Posts
- A New America Here At Home -
342
Kyle’s open letter of noteworthy points,
I never thought I would see the day when I discovered a darkness even darker than Nancy Peloci’s “We have to pass it so we can find out what’s in it” advice to Congress. But last night the Haines Borough Assembly just passed that mark. From Leftist to rightwing, men and women, wealthy businessmen and paupers, Mud Bay and Highway and towns people, persons of deep faith and serious dope smokers; a very impressive ensemble of notoriously contrarily opinionated Haines Citizens, whose votes are ALWAYS divided right down the middle, showed up last night to the Public Hearing at 6:30 in unprecedented solidarity to make very clear by attendance, as well as an impressively long string of three-minute speeches, declaring that the people do not want the Minor Offense Ordinance. Yet strangely it passed… and “strangely” is not nearly a powerful enough word, which we will get to near the end of this address. The list of shocking “in spite ofs” goes on-and-on even beyond the past three weeks of public hearings on this ordinance, and many citizens, both committee and privately, put their lives on hold to individually research and then compile their several mind’s work to address the assembly in written form, exposing advised precautions to consider, as well as the high volume of direct and indirect violations of U.S. Law, Alaska Statute, and Haines Borough Charter. Yet the Assembly plunged ahead with an equally unprecedented determination to pass this ordinance against all argument and against all reason, and in direct violation of their oath of office to “support the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Alaska, and the Charter of the Haines Borough.” Borough Charter 2.04.040 (*1).
Allow me to short-list just a few of the many strange facts that brought this ordinance to life by less-than authorized means.
• By document and website, the Assembly chose to tell the people, whom they represent, that this ordinance was mandated by Alaska Court Order No 1797. But there is no mandate. Yet after being directly challenged on this fact, and even confessing this truth, they chose not to correct the lie.
• The Assembly chose to tell the people that this ordinance was about tabling existing infractions. Yet after being challenged on this beguilement they chose not to correct the deception:
• Although the public pointed out the UNCONSTITUTIONAL Charter-changing right-steeling concepts and wording such as in proposed 1.24.010, 1.24.060 and 1.24.070 among others, including phrases like: “It is not a defense to the charge that it was factually or legally impossible to commit the offence allegedly attempted…”, the Assembly chose to leave those lawless words and intents unremoved and unchanged.
• The alteration of our retained rights and the re-coding of our home rule infractions into State managed Minor Offenses by the nature of this charter-amending ordinance “determines the culture under which our government operates and is the enforcement mechanism for all of our public behavior and transactions” (Carol Tuynman), and therefore makes this a Charter amending ordinance by nature, requiring a public vote: “Proposed amendments [to the charter] shall be submitted to the voters…” Haines Borough Charter Article 17.02 (*2).
• This deceptively packaged ordinance is in violation of Charter Title 2.12.070 by combining administrative tabling and Charter changing elements. By unlawfully combining the two natures of this singular ordinance it confuses how it must be enacted: Article 3.02(c) “a simple majority vote of the total membership of the assembly may pass an ordinance” vs. Article 17.01 “This Charter may be amended by the Haines Borough electorate ratifying an amendment at a regular or special election,” and Alaska Statute 29.10.100 “A home rule charter may be amended as provided in the charter, except that no amendment is effective unless ratified by the voters.” Yet by this forbidden combination and the disguise of its true nature, the Assembly called it an administrative “tabling ordinance” and went about passing it by simple majority vote of the Assembly, keeping the choice of changing the nature of our chartered laws out of the hands of the people. This is a blatant ignoring of identifying a restrictive nature as to when the Agents can act and when they must let the people act: Borough Charter 2.12.090 “When an act is required by ordinance (this is) and the act may be done as well by an agent [i.e. Assembly] as by the principle [i.e. the people]…”
This act cannot be done as well by our agents as by our express will by vote.
Alaska Statute 44.62.312(3) confirms this concept by saying: “the people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them;” and (4) “the people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people…” Yet the Assembly did just that by passing this ordinance on their own, and in direct opposition to every voice of the people who spoke at every meeting held on this ordinance.
• On Sept. 8, 2015 at the Public Hearing, the Assembly allowed an Assemblyman to speak on a topic that had already been closed. This violated Charter Title 2.10.060B: “Every member while speaking shall speak only to the subject under debate.” That violation speech resulted in a likewise violating vote that spawned an impressive chaos of following violating votes and reconsiders that eventually resulted in eliminating the previous rightfully established third public hearing-- with its extended date for cause-- and unlawfully enacted a vote of passage at the next scheduled Public Hearing time-slot (see Borough Assembly Minutes 9/8/15 p2 of 4 for a very interesting read).
• At that next scheduled meeting, of Sept. 22, 2015-- last night-- after a very impressive public turnout that-- at least for those who spoke-- TO THE PERSON, stood firmly against the passage of this ordinance, and by solidarity the silent-attending agreed, it was declared by two Assembly persons that although maybe one-hundred strong, our united voice against this ordinance was a small percentage of the 1700 citizens of the Haines Borough. They declared that they were enacting this ordinance in the name, and by the wishes of, the silent population that elected them. It seems apparent that while the exact ratio is admittedly debatable, they utterly reject the universally recognized concept declaring that each individual who acts or votes, accurately represents a far larger number of those who do not. 1 to 10 is not at all outside the scope of an easily accepted ratio. And so, since all of the “100” persons who acted have declared by appearance, written submission, or speech, that this ordinance is not of the will of the people, it cannot be reasonably assumed that the silent majority was not heard decidedly. The fact that there was not a single contrary opinion among them boosts those ratios enormously.
• After the lengthy three-minute public speeches, acting Chair; Madam Lapham, berated the public by saying, as close as I can remember; “I don’t know why the people site; Police State and Nazism, and Communism… the public need to chose their words more wisely,” “I take offense...” Her context and wording and tone expressly told the public that she did not believe we believed what we were saying and therefore dismissed our speeches as insignificant blather and not the real concerns of the people to be received. She even berated one speaker, who said reading this ordinance was reminiscent of what he experienced in East Germany before the wall came down, by accusing him of not living through Communism and so not knowing what was and was not Communistic. This dismissive reaction to the public speeches given in the time slot of “being heard” is an untenable violation of the law. This directly and offensively violates the “reasonably heard” laws as well as the tenor of her commission as pubic servant.
