Factions — The Chains of Oppression – Part I

The Greatest Obstacle to Restoration of Constitutional Government

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 25, 2011
This is Part I of IV Parts

Factions

Factions are rather interesting, though often ignored by most, in the world we live in.  Factions are “somebody else”, and we, individually, have no part in them, except those that we are a part of — though we don’t really see them as factions, only truth.  We know what we believe; we know our moral values; we know what right and wrong are; we know what we want to know; everybody else is, if they don’t agree with us, simply wrong.

So, let’s begin by understanding what a faction is.

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

A party, in political society, combined or acting in union, in opposition to the prince, government or state; usually applied to a minority, but it may be applied to a majority. sometimes a state is divided into factions nearly equal.

… whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

Or, the more simplistic:

A group of persons forming a cohesive, usually contentious minority within a larger group.

Factions are, however, a way of life.  We are all in factions and in many different areas.

For the most part, people perceive, with very few exceptions, that there are two political factions in this country; Democrats/Liberals, and, Republicans/Conservatives.  What the political philosophies of the two “factions” are is inconsequential, at least at this point, to the discussion.  The point to be made here is that we have perceived that there are only two factions, and anything else is hardly worthy of our consideration.

With regard to other aspects of our lives and our society, there are minor factions that we see, all of the time.  For example, the queer community is recognized as a faction, though most fail to recognize that there is a large faction, which is opposed to the smaller, recognized, faction.  That larger faction is those of us who, whether Christian, or not, understand the necessity for moral values and standards within a country.

However, legislation, political correctness, and/or influence through the press tend to either render illegal, or, at least minimally subject those who are a part of that larger faction, to ridicule for expressing themselves, in dispute with the faction’s principles.

The net effect is to render that larger faction as inconsequential, or illegitimate, providing a strong platform for the assertion of the values of the lesser faction, even to the point of additional legislation on their behalf.

Factions in history

We can look at history, and around the world, today, and see the affect of factions.

Let’s start by looking at revolutions.  After all, there have been many revolutions throughout history, though there has only been one that provided a rather smooth transition of government.  And all of them have been lead by factions — sometimes one, sometimes multiple, and, sometimes, begun by one faction where another faction became dominant before the job was done.

The French Revolution began in 1789, the same year that our Constitution became the framework of our own government.  That revolution lasted for a number of years, and during the entire course of it, the control of government passed from hand to hand, each hand being the one that, at any given time, had the most influence and power.  Often, those in power for the moment would require the execution (guillotine) of someone that was a partner in power, just months before.  The groundwork was laid, as the Revolution needed, to restore monarchy and the emperor, Bonaparte (twice).  So much for a smooth transition.

The Russian Revolution began in 1917.  The Mensheviks began the turmoil, and, eventually, the Bolsheviks gained control.  Then, the Bolsheviks became factionalized, Red verse White, leading, eventually, to Lenin obtaining power.  Again, not a very smooth transition.

Revolutions, at least those of the ordinary sort, tend to have factions that vie for power, even while the revolution is going on.  The resultant government is, generally, unstable and retains its authority by force.

Today, we see the beginnings of revolution in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, and Yemen.  These “street” revolutions are lead by factions.  Most often those factions have a religious foundation, though often, there are factions within a religious group, of an ethnic nature.  There can be little doubt that the stronger faction will take control, though the conflict will not cease — until the opposition is exiled, imprisoned, or killed.

Factions in the United States

So that we can put in perspective the factions and the roles that they play in the maintenance of a country, or its destruction, we must first understand just what factions exist, what their role is, and whether they are acceptable, in terms of maintaining the United States of America, as intended.

In a recent series of articles (“We the People’, but, who are We?” – five Parts, linked to Part I), a review of the Founding documents, subsequent amendments, and, Supreme Court Decisions, provides us an understanding of just who “We the People” are, and, as Justice Taney described in one Decision, that this country is only for these “We the People”, but for no one else”.

Now, right there, with that last statement, I would expect that many would cringe and began to react in accordance with the decades of conditioning that we have been subjected to.  After all, haven’t we been raised to believe that this country was made for anybody who wants to come here, for any reason, even if their purpose is to change the nature and purpose of what the Founders willingly gave their lives for?  But, is it in the best interest of this country, our future, and our progeny, to accept that what was created just over 200 years ago should fall prey to changes which will destroy that which is our birthright?

So, let’s begin by understanding that though there may be smaller factions, with their own respective interest and objectives, that there is, and should be, a Principle Faction — upon which all else is subordinate.

Principle Faction

As explained in the “We the People” series, there are two classes of people that comprise the Principle Faction.  These are those who are described as the cause and purpose of the existence of the United States and its Constitution; and, those who were made citizens, though not fully empowered with the rights inherent within the Constitution, through the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, and are, or should be, of the Principle Faction.

However, within both of these classes, there may be many who, though of the nature and class of “We the People” or citizens of the United States, for other reasons, reject the principles upon which the country was founded.  These, though they may have rights, privileges and immunities, as described in that series, that do not adhere to the principles are no more a part of the Principle Faction as one who joins an organization to change its nature.

Absent adherence to the Constitution and the principles upon which it was founded, makes one a citizen by birth, though a traitor by attitude — as much as any spy who endeavors to subvert the country by his actions.

Subordinate, or lesser, factions

Factions are created when a significant number of people, having similar ideologies or purposes, realize that they are sufficient in number to create a “body politic” to champion their purpose.

That purpose can take two forms; First, to achieve a recognition, though in so doing, not to affect the Constitution, the laws, or obtain any favor other than those enjoyed by all of the people; Second, to achieve recognition for the purpose of political gain, changing of laws, and obtaining favor that is not enjoyed by others.

The former has existed in this country throughout its history, and is comprised of people who were born into or have assimilated into the American culture — without intentions of changing that culture.

The latter, on the other hand, is inclined to adapt the culture to his beliefs, to effect change that is inconsistent with that which the Founders gave us, and, will often employ the pretense of Constitutional right, though the result will be the diminishment of the rights of others, in favor of their object, whether financial, legal, or both.  They choose not to assimilate, rather, to force change upon the Principle Faction and force that Faction to subordinate to their will.

Now, as we begin to look at lesser factions (any subordinate to the Principle Faction), they will come under two categories.  First will be those who are not in serious conflict with the Principle Faction.  Second, those who are in conflict with the Principle Faction.

