Skip to search.

Breaking News Visit Yahoo! News for the latest.

×Close this window

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

The Yahoo! Groups Product Blog

Check it out!

Group Information

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

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Message search is now enhanced, find messages faster. Take it for a spin.

Messages

Advanced
Messages Help
Messages 815 - 854 of 1786   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Messages: Show Message Summaries Sort by Date ^  
#815 From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed Jul 14, 2004 4:33 pm
Subject: *** Federal Appellate Judges Intimidated by JAIL4Judges ***
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                                     July 14, 2004

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

 
Federal Appellate Judges
Intimidated by JAIL4Judges
(By Frank Turney, Alaska JIC, fturney@...)
 
This is edited to correct slight clerical errors, and to remove the legalize typical of court filings.  The below incident raises the question of whether the promotion of JAIL4Judges is a "crime." Some judges like to think so. This incident certainly establishes that judges, even appellate judges, are intimidated by the very existence of JAIL4Judges.
 
It is obvious that J.A.I.L. is throwing fear into the judges of this nation by the prospects of drawing them into accountability directly to the People. 
 
Since the below incident took place some three years ago, JAIL4Judges was involved in a public demonstration on or about February, 2002, outside the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena California along with the followers of AMOJ, in which the appellate judges came out personally and brought us a tray of goodies, and explained that they supported the First Amendment right to protest.
 
 -Ron Branson

 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 12:55 PM
Subject: recusal of a judge

RE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, JUL  6, 2004

Federal Public Defender
for The District of Alaska,
Rich Curtner, Federal Public Defender

RE: Turney v. Pugh, No. 03 35165, scheduled for oral argument before Judges Hall, Kleinfeld and Wardlaw on July 9, 2004, 9:00 a.m.
Dear Judge Kleinfeld,
I am writing on behalf of my client, Frank Turney, in the above referenced matter. Mr. Turney is concerned that you have been assigned to serve on the panel that will decide his habeas corpus appeal, and he asks that you consider a recusal in his case.

Mr. Turney reports that he has had numerous contacts with you over the last ten years during the course of his political activities in Fairbanks. Mr. Turney has specifically mentioned an incident occurring two or three years ago on the Cushman Street Bridge. Mr. Turney was wearing a judge's
robe and holding a sign advertising "JAIL4judges.org"  
 
Mr. Turney reports that you had approached him on foot, and addressed him by name, and advised him that he could be jailed for this activity.
Mr. Turney reports replying that he was merely exercising his First Amendment rights. Following this exchange, you then crossed the street and continued on your way, according to Mr. Turney.

Mr. Turney believes that this incident reflects a predisposition regarding the legitimacy of his political expression and his appeal. He is also concerned that your general awareness and personal observations of his activities near the federal courthouse in Fairbanks may also inform and influence your views in this matter.
Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely yours,
Mary C G2,  Assist. Federal Defender
 
 
And what was the result of this motion for recusal? It is as follows:
 
ORDER
The panel has requested that this case be reassigned to another panel.
Accordingly, it is removed from the oral argument calendar for July 9, 2004.

FOR THE COURT
CATHY A. CATTERSON
CLERK OF COURT
By: Howard Hom,
Deputy Clerk


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    <><


#816 From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sun Jul 18, 2004 2:31 am
Subject: * * * Treatise: Insidious Breach of the Court's Public Charter * * *
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                                      July 17, 2004

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

 
Treatise: Insidious Breach of the Courts' Public Charter
For Posting to www.jail4judges.org

Thanks to Gary Treistman (garyonthenet@...) for asking J.A.I.L. to post his masterful written composition, with some minor editing with his permission. This exposure of corruption covers all courts at all levels--federal, state, and local.  
 
This treatise/petition is posted on the website to expose to the world what the People are faced with regarding the corruption of our judicial system throughout the country.
 
The People's Statement and Petition of Grievance
Against The Judiciary© 1

By Gary Treistman, garyonthenet@...
(Minor editing by Barbie, ACIC National J.A.I.L.)

The People hereby present a review of the State and condition of our  Judiciary, its systemic inequities, constitutional drift and institutional malaise; a call for the betterment and return to the purity of due process, enforcement of caliber in our judicial administration, and official recognition of our demands.

"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed us in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping little and little, the foundations of the Constitution, before anyone perceived that invisible and helpless worm had been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."   --Thomas Jefferson, 1823.
We, the class of persons aggrieved in the courts, do hereby formally proffer our petition of grievance and demand for redress and amelioration, as is constitutionally guaranteed and provided for by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It has come to our attention that the federal judiciary, which serves as the role model and exemplar idyllic for all American courts, has gone terribly astray in its practice and administration of the law, and has de facto breached both its Constitutional idealism to unbiased justice and its purport to its public charter, from which its power is derived.

We impute the judiciary's breach of its duty, where its adherence to written procedure and law has degraded to such a degree, that the outcome and resolution of cases in these forums has become probabilistic at best, and oligarchically complicit at its worst.


1.  © Copyright 2001, Gary Treistman garyonthenet@...: The People's Statement and Petition of Grievance Against The Judiciary. Mr. Treistman can also be reached @ Lori Sherman & Associates, Legal Advocates and Support, POB 563, Bearsville, NY 12409, Tel: 845-679-7095; email: LoriShermanAsc@... He is the Editor of FreeNY. This work is copyrighted; no part or parts may be taken or used, nor the text herein changed without written permission of the author; any modifications made to this work that has been authorized by the author shall become the sole property of the author and who thereby retains all rights to any such derivative work.
(Minor editing by J.A.I.L. by permission of the author)

We, those of us among the public who have had first-hand and informed experience in the court system(s), have taken up indignant notice of the discrepancies between the theory and the practice of the law; have suffered unjustly due to those discrepancies, and hereby articulate these abuses and breaches; we speak for ourselves and for the unknowing laity whose liberties and properties are at jeopardy where the judiciary has abrogated its Constitutional charter.

Preamble and Declaration of Condition

We assert that the current state of the courts' standard modus operandi has devolved into one of caprice and peremptory resolution --a condition where the judges now consistently rule with expedience and favoritism, with a post hoc mentality, geared more toward a synthesized end result than of a resolution wrought by the impartial weighing of the facts as directed to by the law. Whether it be because the issues therein are deemed too disruptive to society or the legal mettle, or because one of the litigants is politically more precedential than the other, or other reason, this is a breach of the public role of the judiciary.

Cognizant of the above, we also note that there appears to be an orchestrated effort by the judiciary to uphold the appearance of intact due process in the public eye. We also observe that, due to the technical nature of these matters, this effort is generally successful, and the very many micro injustices perpetrated as a matter of course in these forums side-step and escape the attention of the uninvolved public at large, who continue to retain a confidence of faith that all is basically well with the system.

As more members of the laity unavoidably get involved in the legal arena, these problems will not be concealable much longer. Although the details of the situation may continue to evade the general public's comprehension, the sentiment will not, as those who have had the misfortune of being subject to these inequities complain loudly to all that would listen.

And in that vein, it can be seen that a plethora of grass roots political action committees and coalitions, highly critical of the state of the various judiciaries and demanding change, have emerged.

Each one of these groups is representative of thousands of people who have deep-set grievances with the judicial system in its current defective incarnation, and have been unjustly affronted by their participation with it. The members don't complain about unfavorable decisions to themselves; they complain about the institutionally corrupt way decisions are arrived at and handed down.

We don't demand favoritism from the courts; we demand impartiality and plain adherence to the rule of written law.

This J.A.I.L. News Journal is only an example of the work of Mr. Treistman, Editor of FreeNY. You are encouraged to click the below URL, which will take you to the J.A.I.L. website where the entire Treatise is posted. It is our judgment that this writing will prove to be most valuable to everyone engaged, or thinking about engaging, with the judicial system.

One should consider the facts herein before taking elective litigation within our "justice" system. Only the passage of J.A.I.L. will remedy this unavoidable situation. As goes the courts, so goes the nation!

http://www.jail4judges.org/goals/implementation/PetitionOfGrievance.html

Gary Treistman has now joined J.A.I.L. and has become a New York JAILer. You may reach him at garyonthenet@....


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   
 
"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world; and that is an idea whose time has come."             --Victor Hugo                <><

#817 From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sun Jul 18, 2004 4:41 am
Subject: Foxes In Black Robes
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
 
Foxes In Black Robes
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 9:11 PM
Subject: Recusal of Fairbanks Judge Andrew Kleinfeld Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Whistle B. Currier:

For the past three years I have been active in informing the public about JAIL4JUDGES.ORG. Radio talk show every week and allot of demonstrations with my (Black Robe) and Big Sign or around my neck JAIL4JUDGES.ORG.
For the past two years I have been in the Parade dressed up my black robe, locked up in the JAIL4JUDGES.ORG Wagon.

My jury tampering case is all about the 1-800-tel-jury number, and in my case, I not only have the fox guarding the hen house, I have
the whole herd of foxes, and they're wearing black robes.

I believe Judge Kleinfeld was intimidated by the black robe and
JAIL4judges.org, and what Ron Branson, and this national group, are doing by exposing the on-going corruption in our courts. God bless him and his movement. I would hope FIJA.ORG can work hand and hand together to bring some common sense justice, instead of the on-going injustice by our local, state and federal courts.
 
Take Care,
Activist, Frank Turney
Alaska JIC

#818 From: "VictoryUSA" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 5:23 am
Subject: Notification
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
#819 From: "Jail" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 11:16 pm
Subject: Re:
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
>Lovely animals



#820 From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:38 pm
Subject: Is The Government INSANE?
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                                    July 20, 2004

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

 
Is The Government INSANE?
(The insane are running the asylum)
 
The courts must step in when government chooses to arbitrarily examine everyone for mental illness. Such tactics described below were those employed by Nazi Germany in the 1940s when they sought, through medical means, to make everyone docile, offering no resistance to the state.
 
It was George Washington who said, "Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force; and, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master!" Does this sound like the epitome of mental health? Do we really want those acting without reason being the determiner of our sanity? I think not!
 
Under this program, anyone disagreeing with these government tactics has to be insane and must be pumped full of drugs -- a ten million dollar project. Rather, the ones truly in need of mental examination are the legislators passing this law. Indeed the insane are running the asylum.
 
Will the courts intercede? If history has any say, it is doubtful. But here is another example of why we the People must insist upon the passage of J.A.I.L.         -Ron Branson


 
IL launches compulsory mental health screening for children and pregnant women
 

Monday, July 19, 2004

CHICAGO -- This week, a series of public forums on a program requiring all pregnant women and children through age 18 years to be tested for mental health needs is being held this week in five different locations statewide.

One group of parents learned about the state's plans to proceed with this program and on Monday issued an alarm asking for parents and citizens concerned about the new program to voice their opinions at the forums.

"We're moving toward social training over academic training with this program," Larry Trainor, a Mt. Prospect parent of four children and a contact for Citizens Commission on Human Rights, based in Los Angeles, said today.

"Since psychiatric involvement in education, SAT scores have gone down for the past few decades. Evaluating mental conditions is not based on scientific evidence, it's subjective," he said.

The $10 million plan for the setup of the Children's Mental Health Act of 2003 is being considered at this week's public forums starting Monday, July 18 in Champaign.

Signed into law, the bill passed the Illinois General Assembly last spring, sponsored in the House by State Representatives Julie Hamos (D-Evanston) and Patricia Bellock (R-Westmont). State Senator Maggie Crotty (D-Oak Forest) and Susan Garrett (D-Highwood) shepherded the legislation through the Senate.

The legislation passed the House with a 107 to 5 vote, and the Senate unanimously.

"What if they find a student has a math disorder, a reading disorder. Would that be a mental health disorder, one that would cause the parents to put their children with a drug for a condition they may or may not have?" Trainor asked.

The mental health program will develop a mental health system for "all children ages 0-18 years," provide for screening to "ensure appropriate and culturally relevant assessment of young children's social and emotional development with the use of standardized tools."

Also, all pregnant women will be screened for depression and thereafter following her baby's birth, up to one year. Follow-up treatment services will also be provided.

Trainor said that he is trying to get parents and citizens out to voice their opinion about the new program.

Apparently, children's mental health will be assessed along with their academic standards in the new proposed testing. The Illinois State Board of Education has been given the responsibility to develop the appropriate tests, according to last year's legislation.

The Task Force hosting the public forums this week are to send a recommendation to Governor Blagojevich by the end of the summer, according to the Act (HB 2900).



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

"Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found the exact amount of injustice and wrongdoing which will be imposed on them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."                             - Frederick Douglas, 1857

"..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    <><


#821 From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Tue Jul 20, 2004 11:27 pm
Subject: We Can Sure Use Your Help
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
We Can Sure Use Your Help!
 
Hello Patrick James, ppendergast@...:
 
You sound like just the gentleman we need to take this issue to task. A hacker is hacking into all our Yahoo egroups, and also posing as our email of VictoryUSA@..., and sending viruses.
 
Particularly, this hacker is hitting the jail4judges egroup on which over 700 have subscribed, and who are complaining to us. I have thrice filed  complaints with Yahoo abuse, and they do not even acknowledge the submitted complaints. I notified the people on this egroups and asked them to also complain to Yahoo.
 
So you seem like the proper person we need on our side to get to the bottom of this problem. I have even changed all our passwords. Please track down either the source, or how to get Yahoo's attention, or the process of reporting this crime. This would be greatly appreciated. Since you have email tracking ability, may I ask if you have anti-hacking ability?  This is clearly manifest criminal activity,  just like jamming TV or radio signals, or intercepting U.S. mail, as well as identity theft to commit a crime. Whoever this is must be getting paid full time to disrupt J.A.I.L.'s outreach. Thanks in advance for any assistance you can give us.
 
-Ron Branson
 

 
----- Original Message -----
To: Jail
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 6:10 AM
Subject: Re: [J4J] Re:

If you send me another message that has a virus, I will personally find where you are and fly out there and rip your head off.  You had better believe this asshole.  I have been tracking your messages since the first one hit my computer.  I promise you.  Your mother won't recognize you.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jail
To: Jail
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 6:16 PM
Subject: [J4J] Re:


>Lovely animals



#832 From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Tue Jul 27, 2004 8:50 am
Subject: * * J.A.I.L. Hits Another Home Run * *
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
_______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                                      July 27, 2004

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

 
J.A.I.L. Hits Another Home Run
 
There are some who do not perceive the power of J.A.I.L.'s publications. To recap a little J.A.I.L. history, a few years ago an attorney for the California Court of Appeals criticized J.A.I.L. that we would dare go after judges for "making a few mistakes." His criticism was published, and before the week was up, he was pleading for J.A.I.L. to call off their "attack dogs." Some of you old-time JAILers may recall this incident.
 
Then there was the incident of the state senator who accused this editor of being "an anger-driven asshole." It took only a little over a week before this state senator humbled himself and apologized, which apology was accepted.
 
Then there was the incident of our republication of an article put out by the Washington State Bar Association. They followed up by saying they had never engendered such a enormous response from anything they had ever published before.
 
It is becoming apparent that the publications of J.A.I.L. News Journals are hitting home runs everywhere with its influence in society growing exponentially. All one needs do is go to Google.com and type in "jail4judges" to see websites the world over quoting something from the J.A.I.L. News Journals. One could there spend weeks looking at websites discussing J.A.I.L.
 
This past week J.A.I.L. published an article with credits given to "The Illinois Leader." And guess what? Below is their follow-up, saying that it "sparked an unprecedented number of letters to IllinoisLeader.com." Obviously, The Illinois Leader is quite happy with this responsive reaction. 
 
J.A.I.L. is out to shake this nation, and we have but only begun. 
                                                                             -Ron Branson
 
 
 
DAILY EMAIL REPORT
Monday, July 26, 2004
....
 NEWS....

Leader readers express outrage with mental health screening plan for expectant mothers and children 18 yrs and younger
7/26/2004 2:00:00 PM

OPINION -- The revelation of a mental health screening plan for all children in Illinois through age 18 and all pregnant women has sparked an unprecedented number of letters to IllinoisLeader.com.

As a sampling of the outrage Leader readers are expressing, eight letters have been selected from those pouring in. More will be featured in the upcoming days.
Read more...


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    <><


#833 From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Thu Jul 29, 2004 6:31 am
Subject: Court Thwarts Citizens' Access To Grand Jury
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                                      July 28, 2004

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

 
Court Thwarts Citizens'
Access To Grand Jury
 
http://www.nj.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-6/1090655537319180.xml?starledger?nnj

Justices stay ruling on use of grand juries by citizens

Saturday, July 24, 2004
BY ROBERT SCHWANEBERG
Star-Ledger Staff

A recent appeals court ruling allowing citizens with evidence of wrongdoing to bypass the prosecutor's office and ask a grand jury to investigate was put on hold yesterday by the state Supreme Court.

Without comment, the high court granted a request by the Attorney General's Office to stay the June 29 ruling until it decides whether to review it.

"The effect of the Supreme Court order is that citizens cannot appear before a grand jury at this point," John Hagerty, spokesman for the state Division of Criminal Justice, said.

Hagerty said allowing citizens "to arbitrarily appear before a grand jury, perhaps having already been rejected by a prosecutor" could create needless work and expense for grand juries and the assignment judges who supervise them.

Larry Loigman, an activist lawyer who had won the right to have a letter detailing his allegations of official wrongdoing read to a Monmouth County grand jury, said, "Obviously I'm disappointed, because it does thwart the public's right to have matters investigated without the interference of the Attorney General's Office or the county prosecutor."

Loigman said he has not heard what, if anything, the grand jury did in response to his allegations.

Although the appeals court said citizens have a well-established (though seldom used) right to bring their suspicions of wrongdoing directly to a grand jury, Loigman said he has heard from several persons who were turned down when they tried to invoke it. He said some assignment judges are waiting to see what the state Supreme Court has to say on the matter.

"It very clearly is an important issue the Supreme Court should address," Loigman said.


The key protection of the People's rights are in the Grand Jury. We recently published the 2004 Report of the Los Angeles County Grand Jury, which revealed that the way Grand Juries are functioning is a total sham.

While the supervising judge issued a statement within that Report that the Grand Jury was the only truly independent body within the county, the Report also set forth the following facts:

A) The Grand Jury is selected by the judges. (Judges select two each.)

B) The Grand Jury Foreman is designated by the Supervising Judge.

C) The Supervising Judge oversees the activities of the Grand Jury

D) Most of the complaints to the Grand Jury are against judges.

E) The Judiciary is immune from Civil Grand Jury investigations.

F) The Supervising Judge must approve the Grand Jury's Final Report.

This really sounds like a "truly independent" Grand Jury, does it not?

(See reprint below).


J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                                      July 3, 2004

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

 
Why Grand Juries Do Not Work
(By Ron Branson - J.A.I.L. Founder & CIC)
 
The other day, while sitting in a restaurant, Barbie said to me, "Look, someone left a newspaper," and she handed me the Sunday Los Angeles Times. As I took it, out fell a center section entitled, "Civil Grand Jury - Los Angeles County 2003-2004. Final Report - June 24, 2004." Ironically, this "Final Report" is only published once a year, and here it was in my hand as if the Lord wanted me to see it. I left the entire paper at the restaurant and took only this report. I already knew I had in my hands the makin's for a very good J.A.I.L. News Journal.
 
I should give a little background about myself. Going back to the early 80's I have had a keen interest in the Los Angeles County Grand Jury. Due to certain connections I had within the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, I was invited before the Los Angeles County Grand Jury by the Jury Foreman. I brought educational books and materials that I deemed knowledgeable for them to read. Armed with person knowledge, I can speak about the Los Angeles County Grand Jury independent of this Report.
 
My intent of writing here is to address Grand Jury operations across the country, as their operations are generally the same nationwide. I realize that while here speaking about the Los Angeles County Grand, some may say that this is not the way our Grand Jury works. I have no problem with that, but I can tell you that most all Grand Juries are more similar than most people will ever care to admit.
 
This Report opens with a words from the current past Grand Jury Foreman addressing all the residents of the County of Los Angeles. I here cite to only a few words.
 