• Only at this last meeting, when the vote was to be cast, did Assemblyman Case expose to the public that his medical condition interfered with his ability to read. Normally I would not even mention such an infliction in the effort to respect the individual who suffers what he did not bring upon himself, but because of how this vote went down this bit of information becomes legally important. Both Alaska Statute and Borough Code makes clear that the people have a very important and foundational right to be heard by those who represent them. Alaska Statute 29.20.020: “The governing body shall provide reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard at regular and special meetings,” and Haines Borough Code 2.08.060A: “The public shall be provided a reasonable opportunity to be heard.” There is no way that three-minutes to speak can be construed to be a reasonable opportunity to be heard on matters of this importance. But the public is allowed to write letters and emails to the Assembly conveying their concerns, so this may be construed as to fulfill that meaning even if it doesn’t accurately conform to the letter, and possibly even the intent. So after spending many hours carefully researching and wording each letter, the public has gone to great lengths in the effort to be heard so that the assembly can grasp their concerns to be applied when they vote. Yet now we learn too late, by his own confession, that Mr. Case cannot physically read the import of the public, and therefore has failed to provide a lawfully required and very important element of being an actual representative of the people. And, while I have long suspected that many of the Assembly does not read the presentations of the people, we have solid evidence that says at least two of the six members of the assembly votes without hearing the public’s concerns.
• Several points of the law regarding process were submitted by Mr. Denker and read, and some even referenced by assemblyman Campbell at this meeting before the vote was taken. In the composition of those laws are specific requirements of access to information before a meeting, which the Assembly was still missing, as well as information which the public was guaranteed timely but not yet provided. The several laws state clearly that this information must be in place: The Haines Borough Charter Preamble and Bill of Rights (*3) declares “The right to access a well maintained public record of all actions of public officials in accordance with this charter, so that the citizens of the borough may retain control over the affairs of their government.” Borough Code 2.60.120 states; “The minutes shall be filed in the office of the clerk as soon as feasible, but in no case later than two weeks following the committee meeting, and shall be a public record open to inspection by any person.” Borough Code 2.10.030(A) states: “The mayor, with assistance from the clerk, shall arrange [the committee information] according to the order of business and the clerk shall furnish each member of the assembly, the mayor, the manager and the chief fiscal officer with a copy of the same in packet form five calendar days in advance of the assembly meeting.” Yet in spite of Assemblyman Campbell’s efforts to caution the Assembly against voting on a subject of which all pertinent information was not available, as obligatory by law, Madam Lapham as the acting Chair moved forward with the determination to have the vote anyway.
• Assemblyman Campbell then earnestly asked the question; “Why is it so important that we pass this now, especially since it won’t be implemented until January?” To which he did not receive an honest answer to his question, but did receive some mocking replies. Assemblyman Campbell earnestly pleaded with reason to delay the unlawful vote, but he was harshly overruled by the Chair as being out of order.
• In a last-ditch desperate attempt to do as much quick patching of a heinously flawed document that was obviously about to be passed, Mr. Campbell made several successive motions to amend the proposed ordinance by including in bulk the recommendations of various committees that had been heard but ignored. Some of his motions carried while others were defeated. Eventually, after the Chair unofficially belittled Mr. Campbell for his seemingly “unending” attempts to do his best to at least diminish the flaws of the document before it went to vote, the vote was called for, and taken…… and Mr. Campbell refused to vote, on the grounds that the missing information made the vote unlawful according to requirements of the Charter itself.
• Not being deterred from her note-worthily unexplainable determination, the Chair utterly ignored his claims of unlawful vote, and, with the Clerk, began immediate explorations of the charter for options to force Mr. Campbell to vote. They tried portions of Code 2.10.200: “All assembly members present shall vote unless the presiding officer, for special reasons, permits a member to abstain.” But neglected to allow for the part of the same Code that reads: “or is allowed to abstain by law.” He stood firm and refused to vote, again declaring it violates the law. Eventually after a recessed deliberation with the Clerk, and the Mayor by teleconference, the Chair determined that Mr. Campbell’s refusal to vote would be considered as a “presumed” vote.
• So in a true-life fulfillment of the gnat-straining-camel-swallowing proverb, the blaring fact of declared lawlessness of the Assembly was utterly ignored, and a confusion ensued as to just how to count his vote. To stem the confusion the question presented by Assemblyman Berry then became: “Which form of rules should be followed; Roberts Rules of Order, or the Borough Charter?” (Title 2.10.050): By the one set of rules his “presumed vote” would have to go with the majority and make it a 2-4 vote to pass the ordinance, but under the other set of rules his “presumed vote” would have to be deemed a descent and therefore make it a 3-3 tie vote. By Assembly deliberation the Borough Charter won over the Roberts Rules, and the Mayor by teleconference voted in favor to break the tie, and the ordinance was unlawfully and strangely passed 3-4 with one member not voting.
And that, my friends, is a very short list of the many details in how your Assembly chose to represent you, the silent majority. I bet you didn’t know that you wanted to be stripped of your Habeas Corpus rights, or your right to Trial by Jury, or your previously maintained right to adjudication by your piers, or your right to expect your Assemblymen to adhere to the law, or…
Sincerely,
- Kyle Ponsford, counted among the unsilent.
(address and phone number removed)
* * * * * * *
(*1) NOTE: All information and links of existing Borough Code in this address will be based on established Code current through ordinance 15-07-417 last accessed on 9/23/15. Subsequent changes to the Code in these links after this date may not represent the evidences as described and or copied in this address. Such example accessed for confirmation on 9/29/15 is as follows in note (*2):
(*2) “Title 17
(Reserved)
The Haines Borough Code is current through Ordinance 15-07-417, passed August 11, 2015.
Disclaimer: The Borough Clerk's Office has the official version of the Haines Borough Code. Users should contact the Borough Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above.”
(*3) The Preamble and Bill of Rights are artfully buried at the bottom of the Table of Contents page as if it were not actually a part of the Charter.
*
Thursday, October 8, 2015
Sunday, September 27, 2015
Haines Borough Address #2 - 9/8/2015
Regarding Minor Offense Ordinance No. 15-06-413
(Post 341)
Mayor Hill, Borough Manager, and may it please the Haines Borough Assembly,
It’s not about what you think:
While exploring the Borough website regarding this proposed ordinance regarding the new “Minor Offense” category of law, I found what I believe to be an unintentional yet artfully deceptive claim that easily misleads the public into ignoring this change in our Code as something insignificant:
“The items on the DRAFT list DO NOT represent new rules or new violations. The items on the list are taken from EXISTING code and placed on ONE LIST to make the violations more visible to the public” - (*1).