Social and Political Superiority

Gary Hunt
August 15, 2011

The Founding Fathers, as we most often recognize them, were “gentlemen”.  They were men of leisure that had incomes to sustain that leisure, without effort on their part.  For the most part, they earned, in their earlier years, the status of gentlemen by establishing themselves as farmers, landowners or businessmen who had residual income, leaving them a great deal of time for social or political functions.  They seldom, if ever, received compensation for the efforts on behalf of the public.  Washington is, perhaps, the best known and recognized for this behavior by refusing to receive payment for service as either the Commander of the Continental Army, or, as the First Executive.  In both instances, he received only expenses related to the position.

They also maintained an indifference to political situations.  What this meant was that they were disinterested parties — they had no dog in the fight, so to speak.  They did not use their political influence for financial gain, and to do so would be a violation of the public trust that they had assumed.

Of course, there were exceptions. Two that never gained the status of gentleman were Thomas Paine and Samuel Adams.  One who was the only significant one to have been born a gentleman, though he used his influence for financial gain, was Aaron Burr.  Of these three, only Adams retains respect for his role in bringing about the new nation, the United States of America.

The Founders, when they wrote or spoke, directed their work to their peers — the other gentlemen.  They did sense that they had social and political superiority over the working class, and for decades, spoke of political philosophy only amongst themselves.

Much of what they said, especially the writings of Paine, brought to the common man the idea, that had not existed in England, that decisions could be made by them, as the common people — the body of the nation.

The secrecy of the Constitutional Convention, in Philadelphia, in 1787, was secretive so as to avoid outside influence, and, because these were gentlemen and their discussions were amongst themselves. However, the result of the Convention, especially when discussed in the state ratifying conventions, brought to light to those common people that they were able to participate in the selection, even from among themselves, of their representatives. The time of the gentlemen looking down their noses at the common people was expired, and, it was expired as a result of the actions of those gentlemen.

From that point on, the ability of those elected and appointed representatives of the people to influence legislation that would provide them financial gain, has continued to grow.  While the concept of social and political superiority had been substantially abolished, until recently.

Over the past few decades, we have not only seen the extremes of legislation to provide financial gain to the office holders, and, of course, their supporters, but have also seen an air of social and political superiority return, more manifest than ever, then in the days of the Founders.

If we return to the late thirties and early forties, the participation of the United States in World War II was not going to happen.  Public sympathy and the idea that it was not our war, held the government back from open participation, until the events of December 7, 1941, when Japan attack Pearl Harbor.

More recently, however, the public is lead, by false claims, false flag waving, and any other means conceivable, to assure our willingness to let the decision be made in Washington, by those who act as our social and political superiors.

WE can look to the early nineties and the discussions about NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), where the “superiors” had decided that the Trade agreement must be adopted. Their underlings, those who aspired to join the elite as social and political superiors, took hold of the discussion and directed it toward which provisions were good, and which were bad, without regard to the whole concept of such a Free Trade Agreement.  We now understand that it was not the provisions, rather, the concept, that was flawed.

More recently, we have what is commonly referred to as ‘Obamacare’.  The discussions were directed, by the wannabes, to the discussing of the merit of the provisions, rather than the concept itself.  After all, both parties had, for years, attempted to foist national healthcare on us, and, as our social and political “superiors”, they knew what we wanted, and, finally, convinced us that we should participate in the discussion and accept the outcome.  Of course, those who would like to prove themselves as social and political “superiors” were the men (and women) on the ground who encouraged us to play along and accept what the elite had decided was best for us.

Just a couple of weeks ago, though the majority strongly held out against a debt ceiling increase (a near annual occurrence, though only recently brought to light), the social and political superiors, and their minions, have brought us perpetual, self-sustaining, debt.  Only, this time, they and their minions could not convert us to acceptance of their policy, without consideration of the people and their posterity, and, it appears, to most of the financial world, that their concept of philanthropy was destructive to the entire world.  It appears that in their arrogance, they have failed to even consider the consequences of their folly, so they remain in Washington, knowing that they were right, and wondering why the entire world cannot see things as they do.

Now, I don’t want to say that financial gain is all that they pursue, though when we consider the makeup of the country and the Congress, we find only 1% of the population is millionaires while 47% of the Congress is millionaires.

It does appear that we have returned to that age of gentlemen (and gentlewomen) being those who have social and political superiority make the decisions, yet the concept that deriving personal gain is unethical, is lost to history.  Absent prohibition of the latter, there are no practical constraints on the former.  There are no longer disinterested parties who will make rational decisions.  The decisions of the current government are made by those very interested in the outcome — and what they and their friends might derive therefrom.

“We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part IV

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 21, 2011

In Part I, we established what the Supreme Court determined to be “We the People”, or, “citizens of the United States”, prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Part II, we saw that the Fourteenth Amendment conferred to those not of “We the People”, regardless of prior status, a new class of people who are granted “privileges and immunities”, though not the rights inherent with “We the People”.

In Part III, we see that within a few years of ratification of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court confirms that “rights” were not conveyed by the Amendment.

This must lead us to question whether there is any substance to these very significant acts and decision. Is there any long-lasting affect, as a result of them?  If so, has anything changed them? If there have been no changes, are there still two distinct classes of people in this country?

Do answer these questions, we need only jump forward another 34 years, to 1908.  This Supreme Court decision will clearly lay out that there are, indeed, two classes of people, and that one is subject to federal jurisdiction and protection, while the other is not.

The case is Twining v. State of New Jersey – 211 U.S. 78 (1908). It has two elements, at least pertinent to this discussion.  First was whether there was jurisdiction, under the Fourteenth Amendment, to a state citizen; and, what did the Fourteenth Amendment extend to a “citizen of the United States”.

Albert C. Twining and David C. Cornell were indicted by a Grand Jury, and, convicted of providing “false papers” to a state banking examiner.  They were sentenced to prison terms, and Twining appealed the action of the New Jersey Court.  He held that the requirement to turn over papers to the examiner, absent a court order, denied him “due process” under the Fourteenth Amendment.  He lost that case and pursued a remedy in the Supreme Court.

Justice Moody provided the decision of the Supreme Court.  In summing up the case, he posed the following:

“. . .  whether such a law [state law] violates the 14th Amendment, either by abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, or by depriving persons of their life, liberty, or property without due process of law.  In order to bring themselves within the protection of the Constitution it is incumbent on the defendants to prove two propositions: First, that the exemption from compulsory self- incrimination is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution against impairment by the states; and, second, if it be so guaranteed, that the exemption was in fact impaired in the case at bar.  The first proposition naturally presents itself for earlier consideration.  If the right here asserted is not a Federal right, that is the end of the case.  We have no authority to go further and determine whether the state court has erred in the interpretation and enforcement of its own laws.

