And I have always
supported the police during my entire career," he said, according to a
court transcript. "This was a real eye-opener. A disgrace for the
community."

In the transcript, he also said he may have to remove himself from any
additional cases involving arrests made during the Free Trade Area of
the Americas summit. ....

CIRCUIT JUDGE

Margolius, appointed to the bench in 1982, retired as a circuit judge in
2001 but said he still hears cases 15 to 20 weeks a year when courts are
overburdened.

On Friday, he chose not to elaborate on the remarks he made from the
bench Dec. 11.

''I can't comment on pending cases," he said. "It was inappropriate for
me to make the comments I made. A reasonable person could question my neutrality because of statements I made in open court."

The judge did not single out a police department. More than three dozen
agencies were part of the FTAA security effort. The Miami Police
Department coordinated most police operations. ....

During the Dec. 11 hearings, the judge asked an assistant state attorney, "How many police officers have been charged by the State Attorney so far for what happened out there during the FTAA?"

None, the prosecutor replied.

''None?" asked the judge. "Pretty sad commentary. At least from what I
saw."

The judge also wondered aloud how much the ''whole episode'' had cost
taxpayers.

''I know one thing. There were police officers from every agency -- I
couldn't believe the sheer numbers," he said. ....

Two citizens' panels plan to hold a joint meeting Jan. 15 to hear
comments and complaints about police conduct during the FTAA, and both Miami-Dade and Miami police are conducting internal reviews. ....

Herald staff writer Charles Rabin contributed to this report.

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#768 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Thu Dec 25, 2003 1:19 am
Subject: Prevailing Through Neutrality jail4judges@...
Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
_____________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California December 24, 2003

Prevailing Through Neutrality

(By Ron Branson, Founder of J.A.I.L.)

Michael O'Brian, the National Vice Chair of the American Founding Father's Party, writes J.A.I.L. as per below. J.A.I.L.'s response follows O'Brian's offer:

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael O'Brian Sr.

To: victoryusa@...

Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 4:56 PM

Subject: Reciprocal Link Request

To Whom It May Concern At; http://www.jail4judges.org/national_002.htm

By way of introduction my name is Michael O'Brian Sr. and I am the National Vice Chair of the America Founding Fathers Party, a political Organization. We, along with you and many others today, are involved in the same fight to see America STAY America, the Land of the Free. We are opposed to the current rush by some in our government to take us down the path of socialism, from the unconstitutional income tax to our Second Amendment Right to self-defense. From the adoption of the Neo-Con concepts of Foreign Trade and Empire building, to the blatant corruption in our supposed courts of law! Judicial tyranny in America today is a seminar unto itself!

As a Co-Leader in the fight to return our Great Nation to it's Constitutional roots, we write to you today to request a Reciprocal Link between our two Web sites. We ask that you help us to help you in our common struggle to preserve our Constitutional America by establishing an "Educational" Link to our Web site. We will in-turn place your site on our "Friendly Links" page.

Please, examine our Platform on our Web site. While we are still constructing some aspects of this Great Document, we are pleased with what we have to this point and believe you will appreciate it as well.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns that you may have.

Michael O'Brian Sr.
Chairman AFFPMI
National V. Chair AFFP

Viet Nam Veteran
390 E. Beechwood Dr.
Adrian, Michigan 49221
(517) 266-0843
www.americafoundingfathersparty.org
mobsr@...

"I am only one, but I am one.
I cannot do everything, but I can do something.
What I can do, I should do and,
with the help of God, I will do." - Edward Everett Hale

2nd req.

Hello, Michael O'Brian:

This is Ron Branson, the National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief. I have read your offer to J.A.I.L. below, and wish to comment thereon. I have no doubt that we are in pursuit of the same goals in this country, and that is good.

J.A.I.L. receives many such requests as yours from other organizations, generally those involved in income tax issues. Here is how I respond to them. J.A.I.L. is not per se a patriot group. We are just plain citizens from every walk of life, all political parties, from the left to the right philosophically, some currently working within government, some retired from government. There is not an area that J.A.I.L. does not touch. J.A.I.L.'s singular goal is giving all people a means of enforcement of the U.S. Constitution, all State Constitutions, and all laws made, or which shall be made in pursuance thereof, within all courts of this nation, both state and federal. J.A.I.L. is a one size fits all! Its application addresses all agendas, all causes, all organizations, all coalitions, and all political parties. It's objective is "Liberty and Justice for All!" And what cause or agenda is there that can prevail in the absence of Liberty and Justice for All? Not one! Truth and integrity is the substance of all societies!

It will come as no surprise to you when I tell you that when we succeed in getting J.A.I.L. on the ballot across this nation, the powers that be will go into full swing and pull out the stops, spending huge amounts of money to seek the defeat J.A.I.L. in and effort to preserve their firm grasp on the profits of their corruption. If it were found on our website material or links to an "anti-tax" effort, J.A.I.L. would be labeled unjustly as a bunch of tax protesters. I have yet to see any of these group leaders that have approached J.A.I.L. fail to understand this reasoning.

Now in your case, you are a registered political party. As I stated above, J.A.I.L. has members from all political parties, and we welcome them all. But this is the very reason why J.A.I.L. cannot show any leaning towards any one political party. Perhaps you and I could find cause to disagree with some of these parties, but that is a personal matter, not the concern of J.A.I.L. We must remain completely neutral when it comes to political parties. For J.A.I.L. to endorse one party to the exclusion of other parties would mark our demise and bring down J.A.I.L's cause. I'm sure you can clearly understand what I am saying.

I have little doubt that a number of your party members will eventually be joining in the National J.A.I.L. effort. As far as we are concern, your entire party can join J.A.I.L., and in such case, J.A.I.L. will set forth that fact by way of announcement to all. By doing this, no one in another party can accuse us of prejudice or bias, for we are only announcing a fact. And likewise, any other party could do the same, and I would announce it. A political party joining J.A.I.L. does not constitute J.A.I.L. joining that political party. I would like to see all political parties getting officially behind and endorsing J.A.I.L.

Eventually, I anticipate public pressure will be upon certain political parties to formally endorse J.A.I.L.'s efforts because they deem it consistent with their objectives and goals. I could name one, but I shall refrain. I am available to speak at State or National Political Conventions so long as it be understood that my appearance does not constitute a J.A.I.L. endorsement of that party. I've already done this.

In conclusion, I do thank you for taking the time to write me and make such an offer. For the above reasons, J.A.I.L. is unable to accept your offer. Notwithstanding this fact, J.A.I.L. in turn asks you and your political party, American Founding Fathers Party, to endorse J.A.I.L.

Thank you so very much, Michael, and God bless you.

Ron Branson

Nat'l J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief

VictoryUSA@...

"..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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#769 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Fri Dec 26, 2003 3:03 am
Subject: * * * Objective: CONVICTIONS - Not Justice! jail4judges@...
Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California December 25, 2003

Objective: CONVICTIONS -

Not Justice!

Prosecutors Not Penalized, Lawyer Says
New York Times
December 17, 2003
By ANDREA ELLIOTT

A lawyer who won the largest wrongful conviction settlement in the city's history said yesterday that during his investigation he uncovered dozens of cases of prosecutorial misconduct in the Bronx district attorney's office that did not result in disciplinary action. ....

Officials in the district attorney's office denied that prosecutorial misconduct was frequent or went unpunished. They said that in the 72 cases that Mr. Rudin highlighted, sanctions might have been issued that were not reflected in the prosecutors' personnel records. ....

Mr. Rudin's client, Alberto Ramos, won a $5 million settlement this month, 11 years after he was released from prison because of a wrongful conviction in a child sex abuse case. In the 1992 reversal, the judge found that the trial prosecutor had withheld evidence that most likely
would have exonerated Mr. Ramos. He later filed a civil suit, but to win damages from a jury he needed to prove that the prosecutor's actions were caused by a policy or practice of misconduct in the district attorney's office. The city settled on Sept. 4.

The withholding of exculpatory evidence and other forms of prosecutorial misconduct are problems in courts nationwide, legal experts say. There is disagreement about whether offending prosecutors are sanctioned often or severely enough, but the lack of disciplinary action by the Bronx district attorney in dozens of cases where misconduct was cited - with some prosecutors, repeatedly - is evidence of a policy of tolerance, Mr. Rudin said.

"Here you have people with the power to destroy lives, and when they do it by withholding evidence, there is no sanction," he said.

Officials in the Bronx district attorney's office said that the citings were not conclusive evidence that misconduct occurred willfully, or that a pattern existed, given the high volume of felony cases tried in the 21-year period - about 100,000.

Others in the legal profession said that misconduct was sometimes a necessary part of the learning curve. "Everybody makes mistakes - if we have a zero-tolerance policy in the legal profession, everyone is going to get disbarred," said Joshua K. Marquis, district attorney of Astoria, Ore., and a member of the board of directors of the National District Attorneys Association.

The cases that Mr. Rudin highlighted involved 74 prosecutors - 14 of whom were cited for misconduct in several cases. In one such case, a prosecutor who was hired in 1978 and retired in 1984 was cited for prosecutorial misconduct in the appellate decisions of five criminal
cases.

He was singled out in a manslaughter reversal in 1985 for "confusing and misleading the jury." In that ruling, the judge recalled the prosecutor's cited misconduct in another manslaughter case that had been reversed and concluded that his conduct and actions "can only be viewed as willful and deliberate."

But according to his personnel records, his salary continued to rise steadily until he retired, and included merit raises and bonuses.

Eighteen of the 72 cases involved prosecutors withholding evidence that might have helped the defendant. All 18 cases were overturned.

Among them was People v. Lantigua, a murder case that went to trial in 1992. The case depended on a sole witness who allegedly saw the murder from her window. Prosecutors argued that she was alone and had no distraction, when the witness had confided to one of the prosecutors before the trial that she had "snuck out" to meet a man.

The judge said the failure to disclose the conversation was "especially egregious." The prosecutors were never sanctioned, according to their personnel records, Mr. Rudin said.

Mr. Ramos was 21 years old and a part-time employee at the Concourse Day Care Center in the Bronx when, in 1984, he was arrested and charged with raping a 5-year-old girl whose class he helped supervise. While in prison, Mr. Ramos, 40, said he endured beatings, was sodomized and tried to commit suicide several times.

"Every day for me was hell," Mr. Ramos said in an interview at his attorney's office. Mr. Ramos, who recently left the military and wants to be a chef, said he did not want to talk about the millions he won.

"I don't think it's really about the money," said Mr. Ramos, sitting upright in a crisply ironed blue shirt and tie, his hands folded tightly in front of him. "I think it's about an injustice done to a minority who didn't have the funds of someone who was better off."

Mr. Ramos's conviction largely rested, Mr. Rudin said, on the testimony of one of the doctors, who said the girl would not have been able to describe in such detail what happened to her if she had not been abused.

What the jury never heard was testimony from day care center workers that the girl had masturbated frequently in class and had extensive knowledge of sexual acts prior to the alleged abuse. They also never heard testimony that the child had told city social workers that Mr. Ramos had done nothing to her.

The trial prosecutor, Diana Farrell, had the obligation to make this evidence known to the defense, and failed to do so, according to the 1992 reversal. Officials of the district attorney's office said they were not at liberty to discuss whether any disciplinary action was taken against
Ms. Farrell. Repeated efforts to get in touch with Ms. Farrell, who is no longer with the district attorney's office, were unsuccessful.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/17/nyregion/17PROS.html?ex=1072670719&ei=1&en=db1

On authority of one having worked within the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office for near two decades, there was a competitive spirit of racking up convictions not only among the inner-office Deputy District Attorneys, but among the various District Attorney's Offices throughout Los Angeles County. It ran like a competitive chess game.

This publisher has in his early archives an article on the District Attorney's Offices within the State of Texas competing on racking up points among the Deputies for those acquiring the most years of sentencing. The rules were that each year of total sentencing constituted a point. Even the judges got into the game, sentencing some at his pleasure for over 1000 years to help certain Deputies rack up their points.

When one thinks that we are here talking about families and lives being ruined at the expense of Deputy District Attorneys seeking to win a game, it is unthinkable. Yes, and for the sake of winning these type of games as an unspoken policy, practice, and custom, the taxpayers pay for housing such people for life, or even multiple life sentences, while hiding exculpatory evidence that should have been revealed.

"..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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#770 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Fri Jan 16, 2004 8:24 am
Subject: What Can I Do To Help You? (New MI. JAILer) jail4judges@...
Send Email

What Can I Do To Help You?

