J.A.I.L. stands for “Judicial Accountability Initiative Law.” We are a single-issue organization that focuses solely upon judicial accountability (1) of all state judges through the creation of statewide Special Grand Juries in all fifty states whose members are drawn by open lottery, and (2) of all federal judges through a J.A.I.L. Bill passed by Congress.

It is the position of J.A.I.L. that by the creation of the lottery-drawn citizens’ Special Grand Juries which sit in judgment over all judges, accountability will thus flow naturally throughout all government bodies-- federal, state, and local.

J.A.I.L. is politically neutral and non-partisan, composed of leaders and members of all political parties and persuasions. J.A.I.L. neither endorses, promotes, nor opposes any political party.

J.A.I.L. encourages and accepts organizations with agendas other than that of J.A.I.L. without endorsing either the organization or its agenda, so long as such organization supports the objective of J.A.I.L.

J.A.I.L.’s Mission:
• To create a forum in which to hold judges accountable to the people under constitutional standards.
• To stop the abuse of “judicial immunity” by the judiciary.
• To provide a remedy that will ensure the people of the availability of redress of grievances in our courts.
• To be autonomous and independent of government.
• To not change laws on the books or the judicial system as currently structured.
• To act only when the judicial system has failed in its constitutional responsibilities after the exhaustion
of all available judicial remedies.
• To achieve its mission through non-violent means.

A copy of the amendment to any state’s Constitution is available upon request by writing to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org.

Ronald Branson - Author/Founder, National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief

Verbicide: The Death of Definitions: When Words Have Lost Their Meaning
By Ron Branson - National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief

What is the definition of “definitions”?
That all depends on what the definition of “IS” is!

There is nothing so important in society as is the principle of definitions, i.e., that words have understood meanings, and that those understood meanings govern our society. Without adherence to sound words and distinct definitions, everything falters in uncertainty, and society crumbles into anarchy.

For example, take something as basic as baseball. Everybody knows what baseball is because it has rules, and those rules are commonly understood by everyone. What is an umpire? An umpire is the person who exercises his discretion in calling the various plays in the games. But how do we know that? We know that because the rules tell us so. But then, what are “rules.” If we question what “rules” are, then there is no way anyone can play baseball – or for that matter, football, tennis, foot racing, or monopoly? How does one score? Who wins? How do we know who wins? And even more basic, does anyone we care who wins? Can anyone show me a card game that has no rules?

So, likewise, no society can possibly function without rules. We call these rules “laws.” But what are “laws” if they are not adhered to or respected? God emphasizes the seriousness of words when He speaks about jots and tittles, (dotting of “I”s and the crossing of “t”s), “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Matt. 5:18.

Recently, (November 7, 2006) there was held an “election” in South Dakota on whether the voters of South Dakota should adopt judicial accountability, designated on the ballot as “Amendment E.” I say “election” with quotation marks around it because it was not really an election. Elections have rules. Those rules in the South Dakota Constitution specifically state, “Elections shall be free and equal, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage [the right to vote].” Art. VII, Sec. 1. However, those rules were not followed. Rather, they were deliberately and willfully subverted and violated by the very ones whose duty it was to see that everyone plays by the rules. They employed the uses of taxpayer dollars to condemn and castigate this ballot measure to twist it in the minds of South Dakotans because they fear the truth of the J.A.I.L. Initiative so much.

And to whom is it I address this statement? I speak of all one-hundred and five state legislators, and foremost of State Attorney General Larry Long, Chief Defense Counsel for the judges of South Dakota, who perverted the definition of the measure on the ballot by redefining the term “Judge” to mean every government official in the state, because government officials make “decisions,” to include “jurors” as “judges.” Hence, he provided for an argument that was prolifically propagated in the “election” that Amendment E was about letting felons out of prison to go after the jurist jurors who made “decisions” to place them in there. He completely convoluted the reality that these Special Grand Jurors, created by the Amendment, whom he originally redefined as “volunteers,” were charged with determining whether judges willfully violated the law and should forfeit their judge-created doctrine of judicial immunity in favor of judicial accountability. (See "Understanding The Term "Judge" and “Parable”.)

Further, every legislator in South Dakota willfully violated the rules [laws] that govern their conduct, and every one of them should be removed from public office for the sake of preserving the integrity of our country. (See South Dakota Codified Law 12-13-16 .)

