Tag Archives: Montana

THE DANGERS OF A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, by JERRY O’NEIL, STATE REPRESENTATIVE & FORMER STATE SENATOR, MONTANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DISTRICT 3, COLUMBIA FALLS & KALISPELL, MONTANA

AGAINST AN AMENDMENTS CONVENTION Montana State Representative Jerry O’Neil of Columbia Falls, Wednesday, 26 February 2014—4:05 PM (1 hour ago) Central Standard Time

I am against an “Amendments Convention” as called for by Mark Levin, Rob Natelson and Tim Baldwin. I do not take this position lightly.

Under the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, our President and Congress have taken over our banking, unions, businesses, communications, and education. They have created a secret police/national police (TSA, ICE, Border Patrol, etc), and instituted ObamaCare by which government will control all our health care. They have failed to turn over about 25% of the land area of Montana as was agreed to when we became a state. 

I agree freedom could be advanced with the proper amendments to the U.S. Constitution. As a state legislator, I have attempted several times to amend the U.S. Constitution in order to place some control over, and limits on, the federal government. 

In 2003 I got a bill to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment out of the Senate Judiciary Committee – but it was defeated on the Senate Floor. In the 2005 legislative session I attempted to accomplish close to the same thing by having the Montana legislative caucuses nominate our U.S. Senate candidates to be on the general election ballot. 

In the 2013 legislative session, with Senator Verdell Jackson’s brilliantly executed motion for reconsideration in the Senate, I got House Joint Resolution 3 passed. This is a request for a constitutional amendment to put some sideboards on the “Commerce Clause” of the U.S. Constitution. I presently need some help to get other states to advance this concept. 

Then why am I against an Amendments Convention? Because I don’t believe the majority of the citizens of the United States currently understand or appreciate Freedom. It is not adequately taught in our schools or churches. Even the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church seems to be ignorant of the fact that capitalism has lifted far more out of poverty than socialism and communism ever have. 

Vaclav Klaus, the former Premier of the Czech Republic stated: 

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.” 

While many of us in Montana have known what is happening for many years, we have not hollered loud enough to wake up our neighbors. We have not always supported the candidates who understood the basics of freedom when they were running for our school boards, city councils, county commissioners, state legislatures, judges, congress and president. We have not sent enough letters to the editor speaking up for freedom. 

We have been complacent, attending churches where the preachers would not take a stand on Biblical principals of freedom because they were afraid they would loose their parishioners’ monetary support and their federal tax exemption. Many of these churches would not even mention it to their congregations when they knew a political candidate was in favor of government supported abortions. 

For years we have watched the Supreme Court put forth immoral, anti freedom and statist decisions , including the Dred Scott decision, the Slaughter House Cases, Wickard v. Filburn, Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, Gonzales v. Raich, Roe v. Wade, and Lawrence v. Texas. We have allowed the bigs, such as AIG, General Electric, Bank of America and Monsanto, to choose the likes of McCain and Romney to be our presidential candidates. (Will they choose Chris Christie for us this coming election?) 
We have known for years deficit financing as advocated by Keynesian economists constitutes theft from our seniors’ retirement accounts and supports the big banks. Yet the public supported the Federal Reserve Act in order to “furnish an elastic currency.” 
We have supported our universities where the professors of economics are beholden to the Federal Reserve System as consultants, board members, or for having published their masters or doctors thesis in one of the fed’s magazines. 

We have seen the evidence of how the “bigs”, including the pharmaceuticals, banking industry, insurance, unions and other protected industries and professions own the political establishment, but we have not supported the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment to lessen the bigs’ power and return some semblance of states’ rights. 

We have seen socialism advance but have not challenged the expansion of Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, federal intervention in education, food stamps, ObamaCare, and a whole plethora of other government programs. 

We have seen the installation of the Real ID act, the Patriot Act, and the National Defense Authorization Act, but, because we were afraid, we kept silent. We accept airport screening and government eavesdropping. We take off our shoes at the airports like good comrades. 