(By Peter Shefman, new Michigan JAILer, pshefman@...)

----- Original Message -----

From: Peter Shefman

To: VictoryUSA@...

Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 3:15 AM

Subject: What can I do to help you?

Hello Ron:

My name is Peter Shefman. I have lived in Ann Arbor, Michigan, County of Washtenaw, for the better part of twenty five years. I have completed university and post graduate specialty.

I uncovered the court injustice many years ago and observed their illegal maneuvers, i.e. intimidation, misrepresentation, and ultimately corruption; it was soon evident no matter how I succeeded, they simply changed the rules and guidelines.

The judges abused their discretion and my attorney's sabotaged my cases, several succumbed to intimidation by the court. What was clear, it was decided from the start that I would lose whatever matter irrespective of the facts or law.

It has improperly cost me almost everything I worked so hard for over 20 years in Michigan: loss of all my civil rights, severe injury to all of my health (hospitalized last month for chest pain and forced to appear in court against my physicians advice for what I was told was a status conference). It turned out to be severe abusive motions with no notice. My legal counsel withdrew, and I was denied proper notice to respond, and no representation. Forced to accept an unfair settlement under duress because of the unfair risks I was placed in.

I was devastated, and did not know what was going on, or what to do. Most people don't even know what is going on, but I do now, and I want to expose this corruption. I hope you have a way that will really make a difference.

Respectfully

Peter Shefman

pshefman@...

Dear Peter:

First I wish to welcome you as a new JAILer to Michigan. Boy do I know that Mr. Dan Benham, drbehham@..., the JAILer-In-Chief (JIC) for Michigan is going to do headstands and cartwheels when he receives this.

I have to give thanks for all those judges out there promoting J.A.I.L. Without their help J.A.I.L. would be nothing. Judges are our greatest recruiters for the cause of Judicial Accountability. Because of them, we have a looong waiting line just to get on our mailings.

You are a prime example to this. They have opened your eyes, and now you see, and you have come home to J.A.I.L. where you belong. As these judges do their dirty work hundreds of thousands of times over, they keep swelling or ranks all over this country, as judicial corruption is universal. We are a national family of assorted victims of judges, and few have not experienced the same sort of treatment which you received.

Dan Benham will be more than happy to tell you what you can do to help. I'm sure he will find a leadership position for you somewhere within Michigan. God bless you, dear one.

-Ron Branson

VictoryUSA@...

www.jail4judges.org

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#772 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 8:34 pm
Subject: Back From The WTP Conference jail4judges@...
Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
_____________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California January 31, 2004

Back From The WTP* Conference

*(We The People)

You've heard the saying "Nice to be back." Well, this is especially true regarding one factor-- WEATHER! We left 20-degree weather with drizzle on Tuesday close to 1:00 pm (delayed one hour) from BWI Maryland, with a stop in Norfolk VA, and then on to Las Vegas where we switched planes (barely made the connection due to the delay), and landed in southern California where it was 57 degrees at 5:15 pm Tuesday evening, just getting dark.

A member of the Save-A-Patriot organization in Maryland asked if Ron would be able to speak at their meeting on Saturday evening in Westminster MD, about 1-1/2 hours' drive from Arlington. One of our Virginia JAILers was kind enough to offer to be our "wheels" for us while we were there and even volunteered to drive us to the SAP meeting and back again to the Arlington area where we spent a few more days. On Sunday, our "chauffeur" drove us around the DC area and through "Ambassador Row" and Georgetown.

That drive through DC left a chilling effect on me (more than just the weather). That effect has actually grown since arriving home, having the vision come back to mind time and time again like a recurring nightmare. It made me realize, by actually seeing it, the hugeness of the monster controlling us, just by seeing the monster's housing covering block after block, row upon row of huge edifices, one after another in every direction. I viewed the beautiful monuments through eyes of depression, knowing the monster was right there. I knew we were in enemy territory, but how many people realize it? We drove by the Supreme Court building and it was blocked up like a fortress. Police were all over the place, sitting in squad cars with their lights flashing. Again, it was a chilling effect. I realized I was not in friendly territory, just looking around.

You don't begin to get the picture just by watching TV-- you have to be there! The White House was not a picture of park-like rolling green lawns (or even a snowy lawn) and trees with an occasional squirrel scampering about as seen behind reporters on TV. We could not even drive by it-- the road was blocked. We had to view it by glimpses at a distance between commercial buildings. DC was a dreadfully awesome sight and feeling. It felt "foreign" --not like home. Visiting foreign monsters, like Red Square or The Hague, would not be as dreadful since they aren't controlling our people. We could view them and say "Thank goodness this isn't in our country." But did DC give me that warm and fuzzy feeling of home? of freedom and liberty? of domestic tranquility? of pride in being an American? I hate to tell you.

Both Ron and I had profusely poured out our thanks and appreciation to Bob Schulz and to Devvy Kidd for all the blood, sweat (despite the cold temps), and I'm sure-- tears, for what they had done to make this event possible. Bob even commented that Devvy was close to suffering a heart attack about three times during preparations (he was smiling as he said that, so thankfully he was kidding), and one of the speakers commented that Devvy was like a squirrel in an acorn tree. That pretty well described it. By the way, Devvy Kidd attended the very first fundraiser for J.A.I.L. (then called the Judicial Reform Act of 1996 - JRA) at the Airtel Hotel in Van Nuys, as did John Wolfgram, another speaker at the Conference.

This was the first of a planned annual event, and I'm sure it was a learning experience with the road being a bit bumpy on its maiden schedule. Let's let them know how much we appreciate the opportunities they give to other Freedom Warriors. I don't want to leave out the fact that we also had the pleasure of meeting Mrs. Schulz (Judy) as well.

Our lasting memories of this trip will be pleasant ones-- of the Conference and all the people we were able to meet and talk to while there. It was a wonderful opportunity for J.A.I.L.

-Barbie-

victoryusa@...

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#773 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 7:07 am
Subject: * * * Righteousness Exalteth A Nation" * * * jail4judges@...
Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California February 11, 2004

"Righteousness Exalteth A Nation" Prov. 14:34

(By Ron Branson, J.A.I.L Author/Founder)

It is no secret that various channels are being put into effect by J.A.I.L. to obtain a personal audience with Governor Schwarzenegger in an attempt to assist him in his endeavor to help restore California. I have pointed out that his goal is impossible to achieve without our help, and that he needs us much more that we need him. As a result of our publication of this fact, we received the following from Boston, Mass., "I'm not sure I understand how J.A.I.L. is going to help the governor, can you please clarify? Have a great day. God Bless you, Denise"

basicsoul7@...

This is a reasonable inquiry that I wish to address for our readers. Does anyone care to debate the issue that California is in a heap of trouble due to its corruption, fraud, and oppression in every way thinkable? We have the highest paid bureaucrats in the nation, the highest retirement benefits to the same, the largest boondoggle of a public school system, the highest taxes and unemployment, the worst worker's compensation program, the highest accumulation of lawyers on earth, the largest prison industry, and so on and so forth.

Of all the litigation coming before the U.S. Supreme Court, most arise out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers eleven states. Of all these eleven states, most litigation originates from California. (And as a side bar, the vast majority of these cases arise out of the Second Appellate District, i.e., Los Angeles.) I have had the sad experience of receiving my legal "education" right here in the heart of the beast where judicial influence, bribery and scams abound.

Governor Schwarzenegger, while shocked at what he has already discovered, has not seen the half of what he is faced with. He has said that if he has to, he will go directly to the people with citizen's initiatives, and that is just exactly what he will have to do, but his current Proposition 57 & 58 initiative now on the ballot to borrow an additional $15 Billion, plus interest to be saddled on our children and grand-children for years to come, is not the answer. It will only enhance California's problems in the long run.

I have quoted a basic truth that is true of every era, every nation, all societies, and in all circumstances. This truth cannot be averted, and that is that "Righteousness exalteth a nation." Webster's dictionary defines exalt as, to raise high, to elevate in character, praise, estimation, glory, and to induce exaltation.

By antithesis, corruption, fraud and oppression always destroy a nation. This same principle applies to states as well as to a nation. Without righteousness, no state can achieve exaltation. Thus, it is certain that Schwarzenegger can never "raise high," or "elevate" California without a real and workable direct system of accountability to the People that has teeth.

I am asked how J.A.I.L. will help the governor. If that question is asked from the perspective of how he will fare with the existent government and legislature, it won't help him because they will be vehemently opposed to what he absolutely must do. He must return power directly back into the hands of the People if he expects to elevate California.

Now, what will J.A.I.L. do for California, or for this nation, for that matter? I have been very careful on this point because I have not wished to awaken a self-confident arrogant sleeping giant who fears no harm. As far as the powerful are concerned, I would rather they perceive us as just a chit-chat group of disgruntled slaves that expresses only grandeurs of hope, while posing no actual or real threat to their future security. On the other hand, I am offering hope to the hopeless. So I walk this thin line of offering people hope, while "posing no threat" to the status quo.

The plan is to come upon our enemies as sudden as an instant heart attack, leaving them to wonder what happened. (Ever notice how I say very little on the subject of the New World Order and one other unmentionable subject?) Am I sly? Do I know more than I put on? Do I have effective long-range plans? I will leave you to formulate your own opinions.

Basically, J.A.I.L., apart from advanced technology, will wind back the clock to when the Constitution governed our nation, judges obeyed their oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, and when laws were few and respected and had a genuine purpose rather than generating revenue and imposing oppression upon the people. People were then respected by those whom we elected.

We have ventured so far off base from the Constitution for so many years that most people have no idea of what a constitutionally limited government is, and would fear the radical change. For instance, can you imagine receiving a jury trial in every case in which the government came after you, and had to justify its aggression before an unfettered jury? The Constitution says, "...the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury..." When's the last time you received a jury trial in a traffic court? family court? bankruptcy court? so-called "administrative courts," etc. They are non-existent. The courts have arbitrarily determined you are not entitled to a jury trial.

Our Founding Fathers were aggrieved with these very things when they unanimously signed the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. Let us revisit a few of their grievances. "He has obstructed the administration of justice .... He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. ... He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies [Homeland Security] .... He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution [administrative laws] .... For protecting them [troops], by a mock trial, from punishment.... For imposing taxes on us without our consent .... For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury.... abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments .... and waging war against us.

Once a young man asked me something like this. How would we keep our government going if we operated like you are suggesting? I responded, that's a good point. How would we survive if we did not have all this government breathing down our back everywhere, telling us what we can and can not do, licenses and taxing us every step of the way, fining us if we do not obey, and punishing us if we detest them?

He responded, I didn't think of it in that light.

Imagine living in an atmosphere where you could think and act for yourself, being responsible for your own actions; where you could actually defend yourself and your property per Article I of the California Constitution, "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."

This sounds too frightening, doesn't it? "Gee, you mean I have to make decisions for myself and be responsible for my own actions? I don't think I can handle this. It does not fit my way of thinking. I want the government to think for me, to protect me, and to be responsible for my actions. I just would not know what to do with this kind of Liberty. Yes, and I wouldn't get my Social Security check, Food Stamps, etc."

Honestly, I think if I were to inform most people on the reality of the extent J.A.I.L. would benefit California and Gov. Scharzenegger, they would be beside themselves, and so I just as soon let them experience it, and not hear the fullness thereof.

Our greatest problem in California is ignorance, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee." Hosea 4: 6.

I intend to move this nation through the accountability that J.A.I.L. will bring towards integrity, truth, and godly principles, apart from party politics, and without pressuring anyone in the way of religion.

Truly J.A.I.L will bring about the fulfillment of Prov. 28: 28, and 29: 2, "When the wicked rise, men hide themselves: but when they perish, the righteous increase." "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn." If we care for California / America, and want to increase godly men in it, then it's time to turn toward the goodness J.A.I.L. offers. "Righteousness exalteth a nation." -Ron Branson

"..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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#774 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:10 am
Subject: Judges: To Elect, or to Appoint? jail4judges@...
Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California February 15, 2004

Judges: To Elect, or to Appoint?

Feb. 13, 2004, 12:20AM

Lying judge defends system

By RICK CASEY
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle

Time was when a pronouncement by Steve Mansfield could make headlines and change lives.

That was when he sat on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest court for criminal matters.

But this week, when Mansfield opined about gay marriage in Massachusetts in a letter to the editor of this newspaper, his remarks drew little attention.

