July 20, 2017

Lawyers in Cages: Won’t You Please Help

Share

Incrementalism of Disarmament

gunandscalesofjusticeThere is much ado about Michael Bloomberg’s efforts in Maine to limit Second Amendment rights through the ballot box. He proposes a law, that will be voted on by the Maine voters in November, to implement “Universal Background Checks.” Most people don’t bother ever reading the actual law and, if at all, will read what the ballot says, which is incomplete at best and a bold-face lie at its root.

Few will also take the time to fully vet and comprehend who “Everytown for Gun Safety” is and what their real purpose is in getting a disarmament measure passed in the State of Maine.

Therefore, any and all efforts to pass or defeat a disarmament bill, seem as though they will be relegated to talking points and superficial discussions about left and right paradigms and who’s side holds truth.

The Washington Post published an opinion piece last November about Bloomberg’s “Everytown” lobby group, and how two possible ballot initiatives, Maine and Nevada, would seriously impede Second Amendment rights. The article is a good read and spells out in pretty good detail how certain aspects of this proposed law would effect many more things than whether or not background checks are expanded upon the populace. (Note: If you follow the link to the Washington Post site, where the article is archived, you will have to give them your email address to keep reading. Sorry! They need money too I guess.)

The Post’s article focuses only on the issue of how Bloomberg’s bill would effect Second Amendment rights, including self defense and firearms safety training. This is all very true stuff, as near as I can determine upon examination of the text of the proposed ballot initiative for Maine. But there is another related issue with this proposal that I have not read or heard about from anybody else. Please consider.

David Trahan, Executive Director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM), posted a link to the Washington Post opinion piece on the Facebook page for SAM. Trahan commented: “The law [Bloomberg’s ballot initiative] is not about expanding background checks. It’s about managing how we use guns.”

Well, yes. That’s right and it’s much more than that. But let’s get to the other issue I’m hinting at.

To do this, let’s set the “Wayback Machine” to November 2, 2004 when the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) (not your local humane society) anchored an effort in placing on the November ballot a proposal to, “ban…using traps, bait, and dogs to hunt bears.” That initiative was defeated. For a considerable period of time after the election, all that I ever heard about this effort was the HSUS tried to take too much at one time. It seemed that the general consensus, at least what I was hearing, was that if HSUS had gone after just trapping of bears, they would have won. Of course that would have been followed by banning dogs and eventually all hunting of bears…..and then?

Knowing that all animal rights and environmental groups are well-funded, tightly organized and with more patience than perhaps your average bear (oooh, sorry about the pun), it seemed plausible to me that the next time – and there would be a next time – HSUS wouldn’t go for the jugular. Instead, they would bleed their prey to death.

From information that I had access to at the time, I really believed, when it was first announced that HSUS was taking up the cross for another go at ending bear hunting, they would only go after trapping…this time. I was wrong, and I really don’t know what happened in which HSUS thought they had a chance at winning the whole ball of wax this time. I think this was their mistake…a serious one.

There is a certain amount of what is often referred to as, incrementalism, that goes on when one individual or group attempts to force others to take up their, often progressive, lifestyles. It’s easy to see the incrementalism that has taken place since the passage of the Second Amendment. It’s one of the most attacked rights, under the Bill of Rights. A “right to keep and bear arms” now is replete with more restrictions and limitations than a straitjacket.

If we look closer at the fascist Bloomberg’s proposed law, for those willing to read the law and see the straitjacket restrictions and limitations it contains, rational thinking would conclude that Bloomberg is going to far. I’m sure there are those who support “universal background checks,” whatever that is, who may be angry or fearful that, because Bloomberg has been stupid and greedy, this law will never pass. There are also opponents who are probably glad that Bloomberg, like HSUS before them, is being stupid and seeking too many limits to gun ownership.

So, is Bloomberg that stupid and greedy? I don’t think so. I know he got where he is today because he’s at least smart enough to side with, and not against, the ruling establishment. He is one of the connected insiders and, as such, he’s not alone in his quest in Maine to rid that state of guns. As Maine goes, so goes the nation? Hmmm.

Therefore, it is my contention, that Bloomberg – that is those with the legal brains and training in dealing with the public, psychology and propagandizing (Tavistock trained) – intentionally wrote the proposed bill for a greater purpose than, “managing how we use guns.”

