J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                             May 21, 2005
______________________________________________________
 
J.A.I.L. In Other Countries
by Barbie, National J.A.I.L. victoryusa@jail4judges.org
  It is with great interest that I read some of the email conversations going on with people of other countries regarding the impact and immensity of judicial corruption. The below string is one such instance. John Wilson, the JAILer-In-Chief for Australia, frequently forwards these types of emails to us-- some being more relevant to J.A.I.L. than others. What particularly caught my attention this time is the subject by Mr. Wilson: "Recapturing Our Courts."   In one string (not this one), a Canadian responded to Mr. Wilson who said their system (Australian) is the most corrupt in the world: 
No John, they are not the most corrupt in the world, they are only as corrupt as those in all other countries such as Canada, the U.S. and on and on it goes.  This is a worldwide conspiracy by the New World Order and you are not suffering any more than we in Canada are.  In fact, we have the same rules here...it is called Summary Judgment and it is used on me routinely to prevent me from getting into court as well.
  It's good to see these exchanges, not only between people within a country (other than our own), but between people of different countries discussing and comparing their circumstances regarding judicial corruption. What this proves to me is the veracity of the universality of the Laws of Nature; that regardless of how the various systems of government are constructed or what they are called, the Laws of Nature will dominate, even if those laws are usurped by evil forces driven by an insatiable appetite for increasingly more money and power.   Nature dictates that when mankind are lawfully placed into positions of power, they will naturally lust for more power than they are lawfully given; and unless they are restrained by those giving the power, they will usurp all power of the giver and take over control by counterfeit, unauthorized power. The Laws of Nature are clear that those in positions of power --any power-- must be kept under the control of the original source of that power --not of themselves-- in order to maintain discipline. Common sense tells you that it is literally impossible for the recipient of power to possess more than that possessed by its source.   When unauthorized power is assumed, corruption results. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." It is important to understand that the word "power" used in that slogan refers only to unauthorized and unrestrained power. There is a proper and needful place for authorized power according to the Laws of Nature. (That is so important to understand when reading Romans 13-- it refers only to authorized power, NOT to what we have ruling today!)   We in the United States are fortunate to have as our Founding Document, the Declaration of Independence which is the foundation upon which J.A.I.L. is based. It is imperative that we have such a foundation, based on the Laws of Nature, from which to derive the principles necessary to "Recapture Our Courts."  In our traditional forms of government, the judiciary run the courts. (I've heard that the Common Law courts are run by the People-- while that may be lawfully correct, it is not legally accepted in our system of government. There's no need to get into that issue for purposes of J.A.I.L.)   Therefore, judges are responsible for the decisions they make which affects the way government is run. Ergo, judges must exercise power that is authorized according to the Laws of Nature which can be accomplished only by the restraint of the source of their power, i.e., the People by and through the organic U.S. Constitution in fulfillment of the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence.  J.A.I.L. is the only way that restraint can be implemented.   John Wilson stated The entire focus must be on recapturing our Courts and eradicating the enemy. The focus must be more specific than that-- it must spell out exactly HOW to recapture our courts. J.A.I.L. spells out HOW to do so. Therefore, the focus must be on J.A.I.L.  The enemy, as described above, is unauthorized and unrestrained power. Once J.A.I.L. becomes law, there will no longer be unauthorized and unrestrained power-- therefore the enemy will be eradicated.   John also stated below "there seems no alternative than to do what the American Colonialist did when it happened to them in the 18th century." Today, there IS an alternative-- as long as you have a Constitution, adapt J.A.I.L. to fit your system of law (whether by a People's initiative, or by legislation, or other means) and hold judges accountable to the People under constitutional restraints, such as described under Paragraph (c) of the J.A.I.L. Initiative.  See our website at href="../../index.html">www.jail4judges.org   Eon Radley states below: I assume you would be very aware of the need to be sure the courts serve the people who placed them there, not take over the running of the system. Again, this speaks to authorized power rather than unauthorized power. J.A.I.L. will establish authorized power in government.   We hope to see more discussion about J.A.I.L. from our counterparts in other countries. You can eliminate a lot of headaches by using J.A.I.L. as your starting point. It'll have to be adapted in form to fit your system, but the substance should remain the same. Let us know if you have questions or comments.   -Barbie- National J.A.I.L. victoryusa@jail4judges.org
 
----- Original Message -----
From: John Wilson
To: Robert James Shaw Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 5:36 PM Subject: Recapturing Our Courts

Dear Bob,   I am listening and evaluating.  My approach has always been through the front door, but the "Judges" have that barricaded.  That barricade is their denying the Right to Trial by Jury, which cannot remain in place...it must be removed.  Meanwhile, others are certainly encouraged to attack from the flanks with other strategies.  The entire focus must be on recapturing our Courts and eradicating the enemy.  Therefore, if setting up a "Fiduciary" or becoming a "Commonwealth Public Officer" are successful, then full credit to the men doing them.....the more the merrier.   Yours sincerely, John Wilson.

