+menu-


  • Category Archives Enforced Silence
  • FBI Comey Was Mildly Nauseous?

    Read the Rest of the Story… by Pearl Harvey

    HILLARY CLINTON ALMOST GOT AWAY WITH IT BECAUSE OF NATIONAL SECURITY.

    No wonder Comey Was Mildly Nauseous….

    This documented comment is enough to gag a maggot

    Hilary Clinton did not swear an oath to tell the truth before meeting with the FBI for three and a half hours last weekend, and the interview was not recorded, FBI Director James Comey told House lawmakers on Thursday.

    FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY,WAS PROHIBITED BY THE DOJ  TO  ELECTRONIC RECORD HIS INVESTIGATION INTERVIEW WITH HILLARY CLINTON BECAUSE IT INVOLVED NATIONAL SECURITY.

    ———————————————————
    June 3, 2014
    For decades, criminal investigators have known that the best way to obtain and preserve reliable information is to electronically record interviews and interrogations.
    And yet agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation have continued to rely on handwritten notes taken during interrogations, which they later type onto so-called 302 forms.
     ——————————————
    That will finally change. In mid-May, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a memo instructing all federal investigative agencies—including the F.B.I., the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Marshals Service, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives—to use electronic recording while interviewing witnesses and suspects,
    EXCEPT IN CASES  INVOLVING NATIONAL SECURITY
    the new policy goes into effect on July 11th. 
    —————————————————————-
    July 5, 2016
    Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System
    FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY,WAS PROHIBITED BY THE DOJ  TO  ELECTRONIC RECORD HIS INVESTIGATION INTERVIEW WITH HILLARY CLINTON BECAUSE IT INVOLVED NATIONAL SECURITY.
     —————————————————————-
    Why did the F.B.I. resist the change for so many years? Bureaucratic inertia, perhaps, or discomfort with making certain techniques transparent?
    ——————————————————

    May 3, 2017 – Comey said Wednesday that it makes him “mildly nauseous” to think his decision to reopen the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails just days before the election could have impacted voters, but added he would make the same choice again.

    “I faced a choice,” Comey said. “And I’ve lived my entire career by the tradition that if you can possibly avoid it, you avoid any action in the run-up to an election that might have an impact, whether it’s a dog-catcher election or president of the United States. But I sat there that morning and could not see a door labeled ‘no action here.'”

    In his most detailed explanation and strongest defense of his actions to date, Comey said it was a choice between “really bad and catastrophic” to inform lawmakers about the discovery of additional Clinton emails found on the computer of former Rep. Anthony Weiner, the husband of Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

    Comey said he had the choice to either “speak” or “conceal.” He called the decision — which quickly became public — “one of the world’s most painful experiences,” but said making it was the right move.

    ————————————————————

    FBI Memo

    www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20070402_FBI_Memo.pdf
    Apr 2, 2007 – Page 1. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. Frecedauon ROUTINE ‘ Date: 3/23/2006. To: All Field Offices ittm ADIC, sac, and cm:.

    ————————————-

    Bill,

    online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/DOJDocsPt4-1070319.pdf

    Mar 30, 2006 – Details: FBI policy on electronic recording of confessions and witness interviews is contained in a SAC Memorandum 22—99, dated 10 August …

    ————————————————————
    Why did the F.B.I. resist the change for so many years? Bureaucratic inertia, perhaps, or discomfort with making certain techniques transparent?
    ————————————————————-
    Dated 3/17/06 Office of the General Council Investigative Law Unit
    ELECTRON RECORDING OF CONFESSIONS AND WITNESSES
    http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/DOJDocsPt4-1070319.pdf
    This is a 54 page DOJ document
    with a hand written notation “SO WE WANT TO HIDE THE TRUTH? DON’T WANT JURY TO REACH IT’S OWN JUDGMENT?
    It is recognized there are many situations in which recording the subjects interview would be prudent…
    On a case-by-case opportunity to use this technique where and when it will be used to further the investigation and subsequent prosecution….
    ————————————————–
    Except in cases  LIKE HILLARY CLINTON’S involving national security
    —————————————————
    From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent;36 chains contained Secret information at the time
    ———————————————————————–
    July 5, 2016
    Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

    Remarks prepared for delivery at press briefing.

    Good morning. I’m here to give you an update on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.

    After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision. What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.

    This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.

    I want to start by thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work in this case. Once you have a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why I am so grateful and proud of their efforts.

    So, first, what we have done:

    The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.

    Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

    Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.

    click on the link below to read the full text

    Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of …

    https://www.fbi.gov/…/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-…

    Jul 5, 2016Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System. Remarks …

    In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

    Opinions are irrelevant,  they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation.

  • Confront? Question? Demand?

    Confront? Question? Demand?

    Why do  I  personally bother to attend and speak out at  Rep. Derek Kilmer’s Town Hall Meetings?

    Someone’s  GOT TO DO IT … speak  out publicly, in front of the local news media on THE FEDERAL UNMENTIONABLES.

    Someone’s  got to  confronted him with the evidence, ask the hard questions, compel him to face or consider something and  demand answers.

    As our elected rep. in WA DC Rep. Derek Kilmer is responsible to us.

    WHAT WILL  KILMER  DO IN RESPONSE TO

    THE FEDERAL UNMENTIONABLES?

    1. The ISIS terrorist attacks, 62% of Americans are VERY CONCERNED?

    2.  How Is he going to VOTE to prevent the Olympic Peninsula Electronic WAR GAMES. from destroying our entire coastline of public land? And, the entire coastline from Alaska to Mexico?

    3.   How Is he going to VOTE on the FINANCIAL immigration  Crisis? Dec 3, 2014 – Seventeen states filed a joint lawsuit in federal court Wednesday to try blocking President Barack Obama’s executive order on immigration.

    4.  How is he going to VOTE to reform the Obamacare debacle?

    5. Is he going to address the economic crisis created by SUE AND SETTLE?  (ESA)  taking of public and private land, in violation of the Administrate Procedure Act

    6. Is he going to demand JUSTICE from the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT?

    7.  Is he going to support the return of individual states Sovereignty, to the States, of the United States of America? So we can “MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS”

    8. Rep Kilmer put it in writing,  I’ll continue my fight during this Congress to put our government back in the hands of “We the People.”

    —————————————————————————————-

     OK, REP. KILMER, THIS IS WHAT WE THE PEOPLE WANT?

    WHAT REPRESENTATIVE FEEDBACK ARE WE GOING TO GET FROM YOU?

    We the People of the United States, in Order to RE-FORM a more perfect Union,

    MUST RE- ESTABLISH The  Constitution of  the United States of America.

    MUST RE-ESTABLISH JUSTICE,

    MUST INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY

    MUST PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE

    MUST PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE

    MUST RE-SECURE the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

    We do ordain and MUST INSIST ON  the RE-ESTABLISHMENT of the Constitution for the United States of America.

    ————————————————————————————

    Rep. Kilmer Newsletter, below,  states,  I’ll be holding six town hall meetings so I can hear directly from you elected Rep. Kilmer will be holding six town hall meetings so I can hear directly from you. I want to stress these town halls are open to the public, and I encourage everyone to attend.

    It’s time to bring sanity back?

    Despite the overall dysfunction?

    I’ll continue my fight during this Congress to put our government back in the hands of “We the People.”

    Make the government more transparent and responsive?

    ————————————————————

    I, personally, SHALL continue my fight to put our federal, state and local governments  accountable and back in the hands of “We the People.”

    Even if I have to go it alone, with my boots on the ground and making public comments  at public forums.

    And, on my website behindmyback.org  in cyberspace

     


  • We Need a New Public Notice Act

    WE NEED A NEW PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    CASES IN POINT FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL

    1. THE PUBLIC NOTICE OF THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA ELECTRONIC WARFARE PROJECT.

    2. THE CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE UPDATE.

    3.The Pacific Coast Drone project

    4. The Navy residential training that terrorized Port Angeles WA

    5. The West End Broad Band meetings

    6. WA STATE PARKS BLUE RIBBON PANEL

    Best known as, what we don’t notify  American citizens about “CAN” hurt them,

    BUT… it will all be over before American people find out what the hell is going on, so no worries.

    American people won’t feel a thing until after the comment period has expired.

    Then American people can read all about it in the local newspaper, after it’s been passed, to find out what’s in it, what it is and what it was all about.

    —————————————————————————–

    WE NEED A NEW PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    WOW… READ ALL ABOUT IT

    MODEL CITY CHARTER LANGUAGE FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY BODIES

    Making Public Participation Legal – All-America City Award

    www.allamericacityaward.com/…/Making-PublicParticipationLegal_La…

    a ModeL sTaTe PubLic ParTiciPaTion acT: an aMendMenT To The sTaTe … that governs public participation. at the local, state, and federal levels, these laws ..

    —————————————————————————————–

    HERE AND NOW? IN THE REAL WORLD of “We the People”

    WHAT IS THE LOCAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND PARTICIPATION STRATEGY?

    IF YOU ARE HAVING A LOCAL, HUGE MULTI-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD GARAGE SALE, RUMMAGE SALE OR FLEA MARKET?

    AND YOU REALLY WANT THE PUBLIC TO COME?

    You advertise in advance. YOU POST BIG SIGNS WITH THE WHERE AND WHEN every couple of blocks with BIG ARROWS TO KEEP REMINDING AND  INVITING  THE PUBLIC.

