#1185

From: "E Mailing" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Nov 4, 2006 7:57 am
Subject: * * * Branson Challenging Judges' Power * * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California November 4, 2006

______________________________________________________

The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform 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

State ballot measures challenge judges' power

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/11/03/ballot.measures/

POSTED: 9:54 p.m. EST, November 3, 2006

By Bill Mears
CNN Washington Bureau

Ron Branson's crusade to make judges more accountable is rooted in a Los Angeles lawsuit that stalled.

Jail4Judges.org

Amendment E sponsors

Amendment E opponents

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Ron Branson's crusade is launched daily from his garage in a nondescript house in California's San Fernando Valley.

Branson, his wife, Barbie, and attorney Gary Zerman, have waged a years-long, low-budget fight against judges and -- Branson says -- "a judicial system that just doesn't work."

Branson's weapons are his computer, where he publicizes his crusade through his Web site jail4judges.org, and the ballot box. His idea for a "judicial accountability" initiative will be voted on Tuesday in South Dakota.

Known as Amendment E, the measure would create a special grand jury to indict state judges if there are allegations they have violated their duties. It also would strip them of their immunity from civil lawsuits. Civil and criminal sanctions could follow.

It is believed to be the first proposal of its kind in the United States and is among several judicial initiatives on ballots around the country next week.

"It was just totally futile to go through the courts any more, and that's why I left that process and I decided to write this initiative and go directly to the people," Branson told CNN. "I'm a voice of a system gone out of control."

Much of the public frustration was galvanized in the case of Terri Schiavo, a severely brain-damaged woman in Florida who was the object of a legal tug-of-war between her husband and parents.

State and federal courts allowed her husband, Michael, to have her feeding tube removed, despite attempts by Florida officials -- prompted by her parents -- to take control of her medical care. Congress hastily passed a measure ordering the federal courts to intervene.

The political momentum from Branson's JAIL (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) movement is dismissed by many in the legal community, and has caused concern over rhetorical attacks on judges and judicial independence.

Retired U.S. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor began a recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal by mentioning Branson's group.

"It is tempting to dismiss this proposed amendment as merely an isolated bout of anti-judge angst," O'Connor wrote. "But while the JAIL 4 Judges initiative is unusually venomous, it is far from alone in expressing skepticism of the judiciary."

Ballot measures in other states

Other measures up for a vote November 7:

• In Colorado, Amendment 40 would subject judges to term limits. If approved, five of the seven justices on the state's Supreme Court would have to resign.

• Oregon would establish new voting districts for appellate judges, based on geography. The proposal is designed to "better reflect" the more conservative views of rural areas, compared with what supporters believe are more liberal judges from the Portland area.

• California's Proposition 90 would limit government's eminent domain power to seize private property for "public use."

• North Dakota would curb judicial authority in child custody cases.

Rebecca Kourlis, executive director of the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver said frustration with the courts seem to be driving the movement.

Kourlis, until recently a justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, said the legal community needs to do a better job of addressing public concerns and of explaining its role to the public.

"We should absolutely be expecting accountability," she told CNN. "They need to be accountable for being impartial, for not discriminating against people on the basis of race or socioeconomic status or even on the basis of who their lawyer is."

Kourlis' group recently released a report proposing wider use of "judicial performance evaluations," a nonpartisan tool already in use in 22 states.

Judges are rated according to factors such as caseload management, courtroom demeanor and adherence to laws. Judges are compared and evaluations can be used by voters in states where judges are elected or chosen by special panels created by the governor.

In Montana, the state Supreme Court found Constitutional Initiative 98 invalid. Under it, citizens could have used special elections to recall judges over any "dissatisfaction." The court said there was "pervasive fraud" in the signature-collection process.

Justice O'Connor sounds the alarm

O'Connor has tirelessly promoted the need for judicial independence. She co-hosted a recent conference with Justice Stephen Breyer on the topic. And the two of them spoke to CNN in an interview. (Full story)

The American Bar Association has distributed a DVD, "Countering the Critics," which it is screening at libraries, business clubs and churches.

All of this has had little sway on Branson.

The military veteran and minister is what is known in legal circles as a prolific "pro per" by filing numerous lawsuits over alleged wrongs done to him.

The U.S. Supreme Court says its records show at least eight appeals filed by him, all dismissed without a hearing. Branson says the number is closer to 14.

Branson's frustration with the legal system reached a boiling point after what he alleges was brutality from a traffic cop. His $13.6 million lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles went nowhere, he says.

So he and Zerman drafted a proposed judicial reform initiative in April 1995 that failed to get on their home state ballot. They created a Web site.

They found an ideological soul mate in Bill Stegmeier. A South Dakota farm-machine businessman, Stegmeier took Branson's idea and now spearheads the drive near Sioux Falls.

His Web site shows Stegmeier has spent about $165,000 of his own money to put the constitutional amendment on the November ballot and promote it.

E's supporters split

Stegmeier and his Amendment E supporters have split from Branson over a dispute over tactics.

Opponents of the measure say the amendment is too sweeping, and would threaten not only judges but ordinary citizens.

One such group is "No on E."

"Under Amendment E, almost all our families, neighbors and friends would be vulnerable if called to jury duty: they could be sued by disgruntled litigants and criminal defendants they convict," according to its Web site.

Such groups as school boards, zoning commissions and county commissions also could be affected because they receive some judicial immunity for their official duties, according to "No on E."

Stegmeier said only judges could be sued. He predicts victory.

Branson believes Nevada may be the next best chance to expand his initiative.

"What judgment you judge, you shall be judged," he said. As ordinary citizens, "we don't make laws, we're just called on to obey them, and I think that rule applies not only to us, but applies to judges."

For those who have CNN cable TV, Ron Branson will be on "CNN Newsroom" this Sunday, Nov. 5, at 4 p.m. eastern time. You are invited to tune in and watch/record it.

"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

"..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.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.13.25/515 - Release Date: 11/3/2006 5:15 AM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.26/516 - Release Date: 11/3/2006

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1186

From: "E Mailing" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 6:34 pm
Subject: Will The People of South Dakota Withstand the Election Fraud?

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California November 5, 2006 ______________________________________________________

The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform 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

Will The People of South Dakota Withstand the Election Fraud?

by Barbie, victoryusa@...

All eyes across the nation are now poised on the South Dakota 2006 election, just two days away, and particularly the J.A.I.L. Amendment (Amendment E). The American People are relying on The People of South Dakota to carry out their responsibility to amend their government pursuant to �26 of the South Dakota Constitution in order "to provide new guards for their future security" as instructed in the Declaration of Independence.

South Dakota was the first state to have the initiative process; and now it is the first state, through this process, for The People to be able to do something about out-of-control government that they have been complaining about for decades all over the country. We now see that, even with the initiative process, the entire South Dakota government has managed to interfere with that process through fraud and deceit on its People. The question is, will The People of South Dakota withstand this election fraud by their State government? These events will shine the light for other states to be prepared to deal with this problem of voter intimidation through government fraud and deceit. No matter what, J.A.I.L. is still the "Achilles' heel" to curbing a tyrannical government. The message of J.A.I.L. has gotten out and it will not go away!

Besides the entire South Dakota State Legislature criminally committing election fraud on the People of South Dakota, as we have exposed on February 21st in a J.A.I.L. News Journal "South Dakota Legislature Forfeits Their Public Trust," as well as March 5th, "Rogue Miscreant Legislators," below is part of an expose` of South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long taken from the Home Page of the South Dakota website giving details about the fraudulent misrepresentations regarding Amendment E appearing in the "Attorney General Explanation" on the South Dakota 2006 ballot.

The Lie vs. Truth

Choose Truth

Larry Long's Lies and Misrepresentations

Re: Amendment E.

It is the public duty of State Attorney General Larry Long under law to write a fair and accurate ballot statement that correctly portrays for the voters what it is that the voters are voting upon. His statement cannot be biased for or against any Amendment, nor can he state whether he supports or opposes the Amendment.

He must be entirely neutral. To do otherwise is understandably fraudulent and criminal, because it subverts the voting process, deceives the voters, and nullifies and invalidates the election as pertaining that issue. "...fraud vitiates everything it touches." White v. Union Producing, 140 F2d 176. "...fraud will vitiate even the most solemn transactions..." U.S. v. Aimsted, 15 U.S. 518, (1841).

Before we set forth what Larry Long is presenting as correctly portraying the Amendment E ballot measure, we wish to share with you the ballot wording of California State Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who is held to the same ballot standard as Larry Long, and see if you find the two statements unreasonably inconsistent in seeking to explain the same ballot Amendment. (Note: Since California is 50 times larger in population than is South Dakota, A.G. Lockyer reflects the accommodations for its population.)

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer states:

"JUDGES. RESTRICTIONS ON JUDICIAL IMMUNITY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Supersedes existing judicial immunity and creates three 25-member 'Special Grand Juries' empowered to: determine if a judge may invoke judicial immunity in a civil suit; indict and, through a special trial jury, convict and sentence a judge for criminal conduct; and permanently remove a judge who receives three adverse immunity decisions or three criminal convictions. Disallows immunity for deliberate violations of law, fraud, conspiracy, intentional due process violations, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts outside the court's jurisdiction, unreasonable delay of a case, or any deliberate constitutional violation."

Now compare South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long's ballot explanation, and ask yourself if it meets the lawful requirement that it be neutral and non-argumentative.

Quoting Larry Long:

"Citizens serving on juries, school boards, city councils, county commissions, or in similar capacities, and prosecutors and judges, are all required to make judicial decisions. Their decisions may be reversed on appeal, or they may be removed from office for misconduct or by election. However, they cannot be made to pay money damages for making such decisions. This allows them to do their job without fear of threat or reprisal from either side.

"The proposed amendment to the State Constitution would allow thirteen volunteers to expose these decision makers to fines and jail, and strip them of public insurance coverage and up to one-half of their retirement benefits, for making decisions which break rules defined by the volunteers. Volunteers are drawn from those who submit their names and registered voters.

"The proposed amendment is retroactive. The volunteers may penalize any decision-maker still alive for decisions made many years ago.

"If approved, the proposed amendment will likely be challenged in court and may be declared to be in violation of the US Constitution. If so, the State may be required to pay attorneys fees and costs.

"A vote “Yes” will change the Constitution.

"A vote “No” will leave the Constitution as it is."

Remember, as we have said, it is a violation of elections laws to argue for or against any ballot measure. Does Larry Long's explanation comply with the requirement of neutrality? He argues that Amendment E applies to "juries, school boards, city councils, county commissions," etc. His argument is refuted by its author, Ron Branson, whose intent, by operation of law, establishes its intended application. Larry Long has had ample opportunity, by publication of its author, of its intended meaning, and to know the truth of its application, but he chooses to fabricate a deceptive alternative, unintended and refuted by its author. If Larry Long is proffering an argument on the South Dakota ballot, then whether his argument is right or not, in either case, he has violated clear law and should be prosecuted for it.

Exposure of Attorney General Larry Long's Lies:

Larry Long's list of assertions regarding Amendment E involving "juries, school boards, city councils, county commissions, and prosecutors…" all fall flat when considering that Amendment E has nothing to do with his list. "Judges," yes! Amendment E deals only with "judges" by whatever name the legislature should choose to create or call them in the future. This provision avoids the need for future initiatives to keep up with changes made by the South Dakota legislature.

Why does Attorney General Long continue to insist upon his lying assertion in defining who "judges" are in Amendment E? It is because he is repulsed with the truth. It does not fit his designed plan to deceive all South Dakotans in his attempt to scare the voters out of voting for Amendment E. He wants everyone in South Dakota to believe that voting for Amendment E will result in the arrest and prosecution of any or all jurors for their vote in their deliberations in the jury room. What sick and perverted mind would perpetrate such a disgusting plot? Jurors are autonomous and the U.S. Constitution clearly provides, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury..." Amend. VI, and "...the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." Amend. VII. Obviously, any such suit initiated against a jury or a juror would immediately be thrown out, and Larry Long, being an attorney, knows this; but he just wants to scare South Dakotans, even if he has to commit a crime to do so.

I have been contacted requesting information if Amendment E would "go after jurors who voted in favor of a conviction." Such a preposterous theory as is being propagated by Attorney General Larry Long and his cohorts suggests "Jury Cannibalism." Even the media is calling me on this. To them I explain, even if it were possible that a juror or a jury could be held accountable for their vote, then it would have to involve another jury who, in turn, may be brought before yet a third jury, and so forth. The No-On-E website features on its home page a juror holding up a booking sign as a result of an arrest in order to scare the voters. Intimidating voters is both a state and federal crime. So why is Attorney General Long a part of this criminal voter-intimidation plot?

"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

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.13.28/518 - Release Date: 11/4/2006 5:30 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.28/518 - Release Date: 11/4/2006

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1187

From: "E Mailing" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed Nov 8, 2006 5:06 am
Subject: * * * California Bar Journal * * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California Nov. 7, 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

South Dakota measure puts judges on edge

By Nancy McCarthy
Staff Writer

(Click to Enlarge)

While much of the nation is focused on who will win control of Congress in this month’s midterm elections, the state of South Dakota has become an unlikely testing ground for a judicial accountability measure that opponents charge will destroy the rule of law.

And because it was written by a North Hollywood man who has tried unsuccessfully three times to place the measure on the ballot in California, it has state jurists worried that they may be targeted next.

Officially called Amendment E, the initiative — the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law otherwise known as JAIL — is a constitutional amendment, needing only a simple majority to pass, that would create a special grand jury of 13 people that could investigate and indict sitting judges.

The measure would strip judges of judicial immunity, exposing them to civil lawsuits and criminal charges for their decisions. And if the special jury finds a judge guilty three times, he or she will be removed from the bench and lose half their retirement benefits.

The proposed amendment is retroactive.

A handful of states have measures on their ballots this month that critics view as an assault on judicial autonomy. Amendment E in particular even attracted the attention of former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who called it “unusually venomous” and a challenge to the intentions of the Constitution’s framers in a recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece.

“Although the amendment’s supporters claim they seek a ‘judicial accountability initiative law (JAIL), they aspire to something far more sinister — judicial intimidation,” O’Connor wrote. “Judges who are afraid — whether they fear for their jobs or fear for their lives — cannot adequately fulfill the considerable responsibilities that the position demands.”

Both California Chief Justice Ronald George and Solano County Judge Scott Kays, president of the California Judges Association, also have spoken out about efforts to limit judges’ ability to make independent decisions. “We want judges to make decisions based on the facts and the law in each individual case and not make a popular decision but make the right decision,” Kays said. “These efforts totally undermine that independent decision making that we have come to know as the basis of our judicial system.”

Indeed, the initiative has so alarmed many South Dakotans that a broad coalition, including lawyers, judges, corporate interests, teachers and elected and civic officials, has raised about $1 million to fight it.

Tom Barnett, executive director of the South Dakota Bar Association, took a temporary leave of absence and is criss-crossing the state to campaign against Amendment E. “It destroys the rule of law, it destroys the equal application of law to everybody, it puts into the Constitution jury nullification and ultimately it will get the state of South Dakota sued,” Barnett said.

JAIL is the brainchild of Ron Branson, a southern California minister, former prison guard and prolific litigant who founded JAIL4JUDGES, an Internet powered organization of about 2,000 members dedicated to ending “the rampant and pervasive judicial corruption in the legal system of the United States.”

The measure, Branson said, is designed simply to hold judges accountable for their actions. “From my experience in the courts, I found that nothing works,” he said. “You argue A, B and C and the court deals with D, E and F. It’s just a futile thing. There’s absolutely no justice. The judges have their agenda and you’re not gonna change it.”

Branson has a long history of courtroom experience and says he has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court 14 times. By chance, he met Valencia attorney Gary Zerman in 1992, the two struck up a friendship and eventually drafted the Judicial Reform Act of 1996, the template for the South Dakota measure. But Branson said he was unable to collect more than 5,000 signatures to put it on the California ballot and two more attempts got no further.

With the explosion of the Internet, Branson was able to attract followers to his JAIL4JUDGES Web site and says he now has chapters in every state. Filled with hyperbolic language, the site lists the many grievances imposed on “the people” by the government and calls Branson’s followers to action. Styling himself the Five Star National JAIL Commander in Chief, Branson, who sometimes wears a cluster of five stars on his shirt, modeled his organization on the Army. “We have it regimented from national to state to county,” he said.

Undaunted by his failures in California, Branson connected with South Dakota businessman William Stegmeier, who bankrolled the effort there. “Bill came in as one of our jailers,” Branson said, “and eventually I appointed him as jailer-in-chief for the state of South Dakota.”

Backers of Amendment E collected 46,800 signatures, well over the 34,000 needed to put a measure on the ballot.

The state’s attorney general believes the initiative applies not only to judges but to citizens serving on juries, school boards, city councils, county commissions or similar bodies, as well as prosecutors. And Barnett says disgruntled litigants could sue people serving on those entities, and convicted felons could sue not only the judge who imposed sentence, but the prosecutor, the jurors and even the victim. All allegations are to be “liberally construed in favor of the complainant.” Jurors would be drawn from voter registration rolls and from those who submit their names.

The system would be funded by deducting 2 percent of all judicial salaries throughout the state and placing the money in a trust account.

Zerman, the southern California lawyer who helped write the South Dakota initiative, dismissed the possibility that anyone other than judges would be affected by the initiative. People who sit on civic boards “can be sued already,” Zerman said, adding that the word “judges” is repeated 35 times in the amendment.

And the Amendment E backers are fighting charges that they are linked to conspiracy theorists, the patriot movement and tax protesters. In fact, the campaign recently distanced itself from the JAIL4JUDGES group and Stegmeier submitted his resignation to Branson.

“Branson provided a template, has had nothing to do with campaigning or financing,” said Jake Hanes, a campaign spokesman. “Personally, I think he’s a bit of a publicity hound and a bit of a clown.”

Amendment E supporters claim the measure is leading by a three to one margin, based on a September Zogby poll that did not ask directly whether voters favored the initiative. Barnett said his polling three weeks before election day showed 12 percent in favor of Amendment E, 46 percent opposed and 42 percent undecided.

His theme in the campaign, he said, is “this isn’t about judges, it’s about us.” Secondly, he cautioned lawyers and judges to avoid the phrase “judicial independence,” because it translates into judicial activism or social legislation in many voters’ minds.

“Voters want and expect that our courts fairly and impartially apply the law,” Barnett stressed.

If the amendment succeeds, it will hearten the JAIL4JUDGES movement, which wants to place similar measures on ballots in other states, including California. It also likely will be tied up in court for years.

If it fails, backers say it will be because of collusion between lawyers and special interests. Will they go to court?

“I’ll answer that like the politicians do,” Branson said. “I’m not taking it off the table.”

Contact Us	Site Map	Notices	Privacy Policy
© 2006 The State Bar of California

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.13.30/521 - Release Date: 11/7/2006 3:30 AM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.30/521 - Release Date: 11/7/2006

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1188

From: "E Mailing" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 7:42 pm
Subject: ***Election fraud by the South Dakota Legislature***

jail4judges_...

Send Email

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

The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform 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

Election Fraud

by the South Dakota Legislature

and What Can Be Done About it

By Ron Branson, VictoryUSA@...

The following is taken from the Home Page of www.sd-jail4judges.org.

For background information, read about legislative election fraud in Wisconsin: Wisconsin's biggest legislative election scandal.

Now having been informed of "the biggest political scandal in Wisconsin history," let us turn to an immensely greater political scandal now going on involving all the South Dakota State Legislators. "And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none." Ezekiel 22:30.

Which legislator among those in the South Dakota Legislature has clean hands in this matter? Which legislator is it that will stand up and blow the whistle on the corruption going on among all the South Dakota legislators? Is there not at least one legislator willing to break rank and step forward to contend for an honest election? Is it true that there is not a single legislator among you that cares about election integrity? that will speak out on this election fraud?

We've all heard that "Two wrongs do not make a right." Well, how about one-hundred and five legislators committing a wrong? The argument that "everyone is doing it," shows how deeply ingrained your evil and corruption goes. Verily, "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil;" Exodus 23:2.

Now we have already pointed out that big oil companies are financing the fight against the passage of Amendment E. What would you think if the oil companies rigged the gas pumps to distort your purchase so that you did not receive an honest gallon for your money? You would be outraged and complain vigorously. But what if there were no forum whatsoever in government to which you could complain, and even the State Attorney General was in on this scam? What is actually happening in this legislative scandal is immensely more serious than not getting a true gallon of gas. Let us explain.

At peril here is one of your most precious rights -

The Voting Process

All elections depend not only upon the actual honesty and integrity of the election, but also upon the perception of honesty and integrity. Any hint of voter fraud is hurtful to the election process, as everyone must believe in the process. If voting is not honest, then, of course, why bother having a voting process at all?

Such charge is now being raised against the government's interference with the current South Dakota election on November 7th. While this challenge to voter fraud is being leveled by the people behind Amendment E, this issue rises far above whether one is either for or against Amendment E, but rather whether the election process itself must be honest. This question leads all of us to ask whether we should be holding elections at all if honesty may be nonchalantly sacrificed on the altar of objective success. (Win at all cost even if election crimes must be committed to do so.)

