#1152

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sun Mar 26, 2006 6:57 am
Subject: * * How Bad Is Bad? * *

J.A.I.L. News Journal ______________________________________________________ Los Angeles, Ca. March 25, 2006 ______________________________________________________ The Inherent Right of All People to Alter or Reform Abusive Government. The Right Upon Which All Other Rights Depend. Mission Statement JNJ Library Federal J.A.I.L. FAQs What?MeWarden? "Who stands to be hurt if Amendment E is not passed?" Would it be the South Dakota Bar Association and lawyers? NO!Would it be the South Dakota Legislature? NO! Would it be the insurance companies and agencies? NO! IT WOULD BE THE VOTERS OF SOUTH DAKOTA WHO WOULD BE HURT. How Bad Is Bad? Unlike ten years ago, we are now hearing a lot about the subject of judicial immunity, i.e., judges being above the law and unaccountable no matter what. The word is getting around that you simply cannot sue a judge no matter how evil or corrupt may be the plot and conspiracy against you. What this J.A.I.L. News Journal seeks to explore is whether the actions of a judge can ever go beyond the mark, that is, to be so egregious and outrageous so as to shock the conscience of the common people in which such conduct cannot qualify for judicial immunity. Suppose your were wrongfully convicted by a judge and denied the inalienable right to counsel and to defend yourself before a jury in order to out carry out a planned and concerted conspiracy conjured up between your judge and your prosecutor, in which you were sentenced and thrown in jail for eighteen months, and in which the appellate court agreed with the falsity of your conviction in which your conviction was reversed and you were sent back to the evil judge that convicted you, where all charges against you are dismissed. The question is, does such a willful and egregious conduct qualify you for damages from the judge who damaged you despite the doctrine of judicial immunity? The answer is -- No! The judge is still entitled to the protection of judicial immunity, and you are to receive absolutely nothing for the conspiracy, false conviction and unjust imprisonment. Can we not rather endure the brutal beatings of an out-and-out violent criminal more so than that of the actions of such a miscreant judge. With the criminal, at least one might have a chance at successfully suing the criminal for wrong doing, but certainly not a judge. God forbid that we have now come so low in our justice system that a rape, robbery, and extended kidnapping would be chosen rather than face the injustice of a judge. This is the point to which we have come in our "justice system," folks. Now arises JAIL4Judges as the only remedy in such cases to overcome the unlimited abuses that are afflicted by rogue and criminal judges that are covered by judicial immunity. This is why Amendment E on the ballot in South Dakota this November is so very critical. It is time we call corrupt and evil judges covered by judicial immunity no matter what, to account this year, starting with S.D. ~ ~ ~ NewsReleaseWire.com WHO PAYS?! When a person is denied counsel, unlawfully convicted and falsely imprisoned for 18 months
http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/default.cfm?Action=ReleaseDetail&ID=12096
Auburn, CA 95602
March 24, 2006
Plumas County, California Judges Olney, Kaufman and Pangman conspired with county Prosecutors Cunan and McGowan to wrongfully convict and imprison Joseph Robinson through knowing, willing and malicious violation of his right to counsel and his right to present a defense to the jury while California allowed them to do it and then condoned it. On July 31, 2001, Cunan and Olney wrongfully convicted and then falsely imprisoned Robinson for 567 days before the California State Prison paroled him. Thirty days later, the California Third District Court of Appeal reversed Robinson�s conviction because the aforementioned individuals violated his right to counsel. When his case was remitted back to the Plumas County Court for a fair trial, Cunan and Olney dismissed all charges against Robinson. When Robinson sued the aforementioned individuals and California for monetary damages, they all claimed immunity and United States District Court Judge Burrell ruled that they were all immune from civil liability and ordered the suit to be dismissed. Robinson�s appeal in the Ninth Circuit requests that court to resolve the following issues: 1. Do people who have been unlawfully convicted and falsely imprisoned have the right to a civil remedy? If no, why not? If yes, who pays? 2. Are judges and prosecutors in a court with subject matter jurisdiction immune from civil liability under all circumstances no matter how outrageous their conduct, without exception? 3. Are the following circumstances narrow enough to constitute an exception to judicial and prosecutorial immunity pursuant to this Court�s conclusion in Ashelman v. Pope that the exceptions to immunity must be narrowly drawn? � Allegation of judicial/prosecutorial conspiracy to wrongfully convict and imprison a defendant through intentional violation of his right to counsel � Post-conviction imprisonment � Appellate court reversal of the conviction for the violation of right to counsel � Subsequent acquittal or dismissal with prejudice of all charges 4. If not, how narrow does an exception to judicial immunity have to be? 5. Is the state liable under the foregoing circumstances? The essential question here is: �Who Pays?� When state judges and prosecutors violate the right to counsel to unlawfully convict and falsely imprison an individual for 18 months and then dismiss all of the charges when the case is reversed upon appeal and remitted back for a fair trial, who pays, the state the judges and prosecutors, or the individual who was wrongfully convicted and imprisoned? .... For information on this case, visit www.JusticeOnTrial.org or e-mail JJB@...

(jjb@...) Director Justice on Trial 23720 Maple Ct. Auburn, CA 95602 Phone : 530-268-9277 Fax : 530-268-0400 Vote YES on Amendment E for your future and your own good!

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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1153

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed Mar 29, 2006 8:02 am
Subject: * * * Exposure of Brandenburg & Justice At Stake, Pt. I * * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                               March 28, 2006
______________________________________________________
              Mission Statement               JNJ Library
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
______________________________________________________

Exposure of Brandenburg

& Justice At Stake, Pt. I

(By Ron Branson)

On Tuesday March 14, 2006, Bert Brandenburg published an article titled "Rushmore to Judgment." Therein he vigorously blasted away at J.A.I.L. and Amendment E on the South Dakota ballot. At first impression, one might think that this was simply just another media source "Justice At Stake," taking pot-shots at J.A.I.L. However, with a little study of Brandenburg's background, anyone will find that his effort turns out to be much more than that.

Bert Brandenburg acclaims himself as the Executive Director of the Justice at Stake Campaign. So what is "Justice At Stake"? With such a title as "Justice At Stake," one would naturally believe it must have something to do with justice, which is what we all want. But in reality, his use of the word "justice" is but window dressing, as "justice" is the furtherest thing from his perceived mission, and that of Justice At Stake. Justice At Stake is like announcing that you have in your hand a cute little garter snake and handing the unsuspecting victim a viper. "Justice At Stake" is a Washington, D.C. front organization designed to cover for the judiciary at all cost, no matter what. Their headquarters is listed as Justice at Stake Campaign, 717 D Street, NW, Suite 203, Washington, DC 20004, phone: 202-588-9700 fax: 202-588-9485.

Bert Brandenburg, in his earlier days, was U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno's spokesman. This, of course, does not necessarily indicate he is evil, but his historical record speaks for itself. He seeks to pose a pretty picture for all to read at http://www.justiceatstake.org/contentViewer.asp?breadCrumb=8 under "About the Campaign." The following words and phrases should give you a quick education on what Brandenburg is about, to wit, "Lawmakers and interest groups are trying to intimidate judges in retaliation for rulings they don�t like, often with threats of impeachment. And courts are being stripped of their powers to protect our rights and interpret our laws."

We are instructed that his Justice At State is to, "Protect the power of our courts..." and "to protect the courts." Justice At Stake is funded as follows,

"JAS is currently funded by grants from the Carnegie Corporation of New York..." And what is it that they do with the grant funding given to them? They influence judicial elections through "Voter Guides," "Public Financing of Judicial Elections," "Selection of Judges," "Rapid Response to Intimidation and Impeachment Threats," "Protecting Court Budgets From Political Attacks," "DEFENDING THE COURTS THAT DEFEND OUR RIGHTS," "Calling Attention to Attacks on the Power of Our Courts...,"

"Building a Network of Judges to Speak Out," "Developing New Messages and Coalitions to Defend Our Courts." They are a front organization operating in the name of "Justice" for the purpose of protecting and advancing the power of the courts in America, no matter how evil they may be.

When we received the article, "Rushmore to Judgment," we thought it was just his personal hit-job upon the effort of Amendment E, but we have since learned differently. Justice At Stake has no personal interest in JAIL4Judges at all; it is simply that they are a defensive arm for judges, and therefore, anyone, regardless of their name or objective, criticizing the courts are naturally their target. Hence, in "Rushmore to Judgment," his target was "Ron Branson in California." Even if Ron Branson was not named "Ron Branson," and even if the author was a very long-time permanent resident of South Dakota, those facts would not make a bit of difference to Brandenburg, because he is about universal covering of judges' actions in America carte blanche.

Now you may be asking what Brandenburg's motives are for doing this-- fair enough question. Bert Brandenburg is a smart man. I believe he knows precisely what this author knows about the judiciary, and we are both using these same facts about judges to opposite ends. As I have oft spoken to groups around America, I have pointed out that if I had but five men given to me to place within government wherever I wanted to at my whim for the purpose of overthrowing America, I would place the first five on the U.S. Supreme Court; for as goes the Supreme Court, so goes the nation. With these five men I could totally wreck this nation. With more judges, I could likewise carry out the words of Nikita Khrushchev in the 1970's "We will destroy America without firing a shot." As one blogger pointed out, "In 1970, I came across a document that contained a fourteen-point program that the Communists had devised to destroy America without firing a shot. Infiltrate and corrupt was the main focus." Thus, to accomplish my purpose, I would protect and defend the arbitrary actions of the judges of this country at every cost, and seek to see that they received even more arbitrary and corrupt powers and protections. By this means, it would not matter who got elected to Congress or who the state legislators were, as they would be irrelevant. Give me a corrupt judiciary, and I would have all I need for the demise of this country. But, of course, what J.A.I.L. seeks is to reverse this on-going effort to overthrow America by use of the judges.

America is fast approaching the precipice that either the judges of America shall ultimately control this country, or the People shall --there can be no middle ground. It should be made very clear that J.A.I.L. is not against judges; it is against injustice. By holding judges accountable to the law and the Constitution, the People shall have both justice and just judges.

You say, "Okay, Mr. Branson, proof-- Show me the proof!" Yes! We've got lots of proof. You will notice that this J.A.I.L. News Journal indicates "Pt. I." We've got so much proof that we could not get it all in to this publication.

Bert Brandenburg wrote an article March 29, 2005 titled, "Judge Dread." Here are some of his words in his article in defense of the corrupt and evil judiciary:

"The judiciary is fast becoming enemy No. 1 in the culture wars�and the side wearing the black robes is losing."

"In Washington and far beyond the Beltway, this new war on the courts is being waged through legislation..."

"Hostile members of Congress increasingly seek to reverse or forestall decisions they don't like..."

"Last year, for example, even as the federal courts mulled litigation involving the Pledge of Allegiance, the House of Representatives was passing a measure to forbid courts from ever hearing such a case in the first place. As the debate raged over a courthouse display of the Ten Commandments, a measure was written to deny federal courts the power to hear any suit involving a governmental official's 'acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.' "

"These efforts at court-stripping don't just represent just good wedge-issue politics; increasingly, they have become the law of the land."

"As they grow more confident, enemies of the courts are growing more extreme."

"And the latest best-selling screed against the judiciary�Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America�repeatedly accuses the courts of 'tyranny' that make it 'difficult to maintain a republic.' "

"There's a new effort to make impeachment into a respectable punishment for federal judges who make controversial decisions, exceed their jurisdiction, or consult foreign law in their deliberations. State judges have also seen a spike in impeachment threats: 39 from 2002 to 2004, almost double the previous three years. The job of protecting our rights sometimes requires that our judges show a little steel. After the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education desegregation decision, lawmakers tried to impeach justices, abolish life tenure on the Supreme Court, and strip it of jurisdiction over public-education cases."

<img src="http://kt4.kliptracker.com/klipinsert4.gif?campid=19919&ktaction=2&ad_id=1" border="0" width="1" height="1"><A href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v5|33b6|3|0|%2a|h%3B29246171%3B0-0%3B0%3B10657496%3B4307-300|250%3B15442070|15459966|1%3B%3B%7Eaopt%3D2|0|18006f%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp://kt4.kliptracker.com/klipinsert4.tux?campid=19919&ktaction=100&ad_id=1&redir=http%3A//www.arizonaswestcoast.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://gfx.dvlabs.com/klipmart/campaigns/lau001/a/a_still.jpg" border="0" width="300" height="250" alt="Laughlin Ranch"></a>These efforts often come straight off the talk-radio dial. Last year, for example, even as the federal courts mulled litigation involving the Pledge of Allegiance, the House of Representatives was passing a measure to forbid courts from ever hearing such a case in the first place. As the debate raged over a courthouse display of the Ten Commandments, a measure was written to deny federal courts the power to hear any suit involving a governmental official's 'acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.' And the recent California marriage decision reignited efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution in order to deny state courts the ability to interpret their own state constitutions."

"Measures like these flow from a view of our courts as little more than enemy combatants. After the Supreme Court ruled that certain antiterrorism tactics violated the Bill of Rights, Attorney General Ashcroft accused it of endangering national security."

"The courts have survived these and other contretemps�including the Bush v. Gore firestorm. But in the age of cable television and blogs, instant outrage is getting easier to manufacture. Next week, such anticourt luminaries as Majority Leader DeLay, Phyllis Schlafly, and Alan Keyes will gather in Washington to lambaste 'the Judicial War on Faith.' Conference organizers call it 'the beginning of a broad-based effort to save America from the judges.' "

Sign-off" (End of Judge Dread quotes).

Ah, so here we have it folks! Despite the U.S. Constitution, "...the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make," Brandenburg wishes the courts to supersede Congress and prevail over them on. He wants to keep "One Nation Under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance, and he wants the courts to decide with finality over the subject of "acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government," and he wishes to curtail any legislation that seeks accountability over the courts, to resist every person who accuses the courts of tyranny, and even opposes the lawful process in our Constitution of impeachment, and punishment for judges who exceed their jurisdiction, to wit, act in a manner forbidden of them by law, and to defend those judges who look to foreign courts for interpretation of America's laws, even though these foreign judges have never sworn an oath to U.S. the Constitution. And yes, he even opposes a faith-based effort to save America from corrupt judges.

There you have it. Brandenburg is out to destroy most everything we call America in exchange for a lawless and uncontrollable judiciary. Like I say, he is smart, because he is properly pursuing the method of overthrowing America without firing a shot, if indeed that is what is being sought. By here exposing him, J.A.I.L. seeks to let you know what he is really about.

More proof? Sure! In his September 8, 2005, article "Strip Search," he says,

"These are not easy days to be caught wearing black robes; judges all over have grown alarmed as the Supreme Court has become the Fallujah of American politics. .... Pat Robertson called federal judges a worse threat to American democracy than 'bearded terrorists who fly into buildings,' while James Dobson of Focus on the Family compared jurists to the Ku Klux Klan.

"Congress is following this madcap rhetoric with radical measures of its own, trying to strip courts of their power to hear certain classes of cases. Last year the House of Representatives passed a measure to forbid federal courts from hearing cases involving the Pledge of Allegiance. Another bill would deny them the power to hear any suit involving a governmental official�s 'acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.' Inside the Beltway and out, a war is raging over the power and independence of our courts."

Independence of the courts? What does Brandenburg mean by "Independence of the Courts"? He means judges should be independent of the Constitution, independent of Congress, independent of the laws, independent of impeachment, independent of all processes, and independent of the People. I believe we commonly call this as renegade.

Brandenburg believes that whatever serves his end is good. If he cannot justifiably attack his opponents with truth, he will make it up. For instance, he says of J.A.I.L., "This movement is the brainchild of a Californian named Ronald Branson with a history of suing state and federal officials for alleged conspiracies (including his own trials for burglary...)." The fact that Branson has never committed burglary, been tried for burglary, nor found guilty of burglary is not relevant to his goal. Of course his words are libel, but what does he fear, he is the defender of the courts. Mr. Brandenburg, prove up! State for the benefit of the public and your credibility the case number and authority upon which you rely to justify your charge. If Brandenburg does not have a suitable quote from those who oppose the judiciary, no problem, he just makes one up to suit his purposes. Notice his quotations, "Writes Branson: 'The People are slowly waking up to realize who the Enemy is-- and it isn't Bin Laden.' "

Mr. Brandenburg, I have done a Google search for the words that you claim originated from me, and find nothing. Do you know what it is that I do find that says I said it? It is from articles that are quoting your article "Rushmore to Judgment." Again, Mr. Brandenburg, prove up! Find for me and all of us where I said what you say I said, apart from you saying that I said it. My clue is that I would not say such a thing. It is a controversial statement that has nothing to do with J.A.I.L. nor with judicial accountability, so I avoid allowing anyone saying that I said such things as you say I said. Unless you can show your evidence, you owe me a retraction and apology. But, of course, that would not serve your purpose of protecting judges' conduct, no matter what, would it?

J.A.I.L. first dealt with Bert Brandenburg's article under the title, "The Opposition Makes The Case For Amendment E," dated March 14, 2006, which may be found in our JNJ Library on www.jail4judges.org. (If our webmaster hasn't posted it yet, let us know if you'd like a copy sent).

For those of you who wish to write Bert Brandenburg, you may do so at info@.... Should any of you wish to read for yourselves "Rushmore to Judgment," click here at (Slate.com)

(More on this will follow in Pt. II)

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1154

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed Mar 29, 2006 9:54 am
Subject: * * Obedience To The Law Declared Harassment! * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                               March 29, 2006
______________________________________________________
              Mission Statement               JNJ Library
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
______________________________________________________
Obedience to the Law Declared Harassment!

- So Argues the SD. Chamber of Commerce

Capitol-ism

Thursday February 23, 2006

Special Report: Amendment E

http://www.sdchamber.biz/pdf/AmendmentE.pdf

Judicial Harassment Disguised as Accountability

bul�ly Pronunciation: 'bu-lE, Function: noun 2a: a blustering browbeating person.

It will be listed on this fall's ballot as Amendment E. Proponents like to use an acronym J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiated Law). There are many other descriptions for it but this is a family publication. Well, assuming readers are fond enough of their families to protect them from dire boredom, this still strives to be a publication of reasonable decorum.

Amendment E is an attempt to institutionalize the harassment of judges (and many others), should they offend an individualized and ephemeral notion of justice. It has been brought to South Dakota by an activist from California who is using this state's initiative laws to establish a victory he hopes will spread across the nation. [Note - Capitol-ism believes the trend of using South Dakota as a beachhead for experimental laws will continue, given the low number of signatures required to place an initiative on the ballot, the lack of geographical distribution requirements for those signatures and low cost media making campaigns very cost efficient].

How it would work. In case it has escaped notice to this point, the South Dakota Chamber of Commerce is opposed to Amendment E. Here is what this amendment will do.

Amendment E will create a super grand jury that can strip judicial immunity from judges or other public officials, thereby allowing civil suits to be filed against these individuals. The super grand jury will be established in the state's constitution to have the power to determine "both law and fact", meaning if the grand jury doesn't like the restraints of current law, they can make it "right". This is an echo of jury nullification attempted several years ago that would have allowed juries to arrive at any verdict, regardless of legal restraints.

Who can serve on the Super Grand Jury? Anyone who is a citizen at least 30 years old and has been in South Dakota for 2 years. Those excluded are "any appointed or elected official members of the State Bar, Judges (active or retired) judicial prosecutorial and law enforcement personnel." The only other exclusions are people judged to have mental incapacity, imprisonment, or parole from a conviction of felonious crime against persons.

Business pays the costs. The Super Grand Jury members will be paid the same rate as judges. The initiative demands a funding level of twice the annual pay of the 13 jurors and requires that the funds be raised by the imposition "appropriate surcharges upon the civil court filing fees of corporate litigants as necessary to supplement the funding of this amendment.�

Not Just Judges. The reach of Amendment E goes well beyond judges. There are numerous boards and commissions that regular citizens (including your employees and yourself) serve on that have some level of judicial immunity. Official actions of boards of equalization or planning commissions have the same protection again harassment granted through "quasi-judicial" immunity.

The Chamber has been given a copy of several emails during which proponents discuss how the Super Grand Jury can be used to address the actions of any level of government. Don't like a zoning decision? The remedy is straight forward, file a lawsuit and if the judge throws it out, you can take him and the zoning board to the super grand jury seeking the right to file lawsuits against them.

Because the 13 members of the Super Grand Jury will be the sole determiners of both law and fact, it would be good if they were members of your immediate family (although it might be good to avoid ex-spouses, especially for those owing back child support). While intended to bring some comedic relief to this horrid topic, the comment above is designed to point out the peril of this proposal. It will be people offended by the courts, regardless of their own accountability, that will use this system to exercise their angst endlessly.

