[Victims of Court Corruption] Is J.A.I.L. sufficient?

Dear David Stebbins:

You have posed the question, "Is J.A.I.L. sufficient?" and asked how the Special Grand Jury of Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.) will work.

As is commonly known, we already have common Grand Juries throughout the country which can can investigate all wrong-doings, even if it be government entities. But what is not commonly known is that the government has cut off Grand Jury investigations of judges which started in California in 1960. In lieu thereof, the government has created Judicial Commissions that now supposedly investigate judges by the judges themselves, who they argue are best qualified to do this job.

I have a lot more I could say on this, but I shall move on. Since basically it is now judges that investigate judges, what J.A.I.L. seeks to do is reverse this situation by creating a Special Grand Jury that only has jurisdiction to investigate judges. And this is the very reason that the system hates J.A.I.L. so must as it counters their many years of effort to place judges out of reach of the people. All the people can now do is hope for justice (which shall never occur.) You write;

Problem is... where does the complainant go to sue the judge?  Based on the text of the amendment, he goes to the same judiciary that the judge himself works for.

Doesn't that just sound like putting the fox in charge of the hen house?  What happens if the judge presiding over the suit against the first judge is just as corrupt as the first judge?  Do I sue him, also? What if the third judge is equally corrupt?  And again?  And again?  And again?

We must understand that all Grand Juries, whether common or special, by their very nature, do not decide the merits of any case as they can only determine Probable Cause to be held for a trial before a Petit Jury. J.A.I.L. opens the door to expand criminal trials of judges to include civil trials of judges, and important addition.

The Special Grand Jury under J.A.I.L. only resolves whether a judge sued civilly may allege judicial immunity, nothing more. As it is now, all judges allege in a civil case judicial immunity, and the chances are right at 100% it will be granted.

But think for a moment. If the Special Grand Jury has already resolved that Judge A can be sued civilly, and the suit cannot be dismissed on that grounds, does it not make sense that if Judge B also willfully violates the law or the Constitution, and Special Grand Jury will be on their toes of that conspiracy?

The definition of a conspiracy is if two or more conspire together to complete a common goal, then all participants in the conspiracy are equally guilty. By this definition, an ongoing conspiracy may have no end. But isn't this true of most all conspiracies? Take for example the ongoing Federal Reserve conspiracy which has continued for a 100 years. If a civil conspiracy continues going around and around again and again, it is bound to result in a criminal conspiracy in which all participants involved will likely serve prison time.

Also, consider that once the Special Grand Jury has rendered its final decision, its decisions may be, and likely will be, published and open to daylight for the entire nation to see. As the old saying goes, you can fool some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time, but never all the people all of the time. Truth has a way of catching up with falsehood. "[B]e sure your sin will find you out." Numbers 32:23.

Thank you for your inquiry, David.

Ron Branson



David Stebbins wrote:

Dear Jail 4 Judges,

In one of your website's FAQs, you answered a question of whether there may be an alternative besides JAIL4Judges to securing judicial accountability.

However, I am concerned that JAIL may not be enough.

The grand juries that the JAIL amendment would create would only have the ability to either prosecute a judge criminally (in which case, they are limited by their resources), or give a complainant the green light to sue the respondent judge.  Problem is... where does the complainant go to sue the judge?  Based on the text of the amendment, he goes to the same judiciary that the judge himself works for.

Doesn't that just sound like putting the fox in charge of the hen house?  What happens if the judge presiding over the suit against the first judge is just as corrupt as the first judge?  Do I sue him, also? What if the third judge is equally corrupt?  And again?  And again?  And again?

I like the idea of having the grand juries be randomly chosen citizens, but they should have jurisdiction to fully adjudicate a civil action between a petitioner and a judge, maybe even imposing criminal sanctions in the exact same case (e.g. merging both civil and criminal cases)?

Otherwise, I don't see JAIL doing jack diddly.

Sincerely,

David Stebbins