And the website relates the intended “listing” of existing violations as a mandate from the January 22, 2013 Supreme Court ruling #1797 (*2), strongly suggesting to us that this ordinance is simply a State-required administrative format change to “table” or “menu” the existing Borough rules according to constitutionally lawful court procedural-policy changes.
IF this were actually true I would not be here today. What do I care about administrative tables and columns and files? But this ordinance goes way beyond tabling existing rules. In fact this ordinance so profoundly alters our existing Home Rule government that the “required tabled offenses” used to sell it to the people is actually the “pork of the bill” rather than the substance. It’s not about the lists of this ordinance; it’s about everything else.
Again, let me make clear that I am not yet convinced that the members of the Assembly are intentionally hiding this subversion from the public, but are unknowingly ceding our rights of self-government indirectly to the European Courts by allowing an unelected attorney to remake our code with a lackadaisical administrative oversight that assumes he has our borough’s best interest in heart.
But ignorance is no excuse regarding the outcome. Therefore it is my intention in this address to walk through the specific main-points of this ordinance that actually strips the Constitutionally protected rights from the Haines Borough people on a grand foundational scale, and by the revealing information, encourage the Assembly to recognize the danger of this ordinance and act accordingly.
Yet like removing cancer once spread; it has already become very complex to identify and separate deadly corruption from healthy-- even problematic but tolerable-- policy. In this late stage that complexity is great, but I will at least attempt to streamline the general description for a positive and simplistic identification of the political cancer of this ordinance that cannot be allowed to survive.
Changing the nature of Laws, and then changing our Rules into those Laws:
The Borough website states;
“The attorneys drafted this ordinance with the goal of changing as little of the current Code as possible.” - (*1).
And suddenly I found myself asking; If that’s the case, then what is so “necessary” about the repealment and Reenactiment of the whole of Chapter 1.24? And by exploration I found that it seems to parallel the repealment and Reenactment of the State Court Rules that change some “Crime rules” into “Minor Offence rules” in the aforementioned Order No. 1797 that is said to also mandate this local change.
“District Court Criminal Rules 8, 8.1 and 8.2 are renamed and renumbered as Minor Offense Rules 1-22 as follows…” - (*2).
Parallel to the fundamental changes at our Federal level, Something alarmingly large is changing at the State level that also requires such a foundational change of local ordinances. And in that light I asked; What is so “necessary” about the first line-item change to our local ordinance?:
• “Every act prohibited by city [Borough] ordinance is (now) unlawful” (proposed 1.24.010),
changed from;
• “…any person failing to abide by any provisions or failing to comply with any of the mandatory requirements of this code is guilty of a violation…” (existing 1.24.010).
Has anyone asked why the original writers of this Charter chose to word this in such a complex way, seeming to intentionally and laboriously avoid claiming that the ordinance code was law? So why is it “necessary” to change this to declare that we are now violating the law?
The Borough website goes further in explaining just what this new approach actually means:
• “What will change (with this ordinance) is the method of enforcement, and in some cases, the penalties for violations. Some violations of Borough law [not law] that are currently “administrative” in nature would become “minor offenses” (now law). The practical difference is that the former is handled by Borough staff (and the Assembly on appeal), and the later will be handled by the court. …” - (*1) underlines added.
None of this is minor.
If the method changes, and the penalties change, and a case of infraction is now handled by a foundationally different authority, the only thing left to change is the list of specific violations… which very nature is also changed from infraction of local rules to breach of law… and the nature of that law has also been changed by the Court from what used to be openly called crime, but is now “crime without rights.”
You don’t suppose that having changed virtually everything but the actual listed violations themselves, the next Assembly will choose to change those too, under this new form of law? or maybe more likely; being now law and therefore in the State’s domain of jurisdiction, the State Courts will be the ones to next mandate a change of the listed borough “laws” to suit their own will and design, which itself is mandated unlawfully by European courts through unlawful treaties by a corruption of the Presidency (*3), who like you, cedes our inalienable rights to others by unconstitutional allegiance to the nongoverned.
Since it is well known and universally understood that the Supreme Court cannot write law, I feel that there is no need to site the Federal and State Constitutions on that matter. So if it wasn’t the U.N. Courts, and it wasn’t the U.S. Courts, then who exactly commanded you to change this ordinance? (*4).
If this ordinance is passed, what used to be an “in house” issue of self governance within our Constitutional Home Rule community, has, first; been changed from violation of rules to a legal issue of law, and then, in that new form, is sent outside of our jurisdiction into the authority of the State courts that try issues of law... and there-- without the writ of Habeas Corpus (*5,6a), without a jury of our piers (*6b), and without state supplied council (*7)-- there are consequences of penalty above the Alaska Constitutional maximums for denying a jury trial for civil offenses (*8) presumably because they now fall under the magical realm of “Minor Offense Laws” that constitutionally don’t exist, but by a ceded-authority Police State sure seem to. I quickly found no less than 52 direct “tabled fines” that already exceed the maximum allowed by the Alaska Constitution for such a transformed setting. And that does not take into account the compounding daily increases, the added surcharges, court costs, etc. What do you propose to do about that once these infractions of rules become infractions of law and subject to the courts, which are constrained by Alaska State constitutional boundaries?
So how does the Borough explain this dramatic alteration of our home-rule foundations? The website continues:
“We view this as a tremendous benefit to both the Borough and the person accused of the violation because a court is the best forum to adjudicate whether a violation occurred and to impose penalties, not city hall and the Assembly chambers.” - Underline added (*1).
Has anyone asked what the founders of our Home Rule Borough had in mind when they established this Charter that clearly provided the opposite opinion on just who is best suited for that job? Why do you suppose that they didn’t think that dragging our people to a State Court over local matters was a good idea?
Let me help answer that: It’s because, as it has long stood in our present Charter; breaking our local code is not a crime. It’s not a breach of the law (in spite of the fact that the borough website seems to think it is), and therefore it’s not a case for the Courts to adjudicate. Rather, it’s an infraction of the local rules of social conduct put forward by an Assembly of elected local residence and accepted by a vote of the governed, and therefore, the Assembly are more likely to judge in a manner common with our unique local traditions and lifestyles. And if not, we the people have the direct ability to vote them out of office and elect those who’s values and ideas of lifestyle are more like our own. Because IT’S OUR BOROUGH! We make the rules in our own borough. That’s one of the points that makes this non-European nation so special!
