Tuesday, August 07, 2012

[Victims of Court Corruption] Despairing Situation - So what are we going to do about it?

Despairing Situation - So what are we going to do about it?

Arnie, it is for the reasons you have expressed below, that I would rather have us rely upon a random draw of the people to govern our affairs rather than the most "educated," most "influential," most "experienced," and the most financially connected. By such a true random draw, we stand at least a 50/50 chance that we will get the right person to temporarily govern us. As it is now under our current system of voting, we are assured to get a person with all of the former credentials of education, influential, experienced, and financially connected. But where has that gotten us? The answer to that we only know too well.

I have a little humor which has an error of truth. It is prefaced with the question, so you know how we can greatly improve our justice system? (A dramatic pause to allow thought on this question, then the answer!)  We tell all the judges that they can all go home and still draw 100% of their pay, and we will even give them a raise of 10% provided they stay at home and do not show up for work. Then we settle all our differences on the street with the flip of a quarter.

The first response normally is, that is ridiculous! To this I admit, but I call to their attention the original question, "How we can greatly improve our justice system." 50% odds of receiving justice is much greater than what we have now. To underscore this point, would the people give up their chance of winning their case in court and rather submit to a 50/50 odds by signing off win in court. Absolutely! But would the government? Absolutely not! Government knows it just could not exist long on a 50/50 chance, but the people would gain on such odds.

Humorous, yes, but it proves a point. Winning in court is like purchasing a lottery ticket. One's chance of winning justice in court is far less odds than winning against the odds in Las Vegas.

Ron Branson

Arnie Rosner wrote:
Mr. Branson,

Forgive my intrusion. After reviewing the previous exchanges with great interest, it finally dawned on me… The solution we all seek to a system of justice which is indeed just, may be devilishly simple.   And...because of my painful lack of legal expertise and corresponding intelligence, I am therefore uniquely qualified, without further apologies, to cut to the chase and offer some thoughts to consider.  Here are a few observations which I submit defy challenge:
  1. Let the one person among us who is incorruptible please stand up.  
  2. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts...absolutely!
  3. The longer one remains in power, the greater the extent of the corruption.
  4. The notion must be dispelled that the longer one is in office; the more experience gained; and a better job performance results...and replaced with; the older we become (synonymous with, "the longer in office") ; the more apparent becomes our incompetence; therefore more time is devoted to deliberation of decisions which creates the illusion one does a better job, at a net loss of efficiency and higher cost to the people
Mr. Branson, as discussed in the past, in my view, the founding documents were perfect the way they were written.  Regardless of various opinions as to what could have been done differently, the arguments become moot in light of the fact that the problems we face are not rooted in the language as written, but rather in the level of corruption of the individuals elected to conduct the people's business.

Possibly, with the exception of one person, who no longer walks this earth, everyone else, is susceptible to corruption.   Therefore, the only logical approach to resolving the matter of human corruption is to reduce the conditions which permit corruption to flourish, to an absolute minimum.

The solution, then becomes a simple matter to restrict the term of public service to no more than a single term in succession, with a maximum of 2 years, in length of any term. 

This practice by itself, while it may not totally eliminate all corruption, would certainly reduce it to a manageable minimum.  Convening the 5th amendment grand jury as I understand, was originally intended, to deal with any remaining questions regarding corruption of elected public officials should very nicely keep the rest in proper check.   

Consider for a moment the benefit of such a policy being applied in terms of members of Congress alone:
  • Full productivity;  Recover the time lost from almost immediately to begin the campaign for reelection.
  • independence;  decisions would be based upon logic and not influenced by aspects of reelection.
  • Officials know in advance they have a single opportunity to do the right job; the first time.
  • Integrity:  free to base decisions upon conscience; not obligation to long-term donors that invest in future expectations.
  • Severs the chain of relationships which enhances corruption.
Applying this basic concept across all activities responsible for administration of the public trust will greatly improve the efficiency of government, while minimizing the probability of corruption.

