We Already Have A Remedy Hello Gene Paulson: It is a delight to hear from you, and I wish to thank you for your analysis of what happened in South Dakota. I
Message 1 of 1
, Jan 23, 2012
We Already Have A Remedy
Hello Gene Paulson:
It is a delight to hear from you, and I wish to thank you for
your analysis of what happened in South Dakota. I agree with you
that there is every appearance of finagling within the voting
system. The powers-that-be were terrorized with the speculation
and prospects that JAIL4Judges should become law in this
country. They determined that at all cost, they had to shut down
J.A.I.L. It posed an end of their despotic kingdom, and the
beginning of greatest power to the people since the founding of
I have stated a number of times that had the premises of
J.A.I.L., by whatever name, been presented at the founding of
our Constitutional Republic, it would have been a point of
contention by the likes of Thomas Jefferson and several other of
our Founding Fathers. There would have existed a knock down drag
out over its concept.
While I endorse the basic premiss within that marvelous document
we call the United States Constitution, I do believe it was
lacking in enforcement. Like two wheels on an axle, one wheel is
the "What," and the other "How." We have a great "What" in our
Constitution, but it lacks the "How!" J.A.I.L. by whatever name,
should have been Article IV of our U.S. Constitution. Article I
is properly the Legislative, II the Executive, and III the
Judicial, but what about Article IV, The People? Within
the body of our Constitution, we have only a passing mention of
juries, Article III, Section 2, Clause 3, "The trial of all
crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury..."
But a "jury" is not defined! Our Founding Fathers took the
position that everyone knows what a jury is, so they didn't
elaborate. At least some legal minds caught the shortcomings of
our Constitution, which has become known as the First Ten
Amendments. Therein they added the first mention of "Grand
Jury," Fifth Amendment, and also made another mention of a jury,
Sixth and Seventh Amendments. But still lacking was very
important details. For instance, I asked a group of people at a
legal seminar where in the Constitution it specifies how many
people compose a jury. I got the answer "twelve." I asked them
to show me that in the Constitution. They weren't able to do so.
I then asked everyone where in the Constitution it specifies the
number of jurors it takes to bring a conviction. No one could
show me. But is that not important? We have the "Who, What,
When, Where, Why, and How," regarding Article I, II, and II.
Lacking in our Constitution is Article IV, The People, spelling
out the "Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How" that J.A.I.L. by
whatever name. This should have been supplied as the other wheel
on the axle of our Constitutional Republic, Article IV, "The
I agree with you, Gene, that we do have protections already
within our Constitution, but it has no enforcement of the other
end of the axle, J.A.I.L. For instance, it is true the
Constitution provides, "No person shall be held to answer for a
capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
indictment of a Grand Jury..." but now we have our people being
sold down the river on such cases that no Grand Jury has ever
seen, much less, ruled upon. I have been twice arrested on
"infamous" charges. i.e. a felony charge. No Grand Jury passed
upon the charges, and in fact, not even the District Attorney
knew about such charges. I was placed through a felony booking
process, strip-searched, complete with a tazering, and
thereafter placed in the hospital because I raised
constitutional question regarding their authority.
In deposition, I asked the police officers to identify who made
the Probable Cause decision not to proceed with the felony.
Their answer was, "We did." So now we have police officers, who
are not even attorneys, making Probable Cause prosecutorial
decisions on felony charges that must constitutionally be
presented to a Grand Jury, followed by a decision whether to
prosecute reserved exclusively to the District Attorney. Isn't
it supposedly a crime for police officers to practice law as
non-attorneys? Here, we have a admission that police officers
make felony prosecatorial decisions reserved to the D.A., who
must pass the issue before the Grand Jury before proceeding.
Gene, we can yell all we want about our constitutional rights
under the 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments, but who are we going to
get to enforce those rights? This is precisely why we need the
enforcement of J.A.I.L. Sure, we have a good Constitution, but
so what? Sure, we are supposed to get a jury trial in all
criminal proceedings, unless it be for impeachment. But so what?
