(J.A.I.L.'s Response)
Introduction
It is our pleasure to address you, Mr. Barnett, as the
secretary-treasurer and executive director of the South Dakota State Bar
Association, in response to your criticism of the South Dakota J.A.I.L.
Amendment. Your first advice is given in the final sentence of the first
paragraph which says, "So, before you decide whether to sign the
petition, read it carefully." But apparently you fail
to follow your own advice, Mr. Barnett, for you state things that are
diametrically opposed to the clear wording of the Initiative you are critiquing.
Hence, your conclusion that "J.A.I.L. is unnecessary"
is no more truthful than your false premises upon which it is based.
In responding to your critique which follows no
logical order of subject matter, we are categorizing the subjects under headings
in a logical flow for clarity and coherence. Your critique, as will be
shown, is nothing more than propaganda designed to deceive and scare the
public which is the typical modus operandi in opposing the J.A.I.L.
Initiative.
The purpose of the J.A.I.L.
Initiative
Apparently, Mr. Barnett, you did not read the
Preamble, which sets forth the purpose of the Initiative as follows:
"We, the People of South Dakota, find that
the doctrine of judicial immunity has the potential of being greatly abused;
that when judges do abuse their power, the People are obliged - it is their duty
- to correct that injury, for the benefit of themselves and their posterity. In
order to insure judicial accountability and domestic tranquility, we hereby
amend our Constitution by adding these provisions as �28 to Article VI, which
shall be known as 'The J.A.I.L. Amendment.' "
The authority for the J.A.I.L. Amendment in
South Dakota
Mr. Barnett, the J.A.I.L. Amendment follows the guidelines
set forth in the Declaration of Independence which states "But when
a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object
evinces a design to reduce them [the People's unalienable rights]
under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to
throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future
security."
This right is codified in the South Dakota Constitution,
Article VI �26, which states: "All political power is inherent in
the people, and all free government is founded on their authority, and is
instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right in
lawful and constituted methods to alter or reform their forms of government
in such manner as they may think proper. And the state of South Dakota is an
inseparable part of the American Union and the Constitution of the United States
is the supreme law of the land."
The People of South Dakota realize that
J.A.I.L. IS NECESSARY
The People of South Dakota, as indicative of the
country, have been living under absolute despotism after a long train of
abuses and usurpations for more than 200 years. In collecting signatures from
South Dakotans, they have told us that there certainly is plenty of judicial
corruption in their state and they are eager to sign the Initiative because they
realize that J.A.I.L. is necessary in South Dakota.
One South Dakotan we spoke to was John Eggers,
a 31-year veteran, now retired, sheriff of Meade County, showed
us 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 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, quote, "No one is above the law," referring
to the judges of South Dakota. Having been in law enforcement all his life, he
is definitely an authority on the subject, and he has given us permission to
place his picture on our website and to openly quote him. The People
themselves are best qualified to assess the need for J.A.I.L., certainly
not the State Bar Association!
The states have been unwilling or unable to rise above the
overbearing, unconstitutional power of the federal government which has
overtaken the sovereignty of the People; and have allowed and participated in
the disabling of the exercise of their inherent rights. This forced alienation
of their unalienable rights, which are to be protected
by government, is caused by a judiciary that is unaccountable to the People for
such violations. Therefore, Mr. Barnett, the People of South Dakota have the
right and responsibility, recognized by their State
Constitution, "to alter or reform their forms of
government" by holding judges accountable to the People as a
"new guard for their future security" admonished in
the Declaration of Independence.
Mr. Barnett, this reformation of government, to be
effective, must be an independent and autonomous
mechanism enforced by the People themselves, as represented by the Special Grand
Jury. There has been no such provision for the People to enforce the protection
of their rights, and they now see the need to establish the J.A.I.L. Amendment
for that purpose.
Government is not providing protection for the
People
Mr. Barnett, neither the voting system, nor judge-rejection
system, nor appeals to a higher court, nor investigations by a judicial
qualifications commission, can fulfill the need for an autonomous enforcement
mechanism by the People. There is no government provision that allows the
People to control their own future as they must. South Dakotans
should be able to "enjoy many protections
against alleged abusive judges," but they don't because
government doesn't provide that protection as it should.
