PIERRE, S.D. - A proposed constitutional amendment that would allow people to sue judges and other government officials must be defeated because it would destroy the American system of government, members of a South Dakota Senate committee said Wednesday.

The State Affairs Committee voted unanimously for a resolution that urges South Dakota voters to reject the proposed constitutional amendment when it appears on the November ballot.

The House passed the resolution unanimously nearly two weeks ago, and lawmakers hope the Senate will also approve HCR1004 unanimously later this week.

The resolution says the proposed constitutional amendment was drafted by a California resident who has failed to get the measure on that state's ballot. The ballot measure is promoted as a remedy for intentional misconduct for judges, but it also would allow lawsuits against state and local boards and commissions, according to the resolution.

Supporters of the ballot measure argue it is needed to hold judges accountable for intentionally violating people's rights.

But Sen. Lee Schoenbeck, R-Watertown, said the proposed constitutional amendment is backed by the same kind of people who killed a U.S. marshal in North Dakota years ago because they hate the American system of government.

Schoenbeck said Ron Branson, the California man who started the judicial accountability movement, is mistaken in his belief that a grand jury should be the top power in government.

"It's easy to be an authority if you're not limited by reality," Schoenbeck said.

Schoenbeck said Branson and other supporters of the ballot measure apparently want to destroy the American system of government set up by Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and the nation's other founders.

"The reality is Mr. Branson and his people from Hollywood do not like America," Schoenbeck said.

In a telephone interview, Branson said he is limiting his comments until after the Senate gives final legislative approval to the resolution condemning the ballot measure. He said he hopes the Legislature approves the resolution.

"They don't know what they're doing. They have no idea of the implications of what they're doing," Branson said.

Branson said he does not hate America.

"I would ask you how is it that enforcement of the laws of the state of South Dakota is somehow indicative that I hate America. It doesn't make sense," Branson said.

Branson said state lawmakers have sworn to uphold the state and federal constitutions.

"I can tell you we are investigating these people right now for their conflicts of interest," Branson said.

Schoenbeck said Branson has challenged him to debate the issue, and he is ready to do that anytime, anywhere.

"I don't think we've ever called you for help in this state," Schoenbeck said in remarks directed toward Branson. "We don't need your trash here."

Senate Democratic Leader Garry Moore of Yankton said he has received more than 100 e-mails from around the nation criticizing the Legislature for opposing the ballot measure. Many of those e-mails are infected with viruses or worms intended to interfere with his computer, Moore said.

Moore said he hopes South Dakota voters "tell them to go to hell and we'll take care of our own affairs here in South Dakota."

Opponents have said the ballot measure would threaten the fairness and independence of the judiciary by making judges afraid they would be sued for their decisions. It also would allow lawsuits against members of school boards, city councils, county commissions and other state and local boards that make decisions of a judicial nature, they said.

In addition, opponents contend the current system works because it allows bad court rulings to be overturned on appeal, a state disciplinary board can punish or remove judges, and voters can get throw out judges they do not like.

The proposal would make South Dakota the first state to let people who believe their rights have been violated put judges on trial.

People could file complaints against judges after the traditional appeals process has concluded. A special grand jury would handle complaints, deciding whether a judge could be sued or face criminal charges.

The measure would overturn more than a century of settled law in the United States by stripping judges of their absolute immunity from lawsuits over their judicial acts. Immunity would be eliminated in cases involving alleged deliberate violations of constitutional rights or the law or the deliberate disregard of facts.

Each member of the Senate committee spoke Wednesday to condemn the proposed constitutional amendment.

Sen. Kenny McNenny, R-Sturgis, said the American system of government involves the judicial, executive and legislative branches, which act as checks and balances against each other. He said the proposed amendment would allow the special grand jury to override all laws and all constitutional provisions, and no one could appeal the grand jury's decisions.

"It just scares me to death," McNenny said.

The measure will appear on the November ballot because supporters collected far more than the 33,456 valid signatures required, but senators said many South Dakotans who signed the petitions did not understand what the measure would do.

