Thursday, May 16, 2013

[Victims of Court Corruption] * * * Judge Covers For Police, Throws Out Grand Jury Indictment * * *

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=

Judge Covers For Police,
Throws Out Grand Jury Indictment

By Ron Branson
National JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief

Herein is a fatal flaw by omission within our Constitution, and that is the lack of independent People-power to enforce its provisions. The original intent of our Grand Jury system was for the People themselves to have their own inherent power to bring government officials before themselves in judgment, and to hold such accountable. But we do not have that today. The People have allowed their "public servants" to sweet-talk them into relinquishing their power to the very ones whom the Grand Jury is established to be the People's check against government corruption.

I just recently received an email proposing that we should "Indict" all these corrupt government officials. I responded, asking, "How are we the People going to Indict such officials?" The problem is that the government has claimed sole control over our Grand Juries. We the People are being barred by government from presenting our grievances to Grand Juries. What's more, the judges pick whom they want to serve on the Grand Juries, and the government prosecutor takes these Grand Jurors under their wings, shelters them, and spoon-feeds them only what they want to be concerned with. The Grand Juries have become their watchdog pets. This cannot be! And even should such a Grand Jury presume to act independent of the government prosecutor, the government prosecutor has the sole discretion on whether he shall commence a prosecution of the Indicted party. This presents a great conflict especially when the Indicted party is a government official.

Then, even should the prosecutor decide to prosecute the government official, the judge may choose to cancel such Grand Jury indictment, and free such government official from prosecution. And what if such government official be a judge? (In Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Judge George W. Trammell was exposed in the July 23, 1997 L.A. Times Newspaper.
Trammel assured a defendant's wife before him that he would go easy on sentencing her husband if she would agree to sleep with him. She did sleep with him, but she squealed about the deal, and when this criminal plot hit news, even then did the county prosecutor blatantly refused to prosecute Judge Trammell.) But where were all the People in this? In the Fifth Amendment of our Constitution it says, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury."

In the below story the Grand Jury did pass down an Indictment on the perpetrator of an infamous crime, to wit, the killing an unarmed man, but because of the judge's decision to overturn the Grand Jury, this criminal Indictment of a Grand Jury is going nowhere. What we are experiencing is exactly what our Founding Fathers experienced as they described within our Declaration of Independence, to wit, "For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment from any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states."

In April of 1995 this author designed and created a People's Initiative to restore the power of the Grand Juries which our Founding Fathers originally intended by JAIL4Judges, and is  found at  It will only be through this means will this country regain the People's inherent power to bring corrupt government officials before themselves in judgment. The People will then be able to do an end run around corrupt government prosecutors and corrupt judges. Until such time, we shall only hear of feudal "talk" of accountability!

Ron Branson

Judge tosses out manslaughter charges against NYPD officer who killed teen  ....

NYPD officer Richard Haste (second left) shot and killed Ramarley Graham in Graham's Bronx apartment in February 2012. Photograph: AP

A judge has dismissed manslaughter charges against a New York City police officer who shot dead an unarmed teenage boy in his bathroom.

Bronx supreme court justice Steven L Barrett said the Bronx district attorney's office failed to properly instruct members of a grand jury in considering allegations against officer Richard Haste for his role in the death in 2012 of 18-year-old Ramarley Graham.

"With no great pleasure, I am obliged in this case to dismiss the charges," Barrett said in an emotional hearing Wednesday morning, according to the news website DNAInfo. He made it clear that the dismissal was because of a failure to follow procedure, not because of the evidence. "This is not a case where there is insufficient evidence," the judge said.

The charges against Haste were the first of a NYPD officer relating to a fatal shooting on duty since 2007. Then, three detectives were charged over the death of a man shot after he left a strip club on the eve of his wedding. The three were later found not guilty.

Graham's mother, Constance Malcolm, cried out before leaving the courtroom in tears on Wednesday: "He killed my child. What more can you do to me?"

Haste shot and killed Graham in his apartment bathroom on 2 February 2012 while his six year-old brother and 58 year-old grandmother looked on. His attorney, Stuart London, has maintained that because of radio calls that preceded the shooting, his client was under the impression that Graham was armed and only fired after repeatedly ordering the teen to show his hands.

In June, Haste turned himself in and was arraigned on charges of first- and second-degree manslaughter.

Last week, judge Barrett said he was "officially concerned" by the grand jury minutes that resulted in Haste's indictment. Barrett said the minutes indicated jurors were erroneously told to disregard whether Haste was under the impression Graham was armed.

The NYPD initially claimed Graham ran from officers after he was spotted near his home, but surveillance footage from the property later showed him calmly entering his apartment seconds before men in NYPD windbreakers ran up to the front door with their guns drawn. The officers forced their way inside and Haste made his way to the second floor where Graham was killed. No weapon was recovered, though a small bag of marijuana was found in the toilet bowl. Subsequent reports revealed Haste did not receive the requisite training needed to work with the aggressive anti-drug unit he was assigned to.

His attorney, Stuart London, has maintained that his client was under the impression from radio calls preceding the incident that Graham was armed and only fired after repeatedly ordering the teen to show his hands.

During Wednesday's half-hour hearing, judge Barrett said his ruling does not prevent the case from being presented to the grand jury again.

Speaking to the Guardian by phone Wednesday morning, Frank Graham, the teenager's father, was clearly shaken by the judge's ruling. "I don't know what to say," he said. "Right now we are angry. We are upset and very disappointed."

Ramarley Graham's mother, Constance Malcolm, was taken to a hospital following the judge's decision, Graham said, after she found herself struggling to breathe. "Everything just overwhelmed her," he said.

The family plans to press for another indictment. "It doesn't end there," Graham said. "They are going to convene a new grand jury and we are going to get Richard Haste indicted again, for a second time, and he [will] be convicted for killing our son."

Graham said he wants his son to be remembered as a "loving, caring, respectful" boy. "Ramarley had passion for helping people," he said, noting the teen's tendency to stay home with his younger siblings. "He loved staying with [the] younger ones and playing with them and just babysitting."

"Unfortunately he was murdered by someone who didn't respect the law," Graham said.

The Bronx district attorney will now decide whether to appeal the decision or represent the indictment. The district attorney's office said in a statement: "It cannot be said more forcefully that we disagree with the court."


Post a Comment

<< Home