The “Rulers of Law”

A series of personal experiences throws a bright light on the vagaries of the “rule of law” myth and offers a cautionary tale which illuminates the reality that we are actually governed by the “rulers of law.” Public officials throughout government, who are protected by a veil of sovereign immunity, can, and often do, apply their own personal and political spin on broadly stated laws, which provide almost unbridled discretion as they are administered.

I learned about the influence of unbridled discretion and sovereign immunity by our government firsthand when fresh out of college I joined my brothers to form a partnership in a real estate renovation company. We quickly found ourselves under assault by the forces of a county government bureaucracy out of control, which included arson on one of our properties that was intertwined with government intrigue. My cautionary tale begins to unfold when our partnership applied for a septic system solution for the second property we purchased; soon after beginning the permit process it became clear to us that the county had a hidden agenda on the property.

It was becoming apparent to us the county government officials intended to make an end-run around our grandfather rights by utilizing Health and Safety Codes to force the destruction of some of the buildings on the property, so the property more closely conformed to the zoning codes recently enacted for small ranchettes. While carrying out their agenda, government officials had no qualms about abusing their discretion by applying disparate enforcement codes to permit process and to even double up on enforcement codes when it suited their purpose.

To continue to justify their enforcement efforts, the county ordered us to maintain a septic system on the property in a way that would ensure its failure. Finally, when their tactics failed to produce the desired affect, they simply fabricated the data on a test we were instructed to perform thus dictating the final results they wished to achieve, in essence operating by fiat. On the heels of these over the top actions by the government, we commenced an investigation. When we followed the evidence, it led back to an attorney who earlier foiled the county government’s initial attempts to enforce their agenda on the property. It soon became clear that we were caught up in a long standing bureaucratic vendetta on the property we referred to as the “original sin.”

In an attempt to secure our rights, we were forced to sue various state and local agencies in federal court. My journey through the courts provides empirical evidence of the egregious methods used by the courts in employing the law to meet its agenda. It begins with our family partnership lawsuit against the government, which, among other things, raised the issue of broad discretion by government agencies, along with the abuse of discretion by government, which allowed public officials to perform their duties by fiat. Our case proved to be a landmark case, as it addressed the scope of bureaucratic discretion and had the potential to radically affect the growth and the abuse of discretion by government.

In our lawsuit, we could show the discretion in the application of the county codes by county officials were so broad the government could operate by fiat; the evidence showed that the governments could treat similarly situated properties in diametrically different ways. The success of our case in the courts would have provided a new tool to citizens for government accountability. It became the government’s goal to beat us at any cost, including buying out our engineers and attorneys, offering them significant government positions on county boards or offering them lucrative contracts. Finally, I was forced to take over the case as a novice, with the limited knowledge I gleaned from a business law class and stepped into the lawyer’s shoes to represent the family’s interest; I gave them a run for their money doing an admiral job all the way to the ninth circuit court of appeals.

As I entered the fray I was so busy learning the ropes and executing my pro se duties to understand the true implications of out lawsuit and how much the issues transcended our own personal transgressions. The lawsuit, it turned out, was a threat to government’s modus operandi; discretion and its abuse are the currency of government, providing the government the cover to carry out its agenda; therefore every effort was made to ensure that the suit would not see the light of day. After years of surviving the efforts by the governments hired law firm to defeat me with legal maneuvers, the court single handedly defeated our case by its on abuse of discretion by dismissing our case without any reference to starry decisive or to the facts in the case. Judge Patel in the US District Court simply declared by fiat that our case was not a federal case.

When I appealed the case to the Ninth circuit Court of Appeals, I mistakenly believed that bringing all the questions raised by the lower courts actions would give me the best results. I was mistaken, the judges were able to completely ignore the first and most important question raised by the appeal and then dance around the other questions in a rather meaningless manner; we were defeated. In the end, the judges in the both the federal court and the court of appeals used their discretion to dismiss the case by fiat with no reference to any starry decisive.
After years of effort, the government finally exhausted us financially and emotionally, our resources were depleted and we were unable to pursue the issue to the Supreme Court. In essence the government won the fight by default, preserving their broad discretion and their de facto right to continue operating by fiat.

