Tuesday, September 05, 2006

South Dakota's curious non-reader members of the bar

Corrupt judges

by Mark Yannone

Judging by the content of some of the opinion pieces about Amendment E (here's a real whopper), you might wonder if South Dakota had schools that taught writing but not reading. The next paragraph is the part that some people can't read. See if you can.

"No immunity shall extend to any judge of this State for any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of South Dakota or the United States, notwithstanding Common Law, or any other contrary statute."

When the non-readers encounter that paragraph, they can't see the word "judge," so they pretend there are other nouns there instead, like "councilman" and "water board." Isn't that hilarious?

The non-readers can't understand the concept of "violations of law" either, so they pretend Amendment E is about other things instead, like "having a bad hair day" or "disagreement." I wonder how they even manage to cross the street safely if these non-readers are so easily confused by such simple words and concepts.

What's really strange is how many of these non-readers are members of the bar, like the judges who are just about to lose their immunity from prosecution when they break the law. Maybe that association has something to do with their apparent inability to read. Do you think so?


Anonymous said...

After a thorough reading of Amendment E, then a careful double reading of the editorial in the Argus newspaper, I believe the writer of that editorial must have read another version of Amendment E.

Not one word in the proposed Amendment E would lead any thinking person with a third grade education to conclude it extends beyond the judiciary (that's the judges). Nowhere in the Amendment does it propose to limit volunteerism by imposing wanton litigation on school board members or anyone OTHER THAN JUDGES WHO BREAK THE LAW.

The prosecutors mentioned in the editorial never appear in the Amendment. Hooray for criminals? I don't think so. Hooray for justice and the enforcement of the Judges' requirement to follow the law and the Constitution. Indeed!

The Judges in South Dakota, law-abiding state that it is, must be terrified to have to obviously pay someone to write a hit piece on an Amendment that will rein in their legal practices. Wonder why they'd be worried?

Rose Johnson said...

Why are lawyers often referred to as 'liars' and judges as 'criminals' in 'black robes'? Sadly, because it is so often the reality of their actions.

Judicial Accountability is a simple matter - and highly constitutional. And, that is the part that scares judges and lawyers. Article IIII, Section 1 of the United States Constitution laid out a short, easy to understand template saying that judges shall hold their offices during "good behavior". The problem is that judges and lawyers don't like things that are simple; they like long, confusing language they can 'argue' and 'interpret' any way they please - costing millions of people their lives, liberties and properties along the way. And they like to pretend they have an immunity from damage they cause by wilfull, careless, thoughtless and un-constitutional actions - immunity that was never granted them by the founding Fathers.

It's time the "absolute" doctrine of immunity be thrown out and recognized as garbage baggage sneaked in from England - that should have been left there or dropped in the sea along the way.

Thank you Bill and South Dakota people for getting this historic judicial accountability (Amendment E) on the ballot.

May God bless our nation and our world as we begin taking evil by the horns, calling it what it is, and destroying it.

Rose Johnson, co-sponsor IJAA
The Idaho Judicial Accountability Act www.IJAA.Net

Don Hamrick said...

Are there any plans to initiate a federal version of Amendment E?

Anonymous said...

Evidently you all want to just ignore the proposal's definition of judge. It includes "all other persons claiming to be shielded by judicial immunity." Judicial immunity applies to any decision maker who exercises judicial functions, including jurors, school boards, county commissions, city councils, and licensing boards.

The "it applies only to judges" claim exists only by willfully ignoring the plain language of the proposal. So who are the non-readers?

Mark Yannone said...

The intent of the author is clear and well-established, and such intent weighs very heavily in evaluating the scope of the amendment.

Though it truly pains me to take advantage of the delicious irony here, if someone wants to change this amendment later, he can "bring it up on appeal." (Ow, that hurt! LOL!)

Bill Stegmeier said...

anonymous #2 said "Evidently you all want to just ignore the proposal's definition of judge. It includes "all other persons claiming to be shielded by judicial immunity. Judicial immunity applies to any decision maker who exercises judicial functions, including jurors, school boards, county commissions, city councils, and licensing boards."

His insistence that the Amendment will address boards, commissions, and even jurors doesn't hold water for the following reasons:

1. Boards and commissions are already sue-able, and in fact get sued quite often. Amendment E does not make them "more sue-able."

2. To argue that Amendment E would allow for suing jurors is so laughable it pains me to address it. Jurors make one of three possible decisions; innocent, guilty, or undecided. How in the world could those three possible decisions violate any of the seven enumerated violations addressed in Section 2 of the amendment?

3. The Amendment addresses "judicial" immunity. The word "Judicial" is an adjective. My Black's Law Dictionary defines judicial as: "Belonging to the office of a judge; as judicial authority. Relating to or connected with the administration of justice; as a judicial officer. Having the character of judgment or formal legal procedure; as a judicial act. Proceeding from a court of justice; as a judicial writ, a judicial determination." Boards, commissions, and jurors make decisions, but by definition are not "judicial" decisions, and therefore could not possibly come under the jurisdiction of Amendment E.

4. It could be argued that boards, commissions, and jurors have "quasi-judicial" immunity. Nowhere in Amendment E is the term "quasi-judicial" even mentioned.

5. The reason "all other persons claiming to be shielded by judicial immunity" was included in the Amendment's language was just in case judges got smart and started calling themselves by some other title. You know, like "your highness!"

6. And if all of the above refutations of anonymous #2's argument were not enough, then let him walk us through the mechanics of suing say, the school board President. Let's see now, first you file suit in South Dakota Circuit Court. The judge dismisses the suit as frivolous, which he most certainly will because you had no business suing the school board President, you should have sued the Board in its entirety. So far Amendment E has not been used. Now you appeal to the South Dakota Supreme Court, which is our appeals court here in SD. The SDSC would of course affirm the lower courts decision. Still Amendment E has had no effect. At this point you are finally allowed to file a complaint of judicial misconduct with Amendment E's Special Grand Jury. Finally. But your complaint would necessarily have to be against the lower court judge who refused to hear your case against the school board President! But it gets better yet. Now you get the grueling opportunity to convince at least seven of the thirteen Special Grand Jurors that your gripe against the lower court judge has merit, and that you should be allowed to sue that judge. At this point you've long since forgotten your original mission was to sue the school board President. Are we having fun yet? Does everyone see that Amendment E has nothing to do with boards and commissions, and certainly not jurors or the members of boards and commissions? Think, anonymous #2, think.

Bill Stegmeier
Sponsor of South Dakota Amendment E