Now to make such a change really effective, all previous judicial findings and decisions must be rescinded and declared as null and void as they have been tainted and biased based upon corrupt procedural processes implemented as far back as, at least the 41st Congress (please note the oath noted towards the bottom of this page and continued on to the next page ).   


Based on the terms of the oath as expressed, there are many members of Congress who would seem to have violated these requirements and are therefore subject to the penalties as enumerated.  On this basis alone heads should roll!

Also, As just an uninformed lay person the act of interposing precedent law in place of common law in itself is an act of treason against the American people.    

Did I get this right?  Please feel free to straighten me out.

Available 24/7 - Defending freedom has become a full-time job!
714-501-8247 - mobile

On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:16 PM, Ron Branson <VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org> wrote:

Zena, I am seeking the same type of support as sought by our Founding Fathers in the establishment of this nation when they said, "[W]ith a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, or fortunes and our sacred honor." I suppose the answer to your question would be based upon one's view as to whether they were anarchists or lent sympathetic ears to their plight by working within prescribed channels.


Zena Crenshaw wrote:
I don't say this to be critical, but Jail4Judges reflects such an exclusion of institutional support from government that it seems only anarchists or near anarchists could consider its execution manageable.  Are anarchists and near anarchists your intended base of support?

Do you recognize the conflict in any of us despairing about the corruption of America's legal system and judiciary while feeling little to no need to rally in support of private lawyers, prosecutors, and judges who are terminated and/or suspended or disbarred from their profession for challenging judicial misconduct or corruption?

Though corresponding whistleblower protection is only an aspect of my legal/judicial reform advocacy, some and perhaps many people brand me as more sympathetic to the plight of legal professionals than other legal abuse victims as a result.  What they're more so detecting is that I work through prescribed public service programs and don't jump indiscriminately from one reform effort to another.  

Ron and Jacob, I encourage both of you to respond to my questions and comments above.

Thank you,


On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Ron Branson <VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org> wrote:

Jacob Roginski, we have share the same speaking podium together. Have you ever given much serious thought about JAIL4Judges as the only means of getting out of this mess? There is no other way than setting up an Independent Special Grand Jury of the common People who uniquely determine if any judge should enjoy the protections of judicial immunity for their wayward actions, i.e., paragraph 2 of the J.A.I.L. Initiative,
"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."

Ron Branson

Jacob wrote:

We must seek unity, break out of the molds the elites have squeezed us in, stop blaming each other for the condition of the country,  and open our minds to at last an honest and thoughtful examination of where we are, how we got here, and what must be done for change.  When the government is failing us so fundamentally, when the ruling class propaganda no longer sounds credible even to the least politically discerning among us, it is time to re-examine from ground up the truth and soundness of our notions about the nature and history of government in the United States.  Until we understand the Problem, no solutions will be in our sight. 

I hear with dismay folks blaming other folks for our situation, repeating the propaganda of the elite media and political machinery, whose purpose is as it has always been to keep us from focusing on the inherently criminal ruling class.  If the sole cause of our problem really is those people who like to get free things from government, we might as well quit, as all but perhaps one in a million among us are married for life to this sin; bucking Nature is always in vain.  If, on the other hand, one of the principal causes is a system that allows this sin a field of action, we may be able to do something about it.

Only if we manage the daunting task of clearing our view of the myriad of misconceptions the elites have erected in us to obstruct it, will we be in a position to rebuild the culture and practice of liberty and prosperity in this land.

Jacob Roginsky

On 8/3/2012 10:09 AM, Robert Sindelar wrote:
Dear Jacob,
Your comments below re: ruling vs. masses are absolutely correct. Practicality went out when rulers assembled and were grown to become tyrants over all others. We have come to that point in time Sir.
So, What are we going to do about it?
Many good men have tried, many good men sit in prisons across our land and off shore. They sit there only because the masses chickened out of holding up there responsibility to a JUST Cause.
What do you think friend?

Message protected by MailGuard: e-mail anti-virus, anti-spam and content filtering.

Report this message as spam  


Post a Comment

<< Home