I was interviewed on Tuesday, October 3, 2006, by NPR out of Washington D.C. doing a story on Amendment E. The interviewer, Nina Totenberg, asked me her final question, "Mr. Branson, all of the government in South Dakota is opposing your Amendment E. Why is this so?" I responded, "The latest poll shows that the opposition against Amendment E has the support of 19.8% of the voters in South Dakota. It is commonly accepted that governments across the nation consist of approximately 1/5th, or 20%, of any given population, which accounts for the 20% of those in South Dakota opposed to Amendment E. All the rest of the population, less the 13.2% undecided, are in favor of the passage of Amendment E. Statistically speaking then, this shows that Amendment E is about the Government versus the People, and the People versus the Government of South Dakota." The above being the final question, Ms. Totenberg thanked me and concluded the interview.

This question posed to me by the media raises the question regarding governments campaigning for or against any citizens' measure with taxpayers' dollars in the first place. If the citizens of South Dakota tolerate allowing their state Capitol to be used as a campaign headquarters against their initiatives, it spells the end of the voting process. If the legislature can get away with this on one ballot issue they do not like, then they can, and certainly will, continue this fraud of influence-peddling on other ballot issues. This is but a small step away from the legislature buying votes with the People's own tax dollars, and I predict that that is exactly what will be taking place next, inasmuch as the election process will become as corrupt and evil as the People will tolerate.

What we are saying here is: something extremely serious is at stake in South Dakota. It involves everyone's future in casting votes in honest elections. Once the right of the People to vote in honest elections is displaced, then People may as well surrender their state to communistic fascist-thinking government dictators who do not have to face the voters!

With only four state legislators in Wisconsin giving over their Capitol offices to campaigning, Wisconsin is said to be now reeling with one of the greatest campaign scandals in its history. But now the South Dakota legislature is going the max, a major scandal involving all state legislators! Normally, this criminal conduct would be prosecuted by the State Attorney General, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of South Dakota, but even he is involved in this massive government election scandal. Attorney Gary Zerman had written a letter to Governor Rounds which he forwarded to Mr. Stegmeier, the Proponent of Amendment E, pertaining to this scandal. Be sure to read it.

This criminal scandal far transcends the November election, but will cloud the entire election process in South Dakota for years to come. The entire nation will take notice of what these South Dakota legislators, Attorney General, and judiciary have done. Other state legislators will either choose to condemn the practice, or adopt similar behind-the-scene practices. Should it be the latter, the entire electoral process nationwide will be jeopardized as election fraud becomes a way of life.

Since the implications and risks are so high, it behooves the F.B.I. to move in swiftly and arrest and try government officials statewide before this evil blossoms in other states. "Know ye not that a little little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?" I Cor.5:6. Toleration of a little election fraud is guaranteed to result in an absolute government corruption -- no ifs, ands, or buts!

It is time for all South Dakotans to rise to the cause and preserve their right to vote.

What Can Be Done About This

Election Fraud In South Dakota?

First, we recommend you pray. "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." James 5:16 "Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not." Jeremiah 33:3

Secondly, after you have humbly prayed and committed your heart to the Lord in faith, you are advised to compose a criminal affidavit setting forth the particulars as described above, and submit it to your local F.B.I. Office, urging them to open a criminal investigation of State Attorney General Larry Long for seeking to influence an election. In a nutshell, the Attorney General has inverted, through manipulation, the objective of J.A.I.L. from jurors going after judges to criminals going after jurors. Likewise, name specific State Legislators in their individual capacity for the crime of utilizing their public offices and public funds for campaigning against a state ballot initiative, in violation of South Dakota Codified Law 12-13-16.

To place this misconduct, committed by these legislators, in perspective, it is serious enough that even the President of the United States may be impeached on commission thereof, to wit, "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." U.S. Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 4. (Note the inclusion of misdemeanor crimes.)

Likewise, the South Dakota Constitution, Art. XVI, �3, in pertinent part, states, "Officers subject to Impeachment -- Grounds -- Removal from office -- Criminal prosecution. The Governor and other state [legislative]...officers ... shall be liable to impeachment for ... crimes, corrupt conduct, or malfeasance or misdemeanor in office..."

Therefore, submit an adapted version of your criminal affidavit, which you submitted to the F.B.I., to your local county Grand Jury, demanding a criminal investigation and indictment of the specific legislators you named, preferably your own!

Lastly, again seek God's face and ask Him to plead your cause and show you His Wondrous Works on our behalf. "Thus saith the LORD: Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the LORD." Jeremiah 31:16.

God bless each and every one of you for actively taking a stand for Truth!

It's All About 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

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.13.28/518 - Release Date: 11/4/2006 5:30 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.28/518 - Release Date: 11/4/2006

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1189

From: "E Mailing" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed Nov 8, 2006 6:17 am
Subject: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Disturbed About Heat On Judiciary

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California Nov. 8, 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

Swing Voter's Lament: At Least One Case Still Bugs O'Connor

Matthew Hirsch
The Recorder
November 8, 2006

For 24 years, Sandra Day O'Connor got to correct lower court judges when they ruled incorrectly. Now, the retired U.S. Supreme Court justice wants to issue a correction -- or, at least, a clarification -- of her own.

In an address on Friday at the Grand Hyatt hotel in San Francisco, O'Connor voiced regret over the fallout from the Supreme Court's ruling in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765, a case decided in 2002. As she often did in her last years on the bench, O'Connor cast the deciding fifth vote in the White case.

The ruling said states should not restrict judicial candidates from expressing their views on hot political topics, like abortion.

As a result, many states rolled back limits on speech for judicial candidates, which had been embedded in the codes of judicial conduct. Interest groups reacted by pushing harder to tease out judicial candidates' positions on political issues.

In a candid admission to California judges who came to hear O'Connor's speech, part of a three-day-long Summit of Judicial Leaders sponsored by the state Judicial Council, the retired justice said she doesn't second-guess many of her past decisions, "but that White case, I confess, does give me pause."

Since hanging up her robe in January, O'Connor has been hard at work trying to counteract perceived threats to judicial independence. In a Sept. 27 Wall Street Journal column, she argued against a South Dakota ballot measure that would make it easier for losing parties in court to sue the judge, and last month she went on CNN with Justice Stephen Breyer to talk about other threats to the judiciary.

She also hosted a conference in Washington, D.C., last month where California Chief Justice Ronald George talked about how the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in White helped contribute to more politicized judicial elections. He said O'Connor was especially interested in hearing about the negative impact of the decision.

"By the end of the conference, she said -- and I'm not just talking outside the school room, she said this publicly -- she said, 'Sometimes we just don't get it right,'" George said.

It seems O'Connor has become virtually synonymous with the idea of judicial independence since her retirement. When George introduced O'Connor before her speech Friday, he said he found 99,600 references searching the Internet for the terms "Sandra Day O'Connor" and "judicial independence."

"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.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.13.30/521 - Release Date: 11/7/2006 3:30 AM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.30/521 - Release Date: 11/7/2006

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1190

From: "E Mailing" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed Nov 8, 2006 9:24 pm
Subject: * * * Post-Election Report * * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California November 8, 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

Post-Election Report

By Ron Branson, VictoryUSA@...

At issue here is not whether or not one agrees

with J.A.I.L., but rather, whether one is entitled

to elections adhering to the basics of integrity.

Are you ready to give up your right to vote?

-Ron Branson

It Is Still All About Truth!

"The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion." Proverbs 28:1

It is being reported that J.A.I.L. Amendment E lost big in yesterday's election -- 90% against to 10% in favor. This figure does not even amount to the number of voters who signed the petition in the first place to qualify Amendment E for the ballot. Supposedly, the issue of Judicial Accountability failed to even amount to a blip on the radar screen, and fared worse than every other issue on the ballot. 90% versus 10% on any ballot issue is very rare! Just seven weeks ago, on September 19th, Amendment E was better than 3-to-1 in its favor according to a poll by Zogby International. See the entire revealing article at Sept. 19, 2006 Poll Reveals Amendment E Gaining Its Lead Even More.

So, with an epidemic of everyone across this nation crying for redress, having very egregious personal horror stories to tell of their injuries due to arrogant and oppressive judges, what is wrong with this picture? Do not people want relief from a repressive judicial system? Do people love their judges and want to hug them?

The fact is, the voters of South Dakota were never presented with, nor voted upon, J.A.I.L. Contrariwise, J.A.I.L. as written, was fairly described for the California ballot in 2000 by State Attorney General Bill Lockyer who stated:

Deception by South Dakota Bar Association

While J.A.I.L. (Amendment E in South Dakota) according to A.G. Lockyer is clearly about "judges," Tom Barnett, the director of the South Dakota Bar Association, while campaigning against Amendment E, says he found that the message of "judicial independence," in arguing why judges should be immune, was not selling well with the voters; so he changed the theme of the campaign to a new theme, which is, "It is not about judges. It is about us."

"It is not about judges"? "It is about us"? Does not Barnett refute the findings of A.G. Lockyer that it is about "Judges"? So what is he saying when he says, "It is about us"? Who is "us"? Is "us" the lawyers of the Bar Association he heads? Is "us" the oil conglomerates, banking cartels, multi-billion-dollar insurance corporations who financed the opposition? Has not he, and the opposition, employed the use of lies and deception upon the voters to defraud them out of what they would have otherwise voted for?

Corruption of the entire South Dakota Legislature

I now turn to the corruption of the entire South Dakota Legislature who, at the beginning of the campaign, unanimously "passed" a resolution against Amendment E urging the voters to reject it, using taxpayer-funded facilities and dollars to do so. Such act is criminal and strictly forbidden by South Dakota Codified Law 12-13-16.

Publication of false or erroneous information on constitutional amendment or submitted question as misdemeanor.

Any person knowingly printing, publishing, or delivering to any voter of this state a document containing any purported constitutional amendment, question, law, or measure to be submitted to the voters at any election, in which such constitutional amendment, question, law, or measure is misstated, erroneously printed, or by which false or misleading information is given to the voters, is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.

Now these legislators cannot let the law get in their way in pursuing the defeat of Amendment E, can they? God forbid that these lawmakers should be subject to their own criminal code, for then they would have to be arrested and tried on those criminal charges! So I ask, Why do we have this criminal statute on the books? I suggest this ineffective "law" be removed from the law books. Why retain vain laws?

And then there is this little matter called "The Constitution of the State of South Dakota" which they have all sworn with an oath to uphold and defend. "�1. Right to vote. Elections shall be free and equal, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage." Art. VII, �1. The "right to vote" obviously applies to an honest and unfettered election, not to a criminally-influenced voting scam. Twice we placed every legislator in South Dakota on notice by U.S. mail of their criminal conduct, but they ignored us and proceeded on with the election process as if everything was regular and normal.

Misrepresentation by Attorney General Larry Long

Now we come to South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long's role in wrapping up this conspiratorial election fraud. He could not wait to throw the election in his "explanation" as to what the voters were voting upon. He set up the wording to allow the opposition to develop their argument that Amendment E was about letting felons out of prison so that they could go after the jurors who placed them behind bars. Here enters the fear-and-intimidation factor of the voters who have asked me if they could be arrested and jailed for voting for a conviction. I kid you not, folks, that the voters were being told they could be arrested as a juror for the decisions they might make. Now keep in mind that this is supposed to represent the objective of J.A.I.L., and what the voters were voting upon!

Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." If you accept the "official" results, 10% of the People of South Dakota were not fooled in this instance.

Amendment E did not fail at the polls--it was never presented for a vote

If Amendment E was about what the voters were being propagandized that it was, not even I would have voted for it -- and I am the author who wrote the words! My point is that Amendment E (J.A.I.L.) did not fail at the polls. It just was never presented on the ballot for a vote. It was suggested that I stop the election on Amendment E before it took place, but I stated that the "election process" could not be stopped unless federal authorities stopped it for a fraud investigation.

It became obvious that the entire state government was clearly conflicted, and they could never admit that they were bent on acting out their fraudulent election, come hell or high water. I realized this when I heard of their literally flooding the airwaves with their false and misleading propaganda of what Amendment E was about, just prior to the election. My hope and expectation was that the voters of South Dakota could nevertheless see through the fraud and deception and vote for the truth. However, that was not to be!

True are the words of the Scripture, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:" Hosea 4:6. Unfortunately, the people have not yet learned the consistent truth that you can never, never, ever trust government. As stated by George Washington, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force, like a fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

What Are The Implications of This Entirely Fraudulent Government?

1. They have forfeited their public trust and must resign

First off, all of these government officials have forfeited their public trust, and must be forced to resign and surrender their office to more worthy men. The South Dakota government has demonstrated that they are unwilling to repent of their evil devices, and must be removed from office by an outside authority, or a greater authority within.

I have recommended that those voters in South Dakota who find that they were deceived by the fraudulent election, draw up, with help if needed, a criminal affidavit supporting probable cause that they were the victim of this fraudulent election, and file it with the F.B.I. and with the U.S. Attorney. The more the better. I know that some have already proceeded with this project. We should first give the federal authorities a reasonable opportunity to investigate and move in on the government of South Dakota.

Also, I am recommending that these citizens further file an affidavit of criminal conduct, citing the laws of the State of South Dakota, with their County Grand Juries.

As to the higher authority within, I refer to the People themselves. Once it is established that no one will do anything to enforce the law, then the remedy necessarily, under the Declaration of Independence, must rest with the People. The highest authority of arresting power lies with the People in making citizen's arrests, as all other powers of arrest are derived as a privilege granted from the People's power of arrest. All official power to arrest is subordinate to that of the People. (Declaration of Independence).

Should such arrests take place, it follows that the arrestees must constitutionally be delivered to a magistrate. However, since there is no state magistrate that does not have a conflict of interest, the appropriate magistrate should be a federal magistrate, before whom an affidavit supporting probable cause should be laid. (Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.)

2. The people's right to vote has been violated

At issue here is the right to vote in an election having integrity. If the government of South Dakota is allowed to tamper with the voting process using the public's money, it will set a precedent encouraging other jurisdictions to see if they, too, can do the same and get away with it. We must keep in mind that government will always become as corrupt in its election process as will be tolerated. Voting is not only a right within state jurisdictions, but also in federal jurisdiction. The violation of this right is a federal crime prosecutable by the U.S. Attorney, (Title 18, USC 242.)

3. It has national implications

Further, all people of other states have an interest in fair elections. If the officials of the government of South Dakota can conduct elections in violation of criminal laws with impunity, such conduct will eventually contaminate their own states. I therefore recommend that everyone in this country raise their voices appropriately in objection to tolerating this evil being perpetrated by the government of South Dakota. They absolutely must be punished for their gross evil deeds against the People. We are a Union of States, and no State can be an Island unto itself when it comes to citizens of this country. ("... And the state of South Dakota is an inseparable part of the American Union..." Art VI, �26). We all, therefore, have an interest in protecting our common right to vote in sound elections within this Union. Once we submit ourselves to the existence of election fraud with impunity, we thereby forfeit our future to tyrants who will decide everything for us without our permission.

If we are willing to fight, and sacrifice our lives, for the right to vote in foreign nations, should we not be willing to contend for that same right here in our own country?

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

Truth can never reach agreement with a lie

I have been told that "we will just have to fight harder next time for the passage of J.A.I.L." But what this view overlooks is that we are not here engaged in a fair fight. A fight that entails our having our hands tied behind our backs, and allows our opponents to wear brass knuckles, is not a ring which we climb into to try to "fight harder," We need a referee that is neutral, not one that is the state government holding a bet on the outcome.

Also, I have been told, "we need to re-write the J.A.I.L. Initiative so that this will never happen again." This presupposes that the J.A.I.L. Initiative, as currently written, is faulty and needs to satisfy the opponents. This view ignores the fact that never, in any fashion, can J.A.I.L. be re-written in a thousand years to meet the acceptance and approval of the opposition. Such objective can never be accomplished with thousands of new amendments. Truth can never reach a mutual agreement with a lie. At issue here is not whether or not one agrees with J.A.I.L., but rather, whether we are entitled to elections adhering to the basics of integrity. Are you ready to give up your right to vote? If not, you have no choice left but to fight for your right to vote by whatever means are necessary.

"In transgressing and lying against the LORD, and departing away from our God, speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood. And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter. Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the LORD saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment." Isaiah 59:13-15.

It Is Still All About Truth!

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.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.13.32/523 - Release Date: 11/7/2006 1:40 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.32/523 - Release Date: 11/7/2006

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1191

From: "E Mailing" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Thu Nov 9, 2006 6:54 am
Subject: * * * Insurance Companies Pop Champaign Cork Over J.A.I.L. * * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California November 8, 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

Insurance Companies Pop

Champaign Cork Over J.A.I.L.

S. D. J.A.I.L. for Judges Amendment Soundly Defeated

November 8, 2006

The American Insurance Association (AIA) and the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) said today that common sense triumphed in South Dakota with the sound defeat of Amendment E, the so-called "J.A.I.L. for Judges" initiative.

Early returns showed the amendment failing 90 percent to 10 percent, the joint statement from the two insurance trade groups said.

"The good people of South Dakota sent a clear message yesterday that the radical ideas in the J.A.I.L. proposal are not worth upsetting their state's entire civil justice system," said Steve Schneider, AIA vice president, Midwest Region. "Now, judges, people who serve on boards and commissions, and other public officials will be free to
perform their work without fear of harassment or personal liability for making unpopular or unfavorable decisions."

NAMIC state affairs manager Joe Thesing said, "By rejecting Amendment E, South Dakota voters showed their support for a strong and independent judicial system, without which democracy cannot function. We are pleased the voters saw this proposal for what it was, an ill-conceived and illogical measure that would have discouraged
community involvement and likely stunted economic growth."

Amendment E would have created a 13-member Special Grand Jury composed of voters and volunteers selected annually at random who would hear complaints against judges and determine if indictments were warranted. Supporters of Amendment E assumed that judicial immunity is absolute, and that citizens do not currently have
recourse for addressing perceived judicial misconduct.

In South Dakota, Supreme Court judges and Circuit Court judges are elected in nonpartisan races and an appeals process exists that is augmented by a seven-member Judicial Qualifications Commission to review complaints and conduct disciplinary proceedings.

Opposition to Amendment E was strong and vocal. Earlier this year, the South Dakota Legislature overwhelmingly adopted a resolution urging voters to reject the initiative. More than 200 local governmental bodies, including city councils, school boards and county commissions, opposed Amendment E. More than 40 statewide organizations,

AIA, NAMIC, and other national groups all joined the "No on E" coalition formed earlier this year to combat the initiative. Last week, U.S. Sens. Tim Johnson (D) and John Thune (R), Rep. Stephanie Herseth (D), GOP congressional candidate Bruce Whalen,
Gov. Mike Rounds (R), and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jack Billion issued a joint statement in opposition to Amendment E.
Amendment E was the brainchild of Californian Ron Branson, a frequent filer of frivolous lawsuits and author of the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.).

Branson brought his fringe campaign to South Dakota in 2005, and with the help of paid signature gatherers, convinced enough residents to sign petitions in support of the J.A.I.L. proposal, which became Amendment E on Tuesday's ballot.

The American Insurance Association represents 400 major
insurance companies that provide all lines of property and casualty insurance and write more than $120 billion annually in premiums. The association is headquartered in Washington, D.C.

NAMIC members identifies itself as a national insurance trade association that accounts for 44 percent of the homeowners market, 38 percent of the automobile market, 39 percent of the workers' compensation market, and 31 percent of the commercial property and liability market. NAMIC headquarters is located in Indianapolis.

Source: AIA, NAMIC

"Pride goeth before a fall, and a haughty spirit before destruction" - Bible

"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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.13.32/523 - Release Date: 11/7/2006 1:40 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.32/523 - Release Date: 11/7/2006

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1192

From: "E Mailing" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Nov 11, 2006 3:12 am
Subject: Fight Against Judicial Activism Suffers Setbacks

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California November 10, 2006

______________________________________________________

The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform 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

Fight against 'judicial activism' in U.S. courts to continue despite election setbacks

The Associated Press

November 10, 2006

WASHINGTON: Efforts to curb judges' independence suffered some Election Day setbacks, but supporters pledged to keep up the fight against a judiciary they say has lost touch with America.

The problem, critics say, is that judges too often make laws rather than interpret them. On Tuesday's ballots, the possible solutions ranged from term limits to prison time for judges. All failed, most by wide margins.

Judges say such efforts threaten their autonomy and some legal scholars see them as part of an organized campaign to persuade voters that judges, like legislators, governors and presidents, are policymakers who need political oversight.

At the heart of the dispute is "judicial review," established in 1803 by the nation's third chief justice, John Marshall. It holds that the U.S. Constitution's balance of powers concept cedes to judges the authority to decide whether a law is constitutional. "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is," Marshall wrote.

The frontier of the anti-activist-judge movement was the north-central state South Dakota, where voters considered allowing judges to face lawsuits or jail time for their opinions.

"People are not going to allow judges to take over this county," said Ron Branson, who conceived the South Dakota measure and is promoting it nationwide. "They talk about judicial independence, but they're getting involved in things they have no power to order."

Nine out of 10 voters rejected the idea, but Branson predicted it would take hold in one of several states with active chapters in the "Jail4Judges" campaign.

In Montana, just west of South Dakota, three Republican legislators backed a proposal that would have allowed judges to face recall for any reason. The measure was voted upon but the results were not counted because judges found fraud and deception in the petition drive. Supporters of the measure said it was just another arbitrary ruling by the courts.