It is Bloomberg’s agenda (whose agenda is it really?) to rid the entire U.S. of private gun ownership. It’s the one big deterrent that is prohibiting full implementation of the New World Order/One World Government. Americans like to call this “globalization.” Bloomberg has patience, time and lots and lots of money.

The ballot initiative, as written, is a test model. He is using it to not only see how far he can go right now, but how far he can go next time…and there will be a next time. If he is lucky enough (from his perspective) to get this “universal background check” passed, it will be clear sailing for him from that point forward. We can expect a nationwide initiative at “universal background checks.” If not this time, next time, armed with the fodder the Maine public is providing.

As media outlets, along with the leaders of the sporting industry, i.e. Sportman’s Alliance of Maine, have a debate about Bloomberg’s Question 3, responses to this debate will set the stage for the next round of raping of our rights. The responses will tell Michael Bloomberg just how much Maine people will tolerate, how much more of the Second Amendment rights they are willing to give up for him and his fascists.

I have not read anywhere, in any of this debate, why the Second Amendment has to provide a background check in order to exercise a guaranteed right. What other right in the Bill of Rights requires people to undergo a background check in order to exercise that right? I thought so. We know from court cases that forcing citizens to get a license or pay a fee, etc. to exercise a right, is unconstitutional – or at least can be supported by previous case laws.

The Second Amendment is being systematically and incrementally destroyed. As long as we the people are ready, willing and able to participate in setting the limitations to our own rights, what is there in our future as a free society? None. The message to Bloomberg, and all others, should be that not only are we not interested in giving up more of our rights, but we working very hard to get rid of the limitations stood before us now.

I’d like to see the debate turn away from providing the fodder for Bloomberg and his “Everytown” fascists, and get back to a discussion about why the Second Amendment is the only Right that is not a right.

But, Don’t Go Look!

Share

Maine Supreme Court Decision Against HSUS Not Necessarily a Victory for Sportsmen

Maine sportsmen shouldn’t go off half cocked and with swelled chests believing that the decision by the Maine Supreme Court to uphold Superior Court Justice Joyce Wheeler’s ruling that a lawsuit, filed by Katie Hansberry and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), declared “moot,” was some kind of major victory for sportsmen.

The Sportsmen’s Alliance put out a presser extolling the victory: “Today’s ruling just reaffirms our position and is a clear and decisive victory for sportsmen in Maine,” said Evan Heusinkveld, president and CEO of Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation. “The people of Maine deserve to hear from the experts when it comes to these issues, and today’s ruling rightfully upheld that position.”

A writer for the Bangor Daily News reports: “In March 2015, Superior Court Justice Joyce Wheeler dismissed the lawsuit, saying it was moot because the election had been decided. She also declared the department’s campaign activities were legal because restricting speech on a contested issue was not in the public’s interest.”

I think it’s imperative that readers examine the written ruling of the Maine Supreme Court on the issue, compare it with comments being made and determine that this ruling is not a huge victory for sportsmen. As well, it’s important to understand what was and what wasn’t written in the decision.

As I understand it, Katie Hansberry and HSUS filed a lawsuit to stop representatives from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) from speaking out in opposition to Question One on the Maine ballot – an initiative that would have effectively ended bear hunting and trapping in the state. From the perspective of MDIFW such a referendum, if passed, would have seriously impeded the department’s ability to responsibly manage black bears.

Maine Superior Court Justice Joyce Wheeler, at the time of review of the lawsuit, ruled the case “moot” because the referendum voting had already taken place. However, HSUS and Hansberry decided to appeal that ruling and sought from the Maine Supreme Court a clear ruling that would, in the future, prohibit state departments, and in this case MDIFW, from using what they deemed public resources against public referendum issues.

While the Maine Supreme Court upheld Wheeler’s moot ruling, in response to the appeal the justices attempted to explain why the moot decision was upheld and why the same Court could not make a blanket ruling about future campaigns that involve state departments.

The Court writes: “An issue is moot when there remains no “real and substantial controversy, admitting of specific relief through a judgment of conclusive character.”  A controversy that declares rights “upon a state of facts that may or may not arise in the future” is not justiciable.” 

HSUS was seeking a ruling that they could perhaps use that would prohibit any department from speaking out, for or against, in future referendum campaigns. The Court was not going to give them that ruling because there is no way to determine future issues and the context in which such campaign issues may arise.

