Home.htm

This Post-Election Home Page has been created to leave the pre-election Home Page below undisturbed as a testament to the truth of information presented prior to the November 7th election. This post-election page manifests that what we predicted then has now, indeed, come to pass.

"The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion." Proverbs 28:1

It is being reported that J.A.I.L. Amendment E lost big in yesterday's election -- 90% against to 10% in favor. This figure does not even amount to the number of voters who signed the petition in the first place to qualify Amendment E for the ballot. Supposedly, the issue of Judicial Accountability failed to even amount to a blip on the radar screen, and fared worse than every other issue on the ballot. 90% versus 10% on any ballot issue is very rare! Just seven weeks ago, on September 19th, Amendment E was better than 3-to-1 in its favor according to a poll by Zogby International. See the entire revealing article at Sept. 19, 2006 Poll Reveals Amendment E Gaining Its Lead Even More.

So, with an epidemic of everyone across this nation crying for redress, having very egregious personal horror stories to tell of their injuries due to arrogant and oppressive judges, what is wrong with this picture? Do not people want relief from a repressive judicial system? Do people love their judges and want to hug them?

The fact is, the voters of South Dakota were never presented with, nor voted upon, J.A.I.L. Contrariwise, J.A.I.L. as written, was fairly described for the California ballot in 2000 by State Attorney General Bill Lockyer who stated:

"JUDGES. RESTRICTIONS ON JUDICIAL IMMUNITY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Supersedes existing judicial immunity and creates three 25-member 'Special Grand Juries' empowered to: determine if a judge may invoke judicial immunity in a civil suit; indict and, through a special trial jury, convict and sentence a judge for criminal conduct; and permanently remove a judge who receives three adverse immunity decisions or three criminal convictions. Disallows immunity for deliberate violations of law, fraud, conspiracy, intentional due process violations, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts outside the court's jurisdiction, unreasonable delay of a case, or any deliberate constitutional violation."

While J.A.I.L. (Amendment E in South Dakota) according to A.G. Lockyer is clearly about "judges," Tom Barnett, the director of the South Dakota Bar Association, while campaigning against Amendment E, says he found that the message of "judicial independence," in arguing why judges should be immune, was not selling well with the voters; so he changed the theme of the campaign to a new theme, which is, "It is not about judges. It is about us."

"It is not about judges"? "It is about us"? Does not Barnett refute the findings of A.G. Lockyer that it is about "Judges"? So what is he saying when he says, "It is about us"? Who is "us"? Is "us" the lawyers of the Bar Association he heads? Is "us" the oil conglomerates, banking cartels, multi-billion-dollar insurance corporations who financed the opposition? Has not he, and the opposition, employed the use of lies and deception upon the voters to defraud them out of what they would have otherwise voted for?

I now turn to the corruption of the entire South Dakota Legislature who, at the beginning of the campaign, unanimously "passed" a resolution against Amendment E urging the voters to reject it, using taxpayer-funded facilities and dollars to do so. Such act is criminal and strictly forbidden by South Dakota Codified Law 12-13-16.

Publication of false or erroneous information on constitutional amendment or submitted question as misdemeanor.

Any person knowingly printing, publishing, or delivering to any voter of this state a document containing any purported constitutional amendment, question, law, or measure to be submitted to the voters at any election, in which such constitutional amendment, question, law, or measure is misstated, erroneously printed, or by which false or misleading information is given to the voters, is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.

Now these legislators cannot let the law get in their way in pursuing the defeat of Amendment E, can they? God forbid that these lawmakers should be subject to their own criminal code, for then they would have to be arrested and tried on those criminal charges! So I ask, Why do we have this criminal statute on the books? I suggest this ineffective "law" be removed from the law books. Why retain vain laws?

And then there is this little matter called "The Constitution of the State of South Dakota" which they have all sworn with an oath to uphold and defend. "§1. Right to vote. Elections shall be free and equal, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage." Art. VII, §1. The "right to vote" obviously applies to an honest and unfettered election, not to a criminally-influenced voting scam. Twice we placed every legislator in South Dakota on notice by U.S. mail of their criminal conduct, but they ignored us and proceeded on with the election process as if everything was regular and normal.

Now we come to South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long's role in wrapping up this conspiratorial election fraud. He could not wait to throw the election in his "explanation" as to what the voters were voting upon. He set up the wording to allow the opposition to develop their argument that Amendment E was about letting felons out of prison so that they could go after the jurors who placed them behind bars. Here enters the fear-and-intimidation factor of the voters who have asked me if they could be arrested and jailed for voting for a conviction. I kid you not, folks, that the voters were being told they could be arrested as a juror for the decisions they might make. Now keep in mind that this is supposed to represent the objective of J.A.I.L., and what the voters were voting upon!

Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." If you accept the "official" results, 10% of the People of South Dakota were not fooled in this instance.

If Amendment E was about what the voters were being propagandized that it was, not even I would have voted for it -- and I am the author who wrote the words! My point is that Amendment E (J.A.I.L.) did not fail at the polls. It just was never presented on the ballot for a vote. It was suggested that I stop the election on Amendment E before it took place, but I stated that the "election process" could not be stopped unless federal authorities stopped it for a fraud investigation.

It became obvious that the entire state government was clearly conflicted, and they could never admit that they were bent on acting out their fraudulent election, come hell or high water. I realized this when I heard of their literally flooding the airwaves with their false and misleading propaganda of what Amendment E was about, just prior to the election. My hope and expectation was that the voters of South Dakota could nevertheless see through the fraud and deception and vote for the truth. However, that was not to be!

True are the words of the Scripture, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:" Hosea 4:6. Unfortunately, the people have not yet learned the consistent truth that you can never, never, ever trust government. As stated by George Washington, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force, like a fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

First off, all of these government officials have forfeited their public trust, and must be forced to resign and surrender their office to more worthy men. The South Dakota government has demonstrated that they are unwilling to repent of their evil devices, and must be removed from office by an outside authority, or a greater authority within.

I have recommended that those voters in South Dakota who find that they were deceived by the fraudulent election, draw up, with help if needed, a criminal affidavit supporting probable cause that they were the victim of this fraudulent election, and file it with the F.B.I. and with the U.S. Attorney. The more the better. I know that some have already proceeded with this project. We should first give the federal authorities a reasonable opportunity to investigate and move in on the government of South Dakota.

Also, I am recommending that these citizens further file an affidavit of criminal conduct, citing the laws of the State of South Dakota, with their County Grand Juries.

As to the higher authority within, I refer to the People themselves. Once it is established that no one will do anything to enforce the law, then the remedy necessarily, under the Declaration of Independence, must rest with the People. The highest authority of arresting power lies with the People in making citizen's arrests, as all other powers of arrest are derived as a privilege granted from the People's power of arrest. All official power to arrest is subordinate to that of the People. (Declaration of Independence).

Should such arrests take place, it follows that the arrestees must constitutionally be delivered to a magistrate. However, since there is no state magistrate that does not have a conflict of interest, the appropriate magistrate should be a federal magistrate, before whom an affidavit supporting probable cause should be laid. (Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.)

At issue here is the right to vote in an election having integrity. If the government of South Dakota is allowed to tamper with the voting process using the public's money, it will set a precedent encouraging other jurisdictions to see if they, too, can do the same and get away with it. We must keep in mind that government will always become as corrupt in its election process as will be tolerated. Voting is not only a right within state jurisdictions, but also in federal jurisdiction. The violation of this right is a federal crime prosecutable by the U.S. Attorney, (Title 18, USC 242.)

Further, all people of other states have an interest in fair elections. If the officials of the government of South Dakota can conduct elections in violation of criminal laws with impunity, such conduct will eventually contaminate their own states. I therefore recommend that everyone in this country raise their voices appropriately in objection to tolerating this evil being perpetrated by the government of South Dakota. They absolutely must be punished for their gross evil deeds against the People. We are a Union of States, and no State can be an Island unto itself when it comes to citizens of this country. ("... And the state of South Dakota is an inseparable part of the American Union..." Art VI, §26). We all, therefore, have an interest in protecting our common right to vote in sound elections within this Union. Once we submit ourselves to the existence of election fraud with impunity, we thereby forfeit our future to tyrants who will decide everything for us without our permission.

If we are willing to fight, and sacrifice our lives, for the right to vote in foreign nations, should we not be willing to contend for that same right here in our own country?

I have been told that "we will just have to fight harder next time for the passage of J.A.I.L." But what this view overlooks is that we are not here engaged in a fair fight. A fight that entails our having our hands tied behind our backs, and allows our opponents to wear brass knuckles, is not a ring which we climb into to try to "fight harder." We need a referee that is neutral, not one that is the state government holding a bet on the outcome.

Also, I have been told, "we need to re-write the J.A.I.L. Initiative so that this will never happen again." This presupposes that the J.A.I.L. Initiative, as currently written, is faulty and needs to satisfy the opponents. This view ignores the fact that never, in any fashion, can J.A.I.L. be re-written in a thousand years to meet the acceptance and approval of the opposition. Such objective can never be accomplished with thousands of new amendments. Truth can never reach a mutual agreement with a lie. At issue here is not whether or not one agrees with J.A.I.L., but rather, whether we are entitled to elections adhering to the basics of integrity. Are you ready to give up your right to vote? If not, you have no choice left but to fight for your right to vote by whatever means are necessary.

"In transgressing and lying against the LORD, and departing away from our God, speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood. And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter. Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the LORD saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment." Isaiah 59:13-15.

