J.A.I.L. News Journal
Los Angeles, California January 24, 2007
The Battle Lines Are Drawn: J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power
A Power Foreign to Our Constitution
The Dark Side of Justice Moon
(By Ron Branson - J.A.I.L. Author/Founder)
We have observed Chief Justice after Chief Justice among the various states stand up before audiences and publicly denounce JAIL4Judges as if it were some kind of a threatening plague about to overtake this nation like the swine or bird flu.
One would think that if J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) is so bad as it is being propagated by these highest judges of this nation, it would be declared public enemy # one! An enemy that deserves to be castigated in a State of the Union Address, and one that must be eradicated at all costs, lest it destroy this wonderful judicial system of ours.
Indeed, Chief Justice Ronald George of California who stated to the Los Angeles Times, (April 24, 2006) that he knows me, attacked this author with the words that we do not need any extremist trying to tell us how to run this wonderful judicial system we have here in California. This author humorously responded to the Times Reporter, Jessica Garrison, at the Times interview, that perhaps I should give Mr. George a call and arrange to meet with him for lunch so we could talk about it.
Joining in the list of Chief Justices around the nation condemning J.A.I.L. is Hawaii Chief Justice Ronald Moon in his January 24 State of the Judiciary Address to the State Legislature. His message presents nothing new but the same old deceptive song that J.A.I.L., “would allow citizens to sue judges for decisions they did not like.” (a precise quote.)
It seems that not a one of these Chief Judges want to talk about what the J.A.I.L. Initiative really provides for, to wit; ¶2 “Immunity. No immunity shall extend to any judge of this State for any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of South Dakota or the United States, notwithstanding Common Law, or any other contrary statute.”
I once stated to an attorney who pronounced himself as spokesperson for the judges of the California Court of Appeals when he accused this author of going after judges because these judges made simple mistakes, I asked him, “Where in this list do you derive that J.A.I.L. is about going after judges for making simple mistakes?” Just so, I now ask Chief Justice Moon, “Where in the J.A.I.L. provisions do you find that J.A.I.L. “would allow citizens to sue judges for decisions they did not like.”
One could wonder if all these Chief Justices around the country want judges to “deliberately violate the law, commit fraud, intentionally violate due process of law, commit acts in violation of their jurisdiction, and deliberately violate both the state and federal Constitutions they have sworn to uphold and defend with impunity. In short, want to impugn the integrity of the entire judiciary before the eyes of all Americans. How to you respond, Mr. Moon? Are we here about to witness the dark side of Chief Justice Moon?
Just the very thought of J.A.I.L. causes these Chief Justices around the country to quiver, lest we bring justice to bear.
Below are excerpts of Chief Justice Ronald Moon's State of the Judiciary Address. (The full text may be read by clicking the URL).
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Chief Justice Moon's State of the Judiciary Address
… President Hanabusa, Speaker Say, Governor Lingle, Lieutenant Governor and Mrs. Aiona, distinguished members of the 24th Legislature, fellow judges, Judiciary and other state employees, judges of the federal bench, members of local and federal law enforcement, former Washington State Chief Justice Richard Guy, my fellow members of the Royal Order of King Kamehameha the First, members of the Hawaiian Royal Societies, other special guests, family, friends, and fellow citizens:
I am privileged and honored to have this opportunity to address this joint session of the Hawaii State Legislature and extend my sincere appreciation for your kind invitation to speak about the state of the Judiciary. ….
… I continue to be concerned about the perception of many that our justice system is not functioning as it should and that some of our citizens, therefore, feel they need to take matters into their own hands to fix it.
I am, of course, not opposed to our citizens taking a greater interest in public affairs. In fact, I firmly believe that we need to find ways to better motivate our citizens to more actively participate in government and in such civic matters as voting and jury service. However, I am concerned about some of the initiatives that appeared on other state ballots in the most recent elections — some of which were proposed and promoted as a way to fix our justice system.
For example: The citizens of South Dakota voted on a radical constitutional amendment, entitled Judicial Accountability Initiative Law — commonly referred to as "JAIL for Judges" — that proposed, among other things, the creation of a new grand jury that would allow citizens to sue judges for decisions they did not like. Although the amendment did not pass, the fact that it was even proposed underscores fundamental misunderstandings of the duties of legislators and judges and how judges are held accountable. ….
Nevertheless, as evinced by initiatives like South Dakota's JAIL for Judges, an alarming number of our citizens continue to believe that the role of the courts is to bend to the whims of the press or, at least, those who have the money to mount advertising campaigns and get press attention. Thus, when some of our citizens disagree with a judge's decision because it is not in conformity with what they perceive as the "popular will," they often cry out for reforms, like the election of judges.
Indeed, rumor has it that this legislature may be asked to consider proposals calling for the election of judges. And, although such a proposal is not "new," it seems rather ironic since many other jurisdictions are attempting to repeal the election process in their respective states because of the effect judicial elections have on preserving a fair and impartial justice system.
Under an elective system for judges, there is the constant threat that an unpopular decision could result in the loss of popular votes — a consideration that has no place in a judge's decision-making process. And, sadly, judges in elective jurisdictions who have adhered to the high standards of fair and impartial judicial decision-making have paid the ultimate price at the polls — that is, they have lost their jobs. But, a decision that is made fairly, impartially, and in accordance with the constitution and the law — even though unpopular — is, in the words of the late United States Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, one of the crown jewels of our democracy. Those who favor electing judges often do because they believe judges are not held accountable for their actions or decisions. They are wrong.
Hawaii's judges are held accountable in more ways than any other public officer. First, each judge's legal decision is subject to review and reversal by Hawaii's appellate courts and, depending on the issues, by the United States Supreme Court. Each judge's performance, demeanor, and competence are subject to review and sanction by the Commission on Judicial Conduct, which may recommend a judge's removal from office. A judge seeking retention is also subject to review and sanction by the Judicial Selection Commission, which may — and does -- refuse to retain judges. In addition, the supreme court's Rule 19 committee administers the Judicial Performance Evaluation program under which each judge's performance is evaluated one or more times during the judge's term of office.
A Judicial Performance Review Panel — composed of a retired judge, a retired attorney, and a member of our lay community — discusses the evaluation results with the judge so that the judge may improve his or her performance for the benefit of the public. In addition, the Hawaii's State Bar Association conducts its own judicial evaluation program and provides the results of its surveys to our judges.
Judges are, to the best of my knowledge, the only public officers in Hawaii's whose decisions, performance, competence, and demeanor are subject to probing, professional, and systematic scrutiny. In short, judges are held accountable by mechanisms that assure accountability, without undermining the impartiality of our courts. Fair and impartial courts provide the balance that is essential to the workings of our government and not only makes our democracy the envy of many of our foreign neighbors, but ensures equal access to justice for all. Undermining the impartiality of the courts jeopardizes the very access our citizens expect. Indeed, without access to the courts, there can be no justice for our citizenry. ….
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!
To Subscribe or Unsubscribe write VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation. - Declaration of Independence
"..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