Below are the charges made by the South Dakota Legislature against Amendment E, which they have posted without authority upon the official S.D. website, http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2006/bills/HCR1004p.htm

 

Counter-charges are hereby made that it is grossly unethical, immoral, and criminal for the Legislators to use South Dakota taxpayer dollars to pass a "Resolution," and to influence a popular vote at said taxpayers' expense. It is further unethical and immoral to use a taxpayer-financed website to spread their propaganda in a vendetta against the People's right to propose Initiatives, to wit, "All political power is inherent in the People, .... [T]hey have the right in lawful and constituted methods to alter or reform their forms of government in such manner as they may think proper." Art. VI, Sec. 26. The People have the absolute right to exercise their inherent power to affect matters regarding their government without being attacked by that same government, or being blasted by their own website at their expense.  

 

While it is acceptable for legislators in their private and individual capacity to vote at the polls on November 7th, it is totally unacceptable for these same Legislators to betray the public trust by turning the Capitol Building into a massive campaign headquarters, and using the auspices of their official offices to campaign against the People's Amendment E. Because the Legislature has not only presumed to "pass" that which is immoral, but also that which they have absolutely no jurisdiction to do, such so-called "Resolution" is null and void for all purposes, and is as if it had never existed. It has absolutely no force or effect of law. It is designed merely for the purpose of deceiving and defraud the voters of South Dakota into not voting in favor of Amendment E.

 

Such action makes a total mockery of the election process, and reduces the election process down to the level of a Banana Republic, wherein  People are afraid to appear at the polls and vote. What's more, it calls into suspect the after-results of the voting, to wit, was it an honest election? It serves merely to deteriorate People's faith in all government processes, which breaks down sound government and lends to confusion and eventual open anarchy. When the People cannot trust their government with the voting process to be honest, what do we have left?

 

This principle against altering, influencing, or tampering with the outcome of elections is so strong that not even the Governor of South Dakota can veto the People's Initiative process. "The veto power of the Executive shall not be exercised as to measures referred to a vote of the People." Art. III, Sec. 1, South Dakota Constitution. Further, the same Constitution also forbids the Legislature from tampering with the election process, to wit, "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 [votes]." Art. VII, Sec. 1 Re: Elections.

 

Response is hereby made to the charges issued by the Legislature of South Dakota against Amendment E.  For purposes of an orderly response, we assign a maroon colored Roman Numeral to each and every charge responded to:

 

State of South Dakota

EIGHTY-FIRST SESSION LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,  2006

229M0660

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION   NO.     1004

Introduced by:     Representatives Hennies, Boomgarden, Brunner, Buckingham, Cutler, Davis, Deadrick, Dykstra, Elliott, Faehn, Frost, Fryslie, Garnos, Gassman, Gillespie, Glenski, Glover, Hackl, Haley, Halverson, Hanks, Hargens, Haverly, Heineman, Hills, Howie, Hunhoff, Hunt, Jensen, Jerke, Koistinen, Kraus, Krebs, Kroger, Lange, McCoy, McLaughlin, Michels, Miles, Murschel, Nelson, Novstrup, O'Brien, Pederson (Gordon), Peters, Putnam, Rausch, Rave, Rhoden, Roberts, Rounds, Schafer, Sebert, Sigdestad, Street, Thompson, Tidemann, Tornow, Turbiville, Valandra, Van Etten, Van Norman, Vehle, Weems, Wick, and Willadsen and Senators Koskan, Abdallah, Adelstein, Bartling, Bogue, Broderick, Dempster, Duenwald, Duniphan, Earley, Gant, Gray, Greenfield, Hansen (Tom), Hanson (Gary), Hundstad, Kelly, Knudson, Koetzle, Kooistra, Lintz, McCracken, McNenny, Moore, Napoli, Olson (Ed), Peterson (Jim), Schoenbeck, Smidt, Sutton (Dan), Sutton (Duane), and Two Bulls

         A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION,  Urging the voters of South Dakota to reject the Judicial Accountability Initiated Law (J.A.I.L.), which will be submitted to South Dakota voters in November 2006, designated Amendment E.