J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org

Contribute to J.A.I.L. at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603

See our active flash, http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm
JAIL is a unique addition to our form of gov't. heretofore unrealized.

JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!

E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
To be added or removed, write to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org

"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau

Below this double line is the original South Dakota website preserved exactly as it was 11/6/06 the day prior to the Nov. 7th election

On November 7th South Dakotans will have before them the opportunity of a lifetime. On that blessed date South Dakotans will be going to the polls to vote on a number of issues, among which will be "Amendment E."

David Kranz, Argus Leader, December 27, 2005, in Sioux Falls articulated that Judicial Accountability, known as "Amendment E," will be the hottest issue on the ballot, saying; "In fact, the most spirited of the campaigns will not likely be for a candidate, but for a ballot issue – the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law that will be first offered to voters in South Dakota."

The Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.) is so hot that not only will it be of interest to South Dakotans, but also this entire nation. Ron Branson, its author, wrote December 28, 2005, "Every two years among the fifty states around the nation, politicians line up for competitive races for various seats up for grab. Ordinarily the competitive seats of interest are for governor, congressional seats, or U.S. Senate. However in South Dakota the political scene appears to be drawing away from "who" is on the ballot, to "what" is on the ballot, namely, judicial accountability.

"The interest of South Dakotans in judicial accountability is showing signs of overshadowing the candidates and their platform issues so as to give their candidacy little to no attention. This tends to give the candidates a reason to take sides on the judicial question of interest before the voters next November in hopes that their position will assure their re-election, or defeat the incumbent and sweep them into office.

"In other words, the outcome of the election for governor in South Dakota may very well be determined not on the parties, or the candidate running for governor, but rather on where the candidate stands. This, of course, opens a door of opportunity for alternative party candidates should their position be opposite that of their opponents, which would be revealed in their debates with one another."

Its objective is best explained by an honest reading of the Initiative itself. Its preamble states, "We, the People of South Dakota, find that the doctrine of judicial immunity has the potential of being greatly abused; that when judges do abuse their power, the People are obliged - it is their duty - to correct that injury, for the benefit of themselves and their posterity." These words are penned after the manner of our revered Declaration of Independence unanimously signed by Congress July 4, 1776, and in which we, as patriotic Americans, faithfully observe every year.

We reverently stand to recite these beautiful words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it…"

Indeed even the South Dakota Constitution likewise affirms these words, "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." Art. VI, §26.

It is undeniable that whatever power governments claim to assert, it is but loaned to them by "consent of the governed," that is us, to wit, "We the People." It thus follows that without our consent, governments have no power whatsoever to do anything! By illustration, if we owned a large estate, and we gave permission to a stranger to walk over our property, we do not thereby relinquish or waive our right to walk over our own property. This is true even if we gave leave to a security company to build a security building upon our land for the protection of our rights. We may authorize them to wear a badge and carry a gun, but such privilege may be exercised by our permission only, which is revocable at any time at our will. Having so said, then it follows that there is no such thing as "government property." Of course, this assertion is not popular with government bureaucrats, but this does not change the truth of the matter that ALL power is inherent in the People! There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government. Amendment E is simply the first step in restoring honesty, truth, and integrity to this entire nation, the same objective sought by our Founding Fathers.

In November South Dakotans will have the unique opportunity of beginning the domino effect for the freedom of this country. People are getting tired of government lies, corruption and party politics, and are seeking honesty and integrity in all branches of government. Since it is an undisputed truism that the judicial branch is the final check and balance upon government, charged with keeping all the rest of government on an even keel by the standard of the Constitution, it is obvious that only by a dishonest judiciary can corrupt governments exist at all. If the government is corrupt, we have to look no further than to the judiciary. The U.S. Supreme Court at the turn of the century stated, "No higher duty rests upon this Court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violations of the principles of the Constitution." Downs v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901). So we ask, what happens when the very branch of government charged with the duty of curbing all corruption itself becomes corrupt? This question is pondered in Psalms 11:3, "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?"

In paragraph 3 of Amendment E are the seven specific acts which South Dakota's judges are forbidden to do. Every one of them are non-optional and cannot, by anyone's standard, be tolerated. Under Amendment E judges shall not be able to:

None of these prohibitions is hard to understand. Amendment E is limited strictly to these specific seven violations, and no more. Review this list and ask yourself which of these violations you think any judge should be free to violate with impunity! They all make sense. The fact is, that honest judges would never, in good conscience, find themselves opposed to Amendment E. Only corrupt judges, wishing to be able to freely commit these offenses, would oppose Amendment E! You can therefore discover a corrupt judge by his position on Amendment E!