    LOCALLY YOU SEE A BIG RUMMAGE SALE BANNER ACROSS FRONT STREET

    AND OUR RADIO STATION KONP GOES ON AND ON ABOUT LOCAL GARAGE SALES

    AND GUYS WEARING SANDWICH BOARDS, DOING THE HAPPY DANCE IN FRONT OF LES SCHWABS, FOR A FLEA MARKET.

    The BIG BANNER across front street even notified THE HOMELESS to come on down to the Vern Burton center and  sign up for local HOMELESS programs and benefits.

    —————————————————————–

    I have mentioned the Real World phenomena  of advertising at Planning Commission Meetings.

    A private (government) response was? “This is not the real world”

    —————————————————————————————-

    OH..BUT… IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE TO  ADVERTISE AND NOTIFY THE AFFECTED LOCAL’S?

    As FOX NEWS,  Judge Jeanine would say….REALLY?

    —————————————————————————

    After the of the Navy’s PUBLIC FORUM FIASCO in PA,  on Electronic Warfare on  the Olympic Peninsula.

    FIASCO? by definition,  a total failure, especially a humiliating or ludicrous one

    —————————————————————————

    MOVING FORWARD,  WHAT CAN”WE THE PEOPLE DO”?

    Expose them, every time there is a  fatal error in Due Process

    Remind them of WA State Law RCW 42.56.030

    THE PEOPLE, IN DELEGATING AUTHORITY, DO NOT GIVE THEIR PUBLIC SERVANTS THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE TO KNOW AND WHAT IS NOT GOOD FOR THEM TO KNOW. etc.

    ———————————————————————————-

    Use Clallam County Home Rule to create a more stringent  public notification and participation process by the county and for the residents of Clallam County, including COUNTY FUNDING for REAL WORLD  advertising.

    Great minds think alike

    HERE IS THE LOCAL SOLUTION

    Making Public Participation Legal – All-America City Award

    www.allamericacityaward.com/…/Making-PublicParticipationLegal_La…

    a ModeL sTaTe PubLic ParTiciPaTion acT: an aMendMenT To The sTaTe … that governs public participation. at the local, state, and federal levels, these laws ..

    Contents

    THREE MINUTES AT THE MICROPHONE

    HOW OUTDATED CITIZEN PARTICIPATION LAWS ARE CORRODING AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

    POLICY OPTIONS FOR STRENGTHENING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AT THE LOCAL LEVEL

    A MODEL MUNICIPAL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ORDINANCE

    A MODEL STATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACT

    AN AMENDMENT TO THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

    ACT AND GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE ACT

    MODEL CITY CHARTER LANGUAGE FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY BODIES

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT:

    THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND CONTEXT FOR VOICE

    RESOURCES FOR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

    ………………………………………………………………

    From the Deliberative Democracy Consortium:

    Tired of tense, unproductive public meetings? Want to embed better online and face-to-face processes in the way governments work? Making Public Participation Legal, a new publication of the National Civic League, includes a set of tools, including a model ordinance, set of policy options, and resource list, to help communities improve public participation. The publication is now available for free. Download here. 

    Most of the laws that govern public participation in the United States are over thirty years old. They do not match the expectations and capacities of citizens today, they predate the Internet, and they do not reflect the lessons learned in the last two decades about how citizens and governments can work together. Increasingly, public officials and staff are wondering whether the best practices in participation are in fact supported – or even allowed – by the law.

    Over the past year, the Working Group on Legal Frameworks for Public Participation has produced new tools, including a model local ordinance and model amendment to state legislation, in order to help create a more supportive, productive, and equitable environment for public participation. The Working Group has been coordinated by the Deliberative Democracy Consortium (DDC).

    Making Public Participation Legal is a publication of the National Civic League, with support from the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation. The Working Group also includes representatives of the American Bar AssociationInternational Municipal Lawyers AssociationNational League of CitiesPolicy Consensus InitiativeInternational Association for Public Participation, and International City/County Management Association, as well as leading practitioners and scholars of public participation.

    Communities that want to move forward with new public engagement processes and policies can also turn to an array of new resources being offered through ICMA’s Center for Management Strategies. CMS has assembled a team of leading engagement practitioners, research specialists, and subject matter experts who can help local governments develop and implement effective civic engagement programs.

    —————————————————————————

    WOW AND CLALLAM COUNTY HAS A HOME RULE CHARTER

    AND 15 NEW CHARTER MEMBERS

    AND THREE CONSERVATIVE COMMISSIONERS

    HOT DAMN… LET’S GO FOR IT..

     

     


  • Are You Voting In 2014?

    Are You Voting In 2014?

    Was that a “YES?”

    NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE VOTING

    Ask yourself the following questions

    1. Have you fought, worked or agreed with the candidate on a local issue?

    2. Have you gone to candidates meet and greets? debates? etc.?

    3. Listened to candidates speak?

    4. Questioned the candidates during and after?

    5. Have you asked them about and discussed the problems in your area?

    6. Where their answers Credible? Specific? Generalized? Evasive? Misleading?

    7. Have you asked them how they can help?

    8. Are they local? Qualified? Experienced? Informed? Knowledgeable?

    9. Have you researched their voting record?

    10. Do you know the sources of their campaign funding?

    Too often the MOST SERIOUS problems we face in OUR County ARE NOT CREATED IN OUR COUNTY, OR by our County elected and appointed representatives.

    THE MOST SERIOUS PROBLEMS WE ALL FACE ARE CREATED BY FEDERAL ACTS  AND STATE MANDATED WAC AND RCW TRICKLE DOWN.

    ———————————————————————————-

    If it is of interest to you? Many of YOUR LOCAL issues and MINE may be similar.

    For my website I do  in-depth investigation and  research.

    I have done research from the top (WA DC) to the bottom (my county)

    I am voting in 2014 like American Lives depend on it.

    —————————————————————————

    THE WHO’S, WHAT’S, WHEN, WHERE AND WHY’S

    I have four campaign poster in my front yard.

    —————————————————————–

    MY  VOTE IS FOR SHEILA ROARK MILLER.

    For director of Clallam County Department of Community Development.

    Sheila Roark Miller appointed me to be on the Clallam County SMP Citizens Advisory Committee for the Shoreline Management Plan Update (she enabled me)

    WHY VOTE  FOR SHEILA ROARK MILLER?

    IN SPITE OF ECOLOGY’S 500 POUND GORILLA  TIPPING THE SCALE AND CREATING  THEIR  APPOINTED IMBALANCE OF STEWARDSHIP ON CLALLAM COUNTY’S SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN (SMP) UPDATE AND THE DUNGENESS WATER RULE.

    She has been working for BALANCED STEWARDSHIP  on the SMP Update through the entire process with ECOLOGY. AND, on the mitigation for water rights in the Dungeness Water Rule area since the beginning.

    Sheila is absolutely the most qualified and experienced.

    ————————————————————————————-

    MY VOTE IS FOR JUDGE PORTER.

    A man that cares enough about the community, to go door to door and talk with us individually about our local concerns and solutions. we spent nearly a half an hour talking on my front porch. He know the names of our local kids and families that have suffered because of the drug problems in Clallam County.

    The problem of  “No funding” that contributes to the catch and release of criminals back into our neighborhood to become repeat offender. “No funding” would include the lack of compensation for the victims of crime.

    He established the pay or appear program and increased gross revenue for the county by $800,000 dollars a year. He provides incentive programs for GED.

    —————————————————————————————————————————

    MY VOTE IS FOR MARK NICHOLS FOR PROSECUTOR

    A man that cares enough about the community, to go door to door and talk with us individually about our local concerns and solutions. we spent nearly a half an hour talking on my front porch. He know the names of our local kids and families that have suffered because of the drug problems in Clallam County.

    The failure to resolve drug problems in the entire State of Washington have become an American family tragedy

    Mark is the most experienced and qualified for the HOME RULE CHARTER.

    He was involved in the last election of the freeholders eight years ago  and has been the legal advisor for the Clallam County Home Rule Charter fifteen elected freeholders. HOW IMPORTANT IS  IT? The Charter is a county constitution designed to give the control of county affairs to the people of the county rather than requiring legislation from Olympia. In addition to the election  of our public officials, specific powers reserved to the people are initiative, referendum, mini-initiative and recall

     Mark is also the Hearing Examiner for Clallam County.

    He really “HEARS” from a lot of people in our community!

    Incidentally, I did attend the meet and greet for Mark at the Sheriff Benedict’s home.

    The Sheriff Benedict, Deb Kelly and I talked about our local kids and families that have suffered because of the drug problems in Clallam County. We spoke of the failure to resolve drug problems in our county that have become local family tragedies.

    MARK NICHOLS has been endorsed by Sheriff Benedict.

    ———————————————————————————————

    MY VOTE IS FOR SHERIFF BENEDICT (even if he is running unopposed)

    ——————————————————————————————————-

    Last but certainly NOT LEAST

    MY VOTE IS FOR BILL PEACH

    COUNTY COMMISSIONER FOR DISTRICT 3, THE WEST END, WRIA 20.

    A qualified Local Representative like “Bill Peach” is LONG OVERDUE

    For as long as I have been involved with Clallam County issues, the West End, District 3,  has been treated like an ILLEGITIMATE  part of our county.

    ILLEGITIMATE  by definition  not authorized by the law; not in accordance with accepted standards or rules.