The lawsuit against the MDIFW claims that employees/representatives of that department, continuing to be allowed to speak out against HSUS’ efforts “harms ongoing efforts” of HSUS. The Court thought otherwise: “This alleged harm does not present a “real and substantial controversy” that could be addressed through “specific relief.” Any relief that MFBH will obtain is theoretical, depending on whether it becomes involved in a future ballot initiative.”

The Court also explains, in depth, certain exceptions to “mootness.” (1) sufficient collateral consequences will result from the determination of the questions presented so as to justify relief; (2) the appeal contains questions of great public concern that, in the interest of providing future guidance to the bar and public we may address; or (3) the issues are capable of repetition but evade review because of their fleeting or determinate nature.

Perhaps of most importance is the following statement found in the ruling as it pertains to why “mootness” exceptions do not exist: “However, the core question at issue in this case is not a generic question; rather, the question presented is the specific agency’s authority in the context of the facts at issue. Each State agency’s authority turns on its individual enabling statute. Although the question may recur, the extent of an agency’s statutory authority, the actions taken by the agency, and the context of those actions will vary and are not predictable. An interpretation of the Department’s enabling statute in the context of this now-concluded action may have little authoritative value in future litigation.” 

Hansberry and the Humane Society of the United States did not get what they wanted but it should be understood that they also were not shut out in their efforts. What they got was a better understanding of how to go about filing the next lawsuit in order to better satisfy the demands of the Maine Court. The ruling does not declare that all of Maine’s governmental departments are free to campaign for or against public issues. Each department is different and the context of the lawsuits – circumstances involved – can and will determine the viability of a lawsuit against the state.

In this particular case, because the lawsuit never reached the Courts before the referendum voting, the case was declared moot and considerations as to future lawsuits could not be evaluated “generically.”

A victory? Perhaps. A huge victory? No. And even the so-perceived victory is in the eye of the beholder. Is it a victory to know that in the right context, the state can be sued to prevent the public from gaining knowledge about a department’s ability to do their jobs? Is it a victory that in the same or different context, that state can not be sued?

Doors always swing in two directions. What we should learn is that in this one particular case, HSUS was not able to get the Court to give them what they wanted to make their future lawsuits easier by censorship. However, they gained understanding for the next time.

Share

Is It Appropriate to Appoint Someone to State Wildlife Committee Who Sued State?

FrustratedBearRecently I wrote about the inappropriateness, ineptitude and seriously flawed decision by someone at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), to appoint Katie Hansberry, the leader of the Maine Chapter of the Humane Society of the United States, to sit on a black bear management subcommittee to assist in the formation of a 15-year wildlife management plan for black bears.

Available today is the Maine Supreme Court’s decision in Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting, et al v. Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, et al.  in which Katie Hansberry is named, along with Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting (MFBH) as the complainant in the lawsuit.

Some history. Hansberry and her radical, animal rights organization got placed on the Maine ballot in 2015 a referendum seeking to end bear hunting and trapping. For the second time in 10 years this action was shot down by the voters of Maine.

During the campaign effort, MFBH filed a lawsuit against the MDIFW, claiming that it was against Maine law to use department money to campaign against the Humane Society of the United States’ (HSUS) campaign to end bear hunting.

By the time the case made its way to Court, the referendum was concluded and voted down by voters. The Maine Supreme Court simply ruled the case “moot.” MFBH and Katie Hansberry filed an appeal to the Court’s “moot” ruling.

The appeal upheld the moot ruling in this case. Readers can read the decision as to the reasons that the complaint against using public resource to campaign against this particular case remains moot.

The bigger point is the simple fact that this person, who sued the State of Maine, specifically the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, has now been appointed to sit on a subcommittee that will help decide bear management for the next 15 years.

Not only is this damned absurd, one wonders the depth of corruption that must exist. What else could it be?

Share

HSUS’ Hansberry Named to Bear Management Subcommittee

More proof that fish and game management is going the way of the Environmentalists and Animal Rights extremists – Katie Hansberry, head of the Maine division of the Humane Society of the United States has been named to sit on a black bear management subcommittee for 2016. This committee is at least partly responsible for devising a 15-year management plan for black bears in Maine.

For those not exactly familiar with the name, Hansberry has headed up efforts to end bear hunting, trapping and baiting. And Maine has elected to place her on a committee that will influence the 15-year management plan for black bears, which will include recommendations in that plan for establishing bear hunting, trapping and baiting rules and regulations?

Does this make any sense?

