|
|
Looks like PP isn’t easily going to give up his title as the blogger “most critical” of South Dakota’s Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.). While I was reading and relaxing last night, PP was digging around.
And what did he find? A blog operated by South Dakota’s JAILer-in-Chief, Bill Stegmeier. (You may recall that Bonnie Russell, J.A.I.L.’s publicist, commented here over the weekend that J.A.I.L. people “don’t do blogs.” Looks like Bonnie was wrong again.)
PP’s work is required reading. It and Stegmeier’s blog bear out my earlier statement that “some of the wackos [who] are responsible for [J.A.I.L.] being on the South Dakota ballot are homegrown ones.” While PP’s post has all the details, I want to mention just a couple of the many insights we gain from Stegmeier’s blog.
- In a January 8, 2004, post, Stegmeier proudly said, “I am one of those ‘cult type tax protestors’ as Judge McBryde calls us.” Who is Judge McBryde? He is the federal judge in Texas who presided over the trial of Richard Simkanin, who Stegmeier describes as his “best friend.” Why was Simkanin on trial? For various tax violations, including refusing to withhold taxes from his employees’ paychecks. Among other things, “Simkanin claimed he was a ‘stranger to the laws of the United States’ and that the federal government was the ‘present insurgent government that was in rebellion to the Texas Republic.'”
- Stegmeier summed up his views quite nicely in a May 5, 2004, post: “Our government is corrupt at the highest levels and even appears to be controlled by outsiders.”
- In addition to his J.A.I.L. work, Stegmeier is or was the state coordinator for an outfit known as We The People. One of its main campaigns is against the “fraudulent and illegal income tax system.”
- Each of the six blogs listed in the “blogroll” on Stegmeier’s blog belong to tax protesters, including one who evidently plans to start a “Slave Freedom/Mark of The Beast Class Action Law Suit.”
- Stegmeier had an extensive post on Feb. 23, 2004, explaining why the state couldn’t require him to get a marriage license. As a reader of PP’s blog notes, this is entirely consistent with the views of the national J.A.I.L. organization from which Stegmeier recently claimed to back away.
Yes, with views like that Stegmeier certainly sounds like his description on the new J.A.I.L. website: “a regular American, wanting to do the right thing.”
By the way, Part 2 of my continuing series, “J.A.I.L. Lies,” will be posted tomorrow.
Fanaticism is the child of false zeal and of superstition, the father of intolerance and of persecution.
John William Fletcher
As promised in the last post, this is the first in an ongoing series of posts examining the arguments made by promoters of South Dakota’s Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.) and how they misrepresent, misconstrue and even lie in an effort to sell the public their bill of goods.
The first few posts will focus on something that appears to worry J.A.I.L.ers the most: the fact their proposal will apply to administrative agencies, school boards, city councils and the like. This is, in fact, one of the areas where their hyperbole and statements not only fly in the face of fact, they ignore the text of their own proposed amendment.
A recent missive from “Barbie” at the national J.A.I.L. organization (presumably Barbie Branson, wife of J.A.I.L. author Ron Branson) is a case in point. In discussing the South Dakota measure, she said:
As far as “all other persons claiming to be shielded by judicial immunity,” it would necessarily be limited only to those having authority to finally rule on constitutional procedural issues as set forth in ¶ 2 of the Amendment. That limitation would eliminate administrative agencies, such as “boards” and “councils” etc. since they do not have such final authority. In order to qualify for J.A.I.L. scrutiny, a litigant would have to first exhaust all judicial remedies which are presided over by judges having authority to finally rule on administrative proceedings involving constitutional questions. “Boards” and “councils” are not part of the judicial remedy required under J.A.I.L.
(Emphasis as in original).
There’s so much wrong with this one paragraph that it will require three separate posts to address the misstatements. Today’s will look at the contention J.A.I.L. applies only to the judiciary.
Part of the problem here is “Barbie” ignores the quote that appears in her very first sentence. It comes from the amendment itself, which defines a judge to include “all other persons claiming to be shielded by judicial immunity.” Many entities and officers at all levels of government engage in judicial functions. For example, the Department of Labor hears workers’ compensation, unemployment compensation and labor disputes. Similarly, a terminated teacher can request a hearing in front of a school board as part of their appeal rights while various municipalities have boards of appeal that review challenges to things ranging from decisions of zoning officials to building code matters. In each of these situations, the individuals are acting in a “quasi-judicial” capacity, making them “persons claiming to be shielded by judicial immunity.”
As part of the national organization, you would think “Barbie” would be aware of what Ron Branson, the author of J.A.I.L., said on this topic in his role as “National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief.” In December, after the measure was on the South Dakota ballot and before the South Dakota J.A.I.L.ers backed away from him, Branson wrote:
The criterion under J.A.I.L. is not what a person’s title is –it can be a janitor, a clown in a circus, –anything. The criterion under J.A.I.L. is if a person, regardless of title or position, who allegedly violates the law as specified in the Initiative, has been deemed by the judiciary to be shielded by judicial immunity. . . . .
