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

* 9th Cir. - A Lying Pack Of Wolves

Expand Messages
  • jail4judges
    J.A.I.L. News Journal Los Angeles - November 25, 2000 ____________________________________________________ Listen to HotSeat4Judges daily on Internet Radio
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 25, 2000
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment

      J.A.I.L. News Journal
      Los Angeles - November 25, 2000
      ____________________________________________________
      Listen to HotSeat4Judges daily on Internet Radio M-Th, 6-7 pm P.T.
      ____________________________________________________
      For a beautiful navy blue T-shirt with "J.A.I.L." on the back and www.jail4judges.org large and visible over the pocket, imprinted in a bright yellow-gold lettering, send your check payable to J.A.I.L. for $11.95 plus $4 S&H. (Discounts on volume quantities.) Wear them to your next courthouse function and watch the reaction.
      9th Cir.- A Lying Pack Of Wolves
       
      For those of your curious to know more about Ronald Branson, his "supposed unbalanced mental state," how he constantly agitated the judiciary, and what motivated him to write "J.A.I.L. For Judges," please click the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals published opinion BRANSON v. NOTT, 62 F.3d 287 (9th Cir. 1995) link below. This was one year before the foundation of J.A.I.L. was born. This case went on to the U.S. Supreme Ct. with the single word response, "Denied."
       
       
      I just happened to look this up on "FindLaw" merely as a test of its capability. Please keep in mind that, as in any published opinion, you see only one side of the argument - the court's. Much turns on whether you trust the court's representation of faithfully addressing the real issue before the court. Here, the court creates the case they wish to tear apart, not the real issue before the court.
       
      The star of their "decision" is the paragraph which says, Notwithstanding his protestations to the contrary, Branson's 1983 claim amounts to nothing more than an impermissible collateral attack on prior state court decisions. See MacKay v. Pfeil, 827 F.2d 540, 543 (9th Cir. 1987) (per curiam). Branson seeks as "prospective injunctive relief" an order requiring the state superior court clerk to enter a default judgment against Sergeant Smith and, inconsistently, to "immediately set the default for hearing for court judgment as requested by plaintiff . . . ."
       
      The phrase "impermissible collateral attack on prior court decisions" is their favorite. I have gone through this federal process so many times as to become a professional as to knowing just exactly how they handle federal appeals, and I can say with authority, that even if one were challenging the lack of a state court decision, no decision at all, and such were indeed the truth, they still would come back with "an impermissible collateral attack on a prior court decision." In other words, "Forget it! We have told you time and time again, you just absolutely are not going to receive any access to redress of grievance no matter what."
       
      Further, they say, Branson seeks as "prospective injunctive relief" an order requiring the state superior court clerk to enter a default judgment against Sergeant Smith and, inconsistently, to "immediately set the default for hearing for court judgment as requested by plaintiff . . . ." To make the argument appear "inconsistent" they add the word "judgment".
      The law clearly requires the clerk of the court to enter "default" if there is no response from the defendant after the set number of days to respond. (Clerks do not enter default judgments where there are trialable issues as opposed to clear contractual issues where there are no amounts in dispute). Then the plaintiff must petition the court for a default hearing where the case goes to "prove-up" and judgment. Now I ask you, are these judges that stupid that they do not know this long-standing principle of law? or do they know it and just want to make Mr. Branson appear in print to be a stupid pro se? Clearly, the issue here is, does the law mean what it says! After the clerk enters default, then the defendant may attack the validity of the service and seek relief from the court, but the clerk cannot cover for an officer by refusing to enter the judgment required to be entered under law when all the criteria have been met.
       
      There are many other issues in this case, but I think you have got the idea of why I believe J.A.I.L. is the only answer for America, and that there is no hope of redress through any other means. These judges are a pack of lying wolves seeking to undermine the entire judicial process, and only a Citizen's Tribunal of the Special Grand Jury will hold them to account.
       
      -Ron Branson-

      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 contact the author of JAIL4Judges: jail4judges@...
      All E-Groups are encouraged to sign on at jail4judges@egroups.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 is
      striking at the root."                         -- Henry David Thoreau    <><

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