|Home | Bookmark | Tell||Active petitions in over 75 countries||Follow GoPetition|
Petition Tag - amendment
If you would like to read a statement in support of this petition, please go to:
If you would be interested in doing more, please contact your senators and representatives.
You are more than welcome to share this and make copies for yourself.
Firearm Ownership is not only a right guaranteed by the second Ammendment, but also a god given right to be able to defend ourselves.
Diane Feinstein has proposed a bill that would not only limit our ability to purchase firearms, but also limit our ability to defend ourselves, our families, and our way of life. She has used the tragedy in Connecticut to her own political advantage, which is not only distasteful, but also a disgusting misuse of power.
Connecticut already has a firearms ban, did that stop the shooter? No, so why would a nationwide ban on weapons be any different. The real problem here is evil, not firearms, and we need to be able to defend ourselves against it. In China, 22 children were killed by a knife wielding madman at an elementary school on or about the same day.
China has not proposed a ban on Knives, because its not the tools that cause these incidents, it is people, with evil intent in their hearts. Schools are supposedly safe "Gun Free" zones, did that law stop this man from going into a school and murdering innocent people? No, because criminals and evil know no laws, follow no rules, and these so called "Gun Free" zones are part of the problem, we protect our President with armed security, our money, our borders, our homes and streets with armed police, but we fail to protect our most precious asset our children?
The Electoral College was adopted when the population was not as large as it is today. I believe in the "Majority Rule". Thus removing the primary source of election of the President being majority. If the majority vote does not have a unanimous decision then proceed to the Electoral College. Doing so would ensure that every ones vote counts. Especially in states that are a majority one party.
When a state is a majority one party that party usually wins that state. Making citizens of that state that are not that party feel like their vote does not count. Removing the Electoral College would encourage more citizens to exercise their right to vote and have a larger turn out on election day. Please move forward on this issue as I am sure i'm not the only citizen that feels this way.
Please visit the link below to sign the petition on the White Houses website:
The President, The Retiring Majority in Congress have proven they do not know how or why 40 Million people are not as secure in their lives, along with 40 Million already poor, have become no better off in the last 30 Months.
While they all argue how to divide the too rich from the not rich enough, WE the People are praying and crying out for the Uniting in Pursuit of Prosperity promised by the Constitution, and all who take the Oath of Office.
MY NAME IS ANDRE O. TESTMAN, SR., I AM AN AMERICAN CITIZEN CURRENTLY RESIDING IN ANDERSON, SOUTH CAROLINA. I AND MANY AMERICANS ARE CAPABLE AND INTERESTED IN HELPING CHANGING THE FUTURE OF A LOT OF DISADVANTAGED YOUNG ADULTS IN THE PHILIPPINES. YOUNG ADULTS WHO’S FAMILIES CAN NOT AFFORD TO PAY FOR THEIR EDUCATION. OUR DESIRE IS TO BE FREE TO ADOPT, NOT AS A LAST RESORT FOR THE CHILD, BUT ANY LEGALLY ELIGIBLE.
Proposed amendment of Republic Act No. 8552. The Republic Act No. 8552 is not beneficial for the children or the country of the Philippines itself with the restriction it stipulates for inter-country adoptions. In the act, it prohibits the adoption of adults therefore the children that are no longer adoptable will fall to the wayside and will become a burden to their country. They will be untrained, unskilled, uneducated, and unemployable and will be reliant on society for support.
We have to act and petition the government to eradicate this poverty and the educational foundation for the people of the Philippines as well as the rest of the world.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8552, DOMESTIC ADOPTION ACT OF 1998, STATES:
“It is hereby declared the policy of the State to provide every [neglected and abandoned child] with a family that will provide such child with love and care as well as opportunities for growth and development. Towards this end,[efforts shall be exerted to place the child with an adoptive family] in the [[Philippines]]. However, recognizing that inter-country adoption maybe considered as allowing aliens, [[not presently allowed by law to adopt Filipino children]] if such children cannot be adopted by qualified Filipino citizens or aliens, the State shall take measures to ensure that inter-country adoptions are allowed when the same shall prove beneficial to the child’s best interests and shall serve and protect his/her fundamental rights.”
ARTICLE III – SECTION 7 B states: ANY ALIEN POSSESSING THE SAME QUALIFICATION AS IN ARTICLE III SECTION 7-A ABOVE STATED FOR FILIPINO NATIONALS: PROVIDED, THAT HIS/HER COUNTRY HAS DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, [[THAT HE/SHE HAS BEEN LIVING IN THE PHILIPPINES FOR AT LEAST (3) CONTINUOUS YEARS PRIOR TO FILING OF THE APPLICATION FOR ADOPTION AND MAINTAINS SUCH RESIDENCE UNTL THE ADOPTION DECREE IS ENTERED]], THAT HE/SHE HAS BEEN CERTIFIED BY HS/HER DIPLOMATIC OR CONSULAR OFFICE OR ANY APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT AGENCY THAT HE/SHE HAS THE LEGAL CAPACITY TO ADOPT IN HIS/HER COUNTRY AND THAT HIS/HER GOVERNMENT ALLOWS THE ADOPTEE TO ENTER HIS/HER COUNTRY AS HIS/HER ADOPTED SO/DAUGHTER.
ARTICLE III – SECTION 8 A, states: [[ ANY PERSON BELOW EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS OF AGE ]] WHO HAS BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY OR JUDICIALLY DECLARED AVAILABLE FOR ADOPTION:
The above [[ ]] statements are what I would like to see AMENDED .
The Tenth Amendment was created to limit the power of the federal government and protect state rights. To get around this the Commerce clause in the enumerated powers has been interpreted loosely to take control of the countries economy.
This petition is to bring attention and address this issue.
