By Andi Elliott

To: Idaho State Bar
Idaho Sheriff’s Association
Office of the Governor
Office of the Attorney General

Re: Jefferson County Prosecutor Robin Dunn
Jefferson County Sheriff Blair Olsen

Dear Sir:

As the defendant in a criminal trespass case that has been scheduled since November, I am writing to express my concerns with the actions of the above county officials. It was my intent to wait until after the trial today but now, late yesterday afternoon, (after a witness from Boise and supporters from out of state have traveled to Idaho Falls) I have been told that it is rescheduled until May 4th. This last minute request for delay is inexcusable and especially in light of the fact that just last week in court, Mr. Dunn told the judge that the trial would take an hour. Also, I assume, that a timeframe of 6 months is still considered under the Constitution to be a “speedy” trial.

I have been charged with criminal trespass and you would think from the actions of the prosecutor and the time and resources devoted to this case that it is a capital murder offense. A Jefferson County Deputy (we have his written statement) asked me to go offer assistance to the owner of a dog who had been hit by a car and had multiple broken legs and had been left in the owner’s yard in the snow trying to nurse 7 or 8 puppies for, at that point in time, 3 days. Because of the failure of Sheriff Olsen to enforce Ch 25-3511 of the Idaho Codes, the dog was allowed to suffer “needlessly” for 5 days before help from outside of the county arrived and took the dog to the vet.

As the president of The Humane Society of the Upper Valley for 6 or 7 years, I have worked with the JCSD on many animal cruelty issues since 2002 and have even been written into a Jefferson County court order when the cruelty situation warranted it. (Ben Juenke Animal Cruelty probation violation.) HSUV continues to receive referrals from the JCSD for assistance with animal welfare issues as the county officials have stated that animals are not priority and therefore there no monies have been budgeted to deal with these issues. HSUV has picked up the bill for years and even at one point, with an especially horrendous case, I personally paid $2000 of a $2400 bill, so that Sheriff Olsen wouldn’t be stuck with such a huge expense.

In this current case in Mud Lake, ID, I was instructed by a JC Deputy to go to the home of the owner and offer assistance to the owner which I did on NOV 22. (The deputy’s statement corroborates this.) Upon arrival and seeing the condition of the dog from a neighbor’s yard (I had the neighbor’s permission to park in her drive). I immediately called for a deputy. The dog obviously needed medical care. It appeared that the dog had two broken legs that later was confirmed by veterinary x-rays. I offered to pay the vet bill and asked that the state vet be called out for an opinion; both of these options were rejected by the Sheriff. And so, the dog was left in the snow without care.

I returned home and sent pictures to the media and the Humane Society of the United States who immediately stepped in to try and help this dog. On the 5th day, someone who had seen the story on the media, drove from Boise and with the permission of the owner, took Barbie and her puppies to his vet in Ada County. He was later charged with felony grand theft by Olsen and Dunn. Please note, that to this day, the owner, Raul Torres, has not been charged with animal cruelty.

On the 23rd of Nov, I was cited for criminal trespass. Since then Prosecutor Dunn has amended the charges twice and even yesterday, the eve of the trial. Evidently, he couldn’t prove the trespass charge so my charges and dates continue to be “expanded”. Mr. Dunn has been reluctant to be forthcoming with my attorney and the judge to say exactly what I am being charged with…multiple days, sending out agents, etc. He appears to be grasping at straws here.

Also, I find it amusing that Mr. Dunn has delivered to my attorney a stack of my editorials and transcripts of radio interviews I have written and discussed on air dealing with animal and political issues over the years…something I have done my entire life. I am under the impression that my First Amendments rights are still in affect, even though I now live in Jefferson County. Nor did I realize that Mr. Dunn is my most ardent “reader”.

Additionally, Mr. Dunn has gone out of his way to describe me as an “animal rights activists” though a year and a half ago, I explicitly explained to Sheriff Olsen and a half a dozen others in a meeting in Dunn’s office that included a representative of Humane Society of the United States that I am NOT an animal rights’ activist. I am however an animal welfare advocate which is especially needed in Jefferson County as county officials refuse to do their duty as required by law. It now appears that someone who “advocates” enforcement of Idaho law regarding animal welfare is a criminal only in Jefferson County.

