Sunday, June 17, 2012

[Victims of Court Corruption] My battle to restore our Constitution

John, study the immediate below and get back with me regarding your questions as to what you have read. I have a hunch that you will see and comprehend my objective. The enemy may not fully understand the potency of what I have proposed, and that suits me just fine. Dumb enemies are more to be desired than smart ones. But I do realize that my opposition has picked up on the threat that my proposal o Judicial Accountability poses.

To illustrate this point, I suggest you go to our sister web site, in which you will see how I have not only awoke the powers that be in a single state, South Dakota, but also within this entire judiciary of this nation all at there expense, not mine.

We have to fight with our brains, not with our brawns. In this case the warfare is a spiritual one, "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Ephesians 6:12.

Ron Branson


Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.)

                                                   (California Initiative - Version 2-7-07)

Preamble. We, the People of California, find that the doctrine of judicial immunity has been greatly abused; that when judges abuse their power, the People are obliged - it is their duty - to correct that injury, for the benefit of themselves and their posterity. In order to ensure judicial accountability and domestic tranquility, we hereby amend our Constitution by adding the following provisions as Sec. 32 to Article I, which shall be known as "The J.A.I.L. Amendment."

1. Definitions. To avoid absurd results, words shall be given their plain, ordinary and literal meanings; and where appropriate, the singular shall include the plural and vice-versa. For purposes of this Amendment, the following terms shall mean:

  1. Judge: A judicial officer hearing and adjudicating legal actions and proceedings within the judicial branch of government (to include arbitrator, mediator, or a private judge, any of whom is assigned by a court to hear involuntary proceedings). This definition shall not be construed to mean trial juror, prosecutor, or any administrative official.
  2. Material allegations: Statements essential to the claim or defense presented in a pleading filed in court.
  3. Blocking: Any unlawful act that impedes the lawful conclusion of a case, to include unreasonable delay and willful rendering of an unlawful or void judgment or order.
  4. Corporate litigant: A party holding a corporate charter, as distinguished from a business license.
  5. Juror: A Special Grand Juror.
  6. Strike: An adverse immunity decision or a criminal conviction against a judge.

2. Exclusions of immunity. Notwithstanding common law or any other provision to the contrary, no immunities shielding a judge from frivolous and harassing actions 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 allegations, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of California or the United States. The foregoing judicial misconduct shall not be construed to mean court decisions made within the authorized capacity of a judge.

3. Special Grand Juries. For the purpose of returning power to the People and ensuring the integrity of the judiciary, there are hereby created within this State three twenty-five member Special Grand Juries with statewide jurisdiction having inherent power to judge both law and fact. This body shall exist independent of statutes governing county Grand Juries. Their responsibility shall be limited to determining, based on the evidence shown on the record, whether any civil lawsuit against a judge would be frivolous or harassing, or fall within the exclusions of immunity as set forth in paragraph 2, or whether there is probable cause of criminal conduct by the judge against whom a petition/complaint is brought before the Special Grand Jury.

4. Professional Counsel. Each Special Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to retain non-governmental advisors, special prosecutors, and investigators, as needed, who shall serve no longer than one year, and thereafter shall be ineligible to serve; except a special prosecutor may be retained to prosecute to conclusion ongoing cases through all appeals and any complaints to the Special Grand Jury. Each Special Grand Jury may hire clerical staff, as needed, without time limitation.

5. Establishment of Special Grand Jury Facilities. Within ninety days following the passage of this Amendment, the Legislature shall provide a suitable facility for each Special Grand Jury. Each facility shall be reasonably placed proportionately according to population throughout the State, but no facility shall be located within a mile of any judicial body.

6. Annual Funding. The Legislature shall cause to be deducted two and nine-tenths percent from the gross judicial salaries of all judges, which amount shall be deposited regularly into an exclusive trust account created by this Amendment in paragraph 10 for its operational expenses, together with filing fees under paragraph 7, surcharges under paragraph 8, forfeited benefits of disciplined judges under paragraph 18, and fines, if any, imposed by sentencing under paragraph 16.

7. Filing Fees. Attorneys representing a party filing a civil petition or response before the Special Grand Jury shall, at the time of filing, pay a fee equal to the filing fee due in a civil appeal to the State Supreme Court. Individuals filing a civil petition or response on their own behalf before the Special Grand Jury as a matter of right shall, at the time of filing, post a fee of fifty dollars, or file a declaration, which shall remain confidential, stating that they are impoverished and unable to pay and/or object to such fee, pursuant to First Amendment right of redress.

