* * *"I Am Not A Crook"* * *

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California February 8, 2007

www.sd-jail4judges.org

For those of us with years under our belt, these famous words need no explanation. However, for the benefit of the generation that has arisen after us who were not alive when these famous words were spoken, these are the words President Richard Nixon, Nov. 17, 1973. He turned directly to the camera and stated, "�people have got to know whether or not their President's a crook. Well, I am not a crook!"

Now why do I bring this up? Whenever anyone must go on the defensive as to their character, you know they have pretty much lost the debate. For example, if a stranger walked up to you and stated in your face, "I did not rape your daughter!" what would be your response? It might well be, "What do you mean, �you did not rape my daughter?' " And so the issue of the debate is set.

Thus, the debate is set by the words of South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long regarding the recent November 7, 2022 election in which he argues, I "didn't aid the defeat of the measure, known on the ballot as Amendment E." (Argus Leader, Feb. 5, 2007). J.A.I.L. accepts Long's debate issue, and responds accordingly to the question, "Did Attorney General Long aid the defeat of Amendment E?" (Amendment E was the J.A.I.L. Amendment.)

First, it should be noted that the South Dakota J.A.I.L. Initiative has now been revised to combat the total distortion made by A.G. Long of the purpose of J.A.I.L., i.e., to hold judges accountable for the seven specific violations clearly spelled out in the original initiative. They are: �2 "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."

Are these words clear? A.G. Long argues they are not. We argue they are very clear as to what is prohibited by judges.

We call as our first witness California State Attorney General Bill Lockyer to testify against A.G. Long as to the clarity of what J.A.I.L. means. Mr. Lockyer testifies that this ballot measure means the following:

"JUDGES. RESTRICTIONS ON JUDICIAL IMMUNITY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Supersedes existing judicial immunity and creates three 25-member 'Special Grand Juries' empowered to: determine if a judge may invoke judicial immunity in a civil suit; indict and, through a special trial jury, convict and sentence a judge for criminal conduct; and permanently remove a judge who receives three adverse immunity decisions or three criminal convictions. Disallows immunity for deliberate violations of law, fraud, conspiracy, intentional due process violations, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts outside the court's jurisdiction, unreasonable delay of a case, or any deliberate constitutional violation."

Now compare that with the below explanation of Amendment E (the J.A.I.L. Amendment) by A.G. Long as it appeared on the official ballot in South Dakota. (Keep in mind that while A.G. Long's "explanation" of J.A.I.L. might differ in wording from that of the California A.G., they are both describing the J.A.I.L. measure.) A.G. Long "explains" the J.A.I.L. Amendment as:

"Citizens serving on juries, school boards, city councils, county commissions, or in similar capacities, and prosecutors and judges, are all required to make judicial decisions. Their decisions may be reversed on appeal, or they may be removed from office for misconduct or by election. However, they cannot be made to pay money damages for making such decisions. This allows them to do their job without fear of threat or reprisal from either side.

"The proposed amendment to the State Constitution would allow thirteen volunteers to expose these decision makers to fines and jail, and strip them of public insurance coverage and up to one-half of their retirement benefits, for making decisions which break rules defined by the volunteers. Volunteers are drawn from those who submit their names and registered voters.

"The proposed amendment is retroactive. The volunteers may penalize any decision-maker still alive for decisions made many years ago.

"If approved, the proposed amendment will likely be challenged in court and may be declared to be in violation of the US Constitution. If so, the State may be required to pay attorneys fees and costs.

If you have not caught it yet, Attorney General Long's "explanation" is not an explanation of the initiative at all, but rather an argument against J.A.I.L. and in favor of the sufficiency of existing laws just the way they are, and the negative consequences of voting for J.A.I.L. --in other words, Long's so-called "explanation" is a Class 2 misdemeanor under South Dakota law!

South Dakota Codified Law 12-13-16

Publication of false or erroneous information on constitutional amendment or submitted question as misdemeanor.

Any person knowingly printing, publishing, or delivering to any voter of this state a document containing any purported constitutional amendment, question, law, or measure to be submitted to the voters at any election, in which such constitutional amendment, question, law, or measure is misstated, erroneously printed, or by which false or misleading information is given to the voters, is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.

National Conference of State Legislatures:

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/PrepTtlSumm.htm

Preparation of a Ballot Title and Summary

The ballot title and summary are arguably the most important part of an initiative in terms of voter education. Most voters never read more than the title and summary of the text of initiative proposals. Therefore, it is of critical importance that titles and summaries be concise, accurate and impartial. ...

In all states, the summary, whether drafted by proponents, the attorney general, secretary of state, or another state agency, is a concise statement of the main points of the proposed measure. Proposed initiative summaries in all states are required to be impartial and non-argumentative. ...

And what's all this irrelevant stuff about "juries, school boards, city councils, county commissions," etc.? We don't see even a hint of such irrelevant stuff in Lockyer's explanation of J.A.I.L. Are they describing the same thing? How can a description be so radically different by two Attorneys General?

The main objective of J.A.I.L. is to prevent the abuse of judicial immunity; but there is not one word from A.G. Long about judicial immunity in his so-called ballot "explanation."

On the other hand, A.G. Lockyer's explanation flows freely with words describing the application of judicial immunity, e.g., "JUDGES. RESTRICTIONS ON JUDICIAL IMMUNITY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Supersedes existing judicial immunity and creates three 25-member 'Special Grand Juries' empowered to: determine if a judge may invoke judicial immunity in a civil suit; �" Absolutely no one could possibly miss the fact that the J.A.I.L. Initiative is about conditioning the use of judicial immunity for specified violations!

