<![CDATA[Liberty First - Libertas Primoris - In the Tradition of our Founders - Blog]]>Thu, 23 Mar 2017 01:05:37 -0700Weebly<![CDATA[Open letter to Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman]]>Thu, 15 Oct 2015 03:32:47 GMThttp://libertasprimoris.org/blog/open-letter-to-colorado-attorney-general-cynthia-coffmanDear Attorney General Cynthia Coffman:

Re:  July 7, 2015 Colorado Court of Appeals hearing of Craig & Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop
Many of your supporters were disappointed when Stacy Worthington, the Senior Assistant Attorney General of the State of Colorado, argued alongside the ACLU’s Ria Mar in attacking Jack Phillips for having the courage to follow his conscience. It is infuriating that government officials, bureaucrats and judges, secure in their paychecks and positions, have no misgivings in bringing the full prosecutorial power of the state to crush a private citizen. A private citizen who for 22 years has poured his life, talents and beliefs into building his own small business. Mr. Phillips has been given the “choice” to submit to state-sanctioned morality or to lose his livelihood, be fined or possibly face jail time. It is a shock to many Coloradans – both heterosexual and homosexual – that the Colorado Attorney General’s office so willingly participates in the destruction of a man’s life, liberty and property. His crime – politely declining to use his talents and his shop’s resources to design and create a wedding cake to celebrate a same-sex union.

It is understood that the Attorney General has the obligation to represent state agencies and commissions. But the Attorney General also has the responsibility, when an agency or commission is so clearly on the wrong side of constitutional liberties, to refuse to represent that body’s legal efforts. The personal backgrounds of the seven members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission give it more the appearance of a homosexual advocacy group than a neutral commission. There is nothing wrong with an advocacy group, but it is a betrayal of the public trust when an agenda-driven, unelected commission masquerades as an even-handed deliberative body as it metes out severe “justice” to unwary and unsuspecting citizens. Mr. Phillips has clearly been denied due process of law. Constitutionally, he should have been afforded the opportunity to publicly present his case before an impartial jury of his peers.

Regarding Ms. Worthington’s oral argument before the Colorado Court of Appeals:
[1] The Attorney General’s office misrepresented the mythical “compelling state interest to eradicate discrimination."  In her oral argument, Ms. Worthington stated that, “The main purpose behind the anti-discrimination act is the eradication of discrimination.” As Chief Judge Loeb’s pointed question to the ACLU’s Ria Mar illustrated, no Colorado court has ever acknowledged such an overbroad, generalized and vague “compelling state interest to eradicate discrimination.” I would expect more honesty from a senior staff attorney.

How does the State propose to completely eradicate “discrimination” within the sphere of private business without simultaneously eradicating individual liberties? Who gets to define what exactly “discrimination” is and isn’t?
The purpose of government according to the Declaration of Independence, our nation’s birth certificate, is to secure the unalienable Rights endowed to each one of us by our Creator. Rights of conscience, free exercise of religion, free speech, free expression, free association and right to contract are unalienable rights. There is no unalienable right granted to us by our Creator to live a life free from discrimination or to live a life free from offense. The purpose of government is not to protect citizens from dignitary harms or hurt feelings.

Only if widespread and pervasive discrimination places an actual substantial burden upon a class of individuals is the government justified in infringing upon a private business’ first amendment rights. The state certainly has no defensible compelling interest to eradicate every last single act of whatever it unilaterally defines as “discrimination” in the private sector.
The ruse seems to be to redefine traditional first amendment rights as discrimination, intolerance and hate speech; then, to statutorily criminalize them.

[2] The Attorney General’s office misrepresented the history of Colorado public accommodations law.  Ms. Worthington neglected to point out that public accommodations law in the U.S. (as it was carried into American law from English common law) was the exception to the general rule; the general rule being that private businesses had complete “first amendment” rights, as expressed in corresponding state constitutional provisions. Only a small subset of private businesses were statutorily categorized as “public accommodations” – eating houses, hotels, places of entertainment, public conveyances – and required to serve all races.

Public accommodations law in the U.S. was originally in response to real problems created by pervasive discrimination that existed for post-civil war blacks. It was often impossible for black citizens to find a restaurant or hotel that would serve them. Widespread and pervasive refusal of service by private businesses offering essential goods and services placed a substantial burden on blacks. The state, in these circumstances, did have a compelling interest that justified the infringement of first amendment rights of a small and limited subset of private businesses – those statutorily defined as public accommodations.

Over the years, “public accommodations law” has been incrementally defined out of existence. Colorado’s current anti-discrimination law makes every private business a “public accommodation” … and every citizen a member of at least one of the protected classes. This completely perverts the historical purpose of public accommodation laws.  It appears impossible for a Colorado private business to organize as anything other than what the state statute disingenuously defines as a “public accommodation.”