 

I.       WHEREAS,  Amendment E was drafted by a resident of California and the petitions were circulated by paid out-of-state persons; and

 

II.     WHEREAS,  the Amendment E petition failed to get more than a few thousand signatures in California, and thus was never submitted to California voters; and

 

III.    WHEREAS,  South Dakota voters were told that Amendment E simply provided for a remedy for intentional judicial misconduct; and

 

IV.    WHEREAS,  if approved by the voters, Amendment E would actually allow lawsuits against all South Dakota citizen boards, including county commissioners, school board members, city council members, planning and zoning board members, township board members, public utilities commissioners, professional licensing board members, jurors, judges, prosecutors, and all other citizen boards; and

 

V.     WHEREAS,  Amendment E would authorize and encourage jury nullification in South Dakota, which was previously rejected overwhelmingly by South Dakota voters in 2002; and

 

VI.    WHEREAS,  Amendment E would prohibit summary judgment, a legal remedy currently available and used to quickly and inexpensively rid our courts of frivolous lawsuits; and

 

VII.   WHEREAS,  Amendment E would permit convicted felons, whose convictions have been affirmed by our Supreme Court, to sue the prosecutors who prosecuted the felons, the jurors who voted to convict the felons, and the judges who sentenced the felons, thus burdening our courts and citizens with countless expensive and needless lawsuits; and

 

VIII.   WHEREAS,  the author of Amendment E has publicly stated that with the passage of Amendment E, Judicial Accountability Initiated Law members from across the country will "purposely drive to South Dakota...just for the privilege of getting a traffic ticket so you can demand a jury trial. I anticipate traffic courts to be among the first courts to all but totally close...," thus depriving South Dakota citizens of their constitutional right of access to our courts and making it clear that Amendment E is not intended to help cure any alleged problems with South Dakota courts; and

 

IX.   WHEREAS,  if approved, Amendment E would establish a new entity to investigate complaints with an initial budget of two million six hundred fifty thousand dollars, plus the cost of a facility, with authority to hire as many employees as it deemed appropriate without legislative appropriation, consultation, review, or approval; and

 

X.   WHEREAS,  the South Dakota Constitution already provides for the Judicial Qualifications Commission, which hears complaints and investigates allegations of judicial misconduct, and operates very economically, with an average annual expenditure of eleven thousand five hundred fifty-nine dollars over the past ten years; and

 

XI.   WHEREAS,  if approved, Amendment E would violate the federal Constitution, thereby subjecting South Dakota taxpayers to millions of dollars in damages and attorney fees; and

 

XII.    WHEREAS,  Amendment E would be devastating to the South Dakota economy, harming economic development and driving existing businesses from South Dakota:

 

XIII.   NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,  by the House of Representatives of the Eighty- first Legislature of the State of South Dakota, the Senate concurring therein, that the South Dakota Legislature strongly urges all South Dakota voters to protect our citizen boards, to protect our system of justice, to protect economic development, to protect all our citizens from frivolous lawsuits that would be authorized by the Judicial Accountability Initiated Law, and to vote against Amendment E.

 

---

 

I.    The J.A.I.L. Amendment was originally drafted in California for the  State of California under its initiative process. People from all fifty states (including South Dakota) independently, of their own volition, contacted its author, and requested to advance the cause of J.A.I.L. in their own respective states, such being an inherent right of the People pursuant to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution under freedom of association -- a right which every government official in South Dakota has sworn with an oath to defend and protect. What's more, these same officials are subject to the South Dakota Constitution, which states, "To secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Art. VI, Sec. 1. 

 

As to the charge, "[T]he petitions were circulated by paid out-of-state persons;" that is incorrect. The truth is that Amendment E was adapted in South Dakota for South Dakotans, and the vast majority of the petition circulators were South Dakotans. What's more, this charge by the Legislature is moot, for if its collection of signatures were performed  illegally, then why is Amendment E officially on this November's ballot? Please explain. You have all the petitions containing the signatures of the circulators before you. Prove your accusation, or admit your falsehood!

