[Victims of Court Corruption] Your turn Ron: Show me ... how JAIL addresses [this] problem - John Wolfgram

Your turn Ron: Show me
... how JAIL addresses [this] problem

John Wolfgram

Hummm,  Ron: It seems that you are up to a little debate.  I concede that JAIL would be effective against the normal range of judicial corruption, but not against the systemic corruption; and systemic corruption is what defeats the Republic.  Arnie got my contention just the reverse of what it is.  The point in dispute is whether JAIL can effectively address systemic corruption where the problem is that government created a privilege or immunity for the government party that is generally recognized, like sovereign, official or prosecutorial immunity that is actually taught in law schools as being the law, is unlawful.
 
This is the questioned paragraph from your explanation:
 
"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)."
 
So, you say JAIL tests what the judge did to "law or constitutional principle" but the issue is to prove that where the disjunctive "or" means that the law or judicial principle being tested must be "pursuant to the Constitution, and not in derogation of it."
 
So, say the case is that I'm suing some prosecutor for malicious prosecution under color of his office.  There is no question, but that the accepted principle is that the prosecutor has prosecutorial immunity and that is why the trial court and each court of appeals has ruled me out of court.  So, now, under JAIL, I'm seeking the right to sue the trial judge.  I am alleging that prosecutorial immunity is unconstitutional and even though the supreme court has addressed the issue and repeatedly found that immunity is constitutional and that is what the state bars teach; that principle violates the Constitution, as it is written and reasonable understood.  How can the special grand jury decide that the trial judge violated the law on that issue so as to give me the right to sue him and bring the constitutional issue before a trial jury with that trial jury having right to determine, in effect, that the trial judge did willfully violate the constitutional law of the land and (implicitly) the supreme court has created false "law" that violates constitutional principle? 
 
We want to hold the trial judge accountable for willfully following the unconstitutional decisions of the Supreme Court. 
 
Your turn Ron: Show me, and the judges (Arnie and Nancy) how JAIL addresses that problem because that is the problem which, if effectively addressed, can restore the Republic.  Nothing less will accomplish that end.
 
Wolf


Ron Writes

John Wolfgram, getting back to you. First, let us deal with your paragraph, "So, you say JAIL tests what the judge did to 'law or constitutional principle' but the issue is to prove that where the disjunctive 'or' means that the law or judicial principle being tested must be 'pursuant to the Constitution, and not in derogation of it.' "

This issue will be determined by the majority members of the Special Grand Jurors in response to the defense argument made by the judge under question. The judge, in order to defeat the complaint against him, for example, "He denied me a constitutional right to a jury trial in a criminal matter not pertaining to impeachment, a right guaranteed me under Art. III, Clause 2, Sec. 3, to wit, "The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury." The judge might argue that he gave a jury trial, which will likely be countered by the facts of the record, or he might argue that the issues involved impeachment, and thus, not entitled to a jury trial, or he might argue that matter was a civil case, and thus Art. III, Clause 2, Sec. 3 is inapplicable, or he may argue that the Constitution does not guarantee a right to a jury trial. He also may argue is that he never read the Constitution and doesn't know what is in it.

Coming to your second point, which will I guarantee you will happen, he will likely argue that the state legislature has now passed a law that such criminal charges are not entitled to a jury trial, cite state statute la de da de da. You raise a good point.

In such cases, the Grand Jury will likely acknowledge that indeed the legislature did pass such law. But then the complainant comes back and argues that such law denying a right to a jury trial guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution cannot be defeated by some  state statute. In such case, the Grand Jurors shall decide for themselves that issue.

It is manifest, since we are talking about transient Grand Juries that are constantly on the move, one panel of Grand Jurors might decide one way, while another decides the opposite. In one case the Grand Jury may decide that Judicial Immunity is overcome as a defense in a subsequent lawsuit against the judge, while another is entitled to Judicial Immunity protection. In either case, the complainant may proceed with a lawsuit, one in which Judicial Immunity cannot be offered, and the other facing a Judicial Immunity challenge, which defense will likely stand. The later position is what we have now, with no option. J.A.I.L. offers an alternative option to the citizens.

