BS and all the incarnations of his ubiquitous machinations is why Oregon needs to hold its elected officials responsible for their votes by doing away with the entire initiative system.

"Hold elected officials responsible by getting rid of the initiative system?"

That has to be the dumbest BlueOregon comment to date.

Oh please Dan Meeks where are you?

This is wrong on so many levels...

What do these fascists have against majority rule? (Oh yeah, if we had that, Gore would be President.) I assume it would only take 50% + 1 to pass this farce and thus forever more let the minority decide.

They already pulled this one off regarding tax legislation.

As for his notion that it would be no problem to get a 3/4 super-majority in a time of crisis, 'squeeze me?! Where's such thing now on the issue of the Iraq war?

Torrid, I too disagree with Sizemore’s conclusion, but I think the point he brings up is interesting. The ability to refer bills to a popular vote is of course a right that we, as Oregon citizens, all possess. If the Legislature is in fact declaring emergencies simply to avoid a possible referral to the voters, then clearly this is not how the system is supposed to work. In the same breath, the referendum, as Sizemore makes abundantly clear, is being used as a threat along political lines (in this case against the so-called “left-wing agenda” of the legislature) because one side just simply disagrees with the other. This too is, of course, not how the referendum process was designed to be used. Short of simply throwing the baby out with the bathwater (as the first comment suggests), what could/should be done about this?

I should mention that a small group of us have been working on a proposal to improve the citizens’ initiative process over at www.healthydemocracyoregon.org, but haven’t spent any time developing a proposal for improving the referendum process.

Bill's right, we have a real emergency here in Oregon.

He found his pencil again!

Too bad it's still dull.

Like him. And his ideas.

Why can't that felon Sizemore leave well enough alone? Are you that bored, Bill??? Quit messing with the contstution and get a real job! If he keeps messing with the constitution, it will end up as nothing more than a glorified paragraph of the ORS.

I'm no fan of Sizemore, but I don't see why laws should be exempted from the referral process. It is a direct democratic check on the legislative and executive branches.

TorridHo, Could you please, at least, address the legislation BS mentions in the article and why you think there needed to be an emergency claimed in those cases?

And as your solution that we can always: 2) create an initiative to change things

That is about the most hypocritical thing I have seen here on BlewOregon. About 99% of the people on this site would strike the initiative process totally if they could!!

Maybe you could list just how hard and expensive it now is to get an initiative on the ballot for us unwashed masses? There has been a campaign by the libbies for years to restrict our use of this truly democratic piece of our state constitution.
The giant SLAPP suit against Bill Sizemore by the unions is what you get if you piss off the wrong people. Can you imagine, the ruling basically said that the unions were FORCED to spend $2 mil to defeat Bill's measure that was put on the ballot with illegal signatures. Huh? And I wont even mention the incredible crap you have to to thru to get a ballot title. (except if you are in the legislature apparently..)

Who cares what percentage it was previously?

If the Republicans were also declaring fake emergencies to prevent referrals it only makes the case for this measure stronger.

This measure is appears to be completely non-partisan, it's just a check on the abuse of power by a majority.

Is there an example of a legitimate emergency that the legislature dealt with in the last couple decades that would not have garnered a three-fourths vote?

It is actually not that expensive to place an initiative on the ballot. All it takes are a handful of Anti-Christian church goers and a few thousand bucks. Bingo! You get M36 and despite being outspend by large numbers, passes and gets written into the Constitution.

Let see how this adds up:

1) Host a few dozen bingo games at Anti-Christian churches.

2) Get a few fanatical Anti-Christians to work for free in the name of Satan.

3) Scare the hell of the population with fliers passed out at your local Safeway or Wallmart.

Law gets passed. Priceless.

Can we have some fact-checking here? I, for one, wouldn't believe BS if he told me that the sky was blue. His claim of 26% may indeed be accurate, but I want a reliable source for it. I'd also like to see (a) which items were passed as "emergency", and (b) what the similar numbers were for the last couple of legislative sessions. Until that information is presented, there's very little of substance to discuss.

As far as his proposed solution, I think it's almost an excellent idea. But it's a super-majority requirement, and I think that all super-majority requirements should require the same super-majority to pass. Which, of course, would never happen in this case, because super-majority requirements like this just encourage forced conformity and/or stonewalling, both of which have been in excess of late.

duh-duh-duh-Dave sez:

The giant SLAPP suit against Bill Sizemore by the unions is what you get if you piss off the wrong people.

