Eye On Englewood

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizens.org

My colleague's daughter married a Mexican and moved to Mexico. Lately she's been writing about the human crises going on there and how it has touched not only their family, but also their friends visiting and their entire community. She is begging us on this side of the border to make it secure so that the mass weaponry train from America to Mexico stops.

In my thoughts on Hickenlooper v. Tancredo's race for the governor, I cannot help but realize there are two sides to being a good neighbor. Knowing one's boundaries and enforcing them aids the good of both sides. If a relationship has become unhealthy, the customs between the parties need to change. This is true in marriage and friendships, why not in international law and state boundaries?

When I was a kid my teachers and family told me not to color outside the boundaries in my coloring book. I have lately heard the current ideal is to allow the child to express himself on the page. But, then, why give him a coloring book with lines and figures? Wouldn't a cheap blank page do just fine?

I have religious friends who are all about "giving a cup of cold water to the stranger in need," "loving foreigners because God loves all humanity"... but, I keep coming back to giving that cup of cold water not being mutually exclusive of giving a citation if violations of civil or criminal laws occur. A new set of clothing can be given by a religious entity to those who are being deported. No problem with the lines there.

Human Rights, as interpreted by law and judges include duties. Law is based on liberty for all, so why do we hold the law suspect when it attempts to hold the thieves of our society responsible for theft?

Loving a stranger, feeding an alien is not the same thing as loving a terrorist and feeding an illegal immigrant. A line must be drawn in our consciences and in our laws and in our governors.

How is it that an entire political atmosphere can hold the conviction that in depleting their values and resources, safety and law, they can somehow save all the immigrants? Yet, how many of us ask a stranger to stay overnight in our own homes? We somehow trust our gut to go slow, before allowing them into our homes while we are sleeping. Most of us lock our doors at night. Why?

Sometimes I think all the hype about Mexican borders and illegal immigration, and human trafficking is a veil to hide the larger threat of international terrorism. At what point do we throw down the gates?

While it is true that Muslims hold to courtesy and hospitality as a core value, if they believe you are a threat to them in their country, they'll cut your throat after you take advantage of their family for a bed and breakfast. Perhaps we should learn something from them. "Being a stranger, and you fed me" or "helping the orphan and widow in their distress" is not the same thing as housing, clothing, enabling criminal conduct. A line must be drawn.

We are a nation that has rationalized killing babies so that they don't have to suffer without love later in life. Yet, we protect illegals on every front. Our education has lacked the daily reading of Asap's Fables.

No security, no liability for anyone, is our creed of "niceties." Last week National Public Radio (NPR) fired news annalist Williams for "compromising the political correctness of his opinions while reporting the national news." When someone who is supposed to be portraying an analysis of current events is fired and brought instantly to the gates of poverty by his own people for not being "nice enough" in his opinions regarding the strange customs becoming prevalent in a matter of personal air travel security, I think we have all our boundaries imploded.

It is one thing to be kind to a stranger and welcome him in. It is another thing to prefer his customs over our own, to allow his faith that includes political Jihad in his holy teachings over our own faith and security. A line must be drawn.

We teach our children and women to "trust your gut" when encountering strangers, and yet we fire people for saying that they are trusting their gut. Crazy thinking these do-gooders have. Strangers come from all over, but cunning criminality overcomes us when we color outside the boundaries. Does anyone know what is at stake this election?

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizens.org

Dissenters of Tom Tancredo's immigration policies beg us to dislodge him from the momentum for governor's seat. This is really the only social claim they can maintain against him since he has a proven record of solid business success, years of political experience and solid ethical and moral records. But, has anyone stopped to analyze what the Constitution and statutes deem "illegal" immigration?

I wouldn't have believed it, until I read the case law myself, but the theory of equal rights is based upon the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Equal rights is based on a standard access to rights under the law. What is that standard, you ask? It is the standard of the european pilgrims to America, it is the white man's standard for freedom, for work, for possession of land and practice of religion.

This fact was hard to swallow because it appeared to be discriminatory and non politically correct in itself. It seemed to give the Ku Klux Klan, and right wing selfishness import.

But the more I wrestled with the concept, the more I realized that what the Klan attempts to do is to dislodge the justice maintained in the Fourteenth Amendment, and thereby dislodge equal rights.

The value of the Fourteenth Amendment is that it assured women, aliens, and minorities in America the right to access the courts for redress of their grievances, the same as the white immigrant men who may have only been thinking of themselves when they penned the Declaration of Independence.

So, if aliens, women and minorities have constitutional protection under the present Constitution and Declaration of Independence, how can they be deemed "illegal aliens" within Tom Tancredo's analysis?

