Today,
I attended a panel discussion at The 2010 Browning Symposium at the University of Montana sponsored by the Montana Law Review (see http://montanalawreview.com/id62.html ).
In questioning the assumptions of the panelists at the 11:40 panel entitled "Constitutional Torts: Does Such a Cause of Action Exist" concerning "poor people" read "indigent" in Montana gaining Civil relief and/or enforcing their Self-Executing Constitutional Rights in the Courts, pro se, I was informed that the "public defender" system in Montana is overwhelmed and underfunded and deals almost exclusively with the criminal side of Montana Law read "defense."
In my cause (5/4/2010) against the State of Montana (see
http://fnweb1.isd.doa.state.mt.us/idmws/custom/sll/SLL_FN_Home.htm
Enter either ( DA 09-0675 ) in the box and click search; or
Click on: Party search name and enter Gold;
Next click on Gold v. State and then click on Appelant Brief first then the 2 other briefs and new windows will pop up with pdfs which you can save and read.)
for refusing to appoint a public defender in my ongoing cause DV03-46.
In their opinion on Self-Executing Constitutional Torts, the Court wrote:
"Gold’s remaining arguments involve the merits of his constitutional claims. He
asserts that the “political reality” of 2010 is that indigent individuals in Montana cannot obtain legal counsel for civil complaints involving guaranteed fundamental rights. He contends that the Montana Public Defender Act unlawfully discriminates in allowing counsel for certain civil cases but denying it for all others—in particular, by denying it in cases involving fundamental rights. Citing the specially concurring opinion in Kloss v. Edward D. Jones & Co., 2002 MT 129, ¶ 58, 310 Mont. 123, 54 P.3d 1, Gold points out that constitutional rights that cannot be enforced are illusory. He argues that the rights to equal protection of the laws and equal access to justice should work together to prevent discrimination against the poor in Montana’s justice system. But he contends that this presently is not the case and that indigent persons against whom the State has allegedly discriminated are denied the assistance of counsel in prosecuting these offenses. In
support of his arguments, Gold quotes at some length from the 1972 Constitutional
Convention transcripts and the specially concurring opinion in Dorwart v. Caraway,
2002 MT 240, ¶¶ 79-98, 312 Mont. 1, 58 P.3d 128, and he cites various other cases from this Court and the United States Supreme Court.
¶9 The State, in turn, argues that if this Court reaches the substance of Gold’s
constitutional claims, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment on each one.
The State provides separate analyses respecting procedural due process (Article II,
Section 17), access to the courts (Article II, Section 16), the right to defend property rights (Article II, Section 3), equal protection (Article II, Section 4), substantive due process (Article II, Section 17), and the oath of office (Article III, Section 3).
¶10 Having considered the briefs and the record, we conclude that Gold has failed to
refute the State’s arguments that the Legislature and the Governor are statutorily immune from suit on Gold’s claims. We further conclude that while Gold, as a self-represented litigant, has made a genuine effort to research and develop his constitutional arguments on appeal, his claims nevertheless have not been sufficiently presented and argued so as to permit this Court to decide them on the merits. We acknowledge the irony of the situation—the Catch-22 in which Gold finds himself—namely, that the fact his claims have not been adequately presented is itself reflective of the very claims he is attempting to present: that as an indigent citizen, he requires the assistance of counsel to vindicate his constitutional civil rights. Nevertheless, this Court simply cannot decide a question of such significant import on the basis of the current briefing. Moreover, even setting aside this aspect of the case, the record presently before this Court is wholly inadequate for purposes of deciding such a claim. Cf. Brady v. PPL Montana, LLC, 2008 MT 177, ¶ 5, 343 Mont. 405, 185 P.3d 330 (refusing to address constitutional issues “in a relative vacuum”).
And unfortunately, no one in Montana's legal community is addressing this very situation.
As always,
Think about this and I'd like to encourage your comments about this important topic.
Feel free to follow this important Case.
happy earth day,
peace,
Rick Gold
Missoula, MT
Friday, October 8, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
United We Stand ....
"United We Stand"
http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/gyrobase/united-we-stand/Content?oid=1255288&storyPage=2
May Day Hoax
While marching through the streets,
we Missoula Hoaxers,
dragging our ill gotten gain "Lady Ann Magee II,"
the actual cost of which was $68 million dollars
in the blood, sweat and tears of our community,
I couldn't help feeling justified in protesting the way
cor poor rate america is killing
Missoula's and missoulian's e con of me.
How the drain of dollars and talent and sweat equity
means less than nada to the robber barons...
who are only beholden to their bottom line.
And so, every one of us is together
here, marching and pulling, pulling, pulling...
the same boat we are all in while
main stream media accuses us of
being the hoaxers!
Go figure....
Thanks capan Smurfit!
For showing us the way....
Rick Gold
Missoula, MT
May 14, 2010
http;//mtlegal.blogspot.com
http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/gyrobase/united-we-stand/Content?oid=1255288&storyPage=2
May Day Hoax
While marching through the streets,
we Missoula Hoaxers,
dragging our ill gotten gain "Lady Ann Magee II,"
the actual cost of which was $68 million dollars
in the blood, sweat and tears of our community,
I couldn't help feeling justified in protesting the way
cor poor rate america is killing
Missoula's and missoulian's e con of me.
How the drain of dollars and talent and sweat equity
means less than nada to the robber barons...
who are only beholden to their bottom line.
