Nemo Me Impune Lacessit

Thursday, 24 January 2019

Comments on the “Rocket Docket” of Victim Disarmament Legislation

Filed under: Politics, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 6:47 PM (18:47)

From: Mike Blessing
To: Elizabeth “Liz” Thomson (D-24), Representative Andrea Romero (D-46), Representative Candy Spence Ezzell (R-58), Representative Angelica Rubio (D-35), Representative Gregg Schmedes (R-22) [1]
CC: Representative Antonio Maestas (D-16) [2], Representative Patricia Roybal Caballero (D-13), Representative Debra M. Sariñana (D-21), Representative Miguel P. Garcia (D-14), Representative Joy Garratt (D-29), Representative Daymon Ely (D-23), Representative Deborah A. Armstrong (D-17), Representative Linda M. Trujillo (D-48)
Date: Thursday, January 24, 2019, 12:00 PM MST
Subject: Comments on the “Rocket Docket” of Victim Disarmament Legislation

Honored Members of the Committee:

First, I am writing to say that some of the legislation under consideration by the committee is not properly labelled as “gun control.” Gun control constitutes the safe, proficient, and proper use of a firearm — the four safety rules, stance, grip, sight alignment and picture, breathing, trigger operation, target selection, etc.

Rather, the legislation in question (HB 8, HB 40, HB 83, HB 87, HB 130) is more properly called “victim disarmament,” in that the people most likely to be affected by it are the people who have the most reason to own and carry firearms for self-defense — the little old lady or the paraplegic who lives alone in a bad neighborhood, the five-foot-nothing 100-pound woman being stalked by a six-foot 200-pound deranged ex-boyfriend.

The bad people (the criminals, terrorists, and violence-inclined mental defectives) whom the proponents of this legislation say will be disarmed by it most likely will not be affected in the least. If they want access to a firearm, they will have it, by hook or by crook.

You see, the bad guys have found this massive loophole in the existing restrictions on private civilians’ rights to own and carry weapons called “breaking the law.”

There are already 20,000 to 25,000 existing restrictions upon the pre-existing individual, civil, Constitutional, human right to own and carry weapons, which are supposed to be guaranteed against State infringement by the Second Amendment and Article 2, Section 6 of the State Constitution. None of these anti-liberty statutes has stopped a bad guy from obtaining a firearm when they want it.

Laws already exist that prohibit felons, domestic abusers, foreign terrorists, incurable drug abusers and alcoholics, and mental defectives from obtaining, owning or carrying firearms.

Laws already exist that prohibit the use of firearms (and other objects) to harm other people (murder, assault with a deadly weapon, etc.).

I think it’s safe to say that all these laws have done is keep honest people honest, the same way locks on doors do.

Those who propose further infringements upon individual liberty aren’t truly looking to improve the human condition at all, but seeking more power over others for whatever reasons. No good will come from these infringements — no good has ever come from these sorts of laws, and no good ever will.

Specifically —

House Bill 8[3], so-called “universal background check” legislation sponsored by Representative Debra Sarinana, would ban all private firearms sales between law-abiding individuals. Gun owners will be forced to pay undetermined fees and obtain government approval before selling firearms to family members, friends, neighbors and co-workers, or fellow hunters, competitive shooters and gun club members. This proposal will have no impact on crime and is unenforceable without gun registration. [4]

House Bill 40[5], by Representative Miguel Garcia, would require criminal records checks on private firearms sales at gun shows — a perennial target of the gun control crowd, even though studies show that these events are not a source of crime guns.[6]

House Bill 83[7], extreme risk protection order or “red flag” legislation sponsored by Representative Damon Ely, would authorize the seizure of firearms and ammunition from individuals without due process. Unchallenged statements made by a petitioner before a judge, alleging that someone is a danger to themselves or others in an ex parte proceeding — prior to any formal court hearing at which the respondent can be represented by counsel and present counter evidence — would be sufficient for law enforcement to enter that person’s home and confiscate their private property.[8]

