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

** Feedback On The Three Strikes Provision **

Expand Messages
  • jail4judges
    J.A.I.L. News Journal _____________________________________________________ Los Angeles, California July 22, 2003
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 22, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
       
      J.A.I.L. News Journal
      _____________________________________________________
      Los Angeles, California                                          July 22, 2003
       
      TheJAILerMakers   What?MeWarden?
      T-ShirtMe!
                      FedJAIL4FedJudges                   E-mail&hosting
       
      Feedback On
      The Three Strikes Provision 

      We appreciate the feedback we're getting on our previous JNJ regarding the "Three Strikes Provision" of J.A.I.L.  It shows that our readers are thinking and feel that this is an important issue. We want to share some of their concerns and comments with all of you.
       
      Ignorance of the law:  Before any matter can be brought to the Special Grand Jury of J.A.I.L., it must be shown that the law was brought to the attention of the judge complained of and he failed to justify his action. Therefore, ignorance of the law cannot be claimed.
       
      Should not get three -just one:  The reason for three strikes was already discussed in the previous JNJ on the subject. People are still frustrated about this and they compare the J.A.I.L. process with a system trial. Questions asked are: Does a murderer get probation for a first offense? Does a child molester or rapist get probation?  Those questions refer to a disposition after trial, and has nothing to do with J.A.I.L..
       
      Remember, the J.A.I.L. process before a Special Grand Jury is NOT a trial. Once the SGJ determines that a judge may be sued civilly without the protection of judicial immunity, THEN the trial on constituitional violations is held if the judge is sued. The SGJ also will have the power to indict a judge and cause to be impaneled twelve special trial jurors plus alternates. [¶(r)]  The SGJ does not hold trial nor sentence judges. That is the power of the special trial jury [end of ¶(r)]. A criminal conviction is also considered a strike. [¶(s)].
       
      What a judge can and can't do in the system:  There is also discussion about what a judge is allowed to do under the system, and actions that can be brought against a judge. That applies to the judicial system, not to J.A.I.L. J.A.I.L. gets involved only when it is alleged that a judge knowingly, intentionally and deliberately violated constitutional law while acting in the system. Whatever the rules and standards are in the system is irrelevant to J.A.I.L., unless and until a complaint of judicial violation is brought to the SGJ. Same thing with whatever remedies are available in the system-- only after all judicial remedies have been exhausted through the highest court of the state does J.A.I.L. become involved.
       
      Judge thinks he has followed the process:   What a judge "thinks" is not the basis for J.A.I.L. It's strictly what he DOES according to constitutional requirements, --criteria that a judge is expected to know and is charged with knowing, particularly when a violation is specifically brought to his attention on the record. Along this line, Ron actually had a federal magistrate (Magistrate Stone, U.S. District Court, Los Angeles)state in his decision (when suing a state court commissioner in federal court for acting in total absence of all jurisdiction) that it was reasonable under the circumstances that the commissioner didn't know she was acting without jurisdiction, and therefore her acts are valid. J.A.I.L. will put an end to that kind of nonsense.
       
      What if your attorney messes up your case in court?  Any irregularities by your attorney must be brought to the judge's attention in writing, whether it be by a substitution of attorneys, a motion supported by declaration, or otherwise, as soon as discovered so that it becomes part of the court record. The onus must be placed on the judge for any improper proceedings so that he can be held accountable for the way he handles the matter. If the judge refuses to deal with the matter, some kind of collateral relief must be sought before another judge in order to get the issue clearly on the record before a judge --even if the second judge refuses to grant intervening relief. Then THAT judge can be held accountable with J.A.I.L. after all judicial remedies have been exhausted.
      Any improprieties at the trial court level, such as attorney misconduct, must be brought up in some type of proceeding PRIOR to the appellate process in order to be a proper issue raised on appeal, and hence, be an issue properly on the record for J.A.I.L. after exhaustion of judicial remedies. The burden will always be on the J.A.I.L. complainant to make sure the court record includes all matters of impropriety involving constitutional violation(s) in order to qualify for J.A.I.L. scrutiny.
       
