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

Today,

I attended a panel discussion at The 2010 Browning Symposium at the University of Montana sponsored by the Montana Law Review (see http://montanalawreview.com/id62.html ).
In questioning the assumptions of the panelists at the 11:40 panel entitled "Constitutional Torts: Does Such a Cause of Action Exist" concerning "poor people" read "indigent" in Montana gaining Civil relief and/or enforcing their Self-Executing Constitutional Rights in the Courts, pro se, I was informed that the "public defender" system in Montana is overwhelmed and underfunded and deals almost exclusively with the criminal side of Montana Law read "defense."

In my cause (5/4/2010) against the State of Montana (see
http://fnweb1.isd.doa.state.mt.us/idmws/custom/sll/SLL_FN_Home.htm
Enter either ( DA 09-0675 ) in the box and click search; or
Click on: Party search name and enter Gold;
Next click on Gold v. State and then click on Appelant Brief first then the 2 other briefs and new windows will pop up with pdfs which you can save and read.)

for refusing to appoint a public defender in my ongoing cause DV03-46.

In their opinion on Self-Executing Constitutional Torts, the Court wrote:
"Gold’s remaining arguments involve the merits of his constitutional claims. He
asserts that the “political reality” of 2010 is that indigent individuals in Montana cannot obtain legal counsel for civil complaints involving guaranteed fundamental rights. He contends that the Montana Public Defender Act unlawfully discriminates in allowing counsel for certain civil cases but denying it for all others—in particular, by denying it in cases involving fundamental rights. Citing the specially concurring opinion in Kloss v. Edward D. Jones & Co., 2002 MT 129, ¶ 58, 310 Mont. 123, 54 P.3d 1, Gold points out that constitutional rights that cannot be enforced are illusory. He argues that the rights to equal protection of the laws and equal access to justice should work together to prevent discrimination against the poor in Montana’s justice system. But he contends that this presently is not the case and that indigent persons against whom the State has allegedly discriminated are denied the assistance of counsel in prosecuting these offenses. In
support of his arguments, Gold quotes at some length from the 1972 Constitutional
Convention transcripts and the specially concurring opinion in Dorwart v. Caraway,
2002 MT 240, ¶¶ 79-98, 312 Mont. 1, 58 P.3d 128, and he cites various other cases from this Court and the United States Supreme Court.
¶9 The State, in turn, argues that if this Court reaches the substance of Gold’s
constitutional claims, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment on each one.
The State provides separate analyses respecting procedural due process (Article II,
Section 17), access to the courts (Article II, Section 16), the right to defend property rights (Article II, Section 3), equal protection (Article II, Section 4), substantive due process (Article II, Section 17), and the oath of office (Article III, Section 3).
¶10 Having considered the briefs and the record, we conclude that Gold has failed to
refute the State’s arguments that the Legislature and the Governor are statutorily immune from suit on Gold’s claims. We further conclude that while Gold, as a self-represented litigant, has made a genuine effort to research and develop his constitutional arguments on appeal, his claims nevertheless have not been sufficiently presented and argued so as to permit this Court to decide them on the merits. We acknowledge the irony of the situation—the Catch-22 in which Gold finds himself—namely, that the fact his claims have not been adequately presented is itself reflective of the very claims he is attempting to present: that as an indigent citizen, he requires the assistance of counsel to vindicate his constitutional civil rights. Nevertheless, this Court simply cannot decide a question of such significant import on the basis of the current briefing. Moreover, even setting aside this aspect of the case, the record presently before this Court is wholly inadequate for purposes of deciding such a claim. Cf. Brady v. PPL Montana, LLC, 2008 MT 177, ¶ 5, 343 Mont. 405, 185 P.3d 330 (refusing to address constitutional issues “in a relative vacuum”).

And unfortunately, no one in Montana's legal community is addressing this very situation.

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

happy earth day,
peace,
Rick Gold
Missoula, MT

United We Stand ....

"United We Stand"
http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/gyrobase/united-we-stand/Content?oid=1255288&storyPage=2
May Day Hoax
While marching through the streets,
we Missoula Hoaxers,
dragging our ill gotten gain "Lady Ann Magee II,"
the actual cost of which was $68 million dollars
in the blood, sweat and tears of our community,
I couldn't help feeling justified in protesting the way
cor poor rate america is killing
Missoula's and missoulian's e con of me.
How the drain of dollars and talent and sweat equity
means less than nada to the robber barons...
who are only beholden to their bottom line.
And so, every one of us is together
here, marching and pulling, pulling, pulling...
the same boat we are all in while
main stream media accuses us of
being the hoaxers!
Go figure....
Thanks capan Smurfit!
For showing us the way....