Well, that last point, “If the right here asserted is not a Federal right, that is the end of the case.”, will lead to the final decision of the Court, though we must first look at why they denied Twining the protection, under the Fourteenth Amendment, that he sought.

The Court brought out that two states, Iowa and New Jersey, had provisions that did not allow compulsory testimony against one’s self, and, that those two did have limits on compulsory testimony, though not as broad as the other states.  This was felt to satisfy the intent, since it was a state decision based upon their view of the intention of the Fifth Amendment (“No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”), that established the right of the state to enact a law requiring the turning over of the papers to the examiner.

So, the question resolved itself to whether the federal interpretation of the Fifth Amendment was superior to the state law, and, if so, under what circumstances.

Since Twining and Cornel were both citizens of New Jersey, and the case was not between parties of different states, or any other qualifiers for federal intervention, they retained their status as state citizens, dealing with the laws of that state, without “Federal right[s]” being conferred to them.

Let’s separate the points of significance in this case:

1. Is there a difference between state citizens and “citizens of the United States”, as established by the Fourteenth Amendment?
2. If so, to what extent does the Fourteenth Amendment confer rights to those who are protected thereby?

The Court goes on to give us some insight into the second point.

“It is obvious . . . that it has been supposed by the states that, so far as the state courts are concerned, the privilege had its origin in the Constitutions and laws of the states, and that persons appealing to it must look to the state for their protection.  Indeed, since, by the unvarying decisions of this court, the first ten Amendments of the Federal Constitution are restrictive only of national action, there was nowhere else to look up to the time of the adoption of the 14th Amendment, and the state, at least until then, might give, modify, or withhold the privilege at its will.”

So, the states were within their rights, as they existed prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, and that those rights did not, until the Fourteenth was ratified, include the restrictive first ten amendments.  Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court recognized that the Constitution did not apply to the states, so long as they were not in conflict with the Constitution.  Essentially, they are conferring all privileges of those first ten amendments, to those who so qualify, for the protections afforded by the Fourteenth.

The Court continues:

“The 14th Amendment withdrew from the states powers theretofore enjoyed by them to an extent not yet fully ascertained, or rather, to speak more accurately, limited those powers and restrained their exercise.  There is no doubt of the duty of this court to enforce the limitations and restraints whenever they exist, and there has been no hesitation in the performance of the duty.  But, whenever a new limitation or restriction is declared, it is a matter of grave import, since, to that extent, it diminishes the authority of the state, so necessary to the perpetuity of our dual form of government, and changes its relation to its people and to the Union.”

So, the Court recognizes an obligation to “enforce the limitations and restraints whenever they exist”.  This implies that they are addressing both points, mentioned above.  First, to determine the extent of the authority (jurisdiction of the state) imposed by the Fourteenth; and, Second, to determine to what extent the first ten amendments convey obligations to the state.

The Court continues:

“The defendants contend, in the first place, that the exemption from self incrimination is one of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States which the 14th Amendment forbids the states to abridge.  It is not argued that the defendants are protected by that part of the 5th Amendment which provides that ‘no person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,’ for it is recognized by counsel that, by a long line of decisions, the first ten Amendments are not operative on the states.”

Twining has asserted that he is of the nature of a “citizen of the United States”, and, therefore, the state may not abridge those “privileges and immunities”.  He has declared a status as a “citizen of the United States”.

The Court then, referring to a previous case (subsequent to the Fourteenth Amendment), In Re Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872), and citing with the decision of that case, given by Justice Miller, in affirming that there were two classes of citizen.

“The 14th Amendment, it is observed by Mr. Justice Miller, delivering the opinion of the court, removed the doubt whether there could be a citizenship of the United States independent of citizenship of the state, by recognizing or creating and defining the former. ‘  It is quite clear, then,’ he proceeds to say, ‘that there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.

So, this Court is affirming what the Court decided 34 years prior, in that there are distinct differences between the “citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a State”.  One case, shortly after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and another, three decades later, that affirm the conclusion of just who are “We the People”.  Can there be any doubt as to the existence of a distinction between the two classes?

The Court, after a lengthy discussion of “due process”, concludes:

The decisions of this court, though they are silent on the precise question before us [due process], ought to be searched to discover if they present any analogies which are helpful in its decision.  The essential elements of due process of law, already established by them, are singularly few, though of wide application and deep significance.  We are not here concerned with the effect of due process in restraining substantive laws, as, for example, that which forbids the taking of private property for public use without compensation.  We need notice now only those cases which deal with the principles which must be observed in the trial of criminal and civil causes.  Due process requires that the court which assumes to determine the rights of parties shall have jurisdiction.

And, they conclude that the court that has jurisdiction over the parties will prevail in a conflict of interpretation.  Since they leave the interpretation to the state court, there must be an absence of federal jurisdiction in the current case.  The Court sees Twining and Cornell to be state citizens, therefore, not afforded the” privileges and immunities”, meaning that federal jurisdiction fails to include them — an absence of federal jurisdiction.

In affirming that view, the Court said:

“Much might be said in favor of the view that the privilege was guaranteed against state impairment as a privilege and immunity of national citizenship, but, as has been shown, the decisions of this court have foreclosed that view.”

They tighten up on that conclusion, to wit:

We do not pass upon the conflict, because, for the reasons given, we think that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination in the courts of the states is not secured by any part of the Federal Constitution.

Now, this would not be true if the case involved a party of one state against a party from another state, nor would it be true in the extension of “privileges and immunities” conferred by the Fourteenth Amendment, to “citizens of the United States”.

So, we can conclude that the “citizen of the United States” is a separate and distinct entity than the citizen of a state.  That the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court extends only to those who have been brought into jurisdiction by the Constitution (parties of different states, etc.) or by virtue of they being the subjects brought into that jurisdiction by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Now, some will say that this case is over one hundred years old, and things have changed, since then.  But, have they?  And, if so, how have they been changed?  I can find no amendment that changes what is presented here, and must suppose that nothing has been changed.

So, in the next Part, we will see if this decision, from 1908, still has merit over half a century later.

* * * * *

Part I can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part I

Part II can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part II

Part III can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part III

—

Part V can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part V 

Quartzsite, Ariz., Where the Fox Guards the Chickens

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 21, 2011

In a rather interesting, and perhaps, bizarre, action by the Quartzsite Chief of Police, Jeff Gilbert, sanctioned by the Assistant Town Manager, Al Johnson, ten of the fourteen Town policemen have been put on paid leave and confined to their homes, during certain periods of the day.

