** Read and Understand the Amendment Before Reporting Irresponsibly On It* *
- J.A.I.L. News Journal
Los Angeles, California September 1, 2005
Mission Statement JNJ Library PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L. FAQs What?MeWarden?______________________________________________________Read & Understand the AmendmentBefore Reporting Irresponsibly On ItIf you expect to maintain your "honorable" reputation and integrity, we highly recommend that all members of the judiciary, active or retired, and of government generally, and of the news media,READ AND STUDY THE SOURCE MATERIAL-Barbie, JAIL4Judges.orgEven the art of propaganda brings our cause to people's attentionWe thank David Krantz, columnist for the Argus Leader, the largest newspaper in the largest city of South Dakota, Sioux Falls, for his article below published 8/28/05 which he titles "Don't like how the court ruled? Sue the judge, group says" for bringing the public's attention to the J.A.I.L. cause in such a provocative manner. Probably the most provocative manner is through the art of propaganda in news reporting that so vastly permeates the news media throughout the country. So thank you Mr. Krantz for announcing the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.) effort in South Dakota to people who would not otherwise know about this cause.South Dakotans are eager to hear about the J.A.I.L. AmendmentRon Branson, Author and Founder of J.A.I.L., and I have just returned from South Dakota after spending time going door to door, meeting a good cross-section of South Dakotans who, for the most part, were eager to hear about and discuss the SDJA Amendment. The South Dakota Judicial Accountability (SDJA) Team represents the South Dakota Chapter of National J.A.I.L. The fact of the lack of accountability of the judiciary to the People is of epidemic proportion throughout America, and South Dakota is just the first step toward correcting that national malfeasance which has had a controlling grip on the American People for more than two centuries since our Founding. The longer it is allowed to continue, the more despotic it becomes until this usurpation of power has now become insufferable by the People and they are compelled to act to abolish such government. That is the mission of this cause, beginning with the SDJA J.A.I.L. Amendment in South Dakota-- the first step in this nationwide effort.The solution must come directly from the PeopleMr. Branson has discovered, after attempting for eighteen years to get redress in the courts, both state and federal, at all levels --including fourteen attempts to the U.S. Supreme Court-- and petitioning to every door of the California Legislature, plus the Offices of the California Governor and State Attorney General, all of whom were "helpless" to be able to lift a finger to correct the problem, that the solution would have to come directly from the People.The news media does not, by and large, speak for the PeopleIt is common knowledge and a sad commentary that the news media by and large does not speak for the People-- it is the reporting facility of government. So it is no surprise that the Argus Leader would misrepresent the People's position in this cause and quote someone from the judiciary giving a reactionary, knee-jerk remark having no relation to the truth. Let's examine what the quoted retired judge said:The J.A.I.L. Amendment deals with the individual, not a voting bloc"People already have the power. They elected the judges, and if they don't like them, they can throw them out," Wuest said. If the judge cared to examine the issue more closely or at all, he would learn that requiring judicial accountability to the People does not involve a voting bloc of people, but any individual seeking redress of grievances in court who has failed to receive a judicial remedy according to law in his individual case. The People of this country (and South Dakota is part of this country) are made up of individuals and are to be respected individually, not as a bloc. Unalienable rights are the property of individual human beings, not of a bloc. The individual is not respected by government, particularly by judges. The SDJA Amendment of J.A.I.L. addresses each individual litigant and each individual judge involved in a given case.People voting for judges are irrelevant to J.A.I.L. and SDJAWith all due respect to judges and to news reporters representing the government's position on this issue of judicial accountability to the People, people voting for judges or any other group of people are irrelevant to this cause. What matters for justice is the individual. That's what distinguishes a Republic from a democracy. The organic Constitution concerns our individual unalienable rights, not the "civil rights" or privileges of any group or of society as a whole.Read and study the source material before reporting on itIf you expect to maintain your "honorable" reputation and integrity, we highly recommend that all members of the judiciary, active or retired, and of government generally, and of the news media, READ AND STUDY THE SOURCE MATERIAL before making comment and reporting irresponsibly on it. Go to http://www.southdakotajudicialaccountability.com/amendment.htmand READ THE AMENDMENT for the truth of what it proposes. You will find that the Amendment