Archive for February, 2010

Grant Request- Amended

February 26, 2010
Dear  N.J. Department of Agriculture,

As you can see below, I am trying to get state support for free assemblies. These assemblies would discuss wiser and more sensible economies; the people could say what they want about the economy, what they want with their time and life, and this would be an empowering opportunity for the people to address the issue of the economy before an assembly of people. I have faith this would lead to a wiser economy.

Free assemblies, would tend to a more agrarian society, and general production.

Free Assemblies are consistent with your interests of agriculture. Because the people are not solicited into discussion of what they want with their time and life; or are not used to being part of a local decision-making process, there can be assumption of an aversion to agriculture, rather than the value of it, I see.

I hope your behind the scenes interest is used to further the promotion of my efforts at the department of community affairs.

Of course, if free assemblies are consistent with your focus, and you help me, we may take the lead in making N.J. a better place.

Indeed, it is a shame we don’t have a department of spirituality, because godliness developes as well.

I know the world is not as it seems. The first thing a free assembly would discuss is why aren’t free assemblies practiced, why hasn’t the common discussion of modern life in free assembly galvanized society, because free assemblies are logical and sensible and legal enough, to suppose there is more to this than merely me bringing it up, this could have been easily figured out. Free Assemblies differentiate ourselves from animals.

So why haven’t then been held by now? That would be the first topic of discussion and potentially galvanizing as a common concern.

If any of you have any comments regarding why Free Assemblies to discuss and decide common concerns, and give a venue to the concerns of the people, has not been practiced in recent decades, please contribute them.

Sincerely, Vic Fedorov

 
 
Feb 25, 2010
Re: Free Assemblies
To Whom It May Concern:

I will try to contact the DCA to ask where my proposal should go: advice.

This is an educational, healthy, spirited and industrious program for the minds and relief of the spectrum of citizen. Free Assemblies start with the premise of benefiting all, and I urge you to consider them.

– Vic Fedorov

 

Dear Division of Community Affairs, of the Attorney General’s Office of N.J.,

I have a proposal I would like you to consider, and help me, my associates, and my nonprofit Free Assembly Inc., help the citizens of N.J..

We would like to organize free assemblies in urban and minority areas, as well as other places: suffice that urban minority areas need free assemblies most.

The public is misinformed when free assembly is construed as a protest. A free assembly is a form of community decision-making.

We left the state of nature to discuss our community. Free Assembly is the natural and political form for these discussions and decisions. All present may discuss, rules of order apply, and all present have a voice vote so ayes and nays may decide a resolution.

In some towns of New England, (See Amherst Mass rules of local government, and Citizens Guide to Massachusetts Form of municipal government) 236 members of the town are required to be a quorum to vote on a resolution. According to Princeton Townships website, free assemblies were practiced in Princeton until 1900; in 1947 our state constitution incorporated towns with local officials; abridging free assembly, in violation of the first amendment; and delegating powers not given to the federal government by the U.S. constitution and reserved for the state or the people, to local officials, who are not the state, nor the people, and exercise powers reserved for the state or the people: In violation of the tenth amendment.

Thus this is very much a civil rights issue; as the first and tenth amendment guarantee us the privilege of free assembly, and immunity from local officials, and yet state constitutions violate this: This is about enforcing existing law. Yet the state civil rights division does not include this in its legal protection. Representative government makes sense at a state and federal level, but is not reasonable locally. The integrity required to deal with this issue can not be understated.

Free Assembly requires resolutions that can be voted on, that are of compelling interest. What these resolutions structure; the phrasing, is work as well as assessing popular issues.

The right to freely assembly is really more the right to organize free assemblies, than the right to attend them. Is not helping me abridging free assembly?

Twice I have applied for community rooms to use for free assembly and localities have abridged my procuring a space; through nonprofit and tax-paying requirements, abridging free assembly, in violation of the first amendment. Your help is needed in arranging local community rooms to have free assemblies and transmitting the civic duty of their attendance.

Free Assemblies may be had outside in parks, as well as Lodges and Churches, which requires money.

Once a place and time is decided, the free assembly and what free assembly is, is promoted. Public turn out is not easy. Promotion must advance and public, galvanize in limited society. Human beings are different from humans. Classical times addressed this apathy by enforcing attendance of free assemblies: Like voting, a civic obligation, worthy of participation. Civic pride is consistent with your charter and ethos. A spirit must be consistent with this behavior; Free Assembly must be seen as one of the best activities of our polity; a transcendent respect of democracy and each other.

The initial promotion, listing the time and place, explaining free assembly, must solicit resolutions and resolution ideas. In some New England towns, that more closely adhere to the tenth amendment, any resolution, called a warrant, with ten signatures, must be voted on.

A second promotion then goes out listing the time and place, explaining free assembly, and lists resolutions to be discussed. Getting the sense of what the resolutions should be requires caucusing and canvassing. One question I have for New England town governments is why the resolutions they discuss and vote on don’t seem to take on a repressive economy and educational system.

At the free assembly people show up, discuss and vote on the resolutions, and when the free assembly is to be is decided on. Parliamentary procedures apply, and an archon or speaker chooses who speaks next, based on the principal that those who spoke least have priority; And speakers may respond to previous points. Free Assemblies are logically where community decisions are made. Incorporated local government, consistent with these goals, may feel compelled to work with free assemblies. These kind of politics, require the help of your office, and are of interest to other states and jurisprudence.

Free Assemblies would decrease violence and crime empowering people and make the state stronger in dealing with issues that concern all N.J.. The federal government would become more readily seen as outdated. And states taking care of themselves, would more ably tailor reform.

I would like to set up Free Assemblies in 6 N.J. cities over a year through a grant and work with your agency.

Thank you Vic Fedorov

68 Laurel Rd

Princeton N.J. 08540

201 232 1154

Ruidx32go@yahoo.com

Cc. Sen. Shirley Turners Office

Advertisements

Response to the Iowa Supreme Court decision on gay marriage

February 20, 2010
This is my reaction to the errors of the Iowa Supreme Court

Their opinion can be found at Iowa Supreme Courts Opinions April 3 2009

 

Points wrong with Iowa supreme court decision: they never question homosexuality as corruption upon confused, misguided, in world that obscures The Kingdom of God. They find homosexuality repugnant but they never question it for other people, though their own senses reject it. That’s the first problem: no evaluation amid the lies of society, homosexuality may be false.

The Iowa Supreme Court seems to be ignorant that no one wants to be gay, and homosexuality has caused many problems within the family and society. They seem to think it’s a good thing—and I don’t believe its claimed to be so by alleged and self-proclaimed homosexuals themselves.

To them it’s all about equality, but gays couples and heterosexual couples are like apples and oranges. One reproduces, the other can not. Obviously marriage exists so a man and a women can care for a child they create. That is why marriage exists. Marriage does not extend the commitment of love, commitment in general does…love constructs and defines the commitment of love, ultimately.

The urge to gay marriage, is the cloying urge to reproduce. Reproduction is big on earth; and consistent with the image of western civilization. Yet gay people can’t reproduce, so marry them and maybe they can’t.

The issue these liberal confusions illuminate is the tension in western civilization between solving and accepting problems. Is it better to solve a problem, or accept a problem. Obviously the humanist attempts to solve a problem, not accept a problem; yet in modern society the humanist is falsely defined as great for accepting problems ie, what does not make sense for him.

Yet for humanism to solve homosexuality involves hard realizations; such as the effects of a dark universe in a lying society, the effects of racial disharmony upon the psyche, the tradition of objectifying women; all of which can lead the aversion of women, to the false path of homosexuality; and these issues, are so true, that for a western civilization predicated upon lies misconstruing the human being as human; deliberately obscuring the dualism between appearance and reality, the kingdom of God, and western civilization; the universe and earth; the afterlife and material world; These misconstruations continuously fight against truth; to the extent solved problems would attack the core thesis of western civilization, construed here as reproducing a large population.

Regarding homosexual rights regarding burial decisions, health insurance, health club memberships; let us remember the financial advantages to married couples are to encourage reproduction and recognize the cost of having a child. Any other disadvantages childless gay couples receive should be remedied, without marriage, but through specific laws giving certain rights to all couples; such as hospital visitation. Probably through some simple registration of significant other.

http://www.iowacourts.gov/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20090403/07-1499.pdf

The County offered five primary interests of society in support of the legislature’s exclusive definition of marriage. The first three interests are broadly related to the advancement of child rearing. Specifically, the objectives centered on promoting procreation, promoting child rearing by a mother and a father within a

marriage, and promoting stability in an opposite-sex relationship to raise

and nurture children.

These are essentially what I have just said. Lets see if they are correctly rebutted.

But first the court discusses whether same sex couples are fit to raise children, and cite sources pro and con through professional testimony; the only source I would accept are the children themselves. They have first hand experience, and the absence of their testimony and citation is appalling, and negligent by the court, and in my mind negates all the professional testimony.

Personally, my very limited exposure to children under same sex parents, exposed a tragic situation, because the child is aware of the farce and falseness of same sex sexual relations; the child is being raised under something unnatural—thus any attack on gay marriage, must include a case against the legitimacy of homosexuality itself—which in my writings below I do—-the absence of any public debate regarding whether homosexuality actually is a delusion–is also galling, and not taking on an issue seriously.

The court then ascertains the legitimacy of the courts over the legislature—and it is a legitimacy I agree with; because the legislature cares about being reelected, and the courts care about truth.

But when the courts are so far from truth; of spiritual recognition, of seriously discussing the truth of homosexuality, from recognizing marriage only encourages the reproduction of the kingdom of god and is meant to be deceptive; of recognizing the truth of how shallow marriage is compared to love—we recognize a flawed judiciary—flawed by a lack of spiritual axis, by so few judges judging that they are inhibited and overworked, by the limitation of judging to a few, when all are capable of arriving at truth through the good logic of a good case. Thus, to take on gay marriage, we must address the flawed structure of federal judiciary that has exposed itself so.

They seem to think marriage is a constitutional right. It is a traditional right. They seem to think it is part of a search for greater freedom, when it leads to children which decreases ones liberty, and binds two together till death, which is also a decrease in freedom. Thus to take on gay marriage, one must make the hard choice to expose marriage itself as not the Shangri law, so many pressured people make it out to be.

Thus freedom, is not inherently within marriage, and equality is not meant for apples and oranges. One would think gay couples would notice the benefits of not having to have kids, and not being bound to each other through domestic turbulence.

Finally, it should be recognized that the constitution belongs to the

people, not the government or even the judicial branch of government.

SeeIowa Const. art. I, § 2 (“All political power is inherent in the people.

16

Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the

people, and they have the right, at all times, to alter or reform the same,

whenever the public good may require it.”). While the constitution is the

supreme law and cannot be altered by the enactment of an ordinary statute,

the power of the constitution flows from the people, and the people of Iowa

retain the ultimate power to shape it over time.

(“Amendments to the Constitution”).

See Iowa Const. art. XThe irony here is political power is inherently in the people because officials can not create the shape and form of government, only administrate through it. Thus the problems of too few overworked and inhibited judges, lacking spiritual guidelines, must be resolved by the people.

The primary constitutional principle at the heart of this case is the doctrine of equal protection. The concept of equal protection is deeply rooted in our national and state history,

This is where the false reasoning must be shown. Because heterosexuals can reproduce, and gay couples can’t, saying the two are equal is like making apples and oranges the same. I am an organic grower. You don’t care for one vegetable like you do another–some like manure, others can’t take it; some want water at these certain stages of their growth, others want it at different intervals—some are protected by weeds, others hindered by them, some are better transplanted, others have to be sown by seed. So to say all vegetables are treated equally is ridiculous–different qualities mandate different treatments; this is what is missed by the Iowa Supreme Court. Different qualities have different laws governing their optimum growth. Equality under the law has to prove an equality of subject, or you get into a very ridiculous situation.

It is fine for the court to say laws must adapt to the times; but not if the issues of these times are not examined properly. Then law is helter skelter responding to authority of the times, without questioning authority as courts are meant to do. A slave is not property because they possess similar attributes to non slaves; though their heritage is different. Gay couples are not similar to straight couples because they have a fundamental difference of sexual orientation. The judges gloss over this difference like a bad organic grower. Absolute equality ignores differences, and differences should not be ignored, to say nothing how the domain of marriage is for the rights of a certain kind of subject; ones that reproduce.

The foundational principle of equal protection is expressed in article I, section 6 of the Iowa Constitution, which provides: “All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen or

class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall

not equally belong to all citizens.”

The key word they ignore here are “the same terms”. The terms of gay and straight couples are fundamentally different as one can reproduce and the others can’t. Even one uses an orifice of reproduction, and the other one of emitting digestion. These are different terms. These different terms are like a judge being stricter upon one with priors, than one without priors. This like minors not having the same rights as adults, or different tax rates for different wealths.

The court then cites the counties argument that gay couples are not similarly situated as straight couples. This seems to be what I am saying. “

In considering whether two classes are similarly situated, a court

cannot simply look at the trait used by the legislature to define a

classification under a statute and conclude a person without that trait is not

similarly situated to persons with the trait.

because the plaintiffs cannot” procreate naturally.”

This last is what I don’t understand. It seems to me the traits of subject are integrally a part of whether subjects are similarly situated.

No two

people or groups of people are the same in every way, and nearly every equal

protection claim could be run aground onto the shoals of a threshold

analysis if the two groups needed to be a mirror image of one another.

Yet I think equal rights very much carry a capacity to measure equal subjects, and for one group to prove they are like another, is very easy. For instance to gain visitation hospital rights, it would be very easy to prove a gay couple is like a married couple; but regarding marriage, it is very difficult because marriage has reproduction inherently within it; otherwise there would be no need for marriage.

They say the law itself must be equal, I say the people under the law must be equal. I begin to see the lack of cited testimony of children of gay couples as consistent with the ignorance of different rights according to age.