On the 29th of January, Mr. Dunn called Tracie Hotchner, host of Dog Talk Radio that has a listening audience in some 15-20 states. Ms. Hotchner has provided notes of her conversation with Dunn and a follow up podcast. During this interview, he called me a “hillbilly” from “Tennessee” (I am originally from Virginia). He admitted that he did not like me and is biased against me. Mrs. Hotchner would be glad to provide a copy of her notes.

Sheriff Olsen has failed to enforce Idaho law that has been explained to him in depth by the The Humane Society of the United State Director of Animal Cruelty, Adam Parascandola, in Washinton, DC. And this is not the first time…in a case about a year and a half ago, half-starved horses, (which I am told belonged to a friend of Olsen’s) were allowed to needlessly suffer. When the state vet saw pictures of these horses, he immediately went to the property and placed the horses under the care of a local vet. No animal cruelty charges were filed against the owner but I was charged with trespass because I drove down a dirt lane with a dead end sign. Pictures indicate a “no trespassing/keep out” sign on a fence post that to a reasonable person would be applicable to the pasture. So, for the first time in my entire life, I have a criminal record…only in Jefferson County would this happen.

It is important to note that several years ago, Sheriff Olsen called me at home and told me four things: he called me a newcomer (I had only lived in Jefferson County since 2001); he told me I was un-welcomed in Jefferson County; he told me that I was to butt out of the animal welfare business; and I was told that I didn’t understand how things were done here in Idaho. I maintain that the concept of humanness is universal to modern society. (Please note that I have lived all over the US and been involved in cruelty cases since I was 15 and have never had a sheriff call my home to try and intimidate me. I told many people about this incident at the time it occurred as a form of “documentation”. My former attorney also knows of this incident.)

Additionally, Sheriff Olsen has made a habit of threatening the media… three occasions now as they have covered stories of animal abuse in the county. (Ch 3 KIDK can verify this information.) My copy of the Constitution guarantees freedom of the press. Also, Olsen has written an op-ed piece that appeared in the Post Register while this case is ongoing. Is this acceptable behavior from a sheriff?

As a resident of Jefferson County, I am more than weary for having folks telling me that I need to be careful as it is not good to have a sheriff angry with you. I am well aware that I have a target on my back. I am also aware that ID codes are being enforced arbitrarily by this Sheriff and Prosecutor. Judges and attorneys outside of the county have advised that this is not legal BUT that they were not surprised to hear that this occurred in Jefferson County. A handful of residents have contacted me with their own stories of abuse of power. I am sure that some of these scenarios have reached your office before now.

As I have worked with deputies in surrounding countries on animal welfare issues, I am told that not only is the JDSD uncooperative with concerns of animals but in other areas of law enforcement demanding cooperation between counties. This is something that definitely bears looking into by supervising authorities.

A conclusion can be drawn that here in Jefferson County, we have a sheriff and prosecutor who are out of control and abuse their power. This trespass case is receiving the attention (even at the national level) that one would think would be more deserving of a capital murder case. (31 people subpoenaed) And from reading an article in the newspaper, Jefferson County is the only county in Idaho who refuses to participate in a form of an “insurance pool” to help offset costs should indeed our county have a significant case. This in itself shows unwise leadership and with this current leadership, Jefferson County officials should look into purchasing an “umbrella” policy. Do our Jefferson County officials know better than every other county in this state? I think not.

As a resident and taxpayer of the county, I expect a full accounting of the time and resources that have been devoted to this case to be made available for public scrutiny upon completion of this mockery of our justice system. AND still, no charges have been filed against the owner of the poor animal that suffered immensely.

If this letter does not suffice, please advise me of the formal process for filing a complaint against Sheriff Olsen and Prosecutor Robin Dunn.

Thank you.

Andi Elliott
Jefferson County, ID 83425

BTW, The Humane Society of the United States has twice now in the last year and a half offered to provide free training for the JCSD and each time, the offer has been rejected. An offer of free training in enforcing Idaho Codes is rejected??? What could possibly be a reasonable explanation for this?

Andi Elliott
Patriotic Resistance Idaho State Coordinator
Tea Party Patriots Idaho State Coordinator
Idaho District 2 Coordinator Anystreet.Org
Member of the American Grand Jury

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Andi Elliott

Just wondering… what does it take to get animal cruelty charges filed in Jefferson County?

I can tell you what it doesn’t take. It doesn’t take allowing your dog with multiple broken legs and laying in your yard for almost 5 days without medical care. It doesn’t take half starving your horses winter after winter until the horses are stunted. And for sure, it doesn’t take throwing a Chihuahua puppy against the wall and breaking its shoulder.

