What Is Left To Say?

It has been quite a contentious journey the last couple of years here in Cascade Locks.

The paths we take now, what we look back on, and what we look forward to is up to us.

We must determine our destination, what kind of road we will take to get there, and how happy we are when we get there.

Gifford Pinchot said;

“The vast possibilities of our great future will become realities only if we make ourselves responsible for that future.”

LIBERTY LOST TO BE RE-CLAIMED!

What is our vote?

It is our LIBERTY

Liberty

NOUN

1. right to choose: the freedom to think or act without being constrained by necessity or force

2. freedom: freedom from captivity or slavery

3. basic right: a political, social, and economic right that belongs to the citizens of a state or to all people ( often used in the plural )

4. breach of etiquette: an action or remark that violates the polite distance usually left between people and that may strike the person at whom it is directed as insultingly familiar

Who has our Liberty (votes) right now?

BRAD LORANG AND MARK STORM HAVE OUR LIBERTY.

And how did they get it?

They TOOK it from us UNWILLINGLY in the name of THEIR government and REFUSED to give it back.

 __________________________________________________________________________________

While people may not always agree, nobody can be shut out of the process of positive change and be prevented from exercising their voice by means of one of the most elementary rights as U.S. citizens, the right to choose our elected officials.

As citizens our right to choose all of our representatives on council was circumvented by a few who were not only NOT elected by the citizens but were self-appointed to terms that have been historically voted on by the citizenry at the next election.  Not only did they appoint themselves to said terms they specifically and blatantly ignored the charter by incurring an increase to a fire suppression fee again, without a vote of the citizens.

Therefore we the people express our Constitutional right to be heard and cause change in a meaningful way in that Brad Lorang be recalled from the office of council.

 __________________________________________________________________________________

While people may not always agree, nobody can be shut out of the process of positive change and be prevented from exercising their voice by means of one of the most elementary rights as U.S. citizens, the right to choose our elected officials.

As citizens our right to choose all of our representatives on council was circumvented by a few who were not only NOT elected by the citizens but were self-appointed to terms that have been historically voted on by the citizenry at the next election.  Not only did they appoint themselves to said terms they specifically and blatantly ignored the charter by incurring an increase to a fire suppression fee again, without a vote of the citizens.

Therefore we the people express our Constitutional right to be heard and cause change in a meaningful way in that Mark Storm be recalled from the office of council.

__________________________________________________________________________________

 

To all who helped. It was a lot of fun during this rush to what may be nowhere Tuesday.  From my draft to the re draft to the discussions and agreements. We had a lot of laughs and I had a lot of fun I have not had in a long time. So this is for you and you know who you are. We have to do it again.

Thanks for the hard work so this is for you all anyway. Lets do this again just this time the charter.

 

Good luck to the other re-caller and a post page awaits all by itself until something breaks.

 

Cody

The Power Is In The People!

“Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except the American people themselves and the only way they could do this is by not voting.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Those are strong words in that quote.

 Now isn’t it time to take back our right to vote for our republican form of government that the previous council stole from us.

Now for those that do not know. A republican form of government guarantee is found in our Federal Constitution.

That form of government in which the administration of affairs is open to all the citizens. A political unit or "state," independent of its form of government. Only dependent on the will of the people and being servants to that will.

The word republic, derived from the Latin res publica, or "public thing,". It refers to a form of government where the citizens conduct their affairs for their own benefit rather than for the benefit of a ruler.

In the U.S. historical tradition, the belief in republicanism shaped the U.S. Revolution and Constitution. Before the revolution, leaders developed many political theories to justify independence from Great Britain. Thomas Paine, in his book Common Sense (1776), called for a representative government for the colonies and for a written constitution. Paine rejected the legitimacy of the monarchy to have a part in government. This attack on the king was echoed the following year in the Declaration of Independence, where Thomas Jefferson proposed that colonists reject the monarchy and become republican citizens.

