668** The History and Mission of J.A.I.L. **
- Nov 27, 2002J.A.I.L. News Journal
Los Angeles, California November 27, 2002
The History andMission of J.A.I.L.-by Barbie- Victoryusa@...After languishing some 18 years trying to obtain redress of grievances in the courts at all levels, both state and federal, Ron Branson realized that the futility of his efforts was the result of judges' failure and refusal to allow due process of law. He became aware of the fact that this is a systemic problem, and he went to both the Executive and Legislative branches of California government in Sacramento for a remedy to correct this omission by the judicial system. That effort also was futile, as the Governor, the Attorney General, and the California Legislature (Senate and Assembly) were not willing to do anything about the problem.Ron could not conscientiously accept that outcome, and he decided that the remedy had to come directly from the people. In April 1995, he set out to search for some lawful means to accomplish that objective here in California. The first authority he checked was the California Constitution.Article II, Sec. 1 of the CC provides: "All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require." That's the answer he needed. California authorizes by its Constitution the people to take whatever action is necessary to correct this flaw in the judicial system by initiative.Armed with that authority, he proceeded to create the J.A.I.L. initiative for California, originally called the "Judicial Reform Act of 1996." After filing it for the first time in November 1995, the Legislative Analyst asked, if no California judge subject to the initiative could sit in judgment of the initiative, then who could do so? A judge of another state? A federal judge? Ron's answer was that he could not answer their question on how to assail this initiative, but that he is relying on Article II, Sec. 1 of the California Constitution as authority for the initiative. That reliance was not refuted.The Special Grand Jury (SGJ) under J.A.I.L., made up of the people, is not a part of government whatsoever, and has no oversight by government.In creating a means by which the people would be able to implement their inherent power over government, Ron realized that he would have to rely on the grand jury concept-- one that is established constitutionally and given statewide operation. He knew that the so-called county "grand juries" governed by statute are not autonomous bodies, but an operation by government as our current county grand jury system is in California. In California there does not now exist a grand jury of the people that operates autonomously.The grand jury created for J.A.I.L. would not be any part of government, nor could it be if the people were to exercise their inherent power to "alter or reform" government as they are constitutionally authorized to do. Government, being the object of grand jury power, cannot be in control of it for obvious reasons. Therefore, the operation of J.A.I.L. by a grand jury cannot be connected with government whatsoever. Under J.A.I.L., the statewide Special Grand Jury is not part of, nor a branch of, nor associated with, government of any kind. It is an autonomous body of citizens, i.e., the people.The California Legislature, through its analyst, queried Mr. Branson as to under which branch of government the Special Grand Jury operated-- legislative, executive, or judicial. Mr. Branson responded that the SGJ is not under any branch of government, but is the people and operates autonomously.The doctrine of "judicial immunity" must be placed under the control of the people in order to stop judicial abuse thereof.In his years of research and citing of law to support his cases, Ron found that the law wasn't the problem-- it was the judges' refusal to respect and abide by the law. And when Ron would seek redress against these judges, he would be blocked by "judicial immunity."Upon researching "judicial immunity" Ron found that it wasn't enacted as law, but was judicially created as a doctrine to protect them from lawsuits filed by "disgruntled litigants" who weren't happy with a decision. There were such instances cited which could be considered as a logical purpose for the doctrine. However, the doctrine is limited to cover judicial acts within court jurisdiction."Judicial acts" to be valid have to be performed in accordance with law. However, Ron has experienced being dismissed based on "judicial immunity" when suing judges because they were NOT following law. Even when filing federal criminal complaints against judges, for which judicial immunity does not apply, the Attorney General's office would refuse to accept the case(s) stating they were "unable to prosecute" and giving no reason.So, the problem rested on judicial abuse of the doctrine and the people would have to "alter or reform" the application of that doctrine by the judiciary when it was abused. That abuse is defined as shielding a judge for "deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts, 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." (¶(c)).Ron wrote into the Amendment that only after such violation has been brought to the attention of the judge, as part of the record, and the judge refuses to correct the alleged violation making it a willful act, may a complaint be filed before the SGJ upon exhaustion of all system remedies provided by the state.J.A.I.L. is not a substitute for any stage of the judicial process, but is a safeguard for the people when the judicial system fails to perform its duties under the State and Federal Constitutions.Mr. Branson also checked the Declaration of Independence to see what authority it provided for the people when government becomes abusive of its power. It provides "... That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, ...." and more specifically, it provides "... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. ..."Ron knew that "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" is established by the U.S. Constitution which documents the principles representing that "consent" within which government is authorized to exercise its limited "just powers." Thus, the U.S. Constitution is the standard-bearer under which government is authorized to act in serving the people.The problem at hand is the willful refusal of the judiciary to act according to the Constitution; and further, the failure of government generally to remedy the problem. Thus, the judicial branch of government, aided and abetted by the executive and legislative branches, has become "destructive of these ends" leaving it to the responsibility of the people "to alter or abolish" the offending form of government.The problem is not based on the "form of government" (the judicial branch) itself, but on the unconstitutional operation of its actors-- the judges. Therefore it isn't necessary for the people to "abolish" or "institute new government," or to "throw off such government," but to "provide new guards" over the offenders for our future security. J.A.I.L. is that "new guard" by the people for their future security. J.A.I.L. is an oversight operation of the judiciary by the people, to hold judges accountable under constitutional mandates whenever they pervert their obligation.Judges must be "leashed" by the people to prevent abuse of judicial power. J.A.I.L. will be that "leash" which will not restrain lawful judicial performance.J.A.I.L.'s mission, taken from the Mission Statement, is:
If any proposal for judicial accountability does not meet the above criteria, then it isn't J.A.I.L. J.A.I.L. must remain specific and focused on its objectives. J.A.I.L. cannot be compromised!-Barbie- Assistant toRonald Branson, Author/Founder
- To create a forum in which to hold judges accountable to the people under constitutional standards.
- To stop the abuse of "judicial immunity" by the judiciary.
- To provide a remedy that will ensure the people of the availability of redress of grievances in our courts.
- To be autonomous and independent of government.
- To not change laws on the books or the judicial system as currently structured.
- To act only when the judicial system has failed in its constitutional responsibilities after the exhaustion of all available judicial remedies.
- To achieve its mission through non-violent means.
J.A.I.L. is an acronym for Judicial Accountability Initiative Law
JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org
JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
JAIL is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire!
JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability!
JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
To subscribe or be removed: add-remove-jail@...
E-Groups sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Open forum to make your voice heard JAIL-SoundOff@egroups.com
Ask not what J.A.I.L. can do for me, but ask what I can do for J.A.I.L."..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 <><