Of course not, but Maine is also filled with fake “sportsmen” who think that we should hold hands with people like Hansberry and “work with them” in order to “compromise” on game management and natural resource uses.

Why does it make any sense that an animal pervert, who gets paid handsomely to be an animal pervert, that despises hunting, trapping, baiting and fishing, and works continuously to end it all, be placed on a committee that would not exist if not for the efforts and taxes paid by outdoor sportsmen who understand wildlife conservation? Why are and why should sportsmen agree to this? Why don’t they speak up and voice their disapproval? They must approve, don’t care, or don’t know.

I have written in the past about how all plans, nationwide in America, are geared toward the destruction of game management, including hunting, trapping and fishing. I have explained about the ongoing efforts and influences of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, who conned Congress into stealing funds from Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson, to operate their anti hunting, trapping and fishing campaigns, disguised as wildlife management. This, combined with the brain-rot garbage being taught to wildlife managers and biologists in our colleges, is the formula the Environmentalists have been waiting for in order to end hunting, trapping and fishing and lay the groundwork to shut down the forests and fields – an effort that will lead to their own destruction and yet they cannot see it.

Rome burns and idiots sleep!

I have expressed concern that Maine is going in the same direction as all the other brainwashed environmentally controlled wildlife agencies. Here is the proof.

Found HERE:

BearSubcommittee

 

Share

Predator control in the North

Wolf experts agreed that wolf numbers have fully recovered and they are reestablishing farther south near cities where they were never intended to be. Wolves at present cannot be controlled because of lawsuits filed by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This lawsuit takes away the states’ (DNR) right to manage our wolf population. Wolf numbers are at record levels, we should be celebrating the successful wolf reestablishment under the Endangered Species Act, but no, HSUS is spending its funds through litigation to take away our state’s rights to manage our wolf population.

Source: Predator control in the North – The Lakeland Times – Minocqua, Wisc.

Share

You Don’t Always Get What You Want

What is most amazing about the realities of attempting to expose the fraud and corruption that exists with the HSUS, is that the majority of people don’t really care what HSUS does with the money they steal from them. I think most people who donate to the HSUS use the act to psychologically cover their animal fetish perversion.

Share

Mainers For Fair Bear Hunting Fails to Convince Supreme Court to Hear Case…BUT…

According an article I just read from George Smith of the Bangor Daily News, Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting, the front name for the Humane Society of the United States, failed to convince members of the Maine Supreme Court to hear their case against the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) for alleged violations when MDIFW campaigned against a Humane Society of the United State’s ballot initiative to end bear hunting.

As I pointed out in an earlier article, this effort was geared toward convincing the Court to hear an appeal. According to Smith, that convincing didn’t go so well but the Court did not issue a decision.

Smith brings up an interesting point that may need a closer look at. In writing about the focus of the HSUS’ case, Smith quotes the attorney for HSUS as saying, “We are challenging their use of taxpayer money to campaign against the initiative, not their right to speak on the issue.”

Smith provides his own commentary: “At that point I wanted to jump up and shout, DIF&W did not spend taxpayer dollars. They get no taxpayer dollars! Sportsmen pay all the bills at that state agency, although we have tried, for decades, to win General Fund tax dollars for DIF&W, without success.”

The Supreme Court evidently did not offer any information directly to the core of the appeal as to whether or not MDIFW could use taxpayer money to campaign against a citizen’s initiative. All the Court basically said was that because the referendum has been voted on, the case is moot – which is exactly as the Lower Court ruled.

Smith further explains: “I took great interest in a part of the discussion that focused on whether or not DIF&W and other state agencies should be able to testify at the legislature for or against bills. That is a great analogy really. One Justice noted that, “The citizen initiative process is exactly like the legislative process, it just puts the issue in front of the people.” That Justice asked Wertheimer, “Isn’t the proper place for your argument the legislature?”

It appears however that this matter may not be that cut and dry. I recall in the debates that have taken place earlier about HSUS trying to censor MDIFW, that Maine has certain “ethics” when it comes to “using taxpayer money” by a department in providing testimony. The question seems to be whether or not Maine law prohibits any member of a state agency to actively campaign for or against a citizen-brought referendum, and whether it is prohibited as such because it is improper use of taxpayer’s money?

Perhaps this question will be decided at a later time. One Maine Supreme Court justice asked if the answer to such a question should be sought in the Maine Legislature.