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…." Though the language was vague, the authors of the Constitution clearly intended to prevent the rise to power of either a monarchy or a hereditary aristocracy. Article I, Section 9, states, "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States," and most state constitutions have similar provisions. Here in Oregon we have that exact language in our Constitution.

The guarantee of republican form of government was designed to provide a national remedy for domestic insurrection threatening the state governments and to prevent the rise of a monarchy, about which there was some talk at the time.

James Madison, the author of many of the essays included in The Federalist Papers (1787–88), put forward a sophisticated concept of republican government. He explained in Number 10 that a republic must be contrasted with a democracy. In the eighteenth century the term "democracy" meant what is now called a pure or direct democracy, wherein legislation is made by a primary assembly of citizens, as existed in several rural Swiss cantons and in New England towns. In a pure democracy, Madison argued, there is no check on the majority to protect the weaker party or individuals and therefore such democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention," where rights of personal security and property are always in jeopardy.

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; and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior." Generally, such leaders as Madison and John Adams believed that republicanism rests on the foundation of a balanced constitution, involving a Separation of Powers and checks and balances.

But all power is held by the people and we vote for our elected officials.

Now our State Constitution needs to be entered into this discussion.

Article I, Section 1. Natural rights inherent in people. We declare that all men, when they form a social compact are equal in right: that all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper. —

Now I ask each of you reading this to ponder the following.

If all natural rights are inherent in the people and all free governments are founded on the people’s authority; was it constitutional or unconstitutional for our government to be founded on government’s authority as happened here?

Now let’s move on to Article II of our State Constitution.

Article II, Section 1. Elections free. All elections shall be free and equal.—

Was our right to participate and vote in a free and equal election allowed or denied?

Article II, Section 2. Qualifications of electors. (1) Every citizen of the United States is entitled to vote in all elections not otherwise provided for by this Constitution if such citizen:

(a) Is 18 years of age or older;

(b) Has resided in this state during the six months immediately preceding the election, except that provision may be made by law to permit a person who has resided in this state less than 30 days immediately preceding the election, but who is otherwise qualified under this subsection, to vote in the election for candidates for nomination or election for President or Vice President of the United States or elector of President and Vice President of the United States; and

(c) Is registered not less than 20 calendar days immediately preceding any election in the manner provided by law.

If we met the qualifications of an elector were our rights to participate and elect, by casting a vote of our choice for government officials into office, allowed or denied?

Section 8. Regulation of elections. The Legislative Assembly shall enact laws to support the privilege of free suffrage, prescribing the manner of regulating, and conducting elections, and prohibiting under adequate penalties, all undue influence therein, from power, bribery, tumult, and other improper conduct.—

Did our legislative assembly (council) enact laws to support or deny our right to free suffrage (right to vote)? Or did they interpret it to strip the rights of the people away from us?

Did our legislative assembly prescribe the manner of regulating and conducting an election or did they deny us of our right to an election?

Did our legislative assembly under adequate penalties conduct an election prohibiting all undue influence therein from their undue power, tumult and improper conduct or did they deny us those rights and use their power, tumult and improper conduct against the people?

Was that council not ever deciding by a vote on the issue before the council (as required by law) time and time again in violation of other laws? Remember the last discussion ended in Brad Lorang Patting Gail Lewis on the back telling him he did not have to worry because it did not concern him as Gails term would be on the General Election Ballot. Also Brad saying it only concerned him and Mark. Its on video on this blog.

Section 14. Time of holding elections and assuming duties of office. The regular general biennial election in Oregon for the year A. D. 1910 and thereafter shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. All officers except the Governor, elected for a six year term in 1904 or for a four year term in 1906 or for a two year term in 1908 shall continue to hold their respective offices until the first Monday in January, 1911; and all officers, except the Governor elected at any regular general biennial election after the adoption of this amendment shall assume the duties of their respective offices on the first Monday in January following such election. All laws pertaining to the nomination of candidates, registration of voters and all other things incident to the holding of the regular biennial election shall be enforced and be effected the same number of days before the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November that they have heretofore been before the first Monday in June biennially, except as may hereafter be provided by law.

