Hey Folks,
The following letter is to the Lane County commissioners and the video is excellent. Lane County may be the first county to pass an actual ordinance against the 2012 NDAA, which will catapult the issue back into the news. Once this ordinance is passed in Lane County, we are going to take the wording in the ordinance and use it as an initiative for cities and counties who refuse to pass it through a regular vote of the council or committee. This has been the reason for our delay on filing the NDAA resolution as an initiative in Coos Bay, so Coos Bay, North Bend and Coquille would be a good place to start when we have an actual ordinance in place, which will give it precedence.
The BOC in Coos County voted to adopt a resolution against the unconstitutional provisions of the NDAA, section 1021 and 1022, except for one commissioner.
Commissioner John Sweet refused to protect the rights of the average citizen and voted NO on the NDAA resolution for Coos County. Contrary to the oath he took at the beginning of his term, Mr. Sweet must have a problem defending the freedoms of his constituents and this was not the first time. He opposed the voice of the voters by trying to install a County Administrator. He just called the position, Finance Director, but it was the same position, so maybe it is time for a change.
If you would like to show your support for the Lane County Ordinance opposing the unconstitutional provisions of the NDAA, then call or email the commissioners.. The Lane BOC contact info can be found here:
http://www.lanecounty.org/Departments/BCC/Pages/default.aspx
Rob T.
The following letter is to the Lane County commissioners and the video is excellent. Lane County may be the first county to pass an actual ordinance against the 2012 NDAA, which will catapult the issue back into the news. Once this ordinance is passed in Lane County, we are going to take the wording in the ordinance and use it as an initiative for cities and counties who refuse to pass it through a regular vote of the council or committee. This has been the reason for our delay on filing the NDAA resolution as an initiative in Coos Bay, so Coos Bay, North Bend and Coquille would be a good place to start when we have an actual ordinance in place, which will give it precedence.
The BOC in Coos County voted to adopt a resolution against the unconstitutional provisions of the NDAA, section 1021 and 1022, except for one commissioner.
Commissioner John Sweet refused to protect the rights of the average citizen and voted NO on the NDAA resolution for Coos County. Contrary to the oath he took at the beginning of his term, Mr. Sweet must have a problem defending the freedoms of his constituents and this was not the first time. He opposed the voice of the voters by trying to install a County Administrator. He just called the position, Finance Director, but it was the same position, so maybe it is time for a change.
If you would like to show your support for the Lane County Ordinance opposing the unconstitutional provisions of the NDAA, then call or email the commissioners.. The Lane BOC contact info can be found here:
http://www.lanecounty.org/Departments/BCC/Pages/default.aspx
Rob T.
| | Dear Commissioners of Lane County, On behalf of PANDA ~ Oregon, and the numerous political action groups we’ve been representing and working with across the state and this county, we greatly appreciate the time, resources, and consideration you have allowed in addressing the public’s concerns for the indefinite detention provisions of the 2012 NDAA. |
Although we could not attend your June 3rd, 2014 Board of County Commissioners meeting, we attentively watched the webcast of your discussions regarding the proposed resolution and ordinance. We were greatly impressed with the well-crafted resolution and your unanimous vote for its approval. We’re also grateful for the dialogue between the commissioners, acknowledging the effectiveness of withholding any county funds or resources from an unconstitutional implementation of sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA. We were greatly disappointed however, in the time your legal council spent transforming the mainly symbolic resolution into anything substantial, or effective in protecting the constitutional rights of your constituents.
At the end of the awe inspiring public hearing where individuals from all across the political spectrum came together to voice their concerns about the NDAA, we saw and heard four commissioners truly committed to addressing their constituents concerns. In all of your final comments to the public, the enactment of an ordinance prohibiting the use of county tax dollars and resources from being used in the assistance of the implementation of the unconstitutional provisions of NDAA in Lane County was mentioned. Pat Farr also explicitly requested the BCC legal council to look into and draft several possibilities into how this effort could be effectively done. Despite Mr. Farr’s request, the legal council spent much of their time and energy reviewing and deconstructing an example ordinance submitted by Shane Ozbun, former State Director of PANDA ~ Oregon. Although this sample ordinance submitted by Mr. Ozbun, who has no experience drafting legislation, was clearly submitted with the purposes to help the BCC legal council brainstorm possibilities to fulfill Mr. Farr’s formal request for ordinance options. This submission was not intended to be the only and primary ordinance option available to the commissioners.
