______________________________________________________
Los Angeles,
California
July 25, 2007
______________________________________________________
The Battle
Lines are Drawn:
J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power
A Power Foreign to Our
Constitution
The Nation's Unaccountable
Judiciary
Is At
Risk
By Barbie, National
J.A.I.L.
[email protected]
The
below article begins with the
following:
The
nation's independent judiciary is at risk, former U.S. Supreme Court
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said
Monday
That's
been the national mantra from O'Connor ever since J.A.I.L. appeared on
the South Dakota ballot last year. The first thing the People must
realize is that O'Connor uses the term "independent" to mean
"unaccountable" from the context of her messages which emanate from her
concerns about the prospect of J.A.I.L. being on the ballot anywhere
in the country.
In
another report, O'Connor's remark is stated
as
Judicial independence is under attack from people
who don't understand that court rulings must be based on legality
instead of popularity,
As a
result of bringing Judicial Accountability to the ballot last
year, 2006, in the State
of South Dakota, former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has traveled the
country taking every opportunity she can to condemn and castigate
JAIL4Judges as a great concern to
her. Her theme is,
and has been, that J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative
Law) undermines the independence of the
judiciary.
What
Justice O'Connor fails to understand is that J.A.I.L. does not
affect in any way the
independence of the judiciary. I should know, obviously, since I am
the author of the initiative who made very sure of that from the very first
day the Lord moved upon my
heart in 1995 to write it. I placed into this all-important
Initiative the judicial independence wording, "...no
petition of misconduct shall be considered by the Special Grand Jury
unless the petitioner shall have first attempted to exhaust all
judicial remedies available in this State within the immediately
preceding six-month
period."
That phrase is
a crown jewel of the J.A.I.L. Initiative that makes it stand
apart from all other judicial legislation going all the way back to
our Founding Fathers who were seeking some means of instituting
judicial accountability without interfering with the
decision-making powers of the
judiciary.
This
prestigious lady also lied that J.A.I.L. would "punish" judges for their
decisions. See our report on that dated June 4, 2022 titled "More
O'Connor Propaganda"
href="../../J.A.I.L._News_Journals/2007/2007-04-06.html">http://www.jail4judges.org/JNJ_Library/2007/2007-06-04.html in
which we said:
O'Connor has
already been on the circuit during the South Dakota campaign, going
around speaking against J.A.I.L. on the premise that in all her years
on the bench she has never experienced such a broad negative attitude
by society against the judiciary. She lays claim to that bewilderment
on people "not liking the decisions that judges make." She then
gives an example, bringing up the election in South Dakota where
"there was a proposal on the ballot to amend the State's
Constitution called jail for judges..." She never
explained the J.A.I.L. acronym. She said that this proposal would
"punish" judges for decisions they would make, although J.A.I.L. says
NOTHING about "decisions." See JNJ dated
November 22, 2006, titled "Decisions, Decisions,
Decisions!" http://www.jail4judges.org/JNJ_Library/2006/2006-11-22.html.
Now this lovely-appearing distinguished lady
wouldn't deliberately state to the American people on national
television that this proposal provided something
that
really wasn't in that proposal, would she? Did she have a
copy of the proposal with her from which she could read aloud to the
American people the portion she was discussing? Did the
interviewer ask if she had a copy of it, or could provide it? I didn't
see any direct reference to the J.A.I.L. Amendment at any
time during that interview...
As a retired
Supreme Court Justice, why wouldn't O'Connor provide evidence of what
she was stating to the American people on national television? Her
profession consisted of reviewing evidence to prove issues-- ergo, why
wouldn't she, by virtue of her profession, automatically realize the
importance of providing evidence of her issues regarding
J.A.I.L.? Would a retired Supreme Court Justice simply not think
of it? or wouldn't it occur to her? This refined professional lady
wouldn't allow such irresponsibility to mislead the American people on
national television, would
she??
Although the below event was not a
television broadcast, we ask the same questions of the ex-Supreme Court
Justice. In stating,
A South
Dakota ballot initiative, rejected by voters last year, would have
stripped judges of their longstanding immunity from lawsuits in
response to their rulings, leaving them open to fines and even jail
time.
...did she identify the name of the
"South Dakota ballot initiative" and inform her audience of evidence to
support her contention? Did she refer to the provision in the initiative
that describes exactly what the stripping of immunity would be in
response to?
Paragraph 2 of the initiative
provides that such would be done "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." Does Ms. O'Connor think that would have had a
different impact on the audience than simply "in response to their
rulings"? Of course, she knew it would-- that's why she didn't reveal the
truth of the matter!
Let's ask, did this distinguished
lady just fall off the turnip truck, or does she really know what the
J.A.I.L. initiative consists of-- every bit of
it? Does she, as an ex-Supreme Court Justice,
understand the importance of backing up statements with evidence when
making them to the public as an authoritative figure? I think she does.
So why doesn't she do it to support her credibility? I think you
know why-- because she
can't!