"We're not off-the-wall people. We're three leadership people in the Montana House of Representatives," said state Rep. Ed Butcher. He said he and his colleagues were trying to send a message that jurists "have to be judges rather than legislators."

It is a familiar refrain in these debates. Critics, frequently conservatives, have used the phrase "activist judges" to refer to jurists they say legislate from the bench.

President George W. Bush has used the term to criticize opinions such as the court-ordered legalization of homosexual marriage in the northeastern state of Massachusetts.

The critique, however, is not new. President Theodore Roosevelt proposed recalling judges who had grown "out of touch with social needs," and Franklin D. Roosevelt contended the Supreme Court was acting as a policymaking body. "We must take action to save the Constitution from the court," he said.

But anti-court sentiment is growing. The Justice at Stake Campaign, an effort to keep the judiciary independent, called the 2006 election "the most threatening election yet for fair and impartial courts."

"I'm increasingly concerned about the current climate of challenge to judicial independence," retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor recently told a gathering of state judges. "Unhappiness with judges today is at a very intense level."

That unhappiness was clear in Oregon on the West Coast, where people wrote impassioned statements supporting a measure requiring that appellate judges be selected from diverse areas of the state. The courts currently are dominated by city judges who are reinterpreting the state constitution, supporters of the measure said.

"The Oregon Supreme Court has substantially expanded the rights of criminals, limited the rights of property owners and limited the initiative process," Steve Doell, a victims-rights advocate, wrote for a voter's guide. "Many of the changes instituted by the court are more properly the responsibility of the legislature or of the people."

A similar argument was used to support a Colorado proposal that would have imposed 10-year term limits on judges. Both measures failed at the polls. Federal judges have lifetime appointments, but many judges at state and lower levels must face the electorate periodically.

The "activist judge" proposals reflect a political strategy, said University of Pennsylvania law professor Stephen B. Burbank. If voters are persuaded to see judges as representing constituents or policies rather than simply interpreting the law, it will be easier to pass laws limiting their independence, he said.

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.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.14.1/527 - Release Date: 11/9/2006 6:00 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.1/527 - Release Date: 11/9/2006

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1193

From: "E Mailing" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:34 am
Subject: When Lies Become the Truth Because Government Says It Is (Limited)

jail4judges_...

Send Email

When Lies Become the Truth

Because Government Says It Is

Nancy, nothing of substance has, or will be changed in the Initiative. (Statements as to what is not intended, possibly.) The problem is the South Dakota government is lying about what the Initiative states. The law requires the courts to adhere to the intent of the Initiative's "framer," and to avoid absurd and unreasonable interpretations, but the courts ignore their own case precedent, and proceed on with their agenda to discredit what is sought to be voted upon.

I have been stating time and time again that J.A.I.L is about judges only, and that has always been its intent from the beginning, but they just contradict my stated intent, and say the objective is really to go after juries and sue them, etc. They want to scare and intimidate all the voters, (potential jurors) from voting for it out of fear they will be arrested for their decisions when they serve on jury duty.

Illustration: If I say my name is "Ron Branson," and even swear to that fact, they say my name is really "Joe Blow" without proof, it is what they say that carries the day. This is out and out fraud. But to whom does one complain when all officialdom in the South Dakota government is involved in this fraud? It is a pure outright attack upon the voting process itself. J.A.I.L. has proved that the judges control and cover-up for all the rest of government, and so government is inversely disposed to cover-up for all judges. There is no judicial independence.

The problem is not the wording of the Initiative, but the government's power to lie in contravention of its intent. If the government can convince 90% of the people that a lie is the truth, does that make the lie the truth? No! But that is what is going on here!

-Ron Branson

From: Nancy Grant [mailto:ngrant@...]
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 9:09 AM
To: E Mailing
Subject: question from Nancy Grant

Hello Ron,

If you amend the J4J's iniative to include the voting process do I continue to collect signatures here in Florida or wait until the amendment process is completed, then collect petitions, or does it matter?

Please let me know because we are going to start on another spirited petition drive. I am clearing some of my land to put up a huge Jail4judges sign along a major highway. I want to also put up a large flad pole flying an upside down American flag. Let me know your thought on this.

Our website in Florida was hit with someone changing and deleting pages but the webmaster here has it straightened out and has put up new firewalls.

Nancy Grant/Jail4judges-Florida

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.14.2/528 - Release Date: 11/10/2006 2:31 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.2/528 - Release Date: 11/10/2006

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1194

From: "E Mailing" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Fri Nov 17, 2006 7:05 am
Subject: * * * Judicial System Fears Emasculation * * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

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

______________________________________________________

The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform 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

Judicial System

Fears Emasculation

mcall.com

Ballot initiatives threatened independence of courts

By Ralph J. Cappy - Chief Justice of Penn. Supreme Court

http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/anotherview/all-cappy11-16nov16,0,2030720.story?coll=all-newsopinionanotherview-hed

Nov. 16, 2006

While public attention was focused on the power shift in Washington in last week's election, something else was going on at polling places around the country that went almost unnoticed.

Voters in several states considered constitutional amendments that could have weakened, politicized and, in one case, outright emasculated their state courts.

I am grateful to say that these ballot initiatives failed. But, the threat to democracy that they represent remains very much alive.

A growing pattern of attacks on the courts across the nation has gained tremendous momentum in recent years and it is important for all citizens to be aware of it.

In the name of making courts more ''accountable,'' certain groups and individuals, driven by special interests and rigid philosophies, have launched campaigns in many states to smear and unseat individual judges or entire courts. These critics insist that their opinions, and theirs alone, are correct, and courts should recognize no other.

There have been impeachment drives, recall movements and ugly political campaigns along with a growing pattern of violence against judges. Any judge who issues an unpopular but legally sound ruling can become a target.

This year, far more than ever before, we saw ballot proposals to limit the powers of the courts, to strip jurisdiction from the courts and to intimidate judges.

In South Dakota, a ballot proposal would have provided for a citizens' grand jury with powers to authorize lawsuits against judges and even indict judges for their rulings.

In Oregon, a ballot proposal would have wiped out statewide elections for appellate judges in favor of electing them from politically carved judicial districts. Had it passed, most or all of the state's appellate judges would have been swept from office.

In Colorado, a proposal would have imposed 10-year term limits on judges. That, too, was aimed at getting rid of incumbent judges.

In all the media coverage of the election, there was little mention of these ballot proposals. In my view, much more attention should have been given to them. Judges across the nation were watching these elections with grave concern.

The voters in South Dakota, Oregon and Colorado wisely recognized the dangers in the proposals and rejected them. They voted to protect their courts, as they should. They clearly wanted their courts to remain accountable — but to their constitutions and the rule of law, not to special interests. In those elections, the voters were well-informed and democracy worked.

It is vitally important that the courts everywhere in America remain accountable, yet strong and independent, as they have for more than 200 years, and that judges remain free to make decisions based on the rule of law, and that alone, uninfluenced by any form of outside pressure.

Our courts in Pennsylvania are open and accessible to citizens of every race, faith, nationality and socio-economic background. They exist to protect our rights and our freedom. They should never be taken for granted.

Ralph J. Cappy is chief justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.14.6/535 - Release Date: 11/15/2006 3:47 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.6/535 - Release Date: 11/15/2006

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1195

From: "Jail 4 Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Nov 18, 2006 1:59 am
Subject: *** "Jail for Judges" Coming to a State Near You ***

jail4judges_...

Send Email

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

______________________________________________________

The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform 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

"Jail for Judges" Coming to a State Near You

Beware of this "Wolff" disguised in sheep's clothing!

The above is a title given in a letter sent to us November 6th, the day before the election. We deemed it of public interest and hereby republish it in part along with a copy of the October 12th Warren County Record newspaper article entitled "'Jail for Judges' Threat."

Recently, Chief Justice of the Missouri Supreme Court, Michael A. Wolff, in an article published in a Missouri newspaper, entitled "Jail For Judges Threat," expressed concern about citizens' challenges of the structural integrity of the Missouri judiciary. Wolff stated that if judges can be held directly accountable under proposed sanctions by the citizenry, this would be political interference which will weaken or destroy our constitutional system of checks & balances.

Wolff then quotes only the last sentence of an opinion of former U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis: "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment of men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." Wolff implies in his article that we Missourians, being ignorant of the law, have no right to question judicial acts and therefore cannot interfere with the "independent judiciary."

Wolff's article is intentionally misleading, and constitutionally incorrect. When one reads the preceding 3 sentences of Brandeis' quote in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485, 48 S.Ct. 564, 575, 72 L.Ed 944 (1928), it was dissent against intrusive acts of government against people, to wit: "[I]t is ... immaterial that the intrusion was in aid of law enforcement. Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers ..." Id. at 479.

According to Article I, ��1, 2, & 3, Missouri Constitution, the people who comprise the State of Missouri are the holders of the inherent political power over all internal state government "... and police thereof," and this power is DIRECT AUTHORITY, not indirect through voting. It is this political power which Wolff is attacking. In Missouri, our Constitution provides the means by which we may, DIRECTLY, by political action, hold ... judges accountable for misbehavior in office in Article VII, & Chapter 106, RSMo.

Wolff says the "Jail For Judges" proposal is an attempt at "... making the judiciary a tool of a particular segment of our society or special interest group," however, Wolff himself is a member of such a "special interest group," which, under color of law, under color of office, had impermissibly infiltrated every branch of Missouri State Government, in breach of the Separation of Powers Doctrine, and operates in the best interest of that group, and its associate groups, to the great detriment of Missourians.

That group is the private, corporate instrumentality known as the "Missouri Bar Association," all members of which operate in defiance of Article I, �10, U.S. Constitution, in that they have made for themselves Title of Nobility, and elevated themselves into a political aristocracy, and systematically usurped political power from Missourians with their legal sophistry, depriving Missourians of our liberty & freedom with impunity.

....

David G. Baugh,

Victim of Criminal Govt.

www.davebaugh.blogspot.com

_______________________________________________

Page 8A Warren County Record Thursday, October 12, 2006

'Jail for Judges' Threat

By Chief Justice

Michael A. Wolff

(Excerpts)

These are challenging times for courts around the country.... For instance, on the South Dakota ballot this year is an initiative called "Jail for Judges." The proposal would amend the state Constitution to allow special juries to indict, convict and sentence judges for making unpopular decisions. .... In our own state, we regularly have proposals in the general assembly--usually imported from elsewhere--to abolish or cripple that Missouri nonpartisan court plan through various measures that would make our state's courts more subject to political interference. ... Gone would be the central idea of the rule of law--that the Constitution and laws exist to protect all of us. ....

I am not alone in my concern. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, said in an interview shortly before her retirement, "The Framers understood quite well that without judges who could enforce the constitutional rights and guarantees without fear of retaliation, the Constitution would be meaningless... The many calls for retaliation against judges for rulings in particular cases run directly counter to the concept of the Framers of the Constitution." Justice O'Connor, in another interview said: "I've lived a long time, and in my lifetime I have never seen such hostility toward judges coming from [the] Legislative [branch], and a little bit from [the] Executive [branch] ... and especially the states."

In a recent opinion column in The Wall Street Journal, Justice O'Connor wrote that the legal community "needs help from other sectors of society to insure that the current mood of cynicism does not end up compromising the rule of law. This includes members of the business community," O'Connor said....

Judicial independence ... is a frequently misunderstood term. It is not about judges--it really is about all the citizens, groups and businesses that come before the courts. They expect the law to be applied equally and equitably. ...

The public values a fair, impartial, efficient, and effective legal system to the principle that, where there is a right, there is a remedy. It is our challenge--as judges, lawyers and citizens--to maintain the integrity of the third branch, the judiciary, and help insulate courts...

Missouri Chief Justice Michael A. Wolff

_______________________________________________

When you listen to these Chief Justices all around the nation venting, you sense a warning cry that "Jail for Judges" is coming to a state near you, and they know it!

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.14.6/536 - Release Date: 11/16/2006 3:51 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.6/536 - Release Date: 11/16/2006

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1196

From: "Jail 4 Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Nov 18, 2006 3:53 pm
Subject: An Unaccountable Judiciary - "The Germ of Destruction," Thomas Jefferson

jail4judges_...

Send Email

From: JERRY LEDWITH [mailto:LETMYPEOPLEKNOW@...]
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 2:51 AM
To: Jail 4 Judges;

Dear J.A.I.L.

Thought this was a fitting photo in response to your newsletter. This is a photo of Judge William Nicholas, a real scumbag that has been corrupt for years, but also well protected for years by other low-life scumbag public servants in this REPUBLIC we call America.

"Jail for Judges"

Coming to a State Near You

"... Political Correctness remains just what it was intended to be: a sophisticated and dangerous form of censorship and oppression, imposed upon the citizenry with the ultimate goal of manipulating, brainwashing and destroying our society."

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."

The germ of destruction is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body - working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.” - Thomas Jefferson.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.14.7/537 - Release Date: 11/17/2006 5:56 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.7/537 - Release Date: 11/17/2006

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1197

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sun Nov 19, 2006 1:58 pm
Subject: ***J.A.I.L. Didn't Lose, It Wasn't Honestly Presented to the Voters***

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California November 19, 2006

______________________________________________________

The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform 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

J.A.I.L. Didn't Lose,

It Wasn't Honestly Presented to the Voters

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

victoryusa@...

What percentage of South Dakota voters would be in favor of judges in their state doing any of the following with impunity? Do they really want their judges to be able to:

deliberately violate the law?

commit fraud or conspiracy?

intentionally violate due process of law?

deliberately disregard material facts of a case?

perform judicial acts without jurisdiction?

block a lawful conclusion of a case? or

deliberately violate the Constitutions of South Dakota or the United States?

Deducting 20 percent of voters for government interests from the 90 percent alleged "loss" of Amendment E, would the remaining 70 percent be in favor of their judges getting by with committing even one of the above violations? Even if NONE of the South Dakota judiciary committed these violations to date, would 70 percent of the S.D. voters ever want it to happen in the future without their being held accountable to the People, in case the system might fail to be a check on such misconduct? --just to be sure of having their inherent rights, and those of their children and grandchildren, protected in the future? Would even half of the voters think it would be okay and not be necessary to set up a safeguard for their security?

Of all the criticism leveled at Amendment E by the opposition, none of it addressed the key paragraph of the Amendment, to wit:

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.

All we kept hearing was that judges would be sued by those who DON'T LIKE their decisions, or sued for their official DECISION-MAKING, or sued for making UNPOPULAR DECISIONS. Never did the opposition address the seven violations listed in the Amendment that would be investigated-- not sued. The No-on-E club did criticize the "blocking" violation, pulling out of thin air that Mr. Branson was attacking the summary judgment process. All of you-- take a look at Confronting Head-On The "No-On-E" Club for full information--you'll find it incredible!

No-On-E criticized �2 by saying the following:

Judges are already held accountable for the hypothetical transgressions spelled out in this paragraph. This is the part of the amendment that "sets up" government officials, judges and others who are protected by judicial immunity in their official decision-making. It strips them of legal protections for their official decision-making and makes them personally liable to lawsuits from people who have a gripe about those decisions.

What about violations of the Constitution? of due process? fraud or conspiracy? etc. Are judges "already held accountable" for those violations? By whom? Other judges? Bureaucrats? If they are accountable in theory, are they in practice? in reality?

Fraud by Attorney General Larry Long

The most serious official misconduct regarding Amendment E on the ballot was the propaganda appearing at the heading of the measure as the "Attorney General Explanation" fully discussed prior to the election in our JNJ South Dakota 2006 Ballot Contaminated. The South Dakota voters have a cause of action against Long for his misrepresentation of Amendment E right on the ballot itself. The Amendment itself doesn't even appear on the ballot for the voters to read for themselves to compare before actually casting their vote on it. The only thing the voters were allowed to vote "No" or "Yes" on was the "Attorney General Explanation" --not the Amendment as written. It's a blind vote! Was the J.A.I.L. Amendment honestly presented to the South Dakota voters by that official "explanation" written by the Attorney General who, by the way, is legal counsel for the judiciary? As counsel for the judges, that "explanation" is therefore the voice of the judges. Where is our voice? Where is even our opportunity to have a voice?

Violation of Election Laws by S.D. Legislature

Another serious violation regarding its influence on Amendment E was also reported before the election in South Dakota Legislature Forfeits Their Public Trust showing that the entire Legislature--not two or three-- all of them, unlawfully used public facilities at taxpayers' expense to write a resolution against a People's initiative! More pre-election information on this subject is found in Rogue Miscreant Legislators.

Finally, on Election Eve, November 6th, Mr. Branson summed it up as follows:

Election Fraud

by the South Dakota Legislature

and What Can Be Done About it

By Ron Branson, VictoryUSA@...

The following is taken from the Home Page of www.sd-jail4judges.org.

For background information, read about legislative election fraud in Wisconsin: Wisconsin's biggest legislative election scandal.

At peril here is one of your most precious rights -

The Voting Process

It is time for all South Dakotans to rise to the cause and preserve their right to vote.

What Can Be Done About This

Election Fraud In South Dakota?

God bless each and every one of you for actively taking a stand for Truth!

It's All About Truth!

Remember, all the above-referenced documentation was written PRIOR to the election and is unaltered!

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.14.7/538 - Release Date: 11/18/2006 4:48 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.7/538 - Release Date: 11/18/2006

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1198

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sun Nov 26, 2006 11:45 pm
Subject: **U.S. Supreme Court Said To Pervert Our Judicial Process**

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California November 26, 2006

______________________________________________________

The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform 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

U.S. Supreme Court Said To

Pervert Our Judicial Process

Introduction of such evidence [approved on June 15 by the

U.S. Supreme Court] at trial eviscerates our most sacred rights,

impinges on individual privacy, perverts our judicial process,

distorts any notion of fairness and encourages official misconduct.

--Judge Robert Bent,

Vermont District Court judge

Information from: The Burlington Free Press

Judge rejects U.S. Supreme Court

search ruling

http://tinyurl.com/q3kmz

Vermont judge rejects U.S. Supreme Court search ruling

GUILDHALL, Vt. -- A Vermont District Court judge has rejected a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the power of police to search a private home, concluding that the state offers greater protections in such cases.

Judge Robert Bent said that under the state Constitution police must knock and announce themselves before conducting a search, even if they have a warrant, or face the prospect that any evidence they find could be thrown out.

The Supreme Court said June 15 that evidence obtained without first knocking could be used at trial, but Bent said that would not apply in Vermont.

"Evidence obtained in violation of the Vermont Constitution, or as the result of a violation, cannot be admitted at trial as a matter of state law," Bent wrote, citing an earlier state case as precedent. "Introduction of such evidence at trial eviscerates our most sacred rights, impinges on individual privacy, perverts our judicial process, distorts any notion of fairness and encourages official misconduct."

A defense lawyer in the Vermont case said Bent's ruling was an important statement. "Sanity prevails in Vermont," said attorney David Williams.

Bent agreed with the dissenting opinion in the federal case, which said allowing otherwise illegally obtained evidence to be used could lead law enforcement officers to ignore the law.

"The exclusionary remedy should remain in full force and effect," Bent wrote, "at least in our small corner of the nation."

Unless the attorney general's office appeals Bent's ruling to the Vermont Supreme Court, it applies only to the drug case he was hearing and would not be binding on other judges, legal experts said. But other judges are likely to take it into consideration if they have similar issues, said Cheryl Hannah, a Vermont Law School professor.

It was unclear whether the state would appeal to the high court. The prosecutor on the case was on vacation and unavailable for comment.

Williams challenged evidence the Vermont State Police Drug Task Force obtained against Ellen Sheltra last fall during a raid on her Island Pond home. She was charged with marijuana possession.

The officers were gathering in front of the home Oct. 12 when the door suddenly opened, an officer testified. The agents shouted "state police with a search warrant" and stormed inside, Bent wrote in his ruling.

The judge concluded the officer's testimony wasn't credible, noting that the three adults and two children in the house said they did not open the door.

Police seized 88 grams of marijuana and four guns.

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.14.16/551 - Release Date: 11/25/2006 10:55 AM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.16/551 - Release Date: 11/25/2006

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1199

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Mon Dec 4, 2006 1:10 am
Subject: ***South Dakota Government Acted in Concert Against The People***

jail4judges_...

Send Email

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

______________________________________________________

The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform 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

South Dakota Government Acted In Concert Against The People

By Attorney Gary Zerman, gzerman@...

You are kidding yourselves if you think you can draft a perfect amendment. The process re putting Amendment E on the ballot, and then to a vote, proved here the government does not serve the People, will ignore them and the law, the constitution and simply do as they please. How are you going to stop them?

Where are checks and balances? As set forth below, the 3 branches of SD

government (with a lot of help from the power establishment) acted in concert against the People and the constitution - and actually proved our case for us.

1. The SD legislature's illegal unanimous resolution (that flew in the face of SD Attorney General Official Opinion 88-28 and constitutional voting rights law) that interfered in an election, and thereafter spawned countless similar illegal resolutions by virtually every local government agency, its hate speech against the E backers, its failure to w/draw its resolution, its failure to reply to any of our 3 letters.

2. The failure of the SD executive branch Governor Rounds & Attorney General Larry Long to determine those resolutions were illegal and interfered in an election and infringed on voting rights, and to order the legislature to withdraw such and to cease & desist in further interference (we failed to send the letter to Gov. Rounds/Long dumping that issue in their lap, putting them on formal notice with a specific demand); thereafter AG Long's biased official ballot statement on Amendment E. I also believe both Gov. Rounds and his opposition candidate for governor, billion officially stated they were against E.