So, why is this bizarre?  Well, if it were a corporation/business and the CEO (Chief) decided that he wanted to suspend employees, pending firing; he could be serving the best interest of the company and the stockholders.  However, he would also be accountable to the stockholders, and could be dismissed, forthwith, absent the consent of those “owners” of the corporation.

However, when we look at a Police Department, whose purpose is to serve the citizens of that town, we should have an entirely different standard.  If the town requires 14 policemen to maintain control of the town and provide for the safety of the citizens, how can it be in the best interest of the town (and its citizens) to dispense with 71% of the force that was argued as necessary to provide that protection?  At least, this should lead to some serious questions about the Police Department’s budget — as a necessity — since the Chief has arbitrarily found that he can do with four, what he used to need fourteen to do.  This is especially true when you consider that recently the Town Council determined that the safety of the public warranted a special meeting and emergency measures (see The Emergency that Warranted an Emergency Meeting of the Quartzsite Town Council) be taken to provide for that safety.  How does that possibly justify the presumption that only 35% of the force can provide such safety?

Think about it, you have four officers who must serve a town of 3800 people, 24 hours a day.  That amounts to 1.3 officers on duty, for all shifts, seven days a week, with no time off.

Understand that Quartzsite sits astride Interstate Highway 10, the primary corridor from Phoenix (and points east) to Los Angeles.  With its truck stops and eateries, and the last significant town before entering California, it is a 24-hour town.  Parts of the town bustle all day, and all night.  How, then, can adequate protection be provided?

Well, the answer is quite simple.  Don Lowery, Sheriff of La Paz County, Arizona, and Chief Gilbert, worked together as officers on the Colorado River Indian Reservation.  Coincidently, they both ended up back in La Paz County.  One as Sheriff; the other as Chief of Police in Quartzsite.  Can there be any wonder why the investigation called for by the ten officers (No Confidence in Quartzsite Chief of Police Jeff Gilbert) ended up being dismissed?

The dismissal of the complaint has resulted in the current activity that imposes the following on the ten officers (only some of what is imposed by the “Notice of Investigation and Intent to Interview“):

• You have the right to have a representative with you during the interview
• Your representative may not participate in the interview
• Your representative must either be an employee of the Quartzsite Police Department who is not a subject of this investigation or a member of your professional membership organization
• Your representative cannot be an attorney

Let’s take a breather here.  A representative is one who represents you, but, in this case, cannot represent (participate) you in the interview.  And, in an even more surprising proclamation, he cannot be an attorney.  It appears that the right to counsel in proceedings that can result in disciplinary action, including termination, does not allow what has been considered a mainstay of the judicial process in this country.

The officers are then placed on “administrative leave”, with the proviso that they are “required to remain in at [their] place of residence (house arrest?) between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and Noon and between the hours of 1:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.”

It continues, “Failure to be present at your residence during those hours without express prior approval from the investigator, Assistant Town Manager Al Johnson, shall be considered dereliction of duty and may result in additional disciplinary action, including dismissal”.

This pretty much displaces the concept of justice, the judicial branch of government, which the law enforcement agencies are an extension of, as officers of the court.  And ironically, it is contrary to what occurred when the investigation of Chief Gilbert was conducted.

At the June 16, 2011 Town Council meeting, John Stairs, vice president, Arizona Conference of Police and Sheriffs (AZCOPS), specifically suggested, in his recommendation to the Town Council that “AZCOPS believes it is wise and prudent to place Chief Gilbert on paid administrative leave so these allegations can be thoroughly and impartially investigated by DPS.”  At that meeting, however, the Town Council rejected the recommendation, leaving Chief Gilbert in full control of the Police Department.

Now comes the emergency meeting (link, above) that places Chief Gilbert and Assistant Town Manager Al Johnson in total control, and they decide that ten officers should be placed on administrative leave, leaving the town with a very meager staff to maintain “law and order” (and, I use that phrase loosely), while the decision rests, for all intents and purposes, in the hands of Jeff Gilbert.

Can there be any better example of the fox guarding the chickens?

[Note: Do not construe this article to imply that the citizens of Quartzsite are the chickens referred to, rather, that the chickens referred to herein are the entire Town Council and administrative staff, with the sole exception of Mayor Ed Foster.]

Previous articles on Quartzsite:

Illegal Town Council meeting in Quartzsite, Arizona

No Confidence in Quartzsite Chief of Police Jeff Gilbert

Quartzsite Mayor declares meeting illegal, Town Council proceeds without the Mayor

The Emergency that Warranted an Emergency Meeting of the Quartzsite Town Council

“We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part II

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 19, 2011

In the first part, Justice Taney [Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who delivered the Decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)], speaking from the past, explained who was, and, who was not of that class of people known as “We the People.  Recapping that post:

We think they [descendents of slaves, whether free, or not] are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.  On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.

* * *

It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognised as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else.  And the personal rights and privileges guaranteed to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several State communities, or who should afterwards by birthright or otherwise become members, according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded.  It was the union of those who were at that time members of distinct and separate political communities into one political family, whose power, for certain specified purposes, was to extend over the whole territory of the United States.  And it gave to each citizen rights and privileges outside of his State which he did not before possess, and placed him in every other State upon a perfect equality with its own citizens as to rights of person and rights of property; it made him a citizen of the United States.

So, the rights and privileges were not conferred upon those who were not citizens at the time of adoption of the Constitution, and their descendents and others.  Those rights, too, are defined as inclusive, regardless of whether he is in his state or another state.

So, in 1867, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified.  However, it did not convey rights, only privileges and immunities, to wit [Fourteenth Amendment]:

Section 1–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.

However, this Amendment did not change or undo that which Taney had described as the “citizens of the United States”, though a new class was created by the 14th Amendment.

Now, I know a lot of people don’t see it that way.  They believe that the 14th Amendment merged the ex-slaves and their descendents into the same class of people that had previously held the title of “citizens of the United States”, or, “We the People”.  However, if you will note the wording of the 14th Amendment, you will see that “rights” were not conveyed, only “privileges and immunities”.  Now, this may seem small, or insignificant, though that is because we have been subjected to “political correctness” and mountains of legislation establishing “civil rights”.  However, the Framers never referred to the rights protected by the Constitution as civil, since civil implies granted by government — which is exactly what the legislature has done — enact laws granting civil rights.  These fundamental rights granted by God are not granted by government, and, they are not civil rights.  They were the object and goal of the colonists from April 19, 1775 to the ratification of the Constitution, 14 years later.

