Does your vote count?

An open letter to my local newspaper and representatives

Does your vote count?

The other day a friend of mine confided in me that he didn't bother to vote in the recent presidential primaries.  "Why bother?  It's all rigged."

I noted that there is ample evidence, especially recently, that the process of counting votes, even at major caucuses, is secret and hampered an in many counties, quite corruptable.  We all recall the Bush-Gore fiasco in Florida and the controversy over rigged voting machines.  We all noted that Hillary Clinton took New Hampshire with 60% of the electoral votes and only %40 of the popular vote.

I myself witnessed an instance of this in 1992 in King County Washington.  I was an election judge that year and stayed all day at my local polling place to witness each vote cast and placed into a securely locked box.  At the end of the day I escorted several other witnesses and armed guards in an armored car to take the votes to King County (Washington) headquarters. I watched the ballots carefully transferred into a bag and then thrown over a Plexiglas wall to be electronically counted exclusively by a computer.  I was aghast - my entire day of witnessing was wasted.  I had absolutely no way of verifying the count, and without the count being done right, the votes and the voting process mattered not.

When I went to vote at the last presidential primary election, I asked the election judge how the votes would be counted.  He replied "oh they count them all right afterwards in the back room".

I was thankful that they weren’t being counted by some computer but why in a "back room"?  Who owns our votes anyway?  The State?  The County?  The political Parties or their Bosses?  The Candidates?  A Computer?  The County Recorder?

The proper answer is YOU own your vote - or it is not YOUR vote.  YOU are entitled to the ability to KNOW your vote was counted and counted correctly and only once and YOU are responsible to make sure this happens.

An idea occurred to me that spurred me on to do a little research.  Kathy Ackerman, our wonderful County Recorder, furnished me with the applicable Idaho statutes, Title 34, which says that counters and watchers require prior approval and must meet criteria for being admitted to the process.  The code appears to be written to allow just enough access to let those deeply involved in the election to have the ability to “check” the other side.  It does not appear to have any goal of granting public viewing of or participation in the process.  A vote recount under this system becomes an expensive and involved process that is thus rarely done.

It seems that instead of sequestering the process behind closed doors, we should have as open a process as possible.  Counting votes, especially with the technology of computers, the internet, scanners, and printers, shouldn’t be hard to do correctly and openly with full verifiability at any time yet keeping the original documents safe and secure.

Currently the county does publish the precinct totals on the web but this is not really enough information to verify the count is correct.

Here’s one way I would think it could be done:

Make blank sheets of paper printed with a unique random number that is covered and can be scratched off, similar to how our lotto tickets are printed.  This can be done cheaply in bulk and used for many similar purposes.  The uniqueness of the numbers need not be global but just for the printing of a batch large enough to accommodate the largest precincts.  Print the ballots on these blank sheets.  If the voter wishes, while voting they can scratch off the coating and copy down the ballot number they used.  They can then fold the ballot so as to hide the number and place it into the ballot box.  Secrecy is maintained yet personal and public verifiability is now possible.

The counting process can be simplified by allowing lots of counters, breaking up the ballots into small bundles that can be independently counted by different people multiple times and stored in numbered envelopes.  Each counter signs as to the count they got for each bundle onto a counting summary sheet that goes with the bundle.  The multitude of witnesses gives weight to the count’s accuracy.  Counters could even scratch off any covered numbers so that each ballot is accounted for by number and the number’s uniqueness verified.  Ballot counts on the summary sheet should match the precinct ballot count on the voter ledger so no mysterious extra ballots could be added and any missing ones could be noted.

Counters could even be pulled from the public schools as a requirement for graduation supplying lots of disinterested witnesses and forcing the process to be publicly well known.

Once the counts are established on bundle summary sheets with witness signatures and any scratched off ballot numbers, they would be scanned and placed online for all to see along with the precinct voter ledger.  Associated spreadsheets could be created to make the counting easy for online verification.  Counts can be looked up online by precinct.  Nothing fancy just public scans of documents and accompanying spreadsheets.  The documents are stored safe at the county recorder’s office yet viewable by anyone at any time with all the detail that the initial counters had in front of them.