3. The failure of the SD judiciary. First, SD Chief Justice Gilbertson proved our case and the need for passage of Amendment E, when shortly after we got E on the ballot, the Chief attended and spoke at the SD State Bar 12-8-05 meeting kicking off their opposition campaign to E and stated they planned to raise $1-million. The Chief's conduct here violated about 4-5 SD judicial canons; he later recused himself when Judge Gor's biased decision was appealed to the SD Supreme Court. (The press reported he recused himself, but never inquired WHY he recused himself; another SD Supreme Court justice also recused himself, which was reported, but again there was no inquiry WHY; he may also have attended that bar meeting with the Chief). We wrote a letter to the Chief, which he failed to answer, but we were supposed to follow that up by filing a complaint to the SD Commission on Judicial
Qualifications about his attendance at the bar meeting and thereby violating 4-5 canons (with cc's to all media), and our letter attached as exhibit A; we did not file the complaint.

In our case against SD Attorney General Long for his biased official ballot statement (again this proved the executive branch was biased against E), the judiciary proved
our case with Judge Gor's biased decision, particularly where he stated Long's statement did not go far enough; Judge Gor amazingly stated, Long could have stated the purpose of E was to destroy the SD judiciary, and, where Gor stated "Judges do have absolute judicial immunity." Period. He provided no case citations. No explanation(s). Thus he was stating our case: that the judiciary have become, made themselves - just like the king - royalty. Gor is symbolically stating: "We are the kings." They have immunity because he said they do. The Emperor's New Clothes. I never saw the legal papers we filed in Gor's court, nor, the papers we filed in the SD Supreme Court challenging Gor's decision. But I do know we did not sufficiently challenge the bias on the part of Long, Gor or Gilbertson - in court, with the media (which was also biased against us and we may not have been able to get any proper reporting from them anyway), or even on our own websites.

We were supposed to have filed a voting rights lawsuit in federal court, based upon the above letters we wrote and sent (they were to be exhibits to the lawsuit), and the above conduct/response demonstrated by each branch of the SD government to those letters. We never filed the lawsuit. We thus could never make any press, or drive that issue ourselves.

To sum up, even if E would have passed, our opposition (the government, the
establishment), would not (and in the future will not) let E actually be enacted. It would languish in the courts forever (first in SD state court, then fed court), and long after almost everyone has forgotten that election and E, rule it unconstitutional. Anarchy will come before E or something like it can come into actual practice.

Our purpose with JAIL or Amendment E, or at least MINE, was simply to draw a
line in the sand, engage the battle (WE in fact fought the good fight and I thank everyone who aided and participated with us) to put People on NOTICE regarding how we (our government and big business) no longer have, or follow, the Rule of Law, our Constitution. What we need to do is make a video and document the process of E - how government actually served the People and followed the law - or actually did not.

You can go ahead with another E, but you have to have the finances (a lot of money to pay for a legal team, press team and campaign team), but more
importantly have a plan B. Actually multiple strategies. JAIL is not the only answer, because the powers that be will simply act the same way the next time, tell even greater lies if they have to. (And with the global economy, they are getting bigger and have a greater need to keep the facade up, in place.) Unless you can combat them, respond timely with good opposition, dollar for dollar (better yet get out ahead of them, so we control the agenda), in the short run (almost any election issue that
threatens their power so directly) they will win every time. They have to.

We will win in the long run (anarchy/collapse will occur), because (beyond
the corruption) our nation/society has reached the point that we have taken/made too many wrong turns in the law - there simply is too much law (government) to even function - we cannot get out of our own way, we have tied ourselves in knots - when we were supposed to have a limited government and the purpose of the Constitution was to tie government down to the EXPRESS powers given it. There simply is nothing left that government does not touch, have its hands on, and has not made a mess of. More law, more government will not save us - they are the problem. Further, the law and government in place has divided and continues to divide our country. We are fighting amongst ourselves way too much, to even recognize much of the world does not like us or is turning against us.

....

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.15.6/565 - Release Date: 12/2/2006 9:39 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.6/565 - Release Date: 12/2/2006

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1200

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Fri Dec 15, 2006 11:44 pm
Subject: * * * "Editorializing on a State Ballot at its Worst" * * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California December 14, 2006

______________________________________________________

The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform 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

“Editorializing on a

State Ballot at its Worst”

Are we to believe that

under robes of black,

judges are truly

angels of white?

-- Neil McIver

LIBERTY TREE

Vol. 8, No. 12 — November, 2006

From 67% Favored to 90% Opposed

South Dakota Ballot Surprise 67% favored to

St. John’s Campus Annapolis, Maryland

An editorial by Neil McIver

Perhaps the biggest ballot issue in the country for patriots this past election was South Dakota's Amendment E. This would have modified the SD Constitution to mandate the creation of a special grand jury to review judicial conduct and when warranted, refer a judge for trial for a suspect action or ruling. Three convictions, called "strikes", against a judge would mandate removal from office and a reduction of retirement pay.

With 46,800 valid signatures putting Amendment E on the ballot (state population is about 771,000 by 2004 figures), its many foes had reason to be concerned. They ranged from banking institutions to a number of corporate businesses that are satisfied with their present degree of influence and control over the courts. In a rare lobbying twist, even the SD legislature passed a resolution urging citizens to vote

against the measure.

Enter State Attorney Larry Long, upon whom the duty falls to craft the ballot wording of Amendment E as it is to appear to voters on election day. Armed with a new state law passed specifically for the event, Long not only describes Amendment E in persuasive language, but presents its likely consequences.

“Citizens serving on juries” he begins in listing the “judges” that the ballot targets (“judges” come sixth and last on the list). “Their decisions may be reversed on appeal, or they may be removed from office for misconduct or by election.” Long continues with commentary having nothing to do with the proposed amendment, except (could it be?) as argument against its necessity.

After pointing out the lack of any current financial penalty, Long writes “This allows them to do their job without fear of threat or reprisal from either side.” Of course, this comment does not describe the amendment but is purely Long's favorable opinion of the benefit of the current law.

Finally Long describes the amendment (and remember, this is all how it appeared on the actual SD ballot):

“The proposed amendment to the State Constitution would allow thirteen volunteers to expose these decision makers to fines and jail, and strip them of public insurance coverage and up to one-half of their retirement benefits, for making decisions which break rules defined by the volunteers. Volunteers are drawn from those who submit their names and registered voters.”

Break rules “defined by the volunteers?” JAIL is about the “laws” broken by judges, not volunteer-defined rules! And who are the “volunteers?” A majority of South

Dakotans are registered voters, but Long lists them second to “those who submit their names.” Submit their names to whom? The voter stands, pen - or perhaps mouse - in hand, perplexed in wonder.

But Long isn't finished: “If approved, the proposed amendment will likely be

challenged in court and may be declared to be in violation of the US Constitution. If so, the State may be required to pay attorneys fees and costs.” Editorializing on a state ballot at its worst.

How did voters react? According to state figures, on November 7th the amendment was defeated by about 295,000 to 35,600. If this count is correct, then it means 11,000 fewer people voted for the amendment than had signed the petition to put it on the ballot in the first place!!!

A 60-40 victory is commonly considered a landslide. A 70-30 victory is very rare and victory very much foreseen and often taken with a yawn. Victories on the order of 80-20 are unheard of except in the most unusual situations where candidates run with no more than the formality of opposition. But with 90-10 something is seriously wrong.

Was the JAIL ballot initiative so unpopular as to be a lost cause from the start? Not according to a Zogby poll. Less than 2 months before the election the following question was put to 504 respondents:

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?

Results: 67% in favor, 20% opposed with the balance undecided -- well over the landslide benchmark in “favor” and also in line with the extraordinary petition support for the amendment (6% of all South Dakotans).

Subsequent polls showed favor dropping marginally in the days before the election, but still in the 55% favorable range. So how did it drop from 55/67% in favor to 90% opposed? Logically, one of two things must have happened. Either the loaded ballot wording carried a huge amount of weight among voters, OR the vote was stolen. Is ‘stolen’ too conspiratorial a term? Mind you, this was not a relatively

narrow 55-45 defeat, but a 90-10 defeat.

The amendment defined a judge as “Justice, judge, magistrate judge, judge pro tem, and all other persons claiming to be shielded by judicial immunity” a definition

from which Long somehow managed to make citizens serving on juries the principle targets. Exactly how such a citizen jurist could be “permanently removed from office” and deprived of his “judicial retirement,” as required after a 3rd conviction is something where Long is, well, short on explanation.

What can we learn from this? If, in addition to the ballot wording fraud, vote counting fraud was also involved, then there may not be much that can be done. Mayoral candidate Randy Wooten was left to ponder this reality last month as he was informed by the City Hall of his small Arkansas town that his campaign was so bad he failed to win a single vote. He contests the finding, as he stubbornly maintains that he did indeed vote for himself. The 18-18 tie between the other two

candidates was scheduled for a run-off election, though it’s unclear why City Hall expected anyone to switch sides the second time around. Votes were collected on a never-to-be-trusted electronic voting system, quite possibly the Diebold model that leaves no paper trail and for which a vote-counting virus had already been demonstrated on some televised shows. A virus which, if well written, would neatly delete itself when voting was completed, destroying all evidence of its handiwork.

Fraud possibilities aside, proponents of Amendment E promise to be back in 2 years, and they are expected to rewrite it to address Long's slanted claims. Perhaps with narrower language they can limit the damage that the ballot writer’s pen can impose.

Careful consideration needs to be given to the propaganda attacks that such

initiatives attract.

And money. Opponents of Amendment E ranged far and wide including major financial businesses, lawyers groups and many other interests that have enough

endearment to the existing judicial machinations to make sizeable contributions to fund an anti-JAIL campaign, which might explain the modest drop to "only" 55%

approval in polls shortly before the election. Campaign funding was stacked 10-1 against the amendment.

Of course judicial accountability is needed and sorely lacking. It seems to be the only occupation where accountability for wrongdoing or poor performance is

somehow considered spiteful, cruel, or mean, as though we should feel sorry for the performers. Long claimed judges may be removed from office for misconduct under present law, but how often does that happen? If SD judges are comparable to their federal counterparts, then Long should also have noted that in its 215-year history, only 12 federal judges have ever been impeached, and of those, only 9 were convicted or resigned prior to trial. Are we to believe that under robes of black, judges are truly angels of white?

All humans need accountability and here's hoping South Dakotans who've fought so hard and well for this initiative will rise again.

South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye are like whitened sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are full of dead

men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Thus ye also outwardly appear righteous to men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

Noah Webster’s 1833 Bible, Matthew ch. 23:27-28

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.20/588 - Release Date: 12/15/2006 10:02 AM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.19/587 - Release Date: 12/14/2006

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1201

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:23 am
Subject: * * * Dark Clouds of Evil are Billowing * * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

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

______________________________________________________

The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform 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

Dark Clouds of Evil are Billowing

By Barbie, victoryusa@...

There are approximately nineteen states that recognize in their Constitutions the RIGHT of the People to alter or reform government when they deem it necessary, because government belongs to them; it is instituted by the People for their protection, security, and benefit. Those states are referred to as "initiative" states, where the People can vote directly for reform of government by the initiative process. As a RIGHT, the People must be able to exercise it freely.

For instance, the California Constitution states: "All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the RIGHT [emphasis added] to alter or reform it when the public good may require." Art. II, Sec. 1. The South Dakota Constitution similarly states, in pertinent part: "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 [emphasis added] in lawful and constituted methods to alter or reform their forms of government in such manner as they may think proper." Art. VI, �26.

Both State Constitutions, in recognizing this RIGHT of the People to alter or reform government, introduce the RIGHT with "All political power is inherent in the people." How much? Some? Half? The majority? It is ALL political power-- 100 percent of it. If "all political power is inherent in the people," is any political power inherent in government? Does government have any political power that is not derived from the People? Does government even exist other than by the political power that is inherent in the People? If government exists by the political power inherent in the People, can it exist for its own self-interests? Does government exist for any other purpose than for the protection, security, and benefit of the People? Does government have the inherent political power to oppose the People?

South Dakota was the test state for the passage of J.A.I.L. See the Post-Election Report by Ron Branson. The above questions should be presented to every member of the South Dakota government (in fact, similar type of questions have been already presented to the entire Legislature of South Dakota and they chose to ignore them), and now the government should be made to answer to the People. Read the Post-Election Report and information on the Home Page of our South Dakota website, www.sd-jail4judges.org.

The South Dakota government, especially the entire Legislature and the State Attorney General, committed crimes in opposing the People during this last election. The government didn't have the authority to write a resolution opposing the People's initiative, nor to misrepresent the Amendment in the Attorney General's "Explanation" on the ballot, nor to otherwise interfere with the election process. The real J.A.I.L. Amendment wasn't presented to the People; it was redefined and propagandized by the government and its henchmen beyond recognition. We tried to warn the South Dakota voters of this fraud two days before the election took place. (See South Dakota 2006 Ballot Contaminated).

Also, before the election, I wrote a JNJ "Will The People of South Dakota Withstand the Election Fraud?" In it I said:

The RIGHT of the People to alter or reform their government is implemented through another RIGHT-- the RIGHT to vote. The South Dakota Constitution also officially recognizes that right, thusly: "Elections shall be free and equal, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage." Art. VII, �1. Yet, what happened? The government, which the People were seeking to alter or amend through the initiative process, interfered with the voting process that would implement the right to amend that government. As we said J.A.I.L. Didn't Lose, It Wasn't Honestly Presented to the Voters.

The government of South Dakota did not have the authority to oppose the J.A.I.L. Amendment. It was done by usurpation of a power it didn't legitimately have. By counterfeit power, it violated the People's right of amendment of government and their right to an election free from government interference. That's the kind of government the People are advised by the Declaration of Independence to "throw off" and replace with "new guards for their future security." That's what the People of South Dakota were seeking to do with J.A.I.L. (Amendment E), but were prevented from doing by that government.

Yes, all political power is inherent in the people. But what good is it if it can be stolen right from under us? That's what happened in South Dakota, and that's what will continue to happen, like a plague, throughout this country if it isn't stopped. The dark clouds of evil are billowing over South Dakota, and they will be spreading to a state near you!

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood,

but against principalities, against powers,

against the rulers of the darkness of this world,

against spiritual wickedness in high places.

-- Eph.6:12

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.23/591 - Release Date: 12/17/2006 3:17 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.22/590 - Release Date: 12/16/2006

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1202

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:07 am
Subject: * * Twisted Lawyer Logic * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California December 21, 2006

The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform 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

Twisted Lawyer Logic

Society abounds in lawyer jokes with everybody knowing at least one lawyer joke. Further, there is no one who believes ethics resides in lawyers. Rather they are rated right down there as bottom-dwelling scavengers alongside of used car salesmen. It is said that a man entered a bar and yelled, “All attorneys are horse’s asses,” to which a man at the other end of the bar retorted, “I object.” The man then asked, “Who are you, sir, an attorney?” He responds, “No, I am a horse’s ass!”

But amazingly, it appears that despite people’s viewpoint toward attorneys, they are still so gullible as to believe their arguments.

Below is the argument of the president of the Georgia State Bar Re: “judicial independence” of judges nationwide. Ironically, these lawyers have no idea of what they are talking about when it comes to “judicial independence.” To hear them speak, one would think that judges are to be independent of the very Constitution they have sworn to uphold, and independent of all laws made in pursuance thereof. Further, the lawyers say, judges must be independent of the various legislatures, of Congress, and of the People from which judges derive their just powers.

The argument, so the lawyer reasoning goes, is that one branch of government cannot interfere with that of another, but that is just the opposite reasoning of what the separation of powers is about. Each branch is to be a check and balance on each of the other two, calling them into account.

I once called upon my state legislator to intercede when my entire court record totally disappeared from the court building, and could not even be found within the archives. I was told by my legislator that they could not get involved because of the separation of powers. So what kind of checks and balance in government is this when one branch of government cannot call another into account? But, this “Twisted Lawyer Logic” meets the approval of the attorneys, who nonetheless, argue in defense of judicial corruption.

I have said, and continue to say, that America will either be laid waste by the judges of this country through anarchy, or the People will restore this country by passing JAIL4Judges. There shall never exist a middle ground of negotiation. Be sure that

-Ron Branson

VictoryUSA@...

Keep judicial system free from influences
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2006/12/19/1220edcook.html
By JAY COOK
Published on: 12/20/06

This election season, threats to judicial independence rippled through ballot boxes across America. But the voters spoke loud and clear: We do not want partisan and special-interest factions interfering with our impartial courts.

In Georgia, special-interest money did not prevail after producing "one of the most negative judicial campaigns in American history," according to a national news report.

(ENLARGE)

Jay Cook, an Athens attorney, is president of the State Bar of Georgia.

In South Dakota, voters soundly defeated the "JAIL 4 Judges" initiative. Only 10 percent of voters backed the measure that would have stripped judicial immunity and established an unaccountable fourth branch of government to intimidate judges.

In Colorado, voters defeated Amendment 40, which sought to impose four-year term limits for Supreme Court justices and appellate judges. If the amendment had passed, five of the state's seven high-court justices would have been removed from the bench within the next two years.

But this is no time to rest on our laurels.

According to news reports, these same special-interest groups (trying to convince some of our own state legislators) are hoping to get around the voters by adding two justices to Georgia's seven-seat Supreme Court. Because the state constitution allows "up to nine justices," they can legally stack the court without voter consent.

Sounds to me like having failed to get their candidates approved by the voters in the last two Supreme Court elections, they're looking for new ways to pack our courts with their partial pals. Sounds to me like they're looking to tamper with judicial independence. Sounds to me like they're looking to discount democracy.

The elections affirmed what we already knew. Georgians believe in the sanctity of the constitution and impartial courts. In a statewide poll conducted last year by the State Bar of Georgia, nine out of 10 respondents strongly agreed with the following statements:

• Everyone should have access to equal justice under our court system.

• Judges should be impartial and free from political interference.

• No one should be above the law, and the courts should make that possible.

Apparently, what voters want doesn't matter. At least that's the message they're sending: "If you don't vote the way we want, we'll find other ways to put our judges on the bench. If the judges you elect don't rule the way we want, we'll find other ways to intimidate them."

Was the last congressional election cycle not a referendum on the culture of corruption?

Shannon Goessling, executive director of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, claims that her group was asked by "legislative leadership" to look into ways of "revamping" our court. It's hard to imagine any legislator would do such a thing. The Safety and Prosperity Coalition also has pledged support for these and other court-maiming measures.

Looks to me like they're not going away. But neither are we. Not as long as America's promise remains "justice for all," not "justice for sale."

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

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.26/594 - Release Date: 12/20/2006

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1203

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sun Dec 24, 2006 6:37 am
Subject: Report from Florida JAIL4Judges

jail4judges_...

Send Email

Report from Florida JAIL4Judges

Judge Speaks Out Against Judicial Corruption,

Now Under Attack

Judicial corruption continues in Florida.

Posted by: "T" allaboutme38@... littlet38

Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:14 pm (PST)

Judge Cliff Barnes of St. Lucie County Court Florida spoke out against corruption and is now being attacked by Florida's Judicial Qualification Committee.

The JQC complaint can only be described as a meaningless act of retribution by a syndicate of legal practitioners abusing Florida's legal system. When the citizens of Florida are forced into the legal system it is the members of The Florida Bar that reap the benefits.
Criminal convictions force higher taxes and that revenue goes to lawyers, plea bargains force taxes and that revenue goes to lawyers, it is a monopoly on justice that has created an injustice against Florida Citizens. When criminal convictions and plea bargains are accomplished in violation of due process and the laws it costs us all. Forced taxes due to legal corruption must be stopped now. When Judges Cliff Barnes spoke out against how his colleagues where abusing the
system, the law, and the constitution, the system comprised of his colleagues took action against Judge Barnes in the form of a ill-conceived complaint to the Judicial Qualification Committee.
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/jqc.shtml
<http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/jqc.shtml>

Even a layman to the law can see the charges against the Judge are superficial; this is how the corrupted Florida Bar has successfully usurped power from the citizens of Florida unchallenged for too long. I implore every reader of this article to read the JQC complaint against Judge Barnes, become informed and decide your government's power
over you. Take action and live free, do nothing and you lose the liberties too many have fought and died to preserve. I believe if WE THE PEOPLE do not support Judge Barnes it is WE THE PEOPLE who will suffer the greatest lose. It is when good people do nothing that evil wins.

The State of Florida is now rated at the bottom in Legal
Fairness (Harris Poll), some 70% of Floridians do not trust
attorney's, the Florida Bar's own statistics state that 14% of
lawyers and judges suffer impairment disorders including cocaine addiction, yet theses legal practitioners continue shielded by the Corrupt Florida Bar law with no disclosure requirements to the public.

It is WE THE PEOPLE who must make our government accountable and when the righteous defend our freedoms we must defend those with courage who took action. If this is to be a government formed by "you the people" and for "you the people" then take 10 to 15 minutes to educate yourself "Google Judge Cliff Barnes", take action, and let the corrupt know the righteous have allies. Send this to your friends, write letters to the JQC and Judge Barnes, let them both know you support Judge Barnes speaking out against the legal corruption in our court rooms.