I was made fun of in South Dakota by their saying, "If we
listened to Ron Branson, we would have to give a jury trial in
every accusation of failure to get a dog license." Does the lack
of a dog license fit into the only constitutional exclusion of
a jury trial of "impeachment." So we may rest upon the
constitutional assurance of a jury trial in every matter except
for impeachments, so what?
The Constitution assures me of the right "to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation," but I am presently fighting
on precisely that front wherein an "arraignment" on criminal
charges against me was allegedly brought against me at which I
supposedly appeared and entered a plea, but I knew nothing of
such arraignment, nor was I present, nor did I enter a plea.
When asked of the court reporter for a transcript, she told me
that no such arraignment took place. She even swore out a
declaration to that effect at my request. I presented her
declaration in my lawsuit against those who violated my rights
under the Constitution with that fraudulent Minute Order. Yes, I
have the Constitution and the facts in my favor, but I have
receive no justice, nor do I have any remedy. This question is
now before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals en banc. But I
doubt they will even acknowledge I filed for a hearing en banc
because the issue is so obvious and would embarrass the entire
judicial system. The fact is, we need J.A.I.L.
I am not putting you down, Gene, just merely showing you the
flaws in your proposition that we already have a remedy in our
Constitution. I wish you were correct, but first-hand experience
dictates otherwise! I think the entire nation, when pinned down,
would disagree with your argument that we have workable remedy
within the Constitution. Gen, I appreciate your diligence within
our South Dakota effort, but I believe your reliance upon
"current existing remedies" is misplaced. Love you.
I spent a lot of
time, money and effort in the attempt to make amendment E
a part of our South Dakota constitution. You are aware
of what happened with that.
I have come
to believe that something of that character is
impossible. The attorneys in SD spent over a million
dollars trying to defeat the amendment and three days
before the election the poll done by our major
television news program showed 54%voting for it and 40
% against. Three days later it goes down 90% to 10%.
No initiative in the history of our country has ever
resulted in that kind of loss. Now you have to wonder
if when they fixed the voting machines that they made
a mistake in the fix so that the totals came out that
bad or if they did it on purpose to show us that such
foolishness was never going to go anywhere.
I believed in it
then and I still believe in it but I have come to believe
their is a better way. It is the 5th 6th and 7th
Amendment, We do not have to fight any unwinnable battle
to get them into our constitution as they are already
there. The Supreme Court in US v. Williams has already
the power of the 5th amendment juries and I can see no
reason why the reasoning regarding the 5th amendment does
not carry over to the other juries as well. What we need
to do is form peoples 5-6 and 7th amendment juries,
convict these despots and throw them in jail. Last fall
we formed 8 juries and did cases in 10 different states.
When the cases were filed the Judges just ignored them
with the exception of the SD Supreme court which ordered
me to quit filing them in their court.
Non of these
criminals have even suggested that we were breaking
the law and the only thing the SD Supreme Court said
was they have no force or effect in their courts. I
now believe that we should start forming those juries
all over the country and file them on every courthouse
wall in the nation. It is something that we can do
immediately and it is obviously a lawful act as if
they could put me in jail for what I have done they
would have already done it. My association with the
Jail amendment has cost me dearly in
retaliation, Bill has suffered the same fate, and we
accomplished nothing. It was not a fault of the Jail
Amendment it was a matter of the vote counting tools
of an insurmountable enemy. You are right in that it
will take people all over the country to get involved
in a single movement and I believe the juries are the
answer. The fifth amendment Grand Jury could do the
exact same things as the jury in your plan and it is
already law. If the idea is something we can do
something with give me a shout and I will fill you in
on what we have done so far.
Gene Paulson, South
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
Changes have not been saved
Press OK to abandon changes or Cancel to continue editing
Your browser is not supported
Kindly note that Groups does not support 7.0 or earlier versions of Internet Explorer.
We recommend upgrading to the latest Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, or Firefox. If you are using IE 9 or later, make sure you turn off Compatibility View.