"The 2003-2004 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury is pleased to present its Final Report for your review....  My thanks to the other members of the jury for making my job as foreperson easier by virtue of their willingness to overcome personal desires and work for the common good.  The Civil Grand Jury would like to thank Judge David Wesley, Supervising Judge of the Criminal Division of the Superior Court, for his guidance in our endeavors and Judge Terry Green, the Assistant Supervising Judge, who acted in Judge Wesley's stead when necessary."
 
This Report then goes on to praise various other political figures within  government, "Our thanks to the Board of Supervisors, County officers, and departments and representatives of all government agencies ..."
This Report is signed by the out-going foreperson, William A. Sullivan.
 
Following the foreperson's comments is a "Message From The Court, by Judge David Wesley." I quote from Judge Wesley, "The Civil Grand Jury is the only truly independent investigative body in Los Angeles County."  But what follows shows this Civil Grand Jury is anything but  independent. Judge Wesley tells us, "The Superior Court Judges will review the applications of [Grand Jury] candidates and select potential grand jurors."  He also tells us, "Of the 23 grand jurors selected, one person with leadership and organizational skills is designated as foreperson by the presiding judge..." Within the Report we are told, "The Supervising Judge also oversees the activities of the Civil Grand Jury..." and, "Each year prior to March 1st every Superior Court Judge may nominate two persons deemed qualified to serve as Civil Grand Jurors. .... These individuals are investigated by the Sheriff's Department."
 
Ah, we now have learned that the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury is hand-picked by the judges, their foreperson is selected by the presiding judge, and the Supervising Judge oversees the Grand Jury. Yes, folks, it is judges both coming and going when it comes to the Grand Jury. It is virtually a hand-picked committee by the judges, for the judges, and of the judges, and they even oversee it. But hang on to your hats, there is more shocking news forthcoming about these judges before I lower the boom in this Report.) I'm saving the best for last.
 
We all know that Grand Jurors are autonomous, that is, they can think for themselves, act for themselves, and they can follow corruption no matter where it goes - right?  There is no one within their territorial jurisdiction that is beyond their reach. At least that is what we have thought. But wait a minute. We are told in this report, "The Civil Grand Jury cannot investigate the Judiciary." What's that? Judges are the only branch of government within its territorial jurisdiction that is off-limits to them. Let me quote that again, "The Civil Grand Jury cannot investigate the Judiciary." Notwithstanding anything these judges do, this Grand Jury cannot investigate them, for they have no jurisdiction, and these judges enjoy immunity regardless of how corrupt they become.
 
Now this brings me to one of my occasions years ago in which I filed an affidavit with the Los Angeles County Grand Jury supporting probable cause for violations of the California Penal Code. I received a letter back from the County Grand Jury stating that they did not have jurisdiction to investigate judges. They advised me to take the matter to the Commission on Judicial Performance. (This was back in the early nineties when the County Grand Jury, as has been for the last 100 years, handled both civil and criminal matters. It was split between Civil and Criminal in the year 2000-01.)
 
Over the years, I have had many experiences in dealing with the Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP). It is a total sham and a front organization to cover for miscreant judges. I have even had the CJP tell me that they do not deal with criminal matters when I brought acts of criminal conduct to them. I have taken matters from the Commission, who told me they had no jurisdiction, directly to the State Attorney General's Office, only to have then agree that I had a sound criminal act by the judge complained of, but then later they closed me out and even refused to talk to me. One AG Deputy told me in the elevator, "Mr. Branson, you want us to go after these judges. We cannot do that. We are their attorneys. We want to keep in their good graces with these judges because we bring actions on behalf of the state into their courts, and we want them to rule in our favor. And here you are asking us to prosecute them."
 
Now let's recap what we have just learned. The Los Angeles County Grand Jury has no jurisdiction over judges, we must take complaints against judges to the CJP. The CJP tells us they do not have jurisdiction over criminal acts of judges, we must go to the State Attorney General. The Attorney General tells us they have a conflict of interest, and will not prosecute. But wait a minute, haven't we all heard, "No one is above the law!"  I am sorry to have to disappoint you, but I am here to tell you by personal experience, judges are indeed free to violated the law with impunity. 
 
Yes, folks, we do actually have a government; "Of the Judges, By the Judges, and For the Judges" from top to bottom, and in every area. I've been everywhere within the government to call judges to account, including Congress multiple times. And even if you go after them civilly, which I have done numerous times, they will always be dismissed on "judicial immunity." You just cannot sue them, and that is so even if what they did was in complete absence of all jurisdiction. I know, I know, some are going to write me and say, "Ron, here is what the law says, and it says they have no immunity if what they did was outside and beyond their jurisdiction. Yes, so it does say. But just try to get another judge to enforce it. And why should he? He enjoys full and complete immunity himself, and he likes it, and wants to keep it that way. If he rules against his fellow judge, then he will be ruled against when he is sued. Judges protect their Club jealously. "I'll cover your assets, and you cover mine." I have gone through the gamut many times, folks. Please don't tell me what the law says. I stand by my statement that judges are absolutely above the law both criminally and civilly by practice. (I emphasize "by practice.")
 
And now, for the exciting conclusion of this Report. I said that I was saving the best part until last. Here we go. Let's see how many of you are sharp enough to figure out where I are going with this. I will even give you a clue. We have already established that judges are entirely immune from investigation by this Grand Jury, so now lets turn to the complaints that have been submitted to the Grand Jury over the past year of 2003-2004. Besides "Miscellaneous," guess who gets the grand prize for the most number of complaints generated. If you have not already guessed, yes, it is the judiciary. Most complaints filed before the Los Angeles County Grand Jury are about Judges. 13% of the complaints to this Grand Jury is asking for an investigation of the judges, and that is more  than cops, than jails, than politicians, than the medical industry, more than anything else. That tells us something is wrong with this picture.
 
But is it not the Judges who hand-pick the Grand Jury, who select their foreperson, who oversees them, and who are immune from investigation. Based upon these statistics, it is the judges who are the most in need of investigation, who are the most in need of accountable, who are the most secretive, and who are the most likely to be corrupt.
 
So, back to my title, "Why Grand Juries Do Not Work." It is so easy to see why J.A.I.L., with its safeguards that are just the opposite of most all the concepts that operate County Grand Juries, will totally upset the apple cart of the entire system when passed, for it will create a shining example of what a Grand Jury aught to be doing, and it will surely influence all Grand Juries throughout this nation, dictating that changes must be forthcoming. And when that happens, all governments everywhere will flea for cover or take early retirement, for they will see the dark storm-clouds rolling with its threatening bolts of lightening. As we have said many times, "J.A.I.L. is the only answer!"
 


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    <><

 


#834 From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 2:15 am
Subject: They Haven't Heard Anything Yet!
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                                 July 30, 2004
 
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L.
                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
 

They Haven't Heard Anything Yet!
 
"Scapegoating"?  Public exposure of the legal profession sounds more like it. Even the legal system itself realizes its bad reputation among the public at large. They call it "convenient scapegoat[ing] to scare the public.''  Why is the ABA afraid of "scaring the public"?  Could it be because such so-called "scapegoating" has a ring of truth to it?  We're certain that the ABA knows all about J.A.I.L. and realizes the vast awareness of public concern about the corruption of the judicial system. The fact is, as a Google search on the internet will reveal, that the public is already scared of how the legal system has ruined so many lives, thanks specifically to our corrupt judicial system sitting at the helm of the "Good Ship" TYRANNY; and it will continue to do so as long as the judiciary remains unbridled and undisciplined by the People.
 
The public is turning their fright and frustrations into anger, disgust, and boldness in greater and greater numbers, and they are beginning to realize that the People must take responsibility to put an end to this domestic terrorism. The time has come when the system can no longer hide the truth. It's going to be more than "scapegoating" in the future-- they haven't heard anything yet. The "scared public" are sick and tired of being "scared" --and the legal system is making the "scared public" downright angry!  A state senator once called us "Anger-driven assholes." Call us what you will, but the public can't remain "scared" forever!  An angry public is waking up and realizing that J.A.I.L. must be passed to put an end to this nationwide "scare."  Let the ABA know how you feel. 

 
 
News Watch

ABA Criticizes Political "Scapegoating" of Lawyers and Judges

New York Lawyer
July 22, 2004

By The Associated Press

http://www.nylawyer.com/news/04/07/072204m.html

WASHINGTON -- The American Bar Association is asking Republicans and Democrats to stop using lawyers and judges as "convenient scapegoats to scare the public.''

"We recognize that campaign debate may involve our court systems, judges or the legal profession,'' ABA president Dennis W. Archer said in a letter Tuesday to the chairmen of the Republican and Democratic parties.

"For the role of lawyers and judges to be addressed in those debates is natural. For it to happen in a manner that demonizes a profession steeped in the traditions of public service is unnecessary, unproductive and offensive,'' Archer wrote.

The nonpartisan ABA, based in Chicago, has more than 400,000 members and provides accreditation for law schools, programs for lawyers and judges, and other services. More than 1 million lawyers work in the United States, it says.

Democratic presidential candidates John Kerry and John Edwards have received millions in campaign contributions from lawyers. Republicans and lobbying organizations have criticized Edwards, who earned millions as a trial attorney before turning to politics, for his ties to the legal profession from the day Kerry selected him as his running mate.

Kerry, a Massachusetts senator, previously was a prosecutor and lawyer in private practice.

On Monday while campaigning in Missouri, Vice President Dick Cheney said Kerry and Edwards have opposed changes to the medical malpractice insurance system because they are too close to trial lawyers. President Bush often refers to "activist judges'' when he criticizes gay marriage and other initiatives that have received judicial backing.

"Because of the gravity of the issues confronting voters, we hope the major parties -- the world's preeminent political institutions -- will agree to focus on a discussion of those issues and not resort to name-calling and finger-pointing or use convenient scapegoats to scare the public,'' Archer wrote.


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    <><


#835 From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed Jul 28, 2004 5:54 am
Subject: Comment on "J.A.I.L. Hits Another Home Run"
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
Comment on "J.A.I.L. Hits Another Home Run"
(By Ed Snook, observer@...)
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Snook
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 9:51 AM
Subject: RE: * * J.A.I.L. Hits Another Home Run * *

Dear Ron:

 

I have followed your activities the past year or two with interest, and when I read of your accomplishments, I follow those activities with great respect and support. “We have but only begun” is truly a winners comment, as well as one that I live by.

 

Edward Snook

Chief of Investigations

US~Oregon Observer

 


#836 From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 11:12 pm
Subject: * * The Limited Scope of J.A.I.L. * *
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                             August 2, 2004
 
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L.
                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
 
The Limited Scope of J.A.I.L.
 
Oh! How we wish J.A.I.L. could throw out a life line to the thousands of victims of the corrupt judicial system who are flailing about in the turbulent waters of the Sea of Tyranny, many of whom are going down for the third time and gasping their last breaths. However, while it appears at first blush to be cruel and uncaring, nevertheless the J.A.I.L. organization is not able 
to rescue these victims because of its limited scope.
 
Currently, J.A.I.L. has no control whatsoever over the conduct of the judicial/legal system and the resulting tragedies left in its wake. J.A.I.L. has no function unless and until it is passed into law by the People. Therefore, J.A.I.L. cannot be looked to for relief such as a legal advocacy group (i.e., giving legal advice) or as a lawyer referral service. Such services are beyond the scope of J.A.I.L.
 
Also, J.A.I.L. cannot be expected to post all the horror stories we receive. It is simply an impossibility. Because of the volume of such complaints about judicial misconduct occurring throughout the country, J.A.I.L. has created a "sounding board" at JAIL-SoundOff@egroups.com as a support group on which people are encouraged to post their plight(s).  
        
J.A.I.L. is not a rescue service-- J.A.I.L. is a construction and maintenance operation to "throw off such government, and to provide new guards for [our] future security." (Declaration of Independence). In carrying out that duty of the People, J.A.I.L. is designed to construct a safeguard within the root system of the "government tree" that will act as a disinfectant to:
    (1) cleanse the "tree" of its tyrannical disease at its source (the judiciary), and then
    (2) maintain its constitutional health through the integrity of         the judiciary. (Without a healthy judiciary, there can be no healthy government --the two are mutually dependent. As goes the judiciary, so goes the nation.)
 
J.A.I.L. is the solution (the only solution) for future government operation. J.A.I.L. has no control over what is currently happening, no matter how egregious it is. We realize how frustrating that is to those that are suffering NOW and who seek relief NOW. J.A.I.L.'s Founder had been suffering, with no relief in sight, for eighteen years battling in the system all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court numerous times in several cases petitioning for redress of grievances, to no avail. So he knows from personal experience the frustrations of victims of judicial corruption. But unfortunately, as difficult as it is for people to accept this fact, there is no short-cut to relief.  
 
Moreover, J.A.I.L. deals with systemic relief-- permanent relief, not just individual cases at any given moment. Each individual case is but one leaf that has fallen from the corrupt tree and ends up thrashing in the Sea of Tyranny. These unfortunate cases are merely the result (the fall-out) of the problem, and any attempt to recover any of the fallen leaves is not the solution to the problem-- as much as they each cry out for instant recovery.
 
Like a man with a flame-thrower walking down the middle of the street swinging from side to side, systematically setting homes on fire on both sides of the street, resulting in people running from their homes crying "Help me put out the fire and save my home." While each person is concerned about his own home, no one is giving attention to stopping the man with the flame-thrower. J.A.I.L., by illustration, focuses exclusively on the latter.   
 
JAILers must limit their attention to the source of the ignition (the judiciary) and not to the resulting inferno (the victims of judicial corruption) in order to provide the systemic solution to the systemic problem. And that unfortunately takes time-- more time than we want. However, the more time victims spend on complaining about their individual cases and demanding individual relief, the less time and resources remains available for accomplishing the permanent and real solution for everyone (including the victims). One paralegal JAILer remarked that all the resources spent on petitioning for redress in the courts would be better spent on investing the same in the passage of J.A.I.L., saving both time and money plus bringing results. There is good news and there is bad news regarding J.A.I.L.-- the good news is that we already have ALL the money we need for its passage; the bad news is that that money is still in your pockets.
 
J.A.I.L. was written in 1995, and next April will be its ten-year anniversary. Rather than lamenting why it is taking so long, help the situation by focusing on the solution, not the problem. Too much time and effort is spent on complaining about the problem-- that's why the solution is so slow in coming! Someone recently wrote, "Name one (1) judge jailed. Put up or shut up." to which we responded, "J.A.I.L. equals 'Judicial Accountability Initiative Law.'  Name one dollar you have contributed to its passage. You can only reap if you sow. Right?J.A.I.L. can do it only with everyone doing his part. Passage of J.A.I.L. is a nationwide team effort of JAILers and non-JAILers alike, where everybody wins! Complainers only slow the process of accomplishing the solution that's ready and rarin' to go --ready to be implemented NOW!  The people don't have to wait for a remedy-- it's HERE and it's NOW!
 
Remember: "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."    -- Henry David Thoreau   
 
-Barbie-  ACIC
National J.A.I.L. Administration


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   
 <><

#837 From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed Aug 4, 2004 6:36 am
Subject: Life Prior to "Safety Everything" & the Litigation Craze
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
 
Life Prior to "Safety Everything"
and the Litigations Craze
 
My Mom used to cut chicken, chop eggs and roll out pie crust on the
same cutting board with the same knife and no bleach, but we didn't seem to get food poisoning.
 
My Mom used to defrost hamburger on the counter AND I used to eat it
raw sometimes too, but I can't remember getting E-coli.
 
Almost all of us would have rather gone swimming in the lake instead
of a pristine pool (talk about boring), the term cell phone would have
conjured up a phone in a jail cell, and a pager was the school PA system.
 
We all took gym, not PE . . . and risked permanent injury with a pair
of hightop Ked's (only worn in gym) instead of having cross-training
athletic shoes with air cushion soles and built in light reflectors. I can't
recall any injuries but they must have happened because they tell us how much safer we are now. Flunking gym was not an option . . . even for stupid kids! I guess PE must be much harder than gym.
 
Every year, someone taught the whole school a lesson by running in the
halls with leather soles on linoleum tile and hitting the wet spot. How
much better off would we be today if we only knew we could have sued
the school system.
 
Speaking of school, we all said prayers and the pledge and staying in
detention after school caught all sorts of negative attention. We must
have had horribly damaged psyches.
 
I can't understand it. Schools didn't offer 14 year olds an abortion or
condoms (we wouldn't have known what either was anyway), but they did
give us a couple of baby aspirin and cough syrup if we started getting the
sniffles. What an archaic health system we had then. Remember school
nurses? Ours wore a hat and everything.
 
I thought that I was supposed to accomplish something before I was
allowed to be proud of myself. I just can't recall how bored we were without computers, playStation, Nintendo, X-box or 270 digital cable stations.
 
I must be repressing that memory as I try to rationalize through the
denial of the dangers could have befallen us as we trekked off each day about a mile down the road to some guy's vacant 20, built forts out of
branches and pieces of plywood, made trails, and fought over who got to be the Lone Ranger. What was that property owner thinking, letting us play on that lot. He should have been locked up for not putting up a fence around the property, complete with a self-closing gate and an infrared intruder alarm.
 
Oh yeah . . . and where was the Benadryl and sterilization kit when I got
that bee sting? I could have been killed!
 
We played king of the hill on piles of gravel left on vacant construction
sites and when we got hurt, mom pulled out the 48 cent bottle of
mercurochrome and then we got our butt spanked. Now it's a trip to the
emergency room, followed by a 10-day dose of a $49 bottle of
antibiotics and then mom calls the attorney to sue the contractor for leaving a horribly vicious pile of gravel where it was such a threat.
 
We didn't act up at the neighbor's house either because if we did, we
got our butt spanked (physical abuse) here too ... and then we got butt
spanked again when we got home.
 
Mom invited the door to door salesman inside for coffee, kids choked
down the dust from the gravel driveway while playing with Tonka trucks
(remember why Tonka trucks were made tough . . . it wasn't so that they could take the rough Berber in the family room), and dad drove a car with leaded gas.
 
Our music had to be left inside when we went out to play and I am sure
that I nearly exhausted my imagination a couple of times when we went on two week vacations. I should probably sue the folks now for the danger
they put us in when we all slept in campgrounds in the family tent.
 
Summers were spent behind the push lawnmower and I didn't even know
that mowers came with motors until I was 13 and we got one without an
automatic blade-stop or an auto-drive.
 
How sick were my parents? Of course my parents weren't the only
psychos.
 
I recall Donny Reynolds from next door coming over and doing his
tricks on the front stoop just before he fell off. Little did his mom know that she could have owned our house. Instead she picked him up and swatted him for being such a goof. It was a neighborhood run amuck.
 
To top it off, not a single person I knew had ever been told that they
were from a dysfunctional family. How could we possibly have known that we needed to get into group therapy and anger management classes? We were obviously so duped by so many societal ills, that we didn't even notice that the entire country wasn't taking Prozac! How did we survive????
 
Easy Simply; "In God We Trust"
 
 

#838 From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Fri Aug 6, 2004 12:12 am
Subject: From Our J.A.I.L. Contingent in Australia
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                              August 5, 2004
 
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L.
                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?

 
From Our J.A.I.L. Contingent in Australia
John Wilson, JAILer-In-Chief, New South Wales
 
Australia's Constitutional & Legal Crisis
From: John Wilson
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 10:37 PM
 
Dear Deans,
 
Australia's Governmental and Legal structure is in a state of total and irredeemable collapse. Australia's Constitution has been proven to be invalid and inoperable.  The appointments of Federal and State Governor-Generals, Governors and Judges are fraudulent. Prime Ministers and Premiers are guilty of Treachery and Deceit.  Parliaments are administering the country's affairs without legal authority and the Courts are conducting proceedings without Jurisdiction.
 
To pretend that this enormous and devastating problem does not exist is foolish in the extreme.  In spite of the media's and the governments' attempts to conceal the Truth and mislead the People, more and more Australians are learning what has happened and why we are being stripped of their Laws, their Liberties, their free customs and their assets.
 
