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
Showing posts with label equal justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label equal justice. Show all posts
Friday, October 8, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
My Supreme Court case for representation of the poor in our MT Constitution
The four questions/issues I've introduced on appeal of my District Court Case (Gold v. State of Montana DV 09-320) are:
1) Did the District Court err in denying Plaintiff and Appellant's summary judgment motion while granting Defendant's summary judgment motion and while not addressing Plaintiff and Appellant's claims against the State of Montana?
2) Did the District Court err by not addressing in the final order, Plaintiff and Appellant's arguments regarding the Duty of Care of Montana Constitution' s demanding sworn oath of office upon Montana Legislators and the Governor in the performance of their duties of office and their greater duties to our Constitution,
especially in regards to discrimination?
3) Did the District Court err by not addressing in the final order, Plaintiff and Appellant's procedural arguments and objections, especially in regards to the Montana Constitution' s demanding oath of office and Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, in both his "summary judgment motion and brief' and in his "Combined Memorandum in Response to Defendant's Combined Memorandum in
Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiffs Response to Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment?"
4) Was Plaintiff and Appellant denied his Constitutional Right of the
Administration of Justice Article 11 - $16 and deprived of procedural due process and substantive due process of law guaranteed by the 14'~A mendment of the US.
Constitution and Article II. § 4 of the Montana Constitution by the 4th District Court in its final Order and Memorandum by not engaging in required constitutional analysis as well as offering no Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law, specifically as to why Plaintiff should be denied his Constitutional claims against the State?
------------ --------- ----ARGUMENT- --------- --------- ------
I feel like Don Quixote tilting at Montana windmills. The political reality OF 2010 is that "indigent" individuals in Montana and the U.S. cannot expect or find legal Counsel for Civil complaints involving Guaranteed Fundamental Rights.
In Montana, this Catch-22 political reality is reflected in a Catch-as-catch- can, or less formally, Willy Nilly Public Defender System ("the Montana Public Defender Act $47 MCA"), defined and developed out of a necessity to defend individuals accused of crimes against the State. (Art. I1 - 5 24. Rights of the accused.
Montana Constitution) . However, in common law as well as enumerated law, defending individuals is only half of our "equal protection of the laws" (see Section 4. Individual dignity. Montana Constitution) , the other half is defending Our Montana Constitution and Our Fundamental Rights through Civil action. This political reality is exactly what Attorney Dahood argued about in his amicus brief
in Dorwart v. Caraway ,
". . .in order to avoid this result and in order to give Montana's constitutional guarantees teeth, the framers intended that the people retain the ability to protect their rights--both
enumerated and unenumerated- -through direct actions in the courts. This conclusion follows from the Committee's proposal of Article 11, Section 34 to the Convention delegates and the subsequent adoption of this provision. Article 11, Section 34 states: Unenumerated rights.
The enumeration in this constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny, impair, or disparage others retained by the people." Donvart v. Caraway, 2002 MT 240; 3 12 Mont. 1; 58 P.3d 128
Whether political expediency, indifference, or simply a lack of understanding regarding the basic necessity of "equal access" and "equal protection" to Montana's Court system, the 1972 Montana Constitutional Delegates couldn't muster the needed votes to include and insure legal Counsel for ALL in Montana, especially the poor in Montana Civil Jurisprudence.
*Art. I1 - 5 4. Individual dignity. The dignity of the human being is inviolable. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. Neither the state nor any person, firm, corporation, or institution shall discriminate against any person in the exercise of his civil or political rights on account of race, color, sex, culture, social origin or condition, or political
or religious ideas.
Subsequently, they stopped short by requiring that Montana ONLY provide legal Counsel for Criminal Defendants in our 1972 Constitution. They also foresaw that they could not and should not limit the possession of ONLY those Montana's Constitutional Rights Enumerated, and that we the people recognize the possession
also of" Unenurnerated Rights" "(w)hich shall not be construed to deny, impair, or disparage others retained by thepeople." Art. I1 - 5 34. Unenumerated rights.
