[Victims of Court Corruption] Re: Mr. Branson, show us a simple solution

Dick Marple wrote:

Ron

I'm a little disappointed in your avoiding the verification I cited with your  "la de da de da," so I'll make it easy for you. Here is the verbatim quote from the cite I gave you. Please contemplate the truth contained therein and then reply with your understanding of what the supreme court has put in black on the four corners of white record.

"The statute contains no requirement that the Court must prescribe identical rules with respect to all the courts mentioned regardless of varying conditions, or that rules for all these courts must be prescribed at one and the same time. On [303 U.S. 201, 205]   the contrary, the manifest intention of the Congress was to permit the Court to exercise its discretion concerning the application of the rules. The term 'District Courts of the United States,' as used in the rules, without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance. It describes the constitutional courts created under article 3 of the Constitution. Courts of the Territories are legislative courts, properly speaking, and are not District Courts of the United States. We have often held that vesting a territorial court with jurisdiction similar to that vested in the District Courts of the United States does not make it a 'District Court of the United States.' Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 , 154; The City of Panama, 101 U.S. 453 , 460; In re Mills, 135 U.S. 263, 268 , 10 S.Ct. 762; McAllister v. United States, 141 U.S. 174, 182 , 183 S., 11 S.Ct. 949; Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U.S. 445, 476 , 477 S., 19 S.Ct. 722; Summers v. United States, 231 U.S. 92, 101 , 102 S., 34 S.Ct. 38; United States v. Burroughs, 289 U.S. 159, 163 , 53 S.Ct. 574. Not only did the promulgating order use the term District Courts of the United States in its historic and proper sense, but the omission of provision for the application of the rules to the territorial courts and other courts mentioned in the authorizing act clearly shows the limitation that was intended.

Ron... I am sure you will agree that the first hurdle is JURISDICTION, is it not?

Dick Marple


  Ron Responds:

Dick, have you noticed that here the court seizes upon the opportunity to expand upon its own jurisdiction, i.e, "The statute contains no requirement that the Court must prescribe identical rules with respect to all the courts mentioned regardless of varying conditions,"   Stated another, the Court is saying, "Since the statute passed by Congress does not say we cannot expand our powers, therefore, we can expand our powers."

We know Courts cannot pass laws, only Congress can. But even here we recognize that Congress is not authorized to pass laws not authorized by the Constitution. Congress only posses limited powers, not unlimited. If the Constitution does not authorize it, Congress do not possess it, as stated in the Tenth Amendment. "The Powers not delegated to the United State by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Above, you quote the Courts as saying, if Congress does not limit us, then we are free to limit ourselves. Thus, the Courts are grasping powers that even Congress does not itself possess. The Court is going so far as to say, "the manifest intention of the Congress was to permit the Court to exercise its discretion concerning the application of the rules." So were does such court exercise of its own jurisdiction end? It ends where the court says it chooses to end it. Well-stated are the words, "Give me one wish, and I shall control the world, as my wish shall be to have unlimited wishes."

Dick, do you really advocate or endorse such open-ended Court jurisdiction? Does all power, Alpha and Omega, belong to the Courts just because the Courts say so? "The Court spake, and it was so. And the evening and the morning was the first day. And the Court saw that it was good!"

This is pure nonsense, Dick! Is this not the great evil with which we are at war? The Court states that it has absolute Judicial Immunity even when it does evil with both hands diligently, and even with utter contempt for the law, and with malicious intent. But must all Nature itself bow to such edict?

This is the very reason why the People must protect themselves from the such unlimited Court "jurisdiction" the judges have chosen to empower unto themselves by passing the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law, (J.A.I.L.), which clearly states, "The Jurors shall keep in mind, in making their determinations, that they are entrusted by the People of this State with the duty of restoring judicial accountability and the perception of justice. The standard of authority by which the Jurors shall be guided in making their determinations shall not be opinions of courts, but shall be the Constitutions of California and of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof. The Jurors shall avoid all influence by judicial and government entities."

So, Dick, am I against unlimited Court jurisdiction? Absolutely! I say so unashamedly. God bless you, dear one.

Ron Branson

---

Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 21:42:38 -0700
From: VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
To: armlaw@hotmail.com
CC: johnwolfgram@hotmail.com; arnie@arnierosner.com
Subject: Mr. Branson, show us a simple solution


Dick Marple, can you imagine what the J.A.I.L. Special Grand Jurors will think when a judge comes back with a defense to a charge that he willfully violated a specific precept of the U.S. Constitution, i.e., "You must understand the differences between a United States District Court, because a USDC operates under completely different rules than Article III Constitutional Courts, see Mookini v. United States, la de da de da?" What you are hitting on is the value of the judges keeping their mouths shut when involved in a conspiracy, i.e, "all of us judges ignore and violate the Constitution, so why are you singling me out?"

When sinking in quicksand, the best thing to do is stop struggling until someone on solid ground throws you a rope. However, the one throwing the rope cannot also be one who is also sinking in the same quicksand pit.

Ron Branson


Dick Marple wrote:

Ron...