The legal council, and you the commissioners, were in the right with your concerns over the broad terminology used in the proposed ordinance. After all, it’s the broad terminology of the language in the 2012 NDAA that concerned the 300 people who attended your public hearing one month ago. However, after listening and reviewing the materials submitted by your legal council, I found that many of the arguments against this ordinance are relatively easy to solve and clarify. Below I have outline the concerns made in section ‘D’ and ‘E’ of their June 3rd report titled; Review of a proposed County Ordinance prohibiting expenditure of resources in implementation of illegal federal directives to arrest and detain US citizens in certain cases:
Section D: Financial and/or Resource Considerations
Moving forward, if the Board adopts an Ordinance, there are a number of unknown resource considerations including:
o How the federal government will allocate resources to Lane County if it has adopted policies which make it a crime to carry
out certain federal laws.
PANDA ~ Oregon’s Response: Lane County’s ordinance would only affect a federal law that becomes unconstitutionally interpreted. In the case of section 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 NDAA, it would only be a criminal act to assist or fund the NDAA’s implementation once it has violated the constitutional due process rights of its citizens, or more easily and specifically defined in the contents of ORS Volume 4: Criminal Procedures, Crime.
…unknown resource considerations including:(continued)
o The public safety resources required in order to arrest, prosecute, and jail those who may be found guilty of implementing federal law in light of the well-known resource constraints currently existing in Lane County.
PANDA ~ Oregon’s Response: Your extremely diverse constituency, both geographically and politically in Lane County, supported the idea of an ordinance because it actually codified their concerns. Despite resource constraints in the rare occasion where an individual assists in the implantation of an activity that usurped state criminal procedures, and stripped persons of their constitutional rights, the use of funds to arrest, prosecute, and jail those individuals would be deemed appropriate.
…unknown resource considerations including:(continued)
o How the Board would trigger a “freeze” on expending fiscal resources in the event the federal government seeks assistance enforcing the provisions of the 2012 NDAA, and would that freeze only apply to certain revenues?
PANDA ~ Oregon’s Response: In the event that the federal government unconstitutionally implements sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA in ways that violate the constitutional rights of Lane County citizens, absolutely no funds, resources, or personnel should be allocated in assistance of that effort. In this situation, Lane County would also have legal standing to file suite against those who violate the U.S. and State Constitutions as well as the Oregon state laws. Due to the valid legal standing Lane County would have, this hypothetical lawsuit could have the potential to reach the Supreme Court with the opportunity to rule sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA as unconstitutional. At the very minimum this would at least bring massive public and political awareness to the issue.
E. Analysis (from the Review of a proposed County Ordinance)
1) Summary of legal council’s arguments against an ordinance in paragraph 1 of ‘E’:
- No other ordinance in the U.S. has been passed against the NDAA, so why should Lane County pass one?
PANDA ~ Oregon’s Response: According to the A.O.C.’s report on County Home Rule, Oregon counties have the most discretionary authority on local matter than any other state in the U.S.. Lane County has received the most overwhelming amount of bipartisan support for such an ordinance, and supporter have come from all across Lane County’s jurisdiction. With the recent Supreme Court’s refusal to rule on the constitutionality of the 2012 NDAA, on March 28th of 2014, increases the importance in addressing this issue with both local and states solutions.
2) Summary of legal council’s arguments against an ordinance in paragraph 2 of ‘E’:
-Penalty for violating ordinance exceeds the scope of county’s authority
PANDA ~ Oregon’s Response: Simply change the penalty for the proposed ordinance to the maximum penalty allowed under county law, both monetarily and with time served.
3) Summary of legal council’s arguments against an ordinance in paragraph 3 of ‘E’:
-Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution: State laws are inferior and cannot conflict with federal laws.
PANDA ~ Oregon’s Response: The text of the Supremacy Clause reads as; “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof.” The NDAA was passed legally under the U.S. Constitution, however, in the event where sections 1021 and 1022 become unconstitutionally interpreted and implemented violating other rights explicitly written in the U.S. Constitution, those provisions in the NDAA no longer become the “law of the land” because they are not “in pursuance thereof” the U.S. Constitution.
