California December 27, 2006
The Inherent Right of ALL People to
Alter or Reform Government.
The Right Upon Which All Other
J.A.I.L. is The
J.A.I.L. is not a "special interest"
nor is it a fourth branch of
The sooner the
People realize and act on this truth,
this country can be freed from despotic rule.
certainly meant to be out there, despite the fiasco that was supposed to be an
election in South Dakota. What happened on November 7th in that state can't even
be logically thought of as an election at all for Amendment E (the J.A.I.L.
Amendment), since the voters were not even made aware of what precisely they
were voting for. The State did not provide them with the wording of the
Amendment, plus arguments pro and con, to read and study before making an
All the voters had
to go on was the so-called "explanation" by Attorney General Larry Long, which,
as we have shown by evidence, was nothing more than an argument against
Amendment E. See South
Dakota 2006 Ballot Contaminated
written two days before the
election. With this fraud being perpetrated on the South Dakota voters by
their Attorney General, it doesn't matter what the vote count is if the measure
"lost" the election. Whether Amendment E lost 89% to 11%, or 55% to 45%, or
100% to nothing, it "lost" by fraud, and therefore was not a legitimate
election. Even if J.A.I.L. had "won" the election, nevertheless the fraud should
not be tolerated by the People.
The South Dakota fiasco was a valuable learning
experience for the People. It revealed the true character of the South Dakota
government and its henchmen. That was quite a sad revelation, but one that was
necessary to inform the public, through a real experience, just how dishonest
and evil government is, if South Dakota is any
One of the many things we have learned is that the pack
of guard-dogs leading the fight to protect the "Divine Right of Kings" for their
masters, the judiciary, is the bar associations-- the organized lawyers
nationwide. And one thing lawyers and judges do best, i.e., disregard the facts
and substitute their own perverted version of any circumstance, was done
throughout the Amendment E campaign. The scheme goes like this: Call a thing something else (a form of fraud), and then argue like hell against that something else in order to
justify the desired conclusion (based on that fraud) --a conclusion that
could not have been reached were it not for the fraud. (This practice is
standard operating procedure for government defense counsel in collusion with
the judge, particularly against a pro se plaintiff).
Applying this scheme to J.A.I.L. (Amendment E in
South Dakota), it is primarily the bar associations, through public appearances
and over the media, that proselytize the public into believing their line
of propaganda which, among other spins, portrays J.A.I.L. as being a "special
interest group" and a "fourth branch of government" which should not interfere
with the "independence of the judiciary." The bar associations, especially
the top brass, elect to carry on this program because they are conceived by the
public as being the "experts" in the field of law and government.
To make a good impression on their audience, they make
a handsome appearance, well-groomed in their pin-striped suits and starched
white collars with neat-appearing ties, cuff-links and shiny black shoes (the
whole nine yards), wearing a bright and beautiful smile with twinkling eyes and
shaking hands, etc., etc. The sad part of this is that the public, by and large,
laps it all up like honey.
But I wonder how much longer the public will be fooled,
in such large numbers, once they get "stung" by this beautiful-appearing
illusion. The People of South Dakota certainly got stung by this fraudulent
apparition! And if they don't "sting back," this creature will be flying all
over the country, ready to sting more of the People in other
For instance, Jay Cook, President of the Georgia Bar
Assn. said: (excerpts)
This election season,
threats to judicial independence rippled through ballot boxes across
America. But the voters spoke loud
and clear: We do not want partisan and special-interest factions interfering
with our impartial courts.
... In South Dakota, voters soundly defeated the
"JAIL 4 Judges" initiative. Only 10 percent of voters backed the measure that
would have stripped judicial immunity and established an unaccountable fourth
branch of government to intimidate judges.
to news reports, these same special-interest groups.... See Twisted
see how this pack of dogs, of which the Georgia Bar is just one example, gloats
over the so-called "defeat" of J.A.I.L., giving the credit to the voters who
"soundly defeated" the initiative, detailing that "only 10 percent of voters
backed the measure." As stated before, the numbers don't matter as long as it
took FRAUD to "defeat" the measure. But they never talk about the fraud, do
they? Cook says "the voters spoke loud and clear," but DID they?
--Loud and clear on what? --the Attorney General's "explanation" of
the measure? Hmmm...??
further states that the initiative "would have stripped judicial immunity and
established an unaccountable fourth branch of government to intimidate judges."
