And to all the gun-grabbing, victim disarming statist and socialist wannabe dictators and petty tyrants:
Toward FREEDOM
Posted on 10/17/2001 10:00:53 PM PDT by Benighted
I hope all is well with you and your family. It seems like a lifetime ago when we met at Klamath.
And to all the gun-grabbing, victim disarming statist and socialist wannabe dictators and petty tyrants:
My ear doctor assured me shortly thereafter that my hearing was in good shape.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
Each $ seized removes that property from the tax rolls and removes that property from contributing to Oregon's annual income produced in the state. Those $'s lost are lost forever.
Of course this has been Andy Kerr's agenda since the spotted owls, and he wants less jobs in Oregon, which equals less people.
This seems to have caught up with the enviral facist, Katznslobber. As he has decided not to run for in the Senate race. However, under his enviral facist anti business/anti private property reign of terror, he has trashed the Oregon economy.
We talked to our son who lives in Portland, last night. He is a recovering enviral. He woke up in 1999/2000. Now many of his enviral friends have lost their jobs or could lose their jobs. Of course they blame GW for these job losses. He will take them outside to point at one of their pro enviral bumper stickers on their vehicles, or a Gore/Clinton bumper sticker or even worse a Nader bumper sticker. Then he tells them that they are the problem with their money donated to the enviral terrorist organizations and their votes in the past. He really comes down on them if they have a Katznslobber sticker on their bumper!
I still think that a good lawyer in these cases should behind closed doors find out if the judge is pro enviral. If the judge has contributed to enviral causes and is active in their rural cleansing agenda, he/she should recuse themselves or be brought for bias charges after the trial!
Good luck up there! All 3 west coast states have enviral terrorist governors, courts, judges, state DA's and county DA's. We may not recover!
My oldest son, who is more conservative than me had worked in the peoples republic of Wa for about one year. He warned me about what you have posted. He suggested that I take the Seattle Pravda for a few months. Then when we went to Wash. to use some questioning skills to find out how so many people in Wash. were so left wing!
After a week of Seattle Pravda, my eyes were opened. The next trip confirmed what you mention. We could not believe Seattle and the square of druggies, whores, and ? a few blocks east of where the ferry docked! Then even in Port Townsend and other areas on the penisula, the left wingers controlled the local government, news papers and were like thought control police. My son have labeled as the local Nazy Nannies, who try to control where and how we live, where we work, where we shop and how we breath and eat!
A friend had family members who had a big interest in one of Seattle's Pro Teams, bailed out due to what they called blatant commies in charge of Seattle!
When the anarchists and other eco terrorist were burning and destroying much of downtown Seattle, I got a phone call from my son. He said "Dad, turn on the tv to Fox News and see the confirmation of my wisdom a few years ago!"
We decided not move to Washington after or final trip to Port Townsend and the peninsula. We found the same cr@p rising to an untolerable level in Oregon. The radicals in Portland were controlling what was being done to the rest of the state. This article is prime proof. So we decided not to move! Of course now California has a totally out of control Facist enviral governor, Davis and a legislature like those in Oregone and Washington!
I feel for you! However, keep doing what you did to the piece of trash on the ferry! I'm doing the same here in Kalifornia!
I would be interested to know the outlines of your RICO theory. Since the Supreme Court held that "racketeers" need not be motivated by economic interest (anti-abortion protestors can be racketeers), presumably, the statute could apply to misuse of the State as RICO "enterprise".
But what are the "predicate acts" of racketeering, and why don't doctrines of official immunity apply?
There is always an economic element in RICO cases. The defendants may not have put money directly in their pockets, but the rackeeting activity permits them to illegaly obtain or maintain control of an "enterprise". Only a deminimus economic impact need be established. In the case of those who control the Oregon courts, the mere purchasing of law books from a vendor outside the state is sufficient. If the racketeers cause economic loss to the plaintiff, that is also sufficient.
Remember that the state cannot commit a crime, but those who control/operate/manage state agencies and offices can operate them in a manner that violates Title 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968. As for the possible RICO predicate acts, refer to 18 U.S.C. 1961, which makes reference to other criminal statutes under Title 18 U.S.C.
But what are the "predicate acts" of racketeering, and why don't doctrines of official immunity apply?
See Title 18 U.S.C. 1961. The list is long. The most likely ones in this case would be Sects. 1341 - Mail Fraud, 1346 - intangible right to the honest performance of a public officials duties (based on the obvious intentional failure to raise certain defenses, the states attorney and those he report to could not have performed their duties in an honest fashion. Surprisingly this statute was ihntroduced to Congress by Sen Biden), 1503 - Obstruction of Justice (you cannot believe how broad an area this statute covers), 1951(b) - extortion (it covers more than what one would normally think.
