It's a slow night. So, it's as good a time as any to pick on Amendment E.

It's been pretty quiet in politics this weekend as the 5th Anniversary of September 11th approached. You know, September 11th. That whole thing that Bill Stegmeier believes is a Government plot.

Which got me wondering; What have the Amendment E proponents been up to lately?

For starters, Bill Stegmeier was preaching to the choir in the Yahoo Newsgroups in this message you can read here (membership may be required):

From: Bill Stegmeier [mailto:rmsroll@...]
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 3:31 PM
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Subject: Homework assignment!

Here is what South Dakota Amendment E is up against. Donations anyone? http://www.southdakotajudicialaccountability.com/

Thanking you in advance, Bill Stegmeier
Sponsor of Amendment E

NewsGram from the South Dakota Judicial Accountability Committee, August 31, 2006

The mid-year campaign finance reports concerning Amendment E are now posted on the South Dakota Secretary of State's web site. The reports offer a revealing look at the people both for and against Amendment E.

Access SDJA's report at:
http://www.state.sd.us/applications/st12odrs/files/0000002920.pdf

Access "NO-on-E's report at:
http://www.state.sd.us/applications/st12odrs/files/0000002985.pdf

Let's first look at a list of the top (10) pro-Amendment E donors and then speculate as to their motivation for why they contributed:

Bill Stegmeier, Tea, SD: $54,297.00
(plus loans totaling $ 110,000.00)

Loren Parks, Aloha, OR: 6,000.00
Henry Morgan, Clearwater, FL: 1,000.00
Renee Haley, Garden Ridge, TX: 300.00
Fred Smart, Evanston, IL: 300.00
Henry Nicholle, San Buenaventura, CA: 260.00
Dale Stremcha, Las Vegas, NV: 250.00
Stub and Colleen Harvey, Mitchell SD: 200.00
Ken Knudson, N. Bangor, NY: 200.00
Jim Paulson, Minneapolis, MN: 200.00

Hmm, all individuals and from all over the country! What could be their motivation for contributing in hopes of passing Amendment E?

I think we can eliminate the possibility that any of the above mentioned contributors represent a special interest that would stand to gain financially from the passage of Amendment E. That's just not in the cards.

My best speculation is that they simply want to end judicial corruption and misconduct! I think the notion of holding a judge accountable when he violates a person's rights just has a certain appeal to these individuals as well as all pro-Amendment E contributors.

And now let's take a look at the top (10) contributors who are against holding judges accountable:

Wow, look at the size of these contributions aimed at defeating Amendment E! Let's see, what special interest groups are represented here?

Well of course, it's the usual list of suspects! It's the lawyers, banksters, and the insurance industry. And now it appears a huge petroleum interest has stepped into the ring! (Gee, I wonder what record gas prices and the need to protect crooked judges have in common?)

National Assn. of Mutual Insurance Companies, Indianapolis, Indiana: $ 50,000.00
Citibank, Sioux Falls, SD: 50,000.00
Exxon Mobil, Irving, TX: 25,000.00
Wells Fargo Bank, Sioux Falls, SD: 25,000.00
First Premier Bank, Sioux Falls, SD: 25,000.00
Dacotah Bank, Aberdeen, SD: 20,250.00
First National Bank, Sioux Falls, SD: 20,000.00
CorTrust Bank, Mitchell, SD: 20,000.00
BankWest, Pierre, SD: 20,000.00
Woods, Fuller, Schultz, Sioux Falls, SD, large attorney firm: 15,000.00

OK class, here's your homework assignment. What is it that the following trade groups have to fear with the passage of Amendment E?

The Legal Profession:
The Banksters:
The Insurance Industry:

And for bonus points, what does the petroleum industry have to fear with the passage of Amendment E?

Please email me your answers at billstegmeier@... .

Visit www.SDJA.net for exciting updates to be posted within the next week!

P.S. Your homework assignment is due tomorrow! Thanks, Bill Stegmeier

Ugh. There's a minute or two of reading I won't ever get back.

So, let's take the bait and examine the question that Bill posed. "individuals and from all over the country! What could be their motivation for contributing in hopes of passing Amendment E?"

