Re: South Dakota Jail4judges - We Already Have A Remedy
- We Already Have A Remedy
Hello Gene Paulson:
It is a delight to hear from you, and I wish to thank you for your analysis of what happened in South Dakota. I agree with you that there is every appearance of finagling within the voting system. The powers-that-be were terrorized with the speculation and prospects that JAIL4Judges should become law in this country. They determined that at all cost, they had to shut down J.A.I.L. It posed an end of their despotic kingdom, and the beginning of greatest power to the people since the founding of our country.
I have stated a number of times that had the premises of J.A.I.L., by whatever name, been presented at the founding of our Constitutional Republic, it would have been a point of contention by the likes of Thomas Jefferson and several other of our Founding Fathers. There would have existed a knock down drag out over its concept.
While I endorse the basic premiss within that marvelous document we call the United States Constitution, I do believe it was lacking in enforcement. Like two wheels on an axle, one wheel is the "What," and the other "How." We have a great "What" in our Constitution, but it lacks the "How!" J.A.I.L. by whatever name, should have been Article IV of our U.S. Constitution. Article I is properly the Legislative, II the Executive, and III the Judicial, but what about Article IV, The People? Within the body of our Constitution, we have only a passing mention of juries, Article III, Section 2, Clause 3, "The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury..."
But a "jury" is not defined! Our Founding Fathers took the position that everyone knows what a jury is, so they didn't elaborate. At least some legal minds caught the shortcomings of our Constitution, which has become known as the First Ten Amendments. Therein they added the first mention of "Grand Jury," Fifth Amendment, and also made another mention of a jury, Sixth and Seventh Amendments. But still lacking was very important details. For instance, I asked a group of people at a legal seminar where in the Constitution it specifies how many people compose a jury. I got the answer "twelve." I asked them to show me that in the Constitution. They weren't able to do so. I then asked everyone where in the Constitution it specifies the number of jurors it takes to bring a conviction. No one could show me. But is that not important? We have the "Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How," regarding Article I, II, and II. Lacking in our Constitution is Article IV, The People, spelling out the "Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How" that J.A.I.L. by whatever name. This should have been supplied as the other wheel on the axle of our Constitutional Republic, Article IV, "The People."
I agree with you, Gene, that we do have protections already within our Constitution, but it has no enforcement of the other end of the axle, J.A.I.L. For instance, it is true the Constitution provides, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury..." but now we have our people being sold down the river on such cases that no Grand Jury has ever seen, much less, ruled upon. I have been twice arrested on "infamous" charges. i.e. a felony charge. No Grand Jury passed upon the charges, and in fact, not even the District Attorney knew about such charges. I was placed through a felony booking process, strip-searched, complete with a tazering, and thereafter placed in the hospital because I raised constitutional question regarding their authority.
In deposition, I asked the police officers to identify who made the Probable Cause decision not to proceed with the felony. Their answer was, "We did." So now we have police officers, who are not even attorneys, making Probable Cause prosecutorial decisions on felony charges that must constitutionally be presented to a Grand Jury, followed by a decision whether to prosecute reserved exclusively to the District Attorney. Isn't it supposedly a crime for police officers to practice law as non-attorneys? Here, we have a admission that police officers make felony prosecatorial decisions reserved to the D.A., who must pass the issue before the Grand Jury before proceeding.
Gene, we can yell all we want about our constitutional rights under the 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments, but who are we going to get to enforce those rights? This is precisely why we need the enforcement of J.A.I.L. Sure, we have a good Constitution, but so what? Sure, we are supposed to get a jury trial in all criminal proceedings, unless it be for impeachment. But so what?
I was made fun of in South Dakota by their saying, "If we listened to Ron Branson, we would have to give a jury trial in every accusation of failure to get a dog license." Does the lack of a dog license fit into the only constitutional exclusion of a jury trial of "impeachment." So we may rest upon the constitutional assurance of a jury trial in every matter except for impeachments, so what?
The Constitution assures me of the right "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation," but I am presently fighting on precisely that front wherein an "arraignment" on criminal charges against me was allegedly brought against me at which I supposedly appeared and entered a plea, but I knew nothing of such arraignment, nor was I present, nor did I enter a plea. When asked of the court reporter for a transcript, she told me that no such arraignment took place. She even swore out a declaration to that effect at my request. I presented her declaration in my lawsuit against those who violated my rights under the Constitution with that fraudulent Minute Order. Yes, I have the Constitution and the facts in my favor, but I have receive no justice, nor do I have any remedy. This question is now before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals en banc. But I doubt they will even acknowledge I filed for a hearing en banc because the issue is so obvious and would embarrass the entire judicial system. The fact is, we need J.A.I.L.
I am not putting you down, Gene, just merely showing you the flaws in your proposition that we already have a remedy in our Constitution. I wish you were correct, but first-hand experience dictates otherwise! I think the entire nation, when pinned down, would disagree with your argument that we have workable remedy within the Constitution. Gen, I appreciate your diligence within our South Dakota effort, but I believe your reliance upon "current existing remedies" is misplaced. Love you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Gene P wrote:
Dear Ron,I have come to believe that something of that character is impossible. The attorneys in SD spent over a million dollars trying to defeat the amendment and three days before the election the poll done by our major television news program showed 54%voting for it and 40 % against. Three days later it goes down 90% to 10%. No initiative in the history of our country has ever resulted in that kind of loss. Now you have to wonder if when they fixed the voting machines that they made a mistake in the fix so that the totals came out that bad or if they did it on purpose to show us that such foolishness was never going to go anywhere.I believed in it then and I still believe in it but I have come to believe their is a better way. It is the 5th 6th and 7th Amendment, We do not have to fight any unwinnable battle to get them into our constitution as they are already there. The Supreme Court in US v. Williams has already the power of the 5th amendment juries and I can see no reason why the reasoning regarding the 5th amendment does not carry over to the other juries as well. What we need to do is form peoples 5-6 and 7th amendment juries, convict these despots and throw them in jail. Last fall we formed 8 juries and did cases in 10 different states. When the cases were filed the Judges just ignored them with the exception of the SD Supreme court which ordered me to quit filing them in their court.Non of these criminals have even suggested that we were breaking the law and the only thing the SD Supreme Court said was they have no force or effect in their courts. I now believe that we should start forming those juries all over the country and file them on every courthouse wall in the nation. It is something that we can do immediately and it is obviously a lawful act as if they could put me in jail for what I have done they would have already done it. My association with the Jail amendment has cost me dearly in retaliation, Bill has suffered the same fate, and we accomplished nothing. It was not a fault of the Jail Amendment it was a matter of the vote counting tools of an insurmountable enemy. You are right in that it will take people all over the country to get involved in a single movement and I believe the juries are the answer. The fifth amendment Grand Jury could do the exact same things as the jury in your plan and it is already law. If the idea is something we can do something with give me a shout and I will fill you in on what we have done so far.Gene Paulson, South Dakota