J.A.I.L. News
Journal
______________________________________________________
Los
Angeles,
California
June 19,
2005
______________________________________________________
Official Review of
the
South Dakota J.A.I.L.
Initiative
[Addressed
to Bill Stegmeier, JAILer-In-Chief of South Dakota and
Proponent of the J.A.I.L. Initiative]
South Dakota
Legislative Research
Council
Sen. Ed Olson, Chair
Rep. Gordon R. Pederson, Vice Chair
James Fry, Director
Doug Decker, Code Counsel
June 8, 2022
William Stegmeier
27116 Grummand Avenue
Tea, SD 57064
Dear Mr. Stegmeier:
Pursuant to SDCL 12-13-25, this office is required to
review each initiated law or initiated amendment to the South Dakota
Constitution. Further, this office is required by SDCL 12-13-24 to determine if
each initiative or initiated amendment is "written in a clear and coherent
manner in the style and form of other legislation" and that it is "worded so
that the effect of the measure is not misleading or likely to cause confusion
among voters." You are under no obligation to accept any of the suggestions
contained in this letter. But please keep in mind the legal standards
established in SDCL 12-13-24.
We have reviewed the draft of the initiated
constitutional amendment that you have submitted to this office. Because of the
length of the proposed draft and the number of minor style and form changes
suggested, we have chosen to rework the draft to incorporate all of these style
and form suggestions. To assist you in identifying where these suggestions occur
within the draft, we are also enclosing a copy of the rough draft markup.
[Redraft and markup commented on, in part,
below]
Although these style and form corrections are
extensive, they are relatively less important than other more pervasive concerns
about the style and form inherent in your draft. Some of these are addressed in
the redraft, others are not.
Of the significant style and form suggestions embodied
in the redraft, please take special note of the following:
(1) Five sections have been deleted:
(A) The
preamble which is entirely inappropriate to constitutional
amendments.
(B) The
definitions [�(b) - now changed to �(1)]
which serve no useful purpose since all of the
terms are used in ordinary common sense meanings.
(C) The redress provision
[�(v) - now changed to �(21)] which merely restates the uncontested common law.
(D) The
challenges provision [�(w) - now changed to
�(22)] which appears to be designed to prevent something which is
inconceivable ab initio.
(E) The
preeminence provision [�(x) - now changed to
�(23)] which does nothing to resolve any dispute
that might arise from a conflict of laws.
(2) We believe that the amendment is not appropriate to
Article VI of the Constitution and have suggested that Article V is the correct
venue. [Note- Article VI is titled "Bill of
Rights" and Article V is titled "Judicial Department"]
(3) We have split the draft into a number of sections
as opposed to the one multi-paragraph of your original draft.
Of the significant style and form concerns that we have
not attempted to address in the redraft, please consider the
following:
(1) The material proposed is inherently statutory,
rather than constitutional. Frankly, your own title, Judicial Accountability
Initiative Law, indicates that the proper basis of the material is that of an
initiated state law.
(2) If you choose to submit the material as a
constitutional amendment, you should be concerned about the amount, variety, and
complexity of the detail embodied and the difficulty of amending the
Constitution when the necessity for revision becomes apparent. As just one of
many possible illustrations, in your facilities provision [�(f) - now changed to �(5)], your draft requires
the establishment of a suitable facility within the city of Pierre but not
within one mile of any "judicial body." This is quite possibly a physical
impossibility at present and, if not, could easily become so in the future.
[Note- that provision has now been changed to
read "...centrally located in the State, but not within a mile of any judicial
body."]
(3) Finally, there are several potential conflicts
between your draft and the United States Constitution. An example of this would
be your provision for criminal retroactivity in your jurisdiction section.
[�(l) - now changed to �(11)]
This letter constitutes neither an endorsement of your
initiated measure nor a guarantee of its statutory sufficiency. It does
constitute fulfillment of your responsibility pursuant to SDCL 12-13-25 to
submit your draft to this office for review and comment. If you proceed with
your initiated measure, please take care to ensure that your statements of
advertising do not imply that this office endorses or approves your
proposal.
Please contact this office if you need additional
information.
Sincerely,
Jim Fry, Director
cc: The Honorable Chris Nelson, Secretary of
State
[Indeed, Mr. Stegmeier did contact that office for
"additional information" by writing the following letter]:
June 10, 2022
Legislative Research Council
Jim Fry, Director
State Capitol
500 East Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070
Re: Constitutional Amendment by People's
Initiative - Adding �28
"The J.A.I.L.