While engaged in the federal civil rights case, I experienced additional abuse of the legal system by the government at the county level, which further exposed the notion of the “rulers of law”. One of my brothers, a partner in the business, made an unwise decision when he was pulled over while driving without a current license and he tried to get his truck home in an effort to protect his tools, instead of leaving the truck full of tools on the side of the road as ordered by the police. As a result he ended up facing a judge for “resisting a police officer”, during the sentencing the judge learned my brother was about to close escrow on the sale of his house. This judge’s brother happened to be the attorney negotiating a settlement arrangement with our family partnership on an account that went into default. Armed with the information about the escrow for the pending sale divulged to him by the judge’s brother, the attorney abandoned the settlement negotiations and proceeded with a default judgment, placing a lien on the funds from the sale of the house.

This was potentially devastating to our civil rights struggle as I was scheduled to receive some of those funds to help me continue the civil rights suit, it could spell the death knell of our pursuit for justice. To make things worse, it turned out the attorney for the title company holding the funds was a friend of the attorney that filed the lien. We had to threaten to sue the escrow company in order to force them to hold the funds until we were able file the motion and receive the decision; we were granted a very short window of time clearly designed for failure. I was now forced to learn how to write and file a “motion to overturn a default judgment” in less than thirty days, so the funds could be released to me.

When I went to the court to file the motion, I was told by the clerk that the judge was not in cession on the date I needed to stay within the deadline; the clerk then turned to another clerk in the office who acknowledged her assertion about the judge being on vacation. I reluctantly agreed to the later date and walked to my car with an uneasy feeling about what just occurred. My intuition told me something was amiss, so when I arrived home I asked my girlfriend to call the court and pretend to be a secretary for another attorney who wanted to file a motion on the day in question; low and behold the date was available. I marched right back to the courthouse and insisted the clerk file my papers on the correct day.

I pled my case and I prevailed on the motion to overturn the default judgment and the court issued an order to release the funds. The attorney for the title company was stunned when we came to collect the funds and immediately got on the phone with the plaintiff’s attorney who confirmed the courts decision and he was forced to release the funds just in the nick of time. This was the only bright spot in my odyssey with the courts; I even received a thumb’s-up from one of our former attorneys who happened to be in the peanut gallery. Of course the judge also ordered me to pay $500 to the other attorney (taking care of their own).

Later on, while still under the financial strain of the lawsuit, one of the properties mentioned in the suit was foreclosed upon by a politically connected finance company that made us the loan. In foreclosure, the finance company not only took the property, they also refused to release the remaining funds in their possession, which were part of the original loan at the basis of the foreclosure; this even though we were otherwise currant with the payments. The evidence was clear the money belonged to us and on that basis we were able to enlist the services of an attorney. This attorney did a standup job handling our case, but the judge who was assigned the case by the county was a family law judge, not a real estate judge. He was transferred to this division specifically to hear our case; in the end the judge simply declared (by fiat) that he could not make a judgment and dismissed the case, essentially handing the defendant a de facto victory. It also meant that the government had achieved the objective of depriving us of the means to keep our suit going. With this action the government was able to administer the final death blow, our resources depleted our attempt to seek justice ended.. In the end the government was able to defeat us with deception, along with a further abuse of their discretion.

Years later, I had to wonder if I were on some sort of black list and the state government had me in their sites for further abuse. I know this allegation sounds farfetched, but let me lay out the evidence as I see it. The harassment began while I was applying for a painting contractor’s license (I didn’t ant to be a criminal painter operating without a license). Shortly after making my application, I received a call from an “investigator” with the Contractors State License Board who informed me the board was not going to accept the documentation of my experience, which is required for the license. I was told the Board rejected my invoices for the work I performed necessary for getting the license, because the invoices were produced on a computer and therefore could have been fabricated by me. I reminded the woman that this was the age of the computer and that I did in fact generate them, but they were generated in the course of doing business as it is practiced by all businesses. I recommended the investigator call the clients on the invoices and do a fact check before dismissing them out of hand. In response to my suggestion the investigator unceremoniously threatened to deny my application, which suggested to me her true intentions. In the end, I used some legal maneuvering to force the board to accept my evidence and grant me my license; also, it didn’t hurt that I passed the test in half the time allotted.