    ————————————————————————————-

    WHY DOES DISTRICT THREE THE WEST END NEED A LOCAL COMMISSIONER LIKE BILL PEACH?

    ————————————————————

    BECAUSE OF THE  EXCLUSION AND OMISSION OF DISTRICT 3, THE WEST END, WRIA 20. IN THE DUE PROCESS.

    —————————————————————-

    EXCLUSION AND/OR OMISSION from the SMP Update

    There were no private property owners representing WRIA 20 seated at the table for the Clallam County SMP Update Committee.

    WRIA 20 private property owners are PART OF CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE

    —————————————————————————————————————

    EXCLUSION AND/OR OMISSION THE DRONES

    Clallam County THE PDN reports to we the people (after the fact)

    Behind My Back | Drones Why the Secrecy?
    www.behindmyback.org/2013/06/22/drones-why-the-secrecy/‎
    Jun 22, 2013 – THE DRONES WERE NO SECRET TO THE LOCAL TRIBES. WHY WAS THERE ADVANCE OUT REACH to the INDIAN TRIBES?

    ——————————————————————————–

    EXCLUSION AND/OR OMISSION Broadband
    The Rest of The Story
    Posted on September 16, 2013 3:19 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment
    Broadband Access and More
    Clallam County THE PDN reports to we the people (after the fact)

    ———————————————————————————–

    EXCLUSION AND/OR OMISSION OF WE THE PEOPLE

    Behind My Back | “Why Bother With Us?”
    www.behindmyback.org/2013/09/17/why-bother-with-us/‎
    Sep 16, 2013 – “WE THE PEOPLE” ARE JUST AMERICAN CITIZENS, VOTERS, TAXPAYERS,VESTED PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS, SMALL BUSINESS …

    —————————————————————————————————————

    AND THE LATEST EXCLUSION AND/ OR OMISSION OF WE THE PEOPLE

    IN THE  PUBLIC NOTIFICATION PROCESS

     THE ELECTRONIC WARFARE PROJECT FOR USFS OLYMPIC PENINSULA

    www.behindmyback.org  Sep 29, 2014 – Electronic Warfare PROJECT for USFS Olympic Peninsula land? EVASIVE AT THE VERY LEAST. IF THIS “PROJECT” IS NOT A COVER -UP?

    ——————————————————————————————————

    MY VOTE IS FOR BILL PEACH COUNTY COMMISSIONER FOR DISTRICT 3, THE WEST END.

    A qualified “LOCAL  CITIZEN” Representative COMMISSIONER like “Bill Peach” is LONG, LONG, LONG, OVERDUE …….

    BILL PEACH  has the courage to tell you what you may not want to hear: OUR COUNTY HAS A PROBLEM WITH UNEMPLOYMENT, HOMELESSNESS AND DRUGS. HE  RECOGNIZE THIS REALITY AND SUPPORT THE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO CHANGE IT, INCLUDING COUNTY GOVERNMENT.

     

     


  • (3) WA Parks -The We’s Who Want?

    (3) WA Parks -The We’s Who Want?

    WA STATE PARK APPROPRIATIONS

    Governor Inslee WANTS the blue ribbon task force on parks and outdoor recreation,

    that he appointed, to  FOCUS ON RECREATION AND TOURISM.

    I did attend the Aug. 19, 2014  committee meeting in Sequim, and I sat SILENTLY through the meeting from 1 P.M. TO 3 P.M. … TO 8 P.M.

    I was allowed, EXACTLY TWO MINUTES, to make my public comment at 7:50 P.M.

    I listened to what your 28 Appointed Committee member’s “WANT” for about seven hours.

    Rep. Tharinger  mentioned, that what you “WANT” to provide funding for recreation/tourism, and what you may actually get, could be significantly different.

    I do investigative, documented reporting on my website behindmyback.org.

    —————————————————————————–

    Below you will find  an exchange of emails

    Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 10:43 AM

    —– Original Message —–
    From: Farber, Daniel (PARKS)
    To: pearl hewett ; Van De Wege, Rep. Kevin ; Tharinger, Steve ; Hargrove,Jim etc.

    Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 10:43 AM

    Subject: RE: WHO IS THE “WE” WHO WANTS? STATE PARKS APPROPRIATIONS

    —————————————————————————

    Continue reading, for the full text of my questions, comments and the exchanged emails

    ——————————————————–

    Posted April 21, 2013 Pearl Rains Hewett

    WA STATE PARK APPROPRIATIONS

    PUBLIC ACCESS AND APPROPRIATIONS FOR WA STATE PARKS

    Perhaps YOUR last public hearing opportunity on the topic of our request legislation and the Discover Pass is set for Monday, April 22, 2013 at 9 am before the House $$$$$ Appropriations Committee.

    ———————————————————————————-

    To: Daniel Farber, Director
    Policy and Intergovernmental Affairs
    Washington State Parks

    Daniel,

    I am a WA State Park VESTED Stakeholders
    This my comment on YOUR Policy and Intergovernmental Affairs Washington State Parks and YOUR requested $$$$ legislation.
    ——————————————————————
    Washington Wildlife Recreation Program (WWRP)
    The Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program provides funding for a broad range of land protection and outdoor recreation, including park acquisition and development, habitat conservation, farmland preservation, and construction of outdoor recreation facilities.
    —————————————————————-

    MY COMMENT
    I find the title and description of the , WWRP program DISTURBING? It this WA park broad range of land protection, acquisition, development habitat, conservation program designed to provide outdoor recreation facilities for WILDLIFE?
    ————————————————————–

    Capital Budget (Doesn’t include a possible $5 – $10 million infusion for removal of fish passage blocking culverts)

    Governor Inlsee – $46.6 million (plus $8.3 million in WWRP Grants)
    House – $56.9 million (plus $7.9 million in WWRP Grants)
    Senate – $50.7 million (plus $3.3 million in WWRP Grants)
    Commission October Request – $67.8 million (plus $11.5 million in WWRP Grants)
    ——————————————————————
    Per Rep. VanDeWege, $20 MILLION SPENT for removal of fish passage blocking culverts this year.
    —————————————————————

    MY COMMENT
    Last summer families in Port Angeles were putting up tents and camping in their back yards.

    The abysmal failure of the WA State Discover Pass? The cost, Families simply can’t afford to use WA State Parks.

    ———————————————————–
    *From: an online email comment that was forwarded to me (name removed)

    *Also if there is going to be a gas tax increase, NOVA needs its appropriate share.

    MY COMMENT
    Do you really think raising the gas tax and grabbing a piece of the pie, is the solution to increasing park attendance, for the jobless, working poor, economically starved people in Clallam County?

    MY COMMENT is the solution to providing free Public Viewing of WA State Parks just as a NOVA image on Television?
    ———————————————————————-
    THIS IS WHAT WA State Park VESTED Stakeholders ARE UP AGAINST
    ———————————————————————–
    *From: online email comment that was forwarded to me (name removed)

    *Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 11:58 PM
    To: ‘bchw-public-lands-committee’ ; BCHWLegis@groupspaces.com
    Subject: FW: State Parks Legislative Report – April 19, 2013

    Bills regarding State Parks funding are coming fast and either moving or dying. The session is winding down. I am okay with SB5897 and SHB1935 (scheduled for public hearing on Monday).

    It is hard to state support for SHB1935 since it may be an entirely different bill when it is heard on Monday.

    This is the problem with these bills. They are amended on the spot in Committee with no prior review by the public so you may say you like a bill on minute but it is an entirely different bill the next.

    We still want $27million for State Parks from the General Fund, at least $60 million for WWRP (and no games with cherry picking projects), and no sweeps of NOVA. Also if there is going to be a gas tax increase, NOVA needs its appropriate share.

    Well one bill we supported passed both houses. Increasing the size of the Horse Park Authority. At least it is something!!
    *online email comment name removed
    ———————————————————————–

    *Context : Politics Definition of CHERRY PICKING Added 4/21/13
    Exercising favoritism to benefit yourself or your argument.
    Context : Politics, Social Life
    Category: Metaphor
    Semantic: bias, slant
    Usage of “cherry pick”
    This is not fair. You have cherry picked your winners before the competition started.
    Both the political Left and Right cherry pick data to prove their points. Both sides are showing heavy bias.
    ————————————————————–

    From: Farber, Daniel (PARKS) [mailto:Daniel.Farber@PARKS.WA.GOV]
    Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 10:50 AM
    To: Farber, Daniel (PARKS)
    Subject: State Parks Legislative Report – April 19, 2013

    Dear Park Stakeholders,

    For your information, below is the latest report to park staff of issues affecting State Parks in the legislature.

    Daniel
    —————————————————–

    From: Farber, Daniel (PARKS)
    Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 10:45 AM
    To: Parks DL All Employees
    Subject: Legislative Report – April 19, 2013

    Dear Colleagues,

    I want to provide you a brief update on legislative doings since last week’s report.

    A. The Discover Pass and Agency Request Legislation:

    There is no change on the status of SB5897, which combines four major state parks related elements:

    1.The core of our agency request legislation (SB5653) which works to expand partnerships, expand the role of the Park Foundation, and link us more soundly to cultural celebrations, ethnic heritage and the arts.
    2.Discover Pass reforms (SB5289) that formalize existing practice of not requiring/enforcing the Pass when accessing through DNR and WDFW lands. There is no such change on State Parks lands. The bill also allows for wholesaling of the pass, if all three agencies agree.
    3.Establishing a set of performance measurements for state parks, and a reporting function to the legislature.
    4. Provides $5 million per year funding from the litter tax for 4 years to state parks.

