jail4judges : Messages : 918-947 of 1786

#918

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:32 am
Subject: "Judges Deserve Our Respect, Not Our Scorn" - Pres. A.B.A.

jail4judges_...

Send Email

"Judges Deserve Our Respect,

Not Our Scorn"

(Robert Grey, Pres. American Bar Association)

Statement of Robert J. Grey Jr., President,
American Bar Association

Re: Attacks on the Judiciary in the Terri Schiavo Case

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 25, 2005 -- The tragic circumstances of the Terri Schiavo case have elicited strong feelings from all quarters. While this is completely understandable, many commentators and observers have crossed the line in using this tragedy to needlessly, gratuitously and viciously attack the dedicated men and women who serve as America�s judges. This needs to stop.

Regardless of how one feels about the specific circumstances of this situation, the role of the judiciary in it is clear and straightforward. The federal and state judges who have been assigned this case have been charged with weighing the facts of the case and the remedies set forth in the law, responsibilities they have carried out valiantly and with great dignity and sensitivity to the anguish that all of the participants in this case have endured.

While it is appropriate for commentators, policymakers and the broader public to debate the societal challenges and dilemmas brought to light by Terri Schiavo�s case, there is no need for personal attacks on the judges in this case. They are not killers as some have called them, nor are they activists bent on pushing an ideological agenda. They are simply dedicated public servants called on to serve as impartial arbiters in a very difficult case. Instead of maligning them for applying existing law to the case at hand, even though it may not reflect the current will of Congress, we should praise them for dispensing even-handed justice and upholding the independence of the judiciary even under the most difficult circumstances. These judges deserve our respect, not our scorn.

For further information:
Contact: Damien LaVera
Phone: 202/662-1094
E-mail: laverad@...

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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#919

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Thu Mar 31, 2005 4:44 pm
Subject: The Judicial Accountability Amendment Needed In Florida

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                                March 31, 2005
______________________________________________________
Mission Statement                JNJ Library               PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L.                   FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
______________________________________________________

The Judicial Accountability Amendment Needed In Florida

Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.)

(Florida J.A.I.L. Initiative)

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

(b) Definitions. For purposes of this amendment:

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

2. The term "judge" shall mean justice, judge, magistrate, commissioner, judge pro tem, private judge, judicial mediator, arbitrator and referee, and every person shielded by judicial immunity.

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

4. The term "seat" shall mean a situs and facility that is suitable for usage by the Jury.

5. The term "strike" shall mean an adverse immunity decision.

Where appropriate, the singular shall include the plural.

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

(d) Special Grand Juries. There are hereby created within this State two twenty-five member Special Grand Juries with statewide jurisdiction having power to judge both law and fact. This body shall exist independent of statutes governing county Grand Juries. Their responsibility shall be limited to determining, on an objective standard, whether a civil suit against a judge would be frivolous and harassing, or fall within the exclusions of immunity as set forth herein, and whether there is probable cause of criminal conduct by the judge complained of.

(e) Professional Counsel. Each Special Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to retain non-governmental advisors, special prosecutors, and investigators, as needed, who shall serve no longer than one year, after which term said officers shall be ineligible. Notwithstanding the one year, a special prosecutor may be retained to prosecute current cases in which they are involved through all appeals and any complaints for judicial misconduct.

(f) Establishment of Special Grand Jury Seats. Within ninety days following the ratification of this Amendment, the Legislature shall provide a seat for each Special Grand Jury. No seat shall be located within a mile of any judicial body, and each seat shall be reasonably placed proportionately according to population throughout the State. Should the Legislature fail to so act within ninety days, its members shall permanently forfeit their salaries and per diem pay, beginning on the ninety-first day, until such time that it abides by the terms of this (f) section.

(g) Annual Funding. The Legislature shall cause to be deducted two and nine-tenths percent from the gross judicial salaries of all judges, which amount shall be deposited regularly into the exclusive trust account created by this Amendment in paragraph (k) for its operational expenses, together with filing fees under paragraph (h), surcharges under paragraph (i), forfeited benefits of disciplined judges under paragraph (q), and fines imposed under paragraph (r).

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

(i) Surcharges. Should this Amendment lack sufficient funding through its fines, fees, and forfeitures (including deductions in paragraph (g)), the Legislature shall impose appropriate surcharges upon the civil court filing fees of corporate litigants as necessary to make this Amendment self-supporting.

(j) Compensation of Jurors. Each Juror shall receive a salary commensurate to a Circuit Court judge prorated according to the number of days actually served.

(k) Annual Budget. The Special Grand Juries shall have an annual operational budget commensurate to double the combined salaries of the fifty Jurors serving full time, which sum shall be initially deposited by the Legislature into an exclusive trust account to be annually administered by the State Controller. Should the trust balance, within any budget year, drop to less than an amount equivalent to the annual gross salaries of thirty Circuit Court judges, the State Controller shall so notify the Legislature which shall replenish the account, prorated based on the actual average expenditures during the budget year. Should the trust balance in any subsequent year exceed the annual operational budget at the beginning of a new budget year, the State Controller shall return such excess to the state treasury.

(l) Jurisdiction. Each Special Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to establish rules assuring their attendance, to provide internal discipline, and to remove any of its members on grounds of misconduct. The Special Grand Jury shall immediately assign a docket number to each complaint brought before it, unless such case is transferred to another Special Grand Jury to achieve caseload balance. A transfer shall not prejudice a docketing deadline. The Special Grand Jury first docketing a complaint shall have sole jurisdiction of the case. Except as provided in paragraphs (s) and (w), no complaint of misconduct shall be considered by any Special Grand Jury unless the complainant shall have first attempted to exhaust all judicial remedies available in this State within the immediately preceding six-month period. (Such six-month period, however, shall not commence in complaints of prior fraud or blocking of a lawful conclusion until after the date the Special Grand Juries become functional. This provision applies remedially and retroactively.) Should the complainant opt to proceed to the United States Supreme Court, such six-month period shall commence upon the disposition by that court.

(m) Qualifications of Jurors. A Juror shall have attained to the age of thirty years, and have been nine years a citizen of the United States, and have been an inhabitant of Florida for two years immediately prior to having his/her name drawn. Those not eligible for Special Grand Jury service shall include elected and appointed officials, members of the State Bar, judges (active or retired), judicial, prosecutorial and law enforcement personnel, without other exclusion except previous adjudication of mental incapacity, imprisonment, or parole from a conviction of a felonious crime against persons.

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

(o) Service of Jurors. Excluding the establishment of the initial Special Grand Juries, each Juror shall serve one year. No Juror shall serve more than once. On the first day of each month, two persons shall be rotated off each Special Grand Jury and new Citizens seated, except in January it shall be three. Vacancies shall be filled on the first of the following month in addition to the Jurors regularly rotated, and the Juror drawn to fill a vacancy shall complete only the remainder of the term of the Juror replaced. A majority of thirteen shall determine any matter. Special Grand Jury files shall always remain public record following their final determination.

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

(q) Removal. Whenever any judge has received three strikes, the judge shall be permanently removed from office, and thereafter shall not serve in any State judicial office, including that of private judge. Judicial retirement for such removed judge shall not exceed one-half of the benefits to which such person would have otherwise been entitled. Retirement shall not avert third strike penalties.

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

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

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

(u) Enforcement. No person exercising strict enforcement of the findings of a Special Grand Jury shall be held liable civilly, criminally, or in contempt.

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

(w) Challenges. No judge under the jurisdiction of the Special Grand Jury, or potentially affected by the outcome of a challenge hereto, shall have any jurisdiction to sit in judgment of such challenge. Such pretended adjudication shall be null and void for all purposes and a complaint for such misconduct may be brought at any time, without charge, before the Special Grand Jury by class-action, or by any adversely affected person.

(x) Preeminence. Preeminence shall be given to this Amendment in any case of conflicts with statute, case law, common law, or constitutional provision. The foreperson of each Special Grand Jury shall read, or cause to be read, this Amendment to the respective Jurors semi-annually during the first week of business in January and July. Should any part of this Amendment be determined unconstitutional, the remainder shall remain in full force and effect as though no challenge thereto existed.

To be added or removed, write to VictoryUSA@...

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

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

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#920

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 2:54 am
Subject: Att. Zerman Replies to ABA President

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                                     April 1, 2005
______________________________________________________
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
______________________________________________________

Attorney Zerman

Replies to ABA President

Inasmuch as the President of the American Bar Association has thought to defend judges by saying, "...they deserve our respect, not our scorn," Attorney Gary Zerman, the National J.A.I.L. Lt. Commander-In-Chief, has respond to him using actual court decisions and cases to show by evidence that the courts have not earned the respect of the People of this country.

By way of warning, Zerman's response is neither short, nor milk for beginners, but rather very strong meat that is the subject for those desirous of deep study into the subject of judicial immunity. If such study is not your "cup of tea," then I recommend you simply delete this email, or save it to a folder, and go on doing what you have been doing. Remember, this is a conversation from one attorney to another.

-Ron Branson

Statement of Robert J. Grey Jr., President,
American Bar Association

Re: Attacks on the Judiciary in the Terri Schiavo Case

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 25, 2005 -- The tragic circumstances of the Terri Schiavo case have elicited strong feelings from all quarters. While this is completely understandable, many commentators and observers have crossed the line in using this tragedy to needlessly, gratuitously and viciously attack the dedicated men and women who serve as America�s judges. This needs to stop.

Regardless of how one feels about the specific circumstances of this situation, the role of the judiciary in it is clear and straightforward. The federal and state judges who have been assigned this case have been charged with weighing the facts of the case and the remedies set forth in the law, responsibilities they have carried out valiantly and with great dignity and sensitivity to the anguish that all of the participants in this case have endured.

While it is appropriate for commentators, policymakers and the broader public to debate the societal challenges and dilemmas brought to light by Terri Schiavo�s case, there is no need for personal attacks on the judges in this case. They are not killers as some have called them, nor are they activists bent on pushing an ideological agenda. They are simply dedicated public servants called on to serve as impartial arbiters in a very difficult case. Instead of maligning them for applying existing law to the case at hand, even though it may not reflect the current will of Congress, we should praise them for dispensing even-handed justice and upholding the independence of the judiciary even under the most difficult circumstances. These judges deserve our respect, not our scorn.

For further information:
Contact: Damien LaVera
Phone: 202/662-1094
E-mail: laverad@...

March 31, 2005

Reply to ABA President, Mr. Robert J. Grey, Jr.�s Statement re Attacks on the Judiciary.

March 31, 2005

Mr. Grey claims - in rather blanket fashion - that �judges deserve our
respect, not our scorn.� A basic rule of life, is that respect is earned,
it is not just given, or presumed as Mr. Grey claims. As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis stated: �If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectful.�

Below are a few examples, why some may not think that some judges warrant our respect, or trust, well deserve our scorn and even that we should fear them..

First, is the case of Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall) 335, 20 L. Ed 646 (1872), authored by Justice Stephen Field, that grabbed absolute judicial immunity for judges � including corrupt and malicious judicial acts committed by judges, without any reference to a purported Constitutional basis for doing such. (Article III provides no immunity to the judiciary.) There Justice Fields claimed that absolute immunity was taken from long-established English common-law and that this was being done for the �benefit� of the people � not the judges. Well, the People were never asked, and the smart money says that if they were asked, they would have said, "NO!"

Further, we fought a revolution to get out from under the yoke of the
English King�s tyrannical absolute power and the mantra �The king can do no wrong,� not to have it now replaced by the yoke and tyranny of judges. Cleary, under our Constitution the absolute immunity power- grab � placing the judges above the People, turns the principle that the People are sovereign - the masters, and that the government (all branches) are under, and the servants of, the People � on its head. Further, that power-grab violates the doctrine of separation of powers � the so-called checks and balances.

Under our Constitution, the only way judges should get any immunity (and that would be a limited and qualified) must come from the legislative branch, and arguably through a Constitutional Amendment. Article I though, provides no express basis for placing the judges over the People�s sovereignty and rights either, and in fact the Article has some prohibitions in Sections 9 & 10: �No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: �� and �No State shall �-or grant any Title of Nobility.� The sovereign immunity � �the King can do no wrong� - came from the nobility of his birthright and title.

One should take a moment here to ponder the profound quote by Lord Acton: �Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.� Substitute �immunity� in place of �power.� Now repeat Lord Acton�s quote. Judges sit at the pinnacle of power; federal judges are appointed (not elected by the People) for life, and they grabbed absolute immunity for themselves. Power + immunity = abuse by judges and danger for the People.

Is that the type of judge Mr. Grey wants us to respect?

The facts in Bradley v. Fisher:  Joseph Bradley was an attorney, who
successfully defended and obtained a hung jury for his client, John Suratt, one of the alleged assassins of President Lincoln. George Fisher was the judge who presided over the trial, which started on June 10, 1867 and concluded on August 10, 1867. After the trial, Fisher unilaterally issued an order on November 9, 1967 striking Bradley�s name from the rolls of attorneys that could practice in the court, claiming that on July 2, 1867 Bradley �threatened� Fisher �with personal chastisement for alleged conduct of the judge during the progress of a criminal trial then pending.� (at 356.) Bradley was shortly returned to the �rolls.� Ex Parte Bradley, 74 U.S. (7 Wallace) 364 (1868). He then sued Judge Fisher for monetary damages in Bradley v. Fisher.

Judicial retribution by Judge Fisher? Beyond the issue of whether it is
constitutional, is the question: Is this the foundation, the basis, on which to plant the questionable doctrine of absolute judicial immunity?

To his credit, Justice David Davis (joined by Justice Nathan Clifford)
dissented in Bradley and wrote at 357:

�� I dissent from the rule laid down by the majority of the court, that a
judge is exempt from liability in a case like the present, where it is
alleged not only that his proceeding was in excess of jurisdiction, but that he acted maliciously and corruptly. If he did so, he is, in my opinion, subject to suit the same as a private person would be under like circumstances.�

Note: Just four years before his 1872 Bradley v. Fisher decision, Justice Field authored Randall v. Brigham, 74 (7 Wallace) 523 (1868). There Justice Field wrote that there was an exception to judicial immunity when acts are done maliciously or corruptly. Ironically, Randall, like Bradley, also involved a trial judge disbarring an attorney from a case before him. Randall likewise is absent consitutional authority for judicial immunity.

Second, is the case of Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), a decision written by Justice Holmes. There Holmes stated at 205: �Carrie Buck is a feeble minded white woman who was committed to the State Colony above mentioned in due form. She is the daughter of a feeble minded mother in the same institution, and the mother of an illegitimate feeble minded child.� In affirming the forced sterilization of Carrie Buck, Justice Holmes stated: �Three generations of imbeciles are enough.� (at 207.)

Peter Irons, in �A People�s History of the SUPREME COURT� (1999) Penguin Books, discussed the Buck v. Bell case at 252 stating:

�� His [Holmes] opinion reeked of the arrogance of aristocracy, and could easily have been written by Herbert Spencer. �It is better for all the world,� Holmes pontificated, �if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.� [P] Five decades later, a journalist who tracked down Carrie Buck and dug into old records discovered that she had been committed to Virginia�s �State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble Minded� only because she had been raped by the eminent doctor who employed her as a housekeeper. Her daughter, Emma, was a perfectly normal child, and the �eugenic expert� who recommended her sterilization was later honored by the German Nazi regime for helping draft its �Race Hygiene� law, which laid the tracks that ended in the gas chambers of Auschwitz and other death camps. Holmes knew nothing about the scientific fallacies of the �eugenic� movement; more important, he did not feel any duty to look behind the fabricated record in the Buck case.�

Immunity allowed Justice Holmes to act with impunity while he disregarded basic rights due Carrie Buck. Clearly, judicial power must be curbed and held accountable.

Third, is the case of Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978). There, Judge Harold Stump was sued by fifteen-year-old Linda Kay (Spitler) Sparkman, because without her knowledge or consent she was sterilized, after Judge Stump granted a �PETITION TO HAVE TUBAL LIGATION PERFORMED ON MINOR AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT� brought by the mother-Ora Spitler McFarlin�s attorney
and signed an order for the sterilization. The �petition� claimed she Linda was �somewhat retarded.� Linda Spitler never appeared in court, never had counsel, never had a chance to appeal, and never even knew what happened - as she was falsely told she was going to the hospital to have her appendix removed.

Justice Byron White (joined by Chief Justice Burger and Associate Justices Blackmun, Renquist and Stevens) wrote Stump v. Sparkman, which reversed the appellate court�s denial, and upheld the federal trial court�s grant of absolute judicial immunity for Judge Stump. Justice White�s decision is absent of any Constitutional authority for the immunity. Mr. Grey, is Justice White the type of judge you are referring to, who deserves our respect? and those justices who joined him? How about Judge Stump?

How can one have respect for any "judge" who could support and write such an obscene decision, upholding such perverse imperial judicial power, while sanctioning the desecration of the fundamental Constitutional rights of citizens. These judges did not protect the Constitution � they trashed it. These judges did not protect Linda (Spitler) Sparkman�s rights � they trashed them. This is the dark legacy of Bradley v. Fisher.

To their credit, Justice Stewart (joined by Justices Marshall and Powell)
dissented. At p.365 Justice Stewart wrote:

�� and I think that what Judge Stump did on July 9, 1971, was beyond the pale of anything that could sensibly be called a judicial act.� [continued at 369:] �The petitioners� brief speaks of �an aura of deism which surrounds the bench �� Though the rhetoric may be overblown, I do not quarrel with it. But if aura there be, it is hardly protected by exonerating from liability such lawless conduct as took place here. And if intimidation would serve to deter its recurrence, that would surely be in the public interest. (ftnt. 9 omitted.)�

Aura of deism? Such lawless conduct? Mr. Grey, is this the type of judging we are to respect?

The underlying appellate decision Sparkman v. McFarlin, 552 F.2d 172 (7th Cir. 1977), a 3/0 opinion by Judges Swygert (joined by Judges Wood and East), held Judge Stump did not have immunity and did not have jurisdiction to sterilize young Linda Spitler. At p.174 Judge Swygert wrote:

��Although this grant of judicial power is broad, we cannot accept the
assertion that it cloaks an Indiana Circuit Court judge with blanket
immunity. He may not arbitrarily order or approve anything presented to him in the form of an affidavit or petition.�

At p.176 Judge Swygert held that to order sterilization under the
circumstances here:

"...we would be sanctioning tyranny from the bench. There are actions of purported judicial character that a judge, even when exercising general jurisdiction, is not empowered to take. (ftnt, 7 - omitted). � [P] Finally, the petition and order were never filed in court. This kind of purported
justice does not fall within the categories of cases at law or in equity.�

Never filed in court? We would be sanctioning tyranny from the bench? Tyranny � that is exactly what the Supreme Court justices committed in Stump v. Sparkman when they reversed Judges Swygert, Wood and East giving immunity to Judge Stump..

Fourth, is the case of Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), an 8/1 decision written by Chief Justice Warren, that affirmed immunity for judges under section 1983 civil rights statute that imposed liability on �Every person who, under color of [law] � subjects or causes � any citizen of the United States � to the deprivation of any rights � secured by the constitution and laws ��. The decision is absent of any Constitutional basis/authority for absolute judicial immunity.

To his credit, Justice Douglas wrote in his lone dissent at 559:

�� The court�s ruling is not justified by the admitted need for a vigorous and independent judiciary, is not commanded by the common-law doctrine of judicial immunity, and does not follow from inexorably from our prior decisions. � [P] To most, �every person� would mean every person, not every person except judges.� [Continuing at 562:] The position that Congress did not intend to change the common-law rule of judicial immunity ignores the fact that every member of Congress who spoke on the issue assumed that the words of the statute meant what they said and judges would be liable. � [P] The section�s purpose was to provide redress for the deprivation of civil rights. It was recognized that certain members of the judiciary were instruments of oppression and were partially responsible for the wrongs to be remedied. The parade of cases coming to this Court shows that a similar condition now obtains in some of the States. Some states courts have been instruments of suppression of civil rights.�

[Continuing at 565:] �The argument that the actions of officials must not be subjected to judicial scrutiny because to do so would have an inhibiting effect on their work, is but a more sophisticated manner of saying �The King can do no wrong.� (ftnt. 5 omitted.) Chief Justice Cockburn long ago disposed of the argument that liability would deter judges: �I can not believe that judges � would fail to discharge their duty faithfully and fearlessly according to their oaths and consciences � from any fear of exposing themselves to actions at law. I am persuaded that the number of such actions would be infinitely small and would be easily disposed of. While, on the other hand, I can easily conceive cases in which judicial opportunity might be so perverted and abused for the purpose of injustice as that, on sound principles, the authors of such wrong ought to be responsible to the parties wronged.� Dawkins v Lord Paulet, LR 5 QB 94, 110 (C.J. Cockburn, dissenting).�

[Concluding at 566 Douglas wrote:]   �� What about the judge who conspires with local law enforcement officers to �railroad� a dissenter? What about the judge who knowingly turns a trial into a �kangaroo� court? Or one who knowingly flouts the Constitution in order to obtain a conviction? ��

What about judges like that Mr. Grey? Should we give them absolute judicial immunity? Should we respect them? More important Mr. Grey, what about the citizens who�s rights those judges trampled?

A look at what some legal commentaries have said on the issue is helpful here. In �Liability of Judicial Officers Under Section 1983� 79 Yale L.J. 322 (1969), it is written at p.322:

�� This Note contends that the congressional intent of Section 1983 and the policies underlying this exemption do not support a grant of judicial immunity, but rather argue for judicial liability under an actual malice standard. (ftnt. 3 omitted.) [Continuing at 337:] [P] But whatever the long term results of imposing liability, there is no adequate rationale�in history or policy�for altogether exempting judicial officers from liability under section 1983. ��

Note, absent from �Liability of Judicial Officers Under Section 1983� are the questions of whether the Court ever had the constitutional
authority/power to give itself immunity and whether that would violate the doctrine of separation of powers.

In �Immunity of Federal and State Judges from Civil Suit�Time for Qualified Immunity?� 27 Case Western L. Rev. 727 (1977), Douglas K. Barth wrote at p.741:

�The Court�s decision in Bradley and Pierson firmly entrench the judiciary�s immunity from either tort or section 1983 suits. Even so, the four policy reasons typically recited to support judicial immunity demonstrate the doctrine�s inherent fallacies. (ftnt. 82 omitted.)�

Note: Mr. Barth�s article was written just prior to the Supreme Court�s
Stump v. Sparkman decision, thus the Court clearly ignored his criticism of the doctrine�s inherent fallacies. Absent from Mr. Barth�s paper are the questions of whether the Court ever had the constitutional authority/power to give itself immunity and whether that would violate the doctrine of separation of powers.

In �Stump v. Sparkman: The Doctrine of Judicial Immunity,� 64 Virginia L.Rev. 833 (1978), Irene Merker Rosenberg wrote at 833:

�Ever since the Supreme Court�s ruling in 1967 that state judges acting
within their jurisdiction are absolutely immune from suit for damages under section 1983, (ftnt.1 omitted) legal commentators have persistently condemned this unqualified exemption. (ftnt.2 omitted.) In Stump v. Sparkman, (ftnt.3 omitted) the Court gave its response to these critiques by not only reaffirming but also apparently expanding the immunity doctrine, thus facilitating the use of still another mechanism for federal courts to avoid the merits of constitutional claims. (ftnt.4 omitted.)

[Continuing at 856:] �That these judges will be deterred by proceedings
against them in criminal courts or before judicial disciplinary committees is no answer. (ftnt.93 omitted.) The possibility that a district attorney
will prosecute a judge for misconduct other than crass, monetary schemes is remote, (ftnt.94 omitted) and judicial qualifications commissions are less than renowned for their prosecutorial zeal. (ftnt.95 omitted.) Finally, the electorate cannot always be depended upon to oust judges who have trampled individual rights. (fntn.96 omitted.)

[Concluding at 858:] �� It is understandable that the Justices would wish to construct a protective umbrella considerably broader that strict
necessity would mandate to assure coverage of all the deserving. It is
quite another matter, however, to stretch that umbrella so that it also
covers Daumier caricatures in judicial robes on their way to a masquerade ball.�

Note: Absent from Ms. Rosenberg�s paper are the questions of whether the Court ever had the constitutional authority/power to give itself immunity and whether that would violate the doctrine of separation of powers.

In �Stump v. Sparkman and the History of Judicial Immunity,� (1980) Duke L.J. 879, No.5, J. Randolph Block wrote at p.924:

�� The availability of appellate correction of error is, therefore,
absolutely central to the logic of judicial immunity. For this reason,
judicial immunity should not be available when, as in Sparkman, the actions complained of prevented the complainant from seeking normal correction of error.�

Mr. Block misses the point here, immunity in fact was available/granted to Judge Stump � not by the 7th Circuit, Sparkman v. McFarlin, 552 F.2d 172, who correctly denied him such - but it was given to him by the U.S. Supreme Court - which reversed! This clearly demonstrates that the Courts, the judges, the judiciary - look out for themselves - instead of fiercely protecting and upholding the Constitution and the sovereignty and rights of the People. The government (here the judges) win, the People lose, our sovereignty is inverted. Clearly the courts cannot be trusted and their powers must be curbed.

In �Suing Judges: History and Theory� 31 South Carolina L.Rev. 201 (1980) Jay M. Feinman and Roy S. Cohen wrote at p.203:

�We conclude that statements such as that in Bradley are inadequate history at two levels, reflecting judicial misunderstanding of both what the law was and how and why it developed. Actually, English law began with a position of general judicial liability and developed only limited exceptions on ground irrelevant to a discussion of judicial liability today. When the English law was received in the United States, this limited immunity was expanded significantly, notably by James Kent, to limit liability, and throughout the nineteenth century a mixed pattern of judicial liability and immunity existed in America. In Bradley, Justice Field provided a confused reformation of the law, which led to a further limitation of liability. At no point, however, were the advantages and disadvantages of judicial immunity fairly examined. Because the case for immunity is inconclusive and unpersuasive on historical grounds, we also examine the issue on policy grounds; our analysis proceeds from a thorough review of the case law and literature. We conclude that immunity is indefensible on policy grounds as well ��

[Continuing at 205:] �Most of the major judicial liability cases use the
common-law origins of judicial immunity as a justification for the doctrine.   For example, as noted above, Bradley v. Fisher, the case principally relied on by the Court in Stump, used extensive discussion of English case law to show the authority of the rule and to support its continued application. [P] In this section, we demonstrate that these conclusions about English law simply are incorrect. A careful analysis of English law shows that the basic rule was one of liability, that no simple rule of immunity ever existed, and that applications to American law of those instances in which immunity was granted have been inappropriate. In sum, the English law provides little support for a rule of absolute judicial immunity.�

[Continuing at 279:] �� It is our belief that the decision in Stump should be rejected as too protective of judicial prerogative because it violates a basic tenet of the legal process � the right of review � when there would be little cost to the legal system from imposing liability.

[P]  Thus, Justice Powell�s emphasis on the importance is persuasive to us. The majority�s conclusion, whatever the strengths and weaknesses of the process that produced it, is simply undesirable. ...�

Note: Absent from Mr. Feinman�s and Mr. Cohen�s paper, are the questions of whether the Court ever had the constitutional authority/power to give itself immunity and whether that would violate the doctrine of separation of powers.

In �FEDERAL JURISDICTION� (3rd Ed) Aspen Law & Business, Aspen Publishers, Professor Erwin Chemerinsky wrote at p.495:

�In numerous specific cases � ranging from the scope of judicial immunity (ftnt.6 omitted) to the availability of punitive damages (ftnt.7 omitted) � the Court has focused extensively on the common law of immunities as it existed when section 1983 was adopted. This historical approach is subject to substantial criticism. First, it assumes that the common law was clear about the nature of the immunity to be accorded to particular government officers. Yet usually there was great divergence among the states and there was no firmly established rules. For instance, the Court has emphasized the common law immunity to suits for damages under section 1983. (ftnt.8 omitted.) However, in 1871 only thirteen of thirty-seven states accorded judges such immunities for suits. (ftnt.9 omitted.) In fact, in adopting section 1983, many members of Congress were particularly concerned about
unconstitutional conduct by judges. (ftnt.10 omitted.)

[Continuing at 496:] �Additionally, even if common law principle were clear and discoverable, their relevance to modern doctrines is questionable. The fundamental premises of tort law have changed dramatically over the past 130 years, as have views about the Constitution and individual rights. Undoubtedly many officers occupy far different positions that they did in 1871. Furthermore, there is strong argument that common law tort immunities have little relevance in determining the scope of responsibility for constitutional violations. Some suggest that the Court should abandon the immunity inquiry and leave the entire matter of immunities to the legislature. (ftnt.14 omitted.) Others would prefer a more functional approach to determining the nature of immunities. (ftnt.15 omitted.) Nonetheless, for now, the starting point in the Court�s analysis of immunity remains the common law of 1871.�

Wrong! The starting point then, now, and always - is the Constitution!   Article III does not grant the judiciary immunity. Maybe that is why Justice Field did not mention the Constitution in Bradley. The Supreme Court has thereafter ignored that there is no Constitutional authority/basis for absolute judicial immunity. Judges giving judges absolute immunity � over and above the rights of the People - violates the sovereignty of the People, the Constitution and separation of powers. Absolute immunity sets a dangerous precedent, laying the ground-work for further trampling of the rights of citizens, and further acts elevating government over the People.