Oh yeah, it's all one big conspiracy! Bwah ha ha ha!

The display of stupidity by Oregon's rightards just never ever ends.

Kari is absolutely correct - it is not expensive to put an initiative or referendum on the ballot when it is used for the orignal intent of these things - a way for citizens to have a check when the Legislature does wanders far from what they were voted in to do, and when there is a citizens movement to pass one. Referenda and initiaitives were not intended to provide work for shills like BS to carry out the wishes of special interests. This initiative machine has created what is widely regarded as the most unstable and least balanced tax system of any state in the US. The initiative machine writes terrible legislation that lacks serious vetting - besides the tax system, witness the incoherent and self-contradictory land use rules in M37.

Someone tell Sizemore that there is a pay phone in the Capitol building that allows one to make free long distance calls. That'll distract him for a while.

1. Bill Sizemore has found something else to make money with! Seriously, we need to stand up to this abuse of the initiative process. Every time he throws something out, it gurantees an opportunity for Dick Wendt or Loren Parks ot write him a check.

2. If we even want to entertain this measures as an idea, I think it is a bad one. What is says is that 15 members of the House or 7 members of the senate can halt emergency use of funds.

Don't forget that after Katrina both the state legislature and the Congress passed some bills to address the emergency that also were terrible public policy. Why, because in an emergency some people will be opportunists (Haliburton?)

In this case, if 15 Reps and 7 Senators who are hard core conservatives wanted to make sure that private coporations gor all the money to respond to an emergency or if a conservative nightmare happened and the same number of liberals decided that a disaster should be paid for by an immediate sales tax they could theoretically stall the whole thing.

Stick with a majority. Anything else is just silly grandstanding by someone who wants to bilk Jeld Wyn profits for himself.

Any initiative sponsored or thought up by Sizemore, Mannix, McIntire, and Parks gets an automatic NO vote. We did it with Bill's car insurance measure last election, and we will do it again. That's how you stop abuse.

Whether you like the guy or not, the focus here should not be on Mr. Sizemore, he is just the messenger. The focus should be on what is being said, and what is being said should set off alarm bells all over Oregon. And the issue is not just coming from within the legislature. Government bodies all over Oregon are becoming more and more socialistic wanting to control just about every aspect of people’s lives including, where we live, how we move about, how we develop our communities, what we eat and even how to indoctrinate the next generation through opinionated and one-sided curriculum within our school systems. In a democratic society, power is given to the people – of the people, by the people and for the people. But when political leaders perceive themselves as supreme authorities, or cater to special interests rather than acting as servants of all the people, including representing people, diverse lifestyles, mobility and growth issues they may disagree with, democracy is threatened.

TR -

If he is a messenger, who is he a messenger for? Loren Parks? Dick Wendt? Who?

What is being said (that is so scary)?

Your "opinionated and one-sided" education seems to have confused fascism and socialism.

-TR,

I think that it is totally acceptable to focus on BS. Entirely! Please, let us not claim that he is merely a "messenger". He is an instigator and a profiteer. He wants money and fame. That is pretty simple. He gets money by creating ballot measures that cater to people like you, both in and outside of the state of Oregon (mostly outside) that will flood his ballot measures with money.

If you call what happened in the Oregon Legislature this term, "socialism", then I beg you to take a few Political Science or History classes. Socialism seeks to benefit its citizens by providing them really outrageous things like Universal Healthcare, Universal Education, and Social Equality for All People. We here in Oregon and across the country have NONE of these things, nor even any flirtation of the sort.

Canada is considered "socialist" by many economic conservatives, but if you believed this, you would again... be wrong. Some may say the same thing about Britian or France... again, you'd be wrong. However, someplace between liberal government (I use the European definition here, so please keep up), and socialism, is where other Western nations live quite happily.

BS doesn't care about lame words such as "diverse lifestyles", "mobility", but he does want growth... his own and those wealthy enough to benefit from his proposed land and tax changes over the years.

Wolverines!!!!

TR, I don't get it. Who are you claiming Sizemore is a messanger for? How does the initiative process, in how it's currently being used by Sizemore and others, produce results "of, by, and for the people"?

Let me get this straight, according to the Parks Medical Electronics web site, Loren Parks makes a portion of his money building penis monitors for sex offenders?

No wonder he moved to Nevada.

Loren's penis-meter?

Thanks, Kari. I was just about to go to bed. Now i'm going to have nightmares. :(

So far, this discussion has failed to question the premise behind Sizemore's central assertion--that bills are being passed with emergency clauses in order to circumvent the initiative process (i.e., his primary means of employment).

