Bernie Cassidy - Send Me your Bernie Cassidy Story

Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Bernie Cassidy soon to be in a class action lawsuit, federal Rico Lawsuit and Criminal Complaint regarding the many victims of Bernie Cassidy, District Attorney Libby Montana

Read more...

Judge Brooks Blitch, Example of How Corrupt Judges Operate

Read more...

Judge Brooks Blitch, Example of How Corrupt Judges Operate

Read more...

Expose Corrupt Judges. Start a Blog, Tell your Story, Blog on My Sites to promote yours. Bring Down the Wall of Corruption.

Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Read more...

Montana Medical Marijuana Act - Montana's Right to Govern Itself.

Liberty-Lover,

This is a very important matter. I strongly encourage you to read it and spread it around to all your contacts (and make sure that if you forward the email, this portion is at the top of the email).

Legal Action

The county attorney in Flathead County has prosecuted citizens of Montana with a felony carrying up to 20 years in prison for activity that even lawyers in the Montana’s Department of Health and Human Services, who are charged with administering the Medical Marijuana Act, believe is lawful. (But they won’t publically state so because of fear of political punishment from mainly the republican party.)

Yet, the criminal prosecution is pursued under draconian felony criminal statutes against those who are (at the least) acting in good faith under the Medical Marijuana Act. Compare: even a distributor of other controlled (prescription) substances who illegally delivers such drugs commits only a misdemeanor (See, Section 37-7-603, MCA). The effect of this is too serious for those who want to have the protection of Montana law.

Thus, I filed a suit against Ed Corrigan, the county attorney (see attached), to have the court rule on the issues raised concerning a caregiver’s rights under the MMA. Among other responses, Corrigan filed a motion for summary judgment to get my action dismissed and to get the court to rule that the issues I raised are answered in the negative.

In response to Corrigan’s motion for summary judgment, I prepared and filed the brief attached in the case, Montana Marijuana Growers Association v. Corrigan, DV-11-338.

Spread the Brief

Spread this email around and get people educated. This case is not about marijuana. It is about the lawfulness of the government arresting and prosecuting citizens of Montana who want to have the protection of the law. This effects everyone because it could be another law that is unlawfully enforced against you or your children.

We need strong morale and support of this action--and others. For there are many other issues relative to state and federal government action against citizens of Montana—things the media doesn’t tell you—things I learn about only in the practice of law—the media seems to only tell you how bad marijuana is so the people will not pay attention to the injustices perpetrated against those “dopers”.

Contribution

We need funding for this case. I took this case in good faith that there would be people willing to raise the money to pay for my attorney work I am doing, given the seriousness of the issue. I received just over $3,000.00 at the beginning of this case (the court costs alone have reached $500.00), and that retainer amount is getting low given the amount of work that I have put into this case as is reflected by this brief’s detail alone. There is much more to do.

Please, donate to this matter. Any amount will help, and many hands make light work. You can make your check out to Baldwin Law Offices, PA.

A Moral Attorney is Important in a Free Society

I’ve been belittled and called “that attorney who represents ‘dopers’”. Well, if there are no attorneys willing to represent those people in society that are labeled as “outcasts”, what will you do when you are considered the “outcast” and what attorney will be willing to take your unpopular case? If an attorney like me cannot get support from the community on such an important matter, then it is likely that an attorney like me will not be able to help you in your case when you are targeted.

Contact people you know who believe in the cause of limiting state and federal government to its lawful place that we need more contributions for this case and others like it that need to be filed against the federal government.

Further Significance of MMGA v. Corrigan: Montana Sovereignty/Limit Federal Government

If we can prevail on this case, it will help tremendously in combatting federal usurpation of the people’s rights in Montana. Again, this is not about marijuana. This is about liberty, state sovereignty and self-governance.

Whether or not you agree with the medical marijuana act is not the point. The point is for all government to be bound by the law and for the federal government to respect Montana’s right to govern itself. As long as the state of Montana does not protect the rights of Montanans, the federal government will be able to come into our state all day long and arrest, search and seize all the people and property they want.

If you do not believe me, I’d love for you to study the federal forfeiture laws and see what they can do to your propertywithout due process of law. (This is another action I want to bring on behalf of the people of Montana.)

If we cannot regulate our own health and plants and activities relative thereto, then we can’t regulate any other issue and Montana is just a county of the ONE-STATE-AMERICA. It may be YOUR pet issue that is usurped by the federal government one day.

This is the time to stand together. Please help us.

In Liberty,

Tim Baldwin

1001 S. Main St.
PO Box 1520

Kalispell, MT 59903

www.libertydefenseleague.com

Read more...

