More crying from Amendment E Supporters over the AG Explanation

Dave Kranz's column this AM picks at the scab of the AG's ballot opinion on Amendment E. And Bill Stegmeier is doing all the oozing:
Supporters of Amendment E - a measure that would hold judges accountable by challenging them on procedures and seat a special grand jury of citizens to hear concerns about the judges and their rulings - are threatening a lawsuit against Attorney General Larry Long if he does not change wording they find objectionable on the ballot.

Bill Stegmeier of Tea, state sponsor of the amendment, sent Long an 18-page letter.

"We believe the wording that AG Long chose to use in his Ballot Explanation is biased against Amendment E, and appears to be nothing more than partisan campaigning against the amendment," Stegmeier says.

A reference on the ballot indicating that the amendment covers "citizens serving on juries, school boards, city councils, county commissioners, or in similar capacities, and prosecutors," is a matter of concern, Stegmeier said. He says the amendment is directed strictly at judges.

The ballot wording is a violation of SDCL 12-13-9, which states that it is a misdemeanor to knowingly publish false and misleading information concerning a ballot issue, Stegmeier said.

"We fully intend to take this matter to court should AG Long decide not to revise the wording of his explanation in order to fully conform with 12-13-9," Stegmeier said.
Read it all here. In order to clarify Bill Stegmeier's concerns more fully, I think we should hear from some more experts. Here's what one had to say on the matter:


"With the passage of SD J.A.I.L., any governmental employee (of any stripe, shape, or flavor) previously accustomed to violating the rights of South Dakota citizens while hiding behind the bogus doctrine of 'judicial immunity', will now have to shape up or ship out.

And then there's that other expert on the goals of the SD Jail effort:
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.
- JAIL Campaign Worker Jake Hanes as interviewed on Arizona based Liberty Watch radio show “America – Armed and Free” 4/16/06.

There. Aren't you glad that's all cleared up now that you've heard from these experts on the matter?

Comments

Anonymous said…
If Larry Long keeps it up with these bogus explanations for all ballot questions "E" will gain ground. If "E" was limited to the AG it would pass in a landslide.
Anonymous said…
AG: Citizens serving on juries, school boards, city councils, county commissions, or in similar capacities, and prosecutors and judges, are all required to make judicial decisions. Their decisions may be reversed on appeal, or they may be removed from office for misconduct or by election. However, they cannot be made to pay money damages for making such decisions. This allows them to do their job without fear of threat or reprisal from either side.

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.


Bill S:"With the passage of SD J.A.I.L., any governmental employee (of any stripe, shape, or flavor) previously accustomed to violating the rights of South Dakota citizens while hiding behind the bogus doctrine of 'judicial immunity', will now have to shape up or ship out.


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.”

Sounds like all those opinions agree
Anonymous said…
If AG Long has a lick of sense, he will put Stegmeier and Branson and Hanes own words into whatever response he writes to Stegmeier. Or, he should send a simple one sentence letter inviting Stegmeier to pursue this suit.

Amendment E is not even being voted on yet and already it is resulting in frivolous lawsuits.

Imagine what would happen if Branson and Stegmeier and their New World Order conspiracy buddies get this thing passed.

Oh wait, you don't have to imagine. They already said what they plan to do.

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.
Bob Newland said…
Don't you think it natural, Pat, that people in a prison (there are quite a few there who should not be) might have as strong a reason as any to be pissed about judicial misconduct?

I've watched trials that were full of it. I've interviewed a number of people who showed me documentation of the railroad job in their cases.

Most people (you included, I believe) have no concept of the circus many criminal trials are.
PP said…
Bob, I know more than you might think, as I've testified in both civil and criminal trials.

In fact, my testimony was some of the most damning evidence which helped sentence someone *I thought* was a family friend to ten years.

Of course, she was out in 1.

Regardless, the point of the post is that all the JAIL people were saying it applied to many elected and appointed officials. When people said "oh my god, that's terrible" they've changed their tune, despite the fact they were the ones uttering those words.
Anonymous said…
Bob:

If Amendment E was really all about some sort of citizen complaint review board focused exclusively on judges and judges only, being pushed by sane, rationale people, you might have a point here.

But that is not what Amendment E is at all.

It is about anyone “shielded by judicial immunity” which Stegmeier and Hanes admit when they think no one is listening include “prosecutors” and “elected officials” (Hanes) and “any governmental employee of any stripe, shape or flavor hiding behind the bogus doctrine called 'judicial immunity'” (Stegmeier). As has been pointed out over and over, when county commissions and school boards make disciplinary and other similar decisions, they are covered by judicial immunity for those acts and therefore are getting dragged in under Amendment E to this Special Grand Jury.

But that was no accident in terms of wording; it was Stegmeier and Branson’s intention all along.

Please keep in mind what is motivating them, not some sense of justice or decency. In Stegmeier’s case it was because his tax dodging buddy Simankin decided to refuse to pay income taxes and when Federal judges ruled against him Simankin threatened the judges’ lives . Stegmeier’s in this so he can sue any judge or anyone who does not subscribe to his crank conspiracy theories about 9/11 or the income tax or the “IRS hoax” or whatever. Ask him Bob. We know you and he are buddies and he had you over to his FreedomRoasts, so ask him. And as for Branson? Well his New World Order rants tell you all you need to know about where he is coming from on this score.

Amendment E will fail. Not because Long’s description was wrong, but because it was so correct.
Anonymous said…
Is the AG's staff on the clock when they post these anon comments?
Anonymous said…
anon 2:32pm- spoken like a true JAIL person. If someone disagrees, why it must be a conspiracy by the Attorney General's office and his employees.

It is beyond your comprehension that people can disagree with you or point out the direct contradictions that Stegmeier is making saying one day Amendment E covers city councils and county commissions and then the next day denying it.

No, if we disagree, we must be part of the AG's conspiracy.

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: After the television commercial salvo fired at them, Vote Yes For Life Fires back.

Heidepreim: Republicans are the party of hate

The Day in politics - October 24th