Just what is included in the term "domestic violence" in this state? According to the Michigan State Police 1995 Uniform Crime Report, (just released in February of 1997), there were supposedly 48,678 incidents of domestic violence in 1995 in Michigan.
Upon a closer look, we find in those statistics, that of those responded incidents, in 18,715 of those incidents, there was NO INJURY. In 13,639 incidents there was a "POSSIBLE" injury, AND 13,535 of the total domestic violence incidents were considered non-incapacitating injuries. No injury is ever acceptable, but the term "domestic violence" implies a very serious offense, and to use the term for anything less than serious is a disservice to those truly violated.
When I talked to the state police statistics department, they told me that these incidents would include any property damage incident, burglary, larceny, disorderly conduct, motor vehicle theft, children reporting that their parents spanked them, etc. - basically any reported "crime" that involved a relative or domestic partner. The victim (if there was one), could actually be an acquaintance, a stranger, or even a police officer.
AND! These statistics are based on totals of REPORTED CRIMES, not totals of actual crimes or crimes that someone got arrested for or charged with! How many of these so-called crimes, were really "retaliation" reports, when nothing really happened in the first place?
The hard statistics for the most serious "domestic violence" actual crimes are 73 fatalities and 480 incapacitating injuries. The type of weapons used were not listed for these categories, but are supposed to be forthcoming.
Of the 48,678 DV crimes reported in 1995, there were only 2 reports of someone carrying a concealed weapon. It doesn't say what kind of weapon, but I'll bet neither one had a CCW permit!
-From the Families of Michigan for Concealed Carry NEWSLETTER
Our side scored a major victory today in the war to keep the former Long Beach Naval Base from becoming a container port for COSCO, the China Overseas Shipping Company. But with the victory comes a huge challenge.
Here is the story:
Congressmen Duncan Hunter and Randy "Duke" Cunningham from San Diego have announced they will place a bill before the U.S. House of Representatives that denies the City of Long Beach or its Port Commission from leasing the former Naval Base to COSCO. They also got the secretary of the Navy to agree to delay transfer of the facility from the Navy to the Port for up to two weeks while a security review is undertaken by the Navy, FBI and CIA.
So what is the challenge ? To get the congress to pass this special bill in the next two weeks. No small task. Thousands of phone calls and faxes are necessary to every member of the House and Senate. Personal lobbying is required where ever possible. Public support will help. And, perhaps we can manage a major rally or series of rallies at the Long Beach Harbor or at the five COSCO offices in the United States.
If thousands turned out and big name Reform Party speakers and others take up the cry, perhaps we can move the Congress. But, it is an up hill battle. I have the prospect of losing one more time, but I pledge to fight to the end.
A new fact or two has emerged along with some solid background information.
Here is one fact: The combined ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles received Chinese imports valued at 22.4 billion dollars in the last year for which totals are available, 1995. In the same year, the two ports combined only shipped 22.5 billion dollars in American products to China. So the trade deficit through the Southern California ports is almost 20 billion dollars. Most of the ships are returned to China empty.
Another fact: It is five not three new ships to be built for COSCO in the United States with U.S. loan guarantees. No new facts or information of any kind on the recent smuggled guns incident in Southern California. It is strange; no one is talking.
I have received two new articles about the Long Beach Harbor project and the history of COSCO from the Pacific Maritime (industry trade press) magazine. Both are filled with facts. I also have a new article from the Long Beach Business News (Long Beach bi-weekly) about the corrupt and closed nature and conflicted port commission. Neither document is currently in my computer, but I will fax them to my self this evening, and then I will have them to fax to all interested parties. If you want either or both e-mail me your fax number and I will send them to you tomorrow. Meanwhile, a member of UWSA named John Lewis from Huntington Beach California has published a great 28 page booklet on trade. It is clear and well written and filled with facts. He will mail a copy free to anyone who wants one(up to five hundred copies total). Please give me your name and address by e-mail if you wish to have one.
If we are be have a rally, we need facts. Can you identify a product formally manufactured in the U.S. that is now made in China. Can you identify a factory that made that product in the U.S. that closed down and the town in which is located, when it closed and how many people lost their jobs ? If so, send that via e-mail. We need a long list, so we can do a China Product Tea Party and tag each item we dump with where in the U.S. it was formally made and when the factory closed and how many American's lost their jobs. Please e-mail me any info you can provide. It is a major victory to move the decision on the Long Beach Naval Base from the Port Authority in Long Beach and Court in Los Angeles (where we are likely to lose) to the U.S. Congress where it belongs and where we have a chance of winning.
By the way, the U.S. Constitution prohibits any state from entering a treaty or contract with the foreign government. So the Long Beach deal is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Do you know a lawyer who would file a constitutional case ? We might win it and it would certainly slow things down and get lots of publicity.