Remember, when there are no rules [laws], there can exist no orderly society. Toleration for violations of laws will certainly permeate all of society. “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” James 2:10.

From the lips of no less that a United States Supreme Court Justice, we hear the words of Justice Brandeis in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, “In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means — to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal — would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face.”

South Dakota’s deliberate contamination of the election process by its entire government; judicial, executive, and legislative, will, if not curbed, contaminate the election processes of all elections everywhere nationwide.

In other words, unless another issue beats South Dakota to the punch, South Dakota shall, over JAIL4Judges, be the ruination of this entire nation. As the people of South Dakota discover that their “public servants” contaminated their election process, they will, as Justice Brandeis says, gradually disrespect all “laws” passed by their legislature, because their rules mean nothing. They are made to be ignored. The will say, “If my public servants, who swear by an oath to uphold the Constitution, can deliberately violate their oaths, then why should I keep any of their laws?”

A very reasonable question by South Dakotans. So, unless a force outside and beyond the power of the state of South Dakota moves in to remedy the situation (the powers of South Dakota are unable to remedy their own demise any more than a leopard can change his spots), rest assured that the contamination of the “election” process in South Dakota shall spread everywhere nationwide, wherein no one can trust anything anywhere.

So, what is the definition of “definitions”?

That all depends on what the definition of “IS” is!

Verbicide is the death of a nation!

Public Integrity Section

The Public Integrity Section oversees the federal effort to combat corruption through the prosecution of elected and appointed public officials at all levels of government. The Section has exclusive jurisdiction over allegations of criminal misconduct on the part of federal judges and also monitors the investigation and prosecution of election and conflict of interest crimes. Section attorneys prosecute selected cases against federal, state, and local officials, and are available as a source of advice and expertise to other prosecutors and investigators. Since 1978, the Section has supervised the administration of the Independent Counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act.

For information about the PIN, please contact us at the following numbers:

Contact Information

This notice is being published to literally thousands of media outlets throughout the country and the world. We intend to place the pressure upon the public officials of South Dakota until they correct their evil ways or leave office. J.A.I.L. should be ordered back on the ballot of South Dakota in a special election.

– Ron Branson (CIC)

Our South Dakota site: www.SD-JAIL4Judges.org

See our active flash

"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau

LIBERTY TREE
Vol. 8, No. 12 — November, 2006
The Liberty Tree, St. John’s Campus Annapolis, Maryland
An editorial by Neil McIver

Perhaps the biggest ballot issue in the country for patriots this past election was South Dakota's Amendment E. This would have modified the SD Constitution to mandate the creation of a special grand jury to review judicial conduct and when warranted, refer a judge for trial for a suspect action or ruling. Three convictions, called "strikes", against a judge would mandate removal from office and a reduction of retirement pay.

With 46,800 valid signatures putting Amendment E on the ballot (state population is about 771,000 by 2004 figures), its many foes had reason to be concerned. They ranged from banking institutions to a number of corporate businesses that are satisfied with their present degree of influence and control over the courts. In a rare lobbying twist, even the SD legislature passed a resolution urging citizens to vote
against the measure. Enter State Attorney Larry Long, upon whom the duty falls to craft the ballot wording of Amendment E as it is to appear to voters on election day. Armed with a new state law passed specifically for the event, Long not only describes Amendment E in persuasive language, but present its likely consequences.

“Citizens serving on juries” he begins in listing the “judges” that the ballot targets (“judges” come sixth and last on the list). “Their decisions may be reversed on appeal, or they may be removed from office for misconduct or by election.” Long's continues with commentary having nothing to do with the proposed amendment, except (could it be) as argument against its necessity? After pointing out the lack of any current financial penalty, Long writes “This allows them to do their job without fear of threat or reprisal from either side.” Of course, this comment does not describe the amendment but is purely Long's favorable opinion of the benefit of the current law.

Finally Long describes the amendment, and remember, this is all how it appeared on the actual SD ballot:
“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.”

Break rules “defined by the volunteers?” JAIL is about the “laws” broken by judges, not volunteer defined rules! And who are the “volunteers?” A majority of South Dakotans are registered voters, but Long lists them second to “those who submit their names.” Submit their names to whom? The voter stands, pen or perhaps mouse in hand, perplexed in wonder. But Long isn't finished: “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.” Editorializing on a state ballot at its worst.