* * *
Liability has to extend from the beginning participants, including administrative officials in an administrative case, through the final participants[.]
(Emphasis in first paragraph as in original; emphasis in second paragraph added).
While a later part of this series will look at Ron Branson’s own contradictory statements and seeming inability to comprehend the language in the initiative, suffice it to say that this statement is entirely consistent with the amendment’s definition of “judge.” For anyone associated with J.A.I.L. to contend the proposal would apply only to the judicial branch is proved false by the terms of the amendment itself.
The next installment will look at the fallacy of the assertion that J.A.I.L. applies only when “constitutional procedural issues” are involved.
There would be no sense in lying unless the truth were felt to be dangerous.
Alfred Adler, What Life Could Mean to You
A reader passed along to PP at South Dakota War College and me the homage paid us by Bonnie Russell, “publicist” for South Dakota’s Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.). PP has posted his reaction to the honor. I’m just jealous that he got the nod as the blogger “most critical” of J.A.I.L.
Bonnie seems to believe our criticisms don’t deal with the issues. Her timing is impeccable. I already have ready to go the first several of what will be a continuing series of posts looking at the amendment itself and the extent to which J.A.I.L.ers misrepresent, misconstrue and, yes, lie, in an effort to sell the public their asinine bill of goods.
Since weekends are slower “hit” days for the blog and Monday is usually a good one, tune in then for the first installment. A reader advisory, though. Please be aware that I am going to use what J.A.I.L.ers fear the most — the facts. If the truth likewise scares you, you may want to avoid posts in that series.
P.S. to PP: You better watch out. I’m gunning for your award.
Criticism is above all a gift, an intuition, a matter of tact and flair; it cannot be taught or demonstrated,–it is an art.
Henri-Frédéric Amiel, Library of the World’s Best Literature
Go read PP’s latest on the latest efforts of the South Dakota Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.) to get away from the national organization as Bill Stegmeier resigns from the national group and his position with them as the South Dakota’s “JAILer-in-Chief. ”
I want to add one thing to PP’s post. Most of us who oppose J.A.I.L. aren’t doing it because it came from “a bunch of wacko Californians,” to quote Stegmeier. We oppose J.A.I.L. because calling it to call it asinine is far too kind. As I’ve said, this is simply an attempt at make vigilantism a form of judicial review. Between now and the election, I will enumerate the myriad ways in which J.A.I.L. is not only unworkable but entirely ludicrous. And, by the way, some of the wackos are responsible for this being on the South Dakota ballot are homegrown ones. Sadly, California hasn’t got a monopoly on them.
PP lays it all out. I can’t improve on it. GO, READ.
UPDATE: PP also notes J.A.I.L.’s “stealth campaign.”
There is no place in a fanatic’s head where reason can enter.
Napoleon Bonaparte
The South Dakota Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.) and its “publicist” are awfully busy at their new website. Among other things, they’ve updated its FAQ and it actually made me feel good.
In explaining why the J.A.I.L.ers hired a publicist, they now note that “opponents to Amendment E sent reporters to California, which is also politics, just of the slushy variety.” Gee, I didn’t know the opponents had any reporters and I certainly didn’t know that reporting on ballot issues constituted “slushy” politics. Of course, that isn’t what gave me the warm and fuzzy feeling.
The FAQ also now states:
Then we noticed some Blieggers. (Bloggers who deliberately distort the truth, or fib.) But that’s also politics, too. Sometimes powerful people don’t appreciate any attempts of by [sic] the little guys to be held accountable, and are willing to do any number of things to prevent it.
Since the publicist previously complained of “many” inaccuracies (emphasis hers) in this post, I am touched to think that this infinitesimal iota of the internet might rank among the “powerful people.” Quick, somebody tell the rest of the blogosphere that!
I freely admit trying to hold the J.A.I.L.ers “accountable.” After all, isn’t that what their measure is about — accountability? Although I also admit I evidently missed the rules that say “little guys,” whomever that may be, are exempt from being held accountable.
It’s also interesting that although “blieggers” are cited one of the reasons J.A.I.L. needs a publicist, it appears the publicist coined that term. Guess that’s one way to create a need for your services. Which reminds me. I’m still waiting for Bonnie Russell to respond to my prior invitations to point out the inaccuracies she complained of.
A word after a word after a word is power.
Margaret Atwood
|
Disclaimer 
Additionally, some links on this blog go to Amazon.com. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. There is no additional cost to you. Contact me You can e-mail me at prairieprogressive at gmaildotcom.
|
