(J.A.I.L.'s
Response)
Introduction
It is our pleasure to
address you, Mr. Barnett, as the secretary-treasurer and executive
director of the South Dakota State Bar Association, in response to
your criticism of the South Dakota J.A.I.L. Amendment. Your first
advice is given in the final sentence of the first paragraph which
says, "So, before you decide whether to sign the petition,
read it carefully." But apparently you fail
to follow your own advice, Mr. Barnett, for you state things
that are diametrically opposed to the clear wording of the Initiative
you are critiquing. Hence, your conclusion that "J.A.I.L.
is unnecessary" is no more truthful than your false
premises upon which it is based.
In responding to your
critique which follows no logical order of subject matter, we are
categorizing the subjects under headings in a logical flow for clarity
and coherence. Your critique, as will be shown, is nothing more
than propaganda designed to deceive and scare the public which is the
typical modus operandi in opposing the J.A.I.L.
Initiative.
The purpose of
the J.A.I.L. Initiative
Apparently, Mr. Barnett,
you did not read the Preamble, which sets forth the purpose of the
Initiative as follows: "We, the
People of South Dakota, find that the doctrine of judicial immunity has
the potential of being greatly abused; that when judges do abuse their
power, the People are obliged - it is their duty - to correct that
injury, for the benefit of themselves and their posterity. In order to
insure judicial accountability and domestic tranquility, we hereby
amend our Constitution by adding these provisions as �28 to Article VI,
which shall be known as 'The J.A.I.L. Amendment.'
"
The authority
for the J.A.I.L. Amendment in South Dakota
Mr. Barnett, the J.A.I.L.
Amendment follows the guidelines set forth in the Declaration of
Independence which states "But when a long train of abuses
and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design
to reduce them [the People's unalienable rights]
under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their
duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their
future security."
This right is codified in
the South Dakota Constitution, Article VI �26, which states:
"All political power is inherent in the people, and all
free government is founded on their authority, and is instituted for
their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right in lawful
and constituted methods to alter or reform their forms of
government in such manner as they may think proper. And the state of
South Dakota is an inseparable part of the American Union and the
Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the
land."
The People of
South Dakota realize that J.A.I.L. IS
NECESSARY
The People of South Dakota,
as indicative of the country, have been living under absolute
despotism after a long train of abuses and usurpations for more than
200 years. In collecting signatures from South Dakotans, they have told
us that there certainly is plenty of judicial corruption in their state
and they are eager to sign the Initiative because they realize that
J.A.I.L. is necessary in South
Dakota.
One South Dakotan we spoke
to was John Eggers, a 31-year veteran, now retired,
sheriff of Meade County, showed us the front page of the
current issue of the Black Hills Press Newspaper with his picture
on it, in which he was being presented a plaque in his honor.
The caption read that the mayor has proclaimed August 9th as
Sheriff John Eggers Day. Sheriff Eggers was very bold in his
opinion about the South Dakota Judiciary, and allowed us to quote
him as saying, "I am well familiar with the judiciary
in this State of South Dakota, and this J.A.I.L. Initiative is very
much needed here." Sheriff Eggers also said, quote,
"No one is above the law," referring to the
judges of South Dakota. Having been in law enforcement all his life, he
is definitely an authority on the subject, and he has given us
permission to place his picture on our website and to openly quote
him. The People themselves are best qualified to assess the need for
J.A.I.L., certainly not the State Bar
Association!
The states have been
unwilling or unable to rise above the overbearing, unconstitutional
power of the federal government which has overtaken the sovereignty of
the People; and have allowed and participated in the disabling of the
exercise of their inherent rights. This forced alienation of their
unalienable rights, which are to be protected
by government, is caused by a judiciary that is unaccountable to the
People for such violations. Therefore, Mr. Barnett, the People of South
Dakota have the right and responsibility,
recognized by their State Constitution, "to alter or
reform their forms of government" by holding judges
accountable to the People as a "new guard for their future
security" admonished in the Declaration of
Independence.
Mr. Barnett, this
reformation of government, to be effective, must be an
independent and autonomous mechanism enforced
by the People themselves, as represented by the Special Grand Jury.
There has been no such provision for the People to enforce the
protection of their rights, and they now see the need to establish the
J.A.I.L. Amendment for that purpose.
Government is
not providing protection for the People
Mr. Barnett, neither the
voting system, nor judge-rejection system, nor appeals to a higher
court, nor investigations by a judicial qualifications commission,
can fulfill the need for an autonomous enforcement mechanism by the
People. There is no government provision that allows the People to
control their own future as they must. South Dakotans
should be able to "enjoy many
protections against alleged abusive judges," but they
don't because government doesn't provide that
protection as it should. Those protections may exist in
theory, but not in practice! For that reason, the J.A.I.L.
