Click for South Dakota News & Views

News & Views related to SD Amendment E from Tulanelink

On This Page:

S.D. J.A.I.L. News & Features

Distinguishing between Fact & Fiction in Media Reporting

Critiquing South Dakota J.A.I.L. by Ron Branson

Needed: Straight-Forward Reporting by Ron Loeber

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

November 2006

Poll: SD favors nixing judicial immunity

Associated Press

11-06-06 -- If the results of a new scientific poll bear fruit in Tuesday's election, South Dakotans will get rid of the immunity that protects judges from being sued for the decisions they make. . . . The poll, done for KELO-TV of Sioux Falls, showed that 51 percent of the respondents said they would vote for constitutional Amendment E, 40 percent were opposed and 9 percent undecided. . . . Research 2000 of Maryland conducted the random telephone polling of 600 likely voters from Monday through Wednesday. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 4 percentage points. . . . The measure had support among both genders and both major political parties. . . . Supporters say Amendment E argue will merely hold judges accountable for intentionally violating people's rights.

State ballot measures challenge judges' power

By Bill Mears, CNN Washington Bureau

11-06-06 --Ron Branson's crusade is launched daily from his garage in a nondescript house in California's San Fernando Valley. . . . Branson, his wife, Barbie, and attorney Gary Zerman, have waged a years-long, low-budget fight against judges and -- Branson says -- "a judicial system that just doesn't work." . . . Branson's weapons are his computer, where he publicizes his crusade through his Web site jail4judges.org, and the ballot box. His idea for a "judicial accountability" initiative will be voted on Tuesday in South Dakota. . . . Known as Amendment E, the measure would create a special grand jury to indict state judges if there are allegations they have violated their duties. It also would strip them of their immunity from civil lawsuits. Civil and criminal sanctions could follow. . . . It is believed to be the first proposal of its kind in the United States and is among several judicial initiatives on ballots around the country next week. . . . "It was just totally futile to go through the courts any more, and that's why I left that process and I decided to write this initiative and go directly to the people," Branson told CNN. "I'm a voice of a system gone out of control." . . . Much of the public frustration was galvanized in the case of Terri Schiavo, a severely brain-damaged woman in Florida who was the object of a legal tug-of-war between her husband and parents. . . . State and federal courts allowed her husband, Michael, to have her feeding tube removed, despite attempts by Florida officials -- prompted by her parents -- to take control of her medical care. Congress hastily passed a measure ordering the federal courts to intervene. . . . The political momentum from Branson's JAIL (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) movement is dismissed by many in the legal community, and has caused concern over rhetorical attacks on judges and judicial independence. . . . Retired U.S. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor began a recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal by mentioning Branson's group. . . . "It is tempting to dismiss this proposed amendment as merely an isolated bout of anti-judge angst," O'Connor wrote. "But while the JAIL 4 Judges initiative is unusually venomous, it is far from alone in expressing skepticism of the judiciary."

JAIL supporters ask for silence

By Bill Harlan, Journal Staff Writer

11-01-06 -- The sponsor of the "judicial accountability" measure on South Dakota ballots next Tuesday has asked a judge to order opponents to stop spreading "misstated or misleading information." . . . Amendment E would, among other things, strip judges of personal immunity for their decisions. . . . Bill Stegmeier of Tea, who sponsored Amendment E asked the Sixth Circuit Court in Pierre for an injunction against Bob Miller of Pierre, treasurer of the No on E campaign. . . . "We're also urging newspapers to check ads from No on E for truthfulness," Stegmeier said Tuesday. . . . It's the second time this fall that a formerly obscure state law has been cited in an effort to stop political speech. SDCL 12-13-16 prohibits people from "delivering to any voter of this state a document" that misstates a ballot question.

October 2006

Scare Tactics Used by the Argus Leader.

Argus Leader Reader’s Comments

Posted by:What's the real news

10-31-06 -- Please note the amount of space the Argus Leader gives to Amendment E opponents, and how often it will continue to assist opponents to Amendment E; up until Election Day.