And so, every one of us is together
here, marching and pulling, pulling, pulling...
the same boat we are all in while
main stream media accuses us of
being the hoaxers!
Go figure....
Thanks capan Smurfit!
For showing us the way....
Rick Gold
Missoula, MT
May 14, 2010
http;//mtlegal.blogspot.com
Friday, April 23, 2010
A Missoula Art ll - Sec 4 political picnic (revisited)...
HEALTH: Controversial cuisine: FOOD NOT BOMBS
In Alex Sakariassen's short article in the Missoula Independent News, today, Thursday, April 22, 2010, he writes:"A weekly vegetarian potluck outside the Missoula County Courthouse has sparked a civil liberties flap between local health officials and a decentralized group of peace activists called Food Not Bombs. The Missoula City-County Health Department confirms two inspectors approached Food Not Bombs during its weekly gathering Sunday evening and asked members to stop serving food. According to Environmental Health Supervisor Shannon Therriault, any organization that serves food to the public must have a service permit and pass a city-county review."
see http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/health/Content?oid=1247859
for the rest of the story.
Yet, if one looks at Webster's definition of an organization ... "an administrative and functional structure (as a business or a political party); also : the personnel of such a structure," one need read no further.
Basically, an organization is systematically arranged and managed to meet a need or to pursue collective goals on a continuing basis. All organizations have a management structure that determines relationships between functions and positions, and subdivides and delegates roles, responsibilities, and authority to carry out defined tasks.
And there's the rub. Food Not Bombs is NOT an organization. It is an unmanageable, co-operative of individuals who gather to share food, sort of like you, your family and friends out for a picnic or gathering for a potluck.
That the City/State can and does object to people openly sharing free food and connections, isn't a suprise to anyone. In Daniel Quinn's Book Ishmael, (see http://www.ishmael.com/welcome.cfm) the pupil is US and Ishmael is an intellegent Ape (Imagine that!). We learn that 10,000 years ago, there was a shift in consciousness in the near east and the hunting/gathering culture of small tribes of individuals living off the land (defined as a leaver culture) was suddenly shifted to a sedentary farming/animal husbandry culture (defined as a taker culture). As this taker culture grew, it organized itself into a community to protect itself from outside attacks by forming a government to lock away its resources (namely FOOD). It expanded rapidly outward, conquering the smaller diverse leavers and as the old cliche goes, "the rest is history."
Consequently, FOOD NOT BOMBS chapters have been around since, "...Boston in 1980, It was started by activists involved in the anti-nuclear movement, Food Not Bombs has blossomed into a worldwide, grassroots, political movement of over 175 autonomous chapters. Each Food Not Bombs group serves free food to people in need and in support of political organizing efforts.
Food Not Bombs believes that society and government should value human life over material wealth, human need not corporate greed, and that most of its problems stem from this simple crisis in values." see http://sffnb.org/history/
It's well past time for our Big Brother government to support the efforts of activists who are making a diffence in people's lives in their local communities.
If you want to keep up with my case concerning Montanan's Fundamental Rights and/or read these important briefs:
On the internet go to:
http://fnweb1.isd.doa.state.mt.us/idmws/custom/sll/SLL_FN_Home.htm
Click on: Supreme Court Case Number
Enter either ( DA 09-0675 ) in the box and click search; or
Click on: Party search name and enter Gold;
Next click on Gold v. State and then click on Appelant Brief first then the 2 other briefs and new windows will pop up with pdfs which you can save and read.
As always,
Think about this and I'd like to encourage your comments about this important topic.
Feel free to follow this important Case.
happy earth day,
peace,
Rick Gold
Missoula, MT
In Alex Sakariassen's short article in the Missoula Independent News, today, Thursday, April 22, 2010, he writes:"A weekly vegetarian potluck outside the Missoula County Courthouse has sparked a civil liberties flap between local health officials and a decentralized group of peace activists called Food Not Bombs. The Missoula City-County Health Department confirms two inspectors approached Food Not Bombs during its weekly gathering Sunday evening and asked members to stop serving food. According to Environmental Health Supervisor Shannon Therriault, any organization that serves food to the public must have a service permit and pass a city-county review."
see http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/health/Content?oid=1247859
for the rest of the story.
Yet, if one looks at Webster's definition of an organization ... "an administrative and functional structure (as a business or a political party); also : the personnel of such a structure," one need read no further.
Basically, an organization is systematically arranged and managed to meet a need or to pursue collective goals on a continuing basis. All organizations have a management structure that determines relationships between functions and positions, and subdivides and delegates roles, responsibilities, and authority to carry out defined tasks.
And there's the rub. Food Not Bombs is NOT an organization. It is an unmanageable, co-operative of individuals who gather to share food, sort of like you, your family and friends out for a picnic or gathering for a potluck.
That the City/State can and does object to people openly sharing free food and connections, isn't a suprise to anyone. In Daniel Quinn's Book Ishmael, (see http://www.ishmael.com/welcome.cfm) the pupil is US and Ishmael is an intellegent Ape (Imagine that!). We learn that 10,000 years ago, there was a shift in consciousness in the near east and the hunting/gathering culture of small tribes of individuals living off the land (defined as a leaver culture) was suddenly shifted to a sedentary farming/animal husbandry culture (defined as a taker culture). As this taker culture grew, it organized itself into a community to protect itself from outside attacks by forming a government to lock away its resources (namely FOOD). It expanded rapidly outward, conquering the smaller diverse leavers and as the old cliche goes, "the rest is history."