Do you understand the difference between a "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT"; which is an administrative tribunal created by the legislature for the territories. The USDC has limited jurisdiction, mainly equity and can only hear minor criminal case's usually when a uninformed defendant takes a "plea bargain", ie: contract, thus giving jurisdiction. The USDC operates under completely different rules and venue in contrast to an Article III court, clearly defined in Mookini v. United States, 303 U.S. 201. (which has seven stare decisis). This case was cited in 2003 in Nguyen v. U.S. and I brought a syntax error to the attention of Cornell Law School, as that is where I read the Nguyen case. Cornell replied they copied it directly from the supreme court and for me to go to the source. I did and never received the courtesy of a reply. This makes me question; Was the syntax error deliberate? Subtle changes is the way our freedoms are lost!

The two governments which are the PTB's are unknown to the people and few if any, know the separate jurisdictions each have. The United States "Federal Government" is a municipal corporation with "private law" and 14th Amendment "United States citizens." See 28 USC 3002(15). The "National Government" is the confederation o 50 sovereign States with their own citizens. See "Rights of an American Citizen in foreign States",15 Statutes at Large, Chapter 249 enacted the day before the14th was"Adopted", not ratified!

The easiest way to control a people is by deprivation of information. That is and has been accomplished!
I hope you will learn what I have documented and offer your comments, if your are so inclined.

Dick Marple

---

Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 23:18:55 -0700
From: VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
To: johnwolfgram@hotmail.com
CC: arnie@arnierosner.com
Subject: Mr. Branson, show us a simple solution

Show Us a Simple Solution

John, you have stated, "JAIL does not directly accomplish, and probably will not indirectly "enable Americans to restore our Republic" as Arnie surmises." You then ask my explanation as to how it might do otherwise.

As you very well know, John, J.A.I.L., once established, requires John Doe Citizen to bring a complaint in court, or be drawn into court by the prosecutor. The citizen then must urge the law or Constitution either in their defense, or in their complaint.

Then the judge is free to exercise his or her discretion, but not in anywise in contradiction to either law or the Constitution. Once the judge makes his decision, the complainant or defendant, which ever the case may be, must raise the issue of that exercise of discretion to be in violation of either the law or the Constitution.

If the judge chooses to affirm his prior decision, which is normally the case, and that you well know, then that issue is brought up on appeal. If the Appellate Court affirms the judgment below, which is normally the case, it also may be challenged on rehearing, and then it the case is its way to the State Supreme Court for them to be given a shot at overturning the alleged faulty decision(s) rendered below.

Should the State Supreme Court affirm the judgment below, all required state remedies have been exhausted to satisfy the operation of J.A.I.L. This Special Grand Jury has no jurisdiction until all state remedies have been exhausted. What I am telling you, I know you already know, but I am spelling it out for you.

The only two issues that can then be brought before this Special Grand Jury created by J.A.I.L. is one that the judge violated some law or constitutional principle, and secondly, that such violation(s) was willful. The Grand Jury then may send this complaint to the judge and gives him opportunity to defend to the charge(s).

Likewise, the judge(s) may only offer two defenses, either that he actually complied with the law, or constitutional principle, and that the factual allegations made against him are false, or, he may conceded offense(s), but argue that his violation was not willfully. In other words, he was ignorant of the law or constitutional provision.

Then this 25-member Special Grand Jury decides whether  judicial immunity may be urged in a subsequent lawsuit, and/or, if criminal, whether there exists Probable Cause for a criminal prosecution by their own Criminal Special Prosecutor. A simple majority of these 25 citizens decides the matter in either case.

Once Judge "A" goes down, either civilly, criminally, or both,  Judge "B," "C," & "D," and so on, learn the lesson made by the downfall of Judge "A." Then sets in the ripple effect that shall be surely felt into perpetuity throughout this entire country.

When judges, who otherwise would have been protected by judicial immunity, learn to fear the powerful arm of us, the citizens sitting on this Special Grand Jury, violations by judges of both civil law and criminal law will greatly diminish. The result will be more freedom to the People and a financial restoration will take place because righteousness will be borne out. Now I know you understand this principle.

By this means the People will once again see our Republic begin to rise according to Proverbs 14:34, "Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people." Only through such righteousness can this nation ever expect to regain its dignity, and it will not be by any other means! I know you know this, John. Thanks for the challenge. Surely you expected this of me.

John, J.A.I.L. did not come about after the wisdom of man, nor was it designed the after the devices of men, but after God. It is God's means patiently offered to this country as His divine plan to always provide a means of escape, inasmuch as we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Thank you, John.

Ron Branson




John Wolfgram wrote:

I hate to disagree with you Ron, about JAIL, because you are the expert on it and if I'm wrong in my disagreement with you, I trust that you will point out why I'm wrong; but JAIL does not directly accomplish, and probably will not indirectly "enable Americans to restore our Republic" as Arnie surmises.  This is because the most damageing creations of judicial "law", special privileges and immunities for government, are left in placem with JAIL, except for judicial immunity itself.   In a real sense, the major issue is not on going judicial corruption, but rather, in having enstablished and reestablishing the relationship between government and governed into the future, the judiciary will continue to follow the false law that it has institutionalized.  To be sure, a corrupt judiciary created that false law, but now that false law is accepted as the "rule of law" and any judge so ruling in favor of any immunity except their own, would be found by a JAIL jury to have ruled according to law.
 
That is why I stress in Democratizing the Judiciary, that the jury must have the right to judge the "law" under the Constitution, as it is written (as opposed to as judicially interpreted).  In point, having studied the matter, they is no way that government could sell immunity to a jury instructed or sworn to the Constitution.  Go ahead.  I dare you to try to come up with a reasonable argument that government immunity is consistent with the Constitution. 
 
Wolf