House Bill 87[9] by Representative Deborah Armstrong expands the state’s “prohibited person” firearm law by purportedly incorporating federal firearm disqualifications. The bill would prohibit individuals convicted of certain domestic violence misdemeanor crimes or who are subject to a domestic violence protective order from purchasing or possessing a firearm, with violations being a criminal offense. However, the bill goes beyond the prohibited categories in federal law in several significant ways. The state law definition of “household member” — unlike federal law — specifically includes a person who is or has been a continuing personal relationship, which applies to dating or intimate partners who have never lived together. The bill would include, as firearm-prohibiting offenses, nonviolent misdemeanors with no physical contact between the parties (like harassment by telephone or email, or criminal damage to the property or jointly owned property of a “household member”). Unlike federal law, this bill would require anyone subject to a protective order to surrender any firearms they own, possess, or control to law enforcement within 48 hours of the order. Not only does this bill impose a mandatory surrender, it authorizes law enforcement to seize any guns that are in plain sight or are discovered pursuant to a lawful search. Similar legislation had passed the Legislature in 2017 but was vetoed by Gov. Susana Martinez. Significantly, the 2017 legislation contained other options for affected parties to comply with the firearm surrender requirement, including storing their guns with licensed firearm dealers, or transferring the guns to a qualified third party. These key alternatives are not contained in this bill.[10]

House Bill 130[11], sponsored by Representative Linda Trujillo, would make gun owners criminally and civilly liable if a child gains unsupervised access to an unsecured firearm. New Mexico already has a first degree felony child abuse statute on the books to hold adults accountable for putting children’s lives or health at risk in any manner. The tools exist to charge and prosecute parents or guardians in appropriate cases. Education is the key to protecting gun owners and their kids, not a state mandate on how one stores a firearm in his or her home.[12]

If you truly want to stop violent crime and terrorism, find out what motivates criminals and terrorists to hurt others, and address those concerns.

Thank you for listening to my concerns.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. House Consumer & Public Affairs Committee — The committee in which this legislation is sitting at present.
  2. I presently reside in House District 16, of which Antonio “Moe” Maestas is the present State Representative.
  3. HB 8 BACKGROUND CHECK FOR FIREARM SALES, sponsored by Debra M. Sariñana and Patricia Roybal Caballero
  4. NMSSA commentary about HB 8
  5. HB 40 BACKGROUND CHECKS AT GUN SHOWS, sponsored by Miguel P. Garcia
  6. NMSSA commentary about HB 40
  7. HB 83 EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER ACT, sponsored by Daymon Ely and Joy Garratt
  8. NMSSA commentary about HB 83
  9. HB 87 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE & FIREARM POSSESSION, sponsored by Deborah A. Armstrong
  10. NMSSA commentary about HB 87
  11. HB 130 ADDITIONAL FIREARM CRIMES & PENALTIES, sponsored by Linda M. Trujillo
  12. NMSSA commentary about HB 130

NOTES

  1. Published at The Libertarian EnterpriseNumber 1,005, 27 January 2019
  2. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook / Freedom Vine / Friendica / Gab / Google Plus / Liberty.Me / Minds / Oneway / Twitter / VK
    2. The Weekly SeditionFacebook / Twitter / WordPress.com
    3. Absurdist Discordian Party of New Mexico Facebook page
    4. Albuquerque Liberty Forum Facebook page
    5. KCUF Media Facebook page
    6. New Mexico Dissent and Expose Facebook page
    7. Vote Dumpster Fire Facebook page
    8. Vote the Air Facebook page
    9. Wood Chipper Facebook page
    10. A Bias Toward Liberty Facebook group
    11. Freedom Rally Point New Mexico Facebook group
    12. Gun Owners of New Mexico Facebook group
    13. Independent Insights Facebook group
    14. New Mexico Gun Rights Facebook group
    15. New Mexico Lest We Forget (voters remorse) Facebook group
    16. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group
    17. Pink Pistols – Albuquerque Facebook group
    18. Sons and Daughters of Liberty New Mexico Facebook group

Advertisements

Monday, 7 January 2019

A Partial List of Pre-Filed Legislation [2019]

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 1:17 AM (01:17)

List of pre-filed legislative bills

Two things about this list page —

  1. To populate the list page, you have to click the blue “GO” button on the left after the page is done loading.
  2. What follows below this paragraph is a PARTIAL list, just to give you an idea of what it’s like. To see the full, current list, go to the actual official page.

