J.A.I.L. News Journal
Los Angeles, California                              January 11, 2007
The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform Government.
The Right Upon Which All Other Rights Depend

What Did the "Show-Election"
in South Dakota REALLY Show?
It showed that we are being run by a Foreign Power!     
By Barbie, National J.A.I.L., victoryusa@jail4judges.org
We won't be reformed!
We don't care what the South Dakota Constitution says.
We don't care what South Dakota statute says.
We don't care what the Declaration of Independence says.
We don't care what the U.S. Constitution says.
There's no need for judicial reform in South Dakota.
We like it just the way it is, and it'll stay that way.
And we'll hold a Show-Election to prove it!
That is the message the State of South Dakota has put out to its People and to the world-- it will NOT be reformed! As John Locke said in his second treatise "Of the Dissolution of Government," To tell people they may provide for themselves, by erecting a new legislative, when by oppression, artifice, or being delivered over to a foreign power... we must ask ourselves, "Have we been delivered over to a foreign power?"
What is a "foreign power"? The Founding Authority for our country establishes the origin of legitimate power for government as "...governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..." (Declaration of Independence 1776).
Those powers are specified in the 1787 Constitution, written on behalf of "We the people of the United States..." (i.e., the governed), which Constitution establishes that it is the Supreme Law of the Land (Article VI, 2) stating in part, "...and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."  The State of South Dakota acknowledges this fact in its own State Constitution, to wit: "... And the state of South Dakota is an inseparable part of the American Union and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land."  South Dakota cannot stand as an isolated island, independent of the other 49 states. All other states have an interest in what happens in South Dakota. 
What if the power in South Dakota, purporting to be "the state of South Dakota," disregards the Supreme Law of the Land, and proceeds against the governed as it did with the Show-Election in November?  See "Show-Election" in South Dakota 2006. ( First, an apology for a mistake I made in that JNJ, second paragraph from 
the end, where I erroneously stated: There is not an ounce of credibility in the reported outcome of 89% in favor of the Amendment, and 11% against it. You can see the obvious mistake- I had it reversed! It should have been "89% against the Amendment, and 11% in favor of it.")
You can refer to all the evidence cited in that JNJ, documenting the exploits of that rogue power in South Dakota, making it unnecessary to repeat it here. If the powers they exercised were NOT "from the consent of the governed," were those powers "just"? And if those powers were NOT just, are they legitimate government powers? The evidence shown for the "Show Election" points to the fact that it was not based on the "consent of the governed" i.e., the voters, nor could it be since they were not provided a copy of the text of Amendment E nor the pro and con arguments to read and study before voting, which is a violation of the South Dakota Constitution as we stated in the above-referenced JNJ.
The show-election in South Dakota has taught us what the real power-conglomerate is made up of that is running the "show" in that state-- and they have shown themselves to be a foreign power, disregarding the law of the state and  the nation. It is not only the entire South Dakota "government" (state, county and local), but also the corporate/industrial complexes extending beyond South Dakota borders (e.g., Exxon,  Mobil, Wal-Mart, insurance industry headquartered in D.C., banking, real estate, utilities, -- and many more, just follow the money). It is not only what poses as "government," but the entire commercial enterprise that does not want judicial accountability to the People. They are quite satisfied with the usurpation of power that has taken over the People, and you can see from the South Dakota fiasco what they'll do to defend it.
This entire power-conglomerate has risen up in "defense" of the judiciary against the People, and the front line of this judicial defense is the judicial sentry, commonly known as the bar associations, i.e., lawyers. They are all standing guard, surrounding their "Golden Calf" that wears black robes, pounds a gavel, and sits on high above all laws with total immunity. As many of you have heard, the judicial sentry from South Dakota is beginning to march to other states, such as Florida and Georgia, to continue using their propaganda machine-guns against the People, shooting out lies about J.A.I.L. to hornswoggle the People into believing the Lie. If the People want to know the truth, they will read the J.A.I.L. Amendment and see for themselves what it presents.  
The "consent of the governed" i.e., of the People, from which government derives
all just powersis delineated in the Constitution, state and federal. If government derives its powers from the People, then government cannot have more power than its source of power, the People. Therefore, it is important to know what power the People possess.
The Declaration of Independence describes the power of the People as the "unalienable rights" with which they were endowed at birth (by their Creator). This power is not earned nor gained, but is inherent at birth. Only People are born-- governments are not! That is why governments must derive their power FROM the People. Governments do not even exist but by the People!  
