JAIL4Judges founder debates former Justice O'Connor on TV
Ron Branson, founder and head of JAIL4Judges, reported in a broadcast email,
A campus news article reported,
.
No, Sandra, the only way to improve the public's views of our corrupt court system is to reform it, not whitewash it.
The above campus news article is open to comments.
Good for Ron Branson! Ron is really working hard to make things better for the little guy in our court system. In contrast, some lousy finks who post comments on my blog here -- e.g., Kevin Vicklund, Bill Carter, Bob Serranos, Voice in the Wilderness, and Anonymous -- are opposed to making things better for the little guy in our court system. They were very approving, for example, of Judge TJ "Mad" Hatter's dismissal of my suit against the grossly unconstitutional California smog impact fee without stating an opinion (and there was no oral hearing), though I made a very strong argument which defendant California did not even attempt to answer. To a sensible judge, the failure of a defendant to submit a rebuttal brief would have been a red flag. The courts have said that the general right to judicial review of a government action is a strong one and whenever that right is challenged in court, any benefit of a doubt (there was not even a doubt in my case) must be granted to the plaintiff.
Because of the efforts of people like Branson, the main Los Angeles County Courthouse now has a special office to assist pro se (self-represented) litigants. There was no such office when I sued in this courthouse. I made a very costly mistake when no staffer in the superior court informed me that because my suit was for less than $25,000 (it was actually $0), I should sue in the municipal court instead of the superior court (the staffers knew that I was suing for $0 because I told them that I was having difficulty in filling out a superior court form which required a dollar damages claim). Telling me this fact would not have been giving me legal advice, which court staffers are not allowed to do -- it would have just been telling me a fact. The municipal court clerk's office had a posted sign stating this fact but the superior court clerk's office did not! Even a highly experienced out-of-town or out-of-state attorney unfamiliar with the local rules could have made the same mistake. Not only were the court fees in the municipal court much cheaper, but my mistake affected my appeals rights, too -- a municipal court case can be appealed to the superior court, which is far cheaper and easier than appealing to a state appeals court as required for superior court cases.
How many times have you wanted to file a lawsuit -- particularly against the government -- but were discouraged from doing so because of sky-high attorney fees and a court system that is extremely hostile to pro se litigants? Professional jealousy often prevents judges from ruling in favor of pro se litigants even when the pro se litigants present winning arguments, as I did in my lawsuit against the California smog impact fee.
I met Ron Branson about 10 years ago at a protest demonstration outside a branch office of the 9th Circuit federal court of appeals in Pasadena, Calif.. Thanks for hanging in there, Ron.
To suscribe to JAIL4judges, just click on the word "subscribe" under the heading on the website. Alternatively, place the word Subscribe
in the subject line of an email addressed to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org.
.
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.
A campus news article reported,
.
Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the best way to teach young people about the civics and the importance of the judiciary is through modern media, such as interactive Web sites and computers. The comments came during a brief speech at an SMU conference about judicial independence and accountability . . . .
. . . .O'Connor said she is in the middle of creating a Web site that will teach children of all grades about the judiciary and its importance to American life. The site could be used in classrooms across the nation, she said . . .
. . . The former justice also said she is hearing more criticisms about the judiciary than any other time in her lifetime.
She mentioned recent elections in South Dakota and Colorado that challenged the independence of judges in the state.
No, Sandra, the only way to improve the public's views of our corrupt court system is to reform it, not whitewash it.
The above campus news article is open to comments.
Good for Ron Branson! Ron is really working hard to make things better for the little guy in our court system. In contrast, some lousy finks who post comments on my blog here -- e.g., Kevin Vicklund, Bill Carter, Bob Serranos, Voice in the Wilderness, and Anonymous -- are opposed to making things better for the little guy in our court system. They were very approving, for example, of Judge TJ "Mad" Hatter's dismissal of my suit against the grossly unconstitutional California smog impact fee without stating an opinion (and there was no oral hearing), though I made a very strong argument which defendant California did not even attempt to answer. To a sensible judge, the failure of a defendant to submit a rebuttal brief would have been a red flag. The courts have said that the general right to judicial review of a government action is a strong one and whenever that right is challenged in court, any benefit of a doubt (there was not even a doubt in my case) must be granted to the plaintiff.