Understanding the above, one can fully understand why the opposition to Amendment E is being financed by the petroleum oil industries, namely Exxon and Mobil Oil Companies, banking cartels, union leaders, multi-billion-dollar insurance companies, and every kind of extremely powerful corporate conglomerate. These conglomerates are all motivated by the self-preservation of their political gravy train, and for that cause, they are all uniting together against Amendment E. They do not want to see their mega financial applecart upset by the People of South Dakota. All one has to ask oneself, to figure out what is going on, is whether these petroleum oil industries, the banks, and the insurance cartel headquartered in Washington, D.C. claiming 196 billion dollars in assets, are looking out after your interests, or their own. The answer is obvious! We ask, why are these Washington D.C. and Texas entities so interested in the ballot in South Dakota? Do they have some personal interest in the judges of South Dakota?

Amendment E's opponents also include the entire South Dakota Legislature, the State Bar Association, most all law firms and lawyers, and nearly all South Dakota counties and cities across the state who are willing to do absolutely anything to derail the objective of judicial accountability. That includes lying against the truth, thwarting justice, sidetracking an honest election, committing crimes and egregious acts even to the extent of corrupting the entire election process of South Dakota. Their only hope is that you, the common voter, will not understand what they are doing against you at your expense. The deception of this November 7th South Dakota election is historical and unprecedented in this nation as we intend to prove. "What a tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive." - Sir Walter Scott.

As a result of Amendment E, the official establishment of South Dakota is blatantly setting a vile precedent against the voting process across this nation, to wit, using your tax dollars to finance the defeat of a ballot measure duly placed upon the ballot by the People, which is a criminal act in violation of South Dakota Codified Law 12-13-16, but also a violation of the South Dakota Constitution. In the U.S. Supreme Court case of Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, (1928), we are told, "Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."

The acts of all these elected officials in spending your tax dollars to oppose your vote is not only treacherous, but is also considered by many to be treasonous. At least 95% of everything you hear from the opposition against Amendment E is based upon pure lies or misrepresentations of the truth. The evil exerted against Amendment E goes entirely beyond all comprehension, and includes a conspiracy by the State Attorney General, who is the chief law enforcement officer of the State of South Dakota, and theoretically the one everyone should be able to trust. He claims to be honestly "explaining" Ballot Measure E for you on your November 7th ballot so you can understand it, but what he is actually doing is perpetuating a lie and a fraud upon you, and we believe he should be prosecuted criminally. (We state our case below).

George Orwell spoke well when he said, "Political language...is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."

George Washington, the father of our country, said, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force, like a fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." Confucius likewise stated, "An oppressive government is more to be feared than a tiger."

The current status of the South Dakota voters via a poll conducted by the South Dakota Bar Association reveals that there is a three-to-one odds in favor of the passage of Amendment E at the time of the poll. This results concerns our opposition very much, so they are pulling out the stops to throw unlimited money at this campaign to defeat the truth and promote their lies.

"[T]he LORD…cometh to judge the earth: He shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with His TRUTH." Psalms 96:13. Truth is immutable! Should all nations of the earth gather together against truth, yet shall truth break forth in Victory! Not even the gates of hell can prevail against it!

It is the public duty of State Attorney General Larry Long under law to write a fair and accurate ballot statement that correctly portrays for the voters what it is that the voters are voting upon. His statement cannot be biased for or against any Amendment, nor can he state whether he supports or opposes the Amendment.

He must be entirely neutral. To do otherwise is understandably fraudulent and criminal, because it subverts the voting process, deceives the voters, and nullifies and invalidates the election as pertaining that issue. "...fraud vitiates everything it touches." White v. Union Producing, 140 F2d 176. "...fraud will vitiate even the most solemn transactions..." U.S. v. Aimsted, 15 U.S. 518, (1841).

Before we set forth what Larry Long is presenting as correctly portraying the Amendment E ballot measure, we wish to share with you the ballot wording of California State Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who is held to the same ballot standard as Larry Long, and see if you find the two statements unreasonably inconsistent in seeking to explain the same ballot Amendment. (Note: Since California is 50 times larger in population than is South Dakota, A.G. Lockyer reflects the accommodations for its population.)

Now compare South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long's ballot explanation, and ask yourself if it meets the lawful requirement that it be neutral and non-argumentative.

"Citizens serving on juries, school boards, city councils, county commissions, or in similar capacities, and prosecutors and judges, are all required to make judicial decisions. Their decisions may be reversed on appeal, or they may be removed from office for misconduct or by election. However, they cannot be made to pay money damages for making such decisions. This allows them to do their job without fear of threat or reprisal from either side.

"The proposed amendment to the State Constitution would allow thirteen volunteers to expose these decision makers to fines and jail, and strip them of public insurance coverage and up to one-half of their retirement benefits, for making decisions which break rules defined by the volunteers. Volunteers are drawn from those who submit their names and registered voters.