Montana Constitution. From these "Unenurnerated Rights" the Court has a vested self-interest in ensuring equal access to trained Counsel in Montana Jurisprudence for ALL the poor, yet as we see, in the instant Civil case, this is NOT the case to date and has caused the Discrimination in the Montana Public Defender Act.
------------ --------- ----END ARGUMENT---- --------- --------- ---
If you want to keep up with this case and/or read my opening brief:
On the internet goto:
http://fnweb1. isd.doa.state. mt.us/idmws/ custom/sll/ SLL_FN_Home. htm
Click on: Supreme Court Case Number
Enter ( DA 09-0675 ) in the box and click search.
Next click on Gold v. State and then click on
Appelant Brief and a new window will pop up with my pdf.
As always, Think about this and I'd like to encourage your comments about this important topic. Feel free to follow this important Case.
Rick Gold
Missoula, MT
1) Did the District Court err in denying Plaintiff and Appellant's summary judgment motion while granting Defendant's summary judgment motion and while not addressing Plaintiff and Appellant's claims against the State of Montana?
2) Did the District Court err by not addressing in the final order, Plaintiff and Appellant's arguments regarding the Duty of Care of Montana Constitution' s demanding sworn oath of office upon Montana Legislators and the Governor in the performance of their duties of office and their greater duties to our Constitution,
especially in regards to discrimination?
3) Did the District Court err by not addressing in the final order, Plaintiff and Appellant's procedural arguments and objections, especially in regards to the Montana Constitution' s demanding oath of office and Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, in both his "summary judgment motion and brief' and in his "Combined Memorandum in Response to Defendant's Combined Memorandum in
Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiffs Response to Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment?"
4) Was Plaintiff and Appellant denied his Constitutional Right of the
Administration of Justice Article 11 - $16 and deprived of procedural due process and substantive due process of law guaranteed by the 14'~A mendment of the US.
Constitution and Article II. § 4 of the Montana Constitution by the 4th District Court in its final Order and Memorandum by not engaging in required constitutional analysis as well as offering no Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law, specifically as to why Plaintiff should be denied his Constitutional claims against the State?
------------ --------- ----ARGUMENT- --------- --------- ------
I feel like Don Quixote tilting at Montana windmills. The political reality OF 2010 is that "indigent" individuals in Montana and the U.S. cannot expect or find legal Counsel for Civil complaints involving Guaranteed Fundamental Rights.
In Montana, this Catch-22 political reality is reflected in a Catch-as-catch- can, or less formally, Willy Nilly Public Defender System ("the Montana Public Defender Act $47 MCA"), defined and developed out of a necessity to defend individuals accused of crimes against the State. (Art. I1 - 5 24. Rights of the accused.
Montana Constitution) . However, in common law as well as enumerated law, defending individuals is only half of our "equal protection of the laws" (see Section 4. Individual dignity. Montana Constitution) , the other half is defending Our Montana Constitution and Our Fundamental Rights through Civil action. This political reality is exactly what Attorney Dahood argued about in his amicus brief
in Dorwart v. Caraway ,
". . .in order to avoid this result and in order to give Montana's constitutional guarantees teeth, the framers intended that the people retain the ability to protect their rights--both
enumerated and unenumerated- -through direct actions in the courts. This conclusion follows from the Committee's proposal of Article 11, Section 34 to the Convention delegates and the subsequent adoption of this provision. Article 11, Section 34 states: Unenumerated rights.
The enumeration in this constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny, impair, or disparage others retained by the people." Donvart v. Caraway, 2002 MT 240; 3 12 Mont. 1; 58 P.3d 128
Whether political expediency, indifference, or simply a lack of understanding regarding the basic necessity of "equal access" and "equal protection" to Montana's Court system, the 1972 Montana Constitutional Delegates couldn't muster the needed votes to include and insure legal Counsel for ALL in Montana, especially the poor in Montana Civil Jurisprudence.
*Art. I1 - 5 4. Individual dignity. The dignity of the human being is inviolable. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. Neither the state nor any person, firm, corporation, or institution shall discriminate against any person in the exercise of his civil or political rights on account of race, color, sex, culture, social origin or condition, or political
or religious ideas.