8. Surcharges. Should this Amendment lack sufficient funding through its fines, fees, and forfeitures (including deductions in paragraph 6), the Legislature shall impose appropriate surcharges upon the civil court filing fees of corporate litigants as necessary to supplement the funding of this Amendment so as not to be chargeable to the public.

9. Compensation of Jurors. Each Juror shall receive a salary commensurate to that of a Superior Court judge, prorated according to the number of days actually served by the Juror.

10. Annual Budget. The Special Grand Juries shall have an annual operational budget commensurate to double the combined salaries of the seventy-five Jurors serving full time, which sum shall be initially deposited by the Legislature into an exclusive trust account to be annually administered by the State Treasurer. Should the trust balance, within any budget year, drop to less than an amount equivalent to the annual gross salaries of fifty Superior Court judges, the State Treasurer shall so notify the Legislature 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 State Treasurer shall transfer such excess to the state treasury. Except for the initial year, no expenses in paragraphs 6, 7, 9 and 10 of this Amendment shall be chargeable to the public.

11. Jurisdiction. Each Special Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to appoint a foreperson, establish rules assuring their attendance, to provide internal discipline, and to remove any of its members on grounds of misconduct. The Special Grand Jury shall immediately assign a docket number to each petition/complaint brought before it, unless such case is transferred to another Special Grand Jury to achieve caseload balance. A transfer shall not prejudice a docketing deadline. The Special Grand Jury first docketing a complaint shall have sole jurisdiction of the case. Except as provided in paragraphs 17 and 22, no petition of misconduct shall be considered by any Special Grand Jury unless the petitioner shall have first attempted to exhaust all judicial remedies available in this State within the immediately preceding six-month period. (Such six-month period, however, shall not commence in petitions of prior fraud or blocking of a lawful conclusion until after the date the Special Grand Juries become functional. This provision applies remedially and retroactively.) Should the petitioner opt to proceed to the United States Supreme Court, such six-month period shall commence upon the disposition by that Court.

12. 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 have been an inhabitant of California for two years immediately prior to having his/her name drawn. Those not eligible for Special Grand Jury service shall include elected and appointed officials, members of the State 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 act.

13. Selection of Jurors. The Jurors shall serve without compulsion and their names shall be publicly drawn at random by the Secretary of State from the list of registered voters and any citizen submitting his/her name to the Secretary of State for such drawing. The initial Special Grand Juries shall be established within thirty days after the fulfillment of the requirements of paragraph 5.

14. Service of Jurors. Excluding the establishment of the initial Special Grand Juries, each Juror shall serve one year. No Juror shall serve more than once. On the first day of each month, two Jurors shall be rotated off each Special Grand Jury and two new Jurors 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 drawn to fill a vacancy shall complete only the remainder of the term of the Juror replaced.

15. Procedures. The Special Grand Jury shall serve a copy of the filed petition upon the subject judge and notice to the petitioner of such service. The judge shall have twenty days to serve and file a response. The petitioner shall have fifteen days to reply to the judge's response. (Upon timely request, the Special Grand Jury may provide for extensions of time upon the showing of good cause.) In criminal matters, the Special Grand Jury shall have power to subpoena witnesses, documents, and other tangible evidence, and to examine witnesses under oath. Each Special Grand Jury shall determine the causes properly before it with their reasoned findings in writing within one hundred twenty calendar days, serving on all parties their determination as to whether or not immunity shall apply as a defense to any civil action that may thereafter be pursued against the judge. A rehearing may be requested of the Special Grand Jury within fifteen days with service upon the opposition. Fifteen days shall be allowed to reply thereto. Thereafter, the Special Grand Jury shall render final determination in writing within thirty days. All allegations in the petition shall be liberally construed. 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. The statute of limitations on any civil suit brought pursuant to this Amendment against a judge shall not commence until a final determination by the Special Grand Jury. Special Grand Jury files shall always remain public record following their final determination. A majority of thirteen Jurors shall determine any matter.