 

 

II.  The Amendment E petition is a South Dakota measure and does not apply to California.

 

The People of California were not able to gather sufficient signatures for the California J.A.I.L. amendment by volunteers (requiring almost 700,000 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot), nor were they able to raise the necessary funds of about one million dollars to finance the California  amendment. (California J.A.I.L. has been informed by professional signature-gathering companies that never in the history of California has any proposed constitutional amendment reached the ballot by volunteers).

 

III.  True. No rebuttal.

 

 

IV.  Our Founding Fathers wisely established our system of three distinct, separate, and independent branches of government. This principle is preserved in the South Dakota Constitution, "The powers of the government of the state are divided into three distinct departments, the legislative, executive and judicial; and the powers and duties of each are prescribed by this Constitution." Art. II. No powers of one branch shall function within that of another.

Amendment E specifies its application as exclusively to the judicial branch of government, and no other. By definition (¶1b) it applies only to "justices, judges, magistrate judges, judges pro tem, and all other persons claiming to be shielded by judicial immunity;" and by definition (¶2) it applies only to "deliberate violations of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violations 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 violations of the Constitutions of South Dakota or the United States."

 

By the same definition, Amendment E cannot apply to administrative agencies, such as boards, councils, commissions, etc., since they are limited in jurisdiction and cannot adjudicate with finality the violations specified in ¶2.

 

The requirement in ¶11 that "the complainant shall have first attempted to exhaust all judicial remedies available in this State" carries with it, by operation of law, the requirement that all administrative remedies be exhausted before petitioning for judicial remedies. The laws of the State of South Dakota recognizes the differences between exhaustion of administrative remedies and exhaustion of judicial remedies. Amendment E likewise recognizes that distinction in law that administrative forums are not of the judicial branch of government, nor can they be "judges." Nor can "judges" apply to prosecutors, and certainly not jurors, who are not an office of government, nor any part of the three branches of government, but is the People, who do not take an oath of office. Therefore, all final dispositions regarding the above violations rest only with the judiciary, contrary to your charges made against Amendment E.

 

 

V.  Our Founding Fathers designed our government to be fully accountable directly to the People through the jurors. We leave to them the decisions of life and death of matters regarding serious offenders. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury..." Amendment V, U.S. Constitution. In other words, there is no government powers that can cause a person accused of murder to answer, much less face a trial, unless there is a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury. Now is that power, or what? Absolutely. It is a power that all government in all its majesty and power, cannot exercise. 

 

Thomas Jefferson accordingly wrote: "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its Constitution." And, in 1794, in the first jury trial held before the U.S. Supreme Court, John Jay, the first Chief Justice instructed jurors thusly: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that the courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision. The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." [Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1 (1794)]. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Supreme Court Justice, ruled in 1920 "The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact." (Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135). This principle has never been reversed by any court in this country, nor can it be.

 

Your argument that "Amendment E would authorize and encourage jury nullification in South Dakota, which was previously rejected overwhelmingly by South Dakota voters in 2002;" is bogus for the following reason. Jurors have always from the beginning retained this power. The fact is that the Amendment to which you refer was off point, failing to present the proper question whether the jurors should be informed of their powers. Judges have never denied the powers of the jury, but have ruled instead that the jurors may not be informed of their power. You charge presents an example of why we do need Amendment E to hold judges accountable, not why we do not need Amendment E. Judges have deceived the People by not allowing them to be informed of their rights.

Under Amendment E it assures judges shall receive this right in a criminal trial. To deny judges this right before a jury would be to deny them due process, and provide grounds for reversal on appeal. Common sense dictates that we, as Americans, cling fast to the historical heritage of our jury system, and never depart from it as instructed by Thomas Jefferson.

 

                                                                                                                                       

VI.  Amendment E says nothing about summary judgment. Any judge in South Dakota may issue summary judgment, or any other disposition, according to law. Only if he willfully violates the law under ¶2. can a judge be liable under Amendment E.

