A VERY nice summary below. Very nicely stated!
I know from experience though that when confronting employers with this,
that they will IMMEDIATELY call the IRS agent and for some, their own
attorneys. All Levy notices conveniently plaster the IRS agent phone
number on the form EXPECTING employers to call them where they can get
them to literally do ANYTHING they ask. 
Yes, even though you remind employers that courts rule the IRS is not
responsible for advice and YES even though you remind them that the IRS
is under the Dept of Treasury and the Dept of Treasury is executive and
that branch does not make or interpret law. They ignore and call them
anyway. [That is what SHEEPEOPLE do--i.e. call their enslaver's with the
pretty badge and ridiculously ask, 'does this mean someone is free?"
Seriously, what answer WOULD they expect?]
 The attorneys will advise "it is an interesting interpretation and maybe
has legal merit worth pursuing for your employee.....but frankly, do what
the IRS tells you too." And the IRS will tell the employer that "The
employee took the law section out of context." Further, they tell the
employer that the law section was made brief and certain sections WEREN'T
 included on the back of the levy notice specifically for that purpose:
i.e. that it would CONFUSE by indicating to the employer/employee that
the levy notice applied only to govt. employees. i.e. that a reading of
that plain English is not how the IRS interprets that section of law. 
Been there and DONE that. Incredible isn't it?

in·stru·men·tal·i·ty (nstr-mn-tl-t)
n. pl. in·stru·men·tal·i·ties
1. The state or quality of being instrumental.
2. A means; an agency.
3. A subsidiary branch, as of a government, by means of which functions or
policies are carried out.

26 USC § 3308 - Instrumentalities of the United States

Notwithstanding any other provision of law (whether enacted before or after the
enactment of this section) which grants to any instrumentality of the United
States an exemption from taxation, such instrumentality shall not be exempt from
the tax imposed by section 3301 unless such other provision of law grants a
specific exemption, by reference to section 3301 (or the corresponding section
of prior law), from the tax imposed by such section.

Title 42 Chapter 7 Social Security does not have the force and effect of law
(see 5USC553 (b), (c) and (d)). Benefits are exempted, which Social Security is,
under 5USC553 (a)(2).

Chrysler v Brown states that the 301 (26CFR301.6331) regulations are strictly
for government. Enforcement is by substantive regulations. The 301 regulations
are not substantive.

--- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, paraclete45@... wrote:
>
> Hello tips,
>
>   IRS code section 6331 also applies to "instrumentalities of the United
States."
> An instrumentality could include, but not be limited by, anything that is
created by an instrument, bound by an instrument, or obligated on the face of an
instrument.
> Title 28 USC section 3002(15) defines the United States.
> Because your Social Security Card is an instrument, and you are obligated on
it and by it, then it follows that Title 26 section 6331 applies to you.
> The remedy is not to go into a state of denial, but to exercise "rescission of
contract" and "release of powers of appointment," which effectively divorce you
from 26 USC 6331.  To remain divorced, one may never, EVER, use that SSN again
for any reason that may involve receiving any sort of government benefit.
>
> May you be richly blessed!
> Bernie
>  Paraclete45                          mailto:paraclete45@...
> Phones from the USA:
> cell phone:  011-507-6590-5441
> BlackBerry:  011-507-6426-6845
> land line:  011-507-771-4948
>

* Stalwart:

You wrote:  "Title 42 Chapter 7 Social Security does not have the force and
effect of law."

In effect, you have written "The U.S. law is not the law."  The only reason for
the existence of the United States Code is to break down the statutes passed by
Congress into organized titles, subtitles, chapters, etc. for ease of reference.
The code does not contain anything (other than chapter headings and cross
references, etc.) that are NOT law.

The regulations are, of course, different as you have pointed out.  Only those
substantive regulations issued by secretaries or other agency heads (with the
authorization of Congress in the law itself) have the force and effect of law.  
Other regulations are administrative or interpretive and do not have the force
and effect of law.   Some judges refuse to make that proper distinction.
*

Hi Ron

 

 

Thanks for responding

 

 

How do I get in touch with the organizations, and why is the price so high. I thought about 1 million would needed to be raise.

 

 

Rashid

 

From: Ron Branson [mailto:VictoryUSA@...]
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 4:04 PM
To: rashidemail@...
Subject: Re: initiative

The last I checked, I was given a price of 2.1 million dollars for the complete service to get an State Constitutional Amendment on the California ballot. There are approximately four competitive organization here in CA. willing to accept a contract agreement with you.

Ron Branson
www.jail4judges.org

Where is Sandra Day O’Connor When You Need Her?

