J.A.I.L. News Journal
March 21, 2006
The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform Their Government.
The Right Upon Which All Other Rights Depend.
The Cozy Relationship Between Judges And Insurance Companies
It has long been known that
judges and insurance companies hold a cozy relationship one to another as the
below article by the huge insurance companies below admit, to wit, "In its
written statement NAMIC explained that 'Amendment E' would amend the South
Dakota constitution to allow for citizens to 'try' judges ... who sit on public
It is clear from the above statement that these insurances companies do not want to see judges tried by a jury for unlawful acts, or for violations of the Constitution, even if the judges did it willfully.
They further argue that "A civilian jury would be empowered to impose a sentence after the 'trial.' A sentence could result in judges being relieved of their duties and being forced to forfeit their pensions..." Is it not customary that defendants are sentenced after the finding of guilt following a trial? But while they impliedly concede that punishment is appropriate for all other criminals, other than judges, they contend that it should not be heard that a criminal judge convicted of a crime should be punished. Their position has to be that while everyone must be afforded equal protection under the laws, (Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution), to wit, "No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," judges are "more equal" than anyone else, and therefore judges should not be punished for crimes they commit.
Oh, yes, and is it not a definite conflict of interest for judges to sit on policy-making boards of insurance companies, as insurance claims of those companies are certain to come before them as judges? Even more basic is the question, why are judges setting policies in a state-regulated business, to wit, "Given that property/casualty insurance is state regulated and that state tort law is critical to the way our businesses are run...?" Are not state-regulated insurance businesses the subject of a legislature, and not judges? Are these judges to set policies and then sit in judgment over those same policies?
What's more interesting is that these insurance companies are openly admitting that they hate seeing the People having the right to an initiative process at all. They say, "... stopping the South Dakota effort is an essential step in discouraging similar initiatives in other states that permit citizens to amend their constitutions by direct election." They want to overthrow the rights of the People of South Dakota, namely the constitutional provision of Article VI, Sec. 26, in pertinent part, "All political power is inherent in the People, and all free government is founded on their authority, and is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right in lawful and constituted methods to alter or reform their forms of government in such manner as they may think proper." Of course, by these insurance companies seeking the overthrow of lawfully constituted government in South Dakota, they also seek the overthrow of all lawfully constituted government in this country, "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." --Declaration of Independence.
Instead of concentrating on the rights of the People, they boast that they are the rich and well connected, "... NAMIC is a full-service national trade association with more than 1,400 member companies that underwrite 43 percent ($196 billion) of the property/casualty insurance premium in the United States." They are located in Washington DC, and give as their Washington DC phone number, (202) 628-1558. This information is documented at http://www.namic.org/insbriefs/060316JAIL.pdf%20.
If the South Dakota legislature and media are consistent about their claim that Amendment E is being heavily influenced by California, they will surely strenuously object to being influenced by a $196- billion conglomerate headquartered in Washington D.C. Yes, we shall certainly watch for this strenuous objection by the South Dakota legislature and their media. (God forbid that the South Dakota voters should discover them to be proven hypocrites!)
The bottom line: The entire future of this country lies in great part on what happens in South Dakota on November 7th this year. Is the future of this country to be ruled by the rich and powerful? or by the People? If you oppose the option of the rich and powerful, your only choice is to support Amendment E in South Dakota. And do not forget that the judges and the insurance companies enjoy a cozy relationship in bed together.
~ ~ ~
The following is what the insurance industry boasts:
National Insurer Group Opposes S.D. Judicial Ballot
Insurance Journal March 20, 2006
The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies is saying it plans to work with a broad-based coalition in South Dakota to defeat a statewide judicial ballot initiative on the November ballot that would allow citizens to bring a lawsuit against judges and those with public decision making power.
In its written statement NAMIC explained that
"Amendment E" would amend the South Dakota constitution to allow for citizens to
"try" judges and others who sit on public policymaking boards in the aftermath
of unpopular decisions. A civilian jury would be empowered to impose a sentence
after the "trial." A sentence could result in judges being relieved of their
duties and being forced to forfeit their pensions-and civil and criminal
liability placed upon such persons as school board members, parole board
members, and similar public bodies.
NAMIC Senior Vice President Roger H. Schmelzer said NAMIC will be an active participant in the "No on Amendment E" grassroots coalition.
"If successful, this initiative would seriously undermine not only South Dakota's state judicial system, but also any citizen board with public decision making power," Schmelzer said. "Given that property/casualty insurance is state regulated and that state tort law is critical to the way our businesses are run, we are obliged to resist vigorously any attempt to introduce unpredictability to state legal systems."
Schmelzer added that stopping the South Dakota effort is an essential step in discouraging similar initiatives in other states that permit citizens to amend their constitutions by direct election.
"We encourage our more than 1,400 member companies to consider their own involvement and financial support in helping to defeat the South Dakota ballot initiative because of the impact such a result will have nationally," Schmelzer said.
Amendment E was certified by the South Dakota Secretary of State in the fall of 2005 after Ronald Branson, a California minister, succeeded in getting 46,800 South Dakotans to sign petitions for his Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.).
In February, 92 of 105 lawmakers co-sponsored and passed House Resolution 1004, which urges South Dakota residents to reject the J.A.I.L. amendment on election day.
The "No on Amendment E" coalition is a nonpartisan effort of the state's top political, business, labor, law enforcement, medical and agricultural leaders.
"These unprecedented actions, both by the members of the legislature and other South Dakota entities, are emblematic of the serious opposition to Amendment E becoming part of the state's constitution," Schmelzer said.
NAMIC has produced an Issue Brief on the J.A.I.L. ballot initiative that includes more specifics about Amendment E, its organizers and how the initiative came to be on the South Dakota ballot. The Issue Brief can be read on NAMIC's website, NAMIC Online at http://www.namic.org/insbriefs/060316JAIL.pdf .
Source: National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies
(Back to Reading Point)