J.A.I.L. In Other
Countries
It is with great interest that I read some of the email
conversations going on with people of other countries regarding the impact and
immensity of judicial corruption. The below string is one such instance. John
Wilson, the JAILer-In-Chief for Australia, frequently forwards these types of
emails to us-- some being more relevant to J.A.I.L. than others. What
particularly caught my attention this time is the subject by Mr. Wilson:
"Recapturing Our Courts."
In one string (not this one), a Canadian responded to
Mr. Wilson who said their system (Australian) is the most corrupt in the
world:
No John, they are not the most corrupt in the
world, they are only as corrupt as those in all other countries such as Canada,
the U.S. and on and on it goes. This is a worldwide conspiracy by the New
World Order and you are not suffering any more than we in Canada are. In
fact, we have the same rules here...it is called Summary Judgment and it is used
on me routinely to prevent me from getting into court as
well.
It's good to see these exchanges, not only between
people within a country (other than our own), but between people of different
countries discussing and comparing their circumstances regarding judicial
corruption. What this proves to me is the veracity of the universality of the
Laws of Nature; that regardless of how the various systems of government are
constructed or what they are called, the Laws of Nature will dominate, even if
those laws are usurped by evil forces driven by an insatiable appetite for
increasingly more money and power.
Nature dictates that when mankind are lawfully placed
into positions of power, they will naturally lust for
more power than they are lawfully given; and
unless they are restrained by those giving the
power, they will usurp all power of the giver and take over control
by counterfeit, unauthorized power. The Laws of Nature are clear that those in
positions of power --any power-- must be kept under the control of the
original source of that power --not of themselves-- in
order to maintain discipline. Common sense tells you that it is literally
impossible for the recipient of power to possess more than that possessed by its
source.
When unauthorized power is assumed, corruption results.
"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." It is important to
understand that the word "power" used in that slogan refers only to
unauthorized and
unrestrained power. There is a proper and needful
place for authorized power according to the Laws of
Nature. (That is so important to understand when reading Romans 13-- it
refers only to authorized power, NOT to
what we have ruling today!)
We in the United States are fortunate to have as our
Founding Document, the Declaration of Independence which is the foundation upon
which J.A.I.L. is based. It is imperative that we have such a foundation, based
on the Laws of Nature, from which to derive the principles necessary to
"Recapture Our Courts." In our traditional forms of government, the
judiciary run the courts. (I've heard that the Common Law courts are run by
the People-- while that may be lawfully correct, it is not legally accepted in our system of
government. There's no need to get into that issue for purposes of J.A.I.L.)
Therefore, judges are responsible for the decisions
they make which affects the way government is run. Ergo, judges must exercise
power that is authorized according to the Laws of Nature
which can be accomplished only by the restraint of the source of
their power, i.e., the People by and through the organic U.S. Constitution in
fulfillment of the principles set forth in the Declaration of
Independence. J.A.I.L. is the only way that restraint can be
implemented.
John Wilson stated The entire focus must be on recapturing our Courts and
eradicating the enemy. The focus must be more specific than that-- it must spell out
exactly HOW to recapture our courts. J.A.I.L. spells out HOW to do so.
Therefore, the focus must be on J.A.I.L. The
enemy, as described above, is unauthorized and
unrestrained power. Once J.A.I.L. becomes law, there
will no longer be unauthorized and unrestrained power-- therefore the enemy will
be eradicated.
John also stated below "there seems no alternative than
to do what the American Colonialist did when it happened to them in the 18th
century." Today, there IS an alternative-- as long as you have a Constitution,
adapt J.A.I.L. to fit your system of law (whether by a People's initiative, or by legislation, or other
means) and hold judges accountable to the People under constitutional
restraints, such as described under Paragraph (c) of the J.A.I.L.
Initiative. See our website at www.jail4judges.org
Eon Radley states below: I assume you would be very aware of the need
to be sure the courts serve the people who placed them there, not take over the
running of the system. Again, this speaks to authorized power
rather than unauthorized power. J.A.I.L. will establish authorized power in
government.
We hope to see more discussion about J.A.I.L. from our
counterparts in other countries. You can eliminate a lot of headaches by using
J.A.I.L. as your starting point. It'll have to be adapted in form to fit your
system, but the substance should remain the same. Let us know if you have
questions or comments.
