Saturday, September 29, 2012

[Victims of Court Corruption] Exploring a Collusion Between The District Attorney and a County Grand Jury

Exploring a Collusion Between
The District Attorney and a County Grand Jury

Okay, Bill Vosburgh, I got your point, and I will respond to it. What you are saying is that if the District Attorney submits the matter to a regular County Grand Jury, and they refuse to indict based upon the merits, then the Special Grand Jury will be precluded and not have a second shot at an indictment.

My response is, the purpose of JAIL4Judges is to act as a backup when the laws that are currently on the books are not working. In our system of justice, we are allowed a second bite at the apple. So then if we cannot get an indictment from the first Grand Jury, then  we should have the second Grand Jury consider an indictment. This would open J.A.I.L to a justified criticism of trying to throw the dice twice to get a win.

Then again, perhaps you are saying that we just should not have the first Grand Jury looking at the complaint. If so, then we are seeking to neuter the County Grand Juries, and detract them from their constitutional duty in favor of directing all indictment traffic to our Grand Jury. This would put us in a competitive position with existing Grand Juries. Right now, there is nothing that can be said to be a competitive nature with County Grand Juries, but if I catch your complaint correctly, you wish to change that.

Let's go back a moment to the beginning. We know every complaint against a judge lodged with the D.A. is never going to be pursued. The County Grand Jury is never going to see the complaint. This is a given. But now you are suggesting that the D.A., not wanting to see the case go up to the Special Grand Jury, will present the case for indictment he does not want to get against the judge. Are you suggesting that while he is seeking a Grand Jury Indictment, he will want the Jury to make a decision respecting the indictment, but tries to convince the Grand Jury why they should not indict the judge?

So let's explore the scenario of a District Attorney seeking a Indictment from a Grand Jury, to which he objects. First, I would say that if that was the objective of the District Attorney, he would not present the Forth Amendment Affidavit submitted for prosecution by the person providing the complaint, but some other theory not supported by the evidence.

So in such case, we have a County Grand Jury refusing to indict on the merits unrelated to the complainant's affidavit because the merits were never presented to the Grand Jury, but rather a mock theory of the District Attorney. Such case would then still qualify for a by-pass of the County Grand Jury, because the Grand Jury did not refuse to indict on the charges presented in the affidavit that is required by the Fourth Amendment.

Wow! Now we have a case presented to the Special Grand Jury of an unrelated matter which was unfavorably decided by the County Grand Jury.

Now the Special Grand Jury is witnessing a fraud by the County Grand Jury in collusion with the District Attorney. So what is the recourse of the Special Grand Jury? They cannot indict the District Attorney or the Grand Jury, but they can indict the judge which is at the center of the afore fraud.

In such a case, those in collusion can only hope is that everyone will keep their mouth shut, and someone such as the original affiant does not bring an separate action for fraud naming the the District Attorney and members of the County Grand Jury. If he did, then the judge hearing the fraud complaint, would be required to allow it to be hear on that very fraud issue. If he did not, he would be subjecting himself to a strike, three of which removes him from the bench under JAIL4Judges provisions.

I think we have explored this scenario far enough from its base, unless I have missed something. I just do not see how all those involved in this conspiracy could keep the hat on this major fraud. Would everyone keep a hush-hush tight lip on this? I don't think the original affiant will.

Ron Branson

-------- Original Message --------

I failed to make my point.

¶17(3) prohibits Special Grand Juries from considering judicial misconduct complaints IF the regular grand jury has already "specifically declined (to indict) on the merits."

My point, which you recognize, is that it is very easy for lawyer-prosecutors to manipulate non-lawyer, registered voters who are eager to please the all-powerful authority.

Slave-mentality grand jurors do exactly what lawyer prosecutors manipulate them to do.

Every angry citizen's judicial misconduct complaint will be blown off by regular grand juries (under the prosecutor's guidance) and under the terms of ¶17(3), that will block the Special Grand Jury.

That provision needs to go.

Forget about reforming prosecutors.

What needs to be done is to start putting judges in the circular file.


On Sep 29, 2012, at 8:17 AM, Ron Branson wrote:

The Shark Feeding Frenzy
By Ron Branson

Bill, this wording in paragraph 17 is referring to current prosecutors, and we already know that they will refuse to prosecute one of their own. When 120 days have lapsed, it opens the door for us to go to the Special Grand Jury we have created for an indictment and subsequent trial. We must first allow them the opportunity to do something about the problem.

The idea, is once we start indicting, and the juries convicting the judges, it will greatly embarrass the prosecutor because everyone will wonder why he did not prosecute the judges in the first place.

Also, in the next D.A. voting cycle, the man challenging the D.A. for his Office will raise this issue to say he is a "No Gooder." We want to see that. But, of course, then when he gets the D.A.'s job based upon his campaign to go after judges, then he will be on the hook to fulfill his campaign promise. We want this.

If he does not follow through with his campaign promise, then he too will find himself being embarrassed by the Special Grand Jury and its Special Prosecutor, and his challenger will use that against him. All this has been methodically thought out. This scene will be repeated again until an elected D.A. actually starts prosecuting judges.

This is just one of those hidden jewels with J.A.I.L. that will come to light when J.A.I.L. is actually carried out. JAIL4Judges creates a situation so that the government has to start eating one another like sharks, and we can sit back and watch it all happen.