The South Dakota Constitution (SDC) describes the power of the People as "political power" stating "All political power is inherent in the people." (Art.VI 26)"Political power" is described as:
    "A radical alternative view of the source of political power follows the formula: information plus authority [emph. added] permits the exercise of power. Political power is intimately related to information. Sir Francis Bacon's statement: "Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est" for knowledge itself is power, assumed authority as given. Many will know that unless someone with authority listens and acts, there is no political power. ... Those who exercise authority in ignorance are not powerful, because they do not realize their intentions and have little control over the effects of using their authority. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power 
The above states that the two necessary ingredients for political power is information and authority, and the SDC continues at 26 "and all free government is founded on [the People's] authority." While the authority is inherent in the People, the information has to be gleaned by them. They aren't born with it. As stated above, "Those who exercise authority in ignorance are not powerful, because they do not realize their intentions and have little control over the effects of using their authority" ... "Political power is intimately related to information."
The key portion of 26 of the SDC states: "...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." THAT is what the objective was in getting J.A.I.L. on the ballot. However, in order to exercise that power, the People in South Dakota needed to be informed about "reform[ing] their forms of government." Reading and studying the J.A.I.L. Amendment (Amendment E) would have informed the voters of the particulars regarding that right in order to intelligently vote on it. But the state did not mail to the voters a published voters' guide containing the necessary 
informationin order to keep them ignorant and powerless.
Was it by "the consent of the governed" (the voters) that the government of South Dakota failed to provide the information necessary for them to exercise their "inherent power" and make an intelligent vote? Why would the South Dakota electorate consent to this deprivation, to their own detriment and injury? If this deprivation of information was NOT by the consent of the voters, then it occurred by a foreign power by usurpation. It wasn't government at all that conducted the show-election in South Dakota. Government couldn't have done that under their just powers.
Bent Flyvbjerg, Professor, Research Director, Dr.Techn. & Ph.D.stated regarding power: "The central question is how power is exercised, and not merely who has power and why they have it; the focus is on process in addition to structure." http://flyvbjerg.plan.aau.dk/whatispower.php  In the case of J.A.I.L., the voters in South Dakota were prevented from exercising their political power by being deprived of the information necessary for them to do so on Election Day. This deprivation had to occur by a foreign power, because government would be bound by Article VII 1 of the South Dakota Constitution which provides "Elections shall be free and equal, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage."   Most of us are familiar with the famous quote of Lord Acton: "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." This was in a letter written to Bishop Creighton in 1887.
The most serious problem with power, to which Lord Acton referred, and which is quite separate from the aggravation of dealing with besotted magistrates: is that it corruptshttp://www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/BluePete/Government.htm
Corruption poses a serious development challenge. In the political realm, it undermines democracy and good governance by flouting or even subverting formal processes. Corruption in elections and in legislative bodies reduces accountability  and distorts representation in policymaking; corruption in the judiciary compromises the rule of law; and corruption in public administration results in the unfair provision of services. More generally, corruption erodes the institutional capacity of government as procedures are disregarded, resources are siphoned off, and public offices are bought and sold. At the same time, corruption undermines the legitimacy of government and such democratic values as trust and tolerance.
In the JNJ "Show-Election" in South Dakota 2006 I posed the question:
What happens when the constitutional remedy to reform government by the People is blocked by the very government sought to be reformed? 
Based on what we have learned above, the answer rests on the fact that we're dealing with a FOREIGN POWER. That foreign power is not bound by either the United States nor the South Dakota Constitution. There is no "constitutional remedy to reform government" under that power. So the question might be rephrased: What happens when a foreign power that has taken over control in this country prevents the People from exercising their inherent rights? 
J.A.I.L. on the ballot in South Dakota
has brought this question to light!  
*  *  * 

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
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 2007

Return To JNJ Library Index for All Years