Subsequently, they stopped short by requiring that Montana ONLY provide legal Counsel for Criminal Defendants in our 1972 Constitution. They also foresaw that they could not and should not limit the possession of ONLY those Montana's Constitutional Rights Enumerated, and that we the people recognize the possession
also of" Unenurnerated Rights" "(w)hich shall not be construed to deny, impair, or disparage others retained by thepeople." Art. I1 - 5 34. Unenumerated rights.
Montana Constitution. From these "Unenurnerated Rights" the Court has a vested self-interest in ensuring equal access to trained Counsel in Montana Jurisprudence for ALL the poor, yet as we see, in the instant Civil case, this is NOT the case to date and has caused the Discrimination in the Montana Public Defender Act.
------------ --------- ----END ARGUMENT---- --------- --------- ---
If you want to keep up with this case and/or read my opening brief:
On the internet goto:
http://fnweb1. isd.doa.state. mt.us/idmws/ custom/sll/ SLL_FN_Home. htm
Click on: Supreme Court Case Number
Enter ( DA 09-0675 ) in the box and click search.
Next click on Gold v. State and then click on
Appelant Brief and a new window will pop up with my pdf.
As always, Think about this and I'd like to encourage your comments about this important topic. Feel free to follow this important Case.
Rick Gold
Missoula, MT
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
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
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
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
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
“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
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
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!
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!
Friday, May 22, 2009
Unbiased, Unprejudiced Individual Dignity
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."
Thus, in framing this section representatives to Montana's 1972 Constitutional Convention recognized that these prohibitions would and should be self-executing . So what exactly was this "Individual Dignity" that our representatives were envisioning for Montana's future? Why is it so important for Montanan's to create and maintain an Unbiased, Unprejudiced Individual Dignity for all of US?
From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations - " Whereas: recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world ... Therefore: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood...All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."
"Dignity does not come in possessing honors, but in deserving them." Aristotle (384-322 BC) Greek philosopher
"A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom." Fredrich August von Hayek (1899-1992), Nobel Laureate of Economic Sciences 1974
"No government is respectable which is not just. Without unspotted purity of public faith, without sacred public principle, fidelity, and honor, no machinery of laws, can give dignity to political society."Daniel Webster (1782-1852), US Senator
"The constitutional right of free expression… is designed and intended to remove governmental restraints from the arena of public discussion, putting the decision as to what views shall be voiced in the hands of each of us, in the hope that the use of such freedom will ultimately produce a more capable citizenry and more perfect polity and in the belief that no other approach would comport with the premise of individual dignity and choice upon which our political systems rests." John Marshall Harlan (1899-1971) U. S. Supreme Court Justice
"A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom." Fredrich August von Hayek (1899-1992), Nobel Laureate of Economic Sciences 1974
As always, please let me have your comments on this important topic, thanks ...
Thus, in framing this section representatives to Montana's 1972 Constitutional Convention recognized that these prohibitions would and should be self-executing . So what exactly was this "Individual Dignity" that our representatives were envisioning for Montana's future? Why is it so important for Montanan's to create and maintain an Unbiased, Unprejudiced Individual Dignity for all of US?
From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations - " Whereas: recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world ... Therefore: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood...All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."
"Dignity does not come in possessing honors, but in deserving them." Aristotle (384-322 BC) Greek philosopher
"A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom." Fredrich August von Hayek (1899-1992), Nobel Laureate of Economic Sciences 1974
"No government is respectable which is not just. Without unspotted purity of public faith, without sacred public principle, fidelity, and honor, no machinery of laws, can give dignity to political society."Daniel Webster (1782-1852), US Senator
"The constitutional right of free expression… is designed and intended to remove governmental restraints from the arena of public discussion, putting the decision as to what views shall be voiced in the hands of each of us, in the hope that the use of such freedom will ultimately produce a more capable citizenry and more perfect polity and in the belief that no other approach would comport with the premise of individual dignity and choice upon which our political systems rests." John Marshall Harlan (1899-1971) U. S. Supreme Court Justice
"A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom." Fredrich August von Hayek (1899-1992), Nobel Laureate of Economic Sciences 1974
As always, please let me have your comments on this important topic, thanks ...
