The Inherent Right
of ALL People to Alter or Reform Abusive
The Right Upon Which
All Other Rights
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
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
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
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
"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
Now consider what the South
Dakotans are being told what this amendment is
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
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
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
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
Do Voters Understand Amendment
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
You may have seen the signs among the others scattered around Sioux
Falls. But we wanted to know if the average voter really
Reporter: Do you know about the amendment that holds judges
"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
Reporter: Do you know it includes jurors? "No, I did not," said
Tryon. Reporter: County Commissioners? "No." City Council members?
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
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
© 2006 KELOLAND TV. All Rights
"Who stands to be hurt if Amendment E is not
Would it be the South Dakota Bar Association and lawyers?
Would it be the South Dakota Legislature?
Would it be the insurance companies and
IT WOULD BE THE VOTERS OF SOUTH
WHO WOULD BE
YES on Amendment E for your future and your own