J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                              November 3, 2006
______________________________________________________
The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform Abusive Government.
The Right Upon Which All Other Rights Depend
Twisting The Truth
 
The voters on Amendment E in South Dakota are being fed a full line of bull on what Amendment E specifically targets, to wit, judges! With a simple reading anyone can quickly see the objective of the amendment is judges, yet there is a very intense effort to steer clear of its real intent. The objective is to use scare tactics to state that it is about throwing juries, school board members, and city councilmen in jail when nowhere does it ever mention or suggest such a preposterous conclusion.
 
In the official South Dakota ballot description Attorney General Larry Long merely mentions the term "judges" once, and that is at the end of a long list of Amendment E's supposed targets. Otherwise no one would even know that Amendment E had anything to do with judges.
 
If one thought that political politics in California was intolerable, they only need to look to South Dakota's dishonesty here. At least  California Attorney General Bill Lockyer correctly described the purpose of what is the same target known as Amendment E in South Dakota.  
 
No less than four times he used the term "judge" or "judges" in his   proposed description for the California ballot. Further, there is not one hint of a suggestion that it targets anything other than judges. No juries, no school boards, no city councils, no county commissions, no prosecutors. Read it for yourself:
 

"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?"

 

*  *  *


11/03/2006

Do Voters Understand Amendment E?

 

If Amendment E passes, South Dakota will be the first state in the nation to enact accountability laws for people in judicial positions. But many people may not realize how far the measure reaches. 

You may have seen the signs among the others scattered around Sioux Falls. But we wanted to know if the average voter really understands it. 

Reporter: Do you know about the amendment that holds judges accountable? 

"No," said Jay Greyson of Brookings. 

"I've seen the commercials, but I'm not up to date on the subject," said Christine Neuhart of Sioux Falls. 

Reporter: Are you familiar with Amendment E?
"Vaguely," said Tyler Tryon of Sioux Falls. 

Most people we talked with, both on camera and off, had at least heard of the amendment, but weren't sure what it includes. 

Reporter: Do you know it includes jurors? "No, I did not," said Tryon. Reporter: County Commissioners? "No." City Council members? "No." 

Reporter: School board members? "No," said Neuhart. Reporter: City Council? "No." Jurors? "No." County Commissioners? "No." 

A court decision just this week upheld the measure's description which includes those groups and strips them of judicial immunity... opening them up to lawsuits as well as judges. 

A few voters we talked with were aware of that. 

"Yes, it has to do with anybody potentially serving on a board, a school board, elected position, a lot of volunteer people," said Missy Radigan of Sioux Falls. 

And they're important details to keep in mind before voting on Amendment E. 

This week U.S. Senators Tim Johnson and John Thune, U.S. Representative Stephanie Herseth and her opponent Bruce Whalen... and Governor Mike Rounds and his opponent Jack Billion issued a joint statement, opposing Amendment E.

Katie Janssen
2006 KELOLAND TV. All Rights Reserved.


 
"Who stands to be hurt if Amendment E is not passed?"
Would it be the South Dakota Bar Association and lawyers? NO!
Would it be the South Dakota Legislature? NO!
Would it be the insurance companies and agencies?  NO!
IT WOULD BE THE VOTERS OF SOUTH DAKOTA
WHO WOULD BE HURT.
Vote YES on Amendment E for your future and your own good!
 
J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
Our South Dakota site: www.SD-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