The Short-Coming Of J.A.I.L
(By Manny Machado, Jr)
----- Original Message -----
From: Manny Machado, Jr
To: Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 1:59 PM Subject: May Need Another Approach

I have viewed your sites (Florida and California) and find the intent
being admirable and truly necessary. However, your goal... even if
successful, will come to a shocking revelation. The U.S. Congress in 1996 amended the Civil Rights Acts (42 USC Sec. 1983 and 42 USC Sec. 1988) to extend immunity to judicial officials. There are some minimal exceptions that essentially mean total immunity for judicial officials.

With these laws in place, your enactment of a state constitutional
amendment would be voided under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S.
Constitution as long as the accused were acting in their judicial
capacity.   I have attached an article or informational writing which shows the extent of judicial misconduct in Connecticut. However... I have found
like actions in a great number of other, states given the same subject

It is my belief that your tact should include a move, by petition, to
rescind the existing federal laws protecting judicial officials. This
would give judicial validity to your current course of action, but beware,
it will be an uphill battle. One that should perhaps contain a class
action suit to address the validity of the federal amendments. Does
Congress have the authority under the Constitution to place any citizen
above the law???

I would appreciate your comments.
  Ron Branson's Response:   Dear Manny:   Thank you for your input re the J.A.I.L. plan of action. As you know, according to the U.S. Constitution, state's rights are superior to that of federal mandates. (See the 10th Amendment).   Further, amendments by Congress to Title 42, Sec. 1983 cannot grant strength to an act that ultimately violates the rights guaranteed to all citizens by the Constitution. For instance, how can Congress constitutionally place redress of grievance against judges out of the reach of the people when they are guaranteed that right by the First Amendment of the Constitution, to wit, the right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances?" Are we to conclude that the federal judiciary is therefore not one of the Branches of government?   "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution ... are reserved to the ... people."   Can anyone establish from the Constitution that the people delegated to the United States the powers to make any part of itself immune from the people?   I'm from Missouri. Show me!  I have just reread Article III of the U.S. Constitution, and I find nothing that hints of the authority of Congress to grant to federal judges judicial immunity. Where's even the hint of such a thing?   Even common sense tells you that judges, state or federal, cannot be beyond the reach of the people by judicial immunity. If Congress passed a law saying the U.S. Constitution is hereby suspended, would the Constitution thereby be suspended? Authority, please!  Redress is more than a right protected by the U.S. Constitution, but an inalienable right granted by God. Can Congress, or the Federal Courts, suspend God out of the question? Can they suspend gravity while they are at it? Command the sun that it shine not? or the waves of the sea to be calm?   -Ron Branson

Back to JNJ 2004

South Dakota Vote Fraud
FTC Comments on the Definition of the Practice of Law

Responses to Articles and Shows

Join J.A.I.L.
Donate To J.A.I.L.
Buy A J.A.I.L. T-Shirt & Bumper Sticker
State and Federal Sites
Black Collar Crime
J.A.I.L. News Journal
Judicial Horror Stories
Branson's Legal Briefs
National J.A.I.L. Contacts and Groups
Animated Introduction
Spread The Word
J.A.I.L. Constitution & By Laws
Mission Statement
J.A.I.L. Cannot Give Legal Advice
Website Comments
Current Events
Links Of Common Interest
Yahoo Group