Bob~ Don't know Branson from Adam's off but his point is well taken! I still can't be placed in your funeral procession because of what I just recently wrote! It either is or it ain't and it CERTAINLY WAS! With that perhaps firmly agreed upon I will side with you only from a point of utility and viability. I DO think it could be improved upon but to do so would require FIRST a different motivation of basis for creation of the controls it should represent. If such was difficult then considering their then existing field in universality, the chances today are merely rhetorical at best! But why throw the baby out with the proverbial bathwater? The thing in the glass case is NOT and I repeat – NO -- the original. NOBODY has or likely ever will convince me the British treatment of the original was not STEEPED in premeditation as to the "recovered" document. What does it matter now? The machinery does not lie in some preserved shred as if it were sacred – FOR IT IS NOT! What HAS TO BECOME is a body of LIVING MEN WHO ARE WILLING TO PHYSICALLY RELOCATE that they may ESCAPE THE LAND OF PRETENSE AND UNDERSTAND PHYSICAL SCIENCE TOGETHER AS WELL AS SOME VERY BASIC MATH! These will have to be AT LEAST of that same mindset as were the signers of AD 1776. WITHOUT THAT AS A MERE BEGINNING nothing toward that kind of political unified front is going to happen!! ALL 56 of those guys KNEW -- UNDERSTOOD – AND HAD UNDYING FAITH IN THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST AS THEY OPENLY AND PROUDLY CONFESSED! I SAY TO YOU NOW, OUT OF THREE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE, HOW MANY TIMES 56 DO YOU BELIEVE EXIST TODAY IN AMERICA WHICH COULD BE GATHERED PER THE ABOVE TWO PARAGRAPHS! They were out of about three million; have we a hundred times they? Consider this simple concern and then submit what the Devil (Literally) is the sheer value of the MEANING of the “Constitution” or the Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America without dedicated FOLLOWERS of the IDEAS?!?! Can you see a reflection by the same considerations in the existence today of the Holy Scriptures? AMERICA CAN NOT GET DOWN TO BASICS BECAUSE IT LACKS ANY INTENT TO SO LIVE! HERE I GO AGAIN! America wants to live a dream by trying to live in one! ~Hal~
--- On Fri, 6/19/09, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: The Constitution is Dead... To: [email protected] Date: Friday, June 19, 2009, 9:16 PM To Anyone who has the Ear of Bob Schultz: Please send the following message from Ron Branson to him with my regards to Bob Schultz and remind him that he heard it first at Schaumburg. Back in January, I informed Bob at the Schaumburg, Illinois meeting that, "In my opinion, THE CONSTITUTION IS DEAD." If nothing else, just see the one highlighted sentence below that summed up the total of Ron's experiences with the Conspiracy of the Courts that Abraham Lincoln candidly warned us of. My answer to his comment is, Rots of Ruck with that one!!! It will not happen until the other 299 Million 'Mercuns wake-up and smell the coffee. Bob Jungles Questions for Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: Offering Accountability of Judges Directly to the People To: Judicial Acct. Directly to the People Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 11:32 PM Subject: Questions for Ron Questions for Ron By Kristi Devine - [email protected] Kristi, the below cites which you provide all sound very good. However, from my years of actually experience in the courts and in dealing with reality, these assertions amount to mere propaganda and misstatements designed to deceive the simple. Time and time again I am “confronted with good men who cite all these “authorities,” but the fact remains, Judicial Immunity does and will triumph all these authorities regardless of what they say. Judges do not honor their own words because they are dishonorable judges. So I ask you, when are the words of dishonorable men honorable? We are here discussing the subject of honest con artists, truthful liars, and merciful thieves. What has the Constitution become? It has become an artfully written historical document preserved under glass for the public to view in Washington, D.C., and nothing more. It is because of reality, JAIL4Judges exists. American shall never extricate itself from its present quagmire until all government is subject to the judges, and all the judges are subject to the findings of an independent, autonomous Grand Jury relying upon the Constitution. All other efforts are high-sounding words of wishful thinking. If wishing were reality, we would all be soaring like eagles. Take heed, lest ye be deceived! God bless you, Kristi -Ron Branson [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: Kristi Devine [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 2:44 PM To: JAIL4Judges Subject: Question for Ron Dear Ron: This seems to be some pretty strong language, is it that no one holds them to this? JUDICIAL IMMUNITY: See Judicial Immunity page for more citations (links) and news articles regarding the topic. See also, 42 USC 1983 - Availability of Equitable Relief Against Judges. Note: [Copied verbiage; we are not lawyers.] Judges have given themselves judicial immunity for their judicial functions. Judges have no judicial immunity for criminal acts, aiding, assisting, or conniving with others who perform a criminal act or for their administrative/ ministerial duties, or for violating a citizen's constitutional rights. When a judge has a duty to act, he does not