Cornering The Government
Why Don't Judicial Reformers Side With J.A.I.L.?Cornering The GovernmentBy Loma Wharton - Oregon hairpiggie@...From: LOMA WHARTON [mailto:hairpiggie@...]
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 7:46 AM
Subject: Re: Why Don't Judicial Reformers Side With J.A.I.L.?Hi Ron, thank you. Stay Tuned. We are going to default the Board of Commissioners and bring this out into public eye. Not sure if you have our web site, but take a look at it and share it with your list. www.theliberators11.org. Lom----- Original Message -----From: JAIL4JudgesTo: LOMA WHARTONSent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 12:56 AMSubject: RE: Why Don't Judicial Reformers Side With J.A.I.L.?God bless you, and thank you, Loma. You are a joy to my soul. - Ron
From: LOMA WHARTON [mailto:hairpiggie@...]
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:40 AM
Subject: Re: Why Don't Judicial Reformers Side With J.A.I.L.?It is really because of commerce and privatizing governments, our County of Douglas Oregon became a private business in 1955 and is listed on Dunn & BradStreet with our commissioners as the executives for the county.Loma Wharton
Chairperson The Liberators 11 for the Public Interest
Oregon Lawmen Coordinator
NO DIRECT UN-APPORTIONED TAX CONFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT - Chas. C. Steward Mach. Co. v David, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582(1937)
....Ron Branson's ResponseLoma, I am pleased to see you, and those with you, fighting the powers that be and exposing them. You have asked me to share your experience with the JAILers. Along with your experience, I am also sharing my similar experiences along the same line as yours, which will be of interest to all.13 year ago I defaulted the City of Los Angeles for $13,200,000 (13 million dollars) in the Los Angeles Superior Court in front of Judge Alan B. Haber. The Government Code, in conjunction with the California Constitution, Art. 6, Sec. 19, states that a judge has but 90 days in which to render a Default Judgment against the defaulting defendants.What the judge did was first submit the matter for default judgment in my presence, followed by unilaterally "unsubmitting" the matter for default judgment out of my presence, and then the entire file disappeared from the court records, which hints that a felony charge was at play which law provides such charges for anyone caught monkeying around with court files or removing them from the court building. Not even my state Legislator could call up the file to observe what was happening. I then took the matter to the Chief Counsel for the California State Legislature, and he stated that he had never seen anything like what was happening in the Branson v. City of Los Angeles Case. Notwithstanding that fact, it became obvious that the Legislature deemed the matter too hot for them to handle inasmuch as they would have to indict the entire judicial system in California because the California judges got involved in the cover-up from the bottom all the way to top.Even though the law written by the Legislature is quite clear, the problem was that the entire judicial system in California was "suspending" the default statute in the Branson Case. I "appealed" the case by way of a Writ of Mandate arguing that I had no remedy by appeal of a non-judgment even though the law provided for a judgment. I argued that I was being blocked from a judgment of default even though the judge submitted the matter for such judgment. According to law, it was due within 90 days of his submission. The Appellate Court, without hesitation, hastily denied the Writ ignoring the law law that mandates they must intercede when a case is finished and a judgment is due but not forthcoming. The reasoning is that there cannot exist litigation in which there can be no conclusion. But this is exactly what was happening.I then became cynical with the Legislature and compelled them to repeal the default statute Code of Civil Procedure 585(b), because it was worthless. Here we have the California Legislature standing by watching California judges defy their Code which they had expressly passed aimed directly at the judges, and none other. I argued, "Why have a law encumbering the books aimed at judges, when they are the very ones who are allowed to ignore it with impunity? Are judges immune from laws passed by the Legislature? It is therefore a useless statute!" I even offered to rewrite 585(b) for them to make it enforceable by writing in a provision that whenever a judge fails or refuses to adhere to the law of 585(b), the default clerk shall enter a judgment on his behalf against all the defendants in the case for the full amount pled for in the complaint, which in my case was $13,620,000. They were not amused and thought my proposal was preposterous. Of course, my position was that it was preposterous for them to legislate