The Inherent Right of ALL People to
Alter or Reform Abusive Government
The Right Upon Which All Other
The Torchbearer for J.A.I.L.
Nationally - Support Them!
P.O. Box 412, Tea, S.D. 57064
- (605) 231-1418
"Independence of the
Judiciary" To Be Checked By The
Thanks ... for the
last article delineating the boundaries of JAIL. No one with half a
brain or an iota of concern, (which, as you pointed out, may
actually not be as many as we think,) can accuse us of going beyond any
perceived limits as to citizen activism in government, or of tying the
hands of justice. Rule of Law, if there is such an
animal, implies that no one is above the law. Jefferson asked,
"Where is the check on the judiciary?" Good question. Which
a check on the judiciary preclude the notion of an independent
judiciary? Perhaps. It seems to be a moot point, however,
which means, not a settled point, but one that is debatable. My
idea is that if judicial independence means no interference whatsoever,
that invites tyranny, if it is not by its very nature tyrannical.
If independence is to be maintained, then no governmental agency,
entity, or person should be allowed to intervene, and it seems
eminently logical and practical and patriotic, therefore, to
provide for intervention ONLY by the people, as a DUTY, and as a
means of participating directly in the political process. Someone
once said that "a mistake is an error left uncorrected." We're
just correcting an error, made perhaps by the founders or perhaps by
interpreters with a personal interest in immunizing judicial officers,
before it becomes a more serious and perhaps a mistake fatal to
agree with your correct presumption, by the way, concerning the nature
of the establishment of government. Webster's definition of Civil
Liberty went on to explain that:
"Civil Liberty is an exemption of the arbitrary will of
others, which exemption is secured by establishing laws, which restrain
every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the
restraints of law are essential to civil liberty.
liberty of one depends not so much on the removal of all restraint from
him, as on the due restraint upon the liberty of others.
this sentence, the latter word liberty denotes natural
one would argue that to prevent injury or control laws should
exist. But when the restraints become excessive or arbitrary, as
they have, so that they are NOT "necessary or expedient for the safety
and interest" of the people, but for the government itself and for the
corporations it creates, --that, Webster says, is "tyranny and
oppression." Ah, there's the rub. Now judges uphold bad
laws, badly written, ill-conceived, and misapplied. Their only
defense is the Neuremberg defense: They're only following
orders. And they are, not as judicial officers, but as employees
of the State exercising Executive power. In Thompson v
Smith, the supreme court ruled that "judges, when enforcing
statutes, do not act judicially." WOW, ya gotta love it!
That's because you must have Laws, Statutes AND Regulations for the due
process of the law to be complete! Otherwise, the "judicial"
process is flawed, defective and/or abusive.
only way for a judge to be a judge is to be delegated authority by
Congress through Article III of the National Constitution.
It says Congress MAY delegate judicial authority. In fact, the
record indicates that Congress actually withheld the delegation of
judicial authority! Check out Northern Pipeline v.
Marathon Pipeline, a bankruptcy case in which the court
declared that a bankruptcy court judge does NOT have Article III
judicial power, is NOT a judge, and so his decision was null
and void. Ouch! Who woulda thunk
would happen if the same were considered about State Judges?
I know what the ruling SHOULD be. They're not Article
III judges either and State courts are NOT Constitutional
courts. That definition is, not of a court that considers, uses,
abides by and is restricted by the constitution, but one that is a
court established or created by the constitution. State
courts are created by the legislature. State judges, therefore,
are NOT judicial officers, and are not independent, but have conflicts
of interest inherent in their job! What does it say on their
paycheck about who pays them? They take a loyalty oath to the
State. The State owns the judges, the court, all the attorneys,
and they are the plaintiff trying their own cause. How the hell
did that happen? True or not, I even heard that judges LEASE
their courtrooms! In any case, it is merely a "kangaroo court" as
I said before, "one in which the outcome is
pre-determined." And so is the income! They've got a cash
cow going and they don't want to give it up. A portion of the
court fees go into their retirement funds. That's a financial
interest in every case.
is up to the people. As much as I hate cliches, it is apparent
that the ball is in our court, pun intended. It is, and
must truly be, not the State's court, but the people's court, or
it is no court at all.
soon forward some attachments for you to consider and I look forward
to hearing from you again.
then, I remain,
Pro Libertate et Patriae
the Liberty of My Country,"
Aris et Focis,
Our Altars and Our Hearths,"
and Be Well,"
(Ancient Roman closing of letters)
Your thought on the "independence of the
judiciary" is very well taken and should be shared with our readers
because one of the foremost arguments of our opposition is that J.A.I.L.