Libby Montana Mayor and Council Letter Regarding Illegal March 8th Meeting Minutes.

"Illegal March 8 meeting minutes

Mayor and Council;

Our City Clerk uses the same digital recorder that I have, an Olympus model VN- 5200PC. It is an amazing little device and is capable of emailing the entire meeting of March 8 to all of us. We have witnesses that saw her using this recorder on March 8. If she erased the meeting recording before the minutes were approved, it raises an issue for law enforcement.

I am requesting that we all recieve an email of the meeting so we can correct the minutes. One line coming out of a 35 minute meeting does not capture the substance of that meeting.

The minutes as written constitute nothing less than tampering with the public record. I want to be able to tell people I protested illegally closing the meeting...it doesn't reflect my protest in the minutes. The recording will show that I was very much opposed to this illegal move and I have witnesses who saw me argue for their right to a transparent government.

Mayor Roll has great disdain for transparent government as evidenced when he closed a meeting to deny my motion for transparency in our actions with EPA. Coupled with the secret negotiations which changed the unit rate for topsoil, it is looking like Mayor Roll is controlling the entire issue in the backrooms of City Hall.

I want support for my argument that Lincoln County Deputy Attorney Allan Payne is giving the Council bad advice. The minutes as written have hidden the fact that he lied to us and closed a public meeting under false pretense. I want the opportunity to confront Mr. Payne publicly with the recording of his deeds. I want the public to know the important issues we discussed out of their view.

I tried to argue that County influence, especially Tony Bergets' County influence through Allan Payne, would harm our position in cleanup of OU-1. The two County employees on the Council, Mr. Bischoff and Mrs. Benson, stifled my comments with an illegal motion to end debate when we were voting to enter into agreement with Mr. Payne. The debate continues.

This Council seems to think if they can force their agenda through sheer political will and hide their actions from the public, they can make a vote and the arguments die, even if your actions are illegal. EPA has this same philosophy. it is a false belief.

EPA is forcing the City to accept a "cleanup" that allows continuing exposure to a substance of unknown toxicity in perpetuity on OU-1. Commissioner Berget just wants this issue behind him. His County influence in our City dealings is going to cause a train wreck if we don't request that EPA actually protect human health on OU-1.

I want the public record to show that I was the voice of reason and that members of this Council with conflicts of interest forced this illegal meeting to hide their actions from the public.
Mayor Roll, please instruct your Clerk to release the recording of the March 8 illegal meeting.
Sincerely, DC Orr"

To DC Orr From Bill Bischoff

"Councilman Orr:

Your e-mails are becoming more and more annoying. You continually try to prod responses from people by making false accusations and lying even though we’ve been advised by counsel that e-mail streams constitute a meeting. If you were really concerned about illegal meetings, you wouldn’t continually do this.

These issues should be publicly debated in an open meeting. Quit hiding behind your computer and bring them up at a meeting. I’m not sure you can think that quick on your feet to debate things publicly, but we’ll go slow so you can keep up.

Please exclude me from anymore of your false and intentionally misleading e-mails. If you continue to send them to me, I’ll set up my spam blocker to catch them.

Bill"

Read more...

Ron Nelson Construction - Rexford Montana. Nelson Construction Montana. Ron Nelson Montana Contractor.

Coming Soon My Experience with Ron Nelson Construction - Rexford Montana.

Nelson Construction Montana. Do you have an Experience with Ron Nelson Construction - Rexford Montana. Nelson Construction Montana to share?

Also Coming Soon RonAndDarcy.com  Facts and Documents that expose Ronald J. Nelson a Jehovah's Witness Elder since 1973, of fraud, perjury, and defamation.  

More information coming soon on the strong probability that Ron Nelson has bought off  attorneys, coerced insurance agents, lied about and falsified documents including appraisals, fraud against the electric company and failure to complete many contractual obligations.

The "Truth" about Jehovah's Witness Elder Ron Nelson Coming Soon.

Email Me your Tip on Ronald Nelson Montana Contractor

Ron Nelson Builder - Ron Nelson Construction

Crystal L. Cox

Real Estate Industry Whistleblower

Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Read more...

Rep. Mike Cuffe, Rep. Jerry Bennett and Sen. Chas Vincent on House Bill 198, involving eminent domain issues

" Below you will find a letter written by our elected representatives explaining why they have voted for HB 198 whose future use will allow any company or corporation to condemn rural property.  Below that, you will find my response to them.  I thought republicans were on the side of protecting private property rights?    Situational normal, they got the grease, we get the shaft. 

 

This is a long read - and if you own rural property, it will be an eye opener as to what our three elected representatives have done to rural property owners by their vote.  I must be crazy - I thought their JOB was to represent our voice.