    The bill passed the Senate Ways and Means Committee and now sits in the Rules Committee.

    Perhaps the last public hearing opportunity on the topic of our request legislation and the Discover Pass is set for Monday, April 22 at 9 am before the House Appropriations Committee. SHB1935 is set as the first bill up for a public hearing in the House Hearing Room A. At this time we do not know or any amendatory language for that bill. But here is the most reasonable expectation:

    1 It will be similar to SB5897, however it is unlikely to include the litter tax provision.
    2.It may include some provision related to legislative oversight of the potential State Parks-Public Development Authority Co-Management at Fort Worden.
    B.Boating Safety

    SSB 5437 passed the Senate and the House, but in slightly different forms. It is now on the concurrence calendar in the Senate. The bill provides some law enforcement teeth when it comes to operating a boat while under the influence of intoxicating alcohol.

    C. Snowmobile Funding HB2002 has passed the House and now sits in Senate Ways and Means. It would increase fees for snowmobile registration and allow our Commission to set other fees; enabling funding and services to improve to historic levels.

    D. Horse Park Authority A bill to expand the Authority from 7 to 11 members passed both chambers and is scheduled to be signed by the Governor on Monday. Our Commission appoints members to the Authority Board, but has little other relationship to the organization.

    E. Budgets There are no differences to report from last week. The latest versions of the budget proposals are:

    Operating Budget (General Fund or Other Tax Supported Funding)
    Governor Inlsee – $23.7 million
    House – $23.7 million
    Senate – $16.4 million
    Commission October Request – $27.2 million

    Capital Budget (Doesn’t include a possible $5 – $10 million infusion for removal of fish passage blocking culverts)
    Governor Inlsee – $46.6 million (plus $8.3 million in WWRP Grants)
    House – $56.9 million (plus $7.9 million in WWRP Grants)
    Senate – $50.7 million (plus $3.3 million in WWRP Grants)
    Commission October Request – $67.8 million (plus $11.5 million in WWRP Grants)

    I hope you find this report helpful. Please let me know if you have questions or comments.

    Take care,

    Daniel

    Daniel Farber, Director
    Policy and Intergovernmental Affairs
    Washington State Parks
    P.O. Box 42650
    Olympia, Washington 98504-2650
    Tel: (360) 902-8504
    Mobile: (360) 701-5326
    FAX: (360) 586-6580
    E-mail: daniel.farber@parks.wa.gov

    This email and any responses may be subject to state public disclosure laws.
    —————————————————————

    MY COMMENT
    Clallam County Salt Creek Recreation area is a popular FREE ON DEMAND summer refuge for poor working  families.
    Give the WA State parks back to the counties and provide employment for the local people.

    ————————————————————————–
    It would increase fees for snowmobile registration and
    allow our Commission TO SET OTHER FEES

    This entry was posted in Diverting Our Tax Dollars, Public Access to Public Land, WA State Parks,

    —————————————————————————————-

    WA State Park Question?

    Posted on April 21, 2013

    Who is this “WE” who still wants? STATE PARKS APPROPRIATIONS?

    Indeed, I asked a simple question?

    just to be clear, the question remains unanswered?

    ——————————————————
    RESPONSE
    —– Original Message —–
    From: Farber, Daniel (PARKS)
    To: pearl hewett ; Van De Wege, Rep. Kevin ; Tharinger, Steve ; Hargrove,Jim etc.

    Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 10:43 AM

    Subject: RE: WHO IS THE “WE” WHO WANTS? STATE PARKS APPROPRIATIONS

    All,

    My name below is listed from an email headline that I wrote to State Parks staff. But just to be clear, I wrote none of the content of the below email. State Parks is not the “we” referenced by Ms. Hewett.

    Daniel

    Daniel Farber, Director
    Policy and Intergovernmental Affairs
    Washington State Parks
    P.O. Box 42650
    Olympia, Washington 98504-2650
    Tel: (360) 902-8504
    Mobile: (360) 701-5326
    FAX: (360) 586-6580
    E-mail: daniel.farber@parks.wa.gov
    —————————————————————-
    FULL email TEXT INCLUDING QUESTION
    Perhaps YOUR last public hearing opportunity on the topic of our request legislation and the Discover Pass is set for Monday, April 22 at 9 am before the House $$$$$ Appropriations Committee.
    ———————————————————————–

    BELOW, Who is this “WE” who still wants? It is not “WE THE PEOPLE”

    “We” still want $27 million for State Parks from the General Fund, at least $60 million for WWRP (and no games with cherry picking projects), and no sweeps of NOVA. Also if there is going to be a gas tax increase, NOVA needs its appropriate share.

    The same “WE” who wrote
    This is the problem with these bills. They are amended on the spot in Committee with no prior review by the public so you may say you like a bill on minute but it is an entirely different bill the next.

    Set for Monday, April 22, 2013 at 9 am before the House $$$$$ Appropriations Committee.
    ——————————————————–

    From: Farber, Daniel (PARKS)
    Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 10:45 AM
    To: Parks DL All Employees
    Subject: Legislative Report – April 19, 2013
    Dear Colleagues,

    From: name removed email from the ”WE” who wants.

    Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 11:58 PM
    To: ‘bchw-public-lands-committee’ ; BCHWLegis@groupspaces.com
    Subject: FW: State Parks Legislative Report – April 19, 2013

    Bills regarding State Parks funding are coming fast and either moving or dying. The session is winding down. I am okay with SB5897 and SHB1935 (scheduled for public hearing on Monday). It is hard to state support for SHB1935 since it may be an entirely different bill when it is heard on Monday. This is the problem with these bills. They are amended on the spot in Committee with no prior review by the public so you may say you like a bill on minute but it is an entirely different bill the next.

    We still want $27million for State Parks from the General Fund, at least $60 million for WWRP (and no games with cherry picking projects), and no sweeps of NOVA. Also if there is going to be a gas tax increase, NOVA needs its appropriate share.

    Well one bill we supported passed both houses. Increasing the size of the Horse Park Authority. At least it is something!!

    name removed email from the ”WE” who wants.
    ———————————————————————–

    FOR CLARIFICATION
    Context : Politics Definition of CHERRY PICKING Added 4/21/13
    Exercising favoritism to benefit yourself or your argument.
    Context : Politics, Social Life
    Category: Metaphor
    Semantic: bias, slant
    Usage of “cherry pick”
    This is not fair. You have cherry picked your winners before the competition started.
    Both the political Left and Right cherry pick data to prove their points. Both sides are showing heavy bias
    ———————————————————————–

    This entry was posted in Reasonable Man understanding, Public Access to Public Land, WA State Parks

    ———————————————————

    If you bothered to read this far, I have a few closing comments.

    I listened to you, you gave me TWO MINUTES.

    Round and round and round the table, I listened to you , most members? FOCUSED on what they “WANT “. And, what you wanted was MORE TAXPAYER MONEY! for what YOU “WANT”.

    It took a comment from a WA Parks, Whidbey Islander before the word “AFFORDABLE”  RECREATION was mentioned.

    A question to the WA Parks Fort Wardener, how much does it cost? total?

    The answer? We don’t keep track of it?

    FOLLOW THE MONEY?  We don’t keep track of it?

    Rep. Tharanger’s response… basically was, some from here, some from a grant there, more here, more from matching funds there.

    Rep. Tharanger’s response and I quote “Part of the Game”.

    Really? Following Taxpayer money? keeping track of the total amounts? grants? matching funds?

    THE TAXPAYER’S $$$$ MONEY’S IS ALL GONE FOR WA STATE PARKS? RECREATION? TOURISM? AND THE MILLIONS OF $$$ FOR THE BACKLOG OF MAINTAINACE? AND REPAIRS?

    “Part of the Game?” As a vested WA State taxpayer, perhaps someone in Olympia, could forward a copy of the WA State legislated rules for this WA Parks taxpayer money Game?

    ————————————————————————————————————

    Please visit my website for the

    The “RESTORATION” Shell Game

    A highly convoluted “GAME OF RESTORATION” that  is involving the sleight of many, many hands, in which hundreds of  inverted Federal agencies, WA State agencies, WAC’S and /or other NGO, NUTSHELLS are moved about, and hard working taxpayers must attempt to spot which is the one, of many thousands, with  NGO’S or other government agencies are underneath the “RESTORATION” plan.

    WOW!  HOW MANY NUTS CAN YOU GET UNDER ONE RESTORATION SHELL?

    “WE’RE RESPONSIBLE FOR BRINGING THE MORE THAN 600 PARTNERS TOGETHER, designing a unified plan, and making sure money is being spent efficiently, and our region is making progress,” SAYS GERRY O’KEEFE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP.

    To be continues….

     

     

     


  • (1) WA Parks Recreation? Tourism?

    (1) WA Parks Recreation? Tourism?

    WOW! APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR  A BLUE RIBBON TASK FORCE ON PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION. FOCUS ON RECREATION AND TOURISM

    Notification to PUBLIC  in PDN Article published Aug 18, 2014

    One day notification to  meeting Aug. 19,2014 to make PUBLIC COMMENT.