16. Indictment. Should the Special Grand Jury also find probable cause of criminal conduct on the part of any judge against whom a petition is docketed, it shall have the power to indict such judge. The Special Grand Jury shall, without voir dire beyond personal impartiality, relationship, or lack of fluency in English, cause to be impaneled twelve special trial jurors, plus alternates, which trial jurors shall be instructed that they have power to judge both law and fact. The Special Grand Jury shall also select a non-governmental special prosecutor and a judge with no more than four years on the bench from a county other than that of the defendant judge, having jurisdiction solely to maintain a fair and orderly proceeding. The trial jury shall be selected from the same pool of jury candidates as any regular jury. The special prosecutor shall thereafter prosecute the cause to a conclusion, having all the powers of any other prosecutor within this State. Upon conviction, sentencing shall be the province of the special trial jury, and not that of the selected judge. Such term of sentence shall conform to statutory provisions.

17. Criminal Procedures. In addition to any other provisions of this Amendment, a complaint for criminal conduct against a judge may be brought directly to the Special Grand Jury, when all of the following conditions have been met: (1) an affidavit or declaration of criminal conduct has been lodged with the appropriate prosecutorial entity within ninety days of the commission of the alleged crime; (2) the prosecutor declines to prosecute, or one hundred twenty days have passed following the lodging of such affidavit or declaration, and prosecution has not commenced; (3) an indictment, if sought, has not been specifically declined on the merits by a county 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.

18. Removal. Whenever any judge has received three strikes, the judge shall be permanently removed from office, and thereafter shall not serve in any State judicial office. Judicial retirement for such removed judge shall not exceed one-half of the benefits to which such judge would have otherwise been entitled. Retirement shall not avert third-strike penalties.

19. Public Indemnification. No judge against whom a petition/complaint is brought, or sued civilly by a complainant pursuant to this Amendment, shall be defended at public expense or by any elected or appointed public counsel, nor shall any judge be reimbursed from public funds for any losses sustained under this Amendment.

20. Enforcement. No person exercising strict enforcement of the findings of a Special Grand Jury shall be held liable civilly, criminally, or in contempt.

21. Redress. The provisions of this Amendment are in addition to other redress that may exist and are not mutually exclusive.

22. Challenges. No judge under the jurisdiction of the Special Grand Jury, or potentially affected by the outcome of a challenge hereto, shall have any jurisdiction to sit in judgment of such challenge. Such pretended adjudication shall be null and void for all purposes and a complaint for such misconduct may be brought at any time, without charge, before the Special Grand Jury by class action, or by any adversely affected person.

23. Preeminence. Preeminence shall be given to this Amendment in any case of conflicts with statute, case law, common law, or constitutional provision. The foreperson of each Special Grand Jury shall read, or cause to be read, this Amendment to the respective Jurors semi-annually during the first week of business in January and July. Should any part of this Amendment be determined unconstitutional, the remainder shall remain in full force and effect as though no challenge thereto existed.

Copyrighted Library of Congress 9/12/03

John A. Dummett wrote:
Mr. Branson

Please send me some more information on what it is you propose. I see how what you are talking about is really the crux of the whole situation. Today all three branches of the government have been usurped. All three make laws. Today the executive has more power than it has ever had. We all know the the judiciary should not be enforcing laws or even making them but they do. I do understand that judicial accountability may be even harder than winning the lottery. Perhaps it may be even more difficult than achieving eternal life.

I can see where there are more chances to convince more people to do the right thing but then again nobody wants to take the first step. I am sure you remember Judge Carter and his Semper Fi attitude about ensuring the People get the justice they deserve but at the twelfth hour Carter did a 180. How do you explain this? Sometimes I think people worry about their historical legacy. Who wants to be the first to enforce the Constitution?

Anyway I am interested in what you have to propose because I am not one of those kooks who think I am going to waltz in and win the Presidency. I ran to meet the 9th Circuits requirement for Standing so I could pursue judicial relief.

Let's talk hypothetically.

John Dummett

On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Ron Branson <> wrote:

John Dummett:

I am in receipt of your email indication your determination to get in there and so something about the situation. I trust you will not mind my making some comments as to your goal in running for U.S. President.

I am sure you know about the law of economics, and that is you do not do as everyone else is doing. If everyone is planting corn, you do not plant corn, but perhaps peas. But then if everyone changes over the following year and plants peas, you plant potatoes. Just so, it is not unheard of that many choose to run for president.But obtain this position is like the odds of winning the lottery jackpot.

The point is, that one seeking to revolutionize this country by change, must do something that is likely unheard of, like bringing judicial accountability to this nation. If I can just get a single state to adopt the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law, I will have won this entire country. You must realize that this nation is not run by the president, but by the judges. The Office of President is merely a figure-head. When he has finished his term, he is out for good. The judges will still be here making decisions and determining the direction this nation will take. There is a saying, "A bird in hand is worth two in the bush." This refers to chance one risks in giving up the bird in hand in hopes that he might gain the two he does not have.

