Posted by Alanna on 10/21/09
Last updated 10/21/09

Mike Crapo call (202) 224-6142 or email http://crapo.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm  and Fax: (202) 228-1375   For contact info of all local offices for Senator Crapo go here: http://crapo.senate.gov/contact/office_locations.cfm

Jim Risch call 202-224-2752 or email http://risch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Email  and Fax: 202-224-2573   For contact info of all local offices for Senator Risch go here: http://risch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=MyOffices

Here is a free online fax service that allows two free faxes per day: http://faxzero.com/

Feel free to copy/past/edit the following:

Dear Senator,

I am contacting you to first express my appreciation for co-sponsoring S 604 Federal Reserve Sunshine Act of 2009  As you know this will bring a full audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Reserve Banks before the end of 2010.  Americans want full transparency and S 604 will do just that.  

Tuesday, Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Bob Corker (R-TN) introduced the Federal Reserve Accountability Act, as an attempted compromise on the issue of transparency for America's secretive central bank.  This bill would permit an audit of the Fed's actions in the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and similar high profile bailouts, but would not allow Congress to review the Fed's inflation of the money supply or its agreements with foreign central banks.  The Federal Reserve Accountability Act does not audit the monetary policy functions which have been responsible for our deteriorating dollar and so many of our current economic problems, and is not an acceptable piece of legislation. As a member of the Campaign for Liberty Idaho, I will continue to push for a full audit of the Fed and as your constituent urge you to do the same with your continued support for S 604.  

The announcement of the new legislation comes after the number of cosponsors in the House of Representatives for H.R. 1207 recently climbed to 303, and S. 604 gained 30 senate cosponsors.  With such tremendous support, there is absolutely no reason to compromise for anything less than a thorough audit of the Federal Reserve.  

Thank you again for co-sponsoring S 604 and thank you in advance for doing all you can to ensure that it passes.

Posted by Alanna on 03/11/09

A request was sent out to all members to submit proposals for Idaho C4L to adopt a project or series of projects for targeted and meaningful political change in Idaho.  Here are several proposals that have been submitted by Idaho members. Please vote on which you think we should focus our  efforts on in Idaho.

The following were submitted as ideas:

* A state bill making home ownership for illegal aliens against the law!

* Pledge of Allegiance - this project is to work with all local radio and tv stations to get the word out for all Idaho citizens and students to stop and recite The Pledge of Allegiance whereever they are at and at ssome given time say 7:30 or 8:00 am.  I would hope the radio and tv stations would also stop and recite the Pledge.  Somehow this would have to be linked in with the C4L effort.

* Idaho Gun / Firearm Parade - On some given day each year, everyone that owns a gun marchs in a parade with their non loaded gun.  It would be hoped that former military and police and scouts would dress in full uniform.

* Tax Protest Day - I am thinking April 16, where people in non voilent form march in protest of taxes around the state capitol, so they get the message.

* Vermont CCW law in Idaho.  Any gun law is an infringement on our 2nd Amendment right.  Vermont has a Carry Concealed Weapon law that is a genuine right to carry law.  It simply reads: V.S.A. §4003 Carrying dangerous weapons

A person who carries a dangerous or deadly weapon, openly or concealed, with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow man, or who carries a dangerous or deadly weapon within any state institution or upon the grounds or lands owned or leased for the use of such institution, without the approval of the warden or superintendent of the institution, shall be imprisoned not more than two years or fined not more than $200.00, or both.  http://gunowners.org/vtcarry.htm  Let's get something similar passed in Idaho in 2010

Please go to the link to read specific details on the following proposals:

Tax Certificates as Local Currency  http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=12564

State and Local Government Spending Transparency
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=12778

 Legislative and Candidate Task Force  http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=12787

Operation Bypass Big Media 
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=12372

Posted 03/11/09 Chris Stevens Jamestown, ND

When Viewing Results I see Poll Closes 03/15/09 11:59 PM Get all Idaho patriots to come vote before then. Spread the word everyone. Let's Campaign For Liberty!

Posted 03/12/09 ChaseRehn Pocatello, ID

Voted

Posted 03/13/09 GOP Revolution Middleton, ID

Legislative and Candidate task force, is probably the best choice of all of them. It's important to keep our representatives honest and for us to get involved in that process through creating our own groups (because our central committees are just social clubs). It also seems to include the operation bypass big media proposal as well... Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to be two proposals in one?