   ----------Original Message--------
From: Robert James Shaw
To: John Wilson
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: s80 Constitution
John,   Listen,  You have to do what Peter Gillies is about to do. There are a number of these in and about to start. "Commonwealth Public Official"  'Certificate of Acknowledgement'  Talk to Peter.  Bob S
----- Original Message -----
From: John Wilson
To: Rm
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: s80 Constitution

Dear Roger,   I've already filed in under their guard on numerous occasions, charging the "Judges" with many crimes and even the Premier with Treason (see http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au ). When they've woken up to what's in the documents, the "Judges" unanimously dismiss the actions and bar any access to Juries. That's why they've brought in outlandish legislation to try to stop ordinary People going to Court.   In other words, it's all been done and we have a Grounds for Discontent such as nobody would have believed.   Yours sincerely, John Wilson.

----- Original Message -----
From: Rm
To: John Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: s80 Constitution
Hi John

The stand you are taking is correct. But I must say your direct frontal approach is warning them of  the weakness of their position leading them to fortify themselves thus preventing people from gaining access to their rights. They are sealing off all access to the system by people and hence their rights. All, continued confrontation is going to do, is to seal whatever remaining access there is. Then off course a revolution will be needed for change to take place.  Is this where u are headed?

Stealth will have been better where you could have had your papers filed in court without them realizing it until it was too late.  Anyway the die is cast u have made your plays and they are geared up to meet any eventuality.   It is a war with you on one side and them on the other. You make your charge and they defend. They have usurped the system. You are on the outside they are on the inside.

You are left with no choice but to educate everyone which could take u an eon. In the meantime they have fine tuned the system of domination to a fine art with all the electronics, knowledge of human psychology and sophistication of centuries of experience.

All the luck
Roger

John Wilson wrote:
Dear Eon,

That reply from Peter Dutton is so inaccurate that it is truly
disturbing... that a Member of Parliament has such an interpretation of the laws of Australia can only mean that some bent lawyers have been in his ear and told him what to say.

We have a very serious situation akin to any in history that has led to
bloodshed and revolution.  When Judges put themselves above the Law,  deny the citizens their Right to Trial by Jury, and Members of Parliament endorse this Treachery, there seems no alternative than to do what the American Colonialist did when it happened to them in the 18th century.  I still hope and pray for a civilized solution but, obviously, with the Banks controlling the Courts and the Parliaments, THE COURTS AND THE PARLIAMENTS ARE THE MEANS BY WHICH THE BANKS EXERT THEIR POWER TO SUBJUGATE US.

No State, No Parliament, No Judge, Nobody, No Way, can deprive us of our Right to Trial by Jury.  TRIAL BY JURY IS DEMOCRACY, FREEDOM AND JUSTICE.

There simply has to be a PUBLIC DEBATE on NATIONAL TELEVISION in PRIME TIME between PATRIOTIC AUSTRALIANS, on one side, and PARLIAMENTARIANS and JUDGES, on the other.

Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Eon Radley - Fire Technology Pty. Ltd."
<eon_ft@tpg.com.au>
To: "'Dutton, Peter (MP)'" <Peter.Dutton.MP@aph.gov.au>
Cc: "'John Wilson'" <jhwilson@acay.com.au>
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 12:12 PM
Subject: RE: s80 Constitution
Peter, thanks for responding however I would bring the following points to your attention.

I agree each state has it's own courts system, but just because we don't live in that state does not mean we cannot be called up to be tried under that system. At any time in the future you or I could be called up to answer to a charge within that states system which now excludes the right to trial by jury at the judges discretion. Do you believe one man should be allowed to decide your fate.  And what's to say once it is established for a while in one state others won't try to follow because it suits the objectives of a few self interested persons.

As we are not in NSW we have no rights to request anything of a NSW member, that is why I must write to you in the hope you can place something in motion via your position.

Further you did not respond to the situation where judges are placing themselves above the law by refusing to allow the filing into court of any action bought against them, what is your stance on this do you want judges above the law or not.

Finally your comments clearly imply that legislation stands above the
Constitution. The Constitution to my understanding is supposed to be the last word and all other "laws" stand below it. That's why it is called the Constitution. This issue worries me as the Constitution is not to be overridden without reference to the people i.e.: a referendum.