And from many of those who recognized who he was, the letter provoked giggles.

The point of Mansfield's letter was that the 4-3 decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court mandating the recognition of gay marriages constitutes a powerful argument in favor of the Texas system of electing judges.

"The main reason why Texas does not have a problem with activist judges acting like legislators in black robes is that Texas judges are accountable to the voters," Mansfield wrote. "In Massachusetts, judges are appointed for life and are thus free to rule however they see fit."

"Liberal activists know that the only way they can abolish the death penalty, remove religion from public life and impose gay marriage is through an unaccountable judiciary," he continued. "That is why Texans must not give up the right to elect our judges lest we become like Massachusetts."

Fallacies abound in his argument, but first let me explain why some giggled at his letter.

It is precisely this: Before he sank into obscurity after leaving the high court in 2000 and losing a bid to regain his seat in 2002, Mansfield was a poster boy for what is wrong with electing judges.

During Mansfield's campaign for office in 1994, he was caught in multiple lies:

� He said his background was "primarily criminal defense," but in fact had done very little criminal defense work. His job when he decided to run was as an in-house insurance lawyer.

� He said he was a Texas native. He was born in Massachusetts and moved to Houston in the 1980s and wasn't licensed to practice here until 1992.

� He had paid a fine for unauthorized practice of law in Florida and was once charged with marijuana possession in Boston.

� He said he had never run for public office. He had twice run for Congress in New England.

These and other embarrassing facts were published during the campaign. Yet while spending only $10,000, Mansfield beat a better-qualified Republican in the primary and then ousted the Democratic incumbent.

Mansfield himself expressed "shock, surprise and disbelief" at his victory.

He won for two reasons. One was that because the Court of Criminal Appeals handles only cases where no money awards are involved; plaintiff's lawyers and big business don't contribute to candidates. As a result, voters know little to nothing about candidates.

The second reason Mansfield won was that he rode George W. Bush's coattails in ousting Gov. Ann Richards.

So much for Mansfield's record. Now for his argument.

He says appointed judges are more likely to be "activist" in making law, rather than interpreting it.

But Texas has had its share of activist judges, both liberal and conservative. Judicial activism clearly can come not just from arrogance, but from a desire to pander to voters or major campaign contributors.

Mansfield also suggests that it is "liberal activists" who want to change the Texas system.

While some liberals have backed appointive systems, the leadership for appointing judges has come from Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Phillips and state Sen. Robert Duncan and state Rep. Elizabeth Ames Jones -- all Republicans.

Good arguments can be made for the elective system, but Mansfield didn't come close.

You can write to Rick Casey at P.O. Box 4260, Houston, TX 77210, or e-mail him at rick.casey@....

Whether to elect judges or to appoint judges is not relevant to the judicial problems facing America today. In either case, judges are not responsible for their actions whatsoever by reason of their self-created doctrine of judicial immunity. If elections assured honesty and integrity, then America should have the finest politicians that money could buy. (Pun intended.)

Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Without accountability of judges, whether elected or appointed, we assure corrupt and activist judges will be running this country. Only J.A.I.L. assures a non-political system by which judges will be directly accountable to the people, and hence, America's future freedom and security directly rests upon the passage of 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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#775 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 1:37 am
Subject: Fmr. Wash. D.C. Employee Praises J.A.I.L. jail4judges@...
Send Email

Former Washington, D.C. Federal Employee Praises J.A.I.L.

(By Wendy Ghannam, desert_rose72@...)

Ron's Response Below

(Dated 2/19/04)

----- Original Message -----

From: Desert Rose

To: VictoryUSA@...

Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 3:50 AM

Subject: Corrupt Legal System

Hello Mr. Ron Branson,

My name is Wendy and I live in one of the outside suburbs of Washington, DC. I read through parts of your website with great interest today, and wanted to share the following with you:

As a former federal civil servant, I have been made part of a formidable
pattern of abuse and neglect within the federal system guidelines of the
U.S. Gov't. When I lost my position at the agency where I formerly worked (USAID), [U.S. Agency for International Development] I immediately set forth to enter into the available redress avenue afforded to most federal employees -- the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Therefore, I don't know if you are aware of it or not, but after nearly ten
years of legal redress avenues being set forward, I have discovered that the EEOC is made up with one of the most pervasive itineraries of corrupt administrative judge officials that I have ever seen in my entire life.

Following my own administrative hearing on my job discrimination matters in 1998, I witnessed for myself bribery money being extended to the hearing administrative judge on behalf of USAID legal officials!! At the time, I figured I could do nothing about it except to hope for a proper outcome of my case.

Over the years, I have learned that what I saw and witnessed is not an
isolated incidence. Therefore, other people have experienced much of the same, especially within the federal work service spectrum.

Our legal system is corrupt beyond measure in this country today!! I applaud you in your efforts to stop this treacherous system as quickly as possible.

Also, I have written about my own personal account in my book, WEB of BETRAYAL -- which spells out to every American what is going on within the EEOC discrimination avenue system, and what it means for the average person today. I am right there with you. Something has got to be done about this.

Many thanks for reading this e-mail.

Wendy Ghannam/Wash. DC
desert_rose72@...

P.S. My website is: http://www.Betrayals.net

Dear Wendy:

We are so happy to have received your communications from Washington, D.C. I've been told that "D.C." stands for the "District of Criminals." In any case, your testimony tends to support such a finding.

We are always pleased to find people in whatever profession or location they are in who show excitement about J.A.I.L. We are a nationwide grassroots movement of people from all walks of life who has suffered the same types of frustration you've experienced with the current system of "Justice" so-called. We have decided take effective and decisive action to change it. I am interpreting your enthusiasm as a willingness to join with us in that effort.

I am adding you not only to our J.A.I.L. News Journals, but also to our National JAILers List in which you may interchange thoughts and experiences with others such as yourself.

That said, let me be the first in line to welcome you as a Washington, D.C. JAILer. You will now find yourself inundated with all kinds of letters from JAILers welcoming you to the fold, some of which will relate well very with your experiences.

Next, I wish to say that in consideration of your experiences in Washington, D.C., and our current lack of J.A.I.L. presence within those ten square miles, I would like to ask you to consider becoming our Washington, D.C. JIC. (That stands for "JAILer-In-Chief.")

The duties of JIC in Washington, D.C. differs a bit from those held by the JICs throughout the states, in that there is no state Constitutional Amendment to be advanced. Rather, it is influencing Congressmen to sponsor and keep on focus the passage of the Federal J.A.I.L. Bill (see below) just as it is written. As such, you would not be subject to any of the Lobbyist laws because it would be your voluntary effort. You would eventually be known by all the Congress Critters under the dome, whether they like it or not.

Just let me know if you wish to take up this challenge for our entire country. I am very sure if you make this choice, you will not only gain popularity under the dome, but also by progress reports you send us worthy of publication to the nation. You are being offered a position that will have your finger on the pulse of the excitement of this nation.

Also, should you accept this position of JIC, you will have the authority to appoint a downline delegation of your authority to assist you in this cause. For instance, imagine recruiting, delegating and commanding a potential Team of a hundred-something JAILers within Washington, D.C. swarming on Capitol Hill. God forbid, say some of the Congressmen, but keep as your guide the words of Luke 18:2-5, "There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man: And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary. And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man; Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me."

God bless you, Wendy. We shall be waiting to hear from you.

Ron Branson

VictoryUSA@...

P.S. - Below is the Federal Judicial Accountability & Integrity Legislation Bill you will be called upon to push tirelessly into the face of the Congressmen.

~ ~ ~

Judicial Accountability & Integrity Legislation

(Version 9/1/03)

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

(b) Definitions. For purposes of this statute:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

AUTHORED BY: Ron Branson

P.O. Box 207

North Hollywood, California 91603

J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
JAIL is a unique addition to our form of gov't. heretofore unrealized.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
JAIL is taking America like a wildfire! AddRemove@...
JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability!
E-Groups sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Donate offerings to J.A.I.L., P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
"Give me your wealth, and I will give you America" - Ron Branson

"..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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#776 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:47 am
Subject: When the Courts Don't Work, Neither Do Governments Work jail4judges@...
Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California February 19, 2004

When The Courts Don't Work,

Neither Do Governments Work

Three housing inspectors on leave during investigation

http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/ne
ws-4/1076779155273691.xml

Oregon News
The Associated Press
2/14/2004

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - Three city employees have been placed on paid administrative leave while police investigate allegations that housing inspectors bought or tried to buy houses from owners after running up violations on the homes.

Other city employees are being interviewed, said Commissioner Randy Leonard, who oversees housing.

The City Council approved his request in December to spend as much as $200,000 on an outside investigator. Police and the district attorney's office also confirmed they are investigating.

"The allegations were that the inspectors directly involved in enforcement actions on properties subsequently did purchase, or attempted to purchase, those properties," Leonard said. "The issue here is you target a house, you start having citations put on the house, you have liens put on the house, and you purchase it."

The three employees placed on paid leave are two inspectors and a former housing supervisor.

Nora Mullane, the former supervisor, has been a city employee for nearly 14 years. The housing inspectors, both 10-year veterans, are David Hallberg and Edgar Bolden.

Reached by telephone at home Friday, Mullane, who now works for a different city office, said she could not comment. .... In one case, property records show that in April 1999 Hallberg and Mullane, who are married, purchased a house for $1,300.

Bureau of Development Services records show Hallberg was the primary inspector on a housing code violation case against the property that began in 1996 and on four nuisance violation cases against the property from 1996 to 1999.

At the time of Hallberg and Mullane's purchase, the house had a $1,700 lien against it resulting from the housing enforcement action.

The property was owned by an elderly man who lived in an adult foster care home, and needed assistance from a protective services worker in 1998 to file a request for a financial waiver with the city. The request was denied.

The above was sent to J.A.I.L. by Pamela Gaston, avoice@....

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence." -- John Adams

The above described land fraud is the logical conclusion for all properties throughout this nation when the courts do work. Imagine if you worked for the government, and you could just freely take away anyone's house and property you wanted for basically nothing and make it yours and there was nothing the landowner could do to resist you, what would you do?

This is descript of James 5:4 & 6 on how people will be robbed of their wages, "Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord .... Ye have condemned and killed the just; and he doth not resist you."

Since all people will be required to utilize the number of the Beast in order to work for a living, people will seek to survive by working off the record. Those hiring them will take advantage of them by law, knowing that the mere reporting of them for not using the number will be their demise.

J.A.I.L., by making judges accountable, will in turn, make governments accountable, and such fraud as is indicated in the article above, will be curbed by being held accountable by the judges.

"..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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#778 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:21 am
Subject: * * Jes' Doin' M'Job * * jail4judges@...
Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California March 22, 2004

Jes' Doin' M'Job

How oft we hear the words, "I'm just doing my job" from government bureaucrats. We are going to here explore the inner-thinking of these type of people.

I now hold in my hand a letter from a federal prisoner incarcerated in the federal prison in Alderson, West Virginia. But there is something very different about this prisoner. He was a police officer "just doing his job," and because he was "just doing his job," according to his own testimony, he now faces ten years.

He says, "I was a decorated police officer in Prince George's County, Maryland -- until I was sentenced to spend 10 - years in jail -- for doing my job -- All this -- over a dog bite and ... an unfair trial." [Punctuation his.]

He says, "I look around these walls -- decorated with the pictures my son draws to cheer me up and I shake my head in wonder ... how did I get here?"

His story is that he was a decorated police officer that was very well trained in working with, and use of, his police dog, Valk. On the particular occasion here in question, he was in a neighborhood that had been plagued with a lot of burglaries, and he witnessed what he believed to be a burglary suspect who "made a run for it" at the sight of him. He says, "I released Valk, to stop this dangerous suspect just as I'd been taught -- with a procedure called 'bite and hold'. Valk did his job." The man, Mendez, was treated for dog bite at the hospital, and then released.

Within the passage of time, according to him, "a Justice Department prosecutor saw a way to make a name for herself. You won't believe it, but she claimed -- I violated Mendez's civil rights when I stopped him from escaping! I was arrested for doing my job and catching a criminal!!! The local media started digging up anything they could about our police department -- true or false. It got the public all riled up. ....

"They didn't care if it meant throwing me in jail -- for doing my job! .... They stood outside yelling threats and obscenities at me as I walked into the court. I was terrified."

"All I knew was I couldn't breathe as I heard them convict and sentence me -- without a fair trial. 10 years for doing my job -- protecting our community..."

He says, "Since the trial, my attorneys have discovered there is a Federal law preventing police officers and firemen from serving on juries. So there wasn't even a question of getting a jury of my peers! The very people who would have understood correct and accepted police procedures, fellow police officers, were prevented from serving.

"I know this is my last chance. Dear friend -- that's why I desperately need your help. Because if I can't take advantage of this one last chance...I may spend the next ten years in a jail cell instead of raising my son..."

"I can't tell you how it tortures me as I sit rotting in jail ... thinking about how I put my life on the line every day as a police officer ... and had to resign in disgrace because of a dog bite!"

He says his last hope is LELDF (Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund), through whom he wishes to challenge the constitutionality of the Federal law that precludes his own fellow police officers from serving on his jury. It is for this reason he argues that his trial was unfair. After all, he argues, he is innocent because he was just doing his job, and who would know better about his job than his own fellow police officers.

Ironically, those brought up on war crimes during the Nuremberg trial all argued in their defense that they were "just doing their jobs and following orders." Hence, the asserted conclusion sought for justification was that throughout all their atrocities and bloodshed, no one was guilty. Rather, it was just an unfortunate incident.

A few years ago I sent payment to the DMV for renewal of my auto registration per their request. They received my payment evidenced by the cancelled check, but never sent the registration tab. As a result, I was stopped on the freeway by the California Highway Patrol. I showed him evidence of payment to the DMV, but he nevertheless, in violation of the California Vehicle Code, cited me for non-registration of my vehicle. When I complained that he was violating the law, he said, "I'm just doing my job." Barbie, who was sitting in the car told him, "Why don't you just go somewhere else and do your job." I appeared in court and argued to a full-fledged judge, (not a commissioner), that this California Highway Patrolman, who was not present, willfully violated the very Vehicle Code he claimed to be enforcing.

The judge called for a ten minute break, and before the break ended he came out with the Vehicle Code rolled back in his hand and said to the prosecutor, "Mr. Branson is right, I am going to have to dismiss this case!" I said, "Good, place your decision on the record so I can have it." The judge said, "How can I do that, I don't have jurisdiction?" And I said, "You have just made a decision, and it is your decision that I want on the record."

The bottom line was that the judge just disposed of the case while on break, and refused to make any disposition on the record of the case. I sued the California Highway Patrolman for willfully violating state law. The State of California entered on his behalf and argued that this officer was just doing his job as they had ordered him, and therefore was not liable for his actions. I amended my complaint to argue that the State of California has an official policy, practice and custom of ordering their law enforcement officers to violate the very Vehicle Code they were out there "enforcing," to wit, the official job of the California Highway Patrol was to violate State Law.

By this time I had learned that the entire system of law was a big joke, and that the courts would cover for the State of California. What they came in saying was that I could not sue the State of California, and as a practical matter, they were right because no court would allow the State of California to be found guilty of willfully violating State Law.

Nonetheless, I proved that the official policy of the State of California was to willfully violate State Law. But I remind you, ignorance of the law is no excuse, and you must obey the law. I believe they call this the height of hypocrisy, if I am not mistaken, or have they now changed the definition of "Hypocrisy?"

California is hopelessly entangled in politics and unable to escape the net of its own vices. Its corruption and evil is beyond measure, all covered up by a judicial system that does not understand the meaning of the word "Justice." I am looking forward to the day when J.A.I.L. shall dominate California, and I and all the people shall shout praises for the changes that will be made here. -Ron Branson

"..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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#779 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Fri Mar 26, 2004 3:26 am
Subject: Documentary Re: The Work of Elena Sassower - CJA jail4judges@...
Send Email

Documentary Re: The Work of Elena Sassower - CJA

(Source Reading from Elena Sassower, Judgewatch@...)

In all quarters of life we are finding the hue and cry for J.A.I.L., even if it be sometimes unknowingly. Everywhere people are running into brick walls involving the judiciary, and totally running out of options.

One speaker addressing a large group asked the question of his listening audience, where do we go from here if we do not have a forum for redress of grievances. From the audience came a shout the word associated with the "R" word. This response would be the natural and logical conclusion of everyone barring consideration of "Judicial Accountability Initiative Law." When there are no other means of redress afforded to the people, the people will naturally turn to radical means for "redress."

J.A.I.L.'s appeal has been, and is, to interpose a lawful and peaceable means between all other means of seeking redress, and the "R" word. I hate to use the word "wait," as J.A.I.L. is waiting for nothing. But the fact plainly is, when the people are ready to regain their freedom, they shall have freedom, and the only reason they do not now have freedom is because of their ignorance. This is a sad state of affairs, because the people seem to have to totally run out of every other option before they "try" J.A.I.L. The fact is, J.A.I.L. is non-expendable and unavoidable.

One of our sister groups, Center for Judicial Accountability, Inc., Elena Sassower, a New York JAILer, has been diligently busy for many years documenting and perfecting the lack of redress within our current judicial system. I myself admit to eighteen years of learning the ins and outs of the judicial system, ending in fourteen trips to the United States Supreme Court as my background in the writing of J.A.I.L.

The below, by Elena Sassower, who has done a marvelous and amazing job, may be a little deep for some of you, in which case you may chose to either save this email for later, or delete it. For the rest of you, a study of her documented facts will confirm the need for J.A.I.L. as the only answer to the problem America will see. And to those of you relying upon divine intervention, if you have ears to hear, let him hear, J.A.I.L. is that "divine intervention!"

-Ron Branson, www.jail4judges.org

Subject: *** A Landmark Event for Justice & Judicial Accountability ***
http://www.judgewatch.org/FederalMangano.htm

In the wake of a Judicial misconduct or abuse complaint, the judiciary often plays Monday morning quarterback: "If they had only filed X, or said Y, or raised Z... THEN we would have done something". (As you already know, this is a smoke-screen designed to divert attention from their own failure to supervise and discipline their own - but here's the proof.)

The upcoming proceedings involving Elena Sassower are pivotal to any citizen interested in restoring any degree of accountability to the judiciary. Although the main-stream media has repeatedly been presented irrefutable evidence regarding misconduct and corruption at the highest levels of our government, they have chosen to bury the story.

Linked below is a "test case"... All of the "i"s were dotted and all of the "t"s were crossed. Every remedy was pursued.

I would ask each of you to review this case and forward the information far & wide. The current proceedings are the culmination of a battle that has raged for over a decade. If properly covered, it will be the judiciary's Waterloo.

Regards,
Brutus

Each document is hyper-linked for easy access; however, if this happens to post in a plain text format and the links become inactive, here's the url:
http://www.judgewatch.org/FederalMangano.htm

TESTING IN A SINGLE PERFECT CASE

THE CHECKS ON FEDERAL JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

TOUTED BY THE 1993 REPORT OF

THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE & REMOVAL

� and documenting their complete worthlessness

* * * *

A public interest lawsuit to protect

judicial whistle-blowing attorneys from judicial retaliation

DORIS L. SASSOWER,

- against -

HON. GUY MANGANO, PRESIDING JUSTICE OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF

THE STATE OF NEW YORK, and the ASSOCIATE JUSTICES THEREOF,

GARY CASELLA and EDWARD SUMBER, Chief Counsel and Chairman, respectively, of the GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE FOR THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE FOR THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, Does 1-20, being present members thereof, MAX GALFUNT, being a Special Referee, and G. OLIVER KOPPELL, Attorney General of the State of New York, all in their official and personal capacities,

DISTRICT COURT/SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

(S.D.N.Y. #94 Civ. 4514 (JES))

PLAINTIFF�S VERIFIED COMPLAINT

June 20, 1994

Exhibit B: Written Three-Year Deal between Republican and Democratic Parties of New York�s Ninth Judicial District, cross-endorsing judicial candidates, commencing in 1989.

PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR DISMISSAL ON THE PLEADING AND REQUEST FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN HER FAVOR, WITH SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS

June 23, 1995

Plaintiff's Affidavit

Exhibit 1: Plaintiff�s 5/25/95 letter to Asst. Attorney General Amy Abramowitz, advising of her liability for sanctions if Defendants� false and fraudulent dismissal motion and Answer were not withdrawn

Ex. B: Plaintiff�s annotated �Chronology�, cross-referenced to disciplinary file

Ex. C: Plaintiff�s 3/8/94 letter to Defendant Attorney General Koppell, transmitting disciplinary file, with annotated Inventory

Ex. D: Plaintiff�s �Critique� of Defendants� Answer, documenting that over 150 responses were false and in bad faith

Exhibit 2a: Plaintiff's petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in her state Article 78 proceeding, Sassower v. Mangano.

Plantiff's Rule 3(g) Statement

Plantiff's Memorandum of Law

PLAINTIFF�S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WITH TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, which Judge Sprizzo refused to sign

Filed September 25, 1995

Unsigned Order to Show Cause

Moving Affidavit

Memorandum of Law

PLAINTIFF�S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR JUDGE SPRIZZO�S RECUSAL, PURSUANT TO 28 USC ��144 AND 455, which Judge Sprizzo refused to sign

Filed October 26, 1995

Unsigned Order to Show Cause

Moving Affidavit

Memorandum of Law

PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVIT IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AND SANCTIONS, October 27, 1996

PLAINTIFF�S NOTICE OF MOTION FOR REARGUMENT, RECONSIDERATION, AND RENEWAL OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR RECUSAL AND FOR OTHER RELIEF

March 8, 1996

Notice of Motion

Moving Affidavit

SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

(#96-7805)

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT'S NOTICE OF APPEAL, June 27, 1996

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT�S BRIEF

January 10, 1997

Cover

Questions Presented for Review

Table of Contents

Table of Authorities

Brief

Attached Appendix: Line-by-line analysis of the appealed-from 5/21/96 decision/order of District Court Judge Sprizzo, compared with record

RECORD ON APPEAL

January 10, 1997

Cover

Table of Contents

� Plaintiff�s statement, presented at the 11/28/95 public hearing of the Second Circuit Task Force on Gender, Racial, and Ethnic Fairness in the Courts

� Plaintiff�s March 8, 1996 handwritten letter to Chief Judge Griesa/Southern District Court

� Plaintiff�s May 3, 1996 letter to Chief Judge Griesa

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT�S REPLY BRIEF

April 1, 1997

Cover

Table of Contents

Table of Authorities

Reply Brief

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT�S RECUSAL/SANCTIONS MOTION

April 1, 1997

Notice of Motion

Moving Affidavit

Exhibit D: Plaintiff's January 14, 1997 letter to Attorney General Vacco

Supplemental Affidavit, April 28, 1997

Exhibit A:   Statement of CJA�s Coordinator, Elena Ruth Sassower, presented at the November 28, 1995 public hearing of the Second Circuit Task Force on Gender, Racial, and Ethnic Fairness in the Courts

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT�S PETITON FOR REHEARING WITH SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING IN BANC

October 6, 1997

Cover

Table of Contents

Table of Authorities

Rehearing Petition

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT�S RECUSAL/RULE 60(b) VACATUR FOR FRAUD MOTION

October 10, 1997

Notice of Motion

Moving Affidavit

Table of Exhibits

Exhibit A: �Without Merit: The Empty Promise of Judicial Discipline�

Exhibit B: �Restraining �Liars in the Courtroom� and on the Public Payroll�

Exhibit C: Plaintiff-Appellant�s March 4, 1996 judicial misconduct complaint against Jon Newman, Chief Judge, Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Exhibit E: Plaintiff-Appellant�s May 30, 1996 petition for review of Acting Chief Judge Amalya Kearse�s dismissal of the March 4, 1996 complaint against Chief Judge Newman

Exhibit L: Plaintiff-Appellant�s written statement for presentment at the 8/29/97 oral argument

Exhibit M: Plaintiff-Appellant�s 8/27/97 letter to NYS Attorney General Dennis Vacco

Exhibit N: Plaintiff-Appellant�s line-by-line analysis of the Second Circuit�s 9/10/97 summary order

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT�S �372(c) JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT AGAINST DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

October 28, 1997

�372(c) Judicial Misconduct Complaint against District Judge Sprizzo

Exhibit A: Line-by-line analysis of Judge Sprizzo�s appealed-from 5/21/9696 decision/order, compared with record

Exhibit B: �Without Merit: The Empty Promise of Judicial Discipline�

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT�S �372(c) JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT AGAINST THREE-JUDGE APPELLATE PANEL