As time went by, a series of court proceedings related to a traffic ticket finally convinced me that I must indeed be on some type of state government black list. I received a ticket for passing on the right, because I used the paved shoulder of the road to pass a few vehicles stopped during rush hour traffic, in order to make an exit off the freeway. I was certain at the time that it was legal, so I paid the fine as required by the summons and filed a challenge to the ticket. When I arrived at the courtroom for the hearing it was crowded with people there to fight tickets, along with some attorneys. I waited to be called and watched as the whole courtroom was cleared before the court finally called my case; curiously, I was the last case called. As I approached the bench, I overheard the judge whisper to the clerk something to the affect, “what was it I was supposed to remember about Robert Taylor?” I was unable to hear the reply, but it was immediately clear to me this judge was going to rule against me. In my defense, I pointed out to the judge that although the vehicle code did prohibit passing on the right, it provided exceptions under certain situations providing it was done safely (some of the ambiguity built into the law the allows for obfuscation). I truthfully testified the circumstances in my case fit the exceptions and that I had passed the other vehicles in a safe manner. The judge ignored my testimony, declaring that it was simply illegal to pass on the right and that it was one of her pet peeves.

The judge’s statement in the traffic ticket ruling that it was her “pet peeve” showed bias and gave me the right to appeal the ruling. When I arrived at the courtroom for hearing the appeal months latter, I was again seated with many others contesting their tickets. But this time the bailiff came into the courtroom and asked if Robert Taylor was in the courtroom, I raised my hand and was told my case was transferred to courtroom D1. I walked down the hall to the designated courtroom only to find it empty; very curious again. A few moments later the clerk and judge arrived and called me to the defense table; yet again the judge ignored my testimony and upheld the previous judges ruling. In both incidences, the presiding judge was unwilling to discuss the exceptions elaborated in the code and which I testified applied in my case. By assuring the courtroom was empty in each occasion, the court could operate as a kangaroo court and rule by fiat. I have no doubt that this type of rule by legal representatives occurs regularly in the courts, the frequency in my case shows that it is not just a fluke.

It is clear from my own struggle with the government while defending my civil rights government officials will weave disparate codes together to achieve their agendas under the color of law. If this ploy does not provide the necessary leverage, they will use the power of their discretion to simply rule by fiat; in other words abuse their discretion. Obfuscation, equivocation and delay are among other tools I discovered government employs to defeat the rights of individuals when their rights come in conflict with the government’s agenda. The courts enjoy the greatest amount of power and latitude in their decision making process, as the law is intentionally written with complicated language with a myriad of conflicting case law, which allows the court to virtually operate by fiat.

An Open Letter to Occupy Wall Street

The question has been raised, from both inside and outside the movement, on where Occupy Wall Street should go from here. The street actions are important as they are the most affective way of expressing the seriousness and scope of this movement; however these actions are only moderately sustainable. We now need to explore actions we can take individually, as well as collectively, as agents of change, to counter the Wall Street deception within a framework that is replicable and expandable on our Main Streets; in short, we need to foster an occupy Main Street movement.

In an effort to reinvent and reinvigorate Main Street, I want to offer a strategy for the occupy movement that involves harnessing the vast amount of human capital represented by the multitude of unemployed and underemployed professionals. I’m offering a website now under construction at www.vera-city.net, to serve as a base for an effort that calls out to like minded people to join together to achieve a grassroots revitalization of Main Street. Vera-City is only a seed of an idea, it presently contain links to numerous neighborhood development websites that offer working concepts on a wide range of community wealth building strategies, which include Coops, ESOPs and CSOPs, along with renewable energy stratagems and complementary currency models.

One benefit of participating in Vera City is a proprietary global digital complementary currency called the Vera, which will provide a barter device for the community. Though the Vera will have a global value, it can only be spent with local businesses owned by Vera City members. The Vera represents a private global complementary monetary system designed to assist communities to act locally-globally. The Vera is envisioned to be a hybrid currency that will provide for a share or stock component, which will supply a pool of risk capital for investing in energy conservation and renewable energy acquisition; affording a countervailing force to the economic power of the oil industry to control the energy market. The creation of the Vera will also produce a reserve of dollars that can be lent at a low cost to members for local business expansion.