Beyond the protection judges gave themselves with immunity, is the problem that judges protect themselves further regarding complaints to judicial agencies/commissions about judicial misconduct. For example, an August 7, 2002 Associated Press article by Anne Gearan �Self-policing Federal Judges Rarely Impose Penalties," reports in pertinent part:

�Federal judges usually police one another�s behavior, but they rarely meet out punishment. Of 766 ethical complaints lodged last year, [2001] only 1 resulted in a penalty. � In the single case last year in which the judge was punished, the penalty was a private censure and no details, not even the judge�s name were released. The system encourages lenient treatment, American University law professor Paul Rice said Tuesday. �They have an obligation to police themselves, and of course that is the problem,� he said. Judges sit on the boards that review allegations of ethical misconduct and are loath to punish a colleague, Rice said.�

More recent, a January 18, 2004 pg.B1 LA Times article �Judge May Face Sanctions � Federal Jurist Improperly took over case, Judicial Panel says� reported:

�A veteran federal judge faces disciplinary proceedings after he improperly seized control of a bankruptcy case in an effort to protect a woman whose probation he had decided to oversee personally. � Penalties for district Judge Manuel L. Real, 79 who has been a controversial member of the federal judiciary in Los Angeles since 1966, could range from a private reprimand to loss of the authority to hear cases. � The proceeding in the case have largely taken place out of the public eye. The judicial council of the 9th Circuit � handed down its ruling on Real in mid-December, but the decision has never been formally published and has not been placed on the court website. � Legal experts say the council�s ruling means that some sort of penalty against Real is highly likely.   That alone would make his case rare. More than 99% of the complaints filed against federal judges around
the county are dismissed out of hand. The 9th Circuit council has
reprimanded only two jurists in the last decade, while rejecting hundreds of complaints, according to official records. Beyond that, Real�s opponents say, the case provides a textbook example of the way a federal judge � holder of a lifetime appointment � can abuse his power on behalf of an individual he favors. � In 1984, Real fined [attorney Stephen] Yagman $250,000, a penalty that was later dismissed on appeal. The judge said the lawyer had filed a libel suit in bad faith. Yagman retorted by saying Real suffered from �mental disorders� and compared him to Tomas de Torquemada, leader of the Spanish Inquisition. � �Taking a case for the purpose of affecting the result is the antithesis of impartial judging,� said Stephen Gillers, vice dean of the New York University Law School and author of a legal ethics textbook. �These alleged transgressions deserved serious attention,� he said. USC law professor Erwin Chemerinsky agreed, �I think it is important for the 9th Circuit to say a judge should not behave this way.��

More that 99% dismissed out of hand? Textbook example of the way a federal judge can abuse his power? A judge should not behave this way? Why does the judiciary allow this to happen, Mr. Grey? How can anyone have respect for this, Mr. Grey?

Finally, and even worse, is the failure of both the House and the Senate to see that bad federal judges are removed: impeached and convicted. As pointed out in U.S. v. Hastings,, 881 F.2d 706, 709 (11th Cir. 1982) there had only been 9 impeachments of federal judges up to that time, with only 3 convictions. That is only 9 judges over 191 years. Post Hastings, federal District Court judge (Nevada) Harry Claiborne was impeached and removed by the Senate in 1986 (while in prison, on his 1984 conviction for tax evasion). Claiborne claimed he was the victim of a federal vendetta.

The failure to impeach has not been because federal judges have been angels. A clear example, is the case of Judge Andrew Hauk, Central District California. He �retired� (went on Senior Status) in 1982, due to numerous reversals �in scolding language� of his trial decisions because of bias and �intemperate and unpredictable behavior.� Rather than impeach or force Hauk to resign, areas of law were taken away from him. How does that protect the people and create respect for the judiciary? See �Circuit Slams Hauk, Takes Him Off Case,� August 31, 1993 p.1 LA Daily Journal, �Panel to Probe Actions of Federal Judge,� August 16, 1994 p.A4 LA Times, ��Penitent� Hauk Will Not Hear Certain Cases�, September 22, 1994 p.1 LA Daily Journal, and
�Questions About a Judge,� March 28, 1995, p.B12 LA Times editorial. The people will no longer have to fear Congress not doing its duty, or fear Judge Hauk. He died on November 9, 2004 at the age of 91.

Another example is Judge James Ware, Northern District California. He was a shoe-in for elevation to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal, having already been confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, when a tragic story - as to why he became an attorney, then a judge, that he had been telling in speeches and interviews for several years, beginning in 1973, was discovered to be a lie. Although Ware withdrew his own nomination to the appellate bench, he was not impeached, nor forced to resign and remains a district court judge, and at times has even had special assignments sitting as a justice on the federal appellate court.

The story was about 13-year-old Virgil Ware being shot and killed while
riding on the handlebars of his brother James Ware's bike in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963 by white racists. The story was true � Virgil was in fact shot and killed. The �lie� was that the Judge was not the brother, not that James Ware. In telling the tragic tale, Ware would tell crowds the murder of his teen-age bother �made him hungry for justice.� See �Judge Lied About Civil Rights Death,� November 7, 1997, pg. News-18 Daily News, �Embattled Judge Ware Cancels Calendar After Media Maelstrom,� November 10, 1997, pg.4 LA Daily Journal, �A Judge Compromised,� November 11, 1997, pg.6 LA Daily Journal editorial, �IF THE TRUTH BE TOLD - Judge James Ware�s �Lack Of Honesty� Should cost Him the Bench,� November 25, 1997, pg.6 LA Daily Journal commentary piece and �Judge Censured For Lying About Childhood Event � Ware Receives First Such Reprimand From 9th Circuit Council,� August 19, 1998, pg.1 LA Daily Journal. See also Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1996) where Ware was the presiding USDC trial judge, reversed for dismissing a civil rights case against a judge (Stone) and attorneys accused of conspiring to steal an estate by manipulating court proceedings. Ware determined Judge Stone had �absolute immunity� and that the attorneys conduct was �privileged�. The appellate court affirmed on judicial immunity, but reversed on �privilege.� Not mentioned was that before Ware became a federal judge, he was a colleague of Judge Stone on the Santa Clara
County Superior Court. Conflict?

Another example is the case of San Jose federal Judge Robert P. Aguilar, Northern District. As reported in �U.S. Drops Case Against Judge Who Resigns � Tried Twice on Charges of Disclosing a Wiretap and Trying to Sway Fellow Jurists,� June 25, 1996 pg.A3, LA Times, the federal government dropped its 7-year prosecution of Aguilar � the first federal judge ever indicted in California � in exchange for his immediate resignation. A January federal appeals court decision �overturn[ed] Aguilar�s sole remaining conviction, for disclosing wiretap information,� In the agreement, Aguilar �...acknowledged disclosing wiretap information, but did not admit criminal wrongdoing.�

One Court attempted to deal honestly with the problem. In Lo v. Los Angeles County Superior Court, (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1045, a former criminal party sued the trial judge (George W. Trammell, III, who presided over her case, then later allegedly coerced sex from her) and the County and State on employer liability. Reversing the trial court ruling that sustained a County/State demurrer, the Court stated:

�We decline to burden this opinion with the myriad other cases, in
California and other jurisdictions, in the intervening 25 years chronicling
sexual abuse by judges. We decline to find an abuse of judicial power for personal gratification so unusual and startling to shield defendants from respondeat superior liability.2

"2 The cases are rife with judicial abuses of power motivated by arrogance as well as sexual abuse. (See Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications (1975) 14 Cal.3d 678.) Abuse of power can be motivated by greed, arrogance, sexuality, or any other improper motive. Our Constitutional system of checks and balances was designed to protect us against the Founder�s expectations that unchecked power would lead to rampant abuse. They considered abuse of power so common as to design an entire system of government to expressly check it.

On February 19, 1999, the California Supreme Court issued an order
decertifying the above appellate opinion, directing it not be published in
the Official Appellate Reports. The LA County DA refused to bring criminal charges against Trammell. (See �L.A. County�s Dual Standard of Justice Marches On,� by Charles L. Lindner, January 11, 1998, p.M6, LA Times.) The California Attorney General, in like fashion refused. Eventually the U.S. Attorney�s Office brought charges against Trammell; he pled guilty to two counts of mail fraud on October 1, 2000. (See �Judge Trammell Gets 27-Month Prison Sentence � Trading Leniency for Sexual Favors Was Abuse of Position,� February 1, 2001, pg.1, LA Daily Journal.)

But the sad truth is that the �checks and balances� � �separation of power,� despite the grand efforts of our Founding Fathers, simply have not worked well in holding the judiciary accountable. The case of Bracey v. Gramley, 420 U.S. 899 (1997) is a blatant testament to that. In Bracey, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote:

�Petitioner William Bracey was tried, convicted and sentenced to death
before then-judge Thomas J. Maloney for his role in an execution-style
triple murder (ftnt. omitted.) Maloney was later convicted of taking bribes from defendants in criminal cases. Although he was not bribed in this case, he �fixed� other murder cases during and around the time of petitioner�s trial. Petitioner contends that Maloney therefore had an interest in a conviction here, to deflect suspicion that he was taking bribes in other cases, and that this interest violated the fair-trial guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment�s due Process Clause. We hold that petitioner has made a sufficient factual showing to establish �good cause� � for discovery �

�Maloney was one of many dishonest judges exposed and convicted through �Operation Greylord,� a labyrinthine federal investigation of judicial corruption in Chicago. See United States v. Maloney, 71 F.3d 645 (CA7 1995), cert. Denied, 519 U.S. ___ (1996); see generally J. Tuohy & R. Warden, �Greylord � Justice, Chicago Style (1989). Maloney served as a judge from 1977 until he retired in 1990, and it appears he has the dubious distinction of being the only Illinois judge ever convicted of fixing a murder case. (ftnt. omitted.) Before he was appointed to the bench, Maloney was a criminal defense attorney with close ties to organized crime, who often paid off judges in criminal cases. App.54-66; 81F.3d 684 (CA7 1996) (Rovner J., dissenting) (�[B]y the time Maloney ascended to the bench in 1997, he was well groomed in the art of judicial corruption�). Once a judge, Maloney exploited many of the relationships and connections he had developed while bribing judges to solicit bribes for himself. For example, Lucius Robinson, a bailiff through whom Maloney had bribed judges while in
practice, and Robert McGee, one of Maloney�s former associates, both served as �bag men,� or intermediaries, between Maloney and lawyers looking for a fix. Two such lawyers, Robert J. Cooley and William A. Swano, were key witnesses against Maloney at this trial. Maloney, supra, at 650-652.�

I rest my case Mr. Grey. There is good reason not to respect our Courts � the works of the judiciary itself. The judiciary has placed themselves above the People, above the Constitution, and above the law, instead of being the guardians of the Constitution and the guardians of our liberty. That is its fundamental duty! The purpose of the law is to be the vehicle to deliver justice. The first purpose listed in the Preamble to our Constitution is to �Establish Justice.� The judicially created and judicially upheld doctrine of absolute judicial immunity - has been the vehicle of � injustice.

There is equally good reason not to respect the Congress and the Executive branches, as they have also not defended the Constitution and our liberty from the attacks by the judiciary. Why have they sat idly by, or done worse, when the judiciary made its power-grab for absolute immunity in violation of separation of powers. See �WITHOUT MERIT: The Empty Promise of Judicial Discipline,� (1997) Vol.4, No.1, Massachusetts School of Law, The Long Term View, p.90, at http://www.judgewatch.org/.

Mr. Grey, you and the ABA can continue to defend the indefensible. The People will not, as recent books show: �Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America,� by Mark Levin, �The SUPREMACISTS: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It,� by Phyllis Schlafly, �Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws,� by Judge (retired) Andrew Napolitano, �Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges,� by
Robert H. Bork, �Go Directly to Jail: The Criminalization of Just About Everything,� by Gene Healy, and �Against Leviathan: Government Power and A Free Society,� by Robert Higgs.

Mr. Grey, instead, one would wish that you and the ABA, would join in
combating the �Rule of Judges,� and join in defending the Constitution. But frankly, like the disrespect and distrust of the judiciary, that situation largely equally (and probably to a greater extent) afflicts the ABA and the attorney population in general. To be a judge, one must almost always be an attorney, (thus the judiciary is exclusively lawyers); and the legislature and executive branches are inordinately held/staffed by lawyers. Judges and lawyers are an oligarchy, and we now have a government - of the judges/lawyers, for the judges/lawyers and by the judges/lawyers.

There is a constant clamor about "threats" to the independence of the judiciary, from the judiciary, and the cheerleading ABA and state Bar Associations. Fact is, the threats are grossly exaggerated. Fact is, the judiciary is all powerful and plenty able to defend itself - against any threat. Fact is, the judiciary has never been that independent and has always been quite political - because being the third branch of government, by definition, is political by nature. We have been fooled long enough. More important, is that the judiciary has become too independent - independent from the dictates of the Constitution, and independent from, above, and beyond - the People, who duty it is to serve. Judicial independent is not the problem - judicial accountability is!

To conclude Mr. Grey, the abuse continues - it is manifest. See the
following four (4) current/pending cases that clearly demonstrate blatant judicial/government corruption.

1. Robert Schultz, et.al. v. IRS, et. al., Case No. 04CV01211, D.C.
Federal Distict Court � asking the question: Is the right to petition dead? The lawsuit to restore Constitutional order. See http://www.givemeliberty.org/.

2.   U.S. v. Sassower, DC Superior Court, Case No. M-411303 (appeal
pending), involving the wrongful arrest, prosecution, conviction and
incarceration of Ms. Sassower on a bogus charge of �Disruption of Congress.� She simply, politely and respectfully, attempted to testify in a public Senate Judiciary Committee Confirmation Hearing. See http://www.whiteplainscnr.com/, article �Day 151 of the Elena Sassower Incarceration in Washington, D.C.,� by reporter John F. Bailey, November 25, 2004, and, The Village Voice, February 1, 2005, article �The Scourge of Her Conviction � Activist Elena Sassower Annoyed Congress, Her Trial Judge, and Defenders of Free Speech � All the Way to Jail,� at www.villagevoice.com/news/0505,lombardi,60660,6.html.

3. Huminski v.Corsones, et. al., Docket Nos. 02-6201 (L), 02-6150 (XAP), 02-6199 (XAP), 03-6059 (CON), decided 10-7-04, (2nd Cir. 2004) and 386 F3d, 116, (2nd Cir 205), involving judicial retribution against Scott Huminski for protesting about improper treatment from Judge Corsones and other officials. Corsones and others, without any basis, issued a bogus order that barred Huminski from every courthouse and their grounds in Vermont. After the fact, Corsones fabricated that the basis for the order was that she "...thought Humiski may have had a bomb in his van." See www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news, �2nd Circuit: Vermont Gadfly Wrongly Barred From Courthouse,� October 8, 2004, A.P. article.

4. Forte v. Albov, et. al., Case No. M 54914, Superior Court of California, County of Monterey - a legal malpractice case. Below is a court reporter�s transcript of a Motion to Quash the deposition subpoena Forte served on Ms. Stephanie Crabb (a realtor, involved in a prior case with Forte). Forte desired to take Ms. Crabb�s deposition, after a document previously requested, but not provided, or listed on privilege logs, was later inadvertently provided/discovered. Forte believed the document was intentionally withheld, and during earlier testimony, Ms. Crabb perjured herself, at the direction of her attorney.

The attorney bringing the Motion, Dennis McCarthy, represented Ms. Crabb in the prior litigation and the Motion asked the court to sanction Forte. Forte opposed the Motion, per California law giving him a clear right to take the depositon, and sought sanctions against Crabb/McCarthy. Originally, the Motion was assigned to be heard by Judge Fields; just prior to the hearing Forte called Field�s clerk and is advised the Motion is now assigned to Judge O�Farrell � Forte�s nemesis, who had just been reversed by the appellate court for wrongly dismissing a prior case of Forte�s.

DECEMBER 19, 2003 - TRANSCRIPT

*     *     *
THE COURT: THE NEXT MATTER IS FORTE VERSUS ALBOV.

MR. MCCARTHY: GOOD MORNING, DENNIS MCCARTHY APPEARING FOR STEPHANIE CRABB.

MR. FORTE: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: GOOD MORNING.

MR. FORTE: GENE FORTE, PROPRIA PERSONA. YOUR HONOR, PRIOR TO THIS � COMMENCEMENT OF THIS HEARING, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. HOW WAS THIS CASE ASSIGNED TO YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: WE�RE NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT. IT�S MY CASE. I�M TAKING IT. JUDGE FIELDS HAD THIS MATTER. HE DISQUALIFIED HIMSELF. I HAVE GOT THE
CASE. THAT IS THE END OF IT.

MR. FORTE: EXCUSE ME.

THE COURT: NO, THAT�S IT.

MR. FORTE: EXCUSE - -

THE COURT: NO, EXCUSE ME. WE�RE GOING IN THE ORDER THAT THIS MOTION WAS SET.

MR. FORTE: NO, PARDON ME, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: NO, IF - -

MR. FORTE: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. YOU�RE INTERRUPTING ME.

THE COURT: IF YOU KEEP INTERRUPTING ME, SIR, I�M GOING TO HAVE TO CITE YOU FOR CONTEMPT. AND I�M TELLING YOU THAT NOW, WARNING YOU. YOU SIT DOWN.
YOU SIT DOWN. WE�LL HEAR FROM THE MOVING PARTY FIRST, AND THEN WE�LL HEAR FROM YOU.

MR. FORTE: YOU�RE ALLOWING ME - - YOU�RE NOT ALLOWING DUE PROCESS YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: TAKE A SEAT.

MR. FORTE: HERE�S A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE. YOU�RE OUT OF HERE. TAKE IT, IT�S FILED. PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE. PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: TAKE HIM INTO CUSODY, PLEASE

*     *     *
The transcript continues, see http://www.attorneybusters.com/. Forte was grabbed by the bailiff, handcuffed, taken from court and put in a holding cell. He was later brought back into court for a direct contempt hearing (which are required to take place immediately � to restore the integrity of the court and its business). However, Forte was left to sit handcuffed in the jury box, while Judge O�Farrell heard other matters. The judge then took a break and left the bench, before taking up Forte�s purported direct contempt.

Clearly any justification for �direct� contempt had long passed and
California law and due process now required Forte�s purported contempt be assigned to another judge for hearing, as clearly Judge O�Farrell was �personally embroiled� � conflicted. See Little v. Kern County Superior Court, 294 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2002).   Further, California law mandates that a peremptory challenge (CCP section 170.6) must be filed before the hearing begins, and once filed, the judge immediately loses jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the judge proceeded, found Forte in direct contempt, and sentenced him to the remainder of the day in jail (transferred from court to Salinas jail).

Forte later checked the court file; it was absent any documentation showing transfer of the case from Judge Fields, or that he had in fact had disqualified himself. In initial litigation, Forte was represented by counsel, who told him the Monterey judges were a �Good Ole Boy�s Club,� that routinely �manipulated hearing and trial dates and fixed cases� for well connected law firms. For further information, see http://www.attorneybusters.com/.

For Common Sense, Liberty, and Justice,

Gary L. Zerman, Atorney

Gzerman@...

J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - http://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!

To be added or removed write VictoryUSA@...
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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#921

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 11:16 pm
Subject: The Paper Jungle Will NOT Prevail With J.A.I.L.

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                            April 12, 2005
______________________________________________________
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
______________________________________________________

The Paper Jungle

Will NOT Prevail With J.A.I.L.

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

From: Dick Marple

To: VictoryUSA@...

Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 9:48 AM

Subject: RE: * * * J.A.I.L. Is Needed EVERYWHERE --And Soon! * * *

Barbie.....

Let me make an analogy that hopefully will cause some contemplation by the reader. You are free to reproduce this is if you feel it worthy.

" The experiment in erecting a house of FREEDOM, executed in 1776 , had for its FOUNDATION, closely stacked bricks of gold and silver on which the edifice of a free market was erected. As these Bricks of gold and silver were removed by the usurious international banksters, and replaced with pieces of paper, the house has crumbled, no longer able to withstand the weight of FREEDOM."

Barbie....upon due consideration, I hope you will re-direct your untiring efforts to a return to constitutional coin, as required by Article One, Section 8, clause five. Until then, the paper jungle will prevail and all other efforts will be for naught.

Sincerely, Dick Marple
(New Hampshire State Rep.)

armlaw@...

Thank you Dick for your analogy. J.A.I.L. will allow the people to enforce the entire Constitution including Article One, Section 8, clause five.

As far as our efforts are concerned, Ron is a minister (see the website) and he has been called upon by the Lord to lead this cause of judicial accountability to the people. This cause is Ron's current ministry reaching to all people, regardless of political or religious persuasion. The first item in the California Constitution states: "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. ... " (Article I, Sec. 1 -portion- emph.added). That is a reflection of the Declaration of Independence, the basic foundation of J.A.I.L.

Dick, this cause will handle all our ills because it will hold the oligarchy running this country (the judiciary) accountable to the people. People will be able to file redress of grievances of whatever issue, including the money issue, and the courts will have to address them according to constitutional precepts or be subject to scrutiny by the SGJ of J.A.I.L.

As you probably know, the courts have the final word on everything. People have written us saying that the courts are under pressure from lawyers, from the executive tyrants, from corporations, from international banksters, from secret societies, etc., etc. but that's no excuse for violating their fiducial responsibility for which they take an oath (or are constitutionally required to). It's the duty of the judges, as the guardian of individual's rights, protecting them from arbitrary government, to faithfully carry out that responsibility to the people.

Due process has been defined by the courts as: "The touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government." Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114, 123 (1889); Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S.527, 549 (1981); Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986). "[T]he Due Process Clause, like its forebear in the Magna Carta, see Corwin, The Doctrine of Due Process of Law Before the Civil War, 24 Harv. L.Rev. 366, 368 (1911), was 'intended to secure the individual from the arbitrary exercise of the powers of government,' Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 527 (1884) (quoting Bank of Columbia v. Okely, 4 Wheat. 235, 244 (1819)." Daniels, supra at 331.

That covers it. Government is instituted to protect our rights, and the judiciary is to guard that protection according to law. "Due process of law" is a theory of the past, and not a practice of the present. The judiciary has failed in its fiducial responsibility of carrying out the public trust. It has failed as being the guardian of our rights; therefore the people must "provide new guards" for their future security. For purposes of J.A.I.L., that would actually be an "additional guard" being an independent oversight by the people guarding judicial action once it is finalized. We, the people, must be the ultimate guard of our rights.

The judiciary is the spigot through which all government corruption flows, and the people will have to clean it out with the solvent called "J.A.I.L." The people can't continue to hack at the many branches of the Evil tree (one of which is the fraudulent money system), but they must strike at the ROOT of it all-- i.e., the despotic judiciary where Evil is arbitrarily ruled as "law" on any issue, and its acceptance is forced on everyone without accountability. This Evil is no longer sufferable!

-Barbie

ACIC, National J.A.I.L. Admin.

victoryusa@...

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#922

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 2:35 pm
Subject: * * Lawyers and Judges in Collusion * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                                   April 12, 2005
______________________________________________________
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
______________________________________________________

The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion Law loses its way
By Chief Justice John F. Molloy

(Author Miranda Decision, AZ.)

When I began practicing law in 1946, justice was much simpler. I
joined a small Tucson practice at a salary of $250 a month, excellent
compensation for a beginning lawyer. There was no paralegal staff or
expensive artwork on the walls.

In those days, the judicial system was straightforward and efficient.
Decisions were handed down by judges who applied the law as outlined
by the Constitution and state legislatures. Cases went to trial in a month
or two, not years. In the courtroom, the focus was on uncovering and determining truth and fact.

I charged clients by what I was able to accomplish for them. The clock
did not start ticking the minute they walked through the door.

Looking back

The legal profession has evolved dramatically during my 87 years. I
am a second-generation lawyer from an Irish immigrant family that
settled in Yuma. My father, who passed the Bar with a fifth-grade
education, ended up arguing a case before the U.S. Supreme Court
during his career.

The law changed dramatically during my years in the profession. For
example, when I accepted my first appointment as a Pima County judge
in 1957, I saw that lawyers expected me to act more as a referee than
a judge. The county court I presided over resembled a gladiator
arena, with dueling lawyers jockeying for points and one-upping each
other with calculated and ingenuous briefs.

That was just the beginning.

By the time I ended my 50-year career as a trial attorney, judge and
president of southern Arizona's largest law firm, I no longer had
confidence in the legal fraternity I had participated in and, yes,
profited from.

I was the ultimate insider, but as I looked back, I felt I had to
write a book about serious issues in the legal profession and the
implications for clients and society as a whole. The Fraternity:
Lawyers and Judges in Collusion was 10 years in the making and has
become my call to action for legal reform.

Disturbing evolution

Our Constitution intended that only elected lawmakers be permitted to
create law.

Yet judges create their own law in the judicial system based on their
own opinions and rulings. It's called case law, and it is churned out
daily through the rulings of judges. When a judge hands down a ruling
and that ruling survives appeal with the next tier of judges, it then
becomes case law, or legal precedent. This now happens so
consistently that we've become more subject to the case rulings of
judges rather than to laws made by the lawmaking bodies outlined in
our Constitution.

This case-law system is a constitutional nightmare because it
continuously modifies Constitutional intent. For lawyers, however, it
creates endless business opportunities. That's because case law is
technically complicated and requires a lawyer's expertise to guide
and move you through the system. The judicial system may begin with enacted laws, but the variations that result from a judge's application of case law all too often change the ultimate meaning.

Lawyer domination

When a lawyer puts on a robe and takes the bench, he or she is called
a judge. But in reality, when judges look down from the bench they are
lawyers looking upon fellow members of their fraternity. In any other
area of the free-enterprise system, this would be seen as a conflict of interest.

When a lawyer takes an oath as a judge, it merely enhances the ruling
class of lawyers and judges. First of all, in Maricopa and Pima counties, judges are not elected but nominated by committees of lawyers, along with concerned citizens.How can they be expected not to be beholden to those who elevated them to the bench?

When they leave the bench, many return to large and successful law
firms that leverage their names and relationships.

Business of law

The concept of "time" has been converted into enormous revenue for
lawyers. The profession has adopted elaborate systems where clients
are billed for a lawyer's time in six-minute increments. The paralegal profession is another brainchild of the fraternity, created as an additional tracking and revenue center. High-powered firms have departmentalized their services into separate profit centers for probate and trusts, trial, commercial, and so forth.

The once-honorable profession of law now fully functions as a bottom-
line business, driven by greed and the pursuit of power and wealth,
even shaping the laws of the United States outside the elected Congress and state legislatures.

Bureaucratic design

Today the skill and gamesmanship of lawyers, not the truth, often
determine the outcome of a case. And we lawyers love it. All the tools are there to obscure and confound. The system's process of discovery and the exclusionary rule often work to keep vital information off-limits to jurors and make cases so convoluted and complex that only lawyers and judges understand them.

The net effect has been to increase our need for lawyers, create more
work for them, clog the courts and ensure that most cases never go to
trial and are, instead, plea-bargained and compromised. All the while
the clock is ticking, and the monster is being fed.

The sullying of American law has resulted in a fountain of money for
law professionals while the common people, who are increasingly
affected by lawyer-driven changes and an expensive, self-serving
bureaucracy, are left confused and ill-served.

Today, it is estimated that 70 percent of low- to middle-income citizens can no longer afford the cost of justice in America. What would our Founding Fathers think?

This devolution of lawmaking by the judiciary has been subtle, taking
place incrementally over decades. But today, it's engrained in our legal system, and few even question it. But the result is clear. Individuals can no longer participate in the legal system.

It has become too complex and too expensive, all the while feeding our dependency on lawyers.

By complicating the law, lawyers have achieved the ultimate job security. Gone are the days when American courts functioned to serve justice simply and swiftly.

It is estimated that 95 million legal actions now pass through the courts annually, and the time and expense for a plaintiff or defendant in our legal system can be absolutely overwhelming.

Surely it's time to question what has happened to our justice system
and to wonder if it is possible to return to a system that truly does
protect us from wrongs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John F. Molloy was elected to the Arizona Court of Appeals, where he
served as chief justice and authored more than 300 appellate opinions. Molloy wrote the final Miranda decision for the Arizona Supreme Court.

JAIL4Judges is now posted on 2,510 different websites, up from 2,450 last month.

To be added or Removed, write VictoryUSA@...
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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#923

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Apr 16, 2005 2:25 am
Subject: * * * When Citizens Cannot Be Trusted * * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                                April 15, 2005
______________________________________________________
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
______________________________________________________

When Citizens Cannot Be Trusted

If one listens and pays attention to the words of government today, it is one that citizens are either untrustworthy or incompetent to decide for themselves their own affairs, and that government must decide for them. The below is a judicial decision that has just ruled that as it pertains to making complaints to the Grand Jury. "Allowing any citizen with a grudge to complain to a grand jury would be "fraught with abuse," Justice Barry Albin wrote for the state high court."

Grand Juries were created by our Founding Fathers as a powerful check upon arbitrary government. The Grand Jury, in reality, possesses both a spear and a shield, and in both instances, it is an instrument of the Power of the People, and a check upon government. In Amendment V of our U.S. Constitution we are told, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury ...."

What is a "presentment," and what is an "indictment" of the Grand Jury? A presentment is the shield operation of the Grand Jury, such as when the prosecutor presents a case to the Grand Jury, as when he asks the Grand Jury to determine Probable Cause in testing whether they will allow the government to proceed to try a citizen for an accused crime. An indictment is the Sword operations of the Grand Jury, as when the Grand Jury goes after government officials for violations of law. (They are at liberty to also indict non-government people, but going after government is its principle Sword function.)

Now what is the distinction between "a capital offense," and "an infamous crime." A capital offense involves crimes worthy of death, such as murder, and comes from the word capitation, "to behead." An "otherwise infamous crime" means a felony, such as kidnapping, hostage-taking, rape, or black-mail, etc.

Felonies were once all very serious crimes in everyone's estimation. However, the standard of felony today comes to mean just about anything, including victimless "crimes," to wit: ownership and/or possession of guns, failure to file paperwork, moving of one's own funds without reporting it to the government, using privacy techniques to hid actions, for instance, have been "declared" felonies in some jurisdictions, which heretofore, were not even crimes, much less felonies. For fun, I once sat down a constructed a long list of paper "crimes" one could be accused of, and while sounding like the defendant, if convicted, should be placed under the prison, a simple viewing of each one of them revealed that not a one of them were crimes at all. In other words, a thousand zeros equal zero, but it does compose a very long list.

