J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles,
California
December 13,
2005
______________________________________________________
SD
Secretary of State says they're still verifying
signatures
of the first initiative presented. It'll be a
while for them to
start processing the J.A.I.L. Initiative next.
It's just a matter of time--
J.A.I.L. will be on the 2006 South Dakota
ballot!
An Open Letter to News
Reporters
By
Barbie, ACIC, National J.A.I.L. Administration
The
Code of Ethics of professional journalists states in its preamble
that the duty of the journalist is to
... seek[ ] truth and provid[e] a fair and comprehensive
account of ... issues. http://spj.org/ethics_code.asp
The
entire preamble reads as follows:
Preamble: Members of the Society of Professional
Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of
justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist
is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and
comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists
from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with
thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone
of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a
dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the
Society's principles and standards of practice.
You
are invited to go to the website cited above and read it
for yourselves. There is much more information after the
preamble. Surprisingly, none of the journalists involved in reporting
on the J.A.I.L. Amendment that I have seen have been faithful
to their journalistic principles-- NONE of them! What does
this say about the credibility of the newspaper companies, your
bosses, in allowing these reports to be published? Shouldn't
they be responsible for your conduct in reporting false information
to the public?
I
can understand why the legal fraternity (lawyers and judges) would
misrepresent the J.A.I.L. Amendment since they don't want to be held
to account for their conduct in violating the law. The cozy legal
profession, covered up by their brethren in black robes, would no
longer be so cozy if the judges had to be accountable to the People
for their cover-ups. They'll say
anything to mislead the public in order to try to maintain the status
quo.
The
legal fraternity is running scared! "Due process of law" and other
requirements of law is a Sword of Damocles threatening their
comfortable way of life. But I would
expect journalists to be more honest and objective in their
reporting.
1. J.A.I.L. will enforce the
independence of the judiciary.
Among the most prevalent lies
being reported is that J.A.I.L. will interfere with "judicial
independence." Since J.A.I.L. enforces constitutional law, I
conclude that "judicial independence" means independence
from the law-- independence
from accountability. Then I saw an article
written by one of your colleagues, which didn't mention J.A.I.L.
directly, but hinted at it after some remarks were made about
J.A.I.L. by Chief Justice Ronald George, as quoted in the Sacramento
Bee, "California has an 'outstanding and impartial' judiciary
and doesn't need 'extremists telling us how to change a system that
has served us so well and to substitute ... a highly politicized
system for the impartial process that we enjoy.' "
The Wichita
Eagle - posted Fri. Dec. 02,
2005
Chief justice
concerned about attacks on
judiciary
By John Hanna,
Associated Press
In that article, Kansas
Supreme Court Chief Justice Kay McFarland is reported as
saying:
1.
"Courts aren't supposed to take polls or consult public opinions in
ruling on the law."
2.
"Their (judges') duty is to uphold the rule of law, not do
what's popular."
3.
"Judges should not put their fingers up and see which way the wind
is blowing. That's at the heart of judicial
independence."
4.
"Courts have to have the respect of the vast majority of the
public, that if they have a problem, they'll get a fair
deal."
5. "We
all have our personal opinions, but our (judges') duty and
obligation is to the law."
That's when I found out that J.A.I.L.
would actually enforce judicial independence,
if it means independence from popular
opinion. If judges followed the above five principles,
J.A.I.L. would not be a threat to
them.
But here's how the "J.A.I.L.
interfering with judicial independence" lie was formed: It is based
on the false premise that J.A.I.L. will allow people to sue judges if they
don't like the decision. If that
premise were true, then the conclusion quoted above would also be
true. However, nowhere does the J.A.I.L. Initiative say or even hint
anything about liking or not liking a decision. That's where you
journalists have departed from your own standard of
ethics. You come up with that statement out of thin air, because it
fits your agenda of "finding" J.A.I.L. lacking in integrity. You
purpose to misled the public because they depend on your honesty
in reporting. Would readers buy your newspapers if they
knew you were pedaling deliberate lies and
propaganda? If you are unethical and willing to lie here,
then what about the ethics of your other news
reports?
2. J.A.I.L.
deals only with enforcing the law on the
judiciary.
Had you researched the source
material, i.e., the J.A.I.L. Initiative for South Dakota, you would
have found, when reading the Preamble, that the concern of the
People is "when judges do abuse their
power" involving the "doctrine of judicial immunity."
It is only when that abuse occurs that "the
People are obliged - it is their duty - to correct that injury..." If
it doesn't occur, then there is no injury for
the People to correct, and the J.A.I.L. process has nothing to do in
such case.
Then, if you further researched the
source material, you would have found by reading paragraph 2 that
only specific violations will trigger the
J.A.I.L. process of removing judicial immunity so that the judicial
violator may be required to stand trial therefor. NOTE: NOTHING IS
SAID ABOUT LIKING OR DISLIKING A DECISION. Only the following
violations of law will involve the exclusion of immunity from a judge
within the meaning of paragraph 1b:
-
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
-
any deliberate violation of the
Constitutions of South Dakota or the United States, notwithstanding
Common Law, or any other contrary
statute.
