J.A.I.L. News Journal
California December 3, 2006
The Inherent Right of ALL People to
Alter or Reform Government.
South Dakota Government Acted In Concert Against The
You are kidding yourselves if you think you can draft a perfect amendment. The process re putting Amendment E on the ballot, and then to a vote, proved here the government does not serve the People, will ignore them and the law, the constitution and simply do as they please. How are you going to stop them?
Where are checks and balances? As set forth below, the 3 branches of SD government (with a lot of help from the power establishment) acted in concert against the People and the constitution - and actually proved our case for us.
1. The SD legislature's illegal unanimous resolution (that flew in the face of SD Attorney General Official Opinion 88-28 and constitutional voting rights law) that interfered in an election, and thereafter spawned countless similar illegal resolutions by virtually every local government agency, its hate speech against the E backers, its failure to w/draw its resolution, its failure to reply to any of our 3 letters.
2. The failure of the SD executive branch Governor Rounds & Attorney General Larry Long to determine those resolutions were illegal and interfered in an election and infringed on voting rights, and to order the legislature to withdraw such and to cease & desist in further interference (we failed to send the letter to Gov. Rounds/Long dumping that issue in their lap, putting them on formal notice with a specific demand); thereafter AG Long's biased official ballot statement on Amendment E. I also believe both Gov. Rounds and his opposition candidate for governor, billion officially stated they were against E.
3. The failure of the SD judiciary. First, SD Chief Justice Gilbertson proved our case and the need for passage of Amendment E, when shortly after we got E on the ballot, the Chief attended and spoke at the SD State Bar 12-8-05 meeting kicking off their opposition campaign to E and stated they planned to raise $1-million. The Chief's conduct here violated about 4-5 SD judicial canons; he later recused himself when Judge Gor's biased decision was appealed to the SD Supreme Court. (The press reported he recused himself, but never inquired WHY he recused himself; another SD Supreme Court justice also recused himself, which was reported, but again there was no inquiry WHY; he may also have attended that bar meeting with the Chief). We wrote a letter to the Chief, which he failed to answer, but we were supposed to follow that up by filing a complaint to the SD Commission on Judicial Qualifications about his attendance at the bar meeting and thereby violating 4-5 canons (with cc's to all media), and our letter attached as exhibit A; we did not file the complaint.
In our case against SD Attorney General Long for his biased official ballot statement (again this proved the executive branch was biased against E), the judiciary proved our case with Judge Gor's biased decision, particularly where he stated Long's statement did not go far enough; Judge Gor amazingly stated, Long could have stated the purpose of E was to destroy the SD judiciary, and, where Gor stated "Judges do have absolute judicial immunity." Period. He provided no case citations. No explanation(s). Thus he was stating our case: that the judiciary have become, made themselves - just like the king - royalty. Gor is symbolically stating: "We are the kings." They have immunity because he said they do. The Emperor's New Clothes. I never saw the legal papers we filed in Gor's court, nor, the papers we filed in the SD Supreme Court challenging Gor's decision. But I do know we did not sufficiently challenge the bias on the part of Long, Gor or Gilbertson - in court, with the media (which was also biased against us and we may not have been able to get any proper reporting from them anyway), or even on our own websites.
We were supposed to have filed a voting rights lawsuit in federal court, based upon the above letters we wrote and sent (they were to be exhibits to the lawsuit), and the above conduct/response demonstrated by each branch of the SD government to those letters. We never filed the lawsuit. We thus could never make any press, or drive that issue ourselves.
To sum up, even if E would have passed, our opposition (the government, the
establishment), would not (and in the future will not) let E actually be enacted. It would languish in the courts forever (first in SD state court, then fed court), and long after almost everyone has forgotten that election and E, rule it unconstitutional. Anarchy will come before E or something like it can come into actual practice.
Our purpose with JAIL or Amendment E, or at least MINE, was simply to draw a
line in the sand, engage the battle (WE in fact fought the good fight and I thank everyone who aided and participated with us) to put People on NOTICE regarding how we (our government and big business) no longer have, or follow, the Rule of Law, our Constitution. What we need to do is make a video and document the process of E - how government actually served the People and followed the law - or actually did not.
You can go ahead with another E, but you have to have the finances (a lot of money to pay for a legal team, press team and campaign team), but more
importantly have a plan B. Actually multiple strategies. JAIL is not the only answer, because the powers that be will simply act the same way the next time, tell even greater lies if they have to. (And with the global economy, they are getting bigger and have a greater need to keep the facade up, in place.) Unless you can combat them, respond timely with good opposition, dollar for dollar (better yet get out ahead of them, so we control the agenda), in the short run (almost any election issue that
threatens their power so directly) they will win every time. They have to.
We will win in the long run (anarchy/collapse will occur), because (beyond
the corruption) our nation/society has reached the point that we have taken/made too many wrong turns in the law - there simply is too much law (government) to even function - we cannot get out of our own way, we have tied ourselves in knots - when we were supposed to have a limited government and the purpose of the Constitution was to tie government down to the EXPRESS powers given it. There simply is nothing left that government does not touch, have its hands on, and has not made a mess of. More law, more government will not save us - they are the problem. Further, the law and government in place has divided and continues to divide our country. We are fighting amongst ourselves way too much, to even recognize much of the world does not like us or is turning against us.