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

Inquiry on "Three Strikes and You're Out" for Judges

Expand Messages
  • jail4judges
    J.A.I.L. News Journal _____________________________________________________ Los Angeles, California July21,
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 21, 2003
      J.A.I.L. News Journal
      Los Angeles, California                                                    July21, 2003
      Inquiry On "Three Strikes
      And You're Out" For Judges
      Dear Lawrence Agee:
      I am pleased to address your expressed concerns about J.A.I.L below. For the educational benefit of other JAILers, and of our readers, I am sending a copy of this to them also.
      First, as you know, when one is dealing with any jury, the outcome is purely the final determination of those setting on the jury, so I am going to assume your question as, "Is it possible for such and such to be a strike," rather than "Is it a strike."
      Contract law on the books as passed by the state legislature governs what is or is not a "valid contract." A judge is bound to rule according to the law. If a judge ignores the material facts that constitute the contract, then an appeal may be brought upon those issues, to wit; "The judge failed and refused to follow the applicable law, as was drawn to his attention, and that he deliberately disregarded the material facts of the case, that if considered, would have altered the outcome of the case." Further, an allegation of intentional denial of due process of law would be appropriate for such an appeal.
      This throws the ball in the appellate court to rule upon these issues. If the appeals court should sustain the decision of the trial judge below, then the appropriate course is to take it to the state's highest (Supreme?) Court after a petition for rehearing in the appeals court. (In New York the Supreme Court is not the highest court, but rather a trial court.) 
      Upon a denial of the highest state court to alter or remand for a correct decision under law, it becomes ripe for a complaint before the Special Grand Jury, the complainant having exhausted all other judicial remedies within the state.
      Now, if I understand your questions properly, let us suppose the SGJ finds that "Yes, the judge did commit a deliberate violation of law because it was properly brought it to the judge's attention, and yes, the judge did deliberately ignore the material facts of the case, and yes, he did commit an intentional act of denying due process of law under the Constitution," your question is, does this compose three strikes under the J.A.I.L. constitutional amendment.  Your answer is "No!" All these questions are within one case. It constitutes only "One Strike." In another totally different case, whether brought by you or someone else before this same judge, it would be "Strike Two."
      Now, let's go back to these appellate judges that sustained this trial judge's decision. While it is not necessary to rely upon judicial precedence here, there is a judicial attestation that affirmance of a void order is likewise void. If upon a petition for rehearing, you have brought to the attention of these appellate justices that their affirmance decision does not comport with the facts, or with the law of the case, and thus you have likewise apprised them of their denial of due process of law under the Constitution, then they are subject in the same complaint before the SGJ on the grounds that they have entered the violations in pursuit of a conspiracy along with the trial judge and the justices of the state's highest (Supreme) court.
      Thus, if the trial judge, and all the reviewing judges/justices engaged in a conspiracy to deny you due process of law under the Constitution, they could be also be culpable separately and collectively, and you could sue all of them civilly under the provisions of the J.A.I.L. Amendment. Of course, the Special Grand Jury may find that the trial judge was culpable, but that the appellate justices did not conspire together. This could be because of the way one argued their appeal, or it could be just the way the SGJ sees it.
      As to your question, "How about a judge who allows one party to commit felony grand theft against another party and the theft can be proven? Would that warrant a strike?" I'm not sure I understand your question, so I will withhold responding to it. Suffice it to say that the J.A.I.L. Amendment does not deal with the merits of a case, it just assures that the processes are followed. In short, judges sit in judgment of the merits, and the SGJ sits in judgment of the process. They do not retry a case.
      Overall, I commend you greatly for your questions. You are the first ever to raise this issue.
      -Ron Branson-
      Author of J.A.I.L.

      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2003 8:04 PM
      Subject: Re: Reviewing The "Three Strikes" Provision of J.A.I.L.

      I have a question. If I had a valid contract, and a judge said he would uphold the contract, then he didn't (to the tune of over $70,000), would he get a strike under JAIL? Then if the District court upheld this flagrant contract violation, would he get a strike? If a judge condoned perjury would he get a strike? How about the judge who refuses to hold the first judge accountable? How about a judge who allows one party to commit felony grand theft against another party and the theft can be proven? Would that warrant a strike?

      J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
      JAIL is a unique addition to our form of gov't. heretofore unrealized.
      JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
      JAIL is taking America like a wildfire! AddRemove@...
      JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability!
      E-Groups sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
      Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      Donate offerings to J.A.I.L., P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
      "Give me your wealth, and I will give you America"  - Ron Branson
      "..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.