"The proposed amendment is retroactive. The volunteers may penalize any decision-maker still alive for decisions made many years ago.

"If approved, the proposed amendment will likely be challenged in court and may be declared to be in violation of the US Constitution. If so, the State may be required to pay attorneys fees and costs.

Remember, as we have said, it is a violation of elections laws to argue for or against any ballot measure. Does Larry Long's explanation comply with the requirement of neutrality? He argues that Amendment E applies to "juries, school boards, city councils, county commissions," etc. His argument is refuted by its author, Ron Branson, whose intent, by operation of law, establishes its intended application. Larry Long has had ample opportunity, by publication of its author, of its intended meaning, and to know the truth of its application, but he chooses to fabricate a deceptive alternative, unintended and refuted by its author. If Larry Long is proffering an argument on the South Dakota ballot, then whether his argument is right or not, in either case, he has violated clear law and should be prosecuted for it.

Larry Long's list of assertions regarding Amendment E involving "juries, school boards, city councils, county commissions, and prosecutors…" all fall flat when considering that Amendment E has nothing to do with his list. "Judges," yes! Amendment E deals only with "judges" by whatever name the legislature should choose to create or call them in the future. This provision avoids the need for future initiatives to keep up with changes made by the South Dakota legislature.

Why does Attorney General Long continue to insist upon his lying assertion in defining who "judges" are in Amendment E? It is because he is repulsed with the truth. It does not fit his designed plan to deceive all South Dakotans in his attempt to scare the voters out of voting for Amendment E. He wants everyone in South Dakota to believe that voting for Amendment E will result in the arrest and prosecution of any or all jurors for their vote in their deliberations in the jury room. What sick and perverted mind would perpetrate such a disgusting plot? Jurors are autonomous and the U.S. Constitution clearly provides, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury..." Amend. VI, and "...the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." Amend. VII. Obviously, any such suit initiated against a jury or a juror would immediately be thrown out, and Larry Long, being an attorney, knows this; but he just wants to scare South Dakotans, even if he has to commit a crime to do so.

I have been contacted requesting information if Amendment E would "go after jurors who voted in favor of a conviction." Such a preposterous theory as is being propagated by Attorney General Larry Long and his cohorts suggests "Jury Cannibalism." Even the media is calling me on this. To them I explain, even if it were possible that a juror or a jury could be held accountable for their vote, then it would have to involve another jury who, in turn, may be brought before yet a third jury, and so forth. The No-On-E website features on its home page a juror holding up a booking sign as a result of an arrest in order to scare the voters. Intimidating voters is both a state and federal crime. So why is Attorney General Long a part of this criminal voter-intimidation plot?

Regarding the definition of "judge" in ¶1b of Amendment E, on February 17, 2006, I, Ron Branson, the author of the words, wrote a news journal fully explaining my intent of the use of the words defining "judge" in a published article entitled, "Understanding The Term "Judge." Nonetheless, Long continues to propagate his lie that Amendment E is about "juries, school boards, city councils, county commissions," etc., etc…

When I penned the words in question, I never considered or even imagined such a twisted or convoluted interpretation as is being propagated by Larry Long on what "…all others claiming to be shielded by judicial immunity" means. Who would know better than its author as to what he intended by these words in Amendment E?

Now let us entertain the foolishness of Attorney General Long's argument for a moment, which is that judges do include juries, school board members, city council members, and county commissioners, and see where it takes us:

1) Are the voters to tolerate school board members who deliberately violate the law and commit fraud under the protection of judicial immunity?

2) Shall the voters retain city council members who intentionally violate due process of law, deliberately disregard material facts and commit acts beyond their jurisdiction without having to answer to anyone?

3) And shall county commissioners be able to deliberately violate the South Dakota and U.S. Constitutions with impunity?

Shall the People of South Dakota deem all these offenders totally above the law and clothed with immunity? His argument is absurd and totally ridiculous!

Ah, yes, but this is exactly the anarchy Attorney General Long is promoting, defending and propagating on the ballot for all government officials. And get this-- while the government is immune, all citizens shall be strictly held to the letter of the law and shall be duly punished for their violations. Does this sound like equal protection of the laws mandated by our Constitution? And how does Larry Long's advocacy stand up in light of Butz v. Economou, 98 S. Ct. 2894 (1978); and United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882), "No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it."

Now just think how ridiculous it would be if we were to exchange the word "judge" in Amendment E with the word "City Councilman." Paragraph 16, for instance, would thus read, "…. The Special Grand Jury shall also select a non-governmental special prosecutor and a city councilman with no more than four years on the bench from a county other than that of the defendant city councilman, to maintain a fair and orderly proceeding." Go ahead and plug in the word "Jury" in there and see how sensible it sounds.