The 7 hounds in Menan will tell you that though they were starved to mere skeletons… it wasn’t enough for animal cruelty charges to be filed until public pressure forced authorities to act. Ask the old horse who made it through one more winter and come spring, looked like “hide stretched over bones”. That wasn’t enough. When she could no longer stand…that wasn’t enough either.

According to Idaho Codes Chapter 25-3511…it takes “allowing animals to needlessly suffer”. It takes a veterinarian’s statement of condition. But also, it takes a sheriff who will enforce the law. It takes county commissioners who refuse to look the other way. Sometimes it takes an irate public.

I have learned that you can have “the law”, and a vet’s statement”, and you can have incomprehensible cruelty but what it really takes is a sheriff with compassion. One who is willing to utilize the resources offered for help. But above all, it takes a sheriff who realizes that he may be the only hope to end an animal’s suffering.

Andi Elliott
Hamer, ID
For the Love of Pets Foundation
President
Petango.com/FTLOP

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Richard Larsen

Freedom! How sweet the word, and how profound the meaning. Men have died, and been willing to sacrifice all they had, for freedom. Our Fourth of July celebrations are based on that Declaration to the English throne, “And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”

To all freedom loving Americans, William Wallace’s cry of “Freedom!” stirs our souls as he was beheaded by Longshanks’ minions in “Braveheart.” We are moved by the images of bravery against seemingly insurmountable odds, as Benjamin Martin rallies the revolutionary forces with a war-torn flag in the “Patriot.” But the real-life heroes, political and military alike, who have fought for, and defended individual liberty and freedom touch our collective consciousness with profundity unmatched by depictions on the silver screen.

I approach this Independence Day celebration with sadness commensurate with my aforementioned respect and gratitude, for our freedom is being sacrificed, one bill at a time, by an out-of-control federal government. With each bill passed and signed, government grows. With such expansion of government, control over our individual lives increases exponentially, and the erosion of personal freedom and liberty is unmistakable. This erosion has accelerated at a dizzying pace in the first six months of the year. As 1776 marked the birth of American freedom, 2009 may well mark its demise.

A quadrupling of the budget deficit places not just this generation, but future generations in financial thralldom. Current tax receipts collected by the treasury will barely be enough to cover the yearly interest on the new federal debt.

So to expand receipts, more taxes need to be levied and collected. The declared intent to allow expiration of the Bush tax cuts will amount to the largest tax increase ever imposed on the country as the average American will see a tax increase between $2100 and $5600 annually, according to the Wall Street Journal.

But wait, there’s another bigger tax increase threatening us. The Waxman-Marky “cap and trade” bill will impose another $1600-$2400 annually in increased cost for all of our energy consumption. And that’s regardless of income bracket, thereby constituting the largest regressive tax ever imposed on us. Speaking of energy, remember what Obama has said, “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times…” Looks like he meant it. The government means to tax us into behaving the way it thinks we should.

The more the government withholds from our paychecks or requires from our quarterly tax filings, the greater the infringement on our financial liberty. What are you willing to give up from your person standard of living in order to pay an energy tax fraudulently sold to us in the name of “saving the planet?” Since our incomes are largely fixed, what will you sacrifice? A car? Your house? A yearly family vacation? Who can deny that our freedoms are severely impinged upon by such ludicrous and unwarranted governmental expansion? Perhaps only the clueless or the ideologues.

For generations, America has attracted the most gifted and visionary minds of the world. Not just for the individual freedom available here, but for the financial freedom afforded men and women of great talent and vision in seeing their work yield fruits of pecuniary bounty. But by targeting the most successful amongst us for increased tax burden, and even seeking to limit compensation by the appointment of a “Pay Tsar” in the White House, our freedom to earn is under assault.

Federal usurpation of our health care constitutes an erasure of personal freedom of unparalleled proportions. When the government defines benefits under their plan, they can set the terms for participation in the benefits. They make the life and death decisions for us, and our ability to choose is negated. As President Obama said last week, “Maybe you’re better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller,” when referring to end-of-life health care decisions for the elderly or the terminally ill. Granted, our freedom may be limited by current insurance coverage in making such decisions, but to completely abrogate that right and have the government make such decisions for us is unconscionable, and dare I say it? Un-American. That brings them one step closer to telling us how to live our lives, what to eat and drink, and mandating “risk-free” behavior.