Grand Juries hold a very, very important function for the correct running of our form of government, however, our Founding Fathers failed to pen in our Constitution the full details. They just presumed that future generations would know the duties of Grand Juries, which was detrimental to our future. Because of the vagueness of Grand Juries in our Constitution, government began turning things around by brain-washing the people into believing that their job as Grand Jurors was to be a sledge-hammer in the hands of the prosecutor. But from its inception Grand Juries were to be a forum in the hands of the people to investigate government corruption, and to go after government officials.

~ ~ ~ ~

State justices rule citizens can't take case to grand jury
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
BY ROBERT SCHWANEBERG
Star-Ledger Staff

Only prosecutors, not private citizens, can take complaints of wrongdoing to a grand jury, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously ruled yesterday.

The justices overturned a lower court ruling giving ordinary citizens access to grand juries and reaffirmed prosecutors' long-held monopoly over the power to initiate criminal investigations.

In doing so, the high court turned back arguments by an activist attorney that citizens needed a direct path to grand juries to expose corruption in a scandal-plagued state.

Allowing any citizen with a grudge to complain to a grand jury would be "fraught with abuse," Justice Barry Albin wrote for the state high court.

"In some cases, a private person might be bent on pursuing an ill motive or vindictive agenda," Albin wrote. "For instance, political candidates, on the eve of an election, might charge their opponents with fraud or some other nefarious activity and request admission to the grand jury."

Assistant Attorney General Boris Moczula, who had argued against grand jury access for private citizens, called the ruling "very good news."

"The opinion shows that for legal, practical and ethical reasons, the criminal justice system is not well-served by creating the equivalent of open-mike night before the grand jury," Moczula said.

It had been decades since any citizen had gone directly to a grand jury when Monmouth County lawyer Larry Loigman demanded that right in 2002, claiming he had evidence of "financial irregularities" in Middletown Township.

Monmouth County Assignment Judge Lawrence Lawson ruled that Loigman could not contact the grand jurors but should instead take his suspicions to the county prosecutor or the attorney general.

Last June, however, a state appeals court concluded that ordinary citizens have always had a right to bring allegations of wrongdoing to a grand jury, even if it has been little used in recent years. It directed that a letter containing Loigman's allegations be read to the county grand jury, which could then, if it wished, invite him to testify. At the request of the Attorney General's Office, that ruling was promptly put on hold.

Yesterday, the high court ruled that Lawson, the trial judge, was right to refuse to "'open the floodgate's to countless requests to appear before a grand jury."

"I'm disappointed," Loigman said. "I have a lot more confidence in the citizens of this state than the Supreme Court does."

When he argued his case before the justices in February, Loigman contended that empowering ordinary citizens to bring evidence of corruption to grand juries would "help restore trust" in a government tarnished by recent scandals.

Albin, however, concluded that is not a job for citizens with no legal training.

"The prosecutors' offices in this state have hundreds of experienced and well-trained attorneys, many of whom have made law enforcement their career," Albin wrote. "We have no reason to believe they cannot be trusted to bring before the grand jury meritorious complaints of potential criminal conduct and to weed out frivolous allegations unworthy of presentation."

Loigman said, "I think the Supreme Court has exaggerated confidence in the abilities of the attorney general and the county prosecutor to deal with issues of misconduct in government." One need look only to "what has happened in Monmouth County in recent months," he said.

After FBI agents served seven subpoenas on the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office last month, acting Gov. Richard Codey ordered Attorney General Peter Harvey to find out whether Prosecutor John Kaye had tried to impede a criminal investigation by U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie that resulted in the arrests of 11 public officials.

That "fact-finding review" is still pending, said John Hagerty, a spokesman for the state Division of Criminal Justice.

Loigman, a vocal critic of Kaye, said that to his knowledge, the inquiry is unrelated to the allegations he tried to bring to the grand jury.

Robert Schwaneberg covers legal issues. He may be reached at rschwaneberg@... or (609) 989-0324.

If you follow the above logic, then one concludes that legal education produces ethical agendas. Hence, attorneys, such as judges and prosecutors, are the best candidates to approach the Grand Jurors because they are more likely to avoid ill motives and vindictive agendas, and especially so since many of them have law enforcement training. Justice Barry Albin "concluded that is not a job for citizens with no legal training.

"Legal training?" Where did he get his legal training on prosecuting attorneys and judges are the only ones qualified to access Grand Juries? Where is that even inferred to in the Constitution?

J.A.I.L. is written to clarify in our Constitutions for all time, that Grand Juries belong to the People, and is their Sword to go after corrupt governments. And this is what will happen once J.A.I.L. takes effect. Every official will fear what they term as "a run-away Grand Jury," a Grand Jury that has teeth and bites, and may come after them. J.A.I.L. will embarrass all Grand Juries in America into action against all government officials caught with their hand in the cookie jar. That is what Grand Juries are supposed to do.

To be Added or Removed, write to VictoryUSA@...
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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#924

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Fri Apr 15, 2005 8:56 pm
Subject: We Can't Allow The "Clueless" To Stop The Rest Of Us From Getting J.A.I.L. Passed

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                              April 15, 2005
______________________________________________________
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
______________________________________________________

We Can't Allow The "Clueless" To Stop The Rest of Us From Getting J.A.I.L. Passed

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

From: ooglah.com/

To: VictoryUSA@...

Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 11:32 AM

Subject: ?Re: The "Legal Reality" Must Be Brought In Line With the Declaration ofIndependence

***The organic Constitution was written on behalf of the People (i.e., the governed) for the purpose of creating a government designed to protect the interests of the People"

It was?

HA!

Then what is the excuse for the "governed" woman on the steps asking old BJ Franklin what type government she was GAVE?

I don't know of any legitimate agency which can operate outside the knowledge and intention of the Principle. If the CONstitution issued out of the Principle that ought to be the GOVERNING woman, wouldn't you think?

And she wouldn't have had that question, would she?

So the question proves she was clueless....as every other "We the people" in the group.

And the Clueless and aimless can not be Principle or governing.

So the term "consent of the governed" is admission of an inferior status....akin to servants; The "consent" a slave gives his master.

No, I think it can be shown Harmon is sufficiently right-on in his observation that it should cause thinking people to at least reinvestigate the "Experiment".

But I wouldn't expect anything out of the Clueless for they do not know that they do not know and they do not have sufficient awareness even to question that they do not know.

BTW, the Declaration of Independence is not mentioned in the CONstitution and is of no force and effect, if it could have been, because of the abandonment created in that international COMPACT called the U.S. CONstitution and at the very least proven by the expressed international servitudes in Article VI. The Judges would be bound by those international servitudes as so-called "law of the land", those prior Engagements and Debt, and where it does this would trump anything else the CONstitution purports to create. So the Judges could be following the CONStitution and be bound thereby but it wouldn't necessarily mean anything to "we the people".

And because of the expressed servitudes in Article VI, the people are powerless to argue, because if they believe the CONstitution has force and effect they also must accept the controlling Principle. That Principle is implied by the express servitudes and it isn't we the people or any who might think they are. And it's the reason why any CONstiutional reliance for "rights" could be found to be "(1) frivolous, (2) without merit, (3) of no authority, and (4) ludicrous." Because where those rights tend to abrogate the international obligations or trespass Title those "rights" must yield.

Yeehhp.

They really did it to us good.

Hook, line and sinker.

OH, but did you get your license to do that?

Because it's illegal to claim the King's Fish as your own.

Oh Wait! It's WE that are the Groupers who Flounder.

FISH ON!

--ra

Dear "Ooglah"

First, I appreciate all the interesting discussion that my correspondence with Harmon Taylor has brought to our screen. I'm sure we can all learn from it-- maybe even eventually become "clued in" or "informed." But we can't allow the "clueless" to stop our efforts in getting J.A.I.L. passed and implemented as soon as possible!

Earlier today I put out a JNJ titled "WHAT? The Constitution Is An Ex Parte Restraining Order??" Therein I stated that the People must take matters about government and its relationship to the People back to the Declaration of Independence which sets forth, according to the Laws of Nature (which is universal and undeniable), that relationship. According to nature, mankind (the People) is created by the Creator and endowed with natural rights-- not asked for, but existing as being part of the human species. Again, this is according to nature-- regardless of religious belief, or any government-- domestic, foreign, or international.

The Declaration describes the natural relationship between "man" (I'll use the term "People") and government thusly: "That to secure these [natural] rights, governments are instituted among men [among the People], deriving their [government's] just powers from the consent of the governed [the People]." AGAIN I say, this is according to the Laws of Nature. Now comes the question, "HOW do the People institute government?" The DOI doesn't direct the specifics on "how" but it does set forth that it's the People that are to institute (create) government FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE of securing their natural rights. That much is established by the DOI.

True-- the Constitution doesn't mention the DOI. Perhaps it should have. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that the DOI is the authority FOR a Constitution by the People, since that is the manner by which the People (actually the states on behalf of the People-- and it has to be "on behalf of the People" since the People is/are the origin of authority for the Constitution) chose to institute its government. The Constitution is the "How" which the People have chosen to institute government in this country. It would have been nice if the Constitution mentioned the DOI as being the authority by which the People created it, but that isn't the only defect it has. Be that as it may, the facts are still there-- whether mentioned or not-- and we must deal with the Constitution as written and theoretically "ratified."

The People can't really go beyond "ratification" because that's when the door opened up for the fraud to pour in, since there was no enforcement provision written into the Constitution as a specific spelled-out process by which the People could have independently prevented the government fraud from happening. "Bind them down with the chains of the Constitution"? Government wasn't "bound" at all, as it should have been.

You get into "Principal/Agent" discussion. There can be no denying that by nature, the People would be likened as the "Principal" (the authority for government) and government the "Agent" (the protector, the guardian) of the People. While it is also the nature of people to be ignorant and lazy regarding legalities, even of their own natural status as being the true sovereigns over government, that does not take away from the fact that THAT IS THE PEOPLE'S NATURAL STATUS whether they exercise it or not-- that status is unalienable --inborn.

You say I don't know of any legitimate agency which can operate outside the knowledge and intention of the Principal. That would be true in normal business. However, with reference to the People, we're dealing with the status of a naturally-created being in relation to the People-created government. Only human beings created by a Creator can take on that natural status, and only in relation to their People-created government. Relationships between Human A and Human B do not consist of that natural status-- a status that exists despite People's knowledge, acceptance, and exercise of it.

That's why we need men (and women), among the People, to represent them and their interests. That's supposed to be the role of government, --and the ONLY role-- to protect the People's rights because they don't have the knowledge, awareness, or skills to protect themselves in society, whether because they are lazy or otherwise. There IS a proper place for government, but it's imperative that it be People-centered, not self-centered. The Framers knew that government would be prone to become self-centered, but they did not provide a means for the People-- not a government function-- to keep that from happening.

And the Clueless and aimless can not be Principal or governing.

So the term "consent of the governed" is admission of an inferior status....akin to servants; The "consent" a slave gives his master. No, that can't be, as a matter of nature. There has to be a minority of the People, operating independently as the People, knowledgeable and cognizant enough to be able to monitor the actions of government, to keep it in line with its fiducial functions for the People. It obviously can't be ALL of the People, because most of them ARE ignorant, lazy, "clueless," and "aimless." But that doesn't negate the fact that they are the governed, spoken of in the DOI, and their interests must be protected by the government, and that "government protection" must be monitored by a segment of the People who ARE informed, "clued in," astute, alert, aware, of what was intended for this country as established by the DOI. That segment cannot be brainwashed, intimidated, deceived, or fooled into thinking that "government is the friend of the People." (You know-- "We're the government, and we're here to help you!")

Anything dealing with "international" this or that in the Constitution must be examined by the People. Is it in compliance with the principles set forth in the DOI? The People can't get wound up in the "Corporate U.S." trap. As I said, there's a ton of fraud that has taken over this country, and 200+ years of it is enough! We have to clean up the cobwebs of fraud and deception that has clogged our minds. For the sake of freedom in this country, get out of that deceptive thinking!

THE EVILS ARE NO LONGER SUFFERABLE!

-Barbie

ACIC, National J.A.I.L.

victoryusa@...

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#925

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 8:10 pm
Subject: In Mourning For The Constitution

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                             April 13, 2005
______________________________________________________
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
______________________________________________________

In Mourning For The Constitution

J.A.I.L. will continually maintain judicial obedience to the Constitution

When the Court demonstrated it did not respect the First Amendment, that was the end of my respect for the Court. There is a black banner on my certificate, because I resigned from the Court�s Bar last July after my last case was decided. This certificate will remain in a closet, turned to the wall, until the Justices on the Court change, and the Court again enforces the Constitution. Until then, I am in mourning for that honorable document. --Congressman Billybob

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1379536/posts

Congressman Billybob's Speech

at Today's March for Justice II
Special to FreeRepublic | 04/07/05 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

Speech Delivered by John Armor, Esq.
March for Justice II
Washington, D.C. / April 7, 2005

(Excerpts):

I�m here today because of a brilliant professor in a course I took almost by accident, 41years ago. My last semester in college, I signed up for a course in Constitutional Law. It was taught by Dr. William Muir, a young man who was crippled and wore massive leg braces, but his mind was as sharp as any I�ve ever encountered.

He had a passion for the Constitution. He taught that passion to me. At Spring Break, when most of my classmates were on the beach for sun, suds and sex, I was in the library, reading dozens of Supreme Court cases for a paper for Dr. Muir. From that day to this, and to the end of my days, I am dedicated to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Do I believe it is a perfect document? No. That�s why it has an amendment clause. But I do believe, as Prime Minister Gladstone of England said on its Centennial, it is �the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.� All but six of the world�s nations have written constitutions. None of those has endured as long, or been as successful, as our Constitution. Most are mere window-dressing, honored more in the breach than the observance.

Now we are in the midst of a war over our Constitution. No shots will be fired. No cities attacked. But make no mistake, this is a war. If we lose it, our Constitution will die.

For three decades, I�ve been a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court. For more than three decades I�ve practiced there. I�ve briefed 18 cases. At the time, I considered that the highest challenge and privilege for any attorney. My three best known cases were on behalf of presidential candidates: Gene McCarthy in 1976, John Anderson in 1980, and George W. Bush in 2000. Like most Americans, I expected the Court to enforce the Constitution. In those cases it did. But my opinion of the Supreme Court has changed radically in the last two years.

This is the certificate the Court sends you when you are admitted to the Bar of the Court. There�s a dirty little secret about these certificates. About 250,000 lawyers have one of these. You fill out a form, you pay a hundred bucks, and they send you this, �suitable for framing.� For more than 99% of the members of the Supreme Court Bar, these are just wall decorations. Perhaps they think clients will walk in, see this, and say, �Wow. My attorney must be a sharp cookie. He�s admitted to the Supreme Court.�

Like all professional licenses, these only matter when used. The one in a hundred of us who have practiced in the Court have seen a steady deterioration in its decisions in recent years. The Court itself has abandoned the Constitution.

My breaking point was the decision in McConnell v. FEC in 2003. That was the Campaign Finance �Reform� case. Contrary to the First Amendment, five Justices of the Court decided that Congress could tell American citizens to sit down and shut up in their politics, in the months before federal elections.

Every Justice takes an oath of office to enforce the Constitution. When the Court demonstrated it did not respect the First Amendment, that was the end of my respect for the Court. There is a black banner on my certificate, because I resigned from the Court�s Bar last July after my last case was decided. This certificate will remain in a closet, turned to the wall, until the Justices on the Court change, and the Court again enforces the Constitution. Until then, I am in mourning for that honorable document.

...........

Let�s begin with the basics. We all learned in school that our form of government has three parts, the executive, legislative and judicial branches. This is separation of powers. Each branch as a separate role; checks and balances allow each branch (theoretically) to prevent the others from encroaching on its legitimate powers.

What we see today is a fundamental failure of the American theory of government, led by five Justices who are violating their oaths of office. How do we know that? Let�s look at the source materials.

Hear now the words of the Gospel according to John, James and Alexander. Jay, Madison and Hamilton in the Federalist, Chapter 78, wrote this about the federal courts: �The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment....�

This was the only time in the Federalist that the authors capitalized whole words. That emphasized their meaning. Federal judges were given great freedom -- lifetime tenure and guaranteed salaries -- to decide the cases before them. But they were expected to obey and enforce the law given to them, including the Constitution. What is the danger, when Justices take into their own hands not just the enforcement of the law, but the rewriting of the laws they are appointed to enforce?

It is the job of state legislatures and Congress to pass the laws. They are given this authority over us, because we elect them for this purpose. We have the power to defeat them for reelection if we are not content with the laws they pass. I state this in simplest terms. Because we do not have the power of the ballot box over federal judges and Justices, they cannot possess any LEGITIMATE power to legislate over us.

The potential problem of outlaw judges is not new. Hear now these words from the Gospel according to Tom. Jefferson wrote this to Judge Spencer Roane, in 1819: �Our Constitution . . . intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent that they might check and balance one another, it has given � according to this opinion to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of others;. . . . The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.�

The government of the United States is the second in history to be based on the principle of popular sovereignty, and the first to establish that principle through a written Constitution. That is undermined by an unrestrained judiciary.

Note this statement by Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolutions, 1798: �In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.�

The entire theory of constitutional law rests on this: as the Constitution itself says, it is the �supreme Law.� Either it is superior to all other laws, and to all office-holders, or, like most of the world�s constitutions, it is mere decoration. No one is exempt from obedience to the Constitution, especially the Justices of the Supreme Court.

...........

Outlaws who wear masks and carry guns are a danger to us, one at a time. But outlaws who wear black robes and carry gavels are dangerous to all of us at once. The danger is not just to specific laws, like the juvenile death penalty ones in 19 states. It is to ALL laws, in all states and in the federal government.

After our God-given rights, the Declaration of Independence states our basic political rights: �That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, � That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government....�

This right is guaranteed by the amendment provisions in Article V. We the people are the ultimate sovereign power. We established the Constitution. Through elected representatives in Congress and the state legislatures, we have the power to change it at any time. Most recently, we used that power to establish the Madison Amendment in 1992.

But nowhere does Article V give any power to five Justices of the Supreme Court to amend the Constitution for us (presumably because we were too stupid to realize the need for a particular amendment).

...........

Benevolent dictatorship never was, and never should be, the American system of government. Judges who think that way are UNFIT to sit on any bench at any level in America, most especially on the Supreme Court. The question then is, how are we going to deal with this assault on the very heart of the theory of American government?

Impeachment of Justices who deliberately violate their oaths of office is not a remedy. A majority of the House might vote to impeach. But not in the foreseeable future will two-thirds of the Senate vote to convict and remove such Justices. Entirely too many Senators like outlaw Justices to impose their personal will whenever they choose. Jefferson himself referred to the remedy of impeachment as �a scare-crow.�

What other remedies are available? [Has he ever heard of J.A.I.L.?]

There is an interim solution to some problems. Congress can withdraw the jurisdiction of the federal courts from cases concerning the Ten Commandments or the national motto, �In God we trust.� We take matches away from children because they might burn down the house. The same applies to Justices of the Court. They cannot be trusted with the Constitution; they are burning it down a clause at a time.

There are other examples. Consider the frequent cases which drag a highly-paid federal judge and his staff into the T-shirt policy of South Succotash High School. Please. Is that what the Framers created the federal courts for? Take these matches, too, away from childish judges.

The total solution, however, requires replacing the outlaw Justices with ones who will obey the Constitution. (See our comment below)

......

For the entire article, go to

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1379536/posts

Our thanks to Donald Stone of Florida for referring the above website to J.A.I.L.

Of course we state that the "total solution" is J.A.I.L. While we agree that we should "replac[e] the outlaw Justices with ones who will obey the Constitution," we have to KEEP them obedient. That's what J.A.I.L. will do-- it will continually maintain judicial obedience to the Constitution through ultimate guard by the People.

-Barbie, victoryusa@...

E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#926

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Thu Apr 14, 2005 2:45 am
Subject: * * Remedy - In What Form? * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

Remedy - In What Form?

(Question raised by Zena Crenshaw, founder of NJCDLP -

indianaprinceswarrior@...)

Greetings, Zena. Your "luck-of-the-draw" has pulled "Ron Branson" for a response to your concerns. Hopefully, I will serve as a substitute to what would have otherwise been Barbie's response.

By way of laying a foundation, it seems to me that one of the distinguishing factors between J.A.I.L. as a "judicial reform movement," and all other judicial reform movements, is our position re Petitioning

Government for Redress of Grievances. This difference of position arises mostly out of my own personal experiences in seeking redress of grievances from both government in general and through the courts.

There has not been a single door within government that I have not tested and found wanting. Out of complete exhaustion of every other method, I resolved that if anything was going to be accomplished, it had to come directly from the people themselves, and not their "representatives." (The quotation marks are indicative of my opinion of representatives.)

Because I became fully persuaded to the nth degree that any real and meaningful remedy had to come directly from the people, it left me with only two choices. Either the unthinkable and unspoken option, or the Initiative Process. The latter seemed more reasonable and practical from so many perspectives, such as a cheaper financial cost, less risk, blood, more assurance of accomplishment, and even the fact that ultimately, the other alternative would necessarily require the latter objective, to wit, accountability of judges.

Thinning out judges, or limiting their jurisdiction, or even getting "good ones" in there, could never replace the obvious need for good ole "judicial accountability," as proposed by J.A.I.L. One can call me short-sighted, so be it, but I have yet to hear from anyone proposing a "better" means of judicial accountability than J.A.I.L. (I confess here my conflict of interest in saying this as I am the author of J.A.I.L.) My mind is open to suggestions on this, and I have indeed posed this question to many who would seek to "trump" J.A.I.L. To date, all I have seen are those who try to "rename" and "reword" J.A.I.L. to attempt to put their names upon it so as to claim to be the author. But since those people have no cash to promote "their" version of J.A.I.L., they pose no danger. But these type people have forced me to invest in a copyright of J.A.I.L., which I should not have had to otherwise do.

Now please understand that I realize that ultimately J.A.I.L. is not totally free of having to petition government, for when it comes to non-initiative states, we are absolutely stuck with having to petition to those state's legislatures. We just cannot avoid that.

So, in accord with your expressed concern, we will have to employ your idea. However, the method of my madness is to "knock-over," as many initiative states as we can directly from the people, and gain an overwhelming and demanding respect by our "public servants."

Now I am not so ignorant or so naive as to not realize that once "Ron Branson," has rolled anywhere between 2 to 20 states with his J.A.I.L. Initiatives, he will have gained such powerful notoriety and fame that no one, not even the President of the United States, will care to get in his way. How could anyone miss that point? But then, is Ron Branson seeking to destroy our form of government? NO! Rather establish it! And according to Ron Branson, there is no way on God's green earth that our supposed form of government can work without an accountable judiciary. And I believe that any wise and thinking man will agree with Ron Branson on that point, and I think that I have the Spirit of God.

Zena, you have wisely raised the question, "how many of even our best Initiatives are defeated by inertia before our enemy has to even lift a finger?" Am I so ignorant as to imagine that we will pass the J.A.I.L. Initiative without a fight? Quite the contrary. I expect J.A.I.L. to be the "Second Shot Heard 'Round The World." The system will drag out their big political guns perhaps from all fifty states seeking to convince the people that J.A.I.L. is bad for them. I fully suspect their line of attack to be to say that J.A.I.L. is redundant and unnecessary because we already have judicial commissions available to hear complaints against any judge we fancy to complain about. Of course we know that this is merely political hype, to wit, a "remedy," albeit ineffective.

The fact is that J.A.I.L. is unlike any Initiative that preceded it, because while other initiatives raise judicial questions for judges to review, J.A.I.L. raises questions about those who conduct the judicial review, i.e., themselves. It is acknowledged by the system that no man may sit as a judge in his own case, so J.A.I.L. raises that fundamental and basic issue in paragraph "(w) Challenges. No judge under the jurisdiction of the Special Grand Jury, or potentially affected by the outcome of a challenge hereto, shall have any jurisdiction to sit in judgment of such challenge. Such pretended adjudication shall be null and void for all purposes and a complaint for such misconduct may be brought at any time, without charge, before the Special Grand Jury by class-action, or by any adversely affected person."

You can believe that should any judge assume jurisdiction to decide a matter which potentially involves his own conduct, will be the instant subject of a class-action complaint before the Special Grand Jury on the question of whether he acted in total absence of all jurisdiction as a judge involving himself. I know this sounds harsh, but we are living in desperate times calling for desperate measures.

Should the system find the will of the People to be intolerable, then may the People find the will of the system intolerable, and may the question of who holds the last and final authority in our form of government, the People vs. the government, come to fruition. May the best man win! J.A.I.L. marks the end of open judicial rebellion to our Constitution and the laws of our Land, and to judicial abuses as we know them.

Every time I hear people talk about remedies, they are talking about what Congress or the various Legislatures CAN DO. At this point, I am not interested in what the legislatures can do, and we are too late in the game to wait for them to do something. My opinion is that nothing will be done until J.A.I.L. actually embarrasses them to act. J.A.I.L. absolutely will FORCE judicial commissions to act. J.A.I.L. will FORCE Congress and the state legislators to act, there will be no two ways about that. But that will only come about once J.A.I.L. has actually been placed into effect, not while we sit around talking or wishing it were in effect.

Now, let me face the egotistical factor of other judicial reform efforts. As you know, we should all be working together for the benefit of the whole. I, as well as you, consistently hear the call for unity, that is, "we all have to get together." That is nice to talk about, but there is one constant that I have sensed in my battles over the years, and that is that independent thinkers can never get together on anything.

Coalitions are built, and coalitions join up with other coalitions, and the numbers compound. But what are their goals? They remind me of a team of horses pulling five or six different directions. And even if they are able to achieve some semblance of order, their goal seems to be that they want the numbers so they can "Petition Government for Redress of Grievances."

To those who wish to "Petition Government for Redress of Grievances," I say, "Go ahead and petition. It is your right. Petition all you want. In fact, petition until you come to utter despair." I view all these judicial reform groups who are seeking to petition government as future candidates for the J.A.I.L. method. Oh, yes, I know this may sound arrogant on the part of Ron Branson, and I pray God keeps me humbled, and if not, God has His methods of knocking Ron Branson down a few notches. I know what the inevitable is, but I hate wasting precious time waiting for others to see Ron Branson's point, but I frankly see no other way. Do I get accused of egotism? Yes. I've been asked, "Who do you think you are, Jesus Christ?" My response is, "It's not important who I think I am. The all-important question is, "What does God want?"

Now Zena, I want you to know that your question has not offended me at all, and I hope that likewise my response has not offended you in the least. You have taken up a first-rate cause in your National Judicial Conduct and Disability Law Project, Inc., which is pursuing judicial accountability. May we both win in that objective not long henceforth, not only for the benefit of ourselves, but for our entire country.

You may rest assured that I will be calling upon you for support in our effort to win our very first state for J.A.I.L. May God bless you richly, dear one.

-Ron Branson

VictoryUSA@...

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

From: Zena Crenshaw

To: VictoryUSA@...

Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 6:26 PM

Subject: Re: We Cannot Expect Good Fruit From A Corrupt Tree

Hi Barbie:

I'm not sure if the best way of directing a message to you and/or Ron is by replying to this message, but my response relates to your message below. While I support J.A.I.L., it's not because I believe that government petitions are categorically ineffective. Seeking redress through official, government channels is certainly futile for too, too many Americans. However, when such efforts are galvanized by public scrutiny and pressure, the tides of social and political policy often shift in this country. That's not to suggest we should dismantle JAIL4Judges and launch some letter writing campaigns. It's just that in my view, legal reform may be as much a captive of the legal reform community as it is of corrupt government forces.

True, the legal reform community is an army of beleaguered, undercapitalized soldiers, fighting a formidable enemy with unlimited resources. But how many of even our best initiatives are defeated by inertia before our enemy has to even lift a finger? How many victims of legal abuse seem to think that being part of and assisting a legal reform initiative, not currently championing their case, is a waste of time? How many legal reform leaders would rather abandon the field than support even the most promising initiative devised by someone else? Can we answer these and like questions and conclude that our only solution is to abandon all hope for good fruit from a corrupt tree?

Chief Judge Rehnquist gave us the formula for effective legal reform in his 2005, state of the court presentation: widespread and sustained protest. The legal reform community seems fixated on the "widespread" portion of this formula. It leaves us constantly jockeying for the spotlight, hoping to attract the most attention, while the work that allows "sustained" protest pulls us into the background, building data bases, updating financial records -- the dull stuff that stabilizes an organization. Realizing this doesn't make the job any easier for people like you and me lest we remember that the race is not won by the strong or the swift.

I truly hope nothing in this message offends either you or Ron.

Zena

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                      April 11, 2005
______________________________________________________

We Cannot Expect Good Fruit From A Corrupt Tree

The People cannot expect officials of a corrupt system

to "reinstall lawful government."

Dear Steven:

For some reason, you requested to be removed from our list. It must have been some time ago because it was done before we started to record the date of request. However, we are apparently on your list (albeit using our old email address), and we receive oodles of your messages.

I don't know if you requested removal because you don't support this cause, or otherwise. However, it is rather unfair because you are misinforming the People (as many others are doing-- you aren't alone) about what must be done to "provide new guards for [our] future security" as mandated in the Declaration of Independence. Not being on our list, you aren't receiving our J.A.I.L. News Journals.

Yes-- people by and large know that we have a "problem" with a despotic force in power, and I will add that most of them even realize that the People must enforce the Constitution against this tyrannical force. But there is added a NEW "problem" --that of informing the People of precisely what they must do to correct the underlying problem of tyranny. And it isn't "demanding" anything of the corrupt powers that be!

As you know by now there are many people that understand the problem but there is not many that understand that all we have to do is demand that our elected and appointed officials reinstall the lawful government. [our emphasis- J4J]

Why is it so difficult to understand that the People cannot expect elected and appointed officials of a corrupt system, to clean itself up? i.e., to demand that they "reinstall the lawful government"? If there are any such officials in existence (such as Ron Paul), as I mentioned in a recent JNJ, they are swallowed up by the corrupt system itself. The system will not allow itself to be cleaned up. It is thriving on its corruption and wants it to stay that way!

