Apology for the Appearance of Impropriety
Regarding the 4/22 JNJ posting of the
for his important input on this
Mark, I think most people understand that
J.A.I.L. is a neutral organization. Take a look at the Mission Statement on our
website at www.jail4judges.org. It's
unfortunate that the names "Schlafly" and "Schiavo" automatically draw people's
minds to moral, political, and religious issues and their minds "crash" and
cease to function further to actually see the more important, and indeed
crucial, issue of judicial corruption and the need for accountability which is
If you read the Mission Statement, you will see that
J.A.I.L. does follow the strategy you mention below. The M.S. states:
"J.A.I.L. is politically neutral and
non-partisan, composed of leaders and members of all political parties and
persuasions. J.A.I.L. neither endorses, promotes, nor opposes any political
Your statement: WITHOUT
presenting any appearance of supporting any particular political, moral or
religious position is however well taken. It is true,
there may have been an APPEARANCE of supporting a particular position, despite
the fact that J.A.I.L. doesn't particularly support it.
So from that standpoint, we apologize for any possible
misunderstanding that may have come across by posting the Schlafly report.
J.A.I.L.'s interest was only that of the attention given to the issue
of judicial corruption and the realization that we need judicial
Hopefully this clarifies the matter and re-emphasizes
J.A.I.L.'s position as stated in the Mission Statement which we encourage all of
you to read, or re-read. It hasn't changed. We're sorry for any inconvenience or
confusion this posting may have caused.
ACIC, National J.A.I.L. Admin.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 11:26
Subject: Re: Feedback on J.A.I.L.'s
posting the Schlafly report
Thank you for your reply and
for the JNJ posting.
The points you have made are well taken, Barbie,
particularly the attention the Schiavo case is bringing to judicial
corruption. I can see that my original post focused too narrowly on
Schiavo, and thereby under-emphasized the larger matter that I now wish to
clarify. And that is that J.A.I.L. needs to stay NEUTRAL on political,
moral and religious matters unrelated to judicial and government
The Schlafly report contained many anti-liberal and
morally-biased remarks, and THAT, more than the Schiavo case, is what concerns
me. It does not serve our purpose to alienate liberals or people of any
moral or religious persuasion.
Frankly, I think J.A.I.L. should WELCOME
support from Democrats, from Libertarians, from those who think that laws from
other countries might sometimes be good examples to follow, and from those who
hold different religious and/or moral beliefs than Ms. Schlafly holds.
But Barbie, the Schlafly report can be guaranteed to alienate tens of millions
of such people, notwithstanding it's many excellent points about arrogance and
corruption in the judiciary.
Rethinking my opinion, it seems that
J.A.I.L. might define a policy (and I'm not sure yet what it might look like)
for utilizing the public attention from the Schiavo case (as well as future
judicial events in the news) to focus SOLELY on the issue of judicial
corruption, WITHOUT presenting any appearance of supporting any particular
political, moral or religious position. What do you and Ron think of
this concept? Do other J.A.I.L. supporters agree with me? If so,
what might such a policy look like?
Mark Laurence Donald
At 07:36 AM 4/26/05, you wrote:
Thank you for your comments and your interest in
There can be no doubt that the Schiavo case has truly awakened an
apathetic public, and has gotten the attention of the media, to the
seriousness of judicial corruption. Thanks to the Schiavo matter, the
spotlight is finally being turned on the judiciary disclosing the fact that
it is the only branch of government that is unaccountable to the public, and
yet is the one that plays the most crucial role in
The Schlafly article is just one reflection of this sudden attention
to the arrogance of the judiciary, particularly the ignoring of a special
act of Congress requiring the court to reconsider the Schiavo matter in
light of much evidence that has never been considered before
making its crucial decision-- in other words, the lack of due process of
law. The focus of J.A.I.L. is on that judicial procedural misconduct shown
in the Schiavo matter, and not the merits of the Schiavo case itself, which
are not reached-- although a discussion about Schiavo cannot be avoided
since it is a major by-product of judicial misconduct.
As I said, it is
primarily the Schiavo scenario that has given rise to public attention to
the judicial corruption shown and the need for accountability. It has really
been a boost for J.A.I.L., showing the public an actual example of judicial
tyranny in action by major media which is quite unusual. Generally the media
hides judicial corruption and keeps it from public view. However, the
Schiavo matter forced the media to bring it out into the open, giving public
attention to this crucial problem which brings with it concerns about a
solution-- and that points to J.A.I.L.
