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

We Have Met the Enemy, and He is Us

Expand Messages
  • Ron Branson
    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 alternative!

      Your friend,

      Ron Branson

      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 rare.

      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 of judges.

      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?

      -- Jon
      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.