Correcting The Record Re Grand Juries
- View Source
Correcting The Record Re Grand Juries
By Ron Branson – National J.A.I.L. CIC
Within our J.A.I.L. Organization we have much collective legal knowledge and many experienced attorneys, for which I thank God.
Albeit, not everything that is passed along by our knowledgeable friends is accurate. In such cases I am placed in the situation that I must either let it go as harmless error, or straighten out the record. In the following case, I have chosen the latter.
Below is an innocent error. The argument would be correct if it was a matter of practicality, i.e., if the law was respected. Since the law in this matter is not respected the entire premise, and therefore legal advice, is faulty and misleading.
One of my regrets in responding to this misconception is that it pre-empts an article I was going write on this same issue regarding our current Grand Jury system and the concomitant need for J.A.I.L..
First, I need to establish my authority to speak on this issue. There are a number of things in my early background that many of you just do not know about me as I have never talked about them. As you know from my writings over the years it is well established that I speak as an outsider of the system. But that does not mean I have never been recognized as somewhat of an “insider.”
To attest to this fact, I have known and was known of the highest leadership of the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, the largest D.A.’s Office in the nation, and I have personally transported in my own car two deputies to a patriot event, both of which afterwards became judges.
I have personally gained access and educated the Los Angeles County Grand Jurors, bring patriot books on jurors which I gave to them. I am known of the former second man in charge of the California State Attorney General’s Office. I am known of, and personally knew the former U.S. Attorney over seven counties here in central California . I am known of, and personally know a Ninth Circuit Judge whom I have educated at his desk prior to his appointment to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I personally know influential politicians who have said, “I hope you win,” but they are politicians who chose to remain anonymous. Even a nameless Los Angeles County judge called to tell me that I am on the right track, but I was told that I am not permitted to utter their name. D.A. deputies have called me to ask what they can do about a couple of Superior Court judges who were committing crimes and being protected by their collage judges with judicial immunity. Believe me, I have had years of experience, and know very well what I am talking about.
Below, Attorney Mark Adams gives the following advice to a JAILer. “While I respect the efforts that Ron Branson and J.A.I.L have made to raise awareness about judicial misconduct and the need for reform, I think that a new amendment is not necessary as the right to present evidence of criminal misconduct directly to a grand jury is a fundamental right of all free people to protect themselves…” This advice would be appropriate if the system worked, however the system does not work.
Yes, Mark is correct, we should be able to freely gain access to the Grand Jury, but we must deal with what is, and not with what we wish it to be. True, the secret of our freedom lies within the power of Grand Juries. But, the fact is, Grand Jurors are being barred by law passed by the Legislatures from investigating judges. Further, even if Grand Jurors could investigate and indict judges, they abide in pure ignorance not knowing what their duties are. The D.A. has high grade and personality plus deputies who sit in with the Grand Jurors and give them advice on how to vote. I know, I have been personally there with them sitting across the table from me as I spoke to and educated the Jurors. This, of course, presents a huge conflict of interest in that the Grand Jurors are supposed to be an adversarial citizen’s check upon the District Attorneys, but they aren’t.
Now here is why we must have J.A.I.L. without fail. J.A.I.L. requires prosecutors to seek an indictment from the Grand Jurors against the judges complained of. But California law tells the Grand Juror they may not investigate judges for wrong doing, that must investigation of judges must rest with the Commission on Judicial Performance. I know this from experience, for indeed I filed a complaint with the Grand Jury for criminal acts of a Los Angeles Judge. I received a letter from them telling me they had no jurisdiction to investigate judges. But J.A.I.L, when passed as a constitutional amendment, requires Grand Jurors to investigate and consider indictment of judges when a criminal affidavit is filed with the prosecutor. Yes, we realize the D.A. has a conflict of interest here, but the Constitution will now dictate his actions to seek an indictment even if he has a conflict of interest, and let the Grand Jurors decide the issue.
J.A.I.L. also handles another dilemma not often considered, and that is, even if the County Grand Jury does indict, the prosecution may very well refuse to prosecute, for after all, prosecutors have ultimate discretion on whether to prosecute and indicted judges, or anyone else. Further, even if the defendant judge is indicted by the Grand Jury, the judge is inclined to block or deter the criminal trial of his fellow judges.
