The state of torts in Montana for Constitutional Issues involving poor people.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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 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

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 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

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

The MT Public Defenders and Montana's LESS than poor legal representation.

In the Wednesday February 3, 2010, Missoulian newspaper is an article from Jennifer McKee, of the Missoulian State Bureau entitled "State public defender offices faces $990K cut in addition to current shortfall."
In her article, she writes: "Already facing an $800,000 budget hole, the state agency that guarantees lawyers for poor people accused of crimes could be looking at cutting close to another million dollars from its books."
"How do you cut a million and then cut another million?" "Office of Public Defender administrative director Harry Freebourn said Tuesday of the potential cuts called for by a worsening state budget picture. Freebourn said he had no idea how the agency could absorb another hit, especially considering that its caseload is growing at anywhere between 4 percent and 7 percent."
http://www.missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/article_72bb5de0-1075-11df-917a-001cc4c002e0.html

However, the Montana Constitution does NOT set a price tag on defense of the poor.
It has been a long standing tradition in the U.S. and the State of Montana to provide legal counsel for the poor in criminal proceedings. But, as the state budget tightens and the already strapped Public Defenders of Montana are asked to reduce their budgets further, the legal representation of the poor can only suffer.

And, therefore once again for the poor, "equal access" of and to the law in Montana (Section 16. The administration of justice) and "equal protection" of and to the law in Montana (Section 4. Individual dignity)
will suffer more than it already has suffered. And, who is speaking for the poor in Montana, who have NO voice in why the Public Defenders budget is being cut!

Now, contrast this with the Montana Attorney General's Budget, and/or the local Montana County/City public Prosecutors (Attorneys) budgets, and you'll soon see that there is NO comparison!
Consequently, there is NO "equal access" or "equal protection" in our Montana Court System.

As always, Think about this and I'd like to encourage your comments about this important topic. Feel free to ask your elected officials.

Rick Gold
Missoula, MT

The Political Reality of Montana Jurisprudence in 2010.

In appealing my District Court Case DV 09-320, now before the Montana Supreme Court (DA 09-0675), I find the political reality of equal access in Montana Jurisprudence to be lacking.

I feel like Don Quixote tilting at Montana windmills. The political reality OF 2010 is that “indignant” 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. II - § 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.

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.

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 “Unenumerated Rights” “(w)hich shall not be construed to deny, impair, or disparage others retained by the people.” (Art. II - § 34. Fundamental Rights. Montana Constitution)

From these “Unenumerated 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 political reality to date.

There are many issues and problems that Montana Courts are not addressing and We the People of Montana, need to Insure an open, honest and forthright Court for our own Fundamental Rights Protection as well as that of our Constitution.

As always, Think about it and I'd like to encourage your comments about this important topic. Feel free to ask your elected officials.

Rick Gold
Missoula, MT

The very real problems with voting in Missoula, Dec 14, 2009

Friday December 4, 2009 in Missoula, Vickie Zeier, Missoula County Clerk & Recorder, released a suprise proposal to shut down 13 voting locations including high youth density locations like the Courthouse downtown and the University Center on campus. Not surprising then that a number of students and one Missoula political group are very concerned and taking action.

It was just, May 31 of 2009, the Missoulian reported that there were: "Long lines forming to cast votes this week." "On Monday in Missoula, the line looked woefully long at the County Courthouse, but moved surprisingly quickly - with a wait of maybe 20 minutes. It's been that way for about a week."

"In Missoula County, late registration and absentee voting also moved to the Motor Vehicles Office in the courthouse, which is designed to accommodate a large flow of people ... That's possible because the courthouse, other than the elections office, is closed on Election Day." "Sheriff's deputies in Missoula County will enforce the 8 p.m. voting deadline at the courthouse and the University Center, which is a busy public spot, Zeier said."

I have been told by one historian, that Missoulians have been voting continuously at our historic County Courthouse since 1870, almost 140 years. And now, because of their popularity, the County Courthouse and the University are to be given the preverbial ax. Why? One answer might be politics. It seems that the "labor saving" "budget busting" voting machines, have continuously increased the bottom line for Vickie Zeier, and that has facilitated "the need" to consolidate voting precincts, but at what cost? Maybe, these voting machines, weren't the panacea that they were touted to be? And, if consolidating the University and County Courthouse precincts into others, disenfranchises (confuses, angers, loses) even one voter (more likely many, many) will it be worth the cost?

Unfortunately, Vickie Zeier, offers only a few words of justification, not a thorough cost benefit analysis of her proposal. Voting, the most basic Montana Constitutional Human Right is a sacred trust for ALL Montanans. Let's hope that our Missoula County Commissioners demand a through explanation before approving this drastic measure.

