Learning What "Law" Is About
- J.A.I.L. News Journal
Los Angeles, California October 1, 2003Learning What "Law" Is AboutIn my years of promoting J.A.I.L. as the Author and Founder, I have found that my biggest job is de-educating people, i.e., eradicating from their memory that we are actually a nation of laws. Consequently, I have to keep repeating the same message over and over again.I realize that people's thinking is that no one can play football without rules, so how can we run a country without rules. Their thinking is logical, so it appears I am asking people to ignore logic and common sense. Therefore, Ron must be crazy to suggest that our country is without rules to govern it, but is run by politics only. They will even open law books to show me the black-and-white law, and say, "Here it is right here," pointing to the law section, which proves they are incapable of comprehending what I am saying to them.Does anyone remember the scene in George Orwell's book "1984" where four fingers are held up and the question asked of the man on the stretch rack, "How many fingers am I holding up?" If he answered "Four," or any other number, he got tortured. This continued until he got the right answer, which in the book was, "Whatever you want it to be." This precisely depicts how our country is run -- after the order of the book 1984!So Ron Branson is either crazy, or if correct, all logic has been thrown to the wind, and our country is about to reap the whirlwind.Below is the testimony of an Oregon JAILer who decided to enter law school so he could help himself and others in matters of law. What follows is the result.
INSIDE REPORT FROM OUR NATIONS LAW SCHOOLSBy Lawrence Agee, - Lcagee@...
I am now in my 3rd year of law school. I landed here because I was swindled out of large sums of money by crooked lawyers on several occasions. Today, I learned more disturbing facts about our legal system.
After sitting through several lectures on white collar crime, I asked my instructor what the victim of white collar crime is supposed to do. I related a case of mail fraud that was inflicted upon me that resulted in an $8,300 swindle.I remember going to the police and getting brushed off. They wouldn't listen to me. I didn't know what to do. I was forced to hire a lawyer. He charged me $20,000 and lost. Not only did the con get away with $8,300 (aided and abetted by a lawyer), I had to pay "my" lawyer $20,000 for the privilege of being robbed.Then, the judge told me I had to pay the person who swindled me $2,500 because I "lost." My lawyer, who dumped me off on another lawyer the day before trial, must have laughed all the way to the bank. When I told him I wanted to appeal, he brushed me off. I went to find an appellate lawyer who said he could take my case, but needed a $25,000 retainer.I did it myself. I worked on it for one year. When I got to court, there were 30-40 appeals on the docket that morning. One minute into my oral argument, I was cut off. The judgment was "affirmed" and I was out $50,000. (I later saw on the JAIL website the judge who heard my case was sued for Racketeering for throwing cases).
I asked my instructor why the DA or the US Attorney wouldn't prosecute this. He said it was "too small of a case." Then I asked what the "threshold" level was where the US Attorney will begin to listen. He said, somewhere in the $70,000 and up range. He said this with a straight face.
I pondered this answer, and I am really quite upset. What he is saying is that we (i.e. the US government) will prosecute a crime only when the US Attorney wants to, and will act only if you were defrauded out of $70,000 or more.
I realized that all of us poor suckers who actually believed in "equal protection under the law" have been duped. We only get equal protection when we get cheated out of a large enough sum of money to hit the "threshold."
In other words, for the experienced con artist, they realize they have a blank check to rob us, so long as they keep the amounts under $70,000. They know that the US Attorneys and DAs are simply too lazy to act. In other words, if you are rich, then the government will protect you. If not, they won't. I find this double standard offensive.
The lesson learned by Lawrence Agee as stated above is indeed shocking, but he still has not been given the truth. He was told that the financial threshold is $70,000. But if his case exceeded the $70,000 threshold, his outcome would have been no different, for he has not been given the straight-forward truth, even after three years of law school.The threshold is not $70,000 or $70 million, etc. The correct answer is "Whatever they want it to be." The variables are, "Who is it that you know?" "How much influence do you have?" "How much is in it for the grantor?" etc, etc. The bottom line is that there is no bottom line, for there is no rule of law that governs our country -- just politics.There will be no rule of law governing this country until after the passage and enforcement of J.A.I.L.
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_USAfirstname.lastname@example.org
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 <><