The J.A.I.L. version of “who’s on first?”

A reader raises an interesting question. Who or what is the official organization behind J.A.I.L. in South Dakota?

As previously noted, the South Dakota J.A.I.L. web site now carries a disclaimer stating that it is “the only official website for South Dakota Amendment E.” But, if you go to another web site, you will find that it is the “Official site for South Dakotan’s [sic] for Amendment E.” The web site is also now a source of Google ads and links to private, money-making sites.

And the Amendment E site at isn’t of great help. The two entries for “Who I’d like to meet” are “The official site of South Dakotans for Amendment E” (which links to the Amendment E site) and “Visit the ‘Official Site’ for the South Dakota Judicial Accountability Committee at” (which is one of URLs for the South Dakota J.A.I.L.ers web site). So, do the quotes around official site in the latter mean that site is “more official” than the other?

In a comment to a related post at South Dakota War College, erstwhile Bonnie Russell says there’s “no competition” between the sites. It is interesting, though, that Russell, who lives in California, is running a web site purportedly expressing the views of a group of South Dakotans. Yet all this may be of more than just abstract interest.

According to the Secretary of State’s web site, only the South Dakota Judicial Accountability group has filed a campaign finance report. State law requires any “ballot question committee” to file campaign finance reports. That term is defined as “any two or more people who cooperate for the purpose of raising, collecting, or disbursing money for the adoption or defeat of any question submitted to the voters at any election.” As the Amendment E site advocates adoption of the measure and provides a link to raise funds, perhaps it’s time for Bonnie and friends to explain why South Dakotans (or Dakotan’s) for Amendment E have not filed a report.

Yet I suppose what seems to us confusion
Is not confusion, but the form of forms,
The serpent’s tail stuck down the serpent’s throat.

Robert Frost, A Masque of Reason

4 comments to The J.A.I.L. version of “who’s on first?”

  • Anonymous

    Because the only thing “South Dakotans for amendment E ” can do is VOTE!! thier conscience in November, they don’t raise money Dumas

  • Anonymous

    A State Judge issued an order to censor a website that is for amendment E. He wants court documents, public records, removed from the website as they are damsging to him.

    He placed a person on probation for passing no account checks then allowed the person to pass 100s of bad checks. The person even went to Iowa, passed a bad check using a fake social security number. But the judge does not feel that is a probation violation. Even the federal conviction for identity theft is not a probation violation in King Arthurs First Circuit Star Chameber.

    bottom of page his partial order

  • Tim

    I posted the comment fron Anonymous 2:27 pm because I do not censor comments. I want to point out, however, that the order of which he or she complains doesn’t deal with Amendment E or the judge.

    Instead, it instructs the person against whom it is entered to not place any information on websites about a woman who obtained a protection order against him and to remove any such informnation already appearing on any websites. I do not know if such provisions are within the scope of protection orders as I have never researched it and do not know the facts giving rise to the request for the protection order. I suspect, though, that the site for which the link is provided violates the order and may even be part of the reason for that provision.

    Regardless, on its face the order has nothing to do with Amendment E or the judge, only information about a particular woman.

  • Anonymous

    That is the problem. No one wants the truth. The site at various places states it supports amendment E. Secondly a if you bothered to read the site a State Judge can not censor a website.

    Even a former States Attorney wants Rusch to fall over dead.

    Printed in the Yankton Press and Dakotan at

    “Chavis apparently believed he was leaving the message with someone else, and after saying some derogatory things about First Circuit Court Administrator Kim Allison, the transcript quotes him as saying: “(Judge Anderson) was a good guy, I’ll tell you what. He was a lawyer, and he has a little compassion, and he could recall what it was like to work his (expletive) off. The good ones die. Why can’t Eng or Rusch fall over dead, you know? I’ll tell you what, I have no idea. (inaudible) Why doesn’t Rusch fall over dead?”