Crimes are founded on intentionality. Aliens are only acting illegally if the prosecution can show they intentionally acted against the law. The law itself must contain definitions of the elements of the crime and statutes must contain firm terms defining what is legal or illegal.

Short of being found "illegal" under these terms, the only other redress we have against aliens is a tort. The threshold for accidental aliens, or tortuous aliens taking healthcare services and jobs from Americans must include the fingers pointing back at the American political climate for having allowed the aliens' encroachment all of these years on our soil. After all, we elected the officials who allowed the newcomers, and we elected the mayors, judges and sheriffs that refused to hold and prosecute them. We are all culpable unless we can show that we have defended our boarders by all means possible.

Certainly, children born to aliens have no culpability as to being illegal. No one can prove children intentionally violated immigration laws. Therefore, under the Constitution, and Tom Tancredo's policies there are many perfectly legal aliens in this State and Country.

It is the illegal aliens that Tom Tancredo firmly opposes and intends to take in hand should he become governor. It is the ones who traffic refugees into human slavery. It is the ones who deal drugs. It is the ones who take jobs without application for green cards and citizenship. It is the ones who have been guilty of violent crimes, driving without a license and causing accidents, and those whose religion promotes overtaking our civilization by strategy and terrorism, or they engage in piracy, looting, assault or the taking of their neighbor's property.

What is so harsh about this, Tancredo's core value? It is difficult in some cases where the hierarchy of rights overlap, yes, but that is what the courts are there for. All we need are Supreme Court Justices who uphold the Constitution, and District Court Judges who have read the law and show up for hearings in their jurisdiction.

Tancredo's polices are lawful policies. He seeks the greatest good for everyone, regardless of their opinions of him. Yes, some weirdos support him, but look at the vast support of the rest of the State, wealthy business people as well as rural folk, and many middle classes.

Minorities and aliens need to know that a Governor who reads the Constitution can be persuaded by it as well.

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizens.org

Many government offices, including schools, are urging "No" on 101. Why?

In essence, Proposition 101 would move state motor vehicle registration fees back to 1919 levels, reduce or eliminate taxes on vehicle purchases and rentals over the next four years. 101 would also reduce the state income tax rate from 4.63 percent to 4.5 percent in 2011 and then to 3.5 percent gradually over time. It would put money back into the pockets of taxpayers. And, finally 101 would required your vote to create or increase fees on vehicles and telecommunication services in the future, so your cell-phone, internet and television fees would not go up without an official vote.

If you are against inflation and high salaries for government servants, you should vote yes to 101. If you feel out of control financially because of crazy fees, fines and taxes on basic services, stop letting them take bites out of you.

The government says this proposition is confusing and ambiguous. But, the blue book analysis of the bill is concise. It assures us the impact is expected to be $2.9 billion in today's dollars, ($1.9 billion in state reductions and $1 billion in local government reductions).

Additionally, the bill puts control and choice back into your vote. We all know that government has ways of relaxing any restriction placed on it; we've seen it with TABOR. But at least, this measure compels public servants to ask you first before taking a raise, before seeing your utility bill and phone bill skyrocket when you relied on the two year provider contract. I've never been one to like strangers having a monopoly on my budget decisions.

Government is trying to guilt you into voting no to 101. Because a very small percentage of the fees we pay for telecommunications are federally required to subsidize low income, or the blind, deaf or speech impaired, these fees will likely be paid out of another source of taxation or government funding. Government is not concerned about charity nearly as much as it is about the portions of these fees that line government salaries. You don't have to feel frightened for the underprivileged.

I value my opinion, as you may have noticed in this blog. I would like to keep my personal voice when it comes to taxation and spending.

But, perhaps you like taxation and spending more than I do. Well, good news! 101 does not take away your opportunity to contribute to government as much as you like. It merely gives you a choice in the future when you find that your district representatives do not represent your interests.

Some of my good friends are campaigning for all their worth against 101 saying that it will bankrupt schools. Don't ya just resent fear mongering? What I love about 101 is that K-12 will get the state funding these grades deserve. It will merely force the C.F.O. (Presidents) of Colleges to do their jobs and raise private funding rather than depleting all the State money that should be going to our kids' basic education. It will put genuine competition back into play amongst the Universities. Grades and character will again matter. The market will matter. After all, colleges are private business all too long having masqueraded as "government".

In conclusion, I would urge all those who do not care whether their votes are heard later, to refrain from voting on this bill now. If you insist on being heard on this bill 101 now, I challenge you to continue the right to be heard, and vote yes as an investment... towards your own voice, your own control, down the road.

