"JUDGES. RESTRICTIONS ON JUDICIAL IMMUNITY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.  Supersedes existing judicial immunity and creates three 25-member 'Special Grand Juries' empowered to: determine if a judge may invoke judicial immunity in a civil suit; indict and, through a special trial jury, convict and sentence a judge for criminal conduct; and permanently remove a judge who receives three adverse immunity decisions or three criminal convictions. Disallows immunity for deliberate violations of law, fraud, conspiracy, intentional due process violations, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts outside the court's jurisdiction, unreasonable delay of a case, or any deliberate constitutional violation."

 

Now consider what the South Dakotans are being told what this amendment is about:

 

"Citizens serving on juries, school boards, city councils, county commissions, or in similar capacities, and prosecutors and judges, are all required to make judicial decisions. Their decisions may be reversed on appeal, or they may be removed from office for misconduct or by election. However, they cannot be made to pay money damages for making such decisions. This allow them to do their job without fear of threat or reprisal from either side. The proposed amendment to the State Constitution would allow thirteen volunteers to expose these decision makers to fines and jail ..."  (It should be noted that on the South Dakota ballot the term "thirteen volunteers" was changed to "grand jurors.")

 

So what is it that the South Dakotans are voting on?  "Judicial accountability?" Absolutely not, according to the ballot, but upon whether "decision makers" should be subject to "fines and jail." And let us not forget, according to A.G. Long, these "decision makers" include "jurors."

 

People and the media are calling me and asking me about this proposed assault upon citizens who serve as jurors in South Dakota. I call this ridiculous interpretation of Amendment E, "Jury Cannibalism," ie, juries eating juries. The U.S. Constitution clearly says, "The trial of all crimes, except in case of impeachment, shall be by jury..." Art. III, Sec. 2, Cl. 3. If one jury can be arrested and jailed for making decisions, then it would have to go in front of another jury, who could (arguably) be arrested and jailed for its decisions.

 

Folks, what is going on in the election process in South Dakota is clearly criminal, and the F.B.I. should sweep into South Dakota and clean up this election mess for the sake of the sanctity of the voting process. I deal very thoroughly with this subject on our website www.sd-jail4judges.org.

 

Below are questions being presented to the voters of South Dakota that asks a question similar to "How often do you beat your wife?"

 

*  *  *

Do Voters Understand Amendment E?