Eye On Englewood

Link: http://englewoodstory.com

I will go so far as to say this: Everything in a City is grandfathered unless the City is able to prove some license to regulate it.

O, Where O Where doth such a license cometh from?

In Colorado municipalities, they come from Colorado Revised Statutes Title 31, Municipal Governments, michies Colorado free legal which limits powers and are given further boundaries through none other than the Supreme Law of the Land, our great United States Constitution.

These laws clearly state that someone's power, presumed authority or "will" cannot legally over-power or control what rights the law has handed to me already. The mass lynchings are illegal because they are not founded in deference, self-respect or law.

It doesn't matter how much sweaty fervor is passionately invoked or what kind of bribe or slander occurs, if it ain't founded in law, it ain't no good.

Last week in the Englewood Council meeting when Bob McCaslin accidentally, or perhaps conveniently left out of the pre-written invocation, "Help us not to control..." I had to chuckle. Well, it just escaped. I didn't mean to be irreverent. But "arbitrary control" is exactly what this Council loves to do to this fair city by their own elected whims.

But just because they are elected and it is hard to get them unseated, doesn't mean that they have legal rights to presume license over all aspects of residential home lives.

Last week at Council, John Moore played the roll of Mayor and controlled the discussion on Hard Pavements himself. He kept wanting to know what would be "grandfathered" as if Council can simply ignore the City Ordinances and Savings Clauses and has utter authority over the private homes as well as licensed businesses. Near the end of the discussion Moore says, "So what are we choosing to grandfather then? Only gravel?"

Stand Up, people! Where is the Council's license to tell you where or how you can park on your own property?

Once an idea gets passed legislatively, then the full burden of proof rests on one defendant's shoulders, inconveniently cited and hauled to the Judge, to prove that the legislation is unfounded. Since it is the legal duty of the municipal judge to presume the law is reasonable, this individual must have a very strong mind with plenty of time available to find out where the missing links are and present them to the Judge or jury accordingly. If he doesn't have these resources, the illegal law can be established judicially, and then it is almost impossible to over-rule.

So the old maxim stands that all it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing.

If you choose not to trust your gut, or defend your right to serve, your right of easement, your immunities, your right to real estate, then you forfeit not only the right, but also the law that governs the right. And if you forfeit the law, you betray your fellow man who depends on that same law.

I was trying to stay one step ahead of myself but now I walk on my hands and don’t look back...

"Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal [118 U.S. 374] hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution. This principle of interpretation has been sanctioned by this court in Henderson v. Mayor of New York, 92 U.S. 259; Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275; Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339; Neal v. Delaware, 103 U.S. 370, and Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703. Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703." See, Yick Wo v. Yick Wo v. Hopkins
Submitted April 14, 1886, Decided May 10, 1886,118 U.S. 356.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

How do we know what rights we have fundamentally? Consider the Privileges or Immunities clause of the US Constitution. One author has then suggested normal people go to the laws of the District of Columbia to see what's fair there. Another suggests that whatever is fair in all the states is fair in your state.

"It is accordingly enacted by § 1977 of the Revised Statutes, that all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other." (See Above, Yick Wo)

I was really scared that Yick Wo, the laundry proprietor, would only protect those narrow civil rights laws specifically written, but when I went to read that case it was as clear as the blue Colorado skies that everyone in America has the right to make and enforce contracts, to sue, to be parties, to give evidence and to enjoy the full benefit and duties of all laws and policies and access to government and court, and to remain secure in their persons and property.

Neighbors must work hard to subdue your greed, subdue your bias, and subdue being lazy entitled ingrates. Seriously!

Whatever gets sold out for some selfish or shady benefit today, will come back to bite not only you and your white Englewood neighbors and your white grandchildren, but me and my household too because the rest of us have rights only equal to yours, and then your rights are only equal to mine. You need to stand up like responsible, dutiful adults now. I don't want to take the water slide down with you.

W

Link: http://englewoodcitizens.org/

The topic of Council's April 13, 2009 study session regarding office expenditures and discretionary funds actually began right after the close of last election, when council woman Laurett Barrentine lost the popular vote to coach Randy Penn.

Because Ms. Barrentine had been the voice of accountability and fiscal conservation on Council, albeit bull doggedly, it was not enough to simply hush her voice this term.