    PDN Article WILL HEAR TESTIMONY FROM THE PUBLIC FROM 1 P.M. TO 3 P.M. AND AT 7:25 P.M. (WRONG)
    ——————————————————————————————————————

    I DID ATTEND AND SIT THROUGH THE MEETING FROM 1 P.M. TO 3 P.M. … TO 8 P.M.

    THE PANEL DID NOT HEAR TESTIMONY FROM THE PUBLIC FROM  1 P.M. TO 3 P.M.

    (1 P.M. TO 3 P.M. was designated as a “FLY ON THE WALL OBSERVER” period)

    ———————————————————————————————————————

    I have previously posted two comments on my website

    May 29, 2014 – PUBLIC MEETING OBSERVER (3) A FLY ON THE WALL.

    ————————. WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL?

     

    The Fly on the Wall Observer? Posted on July 6, 2014 … https://www.aclu-nj.org/files/7313/1793/0127/OPMA_Booklet.pdf. Do I have the right to …

    ———————————————————————————————————

    God forbid that a member of the PUBLIC should be allowed TO ASK A QUESTION  during that time period, OR IN FACT, TO ASK A QUESTION AT ANYTIME DURING THE SEVEN HOUR MEETING .

    WOW, DIRECTIVE… SIT DOWN FOR SIX HOURS? BE QUIET FOR SIX HOURS? LISTEN TO US FOR SIX HOURS? NO QUESTIONS FOR SIX HOURS? NO ANSWERS FOR SIX HOURS OR IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE?

    MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ATTENDING THE MEETING,  SHALL BE ALLOWED EXACTLY  TWO MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR PUBLIC COMMENT AFTER LISTENING TO THE PANEL FROM  1 P.M. TO 7:25 P.M

    ——————————————————————————————————–

    SOMEONE MENTIONED KEEPING THINGS OUT OF THE MEDIA?

    —————————————————————————————————–

    AFTER THE FACT OF DISCUSSION AND PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE DRAFT.

    THE PANEL DID HEAR TESTIMONY FROM THE PUBLIC AFTER  7:25 P.M.

    ————————————————————————-

    One member of the panel objected to making PUBLIC COMMENTS, after the fact and last on their agenda.  

    —————————————————————————————————————

    TO COMMENT OR NOT TO COMMENT?

    I LOVE THE OPEN AND PUBLIC MEETING ACT, ONE DAY NOTIFICATION AND A TWO MINUTE PUBLIC COMMENT SO I CAN GIVE THEM MY TWO CENTS WORTH.

    A woman that said she had been with WA State RECREATION for 30 years, SHE finally did it…

    I had heard ENUF…I filled out the card to make my comment.

    WHY? Because, my family gave up on WA State Parks  OVER FOUR  years ago and they have GONE TO IDAHO AND  HAVE SPENT  10 DAYS EVERY YEAR SINCE THEN, VACATIONING IN IDAHO.

    ————————————————————————————————

    BACK TO THE MEETING  1 P.M. TO 3 P.M. (pertinent parts?)

    WHAT TO DO? WA PARKS NEED MORE MONEY?

    PEOPLE HATE THE DISCOVER PASS – OPTION? GET RID OF THE DISCOVER PASS?

    THE HEAD OF WA STATE PARKS? HE LIKES THE DISCOVER PASS (a new style  is being created?)

    WHAT TO DO? WA PARKS NEED MORE MONEY?

    LET’S TAX THE PEOPLE

    1. Car tax

    2. Bottled water tax

    3. RV tax

    ——————————————————————-

    WHY DO THE PARKS NEED MORE MONEY?

    THE HUGE BACKLOG OF MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS

    TO KEEP PARKS OPEN? TO PROVIDE FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE NOT ONLY THE OUT OF TOWN TOURISTS,  BUT TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE RECREATING TO LOCAL FAMILIES?

    AFFORDABLE? WA STATE PARK RECREATION? (the first mention of the word “AFFORDABLE” was from a Park man from Whidbey Island.

    WHAT A CONCEPT HUGE $$$$ PUSH TO INVITE  OUT OF TOWN TOURISTS TO COME TO WA  PARKS ONLY FOR THE TOURISTS TO FIND OUT THERE NO FACILITIES  AND  NO SPACE AVAILABLE. (they will go to Idaho or Oregon next year)

    WHAT A CONCEPT HUGE $$$$ PUSH TO INVITE  PEOPLE TO COME TO WA  PARKS FOR THE FISHING? ONLY FOR THE TOURISTS TO FIND OUT THERE IS NO FISHING?

    to be continued …

    ——————————————————————————————-

    COMPLETE TEXT OF PDN PUBLIC NOTICE

    Article published Aug 18, 2014
    State outdoor recreation panel to hear public testimony Tuesday in Sequim
    Peninsula Daily News
    SEQUIM –– A panel called by Gov. Jay Inslee to develop an action plan for increasing outdoor recreation activities will hear testimony from the public when it meets in Sequim on Tuesday.

    The task force formed in April also will focus on promoting jobs and business associated with outdoor recreation for the plan due Sept. 18.

    will hear testimony from the public when it meets in Sequim on Tuesday

     

    The panel — which will meet from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. in the Sequim Holiday Inn Express, 1441 E. Washington St. — will hear testimony from the public from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. and at 7:25 p.m.

    The 28-member task force includes 16 citizen members appointed by the governor; state Reps. Steve Tharinger, D-Sequim, and Vincent Buys, R-Lynden; state Sens. Linda Parlette, R-Wenatchee, and Kevin Ranker, D-Orcas Island; and eight representatives of state agencies.

    Tharinger represents the 24th Legislative District, which covers Clallam and Jefferson counties and part of Grays Harbor County. He is running for re-election in the Nov. 4 general election.

    Outdoor recreation statewide directly supports 227,000 jobs and generates more than $22 billion in annual spending on things like equipment, lodging and apparel, according to the state Recreation and Conservation Office.

    More information about the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Parks and Outdoor Recreation can be found on the state Recreation and Conservation Office’s website at http://tinyurl.com/PDN-recreation.


    All materials Copyright © 2014 Black Press Ltd./Sound Publishing Inc.

    to be continued …

     


  • The Crest Act? Gag Orders? Plus?

    The Crest Act? Gag Orders? Plus?

    ‘‘§ 556. UNLAWFULLY HINDERING immigration, border, or customs controls

    HINDERING by definition Get in the way of, to delay or prevent the development or progress of somebody or something

    UNLAWFULLY HINDERING?

    Shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

    ‘‘(a) ILLICIT SPOTTING.—Any person who knowingly TRANSMITS to another person the location, movement, or activities of any Federal, State, or tribal law enforcement agency with the intent to FURTHER a Federal crime relating to United States immigration,

    FURTHER by definition, additional, that is more than or adds to the quantity or extent of something

    ———————————————————–

    THE CREST ACT?

    THE MONOPOLY ACT?, where it is written on cards that send you directly to jail. do not pass go, do not collect $200,  just go straight to…

    THE THREE MONKEYS ACT? “See no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil”

    • In the Western world both the proverb and the image are often used to refer to a lack of moral responsibility on the part of people who refuse to acknowledge impropriety, looking the other way or feigning ignorance.

    ————————————————————————————————————-

    THE CREST ACT

    (A) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 27 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

    ‘‘§ 556. Unlawfully hindering immigration, border, or customs controls

    ‘‘(a) ILLICIT SPOTTING.—Any person who knowingly transmits to another person the location, movement, or activities of any Federal, State, or tribal law enforcement agency with the intent to further a Federal crime relating to United States immigration, customs, controlled substances, agriculture, monetary instruments, or other border controls shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

    ‘‘(b) DESTRUCTION OF UNITED STATES BORDER CONTROLS.—Any person who knowingly and without lawful authorization destroys, alters, or damages any fence, barrier, sensor, camera, or other physical or electronic device deployed by the Federal Government to control the border or a port of entry, or otherwise seeks to construct, excavate, or make any structure intended to defeat, circumvent or evade any such fence, barrier, sensor camera, or other physical or electronic device deployed by the Federal Government to control the border or a port of entry —  ‘‘(1) shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both; and  ‘‘(2) if, at the time of the offense, the person uses or carries a firearm or, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm [such as happened in Vassar, MI, when they protested the possible use of a facility to house UACs – added], shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.  ‘‘(c) CONSPIRACY AND ATTEMPT.—Any person who attempts or conspires to violate subsection (a) or (b) shall be punished in the same manner as a person who completes a violation of such subsection.’’

    ——————————————————————————————-

    John McCain’s CREST ACT: Does it Criminalize Murrieta Style Protests?

    http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2014/07/john-mccains-crest-act-does-it-criminalize-murrieta-style-protests-2886606.html?currentSplittedPage=2

    By Douglas V. Gibbs

    First, I want to say that the first thing we need to do to stem the tide of illegal immigration is to secure the border.  If we don’t secure the border, all other attempts to slow down the flow of illegal immigration will largely be a moot point.  The Constitution demands that we secure the border, and common sense reveals that we must secure the border first.

    However, that all said, let’s address a bill proposed, and supported by, Republicans, that the GOP believes would be a great help in alleviating the problem of illegal immigration at hand.

    We have this funny little thing called the First Amendment, which enumerates the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, and that should not be hindered in any way.

    The CREST ACT, I was originally led to believe, would disallow by law the protests we saw in Murrieta, and criminalize any action by any border patrol agent (including letting us know if planes or buses are on their way) that may be considered assistance to the protests.

