Why do South Dakotans need to stop J.A.I.L. in it's tracks? Look at what could be coming next

In an article from Nevada in the North Lake Tahoe Bonanza, authorities are discussing the need to resolve some concerns over delays (which don't exist in SD) from their version of the Judicial Qualifications Commission because they are possibly facing a Judicial Accountability Movement:

Douglas County District Judge Michael Gibbons, president of the Nevada District Judges Association, said he supports the discipline commission and questioned whether a rule change by that panel - rather than legislation - might resolve any problems stemming from delays.

While Gibbons urged caution in tinkering with the judicial discipline process, he also said a perception of excessive delays could figure in efforts to set up alternatives such as one proposed for the November ballot in South Dakota.

That plan, called Judicial Accountability Initiative Law or J.A.I.L, would create a special panel of citizens who could sanction judges by levying fines or even removing them from office.

Representatives of the group pushing the J.A.I.L proposal have said Nevada could be their next target if they succeed in South Dakota. Redress Inc., a nonprofit group in Nevada that helps people who believe they've been treated unfairly in the courts, is working on a similar initiative - that also would cover lawyers and police officers.

A J.A.I.L-like measure for attorneys and police officers?. Check out what Redress Inc., a Judicial Accountability moverment supporter has to say about dragging other public servants into the kind of mess that's been proposed for judges. Instead of promoting a Judicial Accountability act, they're promoting a "Nevada Anti-Corruption Initiative Law" or N.A.I.L. (creative, aren't they?):

Section 5. The Special Grand Jury shall have power

(a) to receive and review complaints against judges, magistrates or other judicial officers or any agent or employee of any court;

(b) To cite any party against whom a complaint has been made to appear before it to answer any such complaint, and to adjudicate any such complaint in accordance with its rules and procedures as set forth in the Nevada Administrative Code;

(c) to issue subpoenas for the testimony of witnesses;

(d) to dismiss from office any party found guilty of obstruction of justice, fraud or bribery, violation of the judicial code of conduct, conflict of interest, violation of any criminal statute, or denial of due process to any complainant in any judicial or administrative proceeding, with any such finding of guilt based on a preponderance of the evidence presented;

Read all of N.A.I.L. here. So, not only would they go after judges, they'd have the power to go after attorneys, baliffs, social workers, police, stenographers, clerks, or anyone they deemed to be an agent of the court.

And what other gems does this Nevada group have in mind? Check it out here with a little commentary from me in bold:

Corruption charges against authorities to be set at higher penalties than against citizens. While this appears to be unfair and disparate treatment, the authorities who knowingly indulge in corruption, makes it more of a criminal act than a lay person. They must be held to higher standards. If no discrimination exists within this "class" of individuals, discrimination does not exist. (As with the SD Judicial Accountability Act, this would create unequal justice)

Mandatory public release of all investigate reports by any regulatory authority on an annual and semi-annual basis. Without this, citizens are unable to know which judges, lawyers, doctors, dentists and more may be avoided. If investigation is on-going, publish those names and state so. If investigation yields no negative results and the complainant doesn't challenge such results, publish it. (Nevermind that in the US we believe people to be innocent until proven guilty.)

Limit all Nevada judges to two-year terms in an attempt to limit the amount of detrimental relationships able to be formed by unscrupulous judges. (And how long would it take to go through all the attorneys in the state, aside from having a bunch of inexperienced judges?)

No more use of Latin in any court setting, in any motion whatsoever; for such has rendered the court system not understandable to the average citizen. The courts and lawyers through such action have assured abuse to the citizens. The courts exist to serve the citizens, NOT the other way around. Litigants should not be forced to learn a new (dead) language in order to have the right to prevail in our courts. (No French terms either, because they are cowards. And no English, because we beat them in the war for independence. Oh, wait a minute...)

Mandatory Court Facilitators; each court to have staff readily available to assist pro se litigants with court procedures, as has been set up in Washington State. (Hey, wait a minute. Isn't pro se a latin term?)

Courts must provide that litigants may provide their own recording equipment in every setting; that the court clerks or other personnel will not be allowed to provide recordings without litigant's opportunity by law to do the same. This will eliminate tape-tampering by court personnel. (Because court personnel have nothing better to do with their time than to tamper)

Courts must provide tapes or transcripts of all proceedings at the expense of the court for hardship cases. (I think they mean at the expense of the taxpayer)

Courts unable to hold ANY litigation proceedings without witnesses; example, no litigant should be forced into a hearing whereby only the judge, the opposing counsel/party and the litigant are present. Courts must allow litigants to bring witnesses to proceedings. Litigants being forced into "secret proceedings" may decline to proceed without prejudicial treatment to their cases. (What if the litigants are the witnesses? And have they never heard of a deposition under oath?)

Mandatory mental health screenings of all judges, to include candidates for judicial office, and to include yearly screenings after election/appointment and to include drug/alcohol screenings. Also, "surprise" drug/alcohol screenings for any authority. (And do they define Authority?)

Ugh. I could (and often do) go on, but as you can see, there are plenty of other goofy petition movements ready to follow the South Dakota Judicial Accountability Act.

Now, those of you on the fence might be saying "PP, you're really stretching things. What does this group of Nevada Residents have to do with the South Dakota Judicial Accountability Act? You're exaggerating."

Am I? Because on their "Very Important People Page" they cite a familar name:
The individuals listed herein are devoted to integrity in our society, and assist through education and other activities.

GARY ZERMAN, Attorney, Legal Counsel for Jail4Judges

Read Gary's initial efforts into the difficult field of judicial accountability, by clicking his name.

Zerman Response - Read Gary's well-throughout position paper on judicial immunity and accountability.

Yup, they cite Gary Zerman, one of the architects of the South Dakota Judicial Accountability Act, as one of their very important people, supposedly assisting through education and activities.

Sure, it might just be idle speculation on my part that the people behind the South Dakota J.A.I.L.-4-Judges act only consider it the beginning. It's entirely possible.

But can we afford to take that chance?