|
June 2007
Judges erase many DUIs
Accountability elusive because
state doesn't track suspended sentences
By
Jonathan Ellis
6-4-07 --
More than 4,800 people arrested
for driving drunk in the past five years have received a form of
judicial leniency that often results in their criminal records
being cleansed of the offenses. . . . Some judges and
magistrates in South Dakota are more generous than others in
granting sentences known as suspended impositions to DUI
defendants. . . . Defendants in such cases typically agree to a
probationary term and other conditions. If they stay out of
trouble, the offense is removed from their public records and
their case files sealed. . . . But it's virtually impossible for
the public to gauge whether judges, who are elected, acted
appropriately - or whether the system even works.
February 2007
Teaching Long a lesson?
J.A.I.L. amendment proponents
blame official for its failure
By
David Kranz
2-5-07 --
Advocates of the judicial accountability measure that met a
resounding defeat by an 89 percent to 11 percent margin in the
Nov. 7 election do not seem to be giving up. . . . They are
accusing the South Dakota Legislature of corruption, the State
Bar Association of deception and Attorney General Larry Long of
misrepresentation. . . . And they suggest that their issue was a
victim of election fraud. But Long says his critics need not
blame, but instead credit South Dakota voters for studying the
issue and making up their own mind. . . . Bill Stegmeier, the
South Dakota amendment sponsor from Tea, says the failed
Judicial Accountability Initiated Law (J.A.I.L.) brought out the
big guns to oppose them. . . . "To wit, the oil conglomerates,
the banking cartel, and the multi-billion dollar national
insurance industries. All these see a major threat to their
imperial empires by placing power into the hands of us, the
little guys (the People). Such could never be duplicated by
emphasis on any other issue, including the tax movement. It is
my judgment that these other focuses distract from truly hurting
the mystical power-brokers who operate behind the scenes,"
Stegmeier says. . . . Now he is serving notice to opponents not
to underestimate them. . . . "As Arnold would say, 'We'll be
back!"And next time, thanks to the lessons we have learned, our
new Judicial Accountability Amendment will be bulletproof. And
for good measure, we will also put on the ballot an amendment to
outlaw computerized vote counting. And just because they have
peeved us off, how about an amendment to require judges to
inform the jury it has the right to judge the law as well as the
accused's guilt or innocence? I think so!"
October 2006
Click headline for full story
The Amendment E Article that Slate Magazine Refused to Publish
By:
Attorney Gary L. Zerman
10-25-06 --
This is South Dakota Judicial
Accountability’s (sponsors of “Amendment E” on the 2006 ballot)
reply to Bert Brandenburg’s (Executive Director, Justice At
Stake -JAS), two Slate pieces “Rushmore to Judgment,” March 14, and
“Bench-Clearing Brawl,”
July 28, 2006. . . . In Rushmore, Brandenburg wrote that our
initiative is “… one of the most radical threats to justice this
side of the Spanish Inquisition.” Apparently Brandenburg missed
the fact that inquisitions are done by those in power – to the
People. Not the other way around. . . . In Bench-Clearing Brawl,
he wrote that the 2006 election will have “…a cluster of state
ballots initiatives designed to hobble the courts… that point
toward a political intimidation racket benefiting special
interests that want courts to deliver results, not justice.”
Imagine that? We’re a grass roots citizens’ group, yet he and
his group JAS are the guys out of DC - and he calls us “special
interests.” See who they really are. Readers you decide if our
initiative or Brandenburg - is the threat to justice. . . . If
we’re so wrong in South Dakota, why does his Brawl piece point
up that citizens in Colorado,
Montana, Oregon, and Illinois
are also putting forth measures to make the judiciary
accountable? Actually he put it: “… court-bashers have been
busily framing their anger in accountability terms that resonate
with American values.” Resonate with American values? You bet.
He didn’t tell you that resonation is also being felt in DC
where Rep. Sensenbrenner and Sen. Grassley want an inspector
general to ride herd over the federal judiciary and finally
there is clamor for impeaching
USDC (Cal.) Judge Manuel Real.
High court justices' fate up to voters
But
issue attracts little attention
Terry Woster
All five of South Dakota's
Supreme Court justices face re-election next month, although a
voter might be forgiven for not knowing that. . . . The justices
run in a typically quiet retention election, not the noisier
atmosphere of a competitive campaign. Voters make a yes or no
decision on each of the five judges, basing their decision, in
theory, on the performance of each member of the Supreme Court.
. . . In reality, a lot of people won't know they have a voice
in the Supreme Court process until they see the ballot, said
Barry Vickrey, dean of the University of South Dakota School of
Law. . . . Certainly with this year's long ballot, what are
essentially uncontested (Supreme Court) races aren't likely to
get much attention from the public," Vickrey said. "Do most
people know the justices and their records? I doubt it,
candidly. You aren't going to see the TV spots. You aren't going
to see advertising."