Consequently, FOOD NOT BOMBS chapters have been around since, "...Boston in 1980, It was started by activists involved in the anti-nuclear movement, Food Not Bombs has blossomed into a worldwide, grassroots, political movement of over 175 autonomous chapters. Each Food Not Bombs group serves free food to people in need and in support of political organizing efforts.
Food Not Bombs believes that society and government should value human life over material wealth, human need not corporate greed, and that most of its problems stem from this simple crisis in values." see http://sffnb.org/history/
It's well past time for our Big Brother government to support the efforts of activists who are making a diffence in people's lives in their local communities.
If you want to keep up with my case concerning Montanan's Fundamental Rights and/or read these important briefs:
On the internet go to:
http://fnweb1.isd.doa.state.mt.us/idmws/custom/sll/SLL_FN_Home.htm
Click on: Supreme Court Case Number
Enter either ( DA 09-0675 ) in the box and click search; or
Click on: Party search name and enter Gold;
Next click on Gold v. State and then click on Appelant Brief first then the 2 other briefs and new windows will pop up with pdfs which you can save and read.
As always,
Think about this and I'd like to encourage your comments about this important topic.
Feel free to follow this important Case.
happy earth day,
peace,
Rick Gold
Missoula, MT
Monday, April 19, 2010
A Missoula Art ll - Sec 4 political picnic...
A Missoula political picnic is a meal eaten by Radicals, outdoors as on an excursion.
And what a political picnic it was last night, Sunday, April 18, 2010, if you happened to be among a bunch of political anarchists called "Food Not Bombs" serving FREE food to any and all appearing by the FREE speech plaza of the Missoula County Courthouse @200 W Broadway @ 6 p.m. These Radicals have been serving FREE food for the last year, rain, snow or sun every Sunday there.
But, last night, a man identifying himself as being from the Missoula City-County Health Department appeared and proceeded to threaten the anarchists because they are NOT a non profit organization and are serving FREE food without their permission or permit.
It appears that the Missoula City-County Health Department now has a policy that you must apply and pay for a "permit" and be granted their approval before you can have a picnic in Missoula.
The "Food Not Bombs" folks countered with the arguments that this violates their freedom of speech and their freedom of assembly. So consequently, there was an impasse last night betwwen "Food Not Bombs" folks and the Missoula City-County Health Department official.
The "Food Not Bombs" folks said that they have the right to picnic at the Courthouse (or any public space)! The Missoula City-County Health Department official stated that they needed permission and a permit to continue sharing free food and that "I will return and be bringing the Missoula police with me next Sunday to the Courthouse and we will be waiting for you at 6 p.m."
Will these Civil servants confiscate (steal) the food?
Will they further harass our gathering?
Will they issue tickets because "Food Not Bombs" activists refuse to become a non profit, or obtain their permission or pay for a license to continue having their political picnics Sundays at 6p.m. @ the County Courthouse @200 W Broadway?
Montana's Constitution guarantees that Montanan's share their Freedom of assembly. Art ll - Sec 6. "Freedom of assembly. The people shall have the right peaceably to assemble, petition for redress or peaceably protest governmental action. The people shall have the right peaceably to assemble, petition for redress or peaceably protest governmental action."
Also, Art ll - Sec 7. "Freedom of speech, expression, and press. No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech or expression. Every person shall be free to speak or publish whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty..."
And MOST importantly, Montana's Constitution's Art ll - Sec 3 guarantees that we all have, "Inalienable rights. All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment and the rights of pursuing life's basic necessities, enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and seeking their safety, health and happiness in all lawful ways. In enjoying these rights, all persons recognize corresponding responsibilities"; and
Art ll - Sec 4. Individual dignity. "The dignity of the human being is inviolable. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. Neither the state nor any person, firm, corporation, or institution shall discriminate against any person in the exercise of his civil or political rights on account of race, color, sex, culture, social origin or condition, or politicalor religious ideas."
So, I ask you Montanan, what about our Civil servants responsibilities to their sworn oaths of office and the protection of Our Civil Rights embodied in Article ll of our Constitution?
And make NO mistake. These Fundamental Rights are Civil Rights not Criminal. And, those Responsibilities were put there specifically to remind us ALL our "duty to defend" those inalienable rights and especially for those whose duty of care and oath of office make it imperative that they act to support, protect and defend Our Constitution and ALL our Rights.
On the internet go to:
http://fnweb1.isd.doa.state.mt.us/idmws/custom/sll/SLL_FN_Home.htm
Click on: Supreme Court Case NumberEnter either ( DA 09-0675 ) in the box and click search;
or Click on: Party search name and enter Gold;
Next click on Gold v. State and then click onAppelant Brief first then the 2 other briefs and a new windows will pop up with pdfs which you can save and read.
As always, Think about this and I'd like to encourage your comments about this important topic. Feel free to follow this important Case.
Rick Gold
Missoula, MT
And what a political picnic it was last night, Sunday, April 18, 2010, if you happened to be among a bunch of political anarchists called "Food Not Bombs" serving FREE food to any and all appearing by the FREE speech plaza of the Missoula County Courthouse @200 W Broadway @ 6 p.m. These Radicals have been serving FREE food for the last year, rain, snow or sun every Sunday there.
But, last night, a man identifying himself as being from the Missoula City-County Health Department appeared and proceeded to threaten the anarchists because they are NOT a non profit organization and are serving FREE food without their permission or permit.
