Taking Baby-Steps in Establishing Judicial Accountability By James Mc Erlean - email@example.com ... From: James McErlean [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]Message 1 of 1 , Jun 23, 2009View Source
Taking Baby-Steps in
Establishing Judicial Accountability
By James Mc Erlean - geothermal09@...
From: James McErlean [mailto:geothermal09@...]
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 9:40 AM
Subject: Judicial Accountability
I was wondering if smaller steps might not make the passage of Judicial Accountability laws easier to achieve. Judges are not going to give up immunity if they feel that they will be sued for decision they make.
Could accountability for violation of the Constitution, or blatant violation of law, be easier to get passed by the state governments?
- James McErlean
Ron Branson’s Response
James Mc Erlean, I am going to give you every benefit of the doubt in the sincerity of your question in my response, and assume you are ignorant of the objective of J.A.I.L.
Under no circumstances does J.A.I.L. permit a judge to be sued for decisions they make. This is precisely the argument made by our opposition in misrepresenting the objective of J.A.I.L. The only issues that may come before the Special Grand Jury under J.A.I.L. are willful violations of the Constitution or laws thereunder. This is clearly set forth in paragraph 2 of the Initiative, to wit;
2. Exclusions of immunity. Notwithstanding common law or any other provision to the contrary, no immunities shielding a judge from frivolous and harassing actions 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 allegations, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of California or the United States.”
Nowhere in the above seven specified exclusive limitations of the Special Grand Jury does it authorize, or even hit of going after any judge for decisions they make. Judges are permitted under J.A.I.L. to make bad decisions, wrong decisions, reversible decisions, and even unwise decisions and not be held accountable. This is why we have both appellate courts and judicial commissions to cure such problems.
J.A.I.L. can only kick-in when the entire system of justice has been tried and fails to produce justice under our current system of laws. We grant to judges the full power of the exercise of their discretion, but when their conduct goes outside and beyond the scope of their discretion, then the SGJ may intercede after all appeals are exhausted. I had thought this was so very clear so as not to have to be revisited except for those who have never read J.A.I.L.
You may read the entire Initiative at;
By practical application of Judicial Immunity, it is obvious that government feels that judges should be protected from all liability when they act clearly outside of their jurisdiction or in violation of the laws or the Constitution. This view accords with the quote of Lord Acton, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Judicial Immunity and absolute corruption naturally flows from each other, and this is why we absolutely must submit this issue to an independent autonomous Grand Jury for examination. There is not another means available to mankind this side of direct divine intervention.