Moore thought he was out... But J.A.I.L. went and pulled him back in.

State Senate Minority Leader Garry Moore announced that he's going to switch houses this session, instead of bowing out as he had originally planned. From Nathan Johnson in the Yankton Daily Press and Dakotan:
South Dakota Senate Minority Leader Garry Moore of Yankton has announced he will be a 2006 state House candidate.

The District 18 Democratic legislator is term-limited out of the state's Senate.

During a phone interview from Pierre Wednesday, Moore said an amendment issue on this year's ballot is the driving force behind his decision.

"Up until two weeks ago, I was absolutely certain I was not going to run again," Moore said. "But these J.A.I.L.-birds have got me lathered up. I want Amendment E killed."

Amendment E, or the Judicial Accountability Law, would allow citizens to sue the state's judges.

"The only way I can speak to that issue, I feel, is if I'm running for the Legislature," Moore said. "I'll have the ability to speak with different people about what Amendment E will do to South Dakota. It's the most preposterous thing I've ever seen, and I want to be a part of that process.

"I'll probably be campaigning more against Amendment E than I will for myself," he said. "That's how strongly I feel about it."
Read it all here (after you register). Garry had complained about threatening phone calls, e-mails, etc. from out of state JAIL supporters a couple of weeks back. If their efforts were attempts to intimidate him, I think they have their answer.

(I'd also be upset if J.A.I.L.-birds got me all lathered up).


Anonymous said…
Moore's not the first elected official JAIL has "email bombed".

They targetted a Washington state Senator who dared to oppose them a few years ago.

They email bombed Keith Jensen,
publisher of the Madison Daily Leader to the point he had to shut down his email to anything containing the word "JAIL".

They even email bombed the ADL! The ADL posted something about JAIL (not clear what) they did not like. By being mentioned by the ADL, somehow Branson thinks that's proof the U.N. is involved in the plot to stop JAIL. Rev. Branson declared email jihad and his JAILers email bombed the ADL.

“It would appear that J.A.I.L. has drawn the attention of the U.N. before we expected it, and that they have more discernment about the impact J.A.I.L. will have on their NWO program than for which I give them credit.”

Not only does Branson promote these email war campaigns, he posts his favorites to the JAIL websites. That little factoid as well as their tactics will come out as well, I suspect.

If you wonder PP why I and others who oppose JAIL prefer to not use real emails or names, this is just one reason why.
Anonymous said…
By the way, one other reason Moore's upset is that they went after his wife with the phone calls, KNOWING he was not home and he said in committee and on the floor that his wife bore the brunt of the JAIL attacks.

Not even the mafia, well the romanticized version, went after wives and kids.

In an email ominously entitled "Give Them Enough Rope ..." Branson called on his people to go after Moore and his home.

Senator Moore wants letters. Give him letters. His home telephone and email address he proudly displays. Let him hear from you on his above article. Frankly, I don't think he knows what he is facing, but we shall soon find out. All I can say, Senator Moore, is that I am sure you will be writing me in a few days. God bless. -RB

The result was 200+ emails (only 3 from SD), many with viruses, and at least one semi-veiled death threat. Plus, the innumerous calls to his wife at home when it was obvious Moore was at the Statehouse.

I want to ask any JAIL supporter reading this: have you no decency? Have you no shame? Or are you too busy worrying about the ADL, the UN and the New World Order?
Bob Newland said…
If Moore's decision to run again is indeed the result of JAIL supporters' attempted intimidation, that could be the worst result of the JAIL amendment. Moore is a boor.
Anonymous said…
The JAILers got their feet wet in SD Politics in 2004 when they (along with everyone else) opposed a really bad constitutional amendment to end direct elections of judges. But their JAIL proposal goes way to far and their tactics are really scary.
Bob Newland said…
The JAIL proposal is really not that bad. It could be better.

However, I agree that Ron Branson is acting like a thug, and he's not doing his So. Dak. people any good; doing a lot of harm, in fact.

But I don't understand the violent outcry over the prospect of holding public officials accountable for their actions, by use of a citizen review board.
Anonymous said…

As more and more about what JAIL and Branson are really all about, and how Branson wants to stop the "New World Order United Nations" conspiracy theory with JAIL, I think you'll start to understand.

If this was about ending judicial immunity, it would have taken a one sentence amendment. Heck, I might even have signed onto that. But JAIL isn't about that.

It is about as the Legislature put it "posse comitatus nuts" using old militia wackjob conspiracy theories. It is the common law court people from the 1990s back with a new suit on. Same garbage, different wrapper. It is about Branson, in his own words, wanting to come here to get a traffic ticket so he can sue every judge in South Dakota, as the legislative resolution quoted him as saying. Don't believe me?