HB 8 BACKGROUND CHECK FOR FIREARM SALES

HB 35 FIREARMS LICENSEE STOLEN GUN CHECKS

HB 40 BACKGROUND CHECKS AT GUN SHOWS

HB 83 EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER ACT

HB 85 UNION SECURITY AGREEMENTS

HB 87 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE & FIREARM POSSESSION

HB 101 NO FINGERPRINTS TO RENEW CONCEALED CARRY

HB 105 ENHANCED PENALTY FOR FIREARM USED IN CRIME

HB 112 DOUBLE VEHICLE INSURANCE MINIMUM COVERAGE

HB 129 SCHOOL SECURITY PERSONNEL & DEADLY WEAPONS

HB 130 ADDITIONAL FIREARM CRIMES & PENALTIES

SB 8 FIREARM SALE BACKGROUND CHECK

SB 59 PROHIBIT CERTAIN LEGAL DEFENSES

SB 79 ISSUANCE OF LIQUOR DISPENSER’S LICENSES

SB 148 FORMER OFFICERS AS SCHOOL SAFETY PERSONNEL

SB 159 PROHIBIT CERTAIN LEGAL DEFENSES


Monday, 13 August 2018

“Fake News” ? Advertising Disguised as News?

Filed under: Media, Politics, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 8:07 PM (20:07)

From: Mike Blessing
To: Elise Kaplan
Date: Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 4:34 PM
Subject: “Fake News” ? Advertising Disguised as News?

Miranda Viscoli should thank the Journal for its front-page advertising copy for her organization in the Sunday paper. What else to call the article titled “Youth and guns: A deadly mix” ?

Were any pro-Second Amendment organizations (NM Shooting Sports Association, NM Gun Collectors Assocation, Gun Owners of Mexico) contacted for this article? If not, WHY not?

From the article —

“Although anyone under 19 is barred from possessing or transporting a handgun in New Mexico, it’s clear many young people are ignoring the law.”

Imagine that — people willing to kill and maim others to get what they want won’t bother with filling out a Form 4473 with a federally-licensed gun dealer! Who would have expected that?

Anyone looking for loopholes in the gun laws need look no further.

Of course, none of this is stopping Keller from seeking $800,000 from the feds for a “Crime Gun Intelligence Center.” Because It Will Make A Difference (TM). So says Keller.

Nor is this stopping Viscoli from demanding more restrictions upon people who do NOT commit crimes with their firearms.

Never mind that statistics show that only 0.01% of firearms[1] are used for freelance criminal activity[2]. Viscoli is determined to infringe the liberty of the 99.99% of gun owners who do NOT commit criminal acts against other people.

As for the name of Viscoli’s organization — “New Mexicans to Prevent Gun Violence” (is this another Bloomberg-financed astroturf outfit?) — where can we find “New Mexicans to Prevent Knife Violence,” or “New Mexicans to Prevent Blunt-Object Violence”? Do these organizations (IF they exist at all) have Facebook Pages[3]?

Or is the very phrase “gun violence” designed to instill a fear of firearms in people who aren’t gun owners?