The following an example of the law of nature: "Ye shall know them by their fruits. [By their actions] Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits [actions] ye shall know them." (Mt.7:16-20)

The problem of corrupt government is systemic and the People have to recognize it as such, and deal with it accordingly. Bob Schulz of We The People Foundation, call attest to the fact that you can "demand" all you want to government officials (redress of grievances) and run into a brick wall. The government's response was that People have the right of petition, but that right does not include the right to a government response, because if they had to respond to everyone who petitioned them, they wouldn't have time to conduct their normal business (i.e., their tyranny). What I am saying, Steven, is that common sense should tell you that "demanding" restoration of lawful government to the corrupt government, is futile-- by nature. One cannot, by nature, produce the other.

While on this subject, I am reminded of another instance. I had written a JNJ regarding the need for J.A.I.L. for the People to enforce the Constitution because the Constitution itself contains no enforcement provision that the People can implement. One of our readers wrote back saying that the Constitution IS enforceable, by the First and Second Amendments. Rick Stanley, whom you may know from the Internet, responded to that with the following:

STANLEY NOTE: In the past four years I exercised the 1st and 2nd
Amendment. Result: 2 misdemeanors, 2 felonies, 6 years in state prison, 102 days in county jail, over $11,000.00 in fines, $8,200.00 in restitution to the state, 75 hours of community service, $750.00 paid for a GPS monitoring bracelet, over $150,000.00 in legal fees and court costs, loss of over millions of dollars in business, the attention of the IRS, FBI, Colorado Department of Revenue, Joint Terrorism Task Force, multiple swat teams from multiple jurisdictions, government taps on my phones, business, home, and it goes on and on... LIVE FREE or Die! Rick Stanley. see http://www.stanley2002.org

So much for "enforcing" the Constitution using any current part of it. The People cannot depend on "Nesara" or anything else-- and most of all, they cannot depend on Officials of this Corrupt De Facto Government to clean up the corruption! It has to come from the People themselves. It is THEIR interests (the protection of their unalienable rights) that are at stake, and so it naturally follows that "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." It isn't necessary to "throw off" such government at this time-- just to "provide new guards" for our future security (and that doesn't come from "Homeland Security" either). J.A.I.L. will provide that "new guard."

-Barbie

victoryusa@...

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

From: Steven Pattison

To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;

Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 12:53 PM

Subject: Make more friends and stop false hope!

Please let me know you received this email.

First I want to share with you why I do what I do! The following is a paraphrase from the Bible.

�Naturally, Isaiah asks the same fifty-dollar question: is there any point? The Lord�s answer is a resounding Yes. And then come some of the most important words one who promotes individual liberty and Constitutionally limited government can read these days: "There is a Remnant there that you know nothing about. They are obscure, unorganized, inarticulate, each one rubbing along as best he can. They need to be encouraged and braced up, because when everything has gone completely to the dogs, they are the ones who will come back and build up a new society, and meanwhile your preaching will reassure them and keep them hanging on. Your job is to take care of the Remnant, so be off now and set about it."� http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates42.html

I believe it is our choose to determine how far we let it go! I believe we have are already gone completely to the dogs don�t you?

I did a search on www.dogpile.com for "Disinformation is a large part of its covert action responsibility, and the American people are the primary target of its lies." and found the following!

"The CIA is not now nor has it ever been a central intelligence agency. It is the covert action arm of the President's foreign policy advisers. In that capacity it overthrows or supports foreign governments while reporting "intelligence" justifying those activities. It shapes its intelligence ... to support presidential policy. Disinformation is a large part of its covert action responsibility, and the American people are the primary target of its lies."

Ralph McGehee, Deadly Deceit. (New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1983), p. 192. - Found about 13 pages down from the top on this web page - look for [121]

http://www.lossless-audio.com/usa/index0.php?page=684531197.htm

Also found here:

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/cia-nazis/DeadlyDeceits.html

http://www.ied.info/books/why/cia.html

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/mediadeception/RevealingQuotes3.html

And here I also found the following:

�Death squads have been created and used by the CIA around the world � particularly the Third World � since the late 1940s, a fact ignored by the elite-owned media.�

� Ralph McGehee
CIABASE; The Crisis of Democracy

Now you know the reason most people don�t know!

So who is the "President's foreign policy advisers"? As reported in the last web page it must be the 'elite' or someone directly taking orders from the elite! Then who is the elite? I did a search and could not find anything other then the following:

"Conspirators' Hierarchy:
The Committee of 300 By Dr. John Coleman"

"This former member of British M16 exposes the conspiratorial group who is ABOVE the laws of all countries and controls every aspect of politics, religion, commerce, industry, banking, insurance, mining and even the DRUG TRADE to further their aims for WORLD DOMINATION. Find out who is at the seat of the problem and what you can do about it. There is not a better source or reference work.

From the back cover

An Expose of the most secret society in the world

Can you imagine an all powerful group, that knows no national boundaries, above the laws of all countries, one that controls every aspect of politics, religion, commerce and industry, banking, insurance, mining, the drug trade, the petroleum industry, a group answerable to no one but its members?

To the cast majority of us, such a group would appear to be beyond the realms of possibilities and capabilities of any given organization. If that is what you believe, then you are in the majority. The conception of a secret, elite group exercising control of every aspect of our lives is beyond our comprehension. Americans are prone to say, "It can't happen here, our Constitution forbids it."

That there is such a body, called The Committee of 300, is graphically told in this book. When most people attempt to address our problems, they speak or write about they. This book tells precisely who they are, and what they have planned for our future. It tells how they have been at war with the American nation for over 50 years, a war that we, the people, are losing. It tells what methods they use and exactly how they have us all brainwashed.

If you are puzzled and perplexed as to why things are occurring that we as a nation don't like yet seem powerless to prevent, why is it that the United States always seems to back the wrong horse, why our former social and moral values have been turned aside and seemingly buried; if you are confused by the many conspiracy theories, then The Conspirator's Hierarchy: The Committee of 300 will clearly establish that these conditions have been deliberately created to bring us to our knees.

Once you have read the applying truths contained in this book, understanding past and present political, economic, social and religious events will no longer be a problem. This powerful account of the forces ranged against the United States, and indeed the entire free world, cannot be ignored."

http://hiddenmysteries.com/xcart/product.php?productid=16237

And I must conclude that this is not possible under a Free Republic! Right? It can only be explained that we have lost our government to a 'De facto' government! If you have not received the research on �de facto� or have any questions, email me.

Ok what is a Free Republic compared to 'The Republic of China'?

The only difference is this! We the people here fought for our freedom and it has been said that our Founding Fathers were acting under treason when they were only fighting a power that should not have had any power over free people! I would therefore not call them treasonous because it was not a revolt against a legitimate authority. Of course this could be argued forever but today because we did win our freedom it cannot in any way be called sedition or a treasonous act on anyone�s part that is trying to reinstall the lawful government!

One of our researchers found the following, which I believe, proves what I am saying!

�To urge such a reexamination is not to be "anti-American". It might be anti-Empire, as part of the positive and healthy goal of a Constitutional Common Law Republic and therefore is not a action of SEDITION, because it is not a revolt against a legitimate authority - Erskine, Princ. Laws Scotl. b. 4, t. 4, s, 14; Dig. Lib. 49, t. 16, l. 3, � 1�

In some of the about sites you will learn that these elite changed our laws and if you go to the last paragraph of this web page http://www.svpvril.com/comcivlaw.html you will find the following:

�When the United Colonies met in Congress, in 1774, they claimed the common law of England as a branch of those "indubitable rights and liberties to which the respective colonies are entitled." And the common law, like a silent providence is still the preserver of our liberties.�

And if you read the whole article you too should understand the type of law we have here in America. Ok, you want more proof. The following is in a congressional book from Missouri:

�An act concerning laws.

ART. I.            Common law and British statutes.

Sec. 1. Common law and statutes of England declared in force.

                   2. Punishment by the common law limited; British statutes for punishment of

crimes, &c., not in force.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri as follows:

            Sec. 1. The common law of England, and all statutes and acts of parliament made prior to the fourth year of the reign of James the first, and which are of a general nature, not local to that kingdom, which common law and statutes are not repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the constitution of the United States, the constitution of this state, or the statute laws in force for the time being, shall be the rule of action and decision in this state, any law, usage or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.

            Sec. 2. Punishment, by virtue of the common law, shall in nowise be other than fine and imprisonment, and such fine shall not exceed one hundred dollars, and the term of such punishment [imprisonment] shall not exceed two months; nor shall any of the British statutes for the punishment of crimes or misdemeanors be in force in this state.�

No one group has the right to change our law and they did it without any delegated authority! Anyone that follows any other law then �Common Law� is acting as subjects not sovereigns! Don�t you agree?

As you know by now there are many people that understand the problem but there is not many that understand that all we have to do is demand that our elected and appointed officials reinstall the lawful government. There will be other documents that will explain the other important items that need corrected and one of them being the money.

Please take note anything on the Internet can be changed and therefore you should know the facts and that would help you know the truth. I found this site http://www.nesara.us/pages/history.html and it tells about something that I have a personal knowledge of but I could not find a thing within the de facto government web pages that would verify that �National Economic Security And Reformation Act� was ever passed by Congress as they report within their web site.

After reviewing their home page http://www.nesara.us/pages/home.html I believe they do not understand who we are up against but I do like some of the things they say because some of them would happen after we are able to reinstall our lawful government:

�NESARA initiates PEACE IMMEDIATELY and

1.

Provides forgiveness of credit card, mortgage, and other bank debt as remedy for bank and government frauds;

2.

Abolishes the IRS; creates flat rate non-essential "new items only" sales tax revenue for government;

3.

Initiates U.S. Treasury Bank System, which absorbs the Federal Reserve, and new precious metals backed U.S. Treasury currency;

4.

Restores Constitutional Law;

5.

Requires resignations of current administration to be replaced by Constitutionally acceptable NESARA President and Vice President Designates until new elections within 120 days;

6.

Requires the President Designate to declare "Peace" enabling international banking improvements to proceed smoothly; ends U.S. aggressive military actions immediately, and many more improvements.

�

More on the money issue when I get some donations! Email me here for more info StevenPattison@...

I know some people know some of what is happening and if you go to this site http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/ you can read more about what Ron Paul is trying to do!   Until a lawful government is reinstalled nothing Ron Paul does or what the people reporting about the �National Economic Security And Reformation Act� are doing will every happen and therefore just more false hope!

I want to stop false hope!

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

Therefore learn and help others to learn the truth because if you don�t I don�t believe there is any hope for our children! Then and only then will the people stop wasting their time hacking at the branches of evil and join the ever-growing number of people striking at the root of the problem.

I am not your enemy! An informed citizen is freedom's best friend and a controlled citizen is our worse enemy! Steven Pattison 1996

Make more friends!

�"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: and a People who mean to be their own governours, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
James Madison to WT Barry, August 4, 1822.�

Make sure everyone knows:

�To urge such a reexamination is not to be "anti-American". It might be anti-Empire, as part of the positive and healthy goal of a Constitutional Common Law Republic and therefore is not a action of SEDITION, because it is not a revolt against a legitimate authority - Erskine,
Princ. Laws Scotl. b. 4, t. 4, s, 14; Dig. Lib. 49, t. 16, l. 3, � 1�

Ok, now you know that we no longer have a �Constitutional Common Law Republic� and we are not much different then China except we the subjects here have more Federal Reserve Notes to play with!

If not Now, When? (inNW?) If not Us, Who? (inUW?)

All rights reserved,

Steven Pattison, a sovereign without subjects
(913) 391-0320 CST 9 to 5 PM or email me here: StevenPattison@...

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!

E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

To be added or removed, write to VictoryUSA@...

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

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

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#927

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Thu Apr 14, 2005 6:59 am
Subject: The "Legal Reality" Must Be Brought In Line With the Declaration of Independence

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                            April 13, 2005
______________________________________________________
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
______________________________________________________

The "Legal Reality" Must Be Brought

In Line with The Declaration of Independence

And, if you REALLY and TRULY want to make a difference

regarding the judiciary, it will help immeasurably to evaluate

those opinions from a standpoint of legal reality.

This "law clerk" is not yet there. To promote this writing

as something competent is to confess the same problem.
-- Harmon L. Taylor holmes221@...

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

From: Harmon L. Taylor

To: VictoryUSA@...

Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 8:16 PM

Subject: Re: A Former (CLUELESS) Lawclerk Who No Longer Trusts Judges

12 April A.D. 2005

While this tickles the ears of your regular readers, you're still
presuming something into existence that doesn't exist. What this "law
clerk" has no clue about, and is trained to have no clue about, is the
legal reality that we do not now have, and have never had, a
"constitutional Government."

So, to measure ANY "judges" decisions by the Constitution is simply
ludicrous. The problem here is not necessarily with the "judges." There may be problems, but those problems are not likely to be problems with legal reality, which legal reality the "judges" very likely know,
understand and apply, and which legal reality this "law clerk" is
confessedly clueless about.

This is the same generic problem with the popular Court-slamming books that circulate today. Either those authors are clueless, or else they're expecting there to be enough book-buyers who are clueless, to make money off the lies and crap they write and publish. At the end of the day, the problem will prove itself. The problem is NOT with the "judges," where the question that arises has to do with the "Constitution." The problem is with those who have not yet realized that we do not now have, and have never had, a "constitutional Government." The Constitution was and is a "compact." It was never, and is still not, Law. Thus, it was never the Supreme Law of the Land.

And, if you REALLY and TRULY want to make a difference regarding the judiciary, it will help immeasurably to evaluate those opinions from a standpoint of legal reality. This "law clerk" is not yet there. To promote this writing as something competent is to confess the same problem.

I used to be "there." See http://www.apfn.org/apfn/okc_coverup.htm and search that page for "Taylor." You'll zoom to the top of The Terre Haute Litigation materials. The "pure Constitution" argument was characterized on appeal as (1) frivolous, (2) without merit, (3) of no authority, and (4) ludicrous. My life forever changed the instant I read their opinion, for it finally was "OK" for me to accept the legal reality that the Constitution doesn't even qualify to be the lining in the bottom of most bird cages.

I'm no longer living a day dream, and, actually, I'm no longer living a
nightmare, either. There's a tremendous peace of mind that accompanies coming to terms with the stark cold essence of our legal reality. We've "been had." The sooner we come to accept that fact, the sooner we make constructive progress. It's possible to win a game where the player doesn't know the rules, but that is all the more difficult where the game is designed by masters to be a game that can't be won by 99.99999% of those who play. Said another way, the only way to win is not to play. And, we can't get to the stage of not playing until such time as we understand, in very good detail, the rules of the game(s) at issue.

We don't get "there" by still thinking that anything about the "federal
government" has one stinking thing to do with the "Constitution."

Keep up the good work.

Harmon L. Taylor

holmes221@...
(Dallas, Texas)

(our response)

Dear Mr. Taylor:

Thank you for your comments regarding our past JNJ on the testimony of a former Law Clerk losing faith in the judiciary. He cannot be blamed for being "clueless" regarding the lack of force and effect of the organic Constitution, as most of us were "clueless" to the "legal reality" due to the fraud and deception of our tyrannical and treasonous government-- which is not really "government" at all, since it does not fulfill the role of government for this country as described in the Declaration of Independence. What we have is an illegitimate force, sometimes referred to as an "oligarchy of hegemony" or "de facto government," operating under color of government by usurpation of power. This evil is no longer sufferable!

You say the legal reality [is] that we do not now have, and have never had, a "constitutional Government." The question is, Harmon, is that the fault of "the Constitution" or of "government."? Which came first, the Constitution, or government? The Declaration states that governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed for the purpose of securing the natural rights of men. The organic Constitution was written on behalf of the People (i.e., the governed) for the purpose of creating a government designed to protect the interests of the People, delegating certain rules by which government was to be restricted in power while carrying out that protection for the People. The government, being the product (the creation) of the Constitution, to be legitimate must be subservient to its creator (the Constitution), and ultimately to the People.

Apparently I am showing my "cluelessness" when I admit that I am perplexed by your statement to measure ANY "judges" decisions by the Constitution is simply ludicrous. You seem to imply that judges aren't required to obey the Constitution, saying The problem is with those who have not yet realized that we do not now have, and have never had, a "constitutional Government." The Constitution was and is a "compact." It was never, and is still not, Law. Thus, it was never the Supreme Law of the Land.

Mr. Taylor, are we, as an ordered society, to accept the idea that we have no ruling document in this country --and never have had one-- that establishes the character and conception of its government, setting forth the principles reflecting the consent of the governed and regarded as the Supreme Law of the Land? And are we to accept the idea that judges, or others functioning "as government" are legitimately a renegade force owing no obligation to obey the principles set forth in the Constitution? Are you saying that this "legal reality" is any justification for this lawless power holding sway over the People of this Land?

I am certainly "clueless" regarding any idea that the People don't have the right to hold judges accountable under constitutional requirements ---and that such expectation is "simply ludicrous"? Why do judges take an oath to uphold the Constitution, or at least claim that they do? Why do judges cite the Constitution as an authority when it fits their fancy to do so? Why do judges often claim that something is "unconstitutional"? If there is "no constitutional government" then what difference does it make?

I will agree that the organic Constitution has had no force nor effect since its ratification, because there is no enforcement provision included in it for the People to implement against "unconstitutional government." However, that doesn't mean that the Constitution doesn't exist-- that it's not the Supreme Law of the Land as it provides that it is. Despite the fact that the Constitution lacks an enforcement provision, the People still have the expectation that the government they created by the Constitution will be obedient to it, according to the written consent of the governed contained therein. Even without a written enforcement provision, the People's expectation is still there-- and rightfully so!

Charles Lincoln, the "clueless" lawclerk, presented his testimony based on his experience and background. We are grateful that he shared his testimony with us. It honestly told about what he experienced working with the judicial system, and how he was led to believe, through his formal education and research, that judges were to rule according to law-- most of us believe that to be true. To be "clueless" to the "legal reality" that we have "no constitutional government" and never did have, doesn't take away from the fact that we have the right to expect that we do have a "constitutional government" and if we find out that we don't (become "clued in") then we must take necessary action to correct that "legal reality" and bring it in line with the Declaration of Independence.

The fact that you aren't "clueless" I ask, what are you intending to do about the "legal reality" you describe? What does your following statement boil down to? It's possible to win a game where the player doesn't know the rules, but that is all the more difficult where the game is designed by masters to be a game that can't be won by 99.99999% of those who play. Said another way, the only way to win is not to play. And, we can't get to the stage of not playing until such time as we understand, in very good detail, the rules of the game(s) at issue.
What are the "rules of the game"? We'd better learn fast, because time is of the essence. Until we learn the "rules of the game", or you tell us what they are and how to handle them, I recommend that we concentrate on getting J.A.I.L. passed in as many states as possible, as soon as possible. I believe the People will accomplish their freedom by following the "rules of the J.A.I.L. game."

-Barbie

victoryusa@...

Ron Branson

Author/Founder

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!

E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

To be added or removed, write to VictoryUSA@...

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

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

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#928

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:13 am
Subject: Our Legal System - The Best, or a Joke?

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                             April 14, 2005
______________________________________________________
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
______________________________________________________

Our American Legal System �The Best in the World� or a Joke? You Decide.

(By J.A.I.L. Lt.CIC Attorney Gary Zerman - GZerman@...)

In the last presidential election, I recall Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards on the campaign trail telling us repeatedly that �America has the best legal system in the World.� He may believe that, as he is a
personal injury lawyer who has made millions from it. I also am a lawyer, but what I have experienced and observed leads me to a very different conclusion. What comes to my mind, is the character portraying Tammany Hall�s �Boss Tweed� in the recent Martin Scorsese film �The Gangs Of New York,� where he stated: �We must always uphold the appearance of the law. Especially when we are breaking the law.�

Sometimes truth, or clarity, on an issue is hard to determine, hard to find. And then again, sometimes it smacks you right in the face. Here is a recent example of the latter, U.S. v. Sassower. On June 28, 2004, the very day America was turning over sovereignty to the nation of Iraq � to establish the Rule of Law and democracy there, in our very own Nation�s capital, in our very own �legal / justice system� Elena Sassower, was sentenced to 180-days in the D.C. jail, for her conviction on one (1) BOGUS charge of �Disrupting Congress,� prosecuted by our Justice Department. All Ms. Sassower did was attempt to testify at a public U.S. Senate Judiciary confirmation hearing on May 22, 2003.

She had paid her own way to Washington, D.C., from New York. She is the head Coordinator for The Center for Judicial Accountability. (See
www.judgewatch.org.) She waited politely, respectfully and silently for over two hours in the back of the room, while the hearing on nominee Richard Wesley was conducted. Not one meaningful question was asked of the nominee. The hearing was then gaveled to a conclusion by the lone senator still there, Saxby Chambliss. (He did not ask, as has been the practice, if there were any other witnesses for or against the nominee.) Ms. Sassower then rose, and stated 23-words from a prepared statement:

�Mr. Chairman, there�s citizen opposition to Judge Wesley based on his documented corruption as a New York Court of Appeals judge. May I testify?�

Ms. Sassower was immediately handcuffed, arrested, taken to jail, held
incommunicado for 21-hours. She was then charged, prosecuted and convicted. In preparation for her trial, Ms. Sassower subpoenaed involved senators and staff for her defense. Senate counsel moved to quash those subpoenas and stated:

�The defendant�s [Sassower] request to testify was never granted, consistent with the Committee�s normal practice on lower court nominations not to hear in person from non-congressional witnesses other than the nominee.�

Despite her 6th Amendment right to confront witnesses, the trial judge
quashed the subpoenas. On June 28, 20004, Ms. Sassower was sentenced to 180-days in the D.C. Jail.

Elena Sassower served the entire 180-days. The trial was a sham proceeding in a kangaroo court. Ms. Sassower in fact did no wrong, caused no harm.

The hearing was over � thus nothing could be disrupted, and her intent
always was to testify against an unfit nominee - not to disrupt. See
www.whiteplainscnr.com, November 25, 2004 article �Day 151 of the Elena Sassower Incarceration in Washington, D.C.� by John R. Bailey and www.villagevoice.com/news/0505.lombardi,60660,6.html, February 1, 2005 article �The Scourge of Her Conviction � Activist Elena Sassower Annoyed Congress, Her Trial Judge, and Defenders of Free Speech � All the Way to Jail� by Kristen Lombardi, which reported that Jonathan Turley, who teaches Constitutional Law at George Washington University School of Law, found that the Sassower case was �extraordinary,� her punishment was �unprecedented,� and sets up �a worrisome precedent.�

Now compare U.S. v. Berger. Samuel R. �Sandy� Berger was President Bill Clinton�s National Security Advisor. On September 2, and October 2, 2003, Berger, (then a �civilian� and a senior foreign policy adviser to the Kerry campaign), went to the National Archives to look at documents as the designated representative of the Clinton administration, before those documents were turned over to the 9/11 Commission. Archive officials immediately suspected Berger had taken documents after his October 2 visit, and when later confronted, Berger falsely claimed he had removed documents accidentally in �an honest mistake�.

The Justice Department began a criminal investigation, which led to
witnesses being brought before a grand jury. Later an authorized Berger associate told reporters that in a chronology Berger gave to the Justice
Department, Berger admitted on his first visit he took a copy of the Clark report and put it in his suit jacket and on the second visit, took and removed four more versions of the Clark report.

Byron York, the National Review Whitehouse Correspondent, in his July 21, 2004 column, �Sandy Berger�s Heavy Lifting � The Troubling Details of the Archives Document Removal�, wrote: �The documents Berger took --- each copy of the millennium report is said to be in the range of 15 to 30 pages --- were highly secret. They were classified at what is known as the �code word� level, which is the government�s highest tier of secrecy. Any person who is authorized to remove such documents from a special secure room is required to do so in a locked case that is handcuffed to his or her wrist.�

A charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials is a misdemeanor that carries a maximum sentence of one year in prison and a fine of up to $100,000. Clearly Berger committed at least two such violations, maybe five. There also is at least one charge, maybe three, for destroying classified documents. On April 1, 2005, Berger told U.S. Magistrate Deborah Robinson, �Guilty, your honor,� in response to how he plead; he also acknowledged that he intentionally took and deliberately destroyed three copies of Clark report. On April 1, 2005, in �Sandy Berger Pleads Guilty to Taking Classified Material,� CNN.com reported in part:

�However, under a plea agreement that Robinson must accept, Berger would serve no jail time but instead pay a $10,000 fine, surrender the security clearance for three years and cooperate with investigators. Security clearance allows access to classified government materials. Sentencing was set for July 8.�

An April 10, 2005 �Congress May Launch Sandy Berger Probe,� NewsMax.com reported in part: �'Several committees in Congress are interested in looking into the Berger issue.' Peter King told WWRL Radio host Steve Malzberg and Karen Hunter on Thursday. The senior New York Republican declined to identify the specific committees, but said any probe would come before Berger is formally sentenced in July.

When news of Berger�s theft broke last July, the Justice Department took a much tougher line � with Deputy Attorney General James Comey suggesting that it made no difference whether the documents Berger had stolen were originals. �It is against the law for anyone to intentionally mishandle classified information, either by taking it to give to somebody else, or by mishandling in a way that is outside the regulations of government information,� Comey told reporters at the time.

�All felonies in the federal system bring with them the promise of jail time,� he added. Asked how Berger should be held accountable if the documents he destroyed contained any original material, Rep. King told Malzberg, �He should go to jail.��

On April 5, 2005 in �Sandy Berger�s Crime,� a Washington Times editorial wrote in part: �Mr. Berger committed an egregious violation of the rules that govern the handling of sensitive national-security documents. His offense would cost most any government employee his job, security clearance and future in government. Quite possibly it would cost him his freedom.

On top of his crime, Mr. Berger lied about it to federal investigators. But Mr. Berger won't likely suffer any of the consequences. For those who suspect that different rules apply at the top, a case like this is reason for cynicism. Meanwhile, his associates from the Clinton years are silent, perhaps hoping the scandal will blow over ....

We can only speculate as to why the Department of Justice would agree to such lenient terms for the offense. .... Whatever the reason, we can be reasonably sure it wasn't done for reasons of national security, justice or truth.�

Finally, on April 11, 2005, in �Sandy Berger�s Scissors,� a piece in
Antiwar.com, Michael Scheuer, wrote in part: �� What Mr. Berger had previously described as an inadvertent mistake is now, according to the same gentleman, better described as the deliberate theft and destruction of classified documents ... In sum, the papers secreted in his shoes, BVDs, and pockets were not a surprise discovery when he got home and undressed. No, Mr. Berger now acknowledges that he had hidden them on his person, apparently with the joys of scissoring them into a mound of destroyed evidence foremost in his mind.

Well, Department of Justice officials last week delivered firm justice to Mr. Berger in the form of a virtually pain-free plea bargain. In doing
so, they junked a law meant to protect the U.S. security, at least insofar
as it is to be applied to America�s political aristocracy. Mr. Berger
pleads guilty to that about which he previously lied to the American people, the 9/11 Commission, and the families of the 9/11 dead. In turn, he is punished with a fine and a three-year ban from holding a security clearance. In plainer terms, Mr. Berger ponies up a month�s pin money and gets his clearance back .... Boy, that�ll teach �im.�

CONCLUSION

The Sassower case and the Berger case have some similarities. They both committed their �crimes� in Washington, D.C. They were both charged by the U.S. Department of Justice. They both were in federal court, before federal judges. But there the similarities end. Ms. Sassower did nothing wrong. She in fact did not disrupt Congress. She committed no crime. In fact, under 1st Amendment rights of speech and petition, she was a citizen simply attempting to ensure integrity and accountability in the confirmation process of federal judges. (Judges who are not elected, given a life-time appointment, possess tremendous power and
grabbed absolute immunity for themselves.) A process, in fact, largely
abandoned by both the executive branch and the legislative branch, regarding selection and removal of judges. Both branches in fact routinely broker deals behind the scenes and hold hearings that are a charade, giving us judges more connected, than qualified. And both parties are equally engaged in it.

Ms. Sassower�s liberty was taken away. She should immediately be given a pardon by President Bush and be given an apology by all three (3) branches of government, with President Bush leading the way. As Justice Louis Brandeis stated: �The most important political office is that of private citizen.�

In contrast, Sandy Berger confessed to breaking the law and committing serious offenses. But Sandy Berger apparently is not going to jail. How can that be? Why has he been given such a privilege by the Justice Department? the federal judge or magistrate?

If our legal/justice system is to have any meaning, Sandy Berger must go to jail. Are we a Nation of laws? Then why is Sandy Berger above the law? If he does not go to jail, our legal system is a JOKE. National Security is a JOKE. The Constitution is made a JOKE.

Why was Elena Sassower prosecuted? Why was the book thrown at her when there was no harm? Why was she given the maximum sentence? She was attempting to do good. Yet Sandy Berger does bad. Commits multiple serious crimes. And no jail time? How can anyone claim we have a Rule of Law, with outcomes like this? It simply boggles the mind.

Our legal/justice system is a JOKE. With such blatant disparity in cases
like Sassower and Berger, we can no longer pretend we have even - an
appearance of justice. Such retributive and vindictive acts imposed in the one case, and such favoritism and privilege granted in the other. These results are obscene. They are perverse.

We have soldiers fighting, sacrificing and dying in Afghanistan and Iraq for - upside down justice - like this?

And it�s the judges who ultimately are inflicting the injustice in both
cases. They are supposed to be the gatekeepers. The final backstop. They are not upholding the Constitution. They are not protecting our rights. This is what Judge (retired) Andrew Napolitano referred to in his recent book �Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws�.

For Common Sense, Liberty & Justice,

Gary L. Zerman, Atty,

April 11, 2005
GZerman@...

To be added or removed, write VictoryUSA@...
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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#929

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Fri Apr 15, 2005 4:33 pm
Subject: WHAT? The Constitution Is An Ex Parte Restraining Order??

