Dear Jon Roland, I would like to reason with you on your comments about J.A.I.L. being too complicated and too confrontational. We are at war with an
Message 1 of 2
, Jan 21, 2012
Dear Jon Roland, I would like to reason with you on your
comments about J.A.I.L. being too complicated and too
confrontational. We are at war with an out-of-control
government. It was President George Washington who stated,
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is
force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.
Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
Can we mutually accept this premises as spoken by George
Washington that Government is not reason? If so, I wish to offer
this quote of Washington in response to your statement that the
J.A.I.L. proposal is too confrontational. Shall we seek to go
half way with these judges in order to minimize conflict with
them? I was once told by an attorney who served as the top
leader in an organization we all know, who shall remain here
nameless, "You, Ron, are making the judges mad. We want to be
their friends!" It was for that reason that his organization did
not want even the endorsement of J.A.I.L., because he was afraid
that the judges would interpret that his organization was in
league with Ron Branson.
In that respect, I agree that J.A.I.L. is confrontational with
judges. We are seeking righteousness, truth, and justice, not
friendship with the judges to get them on our side. We know that
such an effort otherwise would ultimately mean that in order to
be their friends, we must adopt judicial independence instead of
seeking judicial accountability. "Can two walk together, except
they be agreed?" Amos 3:3. We all know the answer to this
question. Absolutely not! "[W]hat fellowship hath righteousness
with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with
darkness?" II Corinthians 6:14. It is not wise to play in the
same sandbox with underhanded tyrants who would sooner slit your
throat than to play within the rules.
As you your other issue that the J.A.I.L.
proposal is too complicated. Let's get down to particulars; who,
what, when, were, how, and why! Shall we throw the baby out
because raising a baby is complicated, and presents many
hardships. Shall we supply feather
pillows to all our case hardened patriot soldiers, lest they
find that winning on truth is too complicated. What section or
phrase do you find too complicated that needs be extracted from
the J.A.I.L proposal to make it palatable?
As for the Special Grand Jury, you offer the following, "The
traditional grand jury from colonial times was designed to do
what is proposed. We need to return the grand jury to that
standard." This is well said, Jon. But details? How do we go
about doing that? I have conversed with those who have made
statements as yours. I have asked them this same question as I
am asking you. Give me the details on how we accomplish this.
There answer was, "I don't know." So I said to them, "I like my
proposal on how to accomplish this within J.A.I.L. than your
proposal of no idea!"
Jon, as you know, Ron Branson is not your enemy. We are on
the same side and part of the same team. I am just reasoning
with you that we must not just hunker down in the foxhole and
fantasize victory. We draw up a definite plan and seek to carry
it out. I have drawn up my particular plans for victory. Now we
patriots need to see your particular alternative to J.A.I.L. We
are in a serious war here, we are not children playing doctor
and nurse. Particulars, particulars, particulars, Jon. He who
criticizes another's plan bears the burden of showing a better
Jon Roland wrote:
That is the kind of exaggerated claim that feeds
patriot mythmongering. There is nothing that will "win every
time", and no one should promise otherwise. At best we might
slightly improve the odds, but it is more important to reform
the law than to win cases, and it may be necessary to
sacrifice some rather than allow the other side to get another
bad precedent. It is very difficult to just hold the line.
Most cases will either make things better or make them worse,
and before proceeding one needs to be very sure the odds are
favorable. That mostly comes down to getting the right judge,
and that is not always easy to call, especially as they are so
The old saying is that "a good lawyer knows the law, but a
great lawyer knows the judge". That is not just about having
the judge as a crony. It is more about being able to
manipulate the judge psychologically. Just as emotion sways
juries more than evidence or argument, so it also sways
judges, and the outcome of cases is often more about that than
otherwise. Watch the ways successful lawyers stroke the egos
As for the J.A.I.L. proposal, it has been too complicated and
confrontational. The traditional grand jury from colonial
times was designed to do what is proposed. We need to return
the grand jury to that standard. Select it at random. Open it
to citizen complaints. Let it remove immunity by issuing an
indictment. And let it appoint private prosecutors by
delivering the indictment to them. It would also help to
instruct them to keep the professional prosecutors out of the
room, and to appoint enough of them so they aren't overloaded
with too many cases to have time to deal with deliberately.
On 01/19/2012 01:43 PM, Hoyt Law Office wrote:
But, we can still win on procedure. Want to know
how to construct a winning argument every time?
Constitution Society http://constitution.org
2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322 twitter.com/lex_rex
Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001 jon.roland@...
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.