For Bill Stegmeier, his motivation probably come from the fact they threw his judge threatening friend in jail. Or it could be because he didn't like to pay his taxes. Or any number of other reasons which I could detail, but you probably get the point.

For #2 donor, Loren Parks, I've touched on his likely motivations before. Let's just say before you click on the link, it gets weird. As in news story about sexual harassment weird.

About the only thing you can find about Renee Haley is a reference on the Rose Lear Redress of grievances (i.e. tax protester) forum. And it's about the same for Fred Smart of Evanston, IL, whose weblog you can read here at http://smartbandwidth.blogspot.com/ with information on the fraud of the federal reserve, the 9/11 hoax, the fraud of the income tax, etcetera.

Henry Nicholle, San Buenaventura, CA has his occupation on the financial report listed as "congressional candidate." And no, it's certainly not one of the major parties. From looking at his website, it would appear to be the "commit a federal crime by threatening the president and vice president" party. Yes, in the first paragraph on his website he states:

I am in Santa Barbara tonight, at a public meeting to urge the impeachment of George Bush, Dick Cheney and to remove others of the Executive from office. I believe that Impeachment is not enough. We should also try and if found guilty, hang the traitors among them.

I am Henry Nicolle

(If they're reading, I'd direct the secret service to Henry's website at http://www.henrynicolle.org/.)

Skipping the others, the one thing I'd note about the only other South Dakotans on the list aside from Bill, Stub and Colleen Harvey of Mitchell? Bill is probably wishing he hadn't held up the ballot with his challenges. Because Stub is no longer around to vote on it. Yes, about the only South Dakotan in his top ten passed away August 18th.

And Bill, to answer your questions as to why the banks, lawyers and insurance companies are concerned, it's because your amendment wants to do away with the rule of law in South Dakota. Little things like people not wanting to repay money they borrow, and throwing out legal decisions based on fact in favor of those decided on emotion and whim as they would in the special grand jury. That's why they oppose it.

That's enough time in Bill's world of tax protesters and oddities for the moment. Instead of sheep, I'm probably going to have to count conspiracy theories to lull myself to sleep.

From there, I'm going to bounce into a slightly goofier world in the Amendment E realm. I'm going to go over to Bonnie's world at AmendmentE.com - the part of the Amendment E campaign that doesn't report salaries or expenditures to the Secretary of State's office. (I might have to write a letter on that one). Since I looked at it last, and pointed out the inanity of her ways, Bonnie added another paragraph directed at me in hopes I would be stung from her words.

A word about South Dakota bloggers, two of whom appear ethicially challenged. One, a boring lawyer when telephoned and questioned about inaccurate reports said, "I am not a journalist" (which absolves him from...?)

The second, Pat Powers, writes a gossip sheet in the shrieky style reminiscent of school girls confiding their crushes to their diaries. Except in Powers case it appears the crush he has is on himself. A quick look at his unoriginal, factually anemic fare reveals only that Powers spends so much time patting himself on the back that some suspect his palms are calloused. Yes, the pickings are slim blog-wise since Todd retired his for a while.

Uh, okaaayyy. (Someone must have been crabby). Or is it a shrill school-girlish "Eeeek?" I'm not sure.

And that brings up a good point regarding the amendmente.com website. If you read very far into it, you tend to notice a distinct trend. The lack of factual information that applies to the argument at hand.

Sure, you might find a few examples of what they term juducial corruption. But once you get past the poison prose which makes an attempt to pass for debate, you're left with very little that actually applies to judicial accountability in South Dakota. You'll find examples from California, and you'll find examples from Illinois, and elsewhere.

But where are the South Dakota examples? There might be a little innuendo here, and a smug remark there. But the reader is still left with nothing that proves Amendment E's assertion. We keep hearing "We are in dire straits unless we fix South Dakota. And Here! Look here at all this corruption in California. This is a perfect example of why South Dakota needs to fix things."

A lack of substance supported by inapplicable examples. In Amendment E's playbook, it's a winning combination. As for the rest of us, we're left asking "Is it November yet? We want all the strange California people to leave us alone."