Why? Because media is big business. Now the Leader is trying to scare the little guy. So the Leader goes to big business leaders and they claim jobs willl be lost. Actually, any system leveling the playing field is not a job lost; but an opportunity gained by the little guy.

Although newspapers aren't supposed to allow false advertising, they do. (hey, there's a lot of money to be made from false advertising, especially when it's coming from Exxon, another big business opponent to Amendment E)>

Knowing this, Amendment E supporters filed suit to prevent the distortion campaign against South Dakotans insisting government is of the people, by the people and for the people. Details at www.AmendmentE.com . . . Not reported in the Leader? (Leader of what, besides big business?)

That Amendment E clearly states:

Judges shall not have immunity for:

Deliberate violations of the law, or of the state or federal constitutions.

Fraud or conspiracy.

Intentional violations of due process.

Deliberate disregard of material facts.

Judicial acts without jurisdiction.

Acts that impede the lawful conclusion of a case, including unreasonable delay and willful rendering of an unlawful judgment or order.

Every Grand Jury is composed of regular citizens. So is Every Special Grand Jury. So the question becomes, why do lawyers have a problem with judges being held to the same law as everyday South Dakotans?
The Answer is simple. Some businesses have some judges in their pocket. Accountability levels the playing field.

Removing judicial immunity is also recommended by some former judges; another fact South Dakota Readers won't see published in the Argus Leader or any other “media” outlet.

The Argus Leader will continue to charge for false and misleading ads about Amendment E; some claiming Amendment E is about people outside South Dakota; and not report Exxon is paying for the ads. Yes, Exxon. From Texas.

The Argus Leader is part of the problem and South Dakotans can expect it to remain paired with the concerns of their big business advertisers.

Job growth at stake under Amendment E

by Kelly Hildebrandt

10-31-06 -- Manufacturing officials from around the state spoke up Monday about their fears that Amendment E would stunt economic growth and hinder community involvement. . . . "The proposed Amendment E is a job killer for South Dakota," Jay Bender, president of Falcon Plastics of Brookings, said during a press conference Monday in Sioux Falls. . . . "It has a potential to create judicial chaos for businesses nationwide. Since judges will know they can be sued for dismissing frivolous lawsuits, they will be reluctant to do so."**** Proponents for Amendment E said the statements from manufacturers are little more than scare tactics. . . . Nations with judicial accountability are economically better off because there is less corruption in upper management of business and government, said Jake Hanes, with South Dakota Judicial Accountability. . . . "This is all about big business and small-town South Dakota," Hanes said, adding that contributors to the No on E campaign are large banking, credit card and oil companies. . . . "The reason being is big business doesn't want to lose their perceived influence over judiciary," he said. If the amendment passes, Hanes said, small businesses would have a more level playing field to ensure fairness.

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. 

Today's Debate: J.A.I.L. Amendment

10-12-06 -- Amendment E is on the South Dakota ballot for the Nov. 7 election. The initiative calls for the formation of a citizen's grand jury that could review judicial decisions. Here are two perspectives on the issue.

For: S.D. not holding judges accountable

By Mike G. Wagner

Create of state of fear, and people will believe regardless of the facts. . . . Opponents of Amendment E state that others besides judges could be sued, but in actual practice, the bodies listed by opponents already are sued. Opponents want to create a state of fear. . . . In Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997), the Supreme Court ruled that "the vast democratic fora of the Internet" constitutes a free-speech zone where the government's ability to restrict expression is at its weakest. . . . But not in South Dakota, where a state judge ordered censorship of a Web site, southdakotagov.info, that supports Amendment E. The site's published corrupt judicial acts hurts their cause. File a complaint with the South Dakota Supreme Court, Judicial Quality Commission or the Bar, and they will ignore you. Constitutional rights are something you see on TV, not in South Dakota Courts. . . . The Supreme Court ruled that parenting is a fundamental right protected by the U.S. Constitution. In Troxel: "The liberty interest at issue in this case - the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children - is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court." . . . Not in South Dakota family courts, where awarding one parent sole custody in the pursuit of child-support money boosts the state coffers. Big bonuses were awarded by the federal government in collection of child support to the state. Never mind that the practice of severely limiting or abolishing the noncustodial right to be part of the children's lives destroys parent-child bonds. . . .The Supreme Court has ruled that a constitutional right to testify "does not extend to testifying falsely." Also, "... the right to counsel includes no right to have a lawyer who will cooperate with planned perjury." . . . Most anyone having been subject to a South Dakota Star Chamber, especially in family court, would disagree. Perjury happens all the time and is ignored when convenient for the courts.

