As for needing the money for renewable energy projects? Check again. We ALREADY pay a tax in our current bill for this. Then, when we go to buy it, we have to pay extra above and beyond the current rate to adjust for the green tags PP&L has to buy. The do NOT buy green tags, in OR, as required and then transfer the savings to the customer at equal rates. They charge us the FULL production rate of coal AND the RETC rates. And, the added taxes - how do those support renewable energy projects when, almost EVERY one in the Pacific Northwest has had to be privately funded.

The Energy Trust of Oregon is a joke and designed solely to mess up the renewable energy industry. But, nobody watches over them, either. Welcome to the Pacific Northwest. Great if you're rich -and can afford to go broke slowly. With a bill "lower" than the rest of the nation? HAHAHAHA - try again. States without winter times do not pay what we do. PP&L's rates, by themselves, are as high or higher than ANYwhere else in the nation - we just have less taxes in Oregon.

In reply to this, others have argued that it is the responsibility of parents, not the government, to control what their kids' do. However, the fire marshall explained that the item that kills more kids per year than guns should not be made to look like a toy (irregardless of the toy grenades and semi-automatic police gear that looks real...). The fire marshall went on to explain that the ban will be intended to protect children whose parents are irresponsible...

Sounds fair in the bigger scheme of things, I suppose. Protect children from parents who don't bother to teach them about fire safety and just let them wildly run around starting fires.

But, why novelty lighters? If the kids' aren't taught the difference between right and wrong, it doesn't matter if it's a matchbook, a regular lighter or a lighter that looks like a car- they're going to play with it. But, did the novelty lighter makers design them with the intent to harm children? Obviously - no. Just some person with an entrepeneural spirit figured out a way to sell a .99 cent lighter for $4 bucks- and good for them!

When- not if - this law passes, the entrepeneurs will pay the price. The stores that already show the responsibility to only sell lighters to adults-will pay the price. Adults who purchase novelty lighters or collect them (as the fire marshall admitted to doing herself), will pay the price. But, that's not even the bad part.

You see, the parents who are responsible and teach their kids that because something looks fun, doesn't mean it is, will pay the price. Why? Water looks fun, doesn't it? Are we going to ban lakes and rivers? Several people, every year, die in the local lakes and rivers, ignoring the laws and not being skilled enough to swim!

What about driving? Cars look cool, don't they? but, do parents 'let' their children drive their cars before they are trained? For the most part, 99% don't. But, where do we draw the line between curiosity and accident? Where do we draw the line between neglect and sneakiness? Worse- when mom and dad are no longer the authority figures, how do children's fragile minds distinguish between following what their parents say and just doing whatever they want, believing the government has removed all of the obstacles?

Do we want our children hurt, I say, no! But a lego is a toy, and I have to teach my child not to swallow it. The plug outlet on the wall 'looks' like a toy to the mind of a child and I have to teach them not to touch it.

Is it a problem that the government can tell us, as adults, what WE get to enjoy and not enjoy? I'm sorry- no more drinking glasses with cute sayings because you're too irresponsible to teach your kids it's meaning!! Where does it end (because, now we know where it begins)? Did making toy guns look less real stop kids from liking them or using real guns? Maybe statistics say 'yes,' but I'm not a big believer in so-called 'statistics'.

When do we, as parents, stop worrying about our children's well being because uncle sam has us covered? Do we, as parents, have a right to raise our children the way we see fit (within obvious, appropriate boundaries)? Our we Constitutionally protected to be secure in our homes and families?

When do we have a right to tell the government, 'no,'? You see, this is the problem with our government- no representation. Either congress does as they please, or minority groups with the monetary backing fight to make themselves look important, not caring about the consequences of their actions.

But, hey, half the people on Obama's staff aren't being held accountable for breaking the law, so why should anyone in congress have to be? Our tax monies are going wherever the gvt. Chooses without our say-so, so why should they represent us anywhere else?

There it is, folks. The exemplification of Democracy's failure in America. The breakdown of moral standards and ethics. I wonder when the first court hearing will take place for the person who shows the gall to buy a novelty lighter... Or maybe decorates their own? I wonder when the laws will be expanded by the next minority group to ban bar-b-ques because they present a danger?

Remember, it's NOT about protecting our kids. We, as parents, work hard to protect our kids everyday, including protection from corrupted gvt officials and law enforcement. It's about the systematic decline of your individual rights, the long-term harm to your families and the effects on your children.