The people of Montana believe government can pass laws to make them more affluent. 
In 2006 we 72.7% of the voters passed Initiative I-151 to increase the minimum wage. By so doing we devalued the dollar and deprived many Indian children on our reservations, where unemployment is over 50%, the opportunity to get their first job. The minimum wage effect on those whom age out of our foster care system is similarly devastating. At the age of 26, 46.8 percent of participants responding to one study were unemployed. We need to make it easier to hire the needy, not remove the bottom rung of their ladder to prosperity. 

In our last Montana election we passed initiative I-166 by a 3 to 1 majority. The fuzzy catch phrase with which it was sold to the public was “Corporations are not People.” That was what appeared on the ballot. The rest of I-166, which did not appear on the ballot, called for a repeal of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution! The intent was to abolish the freedoms of speech, press and association that Congress is presently not allowed to interfere with. If I-166 is successful, these freedoms likely will be replaced with statutory rules as Congress sees fit. 

While the public remains asleep to the concept of freedom it is too dangerous to make it easier to change the Constitution. 
Our Constitution contains negative rights, stating what government can’t do to us or take away from us. We are too likely to throw away these “negative rights” contained in the Constitution and Bill of Rights and replace them with “positive rights,” such as a right to: free health care, free child care, living wages, and government controlled food prices. 

Maybe the chance to amend positive rights into our Constitution is the reason George Soros, Common Cause, the Move to Amend coalition and hundreds of other progressive organizations are also pushing for an Article V amendments convention. 

What are we going to do to save freedom for our progeny? When are we going to stop bowing to the socialists, fascists and communists? When are we going to demand our schools and churches teach and advocate for freedom? When are we going to join freedom fighters holding up signs along the highways criticizing the big government statists and asking for freedom? When are we going to stand up in church and speak up for political candidates who will fight for the Biblical truths and freedoms that our founding fathers fought and died for? 

Until the majority of the public understands and believes in freedom an Amendments Convention is more likely to enslave us than to free us. Therefore I am against having one at this time.

Re: Really Bad Patriot Mythology—When Ideas can be applied practically, stick with them….when they only lead you down rabbit-trails…..”just say ‘no'”….

I have had friends and mentors present some of those ideas to me for close to 40 years. The conclusion I have came to is, if there is something to these theories I still don’t know how to use it to my benefit. In my battles to clean up our legal system I have had more positive affect by holding up a sign in front of the courthouse letting the public know the judge was unfair or dishonest than I believe I could have had by standing mute or saying the court does not have jurisdiction over me. I have also used my campaigns for political and judicial office as a soapbox to inform the public to some affect. Maybe someone can use those ideas to gain some advantage. Although it took a lot of patience and the help of Charles Lincoln, Roger Kehew and others, I am proud of our contribution to getting the Montana Supreme Court to come out with the attached opinion using methods that made sense to me.

I carried a couple of bills during the last legislative session that would have helped the system some more. It is too bad they were killed in the process. Would you like to help get similar bills passed in the coming session if I am lucky enough to get re-elected?

Jerry O’Neil
Montana HD 3
406-892-7602

Treason against the Constitution in the Senate, Treason by the Executive Branch, “Treason against the Constitution” as defined by the Courts: Our Government Hates Freedom and Subverts the Constitution Daily

Treason in the Senate, summarized in a newscast:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv1O6goo7qE&feature=share

Senator Mark Kirk (Republican from Illinois) speaks in favor of the too weak and only belatedly offer “Feinstein Amendment”, which failed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBsaePlbLJk&feature=related

But Senators Feinstein and 92 others voted in FAVOR of the Unamended, Unlimited “indefinite detention” version of Senate 1867—Senator Kirk correctly says this bill is blatantly unconstitutional, that the bill unconstitutionally transfers the power to “indict” on charges of terrorism from the grand juries mandated by the Sixth Amendment to the President, and thereby gives dictatorial powers to the President.  Senator Kirk also correctly identifies this Bill as one of the greatest assaults on freedom ever to have taken place.  But the Senate, 93-7, bulled forward and apparently decided to “leave it to the Courts”, and the Courts have no will to overturn a statute approved by 93 Senators.  Scalia in particular seems to believe that every Constitutional provision is effectively subject to legislative limitation and abrogation.  Anthony Kennedy is the last even remotely “libertarian” justice on the Court.