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
poverty vs. indigence in Montana's Public Defender System
In Montana, are the 14.1% statewide poor people (in poverty)? Or are we really, really destitute (indigent)? Because if we are really, really destitute (indigent) then we may be entitled under the new Public Defender Act to equal access to justice and an attorney to boot! A Montanan can NOT simply be in poverty or poor or at a place that they can not afford a $150/hr attorney when the average Montanan's wage is $6.90/hr. No! They must be indigent! Because, "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 (ONLY!). (http://publicdefender.mt.gov/)
Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary Defines indigence as: "a level of poverty in which real hardship and deprivation are suffered and comforts of life are wholly lacking." And again, Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary defines poverty as:"the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions."
So, what does it take to be in real poverty in Montana. In 2009, the U.S. Dept of Human Services says that a person is in realitive poverty if that person makes $10,830 or less per year. See http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/09poverty.shtml
While the Small Area Income & Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) for 2007 of the U.S. Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/) - States: The number of all ages in poverty was 131,433 or 14.1% of Montana's overall population. And for Missoula County, the Missoula City-County Health Department and the Healthy Start Council Sept 3, 2008 Missoulian News: "Seventeen percent of all Montana children age 18 and under live in poverty. However, 38 percent of Native American children 18 and under live in poverty in our state. Yet, Native Americans are only 6 percent of our total population. Sixteen percent of children in Missoula County 18 and under live in poverty. Missoula County ranks 20th in the state, which means 36 counties have even more children living in poverty. The lowest rate is 9 percent in Stillwater County and the highest is 33 percent in Roosevelt County. The number of children in extreme poverty - those living at 50 percent of the federal poverty level - is increasing and has reached a statewide level of 8 percent."
So, what does it take in Montana to be labeled indigent? The U.S. Dept of Human Services or the Census Bureau or the U.S. Government have no relative indicators or charts for indigents. Only from the Montana State Code Section 47-1-104(3) of The Public Defender Act, do we get: "An applicant is indigent if: (a) the applicant's gross household income, as defined in 15-30-171, is at or less than 133% of the poverty level set according to the most current federal poverty guidelines updated periodically in the federal register by the United States department of health and human services under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 9902(2); or (b) the disposable income and assets of the applicant and the members of the applicant's household are insufficient to retain competent private counsel without substantial hardship to the applicant or the members of the applicant's household."
Ask yourself, why would Montana's Legislature and Governor choose to use indigent in the Montana Public Defender Act? Will this discrimination provide more poor Montanans with equal access to our Courts or justice? And exactly what percentage of the 14.1% of those stricken by real poverty will the Court or the Public Defender label indigent and actually try to help? Where have the integrity and the dignity in our Legislature & Governor & Courts gone? Really, what social condition is more acute in 2009 than realitive or real poverty?
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."
As always, please let me have your comments on this important topic, thanks ...
Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary Defines indigence as: "a level of poverty in which real hardship and deprivation are suffered and comforts of life are wholly lacking." And again, Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary defines poverty as:"the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions."
So, what does it take to be in real poverty in Montana. In 2009, the U.S. Dept of Human Services says that a person is in realitive poverty if that person makes $10,830 or less per year. See http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/09poverty.shtml
While the Small Area Income & Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) for 2007 of the U.S. Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/) - States: The number of all ages in poverty was 131,433 or 14.1% of Montana's overall population. And for Missoula County, the Missoula City-County Health Department and the Healthy Start Council Sept 3, 2008 Missoulian News: "Seventeen percent of all Montana children age 18 and under live in poverty. However, 38 percent of Native American children 18 and under live in poverty in our state. Yet, Native Americans are only 6 percent of our total population. Sixteen percent of children in Missoula County 18 and under live in poverty. Missoula County ranks 20th in the state, which means 36 counties have even more children living in poverty. The lowest rate is 9 percent in Stillwater County and the highest is 33 percent in Roosevelt County. The number of children in extreme poverty - those living at 50 percent of the federal poverty level - is increasing and has reached a statewide level of 8 percent."