And in true Orwellian fashion, “Newspeak” is being codified into federal law. Just as George Orwell’s “1984” defined acceptable and unacceptable speech in order to “narrow the range of thought,” so likewise passage of hate crime legislation, and universal distribution of Department of Homeland Security encyclicals seek to coerce politically correct speech and thought, further infringing upon our First Amendment rights. According to DHS, all who disagree with the administrations’ official policies are regarded as enemies of the state.

Our majestic “Old Glory,” which has stood as a symbolic ensign of freedom and liberty to the world, is being trampled upon by the very stewards elected to “preserve us a nation.” As our banner is sullied and loses its luster, I sorrow at the apparent demise of a great nation once dedicated to the protection of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” America, I have loved you and what you have stood for, but I hardly recognize you now.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Please feel free to copy and paste this petition in order to copy and circulate.

PETITION TO THE IDAHO LEGISLATURE AND GOVERNOR

We the Undersigned People of the State of Idaho hereby request that the Idaho
Legislature and Governor commence immediate action to enforce the statements as set
forth in House Joint Memorial No. 4 concerning the Constitutional violations of the Tenth
Amendment, said statements are as follows:

“NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by members of the First Regular Session of the Sixteenth
Idaho Legislature, the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring therein, that the State of
Idaho hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the Federal government by the
Constitution of the United States.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as
our agent to cease and desist, effective immediately mandates that are beyond the scope of
these constitutionally delegated powers.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all compulsory federal regulation that directs states to comply
under criminal or civil penalties or sanctions, or requires state to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited.”

It is recognized, that the greatest impediment to the above requested enforcement of saidTenth Amendment action is the alleged dependency of the State of Idaho on federal funding
grants conditioned on restrictive mandates and spending guidelines. Therefore, we the
people of the State of Idaho hereby request that the Idaho Legislature and Governor
refuse any and all federal funding that impose any mandates, restrictions, or spending
guidelines that may hinder the complete freedom of action by the State of Idaho to exercise
it’s lawful tenth Amendment rights.

And finally, we the people of the State of Idaho also request that the Idaho Legislature
and Governor support and enforce a proposed bill now being drafted known tentatively as
the “Idaho Firearms Freedom Act” (short title).

Name Address Idaho City/Town Reg. Voter ?

1.

2.

3.

4.

5

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.
Return Completed form to Dorothy Walker: 1206 Hall st. Grangeville, Idaho 83530: 208-983-2344

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Representative Tom Loertscher, R-31

There are times when a task seems so overwhelming or intimidating that
you would rather not be anywhere in the area. That happened to me this
week when the Idaho Education Association had a meeting in Boise and
they invited all members of the legislature to attend their
“hearing.”

JFAC does not provide a method for the public to be heard during the
budgeting process and with that in mind the IEA had this meeting so we
could “hear” their concerns. It was most interesting and in spite of
my trepidations about going, and the complaints voiced, I learned some
things. Teachers have the feeling that they are not appreciated for what
they do. Testing always comes up in these forums and I tend to agree
that testing as we have been doing it takes a lot of time away from
teaching. They favor the idea that school districts should be
consolidated. They desire that we should use our reserve funds to keep
them whole.

One of the things I really enjoy at these kinds of events is the
meeting after the meeting. Representative Ken Andrus and I talked at
length with a couple of teachers from our part of the state and it was
interesting. At first it was difficult to talk to them, because of the
pent up anger about the level of funding for schools that has come from
JFAC. We explained the consequence of using our reserves for ongoing
expenses. Those moneys can only be spent once and then in these types of
situations there is no means with which to replenish the fund. After a
few minutes of discussion they were still not happy, but at least I
think they had a better understanding about how difficult this budget
year is for the legislature. I was glad that I attended.

Another topic that has caused some turmoil is the way salaries for
state employees are being lowered. The arguments center around the
amount of the reduction and how to administer it. The technical issues
are a little complicated but the principle is if we were to approve a
lower reduction for employees than for teachers, and if we are going to
use reserve funds to make up any differences, then to be consistent I
would say that we should dip into those reserves for teachers as well.
It is not right to be willing to use those funds for one and not the
other, no matter what the consequences might be.

