Several days ago my blog called for the support of HB 5143 in Michigan - a Bill that has come to be known as "Castle Doctrine." I gave reasons for my support and called for communication with members of the Committee that will be hearing the Legislation on April 18th at 10:30 AM.
One Michigan group met with Representative Rick Jones on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 and asked how they could help get this Bill through committee. He advised that letters needed to be written and those of us who are committed to moving pro-gun legislation set to work. We wrote letters, made phone calls, posted to various message boards and blogs and generally spread the word.
On Friday, April 14, 2006, another Michigan group sent out and email alert to its members saying, among other things, "While others continue to blindly bang the drum for calls and letters to Legislators..." and more or less advised us that they'd take care of everything.
Sadly, it would seem that whoever is responsible for emails such as this simply does not understand the way the political system works.
With hundreds of emails and letters generated by the Brady Bunch and their anti-gun political machine, how could any responsible, and supposedly pro-gun, group ask its members to sit idly by and do nothing to attempt to counteract this tide of anti-gun pressure on our Legislators? This deeply mistaken approach could cost us the protection under the law that we so desperately need.
Thankfully, a few hours after this incredibly ill-thought out email was sent, the The NRA-ILA responded with this urgent email alert:
The Michigan House Judiciary Committee will be hearing important self-defense legislation on Tuesday, April 18 at 10:30 a.m. It is important that law-abiding citizens contact Chairman William VanRegenmorter and fellow committee members and ask him or her to pass HB 5143 and companion bills that are part of the Castle Doctrine package.
The "Castle Doctrine" legislation that has already passed in Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Mississippi, and South Dakota will also help the citizens of Michigan by clarifying the rights and duties of self-defense and the defense of others within ones' home and/or occupied vehicle.
Please contact the House Judiciary Committee as soon as possible!
Your voice needs to be heard by this committee!
Contact information for the House Judiciary Committee members can be found below:
William VanRegenmorter (R-74), Committee Chair: (517) 373-8900;
Email: wmvanreg@house.mi.gov
Tonya Schuitmaker (R-80), Majority Vice-Chair: (517) 373-0839;
Email: tonyaschuitmaker@house.mi.gov
Alexander Lipsey (D-60), Minority Vice-Chair: (517) 373-1785;
Email: alexanderlipsey@house.mi.gov
Stephen Adamini (D-109): (517) 373-0498;
Email: stephenadamini@house.mi.gov
Steve Bieda (D-25): (517) 373-1772;
Email: stevebieda@house.mi.gov
Paul Condino (D-35): (517) 373-1788;
Email: paulcondino@house.mi.gov
Kevin Elsenheimer (R-105): (517) 373-0829;
Email: kevinelsenheimer@house.mi.gov
Rick Jones (R-71): (517) 373-0853;
Email: rickjones@house.mi.gov
David Law (R-39): (517) 373-1799;
Email: davidlaw@house.mi.gov
Bill McConico (D-5): (517) 373-0144;
Email: repbillmcconico@house.mi.gov
Gary Newell (R-87): (517) 373-0842;
Email: repgarynewell@house.mi.gov
Mike Nofs (R-62): (517) 373-0555;
Email: mikenofs@house.mi.gov
Tory Rocca (R-30): (517) 373-7768;
Email: toryrocca@house.mi.gov
Virgil Smith (D-7): (517) 373-0589;
Email: virgilsmith@house.mi.gov
John Stakoe (R-44): (517) 373-2616;
Email: johnstakoe@house.mi.gov
Friday, April 14, 2006
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Castle Doctrine in Michigan....
A Man’s Home is His Castle – or so the Courts in Michigan have said thus far – but the Courts’ views change with the political tide and even the cases that have reinforced Castle Doctrine in Michigan have severely limited the scope and definition of what man’s castle entails.
Michigan residents have no “duty to retreat” in their own home, and the Courts tell us, anything attached to that home – any attached curtilage. However, anything not attached is no longer considered “home,” despite other Court rulings that would appear to support the concept, for instance, of a motor vehicle in which one is traveling, or an unattached garage adjacent to the home, as being part of one’s home (curtilage). Other Courts have ruled, in Fourth Amendment cases, for instance, that both of the above instances do constitute “home” for the purposes of the Court. Thus, the Court is at odds as to what is and is not home, and it is this circumstance that HB 5143 would correct. Codification is the only sure method to guarantee the right to defend one’s self against arrest if one must use an armed defense in a car jacking, for instance.
Similarly, at this point in our history, someone who does defend him or herself in any of the circumstances above, even if held to be completely justified in the use of deadly force, and within the boundaries of his or her own home, can still face ruination in the form of lawsuits from the individual who caused the situation, or from his or her family.
House Bill 5143 would end all of that and protect each and every law abiding citizen of our great State, who is justified in the use of deadly force when he or she reasonably believes that deadly force is necessitated to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. No one should have to retreat if he or she is in a place where he or she has a right to be – in her own car, in her own garage, on her own porch. No reasonable individual would ever “look for trouble,” but when trouble comes to find us, as law abiding citizens, in places like our homes, cars, garages or back yards, we should not have to leave it to the vagaries of the Court system to decide if we ran far enough, fast enough, or tried hard enough, to escape a situation.