Vera-City, along with the Vera, is an idea whose time has come and it’s time for this effort to be opened to others to move it forward quickly. The rapid expansion of the “Occupy” movement makes the need to move rapidly even more urgent, it also makes this strategy more viable. I’m seeking collaborators who have the skill sets to move this project into the mainstream, within a leaderless velvet revolution for liberating Main Street from the predation of Wall Street. We can no longer look to government or Wall Street to heed our demands; we need to move forward as a powerful multitude using collective or “neo corporate power” to change the trajectory of our social/economic condition.

We have a rare opportunity ahead of us to deconstruct the old institutions and create new robust institutions that respond more quickly to the changing times propelled by the new paradigms expressed through the exploding open source movement. What is needed right away are IT professionals, web designers and programmers, bankers, lawyers, angel investors, credit/debit card experts to build the business and legal superstructure, while at the same time a team of social network aficionados that will initiate a dialog with community organizers active on revitalizing their respective Main Streets around the globe, to lay the groundwork for implementation of the scheme. An immense amount of work needs to be done in a stealthy manner to build up a social network and fashion an alternative infrastructure, so when it is launched it can reach critical mass rapidly and be too big to stop. I know this is a bold proposal, but the grim times we live in demand we take great risk.

Copyright 2011

Alternative Energy and The Future of Oil Companies

The Future of “Oil” Companies

Our national goal of switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy has maintained a high level of support.  Achieving price parity between alternative energy and fossil fuels is vital to the objective of energy transformation.

We can wait for the price of alternative energy to reach parity with fossil fuel sometime in the future, as more technologies are proven viable, but it’s an unreliable time horizon.  Due to the pace of global warming, as well as the national security concerns of relying on fossil fuels, we may not have the time to bet on the market. 

There’s been a hodgepodge of speculation on what was behind the slow but persistent rise in gas prices, ebbing and flowing towards higher equilibriums; with prices rising beyond $5 a gallon (before ISIS started flooding the market).  The so called experts have offered numerous explanations for that trend, but none of their responses seem to have any consistency. 

Tracing this trend back, evidence appears that the fuel price inflation we witnessed was initiated with the blessing of the Bush Administration.  It was concurrent with the “secret” meeting Dick Cheney arranged with the oil companies at the White House; being secret one is compelled to look at what followed.   Subsequent to this secret meeting President Bush gave his “addicted to oil” speech and within weeks the oil industry began a PR campaign touting their newfound interest in renewable energy, rebranding themselves “Energy Companies.” The price of fuel started trending upward until recent world events. 

Before anyone gets their dander up over this assertion, let’s look at the benefits behind the alleged deed.  The most expedient method to achieve an energy security objective is to unilaterally raise the price of fuel at the pump.  In this way we quickly move fossil fuels towards parity with the emerging alternative energy technologies, while at the same time amassing the capital necessary to invest in the new technologies. 

Looking at the problem from a “free market” perspective this is the correct way of achieving the objective and it can be argued it is also good public policy.  Higher fuel prices will mitigate the demand for the polluting, non- renewable energy and speed up the transformation to solar, wind and other more benign sources. 

If it’s not through the unilateral action by the oil industry to achieve price parity with alternative energy, what is the mechanism?  One of the options offered by congress is adding a fuel tax to raise the price of fuel.  Raising taxes in an effort to achieve energy transformation is shaky as the government has proven to be a poor manager of our common wealth, often diverting revenue toward unintended uses.  On the other hand taxing may be the lesser of the two evils, as simply tolerating oil companies making windfall profits, regardless of the means by which it is achieved, would be inequitable and dangerous.  The vast amount of capital potentially generated by oil companies will consolidate their power as energy companies, allowing them to control the energy market, including alternative energy; even retarding progress toward renewable energy. 

So if taxing fuel or allowing the oil industry to amass windfall profits is not acceptable solutions, what is?   I suggest a third way, through collaboration.  I propose consumers partner with the “energy companies” in support of a national goal toward alternative energy transformation. 