Where blacks had difficulty in finding a restaurant that would serve them a meal, same-sex couples have difficulty in finding a bakery that won’t bake them a wedding cake.
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC) and judges are in the process of creating a hierarchy of protected classes in which some some classes are more equal than others. Ambiguous anti-discrimination statutes have become a weapon to attack individual unalienable liberties.

[3] The Attorney General’s office refused to acknowledge that there is a distinction between disagreement and discrimination. To this day, Jack Phillips insists that he did not violate Colorado’s anti-discrimination statute; Ms. Worthington insists that he did. The statute ambiguously requires that a private business not refuse service “because of sexual orientation”  [C.R.S. 24-34-601(2)]. The Colorado legislature needs to exercise its legislative authority to clarify what this phrase means. Otherwise unelected CCRC commissioners and judges are free to unconstitutionally legislate ex post facto law that criminalizes citizens without notice.

Jack Phillips says that he did not refuse service “because of sexual orientation.
Mr. Phillips has consistently served all clients – regardless of personal traits or lifestyle – the wide array of his shop’s baked goods.  He has repeat homosexual clients for whom he makes personalized birthday cakes. Even in the midst of these ongoing legal proceedings, homosexual clients continue to come into the shop to purchase baked goods and to give Mr. Phillips words of encouragement. He does not see himself as biased towards anyone; as a Christian he strives to show God’s love to all his customers.

On the other hand, Mr. Phillips has consistently chosen not to create specialty cakes for events and celebrations that he feels dishonor God – no cakes for Halloween, no sexually suggestive cakes, etc.  In that same light, he also does not wish to contribute his talents and the resources of his business to an event that celebrates same-sex unions. Jack is pro-God, not anti-gay. He chose not to contract to design and create a wedding cake celebrating David and Charlie’s union not because of David and Charlie’s homosexuality, but because his beliefs conflict with theirs in regard to same-sex unions.
Mr. Phillips did not decline service because of sexual orientation (discrimination); but, rather, he declined service because he disagrees with same-sex unions. Mr, Phillips believes in natural marriage. He chooses not to participate in any way in the celebration of an event that is contrary to his beliefs.

The Attorney General argues that the conduct of a same-sex union is inextricably correlated with the status of being homosexual; and, since only homosexual couples enter into same-sex unions, a refusal to create wedding cakes for same-sex couples is de facto “discrimination because of sexual orientation.”  But why does the Attorney General assume that same-sex unions are only open to homosexual couples? Same-sex unions are equally open to any same-sex couple, whether the individual partners be homosexual, heterosexual, transgender, bisexual or any combination thereof. Jack Phillips does not care to know, nor could he ascertain with certainty, the sexual orientations of the partners requesting a same-sex wedding cake. His refusal is based solely on his belief that the only formalized union of adults is natural marriage between one man and one woman.

Jack, as with all the other Christian business owners around the United States being prosecuted by state administrative agencies, had no idea that he was breaking any law. To this day he knows in his heart of hearts that he did not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation – he just disagrees with same-sex unions.

In conclusion, First Amendment rights are under full assault. Citizens will continue to stand against the purveyors of this tyranny and expect their elected government officials to do the same. It is unacceptable to many Coloradans that the Colorado Attorney General continues to unconstitutionally criminalize small business owners such as Jack Phillips.
I urge you, as the newly elected Attorney General, to withdraw your office’s support from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s prosecution of Jack Phillips.

You might suggest to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC) that they put their prosecution of Jack Phillips on hold until the Colorado legislature clarifies the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) as to what specifically constitutes discrimination “because of sexual orientation.” Because of the vagueness of the current statutory language, unelected commissioners and judges are, from Mr. Phillips’ perspective, legislating unconstitutional ex post facto law that retroactively criminalizes his good-faith business decisions.

Legislators should add a provision to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) that reads, “A private business who chooses not to use their talents and/or business resources to provide support for the celebration of same-sex unions does so out of disagreement based on conflicting beliefs regarding such unions and is not discrimination because of sexual orientation.”

Sincerely, Mark Braunlich, J.D., Colorado Springs
]]>
<![CDATA[Good Enough for the Symphony....]]>Thu, 30 Apr 2015 02:51:20 GMThttp://libertasprimoris.org/blog/good-enough-for-the-symphony The largess of public education and the tax monies that is shoveled into school budgets’ ever- widening purses, has most Americans wondering how to stop this excessive spending that always ends up being sold as a benefit to our children, when quite the opposite is true.  Today’s publicly funded educational institutions are rife with many examples of what I call mismanagement of our coerced tax monies, or best put, theft.

Here’s a recent example of how our monies are spent to best educate our children: My local school district, Academy D20, decided it was time to update the district’s logo.  They posted an RFP which garnered official responses from four firms.   One firm won the bidding process and was paid a solid chunk of your tax dollars to design, develop and market D20’s new logo.  

