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

Access to Grand Juries

Expand Messages
  • Ron Branson
    Access to Grand Juries Spartacus - OneManWreckingCrew wrote: Ron, Nice job at: http://www.jail4judges.org/ I don t see a search function. Do you have any
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 29 1:39 PM

      Access to Grand Juries

      Spartacus - OneManWreckingCrew wrote:
      Nice job at:  http://www.jail4judges.org/
      I don't see a search function.
      Do you have any articles or advice for those of us who wish to bring charges against govt officials ?
      Am I correct that the grand juries are supposed to act as the fourth leg of govt in the chek and balance ?
      How to deal with govt who refuse to allows Citizens access to grand juries ?
      Don Quixote in South Florida

      Hello Don Quixote:

      Thank you for your compliment on the jail4judges.org website. As to your concerns regarding a website search function, I have forwarded your concern to our Webmaster. He has been very diligent attending to people's concerns.

      Now let me address your other three concerns regarding the Grand Jury. As you correctly point out, we have three branches of government, and each has a specified function which are supposed to be a check upon the other two branches. If it were not for the first two branches, the legislature and the executive, we would have no laws in this country beyond the Constitution.

      Human nature being what it is, no matter which branch we are talking about, the inclination to corruption is ever present. It is not justified to pretend that corruption is possible only within the first two branches of which the judiciary is present to punish the offender. Judges are human beings too, and also manifest corruption. This is why we have the executive along with its prosecutorial powers. The problem arises when there exists a conflict of interest between these two branches. Needless to say, it is extremely difficult, and even next to impossible to get a prosecutor to prosecute a judge for corruption. Many prosecutors are seeking a judicial seat themselves, and that is where most of our judges come from, i.e., they are former prosecutors. The common People are barred from obtaining a position on the bench.

      I have had a Deputy State Attorney General tell me personally, "Mr. Branson, you want us to go after these judges, but we just cannot do that. We have a conflict of interest. We are their attorneys. When you sue them, we appear and defend them. Also, we bring actions within the courts and are the attorney for the State, and we want them to rule in our favor. You are asking us to do something that is against our interests." Nonetheless, the Constitution in California specifically states in Article V, Sec. 13,  "Subject to the powers and duties of the Governor, the Attorney General shall be the chief law officer of the State. It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to see that the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced."

      I personally knew Bob Philibosian, the number two man in the State Attorney General's Office. He served immediately under Dukemajian. I set up an appointment with him on this issue of him being the chief law officer of the State of California. When he discovered what I wished to discuss with him, he personally called me on the telephone prior to our appointment and said, "Ron, I cannot talk with you, I have a conflict of interest." I apologized to Bob for my misdirected appointment, and told him I need to speak with the one who is charge with seeing that all laws are uniformly and adequately enforced as set forth in the above constitutional mandate. He again said to me, "Ron, I just cannot talk with you," and he hung up.

      The problem is, while we have too many laws on the books, many laws are good, but we just cannot get them enforced. So what happens when the chief law enforcement official tells you personally that he cannot talk with you about enforcement of the laws because he has a conflict of interest? Obviously, when a public official refuses to do a mandatory duty of which they have sworn to perform, one can bring an action within the courts. However, we run into another conflict that I cited to above, "When you sue these judges, we appear and defend them." So what happens when the chief law enforcement official is brought before a judge who is represented by the defendant?

      What I have here done above is address with specificity the problem of which you in general are expressed in your concerns. We have laws on the books, but there is no one willing to enforce them. We have remedies in our courts, but they are not available. So the end result is that we get laws, laws, more laws, and even more laws unending. Everyone thinks that when things go bad we need another law to cure the problem. The fact is, as we get more laws, we get more corruption, followed by more laws, followed by more corruption. It is a vicious circle. Laws do result in remedies, enforcement does. But we have no enforcement. So when we have no enforcement, logic tells us that we need a law that provides for enforcement. But we have such enforcement, i.e., "It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to see that the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced." This is not just any ordinary law on the books, but rather the Supreme Law of the State, but it just does not work. It is like a steering wheel that does steer; a brake pedal that does not stop.