As Deans of the Faculties of Law at the Universities of New South Wales, Western Sydney, Sydney and Macquarie, respectively,
it is incumbent upon you to use the resources at your disposal for the benefit of the entire community.  To you falls the responsibility to educate not only the students on campus but the wider community.  Universities occupy a unique position for learning and leadership.  So that Truth, Justice and Freedom can survive in Australia,  I trust you will "do right".
 
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson
JIC- NSW Australia
jhwilson@...     
 
Below is an item from his website at www.rightsandwrong.com.au 
 

AUSTRALIAN JUDGES ARE FRAUDS,

LIARS, CRIMINALS, TRAITORS & FOOLS.

 

 

FRAUDS:  Federal Judges must be appointed by the Governor-General and State Judges by the State Governors who must have been appointed by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.  However, Privy Council and the Foreign & Commonwealth Office in London confirm that the Queen does not and can not appoint the Governor-General nor the Governors because she is the Head of State of the United Kingdom and has no executive powers exercisable in the Commonwealth of Australia.  Therefore, any appointments made by these false representatives of the Queen are also fraudulent and those “Judges” have no authority or jurisdiction, whatsoever.

 

LIARS: Common Law demands that an essential element in the creation of a contract is “certainty of terms”. Variable interest rates render a contract void for uncertainty because “variable” means “uncertain” and “certain” means “not variable” (Oxford English Dictionary). However, Australian Judges say and maintain that variable interest rates are indeed certain.  That is a lie with which they conceal the illegality of variable interest rate loan contracts.

 

CRIMINALS:  Australian Judges conceal 2 major counts of fraud committed by Banks.  The first is the fraud of variable interest rate loan contracts (above) and the second is the fact that Banks create money for themselves “out of thin air” and inject it into the economy as loans, which they recoup with interest.  These fraudulent practices by the Banks amount to hundreds of billions of dollars and have resulted in  the illegal dispossession of homes and businesses as well as bankruptcy,  family breakdown, suicide and hardship to many ordinary Australians.  Australian Judges aid and abet in this atrocity.

 

TRAITORS:  Australian Judges swear to well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second and to do right to all manner of people without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. In the Queen’s Coronation Oath, she promised to execute Law and Justice with Mercy in all her Judgments.  Apart from the Queen being the Head of State of a foreign power, Australian Judges betray that allegiance and betray the Australian People through their Corruption and the denial of Justice.

 

FOOLS:  Listed in Australia’s Constitutional Enactments are Magna Carta 1297, Petition of Right 1627, Habeas Corpus 1640 and Bill of Rights 1688 which guarantee the Right to Trial by Jury – the denial of which is punishable by 5 years imprisonment (Imperial Acts Application Act 1969, section 43).  Bill of Rights 1688 actually says that “counsellors, judges and ministers” who “subvert and extirpation the laws and liberties of the kingdom” are “evil”.  All evil-doers are fools.

 

- Written by John Wilson. Email address: jhwilson@...    



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    <><
 

 

 

 

#839 From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 12:27 am
Subject: Ignorance Justifies Dysfunction
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                              August 7, 2004
 
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?

 
Ignorance Justifies Dysfunction
 
The following was sent to J.A.I.L. by a Florida JAILer in response to our "Safety Everything" JNJ, and it is so basically simple that it's worth amplifying and sharing with our subscribers and readers. Here's what Jeremy said:
 
Ron,
     It is all too obvious that THEIR GOVERNMENT is making mockery of Our USA Constitution and Declaration of Independence.  It is all so clear now that We The People must defend Her against the intrusions brought on by a dysfunctional government.  Ignorance justifies dysfunction and dysfunction justifies destruction.  We must act in an orderly manner to dismantle the ignorance and reverse the dysfunction to reconstruct Our/Their liberty and safety from "GOVERNMENTS", foreign and domestic, to achieve Happiness and Prosperity, to be free and to live free from tyranny, oppression and usurpation.  Our intellectual property is Ours, not theirs. 
 
God Bless,
Jeremy Laughery 
Florida JAILer
jel3@...

The first point Jeremy makes is "their government" making a mockery of "Our" Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Obviously "their government" refers to the mock government that disrespects the People's Constitution and Declaration of Independence. It is important to bear in mind that the "powers that be" are not "governments" as described in the Declaration, to wit: "That to secure [our unalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men...."  WE NO LONGER HAVE A GOVERNMENT power in this country, by definition according to our Founding Document, the Declaration. It has become a mockery!
 
Next Jeremy describes this mock power as a "dysfunctional government" against which the People must defend their unalienable rights from intrusion. Our Founding Document states "...it is [the People's] duty to throw off such governments, and to provide new guards for their future security. ..."  IT IS OUR DUTY TO THROW OFF SUCH [MOCK] GOVERNMENTS.
 
Then Jeremy describes how and why this mock power has developed. He says Ignorance justifies dysfunction and dysfunction justifies destruction.
Dysfunction describes the mock government which is the medium through which [the People's] Ignorance develops into [the People's] Destruction. The Declaration states that governments "deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed [i.e., the People], ..."  The People are the source of legitimate government power. Only through the Ignorance of the People in failing to realize the inherently corrupt nature of government power ("power corrupts") and in thus failing to provide an enforcement provision in the body of the Constitution, have they and the Constitutional Republic become Destroyed. Remember, WE THE PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR REPUBLIC, THROUGH OUR OWN IGNORANCE.   
 
So the question is, What are we going to do about it?  Jeremy says that We must act in an orderly manner to dismantle the ignorance and reverse the dysfunction to reconstruct Our/Their liberty and safety from "GOVERNMENTS", foreign and domestic, to achieve Happiness and Prosperity, to be free and to live free from tyranny, oppression and usurpation. Folks, that is exactly what J.A.I.L. will accomplish!
 
1. First, JAILers must "act in an orderly manner to dismantle [public] ignorance" by educating the people of the root problem (judicial corruption).
 
2. Then, J.A.I.L. (when in effect) will "reverse the dysfunction [of government] to reconstruct Liberty and [Security] from government [intrusion] to achieve Happiness and Prosperity, to be Free, and to Live Free from tyranny, oppression and usurpation."  (It is our DUTY to... provide new guards for [our] future security. -Declaration of Independence). 
 
Yes, Our intellectual property is Ours --LET'S USE IT by making J.A.I.L. operable to accomplish the above goal.
 
-Barbie


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    <><

#840 From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Fri Aug 6, 2004 3:34 am
Subject: Maine JIC & Partner Go To Bat
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
 

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

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


Maine JIC and Her Partner/Investigator Go To Bat Against Judicial Misconduct

Written by Maine JAILer, David Deschesne
 

BIDDEFORD INVESTIGATOR FILES COMPLAINT AGAINST COURTS

By: David Deschesne

On June 22, 2004 Maine Private Investigator, Phil Castora filed a formal complaint against Maine's judicial court system to State Court Administrator, James T. Glessner.

Castora, a former York County Deputy Sheriff and Biddefored City Councilor, states, "I have been conducting an investigation, for over 10 years, into criminal conduct by bank officials in concert with city officials and others to deprive people of their life, liberty, livelihood and property, all with the approval of the judges in York County courts in denying citizens their right to due process of law and jury trials. Innocent citizens have been crucified by York County judges, maliciously prosecuted by corrupt York County's District Attorney and due to the recent judicial misconduct of York County Superior Court Judge Arthur Brennan and Maine Supreme Court Justice Leigh Saufley, I am their recent target." Castora goes on to say in his letter to Glessner, "I am not going to be ridiculed by any judge, lawyer, or shady individuals because judges refuse to uphold the law and violate their sworn oath of office." (photo:  Phil Castora)

The letter was written because the judicial system is attacking Dottie Lafortune; an innocent, law-abiding citizen. "Dottie turned to the courts for justice, not to be persecuted for wanting to speak the truth. Her persecution continues with the rubber stamp of approval of the courts. Dottie Lafortune did nothing wrong, she is being charged with trespassing upon her own property which she owns. I have the documents to prove everything that I am stating," says Castora. While property rights and due process are protected by Maine's Constitution, District Court Judge Arthur Brennan dismissed a case brought by Lafortune against the City of Biddeford without a trial as mandated by law.

An appeal to the Maine Supreme Court was filed July 20. District Attorney Mark Lawrence intends to prosecute Lafortune for a crime that she did not commit. "If anyone should be prosecuted, it's Mark Lawrence for Misprision of Felony. But the cover up continues with him," says Castora. He goes on to say, "With the documents that I have, I challenge Mark Lawrence to prove me wrong. I want the entire State of Maine to know what kind of District Attorney we have in York County."

Castora sent copies of his letter along with a package of documents supporting his claim of judicial misconduct, to Senator Peggy Pendleton, Senate Chair of the Judiciary Committee, with copies to Maine State Representatives William Norbert, Thomas Bull, Debrah Simpson, Philip Bennett Jr., Stan Gerzofsky, Janet Mills, Roger Sherman, Roderick Carr, Brian Duprey, Joan Bryant-Deschenes, and Donna Loring, and Senators Chandler Woodcock and Mary Cathcart who are members of the Judiciary Committee. Cathcart returned her package to Castora unopened. To date, Castora has received no reply from either Court Administrator Glessner, or any of the elected officials he forwarded his complaint to.

From this bad nightmare, good will come to the people of Maine. With the threat of higher taxes and the possibility of other peoples' home being taken from them, Ms. Lafortune will pursue the abolishment of Maine's unconstitutional Automatic Foreclosure statute where cities can just take peoples' properties from them without just compensation, or propose a city ordinance which forbids the taking of peoples' property. Property rights are as sacred as free speech rights and neither must ever be taken from anyone again. Len Harrison, of Black Cat Media, and Tito Abao, both from San Francisco were in Biddeford last month interviewing and filming Dottie for a "documentary/political satire" they are producing. They are exploring how government fails to serve the people and the subject of their interview was Dottie. The filmmakers plan to release the film the first of next year which may end up in Cannes, said Abao, referring to the international film festival.

There is currently a movement underway in the United States to pass a judicial accountability law at the State level, which will hold judges legally responsible for upholding the law, and allow for their removal by the citizenry in the event they violate the trust instilled in them by their office. More information on the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law can be obtained by going to www.jail4judges.org

Contact Dottie LaFortune and Phil Castora at pcastora@...

On behalf of National J.A.I.L., thanks to Phil for sending us this article and for standing up strong for justice against this tyrannical force. We admire your and Dottie's tenacity under such trying circumstances. Congratulations to both of you-- you both set the kind of examples for which we're thankful and proud to have as J.A.I.L. leadership. We applaud you greatly! (Also thanks to JAILer David Deschesne for writing this great article.)
-Ron and Barbie


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    <><

 


#841 From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Mon Aug 9, 2004 8:35 am
Subject: J.A.I.L. Gives Us More Than Just Hope!
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. Gives Us
More Than Just Hope!
(Exchange Between JAILers Wornock, Arkansas & Stark, CA.)
 
----- Original Message -----
From: D Wornock
Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 2:30 AM
 
Angela Stark,
 
I read subject e-mail; it seems that judicial corruption is unending.  From what I have been reading the last couple of years, I have concluded that, except for non-government issues like private contracts, it is not possible to get justice in the courts.  I have almost concluded that, should I ever be charged with a crime or have a dispute with the government, my best course of action would be to talk to them and meekly ask, "What is the best you can do for me?" and accept it, no matter how unjust.  That it would be silly to waste money on an attorney, except for the above negotiations, because justice in the courts would be impossible.  I am not certain I would do that; but, considering how the courts work, it may be the best course of action
 
The media is no help because they support the courts by being selective in what they publish.  I am not even sure who is in control.  Sometime, I suspect it is a few very powerful people that own the media and select through what and how they publish who gets appointed and elected.
 
Voting will not help because the media tells people who to vote for or people will just vote a straight ticket.  And, even if that is not so, there are so many elected offices and candidates that most people don't have a clue as to what they are getting, nor are they willing to take the time to learn.
 
Passing new laws will not help when those in power get to say what they mean.
 
That is the reason I support the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (JAIL).  Although, I am not sure those in power would ever allow it to become law.  I have read JAIL and it is the only force that is not under government control.  Normal, Grand Juries will not work because they are selected and controlled by the judges and prosecutors.
 
JAIL should work, and may be the only possible solution to judicial corruption, because the JAIL grand juries are randomly selected without any input or control by government.  That makes them independent of government selection and control.  The JAIL grand jurors will investigate because it is their job for which they are well paid.  Further, their terms expire before they become jaded. 
 
However, if JAIL should be enacted, my concern is that, although JAIL requires selection by lottery, if the government runs the lottery then it may not be a true lottery allowing the government to hand pick the so called lottery selections.  As you can see, where government is concerned, I believe, if evil is possible, government will find a way.  Do you have any comment regarding my concern?
 
In any event, I am a supporter of JAIL.
 
Sincerely,
DC Wornock
Little Rock, Arkansas
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 3:14 AM
 
J.A.I.L. gives us more than just hope. The passage of J.A.I.L. in every state, will be the closest thing to a guarantee that there will be JUSTICE for ALL!~>  http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm
 
We have to start picking up the momentum folks. I'm sure you are aware of the "dark nature" of the present administration (Dems and Reps) and the dire course they are on. Dragging us into the darkness along with them. Forcing us into a hateful place, a place where we don't fit in and certainly don't belong. It's foreign to everything we've been raised to believe in.  Where is the goodness?
 
The government thinks they can get away this via their buddies in the judiciary. Passing laws by decision behind closed doors, giving approval to the most criminal actions against innocent people. And I'm not talking about terrorists either. I'm talking about us. Americans. Are you going to just stand by and let them get away with this? It has to STOP! It's only going to stop when WE make the judiciary accountable for upholding their oath. They will need to think twice about making erroneous decisions.  Or, else they are OUT!
 
Take charge of your individuality. No one is going to take care of you, but you. You, and me and all of us together, we that long for the truth and justice that we've not seen for a long while, we can make it happen. We are the real strength of this country, together, and not the government. Let's use what we have to work with, to make it happen.
 
J.A.I.L. is it!
 
J.A.I.L. is the gateway to achieving justice for all, and the door is open so come on in. Everyone has to get in on this, to make it happen. Even if you just display the bumper sticker. The more folks are exposed to it, the better our odds of achieving our goal.
 
The government seems to be falling faster, denying freedom of speech rights and right to petition for redress of grievances and all the rest, closing off the possibilities of us ever having our country back, back to that glorious status that she had not so long ago. If you desire an America that represents Unity for Liberty and Justice for All, I strongly urge you to get on-board and support the J.A.I.L. mission. Judicial accountability should be at the top of the Tax-Honesty advocate/activist's priority list. For Justice. Justice for all. Not just a few. But it's up to us ALL to fight for it.
 
Join the J.A.I.L. chapter in your state now. Not tomorrow. Now. Please.
 
God Bless America,
but the evil ones taking her into darkness, be damned!
 
Angela
J.A.I.L. Member Los Angeles/Culver City Chapter
 
Irwin Schiff News

#842 From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:03 am
Subject: Appellate Court Rules Against City Misconduct
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                          August 11, 2004
 
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L.
                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
 
Appellate Court Rules Against City Misconduct
 
A J.A.I.L. subscriber, Pastor Robert (Roby) Roberson of Wenatchee WA. is one of a few victims of corruption who can praise the ruling of a court in his favor. He sent J.A.I.L. the below opinion written by The Wenatchee World newspaper and a report on the case itself. We're happy for Pastor Roby, but we remind everyone that an occasional honest court decision does not eliminate the need for J.A.I.L. to be in place nevertheless-- to keep judges honest!
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: Ignorance Justifies Dysfunction

(Quoting from our recent JNJ):
1. First, JAILers must "act in an orderly manner to dismantle [public] ignorance" by educating the people of the root problem (judicial corruption).
 
2. Then, J.A.I.L. (when in effect) will "reverse the dysfunction [of government] to reconstruct Liberty and [Security] from government [intrusion] to achieve Happiness and Prosperity, to be Free, and to Live Free from tyranny, oppression and usurpation."  (It is our DUTY to... provide new guards for [our] future security. -Declaration of Independence). 
___________________________________________
 
(Pastor Roby): How's this for a big gain? We are working at taking them down. Stay tuned
 

The following is the opinion of The Wenatchee World and its Editorial Board: Editor and Publisher Rufus Woods, Managing Editor Gary Jasinek and Editorial Page Editor Tracy Warner.

Once again a court in high standing has shamed the city of Wenatchee for deplorable conduct in the wake of the infamous 1994-95 child sex-ring cases. The state Court of Appeals upheld more than $700,000 in penalties against the city for withholding key evidence in a civil rights lawsuit brought by the Rev. Robert "Roby" Roberson and others.

We would not presume to give the city's attorneys advice, but should say that local citizens must be growing weary of the repeated disgrace brought by the mistakes of its government, and by attempts to cover up those mistakes. The acts that brought this fine are particularly galling. Prior to a previous trial, the city was ordered to hand over the personnel records of Detective Bob Perez, the chief investigator whose conduct is the focus of the lawsuits. It delivered most of the records, but overlooked a few, which coincidentally contained the information most likely to damage the city's case. Withheld were medical files that may have indicated Perez suffered from mental disabilities, and pre-employment screening files that included a polygraph test. Spokane Superior Court Judge Michael Donohue, who assessed the fine last year, said he thought the city withheld the information deliberately, and that it would have had a significant impact on the trial's outcome.

So, while the city was on trial for abusing the justice system, it was abusing the justice system. The appeals court agreed that the city's protestations to the contrary were "without merit." The city's offense voided the result of a 13-week trial. Whatever your opinion of the merits of the multiple sex-ring lawsuits still pending against this city, it is difficult to argue that this kind of action does not deserve sanction.

Of course, the fine is potentially only the beginning. Because of the city's offense there will be a new trial in the lawsuit. The defendants seeks tens of millions in damages. Barring an unlikely settlement, all this evidence, including the evidence in those missing files, will be bared anew.

It shows, if nothing else, the lasting effect of a single mistake. A decade ago the city's police chief had an opportunity to take Perez off these investigations, when his unsuitability should have been clear and the legal dangers obvious. Had that simple move taken place, chances are good no one would be discussing these cases now.

More mistakes followed, though, and now we have no idea how much the aftermath of this fiasco will cost the city. It is clear that after a decade the end of the legal process is nowhere in sight. It would be best for the city and its battered reputation not to do anything more to prolong it.

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

The Wenatchee World

   A1 Story - Wednesday - August 4, 2004
Sex-abuse case to be retried, court rules: City of Wenatchee ordered to pay $718,000

WENATCHEE — The state Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court decision restoring a major civil rights lawsuit against the city of Wenatchee over how the 1994-95 child sex-abuse investigations were handled and ordering the city to pay more than $700,000 in penalties.

The state court ruled Tuesday that Spokane County Superior Court Judge Michael Donohue did not err when he fined the city for withholding employment records of former Wenatchee Police Detective Bob Perez in lawsuits stemming from the cases. The records indicated Perez was suffering from a serious mental disability at the time he was conducting the investigations, attorneys have said in court.

Donohue also was justified in vacating two earlier jury verdicts, and allowing a new civil rights trial to be brought by East Wenatchee Pastor Robert “Roby” Roberson, Honnah Sims of Malaga and other co-plaintiffs. The ruling also restores Perez and former Wenatchee Police Chief Ken Badgley as defendants.

According to attorneys representing Roberson, about $125,000 in interest could be tacked onto the $718,000 Donohue levied against the city in January 2003.

“We’re very pleased with the decision,” said Auburn attorney Tyler Firkins, who represents Roberson, Sims, Donna Rodriguez, and their families.

“We believe that the Court of Appeals strongly stated and agreed with Judge Donohue that the city intentionally withheld documents in violation of the judge’s orders of discovery. We feel the plaintiffs have been vindicated by this decision,” he said.

In a 13-week trial held in 1998, a King County jury found the city and other defendants did not violate the civil rights of Roberson, Sims and the others. Plaintiffs had sought $60 million in damages. In 2001, a Spokane County jury found the city was negligent in the investigation of Roberson and his wife, Connie, but didn’t award any damages.