4) Summary of legal council’s arguments against an ordinance in paragraph 4 of ‘E’:
- State courts are bound then to give effect to federal law when it is applicable and to disregard state law when there is a conflict.
PANDA ~ Oregon’s Response: Oregon has a long history of State Constitutionalism. Hans Linde, former Supreme Court Justice in Oregon, wrote extensively about the subject stating that state courts are allowed to think independently on individual cases and are not expected to follow slavishly to U.S. Supreme Court precedence on every case. Oregon along with many other states’ Supreme Courts have made rulings on specific cases that applied more protections to the 1st Amendment and due process rights than the U.S. Supreme Court had in previous cases. These decisions have not been overturned or challenged at the federal level.
5) Summary of legal council’s arguments against an ordinance in paragraph 5 of ‘E’:
-A court challenge would be twofold: (1) the conduct to be criminalized is so vague that a reasonable person could not know if they were violating it (facially unconstitutional) and it could potentially criminalize lawful constitutional expression (unconstitutional as applied).
PANDA ~ Oregon’s Response: Mr. Ozbun was only submitting an example ordinance and believed the legal council would be able, and more importantly, willing to fix some of the issues with the legalese of the ordinance. The crime could be easily defined by any entity attempting to violate the due process procedures outline in Volume 4 of the ORS titled Criminal Procedure, Crime. One example of this would be ignoring the right for the accused/detained to see a judge within 72 hours of being detained. Any county employee (who is a “county resource” and operating under “county funds”) that becomes aware of such illegal activity outlined above, should be required to report such activity to the proper authorities (i.e. County Sheriff), and deny any support or resources under their authority to the violators of the state and or county law. If the county employee fails to do so, they are then aiding and abetting criminal activities further defined under ORS § 161.155 Criminal liability for conduct of another.
I hope these counter legal arguments help you continue your brave dedication and support towards defending your constituents’ constitutional rights, and your Oath of Office. I ask that you reopen the discussion for an effective ordinance at the next possible BCC meeting. I’m more than happy and willing to work with your staff in anyway to make this process as fast and effective as possible. I will be sending this letter to all the political action groups and the individuals who have dedicated much of their time and energy in bringing awareness to this issue. I have also provided a link below where you can access your comments made on April 15th regarding the public hearing of your unanimous support for an ordinance, as well as Mr. Farr’s request to your legal council to provide a few different ordinance options. Thank you for the services you provide this county and for your support and time spent on this issue specifically. For any future inquiries or action concerning PANDA ~ Oregon, or the NDAA, please get in touch with me by phone or e-mail as I will now be the primary contact for PANDA ~ Oregon.
Sincerely,
Colin Farnsworth
PANDA Oregon State Director
Phone: (206)450-7249
Commissioners’ comments on April 15th NDAA public hearing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UnT_KJSpXQ
At the end of the awe inspiring public hearing where individuals from all across the political spectrum came together to voice their concerns about the NDAA, we saw and heard four commissioners truly committed to addressing their constituents concerns. In all of your final comments to the public, the enactment of an ordinance prohibiting the use of county tax dollars and resources from being used in the assistance of the implementation of the unconstitutional provisions of NDAA in Lane County was mentioned. Pat Farr also explicitly requested the BCC legal council to look into and draft several possibilities into how this effort could be effectively done. Despite Mr. Farr’s request, the legal council spent much of their time and energy reviewing and deconstructing an example ordinance submitted by Shane Ozbun, former State Director of PANDA ~ Oregon. Although this sample ordinance submitted by Mr. Ozbun, who has no experience drafting legislation, was clearly submitted with the purposes to help the BCC legal council brainstorm possibilities to fulfill Mr. Farr’s formal request for ordinance options. This submission was not intended to be the only and primary ordinance option available to the commissioners.
The legal council, and you the commissioners, were in the right with your concerns over the broad terminology used in the proposed ordinance. After all, it’s the broad terminology of the language in the 2012 NDAA that concerned the 300 people who attended your public hearing one month ago. However, after listening and reviewing the materials submitted by your legal council, I found that many of the arguments against this ordinance are relatively easy to solve and clarify. Below I have outline the concerns made in section ‘D’ and ‘E’ of their June 3rd report titled; Review of a proposed County Ordinance prohibiting expenditure of resources in implementation of illegal federal directives to arrest and detain US citizens in certain cases:
Section D: Financial and/or Resource Considerations
Moving forward, if the Board adopts an Ordinance, there are a number of unknown resource considerations including:
o How the federal government will allocate resources to Lane County if it has adopted policies which make it a crime to carry
out certain federal laws.