Recounts and challenges could be done with jury oversight and most of the job cold be done online with no assistance or cost.  The jury and challengers can verify that the physical documents match what is online by going down to the recorder’s office and doing so in a controlled but open manner.  Discrepancies would be settled by jury who add their names to the list of witnesses and counters on the tally sheets and becoming publically accountable to the process. 

Participation in government is both a sacred right and duty of the free.  It also serves as training in self-government which is what the people that fled to this country long ago came for.

This is not rocket science and I am sure I am not the first person to think of such reforms.  The counting of our votes is currently controlled by state law so naturally, a copy of this letter is being sent to my state representatives.  If you like this idea, how about sending a copy of this letter to your state representative as well?

The Man Trap

I wanted to share something that I have recently discovered after being separated from my wife of 27 years.  It has to do a lot with the law.  The above diagram is known as the "Wheel of Violence" and it was apparently invented by the "Domestic Abuse Intervention Project".
First I make the disclaimer that I am not for violence of any kind.  In fact that is why I love the law. Good law prevents violence.  It gives a remedy to disputes without the need for violence.
Secondly I want to make it clear that I am not against women or their rights, being image bearers of the creator just as much as men are.  They are entitled to the same love and respect as is due men and, like men, they should be held accountable when they break the law of love and truth just as men should.
With that disclaimer in place I wanted to note the incredible bias of the above diagram.
This diagram is clearly from the feminine perspective - it explicitly states "her" all over the place. This is a very "legal" definition of "domestic violence" used by our courts throughout our land.  It is one-sided and this is the problem and the trap for any married man.
This can be easily and fairly analyzed by stating each point from a man's and a woman's perspective respectively and then asking yourself if our society treats both viewpoints fairly.
Using Coercion And Threats
1) Making and/or threats to do something to hurt "her".  (... to hurt "him")
2) Threatening to leave "her". (... to leave "him")
3) To commit suicide. (him and her)
4) To report "her" to welfare (... report "him"...)
5) Making "her" drop charges (... making "him" ...)
6) Making "her" to do illegal things (... making "him" ...)
Notes: If these rules were taken fairly from both side's perspectives it might be fair but it still is ridiculous to make these law.  It actually restricts legal and lawful activity (reporting a crime to welfare for instance).  Also the idea of "making" someone do anything implies either a codependent relationship or a victim mentality that absolves one of responsibility for their abilities and actions. It is impossible to "make" anyone do anything.  You can threaten them with all kinds of things - like governments do all the time - and yet, the undesired behaviors will persist.  Even the death penalty is not a sure-fire way to "make" someone do what is right.  "The devil MADE me do it." - a cop out at best.  Also note that "hurt" is not defined here.  Is that physical harm or emotional harm or mental harm or what?  It is easy for one person to "hurt" another unintentionally - it happens in marriages all the time.  Yet here, we see a potentially unintentional action classified as "abuse".  Also note that in typical marriages, it is the man that more often accidentally hurts his wife in ways he is clueless about.  Women hurt men too but men typically cannot whine about their pain and get sympathy from anyone.  Woman can whine even about imagined things and often get full support and sympathy from society - "she's a woman for cryin out loud!"  A similar victim mentality type of propaganda is used in the phrase "think of the children!" which we will discuss more about shortly.
Using Economy Abuse
1) Preventing "her" from getting or keeping a job (... "him" ...)
2) Making "her" ask for money. (... "him" ...)
3) Giving "her" an allowance. (... "him" ...)
4) Taking "her" money. (Taking "his" money)
5) Not letting "her" know about or have access to family money. (... "him"...)
Notes:  This is truly amazing.  So I can't stop a wife from getting a job even if I need her at home to take care of the kids while I earn a living.  I can neither grant nor deny her money - so I am an abuser either way.  There is no clarity here on what money would be "his", "hers" or "family".  I remember my spouse clearly implying to me during our separation "what is his is ours, what is ours is at least half hers and what is hers is hers."  Ok does that sound fair?  Let's write that with the sexes reversed: "what is hers is ours, what is ours is at least half his and what is his is his.  Is this equally acceptable?  If not, it is not fair.
If these rules were done fairly from both perspectives it would be impossible for any marriage not to have both parties guilty at all times of "domestic abuse".  As it is, every man is guilty by this standard and women are typically exempt from enforcement.
The idea that only a man can economically abuse a woman is sexist at its core, especially these days. Women have all the power and privilege of getting jobs that men have and in fact have significant advantages due to "reverse discrimination".  A business can easily hire all women with no real problem but imagine what a large company would look like if it only hired men?
Using Male Privilage
1) Treating "her" like a servant. (... "him" ...)
2) Making all the big decisions. (him or her)
3) Acting like the "master of the castle". (him or her)
4) Being the one to define mens and womens roles (him or her)