In his ruling last year, Donohue threw out the earlier verdicts and found Perez’s records were intentionally withheld from the court and Roberson’s attorneys by the city. The judge said the records were of great importance and could have changed the case’s direction. The documents included results of a pre-employment polygraph test and separate medical and state Department of Employment Security files. Police officials also expressed concerns about Perez’s fitness for duty. The records surfaced in 2002 in a separate case.

The city argued that it did not intentionally withhold the information, and that the action did not hurt the plaintiffs’ case during the trials.

But the state appellate court ruled Tuesday the city’s argument “is without merit,” the violation was “substantial,” and the withheld files were “material to the plaintiffs’ fair presentation of their case at the time of trial.”

The state appellate court, consisting of judges Frank L. Kurtz, Dennis Sweeney and Kenneth Kato, wrote that “a new trial was the appropriate sanction for the city’s willful failure to comply” with a court order to turn over the documents.

The appellate judges also ruled that Perez and Badgley could still be held as parties to the lawsuit, and thus liable for damages. The two had been dismissed from personal liability during the two earlier civil trials.

The city has 20 days to petition the appellate court to review Tuesday’s decision, or appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.

The city’s attorney, Patrick McMahon, said city officials have not yet reviewed the decision or decided how to proceed.

“At this stage we don’t agree with the decision,” he said. “But we’ll sit down and see what’s the appropriate action to take.”

Asked whether he thought the city might try to settle the case out of court before another trial could begin, Firkins said, “We haven’t had terrific luck in that regard, so we don’t hold out any hope of that happening.”

The 1994-95 investigations led to the felony convictions of 25 people in Wenatchee and East Wenatchee. Since then, 18 people have had their convictions overturned or accepted plea bargains to lesser charges. Four served out their sentences and three received suspended sentences.

Roberson, his wife, Sims, and Rodriguez were never convicted of any sex crimes.

Michelle Partridge can be reached at 664-7152 or by e-mail at partridge@...

 

 

 


 

Sex-

 
J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
Contribute to J.A.I.L. at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
See our active flash, http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm
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@...
E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
 
"..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    <><

#843 From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Aug 14, 2004 1:43 pm
Subject: **Great Day For Property Rights**
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                           August 14, 2004
 
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L. 
                          FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
 
Great Day For Property Rights
Eminent Domain Abuse Halted
 
From: "Julie Smithson" <propertyrights@...>
July 31, 2004
Landmark Eminent Domain Abuse Decision [UNANIMOUS!] - Michigan Supreme Court Halts Eminent Domain For "Economic Development": Court States Poletown Was "Erroneous"
"We overrule Poletown," the Court wrote, "in order to vindicate our constitution, protect the people's property rights and preserve the legitimacy of the judicial branch as the expositor, not creator, of fundamental law."

Justice Robert Young [Jr.], who wrote the lead opinion, called the 1981 case allowing Detroit's Poletown neighborhood to be cleared for a GM plant a "radical departure from fundamental constitutional principles."

"It was a terrible mistake. Now, the Michigan Supreme Court has restored the rights of all Michiganders to keep their homes and businesses, even if another, politically connected private business wants them. This is a great day for property rights nationwide."

July 31, 2004
By John Kramer
The Institute for Justice
http://www.IJ.org

Washington, D.C. - In a case with nationwide implications to halt the abuse of eminent domain, the Michigan Supreme Court last night reversed its infamous Poletown decision, which had allowed the condemnation of private property for so-called "economic development."

In a unanimous decision in County of Wayne v. Hathcock, issued at 9:30 p.m. on Friday, July 30, the Court decisively rejected the notion that "a private entity's pursuit of profit was a 'public use' for constitutional takings purposes simply because one entity's profit maximization contributed to the health of the general economy."

In the 1981 Poletown decision, the Michigan Supreme Court allowed the City of Detroit to bulldoze an entire neighborhood, complete with more than 1,000 residences, 600 businesses, and numerous churches, in order to give the property to General Motors for an auto plant.

That case set the precedent, both in Michigan and across the country, for widespread abuse of the power of eminent domain.

It sent the signal that courts would not interfere, no matter how private the purpose of the taking.

But in Hathcock, the Court called Poletown a "radical departure from fundamental constitutional principles."

"We overrule Poletown," the Court wrote, "in order to vindicate our constitution, protect the people's property rights and preserve the legitimacy of the judicial branch as the expositor, not creator, of fundamental law."

According to Dana Berliner, an attorney with the Institute for Justice http://www.ij.org, which filed a brief in the Hathcock case, the case has profound nationwide implications.

"Poletown was the first major case allowing condemnation of areas in the name of jobs and taxes. It is cited in every property textbook in the country. The Court literally rewrote the book with this decision," said Berliner.

The use of eminent domain for private development has become increasingly common throughout the United States. According to Public Power, Private Gain, authored by Berliner, there were 10,000 properties either taken or threatened with eminent domain for private parties in the U.S. between 1998 and 2002.

And state supreme courts from Nevada to Connecticut have relied on the Poletown decision when upholding the condemnation of land for private parties.

"The Court made an exception in Poletown because of the supposedly enormous benefits of the General Motors plant," said Berliner. "Instead, the exception swallowed the rule."

The application of Poletown in Michigan produced disastrous results.

Michigan courts tended to forbid small condemnations for private parties, but when the city and developer claimed the project would have a significant economic impact, lower courts upheld the takings.

"Poletown gave cities and developers an incentive to make outrageous, wildly inflated predictions [regarding] the impact of the project," explained Scott Bullock, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice.

"It was the worst possible incentive. The Poletown project itself also didn't come close to living up to the promises. In all likelihood, it destroyed more jobs than it created."

The Michigan Supreme Court also decided another important eminent domain case, although one that has received less attention.
In Detroit Wayne County Stadium Authority v. Alibri, the Stadium Authority told Frida Alibri it would condemn her property if she didn't sell "voluntarily."

It promised, among other things, that it would not be given to a private party. After the sale, it was indeed transferred to a private corporation.

At that point, Alibri sought to get her property back, because the Stadium Authority didn't have the power to condemn for that purpose, and it had told her that the purpose was not transfer to a private party.

The trial court agreed with Alibri; the appellate court, however, agreed with the Stadium Authority.

The Michigan Supreme Court returned the property to its rightful owner -- Mrs. Alibri.

"Most people end up selling under threat of eminent domain, rather than spend years in court fighting it, so these two decisions truly prevent the government from taking property for private parties," according to Berliner.

"The government can't convince people to sell by telling them their property will be used for a public use, then turn around and transfer it to a private party."

"The Poletown decision gave cities the green light to take property for private parties," said Chip Mellor, president and general counsel of the Institute for Justice.

"It was a terrible mistake. Now, the Michigan Supreme Court has restored the rights of all Michiganders to keep their homes and businesses, even if another, politically connected private business wants them. This is a great day for property rights nationwide."

The Institute for Justice and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy filed a friend of the court brief in the Hathcock case -- co-authored by George Mason Law School professor Ilya Somin and Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Dana Berlinner -- discussing the disastrous effects of the Poletown decision in Michigan and the country, as well as the failure of the Poletown project to live up to its promises.

The Institute for Justice also filed a friend of the court brief in the Alibri case.

The Hathcock decision is available at:
http://courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt/Clerk/Opinions-03-04-Term/124070.pdf

Additional, related reading:

Front Row, Left to Right: Justice Robert P. Young, Chief Justice Maura D. Corrigan, Justice Stephen J. Markman

Back Row, Left to Right: Justice Marilyn Kelly, Justice Michael F. Cavanagh, Justice Clifford W. Taylor, Justice Elizabeth A. Weaver
http://courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt/graphics/MSCBench-web.jpg

Michigan Supreme Court
P.O. Box 30052
Lansing, Michigan 48909

Chief Justice's Office: 517-373-0126
Clerk's Office: 517-373-0120
http://www.courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt 

Biography of Justice Robert P. Young, Jr.
http://courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt/graphics/young.jpg

Justice Young, of Detroit, received a bachelor’s degree and graduated cum laude from Harvard College in 1974, and a Juris Doctorate from Harvard Law School in 1977. He practiced law for 15 years with the law firm of Dickinson, Wright, Moon, Van Dusen & Freeman, then in 1992 was named vice president, corporate secretary and general counsel of AAA Michigan. He has served as a member of the Michigan Civil Service Commission and the Central Michigan University Board of Trustees. Justice Young was appointed to the Michigan Court of Appeals, 1st District, in 1995 and elected to the court in 1996. He was appointed to the Michigan Supreme Court by Governor Engler, effective January 3, 1999, to fill the seat vacated by Chief Justice Conrad L. Mallett, Jr. In 2000, he was elected to complete the term, which expired January 1, 2003. He was reelected in 2002. Justice Young's term expires January 1, 2011.

http://courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt/AboutCourt/biography.htm

=====

Poletown seizures are ruled unlawful - [Michigan] State Supreme Court restricts government rights to take land

July 31, 2004
By John Gallagher, [Detroit] Free Press Business Writer
gallagher@... or 313-222-5173
Detroit Free Press
Detroit, Michigan
http://www.freep.com

To submit a Letter to the Editor: letters@... 

Reversing more than two decades of land-use law, the Michigan Supreme Court late Friday overturned its own landmark 1981 Poletown decision and sharply restricted governments such as Detroit and Wayne County from seizing private land to give to other private users.

The unanimous decision is a decisive victory for property owners who object to the government seizing their land, only to give it to another private owner to build stadiums, theaters, factories, housing subdivisions and other economic development projects the government deems worthwhile.

Detroit and other municipalities have used the Poletown standard for years to justify land seizures as a way to 'revitalize'.

In the decision, the court rejected Wayne County's attempt to seize private land south of Metro Airport for its proposed Pinnacle Aeropark high-technology park.

The Pinnacle project, announced in 1999, is geared to making Wayne County a hub of international high-tech development linked to the airport.
Backers of the Poletown standard warned that Friday's decision could be a "significant blow" to revitalization efforts in blighted cities like Detroit.

John Mogk, a professor of land-use law at Wayne State University, said Detroit needs to use its powers, known as eminent domain, to seize land to clear large tracts for new economic development, including retail centers, office parks and residential projects.

John Mogk
http://www.habitatdetroit.org/what/jcwp2005/images/martaezjcwp1mod.jpg

"Any limitation on the power of eminent domain will reduce the chances of the city accomplishing those kind of projects," Mogk said. "No other city with which Detroit competes has such limitations placed upon its ability to acquire tracts of land for future development."

In the original Poletown ruling, the court allowed the City of Detroit to seize private homes and businesses on the east side so General Motors Corp. could build an auto factory.

The bitterly-contested seizures and the court's ruling in favor of the city had national implications and led to similar rulings elsewhere.

Thousands of homes and dozens of churches and private businesses were bulldozed in Detroit's former Poletown neighborhood to make way for the GM plant.

Of 1,300 acres needed for Wayne County's Pinnacle project, property owners representing about 2 percent of the land have refused to sell.

They have resisted, in part, because much of the project would later be turned over to private developers and other entities.

In Friday's decision, known as Wayne County v. Hathcock after one of the landowners in the case, the court ruled that the sweeping powers to seize private land granted in the 1981 Poletown case violated the state's 1963 constitution.

"The county is without constitutional authority to condemn the properties," the court's opinion read.

All seven justices voted to overturn Poletown, although three dissented over some technical aspects that do not affect the main ruling.

Justice Robert Young, who wrote the lead opinion, called the 1981 case allowing Detroit's Poletown neighborhood to be cleared for a GM plant a "radical departure from fundamental constitutional principles."

"We overrule Poletown," Young wrote, "in order to vindicate our constitution, protect the people's property rights and preserve the legitimacy of the judicial branch as the expositor, not creator, of fundamental law."

Alan Ackerman, one of the attorneys who represented landowners in the case, said he was "elated at the recognition that it is a government of limited powers. The Constitution did not contemplate that the government would do everything for everybody."

But a spokesman for Wayne County Executive Robert Ficano issued a statement saying that "the Michigan Supreme Court's decision to change Michigan law and divest municipalities from their ability to create jobs for their citizens is a disappointment not only for Wayne County, but for all of the Michigan communities struggling to address these difficult economic times."

The court said its ruling covers any condemnation cases now being heard before lower courts in which Poletown issues have been raised.

The former owners of Poletown properties that were seized to clear land for the GM plant are not affected by the decision.

The decision won't stop all uses of eminent domain.

All sides agreed [that] governments can still take private land for traditional uses such as slum clearance or for a private use deemed essential to the public good, such as to build a regulated public utility.

And the government's ability to seize land for governmental purposes such as building schools and roads was never in question.

What the decision [means] is that the cost of land just went up for municipalities trying to accomplish economic development.

Now that governments can no longer use the threat of seizure, private owners and speculators could demand higher prices to get out of the way of projects that government leaders deem essential.

http://www.freep.com/news/mich/land31_20040731.htm
 
Sent to J.A.I.L. by Spence Kerrigan kc5ezp@...  Thank you.


J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
Contribute to J.A.I.L. at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
See our active flash, http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm
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@...
E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
 
"..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    <><



#844 From: "jail4judges" <jail4judges@...>
Date: Tue Sep 14, 2004 6:40 am
Subject: * * Engaging The Judiciary of South Dakota * *
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                          September 13, 2004


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


Engaging The Judiciary of South Dakota

 

It seems as though government periodically seeks to test the gullibility and stupidity of the public to see how far government can go. All they have to do is give their cause some well-sounding title, accompanied by telling the public that the particular act offered to them is good for them. For instance, who could find themselves in opposition to 'The U.S. Patriot Act." After all, it's for your safety!

 

So, what is the government trying to promote this time in the name of being good to us? Ah, yes -- this time it is the benefits of our voting away our right to vote in South Dakota. After all, aren't you "sick and tired" of all them political ads, and those counter-attacks in which candidates expose each other. No problem. The South Dakota Legislature proposes Amendment A sparing the South Dakotans the burden of having to go to the polls to vote on their favorite candidate -- at least as far as judges are concerned. While they make this opportunity look as sweet as honey, it is full of stingers, those being namely distancing accountability further from the people. But that's okay, the people won't catch on. (5% of the people make things happen, 15% watch things happen, and 80% don't know what's happening.)

 

First off, judges, as it is now, are the only branch of government in South Dakota that must face the voters every eight years. Not even the governor of the state, nor the legislators can enjoy distancing themselves from the voters for eight years. And consider by way of comparison, the President of the United States faces the voters every four years, a Congressman every two years, and U.S. Senators every six years.

 

Has it ever dawned upon you that it is always the judges who hold all the cards in government -- namely judicial immunity, unaccountability to inquisition, highest order of privacy, greatest distance from the public, voter obscurity, etc., etc.? Is this just a coincidence? Absolutely not, it is planned this way! This is because it is the judges who control the entire direction of society against the people, and who defend all arbitrary government actions, and who keeps things just the way they are. It is the judges who are the ballast of all corruption in government. What is a ship without a ballast? It would otherwise face being tossed to and fro, and in strong diverse wind, may even sink the ship.

 

To help sweeten the pottage of Amendment A, we are told in the Rapid City Journal article below that the recommendations for judges will be performed by a bipartisan Judicial Qualifications Commission. If you really believe this Judicial Qualifications Commission is bipartisan, I have some ocean-front property to sell you South Dakota. These type commissions exist in all fifty states, and are known, without exception, to be very political. Their unofficial "duty" is to cover for complaints against all corrupt judges within the state, but to keep the judges from crossing over the line of becoming an overwhelming public embarrassment to the judicial profession. After all, one can only dilute the milk so much before the public realizes they are purchasing watered milk.

 

Further, the Rapid City article states: "A cynical electorate expects some politicians are going to wallow in the mud and try to deceive them. But what would be the effect if judges were to behave similarly?"  God forbid that we should have sunshine illuminating the judges! All vermin tend to flourish in darkness, under rocks and out of sight.

 

J.A.I.L., which stands for Judicial Accountability Initiative Law, is planned to be placed on the South Dakota ballot for 2006. This measure will place the focus upon accountability of the judges of South Dakota, and will hold judges to their Oaths of Office to protect and defend both the Constitution of the United States and of the State of South Dakota, and to honor all laws in pursuance thereof. It will deter judicial activism (laws issued from the bench), and all political influence. Judges will no longer be able to comfortably cover for government corruption, and the people will start to see the restoration of their rights like they have never seen before.

 

J.A.I.L. will restore the sense of justice to all, and reduce the dependence upon attorneys in litigation before judges. People will feel more free to produce and prosper for their own benefit and for that of their children and their children's children. More resources will be left over to spend upon one's own interests because accountability will reduce the size of government. There will be no downside to J.A.I.L.  If you care to get involved in the judicial accountability effort in South Dakota, we ask that you contact the following; State Senator Bill Napoli at (605) 348-7373, Ward 2 Alderman Sam Kooiker at skooiker@..., and Bill Stegmeier, South Dakota JIC, at rmsroll@....      

Ron Branson

 

 

http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2004/09/12/news/opinion/top/opin01.txt

 

The Rapid City Journal.com 

 

Amendment A protects courts

By The Journal Editorial Board

 

At some point, most people become sick and tired of political ads - especially those that attack an opponent. You know, "Sen. So-And-So's a crook." A cynical electorate expects some politicians are going to wallow in the mud and try to deceive them. But what would be the effect if judges were to behave similarly?

 

In South Dakota, circuit court judges face an election every eight years. Some circuit court judges win their spot in an election, but usually they are appointed by the governor following a vacancy. The elections of judges has been in place since 1921. In 1972, a constitutional amendment created the Unified Judicial System; another amendment in 1980 adopted merit selection for Supreme Court justices and interim appointments to the circuit court. Supreme Court justices face a retention election every eight years (voters cast yes or no votes on retention), while circuit court judges, whether appointed or elected, can face an opponent in a judicial election every eight years, although only about 20 percent of judges are opposed.

Now, thanks to recent U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Appeals Court decisions, the judicial landscape has changed.

 

Our system of judicial elections has worked because candidates must adhere to the South Dakota Code of Judicial Conduct during elections. Judicial candidates cannot directly solicit campaign contributions - not even knowing who has contributed - nor can they make campaign promises (e.g., "Every DUI will get the maximum sentence").

 

Our tradition of nonpartisan judicial elections may be finished after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Minnesota's canon of ethics for judicial elections in 2002 (Minnesota vs. White).

 

In response, and in an effort to keep money and special interests from influencing the judiciary, the Legislature has placed Amendment A on the 2004 ballot that would make circuit court judges subject to the same rules as Supreme Court justices. Under the amendment, applicants for circuit court vacancies would be reviewed by a seven-member, bipartisan Judicial Qualifications Commission, which would forward two or more candidates based on the merits of their qualifications to the governor, who would appoint one. This is the same process that exists now for filling Supreme Court and circuit court vacancies and is how about three-quarters of the state's 38 circuit court judges got their jobs. The amendment eliminates elections for circuit court judges, who would face instead a retention election every eight years, like Supreme Court justices. The more open the candidate review process and appointment process is, the better the public will be served.

 

7th Circuit Court Judge Janine Kern told the Journal editorial board that Minnesota vs. White inevitably will weaken an impartial judiciary and lead to judges participating in the type of electioneering that often besmirches politicians. 8th Circuit Court Judge Jerry Eckrich, who defeated a sitting judge to win his position, agreed, saying partisan judicial elections unrestrained by a canon of ethics will erode the public's respect for the courts. "Our judiciary works because the public has respect for the rule of law," he said.

 

South Dakota is one of 33 states that use merit selection for all or part of their court systems. In those states where unrestricted elections decide who sits on the bench, political ads have been used to accuse judges of corruption for accepting campaign donations, and judicial candidates are allowed to announce how they'll rule in certain type of criminal cases or accuse their opponent of making poor sentencing decisions. Without ethics rules to prevent the practice, a judge could pressure a law firm to contribute to his re-election campaign. Retention elections won't prevent groups or individuals from campaigning against a particular judge, but they also won't be able to handpick a judge to shower their money on in an election contest.

