California County JAIL Cells

What's New?

 JAIL4Judges
Purpose

JAIL4Judges
Contacts

Media Information

Links

JAIL4Judges
Events

JAIL4Judges
Membership

Offenses
in
Judiciary

Offenses
in
Law

Offenses
in
Fact

On May 28th, 2002 Ron Branson published a part of one of my internal e-mails. My comments regarding the solitary purpose of JAIL4Judges included:

"We cannot fight every individual battle or hope to challenge every injustice or bureaucratic policy. But we can retrieve one small power... not to change the laws, not to change the representatives, not to change the police or the taxes, not even to challenge the decisions of any judge or to question the proceedings for judicial performance.
 
We merely wish to recover the direct power to investigate, judge and discipline personal conduct of judicial office holders, exclusive of their official acts. By imposing judicial integrity or removing those who prove incapable of judicial integrity, we can restore limited, constitutional government through the exercise of our ordinary processes."  

Henry Nicolle
[email protected]

****************************

Since all controversies end in the ballot box or before our judicial officers, and since our judiciary is unconstrained by custom and law, it is time for the Citizens to chain the judiciary to our constitutions and to impose the prerogatives of sovereignty upon them. They, in turn will enforce our will on the remainder of executive, legislative and administrative institutional apparatus.

It is clear that JAIL4Judges is not a personal advocacy or legal aid organization. Nor is JAIL4Judges an advocate of parties, factions, religious convictions, family law, political, criminal civil or any other kind of law, politics or social change. JAIL4Judges proposes only a long-term, cross-cultural, totally Free American lawful, legal and political resolution to the overwhelming problem of government excess, usurpation of powers and judicial non-chalance in the face of growing petty treasons.

Seeking remedy in todays' courts is most often a meaningless and fruitless ordeal. JAIL4Judges seeks to provide a corrective and self-sustaining process for rejuvenating our processes. JAIL4Judges cannot "pull out the stops" to rally behind political candidates, rally and protest against bad judges, wicked prosecutors and nefarious cops. Those are NOT the purpose and function of JAIL4Judges.

JAIL4Judges proposal will poison the waters of embedded interests and for "business as usual" by returning the power of the Citizens to DIRECTLY decide what is and what is not judicial misconduct, from the judicial perspective of the true sovereign power, the Citizens.

Jail4Judges leaves the immediate, individual problems to those most familiar with them and therefore best suited to deal with them on a case-by-case basis.

Then today, I received an e-mail in which an Ohio JAILer asked questions that showed he had been doing his homework and had given careful thought to the object and processes of judicial accountability that JAIL4Judges proposes.

Here is my response to this JAILer, in Web-format for easier reading:

 
Dear Ohio JAILer,
Thank you very much for your observations and comments. It has been thoughtfulness and consideration like yours that has yielded the very construction and development of the JAIL4Judges proposal. I am confident that some of the content of the JAIL4Judges initiative may ultimately change to reflect the continuing consideration JAILers give to the prospect.

Let me explain my perspective on JAIL4Judges in brief, using your observations and questions as a guide.
 

1.	JAIL4Judges has only one authority, that is to provide direct personal accountability of judicial officers to a Special Grand Jury composed of Citizens excepting state officials, which will consider complaints of judicial misconduct and provide for prosecution, judgment and exoneration or penalty as is appropriate to the sense of the Citizens purpose.
2.	A Special Grand Jury investigation and subsequent processes may be invoked only after all other remedies have been exhausted or when inaction in other remedial venues presents a clear and immediate emergency.
3.	The JAIL4Judges proposal addresses ONLY personal misconduct on ethical, legal and constitutional grounds. We anticipate that as the Functions of the Special Grand Juries mature, that our governing processes in general will recover their vitality and that the Special Grand Juries will be called to session only in uncommon instances.

We have already provided ordinary remedies for most types of misconduct by government actors and to correct bad law and ineffective representation. If our legal system were obedient to our constitutions and laws, that there would be little, or no need for JAIL4Judges. However, we, (and so too, our representatives) have become complaisant  and selfish in the discipline of our governing agents and institutions. Now, it seems that we have no influence that has any practical effect in representation, policy or remedy.

JAIL4Judges has been conceived as a necessity because of the consistent tendency of our legal system to disregard our constitutions and laws in favor of ad hoc policies, political expedience and official favoritism.