American Courts don’t adjudicate infractions of local rules. Does a father take his son to court if he doesn’t take out the trash? Maybe if he changed the word “Chores” to “Laws” he could! And maybe both the son and the father would view this as a tremendous benefit to both, but that very statement is missing the point of even why it seems that way to them. Such a change of mindframe reveals a breakdown in the family relationship that desperately needs to be addressed. It seems that the Borough government thinks the people are rebellious, and perhaps the people think the government is tyrannical. This is not a good relationship!
So speaking to the Assembly; Is our entire borough-- or even just our local community-- so full of lawless anarchy of Alaskan tradition, customs, and lifestyles, that we need to make this foundational change in governance that brings in The Big Dog? I don’t see it even close. We really have a wonderful sleepy and friendly community, and that, even including our “family” contentions of dramatic lifestyle differences and values now arriving from outside, as well as created by consolidating the City and the Borough into a single governance of lifestyle. The far more reasonable solution would be Redistricting rather than turning over our adjudicating powers to the Courts of law (See I Corinthians 6:4-7). But I don’t yet see the need of even redistricting.
If my “City Hall” is so corrupt and/or antagonistically wrong-headed that I can’t get a reasonable “verdict” from them-- and accept it as just, then its not time to take it to the court; it’s time to revamp either City Hall or my way of thinking. This is an In House matter for the community to determine, not a matter for the Courts!
And to be honest, my first contemplation on this line is questioning if the City Hall’s rules of conduct are not already too restrictive and arbitrary and entirely too focused on more income, thus encouraging both rebellion (Ephesians 6:4) and an overstuffed docket of frivolous and unnecessary cases to review and adjudicate, which our own Preamble and Bill of Rights guarantees to prevent:
“the right to enjoyment of (normal local life) without unnecessarily restrictive or arbitrary laws or regulations.”
If the City Hall has a whole stack of similar violations (such as ticketing 75 cars parked along the road for a basketball game) it’s a good indicator that the people do not like the rule. The rule should change, or at least be administratively momentarily waved in good faith. It’s your job to hear the people, not bring in the Court to make us comply to a nanny-State governance of external values.
I already have a whole long list of substantial complaints regarding many of the specific listed infractions being unnecessarily restrictive or arbitrary, but that argument must be postponed for a separate address another time. What we are addressing here is the very nature and purpose of a Home Rule governance, and that is more important today than at any time in Alaska’s history. We are talking directly about the last of our diminishing freedoms; the right of democratic defense against a rogue government that now wants to rule us. In our borough we call this defense Home Rule, in court we call this Trial by Jury. This Assembly is about to ignorantly deny us both, because; “That’s what our attorney wrote”? I’m not buying it.
In keeping with the motives of the State Constitution, in keeping with the same in the Federal; our wise body of Home Rule community-makers diminished only those rights required to maintain the minimalist order necessary for the local people to “keep from killing each other.” After all; It’s the people’s community to live as they collectively like and are commonly used to living. But yes, we do need basic rules that all can easily see as worthy, and comply with, as a common politeness to our neighbors who have as much rights as we do to expect to be safe and secure in our community. Just don’t forget that the Borough of Haines is a very unique place, and in the Alaska State Constitution it grants us the autonomy of maintaining our uniqueness (*9). And in the Preamble of our Borough Charter we specifically retain that right to be a special community with our odd customs and lifestyles that define us, even different than anywhere else in the State or Country. Reformation is the job of the Church, without the force of law. Don’t attempt to “reform” us with your lifestyle-changing ideas as laws; like turning us all into a Californian neighborhood absent of junk cars and useful odds in the yard that, because of our rural location and lack of ready money, have great “spare parts” value as a way of life. This is Haines, in rugged Alaska, and except for extreme and abnormal cases that may need to be addressed from time to time; we live this way on purpose because it makes us happy and/or independently secure. And THAT right is actually spelled out as the lawfully protected and retained rights of the people of the Haines Borough, the People of Alaska, and the people of the United States of America.
Rule 1 of Order #1797 seems to want to take that away (*10), but it can do so only if we voluntarily change our rules into Minor Offenses as this ordinance is want to do.
More Danger still:
Now that you grasp the significance of what this changed ordinance is attempting to do, and that the Alaska Supreme Court is complicit with this alteration of our American and uniquely Alaskan rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness through our borough self-regulation, and seeing too the now lawless insanity of all three branches of our Federal and State Governments on a nation-destroying scale; allow me to combine a few specifics of this ordinance that drives the point home sharply.
By denying us the right of Habeas Corpus both in the Superior Court Rules and in the proposed Borough Ordinance (*5,6a), there now needs to be virtually no evidence or proof that we are guilty of what we are accused of. Add to that the ability of the accuser to declare probable cause without providing a shred of evidence, combined with an accusation that the accused thought he was about to do something unlawful, and we arrive at a determined guilt for any and everything imagined by the accuser.
The accuser: “Your honor, I have reason to believe that this citizen intended to fish without a license.”
The Judge: “By the authority provided by law and this Charter, I find the defendant Guilty as charged!”
By this ordinance, it does not matter that the accused doesn’t even own a fishing pole, or a boat, and wasn’t anywhere near the water, the accuser has stated his statement of probable cause based on his imagination of what the perpetrator was thinking, and according to the combined acts of this ordinance, that is good enough for a guilty verdict of a presumed bad thought that has not even the possibility of fulfillment! (*5c).
You think I am mocking this legislation because you would never take these ordinances to such extremes. But by your actions today these will be the ordinances well entrenched in another five years. Who and what will be on the Assembly at that time…Muslims? If you are willing to toss over the values of those who gave us this Charter of Home Rule, then why will the next generation not be willing to toss over your values while lawfully using these ordinance elements that you enacted “with good intentions”?
Perhaps completely outside of your awareness, these changes are not intended for application today but for what they can be made to do tomorrow. This is a bad ordinance on a foundational level. And it’s not good enough to delete the few lines of the ordinance that I used to make a point. DO NOT re-class our Borough rules into “Minor Offenses,” because State Jurisdiction comes with the name that they created and govern by their lawless Rules (*11).
