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

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

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

Sworn Oath of Office: Politics, Words or Duty?

What do US Judges, Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Legislators, Senators, and other US officials have in common?
They ALL must swear to be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
But, have these politicians, faithfully supported, preserved, protected or defended our Constitution down through the years?
Just look at some of the things that the government can now do under The Patriot Act (as one recent example): Search your home; Wiretap your phone, computer, and internet; Investigate your financial records (bank accounts, credit cards, etc.); Investigate your library book activity; Investigate your medical records, travel records, and business records; Freeze your finances without the right to appeal; and Maintain “watch lists” that ban individuals from air travel.
But, aren't these governmental actions UnConstitutional, you might ask? Not until a government court rules they are. So, it appears that the US Congress and Presidents have not "faithfully supported, preserved, protected or defended" our Constitution in regards to The Patriot Act.
There are many other examples through the years, if you'd care to do a google search on dwindling civil rights.
In Montana, we have - the Constitution of Montana -- Article III - Section 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)."
Again, in Montana, there are examples of the Montana Legislature & Governor of passing laws
which do not support, protect or defend the constitution of the state of Montana. It's interesting that Retired Graham County, Arizona, Sheriff Mack (who made a handful of speeches in western Montana over the past week) http://www.sheriffmack.com says that "“The very people who have promised us they will protect and defend the Constitution are the ones who are destroying it.” And that Missoula's own Sheriff Mike McMeekin says of Mack "“What he's doing is politics,” McMeekin said. “What we're doing is law enforcement. They're not the same thing.” And "I'm not going to comment on him personally, but I can tell you that in Missoula County we're going to continue cooperating with law enforcement agencies, whether it's the feds, the state or the local police,” McMeekin said.
So, even if the Feds, State or local law enforcement agencies are violating our Constitutional Rights here in Missoula, Sheriff McMeekin says he will cooperate. “We're just another part of law enforcement,” he said. “We're certainly not going to be a county where we expect the feds to ask our permission to do their jobs. We're not going to have any of that nonsense.” Reported by Michael Moore of the Missoulian
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2009/07/13/news/mtregional/znews08.txt
Once again, 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

The U.S., Montana and Equal Protection under the Law

The U.S. Constitution guarantees in the 14th Amendment, Section 1 that, All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And;
In Montana, our Constitution guarantees in Article ll – 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.
So,
What exactly, does equal protection of the laws mean in and for Montana? The Montana Supreme Court has held that:
"The principal purpose of the Equal Protection Clause, Article II, Section 4, of the Montana Constitution, is to ensure that persons who are citizens are not subject to arbitrary and discriminatory state action." Davis v. Union Pacific Ry. Co., 282 Mont. 233, 240, 937 P.2d 27, 31 (1997) "[A] party claiming violation of the right to equal protection must first demonstrate that the law at issue discriminates by impermissibly classifying individuals and treating them differently based on that classification. Once the classification has been identified and it has been established that members of the different classes are similarly situated, we determine the appropriate level of scrutiny to apply." State v. Ellis, 2007 MT 210, ¶ 20, 339 Mont. 14, ¶ 20, 167 P.3d 896, ¶ 20. We apply strict scrutiny to laws which affect "fundamental rights, intermediate scrutiny for laws conferred by the Montana Constitution but not found in the Declaration of Rights, or rational basis if neither strict scrutiny nor intermediate scrutiny applies." Ellis, ¶ 11.
Yet, in their three narrow applications of equal rights thus far classified, the Supreme Court of Montana, has yet to "unambiguously erase their desires" (see Judge Neill below) concerning the self-executing, self-administering and self-fulfilling Rights of the inviolability of human dignity as well as our Fundamental Rights, our Enumerated Inalienable Rights and our UnEnumerated Rights.
Montana District Judge Kenneth R. Neill was on the right track in a ruling April 15, 2009, when stated in his opinion, “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
So, Judge Neill who has sworn the same oath of office as our Supreme Court Justices are required to swear before entering into office 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
In protecting and defending, Judge Neill applied the broadest application for a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. and Montana constitutions by removing himself and his desires in favor of insuring a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. and Montana constitutions.
And so, this is the fourth (and easiest) application of an equal protection under the Law, one of a Justice sworn to support, protect and defend the constitution removing oneself and ones desires in favor of insuring a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. and Montana constitutions.

