J.A.I.L. News Journal
Los Angeles, California                                             February 12, 2005
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
We Need Parking Meters
(By Sandra xsha@earthlink.net)
----- Original Message -----
From: scr
To: VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 10:38 PM
Subject: stating a claim upon which relief can be granted
What did you do, sue on behalf of property owners so that they could be rebated a portion of their property taxes from the fines earned on meters? 
I thought the govt. had the right to take certain amounts of property by public domain in order to assure the smooth functioning of society. The issuance of parking fines keeps revenue coming in to the municipalities which they need to run their services. Meters bring money and a system of fines has to be in place to ensure that people pay the meters. People may not like this, but it does serve a function.
Since people influx into city or crowded areas to do business, ruining the air and water and creating crowdedness, it would indeed be fair for some of the revenue to go back to the property owners inhabiting the edges of city streets. This might be designated for something like property upkeep or for grants to promote the betterment or beautification of run down city areas.
SCR  from N Eng Coalition for Family Justice

Dear Sandra, this is Ron. I would like to address your questions and concerns.
My action regarding an alleged parking violation was a challenge of the alleged jurisdiction of the administrative arena. All administrative processes are based upon contract. I wrote on this in a JNJ dated 12/9/03 titled "Understanding Administrative Law."  (Pasted in below for your convenience).
Basically, when the "city" (actually a corporation) asserted administrative law by "offering" me an "administrative review," I asked them some simple questions as to this review, such as, "When did this hearing take place that they are offering to review, by whom was it heard, and what evidence did they rely upon in making their findings?"
I asserted that I had no knowledge of when or where such hearing took place, seeing as there was no notice sent to me of this hearing. I asked them to produce such information to me so that I may appropriately defend myself if it be found that I was under their jurisdiction.
As to the question of jurisdiction, I asked for a copy of the contract agreement between both of us wherein I agreed to their administrative arena. I pointed out that all people are born with rights, and that they are not automatically administrative subjects, and that those rights are guaranteed by our Constitution. If I had somehow waived my rights for certain privileges to inure to me, then there had to exist my signature thereto. I wished to see a copy of my signature on that document.
In converse, I sent them a declaration stating that I had never entered into a contract that waived my rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and to counter-claim my declaration; and that in the absence of their performance to show proof of their claim, it would be determined by their default that no such thing existed, and that they had withdrawn their claim. Indeed, they did default, and by operation of law, their failure to contest the issue, left my declaration stand uncontested.
They came back with, "because I did not timely demand a hearing, [they] were doubling the fine."  Their response did not address the basic issues presented before them.
First off, whatever I sent was "timely" as shown by the green return slip by the post office. Next, what I sent them was not a "demand," timely or not, for an administrative hearing. They just wanted to avoid my jurisdictional questions, and this is how they decided to do it. It is obvious that jurisdiction to act comes before proceeding with the proposed action. It should be noted that I was careful not to waive any right I might have to an administrative hearing, should my question regarding jurisdiction to act fail. Seems logical, does it not? 
Nonetheless, they proceed illegally to judgment without a hearing or addressing my questions. Obviously, it cannot be said that I did not have a defense. It is just that they did not like my defense, but since they are the moving party, the burden rests with them. To this day in that case I am entitled to put on my defense in an administrative arena, but it is yet to be decided by the courts as to whether I am their administrative subject. I still have not received anything relating to this question.
Now if you received a letter from Moscow stating that you had not paid your Russian aviation license fee to Moscow, and that they were offering you an administrative review, would you ask them for the hearing? Would you just write them a check? I hope you would at least have some questions regarding jurisdiction, if you answered at all.