While the court is right to soon mention marriage may measure a commitment of a relationship, regardless of sexual orientation; ultimately this classification pales before the grandeur of love itself; ultimately there must be another designation to measure commitment than marriage, if such designation is fairly needed at all—and the commitment signified by marriage is so for the raising of children, that applying the term to gay couples undermines the varied meanings and causes of commitments which distinguish one type of commitment from another.

Therefore, with respect to the subject and purposes of Iowa’s marriage

laws, we find that the plaintiffs are similarly situated compared to

heterosexual persons. Plaintiffs are in committed and loving relationships,

many raising families, just like heterosexual couples.

Again, this makes no sense, until the veracity of homosexuality is examined in public forum—for there are a lot of lies in western civilization, whose context we lose—and until there is strict testimony from the children of same sex relationships. There is no recognition of the difference between reality and appearance, as if that long issue, has disappeared—like society presents us with nothing to see through—an understanding judges should have most of all.

And yet it is legally consistent to address as such that if partners are raising children together, they are entitled to the same financial advantages as married couples. It is just my studies actually and logically show the fallacy of same sex partnerships raising children. Because children can see through the phony. And the unnatural may not be disposed to raise children well.

I would like to take this moment to say I do not believe gay people are yearning to be married, but that the forces of reproduction, unable to reproduce, yearn for their marriage, in false hope that will enable further reproduction.

Under such a law, gay or

lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a

committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation,

and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute.

This is a very naïve view because it tarnishes love itself as the sole provider for the deep need for committed personal relationship—and it gives a significance to marriage does not signify. Marriage does not signify a greater love, than love in general….Marriage signifies the opportunity for reproduction because two people have made a commitment to marriage. A committed personal relationship is an ideal—a marriage is a sugar coated illusion designed to bring people together to morally justify the imposition of the reproduction of the kingdom of god, and necessary in these times because people are not inclined to reproduce the kingdom of god by choice.

The court goes on to mention the history of discrimination against gays and lesbians, without analyzing homosexuality itself, and its merit, within the context of a society that ignores basic truths such as the kingdom of god. Thus what can be done for the benefit of the army, is not allowed. And the pain homosexuals have caused themselves and others, is bypassed; and this is so irresponsible. Without dealing with the issue why something is discriminated against, the root of the problem is never gotten to. Case in point; discrimination against blacks never considers the option of blacks moving back to Africa, and the discrimination being based on their wrongly being here. Case in point the federal government never considers its prime point was to avoid warring between the states— without looking at the causes of prejudice, you condemn opinion and ignore subject.

Then there is the fact Gays separate themselves from society so engaging in earnest dialogue with them over these issues is difficult. Rather than facilitate a public forum to work out these deep issues; the state acts as if these issues are unrecoverable and the people are to accept the unresolveable. This defies the logic of why we have courts; to get to truth, to resolve conflict, not perpetuate it.

People are to be judged individually, but issues are to be resolved and explained—and until it is explained why someone is homosexual, I will always be suspicious of it–the way I am to any unexplained phenomena—that is the nature of inquisitive thinking.

The courts say it has been said homosexuality comes at birth, it is immutable, but unlike green eyes, or height, or hair color; no gene for it has been found. What further proof of its falseness is required?

Thus perceived unfair treatment of homosexuals is based on perceived falseness, and not perceived truth, as the court assumes, because perceived truth commands fairness and perceived falseness brings on prejudice, and prejudice is not a bad thing insofar as it is a right reaction to the false.

The court mentions sexual orientation as prime to one’s identity, and concludes that makes discrimination against it unfair. I agree it is prime to ones identity, but would think one’s identity is prime to being judged and viewed; especially as there are class traits.

We begin with the County’s argument that the goal of the same-sex

marriage ban is to ensure children will be raised only in the optimal milieu.

The civil marriage statute is

under-inclusive because it does not exclude from marriage other groups of

parents—such as child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to

provide child support, and violent felons—that are undeniably less than

optimal parents.

This is just not true as children are taken and protected from their parents if their parents are child abusers, etc.

If the marriage statute was truly focused on

optimal parenting, many classifications of people would be excluded, not

merely gay and lesbian people.

These people are given a benefit of the doubt perhaps, but swiftly removed from child rearing if violating. Moreover, the lack of testimony from actual children of same sex marriage ruins any serious analysis of the capacity of same sex couples to raise children: as does the absence or glossing over the nature of homosexuality itself.

I firmly question the same sex environment upon a child. I do not believe the assumption this is OK is true; because I have witnessed differently, and there are too many absences of inquiry here—mainly being how can one group find pleasure another group finds pain in.

Then the court cites allowing gay marriage will not reduce the level of procreation; yet that is a specious argument because if marriage is for procreation, than why would another group want it? Because marriage is erroneously seen as great, when it is a trick. And it is the duty of wiser people to point this out.

The court goes on to say that gay couples may create a child with other partners and raise it with each other; thus fitting the bill of being a part of procreation. Leaving aside the alleged hurt to those raised by same sex parents—this essentially skirts the issue; while such relation is thus then consistent with procreation—couples are able to raise children without being married, and I have said, raising children should entitle one to financial benefits, but without needing to misrepresent the designation of marriage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let me try to explain, simply, why marriage is not for gays. Say we had a realer state that actually discussed population and reproduction, and what we reproduce, at a state level, and by the people in free assemblies. I think there is a consensus that lowering the birth rate would improve the quality of life. But we don’t take on this discussion.

Because marriage encourages reproduction. And the discussion of reproduction would soon encompass that we reproduce the kingdom of god, which is an altered state. Marriage, not love, signifies reproduction. This is very simple. Gays and straights are like apples and oranges, and marriage is morally ambiguous, because reproduction is not a societal issue, because the kingdom of god is reproduced, and if that becomes apparent, the praxis of western civilization changes. If you see marriage as encouraging reproduction, substantively making marriage different from love, you see the legal irony that marriage is not for gays.

Marriage may seem like a great thing, it is meant to seem to, to play upon people’s insecurities, so that the kingdom of god is reproduced. The kingdom of god is an altered brain-dead state. A sophisticated knowledge of marriage recognizes marriage is not a great thing. Love can be a great thing. Marriage is the subtle institution of reproduction and it is unsophisticated not to know this.

And homosexuality is suspicious unless it is explained why one person is gay and another is not. There is enough lies in the world for people to be manipulated into assuming their gayness, and really not be. I believe gender inequality, racial disharmony, an unnatural western civilization, can all cause the impression of gayness, but that if these are identified as causes, the gayness is no longer there.

Really, if anyone reading this can explain to me the cause of their gayness, convince me acts I consider painful and unpleasant can be felt as positive, please enter into this dialogue with me. Otherwise just assuming people are gay, when you are not, is just accepting authority, in a foolish world, rather than questioning it, and going by your own senses. Please, if you can respond, do so.

You see the irony is this; if you explained  marriage is about reproduction, it would be  understood; but you can’t do this because marriage is designed to fool people into reproducing.

The irony of all this, the moral of the story, further analysis reveals, is that I believe, when a married gay couple divorces, their homosexual orientation dissolves.

The hard realizations necessary to ending our wars

February 20, 2010

Day 1 I would get the U.N. to approve a meeting between all parties to get to the root of the problem. The thinking here is that negotiations favor the wiser and more peaceful.
Days 2,3,and 4, all sides can prepare for this meeting.
Day 5 I would make this speech to the meetings, for it involves dimensions the current discussion does not seem to encompass, The first of these dimensions is that Islam oppresses the Arab people, the way we may be oppressed by media or the regulation of school or lack of free assemblies discussing the economy, or racial disharmonies.  If we differentiate between the Arab people and Islam, and ask them whether they truly want Islam, they just may say they don’t. In which case we are liberating them from Islam, particularly as we encourage their native religions.

The second of these dimensions is showing as false the assumption that the former lands of the Persian empire, require or want a monetary policy; for centuries they were self-sustaining, and if they need more, they would barter and swap oil for what supplies they needed.

Islam must be seen as propping up dictators who sell too much of the Arab’s oil in a western complex.

But the third dimension must be an understanding of our economy as being a wasteful one with regard to oil. It is absolutely essential to understand local free assemblies are meant to create and discuss a less wasteful economy, bring out common values, and discuss the spiritual. This is a compatible harmony with the restoration of earlier and native religions Islam has limited, probably containing more tribal understandings than Islam, which preaches money and is a westernizing, oil-selling tool.

So I would say this on Day 5, and expect and experience a very serious rebuttal on going on to Day 6; but in focused honest debate with the interests of the most at heart, the wisdom here will prevail.

And then Day 7 we would start thinking about this new world order. But the hostilities would cease. It is a grievance to have a military and diplomatic corp. unable to convey the image of Islam oppressing the Arab people, as well as the substantive differentiation between the Arab people and the Muslim. And it is a grievance to have economic leaders who don’t understand how common values may assert themselves in free assemblies that simplify the economy.

In short, hard realizations must be dealt with, to stop a war. And in a war against a religion, our religion must be understood as including a term, The Kingdom of God, which the Koran does not use once, and it is the most important term Jesus used for it signifies precisely what our media seeks to obscure. It is by understanding what the term the Kingdom of God means, or signifies, that explains how and why western civilization and its eastern counterparts may be so shamed; And demonstrates the use and absolution of Christianity in the assertions of the attempted peace-maker.

Consuls to Ceasar

February 15, 2010
If one approaches Ancient Roman History with Livy; his 45 surviving books, each 50-100 paperback pages, starts with the mythological beginning of Mars raping a vestal virgin who then had twins Regulus and Romulus, who sent down the Tiber river in a basket, were found and raised by Shepherd who lived very humbly near the river with his wife. The twins went on to found Rome; had to divide it into two sides between themselves, and then Romulus killed Regulus when Regulas trespassed, and Romulus ruled Rome for 80 years and Rome expanded.
Then the Romans went and found the wisest guy they could find, an astronomer living in a cave, Numa, who made every other day a holiday, and had not wars and ruled another 80 years. There were three more good kings after that; and that benefit produced the more liberal spirit of being ruled by Consuls and Senators. There were two Consuls to be elected by the Senate, to serve for one year. Sacred rods, called Fasces, existed, the holder of who, would rule as he held the Sacred Rods.

The advantage of this more representative system of Senators allowed most of the senators, who by law had to be related to one of the original 100 senators, to become chief executive over the decades, as many years they had more then 2 consuls.

Eventually the army went on strike to protest the foolishness in consistent warring patterns, until they gained the office of Tribunes, who could prosecute and punish any official suspected or known of foolishness or corruption.

So merry Rome went on, from 800bc, to 175bc, when the ancient Romans are fight Hannibal all over Spain, Italy, and eventually Northern Africa. Numidians are defecting, Hannibal has a vast array of allies, Rome has some allegiances from most Italian areas. Oh and then there is a quick little war to take over Macedonia, Livy cites with some jealousy the greek historian Polybius who was there at the time.

But when one picks up Rome from Suetonia’s 12 Caesars, well the first Ceasar is Julius, we’ve all heard and wondered about him, Julius came about in the BC, dying at 55 still several decades before A.D. Rome had been in bloody civil war for generations. Rome had become so big, the commanders leading armies in the far off provinces rallied their own armie to take over Rome for themselves; and eventually Julius made swift mincement of this situation and became emperor, till he was stabbed to death in the Senate, which by then was very obsequius.

Then August becomes Caesar as a step son chosen by Julius before he dies. Where as Caesar is your classical uberproverbial warrior writer statesman wit fascist mobster democrat, in that he stole and plundered to pay for his leadership, which then did lead to reform and greater peace; there was lots of bribing voters back then. Often everyone was left 3 gold pieces in wills of leaders. For some reason the people here in latter Rome, preferred the monarch and bribing voters thrived as a practice; and people were required to reproduce, so the army spread vast can be manned.

Augustus, was more like the quiet guy on a greyhound bus with a chainsaw; not that bad; can keep order and stability well, for 65 years in fact.

This time of Caesars, around the birth of Jesus, is where gladiator cames came from and roman circus shows; the early romans only had big long parties for victorious armies upon return.

After Augustus it got ten times worse. Tiberius ruled 24 years most unjustly and ridiculously; then Caligua was even worse, lasting not four years and dying young at 29, executing cruelly all the time, I don’t see why he wasn’t poisoned sooner. And then Claudius, the succession never being direct, slightly mentally infirmed and crazy, was a step up being less violent but still crossing the line by a long ways, he ruled 14 years.

I don’t know how these emperors survived. Except Caesar, and Augustus. The others survived, in an age of great use of poison, through killing, bribing, being feared, providing greater reform then the Senate, because they were loved by the people and the Senate obsequious and unable to assert its ability to do good what with all good having to come from the emperor or Caesar. Is such the control of the storyteller upon the people; is that the rigid hold of history??

   The bad emperors had an exquisite taste for law, sitting around making snap judgements, listening to pleaders; They also liked incredible shows.

        See Julius, and to a lesser extent, Augustus, never severely prosecuted plots against him. Julius felt fine merely publically mentioning that he was aware of such and such a plot, and that usually stopped it. He was also able to be teased, loved by his men, and far more popular with the people than the Senate; a stark departure from the consular system of early Rome.

     In Rome as there was The Senate, after a while the plebian or lower party, established a house, initially called an assembly, which met outside, near the Senate. Later I guess when it established itself an indoor venue, it called itself The House. But while The Senate is frequently mentioned, The House, rarely is. This is another parallel to current times; The focus by media on power, the president not the senate; in Ancient Rome, the Senate, not House or Assembly.

Until we  focus on our senators, to a degree where they feel comfortable enough to act properly and rule as the people want; they will be essentially impotent or negative.

Eulogy for an old friend who was assasinated

February 14, 2010
When I was young, when earth was younger, and I spent a week or two every summer in Bridgehampton playing capture the flag by acres of potato fields, and causing dune-erosion by jumping off the dunes, with children of friends with my parents. The step-brother, as old as the oldest sister, who with her sister a year younger than me, my two younger siblings, and her younger brother compised… his name was Paul Klebnickoff, and he told me to call him Pablo.
 