Call J.A.I.L. a "fourth branch of government" and then attack that "branch of
government" as interfering with the independence of another branch (the
judiciary). First of all, another "branch of government" wouldn't intimidate
judges, any more than the other two do. What judges ARE concerned about is that
they know that J.A.I.L. isn't government at all, but it's the People
of whom they are afraid! As long as they can keep the People hoodwinked and
asleep, judges are "home free." But the climate is changing for them. They're
getting hot around their black collars.
subject was covered thoroughly in a JNJ 5/17/04 titled
href="../2004/2004-05-18.html">The People are NOT a Branch of Government - One thing that is important
to realize is that the People are NOT part of government whatsoever. As the
Declaration of Independence points out, the People institute government to
secure their unalienable rights. The People are "the governed" and government
derives its just powers from the consent of the
governed, i.e., the People. ¶ The California Constitution states (italics
are my comments): "All political power is inherent in the people. [not in
any branch of government] Government is instituted [by the people] for their
[the People's] protection, security, and benefit, and they [the People] have the
right to alter or reform it [the government] when the public good may require."
(Art.II, sec.1) ¶ That is the authority
upon which J.A.I.L. is predicated-- the right of the People to alter or reform
government. Other state constitutions have the same or similar provision,
particularly the initiative states such as California. If the People were merely
a branch of government, they wouldn't have that right. The People are separate
from government-- indeed, superior to government. That is the truth of the
relationship, no matter how it appears to be in practice.
also covered this in a JNJ dated 12/11/05, titled
J.A.I.L. is a means by which
the People must perform their duty --an inherent right-- to alter and reform
government, in this instance the judiciary, in such manner as they deem proper,
in this instance by holding the judiciary accountable to the People for
violations of law as specifically set forth in the J.A.I.L. amendment. Do the
People have the right to do this in only some of the states? Absolutely not! The
People have that inherent right in all states-- even the world, wherever nature
exists. Remember-- no document grants that right to the People. ... Furthermore, the words of the DOI communicates the
fact that whenever government breaches the responsibility for which it was
created (instituted) by the People, the People, from whom government derives its
just powers, have not just the right, but the DUTY, to repair that breach by
altering or reforming their government in such a way that will insure the
respect and protection of their inherent rights by its government. Bear in mind,
the Declaration of Independence does not grant those rights-- they exist by
nature, regardless of any document. The document merely assures us of the fact
that independently exists. That assurance doesn't depend upon the authenticity
of the document, nor of any document.
The Preamble of the
South Dakota J.A.I.L. Amendment starts out with "We, the People of South
Dakota..." and continues "...we hereby amend our Constitution by
adding these provisions..." in compliance with Article VI §26 of the South
Dakota Constitution which provides: "All political power is inherent in
the People, and all free government is founded on
their authority, and is instituted for their
equal protection and benefit, and they have the right in lawful
and constituted methods to alter or reform their forms of
government in such manner as they may think proper. ..."
How can "all free government" be founded on the authority of a "fourth branch of
government"? Does any branch of government have "rights"?
Does any branch of government have "all political power"? Does a "fourth
branch of government" have the right to alter or reform another branch of
government? Can Jay Cook, President of the Georgia Bar, or Tom Barnett,
Secretary-Treasurer of the South Dakota Bar, or Mr. Riter, President of the S.D.
Bar, answer those questions? How can J.A.I.L. be a "fourth branch of
government" when it is the People seeking to alter their government?
The People must beware of the phrase, which will be touted more
and more frequently by our opponents, "Independence of the Judiciary" and its
derivatives, such as "judicial independence," "independent judiciary," "judges
should remain independent" and others. The word "independence," when connected
to the judiciary in the current system, means arbitrary; and should
raise a red flag of caution every time you hear it or read about it. It means
the judiciary wants to be left alone and remain unaccountable to the
People. ¶ The term "independence"
as it applies to the three branches of government is always to be
viewed as a sword, and not as a shield; i.e., each branch is not dependent upon
the other two for its actions. Example: the executive (prosecutor) may prosecute
any member of the judiciary [executive sword]; the legislature may impeach any
member of the judiciary [legislative sword]; the judiciary may hold any member
of the executive or the legislature in contempt of court [judicial sword]. No
branch of government has a shield of "independence" from the other two; and
certainly has no independence from the People --including the judiciary. ¶ "Independence" as it applies to the People is inherent in
the People; i.e., they don't need the permission of government, including the
judiciary, to be independent. The independence of the People is manifest
through juries-- grand and petit. The statement by Mr. Riter of the South Dakota
Bar Association (SDBA), to wit: if an effort like that [J.A.I.L.] was successful it would
likely destroy the current independent nature of our judiciary
is a misrepresentation, since there does not exist
an "independent nature of [the] judiciary" as it relates to the
People-- only as it relates to the other two branches of government. Mr.
