Scaring The
Bajebers
Out of The Legal
System
(By Ron Branson - Author/Founder of J.A.I.L.)
Years ago I stated that the Judicial
Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.) will eventually be on the lips
of everyone throughout the country, and its message will
affirmatively overtake this nation from "Sea to Shining Sea."
(See the interesting animation http://www.jail4judges.org/Flash.htm
which attests to this phenomenon.)
Today, I am watching the beginning signs of
this development materializing in our country; and despite
the horrors of our opposition, there is nothing the system can do
to change the onward and upward thrust of J.A.I.L. It is said that
there are no armies on earth that can stop and idea whose time has
come, and indeed the time of J.A.I.L. has come to America! Just like in
quicksand, the more the corrupt establishment thrashes and flails
in resistance, the faster they sink. And like the
quote, "I do not care what they say about me, just so long as they
spell my name correctly," so it is with J.A.I.L. The media
opposition is spreading the name of J.A.I.L. around the U.S. like there
is no tomorrow - media coverage which we could not
afford.
The media is driving the foot traffic
toward J.A.I.L. by the thousands. While we already possessed extended
bandwidth supporting our website, we have had to recently re-double our
extended bandwidth just to keep up, thanks to the media. And at
the rate we're going, I don't believe it'll take too long before the
media will cause us to have to quadruple our bandwidth. J.A.I.L.
is that thing that our enemies do not want to talk about, but can't
help themselves! Like one hooked on drugs, one may hate the fact that
they are drug-dependent, but they just have to have more.
Likewise, the media is hooked on that which they hate,
i.e., J.A.I.L.; but, nonetheless, they just can't get enough
of it, even though they know they're spreading around the knowledge of
J.A.I.L.
Back on August 13, 1999, the largest legal
newspaper in the U.S., the Los Angeles Daily Journal, published an
article about J.A.I.L. This newspaper is widely read by thousands
of both attorneys and judges religiously. On the front page, column
one, first sentence, we read: "SACRAMENTO - Ronald Branson has picked a
lot of fights with judges and lost. Now the vexed Los Angeles
County litigant is going to voters with a proposed ballot initiative
aimed at cracking down on a judicial system he regards as out of
control. .... 'We believe there are some people out there who are
nearly as agitated as us who want something to happen,' Branson told
the Daily Journal. This will become the hottest initiative in time that
ever happened in the History of California." This
article got the attention of the California judicial
establishment, who retorted, "The state's judicial establishment
isn't exactly holding its breath. 'We're not going to be lying
awake worrying about this,' said Constance Dove, executive director of
the California Judges Association. 'I think the voters have more sense
than that.' "
Notwithstanding the judiciary's attitude of
nonchalance, a shocking poll taken by the judiciary itself
through its Judicial Council revealed, "Nearly half of the
Californians questioned in a far-ranging new poll said they have less
confidence in the court system... . 52% had a 'poor' or 'only
fair' overall opinion of the state judiciary..." The results of this
poll absolutely shocked the establishment. "When 52% of Californians do
not think highly of the courts, that tells me we have to come up with
[a] program to give people a better understanding of the system.' said
Robert R. Dockson, ... chairman of the Commission on the Future of
the Courts." L.A. Times, 12/11/92.
What this poll revealed was that the judiciary
was in big trouble. Their proposed cure, "...come up with a program to
give people a better understanding of the system." Now if you're not
already laughing, I ask you where you think this effort to "give people
a better understand of the system" has led. I'll give you a hint: They
are afraid to take a poll to find out! Based upon the official poll on
behalf of the judiciary, Ron was right. The judiciary was then out
of control, and I say that it has only gotten much worse with the
passage of time. If J.A.I.L. were on the ballot today, it would terrify
all those judges who candidly said, "We're not going to be lying
awake worrying about this." Indeed, it is now getting hard to
find people who hold respect for the judiciary here.
The Daily Journal went on to express how an
Initiative five years prior was passed by the voters to curb judges in
California by giving more power to the Commission on Judicial
Performance. But they observed the difference offered by
J.A.I.L., "J.A.I.L. would go quite a bit further -- -- further, in
fact, than any judicial watchdog agency in the nation."
While I vehemently disagree with the implications
of a South Dakota poll taken by the Argus Leader, a South Dakota
newspaper, they did get a surprising response to their misguided
question. The question was, "Should people unhappy with a
judge's ruling have the authority to appeal to a grand jury for the
right to sue the judge?" This was aimed directly at J.A.I.L.
Their poll results reveals the following:
Yes: 49.2%
No: 50.8%
While I am abhorred at the result received, it
does send a message that South Dakotans are very upset, for whatever
reason, with their judges in South Dakota.