In that the United States Congress failure to submit to the lawful demands of the citizens of these United States of America as to the passage of bills and laws, Such as
(1) Stimulus Package
(2) Health Care Bill
(3) Cap and Trade
1ST AMENDMENT PETITION seeking the REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES
WHEREAS, at the time of President Obama’s birth his father was not a United States citizen and his mother was a United States citizen under 19 years of age;
WHEREAS, the relevant statute in effect throughout 1961 would not allow United States citizenship at birth to an infant born abroad with such parentage;
WHEREAS, Article II of the United States Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the statute and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, the location of President Obama’s birth is a critical element in the determination of whether he is a natural born citizen;
WHEREAS, President Obama recently represented in the case of Hollister v Soetero that he publicly provided to several internet websites a certified copy of his purported birth certificate which purportedly shows a birth in Hawaii;
WHEREAS, the document made public is a Certification of Live Birth (COLB) not an Hawaii birth Certificate; significantly, Hawaii emphasizes its COLB is not conclusive evidence of a birth in Hawaii;
WHEREAS, candidate Obama expended substantial effort and legal expense to defend multiple lawsuits, in an attempt to avoid providing the Certificate of Live Birth underlying the COLB;
WHEREAS, document examiners have identified several unmistakable defects and anomalies in the provided COLB, and conclude that it is a fabricated document, one that immediately violates state and federal felony statutes regarding fraudulent use of forged or altered identification documents;
WHEREAS, if the only assurance candidate Obama provided to state primary election officials that he was an eligible candidate was to sign state-provided certifications under penalty of perjury, it is possible those officials were subsequently satisfied of the candidate’s eligibility by the COLB;
WHEREAS, Congress was put on notice by numerous voters and groups prior to the November 4, 2008 election of substantial concerns regarding candidate Obama’s Article II eligibility, it is possible members of Congress were satisfied of the candidate’s eligibility by the COLB;
WHEREAS, Congress convened on January 8, 2009 in a Joint Session solely for the purpose of receiving, verifying and tallying the votes of the Electoral College and accepting, or objecting to and where appropriate disqualifying those votes in accordance with 3 USC 15;
WHEREAS, Congress failed to call for objections to any Certificate of Vote presented by the Electoral College during the Joint Session in accordance with 3 USC 15 ;
WHEREAS, such a call would have provided an opportunity to address the issue of whether the President elect was eligible in accordance with Article II and would have been prerequisite to valid acceptance of any Certificate, nonetheless Congress accepted the votes of the Electoral College without such a call;
WHEREAS, in the face of this extraordinary controversy the citizens of the United States are entitled to know whether the President of the United States satisfies the natural born citizen requirement of Article II;
WHEREAS, the members of Congress are sworn to uphold the United States Constitution;
The Federal Government of the United States of America is diminishing the sovereignty of individual states by ignoring the 10th Amendment.
The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or locally, by the people themselves.
The 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
According to Amendment 14 of the United States Constitution no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
Question 1: Who is considered a person, within the confines of the US Constitution?
Answer: The answer is based upon the following scientific qualifications:
According to the Merrian-Webster (M-W) Dictionary:
A "person" or "man" is a a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapien) that is anatomically related to the great apes but distinguished especially by notable development of the brain with a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning, is usually considered to form a variable number of freely interbreeding races, and is the sole living representative of the hominid family.
A "baby" is a "very small child" or "especially, an infant".
It also states that an infant is "a child in the first period of life"
It further states that a child is "an unborn or recently born person"
Question 2: Does a fetus qualify to be a person based upon the definitions stated above?
Question 3: When does a person become a person?
Answer: Once it satisfies the qualifications of being a life and a person.
Question 4: Does a fetus qualify to be both of the following at the point of conception:
Part A: a life
Part B: a human life:
Answer: Yes, based upon the following scientific facts, a fetus does, indeed, meet the following qualifications:
Part A: M-W defines Life as:
(a) the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body.
(b) a principle force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings
(c) an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.
Part B: M-W defines a Human Life to be:
Human Life: scientifically defined as anything containing DNA equal to that of a bi-pedal primate (homo sapien) mammal.
Furthermore, from a Christian perspective:
According to the Bible it is clear that a "baby" is considered a small, living "person" or "human" in,
1. Jeremiah 1:5 God said, "...I knew you before you were born..."
2. Luke 1:41 it says, "the baby leaped in her womb".
As we can see both scientifically and religiously, an unborn baby is considered to be a "human", a "baby", and a "person".
It is obvious that from a legal point-of-view, according to the United States Constitution, every "person" is entitled to life, liberty and property. Additionally, from a common sense point-of-view I must ask, were you less you when you were in your mother's womb one day or nine months before your birth than you were a day after your birth? Of course not, so, please take time to sign this petition to ensure that all of the human lives in our nation are protected of that basic right to life.
We represent the voters of Spencer and Shelby County, who want the right to vote on the proposed expanded gaming amendment.
This is our chance to have an important say in the future of both Kentucky and our local community.
So let's tell State Senator Gary Tapp, and our State Representatives Brad Montell, David Floyd, and Milward Dedman we want OUR VOICE heard in November!
NOTICE: Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032 IS DEAD 16 July, 2007
NRA REPORTS that
"Labor Department Announces It Will Revise Overreaching OSHA Explosives Rule"
DETAILS AT : http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=3162
This PETITION shall be closed at 24:00 hrs. 17 July 2007:
"The public comment website for the proposed rule is no longer accessible. The Labor Department will publish a notice in the July 17 Federal Register announcing that a new rule proposal will soon be drafted for public comment. Needless to say, the NRA monitors proposed federal regulations to head off this kind of overreach, and will be alert for OSHA’s next draft."
Even though OSHA-2007-0032 is at room temperature, I am still going to mail OSHA a copy.
Job well done my fellow AMERICANS.
God Bless you all, our Troops, and the USA!
Original info located at http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=3145
Proposed “Safety” Regulations Would Dry Up Ammunition Sales
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has proposed new rules that would have a dramatic effect on the storage and transportation of ammunition and handloading components such as primers or black and smokeless powder. The proposed rule indiscriminately treats ammunition, powder and primers as “explosives.” Among many other provisions, the proposed rule would:
*Prohibit possession of firearms in commercial “facilities containing explosives”—an obvious problem for your local gun store.
*Require evacuation of all “facilities containing explosives”—even your local Wal-Mart—during any electrical storm. *
*Prohibit smoking within 50 feet of “facilities containing explosives.”
It’s important to remember this is only a proposed rule right now, so there’s still time for concerned citizens to speak out before OSHA issues its final rule. The National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation, and Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute will all be commenting on these proposed regulations, based on the severe effect these regulations (if finalized) would have on the availability of ammunition and reloading supplies to safe and responsible shooters.
The public comment period was originally scheduled to end July 12 but has been extended sixty (60) days until September 10, 2007.
PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS DIRECTLY TO OSHA
To file your own comment, or to learn more about the OSHA proposal, click here or go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and search for Docket Number OSHA-2007-0032.
You can read OSHA’s proposal via the NRA link above.
By FAX: (202) 693–1648
RE: OSHA Docket Office Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032 (Explosives—Proposed Rule)
By Snail Mail
RE: OSHA Docket Office Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032 (Explosives—Proposed Rule)
U.S. Department of Labor
Room N-2625 200 Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20210
You must include three copies when sending via mail.
NOTICE TO THE SIGNERS: 15 July 15:03 EST.
I had been asked what I intend to do with the petition. It is my intention to to send a hard copy of the petition as part of a public comment to OSHA. The only information that will be included is what any internet user who opens the petition page http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/say-no-to-osha-ammunition-regulations.html can view. Sorry for any inconvenience. Please submit your comments directly to OSHA.
Cumberland Township is being forced through Pennsylvania Law (Landowner Curative Amendment) to entertain an application to cure our zoning laws of an omission of the term "water park" on behalf of Cali Entertainment, Mechanicsburg PA. Cali Entertainment wants to purchase land, develop a "mixed used facility" including a hotel/theater/indoor out door water park and condominium space/retail space. The land in question, 96.7 acres of privately owned parcels is located at the intersection of Business 15 & Cunningham Road, Gettysburg, PA.