For the most part, the people trust you, much like you trust your attorney, much like he trusts the Courts. In good-will faith, the people naturally allow you administrative powers that you feel are necessary. This ordinance is sold to them as administrative, but is foundationally destructive to our Home Rule governance and the people’s rights. Therefore, on behalf of the Haines Borough People, I urgently request that the Assembly withdraw this proposed ordinance even before it goes to vote. It’s the responsible thing to do.
*
Footnotes:
(*1) Haines Borough Website, describing the Minor Offense Ordinance - accessed 9/3/2015.
(*2) AK Court Order No 1797 - accessed 9/3/2015.
(*3) Jose’ Ernesto Medellin vs. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) (No. 06-984) “is a United States Supreme Court decision that held that even if an international treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or unless the treaty itself is “self-executing.” Also, the Court held that decisions of the International Court of Justice (U.N.) are not binding domestic law and that, without authority from the United States Congress or the Constitution, the President of the United States lacks the power to enforce international treaties or decisions of the International Court of Justice.” (Sited from; A Time for Truth, 2015, Ted Cruz, former Solicitor General representing Texas before the U.S. Supreme Court).
(*4) I have searched the whole of Order No. 1797 and so far I find no mandate to change Borough code, as declared in Haines Borough Agenda Bill No. 15-576 as well as on the Haines Borough Website.
(*5) Supreme Court Order No. 1797:
• “The officer must state on the citation that the officer has probable cause to believe the defendant committed the offense but need not state the grounds for the probable cause determination beyond the essential facts.” - Rule 3(f).
[In our example, the lack of a fishing license is the essential fact mentioned.]
and Haines Borough proposed Ordinance 15-06-413:
• “Every person who attempts to commit a minor offense but fails or is prevented or is intercepted in its perpetration is guilty of a minor offense and shall be punished in the manner prescribed for the infraction itself.” - proposed ordinance 1.24.060 A.
• “…it is not a defense to charge that it was factually or legally impossible to commit the offense allegedly attempted if the conduct engaged in by the defendant would be an offense had the circumstances been as defendant believed them to be.” - proposed ordinance 1.24.060 B.
(*6) Haines Borough proposed Ordinance 15-06-413:
• “…On application for injunctive relief and a finding of…threatened violation, the superior court shall grant the injunction.” - proposed ordinance 1.24.101B.
• “As a minor offense, trial is by the court without a jury…” - proposed ordinance 1.24.030.
(*7) Haines Borough proposed Ordinance 15-06-413:
• “…and there is no right to court-appointed defense counsel.” - proposed ordinance 1.24.030.
(*8) Alaska Constitution Article 1 Section 16:
• “In civil cases where the amount in controversy exceeds two hundred fifty dollars, the right of trial by a jury of twelve is preserved to the same extent as it existed at common law (i.e. crime).”
(*9) Alaska Constitution Article 10 Section 3:
• “Each borough shall embrace an area and population with common interests to the maximum degree possible.” - Underline added.
(*10) Supreme Court Order #1797:
• “These rules govern the procedure in cases involving minor offenses…” - Rule 1. Scope, Purpose and Construction.
(*11) Haines Borough proposed Ordinance 15-06-413:
• “...is guilty of a minor offense as that term is defined in the Alaska Rules of Minor Offense Procedures…” - proposed ordinance 1.24.010 A.
Respectfully and sincerely submitted this 8th day of September in the year of our Lord 2015,
(With current global trending we have a new reason to define just which calendar we are using and why),
- Kyle Ponsford
(address removed)
Haines AK 99827
c.c. via paper and email 9/8/2015:
Borough Mayor Jan Hill jhill@haines.ak.us
Borough Manager David Sosa dsosa@haines.ak.us
Assemblyman Dave Berry Jr. dberry@haines.ak.us
Assemblyperson Diana Lapham dlapham@haines.ak.us
Assemblyman Michael Case mcase@haines.ak.us
Assemblyperson Joanne Waterman jwaterman@haines.ak.us
Assemblyman George Campbell gcampbell@haines.ak.us
Assemblyman Ronald Jackson rjackson@haines.ak.us
Borough Clerk July Cozzie jcozzi@haines.ak.us
*
(Post 341)
Mayor Hill, Borough Manager, and may it please the Haines Borough Assembly,
It’s not about what you think:
While exploring the Borough website regarding this proposed ordinance regarding the new “Minor Offense” category of law, I found what I believe to be an unintentional yet artfully deceptive claim that easily misleads the public into ignoring this change in our Code as something insignificant:
“The items on the DRAFT list DO NOT represent new rules or new violations. The items on the list are taken from EXISTING code and placed on ONE LIST to make the violations more visible to the public” - (*1).
And the website relates the intended “listing” of existing violations as a mandate from the January 22, 2013 Supreme Court ruling #1797 (*2), strongly suggesting to us that this ordinance is simply a State-required administrative format change to “table” or “menu” the existing Borough rules according to constitutionally lawful court procedural-policy changes.
IF this were actually true I would not be here today. What do I care about administrative tables and columns and files? But this ordinance goes way beyond tabling existing rules. In fact this ordinance so profoundly alters our existing Home Rule government that the “required tabled offenses” used to sell it to the people is actually the “pork of the bill” rather than the substance. It’s not about the lists of this ordinance; it’s about everything else.
Again, let me make clear that I am not yet convinced that the members of the Assembly are intentionally hiding this subversion from the public, but are unknowingly ceding our rights of self-government indirectly to the European Courts by allowing an unelected attorney to remake our code with a lackadaisical administrative oversight that assumes he has our borough’s best interest in heart.
But ignorance is no excuse regarding the outcome. Therefore it is my intention in this address to walk through the specific main-points of this ordinance that actually strips the Constitutionally protected rights from the Haines Borough people on a grand foundational scale, and by the revealing information, encourage the Assembly to recognize the danger of this ordinance and act accordingly.
Yet like removing cancer once spread; it has already become very complex to identify and separate deadly corruption from healthy-- even problematic but tolerable-- policy. In this late stage that complexity is great, but I will at least attempt to streamline the general description for a positive and simplistic identification of the political cancer of this ordinance that cannot be allowed to survive.
Changing the nature of Laws, and then changing our Rules into those Laws:
The Borough website states;
“The attorneys drafted this ordinance with the goal of changing as little of the current Code as possible.” - (*1).
