(Back
to Home)
FAQs
One of our Amendment E critics states;
It is
called a "Grand Jury," but has dispositive
powers.
Why is the Grand Jury named
"Special" in Amendment E?
Specifically, the Jury in Amendment E is named
"Special" because it is not the typical "Grand
Jury" operating in the system today. Grand
Juries in the system today do not operate as The
People, autonomously and independent FROM
government, but as mere puppets OF government
--particularly of the prosecution. Ironically,
the Los Angeles County Grand Jury can
investigate any government office, or official
EXCEPT (you guessed it) -- the judiciary!
Paragraph 3 of Amendment E states: "For
the purpose of returning power to the People,
there is hereby created within this State a
thirteen-member Special Grand Jury with
statewide jurisdiction having power to judge
both law and fact. This body shall exist
independent of statutes governing county Grand
Juries. ..." [emphasis added].
The Special Grand
Jury is Unique
The SGJ should not be compared to any other
Jury. The important feature here is that the SGJ
is absolutely representative of The People,
operated by The People and for The People,
unlike what purports to be "government" in this
country. As stated, the purpose of the SGJ, and
of Amendment E generally, is TO RETURN POWER TO
THE PEOPLE, the true sovereigns by Nature. The
SGJ is unique to any other body that exists. It
is the missing link between The People and their
government, giving the Constitution true meaning
and purpose through enforcement by The People,
without which it is merely ink on parchment.
What is the power
of the SGJ?
A
reading of Paragraph 3 reveals the power of the
Special Grand Jury which is NOT dispositive.
"... Their responsibility shall be limited to
determining, on an objective standard, whether
any civil lawsuit against a judge would be
frivolous or harassing, or fall within the
exclusions of immunity as set forth in paragraph
2, and whether there is probable cause of
criminal conduct by the judge complained
against." [emphasis added]
That description shows the limited power of the
SGJ, and none of it involves a trial or motion
setting. Their power most closely compares to a
probable cause determination by a magistrate, a
pre-trial determination of whether a judge
should be subject to trial for his conduct. Such
determination does not dispose of any cases.
Why not Quo
Warranto action?
"What the
proponents should really be seeking is a quo
warranto action decided by a jury, with the
power to remove the immunity of the judge,
preparatory for further action in a separate
action for damages."
One beautiful part of Amendment E is that it
does not prevent pursuit of any alternate
remedies one may wish to bring, including a
quo warranto action. If that is "what the
proponents should really be seeking," they
should GO FOR IT! However, whatever action
is sought does not negate the necessity for, nor
does it replace, Amendment E. With one
exception, paragraph 22, the Special Grand Jury
gets involved only after the system is through
with a case-- has done everything it intends to
do to provide a remedy. Paragraph 22 provides,
in pertinent part: "No judge under the
jurisdiction of the Special Grand Jury, or
potentially affected by the outcome of a
challenge hereto, shall have any jurisdiction to
sit in judgment of such challenge. Such
pretended adjudication shall be null and void
for all purposes and a complaint for such
misconduct may be brought at any time, without
charge, before the Special Grand Jury by class
action, or by any adversely affected person."
J.A.I.L. Lacks
Protection From Hostile Take-over
- "The great danger
lies in the lack of adequate protections against
the prosecution being taken over, directly or
indirectly, by public prosecutors, and using the
process to remove the remaining vestiges of
judicial independence, reducing judges to
prosecutorial pawns."
Response: Public prosecutors are not
motivated to "take-over" the judiciary any more
than they already have, as most judges are
indeed former prosecutors. If anything, the
judges of today have already been reduced to
"prosecutorial pawns." Within J.A.I.L., however,
Special Prosecutors can maintain their
position for only a maximum of one year, and
thereafter are permanently disqualified, with
the exception of cases in which they are
currently involved as prosecutor. So I do not
understand how public prosecutors can subvert
the role of Special Prosecutors, and thereby
destroy judicial independence and make judges
prosecutorial pawns.
"What the proponents should really be seeking"
is what they ARE seeking:
The
passage of Amendment E
8/30/06
"I'll tell
you one or
many, many
problems
with J.A.I.L.
That is the
lack of a
right of
appeal."
Having
searched the
internet for
observations
re: J.A.I.L.,
I
find assertions
made by
those
claiming to
be an
authority
upon the
provisions
of J.A.I.L.,
when they
are actually
clueless.
Above is one
of those
assertions,
to wit, that
J.A.I.L.
fails to
allow for a
right of
appeal. So
let us test
this
assertion
for
accuracy.
The answer
to this
concern is
prescribed
clearly
within
Amendment E
itself for
those who
bother to read
it before
opening
their mouth.
Paragraph 11
sets forth in
pertinent
part, "...no
complaint of
misconduct
shall be
considered
by the
Special
Grand Jury
unless the
complainant
shall have
first
attempted to
exhaust all
judicial
remedies
available in
this
State..."
The basic
requirement
of J.A.I.L.
is that all
appeals must
be exhausted
to the
Supreme
Court first.
If the
appeal
process
functions as
it is
prescribed
by law, then
tried and
appealed
issues completely
avert the
involvement
of J.A.I.L.
totally.
The only
issues that
can possibly
be brought
before the
Special
Grand Jury
are the
violation
issues previously
appealed and
ruled upon
by the
courts.
Should the
Supreme
Court refuse
to rule upon
the
violation
issue, then
it may pass
on to the
Special
Grand Jury.
The claim
that J.A.I.L.
provides for
no appeals
process is
spurious.
One would
think that
perhaps the
arguer of
this
position
believe
there must
be a second
appeal
process of
the very
same issues
before the
very same
judges. This
argument, of
course, is
clearly
condemned by
the courts
as "being
given a
second bite
at the
apple." No
one is
allowed a
second
appeal on
the very
same issues,
and
particularly
in front of
the same
judges. All
litigation
must end
somewhere.
If we were
to justify a
second
appeal, how
about a
third
appeal, or a
fourth
appeal?
Further,
anyone who
can read,
can also
read
paragraph 4,
"...a
special
prosecutor
may be
retained to
prosecute
ongoing
cases in
which they
are involved
through all
appeals and
any
complaints
to the
Special
Grand Jury."
Should a
trial
commence
against a
defendant
judge, and
he loses in
the trial,
he may wish
to appeal
the
decision to
the upper
courts,
including to
the U.S.
Supreme
Court. In
such cases,
the special
prosecutor
may be
retained to
represent
the
prosecution's
position to
the Supreme
Court.
Again, only
after all
appeals are
exhausted
can a
complaint be
lodged with
the Special
Grand Jury.
Within
J.A.I.L.
there can
exist no
such thing
as an
unappealed
or an
unappealable
ruling. The
very pursuit
of J.A.I.L.
is to assure
that
everyone
receives
justice by
getting
their day in
court, and
all due
process
afforded
them under
law.
So we can
all now
clearly see
that those
who argue that
the problem
with J.A.I.L.
is that it
provides for
no right of
appeal
is proffered
by those who
have no
understanding
of what they
are talking
about. This
is but just
one of many
points others misstate
or pervert
about the
truth of J.A.I.L.
There seems
to be no end
of the
dreamed-up
"problems"
with J.A.I.L.,
and you may
rest assured
that every
supposed
"problem"
is answerable,
and that
more than
95% of what
is stated by
the
opponents are
based upon
lies and
misstatements.
-Ron Branson
|
|
I
(Back
to Home)