Tuesday, June 25, 2013

[Victims of Court Corruption] Taking the Snowden Prosecution A Step Further

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



Taking the Snowden Prosecution
A Step Further


By Ron Branson
National JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief


Snowden has exposed the fact that the government is snooping into the personal communications of all Americans in violation of the Forth Amendment of the Constitution. This has upset the government! Now the government wants to prosecute Snowden for embarrassing the government in exposing their secret. However, the government is having difficulty in putting their hands upon Snowden to do him in.

Now comes a new twist. The question is now being raised by NBC as to why investigative news journalists breaking such stories, should not be prosecuted for making public such embarrassing information.

This suggests that we are now toying with the prospective that any media who dares embarrass the government for its wrong doing, should be criminally prosecuted. The answer to this ridiculous speculation, of course, is the Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting ... freedom of speech, or of the press..." First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
But, we cannot put anything past a corrupt government. Shall we now make TRUTH a crime to be criminally prosecuted?



Jun 23, 2013

NBC's Gregory: Why shouldn't Greenwald be charged?


WASHINGTON (AP) -- NBC "Meet the Press" host David Gregory got a rise out of Glenn Greenwald on Sunday by asking the Guardian reporter why he shouldn't be charged with a crime for having "aided and abetted" former National Security Agency analyst Edward Snowden.

Greenwald replied on the show Sunday that it was "pretty extraordinary that anybody who would call themselves a journalist would publicly muse about whether or not other journalists should be charged with felonies."

Greenwald first reported Snowden's disclosure of U.S. government surveillance programs. On Sunday, Ecuador's foreign minister and the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks said that Snowden was headed to Ecuador to seek asylum.

During his interview with NBC's Gregory, Greenwald declined to discuss where Snowden was headed. That refusal seemed to prompt Gregory to ask: "To the extent that you have aided and abetted Snowden, even in his current movements, why shouldn't you, Mr. Greenwald, be charged with a crime?"

Greenwald said Gregory was embracing the Obama administration's attempt to "criminalize investigative journalism," citing an FBI agent's characterization of Fox News journalist James Rosen as a probable co-conspirator of a State Department contractor who was suspected of leaking classified information to Rosen. Rosen was not charged.

"If you want to embrace that theory, it means that every investigative journalist in the United States who works with their sources, who receives classified information is a criminal, and it's precisely those theories and precisely that climate that has become so menacing in the United States," said Greenwald, a former constitutional and civil rights lawyer who has written three books contending that the government has violated personal rights in the name of protecting national security.

Gregory responded that "the question of who is a journalist may be up to a debate with regard to what you are doing." Gregory also said he was merely asking a question.

"That question has been raised by lawmakers as well," Gregory said. "I'm not embracing anything, but, obviously, I take your point."

Later, Greenwald tweeted, "Who needs the government to try to criminalize journalism when you have David Gregory to do it?" and, "Has David Gregory ever publicly wondered if powerful DC officials should be prosecuted for things like illegal spying & lying to Congress?"


[Victims of Court Corruption] Contemptible Overcrowding Of California Prisons

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



http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130624/A_OPINION01/306240301/-1/A_OPINION

Prison Order Loud and Clear

Time to stop challenging the courts and focus on judicial reform

A three-member federal panel, fed up with California, has ordered the state to release nearly 10,000 more inmates by the end of the year to get the prison population down to the 137.5 percent of capacity level ordered years ago.

The judges demanded that the state take such steps "commencing forthwith" and regardless of any laws that might prevent those releases.

"All such state and local laws and regulations are hereby waived, effective immediately," the judges ordered.

The blistering 54-page order leaves no doubt the judges believe the state has intentionally defied previous court orders.

"There can be no reasonable dispute the defendants have failed to meet their obligations," the judges said. They said the court has "taken care to limit the extent to which its orders tell defendants how to administer their prison system. Defendants, however, have continually responded to this Court's deference with defiance."

We may not like the order. We may think the population cap is arbitrary. We may believe the federal court's have no place telling a state how to run its prisons.

But there comes a time when fighting no longer makes sense. We've reached that point.

Thursday's order should be the final wake-up call for the Brown administration in its years-long battle over the prisons. Unfortunately, it won't be.

The Brown administration immediately asked the appellate court for a stay and filed notice the state will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Two years ago this month, the high court backed up the lower court's order to reduce the prison population.

Federal Judges Lawrence K. Karlton, Stephen Reinhardt and Thelton E. Henderson on Thursday ordered the state to expand the use of good-time credits to cut the inmate population, a tool they indicated would trim prison sentences of some inmates by several months without endangering the public.

The order follows years of hearings and a 14-day trial that found the state's prison health care system so lacking as to be unconstitutional - a finding that, among other things, resulted in the construction of a $900 million prison hospital to open in Stockton next month.

The irritation of the judges was evidenced by their waiving of any state law or administrative procedure that would delay releases. They demanded the state report every two weeks on the progress being made, rather than monthly. And they found "considerable merit" in requests by attorneys for inmates who have sought an order finding the state in contempt of court orders.

If this order doesn't send the message directly and forcefully to the state about the court's intentions, nothing will.

But what it really should do is prompt immediate and careful review of the state's sentencing practices by the administration, the Legislature and judiciary.

Earlier court orders to cap the prison population resulted in so-called realignment that diverted some prisoners into county jails. In some cases, that has simply overcrowded the county lockups.

What's urgently needed - and with pressure from the federal court now approaching a critical level - is top-to-bottom sentencing and judicial reform. Most other states have nothing approaching California's incarceration rates. Or prison costs. At $11.2 billion in the current fiscal year, the state spends more imprisoning people than it does on higher education.

We must find another way. Never-ending appeals work no better than our sentencing system.