*** J.A.I.L. Is Very Simple and Very Limited ***
- J.A.I.L. News Journal
Los Angeles, California January 21, 2006 ______________________________________________________The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform Abusive GovernmentThe Right Upon Which All Other Rights Depend
The Torchbearer for J.A.I.L. Nationally - Support Them!P.O. Box 412, Tea, S.D. 57064 - (605) 231-1418J.A.I.L. Is Very Simpleand Very LimitedNO JUDGE WILL BE SUBJECT TO SUITIF THE JUDGE FOLLOWS THE LAW1. J.A.I.L. is limited to when it may act"[N]o complaint of misconduct shall be considered by the Special Grand Jury unless the complainant shall have first attempted to exhaust all judicial remedies available in this State within the immediately preceding six-month period." ¶11.This provision shows that J.A.I.L. will not interfere with the system. The People will allow the system to work as it should, all the way through to final exhaustion of all available judicial remedies. It is not the intention of J.A.I.L. to disrupt the regular operation of the established judicial function. J.A.I.L. will in no way undermine the operation of the judicial system.J.A.I.L. will have no jurisdiction to act until the system is entirely finished with a case, through all possible appeals, reviews, and other available proceedings in the final state court (or review by the U.S. Supreme Court if that option is taken) that can take remedial action. It is only after the system has done everything it intends to do to provide a remedy that a complaint may be filed with the Special Grand Jury for its examination.There are two exceptions to the "exhaustion" requirement which are set forth in paragraphs 17 (Criminal Procedures) and 22 (Challenges to this Amendment).¶17: "In addition to any other provisions of this Amendment, a complaint for criminal conduct against a judge may be brought directly to the Special Grand Jury, when all of the following conditions have been met: (1) an affidavit or declaration of criminal conduct has been lodged with the appropriate prosecutorial entity within ninety days of the commission of the alleged crime; (2) the prosecutor declines to prosecute, or one hundred twenty days has passed following the lodging of such affidavit or declaration, and prosecution has not commenced; (3) an indictment, if sought, has not been specifically declined on the merits by a county Grand Jury; and (4) the criminal statute of limitations has not run. ..."Here again, before J.A.I.L. has jurisdiction to examine a criminal matter, the People allow ample time for the system to work first, before the Special Grand Jury may act. J.A.I.L. neither disrupts nor undermines the prosecutorial operations of the system. Only after the system fails to act does J.A.I.L. become involved, and not before.¶22: "No judge under the jurisdiction of the Special Grand Jury, or potentially affected by the outcome of a challenge [to this Amendment], shall have any jurisdiction to sit in judgment of such challenge. Such pretended adjudication shall be null and void for all purposes and a complaint for such misconduct may be brought at any time, without charge, before the Special Grand Jury by class action, or by any adversely affected person."Of course, no exhaustion requirement is needed regarding any challenges to the J.A.I.L. Amendment as specified.In summary, J.A.I.L. is limited to participate only after the system allegedly fails to provide a remedy for the People under its own prescribed processes and procedures.2. J.A.I.L. is limited to what it may act uponOnly any of the following alleged violations will trigger J.A.I.L. action: (See ¶2)
Only for any of those seven strict violations of procedure, and no others, will judges be subject to civil suit without the shield of judicial immunity, i.e., judges will be held accountable only for any acts involving those seven procedural violations. Those seven violations are ways in which judges refuse to provide a judicial remedy to which the People are entitled by law.Please note that it has nothing to do with "liking" or "not liking" a decision-- it is strictly a matter of law! Accordingly, J.A.I.L. will enhance the "independence of the judiciary" by forcing judges to rule pursuant to law and not in response to pressure from individuals, or from the system.Put in another light, ask yourselves the following questions:
- Any 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
- Any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of South Dakota or the United States
The only ones who would answer "yes" to any of those questions are the tyrants themselves, and tyrant-sympathizers. For more than a century, judges have been allowed to do all of the above with impunity. The tyrants and their sympathizers refer to this as "settled law in the United States" which J.A.I.L. "will overturn." The only thing J.A.I.L. will overturn is TYRANNY!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~The People's rights are violated every day in courts across this nation. South Dakota is no exception. Under what the tyrant-sympathizers refer to as "settled law in the United States" judges are allowed to commit the violations listed above with impunity because of the routine abuse of judicial immunity which blocks the People's right to redress of grievances, and thus denies them the judicial remedy to which they are entitled as a matter of law. This practice amounts to nothing less than tyranny and despotism.Yes, the century of "settled law in the United States" claimed by the tyrant-sympathizers (whether the legislators, lawyers, the Bar Association, or anyone else so inclined) is TYRANNY-- pure and not-so-simple. That is what the People of South Dakota want overturned through J.A.I.L. It is their right-- it is their duty to do so!PLEASE BE SO ADVISED!-Barbie-Ron BransonAuthor/Founder
- Should a judge be allowed to deliberately violate the law with impunity?
- Should a judge be allowed to commit fraud or conspiracy with impunity?
- Should a judge be allowed to intentionally violate due process of law with impunity?
- Should a judge be allowed to disregard material facts of a case with impunity?
- Should a judge be allowed to commit judicial acts without jurisdiction with impunity?
- Should a judge be allowed to block a lawful conclusion of a case, i.e., commit any act that impedes such a conclusion, including but not limited to, unreasonable delay and willful rendering of an unlawful or void judgment or order, with impunity?
- Should a judge be allowed to deliberately violate the Constitutions of South Dakota or the United States with impunity?
J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
Contribute to J.A.I.L. at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
See our active flash, http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm
JAIL is a unique addition to our form of gov't. heretofore unrealized.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USAemail@example.com
To be added or removed, write to VictoryUSA@...
Your help is needed: www.SouthDakotaJudicialAccountability.com
"..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 <><