If the prisons are overcrowded now, how many more prisons will be needed once all the Antiabortion Protesters, Tea Party Members, Occupy Wall Street and related movements, and Antiwar Protestors are gathered up and detained indefinitely?  THIS IS THE END OF AMERICA FOLKS: MAKE NO DECISION—DIANNE FEINSTEIN and BARBARA BOXER BOTH VOTED FOR IT!

Good time in the midst of this debate for us to remember what is the historical context of and evidence for terrorism in this country since 9/11:

http://www.corbettreport.com/911-a-conspiracy-theory/

and what has been done to people who question the facts of 9/11 just this year, PRIOR to the enactment of Senate Bill 1867 and the “National Defense Reauthorization Act.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIU9j_qwzOE&feature=player_embedded#!

and what former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil said was the truth about the planning of the war against Iraq, how it was planned from George W. Bush’s inauguration in January 2001 forward, with Iraqi oil and the removal of Saddam Hussein as the main purposes—despite Bush’s campaign promises to the contrary in 2000:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMCxheXPjtc&feature=related&mid=546

The Concept of “Treason against the Constitution” traces back to this March 5, 1821 Opinion rendered in the case of Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 5 L.Ed. 257.  Treason against the Constitution can, as a matter of fact, ONLY be committed inside the United States of America, not elsewhere, and the only people with real power to commit treason against the constitution are those who subvert it by infringing and violating its protections for the people.  A very interesting historical read, and if anyone asks you where the idea of “Treason against the Constitution” ever came from, well, this is it:

Cohens_v_Virginia_19_US_264_Judicial_Treason

That Cohens case has been cited quite recently, both in Justice Ginsburg’s opinion and Justice Stevens’ concurrence in Vicki Lynn Marshall v. E. Pierce Marshall,  547 U.S. 293; 126 S. Ct. 1735; 164 L. Ed. 2d 480 (2006), in trying to dispose of the Constitutionally Treasonous “Rooker-Feldman” Doctrine of Federal abstention from hearing collateral constitutional challenges to certain state court decisions (which Doctrine Justice Stevens pronounced “dead” at the end of his concurrence, although an “undead” Vampiric Rooker-Feldman perniciously continues to haunt the Federal Courts ever since then in spite  of his dictum—if elected to the U.S. Senate, I will submit legislation to outlaw and overturn the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and restore the balance of powers by review to State-Federal relations).

But seriously, the attached (sent to me by Montana State Senator Jerry O’Neil) is JUST an example of the people who will now be called and considered TERRORISTS (almost for sure) under Senate Bill 1867 if (once) Obama signs it into law.  You see, it appears some people are getting fed up with the fed, and these people are ALL going to be indefinitely detained as terrorists, you mark my word.  Yes, Gentle Reader, your Friends and Neighbors will Start Disappearing and they will soon be arrested without warrant or indictment and carted off with their heads in black bags to indefinite detention on President Obama’s (or President Newt Gingrich’s) orders, HAVE NO DOUBT!  Remember that Newt Gingrich was the chief sponsor of the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act which preceded the Patriot Act by Five Years, and the Patriot Act mainly served to enact into law those provisions which Congress was not yet ready to pass over the Constitution to promulgate prior to 9-11 (which just shows you why 9-11 was so completely necessary for the government, right?)

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/armed-and-ready-new-mexico-residents-defy-government

As of 3:23 AM on Monday, December 5, 2011, Charles Edward Lincoln, III is the ONLY announced candidate for U.S. Senator from California (including Dianne Feinstein and Orly Taitz) to have announced his opposition to Senate Bill 1867.  Orly Taitz continues to live in her dreamworld that it is sufficiently “Patriotic” to question Obama’s eligibility for President and ignore all other grave issues facing this Country.  Dianne Feinstein continues to believe that she is sufficiently well-esconced in the Bankers-Financial Club and Military-Industrial Complex Establishment that she cannot possibly lose her seat in the senate—if she chooses to run again—EVEN IF she voted for a bill to which she proposed an amendment which failed, and thus she failed to protect the people of the United States or California.  It amazes me that not even Rand Paul offered to filibuster this bill.

