Los Angeles, California
January 24, 2006
The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter
or Reform Abusive Government
The Right Upon Which All Other Rights
"Independence of the Judiciary"
To Be Checked By The People
Thanks ... for the last article
delineating the boundaries of JAIL. No one with half a brain or an iota of
concern, (which, as you pointed out, may actually not be as many as we
think,) can accuse us of going beyond any perceived limits as to citizen
activism in government, or of tying the hands of justice. Rule of Law, if
there is such an animal, implies that no one is above the law. Jefferson
asked, "Where is the check on the judiciary?" Good question. Which raises
Does a check on the judiciary preclude the notion of an
independent judiciary? Perhaps. It seems to be a moot point, however,
which means, not a settled point, but one that is debatable. My idea is
that if judicial independence means no interference whatsoever, that invites
tyranny, if it is not by its very nature tyrannical. If independence is to
be maintained, then no governmental agency, entity, or person should be
allowed to intervene, and it seems eminently logical and practical and
patriotic, therefore, to provide for intervention ONLY by the people, as a
DUTY, and as a means of participating directly in the political process.
Someone once said that "a mistake is an error left uncorrected." We're just
correcting an error, made perhaps by the founders or perhaps by interpreters
with a personal interest in immunizing judicial officers, before it becomes
a more serious and perhaps a mistake fatal to the Republic.
I agree with your correct presumption, by the way,
concerning the nature of the establishment of government. Webster's
definition of Civil Liberty went on to explain that:
"Civil Liberty is an exemption of the arbitrary will of
others, which exemption is secured by establishing laws, which restrain
every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law
are essential to civil liberty.
The liberty of one depends not so much on the removal of
all restraint from him, as on the due restraint upon the liberty of
In this sentence, the latter word liberty denotes natural
No one would argue that to prevent injury or control laws
should exist. But when the restraints become excessive or arbitrary, as
they have, so that they are NOT "necessary or expedient for the safety and
interest" of the people, but for the government itself and for the
corporations it creates, --that, Webster says, is "tyranny and
oppression." Ah, there's the rub. Now judges uphold bad laws, badly
written, ill-conceived, and misapplied. Their only defense is the
Neuremberg defense: They're only following orders. And they are, not as
judicial officers, but as employees of the State exercising Executive
power. In Thompson v Smith, the supreme court ruled that "judges,
when enforcing statutes, do not act judicially." WOW, ya gotta love it!
That's because you must have Laws, Statutes AND Regulations for the due
process of the law to be complete! Otherwise, the "judicial" process is
flawed, defective and/or abusive.
The only way for a judge to be a judge is to be delegated
authority by Congress through Article III of the National Constitution. It
says Congress MAY delegate judicial authority. In fact, the record
indicates that Congress actually withheld the delegation of judicial
authority! Check out Northern Pipeline v. Marathon Pipeline, a
bankruptcy case in which the court declared that a bankruptcy court judge
does NOT have Article III judicial power, is NOT a judge, and so his
decision was null and void. Ouch! Who woulda thunk it?
What would happen if the same were considered about State
Judges? I know what the ruling SHOULD be. They're not Article III judges
either and State courts are NOT Constitutional courts. That definition is,
not of a court that considers, uses, abides by and is restricted by the
constitution, but one that is a court established or created by the
constitution. State courts are created by the legislature. State judges,
therefore, are NOT judicial officers, and are not independent, but have
conflicts of interest inherent in their job! What does it say on their
paycheck about who pays them? They take a loyalty oath to the State. The
State owns the judges, the court, all the attorneys, and they are the
plaintiff trying their own cause. How the hell did that happen? True or
not, I even heard that judges LEASE their courtrooms! In any case, it is
merely a "kangaroo court" as I said before, "one in which the outcome is
pre-determined." And so is the income! They've got a cash cow going and
they don't want to give it up. A portion of the court fees go into their
retirement funds. That's a financial interest in every case.
So it is up to the people. As much as I hate cliches, it
is apparent that the ball is in our court, pun intended. It is, and
must truly be, not the State's court, but the people's court, or it is no
court at all.
I will soon forward some attachments for you to consider and
I look forward to hearing from you again.
Until then, I remain,
Pro Libertate et Patriae
"For the Liberty of My Country,"
Pro Aris et Focis,
"For Our Altars and Our Hearths,"
"Live and Be Well,"
(Ancient Roman closing of letters)
Michael James Anthony
Your thought on the "independence of the judiciary" is very
well taken and should be shared with our readers because one of the foremost
arguments of our opposition is that J.A.I.L. will interfere with the
"independence of the judiciary." It is very important that the People
understand what is being said. Therefore, your message and my reply is being
sent as a JNJ for educational purposes.
First, whenever you hear any accusation against J.A.I.L.,
they are accusing the People-- for J.A.I.L.
is the People exercising their inherent right to amend
what purports to be "government" inasmuch as their rights are being violated
every day and the People are being forced to live under absolute despotism.
