Evil Motive Of Our Opposition Revealed
- Evil Motive Of OurOpposition Revealed----- Original Message -----From: Jamie JacksonTo: VictoryUSA@...Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 6:27 PMSubject: RE: * * * The Cozy Relationship Between Judges And Insurance Companies * * *I think this says volumes:
Schmelzer added that stopping the South Dakota effort is an essential step
in discouraging similar initiatives in other states that permit citizens to amend their constitutions by direct election.
"We encourage our more than 1,400 member companies to consider their own involvement and financial support in helping to defeat the South Dakota ballot initiative because of the impact such a result will have nationally,"
My translation: The establishment has recognized the threat to the status
quo and is now mobilizing its resources against the threat. Note that another way of phrasing that first sentence would be thusly:
"We gotta stop this thing HERE AND NOW, folks!!!"
They are getting worried.
To: "www.jail4judges.org" <VictoryUSA@...>
* * * The Cozy Relationship Between Judges And Insurance Companies
* * *
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:40:19 -0800
J.A.I.L. News Journal
Los Angeles, California
March 21, 2006
The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform Their Government.
The Right Upon Which All Other Rights Depend.
Mission Statement JNJ Library
Federal J.A.I.L. FAQs
The Cozy Relationship Between Judges And Insurance Companies
It has long been known that judges and insurance companies hold a cozy relationship one to another as the below article by the huge insurance companies below admit, to wit, "In its written statement NAMIC explained that 'Amendment E' would amend the South Dakota constitution to allow for citizens to 'try' judges ... who sit on public policymaking boards..."
It is clear from the above statement that these insurances companies do not
want to see judges tried by a jury for unlawful acts, or for violations of
the Constitution, even if the judge's did it willfully.
They further argue that "A civilian jury would be empowered to impose a
sentence after the 'trial.' A sentence could result in judges being
relieved of their duties and being forced to forfeit their pensions..." Is
it not customary that defendants are sentenced after the finding of guilt
following a trial? But while they impliedly concede that punishment is
appropriate for all other criminals other than judges, they contend that is
should not be heard that a criminal judge convicted of a crime should be
punished. Their position has to be that while everyone must be afforded
equal protections under the law, (Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution), to wit, "No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protections of the law, judges are "more equal" than everyone else, and therefore judges should not be punished from crimes they commit.
Oh, yes, and is it not a definite conflict of interest for judges to sit on
policy-making boards of insurance companies as insurance claims of those
companies are certain to come before these as judges? Even more basic is
the question, why are judges setting policies in a state regulated
business, to wit, "Given that property/casualty insurance is state
regulated and that state tort law is critical to the way our businesses are
run...?" Is not state regulated insurances businesses the subject of a
legislature, and not judges? Are these judges to set policies and then sit
in judgment over those same policies?
What's more interesting is that these insurance companies are openly
admitting that they are hate seeing the People having the right to an
initiative process at all. They say, "... stopping the South Dakota effort
is an essential step in discouraging similar initiatives in other states
that permit citizens to amend their constitutions by direct election." They
want to overthrow the rights of the voters of South Dakota, namely the
constitutional provision of Article VI, Sec. 26 in appropriate part, "All
political power is inherent in the People, and all free governments is
founded on their authority, and is instituted for their equal protection
and benefit, and they have the right in lawful and constituted methods to
alter or reform their forms of government in such manner as they may think
proper." Of course, by these insurance companies seeking for the overthrow of lawfully constituted government in South Dakota, they also seek the overthrow of all lawfully constituted government in this country, "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." Declaration of
Instead of concentrating on the rights of the People, they boast that they
are the rich and well connected, "... NAMIC is a full-service national
trade association with more than 1,400 member companies that underwrite 43 percent ($196 billion) of the property/casualty insurance premium in the
United States." They are located in Washington, D.C., and give as their
Washington, DC. phone number, (202) 628-1558. This information is
documented at http://www.namic.org/insbriefs/060316JAIL.pdf%20.
If the South Dakota legislature and media are consistent about their claim
that Amendment E is being heavily influenced by California, they will
surely strenuously object to be influenced by $196 billion from Washington,
D.C. Yes, we shall certainly watch for this strenuous objection by the
South Dakota legislature and their media. God forbid that the South Dakota
voters discover them to be proven hypocrites.
The bottom line. The entire future of this country lies in great part on
what happens in South Dakota on November 7 this year. Is the future of this country to be ruled by the rich and powerful, or by the People? If you
oppose the option of the rich and powerful, your only choice is to support
Amendment E in South Dakota. And do not forget that the judges and the
insurance companies enjoy a cozy relationship in bed together.
~ ~ ~
National Insurer Group Opposes S.D. Judicial Ballot Initiative
March 20, 2006
The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies is saying it plans
to work with a broad-based coalition in South Dakota to defeat a statewide
judicial ballot initiative on the November ballot that would allow citizens
to bring a lawsuit against judges and those with public decision making
In its written statement NAMIC explained that "Amendment E" would amend the South Dakota constitution to allow for citizens to "try" judges and others who sit on public policymaking boards in the aftermath of unpopular decisions. A civilian jury would be empowered to impose a sentence after the "trial." A sentence could result in judges being relieved of their duties and being forced to forfeit their pensions-and civil and criminal
liability placed upon such persons as school board members, parole board
members, and similar public bodies.
NAMIC Senior Vice President Roger H. Schmelzer said NAMIC will be an active participant in the "No on Amendment E" grassroots coalition.
"If successful, this initiative would seriously undermine not only South
Dakota's state judicial system, but also any citizen board with public
decision making power," Schmelzer said. "Given that property/casualty
insurance is state regulated and that state tort law is critical to the way
our businesses are run, we are obliged to resist vigorously any attempt to
introduce unpredictability to state legal systems."
Schmelzer added that stopping the South Dakota effort is an essential step
in discouraging similar initiatives in other states that permit citizens to
amend their constitutions by direct election.
"We encourage our more than 1,400 member companies to consider their own involvement and financial support in helping to defeat the South Dakota ballot initiative because of the impact such a result will have
nationally," Schmelzer said.
Amendment E was certified by the South Dakota Secretary of State in the
fall of 2005 after Ronald Branson, a California minister, succeeded in
getting 46,800 South Dakotans to sign petitions for his Judicial
Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.).
In February, 92 of 105 lawmakers co-sponsored and passed House Resolution 1004, which urges South Dakota residents to reject the J.A.I.L. amendment on election day.
The "No on Amendment E" coalition is a nonpartisan effort of the state's
top political, business, labor, law enforcement, medical and agricultural
"These unprecedented actions, both by the members of the legislature and
other South Dakota entities, are emblematic of the serious opposition to
Amendment E becoming part of the state's constitution," Schmelzer said.
NAMIC has produced an Issue Brief on the J.A.I.L. ballot initiative that
includes more specifics about Amendment E, its organizers and how the
initiative came to be on the South Dakota ballot. The Issue Brief can be
read on NAMIC's website, NAMIC Online at
Source: National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies
J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
Contribute to J.A.I.L. at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
See our active flash, http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm
JAIL is a unique addition to our form of gov't. heretofore unrealized.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USAemail@example.com
To be added or removed, write to VictoryUSA@...
Your help is needed: www.SouthDakotaJudicialAccountability.com
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless
minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><