-AND-

Against: Judicial system among world's best

By Martin H. Gallanter

I believe in judges. Actually, I believe in the judicial system, but the institution stands or falls on the men and women in black robes who preside every difficult day. . . . I know some judges right here in Sioux Falls. A couple of times a month, I eat lunch with a few. I see them with their families at concerts and charity affairs. One is a sensitive visual artist. Another is moved nearly to tears when he talks about the families that pass through his court destroyed by meth. I had beers in a local bar one St. Patrick's Day with a judge who blushed each time a passing lawyer referred to her as "your honor." . . . I believe in these judges from my town. They are caring, skilled people who left far more lucrative legal careers to serve. They wear robes for their community, to try to make life safer and better for those who obey the law and to dispense true justice to those who do not. I have no reason to believe the judges from other towns are any different. . . . Not all judges are noble. There are those who are corrupt, who defy the law and have their political agendas. I watched judges let murderers go free in Mississippi during the '60s and myself stood before a corrupt magistrate who sentenced me to jail because I refused to plead guilty. But I won on appeal, and the judge eventually went to prison when his corruption became public. Decades later, even some of the murderers have been brought back to a Southern courtroom and sent to prison.

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.

Judges could be fired for bench decisions
Voters may give panel of citizens power to enforce accountability
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

9-18-06 -- Voters in South Dakota decided they didn't like the liberal leanings of former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, a Democrat, and voted him out of office in 2004. Then a year later they had their state legislators ban abortion. . . . Now comes the newest statement on morals and conservative values from the roughly 800,000 people who live between Nebraska and North Dakota, Minnesota and Wyoming: A South Dakota Judicial Accountability plan that would require judges to follow the Constitution. . . . No more "discoveries" like the U.S. Supreme Court's revelation of a "right" to sodomy, such as was featured in a Texas case not too long ago, plan supporters say. . . . Bill Stegmeier, the organizer for what will be Amendment E on this November's election ballot in South Dakota, said the idea comes from a national organization promoting accountability for judges, but his is a state effort that has just come together. . . . "Actually, we had the timing right. Look at all the news, even national news, about judges out of control," Stegmeier told WND. . . . The plan is fairly simple: A constantly rotating panel of South Dakota residents chosen randomly from voter registration lists would serve as a "super" grand jury. Anyone with a complaint against a judge that isn't resolved by the judiciary could come to the panel. . . . Panel members would have the power to review cases and circumstances, and, if they determine it's appropriate, strip a judge of his immunity for his decisions in court.

Secretary of state seeks final decision on ballot wording
 (AP) –9-1-06 --  A pending court case has Secretary of State Chris Nelson worried about getting ballots and voting machines ready to start absentee voting on time. . . . State election officials have not yet received a final court decision on the wording that will appear on South Dakota's ballot to explain a proposed constitutional amendment that would let people sue judges and other officials. . . . Its sponsors have asked the state Supreme Court to order changes in the explanation written by Attorney General Larry Long, but the high court on Thursday had not indicated when it would decide the appeal. . . . "We've made it very clear to the Supreme Court we need to get some things resolved by tomorrow," Nelson said Thursday.

August 2006

Judge: Change ballot amendment wording

(AP) – 8-22-06 -- State officials must make a small change in the wording that will appear on the fall ballot to explain a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow people to sue judges and other officials, a judge ruled Monday. . . . However, Circuit Judge Max Gors of Pierre rejected the other changes requested by sponsors of proposed Constitutional Amendment E. . . . Gors' decision will be appealed to the state Supreme Court in an attempt to get approval of the other requested changes, said Sioux Falls lawyer Tara Glasford, representing the amendment's sponsors. . . . Sponsors had asked that Attorney General Larry Long's explanation be changed to say the measure would allow people to sue judges for deliberately violating their rights. They also want to delete language that says such lawsuits would be allowed not only against judges, but also against members of county commissions, city councils, school boards and other government officials who make judicial decisions.