I know you are an ex police officer and as such I assume you would be very aware of the need to be sure the courts serve the people who placed them there, not take over the running of the system because no one is above them to stop them except for members of Parliament such as yourself. The placing of the Constitution below State legislation should definitely be an issue of considerable concern and in your jurisdiction so please look into it on my behalf.

Regards,
Eon Radley.

Telephone:  07 3289 3799
Facsimile:  07 3289 3788
Email:  eon_ft@tpg.com.au


-----Original Message-----
From: Dutton, Peter (MP) [
mailto:Peter.Dutton.MP@aph.gov.au]
Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2005 10:14 AM
To:
eon_ft@tpg.com.au
Subject: RE: s80 Constitution

Dear Mr. Radley

Thank you for your recent email regarding trials by jury, particularly
in the various cases involving Mr. John Wilson.

As I have previously advised, each State has a Supreme Court with
individual procedural rules.  These courts are within the jurisdiction
of the State Government only, in this case the NSW State Government. The Federal Government has no jurisdiction over proceedings within these courts.  This is clearly enunciated by the Constitution of Australia, in particular sections 107 and 51.

Section 107 of the Constitution states, "Every power of the Parliament of a Colony which has become or becomes a State, shall, unless it is by this Constitution exclusively vested in the Parliament of the Commonwealth or withdrawn from the Parliament of the State, continue as at the establishment of the Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the State, as the case may be."  This section is supported by section 51, which outlines the powers of the Commonwealth.

The Commonwealth has only those powers listed in section 51, with the States retaining responsibility for any powers not expressly given to the Commonwealth, either through the Constitution or by an Act of the State Parliament. None of the sub-sections in section 51 give the Commonwealth the power to determine the procedural rules of a State Court.

Mr. Wilson purports to apply section 80 of the Australian Constitution to his matter within the State jurisdiction.  This is a clear
misinterpretation of the section, which only applies to indictable
offences against Commonwealth law.  Contempt of a State Court is not an indictable Commonwealth offence.

By determining that there is no right to trial by jury in this
circumstance, the Justices of the Supreme Court are not putting
themselves above the Australian Constitution.  Should you have any
further enquiries regarding the NSW Supreme Court and the rules that govern its operation, these would be better directed to the NSW State Government.

Thank you again for contacting me with your concerns.

Yours sincerely
Peter Dutton


-----Original Message-----
From: Eon Radley - Fire Technology Pty. Ltd. [
mailto:eon_ft@tpg.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 6 May 2005 10:24 AM
To: Dutton, Peter (MP)
Subject: FW: s80 Constitution


Peter, a bit of detail you should know regarding the Right to Trial by
Jury which is in our counties Constitution but frequently denied by the Judges. Are you comfortable with Judges placing themselves above our Constitution.

I would like to know your thoughts on this one.
Regards,

Eon Radley. Email:  eon_ft@tpg.com.au


-----Original Message-----
From: John Wilson [
mailto:jhwilson@acay.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 6 May 2005 9:02 AM
To: Discount Print
Subject: Re: s80 Constitution


Dear Matt,

s.80 of the Australian Constitution simply reinforces the Right to Trial by Jury existing in all the States at the time of Federation and says that the same applies to offences against Federal Laws.  All Australian "Judges" (including those in the High Court) disobey the Rule of Law. They are frightened to death by the very idea of Trial by Jury. My book and Transcripts & Judgments (all on http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au ) are evidence of this.  In a nutshell:  It's called "Judicial Corruption & Treachery".

Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Discount Print"
<discountprint@yahoo.com.au>
To: "John Wilson" <jhwilson@acay.com.au>
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 5:09 PM
Subject: s80 Constitution
HI John,

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 80 Trial by jury
The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury, and every such trial shall be held in the State where the offence was committed, and if the offence was not committed within any State the trial shall be held at such place or places as the Parliament prescribes.

What's going on when we have our own constitution stating the law?

Matt

--- John Wilson <jhwilson@acay.com.au> wrote:
    Dear John,

They know they are as guilty as hell ... so, they want to block access to our Courts.

Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.


  ----- Original Message -----
  From: John Dempsey
  To: John Wilson
  Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 11:19 AM
  Subject: Re: "Judges" breaking the law to protect themselves

  Right on John, these judges need to hear from us. I salute you.

  John Dempsey


J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
Contribute to J.A.I.L. at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
See our active flash,
http://www.jail4judges.org/Flash.htm
JAIL is a unique addition to our form of gov't. heretofore unrealized.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at
JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To be added or removed, write to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
 
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless
minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
 
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
striking at the root."                         -- Henry David Thoreau    <><

Return To JNJ 2005

To JNJ Library Index for All Years