The Lie vs. Truth

Choose Truth  

Larry Long's Lies and Misrepresentations

Re: Amendment E.

It is the public duty of State Attorney General Larry Long under law to write a fair and accurate ballot statement that correctly portrays for the voters what it is that the voters are voting upon. His statement cannot be biased for or against any Amendment, nor can he state whether he supports or opposes the Amendment.

He must be entirely neutral. To do otherwise is understandably fraudulent and criminal, because it subverts the voting process, deceives the voters, and nullifies and invalidates the election as pertaining that issue. "...fraud vitiates everything it touches." White v. Union Producing, 140 F2d 176.  "...fraud will vitiate even the most solemn transactions..." U.S. v. Aimsted, 15 U.S. 518, (1841).

Before we set forth what Larry Long is presenting as correctly portraying the Amendment E ballot measure, we wish to share with you the ballot wording of California State Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who is held to the same ballot standard as Larry Long, and see if you find the two statements unreasonably inconsistent in seeking to explain the same ballot Amendment. (Note: Since California is 50 times larger in population than is South Dakota, A.G. Lockyer  reflects the accommodations for its population.)

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer states:

"JUDGES. RESTRICTIONS ON JUDICIAL IMMUNITY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.  Supersedes existing judicial immunity and creates three 25-member 'Special Grand Juries' empowered to: determine if a judge may invoke judicial immunity in a civil suit; indict and, through a special trial jury, convict and sentence a judge for criminal conduct; and permanently remove a judge who receives three adverse immunity decisions or three criminal convictions. Disallows immunity for deliberate violations of law, fraud, conspiracy, intentional due process violations, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts outside the court's jurisdiction, unreasonable delay of a case, or any deliberate constitutional violation."

Now compare South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long's ballot explanation, and ask yourself if it meets the lawful requirement that it be neutral and non-argumentative.

Quoting Larry Long:

"Citizens serving on juries, school boards, city councils, county commissions, or in similar capacities, and prosecutors and judges, are all required to make judicial decisions. Their decisions may be reversed on appeal, or they may be removed from office for misconduct or by election. However, they cannot be made to pay money damages for making such decisions. This allows them to do their job without fear of threat or reprisal from either side.

"The proposed amendment to the State Constitution would allow thirteen volunteers to expose these decision makers to fines and jail, and strip them of public insurance coverage and up to one-half of their retirement benefits, for making decisions which break rules defined by the volunteers. Volunteers are drawn from those who submit their names and registered voters.

"The proposed amendment is retroactive. The volunteers may penalize any decision-maker still alive for decisions made many years ago.

"If approved, the proposed amendment will likely be challenged in court and may be declared to be in violation of the US Constitution. If so, the State may be required to pay attorneys fees and costs.

"A vote “Yes” will change the Constitution.

"A vote “No” will leave the Constitution as it is."

Remember, as we have said, it is a violation of elections laws to argue for or against any ballot measure. Does Larry Long's explanation comply with the requirement of neutrality? He argues that Amendment E applies to "juries, school boards, city councils, county commissions," etc. His argument is refuted by its author, Ron Branson, whose intent, by operation of law, establishes its intended application. Larry Long has had ample opportunity, by publication of its author, of its intended meaning, and to know the truth of its application, but he chooses to fabricate a deceptive alternative, unintended and refuted by its author. If Larry Long is proffering an argument on the South Dakota ballot, then whether his argument is right or not, in either case, he has violated clear law and should be prosecuted for it.

Exposure of Attorney General Larry Long's Lies:

Larry Long's list of assertions regarding Amendment E involving "juries, school boards, city councils, county commissions, and prosecutors…" all fall flat when considering that Amendment E has nothing to do with his list. "Judges," yes!  Amendment E deals only with "judges" by whatever name the legislature should choose to create or call them in the future. This provision avoids the need for future initiatives to keep up with changes made by the South Dakota legislature.

Why does Attorney General Long continue to insist upon his lying assertion in defining who "judges" are in Amendment E? It is because he is repulsed with the truth. It does not fit his designed plan to deceive all South Dakotans in his attempt to scare the voters out of voting for Amendment E. He wants everyone in South Dakota to believe that voting for Amendment E will result in the arrest and prosecution of any or all jurors for their vote in their deliberations in the jury room. What sick and perverted mind would perpetrate such a disgusting plot? Jurors are autonomous and the U.S. Constitution clearly provides, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury..." Amend. VI, and "...the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." Amend. VII. Obviously, any such suit initiated against a jury or a juror would immediately be thrown out, and Larry Long, being an attorney, knows this; but he just wants to scare South Dakotans, even if he has to commit a crime to do so.

I have been contacted requesting information if Amendment E would "go after jurors who voted in favor of a conviction." Such a preposterous theory as is being propagated by Attorney General Larry Long and his cohorts suggests "Jury Cannibalism." Even the media is calling me on this. To them I explain, even if it were possible that a juror or a jury could be held accountable for their vote, then it would have to involve another jury who, in turn, may be brought before yet a third jury, and so forth. The No-On-E website features on its home page a juror holding up a booking sign as a result of an arrest in order to scare the voters. Intimidating voters is both a state and federal crime. So why is Attorney General Long a part of this criminal voter-intimidation plot?