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

Ron, What Do You Find With The Holding of the Courts as Cited Below?

Expand Messages
  • Ron Branson
    Ron Branson: What fault do you find with the holdings of the courts as cited below? The problem of We the People lies in the lack of power to force prosecutors
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 8, 2012
    • 0 Attachment

      Ron Branson:

      What fault do you find with the holdings of the courts as cited below? 

      The problem of We the People lies in the lack of power to force prosecutors to charge judges and prosecutors with crimes.

      I believe courts have held that law enforcers have no particularly duty to prevent a person from injuring or committing a crime against another.  In other words, law enforcers get qualified immunity for their failure to behave as a Good Samaritan would respecting crime.  I naturally dissent with this.  Government exists primarily to prevent injustice, and law enforcers constitute the front line of that prevention.

      That applies with respect to crimes by government employees, particularly crimes against We the People.

      But the Courts have made a good point.  The grand jury exists not to prosecute but to investigate and report.

      And yet when the very government employees We the People rely upon for prevention of injustice COMMIT the injustice, does not the citizen have the right to bring this fact to the grand jury, or to conduct the prosecution without the assistance of an official prosecutor?

      Clearly America needs new state and federal constitutional provisions redefining the nature of grand jury investigation, providing a formal method free of government interference for the public to bring evidence of crimes to the attention of the grand jury, and a method of forcing prosecutors to show cause why they shouldn’t suffer a penalty for failing to prosecute a crime, particularly one by government employees.

      The Sibley case is a clear example.  Deceiving We the People about credentials for the presidency ought to constitute a crime, and certainly a grand jury ought to get involved and investigate when widespread rumor and publicly known evidence suggests that the President is not a natural born citizen.  Running for office while knowing one cannot prove credentials constitutes a form of making false statements to Government under 18 USC 1001.  The DOJ should have prosecuted Obama for this before he took office.

      Bob Hurt


      Bob, the problem lies with a conflict of interest. First off, most prosecutors aspire to become judges. Most judges were prosecutors. Prosecutors naturally conclude, and falsely so, that their job is to get convictions. If you want to have a good record of convictions, you certainly want to stay on the good side of the judges.

      When it comes to the prosecution being the State Attorney General's Office, it must be understood that the Attorney General is the defense counsel for the judges, and they must maintain a good sembyonick relationship. This, I got from the Attorney General's Office personally stated this to me in the elevator. They admit they have a conflict of interest with the judges of California.

      In saying what I have said above, it should be known that not all prosecutors are going along with the system. Two L.A. County Prosecutors called me as asked what they could do about judicial immunity in relation to criminal matters. What they told me that they were seeking to prosecute two L.A. County Superior Court judges, and these judges were successfully asserting that they were covered by judicial immunity, and the judge hearing the prosecution's case, agreed with these judge's defense to the prosecution. I told them that there is no principle in law or court cases in which judges had immunity from criminal prosecution, but that was what these prosecutors were facing.

      Now in responding to your statement, "But the Courts have made a good point.  The grand jury exists not to prosecute but to investigate and report." 
      The Grand Jury is the People. We, the People, allow the prosecution access to bring their complaint to us for us to consider if their complaint meets the standards of Probable Cause. We make the final unappealable decision of this question. Obviously, while we allow the prosecution access to us, we do not preclude ourselves from ourselves. The Grand Jury is not a government body, but the People's body. This is why we are not a Fourth Branch of Government in the Constitution, but the root and trunk of the tree upon which the three Branches of Government spring. We do not answer to the Government, but the Government answers to us.

      As has been said, The Grand Jury is both a Shield of the People, and a Sword of the People. The Government comes to the Grand Jury seeking an indictment of the People. They swing at the People with their Sword, and the Grand Jury [the People] has the liberty of throwing up their Shield.

      Likewise, when the People come to the Grand Jury with a complaint about Government, the Grand Jury, through its autonomous People, may lift their People Sword and pursue the Government evil-doers. Else, how would the People have the power to go after Government corruption?

      Now you state that the Constitution need to "redefining the nature of grand jury investigations." To this I agree, as the Constitution actually has next to nothing  expressing the powers and duties of the Grand Jury. This is precisely why I carefully worded the J.A.I.L. Special Grand Jury to resolve this issue. I even provided for Special Prosecutors that work for the Grand Jury in prosecuting judges.

      We must remember above all, that all power must originate from the People, and return to the People. In effect, within the construction of Government, the People must be the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last! This is precisely why Government greatly fears JAIL4Judges because it closes the loopholes within our Constitution, especially regarding judges and prosecutors.

      Ron Branson

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