Cumberland Township residents, Freedom Township residents/businesses in the impact area were invited by certified letter to attend a special April 17th 2007 Curative Amendment Application Hearing at the Cumberland Township Offices, Fairfield Road. The residents in attendance who expressed opinion did so overwhelmingly against this curative amendment application and in fact against this project as a whole. The residents were not expecting such a high density development with multiple and ongoing demands of water and septic when the area was rezoned 3 years previous. Additionally, the size of the facility and it's components remove every spectre of real nature and wipes forever the serene bucolic quiet views. This facility will operate days, nights, weekends and all season long.
The attendees were informed that there is no public referendum required or permitted to deny this application at the outset. The Township soliciter advised that current PA law permits for only acceptance of curative amendments - there is no denial in a direct sense. They have to approve it and take the time and money to research what changes need to be made to the plan to make it happen.
Cumberland and Fairfield Township residents have grave concerns regarding the consequences of such a project from water use of this facility: not only the pools proposed but the regular commercial use. This project presents a bevy of environmental concerns from loss of habitat for native creatures, loss of greenspaces (note: handy landscaping does NOT replace greenspaces) to increased noise pollution from traffic, congestion on this road as there is no possible way this can go in without a traffic light; light intrusion from the facility, visual intrusion of this facility the folks who have to face this compound.
The plans as originally stated call for 85% impervious coverage which nearly doubles the current standards in the township of no greater than 45%.
In adequate EMS support in terms of manpower and equipment and water resources is a huge safety issue.
In this particular case harm comes to not only the quality of life for Cumberland Township residents but Freedom Township residents in the immediate impact area. Given the two townships being governed by separate entities and the final say being in the hands of Cumberland Township, the rights of those in Freedom Township appear to be swept under the rug as their supervisors have left them alone with their issues with no hope of support or protection.
We the undersigned are resolved that future problems resulting from approval of this curative amendement will be caused by a flurry of land speculation and rampant residential development. This will cause an influx of more residents to an area that will be woefully unprepared for their immediate and future needs, including but not limited to water, septic, educational, emergency/medical and professional services. The loss of greenspace and the further flushing of our wildlife from rural areas will also be devastating.
We also believe that despite the thousands of dollars and time spent rezoning the area over 3 years ago were not adequate to meet the savvy methods of developers/builders of this era.
Tennessee House bill HB0235 requires an unspecified safe passing distance as
related to vehicles passing a cyclists. The House passed this bill with the addition of amendment HA0022 which specifies this distance as 3 feet.
As introduced in the Senate, they are only considering the primary bill without the amendment. I urge you to join me and petition the Senate to consider this important amendment.
15. Vote out College
The electoral college is one of the many compromises written into the t United States Constitution in 1787. The founding fathers devised the electoral college to elect the president but they did not anticipate the emergence of national political parties or a communications network able to bring presidential candidates before the entire electorate.
Providing that the president be chosen indirectly through the “electoral college” rather than directly by the voters in November was one of the founders’ hedges against “popular passion.” In the beginning, the electors had very real powers to work their will. Now, their sole function is to confirm a decision made by the electorate six weeks earlier.
Under the Constitution, each state is authorized to choose electors for president and vice president, the number always being the same as the combined number of U.S. senators and representatives allotted to that state. With 100 senators and 435 representatives in the United States, plus three electors for the District of Columbia provided by the Twenty-third Amendment, the total electoral college vote is 538.
Makeup and operation of the electoral college itself are tightly defined by the Constitution, but the method of choosing electors is left to the states. In the beginning many states did not provide for popular election of the presidential electors. Today, however, electors are chosen by direct popular vote in every state.
When voters vote for president, they are actually voting for the electors pledged to their presidential candidate. (Electors are named by state party organizations. Serving as an elector is considered an honor, a reward for faithful service.)
With the political parties in control of presidential politics, the function of the electoral college has changed drastically. Rather than having individuals seek to become electors and then vote for whomever they please for president, the parties have turned the process upside down by arranging slates of electors, all pledged to support the candidate nominated by the party.
In the earliest days of the electoral college, quite the opposite was true. Electors cast their votes for individual candidates rather than for party slates, with the majority winner being elected president and the runner-up, vice president. This made for some bizarre situations, as in 1796 when the Federalist John Adams, with 71 votes, became president and the Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson, with 68, vice president- roughly equivalent in modern times to an election in which Bush and Dukakis would end up as president and vice president.
In 1800 Jefferson and his running mate, Aaron Burr, each won an identical number of electoral votes, forcing the election into the House of Representatives, which resolved it in Jefferson’s favor. It was to avoid any similar occurrence that the Twelfth Amendment was passed in 1804. This amendment required the electors to cast two separate ballots, one for president and the other for vice president. This is the only constitutional change that has been made in the electoral college system, other than to add three electoral votes for the District of Columbia in 1961.
Presidential and vice presidential candidates of a party run as a team. In most of the states, it is the names of the candidates rather than the names of the electors that appear on the ballot; in the other states, both candidates and electors are identified. The victor in each state is determined by counting the votes for each slate of electors; the slate receiving the most votes (the plurality, not necessarily the majority of the votes cast) is declared the winner.
To be elected to the presidency a candidate must receive an absolute majority (270) of the electoral votes cast. If no candidate receives a majority, the House of Representatives picks the winner from the top three, with each state delegation in the House casting only one vote, regardless of its size. Only two U.S. elections have been decided this way (1800 and 1824).
The vice president is elected at the same time by the same indirect winner-take-all method that chooses the president, but the electors vote separately for the two offices. If no vice presidential candidate receives a majority, the Senate picks the winner from the top two, each senator voting as an individual. The Senate has not made the choice since 1836.
Another problem cited by critics is the possibility of “faithless electors” who defect from the candidate to whom they are pledged. Most recently, in 1976, a Republican elector in the state of Washington cast his vote for Ronald Reagan instead of Gerald Ford, the Republican presidential candidate. Earlier, in 1972, a Republican elector in Virginia deserted Nixon to vote for the Libertarian party candidate. And in 1968, Nixon lost another Virginia elector, who bolted to George Wallace.
The main danger of faithless electors is that the candidate who wins the popular vote could wind up one or two votes short of a majority in the electoral college and could lose the election on a technicality. This prospect becomes more probable when there are third-party or independent candidates who could negotiate with electors before they vote.
Those who argue in favor of retaining the present system state that there is too much uncertainty over whether any other method would be an improvement. They point out that many of the complaints about the electoral college apply just as well to the Senate and, to some extent, to the House. They fear that reform could lead to the dismantling of the federal system.
July 31, 2006
During the passage of the Animal Welfare Bill, earlier this year some MP's voted in support of an amendment which would have improved greyhound welfare by raising the priority for a welfare code; thereby determining a regulatory framework for all greyhound racing tracks. However, the Government voted against this on two occasions.
Instead, the Government has only loosely committed itself to welfare codes which probably won't be ready until 2010. I believe that the Government, who takes £70million in tax from this sector, can no longer wring its hands and try to blame someone else.
Of course, the industry itself also has a role to play, and unlike some animal welfare cases, there are funds available which could be put towards improving the welfare of greyhounds.
The government needs to reverse it's position on this and support the amendments.
July 30, 2006
Under truth-in-advertising principles, the ACLU should be an acronym for Anti-God Communists and Lunatics United instead of American Civil Liberties Union. But cunning far leftists prefer seductively sensible-sounding names to truth in advertising.
Likewise, the Center for Constitutional Rights should be renamed the Center for Unconstitutional Wrongs.
The Associated Press reported that these two self-misdescribed "civil liberties" organizations filed lawsuits in United States District Courts in New York and Detroit attempting to block President Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program (which is designed to prevent the horror of terrorist attacks on America), arguing, absurdly, that such electronic surveillance is unconstitutional, because it involved Americans receiving calls from abroad from terrorists or suspected terrorists.
The New York suit, filed on behalf of the Center and individuals, named President Bush, the head of the National Security Agency, and the heads of the other major security agencies, challenging the NSA's surveillance of persons within the United States without judicial approval or statutory authorization.
It seeks an injunction that would prohibit the government from conducting surveillance of communications in the United States without warrants.
The Detroit suit, which also names the NSA, was filed by the ACLU along with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Greenpeace and several individuals.
Just what America needs during a War on Terror: to distract the government's attention from that war to litigating with egomaniacs bent on undermining America and aiding and abetting the terrorists.
Were companion suits filed against the terrorists, along with a request for an injunction against them calling people in the United States as part of their war on America?
Of course not.
President Bush has explained that the wiretapping is legal and necessary, pointing not only to his inherent power as Commander-in-Chief, but also to a congressional resolution passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that authorized him to use force in the fight against terrorism as allowing him to order the program.
The program authorized eavesdropping of international phone calls and e-mails of people deemed a terror risk.
To protect America, a President can go much farther than that, of course..
In 1944, during World War II, in Korematsu v. United States, the United States Supreme Court held that it was legal to exclude all persons of Japanese descent from their homes and communities by military fiat power, the threat of the Japanese during World War II being perceived, rightly or wrongly, as sufficient in the circumstances, because "the power to protect must be commensurate with the threatened danger."
These days, with World War II won and the threats of Nazism and Communist distant history, the United States Supreme Court decision in Korematsu is viewed as having gone too far. Perhaps so (as former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director J. Edgar Hoover argued to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, then America's President and Commander-in-Chief). But surely President Bush's limited warrantless surveillance is hardly "unreasonable" after September 11, 2001.
The Fourth Amendment protects property and prohibits only "unreasonable searches and seizures." It implicitly acknowledges that some warrantless searches and seizures would be reasonable and it was not written and ratified to help America's enemies wreck havoc.
In 1921, in Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298, the United States Supreme Court explained not only that the Fourth Amendment banned only such searches and seizures as are "unreasonable," but also that it is to be construed in the light of what was deemed an unreasonable search and seizure when it was adopted and in a manner to conserve public interests as well as the rights of individuals.
Protecting America from terrorist attack trumps the interest of Americans who prefer that their calls with terorists and/or terrorist suspects be private.
Wiretapping was NOT within the purview of the Fourth Amendment. So said a majority of the Supremes, correctly, in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 338 (1928). In Olmstead, the Supremes reviewed convictions obtained on the basis of evidence gained through taps on telephone wires in violation of state law. On a five-to- four vote, the Court held that wiretapping was not within the confines of the Fourth Amendment. Chief Justice Taft, writing for the Court, set forth two sound reasons for the sensible conclusion: (1) inasmuch as the Fourth Amendment was designed to protect one's property interest in his premises, there was no search so long as there was no physical trespass on premises owned or controlled by a defendant; and (2) all the evidence obtained had been secured by hearing, and the interception of a conversation could not qualify as a seizure, for the Fourth Amendment referred only to the seizure of tangible items.
Chief Justice (and former President) Taft was right! Winning the War on Terror and avoiding catastrophic terrorist attacks are legitimate public interests, since the Constitution was not created as a suicide pact.
December 17, 2005
An American Hindu family living in a rural Village in Western New York State is appealing a Court Injunction banning their Family Cow.
The Village allows a Commercial Beef farm to operate across the Street from the family's home.
The Local Courts have reufused to address the First Amendment issues, saying the case has nothing to do with Religion. The Judge did not give the family a chance to testify at their trial.
The family wants to keep a cow and her calf on their 14 1/2 acre Village property in order to demonstrate humane and responsible care of cows and to promote vegetarianism, sustainable agriculture and locally grown food as the first steps towards a socially responsible diet.
They advocate Ahimsa (non-violence) and work to promote peace, gratitude and mercy in human society; all of which are symbolized by the cow in their religion.
Although the practice of protecting cows is unique to Hinduism, the principles of responsible and humane treatment of cows represents the Free Speech interests of a broad spectrum of Americans concerned with animal rights, vegetarianism, sustainable agriculture and nonviolence, (Ahimsa).
The Village of Angelica does not forbid farm animals and other residents keep cows, goats, sheep and chickens for commercial purposes and as pets.
Please sign the petition to the US Commission on Civil Rights and let them know the US Courts should give serious consideration to cases involving Free Speech and Religious Expression.
December 13, 2005
I am in the u.s. army. When i was stationed Hawaii, i ran in on my wife fooling around on me. I instantly went into shock and flipped out and to my deepest regret i kicked her. I was arrested shortly after this and was convicted with assault in the 3rd degree.
Well congress passed a law, known as the lautenberg amendment and now i am being kicked out of the military. This law is to prevent domestic violence but it is also hurting people who make a mistake in a certain situation they get in, and now i cant handle a firearm.
I believe that this Act should be overturned and believe it is affecting more innocent people than people who are true criminals.
Democrats in the United States congress defeated a bill that would immunize bloggers from federal campaign regulations.
What does this mean?
The internet is a powerful communications tool, and one of the last truely free medians to express yourself. Many have chosen to U.S. blogs to voice their views on politics, and other issues concerncing society and government.
Without recognizing that blogs are free speech, and thus are protected by the 1st amendment, we are jeopardizing everything freedom and America stands for. Bloggers could be fined and arrested simply for voicing their opinion.
Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.
Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.
We, the undersigned, respectfully request redress of the
grievances below, as we believe that, as provided for all
under the Constitution of the United States of America, all
men are created equal.
Whereas, if a common person owed a considerable amount
of capital to a Federal agency, it would be required by law
that the debt be paid otherwise the person could be
convicted of theft and/or have his/her assets liquidated to
compensate for the said debt,
Whereas, it is a crime punishable by law to sell anything
that is not individually owned by the seller, or without the
consent of the legitimate owner,
Whereas, it is a crime, according to the Constitution of the
United States of America, to counterfeit United States
securities and current coin,
Whereas, it is the duty of the United States Congress
under Constitutional law, To provide for the Punishment of
counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United
Whereas, it is the duty of the United States Congress to
make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other
Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of
the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof,
We respectfully request that the following questions be
If the above statements are true, with the Constitution of
the United States of America providing much of the
evidence, how can another set of rules be adopted by the
Securities and Exchange Commission, without the approval
If counterfeiting is indeed a crime, what would the
difference be as opposed to naked short selling?
The following excerpt is available for viewing at the
Securities and Exchange Commission's website, otherwise
the outright approval to counterfeit for self regulatory
Naked short selling is not necessarily a violation of the
federal securities laws or the Commission's rules. Indeed,
in certain circumstances, naked short selling contributes to
market liquidity. For example, broker-dealers that make a
market in a security4 generally stand ready to buy and sell
the security on a regular and continuous basis at a publicly
quoted price, even when there are no other buyers or
sellers. Thus, market makers must sell a security to a
buyer even when there are temporary shortages of that
security available in the market. This may occur, for
example, if there is a sudden surge in buying interest in
that security, or if few investors are selling the security at
that time. Because it may take a market maker
considerable time to purchase or arrange to borrow the
security, a market maker engaged in bona fide market
making, particularly in a fast-moving market, may need to
sell the security short without having arranged to borrow
shares. This is especially true for market makers in thinly
traded, illiquid stocks such as securities quoted on the OTC
Bulletin Board,5 as there may be few shares available to
purchase or borrow at a given time.
Regulation SHO, the threshhold securities list, a feable
attempt to appease investors, and forgive past abuses by
clearance corporations, market makers, and hedgefunds.
III. Regulation SHO
Compliance with Regulation SHO began on January 3,
2005. Regulation SHO was adopted to update short sale
regulation in light of numerous market developments since
short sale regulation was first adopted in 1938. Some of
the goals of Regulation SHO include:
Establishing uniform "locate" and "close-out" requirements
in order to address problems associated with failures to
deliver, including potentially abusive "naked" short selling.
Locate Requirement: Regulation SHO requires a broker-
dealer to have reasonable grounds to believe that the
security can be borrowed so that it can be delivered on the
date delivery is due before effecting a short sale order in
any equity security.6 This "locate" must be made and
documented prior to effecting the short sale.
"Close-out" Requirement: Regulation SHO imposes
additional delivery requirements on broker-dealers for
securities in which there are a relatively substantial
number of extended delivery failures at a registered
clearing agency7 ("threshold securities"). For instance,
with limited exception, Regulation SHO requires brokers
and dealers that are participants of a registered clearing
agency8 to take action to "close-out" failure-to-deliver
positions ("open fails") in threshold securities that have
persisted for 13 consecutive settlement days.9 Closing out
requires the broker or dealer to purchase securities of like
kind and quantity. Until the position is closed out, the
broker or dealer and any broker or dealer for which it clears
transactions (for example, an introducing broker)10 may
not effect further short sales in that threshold security
without borrowing or entering into a bona fide agreement
to borrow the security (known as the "pre-borrowing"
Temporarily suspending Commission and SRO11 short sale
price tests12 in a group of securities to evaluate the overall
effectiveness and necessity of such restrictions. The
Commission will study the impact of relaxing the price tests
for a period of one year.13
Creating uniform order marking requirements for sales of
all equity securities. This means that orders you place with
your broker-dealer must be marked "long," "short," or
IV. Threshold Securities
A. The Basics
1. What is a Threshold Security?
Threshold securities are equity securities that have an
aggregate fail to deliver position for:
five consecutive settlement days at a registered clearing
agency (e.g., National Securities Clearing Corporation
totaling 10,000 shares or more; and
equal to at least 0.5% of the issuer's total shares
Threshold securities only include issuers registered or
required to file reports with the Commission ("reporting
companies").17 Therefore, securities of issuers that are not
registered or required to file reports with the Commission,
which includes the majority of issuers on the Pink
Sheets,18 cannot be threshold securities. This is because
the SROs need to look to the total outstanding shares of
the issuer in order to calculate whether or not the
securities meet the definition of a "threshold security." For
non-reporting companies, reliable information on total
outstanding shares is difficult to determine.
2. Who is Responsible for Identifying Threshold Securities?
Regulation SHO requires the SROs to disseminate a daily
list of threshold securities where such SRO, or its market
center,19 is the primary listing venue for any such
3. Where Can I Find Threshold Lists?
Each SRO is responsible for providing the threshold
securities list for those securities for which the SRO is the
primary market. You can obtain SRO threshold lists at the
(includes Nasdaq issues, OTCBB, and other OTC issues)
Da_RegSHO.jsp (Amex listed securities only)
The Boston Stock Exchange, Philadelphia Stock Exchange
and National Stock Exchange are not the primary listing
exchange for any securities at this time and, therefore, are
currently not publishing threshold securities lists.
4. Inclusion on, and Removal from, Threshold Lists.
At the conclusion of each settlement day, NSCC provides
the SROs with data on securities that have aggregate fails
to deliver at NSCC of 10,000 shares or more. For the
securities for which an SRO is the primary market, that
SRO calculates whether the level of fails for each security is
equal to, or greater than, 0.5% of the issuer's total shares
outstanding of the security. If, for five consecutive
settlement days, such security satisfies these criteria, then
such security is a threshold security. Each SRO includes
such security on its daily threshold list until the aggregate
fails level for the security falls below these levels for five
consecutive days. (See below for a discussion as to why a
security may appear or remain on a threshold list.)
5. Implementation Dates for Threshold Lists.
The SROs disseminated the first threshold lists on January
10, 2005. Regulation SHO does not require a broker or
dealer to close-out the open fail position until a security
appears on a threshold list for 13 consecutive settlement
days and an open fail position for such security exists for
each of those days.. Therefore, the first day on which a
close-out action could have been required for a threshold
security was January 28, 2005.
6. Mandatory Close-Outs of Threshold Securities.
Regulation SHO requires broker-dealers to close-out all
failures to deliver that exist in threshold securities for
thirteen consecutive settlement days by purchasing
securities of like kind and quantity ("close-out").20
Until the position is closed out, the broker or dealer and
any broker or dealer for which it clears transactions (for
example, an introducing broker),21 may not effect further
short sales in that threshold security without borrowing or
entering into a bona fide agreement to borrow the security
(known as a "pre-borrowing" requirement).