Those protections may exist in theory, but not in practice! For that
reason, the J.A.I.L. Amendment IS
necessary! If indeed such protection is in fact provided by government and
concurred in by the judicial system, then the J.A.I.L. process need not take
place in that particular instance. However, J.A.I.L.
must be available to stand guard for the People
nevertheless.
The South Dakota State Bar Association has a
conflict of interest
As stated in our introduction above, the State Bar does not
work in the interest of the People, but only in its own interests-- which
include the judiciary. It logically follows, then, that the Bar
would be opposed to J.A.I.L. The only ones who oppose
J.A.I.L. are those who benefit from the corruption. Mr. Barnett,
you describe J.A.I.L. as an "attack" process "on our
legislature, judiciary and state and local citizen boards." The
only attack involved here is your attack on J.A.I.L. on behalf of the South
Dakota Bar Association which you would be expected to do to protect its own
turf. After all, judicial corruption is against the People, but favors the Legal
Industry Syndicate including the Bar association. Judges cover up for them and
they like it that way! Crime does pay-- big bucks to
the Legal Industry Syndicate-- especially when orchestrated by the "Black Robe
Society."
J.A.I.L. "reaches" only judges for specifically
stated violations
Had you read �2 of the Initiative you would not have been
able to truthfully report that "[e]very School Board, City Council,
County Commission, professional licensing boards (such as the
State Bar??), [and] every citizen board in South Dakota...
would be subject to being sued under J.A.I.L." Don't worry,
Mr. Barnett, your organization or other administrative agencies won't be "sued
under J.A.I.L." Only the judge(s) involved in making the final ruling after all
appeals would be subject to the J.A.I.L. process --not sued-- if a
complaint is filed alleging any of the following violations:
"2. Immunity. No immunity shall extend to
any judge of this State 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, notwithstanding Common Law, or any other contrary
statute."
"Judge" is defined as: "Justice, judge,
magistrate judge, judge pro tem, and all other persons claiming to be shielded
by judicial immunity." (�1.b). Any matter before any of the
organizations you mention can be taken to court after the exhaustion of
administrative remedies; then only if there is a violation by a judge or judges
in the subsequent judicial stage of proceedings could a complaint be taken to
the Special Grand Jury (SGJ) for alleged violation(s) listed. There are times
when a judge will arbitrarily decide that a clerk is covered by judicial
immunity when sued for failing to do her job as required by Court Rules. Because
judges can and do exercise arbitrary power, those situations have to be covered
by J.A.I.L. J.A.I.L. doesn't sue anyone. The SGJ only determines,
according to evidence of record, whether the judge complained of is entitled to
judicial immunity in a subsequent suit by the complainant if he chooses to so
proceed.
You argue, "A bad doctor could sue members of
the state medical board for denial or revocation of medical license. A bad
teacher could sue individual members of the local school board for terminating
his or her teaching employment." That describes basic
due process under current law that is afforded to anyone-- J.A.I.L.
notwithstanding. However, you predispose due process by using the
word, "bad." But is not a man entitled to a hearing on the question on whether
he is "bad" before being condemned? Are you not insinuating that the mere
accusation of "bad" is conclusive, and that such a one accused of being "bad"
should be denied due process and condemned without a hearing? Even the USSC
has condemned this practice as far back as the case of Windsor v.
McVeigh (1876) 100 U.S. 23. Indeed, everyone must be afforded an
opportunity
to argue his case, and offer his proof, and take any
perceived violations of the judge before the J.A.I.L. process in which the
judge is given an opportunity to answer that he did not willfully violate the
law. J.A.I.L. merely assures that everyone receives the due process to
which he is entitled under law, to wit, "No immunity shall
extend to any judge of this state for any ... intentional violation of due
process of law." If you think about it, Mr. Barnett, you
are actually making a case for the reason South
Dakota needs J.A.I.L.