And what if Moscow told you that they were now doubling this fee because you did not "timely demand an administrative hearing," and then they proceeded with collection procedures? I would hope you would be outraged at this action.
But you say, "What if I had gone to Russia and applied for a aviation license?" Ah! Then there would exist a physical record of such event. Now there is nothing wrong with applying for a license from Moscow, but surely that is the first issue to be resolved, not collection procedures.
Does everyone born and raised here in America, and who have never been to Russia, automatically owe a Russian aviation license fee? No! But then one could argue, "Hey, Russia needs the revenue, and the issuance of aviation license fines keeps the revenue coming in to the municipalities which they need to run their services, and people may not like this, but it does serve a function."
Oh, but you say, "You did not use their services, and therefore do not owe Russia for such services." Good point! And neither did I use the City of L.A.'s services. I was accused of being at a certain location at a certain time, (which was not true), and that I had overstayed my welcome. But I was never afforded an opportunity to argue this point. Remember, I was denied a hearing altogether, and we never got past the jurisdictional questions.
Constitutionally, I am to be afforded an opportunity to face my accusers, to cross-examine them, and to compel witness on my behalf at a public trial. But you say, "The government could not afford to do that to everyone to whom they give a parking ticket." And I respond, "True. But since when is the Constitution to be suspended in the name of expediency?"  But you argue, "The government could not make any money if they followed the Constitution." That's just too bad! 
And that was the absolute intention of our Founding Fathers in designing our Constitution to govern our nation. All governments swear to uphold and defend the Constitution. They do not swear to uphold and defend "revenue-raising." Where there's a conflict, their obligation is absolutely clear-- otherwise, they are not public servants, but tyrants, and no longer deserve their office, but punishment.
I recall in one of my court experiences regarding a ticket, as I walked out of the courtroom into the hall, a police officer rushed out of the courtroom after me, screaming on top of his lungs: "Why don't you just pay the damn ticket and forget it?"  I can say that this whole ticket fiasco is totally about revenue-making and not about law enforcement. There is nothing constitutional about it at all, and I have proved it by law and by prior court decisions.
Now, let's discuss this issue of justification of the parking meters in the name of collecting revenue. I do not have the cite before me, but it is definitely established by the courts themselves that when it comes to fines, there can be no hint of revenue-raising, for if the objective be to raise revenue for public services, then the scheme is clearly unconstitutional.
To show the reasonableness of such a finding, would it meet your approval if revenue were applied arbitrarily? Obviously not! But what if government needed the money, would that justify it in your mind? If so, then I could justify theft by expediency. "Hey, I have a wife and kid at home, and I need the money to feed them." If it were criminal for me to do it, would this same crime be justified if it were done in the name of government? What if they passed a law saying it was alright?  I then ask, "What part of 'Thou shalt not steal,' do you not understand?"
Now let's talk about civic duties in your above argument. You argue that this money is going into "government" as a civic duty. But is it? It is clear from the below news article I quoted that a percentage of this money is going into private pockets. And those private pockets are the corporate stockholders on the New York Stock Exchange. Is this the "civic duty" you are referring to?
Now let me cite from Article XVI, Section 6 of our California Constitution, "...[the legislature] shall not have power to authorize the State, or any political subdivision thereof, to subscribe for stock, or to become a stockholder in any corporation whatever..." No matter how you cut it, the fact is, public monies, in the name of "fines" are arriving in the stock market, and are inuring to the benefit of stockholders who are profiting from those parking meters. Parking meters, to use the Cities' own descript, are a windfall profit-making business. (See below). The City was afraid my case against them and Lockheed could destroy their little game, and they were willing to spend millions to defend their gravy train. Where the City and Lockheed once worked together on the take, they are now nipping at one another's heels. Yes, "The Wolves vs. The Jackals" is a good description of what is going on behind the scenes.
-Ron Branson



