United We Stand ....

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

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

A Missoula Art ll - Sec 4 political picnic (revisited)...

HEALTH: Controversial cuisine: FOOD NOT BOMBS

In Alex Sakariassen's short article in the Missoula Independent News, today, Thursday, April 22, 2010, he writes:"A weekly vegetarian potluck outside the Missoula County Courthouse has sparked a civil liberties flap between local health officials and a decentralized group of peace activists called Food Not Bombs. The Missoula City-County Health Department confirms two inspectors approached Food Not Bombs during its weekly gathering Sunday evening and asked members to stop serving food. According to Environmental Health Supervisor Shannon Therriault, any organization that serves food to the public must have a service permit and pass a city-county review."
see http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/health/Content?oid=1247859
for the rest of the story.
Yet, if one looks at Webster's definition of an organization ... "an administrative and functional structure (as a business or a political party); also : the personnel of such a structure," one need read no further.
Basically, an organization is systematically arranged and managed to meet a need or to pursue collective goals on a continuing basis. All organizations have a management structure that determines relationships between functions and positions, and subdivides and delegates roles, responsibilities, and authority to carry out defined tasks.
And there's the rub. Food Not Bombs is NOT an organization. It is an unmanageable, co-operative of individuals who gather to share food, sort of like you, your family and friends out for a picnic or gathering for a potluck.
That the City/State can and does object to people openly sharing free food and connections, isn't a suprise to anyone. In Daniel Quinn's Book Ishmael, (see http://www.ishmael.com/welcome.cfm) the pupil is US and Ishmael is an intellegent Ape (Imagine that!). We learn that 10,000 years ago, there was a shift in consciousness in the near east and the hunting/gathering culture of small tribes of individuals living off the land (defined as a leaver culture) was suddenly shifted to a sedentary farming/animal husbandry culture (defined as a taker culture). As this taker culture grew, it organized itself into a community to protect itself from outside attacks by forming a government to lock away its resources (namely FOOD). It expanded rapidly outward, conquering the smaller diverse leavers and as the old cliche goes, "the rest is history."
Consequently, FOOD NOT BOMBS chapters have been around since, "...Boston in 1980, It was started by activists involved in the anti-nuclear movement, Food Not Bombs has blossomed into a worldwide, grassroots, political movement of over 175 autonomous chapters. Each Food Not Bombs group serves free food to people in need and in support of political organizing efforts.
Food Not Bombs believes that society and government should value human life over material wealth, human need not corporate greed, and that most of its problems stem from this simple crisis in values." see http://sffnb.org/history/
It's well past time for our Big Brother government to support the efforts of activists who are making a diffence in people's lives in their local communities.
If you want to keep up with my case concerning Montanan's Fundamental Rights and/or read these important briefs:
On the internet go to:
http://fnweb1.isd.doa.state.mt.us/idmws/custom/sll/SLL_FN_Home.htm
Click on: Supreme Court Case Number
Enter either ( DA 09-0675 ) in the box and click search; or
Click on: Party search name and enter Gold;
Next click on Gold v. State and then click on Appelant Brief first then the 2 other briefs and new windows will pop up with pdfs which you can save and read.
As always,
Think about this and I'd like to encourage your comments about this important topic.
Feel free to follow this important Case.

happy earth day,
peace,
Rick Gold
Missoula, MT

A Missoula Art ll - Sec 4 political picnic...

A Missoula political picnic is a meal eaten by Radicals, outdoors as on an excursion.
And what a political picnic it was last night, Sunday, April 18, 2010, if you happened to be among a bunch of political anarchists called "Food Not Bombs" serving FREE food to any and all appearing by the FREE speech plaza of the Missoula County Courthouse @200 W Broadway @ 6 p.m. These Radicals have been serving FREE food for the last year, rain, snow or sun every Sunday there.
But, last night, a man identifying himself as being from the Missoula City-County Health Department appeared and proceeded to threaten the anarchists because they are NOT a non profit organization and are serving FREE food without their permission or permit.
It appears that the Missoula City-County Health Department now has a policy that you must apply and pay for a "permit" and be granted their approval before you can have a picnic in Missoula.
The "Food Not Bombs" folks countered with the arguments that this violates their freedom of speech and their freedom of assembly. So consequently, there was an impasse last night betwwen "Food Not Bombs" folks and the Missoula City-County Health Department official.
The "Food Not Bombs" folks said that they have the right to picnic at the Courthouse (or any public space)! The Missoula City-County Health Department official stated that they needed permission and a permit to continue sharing free food and that "I will return and be bringing the Missoula police with me next Sunday to the Courthouse and we will be waiting for you at 6 p.m."

Will these Civil servants confiscate (steal) the food?
Will they further harass our gathering?
Will they issue tickets because "Food Not Bombs" activists refuse to become a non profit, or obtain their permission or pay for a license to continue having their political picnics Sundays at 6p.m. @ the County Courthouse @200 W Broadway?

Montana's Constitution guarantees that Montanan's share their Freedom of assembly. Art ll - Sec 6. "Freedom of assembly. The people shall have the right peaceably to assemble, petition for redress or peaceably protest governmental action. The people shall have the right peaceably to assemble, petition for redress or peaceably protest governmental action."
Also, Art ll - Sec 7. "Freedom of speech, expression, and press. No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech or expression. Every person shall be free to speak or publish whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty..."
And MOST importantly, Montana's Constitution's Art ll - Sec 3 guarantees that we all have, "Inalienable rights. All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment and the rights of pursuing life's basic necessities, enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and seeking their safety, health and happiness in all lawful ways. In enjoying these rights, all persons recognize corresponding responsibilities"; and
Art ll - Sec 4. Individual dignity. "The dignity of the human being is inviolable. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. Neither the state nor any person, firm, corporation, or institution shall discriminate against any person in the exercise of his civil or political rights on account of race, color, sex, culture, social origin or condition, or politicalor religious ideas."

So, I ask you Montanan, what about our Civil servants responsibilities to their sworn oaths of office and the protection of Our Civil Rights embodied in Article ll of our Constitution?

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

The Montana Constitution’s oath of office (Art. III - Sec 3) is a proactive, affirmative oath. It requires an affirmative, absolute duty to support, protect and defend the U.S. and Montana Constitutions. Once taken, it requires members of the legislature, and all executive, ministerial and judicial officers bound by their oaths to discharge their duties of office with fidelity. They have a sworn duty of extra-ordinary care from the affirmative Oaths of their office to support, protect and defend Montana’s Constitution and thus discharge their duties of office with fidelity. Appellees in framing their arguments do not address what it means to take an oath and be bound to support, protect and defend Montana’s Constitution.

If you want to keep up with my case concerning Montanan's Fundamental Rights and/or read these important briefs:

On the internet go to:

http://fnweb1.isd.doa.state.mt.us/idmws/custom/sll/SLL_FN_Home.htm

Click on: Supreme Court Case NumberEnter either ( DA 09-0675 ) in the box and click search;

or Click on: Party search name and enter Gold;

Next click on Gold v. State and then click onAppelant Brief first then the 2 other briefs and a new windows will pop up with pdfs which you can save and read.

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


Rick Gold

Missoula, MT

The Canary in the Coal Mine of the Montana Court System

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rick Gold
Missoula, MT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rick Gold
Missoula, MT

Deception and the Constitutional Oath of Public Office

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rick Gold
Missoula, MT