How will this “partnering” work?  In exchange for granting the energy companies the right to raise fuel prices, the consumers will receive Loyalty Reward Points toward owning stock in the energy companies.  Every time a consumer buys product, energy points will accumulate on a rewards card, when sufficient points accumulate to purchase stock it will automatically be placed in the consumers account at the current stock price.  This non-bidding approach to stock distribution will provide the “Energy Companies” some certainty in the expansion of their stock. 

If this rational energy transition method is applied, it has the potential to bring all affected parties into a synergistic interrelationship and would expeditiously stimulate innovation toward alternative energy conversion.  There is a huge potential for creating jobs in renewable energy production and infrastructure.  To release this potential we need to incentivize the effort toward renewable transformation in a way that is equitable to all parties by sharing the benefits from a shared investment. 

Copyright © 2011 -2012

The Free Enterprise System vs. Capitalism

It’s a common mistake in the media to equate Capitalism with the Free Enterprise System, implying they are one and the same. But it’s a fallacy promulgated by those who control capital as it serves their agenda; it provides the sheep’s clothing for blending into society making it more acceptable. In simple terms capitalism is about the bottom line of making a profit, it makes no difference if it makes a profit building prisons or schools.

Capitalism is nothing more than a capital accumulation scheme, and more often then not it acts as a cancer on the Free Enterprise System and the values that it nurtures.   Capitalism, particularly the cartel Capitalism that presently exists, seeks to mitigate, or even eliminate the values that sustains and nurtures the free enterprise system, as those values do not contribute to the bottom line of making a profit. 

Capitalism is myopic, focusing on the bottom line of making a profit; it makes no difference if it makes a profit on manufactured needs or on real needs.  It is indifferent to the needs essential to our individual wellbeing and the wellbeing of the global environment which sustains us; yet, it is our wellbeing that is at the heart of our pursuit of happiness.

Capitalism, as it is presently practiced, is not sustainable, not just due to the pyramid scheme nature of the practice, but also environmentally as it externalizes many of its cost to the environment and to society at large in order to achieve its short term profits. Capital seeks “efficiencies” and will externalize processes that pollute the environment, while it also reduces the cost of labor either through improvements in technology, or by outsourcing. 

Capital is hailed as a great savior, but capital has no conscience; cartel capitalism capitalizes on our fears, doubts, desires and superstitions.  Capital will chase capital and will continue to increase wealth even as the economy as a whole stagnates, pooling in ever larger reservoirs.

The holders of these vast pools of capital, in symbiosis with government, provides the power to promote capital’s own vested interests; whether it is in banking, real estate, military procurement, “national security”, medicine, oil, transportation or high tech, you name it.  Indeed this power and authority to control is furnished by government through a plethora of means such as limiting their liability by law, providing subsidies, guaranties, bailouts, government contracts, loans, price controls and on and on. 

For Capitalism to flourish with its corporate structure requires the authority to control, with a perverse allegiance and vigilance to its bidding.  Those who control capital control the Capitols of the world; money interest skews the political process.  It’s no longer a democracy of one-person one vote; the almighty dollar is the measure of the vote. When capitalism is given full reign, we no longer have a government of, by and for the people; democracy is allowed to languish and by default the holders of capital become the masters! 

Capitalism is equally at home in a fascist system or in a totalitarian regime, as in so called democratic republics, as governments, in all cases, protect and defend it from the people.  This assertion is echoed in a recent article by foreignpolicy.com, “In China, Russia, and the sheikhdoms of the Persian Gulf, state-led brands of capitalism are holding their own.”   Indeed the power and authority for capital to control the economy is furnished by governments through a plethora of means such as limiting liability by law, providing subsidies, guaranties, bailouts, government contracts, loans, price controls and on and on. 

In contrast to “Capitalism”, the free enterprise system is about finding needs and filling them; fulfilling useful and beneficial needs of society; profit is only one of the myriad rewards or values accrued towards this end.  The perceived inefficiencies in the Free Enterprise System support the human needs and values of the community; it is less efficient than capitalism as profits are often forsaken to fulfill these other values. 