Amendment"
Reply to your
letter of June 8, 2022
Dear Mr. Fry:
Thank you for your response to my submission of the
proposed constitutional Amendment which shall be known as "The J.A.I.L.
Amendment." Submitted herewith is the revision of the Amendment, with a
substantive change to paragraph 5 regarding the facilities provision, some minor
changes in wording overall, and conforming to the form and style of the South
Dakota Constitution. Please note that it follows the pattern in format similar
to �6 of Article XIII consisting of an initial unnumbered paragraph followed by
subsequent paragraphs numbered seriatim.
I hereby request that you respond to my questions below
within five business days of the date of this letter so that my associates and
the public may be apprised of the foundations upon which the suggestions in your
letter of June 8 are based:
1. What is your authority and reasoning for
concluding that the preamble "is entirely inappropriate to constitutional
amendments"?
2. What is your authority and reasoning for
concluding that the four terms defined under "Definitions" are "used in ordinary
common sense meanings" and would not require the specific definitions unique in
application to the subject matter of this Amendment?
3. What is your authority and reasoning for
concluding that the "redress provision ... merely restates the uncontested
common law"?
4. What is your authority and reasoning for
concluding that "the challenges provision ... appears to be designed to prevent
something which is inconceivable ab initio"?
5. What is your authority and reasoning for
concluding that the "preeminence provision ... does nothing to resolve any
dispute that might arise from a conflict of laws"?
6. What is your authority and reasoning for
concluding that "the amendment is not appropriate to Article VI of the
Constitution" and "that Article V is the correct venue"?
7. What is your authority and reasoning for
concluding that the Amendment should be "split ... into a number of sections"
and not remain as "one multi-paragraph" section?
8. What is your authority and reasoning for
concluding that "[t]he material proposed is inherently statutory, rather than
constitutional"? and that the title, Judicial Accountability Initiative Law,
"indicates that the proper basis of the material is that of an initiated state
law"?
9. What is your authority and reasoning for
concluding that "there are several potential conflicts between [the] draft and
the United States Constitution"? and that there is any reference to "criminal
retroactivity in your jurisdiction section"?
While I await your answers to the above questions
within five business days hereof, the following states my position on the above
matters:
1. The Preamble of "The J.A.I.L. Amendment" is in
the public's interest, in that it gives notice to the public of (a) why the
People find the amendment necessary, and (b) what it intends to accomplish.
"Preamble: A clause at the beginning of a constitution or statute explanatory of
the reasons for its enactment and the objects sought to be accomplished.
[citations omitted]" Black's law Dictionary, Revised Fourth
Edition.
2. The definitions provided are important to give
notice to the public of the specific application the terms listed have as they
relate to The J.A.I.L. Amendment, i.e., "...for purposes of the Amendment, the
following terms shall mean:" Specifically, (a) Blocking in the ordinary
sense can mean a football strategy or a defensive move in the sport of boxing,
or some such like. Blocking in a legal context is not common usage. (b) Judge in
the ordinary sense means just that: a judge. The specific meaning for purposes
of this Amendment is not limited to "judge" only, but means all of the terms
shown, including "all other persons claiming to be shielded by judicial
immunity." (c) Juror in the ordinary sense means someone serving on any jury.
However for purposes of this Amendment, the term specifically means a Special
Grand Juror. (d) Strike in the ordinary sense means hit, contact, collide,
delete, cancel --just to mention a few. For purposes of this Amendment, it
specifically means an adverse immunity decision or a criminal conviction against
a judge (as defined by (b)). Specificity in legal terms is paramount, or it
could render the term void for vagueness.
3. Regarding the Redress provision, as is the
case with all provisions of this Amendment, a full and explicit explanation for
each is required to eliminate any doubt as to its intention with respect to this
Amendment. No conclusory presumptions are permitted.
4. Regarding the Challenges provision, it is my
position that the circumstances described therein is not inconceivable, and
serves to preempt any possibility of such occurrence in the future. Like a fire
escape on a building, it serves to ensure the continued integrity and good
standing of this Amendment in the event of any challenges thereto.