Contrary to those who speak against us, J.A.I.L.
actually received quite a plug with an honest analysis by the highest
of authority in California, to wit, Elizabeth Hill, the
Legislative Analyst, who addressed the current Attorney General,
Bill Lockyer on 3/30/2000:
"Limitations on
Judicial Immunity. Current law provides that judges are
completely immune from civil claims based on actions taken within the
scope of their judicial performance. As a result, perceived abuses by
a judge within the scope of his or her judicial performance can only
be remedied by appealing the action in question to obtain a reversal,
filing a complaint with the Commission on Judicial Performance, or
petitioning the Legislature to impeach the judge. None of these
remedies allow the complainant to seek civil damages. Judges are
currently subject to criminal prosecution for criminal acts taken
within the scope of their judicial duties (for example taking a
bribe). The "victim" of such an offense, however, cannot seek a civil
remedy against a judge for any negative consequences of the criminal
action.
"This measure would provide a mechanism for plaintiffs to
overcome this immunity in certain cases by filing a claim with the
newly created special grand juries who would have jurisdiction to
determine whether a civil suit fell within certain immunity exclusions
set forth in the initiative. Judges would no longer be immune from
civil liability in cases in which they intentionally violate due
process of law, deliberately disregard material facts, block the lawful
conclusion of a case, or deliberately violate the U.S. or California
Constitutions. In any case in which the special grand jury finds that a
suit would fall within these exclusions, its finding acts as a bar
against the judge raising the defense of judicial
immunity...."
I view the above quoted commentary as an honest presentation of what
J.A.I.L. will actually accomplish. There is much more I could quote to
you from this report about J.A.I.L. But today I am seeing many
newspaper articles published from around the states, to wit, Oregon,
Idaho, Texas, New York, South Dakota, etc., to cite a
few, that take a completely different tack than the official voice
of the California Legislature, in that these recent
reports are entirely dishonest and fraudulent, reporting
intentional lies designed to deceive their readers. None of
these reports are in compliance with the Code of Ethics for
Journalists. See
http://spj.org/ethics_code.asp.
Now back to my original point. The current effort to pass J.A.I.L. in
South Dakota is scaring the living "bajebers" out of the legal system.
Its members
are absolutely terrorized at the prospect that the voters of South
Dakota may just actually vote J.A.I.L. in as an amendment to their
Constitution. They realize the impact it would really have
on cleaning up the corruption in South Dakota, not to speak of the
impact it will have throughout this entire nation by South
Dakota's influence. They realize that the security held for
decades of the cozy, invincible relationship of their legal fraternity
between lawyers and judges will be disturbed, and their haughty
confidence dealt a severe blow. A common term used by the legal
fraternity and newspapers that support it, is "judicial independence"
that actually refers to that clandestine relationship which has been
truly independent of all outside influence, including the law.
They, as I, can see that J.A.I.L. presents a "Showdown At OK Coral" for
the future of this country, to wit, either the judiciary or the
People of this country will prevail. There is absolutely no middle
ground nor any way our country can survive much longer
should the judiciary of this country continue its
status-quo course of destruction; and these unscrupulous
reporters, underlying the judiciary, want to make sure the
People do not change that course. This is why we are hearing statements
such as below, that J.A.I.L. will "...plunge the court system
into anarchy." ''Having this come in would be big trouble.'' To
them, accountability equals "anarchy," and from their
perspective, such honesty is evil; perhaps they are right, because
they view good as evil, and evil as good.
One more thing. Everything you will read below is easily refutable, and
can be shown as an attack upon the very document attorneys and judges
have sworn by an oath to uphold and defend. Because my focus here is to
establish their fear of J.A.I.L., and not to refute what dishonest
reporting does not touch upon, I will save refutation for another day.
-Ron
Branson
href="onclick="javascript:s_code_linktrack('/');"
">
Judges in S.D. May Lose Lawsuit
Immunity
By THE
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published:
November 14, 2022
Filed at
10:48 p.m. ET
PIERRE, S.D.
(AP) -- A movement is under way in South Dakota to turn the
tables on members of the bench.
Activists are
trying to put a radical measure on next year's ballot that could
make South Dakota the first state to let people who believe their
rights have been violated by judges put those judges on trial.
Citizens could seek damages or criminal
charges.
The measure
would overturn more than a century of settled law in the United
States by stripping judges of their absolute immunity from
lawsuits over their judicial acts.
''The current
system doesn't work because there is no adequate way to hold a
given judge accountable for improper behavior or to prevent them
from judicial misconduct if they choose to do so,'' said
businessman William Stegmeier, a leader of the
movement.
Legal experts
warned that such a provision could dangerously undermine the
independence of South Dakota's judiciary, plunge the court system
into anarchy, and run afoul of the U.S.
Constitution.
And they
noted there are already remedies available to the public: Bad
rulings can be overturned on appeal, and judges who break the
rules can be punished by state disciplinary boards and, in South
Dakota and other states, voted out of
office.
Marie
Failinger, a law professor at Hamline University in St. Paul,
Minn., said judicial immunity is seen as a way to protect judges'
independence so they decide cases on the merits, not in response
to pressure from the community or
individuals.
''Judges are
kind of the last barrier we have between government oppression
and the individual, so if they can't be independent, that could
be a problem,'' Failinger said. She added: ''Judges will be
chilled from making the right decision because they don't know
what crazy litigant is going to decide they are going to sue
them.''
