The Battle Lines are Drawn: J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power
A Power Foreign to Our Constitution
The Best Judges Money Can Buy
By Ron Branson - Nation J.A.I.L. CIC
The argument of some, particularly as it regards judges, is that money can buy honesty. If this theory were meritorious, perhaps we should explore granting large legacies to thieves and armed robbers to discourage them from going out and heisting money from victims. After all, if they had enough money to live on, they would not have to steal.
When J.A.I.L. first started in 1995, there were no websites about judges, albeit, search engines came up with one website. It was a website not against judges, but put up by judges. The subject of that website was that judges were not getting paid enough for the wonderful work they were doing as judges.
Some ten million J.A.I.L. News Journal sends later, websites have popped up like mushrooms denouncing judicial corruption. They are all basically the children or grand-children of J.A.I.L. that has started the judicial accountability movement. This subject, it has been said, has now moved up the charts to number five on America's search engines. But, the subject of judges' pay being too low has continued to raise it head. After all, these judges are living on the upper 1% salary of the rich of this nation with only $160,000.00 to $212,000.00 per year.
The below article suggests that if we want judges to quit misbehaving, we are going to have to pony up more money for them to live on, to keep them honest. But does not this "principle" run counter to James 2:6, "Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?"
The article also suggests that if we are going to restore honesty among the judges, we are going to have to quit voting for judges and let the government select them for us.
I ask, "Yikes, isn't this going the wrong direction?" Are we to believe that political appointments assure more honest judges than judges selected by the people who pay the judges' salaries?
While the below is written under the guise of good economic sense, I suggest that it is really judicial propaganda propagating through the media the desires of the judges of this nation, i.e., protect us from the voters and fatten us up and make us very wealthy.
It is amazing the ideas that are coming up to avoid the obvious, and that is the judicial accountability presented by J.A.I.L. as the only answer, and not judicial appointments and more money to the already wealthy elite. (Many, if not most judges are already millionaires and own corporate stocks and many own banks).
From The Economist print edition
A $54m lawsuit over a pair of pinstriped trousers that went missing from a Washington, DC, cleaners was thrown out by a judge this week. It had attracted worldwide ridicule. The fact that the case was brought, not by a random loony, but by a former judge has added to the sense that something is wrong not just with America's litigation laws, but with the kind of men and women Americans choose to sit in judgment over them.
A whole series of judicial misdemeanours, ranging from the titillating to the outrageous, has emerged over the past year. Take the Florida state judge, John Sloop, who was ousted after complaints about his "rude and abusive" behaviour. This included an order to strip-search and jail 11 defendants for arriving late in traffic court after being misdirected. Or the Californian judge, José Velasquez, sacked in April for a plethora of misconduct, including extending the sentences of defendants who dared question his rulings.
Then there was the Albany city judge, William Carter, in New York, censored for his "utterly inexcusable" conduct after jumping down from the bench during a trial, shedding his robes and apparently challenging a defendant to a fist-fight. Another time, he suggested that the police "thump the shit out" of an allegedly disrespectful defendant. Mr Carter wasn't carrying a gun; many judges now do. In Florida, Charles Greene, chief criminal judge in Broward County, had to step down after describing a trial for attempted murder involving minority defendants and witnesses as "NHI" (No Humans Involved). Then there are the sexual peccadilloes. In Colorado, a (male) judge resigned after admitting having sex with a (female) prosecutor in his chambers. In California, a former judge was jailed for 27 months for downloading child pornography. And in Oklahoma Donald Thompson, a judge for more than 20 years, was jailed for four years for indecent exposure and using a "penis pump" to masturbate during trials.
More serious are the cases of corruption. On June 5th Gerald Garson, a former judge in Brooklyn, New York, was jailed for taking bribes to rig divorce cases. Another judge was convicted of accepting money to refer clients to a particular lawyer. Rumours of buying and selling of judgeships in the district abound. At one time, one in ten Brooklyn judges were said to be under investigation for sleaze.
"To distrust the judiciary," said Honoré de Balzac, "marks the beginning of the end of society." In Britain, judges are one of the most respected groups. But in America they tend to be held in low esteem, particularly at state level. For this many people blame low pay and the fact that judges are elected. In 39 states, some or all judges are elected for fixed terms. Federal judges, usually held in much higher esteem, are appointed on merit for life—as in Britain.
Most states allow judicial candidates to raise campaign funds. Huge sums are often involved, leading to inevitable suspicions that, once on the bench, judges will pass judgments that favour their benefactors. In 2004 the two candidates in one Illinois district (with a population of just 1.3m) raised a staggering $9.4m between them. Some of the states with the highest levels of campaign spending—Texas, Louisiana and Alabama—are also those whose judges are most criticised.
In the past, judicial candidates were banned from discussing controversial legal or political issues on the campaign trail. But in 2002 the Supreme Court ruled such bans to be unconstitutional, leading candidates to advertise freely their views on abortion and suchlike. Personal attacks have also become more common. Indeed, Sandra Day O'Connor, a former Supreme Court justice, fears that judicial elections have turned into "political prize-fights, where partisans and special interests seek to install judges who will answer to them instead of the law and the constitution."
The meagre salaries of judges, whether at state or federal level, do not help raise standards either. Federal judges have not had a real pay rise for 17 years; a district court judge earns $165,000 a year, about the same as a first-year associate in a top law firm. John Roberts, chief justice of the Supreme Court, earns just $212,000—half the salary of England's top judge and one-fifth of the average income of a partner in the majority of America's 100 top-grossing law firms. Around 40 judges have left the federal bench over the past five years.
In his annual report to Congress in January, Mr Roberts said that the issue of judges' pay had reached "the level of a constitutional crisis". It was threatening the judiciary's strength and independence. In February, Patrick Leahy, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, promised legislation to fix it within the current session. The judges are still waiting. Meanwhile, state judges in New York are preparing to sue the state for their first pay rise since 1999. The battle is joined.
J.A.I.L. (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!
Visit our active flash - http://www.jail4judges.org/Flash.htm
* * *
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
"..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 ><)))'>