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
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
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
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.
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
precedent without publication.