Parking Windfall Angers Officials

Los Angeles authorities say the city did not receive its fair share of fines collected by two firms. One contractor is $20 million richer.

By Patrick McGreevy
Times Staff Writer

February 1, 2005

In 1998, city officials struck a deal to split the money from a new fine on scofflaws with the firm that collected parking ticket payments. But for seven years, city officials failed to ask for their share. Now, the firm is $20 million richer and city officials want the windfall back.

But it may be too late.

The city Department of Transportation has negotiated a tentative settlement with Affiliated Computer Services, which took over the contract three years ago from a unit of Lockheed. But Robert Andalon, a department official, said the deal may provide the city with only "several million dollars" in free services.

Elected city officials are angry that the lapse went uncorrected for seven years and the full amount may not be recovered.

"The loss of these kinds of public funds is staggering," said Councilman Antonio Villaraigosa, chairman of the City Council's Transportation Committee, which will take up the proposed settlement next week. Villaraigosa said transportation officials failed to follow procedures.

The head of the city union that represents parking ticket officers said the mix-up should lead the city to take over the collection of its parking fines, so the city can keep all of the money.

"We'll see an international company give something back to the city? In my lifetime?" asked Julie Butcher, leader of Service Employees International Union Local 347. "This is money that went to line Lockheed's pockets instead of lining the streets with asphalt."

The snafu is related to a contract approved in 1997 by the City Council with Lockheed Information Management Services to process and collect parking citations. The contract was taken over in 2002 by Affiliated Computer Services, which bought the information management unit from Lockheed.

In 1998, a city parking administrator approved an amendment to the contract to give Lockheed more incentives for collecting delinquent parking tickets.

Under the amendment, Lockheed was allowed to collect an 18% special collections fee on the fines taken in when the city seized a vehicle having five or more unpaid citations.

Under the agreement, Lockheed could keep up to $2.5 million, but would provide services to the city for revenue over that amount, said Wayne K. Tanda, general manager of the Department of Transportation.

Officials said the department never required Lockheed to provide any additional services, leaving Lockheed with $20 million or more in extra cash. And the city paid Lockheed $2.3 million for additional services that should have been covered by the agreement.

An internal investigation found that the City Council, not transportation officials, had the authority to approve the agreement. Tanda said that because of that, the deal was not legally binding.

Tanda blamed the lapse on "a loss of continuity of key DOT staff." He said the parking administrator who approved the deal retired shortly afterward, as did one of his key assistants. A second parking administrator retired a year later.

A fourth parking administrator saw the agreement and raised alarms a few years ago.

"When she became aware of the letter of agreement she consulted with the city attorney's office and was advised that [it] was probably not legally enforceable," Tanda wrote. "No further action was taken, and the general manager was not consulted."

Tanda said the amendment represented a "significant revision to the scope of work and the payments to the contractor," and therefore should have been approved by the general manager, subject to approval of the council.

"The contract required this procedure. This was not done," Tanda wrote in a report to the City Council. "Due to an extraordinary set of circumstances involving the departure of key DOT staff, compliance with the letter of agreement did not occur," Tanda wrote.

Officials with Affiliated Computer Services did not return calls.

Mayor James K. Hahn has asked the city administrative officer to review the proposed deal before extending the firm's contract for another five years.

"The mayor, more than anything, wants to make sure the taxpayers get the best possible deal and get what they are entitled to," said Sahar Moridani, a spokeswoman for the mayor.

J.A.I.L. News Journal
Los Angeles, California                                            December 9, 2003

