Free Assembly Inc.

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

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: