Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

J.A.I.L. Under Attack By The "Democracy Defined" Campaign

Expand Messages
  • Ron Branson, Author/Founder of J.A.I.L.
    J.A.I.L. Under Attack By The Democracy Defined Campaign By Ron Branson It is a faithful saying that no army wastes their ammunition firing at corpses,
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 20, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
       
      J.A.I.L. Under Attack By The
      "Democracy Defined" Campaign
      By Ron Branson
       
       
      It is a faithful saying that no army wastes their ammunition firing at corpses, but rather focus their attention at targets that present a threat to their agenda. Below, the "Democracy Defined" Organization turns its cross hairs upon J.A.I.L. in a meager attempt to denigrate and undermine its call for Judicial Accountability. And no wonder, as the organization claims to have the support and endorsement of academics, attorneys, doctors, and judges.
       
      If we are to believe their argument, J.A.I.L. fails and/or refuses to consider the power of the jury, and seeks to undermine the jury system. Hmmm, was that not the propagandized message of the officials to the electorate of South Dakota that J.A.I.L.'s purpose was to seek to release felons from prison to go after the jurors that put them in prison? They even boasted that this byline worked very well, and that 86% of the population of South Dakota was against this objective sought by South Dakota J.A.I.L. in Amendment E.
       
      Whoever wrote the below seems somehow to have a personal vendetta against "Ron Branson" who is misleading the nation and all of his "followers." Branson is presented as a blind leader of the blind seeking to deceive people who have no independent ability to read or decide anything for themselves. But, of course, I say, what else would you expect from a hit-piece endorsed by attorneys and judges?
       
      The below has been received by our Alabama JAILer-In-Chief Harold Sorenson who forwarded it on to J.A.I.L. Headquarters. It is my opinion the objective is to give magical powers to the mere mention of the words "Common Law," which by its mere mention will topple tyrants and bring justice to this country.
       
      My question is, if "Common Law" is the answer, which has existed since the inception of our country, how is it that we have gotten into our current messed-up state of affairs? Sure, I obviously believe in the power of the jury system, and have been preaching so since 1980, which is before most current jury organization advocates today existed. Over the period of the years of preaching this, I found that judges have purposely and successfully convinced the sheeple juries that they must obey the law as interpreted to them by the judges. Further, judges make sure the juries only view the "facts" by tunnel vision, like looking through a fixed-position pipe and asking the jurors what they see on the other end.
       
      There is a fanciful view today that law solves all problems. If something is wrong, just write another law. Hence, the well-known adage, "There otta be a law." But the problem with our country is not the lack of laws, but the lack of enforcement. This is something that ink on a sheet of paper and bound in a book some place on a shelf cannot and will never cure. It takes the real live participation of citizens having the powers of an independent Grand Jury to resolve this problem. There is nothing else in this country that will bring about a remedy, as I have said a thousand times, "J.A.I.L. is the only answer!" The following words are those of The Democracy Defined Campaign. 
       
      -Ron Branson
       
       
      *   *   *
       
       
      The Democracy Defined Campaign Philosophy is endorsed by academics, attorneys,
      doctors (of jurisprudence, medicine, homeopathy, philosophy, etc.) and judges (U.S. & U.K.).  (Standard English Spelling)  .....
       
       
      The "Judicial Accountability Initiative Law" (JAIL)
      And Its Associated Campaign Activities Are Counterproductive.
       
      It is especially pernicious when organisations which are (apparently) independent of the state, claiming to be campaigning on behalf of the people's right to proper justice, also spread wrong ideas which lead the people astray about the Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury; and entrench the dupes' ignorance by encouraging them to put their hopes, energy and resources into a counterfeit 'campaign'. As Members, you will see how it becomes necessary to react to such organised misinformation.
       
      This circular draws your attention to the negative aspects of the so-called "J.A.I.L. organisation." The 'message' propagated by JAIL is based on a misapprehension (or malevolence) about the constitutional justice system.
       
      Appraisal (which follows) of JAIL's proposals reveals that they would merely prolong and entrench the already appalling present situation; and that the miseducation about common law and Trial by Jury (implicit) in JAIL's message is not merely incorrect, it is against the letter, purpose, and spirit of the Constitution. Further negative aspects characterise the JAIL campaign. 
       
      As Restoration Activists, we propose that Members -- and all supporters of liberty, justice and the constitution -- take action to warn others about JAIL; and circulate widely to family, friends, home, school, work, office, farm, factory and media, the educational information provided herein (which you can refer to or copy) to minimise the damage being done by 'JAIL'. If you wish, you can forward this e-mail for that purpose.
       
