Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Communitarian Law of the Land
I'm also going to have to revise the ACL pages that refer to "communitarian-ra." I found the article that I referenced it from and it's not in it. It's been so long (6 years) since I made the reference I can't imagine where else it may have come from, but where ever it was it sure doesn't exist online anymore.
There's so many new laws and administrative policies that I need to include a few that keep popping up in emails in my law article. I'm going on KAJO, a Grants Pass, Oregon radio show May 20, 2009 and I'd like to have a few of the most current laws at my fingertips and in my brain.
Ill be adding to this over the next week. Please post your comments of any current or proposed communitarian laws you know about, especially local actions. Be interesting to see how many "local" bills are duplicates in different countries and states. I'm sure Gisela can update me on the NAIS and I'll poke around some of my old haunts like Citizenreviewonline where Sue keeps a steady watch on state and national legislation that affects rural communities. I forgot to mention on Devvy's show that Spokane, WA is having a controversy over the sustainable development agenda as I was asked to do. This next show I'll have notes in front of me so if there's anything you'd like me to get on the radio just let me know.
Here's an interesting oldie called Autonomy and Paternalism in Communitarian Society
Journal article by Michael L. Gross; The Hastings Center Report, Vol. 29, 1999
This isn't a new law, it's an organization who swears to uphold only constitutional law. From Old Dog we are reminded not all police will enforce communitarian martial law. I've seen a Canadian version of this also: http://www.oath-keepers.blogspot.com/. Not sure where this group stands on enforcing communitarian land use and behavior laws already passed and implemented.
In Canada there's an emerging Better water management 'imperative' , 'Vital resource' threatened, report says, by Margaret Munro, Canwest News Service Published: Monday, May 11, 2009
Congress Moves To Seize Control Of All U.S. WatersThe Clean WaterRestoration Act.The new Senate number is S 787 (CWRA)
Be aware of the legal concept called “laches” or “sleeping on your rights.”
You may lose future legal rights later if you fail to comment or testify on S 787. Montanans For Multiple Use v. Barbouletos et.al., recently showed us that there is room for interpretation of the administrative rules that even if futile, we are required to participate in and exhaust our administrative procedures afforded to us. The Courts also showed the power of the personal interpretation of the powers of the judicial process with the case of; Seven Up Pete Venture v. Brian Schweitzer, Governor of Montana (No. 0635384 Ninth Circuit Court) In this case, the protections of private property rights guaranteed under the constitution can and have been overturned by the Constitution itself. We saw the trend in our judicial system again in the Heller v. DC case against our second amendment rights! The list goes on, and so will the taking of rights if we do not fight!!!
The Bill is going to be heard by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee this next week!!!! The bill will expand the Clean Water Act of 1972 to include all waters of the United States.The bill will overturn the law that limits EPA and the Corps to jurisdiction over “navigable waters”The people will lose access to and the use of the water under this takings legislation.The United States Supreme Court has ruled on this issue in the Rapanos and SWANCC Decisions of 2006 and 2001. The Court ruled that the government does not have the authority to expand jurisdiction!Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) tried to ram through a vote on this bill this last Thursday, May 7th, but there were objections.She is going to try again, and we must be there to stop this!The members of this committee are listed by State below and they must hear from the people.
Make a call to each of the Senators today!Tell them to Defend our Constitution!Vote NO On Takings!(202) 224-3121Barbara Boxer (CA) (Chairman)Max Baucus (MT)Thomas R. Carper (DE)Frank R. Lautenberg (NJ)Benjamin L. Cardin (MD)Bernard Sanders (VT)Amy Klobuchar (MN)Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)Tom Udall (NM)Jeff Merkley (OR)Kirsten Gillibrand (NY)Arlen Specter (PA)James M. Inhofe (OK)George V. Voinovich (OH)David Vitter (LA)John Barrasso (WY)Mike Crapo (ID)Christopher S. Bond (MO)Lamar Alexander (TN)Tim RavndalPO Box 287Townsend Montana 59644406-266-5212
(1) Bill would turn Internet bloggers into felons
From: [ The_Draconia_Chronicles ] <email@example.com> Date: 12.05.2009 11:32 PM
By John Cox , Network World , 05/08/2009
Internet Flamers into Felons
A little-noticed bill re-introduced in Congress last month would make the use of popular electronic communications a felony if "the intent is to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person
A little-noticed bill re-introduced in Congress last month would make the use of popular electronic communications a felony if “the intent is to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person.”