Among the countless values that motivate people to engage in “free enterprise” activities is self-direction, independence, a sense of accomplishment, the freedom to work for oneself, an economic activity which employs the whole family, as well as a desire to simply serve the community; to provide for community needs and to accomplish this in a sustainable manner.  For entrepreneurs engaged in free enterprises ventures, profits are often sacrificed to meet these diverse values and ends.  The Free Enterprise System at its core is about self actualizing, expressing oneself, being fulfilled while at the same time fulfilling the needs of others.

The Free Enterprise System, when it’s vigorous and vital, is the bulwark of a vibrant democratic meritocracy; it provides the structure of freedom where the actions of a free people can flourish.  When capital concentrates in the hands of the few, democracy suffers; it misappropriates the invisible hand of the Free Enterprise System and converts it into slight of hand of politics and government.  Free markets do not breed a free people, free enterprise does! The present “free market” is about promoting corporate interest around the world to manipulate resources.  Free enterprise represents individual efforts to solve problems; find a need and fill it!

The free enterprise system is the invisible hand expressed by Adam Smith, although he expressed it as a free market of a multitude of small producers primarily producing for their local communities.  Capital with its seductive power distorts this concept of “free markets” to mean the freedom of capital to go wherever it wishes to be directed and have power over the market. 

This is accomplished by multi-national corporations that have allegiance only to the holders of capital with no allegiance to any sovereign state, whether expressed as being communist or capitalist.  It is simply greed that motivates the holders of capital, not the self interest of the myriad members of society as they interact in personal commercial pursuits.

Instead of citizens participating in a democracy enhanced by the Free Enterprise System, we have been reduced to consumers and laborers in a capital driven scheme that dominates and subjugates the market.  Until we reinvigorate the Free Enterprise System and democratize capital, we the citizens will continue to be at the mercy of capital’s interest.   Changing the metrics of capitalism is the challenge ahead; it must evolve into a new form that is equitable and inclusive and provides value to all of society, only then will democracy have a chance to flourish.  

Bureaucratic Discretion Rules

When society perceives a problem that seeks a solution, it’s a knee jerk reaction to expect government to provide the answer.  But, the same conditions necessary for government agencies to be proactive in solving problems, also insulates them from actually fulfilling their duties and worst of all allows them to set and then carry out their own agendas.  

Government requires a burgeoning superstructure of agencies populated with officials to function; these officials on all levels of government demand a great deal of discretion to carry out their duties.  Bureaucratic discretion has expanded exponentially as a consequence of the growing complexity of the duties government is being asked to perform.  

Prior to 1935 the courts held to a non-delegation theory when it came to government agencies creating policy.  This theory was based on Article I of the Constitution which provides "all legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States;" therefore, allowing agencies the power to create policy was seen as a delegation of the power to legislate.  After the New Deal, the courts relaxed their restrictions on legislators, allowing them to delegate powers to make national policy to non-elected bodies such as administrative agencies.  This has opened the floodgates to an escalation of discretion, which has percolated down to the states and local jurisdictions. Government officials, federal, state and local have in essence become ad hoc legislators as they create the regulations that allow them to wield their ever expanding discretion.

Under these conditions of burgeoning discretion, public officials are inclined to use their discretion as a prerogative in resolving competing political claims, often at the expense of applying the best solution to the problem.  A political system which gives power and immunity to a handful of the people is corruptible and I believe already corrupted.  Public officials are not hesitant to exercise broad discretionary power, because the reviewing courts tend to routinely defer to agencies expertise. This highlights the problem faced by the individual public official who may be pulled politically in more than one direction, personal political loyalties often sway government officials, influencing and sometimes dictating their decisions.  