As far as memories go, for we must understand the dualism of appearance and truth represented by Western Civilization, and a memory is an illusion, but then responded to, and when young, felt as real; Pablo was always very kind to me, never competing unruly, consistent with a kind word to me, and utterly competent with the grade A intelligence about.
 
I then saw him when I was in tenth grade, at Exeter, where he was a senior. I did not get into Exeter, praise the lord; but he showed me around the halls and told me about the work required.
 
That was about the last I saw him. He went to Berkley, where he became maybe even more liberal. I say Liberal, because I distinctly remember him explaining, to my mother and I, back in 1981, that some people around exeter were “tools”. And that this agnomen was pejorative, and signified—-what specifically I can only guess—I only vaguely recollect the term “tools” as signifying people, implied a going along with the system, perhaps ensuring the system, and not questioning it.
 
Yet I really am a tool. I use my body as a tool planting potatoes, and harvesting carrots for sale, in my pursuit of agriculture—-a trade of integrity some decade of reflection was required to aspire to. Because Paul did not go into agriculture after Berkley; he went into journalism; and naturally rose to the top; becoming the editor of Forbes Magazine’s European Edition. This may be as far from agriculture as you can get. A long time ago, many, many people spent their lives in agriculture, or so I hear. Paul lived in Moscow, as he was also in charge of the Russian Office.
Among many exploits; Pablo wrote a book about a Russian oil and car tycoon, who was Jewish, mobster, and allied with Muslim Chechen rebels; if I have it straight; who was a part of Yeltsin’s fall into a lawless Russia. Paul also published a list of Moscow’s 100 richest people with their addresses; and many of those people don’t want to fall prey to gangsters, disputing the propriety of such publication with death threats; to the extent his getting out of town was a natural concern.

Yet he had faith; or was caught up in the battle; to a degree where leaving town before the shit hits  the fan, to politely retreat, to live to fight again another day; was stopped by an hitman as he left his Moscow office one cold Russian night.

He was one of at least 12 journalists who was hit between 2000 and 2006; no prosecution has been successful. This is the reign of terror upon the press. And the press should step up and strengthen itself with truth, at least psychically.

Because I know, if he had kept in touch with me, I would have saved him. See that is what is so vexing about this death. I had no idea he was a Forbes editor in Moscow. Ironically, The Forbes, live not far from the farm I organically grow potatoes at; in part out of memories of the long island potato farms near.

See, I go to church; not every week, or even more than 3 times a year some years, but I have gone to church; and a darn good one; The Presbyterian One (even though I am half orthodox). There have been years I went to church practically every other week. The whole reason why we Russians hate communism is they took the church out of government; whereas previously, ideally, the Russian orthodox Church provided the spiritual compass for government dealing the nation. With the lawlessness resulting from the deprivation of service; Paul died.

And the first thing you learn in Presbyterian Protestantism is the Kingdom of God is what you call the Human Being. It is a jazzed up term for a serious situation on earth; and you use it to protect yourself from a harm that may exist in the newspapers, but does not really exist. It’s how you know everything is fake.

Now whether this would suffice him protection from assassin’s bullets I don’t know. It does help you relate to bad guys, because it ascertains that the bad guys don’t know what they are doing. That people are forgiven not because Christ died for you, for he was seen alive on Easter, hence the whole Easter celebration; people are forgiven because the human race is the kingdom of god, and the kingdom of god can not move itself, so it is run by the kingdom of heaven, which is the afterlife, and thus moral choices are made by the kingdom of heaven and not individuals as they seem.

So if you made a mistake; you can know this, and try a clean slate.

But the newspapers deliberately contradict the testimony to the kingdom of god, to the human being. Thus the journalist has a morally ambiguos trade; whose ambiguity herein must be specifically acknowledged. Being a journalist by trade might make you ignorant enough to be in over your head; unless you can tune into a psychic state for your profession; that I haven’t seen yet; though other professions do seem to have psychic states; for the truth of the kingdom of god, or human being, is essential to doing a good job; Unless your job is to lie; that makes the psychic state more essential, and harder to establish.

Western Civilization is a prop for population; and the show it creates, while having faint significance; not providing the reality naturally sought. And I know service of this kind to him; might have at least provided the detachment necessary to get out of town by sundown.

So I really don’t know what happened. But I do know one thing; Law and Religion; do mix. But it helps if you know the scientific quality to religion.

Free Assembly Inc.

February 12, 2010
Free Assembly Inc. Options · View
Previous Topic · Next Topic
 Vic Fedorov
Posted: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 12:10:24 PM  
Rank: Member

Joined: 3/24/2009
Posts: 16
Location: United States

First of all our land is more owned by future generation than any greedy current one. We deserved to have the farmland that once was West Windsor passed onto us, as future generations deserve to have as little congestion and as much open space as possible.
But instead of discussing population growth and the balancing of resources and people, we have violated laws and civil rights by the subsuming of this dialogue by local officials who nary consider it.
The economy and population, and school, should be discussed in free assemblies. But that impulse is abridged because so much power is put in local officials, and as I shall show, this is illegal
Community decisions are naturally made by the many, not the few. Some areas of New England have preserved their countryside for future generations by requiring quorums of 240 for community decisions to be made. In classical times, big decisions required the approval of the people and free assemblies were called, where all had a direct vote.
I guarantee you, if you let everyone decide on this train station, if it was decided by the many, not the few, it would not be allowed. And that is what is so unfair about the decision and form deciding this thing. Truly, let the people decide, and the wisdom that less is more, and there are more important things for a community to deliberate, than more building, or destroying, of open space, will prevail.
For decades in the 1800’s decisions were made in town meetings where all were equal.
There is something ludicrous, and unnatural, about these few officials deciding something that effects everyone. And something very natural and good about letting everyone or a large quorum decide issues like these.
Local officials abridge the natural function and wisdom of free assembly and bringing together the people. Free assemblies are where all present have a vote, there are no nobles, or warlords or party members who decide for everyone us, everyone at the meeting is equal, and this is very democratic, and issues are decided by all.

Yet our state constitution enabled local officials in title law 40 and 40a, and this title law violates the 14th amendment “No State
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States.”

And, the amazing thing is that the bill of rights does give us a law giving us immunity to the few ruling us locally, the wonderful privilege of not letting the few decide for the many locally. And this is not just through free assembly’s protection, but the tenth amendment.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.”

Think about it, read it for yourself, this is a remarkable law, and even more remarkable that it is so unused. Local officials exercise powers not given to the federal by the constitution, and yet are not the state or the people. This is a law that will stop the people who destroy open space from coming. This is a law that shows the Toll brothers built west Windsor on farm land illegally.

So the state constitution that facilitates this crime violates the 14th and tenth and first amendment, And this is like a civil rights issue, where there is a right to be free from the few making the communities decisions, that the state violates, the federal government ignores, and the people aren’t even so much aware something is vastly wrong.

So buyer beware, caveat emptor, all the wal-marts and targets, all the homes built on the farm land west Windsor was known for, just two decades ago, that was built with local approval, was built illegally, and you who enter into contracts with this municipal entity or did, do so with an illegal entity.

James Madison said “Information is Power”. I hope I have given all readers who do not want community issues subsumed ultimately by the few, some power, with this information.

There must be some compunction among those concerned towards either an open, transparent, rebuttal of my words in this public forum, or consensus that what I say is true. Because we are a nation of law. And the bill of rights have the most important laws of all.

Anyone who has been to Europe know the countryside there is preserved. Views that existed thousands of years ago still do, woods and farmland separate towns. The value to the culture of farmland and forest future generations are entitled to, and all enjoy, is greater the greed of any one generation unable to deal with its issues without destroying farmland, forest, and space.

England has a National Trust, a trust between property owner, the people, and nation, that manifests responsible property ownership. Property ownership and property does not have to be about making a profit, the way business can be. Property and property ownership can very much be responsible and in the interests of the people and the future.

And let us acknowledge our lord and creator and live by our federal laws, because there is no further proof we have a creator, or at least there is more than meets the eye, than that the ignorance regarding our own bill of rights, and natural law.

It is cruel to not have discussions of the economy and relegate all to going their own way.
It is cruel to not have discussion of the school and education where all are equal.
It is cruel the chain stores were built illegally when approved by public officials.
It is cruel that we accept the regulation of school and economy without any serious discussion among the people regarding therein.
But as there are good laws, there is good hope. And as these laws can not be denied, so they must prevail and right the tide, as people come together discuss their community in light of our bill of rights and the quest for wisdom.

Back to top
   
 
 Sponsor
Posted: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 12:10:24 PM  
 
// //
Back to top
   
 
memyselfandi
Posted: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:57:36 PM  
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 3/25/2009
Posts: 2
Location: United States

I must say nicely said Vic. But the fact is they do have the power to make these decisions.

Are you challenging their abilities to make these kinds of decision, or if you just trying to stop the TV project.

To challenge their ability to make these decisions you need to go to court.

If you want to stop the TV project you can’t insult the people making the decisions by saying they don’t have the power to make these decissions, since they really do.

Just my own 2 cents.

Back to top
   
 
Vic Fedorov
Posted: Friday, March 27, 2009 12:03:01 AM  
Rank: Member

Joined: 3/24/2009
Posts: 16
Location: United States

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
This federal tenth amendment makes local officials illegal as they are neither state nor people. This is a natural and logical concern of a good constitution, simple, and amazing. I think there is consensus what I claim is true. If I am wrong please show me where.

The harder part is why we don’t know this by now.

Consensus is the lack of objection, not affirmation. If we say, “based on the tenth amendment, local officials are illegal” and no one objects, then we have a consensus that local officials are illegal.

If there are no objections to the premise that state law that enables local officials is inferior to the federal tenth amendment that precludes them, and this is in the 14th amendment, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”, then we have a consensus that we must change our state constitution to conform to the guidelines of the federal.

If there is an objection, there is no consensus. The ensuing dialogue must be open and transparent. For instance I don’t think bringing up the tenth amendment is insulting to local officials because local officials should know the law. They are though, caught in the cross fire between the state constitution and this interpretation of the tenth amendment.

I am advocating for laws that already exist compelling local government to be by the people in free assemblies.

I have argued these simple constitutional points in federal civil court, in 2004, 04-366, Judge Anne Thompson. Judge Thompson ruled I lacked standing, dismissed the case, my pleadings and issues never addressed. The case was in jurisdiction over a year.

If I had gotten any media coverage, you would have heard these ideas. And there would have been a check on our democracy through the press that may have compelled open and transparent scrutiny of these constitutional issues by authorities and public.

Princeton Borough, one party in the suit, did not even tell the people of the town they represent, of this suit. There are no minutes of any discussion of the suit by the representatives of Princeton Borough.

Are you a journalist? I got the impression The Packet and The Topics in Princeton, never reported this substantive case because they thought it unkind to local officials.

The contract of an illegal entity is nonbinding because an illegal agency has no right to exist.

Maybe we need to worship something more, so the lord can help us. Because the lord is ignored now, and needed now.

I think open, transparent, public dialogue is more effective than the court system.

I also don’t understand the prevailing habit of anonymous posting. Wouldn’t negativity be lessened if everyone ventured their name? Aren’t people proud of their views and inquiries and participation? Isn’t this pride impeded by anonymity? Don’t writers seek the extension of their name?

Back to top
   
 
memyselfandi
Posted: Friday, March 27, 2009 2:20:25 PM  
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 3/25/2009
Posts: 2
Location: United States

Hi Vic,
I am neither a journalist nor someone who is disagreeing with you. I am just a member of the community that also has some issues with the transit village. Since I heard you speak at the meeting on Monday, and saw your post, I just thought I would try to give you something to think about.
I think you make some good arguments about the constitution, however I was trying to point out you may want to change your tactics, since you may not be helping your goal is.
But maybe I do not know what your goal really is. Is your goal is to speak out about the Transit Village, or to question if any Township Council has the right to approve building in their town. I just wanted to point out words can help you, but they can also hurt your cause as well.
BTW, you are getting media coverage, just by this posting, plus you should be on WW cable channel 27 since they did record the meeting.
As for my writing as an anonymous poster, I think you would understand, that is my right. After all I speak for myself, not the paper or this website.

Best of luck.

Back to top
   
 
Lame Duck
Posted: Sunday, March 29, 2009 4:23:47 PM  
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/25/2008
Posts: 55
Location: United States

Vic Fedorov wrote:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The Council ARE “the PEOPLE”. They are the duly elected representatives of the local community. Don’t like what they are up to? Vote em out. That’s how it works in the good old US of A.

Vic is confused Anxious about how representation works at the local, state and federal level. Speak to the hand

Back to top
   
 
Vic Fedorov
Posted: Sunday, April 05, 2009 8:30:00 AM  
Rank: Member

Joined: 3/24/2009
Posts: 16
Location: United States

First, you quote what our founders wrote in their tenth amendment.

Second, democrats discuss. Communists commune.

Third, I give my name. Would there be less perjorative if you gave your name.

The local council is not the people. They are officials. The people are people precisely not in government, a person who does not make decisions for the many. The People are the vast majority this country is designed to benefit, and whom trust is placed in.

You are confusing “duly elected representatives” and “the people”. The former are officials elected by the latter. There is also a natural democratic inclination not to have the few decide for the many locally.

A reactionary response is the response to something unfamiliar. A reactionary response is not a thought out response but simply a reaction.
Princeton, before 1900, did not have local officials, but open town meetings.
The Kingdom of God, which is useful, christian terminology, means voting can be manipulated. The Kingdom of God doesn’t really vote. Whatever makes up our voting makes up the way our voting is. This is metaphysics. If you want to get into it, everything not solemn of the world, makes a continuing effort to claim the less solemn as elected.