November 6, 1997

�372(c) Judicial Misconduct Complaint against Appellate Panel Judges Jacobs, Meskill, Korman

Exhibit A:   Line-by-line analysis of appellate panel�s 9/10/97 summary order, compared with record

Exhibit B-1: �Restraining �Liars in the Courtroom� and on the Public Payroll�

Exhibit B-2: �Where Do You Go When Judges Break the Law?�

Exhibit C: �Without Merit: The Empty Promise of Judicial Discipline�

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

(#98-106)

PETITIONER�S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

May 18, 1998

Cover

Questions Presented

Table of Contents, Including to Appendix

Table of Authorities

Petition

PERTINENT DOCUMENTS IN APPENDIX TO CERT PETITION

Petitioner�s April 3, 1998 Petition for Review to the Second Circuit Judicial Council of Chief Judge Winter�s 2/9/98 dismissal of her �372(c) judicial misconduct complaints against appellate panel and district judge

Exhibit A: CJA�s march 10, 1998 memorandum to House Judiciary Committee

Exhibit B: CJA�s March 23, 1998 memorandum to House Judiciary Committee

PETITIONER�S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF

September 2, 1998

Cover

Table of Contents, Including to Supplemental Appendix [SA-]

Table of Authorities

Supplemental Brief

PERTINENT DOCUMENTS IN SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX

� Petitioner�s July 20, 1998 letter to U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman

� CJA�s statement for the record of the House Judiciary Committee�s June 11, 1998 �oversight hearing of the administration and operation of the federal judiciary�

� CJA�s statement at the April 24, 1998 public hearing of the Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals

� Petitioner�s July 27, 1998 letter to Lee Radek, Chief of the Public Integrity Section of the U.S. Justice Department�s Criminal Division

� CJA�s November 24, 1997 letter to Jeffrey Barr, Deputy General Counsel, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

� Petitioner�s January 26, 1998 letter to ABA President Jerome Shestack

� Petitioner�s August 11, 1998 letter to ABA President Philip Anderson

PETITIONER�S SEPTEMBER 23, 1998 LETTER-APPLICATION TO THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES FOR DISCLOSURE AND DISQUALIFICATION, PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C �455

Exhibit B-1: Petitioner�s 9/2/98 letter to Chief Deputy Clerk

Exhibit B-2: Petitioner�s 9/17/98 letter to Chief Deputy Clerk

Exhibit C: CJA�s 9/4/98 memo to governmental & bar recipients of supplemental brief

� August 12, 1998 letter to the Association of the Bar of the City of New York

Exhibit D:    USC Law School Announcement of Symposium on Judicial Independence & Accountability, 11/20/98-11/21/98

Exhibit E:   Speech by Justice Anthony Kennedy: �Judicial Ethics and the Rule of Law�, summer 1996

PETITIONER�S SEPTEMBER 29, 1998 LETTER TO DEPUTY CLERK FRANCIS LORSON

PETITIONER�S OCTOBER 14, 1998 LETTER TO CHIEF CLERK WILLIAM SUTER

(improvised judicial misconduct complaint against the Justices)

PETITIONER�S OCTOBER 26, 1998 LETTER TO DEPUTY CLERK LORSON

PETITIONER�S OCTOBER 26, 1998 LETTER TO CHIEF CLERK SUTER

PETITIONER�S PETITION FOR REHEARING

October 30, 1998

Cover

Table of Contents, Including to Rehearing Appendix [RA-]

Table of Authorities

Petition for Rehearing



PETITIONER�S NOVEMBER 6, 1998 LETTER TO CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK LORSON

� CJA�s November 6, 1998 Impeachment Complaint against the Justices, filed with the House Judiciary Committee

� Exhibit A: CJA's May 29, 1998 letter to William Burchill and Jeffrey Barr, General Counsel, and Assistant General Counsel to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, to which Chief Judge Rehnquist was indicated recipient in his capacity as head of the Judicial Conference of the United States

� Exhibit B: Report of the National Commission on Judicial Disicpline and Removal, pp. 121-123

"... any publicly made (non-frivolous) allegation of

serious misconduct ... against a Supreme Court Justice

would receive intense scrutiny in the press..."

�The 1993 Report of the National Commission

on Judicial Discipline and Removal (at p. 122)

ILLUSTRATIVE PRESS RELEASES

relating to CJA�s November 6, 1998 Impeachment Complaint against Chief Judge Rehnquist � and the House Judiciary Committee�s �Cover-Up� of the Hundreds of Judicial Impeachment Complaints it Receives

CJA�s January 7, 1999 press release

CJA�s January 13, 1999 press release

CJA�s January 20, 1999 press release,

�House Judiciary Committee Ignores Hundreds of Impeachment Complaints�

CJA�s January 23, 1999 press release,

�House Judiciary Committee Ignores Hundreds of Impeachment Complaints�

CJA�s January 23, 1999 press release,

�Impeachment Complaint against Chief Judge Rehnquist�

CJA�s February 18, 1999 press release,

�House Judiciary Committee Ignores and Conceals Hundreds of Judicial Impeachment Complaints�

CJA�s February 18, 1999 press release,

�Coming Up Next: The Impeachment of Chief Judge Rehnquist�

SOLICITING THE MEDIA

The Associated Press

CJA�s January 12, 1999 letter to John Solomon, Special Assignments Editor

Baltimore Sun

CJA�s January 12, 1999 letter to Lyle Dennison, S.Ct. Correspondent
CJA�s January 12, 1999 letter to Jonathan Weisman, Congressional Correspondent
CJA�s February 18, 1999 letter to Lyle Dennison

The Boston Globe

CJA�s January 11, 1999 letter to Louise Palmer
CJA�s January 12, 1999 letter to Louise Palmer

The Chicago Tribune
CJA�s January 6, 1999 letter to Terry Atlas, News Editor
CJA�s January 14, 1999 letter to Jan Crawford Greenburg, Supreme Court Correspondent

Houston Chronicle
CJA�s January 21, 1999 letter to Steve Lash, S.Ct. Correspondent
CJA�s January 21, 1999 letter to Steve Lash

Jet
CJA�s January 19, 1999 letter to Simeon S. Booker, Bureau Chief

Kansas City Star
CJA�s January 6, 1999 letter to Joe Stephens
CJA�s January 8, 1999 letter to Joe Stephens

Knight-Ridder
CJA�s January 21, 1999 letter to Aaron Epstein, S.Ct. Correspondent
CJA�s January 21, 1999 letter to Aaron Epstein

Los Angeles Times
CJA�s January 11, 1999 letter to Mark Lacey
CJA�s January 15, 1999 letter to David Savage, S.Ct. Correspondent

Mother Jones
CJA�s January 12, 1999 letter

The Nation
CJA�s January 19, 1999 letter to David Corn
CJA�s January 29, 1999 letter to Bruce Shapiro
CJA�s February 8, 1999 letter to Bruce Shapiro
CJA�s February 8, 1999 letter to Katrina vanden Heuvel, Managing Editor
Katrina vanden Heuvel�s February 8, 1999 e-mail
CJA�s February 9, 1999 letter to Katrina vanden Heuval

National Journal/Newsday
CJA�s January 6, 1999 letter to Stuart Taylor, Jr.
CJA�s January 8, 1999 letter to Stuart Taylor, Jr.

The New Republic/The New Yorker
CJA�s January 22, 1999 letter to Jeffrey Rosen
Jeffrey Rosen�s May 3, 1999 letter

New York Observer
CJA�s January 9, 1999 letter to Matt Fleischer
CJA�s January 11, 1999 letter to Matt Fleischer
CJA�s January 13, 1999 letter to Matt Fleischer

The New York Times
CJA�s November 11, 1999 letter to Adam Liptak
February 18, 1999 press releases, given, in-hand, to Linda Greenhouse, S.Ct. Correspondent

(on February 18, 1999, National Press Club, at a program titled �Impeachment: Changing the Constitutinoal Landscape�, sponsored by the Century Foundation, Constitution Project)

Newsday
CJA�s October 8, 1998 fax to Knut Royce
CJA�s October 8, 1998 fax to Knut Royce
CJA�s October 8, 1998 letter to Knut Royce
CJA�s October 16, 1998 letter to Knut Royce
CJA�s November 2, 1998 letter to Knut Royce
CJA�s November 9, 1998 letter to Knut Royce
CJA�s December 8, 19! 98 letter to Knut Royce
CJA�s February 18, 1999 letter to Knut Royce

Newsweek
CJA�s January 19, 1999 letter to Eleanor Clift

The Progressive
CJA�s January 20, 1999 letter to Ruth Conniff, Washington Editor
CJA�s February 2, 1999 letter to Ruth Conniff

Salon
CJA�s September 28, 1998 e-mail
CJA�s October 1, 1998 e-mail
CJA�s October 7, 1998 letter

Jonathan Broder
CJA�s December 28, 1998 fax
CJA�s December 23, 1998 letter
CJA�s December 24, 1998 fax
CJA�s December 28, 1998 letter
CJA�s January 8, 1999 letter
CJA�s February 18, 1999 letter

Time Magazine
CJA�s January 8, 1999 letter to Brian Doyle
CJA�s January 8, 1999 letter to Brian Doyle

USA Today
January 21, 1999 letter to Tony Mauro, S.Ct. Correspondent
January 29, 1999 letter to Tony Mauro
January 29, 1999 letter to Tony Mauro
February 18, 1999 letter to Tony Mauro

U.S. News & World Report
CJA�s January 21, 1999 letter to Ted Gest, National News Editor & S.Ct. Correspondent
CJA�s January 21, 1999 letter to Ted Gest

The Village Voice
CJA�s January 6, 1999 letter to James Ridgeway
CJA�s January 8, 1999 letter to James Ridgeway
CJA�s January 11, 1999 fax to fact-checker
CJA�s January 18, 1999 proposed Letter to the Editor

The Wall Street Journal
CJA�s January 8, 1999 letter to Max Boot
Max Boot�s January 11, 1999 letter

Washington Post
CJA�s January 5, 1999 letter to Joan Biskupic, S.Ct. Correspondent
CJA�s January 8, 1999 letter to Joan Biskupic
CJA�s February 18, 1999 letter to Joan Biskupic

Washington Times
CJA�s January 5, 1999 letter to Dave Boyer, Assistant Editor/National Desk
CJA�s January 5, 1999 letter to Dave Boyer

ABC
CJA�s January 5, 1999 fax to Lois Neufeld
CJA�s January 7, 1999 letter to Lois Neufeld
CJA�s January 8, 1999 letter to News/Assignment Desk-National/Impeachment

CBS
CJA�s January 8, 1999 letter to Planning Editor
CJA�s January 14, 1999 letter to Stephanie Lambidakis
CJA�s January 14, 1999 letter to Stephanie Lambidakis
CJA�s February 4, 1999 letter to Stephanie Lambidakis
Ms. Lambidakis� March 19, 1999 letter

CNN
CJA�s January 5, 1999 letter to Charles Bierbauer, S.Ct. Correspondent
CJA�s January 8, 1999 letter to Charles Bierbauer
CJA�s January 13, 1999 letter to Assignment Desk

FOX
CJA�s January 8, 1999 letter to Assignment Desk � National News/Impeachment
CJA�s January 11, 1999 letter for Drudge Report, Hannity & Colmes, etc.
CJA�s January 19, 1999 letter to Assistant to Brit Hume
Fox Invitation Letter to Drudge Show
CJA�s January 22, 1999 letter
CJA�s January 25, 1999 e-mail to Matt Drudge

NBC
CJA�s January 8, 1999 letter to Washington Desk/National News

David Broder
CJA�s January 18, 1998 letter

Jack MacKenzie
CJA�s November 17, 1998 letter to Jack MacKenzie, Author, The Appearance of Injustice,

formerly Supreme Court correspondent for The Washington Post and Editorial Board member of The New York Times.

If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins - Benjamin Franklin

Please note the contents contained in this email are opinion only and are not to be construed as legal advice in any way. If there is any doubt about the contents of this email, please seek the advice of an attorney licensed in your state.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In Liberty,

Martin H. Smith, Jr.
stjoesapr@...

Spreading the Truth to
Help Inform America!!