Last week the Gazette published an article on how D20 Pine Creek High School advanced graphic arts students participated in a contest to design a logo for the Rocky Mountain Wind Symphony.  Four students’ logo designs made the finalist level of submitted logos from which the winning design would then be selected by the audience who came to the symphony’s last seasonal concert.  How awesome is that?  Graphic arts students participating and benefiting from the learning process of producing high quality commercially designed artwork.  Kudos to the students, teachers and participating administrators.

D20 has near 25,000 students, many with excellent skills and a desire to succeed along with numerous teachers who guide, teach and mentor these young minds towards becoming future successful citizens and wealth producers.  With that said, I asked why did D20 not use the wealth of young talent to design their new logo?    The official response:


 The new logo was developed by the local firm Blakely and Company. Four firms responded to an RFP for market research, branding, development of graphic standards, and a launch plan. The total cost for all of these components was $20,600.

The talented graphic arts students at Pine Creek developed suggested logos. Full professional brand construction has many more components.

So there we have it, the truth; full professional brand construction is not within the boundaries of D20’s educational arsenal.  Those talented students were good enough for the symphony, but not for the school district that sadly has relegated them all to the minor leagues.   Plus, your tax dollars never ended up working on education at all. This is just a small microcosm of waste that is wide spread in public education.  It’s time to expose the waste and seek best spending practices that truly play a solid part in educating our youth.

]]>
<![CDATA[Lamborn and Speaking Freely]]>Sun, 28 Sep 2014 19:35:10 GMThttp://libertasprimoris.org/blog/lamborn-and-speaking-freely I am amazed at the press surrounding Congressman Lamborn’s honest comments while speaking at Liberty First, a local liberty group in Colorado Springs.  Lamborn’s name was splashed across the nation in headlines and news reports, which was what so many of his Conservative critics had been seeking from him for years.  Now it seems that U.S. Rep Doug Lamborn cannot do or say anything right. However that’s far from the truth.  

This was Lamborn’s third visit to Liberty First over as many years. Lamborn knew he wasn’t necessarily speaking to a group of Conservatives or even staunch supporters. He was speaking to a diverse group of Republicans, Independents, Democrats and Libertarians, who cherish their unalienable rights to liberty as granted by our creator.  Rep Doug Lamborn had entered the lion’s den.

One thing that must be made clear is that all speakers at Liberty First enjoy knowing that we do not screen questions.  No prior meetings or agreements on subject matter and such are made.  We simply ask that everyone be respectful and that our guests can respectfully decline to answer any questions.  Liberty First gatherings are as organic and free as when our nation’s founders met in the taverns in Boston and elsewhere;  Tavern style politics in the tradition of our founders.

With that said, I defend Congressman Lamborn’s right to speak freely and exercise his 1st Amendment right to do so.  His comments were his own, and I respect him for speaking clearly and from his heart.  He said nothing wrong in regards to the one hot point comment on generals resigning for the right reasons and going out in a blaze of glory.

Colorado Springs Council woman Jill Gaebler’s inflamed comment towards Lamborn was dead wrong. I must remind Gaebler, that unlike her, Lamborn has never sworn an oath to the Commander in Chief; only an oath to our Constitution.   We do not live in a Military Dictatorship.   Lamborn is a civilian representative who was elected by the people of his district to represent us in the Republic of these united States.  Gaebler should apologize to Lamborn for her misunderstanding and disrespect of Lamborn and his comments.

Our nation’s military leaders have sworn an oath to our Commander in Chief.  This oath does not include following orders that go against the Constitution or the people they’re sworn to protect.  Therefore, our military generals have every right to speak out against any and all egregious acts or orders directed to them by the President.

Sadly, political correctness at all levels of government and the press have destroyed the people’s right and opportunity to participate and enjoy open discourse.   The truth shall set you free; is that not what we all want to know and to hear? We as a nation must cease the softening of speech by our government and the media, especially when all of our lives are at risk.

I’m honored to have given Rep Doug Lamborn the opportunity to speak freely and will defend his right to do so even if, or when, I disagree with him.

David L. Kelly
The Kiltman
President - Liberty First


This post was sent to the Colorado Springs Gazette and elsewhere in response to the media's initial reporting.

]]>
<![CDATA[Scotland's Opportunity]]>Wed, 17 Sep 2014 00:20:22 GMThttp://libertasprimoris.org/blog/scotlands-opportunityPicture
On September 18th, the people of Scotland will vote to either remain in the United Kingdom or to secede and become an independent nation.   The polls claim the vote will be close and the unionist fear- mongers have been busy painting an end of the world scenario if Scotland does secede.

The truth on the matter is this:

 If Scotland does remain part of the UK, then business as usual will rule the day, even after promises of a major program of change by Britain’s Prime Minister, David Cameron.

If Scotland chooses independence, then everything is placed on the table for discussion and action as Scotland forms a new government.

The people of Scotland, not only have a grand opportunity to build a new government, but can help create a government that can become a trend setting new nation.  Scotland would be an example to other nations as to how to best govern while encouraging a free people to remain free with minimal government assistance.

With that said, limiting Scotland’s government means putting to death the socialist programs of today’s Scotland and bringing about a free market environment.   The opportunity to do a do –over and peaceably build a new government is a dream come true for anyone who appreciates and understands liberty.   If I were a Scot who was eligible to vote, I’d be voting to cut off the wealth stealing shackles of Socialism and to give rise to a new nation; a land of opportunity.

David Kelly
The Kiltman



]]>
<![CDATA[Afraid of Being Bit...]]>Sun, 07 Sep 2014 23:12:28 GMThttp://libertasprimoris.org/blog/afraid-of-being-bit Several months have passed since we all became aware of the exposed affairs, illicit and inappropriate activities of Sheriff Maketa.  Our lame-duck Sheriff has even admitted to departing from the truth after too many verified facts came to light about his checkered actions while wearing the Sheriff’s badge; a badge he has dishonored over and over again.  

An investigation of Maketa is still going on seeking to find the truth which could potentially bring criminal charges to Maketa as well as to all who participated, conspired, destroyed evidence and hid facts on our once beloved Sheriff’s now exposed narcissistic and tyrannical activities.  This investigation is fast becoming a farce in the world of due process and jurisprudence.  What remains is an investigation that is like a huge old dog that is sleeping.   No one wants to wake the dog, as they fear they will get bit.

Why be afraid of being bit when we all know that the truth shall set you free?   District Attorney, Dan May and Attorney General  John Suthers  prefer the sounds of silence instead of steadfastly acting to put an end to the investigation and indict the Sheriff and all who have participated in these crimes and misdemeanors.   I can only assume that May and Suthers don’t want to bring down the Sheriff as they both have eyes on future elected posts.  That sleeping dog must have rabies.

Outside of Commissioner Littleton who has been incessantly asking our D.A. to end the investigation, we have a number of county commissioners, the county attorney, the county administrators past and present, the county budget officer and God only knows who else who are complicit and just as guilty as our accused Sheriff.  They too fear that old mean dog and the bite that they must endure to allow the truth to prevail.  In my humble opinion, they all must publicly acknowledge the truth and resign and allow the law to take its course.   That is the right thing to do as representatives for the people they have sworn to serve.

Then we have the hypocrisy that is quite ripe in the Sheriff’s office.  Behind the Badge, the Sheriff’s Office employee’s newsletter, we find a great example of hypocrisy in the August edition:

Internal Affairs Case Summary:

Employee #1
Allegation: Obedience to Orders,Fraternization, and Departing from the Truth
Findings: Sustained
Penalty: Termination
Summary: A civilian employee engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a fellow employee and departed from the truth when questioned during the investigation.

Employee #2
Allegation: Obedience to Orders and Fraternization
Findings: Sustained
Penalty:20 Hours Suspension w/o Pay and Remedial Training
Summary: A deputy engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a fellow employee

.

I’m stunned that this was even published in the newsletter.  Our Sheriff Deputies and civilian employees must not be subjected to such two-faced hypocrisy.  It is time for Sheriff Maketa to resign and for the investigation to end.  The investigation’s conclusion will likely bring indictments for the perpetrated crimes. This malfeasance is not only limited to the Sheriff; it is rife throughout the hierarchy of the county with both elected and appointed positions.  This is why the investigation is that old sleeping dog. 

When and if the investigators and the D. A. decide to finally bring indictments, it will rock our county’s foundation of representation.  The indictments will be painful and eye opening, but it must happen; for the truth being brought to light can only begin to repair the citizen’s faith in their local government and law enforcement.  That sleeping dog must be awakened; a few people will get bit if we are to once again have faith in a virtuous government of the people, by the people.

Veritas vos Liberabit !


David Kelly

The Kiltman


]]>
<![CDATA[Only the tip of the Iceberg]]>Thu, 24 Jul 2014 03:09:46 GMThttp://libertasprimoris.org/blog/only-the-tip-of-the-iceberg How can a million dollar account from the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office go unnoticed for years?  Not even the current County Treasurer had a clue.  The Treasurer is sworn to protect the citizens monies collected and dispersed by state statute. However, it is now quite apparent that there is a large amount of the citizens' monies that has disappeared from the eyes and ears of the highly awarded and greatly transparent El Paso County. 

For years, the million dollar account has been hidden from the scrutiny and transparent processes that are in place to protect the citizens.  How was it funded?  Where was it, and how was it spent and who benefited from this account.  Most importantly, why has this account escaped the notice of our County Treasurer, County Administrator and County Budget Officer to name a few who should have known (or did they already know)?   

During my campaign as Treasurer I spoke quite often about the citizen’s first duty, which is to question authority as wisely proclaimed by Ben Franklin.     With that said, in the case of this million dollar account, it is time to clearly question, independently investigate and audit the County.   How much more of our tax dollars are off the books? 

