SD Judicial Qualifications Commission, delivery refused!

Judge Gilbertson Order to show cause here where he admits the courts know about id theft, a State and Federal Crime

He never opened letters and sent them back. Yet he knows what they contain. Opponents of Amendment E lied about there is a way to deal with bad judges. Using your daughter’s identity for 5 years, with Court approval violates laws to no end. Travis was part of no on amendment e and should have been disqualified. Corruption at its finest.

Procedure on submitting a complaint to the SD Judicial Qualifications Commission. Link Obviously they too are above the law. “2. avoid impropriety and appearance of impropriety in all of their activities;” Allowing identity theft and child abuse is not improper?

Delivery of complaint about a bad JUDGES REFUSED. A certified letter was sent to them asking why after a year they have not done anything about the obvious judicial misconduct. They refused to take delivery. The opponents of Amendment E all lied to the public and since it is published their misdeeds they just ignore the law since they are above the law. SD Constitution states they are, yet they just flip the Constitution the bird. See below article 9
Judge Anderson did not sign for his mail, someone else did 10 days later. Who signed is a mystery.

March 5th, 2010 and no answer still from the Judicial Qualifications Commission. A year later and no action on the matter. “Judge” Anderson on Senator Johnson’s letter. Note he is too lazy to sign the letter, does not list any laws even though Amy Lyngstad committed a federal felonies against the minor daughter. He is one crooked Judge who has no regard for the law.

A letter from the Chairman of the South Dakota Judicial Qualifications Commission which raises a lot of questions as a year has now passed.

First his letter then a letter to Senator Johnson on his concerns about the JQC and how they are going to cover it up. Everyone assumes the Courts are honest and not corrupt so this does not make sense to people that the courts are actually corrupt carrying out their own agenda ignoring the law as written.

The JQC letter from last winter are found here:

http://southdakotagov.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/senator-tim-johnson/

Dear Senator Johnson,

In reference to your last letter on the Judicial Qualifications Commission here in South Dakota, last week I  heard back from them, since their letters from last winter, which I forwarded a copy to your office.

Enclosed is the letter I received, which to me sounds like they were not going to do anything but for reasons unknown they changed their mind to at least discuss it or Judge Wilber the secretary did not tell the members?

To reiterate Judge Gilbertson will not allow me to file anything with the courts without his approval. I sent the matter of Amy Lyngstad using our daughter’s identity, a federal and state crime, and he sent it back in the original envelope. Judge (ret) Anderson has copies of the sheriff’s report and credit report as does the S.D. Attorney General’s office and Yankton States Attorney. The U.S. Attorney General, and Inspector General as well as the FTC have copies too. It is a federal crime to use your child’s identity and ruin their credit with criminal acts.  Except in this matter why?

The Judicial Qualifications Commission no doubt will find nothing wrong with Amy Lyngstad using our daughter’s identity while the Court looks the other way. The court is supposed to protect the children under law. You are an attorney and should know this. I do believe I sent you a copy of Judge Anderson’s Order there is nothing new about the matter. They would not allow me to get my motion file stamped on the matter of identity theft giving them plausible deniability. The Courts are not open and now they have egg on their face as what I said was true. The JQC will say it is up to the prosecutor and he has prosecutorial discretion. The Yankton States Attorney was at one time Amy Lyngstad’s Attorney. In addition I believe given the record the Court is suppressing a prosecution. Why else would you allow someone to steal their children’s identity and not be prosecuted, never mind the 1000s of bad checks and different fake and real social security numbers Amy Lyngstad has.

The JQC will blame someone else, as no one has heard of any Judge in South Dakota being disciplined. Even an internet search shows no Judge has been disciplined. Hardly believable but when the Courts are corrupt and answerable to no one that would be the end result. Judge Anderson is retired so there is little under law the JQC can do to him. The Justice Gilbertson has my motions returned so he can claim he never heard of it. 9 months later they are going to discuss the matter is absurd.

I realize this is confusing as people assume the Courts are honest and this does not happen. The Courts are to protect the children, not allow the custodial parent to ruin their credit before they even become adults and federal law is quite clear this is a federal crime which has gone unprosecuted.

The trial court has a duty to ensure the children are protected at every turn. Williams v. Williams, 425 N.W.2d 390, 393 (S.D. 1988); Jasper v. Jasper, 351 N.W.2d 114, 117 (S.D. 1984).

So why did the State Courts allow it and why is there no federal prosecution for identity theft?

Article V, section 9 of the South Dakota Constitution is titled Qualifications commission. It reads:

The Legislature shall provide by law for the establishment of a judicial qualifications commission which have such powers as the Legislature may provide, including the power to investigate complaints against any justice or judge and to conduct confidential hearings concerning the removal or involuntary retirement of a justice or judge. The Supreme Court shall prescribe by rule the means to implement and enforce the powers of the commission. On recommendation of the judicial qualifications commission the Supreme Court, after hearing, may censure, remove or retire a justice or judge for action which constitutes willful misconduct in office, willful and persistent failure to perform his duties, habitual intemperance, disability that seriously interferes with the performance of the duties or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings a judicial office into disrepute. No justice or judge shall sit in judgment in any hearing involving his own removal or retirement. [9]

History: Section proposed by SL 1972, ch 2, approved Nov. 7, 1972.

H.A.L.T.