J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                    November 30, 2005
______________________________________________________
 
www.SouthDakotaJudicialAccountability.org
The Legal Fraternity doesn't want Judicial Accountability to the People!
______________________________________________________
 
Judges, Lawyers, Law Professors
All Members of the Same Fraternity
And just remember--the news media are bought and paid for by them!

The measure (J.A.I.L. Amendment) states in paragraph 2:
"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." [Emphasis added]  Are those violations "judicial acts" that should be protected by judicial immunity? Is the New York Times advocating that judges be allowed to commit those violations with impunity? If so, it is advocating JUDICIAL TYRANNY and the People have had enough!
Read the following article with that in mind. "Run afoul of the U.S. Constitution"??  The People want judges to obey it!
 
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Judges-on-Trial.html
 
Judges in S.D. May Lose Lawsuit Immunity
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 14, 2005

Filed at 10:48 p.m. ET

PIERRE, S.D. (AP) -- A movement is under way in South Dakota to turn the tables on members of the bench.

Activists are trying to put a radical measure on next year's ballot that could make South Dakota the first state to let people who believe their rights have been violated by judges put those judges on trial. Citizens could seek damages or criminal charges.

The measure would overturn more than a century of settled law in the United States by stripping judges of their absolute immunity from lawsuits over their judicial acts.

''The current system doesn't work because there is no adequate way to hold a given judge accountable for improper behavior or to prevent them from judicial misconduct if they choose to do so,'' said businessman William Stegmeier, a leader of the movement.

Legal experts warned that such a provision could dangerously undermine the independence of South Dakota's judiciary, plunge the court system into anarchy, and run afoul of the U.S. Constitution.

And they noted there are already remedies available to the public: Bad rulings can be overturned on appeal, and judges who break the rules can be punished by state disciplinary boards and, in South Dakota and other states, voted out of office.

Marie Failinger, a law professor at Hamline University in St. Paul, Minn., said judicial immunity is seen as a way to protect judges' independence so they decide cases on the merits, not in response to pressure from the community or individuals.

''Judges are kind of the last barrier we have between government oppression and the individual, so if they can't be independent, that could be a problem,'' Failinger said. She added: ''Judges will be chilled from making the right decision because they don't know what crazy litigant is going to decide they are going to sue them.''

Stegmeier, owner of a company that manufactures livestock-feed grinders, turned in 46,800 signatures last week to put the proposed state constitutional amendment on the ballot in November 2006. That is about 13,000 more than needed. The state is still verifying the signatures.

Judicial immunity, the doctrine that says judges cannot be sued over their judicial acts, was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in an 1871 case.

The South Dakota amendment would eliminate state judges' immunity in cases involving deliberate violations of the law or someone's constitutional rights or deliberate disregard of the facts.

People could file complaints against judges after the traditional appeals process has concluded. A special grand jury would handle complaints, deciding whether a judge could be sued or face criminal charges.

If the grand jury decides on criminal charges, it could indict the judge and create a special tribunal that would act as both judge and jury, deciding guilt and any sentence. The measure would not apply to federal judges.

Stegmeier said he has never had a bad experience in court. In fact, supporters of the measure have no examples of any problems in South Dakota. But Stegmeier said the amendment could help curb the abuses he has heard about across the country.

On its Web site, the group promoting the amendment, South Dakota Judicial Accountability, cites an Indiana case from the 1970s involving the sterilization of a 15-year-old girl, and argues that stripping judges of immunity would also help prevent decisions such as the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allowed homes to be seized for private development.

''We didn't throw the yoke of the king off to get under the yoke of the judges,'' said Gary Zerman, a Valencia, Calif., lawyer who is a spokesman for the South Dakota ballot effort.

Tom Barnett, secretary-treasurer of the State Bar of South Dakota, said inmates would quickly figure out that they could harass the judges who put him behind bars by filing a complaint.

''You don't think there aren't going to be hundreds and hundreds of them, everybody giggling up in the penitentiary?'' he said.

Georgetown University Law School professor Roy A. Schotland, who studies judicial elections and constitutional law, said the measure could violate the Constitution.

''It at least erodes and may go so far as to destroy judicial independence, which means it erodes and perhaps destroys the rule of law and fair judging,'' Schotland said. ''Having this come in would be big trouble.''




BEWARE of the phrase "judicial independence" or any of its derivatives-- several of which are found in this article. See JNJ 11/14/05 on that subject. Also see JNJ 11/18/05 on the same subject: "Not Just Above The Law, But Outlaws."
BEWARE of statements made by the Bar Association, and by law professors. They're all members of the Legal Fraternity with the judges.
See JNJ 11/29/05: "A 50-Year Career Lawyer Speaks Out."

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 JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To be added or removed, write to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
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