By pursuing judicial accountability within the fifty states, he has right at the offset, fifty times the chance he will gain what he seeks for. Further, he has nowhere near the competition of those seeking his same goal, which vastly improves his chances that he will not have another steal his thunder.

Now I plan to conquer this nation, but not through gaining the Office of Presidency. Now this does not mean to discourage your pursuit, as we all theoretically have a pursuit of one kind or another. Yours is the presidency. Nonetheless, we must face the reality as to what are our chances of gaining to two birds in the bush.

God has called me to steer this nation by another method other than as president. But even in this endeavor, though the chances be high in that if it gets on the ballot, its odds of passing are a 50/50, but still the people will not listen to a voice of freedom for themselves and their children, and their children's children. I trust that you can understand what it is that I am saying. God bless you, dear one.

Ron Branson
National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief wrote:
Greetings Mr. Branson
Your email to Arnie Rosner was passed along to me, and the words of wisdom contained within that email ring as loud as the Liberty Bell did when we declared independence from England.
On October 24th of 2011, I teamed up with a legal firm called The Liberty Legal Foundation. The lead attorney for this organization is Van Irions. Originally I was contacted by Van Irions because the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had made an in dicta opinion that anyone running for President of the United States would have standing to bring up the issue of Presidential eligibility stated in Article II, Section I, Clause V. During our conversation I realized that all attempts to right the wrongs done in the election of 2008 were being approached from the wrong angle because the suits themselves went against Constitutional law. All criminal complaints against a standing President are to be determined and decided by Congress and no other entity.
After much thought I realized that to get to the bottom of the eligibility issue it would be necessary to target the true legal controlling agency in determining the eligibility of a Presidential candidate and that was the Secretary of State of the fifty States along with the ballot commissions. Soon after determining who would be responsible to determine who would be responsible to vet a candidate, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled and gave an official opinion that a Federal Election Commission registered candidate for President of the United States would have standing to bring the issue before a court of law. Soon after that a suit was filed in Tennessee as well as Arizona. On December 6th my lawyer and campaign served the DNC, specifically Debra Wasserman, to have them prove in a court of law that Barrack Obama met the eligibility requirements specified in the United States Constitution to be President. From the beginning I knew that the birth place of Barrack Obama was not what was the real issue, but what was the citizenship status of his parents were before he was born. I understand the concept of jus sanguine and jus soli and from the education I received at San Diego State I understood what our founding fathers were trying to prevent by specifying that our President would not have divided loyalties when it came to his lineage.
I am sure you are aware of the consequences of the irreparable damage that will be caused to the document that guarantees liberty and freedom to all Americans that will occur should a usurper be allowed to sit in the highest office of the land.
The one thing I can't wrap my head around is why is it that the branch of government that we depend upon the most to ensure that our Constitution is adhered to has failed miserably to do so?
I can assure you that I am not some sort of conspiracy kook. I can however say with a great deal of confidence that the People's need to know and believe that the man who leads this nation has the right to do so outweighs any political agenda. I have always been able to get behind the person our nation chooses to lead us but when the truth is parsed and covered up and hidden or obfuscated, my confidence in those who lead us is completely lost and I can tell you from the people I have been in contact with or support my effort to become the President of the United States have reached their limit as to how much smoke and mirrors that they will take as much or more than I have.
Is there not a single judge out there who will put the needs of the nation ahead of their own?
As I intimated above, I am running for President of the United States to restore our Constitution to its original form and intent and also to return power to the States where it actually belongs. It is also my hope to re-implement the separation of powers between the three branches of government just as our founding fathers had intended our government to run. Many people are not even aware that I am the strategist who came up with making the eligibility issue a Constitutional issue rather than a political issue. The genesis of this approach had its start when I filed my first case in October of 2011.
If there is anyway that you think you can help facilitate this effort or send people my way who think in a similar manner, would you please do so. I can read in your words your level of frustration and it seems as great as mine. I refuse to believe that this great experiment in liberty and freedom has come to an end and I am hoping that I can enlist people of your stature in my quest to give back the document bequeathed by our founding fathers to ourselves and to our posterity.
Thank you
John Albert Dummett Jr.  Presidential candidate 2012 (R)


Post a Comment

<< Home