7. Key Points to Remember.
Any equity security of an issuer that is registered or
required to file reports with the Commission could qualify
as a threshold security. Therefore, threshold securities may
include equity securities:
listed on an exchange, 22
quoted on Nasdaq,23 or
quoted on the OTCBB.24
Whether or not a security is a threshold security does not
affect the Commission's ability to prosecute manipulative
or fraudulent activity that may have occurred before or
after adoption of Regulation SHO.
B. Reasons Why A Security May Appear on a Threshold List
A security's appearance on a threshold list does not
necessarily mean that any improper activity has occurred
or is occurring. An equity security will appear on a
threshold list if it meets the definition of a threshold
security set forth in Regulation SHO, meaning that failures
to deliver the stock (i.e. to the party on the other side of
the trade) have reached an aggregate of 10,000 shares or
greater at NSCC for five consecutive settlement days and
are equal to 0.5% of total shares outstanding;
C. Reasons Why A Security May Stay on a Threshold List
for Longer Than 13 Consecutive Settlement Days
Even when broker-dealers close-out delivery failures, a
security may remain on an SRO's threshold securities list
for longer than 13 days. Examples of why securities may
remain on the threshold securities list:
after broker-dealers close-out all delivery failures, the
security stays on the threshold list for five consecutive
new delivery failures resulting from long or short sales may
have crossed the threshold, keeping the security on the
SRO's threshold securities list; or
the delivery failures at NSCC may have been established
prior to a security's appearance on the SRO's threshold
securities list, and are grandfathered from the close-out
requirement of Regulation SHO.
For information about specific securities, contact the
appropriate SRO or its market center listed above.
D. Reasons Why A Security With a Large Short Position
May Not Appear on a Threshold List
There are various reasons why an equity security with a
large short position may not appear on an SRO's threshold
securities list, 25 for example:
the aggregate delivery failures do not meet the definition of
a threshold security in Regulation SHO;
the security's issuer is not registered or required to file
reports with the Commission. For instance, the majority of
issuers quoted on the Pink Sheets do not file reports or
register with the Commission, and so would not appear on
E. Who Do I Contact For More Information About Securities
On a Threshold List?If you have a question regarding a
security on a particular SRO's threshold security list,
contact that SRO directly. F. Grandfathering
Under Regulation SHO
The requirement to close-out fail to deliver positions in
threshold securities that remain for 13 consecutive
settlement days does not apply to positions that were
established prior to the security becoming a threshold
security. This is known as "grandfathering." For example,
open fail positions in securities that existed prior to the
effective date of Regulation SHO on January 3, 2005 are
not required to be closed out under Regulation SHO.
The grandfathering provisions of Regulation SHO were
adopted because the Commission was concerned about
creating volatility where there were large pre-existing open
positions. The Commission will continue to monitor
whether grandfathered open fail positions are being
cleaned up under existing delivery and settlement
guidelines or whether further action is warranted.
It is important to note that the "grandfathering" clause of
the Regulation does not affect the Commission's ability to
prosecute violations of law that may involve such securities
or violations that may have occurred before the adoption of
Regulation SHO or that occurred before the security
became a threshold security.
How many stocks on the threshhold securities list have
remained there for more than the time the regulation
How many "forced buy-ins" have occurred?
How can the Securities and Exchange Commission
guarantee limited liability for negligence and/or misconduct
to any entity or establishment without the approval of
See rule below:
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
(Release No. 34-51669; File No. SR-NSCC-2004-09)
May 9, 2005
Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change to
Establish a Comprehensive Standard of Care and Limitation
of Liability to its Members
On December 8, 2004, the National Securities Clearing
Corporation ("NSCC") filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("Commission") proposed rule
change SR-NSCC-2004-09 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Act").1 Notice of the
proposal was published in the Federal Register on April 6,
2005.2 No comment letters were received. For the reasons
discussed below, the Commission is approving the proposed
NSCC is establishing a comprehensive standard of care and
limitation of liability with respect to its members.
Historically, the Commission has left to user-governed
clearing agencies the question of how to allocate losses
associated with, among other things, clearing agency
functions.3 The Commission has reviewed clearing agency
services on a case-by-case basis and in determining the
appropriate standard of care has balanced the need for a
high degree of clearing agency care with the effect the
resulting liabilities may have on clearing agency
1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
2 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51458 (March 31,
2005), 70 FR 17494.
3 Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 20221 (September
23, 1983), 48 FR 45167 and 22940 (February 24, 1986),
51 FR 7169.
operations, costs, and safekeeping of securities and funds.4
Because standards of care represent an allocation of rights
and liabilities between a clearing agency and its members,
which are generally sophisticated financial entities, the
Commission has refrained from establishing a unique
federal standard of care and generally has allowed clearing
agencies and other self-regulatory organizations and their
members to establish their own standards of care.5 In
addition, the Commission has recognized that a gross
negligence standard of care is appropriate for certain
noncustodial functions where a clearing agency, its board
of directors, and its members determine to allocate risk to
individual service users.6
NSCC believes that adopting a uniform rule7 limiting
NSCC's liability to its members to
6 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 26154 (October 3,
1988), 53 FR 39556. NSCC's services provided to members
are noncustodial in that, other than clearing fund deposits,
it does not hold its members funds or securities.
7 New Section 2 of Rule 58 states:
SEC. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision in the Rules:
(a) The Corporation will not be liable for any action taken,
or any delay or failure to take any action, hereunder or
otherwise to fulfill the Corporation's obligations to its
Members including Settling Members, Settling Bank Only
Members, Municipal Comparison Only Members, Insurance
Carrier Members, TPA Members, Mutual Fund/Insurance
Services Members, Non-Clearing Members, Fund Members
and Data Services Only Members, other than for losses
caused directly by the Corporation's gross negligence,
willful misconduct, or violation of Federal securities laws for
which there is a private right of action. Under no
circumstances will the Corporation be liable for the acts,
delays, omissions, bankruptcy, or insolvency, of any third
party, including, without limitation, any depository,
custodian, sub-custodian, clearing or settlement system,
transfer agent, registrar, data communication service or
delivery service ("Third Party"), unless the Corporation was
grossly negligent, engaged in willful misconduct, or in
direct losses caused by NSCC's gross negligence, willful
misconduct, or violation of Federal
violation of Federal securities laws for which there is a
private right of action in selecting such Third Party.
(b) Under no circumstances will the Corporation be liable
for any indirect, consequential, incidental, special, punitive
or exemplary loss or damage (including, but not limited to,
loss of business, loss of profits, trading losses, loss of
opportunity and loss of use) howsoever suffered or
incurred, regardless of whether the Corporation has been
advised of the possibility of such damages or whether such
damages otherwise could have been foreseen or prevented.
