J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
March 28, 2006
Exposure
of Brandenburg
& Justice At Stake,
Pt. I
(By Ron Branson)
On Tuesday March 14, 2006, Bert Brandenburg published
an article titled "Rushmore to Judgment." Therein he vigorously
blasted away at J.A.I.L. and Amendment E on the South Dakota ballot.
At first impression, one might think that this was simply just
another media source "Justice At Stake," taking pot-shots at J.A.I.L.
However, with a little study of Brandenburg's background, anyone
will find that his effort turns out to be much more than that.
Bert Brandenburg acclaims himself as the Executive
Director of the
Justice at Stake Campaign. So what
is "Justice At Stake"? With such a title as "Justice At Stake," one
would naturally believe it must have something to do with justice,
which is what we all want. But in reality, his use of the word
"justice" is but window dressing, as "justice" is the furtherest
thing from his perceived mission, and that of Justice At Stake.
Justice At Stake is like announcing that you have in your hand a
cute little garter snake and handing the unsuspecting victim a
viper. "Justice At Stake" is a Washington, D.C. front organization
designed to cover for the judiciary at all cost, no matter what.
Their headquarters is listed as Justice at Stake Campaign,
717 D Street, NW, Suite 203, Washington, DC 20004, phone:
202-588-9700 fax: 202-588-9485.
Bert Brandenburg, in his earlier days, was U.S.
Attorney General Janet Reno's spokesman. This, of course, does not
necessarily indicate he is evil, but his historical record speaks
for itself. He seeks to pose a pretty picture for all to read at
http://www.justiceatstake.org/contentViewer.asp?breadCrumb=8 under
"About the Campaign." The
following words and phrases should give you a quick
education on what Brandenburg is about, to wit,
"Lawmakers and interest groups
are trying to intimidate judges in retaliation for rulings they
don’t like, often with threats of impeachment. And courts are being
stripped of their powers to protect our rights and interpret our
laws."
We are instructed that his Justice
At State is to,
"Protect the power of our courts..." and "to protect the courts."
Justice At Stake is funded as follows,
"JAS is currently funded by grants from the Carnegie
Corporation of New York..." And what is it that they do with the
grant funding given to them? They influence judicial elections
through "Voter Guides," "Public Financing of Judicial
Elections," "Selection of Judges," "Rapid Response to Intimidation
and Impeachment Threats," "Protecting Court Budgets From Political
Attacks," "DEFENDING THE COURTS THAT DEFEND OUR RIGHTS," "Calling
Attention to Attacks on the Power of Our Courts...,"
"Building a Network of Judges to
Speak Out," "Developing New Messages and Coalitions to Defend Our
Courts." They are a front organization operating in the name of
"Justice" for the purpose of protecting and advancing the power of
the courts in America, no matter how evil they may be.
When we received the article, "Rushmore to Judgment,"
we thought it was just his personal hit-job upon the effort of
Amendment E, but we have since learned differently. Justice At Stake
has no personal interest in JAIL4Judges at all; it is simply that
they are a defensive arm for judges, and therefore, anyone,
regardless of their name or objective, criticizing the courts are
naturally their target. Hence, in "Rushmore to Judgment," his target
was "Ron Branson in California." Even if Ron Branson was not named
"Ron Branson," and even if the author was a very long-time permanent
resident of South Dakota, those facts would not make a bit of
difference to Brandenburg, because he is about universal covering
of judges' actions in America carte blanche.
Now you may be asking what Brandenburg's motives
are for doing this-- fair enough question. Bert Brandenburg is a
smart man. I believe he knows precisely what this author knows about
the judiciary, and we are both using these same facts
about judges to opposite ends. As I have oft spoken to groups around
America, I have pointed out that if I had but five men given to me
to place within government wherever I wanted to at my whim for the
purpose of overthrowing America, I would place the first five on the
U.S. Supreme Court; for as goes the Supreme Court, so goes the
nation. With these five men I could totally wreck this nation. With
more judges, I could likewise carry out the words of Nikita
Khrushchev in the 1970's "We will destroy America without firing a
shot." As one blogger pointed out, "In
1970, I came across a document that contained a fourteen-point
program that the Communists had devised to destroy America without
firing a shot. Infiltrate and corrupt was the main focus."