I suspect that in most (nearly all?) cases, emergency clauses are being added simply to get the new laws' provisions in place sooner.

It's not surprising that Sizemore should steer the discussion in the direction that he does, but we should resist once again dancing to the tune that he pipes.

Regarding the lawsuits against Sizemore, history will tell us whether or not that was a smart move. As a leader of one of the two unions that brought the suit, I will tell you that it was an expensive and very burdensome move--but I still believe that it was both correct and courageous.

Mr TorridJoe

Obviously the stress of balancing a govt job while blogging several times a day has clouded your logic process.

THe intent of this is to address legislation not legislators. You solution of waiting two years to vote someone out doesn't allow voter input on individual pieces of legislation. By extending your logic, we should allow Mr Bush to do his thing in Iraq without complaint and then just vote him out after 4 years.

A govt without checks like this on legislatures, worries me. Declaring 1/3 of bills to be emergencies seems to be stretching the definition just a bit.

OK, so setting aside the fact that Sizemore is the one squawking about this... and setting aside his proposed "solution" to the problem... I think there's a legitimate question here about the "procedural non-issue" (as Sal Peralta asserts) of declaring so many "emergencies" in the state.

Unless I'm mistaken (and I trust someone will correct me if I am), there's no requirement to declare an emergency just to make a bill effective sooner than January 1 of the following year.

"Except as otherwise provided in the Act, an Act of the Legislative Assembly takes effect on January 1 of the year after passage of the Act." (ORS 171.022)

Would it not be sufficient to simply declare an effective date in the Act itself, without declaring an emergency?

I followed the link provided by Taoiseach, and after quite a while clicking around I found that there's no direct listing of "emergency bills", you've gotta find them one by one. Kudos to Taoiseach for taking the time!

But just for example, here's one of the critical "emergencies" declared in this last session:

House Bill 2005 Creates Task Force on Open Source Adoption. Requires task force to evaluate feasibility of adopting open source software and open standards for use in state government. Requires task force to report findings and recommendations to Director of Oregon Department of Administrative Services and to Seventy-fifth Legislative Assembly. Declares emergency, effective on passage.

Seriously? There's an emergency related to looking into open source software adoption?

If there really is some requirement to declare an emergency in order to advance the effective date of legislation, then the correct fix would be to eliminate that requirement (January 1 is a statutory thing, it can be easily changed). It is counterintuitive to declare an emergency just to change the effective date of a law.

If, as I assert above, there really is no requirement to declare an emergency, then as distasteful as Mr. Sizemore may be, he may also have a point.

What's interesting is not only how a lot of you first defend abuse of the "emergency" provision by making attacks on Sizemore. Of course, torridjoe and Kari had to go one step lower by suggesting a defense based on rationalizing that the Democratic majority is no worse than the other side.

No one bothered to actually list the bills that were fast-tracked in this way, or a list of SB/HR/SJR/HJR numbers, or even a representative sample. Simply listing percentages or numbers of such bills participates in Kari's childish excuse making.

My reading of Michael D.'s comment

I suspect that in most (nearly all?) cases, emergency clauses are being added simply to get the new laws' provisions in place sooner.

is that he is quite appropriately offering an observation that there could be yet another reason, without offering a value judgment: Disregard for our state Constitution --- that contract by which we set down how we resolve our disagreements about governance for the good of us all --- that bills which deal with non-emergencies should not be fast-tracked into effect.

The problem Michael D has helped expose is that no one else has yet has pointed out that even this reason really is no less dishonorable or disgusting than the other to arguments offered. Without the actual summary of the "emergency" bills, we don't really have any idea of how much the majority in the Senate and House may or may not have abused the "emergency" provision of the Constitution. Kudos to David Wright for taking the time to look further into two specifics --- an example of one such bill and statutory language which strongly supports the argument that apparently the "emergency" declaration is primarily intended to block citizen (re-)action just as Sizemore claimed --- before commenting, and providing a sufficient example to demonstrate that only an idiot would defend them without getting that information.

Some of us in the Democratic Party are really getting tired of defending some of the idiots we send to represent us, and the fools who make excuses for them. And for the record, I think Oregon's initiative system is a disgrace to representative government. On one point torridjoe is right: The people need to take more time and responsibility for the leaders they chose. We need to start electing quality Democratic leaders rather than some of the clowns we have elected in recent years.

TJ, you're not entirely correct when you say that there is no citizen action being blocked by these "emergency declarations".