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands ... may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." -- James Madison, Federalist 47

"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." -- Ayn Rand, The Nature of Government

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#781 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Sun Mar 28, 2004 5:26 am
Subject: An Unintended Satire Re: Our Judicial System jail4judges@...
Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California March 27, 2004

An Unintended Satire

Re: Our Judicial System

As this entire nation knows, California is facing a meltdown due to waste, fraud, and mismanagement, which has caused a tremendous budgetary short-fall everywhere in California. Whether desired or not, most all government agencies are facing a potential chopping block.

From every quarter, leaders of each bureaucratic agency are stepping forward to argue why their agency should be spared the budgetary ax. Below is the argument of Chief Justice Ronald M. George arguing that it is necessary that the judicial system should be spared.

While his presentation to the Legislature certainly is not intended to be a satire, one cannot help but see the fallacy of the picture he is trying to paint of the judicial system, with that of stark reality.

It should be noted that the California judiciary has done more toward the destruction of families, businesses, constitutional rights, and common sense and decency than has any other government agency that merely carries out their edicts. There could be no police force that could have done more to disrupt California's society than has California's judiciary.

By Justice Ronald George's own admission, the courts of Los Angeles affect the personal lives of 50% of all Los Angelinos each year, and adds, "What other public service or facility is used to such an extraordinary degree?" as if everyone was delighted about this so-called "public service."

The fact is, most people are being compelled into this arena under threat, coercion and duress, and are simply terrorized at the very idea that they must appear in that tyrannical forum. They feel helpless and in despair. Most people would rather endure the excitement of a root canal rather than face the injustices they experience or anticipate in the Los Angeles County Courts.

It is untold the number of persons that have committed suicide immediately after exiting the Los Angeles court building, and I even recall the publicity of the lady who did not even wait that long. She took the elevator up to the ninth (top) floor, and jumped off the building after exiting the courtroom.

Out of my eighteen years and fourteen petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court, never once have I personally seen justice dispensed in the Los Angeles County Court system, and it was this very fact that motivated my authoring the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law for the State of California, which has now grown nationwide. I can faithfully say that the corruption is so far ingrained in our California judicial system that it can never clean up its act no matter how much money is thrown at it, or how much we pay these judges to be honest. -Ron Branson

~ ~ ~

Los Angeles Times - March 26, 2004

Page B2

California's Chief Justice Warns Against Budget Cuts

Reductions in court's resources already have hurt residents, he tells Legislature.

Ronald M. George, chief justice of California, told a joint session of the California Legislature this week that threatened budget cuts could cripple the ability of the state court system to deliver justice. Another year of budget reductions poses challenges to both the civil and criminal courts, George said. Excerpts from his talk:

A strong and independent judicial system is not just another government program, nor is it a luxury to be afforded in good economic times and negated when the state's revenues are down. ....

Our nation and our state were founded on the basic principle of liberty and justice for all. That principle cannot be realized if our courts cannot function and provide fair and accessible justice.

California's court system-- the largest in the nation, with more than 1,600 judges, several hundred subordinate judicial officers and about 19,000 court employees-- has been working hard to meet its basic obligations to the public and to our sister branches of government.

We are continuing to do our part in reducing expenditures wherever possible. Already, however, reductions in court budgets have adversely affected the lives of many Californians, and threaten to render the administration of justice uneven and inadequate across our state. ....

Existing and threatened reductions will destroy the powerful momentum that has greatly enhanced the judicial system's ability to provide meaningful access to justice for all Californians. ....

Courthouse security also has been affected. In Stanislaus County, for example, the armed security force has been reduced by three full-time deputies at a time when the number of trials for violent crimes has increased. The basic ability of courts to remain open for the people's business is being weakened by chronic underfunding. In Riverside, three court locations have been closed. In Los Angeles, 29 courtrooms already have been shut down. ....

Out of the 12 million residents of Los Angeles County, one out of every two comes through the doors of at least one of the dozens of courthouses of the Los Angeles County Superior Court every year. ....

What other public service or facility is used to such an extraordinary degree?

I cannot emphasize too strongly how firmly I believe that further cuts to our courts will not achieve savings;

...all of us benefit from the fair, accessible, and efficient administration of justice. ....

One measure of a society is its ability to ensure public order and security while protecting the rights of the individual, no matter how weak or powerful.

Courts stand at the forefront of this endeavor. If we abandon the goal of accessible justice for all, we surrender not only our court system, but one of the most fundamental compacts of our democratic system of government.

"..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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#782 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 2:46 am
Subject: * * Chief Judge Sits In Judgment In His Own Case * * jail4judges@...
Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California April 5, 2004

Mission Statement JNJ Library PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L. FAQs What?MeWarden?

Chief Judge Sits In Judgment

In His Own Case

It is one of the maxims of law that no man can be a judge in his own case, but lo and behold, here it is folks. We know that judges are so unaccountable that they may do anything they wish, no matter how unlawful, how unconstitutional, how egregious, or whom it may hurt or destroy. This unaccountable practice, established by the judge-made doctrine of judicial immunity, is so strong that it is bound to happen that a judge would sit in judgment in his own matter.

There is a biblical principle of "know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump," meaning that ultimately there is no such thing as a little bit of evil. Those who tend to gardens understand this principle when it comes to weeds.

In reading the following New York Times article, you will have to concentrate intensely on the names, and the players. Ironically, the defendant in this case is former Louisiana Governor Edwards, who is now serving ten years in prison for extortion in gambling enterprises overseen by the government.

In response to discovery for facts by the former governor, Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola is claiming "irreparable injury to a national interest" as the reason for non-cooperation, while assuming the position of judge in his own case, and sealing the evidence by his own court order. When asked for comment regarding the conduct of Judge Polozola on handling his own case, the U.S. Attorney states that no comments will be made on a case now pending before Judge Polozola's court.

This could provide an ideal script for a new movie. Any takers? If so, please don't forget to contact us, and cast it in light of the need for JAIL4Judges. -Ron Branson

Federal Judge Pulls His Suit From Courts Run by State

By ADAM LIPTAK

federal judge in Louisiana has taken control of an accident case involving his car and issued an order transferring evidence about his medical condition to a sealed federal court file.

The medical evidence is being sought by lawyers for former Gov. Edwin W. Edwards of Louisiana. Mr. Edwards is serving a 10-year sentence for extorting payoffs for casino riverboat licenses.

The former governor contends that the judge, Frank J. Polozola, should not have heard his criminal case in 1999 and 2000 because the judge admitted in his accident suit to being impaired and to using Oxy-Contin, a pain medication, in that period.

A lawyer for Mr. Edwards, Nathan Z. Dershowitz, called the intervention in the accident case outrageous.

"The notion that a federal judge can take over and enter orders in his own state case, in which he is a party, is to my knowledge unprecedented and shocking," Mr. Dershowitz said.

Experts in judicial ethics echoed that view. "This is really astonishing," Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University, said. "Polozola cannot be the judge of his own case. That's the first commandment of judicial ethics."

Through a judicial assistant, Judge Polozola, the chief judge of Federal District Court in Baton Rouge, declined to comment.

"He has a policy of not speaking to the media in any case pending before him," the aide, Jackie Gaudin, said.

Mr. Dershowitz said Mr. Edwards would appeal the judge's ruling.

In the accident case, filed in 1998, Judge Polozola, 62, sought compensation for a "serious physical injury" that caused him mental anguish and "impairment of function." In the trial in 2000, Mr. Edwards's lawyers wrote in filings, the judge engaged in "erratic, even paranoid" behavior. The accident case was settled in 2001, and testimony from the judge, his psychiatrist and his psychologist was sealed.

Mr. Edwards's lawyers, in challenging his conviction, recently sought to unseal those records. That led to a request from federal prosecutors last week that Judge Polozola take control of the state court case to avoid "irreparable injury to a national interest."

Twenty minutes after prosecutors filed that request, Judge Polozola ordered the evidence in his accident case transferred to federal court and sealed.

The United States attorney in New Orleans, James Letten, declined to comment, citing the pending federal case. ....

Our thanks for sending us this article goes to:
Pastor M. D. McCubbins
pastor@...

"..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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#783 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 4:07 am
Subject: Black Robed Despots jail4judges@...
Send Email

Black Robed Despots

(By Harsha Sankar, freedom@...)

From: Harsha Sankar

Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 8:31 PM

Subject: Black Robed Despots

Dear Citizens,

With judges now making law, the American republic is being torn apart, and democratic institutions are being pushed into extinctions.

The judiciary has now decided the reference to God in the pledge of allegiance, that Floridian parental notification about minors' abortion, that the passed referendum calling for the increase of legislature votes needed to raise Nevadan taxes, that Michigan laws treating students (regardless of race) the same, that laws prohibiting same-sex marriages, are all unconstitutional.

These are just a few examples of the lunacy Americans experience. Do the other branches check the unlimited powers of the judicial oligarchy? Of course not, simply because they are manned by the same people.

The new repressive theocracy, the legal profession, have converted lawmakers into lawbreakers, America's [Republic -Ed] into their kleptocracy.

This permeation will polarize our nation into the co-operative exploiters and the voiceless exploited. Irrespective of who wins or loses, the ruling class will have its mandates and pound of flesh.

The people, no longer answered to by its own government, are now compelled to answer to the capricious decrees of these black robed despots.

The notion the court has the final say on the meaning of the law and Constitution, is nowhere to be found in the thoughts of the Framers or the text of the Founding document. ....

Lincoln cited people would cease to rule themselves and would resign their government into the hands of judges. Now judges are trying to internationalize our law, which threatens American independence at its core.

The fiction of judicial supremacy, often cloaked as high-minded, though self-serving assertion of "judicial independence," caters to rogue behavior. This is not compatible in a progressive and merit-based society. It will make jurists into demigods with celebrity status and will turn simple court cases into drama and entertainment for the masses. ....

Either Americans purge this tyranny or this tyranny will purge America.

Very Truly Yours,

Harsha Sankar

freedom@...

201 Interstate Drive Covington,

Virginia 24426

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" -- Tacitus

J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
JAIL is a unique addition to our form of gov't. heretofore unrealized.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
JAIL is taking America like a wildfire! AddRemove@...
JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability!
E-Groups sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Donate offerings to J.A.I.L., P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
"Give me your wealth, and I will give you America" - Ron Branson

"..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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#784 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 10:46 pm
Subject: * * * Hypocrisy of Supreme Court Justice * * * jail4judges@...
Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California April 9, 2004

Mission Statement JNJ Library PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L. FAQs What?MeWarden?

Hypocrisy of Supreme

Court Justice

Scalia's Tape Tactics at Issue

Los Angeles Times, April 9, 2004

Page A18

Experts question legal basis for confiscation--

apparently on justice's orders-- of recordings.

By David G. Savage

Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON-- First Amendment experts on Thursday questioned the legal basis for a deputy U.S. marshal-- apparently acting on the orders of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia-- to confiscate and erase recordings made by two reporters invited to hear the justice speak at a high school gym.

The experts questioned not only Scalia's practice of barring recordings of remarks made in public, but also whether the seizure may have violated a federal law intended to shield journalists from having notes or records confiscated by officials.

"I don't think any public official-- and I don't care whether you are a Supreme Court justice or the president of the United States-- has a right to speak in public and then say, 'you can't record what I have said,' " said Burt Neuborne, a law professor at New York University and former legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "A marshal is there for security, not to censor what a justice has said." .....

"This was our first effort at having a national speaker on campus. We assumed the public and reporters would want to be here," said Barrett Mosbacker, the headmaster.

Antoinette Konz, a school reporter for the Hattiesburg American, said she received a written invitation to cover the event. "They called back to make sure we would be there Wednesday," she recalled. "And when we arrived, they gave us a place to sit in the front row." ....

Near the end of the talk, Deputy U.S. Marshal Melanie Rube, who works in the Hattiesburg area, confronted two reporters who were recording Scalia's comments.

"She came up and demanded the tapes," Konz said. "She told us that Scalia did not want the speech to be taped-recorded."

When Associated Press reporter Denise Grones balked, "The marshal grabbed the tape recorder," Konz said, and erased the digital recording.

Konz said the marshal then removed the tape from her recorder and walked away with it. "I said, 'I need that tape,' she said. I tried to explain there was stuff on the other side that I needed." After the event, the marshal agreed to return the tape, but only after taping over the 40 minutes that covered the time of Scalia's appearance.

Konz said she was surprised by Scalia's actions, since she had met him four years ago when he gave a speech at a local college where she was a student.

"I had my picture taken with him," she said. "I certainly wasn't expecting something like this. What was this about? Why was he so upset?"