Posted 03/14/09 dmcmurdie Caldwell, ID

I believe "Tax Certificates as a Local Currency." is the best proposal because of its pragmatic approach to the imminent crisis and should be the voter's choice. I will share some of the comments I made in James' Post. Since I'm afraid many will not read all of your comments I include the part that made the most since to me and why I like your proposal before I comment further, James stated: "My proposal is a bid for localism, an attempt by the county to protect the people from the ravages of a federal system that has gotten out of control. It is recognition of the fact that the Federal Reserve will NOT be abolished, the states will NOT intervene to institute a Constitutional currency, and that the people do NOT have enough gold or silver in their possession to service their debts and maintain the economy. I wish it were different, but that is the reality." I believe James' assessment to be accurate. Therefore in my opinion his is the only one that attacks the main source of our problem (a corrupt economic system), provides a gradual movement to a silver backed currency, can legally be implemented by local government and has any realistic chance of mitigating the impending economic crisis. Ideally I would like to see a combination of this "Tax Certificate Proposal" get coupled with "Operation By pass Big Media" chosen as Idaho's plan of action. In fact I was planning on voting for both but since I had to choose one I voted for "By pass Big Media" because I believed it could be linked with the "Tax Certificate" message in areas where there is sufficient understanding of C4L Leadership to implement. I especially like the idea of distributing a newsletter to 30-60 households within a precinct promoting the need to adopt Tax certificates in lieu of relying exclusively on Fed Reserve notes. These handouts' produced by local and state C4L organizations' can enable us to discuss such local issues with our neighbors, and provide the means for collecting support for local initiatives. If people in a community lack the vision for creating a sustainable local economy other issues can become the main topic. I did not vote for spending transparency because while being a good idea it lacks the ability to mitigate the impending crisis. To use a word picture it proposes a fly swatter when an elephant gun is needed! Sincerely, Duane McMurdie

Posted 03/15/09 ChaseRehn Pocatello, ID

"I did not vote for spending transparency because while being a good idea it lacks the ability to mitigate the impending crisis. To use a word picture it proposes a fly swatter when an elephant gun is needed!" agreed! I don't need to see how they blow my cash. That would just piss me off. I'm pissed off enough as it is. We need something that's cool. Not something that people have to read. Most people can't read. Just watched lonesome dove on the youtube. Its 8 hours of bliss. A movie about people free to do what ever the hell they want. What happened? I suggest we get us a DeLorean DMC-12 and go back to the late 1800s. The dentist would suck but we would be free.

Posted 03/15/09 ChaseRehn Pocatello, ID

What?!?! I can't vote again?

Posted 04/10/09 Winter7Love San Leandro, CA

happy easter ;)

Posted by Alanna on 07/16/10

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34433282/Legislative-Immunity-1#

Legislative Immunity:  Who Benefits? 

by State Rep. Matthew Shea (WA-4th)

Recently, an oft quoted myth has resurfaced that legislative immunity is a perk for State Representatives which can be invoked whenever convenient.  For example, this myth is being used as the basis for accusations of impropriety being leveled against Idaho State Representative Phil Hart (3^rd H.D.)

Rep. Hart has relied on a provision in the Idaho Constitution to postpone an income tax controversy he is involved in until after the conclusion of the legislative session.  Both Washington and Idaho legislators are protected from "any civil process" while their legislatures are in session. As a threshold matter of state sovereignty that protection also includes civil process attempted by the federal government.

State Constitutions

Article 2, Section 16 of the Washington Constitution reads:

Members of the legislature shall be privileged from arrest in all cases except treason, felony and breach of the peace; they shall not be subject to any civil process during the session of the legislature, nor for fifteen days next before the commencement of each session.

Similarly Article III, Section 7 of Idaho's Constitution reads:

Senators and representatives in all cases...shall not be liable to any civil process during the session of the legislature, nor during the ten days next before the commencement thereof... 

There are eleven states that have similar language in their respective constitutions which use the phrase "any civil process."  An I.R.S. decision on what Rep. Hart's allowable business deductions are is administrative in nature and clearly a civil matter because it involves an attempt to take property.  It is therefore, "any civil process."

The History of and Reasons for Legislative Immunity

Our Founding Fathers just freed from English tyranny wanted to ensure that elected Representatives would not face arbitrary arrest for the sake of political retribution.

As stated by the United States Supreme Court:

The privilege of legislators to be free from arrest or civil process for what they do or say in legislative proceedings has taproots in the Parliamentary struggles of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. As Parliament achieved increasing independence from the Crown, its statement of the privilege grew stronger. In 1689, the Bill of Rights declared in unequivocal language: "That the Freedom of Speech, and Debates or Proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parliament." 1 Wm. & Mary, Sess. 2, c. II. See Stockdale v. Hansard, 9 Ad. & El. 1, 113-114 (1839)... Freedom of speech and action in the legislature was taken as a matter of course by those who severed the Colonies from the Crown and founded our Nation. It was deemed so essential for representatives of the people that it was written into the Articles of Confederation and later into the Constitution.  Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 372 (1951).

The Founding Fathers also wanted to ensure that the people's voice was protected and uninhibited: 

The reason for the privilege is clear. It was well summarized by James Wilson, an influential member of the Committee of Detail which was responsible for the provision in the Federal Constitution. "In order to enable and encourage a representative of the public to discharge his public trust with firmness and success, it is indispensably necessary, that he should enjoy the fullest liberty of speech, and that he should be protected from the resentment of every one, however powerful, to whom the exercise of that liberty may occasion offence." Id. at 373.

The court continued in summary "Legislators are immune from deterrents to the uninhibited discharge of their legislative duty, not for their private indulgence but for the public good. One must not expect uncommon courage even in legislators. The privilege would be of little value if they could be subjected to the cost and inconvenience and distractions of a trial... [Emphasis added] Id. at 377.

This idea has been affirmed time and again in many states.

In Wisconsin the Speaker of the House's office received a subpoena for one of the speaker's administrative assistants related to an audit of a lobbyist's tax return.  The Speaker took the position that his administrative assistant was his alter ego and should be protected by the constitutional provision that a member of the legislature not be "subject to any civil process, during the session of the legislature...."  The Supreme Court of Wisconsin agreed with the Speaker.

"...the meaning of a constitutional provision may be determined by looking at the objectives of the framers in adopting the provision.  We conclude, as did the court of appeals, that the rationale for the privilege was to preserve the public's right to representation in the state legislature.  When a legislator cannot appear the people whom the legislator represents lose their voice in debate and vote."  [Emphasis added] State v. Beno, 341 N.W. 2d 668 (1984).

In Michigan there was a legislator who had a garnishment on his wages.  The judgement was in place before the legislative session started.  The Attorney General for the state of Michigan defended the legislator because the garnishment was viewed more as an attack against the legislative branch of government as opposed to an attack on the legislator.  The Michigan Constitution uses the same "any civil process" language used in Idaho and Washington.  Here is what the Michigan Supreme Court said of the garnishment:

"This is too narrow view of the situation.  The idea back of the constitutional provision was to protect the legislators from the trouble, worry, and inconvenience of court proceedings during the session, and for a certain time before and after, so that the state could have their undivided time and attention in public affairs."  Fuller v. Barton, 208 N.W. 696 (1926). 

In Arizona and Wisconsin the Attorneys General agreed that a garnishment shall not be allowed on a legislator's paycheck during the legislative session in their respective states.  The Arizona Attorney General cited the Fuller v. Barton case as his authority. "It is my opinion that the Arizona constitutional provision prohibits garnishment proceedings, and, therefore, you should not honor any garnishments involving any legislator during the sessions of the Legislature."  Arizona, Opinion of Attorney General, No. 56-24.

In Kansas the point is made again that the immunity provision of their constitution is for the benefit of the state and of the people that the legislator represents.   

The use of the words "subject to" means that the member is not "liable to" the service of civil process.  To construe our constitution differently would be to defeat its apparent object.  The state is clearly entitled to the service of its members of the legislature during the time sessions of either branch thereof are being held.  Our constitution has wisely provided that the members shall not be annoyed with arrests or suits, or be obliged to be absent from their duties...."

Cook v. Senior, 45 P. 126, 127-8 (1896).

In California the language in that state constitution reads "A member of the Legislature is not subject to civil process during a session of the Legislature or for 5 days before and after a session."  The California Court of Appeals said:

In precise terms article IV, section 14, creates an exception from civil process without qualification as to the kind of subject matter of the lawsuit.  Similar exemptions have been construed to cover civil actions of all kinds, including those involving the legislator's personal affairs.   ...such immunities are designed to benefit the public by protecting legislators against compelled distraction and interference during the session." Harmer v. Superior Court, 79 Cal. Reporter 855 (1969).

And finally in my state, Washington, a member of the Washington Senate, was sued for legal malpractice because he filed a lawsuit after the statute of limitations had expired.  Senator Gordon Walgren, in his capacity as an attorney, argued successfully that the statute of limitations tolls (is postponed) while he was tied up with the business of the legislature. 

These similar constitutional provisions convince us that immunity was granted by our constitution to protect the legislators from distraction during the stated periods of time and should be broadly construed.  Immunity from service of "any civil process" should be granted during the constitutional described time periods... When a person is prevented from exercising his legal remedy by some positive rule of law, the time during which he is prevented from bringing suit is not to be counted against him in determining whether the statute of limitations has barred his right... Seamans v. Walgren, 82 Wn.2d 771, 774 (1973).

This is exactly the case with Representative Phil Hart.  The deadline to appeal given by the IRS or the Idaho Tax Commission should toll (be postponed) during the legislative session.  Otherwise, Rep. Hart would have likely missed votes and debate to address his tax litigation.  However, it is important to also note that this constitutional provision cannot be waived.  For example:

In Alaska, that Attorney General says the legislator has no flexibility.  According to him, exercising the immunity from civil process is mandatory.  "Immunity against civil process cannot be waived by the legislator since the Alaska immunity is intended to protect the public as well as serve the convenience of the legislators."  Alaska, Attorney General Opinion, 159 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 8.

Conclusion

Rep. Hart has relied on the legislative immunity provision of the Idaho Constitution to postpone working on his own tax issues, which have been ongoing for a few years.  There is no question that it is within the sovereign power of the states to afford this protection.  Furthermore, the law seems to be clearly on Rep. Hart's side.  So why does the witch hunt continue? Has the I.R.S. ever been used as a weapon for political retribution?  Both President Richard Nixon[i] and President Bill Clinton were accused of this.[ii] 

For a man who wrote a book challenging the I.R.S. definition of "income,"[iii] to face an arbitrary I.R.S. denial of normal business deductions[iv] and then not be allowed to appeal that decision because the I.R.S. ignores the Idaho Constitution while he is in legislative session...is a glimpse into the future of an Obama nation. Remember Obama's request for 16,000 additional I.R.S. agents? 

Not only are Rep. Hart's accusers in error, but the entire situation substantiates the very reason legislative immunity was written into the constitution in the first place...to prevent political persecution.

Matt Shea is an Army combat veteran, practicing attorney, and State Representative for the 4^th Legislative District in Spokane Valley, Washington.

[i] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon's_Enemies_List

[ii] http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/22/200136.shtml

[iii] http://www.constitutionalincome.com/

[iv] It has been reported in the press that the IRS's denial of 100% of Rep. Hart's business deductions over an eight year period was political payback after Rep. Hart's refusal to turn over the names and addresses of those who purchased his book.  Now both the IRS and the Idaho Tax Commission are attempting to impose the income tax on the amount of these denied deductions which totals approximately $300,000.

Posted by Alanna on 06/23/10

Some Cases on Immunity    by Chris Bass

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33457139/Some-Cases-on-Immunity-By-Chris-Bass

Because of the barrage of press reports claiming Phil Hart has somehow abused the legislative privilege or should not serve on the House Revenue and Taxation Committee, I wanted to make some further comments on the situation.

In relating to the most recent case, on September 30, 2009 the Idaho State Tax Commission made a decision to deny Phil Hart's appeal of its tax assessment. This included blindly following the IRS's arbitrary and blatantly malicious decision to deny ALL $300,000 in business deductions. This was retribution because of a book Phil wrote critical of the income tax.

Now put yourself in Phil's shoes. Would you not use every means at your disposal to exercise every one of your due process rights to fight such a blatantly unfair and illegal determination of the tax commission? Well, that is what Phil is trying to do.

On October 2, Mr. Hart received this determination by certified mail which started a 91 day clock for an appeal. Article III, Section 7 of the Idaho state constitution states:

"Privilege from arrest. Senators and representatives in all cases, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace, shall be privileged from arrest during the session of the legislature, and in going to and returning from the same, and shall not be liable to any civil process during the session of the legislature, nor during the ten days next before the commencement thereof; nor shall a member, for words uttered in debate in either house, be questioned in any other place."