What is very important to understand is that when a law is enacted, or a constitution or amendment ratified, the intent at the time of enactment or ratification is, and must be, what was intended — at that time.  To think otherwise is to allow the legislation, or even the Constitution, to mean what was not intended by the sleight of redefining words, concepts, or even enforcement.  If that is how we are to operate, we are not a nation of laws rather, of man, and that man who sits in Washington; Member of Congress, President,. Justice or Administrative Agency head is free to promulgate what he wants the law to be and applies not what was intended to be, rather, what he desires it to be.

As James Madison said, in Federalist Papers #62:

It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

So, as you contemplate what is said in this Part, understand that only the words of those who were alive at the time of these activities can tell is what they meant.  It is only their words, not what some ACLU lawyer might try to make them out to be, that we must be obedient to.  To be obedient to any other interpretation is, at best, disobedience to the Constitution.

We have seen the affect of the 14th Amendment on the right, privileges and immunities of those who were and were not of the class known as “We the People”.  Now the question arises as to whether the 14th Amendment changed who “We the People” are, and, if so, what proof do we have that only “privileges and immunities, not rights, were conveyed by that Amendment.  That will be the subject of the Part III.

Part I can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part I

—

Part III can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part III

Part IV can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part IV

Part V can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part V 

The Emergency that Warranted an Emergency Meeting of the Quartzsite Town Council

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 14, 2011

On July 10, 2011, the Quartzsite Town Council held an Emergency Meeting (see Illegal Town Council meeting in Quartzsite, Arizona).  The minutes of that meeting have been found (transcription of minutes and PDF links of minutes at bottom of this article) and show that the Council took 6 actions at that meeting:

First, they declare that there was an emergency “requiring the Council to meet without prior public notice”, though the “emergency is not stated within that declaration.  Reference is made to A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes) 38-341.02(D) – Notice of Meetings, which states:

D. In case of an actual emergency, a meeting, including an executive session, may be held on such notice as is appropriate to the circumstances.  If this subsection is utilized for conduct of an emergency session or the consideration of an emergency measure at a previously scheduled meeting the public body must post a public notice within twenty-four hours declaring that an emergency session has been held and setting forth the information required in subsections H and I of this section.

***

H. Agendas required under this section shall list the specific matters to be discussed, considered, or decided at the meeting.  The public body may discuss, consider, or make decisions only on matters listed on the agenda and other matters related thereto.

I. Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section, notice of executive sessions shall be required to include only a general description of the matters to be considered.  The agenda shall provide more than just a recital of the statutory provisions authorizing the executive session, but need not contain information that would defeat the purpose of the executive session, compromise the legitimate privacy interests of a public officer, appointee or employee or compromise the attorney-client privilege.

We have not been able to obtain a copy of the Agenda required, and, in a conversation with Mayor Foster, he was not aware of the meeting until the police arrived at his door, shortly before the meeting began.

Next, they suspended “Town Council Procedure Policy Section III.1, setting regular Council meetings for second and fourth Tuesdays of each month at 7:00 p.m., until the second Tuesday in September or until two-thirds of the Council determines that an emergent circumstances[sic] no longer exist which create an imminent risk to public safety and the safety of elective and appointed town officials.”

So, here, we begin to understand the nature of the “emergency”; “emergent circumstances … which create an imminent risk to public safety and the safety of elective and appointed town officials.”

Then, they suspended both the “Citizen’s Comments” and the “call to the public” provisions of the Town Council Procedure Policy.  They have disallowed any public comment at the meetings.

Now, they will proceed to change the meeting from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m., as if this will cure the problem, or reduce the threat.

At this point, we must wonder if we have alleviated any threat that creates “an imminent risk to public safety and the safety of elective and appointed town officials.”  Based upon the actions, the threat either comes from having the meetings in the evening, when working people are more easily able to attend, or, they fear that what the public has to say creates a threat, by their very words.

So, just how does this constitute an emergency?  How does this provide protection to the public and/or officials?  Is there any logical reasoning behind these decisions, at all?

So, let us continue.  The next act is “to direct Town Manager and Chief of Police to implement procedures to ensure the safety of public attendees at future Council meetings.”  This is, to say the least, a bit ambiguous, and, perhaps, quite broad in its scope.  It might cause us to wonder what “procedures” might be necessary to “ensure the safety of public attendees” at Council meetings.  Since the public forum has been closed, we can only surmise that arresting any of the public who try to speak at a Town Council meeting would be all that can be derived from the decisions made at this “emergency meeting”.

In a final act of gracious consideration to the Town staff, they move the next Tuesday’s meeting to 10:00 a.m. to allow staff to properly prepare the required 24-hour notice.

Darn, now I have more questions than I had before I was able to read the minutes of the secret meeting.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Transcription from the PDF images of the July 10, 2011, Quartzsite Town Council meeting:

PUBLIC NOTICE
EMERGENCY MEETING

Notice of Emergency Meeting

Town of Quartzsite Common Council

Sunday, July 10, 2011 11:45 a.m.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TOWN CODE SECTION 2-4-1 AND ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES SECTION § 38-431.02.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE QUARTZSITE COMMON COUNCIL AND TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC THAT THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF QUARTZSITE, ARIZONA, DID HOLD AN EMERGENCY MEETING ON SUNDAY, JULY 10 AT 11:45 AM.  AT THE QUARTZSITE MUNICIPAL CENTER, 465 N. PLYMOUTH AVE., 1/4 MILE NORTH OF MAIN STREET (B-10).  SEE MINUTES WHICH ARE ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN.  MEMBERS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL ATTENDED IN PERSON.

/s/ Karen Norris        
Karen Norris, Town Clerk  

DATE POSTED:     July 11, 2011

TIME POSTED:       Noon

COUNCIL MAY NOT ACT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA

{page 2}

MINUTES

TOWN OF QUARTZSITE
EMERGENCY MEETING OF THE COMMON COUNCIL
SUNDAY, JULY 10, 2011 11:45 AM

CALL TO ORDER:    Vice Mayor Cowell 11:45 a.m.

ROLL CALL: Vice Mayor Cowell, Council Members Anderson, Kelley, Lukkasson and Winslow

ABSENT: Mayor Foster

STAFF PRESENT: Town Manager Alex Taft, Town Attorney Brannan, Town Clerk Karen Norris, Assistant Town Manager Al Johnson and Police Chief Jeff Gilbert.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Council Member Winslow motioned to approve the agenda as written.  Motion seconded by Council Member Lukkasson.  Vice Mayor Cowell calls for the vote.  Vote — 5 in favor, 1 member absent and 1 vacancy.  MOTION CARRIED.

REPORTS & ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Report from Town Manager and Chief of Police concerning emergent circumstances involving an imminent risk to public safety and the safety of elective and appointive town officers.