-Barbie-
National J.A.I.L.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2022 5:36 PM
Subject: Recapturing Our Courts
Dear Bob,
I am listening and evaluating. My
approach has always been through the front door, but the "Judges" have
that barricaded. That barricade is their denying the Right to Trial by
Jury, which cannot remain in place...it must be removed. Meanwhile,
others are certainly encouraged to attack from the flanks with other
strategies. The entire focus must be on recapturing our Courts and
eradicating the enemy. Therefore, if setting up a "Fiduciary" or becoming
a "Commonwealth Public Officer" are successful, then full credit to the men
doing them.....the more the merrier.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----------Original Message--------
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2022 3:00
PM
Subject: Re: s80 Constitution
John, Listen, You have to do
what Peter Gillies is about to do. There are a number of these in and about to
start. "Commonwealth Public Official" 'Certificate of
Acknowledgement' Talk to Peter. Bob S
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 6:04
PM
Subject: Re: s80 Constitution
Dear Roger,
I've already filed in under their
guard on numerous occasions, charging the "Judges" with many crimes and even
the Premier with Treason (see http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au ). When they've woken up to what's in the documents, the
"Judges" unanimously dismiss the actions and bar any access to Juries.
That's why they've brought in outlandish legislation to try to stop ordinary
People going to Court.
In other words, it's all been done
and we have a Grounds for Discontent such as nobody would have
believed.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message
-----
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 4:39
PM
Subject: Re: s80 Constitution
Hi John
The stand you are taking is correct. But I must say
your direct frontal approach is warning them of the weakness of
their position leading them to fortify themselves thus preventing people
from gaining access to their rights. They are sealing off all access to
the system by people and hence their rights. All, continued confrontation
is going to do, is to seal whatever remaining access there is. Then off
course a revolution will be needed for change to take place. Is this
where u are headed?
Stealth will have been better where you could
have had your papers filed in court without them realizing it until it was
too late. Anyway the die is cast u have made your plays and they are
geared up to meet any eventuality. It is a war with you on one
side and them on the other. You make your charge and they defend. They
have usurped the system. You are on the outside they are on the
inside.
You are left with no choice but to educate everyone which
could take u an eon. In the meantime they have fine tuned the system of
domination to a fine art with all the electronics, knowledge of human
psychology and sophistication of centuries of experience.
All the
luck
Roger
John Wilson wrote:
Dear Eon,
That
reply from Peter Dutton is so inaccurate that it is truly
disturbing...
that a Member of Parliament has such an interpretation of the laws of
Australia can only mean that some bent lawyers have been in his ear and
told him what to say.
We have a very serious situation akin to any
in history that has led to
bloodshed and revolution. When Judges
put themselves above the Law, deny the citizens their Right to Trial
by Jury, and Members of Parliament endorse this Treachery, there seems no
alternative than to do what the American Colonialist did when it happened
to them in the 18th century. I still hope and pray for a civilized
solution but, obviously, with the Banks controlling the Courts and the
Parliaments, THE COURTS AND THE PARLIAMENTS ARE THE MEANS BY WHICH THE
BANKS EXERT THEIR POWER TO SUBJUGATE US.
No State, No Parliament,
No Judge, Nobody, No Way, can deprive us of our Right to Trial by
Jury. TRIAL BY JURY IS DEMOCRACY, FREEDOM AND JUSTICE.
There
simply has to be a PUBLIC DEBATE on NATIONAL TELEVISION in PRIME TIME
between PATRIOTIC AUSTRALIANS, on one side, and PARLIAMENTARIANS and
JUDGES, on the other.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
Peter, thanks for responding however I would bring the following
points to your attention.
I agree each state has it's own courts
system, but just because we don't live in that state does not mean we
cannot be called up to be tried under that system. At any time in the
future you or I could be called up to answer to a charge within
that states system which now excludes the right to trial by jury
at the judges discretion. Do you believe one man should be allowed to
decide your fate. And what's to say once it is established for a
while in one state others won't try to follow because it suits the
objectives of a few self interested persons.
As we are
not in NSW we have no rights to request anything of a
NSW member, that is why I must write to you in the hope you can
place something in motion via your position.
Further you did not
respond to the situation where judges are placing themselves above the law
by refusing to allow the filing into court of any action bought against
them, what is your stance on this do you want judges above the law or
not.