For those of you who still support this move, maybe you'd like to also encourage the minority group that tried to ban the pledge of allegiance from schools? Or, maybe you're glad that the boy scouts of America were punished for firing a scout leader who wanted to teach children about gay sex. Think they're different issues? Think again, because-

It's about control. Pure, totalitarian authority that otherwise ONLY existed under monarchies, communist regimes and the like. Heck, maybe tomorrow instead of oregon just banning 'books' from school (which they do, including American classics nationally accepted elsewhere), we can burn them, too? At least we'll have a use for all those left-over, novelty lighters....

*sigh* land of the free... Home, of the brave? 

State of Oregon
District Attorneys Mission Statement
The mission of the Oregon District Attorney is to uphold the United States Constitution and the Constitution and laws of the State of Oregon, to preserve the safety of the public, to protect the rights of crime victims and to pursue justice for all citizens with skill, honor and integrity.
(excerpt from http://www.odaa.state.or.us/mission.htm)

Excerpts from The Constitution of The United States of America, as quoted by the District Attorney's office, to be the FIRST doctrine that they exist to uphold:

(note - thanks to Steve Mount at http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html for the Constitutional references):

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. (Ratified 12/15/1791.)

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Let us examine the role of a Grand Jury:

The first instance of a grand jury can be traced back to the Assize of Clarendon, an 1166 act of Henry II of England. In fact, Henry's chief contribution to the development of the English monarchy was to increase the jurisdiction of the royal courts at the expense of the feudal courts. Itinerant justices on regular circuits were sent out once each year to enforce the "King's Peace." To make this system of royal criminal justice more effective, Henry employed the method of inquest used by William the Conqueror in the Domesday Book. In each shire a body of important men were sworn (jure) to report to the sheriff all crimes committed since the last session of the circuit court. Thus originated the modern grand jury that presents information for an indictment. The grand jury was later recognized by King John in the Magna Carta in 1215 on demand of the nobility. (are we recalling the first post, in which I clearly explained that part of the Constitution’s purpose was to no longer follow European traditions?)

Early in U.S. history, the grand jury served to screen out incompetent or malicious prosecutions. The advent of official public prosecutors in the later decades of the 19th century largely displaced private prosecutions, but also led to their capturing grand juries and using them in ways for which they were not originally intended. But, is the practice of a Grand Jury today, still at as much risk for corruption as they were back then? Grand juries are today virtually unknown outside the United States. England abandoned grand juries in 1933 and instead uses a committal procedure, as do all Australian jurisdictions. New Zealand abolished them in 1961 and Canada in the 1970’s.

In fact, only HALF of the States in our Union use Grand Juries. Yes – HALF. What does that mean? That means, that the U.S. is NOT using the fair and equal standard across the Country, meant to Form a MORE PERFECT UNION, as the justice system has slowly come to realize the corrupt and unconstitutional nature of grand juries. – Slowly – As it is, the “other” half of the U.S. relies upon preliminary hearings in which Judges are allowed to be presented with ALL of the evidence, from BOTH sides – to ensure fairness and accuracy of the issues. Where Grand Juries do exist, such as it is in Oregon – the one sided argument – from Law enforcement AND the DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S office (the ever-scrupulous bastions of fairness and hope.. right?), before dragging you into Court – and sometimes – JAILING you – without your even knowing that ANYTHING was going on!!

A grand jury is meant to be part of the system of checks and balances, preventing a case from going to trial on a prosecutor's bare word. A prosecutor must convince the grand jury, as an impartial panel of ordinary citizens that there exists reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or a prima facie case that a crime has been committed. The grand jury can compel witnesses to testify before them. Unlike the trial itself, the grand jury's proceedings are secret; the defendant and his or her counsel are generally not present for other witnesses' testimony. (a special thanks to Wikipedia, for this information – and references YOU can follow up on to find more arguments defining the unconstituionality of the Grand Jury process).

I won’t even waste the time in this argument to discuss the Double Jeopardy clause, except to say this: the TENS OF THOUSANDS of arguments, in our Judicial system against this practice, is reminiscent of what I said in regards to the Fourth Amendment violations by the District Attorneys- they are NOT upholding the principals of the Constitution as they claim – but are fighting them to their own benefit (see Findlaw for even more, detailed explanations).

