Sunday, September 15, 2013

[Victims of Court Corruption] Judge To End Same-Sex Marriages

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.dailymail.com/News/NationandWorld/201309120209
Thursday September 12, 2013
Pa. Judge To End Same-Sex Marriage

HARRISBURG, Pa. - A Pennsylvania judge on Thursday ordered a suburban Philadelphia clerk to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Commonwealth Court Judge Dan Pellegrini said Montgomery County Register of Wills D. Bruce Hanes did not have the power to decide on his own whether Pennsylvania's same-sex marriage ban violates the state constitution.

"Unless and until either the General Assembly repeals or suspends the Marriage Law provisions or a court of competent jurisdiction orders that the law is not to be obeyed or enforced, the Marriage Law in its entirety is to be obeyed and enforced by all commonwealth public officials," Pellegrini wrote.

It was not immediately clear what the decision would mean to those who have already received a license.

The state Health Department under Republican Gov. Tom Corbett sued Hanes after he began issuing licenses to same-sex couples in July, despite a 1996 state law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The department argued that Hanes' actions could create chaos.

James Schultz, Corbett's general counsel, issued a statement saying the key issue was whether local officials can decide which laws to uphold or reject, based on their personal legal opinion.

"We respect the interests and dignity of all the parties involved in this case, but we are a government of laws and it is important that all office holders across the state enforce those laws uniformly," Schultz said.

A Montgomery County spokesman said the ruling was being analyzed and they planned to comment later Thursday.

A separate challenge to Pennsylvania's same-sex marriage ban is pending in federal court.

A lawyer for some of the same-sex couples who obtained licenses from Hanes, Robert Heim, said Pellegrini said the legality of the licenses was not an issue before him.

"The 32 couples that I represent are going to have to decide whether they also want to litigate it in the Commonwealth Court, since Judge Pellegrini virtually invited it," Heim said.

In his opinion, Pellegrini said "there are no obstacles preventing those adversely affected by the provisions of the Marriage Law," such as the 32 couples, "from asserting their own rights in an appropriate forum," and he cited the pending federal lawsuit as an example.

Hanes, a Democrat and an elected official whose duties include marriage licenses, said the law conflicts with his constitutional obligations. His actions followed the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to throw out part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and a statement by Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane that the same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional.

Kane is not defending the federal challenge to the same-sex marriage ban, having turned over that case and the Hanes matter to Corbett's lawyers.

ACLU of Pennsylvania attorney Vic Walczak said Pellegrini's decision will have no impact on the federal case.

"It is full speed ahead for the ACLU lawsuit," Walczak said.

Pellegrini wrote only courts have the power to determine if a statute is unconstitutional.

"In this case a clerk of courts has not been given the discretion to decide that a law . . . he or she is charged to enforce is a good idea or a bad one, constitutional or not," the judge wrote. "Only courts have the power to make that decision."

Marcus Saitschenko of Philadelphia, who with his partner was among the first to obtain a license from the clerk, said he has faith in the legislative and judicial process.

"I'm confident that we will have marriage equality in Pennsylvania soon," Saitschenko wrote in an email Thursday. "When my partner and I are legally able to be married in our home state, we will do so."

Pennsylvania is the only northeastern state that does not grant legal status to marriage or civil unions between individuals of the same sex. Hanes has issued 174 licenses to same-sex couples.

A similar scenario is playing out in New Mexico, where a county clerk concluded the law did not prevent him from issuing same-sex licenses, and about a half-dozen others in that state have followed suit.



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

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


Facing An All New Constitutional Concept Regarding Grand Juries


Keith, you have asked my thoughts regarding the concept presented at 
http://nationallibertyalliance.org/

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

http://nationallibertyalliance.org/ 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
http://nationallibertyalliance.org/ 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
VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org





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 <VictoryUSA@JAIL4Judges.org>
To: Herbap@aol.com
Cc: HENRY NICOLLE +++ <Henry@Sheriffhenry.com>
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, Herbap@aol.com wrote:
Ron:
 
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!         
 

[Victims of Court Corruption] Asserting Our Authority Is A Simple Process!

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, you have just defined JAIL4Judges. Exercise of the Initiative Process is precisely what I advocate, and am desirous to see happen in America when the People wake up, and by popular demand, employ.  Art. II, Sec. 1, which you quote, says "All political power is inherent in the People. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require." The answer is indeed simple, but no one employs it. Here we have the most important remedy does not involve blood, but all I am hearing is alternatives that logically concludes bloodshed. Where are the People? So, when do we start, Arnie?

Ron Branson





On 9/14/2013 8:08 PM, Arnie wrote:


Ron,

Physical aggression is not the only option left to us.  Asserting our authority is a simple process.  One simply must do it with sufficient numbers as to safeguard being singled out for intimidation or coercion. 