deals with the individual, called "complainant," and that the sole responsibility of the Special Grand Jury, the operative body of the J.A.I.L. process, "shall be limited to determining, on an objective standard, whether any [individual] civil lawsuit against a[n individual] judge, would be frivolous or harassing, or fall within the exclusions of immunity as set forth in paragraph 2...."It's not a matter of "don't like" but is a matter of LawThen reading paragraph 2, an individual judge would be held to answer before a petit jury "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." That clearly shows that it isn't a matter of "don't like" or "disagree with" a ruling, but is a matter of LAW-- we recommend you keep that in mind when reporting on this cause.Read about the self-made doctrine of Judicial ImmunityWe also recommend that you go toand learn for yourselves what the "self-made doctrine of judicial immunity" is. Attorney Gary Zerman will be happy to answer any of your questions on the subject.Judicial accountability to the People is needed in any eventOne other thing-- judicial accountability to the People for the violation of law in individual cases is needed regardless of the quality of judicial conduct in any jurisdiction. Whether a state is thought to have little or no judicial corruption does not diminish from the importance of having this measure in place. Mr. Branson has found personally that the sample of population in South Dakota he covered while there, expressed disappointment and even outrage with judicial conduct they have seen or heard about in their state. Although some South Dakotans may not realize the extent of the problem, the majority of them out in the field do understand the great need for this Amendment; and based on our findings, we have no doubt the measure will pass hands down in 2006.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~For those of you who have not seen Mr. Kranz' article, it appears below. If any of you have questions, let us know.-Barbie-ACIC, National J.A.I.L. Admin.Don't like how the court ruled? Sue the judge, group says
A judge could go to jail for handing down a court ruling in South Dakota that someone disagreed with if an effort is successful to put the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.) on the ballot.
William Stegmeier, a Tea manufacturing company owner, is heading up the effort with support from people around the country.
At the center of their concern is a feeling that judges think they rise above the law in what the initiative's backers call a self-made doctrine of judicial immunity, he says.
So his group of about 30 volunteers, South Dakotans for Judicial Accountability, is circulating petitions across the state from the Sioux Empire Fair to the Sturgis bike rally.
They need 33,456 signatures by Nov. 7 to be on the ballot, says Kea Warne, state election supervisor.
Stegmeier estimates the group has gathered 10,000 names.
He admits there isn't yet much of a problem with the issue of judicial accountability in South Dakota.
"We are not known for judicial corruption that I know of. It's not a big problem like it is in states like California, Mississippi," he said.
But he says that doesn't mean the initiative isn't necessary.
"Some have the argument, 'What kind of problem are you trying to solve?' Maybe you don't have a problem, but you buy homeowner's insurance before you have a problem," Stegmeier said.
He explains the process if the initiative becomes law.
"As an example: You go to court. You are the defendant. You want to enter evidence and help your case, and the judge won't allow it. You appeal the case and lose on the grounds you think the judge acts improperly. The appellate court denies your case, and you file it with a special grand jury," Stegmeier said.
That grand jury, selected from a pool of registered voters through the Secretary of State's Office, would be seated.
"They hear the complaint. They rule whether the judge should enjoy immunity from lawsuits. If they find for you, the next step is to sue the judge. If they deny you, that's it," Stegmeier said.
The grand jury also could consider whether there is probable cause of criminal conduct by the judge.
The objective, say initiative supporters, is to fulfill their responsibility to empower the people to act when they feel they are wronged.
"That is one of the nuttiest things I have ever heard," says George Wuest, a retired Supreme Court justice from Mitchell.
"People already have the power. They elected the judges, and if they don't like them, they can throw them out," Wuest said.
Good idea, says Dr. Allen Unruh, a Sioux Falls chiropractor who supports the initiative.
"I think judges all over the country are getting out of control. Our forefathers devised a system of checks and balances, but never for judges doing what they are doing, reinterpreting the constitution and undermining the people," he said.
He says judges don't have the power to override the vote of all the people in the country.
"South Dakota will be the first to challenge Roe vs. Wade, to throw judges in jail if they violate the constitution," he said. "There will be a grand jury if they legislate from the bench."
David Kranz's column appears Sundays, Tuesdays and Thursdays. Write to him at the Argus Leader, Box 5034, Sioux Falls, SD 57117-5034.