have discretion - he is then not performing a judicial act; he is performing a ministerial act. Nowhere was the judiciary given immunity, particularly nowhere in Article III; under our Constitution, if judges were to have immunity, it could only possibly be granted by amendment (and even less possibly by legislative act), as Art. I, Sections 9 a 10, respectively, in fact expressly prohibit such, stating, "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" and "No state shall... grant any Title of Nobility." Most of us are certain that Congress itself doe sn't understand the inherent lack of immunity for judges. Article III, Sec. 1, 'The Judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior." Tort Et Insurance Law Journal, Spring 1986 21 n3, p 509-516, "Federal tort law: judges cannot invoke judicial immunity for acts that violate litigants' civil rights." - Robert Craig Waters. Ableman v. Booth, 21 Howard 506 (1859) "No judicial process, whatever form it may assume, can have any lawful authority outside of the limits of the jurisdiction of the court or judge by whom it is issued; and an attempt to enforce it beyond these boundaries is nothing less than lawless violence." Chandler v. Judicial Council of the 10th Circuit, 398 U.S. 74, 90 S. Ct. 1648, 26 L. Ed. 2d 100 Justice Douglas, in his dissenting opinion at page 140 said, "If (federal judges) break the law, they can be prosecuted." Justice Black, in his dissenting opinion at page 141) said, "Judges, like other people, can be tried, convicted and punished for crimes... The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution" . Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958) Note: Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitu tion of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it". See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821). Cooper v. O'Conner, 99 F.2d 133 There is a general rule that a ministerial officer who acts wrongfully, although in good faith, is nevertheless liable in a civil action and cannot claim the immunity of the sovereign. Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz. 220, 75 P.2d 689 (1938) A judge must be acting within his jurisdiction as to subject matter and person, to be entitled to immunity from civil action for his acts. Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. at 227-229, 108 S. Ct. at 544-545 (1987) Westfall v.Erwin, 108 S. Ct. 580 (1987) United States v. Lanier (March 1997) Constitutionally and in fact of law and judicial rulings, state-federal "magistrates- judges" or any government actors, state or federal, may now be held liable, if they violate any Citizen's Co nstitutional rights, privileges, or immunities, or guarantees; including statutory civil rights. A judge is not immune for tortious acts committed in a purely Administrative, non-judicial capacity. Gregory v. Thompson, F.2d 59 (C.A. Ariz. 1974) Generally, judges are immune from suit for judicial acts within or in excess of their jurisdiction even if those acts have been done maliciously or corruptly; the only exception being for acts done in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. Hoffsomer v. Hayes, 92 Okla 32, 227 F. 417 'The courts are not bound by an officers interpretation of the law under which he presumes to act Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137, 180 (1803) ... the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." "In declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank". "All law (rules and practices) which are repugnant to the Constitution are VOID". Since the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states "NO State (Jurisdiction) shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the rights, privileges, or immunities of citizens of the United States nor deprive any citizens of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, ... or equal protection under the law", this renders judicial immunity unconstitutional. Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872) "Where there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction. " Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984); 104 S. Ct. 1781, 1980, 1981, and 1985 In 1996, Congress passed a law to overcome this ruling which stated that judicial immunity doesn't exist; citizens can sue judges for prospective injunctive relief. "Our own experience is fully consistent with the common law's rejection of a rule of judicial immunity. We never have had a rule of absolute judicial immunity. At least seven circuits have indicated affirmatively that there is no immunity... to prevent irreparable injury to a citizen's constitutional rights..." "Subsequent interpretations of the Civil Rights Act by this Court acknowledge Congress' intent to reach unconstitutional actions by all state and federal actors, including judges... The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state [federal] from denying any person [citizen] within its juris diction the equal protection under the laws. Since a State [or federal] acts only by its legislative, executive or judicial authorities, the constitutional provisions must be addressed to those authorities, including state and federal judges..." "We conclude that judicial immunity is not a bar to relief against a judicial officer acting in her [his] judicial capacity." Mireles v. Waco , 112 S. Ct. 286 at 288 (1991) A judge is not immune for tortious acts committed in a purely Administrative, non-judicial capacity; however, even in a case involving a particular attorney not assigned to him, he may reach out into the hallway, having his deputy use "excessive force" to haul the attorney into the courtroom for chastisement or even incarceration. A Superior Court Judge is broadly vested with "general jurisdiction. " Provided the judge is not divested of all jurisdiction, he may have his actions excused as per this poor finding. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) Note: By law, a judge is a state officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person). When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the Judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges' orders are not voidable, but VOID, and of no legal force or effect. The U.S. Supreme C ourt stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States." Stump v. Sparkman, id., 435 U.S. 349 Some Defendants urge that any act "of a judicial nature" entitles the Judge to absolute judicial immunity. But in a jurisdictional vacuum (that is, absence of all jurisdiction) the second prong necessary to absolute judicial immunity is missing. A judge is not immune for tortious acts committed in a purely administrative, non-judicial capacity. Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844 (1980) The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an Arizona District Court dismissal based upon absolute judicial immunity, finding that both necessary immunity prongs were absent; later, in Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072 (1986), the Ninth Circuit, en banc, criticized the "judicial nature" analysis it had published in Rankin as unnecessarily restrictive. But Rankin's ultimate result was not changed, because Judge Howard had been independently divested of absolute judicial immunity by his complete lack of juris diction. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (State use of), 217 Miss. 576, 64 So. 2d 697 When a judicial officer acts entirely without jurisdiction or without compliance with jurisdiction requisites he may be held civilly liable for abuse of process even though his act involved a decision made in good faith, that he had jurisdiction. U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 1 S. Ct. 240, 261, 27 L. Ed 171 (1882) "No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it." "It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who, by accepting office participates in its functions, is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes on the exercise of the authority which it gives." Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326 When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost. CORRUPTION OF AUTHORITY: Burton v. United States , 202 U.S. 344, 26 S. Ct. 688 50 L .Ed 1057 United States Senator convicted of, among other things, bribery. BUTZ v. ECONOMOU, 438 U.S. 478 (1978) United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. at 220, 1 S. Ct. at 261 (1882) "No man [or woman] in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it." *Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, (1975) 14 Cal. 3d 678, 694 Acts in excess of judicial authority constitutes misconduct, particularly where a judge deliberately disregards the requirements of fairness and due process. *Geiler v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, (1973) 10 Cal.3d 270, 286 Society's commitment to institutional justice requires that judges be solicitous of the rights of persons who come before the court. *Gonzalez v. Commission on Judicial Performance, (1983) 33 Cal. 3d 359, 371, 374 Acts in excess of judicial authority constitutes misconduct, particularly where a judge deliberately disregards the requirements of fairness and due process. Olmstad v. United States , (1928) 277 U.S. 438 "Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt=2 0for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy." OWEN v. CITY OF INDEPENDENCE , 445 U.S. 622 (1980) 'The innocent individual who is harmed by an abuse of governmental authority is assured that he will be compensated for his injury." Perry v. United States , 204 U.S. 330, 358 "I do not understand the government to contend that it is any less bound by the obligation than a private individual would be..." "It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error." *Ryan v. Commission on Judicial Performance, (1988) 45 Cal. 3d 518, 533 Before sending a person to jail for contempt or imposing a fine, judges are required to provide due process of law, including strict adherence to the procedural requirements contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. Ignorance of these procedures is not a mitigating but an aggravating factor. U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 1 S. Ct. 240, 261, 27 L. Ed 171 (1882) "No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance, with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law are bound to obey it." "It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who, by accepting office participates in its functions, is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes on the exercise of the authority which it gives." Warnock v. Pecos County , Texas, 88 F3d 341 (5th Cir. 1996) Eleventh Amendment does not protect state officials from claims for prospective relief when it is alleged that state officials acted in violation of federal law. Best regards, Kristi L. Devine 978-852-8012 Have a GREAT DAY and pay it forward! "The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who do nothing about it." - A.E. Dell Inspiron 15: Now starting at $349
