Nemo Me Impune Lacessit

Wednesday, 25 October 2017

[CTB-NM] Two down, another pending

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , — mikewb1971 @ 10:45 PM (22:45)

From the The Los Alamos Monitor

New Mexico Supreme Court ousts Aztec magistrate from office

SANTA FE (AP) — The New Mexico Supreme Court has removed Aztec Magistrate Court Judge Connie Johnston from office for misconduct that a state commission said included dishonesty, surreptitious recording of private conversations in the courthouse and abuse of her judicial power of contempt.

The high court’s order issued its order Monday following a hearing on the Judicial Standards Commission’s April 10 petition seeking removal of Johnston from office.

Her term was set to end in December of 2018.

The commission’s petition cited Johnston’s “dishonesty shown in committing various acts of willful misconduct and throughout the commission’s proceedings, including her false statements under oath as well as her concealment of surreptitious recordings that she was ordered to disclose but kept secret until midtrial when she perceived a personal advantage to disclosure.”

(The first judge to go since we started this campaign was Pamela Smith from Sierra County.)

From The Carlsbad Current-Argus

IPRA request revealed explicit emails on judge’s account by DeJanay Booth

It would seem that the New Mexico judicial system isn’t exempt from the Inspection of Public Records Act [IPRA].

The NM Foundation for Open Government [NMFOG] has the details on how to submit an IPRA request, including a sample request in PDF format.


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. CTB-NM Main Page
  2. The CTBNM Facebook page — like it, share it, spread it around.
  3. Ballotpedia page about New Mexico Courts
  4. Ballotpedia page about New Mexico judicial elections
  5. National Council for State Courts — Judicial Selection in the States: New Mexico

Saturday, 14 October 2017

[CTB-NM] Another Judge in Hot Water

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 8:18 AM (08:18)

It seems like we’re on a roll here with Clear the Bench New Mexico — already we’ve found a second judge in hot water.

This story comes to us from the Carlsbad Current-Argus.

It seems that Eddy County Magistrate Court Judge Henry Castaneda was playing on the internet using State-owned equipment (reading and forwarding
emails with “‘offensive, degrading, pornographic, racist and sexist’ content”), got busted, and now the NM Judicial Standards Commission wants him bounced from the bench.

Aren’t Democrats supposed to be the ones who are against racism, sexism, and Islamophobia?

If Castaneda had read and forwarded those emails on — get this radical, whacked-out concept — a PERSONALLY-OWNED computer instead of one
issued to him by the State of New Mexico, this most likely would not have happened.

  1. The Los Alamos MonitorEddy County magistrate judge removal sought over emails
  2. Carlsbad Current-ArgusNM Judicial Standards Commission recommends removal of Judge Henry Castañeda by DeJanay Booth
  3. KOB 4 Eyewitness News — Petition filed to remove Carlsbad judge from the bench
  4. U.S. News & World ReportEddy County Magistrate Judge Removal Sought Over Emails

Friday, 13 October 2017

[CTBNM] One Down, So Many Left to Go . . .

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 7:40 AM (07:40)

One down already, before CTBNM has raised any money, set up a real website, or anything!

While Judge Pamela Smith wasn’t even on the list of targeted judges, and it didn’t involve an election, as CTB-Colorado, which we’re hoping can serve as a template for CTB-NM, has been using, it still works — one judge using her position to screw people out of their stuff is now off the bench.

And what was she doing moonlighting at the Office of the Medical Investigator while serving as a judge? Isn’t that a bit of a conflict of interest?

Friday, 13 October 2017 —

  1. From KRQE News 13 — New Mexico judge resigns after allegedly stealing from a dead man by KRQE News 13 and Rebecca Atkins
  2. From the Albuquerque JournalProbate judge resigns to avoid state discipline by Katy Barnitz, Journal Staff Writer

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. The CTBNM Facebook page
  2. Introductory blog post

Thursday, 12 October 2017

Clearing the Bench New Mexico

Filed under: Networking, Organizing, Politics, Principles, Resistance — Tags: , , , — mikewb1971 @ 11:56 PM (23:56)

Getting tired of judges who view the federal and State Constitutions as their personal Charmin rolls where your liberty and property are concerned?

In New Mexico, if a judge seeking to be retained during an election receives less than 57 % of the votes cast in his / her retention race, than the judge in question loses his / her spot on the bench, and returns to the private sector.