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                             April 15, 2005
______________________________________________________
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
______________________________________________________

WHAT? The Constitution Is An

Ex Parte Restraining Order??

A claim made by Gary Minette of Liberty Creed garmin@...

What do you think of that claim? (See "original message" from Gary Minette.) Here's someone else who says there IS an enforcement clause in the Constitution, but it isn't one that should be implemented by the true sovereigns-- the People.

Also he doesn't cite the Article or section# of the enforcement clause he alludes to. And, the People can't trust "the states" any more than they can trust the feds or the judiciary as far as enforcing the Constitution goes. I don't see anyone presenting anything that improves J.A.I.L. enforcement.

I've said so many times, government WILL NOT enforce its own responsibilities. It was probably assumed that the "grand jury" would be the enforcement body (theoretically being made up from the People as an independent, non-government body with autonomous authority), but there isn't a spelled-out provision setting forth that description and the specific means of it doing so. And you see what the "grand juries" have evolved into --hand puppets of the prosecutors. Grand juries are supposed to keep prosecutors in line also. (Would that now be a conflict of interest??) Had there been a specific process and procedure in the Constitution, this prosecutorial manipulation couldn't have happened. The J.A.I.L. process is the only one that will work-- it can't be a government function!

The Document is a Ex Parte Restraining Order. No party to which a R. O. applies happily accepts such a reality.

Hmmmmm-- here's where I again show MY "cluelessness" -- (I don't really apologize for it. I don't believe I'm alone. I believe the evil powers that have usurped control INTENDED for the People to be "clueless." That's how this tyranny flourishes. I don't believe the People should apologize for being the victims of this evil sinister plot. Too bad we've been entranced for over 200 years!)

First time I've heard this idea: Ex Parte Restraining Order

There are others who can analyze this better than I, but I take it the Continental Congress "presented" the R.O. on behalf of the People. To what "judge" was it presented for consideration? I take it the R.O. was/is against the newly created government. I wouldn't think that the "judge" before whom the R.O. was "filed" could be any part of the newly formed government against which the R.O. was written.

At any rate, I don't see any evidence that the Constitution is an EPRO. Call me "clueless" --call me "blind" --call me "dense." I plead guilty, but I don't apologize, for the reasons stated above. I believe it's been fraud from the get-go --ever since "ratification." I firmly believe in the Constitution AS A CONSTITUTION and despite its imperfections, is a grand document that does exist, but is not enforceable by the People as it should have been. Just think-- all this fraud for the past 200+ years could have been prevented!

Regardless of whatever sinister plot was behind the ratification of the organic Constitution in 1787, I believe the People, now that they've awakened from their 200-year slumber, must take matters back to the Declaration of Independence and what was intended there, and read the Constitution IN LIGHT OF THAT INTENTION. And then, the People must pass J.A.I.L. to enforce that Constitution as written, in accordance with the DOI, as a "new guard for our future security." (I've grown to dislike that word "security" because of its connotations today-- you know, "Homeland Security" ? "Social Security"? ). --but "security" within the meaning of the DOI.

Mr. Minette says We have 'consented' to far more power to the gov. than was originally intended. If WE consent then the issue of 'just' is moot. Since it was all fraud from the time of ratification, what could the People have legitimately "consented" to? "Just" means the absence of fraud, does it not? As I said, the People must take matters back to what was in fact "originally intended." (None of this "we impliedly consented" etc. The People were/are victims of FRAUD-- and fraud vitiates everything it touches-- forever!)

Let's get past all this fraudulent twisting of terms and manipulations against the People. We've put up with it for over 200 years-- isn't that long enough? ("Ex Parte Restraining Order," "compact," "contract," "law merchant," "admiralty law," "UCC," "corporate U.S.," "bankrupt U.S.," "implied consent to become enslaved," "14th amendment citizen," "non-resident alien," --that's enough already.)

These evils are no longer sufferable!

Let the People now decide their own destiny, by taking control of it!

Pass J.A.I.L.

-Barbie

ACIC, National J.A.I.L. Admin.

victoryusa@...

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

From: Liberty Creed

To: VictoryUSA@...

Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 9:33 AM

Subject: Re: The "Legal Reality" Must Be Brought In Line With the Declaration of Independence

In defense of the both of you.

I would pose that both of your are right, and to see why the context must shift slightly. It is true we have no 'Constitutional' gov. The Document is an Ex Parte Restraining Order. No party to which an R. O. applies happily accepts such a reality.

And, 'just power from the consent of the governed'. We have 'consented' to far more power to the gov. than was originally intended. If WE consent then the issue of 'just' is moot.

My personal opinion on an ' Enforcement clause in the Constitution' is this-that it does exist. The 'states' can desolve the Compact.

Gary

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

From: VictoryUSA@...

To: www.jail4judges.org

Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 1:59 AM

Subject: The "Legal Reality" Must Be Brought In Line With the Declaration of Independence

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                            April 13, 2005
______________________________________________________
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                   PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                 What?MeWarden?
______________________________________________________

The "Legal Reality" Must Be Brought

In Line with The Declaration of Independence

And, if you REALLY and TRULY want to make a difference

regarding the judiciary, it will help immeasurably to evaluate

those opinions from a standpoint of legal reality.

This "law clerk" is not yet there. To promote this writing

as something competent is to confess the same problem.
-- Harmon L. Taylor holmes221@...

----- Original Message -----
From: Harmon L. Taylor

To: VictoryUSA@...

Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 8:16 PM

Subject: Re: A Former (CLUELESS) Lawclerk Who No Longer Trusts Judges

12 April A.D. 2005

While this tickles the ears of your regular readers, you're still
presuming something into existence that doesn't exist. What this "law
clerk" has no clue about, and is trained to have no clue about, is the
legal reality that we do not now have, and have never had, a
"constitutional Government."

So, to measure ANY "judges" decisions by the Constitution is simply
ludicrous. The problem here is not necessarily with the "judges." There may be problems, but those problems are not likely to be problems with legal reality, which legal reality the "judges" very likely know,
understand and apply, and which legal reality this "law clerk" is
confessedly clueless about.

This is the same generic problem with the popular Court-slamming books that circulate today. Either those authors are clueless, or else they're expecting there to be enough book-buyers who are clueless, to make money off the lies and crap they write and publish. At the end of the day, the problem will prove itself. The problem is NOT with the "judges," where the question that arises has to do with the "Constitution." The problem is with those who have not yet realized that we do not now have, and have never had, a "constitutional Government." The Constitution was and is a "compact." It was never, and is still not, Law. Thus, it was never the Supreme Law of the Land.

And, if you REALLY and TRULY want to make a difference regarding the judiciary, it will help immeasurably to evaluate those opinions from a standpoint of legal reality. This "law clerk" is not yet there. To promote this writing as something competent is to confess the same problem.

I used to be "there." See http://www.apfn.org/apfn/okc_coverup.htm and search that page for "Taylor." You'll zoom to the top of The Terre Haute Litigation materials. The "pure Constitution" argument was characterized on appeal as (1) frivolous, (2) without merit, (3) of no authority, and (4) ludicrous. My life forever changed the instant I read their opinion, for it finally was "OK" for me to accept the legal reality that the Constitution doesn't even qualify to be the lining in the bottom of most bird cages.

I'm no longer living a day dream, and, actually, I'm no longer living a
nightmare, either. There's a tremendous peace of mind that accompanies coming to terms with the stark cold essence of our legal reality. We've "been had." The sooner we come to accept that fact, the sooner we make constructive progress. It's possible to win a game where the player doesn't know the rules, but that is all the more difficult where the game is designed by masters to be a game that can't be won by 99.99999% of those who play. Said another way, the only way to win is not to play. And, we can't get to the stage of not playing until such time as we understand, in very good detail, the rules of the game(s) at issue.

We don't get "there" by still thinking that anything about the "federal
government" has one stinking thing to do with the "Constitution."

Keep up the good work.

Harmon L. Taylor

holmes221@...
(Dallas, Texas)

(our response)

Dear Mr. Taylor:

Thank you for your comments regarding our past JNJ on the testimony of a former Law Clerk losing faith in the judiciary. He cannot be blamed for being "clueless" regarding the lack of force and effect of the organic Constitution, as most of us were "clueless" to the "legal reality" due to the fraud and deception of our tyrannical and treasonous government-- which is not really "government" at all, since it does not fulfill the role of government for this country as described in the Declaration of Independence. What we have is an illegitimate force, sometimes referred to as an "oligarchy of hegemony" or "de facto government," operating under color of government by usurpation of power. This evil is no longer sufferable!

You say the legal reality [is] that we do not now have, and have never had, a "constitutional Government." The question is, Harmon, is that the fault of "the Constitution" or of "government."? Which came first, the Constitution, or government? The Declaration states that governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed for the purpose of securing the natural rights of men. The organic Constitution was written on behalf of the People (i.e., the governed) for the purpose of creating a government designed to protect the interests of the People, delegating certain rules by which government was to be restricted in power while carrying out that protection for the People. The government, being the product (the creation) of the Constitution, to be legitimate must be subservient to its creator (the Constitution), and ultimately to the People.

Apparently I am showing my "cluelessness" when I admit that I am perplexed by your statement to measure ANY "judges" decisions by the Constitution is simply ludicrous. You seem to imply that judges aren't required to obey the Constitution, saying The problem is with those who have not yet realized that we do not now have, and have never had, a "constitutional Government." The Constitution was and is a "compact." It was never, and is still not, Law. Thus, it was never the Supreme Law of the Land.

Mr. Taylor, are we, as an ordered society, to accept the idea that we have no ruling document in this country --and never have had one-- that establishes the character and conception of its government, setting forth the principles reflecting the consent of the governed and regarded as the Supreme Law of the Land? And are we to accept the idea that judges, or others functioning "as government" are legitimately a renegade force owing no obligation to obey the principles set forth in the Constitution? Are you saying that this "legal reality" is any justification for this lawless power holding sway over the People of this Land?

I am certainly "clueless" regarding any idea that the People don't have the right to hold judges accountable under constitutional requirements ---and that such expectation is "simply ludicrous"? Why do judges take an oath to uphold the Constitution, or at least claim that they do? Why do judges cite the Constitution as an authority when it fits their fancy to do so? Why do judges often claim that something is "unconstitutional"?  If there is "no constitutional government" then what difference does it make?

I will agree that the organic Constitution has had no force nor effect since its ratification, because there is no enforcement provision included in it for the People to implement against "unconstitutional government." However, that doesn't mean that the Constitution doesn't exist-- that it's not the Supreme Law of the Land as it provides that it is. Despite the fact that the Constitution lacks an enforcement provision, the People still have the expectation that the government they created by the Constitution will be obedient to it, according to the written consent of the governed contained therein. Even without a written enforcement provision, the People's expectation is still there-- and rightfully so!

Charles Lincoln, the "clueless" lawclerk, presented his testimony based on his experience and background. We are grateful that he shared his testimony with us. It honestly told about what he experienced working with the judicial system, and how he was led to believe, through his formal education and research, that judges were to rule according to law-- most of us believe that to be true. To be "clueless" to the "legal reality" that we have "no constitutional government" and never did have, doesn't take away from the fact that we have the right to expect that we do have a "constitutional government" and if we find out that we don't (become "clued in") then we must take necessary action to correct that "legal reality" and bring it in line with the Declaration of Independence.

The fact that you aren't "clueless" I ask, what are you intending to do about the "legal reality" you describe? What does your following statement boil down to? It's possible to win a game where the player doesn't know the rules, but that is all the more difficult where the game is designed by masters to be a game that can't be won by 99.99999% of those who play. Said another way, the only way to win is not to play. And, we can't get to the stage of not playing until such time as we understand, in very good detail, the rules of the game(s) at issue.
What are the "rules of the game"? We'd better learn fast, because time is of the essence. Until we learn the "rules of the game", or you tell us what they are and how to handle them, I recommend that we concentrate on getting J.A.I.L. passed in as many states as possible, as soon as possible. I believe the People will accomplish their freedom by following the "rules of the J.A.I.L. game."

-Barbie

victoryusa@...

Ron Branson

Author/Founder

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!

E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

To be added or removed, write to VictoryUSA@...

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

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

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#930

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Mon Apr 18, 2005 9:54 pm
Subject: Fine Tuning The Importance of J.A.I.L.

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                             April 18, 2005
______________________________________________________
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
______________________________________________________

Fine Tuning The

Importance of J.A.I.L.

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

From: Dorothy E Robbins

To: victoryUSA@...

Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 1:58 PM

Subject: My response to 4/15/'05

May I as a student and teacher of the "Constitution of the united States of America" (please note original capitalization) make some comments?

And, before we begin let it be known that the word "government" must be given modifiers to have any meaning as far as who are the governors and who, the governed. "Civil government" is quite different from "self-government"! When you read the following comments you will discover that some modifiers will be used. (End of lecture?)

So , firstly: regarding "enforcement."

"My personal opinion on an "Enforcement clause in the Constitution" is this-that it does exist" Gary (He wrote to J.A.I.L. claiming that the Constitution is an Ex Parte Restraining Order. --j4j)

Who delegated the powers that be to those in civil government? If you know who ratified the document we call the "Constitution of the united States of America," you will know who the "enforcers" were supposed to be. Parties to a contract must keep the contract or they must face the consequences. "We the People" have not held those to whom we delegated those powers. As the Constitution has never been abrogated (to abolish by the authority of the maker or his successor), it is still in force and we are still the enforcers. (More on this later.)

Secondly: re. "The 'states' can dissolve the Compact. " Gary

Yes, however, there's that little word can; Point: We the people may but can we? (Was it Teddy Roosevelt that said, "The biggest clubs are under the best apple trees"? )

The can was tried about 140 years ago and the "biggest clubs" won! Lots! Not, of course, because secession was unthinkable to our founders nor is unconstitutional. No, but because the club wielders were unconscionable, unethical men. Times change so let's try a different method. That brings us to the next point.

Thirdly: civil "government WILL NOT enforce its own responsibilities...." Ron. The objects of "ex parte" will resist, but, as our beloved Founders stated, we will put our trust in the One who knows our cause is just!

For the support of J.A.I.L., "with a firm reliance on Divine Providence for its success we pledge our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

Fourthly: Perhaps a few words re. "Ex Parte Restraining Order " are appropriate. See "firstly" above. The "ex parte" are we the people.

A bit of history will support this. When the delegates to the Constitutional Convention went home to their respective states, this Constitution was gone over "with a fine tooth comb" by the people of the states. Not until the people had delegated their representatives to do so could those representative delegates go to the Continental Congress and for the people they represented vote for that Constitution.

As they were honorable men (!) that is what they did. They waited to be delegated and they voted accordingly; and notice, it was in lieu of the people. Who ratified and who are the "parte"? The people! Therefore, it is "the people" who may, must and can (with God's help) do what needs be done to enforce it in spite of what was said: "but is not enforceable by the People as it should have been."

Fifthly: It may be true that as Gary stated, we have tacitly " 'consented' to far more power to the gov. than was originally intended," but , to abrogate the Constitution, it must be done expressly: "To repeal; to annul by an authoritative act; to abolish by the authority of the maker or his successor; applied to the repeal of laws, decrees, ordinances, the abolition of established customs &c." That authoritative act is clearly spelled out in the Constitution itself in Article V.

This brings us to the most important point of this whole dissertation, as Barbie said: "Let the People now decide their own destiny, by taking control of it! Pass J.A.I.L. "

Dorothy Robbins

AJIC North-Central California

der1776@...

(Response by Barbie)

Dear Dorothy:

To assure covering everything you mention, I'll respond seriatim:

1. We really have only one Constitution

I think more confusion is caused when people ask "What Constitution?" Such a question plays right into the hands of the usurping forces in power. The sooner people put out of their minds anything that took place since the ratification of THE Constitution of the United States-- (and that's what I call it, knowing that the fraud that has taken place does not nullify the one and only organic Constitution of 1787)-- the sooner we can clear our thinking to the truth and DO what needs to be done to fulfill our duty in claiming that truth. As long as we bend whatsoever toward the fraudulent results of the usurpation, such as "acknowledging" that there are more than one Constitution, that we shouldn't capitalize certain letters, or words, or names because it "means" something else, we give credence to the fraud which we mustn't do. It's like looking through a "glass darkly." The People have to clean up that glass and remove the darkness, so we can see clearly what has happened to us, and how, and why. We have to throw off the confusion that has entangled us, distorting our thinking.

2. The word "government"

I think for purposes of defining government from the perspective of the intention set forth in the Declaration of Independence (DOI), which I believe must be the focal point of definition, the simpler it is, the easier to grasp and analyze regarding its proper role and relationship. While defining government can get to be a complex matter, I don't believe we have to get to that point for purposes of viewing the Constitution from the perspective of the DOI.

The DOI establishes the meaning of government only in the general sense of its relationship to the People, government's creator. If we go beyond that perspective, we get into trouble because of the fraud that government has actually become since ratification of the Constitution. We can't allow ourselves to get tangled up in the web of deceit caused and created by government through its usurpation of power. The People have to free themselves completely from that web of deceit that has entangled us for over 200 years!

So in analyzing and deciding what the People must do to correct the problem of tyrannical government, we have to go back to Square One as I've said before and start from the point of legitimacy. I see that point as being the date of ratification of the organic Constitution, because I see no fatal flaws in the Constitution as written EXCEPT FOR the lack of an enforcement clause specifically spelling out the process by which the People can independently (not rely on government whatsoever) enforce its terms against a wayward "government" (i.e., within the meaning of the DOI perspective). Don't get tangled up in complexities-- that's part of the "web of deceit." The People are deceived because of complexities, among other things.

I get perplexed when I hear "WE are the government." We, the People, are the authority OVER government, but that's not to say that we ARE government. Again-- from the perspective of the DOI, there are two different entities: (1) the People, and (2) the government. One created the other to serve and protect their interests. How does that make them the same? One is the creator, and the other is the created. One is superior and the other is inferior. Through usurpation of power, the created has taken on power OVER its creator. Clearly, this goes directly against the Laws of Nature. So it isn't a legitimate power-- it's power alright, but not legitimate. It's counterfeit! Just like FRNS-- they're counterfeit "money" created by the counterfeit power.

3. What is the Constitution?

Before getting into the "enforcement" discussion, we should determine what the Constitution is-- what kind of a document is it? There are people who say that it is a "contract" or a "compact." To me, and for purposes of J.A.I.L., that classification carries a high disrespect for that Document. I capitalize that word because it is a Supreme Document-- it was written on behalf of the People, within the meaning of the relationship declared in the DOI, and it specifically provides that it is the Supreme Law of the Land.

Not everyone accepts that statement. I have to quote Harmon Taylor:

"The problem is NOT with the 'judges,' where the question that arises has to do with the 'Constitution.' The problem is with those who have not yet realized that we do not now have, and have never had, a 'constitutional Government.' The Constitution was and is a 'compact.' It was never, and is still not, Law. Thus, it was never the Supreme Law of the Land. ....the Constitution doesn't even qualify to be the lining in the bottom of most bird cages." The only part of that with which I can agree is that we never had a constitutional government. But that doesn't take away from the Constitution. The Constitution means what it says and says what it means. Apparently if we believe that, we're "clueless." That's what our treasonous judiciary wants us to be: "Clueless."

Rather than hold the Constitution as authority, the unconstitutional government, represented and spoken for by the unconstitutional judiciary, reverses the status by debunking the Constitution and lifting itself up, by usurpation, as "the authority," and anyone who doesn't accept that reversal is considered "frivolous." I note that deciding something is "frivolous" is a conclusion, and in my experience, there's never been a judge who has supported that conclusion by findings of fact. I used to be perplexed about that, but now I realize that government is a fraudulent operation and we cannot expect its decisions to be supported by fact.

The Constitution is not a contract or a compact, because it is not an agreement between parties. As I said above, from the perspective of the DOI, there are two different entities: (1) the People, and (2) the government. One created the other to serve and protect their interests. The People and its created government are not equal "sides" that would form an "agreement." The created product (entity) doesn't and cannot "agree" to be created, nor to the terms of its creation. Clearly, the Constitution is LAW. And violation of that LAW is TREASON! As I recall, it was in Ex Parte Young where it was discussed that officials committed "treason against the Constitution." Don't take my word for it-- just analyze the facts yourself. The People created the government by the Constitution. Just contemplate that point-- THINK about it. Can that be remotely considered as a contract? or a compact? The fact that there never was a "constitutional government" means that it never operated as such-- not that it was never created. That's why the date of ratification is the turning point of legitimacy of government.

4. Enforcement of the Constitution

That brings us right into the next point. The reason the date of ratification of the Constitution is the turning point of legitimacy of government is because there was no means provided within the Constitution for the People to enforce it. I think it's clear that the People ARE, or would be, the enforcers. Rather than say, in relation to the Constitution, "Parties to a contract must keep the contract," say that everyone must obey the Constitution (The Law) and laws in pursuance thereof.

Yes, the People, by the Constitution, created government and delegated to it its restricted powers. While it is true that the Constitution has never been specifically, knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently

abrogated by the People, the system (unconstitutional government) likes to say that the People (individuals) have, by practice, custom and usage abrogated it by failing to enforce it-- by remaining silent, thereby "impliedly waiving" their rights and "consenting" to become SLAVES. I shudder with righteous indignation every time I hear that "explanation" from our unconstitutional de facto government, and sadly, even from many "patriots" who try to justify judges' actions on that basis. (I call them "court apologists"). I'm sorry to say that they are accessories to treason, if they promote such propaganda.

While it is established prima facie that the People "should be" the enforcers of the Constitution, I wonder if they actually ARE since there is no specific constitutional provision spelling out HOW they are to enforce it. While the Second Amendment provides a means for the People to protect themselves when necessary, it should only be the ultimate means when peaceful means (like J.A.I.L.) fail. A peaceful means would be the Grand Jury; however the Constitution fails to provide specific Grand Jury process and procedure for the People to implement, and thus the power of the GJ has been usurped and transformed into an arm of the prosecution. J.A.I.L. will restore GJ power to the People.

Dorothy, you say that the Constitution "is still in force and we are still the enforcers." To my way of thinking, I don't believe the Constitution

can be "in force" absent a specific means of enforcing it. I will say this, however: By nature, the People (each individual) are sovereign OVER its created government, and that includes the States. States didn't create people. [If the Eleventh Amendment can be said to be the People's relinquishment of sovereignty to the States, courts have ruled (bless their hearts) that 42/1983 is an exception to that Amendment. (Again, I believe that's in Ex Parte Young). But I can't believe that the People, by the Eleventh Amendment, willingly gave up the respect by the State to their birthright, and consented to be regarded as subjects or slaves of the State. People can't give up the right itself-- it's unalienable. But they can give up any respect to it. (To me, that's a disrespect to their Creator who endowed them with it in the first place.)] This Eleventh Amendment discussion is a "rabbit trail."

Since the People by nature are sovereign OVER government, as they are the creator ("institutor"), by the Constitution, of government, it logically follows that the People have the inherent right to enforce it-- with or without a constitutional provision. The DOI states that the People have the duty to throw off "such government" and provide "new guards" for their future security. But it doesn't say HOW that is to be done, or WHAT the new guards are to be. That's why a constitutional provision was necessary-- to set forth the process and procedure.

Dorothy, you said it is "the people" who may, must and can (with God's help) do what needs done to enforce it in spite of what was said: "but is not enforceable by the People as it should have been." It's that "do what needs to be done" that should have been included in the Constitution. To leave it unspecified leaves the danger of resorting to all-out violence which, if nothing else works, WILL BE the outcome. The Framers should have foreseen that possibility-- indeed probability --and spelled out a specific non-violent, lawful means of enforcement by the People.

* * * * * * *

The rest of what you say has, I think, already been covered here. This leaves us with your final statement: This brings us to the most important point of this whole dissertation: "Let the People now decide their own destiny, by taking control of it! Pass J.A.I.L. "

Thanks, Dorothy, for your most informative response. It certainly gave me an opportunity to thoroughly examine what you stated and to share this with our readers. Perhaps there will be others who, when all is said and done, can enlighten us even more to the need for J.A.I.L. The more we examine these facts and issues, the clearer the need for J.A.I.L. becomes!

-Barbie

ACIC, National J.A.I.L.

victoryusa@...

E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#931

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:54 pm
Subject: Wow! What a great conversation about the Constitution

jail4judges_...

Send Email

Wow! What a great conversation about the Constitution

(Thanks to Zeke Layman, zeke@...)

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

From: Zeke Layman

To: VictoryUSA@...

Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 12:06 PM

Subject: Re: Fine Tuning The Importance of J.A.I.L.

Wow! What a great conversation going on here about the Constitution and it's "powers" or lack thereof. I am also a student and teacher of the Constitution and after reading the below discussion, I can see more clearly the thinking behind the JAIL initiative.

Because most of the discussion in the area of Constitution and law digress into the words and definition of words, I'll give a short overview of my general perspective with general definitions. First, I'll start with the statement that the Constitution IS the government. This is spelled out in many Supreme Court cases. Now I'll qualify the statement to say that the Constitution is the "National" Government, as opposed to the "Federal Government".

What is the difference? The National government which is the Constitution, is divided into three SEPARATE AND EQUAL POWERS, was established in 1787 by Article III of the Constitution, creating the "One Supreme Court". "The Judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....

In 1889, two years after the ratification of the Constitution, Congress, created an INFERIOR COURT, by way of the 1789 Judiciary Act, (statute) called the Department of Justice (all federal district and appellate courts are established under this act). These courts operate by Federal statutes (Article I) as opposed to the original National article III courts which operate pursuant to the rules of the Common Law. This act of Congress created the "Federal judicial code" commonly known as Title 28... and all the Courts which follow these statutes.

So the National government is established under the Common Law, or Judicial power, and the Federal government is established by statute, or the Legislative power. Both are separate and equal. This is one way the dual jurisdiction of the Constitution is uncovered.

I view the judicial department as a statutory court, departing from the Judicial Power, created to litigate controversies between statutory persons or corporations. These courts will IMPOSE its authority upon a non corporate person if not objected to. The PROBLEM arises when they override the objection. Very few people challenge the statutory scheme or jurisdiction of the court in the first instant.

I believe that each case is separate and that a non corporate person must get to this point, before the court, in order to find out if the Department of Justice will extend its jurisdiction beyond its limits. If there is no objection to their imposition of statute upon the common person, they will assume they have permission to proceed. I believe this is spelled out in the California Constitution at Article 6 Section 2.

I have not seen or heard of any other organization that is attempting to bring a bill for judicial accountability into the Congress, which is desperately needed, if not for anything but to draw attention to the problem.
Zeke
zeke@...

Dear Zeke:

Thank you for your feedback on our recent JNJ "Fine Tuning The Importance of J.A.I.L." May I first comment on your final statement

that "a bill for judicial accountability into the Congress, which is desperately needed, if not for anything but to draw attention to the problem." J.A.I.L. does have a Federal Bill which is found on our website at www.jail4judges.org which has been presented to several Senators and Congressmen, including the previous Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Henry Hyde. We personally handed it to Congressman Ron Paul on one of his California speaking engagements several years ago. Other JAILers around the country have presented the Federal J.A.I.L. Bill to their representatives. So, they know about it.

We don't expect the feds will do anything about it until J.A.I.L. is passed in a sufficient number of states first, indicating that J.A.I.L. is not just a figment of someone's imagination.

1. Is the Constitution government?

Saying that the Constitution is government is closer than saying that We, the People, are the government, the latter of which I discussed in the last paragraph of Item 2 of "Fine Tuning." One creates (institutes) the other. The creator is not the same as the product of its creation. However, there are also inconsistencies in the idea that the Constitution is government, in that one is the LAW (and we have to respect it as such, otherwise what can this country stand on?) and the other is the function instituted by the People to carry out that LAW.

How many times have you heard a police officer say "I am the LAW!" That's where we get into trouble-- government, even constitutional government, is not the LAW. Government, including the police, is subservient to the law, and must obey the law. Enforcing the law on others is part of obeying the law themselves-- the same with executing the law by government in general. The law is not the same as the delegated power instituted to enforce/execute it.

2. Are Supreme Court cases lawful authority?

The Supreme Court is part of the product created by the People, via the Constitution. Therefore, Supreme Court decisions must be viewed cautiously by the People. Those decisions are not the LAW; they must comport with the LAW. That's a point that will make a lot of people and even the legal profession dizzy, because they have grown accustomed to courts legislating from the bench for many years. I have been told that law students are taught that the "law" is whatever the judge says it is. (I haven't gone to lawschool, but I've discussed the law with many students and lawyers.) Very little, if anything, is taught about the Constitution and its true station in life. That is shown by the way law is practiced, and the way judges rule. (If you bring up the Constitution once more in MY courtroom, I'll have you held on contempt! --infamous words.) It's funny how every judge "owns" the courtroom in which he presides. Even judge Judy says "This is MY courtroom!" That does a disservice to the viewing audience, but the media is part of the problem.

The only legitimate value of court decisions (referred to as case "law") is for use as guidance to judges in ruling on future cases of similar circumstances, citing them as "points and authorities" therefor. I think the term "case law" confuses people, because it isn't really law in general, but is only the application of law to that case. And then, to be valid at all, it must have been decided through due process of law and in accordance with local court rules (part of due process). So again, it is the Constitution that is the true authority in all cases, and judges making decisions at all levels must be held accountable to it by the People. So when saying "the Supreme Court said so," be careful!

3. National versus Federal government

Zeke, this was quite an interesting discussion and I don't recall having heard this analysis before. I know the term "federal" is something to be leery of because it is used so loosely. The most striking example is "Federal Reserve" which is neither federal, nor reserve. When I hear the term "the feds" I think of the evil, despotic, usurping powers-that-be. Of course "the feds" don't have a monopoly on that-- it reaches all levels. I arrive at this conclusion from the intention for government established by the Declaration of Independence (DOI). "That to secure these [the People's] rights. governments are instituted...." Does the de facto government do that today, or for the last 200+ years? All the fraud, deception, and trickery in the world doesn't justify this evil. The People have been fooled, yes-- but that doesn't justify the dishonesty, just because they have gotten away with it for so long. Evil is evil no matter what, and it only grows more egregious with the passage of time. THE EVIL IS NO LONGER SUFFERABLE!