The evils are no longer sufferable; therefore it is incumbent upon the
People to "throw off such government" by holding the guardian of our rights,
i.e., the purported judiciary, accountable to the People under
For purposes of the J.A.I.L. process, it doesn't matter what
the make-up of the powers-that-be is. All we know for sure, as a
People, is that the powers are evil and destructive
of the People and it can no longer be endured. We know for sure
that only we, the People, can change the situation,
and change it we must! The People will continue to seek redress of
grievances in whatever forum is theoretically available to them, before
whatever tribunal is theoretically available. It is what happens in practice
in our system of redress that must be checked by the People.
All we know is that the system, for whatever reason, doesn't work, and it is
up to the People to correct the malfunction.
Secondly, we know as a People that the powers-that-be is no
longer "government" by the empirical results we see and experience in
everyday life. We know that our rights are not being protected by a
government under constitutional principles, but that our rights are being
constantly trampled upon by a power that is foreign
to our Constitution, destroying our lives, our liberty, and our property,
clearly defining the powers as tyrannical.
To illustrate how tyrannical this occupying power is, the
South Dakota Legislature that is financially supported by the People of
South Dakota, is conspiring together with all 105 legislators to actually
write and pass a resolution among themselves to oppose
a ballot measure (J.A.I.L. -- Amendment E) that is sponsored by the People,
their constituents, to establish a new guard for their future security. We
know that if the South Dakota Legislature were actually the state
representatives of the People, they would not be willing to
campaign against a People's measure. This is just
one way the People can know that the occupying force operating under color
of the South Dakota Legislature is not really representing the People, but
are in fact opposing the People, at the People's
expense. Such a tactic is unheard of in America-- but that
proves what kind of a "power" the People of South Dakota are
dealing with. It certainly is not a power that is protecting their rights,
such as a constitutional government would do.
We've heard about the doctrine of "separation of powers" as
part of constitutional government-- three separate branches of government.
Yet see what the empirical evidence shows-- there is no
separation. It's the entire occupying force in power against
the People. What passes itself off as the South Dakota Legislature is
conspiring among its own members to oppose a People's measure calling for
accountability of another branch of "government."
Ask yourselves, WHY? Does this make sense?
Thirdly, we hear the entire occupying force operating under
color of "government" in opposing the People of South Dakota who are
sponsoring a People's measure to hold "judges" accountable, tell us that "J.A.I.L.
will interfere with the independence of the judiciary."
That phrase comes up time and time again. The system portrays that as
meaning that the judiciary must remain independent to rule according to law
and not be under pressure of outside influence in making their decisions. If
that is truly the case, then J.A.I.L. will enhance
the independence of the judiciary because it will force the judiciary to
rule according to law!
We, as a People, know that the judiciary does not
rule according to law, and that in fact the judiciary IS UNDER PRESSURE OF
THE SYSTEM to rule in its favor, despite the law
and the facts. We know that the judiciary is in fact the "mouthpiece" for
the system behind which the system hides because judges have made themselves
invincible --unaccountable-- by their self-imposed doctrine of "judicial
immunity." And so the entire system uses the judges and "judicial immunity"
to hide their own corruption, through judicial cover-up. This illicit
practice has become a racket without redress by the People, and it is no
The People will be a check upon the "independence of the
judiciary" by making sure that it does rule
according to law and not according to pressures from the system, or anyone
else. The judiciary will no longer have their trusty shield of "judicial
immunity" to hide behind and remain unaccountable for their actions, i.e.,
procedural misconduct --not making decisions.
Decisions aren't even reached when judicial procedure is violated. So when
you hear that J.A.I.L. will allow people to sue judges if they "don't like
the decision," you know that this is more evil propaganda used to deceive
the People. This is more evidence that we don't have a government in power
to protect the People's rights, and that the People must restore
constitutional government and the American way of life in this country--
not the oppression we're experiencing today under
the status quo.
The other issues you mention, Michael, are interesting, but
are not the immediate concern for J.A.I.L. Those things will come to
attention in due course, and they will be corrected. But right now, all the
People want is a way to hold the purported "judges" (whoever is considered a
judicial officer having judicial discretion, and is covered by judicial
immunity-- and that doesn't mean school boards or
city councils) accountable under constitutional principles. That's all.
Thank you Michael, and to all of you whose eyes are finally
opening to the desperate straits the People are faced with under the status
quo. The rich have plenty of insulation from the tyranny-- they can "pay"
for "justice" and busy themselves in a high life style, far from reality.
The poor are hidden away and stripped of their resources, making them
miserable and helpless. We just hope that in between, there are enough
People left to carry the ball for the rest of society and realize that
J.A.I.L. is the answer, as we've always been saying-- it hasn't changed!
It's just that the People are beginning to wake up-- finally.
The two-hundred-year honeymoon for the tyrants, with an ignorant and
apathetic people to control, is over!