It's interesting that we
haven't heard the media discuss J.A.I.L. --at least not yet. But judging
from the emails we have been receiving, many more people are taking J.A.I.L.
more seriously now than they did before the Schiavo case came to media
attention. We are certain that this is the case with Congress, and even
state government. Our JNJs are being sent routinely to many government
officials, so enough of them know about J.A.I.L. and when the subject of
judicial accountability comes up, we're sure that J.A.I.L. comes to
mind. J.A.I.L. has become more of a reality now, and not just a pipe
dream. Many eyes have been opened to the genuine need for J.A.I.L. since
No, Mark-- the Schiavo case cannot be totally ignored because of the
tremendous effect it has had on the issue of judicial accountability. It has
brought the issue to public attention, generously discussed in both the
printed and electronic media. The Schlafly report we published was generally
a discussion about the many misgivings of judicial arrogance from several
aspects, not just the Schiavo case. One important aspect was the reaction of
Congress to the need for improving the judicial system and bringing the
judiciary under control. The focus was NOT Schiavo, although it was
mentioned as it had to be.
You are absolutely correct in your outlook on J.A.I.L.
It is for everyone, regardless of their view of the Schiavo
case itself. I'm reasonably certain that people reading the Schlafly
report can see that the focus is on the judiciary, not
Schiavo. That is why it was posted by J.A.I.L.
Thank you for bringing
this to our attention, and for giving us this opportunity to clarify the
matter. I'm sharing this message with our JAILers. If you have further
questions or comments, let us know.
- ----- Original Message -----
- From: Mark Emerson
- To: VictoryUSA@...
- Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 8:11 PM
- Subject: A submission for JNJ
- JAIL Should Be Silent on the Schiavo Case
- I am concerned about j4j giving attention to the Terri Schiavo case,
as it did by publishing the article by Phyllis Schlafly, entitled "Starve
the Courts". With all due respect to Ms. Schlafly and her opinions,
I believe her article was counterproductive to building a political base
for the passage of JAIL. Please let me explain.
- JAIL is not just for religiously conservative people, but for
EVERYONE. And we need support for JAIL from as many political camps
- The Schiavo case involves a moral issue that is BY NO MEANS easy to
decide. Indeed, according to polls, a MAJORITY of Americans believes
(or leans toward believing) that removing her body from its life support
system was morally acceptable.
- On the other hand, the moral issue of corruption in the judiciary *IS*
easy to decide.
- The Schiavo case involves a fairly SIMPLE set of facts. In a
mere "sound bite", a person can become familiar with the essential
question: Is it moral to remove a person, who has been kept alive for
YEARS in a persistent vegetative state, from the life support
system? The question is obvious, but the answer is not. Or, at
least, the answer is not obvious enough to attain any popular
- However, the corruption in the courts involves a COMPLEX set of
facts. Most people don't have a CLUE about judicial corruption, and
we can't bring them up to speed in a few sound bites. People have
been conditioned by the media, the educational system and the last five
words of the Pledge of Allegiance to believe the judicial system is
basically SOUND. In order to learn the facts that prove otherwise,
people need to roll up their sleeves and examine the matter with an open
mind, and THAT is the single largest obstacle to getting JAIL
- We should not distract from the REAL issues of JAIL by giving any
APPEARANCE (by publishing articles such as Schlafly's) that the proponents
of JAIL favor one (or the other) side of ANY controversial,
emotionally-charged moral issue that has NOTHING to do with immorality
judicial corruption. Blaming Terri's death on judicial corruption is
UNWISE for JAIL, because it alienates the majority of people who happen to
think the courts decided RIGHTLY. It creates the appearance that
JAIL is a right-wing, reactionary proposal, and this pushes away liberals
and others whose support we need.
- At least 99% of the population is opposed to judicial
corruption. Most are simply ignorant of how extensive and systemic
judicial corruption has become. We need to AVOID politically and
religiously divisive issues entirely. Let us drive our wedge ONLY
between (1) corrupt attorneys, corrupt judges and the rest of their
corrupt gang, and (2) the 99% of the rest of the population.
- JAIL should be SILENT on the Schiavo case.
- Mark Laurence Donald Emerson