PANDA ~ Oregon’s Response: Lane County’s ordinance would only affect a federal law that becomes unconstitutionally interpreted. In the case of section 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 NDAA, it would only be a criminal act to assist or fund the NDAA’s implementation once it has violated the constitutional due process rights of its citizens, or more easily and specifically defined in the contents of ORS Volume 4: Criminal Procedures, Crime.
…unknown resource considerations including:(continued)
o The public safety resources required in order to arrest, prosecute, and jail those who may be found guilty of implementing federal law in light of the well-known resource constraints currently existing in Lane County.
PANDA ~ Oregon’s Response: Your extremely diverse constituency, both geographically and politically in Lane County, supported the idea of an ordinance because it actually codified their concerns. Despite resource constraints in the rare occasion where an individual assists in the implantation of an activity that usurped state criminal procedures, and stripped persons of their constitutional rights, the use of funds to arrest, prosecute, and jail those individuals would be deemed appropriate.
…unknown resource considerations including:(continued)
o How the Board would trigger a “freeze” on expending fiscal resources in the event the federal government seeks assistance enforcing the provisions of the 2012 NDAA, and would that freeze only apply to certain revenues?
PANDA ~ Oregon’s Response: In the event that the federal government unconstitutionally implements sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA in ways that violate the constitutional rights of Lane County citizens, absolutely no funds, resources, or personnel should be allocated in assistance of that effort. In this situation, Lane County would also have legal standing to file suite against those who violate the U.S. and State Constitutions as well as the Oregon state laws. Due to the valid legal standing Lane County would have, this hypothetical lawsuit could have the potential to reach the Supreme Court with the opportunity to rule sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA as unconstitutional. At the very minimum this would at least bring massive public and political awareness to the issue.
E. Analysis (from the Review of a proposed County Ordinance)
1) Summary of legal council’s arguments against an ordinance in paragraph 1 of ‘E’:
- No other ordinance in the U.S. has been passed against the NDAA, so why should Lane County pass one?
PANDA ~ Oregon’s Response: According to the A.O.C.’s report on County Home Rule, Oregon counties have the most discretionary authority on local matter than any other state in the U.S.. Lane County has received the most overwhelming amount of bipartisan support for such an ordinance, and supporter have come from all across Lane County’s jurisdiction. With the recent Supreme Court’s refusal to rule on the constitutionality of the 2012 NDAA, on March 28th of 2014, increases the importance in addressing this issue with both local and states solutions.
2) Summary of legal council’s arguments against an ordinance in paragraph 2 of ‘E’:
-Penalty for violating ordinance exceeds the scope of county’s authority
PANDA ~ Oregon’s Response: Simply change the penalty for the proposed ordinance to the maximum penalty allowed under county law, both monetarily and with time served.
3) Summary of legal council’s arguments against an ordinance in paragraph 3 of ‘E’:
-Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution: State laws are inferior and cannot conflict with federal laws.
PANDA ~ Oregon’s Response: The text of the Supremacy Clause reads as; “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof.” The NDAA was passed legally under the U.S. Constitution, however, in the event where sections 1021 and 1022 become unconstitutionally interpreted and implemented violating other rights explicitly written in the U.S. Constitution, those provisions in the NDAA no longer become the “law of the land” because they are not “in pursuance thereof” the U.S. Constitution.
4) Summary of legal council’s arguments against an ordinance in paragraph 4 of ‘E’:
- State courts are bound then to give effect to federal law when it is applicable and to disregard state law when there is a conflict.
PANDA ~ Oregon’s Response: Oregon has a long history of State Constitutionalism. Hans Linde, former Supreme Court Justice in Oregon, wrote extensively about the subject stating that state courts are allowed to think independently on individual cases and are not expected to follow slavishly to U.S. Supreme Court precedence on every case. Oregon along with many other states’ Supreme Courts have made rulings on specific cases that applied more protections to the 1st Amendment and due process rights than the U.S. Supreme Court had in previous cases. These decisions have not been overturned or challenged at the federal level.