Notes: When two or more people are tied together in a relationship like marriage it is like a mini commune.  All is held in common and a team is formed.  All teams must have a leader or they will run into chaos.  I have no problem with the woman in a marriage being the leader IF she is also the provider.  Separating provision from authority creates a slave of the provider.  If party A is responsible for providing for a family but party B makes all the "big" decisions, then A is a slave of B, it's that simple.  If both parties earn or brought in money, they logically should make final decisions about that which they produced - but this is not optimal.  We have a house divided against itself and it will not stand.  What you have are two independent roommates sharing in common what they decide to.  This sounds nice on the surface but I wouldn't define that kind of relationship as a marriage.
One should also note that there certainly is such a thing as female privilege which is "used" by women probably on a daily basis without them even realizing it.  Ladies first, save the women and children first, the weaker sex, "she's a woman for cryin out loud"....  Using female privilege is not considered "domestic abuse" but using male privilege is.
As for defining roles that is what the head of any team does when he assigns positions to players - it is simply necessary for the team to function.
Using Children
1) Making "her" feel guilty about the children (... him... )
2) Using the children to relay messages
Notes: I am not sure how being guilty about children works here.  Is this some kind of argument against telling a mother to stay home to take care of the kids so I can go to work thing?  Relaying messages via children is certainly not mature and is indicative of a non-functioning relationship between man and wife - but is it abuse and a crime?  Sometimes a relationship can be temporarily so dysfunctional that essential communication can only be done via a 3rd party and children are quite convenient for that and sometimes the only practical choice.  Making this a crime seems very insensitive to me.  Children are the fruit of a marriage and logically are the property of the creators - so using children, especially constructively, does not seem to be an inherent crime of "abuse" to me.
Using Intimidation
1) Making "her" afraid by using looks, actions, gestures. (him too)
2) Smashing things.
3) Destroying "her" property. (his as well)
4) abusing pets.
5) displaying weapons.
Notes: Again we see this "victim" mentality of "making" someone do something.  How often do you see a man talking with something and a questionable issue comes up and the man looks at his wife for approval before answering?  ALL THE TIME.  How often do you hear of women smashing things in a fight?  What happens to a man's property when a woman divorces or separates from him?  Often destruction because the house is divided and destroys itself during the fight and the emotional energy expended and damage caused can cause both parties to significantly lose ability to provide for themselves for a long time to come.  Weapons are weapons - they aren't male or female and the display of them (a kitchen knife, a hunting rifle, etc.) is often standard practice in many homes.
Intimidation implies a threat and it can go both ways, but as we see here, it's only intimidation by the man that is considered "domestic abuse".
Using Emotional Abuse
1) Putting "her" down. (him?)
2) Making "her" feel bad about herself. (him?)
3) Calling "her" names. (him?)
4) Making "her" think she's crazy. (him?)
5) Playing mind games.
6) Humiliating "her". (him?)
7) Making "her" feel guilty (him?)
Notes: All of this happens both ways yet only the man is guilty of "domestic abuse".  Men and women are two very different types of creatures and they think very differently.  One can "humiliate" the other and not even realize it.  One can have a poor self image causing the other to be guilty of making them "feel bad about themselves" - and again here we have this "making" term which is victim mentality all the way.  Two people that think very differently can appear to be playing "mind games" with the other even when no harm or manipulation is desired.
Note also that many women simply are not gifted in providing and naturally become dependent on a man for their provision.  This is certainly not license for abuse by the man but it can naturally make a woman feel less important or powerless.  It is the love of a man for his wife that can help overcome these feelings. With today's whacked out medical practice of issuing anti-depressant meds for depression instead of detoxification, even the love of a good man may not be enough these days.
Using Isolation
1) Controlling what "she" does, who "she" sees and talks to, what "she" reads, where "she" goes. (he?)
2) limiting "her" outside involvement. (his?)
3) Using jealousy to justify actions.
Notes: Supposing a man felt like watching porn?  Would it be abuse for his wife to "restrict" what he sees?  Supposing a man goes out and gambles habitually?  Would it be abuse for his wife to "restrict" that activity?  Supposing a woman habitually spends money like water to the point of threatening to make the family insolvent?  Would it be right for the man to "restrict" this activity for the sake of the family?  Either party can be irresponsible in many ways and with the other holding him/her accountable and helping the other to exert more "self control" we get a stronger pair of people. When the state steps in and uses the force of law to dissolve a relationship "without fault" it destroys both party's ability to hold the other accountable.
Minimizing, Denying and Blaming
1) Making light of the abuse and not taking "her" concerns about it seriously. (... "his" ...)
2) Saying the abuse didn't happen.
3) Shifting responsibility for abusive behavior.
4) Saying "she" caused it. (He?)
Notes: abuse means bad-use and it is never good to use someone else, even well.  Marriage is a mutual give-and-take kind of thing but the mature have mastered the art of giving much more than is taken.  Things can sometimes be taken too seriously as well.  Many marriages turn out to be a mutual-use/abuse deal.  "I want sex, you want money - we can work something out."  This is what you get when God is not in a marriage.  Both parties start to play a power game and unfortunately, most men are stronger, bigger and tougher than most women.  When this power struggle finally gets violent it is usually the man that "looses it" and strikes or otherwise physically abuses the wife and so it can appear to be all the man's fault.  If things do progress to this point, like they did in my marriage, the wife has prima-facia evidence to leave him and take half (or more) of his stuff and even demand support for the rest of her life.

