[Victims of Court Corruption] "J.A.I.L. FOR JUDGES IS THE ANSWER"

begin:vcard
fn:Ron Branson
n:Branson;Ron
org:www.jail4judges.org
adr;dom:;;P.O. Box 207;North Hollywood,;CA.;91603
email;internet:VictoryUSA@JAIL4Judges.org
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=
VictoryUSA@JAIL4Judges.org=0D=0A=
=0D=0A=
www.JAIL4Judges.Org=0D=0A=
www.sd-jail4judges.org=0D=0A=

version:2.1
end:vcard

March 27, 2013

RE: "J.A.I.L. FOR JUDGES IS THE ANSWER"
AN EXHIBIT IN CV05-00030 - JUSTICE VS. HARMON
By Bobby Harmon
bobby_harmon@ymail.com
(All Links are Hot)

Dear Attorney General Eric Holder, Trustee Carol Muranaka, Trustee David Farmer, Mr. Steven Guttman, Ms. Judith Neustadter Fuqua, Judge Kevin Chang, Judge David Ezra, Judge Eden Hifo, Judge Barry Kurren, Judge Lloyd King, Judge Robert Faris, Mr. David Brennan, and All Concerned:

Due to new discoveries of FACTS related to this lawsuit (which I maintain is a "prior restraint" of my constitutional rights of Free Speech held in a Kangaroo Court and in violation of Federal and State Anti-SLAPP statutes), I am adding the subject Exhibit (see attached).   ....

Very truly yours,

Bobby N. Harmon, CPCU, ARM  ....

From the April, 2000 Idaho Observer:

---

J.A.I.L. is the Answer

by Hari Heath

Our criminal court system is all too often just that -- criminal. Routinely, people who do no harm to another get sent to jail and fined. Their property may be taken under some cloak of authority. Their children sometimes are confiscated “to protect them.” The “crimes” they are convicted of, may be manufactured to protect someone “in the system,” or to “enforce” a political prosecution. And who's gonna stop a judge from committing criminal acts from the bench? Another judge?

“Absolute Immunity” they claim. Or so the judges have legislated for themselves by “doctrine.” They can do whatever they want, with impunity. And often they do. By cleverly short circuiting constitutional protections, they have become a law unto themselves. Keeping enforcement of their transgressions “in house,” with mandatory membership for all in the bar associations, our judiciary is often more criminal than the people paraded before them in handcuffs.

When a judicial misconduct complaint is filed against a judge, who is going to hear and decide the remedy for the misconduct? A fellow judge and bar association member?

Idaho's Chief Federal District Judge Edward J. Lodge is a stellar example of a corrupt judicial officer and the failure of our present remedies to have any useful effect. Over 400 judicial misconduct complaints (28 USC 372c) have been filed against Lodge with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, yet Lodge is still on the bench and no action has been taken to remedy those complaints from the citizens he has maligned.

If you try to complain to a Grand Jury about criminal misconduct of a judicial officer, who will control your access? A prosecutor holds the gate key to the Grand Jury. Idaho Code 19-4101 provides a method for removing officials for willful, corrupt misconduct of office. It requires accessing the Grand Jury. Can you get past the bar association members who control the access to the Grand Jury?

Can you complain to the attorney general about criminal misconduct and get relief? More than likely you will be opposed, rather than assisted by the attorney general. When our rights or property have been plundered away by corrupt judicial officers and civil process fails to provide any remedy, what's the people's solution?

J. A. I. L. -- the Judicial Accountability and Integrity Law

Begun in California as an effort by Ron Branson to put an initiative on the ballot creating a special citizen friendly remedy to the now rampant judicial corruption, the “Jail4Judges” movement is now spreading like a fire in dry brush. In a campaign using e-mail and the internet, Jail4Judges is promoting a sound, well thought out method to return control of the third branch of the government to the people.

The basic principle of the J.A.I.L. initiative is to create Special Grand Juries to investigate the corrupt acts of judicial officers. These Grand Juries would provide citizens a direct access to an effective remedy for judicial corruption. These Grand Juries would have the power to indict, and provide for the trial, conviction and sentencing of judicial officers when it can be proven that the judicial officers committed acts of willful corruption. This takes the control of these types of proceedings away from the brethren of the bench, and places it in special citizen juries.

Several other states including Washington, Montana and Georgia are beginning their own J.A.I.L. initiatives or legislation. There is an effort by Representative John Duncan to introduce federal J.A.I.L. legislation in Congress. Representative Duncan has forwarded the J.A.I.L. Accountability Bill to Congressman Henry Hyde, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. If passed, it will create a unique new remedy to effectively deal with those members of the federal judiciary who think they are the law -- the Constitution and people's rights be damned....

Let's create the remedy for criminal courts. J.A.I.L. is the answer!

http://proliberty.com/observer/20000421.htm

---

March 26, 2013

Federal Judicial Accountability & Integrity Legislation 

(a) Preamble.  The House of Representatives and Senate Assembled find that an inordinate and ever-growing number of complaints of willful misconduct have been lodged with Congress involving federal judges across this nation; that the current Title 28 U.S.C. §372(c) (Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act) is in many cases inadequate because of conflicts of interest in judges judging themselves; that judicial integrity is of major importance and affects all areas of our American society. Be it therefore resolved that the House of Representatives and Senate Assembled hereby enact the following legislation which shall be known as the"Judicial Accountability and Integrity Legislation."

(b) Definitions.  For purposes of this legislation:

1. The term "blocking" shall mean any act that impedes the lawful conclusion of a case, to include unreasonable delay and willful rendering of a void judgment or order.
2. The term "federal judge" or "judge" shall mean any federal justice, judge, magistrate, commissioner, or any person shielded by judicial immunity.
3. The term "Juror" shall mean a Special Federal Grand Juror.
4. The term "strike" shall mean an adverse immunity decision based upon bad behavior as set forth in paragraph (c), or a criminal conviction as set forth in paragraph (r).
5. Where appropriate, the singular shall include the plural.

(c) Immunity.  Notwithstanding common law or any other provision to the contrary, no immunity shall be extended to any federal judge except as is specifically set forth in this statute. Preserving the purpose of protecting judges from frivolous and harassing actions, no immunity shielding a federal judge 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 facts, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitution of these United States, all violations of which shall constitute bad behavior....

(r) Criminal Procedures.  In addition to any other provisions of this statute, a complaint for criminal conduct of a federal judge may be brought directly to the Special Federal Grand Jury upon all the following prerequisites: (1) an affidavit of criminal conduct has been lodged with the appropriate prosecutorial entity within ninety (90) days of the commission of the alleged conduct; (2) the prosecutor declines to prosecute, or one hundred twenty (120) days has passed following the lodging of such affidavit and prosecution has not commenced; (3) an indictment, if sought, has not been specifically declined on the merits by a 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.

(s) Public Indemnification.  No federal judge complained of, or sued civilly by a complainant pursuant to this statute, shall be defended at public expense or by any elected or appointed public counsel, nor shall any federal judge be reimbursed from public funds for any losses sustained under this statute....

https://sites.google.com/site/ricoinparadise/j-a-i-l-is-the-answer