* * The Judiciary Under Attack as Never Before * *

* * The Judiciary Under Attack as Never Before * *
Posted By: 
TNT MadDog
Tuesday, April 10, 2007 02:00 pm

Davideit wrote:

From: "Davideit"

To: "IDA"

Subject: Fw: * * * The Judiciary Under Attack as Never Before * * *

Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 21:39:05 -0400

----- Original Message -----

From: JAIL4Judges

To: Davideit

Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 9:20 PM

Subject: RE: * * * The Judiciary Under Attack as Never Before * * *

Davideit, good to hear from you again. I trust all has been well with you. I confirm what you say, and remember that this was my point back in 1980 to Stephen Trott, Barbie's immediate boss in the District Attorney's Office, just prior to being appointed to U.S. Attorney by President Reagan, and thereafter, to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals by the same.

While it is so in the Constitution, as a matter of grammar in my day-to-day writing, I have not adopted this practice. So, yes, you are correct. You are the first to make this statement. God bless you, Davideit.


From: Davideit [mailto:davideit@gsinet.net]

Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 7:06 PM

To: JAIL4Judges

Subject: Re: * * * The Judiciary Under Attack as Never Before * * *

Dear Ron & Barbie,

Please accept my comment as constructive criticism with no malice intended.

We have for years referred to the Constitution as, "The law of the Land."

Too many readers in their desire to exude great wisdom, quoting from that great work, have overlooked a detail.

In the Constitution, I believe 3 times, the words supreme Court are used.

Note that the "s" on supreme is in lower case. In most of the writings of various and sundry folks they consistently use the upper case "S" which if you examine that document you will confirm my observation.

The Founding Fathers, in their wisdom recognized the fact that those who emit miles of rhetoric in relation to laws and always expect that what they emit is true as if spoken by the Creator.

But the Founders were very specific in making sure that that Court would not be intended to be the highest body of knowledge they deliberately made sure that the lower case "s" should head the name of that earnest body.

The capital letter in this case makes them, the court, 'S'upreme and above all mankind. They were determined that that was not to be case, thus they in their wisdom and with the familiarity of human nature, they didn't want them to attain the "puffed up" attitude.

Now to the fine point and I know you will agree:

The Founding Fathers, being of a very religious vent said, "There is only one

Supreme Court and that is the one before which we all shall stand in Judgment one day. That is the Court of our creator." Only God holds a Supreme Court!

Would you believe that the former Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor, in all her wisdom, is aware of that fact?

I am inclined to think that Justice O'Connor, having lived in a tunnel vision atmosphere since her appointment to that esteemed position, ever moved among the population to get the knowledge of those public who know of the corruption of the 'gentlemen' in Ladies black gowns. They espouse Justice not from the Law but from their own arrogant wisdom-less brain supported by endless lies and impudence.

They have but one intent and that is to satisfy the bankruptcy of the Corporate United States created by Franklin Delano "Rosenfeldt" in 1933.

May the Lord bless and keep you and make the light to shine upon you.

Best Regards,

Fred Davideit

----- Original Message -----

From: myprivate@masteragency.com

To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;

Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 2:23 PM

Subject: Fw: * * * The Judiciary Under Attack as Never Before * * *

----- Original Message -----

From: JAIL4Judges


Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 11:05 AM

Subject: * * * The Judiciary Under Attack as Never Before * * *

J.A.I.L. News Journal


Los Angeles, California April 6, 2007


The Battle Lines are Drawn: J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power

A Power Foreign to Our Constitution

Mission Statement JNJ Library Federal J.A.I.L.

FAQs What?MeWarden?


The Judiciary Under Attack

as Never Before

By Ron Branson - National J.A.I.L. CIC

"The former justice [Sandra Day O'Connor] also said

she is hearing more criticisms about the judiciary

than any other time in her lifetime."

As a result of bringing Judicial Accountability to the ballot last year, 2006, in the State of South Dakota, former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has traveled the country taking every opportunity she can to condemn and castigate JAIL4Judges as a great concern to her. Her theme is, and has been, that J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) undermines the independence of the judiciary. As a result, her ravings have appeared in various news publications around the country, including the Wall Street Journal, as well as on CNN TV, who contacted this author and asked if I would be available to appear at their television studios to provide the opposing view to Justice O'Connor. I accepted their offer and went on national TV opposite her.

What Justice O'Connor fails to understand is that J.A.I.L. does not affect in any way the independence of the judiciary. I should know, obviously, since I am the author of the initiative who made very sure of that from the very first day the Lord moved upon my heart in 1995 to write it. I placed into this all-important Initiative the judicial independence wording, "...no petition of misconduct shall be considered by the Special Grand Jury unless the petitioner shall have first attempted to exhaust all judicial remedies available in this State within the immediately preceding six-month period." ¶ 11, South Dakota J.A.I.L. Amendment.

