Home Recommended Products Contact Us
Resources & Links
Fatherlessness Statistics
Child Support
Legal Resources
Search This Site
Bad Judges List
Free Templates
Restraining Orders
Judicial Abuse Stories
Father's Stories
Legal Help & Referrals
Constitutional Rights
Table of Contents
Terms & Conditions
Signup for Newsletter
Search Site
J.A.I.L. News Journal
Los Angeles, California                                         February 1, 2006 ______________________________________________________
The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform Abusive Government.
The Right Upon Which All Other Rights Depend
The Torchbearer for J.A.I.L. Nationally - Support Them!
P.O. Box 412, Tea, S.D. 57064  -  (605) 231-1418
Attacking the Immunity System
By Pam Smith
The Recorder Legal Newspaper
If two crusaders succeed, judges will be liable for decisions

Most days, Ronald Branson and his wife take turns at the computer in the
garage of their San Fernando Valley home, waging war against what they
see as a major failing of their country's court system.

Their Web site, www.jail4judges.org, blasts the "arbitrary abuse of the
doctrine of judicial immunity." They shoot off frequent e-mails to rally
their troops, like the one last April when Branson praised a Nightline
report called "Blaming the Bench." "We are only now viewing the
beginning of a looming showdown in this nation on this subject," he
typed to his audience, which he says numbers at least 1,000 people.

For a decade, Branson, a prolific pro per, and Gary Zerman, a Valencia
attorney similarly disillusioned with the courts, have sought a way
around the immunity that shields judges from suits over their actions on
the bench.

In the 1990s, they tried to get an initiative on the California ballot
that would have created a special grand jury able to criminally indict
state judges or to strip them of the immunity defense in civil suits.

"Members of the group are not going to police the group," Zerman says.
"You have to have outside independent people to make sure that
mechanisms of accountability are there."

But their low-budget operation ran into a roadblock: It took far too
many signatures to get anything on the ballot in their populous home

More recently, though, things have been looking up for the founders of
the JAIL movement, which now aims to get a foothold for its Judicial
Accountability Initiative Law in any state it can. A feed-machine
businessman from South Dakota, where the population is roughly 1/50 of
California's, has enthusiastically taken up their cause, and is
sponsoring a JAIL initiative there. In December, a petition drive funded
by about $140,000 of William Stegmeier's money gathered enough
signatures to put a constitutional amendment on the November ballot.

Zerman and Branson hope a win in South Dakota will create enough
momentum to propel them into other states. That's also the concern for
lawyers and judges who claim a law like JAIL would be both infeasible
and philosophically dangerous.

Stegmeier's South Dakota initiative was a topic of conversation among
the state chief justices who gathered last month for a national meeting,
said California Chief Justice Ronald George. While he doesn't seem to be
losing sleep over it, he's not shrugging it off, either. "I don't know
that anything like this has qualified on a state ballot before, so I
think that means that it has to be taken seriously."

Branson is already looking ahead, to other initiative-friendly states.
He'd like to take on Nevada next, but he's not ruling other places out.
If anyone can come up with a million dollars, he says, JAIL might take
another stab at California.

"I'm gambling on the idea that if we prevail in South Dakota, we'll have
the attention of so many news sources, and so many money sources will
come to us," he figures. "Success breeds success."


Branson, who says he's been a minister since his three-year Army stint
in the 1960s, peppers his speech with analogies. The South Dakota
initiative is like a wick burning toward a barrel of gunpowder, a
wrecking ball that will pick up momentum, the first domino that will
topple. When he reminisces about his battles with the courts, he uses
the lottery, or a baseball game, to make his points.

He has been a pro per, on and off, for about 20 years, typically in
suits against the government, and by his count, he's sued more than half
a dozen judges. He says his legal education began in the early 1980s,
when his wife, a legal secretary, lost her job with a district attorney's office and sued to demand a civil service hearing.

"I've had 14 trips to the U.S. Supreme Court, and not one time have the
courts addressed any of the issues I raised in those cases," Branson
says. His cert petitions were all denied.

"It would have been an act of insanity for me to continue seeking
redress in the judicial system," he says. "I said, we've got to do it
some way that doesn't include government."

When he met Zerman by chance, he found a collaborator.

They were both at a speech by then-state Sen. Tom Hayden, when Branson overheard Zerman complaining to the legislator about the state's
Commission on Judicial Performance.