laws compelling the obedience of judges, which are in reality designed to deceive the public into believing it was the law of the State of California. In fact, I even got to the point of asking why Californians need a Legislature that writes bogus laws that are there only for the purpose of appearance and deception. When this came to the ears of my own personal state senator, the phone was slammed down in my ear and the office refused to talk with me. I now ask, where is my right under the Constitution to petition my legislator for redress of grievance? I was left without a representative in California.The Branson Default Case continued to the State Supreme Court, and then on to the U.S. Supreme Court. Thereafter I filed the case in the federal court in Los Angeles, and then on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, in which they came up with a marvellous idea, and said, "Branson just doesn't like the judge's decision." I offered the three Ninth Circuit judges $5,000 each if they would only show me a copy of the "judgment I did not like" since the case was about the lack of a judgment.Ordinarily, such offer could be classified as judicial bribery, however, they could not charge me thusly because it would have exposed them as they were the ones claiming such judgment existed, and therefore the burden shifted to them. (No one can prove a negative, therefore the burden was upon them to prove their affirmative position that the judge had indeed entered a default judgment I just did not like.)The case then went up the second time, but this time from the Ninth Circuit, to the U.S. Supreme Court in which I received a second denial. So, yes, I won my case, but the courts all the way from the bottom to the top say "So what, just try and get a judgment from us!" I proved that not only was the Legislature worthless, but so also was the courts. I commented to someone, America would be better off if we had no courts in this country. The response I got was, "We would then have anarchy in this country if we had no courts." Ah, yes, thank God we have courts to keep this country on the straight and narrow way! Behold, this is why I have long contended that every evil way in this country has the fingerprints of the judges upon it.So the Branson v. the City of Los Angeles Case lays dormant without a default judgment although every law on the book mandates every case be brought to a final conclusion. It awaits the passage of J.A.I.L., after which I may go directly to the Special Grand Jury on the first day it becomes operational, no matter when that may be, in which I may then place the entire California judiciary on the hot seat for willfully violating California Law and the Constitution.J.A.I.L. will corner all these judges which will in turn force all the judges to corner all the government, for without J.A.I.L. all governments will run roughshod over the People in unaccountability."Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."— Frederick Douglass, Aug. 4, 1857God bless you, Loma.-Ron Branson----- Original Message -----From: JAIL4JudgesSent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 11:21 PMSubject: Why Don't Judicial Reformers Side With J.A.I.L.?Why Don't Judicial Reformers SideWith J.A.I.L.?By Jim HendersonFrom: JCHMB@... [mailto:JCHMB@...]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: Ron Branson in the TV News Again
I just don't understand it. There are SO many people in the media saying our judicial system is broke - Bill O'Reilly and Michael Savage come to mind. Why can't we get them on our side?
Half Moon Bay, CA
God bless you, Jim. I have been at this for thirteen years, and I have found that most of these sweet-talkers regarding Judicial Reform are just that, sweet-talkers. Remember, "If it doesn't make sense, it is making dollars." I can say with knowledge that Bill O'Reily has exhibited the behavior of blocking the advancement of JAIL4Judges while pretending to support judicial reform.Attorney Gary Zerman was cut off the O'Reily show when Gary became persuasive regarding evidence of the need for judicial accountability, and by cutting Gary off mid-stream, he made it appear to the audience that Gary could not answer O'Reily. It made Gary very mad.Also, Ken and John tried to make me look like I did not know what I was talking about in front of their radio audience by machine-gun pelting me with rapid fire questions and not allowing me to address their questions. Finally they pulled the plug on me in less than five minutes when they found they could not corner me and make me look like a fool. It was a total insult after contacting me and "inviting" me on their radio program so the public could "hear" my side of the story.I could say more, however, I have found that I must keep my concentration upon advancing truth rather than taking up my time to blast these fakes. I've gotten used to the abuse.- RonVicrtoryUSA@...