will interfere with the "independence of the judiciary." It is very
important that the People understand what is being said. Therefore, your
message and my reply is being sent as a JNJ for educational
First, whenever you hear any accusation
against J.A.I.L., they are accusing the People--
for J.A.I.L. is the People exercising their
inherent right to amend what purports to be "government" inasmuch as
their rights are being violated every day and the People are being forced
to live under absolute despotism. The evils are no longer sufferable;
therefore it is incumbent upon the People to "throw off such government"
by holding the guardian of our rights, i.e., the purported judiciary,
accountable to the People under constitutional
For purposes of the J.A.I.L. process, it
doesn't matter what the make-up of the powers-that-be is. All we know for
sure, as a People, is that the powers are evil
and destructive of the People and it can no
longer be endured. We know for sure that only we, the
People, can change the situation, and change it we
must! The People will continue to seek redress of grievances in
whatever forum is theoretically available to them, before whatever
tribunal is theoretically available. It is what happens in practice in
our system of redress that must be checked by the
People. All we know is that the system, for whatever reason,
doesn't work, and it is up to the People to
correct the malfunction.
Secondly, we know as a People that the
powers-that-be is no longer "government" by the empirical results we see
and experience in everyday life. We know that our rights are not being
protected by a government under constitutional principles, but that our
rights are being constantly trampled upon by a power that is
foreign to our Constitution, destroying our
lives, our liberty, and our property, clearly defining the powers as
To illustrate how tyrannical this
occupying power is, the South Dakota Legislature that is financially
supported by the People of South Dakota, is conspiring together with all
105 legislators to actually write and pass a resolution among themselves
to oppose a ballot measure (J.A.I.L. -- Amendment
E) that is sponsored by the People, their constituents, to establish a
new guard for their future security. We know that if the South Dakota
Legislature were actually the state representatives of the
People, they would not be willing to campaign
against a People's measure. This is just one way
the People can know that the occupying force operating under color of the
South Dakota Legislature is not really representing the People, but are
in fact opposing the People, at the People's
expense. Such a tactic is unheard of in America-- but that
proves what kind of a "power" the People of
South Dakota are dealing with. It certainly is not a power that is
protecting their rights, such as a constitutional government would
We've heard about the doctrine of
"separation of powers" as part of constitutional government-- three
separate branches of government. Yet see what the empirical evidence
shows-- there is no separation. It's the entire
occupying force in power against the People. What passes itself off as
the South Dakota Legislature is conspiring among its own members to
oppose a People's measure calling for accountability of
another branch of "government." Ask
yourselves, WHY? Does this make sense?
Thirdly, we hear the entire occupying
force operating under color of "government" in opposing the People of
South Dakota who are sponsoring a People's measure to hold "judges"
accountable, tell us that "J.A.I.L. will interfere with the
independence of the judiciary." That phrase
comes up time and time again. The system portrays that as meaning
that the judiciary must remain independent to rule according to law and
not be under pressure of outside influence in making their decisions. If
that is truly the case, then J.A.I.L. will
enhance the independence of the judiciary
because it will force the judiciary to rule according to
We, as a People, know that the judiciary
does not rule according to law, and that in
fact the judiciary IS UNDER PRESSURE OF THE SYSTEM to rule in its favor,
despite the law and the facts. We know that the
judiciary is in fact the "mouthpiece" for the system behind which the
system hides because judges have made themselves invincible
--unaccountable-- by their self-imposed doctrine of "judicial immunity."
And so the entire system uses the judges and "judicial immunity" to
hide their own corruption, through judicial cover-up. This illicit
practice has become a racket without redress by the People, and it is no
The People will be a check upon the
"independence of the judiciary" by making sure that it
does rule according to law and not according to
pressures from the system, or anyone else. The judiciary will no longer
have their trusty shield of "judicial immunity" to hide behind and remain
unaccountable for their actions, i.e., procedural
misconduct --not making decisions. Decisions aren't even
reached when judicial procedure is violated.
So when you hear that J.A.I.L. will allow
people to sue judges if they "don't like the decision," you know that
this is more evil propaganda used to deceive the People. This is more
evidence that we don't have a government in power to protect the People's
rights, and that the People must restore constitutional government and
the American way of life in this country-- not
the oppression we're experiencing today under the status
The other issues you mention, Michael,
are interesting, but are not the immediate concern for J.A.I.L.
Those things will come to attention in due course, and they will be
corrected. But right now, all the People want is a way to hold the
purported "judges" (whoever is considered a judicial officer having
judicial discretion, and is covered by judicial immunity-- and that
doesn't mean school boards or city councils)
accountable under constitutional principles. That's
Thank you Michael, and to all of you
whose eyes are finally opening to the desperate straits the People are
faced with under the status quo. The rich have plenty of insulation from
the tyranny-- they can "pay" for "justice"
busy themselves in a high life style, far
from reality. The poor are hidden away and stripped of their resources,
making them miserable and helpless. We just hope that in between, there
are enough People left to carry the ball for the rest of society and
realize that J.A.I.L. is the answer, as we've always been saying-- it
hasn't changed! It's just that the People are beginning
to wake up-- finally. The two-hundred-year honeymoon for the
tyrants, with an ignorant and apathetic people to control, is