In communism you have a few party leaders making decisions for their locality. In a democracy, locally, you should have free assemblies that understand the obligation for society and people to discuss what needs to be discussed.

In towns of New England, quorums of 240 are required for local decisions.
In europe, farmland and forests are protected. They keep down population growth. Praise the Lord.

Back to top
   
 
Critic
Posted: Monday, April 06, 2009 12:28:14 AM  
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/9/2007
Posts: 219
Location: West Windsor, NJ

Vic Fedorov wrote:

In communism you have a few party leaders making decisions for their locality. In a democracy, locally, you should have free assemblies that understand the obligation for society and people to discuss what needs to be discussed.

Vic – I think you might be confusing direct democracy, such as the type practiced in Ancient Greece or in some of those New England villages you mentioned, with representative democracy, upon which the federal government and many municipal bodies (including the one here in West Windsor) is based.

Direct democracy, wherein every citizen gets a voice and a vote in an assembly, can only work efficiently if the community is small. There are tens of thousands of people living in West Windsor – to try and convene an assembly every time zoning needed changing or a budget item needed to be debated (or any of the other items confronting the continued function of a modern municipality) would prove to be nigh-impossible.

Granted, the representative system is far from perfect, but it’s what we’ve got, so we need to make the best of it.

Back to top
   
 
Vic Fedorov
Posted: Sunday, April 12, 2009 2:02:40 AM  
Rank: Member

Joined: 3/24/2009
Posts: 16
Location: United States

The confusion is mistaking state and federal government, (which binds areas, hopefully for the better) and requires representative government, with local government where that representative quality is neither worthwhile or required in lieu of free assemblies.
In Rome, there are piazzas every block or so for where the people would gather to make decisions in free assembly.
A concept of free assembly is that the powers that be, or whatever can cause an agenda item, require the people’s thought and decision on a certain item. If the city was large, the people would divide up into different piazza’s, or squares, and from such organization of the people the senate could know what each piazza thought of the subject requiring their opinion.
If you really are worried about too many people participating in community politics, the important thing is a quorum of several hundred people, for the heart is more enabled, and the inhibitions less likely, when there is a quorum of several hundred making a decision, not 5 or so. Ancient Athens had a rotating body of 500 citizens.
Forms of freely assembled town meetings were practiced in NJ, in Princeton in the 1800’s. It should be given a tried before accused, whereas we are all acutely aware of the problems of representative government at a local level.
Ironically, Free Assemblies were necessary in classical Italy, because there was so much warring, towns and cities would have to pick sides, The Romans or Hannibal.
I think the value of the federal constitution is affirmed in this light.
Why the inclination to freely assembly is not practiced, and the reservation of powers to the state or people is violated, is difficult to explain. It’s hard to believe anyone being against these points, and it’s easy to imagine officials acting for the people in enforcing the law, and for the people to have applied these understandings towards their local freedom. Yet this hasn’t happened, and so demands some thought. It is not the natural logic of free assemblies as local government that requires much thought, but why we haven’t been practicing them I seek to address.
The lack of discussion at a local level by the people of the economy and education in free assemblies, local decision-making by only a few, this is communistic; being regulated without discussion; in violation of the protection of free assembly, the reservation of powers to the state or the people, and the natural law for communities to decide matters as equals.
What greater evidence of totalitarianism is needed than the irony that we do not know our own tenth amendment, which specifically by reserving powers to states or people, and not local officials, illuminates this humanity.
Communism and Totalitarianism, the silence, and absence of the people, regulation without discussion, I associate with mind control.
Identifying what the mind is that controls so, seems to me to be of the afterlife.
What the afterlife is compared to this life could be a variable in this metaphysic.
Christianity terms the afterlife “The Kingdom of Heaven” and the notion of existence from times past is a respectable consideration in many religions.
The Kingdom of God is an equally prominent term in Christianity.
Understanding there is an evil empire, and it is of the universe, as opposed to of earth, and causes the Kingdom of God, through psychic forces of the universe, is the natural trailhead led to.
The European understandings of containing human beings to cities, farmland surrounding cities self-sustaining has not entered the discussion. Nor has population growth. That less is more, is a missed value. As is the discussion of his regulation, by the citizen.
Yet to not see this in the context of the kingdom of god does not consider this situation.
Amherst Mass still has the same countryside it has in the eighties, whereas the countryside, farms, of West Windsor were exchanged for population, and suburbia. This is because Amherst requires a quorum of 240 for decisions on the destruction of farms to be made. Everyone benefits from farms and less traffic.
Back to top
   
 
Charlie Morgan
Posted: Sunday, April 19, 2009 11:50:49 PM  
Rank: Member

Joined: 4/16/2009
Posts: 19
Location: United States

This is a fascinating conversation but I can’t quite get the essential point that Vic is trying to make.

Government in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is very different from government in the State of New Jersey. I grew up in Massachusetts and attended the annual Town Meeting in my town, so I know something about it.

New Jersey has a crazy quilt of different kinds of government from which any locality can choose. We (the people through a referendum) have chosen the “Strong Mayor/Council” form of government for West Windsor. We the people can change it any time we want, again through referendum.

When I attended the program for elected officials at Rutgers right after I was first elected to Council 10 years ago, the professor told us that the West Windsor form of government is the worst form in terms of creating noisy public arguments leaving a bad impression with the public. He also indicated that West Windsor has the best form of government from the perspective of checks and balances.

If you want quiet, collegial government without much argument, you can choose something like the government in Plainsboro where the Mayor is one of the Committee Members voted by the majority of those Committee Members. That means that the Mayor had better get along with the rest of the Committee or he’s not likely to be voted back as Mayor the next year.

In West Windsor, the Mayor can ignore Council essentially with impunity unless the Council Members cause a ruckus.

Which form has the stronger checks and balances? Which is “better?” I suspect that the West Windsor form has stronger checks and balances, just as the Rutgers professor suggested, but it sure isn’t fun for those of us who have to try and make government “work,” especially when the Mayor expects Council to be rubber stamps when he makes recommendations that really require more thought before being acted upon.

Vic could help me out, anyway, by explaining exactly what it is that he is trying to say, because I really have a tough time figuring it out. If all he is saying is that he thinks New Jersey should change the forms of government that can be used in our towns, then he needs to be talking to his elected representatives in the legislature in Trenton.

Back to top
   
 
Lame Duck
Posted: Monday, April 20, 2009 11:15:12 AM  
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/25/2008
Posts: 55
Location: United States

Charlie Morgan wrote:

We …have chosen the “Strong Mayor/Council”…I suspect that the West Windsor form has stronger checks and balances, just as the Rutgers professor suggested, but it sure isn’t fun for those of us who have to try and make government “work,” especially when the Mayor expects Council to be rubber stamps when he makes recommendations that really require more thought before being acted upon.

WW form of Government gives power to ACT the Mayor alone. Action produces results non-action, stalemate. Herein lies the conundrum. The Current – My way or Highway strategy – has exhausted the patience of many promising community initiatives. Many groups which have enjoyed full-throated support of the Council.

This is abuse of power which can be checked by the Council, but not Balanced.

Back to top
   
 
Charlie Morgan
Posted: Monday, April 20, 2009 11:14:55 PM  
Rank: Member

Joined: 4/16/2009
Posts: 19
Location: United States

LD — we agree. Unless the Council has the will to check and balance the power of the Mayor, the Mayor has essentially absolute power. This Council has shown an unwillingness to buck the Mayor when the chips are down. We need a Council that will be be more than mere rubber stamps. Maybe this is part of the reason behind the label “strong mayor” in the description.
Back to top
   
 
Vic Fedorov
Posted: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:35:06 PM  
Rank: Member

Joined: 3/24/2009
Posts: 16
Location: United States

I am talking about a law, the tenth amendment.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

This law seems to directly exclude the form of local government where a few local officials make decisions for the community, because local officials are neither the state nor the people. Think about it. Are local officials the state? No. Are they the people? No, they are officials. Officials are not the people, they rule the people.

The tenth amendment suggests to me our founders intended for free assemblies as a form of local self-rule by the people, as has been done before in constitutional democracies. And yes, I have been making this point in Trenton.

The quorums of 240 required for local decisions to be made, in Amherst Mass, for example, has kept the destroyers of farms and forests and space out of the area. The same views surrounding the town that existed in the 80’s, exist today, Whereas in West Windsor, farms were destroyed for houses, a highly unnatural proposition.

So my point is that any form of local government where powers are exercised by neither the state or the people, directly violates the tenth amendment and is thus illegal.

Now I know the tenth amendment is often unused. But this seems to be what the tenth amendment does, and if one looks at how the large quorums of town meetings of Amherst Massachussetts preserved its countryside, and the local officials of W. Windsor allowed the Toll Brothers, and chain stores, we see how the tenth amendment is a logical law, designed to benefit America and Americans.

So I have said our form of local government violates the federal constitution, and everything built approved by local officials, was built illegally, and this is quite a situation for minds concerned with law. It shows oppression violates law; and justice to be a concern of law.

Though you say we the people chose this form of local government, I never had a vote on it. It was never discussed or a known issue in my lifetime. So I don’t think the people alive today had any consent to it, nor would choose it, if aware of the option of free assemblies as a traditional form for local decision-making.

But even more important, we live in a nation of law, and the tenth amendment reserves powers not given to the federal government to the state or the people, so neither the state, nor the people, can give up this right for local officials, because the law limits the exercise of powers to the state or the people; the state and the people compose a more just and logical and therefore legal form of local governance than a few local officials.

The state has a greater perspective on the way local matters relate within the state. For instance, some destruction of farm or field might be necessary somewhere in the state, but if every locality does it, then the state is transformed in character and blighted from forest and field. And the people are wiser than the few local officials because they are less inhibited, by virtue of their numbers, and the lack of concentration of power is wise as well.

Local officials have proven to be a very flawed form of government. They don’t deal with the folly of school or economy; or what the community wants: they approve destruction of farm forest and culture when the people don’t want it, they are unresponsive; power corrupts, so by limiting the concentration of power locally, the tenth amendment attempts to limit the corruption of power. There have been many meetings in Princeton I have gone to where many people present object to something, but the few in power decide for it, and this is a story heard all over to a point where people are turned off from local politics.

Moreover the change in NJ government, I think came about in the incorporation of towns through the constitution of 1947, and this was manifested more in title 40 and 40a in the early 70’s.

I know with so many signatures an issue can be forced on the council’s agenda, and if not approved, may go to referendum, but this requires I believe, signatures numbering ten percent of the people who voted. Compare this to many town meetings in New England, where with ten signatures, called a “warrant”, anyone can get an issue to be voted on by the town meeting. So N.J. is way oppressively conservative about bringing up issues for local government, and illegal in face of the tenth amendment.

However, even following NJ‘s regulations, I believe these issues are limited to ordinance type issues, and an issue resolving to return to or create a town meeting format, or free assembly form, or large quorums of 240 like in New England, and decisions by the many not the few, is too vast for NJ’s form of local government to consider. This proposed resolution has to go through the state legislature and effect all towns in NJ. And I have been proposing such legislation to state legislators.
Article 2a of our state constitution clearly states
“All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, benefit, and security of the people, and they have the right at all times to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good requires it.”
What does this mean? Does it mean all citizens have the right to go to court to alter government? No because court only affords the opportunity to try to alter government? Does it mean that all power comes from the people and because it comes from the people it is still inherent in the people? Maybe. But how does a person or the people alter or reform government for the public good, in this specific way of free assemblies and large quorums making local decisions instead of the few? Do I just pray to this constitution? I have the right to alter the form of local government as the public good requires it? Does this article 2a do something? Is there something more tangible meant to be, or is our context too existential?

Because if this article and section implies the people in the agregate can come out in the streets and activate the right to alter government without interference needing only to point out public good, look at the lack of participation in this relevant thread. There is very little will to the people. To say they can act and change things when they want ignores a real politic that has held us back from natural law and the tenth amendment. Whatever has kept us from apprehending the tenth amendment and the logic of free assembly continues to keep us from its application and many logical applications.

The dispute may be that the silence is affirmed as an endorsement of the status quo, when rather there seems to be a lack of power to the people to engage in natural motions and constitutional knowledge, so the silence is of a greater oppression and not affirmation. Democracies have to ask the people what they think, not just assume they are consenting.

Regarding the mayoral form: when the mayor controls or decides what is officially discussed, what the agenda is going to be, there is a huge area for corruption. (This is the form of Princeton Borough, the mayor sets the agenda).
I have cited the tenth amendment’s simple logic numerous times in Princeton, and West Windsor government meetings, to say nothing of writing it and sending it in, requesting a fair, open, transparent discussion of a prominent if unused federal law, by local officials sworn to uphold the federal constitution. No local official took the law or logic I invoked seriously, (the contumely of office, as Hamlet said long ago,) and so I took Princeton Borough to federal civil court, in 04, asking as a federal question simply does the reservation of powers to the state or the people in the tenth amendment exclude local officials and make part of the state constitution and title 40a illegal?
All I sought was discussion on the subject, and had there been some, there was no need for the court room; which as it was, there wasn’t any court room because the judge dismissed my case for lack of standing, meaning I didn’t have a definitive grievance to ask the court for redress of, though the unconstitutionality of local government seems to be a fair grievance.

Why were the courts able to skirt the simple question? Maybe because the late mayor of Princeton, Joe O’Neil, who was responsible for the agenda of what Princeton borough government discussed, never submitted my suit to the borough council for discussion as an agenda item, or alerted the public, preferring to treat it as a trivial and unwarranted matter. Thus, while I ignorantly thought the opposing party composed the sound reasoning of a council designed and voted in to deliberate, the whole strategy was to keep the issue quiet and successfully, as the flow of ideas was controlled by one mayor. And thus the lack of fair, open, transparent discussion, (corruption festers in secrecy,) is what prohibited this issue from judicious and pertinent discussion.

