J.A.I.L. News
Journal
______________________________________________________
Los
Angeles,
California August
14, 2004
The Irony of
J.A.I.L.
(By Ron Branson - J.A.I.L.
CIC)
On June 8, 2022 we published a J.A.I.L. News
Journal entitled, "What Is Truth?" Within that publication were the
last words scribed, "J.A.I.L. was a necessity
since the first day the Framers wrote the Constitution."
An Associate JAILer-In-Chief in California,
Dorothy Robins by name, picked up on those words saying. "You couldn't have said it better. However, I just picked this up from 'The Federalist.'
"If the next century does not find us a great nation ... it will be
because those who represent the ... morality of the nation do not aid in
controlling the political forces."
--James Garfield.
Having read this, I got to thinking of the
Irony of J.A.I.L., to wit, how J.A.I.L. will effectively turn everything upside
down 180 degrees, which is actually upright. For instance, can one imagine
a judge having committed a crime, rushing to the District Attorney
to plead with him, "Prosecute me, please prosecute me. I will plead no
contest."
Paragraph (s) of the J.A.I.L.
Initiative provides, "Criminal Procedures. In addition to any other
provisions of this Amendment, a complaint for criminal conduct of a judge may be
brought directly to the Special Grand Jury upon all the following
prerequisites: (1) an affidavit of criminal conduct has been lodged with the
appropriate prosecutorial entity within ninety (90) days of the commission of
the alleged conduct; (2) the prosecutor declines to prosecute, or one
hundred twenty (120) days has passed following the lodging of such affidavit and
prosecution has not commenced; (3) an indictment, if sought, has not been
specifically declined on the merits by a county Grand Jury; and (4) the criminal
statute of limitations has not run. Any criminal conviction (including a plea
bargain) under any judicial process shall constitute a strike."
Therefore, if anyone lodged a criminal
affidavit against a judge with the prosecutor, and the prosecutor sat on the
matter in excess of 120 days, the one who lodged
it could then file the same affidavit with the Special Grand Jury, who would
then decide whether there was Probable Cause to issue an
indictment. Once a decision to indict is made, they would assign one of
their Special Prosecutors to the case having all the powers of any other
prosecutor within the state, and a trial would proceed in front of
jury.
Here is a very viable situation, and more
that will likely to take place. No judge is going to want to face a jury,
be found guilty, and hear the sentencing of that jury upon them. They will
quickly realize that they would be much better off to beat the clock before the
matter reaches the jury, and rush over to the District Attorney's Office
and cop a plea with the prosecutor in front of one of their buddy
judges. There is nothing in law, except the statute of limitations, that
says the prosecution cannot then prosecute the judge before a jury would so so.
Of course, J.A.I.L. anticipates this likelihood by providing, "Any Criminal
conviction (including a plea bargain) under any judicial process shall
constitute a strike." This means even if this offending judge pleads no
contest before a trial judge, and the trial judge should give him
probation, the offending judge is one strike closer to his third-strike removal
from judicial office, and to the loss of half his judicial retirement
benefits.
Of course, acceptance of such action by
the prosecutor is going to become an embarrassment to his office, for such
action shall certainly haunt him at his next bid for re-election.
It shall be said that the prosecutor purposely avoided his first
chance to prosecute this same judge, and now plots a plea
with that same judge in order to get the judge off the hook
from facing a jury. His opponent will have a heyday with this.
Further, there is another Irony of
J.A.I.L. Most all of us are upset because we are denied the right to a
trial by jury in criminal cases such as traffic court, child protection
services, violations of regulatory agencies, and administrative laws -- so
called, etc., etc. Indeed, we have come full circle from that of King George,
III, in England, "depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:"
(Dec. of Independence.) I faced a judge in a criminal matter
and demanded a trial by jury in which the judge boldly said,
your request for a jury trial is denied.
Now, it is the judges who are afraid to face
a jury trial for themselves under J.A.I.L. When J.A.I.L. was filed
with one Secretary of State, a defense was argued on behalf of
the state judges that they would be denied their right to waive a jury
trial. I was called upon to address this issue, and here is how I responded.
Our Constitutions assure everyone in a criminal
matter, except in cases of impeachment, to a right to a trial by jury.
The U.S. Constitution provides in Amendment VI, "In all criminal prosecutions,
the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial
jury."
While we understand that one may waive their
right to a jury trial to be tried by a judge, nowhere does the Constitution
guarantee them a right to waive a jury trial. But this is what the judges,
through their representation, have argued. What they overlook, however, is
that there are two parties to any criminal case, the prosecution, and the
defense. Both equally are guaranteed the right to a trial by jury.
But when have you ever heard of a
criminal prosecutor insisting upon their right to a jury trial after the
defense has waived such right in favor of being tried by a judge? I venture
never. However, the Irony of J.A.I.L. is that it will do just that. Judges,
through their representation, are already arguing they will be deprived of their
right to be tried by a judge. Folks, there ain't no such thing as a right to be
tried by a judge. Since the Special Prosecutor under
J.A.I.L. working for the Special Grand Jury, does not waive his equal
right to a trial by jury, all judges will have to face the music of a jury
trial, and not their fellow brethren judges.
The last thing these judges ever want to do
is face the people to whom they are accountable to for their future
disposition, which may be prison, fines, work time, or any
combination of the three.
Isaiah set forth the condition of the judges
in his day, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put
darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet
for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their
own sight!" Isaiah 5:20, 21.
With J.A.I.L. everything is turned 180, to
force judges recognize evil as evil, and good as good, and
this, folks, is the Irony of J.A.I.L.
"..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
<><