And what of Montanans Right to Know and Participate - Article ll - Sections 8 & 9. And the Right of Suffrage - Article ll - Section 13?

In Montana, the "right to vote" is guaranteed in Our Constitution. It remains of the utmost importance that Montana's Legislature guard against attempts like Missoula's County Clerk to infringe on our most basic of Human Right to vote.

Under Article IV - SUFFRAGE AND ELECTIONS voting rights are spelled out for "the people."

Section 1. Ballot. All elections by the people ...

Section 3. Elections. The legislature shall provide by law the requirements for residence, registration, absentee voting, and administration of elections. It may provide for a system of poll booth registration, and shall insure the purity of elections and guard against abuses of the electoral process.

Section 5. Result of elections. In all elections held by the people ...

In Montana, the "right to vote" is guaranteed in Our Constitution. It remains of the utmost importance that Montana's Legislature guard against attempts like Missoula's County Clerk to infringe on our most basic of Human Right to vote.

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 and/or State Legislator

Rick Gold
Missoula, MT

In Honor of Veterans Day

Yesterday, November 11, 2009, I ran into a homeless guy in Missoula and he had a very interesting and sad story to relate. It seems he's a Veteran and homeless and has medical problems
In addition to this, last Friday, November 6, 2009, he was camped 3 miles up Kim Williams trail, where he had been for nearly a month. He said, he had no idea that he was in the Missoula City limits, where it appears that camping out is unlawful (so much for the Boy and Girl scouts camping anyway near Missoula City).
He kept his camp clean, not wanting to attract unwanted attention. He was awakened early Friday morning by Missoula City Police and Missoula Parks and Recreation people and promptly told them he had an outstanding warrant for a misdemeanor (a fine) which he couldn't show up for because of his health issues, so he was taken to County Jail. Before leaving, he asked the police, if his camp site would be unmolested since he was well equiped for the upcoming winter. The police, asumming he would not get out until Monday, said it would still be there when he got out.
Well, he was processed and released again Friday within one hour of his incarceration. But, after walking back to his camp site, he found that his camp and all his winter equipment was gone.
He was angry and destitute, and went to the Missoula Police to report the theft, but has of yet not gotten his equipment or camp back. He believes the Missoula Parks and Recreation people took all his things, as they and the Police were the only ones around.
Hey Missoula, Montana, what happened to our inalienable rights in the City of Missoula?
Montana Constitution, Article ll - Section 3. 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 Honor of Veterans Day, I ask, aren't homeless Veteran's people too, under Montana's Constitution? Aren't homeless people?

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 or Your City Attorney or Your City Employee (this could also apply to County or State) ...

Rick Gold
Missoula, MT

The Rule of Law or the The Rule of Arbitrary Governance?

Since it's inception as a state, Montana's Constitution, first drafted when Montana became the forty-first state on November 8, 1889. has been updated by a Constitutional Convention ONLY once in 1972.

Yet, during this time, not once did any of the debates, discussions or other commentaries disclose exactly what is meant by "The Rule of Law of our Montana Constitution."

Generally, in its simplest sense, the rule of law is a system that attempts to protect the rights of citizens from arbitrary and abusive use of government power.

Montana's Supreme Court in COTTINGHAM v STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS, ETC No. 9869.134 Mont. 1; 328 P.2d 907; 1958 Mont. LEXIS 17 had this to say about "the rule of law in Montana" ...
“This court's plain duty is to see that the constitutional mandate has been obeyed by the Legislature …”"Nor is it any concern of the court whether the act is expedient, wise, or unwise. State ex rel. Bonner v. Dixon, 59 Mont. 58, 195 P. 841. It is legislative power, not policy, that is drawn in question. And while we are mindful of the presumptions in favor of legislative acts, yet, being bound to support, protect, and defend the Constitution, when an enactment transgresses the constitutional limitations beyond a reasonable doubt, it is our solemn and sworn duty to so declare it. We are mindful, too, that the declaration of Constitutions are placed therein to be obeyed, and are not to be frittered away by construction. Less v. City of Butte, 28 Mont. 27, 72 P. 140, 61 L.R.A. 601, 98 Am. St. Rep. 545…”

Yet, time and again, if you ask Montana's Courts, Montana's lawyers or Montana's elected officials, exactly what their Constitutional oath of offices entail or how they are protecting the rights of citizens from arbitrary and abusive use of government power, they will either give you a "non-answer" or totally ignore you.

