J.A.I.L. News Journal
J.A.I.L.'s Apology for the Appearance of Impropriety
Regarding the 4/22 JNJ posting of the Schlafly Report
for his important input on this matter.
Mark, I think most people understand that J.A.I.L. is a neutral organization. Take a look at the Mission Statement on our website at www.jail4judges.org. It's unfortunate that the names "Schlafly" and "Schiavo" automatically draw people's minds to moral, political, and religious issues and their minds "crash" and cease to function further to actually see the more important, and indeed crucial, issue of judicial corruption and the need for accountability which is J.A.I.L.'s mission.
If you read the Mission Statement, you will see that J.A.I.L. does follow the strategy you mention below. The M.S. states: "J.A.I.L. is politically neutral and non-partisan, composed of leaders and members of all political parties and persuasions. J.A.I.L. neither endorses, promotes, nor opposes any political party."
Your statement: WITHOUT presenting any appearance of supporting any particular political, moral or religious position is however well taken. It is true, there may have been an APPEARANCE of supporting a particular position, despite the fact that J.A.I.L. doesn't particularly support it.
So from that standpoint, we apologize for any possible misunderstanding that may have come across by posting the Schlafly report. J.A.I.L.'s interest was only that of the attention given to the issue of judicial corruption and the realization that we need judicial accountability!
Hopefully this clarifies the matter and re-emphasizes J.A.I.L.'s position as stated in the Mission Statement which we encourage all of you to read, or re-read. It hasn't changed. We're sorry for any inconvenience or confusion this posting may have caused.
ACIC, National J.A.I.L. Admin.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: Feedback on J.A.I.L.'s posting the Schlafly report
Thank you for your reply and for the JNJ posting.
The points you have made are well taken, Barbie, particularly the attention the Schiavo case is bringing to judicial corruption. I can see that my original post focused too narrowly on Schiavo, and thereby under-emphasized the larger matter that I now wish to clarify. And that is that J.A.I.L. needs to stay NEUTRAL on political, moral and religious matters unrelated to judicial and government corruption.
The Schlafly report contained many anti-liberal and morally-biased remarks, and THAT, more than the Schiavo case, is what concerns me. It does not serve our purpose to alienate liberals or people of any moral or religious persuasion.
Frankly, I think J.A.I.L. should WELCOME support from Democrats, from Libertarians, from those who think that laws from other countries might sometimes be good examples to follow, and from those who hold different religious and/or moral beliefs than Ms. Schlafly holds. But Barbie, the Schlafly report can be guaranteed to alienate tens of millions of such people, notwithstanding it's many excellent points about arrogance and corruption in the judiciary.
Rethinking my opinion, it seems that J.A.I.L. might define a policy (and I'm not sure yet what it might look like) for utilizing the public attention from the Schiavo case (as well as future judicial events in the news) to focus SOLELY on the issue of judicial corruption, WITHOUT presenting any appearance of supporting any particular political, moral or religious position. What do you and Ron think of this concept? Do other J.A.I.L. supporters agree with me? If so, what might such a policy look like?
Mark Laurence Donald Emerson
At 07:36 AM 4/26/05, you wrote:
Thank you for your comments and your interest in J.A.I.L.
There can be no doubt that the Schiavo case has truly awakened an apathetic public, and has gotten the attention of the media, to the seriousness of judicial corruption. Thanks to the Schiavo matter, the spotlight is finally being turned on the judiciary disclosing the fact that it is the only branch of government that is unaccountable to the public, and yet is the one that plays the most crucial role in government.
The Schlafly article is just one reflection of this sudden attention to the arrogance of the judiciary, particularly the ignoring of a special act of Congress requiring the court to reconsider the Schiavo matter in light of much evidence that has never been considered before making its crucial decision-- in other words, the lack of due process of law. The focus of J.A.I.L. is on that judicial procedural misconduct shown in the Schiavo matter, and not the merits of the Schiavo case itself, which are not reached-- although a discussion about Schiavo cannot be avoided since it is a major by-product of judicial misconduct.