This same conclusion may be applied to your second argument, John, to wit,  "So, say the case is that I'm suing some prosecutor for malicious prosecution under color of his office.  There is no question, but that the accepted principle is that the prosecutor has prosecutorial immunity and that is why the trial court and each court of appeals has ruled me out of court.  So, now, under JAIL, I'm seeking the right to sue the trial judge.  I am alleging that prosecutorial immunity is unconstitutional and even though the supreme court has addressed the issue and repeatedly found that immunity is constitutional and that is what the state bars teach; that principle violates the Constitution, as it is written and reasonably understood.  How can the special grand jury decide that the trial judge violated the law on that issue so as to give me the right to sue him and bring the constitutional issue before a trial jury with that trial jury having the right to determine, in effect, that the trial judge did willfully violate the constitutional law of the land and (implicitly) the supreme court has created false "law" that violates constitutional principle?" 

In one case the Grand Jury may decide that Judicial Immunity does not apply, and in another that Judicial Immunity does apply. Obviously, neither you, I, nor anyone else, can second guess a Special Grand Jury determination on this. We have to take a "wait and see" on each case before each Grand Jury.

However, I do wish to point out wise argument that one would be amiss not to argue within J.A.I.L.'s paragraph 15, to wit;  "15. Procedures. .... 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. ...."

There are only two classes of crimes recognized within the Constitution, and they are high crimes and misdemeanors. In 1969 the legislature of California, and other states later followed, created a new heretofore unknown class of crimes not recognized in the Constitution, called infractions. This new class of crimes excluded the right to a jury trial in criminal matters, and also denied the right to the assistance of counsel in a cost-cutting and money-saving endeavor. The result was that more people are now convicted of alleged crimes without the benefit of a jury trial that both the high crimes and misdemeanors class combined. This is so much so that this class of crime is clogging our courts, and placing criminal matters on the "fast track." These are such crimes as not wearing a seat belt, having a child in the car without a state-approved child restraint, not paying a dog license for owning a dog, etc. These amount to thousands of crimes all performed without a jury. The argument made by the government is that they neither have the time nor the money to give everyone a jury trial for these crimes.

Under J.A.I.L. an innumerable number of these cases will come up before the Special Grand Jury alleging the denial of a jury trial in which the judge will argue to the Grand Jury that he is entitled to the protection of Judicial Immunity because the state legislature passed a law that circumvents the constitution that a jury trial is necessary, and thus, this law entitles him to solely determine the matter, which argument taken as true, shall be in conflict with both the U.S. Constitution and the state's Constitution. In such cases, the Special Grand Jurors shall be called upon to determine which is the supreme law when these two laws conflict.

I am very sure that this same scenario shall be repeated time and time again, ad infinitum, in the situation in which you, John Wolfgram, present, based upon the Fourteenth Amendment, to wit: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The judges will argue that they are an exception to the Fourteenth Amendment, and the complainant shall argue that the Fourteen Amendment states no exceptions.

The benefit J.A.I.L. offers here in this situation is that it will not be judges or attorneys who will be deciding this question, but a simple majority of a citizen's panel of Grand Jurors. Yes, the judicial system will squawk, that is a given, but the Grand Jurors are required to ignore the edicts of judges and look only to constitutional principles. If it ain't there, it ain't so.

Let us keep in mind that the issue is not the guilt or the innocence of the judge on the charges, but whether Judicial Immunity shall be applied in a subsequent civil trial. If the matter be a criminal charge, the Special Grand Jury is determining Probable Cause for the judge to be subjected to a common law jury.

It is a given that many cases shall pass through the hands of the D.A. in which there will be no criminal proceeding, however, these same judges have to survive a Probable Cause hearing before the J.A.I.L.'s citizen Special Grand Jury. I see nothing within the laws or the Constitution that precludes one from suing a judge civilly who has already been convicted of the crime that precipitated the civil action.

J.A.I.L. opens the door to a new day to an old principle initiated by our Founding Fathers in which the citizens may decide for themselves the desired end when an irresistible force slams head-on into an unmovable object. It is their sole prerogative in determining "whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." Declaration of Independence.

Ron Branson 

---

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

Judicial Accountability & Integrity Legislation

(Judicial Bill Written for Congress)

Filed in the Library of Congress

 

           (a) Preamble. The House of Representatives and Senate Assembled find: that an inordinate and ever-growing number of complaints for willful misconduct have been lodged with Congress involving federal judges across this nation; that the current Title 28 U.S.C. §372(c) (Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act) is in many cases inadequate due to conflicts of interest of judges judging themselves; that judicial integrity is of major importance which affects all areas of our American society. Be it therefore resolved that the House of Representatives and Senate Assembled hereby enact the following legislation which shall be known as the "Judicial Accountability and Integrity Legislation."

            (b) Definitions. For purposes of this statute:

1. The term "blocking" shall mean any act that impedes the lawful conclusion of a case, to include unreasonable delay and willful rendering of a void judgment or order.