House Bill 5143 would also afford financial protection to those who have been found to justifiably use deadly force to protect self or loved ones as defined in the law. HB 5143 would protect law abiding citizens from being prosecuted under criminal law and from any civil action for the use of force as defined under the law. Effectively, what the law would do is forbid the ruination of an individual who has had to use force against a felon in the commission of a crime and has sought only to employ what is that most basic human right – self defense.
I cannot urge you strongly enough to support Castle Doctrine in Michigan and lend your strength and commitment to law abiding citizens and their right to be safe in both home and travel.
SAFR says:
Do it now - SAFR can help protect your rights - but only your voice can really make a difference.
Michigan residents have no “duty to retreat” in their own home, and the Courts tell us, anything attached to that home – any attached curtilage. However, anything not attached is no longer considered “home,” despite other Court rulings that would appear to support the concept, for instance, of a motor vehicle in which one is traveling, or an unattached garage adjacent to the home, as being part of one’s home (curtilage). Other Courts have ruled, in Fourth Amendment cases, for instance, that both of the above instances do constitute “home” for the purposes of the Court. Thus, the Court is at odds as to what is and is not home, and it is this circumstance that HB 5143 would correct. Codification is the only sure method to guarantee the right to defend one’s self against arrest if one must use an armed defense in a car jacking, for instance.
Similarly, at this point in our history, someone who does defend him or herself in any of the circumstances above, even if held to be completely justified in the use of deadly force, and within the boundaries of his or her own home, can still face ruination in the form of lawsuits from the individual who caused the situation, or from his or her family.
House Bill 5143 would end all of that and protect each and every law abiding citizen of our great State, who is justified in the use of deadly force when he or she reasonably believes that deadly force is necessitated to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. No one should have to retreat if he or she is in a place where he or she has a right to be – in her own car, in her own garage, on her own porch. No reasonable individual would ever “look for trouble,” but when trouble comes to find us, as law abiding citizens, in places like our homes, cars, garages or back yards, we should not have to leave it to the vagaries of the Court system to decide if we ran far enough, fast enough, or tried hard enough, to escape a situation.
House Bill 5143 would also afford financial protection to those who have been found to justifiably use deadly force to protect self or loved ones as defined in the law. HB 5143 would protect law abiding citizens from being prosecuted under criminal law and from any civil action for the use of force as defined under the law. Effectively, what the law would do is forbid the ruination of an individual who has had to use force against a felon in the commission of a crime and has sought only to employ what is that most basic human right – self defense.
I cannot urge you strongly enough to support Castle Doctrine in Michigan and lend your strength and commitment to law abiding citizens and their right to be safe in both home and travel.
SAFR says:
Dear SAFR Member:
Michigan House Bill 5143 goes before committee Tuesday or Wednesday of next week and is expected to be voted by the following week.
The Brady Campaign has sent over 400 letters to legislators telling them this bill is bad for Michigan. They need to hear from you that this is good legislation. It has broad, bi-partisan support and can be sitting on the Governor’s desk if we let them know how important it is.
Please WRITE LETTERS. Phone calls are not that helpful because they can’t be carried to committee hearings. Emails will work, but the best thing is to hand write a letter. These cannot be deleted like email can. Either mail the letters or fax them, but get them out NOW so they reach in time. Write to both your Representative and Senator.
To write to the House:
Box 30014
Lansing, MI 48909-7514
Find your Representative!
To write to the Senate:
Box 30036
Lansing, MI 48909-7536
Find your Senator!
Please forward this information on to as many people as you can, as we need to get a much more powerful response than the Brady Campaign did.
Do it now - SAFR can help protect your rights - but only your voice can really make a difference.
Monday, April 10, 2006
Good and Bad Training...
I'm a teacher. I've got three formal degrees, several training certificates that apply to teaching in the schools and seven more that apply to teaching firearms safety. By now, I have probably spent the calendar equivalent of 23 years in some kind of schooling or another. Believe me, I have seen good training, bad training, indifferent training and every stripe in between.
This past weekend, I saw some of the best training I have ever been privileged to experience by a team of instructors who know what quality training means.
Thursday through Sunday, I attended Training Counselor classes offered by the National Rifle Association's training department and an excellent team of Master and Senior Training Counselors. A "train the trainer" type session that lasted four days and was as well done as anything I've ever gone through for training.
I think my proudest moment was hearing that these instructors would feel confident sending family or friends to me to take a class. I will always do my best to live up to that trust.
Kudos to the NRA, to Roy Mullens of Ohio, and to the rest of the team joining us in Ohio to ensure quality training. My thanks to the NRA, its 4 million-plus members and the proud commitment to freedom, safety and education that is a driving force for all we do.
America's 1st Freedom. It's not just a magazine, folks - it's a way of life.