Finally your comments clearly imply that legislation stands
above the
Constitution. The Constitution to my understanding is
supposed to be the last word and all other "laws" stand below it. That's
why it is called the Constitution. This issue worries me as the
Constitution is not to be overridden without reference to the people i.e.:
a referendum.
I know you are an ex police officer and as such I
assume you would be very aware of the need to be sure the courts serve the
people who placed them there, not take over the running of the system
because no one is above them to stop them except for members of
Parliament such as yourself. The placing of the Constitution below State
legislation should definitely be an issue of considerable
concern and in your jurisdiction so please look into it on my
behalf.
Regards,
Eon Radley.
Telephone: 07 3289
3799
Facsimile: 07 3289 3788
Email:
[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From:
Dutton, Peter (MP) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2022 10:14 AM
To: [email protected]Subject: RE: s80 Constitution
Dear Mr.
Radley
Thank you for your recent email regarding trials by jury,
particularly
in the various cases involving Mr. John Wilson.
As
I have previously advised, each State has a Supreme Court
with
individual procedural rules. These courts are within the
jurisdiction
of the State Government only, in this case the NSW State
Government. The Federal Government has no jurisdiction over proceedings
within these courts. This is clearly enunciated by the Constitution
of Australia, in particular sections 107 and 51.
Section 107 of the
Constitution states, "Every power of the Parliament of a Colony which has
become or becomes a State, shall, unless it is by this Constitution
exclusively vested in the Parliament of the Commonwealth or withdrawn from
the Parliament of the State, continue as at the establishment of the
Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the State, as the
case may be." This section is supported by section 51, which
outlines the powers of the Commonwealth.
The Commonwealth has only
those powers listed in section 51, with the States retaining
responsibility for any powers not expressly given to the Commonwealth,
either through the Constitution or by an Act of the State Parliament. None
of the sub-sections in section 51 give the Commonwealth the power to
determine the procedural rules of a State Court.
Mr. Wilson
purports to apply section 80 of the Australian Constitution to his matter
within the State jurisdiction. This is a clear
misinterpretation
of the section, which only applies to indictable
offences against
Commonwealth law. Contempt of a State Court is not an indictable
Commonwealth offence.
By determining that there is no right to
trial by jury in this
circumstance, the Justices of the Supreme Court
are not putting
themselves above the Australian Constitution.
Should you have any
further enquiries regarding the NSW Supreme Court
and the rules that govern its operation, these would be better directed to
the NSW State Government.
Thank you again for contacting me with
your concerns.
Yours sincerely
Peter Dutton
-----Original Message-----
From: Eon
Radley - Fire Technology Pty. Ltd. [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, 6 May 2022 10:24 AM
To: Dutton, Peter
(MP)
Subject: FW: s80 ConstitutionPeter, a bit of detail
you should know regarding the Right to Trial by
Jury which is in our
counties Constitution but frequently denied by the Judges. Are you
comfortable with Judges placing themselves above our
Constitution.
I would like to know your thoughts on this
one.
Regards,
Eon Radley.
-----Original Message-----
From: John
Wilson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, 6 May 2022 9:02 AM
To: Discount
Print
Subject: Re: s80 ConstitutionDear
Matt,
s.80 of the Australian Constitution simply reinforces the
Right to Trial by Jury existing in all the States at the time of
Federation and says that the same applies to offences against Federal
Laws. All Australian "Judges" (including those in the High Court)
disobey the Rule of Law. They are frightened to death by the very idea of
Trial by Jury. My book and Transcripts & Judgments (all on
http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au
) are evidence of this. In a nutshell: It's called "Judicial
Corruption & Treachery".
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
HI John,
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 80
Trial by jury
The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of
the Commonwealth shall be by jury, and every such trial shall be held in
the State where the offence was committed, and if the offence was not
committed within any State the trial shall be held at such place or places
as the Parliament prescribes.
What's going on when we have our own
constitution stating the law?
Matt
Dear John,
They know they are as guilty as hell ... so, they
want to block access to our Courts.
Yours sincerely,
John
Wilson.
----- Original Message
-----
From: John Dempsey
To: John Wilson
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2022 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: "Judges"
breaking the law to protect themselves
Right on John,
these judges need to hear from us. I salute you.
John
Dempsey
To be added or removed, write to
[email protected]
"..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