    The bill was proposed by the Arizona Senators, including John McCain.

    The bill, I originally thought, is bad enough, we expect bills like this from the democrats.  But republicans?  This is what I mean when I separate the GOP into two distinct groups, calling the problem in the Republican Party the Establishment Republicans.

    I firmly believe that the problem is the good ol’ boys of the establishment side of things are in the majority, and if we are to turn this country around, conservatives, constitutionalists, need to conduct a hostile takeover of the GOP.  If we don’t throw the leftists in the party out on their heels, we will not get this country back under control.

    I have been calling for, and still call for, a hostile takeover of the Republican Party, a convention of States, and a return of local control over local issues largely accomplished by citizens being active in their local politics.  That is how you turn America around.  The difficulty in all of this is that it seems like the establishment (in both parties) is doing what it can to keep us from protecting our rights, and turning this country back towards being a constitutional republic.  This is not just some political disagreement.  When politicians seek to use their power to force their will upon us, and take away our rights to disagree, it is war.

    This is what I received regarding the CREST ACT, originally, by email and on various websites – this specifically from a website called USA Carry:

    Proposed McCain bill would criminalize Murietta/Vassar patriots….

    This is a discussion on Proposed McCain bill would criminalize Murietta/Vassar patriots…. within the Politics forums, part of the Main Category category; John McCain Strikes again with the introduction of the CREST Act, which hires 150 more attorneys to represent “unaccompanied refugee …

    (A) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 27 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

    ‘‘§ 556. Unlawfully hindering immigration, border, or
    customs controls

    ‘‘(a) ILLICIT SPOTTING.—Any person who knowingly transmits to another person the location, movement, or activities of any Federal, State, or tribal law enforcement agency with the intent to further a Federal crime relating to United States immigration, customs, controlled substances, agriculture, monetary instruments, or other border controls shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

    ‘‘(b) DESTRUCTION OF UNITED STATES BORDER CONTROLS.—Any person who knowingly and without lawful authorization destroys, alters, or damages any fence, barrier, sensor, camera, or other physical or electronic device deployed by the Federal Government to control the border or a port of entry, or otherwise seeks to construct, excavate, or make any structure intended to defeat, circumvent or evade any such fence, barrier, sensor camera, or other physical or electronic device deployed by the Federal Government to control the border or a port of entry —  ‘‘(1) shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both; and  ‘‘(2) if, at the time of the offense, the person uses or carries a firearm or, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm [such as happened in Vassar, MI, when they protested the possible use of a facility to house UACs – added], shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.  ‘‘(c) CONSPIRACY AND ATTEMPT.—Any person who attempts or conspires to violate subsection (a) or (b) shall be punished in the same manner as a person who completes a violation of such subsection.’’

    —–

    Then I did a little more digging.

    According to the Tucson News Now website:

    CREST SUMMARY

    Amends the Trafficking Victims Prevention Act (TVPA) to increase repatriation of unaccompanied alien children (UACs) from non-contiguous countries.

    The CREST Act requires UACs from non-contiguous countries be given the same treatment as those from Mexico and Canada with respect to the option of voluntarily returning to their own country.

    In addition, keeping in place the existing screenings, the CREST Act reforms the TVPA to require expedited removal of all undocumented immigrants that are stopped at the border attempting to enter the United States illegally, allowing law enforcement to return them to their home countries within days as opposed months or years.

    Requires mandatory detention of UAC until their cases are fully adjudicated.

    This Act requires UAC to be under the custody of CBP or HHS until they are repatriated or their immigration cases have arrived at an outcome that allows them to remain in the U.S. Exceptions are made for non-federal custody in cases where the UAC is found to be a victim of trafficking, has special needs, or severe physical or mental health needs. In those cases, they can be released to a biological parent that is legally present in the U.S., has submitted to a biometric criminal history check, is willing to face fines for a failure to appear in immigration court, and a safety and suitability study has been completed.

    Increases the number of immigration judges to hear cases and create a separate immigration docket to hear the cases of juveniles.
    The CREST Act authorizes the hiring of 100 temporary immigration judges, 150 new immigration litigation attorneys in the ICE Field of Legal Operations, and 100 new asylum offices to reduce immigration case backlogs.

    The Act prioritizes the swift resolution of cases involving unaccompanied minor children by requiring the creation of a separate juvenile docket in every immigration court in the United States and requiring the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security to bring a resolution to immigration cases, from the issuance of a notice to appear through the exhaustion of appeals, within thirty days.

    Increases the number of refugee applications by up to 5,000 for each of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala.
    This CREST Act requires the administration to carry out in-country processing of refugee applications in these countries and provides funding for the Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations at USCIS to fulfill these requirements.

    Conditions foreign aid on countries’ efforts to secure their borders.

    This Act requires the President to certify that Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador are doing everything they can to prevent the illegal migration of unaccompanied minors or risk losing foreign aid assistance and assist in the repatriation of their citizens.

    Increase penalties for human smuggling.

    The CREST Act increases penalties for those engaging in human smuggling, including the smuggling of unaccompanied minors.
    —–

    Okay, except for the part of buying into the “refugee” argument, which is a load of crap and is simply a ploy being used by the Left to tug on heartstrings, the bill doesn’t seem so bad after all.

    So what is the truth?

    —–

    Jeff Flake, the other Arizona Republican Senator to introduce this bill, had the following from a news article on his website:

    Washington, D.C. – U.S. Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) today formally introduced the Children Returning on an Expedited and Safe Timeline Act (CREST Act), which addresses the mounting humanitarian crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border, where tens of thousands of unaccompanied children (UAC) are being apprehended as they illegally cross into the United States.

    “This legislation attends to the urgent humanitarian crisis on the border today while also addressing with the root of the problem, deterring future flows of unaccompanied children making the long and dangerous journey north,” said McCain. “This crisis will continue until the parents who paid thousands of dollars to smuggle their children north to the United States see plane-loads of them landing back at home – their money wasted.”

    “While President Obama should be doing more to halt the flow of unaccompanied minors crossing the border, Congress also needs to step up,” said Flake. “The McCain-Flake CREST Act would both stem the present tide and prevent future waves of children from making the dangerous journey north.”
    In addition to Senators McCain and Flake, the bill is co-sponsored by Senators Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Jim Inhofe (R-OK).
    —–

    Then I read the text of the bill itself, and received a little “context.”  The hysteria surrounding this bill that says the CREST ACT criminalizes Murrieta Style Protests is not entirely accurate.  The context of the language used is not directed towards protesters, but against the illegal aliens, and those that assist them in coming into the United States illegally.  Plus, the bill tries to address a very serious problem when it comes to the illegal immigration debate, and is for the most part in line with Congressman Ken Calvert’s bill, H.R. 5079.

    Let me explain.

    The buses were arriving in Murrieta every 72 hours, and that clock was based on the time it takes to process the illegal aliens.  By law, minor children from non-contiguous countries could not be rapidly processed and sent back home in 48 hours like their Mexican counterparts.  The hearings of OTMs (Other Than Mexicans) were backlogged, and the processing was more time-consuming than the process it takes to deport Mexicans.  Since illegals are still allowed due process, and hearings for these people from non-contiguous countries could not be conducted within 72 hours, and the maximum legal time for holding someone without a hearing is 72 hours, the people had to be released with a piece of paper telling them to report back later to a border patrol station or ICE facility for their hearing.  And, of course, 95-98 percent of the illegals never reported back for their hearing.and the maximum legal time for holding someone without a hearing is 72 hours, the people had to be released with a piece of paper telling them to report back later to a border patrol station or ICE facility for their hearing.  And, of course, 95-98 percent of the illegals never reported back for their hearing.

    The Senate bill by McCain and Flake, and the House bill by Calvert, are designed to address that problem, to strike the non-contiguous designation out of our laws, and treat these people no different

    The Senate bill by McCain and Flake, and the House bill by Calvert, are designed to address that problem, to strike the non-contiguous designation out of our laws, and treat these people no different than Mexican illegals.  The Senate bill calls for hiring more judges to handle this influx of people at the border, something I suggested we need to do during my interview on NPR, so that we can perform their hearings rapidly, so that they can then be deported as a result of being found guilty of violating the law by crossing the border illegally.  The Senate and House bills are a direct challenge to the 2008 law signed by President George W. Bush that created the special designation of “non-contiguous” allegedly in order to help curb human trafficking, and deal with the problem of the non-contiguous countries refusing to take their people back.

    Could this bill, once it becomes law, be used in the way the hysteria suggests?

    I don’t think so.  Then again, I put nothing past the federal government.  However, before we start believing hysteria, we have to investigate, we have to know what we are talking about, otherwise, the opposition will use our hysterics against us, and label us even more so with the things they love to label us with. . . extreme, racist, dumb, and whatever else they can pull from their evil bag of tricks.

    Let’s be smart about this.  Let’s be informed, and message our commentary in ways that it reveals that we understand the reality behind these issues, and we understand how to carry out our intentions based on the rule of law.

     


  • The Fly on the Wall Observer?

    The Fly on the Wall Observer?

    5 U.S. Code § 552b – Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA)

    For purposes of this section—

    (3) (c), EVERY PORTION OF EVERY MEETING OF AN AGENCY SHALL BE OPEN TO PUBLIC OBSERVATION.

    ——————————————————————————————–

    OPEN TO THE OBSERVATION OF THE  Public Meeting?

