(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)