Because our society has become highly feminist in its overall outlook, the man can actually become seriously "abused" by the courts and others.  One mistake can strip a man of his dignity, finances, health, peace, friends, reputation, and future in a very short period of time.
Our society has encoded these feminist ideas into law as a way of "leveling" the playing field - which is inherently sexist thinking.
Better, I would think, is thinking about what is true and what is lovely and what is loving and let go of the fight for control.  With truly impartial help and some simple maturity I would hope that most of this stuff would go away but if you separate authority from provision you condemn one party to live as a slave to the other.
Marriage is hard and it needs all the support it can get - let's not tear it apart by playing victim games and biasing things to make it "fair".  My heart goes out to every man and woman that has had to suffer separation or divorce.  It truly is a painful road to travel.
The above wheel of violence is part of a required course anytime either party is granted a restraining order. Unfortunately it is enforced almost solely against the man and if he doesn't toe the line well, he could find himself penniless and in jail.  Who knows what consequences I might face for even publishing this blog?
I believe much of this is caused simply by the love of money.  No fault divorce makes too good a living for too many lawyers.  Empowering women to destroy their families for gain and not empowering the man to defend himself is destroying more marriages in this nation than most probably realize - till you've been there.  In most marriages, there comes a point where you realize what you have can only get you so much and disillusionment sets in on both sides.  Then the challenges of older age, health, finances and an empty nest can tear what is left of a marriage to bits.
My hope is that younger men and women will read this and avoid the pitfalls.  Don't get a marriage licence - it is neither biblical nor is it at all wise.  It is effectively a licence to divorce and take from each other far down the road.  It can become like the apple of Eden, wreaking destruction in its wake when the time is ripe.  Without a lot of maturity, marriage done commune fashion can simply be impossible to sustain. Better to be room-mates under a common-law marriage than a state sanctioned business used for tax purposes.  The morality of a marriage or what happens in a marriage is not the proper domain of the state.  It is a creation of God and it will be between you two and Him that decides what is right and wrong.

