The Right of
(By Ron Branson - 8/30/06)
"I'll tell you one or many, many problems with J.A.I.L. That is
the lack of a right of appeal."
Having searched the internet for observations re:
J.A.I.L., I find assertions made by those claiming to be an authority upon
the provisions of J.A.I.L., when they are actually clueless. Above is one of
those assertions, to wit, that J.A.I.L. fails to allow for a right of appeal. So
let us test this assertion for accuracy.
The answer to this concern is prescribed clearly within
Amendment E itself for those who both to read it before opening their mouth.
Paragraph 11 set for in appropriate part, "...no complaint of misconduct shall
be considered by the Special Grand Jury unless the complainant shall have first
attempted to exhaust all judicial remedies available in this State..." The
basic requirement of J.A.I.L. is that all appeals must be exhausted to the
Supreme Court first. If the appeal process functions as it is prescribed by law,
then tried and appeals issues completely avert the involvement of J.A.I.L.
The only issues that can possible be brought before the
Special Grand Jury are the violation issues previously appealed and ruled
upon by the courts. Should the Supreme Court refuse to rule upon the violation
issue, then it may pass on to the Special Grand Jury.
The claim that J.A.I.L. provides for no appeals process
is spurious. One would think that perhaps the arguer of this position believe
their must be a second appeal process of the very same issues before the very
same judges. This argument, of course, is clearly condemned by the courts as
"being given a second bite at the apple." No one is allowed a second appeal
on the very same issues, and particularly in front of the same judges. All
litigation must end somewhere. If we were to justify a second appeal, how
about a third appeal, or a fourth appeal?
Further, anyone who can read, can also read paragraph
4, "...a special prosecutor may be retained to prosecute ongoing cases in which
they are involved through all appeals and any complaints to the Special Grand
Jury." Should a trial commence against a defendant judge, and he loses in the
trial, he may wish to appeal the decision to the upper courts, including to
the U.S. Supreme Court. In such cases, the special prosecutor may be retained to
represent the prosecution's position to the Supreme Court. Again, only after all
appeals are exhausted can a complaint be lodged with the Special Grand Jury.
Within J.A.I.L. there can exist no such thing as an
unappealed or an unappealable ruling. The very pursuit of J.A.I.L. is to assure
that everyone receives justice by getting their day in court, and all due
process afforded them under law.
So we can all now clearly see that those
who argue that the problem with J.A.I.L. is that it provides for no
right of appeal is proffered by those who have no understanding of what
they are talking about. This is but just one of many
points others misstate or pervert about the truth of J.A.I.L.
There seems to be no end of the dreamed-up "problems"
with J.A.I.L., and you may rest assured that every supposed "problem"
is answerable, and that more than 95% of what is stated by the
opponents are based upon lies and misstatements.