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. Albuquerque JournalYouth and guns: A deadly mix by Elise Kaplan, Journal Staff Writer

NOTES

  1. Gun Owners are the True 99 % – BOTE Math on American Gun-Related Deaths
  2. “The State’s behavior is violence, and it calls its violence ‘law’; that of the individual, ‘crime.'”
    — Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own
  3. To answer the question: Apparently, such organizations (IF they exist) do NOT have Facebook pages –

    https://facebook.com/search/top/?q=new%20mexicans%20to%20prevent%20knife%20violence%20

    https://facebook.com/search/top/?q=new%20mexicans%20to%20prevent%20blunt-object%20violence%20

  4. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook / Friendica / Gab / Google Plus / Liberty.Me / Minds / Oneway / Tea Party Community / Twitter / VK
    2. Duke City Pink Pistols Facebook group
    3. Freedom Rally Point New Mexico Facebook group
    4. Gun Owners of New Mexico Facebook group
    5. Independent Insights Facebook group
    6. New Mexico Gun Rights Facebook group
    7. New Mexico Lest We Forget (voter remorse) Facebook group
    8. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group
    9. Pink Pistols – Albuquerque Facebook group

Tuesday, 30 January 2018

Well, This Explains a Lot

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , — mikewb1971 @ 5:21 PM (17:21)

Got this gem from last week’s edition of the Alibi

According to county studies, nearly 50 percent of Bernalillo County residents need some level of mental health or substance abuse treatment. These untreated health conditions often intersect with police, increase incarceration rates and cause over use of our hospital emergency rooms.

The Wikipedia page for Bernalillo County says that per the 2010 census, the population of the county is 662,564.

If 300,000 people in the greater Albuquerque area have mental health issues or substance abuse problems, that goes a long way to explaining how Debbie O’Malley and Isaac Benton keep getting re-elected to City and County government.

After all, who in their right mind would vote for these lunatics?

Also, 300,000 people in one area — that’s very likely a stable population. And considering that Bernalillo County has been electing whack-jobs (for example, Jim Baca and Eric Griego) the whole time I’ve been living here, chances are that they’ve been voting.

And to think that New Mexico used to have statutory provisions forbidding idiots and intoxicated people from voting.


NOTES

  1. Approximate reading level — 15
  2. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook / Gab / Google Plus / Minds / Tea Party Community / Twitter / VK / WordPress.com
    2. Absurdist Discordian Party of New Mexico Facebook page
    3. Albuquerque Liberty Forum Facebook page
    4. Darth Mike Facebook page
    5. KCUF Media Facebook page
    6. New Mexico Dissent and Expose Facebook page
    7. The Weekly Sedition Facebook page
    8. Vote Dumpster Fire Facebook page
    9. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group
    10. New Mexico Lest We Forget (Voters Remorse) Facebook group

Sunday, 14 January 2018

Pot Freedom from Ortiz y Pino? Think Again!

Filed under: Politics, Principles — Tags: , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 8:04 PM (20:04)

Recently, State Senator Gerald Ortiz y Pino proposed an amendment to the New Mexico State Constitution (SJR4). Ostensibly, the purpose of this amendment is to make marijuana “legal,” so pot smokers will suffer less harassment from State, county and municipal law enforcement agencies here in New Mexico.

The more unscrupulous and gullible of those calling for more freedom on marijuana will say this amendment is a good one.

Ah, but the very title of SJR4 gives away the game —

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 4 — PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 20 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF NEW MEXICO THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR POSSESSION AND PERSONAL USE OF MARIJUANA ONLY IF THE LEGISLATURE REGULATES THE PRODUCTION, PROCESSING, TRANSPORTATION, SALE AND TAXATION OF MARIJUANA AND PROVIDES FOR REVENUES FROM THE TAXATION OF MARIJUANA TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE GENERAL FUND.

In other words, marijuana only becomes “legal” under the NM Statutes Annotated IF the Legislature regulates and taxes the marijuana industry, then Taxation and Revenue puts the funds garnished from those taxes into the general kitty, for the Legislature to play with, hand out as legalized favors or bribes, or whatever.

Come on, folks &#151 doesn’t government at all levels intrude into your lives too much already?

Do you really want to give the politicians and their pet bureaucrats MORE power to put their eyes, noses, fingers, and other appendages into your life?

