Response to "a few glitches" in JAIL
- Dear Mr. Martin:1. Do you have any solution?My answer to your first question "Do you have any solutions?" is, "Yes-- The Judicial Accountability Initiative Law, J.A.I.L." This provision was written as a state initiative for California, but has since been adopted by several states that have the initiative process. We currently have 19 initiative states (including Calif.) and 14 non-initiative states on board with the JAIL campaign, and it continues to grow. I anticipate we'll have all 50 states by the end of this year or early next year. We have 17 left as of this writing.It will be more difficult with the non-initiative states because we're dealing with the legislatures, and not the people directly. Something like JAIL is very definitely a grassroots national movement of the people who are beginning to wake up to the fact that the people have the responsibility of taking definitive steps to bringing the power back to the people. I have found, as have many others, that we can't take on the entire government for reform, but if we are able to establish a means by which our judges (I'm speaking state right now) are made accountable to a lay grand jury-- made up of common ordinary citizens not connected with government in any way-- then we may have a chance of starting to turn this country in the direction it is supposed to be headed. We can't use the existing county Grand Juries because they are puppets of the prosecutors and judges. They are part of the government function the way they are being used, and are not the autonomous body as a cross-section of the people they are supposed to be. Also, we currently have no statewide Grand Juries which is what is required for JAIL, since we're talking about state law and the state Constitution (and of course the U.S. Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof).Rather than continue further on the theory behind the JAIL Initiative, I'll "cut to the chase" and answer your other concerns in your below email.As I said, the non-initiative measure will be more difficult to pass because we're at the "mercy" of government. Your email is directed at the federal JAIL proposed legislation. Do I "really see passage of this amendment (it may be federal statute if Congress so acts) as a practical reality?" Not perhaps until enough pressure is put on Congress to do something about this runaway corrupt judicial system overtaking peoples' lives in violation of the judicial oath of office, of the U.S. Constitution, and every principle that is to be protected by the Constitution. The alternative will be utter chaos. Congress will know, if it doesn't already, that life in this country cannot continue out of control the way it has been for 200 years. True, it is we, the People, who are to blame for having allowed it to get this way over the years, but it has now gotten to a critical level, and the dike is about to break unless we see something happening to stop the tyranny, or at least slow it down. I foresee the initiative states passing the JAIL initiative first, then perhaps some of the non-initiative states will have legislatures with conscience that will see the dire need for this measure. When a number of states (I'm not saying what number-- I don't know) begin to implement this measure, and it won't be easy-- there'll be a lot of opposition. The Powers that Be want things to stay just the way they are. These tyrants don't want to lose their cushy positions of power and prestige by whim.Yes, a fight it will be-- but that's all we've had with the judicial system for the past several years-- an uphill fight-- and we the People LOSE by the tyrants running the "show." So, we realize that we are at war! JAIL is the alternative to a shooting war (a revolution), but the people are up against a huge machine. We have to start fighting this war where the Constitution is the controlling "rules of engagement" --not whim and caprice of judges, state and federal. We need a standard yardstick for all, regardless of how much money you have, regardless of "who" we know, regardless of the color of our skin, regardless of our station in life. We have to demand "with liberty and justice FOR ALL." --that they aren't just idle words that we recite at certain events. They must be made to mean what they say!Now Roger, this isn't just grand-standing. We're in serious trouble across this nation. While constructive criticism is helpful, be sure that's what it is, and not just "knocking" what we're trying to do here. Certainly if you can come up with something better, that will have a better chance of success-- by all means PRESENT IT so we can all review it with a positive attitude. We need a practical positive approach to trying to right a serious wrong that has developed and grown like Topsy! Remember-- united we stand, divided we fall.2. Diminishing salaries; one bill one issue.Your next concern about diminishing of salaries-- in the state initiative form we have stated in paragraph (x) Preeminence (since this is an amendment to the state Constitution) "Preeminence shall be given to this Amendment in any case of conflicts with statute, case law, common