 

You mention getting rid of cases "Quickly and inexpensively." Nothing wrong with that, provided that "Quickly and inexpensively" is not to the exclusion of obedience the law. "Justice" must be the primary objective of South Dakota courts, not rushes to judgment. Are we in agreement on that?

 

 

VII.  As stated in IV, above, Amendment E, by definition (¶1b) applies only to "justices, judges, magistrate judges, judges pro tem, and all other persons claiming to be shielded by judicial immunity;" and further, by definition (¶2) it applies only to "deliberate violations of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violations 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 violations of the Constitutions of South Dakota or the United States." 

 

Amendment E  specifically maintains security by precluding those people within "imprisonment, or parole from a conviction of a felonious crime..." See Paragraph 12. Amendment E will actually decrease the number of expensive and needless lawsuits by enforcing the proper adjudication of cases by honest judges. Honesty, that's what you seek, is it not?

 

VIII.  Such comment made by the author of the J.A.I.L. amendment does not reflect any provision of Amendment E and is irrelevant thereto. Any stated anticipation by the author does not dictate the terms of Amendment E.  The intention of Amendment E is that stated in the Amendment itself. The Amendment shows on its face that access to our courts for South Dakota citizens will be guaranteed by assuring that judges will act honestly according to law. 

 

The South Dakota Constitution clearly provides in Article VI, Sec. 20, "All courts shall be open, and every man for an injury done him in his property, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice, administered without denial or delay."  Amendment E enforces that right under ¶2, to wit, "No immunity shall extend to any judge of this State for... any deliberate violation of the Constitution[ ] of South Dakota...."

 

IX.  Amendment E provides: "Each Juror shall receive a salary commensurate to that of a Circuit Court judge, prorated according to the number of days actually served by the Juror." ¶9.  This means that if the judges behave themselves, Special Grand Jurors will have no cases pending before them, then salary for the Jurors will be zero. If the Jurors work only 30 days out of the year, they are paid for just the 30 days they worked and no more. It would be good if all governments worked this efficiently, and perhaps by the example of Amendment E, it will.

 

Obviously the $2,650,000 cost as an operational expense for the Special Grand Jury claimed by this Legislature, whose credibility is already questionable, states no basis in fact to which anyone could calculate. It is just a figure pulled from the air designed to frighten the voters of South Dakota that this thing is going to cost a lot of bucks. The Legislature must be presuming that the Jurors will be working full time throughout the year in order to keep up with the extensive judicial corruption in South Dakota. This indicates that they believe the judges in South Dakota are extremely corrupt and evil, and that there is a very great need for Amendment E. This statement does not speak well of their opinions of the South Dakota judges. We would like to see the chambers of the Special Grand Jury dark most of the year without any matters pending before them.

 

Assuming the Legislature's position that the judges of South Dakota are really evil and corrupt, and the Special Grand Jury will be busy full time, then they must also calculate into the equation the plus side, to wit, the large number of fines, fees, and forfeitures paid into Amendment E by the judges. All this money will ultimately be channeled into the State Treasurer of South Dakota, creating a "profit" for the state. One can read about this provision in ¶6, 10.  The objective of Amendment E is to be self-supporting, and not chargeable to the taxpayers of South Dakota. ¶8.

 

After Amendment E becomes in force, and if it costs the taxpayers anything out of the pocket, it can only mean that the Legislature of South Dakota is failing or refusing to do their job, ¶8. Now the Legislature would not willfully violate that constitutional "shall," would they? We have already proved that they have willfully violated Art. VII, Sec. 1 by "passing" this "Resolution," which we believe is an on-going criminal act of this Legislature designed to continue each and every day until November 7, 2006. Once the public finds out what they are doing, they are going to have some very serious explaining to do.