      What if the court record has been tampered with?  This was an excellent question, since it is the court record that stands as the basis of SGJ examination. This issue is closely related to the above matter, in that it involves impropriety in court proceedings. Again, it is important to get the issue promptly before the judge as soon as possible and prior to the appellate process. If a tampered court record affects the final decision, it most likely would result in a void judgment which must be attacked in a post-judgment proceeding before appeal. The judge must be given an opportunity to correct any problems with the record and final judgment before it is appealed, and then the appeals process exhausted before eligible for J.A.I.L. The reason for exhaustion, as we have explained before, is to give the system every chance to work on its own before the necessity of J.A.I.L. as the last resort.
       
      If a judge allows felony Grand Theft which is proven, is that a strike?   Remember, the J.A.I.L. process is NOT a retrial of the case. As stated in our previous JNJ, the initiative defines "strike" as "an adverse immunity decision" by the Special Grand Jury. [¶(b)5]  "An adverse immunity decision" is the removing of judicial immunity from a judge in any subsequent trial against said judge if certain violations are found by the SGJ as stated in ¶(c). Only for that determination (adverse immunity decision) by the SGJ does a strike against the judge under J.A.I.L. occur. The subsequent trial under J.A.I.L. tries the defendant-judge only on the alleged constitutional violations, and does not involve the issues of any other court proceeding; however, the outcome of the J.A.I.L. process may well affect the final decision of the prior court proceeding or trial in which the judicial violation(s) occurred, if they did occur.
       
      "Next you'll be saying it's three strikes per district, or three per year."  As I stated in direct response to that person, the Three Strikes provision under J.A.I.L. applies only to judges (anyone normally shielded by judicial immunity) --not to locations, or to time periods. The gist of that comment was: Why should the people be lenient with judges, when they aren't lenient with us? We should be as tough as possible. As I explained to the inquirer, the purpose of J.A.I.L. is not to seek revenge against judges, or even to punish judges in the first instance (although some kind of punishment may result as part of the fall-out of the J.A.I.L. process). J.A.I.L. is designed to have the people police judicial compliance with the Constitution, thus providing protection of the integrity of the Constitution-- a provision that was omitted from the Constitution at its inception, resulting in the tyranny we have today.
       
      What's to assure that the Special Grand Jury won't become corrupt?  Nothing is perfect when dealing with human beings. However, in designing the J.A.I.L. initiative, Ron made certain provisions that would guard against corruption.
       
      One such provision is the selection of Jurors by public lot: "The Jurors shall serve without compulsion and shall be drawn by public lot by the Secretary of State from names on the voters rolls and any citizen submitting his/her name to the Secretary of State for such drawing." [¶(n)].
       
      Another is the rotation of Jurors:  "Excluding the establishment of the initial Special Grand Juries, each Juror shall serve one year. No Juror shall serve more than once. On the first day of each month, two persons shall be rotated off each Special Grand Jury and new Citizens seated, except in January it shall be three. Vacancies shall be filled on the first of the following month in addition to the Jurors regularly rotated, and the Juror drawn to fill a vacancy shall complete only the remainder of the term of the Juror replaced." [¶(o)]
       
      And another is the establishment of SGJ internal rules:  "Each Special Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to establish rules assuring their attendance, to provide internal discipline, and to remove any of its members on grounds of misconduct. ..."  [¶(l)]  Of course those rules may be modified to meet any particular internal problem that is encountered. "To provide internal discipline" covers a multitude of sin.
       
      Another factor in the discipline of the SGJ is motive. Most non-government citizens would be self-motivated to be a final check on the observance of the Constitution by our public servants, since it is the protection of their own unalienable rights that is at stake. It would be likely that any "infiltrator" with corrupt motives would be quickly discovered and ousted before any appreciable damage could be done. That is why the regular rotation of Jurors is important. With 25 Jurors on each SGJ, it is quite certain that the body of Jurors will monitor each other closely to guard against any impropriety (such as bribery) that may develop.
       
      *  *  *  *  *
       
      Thanks for your interest in J.A.I.L. and realize that, if J.A.I.L. isn't perfect, there's nothing else out there that provides anything better, or even comes close! J.A.I.L. is certainly going to provide an improvement over what we have today!  It's going to put the People ultimately in charge of constitutional conduct by our government, by policing judicial compliance therewith. J.A.I.L. is the only answer for restoring our Constitutional Republic!
       
      -Barbie-
       
      Ron Branson
      Author/Founder

      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
       
      "..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.