When lawyers, lobbyists and special interests groups join forces against the little guy; you know passing Amendment E is a good idea. We want to make sure South Dakota judges are more accountable than those in neighboring states such as Nebraska. (By the way, Judge Cecava served (?) as past president of the Nebraska Judges Association and on the 'Task Force' to Protect Children. Something Print reporters have yet to discover.)

Also, wouldn't it be nice to hold them accountable, ~ Before ~ they retire? Having said that, This former judge's trial should prove interesting

The names of local South Dakota special interest groups against the American right of equality are listed below.

For others, this bipartisan website was created to educate the public and the media about the largely unaddressed problem of judges operating above the law.

Amendment E will hold judges to the very laws they have sworn to uphold. Having said this, it's also important to state we believe most of South Dakota's judges to be law abiding, not preying on the vulnerable as some do in other States. That said, surely South Dakota is not an judicial oasis in a sea of questionable to criminal activity.

Also, Amendment E doesn't mean judges making legal, albeit unpopular decisions are at risk. In that regard, unhappy litigants are destined to remain forever unhappy. A judge cannot be sued for doing his or her job, however unpopular the ruling.

Amendment E addresses judges acting illegally. Until recently, only a sprinkling of cases of this nature ever came to light. But in one such instance, Alan Bersin, then from the U.S. Attorneys office was clear; "Court corruption was identified and no one -- including judges -- stood above the law,"

To read about judges and prosecutors who also support ending judicial immunity, click Here.

Passage of Amendment E, which will ensure equality for all concerned, is the common sense solution for the current state of affairs. After all, sometimes "Justice for All" includes judges.

This bothers some people.

Specifically, this bothers attorneys and those individuals employed by special interests groups.

These lawyers and lobbyists continue misrepresenting that "judicial indpedence" is being threatened. They do not explain how common sense accountability is threatening because they can't. Their real agenda is far different.

The goal of Lobbyists and special interests groups is to influence. What's at stake with the passage of Amendment E however, is the end of their perceived influence over the judiciary. This was made clear by representatives themselves.

On February 10, 2006, the South Dakota Legislature violated State Opinion 88-28 regarding Expenditure of Public Funds on Election Issues. This opinion clearly states the legislature cannot use taxpayer funds for political purposes.

Newspapers twice abandoned their traditional watchdog role. First by not reporting the legislature acting in violation of the Opinion, and second, by not being objective. Newspapers spun Resolution HCR 1004 against Amendment E as a threat to Judicial independence. Not reported?

Sixteen lobbyists and members of special interest groups who appeared at this illegal hearing to offer their support against equality. Not a single newspaper covered this. Of the Sixteen representing the groups listed below, by far the scariest were those individuals representing police, government, banks and health care fields. These special interests groups to a one, are against the little guy. They include:

1. Larry Mann Lobbyist and Co director of No on E & SD CPA Society
2. Brenda Foreman , SD Association of Cooperatives and SD Ag-unity
3. Bob Miller SD Electric Utilities
4. Dave Hueda? (sp) SD Association of Health Care Associations
5. Yvonne Taylor SD Municipal League
6. Brent Wilber SD Bankers Association
7. Donna Lightski SD Petroleum and Propane Marketers Assoc.
8. Mike Shaw SD Association Specialty Care Providers (Pierre Attorney)
9. Wayne Leaders SD Association of School Boards
10. Roger Kelling SD Auto Dealers Association and Truckers Association
11. Dick Tyson SD Sheriff Association. and Chiefs of Police
12. Laurren Pankratz SD Pork Producers and County Commissioners Assoc.
13. Kathy Zander SD Agri-business Assoc.
14. Dennis Duncan SD Insurance Alliance Association of Mutual Insurers
15. Paul Elwood SD AFLCIO
16. Steve Willard SD Broadcasters and Funeral Directors

Almost immediately, law firms representing banks, government, and health care firms began encouraging lobbyists and attorneys to blog their anti-equality spin. While refusing to state why equality for all isn't a good idea, their shrill cries against equality reveal their true agenda; attempting to influence.