Q: What, exactly, did they do to need cleared?[1]

A: What have they done to warrant retention?

The burden of proof isn’t upon us, We The People, to prove that they warrant removal, it’s upon them to prove that they warrant retention.

The intent here with Clear the Bench New Mexico is to develop something along the lines of Clear the Bench Colorado (CTBC)

Facebook page for Clear the Bench New Mexico — feel free to share the page with friends, family, whoever!


NOTE — This is a TENTATIVE list being posted here:

State Supreme Court — Charles W. Daniels, Petra Jimenez Maes

NM Court of Appeals — Henry Bohnhoff, Emil J Kiehne, Stephen French

2nd Judicial District (Bernalillo), Division XXV, Albuquerque — Jane Levy

3rd Judicial District (Dona Ana), Division III, Las Cruces — Conrad F. Perea

5th Judicial District (Chaves, Eddy and Lea), Division X, Roswell — Dustin K. Hunter

6th Judicial District (Grant, Hidalgo & Luna), Division I, Silver City — Timothy Aldrich

7th Judicial District (Catron, Sierra, Socorro & Torrance), Division III, Estancia — Shannon Murdock

Reference: http://www.sos.state.nm.us/2017-state-of-new-mexico-roster-revised-09-27-17.pdf


NOTES

  1. Question originally posed by Jennifer Sensiba here
  2. Approximate reading level – 15.4
  3. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook [page / profile] / Gab / Google Plus / Liberty.me / Liberty Society / Minds / seen.life / Tea Party Community / Twitter / VK
    2. Albuquerque Liberty Forum Facebook page
    3. Wood Chipper Facebook page
    4. Vote the Air Facebook page
    5. Vote the Air NM Facebook page
    6. Vote Dumpster Fire Facebook page
    7. KCUF Media Facebook page
    8. Absurdist Discordian Party of New Mexico Facebook page
    9. The Weekly Sedition Facebook page
    10. New Mexico Dissent and Expose Facebook page

Tuesday, 10 November 2015

[Garrison Center] Arbitration Isn’t The Problem

Filed under: Media, Politics, Principles, Reading — Tags: , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 10:26 PM (22:26)

Arbitration Isn’t The Problem

November 5, 2015 — Thomas L. Knapp

Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Robert Gebeloff of the New York Times claim to have discovered “a far-reaching power play orchestrated by American corporations” (“Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice,” October 31[1]). They’re missing the forest for the trees. Arbitration is not the problem.

Corporate preference for private arbitration instead of litigation in government courts is nothing new. The twist in the Times expose is that arbitration clauses have evolved to make it more difficult for dissatisfied customers to band together and bring particular types of suits: “Class actions” in which numerous complaints are bundled together, reducing the plaintiffs’ costs and resulting in huge potential aggregated damage awards.

In recent years, arbitration clauses have begun specifying individual arbitration. Corporate attorneys know that most customers won’t spend hundreds or thousands of dollars arbitrating $10 complaints. If the complaints can’t be aggregated, they’re not worth pursuing from a financial standpoint. A win for the corporations, a loss for consumers whose complaints don’t pass the financial test.

What Silver-Greenberg and Gebeloff leave out are two important consumer tools: Information and choice.

Their story opens with reference to “a clause that most customers probably miss” on “page 5 of a credit card contract.”

The reason most customers probably miss that clause is that most customers don’t bother to read contracts pertaining to small-money matters, or have them reviewed by attorneys, before signing them. That’s a choice. So is the decision to sign something one hasn’t read.

The Times piece quotes F. Paul Bland Jr. of Public Justice, a “national consumer advocate group.” Bland claims that “[c]orporations are allowed to strip people of their constitutional right to go to court.” No, people are allowed to voluntarily waive their right to go to court, in return for valuable considerations. If they do so from voluntary ignorance, that’s their fault and no one else’s.

It’s not that complicated:

If you don’t want to commit to arbitration in general, or to individual arbitration in particular, don’t sign contracts committing yourself to those things.

If you consider reading and understanding a contract before you sign it to be too much work, don’t complain when your decision to remain ignorant comes back to bite you.