''It is now the settled doctrine of this Court that the Due Process Clause embodies a system of rights based on moral principles so deeply imbedded in the traditions and feelings of our people as to be deemed fundamental to a civilized society as conceived by our whole history. Due Process is that which comports with the deepest notions of what is fair and right and just.'' (Justice Frankfurter)

Standing by itself, the phrase ''due process'' would seem to refer solely and simply to procedure, to process in court, and therefore to be so limited that ''due process of law'' would be what the legislative branch enacted it to be. But that is not the interpretation which has been placed on the term. ''It is manifest that it was not left to the legislative power to enact any process which might be devised. The article is a restraint on the legislative as well as on the executive and judicial powers of the government, and cannot be so construed as to leave congress free to make any process 'due process of law' by its mere will.'' (Lessee v. Hoboken) Let us begin by examining the more recent, “Adam Wash Act.”

On December 7, 2006, in U.S. v. Crowell, Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio held that the Adam Walsh Act's requirement that specific pretrial release conditions be imposed on all defendants accused of certain crimes violates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Bail Clause, and separation of powers. So, the question presents itself – is the District Attorney’s (and Judge’s) right to impose “pretrial” conditions on an individual’s release, a direct violation of the Constitution? Here’s where the Grand Jury indictments come in – for no person shall be deprived of life OR liberty, without the due process of law. But, in a grand jury indictment, for the few states that still choose to against the WORLD WIDE accepted standard and use this unconstitutional and outdated method, that IS due process. Yes – you are guilty. I define that by: the imposing of legal restrictions, as would be imposed on an individual found guilty of a crime in a court of law. You are guilty, because they impose limitations on you: curfews; use of the internet; the ability to drive; to go to a public bar; to go into certain locations; to possess legal and lawful items; and so on. You are guilty, and these impositions will continue to be placed upon you until such time as you can be proven innocent. Otherwise, if you are found guilty, then these impositions are increased and you are PUNISHED TWICE.

That’s…. real…. Constitutional.. isn’t it?

Finally comes the matter of personal property being taken for public use. Let me put this to you in the most clear and simple matter possible: search and seizure. The taking of your belongings, for examination by law enforcement, use as evidence in grand jury indictments (and court hearings), is a direct counterpart to the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy. Perhaps some of you might be thinking: “Well, this means they can’t take your T.V. to watch it for themselves.” Why? That would deprive you of the item’s: 1) ownership, 2) use, 3) freedom of liberty and 4) your Constitutional rights as they apply here.

But, what’s the difference? Whether the State’s taking your belongings to “build a case,” in which they are committing all four infringements listed in the previous paragraph, or to “use it for their own, personal reasons,” – it’s the same thing! Your items are in their possession for their use. Your items will now “profit” them. Not only will YOUR possessions be used against you – but they will be used for THEIR profit. If we were talking something as simple as unlawfully downloaded music, which you cannot legally possess, then, that would be something that could possibly be debated. But, if that music was on your computer, where you also kept your personal files, your letters, your email, your taxes and whatnot – then they are DIRECTLY violating the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution by keeping those items – WITHOUT just compensation.

Let me give you an example: Your computer’s taken under the false pretense of an accusation. But, in Oregon, false pretenses count as probable cause in the eyes of the law (somehow – that too – is believed to be “Constitutional??”). Your tax records are on there and you have them nowhere else. The IRS or Dept. of Revenue come knocking at your door, claiming you made a mistake in your tax filings seven years ago and owe them $50,000.00. The only proof you have is on your computer – but the State, without just compensation (which would mean equal and fair – not of value – of content – clearly stating that ALL of your information could be duplicated and returned to you immediately so you were NOT deprived of your belongings without said compensation), is preventing you from presenting your case. Now, the IRS/DOR, garnish your wages. You lose your home, your vehicle, can’t afford your meds and lose your health.

THIS IS EXACTLY why the Fifth Amendment exists. To overcome such dangerous situations that not only infringe upon your liberty – but YOUR LIFE!! However, the Oregon District Attorney’s Office, even in light of precedence set by the State Courts and multiple other States, will hold onto your valuables and abuse their power and privileges over you. Why? If you simply plead guilty or no contest -  your items are returned. You take the penalty, pay the fines (probably only around $3,000 or so – just losing your car, not your home or health), they get PAID for doing this to you, and the Constitution – well – it means NOTHING.