 

Agreed, the Legislature is going to have to provide for a facility as set forth in ¶5.  Staffing for the Special Grand Jury will depend upon the workload generated by corrupt judges in South Dakota.  The financing for the operation of the Special Grand Jury will work like an accordion-- when there is a workload, it will expand to meet the demand. If there is no workload, it will go dark.

 

 

X.  Amendment E will not interfere with, nor replace, the Judicial Qualifications Commission of South Dakota. In fact, ¶21 states "The provisions of this Amendment are in addition to other redress that may exist and are not mutually exclusive."  These words are intend to include the JQC, but is not limited thereto.

 

Litigants have the right to present any complaint they may wish to the JQC, but honesty dictates that those complaining be informed that, as a victim, they will never be made whole of their injury inflicted by a judge as would be the case under Amendment E.

 

If the Judicial Qualifications Commission can bring about honest judges throughout South Dakota for only $11,559 a year, that is very good. But this statement runs into a credibility problem. A person on Social Security receives more than that per year. Frankly we are amazed that the Legislature can possibly even pay the rent on a building to house the Judicial Qualifications Commission, much less hire a single employee to hear and decide all the complaints against the judges of South Dakota on that amount. A medical doctor called this to our attention by challenging one of these senators signing on to this "Resolution" on what the $11,559 figure represented, and suggested the JQC could not be the slightest bit effective running on that budget. He asked if that figure represented the salary paid to a boy to come in occasionally to carry out all the filed complaints to the dumpster. Surely the Legislature is not including telephones, lights, heat, water bills, supplies and office equipment in this annual operational budget of $11,559 for this "judicial commission." This judicial commission must obviously be a shell -- non-existent. But then, what is this $11,559 for? Padding for someone's pocket? It appears this JQC needs to be investigated. Now, if we can only find an honest person in government to perform an investigation of those who investigate judges! Then we must determine how much we should pay him? Do you really expect the South Dakotans to really believe you Legislators on this? It's a joke, just like your entire "Resolution" of lies, fraud and propaganda at taxpayer's expense. Please, somebody, drop by this "Judicial Qualifications Commission" and say "Hi," and have the staff there introduce themselves to you and show you around.

 

Honestly, should this JQC be the least bit successful in enforcing the laws of South Dakota against miscreant judges, it might prevent the violations specified in ¶2, which would reduce or eliminate altogether the convening of the Special Grand Jury to hear complaints about the judiciary. 

 

The same is said regarding the appellate process. Indeed we hope that all cases are resolved at the appellate level without the necessity of anyone having to file a single complaint against a judge with the Special Grand Jury. The mere existence of the SGJ is anticipated to influence justice in the courts more than will the Special Grand Juries' actual actions just as the roar of a lion influences more deer than does its teeth and claws, which affects but one deer.

 

 

XI.  We are told by the South Dakota Legislature "...Amendment E would violate the federal Constitution, thereby subjecting South Dakota taxpayers to millions of dollars in damages and attorney fees;"

 

There is no basis supplied in which to respond to this charge other than to point out that for years we have placed the basis for Amendment E under challenge by numerous lawyers, professors, and legal minds to arrive at a genuine federal constitutional challenge of its provisions, and we have yet to find anyone able to find a hole in it. 

 

XII.  We are told by the Legislature, "Amendment E would be devastating to the South Dakota economy, harming economic development and driving existing businesses from South Dakota:"

 

The answer to this charge against Amendment E calls for a speculation on the future such as predicting the stock market whether it will go up or down. Since we do not deem the South Dakota Legislature to be a prophet, knowing the future, nor do we deem the to have special insight as to the future, we respond to their charges based upon common sense.

 

By holding judges accountable to the laws of South Dakota, honesty will spring forth abundantly, resulting in honest dealings with one another. Honest dealings will mean honest business. Honest business will result in prosperity for South Dakota beyond imagination. Businesses will be drawn to South Dakota in flocks and droves, contrary to California where the businesses are departing in droves. Once business hear about South Dakota, they will relocate there, bringing with them their dollars and their job opportunities. Unemployment will go next to zero. 