Deadly Food

I have, over the years, become allergic to wheat and have found that sprouting it and then drying it and then grinding it into flour makes for some tasty bread that I don't react to as badly as I do to other breads.
I have some pretty old wheat I bought tons of for Y2K years ago and I have been sprouting that for my flour for several years.
I have also begun to sprout this wheat to eat the sprouts themselves as they are an excellent source of enzymes and live food.  Sprouting seeds also makes them go much further as feed for animals.

I recently purchased some seeds from Azure Standard to broaden my variety of sprouts and immediately mixed them with some of my old wheat and started sprouting them.
After two weeks, no luck.  Nothing sprouted at all in the mix.
So I tried again, but this time I sprouted the seeds separately. The fennel, chia and flax seeds I got from Azure Standard would not sprout while my old wheat sprouted fine.
This told me that not only was the Azure seed dead, it was deadly.  It killed my wheat when soaked in water with their seed!
Upon this discovery I asked Azure if I could return my seed for a refund.  The best I could get was a 50% buyback from them. (I had bought nearly $100 of seeds!)  They told me that the seed was not meant for sprouting.  They also mentioned over the phone that there were regulations that prevented them from telling people certain things about their seed.

Along with these seeds I tried to sprout some Einkorn wheat I got from growseed.org.  I bought this after skimming through the interesting book "The Wheat Belly" which explains that our epidemic problems with gluten allergies are due to changes in our wheat that have taken place genetically that are making the wheat indigestible to humans. This ancient Einkorn wheat also did not sprout.  When I tried to get my money back from the "GROW"-seed.org people they pointed out that the website had clearly stated that this wheat was dehulled for human consumption. After telling them about this post they sent me about a 60% refund.  I have yet to try to sprout my old wheat with the Einkorn wheat to see if that too is deadly and not just dead.

I recently was talking with a person from our local health-food coop about this and she mentioned that she cannot sell non-organic-certified food grown by local growers.  Only the supermarket can do that.  However, she can buy the food from the grocery store (the very same stuff from the local growers) and resell that.  She can, however, still sell food she has personally grown.

Just last week I bought some tomato seeds for my garden.  A packet of 10 seeds cost about $2.  As I poured it out on my hand to plant I noticed that there was only about a gram of seed there or less!  You got it - individual tomato seeds costing some 20 cents each!!!

There is clearly some real shenanigans going on here. Regulations of our own government are skewing things to promote grocery chains, insert middlemen and kill our food.  I know that all imported food is radiated before we can get it to our tables. What in the world was done to the Azure seeds that killed my wheat?  The price of the live tomato seeds tells me a big source of the problem - the love of money!

I asked both the Einkorn wheat and Azure people how I can tell if my food is alive or not if they will not sprout?

No answers to this question have yet arrived.

I have let both Azure and the heritage grain conservancy know about this post and they are welcome to comment here and give their side of the story.

A review of "The Way of Men" by Jack Donovan

It is rare I read a book in only 5 days.  It is also rare that I read or respect a sociology work based on the false premise of evolution.  But this book proved to be a great read and of significant import on my worldview.

Jack is looking at the world in a very basic sociological way - the way of men vs. the way of women.

The Way of Men

• Warrior
• Protector
• Provider
• Seeks dominance, freedom, and truth/utility.
• Utilizes Gangs, Survival skills, Fighting skills, Honor, and Mastery

The Way of Women

• Nurturer
• Social collaborator
• Helper
• Seeks security, predictability, and control.
• Uses subtlety, seduction, coercion and propaganda.

I think I like this book because of its anti-statist stance.  The state tends to support the way of women because the way of man checks and opposes it's absolute power.

Men work in gangs and the state is just a big and established gang.

Gangs need an us and a them to establish boundaries which the gang protects.

Gangs create stability which allows cultural growth and diversity.

Eventually, a society can grow so secure that the feminine side takes over.

Once this happens sufficiently, men are destroyed by the society that fears them.

We are in this phase in America, and indeed the world, right now.