The 10 days prior to the legislative session started on December 31, which was just within the 91 day window. Mr. Hart informed the Tax Commission in a letter on day 85 that the 91day period ended within the time set forth in Article III, Section 7 and that he would be submitting the notice of appeal right after the session, which he did. The Tax Commission was seeking to confiscate $53,000 of Phil Hart's assets due to the unlawful and unjustified elimination of his legitimate business deductions -- which would qualify as a "civil process" of law. The Idaho constitution is clear that the legislative privilege extends to "any" civil process.  So the Idaho State Tax Commission process should have been immediately halted and tolled until the end of the session.

The idea that this is not civil process since the tax payer is bringing the action as the Tax Commission argues is absurd.  The action the tax payer is bringing is part and parcel of the appeal process as allowed by law (63-3049, Idaho Code). You cannot divorce the appeal from the original course of action since it is a valid defense in preservation of the taxpayer's property under due process of law (or what at least passes for due process in Idaho).

Now there have been many out there who have claimed that Phil Hart "abused" his legislative privilege. This claim still boggles my mind. The legislative privilege was created to protect the People of Idaho by preventing distractions to their legislators during session. Remember during the session, the legislators are away from home and must do much of their work without even the benefit of the legislative aids that the state of Washington provides to their representatives.

Phil Hart in particular is a very hard worker fighting to protect the freedoms of Idahoans. Sure, Phil Hart could have acted like Barack Obama (who largely neglected his senatorial duties of his first term starting his presidential campaign almost immediately after his inaugural term) and been absent from a lot of votes, submitting little novel legislation, and failing to read the bills being distracted with putting together his defense. However, this would have left the people of Idaho with little effective representation during the session. Remember Phil Hart was not trying to forgo the process; he was only postponing it so he could focus on his duties as a legislator.  If he had done otherwise, he would have done a great disservice to his constituents.

Washington has a similar provision in its constitution with nearly identical language in Article II, Section 16:
"PRIVILEGES FROM ARREST. Members of the legislature shall be privileged from arrest in all cases except treason, felony and breach of the peace; they shall not be subject to any civil process during the session of the legislature, nor for fifteen days next before the commencement of each session."

A similar issue of civil process in the state of Washington came up in State v. Craig (82 Wn.3d 777) which affirmed that the matter of legislative immunity was meant to protect the public from a legislator being distracted and as such this provision should be BROADLY construed:

        "In Auditor General v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 234 Mich. 540, 542, 208 N.W. 696 (1926), the court noted: The idea back of the constitutional provision was to protect the legislators from the trouble, worry and inconvenience of court proceedings during the session, and for a certain time before and after, so that the State could have their undivided time and attention in public affairs.

       These similar constitutional provisions convince us the immunity was granted by our constitution to protect the legislators from distraction during the stated periods of time and should be broadly construed. Immunity from service of "any civil process" should be granted during the constitutionally described time periods."

So courts have agreed with this interpretation. I think the interesting question is why the IRS and the state tax commission continue to time motions to coincide with his time in the legislature (at least four times I believe). Are they trying to take advantage of the fact that he is distracted by doing the people's work to get their actions rubber stamped?  Or is it an intimidation tactic to get him to toe the line with the status quo while in session?  Come on, an IRS agent should know better than to attempt to serve process on a sitting legislator in session (which happened on a prior occasion).

The other matter here is that it has been suggested that Phil Hart should not be qualified to sit on the House Revenue and Taxation Committee because of a conflict of interest. I would beg to differ! I imagine thousands of Idahoans have received the same treatment Hart has with not a word or press or an ounce of concern from their representatives. Now they have a voice on the committee; but, if Phil is removed they do not.

This really brings up is the issue of due process. There was no jury process here. A bunch of unelected bureaucrats, who probably did not like Phil Hart to begin with (remember he proposed a bill to do away with the state income tax last year) got to arbitrarily decide not to count his deductions. Without a jury trial, Phil was then told he would have to pay 20% up front, BEFORE he could get an appeal. Does this sound like due process of law? Do you realize that the state can arbitrarily assess an outrageous amount?  Then if you cannot afford a fifth of it to put up on an appeal, it automatically gets entered finally as a judgment without recourse? What recourse does a taxpayer have in this situation? -- NONE! It is anathema to American legal jurisprudence and without Phil Hart on that committee, who has been railroaded in this same manner, these citizens will not have a voice.

It is not Hart that should be investigated. We should be investigating the process that allows someone to be railroaded because he exercised his first amendment rights by authoring a scholarly work which runs counter to the paradigm the state wants the people to blindly accept.  If this can happen to a sitting legislator, this can happen to anyone who criticizes those in power.