April 4, 2012

For years, the scolds that define the “merit” selection campaign have taken to the soapbox to decry “politics” in the courtroom.  So earlier this week when President Obama launched a “pre-emptive strike,” as Politico put it, and “inject[ed] a high-level dose of politics” into the U.S. Supreme Court’s deliberations over the fate of the Obama health care law, you’d expect Sandra Day O’Connor and the Soros-machine to be cranking out condemnations, right?  After all, what could be a greater threat to judicial independence than having the Supreme Court threatened before a ruling has even been issued by the most powerful man in the world? 

Instead, radio silence. 

In fact, some “merit” selection cheerleaders joined in the unprecedented attack on the Supreme Court.  As usual, the New York Times set the bar for hysteria, warning Chief Justice Roberts that a decision to strike down Obamacare would be equivalent to the Court “declaring itself virtually unfettered by the law” and hyperventilating that no court has shown itself “less restrained in signaling its willingness to replace law made by Congress with law made by justices.”  With her characteristic charm and wit, Times columnist Maureen Dowd dismissed the Roberts’ Court as a bunch of “hacks dressed up in black robes.” Roberts himself is labeled a “crimson partisan”; Justice Scalia is branded as “venomous”; Justice Alito mocked as “insufferable”; and Justice Thomas accused of having “lied his way onto the court.” 

But wait a minute.  Isn’t this the same paper that applauded the Iowa’s Supreme Court decision to “replace law made by Congress [in this case, the Iowa legislature] with law made by justices” when it overturned the state’s defense of marriage act?  Didn’t the Gray Lady admonish Iowa voters just weeks before election day that exercising their constitutional right not to retain three of those justices would amount to “a chilling message to  judges beyond Iowa’s borders to beware of rendering opinions that some voter blocks might dislike”? 

For her part, former Justice O’Connor rushed to the defense of the Iowa Supremes, stumping on their behalf in a failed attempt to prevent them from being unceremoniously dumped by the state’s voters.  But if she roused herself to defend the integrity of her former colleagues, I haven’t heard about it. 

Of course, it’s her right to sit on the sidelines when the President of the United States and the “paper of record” launch political attacks on the nation’s highest court.  But her deafening silence – along with the rest of the Soros crowd – gives the lie for all time to the nauseatingly self-righteous pretense that “merit” selection has anything to do with keeping “politics” out of the courtroom.

Posted by Dan Pero

“Where is Sandra Day O’Connor When You Need Her?”

1. Ron Branson  April 6th, 2012 5:49 pm

   My, my, my, so do we now have an exposure of Sandra Day O’Connor within this article? It was this Sandra who came out blasting the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law on the ballot of South Dakota back in 2006 when she stated that this would disrupt Judicial Independence in America. She gained worldwide media attention on this within the Wall Street Journal.

   Her story was even picked up by CNN in which CNN inquired if I would be willing to come on the air to present the opposing view to her espousal of her doctrine of Judicial Independence. She denigrated Judicial Accountability with the words, “They even call it JAIL4Judges.”

   So, Sandra, where is your voice now that the issue of Judicial Independence is front and center within the news? Were we not disputing this issue together in 2006? Have you now changed your mind and come to see the error of your ways?

   Ron Branson

What fault do you find with the holdings of the courts as cited below? 

The problem of We the People lies in the lack of power to force prosecutors to charge judges and prosecutors with crimes.

I believe courts have held that law enforcers have no particularly duty to prevent a person from injuring or committing a crime against another.  In other words, law enforcers get qualified immunity for their failure to behave as a Good Samaritan would respecting crime.  I naturally dissent with this.  Government exists primarily to prevent injustice, and law enforcers constitute the front line of that prevention.

That applies with respect to crimes by government employees, particularly crimes against We the People.

And yet when the very government employees We the People rely upon for prevention of injustice COMMIT the injustice, does not the citizen have the right to bring this fact to the grand jury, or to conduct the prosecution without the assistance of an official prosecutor?

Clearly America needs new state and federal constitutional provisions redefining the nature of grand jury investigation, providing a formal method free of government interference for the public to bring evidence of crimes to the attention of the grand jury, and a method of forcing prosecutors to show cause why they shouldn’t suffer a penalty for failing to prosecute a crime, particularly one by government employees.

The Sibley case is a clear example.  Deceiving We the People about credentials for the presidency ought to constitute a crime, and certainly a grand jury ought to get involved and investigate when widespread rumor and publicly known evidence suggests that the President is not a natural born citizen.  Running for office while knowing one cannot prove credentials constitutes a form of making false statements to Government under 18 USC 1001.  The DOJ should have prosecuted Obama for this before he took office.