If you really, really want something, but the only way to get it is to accept an arbitration clause, then make your choice. Do without that thing or to accept the clause. Nobody owes you a smart phone or a credit card or whatever. Take the deal or don’t take the deal. Don’t blame arbitration itself, which is as good in some cases, and better in most, than resort to government courts. Remember, it was government that made the corporations so powerful in the first place.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. http://nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitration-everywhere-stacking-the-deck-of-justice.html

NOTES

  1. Approximate reading level – 12.3
  2. Original article
  3. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – App.net / Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook page / Facebook profile / Google Plus / tsu / Twitter / WordPress.com
    2. Libertarian Party –
      1. New MexicoLPNM Blog / LPNM Official Facebook page / LPNM Official Facebook group
      2. Bernalillo County, New MexicoLPBC Blog / LPBCNM Official Facebook page / LPBCNM Official Facebook group
    3. The Weekly SeditionFacebook / Google Plus / Twitter / WordPress.com

Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises. Webmaster Mike Blessing.
This blog entry created with Notepad++ and KWrite.

Saturday, 11 April 2015

A Question for Judge Malott (Letter to the Editor)

Filed under: Media, Philosophy, Politics, Principles — Tags: , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 6:00 PM (18:00)

From: Mike Blessing
To: Editorial Page Editor, Albuquerque Journal
Date: Friday, 3 April 2015
Subject: A Question for Judge Malott

In today’s op-ed piece about discrimination, Judge Malott states that as the trial judge in Elane Photography v. Willock[1], he ruled that it’s illegal for people to discriminate against others on the basis of sexual orientation, and that Elaine Hugenin was wrong to refuse service to Vanessa Willock on that basis.

This begs the question of why it was so important for Willock to force herself upon Hugenin, but I digress.

The question then for Judge Malott is this: is it against the law for a gay-owned business to refuse service to straight people simply because they’re straight?

If the answer is “yes,” then the Judge is saying that people should be forced to associate with others that they would prefer not to, and freedom of association goes down the toilet.

If “no,” then the judge is saying that politically-protected segments of society get to lord it over to those deemed unworthy of such protection, and the question isn’t about the offending conduct, but “who” does to “whom.”

I’m having trouble deciding which answer to this is worse. In the end, I’d prefer that individuals be free to associate with others of their own choice, period.

To the LGBT folks — If you want someone to take pictures or video of or bake a cake for your commitment ceremony, why would you force yourself upon those who don’t want your business when some of their competitors will happily do business with you?


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. Elane Photography v. WillockBing / DuckDuckGo / Google

NOTES

  1. Approximate reading level – 13.8
  2. As published in the Albuquerque Journal
  3. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Facebook / Google Plus / Twitter
    2. The Weekly SeditionFacebook / Google Plus / Twitter / WordPress

Copyright © 2015 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

bomb gun firearm steak knife Allah Aryan airline hijack

Tuesday, 23 September 2008

Another School Shooting

Today I received a “friend” invite from one of the sites “powered” by Xanga – revelife.com. It’s a site (?) that concerns itself with how to live the proper Christian life. Not that I’m a Christian – religion and I don’t get along well – but still, I added “them” for the self-promotion value.

And the first update about a blog posting there concerned a school shooting today. Here’s the link to the AP article

Why is it with these school shootings (at least in America) almost always seem to happen in public schools?

Why is it that we never hear about students at a private school doing this?

Why is it that we never hear about homeschooled kids shooting their parents, siblings or neighbors?

Why is it that all of these shootings that make the news happen in places where possession of firearms is forbidden (exceptions made for cops, of course)? For example, the school I’m currently attending, Central New Mexico Community College, has such policies in place. We have signs posted at each of the parking lot entrances warning potential gun-toters about this policy, and that campus officials will prosecute to the “fullest extent of the law.” Coronado Mall here in Albuquerque has similar policies in place.

I’m wondering if such signs would be best accompanied by signage of this type –

 

“ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK.”

 

Why is it that when people do disobey these restrictions and use a firearm to stop these types of “spree” killers (the term that cops favor at present is “active shooter”), we almost never hear about it in the lamestream snoozemedia?

Why is it that we never hear of “active shooters” taking their rampages to local shooting ranges?


