J.A.I.L. News
Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles,
California January
12,
2006
______________________________________________________
The Inherent Right of ALL People to
Alter or Reform Abusive Government
The Right Upon Which All Other
Rights Depend
The Torchbearer for J.A.I.L.
Nationally - Support Them!
P.O. Box 412, Tea, S.D. 57064
- (605) 231-1418
Too Many Legislatures
Are Blocking The People
By Barbie, ACIC, National J.A.I.L.
Admin.
One of the seven judicial violations
listed in the J.A.I.L. Amendment is "Blocking of a lawful conclusion of a
case." Not only does the judiciary block the rights of the People,
but so does the legislature of too many
states.
Ever since the South Dakota J.A.I.L.
campaign started, we've been hearing more from our readers in the
non-initiative states than from others. People in the initiative states
realize that it is just a question of funding to collect the required
signatures for the J.A.I.L. Initiative, and the initiative process will
take care of getting J.A.I.L. on the ballot if the required signatures
have been certified. So the ball in those states is in the People's
hands.
However, such is not the case with People
living in the non-initiative (NI) states which amounts to slightly more
than half of all states. These states include Texas and New York-- two of our largest states. People
in NI states are hit with a "double whammy." Before they can present
J.A.I.L. to the public and convince them of the need for J.A.I.L. in
their state, they must first present J.A.I.L.
to their legislature and convince their legislators of the need for
J.A.I.L. in their state. Now when it comes to the J.A.I.L.
Amendment, this disparity between initiative and
non-initiative states is a problem of paramount
proportion.
Unlike other measures, J.A.I.L.
epitomizes the inherent right of the People --ALL People-- to alter or
reform their government whensoever they --the
People, not the legislators-- deem it necessary to do so. People living
in NI states are not second-class citizens. The right is theirs as much
as for others. The right to alter or reform government doesn't come from
government-- it isn't a "privilege" granted by government. The fact that
some state governments are honest enough to acknowledge that inherent
right in the People by stating it in the state Constitution, doesn't mean
that it is thereby granted by that government. The word "inherent" is
used (or its equivalent) which means existing as a matter of
nature --not
government.
When the Founder of J.A.I.L. first
presented the measure for filing with the California Secretary of State
in 1996 (it was then known as "The Judicial Reform Act of 1996"), among
the questions by the Legislative Analyst was this final
one: "Mr.
Branson, if, as your initiative states, 'no judge under the jurisdiction
of the Special Grand Jury, or potentially affected by the outcome of a
challenge hereto, shall have any jurisdiction to sit in judgment of such
challenge,' then whom do you propose should sit in judgment? A
judge from another state or a federal
judge?"
Ron responded by telling him that he was
not there to advise the state on how to defeat the measure, but that
he cites the authority for presenting the measure:
"All political power is inherent in the people.
Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and
they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may
require." Article II, Sec. 1, California
Constitution.
There were no further questions. Clearly
that stated the authority for J.A.I.L. But California is an initiative
state. What authority is given for the NI
states?
It is the same
authority as that acknowledged --not granted-- by
California! The statement "All political power is
inherent in the people" acknowledges a truth that
is self-evident under the laws of nature. It
doesn't depend on the state, or any state. Furthermore, California's
acknowledgement that the people "have the right to alter or reform
[government] when the public good may require" is based on the
acknowledgement that "Government is instituted for [the people's]
protection, security, and benefit."
Those facts are true in all
states.
-
All political power is inherent in
the People;
-
Government is instituted by the
People for their protection and benefit;
-
Therefore the People have the right
to alter or reform government when they deem it necessary to do
so.
It is a common belief of government
officials that they are better able to determine what's "good" for the
People than are the People themselves. Officials think that's what they
get paid for. However, that is a dangerous fallacy that creates the
usurpation of power by government.
Government's responsibility is NOT to
protect the People (as we constantly hear on
world news reports), but to protect the rights of the
People. Our physical being isn't as important as is
our rights to the benefit and protection our
being. People are not dumb cattle that require the protection of their
being by a superior human authority, like a rancher over a herd of cows.
The difference is that People are human beings with inherent rights
by nature, including the right to institute
government for the protection of their rights --not of their being-- and
thereby have the concomitant inherent right to alter or reform that
government when it ceases to protect their
rights.
This is the point that must be made to
the state governments of the NI states. This point is more fundamental
than even J.A.I.L. in the first instance, because the
People cannot present J.A.I.L. without a mechanism in place for
them to do so in exercise of their inherent right to alter or reform
government (in this case, the judicial system) since their rights are no
longer being protected by that
system.
At first we said that we should
concentrate on getting J.A.I.L. passed in the initiative states first,
and then have better leverage to convince the legislatures in the NI
states to do the same thing. But with the barrage of emails we've been
receiving from our readers of the NI states, the question arises,
Why should those People have to wait to get J.A.I.L. passed
in their states? That's about half the people, or more, in
this country!
Since it is the initiative process that
is well established for the passing of state constitutional amendments by
the People in approximately half the states, then it would appear that
the People of NI states would have to present jointly with the proposed
J.A.I.L. Amendment, sufficient signatures also to pass an initiative
process (I would think the same number of signatures for each-- it's 8%
of the voters in the previous gubernatorial election in California. It
may be 10% in some states). But, the People must take the
initiative (pun intended).
We've had some of our JICs in the NI
states give up, or JAILers not even become JICs in the first place, in
those states, because of the unlikelihood of convincing the
legislature to introduce the J.A.I.L. Bill as written (copywrited by the
Author), due to their conflict of interest. It isn't the province of
government to alter or reform itself. It won't happen, nor can we expect
it to.
The People of each NI state has to decide
how best to go about making it possible to get J.A.I.L. on their ballot.
We don't micromanage the states, and so please don't ask us what you
should do. We can publish suggestions by our readers to share with the
JAILers as we have started to do, but that's all we can do. If some of
you find some good methods in your state, pass them along to us and we'll
send them to the JAILers. J.A.I.L. is a national team and we
need all of us to make it work!
It's up to
you!
-Barbie-