Mayor Foster arrives during the reports and refused to come into the meeting at 11:57 a.m.

NEW BUSINESS:
1. Declare the existence of an emergency requiring Council to meet without prior public notice pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.02(D).

Council Member Lukkasson motioned to declare the existence of an emergency requiring the Council to meet without prior public notice pursuant to A.R.S. 38-431.02(D).  Motion seconded by Council Member Kelley.  Vice Mayor Cowell calls for the vote.  Vote — 5 in favor, 1 member absent and 1 vacancy.  MOTION CARRIED.

2. Suspend Town Council Procedure Policy Section III.1, setting regular Council meetings for second and fourth Tuesdays of each month at 7:00 p.m., until [date] or until two-thirds of the Council determines that emergent circumstances no longer exist which create an imminent risk to public safety and the safety of elective and appointive town officials, whichever occurs first.

Council Member Anderson motioned to suspend Town Council Procedure Policy Section III.1, setting regular Council meetings for second and fourth Tuesdays of each month at 7:00 p.m., until the second Tuesday in September or until two-thirds of the Council determines that an emergent circumstances no longer exist which create an imminent risk to public safety and the safety of elective and appointive town officials.

{possible missing text in PDF file}

{page 3}

whichever occurs first.  Motion seconded by Council Member Lukkasson.  Vice Mayor Cowell calls for the vote.  Vote — 5 in favor, 1 member absent and 1 vacancy.  MOTION CARRIED.

3. Suspend that portion of Town Council Procedure Policy Section V.1 relating to placing “CITIZENS COMMENTS” (call to the public) in the Order of Business and Agenda until [DATE] or until two-thirds of the Council determines that an emergent circumstances no longer exist which create an imminent risk to public safety and the safety of elective and appointive officials, whichever occurs first.

Council Member Kelley motioned to Suspend that portion of Town Council Procedure Policy Section V.1 relating to placing “CITIZENS COMMENTS” (call to the public) in the Order of Business and Agenda until the second meeting in September or until two-thirds of the Council determines that an emergent circumstances no longer exist which create an imminent risk to public safety and the safety of elective and appointive officials, whichever occurs first.  Motion seconded by Council Member Winslow.  Town Manager Taft asks Council Member Kelley to clarify which date in September, Council Member Kelley stated he wanted the same date as the previous motion, which is the second Tuesday in September.  Vice Mayor Cowell calls for the vote.  Vote — 5 in favor, 1 member absent and 1 vacancy.  MOTION CARRIED.

4. Suspend that portion of Town Council Procedure Policy Section VII.1 setting forth procedures for “call to the public,” until [DATE] or until two-thirds of the Council determines that an emergent circumstances no longer exist which create an imminent risk to public safety and the safety of elective and appointive officials, whichever occurs first.

Council Member Kelley motioned to suspend Town Council Procedure Policy Section VII.1, setting forth procedures for “call to the public,” until the second meeting in September or until two-thirds of the Council determines that an emergent circumstances no longer exist which create an imminent risk to public safety and the safety of elective and appointive officials, whichever occurs first.  Motion seconded by Council Member Winslow.  Vice Mayor Cowell calls for the vote.  Vote — 5 in favor, 1 member absent and 1 vacancy.  MOTION CARRIED.

5. Schedule regular Town Council Meeting for [dates and times] until [DATE] or until two-thirds of the Council determines that an emergent circumstances no longer exist which create an imminent risk to public safety and the safety of elective and appointive officials, whichever occurs first.

Council Member Lukkasson motioned to schedule regular Town Council Meeting for 9:00 a.m. on normal meeting Tuesdays until the second Tuesday in September or until two-thirds of the Council determines that an emergent circumstances no longer exist which create an imminent risk to public safety and the safety of elective and appointive officials, whichever occurs first.  Motion seconded by Council Member Winslow.  Discussion regarding this next coming up meeting.  Need to give 24 hour notice of that meeting.  Council Member Lukkasson amends his motion to state this coming Tuesdays meeting will be at 10:00 a.m. to give staff an opportunity to distribute the notice.  Council Member Winslow seconds the amendment.  Vice Mayor Cowell calls for the vote on the amendment.  Vote — 5 in favor, 1 member absent and 1 vacancy.  AMENDMENT

{page 4}

CARRIED.  Vice Mayor Cowell calls for the vote on the original motion.  Vote — 5 in favor, 1 member absent and 1 vacancy.  MOTION CARRIED.

6. Direct Town Manager and Chief of Police to implement procedures to ensure the safety of public attendees at future Council meetings.

Council Member Kelley motioned to direct Town Manager and Chief of Police to implement procedures to ensure the safety of public attendees at future Council meetings.  Motion seconded by Council Member Lukkasson.  Vice Mayor Cowell calls for the vote on the amendment.  Vote — 5 in favor, 1 member absent and 1 vacancy.  MOTION CARRIED.

ADJOURNMENT:
12:41 p.m.

CERTIFICATION:
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Emergency Meeting of the Town Council of Quartzsite, Arizona, held on the 10th day of July 2011.
I further certify that the meeting was duly called by emergency and held and that a quorum was present.
DATED this 12^th day of July 2011.

{unsigned}      
Karen Norris, Town Clerk

APPROVED:

{unsigned}
Ed Foster, Mayor

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

PDF images of the minutes:

Page 1 – Notice

Page 2 – minutes

Page 3 – minute

Page 4 – minutes

Quartzsite Mayor declares meeting illegal, Town Council proceeds without the Mayor

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 13, 2011

An on again, off again, meeting was held in Quartzsite, Arizona, on Tuesday, July 12, 2011, at 10:00 AM. The meeting, according to sources, was called during an illegal meeting, as declared by the Mayor, on Sunday, July 10. This July 10 meeting was the subject of an early posting (Illegal Town Council meeting in Quartzsite, Arizona).

Mayor Ed Foster, at the beginning of the Tuesday meeting, pointed out that the Arizona State Attorney General had not declared the Sunday meeting to be illegal, since he had received no formal complaints regarding the illegality. The Mayor then encouraged all to file such complaints (complaint link contained in Illegal Town Council…).

The Mayor then declared that this (Tuesday) meeting was, also, illegal, since it was scheduled during the illegal meeting of Sunday, and is not being held at the normal 7:00 PM meeting time, as stipulated in Town Code. He further stated that Arizona Revised Statutes requires that “all persons shall be allowed to attend public meetings”, after pointing out that there were a number of people outside, who had not been allowed entry to the meeting. 

He then stated that he had directed the Town Clerk to arrange for a larger facility for subsequent meetings and that the non-meeting then being held would be rescheduled within 24 hours.  Mayor Foster then left the building.

