Read & Understand
Reporting Irresponsibly On It
If you expect to maintain your "honorable" reputation and integrity, we highly recommend that all members of the judiciary, active or retired, and of government generally, and of the news media,
READ AND STUDY THE SOURCE MATERIAL
before making comment and reporting irresponsibly on it.
Even the art of propaganda brings our cause to people's
We thank David Krantz, columnist for the Argus Leader,
the largest newspaper in the largest city of South Dakota, Sioux Falls, for his
article below published 8/28/05 which he titles "Don't like how the court
ruled? Sue the judge, group says" for bringing the public's attention to the
J.A.I.L. cause in such a provocative manner. Probably the most provocative
manner is through the art of propaganda in news reporting that so
vastly permeates the news media throughout the country. So thank you Mr. Krantz
for announcing the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.) effort in
South Dakota to people who would not otherwise know about this cause.
South Dakotans are eager to hear about the J.A.I.L. Amendment
Ron Branson, Author and Founder of J.A.I.L., and I have just returned from South Dakota after spending time going door to door, meeting a good cross-section of South Dakotans who, for the most part, were eager to hear about and discuss the SDJA Amendment. The South Dakota Judicial Accountability (SDJA) Team represents the South Dakota Chapter of National J.A.I.L. The fact of the lack of accountability of the judiciary to the People is of epidemic proportion throughout America, and South Dakota is just the first step toward correcting that national malfeasance which has had a controlling grip on the American People for more than two centuries since our Founding. The longer it is allowed to continue, the more despotic it becomes until this usurpation of power has now become insufferable by the People and they are compelled to act to abolish such government. That is the mission of this cause, beginning with the SDJA J.A.I.L. Amendment in South Dakota-- the first step in this nationwide effort.
The solution must come directly from the People
Mr. Branson has discovered, after attempting for eighteen years to get redress in the courts, both state and federal, at all levels --including fourteen attempts to the U.S. Supreme Court-- and petitioning to every door of the California Legislature, plus the Offices of the California Governor and State Attorney General, all of whom were "helpless" to be able to lift a finger to correct the problem, that the solution would have to come directly from the People.
The news media does not, by and large, speak for the People
It is common knowledge and a sad commentary that the news media by and large does not speak for the People-- it is the reporting facility of government. So it is no surprise that the Argus Leader would misrepresent the People's position in this cause and quote someone from the judiciary giving a reactionary, knee-jerk remark having no relation to the truth. Let's examine what the quoted retired judge said:
The J.A.I.L. Amendment deals with the individual, not a voting bloc
"People already have the power. They elected the judges, and if they don't like them, they can throw them out," Wuest said. If the judge cared to examine the issue more closely or at all, he would learn that requiring judicial accountability to the People does not involve a voting bloc of people, but any individual seeking redress of grievances in court who has failed to receive a judicial remedy according to law in his individual case. The People of this country (and South Dakota is part of this country) are made up of individuals and are to be respected individually, not as a bloc. Unalienable rights are the property of individual human beings, not of a bloc. The individual is not respected by government, particularly by judges. The SDJA Amendment of J.A.I.L. addresses each individual litigant and each individual judge involved in a given case.
People voting for judges are irrelevant to J.A.I.L. and SDJA
With all due respect to judges and to news reporters representing the government's position on this issue of judicial accountability to the People, people voting for judges or any other group of people are irrelevant to this cause. What matters for justice is the individual. That's what distinguishes a Republic from a democracy. The organic Constitution concerns our individual unalienable rights, not the "civil rights" or privileges of any group or of society as a whole.
Read and study the source material before reporting on it
If you expect to maintain your "honorable" reputation and integrity, we highly recommend that all members of the judiciary, active or retired, and of government generally, and of the news media, READ AND STUDY THE SOURCE MATERIAL before making comment and reporting irresponsibly on it. Go to http://www.sd-jail4judges.org/amendment.htm
and READ THE AMENDMENT for the truth of what it
proposes. You will find that the Amendment deals with the individual, called
"complainant," and that the sole responsibility of the Special Grand Jury, the
operative body of the J.A.I.L. process, "shall be limited to determining, on an
objective standard, whether any [individual] civil lawsuit against a[n
individual] judge, would be frivolous or harassing, or fall within the
exclusions of immunity as set forth in paragraph 2...."
