J.A.I.L. News Journal
Judicial  Accountability  Initiative  Law
Los Angeles, California                                        July 25, 2007


The Battle Lines are Drawn:  J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power 

A Power Foreign to Our Constitution

The Nation's Unaccountable Judiciary

Is At Risk 

By Barbie, National J.A.I.L.


The below article begins with the following:
The nation's independent judiciary is at risk, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said Monday
That's been the national mantra from O'Connor ever since J.A.I.L. appeared on the South Dakota ballot last year. The first thing the People must realize is that O'Connor uses the term "independent" to mean "unaccountable" from the context of her messages which emanate from her concerns about the prospect of J.A.I.L. being on the ballot anywhere in the country.
In another report, O'Connor's remark is stated as
Judicial independence is under attack from people who don't understand that court rulings must be based on legality instead of popularity,
That is a little closer to the truth. We reported on this "attack" in our J.A.I.L. News Journal dated April 6, 2007 "The Judiciary Under Attack as Never Before" . There we stated:
As a result of bringing Judicial Accountability to the ballot last year, 2006, in the State of South Dakota, former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has traveled the country taking every opportunity she can to condemn and castigate JAIL4Judges as a great concern to her. Her theme is, and has been, that J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) undermines the independence of the judiciary.
What Justice O'Connor fails to understand is that J.A.I.L. does not affect in any way the independence of the judiciary. I should know, obviously, since I am the author of the initiative who made very sure of that from the very first day the Lord moved upon my heart in 1995 to write it. I placed into this all-important Initiative the judicial independence wording, "...no petition of misconduct shall be considered by the Special Grand Jury unless the petitioner shall have first attempted to exhaust all judicial remedies available in this State within the immediately preceding six-month period."

That phrase is a crown jewel of the J.A.I.L. Initiative that makes it stand apart from all other judicial legislation going all the way back to our Founding Fathers who were seeking some means of instituting judicial accountability without interfering with the decision-making powers of the judiciary. 

This prestigious lady also lied that J.A.I.L. would "punish" judges for their decisions. See our report on that dated June 4, 2007 titled "More O'Connor Propaganda"
href="2007-04-06.html">http://www.jail4judges.org/JNJ_Library/2007/2007-06-04.html in which we said:
O'Connor has already been on the circuit during the South Dakota campaign, going around speaking against J.A.I.L. on the premise that in all her years on the bench she has never experienced such a broad negative attitude by society against the judiciary. She lays claim to that bewilderment on people "not liking the decisions that judges make." She then gives an example, bringing up the election in South Dakota where "there was a proposal on the ballot to amend the State's Constitution called jail for judges..."  She never explained the J.A.I.L. acronym. She said that this proposal would "punish" judges for decisions they would make, although J.A.I.L. says NOTHING about "decisions."  See JNJ dated November 22, 2006, titled "Decisions, Decisions, Decisions!" http://www.jail4judges.org/JNJ_Library/2006/2006-11-22.html.
Now this lovely-appearing distinguished lady wouldn't deliberately state to the American people on national television that this proposal provided something that
really wasn't in that proposal, would she? Did she have a copy of the proposal with her from which she could read aloud to the American people the portion she was discussing? Did the interviewer ask if she had a copy of it, or could provide it? I didn't see any direct reference to the J.A.I.L. Amendment at any time during that interview...
As a retired Supreme Court Justice, why wouldn't O'Connor provide evidence of what she was stating to the American people on national television? Her profession consisted of reviewing evidence to prove issues-- ergo, why wouldn't she, by virtue of her profession, automatically realize the importance of providing evidence of her issues regarding J.A.I.L.?  Would a retired Supreme Court Justice simply not think of it? or wouldn't it occur to her? This refined professional lady wouldn't allow such irresponsibility to mislead the American people on national television, would she??
Although the below event was not a television broadcast, we ask the same questions of the ex-Supreme Court Justice. In stating,
A South Dakota ballot initiative, rejected by voters last year, would have stripped judges of their longstanding immunity from lawsuits in response to their rulings, leaving them open to fines and even jail time.
...did she identify the name of the "South Dakota ballot initiative" and inform her audience of evidence to support her contention? Did she refer to the provision in the initiative that describes exactly what the stripping of immunity would be in response to?
Paragraph 2 of the initiative provides that such would be done "for any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of South Dakota or the United States."  Does Ms. O'Connor think that would have had a different impact on the audience than simply "in response to their rulings"? Of course, she knew it would-- that's why she didn't reveal the truth of the matter!
Let's ask, did this distinguished lady just fall off the turnip truck, or does she really know what the J.A.I.L. initiative consists of-- every bit of it?  Does she, as an ex-Supreme Court Justice, understand the importance of backing up statements with evidence when making them to the public as an authoritative figure? I think she does. So why doesn't she do it to support her credibility?  I think you know why-- because she can't!
Ms. O'Connor, your cries about J.A.I.L. are getting old and worn out. You have shown NO credibility! The People know better, especially after learning from the South Dakota election fiasco. One of our JAILers stated:

TRAVERSE CITY � States must teach their students more about government or risk losing any future respect for laws and judicial rulings, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor told a dwindling group of the nation's governors in Traverse City on Monday.