Administrative Law
(By Ron Branson, Author/Founder J.A.I.L.)
What you are about to read is very provocative and likely to shock, but educate, many of you. Some of you will likely be inspired to do likewise, but just as you see those disclaimers which say, "Experts -  do not try this at home," so I say, "Do not try mimicking this at home. Remember, when reality and common sense run up against politics and money, the former two will not register in the courts."
We have all heard the term "Administrative Law." Administrative Law is everywhere in society, and affects everyone of us. But despite our familiarity, how many people really know what "Administrative Law" is? Most people see the word "Law" and automatically think it is some kind of a special law passed by either Congress, our state legislators, or our city councils, etc. No matter where we are in our experience and knowledge of Administrative Law, we all tend to feel deep down inside, "I just do not like it." It is that same sort of feeling when we drive down the highway and pass a police car with its lights flashing, having pulled over a car. You don't naturally think, "Boy, I'm pleased to see that police officer out here on the highway performing us a public service." Rather, you are more likely to think, "Boy, I'm glad it's him he pulled over, and not me." Just as hearing from the Internal Revenue Service, "public service" is probably the last thing that enters your mind.
Administrative Law demands things of us that intrude into our personal lives, our homes, our businesses. It makes us comply with certain codes, inspects us, demands arbitrary taxes and payment in advance of establishing liability, calls us into account before boards composed of political appointees having conflicts of interests, all without the benefit of a trial by jury of your peers.
Administrative Law governs us, to name only a few, in our relation to our children through CPS, our right to contract through the State Contractor's License Board, our businesses through Business Licenses and Worker's Compensation Boards which provide a feeding frenzy for lawyers, and even our pleasurable moments through Fishing and Gaming Licenses, our travel through DMV, etc., etc, and so on without end. In fact, all of our lives in every area is governed by administrative agencies and their "laws," and there is near nothing that is not regulated and licensed by some agency. It would almost seem that life's existence itself is but a special privilege of government that is revocable upon whim. Whatever happened to "... governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...?
As some of may you already know, none of the protections set forth in the U.S. Constitution has any application whatsoever upon the enforcement and carrying out of "Administrative Law." So we shout with outrage at the government, "You're violating my Constitutional rights," and you ask, "What gives? Is Administrative Law superior to, and above, the Constitution of the United States, which is the supreme Law of this Land?"
I am now going to pull the veil off the mystery of "Administrative Law," and let you in on a secret that no government wants you to know. Some of you are going to laugh at the simplicity of the matter, once I tell you. "Administrative Law" is not some esoteric law passed by some legislative body. "Administrative Law" simply means "Contract Agreement." But if government called it what it really was, everyone would know what is going on. But by the government calling it "Administrative Law," few understand it, and think, "Oh my goodness, I don't want to go to jail because I violated Administrative Law." What you must implicitly remember is that Administrative Law and Police Powers are diametrically opposed to each other. They cannot co-exist in the same context. Like oil and water, they can never mix. But governments do not want you to know that. If there were any form of police power exerted to enforce "Administrative Law," it would clearly fly in the face of the Constitution. So all governments exercise fraud when they take "Administrative Law" beyond "the consent of the governed," Declaration of Independence.
Every time you hear the term "Administrative Law," you must correctly think "Contract Agreement." If everyone thought that way, people would automatically ask themselves the logical question, "Where's the contract?" But government does not want you to think in terms of "Contracts," nor the fact that there can ever be police powers involved in the enforcement of a contract. If you fail to show up for work, can your boss call up the police and send them out to arrest you? No! This is true even if your boss happens to be the city, or the chief of police. Police powers are limited only to criminal acts, never contract disputes. These are totally separate and exclusive jurisdictions.
The U.S. Constitution specifically forbids all fifty states of this country from passing any law that interferes with any individual's right of contract, or, if the persons so chooses, the right not to contract. "No state shall...make any...law impairing the obligation of contracts." Article I, Sec. 10, Clause 1. The right to contract necessarily establishes the right not to contract. Just like the First Amendment to Congress, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" so in Article I, Sec. 10, no state shall make any law that impairs the free exercise of the right to contract or not to contract. Now how does this Constitutional prohibition to states apply to such state administrative agencies as the "State Contractor's License Board?" Ah, yes, and note, we are not here even challenging this as an Administrative Law, but rather the very authority of the State itself to even "make" such an administrative agency that presumes to govern the right to contract. In other words, the Legislature was acting unconstitutionally when they even considered "making" such a law, whether the law passed by a majority vote or not. In other words, it was null and void the very moment it was "passed." One could just imagine the untold hundreds of billions of dollars that would invigorate the entire economy of this country if states could not interfere with, or tax our constitutional right to contract, or not to contract, with whosoever we pleased.
