Ladies and Gentlemen, J.A.I.L. is NOT an option; J.A.I.L. is NOT one of many. J.A.I.L. IS unique!  You've heard Mr. Branson say "J.A.I.L. is the ONLY answer" --because it IS!  --not because he wrote it, but because it is the ONLY means offered by which the people can take  rightful control of their government. By holding judges accountable to the people under constitutional scrutiny, all of government tyranny will be affected because it's the judges, at all levels, that have the final say on how government will conduct itself.

 

How many times have you heard people say "I'm going to take it to court," when faced with an unsolvable dispute, thinking that it will be solved in court? More often than not, it's like going to the hospital with a broken finger, and being carted out after "treatment" in a full body cast, discovering that the "cure" is worse than the original injury.

 

This is especially true when a pro se (or in pro per) plaintiff, usually of modest means (unable to "buy" justice), sues a government entity for alleged wrongdoing. There's NO CONTEST! The government comes in with a demurrer, the judge grants it, and dismisses the case at the outset. Or, if it gets past the demurrer stage, the government files a motion for summary judgement, the judge grants it, and dismisses the case a little further down the line-- but certainly before any trial.

 

We've had a case where the judge sua sponte dismissed our case (federal) BEFORE IT WAS SERVED on the defendants-- before court jurisdiction was even established. Yes-- the defendants were other judges, and seven days after the complaint was filed, before service was ever made, it was summarily dismissed. The dismissal effectively chased us home through the U.S. mail. The upper courts affirmed dismissal of the action (even though court jurisdiction was never invoked) and review denied, yet in both instances retaining the three-figure filing fees.

 

On appeal, the U.S. Attorney's office came in with an appellees' brief, even though no appellees ever appeared in the case. As far as we knew, the U.S. Attorney's office was never legally apprised of the case-- only the court was aware of the matter. So WHO informed the USA's office? The answer is obvious-- the court (judicial personnel) was the only entity that could have instigated notification to the USA, either directly or through notifying the would-be defendant judges, who in turn notified their would-be counsel (the U.S. Attorney). Despite there being a total lack of all jurisdiction for the USA to participate, the Ninth Circuit nevertheless accepted their brief and ruled on it as if it were legitimate; and the U.S.S.C. denied certiorari. Our judicial "remedy" all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, amounted to their collecting the handsome filing fees.

 

That's just one absurdity. I state it here for those who have never been victimized by the judicial system, to show just how far courts will go in violation of law, with absolute impunity using the judge-made shield of "judicial immunity" beyond its intended purpose. The judge (Manuel Real)who arbitrarily dismissed the case before service of process was made, was likewise covered by judicial immunity, without comment, when he was sued. If Judge Real was justified in summarily dismissing the case prior to service on defendants, then why did the U.S. Attorney's office file a so-called appellees' brief, representing non-existent appellees?  (Rhetorical question-- the SGJ (J.A.I.L.) will have to deal with it when the time comes.)

 

The "oath issue" has come on fire all around the country. The U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Sec.3 mandates that all government officials, both state and federal, "shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution."  In compliance with that requirement, the California Constitution sets forth the oath of office, the first line of which states: "I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; ...." (Art.XX, Sec.3)

 

Judges are lawfully charged with the responsibility of obeying the terms of the Constitution(s) upon taking office, and the people have a reasonable expectation that judges will adhere to that fiducial responsibility while acting in a judicial capacity. This is not to discount the fact that in some cases, such as the oath, the "form" is also the "substance."

 

Judges are bound by the Constitution. (Article VI, clause 2). The Constitution was created on behalf of the people, for their protection and well-being. (See Preamble). Therefore, judges are bound to protect the people's interests by the Constitution. What if judges act against the people's interests in defiance of the Constitution?  When that happens as a matter of systemic policy, pattern, and practice, does that not make the judiciary an Enemy of the people?  And how can judges fulfill an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, when by practice they are a domestic enemy?  By common experience and observation of judicial practice in this country, and the tragic results thereof, the people must conclude that the judiciary is Domestic Enemy Number One!

 

That conclusion is borne out by the fact that the judiciary has systematically refused to provide for redress of grievances in our courts. That is why there is no meaningful redress at any other level of government-- the judiciary ultimately allows that omission to prevail when people seek judicial relief therefrom. No one knows that better than Bob Schulz of We The People ([email protected]) and thousands of members of that organization working so hard to get redress through the  current judicial system.

 

Another one who knows that very well is John Wolfgram, a Constitutionalist, ([email protected]) who wrote a law review article titled "How the Judiciary Stole the Right of Petition" which was the subject of a J.A.I.L. News Journal a few months ago-- many of you have seen it. If not, see the J4J library on our website. Plus, we get literally hundreds of emails attesting to this sad state of affairs-- no redress in our courts! It's at epidemic proportions across this country.

 

The right to petition the government for redress of grievances, protected by the First Amendment, and by which all judges are bound, carries with it the concomitant right of having such petition (i.e., notice) heard and acted upon by government-- i.e., the basic right of notice and hearing which impels the right to Due Process of Law. "The touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government." Dent v. West Virginia (1889) 129 U.S. 114, 123; Parratt v. Taylor (1981) 451 U.S. 527, 549; Daniels v. Williams (1986) 474 U.S. 327, 331. Isn't that the purpose of the Constitution generally --to protect the individual against arbitrary action of government?

 

With all of the above laid as a foundation, you can see that we have a serious problem in this country, unlike any other problem. It is THE PROBLEM of all problems-- a judiciary unaccountable to the people by the Constitution. Stated another way, the lack of a means of enforcement of the Constitution by the people. That, my friends, is THE PROBLEM that begets all other problems.

 

This lack of enforcement is a fatal omission in the Constitution. Too much trust was placed in the judiciary as the sole source of power to ultimately judge in constitutional matters. The conflict of interest should have been obvious when framing the Constitution. While it provides that judges shall be bound by the Constitution, what authority would see to it that judges obey that written command? Since the Constitution was designed to protect the rights of the people, it necessarily follows that it is the people that would have such authority. It is the interests of the people that must be upheld and enforced by the Constitution. There in fact is NO "overriding governmental interest" so commonly asserted by the judiciary as an excuse for "overriding" the Constitution and their responsibility thereunder.  Only the people can enforce the Constitution, and it must be done before the Domestic Enemy destroys the people completely.

 

J.A.I.L. is founded on three sources of law:  (1) The Declaration of Independence; (2) Article II, Sec. 1 of the California Constitution; and (3) The U.S. Constitution. No. 2 provides: "All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require."  That establishes in writing the true relationship between the people and government. Several other states have a similar provision. Of course, a constitutional provision doesn't create the right. It exists even in states that do not set it forth in writing. As stated above, it is an inherent power. It is an unalienable right, regardless of a constitutional provision.

 

The Declaration of Independence is even more forthcoming regarding this inherent right of the people. It provides in pertinent part: "... That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed [i.e., the people], that whenever any form of government [such as the judiciary] becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness. ..."

 

And the portion that is most compelling provides:  "... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. ..." [emphasis added].  Yes, folks-- it is not only our right-- it is our DUTY to throw off a despotic, usurping, abusive, and destructive judicial system, and provide an independent, non-government, autonomous body made up of the people that will make judges account to them for their actions when they deliberately and willfully disregard constitutional law, so that judges will be held to answer at trial for their alleged violations in order to protect our future security. That's the only way the people can hope to restore honesty and integrity to our judicial system-- the fulcrum of our Constitutional Republic.  We must pass J.A.I.L. in this country-- it is our duty to do so!

---