Thursday, May 02, 2013

[Victims of Court Corruption] Contemplating The Ripple Down Effect of JAIL4Judges

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=

Contemplating The
Ripple Down Effect of JAIL4Judges

Believe it or not, Henry, my eyes are still being opened as to the potential far reaching effects of the possibility of J.A.I.L. "If this, then what about that, and that?" Consideration for the judiciary is the "Three Strikes" Provision. Even if a judge, or judges, settle up with the plaintiff, once the SGJ has acted with a negative decision, even settling up with the plaintiff, they cannot find relief from Strike One. They are now only two strikes away from being completely removed permanently from their coveted judicial position.

All in all, I think it will not take long for the sting of J.A.I.L. to take effect. There will always be the few judicial officers who will test the system to see if those roaring lions of the SGJ actually bite. But after these judges bite the dust, all judges, from top to bottom, will observe the "Handwriting on the Wall," and will either be nice little boys and girls, or exit stage left. I suspect mostly the latter. I suspect we shall see a great Exodus from the benches. That raises the question as to who is going to fill all those vacant seats.

Yes, there are some honest-minded Bar Members who covet a bench position, but have faced financial preclusion. Right now, every lawyer coveting the bench must have a very minimum of $70,000 to risk a total loss of before he can even make a slight ripple in the pond of desired judicial seats, should he desire such seat. This will, of course, change. Vacant judicial seats will be up for grabs, if he dared pursue judgeship. I also suspect there will be principled non Bar Members who will challenge the practice of precluding non Bar Members from ascending to the bench, thereby, opening the door for simple People like us to "ascend" to that coveted position.

But there is another consideration. Why has the judicial branch gotten so big in the first place? Has it not been because we have become such a litigious society, and the abounding corruption therein? I think we will witness the "pop sickle" effect. Since judges will be no longer be willing to risk there profession as judges to protect the powerful and the guilty, much of the corruption will melt away with the judicial immunity. Thus, there will be much less litigation, and much less need for courts. Courts will be an incidental to the function of society, and not the prolific. No matter how good society becomes, there will never be a time when courts are unnecessary, as it is impossible but that offenses will not come.

I suspect that, as time passes, the need for the attention of the Special Grand Jurors will also diminish. Remember, criminal cases can only come up to them from the current existing Grand Juries failing to act. If Grand Juries do their job, there will be little need for Special Grand Juries. That is our objective, for the Special Grand Juries to work themselves out of case loads coming before them.

As to civil cases, if the trial courts properly do their job, there will be less appeals, and less need for "exhaustion" of State Judicial remedies. These cases will not arise to their attention. Just like in the federal Constitution, Article I, Sec. 4, Clause 2, "The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year," the J.A.I.L. provision provides, "
The foreperson of each Special Grand Jury shall read, or cause to be read, this Amendment to the respective Jurors semi-annually during the first week of business in January and July." Such provision presumes that there will be "business" at least twice a year for these Special Grand Jurors. It should be noted that these Special Grand Jurors only get paid for the days they actually served in making decisions. So if there be no business for them, they will be paid nothing.

They will exist only as a safety factor. As with fires, it is good knowing that there are fire extinguishers on the inside walls, and a fire escape down the outside of the building. We don't think about them until we actually need them.

These are just some quick points off the top of my head in addressing your instant inquiry, but by no means an exhaustive presentation.

Ron Branson

On 4/30/2013 11:20 PM, Sheriffhenry wrote:
Hi Ron,

This is an interesting point that you raise.

Why would anyone want to drop their complaint once it has risen to the Special Grand Jury decision?

I would hope that once the fuse has been lit at this very, very late stage, that there is no relief for the corrupt judicial officer (and all those who aided the corruption) other than accountability or exoneration.

The possibility that a corrupted judiciary could be relieved from accountability by a payout to an injured party seems to me to place the society back at risk by releasing the guilty party back on the bench to seek revenge, giving good cause for the guilty accomplices within the judicial system to fear little future challenge and by creating an instant industry of knee-breakers, child-thieves, arsonists and other varieties of "settlement advisors" (persuaders by all means possible or necessary).

If I were to pursue and achieve a Special Grand Jury evaluation of a corrupt judge and his corrupted coterie, yes Ron, I might be tempted by a large cash settlement. I would most assuredly be persuaded to accept a modest sum as a token of justice and thereby save the lives of my family from the consequences of not accepting a settlement. I do not know of many who would sacrifice their family just to see justice done in an imperfect world.

In the lower courts, in civil issues, justice may be defined differently and more liberally. I do not think that the Special Grand Jury should have that liberty. The stakes there are high, but flexible for the sake of just expedience.

However, if the stink has risen through the bowels of the establishment to the light and fresh air of the Special Grand Jury, I think that I would want the issue settled in a formal and mandatory process, for better or worse, whether I were the subject or the initiator of the process. Without exoneration, the judicial process and individuals involved are tainted. Without a decision, the Special Grand Jury process is tainted and universally emasculated.

What are your thoughts on this aspect Ron and Barbie?



At 10:26 PM 4/30/2013, Ron Branson wrote:

They may likely have to dig into their deep pockets and settle up with little ole you to get you off their backs.


Post a Comment

<< Home