The Long Beach newspaper yesterday was filled with articles supporting the COSCO lease. One of them called me a "Lunatic Fringe talk show host." I am honored.
John S. Coleman
San Diego, Ca
On Wednesday, March 19, 1997, the Urbanik et al v. Frank J. Kelly Case (No. 96-522773-CZ Class Action Concerning Michigan Out-of-State CCW Law) was decided AGAINST the attorney general's opinion, which had previously denied Michigan RESIDENTS to legally carry a concealed handgun using a non-resident ccw permit from another state, even though Michigan recognizes out-of-state permits held by NON-RESIDENTS.
It's difficult to suppress my ecstatic reaction to the news, however, I spoke with Ron Chapman, attorney for the class-action suit, and he stated that it is likely an appeal will be filed. He told me that the judge did NOT want to rule in favor of more people in Michigan carrying guns.
However, the judge stated that the law is clearly un-ambiguous that he had no choice but to rule in favor of the law.
Jim Church, (NRA Board Member) pointed out that it is a great victory that someone who is opposed to concealed carry ruled in favor of the law. Jim spoke with Attorney General Frank Kelley's office, and reported that the attorney he spoke with said that the ruling only applies to people who ALREADY have out-of-state permits! Further, that since a judge in Wayne County ruled in the Attorney General's favor previously there will be an appeal.
Give it up, Mr. Kelley! We can also expect some shenanigans through the state legislature to support the anti-carry, anti-freedom, pro-criminal, crowd. Stay tuned.
Meanwhile, attorney Ron Chapman does not have a copy of the decision. It has not been issued yet, and he said that it has to go through the process of being signed by the court, etc. and won't be available for a while. When it is available, you can obtain a copy through the court clerk's office. Please do not deluge his office with requests for copies of the decision.
Ron has also asked that people make contributions for the legal fund payable to Gun Owners of Macomb County. They have not collected enough to cover the cost of this case, and the appeal costs will be additional. He said that other cases in the past have been lost in the appeals process because the funds were not there.
Please send your contribution check,
made out to Gun Owners of Macomb County, to:
Attorney Ron Chapman,
Chapman, Chapman & Associates
2690 Crooks Road, Ste. 307
Troy, Michigan 48084
FYI: non-resident permit from Florida costs $117.00. To obtain information to apply for a non-resident permit from Florida, contact:
Florida Dept. of State
Division of Licensing
PO Box 6687
Tallahasee, FL 32314
or call: (904)488-5381 and they will send the information to you.
In 1995, after the NRA was instrumental in removing a number of pro- Clinton/pro-gun control lawmakers from Congress, the IRS "coincidentally" launched a Coordinated Examination Program (CEP) against the NRA -- a far- reaching tax audit that lasts years. In addition to the incredible cost the Association has already incurred to accommodate the CEP, the IRS recently suggested it may want NRA to turn over its confidential membership lists. The agency was informed in no uncertain terms this wasn't going to happen, and if necessary, we'd go to court to protect our lists. Is there a pattern to whom the IRS scrutinizes? Well, a Washington Times story (2/3/97) notes that NRA is "one of about a dozen conservative groups that the IRS has chosen to audit since 1994." All of these groups have opposed policies of the Clinton-Gore Administration.
QUESTION: Why would NAFTA mandate anything through the IRS?
Prior to THIS a business person could just bop on down to the nearest national bank and deposit withheld taxes in the FRB by filling out a special deposit slip and attaching a check (see paragraph three in the letter below).
During the past two or three years I have heard rumors that this is occurring. I finally found a business person who would share this information with me. The cost of success has really escalated since NAFTA went through. Notice this only applies to those depositing more than $50K in employment taxes for a calendar year. I would consider $50K in withholding to be a small measure of success for a business person. (For all you purest, I am not making any statement concerning the confiscation of one's hard earned money, just telling you what is going on in this Godless, screwed-up democracy that started out as a Constitutional Republic.)
Do you remember the congress critters assuring the citizenry that neither NAFTA or GATT(NATT and GAFTA) would affect our sovereignty (as a nation). Yeah, right. My contact copied their package detailing the following information: Besides the cover letter included below, the package had sheet of paper with 5 simple steps on how to setup an account in which they can debit you. It details two "plans" for you to use: ACH DEBIT and ACH CREDIT. I searched an additional enclosure, Instructions for FORM 9779 for the definition of an ACH. ACH stands for AUTOMATED CLEARING HOUSE (isn't that good news, what they are going to do to you they have AUTOMATED). Form 9779 was also included and what a bunch of guys, the IRS had conveniently filled in three of the first four sections for the business man. Those sections included the EIN, BUSINESS NAME, LANGUAGE PREFERENCE (English or Spanish-not checked they will let you decide this one), and ADDRESS.