An End to UCC? The anger of proponents toward the current system of governance extends well beyond the judiciary. Quoted below you will find the dim view they take of the corporate world and the laws used to govern commerce (Warning - you are about to read a portion of a newsletter answering a question about the UCC, you will read some phrases taken from the Declaration of Independence - and mangled badly):

The unauthorized corporate power that has overtaken the People has been "the patient sufferance of [America]" for many decades; "The history of the present [unauthorized corporate power] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over [this country]."

Yes, Loma, we */do/* "hope that all of you have studied history and understand that we are being ruled under UCC corporate law" *_J.A.I.L._* is the means by which the People will carry out their duty to alter or reform government today, The People will settle for nothing less than a Constitutional Republic, a republican form of government --_*NOT*_ A DEMOCRACY!

Rough Tactics. During this legislative session, opponents to Amendment E brought forward a resolution urging voters to reject the proposal. During debate on the resolution, several Senators and Representatives discussed receiving hundreds of emails decrying their position. The overwhelming majority of these emails are from out-of-state and many of them are rude.

Proponents have sent letters to all legislators demanding they confirm whether they support Amendment E or oppose it. These letters give a deadline and conclude by saying if the group does not hear from a legislator by the deadline, they will be listed on their website as being an opponent. These are not the actions of a respectable advocacy (see definition above).

The Chamber has received one such email which featured a complaint about a particular court preceding and had a long list of accusations the sender claims are being ignored by the courts. It is this level of discontent that will be endlessly brought forward, should Amendment E become law.

Conclusion: Capitol-ism believes it was Mark Twain that said "it ain't what a man don't know that makes him dangerous . . . it�s what he do know that ain't so"

Clouded by a misreading of the founding father's intention and a complete distortion of the elegant expressions in the Declaration of Independence, the proponents of Amendment E have brought forward a proposal that would not be worth brief banter, except for the fact that the initiative process has brought it perilously close to becoming law.

Amendment E is dangerous.

The Chamber encourages members to oppose it.

It should be noted that as most other critics of South Dakota J.A.I.L., Capitol-ism, a publication of the South Dakota Chamber of Commerce, is condemning the People's Initiative process. In other words, they are against the rights of the People of South Dakota as described in Article VI, Sec. 26 of their Constitution, to wit, "All political power is inherent in the People, and all free government is founded on their authority..." One would naturally think that the South Dakota Chamber of Commerce (COC) would be in favor of the rights of the South Dakotans, and not against them. Perhaps the People are being deceived by the COC as to where the allegiances of their Chamber of Commerce is.

Also, it should be noted that the South Dakota Chamber of Commerce believes that being held accountable to the law is harassment, to wit, judges should not have to obey the law, that they should be free to commit fraud and conspire together, to violate due process of law at whim, and to deliberately disregard truth, or commit acts forbidden them by statutory jurisdiction, to block lawful conclusions of cases, as well as deliberately violate the Constitution. Gee, imagine if everyone in South Dakota chose this same lifestyle in pursuit of equal protections of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. If a life of crime and disorder is to be chosen over honesty and civility, then why have courts at all? Should we have courts just to harass our People and eat out their substance? After all, that is the logical conclusion if law does not matter.

Are not the courts and the judges to show us by example the kind of behavior they expect of the People, or are judges above the law, that is, do as I say, not as I do? If we did that, everyone would lose respect for the courts, and we would descend into lawlessness. But this is precisely what the South Dakota Chamber of Commerce is advocating - lawlessness.

Further, one would look hard and through to find any mention whatsoever regarding UCC in the writings of J.A.I.L. How do we know? Because we say nothing about the UCC. Oh, yes, we have received numerous letters from people seeking to engage us re the UCC, but we just do not accept their challenge. S, sorry, COC, we have never advocated nor sought for "An End to UCC." Why would we? J.A.I.L. does not seek to change laws, contrariwise, but to enforce them. Therefore, you totally strike out on stating that J.A.I.L. is out to end the Uniform Commercial Code. We do realize, however, that your argument serves your special interest in condemning Amendment E. But we did not know that COC was supposed to be a special interest organization. Are we mistaken on that point?

You say that we are "Clouded by a misreading of the founding father's intention." You disappoint us. We thought we could understand English well enough to understand the words of our Founding Fathers. It seems very clear to us that they did not trust judges at all, and that is a main reason they instituted juries because judges could not be trusted. So, do you disagree with that proposition? If you do, then we think that someone else needs to go back to school and learn English.

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1155

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Mon Apr 3, 2006 9:46 am
Subject: * * * First Amendment Under Attack By S.D. Judiciary * * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                                     April 2, 2006
______________________________________________________
              Mission Statement                       JNJ Library
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
______________________________________________________

First Amendment Under Attack

By South Dakota Judiciary

A Newspaper With Guts: We offer our gratitude and commendations to

Randell Beck, (rabeck@...), reporter for the South Dakota

Argus Leader, for bravely reporting on a politically incorrect subject, namely,

calling into question the ethical conduct of the South Dakota Judiciary for

defying the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. - Ron Branson

First Amendment under attack

Politicians, others playing loose with public's right to information

RANDELL BECK
rabeck@...

April 2, 2006

Spring, at last, might be in the air. But make no mistake, dear reader. A cold wind is blowing across South Dakota.

Whether it's the governor spending your hard-earned tax dollars on lawyers to resist disclosing the names of buddies invited to his annual pheasant hunt, or the Legislature's cowardly capitulation to the NRA to close pistol permits to the public, those of us who think government ought to be accountable to the public are being backed into a tight corner. And lest you think that freedom of information is something only the ACLU cares about, let me introduce you to Dale Blegen.

Blegen is publisher and editor of The De Smet News, one of the best weekly newspapers in the state. Every week for a long time, Blegen has dropped by the Kingsbury County Courthouse to check the latest judgments in small claims court. He records them - usually it's just a handful - and publishes them in the next issue of his newspaper.

Over time, Blegen has found that little list, like a lot of the minutiae in newspapers, is a public service. Merchants appreciate it because it alerts them to folks who might have trouble paying their bills. The county clerk appreciates it because people being sued are more likely to pay up, rather than see their name in the paper. And readers - well, they consider it vital information about what's happening in their community.

Few things link people of any place like a newspaper. It is where you find out who has died - and who has been born. You learn that your taxes are going up - or down. Birthdays, weddings, anniversaries, road construction. A newspaper, whether daily or weekly, reflects the ebb and flow of life itself. Without one, we lose a connection to our neighbors - the ones we know and the ones we don't know.

And without certain information, a bond is broken.

South Dakota's laws never have made it easy to collect that information. Now, it's getting even harder.

Beginning last week, changes approved by the state's Unified Judicial System will compile all civil judgments into an electronic database, replacing the old docket books long maintained by court clerks.

The problem is, it now will cost money to access that database - $4 per search, and $1 to view a judgment docket. Or, you can pay $2,500 for an annual subscription to the statewide database. It's true in Kingsbury County - and everywhere else in South Dakota. It's true for Blegen - and any other citizen who used to think the free flow of information actually meant that - free.

How much are you willing to pay?

After 40 years of newspapering and advocating for the First Amendment, Blegen said he's discouraged by what's happening in South Dakota.

"We're not gaining,'' he said. "You look around at other states and openness is a way of life. Here, it's just the opposite.''

Speaking of the First Amendment: It's alive and well on the campus of South Dakota State University. Not.

You might have heard that a Circuit Court judge recently ordered the student-run Collegian to turn over unpublished photos of a fracas that occurred after a campus power outage in October. A lawyer defending a student charged with inciting the alleged riot wanted to introduce the photos as evidence there was no riot - thus proving his client's innocence.

A lawyer for the Collegian filed a motion to quash the subpoena - a motion summarily dismissed by that well-known lover of a free and vigorous press, Judge Rodney Steele of Brookings.

"He basically rolled his eyes and said, 'What First Amendment? There is no First Amendment issue here,' " said Sherry Fuller Bordewyk, who's been the newspaper's adviser since January. "And that was that.''

And why, you might ask, would a newspaper resist such a court order? Isn't it merely being a good citizen by giving up what is sought?

Let's let Kristin Marthaler, editor in chief at the Collegian, explain: Newspapers, she wrote in her column last week, "should not have to give out names or hand over photos to the government or act like the long arm of the law. Who will want to talk to the media if they know their information can get turned over to officials?''

Well said, Kristin. An independent press cannot be a check on the power of government, as the Constitution's framers clearly intended, if it's dragged before every Rodney Steele in the land to turn over its notes and photos.

That said, the real villain in this sad tale is the university itself.
SDSU President Peggy Miller has made no secret of her disdain for the Collegian, which gets no state money and has, for some time, been on life support. Ironically, this is the same university where the state's only journalism school is located.

With the courts pressing for its photos, the Collegian naturally sought to hire the preeminent First Amendment lawyer in South Dakota - Sioux Falls' Jon Arneson, who frequently represents this newspaper in battles for public access. The university said no - referring the Collegian staff, instead, to a Brookings lawyer who handles SDSU matters but admittedly knows little about press law. He lost.

Perhaps predictably, when Steele ordered the newspaper to comply, there was no appeal. And the photos now are in the hands of the student's lawyer.

Don't waste your time waiting for the hue and cry from professors - frequently the first to whine about limits on academic freedom - or any corner of the university other than the Collegian staff. There was none.

Maybe, after all, Rodney Steele is on to something: First Amendment? What First Amendment?

Confidential to the governor's mansion: OK, we get it already. You're still sore about the Argus Leader stories in September chronicling your profligate use of state airplanes. And you're going to make us pay by refusing to talk to our reporter in Pierre. We get that. But six months of sulking seems sufficient. People don't like politicians who pout.

Randell Beck is executive editor of the Argus Leader. Contact him at 331-2332 or by e-mail at rabeck@....

J.A.I.L. highly praises Reporter Randell Beck, and recommends that our readers contact him and let him know how you feel about this story. Should you chose to use the telephone number, the area code is (605) 331-2332.

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1156

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Apr 1, 2006 5:45 am
Subject: * * Support Your Local Judge * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                               March 31, 2006
______________________________________________________
              Mission Statement               JNJ Library
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
______________________________________________________

Support Your Local Judge

(Research Report by Rose Lear - firstrose@...)

The following information is provided by Michigan JAILer Rose Lear. For purposes of brevity and clarification, some portions may be redacted and/or edited by comments. Every effort is made to remain true to original text.

Support Your Local Judge

The two armed bandit strikes again. Just as they started working second and third shift back in the 50's and 60's, now the state prisons are going to do the same. Prison Industries are growing. [It took just over 200 years in America to acquire the first one-millionth person placed behind bars, but approximately only 15 years to double that number. Having passed the two-millionth mark only recently, America is continuing its expanse at an alarming rate. One of America's greatest and most prosperous industries today is prison complexes, said to be just behind that of General Motors which is now laying off. America's incarceration level per capita far exceeds every communist and fascist dictatorship around the globe by far. -j4j] We can expect to see more convictions for petty crimes, misdemeanors and infractions.

01/05/06 AP. Idaho - Senator suggests prison "hot cots." Senate President Pro Tem Robert Geddes says Idaho could correct prison overcrowding by requiring inmates to sleep in shifts.

The so-called "hot cot" proposal would have two inmates sharing the same bed at different times of the day. Geddes announced the proposal during the Associated Press Legislative Preview today. He says inmates could volunteer for the swing-shift life, and they would have a better shot at scarce prison jobs because the facilities would be operating around the clock.

What you will read below doesn't just apply to Idaho and Michigan, it is happening in every state. I know that here in Michigan, not only do the judges pad their retirement Funds, but so also do the legislators. Why else would they keep making everything under the sun against the law?

Michigan Compiled Laws

MCL 600.8381 (1)(b)

(1) Until October 1, 2003, when fines and costs are assessed by a magistrate, a traffic bureau, or a judge of the district court, not less than $9.00 shall be assessed as costs and collected for each conviction or civil infraction determination and each guilty plea or civil infraction admission except for parking violations. Of the costs assessed and collected, for each conviction or civil infraction determination and each guilty plea or civil infraction admission, $9.00 shall be paid to the clerk of the district court.

(b) Beginning October 1, 2003, the clerk shall transmit $9.00 of any costs assessed before October 1, 2003 to the justice system fund created in section 181 of the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.181.

600.181 Justice system fund; creation; use; disposition; investment; distributions.

Sec. 181.

(1) .... The money in the fund shall be used as provided in this section. ...

iv) To the secretary of the legislative retirement system for deposit with the state treasurer in the retirement fund created in the Michigan legislative retirement system act, 1957 PA 261, MCL 38.1001 to 38.1080, 1.2% of the fund balance.

(vii) To the state court fund created in section 151a, 14.3% of the fund balance.

(viii) To the court equity fund created in section 151b, 25.55% of the fund balance.

Sec. 151b.

(c) Excess court fees transmitted by the state treasurer pursuant to section 217 of the judges' retirement act of 1992, Act No. 234 of the Public Acts of 1992, being section 38.2217 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

One may be well advised to read the information provided at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/message/897

From the April, 2000 Idaho Observer:

Support your local judge -- it's the law

For almost anyone who has been forced to defend himself (family, life, property, business, children, freedom) from the position of a plaintiff or a defendant in a contemporary court, judges can be a life form lower than attorneys. Why? Because judges come to court with the gameboard set up so their actors can lie, cheat, steal and purchase their way through the justice system.

There is no question among those who have been in it, the court system, managed and policed by judges, is a $multibillion litigation racket where justice is only served by accident. It is of paramount irony that judges, the same ones who have been presiding all these years and are responsible for the absolute, money-and-misery-making machine that has become the legal system, are obligated by law to pad their retirement a little softer with every civil action a citizen files in his court.

Following is the language that is law concerning judges. Keep in mind that supreme court judges, as of 1998, make $90,791 per year with an annual 4 percent increase in pay; district court judges make $85,095 per year with the same 4 percent annual increase in pay that most of us cannot claim by law.

The potential for judges to stack their retirement fund by forcing desperate people to file useless actions in court is extreme and, considering the nature of some men to be insatiably greedy, we can imagine that judges and their agents have learned how to run their court in a manner most likely to produce the maximum of documents which must be filed for a fee. Add the carrot of modern investment strategies that have made $billions of (electronic) dollars for pools of investors, and you have the most illustrative real-life example of the fox guarding the henhouse that has ever been sanctioned by state statute.

TITLE 1

COURTS AND COURT OFFICIALS

CHAPTER 20

JUDGES' RETIREMENT AND COMPENSATION

1-2002. JUDGES' RETIREMENT FUND. For the purpose of paying such retirement compensation, there is hereby created in the office of the treasurer of the state of Idaho a fund to be known as the �Judges' Retirement Fund,� which shall consist of all moneys appropriated from the general fund, and all moneys received from special fees to be paid by parties to civil actions and proceedings, other than criminal, commenced in or appealed to the several courts of the state, together with all contributions out of the salaries and compensation of justices and judges, and interest received from investment, and reinvestment, of moneys of the judges' retirement fund, all as hereinafter provided.

All sums of money so accrued and accruing to the judges' retirement fund, less an amount deemed reasonable and necessary by the administrative director of the courts to pay for necessary actuarial studies to assist in administering the judges' retirement fund, are hereby appropriated to the payment of the annual retirement compensation of such retired justices and judges, and to payment of the allowances to surviving spouses.

TITLE 1

COURTS AND COURT OFFICIALS

CHAPTER 20

JUDGES' RETIREMENT AND COMPENSATION

1-2003. ADDITIONAL FEES IN CIVIL ACTIONS AND APPEALS.

(a) In addition to the fees and charges to be collected by the clerks of the district courts of the state and by other persons authorized by rule or administrative order of the Supreme Court as now or hereafter provided by law, such clerks and authorized persons are directed to charge and collect the additional sum of eighteen dollars ($18.00) for filing a civil case or proceeding of any type in the district court or magistrate's division of the district court including cases involving the administration of decedents' estates, whether testate or intestate, conservatorships of the person or of the estate or both and guardianships of the person or of the estate or both, except that no fee shall be charged or collected for filing a proceeding under the Summary Administration of Small Estates Act. The additional sum of eighteen dollars ($18.00) shall also be collected from any party, except the plaintiff, making an appearance in any civil action in the district court, but such eighteen dollars ($18.00) fee shall not be collected from the person making an appearance in civil actions filed in the small claims departments of the district court.

(b) The sum of eighteen dollars ($18.00) shall also be collected:

(1) from an intervenor in an action;

(2) from a party who files a third party claim;

(3) from a party who files a cross claim;

(4) from a party appealing from the magistrate's division of the district court to the district court;

(5) from a party appealing the decision of any commission, board or body to the district court.

(c) The clerk of the Supreme Court is authorized and directed to charge and collect, in addition to the fees now prescribed by law and as a part of the cost of filing the transcript on appeal in any civil case or proceeding, other than criminal, appealed to the Supreme Court, the additional sum of eighteen dollars ($18.00); for filing a petition for rehearing, the additional sum of ten dollars ($10.00); for filing an application for any writ for which a fee is now prescribed, the additional sum of ten dollars ($10.00); for filing appeals from the industrial accident board, the additional sum of five dollars ($5.00).

(d) The clerks of the district courts, persons authorized by rule or administrative order of the Supreme Court and the clerk of the Supreme Court are directed and required to remit all additional charges and fees authorized by this section and collected during a calendar month, to the state treasurer within five (5) days after the end of the month in which such fees were collected. The state treasurer shall place all such sums in the judges' retirement fund.

TITLE 1

COURTS AND COURT OFFICIALS

CHAPTER 20

JUDGES' RETIREMENT AND COMPENSATION

1-2008. INVESTMENT OF JUDGES' RETIREMENT FUND. The investment board shall at the direction of the supreme court select and contract with a minimum of one (1) investment manager to manage the investment of the judges' retirement fund. The investment manager(s) shall, subject to the direction of the board, exert control over the funds as though the investment manager(s) were the owner thereof, subject to the limitation hereinafter provided. The investment manager(s) is hereby authorized to invest the judges' retirement fund in the following manner and in the following investments or securities ....

(5) Corporate obligations designated as corporate convertible debt securities.

(6) Obligations secured by mortgages constituting a first lien upon real property of the state of Idaho which are fully insured or guaranteed as to the payment of the principal by the government of the United States or any agency thereof.

(7) Time certificates of deposit and savings accounts.

(8) Common or preferred stocks of corporations.

(9) Commercial paper, which at the time of purchase, is rated prime 1 by Moody's Investors Service incorporated or is rated A-1 or higher by Standard and Poor's corporation. ....

As we can plainly see, our legislature has provided the judicial branch of government with laws that allow them to prosecute for profit, the most obvious conflict of interest imaginable: Judges are allowed to run their courts as a vehicle to generate revenue that allows them to pad their own retirements.

The more appeals the public is forced to file because lower court rulings were compromised in one way or another, the more money appears in the account. The worse judges are, the better their retirement.

One last point: Judges' private retirement fund from publicly-generated revenues is overflowing with money and being used to make more money through modern investment strategies while your public retirement from privately-generated revenue has been spent by the people we elected to draft, approve, and implement this entire retirement travesty.

MICHIGAN JUDGES� RETIREMENT SYSTEM � 53

Stocks Market Value

Microsoft Corporation $4,137,766

Citigroup Incorporated 4,075,380

General Electric Corporation 3,909,508

Pfizer Incorporated 3,842,305

Wal-Mart Stores Incorporated 3,322,819

Exxon Mobil Corporation 2,975,971

Wells Fargo & Company 2,057,776

Bank of America Corporation 2,046,585

Intel Corporation 2,046,369

Federal National Mortgage Association 1,901,433

Largest Stock Holdings (By Market Value)*

September 30, 2003

(Concluding remarks by Ron Branson):

It becomes obvious from the above statistics illustrative of the courts around the nation, that the courts and judges of America are the beneficiaries of huge legacies at the expense of the People. It should be noted that Constitutionally all appropriate fines imposed by a court for specified violations must have a reasonable connection to the damages incurred by the government for the said violation. In other words, the sentence must fit the crime. However, imposing fines that raises revenue for a legislative or judicial retirement fund is unconstitutional, because all revenue-raising ventures must be apportioned equally. In other words, everyone benefiting from the venture must reasonably pay an equal amount.

The test then is to ask one's self whether the retirement of judges is a measure to be borne by the community at large, or by fining violators of a code. If the venture is one of revenue-raising for the retirement of judges, then it is unconstitutional because it is not uniform, and a burden shared by all. If it is a legitimate fine, it must be limited to damages reasonably caused by the violation, and no more.

