They love using the word accountability but, as I indicated in a No on E blog post last night, I have a feeling the fact Judge Max Gors held South Dakota JAILer-in-chief accountable for his misstatements will probably become “Fraud 5” or some other such number.
On Friday, Judge Gors formally entered his order and the supporting documents in Stegmeier’s lawsuit against the No on E Committee that charged the committee with lying about JAIL in its advertising. Perhaps the lawsuit wasn’t such a good idea. What follows are excerpts from Judge Gors’ factual findings. (“Respondent” is No on E treasurer Bob Miller and “Applicant” is Stegmeier.)
18. Respondent’s Exhibit One, a letter dated June 10, 2005, sent by Stegmeier to the South Dakota Legislative Research Council, at page two, states that Stegmeier’s draft of the initiative concerning the definition of Judges (those who would be subject to the jurisdiction of Amendment E), contained the following: “Judge in the ordinary sense means just that: a judge. The specific meaning for purposes of this Amendment is not limited to “judge” only, but means all of the terms shown, including “all other persons claiming to be shielded by judicial immunity.”19. Respondent’s Exhibit One clearly demonstrates Stegmeier’s intent, prior to any signatures being gathered, that the scope of Amendment E went and was intended to go far beyond just “judges” as that term is used in the ordinary sense.
20. Respondent’s Exhibit Two, dated December 7, 2005, clearly demonstrates that the author, Mr. Branson of California, intended that the scope of Amendment E extend beyond just judges, specifically stating that “…it can be a janitor, a clown in the circus, — anything.”
21. Respondent’s Exhibit Three, dated December 15, 2005, clearly demonstrates that the applicant and treasurer of the Amendment E proponents, Mr. Stegmeier, intended the scope of Amendment E extend beyond just judges, specifically stating that “…any governmental employee (of any stripe, shape or flavor)… while hiding behind the bogus doctrine called judicial immunity” would be subject to Amendment E; further, that the latter modifies and broadens the scope to include all persons protected by judicial immunity, including jurors, county commissioners, school board members, judges and others.
22. Respondent’s Exhibit Four, dated October 23, 2006, clearly demonstrates Mr. Stegmeier’s knowledge that the scope of Amendment E extends beyond just judges and includes, in his words, “boards and commission members.”
23. Although Mr. Stegmeier’s affidavit claims that Amendment E only applies to Judges for “deliberate violations of the law,” Respondent’s Exhibit 5, a fund raising political brochure of the proponents of Amendment E and bearing Mr. Stegmeier’s signature, promises that Amendment E could be used against Judges for complying with the Rules of Evidence and forbidding jury nullification.
24. Respondent’s Exhibit 5, the fund raising political brochure bearing Mr. Stegmeier’s signature, asserts that Amendment E “…does not affect these boards and commissions in the least.”
25. It is undisputed in the record that Exhibit 5 was and perhaps still is being distributed by Mr. Stegmeier after this Court’s ruling of August 21, 2006, which was affirmed by the South Dakota Supreme Court on August 31, 2006, wherein this Court ruled that the scope of Amendment E includes not only judges, but also jurors, grand jurors, parole board officials, court services officers, prosecutors, and other citizen boards, thus putting those individuals at risk of being stripped of their judicial immunity and subjected to personal lawsuits.
26. Respondent’s Exhibit 6, an internet article dated December 9, 2003, apparently written and published by Ron Branson of California, who authored and is the Jailer in Chief of the national judicial accountability movement, argued that jurors who agree to follow the Court’s instruction on the law thereby “conspire” against the rights of defendants; further, that the word “conspire” logically and legally infers criminal conduct.
27. Stegmeier, having lost his lawsuit before this Court on the language of the Attorney General’s ballot explanation and lost his appeal to the Supreme Court, is bound by the decision of the Court under the doctrine of res judicata [which bars relitigating of cases and issues already decided].
28. The Court takes judicial notice that paragraph 16 of Amendment E specifically grants the special grand jury the power to issue criminal indictments.
29. The Court takes judicial notice of the Attorney General’s ballot statement, approved by this Court, wherein the statement explains the purpose of providing judicial immunity to judges, jurors and other citizen board members, to wit: “This allows them to do their job without fear of threat or reprisal from either side.”
30. Mr. Stegmeier and proponents of Amendment E ignored this Court’s ruling and the Supreme Court affirmance and persisted representing in their political campaign that the scope of Amendment E is limited to just judges.
31. The Respondent and No on E Committee have made no request for a cease and desist order and the Court will not issue one sua sponte [meaning on the Court’s own motion].
32. Applicant’s Exhibit One which states that Amendment E “could make jury duty a crime” is at least arguable, more likely probable and possibly true because the special grand jury under Amendment E would have the power to strip jurors of their current immunity and the special grand jury would have the power to indict jurors for crimes.
33. Applicant’s Exhibit Two which states that Amendment E could set violent criminals free is at least arguable, more likely probable and possibly true because the special grand jury would have the power to strip parole board members of their current immunity and because felons refused parole could intimidate parole board members through fear of reprisal.
34. Applicant[‘]s Exhibit Three which states that lawyers, prosecutors and jurors will no longer have immunity is at least arguable, more likely probable and possibly true because it is a logical extension of the scope of Amendment E.
These findings, particularly those in bold, seem to come as close to a civil judicial determination that Stegmeier is and has been lying as one could get. But, as I said last night, JAILers and the BS committee don’t consider holding their statements up to the light of facts to be accountability. In their perverse view of the world, facts are fraud.
[Lying] is the production either of malice, cowardice, or vanity; and generally misses of its aim in every one of these views; for lies are always detected, sooner or later.
Philip Dormer Stanhope, Lord Chesterfield’s Letters