It appears that the Missoula City-County Health Department now has a policy that you must apply and pay for a "permit" and be granted their approval before you can have a picnic in Missoula.
The "Food Not Bombs" folks countered with the arguments that this violates their freedom of speech and their freedom of assembly. So consequently, there was an impasse last night betwwen "Food Not Bombs" folks and the Missoula City-County Health Department official.
The "Food Not Bombs" folks said that they have the right to picnic at the Courthouse (or any public space)! The Missoula City-County Health Department official stated that they needed permission and a permit to continue sharing free food and that "I will return and be bringing the Missoula police with me next Sunday to the Courthouse and we will be waiting for you at 6 p.m."
Will these Civil servants confiscate (steal) the food?
Will they further harass our gathering?
Will they issue tickets because "Food Not Bombs" activists refuse to become a non profit, or obtain their permission or pay for a license to continue having their political picnics Sundays at 6p.m. @ the County Courthouse @200 W Broadway?
Montana's Constitution guarantees that Montanan's share their Freedom of assembly. Art ll - Sec 6. "Freedom of assembly. The people shall have the right peaceably to assemble, petition for redress or peaceably protest governmental action. The people shall have the right peaceably to assemble, petition for redress or peaceably protest governmental action."
Also, Art ll - Sec 7. "Freedom of speech, expression, and press. No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech or expression. Every person shall be free to speak or publish whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty..."
And MOST importantly, Montana's Constitution's Art ll - Sec 3 guarantees that we all have, "Inalienable rights. All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment and the rights of pursuing life's basic necessities, enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and seeking their safety, health and happiness in all lawful ways. In enjoying these rights, all persons recognize corresponding responsibilities"; and
Art ll - Sec 4. Individual dignity. "The dignity of the human being is inviolable. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. Neither the state nor any person, firm, corporation, or institution shall discriminate against any person in the exercise of his civil or political rights on account of race, color, sex, culture, social origin or condition, or politicalor religious ideas."
So, I ask you Montanan, what about our Civil servants responsibilities to their sworn oaths of office and the protection of Our Civil Rights embodied in Article ll of our Constitution?
And make NO mistake. These Fundamental Rights are Civil Rights not Criminal. And, those Responsibilities were put there specifically to remind us ALL our "duty to defend" those inalienable rights and especially for those whose duty of care and oath of office make it imperative that they act to support, protect and defend Our Constitution and ALL our Rights.
The Montana Constitution’s oath of office (Art. III - Sec 3) is a proactive, affirmative oath. It requires an affirmative, absolute duty to support, protect and defend the U.S. and Montana Constitutions. Once taken, it requires members of the legislature, and all executive, ministerial and judicial officers bound by their oaths to discharge their duties of office with fidelity. They have a sworn duty of extra-ordinary care from the affirmative Oaths of their office to support, protect and defend Montana’s Constitution and thus discharge their duties of office with fidelity. Appellees in framing their arguments do not address what it means to take an oath and be bound to support, protect and defend Montana’s Constitution.
On the internet go to:
http://fnweb1.isd.doa.state.mt.us/idmws/custom/sll/SLL_FN_Home.htm
Click on: Supreme Court Case NumberEnter either ( DA 09-0675 ) in the box and click search;
or Click on: Party search name and enter Gold;
Next click on Gold v. State and then click onAppelant Brief first then the 2 other briefs and a new windows will pop up with pdfs which you can save and read.
As always, Think about this and I'd like to encourage your comments about this important topic. Feel free to follow this important Case.
Rick Gold
Missoula, MT
Friday, April 2, 2010
The Canary in the Coal Mine of the Montana Court System
The Right to Defend Property Rights or
The Canary in the Coal Mine of the Montana Court System
Being poor in Montana is no sin. Yet when Gold originally set out to prosecute the City and County of Missoula et al for taking his property and then not protecting it, he encountered that No Civil attorney in Missoula would assist him with his case. He then went to the Missoula Family Law Self-Help Center in the County building but they specialize in Pro Se family law. Next he went to the Montana Legal Services Association who wouldn’t help. He then contacted the Montana ACLU, who wouldn’t help. This was his personal experience which wasted 100’s of his hours, searching. Finally, he was forced to file his own Pro Se cause (and study and learn law himself) even though Montana’s Rules of Professional Conduct in PREAMBLE: A LAWYER'S RESPONSIBILITIES state:
“(7) As a public citizen, a lawyer should seek improvement of the law, access to the legal system, the administration of justice and the quality of service rendered by the legal profession. As a member of a learned profession, a lawyer should cultivate knowledge of the law beyond its use for clients, employ that knowledge in reform of the law and work to strengthen legal education. In addition, a lawyer should further the public’s understanding of and confidence in the rule of law and the justice system because legal institutions in a constitutional democracy depend on popular participation and support to maintain their authority. A lawyer should be mindful of deficiencies in the administration of justice and of the fact that the poor, and sometimes persons who are not poor, cannot afford adequate legal assistance. Therefore, all lawyers should devote professional time and resources and use civic influence to ensure equal access to our system of justice for all those who because of economic or social barriers cannot afford or secure adequate legal counsel. A lawyer should aid the legal profession in pursuing these objectives and should help the bar regulate itself in the public interest.”