Riter interprets "independence of the judiciary" as if it were a shield, but
"independence" is never a shield in any instance. The judiciary, contrary
to the suggestion by Riter, was not established to operate inside
Your thought on the "independence of the judiciary" is very well taken
and should be shared with our readers because one of the foremost arguments of
our opposition is that J.A.I.L. will interfere with the "independence of the
judiciary." It is very important that the People understand what is being
said. Therefore, your message and my reply is being sent as a JNJ for
educational purposes. ¶ First, whenever
you hear any accusation against J.A.I.L., they are accusing the People--
for J.A.I.L. is the People exercising their inherent right to amend what
purports to be "government" inasmuch as their rights are being violated every
day and the People are being forced to live under absolute despotism. The evils
are no longer sufferable; therefore it is incumbent upon the People to "throw
off such government" by holding the guardian of our rights, i.e., the purported
judiciary, accountable to the People under constitutional
Immunity is a time-honored way of
preserving an independent judiciary. This radical measure would create a special
grand jury with a rotating membership and loose rules — in effect, a fourth
branch of government.
responds: I am
not against true "judicial independence." We need an independent judiciary
that rises above politics and human emotions. But if "judicial independence"
means independent of the Constitution which they have sworn to uphold, then mark
me down as opposed judicial independence. ¶ A runaway "independent" judiciary that makes up and
enforces its own laws as it goes, is certain to bring the entire judiciary into
contempt and disrepute, causing the judiciary to have to publicly
defend themselves at every stage while descending into their own
quagmire and destruction. The truth is that JAIL4Judges is the best thing that
could ever happen to the judiciary to protect it from its own demise. Only God
Himself is immune from having to answer to any authority.
And retired Justice O'Connor stated on March 15, 2006,
The nation's founders wrote repeatedly,
she said, that without an independent judiciary to protect individual rights
from the other branches of government those rights and privileges would amount
to nothing. But, said O'Connor, as the founding
fathers knew statutes and constitutions don't protect judicial
independence, people do. [Our emphasis added - j4j] See "Constitutions Don't Protect Judicial Independence, People
Do" by Retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. (JNJ 3/15/06)
Note: J.A.I.L. which is the People, will protect Judicial
Independence, not threaten it. -j4j
We state on our
website, near the end of the
J.A.I.L. is the People, providing the means by which they can carry out their right and duty to
restore the rightful station of government by holding the judiciary, as the
intended guardian of their rights against arbitrary power, accountable to
the People under constitutional law.
Finally, I close
with the following excerpt from Lawyers
and Judges in Collusion By Chief Justice
John F. Molloy (Author Miranda Decision,
AZ.) JNJ 4/12/05:
design - Today the skill and
gamesmanship of lawyers, not the truth, often determine the outcome of a case.
And we lawyers love it. All the tools are there to obscure and confound. The
system's process of discovery and the exclusionary rule often work to keep vital
information off-limits to jurors and make cases so convoluted and complex that
only lawyers and judges understand them.
The net effect has been to increase our need for lawyers, create more
work for them, clog the courts and ensure that most cases never go to trial and
are, instead, plea-bargained and compromised. All the while the clock is
ticking, and the monster is being fed. ¶
The sullying of American law has resulted in a fountain of money for law
professionals while the common people, who are increasingly affected by
lawyer-driven changes and an expensive, self-serving bureaucracy, are left
confused and ill-served.
You are encouraged to read that entire JNJ by Chief Justice
Molloy. It puts the bar associations and their spokesmen to
Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - href="../../index.html">www.jail4judges.org
Contribute to J.A.I.L. at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA
powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
"..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
Return To JNJ 2006
Return To JNJ Library Index for All Years