Amendment IS necessary! If indeed such
protection is in fact provided by government and concurred in by the
judicial system, then the J.A.I.L. process need not take place
in that particular instance. However, J.A.I.L.
must be available to stand guard for the People
nevertheless.
The South Dakota
State Bar Association has a conflict of
interest
As stated in our
introduction above, the State Bar does not work in the interest of the
People, but only in its own interests-- which include the judiciary. It
logically follows, then, that the Bar would be
opposed to J.A.I.L. The only ones who oppose J.A.I.L. are those
who benefit from the corruption. Mr. Barnett, you describe
J.A.I.L. as an "attack" process "on our legislature,
judiciary and state and local citizen boards." The only
attack involved here is your attack on J.A.I.L. on behalf of the South
Dakota Bar Association which you would be expected to do to protect its
own turf. After all, judicial corruption is against the People, but
favors the Legal Industry Syndicate including the Bar association.
Judges cover up for them and they like it that way! Crime
does pay-- big bucks to the Legal Industry
Syndicate-- especially when orchestrated by the "Black Robe
Society."
J.A.I.L.
"reaches" only judges for specifically stated
violations
Had you read �2 of the
Initiative you would not have been able to truthfully report that
"[e]very School Board, City Council, County Commission,
professional licensing boards (such as the State
Bar??), [and] every citizen board in South Dakota...
would be subject to being sued under J.A.I.L."
Don't worry, Mr. Barnett, your organization or other administrative
agencies won't be "sued under J.A.I.L." Only the judge(s) involved in
making the final ruling after all appeals would be subject to the
J.A.I.L. process --not sued-- if a complaint is filed alleging any
of the following violations:
"2.
Immunity. No immunity shall extend to any judge of this State 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."
"Judge" is defined as:
"Justice, judge, magistrate judge, judge pro tem, and all
other persons claiming to be shielded by judicial
immunity." (�1.b). Any matter before any of the
organizations you mention can be taken to court after the exhaustion of
administrative remedies; then only if there is a violation by a judge
or judges in the subsequent judicial stage of proceedings could a
complaint be taken to the Special Grand Jury (SGJ) for alleged
violation(s) listed. There are times when a judge will arbitrarily
decide that a clerk is covered by judicial immunity when sued for
failing to do her job as required by Court Rules. Because judges can
and do exercise arbitrary power, those situations have to be covered by
J.A.I.L. J.A.I.L. doesn't sue anyone. The SGJ only determines,
according to evidence of record, whether the judge complained of is
entitled to judicial immunity in a subsequent suit by the complainant
if he chooses to so proceed.
You argue, "A
bad doctor could sue members of the state medical board for denial or
revocation of medical license. A bad teacher could sue individual
members of the local school board for terminating his or her teaching
employment." That describes basic due process under
current law that is afforded to anyone-- J.A.I.L. notwithstanding.
However, you predispose due process by using the word, "bad."
But is not a man entitled to a hearing on the question on whether he is
"bad" before being condemned? Are you not insinuating that the mere
accusation of "bad" is conclusive, and that such a one accused of being
"bad" should be denied due process and condemned without a
hearing? Even the USSC has condemned this practice as far back as the
case of Windsor v. McVeigh (1876) 100 U.S. 23. Indeed,
everyone must be afforded an opportunity
to argue his case, and
offer his proof, and take any perceived violations of the judge
before the J.A.I.L. process in which the judge is given an
opportunity to answer that he did not willfully violate the law.
J.A.I.L. merely assures that everyone receives the due process to
which he is entitled under law, to wit, "No immunity
shall extend to any judge of this state for any ... intentional
violation of due process of law." If you think about it,
Mr. Barnett, you are actually making a case
for the reason South Dakota needs
J.A.I.L.
The Special
Grand Jury enforces the organic Constitution and laws made in pursuance
thereof
Mr. Barnett, even the South
Dakota Constitution states in Article VI �26 "the
state of South Dakota is an inseparable part of the American Union and
the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the
land." The SGJ is made up of the People, which
IS superior to government. That's the whole
point of J.A.I.L. --to hold government (through the judiciary)
accountable! Yes, more than a "super-legislature" the SGJ
is the People "having the power to
overrule the legislature" if, in fact, the law does
not comply with the Constitution-- absolutely! It's up to judges to
KNOW what state laws comply with the U.S. Constitution, so
"strictly complying with South Dakota law"
doesn't necessarily meet that requirement. Yes, Mr. Barnett, the
J.A.I.L. Amendment "would create a special grand jury with
the power to reject laws enacted by the legislature"
IF, and only if, those laws do not comply
with the supreme law of the land. Certainly you would agree, Mr.