Now in fairness, NJ ethics law says that anytime an official has a personal or financial interest in an issue, he should recuse himself, that is not be involved in decisions regarding the issue. Logically borne out, the mayor, and all local officials, for that matter, have a personal and financial interest in their job not being found illegal, even if they don’t allow that interest to effect their judgment, making their decisions on such a matter, in violation of state ethics law.

His proper discharge of office, would be to have alerted the people of the town he represents I sued, to the relevance of this issue; and say to the courts: how can we local officials represent our town as a party in this suit, when we have personal and financial interests in our jobs not being seen in violation of the federal constitution? But this would have made the dialogue transparent. Yet, in my mind, it is not the desire to not have local office revealed as unnatural, but whatever keeps us from that apprehension maintaining our ignorance.

I have been talking to state legislative offices in Trenton and the attorney general’s office. Sen. Shirley Turner ran these ideas through the office of legislative services, a bipartisan committee of 8 democratic and 8 republican legislators, and the state legislative lawyers, who review proposed legislation from a simply legal/technical point of view. They found no objections to my claims, there are no refutations of my points that I can cite. In this forum its been said the state constitution allows local officials, well it is a fairly clear and common point of law that federal law always trumps state law.
It’s been said that towns are too large for free assemblies. Well even a large city can convene people in many squares and ask the people what their opinion is and so ask the people what their will is on an issue, rather than assume they have a will capable of doing whatever they desire so there is no need to ask. And moreover, as New England shows, the democratic point is to have a large quorum, 240 in many New England towns, where decisions can be made in less inhibited, less corrupted by the concentration of power, more democratic structure, consistent with the reservation of powers to the people.

These are two rebuttals, that have been refuted, that have not been rebutted back.

Your point about talking to Trenton, is exactly what Michael Herbert wrote me, in 04, who handled the case for the borough of Princeton: That this issue involves the state not the local government. Yet then what does the oath of local officials to uphold the constitution amount to? Do oaths matter in our day and age? What can be the responsibility of local officials invested with our power, towards the tenth amendment? Surely the sheer theatrics of this ironic turnabout, the sheer story that all the problems of local government are caused by an unconstitutional structure, that local officials, oft complained about, have no right to exist in the first place, compel some dramatic and thoughtful response? They are the ones making the decisions, they must be addressed, they must at least tell their public they have been questioned in federal suit, by their very oath they must uphold the federal constitution and the tenth amendment and lead the change.

But ultimately, the state legislature created local officials, and the state legislature can take them away, and by that logic, I certainly have gone to the offices of Reed Gusciora, Bonnie Coleman Watson, Shirley Turner, our assembly people and senator, and they, by whatever controls them, have failed to defend their state constitution and rebut my points, as per their oath to defend the state constitution, unless the fulfillment of their oath to defend the state constitution constitutes not rebutting me and at some point, not responding to me. Far from going to battle and showing the public what is wrong with my claims, the oath to uphold the federal constitution or defend the state one is not working. Indeed, when one makes a fair relevant idea, and it is not rebutted but clearly seen, or worse, as District Court Judge Anne Thompson did, pretends to not understand it, this is not the democratic discussion of law and the interests of the people and this country, this is some communing that everything is the way it should be, this is some mind control resisting an inroad into the assertion of law and logic. This is whatever kept us from the tenth amendment and free assemblies maintaining its dominion.

So the lack of open transparent discussion by the state on this issue, because I included the state in this suit, they being responsible for their laws, to me, is communism. Whatever communism is, it certainly is the resistance to fair discussion, it is certainly the disregard of law, it is certainly a lack of accessibility and mindfulness by officials, it certainly is the making and enforcing laws that concentrate local power in the few. Communism is not really run by officials as it would seem, but some vast evil.

So railing and venting against officials in communism has no place, because it is not the charactor of the individual officials that can be the issue when every official and journalist ignores the tenth amendment and logical flaws of local government; they can’t all be bad people. The issue can be addressed in very christian terms. Forgiveness is relevant so officials don’t have to worry about humbling themselves. Were our religion to preach the evil heart of officials and retribution, officials, the theory goes, would be much less inclined to behave honorably because they would be worried about retribution for a situation they essentially inherented.

But the invocation of Christianity goes further than the political necessity of forgiveness. Christian terminology is a potent source for describing this situation. The Kingdom of God, which you may confuse with the people, does not have a will. And the Kingdom of God, as a useful term, is a euphemism for a situation of earth that is quite sad. The Kingdom of God is maintained by the Kingdom of Heaven, and the Kingdom of Heaven thus maintains this illegal society: a metaphysical situation.

Now I understand if an official or person of power might be too held by power and political incorrectness to be able to consider Christian terminology, but I have little doubt that anyone can say to anyone, whether they affirm what I say or not, what I mean invoking the tenth amendment.

Consider why this wonderful, bountiful law of the tenth amendment’s reservation of powers to the people does not cause the hallelujiah and rejoicing of the people, why the only responses to this wonder have been skeptical, pharissee-like. You would think most people in this forum would want to know local officials violate the bill of rights, yet the only ones responding seem to have some vested interest in the status quo, personal as it may be.

Maybe it is that the responders are officials or close to them, in that the metaphysic is our society invests in officials to deal with our issues, the people have not been invested in, and therefore the responders, officials, with all their moral ambiguity, rather than the people, who may only watch, and read; our society has given the people no place in the formal adjournment of specific issue, or broaching issue; that metaphysic has all gone to officials. Thus rather than getting the side of the people, which has been wiped out by our state laws, as a response, we get the side of local officials.

Machiavelli said long ago in his discourses on Ancient Rome, “Nothing good can happen without the will of heaven” I am not saying this is true, but it certainly has seemed true.

Machiavelli also said, in the same book, “The good habits of good people require good laws” This is consistent with forcing people to free assemblies in classical times, attendance for some people was mandatory. The same concerns about apathy existed in ancient times and thus police would ensure attendance at free assemblies. This is consistent with good law creating good behavior and good people. Without laws investing in the people, asking them what their will is, there is no will of the people.

The Kingdom of God has no will. Will has to be invested in by law. Then there can be a will, because our laws enabled one. That seems to be the deal. When those laws have been trampled by state constitutions in violation of federal, the will of the people has been lost, as evidenced by the lack of affirmation by the people of the rights I point out.

Again, this is a metaphysical situation, well beyond the capacity of officials subject to the ridicule of media, political strictness, in a too unreligious age, yet it is the only explanation for this difficult situation.
That not withstanding, when there is an issue for a locality to decide, the people should be called to assemble, be able to speak, then given to voice votes of ayes and nays, and that will of the people be acted on. And may such assemblies consider and discuss wiser forms of education and economy.

Back to top
   
 
Vic Fedorov
Posted: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 3:44:20 PM  
Rank: Member

Joined: 3/24/2009
Posts: 16
Location: United States

Within the labyrinth Trenton can be to the newcomer, many of the offices are with the attorney general’s: A department that never reported to the press or public my case questioning its constitution by saying incorporating towns with local officials violated the tenth amendment‘s reservation of powers to the state or people.
To any viewer I was the more formidable party. They did not come out to do battle but simply run things quickly by Judge Anne Thompson.

For instance, the attorney general’s office relied on Hans V. Louisiana, the 11th amendment and the concept of that one may not sue his sovereign, a monarchal promotion that since rights come from a king, one might not consider him capable of injustice, or that your right is contingent upon the sovereign so you can’t sue the state. (Sovereign Immunity)

First their assumption that a democratically elected state, can be immune from suit by one of its citizens, because that citizens’ rights came from the sovereignty of the state, when our own constitution 2a says all rights inherently in the people is ignorant of Article 2a. “ All political power is inherent in the people.”
Second, A kingship is different than NJ’s state because a king is one man, our state, many many. So what theoretically applies to the king, does not apply to the structure of state. Because the many officials of the state, all comprising the state, have a more intrusive reality than a king, and that intrusive reality includes the recourse to courts for the disputation of political issues.

The 11th amendment, as we all know, prohibits me from suing the state of Pennsylvania. “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by Citizens or subjects of any foreign state.” (This amendment indicates kings, which have sovereign immunity because they make the laws, have subjects, and States, have citizens. This substantive difference belies the attorney generals invocation of sovereign immunity)

So the 11th amendment protects states from being sued by citizens of other states. And there is a good, wise, reasonable, just, reason for this prohibition. The problems of Pennsylvania are the problems of the culture of Pennsylvania, peculiarly, and for one of another culture, the culture of NJ, to see and find fault in this and that, in Pennsylvania, without culturally knowing the reasons and humors as to exactly why that is this and this is that, would be wasting the court’s time, by unfairly attacking a culture without knowing it.
Whereas to sue one’s own state is precisely within the order of citizenry a strong state demands. Because a strong democratic state encourages the development of citizen power and the culture of the state meeting the culture of the people.

Way back in the 1880’s, Louisiana, which was low on cash, issued bonds, which this Dutchman, Hans, bought up, counting on the payoff promised some years later.
When those some years later came, and Hans looked to cash in, Louisiana was flooded, and all the money in the state’s coffers had to go to flood relief, so Hans sued. He thought he had a right to his money and financial contract.
Obviously the judge ruled Hans was out of line because the state of Louisiana is not a bank, it’s a political entity, which if it requires paying for flood relief, with claims of speculator’s, engages in the nature of a state, superseding its nature as a bank.
The attorney general at the time, Mr. Harvey, used this to prove that a state can not be sued by its own citizens, as had been extrapolated in the very conservative Supreme Court back then, and said this exclusion is a logical extension of the 11th amendment.
Well, one, Hans v. Louisiana and is about money, my suit, about political power. The state is not a bank; but a government naturally and legally concerned about the violation of the reservation of powers to the state or the people, by local officials. As a named party, the state, is precisely about the political dispensation of power and government, and the state is precisely an organization of politics and government, and logical party to a suit strictly about the point of government the court should hold discussion on. Because I am not discussing money, but politics and government. I am trying to claim the relevancy of the tenth amendment, not money.
This suit is about the lack of proactively and knowledge by the people as well as the state. We are all culpable. Great divide that may be.
But who are overworked, maybe burned out, judges going to believe, the attorney general, or me, who can’t even get media coverage of his case, to force a little transparency as officials make decisions.
And so it went back in 04, an unsung song the selective media did not sing, insofar as such song would call into question the competency and authority of the media.

Lately, upon reviewing the Sunshine Act, the open public meetings acts, and seeing the code of ethics governing local officials in title 40a, after having discussed free assembly with the department of community affairs, I do try to organize free assemblies around NJ, I finally found the department of local government services which spoke of the local finance board which reviews ethical complaints on local officials.
The department recommended me looking at ethics laws, and I found that since the former mayor of Princeton had a financial and personal interest in a case which claims his job violates the reservation of powers to the state or the people, he should have recused himself from the job of filtering the agenda, or of introducing the suit to the council and the people, which he never did.
Even though I feel the mayor was constrained by what the whole set of nonparticipating citizens are constrained by, which illuminates our society as a show of ritual, not logic. In other words I think everyone would do something towards this cause, if they could. And what is not really holding them back is personal pride, prestige and greed, but that there is something two dimensional about this whole thing, life is more three dimensional than made out in media.
Yet, the only way to press on the cause, like a pinball perhaps, is dropping in on this ethics committee and exposing them to the realities of the illegality of NJ’s constitution: And not to prosecute one official out of myriad of professionals and citizens, but to present a civil rights movement to more authorities in hopes of logical exponential natural progress.
I am just going to tell the ethics board I don’t think old Joe cared so much for the prestige of office and its small salary enough to overturn his oath to uphold the federal constitution, as well as report to his public this suit, anymore than every journalist in the country is kept from the tenth amendment and this case by evil media bosses, anymore than there is a conscious conspiracy to not teach the tenth amendment and what free assembly really means, in school.
And although there is a small chance Joe was ordered to keep the whole thing silent, I really think that is beyond the integrity of Joe because this suit really called for free assembly to replace local officials as a form of municipal government, and this simply is too beneficial to the people and the state and everyone for anyone to not be cool and steady. In other words, trying to rectify the situation across the board through free assemblies that encompass economy and community, makes free assembly in the personal interest of everyone.
Free Assemblies are just too much in everyone’s interest for anyone to be rationally against it. Being mayor, making money destroying forest, field, culture and space, is not THAT great.
Yet strictly from an ethics standpoint, I’d tell the ethics finance board, simply look at it, local officials have a financial and personal stake in the job not being shown as illegal, and he would lose his income for it; so even if that logically would not influence him from his fair decision; according to title 40a 22.5 (www.state.nj.us/dca/lgs.) he has to refuse to make decisions with those considerations within. And this exposes the inadequacy of local government towards considering fairer local government, a precedential action concerning a wide range of people.
Do I have faith that the finance board of ethics can see the issues and appropriateness of the mayor regarding the discharge of his duties? No.
Might the board concerned with ethics and law bump this issue up to another office of the attorney general? Maybe.
Once blacks sat in the back of the bus, women didn’t vote, and not everyone went to school; so, once localities did not have local assemblies to decide their issues in ayes and nays of those assembled.

The issue of changing the status quo is not the merits of an issue. The merits of the issue are not the issue, the issue is being able to act upon the merits of the issue. What has held us back will continue to; such is the way of civil rights movements.
The answer is within. If my mind is aware of something others aren’t, than mustn’t my mind be capable of even more?

Article 2a posits political power inherently in the people, not the government. So where are the people?
The people are like the alcoholic. Everyone expects the alcoholic to stop drinking and deal with his life, everyone expects the people to show up and deal with their problems communicating logically among themselves about what they want to do with their life, what their ideas of community are.
In this sense, free assemblies are like A.A. in that they give the opportunity for the people who have all been held back from the liberty of discussing their freedom with the people of their community, to discuss what held them back and what it takes to live a healthy life and have a healthy community.
Free assemblies are the healthiest thing to give a community.
Maybe this is all a show for the planets watching?