It's not a matter of "don't like" but is a
matter of Law
Then reading paragraph 2, an individual judge would be
held to answer before a petit jury "for any deliberate violation of law, fraud
or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard
of material facts, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful
conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of South
Dakota or the United States, notwithstanding Common Law, or any other contrary
statute." That clearly shows that it isn't a matter of "don't like" or
"disagree with" a ruling, but is a matter of LAW-- we recommend you keep that in
mind when reporting on this cause.
Read about the self-made doctrine of
We also recommend that you go to
and learn for yourselves what the "self-made doctrine
of judicial immunity" is. Attorney Gary Zerman will be happy to answer any of
your questions on the subject.
Judicial accountability to the People is
needed in any event
One other thing-- judicial accountability to the People
for the violation of law in individual cases is needed regardless of the quality
of judicial conduct in any jurisdiction. Whether a state is thought to have
little or no judicial corruption does not diminish from the importance of having
this measure in place. Mr. Branson has found personally that the sample of
population in South Dakota he covered while there, expressed disappointment and
even outrage with judicial conduct they have seen or heard about in their state.
Although some South Dakotans may not realize the extent of the problem, the
majority of them out in the field do understand the great need for this
Amendment; and based on our findings, we have no doubt the measure will pass
hands down in 2006.
For those of you who have not seen Mr. Kranz' article,
it appears below. If any of you have questions, let us know.
ACIC, National J.A.I.L. Admin.
Don't like how the court ruled? Sue the judge, group
judge could go to jail for handing down a court ruling in South
Dakota that someone disagreed
with if an effort is successful to put the Judicial Accountability Initiative
Law (J.A.I.L.) on the ballot.
William Stegmeier, a Tea manufacturing
company owner, is heading up the effort with support from people around the
At the center of their concern is a feeling that judges think
they rise above the law in what the initiative's backers call a self-made
doctrine of judicial immunity, he says.
So his group of about 30
Dakotans for Judicial
Accountability, is circulating petitions across the state from the Sioux Empire
Fair to the Sturgis bike rally.
They need 33,456 signatures by Nov. 7 to
be on the ballot, says Kea Warne, state election supervisor.
estimates the group has gathered 10,000 names.
He admits there isn't yet
much of a problem with the issue of judicial accountability in
"We are not
known for judicial corruption that I know of. It's not a big problem like it is
in states like California, Mississippi," he said.
he says that doesn't mean the initiative isn't necessary.
"Some have the
argument, 'What kind of problem are you trying to solve?' Maybe you don't have a
problem, but you buy homeowner's insurance before you have a problem," Stegmeier
He explains the process if the initiative becomes law.
an example: You go to court. You are the defendant. You want to enter evidence
and help your case, and the judge won't allow it. You appeal the case and lose
on the grounds you think the judge acts improperly. The appellate court denies
your case, and you file it with a special grand jury," Stegmeier
That grand jury, selected from a pool of registered voters through
the the Secretary of State's Office, would be seated.
"They hear the
complaint. They rule whether the judge should enjoy immunity from lawsuits. If
they find for you, the next step is to sue the judge. If they deny you, that's
it," Stegmeier said.
The grand jury also could consider whether there is
probable cause of criminal conduct by the judge.
The objective, say
initiative supporters, is to fulfill their responsibility to empower the people
to act when they feel they are wronged.
"That is one of the nuttiest
things I have ever heard," says George Wuest, a retired Supreme Court justice
"People already have the power. They elected the judges,
and if they don't like them, they can throw them out," Wuest said.
idea, says Dr. Allen Unruh, a Sioux
Falls chiropractor who
supports the initiative.
"I think judges all over the country are getting
out of control. Our forefathers devised a system of checks and balances, but
never for judges doing what they are doing, reinterpreting the constitution and
undermining the people," he said.
He says judges don't have the power to
override the vote of all the people in the country.
Dakota will be the first to
challenge Roe vs. Wade, to throw judges in jail if they violate the
constitution," he said. "There will be a grand jury if they legislate from the
David Kranz's column appears Sundays, Tuesdays and Thursdays.
Write to him at the Argus Leader, Box
Falls, SD 57117-5034.