Sunday, September 15, 2013

[Victims of Court Corruption] Facing An All New Constitutional Concept Regarding Grand Juries

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=

Facing An All New Constitutional Concept Regarding Grand Juries

Keith, you have asked my thoughts regarding the concept presented at

Basically, I am in favor of anything promoting or relating to the People's Grand Jury. Unfortunately, the People has been sweet-talked out of retaining their power in the Grand Jury system. The mental state of People today by-in-large today is that Grand Juries are nothing but an arm of government, specifically government prosecutors. Add on top of that the fact that judges select who they want to sit on every County Grand Jury throughout this nation.

I have been harping about the Grand Jury going back to 1981. The People have not listened, but rather have placed their efforts on other matters such as fighting the IRS, etc. I am slowly seeing the subject of Grand Juries starting to seep into People's brains.

As you perhaps know, I am the author/founder of the new constitutional concept of a Special Grand Jury system, which concept was developed in 1995. The goal of this Special Grand Jury concept is to allow the system to work in the way of which it was supposed to work, but when the system manifests that it does not work, or refuses to work, then the People have a fall back system to the Special Grand Jury, which narrows the playing field merely to unlawful conduct of judges. All matters for adjudication ultimately are determined by the courts, but the judicial system has manifested that it does not work. Therefore, the People's first objective must be to fix the broken judicial system.

J.A.I.L. opens a new door of access to the Grand Jury by allowing the People to lodge a complaint directly against a judge to the prosecutor, and then sets a time limit in which the prosecutor must began the prosecution. As it is currently, a prosecutor will not prosecute a sitting judge, who incidentally was likely a former prosecutor in their own prosecutor's office. When the time limit expires to began the prosecution against a judge, and no action has been taken, then the People may take the matter directly to the Special Grand Jury. Thus, a complainant, in this way may do an end round failing prosecutor and County Grand Jury, and gain direct access to the Special Grand Jury.

The SGJs can then indict the judge and assign their own personal Special Prosecutor to take on the case against the offending judge complained of. It will only take one or two convictions of judges performed by this manor to greatly embarrass both the prosecutor and the County Grand Jurors into action.

Every prosecutor wants to be re-elected to his office as District Attorney, but this mark on his record will certainly dictate that he should not be re-elected to office, which is what every politician fears. Just think of how his competitor for his office will use this record to his own advantage. Ouch!

As to your question regarding my thoughts on this Common Law Grand Jury effort, we need to be wise with our time and efforts. Instead of  placing mega efforts into reinventing the wheel of  composing an additional 3141 County Grand Juries, one for each  County in the nation, we can reduce our effort by composing only one Special Grand Jury for each state. We already have 3141 County County Grand Juries in this nation, one for every county, therefore, we only need to get these present existing County Grand Juries busy doing their job. It appears that desires to reinventing the wheel by creating another 3141 County Grand Juries in addition to the 3141 County Grand Juries we already have in existence.

On the other hand, the Special Grand Jury system will streamline the objective greatly. Once we establish even one Special Grand Jury anywhere in this nation, things will move like a house a fire! State after state will be forced to enact their own Special Grand Jury for their state. The time ramifications is two years in which we can ignite the Special Grand Jury flame that will burn through this entire nation with the authority of the People seeking redress to this Special Grand Jury. The government will panic at the prospect and go into overdrive to try to stop the People regaining their freedom.

The concept of a Special Grand Jury really should have been propose back in 1789 in our original Constitution. The Special Grand Jury concept is not an option, but a necessity. It closes a gaping hole that clearly exists within our present form of government.

People must have the last and final word in all concepts of government. That philosophy is merely a dream today, but the with the future existence of the People's Special Grand Jury system, it will be reality.

There is no higher concept among men than that they themselves should have direct and personal control over their public servants. Thank you for asking my thoughts on Grand Juries. God bless you, Keith.

Ron Branson

On 9/14/2013 8:11 PM, Keith Small wrote:
Ron, what is your thoughts on this Common Law Grand Jury, see link.

From: Ron Branson <>
Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 12:41 AM
Subject: How Do We Educate the Grand Jurors On Law?

Pastor McCurry, your below argument is true in relation with common Grand Juries, which incidentally, citizens can hardly gain any kind of access to a Grand Jury. But with the Special Grand Jury created by the J.A.I.L. Initiative, basically the issue turns on being able to read English. Take for instance, most criminal cases are processed in the absence of a Petit Jury even though the defendant moved have moved for a jury trial. All the defendant must do is show that the Constitution provides for the right to a jury trial. The defendant takes only the one issue of the denial of a jury trial up on appeal, nothing more. When the Appellate Court affirms the judges judgment below then the defendant takes that single question up to the State Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court dismiss the issue, you have exhausted all court remedy, and you may now go the Special Grand Jury where only 25 Citizens receives the complaint willful denial of a jury trial. The Special Grand Jury forwards the complaint of the denial of a jury trial to the offending judge and requests he/she answer the denial of due process complaint.

The judge can only respond either that the complainant failed to ask for a jury trial, or that the law does not provide for a jury trial, or that that the complainant did not bring it to his attention that his ruling was in violation of the Constitution. There can be no other argument. The the complainant then gets to counter to the judges three possible defenses.

Thereafter, 25 citizens of the Special Grand Jury, which can have no Bar Members, no law enforcement personnel, no judicial personnel among them. decides on plain English, whether any one of the judge's three arguments holds water. If but only thirteen of the twenty five find against the judge, the remove the judge's judicial immunity, and allows the Complainant to move forward with a civil action against the offending judge.

What's more, this same Special Grand Jury can, with the aid of their own legal counsel, bring a criminal indictment against the judges, and assign their own Special Prosecutor to handle such criminal prosecution.

I have used as an example the denial of a jury trial, but no matter what the violation is, the process is still the same, and involves the complainant to state the willful violation so the Special Grand Jurors, with the aid of their own counselor, can understand it, after the judge tries to render only three possible options for his defense. It is only Door A, Door B, or Door C as stated above. And in this case, we are talking about having the benefit of a slow replay on film after the referee has called the shots. Very, very simple. What is important is not whether the Special Grand Jurors can understand law, but whether they will render an ethical conclusion. Remember, the civil or criminal trials will take place beyond the functions of the Special Grand Jurors. We are talking child's play in which a 5th grader can understand. We are talking honesty, not legal knowledge or education, otherwise, we should seek to attorneys. Ugh!

God bless you, Robert.

Ron Branson


On 9/12/2013 7:18 AM, wrote:
Thanks. I appreciate and profit from your comments. I have been a friend of Red Beckman for 30 years and we have had ongoing discussions about, among many things, the IRS and Grand Juries. You share a commonality about the Grand Juries. I agree, but a GJ cure approach, although a great and honorable idea, is unrealistic since few if any knowledgeable people will ever serve on a GJ. People should / must be educated on this idea, but there's only 168 hours in the week. We have to prioritize our priorities. Onward Christian soldiers!         


Post a Comment

<< Home