There are other consideration Trenton might consider. For instance to report violations of guidelines regarding closed meetings, such as the general nature of the closed meeting not revealed, or the council not indicating when minutes of the closed meeting be released, or releasing the minutes orally, and not in writing, according to law, one must file with Superior Court. Well this filing costs 200 dollars. So to enforce laws the state made and the state is empowered to enforce, a private citizen must cough up two hundred dollars. This is ridiculous, and weighted against the people.

Our media is very selective. Look how not promulgated the quorums of 240 many New England towns require for decisions. Look how the community boards of NYC are unknown to the practice of N.J.. Heck look at how uncovered Charlie’s allegations of a slush fund against Shing-Fu. If journalistic integrity is protected by free press law, how come our media is so ignorant? Can it be local papers are owned by interests in housing starts? And is this great enough to rule journalistic integrity? No, the vastness of this issue and the solution of free assembly as a form of local government across NJ is too great to impede fairness. Yet I can imagine NJ converting to free assemblies making local decisions, and it not being covered by the national media, the same way the media ignores the New England quorums of 240 and the destruction of our great land across America through increased population which should be discussed by the people, a lack of protection of our beautiful land, and a lack of trust as to responsible property ownership and business conduct consistent with the trust citizens have in one another. Educational.

Free Assembly Inc. Options · View
Previous Topic · Next Topic
Vic Fedorov
Posted: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 12:10:24 PM  
Rank: Member

Joined: 3/24/2009
Posts: 16
Location: United States

First of all our land is more owned by future generation than any greedy current one. We deserved to have the farmland that once was West Windsor passed onto us, as future generations deserve to have as little congestion and as much open space as possible.
But instead of discussing population growth and the balancing of resources and people, we have violated laws and civil rights by the subsuming of this dialogue by local officials who nary consider it.
The economy and population, and school, should be discussed in free assemblies. But that impulse is abridged because so much power is put in local officials, and as I shall show, this is illegal
Community decisions are naturally made by the many, not the few. Some areas of New England have preserved their countryside for future generations by requiring quorums of 240 for community decisions to be made. In classical times, big decisions required the approval of the people and free assemblies were called, where all had a direct vote.
I guarantee you, if you let everyone decide on this train station, if it was decided by the many, not the few, it would not be allowed. And that is what is so unfair about the decision and form deciding this thing. Truly, let the people decide, and the wisdom that less is more, and there are more important things for a community to deliberate, than more building, or destroying, of open space, will prevail.
For decades in the 1800’s decisions were made in town meetings where all were equal.
There is something ludicrous, and unnatural, about these few officials deciding something that effects everyone. And something very natural and good about letting everyone or a large quorum decide issues like these.
Local officials abridge the natural function and wisdom of free assembly and bringing together the people. Free assemblies are where all present have a vote, there are no nobles, or warlords or party members who decide for everyone us, everyone at the meeting is equal, and this is very democratic, and issues are decided by all.

Yet our state constitution enabled local officials in title law 40 and 40a, and this title law violates the 14th amendment “No State
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States.”

And, the amazing thing is that the bill of rights does give us a law giving us immunity to the few ruling us locally, the wonderful privilege of not letting the few decide for the many locally. And this is not just through free assembly’s protection, but the tenth amendment.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.”

Think about it, read it for yourself, this is a remarkable law, and even more remarkable that it is so unused. Local officials exercise powers not given to the federal by the constitution, and yet are not the state or the people. This is a law that will stop the people who destroy open space from coming. This is a law that shows the Toll brothers built west Windsor on farm land illegally.

So the state constitution that facilitates this crime violates the 14th and tenth and first amendment, And this is like a civil rights issue, where there is a right to be free from the few making the communities decisions, that the state violates, the federal government ignores, and the people aren’t even so much aware something is vastly wrong.

So buyer beware, caveat emptor, all the wal-marts and targets, all the homes built on the farm land west Windsor was known for, just two decades ago, that was built with local approval, was built illegally, and you who enter into contracts with this municipal entity or did, do so with an illegal entity.

James Madison said “Information is Power”. I hope I have given all readers who do not want community issues subsumed ultimately by the few, some power, with this information.

There must be some compunction among those concerned towards either an open, transparent, rebuttal of my words in this public forum, or consensus that what I say is true. Because we are a nation of law. And the bill of rights have the most important laws of all.

Anyone who has been to Europe know the countryside there is preserved. Views that existed thousands of years ago still do, woods and farmland separate towns. The value to the culture of farmland and forest future generations are entitled to, and all enjoy, is greater the greed of any one generation unable to deal with its issues without destroying farmland, forest, and space.

England has a National Trust, a trust between property owner, the people, and nation, that manifests responsible property ownership. Property ownership and property does not have to be about making a profit, the way business can be. Property and property ownership can very much be responsible and in the interests of the people and the future.

And let us acknowledge our lord and creator and live by our federal laws, because there is no further proof we have a creator, or at least there is more than meets the eye, than that the ignorance regarding our own bill of rights, and natural law.

It is cruel to not have discussions of the economy and relegate all to going their own way.
It is cruel to not have discussion of the school and education where all are equal.
It is cruel the chain stores were built illegally when approved by public officials.
It is cruel that we accept the regulation of school and economy without any serious discussion among the people regarding therein.
But as there are good laws, there is good hope. And as these laws can not be denied, so they must prevail and right the tide, as people come together discuss their community in light of our bill of rights and the quest for wisdom.

Back to top
   
 
Sponsor
Posted: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 12:10:24 PM  
 
// //
Back to top
   
 
memyselfandi
Posted: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:57:36 PM  
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 3/25/2009
Posts: 2
Location: United States

I must say nicely said Vic. But the fact is they do have the power to make these decisions.

Are you challenging their abilities to make these kinds of decision, or if you just trying to stop the TV project.

To challenge their ability to make these decisions you need to go to court.

If you want to stop the TV project you can’t insult the people making the decisions by saying they don’t have the power to make these decissions, since they really do.

Just my own 2 cents.

Back to top
   
 
Vic Fedorov
Posted: Friday, March 27, 2009 12:03:01 AM  
Rank: Member

Joined: 3/24/2009
Posts: 16
Location: United States

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
This federal tenth amendment makes local officials illegal as they are neither state nor people. This is a natural and logical concern of a good constitution, simple, and amazing. I think there is consensus what I claim is true. If I am wrong please show me where.

The harder part is why we don’t know this by now.

Consensus is the lack of objection, not affirmation. If we say, “based on the tenth amendment, local officials are illegal” and no one objects, then we have a consensus that local officials are illegal.

If there are no objections to the premise that state law that enables local officials is inferior to the federal tenth amendment that precludes them, and this is in the 14th amendment, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”, then we have a consensus that we must change our state constitution to conform to the guidelines of the federal.

If there is an objection, there is no consensus. The ensuing dialogue must be open and transparent. For instance I don’t think bringing up the tenth amendment is insulting to local officials because local officials should know the law. They are though, caught in the cross fire between the state constitution and this interpretation of the tenth amendment.

I am advocating for laws that already exist compelling local government to be by the people in free assemblies.

I have argued these simple constitutional points in federal civil court, in 2004, 04-366, Judge Anne Thompson. Judge Thompson ruled I lacked standing, dismissed the case, my pleadings and issues never addressed. The case was in jurisdiction over a year.

If I had gotten any media coverage, you would have heard these ideas. And there would have been a check on our democracy through the press that may have compelled open and transparent scrutiny of these constitutional issues by authorities and public.

Princeton Borough, one party in the suit, did not even tell the people of the town they represent, of this suit. There are no minutes of any discussion of the suit by the representatives of Princeton Borough.

Are you a journalist? I got the impression The Packet and The Topics in Princeton, never reported this substantive case because they thought it unkind to local officials.

The contract of an illegal entity is nonbinding because an illegal agency has no right to exist.

Maybe we need to worship something more, so the lord can help us. Because the lord is ignored now, and needed now.

I think open, transparent, public dialogue is more effective than the court system.

I also don’t understand the prevailing habit of anonymous posting. Wouldn’t negativity be lessened if everyone ventured their name? Aren’t people proud of their views and inquiries and participation? Isn’t this pride impeded by anonymity? Don’t writers seek the extension of their name?

Back to top
   
 
memyselfandi
Posted: Friday, March 27, 2009 2:20:25 PM  
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 3/25/2009
Posts: 2
Location: United States

Hi Vic,
I am neither a journalist nor someone who is disagreeing with you. I am just a member of the community that also has some issues with the transit village. Since I heard you speak at the meeting on Monday, and saw your post, I just thought I would try to give you something to think about.
I think you make some good arguments about the constitution, however I was trying to point out you may want to change your tactics, since you may not be helping your goal is.
But maybe I do not know what your goal really is. Is your goal is to speak out about the Transit Village, or to question if any Township Council has the right to approve building in their town. I just wanted to point out words can help you, but they can also hurt your cause as well.
BTW, you are getting media coverage, just by this posting, plus you should be on WW cable channel 27 since they did record the meeting.
As for my writing as an anonymous poster, I think you would understand, that is my right. After all I speak for myself, not the paper or this website.

Best of luck.

Back to top
   
 
Lame Duck
Posted: Sunday, March 29, 2009 4:23:47 PM  
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/25/2008
Posts: 55
Location: United States

Vic Fedorov wrote:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The Council ARE “the PEOPLE”. They are the duly elected representatives of the local community. Don’t like what they are up to? Vote em out. That’s how it works in the good old US of A.

Vic is confused Anxious about how representation works at the local, state and federal level. Speak to the hand

Back to top
   
 
Vic Fedorov
Posted: Sunday, April 05, 2009 8:30:00 AM  
Rank: Member

Joined: 3/24/2009
Posts: 16
Location: United States

First, you quote what our founders wrote in their tenth amendment.

Second, democrats discuss. Communists commune.

Third, I give my name. Would there be less perjorative if you gave your name.

The local council is not the people. They are officials. The people are people precisely not in government, a person who does not make decisions for the many. The People are the vast majority this country is designed to benefit, and whom trust is placed in.

You are confusing “duly elected representatives” and “the people”. The former are officials elected by the latter. There is also a natural democratic inclination not to have the few decide for the many locally.

A reactionary response is the response to something unfamiliar. A reactionary response is not a thought out response but simply a reaction.
Princeton, before 1900, did not have local officials, but open town meetings.
The Kingdom of God, which is useful, christian terminology, means voting can be manipulated. The Kingdom of God doesn’t really vote. Whatever makes up our voting makes up the way our voting is. This is metaphysics. If you want to get into it, everything not solemn of the world, makes a continuing effort to claim the less solemn as elected.

In communism you have a few party leaders making decisions for their locality. In a democracy, locally, you should have free assemblies that understand the obligation for society and people to discuss what needs to be discussed.

In towns of New England, quorums of 240 are required for local decisions.
In europe, farmland and forests are protected. They keep down population growth. Praise the Lord.

Back to top
   
 
Critic
Posted: Monday, April 06, 2009 12:28:14 AM  
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/9/2007
Posts: 219
Location: West Windsor, NJ

Vic Fedorov wrote:

In communism you have a few party leaders making decisions for their locality. In a democracy, locally, you should have free assemblies that understand the obligation for society and people to discuss what needs to be discussed.

Vic – I think you might be confusing direct democracy, such as the type practiced in Ancient Greece or in some of those New England villages you mentioned, with representative democracy, upon which the federal government and many municipal bodies (including the one here in West Windsor) is based.

Direct democracy, wherein every citizen gets a voice and a vote in an assembly, can only work efficiently if the community is small. There are tens of thousands of people living in West Windsor – to try and convene an assembly every time zoning needed changing or a budget item needed to be debated (or any of the other items confronting the continued function of a modern municipality) would prove to be nigh-impossible.

Granted, the representative system is far from perfect, but it’s what we’ve got, so we need to make the best of it.

Back to top
   
 
Vic Fedorov
Posted: Sunday, April 12, 2009 2:02:40 AM  
Rank: Member

Joined: 3/24/2009
Posts: 16
Location: United States

The confusion is mistaking state and federal government, (which binds areas, hopefully for the better) and requires representative government, with local government where that representative quality is neither worthwhile or required in lieu of free assemblies.
In Rome, there are piazzas every block or so for where the people would gather to make decisions in free assembly.
A concept of free assembly is that the powers that be, or whatever can cause an agenda item, require the people’s thought and decision on a certain item. If the city was large, the people would divide up into different piazza’s, or squares, and from such organization of the people the senate could know what each piazza thought of the subject requiring their opinion.
If you really are worried about too many people participating in community politics, the important thing is a quorum of several hundred people, for the heart is more enabled, and the inhibitions less likely, when there is a quorum of several hundred making a decision, not 5 or so. Ancient Athens had a rotating body of 500 citizens.
Forms of freely assembled town meetings were practiced in NJ, in Princeton in the 1800’s. It should be given a tried before accused, whereas we are all acutely aware of the problems of representative government at a local level.
Ironically, Free Assemblies were necessary in classical Italy, because there was so much warring, towns and cities would have to pick sides, The Romans or Hannibal.
I think the value of the federal constitution is affirmed in this light.
Why the inclination to freely assembly is not practiced, and the reservation of powers to the state or people is violated, is difficult to explain. It’s hard to believe anyone being against these points, and it’s easy to imagine officials acting for the people in enforcing the law, and for the people to have applied these understandings towards their local freedom. Yet this hasn’t happened, and so demands some thought. It is not the natural logic of free assemblies as local government that requires much thought, but why we haven’t been practicing them I seek to address.
The lack of discussion at a local level by the people of the economy and education in free assemblies, local decision-making by only a few, this is communistic; being regulated without discussion; in violation of the protection of free assembly, the reservation of powers to the state or the people, and the natural law for communities to decide matters as equals.
What greater evidence of totalitarianism is needed than the irony that we do not know our own tenth amendment, which specifically by reserving powers to states or people, and not local officials, illuminates this humanity.
Communism and Totalitarianism, the silence, and absence of the people, regulation without discussion, I associate with mind control.
Identifying what the mind is that controls so, seems to me to be of the afterlife.
What the afterlife is compared to this life could be a variable in this metaphysic.
Christianity terms the afterlife “The Kingdom of Heaven” and the notion of existence from times past is a respectable consideration in many religions.
The Kingdom of God is an equally prominent term in Christianity.
Understanding there is an evil empire, and it is of the universe, as opposed to of earth, and causes the Kingdom of God, through psychic forces of the universe, is the natural trailhead led to.
The European understandings of containing human beings to cities, farmland surrounding cities self-sustaining has not entered the discussion. Nor has population growth. That less is more, is a missed value. As is the discussion of his regulation, by the citizen.
Yet to not see this in the context of the kingdom of god does not consider this situation.
Amherst Mass still has the same countryside it has in the eighties, whereas the countryside, farms, of West Windsor were exchanged for population, and suburbia. This is because Amherst requires a quorum of 240 for decisions on the destruction of farms to be made. Everyone benefits from farms and less traffic.
Back to top
   
 
Charlie Morgan
Posted: Sunday, April 19, 2009 11:50:49 PM  
Rank: Member

Joined: 4/16/2009
Posts: 19
Location: United States

This is a fascinating conversation but I can’t quite get the essential point that Vic is trying to make.

