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

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 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

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

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

Security vs Liberty in Missoula, MT USA

Benjamin Franklin once stated that "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. " And so it seems in the latest ongoing debate in Missoula, Montana about "limiting aggressive panhandling" downtown. See http://missoulian.com/articles/2009/07/29/news/local/news04.txt


One might well ask, well aren't their already laws on the books that deal with aggressive behaviors? And the of course, why aren't they being enforced? Why is it that the police have a need to add another $100 ticket to their arsenal in order to do something constructive about aggressive and intimidating behaviors of panhandlers? Why doesn't Missoula's City Council just bite the bullet and ban "panhandlers" altogether from our beautiful downtown? Out of sight, out of mind? Or is it that the City can NOT ban panhandlers, for fear of upsetting their firemen, who every so often set up on Madison St. bridge, aggresively intimidating drivers to "give?"
Of Course, the real problems of and with the "homeless" both here and all across America are economic, social and addiction related. Maybe, instead of exacerbating the situation further, the City Council and the police should instead spend a week on the streets, and get a whole new perspective on the "problem." You know, walk a mile in their shoes. They are humans after all.

Just like you and me.
And in Montana, they, like everyone else, have what Montana's Constitution calls inalienable rights - Article ll - Section 3. "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."

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).”

And finally, you and I and every other taxpayer is being asked to "pay" for our City Council and additional police to deal with yet "another" problem. And what of all the other "problems" we Missoulians are already "paying" for? Why do we still have murders, rapes, assaults, burglaries, theft, auto-theft, arson, fights etc in Missoula, MT at all? Why?


So maybe, the real issue is this: Missoulians giving up more of our essential liberties on the pretext that our police don't have enough laws at their disposal to deal with aggressive and/or intimidating behaviors, downtown (only during the summer, of course).

Well, in Missoula, we simply call this situation mere political bull pucky playing ....


So, once again, Benjamin Franklin stated that "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do."


So exactly, who are the fools who are complaining about not having the means to deal with "aggressive panhandling downtown" and "homeless" people sleeping downtown?

Well, read the new "proposed" ordinance addressing solicitation and intimidating panhandling. and, also, Could these proposed rules interfere with Missoulians free speech rights?


http://www.speakupmissoula.com/topic/200/Could_the_proposed_panhandling_rule_interfere_with_free_speech_rights


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



thanks,

Rick Gold

Missoula, MT

Why are County Sheriffs becoming our Constitutions Last Hope?

According to Richard Mack (http://www.sheriffmack.com/) a former two-term sheriff in Graham County, Ariz, who in his new book, “The County Sheriff, America's Last Hope” spells out why he believes sheriffs are the last line of defense for the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens.
“All law enforcement officers, from the FBI down to the local meter maid, derive their powers from the people,” Mack writes on his website, “but the only law enforcement officers in the land who answer directly to the people are county sheriffs.” Mack writes, “the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to police exactly four areas: treason, piracy, treaty violations and counterfeiting. The other 5,000 they've stolen and usurped from state and local authorities.” “The very people who have promised us they will protect and defend the Constitution are the ones who are destroying it.” In his 49-page book, Mack quotes Founding Fathers who warned that a centralized power in government would lead to one, in Thomas Jefferson's words, “as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.” http://missoulian.com/articles/2009/07/07/news/local/news02.txt

“On his website (http://www.sheriffmack.com/) you'll find many articles and extracts from books he's written on many subjects related to maintaining our freedom as a people. He is deeply committed to the belief that government should exist to protect the freedoms of the individuals whom it serves. We must return to those principles that our country was founded upon! The founders of our nation were afraid of one thing more than any other... government having too much power! Remember, they escaped from the tyranny of an oppressive and controlling government when they established this nation. They fought and died for it, and now we are letting these same freedoms they fought for slip away little by little, without a second thought.”
Mack also, lectures and gives seminars on constitutional issues relating to gun control, law enforcement, States' rights, the farce, otherwise known as the drug war, and the oath of office. He has also been a consultant for lawyers, and people in general helping them with cases of unlawful arrests and police misconduct. He has stood for “the little guy” against “big brother” government.
But what about all the other elected or appointed Judges, Lawyers, Congresspersons, Legislators, Governors, City and County politicians on each and every level of Government including police and sheriffs who also swear oaths of office, as in Montana, “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).” Article III - Section 3, Montana Constitution
Mack writes in his new book, “The very people who have promised us they will protect and defend the Constitution are the ones who are destroying it.”
So what can we as Americans and Montanans do in the fight to regain our rights, while the price to pay is less than death. Are we committed to doing all we can peacefully to get our country back. In order to succeed, we must first make ourselves aware of the problem. We must educate ourselves, and then we can know what action to take. One of the best and easiest solutions is to depend on local officials, especially the sheriff, to stand against federal intervention and federal criminality. It's time for us to reaffirm our Constitution locally with our elected, appointed and hired officials. Please email, call or speak in person to them directly asking if they understand and uphold their oaths of office with fidelity.
As Governor Brian Schweitzer has said in his campaigns accross Montana - It's time to Take Back Our State, Montana," and reclaim our State Constitution, too.
Think about it ….As always, please let me have your comments on this important topic, thanks!

Rick Gold
Missoula, MT

Administering Right and Justice without sale, denial or dely.