Ms. O'Connor, your cries about
J.A.I.L. are getting old and worn out. You have shown NO credibility! The
People know better, especially after learning from the South Dakota
election fiasco. One of our JAILers
stated:
TRAVERSE
CITY � States must teach their students more about government or risk
losing any future respect for laws and judicial rulings, former
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor told a dwindling group of
the nation's governors in Traverse City on Monday.
Barb, I
agree with this whole heartedly, but don't believe it would turn out
as Sandra wants it to. An education denovo (from the beginning)
would have to look at the Declaration of Independence which sets the
goals for the U.S. Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution removing
any doubt that the government derives its power from the consent of
the people.
When Justice
O'Connor promotes inflicting European laws that sound
good upon the American people without their
consent, these educated students will have the information
they need to chastise and reject her position. This will
also expose the dire need for the injection of the will of the people
into the judicial process in the form of JAIL.
"The people are the ultimate guardians of their own
liberties. In every government on earth is some trace of human
weakness, some germ of corruption and degeneracy . . . Every
government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people
alone." --Thomas Jefferson
Another response
was:
It is
downright disgusting that O'Connor condemns JAIL while not condemning
the judicial criminal conduct JAIL is designed to prevent. And
that is the essence of her argument and vitriol--the need for lack of
accountability of and promotion of abuse and judicial malpractice by
jurists.
And yet another one
asks:
Does Ms. O'Conner think that most of us are
dumbed-down that we would think that the federal judges operate
independently? If they are so independent, then why are the
federal judges mandated to follow the sentencing guidelines of
Congress? What does Congress have to do with it? Now that is a
great question to ponder on.
Ms. O'Connor, why don't you live up
to your "honored" position? Support your allegations with PROOF, or
else don't make them!
-Barbie
(The article
follows):
Ex-Justice O'Connor warns
nation's judiciary is at risk
Matthew Benson
The Arizona Republic
Jul. 24, 2007 12:00 AM
TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. - The
nation's independent judiciary is at risk, former U.S. Supreme Court
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said Monday, as the courts are politicized
and judges face reprisals from lawmakers and citizens at the ballot
box.
The issue goes far beyond simple criticism of judicial rulings, the
Paradise Valley resident told governors here for the National Governors
Association annual conference. In some parts of the country,
anti-courtroom sentiment has left judges open to threats of impeachment
and the loss of their jurisdiction. A South Dakota ballot initiative,
rejected by voters last year, would have stripped judges of their
longstanding immunity from lawsuits in response to their rulings, leaving
them open to fines and even jail time.
Tom Phillips, former Texas Supreme Court chief judge, said criticism of
judges and the increasingly partisan campaigns in states where they face
election mean judges nowadays often are seen as "mere politicians in
robes."
The former justices'
comments came before a dwindling gubernatorial audience on the final day
of the National Governors Association conference. The three-day event was
marked by its lack of controversy, with the roughly three-dozen governors
on hand avoiding formal discussion of illegal immigration and other
combustible topics.
Monday also marked the end of Gov. Janet Napolitano's one-year term as
NGA chairwoman, concluding the group's focus on her Innovation America
initiative. She stressed that the push to revamp the education system for
the future economy will continue and now will be led by a foundation.
Napolitano handed leadership of the governors association to Minnesota
Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican. His focus for the next year will be an
initiative investigating cleaner domestic sources of energy
Monday's discussion of judicial independence was relatively tame. In
recent months, critics have alleged that the Bush administration engaged
in politicking with its dismissal of nine federal prosecutors, including
Arizona's Paul Charlton.
When asked her thoughts on the dismissals, O'Connor replied, "No
comment."
The conference also dealt with a variety of other issues. Governors of
both parties found consensus in writing letters to Congress and President
Bush asking for reauthorization of federal funding for low-income
children's health insurance.
The governors requested that the U.S. Senate put federal funding behind
its plan for a national identification card. States estimate that the
Real ID program will cost more than $11 billion to implement and operate
during five years but say Congress has thus far appropriated just $40
million to help states with those expenses.
Napolitano pointed to both issues as those of greatest agreement among
the governors, though other discussions in recent days have included
global warming and energy production and economic
competitiveness.
J.A.I.L. (Judicial
Accountability Initiative Law) www.jail4judges.org
To
manage subscription, place the word Subscribe or
UnSubscribe
in the 'subject' line
and email to [email protected]
Our
Founding Fathers
said, "...with a firm reliance on the protection of
Divine
Providence, we
mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes,
and
our
sacred honor."
Declaration of Independence. We are a ministry in great need of your
financial support. Send your donations
for this vitally important work to:
J.A.I.L.
P.O. Box 207,
North Hollywood, CA 91603
J.A.I.L. is a unique
addition to our Constitution 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
Visit our active
flash - http://www.jail4judges.org/Flash.htm
*
* *
He has combined
with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to
our constitution,
and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to
their acts of
pretended legislation. - Declaration of
Independence
"..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
><)))'>