Mr. Branson, show us a simple solution
- View Source
Show Us a Simple Solution
John, you have stated, "JAIL does not directly accomplish, and probably will not indirectly "enable Americans to restore our Republic" as Arnie surmises." You then ask my explanation as to how it might do otherwise.
As you very well know, John, J.A.I.L., once established, requires John Doe Citizen to bring a complaint in court, or be drawn into court by the prosecutor. The citizen then must urge the law or Constitution either in their defense, or in their complaint.
Then the judge is free to exercise his or her discretion, but not in anywise in contradiction to either law or the Constitution. Once the judge makes his decision, the complainant or defendant, which ever the case may be, must raise the issue of that exercise of discretion to be in violation of either the law or the Constitution.
If the judge chooses to affirm his prior decision, which is normally the case, and that you well know, then that issue is brought up on appeal. If the Appellate Court affirms the judgment below, which is normally the case, it also may be challenged on rehearing, and then it the case is its way to the State Supreme Court for them to be given a shot at overturning the alleged faulty decision(s) rendered below.
Should the State Supreme Court affirm the judgment below, all required state remedies have been exhausted to satisfy the operation of J.A.I.L. This Special Grand Jury has no jurisdiction until all state remedies have been exhausted. What I am telling you, I know you already know, but I am spelling it out for you.
The only two issues that can then be brought before this Special Grand Jury created by J.A.I.L. is one that the judge violated some law or constitutional principle, and secondly, that such violation(s) was willful. The Grand Jury then may send this complaint to the judge and gives him opportunity to defend to the charge(s).
Likewise, the judge(s) may only offer two defenses, either that he actually complied with the law, or constitutional principle, and that the factual allegations made against him are false, or, he may conceded offense(s), but argue that his violation was not willfully. In other words, he was ignorant of the law or constitutional provision.
Then this 25-member Special Grand Jury decides whether judicial immunity may be urged in a subsequent lawsuit, and/or, if criminal, whether there exists Probable Cause for a criminal prosecution by their own Criminal Special Prosecutor. A simple majority of these 25 citizens decides the matter in either case.
Once Judge "A" goes down, either civilly, criminally, or both, Judge "B," "C," & "D," and so on, learn the lesson made by the downfall of Judge "A." Then sets in the ripple effect that shall be surely felt into perpetuity throughout this entire country.
When judges, who otherwise would have been protected by judicial immunity, learn to fear the powerful arm of us, the citizens sitting on this Special Grand Jury, violations by judges of both civil law and criminal law will greatly diminish. The result will be more freedom to the People and a financial restoration will take place because righteousness will be borne out. Now I know you understand this principle.
By this means the People will once again see our Republic begin to rise according to Proverbs 14:34, "Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people." Only through such righteousness can this nation ever expect to regain its dignity, and it will not be by any other means! I know you know this, John. Thanks for the challenge. Surely you expected this of me.
John, J.A.I.L. did not come about after the wisdom of man, nor was it designed the after the devices of men, but after God. It is God's means patiently offered to this country as His divine plan to always provide a means of escape, inasmuch as we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Thank you, John.
John Wolfgram wrote:I hate to disagree with you Ron, about JAIL, because you are the expert on it and if I'm wrong in my disagreement with you, I trust that you will point out why I'm wrong; but JAIL does not directly accomplish, and probably will not indirectly "enable Americans to restore our Republic" as Arnie surmises. This is because the most damageing creations of judicial "law", special privileges and immunities for government, are left in placem with JAIL, except for judicial immunity itself. In a real sense, the major issue is not on going judicial corruption, but rather, in having enstablished and reestablishing the relationship between government and governed into the future, the judiciary will continue to follow the false law that it has institutionalized. To be sure, a corrupt judiciary created that false law, but now that false law is accepted as the "rule of law" and any judge so ruling in favor of any immunity except their own, would be found by a JAIL jury to have ruled according to law.
That is why I stress in Democratizing the Judiciary, that the jury must have the right to judge the "law" under the Constitution, as it is written (as opposed to as judicially interpreted). In point, having studied the matter, they is no way that government could sell immunity to a jury instructed or sworn to the Constitution. Go ahead. I dare you to try to come up with a reasonable argument that government immunity is consistent with the Constitution.
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 18:47:19 -0700
Subject: Re: Mr. Branson, may we call upon you for a simple solution?