…in the course of a long life my opinion of government has steadily worsened:

the more intelligently they try to act (as distinguished from simply following an

established rule), the more harm they seem to do – because once they are known

to aim at particular goals (rather than merely maintaining a self-correcting order)

the less they can avoid serving sectional interest.”  - F.A. Hayek

The government’s discretion continues to expand as legislators persist in passing loosely or vaguely stated laws couched in complicated language, leaving government agencies the power to fill in the details; fundamentally giving the administrative agencies the opportunity define their own level of discretion.  This discretion has become so broad that in many cases the government can virtually operate by fiat; they can treat two people in similar circumstances in completely opposite ways.  Even if we could make laws that were clear and unambiguous, we cannot make individuals who exercise them without bias.  The way one interprets law is always affected by one's self determined moral and political beliefs.  Besides their broad discretion, these bureaucratic rulers-of-the-laws enjoy a remnant of sovereign immunity that protects “public” officials from legal tort action when operating within their area of discretion; this immunity is maintained “whether or not the discretion involved is abused.”

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRs/NRS-041.html

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Federal+Tort+Claims+Act

Many government officials increasingly see this discretion as a prerogative or a right. A startling example of this abuse of discretion by a government official occurred on the national stage when Katherine Harris, the Secretary of State in Florida, called an end to the vote count.  It is my contention that the secretary of state abused her discretion by calling off the vote; the result of this decision ultimately handed George W. Bush the keys to the White House. 

The Secretary of State claimed the discretion entrusted to her made it her “prerogative” to end the vote count, by this she meant it was her right to make any decision she wished.  But in fact, it was the Secretary of States duty to ensure that the voting process was fair and impartial, therefore, her duty as the Secretary of State required Katherine Harris use her discretion to extend the deadline and to make a reasonable attempt to get a fair count.  It would be difficult to argue Katherine Harris, as a Bush appointee and operative, was not motivated by a political agenda when she called off the vote; as such this was an abuse of discretion, a transgression against democracy and the American people. 

This growth of discretion, together with its abuse, is the greatest threat to our personal freedom and welfare.  The American Revolution was conducted to put an end to the monarchs arbitrary edicts and fiats, to create a “government of laws”, but we have arrived at a situation were an entrenched bureaucracy with its expanding discretion now has the power to dictate the political agenda and by extension the public agenda.  

The claim that “we are governed by the rule of law” masks the fact that laws are administered by individuals that come to the table with their own agendas.  With their broad operation of discretion, government officials are increasingly able to use their positions of power to determine the winners and the losers.   In short, the laws are continually being skewed in actual application towards meeting the agenda of those entrusted to administer it, rather than to the will of the people.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
— Thomas Jefferson

Copyright © 2010 - 2011

The Declaration of an Independent

There is a renewed revolution for independence now underway in this country, as evidenced by the growing number of citizens declaring their political independence.   This modern movement for independence represents the fastest growing segment of the political environment. The number of citizens now declaring their independence has outstripped those who identify themselves as either Democrats or Republicans.

The original revolution for independence in America was about removing sovereignty from the king and returning it to the people. I see the independence resurgence now underway as a personal revolution of the first order, a proto-revolution if you will, emanating from individuals reasserting personal sovereignty. The present independence movement represents a forward effort toward transferring sovereignty back to the people one person at a time.

Independent voters have been characterized as moderates or centrist, but I’d venture to say that self described independents are a separate breed altogether.  As an independent myself, my liberal positions are very much liberal and my conservative positions are generally very conservative.  If I have a “middle” position on any issue it is not reached by compromise, it is arrived at by careful deliberation after seeking the facts.  From my prospective, independents seek to understand the issues concerning society with the intention of finding solutions which do not necessarily meet political agendas.

Independent voters are persistently marginalized by the two-party system. Independent’s have been dismissed as being Democrats and Republicans in disguise, it is alleged that most Independents lean toward one of the two parties and therefore resemble either a Democrat or a Republican. I declare that party affiliation by Independents is simply a function of political survival; it’s a symptom of the stranglehold the two-party system has on our democracy, and is not one of clear choice (It’s a Hobson’s choice). When an individual declares their independence, they should be taken at their word and not be summarily dismissed.

Independents have been relegated to the political nether land of centrist by the two-party system. This linear conception of politics, as shown in Figure 1, does not provide a sufficient description of the dynamic socio-political process which gives rise to this renewed independence revolution 

Figure 1

A diagram of this dynamic demonstrates that the “center” is not some arbitrary point between the “left” and the “right”, it lies at various points above and beyond the left/right political continuum depicted in Figure 2. 