You are each encouraged to investigate what percentage of your fines is going toward the support of judges in your state. You are welcome to report your findings to Rose Lear, firstrose@..., who is researching this project.

Obviously, J.A.I.L. will weigh in on these alleged violations and the constitutional question involved in a fine v. revenue-raising.

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@...

"..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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1157

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Mon Apr 3, 2006 11:00 pm
Subject: *** We Honor South Dakota ***

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California April 3, 2006 ______________________________________________________

The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform Abusive Government.

The Right Upon Which All Other Rights Depend

Mission Statement JNJ Library
Federal J.A.I.L. FAQs What?MeWarden?

We Honor South Dakota

Response by Barbie, victoryusa@...

Randall Beck, Executive Editor

Argus Leader

Sioux Falls, South Dakota

rabeck@...

Dear Mr. Beck:

It is with the utmost gratitude and respect that I write to you, on behalf of National J.A.I.L., for the First Amendment article you wrote on April 2nd. It is indeed like a breath of fresh air to read from an executive editor of a major newspaper the truth about government corruption, especially the judiciary. By doing that, you are doing a great public service by reporting truth, and not peddling propaganda to deceive the People.

As I'm sure you know, J.A.I.L. is on the 2006 ballot in South Dakota, our pioneer state in the nation. It could have started in any state, since judicial corruption is of concern in all states throughout the country; and J.A.I.L. carries that concern in every state. Corruption knows no borders. The People of South Dakota can be proud of the fact that they are the first in the nation to exercise their inherent right to institute a change in their government to restore the Rule of Law under the Constitution by having the People hold judges accountable to the Supreme Law of the Land to which they take an Oath to support and defend.

We are grateful to the State of South Dakota for officially recognizing this right of the People by providing the means for them to do so, as follows: "All political power is inherent in the people, and all free government is founded on their authority, and is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, 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. 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." Article VI, �26, South Dakota Constitution. This inherent right belongs to the People of every state in this Union, and it is incumbent on all states to follow the example of South Dakota by respecting it with a similar provision in their state Constitutions. South Dakota is also the pioneer state in the Union providing the initiative process to the People for this purpose.

And last, but certainly not least, is the South Dakota businessman who made this all possible, Bill Stegmeier. The establishment of J.A.I.L. in any state depends upon someone from a state contacting National J.A.I.L. and informing us that he or she is interested in getting J.A.I.L. on the ballot in their state. J.A.I.L. has a presence in all fifty states, and so it could have been from any state. It just so happened that it was Mr. Stegmeier of South Dakota who expressed this desire. We instructed him to contact the South Dakota Secretary of State's Office for information on the requirements to do so, and he took it from there. The fact that South Dakota is an initiative state was a major contributing factor. Therefore, Mr. Stegmeier holds the unequivocal honor of leading this nation, through his state of South Dakota, in facilitating the means by which the People, starting with South Dakota, are able to carry out their inherent right of changing their government as they deem proper according to their Constitution. South Dakota is only a start, but it is a start to restoring the government that was intended to be at the founding of this country.

The South Dakota J.A.I.L. campaign is of national importance because it represents the need of all the People across the country. Unfortunately there is no initiative process provided for the People to alter or amend the federal government, even though the Declaration of Independence admonishes: "[W]hen a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." While the Declaration, memorializing the birth of our nation, recognizes the right and duty of the People to replace a despotic regime with a serving government conforming to their consent, ironically the Supreme Law of the Land egregiously omits a provision for the People to effect that inherent right. Only the People have that right, and they should have been provided by the serving government the means for them to carry it out with national government. Since it was not provided as a national means, the People must depend on each initiative state until further means are provided.

Mr. Beck, we look forward to further reports of the need for the People of South Dakota to carry out their duty to restore honest government through an accountable judiciary according to law. For the good of everyone in South Dakota, and the entire nation, urge them to vote YES on Amendment E this coming November.

-Barbie-

ACIC, National J.A.I.L. Admin.

victoryusa@...

www.jail4judges.org

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@...

"..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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1158

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:48 pm
Subject: Let's Keep The Drums A' Rollin

jail4judges_...

Send Email

Let's Keep The Drums A' Rollin

(By Lee Dorman - leedorman@...)

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

From: Lee Dorman

.... U.S. citizens are thought to be fools in the mind of the Courts and Legal Profession, in my opinion. It is refreshing to have true patriots like the folks at J.A.I.L. to take the initiative to take action to preserve the Constitution as it was intended and written, for our sake.

I can't express my appreciation enough that Mr. Ron Branson is giving so much of his time and effort to do this for us. He inspires me. I respect that!

America is nearly lost, and if we don't help Ron with this effort, we shall be lost. It makes me sad to think America is not taking more interest, even though there is a ground-swell of support already for the J.A.I.L. Legislation. We must keep the Drums rolling.

Lee Dorman
leedorman@...

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1159

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Thu Apr 6, 2006 3:11 am
Subject: * * * Appease, Appease! * * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                                    April 5, 2006
______________________________________________________
              Mission Statement               JNJ Library
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
______________________________________________________
Appease, Appease!

(By Ron Branson - Nat'l J.A.I.L. CIC)

No man escapes when freedom fails,

The best men rot in filthy jails.

And those who cried 'Appease,' 'Appease,'

Are hanged by those they tried to please!

From the beginning of time, men have pursued the avenue of security at a high price, including expressing a willingness to surrender their liberty for it. This known fact in the nature of mankind concerned our Founding Fathers. It was Benjamin Franklin, in his famous quote who said, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." In their day they believed it was essential that they give up their lives, if necessary, in order to secure liberty. They realized the value of liberty and freedom. However, today we are being brainwashed by the government and the media that it is essential we give up our liberty in order to preserve our future. The fact is, if we give up our freedom and liberty for temporary security, we will ultimately have neither liberty nor security.

Today we are at war. This war is not necessarily one of guns and of bullets, but one warring for the souls of men. Nevertheless, it is still war! America is being overthrown from within, and the judiciary is at the helm of it. This war is being led by the judges of this nation, both state and federal, who serve as the generals. My repeated statement is, "As go the judges, so goes the nation." Every ill in society has a judge somewhere at some level, state or federal, behind it. We have come to the obvious point that there is nowhere else to lay the blame but at the feet of the judiciary.

"In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury." Declaration of Independence. As with our Founding Fathers, our repeated petitions for redress of grievances have likewise gone unheeded and ignored.

At a conference where I participated, I walked up to a man who was the leader of another group and sought to introduce myself, and before I even got my name out of my mouth, I was gruffly told, "I know who you are!" I first thought this was an incident of mistaken identity. So when I attempted to clarify, I was told, "I know exactly who you are-- you are making the judges mad, and we want them to be our friends!" With that, I realized that

indeed he did know who I was, i.e., a man who upset the judges in this country. But more shocking to me was his additional statement that he and his organization was seeking to make friends of the judges across this country. I realized that indeed we were on opposite sides of the fence, since he was interested in playing politics in "kissing up" to the judges in this country, and making "friends" with them. As a result, I realized that he was upset even if I spoke well of either him or his organization because the judges would see that gesture and determine that his organization was in good standing with JAIL4Judges. Thus, I was perceived by him as an enemy that he could not associate with in any fashion or form, lest I "contaminate" their effort in making friends of the judges, even though admitting they were violating the law.

I do not like playing politics --never have, and never will! I believe that truth is our only ammunition against the lies and those who oppose us. "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:32.

As many of you know, we have thrown the government into total upheaval in South Dakota by placing South Dakota J.A.I.L. on the ballot to be voted upon this November 7th. Our enemies have come out of the woodwork against J.A.I.L.vigorously, making outlandish accusations and stating perversions of the truth in and effort to deceive and defraud the voters of South Dakota. Our enemies include the legislature, companies with special interests in keeping the status quo, and supposed "non-profit" organizations run by wealthy corporations giving grants, all determined to defeat Amendment E this November. The entire system is terrorized at what JAIL4Judges is doing in South Dakota, knowing that a win in S.D. will likely mean a defeat also in other states following November 7th. The legislature in South Dakota is going so far as to openly commit crimes and clearly violate the Constitution they swore to uphold, in opposing J.A.I.L.

Am I daunted? Not in the least! I am emboldened to meet the challenge, and face off with the enemy; and I believe many other JAILers and citizens are likewise emboldened to do the same. They are not ashamed to be identified with a "Certified Nut," a title given me by a South Dakota Senator according to the AP. Now is not the time to cut and run at the first shot fired over the

bow by the enemy; but a time when we must shout with Admiral David Farragut, "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!"

Folks, there is just absolutely no way we are going to appease our enemies, or be nice to them and get them to see it "our way." It is just not going to happen. There is but only one way to appease our enemies in South Dakota, and that is to withdraw South Dakota J.A.I.L. from the ballot so not one soul will vote on it. Nothing less! They have sworn for J.A.I.L.'s death, and we are not about to "make friends" with them, or seek their approval of what we doing. We are at war, friends, and they mean to destroy us if it were possible. God is on our side; rest assured of this consolation. They can never win.

May the words of Patrick Henry inspire you: "Mister President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? ....

"Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne!

"In vain, after these things, may we indulge in the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free -- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending -- if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon, until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained -- WE MUST FIGHT! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

"They tell us, sir, that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

"Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature has placed in our power. Three millions of people armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.

"The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged. Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable -- and let it come!!

"I repeat it sir, let it come! It is vain, sir, to extenuate the matter.
Gentlemen may cry "peace, peace" -- but there is no peace! The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field!

"Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?

"Forbid it, Almighty God - I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"

No man escapes when freedom fails,

The best men rot in filthy jails.

And those who cried 'Appease,' 'Appease,'

Are hanged by those they tried to please!

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@...

"..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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1160

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Apr 8, 2006 6:04 am
Subject: ** Nevada Authorities Apprehensive of J.A.I.L. **

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                               April 7, 2006
______________________________________________________
The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform Their Government.
The Right Upon Which All Other Rights Depend.
__________________________________________________
              Mission Statement               JNJ Library
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
______________________________________________________

Nevada Authorities Apprehensive of J.A.I.L.

Complaints against Nevada judges can take years to resolve

By BRENDAN RILEY

Associated Press Writer

CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) -- The wheels of justice can turn slowly in Nevada -- when the accused is a judge. The state Judicial Discipline Commission sometimes takes years to resolve complaints filed against Nevada judges.

One judge remains accused of sexually harassing a woman -- two years ago. Another has failed to complete community service for traffic violations and other misconduct dating to 1998 and a third was censured for campaign violations three years after they occurred.

Such delays are fueling an effort to speed the discipline process by the commission. Established in 1976, the seven-member Judicial Discipline Commission investigates allegations of misconduct or disability and has the power to remove or censure judges, order fines, apologies, training or counseling.

Those who want to see faster action range from groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada to the judges themselves, and the leading argument is that everyone is entitled to speedy justice -- from those who file complaints to the judge named in the complaint.

A proposal to require that investigations into complaints about judges be limited to six months died in the state Senate in 2005 because of cost concerns. It had been included in a bill sought by the Nevada Judges Association.

"You can rest assured that if the Judicial Discipline Commission doesn't bring this back in 2007, we will," said Carson City Justice of the Peace Robey Willis, co-chairman of the association's legislative committee and a past president of the group.

"A lot of our members are pretty adamant about having a time line on the investigations," said Willis, who also serves on the state discipline panel. "To us, that's pretty important."

Willis said that long delays in some cases before the Judicial Discipline Commission prompted the 2005 effort. The key concerns were that people who file complaints should see them resolved and that judges shouldn't have to operate under a cloud for extended periods, he said.

Gary Peck, executive director of the ACLU of Nevada, describes the delays in some commission cases as "just another way in which the entire system of judicial discipline is very badly broken in this state."

"The public, the complainants and the judicial system itself are entitled to timely decisions," Peck said, adding that the ACLU will join in the 2007 effort to speed up the process.

Douglas County District Judge Michael Gibbons, president of the Nevada District Judges Association, said he supports the discipline commission and questioned whether a rule change by that panel -- rather than legislation -- might resolve any problems stemming from delays.

While Gibbons urged caution in tinkering with the judicial discipline process, he also said a perception of excessive delays could figure in efforts to set up alternatives such as one proposed for the November ballot in South Dakota.

That plan, called Judicial Accountability Initiative Law or J.A.I.L, would create a special panel of citizens who could sanction judges by levying fines or even removing them from office.

Representatives of the group pushing the J.A.I.L proposal have said Nevada could be their next target if they succeed in South Dakota. Redress Inc., a nonprofit group in Nevada that helps people who believe they've been treated unfairly in the courts, is working on a similar initiative -- that also would cover lawyers and police officers.

Dave Sarnowski, general counsel and executive director of the Judicial Discipline Commission, said the panel has a duty to examine its processes and would "certainly take a look" at the proposal to speed up investigations.

But Sarnowski also said he believes the commission's handling of cases doesn't take an excessive amount of time given a process that involves more than an investigation and requires a lot of coordination among the part-time members of the commission who decide discipline cases.

Sarnowski said the process starts with a review of a complaint by a private investigator, followed by a review by the commission to determine whether there's reasonable cause to proceed.

After that, a special prosecutor conducts another review and, if warranted, specific charges are filed. Along the way, a judge can file statements that are made part of the case file. Ultimately, the commission issues a final ruling.

"That all takes time, especially given the fact that the commission meets once every three months, generally speaking," Sarnowski said.

Complicating the process is a requirement that all complaints and investigations be kept secret. Public disclosure occurs only if the commission charges a judge.

Among cases that have prompted concerns are:

--The drawn-out case against former part-time Henderson Judge Peter LaPorta, fined in 2004 for accepting money from a client without performing legal work and running up $8,000 in parking tickets that dated to 1998 or earlier. He avoided paying an $11,000 fine by promising to do community service -- and now faces another commission hearing in June to explain why he hasn't done that service.

--A commission order in December that gave Clark County District Judge Don Mosley another 11 months to complete a mandated ethics class. The class was ordered as part of the commission's 2002 finding that he committed ethical violations in his decade-long child custody dispute.

--A complaint filed March 28 against District Judge Michael Memeo, stemming from an alleged sexual harassment incident two years earlier. He allegedly held a marker about an inch away from a woman employee of the Juvenile Probation Department and pretended to draw circles around her breasts.

--A Feb. 3 order that censured a Fallon justice of the peace, Daniel Ward, for various ethics violations, including using his influence to interfere with a drug case involving his son. The incidents dated to early 2003.

--A pending case against Sylvia Beller, a southern Nevada hearing master accused of violating judicial canons by inappropriately ordering a teenage defendant to take off his shirt and then remove his belt -- leaving him in his boxer shorts with his pants around his ankles. The incident occurred in August 2004.

--The June 2005 censure of former Clark County District Judge Jeff Sobel for trying to pressure lawyers to give him campaign contributions for his unsuccessful 2002 re-election campaign.

------

On the Net:

Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline: http://judicial.state.nv.us/

AP-NY-04-07-06 0824EDT

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@...

"..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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1161

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Fri Apr 7, 2006 5:42 am
Subject: * * * JAILer, Scott Huminski, Wins Against Former Sheriff * * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California April 6, 2006 ______________________________________________________

The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform Abusive Government.

The Right Upon Which All Other Rights Depend

Mission Statement JNJ Library
Federal J.A.I.L. FAQs What?MeWarden?

JAILer, Scott Huminski, North Carolina,

Wins Against Former Sheriff

Scott Huminski has served J.A.I.L. faithfully over the last few years, and is honored soldier in the cause for truth. At the time of the below incident, Huminski served as our Vermont JAILer-In-Chief prior to being run out of Vermont. - Ron Branson

First Amendment Center

www.firstamendmentcenter.org

Courthouse gadfly wins 7-year free-speech odyssey

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=16710
By The Associated Press
03.30.06

MONTPELIER, Vt. � A former sheriff has been ordered to pay $50,001 for violating the free-speech rights of a courthouse gadfly in 1999.

On March 28, a jury in U.S. District Court in Brattleboro returned the verdict against R.J. Elrick, former Rutland County sheriff. Elrick must pay $50,000 in compensatory damages and $1 in punitive damages to Scott Huminski, 46, formerly of Bennington and now of North Carolina.

As sheriff, Elrick ordered Huminski to leave the Rutland courthouse grounds after Huminski parked there and posted a sign on his truck critical of a judge.

"Elrick's own attorney told the jury that they could only award punitive damages if Elrick was found to have acted with malice," Huminski said in an e-mail. "The jury did find that malice."

Huminski's lawyer, Robert Corn-Revere, confirmed the outcome of the case yesterday. Messages left at Elrick's office and at the office and home of his lawyer, Pietro Lynn, were not immediately returned. Elrick is now executive director of the Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council, which operates the state police academy.

"They (the jury) determined that punitive damages were justified because the deprivation of his First Amendment rights had been wanton, meaning reckless and with callous disregard" of Huminski's rights, said Corn-Revere, a Washington lawyer who specializes in First Amendment cases.

Of the $1 award for punitive damages, he said, "The jury decided to temper justice with mercy when it came to actually charging the sheriff with additional damages." He said attorneys fees in the case against Elrick were yet to be determined.

The case was triggered by an incident in 1999, when Huminski was angry about the outcome of a case he had had in the Vermont District Court in Bennington in which Judge Nancy Corsones presided.

Corsones was later assigned to Rutland. Huminski, who for a time variously described himself as a "court reporter" and "defender of justice," went to the Rutland courthouse while Corsones was presiding there, parked in the parking lot and put a sign on the side of his truck that read "Judge Corsones: Butcher of the Constitution."

Court officials later said they ordered Huminski away from the courthouse grounds, and barred him from all courthouses in Vermont, because they feared he might turn violent, which he didn't.

Huminski filed suit against the judges, Rutland court manager Karen Predom, Elrick and the Rutland County Sheriff's Department. The state attorney general's office settled Predom's portion of the case with Huminski last year, agreeing to pay $200,000 in damages and legal fees.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Corsones and Judge Patricia Zimmerman, who were both involved in the no-trespass orders against Huminski, violated his First Amendment rights. But it ruled the judges were not liable for damages.

Corn-Revere said the jury's task was to determine the damages to assess against Elrick. Still to be decided by Judge J. Garvan Murtha is whether to issue the court order sought by Huminski and Corn-Revere that would bar the sheriff's department from enforcing any similar no-trespass order against Huminski in the future.

While the First Amendment case was pending, Huminski was a prolific writer of e-mails and letters accusing Vermont officials including Attorney General William Sorrell and former Gov. Howard Dean of corruption.

Huminski said of Elrick in an e-mail yesterday, "So now we have a malicious civil rights violator training every single police officer in Vermont."

Corn-Revere said he hoped the former sheriff had learned something about the First Amendment. "Hopefully this decision will help him get better training on compliance with the Constitution. ... I think he's gotten an advance tutorial at this point."

(Scott Huminski's email address is s_huminski@...)

Scott, our congratulations to you on behalf of J.A.I.L.

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@...

"..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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1162

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Thu Apr 6, 2006 11:56 pm
Subject: * J.A.I.L. Splitting South Dakota Open *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
_____________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                            April 6, 2006
_____________________________________________                                          Mission Statement                     JNJ Library
Federal J.A.I.L.             FAQs                What?MeWarden?
_____________________________________________

J.A.I.L. Splitting South Dakota Open

Prior to Amendment E and our collecting of the signatures necessary to qualify it in South Dakota, we talked humorously about the repercussion that would be going around in the newspapers if J.A.I.L. passed. I said we will hear that South Dakota will split wide open across the state and South Dakota will fall into the center of the earth, creating such a suction that the sky will be sucked in behind it. The South Dakota proponent stated that its passage will be said to create global warming, global cooling, and continental drift by our opponents. How on target we were. Just take a look at the following article from the America Judicature Society comparing J.A.I.L. to an earthquake in South Dakota.

An Earthquake in South Dakota?

http://www.ajs.org/ajs/ajs_editorial-template.asp?content_id=472

Summary

A proposed amendment to the South Dakota Constitution that was inspired and promoted by a Californian and that responds to no problem in South Dakota would destroy the partnership between judicial independence and judicial accountability in the state, fundamentally alter its form of government, and leave its citizens without the protections that independent courts have provided since 1889.
Posted: 2/24/2006

Last August we published an editorial that used a variety of recent proposals and programs which have been promoted under the banner of "judicial accountability" to "illuminate the partnership between accountability and independence and thus to distinguish means that would foster that partnership from those which might destroy it." (See Judicial Accountability, July-August 2005, at 4). Little did we realize at the time that a proposed state constitutional amendment which would destroy the partnership was circulating in South Dakota, one that now appears to have garnered a sufficient number of valid signatures to be placed on the ballot in November of this year.