Yes, Arnie, you have stated a fair representation of J.A.I.L. While I might wish to expand upon your presentation, I will just say that you have well stated my position in few words.
Arnie Rosner wrote:Mr. Branson,Thank you for your efforts in this matter. I am not very knowledgable in this area so please feel free correct me.
In my limited understanding, the significance of your contribution, as in-acted, will help Americans restore our out-of-control judiciary to its proper role. In turn, this is also an important step to enable Americans to restore our republic. Therefore, all Americans should strongly support the passage of your proposed legislation.
Did I get this right?
Available 24/7 - Defending freedom has become a full-time job!
714-501-8247 - mobile
On May 8, 2012, at 10:44 PM, Ron Branson wrote:Arnie, my answer to your question is in the affirmative. However, what I have done is placed this same legislation in a state initiative form for each state's legislature to place on their state ballot in which to make it a constitutional amendment. Without it being a constitutional amendment, the judges of each of these particular states may simply declare the legislature's passage by statute to be unconstitutional.
Within the people's initiative states, the people may freely place it on their ballots and vote it into function by constitutional amendment, such as California.
I wish to thank you, Arnie, for you inquiry into this matter.
Arnie Rosner wrote:
Thank you for your amazingly simple solution. Since the Congress is obviously beyond the ability to supervise their own activities with any sure degree of integrity, is this proposed legislation something by which the separate states could invoke?
Available 24/7 - Defending freedom has become a full-time job!
714-501-8247 - mobile
On May 7, 2012, at 8:14 PM, Ron Branson wrote:Mr. Branson, may we call upon you
for a simple solution by which we can restore our republic? I suspect most Americans would be eternally grateful!
Arnie Rosner wrote:
My Dear Mr. Branson,
Thank you for sharing this very enlightening revelation with regard to the intentional violation of California State law by those whose job is to enforce the law. It appears in the case of Mr. Servin, there may be a possibility that justice will be served, After all.
But then what explains the lack of justice being served on much more serious matters? Matters like national security? Matters like the violations of the Constitution of the United States of America? Matters like the violations being committed by those very same people entrusted with the responsibility of representing the people of the United States, in making our laws?
Mr. Branson, it is obvious your knowledge of the law is quite evident. In fact, your grasp of the basic legal principles would seem to far surpass, any demonstration of any more sophisticated legal principles displayed by any and all members of any levels of the judiciary...nation-wide.
Perhaps we, as just common, ordinary plain vanilla variety Americans can call on you to propose just how we, the American people can deal with the greatest Constitutional crisis deliberately engineered by our elected officials in Congress, who seem determined to compound their acts of treason with untold measures of treachery.
So Mr. Branson, may we call upon you for a simple solution by which we can restore our republic? I suspect most Americans would be eternally grateful!
Available 24/7 - Defending freedom has become a full-time job!
Arnie, you must realize that as the days become more evil, everything gets turned Topsy-tervy. That which is important is totally disregarded, and that which is of little relevance is pursued to the fullest extent of the law. Take for instance, the Federal Reserve scam swallows up this entire county, and is obviously unconstitutional, yet its atrocities are ignored by everyone in power. A Mexican hits up a liquor store getting away with only a small pocket money, and the police, in their zeal to come up with a perpetrator, blows away a black man nearby in his garage as he was getting out of his car because "He looked suspicious. Besides, if he didn't do it, he is probably guilty of something." This is a real live example reported in the Los Angeles Times that actually happened. It is too bad this man was not a lawyer in a three-piece suit in Washington, District of Criminals, ripping off millions of dollars from the sucker taxpayers.
Anyway, I wrote, and presented to Congress the below Bill for their consideration at the turn of this century. Were any of them excited? Absolutely not. Dare anyone propose enacting legislation restoring the Constitution and power to the People.
Below is that very propose legislation which is filed in their Library of Congress. Perhaps you can motivate the People to be eternally grateful, telling them that we must absolutely get this legislation passed so that we can get back to the constitutional republic envisioned by our fore Fathers. If the People receive not this Judicial Accountability Bill, neither will they be convinced though another attempted Bill for Judicial Accountability be proposed.
