BROKERING JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE Defeating JAIL August 13, 2022 By Taffy Rice

Atlanta, Georgia - When the 2007 National Governors Association Conference (NGAC) convened in Traverse City, MI, to discuss the need for "Judicial Independence," to say there were some interesting revelations is an understatement extraordinaire! South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds (R), kicked off the event by conveying his participation in the effort to defeat the Judicial Accountability Initiative Legislation (JAIL) Referendum in his home state, which he carried out following the gracious suggestion to become involved by former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.  . . . . ... Rounds' father has oily ties, as a former executive director of the South Dakota Petroleum Council, while Rounds' brother, Tim Rounds, is a member of the South Dakota State Legislature representing District 24. ... With pride Governor (Gov.) Rounds informed attendees of the 2007 NGA Conference, specific details surrounding the willful effort, conspiracy, players, and intent, to further "Judicial Independence," while depriving judicial accountability to South Dakotans, JAIL supporters, and ultimately all Americans. Gov. Rounds further elaborated on South Dakota's unique position as one of the first states to adopt an initiative or referendum access for citizens and voters, to obtain and determine laws 'by the people.' It was the miraculous acquisition of more than 30,000 signatures in a one-year period, which would allow JAIL to be entertained by the people via ballot. Resultantly, Gov. Rounds described his effort to engage the support of ALL state officeholders to condemn the initiative prior to any vote, obtaining the concurrence of ALL 105 legislators. Additionally, Rounds shared he was able to enlist business and CONSUMER ORIENTED GROUPS, to similarly oppose JAIL and denounce the effort. He announced proudly, the measure was defeated by an 89 to 11 vote, with only the inclusion of sordid and nefarious Diebold machines missing. Conclusively, he noted, the defeat of the measure fully supported by a majority of people, required a tremendous amount of work and cost, personally concluding, our system works just fine without having this type of attack on an independent judiciary. Moreover he revealed the overwhelming assistance in defeating the accountability initiative aided and supported by ALL three branches of government, affording them unanimous opposition and conclusive success. The point was made that the dollar value to defeat the measure cost the people an inordinate amount, to assure the will "of the people" was negated for the benefit of BAR Members and elected officials acting in concert to maintain a system the majority of Americans recognized as unacceptable, flawed, or corrupt! A joke regarding the "nutty" initiatives presented "by the people" was made, with the suggestion, that a "tightening of requirements," was needed to circumvent a similar event, though there was a clear and definitive understanding, voters would NOT freely give up their rights! This question and answer period was one of the most overt events, barring the National or State Justice Institute Conferences. Without question Governors and members of the Judiciary were openly discussing their willful efforts to negate the will "of the people" in order to to carry out and further "Judicial Independence." The acknowledgement that all three branches of government had simultaneously worked in tandem to defeat Ron Branson's original notion, that JUDGES MUST BE ACCOUNTABLE and required to obey the law they were charged with upholding, had purposefully been negated, was no longer a theory, supposition, or conceived "conspiracy." As O'Connor and Justice Thomas Phillips (former Chief Justice TX Supreme Court 1987-2004) would go on to address, the BAR Association needs to be the organizational front for all decisions or publicity the public learns of regarding judicial acts. It was clear to this reporter, the "rule of law" was being publicly dissected to the benefit of a few, in opposition to "the will of the people." To mask this fact, there was discussion of educational programs, speeches, and community involvement by judges to improve their position or public perception. Additionally, the separation of state rights versus federal oversight was a future issue to be overcome. But the use of various organizational access, like the National Governors Association and others, was the solution for ensuring federal review would protect state actions, efforts, or decisions! Only Governor Bill Ritter, Jr. (D-CO), a former DA (1993-2004) and Federal Prosecutor, raised the concern that "Judicial Independence" can create judicial isolation. Suffice it to say isolation is but a minor issue when faced with an organized and centralized judiciary. Such "isolation" witnessed by the world in Nazi Germany might have been more realistically termed  "Judicial Tyranny!" Gov. Kathleen Blanco (D-LA) mused, it was seemingly O'Connor's intent to request the Governors (legislators and elected officials) be participants in teaching and defending the process. Also contributing was Gov. Edward Rendell (D-Penn), who felt education was the solution to creating judicial independence, as young people are refusing to participate in the process. He specifically noted O'Connor's effort to promote civics, and felt the earlier young people were indoctrinated, the more successful the effort would be! Wonder why young people are not willing to engage in a fixed process. Could it be parental experience, exposure, or just common sense? There was an open discussion of engaging BAR Organizations and other Commissions, who select judicial nominees, to act as the media spokespeople, or fronts, for public perceptions, outrage, or awareness, not reversed by the Appellate Courts. Controversial opinions must be explained by those with legal training through increasing media exposure. This approach was better than allowing judges to explain their own actions, for as Justice Thomas Phillips noted, judges are the poorest defenders of their own acts. And the fear of cameras in the courtroom, held off by one Supreme Court Justice (Souter of the landmark eminent domain fame Kelo v. [City of] New London), might ultimately be overcome by a congressional mandate, was another voiced concern. Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D), a 1983 Harvard grad, noted his concern that, due to ethics law reform, law firms are being forced into political consulting, which reduces the number of lawyers in the elected official arena. Heretofore, legislatures were full of lawyers, who backed up the system and defended (or protected) judges' efforts. This reduction of lawyers in elected posts leads to "misunderstanding the judiciary," and as a result, more defenders or the Supreme Courts of this nation will not have "natural allies"! To say this event was "enlightening" ... would be an abysmal understatement. Justice Phillips' acknowledgement that the state and federal judiciary "work well together," further solidified what most Americans seeking redress know as fact. Conferences, "inter-branch cooperation," and merit selection, assure the protection of NOT the citizens of this nation, the preservation of the rule of law, or protection of inherent God-given rights, but instead impose the judiciary's desired "Judicial Independence," even when contrary to the will of the people, ANY law, or common sense! Copyright 2007 Taffy Rice Comment by J.A.I.L.   Just by the sheer fact that the judiciary, and now also the other branches of "government," have chosen to engage with J.A.I.L. is indicative that they have already lost the war! When J.A.I.L. was first conceived in 1995, no one was giving public attention to the judiciary. Since that time over the years, J.A.I.L. has pumped out over ten million pieces of educational material relating to the judiciary.   At one time, the judiciary had hoped that no one would pay attention. Their hope has been dashed to pieces, and as former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has repeatedly expressed, she is hearing more criticisms about the judiciary than at any other time in her lifetime. See The Judiciary Under Attack as Never Before, http://www.jail4judges.org/JNJ_Library/2007/2007-04-06.html.   The foregone conclusion in a public battle of J.A.I.L. v. The Judiciary is NOT who is going to be the winner and who is going to be the loser, for the controversy itself proves that J.A.I.L. is the undisputed winner by virtue of the battle!   J.A.I.L. has already won over this nation's judiciary, and thereby over this nation itself! All that remains is the unveiling, by pulling the sheet off the "J.A.I.L. Monument." There is no warfare that can, or will, defeat the J.A.I.L. Initiative!   -Ron Branson- CIC, National J.A.I.L. [email protected]