- View Source----- Original Message -----From: CONDORO7@...To: jail4judges@...Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 8:20 PMSubject: JAIL
A letter to all.
6 July 2000
On June 26th, just eleven days ago, The California State Supreme court overturned the appeals court finding that the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA) was unconstitutional thereby reinstating the law and it's subsequent confiscation's abilities as seen in the SKS Rifle confiscation orders.
For any of you who may be anti gun activists or supporters of such, I want you to see exactly just what you have done. The reason for this is that it is now only a matter of time before you realize that you are the subject of that attack against our rights by government. You have successfully outlawed all rights in the State of California with the words of the findings of the court as follows; (note: This is not a joke or a hoax)
"Although plaintiffs assert the AWCA fails to satisfy even the rational basis test, they contend it should be reviewed under the “intermediate or even strict scrutiny standards of legal review” because “portions of the [AWCA] touch upon [an] express fundamental constitutional right.” This fundamental right plaintiffs locate in article 1, section 1 of the California Constitution, which provides: “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” If plaintiffs are implying that a right to bear arms is one of the rights recognized in the California Constitutions declaration of rights, they are simply wrong. No mention is made in it of a right to bear arms. (See In re Rameriz (1924) 193 Cal. 633, 651 [“The constitution of this state contains no provision on the subject.”].) Moreover, “[i]t is long since settled in this state that regulation of firearms is a proper police function.” (Galvan v. Superior Court (1969) 70 Cal.2d 851, 866.) We reject any suggestion that the regulations at issue here impermissibly infringe upon the right to defend life or protect property guaranteed by the California Constitution.
Therefore, as the AWCA does not burden a fundamental right under either the federal or the state Constitutions, the rational basis test applies."
If you are an anti gun activist or supporter of such, did you miss it while you were reveling in your personal win? Did your hatred for me and my guns, who's only purpose was to protect rights, blind you to what was just quoted?
If so, let me show you a closer look.
From the State Constitution we have the following which was quoted above by the Judges;
This fundamental right plaintiffs locate in article 1, section 1 of the
California Constitution, which provides: “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”
Every facit of that paragraph has now been violated by the following words of the Judges in the very same finding from which I quoted above in the following quote;
"If plaintiffs are implying that a right to bear arms is one of the rights recognized in the California Constitution’s declaration of rights, they are simply wrong. No mention is made in it of a right to bear arms."
On this basis one should consider that all things that the State Supreme court determines to be not explicitly contained within the State Constitution are mere privileges and not Rights. The intentional actions of the court to ignore the Ninth amendment to the Constitution of the United States as well as the Second Amendment and the supremacy clause is self evident. It then follows that if the State determines that they do not want you to have a pickup truck, a fireplace, a computer, or anything else that is not explicitly written in the State Constitution, the State has the authority to enforce such bans and subsequent confiscation's.
With these two sentences, the California State Supreme Court has declared at least two things. They claim there is no Right to keep and bear arms and because they based this on such a Right not being explicitly written in the State Constitution they have also declared that you have no Rights to anything if it is not explicitly written in the State Constitution. If the law makers claim you cannot have a wood burning stove they now have the power to confiscate them from you. Maybe your washing machine doesn't fit their elitist ideals or even your house.
If you simply say that I am wrong as these Judges did, consider this. Go to the California Constitution and locate were it says that a person has the right to self defense by force of arms if necessary. Look all you want. It isn't there. My enjoying and defending life and liberty was protected by the Constitution up until this final ruling. Now the court has said that without the enumeration of methods and tools, I have no such right to arms. If that makes you happy, read on.
If you simply say that I am wrong as these Judges did, consider this. Go to the California Constitution and locate were it says that a person has the right to own or posses a pickup truck, car, boat, woodstove, clothing, money, or anything else you can think of including being secure in your effects. Look all you want. It isn't there. My "pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy" was protected by the Constitution up until this final ruling. Now the court has said that without the enumeration of items that fit such descriptions, We have no such right.
If you simply say that I am wrong as these Judges did, consider this. Go to the California Constitution and locate were it says that a person has the right to own or posses a house. Look all you want. It isn't there. My possession of property was protected by the Constitution up until this final ruling. Now the court has said that without the enumeration of property, We have no such right. There you have it folks. Democracy in action.
Of this finding I can only say this.
A court or representative who willfully attacks the Rights of the people and intentionally attempts to run a dictatorship by the above prescription is a criminal predator and a traitor. They represent a clear and present danger to our continued survival and self defense is a must if we wish to remain free of their bondage and subsequent violent, life threatening, attacks.
With control of law enforcement at their beck and call unless on an
individual basis they refuse to comply, it is now only a matter of time
before the blood shed starts as their attempt to enforce such a tyrannical prescription will undoubtedly be met with armed resistance. The law makers and courts responsible for this action new this would be the result as the degree of ignorance required not to know this would preclude the ability of those individuals to become Judges and Representatives in the first place.
The only possibility left is that of a concerted, willful, and wanton intent to destroy our Republican form of government in favor of an ideological dictatorship. Such an effort is called, Treason.
- View Source----- Original Message -----From: Terry L. FeslerTo: jail4judgesSent: Saturday, July 22, 2000 4:20 PMSubject: JAILI have been personally involved with many issues beginning in the 60's with draft card burning and the list continues.