As I said, it is primarily the Schiavo scenario that has given rise to public attention to the judicial corruption shown and the need for accountability. It has really been a boost for J.A.I.L., showing the public an actual example of judicial tyranny in action by major media which is quite unusual. Generally the media hides judicial corruption and keeps it from public view. However, the Schiavo matter forced the media to bring it out into the open, giving public attention to this crucial problem which brings with it concerns about a solution-- and that points to J.A.I.L.
It's interesting that we haven't heard the media discuss J.A.I.L. --at least not yet. But judging from the emails we have been receiving, many more people are taking J.A.I.L. more seriously now than they did before the Schiavo case came to media attention. We are certain that this is the case with Congress, and even state government. Our JNJs are being sent routinely to many government officials, so enough of them know about J.A.I.L. and when the subject of judicial accountability comes up, we're sure that J.A.I.L. comes to mind. J.A.I.L. has become more of a reality now, and not just a pipe dream. Many eyes have been opened to the genuine need for J.A.I.L. since Schiavo.
No, Mark-- the Schiavo case cannot be totally ignored because of the tremendous effect it has had on the issue of judicial accountability. It has brought the issue to public attention, generously discussed in both the printed and electronic media. The Schlafly report we published was generally a discussion about the many misgivings of judicial arrogance from several aspects, not just the Schiavo case. One important aspect was the reaction of Congress to the need for improving the judicial system and bringing the judiciary under control. The focus was NOT Schiavo, although it was mentioned as it had to be.
You are absolutely correct in your outlook on J.A.I.L. It is for everyone, regardless of their view of the Schiavo case itself. I'm reasonably certain that people reading the Schlafly report can see that the focus is on the judiciary, not Schiavo. That is why it was posted by J.A.I.L.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention, and for giving us this opportunity to clarify the matter. I'm sharing this message with our JAILers. If you have further questions or comments, let us know.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Emerson
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 8:11 PM
Subject: A submission for JNJ
JAIL Should Be Silent on the Schiavo Case
I am concerned about j4j giving attention to the Terri Schiavo
case, as it did by publishing the article by Phyllis Schlafly,
entitled "Starve the Courts". With all due respect to Ms.
Schlafly and her opinions, I believe her article was
counterproductive to building a political base for the passage of
JAIL. Please let me explain.
JAIL is not just for religiously conservative people, but for
EVERYONE. And we need support for JAIL from as many
political camps as possible.
The Schiavo case involves a moral issue that is BY NO MEANS easy
to decide. Indeed, according to polls, a MAJORITY of
Americans believes (or leans toward believing) that removing her
body from its life support system was morally acceptable.
On the other hand, the moral issue of corruption in the judiciary
*IS* easy to decide.
The Schiavo case involves a fairly SIMPLE set of facts. In
a mere "sound bite", a person can become familiar with the
essential question: Is it moral to remove a person, who has been
kept alive for YEARS in a persistent vegetative state, from the
life support system? The question is obvious, but the
answer is not. Or, at least, the answer is not obvious
enough to attain any popular consensus.
However, the corruption in the courts involves a COMPLEX set of
facts. Most people don't have a CLUE about judicial
corruption, and we can't bring them up to speed in a few sound
bites. People have been conditioned by the media, the
educational system and the last five words of the Pledge of
Allegiance to believe the judicial system is basically
SOUND. In order to learn the facts that prove otherwise,
people need to roll up their sleeves and examine the matter with
an open mind, and THAT is the single largest obstacle to getting
We should not distract from the REAL issues of JAIL by giving any
APPEARANCE (by publishing articles such as Schlafly's) that the
proponents of JAIL favor one (or the other) side of ANY
controversial, emotionally-charged moral issue that has NOTHING
to do with immorality judicial corruption. Blaming Terri's
death on judicial corruption is UNWISE for JAIL, because it
alienates the majority of people who happen to think the courts
decided RIGHTLY. It creates the appearance that JAIL is a
right-wing, reactionary proposal, and this pushes away liberals
and others whose support we need.
At least 99% of the population is opposed to judicial
corruption. Most are simply ignorant of how extensive and
systemic judicial corruption has become. We need to AVOID
politically and religiously divisive issues entirely. Let
us drive our wedge ONLY between (1) corrupt attorneys, corrupt
judges and the rest of their corrupt gang, and (2) the 99% of the
rest of the population.
JAIL should be SILENT on the Schiavo case.
Mark Laurence Donald Emerson