Contracts are very much a necessary part of all of our lives, and we all understand the meaning of agreements and keeping our word. Contracts always must contain a consideration, and are made voluntarily for the mutual benefit of each of the parties entering them.
I am going to explain the legitimate uses of contracts, and then proceed to what they have transmuted into by the State. In a legitimate contract, for instance, and I speak to those married, remember the days when you went out on dates with that special person that made your heart throb? You fell in love and the two of you decided, for the mutual benefit of both of you, to get married. You voluntarily appeared before a minister who asked you the question, "Do you, Sharon, take Steven to be your lawfully wedded husband?" In which you replied, "I do!" You were under no obligation to agree. Remember, wherever one may say "Yes" or "I do" they equally have the right to say, "No," or "I don't," to wit, "Do you, Steven, take Sharon to be your lawfully wedded wife?" which could equally be responded to by, "No, I do not!" Of course, what a way to shock everyone and ruin a marriage ceremony. Without both parties agreeing equally to the full terms and conditions, there can be no "Administrative Law," oops, I mean, "Contract Agreement."
(For the benefit of those of you reading this who are ministers, I would like to take a sidebar. What are those commonly heard words that come from your lips, "...lawfully wedded wife?" I ask you, is there an "unlawfully wedded wife," or an "unlawfully wedded husband?" How did those words get in the marriage vow? Why not just ask, "Do you, Steven, take Sharon to be your wife?" Ah, it is the State trying to stick their foot in the door and become a third party to the marriage "Contract Agreement." I ask you, is it a crime to get married? Must couples have government's permission to get married? The government thinks so. But does the government have constitutional authority to do so? Absolutely not.
Consider the marriage license. A license is a special grant of permission from the government to do that which is otherwise illegal. People are now being convicted of "practicing law without a license," so I ask you, are couples who refuse marriage licenses guilty of practicing marriage without a license?  We are instructed in the Bible, "Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD." Prov. 18:22. Yes, and remember that famous quote, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's, Matt. 22:21, and "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Matt. 19:6. Would it not be just as appropriate if God were to say, "What therefore God has 'licensed,' let not man license?" Of course! Are you not therefore rendering to Caesar that which is God's? And are you not doing it "By the power vested in you by the State of [fill in state], I now pronounce you man and wife." And what about this so-called doctrine beaten into our heads by the courts of "Separation of Church and State?"  End of sidebar.)
Let's next turn to the "Contract Agreement" of Civil Service Employment. You open the newspaper and see an ad placed by the City of TenBuckTwo, saying "Now hiring." You go and apply for the job and you are hired. Whether it be secretary, street cleaner, or police officer, you enter a Civil Service Contract, and receive a mutual benefit, i.e, a paycheck. If you were to receive no consideration from the city, you would be merely a slave. Neither the city nor you were under duress, you both receive a consideration, and established a legitimate "Contract Agreement." The city wishes to call it "Administrative Law." After being hired, if there arises a dispute, you cannot shout, "My Constitutional Rights were violated," for you are now under Civil Service protection, and are not entitled to a jury trial nor any of the protections of the Constitution, for now it is Administrative Law that controls, and the Constitution has no application whatsoever.
Now let's take this a step further, and talk about a ticket. I once was mailed a ticket through the mail offering me an "Administrative Review." I wrote back to this administrative agency by certified mail with return receipt, and with a sworn declaration attached stating that I had never entered into a "Contract Agreement" with them, and that such contract did not exist. I further demanded that they respond with a counter-declaration stating that I had indeed entered into a "Contract Agreement" with them, and thus bring the question into issue. (An uncontested declaration stands as the truth. No counter-declaration, no dispute.) I also demanded that they attach of copy of the contract we had between us as evidence to support their contention.
This administrative agency just did not know what to do, so they just declared my "request for an Administrative Review" untimely, despite the certified mail proving otherwise. They then stated that I now owed them more than twice the amount they originally demanded of me. However, as you note, I did not ask for an "Administrative Review." Rather my only issue was the appropriateness and legitimacy of the agency "offering" me the administrative review. If you received a letter from Moscow, Russia accusing you of failing to possess a license from the Moscow Aviation Flight Board, and offering you an administrative review, would you ask for an administrative review?
Further, in my communication to this administrative body, which further baffled them, I asked, "When you say you are offering me an "Administrative Review," it implies I am now on appeal. Was there a trial in which I have already been found guilty, and that I now should  appeal that decision? I never received a notice of such trial. When was the trial? Who sat in judgment? What was the basis of his or her  findings? What is the particular clause in the "Contract Agreement" I have been found guilty of violating?
