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

"Changing" J.A.I.L.

Expand Messages
  • jail4judges
    Changing J.A.I.L. Dear Richard Cornforth: I have read your response to the article placed out by us on Who Owns The Law with your conclusion that this is
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 30, 2001
      "Changing" J.A.I.L.
      Dear Richard Cornforth:
      I have read your response to the article placed out by us on "Who Owns The Law" with your conclusion that this is "why the J.A.I.L. Initiative needs the following clause:"
      The theme of your recommended inclusion of such proposed wording to the Constitution is based upon the supposed "authority of the judiciary to make case law precedent." As you know, it has come to being that every law on the books is viewed not for what the law says, but for what the courts say the law says. This is referred to as case law precedent.
      Case law precedent is extremely dangerous. It is sometimes referred to as "legislating from the bench," and is a "silent encroachment" upon our rights and the Constitution.
      Thomas Jefferson said in 1820 and 1821, respectively, about case precedent decision making powers of the courts, "The Judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric" and "The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body - working like gravity by night and by
      day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as
      venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
      It was Senator Sam Ervin who said, "... judicial verbicide is calculated to convert the Constitution into a worthless scrap of paper and to replace our government of laws with a judicial oligarchy."

      It is through case law precedent of the 1800's Bradley v. Fisher decision that we now have judicial immunity which J.A.I.L. is opposing. It is through case law precedent of the 1890's Perry v. Washburn case that we now have our current fiat monetary system. We have the establishment of socialism in this country from the precedent setting 1930's case decision on the Constitutional phrase "to provide for the general welfare."
      As I have said, it is not the law as passed by any legislature that has authority, but the authority is case law precedent of what the court says about every law.
      Furthermore, what you have proposed below deals with internal departmental practices and procedures (fitting for court rules), and does not address judicial accountability suitable for a Constitutional Amendment.
      I trust this will help you to see why your suggestion goes well beyond the scope of J.A.I.L. and, in fact, counters J.A.I.L.'s purpose and mission.
      -Ronald Branson-
      Author/Founder of J.A.I.L.

      Subject: Re: Fw: Response to "Who Owns The Law"

            That's why the J.A.I.L. initiative needs the following clause:
      (d) Precedent being the historic method of judicial decision making and well regarded as a bulwark of judicial independence, courts must abide by former precedents.  Declaration of law is authoritative to the extent necessary for courts' decisions and should be applied in subsequent cases to similarly situated parties unless published as a new precedent. Superior courts including the Oklahoma Supreme Court shall not avoid the precedential effect of prior decisions by ruling and determining on a “Not for publication” basis. Appellate records including the records of certiorari review shall include the clerk's work product, the clerk's summary, and the clerk's recommendation. No records material to the decision of an appellate tribunal or supreme court justice shall be excluded from the public record unless the record is sealed; in which case, the appellant and appellee shall have access to the full record. No appellate or supreme court decision shall be valid unless signed and dated. An unpublished decision by an Oklahoma superior court which reverses or modifies a prior precedent shall be void on its face, shall not be enforceable, and shall be regarded as blocking although superior courts shall not be civilly liable for the act of  reversing or modifying a
      precedent without publication.
      Richard Cornforth
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.