Los Angeles, California February 10, 2008
A Public Service Announcement to America
(To be removed from this PSA, see instructions
Lines are Drawn: J.A.I.L.
versus The Foreign Power
A Power Foreign to Our
J.A.I.L. Sues Florida Bar
in U.S. Supreme
On January 7, 2008, a petition for writ of certiorari was docketed in the United States Supreme Court titled Florida JAIL4Judges, Petitioner v. The Florida Bar, Respondent, prepared and filed by Montgomery Blair Sibley, Attorney for Petitioner, on behalf of Florida JAIL4Judges and Florida JAILer-in-Chief (JIC), Nancy Grant, firstname.lastname@example.org.
The background of this lawsuit is quite interesting and
goes back to the South Dakota 2006 ballot. For a history see www.sd-jail4judges.org. Therein we
explain the shenanigans that went on in South Dakota to misrepresent the
J.A.I.L. Amendment before the electorate. As a result, J.A.I.L. went down
allegedly 89% against to 11% in favor. Thereafter Attorney Tom Barnett, the
Director of the South Dakota Bar Association and leading the opposition campaign
rushed down to Florida to address the Florida Bar, bragging on how they
"defeated" JAIL4Judges in South Dakota. This event is
at http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/JNNews01.nsf/8c9f13012b96736985256aa900624829/7a6a21fb7adc02748525725d0057227d?OpenDocument on
the Florida Bar website. See The Foreign Power Planting Seeds of
South Dakotans were eager to get judicial accountability to the People, and J.A.I.L. held a 3 to 1 lead throughout the campaign for over a year. Below is the article about Tom Barnett, who led the campaign against J.A.I.L. in South Dakota, sowing the seeds of deception in Florida, after his claimed "success" in South Dakota. Read it carefully to see the intentional fraud and deceit, amounting to voter intimidation: (See especially portions marked in red)
The Florida Bar
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300
January 15, 2007
loss, J.A.I.L.4Judges targets Florida
urged to be prepared for the fight
By Gary Blankenship
backers of an amendment known as J.A.I.L.4Judges succeed in getting their
constitutional amendment on the Florida ballot, the
state's lawyers should be ready to lead a campaign to defeat
The public face of that campaign should
not be judges and lawyers, but rather regular citizens who would be adversely
affected by the amendment ...
Barnett, executive director of the State Bar of South Dakota, gave that advice
to the Bar Board of Governors at its December  meeting. Barnett led the campaign last
year that resulted in the defeat of a J.A.I.L.4Judges initiative in South Dakota that wound up failing by an 89-to-11 percent
"When we planned our campaign, we
immediately decided that the worst people to talk about attacks on judges were
judges and the second worst people were lawyers," Barnett said. "What we needed were people on the street." ...
The Florida chapter of the
organization (its Web site is http://floridajail4judges.org ) is already trying to get signatures for an initiative petition. It provides that judges and those who act in a judicial capacity can lose immunity from civil and criminal prosecution in some cases. Under the amendment, the losing party in a case, civil or criminal, can file a petition with a special statewide grand jury once all appeals have been exhausted. The grand jury can ... make the judge subject to civil or criminal liability.
Barnett said one poll showed that allowing jurors to be sued was opposed by 86 percent of the voters. "It's a very, very powerful message," he said. "That's why we used that."
[T]he anti-amendment campaign was able to get financial and political support from bankers, insurance companies, car dealers, and even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and tort reform groups that recognized the potential mayhem from the amendment, Barnett said.
He advised the Bar to begin preparing early for the potential campaign, and outlined how the anti-amendment campaign was waged in South Dakota.
Early last year when Barnett geared up the campaign against the amendment, initial polls showed that voters had a favorable impression of the measure by a 3-1 to 4-1 margin.
With more money, Barnett was able to begin television and radio ads. Those emphasized that convicted criminals could use the amendment to harass jurors and try to get out of jail, ...
© 2005 The Florida Bar
This rhetoric spewed out by Barnett so
enraged Florida Bar member Montgomery Sibley that he brought suit against the
Florida Bar for illegal and unlawful use of Bar membership dues. The nature of
the lawsuit filed in the Florida Supreme Court, which was three-pronged, alleges
that any entity that advocates for or against a State Constitutional Amendment
must be registered as a Political Action Committee (PAC). Florida JAIL4Judges,
pursuant to this law, is an officially-recognized PAC with a State-assigned
number. However, its opposition (The Florida Bar) is not. The lawsuit seeks to
compel the Florida Bar to comply with Florida law and register as a PAC, albeit
pointing out that the Florida Bar is a duly-recognized official arm of the
Florida Supreme Court and the second prong is that the Florida Bar is precluded
by Florida law from involving itself in State
The third prong asks that the seven
justices of the State Supreme Court recuse themselves because their own official
arm is the defendant. This of course placed the Florida Supreme Court in a real
catch-22 situation which they stalled upon ad infinitum, refusing to make a
decision on their own conflict. Finally by compulsion the Florida Supreme Court
determined that they were not the proper court to decide the question before
them. Another motion followed by Attorney Sibley calling on them to decide
the question before them or state why they did not have jurisdiction to make a
ruling. The motion was denied and the instant matter is now brought before the
United States Supreme Court.
The current petition, assigned Case No.
07-885, may be read at href="../../state_chapters/fl/Petition.pdf">http://www.jail4judges.org/state_chapters/fl/Petition.pdf.
What we now know is that the entire State of Florida, including its Supreme
Court, is incapable of deciding a matter in which it has a conflict of
interest. Left to be decided by the United States Supreme Court is whether
Florida JAIL4Judges has a forum available to it for redress of grievance (First
Amendment, U.S. Constitution). Maybe even more basic is, do we have a U.S.
Constitution? We shall soon find out. If in the negative, J.A.I.L. has made a
prima facie case to all Americans as to the universal need for the passage of
J.A.I.L. in this country. We ask, without J.A.I.L. does America even have a
The national media, to which this is being
sent, should be very interested in following this
Accountability Initiative Law) www.jail4judges.org
manage subscription, place the word Subscribe or
in 'subject' line
and hit reply. Your request will be
automatically & instantly
processed. (Note: Program will not permit
re-subscribes once unsubscribed.)
said, "...with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine
mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and
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
Visit our active flash
He has combined with
others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to
and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to
their acts of
pretended legislation. - Declaration of
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
-- Henry David