JAILORS - Judges and Illegal Lawyers Obtrusively Righteous Sanctimonious And the answer is Constitution Rule of Law forced

PI Public Inquiry www.Tree13.com http://50.6.94.198/about7.html http://50.6.94.198/about8.html http://50.6.94.198/about9.html Equal Justice BS Bar to Bar an Epiphany Richard Fine Example

Necessary Revisions to Branson's J.A.I.L. Special Grand Jury Amendment

Ron Branson of JAIL4Judges promotes the J.A.I.L. amendment to the state constitutions. It establishes the special grand jury (SGJ) to which citizens complain. It holds government officers accountable for their malfeasance by indicting and prosecuting them. Ron explains in his comments below that "the people" have to enforce Special Grand Jury edicts, especially when Sheriffs refuse to do it. And for that reason the people must maintain their ability to use sufficient force to accomplish that over the Sheriff's objection.. In my earlier comments I complained that America's typical grand jurors are "dumbasses" who have no business sitting on any deliberative body. I alleged this because of their general ignorance of the ideals of good government, and the increasing inability to think straight, and decreasing sense of morality and ethics. I have pointed out in the past the irresponsible people should not have a say in government, in the early days of American government they didn't, and now even children, indigents, addicts, welfare recipients, and in some cases illegal aliens can vote. Voters can sit on juries. That seems more than a little scary to me because they put in power the government crooks over whom they would sit in judgment on a special grand jury. Ron has objected to my view. He asserted that he wants all kinds of people from all walks of life on the SGJ. I write to address the suppurating crack in Ron's idea about the people forcing the sheriff to do his job, or doing it for him. The Sheriff, an elected official, rose to office at the demand of the voters, the very SAME voters who populate the SGJ. If those voters did a bad job electing a sheriff, why would anybody of good sense think they would do a better job on the SGJ, particularly when going after a crooked judge whom the sheriff has the sworn legal duty to protect? I wrote a report and petition for redress in 2006 and 2007 entitled Loyalty Oaths in Florida. While doing preliminary research I asked Florida deputy sheriffs on numerous occasions whether they would arrest a judge they saw commit a criminal act or violate the constitutional oath while on the bench. They all told me unequivocally: NO. Many reminded me "I WORK for the judge" as though to claim the judge employed them as personal body guards. In reality, the state Constitution authorizes judges and Sheriffs and their deputies as "conservators of the peace." Generally sheriffs openly carry lethal weapons, but judges don't. But a "good old boys" network has evolved since 1820's in Florida Territory wherein judges operate somewhat like Mafia capos, and sheriffs operate like mob enforcers. I consider it highly implausible that the SGJ could expect sheriffs to arrest rogue judges. Sheriffs know the judicial oligarchy will destroy their career before the dust settles. Now, I have given the reader two glaring trouble spots in Ron Branson's SGJ brainchild.

1. Voters who become Jurors under present selection methods are dumbasses who elected the very crooks they should investigate, excise from government, and punish. They will do an equally bad job at both tasks because they lack the necessary qualities of knowledge, character, and intelligence. 2. Sheriffs will not reliably execute the will of the SGJ because they believe they work for the judges whom the SGJ will excise. These and other practical issues might explain why 89.2% of the South Dakota voters defeated the J.A.I.L. amendment in 2006. Predictably, few if any sheriffs, judges, and media outlets supported it. Readers cannot escape a single stark reality about the problems necessitating a SGJ: We The People of the States and America include a huge subset of visitors, residents, and Citizens who simply DO NOT have the qualities necessary for participating in prudent, honest, lawful government. Their participation in government infects it with a virus or malaise that ultimately corrupts its function until it becomes populated mostly with criminals and parasites. THAT constitutes the current state of the populace and of US and State governments. Americans stand almost universally ignorant of the ideals of good government. The best evidence of this fact: the Republican and Democrat parties presented as candidates a socialist-roots businessman and closet socialist (Romney, his father George a Yellow Dog Democrat who once ran for President) and a Muslim-roots Communist (Obama, not even a natural-born US citizen). And the reprobate electorate chose Obama. No possible way could such an electorate provide worthy SGJ jurors.

