J.A.I.L. News Journal
Los Angeles, California
October 1, 2003
Learning What "Law" Is About
In my years of promoting J.A.I.L. as the Author and Founder, I have found
that my biggest job is de-educating people, i.e., eradicating from their
memory that we are actually a nation of laws. Consequently, I have to keep
repeating the same message over and over again.
I realize that people's thinking is that no one can play football without
rules, so how can we run a country without rules. Their thinking is
logical, so it appears I am asking people to ignore logic and common sense.
Therefore, Ron must be crazy to suggest that our country is without rules to
govern it, but is run by politics only. They will even open law books to
show me the black-and-white law, and say, "Here it is right here," pointing
to the law section, which proves they are incapable of comprehending what I
am saying to them.
Does anyone remember the scene in George Orwell's book "1984" where four
fingers are held up and the question asked of the man on the stretch rack,
"How many fingers am I holding up?" If he answered "Four," or any other
number, he got tortured. This continued until he got the right answer, which
in the book was, "Whatever you want it to be." This precisely depicts how
our country is run -- after the order of the book 1984!
So Ron Branson is either crazy, or if correct, all logic has been thrown to
the wind, and our country is about to reap the whirlwind.
Below is the testimony of an Oregon JAILer who decided to enter law school
so he could help himself and others in matters of law. What follows is the
----- Original Message -----
INSIDE REPORT FROM OUR NATIONS LAW SCHOOLS
By Lawrence Agee, - Lcagee@aol.com
I am now in my 3rd year of law school. I landed here because I was swindled
out of large sums of money by crooked lawyers on several occasions. Today, I
learned more disturbing facts about our legal system.
After sitting through several lectures on white collar crime, I asked my
instructor what the victim of white collar crime is supposed to do. I
related a case of mail fraud that was inflicted upon me that resulted in an
I remember going to the police and getting brushed off. They wouldn't listen
to me. I didn't know what to do. I was forced to hire a lawyer. He charged
me $20,000 and lost. Not only did the con get away with $8,300 (aided and
abetted by a lawyer), I had to pay "my" lawyer $20,000 for the privilege of
Then, the judge told me I had to pay the person who swindled me $2,500
because I "lost." My lawyer, who dumped me off on another lawyer the day
before trial, must have laughed all the way to the bank. When I told him I
wanted to appeal, he brushed me off. I went to find an appellate lawyer who
said he could take my case, but needed a $25,000 retainer.
I did it myself. I worked on it for one year. When I got to court, there
were 30-40 appeals on the docket that morning. One minute into my oral
argument, I was cut off. The judgment was "affirmed" and I was out $50,000.
(I later saw on the JAIL website the judge who heard my case was sued for
Racketeering for throwing cases).
I asked my instructor why the DA or the US Attorney wouldn't prosecute this.
He said it was "too small of a case." Then I asked what the "threshold"
level was where the US Attorney will begin to listen. He said, somewhere in
the $70,000 and up range. He said this with a straight face.
I pondered this answer, and I am really quite upset. What he is saying is
that we (i.e. the US government) will prosecute a crime only when the US
Attorney wants to, and will act only if you were defrauded out of $70,000 or
I realized that all of us poor suckers who actually believed in "equal
protection under the law" have been duped. We only get equal protection when
we get cheated out of a large enough sum of money to hit the "threshold."
In other words, for the experienced con artist, they realize they have a
blank check to rob us, so long as they keep the amounts under $70,000. They
know that the US Attorneys and DAs are simply too lazy to act. In other
words, if you are rich, then the government will protect you. If not, they
won't. I find this double standard offensive.
The lesson learned by Lawrence Agee as stated above is indeed shocking, but
he still has not been given the truth. He was told that the financial
threshold is $70,000. But if his case exceeded the $70,000 threshold, his
outcome would have been no different, for he has not been given the
straight-forward truth, even after three years of law school.
The threshold is not $70,000 or $70 million, etc. The correct answer is
"Whatever they want it to be." The variables are, "Who is it that you know?"
"How much influence do you have?" "How much is in it for the grantor?" etc,
etc. The bottom line is that there is no bottom line, for there is no rule
of law that governs our country -- just politics.
There will be no rule of law governing this country until after the passage
and enforcement of J.A.I.L.
J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org