I wish I could tell you more on this, but there are some things that must be shown, not told. Notwithstanding, I will tell you the following:

The passage of J.A.I.L. in South Dakota will make it a coveted state among all states. I have little doubt that a number of you, following J.A.I.L.'s passage, will purposely drive to South Dakota, if you do not already live there, just for the privilege of getting a traffic ticket so you can demand a jury trial. I anticipate traffic courts to be among the first courts to all but totally close except for such things as drunk driving.

But traffic courts will be but only the beginning. There is so much, much more.

I know you and Stegmeier are friends, but don't take his or for that matter my word for it. Stegmeier's got his own agenda, he thinks the income tax is a conspiracy and wants to sue judges who disagree with him on that point.

Go to Branson's website Read what he's said about the purpose behind JAIL is. It isn't judicial accoutability, its New World Order/United Nations conspiracy theories.

And the NWO/UN thing is just one of dozens.
Bob Newland said…
I don't care what Branson says, I have read the amendment. I do not see anything in it to frighten anyone except judges who refuse to allow due process.
Anonymous said…
You should care what Branson says and how he intends on using it once it passes, Bob. Or do you just want to "stick it" to the judges and don't care how JAIL will get misused?

Do you not care, Bob? Or do you just refuse to read the truth, straight from Branson's own website?

It is not just "judges who refuse to allow due process" because judicial immunity is not limited to judges.

JAIL mentions "fraud or conspiracy". When Branson says "conspiracy" he means capital C Conspiracy. As in NWO/UN conspiracy. And he intends on using it to sue SD judges as being part of the NWO/UN conspiracy and a bunch of other conspiracy theories he has.

Do you not care, Bob? Or do you just refuse to read the truth, straight from Branson's own website?

Had Branson wanted this to really cover only judges, he could have said that. He didn't. And if you read his website you start to realize why he did not.

One final note and this is very, very clear. Judicial immunity is NOT no matter how many times Branson and Stegmeier say it limited to "just judges". It does in fact include JUDICIAL acts and QUASI-judicial acts.

Bob: do you not care that Branson and his national JAIL group plan to drive to SD, just to get traffic tickets, just so they can sue the judges and shut down the courts?

Do you not care Bob, or are you just overly concerned in sticking it to judges?
Anonymous said…
I think you have your answer. Bob does not care. I guess he is part of Rev. Branson's Brigades. Plus, Stegmeier's helping him with his campaign. Of course Bob's not going to say anything bad about JAIL.

I read the links you posted. Scary that a lunatic like Branson got this far.

Does not matter though. Once word of this luancy gets out, JAIL will be over. Thanks for the links. I'll be sure to post them elsewhere so that people realize what this is really all about.
Bob Newland said…
If Branson wants to come to SD and break traffic laws and sue the courts after passage of JAIL, fine. I think SD could use the fines. SD lawyers could use the business. Branson could use the experience.

Branson's JAIL idea is a fine idea. Branson himself is in a quasi-world, and is an asshole.
Bob Newland said…
If someone wants to claim he/she has "judicial immunity", and wants to make decisions carrying the force of law concerning my life, that person should be subject to penalty for intentionally violating the law.

That's what JAIL provides, and it is something we have no way to do now, because the boards to which we have to complain presently are members of the club about which we are complaining.
Anonymous said…
That's pretty funny Bob. Now that it looks for sure you are going to get your signatures, thanks to Branson, Stegmeier and JAIL helping you with the signature gathering, you feel confident enough to throw them out and say "Branson himself is in a quasi-world, and is an asshole."

Funny, you were not so picky when they were helping you out. Now, heave ho out they go.

Remind me never to help you out. Ever.

If this is how you speak of your friends, I'd hate to see what you call your enemies.
Bob Newland said…
Anonymous, I am reminding you now. Don't help me. Ever.

I have no need of help from jerks who hide behind anonymity to spread their BS around.

Branson surely did not help me circulate petitions. He has no money and would not have given to me anyway. JAIL did not help me. Stegmeier gave me some phone numbers.

I understand clearly why you hide behind an anonymous tag; if a lot of people klnew who you are, they'd make a point of kicking the crap out of you.
Anonymous said…
Poor Bob.

Branson hoodwinked you into subscribing to his NWO/UN theories so you could get signatures. Now you regret it, right?

Now that the facts are coming out you toss him and JAIL.

Face it Bob: the people of SD and you got taken by Branson and Stegmeier and their NWO tin foil hat squad.