Distinguishing between Fact & Fiction in Media Reporting

By: Victims-of-Law

One of the first articles reporting on South Dakota's J.A.I.L. Initiative was a masterpiece of mis-information. The below two articles address the woefully misleading report by David Kranz in the Sioux Fall Argus Leader entitled: Don't like how the court ruled? Sue the judge, group says.

On the other hand, the Dakota Voice published JAIL for Bad Judges in South Dakota The Judicial Accountability Initiative Law noting: *This article is republished from the August 19 print edition of Dakota Voice, due to the considerable feedback it has generated.  Two follow-up articles are planned for the next print edition of Dakota Voice, coming in late September.

Critiquing South Dakota J.A.I.L.

(By Ron Branson - Author/Founder of J.A.I.L.)

The Sioux Falls Argus Leader, a well recognized newspaper within the State of South Dakota, by and through its reporter,  has chosen to do a write up in the form of a critique on the current effort to qualify the J.A.I.L. Initiative effort for the November, 2006 ballot. [See: Don't like how the court ruled? Sue the judge, group says]. Being the author of J.A.I.L. since 1995 when I first wrote it, I believe I am truly qualified as a bona fied authority to respond to David Kranz's critique thereon.

Am I upset with David Kranz, or his critique, or his effort to denigrate this effort? Not in the least. In fact, I am very pleased that he as chosen this cause worthy of his time and his effort to critique it. I encourage him to give it all the gusto he can, for after all, any subject so important that it claims to hold all the judges in South Dakota to account, deserves his utmost attention. He should let nothing, no matter how small, slip by his urgent duty to keep his Argus Leader readers well informed on this subject, just as I, the publisher of the J.A.I.L. News Journal, have to my readership. I already know that David is going to receive tons of emails at his email address as his reward for daring to write his critique.

Do I sound confident? You bet I do. I am confident that before long all of David Kranz's concerns will be answered, and he will be one of J.A.I.L.'s best advocates for such an important cause as this. So I think it best that all our JNJ readers should read in full David's criticism of J.A.I.L., and then I will get back afterwards to address his concerns. 

Needed: Straight-Forward Reporting

Ron Loeber of New York Responds to Mr. Kranz who is a Columnist for the Argus Leader Newspaper, Sioux Falls, South Dakota

Without going into my personal motivations at this point in time, but as a firm supporter of J.A.I.L., I am delighted to see your newspaper taking an interest in it. I am less than delighted with the misinformation contained in your headline and news story. Don't like how the court ruled? Sue the judge, group says  If J.A.I.L. were to be passed today, no Judge could ever . . . “go to jail for handing down a court ruling in South Dakota that someone disagreed with...." Allow me to explain.

 The office of judge should be the most respected and esteemed position in our society--far above that of governors, presidents, emperors and kings. There is a legitimate place in our society for judicial immunity. If you take the time to read and analyze J.A.I.L., and think about it, J.A.I.L. recognizes and reinforces the legitimate use of judicial immunity against "frivolous or harassing" lawsuits, (see ¶3). If J.A.I.L. were passed tomorrow in South Dakota, no judge could ever be imprisoned just because someone disagreed with a judge's decision.

 Judges, just like you and me, are mere humans capable of innocent error. That is why the appeals process exists. J.A.I.L. does not change that process. As a legal document, J.A.I.L. specifically and deliberately addresses "willful" violations of law. Before anyone can bring a case against a judge to the Special Grand Jury for willful violations of law, he must first exhaust his legal remedy within the existing judicial system.

