Dave Kranz picks up on some of the J.A.I.L.house chatter

Dave Kranz writes in today's Argus Leader about controversy in the Judicial Accountability movement:
It might seem like the judicial accountability group is having identity problems, but that's not the case, says Bill Stegmeier, the South Dakota coordinator.

Concerned about the way some people are portraying the Accountability amendment that will be on the Nov. 6 ballot, Stegmeier of Tea wrote a letter to Ron Branson of California, founder of the Jail4Judges organization that has an interest in the proposed amendment, and told him they were not needed here.

"We have the opposition misleading the people, making them think this is a bunch of agitators from California coming here, and that is not the case," Stegmeier said Wednesday.

"Our new letterhead now has the names of 80 South Dakotans who are volunteering and donating money, and there are no Californians in our group," he said.

To separate the local effort, Stegmeier says they now will be known as a group supporting Amendment E, the judicial accountability effort.

"To say we are in disarray is inaccurate, but it might appear that way until we get the word out," Stegmeier said.

That will happen during 27 town hall meetings across the state.

Opponents of the measure will be invited and given the opportunity to debate the issue, Stegmeier said. But the proposal is not an effort to sweep out all judges, he said.

"We believe Amendment E will address a small minority of judges," he said.

Stegmeier attended a meeting last month in Irvine, Calif., where a variety of issues were discussed, including speakers critical of the U.S. government, the IRS, banks, the FBI and the CIA, among others.

"I was there to talk about what was happening with judicial accountability in South Dakota. I don't promote anything other than judicial accountability," Stegmeier said.
Where do I begin? For starters, Stegmeier might not have been there to promote anything other than judicial accountability, but he certainly sympathizes with those causes.

He doesn't think the state should issue marriage licenses.
In the matter of the union of a man and a woman, may the state, in any and all forms, both locally and federal, stick it up their collective anus. Signed, Bill Stegmeier, so help me God.
He thinks the U.S. blew up the trade towers, as opposed to muslim terrorists flying planes into it.
I am fed up and sick of people who know darn good and well it wasn't the evil Muslims behind 911, and who in their apparent lust for destroying Bush don't mind actually helping to keep the 911 hoax intact by posting such gibberish as in post #4.
And he thinks the US Government is controlled by outside forces.
Our government is corrupt at the highest levels and even appears to be controlled by outsiders. Certainly not the American people anymore, if it ever was. Can we take back our country without a revolution? I don't know, but we have no choice but to try. Will going to New Orleans help Dick Simkanin? I don't know that either, but I'm going anyway.

The challenge we face is that the vast majority of the American people, even most who know the truth about the Great IRS Hoax, are apathetic.
So, no. He didn't lecture on the trilateral commission, the New World Order, or whatever other goofyness they were talking about at the conference in California. But from his own writings, it appears that he may subscribe to the same beliefs.

And on top of that, it appears that they're still pushing that line on how it affects judges. That couldn't be farther from the truth. Amendment E affects everyone who exercises judicial authority.

And that's nearly every elected or appointed board and commission in South Dakota.

The people who wrote this amendment are the most paranoid people on the face of the earth with regards to overreaching government authority. Yet, when it comes to how their own act is written, they conveniently try to say that is only applies to judges, despite the wording.

It's like they're saying "Trust us. We're from the J.A.I.L. movement." That sounds familiar. And I buy that line even less from the two star State Jailer-in-Chief than I do the Government.


MJB said…
PP - Are they coming to Pierre or Brookings? If so, you should "bring it" and let people know about their brand of black helicopter/ruby ridge goofiness.
Bob Newland said…
Coupla questions, PP:

1. Why should the State have an interest in with whom I contract personally for a life partnership?

2. Why should the State be able to make me tell it how much money I take in, then make me pay it some of that money? There are other, much less intrusive ways to fund essential governmental services.

3. Are there no questions to be askied about why the Tallest Buildings in the World collapsed into their own footprints, like they had been imploded?

4. What is your theory about the WTO building that collapsed without even being struck by a plane? What were those little squibs of smoke coming out the windows of that building sequentially, floor by floor, just before it dropped?
PP said…
God forbid the state want to prevent incest or polygamy for starters. Marriage also provides unique rights and status under law.

I don't disagree with you on better ways to pay for government services (In an ideal world, a flax tax requires EVERYONE to pay).

In this country, we recognize the rule of law, not anarchy. My point is that no reasonable person believes the income tax is illegal - which is exactly what Bill is stating when he calls it the IRS hoax.

As to 3 and 4, even asking those kinds of questions does not enhance your credibility.

Aside from the fact that the buildings burned and collapsed from the top down.

And if you have two of the world's largest buildings collapsing next to you, it's not going to be a plus for your structural integrity.

Besides, why are you asking me? My degree is in political science, not structural engineering.
PP said…
And MJB, If they came to town and did an evening forum, I'd be there with bells on.

Despite the fact I literally have no debate experience, I suspect I'd be able to poke large holes in their arguments.
Claire said…
Honestly, who cares about the JAIL nuts? We want to hear your analysis of the S Falls mayor race. And why is Steve Hildebrand supporting Dave Munson?
Looks like Bill Stegmeier is covering his tracks, he has pulled all the posts off of his blog including the ones you linked to and left a message for you and Progressive on the Prairie
Anonymous said…
Slate.com piece comes out. Suddenly Stegmeier claims he's not part of JAIL. BTW: Read the jail4judges.org website. They are still running this out of California, and being amazingly public and stupid about it on the website.

Argus Leader piece comes out about Stegmeier and the cranks he's hanging out with and his crank conspiracy theories. Suddenly, billstegmeier.blogspot.com doesn't exist anymore.

Anyone else detecting a pattern here? The more that comes out about these people, the more they try to hit the delete key and re-write history.

Ron Branson taught Bill Stegmeier well. But not well enough. This is just TOO obvious. Bill cannot erase his years of involvement with JAIL and he cannot erase all the references to his crank conspiracy theories.

And the fact that he is trying to erase it all should tell you everything you need to know about him and his JAILers in SD.
Anonymous said…
the attempted disconnect between Stegmeier and Branson looks like the old "california shell game"
Anonymous said…
Hey Bob... here's an answer for you. The state cares about who you contract with for a life partnership because... (and so does the Fed btw)

It changes your legal status! Ding,ding,ding,ding... that's right.. if you're single only you can form a contract that will bind you legally to pay.

When you're legally married, that's called Tenancy by Entirety. Meaning that your wife can go charge up credit card bills in her name and you're legally obligated to pay.

Secondly, it changes your status for Social Security and other Fed and state benefits.

If you don't want the benefits.. then just shack up with the ole life partner.

Of course, after a certain length of time she'll get the benefits anyway. Gotta love common law. ;)

Happy Trails!

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long