Barnett, that it's the duty of the judiciary in the first instance to
declare any law passed by the legislature as unconstitutional if it
fails to comply with the supreme law of the land. But when the
judiciary fails to do so, the responsibility
then falls to the People in the form of the SGJ. Any other conclusion
presupposes that government can do no wrong, including the
judiciary.
The Special
Grand Jury excludes criminals
Mr. Barnett, you have
really gone off the deep end when stating that the J.A.I.L. Amendment
"would permit a convicted felon currently imprisoned to
serve on the jury at a daily pay of $387. That's
absurd." Yes indeed, that IS ABSURD, and moreover
IT IS FALSE! It appears that you are quite
panicky at the thought of having to give up your arbitrary power backed
up by judges under the shield of judicial immunity, to the point
that it's driving you to make that "absurd" and false statement. As you
tell your readers, READ it before signing. Here it is, in pertinent
part: READ IT!
"12.
Qualifications of Jurors. ... Those not eligible for Special
Grand Jury service shall include elected and appointed officials,
members of the State Bar, judges (active or
retired), judicial, prosecutorial and law enforcement personnel,
without other exclusion except previous adjudication of mental
incapacity, imprisonment, or parole from a conviction of a felonious
crime against persons."
WHERE does it say that it
"would permit a convicted felon currently imprisoned to
serve on the jury..."?
WHERE does it say that J.A.I.L.
"would empower every one of these convicts or prisoners to
use this proposal to sue a judge."?
WHERE does it say, or imply, "If a
judge gives a defendant a very strict sentence, the convict sues. If a
judge gives a more lenient sentence, a victim or citizen upset with the
sentence sues. If a judge hands down a sentence somewhere in between--
both sue."?
Conclusion
Mr. Barnett, you fail to
cite to the Initiative itself as your authority for the points you
make. That is very irresponsible writing, and it amounts to fraud and
deception to the public. Again, J.A.I.L. is concerned only with
judicial violations of the Constitution-- specifically the violations
set forth in �2. Your conclusions quoted above are way off the
mark, and it appears that you intend to misstate the truth in order
to hoodwink the public into believing your lies!
You have no understanding
of the J.A.I.L. measure, and it is not in your interest to do so. When
J.A.I.L. is passed into law, trials will continue to proceed just like
they normally do in the system. Judges will be free to
exercise their jurisdiction and to make their rulings and to issue
sentences. J.A.I.L. in no way disturbs that process. You even admit
that everyone is free to appeal his decision. J.A.I.L. does not
interfere with that right. J.A.I.L. enters into the picture only after
the exhaustion of all appeals, and it is alleged that
the judge(s) willfully violated the law as specified in �2 of
the Initiative.
Are you arguing that
willful violations of law should be overlooked based upon the fact that
the offender is a judge? If so, what does that do to justice, and to
the principle that no one is above the law? If this is what you are
advocating, then you are an anarchist because you advocate
disrespect for the law. We then challenge you, Mr. Barnett, to
explain the difference between a convicted criminal behind bars, and a
judge who willfully violates the law but is unaccountable for his
actions.
-Ron
Branson
Author/Founder
National
J.A.I.L.
We need everyone's help in South
Dakota, with donations, collecting signatures, and spreading the word
any way you can. The signature gathering campaign is currently under
way until the beginning of November-- a little more than a month away.
We are encouraged by the progress made so far and urge everyone to
participate in this cause. Please go to www.sd-jail4judges.org
for details and information. Call the SDJA office
at (605) 231-1418 for immediate contact. We thank all of you who have
already helped and those who are actively working so hard in
coordinating this effort.
REMEMBER-- A WIN IN SOUTH DAKOTA
IS A WIN FOR EVERY AMERICAN!
J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law -
href="../../State_Chapters/dc/DC_initiative.doc">www.jail4judges.org
Contribute to J.A.I.L. at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
See our active flash, http://www.jail4judges.org/Flash.htm
JAIL is a unique addition to our form of gov't. heretofore
unrealized.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at [email protected]
To be added or removed, write to [email protected]
Your help is needed: www.sd-jail4judges.org
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
tireless
minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel
Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
striking at the
root."
-- Henry David Thoreau <><
Return To JNJ 2005
To JNJ Library Index for All Years