 You wrote: "At the center of their concern is a feeling that judges think they rise above the law in what the initiative's backers call a self-made doctrine of judicial immunity." It isn't a "feeling."  It is a fact.  When Congress passed 42 USC 1983 which says "every person," it did not exempt judges from its mandate. And there is no legislative history of any discussions of immunity for judges. But try to sue a judge. Better still! Try to find a suit against a judge that wasn't dismissed by their black-robed brethren on the basis of judicial immunity.

 Can you think of any reason why a man or woman, just because he or she is a judge, should be above the law? Can you think of any reason why anyone should not be accountable for willful and/or malicious acts in office?

 If you take the time to look at judicial conduct in your state, I'll bet you a cup of coffee it isn't a lot different than it is here in New York. Start with your friends and neighbors. Ask them the following question: "Have you ever been in court, any court, for any reason, and when it was all over and you were alone in the parking lot... did you have the feeling... deep deep down inside... that something... just.... wasn't..... right?" If you ask them slowly around here, nine times out of ten, they will finish the sentence for you.  That might be an interesting question for your Opinion Poll.

 Every town and village judge in my state is required to attend a judicial training program every year.  In 2002 that training program included a section on judicial immunity.  Why does the state need to train judges on how to be immune?  Does that make any sense to you? 

 We are talking about serious stuff.  As an example, in my state, the so-called law provides the authority for Child Protective Services to seize a child from its parents upon an allegation of child abuse.  The parents then have one year to disprove the allegation.  If they fail to do so within one year, the state may then put the child up for adoption.  How does one prove a negative?  To make matters worse, the Social Services Department is funded, in part, based upon how many children they seize. Seizing children is a profitable business. Does that make any sense at all to you? 

 Let's go to something of even a more everyday occurrence. Have you ever been in traffic court? Who was the damaged party? In my state, the state keeps all sorts of statistical records on the subject. It's gotten so crazy that traffic tickets have become a significant part of "tax planning".  Look up Colonie, NY on your map. It's not very big. But one of its part-time judges was bragging to me that they had built Colonie into the fourth largest municipality in the state based upon the amount of cases processed each year, i.e., revenue flow. It's almost a statewide contest with bragging rights. Recently one of those part-time judges was disbarred for "conversion" of his clients' money. He can no longer practice law because he is a crook. Yet the law has no provision for his removal as a judge. Does that make any sense to you? 

 Two years ago I attended the dedication ceremony of the new wing at the Albany Law School. I listened to Richard Wesley, Associate Justice of Court of Appeals (the highest court in New York) speak for an hour on the responsibility of the court to make new law consistent with current social and economic policy so that everyone may know which rights the court will recognize and protect. Yes, you read it right.  Last year Justice Wesley was appointed by President Bush to the federal 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. Who knows where he will go from there? Perhaps the Supreme Court? I suggest you investigate his amazing ascendancy to power.

 I'm confident you are familiar with the recent US Supreme Court Decision in Kelo v New London. In that case another eastern judge just like Richard Wesley -David Souter from New Hampshire - authored the majority opinion. Sandra Day O'Connor resigned from the Court a short time after authoring the minority dissent in which she said there is now "[n]othing to prevent the State from replacing...any farm with a factory." The majority opinion in Kelo is nothing more than an expression of the "social and economic policy" of which Justice Wesley spoke. Does any of that fulfill any degree of common sense to you?

 In the economy as it exists today, every municipality is feeling the pinch. And it's going to get worse. Why should any municipality, under the mask of economic development, be allowed to take your homes or your farms and give it to a private developer just because they think it will increase their coffers? 

 I don't know the judiciary in South Dakota as intimately as I know the judiciary in New York. But I'm trying to learn. If the people like Bill Stegmeier, who are putting a great deal of effort into gathering signatures to get J.A.I.L. on the ballot, are successful in their efforts, I hope to be able to come to your state and speak personally with you and people like you. We are going to need straight-forward reporting of the facts by the media. We are going to need the media to stimulate an honest public dialog among the people so they may exercise their suffrage with wisdom.

 If we are going to maintain a government of the People, by the People, and for the People, instead of by and for the corporations, the People of South Dakota, if for no other reason, should pass J.A.I.L. for their own protection against being overrun and their destiny controlled by socialist judges of which I speak.