 

If you wish to express your thoughts on this subject, go to

http://polymontana.com/2011/03/23/three-legislators-explain-why-they-will-vote-yes-on-hb-198/

 

 Rhoda

 

 

EMINENT DOMAIN revised

By Rep. Mike Cuffe, Rep. Jerry Bennett and Sen. Chas Vincent

House Bill 198, involving eminent domain issues, meets constitutional standards for both U.S. and Montana Constitutions.  Our thoughts are outlined below. 

After considerable consideration, each of us have or will vote yes on House Bill 198, commonly referred to as the Eminent Domain Bill.  This bill addresses one particular issue and doesn’t expand or change eminent domain in any way other than to write down how it traditionally has been applied in Montana.

House Bill 198 was developed to address a specific issue in northern Montana which developed when a district court ruling overturned 100 years of legal precedent regarding eminent domain.  Until now, the construction of an electric power line has been widely considered a public use for which a right of way could be acquired through eminent domain.  The Legislature’s declaration of public use determines whether eminent domain is or is not appropriate.  But the court said the Legislature hadn’t specified whether the nature of that public use changes based on the character of the person or company building the power line.  In this case, a Canadian corporation more than 60 percent owned by Americans was building a power line which included a collector line feed from Montana wind generators as well as electricity generated in Canada.  The company had successfully gone through the Montana DEQ permitting process and had invested millions of dollars into the project.  This process is both very extensive and very expensive, and the corporation is licensed to do business in Montana. 

We did review both Montana and U.S. Constitutions prior to supporting H.B. 198.  We agree that this bill did fit constitutionally with both.Basically, Eminent Domain, the taking or use of private property for public use, can be exercised as long as just compensation is provided.   

--Per U.S. Constitution:“…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

--Per Montana Constitution:  “Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation to the full extent of the loss having first been made to or paid into court for the owner.  In the event of litigation, just compensation shall include necessary expenses of litigation to be awarded by the court when the private property owner prevails.”

House Bill 198 puts into statute what has been practiced since the early days of Montana.  We believe this was a good and necessary vote for Montana.  Over the years, Eminent Domain has been exercised for roads, ditches, logging flumes, logging railroads, dams, mining operations, pipelines, other railroads power lines, and highways.   It has been exercised by governments and private corporations from both Montana and other places. 

House Bill 198 was narrowly written to reaffirm the longstanding legal tenet that a certified entity providing electrical transmission has the right of eminent domain in the event a negotiated agreement cannot be reached.  Passage of H.B. 198 clarifies the status quo prior to the district court’s ruling in November, 2010.  This bill is supported by Northwestern Energy, MDU, and MATL and would apply retroactively to Major Facilities Siting Act (MFSA) certificates issued since September, 2008.

House Bill 198 clarifies that public utilities regulated by the Montana Power Service Commission have the right to use eminent domain, if necessary, in the construction of a power line.  It also clarifies that a project certified under MFSA by Montana Department of Environmental Quality has the right to use eminent domain.

None of the provisions in this bill expand eminent domain, nor does it empower anyone other than those already set out by the Montana Legislature.  Any entity seeking to build a transmission line for renewable or traditional energy transmission would still have to comply with the MFSA certification process.  Again, this is both expensive and involves extensive work.  Due process and just compensation aren’t addressed in House Bill 198, they remain the same as outlined in the Constitution.  As amended, this bill doesn’t apply to a public utility’s affiliates and subsidiaries.  Despite popular belief, H.B. 198 doesn’t specifically address MISTI transmission line because that project has yet to receive MFSA certification.

DUE PROCESS and MFSA Modifications

In addition, there are several bills currently in the works to improve the process of siting a power line to allow more flexibility for landowners and project developers.  They will also ensure that landowner considerations are put in the front end of the process of negotiations, rather than at the end.

All three of us have been involved with all of the legislation proposed because we believe that most of the problems surrounding the MATL project could have easily been avoided and should not be revisited in the future. 

Eminent domain is and should always be used as a last resort, but it is a necessity for many public purposed.  If we are to be a state that responsibly develops its natural resources we need the infrastructure in place to be able to do so. We also need to strike a delicate balance with private property rights, as they are equally important to a free and prosperous state.  When the two collide we need to ensure that there is a fair and equitable process to produce livable outcomes for everyone involved.  

REPLY TO THE THREE MUSKETEERS:

For all the sound bite chances the Daunting Trio (DT’s) has produced, they do not begin to address the real issue.  Does the legislative branch have the power to interpret law?  The answer to that is NO.

