J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                          April 13, 2006

______________________________________________________
The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform Abusive Government.
The Right Upon Which All Other Rights Depend
 
Then, Why All The Fuss?
As Shakespeare eloquently said,
"Methinks thou protesteth too much."
By Barbie, National J.A.I.L., victoryusa@jail4judges.org
 
That question comes to mind after we posted a JNJ April 6th titled "J.A.I.L. Splitting South Dakota Open" in which we quote from the American Judicature Society, an organization located in Iowa, whose membership is made up mainly of judges and lawyers, as follows:
 
We are not aware of any case in which it has been alleged that a South Dakota judge engaged in behavior of the sort targeted by this proposed constitutional amendment, and its sponsors do not cite any.
 
There is no need to "restore judicial accountability and a perception of justice" in South Dakota. South Dakota judges, who must stand for election or retention election, are already amply accountable [emphasis added- j4j] because of that fact, because most of their decisions are subject to appellate review, and because the state has a system for investigating and imposing discipline for judicial misconduct.

1. If indeed South Dakota judges do not "engage[ ] in behavior of the sort targeted by this proposed constitutional amendment," then the J.A.I.L. Special Grand Jury need not sit in judgment, and the South Dakota judges will be allowed to continue to perform their normal judicial responsibilities according to the state and federal Constitutions to which they take an oath to support and defend. The only role J.A.I.L. will play in that event would be similar to that of firemen when there exists no fire. J.A.I.L. will not interfere with the honest, lawful, and constitutional conduct of the judiciary.

Then, why all the fuss?

2. If South Dakota judges are already amply accountable because they "stand for election or retention election," because "most of their decisions are subject to appellate review," and because "the state has a system for investigating and imposing discipline for judicial misconduct," which is standard for most all states, then J.A.I.L. goes on acting as an emergency exit. Surely no one would dare propose eliminating all emergency exits based upon the argument that they do not anticipate any emergencies. That was a lesson we supposedly learned from the sinking of the Titanic. If
elections, appellate review, and judicial discipline are successful in preventing judges from abusing their power, then J.A.I.L. will not interfere as aforesaid. J.A.I.L. will stand by silently as a guardian on behalf of the People to make sure that South Dakota judges remain "amply accountable" in the future. Our Founding Fathers were grilled with the doctrine that the king can do no wrong. But what if they did find that the king could do wrong? And they did. Wouldn't it be nice if we could hold judges accountable without having to go through another American revolution? We think so.

Then, why all the fuss?

The AJS website states:  The American Judicature Society works to maintain the independence and integrity of the courts and increase public understanding of the justice system. We are a nonpartisan organization with a national membership of judges, lawyers and other citizens interested in the administration of justice.

The J.A.I.L. Amendment does not oppose that objective. In fact the Preamble states: We, the People of South Dakota, find that the doctrine of judicial immunity has the potential of being greatly abused; that when judges do abuse their power, the People are obliged - it is their duty - to correct that injury, for the benefit of themselves and their posterity. In order to insure judicial accountability and domestic tranquility, we hereby amend our Constitution by adding these provisions as 28 to Article VI, which shall be known as "The J.A.I.L. Amendment."
 
Comparing the two statements, the AJS represents the interests of judges, lawyers, and other citizens interested in the administration of justice; and J.A.I.L. represents the People of South Dakota who are also interested in the administration of justice. So the question is how best is the "administration of justice" achieved? 
 
(a) Would it best be achieved by the status quo of the current judicial system of South Dakota as it operates today without oversight by the People? or,
 
(b) Would it best be achieved by having the People of South Dakota oversee the judicial system to make sure the judiciary does not abuse its power and continues to protect the rights of the individual against arbitrary acts of government?
 
If "the judiciary does not abuse its power and continues to protect the rights of the individual against arbitrary acts of government,"
 
Then, why all the fuss?
 
Following is some feedback we received from our readers:
 
Dear Ron:

The only reason the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law is needed is because the constitutionally specific remedies listed in this article are not, nor have no effect when they are being administered by the corrupt elected officials and judges that are protecting each others backs; and it is a case of the foxes watching the hen house.
 
If the constitutional remedies were working, then J.A.I.L. would not be needed; that is the problem, the remedies are not working and the corrupt judiciary are the specific reason why. Of course they are going to make the most noise; they have finally been caught and fear the outcome of being put in jail where they belong.
 
Immunity is necessary in an honorable system; corruption has to be cleaned out in a corrupt system. If a judge performs his duties with honor and integrity he has nothing to fear; it is the criminals we are after, the ones that willingly and maliciously ignore the written laws and rule in violation of what the law requires them to do. For centuries it has been the honor of any one to serve as a judge, to rule and enforce the laws passed by the people and to benefit society in an equal and fair manner, without personal opinion or personal agenda getting in the way or clouding the issues. Only the currently corrupt judiciary are complaining about being required to serve the public with honor and integrity.   
 
Paul Clark

 
Re: http://www.ajs.org/ajs/ajs_editorial-template.asp?content_id=472
 
CLAIM:  "We are not aware of any case in which it has been alleged that a South Dakota judge engaged in behavior of the sort targeted by this proposed constitutional amendment . . ."
 
ANSWER:  I think that's wonderful.  Then what is the American Judicature Society so worried about?
 
CLAIM:  " . . . without judicial immunity for most judicial acts judges
. . . would lack the independence necessary to apply the law without fear or favor."
 
ANSWER:  Oops!  That's a blatant lie by the American Judicature Society.  Judges would indeed retain 100 percent of the independence necessary to apply the law without fear or favor.  What judges would suddenly lack after passage of Amendment E is the ability to break the law with impunity.  Ironically, the American Judicature Society is defending blatant law-breaking that is not remedied by the government.
 
CLAIM:  "The American Judicature Society (AJS), founded in 1913, is an independent, national, nonpartisan organization of judges, lawyers, and other members of the public who seek to improve the justice system. AJS, which brings a public perspective to justice system issues, has the mission to secure and promote an independent and qualified judiciary and fair system of justice."
 
ANSWER:  Promoting justice (not merely the government-dominated justice system) by adhering to the truth should be paramount.
 
Mark Yannone

 
I look at it this way:  If you're not rockin' their World then your legal ammo is impotent. Obviously you have caught them with egg on their face. If they don't start any crap there won't be any crap. ... Isn't the Truth enough, or is the Truth too brutal for these clowns? Rock on Ron, I'm praying that South Dakota rocks the Judicial world.
 
Roy Dobbs


No one kicks a dead dog. If there is no judicial professional affected by
J.A.I.L., then it is curious that such a fuss would be made.

Burglar to judge:

I weren't hurtin no one. No one even knew I was there. And then I got
dragged in here by a policeman who caught me leaving the window with a bag full of loot. Why, no one even complained to me till the police stuck their nose in my business. I had a clean getaway if they'd have stayed out of it.

Judge to you:

I weren't hurtin no one. It was just our little secret, the attorneys and
me, doing people dirty and only helpless whiners complained. I used to just
laugh when that happens. Heck, there's money and power for the taking. We had a good thing going till this grand jury business spoilt everthin.

Dennis Fenimore

To AJS: Methinks thou protesteth too much!
 
 
J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - 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
 
"..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 2006

Return To JNJ Library Index for All Years