law, or constitutional provision. ..." In Paragraph (g) we have provided that this measure be funded by the judges by a deduction of two and nine-tenths percent from their gross judicial salaries of all judges. This would be like judges paying into an insurance policy to insure judicial honesty and integrity in their profession, which any sensible and honorable judge should be glad to pay so they can be part of an honest and lawful judicial system. They require of us to have insurance. In JAIL we are now requiring the same of them. As to the federal judges, Congress already imposes upon judges the same federal income tax upon their wages as the American people are being saddled with. All that federal JAIL is is an extension of the income tax already upon their salaries. If JAIL is an unconstitutional diminishing of federal judges salaries, then so is the income tax all federal judges now are paying into for the last eighty years. We will allow Congress and the federal courts settle this battle, while we, the people, watch. Nonetheless, we have an alternative back up written into the federal JAIL Bill, and that is a provision that Congress my elect to fund any or all parts of the JAIL Bill from the general revenue funds. But then, are not the federal judges being taxed to contribute to that general revenue fund. It would be our delight to see the federal judges declare the federal income tax unconstitutional as applied to them. Now wouldn't that send a message to the nation? Are the federal judges going to lead off an "official national tax revolt" of the income taxes? Any why they want to play it, we the people are the benefactors. We have many lawyers and legal scholars who support JAIL. So, when the time comes, there'll be a lot of qualified people defending the merits of the measure.The "One bill -- one issue" applies only to state initiatives, not to Congressional legislation. And as far as the states are concerned, the state initiative is just one issue-- judicial accountability, that's all!3. Targeting corporationsIf the corporate fee, the route chosen by Congress to supplement the federal JAIL Bill, were factored in as against all corporate litigants across the entire U.S., it would be such an insignificant amount probably not amounting to no more than $3 per lawsuit. I hardly see that as a motivating factor for corporations to raise up of a battalion of lobbyist to oppose such an absolutely trivial matter. Corporations tend to target their lobbyist investment dollars to much more serious matters than a fight over $3 surcharge per federal lawsuit they may be involved it. JAIL just makes good sense!4. SGJ access to federal judges in each judicatureIt is not necessary that the federal judge have access to the Special Grand Jury. Every thing is taken care of by U.S. mail. The SGJ will likely us federal marshals to perform service upon the federal judges throughout all federal jurisdictions to serve the complaints filed with the SGJ. It is true that in the SGJ's investigation pursuant to a criminal indictment of a federal judge, they may subpoena the judge to testify before it. I see that as no problem as Congress and the federal judges already issue subpoena of witness before it all the time. Is there some high and lofty reason that federal judges should be exempt? Does not this power already exist with Congress in an impeachment? Shall not the federal SGJ seeking a criminal indictment also have this power?5. Only DC inhabitants eligible to serve on SGJAs far as only DC inhabitants eligible to serve on the SGJ, it is certainly logical to have 25 people from that ten square miles serving locally rather than picking 25 people from the entire country of fifty states for the DC SGJ. How would one arrange for one person to be drawn from each pair of two states? Which two states? Who pairs the states up? Which of the two states in the pair would have jurisdiction to conduct the drawing? Do we now create a all new national citizen's registration for this drawing? These are just some of the quick concerns I raise in considering your proposal. This federal operation should be centrally located in DC as a matter of common sense with the citizens of D.C. being the object of the drawing. Is there is a better arrangement? Right now I don't know of one.6. SGJ counsel is not limited to lawyers"Lawyers" aren't mentioned as SGJ counsel. Paragraph (e) says "non-governmental advisors, special prosecutors, and investigators, as needed...." I purposely used the term "advisors," instead of "lawyers" or "attorneys." But, and if they chose a lawyer, I would like to point out that there are some honest lawyers who fully support JAIL and back it up. They're totally disgusted with the legal profession and believe it is now high time for JAIL! Many lawyers out there would love to see JAIL become a reality.7. Purpose of SGJ seat.The SGJ "seat" is the location where the SGJ is seated. In "definitions - 4" it is describes as a "situs," it's headquarters. Like the "county seat" is the city in which the county is headquartered and administered from. Same idea. The SGJ seat must be established in the measure. When you say "purpose" of the SGJ seat, it is to establish by law where it is situated. For instance in California, the state is large enough geographically and by population to call for three SGJs. Each will have a "seat" in a particular city, and perhaps referred to as the Southern California SGJ, Central California SGJ, and Northern California SGJ, each having its own "seat" (city) in which it will operate. Federally, the seat is DC.8. Charging a fee to exercise a rightSee paragraph (h). The fee is not mandatory, but is requested to pay for use of the services and facilities required in providing for the SGJ and its operation. So, the right is not converted into anything. It remains your right, and most people would gladly pay a modest fee to use the facilities when exercising your right therein. The one using those facilities and taking advantage of the service is the most logical one to pay something for it, if he can. If he can't-- he isn't required to do so, just sign a declaration that they object to the fee. No invasive application need be filled out.9. Government body as sole reviewer of itselfJAIL agrees! JAIL is not intended to be a government function, nor can it be if it is to serve the purpose for which it is written. The JAIL provision must remain separate and independent of any function of government. JAIL provides a means by which the People, not the government, can hold judges to account when the government, i.e., the judiciary, fails to function according to the Constitution and related law. It is imperative to distinguish between the power of the People and the function of government in serving the People. The People made up of individuals, have inalienable rights that must be protected by government. One is the holder of the right, the other is the protector of that right for the holder. The SGJ is NOT a government body. It is an oversight body of the People assuring that individuals' inalienable rights are secured and protected in judicial proceedings.10. Three friends filing litigation in same courtFirst of all, the JAIL provisions are implemented because the courts involved are allegedly corrupt and do not follow the law, etc. JAIL is required because there is no honest and lawful forum available to the complaining litigant. So, three friends filing in the same court to remove a judge is not an alternative. JAIL is independent from the courts and does not "set up" judges, nor can federal litigants pick a federal judge to "set up." The issue is that the federal judge drawn for the case either follows the law or refuses to follow the law. I hardly think this could be construed to be "judge entrapment."11. Immunity and indictmentsThere is no immunity for indictments, nor has there ever been. JAIL doesn't mention "immunity" in the Indictment provision, paragraph (r).In closing, all challenges or objections by the opposition to the JAIL legislation or initiative will be addressed at the time it is raised. We are fully prepared to defend the JAIL provision, and if there is a better provision, we're ready to hear about it. We need something for the people to see to it that their inalienable and fundamental rights are protected by our judiciary.Thank you for writing.-Ronald Branson- author/founder
J.A.I.L. is an acronym for (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law)
JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org
JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
JAIL's is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire!
JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability!
JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
To subscribe or be removed: add-remove-jail@...
To send published judicial articles: USA-jail4judges@...
To contact the author of JAIL4Judges: jail4judges@...
All E-Groups are encouraged to sign on at firstname.lastname@example.org"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><---- Original Message -----From: Roger MartinTo: jail4judgesSent: Monday, September 18, 2000 5:03 PMSubject: Very interesting, but just a few tiny glitches...Do you have any solutions?
First, it is my belief that adopting your plan would require a
constitutional amendment. Given the number of lawyers in Congress, do you
really see passage of this amendment as a practical reality?
Second, some of the basic tenets of this proposal REQUIRE the
'diminishment' of judicial salaries. This would require a SECOND amendment (if you followed the strict interpretation of one-bill-one-issue); or an accommodating clause in the original proposed bill (if you seek to avoid the true meaning of constitution when it suits you)...
Third, targeting corporations as a separate body to help pay for this
initiative will automatically cause every lobby to oppose this legislation. Can you overcome this?
While I agree that the location for the grand jury should be in D.C., how would that 'body' be able to have practical access to the federal judges in each judicature? In any event, it is our position that the district and/or circuit courts are acting OUTSIDE their Constitutional jurisdiction when located OUTSIDE of the Constitutional borders for the "uNITED sTATES"...