With that said, here we go...

I wrote, "We cannot fight every individual battle or hope to challenge every injustice or bureaucratic policy.",  and you replied, "I accept. However, this seems like it's going to be an integral consequence of holding judges accountable."

The establishment of law, however perfect, will inevitably result in injustice. We live in an imperfect world. When injustice is inadvertent, the remedy is political. When injustice is deliberate, the remedy is in the ordinary law and in the proposed Special Grand Jury.

Judicial officers should be held personally accountable in traditional venues long before their conduct becomes so egregious as to merit invocation of the Special Grand Juries. When the Special Grand Juries are invoked, it is because our normal remedies and safeguards have failed to serve us properly.

I wrote, "But we can retrieve one small power... not to change the laws, (etc.)", and you replied, "I'm undecided. I know the part about we want them to follow the laws as written, but I feel that this is only when We The People agree that the law in question is an acceptable law. But what are you saying about unacceptable laws?"

Unacceptable laws are political questions. They are the enactments of our elected representatives. We must coerce those representatives to repair what they have done or to change either or both, the representatives and laws.

Traditionally, bad laws are disregarded or disobeyed in general by the people.
Traditionally, when the people generally disregard a law, the police lose interest in general enforcement of that law.
Traditionally, when the people and the police disregard a law, the representatives modify or remove it.

Today, our police and representatives have abandoned the people's practical feedback and instead act as if there were no constituents or constitution to constrain them.

A significant part of this problem is the lack of personal accountability by the judiciary. The connection between personal misconduct and legislation may appear to be somewhat tenuous at first glance, but there is really an intimate lock between accountability and legislation.

Bad law is usually challenged in our courts. Many, if not the majority, of our judicial officers are incompetent or incoherent, personally vested in conflicting interests, personally and transparently prejudiced or otherwise ineligible to sit in review and judgment of our laws.

By holding the judiciary to the critical judgment of the Citizens, rather than to the cooperative review of their peers in government offices, we assert the necessity of the people that the judges serve the people and not the government.

Once this concept has been imposed, we believe the courts will be more attentive to their duty to test the constitutionality of new or old laws and policies and we believe this attentiveness will affect our representatives and administrators. Failing to find rubber-stamped approval by the courts, our government officials should temper their acts which might offend the constitutional sensibilities of the Citizens.

Then you continued, "Wasn't this one of the powers of the jury?  Example: the people who break laws, which are not acceptable to We The People, should be acquitted; and the law should be struck down. Is J4J's going to be able to hold a judge accountable without showing that he enforced a law repugnant to the people?"

Yes and No... The function and authority of modern juries is a topic of great and ongoing debate. Traditionally, the petite juries judge the facts and accept the law as instructed by the judge. A controversy exists in our popular opinion as well as in our legal institutions regarding jury nullification. But rather than discuss this at length, I will refer you to "Jury Nullification and the Rule of Law".  The courts are aggressively combating the occasional jury's rejection of the law by mandating oaths to impose the law as interpreted by the judge or to simply reject the decision of the jury, if it offends the judges opinion.

In any case, JAIL4Judges does not extend any direct oversight to the workings of our courts or to their decisions and processes, except where a judicial officer has taken personal and unauthorized liberties.

Indirectly however, a Special Grand Jury finding of personal misconduct may provide the basis of a rehearing for a damaged party. For example, if personal misconduct of a judge can be shown to have directly affected a decision, but that the brotherhood chose to disregard the injured party's appeals for reason of comity between the courts, then there is a good chance that the case may be reheard with an unbiased officer.

And finally, you comment, "Seems to me that changing the law is going to be part of the remedy in a court case against the judge and the legislator(s) (RICO Act?)."

In this case, perhaps you are on firm ground. In any case, a RICO action is part of the ordinary remedies. It is possible that the Special Grand Jury would simultaneously investigate a judicial officer accused or associated as a RICO defendant for personal misconduct, provided that a complaint were filed with the SGJ.

Then in similar context, we continue: " not to change the representatives," You remark, "I accept as long as it is shown that they are not contributory to the specific problem. If they have made a law repugnant to the people, then the representatives should be held accountable to remove such law from the books or be indicted."

Efficacy of political representation is a matter of ordinary remedies.

JAIL4Judges has nothing to do with the electoral processes, or the conduct of elected representatives, except for personal judicial misconduct.

