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

Is Judicial System Part of the Crime Problem?

Expand Messages
  • Ron Branson
    http://www.natchezdemocrat.com/2011/12/18/is-judicial-system-part-of-the-crime-problem/ Is judicial system part of the crime problem? Published 12:02am Sunday,
    Message 1 of 3 , Dec 19, 2011
    • 0 Attachment


      Is judicial system part of the crime problem?

      Published 12:02am Sunday, December 18, 2011

      TV viewers sit riveted to crime dramas and often begin to believe the shows are based in reality. In most crime dramas, the good guys win in the end and the bad guys go to prison.

      In reality, at least in Adams County, if you’re a bad guy you stand a good shot at never doing the time for your crime — a 4-in-5 chance, based on a recent three-month period.

      A recent investigation of felony cases in Adams County shows only 20 percent resulted in defendants being locked up. If the low number seems astounding, it is.

      Sure, making comparisons and analyses of criminal cases is difficult. Each case and the circumstances surrounding it are different.

      But when patterns appear, the “viewers” — in this case law-abiding, tax-paying citizens — start furrowing their brows.

      Regardless of how statistics may be twisted, it certainly seems as if crime is up in the area over the last few years.

      The reason probably has many answers, but certainly the appearance of a judicial system that is not tough on criminals plays a huge factor.

      Locking up the repeat offenders would go a long way toward deterring others and quite simply removing the criminals from society.

      But that rarely happens.

      In fact, most cases never see a trial and, apparently, few defendants ever see prison time.

      In the minds of the citizen viewers of our own county’s reality show, the sheriff’s office, the DA and the judges should be working together to ensure criminals are caught, fairly tried and appropriately punished.

      That doesn’t appear to be happening right now. Clearly our justice system, while well-intentioned, is not a cohesive system, pulling in the same direction.

      Instead its myriad of parts appears to be working largely independently, if not outright against one another.

      That must change and citizens must demand better.


      I have just read the above article, "Is Judicial System Part of the Crime Problem." I would like to make some comments thereto. It is natural that law abiding people should become concerned about the crime. After all, they justifiably say, "I have to obey the laws, why should others get away with committing crimes." When they see the judicial system not working in putting away these offenders, they conclude that we need more law to accomplish a remedy. But the error is in the public perception that laws result in remedies.

      The problem is really in an unaccountable judiciary, and more pointedly, the Doctrine of Judicial Immunity. Judicial Immunity teaches that judges can never be held accountable no matter what wrong they may do, and thus can never be sued. It was Lord Acton that said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

      Since no judge can be held liable for any wrong the may do, and can never be sued, why should they concern themselves with the law, as it is immaterial to the outcome any case. When the judge opens his mouth, the words that come out are the law, notwithstanding the legislature or law books. The public perceives the problem that we need more laws. This vicious circle continues until we have ten thousands of new laws, but less justice, and thus, a more frustrated public. This vicious cycle, although identified as thus, is touched upon by the above article, Is the Judicial System Part of the Crime Problem. The fact is, the Judicial System is the Crime Problem!

      Allow me to set forth an example of this. Unfortunately, I will refer to just one of my own many legal trips to the United States Court of Appeals over the decades. This example is the latest and a current litigation now ongoing. In 2009 I was cited for a simple traffic violation. Knowing the law and the Constitution as I do, the traffic court was not prepared in dealing with the procedural violations raised by myself. To avoid dealing with the likes of me, they engineered ingenuous maneuvers of fraud. They created a false and fraudulent Minute Order that stated that I was present at an arraignment on Nov. 24, 2009 on criminal charges at which I appeared and plead "Not Guilty," and was represented by counsel. As an alleged result, I was supposedly convicted and served time in jail. The only thing honest about this, was that I indeed was thrown in jail. During the appeal, I discovered this Minute Order alleging I was arraigned upon criminal charges, I began to pursue acquiring the transcript of this "arraignment," and was hastily informed by the Official Court Reporter for the County of Los Angeles that was named in the Minute Order that no such event happened. I so informed the Appellate Court of this fact in an effort to impeach the record according to Code of Civil Procedure 1916, to wit, "Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of a want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer, of collusion between the parties, of fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings." I discovered that not only was the Appellate Department of the Los Angeles County Count not interested in knowing the truth, but were the very ones party to the fraud offering the record, in respect to the proceedings.