No. Not nearly enough. In retaliation for daring to request a line item budget report for Council's review, the City Manager arranged a little parting gift to Ms. Barrentine.

She was billed, then publicly threatened by council's vote to prosecute her in a collection action over $57.00. This bill was in dispute as to whether it qualified as part of her allotted $150.00 discretionary funds. It was the City's opinion that she had billed them and been reimbursed for something not covered by discretionary funds.

She argued that the bill she submitted for reimbursement was indeed included within her line of duty. It was related to her computer access used to perform Council duties.

Council members decided to agree with City Manager Sears that the $57.00 was outside the text of the policy. The text of the policy reads, "Or materials directly related to the responsibilities..."

According to District 1 Council Representative, Joe Jefferson, stated he believes the meaning is wide open within the judgment of the elected official.

Where previously John Moore voted to prosecute a collections action against Ms. Barrentine, he flipped at the Council meeting of April 13, 2009, stating that he agreed that standardized computer access was a requirement of members of Council and within a member's discretion.

Ms. Barrentine knew at the time of the City's collection action against her that it was retaliatory in nature, but she paid the City's claim because $57.00 wasn't worth the cost or trouble of hiring a defense.

I find myself aghast at the City's public humiliation tactic to pursue a questionable $57.00 from a civil servant, while the same officials privately approved another hefty raise to the City Manager's salary, weighing him in at $160,000.00.

In a City where people are questionably surviving lost jobs and failure to achieve merit raises equal to inflation, it's not likely Council or Manager can successfully argue the proper allocation of residents' tax money being their true aim. Me tinks they just wanted a play date with darts at the bar and Ms. Barrantine as the target.

In the final minutes of the discussion, Jefferson requested that he use his discretionary funds for informal district meetings with residents, specifically for invitations. When Wilson asked what he meant by "informal" he explained: no notice would be required, no more than 3 council persons would be in attendance, no decisions could be made.

Its purpose would be more of a communication opportunity with the residents in his district. Jefferson has been talking about implementing this since being voted onto council, better late than never.

Wilson stated that everyone should be invited to a District 1 meeting. Disregarding the rule prohibiting a quorum [C.R.S. 24-6-402(2)(c)]of council at any informal meeting, she stated that she has a hard time understanding excluding people. She favored public notice and an invitation to all people. She specifically stated that she lives in District 1, and would like to participate.

Jefferson reminded them about Open Meetings laws, and that his purpose would not be to exclude anyone, but to allow his constituents to speak freely, without fear. His goal is to provide a casual avenue for communication.

Woodward, Oakley and Moore questioned whether the meetings could be construed as a campaign booster so near elections. But Jefferson's district seat is not one of those available this November.

Moore stated he did not believe district meetings were necessary, and therefore funds for invitations should not come from office supply funds. He further stated that the entire council would have to vote to approve the funds for the single district meetings if it came out of discretionary spending. He admitted the concept was a new one to him.

In the last seconds of Monday's meeting, Moore completely turned about face, actually daring anyone to "take me to court." Some of the last comments in the discussion were John Moore's when he arrogantly stated: "If I believe in my personal discretion that I needs to host a district meeting with only half of my district, I have that right."

Not so fast, Mr. Moore. Your attitude toward your district is opposite that expressed by Mr. Jefferson. While you know you are protected by governmental immunity and your solid dare, who is going to recuse you or prosecute your over suspicious use of your annual $600.00 discretionary budget?

We know you are well aware of this fact. It is precisely because the people are helpless that you can get away with such patronage of your district.

At the end of the day, Council members generally decided that contributions to charities or other council member's needs will not come out of individuals' discretionary funds due to possible abuses of unilateral entitlement of voters' money. They decided that whatever is surplus at the end of the fiscal year is returned to the general fund.

Finally, they decided that members only carried the right to advise Joe on his expenditure, but not the power to interfere or limit his choice on how to spend discretionary funds in relation to his duties.

It looks like District 1 will get its private play date. Sorry, District 2, you will have to take Mr. Moore up on his challenge in order to bend your District Representative's ear.

The full discussion can be heard on www.EnglewoodCitizens.Org.
IV. Council Discretionary/Office Supplies Policy