So Whose Responsibility is it to Defend the Fundamental Rights of ALL Montanans, including indigents? Certainly, The Montana Public Defender System is a start. All Lawyers Professional Responsibility is a start. The Montana Justices Professional Responsibility is a start. The Montana Court System is a start. The Montana ACLU is a start. The Montana Legal Services Association is a start. The Missoula Family Law Self-Help Center is a start. Taken ALL together, they are ONLY piecemeal parts of the answer to a system that doesn’t work in my cause. And, they are ONLY a start. My cause before you, is an indicator of how that start isn’t working. What it indicates is “the weakest link” in Defending the Fundamental Rights or Civil Liberties Guaranteed in Montana’s Constitution.
Of course, "Defense" attorneys will argue that ALL of these services are underfunded and overwhelmed by the ever increasing needy, and that Defending Our Fundamental Rights (Civil Liberties) takes a VERY back seat to Defending Montanans accused of crimes against the State. And the statistics clearly speak for themselves.
However, this argument is short sighted and completely ignores the most compelling sentence of Art. II § 3 of Montana’s Constitution. “In enjoying these Rights, ALL persons recognize corresponding responsibilities.” ALL people. All Lawyers. All Judges. All Legislators. All Governors. All Politicians. All Counties. All Cities and All Everyday Montanans. ALL persons. But, who monitors or champions or recognizes the importance of these Responsibilities, with an eye to the ever increasing number of poor people in Montana, who are 100 times more likely to have a fundamental rights issue with the state and who ultimately, may have a dire need of Counsel in protecting Every Montanans fundamental rights.
And make NO mistake. These Fundamental Rights are Civil Rights not Criminal. And, those Responsibilities were put there specifically to remind us ALL our "duty to defend" those inalienable rights and especially for those whose duty of care and oath of office make it imperative that they act to support, protect and defend Our Constitution and ALL our Rights.
If you want to keep up with this case and/or read these important briefs:
On the internet goto:
http://fnweb1.isd.doa.state.mt.us/idmws/custom/sll/SLL_FN_Home.htm
Click on: Supreme Court Case Number
Enter either ( DA 09-0675 ) in the box and click search; or Click on: Party search name and enter Gold;
Next click on Gold v. State and then click on
Appelant Brief first then the 2 other briefs and a new windows will pop up with pdfs which you can save and read.
As always, Think about this and I'd like to encourage your comments about this important topic. Feel free to follow this important Case.
Rick Gold
Missoula, MT
The Canary in the Coal Mine of the Montana Court System
Being poor in Montana is no sin. Yet when Gold originally set out to prosecute the City and County of Missoula et al for taking his property and then not protecting it, he encountered that No Civil attorney in Missoula would assist him with his case. He then went to the Missoula Family Law Self-Help Center in the County building but they specialize in Pro Se family law. Next he went to the Montana Legal Services Association who wouldn’t help. He then contacted the Montana ACLU, who wouldn’t help. This was his personal experience which wasted 100’s of his hours, searching. Finally, he was forced to file his own Pro Se cause (and study and learn law himself) even though Montana’s Rules of Professional Conduct in PREAMBLE: A LAWYER'S RESPONSIBILITIES state:
“(7) As a public citizen, a lawyer should seek improvement of the law, access to the legal system, the administration of justice and the quality of service rendered by the legal profession. As a member of a learned profession, a lawyer should cultivate knowledge of the law beyond its use for clients, employ that knowledge in reform of the law and work to strengthen legal education. In addition, a lawyer should further the public’s understanding of and confidence in the rule of law and the justice system because legal institutions in a constitutional democracy depend on popular participation and support to maintain their authority. A lawyer should be mindful of deficiencies in the administration of justice and of the fact that the poor, and sometimes persons who are not poor, cannot afford adequate legal assistance. Therefore, all lawyers should devote professional time and resources and use civic influence to ensure equal access to our system of justice for all those who because of economic or social barriers cannot afford or secure adequate legal counsel. A lawyer should aid the legal profession in pursuing these objectives and should help the bar regulate itself in the public interest.”
So Whose Responsibility is it to Defend the Fundamental Rights of ALL Montanans, including indigents? Certainly, The Montana Public Defender System is a start. All Lawyers Professional Responsibility is a start. The Montana Justices Professional Responsibility is a start. The Montana Court System is a start. The Montana ACLU is a start. The Montana Legal Services Association is a start. The Missoula Family Law Self-Help Center is a start. Taken ALL together, they are ONLY piecemeal parts of the answer to a system that doesn’t work in my cause. And, they are ONLY a start. My cause before you, is an indicator of how that start isn’t working. What it indicates is “the weakest link” in Defending the Fundamental Rights or Civil Liberties Guaranteed in Montana’s Constitution.
Of course, "Defense" attorneys will argue that ALL of these services are underfunded and overwhelmed by the ever increasing needy, and that Defending Our Fundamental Rights (Civil Liberties) takes a VERY back seat to Defending Montanans accused of crimes against the State. And the statistics clearly speak for themselves.
However, this argument is short sighted and completely ignores the most compelling sentence of Art. II § 3 of Montana’s Constitution. “In enjoying these Rights, ALL persons recognize corresponding responsibilities.” ALL people. All Lawyers. All Judges. All Legislators. All Governors. All Politicians. All Counties. All Cities and All Everyday Montanans. ALL persons. But, who monitors or champions or recognizes the importance of these Responsibilities, with an eye to the ever increasing number of poor people in Montana, who are 100 times more likely to have a fundamental rights issue with the state and who ultimately, may have a dire need of Counsel in protecting Every Montanans fundamental rights.