The City Attorney then explained that the Sunday meeting was, “presumptively,” legal, since “there has been no judicial finding that it was illegal”.  The council, absent the Mayor, continued the meeting with Vice Mayor Barbara Cowell presiding over the meeting.

The first order of business, then, was to decide whether they should continue the current meeting, to which the Council voted, unanimously, to continue.  The audience, however, appeared to, resoundingly, vote “Nay”.

The meeting was then called to order by the Vice Mayor. An invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance were held, and then a roll call indicated that all were present, except Mayor Foster.

A consent agenda (three items, unstated) was approved and then discussion began on the tentative budget for 2011-2012. It was decided that the tentative budget would be published, another special meeting be held prior to approval, and then the meeting for the approval be held, approved unanimously.

The meeting was then adjourned about 11 minutes after Mayor Foster’s first statement. Nothing controversial, at all, was discussed, with the exceptions noted above.

* * *

Outside of the meeting, others who had come to visit Quartzsite and get an idea of what is going on in this little town of about 3800 full time residents, report that they were told that there was no copy of the “meeting rules” available. The “meeting rules” came to prominence when Jennifer “Jade” Jones was forcibly removed from the building after stating that the rules had never been adopted by the Council (see Arrest Jennifer Jade Jones June 28 Quartzsite Arizona Council Meeting Viral), though she was not arrested, only removed from the meeting).

It was also noted that the ten Quartzsite Police Officers who had signed a request for an investigation (No Confidence in Quartzsite Chief of Police Jeff Gilbert) were at the grounds outside of the meeting wearing red tee-shirts, while the on-duty officers were not signatories to the request. Quite a coincidence!

Channels 3, 5, 12 and 15 (Phoenix) were present, along with numerous reporters from other locations, including Blythe, California, just twenty miles west along Interstate 10.  Channel 3, a late arrival, chose only to interview Chief of Police Jeff Gilbert, who explained that he did not really know all that happened when he ordered the removal of Jennifer Jones on June 28.  It appears that they had no interested in what the Mayor of Quartzsite had to say about Tuesday’s events.

No Confidence in Quartzsite Chief of Police Jeff Gilbert

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 12, 2011

The following is an unsigned, undated letter to the Mayor, Town Council, and Citizens of Quartzsite, Arizona.  Being unsigned and undated, it has a questionable background and source; however, it is simply a short version of a complaint — a vote of No Confidence — in the Chief of Police that is supported by 10 of the police officers (80%).

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, and citizens of Quartzsite, Members of the Quartzsite Police Officers Association, representing approximately 80% of the department, met with AZPOST to make a formal complaint against Police Chief Jeff Gilbert.  These officers provided a detailed letter, outlining years of management abuses, misconduct, EEO violations, and political and criminal behavior against Chief Gilbert.  The Quartzsite Police Officers Association notified AZCOPS, who have also requested of AZPOST an immediate investigation of Chief Gilbert.

Some of the allegations against Chief Gilbert:

•  “White-out” the town manager’s signature on their leave request forms, giving the appearance the town manager had not previously approved the initial request.
•  Violating medical privacy acts under federal law.
•  Uses his authority as the Chief to intimidate both officers and members of the community if they disagree with his methodology and political affiliation
•  Chief Gilbert uses, or orders members of the Department to use NCIC to find “dirt” on political candidates or citizens supporting candidates the Chief Dislikes
•  “Friends” of the Chief who have warrants for their arrests are not placed in Custody
•  Officers are ordered to make traffic stops and arrest/cite citizens who the Chief believes are against him
•  Disciplines members of the Department on how “loyal” they are to him; not on the merit of the investigation
•  Ridicules and humiliates members of the Department he deems are “unfit” in front of others
•  Promotes those who are loyal/friends of his in violation of Department/HR rules and policies

In the past few weeks, members of the Quartzsite Police Officers Association made it known to members of the Town Council and other agencies our concerns involving the conduct of Chief Gilbert.

We advised the Town Council not only of policy violations, but criminal violations against citizens as well.  We notified the Town Council that we have a vote of “No Confidence” in his leadership.

In the interest of town unity we did our duty, and reported our concerns to the Town leaders, with offers of supporting evidence, in an effort to allow them to take this matter into their own hands and away from ours.

We have realized that the Town Manager, Alex Taft, continually attempted to delay, stall or prevent this investigation from taking place.  Alex Taft and Chief Gilbert approached his own known associates at other agencies in an attempt to direct the investigation in his favor.  We believe her personal friendship with the Chief has blinded her to her responsibilities to the citizens of this community, keeping her from doing her duty to the Town of Quartzsite, and to the employees under Chief Gilbert’s direct supervision.

As an example, over the Memorial Day weekend, Town Manager Taft scheduled interviews with the employees of the police department to be conducted by an outside firm.  These interviews are being conducted by a law firm hired by the Town Manager to determine the reasons for a morale problem in the police department, and does not involve an investigation into the criminal allegations reported by your police officers.

The Town Manager and Council do not appear to take these allegations seriously.  Alex Taft has failed to follow the Town’s Personnel Policy, which would be to place Chief Gilbert on administrative leave pending the results of an investigation of the allegations.  Department policy requires an impartial investigator from the Department of Public Safety to conduct a fair and honest investigation.  Again this policy was disregarded by the Town Manager.

To those Town Council members that did listen and take the concerns to the Town Manager, the Quartzsite Police Officers Association thanks you for your efforts.  You have tried, as is your duty, to have an honest and thorough investigation of Chief Gilbert’s actions initiated.

We would like to assure the Town Council and the citizens of Quartzsite that, despite claims to the contrary, the members of the Association stand behind their allegations concerning Chief Gilbert’s conduct.  These employees of your town have continued to do their duty and protect the public safety.

Since the allegations were reported, the officers who made the report have been threatened and intimidated.  The officers have been told that the Town Council and the citizens of Quartzsite would demand the termination of all the individuals that have made this stand and signed the complaint.  When these threats were brought to the attention of the Town Manager, no actions were taken again in violation of Town Policy.

Left with little other choice, it is the duty of the Quartzsite Police Officers Association to inform the citizens of this community and the rest of the public that we do not stand behind Chief Gilbert, or condone any of his criminal actions, nor will we jeopardize our own careers by following orders we know are unconstitutional and by not reporting his criminal behavior.