The Montana Constitution provides for three distinct and separate divisions of government; Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches.  It was thus established as a means of check and balance; each with their own distinct areas of authority so that no one branch could gather all power.  Each of these branches has a distinct and essential role in the function of the government, as established in Article III, Section 1:

The power of the government of this state is divided into three distinct branches--legislative, executive, and judicial. No person or persons charged with the exercise of power properly belonging to one branch shall exercise any power properly belonging to either of the others (emphasis added), except as in this constitution expressly directed or permitted.   

All three branches have specific functions: The executive branch is to ensure that laws are carried out and enforced to facilitate day-to-day responsibilities of the state government.  The legislative branch, as a whole, is charged with passing the state’s laws and allocating funds for the running of the state government.  The judicial branch’s primary function is to hear cases that challenge legislation or require interpretation of the legislation.

THE ISSUE:  Does the Legislature have the power to interpret law?

HB 198 is unconstitutional in that it usurps the power of the Judiciary.  It is the constitutionally provided, distinct and singular authority of the judiciary to interpret legislation.  HB 198 is a bill that circumvents this process.  It is an action that is constitutionally prohibited:  No person or persons charged with the exercise of power properly belonging to one branch shall exercise any power properly belonging to either of the others

The issue here is not the constitutionality of eminent domain; it is who is authorized by law to exercise that power.  To answer that question requires “interpretation” which is constitutionally given to the judicial branch NOT the legislative branch.  In the specific issue of MATL this bill will, in effect, over turn a court ruling.  The legislative branch does not have the constitutional authority to do this.

MATL believed it had the authority, by law, to condemn property.  A Glacier County Judge ruled that the legislature had never “granted a corporate entity the right to condemn private property for the business of constructing and operating a private (for profit) “merchant” transmission line.” Attorney Hertha Lund.

Lund further states, “The fact is that the U.S. and Montana Constitutions protect property against taking for private purposes. Montana law provides: "Eminent domain is the right of the state to take private property for public use." The Legislature may grant eminent domain authority in order to override an individual's private property rights, but only for a public use [emphasis added]. The Court found that the legislature had not [emphasis added] given MATL power to condemn private property.”

The criterion for eminent domain has always been public use.  The bill, in Section 2, strikes out “public use”.  Roads are such projects that provide benefit to the public. “But MATL will not provide electricity to Montana homes (or even American homes).” There is no public benefit derived from MATL

HB 198 does not clarify the law, it revises it.  It is claimed by the DT’s from Lincoln County that it only clarifies a practice that has existed, by opinion, for over one hundred years in Montana . If status quo were applied to this situation, it would mean “allowing a public utility, which MATL is NOT, the authority to condemn property for the development of transmission lines to deliver electricity to Montanans (which it will not)”.  This is NOT old history, it is a ground breaking entrance into virgin territory; Merchant transmission lines.

I find it ironic that when MATL brought a condemnation suit against land owners, the court held MATL had no such authority.  MATL could not provide constitutional or statutory reference that supported their position.  When the land owners won, they were seen by many legislators as the problem that prevented this multi-million dollar, federally funded, project from being completed; when in fact, it was MATL’s lack of due diligence that created the problem. 

MATL believed the OPINIONS of the governor and legislators that assured them they had eminent domain authority.  It was their law suit filed against private property owners in a condemnation preceding that back fired on them when the court ruled they did not have condemnation authority.  MATL is at fault for not recognizing merchant lines were not addressed by existing law. Lack of due diligence has put MATL in a time crunch with federal stimulus money and they sought immediate relief from those that assured them they had authority, i.e., the governor and MANY legislators. 

The Court found: "Private real property ownership is a fundamental right," and stated: "MATL does NOT possess the power of eminent domain, either express or implied, and it has NO authority to take the private property from a non-consenting landowner."

The DT’s claimed, in their letter, they have reviewed the constitution and all agree MATL has condemnation authority.  The only thing they proved is that they know how to cut and paste. Mike Cuffe is a former newspaper editor.  Bennett, I think is a local businessman and that leaves the last, but not least, a 15^th generation logger.  I will stand corrected on the DT’s background, but one thing I know for certain is that none of them our constitutional scholars.  What arrogance to proclaim that elected position bestows upon them some qusai-heavenly power that has taken experts decades to be conversant in.

The issue is who has authority.  The problem is legislators usurping judicial powers.  Period. 

Living in Lincoln County , I am ashamed to admit on this widely read public forum that the DT’s are the best representation that the people of Lincoln County could pick.  Their combined arrogance and comments are an affront to the citizens of Lincoln County and to state citizens as a whole.

Put this issue where it belongs; in the court system.

We will address you in the next election.

My mama taught me: If I want to know “why”, follow the money.  ""

Crystal L. Cox
 Investigative Blogger

"the Media"

Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Read more...