This past weekend, I saw some of the best training I have ever been privileged to experience by a team of instructors who know what quality training means.
Thursday through Sunday, I attended Training Counselor classes offered by the National Rifle Association's training department and an excellent team of Master and Senior Training Counselors. A "train the trainer" type session that lasted four days and was as well done as anything I've ever gone through for training.
I think my proudest moment was hearing that these instructors would feel confident sending family or friends to me to take a class. I will always do my best to live up to that trust.
Kudos to the NRA, to Roy Mullens of Ohio, and to the rest of the team joining us in Ohio to ensure quality training. My thanks to the NRA, its 4 million-plus members and the proud commitment to freedom, safety and education that is a driving force for all we do.
America's 1st Freedom. It's not just a magazine, folks - it's a way of life.
Twain - and the Governator
I've talked about my enjoyment of Twain's writings before - his obvious love of his wife was touching and his political, romantic and satirical writings precisely on target. He had a brevity of wit that I cannot help but admire and I wish I had the ability to produce pithy one-liners at anywhere near the same level as he.
For instance....
It is curious that physical courage should be so common in the world and moral courage so rare.
So true. There are many who will step up to the plate when it comes to the possibility of taking a knock in the head but when it comes to standing for what one believes in, we are sadly lacking. Moral courage is difficult for so many. I teach high school, and I find the lack of moral courage to be prevalent even in the smallest matters. Some of my children would rather face almost any punishment than face doing what is right.
Unfortunately, it doesn't get better with age. There are so many examples of lack of moral courage that I cannot really begin to address them. Here is a for instance, though.
Governor Schwarzenegger knows how he came to this country - legally, following the law, working his way through the system, doing the right thing and eventually, becoming a citizen of this great country. He has even risen to public office in California, the most populous state in the Union, where Hispanics make up one-third of the population.
Now, I understand responding to your constituents - certainly, he should do that. However, to pander to them is another story altogether, and to simply not stand for what is morally right is something I really didn't expect from the Governor.
Today, in the Wall Street Journal, the Governor says, "Before 9/11, we gambled that everyone entering our country had good intentions." Now this is a very true statement - and the sentiments that follow are also true - that we can no longer afford to do so, that it effects our safety to do so, that we need stronger borders and that this will mean more agents, etc.
However.
He rejects punishing law breakers. He rejects the idea that those who are in our country illegally should be deported. He rejects this and he rejects that. He believes we should develop a temporary worker program to allow American businesses to hire foreign workers for jobs "American workers will not do" - never mind that it's been shown over and over again that American workers will do the jobs, but that some unethical employers prefer undocumented workers since they do not require taxes be paid, matching social security payments, or even basic safety compliance in hiring. He believes we should be sending money to other countries to bolster their economies so that people in those countries will want to stay home rather than come here.
I'm going to indulge in a colloquialism. "Duh...." It hasn't worked in the last century - why would we expect to think it would work now? And what about the rather stark evidence to the contrary as exhibited in the attacks on our own soil by those we have fed and clothed in the past?
Here's another Twain quote which I have found to be terribly true:
If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man.
I have no wish to see our country bitten again - the past has shown us what a mauling illegal immigrants can inflict upon our country, its citizens and their safety and our economy. It is time to do the right thing and enforce the law - and strengthen it if that's what it takes to make our country strong.
It is most certainly not time to pander to 12 million illegal immigrants who think the law should not apply to them.
Time for the Governator to adhere to another Twain truism.
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
For instance....
It is curious that physical courage should be so common in the world and moral courage so rare.
So true. There are many who will step up to the plate when it comes to the possibility of taking a knock in the head but when it comes to standing for what one believes in, we are sadly lacking. Moral courage is difficult for so many. I teach high school, and I find the lack of moral courage to be prevalent even in the smallest matters. Some of my children would rather face almost any punishment than face doing what is right.
Unfortunately, it doesn't get better with age. There are so many examples of lack of moral courage that I cannot really begin to address them. Here is a for instance, though.
Governor Schwarzenegger knows how he came to this country - legally, following the law, working his way through the system, doing the right thing and eventually, becoming a citizen of this great country. He has even risen to public office in California, the most populous state in the Union, where Hispanics make up one-third of the population.
Now, I understand responding to your constituents - certainly, he should do that. However, to pander to them is another story altogether, and to simply not stand for what is morally right is something I really didn't expect from the Governor.
Today, in the Wall Street Journal, the Governor says, "Before 9/11, we gambled that everyone entering our country had good intentions." Now this is a very true statement - and the sentiments that follow are also true - that we can no longer afford to do so, that it effects our safety to do so, that we need stronger borders and that this will mean more agents, etc.
However.
He rejects punishing law breakers. He rejects the idea that those who are in our country illegally should be deported. He rejects this and he rejects that. He believes we should develop a temporary worker program to allow American businesses to hire foreign workers for jobs "American workers will not do" - never mind that it's been shown over and over again that American workers will do the jobs, but that some unethical employers prefer undocumented workers since they do not require taxes be paid, matching social security payments, or even basic safety compliance in hiring. He believes we should be sending money to other countries to bolster their economies so that people in those countries will want to stay home rather than come here.
