J.A.I.L. News
Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles,
California November
14, 2005
______________________________________________________
South Dakota State Bar
Takes J.A.I.L. Seriously
It is true
that there is little that gets by J.A.I.L.'s
attention when it comes to important matters concerning the
judiciary of this country; and this is true because there are
thousands of discerning eyes beholding the judicial landscape. The
below was caught by our Washington State JAILer, David
Estes.
Most of us are
familiar with the ridiculous arguments of Tom Barnett, the
Director of the S.D. State Bar Association, namely, that J.A.I.L. is
about suing judges whose decisions you do not like, and about
releasing criminals from prison so that they may serve on
the J.A.I.L. Special Grand Jury. These arguments can hardly
be taken seriously, and I am sure that Bob Riter, President of
the South Dakota State Bar Association could sense that they were not
going to get anywhere with these out-and-out lies about
J.A.I.L.. So he has elected to post a more sensible and
palatable argument on their S.D. Bar Association website. President
Bob Riter's reasoning is what we cut our teeth upon, and we are
delighted to issue our first rebuttal to his presentation on the
S.D. Bar website, which may be found at http://24.230.151.131/officers/prespage.htm.
You may rest
assured that there will follow many more approaches by many other
JAILers in rebutting this S.D. Bar website, but this one is mine.
First, Attorney Bob Riter of Pierre,
S.D. Mine follows. -Ron Branson
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 9:45 PM
Subject: S.D.State Bar opening shot...
Found this on the South Dakota State Bar web site,
(http://24.230.151.131/officers/prespage.htm). Looks
like this is what the Bar will be arguing in the upcoming months to
stop S.D. J.A.I.L.
David Estes
Vashon, Wa
http://24.230.151.131/officers/prespage.htm
Judicial independence is the
touchstone of our legal system, but it is not given sufficient
consideration by the public. Society's well-being is dependent upon
an independent judiciary standing ready to resolve disputes and
interpret law. Unfortunately, we now face efforts externally, and
upon occasion internally, which detract from and perhaps jeopardize
that necessary independence.
Much rhetoric has been heard regarding judges and
courts. Of course, the attention necessarily given to an impartial
judiciary is magnified by promotion of the recent J.A.I.L. initiative
in South Dakota. That proposal seeks to create in our state a "super"
grand jury which while answerable to few, is authorized to approve
criminal or civil proceedings against judges. It would be empowered
to rule on the law and the facts. Its effect is to allow those who
are disappointed with a judicial result to challenge the Court
outside of our existing legal processes. The measure also seeks to
eliminate certain judicial immunity regularly recognized as necessary
to protect judges in the important work they do. Of course, if an
effort like that was successful it would likely destroy the current
independent nature of our judiciary.
Whether the measure gets on the ballot or not,
unfortunately it is a reflection of the societal pressures which
those outside the legal profession are attempting to impose upon our
judiciary.
Also, efforts to force judicial candidates to describe
how they will rule upon issues likely to be presented to them upon
appointment, also frustrate the independence of the process. We
should strive for judges with intellectual distinction, who are
hardworking and able to bring to the Court common sensibilities as
well as a broad variety of life experiences. If a judge is clothed
with these attributes and allowed to remain independent, our current
system will continue to flourish.
Sometimes we forget, just as does the public, how
important it is to have independent judges who can make the difficult
decisions affecting one's livelihood and other important issues
involved in one's life, including his or her freedom. It is the best
system ever designed to peaceably and thoroughly resolve issues. The
pay is modest and the time spent carrying out the functions of the
job is consuming and challenging; but the judiciary brings to society
predictable results, so parties can properly anticipate responses to
issues and situations presented to them.
Of course, the decision of a Court can sometimes be in
error. That is why appellate courts exist. It is vital that none of
us disparage the Courts or their decisions to the public or our
clients.
We should respect their efforts, just as the Court
respects our client's right to seek judicial review of decisions
flowing from a court of general jurisdiction. Lawyers should trumpet
the work of our judges to all and periodically thank our jurists for
the difficult work they have undertaken.
Efforts to attempt to intimidate judges into making
decisions in a particular manner is an affront to our judicial
system. All members of our profession should speak as one voice
against that effort. It must start with each of us individually
spending the time and effort necessary to defend judicial
independence. As recognized by Theodore B. Olson, former Solicitor
General in the Bush administration in an opinion column in the Wall
Street Journal on April 25, 2005:
We expect dignity, wisdom, decency, civility,
integrity and restraint from our judges. It is time to exercise
those same characteristics in our dealings with, and commentary on,
those same judges -- from their appointment and confirmation to
their decision-making once they take office.