On top of this, just think of all the civil rights causes of action there must be based on 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1986 (civil) and 18 U.S.C. 241, 242 (criminal). I could write paragraphs about this stuff.
As for immunity, I do not have the USSC and 9th Circuit cases at hand, but I will try to recall from memory the exact words, "It can never be a duty of a public official to commit a crime". Pretty simple, huh?
How do I know all this stuff? I currently have a $23.8 million RICO/Civil Rights action going in the USDC for Western Washington. The thug US District COurt Judge has attempted to dismiss it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, only after I caught him committing at least 6 RICO predicate acts related to his actions in the case. I now have an appeal/Mandamus request before the 9th Circuit.
BTW, would you like to get in on a very large defamation/libel action against the Vancouver "Columbian" and a Vancouver superior court judge? I am also contemplating taking the Oregon Bar exam in February (there is no requirtment to graduate from law school in order to take the Bar exam to become an attorney in Oregon). I am possibly the citizen most feared by the Washington courts and other government officials in Clark County (this is a sure thing) and by the Gov and state AG. All of whom are defendants in my RICO/Civil Rights action. I got them cold. Should have a partial summary judgment of $1.5 million by the end of Nov/ first part of Dec.
If you are interested in how to go about going after the racketeers that control the State of Oregon, I know how to do it; let me know. I could draft the complaint and get it going for about $5,000. If you were to call the Clark County Superior Court, or the prosecutor's office and merely mention my first name and say that I am the pro se litigant, they would all know exactly who you were talking about. The same goes for the Washington Supreme Court, the Gov and the AG.
I really do know what I am doing, and I am ruthless in court. There is not even one judge in Clark County who will hear any case in which I am involved. I don't take any B.S. from any judge. They would never hold me in contempt simply because I want them to, because then there would be a trial and my list of adversarial witness would be very, very long. LOL
Molon Labe!!
Extreme Countermeasures
by William E. Merritt
October, 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 7, 2000, Oregon voters passed a ballot measure forcing state and local governments to pay landowners when one of their regulations reduced the value of property. A few weeks later, the measure was challenged as unconstitutional. "Deep-Sixing Seven," in June's BrainstormNW, described the way in which Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber gave every appearance of conspiring with a deputy attorney general and the lawyer bringing the challenge to Measure 7 in order to make sure the ballot measure lost in court.
At the time the article went to press, it was clear from public documents that:
1. Kitzhaber had campaigned vigorously against Measure 7 on the grounds that it "would bankrupt the state."
2. On November 17-before any lawsuit had been filed-Kitzhaber attended a two-and-a-half hour meeting with Tom Christ, a lawyer in private practice who would bring one of the two lawsuits against the measure. After the meeting, Christ returned to his office and began drafting the complaint.
3. Deputy Attorney General David Schuman, who defended Measure 7 in court, was an outspoken critic of ballot measures in general, believing the entire process should be declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. Schuman lost the Measure 7 case. And the arguments he relied upon when defending Measure 7 would later raise questions about whether he had conducted the defense in good faith.
A few weeks after Measure 7 was declared unconstitutional, Gov. Kitzhaber appointed Schuman to the Court of Appeals.
Until recently, the only insight into what went on at the November 17th meeting came from Tom Christ and from Chip Lazenby, the governor's staff attorney. Both claimed that the sole purpose of the meeting was to determine where matters stood in regard to Measure 7 so that Kitzhaber could plan his new budget.
Relying on documents produced in response to an Open-Records-Law request by Oregonians in Action and turned over to BrainstormNW, now we know more. The first document is a telephone message slip dated November 16, 2000.
The slip states that Jerry Lidz had called Lazenby and left word that David Schuman, Dick Townsend and the Attorney General's office wanted to meet with Lazenby and Glenn Klein.
Jerry Lidz and Glenn Klein are lawyers with the firm of Harrang, Long, Gary, Rudnick. Harrang, Long represents the City of Eugene, Oregon, which, a few days after the meeting, became one of the plaintiffs challenging the constitutionality of Measure 7.
Dick Townsend is the Executive Director of the League of Oregon Cities, also soon to become a plaintiff against Measure 7.
The message slip goes on to explain that the get-together was for the purpose of coordinating state & local response (to Measure 7).
The message slip indicates that Schuman, the person entrusted by the state to represent the three-quarters-of-a-million Oregonians who voted for Measure 7, arranged with Townsend to have Lidz (the lawyer for another of the plaintiffs planning to challenge Measure 7) set up a meeting with the governor's staff attorney. The purpose: to coordinate the upcoming challenges to Measure 7.