1. Definitions. To avoid absurd results, words shall be given their plain, ordinary and literal meanings; and where appropriate, the singular shall include the plural and vice-versa. For purposes of this Amendment, the following terms shall mean:

1. Judge: A judicial officer hearing and adjudicating legal actions and proceedings within the judicial branch of government (to include arbitrator, mediator, or a private judge, any of whom is assigned by a court to hear involuntary proceedings). This definition shall not be construed to mean trial juror, prosecutor, or any administrative official.
2. Material allegations: Statements essential to the claim or defense presented in a pleading filed in court.
3. Blocking: Any unlawful act that impedes the lawful conclusion of a case, to include unreasonable delay and willful rendering of an unlawful or void judgment or order.
4. Corporate litigant: A party holding a corporate charter, as distinguished from a business license.
5. Juror: A Special Grand Juror.
6. Strike: An adverse immunity decision or a criminal conviction against a judge.

2. Exclusions of immunity. Notwithstanding common law or any other provision to the contrary, no immunities shielding a judge from frivolous and harassing actions shall be construed to extend to any deliberate violation 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 California or the United States. The foregoing judicial misconduct shall not be construed to mean court decisions made within the authorized capacity of a judge.

3. Special Grand Juries. For the purpose of returning power to the People and ensuring the integrity of the judiciary, there are hereby created within this State three twenty-five member Special Grand Juries with statewide jurisdiction having inherent power to judge both law and fact. This body shall exist independent of statutes governing county Grand Juries. Their responsibility shall be limited to determining, based on the evidence shown on the record, whether any civil lawsuit against a judge would be frivolous or harassing, or fall within the exclusions of immunity as set forth in paragraph 2, or whether there is probable cause of criminal conduct by the judge against whom a petition/complaint is brought before the Special Grand Jury.

4. Professional Counsel. Each Special Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to retain non-governmental advisors, special prosecutors, and investigators, as needed, who shall serve no longer than one year, and thereafter shall be ineligible to serve; except a special prosecutor may be retained to prosecute to conclusion ongoing cases through all appeals and any complaints to the Special Grand Jury. Each Special Grand Jury may hire clerical staff, as needed, without time limitation.

5. Establishment of Special Grand Jury Facilities. Within ninety days following the passage of this Amendment, the Legislature shall provide a suitable facility for each Special Grand Jury. Each facility shall be reasonably placed proportionately according to population throughout the State, but no facility shall be located within a mile of any judicial body.

6. Annual Funding. The Legislature shall cause to be deducted two and nine-tenths percent from the gross judicial salaries of all judges, which amount shall be deposited regularly into an exclusive trust account created by this Amendment in paragraph 10 for its operational expenses, together with filing fees under paragraph 7, surcharges under paragraph 8, forfeited benefits of disciplined judges under paragraph 18, and fines, if any, imposed by sentencing under paragraph 16.

7. Filing Fees. Attorneys representing a party filing a civil petition or response before the Special Grand Jury shall, at the time of filing, pay a fee equal to the filing fee due in a civil appeal to the State Supreme Court. Individuals filing a civil petition or response on their own behalf before the Special Grand Jury as a matter of right shall, at the time of filing, post a fee of fifty dollars, or file a declaration, which shall remain confidential, stating that they are impoverished and unable to pay and/or object to such fee, pursuant to First Amendment right of redress.

8. Surcharges. Should this Amendment lack sufficient funding through its fines, fees, and forfeitures (including deductions in paragraph 6), the Legislature shall impose appropriate surcharges upon the civil court filing fees of corporate litigants as necessary to supplement the funding of this Amendment so as not to be chargeable to the public.

9. Compensation of Jurors. Each Juror shall receive a salary commensurate to that of a Superior Court judge, prorated according to the number of days actually served by the Juror.

10. Annual Budget. The Special Grand Juries shall have an annual operational budget commensurate to double the combined salaries of the seventy-five Jurors serving full time, which sum shall be initially deposited by the Legislature into an exclusive trust account to be annually administered by the State Treasurer. Should the trust balance, within any budget year, drop to less than an amount equivalent to the annual gross salaries of fifty Superior Court judges, the State Treasurer shall so notify the Legislature which shall replenish the account, prorated based on the actual average expenditures during the budget year. Should the trust balance in any subsequent year exceed the annual operational budget at the beginning of a new budget year, the State Treasurer shall transfer such excess to the state treasury. Except for the initial year, no expenses in paragraphs 6, 7, 9 and 10 of this Amendment shall be chargeable to the public.

11. Jurisdiction. Each Special Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to appoint a foreperson, establish rules assuring their attendance, to provide internal discipline, and to remove any of its members on grounds of misconduct. The Special Grand Jury shall immediately assign a docket number to each petition/complaint brought before it, unless such case is transferred to another Special Grand Jury to achieve caseload balance. A transfer shall not prejudice a docketing deadline. The Special Grand Jury first docketing a complaint shall have sole jurisdiction of the case. Except as provided in paragraphs 17 and 22, no petition of misconduct shall be considered by any 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. (Such six-month period, however, shall not commence in petitions of prior fraud or blocking of a lawful conclusion until after the date the Special Grand Juries become functional. This provision applies remedially and retroactively.) Should the petitioner opt to proceed to the United States Supreme Court, such six-month period shall commence upon the disposition by that Court.