Arnie Rosner

One of




On Sep 14, 2013, at 7:54 PM, Ron Branson <VictoryUSA@JAIL4Judges.org> wrote:

Arnie, taking physical aggressive action by use of force is only a viable option only after the peaceable method has proven itself to be useless. The People have willfully failed to take the peaceable method as yet.

God has called me to proclaim the peaceable method which He has moved upon my heart to write. You cite to Art. II, Sec. 1 of the California Constitution, but have failed to even put if in practice. What good are rights, power, or authority if we do not use it? So long as the People chose to reject God's method, and depart from it for alternatives, we are doomed to our own ways and methods.

Even should other methods work, the People must still have to establish the J.A.I.L. method thereafter. The People ignorantly believe that bloodshed and the loss of their wives, children and loved ones is a cheaper method than reaching into their pockets and placing J.A.I.L. on the ballot and going to the polls and supporting it. If I were to change channels, I would be manifesting that even I did not believe God's way.

Ron



On 9/14/2013 7:28 PM, Arnie wrote:
So then you are admitting the reason you do not tell the truth regarding such serious matters is your fear of retaliation?

[Victims of Court Corruption] * * * California Legislature Banning Ammunition * * *

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


Alert: California poised to ban lead ammo with help from the Humane Society of the United States

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/11/alert-california-poised-to-ban-lead-ammo-with-help-from-the-humane-society-of-the-united-states/#ixzz2ehrOKzOy

By Larry Keane, National Shooting Sports Foundation

The recent opinion piece in the San Diego Union Tribune, “Lead poisoning a threat to wildlife” by the head of a national animal rights organization was the latest ploy in a propaganda campaign forged by those seeking to end hunting and fishing in the United States. In this piece, Wayne Pacelle of the anti-hunting Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) conveniently omits several key concerns with Assembly Bill 711 a bill to ban traditional lead ammunition that passed the California State Senate in a 27-15 vote on Monday. That bill now goes to the desk of Gov. Jerry Brown.

This onerous legislation has united a coalition of hunting organizations, labor unions, manufacturers and taxpayer advocates in opposition. Can anyone seriously believe the HSUS will find hunting acceptable if hunters are forced to use alternative non-lead ammunition? What is AB 711 about really?

As the voice of America’s firearms and ammunition, hunting and sporting industry, the National Shooting Sports Foundation supports the right of hunters to choose alternative ammunition, and manufacturers offer such products in response to consumer demand. Currently, alternative metal ammunition only accounts for just 1 percent of the ammunition market.

Alternative ammunition made with brass can be classified as armor piercing ammunition that is illegal to make, sell or possess unless the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) grants special permission. As HSUS knows, ATF refuses to grant manufacturers the needed waivers to produce and provide alternative ammunition. This is one key reason why every major hunting organization in California and nationwide understand that an enacted AB 711 would amount to ban on hunting.

Proponents misleadingly claim alternative hunting ammunition will be readily available. Even leaving aside the ATF issue, the fact is that alternative supplies will not be widely available to meet the needs of hunters in California if AB 711 becomes law. What will be available is substantially more expensive than traditional ammunition.

World commodity prices for alternative metals are very high and, when coupled with supply restrictions, will drive the consumer price up to 190% above traditional ammunition, and thereby effectively price many hunters out of the woods. California’s hunting license revenue will correspondingly plummet, a concern articulated by the California Department of Finance in its analysis of AB 711.

If signed by the governor, this bill will also cost California millions in lost revenue including federal wildlife conservation funding. Since 1937, the sale of ammunition and firearms used by hunters, sport shooters, and gun owners has been subject to an 11% federal Pittman-Robertson excise tax that is the primary source of wildlife conservation (both game and non-game) funding in the United States.

In 2012, California received more than $12 million in Pittman Robertson funds, ranking it one of the top five state beneficiaries. AB 711′s de facto hunting ban will drastically reduce California’s share of Pittman Robertson funds and critical revenues from hunting license sales as hunters are driven out of the woods or hunt in other states. The very ammunition the bill’s proponents demonize is what pays for wildlife and habitat conservation.

AB 711 proponents point approvingly to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife regulation restricting the use of lead shot for waterfowl hunting. But the USFWS regulation is based on scientific concerns of a specific wildlife population impact. Managing wildlife populations is the touchstone of wildlife management. California’s hunters know AB 711 is not based on sound science of an adverse population impact. Instead, it is designed to advance its supporters’ anti-hunting agenda. Wildlife management decisions should be made by the professionals in the fish and game agencies based on science, not the HSUS’s animal “rights” politics.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/11/alert-california-poised-to-ban-lead-ammo-with-help-from-the-humane-society-of-the-united-states/#ixzz2exjs1Xqg

*   *   *

For those with wise discernment to ascertain the future, AB 711 is not about preserving wildlife, but about politicians dieing of lead poisoning and over-oxidation as the wind whistles through their bodies when the wind blows. But seldom do politicians come straight forward with truth!  

Ron Branson
VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org