The "Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.)" would create a special grand jury for the purpose of determining whether judges civilly sued as a result of their judicial acts should be stripped of immunity and whether they should be indicted for criminal violations. The special grand jury would be composed of those drawn at random from registered voters and any citizens who volunteered, although members of the state bar, judges, prosecutors and law enforcement personnel, among others, would not be eligible to serve. The special grand jury would be directed to construe "[a]ll allegations in the complaint ... liberally in favor of the complainant" and reminded on a monthly basis "that they are entrusted by the people of this State with the duty of restoring judicial accountability and a perception of justice, and are not to be swayed by artful presentation by the judge."

Judges of both law and fact, the special grand jury would deny immunity "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 state or federal constitutions. "Blocking" is defined as "[a]ny act that impedes the lawful conclusion of a case, to include unreasonable delay and willful rendering of an unlawful or void judgment or order."

In addition to being denied immunity in a civil suit, a judge who was the subject of three adverse immunity decisions ("strikes") would be permanently removed from office and lose one half of his or her retirement benefits. Moreover, the proposal would deny public reimbursement of defense and indemnity expenses, and representation "by any elected or appointed counsel," to judges complained against or sued civilly pursuant to the amendment. Judges indicted by the special grand jury would be tried before a special trial jury that determined both law and fact and imposed the criminal sentence.

We are not aware of any case in which it has been alleged that a South Dakota judge engaged in behavior of the sort targeted by this proposed constitutional amendment, and its sponsors do not cite any. That is not surprising. For J.A.I.L. is the pet project of a frustrated California litigant who has been unsuccessful in putting it on the ballot in his home state. His hope apparently is that, if successfully adopted in a carpetbag in South Dakota, it would receive a more enthusiastic reception in California. We are reminded of a federal judge's wise observation: "Give a bad dogma a good name and its bite may become as bad as its bark."

We hope and expect that the voters of South Dakota will greet this attempt to export an unnatural disaster just as they would an attempt to export California's natural disasters. There is no need to "restore judicial accountability and a perception of justice" in South Dakota. South Dakota judges, who must stand for election or retention election, are already amply accountable because of that fact, because most of their decisions are subject to appellate review, and because the state has a system for investigating and imposing discipline for judicial misconduct.

Even if there were a problem of judicial misconduct in South Dakota, J.A.I.L. would not be a good solution. Apart from the fact that most of the conduct it targets would not be shielded by immunity under existing law, at least one of its standards is so vague as to invite abuse, and its provisions on attorney appointment and reimbursement for judges would leave them hopelessly exposed to disappointed litigants. South Dakota voters will surely recognize that, as scholars have pointed out, without judicial immunity for most judicial acts judges, including judges in elective systems, would lack the independence necessary to apply the law without fear or favor.

� Copyright American Judicature Society, 2004.
Questions? Call us weekdays 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. CST. 515.271.2281.

No problems with the judiciary in South Dakota? While I was

collecting signatures for this ballot measure, people were sharing

with me about the evils of the judges in South Dakota. One

gentleman told me he knew two judges locally who belonged in prison,

not on the bench. Among those condemning the judges was a 31-year sheriff named John Eggers, (Ret.). A few others were afraid to sign,

lest a known judge by them discovered they signed in support of the measure. You know it is bad in South Dakota when voters are afraid to

sign their name to make judges accountable. What kind of a voting

process is that?

It was just a couple days ago that the Argus Leader, one of the largest circulated newspapers in the State of South Dakota, published an article, "First Amendment Under Attack." Therein the South Dakota judiciary

was described as attacking the foundational principle of our First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. " 'After 40 years of newspapering

and advocating for the First Amendment, Blegen said he's discouraged

by what's happening in South Dakota. "We're not gaining,'' he said.

"You look around at other states and openness is a way of life. Here,

it's just the opposite.'' When the First Amendment case came on for hearing, Judge Rodney Steele is said to have rolled his eyes around

and say, " 'What First Amendment?' " Just as well could such a judge

say during a constitutional argument, "What Constitution?" Don't believe

it for one second that there are not some very serious problems with the judiciary in South Dakota. I heard and listened to the people as I collected signatures in South Dakota. The people are very disappointed with their judiciary in South Dakota, and I personally received at least a 95 to 98% participation in signing to make them accountable. -Ron Branson

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@...

"..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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1163

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Tue Apr 11, 2006 7:11 pm
Subject: *** "It's Time For California To Be Humbled" ***

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                               April 11, 2006
______________________________________________________
              Mission Statement               JNJ Library
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
______________________________________________________

"It's Time For California

To Be Humbled"

Like the recent experiences in Illinois when the percentages of wrongful convictions became so high that the governor suspended all sentences of death penalty prisoners, California is now taking a hard look at their wrongful convictions, searching for an answer.

The problem is that the judges and the prosecution are in bed together seeking to convict as many people as they can. In some cases the expression of being in bed together may be taken in the fullest literal sense, as I have been informed in recent weeks, where the judge had a love affair with the prosecutor in the same case.

Among our JAILers is one Bob Lokey, who was thrown in prison for two life sentences without the possibility of parole, and who has now been exonerated, and is taking on the system that kept him confined within its prison bars for many years of his life.

In past years deputy district attorneys in various offices of Los Angeles County were conducting "conviction" contests. Points were accumulated

among the competing district attorney offices by acquiring the maximum number of collective "conviction" years. Bonuses were given for death penalty convictions. Some of the judges in Los Angeles County, most of whom arose to judgeship from the D.A.'s Office, even got involved in the "conviction" contest, helping their fellow D.A. comrades in their prior offices to win. As a result, sentences became longer and longer, with justice being of less and less concern. These contests were not unique to Los Angeles, as the Los Angeles Times newspaper reported on other states involved, such as Texas.

The below article is not surprising at all. The problem has become so pronounced that there is now a search for a "political remedy." The fact is that J.A.I.L. is the only answer to this problem.

-Ron Branson-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-wrongly9apr09,0,7832171.story?page=1&coll=la-home-headlines

Victims of the Justice System

A conference at UCLA brings together the state's wrongly convicted, to share their experiences and push for legal changes.

By Henry Weinstein, Times Staff Writer
April 9, 2006

One by one they ascended the stage and introduced themselves, each an embodiment of the legal system's fallibility in California.

"My name is Herman Atkins," a tall ponytailed man said. "The state of California stole 12 years of my life for a rape and robbery I did not commit in Riverside."

"Good morning, my name is Gloria Killian," a well-spoken middle-aged woman said. "The state stole 22 years of my life for a robbery and murder I did not commit in Sacramento."

"Good morning. My name is Ken Marsh," a third speaker said. "The state took 21 years of my life for a murder I did not commit in San Diego in 1983."

Seventeen people in all reiterated the point to a packed ballroom at UCLA on Saturday: that although they now were free, countless other innocent people are imprisoned in the state. Atkins, Killian, Marsh and the others were wrongfully convicted and cleared years later.

They took part in the event, called "The Faces of Wrongful Conviction," to dramatize the flaws in the state's criminal justice system. The gathering was sponsored by the American Civil Liberties Union, Death Penalty Focus, Amnesty International and others.

It came as a state Senate-created commission is beginning to study and review the criminal justice system in California, with a particular focus on the causes of wrongful convictions and possible disparities in how death sentences are meted out. Former California Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp, chairman of the commission; San Francisco attorney Jon Streeter, the vice chairman; and Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen, the commission's executive director, all were in attendance Saturday.

"We realize the system is imperfect," said Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a pro law-enforcement organization in Sacramento, in a telephone interview. If the commission comes up with needed reforms, that will be a public benefit, he said.

Scheidegger added, however, that he thought individuals sentenced to long terms, rather than the death penalty, were "more vulnerable" to errors in their cases, because death row inmates are entitled to more legal assistance after a conviction.

After identifying themselves and the duration of their time behind bars, each participant in Saturday's ceremony hung handcuffs on a wall on the stage and then 10 more pairs on behalf of so-called exonerees unable to attend the two-day conference.

As the half-hour event, the first of its kind in California, concluded, the crowd gave the group of former inmates a prolonged standing ovation.

The speakers were a varied group. A few, such as Atkins, were cleared as a result of DNA evidence discovered after their trials. But most � including Killian and Marsh � gained their freedom after even longer legal battles in which there was no magic bullet like DNA.

There were whites, African Americans, Latinos, an Asian American and a Native American. They had come from as far south as San Diego and as far north as Yreka. All but Killian were male.

They had served as little as one year � Bobby Herrera, for assault in Santa Clara County � and as much as 24 years � Thomas Goldstein, for murder in Long Beach. Two had been on death row.

Summaries of their cases indicate they were victims of such problems as inaccurate eyewitness identifications, unreliable jailhouse informants, the failure of police and prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence and faulty forensics.

More than 200 people have been wrongfully convicted in California since 1989, said Jeffrey Chin, assistant director of the Innocence Project at California Western School of Law in San Diego, one of the conference sponsors.

That's one a month, said state Sen. Gloria Romero, (D-Los Angeles), who opened the conference. Romero has been pushing for a death penalty moratorium, but it is an uphill battle. "According to the latest Field Poll, 63% of Californians support the death penalty," she said. "We have work to do."

Natasha Minsker of the ACLU said the purpose of the conference was twofold: to draw attention to "wrongful convictions and to strategize solutions for much-needed change."

Stanford University law professor Lawrence Marshall, who played a key role in getting several innocent men off death row in Illinois when he was teaching in that state in the 1990s, called Saturday's event "truly momentous."

"It's time for California to be humbled by its capacity for error" in its criminal justice system, he said.

In November 1998, Marshall organized the first national conference of death row exonerees at Northwestern Law School. That event is believed to have set the stage for a death penalty moratorium in Illinois and major changes in the system there.

More broadly, it awakened Americans to the realization that innocent people had been sent to death rows across the country.

Although Saturday's conference included several death penalty-related panels, the gathering at UCLA had a broader focus, particularly since most of the California exonerees had been serving long sentences rather than facing execution. California has more individuals � at least 28,000 � serving life sentences than any other state.

Throughout the day, the exonerees shared experiences among themselves and with the wider audience. Most were upbeat, but their suffering was obvious.

Marsh, for instance, developed such severe separation anxiety during his years away from his wife, Brenda, that he cannot bear to be apart from her, even for a few moments to take a group photograph with the others wrongfully convicted.

She accompanied him in the photo and also onstage.

He introduced her by saying she had been in her own prison for the 21 years he was behind bars.

Despite losing many years of their lives, several of the exonerees said in interviews that they were not bitter. "Bitterness and anger will destroy you," said Killian, who was a law student when a man involved in a Sacramento murder made up a story that she had masterminded the killing. Now 59, Killian has formed a nonprofit organization, Action Committee for Women in Prison, based in Pasadena.

She lives with Joyce Ride, the mother of former astronaut Sally Ride, who spent thousands of dollars of her own money to hire an investigator and an appellate lawyer to look into Killian's case after visiting her in prison and becoming convinced of her innocence.

"My focus," Killian said, "is on the women I left behind and the changes I can effect to ensure that this does not happen to other people."

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1164

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:40 pm
Subject: * * * Everyone Only A Click Away From Incarceration * * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

Everyone Only A Click

Away From Incarceration

Society in Jail

by Jeffrey Tucker

[Posted on Monday, April 10, 2006]
Subscribe at email services and tell others.

"What are you in for?" the inmate of Lee County jail asked the new prisoner.

"Rolling through a stop sign in my subdivision," answered the new inmate, to gales of laughter from others languishing in the same cell.

As they laugh, crumbs from their hard, dry sandwiches � distributed by the wardens twice per day � flew from their mouths to add to the debris of filth on the floor that was ground up by the cracked plastic sleeping mats and absorbed by the old, thin blankets inmates use to keep warm in this cold and wet 8x8 room.

The new inmate today joined the 500 prisoners, among whom were some of the most violent threats to society � but also people who, like Inmate 501, are no threat to anyone.

He had been trying to make his one phone call, to which you are supposedly entitled when you land in the big house. The phone would only call collect, even for local calls. That meant that it couldn't call cell phones. Most local services don't even have collect-call options anymore. So you dial and dial but the phone might as well be a prop on the wall. There is no way out.

There is also no way for you to be called, by anyone. You have no cell phone. No laptop. No book. No watch, and there is no clock on the wall. No one knows what time it is. No one who does know will tell you. Not even a single scrap of paper are you allowed to take into the cell after your arrest. You can only stand there in your paper-thin prison clothes and plastic sandals.

"Man, this is jail," someone screamed as the new inmate tried to dial for the tenth time. "Jail! Phones don't work in JAIL!"

So Inmate 501 stood for an unknown number of hours, hoping that he would be bailed out by his wife and kids who had seen him handcuffed and dragged away from home after Sunday brunch. He also hoped that this would happen before he needed to use the toilet, which was filthy and frontally exposed to everyone, including the women coming and going.

The saga began last October, when he rolled through the same stop sign in front of a private swimming pool that he and fifty others roll through several times per day. He thought he had paid the ticket but he hadn't, and the court date came and went. He received no other notices.

But something interesting was brewing in local politics after he received the ticket. The local newspapers ran a series that claimed to unearth ticket-fixing going on in the Auburn city government. It seems that some friends of powerful people were getting their tickets dismissed. Auburn was already known for its lax enforcement but this had the whiff of corruption.

The papers lacked details but there were hints that the whole story was a result of a dispute between an elected official and an appointed city manager. The city manager later resigned or was kicked out.

The suggestion of corruption was enough to attract the attention of the FBI, which made some inquiries. The combination of the media pressure and FBI curiosity was enough to force a change in city policy. The new policy in Auburn would be total crackdown on ticket violators, particularly those that didn't pay and didn't show up to their court dates.

Now, usually people who don't show up for court dates for petty issues such as this are just contacted and eventually pay. But technically, they can also be arrested, just as this person was. When the city government is under pressure to show that it is not corrupt but good and clean and tough on crime, the result is that the fine print becomes a license for just about anything.

So in the last several months, the city has been busy issuing warrants for people who have outstanding tickets of any sort. Cops have been tracking down people in their workplaces, homes, on the streets or anywhere, and treating them all like violent offenders.

The new prisoner, for example, who had never been arrested in his life, still had discolored marks on his wrists where the handcuffs had been slapped on.

We tend to think of the law as some sort of oiled machine that works according to the regulations. The truth is that the law is administered by people with a great deal of discretion over how others are treated. The wardens and correctional officials can choose to humiliate a person in whatever way they want. They can put you in prison clothes that fit or in some that are way too tight. They can tell you the time or not. Leave you to languish or make a call for you. They can insult you and lie about your status or be kind.

The only sure way to elicit something approaching humane behavior from them is to crawl and beg like a dog. You are worse than a slave, because you have nothing of value to offer your new owners. You are worse than an animal in a zoo because you are of no value to your captors. They really don't care if you live or die. Those who do care cannot help.

No one has more discretion than the judge, who holds your life in his hands. You are dependent on his mood of the moment. If he lets you off easy, he considers himself benevolent. If he sentences you to 10 years or a life in prison, he is only doing his job. It's always your fault for not having been sufficiently subservient at the outset.

The dramatic change in Inmate 501's life occurred in the course of minutes. All it took was a knock on the door. It mattered not at all that the supposed crime was completely innocuous. Once you are on the wrong side of the law, your life is officially worth nothing to anyone but those who can do little or nothing to help you.

People talk of government compassion. But there is no compassion in jail, which is where anyone who resists the state � even in the smallest way � ultimately ends up. People talk of social justice but to implement it means requiring everyone to make a choice: obey or face humiliation and servitude.

Yes, people can "file grievances" or "sue," and that is always the first thought of anyone who finds himself in the hands of captors. But to whom do you appeal? Whom do you sue? You are here again appealing to the same class of people, the same group of coercive agents, who have robbed you of your freedom. Your rights extend only as far as your masters allow them to extend.

People who criticize government as nothing but beating, killing, and hanging � to use Mises's phrase � are sometime accused of using exaggerated and hyperbolic language. Surely government is more than that and is not always that. Something as simple as a stop sign doesn't beat you or kill you!

And yet, what the critics of government mean is that all law, even that which appears to be a mere guideline and a help, must ultimately be enforced at the point of a gun. It represents a threat to obey or lose all freedom.

This insight applies to all law, whether it results from a Constitution, legislation, or appears out of nothing more than a regulatory body. Every regulation, no matter how small is enforced at the point of the gun. Every tax can result in handcuffing and jailing and even killing those who fail to fork over. Hidden behind each mandate is an armed tough in jackboots and a bulletproof vest who is prepared to beat and kill to serve the state and its laws.

As legislation extends, so does the coercive arm of the state, its police powers, its jails, and its reach over society. It is like a poisonous fog that descends and grows more by the day, seeping into every nook and cranny of life: schools, businesses, homes, churches. Nowhere is exempt. The sound of the jailer's key rattling grows louder and more ear-piercing. The culture of the jail, where people are treated worse than animals, proliferates. You can't move without risking life or limb.

At some point in his day, Inmate 501's heard someone holler out his name. The electronic click on the bars sounded and the door opened. He had been bailed out, $500 in cash having been extracted from his bank account and forked over to the city police. He was now free � pending payment of the ticket and another court date.

He left behind 500 others who are not so fortunate. Some of them are hardened criminals. Others are in jail for smoking pot. Others were in the same boat as he: a minor traffic violation gone wrong. None have rights. All are captive, like citizens in an occupied city where there is only violence and no law.

But how free is he really? He lives in a society where nothing takes place outside the purview of the state, which is to say that he will always live one step away from the prison cell that was his home for a day. One or two wrong moves and he has lost it all. All of society is not yet a jail such as you find in totalitarian societies or a society under occupation due to military conquest, but with every expansion of the state, the jailers get that much more power over all of us.

Their power is not always overt but it always lies in waiting. This was triggered by a zealous cop looking to fill a ticket quota, and an attempt to clean up government from corruption � prompted by a media-driven non-scandal that attracted the attention of the Feds. It resulted in personal catastrophe. We really don't get all the government we pay for, and thank goodness. Lord protect us on the day that we do.

Jeffrey Tucker is editor of Mises.org. Send him mail. Comment on the blog.

Tucker@...

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1165

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:06 am
Subject: Judicial Accountability Initiative Reaches Voter in S.D.

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                               April 12, 2006
______________________________________________________
              Mission Statement               JNJ Library
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
______________________________________________________

Judicial Accountability Initiative Reaches Voters in South Dakota

By Gary Treistman

FreeNY April 2006 Issue

The grass roots coalition of judicial reform activists known as J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law), have managed against all odds to bring forth their Initiative directly to the voters in South Dakota.

The group seeks to pierce the veil of Judicial Immunity that judges in this country enjoy and often abuse. Such legal immunity shields judges from all civil and most criminal liability stemming from any decision(s) they may have issued pursuant to or in conclusion of legal proceedings before them. For more background, see How the Courts Stole the Right to Petition for Grievance.

This self-serving court-made rule, first proclaimed by the courts in 1793 and which is unsupported by any text in the Constitution, prevents recovery of damages suffered by litigants proceeding before a judge where the judge violated the law; see Supreme Court�s affirmation of the rule, Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978). (a case where a judge unilaterally ordered the sterilization of a 15 year old girl, involuntarily and w/o her knowledge, solely on the verbal request of her mother who complained that her daughter was dating men too old for her.)

In practice, what this means is that the courts and the judges who run them have formed a united cabal that protects itself and its members from ever being liable for decisions and orders they issue, no matter how illegal.

The courts maintain that rule, irrespective of egregious or plain violations of law a judge�s actions may have been. It makes no difference whether a judge�s actions caused wrongful death, permanent injury, wrongful imprisonment, property destruction or other offense. It makes no difference whether the judge even had jurisdiction or authorization of any kind under law, to do what he did, the rule says they are completely immune from redress of the aggrieved parties, and preempted from being sued for their otherwise unquestionably tortuous acts.

In South Dakota, a private businessman subsidized the J.A.I.L. Initiative, obtaining 46,800 ballot signatures, and attaining the right to put forth directly to the SD voters whether to make the Initiative effective as State Constitutional Law....

Such provisions, if they achieve inaction into law, would act as a people�s safety net against judicial malpractice, and provide a civil remedy for those aggrieved by a judge�s legal negligence. Although considered revolutionary in legal circles, the law would be only effective after standard due process has been given a chance to correct any perceived breaches of judicial discretion.

Under the new law, judges still retain the benefit of the doubt when someone questions their judicial actions; a potential complainant against some judge must first exhaust all judicial remedies available under traditional due process, i.e., working within the court system, motions to reconsider, appeals, certioraris, mandamus�, etc. . . . and giving the system a chance to police itself.