5. As with all provisions of this Amendment, no
conclusory presumptions are permitted regarding the effect of the Preeminence
provision. It, too, must be included to ensure the continued integrity and good
standing of this Amendment. That provision also calls for the reading of this
Amendment every month to the Jurors, as well as the provision that should any
part of this Amendment be determined unconstitutional, the remainder shall
remain in full force and effect, all of which is a necessary component of this
Amendment. This provision resolves all disputes wherein there is a conflict of
laws.
6. It is my position that this Amendment is not
appropriate for Article V since its subject matter is not that of the Judicial
Department, nor any part of government whatsoever. This Amendment is the
People's preemptive measure superior to government operations. The purpose of
this Amendment is for the People of South Dakota to exercise their inherent
right to alter or reform their form of government in the manner provided by this
Amendment in fulfillment of �26 of Article VI of the South Dakota Constitution,
which states, "All political power is inherent in the people, and all free
government 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..." This Amendment shall assure that the "Bill of Rights" of
Article VI will be enforced directly by the People. Therefore, the correct venue
for this Amendment is Article VI, adding �28.
7. This Amendment is a single amendment
consisting of several provisions to carry out its sole purpose, judicial
accountability to the People. Therefore, only one section of the Constitution is
affected. A "number of sections" is not warranted nor proper for purposes of
this single Amendment.
8. The material proposed by this Amendment is
strictly constitutional. As stated in 6 above, it is the fulfillment of �26 of
Article VI by constitutional amendment of the People of South Dakota. As shown
by the Preamble, which must be included to introduce this Amendment, the People
of South Dakota "hereby amend our Constitution by adding these provisions as �28
to Article VI...." This Amendment is intended to be a constitutional
amendment by which the People can correct any injury caused by judicial abuse of
power.
9. I find nothing in this Amendment in conflict
with the United States Constitution. There is nothing regarding "criminal
retroactivity" in the jurisdiction provision, nor is there any retroactivity in
its criminal provisions. Quite the contrary, it provides specifically, to wit,
"(4) the criminal statute of limitations has not run."
I include herewith a copy of the revised Amendment
[pasted in below our comments], which
conforms to the format of the South Dakota Constitution. I look forward to
receiving your response within five business days hereof.
Your truly,
William Stegmeier
[Mr. Fry's response is as
follows]:
June 10, 2022
Re: Proposed
Initiated Measure on Judicial Accountability
Dear Mr. Stegmeier:
Thank you for your response to our letter of June 8, 2005. As noted in our
letter, you are under no obligation to modify your initiated measure to conform
to our comments.
Sincerely,
James Fry, Director
State Capitol, 500 East Capitol, Pierre, SD
57501-5070
605/773-3251 * TTY 605/773-4305 * Fax
605/773-4576
The purpose of Mr. Stegmeier's questions to Mr. Fry was
to give him an opportunity to provide the foundations upon which his suggestions
and statements were based, so that we, and all of you, would be apprised
thereof. Mr. Stegmeier (Bill) stated his position, as the Proponent of The
J.A.I.L. Amendment, to provide Mr. Fry specific reasons why his suggestions were
unacceptable absent some authority supporting them, especially in light of our
stated position.
Bill emphasized that a full and explicit explanation
for each provision of this Amendment is required to eliminate any doubt as to
its intention with respect to the Amendment. "No conclusory presumptions are
permitted." However, Mr. Fry's conclusory remarks were not supported by
facts, although he was invited to do so.
Comments on the markup and
redraft:
1. Mr. Fry proposed striking the entire Preamble, as
being "inappropriate to constitutional amendments." Yet, the very Constitution
of the State of South Dakota to which he impliedly refers, states "All political
power is inherent in the people, ... they have the right in lawful and
constituted methods to alter or reform their forms of government in such manner
as they may deem proper." It should be noted here that the word "proper" and
"appropriate" are synonyms and interchangeable. Thus, the question of what is
"appropriate," and what is the "proper" forms of government is a decision solely
inherent in the People-- not the legislature or its analysts.
2. Mr. Fry proposed striking all of our definitions
applicable to J.A.I.L., leaving the Amendment vulnerable to judicial
interpretations.
3. He proposed striking in �(d), now �(3), two
important phrases: (1) the phrase "For the purpose of returning power to the
People," which is the reason for creating the Special Grand Jury in the first
place; and (2) the phrase "...fall within the exclusions of immunity" which goes to the
heart of the function of the Special Grand Jury in exercising its jurisdiction
in finding that the judge's conduct does not warrant the protection of judicial
immunity. The abuse of judicial immunity is the
thrust for this
Amendment.