At some point the state becomes hollow and is more seen as them than us by the average citizen and it begins to collapse.

In the collapse, men reassert into gangs to survive and the cycle repeats.

I dislike that Jack is an atheist and has no moral foundation of absolute truth or authority to draw on for his conclusions.  His observations are however accurate.  Following truth and justice is a manly trait and his model of the cycle of civilization accounts for the falling away from these great things we see.

God sovereignly moves among men and nations.  This factor Jack does not see at all.  We are following biblical prophecy. The monster called "Mystery Babylon" is reaching its global climax and with it the destruction of civilization globally.  The vision of the Nimrodian/Semiramis NWO types is unrealistic and unsustainable, though they would disagree.  They believe a technological world of drugs, computer empowered entertainment, spying, control, and propaganda will afford them the ability to change the nature of man into something sustainably manageable.  If they do get their way, we will see a long dark age of tyranny - but I tend to believe God has other plans.

Jack does give some good advice though.  Men need to get into a gang now.  They need to find men they can trust and that can watch their back.  They need to establish strong relationships with men that are local in preparation for what is inevitably coming - the collapse of civilization as we know it.

I also appreciate his comments on how women control society out of fear of the raw emotional and violent forces of men and the way of men.  Having been through a recent separation with the attendant loss of much of my wealth and the burden of support forever to someone who is returning nothing back has left me with a bitter taste for the way of women and for our society that supports them.  In the raw, in a world without so much social protection and control, women would not be the way they are now and the value of men would be much greater in the eyes of society.

I feel less ashamed of my manly traits now.  Less repulsed at my sexual and competitive drives and more in touch with what I am - a man.  I am also more appreciative of the effect of the way of women on our society, our courts, our laws, our medicine, etc.  This book was a major piece to my worldview puzzle and I will be forever grateful to Jack Donovan and the man that loaned me this book.

Another open letter to my congressman

I use this blog as a way to make a decent sized communication with my congressman possible and to keep a record of what I told him - neither feature of which is supported by the standard lame congressional webpage communications form.  By referencing this blog article in his communication form, I can articulate to him and anyone else that is interested, what I said.

This letter addresses our recent fire issues in the Kamiah, Kooskia area.

8/21/2015

Dear Congressman Labrador,

The devastation that happened in Kamiah over the past week is, I believe, primarily caused by government control and ownership of our lands and fire response systems.  

I know a friend in the area that took pictures of one of the original fires when it was only a few acres in size and called it in at that time.  I understand that the lightning storm ignited many fires that day so I don't mean to oversimplify things, but the response time was days and that very fire took out many homes itself.  Citizens that might have taken action upon seeing the fire did not. Why?  Because they had a professional, well funded firefighting force paid for by their taxes to do that job for them.

From attending various fire meetings and discussing the situation with long time locals, it appears to me there is a callous and infectious tendency towards egotistical isolationism.  People with information don't share it and it appears that the reason is that information is power.  People with authority don't delegate it empower others to act for fear of losing 'control'.  Even our local volunteer fire teams have a superior attitude toward non-professional paid firefighters. 

I heard of a situation where a local fire team was contacting the state to get assistance and the state team was more concerned with where the local team got a state-owned radio than they were with getting assistance on the fire.

I was told that $5 million was spent by government on the fire before a single professional firefighter engaged a single fire.

I have also heard of many stories of professional firefighters getting in the way or blocking progress or ordering people off a fire or simply standing and watching and sometimes mocking or laughing at local non-paid firefighters.

I think the problem is clear - when you pay someone to do a job like firefighting on an hourly basis with lucrative rates, you create people that 'manage' the fire instead of teams that 'kill' fires on contact.  The motivation becomes to actually create enough property damage to get the situation into the lucrative 'emergency status' which enables a locality to legally plunder the entire nation.  It is the communist idea of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'.

I can understand this is a very complex problem.  How do you motivate professionals to 'work themselves out of a job'?  It's a problem that I think fits exactly the proper role of a good legislator - don't make laws to solve problems, make laws to allow and motivate individuals to solve them for themselves.

