J.A.I.L.
News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles,
California
March 4, 2023
______________________________________________________
The Inherent Right of ALL People to
Alter or Reform Abusive Government.
The Right Upon Which All Other
Rights Depend
The
Torchbearer for J.A.I.L. Nationally - Support
Them!
P.O. Box 412, Tea, S.D. 57064 - (605)
231-1418
"We need the People to
act
to improve our
judiciary."
By Susan Kennedy, CA JAILer
Dr. Scarborough,
With respect to today's e-letter reporting
"Interim Results from our Judicial Impeachment Campaign,"
it is true that impeachment is described
in the Constitution, where it states clearly that judges shall hold their
offices "during good behavior." As one who recently retired from
25+ years working in the legal field (not as an attorney), I have studied
the federal codes with respect to impeachment.
Frankly, it isn't working. We have a
serious problem getting anyone to take it seriously. The "good ole
boys" are all looking out for each other.
To wit: I am "represented" in Congress by a
man who sits on the House Judiciary Committee. In April 2004, I
wrote him a polite and respectful letter posing some serious questions
about how judges are vetted for nomination and about the impeachment
process. I AM STILL WAITING for this "representative" to grant me
the courtesy of a reply to my questions---and it's close to two years
now.
One of the issues raised in that letter was how
it came to pass that two brothers were both seated on the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals, which circuit covers your organization's geographic
location, in direct violation of a specific federal code (I've archived
the email and the statute number escapes me). This violation was resolved
in September 2004 with the death of one of those brothers, Richard
Sheperd Arnold. His brother, Morris Sheperd Arnold, is still on the
bench as far as I know. The
fact that this violation happened, and Congress--the
Senate--let it happen, proves that someone is not
exercising proper oversight of our Constitutional processes.
One of the specifics in the impeachment process
is for a complaint (such as you or I might make) against a judge on a
Circuit Court to be presented to the presiding judge of that
circuit. Well, in the case of the Arnold brothers, each of them
served as presiding judge at one time or another. Can't you just
imagine the laughter in chambers were someone to send a complaint to one
Arnold brother, as presiding judge, saying "Your Honor, you need to bring
impeachment proceedings against yourself or your brother because
having two judges on the same bench who share consanguinity violates
federal law"?
Now, on the one hand, I voted in your survey, and
it warms my heart to see that my choice for the first to be impeached
seems to also be the public's choice---Stephen Reinhardt. (You most
likely know that his wife, Ramona Ripston, is the head honcho for ACLU in
the Los Angeles area, where I live, which raises questions of conflict of
interest in my mind.)
On the other hand, I'd like to tell you about
another method that I firmly believe has a far better chance of improving
the membership of the judiciary at all levels. J.A.I.L.4
Judges! The first part of that is an acronym for Judicial
Accountability Initiative Law. (Yes, it's a cleverly
contrived slogan, but so is P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act.) What J4J would do
is place the ultimate disposition of a complaint against a judge in the
hands of the People in the form of a Special Grand Jury (SGJ).
All current mechanisms would remain in place, the
appeals process and whatever "complaint departments" may exist within the
given state, such as California's Commission on Judicial
Performance. Only after an aggrieved litigant has exhausted those
remedies could he or she go to the SGJ and then, only for a carefully
crafted list of specific violations of due process. Should the complaint
be found to fall within the list of violations and the judge be found to
have violated due process, the complainant could then bring a civil
lawsuit against the judge before an ordinary trial jury with the
opportunity to recover damages---which exists nowhere today.
At first, J4J would only function at the state
level. I'm ahead of you. You're about to protest that most of
the seriously egregious "activist" rulings take place at the federal
level. True, but we have to start somewhere, and this is not an
issue to sell to the Congress as a starting point. But consider
this. Where do we get candidates for the federal bench (excepting
Harriet Miers, of course)? We get federal judges from the ranks of
state judges. So if we improve the pool of state judges, the pool
of potential federal judges improves automatically. Eventually,
once J4J is law in a preponderance of states, the federal Congress will
see the headlight on the freight train.
As it stands today, J4J is an initiative
law. It has been in existence for about 10 years and was tried once
in California. A lack of grasp of California signature-gathering
requirements and a late start sank the first attempt. The
million-dollar cost of paid signature gatherers is the current
impediment. Only 24 states currently have an initiative process,
although I learned today that Alabama may become the 25th state.
J4J was, however, qualified earlier this
year in South Dakota where a "true believer" was willing to put up most
of the money out of his own pocket to acquire the necessary
signatures. The total signers actually numbered about one-third
more than the minimum requirement. The initiative is on the ballot
as "Amendment E" for this coming November.
But oh you should see the hysteria it has
generated, not only in South Dakota but in neighboring states!
Those whose cozy little "immunity" is threatened are going all out to
defeat it! I have watched initiatives in California for over 40
years, and never have I seen the level of hyperbole and
mischaracterization as what they are saying in South Dakota. In
fact, the entire Legislature has signed on to an illegal resolution
opposing it. But the People will speak! And those people number thousands and thousands in the 50
states.
J4J has some level of organization in all 50
states, and there is a national bill already crafted to be presented to
Congress when the time is right. Ronald Reagan said (paraphrased)
"Ours is the first [nation] where the People tell the government what it
is allowed to do." The People have the ultimate right to oversight
of the judicial branch as well as the executive and legislative.
J.A.I.L.4 Judges would make that a reality.
Don't stop what you are doing, but please take a
few moments to look at
href="../../State_Chapters/dc/DC_initiative.doc">www.jail4judges.org.
There is a page for each state there. The full text of the
initiative can be found for each state. (The text is essentially
the same for all states, varying only in a few minor
details.)
I wish I could believe that the impeachment
process would work, but the judges all watch each other's backs, and the
Congress has proved that most of them are wimps! We need the People
to act to improve our judiciary.
Sincerely,
Susan Kennedy
Los Angeles
Our thanks to Susan for this informative
write-up.