NOTES

  1. Reposted –
    1. KCUF Media – Xanga

Copyright © 2008 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

bomb gun firearm steak knife Allah Aryan airline hijack

Monday, 18 August 2008

The Open Season Act

House Bill ______________ / Senate Bill ______________

AN ACT

ELIMINATING CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR PHYSICAL ACTS

COMMITTED AGAINST THE PERSONS AND PROPERTIES OF ELECTED AND POLITICALLY-APPOINTED OFFICIALS

Findings –

The Legislature of the State of New Mexico hereby finds and declares that –

  1. elected and politically-appointed officials have blatantly and repeatedly violated the fudiciary trust that was delegated to them by the citizens of the State of New Mexico,
  2. elected and politically-appointed law-enforcement leaders are sometimes part of the problem, and are in any case selected by the same offending officials that the citizens would
    expect to be investigated by those law enforcement agencies,
  3. many offending officials escape any deserved criminal culpability or civil liability due to the doctrines of “sovereign immunity,” “legislative immunity,” or “within the scope of
    their official duties,”
  4. due to these repeat offenders, who are often indignant about the mere accusations of impropriety, a state of emergency exists in that the faith and trust in the State of New
    Mexico on the part of the State’s citizens has fallen to crisis proportions.

Section 1 – Short Title

This Act shall be known as the Open Season Act of _______.

Section 2 – Any private individual who commits actions against the person or properties of any elected or politically-appointed public official with the intent to inflict physical damage, shall not be prosecuted in a criminal case, nor found liable in civil litigation.

Section 3 – The private individual acting against the public official must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the public official has caused specific damages to the private individual, including but not limited to physical injury, loss of liberty or loss of property, or other damages to the private individual as a matter of the public official conducting his or her official duties.

Section 4 – This act is not intended to sanction any form of sexual assault upon the public official in question by the private individual.


Basically, what the Open Season Act does is legalize the sort of do-it-yourself justice that H. Beam Piper wrote about in Lone Star Planet, or as John Ross described in Unintended Consequences

Some might say that this is “extremist,” “wacky-sounding,” and “sanctions violence.” I’ll answer that by asking them what recourse does the person in the street have when the courts say “We won’t hear your case” after his house has been seized via eminent domain, citing Kelo v. City of New London as grounds? The answer – very little to none.

Thus, I have NO sympathy for any public official who is set upon physically by their victims for harm done “in the course of his official duties.”


NOTES

  1. Reposted –
    1. KCUF Media – Xanga

Copyright © 2008 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

bomb gun firearm steak knife Allah Aryan airline hijack

Know Your Rights as a Juror

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , — mikewb1971 @ 8:51 PM (20:51)

Every week on TV, Bill Koehler and I provide information to audience about their rights when the cops suspect them of a crime, their rights as the accused, and as a juror.

Before I begin, a DISCLAIMER –

  • NOTHING that you read here should be construed as legal advice.
  • Your reading of this page does NOT constitute any sort of attorney-client relationship between yourself and Bill Koehler or myself.
  • Consult an attorney before making any sort of statement to, or filing any sort of paperwork with, the cops, the prosecutor, or the judge.

As a juror, you have the right to not only judge the facts of the case – did the accused commit the specified offense – but also the law of the case –

Is it a good law?

Is the law being properly applied?

Does the punishment fit the alleged crime?

Knowing this, informed jurors can start nuking various bad laws, such as those against drug or gun possession, the tax codes, zoning, etc., etc., etc., etc., from America’s law books, one acquital or mistrial at a time.

To see how this would work, check out Appendix I of Vin Suprynowicz‘s book, Send in the Waco Killers. It’s titled The Odds of a Randomly Selected Jury of 12 Failing to Convict, Charted by Percentage of Population That Stands in Opposition to a Given Law.

Basically, Vin started with the premise that if one juror could throw a case to a mistrial, then any law opposed by more than 1/12 of the population on a popular vote, i.e. general election, should be repealed. After publishing this idea as a column, Vin was contacted by electrical engineer Steve Mahan and software developer Thomas Junker, who ran the numbers, and it turned out that it takes much less than eight percent of the populace to kill bad laws by jury nullification.

I won’t bore you with the numerical details here. Besides, Vin needs to sell more copies, and more people need to read that book.

Also know that as a juror, you can vote to acquit for any reason. What did the Founders say about it being better for a hundred guilty men to go free than one innocent man be imprisoned?

While browsing the web, I found this comment from Tom Knapp on criminal prosecutions[1]

98% of criminal prosecutions in the US result in “convictions,” 92% through plea bargains reached between a powerless defendant and a nearly all-powerful prosecutor, the other 6% through jury trials.