Government in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is very different from government in the State of New Jersey. I grew up in Massachusetts and attended the annual Town Meeting in my town, so I know something about it.

New Jersey has a crazy quilt of different kinds of government from which any locality can choose. We (the people through a referendum) have chosen the “Strong Mayor/Council” form of government for West Windsor. We the people can change it any time we want, again through referendum.

When I attended the program for elected officials at Rutgers right after I was first elected to Council 10 years ago, the professor told us that the West Windsor form of government is the worst form in terms of creating noisy public arguments leaving a bad impression with the public. He also indicated that West Windsor has the best form of government from the perspective of checks and balances.

If you want quiet, collegial government without much argument, you can choose something like the government in Plainsboro where the Mayor is one of the Committee Members voted by the majority of those Committee Members. That means that the Mayor had better get along with the rest of the Committee or he’s not likely to be voted back as Mayor the next year.

In West Windsor, the Mayor can ignore Council essentially with impunity unless the Council Members cause a ruckus.

Which form has the stronger checks and balances? Which is “better?” I suspect that the West Windsor form has stronger checks and balances, just as the Rutgers professor suggested, but it sure isn’t fun for those of us who have to try and make government “work,” especially when the Mayor expects Council to be rubber stamps when he makes recommendations that really require more thought before being acted upon.

Vic could help me out, anyway, by explaining exactly what it is that he is trying to say, because I really have a tough time figuring it out. If all he is saying is that he thinks New Jersey should change the forms of government that can be used in our towns, then he needs to be talking to his elected representatives in the legislature in Trenton.

Back to top
   
 
Lame Duck
Posted: Monday, April 20, 2009 11:15:12 AM  
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/25/2008
Posts: 55
Location: United States

Charlie Morgan wrote:

We …have chosen the “Strong Mayor/Council”…I suspect that the West Windsor form has stronger checks and balances, just as the Rutgers professor suggested, but it sure isn’t fun for those of us who have to try and make government “work,” especially when the Mayor expects Council to be rubber stamps when he makes recommendations that really require more thought before being acted upon.

WW form of Government gives power to ACT the Mayor alone. Action produces results non-action, stalemate. Herein lies the conundrum. The Current – My way or Highway strategy – has exhausted the patience of many promising community initiatives. Many groups which have enjoyed full-throated support of the Council.

This is abuse of power which can be checked by the Council, but not Balanced.

Back to top
   
 
Charlie Morgan
Posted: Monday, April 20, 2009 11:14:55 PM  
Rank: Member

Joined: 4/16/2009
Posts: 19
Location: United States

LD — we agree. Unless the Council has the will to check and balance the power of the Mayor, the Mayor has essentially absolute power. This Council has shown an unwillingness to buck the Mayor when the chips are down. We need a Council that will be be more than mere rubber stamps. Maybe this is part of the reason behind the label “strong mayor” in the description.
Back to top
   
 
Vic Fedorov
Posted: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:35:06 PM  
Rank: Member

Joined: 3/24/2009
Posts: 16
Location: United States

I am talking about a law, the tenth amendment.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

This law seems to directly exclude the form of local government where a few local officials make decisions for the community, because local officials are neither the state nor the people. Think about it. Are local officials the state? No. Are they the people? No, they are officials. Officials are not the people, they rule the people.

The tenth amendment suggests to me our founders intended for free assemblies as a form of local self-rule by the people, as has been done before in constitutional democracies. And yes, I have been making this point in Trenton.

The quorums of 240 required for local decisions to be made, in Amherst Mass, for example, has kept the destroyers of farms and forests and space out of the area. The same views surrounding the town that existed in the 80’s, exist today, Whereas in West Windsor, farms were destroyed for houses, a highly unnatural proposition.

So my point is that any form of local government where powers are exercised by neither the state or the people, directly violates the tenth amendment and is thus illegal.

Now I know the tenth amendment is often unused. But this seems to be what the tenth amendment does, and if one looks at how the large quorums of town meetings of Amherst Massachussetts preserved its countryside, and the local officials of W. Windsor allowed the Toll Brothers, and chain stores, we see how the tenth amendment is a logical law, designed to benefit America and Americans.

So I have said our form of local government violates the federal constitution, and everything built approved by local officials, was built illegally, and this is quite a situation for minds concerned with law. It shows oppression violates law; and justice to be a concern of law.

Though you say we the people chose this form of local government, I never had a vote on it. It was never discussed or a known issue in my lifetime. So I don’t think the people alive today had any consent to it, nor would choose it, if aware of the option of free assemblies as a traditional form for local decision-making.

But even more important, we live in a nation of law, and the tenth amendment reserves powers not given to the federal government to the state or the people, so neither the state, nor the people, can give up this right for local officials, because the law limits the exercise of powers to the state or the people; the state and the people compose a more just and logical and therefore legal form of local governance than a few local officials.

The state has a greater perspective on the way local matters relate within the state. For instance, some destruction of farm or field might be necessary somewhere in the state, but if every locality does it, then the state is transformed in character and blighted from forest and field. And the people are wiser than the few local officials because they are less inhibited, by virtue of their numbers, and the lack of concentration of power is wise as well.

Local officials have proven to be a very flawed form of government. They don’t deal with the folly of school or economy; or what the community wants: they approve destruction of farm forest and culture when the people don’t want it, they are unresponsive; power corrupts, so by limiting the concentration of power locally, the tenth amendment attempts to limit the corruption of power. There have been many meetings in Princeton I have gone to where many people present object to something, but the few in power decide for it, and this is a story heard all over to a point where people are turned off from local politics.

Moreover the change in NJ government, I think came about in the incorporation of towns through the constitution of 1947, and this was manifested more in title 40 and 40a in the early 70’s.

I know with so many signatures an issue can be forced on the council’s agenda, and if not approved, may go to referendum, but this requires I believe, signatures numbering ten percent of the people who voted. Compare this to many town meetings in New England, where with ten signatures, called a “warrant”, anyone can get an issue to be voted on by the town meeting. So N.J. is way oppressively conservative about bringing up issues for local government, and illegal in face of the tenth amendment.

However, even following NJ‘s regulations, I believe these issues are limited to ordinance type issues, and an issue resolving to return to or create a town meeting format, or free assembly form, or large quorums of 240 like in New England, and decisions by the many not the few, is too vast for NJ’s form of local government to consider. This proposed resolution has to go through the state legislature and effect all towns in NJ. And I have been proposing such legislation to state legislators.
Article 2a of our state constitution clearly states
“All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, benefit, and security of the people, and they have the right at all times to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good requires it.”
What does this mean? Does it mean all citizens have the right to go to court to alter government? No because court only affords the opportunity to try to alter government? Does it mean that all power comes from the people and because it comes from the people it is still inherent in the people? Maybe. But how does a person or the people alter or reform government for the public good, in this specific way of free assemblies and large quorums making local decisions instead of the few? Do I just pray to this constitution? I have the right to alter the form of local government as the public good requires it? Does this article 2a do something? Is there something more tangible meant to be, or is our context too existential?

Because if this article and section implies the people in the agregate can come out in the streets and activate the right to alter government without interference needing only to point out public good, look at the lack of participation in this relevant thread. There is very little will to the people. To say they can act and change things when they want ignores a real politic that has held us back from natural law and the tenth amendment. Whatever has kept us from apprehending the tenth amendment and the logic of free assembly continues to keep us from its application and many logical applications.

The dispute may be that the silence is affirmed as an endorsement of the status quo, when rather there seems to be a lack of power to the people to engage in natural motions and constitutional knowledge, so the silence is of a greater oppression and not affirmation. Democracies have to ask the people what they think, not just assume they are consenting.

Regarding the mayoral form: when the mayor controls or decides what is officially discussed, what the agenda is going to be, there is a huge area for corruption. (This is the form of Princeton Borough, the mayor sets the agenda).
I have cited the tenth amendment’s simple logic numerous times in Princeton, and West Windsor government meetings, to say nothing of writing it and sending it in, requesting a fair, open, transparent discussion of a prominent if unused federal law, by local officials sworn to uphold the federal constitution. No local official took the law or logic I invoked seriously, (the contumely of office, as Hamlet said long ago,) and so I took Princeton Borough to federal civil court, in 04, asking as a federal question simply does the reservation of powers to the state or the people in the tenth amendment exclude local officials and make part of the state constitution and title 40a illegal?
All I sought was discussion on the subject, and had there been some, there was no need for the court room; which as it was, there wasn’t any court room because the judge dismissed my case for lack of standing, meaning I didn’t have a definitive grievance to ask the court for redress of, though the unconstitutionality of local government seems to be a fair grievance.

Why were the courts able to skirt the simple question? Maybe because the late mayor of Princeton, Joe O’Neil, who was responsible for the agenda of what Princeton borough government discussed, never submitted my suit to the borough council for discussion as an agenda item, or alerted the public, preferring to treat it as a trivial and unwarranted matter. Thus, while I ignorantly thought the opposing party composed the sound reasoning of a council designed and voted in to deliberate, the whole strategy was to keep the issue quiet and successfully, as the flow of ideas was controlled by one mayor. And thus the lack of fair, open, transparent discussion, (corruption festers in secrecy,) is what prohibited this issue from judicious and pertinent discussion.

Now in fairness, NJ ethics law says that anytime an official has a personal or financial interest in an issue, he should recuse himself, that is not be involved in decisions regarding the issue. Logically borne out, the mayor, and all local officials, for that matter, have a personal and financial interest in their job not being found illegal, even if they don’t allow that interest to effect their judgment, making their decisions on such a matter, in violation of state ethics law.

His proper discharge of office, would be to have alerted the people of the town he represents I sued, to the relevance of this issue; and say to the courts: how can we local officials represent our town as a party in this suit, when we have personal and financial interests in our jobs not being seen in violation of the federal constitution? But this would have made the dialogue transparent. Yet, in my mind, it is not the desire to not have local office revealed as unnatural, but whatever keeps us from that apprehension maintaining our ignorance.

I have been talking to state legislative offices in Trenton and the attorney general’s office. Sen. Shirley Turner ran these ideas through the office of legislative services, a bipartisan committee of 8 democratic and 8 republican legislators, and the state legislative lawyers, who review proposed legislation from a simply legal/technical point of view. They found no objections to my claims, there are no refutations of my points that I can cite. In this forum its been said the state constitution allows local officials, well it is a fairly clear and common point of law that federal law always trumps state law.
It’s been said that towns are too large for free assemblies. Well even a large city can convene people in many squares and ask the people what their opinion is and so ask the people what their will is on an issue, rather than assume they have a will capable of doing whatever they desire so there is no need to ask. And moreover, as New England shows, the democratic point is to have a large quorum, 240 in many New England towns, where decisions can be made in less inhibited, less corrupted by the concentration of power, more democratic structure, consistent with the reservation of powers to the people.

These are two rebuttals, that have been refuted, that have not been rebutted back.

Your point about talking to Trenton, is exactly what Michael Herbert wrote me, in 04, who handled the case for the borough of Princeton: That this issue involves the state not the local government. Yet then what does the oath of local officials to uphold the constitution amount to? Do oaths matter in our day and age? What can be the responsibility of local officials invested with our power, towards the tenth amendment? Surely the sheer theatrics of this ironic turnabout, the sheer story that all the problems of local government are caused by an unconstitutional structure, that local officials, oft complained about, have no right to exist in the first place, compel some dramatic and thoughtful response? They are the ones making the decisions, they must be addressed, they must at least tell their public they have been questioned in federal suit, by their very oath they must uphold the federal constitution and the tenth amendment and lead the change.

But ultimately, the state legislature created local officials, and the state legislature can take them away, and by that logic, I certainly have gone to the offices of Reed Gusciora, Bonnie Coleman Watson, Shirley Turner, our assembly people and senator, and they, by whatever controls them, have failed to defend their state constitution and rebut my points, as per their oath to defend the state constitution, unless the fulfillment of their oath to defend the state constitution constitutes not rebutting me and at some point, not responding to me. Far from going to battle and showing the public what is wrong with my claims, the oath to uphold the federal constitution or defend the state one is not working. Indeed, when one makes a fair relevant idea, and it is not rebutted but clearly seen, or worse, as District Court Judge Anne Thompson did, pretends to not understand it, this is not the democratic discussion of law and the interests of the people and this country, this is some communing that everything is the way it should be, this is some mind control resisting an inroad into the assertion of law and logic. This is whatever kept us from the tenth amendment and free assemblies maintaining its dominion.