Sheriff Maketa and his actions may only be the tip of the iceberg with the corruption and tyranny that has smothered the county government.   I’m certain there are more government elected, hired and appointed officials who will be touched and exposed by this recently noticed account, as well as other potentially illegal practices and behaviors that keep coming to light. 

David Kelly
The Kiltman


Here’s a link to a recent news report about this serious issue:


http://www.krdo.com/news/sheriffs-office-mystery-account-raises-questions/27103006


]]>
<![CDATA[A Tale of Two Policies... Stonewalled]]>Thu, 05 Jun 2014 02:19:54 GMThttp://libertasprimoris.org/blog/a-tale-of-two-policies-stonewalled Four months have passed since my posting of part one of my article on the two El Paso County Sheriff’s Office policies that I questioned and had sought to better understand.  I was seeking the truth and needed to find the genesis of such polices, which apparently were only the tip of the iceberg that has now doomed Sheriff Maketa to a limelight that even a narcissist would want to avoid. 

Before I delve into the current state of affairs (no pun intended) regarding the El Paso County hubris infected oligarchy, politico’s and their sycophants, let me bring you up to date on my research of the two policies.

After Charles Greenlee, In-house Counsel for Sheriff Maketa wrote that he would not respond further to my inquiries, I was now forced to kick things up a notch.  My gut feeling was that these policies and the Sheriff were in direct violation of the Hatch Act.   So, on January 23, 2014  I sent a Colorado Open Records Act request, or CORA request, to the Sheriff’s Office and El Paso County. I sought to obtain all correspondence regarding the two policies from inception and revision of such.  Truly a simple request, one that if the leadership wasn’t so half-cocked and lost in their grandiose alter reality, they would have just supplied me with the facts and ended my request, showing the integrity of an office we all deserve. 

I received a response (see response) from Maketa’s special counselor, Charles Greenlee, seven days later.   The cost for the documents was $53.03.   The key sentence in the response was: You are not entitled to any correspondence that would be protected by the attorney-client privilege.

 The attorney –client privilege is the last bastion of hope for unscrupulous politicians expanding such privilege to encompass and protect nearly all of their human actions.   Who would have thought that they would invoke the attorney – client privilege over two simple policies?   That is an abuse of power and a red-light (no pun intended) that can only be used to hide corruption and illegal actions.

When I received the CORA request documents that Greenlee provided, I was angered that I had just been robbed and disrespected.  Here’s my response:

Mr. Greenlee.

Today I received a packet of the CORA documents that had been gathered by Sheriff's staff per my CORA request of January 23rd.  In my request I specified to:  Please provide all information and documents in their original electronic format when applicable.  These instructions were obviously ignored as nearly all of the documents I received today were available in electronic format. 

In fact the documents received were no more than public policy and policy revisions that I could easily have obtained with a few mouse clicks. I'm offended by how I'm being treated in seeking an answer to my two simple questions that have led up to the CORA request. The total lack of transparency by the County and Sheriff's office in regards to my query just demonstrates once again why the citizens cannot place any trust in our elected officials, let alone our government.

In good faith I paid the requested fee ($53.03) to receive the copies of the documents as requested by the Sheriff's Office.   The fee covered the cost of copies and employee time.    Upon receipt and quickly reviewing the said documents I found that the Sheriff's Office's response to my CORA request is an egregious act of stonewalling. Nothing less.

 I feel that I am a victim of an abomination at the hands of those who under our Constitution should be nothing more but humble public servants.  Instead I'm having to deal with an Oligarchy full of hubris infected politicians and their subordinates.   This saddens my heart as my desire to believe in virtuous government led by good people is nothing more than a sci-fi fantasy.

My CORA request still stands and has been mostly unanswered.  Mr. Greenlee has not responded to my response to his question regarding the Severance Agreements as defined in my request. I expect a response forthcoming.


Also, I have yet to receive any response from the County. I had various email exchanges with Amy Folsom and Charles Greenlee from November 2013  forward.  Why have they not been included in the response to my CORA?   I sent a request to all the County Commissioners to instruct the County Attorney to respond to my query. That email and any responses, internal and external communication of such should have been included in the CORA response as they pertained to the policies in question and at the heart of my CORA request.

I respectfully ask that my CORA request be responded to in full by both the County and the Sheriff's office.


David Kelly


 
To date, I have not received any response from the Sheriff’s Office or the County.  Our elected leaders, the Sheriff and County Commissioners feel that they are beyond reproach. They don’t have to answer to the people.  If they believe this, then they’re dead wrong. 

As we have witnessed with Sheriff Maketa’s recently exposed and admitted unprofessional actions, you have to ask yourself how long has this type of poor behavior been going on?  Who knew what when? Why did they not do anything to change, expose or correct the tyranny taking place in the Sheriff’s Office, let alone throughout the County? 

Commissioner Glenn acknowledged that the Sheriff’s affairs and damning activities were the worst kept secret in the County, yet not one person of authority or standing did anything.   Amy Folsom, the County Attorney could not have been blind to Maketa’s tyranny, yet she played it safe and hid by deflecting the issues and concerns of Maketa by kneeling to the Sheriff and using his counsel as a shield.

Had the Commanders not filed EEOC complaints, I’m certain that Maketa and the corruption within the Sheriff’s office and County would have remained status quo.  With the investigations and lawsuits that have been filed and more on the way, one can only wonder at what cost El Paso County taxpayers will have to pay to help clean out  the corruption and right the wrongs that have been left to fester for too long by knowingly and intimidated accomplices.

All of the elected county officials, if they're worth their salt,  should have immediately acted to expose and correct the Sheriff’s poor behaviors. As sworn representatives of “we the people” they have a duty to protect us, which is government’s core duty; instead, nothing but the sound of crickets.  Therefore they are complicit and should suffer the consequences.

I humbly request that the investigation of the Sheriff’s activities go beyond him and that every stone be turned over as the web of his influence through fear and intimidation most certainly has tainted a number of souls in the county.   Every man has a price.  I would investigate the dealings and relationships within the County Attorney’s Office as well as to name a few:  County Administrator -  Jeff Greene,  County Budget Officer  - Nicola Sapp, Director of Support Services - Imad Karaki.  

A thorough and forensic investigation is what this county and her citizens deserve. All of the officials should welcome and embrace the investigation while not fearing this process, unless of course they have something to hide.  It is imperative that we clean house and rid our county of the known illicit behavior and corruption that has been allowed to grow for years.

When I attended a few BOCC meetings and spoke out against the Commissioners term limit ballot language and spoke out against the Sheriff’s tax increase, I felt like a lost voice.   I felt that the game was rigged and the grabbing hands were in control.   My gut was telling me that our County is a government run by oligarchs and hubris infected politicians.  Am I wrong?

In closing, my experience in seeking the truth and questioning authority in hopes to keep our government and those who represent us honest has been an interesting journey.   I have met numerous good people who I will proudly stand side by side with and fight for what is right.  Many of these people serve El Paso County in various positions; some are deputies, putting their lives on the line every day.  They deserve better leadership and better government.  We all do.

Deo Vindice.

(Definition of Political Corruption)

 

]]>
<![CDATA[A Tale of Two Policies: Part 1]]>Sun, 09 Feb 2014 02:48:55 GMThttp://libertasprimoris.org/blog/a-tale-of-two-policies-part-1 Many of you know me as someone who respects, yet questions our government and our elected representatives.  This is what our founding fathers expected of the citizens of our republic.  Ben Franklin stated, “It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority”.  

Leading Liberty First I have always respectfully questioned our government.  I have sought the truth and demanded full transparency in my efforts.   I’ve included this and hold myself accountable to this same maxim as I actively campaign to be the next elected Treasurer of El Paso County.  No public servant or those who serve under such should be exempt from being questioned by the people to whom they are sworn to serve.

A few months ago I became aware of two policies in-force at the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office:  General Rules of Conduct Policy 313, #39 Political Activities Allowed, and Rank Structure and Responsibility Policy 105 – F. #2 Command and Staff Personnel.

When you read the policies, make sure to read between the lines and understand clearly their intent.  Then you will most likely question as I have, why the Sheriff’s Office, the last bastion and line of defense for our Constitution would enforce such policies. In my humble opinion, these two policies when combined strip our appointed Sheriff staff of their 1st Amendment rights to speak freely, including politically while they are “off –duty”.     Why?  Because based on the legal interpretation of the Sheriff’s In-house Council, these staff members are never off-duty.  Yes, they are considered to be on-duty, 24/7.

Realizing this and suspecting an error in the policies, I corresponded with Amy Folsom our County Attorney, who referred my query to the Sheriff’s Office In-House Attorney, Charles Greenlee.

Here are the emails:


Ms. Folsom,

I would greatly appreciate your legal interpretation of an employee policy within the Sheriff's office that has me quite concerned.

Policy 313, Item 39: Political Activities Allowed

The last sentence states,  ...without notification and approval of the Sheriff.

My interpretation is that the Sheriff is violating the rights of those employed by his office when they participate in political activities, campaigns and such.
 
Those words in this policy are an infringement on the first amendment rights of the employees when they are off duty. When is their time their own?   If never, then we no longer live in a free society.

Am I wrong?   What's your professional interpretation?

I look forward to your response.

Thank you.

David Kelly

____________________________________________


Mr. Kelly—

Mr. Charles Greenlee, in house counsel for the Sheriff’s office, will be responding to your questions.  Thanks again for your patience.

Amy Folsom

_____________________________________________

Dear Mr. Kelly:

While I represent and advise the Sheriff and the Sheriff’s Office, and not members of the public, Sheriff Maketa has asked me to respond to your question as to the legality of El Paso County Sheriff’s Office Policy 313, paragraph IV.9., which I reproduce here, in its entirety:

39. POLITICAL ACTIVITIES ALLOWED:

Employees or members of the Sheriff's Office may participate in political activities and political campaigns while they are off duty, so long as these activities are lawful and do not result in inefficient or ineffective performance of duty, or reflect discredit upon the Office of the Sheriff. Members, excluding the Sheriff, will not engage in political activity of any kind while on duty. No appointed member of the Sheriff’s staff shall personally or in official capacity endorse or publicly oppose any candidate or issue without notification and approval of the Sheriff.

By its own terms, the portion of the policy you questioned is limited to “appointed members”—that is, not line-level deputies and sergeants, but lieutenants and above (the Sheriff’s Staff).  As I am certain your own research will show, because members of the Sheriff’s Staff engage in the policy making and policy implementation of the Sheriff’s Office, the law recognizes a sheriff’s ability to regulate their political participation, given their importance in furthering the political mission of the office.  The Sheriff posed this political patronage question regarding candidate association to several attorneys, myself included, and we all agreed that the policy, because it is restricted to the political associations of the Sheriff’s Staff, is supportable under the law. 

I note here that five Staff members have made the proper notification and are supporting the candidate of their choosing.  Numerous employees below the rank of lieutenant are supporting candidates of their choice and were not required to notify the Sheriff. 

Policy 313 and other policies contain numerous instances where the Sheriff can permissibly place restrictions on his employees’ behavior, both on and off duty, with the goal of furthering the effectiveness of the Sheriff’s Office in its public mission.  Off-duty alcohol and substance use is one of them.  Forbidding off-duty associations with known criminals is another.  Obtaining permission for off-duty employment (Policy 328) is another, as the effect of the extra work hours on the employee’s on duty performance may be a consideration, and conflicts of interest are, of course, to be avoided.

Sincerely,

Charles C. Greenlee
Legal Advisor
El Paso County Sheriff's Office

_________________________________________________

Mr. Greenlee,

Thanks for your in-depth response to my query.  I'm clear on the issue of appointed staff and I thank you for that clarification.   However I’m still not clear on this policy or its purpose.  I'm hoping you can remedy this for me as I try to garner a clear and concise understanding of the policy in question.

You stated in your response: The Sheriff posed this political patronage question regarding candidate association to several attorneys, myself included, and we all agreed that the policy, because it is restricted to the political associations of the Sheriff’s Staff, is supportable under the law. 

Can you share with me which State or Federal Statute supports your findings?

Can you respond to my earlier question as to when an appointed staff member of the Sheriff's office time becomes their own?

Do such appointed members ever enjoy their "own" time to exercise their unalienable rights guaranteed by the Colorado and US Constitution as well as by our creator?

I look forward to your response in helping me to clearly understand the policy and its supporting law(s).

Thank you,

David Kelly
_______________________________________________

Mr. Greenlee,
It has been more than a week since I sent my request for clarification and questions evoked by your epistle on the policy question at hand.

I respectfully ask for your response in my search of clarification and the true legal foundation to my concerns.
David Kelly


________________________________________________


Mr. Kelly,

As I told you in my e-mail of December 6, I represent the Sheriff.  My fiduciary duty is to the Sheriff, as my client.  It is not to members of the general public.  Therefore, it cannot be to you.  I cannot and will not give you legal advice.  Respectfully, and to be clear, you and I have no attorney-client relationship.

At my client's request, I responded to you more than adequately on December 6.  Please hire an attorney of your own choosing if you have questions.

Since my December 6 e-mail, we have had one of the most respected employment law firms in the state review the policy.  It agrees with the rest of us:  the policy is legal.

I will not respond further to your inquiries.

Sincerely,

Charles C. Greenlee
Legal Advisor
El Paso County Sheriff's Office

_____________________________________________________

As you can see with the above exchanges, it is quite clear that my questions have not been answered and that this citizen is obviously not worthy of receiving an honest answer.   Two key questions: One, regarding when an appointed member’s time is their own and more importantly, what statutes were used to support the policies?   Those questions go unanswered, but even worse; the government goes silent and chooses to no longer correspond.

This story is still in active progress.  More to come….


]]>
<![CDATA[Seeking the Truth...]]>Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:46:42 GMThttp://libertasprimoris.org/blog/seeking-the-truth1 "It has been truly said, that no man becomes perfectly wicked at once; and it may be affirmed, with equal truth, that a nation is never enslaved at once." - John Randolph, to Congress in 1806.


In the summer of 2012 I became actively involved in seeking to right a wrong.  I was hopeful that my efforts would result in bringing about a simple correction to a ballot issue that purposely misled the electorate.  With my attempt to stop the hand of tyranny out in the open and in the faces of the tyrants, I quickly learned that the level of arrogant action by certain elected representatives was beyond my wildest dreams.   I was in the twilight zone of El Paso County and fighting to shine a light of truth on their actions.

