Saturday, February 16, 2013

[Victims of Court Corruption] The J.A.I.L People Still See A Constitution That Never Was!

fn:Ron Branson
adr;dom:;;P.O. Box 207;North Hollywood,;CA.;91603
title:National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief
note;quoted-printable:Ron Branson=0D=0A=
National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief=0D=0A=


The J.A.I.L. People Still See
A Constitution That Never Was!

"Judges are not the problem. The immunity for the judges is not the problem."Legal Reality

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Legal Reality <>
Date: Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:47 AM
Subject: Fwd: J.A.I.L For Judges -- a brief commentary on presently lost minds
To: Legal Reality <>

14 February A.D. 2013

The information found at the link below is a by-product of effort that has greatly missed the boat in terms of understanding the (nature of) the problem.

There are problem judges, yes.  But, that's not the problem.

The problem is that the J.A.I.L. people still "see" a "constitution" that never was.  They still see a Law of the Law system that they, themselves, have helped put asunder, by the use of the "funny money."  They are in no way alone; they are, instead, in great company.

There's a HUGE amount of time that goes into that level of a project (the one presented by J.A.I.L.).  An investment of 10% of that time, "money," and energy into the study of the reality would not only have produced "understanding" but also "solutions."  Those not yet interested in healing won't yet find any.  Instead, they'll produce these "total waste of time" projects.

The judges are not the problem.  The immunity for the judges is not the problem, either (for there are ways to pierce that veil; it's simply not exercised anything like often enough by those who are violated by those officers, typically because the organized, "licensed" law professional doesn't rush to file such claims/suits, meaning that if it's going to be done, it has to be done pro se; and there's a huge amount of work involved with such claims/suits). 

The lack of comprehension of just exactly how "badly had" we've been, and by our own hand, is the problem.  The lack of acceptance of our present legal reality is the problem.

This is an overstatement, for it doesn't apply to "everything" that comes to this author's mind.  That said, here's the overstatement, which is just barely an overstatement.  Anytime the focus of the effort is on something or someone else, here, the focus is the judges, then the reader knows instantly and immediately that the effort is based on galactically misplaced focus.  Whether the effort is to corral judges, or executive officers, or legislative officers, or those in this profession or that profession, i.e., to corral "someone else," someone other than the person found in the mirror, then those promoting that effort have (largely) missed the entire understanding of our present legal reality. 

There are still a couple of matters for which politics is actually relevant, thus, for which a focus on "someone else," namely the office-holder, is actually well-placed.  But the notion of limiting judicial immunity is way beyond the pale in proving massive misunderstanding of today's legal reality.

What do judges look for?  The FACTS.

Where the FACTS are 100% against the party being skewered (by the "government"), then what does that leave as options for any judge?  No option but to grant the relief requested by the "government."  No option, at all.

To give the judge the option, which, actually, won't really be an option, but a "directive," to rule in favor of the party that the "government" is attempting to skewer, that party needs to know the reality well enough to have marshaled the FACTS in the matter in his favor before the "government" ever issued its (bogus) claim in the first place.

In order to accomplish that task, one does well to internalize the reality that "federal" means "federal."  It doesn't mean "national," and it most certainly doesn't mean "constitutional."  "Federal" means "federal," as in, for all practical purposes regarding that which vexes us (in the name of "government"), "by agreement."

Those who know the law demonstrate that mastery by then marshaling the relevant FACTS in such a way as to prevent or avoid the existence of any "governmental" claim in the first place.  Those who so marshal the FACTS just don't end up hearing from the "government," on the whole, because there's someone in the "government" who actually "gets it," and through that office typically is run some sort of final "go -- no go" decision-making. 

That's not 100% successful, as we see in the recent Lozman case, where that CITY, as aided by both the federal trial judge and the federal appellate court, found it suitable to destroy that U.S. Marine's "floating house" extremely prematurely, being super cock and bull sure they "knew" "the law;" well, the Supremes taught them, as well as all with eyes to see and ears to hear, that the CITY's attorneys, and that trial judge, and that appellate court, who effectively conspired under color of law and office to destroy that man's property, didn't "get it," yet. 

Those reading the "transportation" discussions from Legal Reality understood it (or at least had the information by which to come to understand it).  It's precisely because the FACTS were 100% with Lozman, because he never used that "floating house" as a means of carrying "passengers or cargo," i.e., he never engaged in "transportation," which is a "for profit or hire" commercial activity, that the law supported his position.

As proof of the point about the J.A.I.L. effort, i.e., that the popular perspective is the "wrong" one, Lozman had to take his argument all the way through that system in order to find jurists who comprehend the fundamentals to the level of recognizing the simplicity in the matter from the outset.  The Supreme Court don't merely understand the law; they teach it, with every single ruling that they write.  Those who want to argue against the Supreme Court's ruling do nothing but confess that they just don't "get it," yet.

When it comes to the application of law to FACTS, it'll always be the situation that he who marshals the FACTS to be consistent with the legal result he intends to achieve will produce the preferred legal result.

Once the individual is up to speed with the legal principles "at issue" in our present legal reality, it happens that the judges start to get a whole lot smarter, in the very same way that parents get a whole lot smarter as the child moves from the teenage years into their 30s and 40s.

The J.A.I.L. for Judges effort is continuing proof that we, as a people, prefer the abuse of the present situation over the absence of abuse that comes solely from taking the initiative to remove oneself from the abusive environment.

Those who wrap themselves in the fly-paper of the myriad of "gotcha agreements," who then breach one or more of them, and who then get clobbered by the "governmental" system that exists to ensnare them into those "gotcha agreements" in the first place, sure have some gall to blame the judges for their own refusal to come to terms with our present legal reality.

It's oh so much easier to complain about the judges than it is to put the time and effort and commitment into learning enough about the law to know what FACTS to marshal so as to avoid the adverse situation in the first place. It's just so much easier to complain than to realize the need to change one's own mind and perspective and then actually accomplish that self-disciplined line of activity of actually taking individual responsibility over the FACTS that are used to shishkabob the activist or the whistleblower.

As with any political effort "out there," to each his own.  It happens that the solution being sought is a lot closer to home, and "infinitely" more cost effect to produce, than the political activists want to admit.  Those who "exist" on the notion that the "solution" is "political" in nature aren't interested in looking for a different way of making a living.  Therefore, they're rather locked into their position, as a matter of self-preservation.  Those who want to support that are going to support that.

However, those who come into an understanding of the reality have a more robust point of view when it comes to the issue of stewardship.  Those who need to blame someone else for their problems will always have a huge following, for it's the rare activist who is ready, willing, and able to recognize that the problem is with the person in the mirror.  For the activist, it's always someone else's fault/cause/problem.  The longer they dig that hole, the wider and deeper it gets.  Those who come to understand the reality invest their time, "money," and energy on that which actually helps them understand, and then apply, the reality so as to accomplish that which produces the solution, which, when done sufficiently, typically means that the encounter involving the judge is avoided altogether.

Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas

Subscribe / unsubscribe :


Post a Comment

<< Home