Thursday, September 06, 2012

[Victims of Court Corruption] Marvelous Idea: "None Of The Above" on the Ballot

Marvelous Idea: 
"None Of The Above" on the Ballot

By Ron Branson

I have to hand it to the Nevadans. The came up with a marvelous idea in placing "None of the Above on their ballot some 30 years ago. As we all know, most people are disenchanted with government, and the choices presented to them. Competing with the named candidates on the ballot is "None of the Above" which they must beat. This offers to the voters the option of voting no confidence in their government and the presented choices. This "None of the Above" effectively strikes the current selection for an alternative set of choices.

I do believe this is a measure that should be considered by all states in this Union. Why should the voters be stuck with just the slate presented to them? In communists countries the voters are often presented with a choice of one tyrant to vote for. Even in this country, among the judges we are seldom presented with any more than a choice on one, i.e., "Shall Judge Imma Tyrannt be Re-elected to the Office of the Second Appellate District?" The truth is, no Attorney in his right mind wishes to commit professional suicide by challenging a sitting judge. Further, no one not a member of the exclusive "Bar Club" is permitted to challenge a sitting judge.

It is in this manor the judicial bench exclusively protects itself from all challengers, thus effectively giving them life tenure regardless of their misconduct on the bench. By this means, We the People, are guaranteed corrupt judges to serve us. I humorously tell People that they can always tell a corrupt judge by the color of their robe. The corrupt ones wear black.

Every election cycle I am asked by the voters which judge they should vote for. I resoundly recommend they vote only for the judge who openly opposes judicial immunity for willful violations of their judicial Oaths of Office.

I think "None of the Above," is a great way for the voters to reconsider their options! This measure should be promoted by the voters throughout this country!

Ron Branson

*   *   *

Wall Street Journal

September 6, 2012, 10:32 AM

When Appellate Judges and District Judges Butt Heads

We reported Wednesday that a federal appellate judge in California accused a federal district judge in Nevada of foul play in a case over the Silver State’s “none of these candidates” ballot option. We got one side of the story, and now we have the other.

Let’s recap: Judge Stephen Roy Reinhardt of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit alleged that Chief Judge Robert C. Jones, head of the Nevada federal district court, dragged his feet in the case to avoid appellate review.

That is a pretty serious allegation, given the political subtext. Republicans sued the state in June to have the “none of these candidates” option raked off the ballot. They feared it could divert votes from their candidates in what are expected to be close presidential and U.S. Senate races. Judge Jones, an appointee of George W. Bush, sided with Republicans and said in an Aug. 22 hearing that he intended to kill the option. But he didn’t issue a written order.

Meanwhile, the clock was ticking. The ballot-printing process must begin by Sept. 7, a deadline state officials repeatedly raised with Judge Jones. They waited for an order they could appeal to the Ninth Circuit. None came.

Finally, the Ninth Circuit intervened on Tuesday without a written order, suspending Judge Jones’s oral ruling while the appellate court reviews the case — and virtually guaranteeing that Nevadans will be able to vote for ”none of these candidates” in November, if they so choose.

In a concurring opinion Tuesday, Judge Reinhardt, an appointee of President Jimmy Carter, accused Judge Jones of “dilatory tactics” that “appear to serve no purpose other than to seek to prevent the state from taking an appeal of his decision before it must print the ballots.”

Later in the opinion, he was even more blunt: “Such arrogance and assumption of power by one individual is not acceptable in our judicial system.”

Judge Jones fired back Wednesday, in this order. He wrote:

Unfortunately, Judge Reinhardt chose to write separately impugning the personal integrity and motivation of the undersigned judge. Hopefully, his separate decision does not reflect a trend in appellate decision writing to attack the integrity and motivation of a colleague or lower court judge, rather than simply pointing out the error in a lower court opinion. His assertion is false. Judge Reinhardt writes that the undersigned intended to defeat appellate jurisdiction over the Court’s decisions over this case. Contrary, this Court clearly indicated its intent to embody its decision in a written order, and it was the clear contemplation of the Court and all the parties that the Defendant would file a notice of appeal forthwith, following that entry.

Judge Jones gave no explanation why he hadn’t issued a written order since stating his intentions in the Aug. 22 hearing, given the looming printer deadline. He did, however, offer some criticisms of Judge Reinhardt — including ”inappropriate judicial activity.”

According to Judge Jones, Judge Reinhardt contacted him through the Ninth Circuit clerk “for the purpose of influencing the lower court’s decision and earlier entry of its order.”

He closed with a hard jab:

Judge Reinhardt’s separate decision to impugn the integrity and motivation of the undersigned judge, together with his contact to Chambers through the Ninth Circuit Clerks’s Office, was an example of assumption of power by one individual which is not acceptable in our judicial system.


Post a Comment

<< Home