- ----- Original Message -----From: MJYannone@...Subject: Re: Liar LiarI submitted a letter to the editor of the Argus Leader, and I posted this:
South Dakota's curious non-reader members of the bar
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
South Dakota's curious non-reader members of the barby Mark Yannone
Judging by the content of some of the opinion pieces about Amendment E (here's a real whopper), you might wonder if South Dakota had schools that taught writing but not reading. The next paragraph is the part that some people can't read. See if you can.
"No immunity shall extend to any judge of this State for any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts without jurisdiction , blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of South Dakota or the United States, notwithstanding Common Law, or any other contrary statute."
When the non-readers encounter that paragraph, they can't see the word "judge," so they pretend there are other nouns there instead, like "councilman" and "water board. " Isn't that hilarious?
The non-readers can't understand the concept of "violations of law" either, so they pretend Amendment E is about other things instead, like "having a bad hair day" or "disagreement." I wonder how they even manage to cross the street safely if these non-readers are so easily confused by such simple words and concepts.
What's really strange is how many of these non-readers are members of the bar, like the judges who are just about to lose their immunity from prosecution when they break the law. Maybe that association has something to do with their apparent inability to read. Do you think so?