September 2006
Zogby Poll: South Dakota Amendment E (JAIL) Support at 67%
Controversial judicial accountability measure enjoys high support
across all demographics
By Bob
Ellis, Dakota Voice
9-22-06 --
Bill Stegmeier of
South Dakota Judicial Accountability says a
Zogby International poll he commissioned for the upcoming
vote on
Amendment E has yielded some interesting results. . . .
According to the Zogby poll conducted yesterday of 504 South Dakota
likely voters, 67% say they will vote for Amendment E. Those who say
they will vote against the measure are 19.8% and 13.2% are “not
sure.” The poll has a +/- 4.5% margin. . . . The question asked of
poll respondents was as follows: . . . Amendment E called the
Judicial Accountability Amendment will be on the ballot this
November. The amendment would allow the creation of a citizen's
oversight committee or special grand jury which would hear
complaints of alleged judicial misconduct against judges. If a judge
is found guilty three times of having engaged in judicial
misconduct, he or she would be removed from office and could never
serve in any judicial capacity in South Dakota again. Will you vote
for Amendment E or will you vote against Amendment E? . . .
Democrats say they will support the measure by 69.8%, Republicans by
62.2%, Independents by 72.5% and all three Libertarians polled said
they would support the amendment. . . . Democrats made up 32% of
the total surveyed, Republicans 46%, Independents 21% and about
0.6% Libertarians. In the June 2006 primary, the breakdown of
registered voters for South Dakota was 47.68% Republican, 37.97%
Democrat, .22% Libertarian, .07% Constitution, and 14.06% "other."
. . . The measure was also the subject of a
recent lawsuit which asked for the official ballot
explanation for Amendment E to be changed; the lawsuit
ended with only a one-word change being approved by the court.
Suspended judgment better name
Rick
Riedel
9-15-06 --
Until returning to South Dakota a
few years ago I admit I had never heard of the term "suspended
imposition of sentence." . . . Living in the south for 25 years
gave me a different idea of committing a crime and doing the
time. In fact, I worked as a prison chaplain in south Georgia
for 12 years and every one of the inmates knew that if they got
caught, they would serve time in prison. . . . Imagine my
surprise then to return to South Dakota and see this phenomenon
called the suspended imposition. As I understand it, someone -
anyone - can commit a crime and at the judge's discretion be
given a suspended imposition, which means the criminal doesn't
have to do the time associated with the crime and any record of
having committed the crime will be erased, providing that person
meets all of the court's conditions.. . . Another term used
quite often - the suspended sentence - means that the record of
the crime stays, but the person gets off without actually doing
any time in prison. Of course, there is a stipulation that
requires they be on good behavior for a period of time, but
still, they don't have to go to prison. . . . Now, everyone who
knows me will tell you that I believe in grace. I believe in
receiving a second chance when we do something that is against
our character, use bad judgment or just plain do something
stupid.
Rick Riedel is a pastor in
Aberdeen and owner of Riedel Consulting, a conflict management
and negotiation firm. Write to him at American News, P.O. Box
4430, Aberdeen, SD 57402, or e-mail
americannews@aberdeennews.com.
August 2006
South Dakota: AG's Ballot Summary Is Prejudicial, Judge Rules
8-31-06 --
Pierre, SD: The state attorney general's description of a
proposed ballot initiative to legalize the physician recommended
use of cannabis is prejudicial and must be rewritten, a South
Dakota Circuit Judge has determined.
As initially drafted, the state's
summary of
Initiated Measure 4 implied that "the attorney
general wants voters to reject the initiative," Circuit Judge
Max Gors ruled. "The attorney general should confine his
politicking to the stump and leave his bias out of the ballot
statement that is supposed to be objective." . . . The
initiative, sponsored by
South Dakotans for Safe Access, would allow
state-qualified patients to possess up to six plants and/or one
ounce of cannabis for medical purposes. Qualified patients must
possess a physician's recommendation to use cannabis and must
register with the state Department of Health. Non-registered
patients, or those who possess greater quantities of cannabis
than allowed under state law, would have the option of raising
an 'affirmative defense' of medical necessity at trial.
January 4, 2006
'06 Dakota Ballot, J.A.I.L.
Justice
J.A.I.L. is a single-issue national grassroots organization designed to
end the rampant and pervasive judicial corruption in the legal
system of the United
States. J.A.I.L. recognizes this can be achieved only through
making the Judicial Branch of government answerable and
accountable to an entity other than itself. At this time it
isn't, resulting in the judiciary's arbitrary abuse of the
doctrine of judicial immunity, leaving the People without
recourse when their inherent rights are violated by judges. . .
. With the passage of J.A.I.L. accountability to the People will
be achieved by Special Grand Juries dedicated to this purpose.