      The Appellate Court argued that my impeachment of the record was not borne out by the record. Obviously, the impeachment of the record naturally contradicts the record. Since they refused to accept the challenge to contact the court reporter to ascertain the truth, I requested of the court reporter to make a sworn declaration that no arraignment of criminal charges happened in the case. They, nonetheless, affirmed the fraudulent "criminal conviction." This made them party to a criminal fraud.

      I brought suit, and the case wound up in Federal District Court for litigation. Four federal judges successively recused themselves, passing the case on to the fifth federal judge, Judge Otis D. Wright. He just unilaterally threw the case out without dealing with the fraud. I paid $455 and appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, using the form provided in the Rules of Fed. Procedure. Immediately I received an Order to Show Cause why the Notice of Appeal and Appeal should not be dismissed. I immediately opposed the Order and stated how this was a documented case of major fraud and cover-up involving the entire the Los Angeles County Court System as high as the Appellate Court of no notice, no Probable Cause, no criminal charges, refusal to allow impeachment of a false and fraudulent record, all in violation of Calf. Code of Civil Procedure 1916, there being no criminal conviction whatsoever in the case.

      In response, I received notice from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal that the Appeal had been dismissed, which was immediately following my filing of the Notice of Appeal. I am therefore now on my way to the U.S. Supreme Court over the question of whether I am entitled to the right of Appeal per Rules of Appellate Procedure 3(c)(1)(B)(4), "An appeal must not be dismissed for informality of form or title of the Notice of Appeal..." So, what does the public need? Another law that says, "The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals shall obey the laws regarding the right of appeal?"

      Laws do not produce righteousness, enforcement does. So what is the public to do when the laws they pass are not obeyed by the judiciary? Pass more laws that will be ignored by the judiciary? So what is the remedy at law when no law is honored? For the answer to this I suggest everyone reading this comment on this article go on their search engine and look up "Judicial Accountability Initiative Law!"

      Ron Branson

    • Katy and John
      I am more concerned about the innocent being convicted than the guilty going free. The judges are not supposed to work with the prosecutors; they are
      Message 2 of 3 , Dec 22, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        I am more concerned about the innocent being convicted than the "guilty" going free. The judges are not supposed to work with the prosecutors; they are required to be unbiased. If 80% of people are found innocent or the charges are dismissed, the problem may be too many arrests of innocent people or for minor violations. The US has 2.6 million people in jail. Listen to the comments by Presidential candidate Gary Johnson on the state of the legal system. Putting more people in jail is not a solution to crime. Governor Perry just pardoned a death row victim who was innocent. Dr. Katy Hoover
      • b quinlan
         Clearfield Doctrine 14 comments Clearfield Doctrine Governments descend to the Level of a mere private corporation, and take on the characteristics of a
        Message 3 of 3 , Dec 22, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
           Clearfield Doctrine14 comments

          Clearfield Doctrine

          "Governments descend to the Level of a mere private corporation,
          and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen...where
          private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve Notes] and
          securities [checks] is concerned. ... For purposes of suit,
          such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities
          entirely separate from government." -

          Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States 318 U.S. 363-371 (1942)
          What the Clearfield Doctrine is saying is that when private
          commercial paper is used by corporate government, then
          Government loses its sovereignty status and becomes no
          different than a mere private corporation.

          As such, government then becomes bound by the rules and
          laws that govern private corporations which means that if they
          intend to compel an individual to some specific performance
          based upon its corporate statutes or corporation rules, then
          the government, like any private corporation, must be the holder-
          in-due-course of a contract or other commercial agreement
          between it and the one upon whom demands for specific
          performance are made.

          And further, the government must be willing to enter the contract
          or commercial agreement into evidence before trying to get to
          the court to enforce its demands, called statutes.

          This case is very important because it is a 1942 case after the
          Erie RR v. Tomkins 304 U.S. 64, (1938) case in which the
          Legislatures and Judiciary changed from legislating under
          "Public Law", which was in consonance with the CONstitution,
          to legislating under "Public Policy" according to the wishes
          of the "Creditors of the US Corporation".



        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.