Do you really want to hand over MORE cash to them so they can have the finer things in life, maybe things that YOU might aspire to have yourself?

Let’s face it — government intrusion into private industry is the legalized version of the plata o plomo (“silver or lead”) offer that the Colombian cocaine cartels would make, meaning “take the money (bribe) or I will take your life.” Basically, “play our way and get rich, or don’t and go to eat out of a dumpster.” Only in this case, the people who are supposed to be stopping criminal activity are the ones making it worse.

In the mean time, the “black” market in unregulated marijuana still continues to operate. Maybe with less profits than before, but it’s still there. Like untaxed cigarettes in New York City.

I can understand the desire for having your favorite stuff becoming less restricted, except it won’t really become less restricted for a large portion of the State — 63 percent of New Mexico’s land area is Federal property of one kind or another (military bases, BLM land, National Parks, Monuments, National Forests, etc.), and marijuana is still illegal at the Federal level of government. Thus you could still get arrested for possession, use, or distribution if you’re on Federal property, even in a state where it’s legal.

Blaze one up by the front doors of the BX at Kirtland, Cannon or Holloman if you think I’m joking. The SPs might not share that sense of humor.

(When the Founders put that clause about “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings” into the U.S. Constitution, did they truly mean 63% of New Mexico, and 89% of Nevada?)

For those of you who are Democrats, did you seriously believe that Hillary Clinton was going to fight to make this better for you?!

I can just hear it now from those insisting that marijuana “must” be regulated by their favorite Political Classholes before it becomes legal again —

“If we don’t regulate it, someone will sell poisoned weed to kids!”

There’s that “we” again — that’s how the There-Oughta-Be-A-Law crazies rope you into signing on to their schemes.

And high schoolers across the country have been smoking illegal, unsanctioned weed (and trying all sorts of illegal, unsanctioned substances, too!) for fifty years now. How many of them have been demonstrably harmed by their smoking pot?

H/T to Kyle Bennett for the talky-ball meme!


NOTES

  1. Published at The Libertarian EnterpriseNumber 956 – 14 January 2018
  2. Approximate reading level – 13.3

Tuesday, 28 November 2017

Tim Keller’s Mayoral Theme Song?

Filed under: Listening, Politics — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 8:38 PM (20:38)

That song, of course, should be “Breaking The Law” by Judas Priest.

But hey, “he acted in good faith” so it doesn’t really matter, does it?


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. Albuquerque JournalBoard finds Keller violated ethics code by Martin Salazar

Sunday, 19 November 2017

The “Keller Defense”

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 7:17 AM (07:17)

People — pardon me, journalists and politicians — have often accused me of believing that I’m above the law. And yet, who isn’t? Everywhere you prod it, even with the shortest stick, the established system isn’t simply corrupt, it’s unequivocally putrsecent. The law is created by demonstrable criminals, enforced by demonstrable criminals, interpreted by demonstrable criminals, all for demonstrably criminal purposes. Of course I’m above the law. And so are you.
— William Wilde Curringer, in Pallas by L. Neil Smith, p. 301 [see here also]

On Monday, 13 November 2017, the Albuquerque Journal ran an article by Journal Staff Writer Martin Salazar titled Board finds Keller violated ethics code

That was the eleventh-hour decision made Monday by the city’s Board of Ethics & Campaign Practices, which found that mayoral candidate and state Auditor Tim Keller violated the City Charter’s Elections Code and the Open and Ethical Elections Code.

But the board opted not to issue a reprimand or a fine in the case, determining that Keller “acted in good faith and did not intend to violate” the rules.

Naturally, Keller denies any deliberate intent to violate the law —

“Though our opponents have used trumped up terms like dishonest, ‘money laundering’ and ‘cash under the table,’ those assertions were always baseless and the board’s ruling confirmed that today,” Keller said in a statement. “That came out loud and clear in today’s ruling which emphatically notes our good faith efforts.”

Maybe We The Great Unwashed can use this defense when accused of wrongdoing?