Rick Gold
Missoula, MT
May 14, 2010
http;//mtlegal.blogspot.com

The Canary in the Coal Mine of the Montana Court System

The Right to Defend Property Rights or
The Canary in the Coal Mine of the Montana Court System

Being poor in Montana is no sin. Yet when Gold originally set out to prosecute the City and County of Missoula et al for taking his property and then not protecting it, he encountered that No Civil attorney in Missoula would assist him with his case. He then went to the Missoula Family Law Self-Help Center in the County building but they specialize in Pro Se family law. Next he went to the Montana Legal Services Association who wouldn’t help. He then contacted the Montana ACLU, who wouldn’t help. This was his personal experience which wasted 100’s of his hours, searching. Finally, he was forced to file his own Pro Se cause (and study and learn law himself) even though Montana’s Rules of Professional Conduct in PREAMBLE: A LAWYER'S RESPONSIBILITIES state:

“(7) As a public citizen, a lawyer should seek improvement of the law, access to the legal system, the administration of justice and the quality of service rendered by the legal profession. As a member of a learned profession, a lawyer should cultivate knowledge of the law beyond its use for clients, employ that knowledge in reform of the law and work to strengthen legal education. In addition, a lawyer should further the public’s understanding of and confidence in the rule of law and the justice system because legal institutions in a constitutional democracy depend on popular participation and support to maintain their authority. A lawyer should be mindful of deficiencies in the administration of justice and of the fact that the poor, and sometimes persons who are not poor, cannot afford adequate legal assistance. Therefore, all lawyers should devote professional time and resources and use civic influence to ensure equal access to our system of justice for all those who because of economic or social barriers cannot afford or secure adequate legal counsel. A lawyer should aid the legal profession in pursuing these objectives and should help the bar regulate itself in the public interest.”

So Whose Responsibility is it to Defend the Fundamental Rights of ALL Montanans, including indigents? Certainly, The Montana Public Defender System is a start. All Lawyers Professional Responsibility is a start. The Montana Justices Professional Responsibility is a start. The Montana Court System is a start. The Montana ACLU is a start. The Montana Legal Services Association is a start. The Missoula Family Law Self-Help Center is a start. Taken ALL together, they are ONLY piecemeal parts of the answer to a system that doesn’t work in my cause. And, they are ONLY a start. My cause before you, is an indicator of how that start isn’t working. What it indicates is “the weakest link” in Defending the Fundamental Rights or Civil Liberties Guaranteed in Montana’s Constitution.

Of course, "Defense" attorneys will argue that ALL of these services are underfunded and overwhelmed by the ever increasing needy, and that Defending Our Fundamental Rights (Civil Liberties) takes a VERY back seat to Defending Montanans accused of crimes against the State. And the statistics clearly speak for themselves.

However, this argument is short sighted and completely ignores the most compelling sentence of Art. II § 3 of Montana’s Constitution. “In enjoying these Rights, ALL persons recognize corresponding responsibilities.” ALL people. All Lawyers. All Judges. All Legislators. All Governors. All Politicians. All Counties. All Cities and All Everyday Montanans. ALL persons. But, who monitors or champions or recognizes the importance of these Responsibilities, with an eye to the ever increasing number of poor people in Montana, who are 100 times more likely to have a fundamental rights issue with the state and who ultimately, may have a dire need of Counsel in protecting Every Montanans fundamental rights.

And make NO mistake. These Fundamental Rights are Civil Rights not Criminal. And, those Responsibilities were put there specifically to remind us ALL our "duty to defend" those inalienable rights and especially for those whose duty of care and oath of office make it imperative that they act to support, protect and defend Our Constitution and ALL our Rights.

If you want to keep up with this case and/or read these important briefs:
On the internet goto:
http://fnweb1.isd.doa.state.mt.us/idmws/custom/sll/SLL_FN_Home.htm

Click on: Supreme Court Case Number
Enter either ( DA 09-0675 ) in the box and click search; or Click on: Party search name and enter Gold;
Next click on Gold v. State and then click on
Appelant Brief first then the 2 other briefs and a new windows will pop up with pdfs which you can save and read.