And suddenly I found myself asking; If that’s the case, then what is so “necessary” about the repealment and Reenactiment of the whole of Chapter 1.24? And by exploration I found that it seems to parallel the repealment and Reenactment of the State Court Rules that change some “Crime rules” into “Minor Offence rules” in the aforementioned Order No. 1797 that is said to also mandate this local change.
“District Court Criminal Rules 8, 8.1 and 8.2 are renamed and renumbered as Minor Offense Rules 1-22 as follows…” - (*2).
Parallel to the fundamental changes at our Federal level, Something alarmingly large is changing at the State level that also requires such a foundational change of local ordinances. And in that light I asked; What is so “necessary” about the first line-item change to our local ordinance?:
• “Every act prohibited by city [Borough] ordinance is (now) unlawful” (proposed 1.24.010),
changed from;
• “…any person failing to abide by any provisions or failing to comply with any of the mandatory requirements of this code is guilty of a violation…” (existing 1.24.010).
Has anyone asked why the original writers of this Charter chose to word this in such a complex way, seeming to intentionally and laboriously avoid claiming that the ordinance code was law? So why is it “necessary” to change this to declare that we are now violating the law?
The Borough website goes further in explaining just what this new approach actually means:
• “What will change (with this ordinance) is the method of enforcement, and in some cases, the penalties for violations. Some violations of Borough law [not law] that are currently “administrative” in nature would become “minor offenses” (now law). The practical difference is that the former is handled by Borough staff (and the Assembly on appeal), and the later will be handled by the court. …” - (*1) underlines added.
None of this is minor.
If the method changes, and the penalties change, and a case of infraction is now handled by a foundationally different authority, the only thing left to change is the list of specific violations… which very nature is also changed from infraction of local rules to breach of law… and the nature of that law has also been changed by the Court from what used to be openly called crime, but is now “crime without rights.”
You don’t suppose that having changed virtually everything but the actual listed violations themselves, the next Assembly will choose to change those too, under this new form of law? or maybe more likely; being now law and therefore in the State’s domain of jurisdiction, the State Courts will be the ones to next mandate a change of the listed borough “laws” to suit their own will and design, which itself is mandated unlawfully by European courts through unlawful treaties by a corruption of the Presidency (*3), who like you, cedes our inalienable rights to others by unconstitutional allegiance to the nongoverned.
Since it is well known and universally understood that the Supreme Court cannot write law, I feel that there is no need to site the Federal and State Constitutions on that matter. So if it wasn’t the U.N. Courts, and it wasn’t the U.S. Courts, then who exactly commanded you to change this ordinance? (*4).
If this ordinance is passed, what used to be an “in house” issue of self governance within our Constitutional Home Rule community, has, first; been changed from violation of rules to a legal issue of law, and then, in that new form, is sent outside of our jurisdiction into the authority of the State courts that try issues of law... and there-- without the writ of Habeas Corpus (*5,6a), without a jury of our piers (*6b), and without state supplied council (*7)-- there are consequences of penalty above the Alaska Constitutional maximums for denying a jury trial for civil offenses (*8) presumably because they now fall under the magical realm of “Minor Offense Laws” that constitutionally don’t exist, but by a ceded-authority Police State sure seem to. I quickly found no less than 52 direct “tabled fines” that already exceed the maximum allowed by the Alaska Constitution for such a transformed setting. And that does not take into account the compounding daily increases, the added surcharges, court costs, etc. What do you propose to do about that once these infractions of rules become infractions of law and subject to the courts, which are constrained by Alaska State constitutional boundaries?
So how does the Borough explain this dramatic alteration of our home-rule foundations? The website continues:
“We view this as a tremendous benefit to both the Borough and the person accused of the violation because a court is the best forum to adjudicate whether a violation occurred and to impose penalties, not city hall and the Assembly chambers.” - Underline added (*1).
Has anyone asked what the founders of our Home Rule Borough had in mind when they established this Charter that clearly provided the opposite opinion on just who is best suited for that job? Why do you suppose that they didn’t think that dragging our people to a State Court over local matters was a good idea?
Let me help answer that: It’s because, as it has long stood in our present Charter; breaking our local code is not a crime. It’s not a breach of the law (in spite of the fact that the borough website seems to think it is), and therefore it’s not a case for the Courts to adjudicate. Rather, it’s an infraction of the local rules of social conduct put forward by an Assembly of elected local residence and accepted by a vote of the governed, and therefore, the Assembly are more likely to judge in a manner common with our unique local traditions and lifestyles. And if not, we the people have the direct ability to vote them out of office and elect those who’s values and ideas of lifestyle are more like our own. Because IT’S OUR BOROUGH! We make the rules in our own borough. That’s one of the points that makes this non-European nation so special!
American Courts don’t adjudicate infractions of local rules. Does a father take his son to court if he doesn’t take out the trash? Maybe if he changed the word “Chores” to “Laws” he could! And maybe both the son and the father would view this as a tremendous benefit to both, but that very statement is missing the point of even why it seems that way to them. Such a change of mindframe reveals a breakdown in the family relationship that desperately needs to be addressed. It seems that the Borough government thinks the people are rebellious, and perhaps the people think the government is tyrannical. This is not a good relationship!
So speaking to the Assembly; Is our entire borough-- or even just our local community-- so full of lawless anarchy of Alaskan tradition, customs, and lifestyles, that we need to make this foundational change in governance that brings in The Big Dog? I don’t see it even close. We really have a wonderful sleepy and friendly community, and that, even including our “family” contentions of dramatic lifestyle differences and values now arriving from outside, as well as created by consolidating the City and the Borough into a single governance of lifestyle. The far more reasonable solution would be Redistricting rather than turning over our adjudicating powers to the Courts of law (See I Corinthians 6:4-7). But I don’t yet see the need of even redistricting.
If my “City Hall” is so corrupt and/or antagonistically wrong-headed that I can’t get a reasonable “verdict” from them-- and accept it as just, then its not time to take it to the court; it’s time to revamp either City Hall or my way of thinking. This is an In House matter for the community to determine, not a matter for the Courts!
And to be honest, my first contemplation on this line is questioning if the City Hall’s rules of conduct are not already too restrictive and arbitrary and entirely too focused on more income, thus encouraging both rebellion (Ephesians 6:4) and an overstuffed docket of frivolous and unnecessary cases to review and adjudicate, which our own Preamble and Bill of Rights guarantees to prevent:
“the right to enjoyment of (normal local life) without unnecessarily restrictive or arbitrary laws or regulations.”