This is not about judicial immunity or judicial accountability. It is about suing judges who are part of the conspiracy of the NWO/UN or whatever.

When the real campaign starts and Branson's websites become more publically known, it is over Bob.

Heck, given the overwhelming support from the politicos I bet they already know.

Think for a second Bob. Judy Olson and Randy Frederick. In the same room. Not hitting each other with things. Speaking together AGAINST something. And that something happens to be the same thing (JAIL).

All 105 legislators. Men and women who on a good day could not reasonably agree water is indeed wet. All agree on JAIL.

My bet: these people already know who Branson and Stegmeier are, what the NWO/UN crap is all about and are mortified.

THAT is why the legislators are so eager to debate Branson. They WANT to debate him. It is going to be like fish in a barrel once Branson starts talking about the New World Order and JAIL and the UN take over and the other conspiracy theories.

Oh, PS. JAIL itself is unconstitutional (no Federal court is going to allow for trials in which the accused has no right of appeal, as in the case of JAIL which makes it illegal to appeal the findings of the Special Grand Jury).

It is garbage, expensive and incoherent. Yes Bob, if you READ IT it really is that bad.

Say Bob, you never did answer. Did Bill Stegmeier or Branson tell you about their New World Order theory before they helped you, or after? Or, as I suspect, never?

Next time you see Stegmeier or Branson, why not ask them about it.
Bob Newland said…
Anonymous, in a white hood, throwing molotov cocktails.

Nothing but a chickensh*t.
Bob Newland said…
Read Denise Ross’s comments on JAIL…


The current “Judicial Discipline Information” available at the link Denise gave in the topic post is pretty straightforward. The problem an offended party might have is with the “Judicial Qualifications Commission”, which consists of “two judges; three attorneys; and two citizens, who are not attorneys or judges, appointed by the Governor.”

“Appointed by the Governor” means that the “two citizens” will have passed muster as being disposed to defer to the governor and/or the other members of the club (the “club” being So. Dak. judges and lawyers).

Even if those two citizens were not so disposed, their two votes would be outweighed by the five club votes.

I am not a fan of some of the less-than-precise language of Amendment E. Nor am I a fan of Ron Branson (the infamous Californian whose original JAIL amendment language inspired Bill Stegmeier’s sponsorship of So. Dak. JAIL) and his tactics. In some ways he reminds me of Ron Volesky, who was famous for introducing legislation on behalf of a constituent, then acting so outrageously and with so little preparation that he doomed the legislation.

Yet, the behavior of the legislature with respect to the proposed amendment is so over the top that it has hardened my support for it. My support for it, of course, is one more reason for the legislature to oppose it.

Charley House legitimately asks JAIL proponents to list examples of judicial misconduct that might be remedied by passage of the amendment. I knew that would be an issue when I was asked to help get it on the ballot (I did no more along those lines than sign the petition).

While I have some personal beliefs about “due process” and how it is thwarted regularly, I only have peripheral knowledge about a few cases in which I think criminal defendants or plaintiffs (or defendants) in lawsuits were denied due process or were outright screwed by judges and prosecutors. That is partly, at least, due to the fact that it is impossible to keep a close enough eye on enough legal cases to get an idea of what is really going on in the courts.

I think it would be healthy for all of us were there a process by which a review board considerably more independent of the So. Dak. Bar than the current review board were able to hear testimony about those cases.

As for the definition of whose decisions actually would be subject to review, and who would actually be subject to penalty should the review go against them, I think it is a stretch to include every member of “county commissioners, school board members, city council members, planning and zoning board members, township board members, public utilities commissioners, professional licensing board members, jurors, judges, prosecutors, and all other citizen boards” as being subject to penalty or lawsuit under JAIL.

On the other hand, if any of these people want to claim “judicial immunity” while making decisions that have the force of law resulting in a citizen’s disadvantage, then their decisions should be subject to citizen review.

I suspect, however, that the clause most-offending to the legislature in proposed Amendment E is, “… trial jurors shall be instructed they have the power to judge both law and fact.”

Proposed Amendment A in 2002 would have added to rights of criminal defendants the right “to argue the merits, validity and applicability of the law, including the sentencing laws”. It did not draw the same sort of reaction from the legislature as JAIL has, but every legislator I talked to was opposed, as were about 18 of the about 20 lawyers whose opinions I heard personally.

The legislature generally believes it is infallible; it can not, by definition, pass a bad law.