I'm going to indulge in a colloquialism. "Duh...." It hasn't worked in the last century - why would we expect to think it would work now? And what about the rather stark evidence to the contrary as exhibited in the attacks on our own soil by those we have fed and clothed in the past?
Here's another Twain quote which I have found to be terribly true:
If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man.
I have no wish to see our country bitten again - the past has shown us what a mauling illegal immigrants can inflict upon our country, its citizens and their safety and our economy. It is time to do the right thing and enforce the law - and strengthen it if that's what it takes to make our country strong.
It is most certainly not time to pander to 12 million illegal immigrants who think the law should not apply to them.
Time for the Governator to adhere to another Twain truism.
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
Saturday, April 01, 2006
Irony is hard at work in Colorado...
Skyline High School Principal Tom Stumpf has announced that displaying the American flag is banned at the Longmont, Colorado high school. He says students displaying the flag were engaging in racism and "misguided patriotism."
Students were suspended Friday for protesting the school's ban. One student, Dustin Carlson, told Denver station KCNC-TV that he was suspended for two days. He is quoted as saying, "If this country means freedom, then why can't we fly our own flag? It's ridiculous."
High school students protested immigration laws passed by the House and somewhat watered down in the Senate. Some waved Mexican flags and carried signs saying "We are not criminals." They were allowed to do so.
I am ready to accept that for most of them, the statement, "We are not criminals," is correct. However, if any of the students among them is here as an illegal alien, then, frankly, their statement is a lie. For any of the students here as illegal aliens, their parents and/or guardians have put them in a position wherein they can, and should be, arrested and deported. It's an unfortunate truth that parents sometimes do not do the right thing for their children and anyone who has brought their child, illegally, into a foreign country and forces them to break the law daily, ought to be ashamed.
Apache Junction High School in Apache Junction, AZ, also briefly outlawed the flying of flags. You see, on Thursday, a group of students identified as Hispanic took down the American flag from the school's flag pole and raised a Mexican flag in its place. The Mexican flag was promptly taken down by other students, identified as "white" by the local press, and then burned.
I have to admit that I am mystified by the difference in identifying the students. One group is identified by the ethnic origins - Hispanic - the other by the color of their skin, rather than Country of citizenship - American. Clearly, to members of the media, and to Mr. Wyman, these students being young Americans who are offended by a group tearing down their Country's flag and replacing it with that of a foreign nation are "racist."
By the end of the school day Friday, Superintendent Greg Wyman had created a new policy banning all flags of any kind, whether on clothing, jewelry or otherwise, could be worn or brought on campus. A few hours later, after meeting with school and district officials, and facing community and parental pressure, Wyman reversed his decision.
Lest any reader make the assumption that I do not support immigration to the United States, I can only say, "You couldn't be more wrong." I am, in fact, acting as a sponsor to a legal immigrant, going through the process to become a citizen of the United States . I would stress the word "legal." With my sponsorship, I guarantee that she will never become part of an already overburdened welfare system, and she is fulfilling the painstaking process of following U.S. immigration law in order to become a law-abiding citizen of the United States. I'm very proud of her and her efforts and I look forward to the day when the process is complete.
I do not, however, support anyone who has entered this Country illegally or attempts to stay here illegally.
As an aside, I often hear the argument that illegal aliens are simply here doing the work that Americans will not do. In fact, I believe that what is actually happening is that due to the non-payment of taxes, social security, the costs of worker safety and more, Americans are being underbid for jobs they would most certainly do if a living wage were offered. The result is an economy slowly slipping into depresssion due to eleven million illegal aliens usually working for cash or with false identification, which brings zero economic support beyond dollars spent and sales tax collected. All government services normally supported by income taxes are free to those eleven million people and welfare abuse is rampant.
Why would I claim that welfare abuse is rampant? Because you have a huge group of workers who are being paid cash or with false identification, and who can now claim, to government agencies, that they have no income, thereby being granted welfare payments, medical care and food stamps. For more, please read Minimum Wage and Fairness by the Mackinac Policy Center author, Michael LaFaive.
In what I see as a final stroke of irony, Skyline High School has a Flag team. Wonder what they'll wave at the next event now that American flags are outlawed.
Students were suspended Friday for protesting the school's ban. One student, Dustin Carlson, told Denver station KCNC-TV that he was suspended for two days. He is quoted as saying, "If this country means freedom, then why can't we fly our own flag? It's ridiculous."
High school students protested immigration laws passed by the House and somewhat watered down in the Senate. Some waved Mexican flags and carried signs saying "We are not criminals." They were allowed to do so.
I am ready to accept that for most of them, the statement, "We are not criminals," is correct. However, if any of the students among them is here as an illegal alien, then, frankly, their statement is a lie. For any of the students here as illegal aliens, their parents and/or guardians have put them in a position wherein they can, and should be, arrested and deported. It's an unfortunate truth that parents sometimes do not do the right thing for their children and anyone who has brought their child, illegally, into a foreign country and forces them to break the law daily, ought to be ashamed.
