J.A.I.L. News
Journal
______________________________________________________
Los
Angeles,
California November
14, 2005
______________________________________________________
South Dakota State Bar
Takes J.A.I.L. Seriously
It
is true that there is little that gets by J.A.I.L.'s
attention when it comes to important matters concerning the judiciary of
this country; and this is true because there are thousands of discerning eyes
beholding the judicial landscape. The below was caught by our Washington
State JAILer, David Estes.
Most of us are
familiar with the ridiculous arguments of Tom Barnett, the Director of the
S.D. State Bar Association, namely, that J.A.I.L. is about suing judges whose
decisions you do not like, and about releasing criminals from prison so
that they may serve on the J.A.I.L. Special Grand Jury. These
arguments can hardly be taken seriously, and I am sure that Bob Riter,
President of the South Dakota State Bar Association could sense that they were
not going to get anywhere with these out-and-out lies about J.A.I.L.. So
he has elected to post a more sensible and palatable argument on their S.D. Bar Association
website. President Bob Riter's reasoning is what we cut our teeth upon, and we
are delighted to issue our first rebuttal to his presentation on the S.D.
Bar website, which may be found at http://24.230.151.131/officers/prespage.htm.
You may rest assured that
there will follow many more approaches by many other JAILers in rebutting this
S.D. Bar website, but this one is mine. First, Attorney Bob Riter of Pierre,
S.D. Mine follows. -Ron Branson
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 9:45 PM
Subject: S.D.State Bar opening shot...
Found this on the South Dakota State Bar web site, (http://24.230.151.131/officers/prespage.htm). Looks like this
is what the Bar will be arguing in the upcoming months to stop S.D. J.A.I.L.
David Estes
Vashon, Wa
http://24.230.151.131/officers/prespage.htm
Judicial independence is the touchstone of
our legal system, but it is not given sufficient consideration by the public.
Society's well-being is dependent upon an independent judiciary standing ready
to resolve disputes and interpret law. Unfortunately, we now face efforts
externally, and upon occasion internally, which detract from and perhaps
jeopardize that necessary independence.
Much rhetoric has been heard regarding judges and courts. Of
course, the attention necessarily given to an impartial judiciary is magnified
by promotion of the recent J.A.I.L. initiative in South Dakota. That proposal
seeks to create in our state a "super" grand jury which while answerable to few,
is authorized to approve criminal or civil proceedings against judges. It would
be empowered to rule on the law and the facts. Its effect is to allow those who
are disappointed with a judicial result to challenge the Court outside of our
existing legal processes. The measure also seeks to eliminate certain judicial
immunity regularly recognized as necessary to protect judges in the important
work they do. Of course, if an effort like that was successful it would likely
destroy the current independent nature of our judiciary.
Whether the measure gets on the ballot or not, unfortunately it
is a reflection of the societal pressures which those outside the legal
profession are attempting to impose upon our judiciary.
Also, efforts to force judicial candidates to describe how they
will rule upon issues likely to be presented to them upon appointment, also
frustrate the independence of the process. We should strive for judges with
intellectual distinction, who are hardworking and able to bring to the Court
common sensibilities as well as a broad variety of life experiences. If a judge
is clothed with these attributes and allowed to remain independent, our current
system will continue to flourish.
Sometimes we forget, just as does the public, how important it
is to have independent judges who can make the difficult decisions affecting
one's livelihood and other important issues involved in one's life, including
his or her freedom. It is the best system ever designed to peaceably and
thoroughly resolve issues. The pay is modest and the time spent carrying out the
functions of the job is consuming and challenging; but the judiciary brings to
society predictable results, so parties can properly anticipate responses to
issues and situations presented to them.
Of course, the decision of a Court can sometimes be in error.
That is why appellate courts exist. It is vital that none of us disparage the
Courts or their decisions to the public or our clients.
We should respect their efforts, just as the Court respects our
client's right to seek judicial review of decisions flowing from a court of
general jurisdiction. Lawyers should trumpet the work of our judges to all and
periodically thank our jurists for the difficult work they have undertaken.
Efforts to attempt to intimidate judges into making decisions in
a particular manner is an affront to our judicial system. All members of our
profession should speak as one voice against that effort. It must start with
each of us individually spending the time and effort necessary to defend
judicial independence. As recognized by Theodore B. Olson, former Solicitor
General in the Bush administration in an opinion column in the Wall Street
Journal on April 25, 2005:
We expect dignity, wisdom, decency, civility, integrity and
restraint from our judges. It is time to exercise those same characteristics
in our dealings with, and commentary on, those same judges -- from their
appointment and confirmation to their decision-making once they take
office.