When the meeting was held the next day, Schuman did not attend. If he had, he would have automatically been prevented by the Oregon State Bar's Disciplinary Rules from taking any role in the defense of Measure 7. Any plan to throw the defense of Measure 7 required that an insider handle the defense personally.
Gov. Kitzhaber was at the meeting, and so was Lazenby. Bill Wyatt, Gov. Kitzhaber's Chief of Staff, Steve Marks, who worked under Wyatt, and Robin MacArthur-Phillips, Kitzhaber's Natural Resources Policy Advisor, attended as well. Tom Christ attended, as did Robert Liberty, the Executive Director of 1000 Friends of Oregon, an environmental group that had opposed Measure 7 from the beginning, and Dick Benner, the head of the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, whose ability to set land-use policy was threatened by Measure 7.
The single page of notes Lazenby produced is important, not just for what it says about what went on in the meeting, but for what it does not. Despite Lazenby's and Christ's assertions to the contrary, the notes contain no mention of any discussion of budgets. What was discussed was how to make sure Measure 7 never went into effect. That is all, according to the notes, that was discussed. The upper left-hand corner sets out the subject of the meeting:
B(allot) M(easure) 7 Litigation, and the date: 11-17-00. Yet, at the time of the meeting, no litigation was in the works. What the notes show is that the strategy to overturn Measure 7 originated at this meeting.
Then, in outline form:
A) Christ -- Pre-lim Injunction 1) S(ecretary) O(f) S(tate) /Canvassing votes Gov(ernor) /not to proclaim
This section indicates that Tom Christ, after bringing suit, was to file for a preliminary injunction to prevent the Secretary of State from canvassing (officially counting) the votes, and Gov. Kitzhaber from proclaiming the results. Since Oregon's Constitution requires the governor to proclaim the results, Kitzhaber's participation in such scheme would constitute an attempt to circumvent his duties as governor.
This was to be followed by a:
B) Full Hearing on merits (leading to a) Permanent Injunction
Which is exactly what happened.
Next comes a description of the way the upcoming legal challenge would unfold:
Process -- Lawsuit in Marion Co(unty) Req(uest) P(reliminary) I(njunction) Opposition of D(epartment) O(f) J(ustice) Key If opposed -- May not get it
If the Attorney General opposed the injunction, the whole scheme could unravel.
By not attending the meeting he initiated, Schuman had preserved the right to try the case himself and make sure that the preliminary injunction was not effectively opposed.
Finally, in the lower left-hand corner, is one of the most evocative entries of all:
Abernethy, Lipscomb + Norblad, Barbur ? Leggert ~
These are judges at the Marion County Circuit Court who might be called upon to decide the lawsuit. Next to their names are what appear to be ratings. Litigants speculate about judges all the time, of course. What makes these ratings different is the fact that everybody agreed. Clearly, if Abernethy and Lipscomb were more likely to look favorably on a challenge to Measure 7 than Norblad and Barbur, then Liberty and Christ should have given them pluses, while Kitzhaber and Lazenby should have awarded minuses. It makes no sense that parties on the opposite sides of lawsuits would agree on how to rate the desirability of the judges who might handle the matter.
It seems almost impossible to make sense of what happened without concluding that:
1) After the citizens of Oregon passed Measure 7, Deputy Attorney General David Schuman and Dick Townsend, the Executive Director of the League of Oregon Cities, initiated a meeting with Gov. Kitzhaber, as well as representatives of the League of Oregon Cities, 1000 Friends of Oregon, and the City of Eugene at which plans were made to overturn Measure 7 through a sham lawsuit invalidating the measure in court, a lawsuit which from the beginning the state never intended to defend vigorously.
2) Schuman put himself in charge of the defense, then lost the case in court. Subsequently Schuman has been reported to the Oregon State Bar for failing to provide a vigorous defense.
3) A few weeks later, Gov. Kitzhaber appointed Schuman to the Court of Appeals.
If the facts add up this way--and it is hard to imagine any other way that they could add up--the citizens of Oregon were cheated out of their votes.
It is important to remember that everybody at the meeting that day, like everybody else in America, has the right to his own opinion about Measure 7. And the right to act on those feelings. Gov. Kitzhaber, Christ, or anybody else, was free to lobby against Measure 7 in the legislature, and to denounce it on the airwaves. That is legal and proper and ethical. What is not legal and proper and ethical is to use public office to deprive voters of their franchise under the cover of judicial proceedings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.