In Montana's Constitution, the people of Montana are ALL guaranteed a very special set of Enumerated Rights, referred to as Inalienable. Inalienable Rights are those Rights of the citizen incapable of being repudiated, taken away or transferred to another.
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 enjoying these rights, all persons recognize corresponding responsibilities.
These Inalienable Rights then are self-executing, self-administering and self-fulfilling.

The people of Montana are ALL guaranteed other special sets of Enumerated Rights. They are Popular sovereignty. Self-government. Individual dignity. Freedom of religion and Assembly. Freedom of speech, expression, and press. Right of participation. Right to Know. Right of privacy. Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Right to bear arms. Right of suffrage. Adult rights. Rights of persons not adults. Due process of law. Habeas corpus. Rights of the accused. Self-incrimination and double jeopardy. Trial by jury. Imprisonment for debt. Criminal justice policy -- rights of the convicted. Eminent domain. Etc.
And Unenumerated rights.
These Enumerated and UnEnumerated Rights then are self-executing, self-administering and self-fulfilling.
But how exactly, does a Court or an attorney or an elected public official, who have sworn to protect and defend our Constitution and our Rights, administer Right or Justice when it involves every one's Enumerated and UnEnumerated Rights?
Administer means: "To cause to take, either by openly offering or through deceit; To apportion out, as in administering justice; To manage or supervise the conduct, performance or execution of; to govern or regulate the parameters for the conduct, performance or execution of; to work in an administrative ..." from en.wiktionary.org/wiki/administer
So how many of our Constitutional Rights are being administered, legislated or opinioned away?

And does Article ll - Section 4 of Montana's Constitution: Individual Dignity establish an affirmative obligation of the State to not discriminate in providing its' Public Defender services to ensure equal access to justice to the State's indigent?
Montana State District Judge Kenneth R. Neill (Cascade County) seems to concur. In a ruling April 15, 2009 Judge Neill stated, "assistance of counsel is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. and Montana constitutions." And that a change in (Montana) state law, effective in 2006, "unambiguously erased the judge's desires in the matter of appointing a public defender." Read the Great Falls Tribune story here ... http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009904220314
"There can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has." Griffin v. Illinois, 351 US 12, 19 (1956)
Remember, the Montana Constitution's Section 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."
In the 1972 Montana Constitutional Convention, Delegate Mrs. Mansfield had these comments regarding Section 4 of the Montana Bill of Rights. "The committee unanimously adopted this section with the intent of providing a constitutional impetus for the eradication of public and private discrimination based on race, color, sex, culture, social origin or condition, or political or religious ideas. The provision, quite similar to that of the Puerto Rico declaration of rights, is aimed at prohibiting private as well as public discrimination in civil and political rights....Social origin or condition was included to cover discriminations based on status of income and standard of living."
And also the comment from Delegate Mr. Dahood, "The intent of Section 4 is simply to provide that every individual in the State of Montana, as a citizen of this state, may pursue his inalienable rights without having any shadows cast upon his dignity through unwarranted discrimination...(C)onstitutions are based on the premise that they are presumed to be self-executing, particularly within the Bill of Rights. If the language appears to be prohibitory and mandatory, as this particular section is intended to be, then in that event, the courts in interpreting the particular section are bound by that particular presumption and they must assume, in that situation, that it is self-executing. There was a case in Montana some 60 years ago that involved a provision of our Bill of Rights that had to do with an individual right, and there the Supreme Court said that was self executing and a citizen could enforce it without any type of legislative implementation."

Think about it ….As always, please let me have your comments on this important topic, thanks!

Inalienable Rights

The Montana Constitution guarantees for ALL certain: "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."

Henry David Thoreau once said "It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right," meaning that Montanans and Americans need to be ever vigilent in regards to maintaining and increasing their Human and Inalienable Rights. Merriam-Webster Online 2009 defines Inalienable as incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred." As former president Jimmy Carter often noted, "America did not invent human rights. In a very real sense human rights invented America."

However, in 2009, we as Montanans and Americans see infringements of our most sacred human rights on an ever increasing scale. On our National level we see: wars, lies, newspeak, wiretapping, loss of privacy, corruption, torture, environmental degradation, corporate domination, uncontrolable spending and continuing and deepening recession while American's Civil Rights are being trampled, left and right. It also seems that 1984, the famous book by George Orwell written and published in 1949, is being followed and enacted closely in Washington, D.C. these days to the detriment of all.

So, what is it that we, as Americans and Montanans, can do today to preserve, protect and further our Inalienable Rights for our future? Perhaps take some guidance from a few great inspirations about becoming activists now, ourselves: Mother Teresa said: "Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person." and "God doesn't require us to succeed; he only requires that you try." and "It is not the magnitude of our actions but the amount of love that is put into them that matters."
Nelson Mandela said: "Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world. For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others."
Mohandas Gandhi said: "A 'No' uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a 'Yes' merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble." and "A nation's culture resides in the hearts and in the soul of its people." and "Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth." and "Be the change that you want to see in the world."
Emma Goldman said: "The most violent element in society is ignorance." and "The demand for equal rights in every vocation of life is just and fair; but, after all, the most vital right is the right to love and be loved."
As always, please let me have your comments on this important topic, thanks …