First, a clarification regarding my earlier statement about the need for a declaration of emergency to make a law effective earlier than usual:

Oregon Constitution, Article IV, Section 28:

No act shall take effect, until ninety days from the end of the session at which the same shall have been passed, except in case of emergency; which emergency shall be declared in the preamble, or in the body of the law.

It seems then that ORS 171.022 as I quoted above leaves the door open for an act to become effective earlier than January 1 of the following year (if so stated in the act), but not earlier than 90 days after the end of the session, without a declaration of emergency.

Now for the effect of such declarations of emergency...

Oregon Constitution, Article IV, Section 1:

(3)(a) The people reserve to themselves the referendum power, which is to approve or reject at an election any Act, or part thereof, of the Legislative Assembly that does not become effective earlier than 90 days after the end of the session at which the Act is passed.

So, putting it all together...

If the legislature makes a bill effective earlier than 90 days after the end of the session, that then blocks the potential citizen action of referendum -- thus making the act "safe" from normal citizen oversight. In order to do so, they must declare an emergency.

You are correct that citizens may as an alternative attempt to pass an initiative which could effectively cancel the "emergency" bill. So, instead of being able to directly cancel a law of which the citizenry does not approve, they must pass a new law instead that would override the old one.

However, there is a practical difference in that the bar for getting a statutory initiative on the ballot is 50% higher than for getting a referendum on the ballot (6% for a new law, 4% for referendum).

So while perhaps a technical detail, there is still something to be said for the original concern that was expressed. By using the emergency declaration, the legislature makes it 50% harder to make the act subject to citizen review.

Sizemore's proposed solution is a bit extreme. There is a much simpler solution, which would be to amend the constitution to allow acts which take effect earlier than 90 days after the end of the session to be subject to the normal referendum process.

The legislature's ability to set earlier effective dates of legislation would not be affected at all; and citizen oversight of the legislature would actually be enhanced. Seems like a win/win to me without resorting to a supermajority requirement.

"Since when were voters supposed to have validation rights on the bills that come out of the Legislature?"

Since when were voters supposed to have no option on validating bills out of the Legislature?

PS - My comment on your work habits is not a personal attack, merely one of your employers (a prop tax payer) asking you spend more time working and less time blogging.

Steve writes (about torridjoe): "PS - My comment on your work habits is not a personal attack, merely one of your employers (a prop tax payer) asking you spend more time working and less time blogging."

Maybe torridjoe's job is to blog (ie when he is blogging, he is actually working)!!

If it is true that torridjoe (aka Mark Bunster) works at the PDX Fire Dept, maybe his real job is as a PDX Fire Dept blogger. I mean, that has to be one possibility, since he does blog frequently between 8am and 5pm every workday. If the PDX Fire Dept employs liberal bloggers, I wonder if they also employ non-liberal bloggers?

Come on, we are talking about Portland, it could be true!

With Sizemore, it's a brainfart, not brainstorm. He should stop screwing around and get a real job.

"And that's a personal attack . . . It has nothing to do with Bill Sizemore."

So, I guess personal attacks are OK if they are against Bill Sizemore, right or wrong?

I normally decry all things machiavellian, but (speaking as a former cheerleader for Oregon's initiative petition process), i don't mind the legislature limiting the mad march of ballot measures. Money has ruined the system, from paid signature gatherers to the massive media buys that convince people to vote against their own interests... i know this is going to come off sounding elitist, BUT...

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

(My apologies... the Sunday talking heads are getting me riled...

I normally decry all things machiavellian, but (speaking as a former cheerleader for Oregon's initiative petition process), i don't mind the legislature limiting the mad march of ballot measures.

I don't have a problem either with the legislature changing the ballot measure process to limit the stupidity of the mob. We are a representative democracy not a mob democracy because history has well proven mob democracies are as bad a form of government as monarchies and oligarchies.

Oregon and Washington are distressingly good examples of the fundamental backwardness of a strong initiative process combined with a citizen legislature. When the people are not forced to choose their representatives carefully, they choose to be stupid and lazy in making their electoral choices, and we have the elected leaders to prove that.

And that cuts across party affiliations. Democrats in this state are at least as bad as Republicans in this regard, and NAVs are the worst and laziest because they don't do anything even approaching getting organized around a coherent set of political values. We have a system that encourages some of the least capable and qualfied to run for office because the voters don't care enough to demand and support the most qualified leaders.