Apache Junction High School in Apache Junction, AZ, also briefly outlawed the flying of flags. You see, on Thursday, a group of students identified as Hispanic took down the American flag from the school's flag pole and raised a Mexican flag in its place. The Mexican flag was promptly taken down by other students, identified as "white" by the local press, and then burned.
I have to admit that I am mystified by the difference in identifying the students. One group is identified by the ethnic origins - Hispanic - the other by the color of their skin, rather than Country of citizenship - American. Clearly, to members of the media, and to Mr. Wyman, these students being young Americans who are offended by a group tearing down their Country's flag and replacing it with that of a foreign nation are "racist."
By the end of the school day Friday, Superintendent Greg Wyman had created a new policy banning all flags of any kind, whether on clothing, jewelry or otherwise, could be worn or brought on campus. A few hours later, after meeting with school and district officials, and facing community and parental pressure, Wyman reversed his decision.
Lest any reader make the assumption that I do not support immigration to the United States, I can only say, "You couldn't be more wrong." I am, in fact, acting as a sponsor to a legal immigrant, going through the process to become a citizen of the United States . I would stress the word "legal." With my sponsorship, I guarantee that she will never become part of an already overburdened welfare system, and she is fulfilling the painstaking process of following U.S. immigration law in order to become a law-abiding citizen of the United States. I'm very proud of her and her efforts and I look forward to the day when the process is complete.
I do not, however, support anyone who has entered this Country illegally or attempts to stay here illegally.
As an aside, I often hear the argument that illegal aliens are simply here doing the work that Americans will not do. In fact, I believe that what is actually happening is that due to the non-payment of taxes, social security, the costs of worker safety and more, Americans are being underbid for jobs they would most certainly do if a living wage were offered. The result is an economy slowly slipping into depresssion due to eleven million illegal aliens usually working for cash or with false identification, which brings zero economic support beyond dollars spent and sales tax collected. All government services normally supported by income taxes are free to those eleven million people and welfare abuse is rampant.
Why would I claim that welfare abuse is rampant? Because you have a huge group of workers who are being paid cash or with false identification, and who can now claim, to government agencies, that they have no income, thereby being granted welfare payments, medical care and food stamps. For more, please read Minimum Wage and Fairness by the Mackinac Policy Center author, Michael LaFaive.
In what I see as a final stroke of irony, Skyline High School has a Flag team. Wonder what they'll wave at the next event now that American flags are outlawed.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
The Supreme Court Does It Right....
I'm pleased, if a bit behind the times here, to see that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Military recruiters being treated the same as any other employer on campus. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of the schools last November, saying that "the Solomon Amendment violates the First Amendment by impeding the law schools' rights of expressive association and by compelling them to assist in the expressive act of recruiting."
Needless to say, I disagree, and believe that on-campus recruiting is more or less the same as any other recruiting effort and should be treated thusly. The various law schools' incredibly ignorant and arrogant approach of denying recruiters the use of office machines, for heaven's sake, was something that needed slapping down in the worst way.
"The Department of Defense's main argument against the law schools was that in wartime, the government must be able to recruit the best and brightest." Indeed - and why would any school seek to block its students from any employer? Not because it has its students' best interests at heart, but because some Liberal Leftist professor, who long ago lost touch with the real world, is offended by those brave and committed individuals who protect our freedoms - including the First Amendment that these professors exercise - and often to the detriment of the very students they claim to be "protecting" from being recruited to work for an honorable employer.
Chief Justice Roberts rightly points out that the schools are free to turn down federal funding if they really believe that their First Amendment rights are being abrogated by refusing to treat all recruiters equally.
No one, after all, is trying to force them to take taxpayer dollars to fund their Ivory Towers.
Needless to say, I disagree, and believe that on-campus recruiting is more or less the same as any other recruiting effort and should be treated thusly. The various law schools' incredibly ignorant and arrogant approach of denying recruiters the use of office machines, for heaven's sake, was something that needed slapping down in the worst way.
"The Department of Defense's main argument against the law schools was that in wartime, the government must be able to recruit the best and brightest." Indeed - and why would any school seek to block its students from any employer? Not because it has its students' best interests at heart, but because some Liberal Leftist professor, who long ago lost touch with the real world, is offended by those brave and committed individuals who protect our freedoms - including the First Amendment that these professors exercise - and often to the detriment of the very students they claim to be "protecting" from being recruited to work for an honorable employer.
Chief Justice Roberts rightly points out that the schools are free to turn down federal funding if they really believe that their First Amendment rights are being abrogated by refusing to treat all recruiters equally.
No one, after all, is trying to force them to take taxpayer dollars to fund their Ivory Towers.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Associating with known felons....
Charles R. Perricone - remember him? He served as a Representative in Michigan for two years and rented the position of Speaker of the House for one year before going home and sinking into near anonymity, except for his connection to various Court cases.