And make NO mistake. These Fundamental Rights are Civil Rights not Criminal. And, those Responsibilities were put there specifically to remind us ALL our "duty to defend" those inalienable rights and especially for those whose duty of care and oath of office make it imperative that they act to support, protect and defend Our Constitution and ALL our Rights.
If you want to keep up with this case and/or read these important briefs:
On the internet goto:
http://fnweb1.isd.doa.state.mt.us/idmws/custom/sll/SLL_FN_Home.htm
Click on: Supreme Court Case Number
Enter either ( DA 09-0675 ) in the box and click search; or Click on: Party search name and enter Gold;
Next click on Gold v. State and then click on
Appelant Brief first then the 2 other briefs and a new windows will pop up with pdfs which you can save and read.
As always, Think about this and I'd like to encourage your comments about this important topic. Feel free to follow this important Case.
Rick Gold
Missoula, MT
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
The Street Kid who tried to help, Alcohol and Our loss of privacy.
Dateline Missoula March 3, 2010.
A street kid, Jacob Wilson, Age 20, currently attending the University of Montana for Sociology was out and about the bars on Higgins Street Monday evening, and came upon 3 big University sports players surrounding and harassing a smaller weaker guy. Being the good samaritan type, he immediately interposed himself in the intense situation and proceeded to talk to them for 45 minutes until 5 police arrived.
One of the policemen took him aside and badgered him with threatening body and voice behaviors. The kid was really scared. The policeman wanted to find out if this kid knew the identities of the participants of the situation, but the kid didn't. Then, the policeman switched tactics and because they were outside a bar, demanded that the kid take a "breathalyzer test." When the kid "no", because he hadn't had antyhing to drink, the policeman said that it was to bad "the city hadn't given him the power to write the kid a $300 ticket for refusing." But, he brightened, I can give you a ticket for Minor in Possession (M.I.P.), instead. So he gave the kid the ticket. The kid had nothing in his possession and was taken before a City Judge, where he pleaded "not guilty with Jury Trial." The judge released him on his own recognizance.
I talked to the kid yesterday and he was very upset and didn't know what he was going to do. The criminal M.I.P. offense carries a fine but no jail time, so he is S.O.L. getting a state public defender. I suggested he go to legal aid and ask for their help. I will try to keep you informed as his "case" progresses.
Dateline March 22, 2010...
The City of Missoula will take up legislation on this date to Consider an ordinance amending Missoula Municipal Code Title 10, entitled
"Vehicles and Traffic," by adding Chapter 56 entitled "Refusal to submit to alcohol
and/or drug tests" and enacting sections 10.56.010 through 10.56.030.
Passing this ordinance will allow City police to give a $300 ticket to "anyone" refusing alcohol and/or drug tests demanded by the police. This ordinance will violate Our Right to Privacy (Art. ll - Section Sec. 10, MT Const.); Our Individual Dignity (Art. ll - Section Sec. 4, MT Const.); Our Individual Dignity (Art. ll - Section Sec. 4, MT Const.); as well as other Rights Unemnumerated (Art. ll - Section Sec. 34, MT Const.).
So why is the Missoula City Council doing this instead of exploring programs to help their constituents with alcohol dependency? Alcohol is a Drug — the most commonly used and widely abused psychoactive drug in the world. It is completely legal and easily and readily available and alcohol is a disease — a chronic, progressive, fatal disease if not treated. And, Every year, more money is spent promoting the use of alcohol than any other product. So why isn't Our City Council doing more to combat the effects of alcoholism?
One answer is to look at ALL the revenue that various levels of government receive from the sale and promotion of alcohol and related products. Now, go ahead and ask yourself and ask your City Councilors, what will this new $300 ticket do to combat alcoholism? If the City Council is so concerned, why don't they just ban the sale and/or consumption of alcohol in the City? It is a Dangerous Drug after all.
As always, Think about it and I’d like to encourage your comments about this important topic. Please feel free to ask your City Councilor, County Commissioner for their stand on this important issue.
Rick Gold
Missoula, MT
A street kid, Jacob Wilson, Age 20, currently attending the University of Montana for Sociology was out and about the bars on Higgins Street Monday evening, and came upon 3 big University sports players surrounding and harassing a smaller weaker guy. Being the good samaritan type, he immediately interposed himself in the intense situation and proceeded to talk to them for 45 minutes until 5 police arrived.
One of the policemen took him aside and badgered him with threatening body and voice behaviors. The kid was really scared. The policeman wanted to find out if this kid knew the identities of the participants of the situation, but the kid didn't. Then, the policeman switched tactics and because they were outside a bar, demanded that the kid take a "breathalyzer test." When the kid "no", because he hadn't had antyhing to drink, the policeman said that it was to bad "the city hadn't given him the power to write the kid a $300 ticket for refusing." But, he brightened, I can give you a ticket for Minor in Possession (M.I.P.), instead. So he gave the kid the ticket. The kid had nothing in his possession and was taken before a City Judge, where he pleaded "not guilty with Jury Trial." The judge released him on his own recognizance.
I talked to the kid yesterday and he was very upset and didn't know what he was going to do. The criminal M.I.P. offense carries a fine but no jail time, so he is S.O.L. getting a state public defender. I suggested he go to legal aid and ask for their help. I will try to keep you informed as his "case" progresses.
Dateline March 22, 2010...
The City of Missoula will take up legislation on this date to Consider an ordinance amending Missoula Municipal Code Title 10, entitled
"Vehicles and Traffic," by adding Chapter 56 entitled "Refusal to submit to alcohol
and/or drug tests" and enacting sections 10.56.010 through 10.56.030.
