______________________________________________________
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.
v[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,
That is a little closer to the truth. We reported on this "attack" in our
J.A.I.L. News Journal dated April 6, 2022 "The Judiciary Under Attack as Never
Before"
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"
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 VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
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/national_001.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
><)))'>