The Honorable Cliff Barnes
St. Lucie County Court
226 Courthouse Addition
218 South 2nd Street
Fort Pierce, FL 34950

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.26/598 - Release Date: 12/22/2006 3:22 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.26/598 - Release Date: 12/22/2006

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1204

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sun Dec 31, 2006 3:49 pm
Subject: * * Judge Needs Another Job * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California December 30, 2006

______________________________________________________

The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform 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

Editorial: Judge needs another job

Brooks doesn't have judicial demeanor

http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/97835.html

Published December 26, 2006

It takes a lot for a California judge to be disciplined.

Only 31 have been removed or dismissed from office since the establishment of the Commission on Judicial Performance in 1960. Only 45 have been publicly admonished. So when the commission does act, citizens should pay attention.

On Nov. 29, commissioners issued a public admonishment of Superior Court Judge James M. Brooks, a judge for 19 years in Orange County. They rebuked Brooks' conduct, but did not remove him from the bench. It's hard to see why not. The evidence shows that Brooks lacks the appropriate temperament to be a judge.

The commissioners noted Brooks' "sarcastic, demeaning and intimidating" remarks in one 2004 case. When Arnold McMahon told Brooks that he failed to show up for a scheduled deposition because he had chest pains, and his doctor, after giving him an EKG, told him to immediately go to the nearest hospital, Brooks had this to say: "Gee. I wonder what's going to happen when we put you in jail, Mr. McMahon. Your little ticker might stop, you think?"

Brooks said if McMahon's wife didn't show up on the new date, he'd impose a sanction of $10,000, adding, "I'd mention jail but it might give her a heart attack."

The commission also cited a 2005 case where Brooks questioned the competency of a woman, Saher Joher, who co-owned a business because, as he referred to her, "Sosha or whatever her name is ... a lady that, in her own country -- I put a question mark; I know it's Syria, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon -- probably a very nice lady, probably doesn't know how much she owns, I don't think." Brooks wrote that she "in her native Syria (?) probably wouldn't be allowed to own property."

Such conduct is not new for Brooks. In 1996, the commission disciplined Brooks for referring to Hispanic defendants as "Pedro" and issuing a bench warrant for an Asian defendant for "ten thousand dollars or twenty thousand yen"; in 1999, for saying in court that if his family was assaulted he would punch the offender's "lights out" and tell him, "touch them, you die"; and in 2003, for referring to operators of a mobile home park as "Nazis" and comparing their actions to the Holocaust.

The 4th District Court of Appeal also condemned Brooks' conduct in a 2003 case and ordered a different judge to preside over a retrial. This was a case in which a worker suffered broken bones and other injuries when his hand was caught in a bread-making machine at a food packaging plant. After suffering nerve damage in an alleged botched surgery, he sued. During the trial Brooks said, "It's too bad this poor gentleman hurt his foot, hand, whatever, but he came here to work illegally. So he's running the risk of getting injuries. He's running a risk of getting injured on any job if he is injured and outside the system. Tough. That's your problem."

As the appellate court said, immigration status is irrelevant; if an employer hires undocumented workers, California's safety and workers' compensation laws still apply.

Who would want to appear before such a judge? His conduct undermines the basic fairness and decorum that the public has a right to expect in the courtroom. The commission has treated him lightly, but that shouldn't obscure the reality. Brooks needs to find a new line of work.

In my public speeches and in our J.A.I.L. News Journals, I have commented with tongue-in-Cheek that we could save a lot of tax dollars by abollishing the Judicial Commissions around the country. The above is a case in point. The first Judicial Commission in this country was started right here in California in 1960. Back then it was called the “Commission on Judicial Qualifications, and was later changed to “Commission on Judicial Performance.” Thereafter, the several states began to design their own Judicial Commissions by assorted names, but the net result of all of them is that they have great sounding names, but are all short on results.

As per above, the Commission on Judicial Performance has been in operation for forty-seven years, and has expended hundreds of millions of tax dollars, and what have Californians received for their money. The removal of 31 judges from the bench. My tongue-in-cheek appeals to a natural law of nature called death. Death has taken hold upon many, many California judges, and it was accomplished all with the help or assistance of a Judicial Commission. It did not cost the taxpayers millions of dollars. It did not require a form letter from the Commission that states, “During our October business meeting we took up the subject regarding your complaint against a Calfornia judge. During that meeting it was decided that there was no judicial conduct expressed that this Commission should take action. Therefore, we have closed this case. Thank you for writing to the California Commission on Judicial Performance,” with a stamp on the inside and outside, “Confidential – Not for publication.”

Death has resoundedly proven much more effective than all state’s Judicial Commissions. There is not one judge on record that has successfully evaded death’s penalty. From my observation of judges complained of, many are promoted upward to higher judicial promotions. But with death, there has been not one judge who thereafer was promoted to a higher position.

I have said in the past that we could immesely improve our justice system by just flipping a quarter. No lawyers, no discovery, no appeals, truth and facts don’t matter, just heads or tails. So, I likewise ask, is there anyone who finds fault with my position that we should just abolish every Judicial Commission in the country and let death take its course? Afterall, death’s penalty is final and unappealable, dispite who their friends were in high places. (Oh, yes, some of you will smile, others will have a heart attack. The truth is sometimes hard to swallow no matter from whom it comes!)

-Ron Branson

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

"..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.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.0/610 - Release Date: 12/30/2006 2:59 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.16.0/610 - Release Date: 12/30/2006

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1205

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Jan 13, 2007 4:37 pm
Subject: * * * The Looming War For The Minds of Americans * * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California January 10, 2007

______________________________________________________

The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform 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

The Looming War

For The Minds of Americans

(By Ron Branson – National JAIL4Judges Founder)

Whether one recognizes it or not, there is rising to the surface a war in America – not one of guns and bullets, (although that may not be far behind), but one of the truth vs. the lie. To be more specific, it is a war of the nation’s judiciary vs. the truth of JAIL4Judges. In this warfare either the judiciary will dominate the political future of America, or J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) will – there shall be no neutral ground.

Aside from external physical aggression upon a nation, every country has reached its ultimate demise and internal collapse as the direct result of its judiciary. That is to say that every evil and political corruption in America which you can think of is the result of some judge, either state or federal, at some level, that has sponsored it, whether wittingly or unwittingly.

When J.A.I.L. was first founded in 1995, there was little to no attention paid to the judiciary of this country. The political front lines were limited to which of the two parties was going to dominate the various state legislatures, the Congress, and the Executive. But those times have changed, and I have watched it happen.

At that time I was informed by a computer technician, Mr. Greg Brown, that a thorough search of the internet revealed only one website dealing with the judiciary; and that was one put up by the judges complaining that they were not getting paid enough for the great work they were doing. But no judicial expose` websites could be found. Today, judicial expose` websites are all over the net by the thousands; and one can hardly miss JAIL4Judges.org. (A Google web search, or any search engine, will easily reveal J.A.I.L’s influence on America’s political scene today.)

It is because of J.A.I.L’s national influence that it has drawn public fire from numerous Chief Justices of the various states such as Missouri, Kansas, Pennsylivania, California, South Dakota, etc., as well as from the recently retired United States Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. It is getting difficult to keep up with the publicity that this issue of judicial accountability is generating. If this subject, as sought to be established by J.A.I.L., is so evil and wrong as it is being projected by its enemies, then why is all the public hullabaloo sought for its defeat?

I have been watching the looming warfare rising to the surface among the various State Bar Associations defending their fellow lawyer comrades dressed in black robes, that before I can report on one, two more State Bars are jumping into the fray to lie and deceive all residents of their respective states about J.A.I.L. These Bar Associations are getting bolder and bolder in coming out so fast that it is depriving J.A.I.L. of the opportunity of exposing their plans. Gee, they have publicly pulled the veil off their plan of action to deceive every American before we even have the time to unveil what is under the sheet.

The following is a real-life experience. A secretary in the District Attorney’s Office approached a Deputy District Attorney using the copy machine, where she asked, “Why is it that everything in law is so complex and so confusing? Why can’t matters be spelled out plainly?” He was honest enough to say, “We lawyers make it that way on purpose. It is called job security. If we made things simple and easy to be understood, the people would not need us lawyers, and you and I wouldn’t have a job.” This Deputy District Attorney advanced to become the head deputy over a branch office of the largest District Attorney’s Office in this nation, Los Angeles County.

One of my self-made riddles goes this way. “What is it that everybody hates, but wants one?” The answer is, “A lawyer.”

As the head of the JAIL4Judges organization, I am being constantly bombarded with, “Excuse me, but do you know where I can find a good lawyer?” And these requests are coming from those who hate lawyers and want nothing to do with them. Ask anyone about their lawyer experiences. They are considered among the lowest and most despised professions on earth. There are few professions specifically condemned in the Bible. Two of them are lawyers and prostitutes. Both do the same thing to their clients – screw them. Of lawyers Christ said, “Woe unto you also ye lawyers! For ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers. … for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.” Luke 11:46 & 52. But of prostitutes, Christ said, “Verily I say unto you, That … harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.” Matt. 21:31. One could humorously make an argument that America would be better off if it stoned its lawyers, and let the harlots write the laws.

There we have it, folks; the Scriptures pronounce a specific curse upon the profession of lawyers which take away the key of knowledge, neither enter into the way of truth, and hinder those who would. They are ministers of lies and masters of deception, farming out their wares of evil, fraud, and hypocrisy. They plot to overthrow the truth - the Good Book tells us so. That is their profession!

Now don’t get me wrong, not all lawyers are evil. Frankly I am surprised at all the lawyers who have come to join JAIL4Judges. We are filled with them. They are people disenchanted with their own profession, and I can truthfully say that it could have been just as possible for them to have written this very J.A.I.L. News Journal. And the flow of lawyers to J.A.I.L. is increasing. And believe it or not, even judges are having their eyes opened and made bold enough to express their sympathies with J.A.I.L., even though they may not openly publicize their affinities with us. Right here in Los Angeles County, a Superior Court judge secretly called me and told me just that.

Okay, here is the plan to deceive America respecting JAIL4Judges. These Bar Associations around America know that people do not like attorneys at all, whether in black robes, or not. Therefore they must draw J.A.I.L’s objective of holding judges accountable off judges and redirect it towards other matters of which the public is concerned. One of those goals is to convince the people that J.A.I.L.’s objective is to punish jurors. After all, most everyone at some point serves jury duty. If they can convince America that J.A.I.L.’s objective is to allow convicted criminals to go after jurors for the decisions they made, then they have gained the concern of every American. No American wants to find themselves sued, tried or convicted of a crime because they were called upon to serve jury duty. This is the Bar Associations’ planned plot as ministers of lies. They are hoping they can pull this off again and again in all states.

Their goal is to employ subtlety so as to not disclose to the public that this ploy is designed, engineered, and crafted by lawyers. After all, people hate judges and lawyers. If the public found out that it was the lawyers that were pulling the strings in the background, it might very well backfire on them.

In order to maintain their distraction away from themselves working in the background, they must succeed in convincing the people that it is them, themselves, engineering the defeat of JAIL4Judges. They are proposing, for instance, working though bankers, beauticians, barbers, and bartenders, and every matter in which people naturally find themselves in their day-to-day activities.

This “Mission Impossible” plot may be likened to “Operation Deception,” deceiving all America about JAIL4Judges. They are starting with Florida and the State of Georgia. I will be covering this plot in Georgia in an upcoming publication. This plot in Florida started in April, 2006 during the “show-election” that was placed into operation in South Dakota on November 7.

Should their plot succeed, America will become like third-world nations without a viable or honest election process. Here we are fighting in foreign nations to secure their rights to vote; but all the while seeking to overthrow honest elections here in America! No wonder they are drawing the lines against JAIL4Judges, determining that the message of judicial accountability in America MUST be defeated at all costs!

To borrow a quote from our Founding Fathers re: the shot heard ‘round the world, if these lawyers, both in and out of black robes, mean to have a war, then let it begin here, and let it begin now! We accept their challenge.

-Ron Branson

VictoryUSA@...

http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/JNNews01.nsf/8c9f13012b96736985256aa900624829/7a6a21fb7adc02748525725d0057227d?OpenDocument

The Florida Bar
651 E. Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300
(850) 561-5600
January 15, 2007

Despite SD loss, J.A.I.L.4Judges targets Florida
Attorneys urged to be prepared for the fight
By Gary Blankenship
Senior Editor

If backers of an amendment known as J.A.I.L.4Judges succeed in getting their constitutional amendment on the Florida ballot, the state’s lawyers should be ready to lead a campaign to defeat it.

The public face of that campaign should not be judges and lawyers, but rather regular citizens who would be adversely affected by the amendment that nominally seeks to strip civil and criminal immunity from the judiciary in cases where a special grand jury decides they have acted improperly.

Tom Barnett, executive director of the State Bar of South Dakota, gave that advice to the Bar Board of Governors at its December meeting. Barnett led the campaign last year that resulted in the defeat of a J.A.I.L.4Judges initiative in South Dakota that wound up failing by an 89-to-11 percent margin.

“When we planned our campaign, we immediately decided that the worst people to talk about attacks on judges were judges and the second worst people were lawyers,” Barnett said. “What we needed were people on the street.”

He identified those people as the “four B’s” – bankers, beauticians, barbers, and bartenders, or “people who talk with people every day.”

“The whole central theme to this campaign was to build coalitions and for the good of us all, let’s try to maintain those coalitions,” Barnet said. “Build your coalitions now, because J.A.I.L.4Judges has announced that the next two target states are Nevada and Florida. Michigan is third.”

The Florida chapter of the organization (its Web site is http://floridajail4judges.org ) is already trying to get signatures for an initiative petition. It provides that judges and those who act in a judicial capacity can lose immunity from civil and criminal prosecution in some cases. Under the amendment, the losing party in a case, civil or criminal, can file a petition with a special statewide grand jury once all appeals have been exhausted. The grand jury can overturn the outcome of the case and, if it decides a judge acted improperly, make the judge subject to civil or criminal liability.

While judges might be unpopular, Barnett noted the amendment would have far-reaching impacts. One is that many locally elected officials, including city and county commissioners and school board members, can have judicial duties, and hence be covered under the amendment. So can ordinary residents when they serve on juries a fact the South Dakota anti-amendment campaign highlighted as ad after ad hammered that criminal defendants would be able to harass or sue jurors.

Barnett said one poll showed that allowing jurors to be sued was opposed by 86 percent of the voters. “It’s a very, very powerful message,” he said. “That’s why we used that.”

In seeking support for its campaign against the amendment, he said opponents looked to the users of the court system, particularly the business community.

Barnett said he explained the consequences of the amendment, including that relatively simple matters like repossessions of cars and mortgage foreclosures could become much more complicated and expensive if the debtors decided to fight their cases through the special statewide grand jury. That jury, he added, would be able to nullify contracts which could leave lenders with an empty bag.

The consequences? Car dealers might find lenders unwilling to finance automobile purchases and banks might be unwilling to issue mortgages, he said.

Hence, the anti-amendment campaign was able to get financial and political support from bankers, insurance companies, car dealers, and even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and tort reform groups that recognized the potential mayhem from the amendment, Barnett said.

In Florida, Barnett said a key factor will be whether the J.A.I.L.4Judges campaign hires professionals to gather signatures to get its initiative on the ballot. In South Dakota, he said the effort was headed nowhere until backers hired professional signature gatherers. The same is likely to happen in Florida.

He advised the Bar to begin preparing early for the potential campaign, and outlined how the anti-amendment campaign was waged in South Dakota.

The first phase of the campaign, when resources were scarce, was a public outreach that paired lawyers and judges with laypeople for appearances at civic and community groups. The emphasis, Barnett said, was on having the nonlawyers speak, with the legal professionals available to provide detailed answers if needed.

“Lawyers are very poor explainers of legal issues,” he said. “People expect the lawyer to be very glib and polished . . . But the hardware store owner they listened to, he’s not very polished, but people leave persuaded.”

Early last year when Barnett geared up the campaign against the amendment, initial polls showed that voters had a favorable impression of the measure by a 3-1 to 4-1 margin.

Initially short on funds, Barnett launched the local outreach program and began building coalitions with various groups. By the early fall, when more money began coming in, the local outreach program had shifted sentiment to 3-1 against the amendment, but still with over half the voters undecided.

With more money, Barnett was able to begin television and radio ads. Those emphasized that convicted criminals could use the amendment to harass jurors and try to get out of jail, and that the amendment did not spring from South Dakotans but rather was imported from a California group.

In building coalitions, Barnett said he got every major town and city in the state to pass a resolution opposing the amendment. He reached out to doctors, hospitals, bankers, insurance companies, accountants, and others and explained how the amendment could upset the legal system and even allow the reopening of previously settled and decided cases since the amendment applied retroactively.

“When it comes to a full-scale attack on our court system, they have to be on our side because they use the court system,” Barnett said.

He estimated that the personal outreach campaign got 60 percent of the voters to oppose the amendment, and the media campaign raised that to nearly 90 percent. Indeed, the campaign was so successful that while it required 47,000 signatures to get the amendment on the ballot, it got only about 36,500 votes even though 72 percent of the state’s voters went to the polls.

Even if it appears the J.A.I.L.4Judges organization is weak in Florida, Barnett advised gearing up for a campaign because of the seriousness of the issue.

“Start building coalitions today,” he said. “Who uses the court system? Business. Who has the money to do appeals? Business. Tell them this will hurt the court system.”

© 2005 The Florida Bar

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.9/622 - Release Date: 1/10/2007 2:52 PM

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/624 - Release Date: 1/12/2007 2:04 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/624 - Release Date: 1/12/2007

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1206

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Jan 13, 2007 4:39 pm
Subject: * What's There To Hide? *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California January 13, 2007

______________________________________________________

The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform 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

What’s There To Hide?

By Ron Branson, CIC National J.A.I.L.

VictoryUSA@...

In 1960 California was the first state to came up with the idea of creating a special commission just for judges. It was then called the Judicial Qualifications Commission, and later changed to the Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP). Its supposed purpose was to oversee the discipline of judges. Since 1960 all other states have followed suit under various names.

It was thought that in order to preserve the privacy of judges and to protect the integrity of the judiciary, all matters should be held in strict privacy. Such privacy policy, however, has continually come under fire over the years from all quarters, arguing that privacy fosters hidden corruption among the judges who are operating in secrecy. Nonethless, the idea of secrecy among judges has prevailed under the theory that secrecy preserves the integrity of the judiciary. Thus, the public is called upon to blindly accept the argument, “We’re judges, we do it right – just trust us!”

In Los Angeles, complaints against judges tops all other complaints asked to be investigated by the County Grand Jury. However, the Grand Jury has now been specifically precluded by statute from investigating judges. Since the creation of the CJP, all complaints against judges must now be directed to the Commission on Judicial Performance, where they are quickly sand-bagged and hidden forever from the light of day. The result is that the CJP has tons of indicting information on judges which are safely concealed away in secret files, and those offending judges can go on doing what they’ve always done as if nothing ever happened. If the heat gets too hot for any particular judge, the CJP will shuffle the judges around to another judicial district where they can start over.

As if a monkey wrench had dropped into the judicial secrecy gearbox, an Arkansas Appellate Court Judge named Wendell Griffen has specifically waived his right to privacy and the protection of his identity during his disciplanary proceeding, and has demanded that his case be made public, and open to the light of day, rather than conducted in secret.

His demand for openness has caused quite a stir in the judicial system, which raises the question as to why the court should continue to conduct proceedings in secrecy when the judge has waived his right to privacy. This question is now before the Arkansas Supreme Court with the State’s Judicial Commission arguing that despite the waiver of his privacy, they must keep the disiplinary proceeding secret in order to protect the integrity of the judicial system. Hence they deem privacy to be a systemic issue, not a personal matter. In other words, the Commission doesn’t waive “its right” to privacy, presuming it has that right in the first place.

This raises the issue of whether the conduct of any official on the public payroll would properly be a matter of secrecy at all from the public that pays him. It has been said that open sunlight is the best disinfectant. The Bible tells us, “…men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest…” John 3:19-21. Varmints such as rats, cockroaches and creeping things, as with judges, love darkness, and abhor the light of full disclosure. By nature, judicial commissions choose to proceed in secrecy because they, too, love darkness for the same reason.

“What’s there to hide?”

Click on the below URL and check out what is going on in the courts.

Griffen tells high court discipline hearing should be open
http://www.wmcstations.com/global/story.asp?s=5925306&ClientType=Printable

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
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.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/624 - Release Date: 1/12/2007 2:04 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/624 - Release Date: 1/12/2007

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1207

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Jan 13, 2007 4:34 pm
Subject: * * Entire South Dakota Supreme Court Recuses Themselves * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California December 3, 2007

______________________________________________________

The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform 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

Entire South Dakota Supreme Court Recuses Themselves

Most everyone experienced with courts knows how difficult it is to acquire a recusal of a judge in their case. We have even witnessed a judge who decided the question involving whether he was biased, or not. He, of course, found himself not to be biased, and so finding, he ruled that he was qualified to continue on with the case despite a sworn declaration to the contrary that was to be heard by another judge!

The below is an unheard-of incident where all five justices of the Supreme Court of South Dakota have recused themselves from a case involving the public’s right to know the truth.