You see, my questions were entirely logical and practical, but they just did not know how to deal with me. So they just forged ahead with enforcement as if I said nothing. This resulted in my lawsuit against them which went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court twice, once through the state courts, and then all the way through the federal, the issue in federal court being deprivation of due process of law. There was not one court, neither state, nor federal, that would address a single issue I presented in my lawsuit. This suit resulted in five long years of litigation, and the agency admittedly spent over $100,000.00 defending itself, and demanded of me that I should pay them for their time from what started out to be $55.
This case resulted in my filing a criminal complaint against the defendants with the U.S. Attorney, and petitioning Congress to open impeachment proceedings against five federal judges for conspiracy to commit extortion, accompanied with a copy of the proposed Federal J.A.I.L. Bill, with my instant case as an example of why Congress  should pass J.A.I.L. into law. Everything grew very quiet. No one would say anything.
All this over the implied assumption that I had entered into a "Contract Agreement" that did not exist, and never did exist.
Here in Los Angeles, the city dispenses bureaucrats throughout the city to your search your home. However, the city likes to refer to it as "inspection." Although the U.S. Constitution provides, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizure shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" [Fourth Amendment], these bureaucrats come to you "for your good," as a "public service." They charge you money for their services, and exercise police power, having neither oath or affirmation, warrant, or probable cause, mandating you "volunteer" to accept their searches. If you refuse to volunteer, they turn you over to the city prosecutor who will prosecute you for failure to comply with the program. If you think these bureaucrats are bribe-free, you have a shock coming. Many hint at and suggest that they can arrange special treatment for you, or that they can make things very bad for you.
We have now come to the point in this country where the public's common acceptance that we are administrative subjects, that a mere suggestion by a government bureaucrat has now become law, and one is guilty by the simple allegation of whatever charge these bureaucrats  wish to lay upon them without appeal to the Constitution.
Approximately seven years ago I was stopped by a police officer. He "offered" to engage me into a contract with him. The problem with his contract offer was that it was imposed upon me by the threat of my going immediately to jail, and that of having my car stolen. Under criminal constitutional standards he was required to take me before a magistrate at least within 48 hours of his conducting my arrest. He did not wish to do that however, so for his convenience, not mine, he asked me to enter into a contract with him. But what was my consideration in this contract? Was it that I didn't have to go to jail immediately? Nay, for that is like placing a gun to one's head and asking them to voluntarily write a check, which is called "Robbery" in the criminal codes.
This nice policeman told me that by signing his ticket, I was not waiving any of my rights. I read it, and all it said was that I promised to appear before the clerk of the court authorized to receive bail by a certain date. I went ahead and took the comfortable route, and signed his contract under duress, "agreeing" to appear before the court clerk as opposed to going to jail. I then went to the clerk of the court by the date specified and asked if she was the clerk of the court authorized to accept bail. She said "Yes." I then told her who I was, and that since she was the authorized person before whom I had promised to appear, I needed her signature showing I had fulfilled my promise. She refused.  Gee, what's wrong with these people? They demand my signature to show up before them under threat of going to jail. I show up as they ask and request their signature to show that I have complied, and they refuse. They do not respect you for keeping your promise to them. It seems they are not satisfied, and they want something more from you than they made you promise. Hmmm, it seems to me that not all the terms of the contract were revealed when the officer said all I had to do was appear in front of the clerk. I must have been defrauded.
What they really wanted, and now demanded, was that I appear before a commissioner, not a judge, when originally I was entitled under the Constitution to appear before a magistrate for a determination of probable cause of my arrest by the kind police officer. The officer must have lied to me when I was clearly told that I would not be waiving any of my rights. But a waiver of my rights under the Constitution requires my voluntary and knowledgeable consent with a consideration in the pie for me. But I never got the pie. This "Contract Agreement" does not seem to be like saying "I do" at the altar and getting a wife, or "I agree" at the Civil Service interview, and getting a paycheck. 
This commissioner bullied me, trying to induce me by force to enter into his offered contract agreement, when in no way was he qualified to act or perform pursuant to the Fourth Amendment requirements of a magistrate.