 

Opponents of the measure say it takes away the right of citizens to elect a judge. Amendment A, however, would allow voters to reject incompetent or unpopular judges through the retention process.

 

Amendment A protects our courts by requiring merit selection of judicial candidates - which is how most judges are chosen now - and allowing voters to vote yes or no in a retention election every eight years. South Dakota has altered its judiciary from time to time in its past. We believe Amendment A introduces changes that will ensure that South Dakota's court system remains independent, nonpartisan and respected.


Copyright © 2004 The Rapid City Journal
Rapid City, SD


J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
Contribute to J.A.I.L. at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
See our active flash, http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm
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@...
E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
 
"..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    <><
 
 

#845 From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed Sep 15, 2004 4:48 am
Subject: Let's Get Behind the Anti-Amendment A Campaign in South Dakota
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                     September 14, 2004
 
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L. 
                          FAQs                    What?MeWarden?

 
Let's Get Behind the Anti-Amendment A Campaign in South Dakota
 
Bill Stegmeier, (rmsroll@...) the South Dakota JAILer-In-Chief, is rolling up his sleeves to pitch in for the Anti-Amendment A effort in South Dakota. It proposes the appointment of judges by the governor, and takes away the voters' right to elect judges. We must do everything we can to see that Amendment A is defeated this November. The below is presented by Bill and explains the entire issue. If anyone will go the extra mile for a cause, Bill Stegmeier will! This will be a great springboard for the South Dakota J.A.I.L. campaign next year. Let Bill know what you can do.
 
Origin of Amendment A and the new Pro/Con/ Voter Pamphlet

Friends:
 
I just received the following from Bob Newland here in South Dakota, ...  It spells out the origin of the proposed Amendment A.  Just as we suspected, Lawyers.  Lawyers infatuated over Judges!  Infatuated "Officers of the Court"!  Long live the Judges, right boys?  
 
Begin origin of "The South Dakota Judiciary Protection Act of  2004" ...er, I mean "Merit Selection of Circuit Court Judges Amendment."  ....
 
I listened to the testimony given in the legislature in 2003. It's
available online at
http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2003/HJR1003.htm
(click the winged icons in the right column).
House Joint Resolution 1003 (2003 Session) was sponsored by--
Representatives Michels, Cradduck, Cutler, Engels, Frost, Garnos,
Gillespie, Hanson, Hargens, Hennies, Hunhoff, Juhnke, Kroger, Lange,
LaRue, Madsen, McCaulley, McCoy, Murschel, Nesselhuf, O'Brien, Olson (Mel), Pederson (Gordon), Peterson (Bill), Peterson (Jim), Rhoden, Rounds, Sebert, Solum, Teupel, Van Norman, and Wick and Senators Bogue, Abdallah, Albers, Brown, de Hueck, Dempster, Diedrich (Larry), Duniphan, Duxbury, Earley, Jaspers, Knudson, Koetzle, Kooistra, McCracken, Moore, Olson (Ed), Reedy, Sutton (Dan), Symens, and Vitter

HJR1003 was overwhelmingly passed by the legislature (7 nays in the
Senate, none in House). The bill put a proposed amendment to Art. V Sec. 7 of the SD constitution on the ballot for 2004.

Art. 5 Sec. 7 currently reads...

§ 7.   Judicial selection.
Circuit court judges shall be elected in a nonpolitical election by the
electorate of the circuit each represents for an eight-year term.
      A vacancy, as defined by law, in the office of a Supreme Court
justice or circuit court judge, shall be filled by appointment of the
Governor from one of two or more persons nominated by the judicial
qualifications commission. The appointment to fill a vacancy of a
circuit court judge shall be for the balance of the unexpired term; and
the appointment to fill a vacancy of a Supreme Court justice shall be
subject to approval or rejection as hereinafter set forth.
      Retention of each Supreme Court justice shall, in the manner
provided by law, be subject to approval or rejection on a nonpolitical
ballot at the first general election following the expiration of three
years from the date of his appointment. Thereafter, each Supreme Court
justice shall be subject to approval or rejection in like manner every
eighth year. All incumbent Supreme Court justices at the time of the
effective date of this amendment shall be subject to a retention
election in the general election in the year in which their respective
existing terms expire.
---------------------------------------------------

If the voters elect to adopt the proposed changes in November, this is
how the section will read.

§ 7.   Judicial selection.
A vacancy, as defined by law, in the office of a Supreme Court justice
or circuit court judge, shall be filled by appointment of the Governor
from one of two or more persons nominated by the judicial qualifications
commission. The appointment to fill a vacancy of a Supreme Court justice or a circuit court judge shall be subject to approval or rejection as
hereinafter set forth.
      Retention of each Supreme Court justice or circuit court judge
shall, in the manner provided by law, be subject to approval or rejection on a nonpolitical ballot at the first general election following the expiration of three years from the date of his appointment. Thereafter, each Supreme Court justice and circuit court judge shall be subject to approval or rejection in like manner every eighth year. All incumbent Supreme Court justices and circuit court judges at the time of the effective date of this amendment shall be subject to a retention election in the general election in the year in which their respective existing terms expire. Each Supreme Court justice shall be subject to a statewide retention election and each circuit court judge shall be subject to a retention election by the electorate
of the circuit the judge represents.
==============================

In a nutshell, the amendment would remove running for office directly as
an option for an aspirant to a judgeship. He/she would have to apply for
the position whenever a vacancy occurs, then undergo a background check performed by the Judicial Qualifications Committee (JQC) and the Div. of Crim. Investigation (DCI), and be submitted by the JQC to the governor on a list of at least three names. The governor can choose one applicant or reject all on the list. If he rejects all, the JQC repeats its procedure.

Instead of facing opponents (who might point out to the voters good
reasons to not re-elect an incumbent), judicial appointees would only
have to face retention votes (no opponent) every eight years. If one
were to be removed by the voters, he/she would be replaced by another
appointee.
==============================

In House State Affairs, where testimony was first taken on the bill, the
following people testified in favor of putting the issue on the ballot.
Rep. Matt Michels;
Steve Zinter, Supreme Court Judge;
Curt Jones, Judicial Qualifications Committee, Britton;
Mike Braley, Judicial Qualifications Committee, Parkston;
Brent Wilbur, Governor's Office;
Thomas Barnett Jr., State Bar Of SD

Pretty much the same people appeared as proponents in Senate State Affairs.
 
Proponents' arguments were centered around a couple of political TV ads run in Ohio and Illinois from a recent election. The ads featured
attacks on judicial candidates for having taken large sums of campaign
money from lawyers, insurance companies, etc.

Proponents testified that recent Supreme Court decisions have gutted the
Canon of Judicial Ethics in So. Dak., allowing candidates for judgeships
to make statements regarding how they would rule on certain matters of
law in case that could very well reach their courtrooms. They would also
be allowed to solicit campaign money.

All proponents stated that this had not been a problem in So. Dak., but
that it probably would be, given the Supreme Court rulings, and given
that all circuit judges in the state are up for re-election in 2006.

Proponents praised the level of quality of the background checks and the
process of the JQC, which has recommended SD Supreme Court justice
nominees to the governor since 1979. "That process has worked really
well," they said.

No opponents testified at any step along the legislative process.

That, I believe is a pretty good summary of what's happened so far.
=============================

Our group, the Citizens for Open Government (COG, until we come up with a better name, I guess), believes that the proposed amendment reduces, removes, the voters' influence over one leg of government; further, it removes the "advise and consent" options from both the legislature and the people with regard to that leg of government.
For me, personally, this issue presents a choice similar to, "Would I
like to have you chop off my right index finger, or my left?"

On one hand, the current system sucks. Almost nobody knows what judges do. Fewer know why. Most voters couldn't name a local judge. Most voters wouldn't recognize a constitutional violation if they searched their underwear drawer (which happens regularly). Most SD judges seem not to be able to recognize them, either.

On the other hand, passage of "A" would mean that the People of So. Dak. have lost forever their ability to affect the direction their courts
take. They will have given it to a group of about ten people, who are at
least as subject to the temptations of special interest groups as are
those they are trying to shield from those temptations.

That having been said, I think it's better to know your local elected
judge is in the pockets of the insurance lawyers, than to simply suspect
it about the members of the JQC, the State Bar, and the governor.
 
End origin of Amendment A article.
 
And now, visit the following link to read the much awaited Amendment A Pro/Con arguments, which by law, must be made available to the voters.
 
 
On a sad note, I see my "friend" Greg Belfrage of talk radio KELO AM here in Sioux Falls has so far chosen to remain silent on Amendment A.  I really thought he'd hammer this one.  Do you suppose Greg sought out advice from his lawyer/legislator chums at the state capitol who may have advised Greg to lay low on this one?  Well, maybe it's time to put a little healthy shame on Greg.  From here on out, anything I say or write about Amendment A will mention Greg's timidness.  Hey, even if he agrees with the Pharisees, he should still open the issue up to discussion on his show, not crawl into a hole and hope the issue fades away.  What say you Greg?
 
But even more sad is that even the local liberal rag "The Argus Liar", (oops, I meant to say Leader, Argus Leader) whose motto should be "All the news that fits our liberal bias is fit to print", also has no opinion on the proposed Amendment A.  Well what a surprise!  
 
It appears to me, at least at the present time, the only way to raise awareness to this blatant power grab may very well be by taking it directly to the street. 
 
We will need yard signs, car window signs, and paid spots in the newspapers. We will need to put up flyers at every bulletin board in every town, including the local grain elevators and coffee shops, Get n'Go's, Gas Stops, Food N Fuel and what have you. Time to crank out letters to the Editors.  Let's hit every possible SD paper.  Repeatedly.
 
Time to spread the word "Vote No on Amendment A" wherever we go, including church. Print up business cards explaining what the lawyers and judges are up to.  (pass these cards out like they were candy.  Get your friends to pass them out.  Leave a few laying on counters, restaurant tables, and anywhere else you can think of.
 
We need more judicial accountability, not less.  We The Citizens, We The People.... MUST NOT LOSE our say in who sits in judgment of us.
 
I myself have three large company trucks.  These trucks will be movable billboards, displaying  professionally made signs around Sioux Falls and the surrounding area.  Anywhere there is something going on, people will see my "Stop the Judicial Power Grabbers.  Vote No on Amendment A" signs.
 
Even a mini-van can be used as a mobile billboard.  How 'bout all those pickups.  A 4'x8" piece of plywood, painted on both sides and supported upright in the back of your pickup works great as a mobile billboard.
 
And, we need a web site so people can get more info on why Amendment A stinks. Anyone up to it?  I would, but I am between webmasters.
 
Please pass this around.  Let's brainstorm.  Screw the establishment media.  We can do this without them.
 
Let's get busy.
Bill Stegmeier
(South Dakota J.I.C.)
 
 
Bill corresponds to Sam Kooiker, S.D. Alderman
 
Let the judges' oily hides cure in the sunshine of voter scrutiny!
 
Sam,
 
....
What the hay, I'll just forward this email to Greg (Belfrage)! [talk show host]   (Come on Greg, if you ARE for Amendment A, which is fine, why not convince your audience of it's merits?  p.s Greg, your "Daily Download" http://www.keloam.com/shows.php?show=afternoon is over a week old.  Great time to update it with a discussion of Amendment A, don't you think? )
 
With the Rapid City Journal coming out in favor of Amendment A, the Argus sure to follow, and with the almost unanimous support in the Good ol' Boy's Club legislature, I think we can now see what's going on here.  The judges don't want a no-holds-barred campaign environment.  Amendment A would avoid that, and as an added bonus give the incumbents an extra layer of immunity from the unwashed. 
 
One must also keep in mind, the judge's troopie-dupes, the lawyers, (legislators) are all "officers of the court".  Sure, they come on to the public like they are independent and care only for their clients' well being, but the fact of the matter is they must lick the judges' feet or they are out of a job. The voters matter little to these lawyer slimeballs. If the judges want to be appointed instead of elected, then that will be what the lawyers want too. They owe their allegiance to the courts.
 
It's very revealing what the two judges interviewed by the RCJ said about what could happen if Amendment A is not passed. Basically, they admit the likelihood of their  black-robed brothers sinking to their lowest moral denominator if given free reign during their election campaigns! 
 
I say let the games begin. Let the sunlight of voter scrutiny warm their oily hides. They are worried that certain members of their profession will not be able to control their lust for judicial control, and without Amendment A will resort to finger pointing to gain votes.  
 
"Well, we can't have that sort of behavior from such an esteemed institution as the Judiciary, can we?  My God, one lawyer stabbing another in the back,  just to get elected?  How will we maintain the public's unquestioning respect once they see us for who we are?  We must at any cost protect our phony baloney public perception of "Justice for All."
 
Ri-i-ight.
 
I for one enjoy finger pointing.  So let them expose each other.  Then let the people decide at the ballot box.
 
Bill


J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
Contribute to J.A.I.L. at P.O. Box 207, North Hollywood, CA 91603
See our active flash, http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm
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@...
E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
 
"..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    <><

 

#846 From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:34 am
Subject: * *We Must Focus On SPECIFIC Lawyers, i.e., JUDGES* *
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                     September 15, 2004
 
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?

 
We Must Focus On SPECIFIC Lawyers, i.e., On JUDGES
 
The below article sent to our Legal Discussions Group by JOSEPHN126@... is excellent-- except for one vital factor: IT LACKS FOCUS!  We quote in our J.A.I.L. signature:  "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."  -- Henry David Thoreau.  The entire profession of "Lawyers" represents many BRANCHES of evil. Every aspect of life involves lawyers as advisors and/or legal representatives. While there are many BRANCHES of evil, there is only one ROOT from which all branches 
flourish. That one ROOT consists of one specific sect of lawyers, and that is the judiciary. Folks, that is where the People must set their focus if we are to accomplish any control over our tyrannical, unconstitutional form of government as it currently operates.  
 
Taking on all lawyers is like taking on government itself. It's too broad a field to challenge and in attempting to do so, our resources become diffused and depleted with no resolution accomplished. Rather, we have to limit our focus on the source of evil in government-- not on the entire scope of it. Track every aspect of government corruption (wrongdoing) to its ultimate source of authority. Where does the buck (pardon the pun) stop? Where does everything in controversy-- you name it-- end up?  Think, People, THINK!  Where is the end of the line-- the final backstop-- as far as redress of grievances goes? What do people say whenever they run into an unsolvable predicament--  whatever it is?  Yes, "We'll have to take it to court!" --as if court were the ultimate resolution to all controversies! Well, IS IT?? 
 
Picture a funnel, where all government alleged wrongdoing is dumped into. The top of the funnel is a wide, gaping opening to take in all claims and allegations of wrongdoing, all of which allegations and defenses are mixed in with lawyers of all kinds. They are all eventually sucked into the narrow bottom of the funnel leading to the ultimate destination-- yes, the courts where only one sect of lawyer controls-- JUDGES (including hearing officers, commissioners, magistrates, arbitrators, referees, etc. --anyone sitting in judgment of a case). And that destination includes the entire judicial system, from administrative hearings, to supposed courts "of law," to courts "in equity," to appellate courts, to state supreme courts, and to the U.S. supreme court-- whatever they may be called: admiralty courts, law merchant courts, Article I courts, Article III courts --the whole enchilada. That's where they all end up. The judicial process churns and chews it all up until the case finally, after often many years and much expense (yes-- to the various and sundry scope of lawyers), the final level of JUDGE control is reached, exhausting the process. After all the JUDGES have had their chance at chewing, where does the case go after that when it is still left without a lawful conclusion, without due process?
 
Well, under our present system of "dispute resolution," THAT'S IT!  The "Final Judgment Rule" says that a final decision is eventually reached, and after that it's "res judicata" --the subject matter cannot be adjudicated further. That would make sense in an honest judicial system. However, in our system, whenever judges don't want to be bothered with a case, any ruling they make at that point is considered a "decision" --whether or not due process is given, material facts of the case addressed, the applicable law to those facts addressed, proper court rules applied, proper procedures allowed and followed, etc. The merits (substance) of the case need not be reached under the current system for there to be a "decision" as appellate and federal courts now rule. Judges call judicial rulings of lower courts "decisions" in order to fraudulently place the taint of "finality" to the case-- such as the common judicial abuse of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine which states that a litigant may not bring a state court DECISION to federal court for further adjudication. Then the appellate JUDGES simply rubber-stamp that closeout, regardless of the fact that the merits of the case were never reached due to lack of due process. But that's the end of the line! What lawyers are responsible for that?  --only the JUDGES-- they make the final ruling and bang the gavel, "Case Dismissed!  -- Next..."  You're left high and dry, without redress! That's it!
 
According to the Declaration of Independence, the "end of the line" is the People, not government. However, we failed to include in the Constitution an enforcement provision to specifically allow the following: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce [People's rights] under absolute despotism, it is [the People's] right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. ..."  No provision was spelled out in the Constitution for the People to exercise that DUTY.  J.A.I.L. is now here to offer that provision-- to enforce the Constitution!
 
With that as an "introduction," read the following article which, by and large, is a good article-- but understand, IT LACKS FOCUS. That lack is a vital flaw when considering how to resolve the problem of government corruption.
 
-Barbie-
 

Sent to J.A.I.L. Legal Discussions group by  JOSEPHN126@...
 
Yale Law Professor on Lawyers and Law
With our huge collective personal experience of the similarly situated, we all know that something's rotten in Denmark, big time.

Some of us are beginning to see a clear picture, at least in part, of exactly what is rotten... I'd like to offer just a handful of quotations from Fred Rodell's book Woe Unto You, Lawyers! (New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, 1939) (New York: Pageant Press, 1939) (New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, 1940) (New York: Pageant-Poseidon 1972) (New York: Berkley Pub. Corp., 1980)

Fred Rodell (1907-1980) was a Yale Law Professor for 41 years, and authored many books and articles, among them "55 Men: The Story of the Constitution: Based on the day-by-day notes of James Madison"
(Harrisburg, New York: The Telegraph Press,1936) (Harrisburg, New York: The Telegraph Press, 1975) (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Stackpole Books, 1986) (Costa Mesa, California: Noontide Press, 1986)

Here are the quotations. I hope you'd give them some thought, at your leisure:
-------------------------------------

In TRIBAL TIMES, there were the medicine-men. In the Middle Ages, there were the priests. Today there are the lawyers. For every age, a group of bright boys, learned in their trade and jealous of their learning, who blend technical competence with plain and fancy hocus-pocus to make themselves masters of their fellow men. For every age, a pseudo-intellectual autocracy, guarding the tricks of its trade from the uninitiated, and running, after its own pattern, the civilization of its day.

It is the lawyers who run our civilization for us - our governments, our business, our private lives. Most legislators are lawyers; they make our laws. Most presidents, governors, commissioners, along with their advisers and brain-trusters are lawyers; they administer our laws. All the judges are lawyers; they interpret and enforce our laws. There is no separation of powers where the lawyers are concerned. There is only a concentration of all government power - in the lawyers. As the schoolboy put it, ours is "a government of lawyers, not of men."

It is not the businessmen, no matter how big, who run our economic world. Again it is the lawyers, the lawyers who "advise" and direct every time a company is formed, every time a bond or a share of stock is issued, almost every time material is to be bought or goods to be sold, every time a deal is made. The whole elaborate structure of industry and finance is a lawyer-made house. We all live in it, but the lawyers run it.

And in our private lives, we cannot buy a home or rent an apartment, we cannot get married or try to get divorced, we cannot die and leave our property to our children without calling on the lawyers to guide us. To guide us, incidentally, through a maze of confusing gestures and formalities that lawyers have created.

The legal trade, in short, is nothing but a high-class racket. It is a racket far more lucrative and more powerful and hence more dangerous than any of those minor and much-publicized rackets, such as ambulance-chasing or the regular defense of known criminals, which make up only a tiny part of the law business and against which the respectable members of the bar are always making speeches and taking action.

The legal racket knows no political or social limitations.