      Although JAIL is deeply flawed and for this reason likely to disappear, it unfortunately cannot be entirely ignored at this stage for two reasons.
       
      (1) Considerable energy is invested by Branson into spreading his brand of disinformation. He miseducates everyone who is susceptible to his specious hollow deceptions.
       
      One must take seriously the fact that some people, perhaps many, are recipients of this miseducation by which harmful social inaction is engendered and despair intensified.
       
      In ignorance of the People's common law, hearty campaigners keen to fight judicial injustice are led astray to expend their talents on JAIL's counterproductive 'mission'. Having exhausted their enthusiasm and wasted their time and money on a redundant idea, well-intentioned people become a spent force as campaigners, and submit in quiet acquiescence to the Illegality of the Status Quo. (This was well described in an e-mail circulated by Dwight Callaway.)
       
      In contrast to Branson's debilitating misinterpretations and notions, the real common law governing these matters empowers and stimulates people. When citizens acquire knowledge of their law and history; their individual judicial responsibility and sovereignty as juror to judge the law and every act of enforcement over the instructions of courts (judges); and understanding of how our forebears arranged society in this way for the benefit of All the People (not for the sole benefit of the government-corporate-financial complex), then people are inspired to become active and dutiful in protection of each other, their inherent rights and the supreme law that is their irrevocable Constitution.

      Consider U.S. Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone on the Juror's Duty, as follows:

      "If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal offence is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant's natural God-given unalienable or Constitutional rights, then it is his duty to affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is no crime at all, for no one is bound to obey an unjust law."

      "That juror must vote Not Guilty regardless of the pressures or abuses that may be heaped on him by any or all members of the jury with whom he may in good conscience disagree. He is voting on the justice of the law according to his own conscience and convictions and not someone else's. The law itself is on trial quite as much as the case which is to be decided."
      U.S. Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone, 1941-1946.
      (Emphases added.)

      Aware people are repelled by corrupt Western governments' disregard for the supremacy of the people's common law Trial by Jury and the antidemocratic stance of (almost) all of today's politicians and judiciary. The common law, of which Trial by Jury is the central tenet and sole justice system, is the secular source of the compassionate beneficent attributes of (our) culture, heritage and civilisation. Reversion to common law is itself also the only means by which these can be restored.
       
      (2) If he was forgivably in ignorance before, Branson is no longer. He has received polite approaches from people who have shown him the flaws in his ideas and suggested to him privately that he could remain a campaigner but change course and adopt the facts, logic, history and reasoned arguments provided by the common law constitutional justice system: Trial by Jury. That would indeed be a worthy cause in which to put his energy. Yet, he does not reply to such e-mails and ignores advocation of the common law.
       
      Whereas previously he could claim to have been merely in ignorance, he is now in deliberate opposition. His ongoing promulgation of misinformation has evolved into the category of malevolent propaganda. By stubbornly failing to acknowledge the law, and the constitutionally provided solution to the massive injustices inflicted by the judiciary, Branson has become part of the problem which he would have us believe he and his followers campaign against. He is working for the tyrants, not against them. 
       
      Owing to Branson's dispersal of completely wrong ideas about the judiciary in regard to the constitutional justice system, it has become necessary for us to circulate this info. Set out below are matters which relate to the 'JAIL' and a (brief) explanation of how all causes (lawsuits) are correctly processed according to custom and law, which exposes the catastrophic malaise in the present system. This also shows the constitutionally correct prescribed  rôle of the judiciary in litigation.
       
      Take your time to read and assimilate the info. It will be familiar to most of us. By taking positive actions to mitigate the bad influence of that organisation, we Restoration Campaign Members shall simultaneously be educating people about Trial by Jury in the Cause of the People's Liberty and Justice.
       
      If you are in the U.S., or have friends or contacts in the U.S., then they would be obvious targets for receipt of Democracy Defined Campaign information which exposes the incorrectitudes of JAIL. However, JAIL spreads its disinformation everywhere by the Internet. Therefore, people anywhere should be recipients of the facts and philosophy which refute JAIL's ideas, dissolve this problem, and bring useful knowledge about common law Trial by Jury into their lives.
       
      The People's Rule of Law.
       
      Let us bear in mind that all hope for a just rule of law evaporates whenever judges are allowed to perform in any way other than that which is limited by the people's common law.
       
      The Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury Justice System endows the Juror with power to judge the justice of every act of law enforcement, and to render the Not Guilty Verdict whenever conviction or punishment of the accused would be unfair, according to the juror's conscience.

