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

Seeking A Remedy

Expand Messages
  • JAIL4Judges
    Dear Don Rufty, you have requested to know if the below is an accurate summary of J.A.I.L. I shall endeavor to answer your request within your below
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 10, 2008
      Dear Don Rufty, you have requested to know if the below is an accurate summary of J.A.I.L.  I shall endeavor to answer your request within your below paragraphs in color.  God bless.  - Ron Branson

      From: DonRufty@... [mailto:DonRufty@...]
      Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 7:06 AM
      To: JAIL4Judges
      Subject: Fwd: Strategizing Re: [AMOJ_MAIN] Attorney David Limbaugh ADMITS some JUDGES...

          Is this an accurate summary?
              Don Rufty
      In a message dated 3/5/2008 11:03:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, jrogins@... writes:
      The disagreements over what needs to be done come from the lack of
      understanding of the problem.   That is why I want to try and arrive at
      an agreement on the nature of the problem we face.  If and when we do
      it, the identification of the solutions will be made easier.  

      For over ten years an organization with which most of you are familiar,
      JAIL4JUDGES  ("J4J"), attempted (not sure still is) to pass a so-called
      Judicial Accountability Initiative(?) Legislation ("JAIL") as a ballot
      initiative.  JAIL would permit suits by alleged victims of judicial malice
      against the alleged culprit judges where the claimants have established
      a prima facie case of judicial malice before the special grand juries,
      likewise created and empowered by JAIL.    
      The criteria of J.A.I.L. is not malice, but rather willful violations of the law. See paragraph 2 of the J.A.I.L. Initiative.

      After considerable tries, J4J succeeded at putting its initiative on the
      ballots for the Year 2006 in South Dakota ("SD"), a state of small population,
      which made the task of signature gathering achievable.    Those who
      followed what happened thereafter could attest that the State Bar,
      the Attorney General's office,  the media, even "Justice" O'Connor
      brutally attacked JAIL, J4J and its leader, Ron Branson, claiming
      the organization was a bunch out-of-staters coming to cause havoc
      in SD.  They completely misrepresented the essence of JAIL and
      claimed disastrous consequences would ensue if JAIL were passed.
      The media campaign was in large part underwritten by SD banks!!! 
      The SD Attorney General (if I remember correctly) threatened that
      if JAIL passed, his office would immediately file a court challenge to
      it on constitutional grounds.  At the voting places the South Dakotas
      received a printed message that blatantly misrepresented the nature
      of JAIL and employed scare tactics.   JAIL was "soundly defeated"
      in SD at the ballot box.   
      The signatures gathered in South Dakota were gathered by South Dakotans whom we hired for that purpose at the rate of $2.56 each. Despite this fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that while non-citizens of other states may not sign the ballot they circulate, gathering signatures for a ballot measure is a First Amendment right. Therefore, the argument made by the state of South Dakota is purely mute, as they too are bound by Oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution!

      QUESTION:  1)  What if anything does this example teach us about
      the nature of the problem we are facing in trying to bring about judicial
      accountability and the forces in opposition to us in this regard? 

      Jacob Roginsky
      P.S.  Based on my understanding of the problem that we face, I  had predicted 
      perfectly what happened in SD, namely that JAIL would be attacked and
      misrepresented by the state government, the lawyer interests, the media, and
      the corporations, and would be challenged in court if it by a miracle survived
      the attacks and misrepresentations, which it did not. 
      What I have learned as a result of the South Dakota experience is that when dealing with the government, they are not playing with a full deck.  It is not a contest of "may the best man win," but rather, "our guns are bigger than yours."  I was mistaken in presuming that all fifty states provided a voter's guide to all the voters so that they would know exactly what they were voting for. This is the way we do it in California. In South Dakota, everyone must trust the representation made by the Attorney General.  This is a pure conflict of interest in that the Attorney General is the official attorney representing all of the judges in the state when judges face a legal confrontation by the people.  It is like the attorney for the other side sitting on the bench adjudicating the dispute.

      Jonathon Moseley wrote:

      Okay, with complete sincerety and agreement, how do we start? 

      I would imagine that mapping out where the problems are (where the enemy forces are deployed like in battle planning) might help locate their weakest spots.

      I think it is obvious to me so far that direct action educating and mobilizing the public has the virtue of not depending on anyone else to assist us and not allowin anyone else to block us.

      My concern, again, is that by trying to find "the one and only" root cause of the problem and "the one and only" solution we set ourselves up for debating each other endlessly to decide which is the "ONLY" root cause and action item.  I just don't want to see us going around and around endlessly trying to find "only one" real problem, when this may be an endless debate. 


      The chief problem in this country is the doctrine of judicial immunity "passed" into "law" by the judges themselves. Any other "remedy" that does not bear upon judicial immunity leads to frustration and spinning of wheels. Obviously, any "remedy" that does not curb judicial immunity will face judges deciding the validity of the matter while they are themselves protected by judicial immunity. It is like my request that I be granted a single wish in which I can have whatever I want. My wish will be that I will have unlimited wishes. Absolute power will always assure it retains absolute power forever.



