[Victims of Court Corruption] "How Would You Get The Judiciary Back On Track?" - Question by Josephn
-------- Original Message --------
| Subject: | Re: "How Would You Get The Judiciary Back On Track?" - Question by Josephn |
|---|---|
| Date: | Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:07:00 -0400 |
| From: | Jacob <jrogins@va.metrocast.net> |
| To: | Ron Branson <VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org> |
| CC: | jon.roland@constitution.org, AMOJ_MAIN@yahoogroups.com, Lex_Rex@Yahoogroups.com |
In what follows, I will ignore the questions as to whether J.A.I.L. is constitutional. as well as whether it would be capable of delivery on the author's intent, if it were enacted.
Ron Branson contends that "The system that was established [by the Framers] is a workable one with J.A.I.L, but has shortcoming as to the powers in the People." I presume Ron is saying that the Constitutional is a workable scheme for federal governance, but that it has not sufficiently empowered the people. His point has been for over a decade that J.A.I.L. is all that needs to be added to the federal Constitutional framework to address the shortcoming. I agree with Ron that the shortcoming is there, and I have claimed that this shortcoming is one of a number of fundamental problems with the Constitution, but I do not see how Ron can possibly effect the passage of J.A.I.L. if it is in fact a remedy against said lack of people's power. The current sociopolitical and legal frameworks have been set up to prevent the empowerment of the people against the elite-controlled government, and today more than ever the elites understand that such an empowerment would land many of them behind bars and penniless. Would they not throw at those who may try to empower the citizenry all the resources they have, including the media and other sources of mass disinformation, the IRS, and even possibly the military, pursuant to the NDAA's provision "allowing" indefinitely detention of Americans accused of terrorism.
One of the fundamental shortcomings I see in your approach is that it ignores the reality that absolute judicial immunity is a most critical pillar in the system the power elites have set up to control and plunder America, and going against this immunity is nothing less than an attempt at a popular revolution. To pass a measure that would effectively end absolute judicial immunity one needs as much power and resources as for any popular revolution.
Government accountability cannot come without rebuilding the government from ground up, and, most critically, under substantially different charters than those we have had, particularly in the US Constitution, which has precipitated to the hilt the government evolution that brought us where we are. Government must be reduced to the minimum, and self-governance be made the most prominent feature of the new charters. The federal government must be limited in power to national defense, international relations, and adjudication of controversies between the states. Official and other immunities must be explicitly banned in the new charters, and independent grand juries must be established, empowered, among other, to investigate and prosecute government corruption and abuses, as well as force the courts to adjudicate citizen complaints of apparent merits. This would cover he purpose of J.A.I.L.
Jacob Roginsky
On 4/19/2012 1:22 AM, Ron Branson wrote:
Jon Roland:
As you perhaps know, I have for years contended for the powers of Grand Juries, that that power belong uniquely within the hands of the People. The system that was established is a workable one with J.A.I.L., but has shortcoming as to the powers in the People.
Now why do I state that? The reason is that if we only rely upon the Grand Jury as originally created with no further enforcement of a Special Grand Jury, we will have problems with the prosecutors. While Grand Juries are well suited in none-conflict cases, it is insufficient when it comes to judges. Prosecutors generally will not prosecute judges, and in many cases, even non-judicial politicians such as the Board of Supervisors, D.A.s, or the A.G. himself.
If we clutter the everyday riff-raft of which common Grand Jurors should be involved in to also include judges, we will find ourselves creating a forum to second-guess judges. Are we to be given the choice between taking an appeal to the appellate court, or choosing rather to file a complaint with the Grand Jury? Shall permit both at the same time? Should we not rather wait until the judicial system has completely had its opportunity to rectify the situation before going to the Grand Jury? If so, is this not J.A.I.L. in operation? The Grand Jury created by J.A.I.L. does not have jurisdiction until all judicial remedies are exhausted. Further, this Special Grand Jury only performs under matters where there is a high likelihood of a conflict of interest.
Under J.A.I.L., we do not allow judges to decide in imposing sentences against their own judicial brethren, but we uniquely leave that power to the jury itself that found for conviction of the judge.
While we allow the sheriff first shot at enforcement, we are the back up enforcement, and can arrest the sheriff should he get in the way. These are not just cosmetic matters, but fundamental to rightful enforcement. Remember, when it comes to enforcement, the People must retain Alpha and Omega power.
Ron Branson
posted by fritz at 10:03 PM
0 comments