 

Section 14a. Time of holding elections in incorporated cities and towns. Incorporated cities and towns shall hold their nominating and regular elections for their several elective officers at the same time that the primary and general biennial elections for State and county officers are held, and the election precincts and officers shall be the same for all elections held at the same time. All provisions of the charters and ordinances of incorporated cities and towns pertaining to the holding of elections shall continue in full force and effect except so far as they relate to the time of holding such elections. Every officer who, at the time of the adoption of this amendment, is the duly qualified incumbent of an elective office of an incorporated city or town shall hold his office for the term for which he was elected and until his successor is elected and qualified. The Legislature, and cities and towns, shall enact such supplementary legislation as may be necessary to carry the provisions of this amendment into effect.

 

Well they are ordered by the constitution to hold elections so did they?

Well there are no ordinances concerning voting at least on the City web site, so now I will go over our Charter and see what election laws the people have allowed the City to have outside of the scope of the Constitution which apply here and I find these. But from what I see nowhere in our State Constitution, does it say anything about an appointee being able to serve a full term. As a matter of fact nowhere is an appointment granted power of an elected official anywhere.

So now to our City Charter.

CHAPTER VI, ELECTIONS Section 24. CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS. The election laws of the State of Oregon shall apply to elections held under this Charter except as this charter or an ordinance of the City prescribes otherwise.

I also find this.

CHAPTER VII, VACANCIES IN OFFICE Section 30. FILLING OF VACANCIES. Council vacancies shall be filled by a majority of the remaining members of the Council. The appointee’s term of office shall begin immediately and shall continue until the next general election and the term for that position shall be the unexpired portion of the remaining term.

Now I am sorry I had you all sitting around having to listen to Lance Masters time and time again tell you all how he knew what the charter meant. How he told you all how he knew it as he even helped study it to write the new charter that did not even get to the voters before it was shut down for so many mistakes.

Understand my issue from the beginning has been; why on earth would anybody recall 4 council members at one time? Because if you do that, you are left without a legal quorum under the law to do any city business.
So lets go beyond the argument of what the second sentence of what Section 30 of our charter meant and put this issue to bed. 

Let’s go back to the first sentence of Section 30; “Council vacancies shall be filled by a majority of the remaining members of the Council.”

So what’s a majority?

CHAPTER IV, COUNCIL Section 19. VOTE REQUIRED. Except as this charter provides otherwise, express concurrence of a majority (four members) of the Council is necessary to decide affirmatively any question before the Council.

So a council of 3, when the charter says a majority is 4 members of Council constitute a majority and are required to decide affirmatively any question before the council and that means even the power to appoint.

There were never enough members left after the recall to appoint anyone and all charter provisions they thought they had are null and voided out. Even if the City Charter applied, the only interpretation of our charter would be to enact legislation to protect the voter’s rights as you just read in our State Constitution.

Which leads me back to state election law as the charter said the election laws of the state apply to elections held under this charter and I have to see what a city can do to appoint when there is no legal quorum of the council.

“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”

http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/221.160

So in accordance to this law all the council could do was to call for a special election to fill the vacancies, as this law allowed the majority to be without a quorum to call for a special election to fill the vacancies. To bad the charter had no provision to appoint when the council members did not meet the quorum requirments. So because we do not allow the city to hold their own elections we do not have to worry about any of the rest of this provision of law, as that only deals with election officers and filling those office vacancies by appointment. So because we do not have election officers we do not have to worry about successors as we have no officers of election or anything in our charter or any law concerning election officers or their terms of office.
There would have had to be a special election where the people could exercise our rights to vote and of course we would have voted to have the elected fill the remaining terms anyway.

Now it took me so long to inform you all of this. Because, for a few years now, I have had a public records search active with the city, looking for our Articles of Incorporation. The City could not find them over all this time. Then the City kept censoring my public comment as I have been going through my surgeries which touched on these appointments in some of my censored public comments. So even though I got hurt again, I attended a council meeting in November. During public comment I explained to the council, that I had to have those documents as there were two provisions of law for different cities concerning this issue and the way it looked to me with the city not being able to locate the Articles of Incorporation. That the city was not incorporated and laws for those cities meant Brad and Marks terms ended the First Tuesday in January.