Reading your analysis, Zeke, is like taking a piece of rope and separating each individual strand and examining each one. You say the Constitution establishes the National government under Common Law

[Article III] whereas the Federal government, including the inferior courts, is established by statute (legislation by Congress) [Article I]. That seems to be a logical analysis so far, but confusion sets in when you get into discussion on the judiciary.

There appears to be a distinction between the vesting of judicial power in "federal" (as opposed to state) courts, both the Supreme Court and the inferior courts [Article III], and the establishing of the inferior courts by Congress [Article I]. While the judicial power is vested in all "federal" courts by the Constitution under Article III, only one court is established by the Constitution under Article III, i.e., the U.S. Supreme Court. Therefore, it appears that inferior courts are vested with judicial power by the Constitution, even though not yet established and ordained by Congress. That's somewhat confusing to me, but that's what it appears to be from a reading of the Constitution. I'm not sure if this part of the discussion is necessary for understanding the importance of J.A.I.L., but "just for fun" I'll continue.... (Yes, I'm having fun!)

Here's where I get confused: Zeke, you say that the National government "was established in 1787 by Article III of the Constitution, creating the "One Supreme Court". Continuing your quote: "So the National government is established under the Common Law, or Judicial power, and the Federal government is established by statute, or the Legislative power. Both are separate and equal. This is one way the dual jurisdiction of the Constitution is uncovered." Looks like you're saying that the National government, established by the Constitution, is limited to the "judicial power" [Article III] while the Federal government is everything else that is established by statute [Article I].

My take is that National government is established by the entire Constitution, all articles. Federal government is established by Congress which is part of the National government. Said another way, National government consists of all three branches [NOT the People] established by the Constitution, and Federal government is the product of one of the branches of National government, i.e., Congress. Statutory law is subject to the Constitution; therefore, according to this analysis, Federal government (statutory) is subject to National government (constitutional). I like that analogy. Too much power has been assumed by "Federal" government.

I am reminded of the following statement in the DOI: "He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation." The operation of Federal government has certainly conjured up a "jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution" and our judiciary (the oligarchy of kings) has certainly "given its assent to [Congress'] acts of pretended legislation."

4. Does government have the right to "assume" authority?

Zeke, you said "If there is no objection to their [the courts] imposition of statute upon the common person, they will assume they have permission to proceed." You are referring to the courts here, but this applies to government generally. This is the problem that we, the People, are facing: GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING THE COURTS, ASSUMING "PERMISSION TO PROCEED" when the "common person" (individual) fails to object. [I recall one time when I was appearing as plaintiff in court, the judge asked opposing counsel what my case was all about rather than reading the paperwork before him or asking me. Needless to say, opposing counsel (County Counsel who is also counsel to the judge sitting at the bench) was really messing up the facts, and I would orally object to each false statement. Finally the judge said to me in a stern voice "If you interrupt one more time, you will be held in contempt." Yet if I didn't object, it would be determined that I "accepted" what was being falsely stated on the record. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't! By the way, that judge was promoted to the L.A. Court of Appeals the following month. He was a "good" tyrant! That he was!]

"Assuming" authority is nothing less than usurpation of power! Remember-- government (especially the courts) is to protect our rights, not "assume" permission to proceed when rights are being compromised and even destroyed. Oh-- you didn't OBJECT! Well, you see what happens when you DO object! There's such a thing as "Due process of law" which prevents this misunderstanding, and is described as "protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government." (Yes, by case law-- but if it's constitutional, it's valid. See Daniels v. Williams (1986) 474 U.S. 327, 331). The courts ignore it anyway! They would rather "assume permission to proceed" against you --actually whether you object or not.

We really appreciate the feedback. It allows us to refine matters even more and to learn from it. I've learned a lot, especially in the last month or so when we've received such interesting discussions regarding the basis of J.A.I.L. --namely the Declaration and the Constitution upon which it is based. Thank you for reading our material, even if it is lengthy at times. It's worth it.

-Barbie

ACIC, National J.A.I.L.

victoryusa@...

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!
E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

To be added or removed, write to VictoryUSA@...

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

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

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#932

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Mon Apr 18, 2005 4:57 am
Subject: * A Rebuke of Modern Judicial Practices *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                             April 17, 2005
______________________________________________________
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
______________________________________________________

A Rebuke of Modern Judicial Practices

By Lawrence R. Valvel, Professor and Dean, Massachusetts School of Law

In an introduction to a collection of essays on judicial misconduct, Lawrence R. Velvel, Dean of the Massachusetts School of Law, expresses grave concern over how the conduct of judges is destroying faith, trust, and confidence in the legal system.

In recent years, there has been a rising crescendo of complaint over the legitimacy - sometimes even the honesty - of particular judicial conduct. From political conservatives have come charges that judges are overriding the will of the people as expressed in statues and referenda relating to abortions, gay rights, affirmative action, religion and other subjects. From political liberals come charges of bias against women, sexual misconduct, harshness toward the interests of minorities, and forced imposition of deeply conservative political views. From both sides, depending on whose ox was gored, come charges of overriding the people's views and protecting the professional politicians by striking down term limits. From all venues - even from high-priced corporate lawyers - come charges of frequent tyrannical and arbitrary conduct by trial court judges. Misuse of position and even bribery are known to have sometimes existed.

Exacerbating the situation, boards and commissions set up to deal with judicial misconduct often lack will, power, and effectiveness; few judges are brought to book, and commissions, comprised largely of judges themselves and staffed by defenders, may function more to protect miscreants than to punish them.

There is much in these various critiques that is difficult to deny or disagree with. True, the claim that judges are usurping power by constitutional decision making may be unsustainable because there have been nearly two centuries of judicial decision making on sensitive political issues. Yet one does wonder whether some recent decisions simply outrun common sense. In any event, it is impossible to condone bias against women, sexual predation, tyrannical conduct, or misuse of position.

Beyond these matters, my thirty-four years as a law professor or a litigator have persuaded me that there is yet another problem, one that is widespread. It is that judges too often are unwilling to listen to facts or reasons. Rather, they start with predilections heavily favoring one side - predilections which they, of course, deny - and then prove impervious to facts and resulting reasons contrary to their bias. They are impervious when the evidence overwhelmingly supports such facts, even when the facts are not denied. Not untypically, they also invent - they literally make up - supposed counter facts. An analogy to judges' resistance to facts is the O.J. Simpson jury, which was not about to let the facts get in the way of its prejudices.

As one might expect, prior predilection, associated resistance to facts, and plain invention of counter facts are employed in the service of establishment views and to protect the establishment in a wide range of areas. (One does not find them employed against the establishment.) In my own career, I have personally experienced or otherwise observed these phenomena in litigation challenging the constitutionality of a war waged by powerful presidents in Vietnam, in litigation challenging the accreditation of law schools by, and other actions of, the powerful American Bar Association, and in litigation challenging the interests of powerful corporations.

When judges act on the basis of their prior predilections, ignore facts, and even make up supposed counter facts, they destroy a central tenet of the judicial system: decision of cases based on facts rather than prejudice. They also (like the Simpson jury) destroy faith in the judicial system. The general public will not continue to give its trust and confidence to a system which makes decisions by ignoring truths that are plain for all to see. And persons who are directly and personally injured by such decisions will be bitter toward a system which they rightly feel denied them a fair chance after promising it to them.

This bad situation is made even worse when disregard of facts is combined with other "features" that often are concomitants. For example, a judge may insure that facts contrary to the side he favors are kept to a minimum by denying "discovery" of those facts. Discovery is the legal process by which, before trial, a party receives documents from the other side and examines the other side's personnel. It is the crucial engine for uncovering truth in a lawsuit. Its importance is made dramatically clear if you consider that, after years of succeeding in litigation by withholding discovery of incriminating documents, the tobacco companies' resistance collapsed when the incriminating information began to come out in various ways. Judges with a predilection for one side can and too often do suppress contrary truth by denying discovery, using one pretext or another for the denial.

Another example occurs when judges - almost unbelievably - hold secret hearings from which the disfavored party is barred so that it cannot examine witnesses and learn facts. A judge may also receive secret evidence and then refuse to turn it over to the disfavored side. (What was in that famous envelope given to Judge Ito, anyway?)

Yet other examples occur when a judge claims there is reason to disqualify the counsel who, because of knowledge and experience, would be best able to uncover the facts, or when a judge who is accused of bias refuses to disqualify himself and to let the case be heard by a different judge who would not ignore or bury facts.

Prior judicial predilection and associated imperviousness to facts, judicial invention of purported counter facts and concomitant problems are among the most important problems of the judicial system today. It would be beneficial to the system, would prevent the law from being a hollow mockery of its promises, and would help maintain the faith of citizens, if judges were to stop ignoring facts in order to enforce their own predilections.
The Author: Lawrence R. Velvel is Professor and Dean, Massachusetts School of Law, and Editor-in-Chief of The Long Term View. His comments preface a collection of 20 articles on the topic "Judicial Misconduct," published in the Summer, 1997 issue (Vol. 4, No. 1). These articles can be accessed at the law school's Web site at www.mslaw.edu.

In case you have not noticed, the long-standing and unchangeable message of J.A.I.L. over the years on the judiciary is being backed by more and more influential and irrefutable authorities. Here we have a Law Professor and the Dean of Massachusetts School of Law, stepping forward to speak out against our nation's judiciary.

The day is coming, and soon will be, that the subject and focus on the judiciary of this nation will come to the front and center before Americans. With it, shall be the undeniable remedial message of JAIL4Judges.

To Add or to Remove, write VictoryUSA@...
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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#933

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 8:20 am
Subject: * * * Blaming The Bench * * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                                   April 22, 2005
______________________________________________________
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
______________________________________________________

"Blaming The Bench"

(NightLine CBS Presentation, 4/22/05)

I do not know how many of you had the opportunity of watching NightLine this evening, but if you did not see it, you missed a great presentation. The title of the program was "Blaming The Bench," centering majorly on the rising heat that is being placed upon Federal Judges across this nation. I immediately grabbed a video tape and began taping it.

The predominate message was that we are only now viewing the beginning of a looming showdown in this nation on this subject. Never could J.A.I.L. be in a better climate for its message of the need for Judicial Accountability than now. Imagine the impact J.A.I.L. shall have as it soon pushes publicly for its Judicial Accountability Initiative Law in South Dakota, which promises to create a knock-down and drag out uproar in and of itself.

The judges are arguing in their defense, "Independence of the Judiciary," and the other side is saying, if the Judiciary means by "Independence" unaccountability, then they do not buy the Judges' arguments. CBS showed that even the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court were weighing in on this judicial debate.

Here is what I am calling on everyone reading this J.A.I.L. News Journal to do. Get on your keyboards and commend NightLine and Ted Kopel for placing such a presentation out to their viewers, and encourage them do future presentations on Judges. You may write to NightLine at: NightLine@.... If you can find other email addresses or portals of access to CBS to commend them on this, do so. Faxes and telephone calls are not out of place.

Below is the full text of the proposed Federal Judicial Accountability & Integrity Legislation for Congress to pass. Congress, in the past, has been very slack to even acknowledge the existence of this Federal J.A.I.L. Bill, but Congressmen and Senators are acknowledging a shift in their feelings toward Federal Judges, and a showdown is most assuredly in the deck of cards. It is looking more and more as though one or the other of the two major political parties are going to be claiming judicial accountability originated with their party. But those of you who have been with J.A.I.L. a few years knows that we have been harping on this message faithfully for approximately ten years. These next few months shall be very interesting to watch.

-Ron Branson

VictoryUSA@...

P.O. Box 207

North Hollywood, CA. 91603

P.S. Send the below out to all Congressmen and Senators repeatedly. Ask for response on it, and what they intend to do about it.

Federal Judicial Accountability & Integrity Legislation

(Federal Legislation - Version 9/1/03)

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

(b) Definitions. For purposes of this statute:

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

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

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

Grand Juror.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

Filed In Library of Congress

AUTHORED BY: Ron Branson

P.O. Box 207

North Hollywood, California 91603

To be added or removed, wrote VictoryUSA@...
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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#934

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 1:28 am
Subject: "Starve" the Courts

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                              April 22, 2005
______________________________________________________
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
______________________________________________________

"Starve" the Courts

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/ps20050412.shtml

Next we should starve the courts
Phyllis Schlafly (archive)

April 12, 2005 | Print | Send

The courts so purposely humiliated Congress in the Terri Schiavo case that some U.S. representatives are finally beginning to talk back. Non-elected judges have flagrantly abused the legislative and executive functions of government for so many years that we wonder why a reaction has taken this long.

With the whole world watching, a mere probate judge in Florida thumbed his nose at a congressional subpoena and refused to comply. Then the federal judiciary closed ranks behind him, asserting its independence from and supremacy over not only an act of Congress, but even over the life of an innocent and defenseless woman.

Eleventh Circuit Judge Stanley Birch stuck in the knife, asserting that Congress unconstitutionally "invades the province of the judiciary and violates the separation of powers principle." We marvel at the chutzpah of a federal judge charging Congress with violating the separation of powers after we've endured years of judges legislating from the bench, rewriting our Constitution, distorting our history, assaulting our morals, saving vicious criminals from their just punishment, raising taxes and inflicting us with foreign laws.

When a man's honor is impugned, he can pretend he didn't hear the insult or he can come out fighting. Congress can't pretend it didn't hear Judge Birch's insult, so Congress must take action to curb the imperial action of supremacist judges.

Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., responded that we saw "a state judge completely ignore a congressional committee's subpoena and insult its intent" and "a federal court not only reject, but deride the very law that Congress passed." House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., who has likewise had enough, said, "Terri's will to live should serve as an inspiration and impetus for action."

Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, spoke for Americans who believe in the Constitution when he said, "The Congress of the United States for many, many years has shirked its responsibility to hold the judiciary accountable. No longer."

Even some Democrats in Congress are dismayed by the arrogance of the judges. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., observed that "once they get on the bench, they seem to think the importance of having a relationship with the House and Senate no longer exists."

But Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., like most liberals who can't achieve their radical goals legislatively, supports judicial supremacy over Congress, the president, the Florida governor and legislature. Kennedy even tried to silence complaints by absurdly suggesting that public criticism incites violence against judges.

The Constitution expressly limits the power of federal judges to what our elected representatives give them. After all, what is the point of having representative government if non-elected and unaccountable judges decide everything of significance?

Congress and the president should not pass the buck to judges in black robes and hide behind their skirts when they make outrageous decisions. Here are some ways Congress can start to restore representative government.

Congress should withdraw jurisdiction from the federal courts over the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments, and the Defense of Marriage Act. Two bills to do this (the Akin Bill and the Hostettler Bill) easily passed the House last fall but were ignored by the Senate, and now it is time to make them law.

Congress should withdraw jurisdiction over court challenges to the Boy Scouts of America, a federally chartered organization, which the American Civil Liberties Union is currently trying to ban from public schools. The ACLU is seeking activist judges who will rule it a violation of the First Amendment for the Boy Scouts to pledge allegiance to God and country and commit to keeping themselves "morally straight."

Congress should repeal the 1976 law that permits activist judges to grant lavish attorney's fees to the ACLU when it succeeds in banning the Boy Scouts, the Ten Commandments or a cross that has existed on public property for decades.

Both Houses of Congress should hold hearings about remedies for supremacist decisions. Congress should bring defiant judges before the American people to answer questions about their worst rulings.

Any judge who allows an adulterer with a live-in girlfriend to terminate the life of his wife should be impeached. Victims of such judges should have the right to demand a different judge (as is currently granted by Illinois courts).

Now that judges embrace forcibly starving someone to death, Congress should use its appropriation power to starve the judicial budget. Let's cut out judges' perks such as travel to international conferences where they pick up bad ideas about conforming our laws to foreign opinions and United Nations treaties.

On April 1, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticized congressional resolutions to curb the out-of-control judges, saying, "It is disquieting that they have attracted sizable support." She endorsed the practice of consulting foreign and international law.

But Chief Justice William Rehnquist included this statement in his annual report without any criticism or comment: "There were several bills introduced in the last Congress that would limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts to decide constitutional challenges to certain kinds of government action."

Maybe Rehnquist was reminding Congress of its constitutional powers to constrain the judiciary.

�2005 Copley News Service

Contact Phyllis Schlafly | Read Schlafly's biography

Hopefully Ms. Schafly will look into what the People must do-- pass J.A.I.L. Can we really count on Congress to remedy the problem? Thanks to karousel@... for sending this article to J.A.I.L.

---Barbie

To be added or removed, write to VictoryUSA@...

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

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

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#935

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 9:22 pm
Subject: Another Judge Shot

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                             April 23, 2005
______________________________________________________
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
______________________________________________________

Another Judge Shot

Sent to J.A.I.L. by EastMeetsWestInc@...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152446,00.html

Cops Find Judge Shot Dead in Texas

Monday, April 04, 2005

WESLACO, Texas �

Authorities checking on a state judge who failed to show up for work found him dead in the den of his home Monday, a semiautomatic pistol and spent shell casing lying nearby.

Police are investigating to determine if the gunshot wound was self-inflicted.

The body of State District Judge Ed Aparicio, 46, was found shortly after a news release was issued announcing he was resigning to dedicate more time to his family and to personal family matters that required immediate attention. The release did not elaborate.

"The demands of my position as your judge have unfortunately taken a toll on my personal life," the release said.

A telephone call to the judge's attorney Monday was not immediately returned.

Sheriff Lupe Trevino said he and one of his captains found the body after the judge did not show up to work. He said they found Aparicio's body sitting on the floor in a large pool of blood in the corner of a den. The gun and shell casing were nearby. All the doors of the house were locked.

Weslaco police spokesman David Molina said he wasn't aware of a suicide note being found.

Aparicio's chambers and home had been the target of an FBI search in January 2004, when an anti-corruption task force seized dozens of paintings, photos and documents. Federal prosecutors have declined to release details of the search or say what prompted it.

The highly publicized raid didn't stop Hidalgo County voters from re-electing him to a third term in March 2004. The former Houston attorney was first elected judge in 1997.

Weslaco is a town of about 25,000 people in the southern tip of Texas near the Mexican border.

The sooner we get J.A.I.L. passed, the sooner People's frustrations with the judiciary will subside. With the current unaccountable judiciary, the People become like injured animals trapped in a corner with no place to go for healing. With no redress available in practice in our courts, victims of judicial tyranny are bound to resort to irrational behavior. Without J.A.I.L., the situation will only get worse.

We need a judiciary accountable to the People! -Barbie, j4j

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#936

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed Apr 27, 2005 5:56 am
Subject: THE TIME HAS COME - A Poem by CA. AJIC Dorothy Robbins

jail4judges_...

Send Email

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

From: Dorothy E Robbins

To: VictoryUSA@...

Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 3:32 PM

Subject: THE TIME HAS COME

THE TIME HAS COME

The time has come the walrus said

To talk of many things-

Cheating, lying, unjust raids,

And vile judicial court-made kings.

For years we denizens

Have paid our tax as citizens.

(The tax goes up, our voice goes down

Until, at last, it's nearly drowned.)

We're taxed and taxed to pay for courts

For better justice given warts!

But for true justice what percent

On honest trials is really spent?

Who cares there�s justice for what�s right

Just so the judges get their bite?

We're trapped, we cannot get away;

"Just divvy up-pay, pay, pay!"

The courts all open up on time

But don't expect to get a dime

As streams of misused jury trials

Into the system daily files,

While still, small voices that object

Are held in total disrespect.

We dare not think or criticize

Methods, means, attorney lies.

Just shut your mouth if you're dejected;

"Our judges must be well respected."

"There is no help!" the people cry;

"We've lost no matter what we try."

We're trapped, we cannot get away!

"Comply, comply," is all they say.

"Come on, folks! Don't look so sad.

There�s help for judges that are bad.

Give them a bit of "You behave,

"Or you'll wish you'd not been a knave."

For J.A.I.L. is coming down the road-

(Accountability�s the goad.)

Watch! as J.A.I.L.�s new grand jury

Puts a stop to all this injury.

It's big, it's great...it�s not too late!!

Ten thousand voters just can't wait-

Wait for J.A.I.L to operate.

�dorothyrobbins�05

der1776@...

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#937

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:17 pm
Subject: J.A.I.L.'s Apology for the Appearance of Impropriety

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                         April 27, 2005
______________________________________________________
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
______________________________________________________

J.A.I.L.'s Apology for the Appearance of Impropriety

Regarding the 4/22 JNJ posting of the Schlafly Report

Thanks to Mark Emerson, ChiefAngel@...

for his important input on this matter.

Mark, I think most people understand that J.A.I.L. is a neutral organization. Take a look at the Mission Statement on our website at www.jail4judges.org. It's unfortunate that the names "Schlafly" and "Schiavo" automatically draw people's minds to moral, political, and religious issues and their minds "crash" and cease to function further to actually see the more important, and indeed crucial, issue of judicial corruption and the need for accountability which is J.A.I.L.'s mission.

If you read the Mission Statement, you will see that J.A.I.L. does follow the strategy you mention below. The M.S. states: "J.A.I.L. is politically neutral and non-partisan, composed of leaders and members of all political parties and persuasions. J.A.I.L. neither endorses, promotes, nor opposes any political party."

Your statement: WITHOUT presenting any appearance of supporting any particular political, moral or religious position is however well taken. It is true, there may have been an APPEARANCE of supporting a particular position, despite the fact that J.A.I.L. doesn't particularly support it.

So from that standpoint, we apologize for any possible misunderstanding that may have come across by posting the Schlafly report. J.A.I.L.'s interest was only that of the attention given to the issue of judicial corruption and the realization that we need judicial accountability!

Hopefully this clarifies the matter and re-emphasizes J.A.I.L.'s position as stated in the Mission Statement which we encourage all of you to read, or re-read. It hasn't changed. We're sorry for any inconvenience or confusion this posting may have caused.

-Barbie

ACIC, National J.A.I.L. Admin.

victoryusa@...

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

From: Mark Emerson

To: VictoryUSA@...

Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 11:26 AM

Subject: Re: Feedback on J.A.I.L.'s posting the Schlafly report

Dear Barbie:

Thank you for your reply and for the JNJ posting.

The points you have made are well taken, Barbie, particularly the attention the Schiavo case is bringing to judicial corruption. I can see that my original post focused too narrowly on Schiavo, and thereby under-emphasized the larger matter that I now wish to clarify. And that is that J.A.I.L. needs to stay NEUTRAL on political, moral and religious matters unrelated to judicial and government corruption.

The Schlafly report contained many anti-liberal and morally-biased remarks, and THAT, more than the Schiavo case, is what concerns me. It does not serve our purpose to alienate liberals or people of any moral or religious persuasion.

Frankly, I think J.A.I.L. should WELCOME support from Democrats, from Libertarians, from those who think that laws from other countries might sometimes be good examples to follow, and from those who hold different religious and/or moral beliefs than Ms. Schlafly holds. But Barbie, the Schlafly report can be guaranteed to alienate tens of millions of such people, notwithstanding it's many excellent points about arrogance and corruption in the judiciary.

Rethinking my opinion, it seems that J.A.I.L. might define a policy (and I'm not sure yet what it might look like) for utilizing the public attention from the Schiavo case (as well as future judicial events in the news) to focus SOLELY on the issue of judicial corruption, WITHOUT presenting any appearance of supporting any particular political, moral or religious position. What do you and Ron think of this concept? Do other J.A.I.L. supporters agree with me? If so, what might such a policy look like?

Mark Laurence Donald Emerson
http://angelbase.com
ChiefAngel@...

At 07:36 AM 4/26/05, you wrote:

Dear Mark:

Thank you for your comments and your interest in J.A.I.L.

There can be no doubt that the Schiavo case has truly awakened an apathetic public, and has gotten the attention of the media, to the seriousness of judicial corruption. Thanks to the Schiavo matter, the spotlight is finally being turned on the judiciary disclosing the fact that it is the only branch of government that is unaccountable to the public, and yet is the one that plays the most crucial role in government.

The Schlafly article is just one reflection of this sudden attention to the arrogance of the judiciary, particularly the ignoring of a special act of Congress requiring the court to reconsider the Schiavo matter in light of much evidence that has never been considered before making its crucial decision-- in other words, the lack of due process of law. The focus of J.A.I.L. is on that judicial procedural misconduct shown in the Schiavo matter, and not the merits of the Schiavo case itself, which are not reached-- although a discussion about Schiavo cannot be avoided since it is a major by-product of judicial misconduct.

As I said, it is primarily the Schiavo scenario that has given rise to public attention to the judicial corruption shown and the need for accountability. It has really been a boost for J.A.I.L., showing the public an actual example of judicial tyranny in action by major media which is quite unusual. Generally the media hides judicial corruption and keeps it from public view. However, the Schiavo matter forced the media to bring it out into the open, giving public attention to this crucial problem which brings with it concerns about a solution-- and that points to J.A.I.L.

It's interesting that we haven't heard the media discuss J.A.I.L. --at least not yet. But judging from the emails we have been receiving, many more people are taking J.A.I.L. more seriously now than they did before the Schiavo case came to media attention. We are certain that this is the case with Congress, and even state government. Our JNJs are being sent routinely to many government officials, so enough of them know about J.A.I.L. and when the subject of judicial accountability comes up, we're sure that J.A.I.L. comes to mind. J.A.I.L. has become more of a reality now, and not just a pipe dream. Many eyes have been opened to the genuine need for J.A.I.L. since Schiavo.

No, Mark-- the Schiavo case cannot be totally ignored because of the tremendous effect it has had on the issue of judicial accountability. It has brought the issue to public attention, generously discussed in both the printed and electronic media. The Schlafly report we published was generally a discussion about the many misgivings of judicial arrogance from several aspects, not just the Schiavo case. One important aspect was the reaction of Congress to the need for improving the judicial system and bringing the judiciary under control. The focus was NOT Schiavo, although it was mentioned as it had to be.

You are absolutely correct in your outlook on J.A.I.L. It is for everyone, regardless of their view of the Schiavo case itself. I'm reasonably certain that people reading the Schlafly report can see that the focus is on the judiciary, not Schiavo. That is why it was posted by J.A.I.L.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention, and for giving us this opportunity to clarify the matter. I'm sharing this message with our JAILers. If you have further questions or comments, let us know.

-Barbie
victoryusa@...

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

From: Mark Emerson

To: VictoryUSA@...

Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 8:11 PM

Subject: A submission for JNJ

JAIL Should Be Silent on the Schiavo Case

I am concerned about j4j giving attention to the Terri Schiavo case, as it did by publishing the article by Phyllis Schlafly, entitled "Starve the Courts". With all due respect to Ms. Schlafly and her opinions, I believe her article was counterproductive to building a political base for the passage of JAIL. Please let me explain.

JAIL is not just for religiously conservative people, but for EVERYONE. And we need support for JAIL from as many political camps as possible.

The Schiavo case involves a moral issue that is BY NO MEANS easy to decide. Indeed, according to polls, a MAJORITY of Americans believes (or leans toward believing) that removing her body from its life support system was morally acceptable.

On the other hand, the moral issue of corruption in the judiciary *IS* easy to decide.

The Schiavo case involves a fairly SIMPLE set of facts. In a mere "sound bite", a person can become familiar with the essential question: Is it moral to remove a person, who has been kept alive for YEARS in a persistent vegetative state, from the life support system? The question is obvious, but the answer is not. Or, at least, the answer is not obvious enough to attain any popular consensus.

However, the corruption in the courts involves a COMPLEX set of facts. Most people don't have a CLUE about judicial corruption, and we can't bring them up to speed in a few sound bites. People have been conditioned by the media, the educational system and the last five words of the Pledge of Allegiance to believe the judicial system is basically SOUND. In order to learn the facts that prove otherwise, people need to roll up their sleeves and examine the matter with an open mind, and THAT is the single largest obstacle to getting JAIL passed.

We should not distract from the REAL issues of JAIL by giving any APPEARANCE (by publishing articles such as Schlafly's) that the proponents of JAIL favor one (or the other) side of ANY controversial, emotionally-charged moral issue that has NOTHING to do with immorality judicial corruption. Blaming Terri's death on judicial corruption is UNWISE for JAIL, because it alienates the majority of people who happen to think the courts decided RIGHTLY. It creates the appearance that JAIL is a right-wing, reactionary proposal, and this pushes away liberals and others whose support we need.

At least 99% of the population is opposed to judicial corruption. Most are simply ignorant of how extensive and systemic judicial corruption has become. We need to AVOID politically and religiously divisive issues entirely. Let us drive our wedge ONLY between (1) corrupt attorneys, corrupt judges and the rest of their corrupt gang, and (2) the 99% of the rest of the population.

JAIL should be SILENT on the Schiavo case.

Mark Laurence Donald Emerson

http://angelbase.com

ChiefAngel@...

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#938

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:53 am
Subject: * * * The Jihad Against the Judiciary * * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                                April 25, 2005
______________________________________________________
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
______________________________________________________

The Jihad Against the Judiciary

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7529447/site/newsweek/

The War On Judges

BATTLE OF THE BENCH: The rhetoric is heated. The political will is strong. Inside the right's campaign to rein in judicial clout.

By Debra Rosenberg

Newsweek - April 25 issue

It was meant as an olive branch in a time of escalating hostilities. For months, members of Congress had been railing against federal judges, lambasting their decisions and vying to limit their power. So Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor embarked on a quiet campaign to quell the tensions. Several months ago O'Connor invited a handful of House Republicans to a private lunch at the court. In a small dining room outside her chambers, the group discussed judicial philosophy over sandwiches and a salad sprinkled with walnuts. "It was just the two branches of government reaching out, trying to keep the lines of communication open," says Rep. Steve Chabot of Ohio, who's been highly critical of judges like O'Connor who he believes stray from a strict reading of the Constitution. Another critic on the Judiciary Committee, Iowa Rep. Steve King, returned for his second visit. Last year he dined alone with O'Connor after a private tour of the court. Because the justice could not talk about any specific cases--or even controversial issues that might come before her--the conversation had its limits. "We didn't quite get to the meat of our discussion," King admits. "But it opened the dialogue."