These People, who are not officers of any other Branch of
government or members of the Bar, will be publicly drawn by
lottery for limited terms. Complaints will come before them only
after every other legal remedy has been attempted. They shall
have the power to strip judges of their protection of judicial
immunity who are the subject of complaints for criminal acts,
and to investigate, indict, and initiate criminal prosecution of
wayward judges. . . . The granting of such power to these
Special Grand Juries can only be accomplished through amendment
to the Constitutions of each state. Since there is a need for
these juries on the federal level there is also a provision for
a federal J.A.I.L. Bill. Since there are powerful vested
interests in the status quo, and because it is human nature for
men always to seek more power and against it to surrender any of
it, passage of more than ineffectual cosmetic reform will
require the initiative process.
Click Here For The Full Story
December 2005
Secretary
of State: Judicial Accountability Initiative Petition
Signatures Certified
Secretary of
State Chris Nelson announced today that the second of two
possible constitutional amendment ballot questions generated by
citizens’ signatures is certified. Secretary Nelson verified
that this petition contains the 33,456 signatures required for
ballot certification. The petition proposes a constitutional
amendment to the South Dakota Constitution to add a new section
titled Judicial Accountability Initiative Law. The question will
be included on the November 2006 general election ballot as
Constitutional Amendment E.
Disorder in the Courts
Civilization requires the rule
of law
By
Dr. Allen Unruh
Guest Column from Dakota Voice
Richard Hopewell, attorney in Sioux Falls, last month wrote an
article
(Sioux Falls Argus Leader) taking several of my statements out
of context regarding the new "Jail For Judges" initiative. His
article didn't discuss one true issue connected with the
Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L).
The majority of Americans now feel that our country is in a state of
"judicial crisis" with activist judges. This is an issue that
crosses all socio-economic and political barriers. For instance,
just recently a judge in
California ruled that illegal aliens who are convicted criminals
have privacy rights and the justice department can't even
release their names, but convicted American criminals don't have
privacy rights. A judge ruled in Oregon that live sex acts in
public are protected expression under the constitution.
Judges are re-defining marriage against the vote of the people and in
Massachusetts even
ordering the state legislature to pass a law. Government by
judges is no longer democracy or represents our Republic (rule
by the people). It is an oligarchy (rule by a few). And when
judges not only rule but do so under no restraint, it is
tyranny!
Justices are endorsing terrorists' rights, and importing Foreign Law. Is
that in the Constitution? Justices are granting illegal
immigrants rights equal with citizens; Prop 187,
Nov, 20 1995 California. Missouri
voters defeated a tax increase, but Federal Judges overruled;
8th circuit
Missouri v Jenkins Apr 18, 1990. Arkansas passed
term limits for politicians but Federal Judges overruled;
Sup.
Ct, Term limits v Thornton, May 22, 1995.
The liberal supreme court justice who erected the "separation of church
and state" was a member of the Klu Klux Klan. Decades of
judicial activism have made the Supreme Court the greatest
threat to American Freedom.
The framers of the constitution, conscious of the fallibility of man,
devised a structure of checks and balances to prevent any one
branch of government from exercising too much power. But while
the founders limited the executive and legislature, they stopped
short of sufficiently checking and balancing the judiciary. And
why should they have? The founders assumed that the courts would
be checked and balanced by the law, ultimately, the
Constitution. And, where courts must decide a question now
addressed by a statute, they follow precedent.
The founders never dreamed there would come a time when an American
court would presume to make up and then enforce rights never
mentioned in the Constitution. They could never have imagined
that a court would ignore precedent to the extent of throwing
out thousands of years of family law to open up marriage to
people of the same sex.
They could never have conceived of postmodernist legal theory, which
recognizes no fixed, objective meaning in the law; which
believes interpretation of the law is an arbitrary construction;
which believes statutes and the Constitution itself are
ever-evolving, relativistic paradigms that can be used to impose
the judge's personal opinion.
Thomas Jefferson said, "The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in
the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into
any form they please."
Sept. 6, 1819 James Madison: "All
men having power ought to be distrusted."
Mr. Hopewell quotes "Marbury V. Madison” in 1803 where the
Supreme Court determined it has the power to decide cases about
the constitutionality of congressional or executive actions and
overturn them. And this, quite literally, is the foundation of
the runaway power exercised by the federal courts to this day.
It was crafted by John Marshall - chief justice. He wrote the
decision, not to set a revolutionary precedent, but to deny the
new president, Jefferson, his longtime political rival, an
opportunity to rebuff a Supreme Court controlled by Jefferson's
Federalist's opponents."
The Declaration of Independence says, "Whenever any government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right and the duty
of the people to alter or abolish it. That's what J.A.I.L is
all about. Preserving the Rule of Law for future generations.
And that's why SD will be the first state in the nation to hold judges
accountable only when they violate the constitution by
over-ruling state referendums and/or legislation passed by
elected officials.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Allen
Unruh is a Sioux Falls physician, co-founder of the Abstinence
Clearinghouse,
and serves on the South Dakota Task Force to
Study Abortion.
11-22-05 |