Another bill (S1158) making its way to the House floor is one to
partially shift medically indigent expenses from the state to the
counties and cause a property tax increase for all of the counties. This
falls in the category of an unfunded mandate, and by the way it also
will create a new level of bureaucracy in the Department of Health and
Welfare. All of this is in the name of balancing the budget. Two new
state employees to do what the counties already do. And by the way
again, this new layer of review will be paid one hundred percent by the
counties, (property taxes) no matter what it costs. I’m not making
this up, that’s what the bill says. I’m sure glad we will not be
raising taxes to balance our budget, but not so glad we will be raising
property taxes to balance the counties’ budgets.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Representative Tom Loertscher, R-31

About the time you think you have seen everything, you get surprised.
As legislation is introduced around these halls, there is one person or
legislator who presents the draft to the committee and then after
questioning the committee will vote whether or not to have it printed
into a bill. One day last week a member of the State Affairs Committee
made the presentation and then when the vote was taken he voted not to
introduce. That is the first time I have seen that happen.

The Midwifery bill advanced to the full house this week without
opposition and that was a very different result than a year ago. Last
year’s bill had some problems but the biggest obstacles were the
groups that opposed it. I think they were able to fix the major problems
with the bill this year and with the work that was done by all
interested parties last summer, the opposition at least declared
neutrality. That is something that you don’t see very often around the
House.

We’ve been in a bit of a holding pattern this past week on the budget
but other things have been moving ahead. Every day in the House we have
kept up with our work and that keeps some of the pressure at bay. By
having fewer items on the agenda there is more time to read the bills
(imagine that) and ask questions prior to a vote. This is turning out to
be a very different kind of session.

I was approached by a member of the governor’s staff the other day
about a couple of Senate bills that were assigned to State Affairs. I
have found that when there is a bill in committee that the governor
wants quite badly you can get his attention easily. Now that was not my
intention, it is just that we have House bills to do right now and we
will get to them.

After reassuring him that I was not putting up any roadblocks, I asked
him if he could give me some insight into the “stimulus”
discussions. He told me that they are seeing some of this stuff that
Idaho will not be able to use because we do not have the mechanisms in
place to spend the money. In a way that is reassuring but doesn’t help
much in making the decisions we are faced with. And I still get that
uneasy feeling about all of this, especially when a prominent US Senator
was quoted last week saying that the states will not have a choice
whether or not to take the money. Complicated and confusing are two
words that are being used quite frequently around here.

Beer and Wine tax increases were held in the Revenue and Taxation
Committee this week and I saw one of the lobbyists who had vigorously
opposed the bill not long after the vote was taken. Even they recognize
that there is a need for a change in the tax rate but they opposed the
method of being on the retail side rather than a tax by volume. I
suspect there will be something else on this matter shortly.

The budget is still the major concern and the news just keeps coming
about businesses that are having problems. More Micron layoffs, Tamarack
resort closing, large auto dealers having a tough time, and even some of
the daily newspapers are feeling the squeeze. And we are about to get
the February revenue numbers. And if all of that good news is not
enough, Daylight Savings Time begins on Sunday, another one of those not-so-great congressional ideas.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Idaho Values Alliance

Rep. George Sayler (D-Coeur d’Alene), who survived a stiff challenge from conservative Republican Jim Hollingsworth in November, is back with his annual attempt to further push the nose of nanny government into Idaho’s daycare system.

His bill (S1112) would require every daycare center which cares for at least four unrelated children to submit to onerous requirements for staff-child ratios, facility regulations and criminal background checks. It will necessitate an expanded taxpayer-funded bureaucracy to perform all the inspections and record-keeping that the bill will require.

There is little to no evidence that increased regulation of daycare centers does much to protect child health and safety. In fact, just last fall a licensed Idaho daycare center in Middleton suffered through an E. coli outbreak just five days after a government bureaucrat had given the center a clean bill of health. Parents who were counting on the state licensing program to protect the health of their children were sadly disappointed.

I spoke with a daycare center operator this morning who frankly acknowledged that meeting building code requirements, purchasing the license from the state, and paying for background checks and mandated training classes all combine to add substantially to the cost of doing business. How could they not? And of course these costs are passed directly on to working parents, whose take-home pay shrivels by the amount of the increase.

Perhaps it’s time to put parents back in charge of deciding whether a daycare center is safe enough for their children. This will have the added advantages of reducing the intrusive role of government, lowering the cost of daycare and lightening the burden for Idaho taxpayers.