    Where did Jefferson County WA come up with their PUBLIC MEETING OBSERVER?

    AKA the  A FLY ON THE WALL?

    ———————————————————————-

    The Public Meeting OBSERVER? PUBLIC COMMENTS?

    Is a public body required to allow a member of the

    public to speak at an open meeting?

    YES AND NO

    BASED ON THE STATE?  Of the State where you reside.

    ————————————————————————

    ILLINOIS  RIGHT TO SPEAK AT MEETINGS?

     Is a public body required to allow a member of the

    public to speak at an open meeting?

    http://foia.ilattorneygeneral.net/pdf/FAQ_OMA_Government.pdf

    The Open Meetings Act requires that public bodies give members of the public an opportunity to speak at a public meeting. Public bodies are authorized to adopt rules regarding the public comment portion of a meeting. Such rules may limit the time allotted for the public to speak.

    ———————————————————————————–

    WASHINGTON STATE  RIGHT TO SPEAK AT MEETINGS?

     Is a public body required to allow a member of the

    public to speak at an open meeting?

    http://www.atg.wa.gov/OpenGovernment/InternetManual/Chapter3.aspx#.U7lbHLEUGGc

    The OPMA does not require a governing body to allow everyone to speak at a public meeting.  A governing body has significant authority to limit the time of speakers to a uniform amount (such as three minutes) or to not allow anyone to speak.  OTHER LAWS MIGHT REQUIRE THE GOVERNING BODY TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK AT A PUBLIC MEETING, but the OPMA does not.

    ———————————————————————————————————–

    NEW JERSEY RIGHT TO SPEAK AT MEETINGS?

    https://www.aclu-nj.org/files/7313/1793/0127/OPMA_Booklet.pdf

    Do I have the right to speak at public meetings?

    The law currently requires municipal governing bodies and

    school boards to set aside a portion of every meeting for public

    comments. Other public bodies may also allow public comments,

    but they are not required to do so. If a public body provides a time for public comment, it may adopt written policies that require speakers to sign up in advance and that limit the time of each speaker.

    When addressing the public body, the public body is not required

    to respond to your questions.

    The public body cannot censor your speech during a public comment portion because it does not agree with you or like what you are saying.

    The public body also cannot prohibit comments based on subject matter so long as the comments relate to any issue “that a member of the public feels

    may be of concern to the residents of the municipality or school district.”

     

    ——————————————————————————————————————-

    U.S. CodeTitle 5Part IChapter 5Subchapter II › § 552b

    5 U.S. Code § 552b – Open  Public Meetings Act

    ————————————————

    Short form? Open Public  Meeting Act ? If you read it? (full text below)

    More is written about what is PROTECTED and NOT OPEN to the public

    ———————————————————————————————–

    5 U.S. Code § 552b – Open meetings

    For purposes of this section—

    (1) the term “agency” means any agency, as defined in section 552 (e)  [1] of this title, headed by a collegial body composed of two or more individual members, a majority of whom are appointed to such position by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and any subdivision thereof authorized to act on behalf of the agency;

    (2) the term “meeting” means the deliberations of at least the number of individual agency members required to take action on behalf of the agency where such deliberations determine or result in the joint conduct or disposition of official agency business, but does not include deliberations required or permitted by subsection (d) or (e); and

    (3) the term “member” means an individual who belongs to a collegial body heading an agency.

    (b) Members shall not jointly conduct or dispose of agency business other than in accordance with this section. Except as provided in subsection (c), EVERY PORTION OF EVERY MEETING OF AN AGENCY SHALL BE OPEN TO PUBLIC OBSERVATION.

     

    (c) Except in a case where the agency finds that the public interest requires otherwise, the second sentence of subsection (b) shall not apply to any portion of an agency meeting, and the requirements of subsections (d) and (e) shall not apply to any information pertaining to such meeting otherwise required by this section to be disclosed to the public, where the agency properly determines that such portion or portions of its meeting or the disclosure of such information is likely to—

    (1) disclose matters that are

    (A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interests of national defense or foreign policy and

    (B) in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;

    (2) relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;

    (3) disclose matters specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552 of this title), provided that such statute

    (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or

    (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;

    (4) disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;

    (5) involve accusing any person of a crime, or formally censuring any person;

    (6) disclose information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

    (7) disclose investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes, or information which if written would be contained in such records, but only to the extent that the production of such records or information would

    (A) interfere with enforcement proceedings,

    (B) deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication,

    (C) constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,

    (D) disclose the identity of a confidential source and, in the case of a record compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, confidential information furnished only by the confidential source,

    (E) disclose investigative techniques and procedures, or

    (F) endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel;

    (8) disclose information contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions;

    (9) disclose information the premature disclosure of which would—

    (A) in the case of an agency which regulates currencies, securities, commodities, or financial institutions, be likely to

    (i) lead to significant financial speculation in currencies, securities, or commodities, or

    (ii) significantly endanger the stability of any financial institution; or

    (B) in the case of any agency, be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action,

    except that subparagraph (B) shall not apply in any instance where the agency has already disclosed to the public the content or nature of its proposed action, or where the agency is required by law to make such disclosure on its own initiative prior to taking final agency action on such proposal; or

    (10) specifically concern the agency’s issuance of a subpena, or the agency’s participation in a civil action or proceeding, an action in a foreign court or international tribunal, or an arbitration, or the initiation, conduct, or disposition by the agency of a particular case of formal agency adjudication pursuant to the procedures in section 554 of this title or otherwise involving a determination on the record after opportunity for a hearing.

    (d)

    (1) Action under subsection (c) shall be taken only when a majority of the entire membership of the agency (as defined in subsection (a)(1)) votes to take such action. A separate vote of the agency members shall be taken with respect to each agency meeting a portion or portions of which are proposed to be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c), or with respect to any information which is proposed to be withheld under subsection (c). A single vote may be taken with respect to a series of meetings, a portion or portions of which are proposed to be closed to the public, or with respect to any information concerning such series of meetings, so long as each meeting in such series involves the same particular matters and is scheduled to be held no more than thirty days after the initial meeting in such series. The vote of each agency member participating in such vote shall be recorded and no proxies shall be allowed.

    (2) Whenever any person whose interests may be directly affected by a portion of a meeting requests that the agency close such portion to the public for any of the reasons referred to in paragraph (5), (6), or (7) of subsection (c), the agency, upon request of any one of its members, shall vote by recorded vote whether to close such meeting.

    (3) Within one day of any vote taken pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2), the agency shall make publicly available a written copy of such vote reflecting the vote of each member on the question. If a portion of a meeting is to be closed to the public, the agency shall, within one day of the vote taken pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of this subsection, make publicly available a full written explanation of its action closing the portion together with a list of all persons expected to attend the meeting and their affiliation.

    (4) Any agency, a majority of whose meetings may properly be closed to the public pursuant to paragraph (4), (8), (9)(A), or (10) of subsection (c), or any combination thereof, may provide by regulation for the closing of such meetings or portions thereof in the event that a majority of the members of the agency votes by recorded vote at the beginning of such meeting, or portion thereof, to close the exempt portion or portions of the meeting, and a copy of such vote, reflecting the vote of each member on the question, is made available to the public. The provisions of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of this subsection and subsection (e) shall not apply to any portion of a meeting to which such regulations apply: Provided, That the agency shall, except to the extent that such information is exempt from disclosure under the provisions of subsection (c), provide the public with public announcement of the time, place, and subject matter of the meeting and of each portion thereof at the earliest practicable time.

    (e)

    (1) In the case of each meeting, the agency shall make public announcement, at least one week before the meeting, of the time, place, and subject matter of the meeting, whether it is to be open or closed to the public, and the name and phone number of the official designated by the agency to respond to requests for information about the meeting. Such announcement shall be made unless a majority of the members of the agency determines by a recorded vote that agency business requires that such meeting be called at an earlier date, in which case the agency shall make public announcement of the time, place, and subject matter of such meeting, and whether open or closed to the public, at the earliest practicable time.

    (2) The time or place of a meeting may be changed following the public announcement required by paragraph (1) only if the agency publicly announces such change at the earliest practicable time. The subject matter of a meeting, or the determination of the agency to open or close a meeting, or portion of a meeting, to the public, may be changed following the public announcement required by this subsection only if

    (A) a majority of the entire membership of the agency determines by a recorded vote that agency business so requires and that no earlier announcement of the change was possible, and

    (B) the agency publicly announces such change and the vote of each member upon such change at the earliest practicable time.

    (3) Immediately following each public announcement required by this subsection, notice of the time, place, and subject matter of a meeting, whether the meeting is open or closed, any change in one of the preceding, and the name and phone number of the official designated by the agency to respond to requests for information about the meeting, shall also be submitted for publication in the Federal Register.

    (f)

    (1) For every meeting closed pursuant to paragraphs (1) through (10) of subsection (c), the General Counsel or chief legal officer of the agency shall publicly certify that, in his or her opinion, the meeting may be closed to the public and shall state each relevant exemptive provision. A copy of such certification, together with a statement from the presiding officer of the meeting setting forth the time and place of the meeting, and the persons present, shall be retained by the agency. The agency shall maintain a complete transcript or electronic recording adequate to record fully the proceedings of each meeting, or portion of a meeting, closed to the public, except that in the case of a meeting, or portion of a meeting, closed to the public pursuant to paragraph (8), (9)(A), or (10) of subsection (c), the agency shall maintain either such a transcript or recording, or a set of minutes. Such minutes shall fully and clearly describe all matters discussed and shall provide a full and accurate summary of any actions taken, and the reasons therefor, including a description of each of the views expressed on any item and the record of any rollcall vote (reflecting the vote of each member on the question). All documents considered in connection with any action shall be identified in such minutes.