And ARE Montana's Courts, Montana's lawyers or Montana's elected officials making arbitrary laws and codes against their Constitutional Oaths, which are NOT protecting your basic Constitutional Rights?

I for one say yes, they are. They are "frittering (Our Rights) away by construction" just as the 1958 Montana Supreme Court warned against! Just read some of my earlier posts.

However, it IS of the utmost importance, that you ask these people, yourself, and then, you let others know what you have discovered. Do your best to explain, what happened or is happening in plain English. And then invite others to participate, ask questions, and share their stories.

As always, Think about it and I'd like to encourage your comments about this important topic.

Rick Gold
Missoula, MT

THE MONTANA CONSTITUTIONAL OATH OF OFFICE REVISITED

Though, rarely discussed or defined in Montana’s Constitution or Code or in a Montana Court of Law, the Montana Constitutional Oath of Office declares:
Art III -- GENERAL GOVERNMENT - § 3. Oath of office. Members of the legislature and all executive, ministerial and judicial officers, shall take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation, before they enter upon the duties of their offices: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Montana, and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity (so help me God)." “No other oath, declaration, or test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust.”

Art III § 3 then clearly states the extra-ordinary duties of care to Montana’s Constitution for those people required to swear their oaths and be bound by them. The American Dictionary of the English Language, defines an oath as:
"A solemn affirmation or declaration, made with an appeal to God for truth of what is affirmed. The appeal to God in an oath, implies that the person imprecates his vengeance and renounces his favor if the declaration is false, or if the declaration is a promise, the person invokes the vengeance of God if he should fail to fulfill it. A false oath is called perjury."
A duty of care is a requirement that a person act toward others and the public with watchfulness, attention, caution and prudence that a reasonable person in the circumstances would. If a person's actions do not meet this standard of care, then the acts are considered negligent, and any damages resulting may be claimed in a lawsuit for negligence.
What does it mean to support Montana’s Constitution?
It is the act, state, or operation of supporting, upholding, or sustaining Montana’s Constitution.
What does it mean to protect Montana’s Constitution?
It is the act of armoring and preparing oneself to defend Montana’s Constitution safeguarding it from all dangers, both foreign and domestic.
What does it mean to defend Montana’s Constitution?
It is the act of guarding against, forbidding or denying those dangers or threats to Montana’s Constitution from any and all sources, both foreign and domestic.
From The U.S. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
From EX PARTE GARLAND. 71 U.S. 333; 18 L. Ed. 366; 1866 U.S. LEXIS 886; 4 Wall. 333 January 14, 1867, Decided; December 1866, Term - - - ON the 2d of July, 1862, Congress, by "An act to prescribe an oath of office, and for other purposes," 1 enacted:
“That hereafter every person elected or appointed to any office of honor or profit under the government of the United States, either in the civil, military, or naval departments of the public service, excepting the President of the United States, shall, before entering upon the duties of such office, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:
'I, A.B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never voluntarily borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have neither sought nor accepted, nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever, under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the United States; that I have not yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power, or constitution within the United States, hostile or inimical thereto. And I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the [***2] Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God;' &c. 12 Stat. at Large, 502.
"Any person who shall falsely take the said oath shall be guilty of perjury; and, on conviction, in addition to the penalties now prescribed for that offence, shall be deprived of his office, and rendered incapable forever after of holding any office or place under the United States."
On the 24th of January, 1865, 2 Congress passed a supplementary act extending these provisions so as to embrace attorneys and counsellors of the courts of the United States. It is as follows:
"No person, after the date of this act, shall be admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, or at any time after the fourth of March next, shall be admitted to the bar of any Circuit or District Court of the United States, or of the Court of Claims, as an attorney or counsellor of such court, or shall be allowed to [***3] appear and be heard in any such court, by virtue of any previous admission, or any special power of attorney, unless he shall have first taken and subscribed the oath prescribed in 'An act to prescribe an oath of office and for other purposes,' approved July 2d, 1862. And any person who shall falsely take the said oath shall be guilty of perjury, and, on conviction," &c.