So here is my two-cent solution to our problem:

Let's pay firefighters a percentage of what they now earn hourly so they can take care of themselves while fighting fires.  Then, after the emergency is over, calculate the lost tax revenue for a year caused by the fire using the previous years data and subtract that from the remainder percentage they would receive had no loss of property been done by the fire.

In other words, if a team of professional firefighters engages a fire and put it out and only lose, say, a field of hay, the previous year's tax revenue that field yielded to the county is split between the team members and deducted from the remainder of the pay they are to receive.

This motivates every single professional firefighter to be as efficient as possible and encourages reasonable risk to accomplish the goal.  If a fire gets big, the team gets larger and the losses are shared but not equally.  The people that were on the fire when it was small pay for the damage the small fires caused and those that arrived later pay for the damage that was caused on their watch shared with all that are fighting the fire.  Everyone at all times is motivated to stop the damage - not manage the fire into lucrative profits.

Loss of life is not calculated here but needs to be added in.  If a person dies due to a professional firefighter decision, no bonus is given to the people responsible.  This creates a strong incentive for safety yet allows risks to be taken if needed without extreme consequences for an honest mistake.

Another serious problem our firefighters deal with is tort issues.  Allowing a civilian to actively take part in fighting a fire incurs a huge risk in the legal realm to whoever makes that decision.  A lawyer can take your life from you for an honest mistake - this is the ever increasing weakness of our nation - a loss of justice and common sense in judicial review with ridiculous consequences that hamper risk taking and effective operations.

The solution to this problem, as is discussed at length elsewhere in this blog, is really a return to the common law way of doing things.  The main solution being the un-meddled with, randomly and frequently chosen, jury.  The power of deciding constitutionality should be with the people, not with a judge.  The final say in a case should be with the jury not with a judge.  Appeals are costly and flawed in that they rarely get at real justice and often thwart it and delay justice being done.  

Why not simply hold juries accountable for their decisions by another jury and allow the case decision to be final? If you condemned an innocent man by your lame decision on a jury, you face his penalty at the hands of another jury.  The case remains finally settled but the jury pays for its mistake.  (This wouldn't be a bad idea for Judges either)

I know this is pretty radical thinking but if our justice system continues to erode into the money making machine it has become, peace and order in our society is doomed.

Tough problems I know, but we need leadership to step up and stop this trend to self destruction. Communities like Kamiah with their strong sense of honor and cooperation will be eventually destroyed by bean counters, politicians, attorneys and power jockeys.  Responsibility needs to lie with the individual and the individual needs to be empowered to make decisions freely and reap consequences dictated by their peers, not by professional paid judges.

Our fire losses are, for the most part, caused by our poor justice system and congress can fix this by limiting the jurisdiction of higher courts and empowering lower courts to use common law principles and juries.

The death of justice

I am giving up.  I was hit from behind while operating my Honda Insight by an uninsured motorist driving a Mercedes SUV while stopped on a clogged exit ramp.  The police report clearly shows the accident to be 100% the fault of the SUV driver.

At first she was amicable and communicated with me to resolve the matter, thinking she was insured. After months of working with her insurance company it was established that she was not insured at the time of the accident.  She is fully liable for damages to me yet from that point on refuses to communicate with me.

This forced me to attempt remediation which she refused to cooperate with.

This forced me to small claims court which she refused to attend.

Her lack of attendance forced me to settle for the original amount claimed which was made months before other costs were incurred due to her evasion of proper service.  The court upheld her rights to defend herself and would not allow me to raise the amount sought in her absence unless I started the whole process over.

After a District Court judgement was rendered I was burdened with the need to serve her again of the judgment against her.  Further I was under a time deadline to get her served so I could further file papers in Superior Court supposedly to allow me to obtain a lien on her property to claim what is owed me.