Judicial Accountability & Integrity Legislation
(Judicial Bill Written for Congress)Filed in the Library of Congress
(a) Preamble. The House of Representatives and Senate Assembled find: that an inordinate and ever-growing number of complaints for willful misconduct have been lodged with Congress involving federal judges across this nation; that the current Title 28 U.S.C. §372(c) (Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act) is in many cases inadequate due to conflicts of interest of judges judging themselves; that judicial integrity is of major importance which affects all areas of our American society. Be it therefore resolved that the House of Representatives and Senate Assembled hereby enact the following legislation which shall be known as the "Judicial Accountability and Integrity Legislation."
(b) Definitions. For purposes of this statute:
1. The term "blocking" shall mean any act that impedes the lawful conclusion of a case, to include unreasonable delay and willful rendering of a void judgment or order.
2. The term "federal judge" or "judge" shall mean any federal justice, judge, magistrate, commissioner, or any person shielded by judicial immunity.
3. The term "Juror" shall mean a Special Federal Grand Juror.4. The term "strike" shall mean an adverse immunity decision based upon bad behavior as set forth by paragraph (c), or a criminal conviction as set forth in paragraph (r).Where appropriate, the singular shall include the plural, and the plural the singular.
(c) Immunity. Notwithstanding common law or any other provision to the contrary, no immunities shall be extended to any federal judge except as is specifically set forth in this statute. Preserving the purpose of protecting judges from frivolous and harassing actions, no immunity shielding a federal judge shall be construed to extend to any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitution of these United States, all violations of which shall constitute bad behavior.
(d) Special Federal Grand Jury. There is hereby created within the District of Columbia a twenty-five member Special Federal Grand Jury with full federal geographical jurisdiction having power to judge on both law and fact. Their responsibility shall be limited to determining, on an objective standard, whether a civil suit against a federal judge would be frivolous and harassing, or fall within the exclusions of immunity as set forth herein, and whether there is probable cause of criminal conduct by the federal judge complained of.
(e) Professional Counsel. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to retain non-governmental advisors, special prosecutors, and investigators, as needed, who shall serve no longer than two years, after which term said officers shall be ineligible. However, with permission of the Special Federal Grand Jury, a special prosecutor may prosecute their current cases through all appeals and any applicable complaints to the Special Federal Grand Jury.
(f) Establishment of a Special Federal Grand Jury Seat. A Special Federal Grand Jury seat is hereby created, which seat shall be located in excess of one mile of any federal judicial body.(g) Filing Fees. Attorneys representing a client filing a civil complaint or answer before the Special Federal Grand Jury, shall at the time of filing pay a fee equal to the filing fee due in a civil appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Individuals filing a civil complaint or answer before the Special Federal Grand Jury in their own behalf as a matter of right, shall, at the time of filing, post a fee of one hundred dollars, or file a declaration, which shall remain confidential, stating they are impoverished and unable to pay and/or object to such fee.
(h) Annual Funding. Should this statute lack sufficient funding through its filing fees under paragraph (g), and fines imposed under paragraph (q), which amount shall be deposited regularly into the exclusive trust account crated by this statute in paragraph (j) for its operational expenses, Congress may impose appropriate surcharges upon the civil court filing fees of corporate litigants as necessary to make this statute self-supporting, or they may appropriate any and all the necessary funds for the full implementation of this statute by legislation.
(i) Compensation of Jurors. Each Juror shall receive a salary commensurate to fifty percent of a federal district judge prorated according to the number of days actually served.
(j) Annual Budget. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall have an annual operational budget commensurate to twenty times the combined salaries of the twenty-five Jurors serving full time, which sum shall be initially deposited by Congress into an exclusive trust account to be annually administered by the Controller. Should the trust balance, within any budget year, drop to less than an amount equivalent to the annual gross salaries of fifty federal district judges, the Controller shall so notify Congress which shall replenish the account, prorated based on the actual average expenditures during the budget year. Should the trust balance in any subsequent year exceed the annual operational budget at the beginning of a new budget year, the Controller shall return such excess to the United States Treasury.
(k) Jurisdiction. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to establish rules assuring their attendance, to provide internal discipline, and to remove any of its members on grounds of misconduct. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall immediately assign a docket number to each complaint brought before it. Except as provided in paragraph (r), no complaint of judicial misconduct shall be considered by the Special Federal Grand Jury unless the complainant shall have first attempted to exhaust all judicial remedies available in the federal courts within the immediately preceding six-month period. Such six-month period, however, shall not commence in complaints of prior fraud or blocking of a lawful conclusion until after the date the Special Federal Grand Jury becomes functional. This provision is intended to apply remedially and retroactively.