From the Montana Supreme Court, 1999 MT 261; 296 Mont. 361; 989 P.2d 364; 1999 Mont. LEXIS 272; 56 Mont. St. Rep. 1045
[*P61] Long ago, this Court declared that "the State Constitution is a limitation upon the power of the legislature and not a grant of power to that body." State v. Aronson (1957), 132 Mont. 120, 127, 314 P.2d 849, 852 (citing State ex rel. Dufresne v. Leslie (1935), 100 Mont. 449, 50 P.2d 959). Just as the government has no business in the bedrooms of consenting adults, Gryczan, 283 Mont. at 450, 942 P.2d at 122, neither does it have any business in the treatment rooms of their health [**385] care providers, except under the very narrowly defined circumstances referred to above.
[*P67] That said, we close with two final observations. First, from our foregoing discussion, it should be apparent that this opinion is about the government's infringement of certain fundamental rights of individual privacy--personal and procreative autonomy--guaranteed under Article II, Section 10 of the Montana Constitution. From this same discussion, it should be equally obvious, what this opinion is not about. For the reasons hereafter set forth, the latter needs to be underscored, nonetheless. This opinion is not a comment, pro or con, on the merits of sectarian doctrine or on the deep and sincerely held personal beliefs, values and convictions of those who either favor abortion or who oppose it on moral or religious grounds.
[*P68] Unfortunately, however, it is these doctrines, values, beliefs and convictions which invariably fuel the hurricane of legal debate on this issue. And that, of course, is precisely the problem. The government can demonstrate no compelling interest for legislating on the basis of any sectarian doctrine nor may the state infringe individual liberty and personal autonomy because of majoritarian demands to safeguard some intrinsic value unrelated to the protection of the rights and interests of persons with constitutional status. The fundamental [**388] right to personal and procreative autonomy and, in the broader sense, to individual privacy, prohibits the government from dictating, approving or condemning values, beliefs and matters ultimately involving individual conscience, where opinions about the nature of such values and beliefs are seriously divided; where, at their core, such values and beliefs reflect essentially religious convictions that are fundamental to moral personality; and where the government's decision has a greatly disparate impact on the persons whose individual beliefs and personal commitments are displaced by the State's legislated values. See Dworkin, Life's Dominion, at 157; Dworkin, Freedom, at 101-102.
[*P69] That is not to say that matters involving religious values and individual conscience are not appropriately addressed by churches, other organizations and individuals in both sectarian and secular forums. Indeed, such expression aimed at changing individual values and convictions and at fostering respect for the intrinsic value of all life is protected by the First Amendment and, independently of the federal constitution, by Article II, Sections 5 and 7 of the Montana Constitution. However the doctrine of separation of church and state which is also embodied in the First Amendment and, independently, in Article II, Section 5, makes theology an impermissible basis on which to make law or interpret the Constitution. Religious arguments do not count as legal arguments. See Dworkin, Life's Dominion, at 110.
[*P70] For this reason, and without abandoning their own personal beliefs and [***383] convictions, those in government who make, execute and interpret the law and who are sworn to support, protect and defend the Constitution may not, except in violation of their oaths of office, succumb to the pressure of those who would engraft the sectarian tenets and personal values of some onto the laws which govern all.
COTTINGHAM v STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS, ETC No. 9869.
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA - -
134 Mont. 1; 328 P.2d 907; 1958 Mont. LEXIS 17
“This court's plain duty is to see that the constitutional mandate has been obeyed by the Legislature…”
"Nor is it any concern of the court whether the act is expedient, wise, or unwise. State ex rel. Bonner v. Dixon, 59 Mont. 58, 195 P. 841. It is legislative power, not policy, that is drawn in question. And while we are mindful of the presumptions in favor of legislative acts, yet, being bound to support, protect, and defend the Constitution, when an enactment transgresses the constitutional limitations beyond a reasonable doubt, it is our solemn and sworn duty to so declare it. We are mindful, too, that the declaration of Constitutions are placed therein to be obeyed, and are not to be frittered away by construction. Less v. City of Butte, 28 Mont. 27, 72 P. 140, 61 L.R.A. 601, 98 Am. St. Rep. 545…”

As always, Think about it and I'd like to encourage your comments about this important topic.

Rick Gold
Missoula, MT

Montana and the loss of integrity in our Judicial System

Could you imagine a system of government, where the people who represent you, actually cared about you and everyone else, they represented? I mean, instead of the special interests? Well, let's have a look at the integrity of our Montana Judicial System. My personal experiences with my pro se Civil lawsuits, thus far are troubling ... In attempting to attain justice for the harm done to me in February 2001 by the City and County of Missoula (see DV 03-46, 'Missoula' Montana 4th District Court), I raised numerous issues in regard to the integrity of Montana's Judicial system. I approached the Montana Supreme Court twice seeking supervisory control in Gold v. THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, IN AND FOR MISSOULA COUNTY, THE HONORABLE DOUGLAS G. HARKIN, Presiding, Respondent (OP 08-0544, Dec 2, 2008 Mont. LEXIS 711). However, my petitions were denied without ever addressing the Constitutional issues that were raised.
Now, I'm back in Montana 4th District Court with these Constitutional issues in DV 09-320, and so far, I have the same Judge presiding who ruled against me in DV 03-46; the State's Attorney denies that these Constitutional issues in the current case did not arrise out of DV 03-46; the Judge has denied my motion to subpoena witnesses; and the State's attorney went on vacation so he has delayed his response to summary judgment until next week (October 5, 2009).
Can anybody else find anything wrong with this ongoing scenario.
Really, where is the Integrity in Montana's Judicial System?
What about Montana's Constitutional guarantee in Section 16 concerning administering justice? Let's see what some of America's famous leaders had to say about integrity.

