RE: [tips_and_tricks] "How Would You Get The Judiciary Back On Track?" - Question by Josephn
> Anybody who is ready for it in their own cases can always take thatI got a number of off-list requests to write all about HOW I disqualify
> first step of disqualifying those who are disqualifiable. Who has
> tried that, besides me? Can a man or woman be disqualified as a
> judge if they never qualified as a judge?
> Can a president be impeached if there is
> only a usurper? Why do victims who would avoid trouble if they could
> fail to stop many troubles by permitting unqualified usurpers to
> fulfill roles that need real qualifications to be met as a part
> of the whole process? (Non-Socratic answers: I know a few who
> have done it locally. No. No. The pizza might get cold.)
> Us hunters of qualified anermals cain't never find any nowhere! So
a judge. I replied that I don't do one-on-ones off list for free. I
replied that I've said it all here on the list several times, and that
it is all in the archived messages.
Nobody answered the questions I asked above.
So, since there is interest in the topic, and I've already gone over it
and don't want to be repetitive, let's see if I can add anything new.
If you ask HOW I do it, I begin verbally, spontaneously, ASAP. Seldom
do I get as far as filing a paper over it. And then, it never goes past
that stage, because they know I WANT it to go past that stage!
What I glean from many responses is that people do not have their own
minds in order about that they are the boss in the situation. They must
have doubts about their position that their target is disqualifiable.
Otherwise, what might be the problem?
Most people who ask about it have never read what I've posted here, and
never read their own local laws about it. This year I've disqualified
six people with no paper! Why would guilty usurpers want to be further
If you want to experience rights in a republic, you cannot wait for
others to agree with you.
>> HiWhen you successfully disqualify somebody, there's seldom a record of
>> Can you tell me how you're disqualifying the judges so I can
>> determine what you're doing differently from the posers that say they
>> can but never do? (smile)
it. If you are polling "posers" while waiting to formulate your own
response, you won't succeed. I haven't seen any such posers on this
list. But what I probably am doing differently than the posers she
encountered is I disqualify all contestants for my credibility. See, I
KNOW the game is over. I'm not confused by seeing all the fans running
all over the field after the game, tossing their balls around.
As you perhaps know, I have for years contended for the powers of Grand Juries, that that power belong uniquely within the hands of the People. The system that was established is a workable one with J.A.I.L., but has shortcoming as to the powers in the People.
Now why do I state that? The reason is that if we only rely upon the Grand Jury as originally created with no further enforcement of a Special Grand Jury, we will have problems with the prosecutors. While Grand Juries are well suited in none-conflict cases, it is insufficient when it comes to judges. Prosecutors generally will not prosecute judges, and in many cases, even non-judicial politicians such as the Board of Supervisors, D.A.s, or the A.G. himself.
If we clutter the everyday riff-raft of which common Grand Jurors should be involved in to also include judges, we will find ourselves creating a forum to second-guess judges. Are we to be given the choice between taking an appeal to the appellate court, or choosing rather to file a complaint with the Grand Jury? Shall permit both at the same time? Should we not rather wait until the judicial system has completely had its opportunity to rectify the situation before going to the Grand Jury? If so, is this not J.A.I.L. in operation? The Grand Jury created by J.A.I.L. does not have jurisdiction until all judicial remedies are exhausted. Further, this Special Grand Jury only performs under matters where there is a high likelihood of a conflict of interest.
Under J.A.I.L., we do not allow judges to decide in imposing sentences against their own judicial brethren, but we uniquely leave that power to the jury itself that found for conviction of the judge.
While we allow the sheriff first shot at enforcement, we are the back up enforcement, and can arrest the sheriff should he get in the way. These are not just cosmetic matters, but fundamental to rightful enforcement. Remember, when it comes to enforcement, the People must retain Alpha and Omega power.
Jon Roland wrote:
The remedy is not to create special grand juries to hear complaints about official misconduct, including judicial misconduct, but to open all grand juries for that, the way they once were.
Defendant'sMotion to Dismiss in Sibley v. Obama provides a roadmap of what we will need to overcome to get to our destination. The only likely way to do it is by proposing amendments, not just to get them adopted, although that would be best, but to focus demands for reform that might achieve some improvement even without ratification. People need specific proposals they can build a movement around. The Equal Rights Amendment movement largely succeeded without getting their amendment ratified.
-- 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@... ----------------------------------------------------------