The only defensible position, however, is that the ballot measure process must be reformed in a consitutional, intelligent way, and not simply limited in the ad hoc, abusive way the clowns we have elected to the legislature and executive branch (and don't forget the judges, because the bovine mob is stupid enough to believe making judges politicians is a good idea) in the 8 years or so have gone about it. For that reason East Bank Thom, the recent legislative majorities, and those who defend their abuses, are worse than the mob because that irresponsible approach just incites the mob. You don't declare "emergencies" unless you have a true emergency, and you reform the system so that you can put a law into effect sooner and limit referendum appropriately without declaring an "emergency". If people are as fed up with abusive initiatives and referendums as I think they are, you put forward a resonsible consitutional amendment reflecting that will, and work honorably and hard to pass it.

Instead of doing that, we see Merkley and the majority, in a typical display of low-quality leadership put forth things like a constitutional amendment for a tobacco tax, as proposed by our SOS Bradbury and supported by Brown. They are all an embarrassment to the Democratic Party because rather than doing the right thing, they have further decreased the respect people should have for our constitution by attacking it and making it a pawn in a partisan fight --- just as abusing the "emergency" clause attacks the constitution and makes it a pawn in a partisan fight with the predictable counterattack on the constitution from the other side. What's worse is they can cite Kari's childish rationalization "the other side did it" as their rationalization.

It's not elitist to demand that people educate themselves in their electoral duties and to criticize them when they choose to be lazy and/or to do it poorly, because that includes the responsibility to fight to make sure the choice to be responsible and perform well in our representative democracy is given to each and every person without regard to race, creed, color, sexual orientation, income level, gender or anything else.

Kari and Jeff - why don't you start (another) thread soliciting fully articulated ideas for reform of the ballot measure process in Oregon? And I'm not talking about the juvenile snarking that typifies the contributions of the many Blue Oregonians. I think the ideas put forth might shock people in what they actually say about who really are the friends of the Constitution, citizen rights, and representative democracy.

The person who pointed out that voting elected leaders out of office in retribution for poorly crafted laws they passed isn't a substitute for having immediate input into the legislative process is RIGHT.

However, I do believe we have committee hearings with opportunities for public input for most bills. Also, I get notices from progressive organizations that generate email letters regarding specific bills, always in a very timely manner.

Seems like there are lots of ways to encourage civic engagement about specific legisilation when there is still time to affect the outcome.

I would like to see less money going into politics in general, so we can spend more on actually DOING the work (i.e. spending money on government programs, economic development, charitable causes). So, I'm all for curtailing the initiative process.

The other odd thing about Bill's editorial was its factual inaccuracies.

He mentioned the Leg passing a bill seizing the Oregon Trail from private property owners. The Leg intentionally modified the bill for that very reason from its original form, to ask the Parks department to survey it and then work with landowners voluntarily.

Brian Boquist, a conservative Republican, brokered that compromise solution.

Bill is either misinformed or lying...

Sizemore's got an even crazier brainstorm. He is working to bring JAIL4Judges to Oregon.

Read all about it here

From: Sherree Lowe To: jail Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 10:38 PM Subject: Re: JAIL4Judges State Jailer-In-Chief list distribution

Thanks, Bill. If you succeed, Oregonians will thank you too.

For those who still watch TV and read newspapers, you can ignore the lies of Sandra Day O'Connor. J.A.I.L. is a tool by which the citizens of Oregon will be able to hold law-breaking judges accountable for their unpunished, uncorrected, illegal behavior. If every available remedy fails, which is what you would expect when government is corrupt to the core, the citizens of Oregon will have a tool to make a judge as accountable to the law as the rest of the citizens of the state.

Contrary to the lies being told by Sandra Day O'Connor, J.A.I.L. is not to be used to reverse unpopular decisions. And contrary to the old media, we do not live in a democracy, where majority votes are justified. We live in a constitutional republic, governed by law, not lynch-mob democracy.

Of course, the way people like Mark Yannone and Sherree and now it appears Bill Sizemore define law-breaking judges and illegal behavior is "any judge that rules against us in a lawsuit."

South Dakota rejected this 89-11 last year. Looks like Bill Sizemore didn't pay attentionn

I have no problem with a legislature declaring an emergency to make a law go into effect more quickly than normal, whether that legislature is controlled by D's or R's. I don't support Sizemore's desire to make a 3/4 supermajority necessary to declare an emergency. I do not understand why declaring an emergency should exempt a law from the referral process. That is what I believe should be changed, as it does invite abuse of the public will by the legislature.