Given the free-wheeling exchanges that characterize everything from SMS text messages and instant messaging, to blogs and Web site comments, the broadly written bill potentially could turn a lot of flamers and bloggers into felons. If convicted, they would face fines (no amounts given) and prison sentences up to two years. Webcast: PCI Wireless Compliance Demystified : View now
The bill is H.R. 1966, filed April 2 by Rep. Linda Sanchez, a liberal Democrat for California’s 39th district, a horseshoe-shaped patch around Los Angeles, from Whittier through Ceritos to Lynnwood. She was joined by 14 other congressmen. It's been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
The bill has recently begun to receive attention, much of it critical, in the online community. Greg Pollowitz, at National Review Online’s Media Blog, labeled it the “Censorship Act of 2009.”
In fact, some of the comments could even be construed as intended to cause emotional distress under the bill's loosely defined language.
Sanchez earlier this week sought to explain and defend the proposal online at HuffingtonPost.com, a political blog that is generally considered liberal.
One response to her post was by “radmul,” who wrote,
“No offense congresswoman
but you can't handle prosecuting war criminals for torture
so you have no right to bring your lack of ethics to the Web.”
Another comment, from “dubster,” attacked still another poster who blamed the Megan Meier tragedy on “bad parenting”: “I detest jerks like you, that can't comprehend the gravity and severity of certain things.”
HR 1966 is Sanchez' second attempt (she first filed in May 2008) to enact the “Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act,” a reference to a Missouri 13-year-old who in 2007 killed herself, apparently in despair over a bullying campaign organized against her on MySpace. A federal grand jury brought indictments against one of the teens involved, but the trial jury reduced three of the four felony counts to misdeameanors, and deadlocked on the fourth. Incidents like these have spawned local school policies and state laws against cyberbullying. At least 13 states have passed laws, including California earlier this year. But many of these require only administrative actions, such as suspending or expelling students. And all of them raise the issue of where to draw the line between protecting kids from electronic harassment and protecting the right to free speech.
(2) Hate Crimes Bill: Unintended Consequences, By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
From: Kristoffer Larsson <kristoffer.larsson@sobernet.
nu> Date: 12.05.2009 10:46 PM
May 12, 2009 Beware the Hate Crimes Bill! Unintended Consequences
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
A statute’s words do not tell how the law will be interpreted and applied.
All laws are expansively interpreted. For example:
The Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) was directed at drug lords. Nothing in the law says anything about divorce; yet it soon was applied in divorce cases.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act explicitly bans racial quotas and defines racial discrimination as an intentional act. Yet, quotas were imposed by the civil rights bureaucracy on the basis of the 1964 Act, and intent was replaced by statistical disparity.
The Clean Water Act makes no reference to wetlands and conveys no powers to the executive branch to create wetlands regulations. Yet, for example, Ocie and Carey Mills, who had a valid Florida state permit to build a house, were imprisoned by federal bureaucrats, who claimed jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. The bureaucrats ruled that the clean dirt used to level the building lot constituted discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters of the U.S. No navigable waters were involved, and according to the state of Florida, no wetlands.
The Exxon Valdez accident was criminalized. An unintentional oil spill became the intentional discharge of pollutants without a license, and the bird kill became killing migratory birds without a license. An accident was prosecuted as crimes of intent.
Well informed attorneys can provide many examples. Others are documented in The Tyranny of Good Intentions. Awareness of what can be pulled out of even clearly written laws is essential to the preservation of civil liberty.
With this in mind, consider the Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
Opponents criticize the bill for adding a second punishment to existing punishments for acts of violence. Assault, murder, rape are crimes regardless of motivation. The penalties are sufficient, or can be made so, without applying a new crime of motivation that creates specially protected classes, such as homosexuals and minorities. To commit a violent act against a member of a specially protected class will carry a heavier punishment.