A review of some of the Court issues:
He has fought, and continues to fight, for more than two years to keep the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners (MCRGO) financial records concealed, despite being ordered by the Court - repeatedly - to turn over those records, despite four Contempt of Court hearings and a blanket rejection by the Court of Appeals of his plea to keep things hidden from the members.
He attempted to disarm me and have my firearms taken from me on a completely fabricated Personal Protection Order request that was later summarily thrown out of Court.
He apparently nudged his wife into filing an attorney grievance complaint against the attorney representing us which was also summarily thrown out as completely baseless. I want to feel sorry for her because I can't imagine being married to someone as oily as he, but somehow, if she is buying into some of the stupid stories he tells (as in his claim that I am infatuated with him - ick) then she may be getting everything she deserves.
And now - well, his connection to Walter Mabry is astonishing, even to me.
Walter Mabry is a Union boss in the Detroit area - he heads up the Michigan Regional Carpenters Council. This may be an unfamiliar name because they used to be part of another group, but apparently that group was too tame for them. When it comes to the Carpenters Union, in the words of Doug Buckler, the President of MCRGO and a local hotshot for the MRCC, "don't screw with this brotherhood."
As an aside, Doug Buckler is also a client of Mr. Perricone's and is one of the MRCC officers that Mr. Perricone maneuvered onto the Board of Directors, even going so far as to manipulate the elections for the Board in 2003 and violate numerous Bylaws over and over again. He has now maneuvered him into position as the President of the organization. MRCC funds continue to flow into MCRGO coffers in the form of "advertising" space in the occasional newsletter Mr. Perricone publishes, but exact amounts are unknown as Mr. Perricone and the treasurer refuse, despite Court Orders and the affirmation of those orders by the Michigan Court of Appeals, to release the information to members.
Could this association with MRCC and Mr. Perricone's exorbitant contractual salary have anything to do with why the organization has had to plead poverty and beg payment arrangements with the Court for its recent Contempt of Court judgment?
MRCC, just in case you have lost track of them in their splits and name changes, used to be known as the folks who took care of Jimmy Hoffa - however he was taken care of. I wonder if the name change has made any difference at all in their method of dealing with problems, but that's for another day.
Walter Mabry is the man that Charles Perricone has pushed, for several years, to have placed on the board of Directors of MCRGO. He is also Mr. Perricone's client in Mr. Perricone's "consulting" business. On at least one occasion, Mr. Perricone consulted MRCC's way into a law change that benefits the Union financially and hurts small businesses state wide in a deal with "Conservative" Republican Legislator Alan Cropsey.
He is also the man who has been forbidden by the Dept. of Labor, for some years, to have anything to do with his own Union's pension fund due to some slights of hand with the funds of the Union members. Apparently, he was part of a group of Union bosses that had to pay back more than $590,000 due to a suit filed August 23, 2000. The suit alleged the defendants violated ERISA by paying unreasonable compensation and fees, failing to prudently invest the plan's cash assets, paying excessive fees relating to the collection of employer contributions owed to the plans, and making mortgage loans to participants which did not comply with the terms of the pension plan document.
He is also the man making loans with Union member dollars to casinos and other individuals and groups that have been found, over and over again, to be illegal. A quote from the article on a Washington State casino under consideration referenced above:
He is also the man who was convicted of several felonies in the conspiracy to solicit prohibited payments and solicitation of a prohibited payment and is now facing five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. Yet Mr. Perricone refers to this man as "an angel" that we need to have on our Board of Directors.
Lest you think I am criticizing the entire Union and its members, I am not. The vast majority of the members would get rid of the man if they could. Some have even testified in Congressional hearings about the abuse of power since he took office. I am stating only that there are corrupt individuals in charge at MRCC and Charles R. Perricone wants to put some of those same individuals in charge of MCRGO.
My question is clear - why?
A review of some of the Court issues:
He has fought, and continues to fight, for more than two years to keep the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners (MCRGO) financial records concealed, despite being ordered by the Court - repeatedly - to turn over those records, despite four Contempt of Court hearings and a blanket rejection by the Court of Appeals of his plea to keep things hidden from the members.
He attempted to disarm me and have my firearms taken from me on a completely fabricated Personal Protection Order request that was later summarily thrown out of Court.
He apparently nudged his wife into filing an attorney grievance complaint against the attorney representing us which was also summarily thrown out as completely baseless. I want to feel sorry for her because I can't imagine being married to someone as oily as he, but somehow, if she is buying into some of the stupid stories he tells (as in his claim that I am infatuated with him - ick) then she may be getting everything she deserves.
And now - well, his connection to Walter Mabry is astonishing, even to me.
Walter Mabry is a Union boss in the Detroit area - he heads up the Michigan Regional Carpenters Council. This may be an unfamiliar name because they used to be part of another group, but apparently that group was too tame for them. When it comes to the Carpenters Union, in the words of Doug Buckler, the President of MCRGO and a local hotshot for the MRCC, "don't screw with this brotherhood."