    (2) The agency shall make promptly available to the public, in a place easily accessible to the public, the transcript, electronic recording, or minutes (as required by paragraph (1)) of the discussion of any item on the agenda, or of any item of the testimony of any witness received at the meeting, except for such item or items of such discussion or testimony as the agency determines to contain information which may be withheld under subsection (c). Copies of such transcript, or minutes, or a transcription of such recording disclosing the identity of each speaker, shall be furnished to any person at the actual cost of duplication or transcription. The agency shall maintain a complete verbatim copy of the transcript, a complete copy of the minutes, or a complete electronic recording of each meeting, or portion of a meeting, closed to the public, for a period of at least two years after such meeting, or until one year after the conclusion of any agency proceeding with respect to which the meeting or portion was held, whichever occurs later.

    (g) Each agency subject to the requirements of this section shall, within 180 days after the date of enactment of this section, following consultation with the Office of the Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States and published notice in the Federal Register of at least thirty days and opportunity for written comment by any person, promulgate regulations to implement the requirements of subsections (b) through (f) of this section. Any person may bring a proceeding in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to require an agency to promulgate such regulations if such agency has not promulgated such regulations within the time period specified herein. Subject to any limitations of time provided by law, any person may bring a proceeding in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to set aside agency regulations issued pursuant to this subsection that are not in accord with the requirements of subsections (b) through (f) of this section and to require the promulgation of regulations that are in accord with such subsections.

    (h)

    (1) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to enforce the requirements of subsections (b) through (f) of this section by declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, or other relief as may be appropriate. Such actions may be brought by any person against an agency prior to, or within sixty days after, the meeting out of which the violation of this section arises, except that if public announcement of such meeting is not initially provided by the agency in accordance with the requirements of this section, such action may be instituted pursuant to this section at any time prior to sixty days after any public announcement of such meeting. Such actions may be brought in the district court of the United States for the district in which the agency meeting is held or in which the agency in question has its headquarters, or in the District Court for the District of Columbia. In such actions a defendant shall serve his answer within thirty days after the service of the complaint. The burden is on the defendant to sustain his action. In deciding such cases the court may examine in camera any portion of the transcript, electronic recording, or minutes of a meeting closed to the public, and may take such additional evidence as it deems necessary. The court, having due regard for orderly administration and the public interest, as well as the interests of the parties, may grant such equitable relief as it deems appropriate, including granting an injunction against future violations of this section or ordering the agency to make available to the public such portion of the transcript, recording, or minutes of a meeting as is not authorized to be withheld under subsection (c) of this section.

    (2) Any Federal court otherwise authorized by law to review agency action may, at the application of any person properly participating in the proceeding pursuant to other applicable law, inquire into violations by the agency of the requirements of this section and afford such relief as it deems appropriate. Nothing in this section authorizes any Federal court having jurisdiction solely on the basis of paragraph (1) to set aside, enjoin, or invalidate any agency action (OTHER THAN AN ACTION TO CLOSE A MEETING OR TO WITHHOLD INFORMATION UNDER THIS SECTION) taken or discussed at any agency meeting out of which the violation of this section arose.

    (i) The court may assess against any party reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred by any other party who substantially prevails in any action brought in accordance with the provisions of subsection (g) or (h) of this section, except that costs may be assessed against the plaintiff only where the court finds that the suit was initiated by the plaintiff primarily for frivolous or dilatory purposes. In the case of assessment of costs against an agency, the costs may be assessed by the court against the United States.

    (j) Each agency subject to the requirements of this section shall annually report to the Congress regarding the following:

    (1) The changes in the policies and procedures of the agency under this section that have occurred during the preceding 1-year period.

    (2) A tabulation of the number of meetings held, the exemptions applied to close meetings, and the days of public notice provided to close meetings.

    (3) A brief description of litigation or formal complaints concerning the implementation of this section by the agency.

    (4) A brief explanation of any changes in law that have affected the responsibilities of the agency under this section.

    (k) Nothing herein expands or limits the present rights of any person under section 552 of this title, except that the exemptions set forth in subsection (c) of this section shall govern in the case of any request made pursuant to section 552 to copy or inspect the transcripts, recordings, or minutes described in subsection (f) of this section. The requirements of chapter 33 of title 44, United States Code, shall not apply to the transcripts, recordings, and minutes described in subsection (f) of this section.

    (l) This section does not constitute authority to withhold any information from Congress, and DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE CLOSING OF ANY AGENCY MEETING OR PORTION THEREOF REQUIRED BY ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW TO BE OPEN.

    (m) Nothing in this section authorizes any agency to withhold from any individual any record, including transcripts, recordings, or minutes required by this section, which is otherwise accessible to such individual under section 552a of this title.

    ———————————————————————————————-

     

     


  • The Public Meeting “Observer”

    The Public Meeting OBSERVER

    WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL? 

    “If you’re not allowed  to use your free speech to criticize your own government, at a PUBLIC MEETING, then what the hell is the point of having it?”

    —————————————————-

    WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL? 

     THE “NEW” PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA FOR OBSERVER PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —————————————-

    OBSERVER by definition

     

    (1) A person who follows events, especially political ones, closely and COMMENTS PUBLICLY ON THEM.

     

    (2) A  person who watches or notices something

     

    (3) A fly on the wall

    ————————————————————

    Something new has been added to the agenda

    by the Jefferson County Planning Commission

    (complete text bottom)

     ————————————————————

    The Public Meeting OBSERVER-PUBLIC COMMENTS

    Public Meeting OBSERVER

    (1) Historically A person who follows events, especially political ones, closely and COMMENTS PUBLICLY on them,

    has now been officially designate as

    PUBLIC MEETING OBSERVER (3) A FLY ON THE WALL.

     ————————————————————————

     

    WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL?  SILENCING THE VOICE OF OPPOSITION

    “Once a government is committed to the principle of SILENCING THE VOICE OF OPPOSITION, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”

    ———————————————————————————-

    WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL?  ENFORCED SILENCE

     If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, NOT ENFORCED SILENCE.”

     

    ———————————————————————–

    1 day ago – OTHER MEETINGS? Page 1. “Meetings, Smeetings…” What’s the Big Deal? Page 9. Attendees? Right to speak? It’s OK to FORBID ANYONE …

    ————————————————————————-

    Complete text

    JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

    MEETING AGENDA

    1:30 P.M. Wednesday, June 4, 2014

    Queets-Clearwater School, 146000 Hwy 101 (South of Forks)

    ——————————————————-

    Something new has been added

    by the Jefferson County Planning Commission

    WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL? 

    ————————————————–

    OBSERVER COMMENT

    We encourage public participation and

    welcome comments submitted anytime in

    writing or by email at the address shown

    above. We want to hear your ideas or

    concerns.

    The Observer Comment Period on the

    agenda is:

    • An optional time period dedicated to

    listening to the public – Planning

    Commission is not required to provide

    response;

    • Offered at the Chair’s discretion when

    there’s time;

    • Not a public hearing – comments made

    during this time will not be part of any

    hearing record;

    • May be structured with a three-minute per

    person time limit.

    When the Chair recognizes you to speak,

    please begin by stating your name and

    address.

    Audience members are asked to avoid

    disrupting the business being conducted and

    are welcome to interact informally with

    Planning Commissioners before or after the

    meeting and during the break.

    Please silence cell phones and other devices

    ————————————————————————-

    The bottom line

    “If you’re not allowed  to use your free speech to criticize your own government, at a PUBLIC MEETING, then what the hell is the point of having it?”

     

    ———————————————————————–

    1:30 PM A. OPENING BUSINESS:

    • Call to Order – Kevin Coker, Chair

    • Roll Call & Quorum of Members

    • Approval of Agenda

    • Approval of 5/21 Meeting Minutes

    • Staff Updates

    • Committee Reports/ Commissioner Announcements

    1:45 PM B. CONTINUED BUSINESS:

    1. Comprehensive Plan Update

    2. Planning Commission Public Survey

    3:00 PM Observer Comment

    3:15 PM C. CLOSING BUSINESS:

    • Summary of today’s meeting –

    Follow-up action items

    • Agenda items for next meeting –

    June 18, 2014 at 6:30 pm at Quilcene School

    3:30 PM D. ADJOURNMENT

    ————————————————————————–

    PUBLIC SERVANTare not the people’s master

     

    PUBLIC SERVANTS?   ARE ALL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS OR EMPLOYEES

    All public commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof.

    —————————————————————————–

     RCW 42.30.030Meetings declared open and public

    All meetings of the governing body of a public agency shall be open and public and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the governing body of a public agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.

    —————————————————————————–

    Chapter 42.30 RCW

    OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT

    RCW 42.30.010

    Legislative declaration.

    The legislature finds and declares that all public commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of this chapter that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly. The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

    ————————————————————————————–

    RCW 42.30.130

    Violations.— Mandamus or injunction Any person may commence an action either by mandamus or injunction for the purpose of stopping violations or preventing threatened violations of this chapter by members of a governing body.

    ————————————————-