The Aha moment for JAIL-4-Judges
If you’re a incurable political hack like me, sometimes you’ll sit there and listen to politicians over and over and over. And every once in a while, you’ll have what I call “an aha moment” where the politician admits something that you know they’ve been doing all along, but would never admit to.
And just like in the comic books, you go “Aha – I have you now!”
And I just had that moment with the South Dakota Judicial Accountability Movement.
For months now, they’ve been saying ad nauseum that J.A.I.L. “only applies to judges, it only applies to judges.” Despite the absolute fact that the measure specifies that it applies to anyone who has judicial immunity. When that’s brought up, they pooh pooh it as hysterics, and that it’s only intended for judges.
Maybe they should have informed their press secretary of that. Because I just listened to an interview with him as recently conducted on the Arizona based Liberty Watch radio show “America – Armed and Free” where on 4/16/06, not only does Jake Hanes, an Amendment E campaign media coordinator talk about the measure going after more than judges – it’s specifically brought up that the measure provides for taking action against elected officials – and that fact is confirmed by the press secretary. About 21 minutes into the program…
Aha!
And it gets better. 33 minutes into it, Hanes contradicts this position, and falls back on the party line and says that “It’s not designed to go after elected officials.”
Somehow, no matter how hard they try, I don’t think that cat’s going to go back in the bag.
Note - You can also read my other posts on JAIL this evening - Bill Stegmeier, The JAILsucker Proxy and The Brandon Valley Challenger on Amendment E over at the no-on-e weblog.
-pp
And just like in the comic books, you go “Aha – I have you now!”
And I just had that moment with the South Dakota Judicial Accountability Movement.
For months now, they’ve been saying ad nauseum that J.A.I.L. “only applies to judges, it only applies to judges.” Despite the absolute fact that the measure specifies that it applies to anyone who has judicial immunity. When that’s brought up, they pooh pooh it as hysterics, and that it’s only intended for judges.
Maybe they should have informed their press secretary of that. Because I just listened to an interview with him as recently conducted on the Arizona based Liberty Watch radio show “America – Armed and Free” where on 4/16/06, not only does Jake Hanes, an Amendment E campaign media coordinator talk about the measure going after more than judges – it’s specifically brought up that the measure provides for taking action against elected officials – and that fact is confirmed by the press secretary. About 21 minutes into the program…
Caller (Charles): One thing about E is that they should expand it to include prosecutors too.
Host: I think it already does, doesn’t it Jake?
Jake Hanes: Anyone who hides behind judicial immunity or quasi-judicial immunity.
Caller (Charles): Oooo. I like this bill more and more.
Host: “So, in other words, it would also include elected officials”
Jake Hanes: “Absolutely.”
Caller (Charles): Did you tell your guest where I’m calling from?
Voice Over: This call is from a federal prison
Caller (Charles): That’s where I’m callin’ from.
*Click here* if you want to listen to the whole thing.The announcer asks, “So, in other words, it would also include elected officials” and the press secretary responds by saying “Absolutely.”
Aha!
And it gets better. 33 minutes into it, Hanes contradicts this position, and falls back on the party line and says that “It’s not designed to go after elected officials.”
Somehow, no matter how hard they try, I don’t think that cat’s going to go back in the bag.
Note - You can also read my other posts on JAIL this evening - Bill Stegmeier, The JAILsucker Proxy and The Brandon Valley Challenger on Amendment E over at the no-on-e weblog.
-pp
Comments
How bout this for a slogan.
Amendment E...The Amendment of Felons
http://www.brandonvalleychallenger.com/news/details.cfm?id=1531
Intesting, because what does that make Bonnie Russell?
Also interesting because Estes is like the rest of these people from outside the state and part of jail4judges and Ron Branson.
In this
http://www.jail4judges.org/JNJ_Library/2005/2005-12-02.html
he identifies as "David Estes Washington JAILer"
In this one
http://www.jail4judges.org/JNJ_Library/2005/2005-11-14A.html
Branson calls him "Washington State JAILer, David Estes"
and in this one
http://www.jail4judges.org/JNJ_Library/2005/2005-12-28.html
he is listed as "David Estes of Vashon, Wash"
Oh and by the way. Stegmeier's own WEBSITE admits Estes is from Washington State.
In his contributors page
http://www.southdakotajudicialaccountability.com/contribute.htm
We find a D. Estes, contributor from WASHINGTON.
Remind me again how this is "South Dakota all the way"?
It is true, county commissioners, school board members and others can already be sued for thier actions. But IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY ONLY!
Let's say the 5 members of the XYS County Commission vote 5-0 to refuse my request for a permit to build omething or other.
I sue, claiming they violated my rights, or voted at a closed door hearing (which under the open meetings law would be illegal), were biased and thereby "conspired" against me, or all three.
Right now, before Amendment E, I can sue the commission COLLECTIVELY and the members of the board INDIVIDUALLY in their OFFICIAL CAPACITY ONLY! If I win, then the COUNTY pays (it's called indemnification), not the commissioners PERSONALLY.
But with Amendment E, that all changes.
With Amendment E I can sue the commissioners PERSONALLY becuase each one of them is PERSONALLY coverdq uasi-judicial act of voting to approve or reject my permit.
After Amendment E I can now do two things:
First, I can file a complaint with the Special Grand Jury against each commissioner PERSONALLY for "fraud or conspiracy" and claim the county commissioners "conspired" against me and the vote they took was a "fraud".
Now, each commissioner will PERSONALLY have to pay hundreds if not thousands of dollars JUST TO DEFEND AGAINST THE COMPLAINT FILED WITH THE SPECIAL GRAND JURY! By they way, filing a complaint against the commissioners won't cost me a DIME! Think about that, I can go all around the state and file Special Grand Jury complaints against any government official that is coverd by judicial immunity and it will nto cost me one red cent!
Second, because "All allegations in the complaint shall be liberally construed in favor of the complainant" there is a massive bias against the county commissioners. The Special Grand Jury because it is biased against them and in favor of "the complainant" will rule against the county commission and permit my civil suit to proceed against the PERSONAL ASSETS of EACH county commissioner who voted against my permit application.
That means a full blown CIVIL trial in which the commissioners are AGAIN required to defend their actions OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKET.
Third, if the commissioners win the civil trial, they are still PERSONALLY out thousands of dollars to defend first against the Special Grand Jury complaint and then at the civil trial court. OR if they lose at the civil trial court they are forced to pay OUT OF THIER OWN POCKET thousands for simply voting against my building permit.
One more point anonymous at 9:16am. You claim this is the little guy against big corporate interests. Yet do you know who will have to pay for the Special Grand Jury? Read Section 8: the cost of the Special Grand Jury will come from a SPECIAL COURT FEE CHARGED TO ANY CORPORATE ENTITY IN A CIVIL CASE.
Corporations are not just Citibank but include ANY incorporated business. The Mom and Pop store, the local dry wall dealer, ANY business ( NOT just big corporations) that files a civil lawsuit in South Dakota will have to pay a massive "surcharge". Now the JAILers could have limited this "corporate surcharge" to big business. But read Section 8: they didn't. It effects ALL businesses.
J.A.I.L./Amendment E will fail as Wild Bill said 80/20. Then the people pushing this from California like Ron Branson, Gary Zerman, Bonnie Russell and from Washington State like David Estes can go back home and try this in their own states.
But of course when they love in November, they'll probably blame a "conspiracy" or some other paranoid rantings. They'll NEVER accept the truth that the people of South Dakota DO NOT WANT THIS!