December 21, 2004
"How Many Judges Have
By Barbie, ACIC, National J.A.I.L.
That question has no relevance to
I don't know how many times we're asked that question
on the internet. And last night, at the meeting where Ron Branson was the guest
speaker, Lo! and Behold! the question came up again, this time in person, at the
end of Ron's talk fully explaining what J.A.I.L. was about, and how it would
come about as law. Ron explained that "Jay Ay Eye Ell" is an acronym, standing
for Judicial Accountability Initiative Law. He gave this
basic explanation because about half the audience had never heard of J.A.I.L.
before. It has nothing to do with locking up judges. (Paragraph (r)
Indictment does mention that a judge may be subject to
incarceration, but that is not the crux of J.A.I.L. nor is it even
J.A.I.L. must be passed into law before
it can do anything.
Ron explained that J.A.I.L. will most likely pass by
the initiative process.
He asked if anyone did not know what an initiative
is. No one raised his hand. But for those of you reading this article who may
not know, an initiative is a means by which the People (actually limited to
voters) can propose a law to the electorate, by signing a petition, for
placement of the proposed law on the state ballot to be voted on at the next
state or general election. To qualify an initiative for the ballot, a requisite
number of valid voter signatures must be collected by registered voters of a
county, within a time limit established by that state. South Dakota is the
initiative state having the best terms on initiative: only 33,000 good
signatures needed, with 18 months (a year and a half) to collect them. That's
why J.A.I.L. is targeting that state for passage in 2006. But we aren't
limited to one state!
Yes, there are flaws in the voting
To everything, there is a downside. We are also asked
"How can you expect to get J.A.I.L. passed by initiative when we can't control
the voting process?" (Mama Mia!) Well, let me say that the
People, unfortunately through the flawed voting process, had better be willing
to take the chance that the voting process WILL work sufficiently enough, in a
sufficient number of counties and states, to get the task accomplished of
passing this measure. There is no question that J.A.I.L. is a People's cause,
creating a means literally OF the People, BY
the People, and FOR the People-- meaning that J.A.I.L. IS THE
PEOPLE-- not the government to which that
phraseology has historically referred. (Do we really think that the
organization in power today is truly "of
the people, by the people, and for the people"?) The alternative question
would be "How can we expect to get J.A.I.L. passed by legislation (in the
first instance) when we can't control the so-called 'government'?" I
believe that taking a chance on the voting process beats the alternative. The
ultimate question is "How can we expect to survive as
a free country if we don't pass J.A.I.L. one way or another?"
That's where we're at, folks!
Why not go after a particular
Another question that was asked by a very intelligent,
knowledgeable, and sincere patriot in the audience is "Why don't you just
go after a particular judge, rather than setting up an entire system for
accountability?" In follow up to that question, another person suggested
"People are more inclined to be motivated by the actions of a single judge in a
particular case, rather than all judiciary." We really appreciate these
questions because we know that you want to solve the problem of judicial
tyranny, and are trying to figure out the best way to do it. And we thank you
for asking them. These questions serve to sharpen up the best means to
accomplish that goal. They serve as the "grist" for the "J.A.I.L. mill" if
you will. They serve to further refine and perfect the J.A.I.L. program.
Yes, folks, we keep improving our thinking process that goes into this vital
cause and it all helps. J.A.I.L. is constantly being put to the test, and our
confidence in J.A.I.L. grows with each
Judicial accountability is necessary on
a systemic basis.
Let me answer the above question with another question (actually several
questions): Where would you take your challenge against a particular judge? To
another judge? What forum is available today in which to
have such matter heard according to due process of law? In court? At any
Folks, without J.A.I.L., there's no place to
go! That's why we tell people that we can't help them on
their cases pending in the current system --because the system is broken!
It doesn't work! The entire judicial system is corrupt and there's no
place further a matter can be taken for redress of grievances under our system
of "government." The end of the line is that impenetrable wall called
"judicial immunity" --impenetrable because the doctrine is ABUSED by the
Oh! Judicial immunity is NOT impenetrable, you
"It says so right here, section [so-and-so], on page [so-and-so], decided
by the supreme Court in [so-and-so]. It's right
there!! I'll quote it!" People, People! It doesn't
matter what it says, where it
says it, or who said it! It took us eighteen years
to find that out-- eighteen years of saying "No, that's not true! It says so in
this law, in this case decision-- I'll quote it!" The proof that the
judicial system is screwed up is when judges don't bother to respond to your
claim, don't bother to support their conclusion of "frivolous" by findings of
FACT according to the evidence on the record submitted in your case! when judges
ignore the facts of your case and don't bother to
justify their word "denied" in summarily throwing your case out. You know the
system is screwed up because judges can't justify refusing to give you due
process of law, and so they just don't. Because it's the end of the line for
you, they don't have to justify their actions! There's
nowhere else to go. Appeal?? It gets worse the further up you go!
Write a complaint to the Commission on Judicial Performance? You get a
form letter in response, "case closed." Judicial immunity is not absolute, you
say?? Remember-- LAW DOESN'T MATTER. We've become a "government of
men" --not of law.
After all is said and done, J.A.I.L. is
still the only answer.
J.A.I.L. is based primarily on the Declaration of
Independence. It is also based on the U.S. Constitution insofar as
it is the fulfillment of the Declaration. Which Constitution, you
ask? The one that fulfills the principles set forth in the Declaration of
Independence-- whatever it's called! Certainly a
"corporate" U.S. Constitution does not meet that requirement. So it's not in
consideration, obviously. Whatever the corporate powers took upon themselves to
pull off on the People is the "fake." It's repugnant to the legitimate
Constitution and null and void ab initio and need not
be regarded as law.
When government usurps its power and pursues a long
train of abuses designed for the destruction of the People and their rights
under absolute despotism --has that happened?-- the
Declaration says that the People must "throw off such government" (in other
words, CLEAN IT UP) and "provide new guards for our future security" (such as
what J.A.I.L. will provide).
"..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
striking at the
-- Henry David Thoreau