Below is the form letter the business received. I scanned it in and OCR'ed it. Any mistakes could be the result of the OCR process. However, the fourth line of the first paragraph is not a mistake. I used brackets [ ] to denote things I added or replaced for protection of the innocent. This was the typical unsigned computer generated form letter that so endears the IRS to it's masters, us the citizens. It was complete with the lack of any letterhead. No name, no contact, just do it. Not even if it feels good, just do it. (I'll let you know when I get my audit notice.)
Department of the Treasury CP 129 Internal Revenue Service
[city, state full 9 digit zip]
YOU MUST ENROLL AND DEPOSIT ELECTRONICALLY
Beginning January 1, 1997, you will be required to make your Federal Tax Deposit (FTD) payments by electronic funds transfer (EFT) This requirement is a result of the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (NAFTA). NAFTA mandates that businesses making deposits of more than $50,000 in employment taxes for calendar year 1995 make all Federal Tax Deposit (FTD) payments electronically.
The Internal Revenue Code requires you to use the Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS) to make your tax deposits electronically. These taxes include those reported on Form 940, Form 941, and Form 943. In addition, you are also required to deposit taxes electronically for Form 720, Form 945. Form 990-C, Form 990-PF. Form 990-T. Form 1042, Form 1120 and Form CT-1.
[I count eleven forms, is it any wonder a bunch of businesses have moved offshore and these don't even include the EPA forms.]
[bold]To use EFTPS, you must first enroll.[end bold] Since the enrollment process can take up to 10 weeks to complete, we encourage you to [bold]enroll now.[end bold] As of January 1, 1997, you will not be able to deposit these taxes with a check and Form 8109 without incurring a penalty of 10% for the taxes deposited. Delaying your enrollment may prevent you from making your required EFT payment. [Additional 10% levy for not following OUR instructions.]
We have enclosed an enrollment form for you to complete and send back in the enclosed return envelope. Please read and follow the [bold]Steps to Making Electronic Tax Deposits.[end bold] You will receive additional payment instructions after we have completed your enrollment. [italics] PLEASE NOTE: If you are currently depositing taxes electronically through the TAXLINK system you will be required to convert to EFTPS at a later date. We will notify you at the time conversion will take place and you must be enrolled in EFTPS at that time. However, we encourage you to enroll in EFTPS now.[end italics]
[end page 1]
[start page 2]
If you use a third party payroll processor and/or financial institution to pay your taxes, you must still enroll to use EFTPS. Please ensure that your payroll processor is aware of your EFTPS requirement. In addition, please share this letter with each department in your organization which is responsible for paying depository taxes.
We hope you will find that making payments through EFTPS is simpler and faster. If you have any questions about the electronic deposit processing rules or requirements, please call the toll free number in the enclosed instructions.
[end page 2]
Republicans in Congress
The Republicans in Congress did win the recent Congressional elections, didn't they? Well, yes, but you'd never know it by what is happening on Capitol Hill these days. Majority leader Dick Armey, always considered a stalwart conservative, wrote in a recent memo that "making progress on the Republican agenda does not require us to create fireworks."
That would be fine except for one thing. There are no fireworks coming from the Republicans, but there's no agenda either. Republican leader Trent Lott in the Senate and Newt Gingrich in the House seem equally paralyzed. In 1994 the Republicans won on their contract with America. Then everyone knew what they stood for. But is there anyone in America today who can name three major agenda items the Republicans are advancing? Come on, where is the push for ending affirmative action, lowering taxes, getting rid of activist judges and so much more?
Top Republicans say they're biding their time until Bill Clinton is politically wounded by scandal. But if Republicans don't come up with a real agenda worth fighting for soon, that could be one of the most serious scandals in Washington.
The story on China's infiltration of the U.S. through contributions to the Democratic party is just now getting out. Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah says that the Clinton administration was warned by the FBI over two years ago that China was unlawfully working to purchase political influence.
Hatch should know. He's a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He notes that despite the warnings, Democrats continued China- linked fundraising through 1996. Since then scandals linking the Clinton White House with illegal Chinese campaign contributions have broken wide open.
According to several reliable sources. federal investigators now know much about China's political activities here. Investigators are aware that communist China's donations to Democrats were a calculated extension of its ongoing economic espionage program in the U.S.!
First we hear about a Chinese country trying to purchase (or lease) a port in Long Beach CA. Then I hear that the same company already leases two other American Ports.
Then I get a news article forwarded to me that appeared in the Washington Times on March 19, 1997 entitled "US Upset at Deal Ceding Panama Ports to China." The story goes on to explain how a Hong Kong company with ties to the communist Chinese government named Hutchison Whampoa Ltd just got a 25-year lease on two key ports in the Panama Canal.