Ironically, it is the public’s right to know that is involved in the recent November 7^th election in South Dakota, wherein the electorate were deprived of the knowledge of the issue regarding Amendment E, and were left to blindly trust the honesty of State Attorney General Long’s ballot “explanation.” We anticipate a real legal explosion regarding the right to vote in South Dakota to be forthcoming. –Ron Branson

State justices take themselves off case

Rapid City Journal

12/30/06

http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2006/12/30/news/state/state03.txt

PIERRE (AP) -- All five justices on the South Dakota Supreme Court have disqualified themselves from hearing an appeal in an open-records lawsuit.

The Argus Leader of Sioux Falls is seeking the names of those invited to last year's Governor's Invitational Pheasant Hunt.

The justices did not give a reason for taking themselves off the appeal, but a lawyer in the case had suggested earlier that the justices might disqualify themselves if they had been invited to the hunt.

Judith Roberts, lawyer for the state's Unified Judicial System, said the justices don't even tell their staff why they disqualify themselves.

Five lower court judges - Glenn Severson, John Bastian, Jack von Wald, Arthur Rusch and Steven Jensen - have been appointed as replacement justices in the case. They could treat the case just as if they were permanent justices, Roberts said.

"It won't affect it at all. The judges that have been appointed to hear the case are veterans. They are well qualified," Roberts said.

The governor uses the annual hunt partly to attract businesses to South Dakota.

In April, Circuit Judge Max Gors ruled that because the state is not required to maintain a list of those invited to the hunt, it is not required to make the list public. The Argus Leader wants the Supreme Court to look at the larger issue of the public's right to know.

"We believe that the heartbeat of any democracy in South Dakota, or anywhere else, is the right of the electorate to know what its government at all levels is doing," Randell Beck, the Argus Leader's executive editor, said Thursday.

The list might be a narrow issue, but the case could open future government actions and make officials more accountable, Beck said.

"It may not directly affect me now, but what about the next time and the time after that?"

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.4/615 - Release Date: 1/3/2007 1:34 PM

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/624 - Release Date: 1/12/2007 2:04 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/624 - Release Date: 1/12/2007

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1208

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Jan 13, 2007 4:38 pm
Subject: *** "Show-Election" in South Dakota 2006 *** (corrected copy)

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California January 7, 2007

(Corrected copy)

_____________________________________________________

The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform 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

"Show-Election"

in South Dakota 2006

MOCKERY MADE OF SOUTH DAKOTA CONSTITUTION:

ARTICLE VI �26 - Right to Alter or Reform Government

ARTICLE VII �1 - Right to Vote

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

Edited and approved by Ron Branson

victoryusa@...

Taken from: "Of the Dissolution of Government" Chapter XIX, �220

... But the state of mankind is not so miserable that they are not capable

of using this remedy till it be too late to look for any. To tell people

they may provide for themselves, by erecting a new legislative,

when by oppression, artifice, or being delivered over to a foreign power,

their old one is gone, is only to tell them, they may expect relief

when it is too late, and the evil is past cure. This is in effect

no more than to bid them first be slaves, and then to take care

of their liberty; and when their chains are on, tell them,

they may act like freemen. This, if barely so, is rather mockery

than relief; and men can never be secure from tyranny,

if there be no means to escape it till they are perfectly under it:

and therefore it is, that they have not only a right to get out of it,

but to prevent it. --John Locke (1632-1704)

For the State of South Dakota, through its Constitution, to (1) acknowledge that the People have the right to alter or reform their government (Art. VI �26), and further, (2) officially recognize their right to vote in order to carry out the former right, stating that government shall not interfere "to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage" (Art. VII �1), AND THEN INDEED INTERFERE is rather a mockery than a constitutional provision.

Even more basic election fraud than rigging the vote count is concealing vital information from the electorate on an important issue facing the South Dakota voters in 2006. We, of course, are referring to Amendment E, the South Dakota J.A.I.L. Amendment. J.A.I.L. cannot begin to compare with the large corporations, the entire South Dakota government, and the media regarding financial and advertising resources for this campaign. Nevertheless, we were confident that this lop-sided advantage would not deter the voters from seeing through the propaganda, character assassination, voter intimidation, and various other nefarious activities including CRIME to defeat Amendment E.

Although confident that Amendment E would not only pass, but would pass handsomely because of its 3-to-1 favorable rating throughout the year-and-a-half campaign, we nevertheless sent out warning signals with ample documentation to everyone on our mailing lists, with dozens of J.A.I.L. News Journals. Mr. Branson also set up a special South Dakota website, shown in the heading above, containing intense reporting on the election fraud occurring in South Dakota. The pre-election reporting on that site is still there, undisturbed, for anyone to read.

Following is an excerpt from Will The People of South Dakota Withstand the Election Fraud? dated 11/5/06:

* * * *

While the State of South Dakota allowed the voters to read the "Attorney General Explanation," which was a fraudulent misrepresentation of Amendment E on the ballot written as an editorial against the Amendment, the State did not provide an equal opportunity for the voters to also read for themselves the official text of Amendment E so that they would be properly informed of what the Amendment actually did provide in order to make an intelligent choice when casting their vote.

It was incredible to me that this unfairness by the State would actually occur, especially in light of its Constitution that states under Article VII �1, "Elections shall be free and equal" and "no power... shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage," so I wrote in South Dakota 2006 Ballot Contaminated:

We are receiving reports about the misrepresentations made by South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long; and that subject is covered at length on the Home Page of our South Dakota website, www.sd-jail4judges.org. However, I wasn't sure if that misrepresentation actually appeared on the South Dakota ballot itself, under an explanation of Amendment E, to "aid" the South Dakota voters in understanding what they were voting for. And so I decided to check it out on a Google search, and found the following: Taken from a sample 2006 ballot for South Dakota

http://www.newscenter1.com/Voter_info/November_2006_Sample_Ballot.pdf

I was shocked to find out that only Long's negative write-up about Amendment E appeared on the ballot. The matter was taken to court in an attempt to clear up that fraud, which is reported in JNJ 12/29/06 The South Dakota Election Re J.A.I.L. Was Fraudulent and Should Be Declared Null & Void. You can read the snide remarks made by Circuit Judge Gors right on the Order itself, particularly �53:

"The attorney general could have said with a straight face that the real purpose and effect of the proposed JAIL amendment is to destroy justice in South Dakota..."

The above is all said and done officially on behalf of the State of South Dakota.

Where Are We Now??

I'm wondering what John Locke means when he says (quoted in the above introduction) But the state of mankind is not so miserable that they are not capable of using this remedy till it be too late to look for any. I believe he's referring to the right of mankind to reform their government when they deem it necessary, but some of "mankind" is also "government." As we can see from the South Dakota fiasco, there is certainly a difference between "mankind" within government (the government), and "mankind" outside of government (the People). As can be seen, government --at least in South Dakota-- has usurped its power and is not serving the People, but is operating against the People. Locke certainly recognized this difference. In fact he says that when government has usurped its power, it's no longer "government" but a "foreign power" - their old one is gone.

Referring to "this remedy" Locke described it in the preceding portion as the people are at liberty to provide for themselves by erecting a new legislative differing from the other by the change of persons, or form, or both, as they shall find it most for their safety and good. The South Dakota Constitution (Art. VI �26) describes it as "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." The sentence But the state of mankind is not so miserable that they are not capable of using this remedy till it be too late to look for any apparently indicates that the political state of the People is not so bad that they won't be able to reform their government according to law before it's too late to find a remedy. I know there's a "maxim of law" that says "For every wrong, there's a remedy." It all turns on that word "remedy."

We are still convinced that SDC Art.VI �26, and similar provisions in other initiative states, IS THE REMEDY NEEDED FOR THE PEOPLE TODAY-- AND J.A.I.L. IS THE ONLY MEANS AVAILABLE OF IMPLEMENTING THAT REMEDY. The "event" in South Dakota called an "election" in November 2006 hasn't changed that fact; rather, it has strengthened it!

What was really conducted by the State of South Dakota last November was a "Show-Election," described as an extreme example of electoral fraud where an election is held purely for show. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show_election. The only purpose of the show-election was to defeat J.A.I.L. (Amendment E); and it was carried out by nefarious means in violation of state law. "The 'results' of a show-election are frequently one-sided to the point of absurdity, with leaders claiming mandates of 90 percent or higher; this rarely occurs in a free democratic election."

There is not an ounce of credibility in the reported outcome of 89% against the Amendment, and 11% in favor of it. South Dakotans we have communicated with told us that the voters weren't even provided the wording of Amendment E so they could read it before voting on it, although an official opinion against the Amendment appeared right on the ballot itself which was backed up by South Dakota courts. The Amendment carried a 3-to-1 favorable polling for a year-and-a-half before allegedly "plummeting" on the day of election. The show-election "showed" what the State of South Dakota wanted, but we know that TRUTH was not in the picture being shown.

The question that must be contemplated now is, What happens when the constitutional remedy to reform government by the People is blocked by the very government sought to be reformed? That's the crossroad at which the People have now arrived, and it's up to the People to decide how to get through it. The State Constitution authorized the remedy for the People, and yet the State was able to make a mockery of that Constitution. Will it be with impunity? That will determine the future of this country. Will other states be able to overcome this dilemma?

We will continue to pray about this serious crossroads in the life of America.

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.6/617 - Release Date: 1/5/2007 11:11 AM

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.9/623 - Release Date: 1/11/2007 3:33 PM

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/624 - Release Date: 1/12/2007 2:04 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/624 - Release Date: 1/12/2007

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1209

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Jan 13, 2007 4:33 pm
Subject: * * Judicial Secrets Unveiled * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California January 2, 2007

______________________________________________________

The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform 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

Judicial Secrets Unveiled

Laws are written by our legislators theoretically to govern the conduct of men. In some cases specific laws are written to govern the conduct of judges. In the story below, it deals with laws specifically written to govern the conduct of judges who were at one time hiding the truth from the public. As we know, all laws are only as good as their enforcement no matter who is its intended object. This raises the question as to whether judges should enjoy immunity from violating the laws that govern their conduct!

For years this established law against judicial secrecy has been violated by the judges, causing the need for initiating very expensive and protracted lawsuits in order to force judges to comply with the law. On the good side, it might be argued that at last we now have gotten the judges to comply with the law. But the more important question is, why was it necessary in the first place for anyone to have to force miscreant judges to comply with the law?

Imagine if we normal people who are not judges could say, “Alright, you caught me! So now I move the court to just drop the matter, and forget it ever happened because I will now obey the law.” - Ron Branson

Your Courts, Their Secrets

"It's a new day" as secrecy fades

By Ken Armstrong, Justin Mayo and Steve Miletich
Seattle Times staff reporters

In King County Superior Court, requests to seal records used to get approved casually. Often, all the parties had to do was ask. The defendant wanted to avoid embarrassment? The judge said OK.

Snubbing rules established years ago, judges and court commissioners approved even the most extreme secrecy: sealing an entire file. At least 420 civil suits were sealed in their entirety since 1990, a Seattle Times investigation found. Those sealing orders kept the public from knowing about wrongdoing or alleged negligence by local schools, hospitals, lawyers, churches, state agencies, manufacturers and others.

At least 266 guardianship cases were similarly sealed restricting awareness of an obscure legal field meant to protect the vulnerable. Secrecy helped keep conflicts of interest and questionable billing practices by court-appointed guardians from public eyes.

And divorce? The whole file was hidden away in at least 692 cases since 1990, eroding one of the legal system's most important checks. If the file is sealed, how can anyone know if the outcome was fair? What's to keep a judge from being unduly swayed by one side's power or legal muscle?

But since The Times began reporting on improper sealing practices in March of this year, such secrecy has evaporated. A recent review of King County court records failed to turn up even one civil, guardianship or divorce case that has been sealed in its entirety in the past nine months.

Instead of being hidden away, files are being opened up.

Files sealed: then and now

Between 1990 and 2005, King County judges and commissioners sealed in their entirety:

420 civil cases

266 guardianship cases

692 divorce cases

Total, 1990-2005: 1,378

Cases sealed since The Times' series began: 0

Source: Seattle Times review of state court records

King County judges and commissioners have unsealed 42 cases based upon a motion or formal request by The Times. In Snohomish County, at least 150 files have been opened with hundreds more likely to follow. Files in other counties, including Pierce, Spokane and Whatcom, have also been unsealed.

Even narrow secrecy requests get scrutinized in ways unimaginable a year ago. Before, parties routinely made settlement amounts confidential. The courts typically approved, even though a settlement's terms can provide the public valuable information. Was the amount a nominal figure easily dismissed as a nuisance settlement? Or was it something more?

Last year the YMCA of Greater Seattle was sued in a case with obvious public interest. A Seattle couple alleged that a teenager working in a YMCA day-care center had sexually assaulted their son and five other children. The YMCA, accused of negligent hiring and supervision, elected to settle.

At a hearing last month, Court Commissioner Kimberley Prochnau was asked about the possibility of keeping the settlement's terms confidential. Prochnau said things are different now: The parties' mere desire for secrecy is no longer enough to seal any document. The settlement amount the YMCA agreed to pay $300,000 to this one family went into the court file, unsealed.

Prochnau told the courtroom: "It's a new day."

The cost of public access

When it comes to open court records in Washington state, a substantial divide has separated principle from practice.

The principle abhors secrecy. "Justice in all cases shall be administered openly," the Washington Constitution says. State law says court documents can be sealed only if a judge finds "compelling circumstances" a demanding legal standard and provides a detailed explanation for secrecy that takes into account the public interest in open records.

But the practice has been to accept secrecy with little regard for legal restrictions. At least 97 percent of the sealing orders reviewed by The Times violated secrecy rules established in the 1980s.

Undoing what should never have been done has proved challenging and expensive. The Times spent months identifying and sorting sealed cases across the state. Alerted by the newspaper, the clerk's office in King County opened 294 cases that had been sealed by mistake. As for the others? The judges in King County unlike their colleagues in Snohomish and several other counties took a vote and refused to unseal lawsuits without a formal motion. So The Times had to go to court.

Davis Wright Tremaine, a law firm that specializes in public-records cases, assigned three lawyers to pursue motions for The Times: Marshall Nelson, Eric Stahl and Lissa Shook. In eight cases where Davis Wright had a conflict, motions were filed by Shelley Hall, with the law firm Stokes Lawrence.

Davis Wright moved to open 32 cases. The firm put in at least 800 hours. Some cases look little time. Others took months. The lawyers' fees, on average, turned out to be about $6,000 per case.

Extend that figure to all 420 of the sealed civil suits, and the cost to The Times the cost of public access would be a staggering $2.5 million. And that's for just one type of case, in only one county. For the newspaper, costs escalated as obstacles mounted.

If possible, motions should be served on all parties to a case. So The Times tried to find plaintiffs and defendants even though the files were sealed, with crucial identifying details unavailable to the newspaper.

We tried, to no avail, to serve one woman with the last name Roe a frequent pseudonym in legal matters, akin to Doe. But how do you serve someone when you're unsure of her real name? Other names were common and offered not even a middle initial. How do you serve someone when dozens of people have the same name?

Other parties were easy to identify but hard to find. One process server in Wyoming tried to locate a dentist who had apparently retired there. A separate process server went 10 times to a Seattle address listed for the dentist. We never did manage to hand him our motion, but a judge eventually opened the file anyway.

Some parties raised objections that bordered on the absurd but we had to respond, nonetheless. One woman asked to have her name stripped out of every document in the lawsuit, even though she was a named defendant. A commissioner refused. Other cases required us to rebut arguments based on what was in the file even though we couldn't see the file for ourselves.

Files unsealed, secrets revealed

So far we've filed 40 motions to unseal cases in King County. Thirty-six were granted and two denied. The two others are pending.

In addition, six other cases were opened in King County by a handful of judges willing to act without a formal motion.

The unsealed lawsuits have revealed stories such as these:

A lawsuit filed three years ago disclosed how a 13-year-old girl came to be raped while in the state's care. Her story showed bureaucratic bungling by the state's social-services agency; unheeded warnings by YouthCare, a group-home operator; and audacity by state lawyers, who claimed the victim was partly at fault for being raped by a 29-year-old youth worker. A judge had sealed this lawsuit upon a motion that said the file's contents could embarrass YouthCare and the state.

Five years ago, the Northshore School District settled a legal claim that accused four principals of ignoring repeated warnings that an elementary-school teacher was fondling students. But a secrecy agreement forbade the young victims from saying anything bad about the teacher or district and even restricted what they could tell any therapist. After The Times wrote about this case, the Issaquah School District began investigating one of the principals, Ed Young. He resigned two weeks later as principal of Skyline High School.

When state health-care regulators settled disciplinary charges against Dr. James H. Greene earlier this year handing out their lightest punishment they didn't know about a malpractice lawsuit that accused him of not bothering to examine a pregnant woman deep in labor. The delivery later went awry, and the baby suffered devastating injuries. Greene's employer, Group Health Cooperative, settled the lawsuit for $5.5 million, but the entire file was sealed. The case shows up in a database used by lawyers, but as Confidential v. Confidential, in county Confidential.

The family of a diabetic woman who suffered permanent brain damage accused Medtronic Inc., a manufacturer, of selling an unsafe insulin pump and the University of Washington Medical Center of medical malpractice. The file was sealed in 2003, concealing concerns about the pump and how Medtronic had not reported the case to federal regulators. The UW, a public entity, settled its part of the lawsuit for $3.2 million but on condition the plaintiffs not tell anyone, including the media, how much the university paid or why.

Other unsealed lawsuits have also proved valuable. One accused a judge of committing legal malpractice in one of the last cases he tried before joining the bench. Another accused a respiratory therapist of using a wrong adapter so that oxygen was forced into a newborn, with no way out. That lawsuit was settled for $7.8 million, described as a record for birth-injury cases in Washington.

But some files have been opened under conditions that make it hard to tell what really happened.

Three years ago, a Boeing manager sued the company, alleging another manager had "sexually assaulted" her in a hotel room during a business trip. The alleged assailant once the woman's supervisor had previously said he "wanted her" and told her how his high-level Boeing friends cheated on their wives, the complaint says.

When the woman reported the alleged assault to Boeing, "she was told by Boeing personnel that she had to leave town for two weeks," the lawsuit says. Boeing isolated and punished her, the complaint alleges.

This file was sealed in 2004 and reopened this year. But the identities of the alleged assailant and other Boeing officials involved in the case have been blacked out.

Although the court file refers to the plaintiff only by her initials, she feared being identified if other information was revealed. So she asked to have all kinds of details titles, places, dates, names marked out if the file was unsealed.

The Times argued that this would "have the perverse effect of shielding those who wronged her." But Judge James Doerty granted the woman's request.

Tim Neale, a Boeing spokesman, said: "When this occurred the company launched an investigation, and eventually all matters were resolved to the satisfaction of both parties. And the person who was accused by [the plaintiff] no longer works for Boeing. He left the company on June 1, 2003."

A suspended sheriff's deputy, a disbarred lawyer

The two Times motions that were denied had been filed to learn more about people who hold positions of public trust or were professionally licensed.

Three years ago, the David Brame case illustrated the importance of open records concerning police officers. In April 2003, Brame, the Tacoma police chief, shot his wife, then himself. Subsequent news stories revealed that Brame had once been accused of rape but the details had been sealed in an employment-discrimination lawsuit.

Three months after this murder-suicide, Doerty, the King County judge, sealed a domestic-violence petition against a Snohomish County sheriff's deputy. The file contained "inappropriately explicit, lurid descriptions of private sexual behavior between the parties," Doerty's order said.

Instead of blacking out whatever passages he deemed objectionable, Doerty sealed everything. He also refused to open the file this year.

Through a public-disclosure request, the Times obtained the records of an internal sheriff's investigation conducted after the deputy's wife filed her petition. That file shows the deputy was suspended without pay in 2004 after he admitted being physically abusive to his wife.

The other Times motion that was denied concerned a lawsuit filed in 2000 against Adina Atwood, a lawyer in Kent. The state disbarred Atwood in 2004, finding she had abandoned her practice without letting her clients know. She even kept money owed to some clients, the bar found.

Judge Richard McDermott's order sealing the 2000 lawsuit failed to meet the legal requirements for secrecy, saying simply: "This file is hereby ordered sealed." His refusal this year to open the file was similarly cryptic. McDermott's order said secrecy was needed to protect "the physical well being of one or both of the parties."

Changes in state and federal courts

Since The Times began reporting on improperly sealed court records, state and federal courts have adopted a number of changes.

This year the Washington Supreme Court amended its rules, saying, among other things, that the parties' wish for secrecy does not, by itself, justify sealing.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington also tightened its rules, saying lawyers can no longer file pleadings under seal without first getting permission from a judge.

In King County, judges and commissioners now receive extensive training on sealing restrictions. The judges threw out an old sealing form that misstated the law on secrecy, and took the power to seal away from substitute commissioners.

In Snohomish County, judges initiated an exhaustive review of more than 1,000 sealed cases. They've opened at least 150 so far and are reviewing dozens more each month. The Times plans to keep writing about sealed cases. Look for more stories in the months to come.

MARK HARRISON / THE SEATTLE TIMES

King County Court Commissioner Kimberley Prochnau says courts will no longer seal documents just because the parties want secrecy.

JOHN LOK / THE SEATTLE TIMES

James Degel retrieves an order to unseal a file from Court Commissioner Kimberley Prochnau. Degel, a Seattle lawyer and professional guardian, has asked the court to open nearly 50 cases he previously had gotten sealed. He says recent court decisions and Times articles on secrecy changed his mind.