Let’s give that a try, hypothetically speaking, right here —

Traffic cop: Can I see your license, insurance, and registration?

Me (or you): What’s this all about, officer?

Traffic cop: You do realize that you were doing 50 in a 30?

Me (or you): But officer, I acted in good faith and did not intend to violate the rules . . . .

Maybe the IRS agent who shows up at your door to audit you or your business might be more sympathetic to you? Who wants to give that one a “good faith” run up the flagpole?

Apparently, Keller is considered to be above the law. Again, from the Journal

. . . . the board opted not to issue a reprimand or a fine in the case . . . .

So while We The Little People would be told “tough apples, pay the fine” upon citing mens rea for a similar “offense,” Keller gets to skate away scot free on this one.

Still, Keller isn’t completely out of the woods just yet —

Two other complaints against Keller are still pending, one that alleges that his campaign is illegally coordinating with a political action committee supporting him and another alleging that he broke the rules by failing to report the attorney fees he has incurred defending himself against the ethics complaints.

So is Albuquerque’s Board of Ethics & Campaign Practices going to invalidate the election results, considering that the winner cheated to get that victory?

Don’t hold your breath.

For decades, Democrats such as Keller have complained about “dirty campaigning” and “dirty money” as a reason that “more regulations are necessary.”

In that light, instead of saying “Thank you for a clear mandate,” he should apologize to Albuquerque’s voters and citizens for being a hypocrite, and then decline to actually take office.

Again, don’t hold your breath.

The least that the Board could do is require Keller to return the “public campaign money” (read welfare for politicians) that he received from the City coffers — all 362,000 of it.

If the Board doesn’t have the courage and integrity to do that, it’s a sham at best, and at worst it furthers corruption on the Albuquerque political scene. And the City’s “Open and Ethical Elections Code” won’t be worth the paper on which it’s printed.

Seriously, Keller should have to walk door to door, by himself, personally knocking on doors and asking residents for cash until he raises enough to pay back every penny of his “public campaign financing.”


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. The Libertarian EnterpriseNumber 23, 1 March 1997: Down By Law by Victor Milán

NOTES

  1. Published in The Libertarian EntepriseNumber 949 – 19 November 2017
  2. Approximate reading level – 11.8
  3. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook [page / profile] / Gab / Google Plus / Liberty.me / Liberty Society / Minds / Tea Party Community / Twitter / VK
    2. Absurdist Discordian Party of New Mexico Facebook page
    3. Albuquerque Liberty Forum Facebook page
    4. KCUF Media Facebook page
    5. New Mexico Dissent and Expose Facebook page
    6. Vote Dumpster Fire Facebook page
    7. Vote the Air Facebook page
    8. Vote the Air NM Facebook page
    9. The Weekly Sedition Facebook page
    10. Wood Chipper Facebook page
    11. Freedom Rally Point New Mexico Facebook group
    12. , Independent Insights Facebook group
    13. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group
    14. New Mexico Lest We Forget (voters remorse) Facebook group
    15. The Libertarian Enterprise Facebook group

Friday, 17 November 2017

Kokesh for Not-President Event in ABQ

Filed under: Events, Friends, Networking, Organizing, Politics — Tags: , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 6:01 AM (06:01)

Last night (Thursday, 16 November 2017), I attended Adam Kokesh’s TaxationIsTheft — Albuquerque event at Cervantes Restaurant and Lounge (5801 Gibson SE) in Albuquerque, where he spelled out his campaign for “Not President” for 2020.

Also attending were Adam’s Not Campaign Manager Ben Farmer, along with local libertarian luminaries Bill Koehler, Frank Martin and Robert Kruger.

Click the picture to see the full-size version

Ben Farmer warming up the crowd

Click the picture to see the full-size version

Adam speaks!

For what it’s worth, I volunteered to be the New Mexico State Coordinator for the Not Campaign.

I first met Adam in June 2009 at a planning meeting for his campaign for New Mexico’s 3rd Congressional District, and have been impressed with him ever since.