I was compelled, as I have been all of my life, to seek the truth in all things.  I question everything; it’s in my DNA.  My task that I took to the El Paso County Board of County Commissioners (EPC –BOCC) was to ask them to correct their error in the language on a ballot issue to insure that “we the people” would be justly served.  A simple request that amounted to good leadership making the right decisions for the right reasons was all I was seeking. Instead, “we the people” were left to be slaughtered by the majority vote from the oligarchs that currently control the EPC-BOCC.

The election results of 6 November 2012 brought forth reduced term limits to County elected seats. Three terms back to two terms. Those same election results on that ballot question due to four words, “after November 6th  2012” guaranteed that those in power would be exempt from what turned out to be a 3 to 1 mandate by the people.  The oligarchs proved that they were hubris infected politicians drunk on power and that we the people best kneel to them and kiss their rings.

This type of behavior from people in power is incredibly common in human history.  Our founders knew this quite well and our Republic has been waging a war with this tyranny from the signing of the Declaration of Independence forward.  Knowing this, it is up to us to question and hold accountable our leadership and elected officials and representatives.  Doing this is our responsibility in keeping liberty’s light shining across the land and tyranny’s darkness at bay.  

I share this with you as a reminder that this county is under siege and it is up to us to help correct the wrongs, hold our elected officials accountable and end all potential for corruption and tyranny.

Recently, I have been involved in seeking the truth and answers to two simple questions regarding a policy that reeks of corruption and potential tyranny.   I’ll share with you the policy in question, my query of such, the County’s legal response and the silence there after in my next posts.        

Below you will find a YouTube link of my plea to the EPC-BOCC on Election Day of 2012, simply asking them to do what is right and to honor the will of the people that they serve.  


For Liberty!

David Kelly  - The Kiltman


“Limitation is essential to authority. A government is legitimate only if it is effectively limited.”
– Lord Acton

]]>
<![CDATA[Dysfunction and Chaos...]]>Tue, 23 Jul 2013 03:53:07 GMThttp://libertasprimoris.org/blog/dysfunction-and-chaosPicture
Is there dysfunction within the Republican Party?  Absolutely yes!    Is this good for the party and for the people who support the party?   That’s the uncomfortable question that haunts many a soul in the Republican Party.  The geo-political paradigm that once seemed to be solidly in place is shifting; seeking its way to what we can only hope will be the Promised Land, the land of power house politics and the end of stagnant bi-partisan rhetoric.  

The time has come to be honest and sincere with sharing your beliefs with the party leadership and getting a seat at the table. The dysfunction that we witness, sometimes laced in vitriol is a dream come true for Democrats.  Or is it their nightmare?  

Unlike the Democratic Party of today that is nothing more than a collective mentality focused on the entitlement state, the Republican Party stands out with a hodgepodge of political firebrands and statists to Constitutionalists and anarcho-capitalists.   The Republicans have Status Quo Conservatives, Traditionalist Conservatives, Paleo-Conservatives, Free Market Conservatives, the Religious Right, little “L” Conservatives as well as big “L” Conservatives, and then some all mixed in-between making up today’s Republican Party.

A growing number of Republicans have fled the party for various reasons which reinforce the dysfunctional appearance amongst the Right.   Are the rats leaving the sinking ship? The party does not belong to the Moral Majority or the Reagan Conservatives anymore; thus the heightened fear of chaos and looming 3rd party status.

 What’s missing?   Quality leadership.   A leader who can grasp the situation, react and pull the dysfunctional party sects together like a short order cook filling orders.

 Why do Republicans fight each other?   They always have and always will.  Most Conservatives and all Libertarian leaning Republicans respect individual rights and want their voices heard.  With that said, we will never act or look like a cohesive well maintained political machine.  Thank God.

The first Conservative, Edmund Burke thought of a political party as "a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavors the national interest upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed."  If this is true for today’s Republicans, then what is the joint endeavor of national interest and principle of which those in the party can agree upon?  There is plenty that divides the party, including hot button issues such as abortion, immigration, financial bail-outs, entitlements and defense.  We know these issues all too well.   

So, what is it that we can rally behind and agree upon?   That’s the elephant in the room that the Republicans choose to ignore. That’s the answer to the dysfunctional chaos we have enjoyed for nearly a generation.

The haunting dysfunction in the party is far from evil.  The shifting of the political sphere of influence is changing and the party must change with it to survive.  If the party heeds Burke’s advice the party will live on and be happy even with all its dysfunction.   If the party chooses to silence the unique voices of individuals seeking liberties and freedom for a theme of replicating past Republican victories, then the Republicans deserve exactly what they fear most.

David Kelly

The Kiltman


]]>