[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Activism See other Activism Articles Title: The Judiciary Under Attack as Never Before By Ron Branson - National J.A.I.L. CIC April 6, 2007 "The former justice [Sandra Day O'Connor] also said she is hearing more criticisms about the judiciary than any other time in her lifetime." As a result of bringing Judicial Accountability to the ballot last year, 2006, in the State of South Dakota, former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has traveled the country taking every opportunity she can to condemn and castigate JAIL4Judges as a great concern to her. Her theme is, and has been, that J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) undermines the independence of the judiciary. As a result, her ravings have appeared in various news publications around the country, including the Wall Street Journal, as well as on CNN TV, who contacted this author and asked if I would be available to appear at their television studios to provide the opposing view to Justice O'Connor. I accepted their offer and went on national TV opposite her. What Justice O'Connor fails to understand is that J.A.I.L. does not affect in any way the independence of the judiciary. I should know, obviously, since I am the author of the initiative who made very sure of that from the very first day the Lord moved upon my heart in 1995 to write it. I placed into this all-important Initiative the judicial independence wording, "...no petition of misconduct shall be considered by the Special Grand Jury unless the petitioner shall have first attempted to exhaust all judicial remedies available in this State within the immediately preceding six-month period." ¶ 11, South Dakota J.A.I.L. Amendment. That phrase is a crown jewel of the J.A.I.L. Initiative that makes it stand apart from all other judicial legislation going all the way back to our Founding Fathers who were seeking some means of instituting judicial accountability without interfering with the decision-making powers of the judiciary. Ultimately, our Founding Fathers instituted two means in our Constitution to curb judges: the impeachment process, and the ability to define limits upon their jurisdiction. They wrote, "In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." Art. III, Sec. 2. That phrase was very important to them, but nonetheless, Thomas Jefferson was still not satisfied. He expressed his objections this manner, "...the Federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing it's noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction..." The beautiful thing about J.A.I.L. is that the Special Grand Jury within it has no jurisdiction to act in any way, or interfere with the jurisdiction of the courts until after the courts have completely and entirely finished making every and all decisions they are going to make, and there is nothing more that can or may be decided. J.A.I.L. is exactly what Thomas Jefferson needed and would have ordered if he had known of the J.A.I.L. option. J.A.I.L. might be described as a television camera recording the events of an Olympic event, and only after the race is finished could the television recording be viewed for determining the legitimate winner. By any stretch of the imagination, could it be argued that the camera interfered with outcome of the event? But this is precisely what former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is implying. Horse races are commonly recorded. In the history of horse racing, has it ever been argued that any horse lost the race because the event was recorded, or that the recording interfered with the independence of the horse race? Only after all of the judges and justices in a case have finished making their rulings, and jurisdiction has been exhausted, can a petitioner petition the Special Grand Jury to consider claimed offences that constitute deliberate violations of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material allegations, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of the State or United States. (¶2) Do we not establish laws for the obedience of those subject to them? Does not every judge swear by an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof? Does not the Good Book say, "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged." Matt. 7:2. As I have pointed out, even our Founding Fathers instituted certain constraints upon the judiciary. Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is propagating false and misleading charges against JAIL4Judges in seeking to undermine the obvious need for Judicial Accountability in this country. But people are gradually waking up. Yes, she is right about one thing: the judiciary is under attack as never before in her lifetime, nonetheless, we have but only begun. The subject of Judicial Accountability shall grow and grow and grow until it dominates every other political issue, and takes center stage. This is what frightens Sandra Day O'Connor and the judiciary of this country so much. - Ron Branson
Poster Comment: With no justice to avail ourselves in the court sytem, we have descended into anarchy; a system where the usurpers who call themselves "police" are free to claim anything and are not held to account by a corrupt and complicit judiciary. The time has come to call our insolent and disobedient public servants to account for their criminal activity. We need more rope!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: BTP Holdings (#0)
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|
||