A public hearing on this bill will take place on Wednesday, March 4 in the Senate Health and Welfare Committee.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Representative Tom Loertscher, R-31

This will probably go down as a year of firsts in the Idaho
Legislature. Don’t get me wrong, there are a number of things that are
routine in nature and every session produces its own flavor. This one
seems to have something new almost daily that at least in recent memory
has not happened before.

We got tangled up in the State Affairs Committee the other day over
some rules that had been put in place by the Lottery Commission. One was
to prohibit a business from doing charitable work for a charitable bingo
organization. That one was laid to rest by the committee. Another that
was voted down would have allowed the Lottery to charge a fee for the
use of debit cards for ticket purchases through one of those little
green machines you see in retail businesses. The first in this instance
was that the Lottery Commission did not realize that under current law
they have to gain full approval of the legislature in order for their
rules to become permanent.

The Association of Counties was in town this past week working on what
they view as important issues that will soon be put into legislation. I
got a chance to visit with several county officials from all five
counties in our district. The biggest concern they have is that the
state might decide to balance the budget by placing more financial
burden on them. Every time Health and Welfare cuts a Medicaid program
the potential exists for the counties to pick up the services through
the indigent fund. I walked in on a conversation early one morning last
week that was occurring around my desk about the necessity of reducing
benefits in Medicaid. I quickly reminded my colleagues that if in fact
we should do that, counties and the property tax payers would bear the
brunt of the cuts. It was another first to get agreement that we would
have to make other changes so as not to cause a shift of financial
responsibility.

Just prior to State Affairs one morning I visited a few moments with
one of the State Tax Commissioners. I know him well and I just quickly
asked him, “How bad is it?” (meaning January revenue numbers.) He
answered, “You don’t want to know.” I responded, “Well, maybe I
don’t want to, but I have to.” This is the first time in the years I
have known him that he was not been upbeat about state revenues.

Superintendent Luna proposed a budget for education last week, that if
approved would be substantially below what was appropriated last year.
You’ve probably heard of some of the ideas of the Governor on the
matter and legislators are hearing from educators daily about ways they
see to save money and to get as much to the classroom as possible. One
of the things we have not ever quite achieved in Idaho was a better way
to have the funding follow the kids. Representative Gibbs told me the
other day that the House Education Committee had a lesson on how the
funding formula works. To those new around here it is almost
incomprehensible. This is certain to be the first year ever that less
money will be appropriated to education than the previous year. To keep
the funding to the classroom as high as possible, even the “C”
(consolidation) word is being bantered about by some. That would require
another first.

As we progress through the session his year, there are bound to be more
firsts come up along the way. I have been asked several times what my
predictions for the session are. I give this answer. This will be the
first session of the legislature in the history of the state that will
be completely successful. Everyone will be unhappy with us.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

The IVA received a call last week from a Treasure Valley home-schooling Mom who answered the door one day in September to find four police officers and a social worker standing on her front porch.

They were responding to a completely unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, and untrue accusation of domestic abuse.

They tried to force their way into her home, and only backed off when she told them that she knew they needed a search warrant and reminded them of the Fourth Amendment and its protections against unreasonable searches.

When she went to get her children and bring them to the front door so the officers could see they were in perfectly fine shape, she heard them rattling the front screen door in another effort to break into her home, only relenting when they discovered it was locked.

One officer accidently revealed his name badge, which indicated he was actually a Boise police officer and therefore was acting outside his jurisdiction.

Authorities apparently have only backed off because the Home School Legal Defense Association sent a strong letter to these officials, informing them of the statutes they violated during this initial contact with the family.

The family discovered that the accusations were made by a relative who was seeking to use child protective services to get revenge for a perceived wrong from a decade or more ago.

Those who believe that out-of control Child Protective Services personnel can shatter families almost beyond repair based on unsubstantiated accusations and apart from any findings of guilt will find nothing in this story to challenge their perception.

(Note: the HSLDA story mentions three police officers; the mother told me there were four. Either way, that’s either three or four too many.)

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

Lynn Moses, a Driggs, Idaho man, will enter the federal prison in Sheridan, Oregon today at 2 p.m. in an unfolding story of government tyranny.

Mr. Moses lost his wife to an unexpected heart attack 1 ½ years ago, and suspects that the stress created by this abuse of federal power is responsible. And yesterday he was forced to leave his 17-year-old daughter Whitney at home in tears, who will now have to experience her senior in high school without the companionship of either of her parents, both of them taken from her by the repressive power of the central government.