Passing this ordinance will allow City police to give a $300 ticket to "anyone" refusing alcohol and/or drug tests demanded by the police. This ordinance will violate Our Right to Privacy (Art. ll - Section Sec. 10, MT Const.); Our Individual Dignity (Art. ll - Section Sec. 4, MT Const.); Our Individual Dignity (Art. ll - Section Sec. 4, MT Const.); as well as other Rights Unemnumerated (Art. ll - Section Sec. 34, MT Const.).
So why is the Missoula City Council doing this instead of exploring programs to help their constituents with alcohol dependency? Alcohol is a Drug — the most commonly used and widely abused psychoactive drug in the world. It is completely legal and easily and readily available and alcohol is a disease — a chronic, progressive, fatal disease if not treated. And, Every year, more money is spent promoting the use of alcohol than any other product. So why isn't Our City Council doing more to combat the effects of alcoholism?
One answer is to look at ALL the revenue that various levels of government receive from the sale and promotion of alcohol and related products. Now, go ahead and ask yourself and ask your City Councilors, what will this new $300 ticket do to combat alcoholism? If the City Council is so concerned, why don't they just ban the sale and/or consumption of alcohol in the City? It is a Dangerous Drug after all.
As always, Think about it and I’d like to encourage your comments about this important topic. Please feel free to ask your City Councilor, County Commissioner for their stand on this important issue.
Rick Gold
Missoula, MT
Friday, February 19, 2010
My Supreme Court case for representation of the poor in our MT Constitution
The four questions/issues I've introduced on appeal of my District Court Case (Gold v. State of Montana DV 09-320) are:
1) Did the District Court err in denying Plaintiff and Appellant's summary judgment motion while granting Defendant's summary judgment motion and while not addressing Plaintiff and Appellant's claims against the State of Montana?
2) Did the District Court err by not addressing in the final order, Plaintiff and Appellant's arguments regarding the Duty of Care of Montana Constitution' s demanding sworn oath of office upon Montana Legislators and the Governor in the performance of their duties of office and their greater duties to our Constitution,
especially in regards to discrimination?
3) Did the District Court err by not addressing in the final order, Plaintiff and Appellant's procedural arguments and objections, especially in regards to the Montana Constitution' s demanding oath of office and Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, in both his "summary judgment motion and brief' and in his "Combined Memorandum in Response to Defendant's Combined Memorandum in
Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiffs Response to Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment?"
4) Was Plaintiff and Appellant denied his Constitutional Right of the
Administration of Justice Article 11 - $16 and deprived of procedural due process and substantive due process of law guaranteed by the 14'~A mendment of the US.
Constitution and Article II. § 4 of the Montana Constitution by the 4th District Court in its final Order and Memorandum by not engaging in required constitutional analysis as well as offering no Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law, specifically as to why Plaintiff should be denied his Constitutional claims against the State?
------------ --------- ----ARGUMENT- --------- --------- ------
I feel like Don Quixote tilting at Montana windmills. The political reality OF 2010 is that "indigent" individuals in Montana and the U.S. cannot expect or find legal Counsel for Civil complaints involving Guaranteed Fundamental Rights.
In Montana, this Catch-22 political reality is reflected in a Catch-as-catch- can, or less formally, Willy Nilly Public Defender System ("the Montana Public Defender Act $47 MCA"), defined and developed out of a necessity to defend individuals accused of crimes against the State. (Art. I1 - 5 24. Rights of the accused.
Montana Constitution) . However, in common law as well as enumerated law, defending individuals is only half of our "equal protection of the laws" (see Section 4. Individual dignity. Montana Constitution) , the other half is defending Our Montana Constitution and Our Fundamental Rights through Civil action. This political reality is exactly what Attorney Dahood argued about in his amicus brief
in Dorwart v. Caraway ,
". . .in order to avoid this result and in order to give Montana's constitutional guarantees teeth, the framers intended that the people retain the ability to protect their rights--both
enumerated and unenumerated- -through direct actions in the courts. This conclusion follows from the Committee's proposal of Article 11, Section 34 to the Convention delegates and the subsequent adoption of this provision. Article 11, Section 34 states: Unenumerated rights.
The enumeration in this constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny, impair, or disparage others retained by the people." Donvart v. Caraway, 2002 MT 240; 3 12 Mont. 1; 58 P.3d 128
Whether political expediency, indifference, or simply a lack of understanding regarding the basic necessity of "equal access" and "equal protection" to Montana's Court system, the 1972 Montana Constitutional Delegates couldn't muster the needed votes to include and insure legal Counsel for ALL in Montana, especially the poor in Montana Civil Jurisprudence.
*Art. I1 - 5 4. Individual dignity. The dignity of the human being is inviolable. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. Neither the state nor any person, firm, corporation, or institution shall discriminate against any person in the exercise of his civil or political rights on account of race, color, sex, culture, social origin or condition, or political
or religious ideas.
Subsequently, they stopped short by requiring that Montana ONLY provide legal Counsel for Criminal Defendants in our 1972 Constitution. They also foresaw that they could not and should not limit the possession of ONLY those Montana's Constitutional Rights Enumerated, and that we the people recognize the possession
also of" Unenurnerated Rights" "(w)hich shall not be construed to deny, impair, or disparage others retained by thepeople." Art. I1 - 5 34. Unenumerated rights.
