J.A.I.L. News Journal
Angeles, California June 15, 2007
Lines are Drawn: J.A.I.L.
versus The Foreign Power
A Power Foreign to Our
Judges and Corporations
Ron Branson - National J.A.I.L. CIC
"Do you, Judge
Wannabe, take this
woman, Ms. Corporate
Interest, to be your lawful wedded wife, to
love and to hold,
and to cherish until death do you
Below is a
report of the Committee for Economic Development, as published by the
EarthTimes.org, pointing out the growing financial influence of
corporations upon our judiciary. Judges are needing more and more
money to seek higher judgeship positions, and the corporations have
the financing needed, and
are willing to underwrite the judges who offer themselves for
sale. It is in this way they exchange money for
influence of the judge in their decisions. In other words, "Follow the
money," and " The Golden Rule - he who has the gold, makes the
where the problem lies. Since the
judiciary has become more activist in "making" laws in America as opposed to the
legislature, it has become beneficial for special interests to buy a judge to
"pass" legislation, than to go through the rigorous task of lobbying Congressmen and Senators to propose and debate a Bill. After all, buying a judge is much
and does not include debates, committees, or the signature of the executive (president or governor) to
become "law." Further, it does it face the possibility of a veto, which requires two-thirds of both Houses to
overcome. Judicial legislation is the best of all worlds because one judge is more powerful than two-thirds
value of getting a special law "enacted" on behalf of its buyer, the
competitive rate of buying
a judge is getting higher and higher. In the business world, who wouldn't shell
out a million dollars to get a judge in there to garner them over a hundred million dollars to their business? This is precisely what is happening in
Now add to
this ingredient the doctrine of "judicial immunity" where all judges are immune
from any lawsuit that anyone, who suffers damage from the acts of the
judge, may bring. I have just described to you the optimum of tyranny. Can
any of you reading this think of anything more bazaar or far fetched from
justice? Yet we are supposed to be a nation of "Liberty and Justice for
Some, such as former U.S. Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor, are advocating abolishing electing judges. "I hope
that every state that elects judges in partisan elections will consider
reforms," says Justice O'Connor. She thinks that not letting the people vote for
their judges is the answer. The answer to this problem is not in how we derive
our judges, (whether by appointment or by election), but rather in judicial
accountability whether elected or appointed. This debate otherwise is
like arguing over the choices of being shot dead by friendly
fire, or dying by enemy fire.
Until J.A.I.L. is installed in the judicial process
throughout this country, you can be absolutely sure
that the meter
for buying a judge will continue to rise
as corruption abounds. There is no other
answer! - Ron Branson
~ ~ ~
Report Shows Spread of
Special Interest Pressure, Growing Clout of Business Groups in State
Supreme Court Elections
Posted: Thu, 17 May 2007
Author: Committee for economic Development
WASHINGTON, May 17 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Special interest pressure is metastasizing into a permanent national threat to the fairness and impartiality of America's courts, according to a major new report from the Justice at Stake Campaign and its partners, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law and the National Institute for Money in State Politics. At the same time, a new survey conducted by Zogby International for the Committee for Economic Development shows that four out of five business leaders worry that campaign contributions have a major influence on decisions rendered by judges.
"Justice at Stake's report shows how in too many states, judicial elections are becoming political prizefights where partisans and special interests seek to install judges who will answer to them instead of the law and the constitution," said former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. "I hope that every state that elects judges in partisan elections will consider reforms."
"The 2006 election cycle was the most threatening year yet to the fairness and impartiality of America's courts," said Bert Brandenburg, executive director of the Justice at Stake Campaign. "The good news is that a broad cross-section of American civic, legal and business leaders appear ready to say enough is enough, and to work for reforms that will protect our courts."
The data comes even as a new national group -- the Democratic Judicial Campaign Committee -- is vowing to spend millions to unseat judges and justices across the country.
Among the key findings of The New Politics of Judicial Elections 2006: -- TV ads in high court campaigns ran in 10 of 11 states with contested elections, compared to four of 18 states in 2000. Average television spending per state was $1.6 million, a new record. An overwhelming majority of independent expenditure television advertising was sponsored by groups on the political right. -- Median fundraising by candidates for state high courts hit a record high of $243,910. In other words, getting to the bench has never been so expensive for so many. Five states set aggregate candidate fundraising records for high court campaigns (AL, KY, GA, OR, WA). -- State Supreme Court elections attracted record sums from business interests, a reflection of the importance of state courts in setting corporate damage payments. Campaign finance analysis shows that business gave $2 for every $1 donated by lawyers directly to candidates, and independent committees aligned with business interests dramatically outspent groups on the left. -- Judicial candidates presented a united front in overwhelmingly rejecting pressure-filled questionnaires from special interest groups. For example, only 17 percent of candidate's for seats on Florida's trial courts responded to a question demanding their position on same- sex marriage.
Television advertising has become a major weapon for groups doing battle over state high courts. In 2006, pro-business groups accounted for 90 percent of all independent spending on TV ads in high court races.
"The responsibility for protecting the courts is shared by all branches of government. Legislative and executive leaders ought to seriously consider public financing of judicial campaigns, while judiciaries must be vigilant about campaign conduct and recusal rules," said James Sample, Counsel with the Brennan Center's Democracy Program and co-author of the report.
According to the Zogby survey of business leaders, 79 percent believe that campaign contributions made to judges have at least some influence on their decisions in the courtroom. Fully 90 percent are concerned that campaign contributions and political pressure will make judges accountable to politicians and special interest groups instead of the law and the Constitution. Most significantly, the poll showed strong support for finding ways to decrease the fundraising arms race now common in many state high court campaigns.
"These results confirm the uneasiness that many in business have with the role of money in judicial campaigns," said Charles Kolb, President of the Committee for Economic Development. "A fair and impartial judiciary -- free from the influences of big money -- is good for our country, the economy, and business."
Committee for Economic Development
Copyright © 2007 PR Newswire. All rights
(Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) www.jail4judges.org
To be automatically
added to future mailings, place the word Subscribe
in the subject line
and email to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
We are a ministry in great need of your
financial support. Please donate to
this important work at "J.A.I.L." P.O.
Box 207, North Hollywood, CA 91603
J.A.I.L. is a unique
addition to our Constitution heretofore unrealized.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL
is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
E-Group sign on at
Visit our active flash
He has combined with
others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to
and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to
their acts of
pretended legislation. - Declaration of
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
-- Henry David
Return To JNJ 2007
Return To JNJ Library Index for All Years