Does the Oregon D.A.’s office uphold the Constitution, as per their mission statement, the first Doctrine, as it pertains to the Fifth Amendment?

No. They argue and fight and spend OUR taxpayer dollars, to circumvent the Fifth Amendment. Once again – we have DIRECT EVIDENCE, that their office is lying, violating our Constitutional rights, and doing so without any manner of checks or balances. Of course, Oregon believes in Grand Juries – the “once upon a time” check and balance to prosecutions, and, in that corruption, has more prosecutions, per capita, than almost EVERY other State in the Union, justifying the taking of children and offering them up to rape, death and abuse; the imprisoning of innocent people, even before trial; and the continued abuse of power that remains unchecked.

State of Oregon
District Attorneys Mission Statement
The mission of the Oregon District Attorney is to uphold the United States Constitution and the Constitution and laws of the State of Oregon, to preserve the safety of the public, to protect the rights of crime victims and to pursue justice for all citizens with skill, honor and integrity.
(excerpt from http://www.odaa.state.or.us/mission.htm)

Excerpts from The Constitution of The United States of America, as quoted by the District Attorney's office, to be the FIRST doctrine that they exist to uphold:

(note - thanks to Steve Mount at http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html for the Constitutional references):

Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. (Ratified 12/15/1791.)

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

First, let me point out the emphasis I maid above on: accused. That means: not guilty of, not yet determined to be guilty of, and only by mere “accusation,” has been brought forth for trial (refer to 5^th Amendment post on pretrial punishments). But, Congress HAS instituted laws that directly and blatantly violate the premises upon which the Sixth Amendment rests:

On January 28, 2008, in U.S. v. Winslow, Judge Smith, D. Alaska, found that the government's conditions for the defense's review of the computer hard-drive seized in the case violated the defendant's due process, fair trial and Sixth Amendment rights. As a result, the court ordered the government to provide the defense attorney with a copy of the hard drive, under specified conditions. Is this isolated? No. And, I’ve been trying to avoid ‘specifics,’ to avoid the unnecessary argument as to whether these violations are limited. The fact is, that Oregon has been putting more people in prison, for a violation of the Adam Walsh Act and associated laws, without a trial or hearing, because the Defense Attorneys, even those who are paid, are recommending that their clients automatically say “no contest,” because the Attorneys KNOW, they cannot adequately provide for their client’s defense. You can go to the State of Oregon’s, Public Defender website and read the numerous articles on this FACT, for yourself.

What’s really at the heart of the matter here though, is the violation of the Constitutional Right to confront the witnesses and the evidence. The Oregon D.A.’s office PREVENTS any “accused” individual from confronting their offender, in a court room, for many types of crimes, including sex offense. You cannot force the Courts to have to listen to the possibility that someone is lying, or that the ACCUSORS DON’T EVEN EXIST!! Yes – you cannot even prove that they are NOT REAL!! This has given way to the Oregon D.A.’s office blatantly abusing their power by trying cases solely upon “Circumstantial Evidence.”

In such cases where ONLY circumstantial evidence exists, the idea is to convince the trier of fact (a Judge or Jury), that you are probably MORE guilty, than not. And, in cases of internet pornography, murder, theft, and other such cases, the D.A. will present the so-called “evidence” to the trier of fact to help establish their disgust or anger against you. Do you need to see a picture of a nude child to determine that they are a nude child? Do you need to see the picture of a dead body to determine the individual is actually dead? Isn’t that what evidentiary hearings are for? To prove whether or not the evidence is real?

Here’s the catch. The Sixth Amendment does NOT say you are entitled to ‘competent’ or ‘effective’ counsel. It does not guarantee you protection against attorney’s who just want to take the money and run. Individual States are supposed to do that. And, where the D.A.’s office claims that part of its “mission,” is to preserve the safety of the public, to protect the rights of crime victims and to pursue justice for all citizens with skill, honor and integrity, the question is whether or not, their trying a case against you where you are not provided with effective or adequate counsel, is within the boundaries of “skill, honor and integrity?” I would argue that clearly, it’s not.

But, how do you even get a “fair” trial in front of a so-called, “jury of your peers?” The mere definition is an oxymoron. A Jury of my peers, that represents the peoples’ choice in this matter, is not 13 people sitting on a witness stand. It’s half a million people, it’s the entire nation. In fact, it goes so far as to be: NONE of the above. The truth is, that Jury, without any factual evidence such as “Witnesses to the crime,” are only being presented with evidence. And, in many cases, it is NOT EVEN evidence that a crime occurred! Ah, there lies the rub that makes calamity of so long life….