Experts in 1st Amendment law say it is generally understood that officials-- including judges-- cannot confiscate or destroy notes or records that journalists obtain in public events.

"This is a major embarrassment. And it is unsupportable as a matter of law," said Jane Kirtley, a law professor at the University of Minnesota and an expert on press law. "They could have said 'No Press Allowed.' But if they let the reporters in, and there are no ground rules in advance, they can't then say you can't report that or you can't use that."

She said that that principle was invoked recently in Mississippi when a judge tried to punish a reporter for writing a newspaper article about a defendant's juvenile record, which had been described in an open court hearing. The state Supreme Court ruled that the information, once made public, could not be declared confidential afterward.

Kirtley also said the action by Scalia and the marshal appeared to violate the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, which says: "It shall be unlawful for a government officer or employee... to search for or seize any work product materials possessed by a person reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast or other similar form of public communication." The law also says victims of such official confiscations may sue the violators.

Neuborne said he was disappointed by Scalia's action in light of his past decisions upholding the 1st Amendment. "This is very surprising coming from him, since he has a good grasp of the 1st Amendment," Neuborne said. "This doesn't live up to the ideals of the 1st Amendment. He should know he can't use a U.S. marshal as a private police force to enforce his will." ....

Last year, Scalia's aversion of the press made headlines in Cleveland. He was given the annual Citadel of Free Speech award by the City Club of Cleveland in honor of his efforts on behalf of the "preservation of the 1st Amendment." ....

Well spoken were the words of Lord Acton, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The actions of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is indicative of the entire judiciary in the United States, to wit, the law is for peons to obey, not for judges, and certainly not for U.S. Supreme Court Justices. After all, the words come forth out of their mouths "Is the Law of the Land! They spoke, and it was so! And they saw that it was good! And the evening and the morning was the first day!"

What does it take to convince all American's that only through the passage of J.A.I.L shall integrity reign in this nation, and without the passage of J.A.I.L. there shall be no integrity? - Ron Branson

"..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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#785 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 1:20 am
Subject: J.A.I.L. To The Rescue! jail4judges@...
Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
_____________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California April 9, 2004

J.A.I.L. To The Rescue!

(Subversion of the Constitution since 1865)

If the federal government were ever to become the sole judge

of the limits of its own powers through its own courts,

...then there would eventually be no limits to those powers

and the Constitution would effectively become a dead letter.

One consequence of Lincoln's war was that

the Supreme Court was the sole and final arbiter

of constitutional controversies.

Appeals to reason, truth, justice, or the obligations imposed

by the Constitution would be sneered at as "folly"

with the end result being "a subversion of the Constitution"

This... is exactly what has happened

with increasing frequency ever since 1865.

Lincolnian Judicial Tyranny

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

(Sent to J.A.I.L. by Ivan Shapiro, ivanshapiro@...)

"The War between the States established . . .this principle, that the federal government is, through its courts, the final judge of its own powers." ~ Woodrow Wilson, Constitutional Government in the United States, p. 178.

It's high time for [those] who belly ache and complain about federal judicial tyranny to confront the fact so clearly stated in 1908 by Woodrow Wilson: It was the War between the States that established arbitrary federal judicial tyranny over the American people.

Lincoln's war overturned the Jeffersonian states' rights tradition in America, an important element of which was citizen opposition to any federal monopoly of constitutional interpretation. As Jefferson himself wrote in his famous 1798 Kentucky Resolution (See F. Drake and L. Nelson, eds., States' Rights and American Federalism, p. 81):

The government created by this compact [i.e., the Constitution] was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

If the federal government were ever to become the sole judge of the limits of its own powers through its own courts, Jefferson warned, then there would eventually be no limits to those powers and the Constitution would effectively become a dead letter.

In the Virginia Resolve of 1798, U.S. Senator John Taylor echoed Jefferson's states' rights judicial philosophy. The powers of the federal government, wrote Taylor, are "limited by the plain sense and intention" of the Constitution, and are "no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact." Moreover, whenever there is a "dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the States ... have the right, and are duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil..."

The Jeffersonians urged the citizens of all states to nullify any and all federal laws that violated the Constitution. The importance of such nullification or interposition was clearly explained by St. George Tucker in his book, View of the Constitution of the United States. Tucker was the stepfather of John Randolph, the author of a 1796 plan for the abolition of slavery in Virginia, and a professor of law at the College of William and Mary. His book was an attempt to apply William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England to the American political system.

Tucker believed that any confederacy such as the United States would become a despotism if the people did not retain sovereignty over their agent, the federal government, as citizens of the respective states. He concurred with Jefferson and Taylor that if the federal government were to enact unconstitutional laws, "every such act is an act of usurpation in the government, and, as such, treason against the sovereignty of the people." (p. 32). This meant opposing the federal judiciary with nullification whenever it overstepped its constitutional bounds.

In his classic, Tyranny Unmasked, John Taylor continued this theme by mocking the idea that the founders would have trusted "five or six men" of the Supreme Court to be the sole guardians of constitutional liberty. "Being an essential principle for preserving ... liberty [the founders] never could have designed to destroy it, by investing five or six men, installed for life, with a power of regulating the constitutional rights of all political departments." (p. 198). He recognized that state governments could be corrupt, of course, but it was "inconceivable" to him that they could be as corrupt as kings, presidents, senates, congress, or federal judges, all of whom hold a degree of centralized power that is largely detached from public scrutiny and control.

Another great Jeffersonian political theorist, John C. Calhoun, understood that a paper constitution would never be sufficient protection against the political plundering of one (taxpaying) class by another (tax-consuming) class. Over time, the majority would "endeavor to elude" any constitutional restraints on federal powers by ignoring the arguments of the strict constructionists. Appeals to reason, truth, justice, or the obligations imposed by the Constitution would be sneered at as "folly" with the end result being "a subversion of the Constitution" (R.M. Lence, Union and Liberty: The Political Philosophy of John C. Calhoun, p. 27). This of course is exactly what has happened with increasing frequency ever since 1865.

Andrew Jackson also embraced the Jeffersonian legal philosophy in his response to the Supreme Court's opinion in McCulloch vs. Maryland that the Second Bank of the United States was constitutional. "To this conclusion I cannot assent," Jackson declared. Congress and the president must each weigh in, and

Must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. It is as much of the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill... The opinion of the [Supreme Court] judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges ... (Robert Remini, Andrew Jackson and the Bank War, p. 82).

From 1789 until 1865 the citizens of all states, North and South, made periodic use of the principles of nullification, interposition, and even the threat of secession, to protect themselves from federal judicial tyranny (and federal tyranny in general). They invoked the Jeffersonian judicial philosophy to oppose protectionist tariffs, military conscription, the War of 1812, the Fugitive Slave Act, the Bank of the United States, trade embargos, and other unconstitutional usurpations (See James J. Kilpatrick, The Soversign States: Notes of a Citizen of Virginia).

Lincoln's war ended citizen opposition to federal judicial tyranny. As Forrest McDonald wrote in States' Rights and the Union (p. 224), one consequence of Lincoln's war was that the [Supreme] court was the sole and final arbiter of constitutional controversies. No longer could a Jefferson arise to insist that the other branches of the federal government had coequal authority to determine constitutionality. No more could a Calhoun arise to defend a doctrine of interposition or nullification.

Jefferson, Tucker, Taylor and Calhoun would not be at all surprised to learn that the consequence of this has been rampant federal judicial tyranny....

In Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln the "progressive" historian James Randall wrote approvingly of the fact that Lincoln's trashing of the Constitutuion in the North during the war created precedents for "a living constitution" that, with creative interpretations by the federal judiciary, could become "a vehicle of life." He criticized "excessive reliance" on the ideas of "a by-gone generation," i.e., the founding fathers.

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#786 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 3:56 am
Subject: * * * Thank God We Live In America * * * jail4judges_...
Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California April 26, 2004

Mission Statement JNJ Library PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L. FAQs What?MeWarden?

Thank God We Live In America

The below was sent from Joe Bryant who lives in Australia to J.A.I.L. In reading this, it makes you feel blessed that you are an American, and that you were not born in a socialist country. We will revisit this blessing once you finish reading this. -Ron Branson

THE GHOST FROM FLANDERS FIELD.

Adapted from poem by Douglas Walker.

I had a dream the other night, I�d like you to understand,
A figure walking through the mist, with a 303 in hand.

His clothes were torn and dirty, as he stood there by my bed,
He took off his slouch hat, and speaking low he said:

We fought at Gallipoli, and other horrific places to secure liberty,
We valued our Federation, as a shield from tyranny.

For future generations, this legacy we gave,

to this Australia, the land of the free and home of the brave.

The freedom we secured for you, we hoped you'd always keep,
But tyrants laboured endlessly while your parents were asleep.

Your freedom gone -your courage lost -you're no more than a slave,
In this Australia, the land of the free and the home of the brave.

You buy permits for everything, permits to own a gun,
Permits to start a business, or to build a place for one.

On land that you believe you own, you pay a yearly rent,
Although you have no voice, in choosing how the money's spent.

Your children must attend a school, that doesn't educate,
Your moral values can't be taught, according to the state.

You read about the current news, in a very biased press,
You pay a tax you do not owe, to please the parliament.

Your money is no longer made, of silver or of gold,
You trade your wealth for paper, so your life can be controlled.

You pay for crimes that make our Nation turn from God to shame,
You've taken Satan's number, as you've traded in your name.

You've given total control, to those who do you harm,
So they can destroy your place of work, and steal the family farm.

And keep our country deep in debt, and put good men in jail,
Harass your fellow countryman, while corrupted courts prevail.

Your public servants don't uphold, the solemn oath they're sworn,
Your daughters visit doctors, so children won't be born.

Your leaders ship men and guns to foreign shores,
and send your sons to slaughter, fighting other people's wars.

Can you regain your Freedom, for which we fought and died?
Or don't you have the courage, or the faith to stand with pride?

Are there no real values, for which you'll fight to save?
Or do you wish your children, live in fear and be as slaves?

Sons and daughters of Australia, arise and take a stand!
Demand a fresh Constitution, as the Supreme Law of the Land!

Preserve our Federation, and each God-given right!
And pray to God to keep the torch, of freedom burning bright!

As I awoke he vanished, in the mist from whence he came,
His words were true, we are not free, and we have ourselves to blame.

For even now as tyrants trample, on each God-given right,
We only watch and tremble -- too afraid to stand and fight.

If this Aussie stood by your bedside, in a dream while you're asleep,
And wondered, what remained of your rights, he fought to keep.

What would your answer be, if he called you from the grave?
asking, is this still the land of the free and home of the brave?

Lest we forget.

Joe Bryant

Australia

succeed@...

Again, I ask you, aren't you glad you were born in America, and not in some socialistic country?

J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
JAIL is a unique addition to our form of gov't. heretofore unrealized.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
JAIL is taking America like a wildfire! AddRemove@...
JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability!
E-Groups sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Donate offerings to J.A.I.L., P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
"Give me your wealth, and I will give you America" - Ron Branson

"..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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#788 From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Fri May 14, 2004 6:12 am
Subject: Judges to Decide Who Will Judge the Judges jail4judges_...
Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California May 13, 2004

Mission Statement JNJ Library PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L. FAQs What?MeWarden?

Judges to Decide

Who Will Judge the Judges

Below is an article over the power struggle on who should oversee the conduct of New Hampshire's state judges, the judiciary, or the legislature. The legislature argues that the current New Hampshire Judicial Conduct Commission is worthless, and the courts are arguing that for the legislators to get involved in overseeing the judiciary is a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.

The court's argument on separation of powers is misplaced indeed. The separation of powers doctrine is being misinterpreted by the courts to mean that one branch of government should not interfere with the operations of another branch. However, it is elementary that the separations doctrine is precisely the very reason each of the branches of government must be a check and balance upon one another. Our Founding Fathers designed the Constitution so that the fullest of accountability would be achieved by the separations doctrine in providing for each branch to challenge and call to account the other two branches of government.

The legislature calling the court's commission worthless is well founded by the evidence of the past, and it the same results is well established throughout all fifty states commissions. Ironically, it is the judges who are being called upon to settle this argument between the courts and the legislature.