Because of the efforts of people like Branson, the main Los Angeles County Courthouse now has a special office to assist pro se (self-represented) litigants. There was no such office when I sued in this courthouse. I made a very costly mistake when no staffer in the superior court informed me that because my suit was for less than $25,000 (it was actually $0), I should sue in the municipal court instead of the superior court (the staffers knew that I was suing for $0 because I told them that I was having difficulty in filling out a superior court form which required a dollar damages claim). Telling me this fact would not have been giving me legal advice, which court staffers are not allowed to do -- it would have just been telling me a fact. The municipal court clerk's office had a posted sign stating this fact but the superior court clerk's office did not! Even a highly experienced out-of-town or out-of-state attorney unfamiliar with the local rules could have made the same mistake. Not only were the court fees in the municipal court much cheaper, but my mistake affected my appeals rights, too -- a municipal court case can be appealed to the superior court, which is far cheaper and easier than appealing to a state appeals court as required for superior court cases.
How many times have you wanted to file a lawsuit -- particularly against the government -- but were discouraged from doing so because of sky-high attorney fees and a court system that is extremely hostile to pro se litigants? Professional jealousy often prevents judges from ruling in favor of pro se litigants even when the pro se litigants present winning arguments, as I did in my lawsuit against the California smog impact fee.
I met Ron Branson about 10 years ago at a protest demonstration outside a branch office of the 9th Circuit federal court of appeals in Pasadena, Calif.. Thanks for hanging in there, Ron.
To suscribe to JAIL4judges, just click on the word "subscribe" under the heading on the website. Alternatively, place the word Subscribe
in the subject line of an email addressed to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org.
.
Labels: Judicial independence
posted by Larry Fafarman | 4/14/2007 07:47:00 AM
3 Comments:
I wish to thank you, Larry, on behalf of National JAIL4Judges for your promotional of our national effort on your blog. God bless you.
-Ron Branson
VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
www.JAIL4Judges.org
CORRECTION: J.A.I.L. is not for "the little guy." J.A.I.L. is for justice and obedience to law, no matter how much money you have in your pocket. Everyone but the lawbreakers benefits from J.A.I.L. Everyone. Rich, poor, government employees, private citizens, all races, both genders, all political persuasions. The law is blind, remember?
Mark Yannone
yannone.blogspot.com
Why Americans Have No Rights
By Mike Farris
If one can ignore the incessant propaganda that bombards us from what passes as "news" on TV, movies, and even music, one might ponder why Americans no longer have Rights over themselves, their children, and their property.
In the pre-socialist days prior to 1935, the Common Law based upon justice, reason, and common sense was the Law of the land. Since the Common Law is a prerogative of sovereigns, the servant government had no lawful authority to enact nor prosecute Common Law offenses. Many judges agreed that the Common Law was too harsh for a democracy. And they were right because Americans were promised a Republic form of government wherein the People (not citizens) were the sovereigns. Since property and sovereignty are inseparable, only those who absolutely owned property could rely upon the promises in the organic documents that instituted America's governments at the Federal, State, and Local levels. In the original instrument, the Declaration of Independence, it was clearly stated that governments were instituted among men to do two things: help secure property rights, and govern by consent.
What are property rights? The absolute right to own ourselves, our labor, the fruits of our labor, and that for which we choose to trade our labor. Private property is defined as land, houses, and chattels (property other than real estate). Real estate is not private property. If two or more persons have a claim it ceases to be private property and devolves to estate. Estate is held with qualified ownership. It's no surprise to me that State constitutions only list "real and personal property" as subject to taxation and regulation. Private property is sacred, and exempt.
Before the politicians (poly from the Greek, meaning many; and tic, an ugly bloodsucking parasite) sold out America, a sovereign who owned private property was the supreme authority and absolute monarch over his domain. An example of the absolute power to decide and act (sovereignty) was the landlord's right to defend his property from trespass with deadly force. If capital punishment without benefit of trial isn't evidence of individual sovereignty, I don't know what else will suffice.
To retain the status of private property, only ONE individual can own said property, therefore, coverture was essential. Coverture was the transfer of the wife's property to her husband for the duration of the marriage. This made the man the sole authority over the property insuring that servant government had to respect the family's property rights in all things. There were very few problems as long as men loved their wives and treated them as equal partners.
Historical revisionists would lead one to believe that men "owned" their wives and children, not unlike slaves, and that it was a bad thing (as if collective ownership by "Big Brother" is superior). If one will recall, though men had the rights of ownership, they also had the sole duty of support and defense of their family. As the saying goes, "women and children first" into the lifeboat. Men were obligated to lay down their lives, if necessary, in defense of their family. Was it a burden that women and children had to obey the man of the family in exchange for his lifelong obligation to them? I don't think so. Even the Law recognized that only the man could be held legally liable for failure to support his family. A wife who was forced by circumstances to "work outside the home" was tantamount to giving notice that the man was either unable, or worse, in violation of the Law, unwilling to support his family. At the very least, it was an insult to the manhood of the husband.
