Saturday, September 21, 2013

[Victims of Court Corruption] "I am advocating the people execute their superior authority and do what is necessary" - Arnie Rosner

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
tel;home:http://ronbranson.us
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


"I Am Advocating The People Execute Their Superior
Authority And Do What Is Necessary"


Let's see, Arnie, when you say "I am advocating the people execute their superior authority and do what is necessary to enforce our rights," you are talking about People doing something like Occupy L.A. when they overtook the land around L.A. City Haul when the cops gathered around them and forcing them to disband, and in which some were arrested?

Or, maybe you are referring to the many who were placed on trial in the Federal Courts by the U.S. Attorney contending that the offenders did not support the IRS with their wealth?

Arnie, I have been at this since 1979, and have witnessed so many patriots being put away for executing their superior authority to do what is necessary. Let's see now, from 1979 until 2013 is 34 years, and what do we see as a result today of the people doing "something to execute their superior authority and do what is necessary to enforce their rights?"

I saw what was going on throughout those 34 years and took a different course than all the patriots. First, I saw that going after ABC Government Agencies was futile, and that the heart of the matter rested with the judiciary. Then, I saw that what the judges were relying upon was their judicially created doctrine of judicial immunity.

I woke up to the realization that the sole was that the People must curtail judicial immunity. No other subject had any real meaning in light thereof. So I turned to the question of how do this. And so, it was in 1995 that JAIL4Judges was born, albeit, by the name of J.R.A (Judicial Reform Act).


Most People had no perception of what I was proposing through J.A.I.L., and so the patriots continued in their search to do "something" to "execute their superior authority and do what is necessary to enforce their rights." Eighteen years have lapsed since this presentation of an all new constitutional relation appeared on the scene, and I am at least thankful that I am seeing more and more spoken of concerning Grand Juries as a possible answer to "execute their superior authority and do what is necessary to enforce their rights."


The next stage I am seeking for the patriots to exercise is the power within the People's Initiative Process as set forth in Art. II, Sec. I of the California Constitution, and also other State's Constitutions, which sets forth after the order, "All political power resides in the People. The People have the Power to alter or amend their government through the People's Initiative Process."

But the People have not touched upon this constitutional power within their grasp, but instead want to continue with the processes that go back to what existed 34 years + ago, and landed many of their leaders into incarceration. Some recent examples are Irwin Schiff, Commander Walter Fitzpatrick, Randy Due, and thousands of others who "continued in their search to do "something" to "execute their superior authority and do what is necessary to enforce their  rights."


Gee, what I propose endangers the People of tripping on the curb outside their polling place and skinning their knees in order to enter and cast their vote for People Power as identified in the People's Initiative Process. Skinned knees, what a price to pay for national freedom. Instead, we must
"execute our superior authority and do what is necessary to enforce our rights."

What I have proposed merely calls upon the patriots to reach down in the pockets and pony-up the finance to place JAIL4Judges on any state's ballot, and convince the People that they need to quit letting government deceive them that government is the answer, and that we the People just need to vote for some Savior that is going to lead us to the Promised Land through Change, thus giving us HOPE.

Ron Branson





On 9/21/2013 12:29 AM, Arnie wrote:
Ron,

The current tyranny has been imposed through no lawful process.  I am advocating the people execute their superior authority and do what is necessary to enforce our rights as per the founding documents.

Another option may exist at the following link.  


Contact the author…you may find a very clever solution unfolding.
NewPeopleOrder@gmail.com



Arnie Rosner

One of




On Sep 20, 2013, at 8:32 PM, Ron Branson <VictoryUSA@JAIL4Judges.org> wrote:



So, Arnie, what you are proposing is taking away the Constitutional process of the Initiative Process, Art. II, Sec. I, and doing it without such Peoples Initiative.

Ron



On 9/20/2013 1:45 AM, Arnie wrote:
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.



[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






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