How will a court know whether a violent act was committed because of hatred or because of sexual lust or the need for money? As case law is made, the likely direction will be to eliminate intent. The issue will be resolved by whether the attacked person is a member of a protected class. The mugger who beats as well as robs a victim who turns out to be homosexual or Jewish will have committed a hate crime.
It will prove difficult to separate speaking against members of protected classes, or criticizing their practices, from hate. The two things are easily conflated. Once enacted, hate crimes will become independent of specific violent acts. An eventual likely outcome will be that speaking against members of specially protected classes will itself become a violent act of inciting violence.
Since the passage of the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act in 2004, the US Department of State is required to monitor anti-semitism world wide. The State Department is not required to monitor anti-Americanism or sentiments against Christians, Muslims or Arabs. Thus, the act created a specially protected class worthy of careful monitoring by the US Department of State of negative sentiments expressed against Jews.
In order to monitor anti-semitism, the term must be defined. The definition is subjective and will be widely, rather than narrowly, interpreted. The State Department has come up with its attempt. The State Department’s approach could include any truthful statements about Israel and its behavior toward the Palestinians that the Israeli government or AIPAC or the Anti-Defamation League would deny or contest.
Anti-semitic speech can be interpreted as inciting hatred. Inciting hatred can be interpreted to be a violent act. “Excessive” criticism of Israel is a subjective, undefinable concept that can be used to determine anti-semitic speech. It is easy to conflate “excessive” with “strong.” Thus, demands that Israel be held accountable for war crimes committed in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, or elsewhere become acts of the hate crime of anti-semitism.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
RE: Salmon Nation
Here's one of the places Kristin Smith of the Ecotrust-Salmon Nation-Copper River Watershed Project-Copper River Country Mapping Project is looking for grant funding: http://www.tourismcares.org/RelId/606053/ISvars/default/Worldwide_Grant_Prog.htm
"the education of local host communities and the traveling public about conservation and preservation of sites of exceptional cultural, historical, or natural significance."
Too bad nodody's applying for a grant to teach us locals exactly what the new laws are, or are we not supposed to know that's the bottom line to conservation and preservation?
Of local/personal interest
I don't know much about easements so I'm going to have to become familiar with the Chitina easements map below. I have some friends from Sweden (hi Dave!) whose access to their land near Lower Tonsina crossed Native land and they fought over their access for many years. Most federal and state papers call this the Copper River Basin (as do most of the residents). The name Copper River Country was made up in Tourism and Development planning meetings, in 2006 during a process called Marketing and Branding. This is also when they renamed our highways "Adventure Corridors." Is the Copper River a Wild and Scenic River.
"The Copper River Watershed Project was created to benefit communities along the Copper River with the vision of helping diversify the economy of this unique region while sustaining its natural resources and cultural heritage. The film festival is a benefit for both the AMCC and the CRWP.
"Although we focus on the Copper River and salmon as a renewable resource in our backyard, these films celebrate rivers everywhere and bring home the message that everyone lives in a watershed," said Kristin Smith, Executive Director of the Copper River Watershed Project. http://www.akmarine.org/pressroom/local-conservation-groups-host-wild-scenic-environmental-film-festival/
Interesting that this BLM Chitina map goes all the way to Kenny Lake:http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ak/gdo/ahtna_17b_village_maps.Par.57322.Image.-1.-1.-1.jpg/Chitina_Village_Map.jpg
Good Land Use summary from 2003
More on Land Transfers and easements (17b)
Alaska State Recorder
Here's the TAPS citizen oversight of the pipeline with a Cascadia Wildlands member! I can't help but wonder how much influence this citizen's group will end up having over Alyeska.http://www.copperriver.org/programs/TAPS%20citizens%20oversight
Okay, now I'm not only a potential member of the Salmon Nation I also live in a place called Cascadia too. The leaders are in Cordova; what a suprise. http://www.cascwild.org/alaska.htmlI wonder how the Copper River Watershed Project defends their association with criminals. I wonder if my home has been redesignated by any other new lables. I'm beginning to think that my joke about being a Minor Outlying Island could potentially give me Pacific Islander status.
I'm gonna ask Tim if he wants to join this group: http://www.bigwildlife.org/
And, lest we think we need only survive the above groups, we can't forget the Y2Y project