2. The term "federal judge" or "judge" shall mean any federal justice, judge, magistrate, commissioner, or any person shielded by judicial immunity.

                        3. The term "Juror" shall mean a Special Federal Grand Juror.

4. The term "strike" shall mean an adverse immunity decision based upon bad behavior as set forth by paragraph (c), or a criminal conviction as set forth in paragraph (r).

Where appropriate, the singular shall include the plural, and the plural the singular.

            (c) Immunity. Notwithstanding common law or any other provision to the contrary, no immunities shall be extended to any federal judge except as is specifically set forth in this statute. Preserving the purpose of protecting judges from frivolous and harassing actions, no immunity shielding a federal judge shall be construed to extend to any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitution of these United States, all violations of which shall constitute bad behavior.

            (d) Special Federal Grand Jury. There is hereby created within the District of Columbia a twenty-five member Special Federal Grand Jury with full federal geographical jurisdiction having power to judge on both law and fact. Their responsibility shall be limited to determining, on an objective standard, whether a civil suit against a federal judge would be frivolous and harassing, or fall within the exclusions of immunity as set forth herein, and whether there is probable cause of criminal conduct by the federal judge complained of.

            (e) Professional Counsel. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to retain non-governmental advisors, special prosecutors, and investigators, as needed, who shall serve no longer than two years, after which term said officers shall be ineligible. However, with permission of the Special Federal Grand Jury, a special prosecutor may prosecute their current cases through all appeals and any applicable complaints to the Special Federal Grand Jury.

            (f) Establishment of a Special Federal Grand Jury Seat. A Special Federal Grand Jury seat is hereby created, which seat shall be located in excess of one mile of any federal judicial body.

           

            (g) Filing Fees. Attorneys representing a client filing a civil complaint or answer before the Special Federal Grand Jury, shall at the time of filing pay a fee equal to the filing fee due in a civil appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Individuals filing a civil complaint or answer before the Special Federal Grand Jury in their own behalf as a matter of right, shall, at the time of filing, post a fee of one hundred dollars, or file a declaration, which shall remain confidential, stating they are impoverished and unable to pay and/or object to such fee.

           (h)  Annual Funding. Should this statute lack sufficient funding through its filing fees under paragraph (g), and fines imposed under paragraph (q), which amount shall be deposited regularly into the exclusive trust account crated by this statute in paragraph (j) for its operational expenses, Congress may impose appropriate surcharges upon the civil court filing fees of corporate litigants as necessary to make this statute self-supporting, or they may appropriate any and all the necessary funds for the full implementation of this statute by legislation.

            (i) Compensation of Jurors. Each Juror shall receive a salary commensurate to fifty percent of a federal district judge prorated according to the number of days actually served.

            (j) Annual Budget. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall have an annual operational budget commensurate to twenty times the combined salaries of the twenty-five Jurors serving full time, which sum shall be initially deposited by Congress into an exclusive trust account to be annually administered by the Controller. Should the trust balance, within any budget year, drop to less than an amount equivalent to the annual gross salaries of fifty federal district judges, the Controller shall so notify Congress which shall replenish the account, prorated based on the actual average expenditures during the budget year. Should the trust balance in any subsequent year exceed the annual operational budget at the beginning of a new budget year, the Controller shall return such excess to the United States Treasury.

            (k) Jurisdiction.   The Special Federal Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to establish rules assuring their attendance, to provide internal discipline, and to remove any of its members on grounds of misconduct. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall immediately assign a docket number to each complaint brought before it. Except as provided in paragraph (r), no complaint of judicial misconduct shall be considered by the Special Federal Grand Jury unless the complainant shall have first attempted to exhaust all judicial remedies available in the federal courts within the immediately preceding six-month period. Such six-month period, however, shall not commence in complaints of prior fraud or blocking of a lawful conclusion until after the date the Special Federal Grand Jury becomes functional. This provision is intended to apply remedially and retroactively.

            (l) Qualifications of Jurors. A Juror shall have attained to the age of thirty years, and have been nine years a citizen of the United States , and an inhabitant of Washington , D.C. Those not eligible for Special Federal Grand Jury service shall include elected and appointed officials, members of the Bar, judges (active or retired), judicial, prosecutorial and law enforcement personnel, without other exclusion except previous adjudication of mental incapacity, imprisonment, or parole from a conviction of a felonious crime against persons.

            (m) Selection of Jurors. The Jurors shall serve without compulsion and shall be drawn  by public lot by the Secretary of State from names on the voters rolls and any citizen submitting his/her name to the Secretary of State for such drawing.