How did voters react? According to state figures, on November 7th the South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long

“Woe to you, scribes and
Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye
are like whitened sepulchuers,
which indeed appear beautiful
outward, but are full of dead
men’s bones, and of all
uncleanness. Thus ye also
outwardly appear righteous to
men, but within ye are full of
hypocrisy and iniquity".
Noah Webster’s 1833 Bible,
Matthew ch. 23:27-28

amendment was defeated by about 295,000 to 35,600. If this count is correct, then it means 11,000 fewer people voted for the amendment than had signed the petition to put it on the ballot in the first place!!! A 60-40 victory is commonly considered a landslide. A 70-30 victory is very rare and victory very much foreseen and often taken with a yawn. Victories on the order of 80-20 are unheard of except in the most unusual situations where candidates run with no more than the formality of opposition. But with 90-10 something is seriously wrong.

Was the JAIL ballot initiative so unpopular as to be a lost cause from the start? Not according to a Zogby poll. Less than 2 months before the election the following question was put to 504 respondents:

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?

Results: 67% in favor, 20% opposed with the balance undecided -- well over the landslide benchmark in “favor” and also in line with the extraordinary petition support for the amendment (6% of all South Dakotans). Subsequent polls showed favor dropping marginally in the days before the election but still in the 55% favorable range. So how did it drop from 55/67% in favor to 90% opposed? Logically, one of two things must have happened. Either the loaded ballot wording carried a huge amount of weight among voters OR the vote was stolen. Is ‘stolen’ too conspiratorial a term? Mind you, this was not a relatively narrow 55-45 defeat, but a 90-10 defeat.

The amendment defined a judge as “Justice, judge, magistrate judge, judge pro tem, and all other persons claiming to be shielded by judicial immunity” a definition from which Long somehow managed to make citizens serving on juries the principle targets. Exactly how such a citizen jurist could be “permanently removed from office” and deprived of his “judicial retirement,” as required after a 3rd conviction is something where Long is, well, short on explanation.

What can we learn from this? If, in addition to the ballot wording fraud, vote counting fraud was also involved, then there may not be much that can be done. Mayoral candidate Randy Wooten was left to ponder this reality last month as he was informed by the City Hall of his small Arkansas town that his campaign was so bad he failed to win a single vote. He contests the finding, as he stubbornly maintains that he did indeed vote for himself. The 18-18 tie between the other two candidates was scheduled for a run-off election, though it’s unclear why City Hall expected anyone to switch sides the second time around. Votes were collected on a never-tobe-trusted electronic voting system, quite possibly the Diebold model that leaves no paper trail and for which a vote-counting virus had already been demonstrated on some televised shows. A virus which, if well written, would neatly delete itself when voting was completed destroying all evidence of it's handiwork.

Fraud possibilities aside, proponents of Amendment E promise to be back in 2 years and they are expected to rewrite it to address Long's slanted claims. Perhaps with narrower language they can limit the damage that the ballot writer’s pen can impose.

Careful consideration needs to be given to the propaganda attacks that such initiatives attract.

And money. Opponents of Amendment E ranged far and wide including major financial businesses, lawyers groups and many other interests that have enough endearment to the existing judicial machinations to make sizeable contributions to fund an anti-JAIL campaign, which might explain the modest drop to "only" 55% approval in polls shortly before the election. Campaign funding was stacked 10-1 against the amendment.

Of course judicial accountability is needed and sorely lacking. It seems to be the only occupation where accountability for wrongdoing or poor performance is somehow considered spiteful, cruel or mean as though we should feel sorry for the performers. Long claimed judges may be removed from office for misconduct under present law, but how often does that happen? If SD judges are comparable to their federal counterparts then Long should also have noted that in its 215 year history, only 12 federal judges have ever been impeached, and of those only 9 were convicted or resigned prior to trial. Are we to believe that under robes of black, judges are truly angels of white?

All humans need accountability and here's hoping South Dakotans who've fought so hard and well for this initiative will rise again.

Visit our website at: www.Save-A-Patriot.org
Do Courts Have Law Making Powers?

Electronic Vote Fraud (video)