Dear Mr. Martin:
1. Do you have any
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
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
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 "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
3. Targeting corporations
If 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 judicature
It 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 SGJ
As 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" 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 right
See 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 itself
JAIL 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
10. Three friends filing litigation in same court
First 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 indictments
There 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
JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA
To subscribe or be removed: add-remove-jail@...
To send published judicial articles: USA-jail4judges@...
contact the author of JAIL4Judges: jail4judges@...
E-Groups are encouraged to sign on at email@example.com
"..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
striking at the
-- Henry David Thoreau