That phrase is a crown jewel of the J.A.I.L. Initiative that makes it stand apart from all other judicial legislation going all the way back to our Founding Fathers who were seeking some means of instituting judicial accountability without interfering with the decision-making powers of the judiciary.

Ultimately, our Founding Fathers instituted two means in our Constitution to curb judges: the impeachment process, and the ability to define limits upon their jurisdiction. They wrote, "In all the other cases before mentioned, 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." Art. III, Sec. 2. That phrase was very important to them, but nonetheless, Thomas Jefferson was still not satisfied. He expressed his objections this manner, "...the Federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing it's noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction..."

The beautiful thing about J.A.I.L. is that the Special Grand Jury within it has no jurisdiction to act in any way, or interfere with the jurisdiction of the courts until after the courts have completely and entirely finished making every and all decisions they are going to make, and there is nothing more that can or may be decided. J.A.I.L. is exactly what Thomas Jefferson needed and would have ordered if he had known of the J.A.I.L. option.

J.A.I.L. might be described as a television camera recording the events of an Olympic event, and only after the race is finished could the television recording be viewed for determining the legitimate winner. By any stretch of the imagination, could it be argued that the camera interfered with outcome of the event? But this is precisely what former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is implying. Horse races are commonly recorded. In the history of horse racing, has it ever been argued that any horse lost the race because the event was recorded, or that the recording interfered with the independence of the horse race?

Only after all of the judges and justices in a case have finished making their rulings, and jurisdiction has been exhausted, can a petitioner petition the Special Grand Jury to consider claimed offences that constitute deliberate violations of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material allegations, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of the State or United States. (¶2)

Do we not establish laws for the obedience of those subject to them? Does not every judge swear by an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof? Does not the Good Book say, "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged." Matt. 7:2. As I have pointed out, even our Founding Fathers instituted certain constraints upon the judiciary.

Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is propagating false and misleading charges against JAIL4Judges in seeking to undermine the obvious need for Judicial Accountability in this country. But people are gradually waking up. Yes, she is right about one thing: the judiciary is under attack as never before in her lifetime, nonetheless, we have but only begun. The subject of Judicial Accountability shall grow and grow and grow until it dominates every other political issue, and takes center stage. This is what frightens Sandra Day O'Connor and the judiciary of this country so much.

- Ron Branson

Former justice visits law school

O'Connor describes proposed Web site

Mark Norris, Editor In Chief,

mnorris@smu.edu 4/5/07


Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the best way to teach young people about the civics and the importance of the judiciary is through modern media, such as interactive Web sites and computers. The comments came during a brief speech at an SMU conference about judicial independence and accountability.

"When civics and government are taught, they have the dullest books you've ever read in your life," O'Connor said. "And kids don't like to read anyway, so I don't think that's a winner."

O'Connor said she is in the middle of creating a Web site that will teach children of all grades about the judiciary and its importance to American life. The site could be used in classrooms across the nation, she said.

Arizona State University has offered to host the Web site and have designers create it. A committee is in the process of being selected to produce the content.

She said the best way to have informed citizens is to make sure they learn about civics while in school. O'Connor said No Child Left Behind's emphasis on math, science and reading has had unintended consequences for civics and history classes - schools either dropping them or reducing the amount of time spent on them.

She mentioned a survey conducted by the American Bar Association that found more people could name the Three Stooges than the three branches of government.

Accordingly, O'Connor said the Web site will be a totally interactive program that will be free of charge.

"Children today will sit endlessly in front of a computer," she said. "We need to put this knowledge in this format."

The former justice also said she is hearing more criticisms about the judiciary than any other time in her lifetime.

She mentioned recent elections in South Dakota and Colorado that challenged the independence of judges in the state. Both propositions failed before voters, but she said the root of those issues comes from people not having an understanding of the judicial system.

"If jurisdiction stripping is a punishment, then that's where you get worried," O'Connor said.

She said Minnesota v. White, a case that was decided while she was on the court, has created problems for an independent judiciary. The result of the case allows justices to answer policy or issue questions when running for office.

O'Connor said single-issue advocacy groups are targeting justices and pressuring them.

"I wasn't aware that I was serving with a bunch of activist judges," O'Connor said, citing one of the tactics such groups has taken.

O'Connor was the first female justice on the Supreme Court, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1981.

J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) [ OLD LINK REMOVED ]

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 [ OLD LINK REMOVED ]

Visit our active flash - [ OLD LINK REMOVED ]

* * *

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 Independence

"..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 >