Such argument by Larry Long is incomprehensibly insane and totally impossible to maintain. When is the last time you heard of a city councilman presiding on the bench in a case over a defendant city councilman? It has never happened in the history of our country, nor will it ever happen. But this is his argument on the South Dakota ballot designed to deceive and defraud all of the voters of South Dakota!

Attorney General Long advances his deception and fraud upon the voters with his words, "The proposed amendment to the State Constitution would allow thirteen volunteers to expose these decision makers to fines and jail, and strip them of public insurance coverage and up to one-half of their retirement benefits, for making decisions which break rules defined by the volunteers. Volunteers are drawn from those who submit their names and registered voters."

How is it that official Grand Jurors who are paid to function in our justice system in determining Probable Cause are now to be referred to, per A.G. Long, as "volunteers?" This is a fabrication concocted by Larry Long's own evil mind. Indeed, our U.S. Constitution in Amendment V defines those citizens who function to determine Probable Cause since February 26, 1869 as "Grand Jurors," to wit, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…" Is A.G. Long now proposing that We the People of the United States should rewrite our U.S. Constitution to call these Grand Jurors "volunteers?" Has he no respect for our Grand Juries in this country?

Further, Attorney General Long, are you now proposing that the South Dakota Constitution, Art. V, Sec. 10, also be rewritten to call the South Dakota Grand Jurors "volunteers?" "No person shall be held for a criminal offense unless on the presentment or indictment of a grand jury…" Please explain yourself for the sake of the South Dakotans voting on Amendment E. Is this not a calculated and perpetrated fraud?

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within." - Cicero, 42 B.C.

He states, "The proposed amendment to the State Constitution would allow thirteen volunteers to expose these decision makers to fines and jail, and strip them of public insurance coverage and up to one-half of their retirement benefits, for making decisions which break rules defined by the volunteers."

Here, Attorney General Long wishes to infer that Amendment E is propagating a bunch of vigilantes that hunt down every decision-maker in South Dakota for making decisions they disagree with. First off, the Special Grand Jury in Amendment E is very limited in its scope per the Amendment itself. Paragraph 3 states, "Their responsibility shall be limited to determining, on an objective standard, whether any civil lawsuit against a judge would be frivolous or harassing, or fall within the exclusions of immunity as set forth in paragraph 2, and whether there is probable cause of criminal conduct by the judge complained against."

These Special Grand Jurors have no authority to try or retry any case, but are limited to objective standards as specifically defined by paragraph 2. Whether they like or dislike a judge's decisions does not enter the picture. If a judge makes a bad decision, the SGJ has no power to change it, or to hold the judge accountable for any decision. The action must be a willful violation of the specific acts set forth in paragraph 2. This hardly amounts to "expos[ing] these decision makers to fines and jail, and strip them of public insurance coverage and up to one-half of their retirement benefits, for making decisions which break rules defined by the volunteers."

"Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth" - Franklin D. Roosevelt (October 26, 1939)

One might logically expect the espousal of hate speech to flow freely out of the mouth of hate-mongers and racist people, but from their government officials? Moved by hatred for the truth, we find the following words of libel from an official newspaper, to wit, The Aberdeen News, dated February 15, 2006:

"Supporters of the ballot measure argue it is needed to hold judges accountable for intentionally violating people's rights. But Sen. Lee Schoenbeck, R-Watertown, said the proposed constitutional amendment is backed by the same kind of people who killed a U.S. marshal in North Dakota years ago because they hate the American system of government. …

Schoenbeck said Branson and other supporters of the ballot measure apparently want to destroy the American system of government set up by Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and the nation's other founders. 'The reality is Mr. Branson and his people from Hollywood do not like America.' Schoenbeck said."

Who in the world is he talking about? These people he is talking about which are behind Amendment E are the voters of South Dakota, and certainly the 46,000 signers who duly qualified it for the ballot. Thus, we are told, if you support judicial accountability as set forth on the ballot in Amendment E, you flat-out hate America. With the polls showing 3 to 1 in favor of Amendment E, that translates into over two-thirds of South Dakotans hate America.

There is a principle in psychology that when one makes unfounded charges, it is but a reflection on the true character of the one making the charges. Therefore, applying this psychological principle -- who really is demonstrating a hated toward America? There is a Golden Rule for disinformants that says, "Always accuse your adversary of whatever is true about yourself."

"Branson and other supporters of the ballot measure apparently want to destroy the American system of government set up by Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and the nation's other founders." Frankly, Senator Schoenbeck, my life has been an open book for all to see. People who have known me for many years have known me for my adamant stand for the efforts of our Founding Fathers. I hate to think of where you stand if you consider yourself on the opposite side of my mentors, which are the Founding Fathers.