As an aside, Doug Buckler is also a client of Mr. Perricone's and is one of the MRCC officers that Mr. Perricone maneuvered onto the Board of Directors, even going so far as to manipulate the elections for the Board in 2003 and violate numerous Bylaws over and over again. He has now maneuvered him into position as the President of the organization. MRCC funds continue to flow into MCRGO coffers in the form of "advertising" space in the occasional newsletter Mr. Perricone publishes, but exact amounts are unknown as Mr. Perricone and the treasurer refuse, despite Court Orders and the affirmation of those orders by the Michigan Court of Appeals, to release the information to members.
Could this association with MRCC and Mr. Perricone's exorbitant contractual salary have anything to do with why the organization has had to plead poverty and beg payment arrangements with the Court for its recent Contempt of Court judgment?
MRCC, just in case you have lost track of them in their splits and name changes, used to be known as the folks who took care of Jimmy Hoffa - however he was taken care of. I wonder if the name change has made any difference at all in their method of dealing with problems, but that's for another day.
Walter Mabry is the man that Charles Perricone has pushed, for several years, to have placed on the board of Directors of MCRGO. He is also Mr. Perricone's client in Mr. Perricone's "consulting" business. On at least one occasion, Mr. Perricone consulted MRCC's way into a law change that benefits the Union financially and hurts small businesses state wide in a deal with "Conservative" Republican Legislator Alan Cropsey.
He is also the man who has been forbidden by the Dept. of Labor, for some years, to have anything to do with his own Union's pension fund due to some slights of hand with the funds of the Union members. Apparently, he was part of a group of Union bosses that had to pay back more than $590,000 due to a suit filed August 23, 2000. The suit alleged the defendants violated ERISA by paying unreasonable compensation and fees, failing to prudently invest the plan's cash assets, paying excessive fees relating to the collection of employer contributions owed to the plans, and making mortgage loans to participants which did not comply with the terms of the pension plan document.
He is also the man making loans with Union member dollars to casinos and other individuals and groups that have been found, over and over again, to be illegal. A quote from the article on a Washington State casino under consideration referenced above:
A state Gaming Commission investigation into Arlington Gaming's funding source, a Detroit carpenter union pension fund that made illegal mortgage loans in the 1990s has delayed approval of the casino application.
He is also the man who was convicted of several felonies in the conspiracy to solicit prohibited payments and solicitation of a prohibited payment and is now facing five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. Yet Mr. Perricone refers to this man as "an angel" that we need to have on our Board of Directors.
Lest you think I am criticizing the entire Union and its members, I am not. The vast majority of the members would get rid of the man if they could. Some have even testified in Congressional hearings about the abuse of power since he took office. I am stating only that there are corrupt individuals in charge at MRCC and Charles R. Perricone wants to put some of those same individuals in charge of MCRGO.
My question is clear - why?
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Geez, oh, pete...
I came home yesterday to find a notice of a certified letter waiting for me. It seems that the office of Joni Fixel has decided to violate the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct by contacting me directly, rather than communicating with my legal representative.
Oddly enough, it appears Joni is unaware that there is a Court Order in place that addresses this matter. You see, they "terminated" my membership once before but finally offered it back to me (I suspect they knew that was a losing battle) and an order was entered in July of this year that contains language that says:
Now, why would they want to try yet again to remove me as a member? The recent election results explain that pretty clearly. Seven hundred sixty seven votes for me as a Director. Almost fifty percent of the ballots that were returned contained a vote for me. Two spots open up in my region next year and I intend to run again.
And in the case of MCRGO's attorneys, my suggestion is, follow the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct. I understand that the MCRGO Board of Directors and its Executive Director are bound by no such rules of ethics, but Ms. Fixel certainly is.
One last suggestion, for now: Ms. Fixel and Mr. Naumcheff need to read the Court records surrounding this case, they really do. I've posted a lot of the relevant orders and records in this directory, but they really need to review everything that has gone on up to this date and try to get their client, who appears to be Mr. Perricone primarily, to be a little more forthcoming in the real truths behind all of this.
And one final comment. Mr. Naumcheff didn't quite tell the membership the truth the other day at one of the meetings. He told us that any document "not signed was not public." Untrue, of course. Many of the documents filed with the Court are not signed. They're still public. Of course, I also have the right to make things like my own deposition public. I know it, you know it, the Judge has reinforced the concept repeatedly. It's only MCRGO and its continuously changing teams of attorneys that don't seem to get it.
Rule 4.2 Communication with Person Represented by CounselIn representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a party whom the lawyer knows to be represented in the matter by another lawyer, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized by law to do so.Of course, Joni knows that my attorney is the respected Kevin Winters of Foster, Zack and Lowe as she has communicated with him on many occasions and appeared in Court across the aisle from him when MCRGO's Executive Director, Anti-Gunner, Charles R. Perricone (you remember - he used to be the Speaker of the House, an office the Michigan Daily newspaper says was sort of expensive for him to buy his way into) tried to get away with claiming I was "infatuated and obsessed" with him due to his being part of a two-year long lawsuit (and now, an additional lawsuit for defamation and slander) in which I have been found to be on the right side of the law every step of the way.