Thus, to accomplish my
purpose, I would protect and defend the
arbitrary actions of the judges of this country at every cost, and
seek to see that they received even more arbitrary and corrupt
powers and protections. By this means, it would not matter who
got elected to Congress or who the state legislators were, as they
would be irrelevant. Give me a corrupt judiciary, and I would have
all I need for the demise of this country. But, of course, what
J.A.I.L. seeks is to reverse this on-going effort to overthrow
America by use of the judges.
America is fast approaching the precipice that either
the judges of America shall ultimately control this country, or the
People shall --there can be no middle ground. It should be made very
clear that J.A.I.L. is not against judges; it is against injustice.
By holding judges accountable to the law and the Constitution, the
People shall have both justice and just judges.
You say, "Okay, Mr. Branson, proof-- Show me the
proof!" Yes! We've got lots of proof. You will notice that this
J.A.I.L. News Journal indicates "Pt. I." We've got so much proof
that we could not get it all in to this publication.
Bert Brandenburg wrote an article March 29, 2005
titled, "Judge Dread." Here are some of his words in his article in
defense of the corrupt and evil judiciary:
"The judiciary is fast becoming enemy No. 1 in the
culture wars—and the side wearing the black robes is losing."
"In Washington and far beyond the Beltway, this new
war on the courts is being waged through legislation..."
"Hostile members of Congress increasingly seek to
reverse or forestall decisions they don't like..."
"Last year, for example, even as the federal courts
mulled litigation involving the Pledge of Allegiance, the House of
Representatives was passing a measure to forbid courts from ever
hearing such a case in the first place. As the debate raged over a
courthouse display of the Ten Commandments, a measure was written to
deny federal courts the power to hear any suit involving a
governmental official's 'acknowledgment of God as the sovereign
source of law, liberty, or government.' "
"These efforts at court-stripping don't just
represent just good wedge-issue politics; increasingly, they have
become the law of the land."
"As they grow more confident, enemies of the courts
are growing more extreme."
"There's a new effort to make impeachment into a
respectable punishment for federal judges who make controversial
decisions, exceed their jurisdiction, or consult foreign law in
their deliberations. State judges have also seen a spike in
impeachment threats: 39 from 2002 to 2004, almost double the
previous three years. The job of protecting our rights sometimes
requires that our judges show a little steel. After the 1954
Brown v. Board of Education desegregation decision, lawmakers
tried to impeach justices, abolish life tenure on the Supreme Court,
and strip it of jurisdiction over public-education cases."
These efforts often come straight off the
talk-radio dial. Last year, for example, even as the federal courts
mulled litigation involving the Pledge of Allegiance, the House of
Representatives was passing a measure to forbid courts from ever
hearing such a case in the first place. As the debate raged over a
courthouse display of the Ten Commandments, a measure was written to
deny federal courts the power to hear any suit involving a
governmental official's 'acknowledgment of God as the sovereign
source of law, liberty, or government.' And the recent California
marriage decision reignited efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution
in order to deny state courts the ability to interpret their own
state constitutions."
"Measures like these flow from a view of our courts
as little more than enemy combatants. After the Supreme Court ruled
that certain antiterrorism tactics violated the Bill of Rights,
Attorney General Ashcroft accused it of endangering national
security."
"The courts have survived these
and other contretemps—including the Bush v. Gore firestorm.
But in the age of cable television and blogs, instant outrage is
getting easier to manufacture. Next week, such anticourt luminaries
as Majority Leader DeLay, Phyllis Schlafly, and Alan Keyes
will gather in Washington to
lambaste 'the Judicial War on Faith.' Conference organizers call it
'the beginning of a broad-based effort to save America from the
judges.' "
Sign-off" (End of Judge Dread quotes).