No mom or dad to host her and her friends on her 18th birthday, no mom or dad to take pictures of her and her date on the night of her senior prom, and no mom or dad to proudly watch her graduate from high school.

As I wrote last Friday, in a story also featured yesterday on WorldNetDaily, Moses is being locked up for maintaining an intermittent stream bed as a flood control channel, as he has been required to do by Teton County officials since 1980.

(Since the EPA stepped in, no maintenance has been done on the channel for the last three years. A 35-foot section of the bank recently washed away, threatening another subdivision in the area, erosion that Moses tells me could have been prevented if he’d been allowed to continue his work. The mitigating work that the developer did to stop that erosion is now causing erosion on the opposite bank.)

The EPA prosecuted him for violating the Clean Water Act, even though the EPA has no jurisdiction over intermittent streams and Teton Creek only has water in it for less than two months out of every year.

And the more you know, the worse things get. On the day Moses was sentenced to federal prison, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its Rapanos decision, in which the plurality opinion written by Antonin Scalia clearly prohibits the federal government’s jurisdiction over intermittent streams under the Clean Water Act.

In fact, eight months after the Rapanos decision came out, the Corps of Engineers revised its written regulations regarding application of the Clean Water Act. The revised regulations authorize federal jurisdiction only over streams which have continuous flows for at least three months a year.

Teton Creek has never, even a single time since the diversion of irrigation water over 100 years ago, had flowing water for that long, and rarely has flowing water for as long as two months in any given year. This year, for example, despite significant snowpack and strong flows, the Creek had water in it for considerably less than two months.

If either the Corps or the EPA wants to exercise jurisdiction over an intermittent stream which has flowing water for less than three months a year, they must issue a “Jurisdictional Determination” produced by the Corp’s District Engineer, who has to show that the stream bed, despite its intermittent flows, has some significant connection to the waters of the United States. No “Jurisdictional Determination” has ever been issued with regard to Teton Creek.

Bottom line: if these written regulations, done to conform to the reigning Supreme Court ruling, had been in place when this sorry saga began, it would have been abundantly clear that Mr. Moses was right every single time he refused to accept federal jurisdiction over the stream bed, and that the federal government had no legal right to prosecute him.

Moses has filed what is called a “2255″ habeas corpus request with Federal Judge Lynn Winmill. A “2255″ is authorized by a provision in federal law which enables a defendant to ask for reconsideration on the basis of new evidence, evidence which has emerged since his trial. These written regulations, produced eight months after the trial by the Corps’ field technicians rather than the cubically-challenged bureaucrats at the EPA, make it evident that no charges should ever have been brought against Moses in the first place.

In Moses’ appeal before a three judge panel of the notoriously liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle, the EPA’s attorney admitted to the Court that she had never seen a “Jurisdictional Determination” from the Corps with regard to Teton Creek.

The 9th Circuit had Scalia’s plurality opinion (he wrote for four of the five justices in the majority) in hand when they denied Moses’ appeal, but rejected it in favor of citing Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion because it – despite representing the view of just one of the nine Supreme Court justices – gave them the fodder they needed to make sure Moses went to prison.

One of the three judges was incensed that permission had even been granted in the first place to divert water for irrigation, and wanted to know who was responsible for that outrage so the court could hold the miscreants responsible. She was so unfamiliar with the facts of the case that she didn’t even know that the irrigation diversion had been done over 100 years ago. (She apparently was sorely disappointed that she couldn’t find anybody to punish for that.)

Moses occasionally hired others to help him with stream bed maintenance. The 9th Circuit’s opinion is so disgraceful that the judges refer to Moses and his “minions,” as if they were writing an Op-Ed piece for the San Francisco Chronicle.

So Moses will be deprived of one of the “unalienable rights” granted to him by his Creator – the right to liberty – at 2 p.m. this afternoon. We went to war with the Crown of England over abuses less egregious than this.

When I asked Lynn this morning, during his last few hours of freedom, what people could do to help, he said the most critical thing is to get the information about his case – especially the IVA’s Friday Update (link below) into the hands of as many people as possible, including Congressmen, Senators and Governors. His point: if the guys who need votes to retain office begin hearing from enough of their own constituents, they might start to say, “What’s going on here?”

And I can guarantee that if they start asking that question, they are not going to like the answer.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.