Branson remembers following Zerman back to his seat. "I knelt beside him
and I said, 'Hello, I'm Ron Branson, and I understand exactly what you're talking about here,'" Branson says. "He was getting nowhere as an
attorney, I was getting nowhere as a pro se."

Court dockets show that at least 10 cases involving Branson have reached
the Second District Court of Appeal, and at least five petitions for
review have been denied by the California Supreme Court.

The case that really galled Branson, though, was an unlawful-arrest suit
against the city of Los Angeles, in which he contends a judge never
entered a required default judgment, leaving him no ruling to appeal.

Had a law like the South Dakota JAIL amendment existed in California,
Branson says, once his appeals were exhausted, he could have complained
to a special grand jury that the judge had blocked the lawful conclusion
of his case. If the panel decided his complaint wasn't frivolous, the
judge could have been prohibited from claiming judicial immunity if
Branson sued.

"This is the only thing that's going to straighten out the politics in
this country," Branson declares, before pausing: "You can tell I get
going like a racecar."

While Zerman, a former insurance defense lawyer, isn't as prone to
metaphor, he is equally passionate in his view that judicial immunity
from suits is inherently unfair. "The rule of law exists for some and
not others," he says.

Zerman's first real encounter with judicial immunity was a malpractice
suit, he says, in which he represented a pair of clients suing two
well-known California plaintiff attorneys, the late Melvin Belli of San
Francisco, and Santa Monica's R. Browne Greene.

Zerman says he got his head handed to him by a judge at trial, and then
got "what I believe was a fraudulent appellate opinion." He eventually
sued the trial judge and appellate panel, but it did no good, he says.

He also tried filing an accusation of misconduct against the two
plaintiff lawyers with the California Supreme Court, but the justices
declined to hear it. Then, in 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court declined
Zerman's petition to review the California high court's decision.

"In some of these cases when you get hosed initially and then you start
to appeal, the appellate system doesn't work," he says. "They can't
admit that the system is that out-of-whack."


After his chance meeting with Branson, Zerman says, "Ron grabbed onto
the initiative [idea], and he started drafting." What the pro per wrote,
Zerman and others polished.

They've been trying to sell their vision ever since, though as salesmen,
they can be something of a contrast.

Branson boasts of a national JAIL organization with military-esque ranks
and titles. He calls himself the National JAIL Commander-in-Chief -
similar, he says, to a five-star general. When he appears at
particularly formal events as a representative, like a conference he
attended in Virginia, he wears a blue suit with five stars on his chest,
and five more on the points of his shirt collar. The ranks below him, he
explains, go from lieutenant-commander-in-chief (the equivalent of a
four-star general), to jailer-in-chiefs (two-star generals) in charge of
each state.

Zerman, on the other hand, refers to JAIL as a "loosely knit" group, and
doesn't use his title. When he makes a high-profile appearance on JAIL's
behalf, like he did on CNN a couple of months back, he says, "I just
wear a business suit."

He estimates that he spends about 30 hours a week working on JAIL
efforts from his home office or doing interviews, and suggests his
crusade to reform has hurt his civil practice.

"I have a few cases, but you pay a price for doing this," says Zerman,
who is acting as a spokesman for the South Dakota campaign. "I tell
[potential clients], having me as your attorney may be hazardous to your
case, because I've got some judges gunning for me."

And for all that, he and Branson weren't getting very far. That is,
until the Internet extended the reach of their message.

As best he can recall, William Stegmeier, whose company outside Sioux
Falls makes grinders for livestock feed, ran across JAIL's Web site and
was intrigued enough to donate $100 or so.

"You know, a lot of patriot organizations, sometimes they link to each
other," Stegmeier said by cell phone from rural South Dakota. "The name
jail4judges does elicit curiosity, no doubt about that."

It wasn't long, Stegmeier added, before he got an e-mail asking him if
he wanted to be "jailer-in-chief" for the state.

Since then, he's put up about $140,000 of his own money for a
constitutional amendment based on the California JAIL proposal drafted
by Branson. Last month, South Dakota's secretary of state declared that
the amendment had the 33,456 signatures needed to qualify for the
November ballot.

Apparently going for a toned-down image, Stegmeier says he calls his
statewide campaign South Dakota Judicial Accountability. And on the
campaign trail, he's not really using the jail4judges name - "We thought
it would be a bit too strong for rural South Dakota" - nor going by his
two-star title.