4. Mr. Fry proposed striking the entire provisions of
Redress, Challenges, and Preeminence. He states that the Challenges provision
"appears to be designed to prevent something which is inconceivable ab initio."
In other words, in his mind it is "inconceivable" that any judge in South Dakota
would even dare sit in judgment over a challenge to this Amendment, which
provision states "No judge under the jurisdiction of the Special Grand Jury, or
potentially affected by the outcome of a challenge hereto, shall have any
jurisdiction to sit in judgment of such challenge. Such pretended adjudication
shall be null and void for all purposes and a complaint for such misconduct may
be brought at any time, without charge, before the Special Grand Jury by class
action, or by any adversely affected person." Mr. Fry did not offer any factual
support for his conclusion of "inconceivable ab initio."
5. Within the Preeminence provision sought to be
stricken by Mr. Fry, are the words, "Preeminence shall be given to this
Amendment in any case of conflict... " Mr. Fry stating that this "does nothing
to resolve any dispute that might arise from a conflict of laws."
Conclusion:
It appears that Mr. Fry wishes to steer clear of the
following words or subjects: judicial immunity, power of the People,
challenges to and preeminence of this J.A.I.L. Amendment. The fact is that
the passage of J.A.I.L. announces the beginning of the end of judicial
tyranny, and thus, government tyranny as we know it.
In closing, I quote �27 of Article VI of the
South Dakota Constitution "Bill of Rights" which is the section that will
immediately precede The J.A.I.L. Amendment, "The blessings of a free
government can only be maintained by a firm adherence to justice, moderation,
temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental
principles."
Ron Branson
J.A.I.L. Author/Founder
P.S. It is anticipated that starting June 20th
(tomorrow), we will be permitted to begin collecting signatures in South
Dakota.
Judicial Accountability
Initiative Law
(J.A.I.L.)
(Revised Version 6/10/05)
�28.
Judicial Accountability Initiative Law
(J.A.I.L.)
Preamble. We,
the People of South Dakota, find that the doctrine of judicial immunity has the
potential of being greatly abused; that when judges do abuse their power, the
People are obliged - it is their duty - to correct that injury, for the benefit
of themselves and their posterity. In order to insure judicial accountability
and domestic tranquility, we hereby amend our Constitution by adding these
provisions as �28 to Article VI, which shall be known as "The J.A.I.L.
Amendment."
1. Definitions. Where appropriate, the singular shall
include the plural; and for purposes of this Amendment, the following terms
shall mean:
a. Blocking: Any act that impedes the lawful conclusion of a case,
to include unreasonable delay and willful rendering of an unlawful or void
judgment or order.
b. Judge: Justice,
judge, magistrate judge, judge pro tem, and all other persons claiming to
be shielded by judicial immunity.
c. Juror: A Special
Grand Juror.
d. Strike: An adverse
immunity decision or a criminal conviction against a judge.
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.
3. Special
Grand Jury. For the purpose of
returning power to the People, there is hereby created within this State a
thirteen-member Special Grand Jury with statewide jurisdiction having power to
judge both law and fact. This body shall exist
independent of statutes governing county Grand Juries. Their
responsibility shall be limited to determining, on an objective standard,
whether any civil lawsuit against a judge would be frivolous or harassing, or
fall within the exclusions of immunity as set forth in paragraph 2, and whether
there is probable cause of criminal conduct by the judge complained
against.
4. Professional
Counsel. The Special Grand Jury
shall have exclusive power to retain non-governmental advisors, special
prosecutors, and investigators, as needed, who shall serve no longer than one
year, and thereafter shall be ineligible to serve; except a special prosecutor
may be retained to prosecute ongoing cases in which they are involved through
all appeals and any complaints to the Special Grand Jury. The Special Grand Jury
may hire clerical staff, as needed, without time
limitation.
5. Establishment
of Special Grand Jury Facility. Within ninety days
following the passage of this Amendment, the Legislature shall provide a
suitable facility for the Special Grand Jury centrally located in the State, but
not within a mile of any judicial body.
6. Annual Funding. The Legislature shall cause to be
deducted one and nine-tenths percent from the gross judicial salaries of all
judges, which amount shall be deposited regularly into an exclusive trust
account created by this Amendment in paragraph 10 for its operational expenses,
together with filing fees under paragraph 7, surcharges under paragraph 8,
forfeited benefits of disciplined judges under paragraph 18, and any fines
imposed by sentencing under paragraph 16.
