1236* * * Just Following Orders * * *
- Mar 31, 2007J.A.I.L. News Journal
Los Angeles, California March 31, 2007
The Battle Lines are Drawn: J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power
A Power Foreign to Our Constitution
"Just Following Orders"
By Ron Branson - National J.A.I.L. CIC
In the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office the deputy DAs say when a new political policy is passed down to them from the Board of Supervisors that they are mandated to follow, and that is, "It's not for us to reason why, only for us to do or die."
In the Nuremburg trial of Nazi war criminals under Adolf Hitler that took place beginning November 20, 1945, every person brought up on war crimes took the witness stand and stated that they were just following orders, and that they were only doing what they were told to do. Likewise, in the Viet Nam war, Lt. William Calley was placed on trial for the March 16, 1968 My Lai Massacre in which numerous innocent women and children were slaughtered that had no part in the war. As his defense, he argued that he was just following orders. In both circumstances, this defense argument did not avail. It was thus well established that everyone has an overriding duty to think for themselves and act accordingly based upon self-evident truth. When Cain rose up against his brother Abel and slew him, there being yet no law against murder, was Cain thereby justified? No! God asked Cain, "Where is Abel thy brother, Able?" Cain responded, "I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?" (Genesis 4:9).
A number of years ago I was engaged in a lawsuit against the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), and as a vindictive act, the DMV took my vehicle registration fees but refused to issue registration. As a result, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) pulled me over on Highway 14 for lack of vehicle registration. I showed the officer proof of payment for registration, and the law that states that he is prevented from issuing a citation when proof is shown that registration was paid. Nonetheless, he cited me and stated that I should appear in court and show the judge my proof and he will dismiss the citation. The officer was challenged on the basis of his knowing violation of the California Vehicle Code. His response was, "I'm just doing my job!"
Indeed, when I showed up in court, the judge observed the law, and told the prosecution, "Mr. Branson is right, I have to dismiss this charge!" I said to the judge, "I need a copy of the judgment of this court." He said that he could not do that as he had no jurisdiction. The nonsense of that statement is countered by law that sets forth that every court has jurisdiction to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction of the case, but he refused to reduce his judgment to writing for the record.
Thereafter, I filed a claim against the CHP officer based upon the prima face proof that he willfully chose to violate the California law that governs his conduct, stating to me that he was "Just doing his job!" His official defense on the record was that he cannot be held liable when he is executing the orders given him by his superiors, and indeed California backed him up stating that he was merely carrying out his orders as given to him, and thus could not be held liable for his violation of the Vehicle Code.
I then amended my complaint and charged the State of California with issuing its officers by policy, practice and custom, instructions to willfully and contemptuously violate the laws of the State of California, accompanied by a sworn declaration of the ruling of the judge, who refused to reduce his ruling into a written order. The State of California then argued that I could not sue them because my action was not taken within six months. That six months was caused by their own stalling of time in coming forth with their ultimate argument that it was the official duty of the CHP officer to violate the law of California, and that he had no other option available to him. In other words, the Nuremburg defense, that he was not allowed to think for himself - CHP policy preempts state law. Thus, it is established that the State of California has a policy that law enforcement officers have an official duty to violate the law in "enforcing" policy. My response is, if the laws of California are not important enough to enforce, then why are we the People hiring law enforcement officers to enforce them? California has no answer to this dilemma.
Just this week, March 27, 2007, I published an article titled, "Understanding Infractions." Therein I documented that the new unconstitutional class of crimes that denies all Americans the right to a jury trial was born January 1, 1969, and was the brainchild of the California legislature. The courts covered for the California legislature during a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of denials of jury trials in criminal cases, and the court ruled they were called upon to reconcile a contradiction in California statute that stated that no conviction is valid unless it was brought by a jury.
Without consideration of the U.S. Constitution that mandates jury trials in all criminal cases, i.e., "The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury," Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 3, the court, in contravention of this U.S. Constitution provision said, "In People v. Oppenheimer, supra, 42 Cal.App.3d Supp. 4, the court recognized that Penal Code section 19.6 (formerly section 19c) and 1042.5, which provide court trials for infractions, conflicted with Penal Code section 689, which provides in part that '[n]o person can be convicted of a public offense unless by verdict of a jury.' The Oppenheimer court stated: 'Section 689, however, was originally enacted in 1872 and last amended in 1951. In accordance with ordinary principles of statutory construction we must read all of the sections of the Penal Code together, give effect in case of conflict to the latest enacted sections, and construe the provisions of the sections according to the fair import of their terms with a view to affecting their objective and to promoting justice.' " This is a very profound finding of the court. Essentially, the court found that the Constitution was irrelevant in that it was written some two hundred years prior to this new legislation created by the State of California.
Thereafter, in the "Understanding Infractions" article, I pointed out that since the State of California was getting away with denials of jury trials in criminal cases, all the other state legislatures decided to do the same by also adopting unconstitutional laws that deny jury trials in criminal cases. Most of you perhaps thought that what is now going on in this country always was, and is therefore, constitutional. However, to put this in perspective for those of you living in 1969, while we were all watching with interest Neil Armstrong land on the moon ("One small step for man, and one great step for mankind") the California legislature had just imposed a sinister plot to overthrow the U.S. Constitution. What is more, all the other legislators of the forty-nine states joined in this sinister plot with the State of California to do likewise.
Obviously, such law will one day have to be declared unconstitutional, and in so doing, it does not become unconstitutional by declaring it so, but since its inception. Imagine all of the fifty states being forced to roll back to pre-1969 constitutional standards of jury trials!
Now, I address everyone of you police officers out there. Is it not true that you had to take an Oath of Office prior to your assuming your position as a police officer, in which you solemnly swore to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic? Did you mean that Oath, or were you perjuring yourself?
Before you turn on your red lights and siren, ask yourself if the driver ahead of you committed a crime for which the victim must justly be compensated. And ask yourself if this person you are about to pull over will receive a trial by jury on what you are about to charge him with. If neither is the case, you have a constitutional duty and mandate to refrain from citing him. Remember, "Just doing my job," in contravention of Constitution, is not the work of a police officer, but a terrorist overthrowing this country. This is America, not Nazi Germany, and under your Oath of Office, you have a duty to defend the Constitution for the United States of America.
If policy dictates that the person you are about to cite is not going to receive a jury trial, you have a responsibility and a duty to defend that person against the sinister plot that has been perpetrated against every American in this country, designed only to financially profit the politicians who have created policy that supersedes our Constitution. As I documented above, it is insane for us to hire police officers on the road with the instructions that it is there duty to uphold and defend departmental policy and ignore the policy of denying the constitutional provision that everyone is entitled to a jury trial.
If you police officers want to make a difference in this country, uphold your Oath of Office as a police officer, and refuse to arrest anyone for non-jury offenses, and sustain this practice until the legislators who devised this plot, reinstate the constitutional right of a jury trial. May God give you the strength, fortitude, and courage to do what you know is right! The future of your children are at stake. -Ron Branson
J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) www.jail4judges. org
To be automatically added to future mailings, place the word Subscribe
in the subject line and email to VictoryUSA@jail4jud ges.org
We are a ministry in great need of your financial support. Please donate to
this important work at "J.A.I.L." P.O. Box 207, North Hollywood, CA 91603
J.A.I.L. is a unique addition to our Constitution heretofore unrealized.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
Visit our active flash - http://www.jail4jud ges.org/national _001.htm
* * *
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. - Declaration of Independence
"..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