All eyes across the nation are now poised on the South Dakota 2006 election, just two days away, and particularly the J.A.I.L. Amendment (Amendment E). The American People are relying on the citizens of South Dakota to carry out their responsibility to amend their government pursuant to §26 of the South Dakota Constitution in order "to provide new guards for their future security," as instructed in the Declaration of Independence.

South Dakota was the first state to have the initiative process; and now, through this process, it is the first state where We the People have been able to do something about the out-of-control government that citizens have been complaining about for decades all over the country. We now see that, even with the initiative process, the entire South Dakota government has managed to interfere with that process through fraud and deceit. The question is, will the citizens of South Dakota withstand this election fraud by their own State government? These events will provide a beacon of light to guide other states so they can be prepared to deal with the problem of voter intimidation through government fraud and deceit. No matter what the immediate outcome, J.A.I.L. is still the "Achilles heel" to a tyrannical government. The message of J.A.I.L. has gotten out, and it will not go away!

Besides the criminal election fraud committed by the South Dakota State Legislature on the people of South Dakota — as we first exposed on February 21st in the J.A.I.L. News Journal, "South Dakota Legislature Forfeits Their Public Trust," and on March 5th, "Rogue Miscreant Legislators" — below is part of an exposé of South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long, taken from the Home Page of the South Dakota website, which details the fraudulent misrepresentations regarding Amendment E that appear in the "Attorney General Explanation" on the South Dakota 2006 ballot.

Larry Long's Misrepresentation of Amendment E

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

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

Before we set forth what Attorney General Long presents as correctly portraying the Amendment E ballot measure, we wish to share with you the 1999 ballot description of California State Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who is held to the same standard as Larry Long. See if you find the two statements unreasonably inconsistent in seeking to explain the same ballot amendment. (Note: The population of California is 50 times larger than that of South Dakota and accordingly has larger grand juries.)

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer 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."

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

South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long states:

"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.

"A vote “Yes” will change the Constitution.

"A vote “No” will leave the Constitution as it is."

Remember, as we have said, it is a violation of election law 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, through operation of law, establishes its intended application. Attorney General Long has had ample opportunity from the publications of the measure's author to understand 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 Attorney General Long is proffering an argument on the South Dakota ballot, then whether his argument is right or not, he has clearly violated the law and should be prosecuted for it.

Exposure of Attorney General Larry Long's Lies

Long's list of assertions regarding Amendment E's involvement of "juries, school boards, city councils, county commissions, and prosecutors…" falls flat when considering that Amendment E has nothing to do with those categories of individuals. Amendment E deals only with "judges," by whatever name the legislature should choose to 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 misleading assertion in defining who "judges" are in Amendment E?  It is because the truth does not fit his plan to deceive South Dakotans and scare them 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 mind would perpetrate such a perverted scheme? 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. Further, "...[T]he 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 frighten South Dakotans, even if he has to commit a crime to do so.

I have repeatedly been asked whether Amendment E would "go after jurors who voted in favor of a conviction." Such a preposterous theory, as is being propagated by Attorney General Long and his cohorts, suggests "Jury Cannibalism." Even the media is calling me on this. To them I explain that, 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 which, in turn, may be brought before yet a third jury, and so forth. The No on E website [www.no-on-e.com] features on its Home Page a juror holding up a booking sign as the 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?