"not to change the police" You say, "I'm undecided. I believe that police are often accessories to the judges' actions: i.e., judges wouldn't have an opportunity to unjustly adjudicate many traffic cases if the police didn't bring in the alleged violators (read victims). And they certainly are witnesses against us. That, to me, makes them part of the judicial problem."

Yes, this collusion and unreasonable cooperation is rampant and criminal in its effects. But again, if the misconduct is by any official other than a judicial officer, there is no purpose to invocation of the JAIL4Judges Special Grand Juries. If there is misconduct by both the police and one or more judicial officers, AND traditional remedies have failed, THEN the Special Grand Juries functions are invoked.

Then we get to the core of why JAIL4Judges is different from other, more traditional remedies, in that the Special Grand Juries do "not even challenge the decisions of any judge, or question the proceedings for judicial performance." You comment,  "I'm undecided. Isn't this the basis of our problems with judges? Don't we want to see that their decisions are over ridden?" and, "I'm undecided. Again, isn't this the basis of our problems with judges? Example: restrictions on the use of audio or visual tape recordings in court."

JAIL4Judges expects that a general reform of governing practices and customs will sprout and flourish to the benefit of the Citizens if personal accountability for judicial misbehavior is established, exclusive of ordinary remedies. 

Remember, the Special Grand Juries will be composed of Citizens, excluding government officials (vested interests in status quo), and that the actions of the Special Grand Juries are extraordinary when invoked and their powers exercised. There is no appeal from a Special Grand Jury's decisions.

"We merely wish to recover the direct power to investigate, judge and discipline personal conduct of judicial office holders, exclusive of their official acts." You question, "I'm undecided. Again, isn't this the basis of our problems with judges?"

Corruption of the official acts of judicial officers is the direct result of general acceptability of  corruption and incompetence during ordinary remedial procedures. When a judicial officer engages in one form or another of misconduct, either on the bench or in his private capacity, and he or she is not held accountable by ordinary processes, then the Special Grand Jury may be invoked, thus placing the Citizens, not the government, as final judge of "acceptable corruption or incompetence".

By imposing judicial integrity or removing those who prove incapable of judicial integrity, we can restore limited, constitutional government through the exercise of our ordinary processes. 

You continue, also nicely on point, "Also, from what I read in J.A.I.L.., there are no what I would call "implementing regulations" which present how J4J's intends on holding judges accountable.

How does J4J's intend to hold judges accountable without gathering evidence? For example, striking down the tape recording rules, and getting recordings of any and all court proceedings.

Also, striking down the procedure of having the Defendant or Plaintiff wait outside while the lawyers go talk to the judge either at the bench or in chambers.

Also, striking the rule whereby the jury is excluded from discussions in chambers, or excluded form ANY discussion or element of the trial.

Seems to me that these changes should be added to J.A.I.L."
 

These problems are typically self-correcting when the Special Grand Juries are invoked. If a judicial officer is circumventing the law, acting unethically or prejudicially, lawyering from the bench, or any other type of conduct that can be reasonably construed as violations harming justice, there are ordinary and extraordinary remedies, as we have noted. By establishing the extraordinary remedy of Citizen review of individual judicial conduct, official conduct should evolve toward justice, to better serve the people and to decrease the potential for invocation of the extraordinary remedy of JAIL4Judges. This means that the rules of court and the arbitrary application of judicial discretion will find self-criticism within and among our courts. The absence of such self-critical and self-correcting actions being a clear invitation to extraordinary remedies, I suggest that few judges will tempt the Tiger of personal review by a Citizens' Special Grand Jury. 

You close with, "I remember the Ron Branson said that he has many things in reserve that he has not revealed to us at this time and I wonder if the above items are some of those things. I just don't know how J4J's is to implement their Initiative." 

In California and other states where the constitution is to be amended, constitutional provisions are self implementing, not requiring legislative meddling.

You are the best judge of how the Citizens' instructions are to be implemented in your state. Please contact your State JAILer-In-Chief for additional information and to help implement JAIL4Judges!

I hope I have been helpful in explaining the simple, but extraordinary effect of JAIL4Judges proposal.

Best regards,

Henry

Henry Nicolle
JAIL4Judges Warden
Ventura County, California
[email protected]
 

Websites:

State
JAIL4Judges
Pages

National
JAIL4Judges
Website