In Internet crimes, where the content of an individual’s computer contains contraband, the State and Federal laws BOTH, clearly state, that the crime is not in the mere possession of the evidence, in a digital format (as such would violate an individual’s free right to legally copy music they own and would most CERTAINLY violate the 4^th Amendment right to be secure in your personal and private belongings), but in the knowing downloading, accessing, storing and use (and distribution in certain instances) of that material. If I show you a hard disk with music on it that I believe the defendant had accessed off the Internet, I did not show you their ‘knowing’ download, just my opinion that it “more likely than not, beyond a ‘reasonable,’ doubt, occurred.” But, what is the reasonable doubt? Who determines what’s reasonable? A Jury of 13 people that don’t know me, anything about my values and morals, anything about my history or life or even what actually happened at the time this supposed ‘download’ occurred? Maybe a jury of technically incompetent individuals who don’t know enough to understand the whole entire “hacking/identity theft” industry? And, that’s where the D.A. comes in…

You see, the D.A. is permitted to be involved in the jury selection process. Why? Is that to ensure fairness to you? Of course not, they want to ensure there’s no bias against them, right? What bias is there – when YOU are the accused, YOU are the one being falsely accused of committing terrible and horrific acts against the welfare of those 13 people judging you. The only purpose the D.A. has, and you can read this on the NATIONAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S WEBSITE, under the area of articles, where they list a specific article pertaining to the Jury Selection Process in digital crimes. It specifically states that: “Most jurors have an 8^th grade intellect…” it goes on to say that it is imperative that the D.A. see to it that technically savvy individuals NOT be chosen for the jury, because they could identify the holes in the D.A.’s case, where it’s actually impossible to prove an individual was in front of their computer. It also states that: Completely unsavvy people should not be selected either, because their lack of computer knowledge will make it too difficult for you to explain to them that someone is guilty when you can’t actually prove that guilt. Instead, an individual of bare-minimum computer skills must be chosen, as they will be able to only understand that computers contain data, good or bad, but not understand the principals of how you actually “identify WHO” was on the computer and “who” committed the crime.

Okay – unconstitutional?

"....by an impartial jury...."

How much MORE UNCONSTITUTIONAL would you like to make this? What about the TV and media CONSTANTLY blasting horror stories about these types of crimes, creating an ENTIRE SOCIETY that is driven to be pre-determinately against the Defendant? If this is not an absolute violation by the D.A.’s office, ESPECIALLY in Oregon, I don’t know what is:

"….Pursue justice for all citizens with skill, honor and integrity,"

How much MORE against the D.A.’s so-called, “mission,” could this be? In fact – it gets worse. The State of Oregon has had it argued, with the help of the D.A.’s office, to reduce payment for Defense counsel and reduce the amount of financial aid provided by the Oregon Public Defender’s Financial Assistance office, making it virtually impossible for the Defense to adequately mount a case!! Folks – you can go online and read all this for yourself. I, sadly, cannot. As I write this, I do so with a pen and paper, using notes provided for me by my brother, because of some of the very issues that exist in this one, exact violation of the Constitution, and amongst others.

How many more INNOCENT people will have to be released from prison before someone realizes, that the inability to hold the D.A.’s office accountable to their “mission” statement, is perpetuating the violation of our rights?

Has the D.A. upheld the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution?

No, they haven’t. They have abused their authority to help select bias juries, to falsely and wrongly influence them, in the MIDDLE OF A TRIAL, without punishment for doing so, to prevent the Defense from proving his innocence – and for what? The “pursuit of justice?” When is it a pursuit of “justice,” when you blockade the “accused,” from proving their innocence? When is it a “pursuit of justice,” when you present so-called ‘evidence,’ to a legally unknowledgeable jury, falsely making them ‘believe,’ it’s evidence of a crime? When is it justice when you work to make the jury ‘hate’ the defendant, rather than rely upon facts?

When is it the pursuit of justice with SKILL, HONOR and INTEGRITY, when you try people based on the possibility they committed the crime, not the facts? Is this protecting us? Did this actually protect the crime victims’ rights (that is – going after the wrong person and possibly letting the guilty one free to do it again)? Is this supporting the Constitution of the United States, as claimed by the Oregon’s D.A. office?