Monday, September 02, 2013

[Victims of Court Corruption] We Need Not a Constitutional Amendment, But Rather Enforcement of the Constitution We Have

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=

Keith, I have read what you have stated below regarding the need for a Constitutional Convention, and would like to comment thereupon. Unfortunately, many think that what we need is new or additional laws. Such is just the opposite of what we need. What we need is enforcement of existing laws and Constitutional provisions. For instance, what is wrong with the provision that Congress shall coin money and regulate the value thereof? Nothing. Congress performed this requirement on April 2nd, 1792 in the U.S. Coinage Act. This is till the law today, as it has never changed. But by practice, we have forsaken this good law, and given this over to a group of private foreign bankers called The Federal Reserve. What is wrong with "No state shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt?" Nothing. The problem is we don't obey the present law. What is wrong with the First, Second and the Forth Amendments? Nothing. The problem is that the Courts have reinterpreted these rights away.

Nowhere in the Constitution is there any provision for judicial immunity, as no such immunity exists. Shall we change that by a Constitutional Amendment to provide for judicial immunity so that the judges can be within the Constitution when they violate the Constitution? No way. I can go down through and entire list of provisions in our Constitution which we have just ignored, such as the provision that Congress is the only branch of government that can declare war, but that provision has been totally ignored since the 1940s. If our car runs out of gas, we need not a new car, but gasoline for the one we possess.

And even if we chose to bring about a Constitution by way of a Constitutional Convention, to you really think that these same tyrants in control would respect it? They are filled with their own ways, and their own ways they will do regardless of what Amendments would be made. Our enemies would like nothing better than a Constitutional Convention to justify their actions therein. I recommend you read, or reread the JAIL4Judges provisions at

Our problem is not the need for a new Constitution, but rather enforcement of the One that we currently have.

Ron Branson

On Sep 1, 2013, at 9:30 PM, Keith Broaders <> wrote:

How in the hell can you fix it when the member of congress keep drilling holes in the dike. The so called elections are fraudulent and the bankers are running the show. If the Constitution says a convention is to be called upon the request of 34 states, then that is exactly what we should do. If we have the power to obey only the portions of the Constitution that we like and ignore the portions we don't like. we are Constitutional hypocrites. If 34 states have requested a convention, as far as I am concerned we must have a convention.  The idea that a discussion of our problems and potential solutions would be dangerous is absolutely absurd. Would a man dying of cancer refuse to consider treatment option because he was told by the media that the treatment might cause him to lose his hair?


Post a Comment

<< Home