But if after all this, an unsuccessful complainant still feels justice is being subverted, he would have the right to petition a special grand jury, required by the law to be made up of citizens who are not attorneys, judges, police officers or judicially related employees.

The special grand jury would have the power to hear the complaint, review the evidence and the record, have subpoena powers as needed, and upon good faith consideration, would also have the power to formally strip the defendant judge of his presumptive entitlement to judicial immunity.

A complainant/plaintiff would then have the right to prosecute a civil suit against the judge for any legally wrongful and civilly liable acts the judge may have committed while presiding over the subject claimant�s case. Such a suit would proceed like any other civil suit, with all other protections and due process� in place.

Legitimate causes of action provided by the new law, would be constrained to otherwise uncontroversial breaches of a judge�s authority and scope of discretion, specifically:

�Deliberate violations of statutory law, violation of non-discretionary court rules of procedure, or that of the state or federal constitutions.

�Fraud or conspiracy.

�Intentional violations of due process.

�Deliberate disregard of material facts.

�Judicial acts without jurisdiction.

�Acts that impede the lawful conclusion of a case, including unreasonable delay and willful rendering of an unlawful judgment or order.

It is the acknowledged hope and motivation of the Initiative�s proponents that the mere threat of appeal to such a special grand jury will act as a wake-up call to the judiciary, and without even being invoked, would induce the courts to clean up the judicial sloppiness and abuse that legal immunity allows to go unchecked.

It is expected that the quality of court administration and judicial determinations will increase significantly from the enactment of this law.

Proponents of the Initiative hope that if it meets with success in South Dakota, a precedent and example will be set for the rest of the nation, and enthusiasm for the new law will spread to other states.

The Initiative, having only qualified as an elective choice for SD voters, has already caused major official backlashes from those who stand to gain by maintaining the status quo, as almost all politicians, attorneys, judges and pro-government newsmedia in South Dakota have lambasted the Imitative, and implausibly argue that somehow judges should never be legally responsible when they break the law.

Furthermore instead of clear explanation in defense of judicial immunity, critics of the initiative resort to questioning the reputations and motivations of the its proponents, imputing some spurious or nefarious agenda.

The South Dakota legislature as a body even went so far as to pass an official resolution urging the voters to vote against the initiative.

State officials have spent public funds convening hearings, lobbying the public with advertisements and official notices, threatening that anarchy and social chaos will occur if it succeeds at the ballot box. The media and statist pundits regularly misrepresent the terms of the Initiative in editorials and articles to the public, claiming that convicted felons will be able to sue judges for the sheer fact they were found guilty,

(In fact, under the Initiative a judge would still be immune from such suit if s/he administered the proceedings pursuant to law)

Despite the fact that elected officials have neither the jurisdiction or authority to take an official stance on such ballot initiatives, they have used their official status and tax payer dollars to oppose this grass roots popular effort for reform; this is both a conflict of interest and usurps the public�s discretion to make an independent choice.

In November 2006, hysterical South Dakota legislators and the legal community will find out if the voters choose to demand effective accountability from all employees of the government, or if they will let judges continue to proclaim that they can legally "Do No Wrong", a legal principle that they claim as their divine right and legacy, conferred directly from the social class of pre-Magna Carta Kings and Royalty.

"It is better to have a bad plan, than no plan at all"

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1166

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:22 am
Subject: *** "Worrisome" Says California Chief Justice Ronald M. George ***

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California April 15, 2006 ______________________________________________________

The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform Abusive Government.

The Right Upon Which All Other Rights Depend

Mission Statement JNJ Library
Federal J.A.I.L. FAQs What?MeWarden?

"Worrisome" Says California Chief Justice Ronald M. George

"What's disturbing about this current effort is that the attacks seem to be escalating and gathering momentum.

That's worrisome."

California Lawyer Magazine - April 2006 issue

(Page 13 - ESQ. Edited by Martin Lasden)

letters_callaw@...

Judging the Judges

By Susan Davis

A grassroots movement seeks revenge against offending jurists.

IF GARY ZERMAN HAS HIS WAY, judges across the country will soon find themselves a lot more exposed to angry litigants. A Valencia-based sole practitioner, Zerman first got riled up about judges in the 1990s when he was representing two plaintiffs in a legal malpractice suit. When he got to court, he says, the judge made him sit down, cutting short his opening statement, and then told the jurors to find for the defense. Zerman pursued the case all the way up to the California Supreme Court, but without success. He then tried to sue the offending judges in federal court - only to learn that they are immune from such suits. "It's like the judges are the new kings," he marvels.

Soon afterward, Zerman hooked up with Ron Branson, a military prison guard turned pastor turned cult investigator, who also had a negative experience with the courts. Together they formed Jail4Judges - a nonprofit that has mounted a national campaign that looks pretty quirky but is starting to be taken seriously.

Most conspicuously, Zerman's group has been pushing hard for a constitutional amendment that would establish 13-member grand juries to investigate, indict, and sentence judges who abuse their power. And though the group failed three times to secure the required number of signatures to put a Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (JAIL) on the ballot here in California, this fall voters in South Dakota will get the chance to vote on one. Jail4Judges plans to launch a similar effort in Nevada as well.

Of course, the judicial immunity that Zerman is so steamed up about has never been absolute. It protects judges only against civil lawsuits, claims of civil rights abuses, and liability for judgment calls made within the confines of their official jurisdictions. But it doesn't protect them from charges related to judicial acts taken outside their jurisdictions or others arising from non-judicial acts on the job, such as sexual harassment. Then, too, all 50 states plus the District of Columbia have boards or commissions that hear and investigate complaints against judges. In 2004 this state's Commission on Judicial Performance received 1,114 new complaints about active and former California judges (see MCLE, page 45). Eight percent of those led to staff inquiries and four percent to investigations.

But that isn't enough to satisfy Jail4Judges. On its website, the group blames judicial immunity for a wide range of ills, including "ignored laws, ignored evidence, sophistry, eminent domain abuse, confiscation of property without due process, probate fraud, secret dockets, graft, falsifications of court records and other abuses."

If nothing else, Jail4Judges has flair. Cofounder Branson, for one, refers to himself as the organization's "Five-Star National JAIL Commander-In-Chief." And in Nevada, Jail4Judges member Steven Dempsey rails not only against abusive judges but also against the fluoridation of tap water.

Still, even at the highest levels, esteemed members of the judiciary aren't taking these people lightly. "The question of judicial immunity has come up over and over again in the last 150 years," says the chief justice of the California Supreme Court, Ronald M. George. "I remember as a child the move to impeach Earl Warren. What's disturbing about this current effort is that the attacks seem to be escalating and gathering momentum. That's worrisome." --Susan Davis

(Response by Attorney Gary Zerman, gzerman@...)

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

From: Gary Zerman

To: letters_callaw@...

Cc: victoryusa@...

Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 9:22 AM

Subject: Your (Susan Davis') April 2006Califorian Lawyer Piece "Judging the Judges"

Dear California Lawyer Editor:

I (along with Ron Branson and our Judicial Accountability Initiative Law
-www.jail4judges.org,) am the subject of "Judging the Judges - A grassroots movement seeks revenge against offending jurists." [April]. Your first
sentence reads: "If Gary Zerman has his way, judges across the country will soon find themselves a lot more exposed to angry litigants." Contrary to
your assertion, I have always sought, and still seek, when I (or anyone)
goes to court, to simply get my (their) day in court: a fair judge, a
proper finding of the facts, a proper application of the law and that a
measure of justice be done. And when that is not done because of judicial
misconduct (or worse), I do seek to hold those judges accountable.

You want to term that revenge? I can't stop you. Actually, revenge is
where: in July of 1993 Giani Luigi Ferri went shooting his lawyers (and
others) at Petit & Martin in San Francisco, killing 9, wounding 6; in
November of 2003 William Strier started shooting at his new attorney Gerald Curry, who luckily danced for cover around the tree at the Van Nuys
courthouse; and, in February 2005 Bart A. Ross lied in wait for federal
Judge Judith Lefkow at her home in Chicago, after he killed her husband and
mother. See the essay "The Plague of Violence" in your August 1993 edition that predicted something like this.

Ironically, I noted that in your same April edition, the MCLE self study
article was "Judges Behaving Badly." It started with Socrates' famous
admonition: "Four things belong to a judge: to hear courteously, to answer
wisely, to consider soberly, and to decide impartially." Conspicuously
absent from Socrates' admonition was - immunity. Perhaps that was Plato,
who came up with "Philosopher Kings." But fact is, there is no Easter
Bunny. Nor are there Philosopher Kings. (Even if there were, we never
wanted them in America. We fought a revolution to get rid kings and royalty
ruling over us. Instead we chose a Republic and the jury system, albeit
today less and less.) Nor just because you give one the title "judge" and a
$29.00 cloth robe, does that insure the judge comes with a halo. In fact
the almost absolute power given to a judge, can cause just the opposite
condition. See Bracey v. Gramley, 522 U.S. 899 (1997) recapping the federal sting "Operation Greylord" in Chicago and learn about "bagmen," "bribes" and 14 judges who went to jail. Why haven't there been more Operation Greylords?

Typically your piece was slanted, using biased terms such as "revenge,"
"angry litigants," "so steamed up about" and "rails ... against," foregoing
the usual pejoratives "disgruntled," "vexatious," "gadfly," and "pest."
Thanks for that. You did though, in habitual journalistic favoritism, omit
our core arguments about the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity (AJI),
that: 1) there is NO authority in our Constitution giving immunity to
judges (nor do any of the USSC cases on AJI ever cite any); 2) judges giving judges AJI violates the doctrine of separation of powers - the so-called checks & balances (nor do any of the USSC cases mention this); 3) AJI turns the sovereignty of We the People on its head, by placing the judiciary over, above and beyond the People, making the servant the master; and, 4) why has our USSC condoned eugenics? See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978).

Note, neither Chief Justice Roberts, nor Justice Alito, were asked any of
these questions at their recent Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation
hearings. Checks & balances?

Your piece asserted that "... judicial immunity ... has never been absolute." Correct in theory, but almost totally wrong regarding application. Name the last judge impeached, federal or state. (We have a joke around J.A.I.L. - Impeachment of judges is like Haley's Comet, it comes around once every 64 years.) Judges can be criminally prosecuted, but in fact seldom, if ever are; and if they are, still usually get a break on punishment. See "L.A. County's Dual Standard of Justice Marches On," 1/11/98 LA Times, p.M6, by Charles Lindner, asserting this "insider justice" happens because of the "closed fraternity" between judges and prosecutors.

You citied 2004 Commission on Judicial Performance statistics: that of
1,114 complaints received, 8% led to staff inquiries and 4% to
investigations. Pitiful. A manufacturing concern handling complaints in
that fashion would be out of business - pronto. But here we are dealing
with people and their rights, which calls for greater integrity than products or services. You omitted stats for discipline actually imposed. Review of the 10-Year Summary of Commission Activity, notes a grossly inordinate amount of "0" (goose eggs) and "<1%" (less than one percent) tallies for actual discipline.

The federal system is worse, with over 99% of complaints against federal
judges routinely dismissed. For example, see 'WITHOUT MERIT: The Empty Promise of Judicial Discipline," by Elena Sassower, Massachusetts School of Law, The Long Term View, Vol. 4, No. 1, p.90 (1997), www.judgewatch.org. More recent, see "9th Circuit's Kozinski Blasts L.A. Judge, Majority in Discipline Case," 10/4/05 The Recorder, by Justin Scheck, www.law.com, with the first sentence: "Can federal judges be trusted to police themselves? Alex Kozinski isn't so sure." In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, No. 03-89037, Judicial Council, 9th Circuit, 9/25/05, where the complaint was dismissed for the 3rd and final time (despite finding the involved judge deliberately acted without legal authority), Justice Kozinski wrote in dissent: "... It does not inspire confidence in the federal judiciary when we treat our own so much better than everybody else." Bingo!

Your piece ends quoting Chief Justice George: "... What's disturbing about
this current effort is that the attacks seem to be escalating and gathering
momentum. That's worrisome." We agree. Meet with us Chief Justice George and let's work together to solve these crucial problems in our judicial system. Please be a leader. Or will your reply be "Let them eat cake." We hope to hear from you. GLZ.

...

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@...

"..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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1167

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Fri Apr 14, 2006 6:49 am
Subject: *** Then, Why All The Fuss? ***

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California April 13, 2006 ______________________________________________________

The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform Abusive Government.

The Right Upon Which All Other Rights Depend

Mission Statement JNJ Library
Federal J.A.I.L. FAQs What?MeWarden?

Then, Why All The Fuss?

As Shakespeare eloquently said,

"Methinks thou protesteth too much."

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

That question comes to mind after we posted a JNJ April 6th titled "J.A.I.L. Splitting South Dakota Open" in which we quote from the American Judicature Society, an organization located in Iowa, whose membership is made up mainly of judges and lawyers, as follows:

There is no need to "restore judicial accountability and a perception of justice" in South Dakota. South Dakota judges, who must stand for election or retention election, are already amply accountable [emphasis added- j4j] because of that fact, because most of their decisions are subject to appellate review, and because the state has a system for investigating and imposing discipline for judicial misconduct.

1. If indeed South Dakota judges do not "engage[ ] in behavior of the sort targeted by this proposed constitutional amendment," then the J.A.I.L. Special Grand Jury need not sit in judgment, and the South Dakota judges will be allowed to continue to perform their normal judicial responsibilities according to the state and federal Constitutions to which they take an oath to support and defend. The only role J.A.I.L. will play in that event would be similar to that of firemen when there exists no fire. J.A.I.L. will not interfere with the honest, lawful, and constitutional conduct of the judiciary.

Then, why all the fuss?

2. If South Dakota judges are already amply accountable because they "stand for election or retention election," because "most of their decisions are subject to appellate review," and because "the state has a system for investigating and imposing discipline for judicial misconduct," which is standard for most all states, then J.A.I.L. go on acting as an emergency exit. Surely no one would dare propose eliminating all emergency exits based upon the argument that they do not anticipate any emergencies. That was a lesson we supposedly learned from the sinking of the Titanic. If elections, appellate review, and judicial discipline are successfully in prevent judges from abusing their power, then J.A.I.L. will not interfere as aforesaid. J.A.I.L. will stand by silently as a guardian on behalf of the People to make sure that South Dakota judges remain "amply accountable" in the future. Our Founding Fathers we grilled with the doctrine that the king can do no wrong. But what if they did find that the king could do wrong? And they did. Wouldn't it be nice if we could hold judges accountable without having to go through another American revolution? We think so.

Then, why all the fuss?

The AJS website states: The American Judicature Society works to maintain the independence and integrity of the courts and increase public understanding of the justice system. We are a nonpartisan organization with a national membership of judges, lawyers and other citizens interested in the administration of justice.

The J.A.I.L. Amendment does not oppose that objective. In fact the Preamble states: We, the People of South Dakota, find that the doctrine of judicial immunity has the potential of being greatly abused; that when judges do abuse their power, the People are obliged - it is their duty - to correct that injury, for the benefit of themselves and their posterity. In order to insure judicial accountability and domestic tranquility, we hereby amend our Constitution by adding these provisions as �28 to Article VI, which shall be known as "The J.A.I.L. Amendment."

Comparing the two statements, the AJS represents the interests of judges, lawyers, and other citizens interested in the administration of justice; and J.A.I.L. represents the People of South Dakota who are also interested in the administration of justice. So the question is how best is the "administration of justice" achieved?

(a) Would it best be achieved by the status quo of the current judicial system of South Dakota as it operates today without oversight by the People? or,

(b) Would it best be achieved by having the People of South Dakota oversee the judicial system to make sure the judiciary does not abuse its power and continues to protect the rights of the individual against arbitrary acts of government?

If "the judiciary does not abuse its power and continues to protect the rights of the individual against arbitrary acts of government,"

Then, why all the fuss?

Following is some feedback we received from our readers:

Dear Ron:

The only reason the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law is needed is because the constitutionally specific remedies listed in this article are not, nor have no effect when they are being administered by the corrupt elected officials and judges that are protecting each others backs; and it is a case of the foxes watching the hen house.

If the constitutional remedies were working, then J.A.I.L. would not be needed; that is the problem, the remedies are not working and the corrupt judiciary are the specific reason why. Of course they are going to make the most noise; they have finally been caught and fear the outcome of being put in jail where they belong.

Immunity is necessary in an honorable system; corruption has to be cleaned out in a corrupt system. If a judge performs his duties with honor and integrity he has nothing to fear; it is the criminals we are after, the ones that willingly and maliciously ignore the written laws and rule in violation of what the law requires them to do. For centuries it has been the honor of any one to serve as a judge, to rule and enforce the laws passed by the people and to benefit society in an equal and fair manner, without personal opinion or personal agenda getting in the way or clouding the issues. Only the currently corrupt judiciary are complaining about being required to serve the public with honor and integrity.

Paul Clark

Re: http://www.ajs.org/ajs/ajs_editorial-template.asp?content_id=472

CLAIM: "We are not aware of any case in which it has been alleged that a South Dakota judge engaged in behavior of the sort targeted by this proposed constitutional amendment . . ."

ANSWER: I think that's wonderful. Then what is the American Judicature Society so worried about?

CLAIM: " . . . without judicial immunity for most judicial acts judges

. . . would lack the independence necessary to apply the law without fear or favor."

ANSWER: Oops! That's a blatant lie by the American Judicature Society. Judges would indeed retain 100 percent of the independence necessary to apply the law without fear or favor. What judges would suddenly lack after passage of Amendment E is the ability to break the law with impunity. Ironically, the American Judicature Society is defending blatant law-breaking that is not remedied by the government.

CLAIM: "The American Judicature Society (AJS), founded in 1913, is an independent, national, nonpartisan organization of judges, lawyers, and other members of the public who seek to improve the justice system. AJS, which brings a public perspective to justice system issues, has the mission to secure and promote an independent and qualified judiciary and fair system of justice."

ANSWER: Promoting justice (not merely the government-dominated justice system) by adhering to the truth should be paramount.

Mark Yannone

I look at it this way: If you're not rockin' their World then your legal ammo is impotent. Obviously you have caught them with egg on their face. If they don't start any crap there won't be any crap. ... Isn't the Truth enough, or is the Truth too brutal for these clowns? Rock on Ron, I'm praying that South Dakota rocks the Judicial world.

Roy Dobbs

No one kicks a dead dog. If there is no judicial professional affected by
J.A.I.L., then it is curious that such a fuss would be made.

Burglar to judge:

I weren't hurtin no one. No one even knew I was there. And then I got
dragged in here by a policeman who caught me leaving the window with a bag full of loot. Why, no one even complained to me till the police stuck their nose in my business. I had a clean getaway if they'd have stayed out of it.

Judge to you:

I weren't hurtin no one. It was just our little secret, the attorneys and
me, doing people dirty and only helpless whiners complained. I used to just
laugh when that happens. Heck, there's money and power for the taking. We had a good thing going till this grand jury business spoilt everthin.

Dennis Fenimore

To AJS: Methinks thou protesteth too much!

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@...

"..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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1168

From: "Ron Branson, Author/Founder of J.A.I.L." <jail4judges@...>
Date: Tue Jul 4, 2006 7:05 am
Subject: Good News - Ron Branson Debut Soon To Take Place

jail4judges_...

Send Email

As many of you may know, Ron Branson has been off the internet for
close to three months due to our email program computer crash. While
reorganizing the address book has not yet be solved, Ron Branson can
now get on the internet and monitor what is happening, which he is
now doing.

Today are celebrating the Declaration of Independence, with Ron
Branson having proverbally dropped out sight on April 15 of this
year. Is there a significance in this happenstance? Notwithstandin,
Ron Branson gives his greetings to everyone, and expresses his
happiness to again emerge upon the scene of the internet world. Most
will rejoice, but those among the J.A.I.L. opposition will surely
lament for the new appearance of Ron Branson, whom they call
the "certified" nut from California, and the one who troubles the
entire establishment in South Dakota.

Ron thanks you all for your patience and willingness to endure
through this time of trial. God bless you all.

Ron Branson
VictoryUSA@...

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1170

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Mon Sep 4, 2006 5:26 am
Subject: + * * * The Parable of the Left-Hand Turn * * * +

jail4judges_...

Send Email

The Parable of the Left-Hand Turn

(By Ron Branson - 9/2/06)

www.SD-JAIL4Judges.org

Once upon a time people believed the world was flat and that anyone who dared challenged that "fact" was considered a heretic. Any opposer would be derided, spat upon, and run out of town. This flat earth advocacy was held with a tenacious cult fervor and was the official position of the establishment, i.e., "How dare anyone advocate that the world was anything other than flat!" For the curious, one would be amused by typing "Flat Earth Society" in their search engine.