            (n) Service of Jurors. Excluding the establishment of the initial Special Federal Grand Jury, each Juror shall serve one year. No Juror shall serve more than once. On the first day of each month, two persons shall be rotated off the Special Federal Grand Jury and new Citizens seated, except in January it shall be three. Vacancies shall be filled on the first of the following month in addition to the Jurors regularly rotated, and the Juror chosen to fill a vacancy shall complete only the remainder of the term of the Juror replaced.

            (o) Procedures. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall serve a copy of the filed complaint upon the subject judge and notice to the complainant of such service. The judge shall have thirty days to serve and file an answer. The complainant shall have twenty days to reply to the judge's answer. (Upon timely request, the Special Federal Grand Jury may provide for extensions for good cause.) The Special Federal Grand Jury shall have power to subpoena witnesses, documents, and other tangible evidence, and to examine witnesses under oath. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall determine the causes properly before it with their reasoned findings in writing within one hundred twenty (120) calendar days, serving on all parties their decision on whether immunity shall be barred as a defense to any civil action that may thereafter be pursued against the federal judge. A rehearing may be requested of the Special Federal Grand Jury within twenty days with service upon the opposition. Twenty days shall be allowed to reply thereto. Thereafter, the Special Federal Grand Jury shall render final determination within thirty days. All allegations of the complaint shall be liberally construed in favor of the complainant. The Jurors shall keep in mind, in making their decisions, that they are entrusted by the people of these United States with the duty of restoring a perception of justice and accountability of the federal judiciary, and are not to be swayed by artful presentation by the federal judge. They shall avoid all influence by judicial and government entities. The statute of limitations on any civil suit brought pursuant to this statute against a federal judge shall not commence until the rendering of a final decision by the Special Federal Grand Jury. Special Federal Grand Jury files shall always remain public record following their final determination. A majority of thirteen shall determine any matter.

            (p) Removal. Whenever any federal judge shall have received more than three strikes, the federal judge shall automatically be brought up on charges before Congress for Articles of Impeachment by the Special Federal Grand Jury through its special prosecutor for bad behavior and willful misconduct. Congress thereafter shall commence to a vote on such Articles of Impeachment. Upon a conviction, the federal judge shall be permanently removed from office. He may also be held liable under any other appropriate criminal or civil proceeding.

            (q) Indictment. Should the Special Federal Grand Jury also find probable cause of criminal conduct on the part of any federal judge against whom a complaint is docketed, it shall have the power to indict such federal judge except where double jeopardy attaches. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall, without voir dire beyond personal relationship, cause to be impaneled special trial jurors, plus alternates, which trial jurors shall be instructed that they have power to judge both law and fact. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall also select a non-governmental special prosecutor and a federal judge with no more than four years on the bench from a state other than that of the defendant judge, (or outside of the District of Columbia, if the case so be). The trial jury shall be selected from the same pool of jury candidates as any regular federal jury. The special prosecutor shall thereafter prosecute the cause to a conclusion, having all the powers of any other prosecutor within these United States . Upon conviction, the special trial jury shall have exclusive power of sentencing (limited to incarceration, fines and/or community service), which shall be derived by an average of the sentences of the trial jurors.

            (r) Criminal Procedures. In addition to any other provisions of this statute, a complaint for criminal conduct of a federal judge may be brought directly to the Special Federal Grand Jury upon all the following prerequisites: (1) an affidavit of criminal conduct has been lodged with the appropriate prosecutorial entity within ninety (90) days of the commission of the alleged conduct; (2) the prosecutor declines to prosecute, or one hundred twenty (120) days has passed following the lodging of such affidavit and prosecution has not commenced; (3) an indictment, if sought, has not been specifically declined on the merits by a Grand Jury; and (4) the criminal statute of limitations has not run. Any criminal conviction (including a plea bargain) under any judicial process shall constitute a strike.

            (s) Public Indemnification. No federal judge complained of, or sued civilly by a complainant pursuant to this statute shall be defended at public expense or by any elected or appointed public counsel, nor shall any federal judge be reimbursed from public funds for any losses sustained under this statute.

            (t) Redress. The provisions of this statute are in addition to other redress that may exist and are not mutually exclusive.

            (u) Preeminence.  Preeminence shall be given to this statute in any case of conflicts with any other federal statutes, case law, or common law to the contrary. The foreperson of the Special Federal Grand Jury shall read, or cause to be read, this statute to the respective Jurors semi-annually during the first week of business in January and July.