Of these, perhaps Tim Gebhart's blog is the most boring. Granted, although boring isn't illegal just yet; when we called Gebhart to complain about a profound lack of accuracy, he claimed he wasn't a "journalist" and that his blogs were his opinion. Readers can expect to find opinions reflecting the wishes of his big business clients.

Our hope is newspaers will begin to strive for accuracy when reporting on this measure.

To date readers have not been apprised of more recent polls from reputable sources. Such as the Associated Press-Ipsos poll which asked Americans about the state of national politics. For 88 percent of respondents, unethical political behavior and corruption had hit the serious level.

It's not just South Dakota special interest groups representing big business who are attempting to influence the judiciary against the little guy. It's a national problem...and why Amendment E, the only sensible recourse to combat special interest groups and lobbyists, is receiving national attention.

After all, the problem is everywhere.

The New York Commission on Judicial Conduct recently addressed problematic judges by censuring one and throwing another, off the bench.

Newsflash - New York Judge Facing Seven Felony Charges. The Court of Appeals in Albany, N.Y., reinstated six felony counts against former New York Supreme Court Justice Gerald P. Garson with a precedential ruling that judges can face criminal prosecution for acts that started with a violation of the Rules of Judicial Conduct.

The Court of Appeal held that while a violation of the rules alone cannot sustain a criminal prosecution, judges are Not immune from indictment when an ethics violation escalates into criminality. The key legal holding -- that the prosecution may rely on the Rules of Judicial Conduct to establish an element of a crime. Or, as the Appellate Court wrote, "The law binds all men equally, the judges no less than the judged." If convicted, Garson can also be sued in civil court for at the very least, emotional distress, as his actions were not in the course and scope of his duty as a judge. (Simply put, judges are no different than any other body such as the police, who also have trouble policing themselves. Recently New York removed another judge, The "Honorable" Thomas Spargo from the bench, for life. But not before years of litigation which wasted taxpayer dollars because shortly after, he accepted a general counsel position with the City of Troy.)

Other, recent examples of judges sparking an investigations include; Ohio, South Carolina and a host of other states which demonstrate it's time for a change. Amendment E also addresses the undelying problem of special interest groups. Their hue and cry against it belies the real fear passage ends their influence. These groups represent another sound reason South Dakotans should vote "yes" for Amendment E.

Consider political operatives Larry Mann, Pat Powers, or attorney Tim Gebhart, (Gebhart blogs so often one wonders how many clients Aren't being served). To a one their relentless personal attacks against individuals, including Amendment E sponsor Bill Stegmeier, shows a desire to win-at-all costs.

After a while, their campaigns of DIS-information, their relentless personal attacks so Un-American on Stegmeier, and his choice of employees, began to remind us of another man. A powerful man, also given to thundering personal attacks against Americans. A famous man. In fact, a former Judge. Think about that the next time you read of a personal attack by one of these political operatives. Or just rent the movie, Good Night and Good Luck, and treat yourself to an education on motives behind dirty politics.

Fortunately, we believe their tactics will backfire. We believe South Dakotans are up for a change. Holding judges accountable is the first step in protecting judicial independence from special interest groups. Ultimately, this single act will restore faith in government.

While the truth about Amendment E is here...not on blog sites of lawyers and political operatives doing nothing more than engaging in dirty politics. After all, if a lawyer is against it, it's probably a good idea.

The good news? We believe South Dakotans recognize both the dirty politics of special interest groups, and the value of Amendment E. We believe South Dakota voters agree it's time for judicial accountability, and vote "YES" for Amendment E.

The Short version:

Judges shall not have immunity for:

• · · Deliberate violations of the law, or of the state or federal constitutions.
• · · Fraud or conspiracy.
• · · Intentional violations of due process.
• · · Deliberate disregard of material facts.
• · · Judicial acts without jurisdiction.
• · · Acts that impede the lawful conclusion of a case, including unreasonable delay and willful rendering of an unlawful judgment or order.
• · South Dakota voters can end the practice of judicial immunity. South Dakota voters can end the practice of judges beholden to outside interests, who relinquished their independence by any of the above acts. South Dakotans voters can lead the nation in restoring public confidence for a government of the people, by the people for the people. To assist us in this effort, please call us at 858-324-1717, and make your contributions HERE.