Saturday, May 12, 2007

* * * Is There a Way Around the Need for J.A.I.L.? * * *

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

Mission Statement      JNJ Library        Federal J.A.I.L.

FAQs              What?MeWarden?


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 miles 
from 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, ยง13 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)

To be automatically added to future mailings, place the word Subscribe 

in the subject line and email to 


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

Visit our active flash -


*   *   *

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
" 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 i

striking at the root."   -- Henry David Thoreau                     ><)))'>



Post a Comment

<< Home