John Adams, (1735-1826), Founding Father and 2nd US President, had this to say about integrity... "Society's demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases." "Human nature itself is evermore an advocate for liberty. There is also in human nature a resentment of injury, and indignation against wrong. A love of truth and a veneration of virtue. These amiable passions, are the "latent spark"... If the people are capable of understanding, seeing and feeling the differences between true and false, right and wrong, virtue and vice, to what better principle can the friends of mankind apply than to the sense of this difference?"

Now, this quote from Justice Louis D. Brandeis (1856-1941) US Supreme Court Justice ..."The government is the potent omnipresent teacher. For good or ill it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that the end justifies the means -- to declare that the government may commit crimes -- would bring terrible retribution." and "Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law breaker, it breeds contempt for the law." and "At the foundation of our civil liberties lies the principle that denies to government officials an exceptional position before the law and which subjects them to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen."

Now, this quote from Justice William J. Brennan (1906-1997) U. S. Supreme Court Justice ...
"The Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to “create” rights. Rather they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our Government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be preexisting."

Now, this quote from Justice Stephen J. Field (1816-1899) US Supreme Court Justice ..."Here I close my opinion. I could not say less in view of questions of such gravity that go down to the very foundations of the government. If the provisions of the Constitution can be set aside by an Act of Congress, where is the course of usurpation to end? The present assault upon capital is but the beginning. It will be but the stepping-stone to others, larger and more sweeping, till our political contests will become a war of the poor against the rich; a war growing in intensity and bitterness." From a United States Supreme Court opinion, Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co. (1898).


Now, this quote from the Oath for Candidates Seeking Admission to the Bar, 1925, of the American Bar Association ... "I shall not counsel or maintain any suit or proceeding which shall appear to me to be unjust, nor any defense except such as I believe to be honestly debatable under the law of the land."

As always, Think about it and I'd like to encourage your comments about this important topic.

Rick Gold
Missoula, MT

Montana - Public (Self) Defenders - Unequal Access to inJustice

Dateline September 09, 2009 - The Montana Public (Self) Defender Debacle - A total, often ludicrous failure and A Crisis of Conscience for our Montana Legal/Judicial System ... Hey, Montana, there's a GREAT BIG white elephant in law offices and Courtrooms across Montana!

Question - What do the Montana Public Defenders have to do with Criminal Defense? The Only possible answer is Defending themselsves. When you compare the lacklustre performance of Montana's Public Defenders to the stellar performance of the State, Counties and Cities legal Prosecuters (and staff), then there really is - NO Contest! It's a slam dunk for the Montana Prosecuters home team! And, meanwhile, with ALL their forgotten Lawyers Constitutional Oaths of Office to support, protect and defend Our Constitution (and Rules of Professional Conduct, no less), who among these gallant Montana lawyers IS proactively supporting, protecting or defending Montana's Constitutional rights of the poor (read indigent in the Montana Public Defender Act) in the process? Really, with these ridiculous sums ($100 Millions?) being spent on both sides of Criminality, who is minding the Constitutional Civil store in Montana?

In an article this week in the Missoula Independent News entitled "Self-defense -
State's public defender system takes the stand," Alex Sakariassen quotes a 66-page draft recommendation report from American University (AU) on how to improve the fledgling Montana Office of the Public Defender (OPD). In the draft the OPD is responsible for representing roughly 26,000 defendants a year in Montana. In his article, Alex quotes, Scott Crichton, executive director of the ACLU, as saying, "It's not just about defending criminals," ..."It's about defending people accused of crimes...it's about defending innocent people as well as providing good defense for guilty people, it's about saving tax dollars by having shorter pre-trial incarceration."
http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/self-defense/Content?oid=1162302