7. Filing
Fees. Attorneys representing a
party filing a civil complaint or answer before the Special Grand Jury, shall,
at the time of filing, pay a fee equal to the filing fee due in a civil appeal
to the State Supreme Court. Individuals filing a civil complaint or answer on
their own behalf, before the Special Grand Jury, as a matter of right, shall, at
the time of filing, post a fee of fifty dollars, or file a declaration, which
shall remain confidential, stating they are impoverished and unable to pay
and/or object to such fee.
8.
Surcharges. Should this Amendment lack
sufficient funding through its fines, fees, and forfeitures (including
deductions in paragraph 6), the Legislature shall impose appropriate surcharges
upon the civil court filing fees of corporate litigants as necessary to
supplement the funding of this Amendment.
9. Compensation
of Jurors. Each Juror shall receive a
salary commensurate to that of a Circuit Court judge, prorated according to the
number of days actually served by the Juror.
10.
Annual Budget. The Special Grand Jury shall
have an annual operational budget commensurate to double the combined salaries
of the thirteen Jurors serving full time, which sum shall be initially deposited
by the Legislature into an exclusive trust account to be annually administered
by the State Treasurer. Should the trust balance, within any budget year, drop
to less than an amount equivalent to the annual gross salaries of seven Circuit
Court judges, the State Treasurer shall so
notify the Legislature which shall replenish the account, prorated based on the
actual average expenditures during the budget year. Should the trust balance in
any subsequent year exceed the annual operational budget at the beginning of a
new budget year, the State Treasurer shall transfer such excess to the state
treasury.
11.
Jurisdiction. The Special Grand Jury shall have
exclusive power to appoint a foreperson, establish rules assuring their
attendance, to provide internal discipline, and to remove any of its members on
grounds of misconduct. The Special Grand Jury shall immediately assign a docket
number to each complaint brought. Except as provided in paragraphs 17 and 22, no
complaint of misconduct shall be considered by the Special Grand Jury unless the
complainant shall have first attempted to exhaust all judicial remedies
available in this State within the immediately preceding six-month period. (Such
six-month period, however, shall not commence in complaints of prior fraud or
blocking of a lawful conclusion until after the date the Special Grand Jury
becomes functional. This provision applies
remedially and retroactively.) Should the complainant opt to proceed to the
United States Supreme Court, such six-month period shall commence upon the
disposition by that Court.
12. Qualifications of Jurors. A Juror
shall have attained to the age of thirty years, and have been nine years a
citizen of the United States, and have been an inhabitant of South Dakota for
two years immediately prior to having his/her name drawn. Those not eligible for
Special Grand Jury service shall include elected and appointed officials,
members of the State Bar, judges (active or retired), judicial, prosecutorial
and law enforcement personnel, without other exclusion except previous
adjudication of mental incapacity,
imprisonment, or parole from a conviction of a felonious crime against
persons.
13. Selection
of Jurors. The Jurors shall serve
without compulsion and their names shall be publicly drawn at random by the
Secretary of State from the list of registered voters and any citizen submitting
his/her name to the Secretary of State for such drawing. The initial Special
Grand Jury shall be established within thirty days after the fulfillment of the
requirements of paragraph 5.
14. Service
of Jurors. Excluding the establishment
of the initial Special Grand Jury, each Juror shall serve one year. No Juror
shall serve more than once. On the first day of each month, one Juror shall be
rotated off the Special Grand Jury and a new Juror seated, except in January it
shall be two. Vacancies shall be filled on the first of the following month in
addition to the Jurors regularly rotated, and the Juror drawn to fill a vacancy
shall complete only the remainder of the term of the Juror
replaced.