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

Rick Gold
Missoula, MT

My Supreme Court case for representation of the poor in our MT Constitution

The four questions/issues I've introduced on appeal of my District Court Case (Gold v. State of Montana DV 09-320) are:
1) Did the District Court err in denying Plaintiff and Appellant's summary judgment motion while granting Defendant's summary judgment motion and while not addressing Plaintiff and Appellant's claims against the State of Montana?
2) Did the District Court err by not addressing in the final order, Plaintiff and Appellant's arguments regarding the Duty of Care of Montana Constitution' s demanding sworn oath of office upon Montana Legislators and the Governor in the performance of their duties of office and their greater duties to our Constitution,
especially in regards to discrimination?
3) Did the District Court err by not addressing in the final order, Plaintiff and Appellant's procedural arguments and objections, especially in regards to the Montana Constitution' s demanding oath of office and Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, in both his "summary judgment motion and brief' and in his "Combined Memorandum in Response to Defendant's Combined Memorandum in
Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiffs Response to Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment?"
4) Was Plaintiff and Appellant denied his Constitutional Right of the
Administration of Justice Article 11 - $16 and deprived of procedural due process and substantive due process of law guaranteed by the 14'~A mendment of the US.
Constitution and Article II. § 4 of the Montana Constitution by the 4th District Court in its final Order and Memorandum by not engaging in required constitutional analysis as well as offering no Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law, specifically as to why Plaintiff should be denied his Constitutional claims against the State?

------------ --------- ----ARGUMENT- --------- --------- ------

I feel like Don Quixote tilting at Montana windmills. The political reality OF 2010 is that "indigent" individuals in Montana and the U.S. cannot expect or find legal Counsel for Civil complaints involving Guaranteed Fundamental Rights.
In Montana, this Catch-22 political reality is reflected in a Catch-as-catch- can, or less formally, Willy Nilly Public Defender System ("the Montana Public Defender Act $47 MCA"), defined and developed out of a necessity to defend individuals accused of crimes against the State. (Art. I1 - 5 24. Rights of the accused.
Montana Constitution) . However, in common law as well as enumerated law, defending individuals is only half of our "equal protection of the laws" (see Section 4. Individual dignity. Montana Constitution) , the other half is defending Our Montana Constitution and Our Fundamental Rights through Civil action. This political reality is exactly what Attorney Dahood argued about in his amicus brief
in Dorwart v. Caraway ,
". . .in order to avoid this result and in order to give Montana's constitutional guarantees teeth, the framers intended that the people retain the ability to protect their rights--both
enumerated and unenumerated- -through direct actions in the courts. This conclusion follows from the Committee's proposal of Article 11, Section 34 to the Convention delegates and the subsequent adoption of this provision. Article 11, Section 34 states: Unenumerated rights.
The enumeration in this constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny, impair, or disparage others retained by the people." Donvart v. Caraway, 2002 MT 240; 3 12 Mont. 1; 58 P.3d 128
Whether political expediency, indifference, or simply a lack of understanding regarding the basic necessity of "equal access" and "equal protection" to Montana's Court system, the 1972 Montana Constitutional Delegates couldn't muster the needed votes to include and insure legal Counsel for ALL in Montana, especially the poor in Montana Civil Jurisprudence.
*Art. I1 - 5 4. Individual dignity. The dignity of the human being is inviolable. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. Neither the state nor any person, firm, corporation, or institution shall discriminate against any person in the exercise of his civil or political rights on account of race, color, sex, culture, social origin or condition, or political
or religious ideas.
Subsequently, they stopped short by requiring that Montana ONLY provide legal Counsel for Criminal Defendants in our 1972 Constitution. They also foresaw that they could not and should not limit the possession of ONLY those Montana's Constitutional Rights Enumerated, and that we the people recognize the possession
also of" Unenurnerated Rights" "(w)hich shall not be construed to deny, impair, or disparage others retained by thepeople." Art. I1 - 5 34. Unenumerated rights.
Montana Constitution. From these "Unenurnerated Rights" the Court has a vested self-interest in ensuring equal access to trained Counsel in Montana Jurisprudence for ALL the poor, yet as we see, in the instant Civil case, this is NOT the case to date and has caused the Discrimination in the Montana Public Defender Act.

------------ --------- ----END ARGUMENT---- --------- --------- ---
If you want to keep up with this case and/or read my opening brief:
On the internet goto:
http://fnweb1. isd.doa.state. mt.us/idmws/ custom/sll/ SLL_FN_Home. htm
Click on: Supreme Court Case Number
Enter ( DA 09-0675 ) in the box and click search.
Next click on Gold v. State and then click on
Appelant Brief and a new window will pop up with my pdf.

