Subject: Who's Going to Select the Qualified Special Grand Jurors?
From: VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 00:51:32 -0800
To: "Brad Parsons++"

 
Who's Going to Select the Qualified Special Grand Jurors?
 
Hello Brad Parsons. I trust I will serve well in responding to you instead of Barbie. I am Ron, the author of J.A.I.L.  Barbie is taking a rest, so you are stuck with me.
 
First, let me express my pleasure in hearing from you. I note that you are not yet a Texas JAILer. May I cure that problem for you? Let me know.
 
Now to your question, When this Grand Jury for Judges is established, how are "qualified" people going to be selected to sit on it?   The main premise of J.A.I.L. is "Integrity," not knowledge. This is the primary reason we disqualify members of the Bar Association. I raise the question, what is the definition of "Qualified?" Is it a law school graduate? and influential man in society? a CEO?  These are not the pursuit of J.A.I.L. Contrariwise, we are looking for just plain ol' people of the garden variety, to wit, farmers, drivers, waitresses, etc., and exclude such professional people as police officers, judicial personnel, and elected officials.
 
It is recognized that certain persons drawn for the SGJ may not seem  "qualified" for such service, but who is to make that decision? Me? You? Judges? Voters? The best answer to your question is no one! It should be left to the luck of the draw. Whoever is drawn, they will have their own assistance of counsel to advise them.
 
We are looking more for discerners of self-evident truth of right and wrong more than what does Washington say, or what does the state Legislators say. If "law" were the primary objective of J.A.I.L., then we would just empanel all lawyers as jurors to decide every case, but we do not do that for obvious reasons. We would rather take our chances on dummies for jurors than experienced politicians who "know" what they are doing.  That's the problem we are typically facing today, i.e. political remedies by political hacks, to include judges. Why not just do away with juries altogether, and just let the judges decide? They "know" the law.
 
As to your example,  i.e. a child molester arrested and freed because the prosecutor could not present enough solid evidence, etc.  Who, in your  illustration, is going to appeal? Would it be the accused who might have been innocent, and did not receive a trial? As you know, just because you were arrested as a child molester does not mean you are automatically guilty. And certainly you too would be pleased to be released if you knew you were not guilty, and you expected there not to be enough solid evidence against you.
 
But taking this to the next step, the Special Grand Jury has no jurisdiction to try the case anyway! Their jurisdiction is only to discern whether the judge knowingly violated a provision that governs his behavior.
 
Even if the prosecutor appealed, in order to avail himself of the Special Grand Jury, he would have to prove, over the judge's defense, that the judge  knowingly and willingly disobeyed the law. I really doubt that the SGJ is going to be tossed many of these type of cases from the prosecutor, but it is within the right of the prosecutor if he thinks he can prove his complaint against the judge.
 
God bless you, Brad Parsons. Let me hear from you on becoming a Texas JAILer.
 
-Ron Branson
VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
 

 
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad Parsons
To: VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 9:03 PM
Subject: TRUMP

Hi, Barbie:
 
    I'm Brad Parsons and I am a certificatted paralegal in Texas.  I have never worked as a paralegal, but obtained my certificate because I like dealing with the law.
    I am 100% in agreement with what you have written here, but I do have a question, which I may be able to answer myself:
 
    When this Grand Jury for Judges is established, how are "qualified" people going to be selected to sit on it?  It seems that even the simpelist of laws have underpinnings and facets that are complicated.  I would hate to see this become a vigilante group that is given the power to seriously ding a judge for acting completely in accordance with the law, albiet against widespread public opinion, i.e. a child molester arrested and freed because the prosecutor could not present enough solid evidence, etc.
 
    The answer I have comes from the Rules of Statutory Construction:  A law must be completely understandable to the average man.  If it isn't, it is void for vagueness.
 
    Anyway, keep up the good work, and may God (please notice that I didn't say "Supreme Being" though He is surely that) bless you for you work.
 
    Brad Parsons