The Special Grand Jury enforces the organic
Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof
Mr. Barnett, even the South Dakota Constitution states in
Article VI �26 "the state of South Dakota is an inseparable
part of the American Union and the Constitution of the United States is the
supreme law of the land." The SGJ is made up of the People,
which IS superior to government. That's the whole
point of J.A.I.L. --to hold government (through the judiciary) accountable! Yes,
more than a "super-legislature" the SGJ is the People
"having the power to overrule the legislature" if, in
fact, the law does not comply with the Constitution-- absolutely! It's up
to judges to KNOW what state laws comply with the U.S. Constitution, so
"strictly complying with South Dakota law" doesn't
necessarily meet that requirement. Yes, Mr. Barnett, the J.A.I.L. Amendment
"would create a special grand jury with the power to reject laws
enacted by the legislature" IF, and only
if, those laws do not comply with the supreme law of the land. Certainly
you would agree, Mr. Barnett, that it's the duty of the judiciary in the first
instance to declare any law passed by the legislature as unconstitutional if it
fails to comply with the supreme law of the land. But when the judiciary
fails to do so, the responsibility then falls to the
People in the form of the SGJ. Any other conclusion presupposes that government
can do no wrong, including the judiciary.
The Special Grand Jury excludes
criminals
Mr. Barnett, you have really gone off the deep end when
stating that the J.A.I.L. Amendment "would permit a convicted felon
currently imprisoned to serve on the jury at a daily pay of $387. That's
absurd." Yes indeed, that IS ABSURD, and moreover IT
IS FALSE! It appears that you are quite panicky at the thought of
having to give up your arbitrary power backed up by judges under the shield
of judicial immunity, to the point that it's driving you to make that "absurd"
and false statement. As you tell your readers, READ it before signing. Here it
is, in pertinent part: READ IT!
"12. Qualifications of Jurors. ... 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."
WHERE does it say that it
"would permit a convicted felon currently imprisoned to serve on the
jury..."? WHERE does it say that
J.A.I.L. "would empower every one of these convicts or prisoners to
use this proposal to sue a judge."?
WHERE does it say, or imply, "If a judge
gives a defendant a very strict sentence, the convict sues. If a judge gives a
more lenient sentence, a victim or citizen upset with the sentence sues. If a
judge hands down a sentence somewhere in between-- both sue."?
Conclusion
Mr. Barnett, you fail to cite to the Initiative itself as
your authority for the points you make. That is very irresponsible writing, and
it amounts to fraud and deception to the public. Again, J.A.I.L. is concerned
only with judicial violations of the Constitution-- specifically the violations
set forth in �2. Your conclusions quoted above are way off the mark, and
it appears that you intend to misstate the truth in order to hoodwink the public
into believing your lies!
You have no understanding of the J.A.I.L. measure, and it
is not in your interest to do so. When J.A.I.L. is passed into law, trials will
continue to proceed just like they normally do in the system. Judges
will be free to exercise their jurisdiction and to make their rulings and to
issue sentences. J.A.I.L. in no way disturbs that process. You even admit that
everyone is free to appeal his decision. J.A.I.L. does not interfere with that
right. J.A.I.L. enters into the picture only after the exhaustion of all
appeals, and it is alleged that the judge(s) willfully violated the
law as specified in �2 of the Initiative.
Are you arguing that willful violations of law should be
overlooked based upon the fact that the offender is a judge? If so, what does
that do to justice, and to the principle that no one is above the law? If this
is what you are advocating, then you are an anarchist because
you advocate disrespect for the law. We then challenge you, Mr.
Barnett, to explain the difference between a convicted criminal behind
bars, and a judge who willfully violates the law but is unaccountable for his
actions.
-Ron Branson
Author/Founder
National J.A.I.L.
We need everyone's
help in South Dakota, with donations, collecting signatures, and spreading the
word any way you can. The signature gathering campaign is currently under way
until the beginning of November-- a little more than a month away. We are
encouraged by the progress made so far and urge everyone to participate in this
cause. Please go to www.sd-jail4judges.org
for details and information. Call the SDJA office at
(605) 231-1418 for immediate contact. We thank all of you who have already
helped and those who are actively working so hard in coordinating this effort.
REMEMBER-- A WIN IN SOUTH DAKOTA
IS A WIN FOR EVERY AMERICAN!
J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
Contribute to
J.A.I.L. at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
See our active flash, http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm
JAIL
is a unique addition to our form of gov't. 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
Get involved at [email protected]
To
be added or removed, write to [email protected]
Your
help is needed: www.sd-jail4judges.org
"..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 <><
Return To JNJ 2005
To JNJ Library Index for All Years