J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                              November 3, 2006
______________________________________________________
The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform Government.
The Right Upon Which All Other Rights Depend
 
Voting Blindly On Judges
by Ron Branson
 
Every election cycle people ask me how they should vote regarding judges on their ballot, and every time I must give these people the same advice. No matter where one lives, whether Ohio, Florida, or California, the question regarding voting on judges is always the same, "Can you give me some advice on how to vote on the judges?" Below is an actual example of one such current inquiry:
 
 
Mr. Branson
 
Why is it that the ballot for some judges running for certain jurisdictions contain only one name? What is the purpose of voting if there is no selection? 
 
At other times you may see three judges running for office.  I have yet to see one that I am familiar with. As a citizen I cannot get background information on any judge running for office. Where do they come from? Who puts them on the ballot? Who decides their term?  How in the world can anyone vote for someone they know nothing about?
 
If you have any information on this I would love to hear about it.
 
[Anyone USA]

 
While I responded back to this writer personally, I deemed it appropriate that I modify my answer somewhat and make it public seeing as this question lies within the mind of most, if not every voter in this country, namely, "How in the world can anyone vote for someone they know nothing about?" The fact is, they can't if intelligence has anything to do with voting! Otherwise, we may as well let mental patients punch holes in the ballot, or touch the screen in deciding judges for us.
 
Now for some shocking revelations. The shadow government has designed the voting process regarding judges to be illusory, foggy, and nebulous, leaving voters in the dark. Why, not even the Republican Party leaders can answer the above questions as they, too, are in the same quandary, and have asked me the very same type of questions.
 
Generally, there is never an outside challenger to a sitting judge. The reason for this is that only those who hold a title of nobility (incidentally, forbidden by the U.S. Constitution) of esquire, an English title usually referring to lawyers, may run for judgeshipIt is in this manner the judicial fraternity holds a tight rein on their exclusive monopoly. This method is designed to close out non-lawyers with good legal minds who are principled from running for judicial office. 
 
Further, even should one be "qualified" to run for judgeship, they do not do so. Should one dare to run, woe be unto him if he does not win in the election, for then he must appear as a lawyer in front of the very person whose seat he challenged. Basically, that lawyer must win or consider it the end of his career. As a practical matter, that is the way the system works (or shall I say, does not work.)
 
Almost without exception, when a judge decides to retire at the end of his term, he takes an "early retirement" just months before his term expires so that the governor may appoint a temporary replacement judge. This is standard operational procedure (SOP) in judicial politics. It's a game of "keep away from the voters." Don't let the people vote on judges, or in lieu thereof, like growing mushrooms, as the saying goes, "feed'em sh_t, and keep'em in the dark." We know federal judges are appointed for life, but as a practical matter, so are state judges.
 
The objective of planned "early retirements" of judges, is to get the judge's replacement to be listed on the up-coming ballot as the  "incumbent," which translates into the incumbent always wins the judicial election because "he is experienced." One will be hard put to ever find an incumbent judge who lost the election and had to surrender his seat to a challenger.
 
There is a very purposeful and intentional plan being carried out when it comes to voting for judges. This is because those who manipulate and control the system know that if you can control the judiciary, you have control over all the rest of government, notwithstanding which Party or person is in office. By all means, they must not allow the voters to control the judiciary. To do so, would be for the power-brokers to lose control of the country.
 
Now why is it that the electorate is kept in the dark when it comes to judicial candidates? Knowledge is power, and the objective is to keep the electorate ignorant when it comes to whom to vote for regarding judges. The voting process in this country regarding judges must be handled just like any communist country--list them on the ballot as the sitting judge, and allow the voters to just punch the name, even if it be the only name, on the ballot. It's called "a choice of one." With this method, the electorate is "assured" that sitting judges have the public's "vote of confidence," and thus they are "elected" for another twelve years, after which the same process is repeated. The net result is that the public never gets new judges unless the system appoints them.
 
We all know that one cannot see the vermin under a rock unless the rock is removed. After the rock is removed, only then can we see what is under it. "...men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." John 3:19-20. So we now know why judicial elections take place in the dark.
 
I have advised even those in the Republican Party, and those who have asked me similar questions, to just vote "No confidence" in respect to judges on the ballot. This means you will be better off to not vote blindly and ignorantly for an unknown. The "unknown" about the judge is the plan. Remember, in the event of a recall effort, only a percentage of the votes is required. If the judge received only  one thousand votes to get him elected, it may take just less than a hundred signatures to start a recall.
 
-Ron Branson
Webmaster's Note:
Robe Probe is a judge rating site. It is not affiliated with J.A.I.L.

 
"Who stands to be hurt if Amendment E is not passed?"
Would it be the South Dakota Bar Association and lawyers? NO!
Would it be the South Dakota Legislature? NO!
Would it be the insurance companies and agencies?  NO!
  IT WOULD BE THE VOTERS OF SOUTH DAKOTA
WHO WOULD BE HURT.
Vote YES on Amendment E for your future and your own good!
 
J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
Our South Dakota site: www.SD-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 2006

Return To JNJ Library Index for All Years