September 12 & 26, 2011 City Council Meeting.

September 12, 2011 Council Meeting.

September 26, 2011 Council Meeting.

Proof In Video of Constitutional Violations To Follow.

Re: Legal Question October 25, 2011 1:00 PM  

From:

 "Cody Steelman" <codysteelman@embarqmail.com>  

 To: pkoch

Paul

Now I was under the impression that our City Attorney would have some answers for this Council and I had hoped that at some point she would be present during this process. After all she does represent the City and must look out for what is in the Cities best interest and not the Councils but that did not happen. So I am left without the ability as a citizen to ask anyone with legal knowledge of any one of my many concerns.

Now I have already raised the constitutional issue being does a council not meeting the legal requirement of a majority needed for a quorum violate the constitutional under the Fourth Amendment guarantee of a republican form of government.

I argue that the appointment of the government last night was not based on qualifications but on actions of tyrannical nobles, not of public servants and was done solely because of the favored class status. This was an impeachable action which occurred last night as I will show. I can prove that these appointment were granted as a reward for support of the recall.

Article IV,  Section 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

“What it means is that states must have electoral processes to pick an executive and a legislature -- these cannot be hereditary, or the result of winning a lotter”

How do I figure that?

FEDERALIST PAPERS No. 39

James Madison

“If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic. It is SUFFICIENT for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified; otherwise every government in the United States, as well as every other popular government that has been or can be well organized or well executed, would be degraded from the republican character.”

I witnessed a takeover occur last night of our City and a government appointed and gifted these offices based entirely on their support financially, family associations or speaking out in favor of the Five Alarm recall Committee which proof of fraud is being investigated by the Secretary of State and the Oregon State Police has had criminal charges filed against actions of that PAC, the volunteer fire fighters who are criminally negligent at this time and former city officials none of the details I will go into other than to say it is conflict resolution my way.

Now Paul once again my question to our legal counsel.

Can a government appoint a government based on a class status, as I would argue that is what occurred last night.

But I also have another question as the Attorney is nowhere to be found and it seems that questions council had have gone unanswered as well.

Now the following law is the one where this City is exercising and I could agree with you may make council responsible. But it surely was not our Charter. It is also the law that I would argue is in violation of Article Four, Section Four along with this council which took an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States above all others.

I therefore argue that the only power this council had under state law I argue not in violation of the Constitution, was to first call for a special election. To do otherwise or take any other action in my opinion would once again violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

ORS 221.160 Special elections to fill council vacancies; appointment of council members when all positions vacant. (1) Whenever because of death, resignation or other cause the number of the members of the governing body of any city is insufficient to constitute a quorum for the transaction of the business thereof, and the charter of such city does not otherwise provide, the mayor, or if there is no mayor, a majority of the remaining members of the governing body, may call a special election for the purpose of electing a sufficient number of persons to fill all the vacancies then existing in the governing body. For the purposes of such election the mayor, or if there is no mayor, a majority of the remaining members of the governing body, may appoint persons to act for all offices necessary to the holding of such election where such offices may be vacant. The appointments shall continue until a successor is selected as provided for by the charter or law governing such city.

      (2) If all positions in the governing body of a city become vacant and if the charter of the city does not provide otherwise, the governing body of the county in which the city maintains its seat of government immediately shall appoint the number of persons sufficient to constitute a quorum for the transaction of city business. The persons appointed by the governing body of the county shall appoint a sufficient number of persons to fill any remaining vacancies existing in the governing body of the city. All persons appointed under this subsection shall serve until successors are elected and qualified to serve. [Amended by 1981 c.173 §7]

             

Now when I made the Statement that to be a mayor one must first serve on the council I was not kidding.

ORS 221.130 Mayor; term; functions. Concerning the mayor of a city created under ORS 221.010 to 221.100:

(1) Only councillors shall be eligible to serve as mayor.

(2) The council shall appoint a mayor at its first meeting of each odd-numbered year.

(3) The mayor’s term of office shall be two years.