      "If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognise the undisputed power of the jury to acquit even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence."

      "If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision."
      U.S. v Moylan. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, 1969.

      Common law and Trial by Jury, as inserted into The Constitution, derive from conscience, the universal sense of fairness, natural law and justice. From the sense of fairness flows a precept often referred to as "do-as-you-would-be-done-by." The common law adopted into The Constitution contains no statutes of government, and no precedent or rulings by judges.
      See Democracy Defined Essay EIS#10, "We the People and the Matter of Words."
       
      Common law applies everywhere without exception and, in protecting all men and women equally, it transcends race, nationality, gender, religion and background.
       
      Restoration of the common law governing Trial by Jury reimposes the Constitution's constraints on  government. This would prevent government from abusing its powers, tyrannising the population, and breaching the Constitution. (Government is comprised of the executive, legislature and the judiciary.)
      The Juror's Duties (delineated below) comprise the essential functions of Trial by Jury -- and form the irreplaceable constitutional barrier preventive of arbitrary (i.e. unfair; tyrannical) government.
       
      According to common law and constitution, the ultimate judicial power and decisions are never to be vested in the hands of one person -- the 'judge'. The Constitutional Trial by Jury intentionally removes from judges the power to do injustices in the first place. The Jury is invested with the duty, right and power to protect the population from arbitrary laws and unjust acts of enforcement.
       
      One can refer to the Democracy Defined website Campaign Philosophy (Page 2) apropos of The Penn and Mead Experience and the wording of the Old Bailey Commemorative Plaque which celebrates the ascendancy of the Juror as the sovereign supreme arbiter of justice, over the judges.
       
      This webpage also reminds people how, not only by moral obligation but also under pain of penalisation, according to national and modern international laws, citizens, politicians and state employees are bound to judge the justice of the laws and all acts of their enforcement; cf. the Nuremberg [Nürnburg] Precedent.
       
      Yours sincerely,
      Kenn.
      ~
      Here is some information about 'JAIL' to which you can give your consideration. You can also visit their websites and review the material.
      Ron Branson is founder and director. We discern this 'JAIL' campaign to be against the public good, principally (but not only) because, while proposing his "judicial accountability initiative law" (i.e. JAIL)...
       
      ...Branson explicitly misinforms people about the rôle of judges in society, implicitly and incorrectly derogating the effectiveness, and detrimentally demoting the primacy, of the Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury Justice System.
       
      Apparently, Branson does not grasp that common law Trial by Jury is the ideal, tried and tested means by which despotic government measures are curtailed. Instead, Branson prays at the feet of judges... that is to say, he imprudently pays the judiciary unmerited deference. He concedes to judges the Jurors' duties and constitutional power; the functions which define the Trial as being BY JURY. These are the very powers by which the Jurors are enabled to fulfil their duty to protect the citizen from injustice; and the same powers which politicians and judiciary today illegally misappropriate from Jurors.
       
      Whether from ignorance or by design, and against the common law and Constitution, Branson's 'message' entrenches and prolongs the problem by allowing judges to retain the unlawful powers which they use today to terrorise the population, ruin lives and careers, dispossess citizens of their property, incarcerate innocent people (of no mens rea) in their hundreds of thousands, and tear families asunder.
       
      Instead of recognising and promoting the Constitution's Trial by Jury barrier to prevent such atrocities from happening in the first place, Branson proposes the setting up of "special grand juries," ostensibly to try to repair the damage after the event -- but prevention is better than cure! -- and Trial by Jury is prevention.
       
      Realistically, the only way to prevent injustice by judges entails the utter and complete removal of the powers by which those acts can be perpetrated -- and this is what is indeed achieved by "judicium parium suorum": the judgement of pares (or peers, social equals) that is the unique tribunal known as the Trial by Jury. This is what our Constitutions emplace.
       
      JAIL's technically incorrect concession of inappropriate powers to judges implies and encourages the use of those powers. There is little, if any, deterrent against the injustices of the mighty and the powerful in the 'threat' that they might undergo investigation and indictment for their malfeasance. The laws prohibiting acts of injustice, and the existence of tribunals for their enforcement, do not of themselves deter and prevent wrongdoing. Even common criminals generally believe they will "get away with it," otherwise they would not commit the act. So, arrant judges, evil men and women, the servants of tyrants with the power of the state behind them, are even less likely to be intimidated into behaviour which upholds the natural and common laws of justice.
       
