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
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
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.