Ron Branson 

-------- Original Message --------


I'd like to see ¶17(3) removed.  It invites prosecutors to protect judges the same way they have always protected cops who murder people.  "The grand jury refused to indict." We shouldn't defeat ourselves before we get started.  "an indictment, if sought, has not been specifically declined on the merits by a county Grand Jury;"


On Inaccessible Grand Juries
By Kirk Schwoebel

... Attempting to get people to do anything, unless they're directly, and, adversely effected, is a depressing, thankless, grueling exercise in pounding ones head against a solid object, repeatedly.

We, theoretically, have Grand Juries, why do we have to be "allowed" access to them? Or, have to ask "permission" to submit evidence, or initiate an investigation? Are these the "peoples" Grand Juries? Or, the Government's? I don't have to ask permission to use my own bathroom, why do I need permission to report a crime to someone who can deal with it?

Calling the police on a judge who's clearly on a criminal rampage doesn't get the expected results. In fact the result can be rather negative.

The court system is so dysfunctional right now, unless jail4judges is enacted immediately, it too will be disregarded as a "formality," just as the law in general is ignored, bypassed, modified, misapplied, distorted, and contorted presently.

I've been a supporter of jail4judges for awhile, if not monetarily, morally, and spiritually, due to employment, or the lack of, for the past two and a half years. But, dang it Ron, this has to be the best thing that could happen to this country if the masses would only realize it.

I'm afraid that ship has sailed. If you could just get on American Idol and subliminally somehow put jail4judges out there before a captive audience, while doing a Michael Jackson number (that'll get you a call back) or something?

If you need any help campaigning, I'd love to help out anyway I could, mailing lists or whatnot, just put out the word. Thanks for your time, and your efforts in this noble quest.

Kirk Schwoebel

*   *   *

Kirk Schwoebel is correct, the only way to recover our country and our freedoms is through the Grand Juries. However, the People have been just too ignorant to recognize what they have allowed. In reality, the Grand Juries are us from beginning to the end, and has not a thing to do with government, except the giving of our permission to lodge a complaint. Then it is we, the People, that assesses we will allow our public servants access to proceed with a prosecution.

Absolutely every felony is required constitutionally to gain our permission whether we will allow access to prosecution. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury..." Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

What has happened is, we have allowed ourselves to be deceive by a play on words. Therefore, many "crimes" which do not even have a victim, nor are even crimes, are being classed by government as felonies, such as failing to report our assets when transporting our own money outside of the country, or exercising our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. While these are crimes, we are allowing then to prosecute us for innocent activities.

Now notice, the Constitution does not say regarding felonies, "No person can be convicted," but rather. "No person shall be held to answer." Until we the People determine Probable Cause, not a one of us may be held to answer (enter a plea) for such accusations by government.

Do you recognize what would happen if we, the People, enforced this constitutional provision? Our prison population would be greatly reduced, and we could close down several prisons, followed by a lower tax support, followed by more spendable reserves for ourselves, followed by more production and more jobs. Instead, we merely joke about prosecutors being able to indict a ham sandwich through the government's Grand Juries. As Mr. Schwoebel says, "Are these the "peoples" Grand Juries? Or, the Government's?"

Then we have our servants playing with the meaning of words for the purpose of distortion. Prosecutors are bringing prosecutions in the name of their own "Presentments," and not getting an indictment of the Grand Jury at all.

Then there is out and out fraud performed in the name of Grand Juries. For instance, it has even been brought to my attention that some prosecutors have kept within their desk drawer a rubber stand signature of the Foreperson of the Grand Jury to be able to obtain an "Indictment" by just sliding open their desk drawer and pulling out that rubber stamp and hitting the rubber stamped signature on the supposed indictment.

One thing I am seeing in my exposures drawing attention to the Grand Juries, is that I am seeing more responses acknowledging the need for Grand Juries. Perhaps I am being used to change People' perspective that Grand Juries do not belong to the government, but rather are US. Perhaps we the People should start a department store chain call,  "GRAND JURIES R US just to publically get the point across. We are the Grand Juries! We are the first, and we are the last! We are the beginning, and we are the end when it comes to governments, for it is self-evident truth that establishes that we are endowed by our Creator with such unalienable rights, for God has ordained it so. We cannot appeal to any higher Authority! God is first, then us, and WE ARE THE GRAND JURY! No man can come to felony prosecution except by US.

This is precisely why we must install JAIL4Judges within all governments. The JAIL4Judges Initiative creates a Special Independent People's Grand Jury of US. Access to this Special Grand Jury of US in through the regular Grand Juries. A Fourth Amendment is brought by US directed to the prosecutor. The prosecutor has only 120 days to present the complaint of criminal conduct to a regular County Grand Jury for indictment and begin his prosecution of the judge complained of, or else the matter may be presented to this Special Grand Jury, ie., US, for an indictment and prosecution. This provision is set forth in Paragraph 17 of the Initiative, to wit;

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.

JAIL4Judges provides for three strikes and you are out! Government has their three strikes and you are out for us, so we believe we should have a three strikes and you are out for all judges. This is provision is found in paragraph 18, to wit; 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. That's right, we mandate they vacate their office with their tails between their legs, giving up 50% of all the judicial retirement funds. This will save us untold amount of tax dollars. Also, through JAIL4Judges the People ultimately will be allowed to run for the bench themselves, which is foreclosed presently to all but exclusive Bar Members of the Association.

So, I ask one more time, when are we going to wake up to the fact that WE ARE THE GRAND JURY?

Ron Branson

--   Ron Branson

--   Ron Branson


Post a Comment

<< Home