Qualifications for SGJ Jury Duty

Citizens should consider SGJ jury duty their highest honor, above all others of public service. SGJ jurors should have qualifications that exceed those of normal electors and normal jurors. Intelligence - the most fundamental requirement is the proven cognitive skill to think rationally, process information methodically, evaluate relative importances, and make prudent decisions. Determination - the discipline to execute arduous projects Interpersonal Skill - the ability to interact, compete, and cooperate with other skilled, intelligent people. Responsibility - financial self-sufficiency and ability to manage personal affairs to good effect Morality - history of moral behavior Participation in government - registered to vote, has actually voted in elections Knowledge - 4-year college degree or equivalent in personal achievement Maturity - at least 25 years of age Lawfulness - no felony history, or history of abuse of others, or excessive arrests Special Grand Jury Training - must have passed course in constitution, ideals of good government, principles of the courts and other branches of government, rules of procedure and evidence, information accretion and analysis, and investigative systems. Freedom from Prejudice and Wrong Influence - People with a grievance against a judge, prosecutor, or bailiff should file complaints to the SGJ and become witnesses in the proceedings. But they should not serve on the SGJ because they have a good reason to hate any or all of them as a class of people, and their prejudice will cloud their sense of justice. SGJ jurors should not have government or political party employment because such employment can prejudice them. They also cannot have bar membership because of the strong possibility of influence by other bar members.

Compensation
2

SGJ Jurors should receive compensation equivalent to double the national average income for bachelor degree holders, or the average judge's compensation in their state. Their personal affairs should not become a ship wreck because of jury duty which might last many months.

Fourth Branch
A fourth branch of government, the Advise and Inform branch, should become the surpervisional and management entity for the SGJ. It has to operate independently of all other branches. Its leadership should consist of retired executives, all of whom have qualified as SGJ jurors. Those leaders should ensure that all applicants, nominees, and candidates for government employment have properly qualified for office before application. They should inform both government and the populace about qualification credentials, and any inadvisability for employment or advisability of excision from office. And they should act to excise those who violate loyalty oaths and other qualification requirements. The Fourth Branch, with the SJG, must receive funding as the highest priority from the treasury, beyond the control of the other branches. After all the SGJ has the main function of investigating allegations of malfeasance and developing associated information. If necessary, it should have the authority to levy its own tax on city, county, state, and federal governments.

Court Watchers
The Fourth Branch should recruit and train volunteer court watchers, generally students, retired, and other people to become professional-quality observers of court proceedings and other public hearings such as City Council, County Commissions, Legislative deliberations, and foreign policy meetings. Court Watchers should have electronic devices for recording and transmitting their impressions of behaviors of deliberators and officers in the proceedings. Transmissions should go to an internet database of such information where software will collate, tabulate, and analyze it and provide the Fourth Branch with reports that indicate the Liberty Threat Index of the government employees under observation. The Fourth Branch should issue public alerts and calls for information submissions from people injured by malfeasance of those with a high Liberty Threat Index.

SGJ Management
The SGJ needs a management superstructure comprised of superlative people of considerable life experience who would qualify as SGJ jurors. The People cannot trust normal law enforcers, conservators of the peace, or courts to serve in the SGJ or its management operation because the SGJ exists to discover the malfeasance of such government officers and hold them accountable for it. SGJ Management will need to employ SGJ Marshals, men and women who qualify for SGJ jury duty, but who have additional qualifications that make them suitable for apprehending, protecting, and incarcerating public officials accused of malfeasance. SGJ Management will need to employ administrators to do the following: 1. Establish and staff the training courses for SGJ applicants; 2. Manage the promotional activities that encourage smart people nationwide to take those courses as part of the high school, college, and law school curricula; 3. Provide and cordon off SGJ deliberation rooms in government buildings; 4. Conduct the lottery that selects jurors; 5. empanel, orient, and provide necessary assistance for grand jurors, including employment of associated special investigators and legal experts;

6. Operate the computers that maintain investigation records; 7. Make information discovered in the investigations available to inquiring public freely via internet and a library of printed reports.