      -----Original Message-----
      From: Jacob Roginsky
      Sent: Mar 4, 2008 9:21 PM
      To: AMOJ_MAIN@yahoogrou ps.com
      Subject: Re: [AMOJ_MAIN] Attorney David Limbaugh ADMITS some JUDGES BIASED

      If we are to make this an utmost productive discussion, we must be brief, to the point, and direct -- euphemisms and redundancies do not belong in such a

      Jonathan says. "... I think that these points can be made best by giving examples of what we should do instead of what we should not."  We need to talk about both,
      and I started doing that.  We need to talk about the things we should not do because we need to mobilize those who do such things for doing what we should do, and, in any event, quit distracting those of us who can do what we should be doing.

      What we should be doing, in my opinion  (as I already said), is first educate ourselves about the problem that we face, then strategize and create a plan of action, then act.   Until we understand the problem, we are not able to intelligently articulate solutions or understand the relevance of the solutions articulated by others.   This conversation is a good beginning,

      Jacob Roginsky 


      The Scriptures teach us in II Timothy 3:7, that people are "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."  Hosea 4:6 tell us, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee,"  

      This describes the patriot movement to a "T". Patriots will always be seeking a remedy, but never able to come unto the knowledge of the truth. God forbid they should stumble upon the truth and see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and lest they discover a remedy to the saving of this nation. So long as patriots behold "another" remedy, they shall pursue it, for wheresoever their treasure is, there will their heart be also.

      Jonathon Moseley wrote:

      On this, I completely agree.  We must plan for a strategy that does not depend upon the cooperation of anyone.

      I believe that if you hone our skills at dealing with the media (as with legal action) we maximize our chances of getting through.

      But Jacob is correct.  We cannot win by hoping that someone else will suddenly decide we are right and out of the goodness of their heart come to our rescue. 

      Plans that expect a journalist or a politician or anyone else to have a "Eureka" / light bulb moment and suddenly decide we are right are not likely to succeed.

      I have always said that  IF anyone else is going to help you it will be because it suits THEIR goals and interests, not because they suddenly see you as a shining example of goodness and light and are persuaded by your rhetoric.

      But I also agree with Jacob that the best plan of all is one that depends only on us.  If anyone else helps, great.  But if they don't, we are not blocked from further progress.

      However, I think that these points can be made best by giving examples of what we should do instead of what we should not.

      And I also think that this movement is paralyzed with disputing and trying to find "THE ONE" perfect solution.   Since there is merit in a great many possible actions, this (in my opinion) generates endless disputes. 

      It is one thing to say that Plan J is clearly the best.

      But to try to argue that Plans A through I, and K through Z are all "bad" is not sustainable or plausible.

      It is far easier to argue that Plan J is the best plan, than it is to plausibly say that all other plans are completely lacking in merit.  They may all be inferior to Plan J (for example) but they all may have appeal in their own way.

      Jon Moseley


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Jacob Roginsky
      Sent: Mar 4, 2008 9:34 PM
      To: AMOJ_MAIN@yahoogrou ps.com
      Subject: Re: [AMOJ_MAIN] Attorney David Limbaugh ADMITS some JUDGES BIASED

      The assumption on this list is that there is no point in 
      trying because no one in the media will be interested 
      or will report on these things.

      Maybe this is an assumption with some, not all.  There
      are people on this list who just do not get it, who think
      our problem with getting media coverage is a matter of
      bad luck, or a matter of our just having learned how to
      approach the media correctly. 

      I never claimed that we can't  get media coverage --
      AMOJ had some media coverage, including from
      Richmond Times Dispatch and FoxNews when we
      demonstrated in Richmond 5-6 years ago.   My position 
      is merely that we would not receive enough attention to
      reach the signal-to-noise ratio threshold, so that our
      message will have no lasting impact.   I am using the
      term "signal-to-noise ratio"  here notionally, and to
      that extent it applies here no less than the corresponding
      concept in signal processing.   

      I gather from some of the preceding posts that some folks are of the impression that I do not think we should do anything.
      Nothing could be further from the truth.  My only position
      in this regard is that we must stop wasting time on efforts
      whose success depends on the cooperation of the powers
      that be, the elites, and their media;  if such efforts target
      something of significance to us, we will receive no collaboration
      from them, because there our interests are adverse to their
      interests.   We need a much bigger vision. 

      Jacob Roginsky

      Jonathon Moseley wrote:

      The brother of Rush Limbaugh, an attorney, just admitted that some judges are biased and throw cases.


      The assumption on this list is that there is no point in trying because no one in the media will be interested or will report on these things.

      Here a columnist, brother of Rush Limbaugh, just published this (and off topic where he did not even need to say it in the column):

      It reminds me of certain jury trials I've witnessed where the trial judge was noticeably prejudiced against one side and projected his feelings -- in body language, words and attitude -- to the jury. The less-favored litigant had little chance. And it was outrageously improper.

      http://www.humaneve nts.com/article. php?id=25260!


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