      Although J.A.I.L. claims to aim to "prevent" acts of judicial malfeasance, it can do no such thing. If Branson were truly hoping to achieve an improved justice system, he would realise that it cannot be attained by the method which he proposes (i.e. the 'judicial accountability initiative law'). At best, in theory, in some cases perhaps special juries may effect a measure of repair to the damage after it has already been done; but they cannot "prevent" it.
       
      Furthermore, as with civil security forces (police) and judges, wherever these "special juries" are established for a period of time and the identities of the participants are publicly known, they become targets for contamination, bribery, intimidation and subject to human fallibility and corruption (as the present-day judiciary is). These negative factors are completely avoided by restoring the Constitutional Trial by Jury.
       
      Note that the common law governing random selection of Jurors (to represent all views in society and protect minorities) prevents their identity from being known to the contesting parties until the Jurors enter the jury-box, and then segregates Jurors from all public contact, contamination and tampering. This proffers the secure system for which the Democracy Defined Restoration Campaign strives. Like so much else, this part of common law governing Trial by Jury is today flouted by court maladministration, voir dire and judges.
       
      JAIL offers no improvement to the Illegality of the Status Quo. Again, at best, JAIL offers merely the bandage on a wound from which the afflicted citizen would have been protected in the first place by the Trial by Jury.
       
      Branson's idea is a witless failure to understand how the Constitution's Trial by Jury operates to prevent all injustices by judges.
      The JAIL proposals for 'reform' are devoid of sense (unless their adherents deviously want to perpetuate the tyranny by governments' judges) because JAIL would actually allow judges the unconstitutional courtroom power by which they nowadays intervene and deny the supreme judicial functions of the Juror.

      Branson's ideas ignore the common law which governs the modus operandi of 'the judiciary'. He miseducates people by obfuscating the paramount power of jurisprudence of Citizen-Juries in society. Authentic common law Trial by Jury renders redundant the Branson 'initiative'. With Trial by Jury in operation, no new 'judicial accountability initiative law' is necessary -- and certainly not this one.

      Ron Branson should desist from his inept deleterious campaign. On reviewing his website proposals of judicial 'reform', people see that anyway, these ideas are merely the ludicrous expression of a misguided imagination, the product of ignorance, vanity, or sheer delusion.

      Branson imagines the following to be his vital 'reforms' but the "special grand jury" investigations would founder, for the irony is that, apart from item 4, the judiciary would claim most emphatically that they already function in this manner... As for item 4, they would claim this to be unnecessary as the litigant can go to appeal...
      1. Address all facts presented by the complaining party according to the evidence shown on the record.
      2. Consider opposing facts and evidence as against, and relating to, that of the complaining or moving party (not just arbitrarily superseding plaintiff's facts and evidence).
      3. Apply the appropriate law to the facts determined to be relevant and material to the case according to the evidence of record (considering all evidence of both sides without partiality or bias).
      4. Submit written findings of fact and conclusions of law in all actions and proceedings -- including a written explanation for motion dispositions -- legally to support the judicial decision reached.
      5. Bring the case to a lawful conclusion in a timely fashion as specified by law.
      Note that these proposals would in fact only reinforce the present unconstitutional and illegal system operating today. They do nothing at all to improve the Justice System, let alone provide the barrier to tyranny which is achieved by the true Trial by Jury in which 'judges' functions are strictly limited.
       
      What is required is not further statute law and investigations and enquiries ex post facto [after the act has taken place], but reversion to the people's common law system by which these injustices wreaked by judges are precluded.

      In any case, under the common law justice system every citizen has recourse to lay a plaint with prima facie evidence before a discreet citizens' grand jury for the rectification of wrongs derived from any source; and to progress thence to petit Trial by Jury. So, there is nothing "new" in grand juries.

      The JAIL 'juries', however, are susceptible and vulnerable, for, unlike the proper common law grand juries which are convened ad hoc once only, for one issue, the JAIL 'jury' is a publicly established board which becomes a target as described above.

      Under the common law Trial by Jury, judges are prevented from perpetrating their injustices, because the judges are convenors, and their rôle is not judicial.

      In a dismal contrast, Branson's idea fatally elevates judges into the wrong position, destroying the people's Trial by Jury process. This breaches the Constitution and actually promotes the activities of crime, corruption and oppression which he purports to be against.

      It is the Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury which strips judges of the judicial decisions. Branson should be repeatedly taught and told his proposals are counterproductive. JAIL must be cast aside and overridden: let the common law be known to all.

      The superior, just system is the traditional, proven Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury; Juries Grand and Petit; and the Citizen's rightful access to free due process of law by the Trial by Jury for all causes, civil, criminal and fiscal.

       

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.