J.A.I.L. News Journal
Send support for the South Dakota campaign
SDJA, P.O. Box 412, Tea, S.D.
The Target For J.A.I.L. Is The
Immunity For Whomever It Is Applied
(Response from Barbie to Bill
Shipley, Kansas JIC)
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 4:19 PM
I am writing my
letter to the Editor of the Madison, S.D newspaper and I have a
Quote: "but it covers all persons
shielded by judicial immunity...meaning every school board, city
council, county commission, professional licensing board, in fact
every citizen board in the state exercising quasi-judicial
Barbie, is this
true? I think it's a
great idea, but I didn't realize it was that far-reaching.
I'll hold my letter
until I hear from you
Ron told me about your excellent question and it
made me want to weigh in on it too. Thank you very much for this
question. It provides an opportunity for me to respond for the benefit of
everyone who may be wondering the same thing.
As we know, the focus of J.A.I.L. is judicial
accountability, and the practice that prevents judicial accountability is
judicial immunity, and more particularly its abuse in
application by judges. And we know (or at least most of us
do) that judges rule by edict, not by law-- and that is because they have
shielded themselves from liability for their violations of law by
abusing their own doctrine of judicial immunity.
That's the cause of the whole problem of the
judicial system as it operates today. And
that's what J.A.I.L. aims at eliminating. It is
the abuse of judges arbitrarily applying judicial immunity that prevents
the granting of a judicial remedy (or administrative remedy through abuse
by the judiciary in subsequent proceedings)-- thus violating the People's
inherent right of redress of grievances. The
People can no longer afford to allow this continued abuse by the
judiciary go on without doing whatever is necessary to stop it.
See JNJ 12/8/03 "The Case Made for
Remember-- it's ABUSE that the People, through
J.A.I.L., will be attacking, and more specifically and directly, JUDICIAL
abuse because it is the judiciary that is
ultimately responsible for the conduct of government
against the rights of the People. The U.S. Supreme
Court has even acknowledged in several published decisions that the
federal court is the guardian of People's rights. I don't have exact
citations at my fingertips, but enough of you who have delved into legal
research know that to be fact.
That statement is made regarding the obligation of
the federal court to provide a remedy to individuals when one isn't
available in state court (basically dealing with the obligation to offer
injunctive relief under §1983). The federal court is supposed to be the
final watchdog for guarding the rights of the People. I've cited those
cases until I was "blue in the face" and yet, no remedy was forthcoming
from any court. Invariably when suing the judges denying us a remedy, our
cases were routinely dismissed as "frivolous" because of the judiciary's
arbitrary and unfounded claim of the old stand-by, "judicial
immunity." Clearly, when the judiciary fails to provide
a judicial remedy for alleged wrongdoing, and then
fails to accept liability for that lack of a remedy by simply claiming
"judicial immunity" at all levels --without making any findings of fact
and conclusions of law to justify that claim-- it is an ABUSE of judicial
power, and it has become routine!
Regarding your question Bill, is it true
"but it covers all persons shielded by
judicial immunity...meaning every school board, city council, county
commission, professional licensing board, in fact every citizen board in
the state exercising quasi-judicial powers." ?
The criterion under J.A.I.L. is not what a person's
title is --it can be a janitor, a clown in a circus, --anything. The
criterion under J.A.I.L. is if a person, regardless of title
or position, who allegedly violates the law as specified in
the Initiative, has been deemed by the
judiciary to be shielded by judicial
immunity. Such person in that event is a
"judge" within the meaning of the J.A.I.L. Initiative, to wit, "...and
every person shielded by judicial immunity."
If any of the administrative officers, such as
named above, are not held liable for violations of law in the
administrative arena because of "quasi-judicial immunity," the matter
must then be taken to court under administrative mandamus or some other
appropriate court remedy. If no remedy is provided by the judiciary after
exhausting all judicial remedies at least through the state supreme
court, then the matter is brought before the SGJ alleging certain
misconduct by all judges involved in the cover-up by upholding
"quasi-judicial immunity" for the alleged violations of law.
The bottom line as far as the J.A.I.L. process is
concerned is, the lack of a judicial remedy
whether it results from an administrative proceeding which graduates to
the judicial process, or from a court proceeding itself-- it is a matter
to be reviewed by the SGJ after the judicial
system has been given full opportunity to operate according to law, i.e.,
an opportunity for the system to correct itself anywhere along
Liability has to extend from the beginning
participants, including administrative officials in an administrative
case, through the final participants-- participating state supreme court
justices (or U.S. Supreme Court justices if taken there). Courts involved
in an administrative case, such as administrative mandamus, are all part
of the administrative process; but it will be the
judges in that process that will hold the key
to liability of all administrative participants
under J.A.I.L. Likewise, the U.S. Supreme Court, when acting in a
subsequent process from a state court proceeding (Note: I did
not say a state court "decision") where a
remedy is lacking, is part of the state court
process, as distinguished from a federal court process-- thus, part of
the exhaustion of a state court remedy.
So Bill, the answer to your question is "Yes" it is
true. J.A.I.L. will be that far-reaching because J.A.I.L. doesn't get
involved until all judicial remedies have been exhausted-- and in an
administrative proceeding, all administrative remedies have to be
exhausted before the judicial remedy is sought. It's a long process, to
be sure, but J.A.I.L. does not interfere with that process by the system.
J.A.I.L. operates only when the system fails, all the way through.
I wanted to go through this in detail to make it
clear why and how J.A.I.L. will work, and to what extent it will reach.
It is the judges who hold the key to providing
a judicial remedy for an administrative proceeding or a court proceeding.
If a judge or judges uphold judicial or quasi-judicial immunity, thus
blocking a remedy for an injured party having the right of redress of
grievances, the People have the DUTY to act, to see to it that such right
is protected and honored by our courts.