J.A.I.L. News
Journal
______________________________________________________
Los
Angeles,
California
March
21, 2006
______________________________________________________
The
Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform Their Government.
The Right
Upon Which All Other Rights Depend.
__________________________________________________
The Cozy Relationship Between Judges And Insurance Companies
It has been long been known that judges hold
a cozy relationship to one another as the below article by the huge insurance
companies below admit, to wit, "In its written statement NAMIC explained that 'Amendment E' would amend the South Dakota constitution to allow for citizens to 'try' judges ... who sit on public policymaking boards..."
It is clear from the above statement
that these insurances companies do not want to see judges
tried by a jury for unlawful acts, or for violations of the Constitution,
even if the judge's did it willfully.
They further argue that "A civilian jury would be empowered to impose a sentence after the
'trial.' A sentence could result in judges being relieved of their duties and
being forced to forfeit their pensions..." Is it not customary that
defendants are sentenced after the finding of guilt following a trial?
But while they impliedly concede that punishment is appropriate for all
other criminals other than judges, they contend that it should not be
heard that a criminal judge convicted of a crime should be punished.
Their position has to be that while everyone must be afforded equal
protections under the law, (Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution), to wit,
"No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protections of the law, judges are "more equal" than everyone else, and
therefore judges should not be punished from crimes they commit.
Oh, yes, and is it not a definite conflict
of interest for judges to sit on policy-making boards of insurance companies
as insurance claims of those companies are certain to come before these as
judges? Even more basic is the question, why are
judges setting policies in a state regulated business, to wit, "Given that property/casualty insurance is state regulated and
that state tort law is critical to the way our businesses are run...?" Is
not state regulated insurances businesses the subject of a legislature, and
not judges? Are these judges to set policies and then sit in judgment over
those same policies?
What's more interesting is that these
insurance companies are openly admitting that they are hate seeing the
People having the right to an initiative process at all. They
say, "... stopping the South Dakota effort is an
essential step in discouraging similar initiatives in other states that permit
citizens to amend their constitutions by direct election." They want to overthrow the rights of the
voters of South Dakota, namely the constitutional provision of
Article VI, Sec. 26 in appropriate part, "All political power is inherent in the
People, and all free governments 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." Of course, by these insurance
companies seeking for the overthrow of lawfully constituted government in
South Dakota, they also seek the overthrow of all lawfully constituted
government in this country, "That to secure these rights, governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed..." Declaration of Independence.
Instead of concentrating on the rights of
the People, they boast that they are the rich and well connected,
"... NAMIC is a full-service national trade association with more than
1,400 member companies that underwrite 43 percent ($196 billion) of the
property/casualty insurance premium in the United States."
They are located in Washington, D.C., and give as their
Washington, DC. phone number, (202) 628-1558. This information is
documented at http://www.namic.org/insbriefs/060316JAIL.pdf%20.
If the South Dakota legislature and media
are consistent about their claim that Amendment E is being heavily
influenced by California, they will surely strenuously object to be influenced
by $196 billion from Washington, D.C. Yes, we shall certainly watch
for this strenuous objection by the South Dakota legislature and
their media. God forbid that the South Dakota voters
discover them to be proven hypocrites.
The bottom line. The entire future of this
country lies in great part on what happens in South Dakota on November 7
this year. Is the future of this country to be ruled by the rich and
powerful, or by the People? If you oppose the option of the rich and powerful,
your only choice is to support Amendment E in South Dakota. And do not forget
that the judges and the insurance companies enjoy a cozy relationship in
bed together.
~ ~ ~
National Insurer Group Opposes S.D. Judicial Ballot Initiative
Insurance Journal
March 20, 2023
The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies is
saying it plans to work with a broad-based coalition in South Dakota to defeat a
statewide judicial ballot initiative on the November ballot that would allow
citizens to bring a lawsuit against judges and those with public decision making
power.
In its written statement NAMIC explained that "Amendment E" would amend the
South Dakota constitution to allow for citizens to "try" judges and others who
sit on public policymaking boards in the aftermath of unpopular decisions. A
civilian jury would be empowered to impose a sentence after the "trial." A
sentence could result in judges being relieved of their duties and being forced
to forfeit their pensions�and civil and criminal liability placed upon such
persons as school board members, parole board members, and similar public
bodies.
NAMIC Senior Vice President Roger H. Schmelzer said NAMIC will be an active
participant in the "No on Amendment E" grassroots coalition.
"If successful, this initiative would seriously undermine not only South
Dakota's state judicial system, but also any citizen board with public decision
making power," Schmelzer said. "Given that property/casualty insurance is state
regulated and that state tort law is critical to the way our businesses are run,
we are obliged to resist vigorously any attempt to introduce unpredictability to
state legal systems."
Schmelzer added that stopping the South Dakota effort is an essential step in
discouraging similar initiatives in other states that permit citizens to amend
their constitutions by direct election.
"We encourage our more than 1,400 member companies to consider their own
involvement and financial support in helping to defeat the South Dakota ballot
initiative because of the impact such a result will have nationally," Schmelzer
said.
Amendment E was certified by the South Dakota Secretary of State in the fall
of 2005 after Ronald Branson, a California minister, succeeded in getting 46,800
South Dakotans to sign petitions for his Judicial Accountability Initiative Law
(J.A.I.L.).
In February, 92 of 105 lawmakers co-sponsored and passed House Resolution
1004, which urges South Dakota residents to reject the J.A.I.L. amendment on
election day.
The "No on Amendment E" coalition is a nonpartisan effort of the state's top
political, business, labor, law enforcement, medical and agricultural
leaders.
"These unprecedented actions, both by the members of the legislature and
other South Dakota entities, are emblematic of the serious opposition to
Amendment E becoming part of the state's constitution," Schmelzer said.
NAMIC has produced an Issue Brief on the J.A.I.L. ballot initiative that
includes more specifics about Amendment E, its organizers and how the initiative
came to be on the South Dakota ballot. The Issue Brief can be read on NAMIC's
website, NAMIC Online at http://www.namic.org/insbriefs/060316JAIL.pdf
.
Source: National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies
- Webmaster's Note:
- For more comments on NAMIC please see:
- *** More on the Insurance Industry Opposition to Amendment E ***
- * * * Inherent Truth! * * *