For purposes of this Left-Hand Turn parable, we direct your attention to The Flat Earth Cult, and explain what they are, what they believe, and how to spot them.

These Flat Earth Cult members have a very difficult time comprehending basic common sense that can be easily understood by a child. They vociferously advocate that they know truth, while all the time they do not know what it is they are talking about. These cult members are generally well educated, professional, often lawyers, and financially secure, but have the common sense of a dumb ostrich who sticks his head in the ground and thinks he cannot be seen since he cannot see you.

Here is an example of two educated lawyers, Aziz Huq and James Sample, both devoid of common sense, how they think regarding the specific violations established in the second paragraph of Amendment E. In the August 30, 2006 ThomasPaine.com article entitled, "The Warrant's Out On Judges," we quote, "The first trend�assailing individual judges for their rulings�is most visible in America�s state courts. Take by way of example a ballot initiative campaign in South Dakota known as �JAIL4Judges� which would remove judges� immunity from prosecution based on the substance of their decisions."

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/08/30/the_warrants_out_on_judges.php

Note the terms used, to wit, assailing judges for their "rulings," and based on their "decisions."

Paragraph 2 of Amendment E on the ballot, which pertains to immunity, actually states, "No immunity shall extend to any judge of this State 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, notwithstanding Common Law, or any other contrary statute." Nowhere in that paragraph can there be found the words "rulings" or "decisions," nor is there any suggestion therein that either or both of those terms have anything to do with assailing judges. Yet the premise of their contention is based upon the implied application of those words.

Their conclusion results from their inability to apply common sense to textual criticism. They, like South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long, claim JAIL4Judges (Amendment E) is about going after judges for making decisions. However, a reading of the J.A.I.L. Amendment plainly shows that it is not about judges' "decisions" at all, but about seven specific and deliberate violations of law committed by judges.

The Parable of the Left-Hand Turn

Mister Jones was driving down Broadway Boulevard showing off his new convertible. He soon approached the intersection of Broadway and Main. That intersection was clearly posted "No Left Turn." Despite the posted sign, Mr. Jones went ahead and completed a left-hand turn. Moments later a police officer pursued him with red lights flashing and pulled him over, resulting in the issuance of a citation.

Now comes the "complicated" question:

Did the police officer cite Mr. Jones for exercising his decision to turn left? or, for violating the posted No-Left-Turn sign?

For the normal person, this question is elementary and easily resolved; for they are capable of applying common sense and can figure out that Mr. Jones violated the posted sign. However, for members of the Flat Earth Cult (primarily government officials, including lawyers and judges), this question presents a real dilemma; for they are unable, under any circumstances, to acknowledge the simple fact that violations exist. So, obviously, the cultists' only answer to that question can be that Mr. Jones was cited for his "decision" to turn left.

After Mr. Jones received the violation ticket, he proceeded four blocks up Main Street to his home located on the left where he exercised another "decision" to turn left --this time into his own driveway. However, due to oncoming traffic he had to wait for a clearing. His having to wait for a left-hand turn caused an accumulation of cars behind him.

Despite the fact that the drivers waiting behind Mr. Jones did not "like his decision" to turn left, there was nothing they could do about it. However,

now these Flat Earth cultists have come up with an "ingenious" new argument; and that is, if Amendment E passes, it will open up the floodgates of litigation for all these drivers who had to wait behind Mr. Jones since they can now sue Mr. Jones for his decision to turn left because, as they say, "They didn't like his decision."

You see, in the mind of these Flat Earth Cult members, left-hand turns are inherently evil, and thus everyone who makes a decision to turn left is suable. And since these Flat Earth Cult members are totally blind, devoid of common sense, and absolutely unable to acknowledge the existence of a violation, (i.e., no judge would ever willfully violate the law) they cannot accept the fact that people make decisions every day to turn left without committing a violation.

How to Spot These Flat Earth Cultists

They always substitute the word "violation" with the word "decisions," because "violation" is too specific and articulable. Everyone understands

exactly what we are talking about. However, "decisions" are nebulous, vague, and undefinable --no one has any way of knowing what we are

talking about.

They handle the term "Judge" in the same manner. We all know what a judge is who sits on the bench. So the objective of this cult is to make the word "judge" totally confusing to the reader. Thus comes into play the

Legal Maxim of Law "Fraud lurks in generalities."

"Violations" are specific, articulable, and limited. "Decisions" are non-specific and are made by the tens of thousands. Hence, these Flat Earth cultists never talk in terms of a violation of a judge, but rather in terms of tens of thousands of decisions made by "decision-makers" which are composed of an unending list of government agencies such as school boards, township boards, parole boards, water boards, medical boards, zoning boards, mental health boards, professional licensing boards, city councilmen, city commissioners, county commissioners, and hundreds more, ad infinitum, ad nauseam, etcetera, etcetera, --all of these bureaucrats enjoying judicial immunity for their "decisions." One can go down the inexhaustible alphabet-soup bureaucratic departments of government agencies until they get sick of hearing of them. These are the decision-maker "judges" about which these Flat Earth cultists are talking about. Again, the Legal Maxim: "Fraud lurks in generalities."

Mothers, while we acknowledge that this is too complicated for State Attorney General Larry Long, who wrote the explanation of Amendment E for the November 7th ballot, ask your child if they can understand the difference between a left-hand turn "violation," and a "decision" to turn left. If your child can grasp this concept, then you may place a bumper-sticker on your car that says,

My child outsmarts

all S.D. Government

Everywhere you go, and every time you turn left, remember "The Parable of the Left-Hand Turn." And lastly, as you go to the polls November 7th, resist the Flat Earth Cult's objective to hornswoggle the voters of South Dakota with their ballot non-sense, and vote YES on Amendment E!

-Ron Branson

VictoryUSA@jail4judges.

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
To be added or removed, write to VictoryUSA@...
Your help is needed: www.SD-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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1171

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:45 pm
Subject: The Right of Appeal - By Ron Branson

jail4judges_...

Send Email

The Right of Appeal

(By Ron Branson - 8/30/06)

www.SD-JAIL4Judges.org

"I'll tell you one or many, many problems with J.A.I.L. That is the lack of a right of appeal."

Having searched the internet for observations re: J.A.I.L., I find assertions made by those claiming to be an authority upon the provisions of J.A.I.L., when they are actually clueless. Above is one of those assertions, to wit, that J.A.I.L. fails to allow for a right of appeal. So let us test this assertion for accuracy.

The answer to this concern is prescribed clearly within Amendment E itself for those who both to read it before opening their mouth. Paragraph 11 set for in appropriate part, "...no complaint of misconduct shall be considered by the Special Grand Jury unless the complainant shall have first attempted to exhaust all judicial remedies available in this State..." The basic requirement of J.A.I.L. is that all appeals must be exhausted to the Supreme Court first. If the appeal process functions as it is prescribed by law, then tried and appeals issues completely avert the involvement of J.A.I.L. totally.

The only issues that can possible be brought before the Special Grand Jury are the violation issues previously appealed and ruled upon by the courts. Should the Supreme Court refuse to rule upon the violation issue, then it may pass on to the Special Grand Jury.

The claim that J.A.I.L. provides for no appeals process is spurious. One would think that perhaps the arguer of this position believe their must be a second appeal process of the very same issues before the very same judges. This argument, of course, is clearly condemned by the courts as "being given a second bite at the apple." No one is allowed a second appeal on the very same issues, and particularly in front of the same judges. All litigation must end somewhere. If we were to justify a second appeal, how about a third appeal, or a fourth appeal?

Further, anyone who can read, can also read paragraph 4, "...a special prosecutor may be retained to prosecute ongoing cases in which they are involved through all appeals and any complaints to the Special Grand Jury." Should a trial commence against a defendant judge, and he loses in the trial, he may wish to appeal the decision to the upper courts, including to the U.S. Supreme Court. In such cases, the special prosecutor may be retained to represent the prosecution's position to the Supreme Court. Again, only after all appeals are exhausted can a complaint be lodged with the Special Grand Jury.

Within J.A.I.L. there can exist no such thing as an unappealed or an unappealable ruling. The very pursuit of J.A.I.L. is to assure that everyone receives justice by getting their day in court, and all due process afforded them under law.

So we can all now clearly see that those who argue that the problem with J.A.I.L. is that it provides for no right of appeal is proffered by those who have no understanding of what they are talking about. This is but just one of many points others misstate or pervert about the truth of J.A.I.L.

There seems to be no end of the dreamed-up "problems" with J.A.I.L., and you may rest assured that every supposed "problem" is answerable, and that more than 95% of what is stated by the opponents are based upon lies and misstatements.

-Ron Branson

VictoryUSA@...

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@...

"..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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1172

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Thu Sep 7, 2006 2:34 am
Subject: Liar Liar

jail4judges_...

Send Email

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

From: MJYannone@...

Subject: Re: Liar Liar

I submitted a letter to the editor of the Argus Leader, and I posted this:

South Dakota's curious non-reader members of the bar
http://yannone.blogspot.com/2006/09/south-dakotas-curious-non-reader.html

Mark Yannone

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

South Dakota's curious non-reader members of the bar

by Mark Yannone

Judging by the content of some of the opinion pieces about Amendment E (here's a real whopper), you might wonder if South Dakota had schools that taught writing but not reading. The next paragraph is the part that some people can't read. See if you can.

"No immunity shall extend to any judge of this State 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, notwithstanding Common Law, or any other contrary statute."

When the non-readers encounter that paragraph, they can't see the word "judge," so they pretend there are other nouns there instead, like "councilman" and "water board. " Isn't that hilarious?

The non-readers can't understand the concept of "violations of law" either, so they pretend Amendment E is about other things instead, like "having a bad hair day" or "disagreement." I wonder how they even manage to cross the street safely if these non-readers are so easily confused by such simple words and concepts.

What's really strange is how many of these non-readers are members of the bar, like the judges who are just about to lose their immunity from prosecution when they break the law. Maybe that association has something to do with their apparent inability to read. Do you think so?

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1173

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:31 am
Subject: "Unauthorized Practice of Law" false/void charge

jail4judges_...

Send Email

www.SD-JAILJudges.org

(Turn on your speakers)

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

From: Indiana Civil Rights Council

To: ngrant@...

Subject: offer of legal help on FL "Unauthorized Practice of Law" false/void charge

Dear Nancy [Grant],

This past weekend, I attended the National Family Law Reform Conference in Washington, DC, where I happened to meet your Pasco County J4J representative, Ms. Martin. In just the few minutes I spent talking with her, I was impressed with her intelligence and aligned motivation for the reform of American courts. Ms. Martin also joined our national efforts recently, which are an upcoming wave of some 3000+ federal classaction lawsuits against each and every USA county and it's family law injustice system, including it's family law judges, masters, and/or commissioners. You can learn more details by either contacting Ms. Martin, or by visiting the link below.

I also know the Indiana Jailer-in-Chief, Bif G., very well, and have worked with him and his team sporadically, at private strategy meetings, attending his various public protests/rallies, and etc. We are in contact frequently, and several of his people are also Indiana county team leaders in our upcoming national county classactions agenda.

Wanting to recruit even more mutual involvement by J4J people nationwide, including your other various Florida county representatives, I was just now visiting the main FL J4J website, noticed the fairly recent UPL charge that has been tendered against you personally, and also noted the ridiculous background details of that incident.

Please be advised that the criminal charge lodged against you is strictly unconstitutional, and null and void as a matter of law. Further, the proper constitutional defense against this false charge could be used as a formidable "test case" against Florida to help put a quicker end to yet another form of government abuse against it's own citizens. Pursuant to many consistent rulings by the United States Supreme Court itself, it is strictly unlawful for a State to discriminate between "lawyers" and "nonlawyers" in any form of access to, and use of, the court system, as that violates the anti-trust provisions of the federal Sherman Act, the federal Clayton Act, and portions of the federal Hobbs Act, as well as the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

It is also my best understanding that the Department of Justice now has permanent injunctions against no less than eleven (11) different States in this same regard (enjoining any discrimination between "lawyers" and "nonlawyers"), although this is obviously not a highly publicized fact... In a nutshell, they can *not* even criminally charge you, in the first place, no matter what form of "legal services" you provide, and further, you are entitled to compensatory damages against your own friendly county and/or the State of Florida, for the same unlawful violations of your corresponding federal rights of full and equal access to the courts, which is also a Sixth Amendment right.

I might be interested in personally assisting you in the background in your constitutional defense to this utterly false criminal charge, as it means a matter of fundamental principle to me.

I am also interested, in return, in seeking your help to recruit your other Florida county reps on board with us, as the corresponding team leaders, and also in approaching Mr. Branson, as I know he is a very busy man as well, and may not even get a chance to read this email for some time, if ever, as he may or may not quickly recognize me. J4J should get mutually involved in our national efforts, as the goals are directly aligned together.

We also, in addition to the lawsuits themselves, have other prongs of attack against the injustice system, including a courtwatcher system, and mass demands for impeachment of the very worst judge in each USA county, as a national wake-up call to "chill" the other judges back into line and under the real law as it is written.

Perhaps you would like to discuss these matters further. If so, please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your continued diligence to help reform our nation's courts.

Regards,

Torm Howse, President
Indiana Civil Rights Council
http://www.IndianaCRC.org

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1174

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:50 am
Subject: Amendment E Rising In The Polls

jail4judges_...

Send Email

Amendment E Rising In The Polls

www.SD-JAIL4Judges.org

(Turn on your speakers)

Dakota Voice

(9/21/2006)

http://www.dakotavoice.com:80/200609/20060921_3.html

Zogby Poll: South Dakota Amendment E (JAIL) Support at 67%

Controversial judicial accountability measure enjoys high support across all demographics

BY BOB ELLIS
DAKOTA VOICE

Bill Stegmeier of South Dakota Judicial Accountability says a Zogby International poll he commissioned for the upcoming vote on Amendment E has yielded some interesting results.

According to the Zogby poll conducted yesterday of 504 South Dakota likely voters, 67% say they will vote for Amendment E. Those who say they will vote against the measure are 19.8% and 13.2% are �not sure.� The poll has a +/- 4.5% margin.

The question asked of poll respondents was as follows:

Amendment E called the Judicial Accountability Amendment will be on the ballot this November. The amendment would allow the creation of a citizen's oversight committee or special grand jury which would hear complaints of alleged judicial misconduct against judges. If a judge is found guilty three times of having engaged in judicial misconduct, he or she would be removed from office and could never serve in any judicial capacity in South Dakota again. Will you vote for Amendment E or will you vote against Amendment E?

Democrats say they will support the measure by 69.8%, Republicans by 62.2%, Independents by 72.5% and all three Libertarians polled said they would support the amendment.

Democrats made up 32% of the total surveyed, Republicans 46%, Independents 21% and about 0.6% Libertarians. In the June 2006 primary, the breakdown of registered voters for South Dakota was 47.68% Republican, 37.97% Democrat, .22% Libertarian, .07% Constitution, and 14.06% "other."

The West River area leads East River support with 74.2%, but East River comes in at a considerable 65.1% support.

The 18-29 age group leads in support at 71.3%, with the least support from the 65+ age bracket at 65.2%.

Males support the measure slightly more than females (68.9% to 65.3%), with the greatest support among income brackets at 73.8% for the $50-75K range.

The religious breakdown has Catholics with the greatest support at 70.8%, Protestants at 63.2% and �other� supporting the measure by 74.2%.

The Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (JAIL), known as Amendment E on the November 7 ballot, has generated a tremendous amount of controversy in the past year.

Stegmeier, the chief sponsor of the amendment, says the measure is intended to create a �citizen oversight committee� to hear and try complaints against judges for judicial misconduct. Stegmeier says the normal process for addressing judicial misconduct is insufficient because of the doctrine of judicial immunity which prevents judges from being sued for their official actions.

During the 2006 legislative session, practically every legislature in South Dakota came out against the measure because many believe it will not only subject judges�the principle target of the measure�to potential lawsuit, but also almost every other public official, down to school board members. The South Dakota legislature passed a resolution against the JAIL amendment with a 67-0 vote in the House and a 34-0 vote in the Senate.

The measure was also the subject of a recent lawsuit which asked for the official ballot explanation for Amendment E to be changed; the lawsuit ended with only a one-word change being approved by the court.

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
To be added or removed, write to VictoryUSA@...
Your help is needed: www.SD_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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1175

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:20 pm
Subject: *** Retired Justice O'Connor Attacks J.A.I.L .***

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California September 29, 2006 ______________________________________________________

The Inherent Right of ALL People

to Alter or Reform Abusive Government.

The Right Upon Which All Other Rights Depend

Visit www.sd-jail4judges.org

Mission Statement JNJ Library
Federal J.A.I.L. FAQs What?MeWarden?

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Ret., Attacks J.A.I.L.

(J.A.I.L.'s rebuttal will be posted on the South Dakota website.)

Wall Street Journal

September 27, 2006

The Threat to Judicial Independence

By Sandra Day O'Connor

In November, South Dakotans will vote on a state constitutional amendment being advocated by a national group called "JAIL 4 Judges." If the amendment passes, it would eliminate judicial immunity, and enable a special grand jury to censure judges for their official legal determinations. Although the amendment's supporters claim they seek a "judicial accountability initiative law" (JAIL), they aspire to something far more sinister --judicial intimidation. Indeed, the national Web site of JAIL 4 Judges boasts with striking candor that the organization "has that intimidation factor flowing through the judicial system."

It is tempting to dismiss this proposed amendment as merely an isolated bout of anti-judge angst. But while the JAIL 4 Judges initiative is unusually venomous, it is far from alone in expressing skepticism of the judiciary. In addition to South Dakota, this election cycle has witnessed efforts in at least three other states that are designed to rein in judges who have supposedly "run amok."

Not to be completely outdone, Congress also has engaged in recent efforts to police the judiciary. Seeking to constrain the legal sources that are available to judges, some members of Congress have advocated measures that would forbid judges from citing foreign law when they are interpreting the Constitution. In addition, bills have been introduced in both houses of Congress supporting the creation of an inspector general to investigate and monitor the federal bench. Finally, the House of Representatives passed legislation over the summer that would prohibit the Supreme Court from considering whether the Pledge of Allegiance's inclusion of the words "under God" violates the First Amendment.

* * *

Directing anger toward judges enjoys a long --if not exactly venerable-- tradition in our nation. President Thomas Jefferson, for instance, was a particularly spirited antagonist of judges appointed by the Federalists. Moreover, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sought to increase the number of Supreme Court justices because the court invalidated several pieces of New Deal legislation. And I can distinctly remember seeing lawns and highways across the country that featured signs demanding the impeachment of Chief Justice Earl Warren.

But while scorn for certain judges is not an altogether new phenomenon, the breadth and intensity of rage currently being leveled at the judiciary may be unmatched in American history. The ubiquitous "activist judges" who "legislate from the bench" have become central villains on today's domestic political landscape. Elected officials routinely score cheap points by railing against the "elitist judges," who are purported to be [out] of touch with ordinary citizens and their values. Several jeremiads are published every year warning of the dangers of judicial supremacy and judicial tyranny. Though these attacks generally emit more heat than light, using judges as punching bags presents a grave threat to the independent judiciary.

Troublingly, attacks on the judiciary are now being launched by judges themselves. Earlier this year, Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker excoriated his colleagues for faithfully applying the Supreme Court's precedent in Roper v. Simmons, which prohibited imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by minors. Offering a bold reinterpretation of the Constitution's supremacy clause, Justice Parker advised state judges to avoid following Supreme Court opinions "simply because they are 'precedents.' " Justice Parker supported his criticism of "activist federal judges" by asserting that "the liberals on the U.S. Supreme Court ... looked down on the pro-family policies, Southern heritage, evangelical Christianity, and other blessings of our great state."

It should come as no surprise that the increased scapegoating of the judiciary has coincided with an increase in anger directed toward individual judges. In the last decade, threats and inappropriate communications directed toward the federal bench have more than quadrupled. According to the U.S. Marshals Service, complaints about such behavior were being logged at a record-setting pace this year. And while it is encouraging that Congress recently set aside funds for federal judges to have home security systems installed, it is deeply dispiriting that the demand for the systems among the judges was so high. Judge David B. Sentelle of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was quite right when he observed, "Judges must be free to make judicial decisions without the fear of physical harm to themselves or to members of their families."