The unusual private sessions suggest that concern over the rising tide of anti-judge rhetoric has rocked even the Supreme Court. Though judges have been dragged into the culture wars before, lately the animosity�and a range of new efforts to curb judicial power�have reached fever pitch. Now with the possibility of a vacancy on the Supreme Court perhaps only weeks away, the stakes and the vitriol are higher than ever. When federal judges refused to intervene in the case of Terri Schiavo, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay railed against "a judiciary run amok" and said judges in the case would have to "answer for their behavior." (He later apologized for his "inartful" remarks.) At a recent Washington conference, speakers raised the notion of "mass impeachments" for liberal judges. Focus on the Family founder James Dobson compared black-robed Supreme Court justices to white-robed Ku Klux Klan members. Ever since the husband and mother of a federal judge in Chicago were brutally murdered in February, judges have stepped up their reporting of death threats to the U.S. Marshals Service, which protects them. Now some judges are requesting increased security and canceling public appearances. In a speech earlier this month at Goucher College, O'Connor herself said she was surprised at all the violent threats she received. "I don't think the harsh rhetoric helps," she told the crowd. "I think it energizes people who are a little off base to take actions that maybe they wouldn't otherwise take."

Criticizing judges is something of an American tradition. During Reconstruction�and again during the civil-rights era�some lawmakers tried unsuccessfully to strip controversial issues from the courts' control. In the late 1950s, conservatives plastered impeach earl warren billboards across the country, angry at a string of controversial decisions on desegregation and communism (Warren survived). In the 1980s and '90s, liberal attacks on conservative Supreme Court nominees like Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas spawned a new era of political hostility.

Among conservatives, frustration with judges has been quietly building for years. They contend that "activist" judges are creating laws from the bench. "The courts are involved in everything," says Mark Levin, whose new book "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America" became an instant best seller. "You have one branch of government that's entirely unaccountable." In the past few years alone, judges have irked social conservatives with rulings on the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, gay marriage, the Ten Commandments and so-called partial-birth abortion. Democrats in the Senate stonewalled President George W. Bush's most conservative judicial nominees. And then judges at all levels refused to intervene in the Schiavo case�even after Congress passed a law allowing them to do so. That kicked the fight into high gear. Now, says Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, the issue of judges is so important to his members that it's replaced gay marriage at the top of his agenda. "Every issue we care deeply about has the fingerprints of judges on it," he says.

The attacks are principled, not partisan, foot soldiers in the new war on judges say; indeed, the arrows are aimed at a federal judiciary that was largely selected by Republican presidents. One prominent target: Judge James Rosenbaum, chief judge of the U.S. District Court in Minnesota. Called to testify before a House subcommittee in 2002, Rosenbaum�a Reagan appointee with a reputation for handing down tough sentences�supported a proposal to give judges discretion in sentencing low-level drug dealers. His position so angered Republicans on the panel that they tried to subpoena his records and threatened him with impeachment. He's still on the bench.

Shortly after the Rosenbaum case, DeLay helped organize the House Working Group on Judicial Accountability, a dozen-member group that meets monthly. Its focus: stripping the federal courts of their jurisdiction on sensitive matters like the Pledge of Allegiance and Ten Commandments. It may sound extreme, but supporters say it's constitutional: Article III gives Congress power to limit the courts. Last year the group introduced a resolution criticizing judges for citing international law in their opinions�something Justice Anthony Kennedy did in recent rulings striking down the juvenile death penalty and a Texas sodomy law. The resolution is likely to be reintroduced this year, as are proposals to keep courts from ruling on partial-birth abortion and the federal Defense of Marriage Act. So far, some of the measures have passed the House but not the Senate. But the current atmosphere could change all that. "There's a tradition of �Congress respecting the courts' authority that is in jeopardy right now," says Indiana University law professor Charles Geyh, author of the upcoming book "When Courts and Congress Collide."

Congress can't lower judges' salaries or fire them�provisions tucked into the Constitution by the Framers, who watched judges serve at the whim of King George III. But lawmakers can eliminate their positions altogether. "We could reduce the size of the Supreme Court," says Rep. Steve King. "It doesn't take nine judges, it only takes one. It would just be Chief Justice William Rehnquist with his card table." King admits that idea is not under serious consideration. But a plan to split the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has enough traction to make some of its judges nervous.

Even the most ardent opponents of "activist" judges admit that it would be nearly impossible to impeach them for their rulings rather than for explicit judicial misconduct. In the nation's history, only seven judges have been impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate; the last was U.S. District Court Judge Walter Nixon in 1989, who was convicted of perjury. But that didn't stop participants at a recent Washington conference called "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith" from fantasizing about it. "It's a symptom of frustration conservatives have right now," one conference participant said later.

Grass-roots activists are hoping a looming filibuster fight will have a better chance of success. In his quiet office on Massachusetts Avenue, former Senate aide Manuel Miranda juggles weekly conference calls with members of the National Coalition to End Judicial Filibusters, a cluster of nearly 200 conservative groups. Senate Democrats have been threatening to block a handful of judges they call "extremist" by using a filibuster to keep debate going. Now Republicans are considering what Democrats call "the nuclear option"�a parliamentary move that would end the filibusters and force a vote on the Senate floor. In return, Democrats have vowed to grind Senate business to a halt.

Next up: a looming Supreme Court confirmation fight. In 2004 Gary Marx mobilized grass-roots supporters for the Bush campaign. "I saw that 'judges' was one of the biggest applause lines," he says. Earlier this year Marx launched the Judicial Confirmation Network. He is focusing primarily on the Supreme Court battle ahead. His coalition of some 75 groups of social and economic conservatives is already organizing in battleground states�primarily Red States with Democratic senators up for re-election in 2006�hoping to convince lawmakers that backing Bush's court picks might help them keep their jobs. Last week Marx released the first conservative ad supporting Bush's judges�an attempt to counter the recent barrage of ads run by People for the American Way.

The jihad against the judiciary may be energizing the Republican base, but now some establishment Republicans have begun to worry that it could alienate everyone else. Both President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney recently reiterated their support for "an independent judiciary." Former White House counsel C. Boyden Gray, who heads an effort to get Bush's appeals court judges confirmed, is no fan of impeachment or court stripping. He hopes the broader debate will still help his cause, but admits, "If I had my druthers, I would not conflate the two."

Judges are used to weathering criticism quietly, but this round of attacks has sparked a broader sense of anxiety. Last week Judge Lawrence Piersol, president of the Federal Judges Association, sent an e-mail to members acknowledging that many of them were concerned about "intemperate" statements by politicians and an escalation of "fervent judge-bashing." Also last week, Supreme Court Justices Kennedy and Thomas asked Congress for money to add 11 police officers�including one new officer just to assess threats against the justices. And the Judicial Conference of the United States put in a $12 million request to install home-security systems for more than 800 federal judges. In Florida, where the state's Supreme Court was besieged with angry phone calls during the Schiavo case, Justice Peggy Quince canceled a long-planned public speech after she learned it would be televised. "When I go home I go out and cut the grass and wash my car," says one federal judge who did not wish to be named. "Anyone who wants to do harm to me can." And that's a fear that no private lunch in a justice's chambers will easily quiet.

With Stuart Taylor Jr., Cliff Sloan, Holly Bailey and Catharine Skipp

� 2005 Newsweek, Inc.

No matter what the controversy between Congress and the Judiciary, the bottom line is that only the Federal J.A.I.L. Bill is the answer; and only until its provisions rule this nation, shall there be a quelling of this continuing feud. Wake Up Congress!

The answer is not in restricting the limitations of the jurisdiction of the Federal Judiciary, for every time another "law" is pronounced from the bench by judicial fiat, Congress would have to continually pass new acts of legislation to counter it with no end.

Neither is the answer in appointing "good" judges to the bench, but rather in judicial accountability to the People of all judges, both Republicans and Democrats. The Constitution, which judges swear to uphold, is neither Republican nor Democrat, and neither are the laws made in pursuance thereof. There are 36 inches in a Republican yardstick as well as 36 inches in a Democrat yardstick. Does it really matter whether a 36-inch yardstick has a (D) on it, or an (R)? Are not both yardsticks equal, or is one yardstick more equal than the other? But this is exactly the argument at bay, and both sides are admitting that the judiciary is political rather than an instrument of justice, to wit, Republican Justice versus Democrat Justice.

J.A.I.L. provides the only effective, sensible, reasonable and non-political balance to the looming Republican/Democrat debate on the Judiciary facing America. J.A.I.L. SHALL ONE DAY SURELY GOVERN AMERICA! It is J.A.I.L. or nothing! -- Ron Branson

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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#939

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 7:20 am
Subject: * * The Goal of J.A.I.L. is Highly Relevant ...* *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                                   April 28, 2005
______________________________________________________
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
______________________________________________________

The Goal of J.A.I.L. is Highly Relevant,

if not Crucial,

to Establishing the Foundation of Liberty

(By Michael Glenn - IL. JAILer, Mrglenn700@...)

The following words are penned by Michael Glenn, who has amazed me with his profoundness as if he were a Ph.D. / Professor, or had some sort of doctorate, although I have no such knowledge. He is to be greatly commended for his foresight and dedication. While the below words are directed to his Illinois State JIC (JAILer-In-Chief), I deemed it highly worthy of greater exposure, so I have removed his home address and telephone number, etc. My thanks to you, Mr. Glenn, for this piece.

-Ron Branson

VictoryUSA@...

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

From: Mrglenn700@...

To: DANOWOOD@...

Cc: VictoryUSA@...

Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 12:07 AM

Subject: Illinois JAILer!

Having just been victimized in retaliation for my vocal children's advocacy, by lawyers and judges in the Circuit Court of Cook County, and being threatened with more of the same, I am very motivated to support and work on behalf of the J.A.I.L. Legislation. (Illinois is an Initiative State).

As a proactive teacher in an extremely corrupt and needlessly tragic
educational system, I worry somewhat about spreading myself too thinly in my support of all that needs to be done to help put a decent society on course.

I do consider likely that the possibilities for positive advancement of
mankind are as close to realization as are the obstacles being thrown up by a class of entrenched miscreant criminals as pre-emptive devolutionary reaction to the likelihood of what may be no slight step up in the awakening of dormant and powerful positive potentials in the evolution of the human species.

We live in times that have great potential for human progress as well as
tremendous dangers in reactionary response to the "threat" of an emerging and very exciting shift in the current social/intellectual/spiritual paradigm due to an awakening of unrealized, but very real human potential.

I see J.A.I.L.'s Initiative towards Justice as yet another, and most important, step in the advancement of the upward progress of the human species in our quest for reconciliation with the awareness of the manifest Intelligence that has created all.

J.A.I.L. has a possibility, as well as an urgency, to unite people of divergent political, religious, philosophical, etc., viewpoints around a practical and vital agenda that all have in common: claiming Liberty through Justice from the usurpers thereof in order to realize inalienable rights to what I would characterize as Freedom.

Unless I am reading it wrong, the attainment of Freedom through Liberty derived from the exercise of Justice, is J.A.I.L.'s common cause, and is a cause that not only needs divergent points of view, but which lends itself as a unifying factor in valid and divergent thoughts, and renders differences as valuable checks and balances needed for critical and rational consideration for the guidance of the movement of mankind towards a higher goal and purpose.

This deserves no small consideration in its total implications, and in the
powers at odds concerning this ongoing struggle between broad virulently opposing forces.

I am more and more becoming convinced that that which is of the highest virtue and value within the human form is soon likely to overcome the dark forces which are accustomed to prevailing through preying on the very nature of those virtues and values, and usurping power through criminal guile and deceit.

That good beings differ in specialized and diversely interesting subjects
should serve only to enrich the overriding vastness of the levels of creativity intrinsic in the vast wealth of positive human experience.

Upon the foundation of Liberty, Justice, and Freedom, there can certainly be developed a society in which mankind's highest potentials can be allowed and encouraged to unfold and flourish.

I can certainly agree that the goals of J.A.I.L. are highly relevant, if not
crucial, to establishing the foundation of Liberty through Justice in order to realize a common Freedom upon which our species may advance ever upward --and is doing so, despite concerted efforts to the contrary!

The possibilities that my personal and educated opinions may not hold
completely with that of others, may only serve to educate me through exposure to lines of thought I would only gain through exposure to other minds.

I believe we can agree on basic concepts of Liberty and Justice, and agree as to the efficacy of removing those impediments to Liberty and Justice exposed by J.A.I.L., as perhaps a unifying and practical starting point in the highly-possible, and more than likely unstoppable, realization of potential evolutionary advancement towards an unfolding of practically-applied human intelligence to the everyday life of the basic benevolence of natural human proclivity, which far outweighs the proclivity towards evil machinations by a parasitic few.

The quote by Thoreau, that Ron uses, is quite poignant and bears quite some studious thought and consideration as to its full ramifications, and bears repeating:

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
striking at the root."

Let's get those thousand off the branches --we all know, or should, that this amounts to pruning, and pruning only promotes thicker growth!

If people think what I write is flawed, remember, my mind is open. I am fairly humble and love to learn things. I may be slow to accept criticism, but certainly take it to heart and mull it over carefully to see what I can learn.

I am here to learn and work towards setting us on course for a decent society of which we have an unrealized blueprint.

Michael R. Glenn
Chicago, IL., 60630
mrglenn700@...

I have known that J.A.I.L. is a diamond in the rough, and relatively few, in proportion to the whole, actually realize the value of J.A.I.L. It is worth more than rubies, it out-shines gold, and is wisdom to be pursued more than all earthly riches. But there is not in every man that knowledge. I am just pleased to hear confirmation of reality from other sources than myself.

Once I heard from a man via email who chuckled and said, "I now see the means of obtaining victory over our enemies in America as so simple that it makes me laugh at its simplicity."

I just continually shake my head as I watch people diligently striving for that which is just beyond their reach, knowing they shall never obtain it until they realize that J.A.I.L. is that means. - Ron Branson

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#940

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sun Apr 24, 2005 12:08 am
Subject: Lost Confidence in the Legal Fraternity

jail4judges_...

Send Email

Lost Confidence in the Legal Fraternity

By the time I ended my 50-year career as a trial attorney,

judge and president of southern Arizona's largest law firm,

I no longer had confidence in the legal fraternity

I had participated in and, yes, profited from.

Surely it's time to question what has happened

to our justice system and to wonder if it is possible

to return to a system that truly does protect us from wrongs.

--John F. Molloy, Former Chief Justice

Arizona Court of Appeals

Law loses its way

By John F. Molloy
Mar. 27, 2005 12:00 AM

"The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion" is the name of the book.

When I began practicing law in 1946, justice was much simpler. I joined a small Tucson practice at a salary of $250 a month, excellent compensation for a beginning lawyer. There was no paralegal staff or expensive artwork on the walls.

In those days, the judicial system was straightforward and efficient. Decisions were handed down by judges who applied the law as outlined by the Constitution and state legislatures. Cases went to trial in a month or two, not years. In the courtroom, the focus was on uncovering and determining truth and fact.

I charged clients by what I was able to accomplish for them. The clock did not start ticking the minute they walked through the door.

Looking back

The legal profession has evolved dramatically during my 87 years. I am a second-generation lawyer from an Irish immigrant family that settled in Yuma. My father, who passed the Bar with a fifth-grade education, ended up arguing a case before the U.S. Supreme Court during his career.

The law changed dramatically during my years in the profession. For example, when I accepted my first appointment as a Pima County judge in 1957, I saw that lawyers expected me to act more as a referee than a judge. The county court I presided over resembled a gladiator arena, with dueling lawyers jockeying for points and one-upping each other with calculated and ingenuous briefs.

That was just the beginning.

By the time I ended my 50-year career as a trial attorney, judge and president of southern Arizona's largest law firm, I no longer had confidence in the legal fraternity I had participated in and, yes, profited from.

I was the ultimate insider, but as I looked back, I felt I had to write a book about serious issues in the legal profession and the implications for clients and society as a whole. The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion was 10 years in the making and has become my call to action for legal reform.

Disturbing evolution

Our Constitution intended that only elected lawmakers be permitted to create law.

Yet judges create their own law in the judicial system based on their own opinions and rulings. It's called case law, and it is churned out daily through the rulings of judges. When a judge hands down a ruling and that ruling survives appeal with the next tier of judges, it then becomes case law, or legal precedent. This now happens so consistently that we've become more subject to the case rulings of judges rather than to laws made by the lawmaking bodies outlined in our Constitution.

This case-law system is a constitutional nightmare because it continuously modifies Constitutional intent. For lawyers, however, it creates endless business opportunities. That's because case law is technically complicated and requires a lawyer's expertise to guide and move you through the system.

The judicial system may begin with enacted laws, but the variations that result from a judge's application of case law all too often change the ultimate meaning.

Lawyer domination

When a lawyer puts on a robe and takes the bench, he or she is called a judge. But in reality, when judges look down from the bench they are lawyers looking upon fellow members of their fraternity. In any other area of the free-enterprise system, this would be seen as a conflict of interest.

When a lawyer takes an oath as a judge, it merely enhances the ruling class of lawyers and judges. First of all, in Maricopa and Pima counties, judges are not elected but nominated by committees of lawyers, along with concerned citizens.

How can they be expected not to be beholden to those who elevated them to the bench?

When they leave the bench, many return to large and successful law firms that leverage their names and relationships.

Business of law

The concept of "time" has been converted into enormous revenue for lawyers. The profession has adopted elaborate systems where clients are billed for a lawyer's time in six-minute increments. The paralegal profession is another brainchild of the fraternity, created as an additional tracking and revenue center. High-powered firms have departmentalized their services into separate profit centers for probate and trusts, trial, commercial, and so forth.

The once-honorable profession of law now fully functions as a bottom-line business, driven by greed and the pursuit of power and wealth, even shaping the laws of the United States outside the elected Congress and state legislatures.

Bureaucratic design

Today the skill and gamesmanship of lawyers, not the truth, often determine the outcome of a case. And we lawyers love it. All the tools are there to obscure and confound. The system's process of discovery and the exclusionary rule often work to keep vital information off-limits to jurors and make cases so convoluted and complex that only lawyers and judges understand them.

The net effect has been to increase our need for lawyers, create more work for them, clog the courts and ensure that most cases never go to trial and are, instead, plea-bargained and compromised. All the while the clock is ticking, and the monster is being fed.

The sullying of American law has resulted in a fountain of money for law professionals while the common people, who are increasingly affected by lawyer-driven changes and an expensive, self-serving bureaucracy, are left confused and ill-served.

Today, it is estimated that 70 percent of low- to middle-income citizens can no longer afford the cost of justice in America. What would our Founding Fathers think?

This devolution of lawmaking by the judiciary has been subtle, taking place incrementally over decades. But today, it's engrained in our legal system, and few even question it. But the result is clear. Individuals can no longer participate in the legal system.

It has become too complex and too expensive, all the while feeding our dependency on lawyers.

By complicating the law, lawyers have achieved the ultimate job security. Gone are the days when American courts functioned to serve justice simply and swiftly.

It is estimated that 95 million legal actions now pass through the courts annually, and the time and expense for a plaintiff or defendant in our legal system can be absolutely overwhelming.

Surely it's time to question what has happened to our justice system and to wonder if it is possible to return to a system that truly does protect us from wrongs.

John F. Molloy was elected to the Arizona Court of Appeals, where he served as chief justice and authored more than 300 appellate opinions. Molloy wrote the final Miranda decision for the Arizona Supreme Court.

Thanks to Greg Slaughter GregSlaughter@... for forwarding this article to J.A.I.L. Contact information for the author of the article was not supplied. The article was posted on the Lex_Rex Egroup. -j4j

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#941

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 9:21 am
Subject: * * Fear of Fervent Judge Bashing * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                             April 29, 2005
______________________________________________________
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
______________________________________________________

Fear of Fervent Judge Bashing

http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200550426001

Piersol: Attacks on judges to get airing

By David Kranz
dkranz@...

Published: 04/26/05 2:47 pm

Seldom do federal judges respond to criticism about their decisions, but recent heated attacks against them may change that.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Piersol of Sioux Falls, president of the Federal Judges Association, says the group will discuss what response, if any, it should make when board members meet next month in Washington, D.C.

�We are not concerned about being criticized. That is not new. Suggestions of retaliation for judicial opinion is new,� said Piersol, a soft-spoken and highly respected judge.

After hearing a range of opinions from judges about what they call �fervent judge bashing,� Piersol communicated with the membership about placing the issue on the agenda.

�We will discuss what we should or shouldn�t do. We may decide to take action or no action,� he said.

�It is a free country, and everyone has free-speech rights to criticize judges,� he said. �Traditionally, the courts have not responded to those things, and we may not after this. But as of late, some of these comments have been over the edge, and that is what has caused concern,� he said.

....

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#942

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 12:11 am
Subject: * * J.A.I.L. Will Provide What A Revolution Cannot * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                            April 30, 2005
______________________________________________________
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
______________________________________________________

J.A.I.L. Will Provide

What A Revolution Cannot

When the smoke clears and the wounded and dead bodies

are hauled away, we'll still have remaining a system of unaccountable judiciary in need of J.A.I.L.

Steven Pattison, stevenpattison@..., wrote in response to

We Cannot Expect Good Fruit From A Corrupt Tree (JNJ 4/11):

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

From: Steven Pattison

To: www.jail4judges.org

Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 6:36 AM

Subject: Re: * * We Cannot Expect Good Fruit From A Corrupt Tree * *

Barbie,

First thanks for sending out my email located as the last part of this email and this is a reply to your reply to my first email!

I agree with your overall statement that "The People cannot expect officials of a corrupt system to "reinstall lawful government."" but first the people have to understand that we have an unlawful government called a 'de facto government' before anyone will care to stand up for their unalienable Rights!

The elected and appointed representatives changed our 'character and status' right after the 'Civil War' and they did that without a delegated authority from us in the beginning! An act of treason on their part!

Only �We the People� can change the form of government of Our government!

We the People, the sovereigns without subject, won that status from the result of the Revolutionary War. But because there were traitors within the 'White House' they have been able to change Our Common Law Constitutional Republican Form of Government to a Democracy. Because we no longer are provided with a Republican Form of Government which is provided for in the Constitution for the de jure United States of American, I have to believe that there were people working within the our government to destroy our character as free people, the rightful owners of the country, the de jure �United States of American� and not the de facto �United States of American� which is explained in the web pages post below.

Most people don�t know the first thing about their character and status or even what the Constitution for the de jure �United States of America� is all about! The Constitution is a �declaratory and restrictive� grant from the People, without subjects, to the appointed and elected officials. What follows is part of some of our research our group did long ago:

�The �Declaration of Rights� should only be found in the state constitutions, and not in front of the alleged first ten articles of amendment of the constitution of the united States of America. The alleged �Bill of Rights� under the first ten articles of amendment of the constitution for the united States of America is a fiction. The alleged first ten articles of amendment are not a �Bill of Rights,� nor are they a �Declaration of Rights,� they are just as they say they are "Amendments." The alleged first ten articles of amendment of the constitution of the united States of America are declaratory and restrictive clauses added to the constitution of the united States of America for the sole purpose as to prevent misconstruction or abuse of governmental powers by the People�s elected and appointed representatives. These amendments placed restrictions or restraints upon our servants, by the people of the united States of America. There should not be a �Bill of Rights� in any of the state constitutions or the constitution of the united States of America.�

If you or anyone else wants the rest of the research just ask for it! And there are others that have done some research. At this web site http://www.harbornet.com/rights/lindat.html you will find:

�Effective December 15, 1791
Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

PREAMBLE
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.�

After We the People�s character were changed from the sovereigns to a �member of the political community, owing allegiance and being entitled to the enjoyment of full civil rights�, our government became the �de facto government� without authority!

Political community is explained here http://www.worldnewsstand.net/history/RIGHTS.htm

The civil rights that are talked about here are only for subject while unalienable rights are only for the sovereigns without subject, We the People! Changing the government started with changing the how �Common Law� was used and how �Civil Law� was used within our lawful government!

Common Law provides and protects our unalienable rights while Civil Law protects �civil rights� of the people that are subject to the system that has taken over our life and known as the �de facto government�! This web page explains the difference between Common Law and Civil Law: http://www.svpvril.com/comcivlaw.html

And the last sentence within the web page reads:

�When the United Colonies met in Congress, in 1774, they claimed the common law of England as a branch of those "indubitable rights and liberties to which the respective colonies are entitled." And the common law, like a silent providence is still the preserver of our liberties.�

When the Colonies became States they adopted Common Law! The following is part of our research:

�Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri as follows:

Sec. 1. The common law of England, and all statutes and acts of parliament made prior to the fourth year of the reign of James the first, and which are of a general nature, not local to that kingdom, which common law and statutes are not repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the constitution of the United States, the constitution of this state, or the statute laws in force for the time being, shall be the rule of action and decision in this state, any law, usage or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.�

We believe that all the union states pre 1861 did the same. Knowing that someone is controlling us without authority is not necessarily an act of war upon the People!

I really believe that Madison knew because of what he wrote here:

�"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: and a People who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
James Madison to WT Barry, August 4, 1822.�

This brings me back to if the �People� are ignorant of the truth then we will never have a chance at being our own governours! I believe when enough people know the truth and how the current de facto government is not providing us with a �Republican Form of Government� then and only then will anything every happen!

Here is part of another email that I sent out some time ago:

The following may not be on the net for long, therefore I recommend to copy the web pages and save them on a disk.

http://www.svpvril.com/dm_OTFG.html by Dan Meador

http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=77417;title=APFN by Steven Pattison

http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/misc/FerranOnMeador.htm by New York Attorney Mark Ferran

http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/irshist.htm by Dan Meador

http://www.sweetliberty.org/staterights2.htm by Dan Meador

http://www.worldnewsstand.net/history/RIGHTS.htm by Steven Pattison

You may have to copy and paste the address into the box but if you cannot get them let me know and I will get them to you some how!

Because this is research done by a lot of people covering almost 200 years of history, the only way for you to understand it, is to call me with any questions you may have at any point in your reading of the well document material posted above.

Now that you know that it is not China, the country or the people of China doing this directly to us, please read http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/FA23Dj01.html

The people behind this are using China, don't you think? Why? Because if everyone knew who really was behind what is going on, it would stop over night!

Steven Pattison

(Our response)

Steven:

First I thank you (and so many others) for all the research you have done in search of (1) discovering what the problem is, and (2) what the People must do about it, i.e., the solution. The first one was well covered, as it is by many researchers and historians out there, but it is the second quest that I find so lacking in feasibility.

Every suggestion I come across in my readings of so many research products on the internet involves the oppressed People seeking resolution from, by, and through the Oppressor (de facto government)-- making "demands" to the Enemy of the People that it straighten up and fly right. Doesn't that smack of ipso facto "impossibility" right from the outset? --by the fact itself that we're negotiating with our Enemy? --whether we call it making demands, petitioning, demonstrating, picketing-- whatever. Hence, the title of my JNJ to which you are responding: "We Cannot Expect Good Fruit From A Corrupt Tree."

We have to keep in mind that there are only two entities in American society: The People (represented by de jure government) and The Enemy of the People (represented by de facto government). Get rid of all the clutter in your mind, for that is what it all boils down to. The simpler we keep it, the easier it will be to figure out. It is the complexities that get in our way, and that of course is the agenda of the Enemy against the People-- to keep us confused and frightened; to keep the smoke, dust, and mirrors in constant commotion to obscure the truth. And think about it-- that's ALL the Enemy has "going" for it: Just keep the People confused and play on their ignorance of the truth. And it has been working for over 200 years! To me, that's incredible-- but TRUE.

Getting back to the issue I raised with your writing, i.e., "all we have to do is demand that our elected and appointed officials reinstall the lawful government," you respond as follows:

"I agree with your overall statement that 'The People cannot expect officials of a corrupt system to "reinstall lawful government." ' but first the people have to understand that we have an unlawful government called a 'de facto government' before anyone will care to stand up for their unalienable Rights!"

Steven, as a fervent user of the internet, don't you see that the People DO "understand that we have an unlawful government" (regardless of what it is legally called)? That brings me back to what I said above, i.e., "The first one (the problem-- that we have an unlawful government) was well covered, as it is by many researchers and historians out there, but it is the second quest (what we do about it) that I find so lacking in feasibility." I see that you agree that your suggestion regarding the "second quest" is infeasible, as I quoted from you in the preceding paragraph.

But Steven, upon realizing that, are you not then simply reverting right back to point #1-- understanding the problem ("before anyone will care to stand up for their unalienable Rights!")? As I said, just from viewing what the People say on the internet, I see that it is obvious that they have reached the point of realizing the need "to stand up for their unalienable Rights!" We don't have to go back to discovering why that is necessary. So we're really at point #2 -- specifically what needs to be done "to stand up for [those] Rights." That's where we are, Steven. Precisely what are we to do?

The People, or enough of them, have graduated from point #1 to point #2. Now they're ready to implement the proper solution, once they realize what that solution is. And now you understand that is isn't "demand that our elected and appointed officials reinstall the lawful government."

The solution has to come from and by the People themselves-- independent of "de facto government" (unlawful government)which is all there is, since the de jure government (government authorized by Law-- the Constitution) has ceased to exist, or more accurately, never did exist because it never functioned as such, since ratification. That it has to come from the People is evident because enough of the People do realize that de facto government is unable to provide the remedy, because by nature, it can't! (For starters, it has an inherent conflict of interest).

We Cannot Expect Good Fruit From A Corrupt Tree!