If you would like to help the fight for “corny old values” like Truth, Justice, and the American Way, for Family, Home, and Freedom, and to add one Senator for the Bill of Rights and against Indefinite Detention, against the PATRIOT ACT, and against the use of United States Troops in this Country against its own citizens, please support Charles Edward Lincoln, III, for U.S. Senator from California.  We are fighting one of the most entrenched establishment seats in Congress—Dianne Feinstein who tried to make cosmetic changes in S.B. 1867 to hide and disguise its truly oppressive nature (and to claim she had “done the best she could”, perhaps?)—and we ask you to send your check or money order to Lincoln-for-Senate 2012 to Charles Edward Lincoln, III, 952 Gayley Avenue, #143, Los Angeles, California 90024.  Call 310-773-6023 for more information.  

Call to Arms: Wells Fargo Class Action possible on Mortgage Servicing/Holder-in-Due Course Fraud, Securitization issues?

FEDERAL CASE AGAINST WELLS FARGO

Currently I am the sole Plaintiff in a lawsuit against Wells Fargo in US District Court in Boise Idaho. The suit, like many of the others I write, is for Quiet Title to my property located in Caldwell Idaho. My assistant, Peyton Freiman, took it to the Court for filing in September along with an Application for Temporary Restraining Order, regarding which the Court immediately ordered a three hour hearing set for October 28, 2009.  Usually the decision on whether or not to grant a TRO is made in a manner of minutes in chambers. But, on this particular occasion, given the current economic climate, distrust of banks and maybe the individual language used in my pleadings I have been given a great deal of time to make my case for injunctions against Wells Fargo as we continue onward into Discovery and finally a trial. Hopefully this is a Court that realizes the seriousness of the matter and is giving me more time as a result, not simply a scare tactic to make me have second thoughts. Either way, I plan on being as prepared as ever to argue the issues in my pleadings.

I realize that this is a great opportunity and extend the option to anyone reading this who also has a loan out with Wells Fargo to intervene and join as a co-plaintiff in this case in Idaho. It would be a great strategic advantage  to have a massive list of Plaintiffs going into this hearing to give added weight to my words and possibly gain class action certification as a result.  To obtain certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, there has to be at least one claim and issue regarding which all class members have identical claims. They have gotten very strict about that recently, it seems.  So class action status as a co-plaintiff we would need to talk about what issues there are in common and whether we can make identical claims for damages, injunction, or declaratory judgment.   In other words, there’s a difference in drafting issues of a different kind here: tailored issues for class certification and designation of one representative as “typical.”  We will also have to get a lawyer representing everyone’s claims in this action.  There is nothing specific in Rule 23 that says you have to have a licensed attorney.  Rule 23(a)(4) requires that “the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, while Rule 23(c)(2)(B)(iv) states that “a class member may enter an appearance through an attorney if the member desires.  Almost decision I have seen, however, requires that a class be represented by a licensed attorney and I’m not sure this is the place to try to challenge that issue, although it may be.  I’m open to discussion on that point.  The Court’s discretion to impose the requirement of a licensed attorney springs from Rule 23(d) (1)(C) “In conducting an action under this rule, the court may issue orders that….impose conditions on the representative parties or on intervenors.”

For the time being, and I’m writing this as of September 30, 2009: I issue this “Call to Arms”—Will everyone who believes they have been defrauded by Wells Fargo in regard to the servicing or modification of a mortgage note or mortgage contract signed after January 1, 2000, or who particularly believes that Wells Fargo is no longer the “holder in due course” of their note, or has otherwise acted in a manner inconsistent with “privity of contract” contact me through Robert Ponte at 860-599-5557?  It would be easier to start out with people in the Ninth Circuit: Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and American Samoa, but we have another anchor state in Florida and still others in Massachusetts, Maryland, and Michigan where parallel actions could be filed.

I’d ask this:  I am working on the lawyer, are you, dear reader, willing to work with me?  If you want to know more I am willing to forward on the complaint, essentially the damages are “holder in due course” issues, which I talk about frequently on this blog. In short, if you think that somehow you and I don’t share the same kind of damages or allegations of material fact please think again: we are ALL being duped by big banks who have no idea where our original notes are. So, think about it and contact me if you wish,

CEL III