(l) Qualifications of Jurors. A Juror shall have attained to the age of thirty years, and have been nine years a citizen of the United States , and an inhabitant of Washington , D.C. Those not eligible for Special Federal Grand Jury service shall include elected and appointed officials, members of the Bar, judges (active or retired), judicial, prosecutorial and law enforcement personnel, without other exclusion except previous adjudication of mental incapacity, imprisonment, or parole from a conviction of a felonious crime against persons.
(m) Selection of Jurors. The Jurors shall serve without compulsion and shall be drawn by public lot by the Secretary of State from names on the voters rolls and any citizen submitting his/her name to the Secretary of State for such drawing.
(n) Service of Jurors. Excluding the establishment of the initial Special Federal Grand Jury, each Juror shall serve one year. No Juror shall serve more than once. On the first day of each month, two persons shall be rotated off the Special Federal Grand Jury and new Citizens seated, except in January it shall be three. Vacancies shall be filled on the first of the following month in addition to the Jurors regularly rotated, and the Juror chosen to fill a vacancy shall complete only the remainder of the term of the Juror replaced.
(o) Procedures. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall serve a copy of the filed complaint upon the subject judge and notice to the complainant of such service. The judge shall have thirty days to serve and file an answer. The complainant shall have twenty days to reply to the judge's answer. (Upon timely request, the Special Federal Grand Jury may provide for extensions for good cause.) The Special Federal Grand Jury shall have power to subpoena witnesses, documents, and other tangible evidence, and to examine witnesses under oath. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall determine the causes properly before it with their reasoned findings in writing within one hundred twenty (120) calendar days, serving on all parties their decision on whether immunity shall be barred as a defense to any civil action that may thereafter be pursued against the federal judge. A rehearing may be requested of the Special Federal Grand Jury within twenty days with service upon the opposition. Twenty days shall be allowed to reply thereto. Thereafter, the Special Federal Grand Jury shall render final determination within thirty days. All allegations of the complaint shall be liberally construed in favor of the complainant. The Jurors shall keep in mind, in making their decisions, that they are entrusted by the people of these United States with the duty of restoring a perception of justice and accountability of the federal judiciary, and are not to be swayed by artful presentation by the federal judge. They shall avoid all influence by judicial and government entities. The statute of limitations on any civil suit brought pursuant to this statute against a federal judge shall not commence until the rendering of a final decision by the Special Federal Grand Jury. Special Federal Grand Jury files shall always remain public record following their final determination. A majority of thirteen shall determine any matter.
(p) Removal. Whenever any federal judge shall have received more than three strikes, the federal judge shall automatically be brought up on charges before Congress for Articles of Impeachment by the Special Federal Grand Jury through its special prosecutor for bad behavior and willful misconduct. Congress thereafter shall commence to a vote on such Articles of Impeachment. Upon a conviction, the federal judge shall be permanently removed from office. He may also be held liable under any other appropriate criminal or civil proceeding.
(q) Indictment. Should the Special Federal Grand Jury also find probable cause of criminal conduct on the part of any federal judge against whom a complaint is docketed, it shall have the power to indict such federal judge except where double jeopardy attaches. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall, without voir dire beyond personal relationship, cause to be impaneled special trial jurors, plus alternates, which trial jurors shall be instructed that they have power to judge both law and fact. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall also select a non-governmental special prosecutor and a federal judge with no more than four years on the bench from a state other than that of the defendant judge, (or outside of the District of Columbia, if the case so be). The trial jury shall be selected from the same pool of jury candidates as any regular federal jury. The special prosecutor shall thereafter prosecute the cause to a conclusion, having all the powers of any other prosecutor within these United States . Upon conviction, the special trial jury shall have exclusive power of sentencing (limited to incarceration, fines and/or community service), which shall be derived by an average of the sentences of the trial jurors.
(r) Criminal Procedures. In addition to any other provisions of this statute, a complaint for criminal conduct of a federal judge may be brought directly to the Special Federal Grand Jury upon all the following prerequisites: (1) an affidavit of criminal conduct has been lodged with the appropriate prosecutorial entity within ninety (90) days of the commission of the alleged conduct; (2) the prosecutor declines to prosecute, or one hundred twenty (120) days has passed following the lodging of such affidavit and prosecution has not c
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)