(4) The mayor shall be presiding officer of the council and shall authenticate with the signature of the mayor all ordinances which the council passes. [Amended by 2003 c.14 §103]

Our charter does not say otherwise and if there is an ordinance or resolution anywhere saying the mayor does not have to serve on council, I would argue that we have an ordinance or resolution in confliction with State law and State law holds jurisdiction in the matter.

City of La Grande v. Pub. Employees Ret. Bd., 281 Or. 137, 576 P.2d 1204

(1978).

In La Grande, Justice Hans Linde wrote for the majority that when it comes to substantive laws, state law presumptively trumps a conflicting local rule or ordinance.

Accordingly, localities’ home rule autonomy is limited to procedural matters where the state has no substantive interest.

Id. at 156, 576 P.2d at 1215

So when is the special meeting going to be held to call for a special election?

I would also advise to reappoint the council as I can prove an association with every appointee to the Five Alarm Recall Committee under investigation for voter fraud at this time, as well as I now have more proof to file an ethics complaint about what occurred along with voters fraud amendments to my original civil and criminal complaints to various Departments of the State of Oregon and will do so directly following this correspondence to you. I will also contact the ACLU as I told you I would last night.   

           

Now when will the special election be declared and a special election process begin in accordance to the law? These vacancies need to be filled by a vote of the people without any delay.

In closing will this Council reappoint Council members or declare it unconstitutional?

I know they will not declare it unconstituional but I suggest that appointees not be on the public record in support of the recall, which was won through voter’s fraud as I am proving?

That appointees directly related by family or friendship to any Five Alarm officers or who contributed financially to the Five Alarm Recall initiative as happened last night not be appointed as I will be using them against this council in upcoming complaints? Which happens to be everyone appointed last night.

All that happened last night added weight to my voter’s fraud complaints as you all will see.

Not to mention the uproar this is going to cause this council from the citizens as it is learned what truly happened last night.

I am proving the recall was obtained by fraud so how far does this city want me to take this?

I now have complaints to write and people to contact to make a right out if this wrong.

Thank you for your time again.

Michael “Cody” Steelman

---

From: "Paul Koch" <pkoch@cascade-locks.or.us>
To: "Cody Steelman" <codysteelman@embarqmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 6:34:39 PM
Subject: RE: Legal Question

Cody:  We  thoroughly looked into this and the City Charter clearly leaves the remaining Council members with the responsibility to appoint replacements who will serve until the vacated position expires.  I think the Charter needs some major work.  The most successful places I have seen are the ones where  vacancies are filled by a special election, that way there is less chance for problems. I think it is good to know about the Constitution, but this is a small city and the Charter is the guideline by which you live.

Marianne and I are meeting this week on the financials.  I hope we have the ability to  get the end of the year report.  The audit is just around the corner also.

Thanks.

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Cody Steelman [mailto:codysteelman@embarqmail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 6:47 AM
To: Paul Koch
Subject: Legal Question

Paul

I have been looking into something and need an answer from our City Attorney.

So let me ask, if the framers of the U.S. Constitution intended to create a republican government. Article IV, Section 4, states "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…."

Which after James Madison, the author of many of the essays included in The Federalist Papers (1787–88), put forward a sophisticated concept of republican government.

“By a republic, Madison meant a system in which representatives are chosen by the citizens to exercise the powers of government. In Number 39 of The Federalist Papers, he returned to this theme, saying that a republic "is a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people”.

So being a quorum of a government was recalled, doesn’t it violate the constitution for government to appoint a government? I would say that the people must vote this new government in.

So can you explain how we get around the Constitution here?

This is not filing a vacant seat as in one.

There would have been a quorum to do that.

This is a government without a legal quorum and the law says that a quorum is required to do any city business.

My problem in reading all these laws that I cannot get around is;

Can a government without a legally required quorum appoint a new government?

My understanding of the constitution and everyone I speak with tells me that this situation may very well require an election?

As soon as you could get this answered for me I would appreciate it, as I need to know if my being appointed is constitutional.

Also has the end of the year financial statement been finished and if so can I get a copy.

I would also like to get copies of your administrator’s reports.

Thanks

Cody