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."
"And the latest best-selling screed against the judiciary—Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America—repeatedly accuses the courts of 'tyranny' that make it 'difficult to maintain a republic.' "
"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.