strip banner

  new-logo25 Ron Branson


Mr. Don Bird below is pressing the point with his California State Legislator, with whom he has gained an open door of opportunity.

You see, back in 1969 a plot was engineered by the California Legislators that if they could dispose of the right to a jury in criminal cases, they could expedite cases much faster without the involvement of juries. To pull off this plot against the People of California, they had to “invent” a whole new class of jury less crimes33049_1thm heretofore unrecognized in the Constitution called “Infractions.”

While Don Bird wishes to keep his challenge limited to the State of California Constitution, I am not so limited in my lead-in statements. The fact is, in our U.S. Constitution it is clearly written:

“The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury.” Article III, Section 2, Clause 3.

The two controlling words herein are “except,” and “shall.” There is but only one criminal jury trial exception, and that is in matters of impeachment, otherwise there “shall” be a jury trial.

And, yes, the California State Constitution, as well as all states, recognizes that its Constitution and laws are subjective to the U.S. Constitution,

“The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.” Article III, Section I.

Here, I would like to relate to a humorous actual incident of a criminal trial in which I was called upon to appear in court and to answer to the criminal charge involved therein. Pursuant to Article I, Section 16, “Trial by jury is an inviolate right and shall be secured to all,”

I moved for a jury trial.

The judge said, “Your motion for a jury trial is denied.”

I then calmly open my California Constitution to Article I, Section 26, “The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory and prohibitory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise,” and I then said:

Your honor, upon what express words within this Constitution do you rely in denying me an explicit right to a criminal trial by jury?” He did not respond.

I then stated the same thing a second time, asking for the explicit Constitutional provision in denying me a jury trial. He again did not respond.

I then asked him a third time, and this time he said, “Look, Mr. Branson, I am not on trial here, you are.”

To that I responded, “Then I am just going to have to recuse you as unqualified to hear this case.”

He said, “What is the basis of your disqualification?”

I then told him that I had demanded an explicit Constitutional right to a jury trial, and you said that it is denied. I then had to ask you three times what explicit Constitutional provision do you rely in denying me an explicit Constitutional right to a trial by jury, and all you could say is:

“Look, Mr. Branson, I am not on trial here, you are!” therefore I am recusing you from this case for cause.

He did recuse himself from the case, and I was sent to another judge. That judge decided to drop the case all together with the words,

This case is dismissed, take your victory and get out out of my court!”

This California plot by its Legislators to deny Californian’s their right to trial by jury has now spread across the United States using this newly created and defined criminal process called “Infractions.”

Below is the letter by Don Bird addressed to California Assemblyman Dan Logue regarding this issue.

Ron Branson
National JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief

Dan Logue,
Assemblyman, Third District
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0003

Dear Assemblyman Logue,

I have one more issue that I will be requesting you to prepare for an Assembly Bill next year.

I realize this is a load of documents, but the blame should be laid on the Attorneys who created this “God-swallow”! I will remind the attorneys that no matter how you spin this issue, nothing will ever “Trump” the following.

Trial by Jury: Article I, Sec. 16:

“Trial by jury is an inviolate right and shall be secured to all, but in a civil cause three-fourths of the jury may render a verdict. A jury may be waived in a criminal cause by the consent of both parties expressed in open court by the defendant and the defendant’s counsel. In a civil cause a jury may be waived by the consent of the parties expressed as prescribed by statute.”

When anyone reads and understands the exact wording of this Sec. 16, notice the two key words. The word “All” and the word “Inviolate”. The Public Servants of that 1968-1969 era either deliberately omitted the word “All” thinking no one would notice or they simply forgot. Too late now Folks! The Legislators didn’t have, and never will have, the authority to label or invent any words (infractions) (public offenses) with the purpose of denying a “Right”. The language in these documents proves the frustration these attorneys endured to steal this Right. To save money?? Our Rights are not for sale citizens.

Any time, for any reason, a person is required to appear in any Court, they Qualify for a Jury, if requested. If anyone cares, I have a viable solution. Just ask me! Being I am not an attorney, I will come up with a cure in 100 words or less. Looking forward for your invitation.

The listed legal maxims hopefully will persuade you Legislators to re think and support your “Oath” and the California Constitution.

  1. Verba pro re et subjecta materia accipi debent.

Words should be taken most in favor of the thing and the subject matter.

       2. Verba secundum materiam subjectam intelligi nemo est qui nescit.

There is no one who does not know that words should be understood according to the subject matter.

       3.    Verba sunt indices animi.

Words are indications of the intention.

       4.  Verba intentioni, et non e contra, debent inservire.

Words should be subject to the intention, not the reverse.

       5.  Verba ita sunt intelligenda, ut res magis valeat quam pereat.

Words are to be so understood that the matter may have effect rather than fail.

      6.  Verba mere aequivoca, si per communem usum loquendi in intellectu certo sumuntur, talis, intellectus praeferendus est.

When words are purely equivocal, if by common usage of speech they are taken in a certain meaning, such meaning is to be preferred

Respectively Submitted,

Donald M. Bird

Constitutional Activist

Rancho Tehama, California