J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles,
California
May
13, 2007
______________________________________________________
The Battle
Lines are Drawn: J.A.I.L.
versus The Foreign Power
A Power Foreign to Our
Constitution
Is There A Way
Around
The Need For
J.A.I.L?
By Ron Branson -
National J.A.I.L. CIC
A day or two ago I received an
email claiming to have found a way to accomplish what the passage of
J.A.I.L. would accomplish in America in lieu of having to pass J.A.I.L.
into law. I always love these type of challenges because they make
excellent springboards into discussions on just how vitally important it is
to pass J.A.I.L. into law in this country. I have always maintained that
there is no substitute for J.A.I.L. to avoid the inevitable collapse
of America due to judicial corruption.
Having composed a
carefully-thought-out response to this instant challenge, it dawned upon me that
my answer was worthy of much more that just an obscure response, but
contains important profound ramifications for everyone everywhere to
consider.
Below is the challenge to
J.A.I.L., followed by our response.
Dear
Jailers,
My name is Ron Hammar and I live in Northern California
in the city of Redding. I have been following JAIL and wanting to make a
change in the way we all have been abused by our
Government.
In searching how one can
form a "Citizen's Grand Jury," I came across this web page about how Mr. Joe
Citizen can start IMPEACHMENT of elective persons, from the local city
level all the way to Washington.
This would be one way to go
around the passing of a JAIL bill and go right into action. Also it would make
the Citizens feel more powerful because they are making things happen and still
going through the way the Constitution provides.
Take Care
Ron Hammar
J.A.I.L.'s
Response:
Dear Mr.
Hammar:
There is absolutely no way around the "passing of the J.A.I.L.
Bill." Here is the downside of your above proposal. Grand Juries
are not allowed to investigate judges. The government has seen to that, to protect their evil empire. They say
complaints against judges must be submitted to the judicial commissions
created for that purpose, which here in California is the Commission on Judicial
Performance (CJP).
By creating these commissions, the system's plan is
to sandbag all complaints against judges, by sending the complainant a
form letter dismissing their complaint. This is done routinely except when the
matter is reported in the media and causes embarrassment to the system, forcing
them to act to save their butts.
I have followed the judicial-complaint trail by personal experience and have
trapped them in a "round-robin" circular process. I filed a
criminal complaint against a Los Angeles County judge before the County Grand Jury. I was informed that they had no jurisdiction over the
matter, and that I should direct my criminal complaint to the CJP.
Thereafter I personally traveled 500 milesfrom Los Angeles to the CJP office in San Francisco where they admitted that they were not
criminal prosecutors, but that criminal complaints must be brought to the State Attorney
General, who is the State
prosecutor.
I then traveled 100 miles
across the state to the State Attorney General's Office in
Sacramento where the receptionist at the
Public Relations Office told me that I must go to the CJP with my
judicial complaint. I informed her
that I had just come from the CJP,
having been instructed by them to take it
to the State Attorney General's Office. There was no sense in driving back another 100 miles to the CJP office,
so under the circumstances I persisted in speaking to someone in the AG's
office, and finally, I persuaded them to allow me to see their PR
official, Virgil Chapman. He listened to me for 2 1/2 hours as I presented my
extensive written records as evidence. He took photocopies of selective
portions of that evidence and stated that I had come to the right place and
their office would handle this matter "on an expedited basis." I thanked him and drove the 500 miles back home to Los
Angeles. Having heard nothing on the
matter, I followed up by phone and was instructed by the
telephone receptionist of the PR office that I had to take my complaint against a
judge to the CJP (obviously for
sandbagging).
Despite the explanation of my 2 1/2-hour meeting personally
with their PR official, Mr. Chapman, and my insisting to speak with him on the phone to follow up, it soon became very
clear that the AG's Office was intending to
avoid me and shield Virgil Chapman from any communication with me.
I then made another 500-mile trip back to Sacramento and went to the Governor's
Office where I spoke with Attorney Sandra Maceil. She stated that the Governor
could not get involved since the Attorney General was elected to office just
like the Governor, and their office
was barred from
interference. I then opened my California Constitution to Art. V, �13 and
read to her, "Subject to the powers and duties of the Governor,
the Attorney General shall be the chief law officer of the State. It shall be
the duty of the Attorney General to see that the laws of the State are uniformly
and adequately enforced." After I read that to her, she
asked, "How can I help you, Mr. Branson?"