Figure 2

As illustrated in Figure 2, independents fall within a vast region that lies at an acute angle to the left and the right; at its root it’s libertarian and at its extreme it’s anarchistic.  When the debate between the political left and political right narrows, the ranks of anarchist expands as a reasonable and necessary reaction as the graph in Figure 3 shows.

Figure 3

This revolution for political independence is long overdue; Thomas Jefferson opined that “Every generation needs a new revolution”.  I call on all independents to join together, not as a third party but as an un-party, a kind of citizen parliament without a platform, to reaffirm the declaration of independence and declare our independence from the two-party system.  It is time for this organic revolution of independents to band together to bring a change to government through grassroots election reform.  I further call upon those registered with the two major parties, along with the disenfranchised voters who have abandoned the election process altogether, to join in this independence movement and register as independents. 

The need to band together for grass roots election reform has been made more urgent with the Supreme Court’s five to four decision that extended the decision in Buckley v. Valeo, which confirmed the old adage that money talks, building on this earlier decision that declared that corporations (as super citizens) have the right to speak the loudest in the Citizens United decision. 

Despite the courts interpretation of the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment which extended certain constitutional protections to corporations, a corporation is not endowed by it’s creator with inalienable rights, its personhood is a legal fiction created by law, so it is the law that should curb its political speech; if the court refuses to do it then the people must take action.  Indeed, as a body, we can formulate the principles for election reform and as a single force dictate what will be acceptable from the candidates we elect and make the taking of inordinately large contributions from whatever source a disincentive.  As a virtual parliament of independent voters, without a platform or candidates, it would be impossible to be controlled by PACs and special interest groups.  They say you can’t purge politics of money, I declare we can and we shall!

Copyright © 2010 – 2011

The "Rule of Law" Myth

“We are governed by the rule of law.” This is a mantra mindlessly repeated nearly every day by pundits and politicians alike. The notion that any government, anywhere in the real world, would, or could, actually operate by the “rule of law” is a myth.  All systems of laws are administered by men, therefore this nation and all nations are systems of laws and men; you cannot separate the two.  Indeed, what evolves over time is a malleable system of laws, prone to be whatever government officials deem to be useful according to their concept of the world at the time.

In practice, those entrusted with the laws are often influenced by agendas that reflect their own social/economic/political view of the world and this drives their actions. With the expanding demands we put on government comes burgeoning bureaucracies with expanding discretion, broadening the power of officials to set and carry out their own perceived agendas, right or wrong.  In short, government officials become the “rulers of law.”

The “rule of law” pretense is fostered by our legislators, who deliberately introduce legislation awash with ambiguity, often as a means of providing political cover.  As these loosely worded laws are implemented by various government agencies, they are expressed in statutes and government codes in ways that expands the agencies discretion providing them with the cover for interpreting the code and statutes in the broadest possible manner.

The agendas within various government agencies, as perceived by bureaucrats with their own biases, predictably impinge on the rights of citizens and the courts are called upon to adjudicate the dispute; in this process the courts create case law that stands as precedent. Inevitably, one state or federal court’s established precedent comes in conflict with precedents made by judges in other politically influenced jurisdictions, with cases ending up in the Supreme Court were the nine judges apply their own political twist; this contest often ends with the vote of a single person determining the rights of entire populations. The old adage about the importance of a single vote is no truer anywhere in the political landscape than on the Supreme Court and this epitomizes the notion of the tyranny of the majority.

If there were a true and genuine “rule of law”, the decisions in the Supreme Court would be unanimous; the law would clearly speak for itself, any lay citizen would understand and be able to interpret it. But decisions are not unanimous or even clear; they are inevitably agenda driven as judges are appointed who are identified as being from the left, right or center bringing their own personal political philosophies to the bench.

It’s not as if you can take questions addressed in a case, and enter them into a “rule of law” machine that shoots out an answer on the other end. Instead we have legal decisions that often seem arbitrary and that fit the agenda of the government at the time; the application of law by government is more about expedience than justice or fairness. In the final analysis government with its expanding discretion and sovereign immunity is able to “legitimately” produce any result it chooses, under the color of law, with near impunity. 

Copyright