Surprisingly, the amendment's sponsor says he's never had a problem with
any judge, himself. "I really haven't had much involvement in courts."

He does remember being bothered more than a year ago, though, by a case in Fort Worth, Texas. The judge, he said, wouldn't allow a defendant to enter the U.S. Constitution as evidence. "Now, how ridiculous is that?"

"I'm a patriot. I have three young children," he added. "I look at this
as my civic contribution to the country."


Given Branson and Zerman's roots, some judges in California are keeping
tabs on the South Dakota election.

"It is such a frightening assault on the bedrock principle of an independent judiciary," says Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Terry Friedman, president of the California Judges Association.

He's not sure how to evaluate its chances, he adds. "But I know that many judges are - and I would include myself - [concerned] that if it were to succeed there, even though it's maybe a small and distant state, that could give the movement some momentum elsewhere."

Still, he's not sure whether any of the amendment's critics in California will get involved in the campaign against the amendment in South Dakota.

"I don't want to prematurely or unnecessarily build it up in order to knock it down," Friedman said. "I would rather that it never got off the ground in the first place."

Tom Barnett, the Executive Director of the South Dakota Bar, would have
preferred JAIL never left its home turf. "We wish they just would've
started out in California and stayed there."

He has talked with South Dakota judges in passing about the amendment.
"While they were concerned, my recommendation is, you don't dignify this
type of initiative with a response," he says. "You let Main Street businesses and people involved in civics and [local government] say this is their fight - because the attack is an attack on Civics 101."

Barnett prefers not to go into too many details about the counter-offensive, though. "The last thing I want to do," Barnett says, "is to have Mr. Branson sit out there in California and read what our campaign plan is."

That will surely disappoint Mr. Branson.

"You ever see one of these fish, they have this extension on their lip
that looks like a worm?" says Branson. The fish he's thinking of, he
explains, hunts by hiding all but that piece of its body, waiting for
another fish gullible enough to try for a nibble.

"They just can't resist themselves, they have to attack us," Branson
says. "And every time they attack us, they're ruining the element of


How to judge a judge

A constitutional amendment on the November ballot in South Dakota
threatens to make state judges there more vulnerable to civil lawsuits
and criminal prosecutions.

The Judicial Accountability Initiative Law, which needs a simple majority to pass this fall, would create a special grand jury with the power to criminally indict a judge, or to bar him from using the judicial immunity defense in a civil suit.

No one could lodge a criminal accusation with the special jury unless a
prosecutor had declined to file charges. And no one could bring a civil
accusation without having exhausted state court remedies.

After receiving the judge's response to civil allegations, the 13-member
special jury would decide by majority vote whether the judge could claim
judicial immunity if the accuser were to sue in civil court. The amendment specifies that immunity should not be allowed for any deliberate violation of the law or the state or federal constitution; fraud or conspiracy; intentional violation of due process; deliberate disregard of material facts; actions without jurisdiction; or the blocking of the lawful conclusion of a case.

Judges amassing three adverse immunity decisions or criminal convictions
would be kicked off the bench, with their retirement benefits cut by at
least half.

Critics say the proposal is unworkable, and a threat to judicial independence.

"Every time there's a dissatisfied person there'd be a lawsuit," says
James Heiting, president of the State Bar of California.

Larry Mann, a South Dakota political consultant working against the
amendment, also argues that it would only serve to shift immunity. "It's
so broadly written that it creates this special grand jury [with] almost
unrestrained authority to do almost whatever they want, without any

But proponents who have long hoped for such a law in California counter
that the current checks on judges aren't enough.

"Until a judge has become an open embarrassment to the system, they just
won't be prosecuted," said Californian Ronald Branson, who drafted the
template for the JAIL amendment about 10 years ago.

Gary Zerman, a Valencia solo practitioner who's worked with Branson to
promote such initiatives, likewise expresses disappointment in the
Commission on Judicial Performance. "The CJP just gives them a public
censure and lets them go on like nothing happened."

- Pam Smith 

Pam Smith
Reporter, The Recorder legal newspaper
Phone: 415.749.5524
Fax: 415.749.5549

J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
Contribute to J.A.I.L. at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
See our active flash, http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm
JAIL is a unique addition to our form of gov't. heretofore unrealized.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To be added or removed, write to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
Your help is needed: www.SouthDakotaJudicialAccountability.com
"..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