South Dakota close to bringing judges to justice

Please Complete the Fatherhood Survey


 J.A.I.L. News Journal
Los Angeles, California
February 17, 2006
The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform Abusive
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
Gov't: "[J.A.I.L.] must be defeated because it would destroy the
American system of government"
One would think after reading the following report that J.A.I.L.'s
effort to make judges accountable to the law and to the Constitution,
makes its supporters "Public Enemy Number One!" But one thing obvious
is that no matter whether one is pro-American or anti-American,
J.A.I.L. has definitely hit upon the Achilles heel of American
politics. There is no debate in American politics that has so
engendered such rage or praise, depending upon which side of America
you are on, than does the subject of judicial accountability.
J.A.I.L. is becoming the focal point of all American politics.
Conditioning the judge-made doctrine of judicial immunity is
equivalent to attacking and destroying the entire American way of
government according to both political parties of both the entire
House of Representatives and the  Senate of South Dakota, truly a
first and an historical event in America. (The unanimous Senate vote
spoken of below has already transpired, although the article explains
that it is forthcoming.)
"Somebody's got to be right, and somebody's got to be wrong," says
Gary Zerman, the number two man within J.A.I.L.'s national movement,
a measure which will be on the South Dakota ballot this November as
Amendment E.
Ron Branson, the author of the measure, says that the government in
South Dakota is placing all on the line, including risking their
offices, by lying and misrepresenting Amendment E in an all-out
effort to deceive and defraud the voters of South Dakota, which
Branson believes is criminal. "Our founding fathers arose and took a
stand over taxation without representation. Where is the taxpayers
representation in South Dakota? The best they can hope for is that no
one will read Amendment E for themselves before going to the polls."
"It is near impossible for all the media in South Dakota to walk
goose-step in unison against the truth with none breaking rank before
November 7th," says Ron Branson. "Once this thing busts wide open,
there will be no stopping it!"
The people backing Amendment E in South Dakota are accused of seeking
to destroy the freedom of America as envisioned by Thomas Jefferson,
John Adams, and the rest of our nation's founders. Obviously, that
would include more than 5% of all South Dakotans who signed on to
support Amendment E, as that is the minimum number required to place
Amendment E on the South Dakota ballot. From the radical universal
reaction of the entire legislature of South Dakota, they know they
are not going to succeed against the People of South Dakota this
November, tending to show that this coming election is going to boil
down to the People v. Government, or at least the entire Legislature.
Their goal is to hang together.
Senator Schoenbeck said in remarks directed toward Branson. "We don't
need your trash here," and McNenny offers the following comment, "It
just scares me to death." Ron Branson says he believes Amendment E
will win hands down this November, but no matter the outcome,
fighting for truth is worth it. "The entire future of this country is
at stake here!" Branson hopes that all the media attention on
J.A.I.L. in South Dakota will draw some very powerful financial
supporters forth who care enough to come forward to the aid of their
country, including supporters within the major political
parties. "What have they got to lose but their country?"
Senate panel calls for defeat of ballot measure on judges
Feb. 15, 2006
Associated Press
PIERRE, S.D. - A proposed constitutional amendment that would allow
people to sue judges and other government officials must be defeated
because it would destroy the American system of government, members
of a South Dakota Senate committee said Wednesday.
The State Affairs Committee voted unanimously for a resolution that
urges South Dakota voters to reject the proposed constitutional
amendment when it appears on the November ballot.
The House passed the resolution unanimously nearly two weeks ago, and
lawmakers hope the Senate will also approve HCR1004 unanimously later
this week.
The resolution says the proposed constitutional amendment was drafted
by a California resident who has failed to get the measure on that
state's ballot. The ballot measure is promoted as a remedy for
intentional misconduct for judges, but it also would allow lawsuits
against state and local boards and commissions, according to the
Supporters of the ballot measure argue it is needed to hold judges
accountable for intentionally violating people's rights.
But Sen. Lee Schoenbeck, R-Watertown, said the proposed
constitutional amendment is backed by the same kind of people who
killed a U.S. marshal in North Dakota years ago because they hate the
American system of government.
Schoenbeck said Ron Branson, the California man who started the
judicial accountability movement, is mistaken in his belief that a
grand jury should be the top power in government.
"It's easy to be an authority if you're not limited by reality,"
Schoenbeck said.
Schoenbeck said Branson and other supporters of the ballot measure
apparently want to destroy the American system of government set up
by Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and the nation's other founders.
"The reality is Mr. Branson and his people from Hollywood do not like
America," Schoenbeck said.
In a telephone interview, Branson said he is limiting his comments
until after the Senate gives final legislative approval to the
resolution condemning the ballot measure. He said he hopes the
Legislature approves the resolution.
"They don't know what they're doing. They have no idea of the
implications of what they're doing," Branson said.
Branson said he does not hate America.
"I would ask you how is it that enforcement of the laws of the state
of South Dakota is somehow indicative that I hate America. It doesn't
make sense," Branson said.
Branson said state lawmakers have sworn to uphold the state and
federal constitutions.
"I can tell you we are investigating these people right now for their
conflicts of interest," Branson said.
Schoenbeck said Branson has challenged him to debate the issue, and
he is ready to do that anytime, anywhere.
"I don't think we've ever called you for help in this state,"
Schoenbeck said in remarks directed toward Branson. "We don't need
your trash here."
Senate Democratic Leader Garry Moore of Yankton said he has received
more than 100 e-mails from around the nation criticizing the
Legislature for opposing the ballot measure. Many of those e-mails
are infected with viruses or worms intended to interfere with his
computer, Moore said.
Moore said he hopes South Dakota voters "tell them to go to hell and
we'll take care of our own affairs here in South Dakota."
Opponents have said the ballot measure would threaten the fairness
and independence of the judiciary by making judges afraid they would
be sued for their decisions. It also would allow lawsuits against
members of school boards, city councils, county commissions and other
state and local boards that make decisions of a judicial nature, they
In addition, opponents contend the current system works because it
allows bad court rulings to be overturned on appeal, a state
disciplinary board can punish or remove judges, and voters can get
throw out judges they do not like.
The proposal would make South Dakota the first state to let people
who believe their rights have been violated put judges on trial.
People could file complaints against judges after the traditional
appeals process has concluded. A special grand jury would handle
complaints, deciding whether a judge could be sued or face criminal
The measure would overturn more than a century of settled law in the
United States by stripping judges of their absolute immunity from
lawsuits over their judicial acts. Immunity would be eliminated in
cases involving alleged deliberate violations of constitutional
rights or the law or the deliberate disregard of facts.
Each member of the Senate committee spoke Wednesday to condemn the
proposed constitutional amendment.
Sen. Kenny McNenny, R-Sturgis, said the American system of government
involves the judicial, executive and legislative branches, which act
as checks and balances against each other. He said the proposed
amendment would allow the special grand jury to override all laws and
all constitutional provisions, and no one could appeal the grand
jury's decisions.
"It just scares me to death," McNenny said.
The measure will appear on the November ballot because supporters
collected far more than the 33,456 valid signatures required, but
senators said many South Dakotans who signed the petitions did not
understand what the measure would do.