State Supreme Court Justice Relieved Over "Defeat" of J.A.I.L.

It is clear that the system fears the passage of J.A.I.L. more than anything else. Five State Supreme Court Justices have expressed concern over the potential of the passage of J.A.I.L. in this country, with a sixth warning the other justices that they should be careful what they are saying about J.A.I.L. because one day they may be placed in a position of having to rule on J.A.I.L. and having to recuse themselves.

The fact is, that all of the judiciary in this country face a serious conflict when it comes to the passage of JAIL4Judges. J.A.I.L. propagates a method by which power is restored

directly to the People, and that is what concerns them. J.A.I.L., through the direct initiative process, does not seek nor ask for any government approval, because it both originates from the People, and returns to the People. It provides for a government of the People, by the People, and for the People. Isn't that what this country is supposed to be about?

When J.A.I.L. was first filed with the Secretary of State of California back in 1995, this author was questioned by the State Attorney General as to which branch of government the Special Grand Jury created by its provisions was accountable: the Legislative, the Executive, or the Judicial. He responded, None. The Special Grand Jury is the People, and not a part of any of the three branches of government. People do not give account to their government, but contrariwise, the government must give account to the People in the forum of the Grand Jury. The very thought of this concept brings sweat to the brows of "Public Servants."

Witness the words of State Supreme Court Justice Judith Meierhenry below just this week when she said she felt less threatened this year after South Dakota voters defeated the Judicial Accountability Amendment this past year. You can almost see her pulling out her handkerchief to wipe the sweat from her brow. She fails to state though that this affair required the entire participation of all the "government" of South Dakota in illegally using the People's (taxpayers') money to oppose the People's constitutional amendment, which participation included every legislator of both houses -- Republican and Democrat, the governor, the judiciary, the State Attorney General, county commissions, and city councils, aided by the financial support of the corporate oil companies, the banks, and insurance companies. They admit that it cost them a fortune to defeat J.A.I.L. with a hope it will never return again.

Even though their actions were in defiance of their own criminal statutes (South Dakota Codified Law 12-13-16 "Publication of False or Erroneous Information on Constitutional Amendment or Submitted Question as Misdemeanor") that provide for arrest and imprisonment of offenders (see www.sd-jail4judges.org), it was worth the risk because they have the chief law enforcement officer of the state (the State Attorney General) in on the plot with them.

It is ironic that they now use Constitution Day as the time to express their distaste for the J.A.I.L. Amendment that specifically provides for a means of assuring a constitutional government in South Dakota. The fact is, the se hypoctites render lip service to the Constitution, but their hearts and minds are far from the truth! J.A.I.L. campaigned on the theme, "It's All About Truth!" A visit to the above URL will bring the stirring music "His Truth is Marching On" (Battle Hymn of the Republic).

- Ron Branson -

* * *



Constitution Day forum
weighs judicial independenceBy Melanie Brandert
mbrander@argusleader.com
Published: September 18, 2007
http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070918/NEWS/709180304/1001

A panel on judicial issues differed in its views on whether judicial independence is being threatened.

State Supreme Court Justice Judith Meierhenry said she felt less threatened this year after South Dakota voters defeated the judicial accountability amendment last year. Other states' issues dealt with retaining and electing judges.

"They really attempted in most cases ... to take away the independence of the judiciary," she said of ballot issues.

While John Van Patten, University of South Dakota Law School professor, said people will disagree on applications of an independent judiciary, fellow professor Chris Hutton said she was concerned about political groups using money to influence elections and inaccurate portrayal of a judicial decision.

"It's easy to mischaracterize what has happened in a case by capturing one small aspect of it or trying to give the wrong impression of it," she said.

The panel addressed several issues at a Constitution Day forum Monday at Augustana College's Gilbert Science Center Auditorium. The college and League of Women Voters held the event.

It was the 200th anniversary of the Constitution's signing.

Regarding whether Legislatures should scrutinize judges, Van Patten said the judicial system has built-in safeguards to deal with rogue decisions, noting appellate courts exist. Meierhenry said the system can stand to be reviewed.

On whether politics threatens the courts, Van Patten, also a constitutional scholar, said the intensity level with judicial nominations is greater. He said the 1916 nomination of Louis Brandeis, a Jew, drew controversy.

Christopher Madsen, local lawyer and former state lawmaker, said the system is working as it should.

"It is the Senate's job to push hard and ask tough questions," he said.

Rosa Diers, senior from Nisland, said enough judicial accountability exists. Voters have the power to elect judges.