Given the escalating criticism that is leveled at judges, it seems appropriate to bear in mind the reasons that the Framers initially established an independent judicial branch. In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton explained why, in our constitutional system, "the complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential." Hamilton contended that the judiciary needed to be distinct from the legislative and executive branches because that was the best way to guarantee "a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws." Hamilton also believed that judicial independence was necessary in order to safeguard against "injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws." It is well worth remembering that, far more often than not in modern times, the judiciary has admirably performed these two vital tasks: checking the other two branches and protecting minority rights.

An independent judiciary does not mean, of course, tat it is somehow improper to criticize judicial decisions. To the contrary, it is a healthy sign for democracy that the public is engaged with the workings of the judicial system. Judges can --and do-- sometimes render erroneous decisions, but that is why appeals are allowed to higher courts. Moreover, judges can be --and are-- subjected to discipline for legitimate reasons. Members of the judiciary cannot sincerely believe that they should be regarded as above the very laws that they are charged with interpreting. Ours is, after all, a nation of laws, not men --or even women.

Nonetheless, we must be more vigilant in making sure that criticism does not cross over into intimidation. Judges and lawyers certainly play essential roles in opposing attacks on the judiciary. Indeed, later this week, I --along with Justice Stephen Breyer-- am co-chairing a conference on judicial independence at Georgetown University Law Center. But the legal community needs help from other sectors of society to ensure that the current mood of cynicism does not end up compromising the rule of law. This includes members of the business community. Adam Smith, writing in "The Wealth of Nations," well understood the importance of an independent judiciary: "[U]pon the impartial administration of justice depends the liberty of every individual, the sense which he has of his own security." Without judicial independence, Smith warned, "it is scarce[ly] possible that justice should not frequently be sacrificed to what is vulgarly called politics."

More broadly, of course, all of society has a keen interest in countering threats to judicial independence. Judges who are afraid --whether thy fear for their jobs or fear for their lives-- cannot adequately fulfill the considerable responsibilities that the position demands. In these challenging and difficult times, we must recommit ourselves to maintaining the independent judiciary that the Framers sought to establish.

Justice O'Connor is a retired associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

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.SD-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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1176

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Tue Oct 10, 2006 6:36 am
Subject: * * * "Anti-Judiciary Movement At Its Most Extreme" * * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                               October 8, 2006
______________________________________________________
The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform Their Government.
The Right Upon Which All Other Rights Depend.
__________________________________________________
              Mission Statement               JNJ Library
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
______________________________________________________
www.SD-JAIL4Judges.org

Opposition Argues:

"Anti-Judiciary Movement

At Its Most Extreme"

Bruce Davidson: No proper role for J.A.I.L. 4 Judges

http://www.mysanantonio.com:80/opinion/stories/MYSA100106.2H.Davidson.21fe9d8.html

Web Posted: 09/30/2006 12:00 PM CDT
San Antonio Express-News

Texas' gubernatorial race is strange indeed, but even Kinky Friedman & Co. can't outdo South Dakota this year in the bizarre category.

Voters in the Mount Rushmore State will decide whether to allow angry, unsuccessful litigants to haul judges and other government officials who make judicial decisions before special grand juries and possibly impose civil and criminal penalties on them for doing their jobs.

Officially known as Amendment E, the ballot measure is referred to by supporters as J.A.I.L. 4 Judges, or the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law.

More than 33,456 South Dakota residents signed petitions to put the measure on the ballot, but it is the brainchild of California minister Ron Branson.

The Californian picked South Dakota because the state's small population made it relatively easy to gather enough signatures to get the measure on the ballot, the Argus Leader, a Sioux Falls newspaper, reported.

According to his Web site, Branson hopes the South Dakota measure is the beginning of a national movement to strip judges of personal immunity for the decisions they make on the bench.

In the mid-1990s, Branson's online biography reveals, he sued the city of Los Angeles and several police officers. He didn't get what he wanted from the courts, and he has been on the warpath against the judiciary ever since.

The Associated Press recently reported that the ballot explanation of Amendment E, which was the subject of a court battle, states that it applies to other government officials in addition to judges.

While the Argus Leader reported that state supporters of the measure have forced Branson into the background, Amendment E opponents noted Branson's Web site states, "Our first goal is to take South Dakota by storm, then the other states by fall-out."

Branson would also like to see his proposal enacted on a federal level. He envisions special grand juries made up of registered voters or volunteer citizens who hold judges' feet to the fire.

Most people are content to appeal to a higher court when they disagree with a judicial decision. Branson and his allies would rather create a new Wild West system of retribution. So much for interpreting the law without undue outside pressure.

Amendment E represents the anti-judiciary movement at its most extreme.

Anti-judiciary sentiment has been given voice in Washington by the rhetoric of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and other House conservatives who want to see judicial clout scaled back.

But the South Dakota constitutional amendment takes the fight to gut so-called activist judges to a frightening new level.

An independent judiciary is a cornerstone of the American system. It prevents popular sentiment from crushing individual rights and serves as an important check on the legislative and administrative branches of government.

The No on E Committee is attracting big contributions from banks, business interests and lawyers, the AP reported.

Committee treasurer Bob Miller told the AP, "Contributions came in from banks because they quickly realized what chaos it would create in the credit industry."

Bankruptcy judges could be legally harassed by debtors for upholding the law under the amendment.

The entire system of settling legal disputes in a civilized manner would crumble if the J.A.I.L. 4 Judges proposal were enacted.

South Dakota voters can become eccentric trendsetters, or they can crush this bad idea on behalf of their fellow Americans.

bdavidson@...

Be sure to speak your voice to Bruce Davidson re: his above article.

Status: We are getting ever so close to being out on the internet at our full potential. We have been working diligently on getting our equipment up an running, and perhaps in our next round we will have reinstalled all of our email address that have been hanging in obscurity since our address book collapse. We have speed and volume potential in full effect, ready to be put to work. Emails come in and go out like lightening as we have never experienced before.

Simultaneously, we have been working diligently on our new website, www.SD-JAIL4Judges.org, and just this evening we have completed our series on "Confronting, Head-On, The No-On-E Club." If you follow each and every link, you will not only be educated, but also humored. We dissect each and every morsel of the No-On-E website as a lion would a deer, and spare nothing! You will find much to laugh at as you read it. But be prepared to find it somewhat like visiting the Smithsonian Museum in going from portal to portal.

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.SD-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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1177

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:29 am
Subject: "Absolute Despotism"

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California October 16, 2006 ______________________________________________________

The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform Abusive Government.

The Right Upon Which All Other Rights Depend

www.sd-jail4judges.org

Our South Dakota website contains a vast amount of information pertinent to Amendment E. Explore this site and forward on the information.

See especially Confronting Head-On the "No-On-E Club"

Absolute Despotism

That's what Amendment E will abolish!

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

[All People are born with unalienable rights]

" .... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. ...

[Governments are instituted to protect the People's rights]

"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,...

[If government fails to protect those rights, it is the right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute new government]

"... that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. ...

[Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes]

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed....

[But there comes a time when it is the duty of the People to alter or abolish government when it has long refused to protect their rights, resulting in absolute despotism over the People]

"... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. -- " [emphasis in red added]

(Excerpts from the Declaration of Independence)

The South Dakota Constitution makes similar provisions:

"�1. Inherent rights. All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring and protecting property and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." (Art. VI, �1)

"�26. Power inherent in people - Alteration in form of government - Inseparable part of Union. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free government is founded on their authority, and is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, 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. 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." (Art. VI, �26)

The key phrase which dictates when the People must take steps to "alter or abolish" government is "when a long train of abuses and usurpations" by government has transpired, resulting in "absolute despotism" over the People. Therefore, that phrase must be examined to determine if indeed the time has come for the People to alter or abolish the current form of government in South Dakota.

The first question might be "How long is 'long' in describing the 'train of abuses and usurpations' that has resulted in 'absolute despotism' by the current form of government over the People?" Would a human lifetime be long enough, considering a life expectancy to be around 75 years? How about a double lifetime-- about 150 years?

Respecting the admonition "that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;" the next question might be "What is considered 'light and transient causes'?" To aid us in that determination is the contrasting subsequent sentence, to wit, "pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism," the key phrase here being "absolute despotism."

The critical factor of government "abuses and usurpations" is the result it has on the People. Our founding document states that it is when government "evinces a design" to reduce the People under "absolute despotism." The result is not happenstance, but it is designed, planned, and intended.

Has the opposition to Amendment E discussed what conditions the Declaration of Independence and/or the South Dakota Constitution imposes upon government? and whether or not government has complied with those conditions? Have they discussed what responsibilities the People have if government has not complied? Have they even admitted the possibility that government has the potential of abusing its power, reducing the People under absolute despotism? The Founding Fathers knew that this condition would develop through the abuses and usurpations of power by government.

All we hear is:

* Amendment E will allow disgruntled litigants to sue judges if they don't like their decisions;

* Amendment E will allow convicted felons to be released from prison and serve on the Special Grand Jury;

* Amendment E will allow people to sue every government agency that exists in South Dakota, so that no one will want to serve on those agencies;

* Amendment E will allow litigants to sue jurors;

* Amendment E will cost the taxpayers of South Dakota $2.65 million the first year alone, destroying the state's economy.

* Amendment E will cause anarchy in South Dakota;

* Amendment E is the most radical provision for judicial reform. (Is the Declaration of Independence and the South Dakota Constitution "radical"? -j4j)

On and on...

Take a look at "Confronting Head-On the No-On-E Club" by clicking it on the left-hand menu column of our South Dakota J.A.I.L. website, www.sd-jail4judges.org for a thorough going-over of their ridiculous claims. It should be quite an education, not only of the truth of the matter, but of their lies in hopes of hoodwinking the voters. See especially our expose' of the South Dakota Legislature's criminal violation of law regarding the Election process.

How many of the opponents have bothered to read Amendment E and compared it with the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitutions of South Dakota and the United States? They say that regardless of what the Amendment says, that's not really what it means! Would they say the same thing about the Declaration and the Constitutions?

We have found, through personal experience, that the source of "absolute despotism" by the abuses and usurpations of power by government is the legal fraternity, consisting of judges and lawyers working together as a team. And it's the judges (not administrative agencies) that are ultimately responsible, as the "guardian of the People's rights," for protecting those rights on behalf of government. "The touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government." Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 14, 123 (1889); Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 549 (1981) [Powell, J. concurring in result]; Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986).

The preamble of Amendment E states: "We, the People of South Dakota, find that the doctrine of judicial immunity has the potential of being greatly abused; that when judges do abuse their power, the People are obliged - it is their duty - to correct that injury, for the benefit of themselves and their posterity. In order to insure judicial accountability and domestic tranquility, we hereby amend our Constitution by adding these provisions as �28 to Article VI, which shall be known as 'The J.A.I.L. Amendment.' "

Compare that with the Declaration of Independence, discussed above; the South Dakota Constitution, also discussed above; and the United States Constitution. More than, "Does Amendment E mean what it says?", is "Is Amendment E authorized by the principles established in the Declaration and the S.D. Constitution?"

# # #

"Who stands to be hurt if Amendment E is not passed?"

Would it be the South Dakota Bar Association and lawyers? NO!Would it be the South Dakota Legislature? NO!

Would it be the insurance companies and agencies? NO!

IT WOULD BE, RATHER, THE VOTERS OF SOUTH DAKOTA!

Vote YES on Amendment E for your future and your own good!

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@...
Our South Dakota site: www.SD-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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1178

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:01 pm
Subject: *** Go, South Dakota, Go! ***

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California October 17, 2006 ______________________________________________________

The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform Abusive Government.

The Right Upon Which All Other Rights Depend

www.sd-jail4judges.org

Go, South Dakota, GO!

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

In just three weeks from today, the People of South Dakota will have an opportunity of a lifetime-- to act on behalf of all the People of America in bringing government under their control as is their duty to do, starting with South Dakota. This momentous responsibility will be accomplished with the passage of Amendment E on November 7th.

This accomplishment will not affect only South Dakota, but the entire nation. We would have preferred that the Amendment be made to the national Constitution; however, it is too bad that there is no national initiative process by which the People can act nationally to alter or amend the national Constitution, despite the fact that J.A.I.L. is a national cause. Nevertheless we do have a proposed federal J.A.I.L. Bill, already in the hands of Congress.

It is indeed tragic that the Framers of the Constitution failed to include in that instrument a means by which the People could enforce its terms whenever government became abusive of its delegated powers, although the Founders were well aware that such abuses would occur in time by usurpation of power from the People. With that knowledge, it would seem to have been consistent therewith to have provided a specific safeguard in the U.S. Constitution to prevent such from happening. Would that not have been just plain common sense? Look at what tyrannical practices could have been avoided for the American People! But alas, we cannot cry over "spilt milk."

That omitted provision does not negate the People's DUTY "to throw off [alter or amend] such government" when by "a long train of abuses and usurpations" it "pursu[es] invariably the same object evinc[ing] a design to reduce [the People] under absolute despotism," as admonished in the Declaration of Independence and followed by many state Constitutions, South Dakota among them. So accordingly, we must deal with the "hand" that is left for us.

There are only about 19 states having the initiative process for constitutional amendments, California being one of them. However, the People are at a distinct disadvantage at having to develop a means of enforcing the terms of the Constitution at this late stage in our history. A major disadvantage is raising the amount of money needed to place such an initiative on the ballot, once it is written --this is especially so in a large state as California. It was attempted using volunteers, but no initiative for a constitutional amendment has ever become eligible for the ballot by volunteers in California history.

It would take about a million dollars to pay for enough signatures in California, and People did not take J.A.I.L. seriously enough in this state to finance the cause here at that time. However, within months after being on the internet, J.A.I.L. became of national interest, and the People in other states could see the plausibility of getting the initiative on the ballot in smaller states, urging us to allow J.A.I.L. to be carried in their states. J.A.I.L. was originally written as a California measure, but nature took its course rallying People on their own from all states for this cause, since the problem is not uniquely of any one state. It so happens that a proponent in South Dakota was the first to finance the J.A.I.L. Amendment for their 2006 ballot, and so we have our pioneer state now up for vote.

Oh! the kicking and screaming of the South Dakota Establishment (SDE) over the fact that J.A.I.L. was "authored in California"-- as if California has a monopoly on the need for judicial accountability to the People. To this we demur! (i.e., so what?) This is a need in all fifty states-- tyranny knows NO BOUNDARIES!

The SDE would have South Dakotans believe that judicial accountability to the People isn't needed there-- "South Dakota already has an accountable judiciary, and the system is fine just the way it is!" With the enthusiasm of South Dakotans signing the petition (13,000 more than needed), we know that the People realize how much it is needed there.

The latest Zogby poll taken about a month ago shows better than three-to-one in favor of Amendment E. A poll taken by the S.D. Bar Association early in the campaign also came up three-to-one in favor; it is now better than that: 67% Yes, 19.8% No, 13.2% Undecided. Statistics show that in any population, about 20% are connected with government, directly or indirectly. We can pretty well guess where the "No" vote comes from.

Go, South Dakota, GO!

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/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@...

"..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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1179

From: <victoryusa@...>
Date: Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:37 pm
Subject: ** It's Really Getting O-o-o-ld! **

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California October 20, 2006 ______________________________________________________

The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform Abusive Government.

The Right Upon Which All Other Rights Depend

It's Really Getting O-o-o-ld!

The Opposition Has Worn Out the Same-O, Same-O

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

Open Letter to:

Nina Totenberg, NPR

ntotenberg@...

Dear Ms. Totenberg:

I listened to your audio report on the NPR website titled "South Dakota To Vote On Ending Judicial Protections" at

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6288938.

My first question, Nina, is "Did you read Amendment E before making your report?" If not, shame on you! If you did, DOUBLE SHAME on you for defrauding the American people, and particularly the South Dakota voters by deliberately misrepresenting what the Amendment stands for!

Not once did you report or explain the seven violations Amendment E will examine-- yes Nina, only seven, and they are specified in �2.

"2. Immunity. No immunity shall extend to any judge of this State 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, notwithstanding Common Law, or any other contrary statute." [color emphasis added]

Again, they are:

(1) deliberate violation of law

(2) fraud or conspiracy

(3) intentional violation of due process of law

(4) deliberate disregard of material facts

(5) judicial acts without jurisdiction

(6) blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case

(7) any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of South Dakota or the United States.

Nina, which ones of those violations do you feel judges should be able to commit with impunity? with "judicial protections" as your article is titled? You said nothing about them!

Instead, you repeated the constant mantra of the South Dakota Establishment, which includes the news reporting media, that:

* judges will be able to be sued for their judicial decisions

* prisoners will be able to sue judges upon their release from prison

* people will be able to sue any existing administrative agency in S.D.

* the purpose of the Amendment is to cause judicial intimidation

That's just four that I can name on top of my head-- there are others which I encourage people to listen to at the above shown website.

Ms. Totenberg, just on the face of it, your allegations about Amendment E are senseless.

"Judicial accountability" means exactly that! And to whom, and for what, should judges be accountable? Yes, in the first instance, judges should be held accountable to whatever forum the system offers. The opposition argues that the following five "remedies" are available:

If a judge breaks the law he or she can be prosecuted.
People have the right to challenge a decision made by a judge. It�s called the �appeals process,� and every day scores of South Dakotans use it for the lawful, proven redress of their grievances in a higher court.
South Dakotans have the Right of Recusal � a very rare citizen power among the United States � in which a party to a lawsuit or a prosecution may remove the judge assigned simply because they doubt as to whether the assigned judge will treat them fairly.
Judges are routinely disciplined and even removed from the bench for misconduct. The body that holds them accountable is called the Judicial Qualifications Commission.
Judges are voted off the bench all the time. This November alone, 38 judges are up for reelection, with 55 candidates vying for their seats.

Amendment E encourages any or all of those "remedies," and passage of Amendment E would assure that they work. But that's just in the first instance! If they work, great! But if they don't, then judges must be held accountable ultimately to the People. Government generally will not discipline itself, nor can it be expected to. It obviously has a conflict of interest, especially in light of the fact that more often than not, judges cover up for government wrongdoing and for themselves. They're all in the same boat, nice and safe. The People are left flailing in the water, screaming for help-- and more often than not, they are ignored! Redress of grievances has been non-existent in practice, for years. J.A.I.L. will change that!

Ms. Totenberg, by pure nature, the solution to government corruption, and more particularly judicial corruption, rests with the People in the final analysis. The Declaration of Independence states this fact very clearly. I refer you to a very recent J.A.I.L. News Journal titled "Absolute Despotism." I've emailed it to you under separate cover. Our readers have already received it. Become informed and aware of American history and the relationship between the People and government; then compare that with what we have today. Another J.A.I.L. News Journal is titled "Inherent Truth of Amendment E" which you can go to by clicking it in the left-hand column on www.sd-jail4judges.org.

Also, further down in that left-hand column is the Justice Sandra Day O'Connor article in the Wall Street Journal (the first selection, after clicking the article), in which we include her article and thoroughly respond to her attacks on Amendment E, including the "judicial intimidation" accusation. Please read that for a full understanding.

Answering the many common and repeated criticisms of Amendment E by the opposition is found on the "Confronting Head On" item in the left-hand menu. We need not repeat our responses here. But, learn the truth about Amendment E before making any more irresponsible comments about it.

We also note that you reported the South Dakota Bar Association took some kind of a recent poll on Amendment E and found that the "No" vote was "slightly ahead." However, they failed to state what polling company conducted the poll, when it was conducted, and what the exact percentages were! To make such a claim, and include it in your report, without details and evidence speaks VOLUMES! Just about a month ago, the Zogby Polling Company polled South Dakota voters and came up with 67% in favor of Amendment E, 19.8% against it, and 13.2% Undecided. Mr. Branson informed you of this poll in your telephonic interview of him last week. Even if the entire "Undecided" vote went against the Amendment, that would still be only one-third against it.

The People of South Dakota, and indeed throughout the nation, deserve honest reporting, and direct references to the Amendment itself-- not just baseless claims. Take a look at our South Dakota website-- BECOME INFORMED of the truth!

# # #

"Who stands to be hurt if Amendment E is not passed?"

Would it be the South Dakota Bar Association and lawyers? NO!Would it be the South Dakota Legislature? NO!

Would it be the insurance companies and agencies? NO!

IT WOULD BE THE VOTERS OF SOUTH DAKOTA

WHO WOULD BE HURT.

Vote YES on Amendment E for your future and your own good!

J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
Go, South Dakota, GO! 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/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@...

"..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 <><

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1180

From: "E Mailing" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed Nov 1, 2006 7:53 pm
Subject: *** J.A.I.L. Is The Duty of The People To Enforce the Constitution ***

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California April 17, 2004

Republished November 1, 2006

VOTE "YES" ON AMENDMENT E IN SOUTH DAKOTA

www.sd-jail4judges.org

J.A.I.L. Is The

DUTY of The People

To Enforce the Constitution

Our Judiciary is Domestic Enemy Number One

-Barbie- ACIC, J.A.I.L. Administration

victoryusa@...