Now-- having realized that, the next question is: Is there a solution available for the People to implement, independently of de facto government, to safeguard their unalienable Rights? FOLKS, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT J.A.I.L. IS! The People have graduated to the point of finally doing what needs to be done-- because we have the means by which to do it. ("To provide new guards for [our] future security." --The DOI)

J.A.I.L. is not "just another law" that de facto government will ignore like they do existing laws. (Why pass one more law that government will only ignore, right? We hear that constantly!) Folks, PLEASE! What distinguishes J.A.I.L. from "just another law" is that it is a People's function-- not government. De facto government will not be able to ignore the J.A.I.L. process because it is the object of that process. Do you see the distinction? Government is not the wielder of that law-- The People are! J.A.I.L. is the Law of all Laws, along with the Supreme Law of the Land-- the Constitution. It is the Law that will ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTION which will restore de jure government! Is that not what we, as a People, have the DUTY to do? (See the Declaration of Independence). A fighting revolution won't do it. When the smoke clears and the wounded and dead bodies are hauled away, we'll still have remaining a system of unaccountable judiciary in need of J.A.I.L. In other words, J.A.I.L. will provide what a revolution cannot.

-Barbie-

victoryusa@...

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#943

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Mon May 2, 2005 5:59 am
Subject: L.A.P.D. Goes Into Auto Sales Business

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                                     May 1, 2005
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?

Los Angeles Police Department Goes Into Auto Sales Business

(By Ron Branson - J.A.I.L. CIC)

I know this article may seem shocking to many of you as you ask yourselves, "What is a police department doing in auto sales?" That was exactly my question as I picked up the mail a couple days ago on April 27, 2005.

It is typical in Los Angeles that we receive numerous advertisement flyers in the mail from surrounding auto dealerships seeking to sell their cars to the community and to improve their business -- each dealer competing with other dealers. This is natural and to be expected.

But on this date I also received a competing flyer from the L.A.P.D. featuring full-color photographs, cars for sale. This L.A.P.D. advertisement flyer says, "Cars, Trucks & SUV's From $500." Then the flyer features models available for sale of Hondas, Chevys, Jeeps, Fords, Toyotas, Nissans and more. The photographs display what appears to be new or next to new automobiles, which includes a beautiful new red chromed-plated mag-wheeled pick-up truck.

The first thing that struck me was, why is the L.A.P.D. using public tax dollars to go into auto sales business in competition with legitimate car sales businesses? I have several automobile dealers immediately around me, to wit, Hondas, Fords, Toyotas, etc., and if I do not have available what I want within walking distance, all I have to do is go approximately four miles wherein is "Automobile Row," which is lined on both sides of a major boulevard. Now enters the market L.A.P.D. Auto Sales, advertising the sale of automobiles through the mail.

Now here's the clincher of this ad, and that is where they are getting their stock of cars for sale. Is it from the auto manufacturers? No! It says, "Seized And Sold Locally." These are cars they have taken from their owners and are now selling "From $500." Ah! --now I know how it is that this L.A.P.D. Auto Dealership can offer such excellent car deals, which incidentally cuts away from local merchants who run legitimate car dealerships, and who buy their cars from manufacturers. They get them free -- from you.

Here you have auto dealers advertising their cars for $20,000 to $35,000, and then you see this L.A.P.D. flyer featuring a photograph of a car just like it available from the L.A.P.D. dealership for as little as $500.

I do not know about you, but if I owned an auto dealership here, I would be screaming "Unfair competition." My competition is in the automobile business using tax dollars, and then they pay no taxes on their profits gained by their auto sales business.

Lest any of you are saying, "But these are automobiles that are gotten from mean and wicked people who deserve to lose their automobiles," let me paint a little different picture for you. California, along with many other states, have now required that all people behind the wheel possess a Social Security Number. This new Social Security requirement has now disenfranchised many thousands of good citizens who, for

conscience toward God, or reasons of faith, or otherwise, do not have the required number to retain their driver's licenses.

Supposedly, the whole idea of the driver's licenses, as has been argued by the government, is to ascertain whether one is competent to handle a motorized vehicle safely upon the roads and highways of the state. But that reason has now changed. We have looked into this change that is affecting thousands of people, and have found that people having been safe drivers for the past fifty years, and who have never once had a accident, are now no longer qualified to retain their driver's licenses, and are being deprived of their driver's licenses.

And why are they no longer qualified to drive? Is it becaust ehy are a risk? No! It is purely because of their conscience toward God relating to the Social Security number, that is, they do not believe in, or adhere to, what they believe is a godless number. These people are all candidates for having their automobiles seized from them by L.A.P.D.. and their car sold at the "L.A.P.D. Auto Dealership." In other words, STOLEN.

When inquiry is made at the D.M.V. about this "number" requirement, we have found divided opinions expressed. Even a manager at the DMV agreed that it is A crazy POLICY that Social Security is tied in with retaining one's driver's license. The manager, agreeing with the pricipled common-sense argument, called Sacramento and tried to talk sense with them on this, but was told, "The law is the law, and the people have to obey the law."

The next stage, since the D.M.V. said the law is the law, was to test whether one was obligated to disobey their conscience toward God in order to obey the law. This was an artfully designed test question on how far they demanded "obedience," and if that "obedience" had to defy the God of Nature spoken of in our Declaration of Independence, if necesary. The DMV's official answer to that question was, "You must obey the law," which is to say, "Yes, one is obligated to disobey their conscience toward the God of Nature in order to obey the law."

While this is the DMV's official religious mantra, they refuse to address the "God of Nature" equation. Obviously then, these victims of this DMV mantra, which are many, have unjustly been deprived of their driver's licenses for consciences sake, and are now made the target for replenishing the needed automobile resources for the L.A.P.D. Auto Dealership.

Now some of you may be asking, "What has this got to do with J.A.I.L. or an arbitrary judiciary?" Plenty. This policy, practice and custom of "relieving" people of their automobiles to sell them on the open market could not in the least stand up against even a simple constitutional test. For instance, the victim's automobile is instantly hauled off, immediately depriving the owner of his property without due process of law -- a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment. Further, there is no presumption of innocence at all, but rather one of guilt. No one has heard or decided anything.

Further, taking the government's acclaimed argument that "driving is a privilege," even the courts used to say, "A privilege, once granted, cannot be deprived without due process of law," meaning that one cannot be deprived of their driving "privilege" without some sort of hearing process. But the judges have changed that, and now all these people are being deprived of their driver's license without being afforded a hearing process whatsoever. As a result, they are now being deprived not only of a hearing process, but also their automobile.

Please, please, I ask our readers not to write us with a myriad of court cases on "privilege v. rights" arguments on driving. I am aware of such prior cases as Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579 "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 221 "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived," and Schactman vs. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941 "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right," and Kent vs. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125 "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment, " or the well-known case of Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491 "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

I have no doubt that once J.A.I.L. is passed and becomes operational, these issues will surely be tested on constitutional grounds in the courts and before the Special Grand Juries on the question of willful violations of the law and the Constitution.

For the instant moment real people are being made real victims of having their vehicles/properties seized and sold without due process of law whatsoever, and the judges are not buying their own prior decided cases that one may not be a deprived of property without due process of law. We are not talking theory here, folks, but reality and actual practice, the law, and case decisions notwithstanding. Forget about your arguments, "They can't do that!" I am saying the courts are doing that.

This is why we need J.A.I.L., and until that time, the people shall continually screaming to us about the effects of tyranny inflicted upon them by the judges who hold nothing but contempt for the Constitution they have sworn to uphold.

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#944

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed May 4, 2005 1:04 am
Subject: * *Keep Principles As Simple As Possible* *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                                May 3, 2005
______________________________________________________
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
______________________________________________________

To Educate The People, Keep Principles As Simple As Possible

Even more basic, it is Good versus Evil; the Truth versus the Lie.

We have to try to make it as simple as possible for the uninformed

to learn what must be done and why. And that answer is J.A.I.L. Just review our history and see what is happening to society today.

It all adds up! We need J.A.I.L. --Barbie, J4J

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

From: nick testaccio

To: VictoryUSA@...

Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 7:16 AM

Subject: Re: * * J.A.I.L. Will Provide What A Revolution Cannot * *

Barbie,

In your response to Steven Pattison, you write; "We have to keep in mind that there are only two entities in American society: The People (represented by de jure government) and The Enemy of the People
(represented by de facto government). Get rid of all the clutter in your mind, for that is what it all boils down to. The simpler we keep it, the easier it will be to figure out. It is the complexities that get in our way, and that of course is the agenda of the Enemy against the People-- to keep us confused and frightened; to keep the smoke, dust, and mirrors in constant commotion to obscure the truth. And think about it-- that's ALL the Enemy has "going" for it: Just keep the People confused and play on their ignorance of the truth. And it has been working for over 200 years! To me, that's incredible-- but TRUE."

You should try reading the Elliot Wave Principle. You might just then understand that there are not two types but four. There are 'the people', 'the corruptor', 'the corrupted' and 'the sheep' or 'useful idiots' if you prefer. 'The people' are a very small segment of society. They are those who understand that there is an issue and are willing to work toward
rectifying the problem.

'The people' are greatly outnumbered by those who feed off the corpse of what was once a republic. By your writing and that of Ron's, I take it that you have come across 'the corrupted' and 'the sheep' on many
occasions. They process your parking tickets, take your taxes, give you a hard time when you are simply trying to come to the correct information and are more than willing to take more of what you earn for their own pension benefit.

These people include, court clerks and bailiffs, police and I am not referring to law enforcement, the local municipal clerks and so on. Most, if any, have never read the code by which they perform their function but they are more than willing to exercise that power they have over you.

Of course there are the corrupt judges and politicians that are able to run the system into the ground with the help of their flock. Then there are 'the corruptors' who are granted domain over all this by the willingness of the rest of us to adhere in some fashion to this system, including passing initiatives that will eventually be enforced by either 'the
corrupted' or 'the sheep' and certainly not by 'the people'.

Try reading the Elliot Wave, Barbie. You might just grasp the concept of corruption.

Nick

"You may call me to muster but never to chains, for I will never flinch in the face of tyranny. I will stand my ground and give my last breath to pass liberty to all those who would receive it."

Hello Nick:

I looked up the Elliot Wave Principle on Google, and it is described as people's behavior in financial markets. I'm not into the financial market, nor is J.A.I.L.

Now-- for purposes of J.A.I.L., we have to keep principles as simple as possible, otherwise all it does is promote confusion which we have enough of already. That's the tool of the Enemy-- keeping the People confused and ignorant. More complex analyses may be correct-- but most people won't entertain them because they are over the heads of the vast majority of them. I believe this Elliot Wave Principle is one such complex approach. Again-- not saying that it is in error, but it is not beneficial if the People can't understand it, no matter how accurate the principle is. Let's just say that, for purposes of J.A.I.L., serving a diverse society at all levels of education, we have to educate the public on a "second grade" level, so to speak, to reach as many as we can.

Looking at your analysis, you say there are not just two entities, but four: (1) the People; (2) the Corruptor; (3) the Corrupted; and (4) the Sheep (useful idiots). You say that the People "understand that there is an issue and are willing to work toward rectifying the problem."; that the Corruptors "are granted domain over all this by the willingness of the rest of us [i.e., the Sheep] to adhere in some fashion to this system..."; that the Corrupted are, from what you list, the employees of the de facto government who are "jes' doin' their job." [my quote]; and that the Sheep are the "useful idiots" as you describe them-- who are the ignorant masses of society.

Again, I say that for purposes of J.A.I.L. and getting it passed in order for the People to restore de jure government (if we ever had it-- I don't think it could exist without an enforcement clause for the People written into the Constitution; government will not be de jure on its own, but it must be enforced by the People), --sorry for the long parenthetical-- we have to keep our analysis of people versus government as simple as possible-- down to the very basics!

1. The People are made up of both the knowledgeable and the ignorant, rightfully represented by de jure government.

Looking again at your analysis, Nick, the Sheep are part of the People-- often referred to as the "Sheeple." True, there is a very small segment of the People who are knowledgeable of the truth, as opposed to the vast majority of the People being ignorant (willing slaves because of their ignorance, "useful idiots"). We will never reach the point where the majority of People will become knowledgeable of the truth because it isn't taught in the schools, very little in our churches, nor in the media (radio, TV and newspapers/magazines)-- although talk radio exposes a lot of truth in comparison to the rest. We have to depend on the knowledgeable few to stand up and implement the SOLUTION for the sake of the ignorant masses. That's been true throughout history.

I believe that is part of the Law of Nature. For de jure government to function, it must be run by People's representatives selected from the body of knowledgeable People, to represent and protect ALL the People-- even the "idiots." ("[G]overnments are instituted among [knowledgeable] men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed [the rest of the knowledgeable as well as the 'idiots.']")- DOI. I believe that by Nature, there are enough knowledgeable People to act as the "guards" for all the People, including the "idiots." (I use that term only because you did, and perhaps it will better illustrate what I'm trying to explain. They aren't idiots, but victims of an uneducated society.)

It is from that body of knowledgeable People that are intended to be

engaged in the J.A.I.L. process. Some of our readers are concerned about there not being a monitoring of who is selected for the J.A.I.L. process, to make sure they are from that "body." Paragraph (l) of the initiative/legislation states that each SGJ "shall have exclusive power to establish rules... to provide internal discipline, and to remove any of its members on grounds of misconduct." Plus J.A.I.L. will have a rotational basis for SGJ members-- two off and two on each month, except three in January. See paragraph (o). That way it'll keep the SGJ with fresh (uncorrupted) "blood." The SGJ administration will have plenty of discretion regarding its internal rules, to keep the operation as "clean" as possible.

2. The Corrupted are part of the Corruptor, both of which makes up de facto government.

The Corrupted (workers for de facto government) follow orders from the Corruptors (the ones "granted" domain over de facto government).

I'm not sure where you place the judiciary: "there are the corrupt judges and politicians that are able to run the system into the ground with the help of their flock." Clearly, judges stand head and shoulders above politicians in the final analysis. It is the judges that pronounce and sign the final decision in any matter brought before them for redress. And it's the judges that must be ultimately responsible for their decisions-- not members of the Executive or Legislative branch. Some of our readers tell us that the judges are under pressure and even threats from lawyers or high officials in de facto government, or even international pressure, to decide a certain way in particularly sensitive cases. Well, are judges bound by the Constitution or by officialdom? Do they take an oath to support and defend certain officials, or the Constitution?

So Nick, for purposes of J.A.I.L., it is the judges that must be held accountable to the People for any unconstitutional acts and decisions. The final blockage to the pathway to seeking justice through redress of grievances is the "block wall" called "judicial immunity." The dead end is not "lawyer immunity" or "official immunity" because those issues can be brought to court, like everything else, for a final determination-- by whom? Yes-- the judges! If judges can't stand the heat, they should "get out of the judicial kitchen." Once J.A.I.L. is in effect, officials are going to find that their threats and pressures aren't going to work.

Passing the J.A.I.L. Initiative

I don't understand your following statement "Then there are 'the corruptors' who are granted domain over all this by the willingness of the rest of us to adhere in some fashion to this system, including passing initiatives that will eventually be enforced by either 'the corrupted' or 'the sheep' and certainly not by 'the people'." pertaining to passing initiatives. The J.A.I.L. initiative is designed to be passed by the People, and it doesn't depend on the system. Some of our readers say that it does depend on the system, since the voting process is necessary to pass it. The People will get to that road when we cross it. If it is through fraud of the system that prevents the passage of J.A.I.L., the People will take whatever means are necessary to overcome that fraud. I'm not saying here what that "means" will or should be-- I'm just saying that the People will not tolerate any more blockages to justice.

Summary:

In summary, then, I will reiterate: "We have to keep in mind that there are only two entities in American society: The People (represented by de jure government) and The Enemy of the People (represented by de facto government). Get rid of all the clutter in your mind, for that is what it all
boils down to."

Hearkening back to the Declaration of Independence (DOI), the concern is between the Governed (i.e., the People) and its Government

(representatives holding delegated authority from the People). The

Governed is established by Nature as the sovereign authority among men and is inherently fixed as such, i.e., a natural entity-- even though the vast majority is ignorant of the truth and a small minority is aware and knowledgeable of it. That leaves the only variable as Government which is by Nature subject to the Governed from which it derives its just powers. Such government is "de jure" government.

However, it is characteristic of Government, being the creation of mankind, i.e., an artificial entity, to lust for more power than authorized, and unless it is kept under control (leashed) by the Governed, it will stray beyond its authorized bounds. When it does so, it usurps its power and fraudulently assumes authority it doesn't have and takes over the Governed under absolute despotism. Since there was no enforcement clause written into the Constitution which is the intended ruling document by which the Governed delegated its authority to Government, the Governed were left without the ability to enforce the terms of that delegated authority upon Government, allowing Government to disregard its authority and go its own way. By so doing, Government has become the antithesis of the protector of the Governed, hence, the Enemy of the Governed.

That is how and why I have reached the conclusion that we must be concerned with only two entities: the Governed and the Government, i.e., the People and, as it has developed, the Enemy of the People. Even more basic, it is Good versus Evil; the Truth versus the Lie. We have to try to make it as simple as possible for the uninformed to learn what must be done and why. And that answer is J.A.I.L. Just review our history and see what is happening to society today. It all adds up! We need J.A.I.L.

-Barbie-

victoryusa@...

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#945

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Fri May 20, 2005 11:16 pm
Subject: The "Horse" Isn't Dead!

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                             May 20, 2005
______________________________________________________
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
______________________________________________________

The "Horse" Isn't Dead!

by Barbie, ACIC, National J.A.I.L. Admin.

victoryusa@...

"You're beating a dead horse. You can't fight the status quo. Love it or leave it."

--PreDaTorArts & EnTerTainMent predatorarts@...

1. In this context, the "horse" isn't dead.

2. The "horse" has the DUTY to fight the status quo.

3. The "horse" cannot love the status quo and must "throw [it] off"

Ladies and Gentlemen:

1. The "horse" isn't dead-- only under a hypnotic spell.

J.A.I.L. is written for and on behalf of the People, as a means by which the People can enforce the terms of the Constitution on the government which it creates by their authority. J.A.I.L. is a mandate on the People to act, as only they must, to restore a constitutional government. The only active force for which J.A.I.L. is designed is the People.

Predatorarts, predatorarts@..., emailed J.A.I.L. on May 10th (see below) in response to our message "Government's fraudulent 'bubble' is soon to burst." As a review, the last two paragraphs of our message is quoted in italics, as follows:

History is replete with all manner of government fraud by usurpation, and it all has to be examined by the People and each judge tried for covering up for the treasonous and tyrannical actions of government. It's about time that all this be brought to justice. It's time to end this "the people 'agreed' to destroy themselves." The fact that government usurpation and fraud took advantage of an ignorant people doesn't justify its fraud. Government is to be the fiduciary of the people, and serve the people's interests-- not its own.

I believe the time has come when government's "bubble" is about to burst and truth will prevail. The question is-- HOW will it come about? I hope and pray that it'll be by the passage of J.A.I.L. If not, it'll be by some other means-- but the government fraud can't go on much longer.

It is to that message that Predatorarts responded to us stating:

"You're beating a dead horse. You can't fight the status quo. Love it or leave it."

Looking at our statement taken from the above, it all has to be examined by the People, apparently, the active subject in Predatorarts' first statement is J.A.I.L. since that is to whom it is addressed and the program to be implemented, and the object "dead horse" depicts the People, by whom J.A.I.L. is to be implemented and activated.

Yes, J.A.I.L. is "beating" [upon] the People to wake them up!

However, the People are NOT entirely dead! While they are physically alive, busily going about their daily lives; nevertheless, they are mentally and spiritually dead regarding the predatory control that has been steadily and stealthily encroaching upon their daily lives. The People's minds have been gradually, over the years, lulled into a deep hypnotic spell through the cunning artifice of fraud and deception perpetrated by de facto government which has usurped its power and has been operating by counterfeit and false authority for over 200 years, deceiving the People into the false impression that it is functioning in their best interests, not its own. Government is to be the fiduciary of the people, and serve the people's interests-- not its own.

2. It is the DUTY of the "horse" to wake up and fight government fraud.

Analyzing Predatorarts' second statement, You can't fight the status quo, the "you" referring to J.A.I.L. is misplaced. J.A.I.L. isn't able to "fight" anything. It is merely the means by which the People must "fight." The term "status quo" apparently refers to the government fraud. ...the government fraud can't go on much longer.

It isn't a question of ability to fight, but of the DUTY to fight. In this context, the word "can't" has no application. Our Founding Fathers apparently didn't believe that the People "can't fight the status quo," but deemed it to be the right of the people to do so. The Declaration of Independence makes that clear in two places:

(1) ...that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, [i.e., securing the people's rights], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

And (2): But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, [emphasis added] to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

The second portion quoted above deems it not only the right of the People, but the DUTY of the People, to throw off such government, i.e., to "fight the status quo." How can it legitimately be said "You can't fight the status quo"? The only questions are "How?" and "When?"

3. J.A.I.L. has no love for the status quo, but does provide the means by which the People must leave it.

Predatorarts' final statement Love it or leave it is a non sequitur. The "it" obviously refers to "the status quo" and is directed to J.A.I.L. It is the antithesis of the written J.A.I.L. initiative/legislation to suggest any "love" or approval of the status quo, particularly as it relates to judicial corruption. Also, J.A.I.L. does provide the means by which the People must "leave," or separate from, the status quo by altering or abolishing it and instituting new (constitutional and accountable) government as is their right and DUTY to do.

In summary,

1. "You're beating a dead horse."

The "horse" isn't dead-- only under a hypnotic spell

2. "You can't fight the status quo."

It is the DUTY of the "horse" to wake up and fight

government fraud.

3. "Love it or leave it."

J.A.I.L. has no love for the status quo, but does provide the

means by which the People must leave it.

-Barbie-

ACIC, National J.A.I.L. Admin.

victoryusa@...

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

From: PreDaTor Arts & EnTerTainMent

To: VictoryUSA@...

Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 10:39 PM

Subject: Re: "You're Beating a Dead Horse"

That's all history, the truth is you need to find a better hobby like channeling your energy toward the now, not live in the past. Again it's an exercise in futility.

PreDaTorArts & EnTerTainMent

predatorarts@...

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

From: VictoryUSA@...

To: predatorarts@...

Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 10:27 PM

Subject: "You're Beating a Dead Horse"

"You're Beating a Dead Horse"

(By predatorarts@...)

----- Original Message -----
From: PreDaTor Arts & EnTerTainMent

To: VictoryUSA@... ; rwmoore

Cc: To JAILers World-Wide Undisclosed

Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 4:44 PM

Subject: Re: Government's fraudulent "bubble" is soon to burst.

You're beating a dead horse. You can't fight the status quo. Love it or leave it.

PreDaTorArts & EnTerTainMent

predatorarts@...

Dear PreDaTorArts:

Can you imagine how silly your words would have sounded to our Founding Fathers? Certainly they would not have advocated, "Love the status quo or leave it." Freedom and Truth was of such importance to them that they pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, and here you mock them with your lips.

Not only can you fight the status quo, but you have the sacred duty to do so. "Love it or leave it" is for the faint-hearted and cowards. I assume you have not departed from this country, and therefore have settled on "Loving the Status Quo!"

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams

"What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God - I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!" - Patrick Henry

-Ron Branson

VictoryUSA@...

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!
E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

To be added or removed, write to VictoryUSA@...

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

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

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#946

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 3:45 am
Subject: J.A.I.L. Needed Worldwide

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. Needed Worldwide

(By John Willson - jhwilson@...)

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

From: John Wilson

To: VictoryUSA@...

Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 5:52 PM

Dear Ron,

Your website at J.A.I.L. needs to be the most visited website in the world because Judicial Corruption & Treachery are just that ... worldwide. Judicial Accountability Integrity Law is what the International Conspiracy of Judges wants done away with ... which is exactly why it should build and build.

In countries which have the system of English Common Law, with its Charters of Freedom (Magna Carta, Petition of Right, Habeas Corpus & Bill of Rights), the ordinary People are being kept ignorant of their authority over Judges and those very same Judges literally deny the People the most potent weapon for Freedom, ie: the Right to Trial by Jury, because they know that Tyranny cannot survive when the Will of the People is implemented.

Yours sincerely,

John Wilson.

http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au

John, Ron wanted me to tell you that www.jail4judges.org is now reflected on approximately 3,600 other sites. -Barbie

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#947

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 1:26 am
Subject: Judicial Accountability Will Bring Police Accountability

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                             May 23, 2005
______________________________________________________
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
______________________________________________________

Judicial Accountability

Will Bring Police Accountability

Arrested Man Dies After Two Taser Shockings

May 19, 2005

A 55-year-old man arrested Monday on suspicion of being under the influence of a controlled substance died Tuesday after being shocked twice with a Taser stun gun by San Bernardino County sheriff's deputies, authorities said.

Leroy Pierson was seen acting strangely near an intersection, officials said, and was shocked when he became combative. He was taken to Kaiser Foundation Hospital in Fontana, where he died.

http://www.saveourcivilliberties.org/en/2005/04/1070.shtml

Tape shows 5 Taser shocks in 1 minute

LATEEF MUNGIN

Atlanta Journal-Constitution

His last words were: "Don't kill me, man. Don't kill me."

A videotape of the struggle between Frederick Williams and Gwinnett County Sheriff's deputies shows he was struck with a Taser stun gun five times within one minute. Within four minutes, the 31-year-old Lawrenceville man had lost consciousness.

The tape, filmed at the Gwinnett County jail, was part of an 11-month investigatory file that District Attorney Danny Porter's office released this week. The file became public after Porter announced he will not press criminal charges against deputies involved in the incident. Porter asked the grand jury to consider the case this week.

"The evidence and particularly the videotape raised questions that were most appropriately answered by the grand jury," Porter said. "The grand jury declined to go forward."

Melvin Johnson, an attorney representing Williams' wife and four children, has seen the videotape.

He said he disagrees with the district attorney's decision. He has asked the FBI to investigate.

"He was pleading for his life," Johnson said. "They claim they were trying to immobilize him but he was already in handcuffs. They were clearly trying to inflict pain on a person they thought had injured one of their fellow officers."

Williams was arrested May 25, 2004, during a domestic disturbance at his home.

According to police reports, Williams' family said he refused to take his epilepsy medication and was acting violent and irrational.

Williams got into an altercation with the first officer arriving on the scene, Gwinnett police Officer R.E. Kenyon. According to an incident report, Williams charged the officer and grabbed his baton as Kenyon tried to strike him. The two struggled over the baton and Kenyon lost his balance, falling to the ground, bloodying his nose.

Kenyon called for backup over his police radio. Several officers arrived and tackled and subdued Williams.

He was taken to the jail, where deputies were alerted that they had a "delta," Gwinnett law enforcement slang meaning a combative inmate.

About 11 deputies were standing at the back door of the jail as an officer dropped Williams off, including a deputy who was videotaping the episode.

Williams, his arms handcuffed behind his back, his feet bound, was rocking back and forth in the back of the police car as deputies approached. The deputies grabbed him out of the car and carried him into the jail. As they were carrying him, Williams pleaded with deputies not to kill him. It was his last audible comment.

They carried him through the jail entrance to an area where restraint chairs are located. They placed him in a chair that resembles an adult-sized car seat used to immobilize combative inmates.

Williams appeared to be attempting to free himself from the chair, surrounded by deputies.

One deputy wrapped his arm around Williams' head and chin. Others were holding his arms and legs as Deputy Michael Mustachio applied the Taser to his chest.

One deputy commands Williams to stop resisting.

"Do you want another one?" Mustachio said, referring to the stun gun.

Within one minute, Williams was shocked a total of five times.

His handcuffs were not removed until after he lost consciousness.

Once it was clear that Williams was unconscious, deputies began to administer aid. Someone called for an ambulance.

Williams never regained consciousness and was pronounced dead two days later.

Gwinnett police Detective Steve Shaw investigated the incident and concluded that deputies did not violate the Sheriff's Department policy or any laws.

Several years ago, Mr. Branson, the founder of J.A.I.L., was tasered three intervals by L.A.P.D. for a constant thirty seconds each interval (which LAPD admits), while Ron was locked up behind bars, for refusing to give up his rights guaranteed by the Constitution when officers demanded that he undress himself naked before them for a strip search. (At no time was the warrantless arrest examined for probable cause.) After each interval, Ron was asked if he "now submits" to which he responded each time that he stands on his constitutional rights. It's nothing short of a miracle that Ron lived through that minute and a half of electrical torture which was considered within department policy and done with impunity! And this policy will continue until the People put an end to rule by "policy" and enforce the Rule of Law.

When Mr. Branson was brought out of the cell six days later for so-called "arraignment," never having had a probable cause determination for the arrest as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment, the first words out of the mouth of the court Commissioner --not a judge-- was "I hear you gave the police a hard time!" Standing upon one's God-given unalienable rights is interpreted as "giving the police a hard time."

When J.A.I.L. becomes law, we should see an end to this, and other barbaric police policies that are routinely covered up by the judiciary. A judiciary accountable to the People will make a difference!

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

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!
To be added or removed, write to VictoryUSA@...
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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

Yahoo! Groups

Breaking News Visit Yahoo! News for the latest.

The Yahoo! Groups Product Blog

Check it out!

Group Information

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...

Messages

Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.)

(b) Definitions. For purposes of this amendment:

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

2. The term "judge" shall mean justice, judge, magistrate, commissioner, judge pro tem, private judge, judicial mediator, arbitrator and referee, and every person shielded by judicial immunity.

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

4. The term "seat" shall mean a situs and facility that is suitable for usage by the Jury.

5. The term "strike" shall mean an adverse immunity decision.

Where appropriate, the singular shall include the plural.

(j) Compensation of Jurors. Each Juror shall receive a salary commensurate to a Circuit Court judge prorated according to the number of days actually served.

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

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

(u) Enforcement. No person exercising strict enforcement of the findings of a Special Grand Jury shall be held liable civilly, criminally, or in contempt.

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

Looking back

Disturbing evolution

Lawyer domination

Business of law

Bureaucratic design

Fear of Fervent Judge Bashing

http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200550426001

Piersol: Attacks on judges to get airing