______________________________________________________
The Inherent Right of ALL People to
Alter or Reform Abusive Government.
The Right Upon Which All Other
Rights Depend
Twisting The Truth
The voters
on Amendment E in South Dakota are being fed a full line of bull on what
Amendment E specifically targets, to wit, judges! With a simple
reading anyone can quickly see the objective of the amendment is
judges, yet there is a very intense effort to steer clear of its
real intent. The objective is to use scare tactics to state that it
is about throwing juries, school board members, and city councilmen in jail
when nowhere does it ever mention or suggest such a preposterous conclusion.
In the
official South Dakota ballot description Attorney General Larry
Long merely mentions the term "judges" once, and that is at
the end of a long list of Amendment E's supposed targets. Otherwise no one
would even know that Amendment E had anything to do with
judges.
If one
thought that political politics in California was intolerable, they only need to
look to South Dakota's dishonesty here. At least California Attorney
General Bill Lockyer correctly described the purpose of what is the same
target known as Amendment E in South Dakota.
No less
than four times he used the term "judge" or "judges" in his
proposed description for the California ballot. Further, there is not one
hint of a suggestion that it targets anything other than judges. No
juries, no school boards, no city councils, no county commissions, no
prosecutors. Read it for yourself:
"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 consider what the South Dakotans are being told what this amendment is about:
"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 allow 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 ..." (It should be noted that on the South Dakota ballot the term "thirteen volunteers" was changed to "grand jurors.")
So what is it that the South Dakotans are voting on? "Judicial accountability?" Absolutely not, according to the ballot, but upon whether "decision makers" should be subject to "fines and jail." And let us not forget, according to A.G. Long, these "decision makers" include "jurors."
People and the media are calling me and asking me about this proposed assault upon citizens who serve as jurors in South Dakota. I call this ridiculous interpretation of Amendment E, "Jury Cannibalism," ie, juries eating juries. The U.S. Constitution clearly says, "The trial of all crimes, except in case of impeachment, shall be by jury..." Art. III, Sec. 2, Cl. 3. If one jury can be arrested and jailed for making decisions, then it would have to go in front of another jury, who could (arguably) be arrested and jailed for its decisions.
Folks, what is going on in the election process in South Dakota is clearly criminal, and the F.B.I. should sweep into South Dakota and clean up this election mess for the sake of the sanctity of the voting process. I deal very thoroughly with this subject on our website www.sd-jail4judges.org.
Below are questions being presented to the voters of South Dakota that asks a question similar to "How often do you beat your wife?"
* * *
11/03/2023
Do Voters Understand Amendment E?
If Amendment E passes, South Dakota will be the
first state in the nation to enact accountability laws for people in judicial
positions. But many people may not realize how far the measure
reaches.
You may have seen the signs among the others scattered
around Sioux Falls. But we wanted to know if the average voter really
understands it.
Reporter: Do you know about the amendment that
holds judges accountable?
"No," said Jay Greyson of
Brookings.
"I've seen the commercials, but I'm not up to date on
the subject," said Christine Neuhart of Sioux Falls.
Reporter: Are
you familiar with Amendment E?
"Vaguely," said Tyler Tryon of Sioux
Falls.
Most people we talked with, both on camera and off, had at
least heard of the amendment, but weren't sure what it
includes.
Reporter: Do you know it includes jurors? "No, I did
not," said Tryon. Reporter: County Commissioners? "No." City Council members?
"No."
Reporter: School board members? "No," said Neuhart. Reporter:
City Council? "No." Jurors? "No." County Commissioners? "No."
A
court decision just this week upheld the measure's description which includes
those groups and strips them of judicial immunity... opening them up to lawsuits
as well as judges.
A few voters we talked with were aware of
that.
"Yes, it has to do with anybody potentially serving on a
board, a school board, elected position, a lot of volunteer people," said Missy
Radigan of Sioux Falls.
And they’re important details to keep in
mind before voting on Amendment E.
This week U.S. Senators Tim
Johnson and John Thune, U.S. Representative Stephanie Herseth and her opponent
Bruce Whalen... and Governor Mike Rounds and his opponent Jack Billion issued a
joint statement, opposing Amendment E.
Katie Janssen © 2006 KELOLAND TV. All Rights Reserved.
"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 DAKOTA
WHO WOULD BE HURT.
Vote YES on Amendment E for your
future and your own good!