Recently, in an August 2009 Missoulian article titled, "More than 10 percent of Montanans receiving food stamps" author and reporter JENNIFER McKEE, wrote, "Montana hit a sobering milestone in July: A record number of us, more than 100,000, are on food stamps, the federal anti-hunger program now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. The growth represents a more than 24 percent increase since May of 2008, said Linda Snedigar, administrator of the Human and Community Services Division at the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services. Some 100,552 people received food stamps in July, she said, representing a little more than 10 percent of the state's population." http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/article_987540a2-8568-11de-9ff0-001cc4c03286.html

But, what if the Montana State Legislature or the Governor, Counties or Cities or anyone of the myriad of Montana Attorneys are disregarding or violating their Oaths to Montana's Constitution or their Rules of Professional Conduct? How much money is being spent proactively to prosecute these infringements while supporting, protecting or defending Our Constitutional Rights? Sorry, the 66 page study is mum on this issue. Ask yourself this Montana, why is the Montana OPD, limited just to defending people accused of crimes? Why are they ignoring the Civil (proactive) cases allowed in the Montana Public Defender Act? Why is the Civil (proactive) side of law being ignored in relation to Montana's poor and the Montana OPD? Who is minding the store for the poor on the Civil side of Montana Law?

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 or Your City Attorney or Your City Employee (this could also apply to County or State) ...

Rick Gold

Missoula, MT

Missoula, MT, Criminalizing sleeping in the commons for the homeless!

The commons refers to public resources that are commonly owned. This could be land or food or .... And this week finds Missoula's Glorious City Representatives debating on whether or not, we as a City, should criminalize sleeping in Our commons. These changes are being considered for Missoula's "pedestrian interference" ordinance and they would limit the public places where people can sleep, lie and convene. The proposed rules would make it unlawful for people to lie or sleep on streets, sidewalks and public rights-of-way. It would also make it illegal for people to "walk, stand, sit, lie or place an object" where it obstructs walkers by leaving them less than 6 feet of room to pass. It makes some exceptions as well. For each unlawful infraction there would be a $100 fine. And get this, all these new $100 fines for people who Obviously, can not afford them, might even be able to be worked off through a community service program!
See Missoulian article: "Missoula City Council committee debates 2nd panhandling ordinance" http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_aec28efa-8d47-11de-ba3f-001cc4c002e0.html )

Why, it wasn't to long ago that the Nazi's instituted and profited from a community service program known as forced labor camps, and now the City of Missoula, has embarked on handing out $100 fines to people who can not afford them, and PRESTO! Free labor camps for Missoula! But wait, who among our Representatives is even considering or talking about this?
Really, if there are "problems" (during the summer months) with homeless people in Missoula's commons, then why NOT deal with the "problems?" If people are Forced to pee on sidewalks or in public alleys, IT'S because, the City does NOT have adequate restrooms downtown! If there needs? to be 6 feet clearance for pedestrians to pass (Missoulans don't like cuddies), then
close OFF the downtown streets to CARS, and make ALL that common space available to pedestrians! If homeless people (who are pedestrians also, after all) need a place to hang out, why set aside some space in some of the public places (like parks) for sleeping/tenting camps with rules of proper behaviors of course!
Please read Montana's Constitution ...
In it, Article ll - Section 3. 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.

Come on City Representatives, use your HEADS, instead of your other parts to think!

"The human race is unimportant. It is the self that must not be betrayed." "I suppose one could say that Hitler didn't betray himself." "You are right. He did not. But, millions of Germans did betray their selves. That was the tragedy. Not that one man had the courage to be evil. But that millions had not the courage to be good." from The Magus, John Fowles

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 or Your City Attorney or Your City Employee (this could also apply to County or State) ...

Rick Gold
Missoula, MT

Missoula, MT, Criminalizing Homelessness, Profiling & Discrimination

Last Monday evening, the Missoula City Council, after much debate and heat about the so-called problem of "aggressive panhandling" and the denial about Criminalizing Homelessness, the Council passed the new ordinance 7-4 that "prohibits begging in an "aggressive manner," such as touching a person without asking, following someone being solicited and using violence. It prohibits telling lies to get money, and it also bans soliciting in some public places, such as near ATMs and within six feet of an entrance to a building."

This new ordinance provides for a $100 fine for any of this grab bag of infractions.

However, one real and tangible issue was voiced by Councilman Dick Haines. "Councilman Dick Haines, though, said one thing plenty of people are afraid to express aloud. The complaints aren't only about the aggression, but they're about the kind of people who are asking for money downtown. He said some shop owners tell him their customers don't want to visit because of the street people - and those customers vote with their feet and stay away from downtown stores. We've got enough vacancies on Main Street and Broadway, and we don't need any more, said Haines, who voted for the ordinance." from Keila Szpaller of the Missoulian Tuesday 8-18-09. http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_045468d8-8baf-11de-9a86-001cc4c002e0.html

Also note, that the Missoula City Council is currently working on an ordinance to ban homeless people sleeping on the streets.