When I approached the King County Sherrif's office for service assistance after a certified letter failed to be delivered, I was told in an email, after having transmitted to that office via email the court's judgment and a pdf form I needed to fill out to assist the Sherrif's Office in servicing this person, I was given this reply:

Sanford, 

The only documents we accept via email is Domestic Violence Protection Orders.  All other civil process documents must include payment for service at the time the documents are given to us for service.  The fee for service to the address listed on your intake sheet is $55.00.  ...You can pay by check, money order or cash (we are not set up to accept credit or debit cards).You can mail the documents to us at the address below.
Susan DranekKing County Sheriff's OfficeCivil Process Unit516 Third Avenue Rm W 150Seattle, WA 98104Office 206-263-2615Fax 206-296-0918susan.dranek@kingcounty.gov

This tops it off for me.  After over a year of messing around trying to get this person who is:

• In contempt of her moral responsibilities to her fellow man.
• In contempt of the law for not driving with insurance as required by law.
• In contempt of court by not attending hearings and refusing normal certified mail delivery for service.

The sheriffs office, who is elected to enforce justice and protect the innocent, has:

• The power to deputize anyone necessary to enforce justice.
• Refuses to receive documents to serve via email which is efficient and self-documenting.
• Charged me, the innocent victim of a crime, a fee to serve my papers which is part of the job of enforcing justice the office of Sherrif was created for.
• Required mail service adding expense and time to the process needlessly.

If I were driving and got pulled over by the sheriff for driving 6 miles over the speed limit and was found to not have proof of insurance, I would be fined for both speeding and driving without insurance and would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law by prosecutors paid for by my taxes.  Yet this person is not being charged for service costs nor is being fined for driving without insurance; clearly proven by the evidence presented to a District Court Judge and found guilty of owing me damages.

This crime will never be prosecuted by the state because it doesn't make money.  The state will give me no assistance without payment and will never punish this persons misdeeds for me.

I should, by now, have the right to lien the defendant's property - I have a judgment in hand yet further paperwork and fees are required to get there.

I could pay the fee for service and continue to pursue this case but I am already past the deadline to file in Superior Court.  The system has effectively thwarted justice for me.

Hiring a lawyer to pursue this simply is not profitable enough to get a lawyer to help me.  Lawyers especially are guilty of corruption of justice simply by their cost.

There are other issues I could site, like how the County Clerk messed up proper notice of the first small claims court hearing causing me to waste an entire trip from Idaho to Seattle but I think the evidence here is sufficient.

It has become my humble opinion that all levels of government have become corrupted to the point of doing nothing unless it contains profit.  Justice is not even a goal of their job anymore.

The creation of laws and government is to avoid violence to settle differences by providing non-violent remedies.  To the degree that justice is thwarted by the state, violence ensues.  This is why God says in Micah 6:8:

He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

You just don't find out how bad things are till you become in need of government's services.  It is then, after years of faithfully paying your taxes and obeying their laws, that they are nothing more than another scam.

Luckily I serve a God who will not be mocked and will do His justice at the proper time balanced with mercy as only God can do.

Who is KrisAnne Hall?

I got to hear this lady speak today at a local church.  Her topic was a Genealogy of the Constitution.  I was surprised to learn several things I had never heard before despite the fact that I have been a student of history and the constitution for many years.

See here website here.

The documents I had never heard of were:

1100 Charter of Liberties

The Petition of Right of 1628

The Grand Remonstrance

Bill of Rights of 1689

She held these to be where our constitution and bill of rights came from.  I have argued in several of my posts that the Bill of Rights came from the Pennsylvania Minority Report.but it is quite possible that the minority group got their ideas from these documents.

This woman is such a breath of fresh air!  She fully understands the basis for liberty and the many distinctions needed to not be fooled by the demagogues into a ditch.  She could be Steve Pidgeon's sister!
Her lecture was geared towards the middle-school aged kids and so could not go into great detail but mostly just got the history right.  I know she would love Brent White's Excellence of the Common Law.
I had no time to discuss with her the path we take to get back to liberty.  I didn't know if she was familiar with the many legal problems we have like congress disbanding itself Sainai-Di at the end of the civil war, or the lost 13th amendment, or the distinction between voting and electing.  She knows we live in a de-facto universe I am sure.
She gave me much hope after a lifetime of being unsuccessful at getting many people turned around - even my own family.
Check her out.  I highly support her and her mission!