Furthermore, the lawyers - or at least 99 44/100 per cent of them - are not even aware that they are indulging in a racket, and would be shocked at the very mention of the idea. Once bitten by the legal bug, they lose all sense of perspective about what they are doing and how they are doing it. Like the medicine men of tribal times and the priests of the Middle Ages they actually believe in their own nonsense. This fact, of course, makes their racket all the more insidious. Consecrated fanatics are always more dangerous than conscious villains. And lawyers are fanatics indeed about the sacredness of the word-magic they call The Law.

Yet the saddest and most insidious fact about the legal racket is that the general public doesn't realize it's a racket either. Scared, befuddled, impressed and ignorant, they take what is fed them, or rather what is sold them. Only once an age do the non-lawyers get, not wise, but disgusted, and rebel. As Harold Laski is fond of putting it, in every revolution the lawyers lead the way to the guillotine or the firing squad.

It should not, however, require a revolution to rid society of lawyer-control. Nor is riddance by revolution ever likely to be a permanent solution. The American colonists had scarcely freed themselves from the nuisances of The Law by practically ostracizing the pre-Revolutionary lawyers out of their communities - a fact which is little appreciated - when a new and home-made crop of lawyers sprang up to take over the affairs of the baby nation. That crop, 150 years later, is still growing in numbers and in power.

What is really needed to put the lawyers in their places and out of the seats of the mighty is no more than a slashing of the veil of dignified mystery that now surrounds and protects The Law. If people could be made to realize how much of the vaunted majesty of The Law is a hoax and how many of the mighty processes of The Law are merely logical legerdemain, they would not long let the lawyers lead them around by the nose. And people have recently begun, bit by bit, to catch on. The great illusion of The Law has been leaking a little at the edges.

Yet it will take a great deal more than a collection of happenings like these to break down, effectively, the superstition of the grandeur of The Law and the hold which that superstition has on the minds of most men. It will take some understanding of the wordy emptiness and irrelevance of the legal process itself. It will take some cold realization that the inconsistencies and absurdities of The Law that occasionally come into the open are not just accidents but commonplaces. It will take some awakening to the fact that training in The Law does not make lawyers wiser than other men, but only smarter.

Perhaps an examination of the lawyers and their Law, set down in ordinary English, might help achieve these ends. For, despite what the lawyers say, it is possible to talk about legal principles and legal reasoning in everyday non-legal language. The point is that, so discussed, the principles and the reasoning and the whole solemn business of The Law come to look downright silly. And perhaps if the ordinary man could see in black and white how silly and irrelevant and unnecessary it all is, he might be persuaded, in a peaceful way, to take the control of his civilization out of the hands of those modern purveyors of streamlined voodoo and chromium-plated theology, the lawyers.

As we point out, this article proposes a lot of theories, but no practical solution.  J.A.I.L. is that solution!

J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
Contribute to J.A.I.L. at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
See our active flash, http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm
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@...
E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
 
"..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    <><

#847 From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Thu Sep 16, 2004 11:47 pm
Subject: * * Implementation of Fully Informed Juries- Possible Only By J.A.I.L. * *
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                     September 16, 2004
 
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L.  
                         FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
Implementation of Fully Informed Juries
Is Possible Only By The Passage of J.A.I.L.
 
Just as the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution are noble and inspiring in what they set forth, so is the below article titled "Why We Need Fully Informed Juries" received by J.A.I.L. from Martin H. Smith, Jr., stjoesapr@..., for which we thank him. It goes right to the heart of Liberty and what this country was meant to be when it was founded. Were that it was so today.
 
Those of us who realize what has happened to this country and to the People over the last 200+ years, mourn over the fact that these beautiful principles established by our Founding Fathers have been usurped by forces of evil that have overtaken what was intended to be our government, established to protect and secure the precious inherent rights of the People. Sadly, what the People have today is not government, but an evil force so powerful, operating under the guise of government, that the People are currently left with no recourse to recover the government protection that was designed when the Constitution was established. This force has overtaken us so stealthily and craftily that most people are not even aware that this terrible theft has happened to them.
 
Read the following article, and weep-- weep over the loss of our precious rights, especially the right to have fully informed juries in our courts. Realize that complaining about it won't help. Petitioning the powers that be --the very ones that usurped our rights-- won't help.
 
The only thing that will help is the People themselves take action: Create an independent means of enforcing the terms of the Constitution; and the only practical and effective way that can be done is by focusing on the judiciary and holding them accountable to the People. The sooner J.A.I.L. is passed, the sooner the People will be made whole. The sooner we will be able to have Fully Informed Juries! 
 
I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.
—Thomas Jefferson, 1789

Today, we need a New Anchor-- and it's called J.A.I.L. The People must "provide new guards [a new anchor] for their future security." (D of I)
 
-Barbie-
ACIC, National J.A.I.L. Administration
 


The first and foremost function of our jurors is to protect private citizens from a tyrannical and intrusive government when expressed through the enforcement of laws that usurp the rights of the people. Jurors protect against tyrannical laws by refusing to convict those being unjustly persecuted by government. Thus did our Founding Fathers plan for the jury to do, and expected that jurors would in fact exercise this power without question. Jurors are the last line of defense for liberty.
--Martin H. Smith, Jr.
 
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2004/aug2004_report_juries_01.htm

Why We Need Fully Informed Juries

The American Jury Institute/ Fully Informed Jury Association (AJI/FIJA) is the national advocate for the right of individuals charged with a “crime” to be tried by a jury that is allowed to hear the “facts” of the case and determine whether the “law” itself is being applied justly. In other words, for government to deprive a citizen of his or her personal liberty, AJI/FIJA insists that a jury must be “fully informed” about all aspects of the case, and not be limited to a narrow, one-sided version presented solely by the prosecutors.

How important are these jury rights? An example of today’s broken jury system was reported recently in California, where the federal government convicted a man of selling marijuana for medical use. The problem with this conviction was that the man was working under the auspices of a new California law that permits the sale of marijuana for medical use. The jurors, however, were forbidden by the judge from learning that this man was conducting his activities in accordance with the new state law and under a license from the City of Oakland.

After the conviction, the media interviewed the jurors, and the jurors were appalled that they had wrongfully convicted someone of a “crime” when the state had specifically authorized the activity in question. This man was convicted because the jury was not allowed to hear the “fact” that this man’s activities were “legal under California law.” The federal prosecutor convinced the judge that the simple “fact” (that California permitted this activity) was not relevant to this case. Yet, according to the jurors, had they been “informed” that this man was operating under the auspices of California’s medical marijuana law, they would not have convicted him.

These kinds of atrocities are occurring every day in criminal courts, where “facts” are being wrongfully denied to jurors, resulting in flawed convictions. Even worse than being deprived of critical “facts,” juries are denied any opportunity to evaluate the merits of the “law.” An egregious example of this kind of unbridled prosecutorial power lies within the thousands of pages of “law” contained in the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. By arbitrarily citing any “law” out of this politically inspired albatross, the FDA can randomly incarcerate virtually anyone who falls under its vast regulatory umbrella. Even individuals who import lower-priced medications from Canada can be criminally prosecuted if the FDA so chooses.

The only barrier to convicting someone of a “bad law” is a fully informed jury. Today’s judges, however, are withholding critical information from juries at the behest of prosecutors. One result of these gross injustices is that there are more people imprisoned per capita in the US than in any other country in the world!

William Penn: Origin of Jury Rights

William Penn was a leader of the Quakers in seventeenth-century London. The sect was not recognized by the English government, which forbade it to meet in any building for the purpose of worship. In 1670, Penn held a worship service that was attended by a peaceful group of fellow Quakers. Penn and another Quaker, William Mead, were arrested on a charge of disturbing the King’s peace and summoned to stand trial.

When brought to court, Penn demanded to know under which law they were being charged. The court refused to supply that information and instead referred vaguely to the common law. When Penn protested that he was entitled to a specific indictment, he was removed from the presence of the judge and jury, and confined in an enclosed corner of the room known as the bale-dock. From there, he could neither confront the witnesses who accused him of preaching to the Quakers nor ask them questions about their charges against him. If convicted, Penn faced execution.

 The judge expected the jury to give the government an unequivocal guilty verdict. When the jury failed to convict Penn of practicing an “illegal religion,” the judge was beside himself. The judge then issued the following edict:

“Gentlemen, you shall not be dismissed until you bring in a verdict which the court will accept. You shall be locked up, without meat, drink, fire and tobacco. You shall not think thus to abuse the court. We will have a verdict by the help of God or you shall starve for it.”

Two days passed. The jury had no food, water, heat, tobacco, or bathroom facilities. Nothing. They did not change their minds.

Nine weeks passed. Conditions at the prison were more than deplorable. Jurors were often soaked in their own urine and smeared with their own feces. Finally, England’s high court became involved. A higher court eventually freed the jurors in response to a writ for habeas corpus. It was the first time that the High Court of Common Pleas had issued such a writ.

Penn’s case, and his jury, changed the law. In the future, jurors would not be required to rubberstamp the agenda of government officials. For the first time, government had encountered jurors whose “liberty was not for sale.”

William Penn never forgot this outrage. When he came to America and founded his colony, his laws became a model of freedom. Immigrants flocked to Pennsylvania. As an example of his approach to government compared to the Crown’s approach, Penn reserved the death penalty for murder and treason. At the time, Britain reserved such punishment for 200 separate offenses.

Penn was especially cognizant of the iniquity of Britain’s draconian laws. By calling religious dissent “sedition,” the British government had set up an enrichment program for itself. Sedition, a serious crime against the Crown, allowed the government to throw thousands of people into prison and seize their land and property. Penn’s wife and her family had lost their family estate through such “legal” shenanigans.

Thanks to William Penn, America’s founders had an exemplary legal model to follow when they wrote the US Constitution. Thanks to the members of Penn’s jury who endured imprisonment, today’s juries can reach a just verdict even when it is not the popular thing to do.

You Could Be the Next Victim

A flagrant example of prosecutorial misconduct occurred in 1995 when the US Postal Service initiated the arrest of a 72-year-old man and a 30-year-old woman who had ordered the supplement dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) from Europe. The postal employees decided that DHEA was illegal to import, even for personal use. They arranged for a local narcotics strike force to set up a sting operation to arrest these two Americans when they came to the post office to pick up their DHEA. The elderly man was handcuffed and forced to sit on the post office steps, where all his neighbors could see him. The young woman was held while her home was searched and her library of health and exercise books seized.

Both victims were members of the Life Extension Foundation and asked us for help. We retained an attorney to document that DHEA is not a controlled substance and had never been so named in the Federal Register. Since DHEA is not contraband, one would think that the charges would have been quickly dropped. The prosecutors, however, were willing only to “reduce” the charges and still wanted to prosecute these innocent people. Only a massive letter-writing campaign by Life Extension members and subscribers to Dr. Julian Whitaker’s newsletter forced the state’s governor to order prosecutors to drop the cases.

Were it not for Life Extension paying an expert attorney and tens of thousands of letters written to the state’s governor, these two people could have faced a jury that would have been told by the prosecutor that DHEA is an illegal substance, that irrefutable evidence shows that these people imported it, and that they should therefore be convicted and sentenced to jail. The jury may never have had the opportunity to learn the “fact” that DHEA is not an illegal substance or that no “law” prohibits its importation. The prosecutor could have censored this information from the jury, and the judge would have ordered the jury to consider only whether sufficient evidence was presented that these two people imported DHEA for their personal use. If the prosecutor proved these people imported the DHEA, then the judge would order the jury to find them “guilty.”

Under today’s flawed system, a prosecutor can present a one-sided story and gain a conviction based on the jury not being fully informed about the facts and not being allowed to judge the merits of the law. Jurors are put into a position whereby judges are ordering them not to consider all the facts or the law, but instead to base their decision on the government’s interpretation of events.

Jury Rights Rooted in US Constitution

The Declaration of Independence defines being deprived of the benefits of trial by jury as absolute tyranny. Having observed the tyranny imposed on Americans when deprived of trial by jury, the Founding Fathers took particular care to ensure this right no less than three times in the Bill of Rights.

The intent of the jury system is to do much more than allow citizens to mete out apt punishment to their neighbors. The jury system particularly provides citizens with the means to protect each other from tyrannical abuses of power by the government.

Thus did the authors of the Declaration of Independence see trial by jury “as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution,” as Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1789.

AJI/FIJA
PO Box 5570
Helena, MT 59604-5570

Websites: www.fija.org and www.americanjuryinstitute.org
Phone: 406-442-7800
Fax: 406-442-9332

[Commentary by Martin H. Smith, Jr.]

Tyranny, no matter under what guise, has no place in an open society or in a country dedicated to the rule of law. The intent of trial by jury is that of a jury’s independence to judge the law as well as the facts in any case. 
Jurors have the absolute power to decide whether the law being applied is a just law, whether it is being properly applied in each case, and whether the defendant should be found innocent because of a bad law. Jurors have the right to understand the sentence that will be imposed by their verdict. The highest and best function of the jury is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking government-authored law, but instead to protect fellow citizens from the tyrannical laws imposed by power-crazed government.

Jurors have both a duty and responsibility to ensure that a just verdict is rendered, and they must take into account the facts of the case, any mitigating circumstances, and the merits of the law and its application in each individual case. They must examine the results of their verdict if they are to administer the law as an instrument of justice and of order. The power and right of jurors to assess the merits of the law was established in England before our Constitution was written.

Jurors, as the representatives of the people and the community, hold no agenda during any trial, and most certainly not the government’s agenda. Let us not forget that the prosecutors, judges, and arresting officers, as well as the forensic investigators in most cases, are all a part of, and paid by, the government, with their personal power bases to build and their personal careers to protect through the “productivity” of successful prosecutions resulting in convictions. Jurors are not at all vested and therefore far less arbitrary.

The first and foremost function of our jurors is to protect private citizens from a tyrannical and intrusive government when expressed through the enforcement of laws that usurp the rights of the people. Jurors protect against tyrannical laws by refusing to convict those being unjustly persecuted by government. Thus did our Founding Fathers plan for the jury to do, and expected that jurors would in fact exercise this power without question. Jurors are the last line of defense for liberty.

In Liberty,
Martin H. Smith, Jr.
stjoesapr@...
stjoesap@...


J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
Contribute to J.A.I.L. at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
See our active flash, http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm
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@...
E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
 
"..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    <><
 

#848 From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Sep 18, 2004 4:08 am
Subject: What Part of "Just Pay Up" Do You Not Understand?
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
 
What Part of "Just Pay Up" Do You Not Understand
 
I have know Marve Bryer for many years. His first contact with me was via the telephone in which he shared with me that he had the goods on all the judges in Los Angeles County involved in an "official" bribery scandal. What he showed me were cancelled checks cashed by judges for such things as jewelry and elite Club memberships, etc., that had come from various attorneys throughout Los Angeles.
 
Marve told me that he was going to the District Attorney with his evidence. I told him that he was not, by any means, to take his original documentation to the D.A. because they would take the evidence and destroy it.
 
Indeed, the D.A. showed himself disposed to cover up for this judicial corruption of bribery. Marve took his evidence also to the City Attorney's Office, and to the newspapers, all showing the same type of indifference.
 
Marve is not one to sit still on his findings. He has caused very much embarrassment to the entire judiciary of both Los Angeles and Orange Counties in California.
 
Now Marve Bryer has received a parking ticket issued within the City of Glendale, an Incorporated and Chartered City. On his ticket he is instructed to send his money to another county some sixty miles away, to another Independent Chartered City at a location with no street address. (I guess he is should be thankful he does not have to send his money blindly out-of-state to a clandestine address.)
 
A little research on his part derives the fact that this P.O. Address is connected with private corporations such the Dallas/Fort Worth Airport and the University of San Francisco. Also he learned that he could wire his money payable to a private Michigan Corporation.
 
Upon inquiry as to what is going on here, he is basically told to just shut up and send his money blindly as he is told.
 
-Ron Branson
 

 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 6:31 AM
Subject: Re: We Must Focus on Specific Lawyers, i.e., on JUDGES

Dear Jail4judges.  Keep up the good work.

I would like to report a traffic ticket scam to you.  It is major. ....
I live in La Crescenta, a town in the City of Glendale. I went to my car and a ticket and an envelope was stuffed into the side of my driver's door.

I looked at the back of the ticket and the instructions were to mail
a payment by check or money order to the Glendale Parking Enforcement Center in
IRVINE to a P.O. Box.

1.  Irvine is in Orange County.
2.  Glendale is in Los Angeles County!
 
....

There was no street address to send the payment to!  I tried to look up the P.O. Box, and I found it was the same P. O. Box
used for MALIBU, ALHAMBRA, the UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO and EVEN DALLAS FORT WORTH AIRPORT!

I located a phone number 1-800-654-PARK.  I called the number on 9-15-2002.  There is a voice recording stating that I reached
the PARKING ENFORCEMENT CENTER.  There was 8 options and if the caller was not pleased with the 8 options, the instructions were to press the ZERO key on the phone.

I pressed zero.  A lady answered and said her name was KATY.  I asked for her last name and she refused to supply her last name.

I asked for her street address.  She said that was confidential.  I asked for her corporation name.  She said that was confidential.  She stated that they handle 300 clients.  She said she was a
customer rep.

I asked to speak to the manager, but the manager was not in.  Instead, I was given a lady who said her name was TINA.  I asked TINA her last name and she said it was "STREET".  Why do I not believe her?  Hmm?

Tina STREET also refused to give her real location and her corporation name!

I also discovered a cited "criminal" can pay by credit card to a corporation called EZPAY.  They turn out to be a MICHIGAN CORPORATION!  They charge about $3.96 per online pleading.  When you pay them they claim they will be the agent for your GUILTY PLEADING!

I called the company and they hung up on me when I asked for their license to do business in the STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

I am also finding records that appear this company handles CASINO BETTING!  Possibly offshore tax haven betting.  I am researching this.

I do not believe these guys can take pleadings in California because they are not registered to do business in California as far as I can tell.  I also want to see their STATE BAR LICENSE.  ....

According to legal information printed on the ticket, it states that a dispute of the ticket can be made within 21 days by taking the dispute to the POLICE STATION.  I went into the station and filed a PUBLIC RECORD ACT (gov code section 6250) to get a copy of the contract between Glendale and Irvine.

I also filed for an administrative hearing.  However, the police handed me a form that is primarily used to claim that the cited person is NOT THE OWNER OF THE CAR.  I drew a line through that legal garbage.  I did not sign their document under penalty of perjury because I am the legal owner ....

I asked for conforming stamped copies of what I filed, and a six-foot, six inch cop ordered me to leave the police station....

Another police officer came at me menacingly and tried to hand me back what I had submitted.  He ordered me to take the documents to the CITY ATTORNEY.  I was warned that I was being taped.  I refused to take back any documents.

I went and filed the same documents with some exceptions at Glendale City Hall.

The old GLENDALE POLICE STATION has been converted into a jail.  The new station is still being worked on.  There are signs outside the building that states loitering will be prosecuted.  These goons are dangerous as hell.

In looking at Malibu, their city has a different method with the same IRVINE secret corporation.... 
 
I believe this is a criminal enterprise that needs to be shut down.  I called EZPAY and spoke to two people including the CHAIRMAN.  He hung up on me.
 

J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
Contribute to J.A.I.L. at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
See our active flash, http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm
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@...
E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
 
"..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    <><


#849 From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Sep 18, 2004 5:27 am
Subject: Hopeful Again
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
 
Hopeful Again
(By Stan Walter - swalt7@...)
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 9:31 AM
Subject: RE: * * Implementation of Fully Informed Juries- Possible Only By J.A.I.L. * *

Ron Branson:

 

Profoundly good work…  proud of what you’re accomplishing!

 

We should have some good news for you folks on turning the press around on this issue shortly (90 days).

 

Either way, the tide has finally begun to turn, we’re going to win thus war (defeat judicial corruption).  Now the problem is to get the right results (not having our movements highjacked – which is always a danger), and, when it comes to mapping the right direction, JAIL is definitely on the right track.

 

Really enjoyed reading the last three emails!   After a long dark decade, it makes my heart dare to be hopeful again…

 

 

Stan

 

(I was the one who contacted you from San Diego about a year and a half ago about the futility of changing laws as a counter to corrupted/criminal judges…  Just got back in touch with JAIL and I’m really proud of what you’ve accomplished since. 