... you can see that we have a serious problem in this country, unlike any other problem. It is THE PROBLEM of all problems-- a judiciary unaccountable to the people by the Constitution. Stated another way, the lack of a means of enforcement of the Constitution by the people. That, my friends, is THE PROBLEM that begets all other problems.

Ladies and Gentlemen, J.A.I.L. is NOT an option; J.A.I.L. is NOT one of many. J.A.I.L. IS unique! You've heard Mr. Branson say "J.A.I.L. is the ONLY answer" --because it IS! --not because he wrote it, but because it is the ONLY means offered by which the people can take rightful control of their government. By holding judges accountable to the people under constitutional scrutiny, all of government tyranny will be affected because it's the judges, at all levels, that have the final say on how government will conduct itself.

How many times have you heard people say "I'm going to take it to court," when faced with an unsolvable dispute, thinking that it will be solved in court? More often than not, it's like going to the hospital with a broken finger, and being carted out after "treatment" in a full body cast, discovering that the "cure" is worse than the original injury.

This is especially true when a pro se (or in pro per) plaintiff, usually of modest means (unable to "buy" justice), sues a government entity for alleged wrongdoing. There's NO CONTEST! The government comes in with a demurrer, the judge grants it, and dismisses the case at the outset. Or, if it gets past the demurrer stage, the government files a motion for summary judgment, the judge grants it, and dismisses the case a little further down the line-- but certainly before any trial.

We've had a case where the judge sua sponte dismissed our case (federal) BEFORE IT WAS SERVED on the defendants-- before court jurisdiction was even established. Yes-- the defendants were other judges, and seven days after the complaint was filed, before service was ever made, it was summarily dismissed. The dismissal effectively chased us home through the U.S. mail. The upper courts affirmed dismissal of the action (even though court jurisdiction was never invoked) and review denied, yet in both instances retaining the three-figure filing fees.

On appeal, the U.S. Attorney's office came in with an appellees' brief, even though no appellees ever appeared in the case. As far as we knew, the U.S. Attorney's office was never legally apprised of the case-- only the court was aware of the matter. So WHO informed the USA's office? The answer is obvious-- the court (judicial personnel) was the only entity that could have instigated notification to the USA, either directly or through notifying the would-be defendant judges, who in turn notified their would-be counsel (the U.S. Attorney). Despite there being a total lack of all jurisdiction for the USA to participate, the Ninth Circuit nevertheless accepted their brief and ruled on it as if it were legitimate; and the U.S.S.C. denied certiorari. Our judicial "remedy" all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, amounted to their collecting the handsome filing fees.

That's just one absurdity. I state it here for those who have never been victimized by the judicial system, to show just how far courts will go in violation of law, with absolute impunity using the judge-made shield of "judicial immunity" beyond its intended purpose. The judge (Manuel Real)who arbitrarily dismissed the case before service of process was made, was likewise covered by judicial immunity, without comment, when he was sued. If Judge Real was justified in summarily dismissing the case prior to service on defendants, then why did the U.S. Attorney's office file a so-called appellees' brief, representing non-existent appellees? (Rhetorical question-- the SGJ (J.A.I.L.) will have to deal with it when the time comes.)

The "oath issue" has come on fire all around the country. The U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Sec.3 mandates that all government officials, both state and federal, "shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution." In compliance with that requirement, the California Constitution sets forth the oath of office, the first line of which states: "I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; ...." (Art.XX, Sec.3)

Judges are lawfully charged with the responsibility of obeying the terms of the Constitution(s) upon taking office, and the people have a reasonable expectation that judges will adhere to that fiducial responsibility while acting in a judicial capacity. This is not to discount the fact that in some cases, such as the oath, the "form" is also the "substance."

Judges are bound by the Constitution. (Article VI, clause 2). The Constitution was created on behalf of the people, for their protection and well-being. (See Preamble). Therefore, judges are bound to protect the people's interests by the Constitution. What if judges act against the people's interests in defiance of the Constitution? When that happens as a matter of systemic policy, pattern, and practice, does that not make the judiciary an Enemy of the people? And how can judges fulfill an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, when by practice they are a domestic enemy? By common experience and observation of judicial practice in this country, and the tragic results thereof, the people must conclude that the judiciary is Domestic Enemy Number One!

That conclusion is borne out by the fact that the judiciary has systematically refused to provide for redress of grievances in our courts. That is why there is no meaningful redress at any other level of government-- the judiciary ultimately allows that omission to prevail when people seek judicial relief therefrom. No one knows that better than Bob Schulz of We The People (bob@...) and thousands of members of that organization working so hard to get redress through the current judicial system.

Another one who knows that very well is John Wolfgram, a Constitutionalist, (johnwolfgram@...) who wrote a law review article titled "How the Judiciary Stole the Right of Petition" which was the subject of a J.A.I.L. News Journal a few months ago-- many of you have seen it. If not, see the J4J library on our website. Plus, we get literally hundreds of emails attesting to this sad state of affairs-- no redress in our courts! It's at epidemic proportions across this country.

The right to petition the government for redress of grievances, protected by the First Amendment, and by which all judges are bound, carries with it the concomitant right of having such petition (i.e., notice) heard and acted upon by government-- i.e., the basic right of notice and hearing which impels the right to Due Process of Law. "The touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government." Dent v. West Virginia (1889) 129 U.S. 114, 123; Parratt v. Taylor (1981) 451 U.S. 527, 549; Daniels v. Williams (1986) 474 U.S. 327, 331. Isn't that the purpose of the Constitution generally --to protect the individual against arbitrary action of government?

With all of the above laid as a foundation, you can see that we have a serious problem in this country, unlike any other problem. It is THE PROBLEM of all problems-- a judiciary unaccountable to the people by the Constitution. Stated another way, the lack of a means of enforcement of the Constitution by the people. That, my friends, is THE PROBLEM that begets all other problems.

This lack of enforcement is a fatal omission in the Constitution. Too much trust was placed in the judiciary as the sole source of power to ultimately judge in constitutional matters. The conflict of interest should have been obvious when framing the Constitution. While it provides that judges shall be bound by the Constitution, what authority would see to it that judges obey that written command? Since the Constitution was designed to protect the rights of the people, it necessarily follows that it is the people that would have such authority. It is the interests of the people that must be upheld and enforced by the Constitution. There in fact is NO "overriding governmental interest" so commonly asserted by the judiciary as an excuse for "overriding" the Constitution and their responsibility thereunder. Only the people can enforce the Constitution, and it must be done before the Domestic Enemy destroys the people completely.

J.A.I.L. is founded on three sources of law: (1) The Declaration of Independence; (2) Article II, Sec. 1 of the California Constitution; and (3) The U.S. Constitution. No. 2 provides: "All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require." That establishes in writing the true relationship between the people and government. Several other states have a similar provision. Of course, a constitutional provision doesn't create the right. It exists even in states that do not set it forth in writing. As stated above, it is an inherent power. It is an unalienable right, regardless of a constitutional provision.

The Declaration of Independence is even more forthcoming regarding this inherent right of the people. It provides in pertinent part: "... That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed [i.e., the people], that whenever any form of government [such as the judiciary] becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness. ..."

And the portion that is most compelling provides: "... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. ..." [emphasis added]. Yes, folks-- it is not only our right-- it is our DUTY to throw off a despotic, usurping, abusive, and destructive judicial system, and provide an independent, non-government, autonomous body made up of the people that will make judges account to them for their actions when they deliberately and willfully disregard constitutional law, so that judges will be held to answer at trial for their alleged violations in order to protect our future security. That's the only way the people can hope to restore honesty and integrity to our judicial system-- the fulcrum of our Constitutional Republic. We must pass J.A.I.L. in this country-- it is our duty to do so!

Since this was first written, South Dakotans now have the great opportunity of putting this message into ACTION, by voting YES on Amendment E this coming Tuesday, November 7th.

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

Our informative 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/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@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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1181

From: "E Mailing" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sun Oct 29, 2006 7:15 am
Subject: * * * Judges Inside the System Speak Out * * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California October 27, 2006

______________________________________________________

The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform Abusive Government.

The Right Upon Which All Other Rights Depend

Mission Statement JNJ Library Federal J.A.I.L.

FAQs What?MeWarden?
www.sd-jail4judges.org

Judges Inside the System Speak Out

WEST - Los Angeles Times

October 22, 2006

Is Justice Served? (p.20)

By Eric Berkowitz

http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/magazine/la-tm-arbitrate43oct22,1,6981618.story?coll=la-headlines-magazine

(Excerpts)

Hundreds of judges have deserted the bench to enrich themselves in a system of private arbitration. The arena is largely unregulated and tilted, many say, in favor of big business and against the little guy.

After nine years of hearing family law cases in her Santa Monica courtroom, Jill Robbins was tired--tired of schlepping files home every night.... ...a number of retired judges were telling Robbins about the piles of money she could make by hiring herself out to wealthy couples looking to resolve their divorces quietly. "They said, 'Oh my God, there's so much business out here; if you're thinking about it, this is the time,' " she recalls.

Not only did Robbins think about it, at least two attorneys remember her talking about it--openly from the bench. They said that, shortly before giving up her commissioner's robe in 1995, Robbins announced during a hearing that she had turned in her resignation and would be starting in private practice in about two months. .... Robbins is now one of the city's top private family law judges, commanding $600 an hour. ... People were calling to hire her, she acknowledges, even before she left government service. It's no mystery why. The pay-for-justice phenomenon extends nationwide, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in business a year. (Nobody has an exact figure.) ...

... Robbins is one of hundreds of judges who have abandoned the bench to enrich themselves by working in the private sector. Among them are four former California Supreme Court justices. ... Stephen Reinhardt, who sits on the federal appellate court in Los Angeles, once compared such marketing to "the rivalry between Alka-Seltzer and Pepto-Bismol."

The effect of all this is threefold. First, it has meant that a large number of cases are being decided out of public view, leaving no record or legal precedent for others to follow. Second, it has left the courts--with its overload of cases and myriad other challenges--without some of its most experienced jurists. Meanwhile, many of the best have walled themselves off behind what is, in effect, a gated community.

.... Says California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George: It's a "two-track system of justice--one for people who can decide which trial service they want and which judge they will pick" while "others stand at the end of the line." "We're doing the luxury spa," adds former judge and arbitrator Richard Hodge, "rather than the public swimming pool."

...A 2004 study by Stanford law professor Deborah Hensler and Rand Corp. researcher Linda Demaine found that more than 55% of consumer contracts have such clauses, leaving the public at the mercy of private judges who can rule with almost no accountability. And take a guess: When private judges are deciding between a big company and you, which way do you think they tend to lean?

Until his retirement in 2004, Michael Shapiro was one of the city's leading franchising attorneys. I practiced law with him for six years in the 1990s. Long afterwards, he worked at a large firm representing a franchise chain in an arbitration against individual franchisees. "You are not going to lose," Shapiro says one of his partners assured him. The firm sent the arbitrator so much business, the partner explained, "he has never decided against us." Sure enough, Shapiro said "on a very close case he came down in our favor."

.... "Private judging is an oxymoron because those judges are businessmen. They are in this for the money," says J. Anthony Kline, a state appellate justice in San Francisco. ... "I had an insurance company that very noticeably did not hire me further after I ruled against them in arbitration," Hodge says. "You would have to be unconscious not to be aware that if you rule a certain way, you can compromise your future business."

.... But it wasn't until the 1970s that private judging began to take hold more generally, thanks to a prominent Los Angeles attorney named Hillel Chodos. ... Soon, word got out. "This is exactly what created the industry," Chodos says. "I feel like I created a Frankenstein." A monster it has indeed become. As the courts got even more crowded .... Services such as JAMS [Judicial Arbitration & Mediation Services] popped up to meet it.

.... ...In a crucial 1992 decision, Moncharsh vs. Heily & Blase [3 Cal.4th 1], the state Supreme Court held than an arbitrator's award can stand even if it is legally wrong [violates the law] and causes "substantial injustice." The result is that California now has a second legal system in which arbitrators "can rule on the basis of the tea leaves," Hodge says. "...there is no appeal if I make a stupid or diabolical mistake, or one that is made in bad faith. The parties are on their own."

Four years after the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Moncharsh, the opinion's author, former state Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas, went to work for JAMS. He charges $6,500 a day, according to a company fee schedule dated

January 2006. Former Justice Edward A. Panelli, who also signed the decision, is now at JAMS too. His rate: $7,500 a day.

$1,000,000 - The estimated annual income of a top-tier retired judge acting as a private arbitrator.

Many in the ADR industry [Alternative Dispute Resolution] are reluctant to talk about the ins and outs of what they do. Not Lucie Barron. Perhaps that's because the Australian-born owner of Los Angeles-based ADR Services isn't an attorney. A voluble single mother of seven, Barron isn't one to wrap herself in a lot of high-minded talk about justice. "The whole business of resolving disputes is market-driven," she says. And when marketing judicial talent, it pays to have judges on your roster with name recognition. "We fight like crazy over the highly regarded judges. If people tell you we don't, it's not true."

Barron's company represents about 85 retired judges. In 12 years, she has built her firm into an ADR "supermarket." Some of her private judges make $1 million a year, after Barron takes a 25% to 28% cut. ... [$312,000 times 85 judges = $26,520,000 per year]

Barron meets the judges--sometimes in their courtrooms--to make her pitch. She also teaches them how to improve their prospects when they go private, advising them to collect lawyers' business cards for mailing lists, cultivate a reputation for settling cases and raise their public profile. ...

As I dug deeper and deeper into the world of private judging, I came across no shortage of horror stories from people who found themselves, often unwittingly, caught up in arbitration. ....

J.A.I.L. will provide the only known remedy for this lucrative racket involving top-tier judges.

"Who stands to be hurt if Amendment E is not passed?"

Would it be the South Dakota Bar Association and lawyers? NO!

Would it be the South Dakota Legislature? NO!

Would it be the insurance companies and agencies? NO!

IT WOULD BE THE VOTERS OF SOUTH DAKOTA

WHO WOULD BE HURT.

Vote YES on Amendment E for your future and your own good!

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/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@jail4judges.org

striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1182

From: "E Mailing" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed Nov 1, 2006 7:05 am
Subject: * * * California Judiciary Frightened Over J.A.I.L. * * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California October 31, 2006

______________________________________________________

The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform Abusive Government.

The Right Upon Which All Other Rights Depend

Mission Statement JNJ Library Federal J.A.I.L.

FAQs What?MeWarden?
www.sd-jail4judges.org

California Judiciary

Frightened Over J.A.I.L.

There has arisen much publicity over the South Dakota Amendment E around the country, including the Wall Street Journal and CNN. It should be noted that according to Lindy Royce of CNN in Washington D.C., Ron Branson, the author of J.A.I.L., will appear as part of the program on "CNN Newsroom" this coming Sunday, November 5th, at 4 p.m. eastern time. The Branson interview by Reporter William Mears in Washington was recorded October 3rd in the studios of CNN locally.

In observing some other sources of media, Branson has been described as a "hot-head," and J.A.I.L. described as an organization out to "harass" and "terrorize" the judiciary of this country. Those who have known Mr. Branson over the years have seen him only as easy-going and calm-natured. As to the latter, J.A.I.L. is merely a People's safeguard, designed "to provide new guards for their future security," as instructed in the Declaration of Independence. Despite calumny to the contrary, J.A.I.L. is not an anti-judge cause, but rather one seeking judicial obedience to the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof to which they take an oath.

Interesting is the article below in which the judiciary of California have set up a special three-day conference in San Francisco just before the election to deal with the likelihood of "JAIL4Judges" coming to California. This event portrays an image of judges running the other way with their pants around their ankles.

Bay City News Wire

CA COURT LEADERS TO DISCUSS JUDICIAL ELECTIONS AND ATTACKS ON COURTS

http://cbs5.com/localwire/localfsnews/bcn/2006/10/28/n/HeadlineNews/JUDGES-SUMMIT/resources_bcn_html

10/28/06

SAN FRANCISCO (BCN)

More than 300 leaders of the California court system will gather in San Francisco next week to talk about recent developments in judicial elections and attacks against judges around the nation by political and special interests.

The conference at the Hyatt Regency Hotel Nov. 1-3 is organized by the state Judicial Council and entitled Summit of Judicial Leaders.

Judicial Council spokeswoman Lynn Holton said, "Courts and judges across the country are facing new threats to their judicial independence. This conference will explore the challenges of judicial elections in some states and how we can protect the courts in California."

Speakers will include retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who will give a keynote speech on "Independence of the Judiciary" at the closing luncheon of the conference on Nov. 3.

Holton said participants in the conference will include the presiding judge, assistant presiding judge and chief administrator of nearly all the 58 county-based Superior Courts in California.

The state's six appeals courts will be represented by their clerk-administrators and most or all of the courts' administrative presiding justices.

California Chief Justice Ronald George recently noted that one example of a possible trend is a measure that will appear on the South Dakota ballot next month, entitled the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law and also known as "JAIL4Judges."

The measure would eliminate traditional judicial immunity and allow lawsuits against judges found by a special grand jury to have abused their discretion during the course of their judicial duties.

George told the annual meeting of the State Bar in Monterey earlier this month that although such measures have not yet reached California, he is concerned that they could come to the Golden State.

The chief justice said the South Dakota measure originated with a California group that wants to try to pass it in several small states before bringing it to California.

He told the bar meeting, "We cannot assume we are immune, and if we ignore the trends that are testing the limits in other jurisdictions, we do so at our own peril."

Topics of the conference include judicial election reform, the challenge of maintaining fair and impartial courts in the face of recent developments in judicial elections and attacks on the courts, and judicial independence.

In California, Superior Court or trial judges run for office in nonpartisan elections every six years. In practice, most are initially appointed to the bench by the governor to fill vacancies and are often not opposed when they run for new terms.

Court of Appeal and Supreme Court justices are appointed by the governor and approved by a state commission and appear on the ballot every 12 years for confirmation by the voters. If a justice is not confirmed by the voters -- as happened with three state Supreme Court justices in 1986 -- the governor appoints a replacement.

Other states have varying procedures, ranging from having all judges appointed by the governor to having all judges at all levels elected in either nonpartisan or partisan elections.

George said on Friday, "The manner in which we select our judges inevitably helps shape the way in which they dispense justice, and thus is a vital component in our society's adherence to the rule of law, the cornerstone of our democracy."

California has the largest court system in the nation, with about 1,500 Superior Court judges and 400 commissioners, 105 Court of Appeal justices and seven Supreme Court justices. The Judicial Council is the policymaking body of the state courts.

Holton said the council holds a meeting of state court leaders every year, but this is the first year it has been a summit focused primarily on a single topic rather than a conference on a number of topics.

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

Please read our informative SD website, 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/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@jail4judges.org

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

Yahoo! Groups

Breaking News Visit Yahoo! News for the latest.

The Yahoo! Groups Product Blog

Check it out!

Group Information

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...

Messages

First Amendment under attack

Victims of the Justice System

South Dakota's curious non-reader members of the bar
http://yannone.blogspot.com/2006/09/south-dakotas-curious-non-reader.html

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

South Dakota's curious non-reader members of the bar

Bruce Davidson: No proper role for J.A.I.L. 4 Judges

http://www.mysanantonio.com:80/opinion/stories/MYSA100106.2H.Davidson.21fe9d8.html

Web Posted: 09/30/2006 12:00 PM CDT
San Antonio Express-News

CA COURT LEADERS TO DISCUSS JUDICIAL ELECTIONS AND ATTACKS ON COURTS

Yahoo! Groups

Breaking News Visit Yahoo! News for the latest.

The Yahoo! Groups Product Blog

Check it out!

Group Information

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...

Messages

First Amendment under attack

Victims of the Justice System

South Dakota's curious non-reader members of the barhttp://yannone.blogspot.com/2006/09/south-dakotas-curious-non-reader.html

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

South Dakota's curious non-reader members of the bar

Bruce Davidson: No proper role for J.A.I.L. 4 Judges

http://www.mysanantonio.com:80/opinion/stories/MYSA100106.2H.Davidson.21fe9d8.html

Web Posted: 09/30/2006 12:00 PM CDTSan Antonio Express-News

CA COURT LEADERS TO DISCUSS JUDICIAL ELECTIONS AND ATTACKS ON COURTS

South Dakota's curious non-reader members of the bar
http://yannone.blogspot.com/2006/09/south-dakotas-curious-non-reader.html

Web Posted: 09/30/2006 12:00 PM CDT
San Antonio Express-News