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizens.org

Why don't the newspapers or City Council tell us the truth? They are protecting something by "urging" citizens to vote no. But, I smell a skunk. Vote yes on Amendment 60. It protects you and your rights. It stays all Colorado governments from keeping extra property taxes collected above the present constitutional limits.

60 holds all Colorado governments, accountable via two means: mandatory audits and citizens' right to file lawsuits to enforce compliance.

60 would establish expiration dates on any new property tax increases. This automatically begins to lower your mortgage payment next year, and if you are a commercial business owner, your taxes are automatically lowered by a thousand dollars.

60 would require public facilities like golf courses and sewer plants to pay property taxes.

Proposition 60 takes the heat off of small businesses carrying the greatest liability for public debt. Secondly, it takes the penalty out of work by evening the score.

I see these little red and yellow warning signs in the yards saying 60 will kill jobs. This is laughable. No where in the blue book does any part of the analysis include killing any jobs.

After Amendment 60 in enacted, Public schools, K-12 will receive most of their funding through the State of Colorado, instead of their funds being swiped off to fund State colleges and universities. I believe it is basic education that is desperately in need of our funding. Not everyone goes to college. It is a privilege, not a basic right.

College presidents are hired to raise funds privately for their institutions and that is what they do for a living. Federal grants and loans are still available to students beyond that. Proposition 60 enables competition and free market for universities, not just a free hand out.

Proposition 60 goes hand in hand with 61 and 101. If enacted, the economic systems in Colorado will change, by putting the proper line items into the proper budgets where they are meant to go. Revenue streams will continue.

But it keeps politicians from dipping their hands into the pot for personal salaries, and padding the pockets of their personal passions. It will also overturn tax measures created in the last ten years. Don't believe the fear mongering that schools will lose out. Vote Yes! on Amendment 60.

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizens.org

Amendment 61 would place severe restriction on governmental agencies borrowing money and would basically eliminate the ability to purchase large items through a lease-purchase agreement. It would encourage business owners to do Colorado business, and government agents to keep Colorado trust, do their duty, and very little else.

TABOR placed severe restrictions on governments to engage in any contract for goods that causes future governors to be yolked to the debt. But in Englewood, governors have disregarded TABOR, and I'm sure like other municipalities, are finding ways to bundle services with goods, or simply failing to notify the people of the right to vote on important contracts. You can read City Council's contract this Summer with the reprehensible BP (gulf oil spill company)also known as Ameresco for the Solar goods, maintenance, and higher energy costs for Englewood over the next 20 years.

Violations for ignoring the law have been shrugged off. So what? Judges tend to say. If a home rule entity wishes to indenture future generations, who are we to interfere?

So, frustrations of those denied recourse in the courts and being depleted of resources by trusted servants have now won the right to petition you because they had legs enough to walk and presence enough collect the signatures, which is a feat in itself, to put ballot 61 into play.

Where is the teeth to Proposition 61? It requires the same kind of oversight accountability for governors that is required of CEOs and CFOs. It requires that tax rates raised for the specific item say, the production of government services or buildings or roads, must then be reduced after the projects are paid for. Presently, the system is that once the funds are raised, the expiration date of the tax is simply ignored, and Coloradoans keep paying, but the money gets filtered off to new projects.

61 tells government that people do not want to be sold "a temporary war time tax" yet be forced to pay into it indefinitely. This proposition requires a "truth and lending" element to the practice of raising taxes by requiring that the tax ceases when the museum or transportation system is built.

If governors have a pet project, they can no longer fund it under the table, but must deliberate it thoroughly and present it for a vote through a blue book type disclosure of all the angles.

Another thing this idea does is stop allowing Englewood to say it is raising bonds necessary for schools buildings while depleting the school fund for filtering money to private developments of say,...um... let me think... oh,... City Center...yes, case in point. Now, I loathe City Center's empty storefronts, but I loathe empty-eyed kids more.

Knowing how to budget your own money is a trick, but at least the spending stops with one household. Compare that to the State of Colorado which now owes 17 billion in debt it didn't ask you for permission to obtain. And for what, you ask? Have your parks,roadways, business district or utilities improved? Colorado is presently doing business like a banker or entrepreneur, taking much needed commerce and control out of the private sector.

Amendment 61 changes the present terms of State funding to public universities which have been secretly filtered to certain universities without voter approval. No longer will the State of Colorado be the lender for select home buyers, businesses, ranchers and farmers. And, the biggest impact will be on the all powerful water districts which continue to "improve" without voter approval under the table, and then ask for higher fees.

Amendment 61 is a six pack of muscle back to the people. Vote Yes.