When he failed to convince me that it was in my best interest that I should voluntarily agree to his contract, he proceeded to unilaterally enter me into his contract whether I agreed to it or not. And of course, it was done with "my best interest at heart." He's an educated man, and has graduated from law school. So why didn't he know that a contract requires my voluntary consent? Having waived my rights for me (which is an impossibility), he now tells me that I am going to appear for trial on the date he chose for me, and that I am going to sign a promise to appear. I told him, "NO! I am not going to sign such a contract agreement!" He became very wroth, and I was immediately arrested, chained to thieves, con artists, and extortionists and thrown into jail for not agreeing to sign.
At least one of the sheriff's deputies handling me expressed disbelief at what she was hearing that I was arrested for not agreeing to sign on to the commissioner's offer. Here they were digging through my pockets and relieving me of all my possessions, and my crime is failing to accept an offer. This could only be a civil charge at best, but refusing to contract is not a violation of a contract. I had not even agreed to the deprivation of a magistrate to appear before this commissioner.
No sooner had they illegally processed me into the Los Angeles County jail system, that they wanted to get rid of me. Under California statute, no person can be jailed on an alleged infraction, but here I was in jail. The fact is, neither the courts nor the administrative boards know how to deal with the rare individual who sensibly raises questions about the existence of a contract, so they just bully forward with police power enforcement, and address nothing.
The deputies told me they were putting me out of jail, but that I must  come back to court on the date specified by the commissioner. I told them "No! I did not agree to appear." They told me that if I did not appear, I would be arrested. I said that I was already under arrest, so just keep me in jail until you are finished with me. They said, we can't do that, we don't have the money to keep you here. I said, "I'm not here to save you money. If you want me, just keep me here. If you don't want me, put me out." So they threw me out of jail to get rid of me, and I never showed up later. In the meantime, I commenced suit against the commissioner for kidnapping, holding me hostage and demanding ransom for my release. (His ransom was my signature, for he said when I gave him my signature, I would be free to go. Of course, that was why I was in jail because I did not agree to that.)
In my civil suit against the commissioner, I had him totally defenseless, and the trial judge hearing the case knew it. There was absolutely no way the commissioner could lawfully wiggle off, but since when do judges do things lawfully? The trial judge knew the commissioner was naked, and had no jurisdiction whatsoever for what he did to me. He slammed his hands down on the bench and said, "Mr. Branson, in all my twenty years' career on the bench, I have never met a person like you." He then quoted the words found in my complaint, "Just keep me in jail until you are finished with me."
This judge could see the potential chaotic conditions if every person which was stopped by the cops stated "Just keep me in jail until you are finished with me." I was supposed to fear losing my job, my reputation and companionship and capitulate. He knew that if everybody did what I was doing, the entire system would fall apart. I was suddenly costing government mocho money to the tune of thousands upon thousands of dollars when the whole idea was to make some money from me. This lawsuit continued for years all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, yet not one judge would address the issues of my contract case.
I now refer to a humorous situation that sounds like make-believe. An acquaintance of mine was called into court by one of the ABC "public service" administrative agencies to be cross-examined to discover information from him to be used against him. He was asked to take the witness stand. They asked him to raise his right hand after which the clerk of the court said, "Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?" He responded, "No, I do not!" Everyone in the court gasped. (Remember, the right to say "Yes" also includes the right to say "No!") The judge instructed the clerk to re-read the swearing-in again, supposing that he just did not understand the question. He responded the second time, "I heard you the first time, and my answer is, No, I do not!" You can imagine the uncomfortable and embarrassing situation into which this placed the judge. He asked why he would not swear to tell the truth, and he said, "The Bible says, 'Let God be true, but every man a liar,' " (referring to Rom. 3:4), and "I am a man, and a liar."
The judge came unglued and threaten him with jail if he did not swear to tell the truth. He responded, "Judge, you asked me a straight-forward question requiring either a yes, or a no answer. I gave you a straight-forward answer to your question, and that was No, I do not. You can't say I did not answer your question, for I did answer it, but you just don't like my answer. If you didn't want to hear my answer, then don't ask me the question. And judge, on what basis do you threaten me with jail? Is it because I answered your question truthfully? Or is it because you wanted me to lie, and I didn't do it? Or is it because you believe I am lying to you when I tell you I am a man, and a liar?"
The judge threw him in jail for three days, after which he brought him forth to swear him in again. He said, "Judge, my answer to you is still the same as three days ago. I am still a man, and still a liar, and no amount of jail time can change that. The judge again threaten him with jail, to which he responded, "On what basis do you threaten me with jail? Is it because I answered your question truthfully, and you want me to lie? Or is it because you believe I am lying to you when I tell you I am a man, and a liar?"