J.A.I.L. solves this very likely double conflict of interest because the Special Grand Jury under J.A.I.L. assigns their own hired independent non-government prosecutor, and when the case goes to trial, only the trial jurors exclusively decide the questions of law and the facts of the case, and the judge has no jurisdiction to interfere with the autonomous power of the jury. The Jurors, and not the judge, impose sentencing by the exercise of their own discretion. This way, everything at every level is exercise of the powers of the People, and the government is barred from interfering with that power.
The benefit of the J.A.I.L. Special Grand Jury is that when judges are passed over by the Grand Jurors with the encouragement of the prosecutor, and they are later indicted by the Special Grand Jury, tried and sentenced, the Grand Jurors are going to see themselves as useless pawns of the hands of the prosecution and are being played for fools. They will not be able to keep from seeing that they must exercise their duty to investigate and indict judges, or else find themselves irrelevant. Once the Grand Jurors realize that are being used by the system, they will wake up and start going after those politicians who have played them for fools. Grand Juries, state after state, will indict public officials and judges, lining them up like a shooting gallery at the fairground.
Yes, if the Grand Jurors performed their duties as Mark Adams would like, we would not need J.A.I.L. However, if either the prosecutors and/or the judges started covering for judges, J.A.I.L. would be standing by to take over again and prosecute the judges by Special non-government prosecutors, and the People themselves having natural and inalienable rights to try, convict, and sentence judges in exercise of their own discretion without interference of the judges or prosecutors, we would assure justice. Just the fact that the People have throughout America Special Grand Juries standing by to take charge when the conflicted system does not work will intimidate the political system as would a den of hungry lions awaiting for the next person to be thrown into the den. J.A.I.L. is the only way to clean up America and present “change” for this nation.
From: Mark Adams [mailto:markadamsatty@...]
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 9:25 AM
Cc: Branson, Ron; JAIL4Judges; ZermanEsqJAIL, Gary
Subject: FW: Judicial Book Banning
Anne: Your secret trial and contempt sanction is outrageously unjust. The judiciary in New Zealand sounds like it is possibly as bad or even worse than in the U.S. I would be willing to bet that Grand Juries have either been abolished in NZ as they were in Great Britain or that access to them has been undermined as in the US . This was one of the key steps which have been taken to restore feudalism.
While I respect the efforts that Ron Branson and J.A.I.L have made to raise awareness about judicial misconduct and the need for reform, I think that a new amendment is not necessary as the right to present evidence of criminal misconduct directly to a grand jury is a fundamental right of all free people to protect themselves from abuses through civil means. If you want to know more about this fundamental right, see What Happens When the People Lose the Power to Control Government and What You Can Do to Take the Power Back? http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mark_ada_080204_what_happens_when_th.htm ….
Subject: Judicial Book BanningDate: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:23:56 -0700From: victoryusa@...: VictoryUSA@...
Judicial Book Banning
Most of us are familiar with the arbitrary and corrupt court decisions of judges in America which we have thus far tolerated. “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” Declaration of Independence .
But now comes an interesting court decision from off our soil, and that is orders to destroy all copies of a book. Now why do we find this interesting. It is because if this kind of rulings are being made by the judiciary from off our shores, it certainly will not be long before we shall find our judges doing exactly the same thing here in America .
The below is an email to J.A.I.L. from New Zealand about what happened to her. I have taken the liberty of slightly editing it for understandability and readability while seeking not to change its substance.
- Ron Branson
From: ANNE HUNT [mailto:annehunt@...] Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 12:05 PMTo: JAIL4Judges
Although I live in New Zealand , I appreciate receiving your e-mails and knowing that Americans are doing something about the judges who sit in judgment upon those forced to appear before them. It is great to hear that you are starting to have an impact.
As an author, I had once believed it was important to respect the judiciary. I no longer believe that. I have documents that prove that the courts in New Zealand condone secret trials to ban books, and the irony is that one of the books the High Court ordered destroyed was one written by this author.
An ex parte order was imposed upon me that told me that I could not tell even my husband that I was travelling some distance to appear in the High Court to face proceedings for contempt of court.
The hearings were heard in closed Chambers and all documents were to remain confidential. I was forced to disclose my manuscript with handwritten annotations. I was found to be in contempt of court, fined, ordered to pay damages, legal disbursements and court costs. An order was issued for all copies of my book to be destroyed.
I was accused of being reckless for relying on my lawyer who is now the Solicitor-General of New Zealand for legal advice.
Such is the state of justice in the country of New Zealand !
So thanks for being an inspiration to us.