The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform Their
The Right Upon Which All Other Rights Depend.
The Cozy Relationship
Between Judges And Insurance Companies
It has been long been known that judges hold a
cozy relationship to one another as the below article by the huge
insurance companies below admit, to wit, "In its written statement NAMIC explained that 'Amendment E'
would amend the South Dakota constitution to allow for citizens to
'try' judges ... who sit on public policymaking boards..."
It is clear from the above statement
that these insurances companies do not want to see judges
tried by a jury for unlawful acts, or for violations of the
Constitution, even if the judge's did it willfully.
They further argue that "A
civilian jury would be empowered to impose a sentence after the
'trial.' A sentence could result in judges being relieved of their
duties and being forced to forfeit their pensions..." Is it
not customary that defendants are sentenced after the finding
of guilt following a trial? But while they impliedly concede that
punishment is appropriate for all other criminals other than
judges, they contend that it should not be heard that a
criminal judge convicted of a crime should be punished. Their
position has to be that while everyone must be afforded equal
protections under the law, (Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution),
to wit, "No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protections of the law, judges are "more equal" than
everyone else, and therefore judges should not be punished from crimes
Oh, yes, and is it not a definite conflict of
interest for judges to sit on policy-making boards of insurance
companies as insurance claims of those companies are certain to
come before these as judges? Even more basic is the question,
why are judges setting policies in a state regulated
business, to wit, "Given that property/casualty
insurance is state regulated and that state tort law is critical to the
way our businesses are run...?" Is not state regulated
insurances businesses the subject of a legislature, and not
judges? Are these judges to set policies and then sit in
judgment over those same policies?
What's more interesting is that these insurance
companies are openly admitting that they are hate seeing the
People having the right to an initiative process at
all. They say, "... stopping the South
Dakota effort is an essential step in discouraging similar initiatives
in other states that permit citizens to amend their constitutions by
direct election." They want to
overthrow the rights of the voters of South Dakota,
namely the constitutional provision of Article VI, Sec. 26 in
appropriate part, "All political power is inherent in the People, and
all free governments 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." Of course, by
these insurance companies seeking for the overthrow of lawfully
constituted government in South Dakota, they also seek the
overthrow of all lawfully constituted government in this country,
"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
Declaration of Independence.
Instead of concentrating on the rights of the
People, they boast that they are the rich and well
NAMIC is a full-service national trade
association with more than 1,400 member companies that underwrite 43
percent ($196 billion) of the property/casualty insurance premium in
the United States." They are located
in Washington, D.C., and give as their Washington, DC. phone
number, (202) 628-1558. This information is documented at http://www.namic.org/insbriefs/060316JAIL.pdf%20.
If the South Dakota legislature and media are
consistent about their claim that Amendment E is being heavily
influenced by California, they will surely strenuously object to be
influenced by $196 billion from Washington, D.C. Yes, we shall
certainly watch for this strenuous objection by the South Dakota
legislature and their media. God forbid that the South Dakota
voters discover them to be proven hypocrites.
The bottom line. The entire future of this
country lies in great part on what happens in South Dakota on
November 7 this year. Is the future of this country to be ruled by
the rich and powerful, or by the People? If you oppose the option of
the rich and powerful, your only choice is to support Amendment E in
South Dakota. And do not forget that the judges and the insurance
companies enjoy a cozy relationship in bed together.
~ ~ ~
National Insurer Group Opposes S.D. Judicial
In its written statement NAMIC explained that
"Amendment E" would amend the South Dakota constitution to allow for
citizens to "try" judges and others who sit on public policymaking
boards in the aftermath of unpopular decisions. A civilian jury would
be empowered to impose a sentence after the "trial." A sentence could
result in judges being relieved of their duties and being forced to
forfeit their pensions-and civil and criminal liability placed upon
such persons as school board members, parole board members, and
similar public bodies.
NAMIC Senior Vice President Roger H. Schmelzer
said NAMIC will be an active participant in the "No on Amendment E"
"If successful, this initiative would seriously
undermine not only South Dakota's state judicial system, but also any
citizen board with public decision making power," Schmelzer said.
"Given that property/casualty insurance is state regulated and that
state tort law is critical to the way our businesses are run, we are
obliged to resist vigorously any attempt to introduce
unpredictability to state legal systems."
Schmelzer added that stopping the South Dakota
effort is an essential step in discouraging similar initiatives in
other states that permit citizens to amend their constitutions by
"We encourage our more than 1,400 member
companies to consider their own involvement and financial support in
helping to defeat the South Dakota ballot initiative because of the
impact such a result will have nationally," Schmelzer said.
Amendment E was certified by the South Dakota
Secretary of State in the fall of 2005 after Ronald Branson, a
California minister, succeeded in getting 46,800 South Dakotans to
sign petitions for his Judicial Accountability Initiative Law
In February, 92 of 105 lawmakers co-sponsored
and passed House Resolution 1004, which urges South Dakota residents
to reject the J.A.I.L. amendment on election day.
The "No on Amendment E" coalition is a
nonpartisan effort of the state's top political, business, labor, law
enforcement, medical and agricultural leaders.
"These unprecedented actions, both by the
members of the legislature and other South Dakota entities, are
emblematic of the serious opposition to Amendment E becoming part of
the state's constitution," Schmelzer said.
NAMIC has produced an Issue Brief on the
J.A.I.L. ballot initiative that includes more specifics about
Amendment E, its organizers and how the initiative came to be on the
South Dakota ballot. The Issue Brief can be read on NAMIC's website,
NAMIC Online at http://www.namic.org/insbriefs/060316JAIL.pdf
Source: National Association of Mutual
For more comments on NAMIC please see:
*** More on the
Insurance Industry Opposition to Amendment E ***
* * * Inherent
Truth! * * *