[Victims of Court Corruption] Please Explain the Distinction Between Legal Questions v. Ethical Questions

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
tel;work:http://vimeo.com/63749370
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=
http://vimeo.com/63749370
url:http://www.jail4judges.org
version:2.1
end:vcard



Arnie, while it is true that the People have the absolute right to take away judge-made doctrine of judicial immunity, but what you are proposing is going into physical war against these judges, for power never concedes anything without an ultimatum.

It was Fredrick Douglass that said, "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any People quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."

You are challenging Fredrick Douglass's statement by proposing what has never happened, and, according to him, never will happen.

There exists a process of popular vote in which the People decide the matter, but you are betting rather on physical aggression of might makes right. We patriots collectively have the money to place J.A.I.L. on the ballot and bring the issue to the forefront the peaceable way using the Constitution.

You wish rather to take the hard lengthy aggressive way involving years of tremendous cost of lives and bloodshed of loved ones before it can be accomplished. True, either way, it must be done, but you have chosen rather to engage in war, which you define is "the correct way," and we don't need no peaceable way. Shall we then do like the Home Land Security and stockpile millions of rounds of ammo instead of voting for that which is right?

If the matter is not worth peaceably voting for it first, then why loose your life for that which you will not vote for? If the People would rather fight than switch, them God forbid that I should get in their way. I will just wait until the dust settles, and the survivors are manifest, even though I hear the voices of them calling to me to come to their aid of what they refuse to, or are unwilling to vote.

Ron

---

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Re: Please Explain the Distinction Between Legal Questions v. Ethical Questions
Date:	Fri, 20 Sep 2013 01:45:25 -0700
From:	Arnie <arnie@arnierosner.com>
To:	Ron Branson <victoryusa@jail4judges.org>
CC:	Jeff Ball <recuseu@gmail.com>, JR007R2 <jr007r2@att.net>

Ron,

Since the people are the final arbiters, let us force de facto to do it the correct way.  We need no one's permission to implement the steps you mention from my point of view.  Implement those portions of Jail4judges one piece at a time if necessary.  Waiting for permission plays into the hands of de facto which by being de facto have no legitimate say over a system of justice which is just.

Arnie Rosner

One of

arnie@arnierosner.com
Http://scannedretina.com
714-964-4056
714-501-8247

On Sep 19, 2013, at 7:37 PM, Ron Branson <victoryusa@jail4judges.org> wrote:

Jeff, it is appropriate for you to read http://www.jail4judges.org/State_Chapters/ca/CA_Initiative.html We are talking about the Special Grand Jury (SGJ) created by the People's Initiative. The members are drawn by lottery, and exclude all law enforcement, all members of the Bar Assoc., all prosecutors and prosecutor personnel, all connected with the judicial branch of government. The objective is to have just simple People sit on the SGJ without government influence.

As far as legal counsel, we are talking about whosoever the SGJ should choose to be their counsel, encouraging them to hire just simple legal minds, but stops short of forbidding them from hiring a Bar member if they so choose, however, they may not select any type of government attorney. Such counsel is limited to a service term of only one year, and are booted. Howbeit, the SGJ may allow one of their Special Prosecutors whom they also choose, to continue after the one year service, with all currently existing cases of which they are prosecuting until an ultimate conclusion of the case, including all appeals, and back to the SGJ. Them they are required to depart. The Initiative will not allow any career People, including the Special Grand Jurors themselves.

Everything within the SGJ Initiative is People oriented from beginning to end. They are the alpha and the omega when it comes to People running their government. This is why the government fears J.A.I.L. so much, as it spells the doom of their tyranny power base.

Ron

---

On 9/18/2013 4:39 PM, Jeff Ball wrote:

Thank You Ron,

I am trying to find us on the map....

When you say SGJ who are you referring too? The People's Grand Jury or the defacto GJ ?

Also...what  "Legal Counsel" would this SGJ turn too in your opinion ? A Bar Member ?


Thank You again,
Jeff

On 09/17/2013 10:06 PM, Ron Branson wrote:

Sure, Jeff, I will be happy to elaborate. I used as an illustration the denial of a jury trial. Article 3, Sec. II, Clause 3 states that every criminal matter, except for impeachment, shall be by jury. How many times have you seen a jury trial for failure of refusal to acquire a dog license? It never happens. It is the same basically for a driver's license, our fishing without a license.

The judge may argue to the SGJ that the complainant 1) did not ask for a jury trial, 2) is not entitled to a jury trial, or 3) he did not point out to me that my ruling was in violation of the Constitution, and therefore his denial of a jury trial was done in ignorance. So the SGJ has to adjudicate between three doors, 1), 2) or 3). I child who understands English, will be able to understand between the three choices.

I could use any matter, as far as that is concern. For example, the right to keep and bear arms, etc. Is there such thing as a Second Amendment? Did he raise the Second Amendment in the trial? When the judge denied the right to bear arms, was he ignorant of his violating of the Second Amendment? Door 1). 2) or 3)?

As to the right to a jury trial, the first question to be ascertained by the Special Grand Jury is whether the case involves an impeachment process, and therefore is not entitled to a jury trial. These are all childs play questions, and we don't need an attorney or a law professor to arrive at the correct application of justice. I can't even think of a difficult question of which the SGJ will face. You are welcomed to pose one if you find I have overlooked something.

Further, should the SGJ need legal help with some question, all the have to do is ask their Legal Counsel for his input on the question. Everything is quite simple!

Ron

On 9/16/2013 5:55 PM, Jeff Ball wrote:

"Very, very simple. What is important is not whether the Special Grand Jurors can understand law, but whether they will render an ethical conclusion."

Please elaborate on this comment, Ron.

Thank You,

Jeff

Jeff Ball - Private Attorney General Washington State Organizer Tel: (425) 405-3617 | Mobile: (425) 208-5111 recuseu@gmail.com http://grandjury-snohomish.weebly.com