So, what does it take in Montana to be labeled indigent? The U.S. Dept of Human Services or the Census Bureau or the U.S. Government have no relative indicators or charts for indigents. Only from the Montana State Code Section 47-1-104(3) of The Public Defender Act, do we get: "An applicant is indigent if: (a) the applicant's gross household income, as defined in 15-30-171, is at or less than 133% of the poverty level set according to the most current federal poverty guidelines updated periodically in the federal register by the United States department of health and human services under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 9902(2); or (b) the disposable income and assets of the applicant and the members of the applicant's household are insufficient to retain competent private counsel without substantial hardship to the applicant or the members of the applicant's household."
Ask yourself, why would Montana's Legislature and Governor choose to use indigent in the Montana Public Defender Act? Will this discrimination provide more poor Montanans with equal access to our Courts or justice? And exactly what percentage of the 14.1% of those stricken by real poverty will the Court or the Public Defender label indigent and actually try to help? Where have the integrity and the dignity in our Legislature & Governor & Courts gone? Really, what social condition is more acute in 2009 than realitive or real poverty?
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."
As always, please let me have your comments on this important topic, thanks ...
Friday, May 15, 2009
Liberty vs Due Process
Today, Webster’s OnLine Dictionary offers several primary definitions for liberty: “the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases b: freedom from physical restraint c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e: the power of choice.”
However, on March 23, 1775, when Patrick Henry issued the famous line, “Give me liberty or give me death!” from a speech he gave to the Virginia Convention, liberty was for him…(F)or my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate.”
In our U.S. and State Constitutions, and in the Declaration of Independence, we see liberty described as the powers of a sovereign people to create and participate in a government of their making … “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed…” Which was extended to the States in 1868 in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution: “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 again in the 5th, 9th & 10th Amendments to the US Constitution (read “Equal Access” for this discussion.) And the concept of liberty is also included in Montana’s Constitution. In the Preamble: “We the people of Montana grateful to God for the quiet beauty of our state, the grandeur of our mountains, the vastness of our rolling plains, and desiring to improve the quality of life, equality of opportunity and to secure the blessings of liberty for this and future generations do ordain and establish this constitution.” And throughout Montana’s Constitution.
The concept of Due Process and Due Process of Law on the other hand which has been around since the Magna Carta in 1215 and is a course of legal proceedings according to rules and principles that have been established in a system of jurisprudence for the enforcement and protection of private legal rights. In each case, due process contemplates an exercise of the powers of government as the law permits and sanctions, under recognized safeguards for the protection of individual rights. It is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law of the land. As developed through a large body of case law in the U.S., this principle gives individuals a varying ability to enforce their rights against alleged violations by governments and their agents (that is, state actors), but normally not against other private citizens. Due process has also been frequently interpreted as placing limitations on laws and legal proceedings, in order for judges instead of legislators to define and guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty. This interpretation has often proven controversial, and is analogous to the concepts of natural justice, and procedural justice used in various other jurisdictions.
As always, Please let me have your comments on this important topic, thanks …
However, on March 23, 1775, when Patrick Henry issued the famous line, “Give me liberty or give me death!” from a speech he gave to the Virginia Convention, liberty was for him…(F)or my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate.”
In our U.S. and State Constitutions, and in the Declaration of Independence, we see liberty described as the powers of a sovereign people to create and participate in a government of their making … “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed…” Which was extended to the States in 1868 in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution: “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 again in the 5th, 9th & 10th Amendments to the US Constitution (read “Equal Access” for this discussion.) And the concept of liberty is also included in Montana’s Constitution. In the Preamble: “We the people of Montana grateful to God for the quiet beauty of our state, the grandeur of our mountains, the vastness of our rolling plains, and desiring to improve the quality of life, equality of opportunity and to secure the blessings of liberty for this and future generations do ordain and establish this constitution.” And throughout Montana’s Constitution.
