This post has been moved to a new location.
Oklahoma’s Most Wanted
November 19, 2007 · 7 Comments
Categories: Initiative · Politics · Taxes
Tagged: Oklahoma 3, Paul Jacob, Politics, Taxes
This post has been moved to a new location.
Categories: Initiative · Politics · Taxes
Tagged: Oklahoma 3, Paul Jacob, Politics, Taxes
7 responses so far ↓
Richard Disney // November 19, 2007 at 3:59 pm
This is a travesty of justice. Government Prosecutors have a huge benefit of the doubt under the law. With the abusive prosecutions by Oklahoma Attorney General W.A. Drew Edmondson, North Carolina District Attorney Mike Nifong and U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton (Border Patrol Agents in prison) that benefit of the doubt is slipping fast.
Hart Williams // November 20, 2007 at 1:55 am
This is a travesty of reason: Paul Jacob, a convicted draft dodger (when there wasn’t even a draft!) thinks that he has the absolute right to interfere in the laws of states he doesn’t even live in.
That sort of meddling was the basis of the American Revolution, and it’s astonishing that this “Sam Adams” fellow comes out firmly in favor of the right of “King George” to shove his laws down the throats of Oklahomans with out of state legislation, out of state petitioners working for out of state companies (Susan Johnson of Livonia, Michigan runs a Nevada company) , out of state ANONYMOUS money (huge amounts), and for out of state masters who won’t even show their faces.
Jacob OUGHT to end up sharing a cell with whoever hired him to push TABOR in Oklahoma, but, of course, there’s no way of knowing that.
King George III at least had the cojones to put his own name on his repressive laws. These anonymous creeps pretend to be “for the people” and push their agenda on people who never asked for it, weren’t invited to participate in the drafting, petitioning, advertising or financing of the laws in question.
Their only right is to watch the slick advertising and vote on these “people’s” issues.
Pushed by “freedom fighter” Paul Jacob, who proved that even the IDEA that he might be called to serve his country in time of war was so horrible that he could spend a year as a fugitive from justice using the same phony “Paul Jacob Freedom Fighter” line to speak all over the nation, and even work on a Connecticut petition drive under an assumed name …
Before being convicted by a jury of his peers in Arkansas, where he used to live before moving to a cushy house in the suburbs of Washington, DC.
Now, what’s a “travesty of justice”? Oklahoma demanding that only people in Oklahoma who have to LIVE under the laws have a right to draft and petition to change those Oklahoma laws, or Paul Jacob and his cronies jackbooting into any state they please on behalf of their anonymous “kings”?
(Let’s see how long this “free speech” remains up in the comments section. Let’s see how long this blog puts up with “outside meddling.”)
sammyeo // November 20, 2007 at 6:49 am
Hart,
Thanks for stopping by. I have only two things to point out in response to your comment, which both speak volumes about where you stand.
First, you assume far too much with your final sentence. Why on earth would I remove or delete your comment? You shared your opinion, which is vastly different than mine, and you made no personal attacks towards me.
This tells me that you somehow almost want there to be some kind of conspiracy against you. You pretty much encouraged me and provoked me to stop your “outside meddling”.
I’ll do nothing of the sort. In essence, your judgment was terribly off balance, and no where near the mark.
Secondly, through all of your hot headed bloviating, I did not once see you actually try and dispute TABOR itself. You attack those who would help get it on the ballot, but go around the real issue, which is the ballot measure.
Are you saying you’re against TABOR? Are you suggesting the people of Oklahoma shouldn’t be able to vote for or against it?
I’m curious. You see, I’ve lived the past 15 years of my life in Nevada, and we’ve only just gotten into the stage of working to get TASC, which is similar to TABOR on the ballot. We had help from outside of the state, and frankly it was a welcomed event.
Politicians fight citizen initiatives tooth and nail. In most cases, if not all, help is NEEDED from outside of the state. Once it’s on the ballot, the PEOPLE can decide.
Oddly enough, you seem to dispute that. You attack the petitioners and completely overlook the fact that the voters themselves will ultimately decide whether or not the ballot measure succeeds.
Instead of lobbing personal attacks and baseless tripe, perhaps you should consider arguing the merits of TABOR itself.
Otherwise, your intentions become clear. And the clarity suggests you have an agenda hell bent on having government decide instead of the people.
That ideology is not favorable among many. Nor was it favorable among our founding fathers.
MikeH // November 20, 2007 at 9:33 am
It is not against Oklahoma law to gain labor and financial assistance from out of state residents in petition drives. What is illegal is non-residents actually collecting the signatures.
Not only the Supreme Court, but also a grand jury, found these folks conspired to hire out of state petitioners to collect signatures in violation of state law. Though they claim they didn’t know what a bona fide resident was, it was obvious through emails that they knew the professional petitioners they hired had no intention of taking up residence in Oklahoma. All they had to do was hire Oklahomans to gather signatures instead.
You may not agree with state law, but as an Okie myself, I like the idea of expecting that when a person handing me a petition to change Oklahoma law, that person is a fellow Oklahoman that will also be affected by said law.
Katie // November 20, 2007 at 10:44 am
It’s not surprising that the same blogger who destroyed his credibility earlier this summer is now frantically looking for other targets.
He appears to be somewhat disturbed.
KenKapp // November 20, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Why are these negative commenters so fearful of democracy? No one’s pushing laws down anyone’s throats. This is about the right to petition to place measures before the voters, where THEY will get a chance to make up their own minds.
It is beyond disgusting that Hart Williams is harping in such a sleazy way on Paul’s actions from the 80s in standing up for what he believed in about the draft.
Mike H: I don’t believe that you’re an Okie. If you were, you would know that Attorney General Drew “Mike Nifong” Edmondson recently dismissed the grand jury indictment and is planning to re-issue it out of his own office without the cover of pretending that the indictment came from real Oklahoma citizens. This tells us that there were flaws in the process.
If you really lived in Oklahoma, this is what you’d be worried about.
BCC // November 20, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Does Hart William understand the concept of rule of law. In 2002 when the OK Supreme Court ruled on the petition to end cock fighting the court said that circulators could move to the state and declare there residency even if they were living in a hotel, and collect petition signatures. They only out of state petitioner they rejected was one who listed as his address an out of state address. When the TABOR petition drive was in place the managers of the drive confirmed this was the requirement with the OK Secrectary of State office. Then in 2006 the OK Supreme Court does a 180 and throws out the petition signatures of circulators who came in from out of state and declare their residency. The court even rejected one circulaor, James Sweeney, who was in OK for the 5 months of the drive and the following 9 months until the time the court heard the case. James might still be there but I’m sorry to say it isn’t my job to keep track of where James lives since in a free country that is James concern not mine. The court said that James did not plan to be a permanent resident. James signatures would have been enough to put initiative on the ballot.
So I don’t know what kind of society Hart Williams wants to live in but I want to live in a society where there is a rule of law. Where we are all equal under the law. Hart do you really want to live in an Alice in Wonderland where the law depends on who you are? Hart, we might not agree on policy issues but would it make sense to agree on a having a neutral process where we are both equal under the law?
For more info check out Muskogee Phoenix article:
residhttp://www.muskogeephoenix.com/opinion/local_story_290175525.html