I was going to go to bed, but then I read this. Stegmeier is going to get his butt handed to him in court. Again.

I was going to go to bed, when I saw I had some annoying e-mail in my inbox from a comment that Bonnie Russell, who hawks her judge ranking service at amendmente.com left about a lawsuit being filed against the opponents of Amendment E.

Fine. I'll bite and look at the kelo article on it:
Opponents say that "E" would not only affect judges, but would squash nearly all volunteerism, because people would be afraid to serve on school boards or city councils and other committees making decisions.

Dianna Miller of "Vote No On E" says, "This is a vendetta against South Dakota. It will end public service and this isn't something we want.

But Stegmeier disputes that and has gone so far as to file a lawsuit in Hughes County Court, asking for an injunction against the "Vote No on E" Committee.

Stegmeier says, "Amendment E doesn't even address county commissions and schools boards, even though the opposition says it does. They're lying and we're taking that issue to court right now and hope to get a temporary injunction against them , so they have to stop lying to the voters."
Read it all here. And did Bill hit his head on a roller grinder or something? Has he suddenly forgotten that Judge Gors handed his butt to him on that issue? Gee, let me recall...

[6.] Stegmeier complains that the attorney general’s ballot statement is deficient in the following particulars:

[7.] First, Stegmeier faults the attorney general for saying that the abolition of judicial immunity extends to “[c]itizens serving on juries, school boards, city councils, county commissions, or in similar capacities, and prosecutors” as well as judges.

23.] The amendment includes the following in the definitions in subdivision 1 of section 1:

Judge: Justice, judge, magistrate judge, judge pro tem, and all other persons claiming to be shielded by judicial immunity.

(Emphasis added.)

24.] Stegmeier once thought it was true. In an answer to an article in the Madison Daily Leader which said the JAIL amendment applied to school boards, city councils, county commissions, professional licensing boards and every citizen board performing quasi-judicial functions, Stegmeier took out a paid political announcement in which he agreed with the author of the article and said:

[A]ny governmental employee (of any stripe, shape, or flavor) previously accustomed to violating the rights of South Dakota citizens while hiding behind the bogus doctrine called “judicial immunity”, will now have to shape up or ship out.

Stegmeier cannot claim a better version of the facts than he previously claimed. McElhaney v. City of Edgemont, 2002 SD 159, ¶14, 655 NW2d 441, 445.
Oh yeah... Forget about that little one Bill and Bonnie? Because Judge Gors sure caught it. And you didn't bother to try to contest that one at the supreme court appeal.

And just in case you don't remember that little passage that the judge is citing, here it is once again:
(feel free to click and enlarge it)

Yes, damned by his own words once again. "Any governmental employee.... will now have to shape up or ship out."

Good advice. Bill and Bonnie should take it themselves as they prepare to lose in court once again.


Anonymous said…
Irony? Bill keeps asking the courts and judges to help him out.
Anonymous said…
I received a letter yesterday from this group that asks for money. The only reason I opened it was because they copied the state's font style for the words South Dakota, which makes it look like it is official state business. Does the state have a copyright on that?
Anonymous said…
What I want to know is who is the attorney for Stegmeier? The previous ruling and Stegmeier's own words - both in the Mitchell flier and the Argus interview - seem to point toward a Rule 11 sanction for frivolous filings. How can they possibly make a claim that "all other persons claiming to be shielded by judicial immunity" doesn't include all those people?
Anonymous said…
Tara Glasford in Canton.

Although, this is probably one of those deals where she has to look in the mirror every night and remind herself - "Everyone has a right to legal representation. Everyone has a right to legal representation."

I can't fault her for having ideals. Especially in the face of a client who apparantly wants to wreck the legal system as we know it.
Anonymous said…
Anyone have copies of the filings?
Anonymous said…
filings on www.AmendmentE.com
Anonymous said…
Check the postmark oh ye who constantly touts his alleged sleuthing skills.

I wasn't around at the time.

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: Frederick not in SDGOP Chair Race

A strategic move by Sutton. Good for him, bad for Dems.