Ah, so here we have it folks! Despite the U.S.
Constitution, "...the Supreme Court shall have appellate
jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and
under such regulations as the Congress shall make," Brandenburg
wishes the courts to supersede Congress and prevail over them on.
He wants to keep "One Nation Under God" out of the Pledge of
Allegiance, and he wants the courts to decide with finality over the
subject of "acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law,
liberty, or government," and he wishes to curtail any legislation
that seeks accountability over the courts, to resist every person
who accuses the courts of tyranny, and even opposes the lawful
process in our Constitution of impeachment, and punishment for
judges who exceed their jurisdiction, to wit, act in a manner
forbidden of them by law, and to defend those judges who look to
foreign courts for interpretation of America's laws, even though
these foreign judges have never sworn an oath to U.S. the
Constitution. And yes, he even opposes a faith-based effort to save
America from corrupt judges.
There you have it. Brandenburg is out to destroy
most everything we call America in exchange for a lawless and
uncontrollable judiciary. Like I say, he is smart, because he is
properly pursuing the method of overthrowing America without firing
a shot, if indeed that is what is being sought. By here exposing
him, J.A.I.L. seeks to let you know what he is really about.
More proof? Sure! In his September 8, 2005,
article "Strip Search," he says,
"These are not easy days to be caught wearing
black robes; judges all over have grown alarmed as the Supreme Court
has become the Fallujah of American politics. .... Pat Robertson
called federal judges a worse threat to American democracy than
'bearded terrorists who fly into buildings,' while James Dobson of
Focus on the Family compared jurists to the Ku Klux Klan.
"Congress is following this madcap rhetoric with
radical measures of its own, trying to strip courts of their power
to hear certain classes of cases. Last year the House of
Representatives passed a measure to forbid federal courts from
hearing cases involving the Pledge of Allegiance. Another bill would
deny them the power to hear any suit involving a governmental
official’s 'acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law,
liberty, or government.' Inside the Beltway and out, a war is raging
over the power and independence of our courts."
Independence of the courts? What does Brandenburg
mean by "Independence of the Courts"? He means judges should be
independent of the Constitution, independent of Congress,
independent of the laws, independent of impeachment, independent of
all processes, and independent of the People. I believe we commonly
call this as renegade.
Brandenburg believes that whatever serves his end
is good. If he cannot justifiably attack his opponents with truth,
he will make it up. For instance, he says of J.A.I.L., "This
movement is the brainchild of a Californian named Ronald Branson
with a history of suing state and federal officials for alleged
conspiracies (including his own trials for burglary...)." The fact
that Branson has never committed burglary, been tried for burglary,
nor found guilty of burglary is not relevant to his goal. Of course
his words are libel, but what does he fear, he is the defender of
the courts. Mr. Brandenburg, prove up! State for the benefit of the
public and your credibility the case number and authority upon which
you rely to justify your charge. If Brandenburg does not have a
suitable quote from those who oppose the judiciary, no problem, he
just makes one up to suit his purposes. Notice his quotations,
"Writes Branson: 'The People are slowly waking up to realize who the
Enemy is-- and it isn't Bin Laden.' "
Mr. Brandenburg, I have done a Google search for
the words that you claim originated from me, and find nothing. Do
you know what it is that I do find that says I said it? It is from
articles that are quoting your article "Rushmore to
Judgment." Again, Mr. Brandenburg, prove up! Find for me and all of
us where I said what you say I said, apart from you
saying that I said it. My clue is that I would not say such a
thing. It is a controversial statement that has nothing to do with
J.A.I.L. nor with judicial accountability, so I avoid allowing
anyone saying that I said such things as you say I said. Unless you
can show your evidence, you owe me a retraction and apology. But, of
course, that would not serve your purpose of protecting judges'
conduct, no matter what, would it?
J.A.I.L. first dealt with Bert Brandenburg's article
under the title, "The Opposition Makes The Case For Amendment E,"
dated March 14, 2006, which may be found in our JNJ Library on www.jail4judges.org.