J.A.I.L. News
Journal
______________________________________________________
Los
Angeles,
California
March 4, 2023
______________________________________________________
The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter
or Reform Abusive Government.
The Right Upon Which All Other Rights
Depend
The Torchbearer for J.A.I.L. Nationally - Support Them!
P.O. Box 412, Tea, S.D. 57064 - (605)
231-1418
"We need the People to
act
to improve our
judiciary."
By Susan Kennedy, CA JAILer
Dr. Scarborough,
With respect to today's e-letter reporting "Interim
Results from our Judicial Impeachment Campaign," it is true that impeachment is described in the Constitution,
where it states clearly that judges shall hold their offices "during good
behavior." As one who recently retired from 25+ years working in the legal
field (not as an attorney), I have studied the federal codes with respect to
impeachment.
Frankly, it isn't working. We have a serious
problem getting anyone to take it seriously. The "good ole boys" are all
looking out for each other.
To wit: I am "represented" in Congress by a
man who sits on the House Judiciary Committee. In April 2004, I wrote him
a polite and respectful letter posing some serious questions about how judges
are vetted for nomination and about the impeachment process. I AM STILL
WAITING for this "representative" to grant me the courtesy of a reply to my
questions---and it's close to two years now.
One of the issues raised in that letter was how it
came to pass that two brothers were both seated on the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals, which circuit covers your organization's geographic location, in direct
violation of a specific federal code (I've archived the email and the statute
number escapes me). This violation was resolved in September 2004 with the death
of one of those brothers, Richard Sheperd Arnold. His brother, Morris
Sheperd Arnold, is still on the bench as far as I know. The fact that this violation happened, and
Congress--the Senate--let it happen, proves that someone is not
exercising proper oversight of our Constitutional processes.
One of the specifics in the impeachment process is
for a complaint (such as you or I might make) against a judge on a Circuit Court
to be presented to the presiding judge of that circuit. Well, in the case
of the Arnold brothers, each of them served as presiding judge at one time or
another. Can't you just imagine the laughter in chambers were someone to
send a complaint to one Arnold brother, as presiding judge, saying "Your Honor,
you need to bring impeachment proceedings against yourself or your brother
because having two judges on the same bench who share consanguinity violates
federal law"?
Now, on the one hand, I voted in your survey, and
it warms my heart to see that my choice for the first to be impeached seems to
also be the public's choice---Stephen Reinhardt. (You most likely know
that his wife, Ramona Ripston, is the head honcho for ACLU in the Los Angeles
area, where I live, which raises questions of conflict of interest in my
mind.)
On the other hand, I'd like to tell you about
another method that I firmly believe has a far better chance of improving the
membership of the judiciary at all levels. J.A.I.L.4 Judges! The
first part of that is an acronym for Judicial Accountability Initiative
Law. (Yes, it's a cleverly contrived slogan, but so is
P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act.) What J4J would do is place the ultimate disposition
of a complaint against a judge in the hands of the People in the form of a
Special Grand Jury (SGJ).
All current mechanisms would remain in place, the
appeals process and whatever "complaint departments" may exist within the given
state, such as California's Commission on Judicial Performance. Only after
an aggrieved litigant has exhausted those remedies could he or she go to the SGJ
and then, only for a carefully crafted list of specific violations of due
process. Should the complaint be found to fall within the list of violations and
the judge be found to have violated due process, the complainant could then
bring a civil lawsuit against the judge before an ordinary trial jury with the
opportunity to recover damages---which exists nowhere today.
At first, J4J would only function at the state
level. I'm ahead of you. You're about to protest that most of the
seriously egregious "activist" rulings take place at the federal level.
True, but we have to start somewhere, and this is not an issue to sell to the
Congress as a starting point. But consider this. Where do we get
candidates for the federal bench (excepting Harriet Miers, of course)? We
get federal judges from the ranks of state judges. So if we improve the
pool of state judges, the pool of potential federal judges improves
automatically. Eventually, once J4J is law in a preponderance of states,
the federal Congress will see the headlight on the freight train.
As it stands today, J4J is an initiative law.
It has been in existence for about 10 years and was tried once in
California. A lack of grasp of California signature-gathering requirements
and a late start sank the first attempt. The million-dollar cost of paid
signature gatherers is the current impediment. Only 24 states currently
have an initiative process, although I learned today that Alabama may become the
25th state.
J4J was, however, qualified earlier this year
in South Dakota where a "true believer" was willing to put up most of the money
out of his own pocket to acquire the necessary signatures. The total
signers actually numbered about one-third more than the minimum
requirement. The initiative is on the ballot as "Amendment E" for this
coming November.
But oh you should see the hysteria it has
generated, not only in South Dakota but in neighboring states! Those whose
cozy little "immunity" is threatened are going all out to defeat it! I
have watched initiatives in California for over 40 years, and never have I seen
the level of hyperbole and mischaracterization as what they are saying in South
Dakota. In fact, the entire Legislature has signed on to an illegal
resolution opposing it. But the People will speak! And those people number thousands and thousands in the 50
states.
J4J has some level of organization in all 50
states, and there is a national bill already crafted to be presented to Congress
when the time is right. Ronald Reagan said (paraphrased) "Ours is the
first [nation] where the People tell the government what it is allowed to
do." The People have the ultimate right to oversight of the judicial
branch as well as the executive and legislative. J.A.I.L.4 Judges would
make that a reality.
Don't stop what you are doing, but please take a
few moments to look at www.jail4judges.org. There is a page
for each state there. The full text of the initiative can be found for
each state. (The text is essentially the same for all states, varying only
in a few minor details.)
I wish I could believe that the impeachment process
would work, but the judges all watch each other's backs, and the Congress has
proved that most of them are wimps! We need the People to act to improve
our judiciary.
Sincerely,
Susan Kennedy
Los Angeles
Our thanks to Susan for this informative
write-up.