12. Qualifications of Jurors. A Juror shall have attained to the age of thirty years, and have been nine years a citizen of the United States, and have been an inhabitant of California for two years immediately prior to having his/her name drawn. Those not eligible for Special Grand Jury service shall include elected and appointed officials, members of the State Bar, judges (active or retired), judicial, prosecutorial and law enforcement personnel, without other exclusion except previous adjudication of mental incapacity, imprisonment, or parole from a conviction of a felonious act.

13. Selection of Jurors. The Jurors shall serve without compulsion and their names shall be publicly drawn at random by the Secretary of State from the list of registered voters and any citizen submitting his/her name to the Secretary of State for such drawing. The initial Special Grand Juries shall be established within thirty days after the fulfillment of the requirements of paragraph 5.

14. Service of Jurors. Excluding the establishment of the initial Special Grand Juries, each Juror shall serve one year. No Juror shall serve more than once. On the first day of each month, two Jurors shall be rotated off each Special Grand Jury and two new Jurors seated, except in January it shall be three. Vacancies shall be filled on the first of the following month in addition to the Jurors regularly rotated, and the Juror drawn to fill a vacancy shall complete only the remainder of the term of the Juror replaced.

15. Procedures. The Special Grand Jury shall serve a copy of the filed petition upon the subject judge and notice to the petitioner of such service. The judge shall have twenty days to serve and file a response. The petitioner shall have fifteen days to reply to the judge's response. (Upon timely request, the Special Grand Jury may provide for extensions of time upon the showing of good cause.) In criminal matters, the Special Grand Jury shall have power to subpoena witnesses, documents, and other tangible evidence, and to examine witnesses under oath. Each Special Grand Jury shall determine the causes properly before it with their reasoned findings in writing within one hundred twenty calendar days, serving on all parties their determination as to whether or not immunity shall apply as a defense to any civil action that may thereafter be pursued against the judge. A rehearing may be requested of the Special Grand Jury within fifteen days with service upon the opposition. Fifteen days shall be allowed to reply thereto. Thereafter, the Special Grand Jury shall render final determination in writing within thirty days. All allegations in the petition shall be liberally construed. The Jurors shall keep in mind, in making their determinations, that they are entrusted by the People of this State with the duty of restoring judicial accountability and the perception of justice. The standard of authority by which the Jurors shall be guided in making their determinations shall not be opinions of courts, but shall be the Constitutions of California and of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof. The Jurors shall avoid all influence by judicial and government entities. The statute of limitations on any civil suit brought pursuant to this Amendment against a judge shall not commence until a final determination by the Special Grand Jury. Special Grand Jury files shall always remain public record following their final determination. A majority of thirteen Jurors shall determine any matter.

16. Indictment. Should the Special Grand Jury also find probable cause of criminal conduct on the part of any judge against whom a petition is docketed, it shall have the power to indict such judge. The Special Grand Jury shall, without voir dire beyond personal impartiality, relationship, or lack of fluency in English, cause to be impaneled twelve special trial jurors, plus alternates, which trial jurors shall be instructed that they have power to judge both law and fact. The Special Grand Jury shall also select a non-governmental special prosecutor and a judge with no more than four years on the bench from a county other than that of the defendant judge, having jurisdiction solely to maintain a fair and orderly proceeding. The trial jury shall be selected from the same pool of jury candidates as any regular jury. The special prosecutor shall thereafter prosecute the cause to a conclusion, having all the powers of any other prosecutor within this State. Upon conviction, sentencing shall be the province of the special trial jury, and not that of the selected judge. Such term of sentence shall conform to statutory provisions.

17. Criminal Procedures. In addition to any other provisions of this Amendment, a complaint for criminal conduct against a judge may be brought directly to the Special Grand Jury, when all of the following conditions have been met: (1) an affidavit or declaration of criminal conduct has been lodged with the appropriate prosecutorial entity within ninety days of the commission of the alleged crime; (2) the prosecutor declines to prosecute, or one hundred twenty days have passed following the lodging of such affidavit or declaration, and prosecution has not commenced; (3) an indictment, if sought, has not been specifically declined on the merits by a county Grand Jury; and (4) the criminal statute of limitations has not run. Any criminal conviction (including a plea bargain) under any judicial process shall constitute a strike.

18. Removal. Whenever any judge has received three strikes, the judge shall be permanently removed from office, and thereafter shall not serve in any State judicial office. Judicial retirement for such removed judge shall not exceed one-half of the benefits to which such judge would have otherwise been entitled. Retirement shall not avert third-strike penalties.

19. Public Indemnification. No judge against whom a petition/complaint is brought, or sued civilly by a complainant pursuant to this Amendment, shall be defended at public expense or by any elected or appointed public counsel, nor shall any judge be reimbursed from public funds for any losses sustained under this Amendment.