Montana Constitution. From these "Unenurnerated Rights" the Court has a vested self-interest in ensuring equal access to trained Counsel in Montana Jurisprudence for ALL the poor, yet as we see, in the instant Civil case, this is NOT the case to date and has caused the Discrimination in the Montana Public Defender Act.
------------ --------- ----END ARGUMENT---- --------- --------- ---
If you want to keep up with this case and/or read my opening brief:
On the internet goto:
http://fnweb1. isd.doa.state. mt.us/idmws/ custom/sll/ SLL_FN_Home. htm
Click on: Supreme Court Case Number
Enter ( DA 09-0675 ) in the box and click search.
Next click on Gold v. State and then click on
Appelant Brief and a new window will pop up with my pdf.
As always, Think about this and I'd like to encourage your comments about this important topic. Feel free to follow this important Case.
Rick Gold
Missoula, MT
1) Did the District Court err in denying Plaintiff and Appellant's summary judgment motion while granting Defendant's summary judgment motion and while not addressing Plaintiff and Appellant's claims against the State of Montana?
2) Did the District Court err by not addressing in the final order, Plaintiff and Appellant's arguments regarding the Duty of Care of Montana Constitution' s demanding sworn oath of office upon Montana Legislators and the Governor in the performance of their duties of office and their greater duties to our Constitution,
especially in regards to discrimination?
3) Did the District Court err by not addressing in the final order, Plaintiff and Appellant's procedural arguments and objections, especially in regards to the Montana Constitution' s demanding oath of office and Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, in both his "summary judgment motion and brief' and in his "Combined Memorandum in Response to Defendant's Combined Memorandum in
Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiffs Response to Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment?"
4) Was Plaintiff and Appellant denied his Constitutional Right of the
Administration of Justice Article 11 - $16 and deprived of procedural due process and substantive due process of law guaranteed by the 14'~A mendment of the US.
Constitution and Article II. § 4 of the Montana Constitution by the 4th District Court in its final Order and Memorandum by not engaging in required constitutional analysis as well as offering no Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law, specifically as to why Plaintiff should be denied his Constitutional claims against the State?
------------ --------- ----ARGUMENT- --------- --------- ------
I feel like Don Quixote tilting at Montana windmills. The political reality OF 2010 is that "indigent" individuals in Montana and the U.S. cannot expect or find legal Counsel for Civil complaints involving Guaranteed Fundamental Rights.
In Montana, this Catch-22 political reality is reflected in a Catch-as-catch- can, or less formally, Willy Nilly Public Defender System ("the Montana Public Defender Act $47 MCA"), defined and developed out of a necessity to defend individuals accused of crimes against the State. (Art. I1 - 5 24. Rights of the accused.
Montana Constitution) . However, in common law as well as enumerated law, defending individuals is only half of our "equal protection of the laws" (see Section 4. Individual dignity. Montana Constitution) , the other half is defending Our Montana Constitution and Our Fundamental Rights through Civil action. This political reality is exactly what Attorney Dahood argued about in his amicus brief
in Dorwart v. Caraway ,
". . .in order to avoid this result and in order to give Montana's constitutional guarantees teeth, the framers intended that the people retain the ability to protect their rights--both
enumerated and unenumerated- -through direct actions in the courts. This conclusion follows from the Committee's proposal of Article 11, Section 34 to the Convention delegates and the subsequent adoption of this provision. Article 11, Section 34 states: Unenumerated rights.
The enumeration in this constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny, impair, or disparage others retained by the people." Donvart v. Caraway, 2002 MT 240; 3 12 Mont. 1; 58 P.3d 128
Whether political expediency, indifference, or simply a lack of understanding regarding the basic necessity of "equal access" and "equal protection" to Montana's Court system, the 1972 Montana Constitutional Delegates couldn't muster the needed votes to include and insure legal Counsel for ALL in Montana, especially the poor in Montana Civil Jurisprudence.
*Art. I1 - 5 4. Individual dignity. The dignity of the human being is inviolable. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. Neither the state nor any person, firm, corporation, or institution shall discriminate against any person in the exercise of his civil or political rights on account of race, color, sex, culture, social origin or condition, or political
or religious ideas.
Subsequently, they stopped short by requiring that Montana ONLY provide legal Counsel for Criminal Defendants in our 1972 Constitution. They also foresaw that they could not and should not limit the possession of ONLY those Montana's Constitutional Rights Enumerated, and that we the people recognize the possession
also of" Unenurnerated Rights" "(w)hich shall not be construed to deny, impair, or disparage others retained by thepeople." Art. I1 - 5 34. Unenumerated rights.
Montana Constitution. From these "Unenurnerated Rights" the Court has a vested self-interest in ensuring equal access to trained Counsel in Montana Jurisprudence for ALL the poor, yet as we see, in the instant Civil case, this is NOT the case to date and has caused the Discrimination in the Montana Public Defender Act.
------------ --------- ----END ARGUMENT---- --------- --------- ---
If you want to keep up with this case and/or read my opening brief:
On the internet goto:
http://fnweb1. isd.doa.state. mt.us/idmws/ custom/sll/ SLL_FN_Home. htm
Click on: Supreme Court Case Number
Enter ( DA 09-0675 ) in the box and click search.
Next click on Gold v. State and then click on
Appelant Brief and a new window will pop up with my pdf.
As always, Think about this and I'd like to encourage your comments about this important topic. Feel free to follow this important Case.
Rick Gold
Missoula, MT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