"Schoenbeck said in remarks directed toward Branson, 'We don't need your trash here,' "State Sen. Lee Schoenbeck, R-Watertown, called the proponents a 'posse comitatus nut group' during a speech in the Senate State Affairs Committee." Argus Leader, 2/21/06.

Dare I say, your mouth and your speech is totally unbecoming of a state senator. I would like to think that you are an embarrassment to all of your fellow colleagues, but frankly, I choose to wait to hear from them on this. How about it, colleagues? Does Senator Schoenbeck speak for all of you?

Senator Garry Moore says in the February 13, 2006 Yankton Daily Press, "…I am deeply troubled by the plot being brought forward by this totally unresponsive, out-of-state group. This group does not like government of any type. What they want is anarchy…" Proof, Senator Moore? Give us some proof rather than just inflammatory libel charges.

Senator Moore continues to express his hatred in his words, "tell them to go to hell…" Associated Press, February 15, 2006, "I want Amendment E killed," February 23, 2006, Press & Dakotan. Has Senator Moore lost his mind?

It was President Dwight D. Eisenhower who said, "The supreme quality for leadership is unquestionably integrity. Without it, no real success is possible, no matter whether it is on section gang, a football field, in an army, or in an office." Where is your integrity, senators?

"If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you." -- John 15:18

"…an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh." Luke 6:45

It is extremely rare that party politics within government mutually agree on anything. It is even seldom that politicians within the same political party mutually agree on anything. Let's go back 2000 years ago when the Pharisees and Sadducees fought each other on everything, and agreed on nothing. Nonetheless, they reached an agreement that this innocent man should be nailed to a cross because the words of his tongue agitated them. So great was their hatred of this man that they chose rather to set free a convicted criminal, a seditious murderer and an insurrectionist, rather that to allow this righteous man to receive justice. To this end, they set up a sham trial with false witnesses against him to condemn him to death. His crucifixion on the cross was all that mattered to them. "And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves." Luke 23:12.

Ironically, after this same manner, today within the South Dakota legislature we have both political parties agreeing mutually together to "kill" Amendment E. Is this because Amendment E is so evil? Judge ye! And now let us add to that, numerous cities and counties across South Dakota that have joined in the conspiracy against Amendment E. The opposition against Amendment E is arrogantly boasting they believe they will soon have every county and every city in the state passing resolutions against Amendment E before the November 7th election. But not one of these entities addresses the law forbidding their misuse of the public funds in opposing a state initiative. Winning is all that counts - to hell with justice - they just can't allow the law get in their way.

To establish how wicked this act is, let us cite to a similar incident that took place in Wisconsin and apply it to South Dakota.

Legislators Arrested For Using The Capitol To Influence Campaign Elections - State of Wisconsin Representative Scott Jensen was arrested for using his taxpayer-funded office at the Wisconsin State Capitol for campaigning at public expense.

Other Legislators in Wisconsin have also been implicated in the scam that is said to be "the biggest political scandal in Wisconsin history, …. Four lawmakers and three legislative aides have been convicted or fined so far…." The article states that Jensen's defense was as follows:

Jensen attorney Stephen Meyer argued in his brief that testimony by Prosser, Strohl and former leaders and caucus staffers on the Democratic side of the Assembly would show campaign activity was pervasive throughout the Capitol. The fact that everyone was doing it, Meyer said, shows Jensen and Schultz didn't act with "corrupt intent."

Now having been informed of "the biggest political scandal in Wisconsin history," let us turn to an immensely greater political scandal now going on involving all the South Dakota State Legislators. "And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none." Ezekiel 22:30.

Which legislator among those in the South Dakota Legislature has clean hands in this matter? Which legislator is it that will stand up and blow the whistle on the corruption going on among all the South Dakota legislators? Is there not at least one legislator willing to break rank and step forward to contend for an honest election? Is it true that there is not a single legislator among you that cares about election integrity? that will speak out on this election fraud?

We've all heard that "Two wrongs do not make a right." Well, how about one-hundred and five legislators committing a wrong? The argument that "everyone is doing it," shows how deeply ingrained your evil and corruption goes. Verily, "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil;" Exodus 23:2.

Now we have already pointed out that big oil companies are financing the fight against the passage of Amendment E. What would you think if the oil companies rigged the gas pumps to distort your purchase so that you did not receive an honest gallon for your money? You would be outraged and complain vigorously. But what if there were no forum whatsoever in government to which you could complain, and even the State Attorney General was in on this scam? What is actually happening in this legislative scandal is immensely more serious than not getting a true gallon of gas. Let us explain.

All elections depend not only upon the actual honesty and integrity of the election, but also upon the perception of honesty and integrity. Any hint of voter fraud is hurtful to the election process, as everyone must believe in the process. If voting is not honest, then, of course, why bother having a voting process at all?