20. Enforcement. No person exercising strict enforcement of the findings of a Special Grand Jury shall be held liable civilly, criminally, or in contempt.

21. Redress. The provisions of this Amendment are in addition to other redress that may exist and are not mutually exclusive.

22. Challenges. No judge under the jurisdiction of the Special Grand Jury, or potentially affected by the outcome of a challenge hereto, shall have any jurisdiction to sit in judgment of such challenge. Such pretended adjudication shall be null and void for all purposes and a complaint for such misconduct may be brought at any time, without charge, before the Special Grand Jury by class action, or by any adversely affected person.

23. Preeminence. Preeminence shall be given to this Amendment in any case of conflicts with statute, case law, common law, or constitutional provision. The foreperson of each Special Grand Jury shall read, or cause to be read, this Amendment to the respective Jurors semi-annually during the first week of business in January and July. Should any part of this Amendment be determined unconstitutional, the remainder shall remain in full force and effect as though no challenge thereto existed.

 

---

From: johnwolfgram@...
To: beholdtheman@...; art2pat35@...
CC: victoryusa@...
Subject: RE: People's Redress of Grievance By Access to Grand Juries Forbidden
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2012 06:50:49 -0700

You know Ron, perhaps it might be more productive to repel the 1960 proposition createing the Commission and specifically returning their job to the grand jury, and then writing a short form of JAIL into that specific return, just with respect to judges.
Wolf
 

---

 
Dear Sharon Rondeau:
 
As perhaps you already know, I am in California. In 1960 the Legislature of California proposed and passed a law creating the Commission on Judicial Qualifications, now called Commission on Judicial Performance. This legislation removed the power of County Grand Juries to investigate judges to the commission created by this legislation. While people were then unaware of the implication thereof, it no longer allowed the People, in the forum of their Grand Juries, to have power over the judges. Instead, the power shifted to this commission, which majority was made up of judges whose job was to judge judges. Eventually, the People woke up to what happened, and placed an Initiative on the California that required a shift from a majority of judges to one less than a majority to judge judges. However, this still did not solve the problem, as the "non-judge" majority was political hacks. For instance, the Chief Justice got to select one member, the Attorney General, who is defense counsel for the judges, got to select one, the governor, who gets to appoint judges to the bench, gets to select one, the California Bar Association, of which all judges must initially be a member of, gets to appoint one member, etc. You get the idea. All the rest of the members must be judges. So much for a non-majority of judges on the CJP.
 
If you are familiar with JAIL4Judges, I have written the Initiative to cure this problem. All that needs be done is get it on the ballot. It's full wording is found on www.jail4judges.org. The establishment knows the power of what they have done in deceiving the People out of their inherient power to oversee the judicial system. I somewhat dealt with this in a recent senario placed in humor, entitled, "The Initiative Process, Why So High?" I am pasting it in below for your education and humor;

 

The Initiative Process, Why So High?

Rashid, you have asked me why the the price for getting a Constitutional
Initiative on the ballot in California is so high. It used to be about $1.2
million, but since the Legislature pretty much captured the entire
Initiative market using our own tax dollars, we find ourselves competing
with our own tax dollars.

Suppose the People among ourselves had the entire Oaks Market competitively
locked up. But then the government entered into the Oats Market by proposing
and collecting an Oat Farmer's Tax. With that Oats Farmer's Tax, they
captured 2/3rds of the Oat Market Industry. What would be the effect? All
Oat Farmers would have to raise the prices on their Oats to over twice what
it used to be.

I have pointed out that for government to use the People's  exclusive
constitutionally protected Initiative Process, is not only unfair, but very
unconstitutional. Art. II, Sec. 1 of the California Constitution, which is

the Initiative Provision, states, "All political power is inherent in the
people. ...they have the right to alter or reform [government] when the
public good may require."

So, if ALL political power is inherent in the People, how much is inherent

in government? The Initiative Process is exclusively preserved for the
People to alter or reform their government, not for government to reform the
People. Horses are for horseback riders, not peopleback riders for horses to
ride.

Have you ever noticed that in excess of 2/3rds of all Initiatives placed on
the ballot are placed there by our government, using our tax dollars,
seeking to reform us? Where do they get this power? Certainly not from the

Initiative Process.

If 2/3rds of the Initiatives are placed on the ballot by our own tax
dollars, we, the other 1/3rd remaining, are competing with ourselves in the
other 2/3rds market, running the price tag to over twice what passing an
Initiative would otherwise cost the People.

If you think about it, all powers in the hands of the People, have been
taken over by government. The Constitution recognizes our right to keep and
bear arms. Government says, "Yes, but we will dictate to you how many, when,
and where you can exercise that right. And by the way, you must surrender
all the information we ask, so we may keep track of how you exercise that
right."

Grand Juries are the Power of the People against an arbitrary government.
But who manages the Grand Jury? Sorry to say, but the People have
surrendered the power of the Grand Jury to the government. The judges select
the Grand Jurors. The Prosecution advises the Grand Jury, and the
legislators have mandated that Grand Jurors are precluded from investigating
judges. Instead, the powers of the People in the Grand Jury, has been
transferred to judicial commissions under the influence and authority of
judges.

We recognized our own power in creating the Initiative Process within our
Constitution so we can alter and reform our government for our benefit. But,
then we have allowed the government to sweet talk us out of that exclusive

power to allow them to take over our Initiative Process, and drive the
prices up so that we, the People, can no longer afford the Initiative
Process to initiative change. In other words, we, the People, willingly are
financing a government of the government, by the government, and for the
government, and if we, the People, do not approve, we, the People, must have
the government's permission, to alter that.

We have allowed the horses to convince us that we must carry them on our
backs to wherever they want us to go. The People are their own worst enemy,
as Pogo once stated, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

Now, as to your question, where can you find the professional Initiative
companies? I suggest you do a search engine on the Internet for California

Initiative Signature Gatherers.

Ron Branson

P.S. - Monkeys are not a smart as men, as evidenced by the fact that People
have learned how to blow their brains out. Monkeys are not so smart, as they
have not yet attained unto this intelligence as yet.

So, to answer your question, "Have you found an instance in which a citizen with a complaint

has been able to access one without a prosecutor as a gatekeeper?" The answer is "No!"

However, not to contridict my answer above, I did get in before the Los Angeles County Grand
 
Jury back in 1981 because I had the distinguished prevelidge of have a secant other who worked
 
for the Los Angeles County Prosecutor's Office as the Head Secretary in one of their Offices,
 
and got to know some of the Chief Prosecutors that ran the operations thereof. In other words,
 
I had an inside advantage with open access to the D.A.'s Office.
 
The government knows that they must guard their absolute control over the judicial system, or
 
their system will collapse. This is why JAIL4Judges is such a feared proposal to them of which
 
must absolutely see gets defeated. Hopefully, what I have stated answers your concern.
 
If I may say, without sounding like I am bragging, I am one of the most informed individuals
 
in this country regarding the inside workings of the judicial system, now having brought cases
 
up to the Supreme Court fifteen times, and personally knowing one of the judges on the Ninth
 
Circuit who have twice disqualified himself because of my personal knowledge and relationship,
 
having sat at his desk and educating him of the foundational American principles of our Founding
 
Fathers.
 
Ron Branson

---

---

From: beholdtheman@...
To: victoryusa@...
Subject:
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 23:15:02 -0700

 
 
D.O.J's argument opposing Montgomery Sibly Blair's contention that
citizens should have direct access to the Federal Grand Jury
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
 
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00001 (JDB)
 
Third Argument
 
 

III. The remaining counts of Plaintiff’s complaint fail to describe a cognizable

deprivation of constitutional rights.

 

1. Plaintiff has no right to communicate directly with a federal grand jury.

Plaintiff is fully aware that his claim of a right to present allegations of wrongdoing

directly to the grand jury is foreclosed by controlling precedent as well as by the laws he

challenges as unconstitutional. See Amend. Compl. at ¶ 34 (observing that “in this Circuit by

judicial fiat, ‘presentments’ have been abolished,” and citing Gaither v. United States, 413 F.2d

1061, 1065 (D.C. Cir. 1969)). To Plaintiff’s citation, Defendants add only that the rule that “an

individual cannot bring accusations before a grand jury unless invited to do so by the prosecutor

or the grand jury,” In re Application of Wood, 833 F.2d 113, 116 (8th Cir. 1987), is well established

in the other judicial circuits as well. See, e.g., In re New Haven Grand Jury, 604 F.

Supp. 453, 460 (D. Conn. 1985) (“[T]he commencement of a federal criminal case by

submission of evidence to a grand jury is ‘an executive function within the exclusive prerogative

of the Attorney General.’”) (citing In re Persico, 522 F.2d 41, 54-55 (2d Cir. 1975); United

States v. Kilpatrick, 16 F. 765, 769, 771 (W.D.N.C. 1883) (“no right to communicate private

information to a grand jury for the purpose of obtaining a presentment”); Confiscation Cases, 74

U.S. 454, 457 (1868) (exclusive control of criminal litigation by appropriate federal officers is
the “settled rule”); Baranoski v. United States Att’y Office, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2240 at *9

(D.N.J. 2006) (“Federal courts have consistently held that private individuals do not maintain a

constitutional, statutory or common law right to communicate with a federal grand jury without

the approval or participation of a prosecutor or judge.”).

 

In rejecting a recent First and Fifth Amendment challenge to the prohibitions on

individual communications with a federal grand jury, the United States District Court for the

District of New Jersey explored the justification for the prohibition, explaining that the grand

jury’s independence:

is designed to "afford a safeguard against oppressive actions of the

prosecutor or court,” not to allow individuals to present to a grand jury

independently of the government prosecutor. Gaither v. United States, 413

F.2d 1061, 1066 (D.C. Cir. 1969). The constitutional role of the grand jury

is to serve as "a check on prosecutorial power, not a substitute for the

prosecutor." In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Special Grand Jury 89-2, 813

F.Supp. 1451, 1462 (D.Colo. 1992)….

 

While the grand jury serves a dual purpose, acting as “both a sword and a

shield of justice - a sword because it is the terror of criminals, [and] a shield

because it is the protection of the innocent against unjust prosecution,” the

grand jury “earned its place in the Bill of Rights by its shield, not by its

sword.” Cox, 342 F.2d. at 186 (Wisdom, J., concurring); see also Brenner &

Lockhart, 2 Fed. Grand Jury: A Guide to Law and Practice, §2.2 (“The

clause [(of the Fifth Amendment)] was intended to preserve a shield against

unwarranted prosecution.”) Under the Fifth Amendment, the grand jury

affords constitutional protections to preserve the rights of the accused. There

is, however, no corresponding constitutional right for individuals to use the

power of a grand jury to levy criminal accusations. See United States v. Cox,

342 F.2d 167, 186 (5th Cir. 1965) (Wisdom, J., concurring) (noting that

when the role of a grand jury "goes beyond inquiry and report and becomes

accusatorial, no aura of traditional or constitutional sanctity surrounds the

grand jury"). Accordingly, the Petitioners cannot claim a constitutional

prerogative that would allow them to independently bring criminal charges

and accusations before a federal grand jury.

In re Appearance of Carl J. Mayer, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 228 (Jan. 4,

2006) (internal citations and quotations simplified).
 
The Mayer court also explained:

Giving individuals direct access to the grand jury and removing the

governmental prosecuting authorities from the process would undermine the

prosecutor's screening authority and almost certainly increase the likelihood

that wrongful indictments would be returned, thereby undermining the very

rights of the accused that the Fifth Amendment seeks to protect.

Id. at n.3 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

 

For these reasons, Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to bring allegations of

wrongdoing before the grand jury.
 
 

Too bad we have not had members of Congress with the strength to put a halt to the usurpation of power taken by the judiciary.   How would you get the judiciary back on track?   I had a recent talk with the senior legislative aide of my Congressman and she said they did not have the power to do more than send my concerns to the Judiciary Committee. 

 

 On one hand the Congressional Oversight Manual, Summary Page, talks about Congress need to make sure laws it enacts are complied with.  On the other hand there is no mechanism for doing so unless a particular committee member wants to investigate allegations of non law compliance.

 

Joe

 

In a message dated 4/13/2012 11:32:27 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, gzerman@... writes:

In England, from which much of our jurisprudence comes from, the judges were referred to the "Lions under the throne", there to protect the King, the Royals, the blue bloods, who divine right could "do not wrong".  

With the whole-cloth invention (no Constitutional authority/basis) by Justice Stephen J. Field of the Doctrine of Absolute Judicial Immunity via his decisions of Randall v. Brigham (1868), 74 U.S. 523 (that excepted corrupt & malicious acts) and Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1872) (which without real  explanation then removed the exception, so the doctrine now included, covered, corrupt & malicious judicial acts), and the subsequest USSC decison of Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (which further expanded the doctrine to cover judicial act of eugenics) - yes, a good argument can be made that the judiciary to some measure became the new aristocracy, or the new Royalty.

See the attachment (paper re The Doctrine of Absolute Judicial Immunty).  GLZ. 

---

From: JOSEPHN126@...
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:58:38 -0400
Subject: Re: [Lawsters:11279] YALE LAW SCHOOL PAPER ON CORRUPTION IN THE COURTS
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com

Years ago I read a portion of a speech in which a Federal Judge said the Federal Judiciary is America's "aristocracy" because they get lifetime appointments and are distinguished by their black robes.  Unfortunately, I lost the speech in a computer melt down.  I believe the Judge was Anderson and was speaking to a Judicial Conference.

 

Joe

 

I

> Josephn, you have asked,  "Too bad we have not had members of Congress
> with the strength to put a halt to the usurpation of power taken by
> the judiciary.   How would you get the judiciary back on track?"  This
> question has been asked over and over by thousands of conscientious
> People all over this nation. The answer is adoption of the Judicial
> Accountability and Integrity Legislation copyrighted at the turn of
> this century, presented to Congress for passage, and filed in the
> Library of Congress. The answer is fully accomplish when the People
> are ready for it, however, the People are just not ready for judicial
> accountability as yet!

Anybody who is ready for it in their own cases can always take that
first step of disqualifying those who are disqualifiable.  Who has tried
that, besides me?  Can a man or woman be disqualified as a judge if they
never qualified as a judge?  Can a president be impeached if there is
only a usurper?  Why do victims who would avoid trouble if they could
fail to stop many troubles by permitting unqualified usurpers to fulfill
roles that need real qualifications to be met as a part of the whole
process?  (Non-Socratic answers: I know a few who have done it locally.
No. No.  The pizza might get cold.)

Us hunters of qualified anermals cain't never find any nowhere!  So sad!

Regards,

FF

" Damages are cumulative, and ongoing " ....Oath, and Bond ...just a few
thoughts on a great job .

--- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Mike <micflah@...> wrote:
>
> So I had a run-in with a fascist...
>
> I tried talking to him... it didn't work. When I got out of jail I wrote
> the attached and called the Prosecutor's Office and told them I was
> filing it. The "officer" responded and said I could not, I had not been
> arraigned. I responded and told her jurisdiction can be challenged at
> any time. She said: "Send it, but you still have to show up at the
> arraignment." I said I was going to but I would like to hear back from
> her office by Friday.
>
>
> No response yet.
> Michael
> �
> Notice & Warning: This email contains proprietary business information, trade
secrets, restricted and valued information intended for the addressees eyes
only. All interceptors, surveillance agents foreign and domestic, enforcement
agencies are hereby prohibited from accessing, possessing, using, selling,
purchasing, storing, retrieving, and transmitting this valuable information as a
product or service for gain. Any monetary profits, benefits or accounting of
this information for gain may be prosecuted as a felony offense and cause of
action. Persons, whistle blowers, informants may be granted an award for
information leading to the successful prosecution of agents committing acts of
infringement.
>

> Anybody who is ready for it in their own cases can always take that
> first step of disqualifying those who are disqualifiable.  Who has
> tried that, besides me?  Can a man or woman be disqualified as a
> judge if they never qualified as a judge?
> Can a president be impeached if there is
> only a usurper?  Why do victims who would avoid trouble if they could
> fail to stop many troubles by permitting unqualified usurpers to
> fulfill roles that need real qualifications to be met as a part
> of the whole process?  (Non-Socratic answers: I know a few who
> have done it locally. No. No.  The pizza might get cold.)
>
> Us hunters of qualified anermals cain't never find any nowhere!  So
> sad!

I got a number of off-list requests to write all about HOW I disqualify
a judge.  I replied that I don't do one-on-ones off list for free.  I
replied that I've said it all here on the list several times, and that
it is all in the archived messages.

Nobody answered the questions I asked above.

So, since there is interest in the topic, and I've already gone over it
and don't want to be repetitive, let's see if I can add anything new.

If you ask HOW I do it, I begin verbally, spontaneously, ASAP.  Seldom
do I get as far as filing a paper over it.  And then, it never goes past
that stage, because they know I WANT it to go past that stage!

What I glean from many responses is that people do not have their own
minds in order about that they are the boss in the situation.  They must
have doubts about their position that their target is disqualifiable.
Otherwise, what might be the problem?

Most people who ask about it have never read what I've posted here, and
never read their own local laws about it.  This year I've disqualified
six people with no paper!  Why would guilty usurpers want to be further
exposed??

If you want to experience rights in a republic, you cannot wait for
others to agree with you.

Someone asked:
>> Hi
>> Can you tell me how you're disqualifying the judges so I can
>> determine what you're doing differently from the posers that say they

>> can but never do? (smile)

When you successfully disqualify somebody, there's seldom a record of
it.  If you are polling "posers" while waiting to formulate your own
response, you won't succeed.  I haven't seen any such posers on this
list.  But what I probably am doing differently than the posers she
encountered is I disqualify all contestants for my credibility.  See, I
KNOW the game is over.  I'm not confused by seeing all the fans running
all over the field after the game, tossing their balls around.

Regards,

FF

The remedy is not to create special grand juries to hear complaints about official misconduct, including judicial misconduct, but to open all grand juries for that, the way they once were.

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in Sibley v. Obama provides a roadmap of what we will need to overcome to get to our destination. The only likely way to do it is by proposing amendments, not just to get them adopted, although that would be best, but to focus demands for reform that might achieve some improvement even without ratification. People need specific proposals they can build a movement around. The Equal Rights Amendment movement largely succeeded without getting their amendment ratified.

-- Jon
----------------------------------------------------------
Constitution Society http://constitution.org
2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322 twitter.com/lex_rex
Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001 jon.roland@...
----------------------------------------------------------

> Rehnquist's Creed:
>
> "If experience demands a presumption that a judge will seize every
> opportunity presented to him in the course of his official conduct to
> line his pockets, no canon of ethics or statute regarding
> disqualification can save our judicial system."
>                                                  -Justice William
> Rehnquist

I don't disqualify them to save any system - I disqualify them to save
myself!

Try it; you'll like it!

Regards,

FF