Principal Ed Young was accused of ignoring warnings about a teacher.

Judge James Doerty agreed to black out details before a file was unsealed.

Ken Armstrong: 206-464-3730 or karmstrong@...; Justin Mayo: 206-464-3669 or jmayo@...; Steve Miletich: 206-464-3302 or smiletich@....

Sunday, December 31, 2006 - 12:00 AM

Permission to reprint or copy this article or photo, other than personal use, must be obtained from The Seattle Times. Call 206-464-3113 or e-mail resale@... with your request.

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.3/614 - Release Date: 1/2/2007 2:58 PM

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/624 - Release Date: 1/12/2007 2:04 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/624 - Release Date: 1/12/2007

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1210

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 4:08 am
Subject: * * * The Dark Side of Justice Moon * * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California January 24, 2007

______________________________________________________

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

A Power Foreign to Our Constitution

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

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

The Dark Side of Justice Moon

(By Ron Branson – J.A.I.L. Author/Founder)

We have observed Chief Justice after Chief Justice among the various states stand up before audiences and publicly denounce JAIL4Judges as if it were some kind of a threatening plague about to overtake this nation like the swine or bird flu.

One would think that if J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) is so bad as it is being propagated by these highest judges of this nation, it would be declared public enemy # one! An enemy that deserves to be castigated in a State of the Union Address, and one that must be eradicated at all costs, lest it destroy this wonderful judicial system of ours.

Indeed, Chief Justice Ronald George of California who stated to the Los Angeles Times, (April 24, 2006) that he knows me, attacked this author with the words that we do not need any extremist trying to tell us how to run this wonderful judicial system we have here in California. This author� humorously responded to the Times Reporter, Jessica Garrison, at the Times interview, that perhaps I should give Mr. George a call and arrange to meet with him for lunch so we could talk about it.

Joining in the list of Chief Justices around the nation condemning J.A.I.L. is Hawaii Chief Justice Ronald Moon in his January 24 State of the Judiciary Address to the State Legislature. His message presents nothing new but the same old deceptive song that J.A.I.L., “would allow citizens to sue judges for decisions they did not like.” (a precise quote.)

It seems that not a one of these Chief Judges want to talk about what the J.A.I.L. Initiative really provides for, to wit; �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.”

I once stated to an attorney who pronounced himself as spokesperson for the judges of the California Court of Appeals when he accused this author of going after judges because these judges made simple mistakes, I asked him, “Where in this list do you derive that J.A.I.L. is about going after judges for making simple mistakes?” Just so, I now ask Chief Justice Moon, “Where in the J.A.I.L. provisions do you find that J.A.I.L. “would allow citizens to sue judges for decisions they did not like.”

One could wonder if all these Chief Justices around the country want judges to “deliberately violate the law, commit fraud, intentionally violate due process of law, commit acts in violation of their jurisdiction, and deliberately violate both the state and federal Constitutions they have sworn to uphold and defend with impunity. In short, want to impugn the integrity of the entire judiciary before the eyes of all Americans. How to you respond, Mr. Moon? Are we here about to witness the dark side of Chief Justice Moon?

Just the very thought of J.A.I.L. causes these Chief Justices around the country to quiver, lest we bring justice to bear.

Below are excerpts of Chief Justice Ronald Moon’s State of the Judiciary Address. (The full text may be read by clicking the URL).

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Chief Justice Moon's State of the Judiciary Address

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Jan/24/br/br6981532704.html

…� President Hanabusa, Speaker Say, Governor Lingle, Lieutenant Governor and Mrs. Aiona, distinguished members of the 24th Legislature, fellow judges, Judiciary and other state employees, judges of the federal bench, members of local and federal law enforcement, former Washington State Chief Justice Richard Guy, my fellow members of the Royal Order of King Kamehameha the First, members of the Hawaiian Royal Societies, other special guests, family, friends, and fellow citizens:

I am privileged and honored to have this opportunity to address this joint session of the Hawaii State Legislature and extend my sincere appreciation for your kind invitation to speak about the state of the Judiciary.� ….

…� I continue to be concerned about the perception of many that our justice system is not functioning as it should and that some of our citizens, therefore, feel they need to take matters into their own hands to fix it.

I am, of course, not opposed to our citizens taking a greater interest in public affairs. In fact, I firmly believe that we need to find ways to better motivate our citizens to more actively participate in government and in such civic matters as voting and jury service. However, I am concerned about some of the initiatives that appeared on other state ballots in the most recent elections — some of which were proposed and promoted as a way to fix our justice system.

For example: The citizens of South Dakota voted on a radical constitutional amendment, entitled Judicial Accountability Initiative Law — commonly referred to as "JAIL for Judges" — that proposed, among other things, the creation of a new grand jury that would allow citizens to sue judges for decisions they did not like. Although the amendment did not pass, the fact that it was even proposed underscores fundamental misunderstandings of the duties of legislators and judges and how judges are held accountable. ….

Nevertheless, as evinced by initiatives like South Dakota's JAIL for Judges, an alarming number of our citizens continue to believe that the role of the courts is to bend to the whims of the press or, at least, those who have the money to mount advertising campaigns and get press attention. Thus, when some of our citizens disagree with a judge's decision because it is not in conformity with what they perceive as the "popular will," they often cry out for reforms, like the election of judges.

Indeed, rumor has it that this legislature may be asked to consider proposals calling for the election of judges. And, although such a proposal is not "new," it seems rather ironic since many other jurisdictions are attempting to repeal the election process in their respective states because of the effect judicial elections have on preserving a fair and impartial justice system.

Under an elective system for judges, there is the constant threat that an unpopular decision could result in the loss of popular votes — a consideration that has no place in a judge's decision-making process. And, sadly, judges in elective jurisdictions who have adhered to the high standards of fair and impartial judicial decision-making have paid the ultimate price at the polls — that is, they have lost their jobs. But, a decision that is made fairly, impartially, and in accordance with the constitution and the law — even though unpopular — is, in the words of the late United States Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, one of the crown jewels of our democracy. Those who favor electing judges often do because they believe judges are not held accountable for their actions or decisions. They are wrong.

Hawaii’s judges are held accountable in more ways than any other public officer. First, each judge's legal decision is subject to review and reversal by Hawaii's appellate courts and, depending on the issues, by the United States Supreme Court. Each judge's performance, demeanor, and competence are subject to review and sanction by the Commission on Judicial Conduct, which may recommend a judge's removal from office. A judge seeking retention is also subject to review and sanction by the Judicial Selection Commission, which may — and does -- refuse to retain judges. In addition, the supreme court's Rule 19 committee administers the Judicial Performance Evaluation program under which each judge's performance is evaluated one or more times during the judge's term of office.

A Judicial Performance Review Panel — composed of a retired judge, a retired attorney, and a member of our lay community — discusses the evaluation results with the judge so that the judge may improve his or her performance for the benefit of the public. In addition, the Hawaii’s State Bar Association conducts its own judicial evaluation program and provides the results of its surveys to our judges.

Judges are, to the best of my knowledge, the only public officers in Hawaii’s whose decisions, performance, competence, and demeanor are subject to probing, professional, and systematic scrutiny. In short, judges are held accountable by mechanisms that assure accountability, without undermining the impartiality of our courts. Fair and impartial courts provide the balance that is essential to the workings of our government and not only makes our democracy the envy of many of our foreign neighbors, but ensures equal access to justice for all. Undermining the impartiality of the courts jeopardizes the very access our citizens expect. Indeed, without access to the courts, there can be no justice for our citizenry.�� ….

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 Subscribe or Unsubscribe write VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation. - Declaration of Independence

"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.8/649 - Release Date: 1/23/2007 8:40 PM

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1211

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Tue Jan 23, 2007 10:27 pm
Subject: ***The Foreign Power Domestically is Foreign to Our Constitution***

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California January 23, 2007

______________________________________________________

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

A Power Foreign to Our Constitution

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

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

The Foreign Power Domestically

is Foreign to Our Constitution

We have a Foreign Power that is a Domestic Enemy

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

"Foreign power" is a term the People must get used to, because it is a current power shown to exist in South Dakota by its 2006 Show-Election as revealed by J.A.I.L. and supported by our documented evidence. It is not a question of the loss of an election, but under what power it was "lost." Read JNJ 1/11/07 What Did the "Show-Election" in South Dakota REALLY Show? Therein we stated: The show-election in South Dakota has taught us what the real power-conglomerate is made up of that is running the "show" in that state-- and they have shown themselves to be a foreign power, disregarding the law of the state and the nation. It is not only the entire South Dakota "government"

(state, county and local), but also the corporate/industrial complexes extending beyond South Dakota borders (e.g., Exxon, Mobil, Wal-Mart, insurance industry headquartered in D.C., banking, real estate, utilities, -- and many more, just follow the money). It is not only what poses as "government," but the entire commercial enterprise that does not want judicial accountability to the People. They are quite satisfied with the usurpation of power that has taken over the People, and you can see from the South Dakota fiasco what they'll do to defend it.

Foreign power is not limited to that of other countries, but is determined by its obedience to the Law of the Land of its domain. It is possible for a foreign power to exist in this country if it executes control over the People in disregard of the Constitution, the Supreme Law of our Land. One of the reasons the People of this country declared independence from England was because He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation. - Declaration of Independence. "He" refers to the power in control which, in England, was the King. Here in our country the power in control is revealed in South Dakota as an oligarchy acting under color of government. The judiciary sits at the pinnacle of this oligarchy, acting as its "mouthpiece" and final authority when grievances are brought before it by the People for supposed

"redress."

It's time the People call it what it is-- a foreign power. The power running this country, at least in South Dakota as J.A.I.L. has experienced and we are reporting, is not government because the disregard of laws in this country, especially the state and federal Constitutions, is standard operating procedure. It is a power foreign to our Constitution, and hence, foreign to the People.

What we have experienced in South Dakota is the People exercising their inherent right to reform state government in such manner as they deemed necessary in a "lawful and constituted method," i.e., by Initiative. 48,000 signatures were collected to qualify the reform measure for the South Dakota ballot, 13,000 more than were needed, indicating a very enthusiastic zeal by the People for the measure. The zeal was there! Had we had the time and money, there's no doubt we could have garnered the signature support of 70 percent of the voters to get J.A.I.L. on the ballot, indicating that a November 7th victory would have been a mere formality.

Throughout the year-and-a-half campaign, the measure held a 3-to-1favorable rating, and Tom Barnett of the opposition even acknowledges a 4-to-1 favorability, which is considered by everyone a "landslide." Everything was fine, we thought, even with the propaganda and criminal activity by the foreign power which we have abundantly reported --until Election Day, November 7, 2006. That was the coup-de-grace-- the sudden final blow against the People in South Dakota at the hands of this foreign power, proving what kind of a power it was. Yes, we're talking about what happened to Amendment E, the J.A.I.L. Amendment in South Dakota.

Election Day 2006 in South Dakota was a momentous occasion for this entire country. That was the day when, after carrying a generously favorable rating during the campaign, the "official" count on Election evening on Amendment E was reported as --catch this--

89% AGAINST and 11% FOR!

One South Dakotan told us that he was watching the results from around 7:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. when he retired for the night; and throughout that time, although the actual numbers of votes were changing,

the percentages never changed during that time-span!

Another South Dakotan told us that a few days before the election, he couldn't find Amendment E on the state's website; he called in to tell them, and either later that day, or the next day, Amendment E was suddenly on the site! We've had many people tell us that they had no clue what Amendment E was really about. All they had to go on was what the media and the opposition reported. We found out that the state didn't provide voters with a published Voters Guide stating all the issues with arguments pro and con. Yet, the state allowed a fraudulent misrepresentation of Amendment E to be printed right on the ballot, as an "explanation" by the State Attorney General. This is what the state provided for the People to vote on.

Here we have two inherent rights of the People: (1) to reform their government, and (2) to vote in a fair election, both of which are guaranteed by the South Dakota Constitution! The reported results of that election could have happened only by the interference of a foreign power in direct defiance of the state's Constitution. There were criminal violations committed by this foreign power throughout the campaign which we've reported. See www.sd-jail4judges.org.

Now we hear that Tom Barnett, Executive Director of the South Dakota Bar Association (the South Dakota Judicial Sentry that guards the judiciary like a pack of wild dogs) is exporting its propaganda scheme to the Florida Bar to educate them on the "success" of the foreign power in South Dakota. See JNJ 1/19/07 The Foreign Power Planting Seeds of Deception. Will J.A.I.L. expose a foreign power in Florida if it is on the ballot there? We'll find out.

John Locke, known as the Freedom Philosopher, influenced Thomas Jefferson in writing the Declaration of Independence. Since J.A.I.L. is based on Lockean principles, we refer to him as a source of information for J.A.I.L. principles. Locke used the term "foreign power" at least twice in Chapter XIX of his Treatise, Of the Dissolution of Government:

Sect. 217. ... The delivery also of the people into the subjection of a foreign power, either by the prince, or by the legislative, is certainly a change of the legislative, and so a dissolution of the government: for the end why people entered into society being to be preserved one intire, free, independent society, to be governed by its own laws; this is lost, whenever they are given up into the power of another.

Sect. 220. ... To tell people they may provide for themselves, by erecting a new legislative, when by oppression, artifice, or being delivered over to a foreign power, their old one is gone, is only to tell them, they may expect relief when it is too late, and the evil is past cure.

good enough for us. We highly recommend our readers read the entire chapter about the Dissolution of Government to understand what's happening today.

In Chapter XVI, Of Conquest, Locke teaches us that the sole authority for government is the consent of the People:

Sect. 175. THOUGH governments can originally have no other rise than that before mentioned, nor polities be founded on any thing but the consent of the people; yet such have been the disorders ambition has filled the world with, that in the noise of war, which makes so great a part of the history of mankind, this consent is little taken notice of: and therefore many have mistaken the force of arms for the consent of the people, and reckon conquest as one of the originals of government. But conquest is as far from setting up any government, as demolishing an house is from building a new one in the place. Indeed, it often makes way for a new frame of a common-wealth, by destroying the former; but, without the consent of the people, can never erect a new one.

Government can never be reformed (erect a new one) without the consent of the People-- without their voice, without their vote.

Sect. 216. ... When, by the arbitrary power of the prince, the electors, or ways of election, are altered, without the consent, and contrary to the common interest of the people, there also the legislative is altered: for, if others than those whom the society hath authorized thereunto, do chuse, or in another way than what the society hath prescribed, those chosen are not the legislative appointed by the people.

Of Dissolution, supra. We ask, Did the People of South Dakota consent to being held ignorant and uninformed about what they were voting on?

If the existing power prevents the People from reforming their government, as happened in South Dakota, government is effectually dissolved, leaving in its wake a foreign power causing anarchy. If there is no remedy, no redress, for the People, there is no government. The late President John F. Kennedy stated in 1963: "Those who make peaceful resolution [J.A.I.L.] impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

As Locke describes it:

Sect. 219. ... This is demonstratively to reduce all to anarchy, and so effectually to dissolve the government: for laws not being made for themselves, but to be, by their execution, the bonds of the society, to keep every part of the body politic in its due place and function; when that totally ceases, the government visibly ceases, and the people become a confused multitude, without order or connexion. Where there is no longer the administration of justice, for the securing of men's rights, nor any remaining power within the community to direct the force, or provide for the necessities of the public, there certainly is no government left. ... Id.

Any foreign power in this country functioning in disregard of the consent of the People, by disregarding the state and U.S. Constitutions and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot legitimately command obedience from the People.

Chapt. 192. For no government can have a right to obedience from a people who have not freely consented to it; which they can never be supposed to do, till either they are put in a full state of liberty to chuse their government and governors, or at least till they have such standing laws, to which they have by themselves or their representatives given their free consent, and also till they are allowed their due property, which is so to be proprietors of what they have, that no body can take away any part of it without their own consent, without which, men under any government are not in the state of freemen, but are direct slaves under the force of war. Of Conquest, supra.

Any power in this country functioning without the consent of the People in disregard of the Supreme Law of the Land, is a Foreign Power and a domestic enemy!

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.7/647 - Release Date: 1/23/2007 8:02 AM

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1212

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:14 am
Subject: * * * Caught in a Legal and Constitutional Quagmire * * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California January 30, 2007

______________________________________________________

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

A Power Foreign to Our Constitution

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

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

Caught in a Legal and

Constitutional Quagmire

(By Ron Branson � J.A.I.L. Author/Founder)

During the recent South Dakota campaign regarding Amendment E (J.A.I.L.), our opposition redefined �judges� as including all state administrative agencies, and included �jurors� in their made-up definition.

We refuted our opposition�s redefinitions stating that mixing judges (judicial) functions with administrative functions (executive) was a violation of the fundamental doctrine of the separation of powers. �The powers of the government of the state are divided into three distinct departments, the legislative, executive and judicial; and the powers and duties of each are prescribed by this Constitution.� Art. II, S.D. Const. Nowhere in the S.D. Constitution does it prescribe the executive branch of government as having the power or duties of the judicial branch of government. Quite the contrary, it provides, �All executive and administrative offices, board, agencies, commissions �. shall be under the supervision of the Governor�� Art. IV, �8-9.

Now comes the problem faced by S.D. Judge William Srstka. In a constitutional challenge of the administrative procedures conducted in South Dakota�s largest city, Sioux Falls, it provides for appellate process to the circuit courts for administrative appeals, thus making judges an extension of the administrative (executive) branch of government.

But there is another complicating hitch here. While the law provides for such an appeal, the city has been appearing in court and arguing hypocritically that the courts have no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Former judges ruling in favor of the city have been honoring the city�s arguments and dismissing appeals, thus establishing a system that deprives everyone of their right to an appeal. Of course, this policy, practice, and custom creates a constitutional crisis for every appellant.

But this matter appears to have even further ramifications. I talked today with a South Dakotan in a completely different jurisdiction, who stated that this same policy was carried out in his jurisdiction, opening suspicion that this unconstitutional process found in Sioux Falls, may be being carried out throughout the state.

Now here is the bigger problem. While the city has agreed with Judge Srstka to change their process to make their law accord with the Constitution, such change made now runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution if it is attempted to be applied to all former cases in which citizen�s rights were denied. �No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.� U.S. Const. Art. I, �3. Hence, every administrative procedure since the conception of this unconstitutional law is reversible, for it was void ab initio (from conception.)

Imagine every person therein who had a failed appeal involving such things as Worker�s Compensation cases, business and contrators licenses, all the way down to traffic tickets, parking tickets, dog licenses, and every other so-called administrative process, may go back and challenge the decisions made against them, because the laws under which they were found liable, are now found unconstitutional starting from the inception of this law.

This matter revisits the U.S. Supreme Court case of Windsor v. McVeigh, (1876) 93 US 274, in which the defendant was given a notice of his right to appeal, but when he appeared and demanded to be heard, the lower court denied him his right to be heard. The Supreme Court in its most earnest chastisement chided the lower courts, stating that such ruling defied everything that is even remotely considered to be a judicial process.

I am of the impression that this Sioux Falls case is going to spead statewide, with other cities being found likewise in violation of the Constitution, and who knows to what measure it is going to undo everything everywhere. And keep in mind, that this involves some very well-to-do businesses and corporations who have attorneys anxious to check in on this.

I recommend all of our readers click on to my article, �Understanding Administrative Law.� You will find yourself laughing while you are being educated. See www.sd-jail4judges.org/Administrativelaw.htm

-Ron Branson

VictoryUSA@...

* * *

Judge: City violates state law

Sioux Falls can't offer appeal, then argue against that right, Srstka says

By Josh Verges

jverges@...

Published: January 29, 2007

http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070129/NEWS01/701290307/1001/NEWS

In a ruling that will affect everything from red-light camera tickets to messy lawns, a circuit judge said this month that the city of Sioux Falls is violating the state constitution by denying residents their right to appeal.

Judge Bill Srstka's ruling came out of a dispute involving Daniels Construction, which is fighting an $8,100 city fine for its late completion of the Falls Overlook Cafe renovation project.

After company officials were told of the penalty, they went before Peter Gregory, a city hearing officer, to challenge the ruling.

As he ruled for the city, the hearing officer told Daniels they had a right to appeal his decision. But when Daniels went to circuit court, the city argued that under state law, circuit courts have no jurisdiction over charter cities' decisions.

Srstka agreed.

When Daniels tried again in another circuit court hearing, Srstka began to see the inconsistencies between South Dakota and Sioux Falls laws and the city's promises.

"At the hearing, I learned that the city consistently takes the position that a party does not have a right to appeal, even though the city provides a right to appeal under (its ordinance). The city advises of the right to appeal, and then shows up in court to oppose that right," Srstka wrote in a seven-page ruling.

"The city is guaranteeing a right to appeal that does not exist."

The ruling goes into effect July 1. In the meantime, Srstka provided four options for the city to come into compliance:

� Change the ordinance.

� Go to the Legislature to lobby for a change in the constitution.

� Create a board of directors.

� Change the ordinance to clearly define the public's options.

Interim plan

Not every one is in agreement about what the best option would be.

The July 1 effective date would give the Legislature time to rewrite its statute to give the circuit court jurisdiction to hear administrative appeals, if they so choose.

In the interim, the city has stopped advising of the right to circuit court appeals and is acting as though the ordinance has been changed to guarantee not an appeal, but the more limited "judicial review."