All this changed with the institution of national socialism in 1935. Known as the Social Security Act, or Federal Insurance Contribution Act (F.I.C.A.), this treacherous enactment was the final nail in the Grand Old Republic's coffin. The ground work had been laid in 1913, giving control of America's money to a privately held loan shark operation known as the Federal Reserve; and in 1916, the creation of the Fed's collection agency, the Internal Revenue Service. It took the Fed less than 25 years to totally bankrupt America. The wealthiest nation in the history of the world was brought to her knees by the "Great Depression", and had desperate Americans demanding that the government "do something", which lead to the destruction of individual property rights. For the truth about the Federal Reserve (which is no more "Federal" than Federal Express), read FOURTH REICH OF THE RICH by Des Griffin and SECRETS OF THE TEMPLE: HOW THE FEDERAL RESERVE RUNS THE COUNTRY by William Greider.
Unknown to the gullible participants, enrollment into "Social Security" (I call it socialist insecurity), had dire effects. First, it changed their status as Free men to paupers eligible for charity from the public treasury. Second, it eliminated their private property Rights to own, and thus have a domicile, in exchange for a residence. Third, it obligated them to pay the claims made upon the bankrupted United States of America (upper and lower case spelling), replaced by a bankruptcy trustee, the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (all capital letters, a legal deception), and made the federal debt into their "national debt". Fourth, it made it legally impossible to object to the worthless federal reserve notes. Fifth, it was prima facie evidence that a national socialist security number made them wards of the government and status criminals without the former protections accorded Free Inhabitants. Sixth, it made men (and women) subject to, and object of, administrative bureaucracy without constitutional restrictions. Seventh, it made them co-signers on all the loans the politicians borrow (present tense) from the Federal Reserve.
When Americans were reduced to bleating paupers, hands out for a share of their "entitlements", the government could rightly ignore the centuries of Law based upon securing private property rights, and shift to policy based on voluntary consent. Without Common Law rights, the Common Law evaporated from public awareness (with a little help from public schools). In its place the strict rules and regulations of "civil law" have become the standard, Instead of natural and personal liberty, those birthrights of free Americans, we now have civil and political liberty as permitted by our master government. Contrary to popular belief, "Civil Liberty" is not freedom, but license (permission). Who needs permission (license) to own a dog, marry, build a house, travel public roads, carry a gun, and so on? Not a Free Man. Who needs to pay a tax for the privilege to live, work, or hold property? Not a Free Man!
Since 1935, Americans have surrendered their Republic form of government, guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4 of the constitution for the united States of America, and the promise to the Free Inhabitants of the Land from Article IV of the Articles of Confederation, in exchange for the mob rule of democracy. If you think democracy is something fine and good, you have been brainwashed, programmed, and indoctrinated with ANTI-AMERICAN propaganda. If you think it's good that American lives and property are being used to make the world safe for democracy, your ancestors are spinning in their graves in outrage. Patrick Henry would spit on you. George Washington would turn his head from you. Ben Franklin would kick you in the arse.
All Law is for the protection of life and property. All else is mere policy, and policy requires fully informed consent. And though involuntary servitude was outlawed, there is no restriction on voluntary servitude, howbeit by fraud and deceit. Why do Americans keep re-electing the same politicians year after year? None of them ever honor their oath of office to defend and protect the constitution, and restore the Republic.
In answer to the question why Americans have no rights, national socialism is to blame. However, our continued consent to national socialism is the mechanism that has locked the chains of tyranny upon us. He who consents can't complain... can't bite the hand that feeds you... beggars can't be choosers... you get the idea.
Get more information here: www.tenurecorrupts.com
Mike Farris is a husband, father, and grandfather. Originally from Texas, he married a sweet Georgia girl and now makes his home in the metro Atlanta area.
When Mike was a student at Lubbock High School he was a feature writer on the WESTERNER school newspaper. After high school he joined the U.S. Marine Corps, serving with the 3rd Marine Division in Okinawa and MAG-36 (Marine Air Group) in California.
Mike likes to write articles that inform and inspire. For questions about anything in this article, contact him at: mlf1070@yahoo.com
Post a Comment
<< Home