15. Procedures. The Special Grand Jury shall
serve a copy of the filed complaint upon the subject judge and notice to the
complainant of such service. The judge shall have twenty days to serve and file
an answer. The complainant shall have fifteen days to reply to the judge's
answer. (Upon timely request, the Special Grand Jury may provide for extensions
for good cause.) In criminal matters, the Special Grand Jury shall have power to
subpoena witnesses, documents, and other tangible evidence, and to examine
witnesses under oath. The Special Grand Jury shall determine the causes properly
before it with their reasoned findings in writing within one hundred twenty calendar days, serving on all parties
their decision on whether or not immunity shall apply as a defense to any civil
action that may thereafter be pursued against the judge. A rehearing may be
requested of the Special Grand Jury within fifteen days with service upon the
opposition. Fifteen days shall be allowed to reply thereto. Thereafter, the
Special Grand Jury shall render final determination in writing within thirty
days. All allegations in the complaint shall be liberally construed in favor of
the complainant. The Jurors shall keep in mind, in making their decisions, that
they are entrusted by the People of this State with the duty of restoring
judicial accountability and a perception of justice, and are not to be swayed by
artful presentation by the judge. They shall avoid all influence by judicial and
government entities. The statute of limitations on any civil suit brought
pursuant to this Amendment against a judge shall not commence until a final
decision by the Special Grand Jury. Special Grand Jury files shall always remain
public record following their final determination. A majority of seven shall
determine any matter.
16. Indictment. Should the Special Grand
Jury also find probable cause of criminal conduct on the part of any judge
against whom a complaint is docketed, it shall have the power to indict such
judge, except where double jeopardy attaches. The Special Grand Jury shall,
without voir dire beyond personal
impartiality, relationship, or linguistics, cause to be impaneled twelve special trial jurors, plus alternates, which
trial jurors shall be instructed that they have power to judge both law and
fact. The Special Grand Jury shall also select a non-governmental special
prosecutor and a judge with no more than four years on the bench from a county
other than that of the defendant judge, to maintain a fair and orderly
proceeding. The trial jury shall be selected from the same pool of jury
candidates as any regular jury. The special prosecutor shall thereafter
prosecute the cause to a conclusion, having all the powers of any other
prosecutor within this State. Upon conviction, sentencing shall be the province
of the special trial jury, and not that of the selected judge. Such sentence
shall conform to statutory provisions.
17. Criminal
Procedures. In addition to any other
provisions of this Amendment, a complaint for criminal conduct against a judge
may be brought directly to the Special Grand Jury, when all the following
conditions have been met: (1) an affidavit or declaration of criminal conduct
has been lodged with the appropriate prosecutorial entity within ninety days of
the commission of the alleged crime; (2) the prosecutor declines to prosecute,
or one hundred twenty days has passed following the lodging of such affidavit or
declaration, and prosecution has not commenced; (3)
an indictment, if sought, has not been specifically declined on the merits by a
county Grand Jury; and (4) the criminal statute of limitations has not
run. Any criminal conviction (including a plea bargain) under any judicial
process shall constitute a strike.
18. Removal. Whenever any judge has
received three strikes, the judge shall be permanently removed from office, and
thereafter shall not serve in any State judicial office. Judicial retirement for
such removed judge shall not exceed one-half of the benefits to which such judge
would have otherwise been entitled. Retirement shall not avert third-strike
penalties.
19. Public
Indemnification. No judge complained against,
or sued civilly by a complainant pursuant to this Amendment, shall be defended
at public expense or by any elected or appointed public counsel, nor shall any
judge be reimbursed from public funds for any losses sustained under this
Amendment.
20. Enforcement. No person exercising strict
enforcement of the findings of a Special Grand Jury shall be held liable
civilly, criminally, or in contempt.
21. Redress. The provisions of this
Amendment are in addition to other redress that may exist and are not mutually
exclusive.
22. Challenges. No judge under the
jurisdiction of the Special Grand Jury, or potentially affected by the outcome
of a challenge hereto, shall have any jurisdiction to sit in judgment of such
challenge. Such pretended adjudication shall be null and void for all purposes
and a complaint for such misconduct may be brought at any time, without charge,
before the Special Grand Jury by class action, or by any adversely affected
person.
23. Preeminence. Preeminence shall be given to this
Amendment in any case of conflicts with statute, case law, common law, or
constitutional provision. The foreperson of the Special Grand Jury shall read,
or cause to be read, this Amendment to the respective Jurors every month. Should
any part of this Amendment be determined unconstitutional, the remainder shall
remain in full force and effect as though no challenge thereto existed.
J.A.I.L.- Judicial
Accountability Initiative Law - href="../../State_Chapters/dc/DC_initiative.doc">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/Flash.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 [email protected]
To
be added or removed, write to [email protected]
"..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 <><
Return To JNJ 2005
To JNJ Library Index for All Years