It is apparent that a vote of No Confidence in Chief Gilbert is not enough to ask for his resignation with cause.  This issue is not a popularity contest, and neither the officers nor Chief Gilbert are running for election.  This is not about personal friendships or politics.  We that stand before you are reporting years of management abuses, misconduct, EEO violations, and political and criminal behavior by Chief Gilbert against employees of your town and your fellow citizens.  A criminal investigation by the Department of Public Safety is called for, not only by policy, but in fairness to all involved.

The Quartzsite Police Officers Association has always stood behind the Town of Quartzsite and its citizens, and we will continue to do so.  We are asking for two things: an immediate investigation of Chief Gilbert’s conduct by D.P.S. and, if the allegations against him prove true, demand his immediate termination.  We would request that the Town Policy be followed and Chief Gilbert be placed on administrative leave until the investigation is concluded.

Sincerely,

Quartzsite Police Officers Association

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Now, you may be wondering why I would even consider posting such an unsigned, undated letter.  Well, because it is just the short version of what is included in a signed (by ten officers) and dated (May 10, 2011) letter in PDF format.  To read the longer letter and request for an investigation, QPD.PDF.

[Thanks to http://www.quartzsitenews.tv for the above and the PDF file]

Illegal Town Council meeting in Quartzsite, Arizona

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 11, 2011

[Note: There have been many rumors flying around about the request for Mayor Ed Foster’s attendance at an illegal Town Council meeting, on Sunday, July 10, 2011.  To assure that what is occurring in Quartzsite, Arizona, doesn’t get blown out of proportion with rumors, speculation and falsehood, I contacted Mayor Foster, this afternoon, to make sure that the truth does come out, and unfounded rumors return to whence they came.  GH]

Mayor Ed Foster, of Quartzsite, Arizona, was invited to a meeting.  He chose to go to that meeting and felt that there was no duress involved in making him attend.

When he arrived at the Town Council chambers, he was standing just inside of the doorway when he heard the door shut and the lock click.  A photographer who had wanted to attend the meeting was barred by that action.

Dozens of Town residents held their ears to the door in an effort to hear what was transpiring in a meeting that the Mayor described as an illegal meeting, meeting only the quorum criteria, under state law, for a meeting.  No prior notice; closed meeting; no agenda — all of the normal requisites for openness in government had been dispensed with.

The results of the meeting, under the watchful eye of the Town Manager, Alex Taft, and Chief of Police, Jeff Gilbert, was that those two appointed entities have superseded the elected officials (people’s choice), and placed the Chief of Police in charge of the Town, as an emergency measure.

The nature of the emergency is said to be fear, based upon threats received by various members of the Council, Town employees, and officials.  When asked if any of the threats came from Quartzsite citizens, the answer was that the threats were coming from all over the country, and from other countries.  There were, apparently, no threats at all received from any local people.

Why, then, does the emergency warrant a change in Town government from elected officials to appointed, and, presumably, unable to be recalled, only fired?  But, then, if they are in charge, who can fire them?

The attention that the recent incident involving the ‘arrest’ of Jennifer Jones has gone viral.  It appears that the politicians in the capitol, Phoenix, in both the Governor’s and the State attorney’s offices are beginning to listen to what they had refused to acknowledge, in the past.  This may also be true of the La Paz County Sheriff, who had sent officers to Quartzsite, with instructions to not get involved.

Now, if we are, truly, a nation of self-governed people, then it behooves the rest of us to understand that if it can happen in Quartzsite, it can happen where you are — just as those in Virginia realized that what was happening in Massachusetts could also happen to them, 236 years ago.

So, in light of the Founder’s willingness to participate in support of others who found themselves under the yoke of despotic government, lend what you can by calling, or, at least, emailing, those involved in this charade of government tyranny.

(For some information regarding recent activity, see http://www.quartzsitemineshaft.com/)

Government officials with the capacity to support the citizens of Quartzsite – Ask them to aid Mayor Foster:

Governor Jan Brewer: (602) 542-4331
online email link: http://azgovernor.gov/contact.asp

State Attorney General: Tom Horne (602) 542-5025 — Media Contact for SAG: amy.rezzonico@azag.gov
Also, Open Meeting Law Complaint Form  If you feel you have been the victim of or have information of Violations of the Open Meeting Law please file a complaint with our office.

La Paz County Sheriff, Don Lowery: (928) 669-6141 email: dlowery@lapazsheriff.org

* * * *

Bad guys – let them know what you think:

Chief of Police, Jeff Gilbert: (928) 927-3889

Town Manager: Alexandra Taft:  (928) 927-3889

[Article on line at Illegal Town Council meeting in Quartzsite, Arizona]

Committee of Safety – Common Law Court

Unlike the common law courts that you hear about, so often, usually in a bad light — as trying to “bring justice” to government officials, the Committee of Safety — Common Law Court (CoS-CLC) is to bring balance to the patriot community.

The Division in the patriot community has, for decades, been our most serious problem.  Perhaps a means to resolve those disputes that lead to division will substantially reduce the problem of division.  This is the idea behind the CoS-CLC.  Suppose there is a name-calling going on between two people.  Others are bound to take sides; generally, it will be the side of a friend or someone who has “your ear” more than the other does.

Unfortunately, such controversy can wreak havoc in portions of the community, often resulting in the disruption, or even dissolution, of an organization.

So, just how can such a problem be avoided?

Let’s suppose that both sides to such controversy are given an equal platform to “air their grievances”.  A platform that will moderate the “debate”, allow evidence to be submitted, both sides being heard, even allowing testimony from witnesses, without any prejudicial intervention.  After all of the evidence is submitted, witnesses heard, and statements made, by both parties, it is turned over to a jury of 12 peers (members of the patriot community) to deliberate and come up with a verdict.

Once the verdict is presented, it will be available for all to read, along with the pertinent portions of the trial.  It will remain as reference, for all who might have questions about either, or both of the parties.

The same can be held for questionable organizations or programs.  All that is required is that someone file a Complaint, and the other party answer.  The CoS-CLC will then begin the process for the “trial”.

All that is needed for this invaluable tool to become available for us it to have members of the community, from as diverse a sampling of Patriots as possible, from all walks of life, from all parts of the country.  This is your chance to have your say, to make your voice be heard, to help rid the infighting, and to provide justice, and vindication or validation for those who have been harmed.

* * *

You can learn more about the Court, and volunteer to serve at http://www.committee.org/Court

You can visit the Forum where you can discuss Committees of Safety or join in conversation at the Green Dragon Inn (need not be registered), or, see the Courtroom (must register), at http://www.committee.org/LibertyTree.

We need volunteers to be judges, jurors, and grand jurors.

[For more information on the Common Law Court, see  Committee of Safety – Common Law Court (introduction)]