If the City Hall has a whole stack of similar violations (such as ticketing 75 cars parked along the road for a basketball game) it’s a good indicator that the people do not like the rule. The rule should change, or at least be administratively momentarily waved in good faith. It’s your job to hear the people, not bring in the Court to make us comply to a nanny-State governance of external values.
I already have a whole long list of substantial complaints regarding many of the specific listed infractions being unnecessarily restrictive or arbitrary, but that argument must be postponed for a separate address another time. What we are addressing here is the very nature and purpose of a Home Rule governance, and that is more important today than at any time in Alaska’s history. We are talking directly about the last of our diminishing freedoms; the right of democratic defense against a rogue government that now wants to rule us. In our borough we call this defense Home Rule, in court we call this Trial by Jury. This Assembly is about to ignorantly deny us both, because; “That’s what our attorney wrote”? I’m not buying it.
In keeping with the motives of the State Constitution, in keeping with the same in the Federal; our wise body of Home Rule community-makers diminished only those rights required to maintain the minimalist order necessary for the local people to “keep from killing each other.” After all; It’s the people’s community to live as they collectively like and are commonly used to living. But yes, we do need basic rules that all can easily see as worthy, and comply with, as a common politeness to our neighbors who have as much rights as we do to expect to be safe and secure in our community. Just don’t forget that the Borough of Haines is a very unique place, and in the Alaska State Constitution it grants us the autonomy of maintaining our uniqueness (*9). And in the Preamble of our Borough Charter we specifically retain that right to be a special community with our odd customs and lifestyles that define us, even different than anywhere else in the State or Country. Reformation is the job of the Church, without the force of law. Don’t attempt to “reform” us with your lifestyle-changing ideas as laws; like turning us all into a Californian neighborhood absent of junk cars and useful odds in the yard that, because of our rural location and lack of ready money, have great “spare parts” value as a way of life. This is Haines, in rugged Alaska, and except for extreme and abnormal cases that may need to be addressed from time to time; we live this way on purpose because it makes us happy and/or independently secure. And THAT right is actually spelled out as the lawfully protected and retained rights of the people of the Haines Borough, the People of Alaska, and the people of the United States of America.
Rule 1 of Order #1797 seems to want to take that away (*10), but it can do so only if we voluntarily change our rules into Minor Offenses as this ordinance is want to do.
More Danger still:
Now that you grasp the significance of what this changed ordinance is attempting to do, and that the Alaska Supreme Court is complicit with this alteration of our American and uniquely Alaskan rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness through our borough self-regulation, and seeing too the now lawless insanity of all three branches of our Federal and State Governments on a nation-destroying scale; allow me to combine a few specifics of this ordinance that drives the point home sharply.
By denying us the right of Habeas Corpus both in the Superior Court Rules and in the proposed Borough Ordinance (*5,6a), there now needs to be virtually no evidence or proof that we are guilty of what we are accused of. Add to that the ability of the accuser to declare probable cause without providing a shred of evidence, combined with an accusation that the accused thought he was about to do something unlawful, and we arrive at a determined guilt for any and everything imagined by the accuser.
The accuser: “Your honor, I have reason to believe that this citizen intended to fish without a license.”
The Judge: “By the authority provided by law and this Charter, I find the defendant Guilty as charged!”
By this ordinance, it does not matter that the accused doesn’t even own a fishing pole, or a boat, and wasn’t anywhere near the water, the accuser has stated his statement of probable cause based on his imagination of what the perpetrator was thinking, and according to the combined acts of this ordinance, that is good enough for a guilty verdict of a presumed bad thought that has not even the possibility of fulfillment! (*5c).
You think I am mocking this legislation because you would never take these ordinances to such extremes. But by your actions today these will be the ordinances well entrenched in another five years. Who and what will be on the Assembly at that time…Muslims? If you are willing to toss over the values of those who gave us this Charter of Home Rule, then why will the next generation not be willing to toss over your values while lawfully using these ordinance elements that you enacted “with good intentions”?
Perhaps completely outside of your awareness, these changes are not intended for application today but for what they can be made to do tomorrow. This is a bad ordinance on a foundational level. And it’s not good enough to delete the few lines of the ordinance that I used to make a point. DO NOT re-class our Borough rules into “Minor Offenses,” because State Jurisdiction comes with the name that they created and govern by their lawless Rules (*11).
For the most part, the people trust you, much like you trust your attorney, much like he trusts the Courts. In good-will faith, the people naturally allow you administrative powers that you feel are necessary. This ordinance is sold to them as administrative, but is foundationally destructive to our Home Rule governance and the people’s rights. Therefore, on behalf of the Haines Borough People, I urgently request that the Assembly withdraw this proposed ordinance even before it goes to vote. It’s the responsible thing to do.
*
Footnotes:
(*1) Haines Borough Website, describing the Minor Offense Ordinance - accessed 9/3/2015.
(*2) AK Court Order No 1797 - accessed 9/3/2015.
(*3) Jose’ Ernesto Medellin vs. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) (No. 06-984) “is a United States Supreme Court decision that held that even if an international treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or unless the treaty itself is “self-executing.” Also, the Court held that decisions of the International Court of Justice (U.N.) are not binding domestic law and that, without authority from the United States Congress or the Constitution, the President of the United States lacks the power to enforce international treaties or decisions of the International Court of Justice.” (Sited from; A Time for Truth, 2015, Ted Cruz, former Solicitor General representing Texas before the U.S. Supreme Court).
(*4) I have searched the whole of Order No. 1797 and so far I find no mandate to change Borough code, as declared in Haines Borough Agenda Bill No. 15-576 as well as on the Haines Borough Website.
(*5) Supreme Court Order No. 1797:
• “The officer must state on the citation that the officer has probable cause to believe the defendant committed the offense but need not state the grounds for the probable cause determination beyond the essential facts.” - Rule 3(f).
[In our example, the lack of a fishing license is the essential fact mentioned.]
and Haines Borough proposed Ordinance 15-06-413:
• “Every person who attempts to commit a minor offense but fails or is prevented or is intercepted in its perpetration is guilty of a minor offense and shall be punished in the manner prescribed for the infraction itself.” - proposed ordinance 1.24.060 A.
• “…it is not a defense to charge that it was factually or legally impossible to commit the offense allegedly attempted if the conduct engaged in by the defendant would be an offense had the circumstances been as defendant believed them to be.” - proposed ordinance 1.24.060 B.