Two important things I have learned are:
1) Many excellent projects have failed simply because people fail to see the real benefits of a worthy cause succeeding because they cannot separate their causes and issues from the direction that could be taken as an addition and supplement to their own cause, so they continue to bog down the process of an excellent idea with the infighting, continuing disagreements and fail to see that, in many ways, we are all saying the same thing only with different words and issues: We all want a government that is fair, honest, and just.
2) It may not be always true in every situation, but I have learned that one of the best ways to get what you want is to help others get what they want, first. Once they have what they want/need/had to have, they will then have the free time left over to assist you and appreciate that you once helped them get what they wanted/needed/had to have.
It goes without saying that I view the government of having done this exactly this way, let the people have, light switches, jobs, cars, refrigerators, running water, 12 packs, and many other conveniences and very few will not want anything more and rarely protest. Once this is accomplished the government is free to do what it wants to those who will resist and protest while the majority could not be any more indifferent to what the government does in the name of due process. As long as people believe that convenience is freedom, those of us who demand freedom and justice will have many opponents who have given up their freedoms for conveniences and have no idea that they are one of the causes of the people losing their freedoms, and rights, by default. These people will not complain, or resist, or even think about it until injustice visits them personally. In this view I cannot help but realize that we do have the government we deserve and, in fact, we as a people, have actually earned this type of government.
I view J.A.I.L. as an issue that may possibly get the many other balls rolling that I have worked on and all I have to do is support J.A.I.L. AS IT IS AND IT WILL WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Afterwards my other causes will have an easier path of less resistance.
J.A.I.L. is important for many reasons.
1) It is one of the best concepts I have seen anyone present.
2) It will most definitely have a "trickle down" effect that will continue to benefit many other causes and all that has to be done to start this is get J.A.I.L. on the books as the law.
3) Until anyone can come up with a better idea I can see that the sole issue of getting J.A.I.L. on the books can only benefit everyone, and their causes, but J.A.I.L. has to be the on the books first for that door to open and possibly remain open for these other issues.
4) If you personally have another cause [which I also do have many] then it is the utmost importance to realize that J.A.I.L. is yet another tool that has been made available for you to reach these other goals.
My Best Regards to All,
Terry L. Fesler
Dear Lori: I have purposely stayed out of any fray and infighting for good reason. I cannot and will not micro-manage every aspect that comes up among JAILers. But when it comes to the JAIL movement itself, and its focus, I must make that position very clear. JAIL's focus must be LIMITED to JUDICIAL accountability, as the name indicates. It's not called "government accountability." I have explained that I find that our focus must be limited to whomever comes under the umbrella of judicial immunity, and that's not just judges. That umbrella has been expanded to cover anyone remotely connected with the judicial system, including court clerks. The JAIL Initiative starts out "(a) Preamble. We, the People of California (or whatever state adopts JAIL), find that the doctrine of judicial immunity has been greatly abused, and when judges abuse their power, the people are obliged - it is their duty - to correct that injury, for the benefit of themselves and their posterity. In order to ensure judicial accountability and domestic tranquility, we hereby amend Article I of our Constitution with these provisions, which shall be known as "The Judicial Accountability Amendment." That preamble describes the parameters of JAIL. It centers on "the doctrine of judicial immunity," the judicial abuse of which requires JAIL. That is the sole purpose of JAIL-- to end the abuse of that doctrine. That necessarily limits JAIL to the judiciary "which shall be known as the JUDICIAL Accountability Amendment." As the author of JAIL, that was my intention when I wrote it, and is still my intention now, and will remain so. It is my contention that the People must first concentrate on judicial abuse, and with that under control, the rest of government will be affected thereby and will bring lawyers, executives, legislators, agents, even corporate execs, into line. To whatever degree they may require additional measures after JAIL is in effect, those measures can then be pursued. But I will not allow the JAIL parameters and mission to be watered down with further expansion. I have expressed my firm belief that anything beyond the stated scope of JAIL serves as a distraction to the objectives of which JAIL is specifically designed to accomplish. I receive emails urging me to expand the scope of JAIL, especially to lawyers and legislators. However, I find that not only unnecessary, but moreover, counter-productive. I realize that, as human beings, we can't all agree with one another 100 percent. There are those that even support JAIL who don't agree with me totally. I have to expect that. But one thing peculiar to me is, I am the one who wrote JAIL based on the purpose I had in mind (and still do). I've had many excellent people who have helped me improve the wording and include all that was necessary to the stated scope and purpose of JAIL, for which I am truly grateful. I couldn't have "perfected" it without them. There are still some details that may have to be adjusted in the future, but the scope of JAIL will not be expanded. The scope of JAIL is pretty well explained in my recent email article "Keeping Focused." Not everyone agrees with my position, and a few have expressed their disagreement, including Jacob Roginsky. Some have even said that "JAIL won't work -- we have to start shooting -- we've already tried everything else." Well, we haven't tried JAIL yet, as there has been nothing like it in prior existence. The system disciplinary agencies for judges don't work, for that reason-- they're part of the system and have a conflict of interest. The Grand Juries we have now aren't allowed to operate with the autonomous power they have, and furthermore, they are limited to the Counties they "serve." We don't have statewide Grand Juries. I am not saying that JAIL can't be part of another effort that is compatible with our objective. All I am saying is, please respect the limited scope and purpose of JAIL as is stated in the Preamble of the Initiative itself. Thanks for all of your help and dedication. God bless.-Ron Branson-