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizens.org/

About fifteen years ago, Englewood enacted a Special Concrete District. This, despite the fact that Englewood already had about 10 times more districts than other municipalities. What an auditing nightmare! But that is not the focus of this piece.

This piece focuses on the fraud of the concrete district scheme itself. In order to create a new tax, and enact the district, City Manager had to feign a disadvantage. Then, he frightened residents into membership for their own protection. Sound anything like a thug making his mark? How did City Manager Sears accomplish this? By, completely ignoring your property boundaries.

Englewood started insisting that concrete sidewalks needed to be upgraded, sending notices to residents. Englewood insisted that the private property owners would be required to pay for the new cement repairs in full. The City required home owners to pay up immediately, short of buying into the new district. Property owners then examined the broken sidewalks and agree, yes, they need repair, and no, I cannot pay for hundreds of dollars, and furthermore, I don't know how to fight city hall. Bingo! City scored!

Very few residents possessed site plans, and they didn't believe that their trusted servants in government could outright lie to them about fiscal liabilities without being caught. So, over time, more and more private property owners began to assume their shares and payments into the concrete district.

The scheme goes this way: If you agree to buy into the district, then when you sell your home, the new owner automatically assumes the concrete debt, and the new owner has no right of redress within the City. This obviates your First Constitutional Right to redress government. Now, ain't that special?

But this month, a family took the Mayor and City Manager to District Court, because it is a higher court than the Englewood Municipal Court which judge is in bed with certain City officers. This family obtained a temporary restraining order against the City regarding the concrete district. They deserve a gold banner, for resourcefulness, don't you think?

Since purchasing their home in 2006, they had requested that Englewood repair their front heaving sidewalk. Every year, they sent letters, and every year, Englewood refused and ignored them. The problem was that an healthy 80 year old tree had roots that heaved the pavement.

Englewood refused to correct the problem unless the new owners allowed them to cut down the 80 foot tall shade tree and replace it with a sapling. Although the owners suggested Englewood correct the slope of the street which was causing various hazards in the winter at the bottom of the block, by simply raising the sidewalk over the tree roots, Englewood refused. The owners then suggested Englewood make the sidewalk bump out in a semi-circle around the base of the tree, separating parking spaces in the frontage. Again, Englewood refused.

Englewood's letters refused to cooperate with the City's engineering and paving departments or with the homeowners, even though the sidewalk was causing a severe stumbling liability. Englewood refused to perform due diligence for creative alternatives to save the tree by inquiring with an arborist. But, Englewood also abandoned the property to the owners three years ago, saying in a letter that the land at the front of their property belonged to the home owners.

The letter went on to say that if Englewood did cut the tree roots, the property owners would have to sign a letter to assume all future liability in case the tree became unstable in a storm and fell on a house in the neighborhood, due to the City's sloppy choice of actions!

The situation came to a head when the City decided to do whatever it wanted to the tree, the home owners' rights, and the sidewalk, without notifying the private owners at all. Home downers believed they had some rights to know whose property it really was, or who would pay for what, or whether the owners would lose the tree. The owners took the City to Court and won an injunction. They easily proved the City was about to perform some urgent irreparable harm to the tree and the threat of the tree falling on a home as well.

I wonder why they didn't take this further and suggest irreparable harm was about to occur to their right to redress government or their own safety and welfare?

The Judge required the City to hire an arborist and perform due diligence. Because of this situation, I have looked into the Colorado Statutes on Special Districts which do require cooperation with all the parties when there is an easement or right of way privilege onto any given property.

The City's constitutional duty is to protect the health, safety and welfare of a neighborhood, as regarding the slope of the street and the health of the tree. Additionally, Englewood was not allowed to recklessly abandon public property to a private residence and then take it back like Indian Givers when it suited them.

The law of right-of-ways is that government may well own the real property, (usually frontage or alley ways) while private residents may own right of way access to their site from both the front street and the back alley. Additionally, utility companies own a right to access their telephone poles or city ditches on any property, whether owned by government or private owners.

Englewood had abandoned their frontage rights to own the real property in front of these residents' site plan in order to sell shares into the concrete district. And these owners had continued to pay. Thus, the City had an absolute duty to repair the concrete...three years ago.

The City perpetrated fraud against its own people in order to gain a financial advantage over residents, like these, to make them pay for the same duty Englewood always held to maintain its own neighborhood sidewalks. Taxes were already there for new concrete. But, after paying for years, the government refused to perform its duty to cooperate with the home owners and do the job properly. The district judge stopped short of telling the City how to do its job

Do you have a "Notice" stating that Englewood will do something on "your property?" You should find out what your site survey actually says from your Title Company, or hire a survey company to mark the edges. The wording on Englewood's Notice may well be deceptive. If the weeds belong to the City, then, the City owns the duty to trim and care for them. What would happen if residents began noticing the City with 14-day warnings to pull weeds, or repair sidewalks? That's so backwards.