Now because of the problems of the city not being able to locate them I assumed that we were not incorporated as the rumor around town said. I always thought that the laws for unincorporated cities applied and rightfully so after years of a public records request and even longer rumors.  

But I reached out to Paul again with my need for these and I pointed out the laws for unincorporated cities and made it clear without them Mark Storm and Brad Lorang would be gone. On the afternoon of New Year’s Eve I got a phone call from Ruben our City Attorney. He told me he spent a lot of time searching but he found what he thought was our Articles of Incorporation and I asked him to get them to me. At 4 that afternoon I got an email from our City Recorder with them.

Now I did not have time to go over them until the second of January. Now what I was sent appears to be a court transcript like minutes of court proceedings in Hood River for the news. I have taken all the information pertaining to Cascade Locks and our Incorporation. I then had to go back to the Oregon Laws in effect at that time and go over them and see if all provisions were met as the requirements have changed over time. That took time. But in the end even though these are not the actual court orders and motions. I would say from what I have seen is; the city is an incorporated city. So all those rumors around town that we are not incorporated. It looks to me like they are not entirely true from what I have just received from such a long public records request.

But I do not know if that is good news or not? You see with the city not being able to find the articles of incorporation since long before the recall even started, I had to assume the rumor was true. So this is the law I thought would apply and it is for an unincorporated city.

http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/221.904

But since the law for an incorporated city is ORS 221.160 (above) that applies to appointing vacancies without a legal quorum. So it looks to me like we have not had a legal City Council since the recall In October of 2011?

So does this mean that every action taken since October of 2011 is null and void?

Does that mean the city must refund all those taxes because an unelected (unlawful) council with no legal foundation to do so passed them as a city law they had no legal right to be in power of?

Is the unlawful council going to have to pay back, every single expenditure they authorized?

Are all the new employees of the unelected, unlawful council hired employees, or are they now unemployed as that council did not have the power to hire anyone?

Do I have a right to sue or charge criminally for a deprivation of my rights under color of law?

I have many questions here. But right now, with what time I have had, what I do know is we have 3 duly elected councilmembers and 1 duly elected mayor.

Brad Lorang and Mark Storm by what I have researched since getting our Articles of Incorporation, the Constitutions and the Laws of Our State, have never been a lawful councilmember after the recall from what I see. Lance Masters was never mayor and because he resigned his council position was not a council member. Gail Lewis, Randy Holmstrom (until this past general election) and Jeff Helfrick were never lawful council members as well.

So I ask every citizen now to join me during public comment Monday night. I ask you to form a social compact with me and exercise our Article I, Section I right and remove Brad Lorang and Mark Storm by our vote and show them how important the vote is as well as the power of the people.

Now I can put all issues aside concerning these men and say that even if they were in the position they have left us in I would even fight this fight or so to say, for them, as I feel that strong about it. But they are the ones who violated our rights and I myself gave them time to file for candidacy so they are the violators of my rights and your rights and they have to fight me and hopefully I do not feel alone about our right to vote and to participate in the voting process that includes you?

This is about each and every one of our rights to vote and our rights to participate in the voting process as is intended in our great nation.

So I am going to end where I started and ask each of you to fight with me for your rights.

Article I, Section 1. Natural rights inherent in people. We declare that all men, when they form a social compact are equal in right: that all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper. —

No we do not even need all these laws I have pointed out here to remove Mark Storm and Brad Lorang from the offices they do not hold under legal authority. You cannot like them and we could exercise this right. But I ask that everyone think only of your right to vote and how they came into office as they did. I ask that you keep it peaceful beyond vocal as I know how it can get. But restrain yourselves as much as we (me included) can. I ask for this to be as peaceful as we can be. We have the power anyway so there is nothing to get mad about.

So come be a part of what could be history in the making and let’s take back our rights and our liberties.

Cody.