 

Everyone will be truly amazed over the improvement of the quality of life in South Dakota, in which crime will go down enormously, resulting in the need for fewer Bar Members, prosecutors, judges, bailiffs, prisons in South Dakota.

 

XIII. What is so sorely lacking is the protection of the People's rights from corrupt judges which are creating the need for Amendment E. J.A.I.L. is the only means available to South Dakota by which they may exercise their duty to renew the use and protection of their inherent rights, by enforcing the Constitution through holding the guardians of those rights, i.e., the judges, accountable to them for unconstitutional judicial action. Amendment E will be the best thing that has every happened to South Dakota!

 

---

J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.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/national_001.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 JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To be added or removed, write to VictoryUSA@...
Your help is needed: www.SouthDakotaJudicialAccountability.com
 
"..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    <><

 

 

This country is going nowhere good and it’s going there fast. We, you and me, are the only ones that can change that. So few people pay attention to what’s going on in this country and the result is that justice is green, corporate welfare is rampant, and our media is becoming a monopoly. Ordinary people have very little recourse at times when our legal system fails to function objectively. Ordinary people can’t afford it. 1% of the population of this country controls 32.7% of the wealth (10% of the people control 70% of the wealth)*. Is that the intention of democracy? Of free trade? Of capitalism? No, I say. That’s the result of rich people and corporations wanting more than their fair share of control. They will continue to succeed - if no one stops them. They’ve gained power by buying the judgements, oh, wait, the judges…yes, our judges are bought…
*Wealth Inequality Charts from FairEconomy.org, 2001 data

² P.S. Here’s a few more interesting quotes to mull over:

Victoria is a single mother of two young children. Her son Anthony, age 7, is attending 1st Grade at Whittier Elementary International Baccalaureate School, and her daughter Phoenix, age 5, is in Kindergarten at Boulder Country Day. Victoria is a long-time volunteer and DJ at KGNU Community Radio Station, which can be heard at http://www.kgnu.org/. She enjoys reading, meditation, music, art, sudoku puzzles, dancing, and long walks in the foothills. She has been a member of Toastmasters International and the Denver Jaycees. She recently served as President of the Homeowners’ Association where she lives and was a board member of KGNU Community Radio Station in the 1990s.

----- Original Message -----

From: Stacy Ryan

To: www.jail4judges.org

Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 6:09 AM

Subject: Re: Welcoming New Colorado JIC, Victoria Bard

I am just going to comment that J.A.I.L. should stay apolitical. 

It is my understanding that J.A.I.L. isn't applicable to federal judges, correct me if I am wrong. When you start advising I turn off FOX the only channel most Republicans feel is generally objective the effort starts to look political. Local media in my small city can be as corrupt as the mainstream media. J.A.I.L. can't "fix" corporate America, local "rich" people  are the ones who are going to enable J.A.I.L. to get a foothold.  

This type of enthusiasm is better aimed at big business, federal government and your choice of political party.

J.A.I.L. deals with local state government where truly the little people are.  If the goal is nationwide reform I am afraid it will be another 10-15 years before J.A.I.L. succeeds.

Just what are the goals and objectives of J.A.I.L., maybe I am the confused one.  I was of the understanding that J.A.I.L. applies to the county and district levels of the respective state judiciary. 

Stacy Ryan

sar8297@...

On Mar 9, 2006, at 8:39 PM, VictoryUSA@... wrote:

 

Welcoming Our New Colorado

JIC, Victoria Bard

cojail@...

 

I have appointed Victoria Bard as our new JAILer-In-Chie of Colorado. Below is her acceptance letter. Please write and welcome her to the fold, and give her encouragement in the duties that await her. My thanks to her, and to all of you who have chosen to remain faithful in the objective of J.A.I.L. Colorado is a good initiative state awaiting to be gleaned in the advancement of truth for our country as a whole. God bless you, Victoria.

 

-Ron Branson

Nat'l J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief

VictoryUSA@...

 

---

 

----- Original Message -----

From: cojail@...

To: VictoryUSA@...

Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 11:13 PM

Subject: Acceptance letter

March 8, 2006

Dear Ron and Barbie:

Thank you for your confidence in appointing me as Jailer-in-Chief of Colorado. I am excited to begin this new phase of life. I look forward to helping raise the consciousness of the citizens of our fine country by helping people realize they have the power to reclaim their political freedoms.

I have not been drawn to J.A.I.L. for Judges because of any personal messy legal issues. My only involvement with the courts was my divorce (which, now that I think about it, included at least one ruling that did not seem to be based on the law as I understand it). However, when I hear about the injustices that others have faced it really makes me mad. The stories just don’t stop.

I have this to share with JAILers everywhere:

This country is going nowhere good and it’s going there fast. We, you and me, are the only ones that can change that. So few people pay attention to what’s going on in this country and the result is that justice is green, corporate welfare is rampant, and our media is becoming a monopoly. Ordinary people have very little recourse at times when our legal system fails to function objectively. Ordinary people can’t afford it. 1% of the population of this country controls 32.7% of the wealth (10% of the people control 70% of the wealth)*. Is that the intention of democracy? Of free trade? Of capitalism? No, I say. That’s the result of rich people and corporations wanting more than their fair share of control. They will continue to succeed - if no one stops them. They’ve gained power by buying the judgements, oh, wait, the judges…yes, our judges are bought…
*Wealth Inequality Charts from FairEconomy.org, 2001 data

Stay informed. If you think you are getting unbiased information from any of the mainstream newspapers or television stations then you’re still asleep. Wake Up! Check out your community radio stations and read your alternative local newspapers. Turn off Fox news, for God’s sake.

Margaret Mead once said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

Let’s GO. Let’s be that group of committed citizens. Let’s create some change.

Respectfully,
Victoria Bard, Colorado JIC
COjail@...
303-667-4112

² P.S. Here’s a few more interesting quotes to mull over:

Aesop: We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt: The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the government.

Noam Chomsky: If you go to one demonstration and then go home, that's something, but the people in power can live with that. What they can't live with is sustained pressure that keeps building, organisations that keep doing things, people that keep learning lessons from the last time and doing it better the next time.

Thomas Jefferson: The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.

(attributed to) Edmund Burke : The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Frederick Douglass: Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.

Martin Luther King, Jr.: An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.

Plato: An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.

Albert Einstein: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

 

Victoria Bard grew up in Lisbon Falls, Maine, and graduated from Lisbon High School as Salutatorian of her class in 1984. After attending one year at Bates College in Lewiston, Maine, she took a year off to travel with Up With People as a trumpet player in the band of Cast A ‘85-’86. During her year of travel, she lived with 90 host families throughout the United States, she spent 3 weeks in China, and she performed in the Superbowl XX Half-Time Show in New Orleans. She returned to Bates College to complete her studies and received a Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics in 1989. In 1990 she moved to Denver, Colorado, where she worked as secretary for the Head of the Gastroenterology Division of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center. In 1992 she moved to Boulder, Colorado, to attend a 1000-hour training program at the Boulder School of Massage Therapy. She has worked on and off for the past 13 years as a Certified Massage Therapist in Boulder. She is currently developing a process workshop called createYES which is designed to help people understand and own their personal power.

Victoria is a single mother of two young children. Her son Anthony, age 7, is attending 1st Grade at Whittier Elementary International Baccalaureate School, and her daughter Phoenix, age 5, is in Kindergarten at Boulder Country Day. Victoria is a long-time volunteer and DJ at KGNU Community Radio Station, which can be heard at http://www.kgnu.org/. She enjoys reading, meditation, music, art, sudoku puzzles, dancing, and long walks in the foothills. She has been a member of Toastmasters International and the Denver Jaycees. She recently served as President of the Homeowners’ Association where she lives and was a board member of KGNU Community Radio Station in the 1990s.

---

 

J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.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/national_001.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 JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To be added or removed, write to VictoryUSA@...
Your help is needed: www.SouthDakotaJudicialAccountability.com
 
"..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    <><