Do any of you reporters think judges
should be able to commit the above offenses
with impunity?
Further researching the source
material, you would have found in paragraph 3 that the Special Grand
Jury does not accept subjective issues,
such as "liking" or "not liking" a decision. That paragraph states
"Their responsibility shall be limited to determining, on
an objective standard, [emphasis added] whether any civil lawsuit
against a judge would be frivolous or harassing, or fall within the
exclusions of immunity as set forth in paragraph 2, and whether there
is probable cause of criminal conduct by the judge complained
against."
So, if the judges' duty is to uphold
the rule of law, and not do what's popular, then J.A.I.L. will
enforce that judicial duty. Thus it will enforce "judicial
independence" if that's what the term
means.
3. J.A.I.L.
is not based on the amount of judicial
corruption.
Another reason J.A.I.L. is needed
by the People is to be a guard against possible abuse of authority by
judges. As in an insurance policy, a policyholder
can't wait until he becomes sick or has an accident before
getting insurance. Jus so, as a matter of nature, the People
must provide new guards for their
future security-- not wait until the damage
is done. Your argument that "little or no judicial
corruption exists in South Dakota" does not excuse the need for the
establishment of J.A.I.L. in South
Dakota.
However, Mr. Branson has found, when
personally collecting signatures, that South Dakotans do believe
there is plenty of judicial corruption in that state. Just two
examples, found on the Opening Page of our website,
are:
-
A renowned man in Sturgis by the
name of John Eggers, a 31-year veteran (now retired) Sheriff
of Meade County, handed Mr. Branson the front page of the current
issue of the Black Hills Press newspaper with his picture on it,
in which he was being presented a plaque in his honor. The
caption read that the Mayor of Sturgis has proclaimed August 9th
as "Sheriff John Eggers Day." Sheriff Eggers was very bold in his
opinion about the South Dakota judiciary, and allowed us to quote
him as saying, "I am well familiar with the judiciary in this
State of South Dakota, and this J.A.I.L. Initiative is very much
needed here." Sheriff Eggers also said, and we quote, "No one is
above the law," referring to the judges of South
Dakota.
-
A man in Deadwood, a small
mountain community of about a thousand in population, said "I
know two judges who should be in prison, not on the bench." When
asked if he was speaking about the State of South Dakota, he
emphatically responded: "No! I mean right here in
Deadwood!"
So, don't mislead the public,
such as Keith Jensen of the Madison Daily Leader who states:
they don't know squat about South Dakota and
South Dakota's judicial system and I don't care what the problems are
in Texas or California or Florida. I
read the initiative here several times, thoroughly, and whether it is
the same as the initiative being suggested elsewhere, or not, matters
not to me, but it is a shoddy initiative with all kinds of problems
created that really create more of a mess in a state where we have
had hardly any of the problems the initiative supposedly seeks to
solve. It is a solution looking for a problem
here.
Does Keith Jensen know more about the
court system than Sheriff Eggers with 31
years experience therein? By Jensen's arrogant words,
"They don't know squat about South Dakota and
South Dakota's judicial system," it would appear he claims he
does. Perhaps Keith Jensen should challenge Sheriff Eggers to a
open public debate on their court
experiences.
4. Imprisoned
inmates will not serve on the Special Grand
Jury.
I'll cover one more piece of
propaganda put out by you reporters. That is, that prisoners serving
time will be let out of prison to serve on the Special Grand Jury.
Other reporters said that felony drunk drivers, convicted drug
dealers and child pornographers, sexual deviates, pedophiles (you
name it) will be allowed to serve. Obviously, this is your propaganda
to seek to scare the public because you fear that J.A.I.L.
will be passed into law by the People next
November.
The initiative states in paragraph
12: Those not eligible for Special Grand
Jury service shall include elected and appointed officials, members
of the State Bar, judges (active or retired), judicial, prosecutorial
and law enforcement personnel, without other exclusion
except previous adjudication of mental
incapacity, imprisonment, or parole from a
conviction of a felonious crime against
persons. [emphasis added] If imprisonment is
an exception to serving on the SGJ, then inmates will NOT be
serving.
______________________
I think that continued irresponsible
reporting of this kind, amounting to written emotionalism and not
fact, will cause the people to insist on some kind of consequences to
the newspaper companies and publishers. For instance, one reader
states:
I would like for
each of you to read this article (see below) from
the Madison Daily Leader, and
send your view of the truthfulness of the article.
The email address to send your response
should be to the publisher, not the author of this "blatant
misreporting."
His name and email
is
It is my
opinion that we need a law for fraudulent reporting of the facts by
reporters with newspapers being
liable.
-Barbie