Stegmeier,
owner of a company that manufactures livestock-feed grinders,
turned in 46,800 signatures last week to put the proposed state
constitutional amendment on the ballot in November 2006. That is
about 13,000 more than needed. The state is still verifying the
signatures.
Judicial
immunity, the doctrine that says judges cannot be sued over their
judicial acts, was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in an
1871 case.
The South
Dakota amendment would eliminate state judges' immunity in cases
involving deliberate violations of the law or someone's
constitutional rights or deliberate disregard of the
facts.
People could
file complaints against judges after the traditional appeals
process has concluded. A special grand jury would handle
complaints, deciding whether a judge could be sued or face
criminal charges.
If the grand
jury decides on criminal charges, it could indict the judge and
create a special tribunal that would act as both judge and jury,
deciding guilt and any sentence. The measure would not apply to
federal judges.
Stegmeier
said he has never had a bad experience in court. In fact,
supporters of the measure have no examples of any problems in
South Dakota. But Stegmeier said the amendment could help curb
the abuses he has heard about across the
country.
On its Web
site, the group promoting the amendment, South Dakota Judicial
Accountability, cites an Indiana case from the 1970s involving
the sterilization of a 15-year-old girl, and argues that
stripping judges of immunity would also help prevent decisions
such as the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allowed homes
to be seized for private development.
''We didn't
throw the yoke of the king off to get under the yoke of the
judges,'' said Gary Zerman, a Valencia, Calif., lawyer who is a
spokesman for the South Dakota ballot
effort.
Tom Barnett,
secretary-treasurer of the State Bar of South Dakota, said
inmates would quickly figure out that they could harass the
judges who put him behind bars by filing a
complaint.
''You don't
think there aren't going to be hundreds and hundreds of them,
everybody giggling up in the penitentiary?'' he
said.
Georgetown
University Law School professor Roy A. Schotland, who studies
judicial elections and constitutional law, said the measure could
violate the Constitution.
''It at least
erodes and may go so far as to destroy judicial independence,
which means it erodes and perhaps destroys the rule of law and
fair judging,'' Schotland said. ''Having this come in would be
big trouble.''
Editorial: Judicial accountability bill is full of holes
|
|
By KEITH JENSEN, Associate Publisher
|
11/28/2005
|
|
|
|
|
An initiated constitutional amendment is
going to be on the 2006 ballot if enough signatures are
valid. Obviously a lot of people signed the petitions,
with the sales pitch that it is for holding judges
accountable, but we wonder how many people actually
read the proposal in its entirety. From our vantage
point, it looks like Swiss cheese -- full of holes.
Proponents have named it the Judicial Accountability
Initiative Law, so they could use the catchy acronym
JAIL. The measure would, proponents say, "punish
wayward judges with civil suits and even criminal
charges."
And who are the "wayward judges"? Well, pretty simple:
any judge that makes a decision that one or more of the
affected parties aren't happy with, could be "punished"
under JAIL!
The measure would set up a Special Grand Jury, with 13
jurors, drawn from the state's voter registration
lists, each serving one year and paid more than
$100,000 a year each.
Tom Barnett, executive director of the State Bar of
South Dakota, noted that the grand jury would be
"empowered to rule on the law and the facts. In other
words, it is a super-legislature having the power to
overrule the Legislature, decide which laws (or
constitutional provisions) to enforce or ignore and
then also decide the facts."
JAIL would have a budget of more than $2.5 million. The
Legislature would be required (no choice) to establish
a Special Grand Jury facility (centrally located) but
not within a mile of any judicial body (talk about
paranoia!).
And this is cute: it will be funded through fines, fees
and forfeitures, but if that doesn't produce enough
money, the Legislature will have to (again no choice)
impose "appropriate surcharges upon the civil court
filing fees of corporate litigants."
OK, so you have an individual who wants to file a civil
complaint against a judge (say a convicted felon who
sues because the sentence is perceived as too harsh, or
a private citizen who believes the sentence is too
lenient) and they have to pay a filing fee, right?
Well, not necessarily, because the amendment provides
for a $50 filing fee, but you can file a statement that
you are impoverished OR (get this) because you "object
to such fee." You could drive a large cattle truck
through that hole in the cheese.
There are so many more holes, they are too numerous to
comment on. For instance, law enforcement officials are
prohibited from serving on the Grand Jury, but felony
drunk drivers, convicted drug dealers and child
pornographers can! The move is apparently aimed at
"activist judges," but it covers all persons shielded
by judicial immunity...meaning every school board, city
council, county commission, professional licensing
board, in fact every citizen board in the state
exercising quasi-judicial powers.
And where is the problem in South Dakota? We vote on
our judges...citizens have an absolute right to reject
a particular Circuit Court judge if they believe they
will be treated unfairly...and all parties have an
absolute right to appeal a judge's decision to the
Supreme Court.
This is going to be one of those issues where you need
to move from the headlines to the fine print and
carefully read the amendment. From doing that, our
conclusion is: it looks like Swiss cheese, but it
smells like Limburger!
-- Keith Jensen
|
|
�Madison Daily Leader 2005
|
|