City Attorney R. Shawn Tornow said the issue is "a matter of semantics."

The 1996 ordinance in question states, "The decision of the board or hearing examiner may be appealed to circuit court as provided by law."

Tornow said simply replacing "circuit court" with "judicial review" will fix the problem. He will recommend the City Council make that change in the coming weeks.

Paul Linde, lawyer for Daniels Construction, said such a change would not give people an appeal as meaningful as the existing ordinance apparently attempts to do.

Under a true appeal in circuit court, a judge re-examines the facts of the dispute and might overturn a city decision.

Options under Tornow's preferred "judicial review" give the judge only a narrow look at the decision to make sure the city followed the law in making its decision.

"I don't agree with that if that's the fix. I think it's way bigger than that," Linde said.

The hearing officer system helps keep city decisions out of court. Linde said it would be better for the public to change either the constitution or state law to clearly route appeals to circuit court, where residents would get an impartial appeal.

"They (the city) hire the hearing examiner, they pay the hearing examiner, and the hearing examiner typically rules in their favor," Linde said. "What they want is all the administrative appeals to go to the hearing examiners, and then you get a rubber stamp on their ruling."

Tornow, the city attorney, said that last year, hearing examiners ruled on 120 cases. They involved nuisance property conditions, building condemnations, red-light camera tickets and Board of Adjustment rulings on variances such as too-tall fences, among others.

About a dozen of those were taken to circuit court and subsequently dismissed at the city's request because there is no jurisdiction.

Examiners questioned

A less common method for contested decisions is a hearing before a board of directors from city departments. Tornow said that to avoid the appearance of bias, the city prefers to hire hearing examiners - they are typically private practice lawyers, though Gregory, who ruled against Daniels, is a retired judge.

"It's an opportunity for the city as a governmental body to have a decision reviewed by an independent officer," he said.

Keeping those decisions out of the courts is good for the judges who "are not overly anxious" to take on the extra work, Tornow said.

Linde dismissed that claim, saying, "The judges don't consider that a burden at all."

The validity of the hearing examiners has come up before.

In I.L. Wiedermann's class-action lawsuit against Sioux Falls regarding the red-light camera citations, one of the arguments is that the hearing officers are partial. His lawyers maintain that statistics have shown those who rule against the city get less work.

Aaron Eiesland, a lawyer representing Wiedermann, argued that if the court rules the city has violated the due process right to appeal, every ticket issued is invalid.

"Any change the city makes now is going to be too late for anyone who has been found in violation of this," he said.

Linde, the Daniels Construction lawyer, echoed that point.

"I don't think those guys (hearing examiners) can act because I don't think their ordinance is constitutional. How can you act when there is no right to appeal?" he said.

Tornow said no date has been set for the council to actually make that or some other change.

"The city has acknowledged the judge's ruling, and we're taking steps to address it," Tornow said. "We're hopeful that people understand what their rights are when their hearing is over."

Linde questions why the change wasn't made long ago. The disputed ordinance is 10 years old, and the same concerns were made well-known in 2004 when Circuit Judge Joseph Neiles refused to hear an appeal of the city's decision to take away the massage parlor license from the Hong Kong Massage owner charged with prostitution.

"I think they've known about this problem for a while," Linde said.

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 Subscribe or Unsubscribe write VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org

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

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

to their acts of pretended legislation. - Declaration of Independence

"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,

tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."

- Samuel Adams

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who

is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1213

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:53 am
Subject: *** The Consent of the Governed is the U.S. Constitution ***

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California January 30, 2007

______________________________________________________

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

A Power Foreign to Our Constitution

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

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

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California January 30, 2007

______________________________________________________

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

A Power Foreign to Our Constitution

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

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

The Consent of the Governed is

the U.S. Constitution

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

America's government institutions derive their "just powers"

from the Constitution, and the Constitution derives its authority

from the consent of the people who have ordained and established it.

Because consent is the only legitimate source of political power,

government must rule according to the rule of law.

--Ronald J. Pestritto, Ph.D

Introductory Message about "Foreign Power"

Dale writes: Just my two cents, I would be concerned about the wordage of "foreign power" and would think a more domestic name. I agree they have created something other than what they were intended to be, but I am not sure using the word "foreign" is the right way. It seems too radical. A more domestic terminolgoy should be substituted, maybe REPLACED POWER or SUBVERTED POWER or USURPED POWER...you get the idea. I think you might scare off some who only see words and not intent.

Dale: Thanks for your concern and interest in J.A.I.L. I'll mention this concern in my upcoming JNJ so that our readers know we're being "advised" about usage of the term "foreign power."

Have you read John Locke's "Of the Dissolution of Government"? I stated in a previous JNJ the following:

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

One of our JAILers asked us if we had a better name for "foreign power" in this country. If "foreign power" is good enough for John Locke to use regarding a power that the People are "delivered into the subjection of" or "delivered over to," then it's good enough for us. We highly recommend our readers read the entire chapter about the Dissolution of Government to understand what's happening today.

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

I believe it is important to use terms as given by previous respected authorities-- John Locke is certainly one of them, in fact the "father" of J.A.I.L. since he influenced Jefferson in writing the Declaration on which J.A.I.L. is based. Read Locke's "Dissolution" and you'll see J.A.I.L.'s philosophy. The other source is the Declaration itself: "He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction FOREIGN to our constitution, ..." We want to relate to those authorities.

We're majoring now on informing the People about the FOREIGN POWER-- what it is and what it does and doesn't do, and why. I believe that "foreign power" aptly describes what's in control, because it may as well be from another country-- it isn't in line with lawful authority in this country. When you say "scare people off" -- do you think they WANT a foreign power running this country? We're speaking AGAINST the Foreign Power, not advocating it. I would think that "foreign power" would be a greater alarm to wake up the sleeping masses, than "replaced power" or "usurped power."

But I'll acknowledge your concern publicly and explain our position. Thanks again, we appreciate people's concern.

* * * * *

Consent of the Governed explained

Defined:

A condition urged by many as a requirement for legitimate government: that the authority of a government should depend on the consent of the people, as expressed by votes in elections. [emphasis added -j4j]

Consent of the Governed http://www.answers.com/topic/consent-of-the-governed

The consent of the governed must be amended by vote of the People. We saw and heard what happened in the South Dakota 2006 election. The foreign power in South Dakota unconstitutionally interfered in the election process that frustrated the People's ability to amend their consent of the governed in the manner set forth in "Amendment E" (The J.A.I.L. Amendment) pursuant to their inherent right to do so as acknowledged by the S.D. Constitution.

Consent of the governed is a political theory that says a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is, or ought to be, derived from the people or society over which that power is exercised. This theory of "consent" is historically contrasted to the divine right of kings and has often been invoked against the legitimacy of colonialism. Following John Locke's notion of a nation of "free and equal" citizens, the Founders of the United States believed that consent of the governed was the only legitimate basis upon which one "free and equal" citizen could exercise legal authority over another -- otherwise neither equal could overcome the other. Consent of the Governed, supra.

Consent of the governed is obtained through the practice of regular elections that feature the Right to Vote. The People cannot allow a foreign power, or even government itself, to interfere with that right. Government must come before the People at least every two years to establish, in an open and transparent manner, that it has obtained their consent to function accordingly. The foreign power that has usurped government power does not follow, nor recognize, that process as we have experienced in South Dakota.

A more satisfying particularization of consent of the governed is that it is obtained through the practice of regular elections that feature broad or universal suffrage (i.e., rights to vote). That some choose not to vote would not prevent the People as a whole, via majority rule, from establishing their consent via elections, just as the existence of Representatives elected by the People does not mean the laws approved by the Representatives are invalid. Under this approach, the government must come before the People for continuing authority at each election [emphasis added - j4j]

and establish through open and transparent checks and balances that it has achieved the right to exercise authority in a fair and incontestable manner.

The Founders also thought consent of the governed to be conditional, in that there are certain things that the government just can't do, when they are against the interests of the People themselves such that it could not be reasonably deemed that the People had consented to it. Consent of the Governed, supra.

Without the enforcement of rights by the informed consent of the People, elections amount to the ignorant masses following a "seditious ringleader" (i.e., an influential foreign power) "who owes his advancement merely to his own impudence." It's the impudence of a foreign power, together with ignorance of the People, that sustains such power. Tacit consent is not informed consent.

The following excerpts by Dr. Ronald J. Pestritto explains the flow of legitimate power as being first, inherently of the People; second, by their consent set forth in the Constitution; and third, to government from that Constitution. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land which is the vital link (the consent of the governed) between the People and their government.

The Claremont Institute

Constitution Day By Ronald J. Pestritto, Ph.D Posted September 15, 2000:

http://www.claremont.org/publications/precepts/id.123/precept_detail.asp

...[C]onstitutional government means that our governing institutions � legislatures, executives and executive agencies, and courts � are bound by a higher authority. These institutions can only exercise powers that are first granted to them by the Constitution. As Alexander Hamilton put it in The Federalist Papers, which were written to explain and defend the American Constitution by those who framed it, the Constitution is the "superior" authority and the government is the "inferior"; the Constitution is the "original" power and the government is the "derivative"; the Constitution is the "principal" and the government is the "deputy." This notion of limited, constitutional government means that any exercise of power not authorized by the Constitution is illegitimate.

... [C]onstitutional government is strictly limited because government itself is created by the people. Political power is legitimate only because the people have authorized and established it. This is why the words of the Constitution's preamble merit close attention: "We The People," the Constitution begins, "do ordain and establish this Constitution." Simple logic offers a clear explanation of these words from the preamble, and this meaning is confirmed by an examination of the writings of the founding fathers. All political power, by nature, belongs first to the people themselves. When the people see fit to create a political society, they freely give up some of this power in order to establish a government.

...[L]egitimate constitutional government, therefore, exists only by the consent of those governed. As the Declaration of Independence explains in laying out the principles of the new nation, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." So America's government institutions derive their "just powers" from the Constitution, and the Constitution derives its authority from the consent of the people who have ordained and established it. Because consent is the only legitimate source of political power, government must rule according to the rule of law. In other words, government cannot simply exercise power as it wishes, but must instead exercise power according to rules and laws authorized by the consent of the people.

Why does government exist by the consent of the People? Dr. Pestritto explains:

...[W]hy is it that the people would freely choose to establish government and give it power? Government exists to secure the natural rights of the people. As the Declaration of Independence explains, government is grounded on the truths 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," and "that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men." It is for this purpose of securing rights that the people consent to the creation of government and authorize it to exercise power over them. When government, therefore, acts without the authority of the Constitution it fails to fulfill the purpose for which the people consented to it in the first place. This is why, after all, the Americans declared independence from Britain � the famous "no taxation without representation" theme from the Revolution is simply a different way of saying that legitimate government must act only upon the consent of the governed for the securing of their rights. Constitution Day, supra.

For credentials of Dr. Pestritto: http://www.claremont.org/scholars/id.282/scholar.asp

The foreign power has no separation of powers nor checks and balances among the three branches. There are no branches with the foreign power. It is entirely administrative in nature, including the courts. It is not bound by the Constitution nor by the consent of the People. The following describes the usurpation of power:

In Politics and Administration, [Frank J.] Goodnow criticized the constitutional separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, and suggested instead a two-part division, between politics and administration. The traditional system, he argued, interfered with the national government's efficient operation and kept it limited in scope. His system, by contrast, would free up administration from political interference, allowing administrators wide discretion to regulate the complex modern economy without interference from politicians. Politics, he contended, was "polluted" and full of "bias," whereas administration was all about the pursuit of "truth." He was among the first to join Woodrow Wilson in calling for a powerful central bureaucracy, insulated from political control and equipped with expert authority to enact and enforce regulations.

What does this have to do with the courts today? Goodnow considered courts to be part of the administrative machinery, which distinguished his argument from many other Progressives' and makes it highly relevant to the politics of the 21st century. Administration, he claimed, involves both the "administration of government" (by agencies) and the "administration of justice" (by courts). Administration�made up of agencies and courts�is modern government's focus and the primary means by which Progressivism would be realigned, free from the impeding forms of the Constitution. As he wrote in Comparative Administrative Law (1893), the book that first drew attention to him, "the great problems of modern public law are almost exclusively administrative in character. While the age that has passed was one of constitutional, the present age is one of administrative reform."
Leaving the Constitution By Ronald J. Pestritto, Ph.D - A review of Politics and Administration: A Study in Government by Frank J. Goodnow

http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1009/article_detail.asp

The foreign power was not instituted by the People, nor based upon their consent, and to this day it is a power by usurpation; and pursuant to the Founding Charter of this nation, it should be "thrown off" by the People. Length of time does not cure the fraud nor the voidness of this foreign power. It is as void today as it was when it was foisted by fraud upon the People. Looking at the title of Goodnow's "study" it is a misnomer-- if it doesn't comport with the Constitution, it isn't "government" in America.

This is one of the main obstacles we must overcome-- calling the foreign power "government." The existence of the foreign power in this country rests upon the ignorance and gullibility of society at large. As long as the People are willing, intentionally or unwittingly, to believe a LIE, the foreign power will consider the People's "consent" to be in its favor, by silence. That is why the voice of the People must be made clear, through the voting process; and that is exactly why the foreign power is so terrified about J.A.I.L. If J.A.I.L. appears on the ballot, the foreign power in control will thwart, any way it can, the People's right to vote as it did in South Dakota. It knows that J.A.I.L. is the only means by which the People can uncover the TRUTH and annihilate the LIE by which the foreign power operates. Nothing else can touch the Evil Empire-- J.A.I.L. can and WILL!

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 government 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 Unsubscribe, reply with UNSUBSCRIBE in the Subject Line

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

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

to their acts of pretended legislation. - Declaration of Independence

"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,

tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."

- Samuel Adams

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who

is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1214

From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@...>
Date: Fri Feb 2, 2007 9:44 pm
Subject: * * * A Justice System Gone Mad! * * *

jail4judges_...

Send Email

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California January 30, 2007

______________________________________________________

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

A Power Foreign to Our Constitution

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

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

A Justice System Gone Mad!

(By Ron Branson � National J.A.I.L. CIC)

Years ago I owned a cat that just loved to catch flies. He would lock his eyes onto a fly and lunge out into thin air from a high footing such as the top of the wall furnace and slam into the wall or wham his head on the table corner. Absolutely nothing mattered to him except catching flies in flight.

Such is the attempt of the foreign power in South Dakota operating under color of government with respect to JAIL4Judges. These renegades have become so insanely dedicated to the cause of seeking the destruction of J.A.I.L. that they will do any insane act in their all-out effort to accomplish their goal. There is, of course, a great deal of difference between a dumb cat and an entire state regime.

On our www.sd-jail4judges.org website is manifest the following:

One might logically expect the espousal of hate speech to flow freely out of the mouth of hate-mongers and racist people, but from their government officials? Moved by hatred for the truth, we find the following words of libel from an official newspaper, to wit, The Aberdeen News, dated February 15, 2006:

"Supporters of the ballot measure argue it is needed to hold judges accountable for intentionally violating people's rights. But Sen. Lee Schoenbeck, R-Watertown, said the proposed constitutional amendment is backed by the same kind of people who killed a U.S. marshal in North Dakota years ago because they hate the American system of government. �

Schoenbeck said Branson and other supporters of the ballot measure apparently want to destroy the American system of government set up by Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and the nation's other founders. 'The reality is Mr. Branson and his people from Hollywood do not like America.' Schoenbeck said." �.

"Schoenbeck said in remarks directed toward Branson, 'We don't need your trash here,' "State Sen. Lee Schoenbeck, R-Watertown, called the proponents a 'posse comitatus nut group' during a speech in the Senate State Affairs Committee." Argus Leader, 2/21/06. �.

Senator Garry Moore says in the February 13, 2006 Yankton Daily Press, "�I am deeply troubled by the plot being brought forward by this totally unresponsive, out-of-state group. This group does not like government of any type. What they want is anarchy�" �. Senator Moore continues to express his hatred in his words, "tell them to go to hell�" Associated Press, February 15, 2006, "I want Amendment E killed," February 23, 2006, Press & Dakotan.

So we have now documented two powerful influential senators showing apparent evidence of having gone mad! So now let us move on to document the rest of the entire state �government� gone mad over J.A.I.L.

By clicking on the official S.D. website of www.sdjudicial.com/downloads/soj/y2007soj.ram you will see the official video presentation of the State of the Judiciary message presented by S.D. Chief Justice David Gilbertson. For the first eight minutes he takes up the subject of slamming J.A.I.L. stating that J.A.I.L. is based upon a lie that judges are shielded by judicial immunity. He praised former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O�Connor for traveling the country propagating her statement that the object of J.A.I.L. is not justice, but �judicial intimidation.�

He then turns to praising all 105 legislators before him for sticking together in opposing J.A.I.L, and honors them for passing their resolution condemning this ballot measure. He then praises the South Dakota Bar Director Thomas Barnett for his great work in defeating the S.D. J.A.I.L. ballot measure.

From my perspective, this �State of the Judiciary� message is like a drunken celebration party of everyone patting each other�s back for the great work they have all accomplished working in union together to defeat the J.A.I.L. ballot measure. What Justice Gilbertson fails to acknowledge here is his unlawful appearance and speech at the original anti-J.A.I.L. fundrasing rally that included the South Dakota Bar Association, which action clearly violates four, if not five of South Dakota�s judicial canons of ethics.

But who�s concerned? Certainly not the South Dakota Legislature that openly violated, and despised the South Dakota Constitution, Art. VII, �1, �Elections shall be free and equal, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage (to vote.)� Nor are they concerned about violating their own criminal statute 12-13-16 that states, �Any person knowingly printing, publishing, or delivering to any voter of this state a document containing any purported constitutional amendment, question, law, or measure to be submitted to the voters at any election, in which such constitutional amendment, question, law, or measure is misstated, erroneously printed, or by which false or misleading information is given to the voters, is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.�

No, no, no, these officials are the �government,� and they are certainly not going to let the law get in their way in their madness to defeat the J.A.I.L. ballot measure. Absolutely nothing else is important. J.A.I.L. MUST be defeated at all costs! And this is true even if the state has to go to Hell!

You would think I have spoken my mind and am through. But no, I am not! I have yet to make my strongest point of the insanity and madness of the �government� of South Dakota. Here it is!

Would you believe that specifically because of J.A.I.L. appearing on the South Dakota ballot, the Legislature, in its madness, is now proposing HB1156 to dismantle the current initiative process to avoid a future threat of J.A.I.L. appearing on the ballot?

http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007701310326

Bill would create law on collecting signatures

By Wire Reports

Published: January 31, 2007

PIERRE - People hired to get signatures on petitions for political campaigns in South Dakota may not get paid per name in the future.

Legislation sent Tuesday to the floor of the state House would make it illegal to pay by the signature. Petition carriers could be paid by the hour or get a set wage, and they could not be required to obtain a certain number of signatures or face getting fired. The bill, HB1156, also would require petition carriers to be South Dakota residents.

Lawmakers were told that the measure was inspired by questionable tactics used last year in an unsuccessful campaign to strip judges of their immunity for official acts. Tom Barnett of the State Bar said an analysis of the California-based campaign concluded that more than 12,000 signatures on petitions for the ballot measure were phony. "There was George W. Bush. There was Roy Rogers. There was Dale Evans. There were people from out of state signing it," Barnett said.

The bill was endorsed by the House Local Government Committee.

Since the Legislature of South Dakota is proposing the defeat of the initiative process, it behooves me to point out that HB1156 is unconstitutional in the following manner. As the U.S. Supreme Court has pointed out, collection of initiative signatures is a First Amendment right of Redress of Grievances available to all U.S. citizens, and no state can forbid the exercise of such right, regardless of the state in which they live.

Furthermore, the U.S. Constitution sets forth, �No state shall�make any�law impairing the obligation of contracts�� Art. I, �10, clause 1. For the State of South Dakota to pass a law stating that its citizenry cannot enter into a contract to collect signatures is a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution barring such legislation. But what does the Legislature, the Supreme Court, or the Chief Executive care? They have a greater priority: J.A.I.L. MUST be defeated!

-Ron Branson, Arch-Enemy of the State (S.D.)

VictoryUSA@...

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 Unsubscribe, reply with UNSUBSCRIBE in the Subject Line

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

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

to their acts of pretended legislation. - Declaration of Independence

"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,

tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."

- Samuel Adams

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who

is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau

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

State ballot measures challenge judges' power

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/11/03/ballot.measures/

POSTED: 9:54 p.m. EST, November 3, 2006

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Ron Branson's crusade is launched daily from his garage in a nondescript house in California's San Fernando Valley.

Ballot measures in other states

Justice O'Connor sounds the alarm

E's supporters split

South Dakota measure puts judges on edge

Swing Voter's Lament: At Least One Case Still Bugs O'Connor

S. D. J.A.I.L. for Judges Amendment Soundly Defeated

Fight against 'judicial activism' in U.S. courts to continue despite election setbacks

Today in Americas

Ballot initiatives threatened independence of courts

Editorial: Judge needs another job

Brooks doesn't have judicial demeanor

http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/97835.html

The below is an unheard-of incident where all five justices of the Supreme Court of South Dakota have recused themselves from a case involving the public’s right to know the truth.

State justices take themselves off case

Rapid City Journal

12/30/06

Interim plan

Examiners questioned