The system just does not know how to handle people who question the actions of government when all the government is only trying to get your approval to what they do to you. If you don't agree to the Contract Agreement, then they do you the favor of "agreeing" for you even if it is against your will, without consideration. As I say, this is not quite like you saying "I do" at the alter, but the judge spake and it was so.
Other examples are, when you are called to jury duty, the judge makes you raise your right hand and agree to follow the law as interpreted to you by the judge. But wait, it is not the judge or the jurors who are entitled to a jury trial, but the defendant who is constitutionally entitled to a fully informed and unencumbered jury which must judge on both the law and the facts. Here we have a judge seeking to induce the defendant's jurors to conspire with him against the defendant. How can the judge, in conspiracy with the jurors, agree to waive the rights of the defendant? They can't. It is the defendant that is entitled to a fair and impartial trial, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy ... an impartial jury." Jurors who have been induced to conspire with the judge cannot possible be "an impartial jury." Fifth Amendment, U.S. Constitution.
Then there are the various taxing agencies who want you to enter into a "Contract Agreement" with them. They kindly provide you with a pre-printed line on their forms to agree with their offer of a "Contract Agreement." But if you choose not to accept their offer, can one go to jail? Not constitutionally. However, they somehow want you to believe that if you do not accept their offer, then you are obligated to comply with their "Imposed Criminal Administrative Law," for after all, you don't want to go to jail because you violated the law.
Remember, anything that requires your signature, or a swearing thereto in order to give it application, is not law, but a contract. A contract must entail being fully cognizant of all its terms, agreeing to all those terms, having equal right to say yes or no, offering you a consideration to which you would rather have than retaining your constitutional rights and saying no, being totally done without duress in any way. Anything otherwise fails the test of a contract.
The Solution:
The solution is quite simple, J.A.I.L. I know there will be many naysayers who will seek to convince me that it is for the above reasons that J.A.I.L. will not work because everyone has waived their rights to the Constitution, and thus, we are all slaves of the government. To those, in an effort to cut these Naysayers off, I say, "Please re-read the last two sentences in the above paragraph defining contracts."
Here is how J.A.I.L. will solve the problem. Under J.A.I.L. cases will be brought before judges arguing fraud, deception, and undo influence, by government agents. The judge will be required to apply the proper laws governing these grievances, to which he will have no escape or evasion. If the judge does evade the issue, the party will call the judge on it, and give him his last chance to comply with the law as addressed to the issue presented. (This will satisfy the willful acts requirement of J.A.I.L.)
From there, it is purely a matter of exhausting appeals afforded within the state, keeping the fraud issue alive, and filing a complaint with the Special Grand Jury created by J.A.I.L. The judge will then be served by the Special Grand Jury and told to answer it. The complainant can then reply to the judge's opposition. 
They judge may wish to argue that the complainant has no rights of protection by the Constitution because he waived them all. The complainant may reply that the so-called "waivers" to which the judge refers in his defense is but a part of the conspiracy alleged to which the judge was a necessary actor in the conspiracy. Of course, when these Special Grand Jurors hear the judge's argument, it will doubtless occur to them that they too have become the dupes of the same giant judicial fraud and conspiracy to which the complainant, and all other complainants are arguing about.
J.A.I.L. works like quicksand. It increases the judges liability the more he says in an attempt to justify himself. He has now implicated himself in a potential criminal indictment, and may face prison in addition to being civilly liable to the complainant, it which he cannot allege he is covered by judicial immunity. Further, the blabbing of one judge in his defense is more than likely going to indict the entire judicial system and all the judges in one giant sweep, for they are all tied together in the same conspiracy.
In nearly every instance in which I can think, under J.A.I.L. the judge's best defense is to say nothing, for anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law, either civilly or criminally. Judges generally will be best suited to accept the lesser evil of not countering the complaint unless they know they have been totally honest and forthright, and can support their position by the Constitution and the law, which will be very hard to do in these days when most everything is based upon fraud and deception.
The eventual positive impact that J.A.I.L. will make upon this nation on behalf of restoring government back to the people is inestimable involving such a boon to the American economy that it is beyond comprehension. - Ron Branson (J.A.I.L. CIC)

J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - href="../../State_Chapters/dc/DC_initiative.doc">www.jail4judges.org
JAIL is a unique addition to our form of gov't. heretofore unrealized.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
JAIL is taking America like a wildfire! AddRemove@jail4judges.org
JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability!
E-Groups sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Donate offerings to J.A.I.L., P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
"Give me your wealth, and I will give you America"  - Ron Branson
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
striking at the root."                         -- Henry David Thoreau    <><

Return To JNJ 2005

To JNJ Library Index for All Years