And what if it is? What will happen? Will the Legislature or the Courts try to tell members of a department, funded by voluntary payments for licenses and registrations that they are prohibited to speak out on issues?

Perhaps a bit unknowingly, Smith, a proponent and activist for funding the MDIFW with General Fund money, provided good evidence as to why such an effort might not be so good. If it is deemed “unethical,” either through existing statutes or future statutes, that public taxpayer money cannot be used to campaign for or against any initiative, then how would such a law effect the MDIFW where none of it’s money comes from General Fund taxes? Funding is provided by voluntary fee payments for licenses and registrations. Probably it is a good thing MDIFW isn’t funded by general tax dollars.

People shouldn’t forget that these political doorways swing in more than one direction. Anytime laws are written to restrict one’s freedom of speech or create more regulations that stifle progress, generally don’t do anybody any good. What seemed to work out good for the bear hunters this time, might bite them in the hind end the next.

Share

Maine Court Will Consider Appeal of Earlier Moot Decision on MDIFW Campaign Conduct

According to an article in the Bangor Daily News, the Maine Supreme Court will consider an appeal of a lower court ruling declaring a court challenge as “moot” because the lawsuit never came to the courts until after the referendum was voted on. The appeal comes from the totalitarian group, Mainer’s for Fair Bear Hunting (MFFBH), a front name for the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).

The issue here is whether or not an appeal should be granted. It appears that MFFBH is seeking an appeal based on their assumption that Justice Joyce Wheeler’s decision to dismiss the case because the referendum had already been decided, was an act that warrants an appeal. The higher court will decide.

If the appeal is granted, then the Supreme Court will hear MFFBH’s lawsuit.

What is laughable in all of this is the double standards broadly revealed by this anti-human group in which it wants their legal rights protected at the cost of taking away the rights of other in order that they can get their way.

I have never supported any law that diminishes anyone’s right to petition the state or any other right. While it may be troubling and upsetting to some that any totalitarian group, in their psychotic ways, moves to destroy the lifestyles of others, hidden behind the perverted scheme of animal welfare and protection, there is a due process, with civil rights that are extended to everyone, whether we like it or not.

It’s unfortunate the totalitarians don’t see it the same way (that’s why they are totalitarians, doing the work of the fascists).

Maine sportsmen organizations have tried to get laws passed that would prohibit or limit the rights of people (even those opposed to hunting, fishing and trapping) to petition the state on issues of wildlife management. As it most always appears, and probably is, a waste of time and money, the right does and should exist. That door swings both ways.

In the case of the bear hunting referendum of this past year, the Humane Society of the United States, were doing everything they could to limit the speech and the ability to do their jobs, of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. It became clear early on in the campaign that MDIFW’s education program was very effective in teaching voters about the science of bear management and the difficulties it faced in carrying out their legislative mandate to care for a healthy bear population. The HSUS saw this as a trouble spot and so came the lawsuit demanding the courts put an end to MDIFW’s education program.

If the appeal is granted, I’m assuming this will be the meat of the case – that MDIFW did not follow the laws in the books about how the department may or may not participate in such campaigns.

Whether the appeal is granted or not, the issue needs to be addressed. It is my opinion that voters have the right to hear from all Maine Government departments on any issues that affect the departments and thus the voters themselves. How else can voters make informed and intelligent decisions? If the court determines that what MDIFW did during the bear referendum campaign to be in violation of existing laws, then efforts should be taken to get those laws changed. That’s how the process is supposed to work.

While it is clear that the HSUS, i.e. Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting’s goal is to end bear hunting, and all hunting and trapping, their real hope here is to be able to censor MDIFW. With censorship in hand, the next time the totalitarians muster a petition to change the desired lifestyles of the many Maine residents, they will know that the departments mouths have been zipped shut and thus their propaganda can flourish unchallenged. And just whom does that benefit other than just psychotic animal rights groups and environmentalists?

BeaverMoose

Share

Humane Society Of The United States False Advertising

Recent research has determined HSUS’s own donors are confused about where their money goes. An April 2015 poll of 1,051 self-identified HSUS supporters found that 87 percent of HSUS’s donors were unaware that HSUS gives just one percent of its budget to local pet shelters. When informed of this fact, 92 percent of HSUS’s own donors agreed the group “misleads people into thinking that it supports local humane societies and pet shelters,” and 55 percent were less likely to support HSUS.

Source: Humane Society Of The United States False Advertising – Grand View Outdoors

Share