I am not working on jail for judges and there is no basis for any claim to the contrary.

Several commenters on this thread made comments that would not have been necessary, if those making them had been able to read the op-ed I sent to The Oregonian. The O removed approximately 300 words for brevity and some misunderstanding was created by their editing.

If Oregonians fix the emergency clause abuse problem via the measure I have proposed, it will curtail the abuse in the future whether it occurs under Democrat control or Republican control. I believe there are times when emergency clauses are necessary. Real emergencies occur. In those cases, a three-fourths vote will be easy to obtain.

The current process is an affront to the process. If there is no emergency, why call one? I think there is something deficient in the reasoning of those on this blog who are defending the notion that the legislature ought to be able to an declare emergency when there is none.

Why should any politician be able to declare an emergency when there is none? Whether they are Democrats or Republicans should make no difference.

There are so many kneejerk people on this site who oppose my ideas simply because they are my ideas. If some liberal darling had suggested the same emergency clause reform I have suggested, most of you would be cheering and urging them on. But because I suggested it, it is automatically a bad iea. Pretty shallow, folks. Pretty weak.

I am not working on jail for judges and there is no basis for any claim to the contrary.

Never had you pegged as liar, Bill.

No basis? How about the emails between you and Oregon JAILer in Chief Sherree Lowe?

Does any of this look familiar?

We were ready to put JAIL on the ballot here, but both of my excutive officers who are on the committee with me, have been jailed,(one is out now) for actually no reason, but they can't sign paperwork from behind bars! or with voting rights suspended.

Bill Sizemore says once the legislation gets a measure number assigned here in Oregon, the bar will come after everyone on the main committee and sub-committee.

http://smartbandwidth.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_archive.html#114839830804381472#114839830804381472

Sure does look like you are helping, Bill. And it looked that way to the reporter I spoke with last week as well.

I think you, Ron Branson and Sherree need to have a little chat and get your stories straight, yes?

Sounds like blather to me. Much ado about nothing.

Next!

I am responding to the following: "We were ready to put JAIL on the ballot here, but both of my excutive officers who are on the committee with me, have been jailed,(one is out now) for actually no reason, but they can't sign paperwork from behind bars! or with voting rights suspended.

Bill Sizemore says once the legislation gets a measure number assigned here in Oregon, the bar will come after everyone on the main committee and sub-committee."

I have no idea what this is about, never said what I am claimed to have said, and don't know of any jail for judges activity in Oregon. I would think that the drubbing the measure took in South Dakota would discourage other attempts.

I like the idea of holding judges responsible for their illegal actions. It has never set well with me that Judge LaBarre concealed for three years that his son was a member and activist in the OEA while the OEA was suing us in his dad's court. That was very dishonest.

But I have not worked on Jail for Judges in Oregon and didn't know anyone else was. I would like to see some proof that I made the statements quoted above, because they appear to be fabricated.

The head of Jail for Judges in Sout Dakota just contacted me saying that he had just been made aware of the little controvery going on here in Oregon regarding Sherree Lowe and statements I had allegedly made.

He confirmed that this is entirely a fabrication by someone who has hijacked some of their email addresses and is making weird statements in other peoples' names. In other words, Blue Oregon has been scammed by someone claiming to have quotes from me. For the record, I never made any of those statements to anyone.

Who to believe? Sherree Lowe or Bill Sizemore. Sherree emailed the fact you were working with her Bill to all her little JAIL buddies, one of whom then posted it on the internet for the whole world to see.

http://smartbandwidth.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_archive.html#114839830804381472#114839830804381472

Now, Sherree had no reason to lie to her fellow JAILers.

And which "head of JAIL for Judges in South Dakota" did you talk to? Ron Branson, or Bill Stegmeier? Doesn't really matter, the reporter from the Oregonian I spoke with has already copied the Lowe email I linked to above confirming Bill's involvement from the website as well as contacted Lowe herself.

But keep denying it Bill. Please, keep denying it.

Okay. I will deny it again, because you are apparently too gullible to know when you have been hoodwinked, which goes to show that people like you believe what they want to believe or in your case need to believe.

FYI, the email I received confirming that this is a fabrication came from Ron Branson. I don't know his role at Jail for Judges.

I am not going to address this further until you produce emails from me and provide the date and time. They are certainly not on my computer and never have been.

Anyway, I am arguing with a silly fencepost and should not waste any more of my time.

torridjoe,

Are your saying that emergency legislation is not exempt from citizen referral?