Barb, I agree with this whole heartedly, but don't believe it would turn out as Sandra wants it to.  An education denovo (from the beginning) would have to look at the Declaration of Independence which sets the goals for the U.S. Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution removing any doubt that the government derives its power from the consent of the people.  

When Justice O'Connor promotes inflicting European laws that sound good upon the American people without their consent, these educated students will have the information they need to chastise and reject her position.  This will also expose the dire need for the injection of the will of the people into the judicial process in the form of JAIL. 

"The people are the ultimate guardians of their own liberties. In every government on earth is some trace of human weakness, some germ of corruption and degeneracy . . . Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone." --Thomas Jefferson

Another response was:
It is downright disgusting that O'Connor condemns JAIL while not condemning the judicial criminal conduct JAIL is designed to prevent.  And that is the essence of her argument and vitriol--the need for lack of accountability of and promotion of abuse and judicial malpractice by jurists.
And yet another one asks:
Does Ms. O'Conner think that most of us are dumbed-down that we would think that the federal judges operate independently? If they are so independent, then why are the federal judges mandated to follow the sentencing guidelines of Congress? What does Congress have to do with it? Now that is a great question to ponder on.
Ms. O'Connor, why don't you live up to your "honored" position? Support your allegations with PROOF, or else don't make them!
(The article follows):
Ex-Justice O'Connor warns nation's judiciary is at risk

Matthew Benson
The Arizona Republic
Jul. 24, 2007 12:00 AM

TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. - The nation's independent judiciary is at risk, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said Monday, as the courts are politicized and judges face reprisals from lawmakers and citizens at the ballot box.

The issue goes far beyond simple criticism of judicial rulings, the Paradise Valley resident told governors here for the National Governors Association annual conference. In some parts of the country, anti-courtroom sentiment has left judges open to threats of impeachment and the loss of their jurisdiction. A South Dakota ballot initiative, rejected by voters last year, would have stripped judges of their longstanding immunity from lawsuits in response to their rulings, leaving them open to fines and even jail time.

Tom Phillips, former Texas Supreme Court chief judge, said criticism of judges and the increasingly partisan campaigns in states where they face election mean judges nowadays often are seen as "mere politicians in robes."

The former justices' comments came before a dwindling gubernatorial audience on the final day of the National Governors Association conference. The three-day event was marked by its lack of controversy, with the roughly three-dozen governors on hand avoiding formal discussion of illegal immigration and other combustible topics.

Monday also marked the end of Gov. Janet Napolitano's one-year term as NGA chairwoman, concluding the group's focus on her Innovation America initiative. She stressed that the push to revamp the education system for the future economy will continue and now will be led by a foundation.

Napolitano handed leadership of the governors association to Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican. His focus for the next year will be an initiative investigating cleaner domestic sources of energy

Monday's discussion of judicial independence was relatively tame. In recent months, critics have alleged that the Bush administration engaged in politicking with its dismissal of nine federal prosecutors, including Arizona's Paul Charlton.

When asked her thoughts on the dismissals, O'Connor replied, "No comment."

The conference also dealt with a variety of other issues. Governors of both parties found consensus in writing letters to Congress and President Bush asking for reauthorization of federal funding for low-income children's health insurance.

The governors requested that the U.S. Senate put federal funding behind its plan for a national identification card. States estimate that the Real ID program will cost more than $11 billion to implement and operate during five years but say Congress has thus far appropriated just $40 million to help states with those expenses.

Napolitano pointed to both issues as those of greatest agreement among the governors, though other discussions in recent days have included global warming and energy production and economic competitiveness.


J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) www.jail4judges.org

To manage subscription, place the word Subscribe or UnSubscribe

in the 'subject' line and email to info@jail4judges.org


Our Founding Fathers said, "...with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine

Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and

our sacred honor." Declaration of Independence. We are a ministry in great need of your financial support. Send your donations for this vitally important work to:

J.A.I.L.  P.O. Box 207, North Hollywood, CA 91603


J.A.I.L. is a unique addition to our Constitution 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

Visit our active flash - http://www.jail4judges.org/Flash.htm


*   *   *

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to

our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to

their acts of pretended legislation.    - Declaration of Independence
"..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 i

striking at the root."   -- Henry David Thoreau                     ><)))'>

Return To JNJ 2007

Return To JNJ Library Index for All Years