The courts tell jurors that they must find a defendant guilty if they find that the defendant committed the acts of which he is accused. The courts do not allow testimony that questions the merits of the law itself. So, at the moment at which the real efficacy of a given law could be questioned by people who are being affected disadvantageously by the law, and reviewed by that person’s peers, the disadvantaged person and his lawyer must sit mute, or deny he did the act, or admit he did the act.

This allows legislatures to make literally anything illegal, and if a substantial number of people in the state do not immediately object, the courts will enforce the law, while silencing those who are offended by bad laws. Thus, the legislature receives false approval for its actions.

Amendment E will fail. It would have failed if the legislature had said nothing about it. It probably will get more votes of approval as a result of the legislature’s “sky is fallng” rhetoric than if the legislature had kept its collective mouth shut.

One wonders what, exactly, frightened the legislature enough to take its unprecedented action of officially decrying a citizen intitiative that garnered over 40000 signatures. Even given that many of those who signed would not have signed if they had actually read the petition, they signed on the basis of the petition circulator’s statement that the measure would help hold judges accountable for their actions. That says to me that a substantial cross-section South Dakotans believe that judges are not held accountable enough for their actions.

As for Branson’s threat to come to So. Dak. and explode the traffic courts, we should welcome the potential for more fines and more business for So. Dak. lawyers. It might help offset the disastrous loss of income tourist venues will suffer if only anti-abortion-choice tourists visit the state. I have no suspicion that citizen review boards will put judges in prison for imposing traffic fines.
Anonymous said…
This is a good comment Bob. Is it yours?
Anonymous said…
Sorry Bob, I meant is that from your website?
Bob Newland said…
I shall no longer respond to ANY comments from ANY poster called "anonymous".

FIrst, I think there are more than one of them. Second, people who hide behind anonymity for no reason other than to be able to throw hand grenades deserve no recognition.
Anonymous said…
Bob: you said "I have no suspicion that citizen review boards will put judges in prison for imposing traffic fines. "

That's not the point. First of all, call it was it is: the Special Granf Jury.

If JAIL passes, Branson and his minions will come here and get tickets. They'll appear before a magistrate judge and be found guilty for the ticket. Then, they'll appeal to Circuit, then Supreme. They'll claim as Branson has said judges are all part of the New World Order conspiracy or whatever.

That's 7 judges they'll file complaints with right there (1 magistrate judge, 1 circuit judge, all 5 Supreme). And guess what Bob? It will not cost them a DIME! That's right, filing a complaint against a judge is free!

Now, under JAIL, the 7 judges can NOT be reimbursed from the state for defending against the free compaints the out of state JAIL people filed. No matter how frivolous or stupid, they still have to take time to hire an attorney, pay the filing fee of like $150 or $200 bucks and file an answer to the JAIL Special Granr Jury complaint.

We only have about 50 judges in the whole state Bob. Branson only needs a few dozen of his JAIL people to file a dozen lawsuits each, for free, and the SD courts are all but closed.

This is what he meant when he said "I anticipate traffic courts to be among the first courts to all but totally close except for such things as drunk driving.

But traffic courts will be but only the beginning. There is so much, much more. "

Let's do the math Bob.

50 JAILers come here and get tickets.

7 judges per ticket (and the Supreme Court will get hit over and over by JAIL complaints because they will be the ones who hear every appeal).

That's 350 suits, at least.

Thousands of dollars for judges to just defend the COMPLAINT. And that is LONG before we are talking about anyone going to prison or getting a civil suit.
Anonymous said…

The reason I am anonymous is because as I noted from the start. Branson and JAIL have a history of getting people's emails and IDs and shutting down their email systems, calling their homes at all hours, etc.

They did it to Moore and his wife.

Sorry, but I'm not going to have that happen to me.
Bob Newland said…
As I violate my own promise, you were "Anonymous" long before the JAIL posts.
Anonymous said…
You have me confused with someone else.

Read the first comment here.

Regardless, my point stands. JAIL would shut down the SD courts. And as Branson said, that's the point of it.
Bob Newland said…
There'd be no confusion if you called yourself "Chicken Little" instead of "Anonymous".
Anonymous said…
Sorry Bob, but saying JAIL is bad is not chicken littlism.

Not when your read what they really plan to use with it, or when you really read Amendment E itself.

It is nothing less than an attempt to shut down the SD court system. Branson said it was so. The amendment would obviously have that effect in and of itself.

But as you noted: it is a dead letter anyway. I for one cannot wait to see Branson on TV telling everyone about the NWO. I'm going to laugh until I pull something.
Anonymous said…
Judge Censors website that supports amendment E. Just how far will the state go to silence the opposition?

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long