 

Ron… please contact me, we need to open a link – there is a substantial prospect that some really profound breakthroughs are about to happen and we should work hand in hand to guide them.)

 

 


 

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                     September 16, 2004

 

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


Implementation of Fully Informed Juries

Is Possible Only By The Passage of J.A.I.L.

 

.....

#850 From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Sep 18, 2004 8:21 am
Subject: Correction of Miscredit Given in JNJ dated 9/16/04
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
 
AJI/FIJA Has Requested We
Publish The Following
(correction of miscredit unintentionally given in JNJ of 9/16/04 "Implementation of Fully Informed Juries
Is Possible Only By The Passage of J.A.I.L.")
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 1:19 PM
Subject: Commentary attribution

Sirs:
 
The commentary credited to Martin H. Smith in the article concerning FIJA is actually commentary authored by our Director, Iloilo M. Jones, and can be found on both of our web site home pages.  This language is also available by mail in our information packet.  Since all instances of the appearance of this language are signed by our director, there could not have been an "innocent mistake."
 
Please provide accurate and truthful attribution immediately.
 
Sincerely,
For Liberty and Justice for All,
Linda d'Arcy
American Jury Institute/Fully Informed Jury Association
Post Office Box 5570
Helena, Montana 59604
406-442-7800
406-442-9332 FAX
www.fija.org <http://www.fija.org>   web site
fijamail@...    AJI/FIJA email address

Our Apology
 
TO: Linda d'Arcy
American Jury Institute/Fully Informed Jury Association
 
FROM:  Barbie, ACIC National J.A.I.L. Administration
 
J.A.I.L. apologizes, as I do personally, to FIJA Director Iloilo M. Jones,
to Linda d'Arcy of AJI/FIJA, and to our readers for the unintentional miscrediting that was done in our recent J.A.I.L. News Journal dated September 16 regarding Fully Informed Juries which I published because of the excellence and importance of the article.
 
Please be assured that this miscrediting was not done intentionally, and for everyone's convenience, I paste in below the article exactly as we received it in its entire original form, without editing. As can be seen, the only name appearing at the end of the entire article is Martin H. Smith, Jr.  Nowhere does the name "Iloilo M. Jones" appear. At the end of the first portion of the article, printed in Arial style format, appears the following credits:
AJI/FIJA
PO Box 5570
Helena, MT 59604-5570

Websites: www.fija.org and www.americanjuryinstitute.org
Phone: 406-442-7800
Fax: 406-442-9332

which was included in full in our news journal exactly as shown. The second portion, printed in Times New Roman style, appears after the AJI/FIJA credits, and is ended with
===================
In Liberty,

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

following a list of references which I eliminated for purposes of sending out the substance of the original article itself.  However, the only name shown is Mr. Smith's name and his email addresses. The final paragraph, just prior to the listed references (which we eliminated), is the portion that was excerpted and placed at the beginning of our news journal article and credited (or miscredited, as you say) to Martin Smith, since it was his name appearing at the end of the article received by J.A.I.L. (See below).
 
Please accept my sincere apology for my error which was caused as explained above. Mr. Smith's name was the only name appearing.  This unintentional error should not take away from the excellence of the article. 
 
Thank you,
-Barbie

(This is the entire article as J.A.I.L. received it in its original unedited form):
 
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2004/aug2004_report_juries_01.htm


Why We Need Fully Informed Juries



The American Jury Institute/ Fully Informed Jury Association (AJI/FIJA) is the national advocate for the right of individuals charged with a “crime” to be tried by a jury that is allowed to hear the “facts” of the case and determine whether the “law” itself is being applied justly. In other words, for government to deprive a citizen of his or her personal liberty, AJI/FIJA insists that a jury must be “fully informed” about all aspects of the case, and not be limited to a narrow, one-sided version presented solely by the prosecutors.

How important are these jury rights? An example of today’s broken jury system was reported recently in California, where the federal government convicted a man of selling marijuana for medical use. The problem with this conviction was that the man was working under the auspices of a new California law that permits the sale of marijuana for medical use. The jurors, however, were forbidden by the judge from learning that this man was conducting his activities in accordance with the new state law and under a license from the City of Oakland.

After the conviction, the media interviewed the jurors, and the jurors were appalled that they had wrongfully convicted someone of a “crime” when the state had specifically authorized the activity in question. This man was convicted because the jury was not allowed to hear the “fact” that this man’s activities were “legal under California law.” The federal prosecutor convinced the judge that the simple “fact” (that California permitted this activity) was not relevant to this case. Yet, according to the jurors, had they been “informed” that this man was operating under the auspices of California’s medical marijuana law, they would not have convicted him.

These kinds of atrocities are occurring every day in criminal courts, where “facts” are being wrongfully denied to jurors, resulting in flawed convictions. Even worse than being deprived of critical “facts,” juries are denied any opportunity to evaluate the merits of the “law.” An egregious example of this kind of unbridled prosecutorial power lies within the thousands of pages of “law” contained in the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. By arbitrarily citing any “law” out of this politically inspired albatross, the FDA can randomly incarcerate virtually anyone who falls under its vast regulatory umbrella. Even individuals who import lower-priced medications from Canada can be criminally prosecuted if the FDA so chooses.

The only barrier to convicting someone of a “bad law” is a fully informed jury. Today’s judges, however, are withholding critical information from juries at the behest of prosecutors. One result of these gross injustices is that there are more people imprisoned per capita in the US than in any other country in the world!

William Penn: Origin of Jury Rights

William Penn was a leader of the Quakers in seventeenth-century London. The sect was not recognized by the English government, which forbade it to meet in any building for the purpose of worship. In 1670, Penn held a worship service that was attended by a peaceful group of fellow Quakers. Penn and another Quaker, William Mead, were arrested on a charge of disturbing the King’s peace and summoned to stand trial.

When brought to court, Penn demanded to know under which law they were being charged. The court refused to supply that information and instead referred vaguely to the common law. When Penn protested that he was entitled to a specific indictment, he was removed from the presence of the judge and jury, and confined in an enclosed corner of the room known as the bale-dock. From there, he could neither confront the witnesses who accused him of preaching to the Quakers nor ask them questions about their charges against him. If convicted, Penn faced execution.


The judge expected the jury to give the government an unequivocal guilty verdict. When the jury failed to convict Penn of practicing an “illegal religion,” the judge was beside himself. The judge then issued the following edict:

“Gentlemen, you shall not be dismissed until you bring in a verdict which the court will accept. You shall be locked up, without meat, drink, fire and tobacco. You shall not think thus to abuse the court. We will have a verdict by the help of God or you shall starve for it.”

Two days passed. The jury had no food, water, heat, tobacco, or bathroom facilities. Nothing. They did not change their minds.

Nine weeks passed. Conditions at the prison were more than deplorable. Jurors were often soaked in their own urine and smeared with their own feces. Finally, England’s high court became involved. A higher court eventually freed the jurors in response to a writ for habeas corpus. It was the first time that the High Court of Common Pleas had issued such a writ.

Penn’s case, and his jury, changed the law. In the future, jurors would not be required to rubberstamp the agenda of government officials. For the first time, government had encountered jurors whose “liberty was not for sale.”

William Penn never forgot this outrage. When he came to America and founded his colony, his laws became a model of freedom. Immigrants flocked to Pennsyl-vania. As an example of his approach to government compared to the Crown’s approach, Penn reserved the death penalty for murder and treason. At the time, Britain reserved such punishment for 200 separate offenses.

Penn was especially cognizant of the iniquity of Britain’s draconian laws. By calling religious dissent “sedition,” the British government had set up an enrichment program for itself. Sedition, a serious crime against the Crown, allowed the government to throw thousands of people into prison and seize their land and property. Penn’s wife and her family had lost their family estate through such “legal” shenanigans.

Thanks to William Penn, America’s founders had an exemplary legal model to follow when they wrote the US Constitution. Thanks to the members of Penn’s jury who endured imprisonment, today’s juries can reach a just verdict even when it is not the popular thing to do.

You Could Be the Next Victim

A flagrant example of prosecutorial misconduct occurred in 1995 when the US Postal Service initiated the arrest of a 72-year-old man and a 30-year-old woman who had ordered the supplement dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) from Europe. The postal employees decided that DHEA was illegal to import, even for personal use. They arranged for a local narcotics strike force to set up a sting operation to arrest these two Americans when they came to the post office to pick up their DHEA. The elderly man was handcuffed and forced to sit on the post office steps, where all his neighbors could see him. The young woman was held while her home was searched and her library of health and exercise books seized.

Both victims were members of the Life Extension Foundation and asked us for help. We retained an attorney to document that DHEA is not a controlled substance and had never been so named in the Federal Register. Since DHEA is not contraband, one would think that the charges would have been quickly dropped. The prosecutors, however, were willing only to “reduce” the charges and still wanted to prosecute these innocent people. Only a massive letter-writing campaign by Life Extension members and subscribers to Dr. Julian Whitaker’s newsletter forced the state’s governor to order prosecutors to drop the cases.

Were it not for Life Extension paying an expert attorney and tens of thousands of letters written to the state’s governor, these two people could have faced a jury that would have been told by the prosecutor that DHEA is an illegal substance, that irrefutable evidence shows that these people imported it, and that they should therefore be convicted and sentenced to jail. The jury may never have had the opportunity to learn the “fact” that DHEA is not an illegal substance or that no “law” prohibits its importation. The prosecutor could have censored this information from the jury, and the judge would have ordered the jury to consider only whether sufficient evidence was presented that these two people imported DHEA for their personal use. If the prosecutor proved these people imported the DHEA, then the judge would order the jury to find them “guilty.”

Under today’s flawed system, a prosecutor can present a one-sided story and gain a conviction based on the jury not being fully informed about the facts and not being allowed to judge the merits of the law. Jurors are put into a position whereby judges are ordering them not to consider all the facts or the law, but instead to base their decision on the government’s interpretation of events.

Jury Rights Rooted in US Constitution

The Declaration of Indepen-dence defines being deprived of the benefits of trial by jury as absolute tyranny. Having observed the tyranny imposed on Americans when deprived of trial by jury, the Founding Fathers took particular care to ensure this right no less than three times in the Bill of Rights.

The intent of the jury system is to do much more than allow citizens to mete out apt punishment to their neighbors. The jury system particularly provides citizens with the means to protect each other from tyrannical abuses of power by the government.

Thus did the authors of the Declaration of Independence see trial by jury “as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution,” as Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1789.

Join the American Jury Institute/Fully Informed Jury Association (AJI/FIJA)

We invite all Life Extension supporters to join the American Jury Institute/Fully Informed Jury Association. A tax-deduct-ible donation of $25 buys a one-year membership, which incl-udes a quarterly newsletter. To join, send your check to:

AJI/FIJA
PO Box 5570
Helena, MT 59604-5570

Websites: www.fija.org and www.americanjuryinstitute.org
Phone: 406-442-7800
Fax: 406-442-9332

I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.
—Thomas Jefferson, 1789




Tyranny, no matter under what guise, has no place in an open society or in a country dedicated to the rule of law. The intent of trial by jury is that of a jury’s independence to judge the law as well as the facts in any case. Jurors have the absolute power to decide whether the law being applied is a just law, whether it is being properly applied in each case, and whether the defendant should be found innocent because of a bad law. Jurors have the right to understand the sentence that will be imposed by their verdict. The highest and best function of the jury is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking government-authored law, but instead to protect fellow citizens from the tyrannical laws imposed by power-crazed government.

Jurors have both a duty and responsibility to ensure that a just verdict is rendered, and they must take into account the facts of the case, any mitigating circumstances, and the merits of the law and its application in each individual case. They must examine the results of their verdict if they are to administer the law as an instrument of justice and of order. The power and right of jurors to assess the merits of the law was established in England before our Constitution was written.

Jurors, as the representatives of the people and the community, hold no agenda during any trial, and most certainly not the government’s agenda. Let us not forget that the prosecutors, judges, and arresting officers, as well as the forensic investigators in most cases, are all a part of, and paid by, the government, with their personal power bases to build and their personal careers to protect through the “productivity” of successful prosecutions resulting in convictions. Jurors are not at all vested and therefore far less arbitrary.

The first and foremost function of our jurors is to protect private citizens from a tyrannical and intrusive government when expressed through the enforcement of laws that usurp the rights of the people. Jurors protect against tyrannical laws by refusing to convict those being unjustly persecuted by government. Thus did our Founding Fathers plan for the jury to do, and expected that jurors would in fact exercise this power without question. Jurors are the last line of defense for liberty.


References
1. Available at: www.hcvinprison.org. Accessed June 7, 2004.

2. National Commission on Correctional Health Care. “The Health Status of Soon-to-be-Released Inmates: A Report to Congress.” March 2002.

3. Available at: www.hrw.org. Accessed June 7, 2004.

4. Treadway Robert (#10590-076), Request for Administrative Remedy, Bureau of Prisons document, issued January 20, 2004.

5. Available at: www.aclu.org. Accessed June 7, 2004.

6. Fazlollah M. Inmates will get care for hepatitis. Philadelphia Inquirer. October 31, 2002.

7. Available at: www.bop.gov. Accessed June 7, 2004.

8. Correspondence from Ralph Boyd Jr., assistant attorney general for New Mexico, to Jack Sullivan, county commission chairman.
March 6, 2003.

===================
In Liberty,

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

Learn The Truth About The "Income Tax" Fraud!
http://www.861.info


DEATH TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER!!

WHY ARE THE BORDERS STILL WIDE OPEN??

NEVER, NEVER, NEVER GIVE UP YOUR FIREARMS!!!!!

It's time to face it: President Bush is no friend of liberty, and neither he is a friend to constitutional government nor national sovereignty. Four more years of a Bush administration could very well mean the death knell of freedom in these United States.
--- Chuck Baldwin, 1/13/04 www.chuckbaldwinlive.com


"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

*****************************************************************************************
GET THE U.S. OUT OF THE U.N.--AND, GET THE U.N. OUT OF THE U.S.!!!
*****************************************************************************************

Did The Occupation Government Have Prior Knowledge Of 9/11?
Did They Let It Happen To Create An Excuse To Institute Police State Policies?
Did They Orchestrate It?
Check out: www.infowars.com and learn the Truth!!
THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND!!!!!!!!!


Additional Information Links:
www.prisonplanet.com
http://www.jackblood.com/
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/911_redux.html
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/archiveprior_knowledge
http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/9-11/911MossadCIAffr.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/
http://www.public-action.com/
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/
http://www.policestate21.com/
http://www.devvy.com/
http://copvcia.com/
www.gulfwarvets.com
www.thepowerhour.com

Vote for Michael Peroutka,Constitution Party, for President
http://www.peroutka2004.com/








 
 
 
 
 
 
 

#851 From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed Sep 22, 2004 6:29 pm
Subject: * * Taking A Police Poll * *
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                            September 22, 2004

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

 
Taking A Police Poll
 
The Los Angeles Daily News for September 20, 2004, is conducting a poll asking "What do you think? Do you think the LAPD motel raids violate privacy?" and proceeds to cover on its front page a police story entitled, "Leaving no room for crime."
 
By way of background, our readers should know that there has been placed on our local ballot for November by law enforcement a measure to increase taxes for themselves. The police claim they are running out of money and need this sales tax increase in order to function properly.
 
Los Angeles already has the highest sales taxes in this state, and among all states of this nation. I have often reported that police in all jurisdictions need crime. Crime provides police job security, and if there is not enough crime to justify police security, we are guaranteed the police will generate it. Crime will always rise to the point to justify the existence of police 
expansion, and politicians will clamor over using these crime statistics to assure their re-election, i.e., being "tough on crime."
 
I realize that my statements may sound like I am against police, but this is not the case. Too many police officers cause disaster to society, and will bring it down. I have explained this principle in a booklet I once wrote entitled, "Three Reasons Why Police Increase Crime," with established crime statistics and documentation throughout. One of its points is that higher taxes imposed upon a community will result in a more depressed society, which in turn results in a less productive society, which in turn results in more crime in the community. This principle works the same every time in every community. While two aspirins are good for a headache, too many of those same aspirins will kill you. What is good in moderation is deadly in excess, such as police power.
 
It is unarguable that police action is the exercise of emergency powers, and one does not rate the health of a community by the number of emergencies it endures any more than one who has been rushed to the hospital six times in the past year can boast that they are healthier than one who has had only one hospital emergency during the same period.
 
While this newspaper poll encourages Los Angelinos to respond by calling Jason Kandel, Staff Writer of the article, (818) 713-3664, or writing him at jason.kandel@..., since we are also the media, we are going to do even more than Jason asks, to wit, report this cause to the entire nation for a response. We are sure Jason will receive some most surprising responses to his poll.
 
Jason writes, " 'Motel Six' squad scans guest activity," followed by his name and position with the newspaper. "Motel Six, LAPD-style, has made a name for itself by checking out who is checking in.
 
"A half-dozen officers assigned to a squad nicknamed Motel Six are credited with the arrests of more than 100 felony and misdemeanor offenders by raiding motels across the San Fernando Valley for the past seven weeks.
 
"They've picked up suspected sex offenders, parole violators and fugitives in crime-plagued motels lining Sepulveda and Ventura boulevards and other thoroughfares. The Valley operation has become a model program that Chief William Bratton might expand citywide.  ....
 
"The Motel Six patrol checks parking lots, running license plates through police car computer terminals and getting instantaneous information about the registered owners.
 
"They can check the information against guest registers and knock on doors ....
 
"The Motel Six program dovetails with efforts by the City Attorney's Office to shut down problem motels..."
 
If I were the upper management of Motel Six, a nationwide chain, I would contact our legal counsel about suing LAPD for using our name in a manner that implies that if anyone visits Los Angeles and checks into Motel Six, they run the risk of being harassed by the LAPD in the middle of the night.
 
Jason's article attempts to make such police action sound good for society, but I would like to reflect upon some inside information. First off, no one likes to be disturbed in the middle of the night by having someone uninvited pounding on their door, and especially the police. Not long ago at 2:30 a.m. in the middle of the night I heard loud pounding on my front door. Thinking there was some sort of emergency I opened the door only to find a police officer demanding that I come out and identify myself. Was I involved in a crime, or suspected that I was? No! Was there an accuser against me? No! Was there a warrant or Probable Cause to believe that I was about to commit some sort of crime? No! Well then why was I being demanded to come out at 2:30 in the morning and identify myself? Why, there was not even a common sense reason, much less a legal one.
 
Having personally taken fourteen cases to the United States Supreme Court, didn't I know that this unwarranted action was illegal? Certainly I did. But I also knew from experience in lawsuits against LAPD that the courts always covered for them no matter what. I was faced with either suffering the consequences of questioning their unlawful activity, or just complying with them. I have often said that a police state is not possible without the approval of the judiciary, and that is exactly why we need the judicial accountability of J.A.I.L.
 
Prior to turning my focus upon judges, over the years I collected more than a thousand newspaper articles (mostly L.A. Times) on police activity which documented everything from police murder for hire, rape, organized police burglaries, drugs, etc. I learned a great deal of unbecoming facts about the LAPD, such as 50% of the LAPD officers are or were involved in drugs, with the justification that if LAPD did not hire such persons, there would not be enough candidates to join the police force; that the ratio of police officers who committed suicide with their own side-arm is three times that of those officers killed in the line of duty, etc.
 
Having once questioned the police on constitutional grounds I got a fist in my face while I was handcuffed, and tazered by a tazer gun every time I said, "I stand on the Constitution." I was informed by one of the officers, "You have no rights under the Constitution." I responded that I thought I was in America and had rights protected by the Constitution. It turns out that none of these officers had a rudimentary understanding of the very document they had raise their right hand and sworn by oath to uphold and defend, and they violated every principle in my case, even to the extent of practicing law in making a unilateral post-arrest determination to drop the felony arrest charge, a discretion preserved uniquely to the District Attorney. In my observation, it is doubtful that these officers have ever read the Constitution.
 