Afterwards, we went to his new touring RV, which the team had decided to name “No Force One.” He seemed a bit disappointed when I told him that this wasn’t the first vehicle with the moniker (one of Harry Browne’s campaigns had access to a small aircraft with the same name).


USEFUL LINKS

Kokesh for Not-President site

Kokesh for Not-President Facebook page

Twitter / Instagram / YouTube channel / Steemit

Military for Kokesh Facebook group


NOTES

  1. Published in The Libertarian EntepriseNumber 949 – 19 November 2017
  2. Approximate reading level – 13.5
  3. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook [page / profile] / Gab / Google Plus / Liberty.me / Liberty Society / Minds / Twitter / VK
    2. Albuquerque Liberty Forum Facebook page
    3. KCUF Media Facebook page
    4. The Weekly Sedition Facebook page
    5. Freedom Rally Point New Mexico Facebook group
    6. New Mexico Lest We Forget (voters remorse) Facebook group
    7. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group
    8. The Libertarian Enterprise Facebook group

Wednesday, 25 October 2017

[CTB-NM] Two down, another pending

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , — mikewb1971 @ 10:45 PM (22:45)

From the The Los Alamos Monitor

New Mexico Supreme Court ousts Aztec magistrate from office

SANTA FE (AP) — The New Mexico Supreme Court has removed Aztec Magistrate Court Judge Connie Johnston from office for misconduct that a state commission said included dishonesty, surreptitious recording of private conversations in the courthouse and abuse of her judicial power of contempt.

The high court’s order issued its order Monday following a hearing on the Judicial Standards Commission’s April 10 petition seeking removal of Johnston from office.

Her term was set to end in December of 2018.

The commission’s petition cited Johnston’s “dishonesty shown in committing various acts of willful misconduct and throughout the commission’s proceedings, including her false statements under oath as well as her concealment of surreptitious recordings that she was ordered to disclose but kept secret until midtrial when she perceived a personal advantage to disclosure.”

(The first judge to go since we started this campaign was Pamela Smith from Sierra County.)

From The Carlsbad Current-Argus

IPRA request revealed explicit emails on judge’s account by DeJanay Booth

It would seem that the New Mexico judicial system isn’t exempt from the Inspection of Public Records Act [IPRA].

The NM Foundation for Open Government [NMFOG] has the details on how to submit an IPRA request, including a sample request in PDF format.


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. CTB-NM Main Page
  2. The CTBNM Facebook page — like it, share it, spread it around.
  3. Ballotpedia page about New Mexico Courts
  4. Ballotpedia page about New Mexico judicial elections
  5. National Council for State Courts — Judicial Selection in the States: New Mexico

Saturday, 14 October 2017

[CTB-NM] Another Judge in Hot Water

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 8:18 AM (08:18)

It seems like we’re on a roll here with Clear the Bench New Mexico — already we’ve found a second judge in hot water.

This story comes to us from the Carlsbad Current-Argus.

It seems that Eddy County Magistrate Court Judge Henry Castaneda was playing on the internet using State-owned equipment (reading and forwarding
emails with “‘offensive, degrading, pornographic, racist and sexist’ content”), got busted, and now the NM Judicial Standards Commission wants him bounced from the bench.

Aren’t Democrats supposed to be the ones who are against racism, sexism, and Islamophobia?

If Castaneda had read and forwarded those emails on — get this radical, whacked-out concept — a PERSONALLY-OWNED computer instead of one
issued to him by the State of New Mexico, this most likely would not have happened.

  1. The Los Alamos MonitorEddy County magistrate judge removal sought over emails
  2. Carlsbad Current-ArgusNM Judicial Standards Commission recommends removal of Judge Henry Castañeda by DeJanay Booth
  3. KOB 4 Eyewitness News — Petition filed to remove Carlsbad judge from the bench
  4. U.S. News & World ReportEddy County Magistrate Judge Removal Sought Over Emails

Older Posts »

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: