1459RE: * * * How Do We Get Cases Before Grand Juries? * * *
- Sep 9, 2008Hello Jeff:
This is Barbie responding for now. Ron will look at this later for his possible response.
The only way We, the Sovereigns [People], can officially form a grand jury and take our proper role as sovereigns OVER government, including the courts, is by J.A.I.L. That's what J.A.I.L. accomplishes-- exactly what you are saying. But we can't just do it in a vacuum. We have to have the process established by amendment to our state Constitutions, at least in the initiative states where we can do it without legislative involvement.
By passing J.A.I.L., the People's task will be to get rid of the controlling regime in power masquerading as "government" but it is in fact a foreign power-- not an American government. They aren't bound by the Constitution which is why we see such blatant violations of it, and of the People's rights which are to be protected under the Constitution. That's what the People have to turn around. To do that, the People have to hold miscreant judges accountable for obedience to the Constitution, without the abuse of judicial immunity shielding them from liability for injury to the People in routine violations of the Constitution.
The only way the People can do that as an official body performing their duties as the sovereigns in control of their government by their consent (the Constitution), once the provision becomes an operational constitutional amendment, is by forming special grand juries which are not connected with any government function-- they must be independent and autonomous, the way grand juries are to be in order to be effective.
Yes Jeff, you have the right idea, but we have to have the MEANS to do it-- and you know what that is! Obviously, J.A.I.L. -- that's the Only Answer!
But first, the People have to wake up to that fact. There's no other way it can be done. But unfortunately the People will stay ignorant until it is too late for them to remedy the situation. They will continue spinning their wheels with their own ideas (and there are hundreds of ideas), getting us nowhere!
As I said, the People can't act in a vacuum, especially with this tyrannical foreign power in control by conquest. They will block us at every turn. Look at what they did with the South Dakota election in 2006. Doesn't that prove we don't have a government running America? The powers-that-be prove what they are by their actions. We have an unreasonable, senseless monster at the helm receiving its authority from a judiciary with the disease called Judicial Megalomania. It is incurable unless and until J.A.I.L. passes. That's what the cowards are afraid of-- losing their sweeping shield of judicial immunity and being held accountable to the People. The tyrants can't operate with responsibility for their actions.
Be sure to read the J.A.I.L. News Journal coming out later today. It's called "The Preamble of J.A.I.L. Revisited." That covers a lot of what I'm saying here.
From: Jeff Soder [mailto:jdsoder@...]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 8:33 PM
Subject: Re: * * * How Do We Get Cases Before Grand Juries? * * *
* * * How Do We Get Cases Before Grand Juries? * * *
Thanks Ron, I always thought the meaning of the word "politics" was, Poli, being Latin for many and a tic, being is a blood sucking creator that preys on the beast of burden.
Although I do like my definition much better and also find it a better description of the reality we find ourselves in, in relationship with the current situation involving our Politicians.
I would like to thank you for clearing up this confusion for me.
Now to the question of Grand Jury. If twelve Sovereigns got together, Why can we not hold a Grand Jury? Then hold court? Do we really need the B.A.R. associates to do this or can We the People do this without their Corrupt rules and regulations that they have set before us? Is dealing with them our only option? Do we need them to hold court for us? I do not believe we do, Unless we are to incompetent to do this ourselves?
The Problem is to find twelve people that their minds can see this crap for what it is, this is where the Sovereigns in this county are having problems, freeing the minds of the masses, and thinking outside of the Box that the B.A.R. and their associates have placed us in, The answer is lies with we the people.
Thank you for your time, sorry for the rant.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 1:29 AM
Subject: * * * How Do We Get Cases Before Grand Juries? * * *
How Do We Get Cases
Before Grand Juries?
By Dan Stuart - DStu@...
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2008 8:13 PM
Subject: New York has a grand jury to inquire into acts of public officers.
Below is article 1, section 6 of New York's Constitution. It allows for grand juries to inquire into acts of public officers and clearly judges are public officers.
§6. No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime (except in cases of impeachment, and in cases of militia when in actual service, and the land, air and naval forces in time of war, or which this state may keep with the consent of congress in time of peace, and in cases of petit larceny under the regulation of the legislature), unless on indictment of a grand jury, except that a person held for the action of a grand jury upon a charge for such an offense, other than one punishable by death or life imprisonment, with the consent of the district attorney, may waive indictment by a grand jury and consent to be prosecuted on an information filed by the district attorney; such waiver shall be evidenced by written instrument signed by the defendant in open court in the presence of his or her counsel.
In any trial in any court whatever the party accused shall be allowed to appear and defend in person and with counsel as in civil actions and shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation and be confronted with the witnesses against him or her. No person shall be subject to be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense; nor shall he or she be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself or herself, providing, that any public officer who, upon being called before a grand jury to testify concerning the conduct of his or her present office or of any public office held by him or her within five years prior to such grand jury call to testify, or the performance of his or her official duties in any such present or prior offices, refuses to sign a waiver of immunity against subsequent criminal prosecution, or to answer any relevant question concerning such matters before such grand jury, shall by virtue of such refusal, be disqualified from holding any other public office or public employment for a period of five years from the date of such refusal to sign a waiver of immunity against subsequent prosecution, or to answer any relevant question concerning such matters before such grand jury, and shall be removed from his or her present office by the appropriate authority or shall forfeit his or her present office at the suit of the attorney-general.
The power of grand juries to inquire into the wilful misconduct in office of public officers, and to find indictments or to direct the filing of informations in connection with such inquiries, shall never be suspended or impaired by law. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
So, how do we get cases of judicial corruption before such grand juries and away from the clearly unconstitutional Judicial and Ethics Commission for the Unified Court System?
Ron Branson responds to Dan Stuart:
Dan Stuart, you have asked a provocative question to which everyone is worthy of receiving an answer. Your question is:
"So how do we get cases of judicial corruption before such grand juries and away from the clearly unconstitutional Judicial and Ethics Commission for the Unified Court System?"
I am delighted you have asked this question, Dan, for I know you know the meaning of the word "politics."
Webster's Dictionary defines politics as, ".the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government." and ".political affairs or business; specif: competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership in a government or other group." This definition is obviously at odds with "statutes and laws," to wit, fixed standards. When law and politics clash, guess who wins? That's right, "politics." You read law as fixed, but politics reads it as suggestive.
I am very disappointed with the patriot movement in that most of them believe the future of our country lies in electing "good legislators" so they can pass "good laws." But such objective is one of chasing shadows. The more "laws" we pass, the worse our country gets. The answer, rather, is in enforcement of existing laws through judicial accountability!
For instance, Title 42, Sec. 1983 provides, "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured." The courts have "legislated" that "Every person" in Title 42, 1983 does not include judges, for if Congress intended it to include judges, it would have been written, "Every person, including judges, who, under color of any statute."
So the very statute that allowed victims of an arbitrary judiciary a remedy against judges for constitutional violations is revised by practice to exclude any application to judges.
The system knows that ultimate power lies with the Grand Jury. It is for this reason that I affirm to you that any objective for freedom by the patriot community that does not include the power of the Grand Jury is spinning its wheels. Unfortunately, our enemies know that, and it is for that reason our enemies seek to defang the Grand Jury system, reducing it to their lap dog. This is why they have created Judicial Commissions, and have forbidden Grand Juries to investigate judges, and have all Grand Juries on a short financial leash of approximately $25/day, being tutored by the very prosecutors against whom they are designed to be a watchdog. In other words, the villain is feeding the People's watchdog.
The system knows that when they lose control over the Grand Jury system, the People will regain their freedom. They even have a name for such potential independent Grand Juries. It is called a "runaway Grand Jury."
What J.A.I.L. proposes is the creation of a Special Grand Jury whose sole jurisdiction "shall be limited to determining, based on the evidence shown on the record, whether any civil lawsuit against a judge would be frivolous or harassing, or fall within the exclusions of immunity as set forth in paragraph 2, or whether there is probable cause of criminal conduct by the judge against whom a petition/complaint is brought." (paragraph 3 - Special Grand Juries).
This provision presents a double-pronged danger to the entire establishment, i.e. the Grand Jury versus the Judges. As it is now, judges hand-pick the Grand Jurors, and this ought not to be, never, EVER! Grand Juries always and forever MUST be independent of the judges, the prosecution, and legislation. It is only by this means the People can regain their intended freedom. This is why J.A.I.L. is the Only Answer!
Thank you, Dan, for you very appropriate question for the benefit of all who hear and read this answer. God bless.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.19/1659 - Release Date: 9/8/2008 7:01 AM