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

Rick Gold
Missoula, MT

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rick Gold
Missoula, MT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As always, Think about it and I'd like to encourage your comments about this important topic. Please feel free to ask your City Councilor, County Commissioner and/or State Legislator

Rick Gold
Missoula, MT

In Honor of Veterans Day

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

As always, Think about it and I'd like to encourage your comments about this important topic. Please feel free to ask your City Councilor or Your City Attorney or Your City Employee (this could also apply to County or State) ...

Rick Gold
Missoula, MT

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

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

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

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

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

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

As always, Think about it and I'd like to encourage your comments about this important topic. Please feel free to ask your City Councilor or Your City Attorney or Your City Employee (this could also apply to County or State) ...

Rick Gold

Missoula, MT

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

Power (authority) of, by, for and to the people ....

The authority of power of the people and The U.S. Declaration of Independence:
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.
The tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: 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."
In America, power means control of one's own life, liberty and happiness, these certain, defined unalienable Rights and others reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Power of, by, for and to the people ....
In Montana's Constitution, Article ll - Section 3. Inalienable rights. All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment and the rights of pursuing life's basic necessities, enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and seeking their safety, health and happiness in all lawful ways.
Power of, by, for and to the people ....
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.
The principals, rights and ideals of America and the 50 States are directed toward protecting the people's power and authority...

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

Rick Gold
Missoula, MT

Administering Right and Justice without sale, denial or dely.

In Montana's Constitution, the people of Montana are ALL guaranteed a very special set of Enumerated Rights, referred to as Inalienable. Inalienable Rights are those Rights of the citizen incapable of being repudiated, taken away or transferred to another.
Article ll - Section 3. Inalienable rights. All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment and the rights of pursuing life's basic necessities, enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and seeking their safety, health and happiness in all lawful ways. In enjoying these rights, all persons recognize corresponding responsibilities.
These Inalienable Rights then are self-executing, self-administering and self-fulfilling.

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

And does Article ll - Section 4 of Montana's Constitution: Individual Dignity establish an affirmative obligation of the State to not discriminate in providing its' Public Defender services to ensure equal access to justice to the State's indigent?
Montana State District Judge Kenneth R. Neill (Cascade County) seems to concur. In a ruling April 15, 2009 Judge Neill stated, "assistance of counsel is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. and Montana constitutions." And that a change in (Montana) state law, effective in 2006, "unambiguously erased the judge's desires in the matter of appointing a public defender." Read the Great Falls Tribune story here ... http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009904220314
"There can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has." Griffin v. Illinois, 351 US 12, 19 (1956)
Remember, the Montana Constitution's Section 4. Individual dignity. "The dignity of the human being is inviolable. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. Neither the state nor any person, firm, corporation, or institution shall discriminate against any person in the exercise of his civil or political rights on account of race, color, sex, culture, social origin or condition, or political or religious ideas."
In the 1972 Montana Constitutional Convention, Delegate Mrs. Mansfield had these comments regarding Section 4 of the Montana Bill of Rights. "The committee unanimously adopted this section with the intent of providing a constitutional impetus for the eradication of public and private discrimination based on race, color, sex, culture, social origin or condition, or political or religious ideas. The provision, quite similar to that of the Puerto Rico declaration of rights, is aimed at prohibiting private as well as public discrimination in civil and political rights....Social origin or condition was included to cover discriminations based on status of income and standard of living."
And also the comment from Delegate Mr. Dahood, "The intent of Section 4 is simply to provide that every individual in the State of Montana, as a citizen of this state, may pursue his inalienable rights without having any shadows cast upon his dignity through unwarranted discrimination...(C)onstitutions are based on the premise that they are presumed to be self-executing, particularly within the Bill of Rights. If the language appears to be prohibitory and mandatory, as this particular section is intended to be, then in that event, the courts in interpreting the particular section are bound by that particular presumption and they must assume, in that situation, that it is self-executing. There was a case in Montana some 60 years ago that involved a provision of our Bill of Rights that had to do with an individual right, and there the Supreme Court said that was self executing and a citizen could enforce it without any type of legislative implementation."

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

Inalienable Rights

The Montana Constitution guarantees for ALL certain: "Inalienable Rights. All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment and the rights of pursuing life's basic necessities, enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and seeking their safety, health and happiness in all lawful ways. In enjoying these rights, all persons recognize corresponding responsibilities."

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

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

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