The real issues then are about discrimination and criminalizing homelessness, downtown! Because, let's face it, there are a lot of "homeless" people who hang, downtown. Through a lot of hard work and effort, Missoulans have made it a very nice destination to be.

And, unfortunately, the homeless don't fit within the new and improved Downtown Master Plan, which developers envision and highlights high rise office/apartment/retail and condo complexes.

So how will they accomplish removing this homeless "undesirable element" from Missoula?

Well, let's start with profiling. Long about the time that the Missoula Downtown Association, broke off into the Downtown Business Improvement District and started working on its new Downtown Master Plan, certain changes started happening downtown. The City Council started adopting rules and ordinances, that restricted business people downtown, including hiring "ambassadors" downtown rule-givers and extra police patrols to help secure downtown from the undesirable. Next, they started profiling (mandatory back ground checks) business people who came in for a "business" license. It seems they only want the Right kind of people doing business in Missoula. Then, they started profiling street people and introducing ordinances to deal with the "problem" of these "street peoples' " behaviors on the Downtown streets. Of course, nobody on the City Council spoke to how many rules or ordinances are already on the books to deal with these unacceptable behaviors. Not one. No one spoke to how many other more serious issues were not being dealt with by the police. And besides, if they had to actually arrest, an "aggressive" person, then he would have a "Right" to an attorney (due process, it's in the Constitution) to defend himself, and that would take up a judges time and clog up the courts!

And, get this ... now, all a cop has to do to "profile" a person, is to go up and say, I got a complaint that you were being aggressive .... You were being aggressive weren't you? No, well here's a $100 ticket for aggressive panhandling and another for lying about it! Or how about, are you still lying about how you spend your panhandling funds? No? Then you are still lying to me! Here's a $100 ticket for lying! Or how about, the musician who having opened his guitar case to take out and play on the street, is approached by the police and given a $100 ticket, because he is 7.95 feet from an ATM, storefront ect. and obviously he is soliciting funds....

And this is where profiling comes in. If an officer just "stops" and "reports" a "homeless person," then, it goes on their "record." No due process, no trial, you just owe $100. Clean!
No muss, no fuss. Who cares if our City Councilors have sold one more little piece of Montana's Constitution down the river? Who cares if our City Councilors are discriminating against these undesirables? After all, aren't our brave City Councilors doing something about the problem?
Thank god, that our elected and hired representatives have sworn an Oath to support, protect and defend the Constitution of Montana. It a tough job, but someones got to do it!

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 or Your City Attorney or Your City Employee (this could also apply to County or State) ...

Rick Gold
Missoula, MT

Re: Further on Violation of our Right to Privacy, Missoula, MT

Dear Missoula Mayor and Missoula City Council,

Under the Montana Constitution, your electorate, have a Right to Know, that their elected and employed representatives are living up to their Oaths of Office.
Consequently, below are some additional questions for you ...
By-the-Way, Please don't accept any other person's interpretation of the Montana Constitution (it is your Oath after all)...
What exactly to each of you, does your Oath to support, protect and defend the Constitution of Montana mean to you?
In each of your deliberations and actions as an elected or employed representative of Missoula, do you perform an extra-ordinary duty of care, i.e. actively championing and guarding our Constitution and keeping it safe from attack or harm?
In regards to the aforementioned business license background checks in the City of Missoula, What Compelling State Interest have you shown to negate these people's Constitutional Right to Privacy (Article ll - Section 10)?
What probable cause (in each case) did you have to search these people's backgrounds (Due Process of Law & Article ll - Section 11. Searches and seizures)?
Who was involved in creating, instituting and carrying out these ongoing background checks? Who had access to this information.
Who were the people, who had to endure these infringements?
These are just a few of the questions. I have for now. Please answer them forthrightly ...

"The human race is unimportant. It is the self that must not be betrayed."
"I suppose one could say that Hitler didn't betray himself."
"You are right. He did not. But, millions of Germans did betray their selves. That was the tragedy. Not that one man had the courage to be evil. But that millions had not the courage to be good." from The Magus, John Fowles

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 or Your City Attorney or Your City Employee (this could also apply to County or State) ...

thanks,
Rick Gold
Missoula, MT

Deception and the Constitutional Oath of Public Office

When asked about their "Duty of Care" in regards to their work or their "legal" responsibilities and opinions in relation to the U.S. or Montana Constitution, most politicians or lawyers, will try to convince you that it is what they call an "ordinary" duty of care. But don't you be fooled by this mis-statement and these people not taking full responsibility for their oaths of office. It is up to each and everyone of us, to confront them with their duties and responsibilities.

