Have you ever asked yourself who are those Judges on your ballot? I have and was quite surprised to find out I could not get any information about them. The county told me it was not for public disclosure. Consequently I never voted for one. So recently when I came across the organization JAIL FOR JUDGES I thought I would ask even though It may sound like a dumb question. I am providing this information thinking to myself there must be others who have asked the same questions.

I believe your vote should count and an example would be the case aginst our border agents. Appointed judges are not a good thing as they can be directed by those who appointed them. Would it have made a difference in our border agents cases? I think so.

These were the questions I recently asked of Ron Branson head of Jail for Judges. You may all know the answers I did not.

1. Why is it that the ballot for some Judges running for certain jurisdictions contain only one name?
2.What is the purpose of voting if there is no selection?
3 At other times you may see three judges running for office. I have yet to see one that I am familiar with. As a citizen I cannot get background information on any judge running for office.
4 Where do they come from?
5.Who puts them on the ballot?
6.Who decides there term?
7. How in the world can anyone vote for someone they know nothing about?

Answer:

Jim,

The system is designed to be illusory on the judges. Not even the Republican Party leaders can answer your questions as they too are in a quandary, and have asked me the same questions. Generally, there is never an outsider challenger to a sitting judge. The reason for this is that only those who carry the title of nobility (forbidden by the U.S. Constitution) of esq. may run. And should one dare to run, woe be unto him if he does not win, for then he must appear as a lawyer in front of the very person he challenged for his seat.

Basically, that lawyer must consider it the end of their career. Almost without exception, when a judge does decide to retire, he does so just before his time is up so that the governor my seat a new judge. Then, when the election takes place, he is listed on the ballot as an "incumbent judges," which, as a practical matter, always wins the election. There is a very purposeful plan being carried out when it comes to judges.

This is because they know that if you can control the judges, you can control all the rest of government. Now why is it that the electorate is kept in the dark when it comes to judicial candidates? Knowledge is power, and the objective is to keep the electorate ignorant when it comes to who to vote for. When it comes to voters and judges, they follow the ingredients of raising mushrooms; "feed'em manure, and keep'em in the dark."

Gee, from the voter's perspective a name is a name, and if he is listed on the ballot as an incumbent, then he must know what he is doing, so like in any communistic country, just punch the name, even if it be the only name on the ballot. It's called "a choice of one." I have advised even those in the Republican Party, and those who asked me such as you have, to just vote "No confidence" in respect to judges on the ballot. This means you will be better off to not vote ignorantly for an unknown.

Remember, in a later recall effort of that judge, you need only a percentage of the votes by which he was elected to the bench within that county. If he only got one thousand votes to get him elected, it may only take less than a hundred signatures to start a recall of him.Hopefully, this advice will be of assistance to you.

-Ron Branson

J.A.I.L.’s Mission:

· To create a forum in which to hold judges accountable to the people under constitutional standards.