      So to answer your first question, "Do I have any advice for those wishing to bring charges against government officials? the answer is YES, it is J.A.I.L. Until J.A.I.L. is incorporated within society, society shall surely collapse by its own corruption as there just simply is no other remedy.

      As to your second question. "Am I correct that the Grand Juries are supposed to act as the fourth leg of government in the check and balance?" That assumption is false. Grand Juries are not a fourth branch of government. Grand Juries are us, the People. We the People dictate through our Constitution the powers and limitations of the three branches of government. We mandate they take an oath to uphold our mandates. We are the "boss." The boss issues the orders to which they are to obey, and we, as their boss, are neither the subject nor object of our own orders that they must take an oath to obey the Constitution. Nowhere in the our Constitution which we have mandated, that the People shall take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. It is like a list of mandates posted upon the wall of a business directed to all employees. The first question then, is, is the boss who posted the mandates an employee? Obviously not! The rules only apply to employees.

      So if the Grand Jury is not a branch of the government, what is their function. They are the last, final, and ultimate authority of the will of the People, as all power must ultimately return to the People. If this were not so, we would be in great trouble. When government ceases to function properly, it requires the unreviewable intervention of we the People. Is it not we the People in the forum of a jury, that decides whether to punish someone with the death penalty? Is it not we the People who exercise the ultimate power to acquit a defendant, and we have made our acquittal unreviewable by any reviewing court or tribunal? We the People do not allow the government to even think about placing one of our own on trial for a felony unless they have our permission. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or other infamous crime , unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury..." Fifth Amendment of our U.S. Constitution.

      All governments and all powers are subject to our rules and our regulations. The Grand Jury, which are we ourselves, are outside and above our own regulations which we impose upon our public servants. There can be only one final boss, and that big boss is US. We simply just cannot allow our public servants, who are our subjects, to make ultimate decisions on our behalf in which we do not have the final word.

      I was mocked by a State Senator in South Dakota when J.A.I.L. was on the ballot in that state. He stated, "According to Mr. Branson, the Grand Jury is the ultimate power in this country." I responded, "Let's forget what Ron Branson teaches, and refer to our Constitution of the United States, and I then proceeded to give him a lesson on the Constitution. But wait, this Senator swore by an oath to uphold and defend our Constitution, but he is mocking the very document he took an oath to uphold. Does the word "Treason," come to mind? But who is going to enforce treason? So we see, inherent and ultimate unreviewable power must come from the People, and not from government. It can be no other way!

      Your third question is, "How do with deal with government who refuse to allow Citizens access to Grand Juries?" This question is similar to one that asks, "What shall the People do when its subjects take over the People and the country and assert that they are the ultimate masters?" The problem here is that we the People have allowed our subjects to brainwash us. The CA Constitution says, "All political power in inherent in the People," Art II, Sec. I,  but we the People have ignorantly chosen to hand over chief power to our servants to tell us what and when we can do certain things. We have mandated that we have the right to keep and bear arms, but we then allow our public servants to dictate to us, when, where, what and how we are allowed to exercise that rule. We instituted ourselves as the last and final authority, but have ignorantly allowed our public servants to dictate to us, when, where, what and how we have access to the Grand Jury. Until we the People wake up and assert that we are in charge, that we are not their servants, then we shall continue to obey their orders of we shall continue to be their subjects.

      J.A.I.L. offered to reinstate the power of the People back within the Grand Jury in South Dakota, however we the People lackadaisically chose to believe the lie fed to us. We rather to look to our public servants to instruct us as to whether we should adopt the principles of J.A.I.L., and then they threw at us fear mongering. We listen to, and adopted their lies of the evils that shall befall us if we listen to Mr. Branson. After all, Mr. Branson is the enemy of the People. Mr. Branson hates our Founding Fathers, he is "seeking to overthrow this wonderful judiciary we have here in California" (Ret. Chief Justice Ronald George). We the People have a deep-seated love affair with the fraud and mismanagement of government. We just cannot depart from our adultery with the humanistic god of government, and we just cannot allow the words of Mr. Branson to interfere with that mutual love relationship with evil. Therefore, America's end is predictable, and its demise is sure!

      Thank you, Don, for your email and for your questions. I trust I have adequately answered your concerns. God bless.

      Ron Branson

      P.O. Box 207
      North Hollywood, CA. 91503

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