Ultimately, these police officers defaulted in a Superior Court lawsuit for 13 million six-hundred and twenty thousand dollars. I went through a default and prove-up before the judge, with the judge submitting the matter for judgment. But then the judge later "unsubmitted" (the judge's word) the evidence and refused to enter the judgment. I sought a default judgment in both state and federal court systems by writ, as there was no appeal from a non-judgment, and all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court both times. To this day I have been denied that default judgment and am awaiting the passage of J.A.I.L. in California to pursue my remedy to the right of a default judgment, which by California law says in default matters,  the court shall hear the evidence and shall render judgment in plaintiff's favor for such amount as is shown by the evidence.
 
Jason talks about felony arrests. I know the LAPD modus operandi on this personally. Whenever the police cannot legally make an arrest, having not personally witnessed the commission of any crime, in 75 percent of the time they conveniently convert the matter into a warrantless felony arrest, and then later drop the felony charge. This is their game in doing indirectly that which cannot be done directly. Using this method, I have 
twice been arrested under the guise of having committed a felony, and both times felony charges were dropped without any felony process. The officers just could not explain or justify themselves when I knew what the process was and questioned them on it.
 
As I stated above, whenever there is not enough crime to justify police existence, they invent crime. Barbie and I were sitting at an "In-and-Out" hamburger joint on Ventura Boulevard, the boulevard mentioned above, and before us were two men and one woman sitting on a bus bench supposedly awaiting a bus. I then saw all three persons stand up, and the one man place his hands on top of his head, and the other man, who was wearing a doctor's white coat, give the other man a pat down, and bring his hands down behind his back and handcuff him. They then took the handcuffed man to a new unmarked car parked in a customer parking space of In-and Out, and placed him in the car. The officer then took off his outer cover and I saw his police badge on his belt.
 
I also recall the publicity of a man who took a short jaunt down to his local Seven-Eleven convenience store to buy a six-pack. It turns out that he was arrested outside the door on prostitution charges by a police woman. I am of the opinion that it is atrocious that LAPD hires pretty young women with our tax dollars to attempt to induce men on the street into agreeing to have sex with them, only to arrest them if they do.
 
In evil times governments hypocritically convert moral issues into victimless crimes, as in Christ's day. Then they drug a woman accused of adultery before Him and said Moses stated that such should be stoned, but what sayest thou. Was this because they truly wanted His opinion? No! Was it because they were concerned about this woman's act of adultery? No! Where was the man? Did she commit adultery alone? No!They just wanted to trap Christ, that was all! But He, knowing their hypocrisy, told them, he that is without sin, let him cast the first stone, and bent down and wrote in the sand. While we are not told what He wrote, we are told that they all began to leave in shame. I could guess that He wrote the names of each of the women they had serviced, and they thought they had better get out of there quickly.
 
Let's keep in mind that these tactics provide great media hype for public consumption regarding increasing taxes to pay for more police when that issue is on the ballot.   - Ron Branson
 


J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
Contribute to J.A.I.L. at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
See our active flash, http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm
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@...
E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
 
"..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    <><

#852 From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Fri Sep 24, 2004 12:54 am
Subject: If ya ain't havin' fun, ya ain't doin' it rite
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                       September 23, 2004

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

 
If ya ain't havin' fun,
ya ain't doin' it rite.
(By Ron Loeber - Valortoo@...)
 
We only need one good watch dog, and I have mine.
  His name is J.A.I.L.  He is still a puppy, but he is growing
and learning and developing.  And like all puppies,
he loves to learn.  I'm feeding him and training him and loving him.
He is already waiting to sink his teeth into someone.  And when he becomes mature, he is going to be the nastiest Junk Yard Dog
you ever saw.  Everyone will think more than twice before
they trespass upon my junk yard 'cause they know
I will turn J.A.I.L. loose upon them in a heartbeat. 
Shucks Bob, my "friendly legislators" already know about
 my puppy and he scares the hell out of them. 
They are afraid J.A.I.L. will bite them.
-- Ron Loeber
 

Two Saturdays ago I was given a FREE Ticket to the local annual Democratic chicken barbecue.  What the hell... a free meal is a free meal, so I went.  After all... its just a bunch of my neighbors... just the average Americans.  I was enjoying visiting with them when the politicians started arriving.  You know how they are.  "Heh... I'm so-and-so and running in the Democratic Primary for such-and-such", and pressing flesh.
 
But there was one who stood out from the rest.  He was dressed a little better then everyone else... casual, but nice.  He wasn't wearing a K-Mart shirt... that's for sure.  He wasn't running for office either, but he sure was pressing flesh.  Eventually he got to me.  The conversation went pretty much like this.
 
"Hello, I'm Judge Cardona.  I live over in Westerlo" he said as he extended his hand.
 
 
[Westerlo is a neighboring town in very rural Albany County.  The area is generally referred to a "the Hilltowns''.  Its actually the boondocks.  Cardona is the Presiding Justice of NYS Supreme Court Appellate Division Third Department in Albany.  That's the Court that released me from jail.  It is also the court that had to approve the censure of Teresi.  It was reported that Teresi was the first Supreme Court Judge in 20 years to be censured.  Don't know how true that is, but it was a big deal in Albany Politics.]
 
"Judge, its nice to meet you.  I'm Ron Loeber" I replied as I shook his hand. 
 
"Ron Loeber... Ron Loeber.  Lets see... I know you.  Did we meet at..." and he took a couple of guesses.
 
"Judge, What's your first name"?
 
"Tony", he replied.
 
"Well Tony, its really nice to meet you.  If I'm ever in your court it will be Judge Cardona.  But up here its just Tony and Ron."  And he took a couple more guesses....
 
"No Tony.  You know me because I'm the guy responsible for the censure of Joe Teresi.  I'm the guy Teresi threw in Jail."  Well... you would have thought I hit him in the face with a pail of ice water.  He wanted to terminate the conversation.  But I wouldn't let him go.  I continued with, "ya know Tony, when I walk into Traffic Court I expect to be screwed.  But when I walked into NYS Supreme Court I actually thought I was walking into a legitimate operation.  I would have never guessed it was Organized Crime of the first degree."  He just wanted to get out of there.  And then, over his objections, I gave him the nutshell of what Teresi did to me.  Please understand that I still tend to get a bit emotional when I talk about what happened.  Told him again how nice it was to make his acquaintance and wished him a great day at the picnic and let him go.
 
But that wasn't the end.  A little while later the speech-making started.  After Tony's speech, he was talking with a group of 4 big-wig politicians.  Well... they thought they were important.  Don't they all?  That was an opportunity I couldn't pass up.  And by now I had cooled off a bit and got hold of my composure.  I walked right up to the group, interrupted them, and said, "heh Tony.  Can I bend your ear for a few minutes before you go"?
 
"Uh... uum... yes.  But not right now", he said.
 
"I understand.  Just come and get me when you are ready.  I'll be hanging out here for the afternoon enjoying the picnic".
 
I'll be damned.  He did.  About a half hour later he came to me and suggested a distant picnic table where we could talk privately.
 
"What did you want to ask me Ron"?
 
"Tony, its not so much that I want to ask you anything as it is I want to tell you some things.  I'd like to tell all of your judges some things.  First... please understand, from my perspective, that under the form of government in which we live the Office of Judge SHOULD BE the most respected position in our society... above that of Kings, Presidents, and Emperors.
 
You know the law.  I don't have to tell you the due process involved in Civil Contempt and the opportunity to appeal a judge's decision.  That potlicker Teresi didn't follow due process.  He had 2 men with guns, clubs and badges waiting in the courtroom for me and told them to take me away.  They put me in a cell in the basement of the courthouse, then strip searched me, then shackled me in leg irons and chains.  Then... two hours later, they came back and asked me if I was ready to sign the deed now.  The Gulag Archipelago is alive and well right here.
 
Since the censure Teresi, and because of my affiliation with an organization advocating for judicial accountability, I know what's going on publicly in the judiciary from one end of the state to the other.  I know about the scandals, the bribery, the corruption.  I know what judges are in prison.  I get the newspaper reports E-mailed to me from all over the state.  I know what's happening in NYC, Middletown, all the way to Buffalo.
 
Not only that, but people from one end of the state to the other contact me and tell me their stories of woe and ask for my help and advice.  I'm not licensed to give advice.  But with what happened to me, and with everything I have learned, I advise them to invest in toilet paper and ammunition.
 
You got some serious problems, Tony.  I don't have the answers, but even if I did... I don't have the power to impose the solution.  But guys like you do have that power. [I just didn't think this was the time or place to explain J.A.I.L.  My purpose here was to plant the seed for future dialogue.]  But not you, nor Chief Judge Judith Kaye, nor anyone else is going to be able to solve the problems in the judiciary until you understand that courts are not just a way for lawyers to make money.  The courts are for the people too.
 
Until guys like me can walk into your courts with full confidence that our rights will be recognized, declared, and protected, and that our papers will be read for their substance instead of form, there is no reason for us to even go into your courts.  We would all be better off settling our disputes in the manner of the Old West.  At least we would feel we got some measure of justice."
 
"Ron, I cannot comment on that", he said.
 
"Tony, I know you can't.  But if Chief Judge Kaye is serious about cleaning up the mess, she has to know how the ordinary guy thinks and feels about you guys if she is gonna accomplish anything worthwhile.  The lawyers sure aren't gonna give it to you straight."
 
"I hear you, Ron.  I understand what you are saying", he said.
 
"Good.  Tony, I walked into Teresi's courtroom alone because I had three lawyers tell me they wouldn't touch my case with a ten foot pole because of the players involved.  Last year a lawyer was doing some work for my wife.  But he was talking to me because I had the technical knowledge of the problem he was trying to solve for her. 
 
After a half an hour he looked up at me and said, 'I know who you are.  You are the guy Teresi threw in jail.  That's what this mess is all about that I'm working on.  If you had come to me for help back then I would have turned you down.  If I had taken on Teresi I would have received nothing but adverse decisions from him and all his buddies.  I'd be spending all my time in the Appellate Division.  My clients can't afford it and I'd be run out of the law business'.  Tony, that is one hell of an indictment of your courts".
 
"I'm listening to you, Ron.  I hear what you are saying."  And he repeated it looking me right in the eye.
 
"Tony, I can't ask for more.  On second thought I can.  The day Judge Spain ordered my release from jail pending the hearing of the Article 78 Proceeding I wanted to write him a thank you letter.  But I was told it would be most inappropriate."
 
"Yes, it would have been... and still is", he said.
 
"Tony, because of the manner in which I was brought up, I owe Judge Spain a 'thanks'.  I know he was just doing his job.  But I still owe him a thanks.  But not a month goes by that I don't think of him.  You probably have coffee with him once in a while.  If there is any way you could express my sentiments to him for what he did for me, I would consider it a personal favor."
 
"I can do that for you, Ron", he said with a smile.  We shook hands and parted.
 
I don't know what will come of if... if anything at all.  But he is the Presiding Justice of the appellate court that covers my area.  There is no question he is a man of influence.  He may even be the biggest crook of the bunch for all I know.  But that Saturday he got a candid look at me... his neighbor... the real me... not just some dry legal papers he may have read three years ago.  I'm hopeful I will be able to "bump into him" again.  I'm hopeful that Saturday was the start of something.  I'm hopeful that one day I may be able to present J.A.I.L. to him under favorable conditions.
 
As a side note to this, two candidates for Family Court Judge introduced themselves to me.  One had the endorsement of the political machine for the primary.  The other didn't.  When I told them my name, bells rang.  Yeah... while they were searching their memory I told them who I was.  They remembered!  I told them both I hope they would get elected, and if they did we would be keeping them in our sights.  Told them that if they got elected I expected the first thing they would do is sign an Oath of Office and file it with the County Clerk.  If they didn't, June Maxam was coming after them and I would give her any help I could.  They didn't quite know how to take that, but they seemed to know what I was talking about.
 
If ya ain't havin' fun, ya ain't doin' it rite.
 
Ron Loeber
 


J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
Contribute to J.A.I.L. at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
See our active flash, http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm
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@...
E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
 
"..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    <><

#853 From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sun Sep 26, 2004 3:02 am
Subject: * * MADD About Amendment A In South Dakota * *
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                     September 25, 2004
 
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L. 
                          FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
 
MADD About Amendment A
In South Dakota
 
It is no secret that J.A.I.L. is about to embark on its campaign to get the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law on the ballot in South Dakota this coming election cycle in 2006. In the meantime on this current 2004 election, South Dakotans are faced with an Amendment A measure, sponsored by their legislature and lawyers, that would permanently take away the people's right to vote on judges.
 
J.A.I.L. strongly opposes any measure, including Amendment A, which takes away accountability of judges to the people. This Amendment is creating a stir in South Dakota focusing on the judiciary. Opposing this measure are state's attorneys, city council members, some legislators, as well as civic organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD).  
 
The goal of defeating Amendment A is the springboard for an even more heated South Dakota J.A.I.L. campaign for the next ballot in 2006. South Dakota will become the beacon of this nation regarding accountability of judges to the people. It will be a subject debated throughout this nation, 
and will be a model of providing "new guards for our future security" as described in the Declaration of Independence.
 
MADD sets forth its position on Amendment A below:
-Ron Branson-

 
From: MADD
Subject: MADD against Amendment A "Merit Selection of Judges"

MADD takes a Stand against Amendment A in South Dakota

"Merit Selection of Judges"

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 25, 2004

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is worried by Constitutional Amendment A (Merit Selection of Judges) which is on the November 2004 ballot. MADD feels this change would potentially harm the victims of drunk driving and our justice system.

Right now, voters select their judges at the ballot box. Judges are accountable for their actions and they must convince us that they will do the best job of providing South Dakotans with justice. Judges have a lot of discretionary authority in sentencing and Amendment A would take away this check on the system.

By allowing the Governor to appoint judges, we cannot choose from a number of candidates. We can’t get to know who they are and what they stand for. Amendment A will end direct election of circuit judges and replace it with an appointment process that will be controlled by the governor and an unelected commission. There will be a retention vote three years after the appointment and then every eight years thereafter. MADD believes the retention vote is a sham because it does not allow the voters to have a say in the appointment. Essentially this means that circuit judges will be granted life terms in office.

In addition creating lifetime tenure, Amendment A could also be abused in the hands of future governors. The Judicial Qualifications Commission and Governor could appoint judges for political reasons rather than the quality of their jurisprudence. The commission will be made up mostly of lawyers, and Amendment A is written in such a way that it prevents the legislature from even having an "advise and consent" vote in the appointment of judges. The result could be that South Dakotans could be stuck with judges for life that do not believe in victims’ rights or in taking strong measures to deter drunk drivers. Or worse, we could be stuck with someone who is not a neutral, unbiased adjudicator, but someone who is beholden to the people who appoint him/her; this is the world that Constitutional Amendment A could create.

MADD believes that judges should be accountable to the people. The lack of accountability that would result from Amendment A would be a disaster for all South Dakotans, including victims of drunken driving.

MADD believes that .merit. needs to be determined by the people, not a governor or an unelected commission. We urge South Dakotans to vote "NO" on Amendment A in the November 2, 2004 election.

__________________________________

For more information contact:

Lila Doud, President, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)--Pennington County Chapter,
maddpennco@...   605-343-5066


J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
Contribute to J.A.I.L. at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
See our active flash, http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm
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@...
E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
 
"..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    <><

#854 From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Fri Sep 24, 2004 5:31 pm
Subject: Another Attempt to Distance The Judiciary From The People
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 
J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                    September 24, 2004
 
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L.
                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
 
Yet Another Attempt to Distance The Judiciary From The People
(This is happening in South Dakota)
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 7:04 PM
Subject: Lawrence and Fall River State's attorneys opposed to Amendment A

Attached is a release from Lance Russell, the Fall River State's Attorney and John Fitzgerald, the Lawrence County State's Attorney. Both are opposing Amendment A ("Merit Selection of Judges"), which is on the November ballot in South Dakota. Feel free to forward this
 
South Dakota

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT A:

THE ELIMINATION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT

 

By Lance Russell, Fall River County State’s Attorney

and John Fitzgerald, Lawrence County State’s Attorney 

 

            Constitutional Amendment A will permanently take away the right of the people of South Dakota to elect Circuit Court Judges.  This is a right we have enjoyed since statehood.

 

            States have different methods of selecting judges.  Some have partisan elections, some have nonpartisan elections and some have nominating commissions with the governors making the final decision followed by retention elections.

 

            Why should South Dakotans care?  Well, there is a movement to amend the state constitution, eliminating contested nonpartisan judicial elections and allowing the governor to appoint circuit court judges from a list of two or more individuals selected by a commission consisting predominantly of lawyers.  Three years after the appointment, there will be a “retention” election, where the ballot will ask the voter, yes or no, if they want to retain the judge.   

 

            What’s the problem with that?  The amendment changes the intent of the framers of our state constitution and will make our judges unaccountable. 

 

South Dakota was founded on the principles of populism and accountability.  South Dakota was the first state to allow the people the power of initiative and referendum, and our constitution gave the people the right to elect our judges.  In fact, every state entering the Union between 1846 and 1912 provided for judicial elections.  This was a reaction to the feeling that the appointed judiciary had become “a bastion of unresponsive aristocracy” and that elected judges would be more independent and less apt to be influenced by the politics and cronyism of governors.   

 

            How will the amendment make our judges unaccountable?  Simply put:  the people of our state will have little say in who are their judges.  It will eliminate the check on the judiciary that the framers of our constitution put in place to keep elitists from having unfettered discretion to dictate their will on the people.  Proponents of the constitutional amendment will counter that the retention election will be an adequate check on the discretion of the judiciary; however, retention elections have proved to be nothing more than sham elections in other states.  Retention elections are just that—they retain incumbents.  In retention election states, almost 99 percent of the judges are retained.  We all know in countries where there are only one political party, they have essentially retention elections.  Those elections also allowed for only one choice, and just like retention elections, are noted for low voter interest, knowledge and turnout. 

 

            The bottom line is the proponents of Amendment A are attempting to take away a constitutional right—the right of the people to meaningfully participate in judicial selection. 

 

            Who are the proponents of retention elections?  Lawyers.  They have already raised in excess of $20,000 to secure its passage.  Why lawyers?  Because the lawyers will be selecting the pool of candidates from which judges will be appointed.  The proponents will say whom better than the lawyers to evaluate the abilities of judicial candidates?  We say the people.

 

We believe the people have the intelligence to evaluate the qualifications of judicial candidates, and more importantly, they don’t have an financial interest in who is chosen. 

 

The proponents will also say that the retention system will take the politics out of the judicial selections.  However, in Missouri, the first state to adopt the retention system, it has been asserted that the personal injury lawyers have succeeded in gaining control of the politics of the state, including the politics of the judicial nominating commission, and because of that Missouri is one of the favorite plaintiff’s venue in America.  If the retention system is adopted in South Dakota, the politics and power of judicial selection will simply go from the people to the lawyers, most likely the trial lawyers.  And, we all know the acrimonious role politics plays in the selection of Federal judges.  Politics will always be part of the process, the question is: who do you want making the decisions?  Politicians, lawyers or you?  We believe that the farther the people are removed from the decision making, the farther the courts spiral out of control and make poor decisions.

 

Judges have awesome power and authority.  If a judge decides to legislate law instead of interpret law the only way to hold them accountable is an election.  If Amendment A passes there will be no way for the people whom judges serve to hold their judges accountable. A whole branch of the government will be un-elected no checks and balances will exist in this branch. The only beneficiaries of the amendment will be un-elected judges.

 

The election process in South Dakota has produced fine judges who are both wise and courageous in their decisions.   We are public servants and we believe it is in South Dakota’s best interests to continue to elect and hold judges accountable the way the drafters of our constitution envisioned.

 

From a search on Google, I came up with the following:

Lance Russell   frcsa@...

John Fitzgerald   jfitzger@...



J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
Contribute to J.A.I.L. at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
See our active flash, http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm
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@...
E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
striking at the root."                         -- Henry David Thoreau    <><

 


 

Messages 815 - 854 of 1786   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Add to My Yahoo!      XML What's This?

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