(*6) Haines Borough proposed Ordinance 15-06-413:
• “…On application for injunctive relief and a finding of…threatened violation, the superior court shall grant the injunction.” - proposed ordinance 1.24.101B.
• “As a minor offense, trial is by the court without a jury…” - proposed ordinance 1.24.030.
(*7) Haines Borough proposed Ordinance 15-06-413:
• “…and there is no right to court-appointed defense counsel.” - proposed ordinance 1.24.030.
(*8) Alaska Constitution Article 1 Section 16:
• “In civil cases where the amount in controversy exceeds two hundred fifty dollars, the right of trial by a jury of twelve is preserved to the same extent as it existed at common law (i.e. crime).”
(*9) Alaska Constitution Article 10 Section 3:
• “Each borough shall embrace an area and population with common interests to the maximum degree possible.” - Underline added.
(*10) Supreme Court Order #1797:
• “These rules govern the procedure in cases involving minor offenses…” - Rule 1. Scope, Purpose and Construction.
(*11) Haines Borough proposed Ordinance 15-06-413:
• “...is guilty of a minor offense as that term is defined in the Alaska Rules of Minor Offense Procedures…” - proposed ordinance 1.24.010 A.
Respectfully and sincerely submitted this 8th day of September in the year of our Lord 2015,
(With current global trending we have a new reason to define just which calendar we are using and why),
- Kyle Ponsford
(address removed)
Haines AK 99827
c.c. via paper and email 9/8/2015:
Borough Mayor Jan Hill jhill@haines.ak.us
Borough Manager David Sosa dsosa@haines.ak.us
Assemblyman Dave Berry Jr. dberry@haines.ak.us
Assemblyperson Diana Lapham dlapham@haines.ak.us
Assemblyman Michael Case mcase@haines.ak.us
Assemblyperson Joanne Waterman jwaterman@haines.ak.us
Assemblyman George Campbell gcampbell@haines.ak.us
Assemblyman Ronald Jackson rjackson@haines.ak.us
Borough Clerk July Cozzie jcozzi@haines.ak.us
*
Friday, September 25, 2015
From Federal to Local
- The battlefront moves closer to home-
September 25, 2015
Post 340
Without any pre-warning, after a casual conversation across the counter at a local business, I found myself suddenly dropped right in the center of a real-life local mirror of what I have been addressing on a Federal level in my Blog. It has consumed my life for the past many weeks and revealed to me that the same demonic forces that unexplainably drive the Federal, is right here in my small remote Alaskan home town.
Well, it has been a real exercise in education and experience regarding what can easily be seen as a result of failure. But, having a deep understanding of the strategies behind the spiritual players who move the temporal pieces on the grand chessboard, I was not shocked or surprised at how this went down. What did surprise me was the degree of darkness to which “normal” citizens in seats of authority in America are willing to go to do the will of the dark master that they don’t even know they serve. I was amazed to see and hear their own shock of confusion as some of them even eventually recognized the insanity of what they were doing but couldn't seem to stop themselves. One Assemblywoman who passed the ordinance, could be seen holding her face near the end of the meeting, and the Assemblyman seated next to her reported that he heard her mutter; "This doesn't feel right."
There are powerful details that I really wish I had the ability to share but the nature of this written form restricts the volume, and so I will attempt to limit myself to a small portion of the public facts that support my previously intended point.
What we are facing on the cellular level is the digging and dunging the roots of the national tree in the aforementioned parable. The nutrients and sustenance of the nation are acquired through the "grass-roots" of the individual communities. The scratching and dunging is uncomfortable and jolting, but if it does not cause the tree as a whole to start producing good fruit...
In that light, I intend my next few Posts to provide the general idea of the battle we have been facing on the home front, which I expect is being played out in every community across America right under our oblivious noses. I did not intend to go in this specific direction on my Blog, but it nonetheless fits very well and timely with my general direction and what I have already been writing. More importantly; it provides real teeth to my argument that makes the prophesied two-party last Global Dominate Empire a reality in our time. What just happened here in my town is our small part in the birth of Mystery Babylon.
The following Post will be a copy of my second written address as sent to the Haines Borough Assembly regarding the upcoming enactment of what is called the Minor Offense Ordinance. It will have added links where applicable for documentation and support.
*
September 25, 2015
Post 340
Without any pre-warning, after a casual conversation across the counter at a local business, I found myself suddenly dropped right in the center of a real-life local mirror of what I have been addressing on a Federal level in my Blog. It has consumed my life for the past many weeks and revealed to me that the same demonic forces that unexplainably drive the Federal, is right here in my small remote Alaskan home town.
Well, it has been a real exercise in education and experience regarding what can easily be seen as a result of failure. But, having a deep understanding of the strategies behind the spiritual players who move the temporal pieces on the grand chessboard, I was not shocked or surprised at how this went down. What did surprise me was the degree of darkness to which “normal” citizens in seats of authority in America are willing to go to do the will of the dark master that they don’t even know they serve. I was amazed to see and hear their own shock of confusion as some of them even eventually recognized the insanity of what they were doing but couldn't seem to stop themselves. One Assemblywoman who passed the ordinance, could be seen holding her face near the end of the meeting, and the Assemblyman seated next to her reported that he heard her mutter; "This doesn't feel right."
There are powerful details that I really wish I had the ability to share but the nature of this written form restricts the volume, and so I will attempt to limit myself to a small portion of the public facts that support my previously intended point.
What we are facing on the cellular level is the digging and dunging the roots of the national tree in the aforementioned parable. The nutrients and sustenance of the nation are acquired through the "grass-roots" of the individual communities. The scratching and dunging is uncomfortable and jolting, but if it does not cause the tree as a whole to start producing good fruit...
In that light, I intend my next few Posts to provide the general idea of the battle we have been facing on the home front, which I expect is being played out in every community across America right under our oblivious noses. I did not intend to go in this specific direction on my Blog, but it nonetheless fits very well and timely with my general direction and what I have already been writing. More importantly; it provides real teeth to my argument that makes the prophesied two-party last Global Dominate Empire a reality in our time. What just happened here in my town is our small part in the birth of Mystery Babylon.
The following Post will be a copy of my second written address as sent to the Haines Borough Assembly regarding the upcoming enactment of what is called the Minor Offense Ordinance. It will have added links where applicable for documentation and support.
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)