Link: http://view.s4.exacttarget.com/?j=fec510767d66027d&m=fea015707565077973&ls=fe2911717c6c007e751173&l=ff011670746003&s=fe2c157177660c75731774&jb=ffcf14&ju=fe9717717664027e7d&r=0

Clear The Bench Colorado--Friday Morning

Dear friends,

If the three unjust justices - Michael Bender, Alex Martinez and Nancy Rice - stay on in the Supreme Court, they will continue the Mullarkey legacy of ignoring the Constitution. The rulings they promote are called a "progressive ideology", further destroying our rights as citizens of Colorado.

We have very precious few days left until the mail-in ballots drop on October 12.

CEW knows this... and they want to make sure they keep OUR money until after that date.

Big surprise: Colorado Ethics Watch (CEW, pronounced "sue" - because it's what they do) is at it again.

It has clearly been the intention of CEW, since we won our case, and they first filed a bogus filing on May 5, 2010, that it hopes to tie up our resources for as long as possible protecting the Colorado Supreme Court Justices.

On Monday, September 20, CEW filed for a "Enlargement of Time" in order to pay the attorney's fees they've owed us-literally tens of thousands of dollars - since the judge hearing their original "complaint" ordered them to pay up on July 21, 2010.

It's not like they don't have the money. It's not even like they have much math to do.

They are, quite simply, continuing to try and prevent the word from getting out - that quitting Chief Justice Mullarkey's gang of Constitution-shredders shouldn't have a "rubber stamp" to stay in office... FOR ANOTHER 10 YEAR TERM.

Unfortunately, campaigns like this don't run themselves. And more unfortunately, campaigns like this don't fund themselves.

We need your help. We need your generous donation of time, effort, and finances in order to win this campaign.

A decision has yet to be reached as to whether or not CEW will receive that "Enlargement of Time", but even then, we still need your help.

In the mean time (and it's hard to say when that decision will be made), we still have flyers to print, signs to produce (and distribute!) and the word to get out.

It is absolutely vital for the survival of our state that we take out the trash this election - this includes those who would rather use our Constitution for confetti than as the guiding principle for their judgements, the highest law of the state.

We must get the word out. And we need your help to do it...

In late August, we ran a statewide poll, and the results are clear and resounding: across absolutely every demographic (race, gender, party affiliation and location in the state) if the word gets out, 78% of voters will vote "NO" on these unjust justices.

This is, quite simply, the biggest no-brainer in Colorado politics this election.

We have ten more years of guaranteed bad judges with the remnant of the Mullarkey Majority in Michael Bender, Alex Martinez and Nancy Rice - or two years of (at worst) of an unknown quantity (which can't possibly get any worse).

However, even with the two years of unknown, we do know that:

1. It is simply impossible to be worse than 0-15 in upholding our Constitution;
2. There is the chance it might be "as bad", but we can vote them out in two years rather than ten; and
3. There is the even greater chance it could get better - and we might even get a judge good enough to not vote out in two years. In any case, any replacements will definitely get the message: the people are watching, and WILL hold them accountable to their oath to support the Constitution.

Regardless of who wins the Governor's race, we must Clear the Bench this year.

In order to do this, to get the word out, we need your help. Contribute today - and help spread the word.

To contribute, go online to http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/contribute/ or send checks to CTBC at P.O. Box 372388, Denver CO 80237

The math on this is so simple... two years versus ten years.

Getting the word out gets 78% or higher who say they will vote NO.

This is the biggest no-brainer, the biggest bang for your 2010-political-buck; and a powerful reminder of the issues at stake.

Contribute today, be part of the movement!

Be a citizen, not a subject. Exercise your right to tell these justices "NO!" to 10 more years of job security with no accountability to the people.

WE THE PEOPLE are here, we are watching and together we can (and will!) send a message to the Colorado Supreme Court - we're not going to take it anymore.

For liberty, for the preservation of our Constitution, for the prosperity of our people and our state- we must CLEAR THE BENCH, COLORADO!

For Freedom,

Sarah Anderson

Campaign Manager, Clear the Bench Colorado

P.S. Please contribute whatever you can today - it's crunch time for producing (and distributing) signs & flyers, which is EXACTLY why CEW is holding on to OUR money!

To contribute, go online to http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/contribute/or send checks to CTBC at P.O. Box 372388, Denver CO 80237