The concept of Due Process and Due Process of Law on the other hand which has been around since the Magna Carta in 1215 and is a course of legal proceedings according to rules and principles that have been established in a system of jurisprudence for the enforcement and protection of private legal rights. In each case, due process contemplates an exercise of the powers of government as the law permits and sanctions, under recognized safeguards for the protection of individual rights. It is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law of the land. As developed through a large body of case law in the U.S., this principle gives individuals a varying ability to enforce their rights against alleged violations by governments and their agents (that is, state actors), but normally not against other private citizens. Due process has also been frequently interpreted as placing limitations on laws and legal proceedings, in order for judges instead of legislators to define and guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty. This interpretation has often proven controversial, and is analogous to the concepts of natural justice, and procedural justice used in various other jurisdictions.
As always, Please let me have your comments on this important topic, thanks …
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Equal Access
On first blush when we as Americans, hear or search something out about equal access in Montana or in America (as elsewhere I'm sure), it is usually about access to education or women's rights or healthcare or social justice or fishing rights etc, but, NOT about Equal Access to Justice. Why? At the base of ANY equal access issue, is the ultimate question of Justice. If we start with the root of the word Equal from the French word egal meaning that all people are endowed with basic human rights and therefore have the same (equal) political, economic, social, and civil rights; And then we look to justice : "the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments." From Webster's OpenDictionary and attributed to 12th century Middle English.
So how did our ancestors deal with the concepts of equality and justice?
In America, in the Bill of Rights to our Constitution (the highest law of our land) and the preamble to Our Declaration of Independence, Americans set the tone of American Justice over two hundred years ago...
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness..."
And from our Bill of Rights to Our Constitution ... Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain. "No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. " Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. " Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So what were these truths concerning equality and justice that were self-evident: being created equally with certain unalienable Rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness? And why, was it necessary to justice to reinforce these truths in the 5th Amendment with "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law?" Inorder to interpret these concepts for just powers from the consent of the governed and insure that all parties were dealt with impartially, fairly and equitably, our forefathers set up the third branch of American Government in our Constitution. Article Three - establishes the judicial branch of the federal government. "The judicial branch comprises the Supreme Court of the United States along with lower federal courts established pursuant to legislation by Congress. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed." Yet nowhere in its enabling or creation or history of our Federal courts and very little in the State of Montana Courts, has equality or justice been mentioned, established or enforced. It is merely a Court of Laws, without the Spirit of American Justice or Equality behind it.
And in the overall American System of Law, therein lies the problem. For law is merely: "A rule of conduct established and enforced by the authority, legislation, or custom of a given community, State, or nation." From Webster's OpenDictionary
So how do we regain Equal Access and Justice in Our American Court System in 2009? In our State Court Systems! Please look above for articles 9 and 10 in our Bill of Rights!
As always, Please let me have your comments on this important topic, thanks ...
So how did our ancestors deal with the concepts of equality and justice?
In America, in the Bill of Rights to our Constitution (the highest law of our land) and the preamble to Our Declaration of Independence, Americans set the tone of American Justice over two hundred years ago...
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness..."
And from our Bill of Rights to Our Constitution ... Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain. "No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. " Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. " Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So what were these truths concerning equality and justice that were self-evident: being created equally with certain unalienable Rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness? And why, was it necessary to justice to reinforce these truths in the 5th Amendment with "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law?" Inorder to interpret these concepts for just powers from the consent of the governed and insure that all parties were dealt with impartially, fairly and equitably, our forefathers set up the third branch of American Government in our Constitution. Article Three - establishes the judicial branch of the federal government. "The judicial branch comprises the Supreme Court of the United States along with lower federal courts established pursuant to legislation by Congress. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed." Yet nowhere in its enabling or creation or history of our Federal courts and very little in the State of Montana Courts, has equality or justice been mentioned, established or enforced. It is merely a Court of Laws, without the Spirit of American Justice or Equality behind it.
And in the overall American System of Law, therein lies the problem. For law is merely: "A rule of conduct established and enforced by the authority, legislation, or custom of a given community, State, or nation." From Webster's OpenDictionary
So how do we regain Equal Access and Justice in Our American Court System in 2009? In our State Court Systems! Please look above for articles 9 and 10 in our Bill of Rights!
As always, Please let me have your comments on this important topic, thanks ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