(c) With respect to instructions given to the Corporation by
a Special Representative/Index Recipient Agent, the
Corporation shall have no responsibility or liability for any
errors which may occur in the course of transmissions or
recording of any transmissions or which may exist in any
magnetic tape, document or other media so delivered to
(d) With respect to the Corporation's distribution facilities,
the Corporation assumes no responsibility whatever for the
form or content of any tickets, checks, papers, documents
or other material (other than items prepared by it)placed in
the boxes in its distribution facilities assigned to each
Settling Member, Municipal Comparison Only Member,
Insurance Carrier Member, TPA Member, Fund Member and
Data Services Only Member, or otherwise handled by the
Corporation; nor does the Corporation assume any
responsibility for any improper or unauthorized removal
from such boxes or from the Corporation's facilities of any
such tickets, checks, papers, documents or other material,
including items prepared by the Corporation.
(e) With respect to Fund/Serv transactions, the
Corporation will not be responsible for the completeness or
accuracy of any transaction or instruction received from or
transmitted to a Settling Member, Data Services Only
Member, TPA Member, TPA Settling Entity, Mutual Fund
Processor or Fund Member through Fund/Serv, nor for any
errors, omissions or delays which may occur in the
transmission of a transaction or instruction to or from a
Settling Member, Data Services Only Member, TPA
Member, TPA Settling Entity, Mutual Fund Processor or
(f) The Corporation will not be responsible for the
completeness or accuracy of any IPS Data and Repository
Data received from or transmitted to an Insurance Carrier
Member, Member or Data Services Only Member through
IPS nor for any errors, omissions or delays which may
occur in the transmission of such IPS Data and Repository
Data to or from an Insurance Carrier Member, or Data
Services Only Member.
securities laws for which there is a private right of action
will: (1) memorialize an appropriate commercial standard of
care that will protect NSCC from undue liability;8 (2)
permit the resources of NSCC to be appropriately utilized
for promoting the accurate clearance and settlement of
securities; and (3) will be consistent with similar rules
adopted by other self-regulatory organizations and
approved by the Commission.9
Section 19(b) of the Act directs the Commission to approve
a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to such organization. Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires that the rules of a clearing
agency be designed to assure the safeguarding of securities
and funds which are in its custody or control.10 The
Commission believes that NSCC's rule change is consistent
with this Section because it will permit the resources of
NSCC to be appropriately utilized to protect funds and
8 NSCC has always operated under a gross negligence
standard of care and both internal and external counsel
have consistently advised members that this is the case.
NSCC is seeking to eliminate any confusion due to the
absence of a clear standard set forth in its rules and to
memorialize its historical practice. In addition, NSCC has in
effect a service agreement with the Fixed Income Clearing
Corporation ("FICC") pursuant to which FICC provides
services for NSCC's fixed income products. This service
agreement provides for a gross negligence standard of care.
In the absence of this new rule, NSCC could be in the
position of having to pay for losses caused by FICC that are
not recoverable under the agreement.
9 See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 37421
(July 11, 1996), 61 FR 37513 [File No. SR-CBOE-96-02];
37563 (August 14, 1996), 61 FR 43285 [File No. SR-PSE-
96-21]; 48201 (July 21, 2003), 68 FR 44128 [File No. SR-
GSCC-2002-10]; and 49373 (March 8, 2004), 69 FR
11921 [File No. SR-FICC-2003-09].
10 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
Although the Act does not specify the standard of care that
must be exercised by registered clearing agencies, the
Commission has determined that a gross negligence
standard of care is acceptable for noncustodial functions
where a clearing agency and its participants contractually
agree to limit the liability of the clearing agency.11 NSCC's
functions are noncustodial in that it does not hold its
members' funds or securities. It is reasonable for NSCC,
which is member-owned and governed, and its members to
agree through board approval of the proposed rule change
and to contract with one another in a cooperative
arrangement as to how to
11 In the release setting forth standards that would be
used by the Division of Market Regulation in evaluating
clearing agency registration applications, the Division of
Market Regulation urged clearing agencies to embrace a
strict standard of care in safeguarding participants' funds
and securities. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 16900
(June 17, 1980), 45 FR 4192. In the release granting
permanent registration to The Depository Trust Company,
the National Securities Clearing Corporation, and several
other clearing agencies, however, the Commission
indicated that it did not believe that sufficient justification
existed at that time to require a unique federal standard of
care for registered clearing agencies. Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 20221 (October 3, 1983), 48 FR 45167.
In a subsequent release, the Commission stated that the
clearing agency standard of care and the allocation of rights
and liabilities between a clearing agency and its participants
applicable to clearing agency services generally may be set
by the clearing agency and its participants. In the same
release, the Commission stated that it should review
clearing agency proposed rule changes in this area on a
case-by-case basis and balance the need for a high degree
of clearing agency care with the effect resulting liabilities
may have on clearing agency operations, costs, and
safeguarding of securities and funds. Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 22940 (February 24, 1986), 51 FR 7169.
Subsequently, in a release granting temporary registration
as a clearing agency to The Intermarket Clearing
Corporation, the Commission stated that a gross
negligence standard of care may be appropriate for certain
noncustodial functions that, consistent with minimizing
risk mutualization, a clearing agency, its board of directors,
and its members determine to allocate to individual service
users. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 26154 (October
3, 1988), 53 FR 39556. Finally, in a release granting the
approval of temporary registration as a clearing agency to
the International Securities Clearing Corporation, the
Commission indicated that historically it has left to user-
governed clearing agencies the question of how to allocate
losses associated with noncustodial, data processing,
clearing agency functions and has approved clearing
agency services embodying a gross-negligence standard of
care. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 26812 (May 12,
1989), 54 FR 21691.
allocate NSCC's liability among NSCC and its members.
Therefore, the Commission has determined that given the
noncustodial nature of NSCC's services, a gross negligence
standard of care and limitation of liability is allowable for
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that
the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and in particular Section 17A of
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)
of the Act, that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-
NSCC-2004-09) be and hereby is approved.
12 The Commission notes that the rule change does not
alleviate NSCC from liability for violation of the Federal
securities laws where there exists a private right of action
and therefore is not designed to adversely affect NSCC's
compliance with the Federal securities laws and private
rights of action that exist for violations of the Federal
For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.13
Margaret H. McFarland
13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
If, all men are created equal, we should live and be
governed by one set of laws,rules, and regulations, instead
of certain privileged individuals and corporations, having
the influence to have laws, rules, and regulations,
constructed to their advantages. America was once the
"land of opportunity" for everyone regardless of race,
religion, age, sex, or financial status. It has became the
"land of opportunity" for those who have the ability to
manipulate and control. Sadly, it is "puppetmasters" such
as these that are responsible for financing drug trafficking,
terrorism, corporate crime, and crimes against the liberties
that this country was founded upon.
Companies and shareholders are being robbed of their
dreams, as well as their investments. If these injustices
are permitted, and the criminals have laws taylored to
meet their needs, I say this is not the country our
founding fathers thought to be the land of liberty.