5) Summary of legal council’s arguments against an ordinance in paragraph 5 of ‘E’:
-A court challenge would be twofold: (1) the conduct to be criminalized is so vague that a reasonable person could not know if they were violating it (facially unconstitutional) and it could potentially criminalize lawful constitutional expression (unconstitutional as applied).
PANDA ~ Oregon’s Response: Mr. Ozbun was only submitting an example ordinance and believed the legal council would be able, and more importantly, willing to fix some of the issues with the legalese of the ordinance. The crime could be easily defined by any entity attempting to violate the due process procedures outline in Volume 4 of the ORS titled Criminal Procedure, Crime. One example of this would be ignoring the right for the accused/detained to see a judge within 72 hours of being detained. Any county employee (who is a “county resource” and operating under “county funds”) that becomes aware of such illegal activity outlined above, should be required to report such activity to the proper authorities (i.e. County Sheriff), and deny any support or resources under their authority to the violators of the state and or county law. If the county employee fails to do so, they are then aiding and abetting criminal activities further defined under ORS § 161.155 Criminal liability for conduct of another.
I hope these counter legal arguments help you continue your brave dedication and support towards defending your constituents’ constitutional rights, and your Oath of Office. I ask that you reopen the discussion for an effective ordinance at the next possible BCC meeting. I’m more than happy and willing to work with your staff in anyway to make this process as fast and effective as possible. I will be sending this letter to all the political action groups and the individuals who have dedicated much of their time and energy in bringing awareness to this issue. I have also provided a link below where you can access your comments made on April 15th regarding the public hearing of your unanimous support for an ordinance, as well as Mr. Farr’s request to your legal council to provide a few different ordinance options. Thank you for the services you provide this county and for your support and time spent on this issue specifically. For any future inquiries or action concerning PANDA ~ Oregon, or the NDAA, please get in touch with me by phone or e-mail as I will now be the primary contact for PANDA ~ Oregon.
Sincerely,
Colin Farnsworth
PANDA Oregon State Director
Phone: (206)450-7249
Commissioners’ comments on April 15th NDAA public hearing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UnT_KJSpXQ
Related Posts:
NDAA---Lane County BOC Public Hearing & Comments on RCGI April 15, 2014
Oath Keepers Public Meeting in Coos Bay February 22, 2014
TEA Party---Video of Brookings TEA Party January 18, 2014
RCGI---Time to Support Oath Keepers & Make a Public Comment to The World
RCGI---Open Letter to OR State Representative Wayne Krieger
RCGI---Douglas and Lane County Lobby our Senators against NDAA
RCGI---The Jim Bice Radio Show with Stewart Rhodes founder of Oath Keepers
ATF---It’s time to submit comments on proposed NFA rule changes!
RCGR----The New NDAA will cost YOU $5,700
RCGR---Legislative Defense Manual
If You Value Your Liberties, Stay Out of Coos Bay, Oregon!
RCGR---Coos Bay City Council Rejects Promise of Federalism and Oath
City of Coos Bay---City Council Meeting Votes to adopt RCGR September 17, 2013
RCG Resolution Against the NDAA 2012----Updated 9/7/2013
Obama administration hiding info on targeted killings of Americans - senator
THE U.N. & LOCAL AGENDA 21
THE U.N. & AGENDA 21:
NDAA---Lane County BOC Public Hearing & Comments on RCGI April 15, 2014
Oath Keepers Public Meeting in Coos Bay February 22, 2014
TEA Party---Video of Brookings TEA Party January 18, 2014
RCGI---Time to Support Oath Keepers & Make a Public Comment to The World
RCGI---Open Letter to OR State Representative Wayne Krieger
RCGI---Douglas and Lane County Lobby our Senators against NDAA
RCGI---The Jim Bice Radio Show with Stewart Rhodes founder of Oath Keepers
ATF---It’s time to submit comments on proposed NFA rule changes!
RCGR----The New NDAA will cost YOU $5,700
RCGR---Legislative Defense Manual
If You Value Your Liberties, Stay Out of Coos Bay, Oregon!
RCGR---Coos Bay City Council Rejects Promise of Federalism and Oath
City of Coos Bay---City Council Meeting Votes to adopt RCGR September 17, 2013
RCG Resolution Against the NDAA 2012----Updated 9/7/2013
Obama administration hiding info on targeted killings of Americans - senator
THE U.N. & LOCAL AGENDA 21
THE U.N. & AGENDA 21:
RSS Feed
