Judicial Watch 
Judicial Watch | Robert Clarkson 864-225-3061 email |
| "In England, where judges were named and removable at the will of an hereditary executive, from which branch most misrule was feared and has flowed, it was a great point gained by fixing them for life, to make them independent of that executive. But in a government founded on the public will, this principle operates in an opposite direction and against that will. There, too, they were still removable on a concurrence of the executive and legislative branches. But we have made them independent of the nation itself. They are irremovable but by their own body for any depravities of conduct, and even by their own body for the imbecilities of dotage." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:34 |
| Table of Contents
|
The ProblemThe Patriot Network has long acknowledged the need to hold the judicial branch of our government to higher standards. It is well known that our judicial branch has gone awry. How is it that three state-level judges have set the agenda for the entire nation in regards to homosexual marriage? In the words of Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice, "�that is simply unacceptable." Within the Patriot Movement, there are a number of other organizations devoted to reigning in our tyrannical judges. We work along side with these organizations to try to achieve justice. The one most on target to achieve this purpose is an organization called Jail for Judges, or simply J.A.I.L. This acronym stands for Judicial Accountability Initiative Law. Currently our system of government gives judges absolute immunity. They cannot be held liable for criminal charges or in civil lawsuits. Immunity, if applied properly, is healthy for our nation. We don't want criminals suing judges, tying up our courts for years, simply because they don't like the verdict. But absolute immunity has got to go. As Thomas Jefferson pointed out, the only safe reservoir for power is with the people themselves, and then only in mass. Currently our police are given qualified immunity. Let's say an officer plans a raid of a home, plans it to a "T" but then forgets to yell "POLICE!" and someone gets hurt. This officer should be reprimanded yes, but he should never lose his home for an honest mistake made in the normal course of duty. The courts have ruled this way for a long time and rightfully so. However, there is one time when officers do not qualify for immunity. That is when they take action with malice or with criminal intent. Then the shields come down and the officer is vulnerable to civil lawsuit or a criminal charge. This is the way it should be. The problem is that the judges do not get the same treatment. They can rule with malicious, selfish, or criminal intent and their motivation can be obvious to everyone, yet they cannot be sued or prosecuted criminally. The shield of immunity never comes down. That is why Ron Branson has proposed J.A.I.L. His solution is to change each constitution state by state until the entire nation is under its authority. His proposal is a simple one. Allow judges to be accountable to an independent impartial grand jury. If the jury finds the judges behavior to be so outrageous as to shock the conscience, then the immunity comes off and the judge is vulnerable to civil lawsuit. To find out more about Ron Branson's constitutional amendment, go to Jail4Judges.org or your state's chapter at Jail4Judges State Chapters. The struggle to hold our judges accountable is increased due to the so-called non-partisanship of judicial elections. It is beyond the understanding of this webmaster how such a position can be considered non-partisan. A person's political views permeate a person's world view. This is no less true for judges. Voters have the right to know if they are voting for a liberal or a conservative because only then can they decide if a judge will represent their values. Another reason why it is so difficult to hold our judges accountable is because of the lack of competition of judgeship positions on the ballet. This is not by accident. Ron Branson of J.A.I.L. explains why this is the case. |
The RemediesThe Patriot Network in cooperation with various brother/sister organizations have long recognized the inadequacy we the people have in holding our courts accountable. This monumental task is something that the Patriot Network cannot do on its own. In the interest of this important issue, The Patriot Network points you to several other organizations/web sites that are excellent resources for information and are more equipped to assist in this area.
|
Map of Federal Court of AppealsMost of us who try to follow government will all too often read or hear a reference to "The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals" and wonder if that applies to us. The map below will help each of us remember which circuit we belong to: 
Note that there is a proposal on the "table" to break up the 9th Circuit. |
An Excerpt from Walls In Our Minds by Red BeckmanThe year was 1800 and one of our U.S. Supreme Court Justices was presiding over a jury trial. Samuel Chase was the Judge and he instructed the jury saying, 'he would decide the law and the jury would decide the facts'. In other words, the Judge would explain the law to the jury and then the jury would decide if the defendant had violated the law as the Judge interpreted it. Samuel Chase found himself in a heap of trouble. The U.S. House of Representatives passed a Bill of Impeachment against Judge Chase and the U.S. Senate had an impeachment trial. |
| "With us, all the branches of the government are elective by the people themselves, except the judiciary, of whose science and qualifications they are not competent judges. Yet, even in that department, we call in a jury of the people to decide all controverted matters of fact, because to that investigation they are entirely competent, leaving thus as little as possible, merely the law of the case, to the decision of the judges." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482 |
For Web questions contact PNwebmaster