J.A.I.L. proposes a solution to the problem by amending all the fifty states' Constitutions. It is common sense that the People must be the final and last resort of accountability of the judges. This fits with the desired ends of a government of the People, by the People, and for the People. It is clearly manifest that freedom and liberty does not emanate from legislatures, as the saying goes, "No man's liberty, property or freedom is safe so long as the legislature is in session," and that is why we have a judicial system with juries built in. However, it is also clear that the judiciary cannot be trusted either, and must, of necessity, have a body outside of themselves to which they are accountable. The answer certainly is not found in Judicial Commissions because of political influence and control. So, what is the answer? It is, and can only be J.A.I.L. And until that happens our country will continue its plight downhill while the People screech in horror at the direction our country is going. - Ron Branson.

~ ~ ~

Court to decide who will judge state judges

Concord Monitor Online

By KATHARINE WEBSTER
The Associated Press

May 12, 2004

Who will judge the judges?

For three years, both the Legislature and the judiciary have claimed the right. Now, the state Supreme Court must decide whether its own Judicial Conduct Committee or the rival Judicial Conduct Commission established by the Legislature is legitimate.

Supporters of the former say the Legislature is trespassing on essential court powers, violating the state constitution's separation of powers. They also say the rival committee was set up three years ago partly as payback for the court's unpopular Claremont decision, which required the state to pay for schools.

But critics of the court committee, which disciplined unethical judges for more than two decades, say it performed so poorly it needs to be replaced.

They cite ethical breaches at the Supreme Court that led to the resignation of one justice and the impeachment of the chief justice in 2000, as well as the committee's failure to stop part-time Judge John Fairbanks from stealing millions of dollars from his private law clients a dozen years ago.

Concern about judicial ethics came to a head in 2000 when Justice Stephen Thayer resigned over accusations he interfered in his own divorce case and then-Chief Justice David Brock was impeached (and later acquitted) over allegations that such conflicts of interest were routine.

In the aftermath, a task force recommended making the Judicial Conduct Committee independent of the court, with its own staff and funding, and making the court share the power to appoint the committee's members with the governor, the Bar Association and leaders of the House and Senate.

The court endorsed the plan in 2001 and tried to carry it out. But the Legislature refused to pay for it. Instead, it passed a law setting up the virtually identical Judicial Conduct Commission.

The law said the commission should adopt its own code of conduct, a direct challenge to the court's rule-making authority.

The court responded by keeping its committee in place.

Both boards accepted and resolved complaints for two years. Then, last year, the Legislature decreed that all complaints go to the commission starting Jan. 1.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments today on which committee is legitimate.

"Somewhere along the way, (the independent commission) got hijacked by the Legislature," said Anthony McManus, executive secretary of the court committee. "It was during the period of time when there was a lot of butting heads between the Legislature and the courts."

The committee claims the law creating the commission violated the court's constitutional power to administer lower courts and make court rules with the force of law.

Associate Attorney General Ann Larney, who will defend the law, argues that disciplining judges is a shared responsibility among the branches.

The commission set up by the Legislature can recommend censure or reprimand for unethical judges, but judges can appeal to the Supreme Court. The commission must refer possible crimes to prosecutors and ethics violations to an administrative judge. And nothing prevents the Supreme Court from suspending or otherwise disciplining judges, she said.

"There is no seizure of the judiciary's power of general superintendence over the courts," she wrote in a court filing. "There is some overlapping of power among all three branches."

Scherr is skeptical. When both committees operated, the Legislature could argue it wasn't usurping court authority, he said. But when they cut off complaints to the court committee, legislators effectively said, "We're going to take exclusive control of this," Scherr said.

http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?SearchID=73171428770835&Avis=CM&Dato=20040512&Kategori=

REPOSITORY&Lopenr=405120339&Ref=AR

The case is one of three to be heard this year involving legislative authority over the courts.

Material posted to this site retains copyright. See the User's Guide for details.

Concord Monitor Online, P.O. Box 1177, Concord NH 03302
Phone: 603-224-5301 E-mail: Webmaster@...

"..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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#789 From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed May 19, 2004 1:27 am
Subject: The People Are NOT a Branch of Government jail4judges_...
Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California May 17, 2004

Mission Statement JNJ Library PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L. FAQs What?MeWarden?

The People are NOT

a Branch of Government

The following is a response to our JNJ "Who Will Judge the Judges." Ron stated in that JNJ: "However, it is also clear that the judiciary cannot be trusted either, and must, of necessity, have a body outside of themselves to which they are accountable. The answer certainly is not found in Judicial Commissions because of political influence and control. So, what is the answer? It is, and can only be J.A.I.L." No, Ron didn't leave out the "fourth branch of government" because government doesn't have a fourth branch. That "body outside of [the judiciary] to which [the judiciary] are accountable" is the People.

Randy Gaumond, Sui Juris, gaumond3@... writes:

An interesting article, except for the fact that the most important branch of our government, the fourth one, was left out. What is the fourth branch? It's US, We the People, that's who!! It's because of the dumbing down of the American populace via the public fool system and bankster controlled press that very few people ever get the slightest inkling that they actually are supposed to have any say in what goes on. Our government has run amok and now fancies itself as our master instead of the other way around.

This is the precise reason that juries are supposed to be the final say on what's right or wrong, and NOT some little tyrant in a black robe sitting on his throne. Juries are supposed to made up of a person's peers, meaning his/her friends, acquaintances and neighbors, for who is better to judge him/her than the ones who know them? If someone is a scalawag or worse, or is a saint amongst men, who would know that besides those who have regular contact with them? That is when real justice is meted out.

Randy Gaumond, Sui Juris

gaumond3@...

Dear Randy:

Thank you for your comments to a recent J.A.I.L. News Journal. One thing that is important to realize is that the People are NOT part of government whatsoever. As the Declaration of Independence points out, the People institute government to secure their unalienable rights. The People are "the governed" and government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, i.e., the People.

The California Constitution states (italics are my comments): "All political power is inherent in the people. [not in any branch of government] Government is instituted [by the people] for their [the People's] protection, security, and benefit, and they [the People] have the right to alter or reform it [the government] when the public good may require." (Art.II, sec.1)

That is the authority upon which J.A.I.L. is predicated-- the right of the People to alter or reform government. Other state constitutions have the same or similar provision, particularly the initiative states such as California. If the People were merely a branch of government, they wouldn't have that right. The People are separate from government-- indeed, superior to government. That is the truth of the relationship, no matter how it appears to be in practice.

It is unfortunate that no provision was made in the Constitution for the People to be able to enforce the terms of the Constitution upon government, which provision would have been the duty and responsibility of the People in order to maintain the purpose for which government was created (instituted) by the People in the first place. It is because of the omission of such provision that "all hell broke loose in this country."

Power, to be just, cannot be placed in a government made up of mortals (men/women) without a means of control by the governed (the People). But, alas, that's what happened! Power instituted in mankind (as government) becomes very quickly out of control and becomes a monster (like a wildfire) that cannot be tamed by itself. Unless it is controlled at its inception, that unleashed power grows to the point of destroying its own creator (the People)-- and we can see evidence of that happening more clearly every day! It doesn't matter how it happened-- all that matters is that it did happen. Now, only the People (with God's help of course), can do anything about it, and it must be done from outside and independently of the monster (government), not from within it.

The People existed before governments existed, and it is only by the People that government exists at all! The People are the government's "creator." How can it be said that the People are part (a branch) of their own creation?

The only means left for the People is J.A.I.L. J.A.I.L. will operate on a jury system, as the Initiative shows. The J.A.I.L. Special Grand Jury will determine whether a judge, complained of, should be stripped of immunity and held to answer at a jury trial at which the petit jury will have power to judge on both fact and law. Yes, the jury is an integral part of government of, by, and for the People; but it's going to take J.A.I.L. to implement the proper role of the jury system, operating autonomously and independently from government-- not as part of it.

Thank you for writing.

-Barbie- ACIC, J.A.I.L. Administration

VictoryUSA@...

"..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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#790 From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Tue May 18, 2004 7:43 pm
Subject: * * * Why Democracies Fail! * * * jail4judges_...
Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California May 18, 2004

Mission Statement JNJ Library PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L. FAQs What?MeWarden?

Why Democracies Fail!

At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new Constitution, in the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinburgh) had this to say about "The Fall of The Athenian Republic" some 2,000 years prior.

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." � Benjamin Franklin

"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."

The internal collapse of all nations require the concurrence of a nation's judiciary, and without such concurrence, there can be no police state established. Through the passage of more and more laws, with its attendant finger-pointing of blame, People begin to discover hypocrisy, and thus they will learn from government to disrespect law and authority until there is a complete collapse into anarchy and bondage. This is why all nations shall either be governed by God, or by tyrants!

J.A.I.L., through constitutional amendments, provides a new national experiment by the People, to bring about direct intervention of the judiciary to themselves, to bring about the general perception of Justice in holding judges accountable to the Constitution. When judges are forced to respect the law, so will governments. And when governments are forced to respect the laws, so will the People.

J.A.I.L. will thus result in the passing from "apathy" and "dependence," unto a revival of "great courage" and "spiritual faith," thus avoiding bondage. It is time for a revival in America via J.A.I.L. -Ron Branson

"..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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#791 From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed Jun 2, 2004 9:52 pm
Subject: Commendation For The Work of J.A.I.L. jail4judges_...
Send Email

Commendation

For The Work of J.A.I.L.

(By Bob Lokey, savbabys@...)

Mr. Lokey, as some of you may remember, was serving two life-time sentences in prison without the possibility of parol. But after many years of patience and waiting upon the Lord, God delivered him from the mouth of the Lion. He is now a soldier of the Truth, and fighting for the lives of others! -Ron Branson

----- Original Message -----

From: savbabys

To: VictoryUSA@...

Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 7:10 PM

Subject: Re: Rally for Judicial Reform

Hooray, Ron. You've done a great job so far. You have proven yourself a real, seriously vital, strategically-situated General in this war of attrition, where tactical considerations seem to be your middle name. I know you as harboring a splendid, highly evolved sense of right, justice, and fair play. What is a man without these?

I'd like to commend Ron Loeber [New York JIC, Ron@...] as well. Ron is a real General himself. I also need to mention your own Barbie and all the thousands of others:

Congratulations on waking up and being in the right place! You may seem miniscule; you may appear insignificant in the face of odds that will, at first, attempt to ridicule you into submission--however, God is with you. That's the whole difference.

May you move this Great Army of God against all foes whatever, and may God Almighty reward each of you with greater abundance than any human can imagine. Amen.

Lokey

savbabys@...

ACIC Bill Gage To Address Judicial Reform Rally June 10th

----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Gage

Subject: FW: Rally for Judicial Reform

I have been invited to speak at this rally and I accept. Hope to see JAILers and friends from all over the northeast at this rally June 10th at 12 PM on the steps of the Capital in Albany, New York.

Bill Gage

Northeastern Associate Commander-In-Chief

gageserve@...

From: "June Maxam" <junegaz@...>
To: "June Maxam" <junegaz@...>
Subject: Rally for Judicial Reform
Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 07:47:55 -0400

Scams-n-Scandals Radio Show
To Attend Rally for Reform

The widely acclaimed New York news/talk magazine radio show,
Scams-n-Scandals will be covering the Rally to Rein in Judges to be held Thursday, June 10 from noon to 2 p.m. on the Capitol steps in Albany.

    Show host Tai Aguirre told the publishers of The Empire Journal that he plans on filming the entire rally and will conduct interviews of rally
attendees and speakers for shows to be later aired on Scams-n-Scandals on WTBQ Radio, 1110 AM and for clips which will appear on the show's website, www.scamsandscandals.com.

    The hour-long show airs Saturdays at 12:30 p.m. EST on the ABC
affiliate. Aguirre is an award-winning entrepreneur and has fought his own battle a government regulatory agency. His website has been named Website of the Year by Incentive Magazine. Guests on Scams-n-Scandals are real people whose lives have been shattered by the actions of government and their agents.

    The rally for judicial and legal reform is being sponsored by The Empire Journal, NYS Oaths Project, NYS Tyranny Response Team and the NY Constitution Party.

    A varied program of speakers is planned. The rally will culminate with
the presentation of a platform for judicial reform presented to the state
legislature. Persons seeking additional information on the rally may contact The Empire Journal at 877-878-5902.

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

Yahoo! Groups

Breaking News Visit Yahoo! News for the latest.

The Yahoo! Groups Product Blog

Check it out!

Group Information

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...

Messages

Impunity Immunity

Lying judge defends system

Federal Judge Pulls His Suit From Courts Run by State

THE GHOST FROM FLANDERS FIELD.

Adapted from poem by Douglas Walker.