First, let's look at the definition of ordinary ...

ordinary adj. regular, customary and continuing, and not unusual or extraordinary, as in ordinary expense, ordinary handling, ordinary risks, or ordinary skill. According to established order; methodical; settled; regular. ``The ordinary forms of law.'' --Addison.

Second, let's look at our elected and legal department's Oath of Office (which does NOT include their Rules of Professional Conduct). In Montana's Constitution, their Oath is “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the state of Montana, and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity (so help me God)."

Third, approach your representative and ask, "what does your Oath to support, protect and defend the Constitution of (your state) mean to you?" If their answer is anything other than an extra-ordinary duty of care, i.e. actively championing and guarding our Constitution(s) and keeping it safe from attack or harm, then you need to choose different Representatives and/or their (your) employees.
From The People's Law Dictionary:
To support: To argue in favor of; advocate; champion;
To protect: To keep from being damaged, attacked, stolen, or injured; guard;
T0 defend: To make or keep safe from danger, attack, or harm.

Fourth, keep informed, ask pertinent questions, keep a record of all communications, watch who lobbies them, gives them "campaign" money, be ever watchful of their actions, they speak so much louder than their words. And remember to be ever vigilant and act.

As always, I'd like to encourage your comments about this important topic.

Rick Gold
Missoula, MT

Violation of our Right to Privacy, Missoula, MT

A couple of weekends ago, a quiet artist friend, John R., decided after I had encouraged him, to "try" tabling (selling his art) on the streets on Missoula. He was very reticent and nervous, so, he set up his table next to ours on the corner of Broadway and Higgins. After a couple of hours and a few conversations, John and I were approached by Lori, a downtown ambassador with the Missoula Business Improvement District. She asked to see John's Business license and i said that he was tabling with us and checking out tabling. She said that since he had his own table, he was required to get his own business license.
Accordingly, last week, John went online, downloaded and filled out the ITINERATE VENDOR BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION, then went down to the Missoula City Recorder's Office to pay his $72.00 business license tax. After he got to the City Recorders and handed in his application and tax, the clerk told him that he would have to pay an additional $42.00 for a background check.
An excerpt from the "How to Apply for a Business License" page of the City Recorder's office:
"Mobile/Street Vendor: A mobile or Itinerate Vendor is anyone soliciting or providing goods and/or services in the City of Missoula out of a temporary location. All mobile vendors must pass a background check and route the application before they can set up for business. " http://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/index.aspx?nid=810
Webster's Online Dictionary defines Itinerate as "to travel a preaching or judicial circuit."
John immediately asked the clerk, don't I have "The Right to Privacy" and isn't a background check, an invasion of my privacy and therefore, a violation of Montana's Constitution?
Article ll - Section 10: Right of privacy. "The right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest."
The Clerk said she didn't know, that he would have to go talk to the police! But exactly, who with the Missoula Police Department is a Montana legal Constitutional scholar, she didn't elaborate.
He then asked her, what if anything in this background check would prevent him from getting a Itinerate Vendor Business License, again the clerk said she didn't know that he must talk to the Police! So, he left without getting his license.
First, all Missoula City personnel and elected officials, are paid by The People of Missoula. They work for US. Each and every one of US.
Second, who at the Missoula Police Department is the Montana Legal Constitutional Scholar, besides each and every policeman's duty to the Montana Constitution? Before City Councilors, the Mayor or the Police assume office, (including their "Rules of Professional Conduct") they must swear the following oath of office: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the state of Montana, and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity (so help me God).”
Third, who set up this invasion of privacy and where were/are our City Council or any of Our City Legal Department, who have ALL sworn these oaths of office to Our Constitution?
Fourth, How many good business people in Missoula have had to endure this unwarranted invasion of their privacy? Is it possible, that, because of the inaction of Our City Councilors and City Legal Department and the continuing mockery of the Missoula City Clerk's business license process, the people of the City of Missoula, now face, a class action by harmed business and other people?
Finally, how many other, little violations, of Our Montana Constitution, have our City Council and our City Legal Department, ignored and who is responsible, within all these great minds to check the Constitutional validity?

As always, I'd like to encourage your comments about this important topic. Please feel free to ask your City Councilor or Your City Attorney ...

thanks,
Rick Gold
Missoula, MT