Such charge is now being raised against the government's interference with the current South Dakota election on November 7th. While this challenge to voter fraud is being leveled by the people behind Amendment E, this issue rises far above whether one is either for or against Amendment E, but rather whether the election process itself must be honest. This question leads all of us to ask whether we should be holding elections at all if honesty may be nonchalantly sacrificed on the altar of objective success. (Win at all cost even if election crimes must be committed to do so.)

I was interviewed on Tuesday, October 3, 2006, by NPR out of Washington D.C. doing a story on Amendment E. The interviewer, Nina Totenberg, asked me her final question, "Mr. Branson, all of the government in South Dakota is opposing your Amendment E. Why is this so?" I responded, "The latest poll shows that the opposition against Amendment E has the support of 19.8% of the voters in South Dakota. It is commonly accepted that governments across the nation consist of approximately 1/5th, or 20%, of any given population, which accounts for the 20% of those in South Dakota opposed to Amendment E. All the rest of the population, less the 13.2% undecided, are in favor of the passage of Amendment E. Statistically speaking then, this shows that Amendment E is about the Government versus the People, and the People versus the Government of South Dakota." The above being the final question, Ms. Totenberg thanked me and concluded the interview.

This question posed to me by the media raises the question regarding governments campaigning for or against any citizens' measure with taxpayers' dollars in the first place. If the citizens of South Dakota tolerate allowing their state Capitol to be used as a campaign headquarters against their initiatives, it spells the end of the voting process. If the legislature can get away with this on one ballot issue they do not like, then they can, and certainly will, continue this fraud of influence-peddling on other ballot issues. This is but a small step away from the legislature buying votes with the People's own tax dollars, and I predict that that is exactly what will be taking place next, inasmuch as the election process will become as corrupt and evil as the People will tolerate.

What we are saying here is: something extremely serious is at stake in South Dakota. It involves everyone's future in casting votes in honest elections. Once the right of the People to vote in honest elections is displaced, then People may as well surrender their state to communistic fascist-thinking government dictators who do not have to face the voters!

With only four state legislators in Wisconsin giving over their Capitol offices to campaigning, Wisconsin is said to be now reeling with one of the greatest campaign scandals in its history. But now the South Dakota legislature is going the max, a major scandal involving all state legislators! Normally, this criminal conduct would be prosecuted by the State Attorney General, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of South Dakota, but even he is involved in this massive government election scandal. Attorney Gary Zerman had written a letter to Governor Rounds which he forwarded to Mr. Stegmeier, the Proponent of Amendment E, pertaining to this scandal. Be sure to read it.

This criminal scandal far transcends the November election, but will cloud the entire election process in South Dakota for years to come. The entire nation will take notice of what these South Dakota legislators, Attorney General, and judiciary have done. Other state legislators will either choose to condemn the practice, or adopt similar behind-the-scene practices. Should it be the latter, the entire electoral process nationwide will be jeopardized as election fraud becomes a way of life.

Since the implications and risks are so high, it behooves the F.B.I. to move in swiftly and arrest and try government officials statewide before this evil blossoms in other states. "Know ye not that a little little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?" I Cor.5:6. Toleration of a little election fraud is guaranteed to result in an absolute government corruption -- no ifs, ands, or buts!

It is time for all South Dakotans to rise to the cause and preserve their right to vote.

First, we recommend you pray. "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." James 5:16 "Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not." Jeremiah 33:3

Secondly, after you have humbly prayed and committed your heart to the Lord in faith, you are advised to compose a criminal affidavit setting forth the particulars as described above, and submit it to your local F.B.I. Office, urging them to open a criminal investigation of State Attorney General Larry Long for seeking to influence an election. In a nutshell, the Attorney General has inverted, through manipulation, the objective of J.A.I.L. from jurors going after judges to criminals going after jurors. Likewise, name specific State Legislators in their individual capacity for the crime of utilizing their public offices and public funds for campaigning against a state ballot initiative, in violation of South Dakota Codified Law 12-13-16.

To place this misconduct, committed by these legislators, in perspective, it is serious enough that even the President of the United States may be impeached on commission thereof, to wit, "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." U.S. Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 4. (Note the inclusion of misdemeanor crimes.)

Likewise, the South Dakota Constitution, Art. XVI, §3, in pertinent part, states, "Officers subject to Impeachment -- Grounds -- Removal from office -- Criminal prosecution. The Governor and other state [legislative]...officers ... shall be liable to impeachment for ... crimes, corrupt conduct, or malfeasance or misdemeanor in office..."

Therefore, submit an adapted version of your criminal affidavit, which you submitted to the F.B.I., to your local county Grand Jury, demanding a criminal investigation and indictment of the specific legislators you named, preferably your own!

Lastly, again seek God's face and ask Him to plead your cause and show you His Wondrous Works on our behalf. "Thus saith the LORD: Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the LORD." Jeremiah 31:16.