***
My translation: The establishment
has recognized the threat to the status
quo and is now mobilizing its resources
against the threat. Note that
another way of phrasing that first
sentence would be thusly:
"We gotta stop this thing HERE
AND NOW, folks!!!"
They are getting worried.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: <
VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org>
To: "
www.jail4judges.org"
<
VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org>
* * * The Cozy Relationship Between
Judges And Insurance Companies
* * *
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:40:19 -0800
J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California
March 21, 2006
______________________________________________________
The Inherent Right of ALL People to
Alter or Reform Their Government.
The Right Upon Which All Other Rights
Depend.
__________________________________________________
Mission Statement
JNJ Library
Federal J.A.I.L.
FAQs
What? MeWarden?
______________________________________________________
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 policymaking boards..."
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 judge's
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
is 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 protections under the law, (Fourteenth
Amendment, U.S. Constitution), to
wit, "No state shall ... deny
to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protections of the law,
judges are "more equal"
than everyone else, and therefore
judges should not be punished from
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
these 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...?"
Is not state regulated insurances
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 are 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
voters of South Dakota, namely the
constitutional provision of Article
VI, Sec. 26 in appropriate part, "All
political power is inherent in the
People, and all free governments 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
for 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, D.C.,
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 be influenced
by $196 billion from 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
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 7 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.
~ ~ ~
National Insurer Group Opposes S.D.
Judicial Ballot Initiative Insurance
Journal
March 20, 2006
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/midwest/2006/03/20/66623.htmNational
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Get involved at
JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To be added or removed, write to
VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
Your help is needed:
www.SouthDakotaJudicialAccountability.com
"..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 <><