Oddly enough, it appears Joni is unaware that there is a Court Order in place that addresses this matter. You see, they "terminated" my membership once before but finally offered it back to me (I suspect they knew that was a losing battle) and an order was entered in July of this year that contains language that says:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the only remaining issues in this case, that being the termination of the membership of Neva Li from MCRGO, is resolved by virtue of MCRGO reinstating Neva Li as member of MCRGO subject to all terms and conditions of membership. MCRGO will not terminate Neva Li's membership in a manner inconsistent with both Michigan Law and MCRGO Bylaws.Michigan Law. Wouldn't that be an idea for the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners, its Executive Director and its attorneys? Just follow the law.
Now, why would they want to try yet again to remove me as a member? The recent election results explain that pretty clearly. Seven hundred sixty seven votes for me as a Director. Almost fifty percent of the ballots that were returned contained a vote for me. Two spots open up in my region next year and I intend to run again.
And in the case of MCRGO's attorneys, my suggestion is, follow the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct. I understand that the MCRGO Board of Directors and its Executive Director are bound by no such rules of ethics, but Ms. Fixel certainly is.
One last suggestion, for now: Ms. Fixel and Mr. Naumcheff need to read the Court records surrounding this case, they really do. I've posted a lot of the relevant orders and records in this directory, but they really need to review everything that has gone on up to this date and try to get their client, who appears to be Mr. Perricone primarily, to be a little more forthcoming in the real truths behind all of this.
And one final comment. Mr. Naumcheff didn't quite tell the membership the truth the other day at one of the meetings. He told us that any document "not signed was not public." Untrue, of course. Many of the documents filed with the Court are not signed. They're still public. Of course, I also have the right to make things like my own deposition public. I know it, you know it, the Judge has reinforced the concept repeatedly. It's only MCRGO and its continuously changing teams of attorneys that don't seem to get it.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Trust me - it isn't infatuation, no matter what he tells his wife...
Mr. Charles R. Perricone - you remember him, perhaps because, some years ago, he paid good money to be the Speaker of the House for a short time - according to the Michigan Daily at the time, he won by "contributing $4,500 to each" Republican lawmaker - claims I am infatuated with him.
This is the Executive Director of MCRGO that disarmed me with a spurious PPO a month or so ago - see this file for details.
Of interest in the continuing saga of his fabrications and manipulations is this transcript of the PPO hearing.
I cannot imagine how his wife believes some of the tripe he feeds her. Just a little bit of applied logic would seem necessary here at some point in time.
As I told some friends of mine earlier today when we pondered him actually saying out loud that I am supposedly infatuated with him:
... he has to tell his wife something about all of this so telling her that I am infatuated with him worked, I guess, for someone not intuitive enough to ask the next question(s). "So, what's your obsession with her? Why are you always writing about her in the On Target and in emails? Why do you keep trying to get other groups to trash her? Why do you have people spying on her? Why don't you just comply with the law and the Judge's orders and do what you should be doing?"
If my husband had spent two years in Court constantly being told by the Judge that the organization he was responsible for directing was not following the law, and whose actions helped place the organization in that position, we'd have more to discuss than the woman who filed the suit.
But that would never happen because I am married to an ethical man.
This is the Executive Director of MCRGO that disarmed me with a spurious PPO a month or so ago - see this file for details.
Of interest in the continuing saga of his fabrications and manipulations is this transcript of the PPO hearing.
I cannot imagine how his wife believes some of the tripe he feeds her. Just a little bit of applied logic would seem necessary here at some point in time.
As I told some friends of mine earlier today when we pondered him actually saying out loud that I am supposedly infatuated with him:
... he has to tell his wife something about all of this so telling her that I am infatuated with him worked, I guess, for someone not intuitive enough to ask the next question(s). "So, what's your obsession with her? Why are you always writing about her in the On Target and in emails? Why do you keep trying to get other groups to trash her? Why do you have people spying on her? Why don't you just comply with the law and the Judge's orders and do what you should be doing?"
If my husband had spent two years in Court constantly being told by the Judge that the organization he was responsible for directing was not following the law, and whose actions helped place the organization in that position, we'd have more to discuss than the woman who filed the suit.
But that would never happen because I am married to an ethical man.
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Director of MCRGO, Kerry Miller
Kerry Miller wrote to me and asked me to post this:
The following two letters were attached:
http://www.cpltrainer.com/mcrgo/MCRGOconflictletter.pdf
http://www.cpltrainer.com/mcrgo/MCRGOWAIVER.pdf
Please post this is what they want me to sign this, so I would have to lie to
protect Chuck. I will stand up for MCRGO because the members have only listened
to Chucks lie's and we should not pay this guy 75% of the money we take in.
The following two letters were attached:
http://www.cpltrainer.com/mcrgo/MCRGOconflictletter.pdf
http://www.cpltrainer.com/mcrgo/MCRGOWAIVER.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