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

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!

Defending our lives, civil liberties & civil rights in Montana and beyond.

In Montana and the United States, in 2009 we are faced with crisis and denial of conscience. What exactly does defending our lives and liberties mean? How do we as human beings and citizens, re-invigorate the principles, rights and responsibilities entrusted to our care and defense in our Constitutions. Why are so much of Montana's and U.S. resources tied up in criminal defense alone. (ex. Google: public defender) Why?
Under The Montana Public Defender Act, the Office of the State Public Defender was formed. "The mission of the Office of the State Public Defender is to ensure equal access to justice for the State's indigent and to provide appellate representation to indigent clients." Note that while the State Public Defender Office mission does NOT specifically exclude Civil causes by their established definition, Public Defenders are mearly "attorneys appointed by a court or employed by the government to represent indigent defendants in criminal actions." Who limited or limits Public Defenders to criminal cases only? Why?
Surely, this is NOT what our founding fathers (and mothers) had in mind when they entreated each and every one of us to defend our lives and civil liberties. And exactly, how do indigent people go about defending their lives and civil liberties against all forms of encroachment by our Montana and U.S. government if they have NO access to a skilled Civil attorney (see equal access, due process and poverty below)? Again why?
The main remedy in Montana provided for the defense of our Civil Liberties is in a Court of Justice. In Montana's Constitution, Article ll - Section 16. The administration of justice. Courts of justice shall be open to every person, and speedy remedy afforded for every injury of person, property, or character… Right and justice shall be administered without sale, denial, or delay.
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 …

Plumber, Mechanic, Surgeon or Lawyer

Would you take your car to a lawyer to have the engine rebuilt? No? Why not? Then, would you call an attorney to come to your house to fix your plumbing? No? Why not? Then, would you visit an attorney to operate on you or a loved one? No? Why not? Can a plumber or mechanic or surgeon be expected to perform in a Court of Law as well as a trained and qualified attorney? Who is better qualified to serve Justice than one who is trained and tested and a member of the State Bar? Then, why aren't attorney's available for ALL cases in Montana Courts (equal access) even if a person can't afford one (and currently that figure is at almost 30% of Montanans)? Who better to serve in Montana's closed Legal System then one who is qualified to act? Under the laws of the U.S. and the State of Montana, a person is required to be an attorney (a member of the State bar) for 5 years prior to becomming a Judge.
Therefore, a person must be an attorney and a member of the State Bar to participate in the Judiciary which is a distinct and separte branch of our government.
So, why are Montana's self-regulated Courts in denial about providing due process of law to the People of Montana in our Courts by offering the services of one our their own trained attorneys? Why are Montanan's being denied the equal protection of our laws by our Courts not offering the services of one of their trained attorneys? Why has Montana's Supreme Court ignored its Constitutional responsibility to the Administration of Justice - Right and justice shall be administered without sale, denial, or delay, by not requiring that right to an attorney to ensure that, no person shall be deprived of this full legal redress or remedy afforded for every injury of person, property, or character. Who better than an attorney to insure these Constitutional protections! (From Section 16 of the Montana Constitution 1972)
From the Montana Constitution:
ARTICLE III - GENERAL GOVERNMENT - Section 1. Separation of powers. The power of the government of this state is divided into three distinct branches--legislative, executive, and judicial. No person or persons charged with the exercise of power properly belonging to one branch shall exercise any power properly belonging to either of the others, except as in this constitution expressly directed or permitted.
Section 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.
ARTICLE VII - THE JUDICIARY- Section 9. Qualifications. (1) A citizen of the United States who has resided in the state two years immediately before taking office is eligible to the office of supreme court justice or district court judge if admitted to the practice of law in Montana for at least five years prior to the date of appointment or election. Qualifications and methods of selection of judges of other courts shall be provided by law.
From the Montana Code Annotated (2007) -3-5-202. Qualifications and residence (District Judge). (1) A person is not eligible for the office of judge of a district court unless the person is a citizen of the United States, has resided in the state 2 years immediately before taking office, and has been admitted to practice law in Montana for at least 5 years prior to the date of appointment or election.
As always, please let me have your comments on this important topic, thanks ...