Conclusion
While I consider Ron's work admirable, I also consider it incomplete and somewhat ill-conceived or shortsighted. I have provided the foregoing comments as suggestions anyone may use to revise and reform the SGJ amendment so that it might stand a better chance of acceptance without being labeled as a glorified judge witch hunt. Bob Hurt

On 11/18/2012 07:50 AM, Atta Helman wrote: ----- Original Message ----From: Ron Branson To: corpushasoverthrowngov ; VictoryUSA@JAIL4Judges.org Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 8:19 PM Subject: Counting The Cost To Stand For Freedom

Counting The Cost To Stand For Freedom

By Ron Branson

Dear Brian Cregger: I wish to thank you for delving into an important issue within J.A.I.L., i.e., its enforcement. You suggest that an enforcement order should come from the Special Grand Jury itself. If you mean an official enforcement body such as the Special Grand Jury has their own Special Prosecutors, and their own Legal Counsel, as well as their own clerical staff. Then you are exploring a new concept within J.A.I.L. worthy of further discussion. So let us explore your proposal. Essentially you are suggesting an Official Enforcement Body be established to carry out the Orders of the Special Grand Jury, instead of allowing the common People to arm themselves and enter a court buildings to conduct the enforcement of the Orders of the Special Grand Jury. The J.A.I.L. concept as originally written had in mind that it would be the Sheriff of the County who was the enforcement body. I was challenged by the Militia of Bakersfield on this very point. They felt that leaving enforcement in the hands of the Sheriff made enforcement subject to the political manipulations. That is, suppose the Sheriff refuses to carry out his duty in enforcing the power of the People which is vested within the Special Grand Jury. I found the Militia's
4

objection sound. I was made to see that my original enforcement measures (i.e, Sheriff's Deputies) created a loop back around to the very political system of which we were trying to get away from. I was asking the Bailiff, who is a Sheriff's Deputy, to arrest the very judge of the court in which he is assigned by the Sheriff to protect. Even if another Sheriff's Deputy, not a Bailiff, walked into the Courtroom to enforce the Order of the Special Grand Jury, we would have a Sheriff's Deputy verses a Sheriff's Deputy, each facing off with one another with a conflicted purpose. So, let us consider a body outside of the Sheriff's Office. Shall we empower a formal Army to enter the court and ask the Sheriff Deputies to Stand Down? Even if we did this, how are we going to support this Army hired on the payroll of the Special Grand Jury? Common sense dictates that the answer to this dilemma is to turn over enforcement of the Order to the common People as is clearly described and authorized by the Declaration of Independence. Whenever the Special Grand Jury issues an Order, such Order should permit the Sheriff, in the first instance, the power of enforcement. But should the Sheriff choose not to enforce such Order, the carrying out of the Order then falls to the People. This is precisely what we now have existing within the J.A.I.L. provision. So now, Brian, let us increase this force issue to the max. Suppose the Sheriff chooses not to enforce the Order of the Special Grand Jury against the judge, but to call out his forces to resist those who will carry out the Order of the Special Grand Jury. In this case, the Sheriff Deputies lie in wait, armed to protect the wayward judge. The People, in this instant, enforcing the Orders of the Special Grand Jury, have complete and total immunity as though Ambassadors, inasmuch as they are carrying out the law. In this instance, we have the People clothed with immunity carrying guns verses the Sheriff's Deputies also carrying guns. This is not a pretty scenario that we wish to see, but the People must be prepared should government show intent to go to war with the People. In such case, like a war, some on both sides will get hurt, but none of the People can be held liable, if this is what it takes to enforce the law. All power has to ultimately reside within the People, and J.A.I.L. makes this point very clear. Essentially, bureaucrats are in this to preserve their jobs. But the People are in this to preserve their survival. Bureaucrats preserving their jobs must learn that no amount of effort to preserve their jobs is worth giving up their life for. Many, if not most law enforcement, will throw their badges to the floor before they will give up their their lives and leave their wives a widow, and their children fatherless. They
5