When J.A.I.L. challenged A.G. Long's false and deceptive description of Amendment E to the voters, we were told that Long did a very good job, and that; "The attorney general could have said with a straight face that the real purpose and effect of the proposed JAIL amendment is to destroy justice in South Dakota�" --true words written in the Order of Judge Max A. Gore, Aug. 21, 2006.

Can anyone imagine such ridiculous words appearing on a State ballot initiative for a vote? "Are you in favor of destroying justice in this state? Yes or No?" Only by a Foreign Power -foreign to the Constitutions of South Dakota and the United States, and hence, foreign to the voters- could such an act be contemplated!

Such an absurd statement can only come about by a Foreign Power intent on making a mockery out of this last November election because we would dare place J.A.I.L. on the ballot. We saw just how far the Foreign Power would go to defeat judicial accountability to the People. Why not just say that J.A.I.L. is about murdering cute little babies? How about: "A vote for J.A.I.L. will deplete the population. A vote against J.A.I.L. will allow the population to continue to live."

J.A.I.L.'s second witness against A.G. Long is Tom Barnett, the Executive Director of the South Dakota State Bar. On January 15, 2023 he testifies to the Florida State Bar:

"While judges might be unpopular," Barnett noted "the amendment would have far-reaching impacts. One is that many locally elected officials, including city and county commissioners and school board members, can have judicial duties, and hence be covered under the amendment. So can ordinary residents when they serve on juries, a fact the South Dakota anti-amendment campaign highlighted as ad after ad hammered that criminal defendants would be able to harass or sue jurors."

Barnett said "one poll showed that allowing jurors to be sued was opposed by 86 percent of the voters. It's a very, very powerful message," he said. "That's why we used that."

So now we have an open confession of an unindicted co-conspirator along with Attorney General Long in a plot to deceive the voters of South Dakota, in a criminal violation of the South Dakota Criminal Code as set forth above. Their perpetrated goal, which turned out to be successful, was to keep the focus off of judges, and shift the focus over to harassment of jurors. "It was a very, very powerful message" he said. "That's why we used that."

J.A.I.L. now calls to the witness stand its third witness against A.G. Long - Raymond Ehrman, a South Dakota voter.

I hold in my hands a certified 192-page "Official Voter Information Guide" for the State of California dated November 7, 2022 mailed to all California registered voters. Therein, every issue is spelled out in detail complete with arguments for and against, and rebuttals to and against each issue. On page 2 we are told, "Dear California Voter, There is no greater right than the right to vote - to participate in the electoral process, �. In this Voter Information Guide, you will find information to assist you in making informed choices on Election Day. Impartial analyses, arguments in favor and against thirteen measures�." The key word here is "informed choices."

A Declaration of Raymond Ehrman

The undersigned, under the laws of the United States of America, states the following to be true:

That I am over 21 years of age, that I am an Elector in South Dakota living in Freeman, South Dakota, and that I can make this declaration.
That I was seeking to inform myself, before the election, specifically what all the ballot Amendments, initiatives and referral in the November 2006 election were and exactly what words are to be approved or rejected into law by voters.
That I went to the Secretary of State website to find the wording of the Amendments. I found the summaries declared by Attorney General Larry Long, which I put into a separate word file on my computer, but could not find the full texts of the Amendments, initiatives and referral.
That I then went to search on the internet and found democraticunderground.com that had not only Long's summaries, but also the full texts of the Amendments, initiatives, and the referral.
That on October 22, 2006, I emailed the Secretary of State asking them why one had to go to democratic underground to find the actual texts of the Amendments, Initiatives, and the referred laws.
That the Secretary of State Office then sent back a link to http://www.sdsos.gov/electionsvoteregistration/upcomingelection_2006BQExplanations.shtm
That this did have Long's summary and, following immediately after each entry, the full text of Amendment E.
That this was not the same information that I first found on the Secretary of State website. The first finding was only the summaries, not the full text.
That this is all I will state at this point.

I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated this 4^th day of January, 2007.

From the above declaration and that of another South Dakota voter, we found that there exists no "Official Voter Information Guide" that is mailed to the voters to inform them of what it is they are voting on. They are simply beholden to the honesty and integrity of one man, A.G. Larry Long, to be honest and to tell them the truth about what it is they are voting on. Who could imagine the creation of such a farce?

This is like walking into a dark voting booth blind-folded with a stylus, and relying on your opposing ballot candidate to instruct you where to punch! There can be a no further potential for election fraud than was conducted in South Dakota in November 2006. Attorney General Larry Long argues that he did not steal the election. We say he had every opportunity to do so, and indeed did steal the election. Let us not forget the defense of President Richard Nixon when faced with the facts;

HOME
South Dakota Vote Fraud		FTC Comments on the Definition of the Practice of Law
Responses to Articles and Shows	FAQS	Join J.A.I.L.	Donate To J.A.I.L.	Buy A J.A.I.L. T-Shirt & Bumper Sticker
State and Federal Sites	Black Collar Crime	J.A.I.L. News Journal	Judicial Horror Stories	Branson's Legal Briefs
National J.A.I.L. Contacts and Groups	Animated Introduction	Spread The Word	J.A.I.L. Constitution & By Laws	Mission Statement
J.A.I.L. Cannot Give Legal Advice	Website Comments	Current Events	Links Of Common Interest	Yahoo Group