We must provide leadership to ensure public trust and
confidence exists in support of an independent judiciary.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Riter, Jr.
President
South Dakota
State Bar
Taking J.A.I.L.
Seriously
Ron
Branson's reply to the president of the S.D. State Bar, Bob
Riter, of Pierre, the capitol of South Dakota.
We hear a great
deal today about the term "Judicial Independence." Indeed,
Attorney Riter uses this term seven times in his dissertation. This
term seems to always come up whenever there arises a question
about the conduct of the judiciary no matter who raise the question.
For instance, in a default case I had against the City of Los
Angeles, the entire record totally disappeared from the court's
files, which files called into question the ethics of the judge.
I vigorously pressed for its retrieval knowing that the law
provided clear specific felony sanctions for such removal. After
exhausting all remedies within the court, I went to my state
legislator where I was told that the court was independent of
the legislature, and that they could not get involved.
When one thinks
about it, he will realize how reversed the thinking on the word
"independence" is. Our Founding Fathers created three independent
branches of government, each being an independent
check upon the other two, with the People, through their
Grand Jury, being the ultimate check.
"Independence"
is not justification for not getting involved, but rather a
reason there must be involvement. The Senate checks against
the House, and vise versa. The president checks against the
legislature by veto, with the courts having an independent
power to strike down a law as unconstitutional. The
ultimate check and balance, of course, rests with the People
through their juries.
Whenever there
are ethical questions of behavior in government, the
Grand Jury may exercise its independence aside from the executive,
the legislature or the judiciary. It need not ask the permission
of any of the three branches of government to investigate or
indict. To require it to do so would interfere with
the independence of the Grand Jury; or, as in the case of
J.A.I.L., the Special Grand Jury. In fact, in the name of
"protecting the independence of the judiciary" Attorney
Riter is suggesting the judiciary should be allowed to
interfere with the independence of the Special Grand Jury in
investigating the judiciary. He views the entire perspective of
"independence" in reverse of the very Constitution he has sworn to
uphold and defend. It is the People who hold "All political power,"
not the judiciary. See Art. VI, Sec. 26 of the South Dakota
Constitution.
The objective
of J.A.I.L. is to provide the means by which the People can "throw
off such government, and to provide new guards for their future
security." The term "such government" refers to the body politic
controlling this country which, after a many decades, shows evidence
of the same pattern of abuses and usurpation of power through fraud
and deception in repeatedly, knowingly, and
intentionally violating the People's inherent rights, causing
them to live under absolute despotism. While government is instituted
by the People for the purpose of protecting
their rights, "such government," as aforesaid,
violates those rights in direct
contradistinction to the very purpose for which it was
established.
It is the duty
of the People to correct that malfunction of government by
holding the judiciary, who sit at the helm of government conduct as
the final arbiter thereof, accountable to themselves under the
Supreme Law of the Land. In short, J.A.I.L. stands for judicial
accountability under law. The Bar Association which is the
administrative arm of the legal industry, having members that are
officers of the court, is opposing J.A.I.L. In other words, it is
opposing what J.A.I.L. stands for, i.e., judicial
accountability. So when the Bar spokesman
speaks of "judicial independence," he is speaking of judicial
independence from accountability. So when
you see or hear the word "independence" or "independent" regarding
the judiciary, remember that it means independence
from accountability, independence
from constitutional law, independence
from their oath of office.
Mr. Riter
states: The measure also seeks to eliminate
certain judicial immunity regularly recognized as necessary to
protect judges in the important work they do.
The J.A.I.L.
measure seeks to eliminate judicial immunity only in the
following specifically stated instances
(paragraph 2):
--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
--Any
deliberate violation of the Constitutions of South Dakota or the
United States
Mr.
Riter describes the above misconduct as "important work
[judges] do." My question to you, Mr. Riter, is "Important to
whom?"
It certainly is
not the People for whom the judiciary is established as the
guardian of the People's rights. We know that
the "important work that [judges] do" is important only
to judicial tyranny.
Mr. Riter, why
are you protecting the status quo of judicial
tyranny? Could it be because you benefit from
it?
J.A.I.L. will
stop judicial independence from the law,
because "JUDGES ARE NOT ABOVE THE
LAW!"
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 <><