** It's Really Getting O-o-o-ld! **
- J.A.I.L. News Journal
Los Angeles, California October 20, 2006 ______________________________________________________The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform Abusive Government.The Right Upon Which All Other Rights Depend
It's Really Getting O-o-o-ld!The Opposition Has Worn Out the Same-O, Same-OBy Barbie, ACIC, National J.A.I.L.Open Letter to:Nina Totenberg, NPRDear Ms. Totenberg:I listened to your audio report on the NPR website titled "South Dakota To Vote On Ending Judicial Protections" atMy first question, Nina, is "Did you read Amendment E before making your report?" If not, shame on you! If you did, DOUBLE SHAME on you for defrauding the American people, and particularly the South Dakota voters by deliberately misrepresenting what the Amendment stands for!Not once did you report or explain the seven violations Amendment E will examine-- yes Nina, only seven, and they are specified in ¶2.
"2. Immunity. No immunity shall extend to any judge of this State for any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of South Dakota or the United States, notwithstanding Common Law, or any other contrary statute." [color emphasis added]Again, they are:(1) deliberate violation of law(2) fraud or conspiracy(3) intentional violation of due process of law(4) deliberate disregard of material facts(5) judicial acts without jurisdiction(6) blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case(7) any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of South Dakota or the United States.Nina, which ones of those violations do you feel judges should be able to commit with impunity? with "judicial protections" as your article is titled? You said nothing about them!Instead, you repeated the constant mantra of the South Dakota Establishment, which includes the news reporting media, that:* judges will be able to be sued for their judicial decisions* prisoners will be able to sue judges upon their release from prison* people will be able to sue any existing administrative agency in S.D.* the purpose of the Amendment is to cause judicial intimidationThat's just four that I can name on top of my head-- there are others which I encourage people to listen to at the above shown website.Ms. Totenberg, just on the face of it, your allegations about Amendment E are senseless."Judicial accountability" means exactly that! And to whom, and for what, should judges be accountable? Yes, in the first instance, judges should be held accountable to whatever forum the system offers. The opposition argues that the following five "remedies" are available:
Amendment E encourages any or all of those "remedies," and passage of Amendment E would assure that they work. But that's just in the first instance! If they work, great! But if they don't, then judges must be held accountable ultimately to the People. Government generally will not discipline itself, nor can it be expected to. It obviously has a conflict of interest, especially in light of the fact that more often than not, judges cover up for government wrongdoing and for themselves. They're all in the same boat, nice and safe. The People are left flailing in the water, screaming for help-- and more often than not, they are ignored! Redress of grievances has been non-existent in practice, for years. J.A.I.L. will change that!Ms. Totenberg, by pure nature, the solution to government corruption, and more particularly judicial corruption, rests with the People in the final analysis. The Declaration of Independence states this fact very clearly. I refer you to a very recent J.A.I.L. News Journal titled "Absolute Despotism." I've emailed it to you under separate cover. Our readers have already received it. Become informed and aware of American history and the relationship between the People and government; then compare that with what we have today. Another J.A.I.L. News Journal is titled "Inherent Truth of Amendment E" which you can go to by clicking it in the left-hand column on www.sd-jail4judges.org.Also, further down in that left-hand column is the Justice Sandra Day O'Connor article in the Wall Street Journal (the first selection, after clicking the article), in which we include her article and thoroughly respond to her attacks on Amendment E, including the "judicial intimidation" accusation. Please read that for a full understanding.Answering the many common and repeated criticisms of Amendment E by the opposition is found on the "Confronting Head On" item in the left-hand menu. We need not repeat our responses here. But, learn the truth about Amendment E before making any more irresponsible comments about it.We also note that you reported the South Dakota Bar Association took some kind of a recent poll on Amendment E and found that the "No" vote was "slightly ahead." However, they failed to state what polling company conducted the poll, when it was conducted, and what the exact percentages were! To make such a claim, and include it in your report, without details and evidence speaks VOLUMES! Just about a month ago, the Zogby Polling Company polled South Dakota voters and came up with 67% in favor of Amendment E, 19.8% against it, and 13.2% Undecided. Mr. Branson informed you of this poll in your telephonic interview of him last week. Even if the entire "Undecided" vote went against the Amendment, that would still be only one-third against it.The People of South Dakota, and indeed throughout the nation, deserve honest reporting, and direct references to the Amendment itself-- not just baseless claims. Take a look at our South Dakota website-- BECOME INFORMED of the truth!# # #
- If a judge breaks the law he or she can be prosecuted.
- People have the right to challenge a decision made by a judge. Its called the appeals process, and every day scores of South Dakotans use it for the lawful, proven redress of their grievances in a higher court.
- South Dakotans have the Right of Recusal a very rare citizen power among the United States in which a party to a lawsuit or a prosecution may remove the judge assigned simply because they doubt as to whether the assigned judge will treat them fairly.
- Judges are routinely disciplined and even removed from the bench for misconduct. The body that holds them accountable is called the Judicial Qualifications Commission.
- Judges are voted off the bench all the time. This November alone, 38 judges are up for reelection, with 55 candidates vying for their seats.
"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 DAKOTAWHO WOULD BE HURT.Vote YES on Amendment E for your future and your own good!
J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
Go, South Dakota, GO! www.SD-JAIL4Judges.org
Contribute to J.A.I.L. at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
See our active flash, http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm
JAIL is a unique addition to our form of gov't. heretofore unrealized.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USAemail@example.com
To be added or removed, write to VictoryUSA@...
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless
minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><