As long as we are talking about 'location', why would only D.C.
'inhabitants' be eligible for the grand jury?
For myself, I would like to make sure that grand jury counsel is NOT
limited to lawyers. Words such as 'fifth column' and 'judas' come to mind...
I am NOT sure of the purpose of the "special grand jury seat".
While we do NOT agree with case law as authority, a very interesting
concept can be brought forward in accordance with Murdock v Pennsylvania - a RIGHT CanNOT be converted into a privilege; and a fee charged therefrom. Since you are proposing this special grand jury as of right, charging fees would be counter-productive... We have had LIMITED success using Murdock to avoid having to pay fees (in lieu of indigency and/or forma pauperis or statement of impoverishment)
I have a real problem with any government body being the sole reviewer of its own acts and actions. By your own design, you would simply be trading one level of 'controllers' for another... Do NOT tell me to "...trust them"; I wouldn't even trust me with that much power, let alone you...
While I understand the need for something like the 'Three Strikes' rule, I also recognize that getting a judge off the bench would be a simple matter of 3 friends filing litigation in the same court, and making complaints against the same judge. I understand it is NOT that simple, but there is enough wiggle room to make this a practical objection...
I have a real problem with the provision on indictments. If probable cause exists, WHY should anybody be 'immune' at any time?
There are other issues, but they are more complicated. I would like to see the responses to the above BEFORE going farther. In any event, your responses may resolve my other concerns.
People Against Corruption & Tyranny (P.A.C.T.)
Re: *** Activist Federal Judges Hit The Limelight
J.A.I.L. News Journal
Los Angeles - September 18, 2000
Listen to HotSeat4Judges daily on Internet Radio M-Th, 6-7 pm P.T.
Get a J.A.I.L. For Judges T-Shirt for your next court appearance.
Write baronboy@... and place your order today!Activist Federal Judges Hit The Limelight
Family Research Council (FRC) Launches Campaign To 'Bench' Judicial Activists and Initiate Reform
The Constitution is Not Gumby,' FRC's Jan Larue Says
WASHINGTON, Sept. 7 /PRNewswire/ -- In order to counteract the alarming trend of judicial activism, Family Research Council announced a national "Courting Justice Campaign" dedicated to judicial reform. "The federal judiciary has been increasingly courting injustice with activist decisions that distort the Constitution," said Jan LaRue, senior director of Legal Studies at the Family Research Council (FRC). "The 'Courting Justice Campaign' is a movement dedicated to establishing a judiciary that is free from the forces of power politics and personal views, and bound only by the U.S. Constitution."
"The Constitution is not Gumby."
The guide describes rulings that evidence the growing trend of judicial activism, outlines the personnel and procedures of the courts that contribute to the problem, and suggests pro-active measures Americans can take to combat injustice in judging.The "Courting Justice" guide concludes with the proposal of a "Five for the Future Plan," which outlines the game-plan for initiating judicial The five tenets of the plan are:
Block confirmation of activist/liberal judges
Promote U.S. senators' signing of the "Hatch Pledge" against judicial activism
Promote state legislative passage of judicial restraint resolutionsEliminate judicial power to tax
Require, as a minimum, a unanimous vote of a three-judge panel to invalidate citizen-passed initiatives.
The next President will likely be called on to nominate two to three justices to the Supreme Court.
Liberal activist groups, including Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, have also singled out Supreme Court appointments as a priority issue at stake in the November presidential elections, coining "Nine for the Future" and "It's the Supreme Court, Stupid," as slogans for the fall.
"With pro-abortion and other liberal groups advocating greater judicial activism to create more 'rights' never conceived by our Founders, the stakes are even higher in a campaign for judicial reform," Mrs. LaRue said.
The authors of "Courting Justice," and co-directors of the campaign are Family Research Council's Jan LaRue, Thomas Jipping, Vice-President for Legal Policy at the Free Congress Foundation, and Virginia Armstrong, National Chairman of Eagle Forum's Court Watch.