We must provide leadership to ensure public trust and confidence
exists in support of an independent judiciary.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Riter, Jr.
President
South Dakota State Bar
Taking J.A.I.L. Seriously
Ron Branson's reply
to the president of the S.D. State Bar, Bob Riter, of Pierre, the capitol of
South Dakota.
We hear a great deal
today about the term "Judicial Independence." Indeed, Attorney Riter uses
this term seven times in his dissertation. This term seems to always come
up whenever there arises a question about the conduct of the judiciary no matter
who raise the question. For instance, in a default case I had against the City
of Los Angeles, the entire record totally disappeared from the court's
files, which files called into question the ethics of the judge. I
vigorously pressed for its retrieval knowing that the law provided
clear specific felony sanctions for such removal. After exhausting all remedies
within the court, I went to my state legislator where I was told that the
court was independent of the legislature, and that they could not get
involved.
When one thinks about it,
he will realize how reversed the thinking on the word "independence" is.
Our Founding Fathers created three independent branches of government, each
being an independent check upon the other two, with the People,
through their Grand Jury, being the ultimate check.
"Independence" is not
justification for not getting involved, but rather a
reason there must be involvement. The Senate checks against the House,
and vise versa. The president checks against the legislature by veto,
with the courts having an independent power to strike down a law
as unconstitutional. The ultimate check and balance, of course, rests
with the People through their juries.
Whenever there are
ethical questions of behavior in government, the Grand Jury may
exercise its independence aside from the executive, the legislature or the
judiciary. It need not ask the permission of any of the three branches of
government to investigate or indict. To require it to do
so would interfere with the independence of the Grand Jury; or,
as in the case of J.A.I.L., the Special Grand Jury. In fact, in the
name of "protecting the independence of the judiciary" Attorney Riter
is suggesting the judiciary should be allowed to interfere with the
independence of the Special Grand Jury in investigating the judiciary. He views
the entire perspective of "independence" in reverse of the very Constitution he
has sworn to uphold and defend. It is the People who hold "All political power,"
not the judiciary. See Art. VI, Sec. 26 of the South Dakota
Constitution.
The objective of J.A.I.L.
is to provide the means by which the People can "throw off such government, and
to provide new guards for their future security." The term "such government"
refers to the body politic controlling this country which, after a many decades,
shows evidence of the same pattern of abuses and usurpation of power through
fraud and deception in repeatedly, knowingly, and intentionally violating
the People's inherent rights, causing them to live under absolute despotism.
While government is instituted by the People for the purpose of
protecting their rights, "such government," as
aforesaid, violates those rights in direct
contradistinction to the very purpose for which it was established.
It is the duty of the
People to correct that malfunction of government by holding the judiciary,
who sit at the helm of government conduct as the final arbiter thereof,
accountable to themselves under the Supreme Law of the Land. In short, J.A.I.L.
stands for judicial accountability under law. The Bar Association which is the
administrative arm of the legal industry, having members that are officers of
the court, is opposing J.A.I.L. In other words, it is opposing what J.A.I.L.
stands for, i.e., judicial accountability. So when the
Bar spokesman speaks of "judicial independence," he is speaking of judicial
independence from accountability. So when you see or
hear the word "independence" or "independent" regarding the judiciary, remember
that it means independence from accountability,
independence from constitutional law,
independence from their oath of office.
Mr. Riter states: The measure also seeks to eliminate certain judicial immunity
regularly recognized as necessary to protect judges in the important work they
do.
The J.A.I.L. measure seeks to eliminate judicial immunity only in the following specifically stated instances (paragraph 2):
--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
Mr. Riter describes
the above misconduct as "important work [judges] do." My question to
you, Mr. Riter, is "Important to whom?"
It certainly is not the
People for whom the judiciary is established as the guardian of the
People's rights. We know that the "important work that [judges] do"
is important only to judicial
tyranny.
Mr. Riter, why are you
protecting the status quo of judicial tyranny?
Could it be because you benefit from it?
J.A.I.L. will
stop judicial independence from the law,
because "JUDGES ARE NOT ABOVE THE LAW!"