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. Fully Informed Jury Association
  2. Jury nullification page on Wikipedia

NOTES

  1. Faux libertarians throw rocks at Gravel
  2. Reposted –
    1. KCUF Media – Xanga

Copyright © 2008 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

bomb gun firearm steak knife Allah Aryan airline hijack

Know Your Rights as the Accused

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 6:25 PM (18:25)

Every week on TV, Bill Koehler and I provide information to audience about their rights when the cops suspect them of a crime, their rights as the accused, and as a juror.

Before I begin, a DISCLAIMER

  • NOTHING that you read here should be construed as legal advice.
  • Your reading of this page does NOT constitute any sort of attorney-client relationship between yourself and Bill Koehler or myself.
  • Consult an attorney before making any sort of statement to, or filing any sort of paperwork with, the cops, the prosecutor, or the judge.

First, when the officer stops you on the street, they have to have what’s called “reasonable suspicion” to stop and hold you, i.e. that you “has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences.” At this point, the officer is allowed to conduct what’s called a Terry frisk, where they search you for weapons. The idea here is that the officer is conducting the search to ensure his / her personal safety, and the safety of bystanders and other officers.

A note about the Terry stop – if the officer finds other contraband items, – drugs, for example – they are NOT admissable as evidence against you unless it’s clear to the officer that the item(s) indeed are contraband.

Next, if they want to search your person, your vehicle, your possessions, or your home, or arrest you, they have to have what’s called “probable cause” – again, a reasonable suspicion that you’ve done something wrong. Bill and I recommend that you ask the officer(s) these three questions –

  1. Am I free to go?
  2. Am I under arrest?
  3. What am I being charged with?

Ask them these questions over and over again. YES, they will get annoyed, but that’s their problem. If they don’t want to deal with you asking those questions repeatedly, they can always release you[1].

When they want to search you, your vehicle, your possessions, or your home, insist on a warrant. And even if they do get that warrant, still refuse consent for them to search. If they get what’s called a “telephonic warrant,” tell them they can conduct a telephonic search – they can call you on the phone, tell you what they’re looking for, and you can tell them if you have the item(s) in question.

Should the officer(s) decide to arrest you, they are required to read to you what’s called the Miranda warning. At the end of the warning, some officers will ask you these two questions –

Do you understand the rights I have just read to you?

With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?

Answering “No” to first question will merely get the warning re-read to you. If you have plenty of time to kill, you could ask the officer to explain your rights under the law, but I suspect that in most cases, the best bet is to get clear of the situation as soon as possible.

Answering “No” to the second question is the cutoff – after hearing that, the officer(s) are NOT permitted to question you until you agree to waive those rights. At the same time, you have to remember the Golden Rule – “Silence is golden.” KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!

While browsing the web, I found this comment from Tom Knapp on criminal prosecutions[2]

98% of criminal prosecutions in the US result in “convictions,” 92% through plea bargains reached between a powerless defendant and a nearly all-powerful prosecutor, the other 6% through jury trials.

That’s a big part of why Bill and I recommend that people accused of crimes by the state –

  1. Plead “not guilty,” and refuse to plea bargain with the prosecutor.
  2. Insist on a jury trial within six months of charges being filed against you. Refuse to accept any delays from the prosecuting entity – either the case goes to trial within six months, or they drop the charges.
  3. In New Mexico (we don’t know about other states), there’s a procedural rule that the prosecuting entity must provide the defense with copies of all evidence against the accused within thirty (30) days of charges being filed. If the prosecution fails to provide that evidence within 30 days, the charges must be dropped.

Considering Tom’s comment above, if people charged with crimes started insisting on that jury trial within six months of charges being filed, and refusing to plea bargain, then the cops and prosecutors would have to be a lot more selective in the cases that they choose to pursue. And who knows – they just might ask the legislatures to start repealing the non-sensical laws such as Drug Prohibition, “gun control,” zoning, taxes, censorship codes,and the like.


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. You & The Police!, by “Boston T. Party”
  2. Fully Informed Jury Association [FIJA]

NOTES

  1. You & The Police!, by “Boston T. Party”
  2. Faux libertarians throw rocks at Gravel
  3. Reposted –
    1. KCUF Media – Xanga

Copyright © 2008 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

bomb gun firearm steak knife Allah Aryan airline hijack

Blog at WordPress.com.