will not count it a worthy exchange for them to give up "their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor" for bureaucratic politics. Ron Branson
-------- Original Message --------

Technically it seems to me the enforcement order must come from the special Grand Jury itself. It is the Jury that is immune and from this immunity umbrellas agents of enforcement the Jury assigns in the enforcement order. This may very well be something that needs to be addressed explicitly in your amendment. In the old days it was essentially an organically spawned posse that sought to bring organic justice to those who voluntarily stepped outside the law by not appearing in court to face the accuser; aka the outlaws. This lost history of the nature of common law courts and justice gets to the very heart of the whole issue we face. Historically protection of law aka courts and law enforcement was voluntary because voluntary participation is the only way it can be lawful otherwise it would be forcing someone to accept protection of law which is extortion because someone is forcing someone else into some form of contract they may not wish to be a part of. So if you can't force protection of law or force them to come to a court and abide by common laws of do no harm then how can you implement justice? It is easy and this is what they used to do, the court is there as forum for non-violent dispute resolution with common sense rule for finding and evaluating facts. The court was put there and maintained only by people who sought protections of law. Anyone could chose to live outside the law and still have all of their natural rights but if they did they would explicitly be giving up the protections of law. There was only 2 types of common law evaluated by Courts and Juries Breach of Peace and Breach of Duty. All disputes and crimes were directly linked to these two contexts of action. The accuser is the man or woman or plurality thereof who would initiate the powers of justice or just powers aka the common law court by presenting a valid cause of action to a magistrate. If the jury determined a valid cause of action then the accused would be summoned to the court by the jury. Here is the relevant voluntary point of the whole thing and the organic posse is possibly spawned; if the accused did not answer the summons, then the jury could only assume the accused had voluntarily chosen to live outside the law. At that point various scenarios played themselves out; publicity of the outlaw was the most common but for really heinous criminals that had the evidence heard of the accuser about the heinous crimes of the accused the jury might recommend a posse or the posse would form spontaneously to go hunt down and kill the
6

outlaw. In fact, because the accused chose not to have the protections of law, anyone could simply go shoot and kill them even in the middle of the public, because it was proven that the man or woman chose not to have the protections of law. The flip side of this was that people were aware of this fact and just like today, you had your ninnies, gimmes, slimmies, the leave me the hell alone crowds, and everyone constantly battling for every different direction all at once, but most were aware of the fact that the protections of law was voluntary due to the absolute requirement of consent, otherwise it would be tyranny. Of course, fast forward to today, and we can see clearly the slimmies learned how to use the fear of the ninnies to build giant bureaucracies for the gimmes to gain more power, so that they could steal from the prosperous leave me the hell alone crowd that was busy making a hard earned honest living in prosperity. All the time we forgot how the whole enforcement law itself came from. This is how our courts are supposed to work, but don't. They are supposed be simply waiting for the full liability accuser to take action against those who claim harm. You should address enforcement explicitly Brian Cregger corpushasoverthrowngov@gmail.com

--

Bob Hurt P.O. Box 14712 Clearwater, FL 33766-4712 (727) 669-5511 Phone App Visit My Home Page Email Me Visit My Blog reads tag Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary (Buy Now) Stay informed with Lawmen E-letter (Subscribe Free Now) Donate to my Law Scholarship Fund.

www.Tree13.com