The article also reports that "Members of Hutchison's board of directors consult to Cosco, which is controlled by the Chinese government."
Then, in an effort to enjoy a serene and a non-busy Saturday, I crack open the local newspaper, The Grand Rapids Press. I came across an article on page A13 entitled "Chinese navy makes first US port call." It is an AP report. After hearing all the previous stories about Chinese companies taking over ports, this really bothered me. It starts out: "The Chinese Navy made its first port visit to the main-land United States on Friday, sailing into San Diego Bay..." One US Vice Admiral Brent Bennitt is quoted as saying "Since our two countries have the biggest fleets in the Pacific-Asia region, it is important for us to increase our understanding and cooperation as well as foster economic ties." The Chinese vessel is on a "Good-Will" tour, the crew is also to visit the San Diego Zoo and Disneyland.
It also says that a US navy band greeted the two Chinese vessels, but after the welcoming ceremony, "US Sailors and reporters boarded the Harbin [the Chinese vessel] for an above-deck tour. Without explanation, Chinese officials would not allow anyone inside the vessel."
This really puts up a red flag in the back of my mind. I think this needs to be watched VERY closely.
The U. S. Supreme Court has two different kinds of jurisdiction. Original and appellate.
Jurisdiction is the legal authority to decide a lawsuit brought before a Court. This is the first question the Court has to decide, does this Court have the legal authority to decide this lawsuit? If it does, it will hear and decide the case. If it does not have jurisdiction over the case to hear and decide it, it will dismiss the case.
Now, what is ORIGINAL jurisdiction? This is the kind where the Court has power to hear the case begin in it. The case starts there.
On the other hand APPELLATE jurisdiction is the legal authority to REVIEW a case begun in a lower court. If the parties are not satisfied with the decision of say the FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT they may appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals. This is the first level of review of the lower court's decision.
If the parties are not satisfied with the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals, they may then appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court decides to take jurisdiction and hear the appeal, they will allow what is called a writ of certiorari - send the case up to the Supreme Court.
But if the Supreme Court decides NOT TO REVIEW the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals, that is the end of the case. What ever the Court of Appeals decided becomes the final law of the case.
Now let's examine the ORIGINAL JURISDICTION of the U. S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is given its ORIGINAL jurisdiction by the U. S. Constitution, and in an early case, Marbury v Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803) the Court held that Congress cannot add to or change the ORIGINAL jurisdiction given the Court by the Constitution.
Here is the Constitution's grant of ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: ARTICLE III, SECTION 2:
...(omitting non-relevant parts) In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction...
You can see how the States are granted a power line directly to the Supreme Court. Where a State has a case to file, the State may go directly to the Supreme Court and start the case there. There is no need to start with the lower echelon of the Federal District, and proceed with appeal after appeal. True, the Congress has given to the Federal District Courts CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION, but this does not take away the State's constitutional option to START the case directly in the Supreme Court. Congress cannot touch this ORIGINAL JURISDICTION given the Supreme Court by this section of the Constitution.
It is time for the States to come alive and become aware of their power line directly to the Supreme Court, now that JUSTICE Sandra Day O'Connor has declared a renewed rule on the government power relation between the States and the Federal government. She put it this way:
"Where Congress exceeds its authority relative to the States, departure from the Constitutional plan cannot be ratified by 'consent' of State officials." NY v US, 112 S Ct 2408 (1992)
It is a renewed rule applied by justice O'Connor's Court to those acts "...where Congress exceeds its authority relative to the States. The States are the principals and the Federal government is the Agent, ...whose acts cannot amount to a ... departure from the constitutional plan."
Although justice O'Connor's Court did not refer to the early statement of the rule of Burton v U. S. (1906), her decision clearly confirmed the Burton rule that U. S. Senators "...do not hold their places under the Government of the United States, but its members are chosen by the State legislatures."
"While the Senate, as a branch of the legislative department owes its existence to the Constitution and passes laws which concern the entire country, its members are chosen by the State legislatures, and cannot be said to hold their places under the Government of the United States." Burton v U.S. (1906) 202 U.S. 344
Now that Senators are chosen by the people of the States the same as members of the House, they are merely agents of the States temporarily assigned to duty in Congress.
The States have a Constitutional power line to the U. S. Supreme Court and will not "ratify" or "consent" to the acts of their agents in Congress, when they "...make departures from the Constitutional plan" but are powerfully equipped to stop these "departures" in their tracks, with cases filed directly in the Supreme Court.
* Judge Boesel, graduate Ohio State University and University of Michigan Law School, is a former Professor of Constitutional Law, Capitol University Law School, Columbus, Ohio.
A retired Army Colonel, he served with the 4th Infantry Division, World War II, which made the assault landing on D-Day, Utah Beach, Normandy.