So the lack of open transparent discussion by the state on this issue, because I included the state in this suit, they being responsible for their laws, to me, is communism. Whatever communism is, it certainly is the resistance to fair discussion, it is certainly the disregard of law, it is certainly a lack of accessibility and mindfulness by officials, it certainly is the making and enforcing laws that concentrate local power in the few. Communism is not really run by officials as it would seem, but some vast evil.

So railing and venting against officials in communism has no place, because it is not the charactor of the individual officials that can be the issue when every official and journalist ignores the tenth amendment and logical flaws of local government; they can’t all be bad people. The issue can be addressed in very christian terms. Forgiveness is relevant so officials don’t have to worry about humbling themselves. Were our religion to preach the evil heart of officials and retribution, officials, the theory goes, would be much less inclined to behave honorably because they would be worried about retribution for a situation they essentially inherented.

But the invocation of Christianity goes further than the political necessity of forgiveness. Christian terminology is a potent source for describing this situation. The Kingdom of God, which you may confuse with the people, does not have a will. And the Kingdom of God, as a useful term, is a euphemism for a situation of earth that is quite sad. The Kingdom of God is maintained by the Kingdom of Heaven, and the Kingdom of Heaven thus maintains this illegal society: a metaphysical situation.

Now I understand if an official or person of power might be too held by power and political incorrectness to be able to consider Christian terminology, but I have little doubt that anyone can say to anyone, whether they affirm what I say or not, what I mean invoking the tenth amendment.

Consider why this wonderful, bountiful law of the tenth amendment’s reservation of powers to the people does not cause the hallelujiah and rejoicing of the people, why the only responses to this wonder have been skeptical, pharissee-like. You would think most people in this forum would want to know local officials violate the bill of rights, yet the only ones responding seem to have some vested interest in the status quo, personal as it may be.

Maybe it is that the responders are officials or close to them, in that the metaphysic is our society invests in officials to deal with our issues, the people have not been invested in, and therefore the responders, officials, with all their moral ambiguity, rather than the people, who may only watch, and read; our society has given the people no place in the formal adjournment of specific issue, or broaching issue; that metaphysic has all gone to officials. Thus rather than getting the side of the people, which has been wiped out by our state laws, as a response, we get the side of local officials.

Machiavelli said long ago in his discourses on Ancient Rome, “Nothing good can happen without the will of heaven” I am not saying this is true, but it certainly has seemed true.

Machiavelli also said, in the same book, “The good habits of good people require good laws” This is consistent with forcing people to free assemblies in classical times, attendance for some people was mandatory. The same concerns about apathy existed in ancient times and thus police would ensure attendance at free assemblies. This is consistent with good law creating good behavior and good people. Without laws investing in the people, asking them what their will is, there is no will of the people.

The Kingdom of God has no will. Will has to be invested in by law. Then there can be a will, because our laws enabled one. That seems to be the deal. When those laws have been trampled by state constitutions in violation of federal, the will of the people has been lost, as evidenced by the lack of affirmation by the people of the rights I point out.

Again, this is a metaphysical situation, well beyond the capacity of officials subject to the ridicule of media, political strictness, in a too unreligious age, yet it is the only explanation for this difficult situation.
That not withstanding, when there is an issue for a locality to decide, the people should be called to assemble, be able to speak, then given to voice votes of ayes and nays, and that will of the people be acted on. And may such assemblies consider and discuss wiser forms of education and economy.

Back to top
   
 
Vic Fedorov
Posted: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 3:44:20 PM  
Rank: Member

Joined: 3/24/2009
Posts: 16
Location: United States

Within the labyrinth Trenton can be to the newcomer, many of the offices are with the attorney general’s: A department that never reported to the press or public my case questioning its constitution by saying incorporating towns with local officials violated the tenth amendment‘s reservation of powers to the state or people.
To any viewer I was the more formidable party. They did not come out to do battle but simply run things quickly by Judge Anne Thompson.

For instance, the attorney general’s office relied on Hans V. Louisiana, the 11th amendment and the concept of that one may not sue his sovereign, a monarchal promotion that since rights come from a king, one might not consider him capable of injustice, or that your right is contingent upon the sovereign so you can’t sue the state. (Sovereign Immunity)

First their assumption that a democratically elected state, can be immune from suit by one of its citizens, because that citizens’ rights came from the sovereignty of the state, when our own constitution 2a says all rights inherently in the people is ignorant of Article 2a. “ All political power is inherent in the people.”
Second, A kingship is different than NJ’s state because a king is one man, our state, many many. So what theoretically applies to the king, does not apply to the structure of state. Because the many officials of the state, all comprising the state, have a more intrusive reality than a king, and that intrusive reality includes the recourse to courts for the disputation of political issues.

The 11th amendment, as we all know, prohibits me from suing the state of Pennsylvania. “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by Citizens or subjects of any foreign state.” (This amendment indicates kings, which have sovereign immunity because they make the laws, have subjects, and States, have citizens. This substantive difference belies the attorney generals invocation of sovereign immunity)

So the 11th amendment protects states from being sued by citizens of other states. And there is a good, wise, reasonable, just, reason for this prohibition. The problems of Pennsylvania are the problems of the culture of Pennsylvania, peculiarly, and for one of another culture, the culture of NJ, to see and find fault in this and that, in Pennsylvania, without culturally knowing the reasons and humors as to exactly why that is this and this is that, would be wasting the court’s time, by unfairly attacking a culture without knowing it.
Whereas to sue one’s own state is precisely within the order of citizenry a strong state demands. Because a strong democratic state encourages the development of citizen power and the culture of the state meeting the culture of the people.

Way back in the 1880’s, Louisiana, which was low on cash, issued bonds, which this Dutchman, Hans, bought up, counting on the payoff promised some years later.
When those some years later came, and Hans looked to cash in, Louisiana was flooded, and all the money in the state’s coffers had to go to flood relief, so Hans sued. He thought he had a right to his money and financial contract.
Obviously the judge ruled Hans was out of line because the state of Louisiana is not a bank, it’s a political entity, which if it requires paying for flood relief, with claims of speculator’s, engages in the nature of a state, superseding its nature as a bank.
The attorney general at the time, Mr. Harvey, used this to prove that a state can not be sued by its own citizens, as had been extrapolated in the very conservative Supreme Court back then, and said this exclusion is a logical extension of the 11th amendment.
Well, one, Hans v. Louisiana and is about money, my suit, about political power. The state is not a bank; but a government naturally and legally concerned about the violation of the reservation of powers to the state or the people, by local officials. As a named party, the state, is precisely about the political dispensation of power and government, and the state is precisely an organization of politics and government, and logical party to a suit strictly about the point of government the court should hold discussion on. Because I am not discussing money, but politics and government. I am trying to claim the relevancy of the tenth amendment, not money.
This suit is about the lack of proactively and knowledge by the people as well as the state. We are all culpable. Great divide that may be.
But who are overworked, maybe burned out, judges going to believe, the attorney general, or me, who can’t even get media coverage of his case, to force a little transparency as officials make decisions.
And so it went back in 04, an unsung song the selective media did not sing, insofar as such song would call into question the competency and authority of the media.

Lately, upon reviewing the Sunshine Act, the open public meetings acts, and seeing the code of ethics governing local officials in title 40a, after having discussed free assembly with the department of community affairs, I do try to organize free assemblies around NJ, I finally found the department of local government services which spoke of the local finance board which reviews ethical complaints on local officials.
The department recommended me looking at ethics laws, and I found that since the former mayor of Princeton had a financial and personal interest in a case which claims his job violates the reservation of powers to the state or the people, he should have recused himself from the job of filtering the agenda, or of introducing the suit to the council and the people, which he never did.
Even though I feel the mayor was constrained by what the whole set of nonparticipating citizens are constrained by, which illuminates our society as a show of ritual, not logic. In other words I think everyone would do something towards this cause, if they could. And what is not really holding them back is personal pride, prestige and greed, but that there is something two dimensional about this whole thing, life is more three dimensional than made out in media.
Yet, the only way to press on the cause, like a pinball perhaps, is dropping in on this ethics committee and exposing them to the realities of the illegality of NJ’s constitution: And not to prosecute one official out of myriad of professionals and citizens, but to present a civil rights movement to more authorities in hopes of logical exponential natural progress.
I am just going to tell the ethics board I don’t think old Joe cared so much for the prestige of office and its small salary enough to overturn his oath to uphold the federal constitution, as well as report to his public this suit, anymore than every journalist in the country is kept from the tenth amendment and this case by evil media bosses, anymore than there is a conscious conspiracy to not teach the tenth amendment and what free assembly really means, in school.
And although there is a small chance Joe was ordered to keep the whole thing silent, I really think that is beyond the integrity of Joe because this suit really called for free assembly to replace local officials as a form of municipal government, and this simply is too beneficial to the people and the state and everyone for anyone to not be cool and steady. In other words, trying to rectify the situation across the board through free assemblies that encompass economy and community, makes free assembly in the personal interest of everyone.
Free Assemblies are just too much in everyone’s interest for anyone to be rationally against it. Being mayor, making money destroying forest, field, culture and space, is not THAT great.
Yet strictly from an ethics standpoint, I’d tell the ethics finance board, simply look at it, local officials have a financial and personal stake in the job not being shown as illegal, and he would lose his income for it; so even if that logically would not influence him from his fair decision; according to title 40a 22.5 (www.state.nj.us/dca/lgs.) he has to refuse to make decisions with those considerations within. And this exposes the inadequacy of local government towards considering fairer local government, a precedential action concerning a wide range of people.
Do I have faith that the finance board of ethics can see the issues and appropriateness of the mayor regarding the discharge of his duties? No.
Might the board concerned with ethics and law bump this issue up to another office of the attorney general? Maybe.
Once blacks sat in the back of the bus, women didn’t vote, and not everyone went to school; so, once localities did not have local assemblies to decide their issues in ayes and nays of those assembled.

The issue of changing the status quo is not the merits of an issue. The merits of the issue are not the issue, the issue is being able to act upon the merits of the issue. What has held us back will continue to; such is the way of civil rights movements.
The answer is within. If my mind is aware of something others aren’t, than mustn’t my mind be capable of even more?

Article 2a posits political power inherently in the people, not the government. So where are the people?
The people are like the alcoholic. Everyone expects the alcoholic to stop drinking and deal with his life, everyone expects the people to show up and deal with their problems communicating logically among themselves about what they want to do with their life, what their ideas of community are.
In this sense, free assemblies are like A.A. in that they give the opportunity for the people who have all been held back from the liberty of discussing their freedom with the people of their community, to discuss what held them back and what it takes to live a healthy life and have a healthy community.
Free assemblies are the healthiest thing to give a community.
Maybe this is all a show for the planets watching?

There are other consideration Trenton might consider. For instance to report violations of guidelines regarding closed meetings, such as the general nature of the closed meeting not revealed, or the council not indicating when minutes of the closed meeting be released, or releasing the minutes orally, and not in writing, according to law, one must file with Superior Court. Well this filing costs 200 dollars. So to enforce laws the state made and the state is empowered to enforce, a private citizen must cough up two hundred dollars. This is ridiculous, and weighted against the people.

Our media is very selective. Look how not promulgated the quorums of 240 many New England towns require for decisions. Look how the community boards of NYC are unknown to the practice of N.J.. Heck look at how uncovered Charlie’s allegations of a slush fund against Shing-Fu. If journalistic integrity is protected by free press law, how come our media is so ignorant? Can it be local papers are owned by interests in housing starts? And is this great enough to rule journalistic integrity? No, the vastness of this issue and the solution of free assembly as a form of local government across NJ is too great to impede fairness. Yet I can imagine NJ converting to free assemblies making local decisions, and it not being covered by the national media, the same way the media ignores the New England quorums of 240 and the destruction of our great land across America through increased population which should be discussed by the people, a lack of protection of our beautiful land, and a lack of trust as to responsible property ownership and business conduct consistent with the trust citizens have in one another. Educational.

v

Old Testament Lessons

February 11, 2010

The Lord forbid Adam and Eve the Tree of Knowledge because knowledge causes evolution and Adam and Eve stand for animals, and when they evolve they get controlled by the universe and changed to human beings, or the kingdom of god, from humans.

Fear the Lord, Praise the Lord, means the lord is no big huge omnipotent thing. He needs your worship to succeed in helping you. He needs your fear to feel respected enough to grow to  the necessary stature; and he needs your praise to grow to the necessary stature by feeling liked and praised. In this sense, everyone needs to be feared and praised.

People hate prophets of doom, because if you can prophesize doom you should be able to stop doom.

Cain v. Abel –  vegetable vs meat tender—harkens back to a form of religion whereby as few animals as possible would be eaten; and there was something sacred about this protection of life. The farmer killed the shepherd, which is very unlikely, as shepherds slaughter and farmers engage in the nonviolent raising of vegetables. Nor is it likely a vegetable grower would get angry at a meat provider–far more likely the other way—nor would a lord of high taste, be more likely to prefer meat over vegetables; unless to signify a crassness and lower order, in which the vegetable grower would be aware and faithful enough not to let it affect him.

      In other words, it is not likely the farmer would be violent, or feel hurt, by the choice of meat over vegetable; rather the killing of the herder signifies the lesser karma of eating meat; though the vegetable grower is not likely to be familiar with violence.

When the Lord said to Abraham his followers would be numerous as grains of sand on the beach; ironic, because christians are numerous as grains of sand on the beach.

Jesus is created from the old testament by the constant repitition of the invocation of the Lord. The interplay between reader and written word created a vortex, a critical energy, whereby the lordship of a single human may be ascertained, and a religion spring from it, more appropiate to western civilization than the old testament.

The old testament, by virtue of its writing, and being read, and being thought about; in its presenting of imagery and morality; I believe teaches one to THINK FOR YOURSELF. If you see abraham as morally ambiguos for threatening to kill isaac, if you see that the farmer killing the hunter is less probably than the hunter killing the farmer, if you wonder why the history of the hebrew speaking, devolved so tragically- you may see the subtle message: THINK FOR YOURSELF