She listen intently, as if interested, and told me that they
would look into the matter and get back to me. (Sounded familiar). After a passage
of about two weeks, I followed up by telephone to Sandra Maceil's
office, and again it was handled in
the same manner as with Virgil
Chapman. In other words, if you are insistent in pursing your charge against a
judge, you are going to get the "round-robin" treatment, i.e., the run-around.
In another matter before the State Attorney General's
Office in Los Angeles in which I was given the shine-on, I walked
out of their office and entered the
elevator. Right on my heels was a deputy AG who wanted to talk with me. He
joined me in the elevator and said, "Mr. Branson, you want this office to go
after judges. We cannot do that. We are counsel for the judges here in
California and we have a conflict of interest. When we bring action on behalf of
the State in the courts, we want the judges on our side. We cannot be going
after judges." With that, we reached the ground floor, the door opened, and we
each went our ways. Is this not an admission that in reality there exists no
forum in which to hold judges accountable? While I call to witness the policies
of the State of California, I dare say that these same policies exist throughout
the United States, including the federal system. The citizens will never
get anywhere in the current system without the passage of J.A.I.L.
Most people never realize this circular round-robin game of keep-away because
they fail to pursue and trap their
resisters with "check
mate."
So my criminal complaint went from the Grand Jury in Los
Angeles, all the way through the CJP in San Francisco (500 miles), to the AG in
Sacramento (100 miles), back home to L.A.
(500 miles), and back again to Sacramento to the Governor's office (500
miles) where it was ditched, and nothing became of my criminal
complaint against the judge who committed
the crime.
As to the Grand Jury going against other branches of
government other than the judiciary, when an indictment of an official or entity
is too hot, they "deep-six" the indictment. All indictments, excluding the J.A.I.L. process, depend
entirely upon the sole discretion of the prosecutor. If he elects not to
prosecute the offending government official or entity, that is the end of the
matter, and the Grand Jury is rendered totally helpless.
As a couple of examples of the above, in 1981 a
Utah Federal Grand Jury indicted all twelve branches of the Federal Reserve
Bank for fraud. The prosecutor vehemently refused to accept their indictment.
Then the Grand Jury tried to do an end-run around the prosecutor and went
straight to the judiciary, where they met another roadblock. The
judiciary likewise refused to accept
the Grand Jury indictment, turned on the Grand Jury, and ultimately dismissed every one
of those Grand Jurors, reprimanding them, and ordering them to keep their mouths
shut. Further, in another case
involving a Grand Jury indictment against a large industrial complex, the
indictment was dismissed by the prosecutor, and the judge ordered each of the
Grand Jurors to keep their mouths shut or face contempt charges. Fear fell
upon all the Grand Jurors who were now facing contempt charges if they even
mentioned what had happened to them.
In our current Grand Jury system,
you can count upon the Grand Juries to operate only as a hammer in the
hands of the prosecution, not as a corrective measure of the People against
government corruption. J.A.I.L. is designed to do an end-run around this
limitation of the operations of current Grand Juries, for the
J.A.I.L. Special Grand Juries have their own Special Prosecutors of
their own choosing, and the
subsequent trial of the defendant-judge must be conducted before a petit
trial jury who not only has the power to convict, but also to sentence
the judge.
Rest assured that the system will never hold government
accountable, and any facade claiming otherwise is
but window dressing for public consumption! Hence, the passage of
J.A.I.L. is absolutely necessary, and, contrary to your suggestion,
there is no way to "... go around the passing of a JAIL bill!"
-Ron Branson
J.A.I.L.
(Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) www.jail4judges.org
To be automatically
added to future mailings, place the word Subscribe
in the subject line
and email to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
We are a ministry in great need of your
financial support. Please donate to
this important work at "J.A.I.L." P.O.
Box 207, North Hollywood, CA 91603
J.A.I.L. is a unique
addition to our Constitution heretofore unrealized.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL
is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
E-Group sign on at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Visit our active flash
- http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm
* *
*
He has combined with
others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to
our constitution,
and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to
their acts of
pretended legislation. - Declaration of
Independence
"..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 2007
Return To JNJ Library Index for All Years