If a person puts all of his effort towards the "American
dream", only to have the dream stolen from him, and the
government permits the abuses without imposing
penalties, I say we have ceased to become what our
founding fathers called America.
I request that you redress the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission and the following regulations and
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
17 CFR PARTS 240, 241 and 242
[Release No. 34-50103; File No. S7-23-03]
The United States Congress was placed in charge to direct
commissions such as these with regards to rules and
regulations that are in the best interests of the investor,
and not just a choice few. These commissions do not have
the broad knowledge needed to regulate and legislate
themselves, nor do they have that authority.
What the investors and publicly traded companies of
America want is a fair market, free of corruption. This
cannot be done if the commission is permitted to legislate
themselves, for they have became tainted and biased in
the eyes of the common investor.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is more
than aware of the corruption and abuse that has infiltrated
the stock market in the past as well as the present, yet
they have neglected to take action to provide relief to
companies and investors. The following petition is available
for viewing on the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission's website, along with many other letters
voicing complaints to the commission about naked short
selling, regulation SHO, price manipulation, clearance
corporations, and hedgefunds. This petition was sent to
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission from R.
Cromwell Coulson, Chairman and CEO of the Pink Sheets.
Dear OTC Investor:
I am writing to alert you of a very important rule change
that is needed to improve the OTC marketplace. I need
your help to make regulators turn on the lights and protect
investors from the menace of hidden short selling in the
I think you'll agree that this issue deserves the small
amount of your time it will take for you to tell the SEC
what you think about this issue.
As Chairman & CEO of the Pink Sheets, I know perhaps
better than anyone the importance of improving the Pink
Sheets and OTCBB trading. And I know the devastating
impact that small companies face when their market is
tarnished by the threat of manipulation.
There is a crisis facing the OTC market today in the lack of
short sale position reporting and disclosure for OTC issues.
This lack of transparency regarding short selling in the OTC
market allows fraudulent acts to go undiscovered and
manipulative short sellers to hide.
I believe regulators should fix the problem. Small issuers
traded on the Pink Sheets and the OTCBB deserve the
same transparency and regulatory oversight of short selling
as those listed on Exchanges or NASDAQ.
Therefore, Pink Sheets has petitioned the SEC to cause the
amendment of NASD Rule 3360 and require NASD broker
dealers to maintain a record of total "short" positions in all
customer and proprietary firm accounts in all publicly
traded equity securities as well as report this information to
the NASD for public dissemination of the short positions by
security. The SEC's action is urgently needed to prevent
fraudulent acts, expose market manipulation, promote fair
principles of trade and protect investors.
Our full rule change request is available for you to read at:
comments by other concerned OTC market participants are
available at: http://sec.gov/rules/petitions/4-500.shtml
But I cannot make this important rule change happen
without your help. Thus I'm asking you to write a letter
today, and voice your support to the SEC for the Pink
Sheets' Request for Rulemaking Regarding Member Records
of "Short" Positions and Reporting and Public
So please send your comments via Email to: rule-
email@example.com with a Cc: copy to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Or, if it's more convenient, you can mail your comments
Jonathan G. Katz
Secretary, Securities Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549
With a copy to:
Barbara Z. Sweeney
Senior Vice President and Corporate Secretary, NASD
1735 K Street, NW
Washington DC 20006-1500;
Either way, your Email or letter should refer to SEC File No.
4-500. Request for Rulemaking Regarding Member Records
of "Short" Positions and Reporting and Public Dissemination
of Aggregate Positions by Security.
I know I'm asking you to do a lot. But it's important that
we make the OTC market transparent and fairly regulated.
I think you'll agree that this issue deserves the small
amount of your time to tell the SEC what you think about
Remember, the only way to succeed in achieving this rule
change is through the public outcry of investors demanding
the SEC make this needed improvement to the OTC
markets, and there is no substitute for your personal voice
in this debate. This important rule change is not going to
happen if you remain silent.
So please, don't rely on others to get the job done. Write
your Emails or letters today. Together, we must win this
battle and convince the SEC not to treat the OTC
secondary markets for small companies as second class
Without this rule change investors and securities
regulators will be blind to any short selling activity in Pink
Sheets and OTCBB stocks. The SEC needs to know that the
lack of short sale information in your securities is
unacceptable and demand they change NASD Rule 3360
I'm asking for your help to improve this critical part of the
securities market, so that companies like yours will be
traded in transparent, efficient and well regulated OTC
markets. Please do your part by writing your Email or letter
today. Every voice counts in the debate, and yours could
be the one that puts us over the top.
Thank you for your time and help in this fight.
R. Cromwell Coulson
Chairman & CEO
P.S. We can only succeed in making these rule changes
with your help. So please, take action today. And once
again, thank you very much for your help.
Note: To comment to the SEC via Internet, use rule-
email@example.com with a Cc: copy to: firstname.lastname@example.org
File No. 4-500. Request for rulemaking regarding member
records of "short" positions and reporting and public
dissemination of aggregate positions by security.
SEC Public Petition page:
Pink Sheets request is available at:
Comments by other concerned OTC market participants are
available at: http://sec.gov/rules/petitions/4-500.shtml
I humbly ask that you do all that is within your power to
correct that which needs to be corrected.
The first amendment: " Congress shall make now laws prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Two court cases will be held before the supreme court to hear the ruling and to make a decision on the rules of publicly displaying the Ten Commandments.
The large Texas cases took form in 2002 when a homeless atheist man named Thomas Van Orden passed by the monument, which sits next to the American Flag, American Eagle, and other religious symbols subscribed by Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and charged it of being an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The federal district court rejected his argument, ruling the state's reasons for placing the monument were clearly secular. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit also upheld the decision in 2003, and Van Orden appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.
The out come of this case will inevitably change the way the Christian religion is held in this country. The ruling of making the ten commandments illegal to have in government buildings will trickle down to it being illegal to having them displayed anywhere in public. This will most likely lead to crosses being taken down off the sides of churches and the ultimate concealment of the whole Christian faith! This clearly violates the first amendment the courts are saying the ruling would be supporting.
Please help justice prevail in this court and help protect ALL religions in this great nation we reside in. Please take time to sign this petition and put forth an effort to keep the Ten Commandments in view of all onlookers.
In school, all American's said the pledge of allegience with the phrase "one nation, under god..." Everyone handles our currency, which has the phrase "In God We Trust" on it. During the presidential debates, both the candidates, John Kerry, and George Bush, ended with the note of "God Bless."
Well what about those of us who don't believe in god. Such as myself, I am an athiest. It offends me that everythign in our country has to do with god this and god that. I've always thought it to be such bull, and none of religion to be believable.
Everyone always says the phrase speration of church and state... correct? Read through the Constitution. No where does it state it. So in this, I am calling for an amendment to the Constitution that will change this, and be dubbed (Amendment) Article XXVIII: Seperation of Church and State. This way, it can not be used as an excuse to get past all of us. In Article 1 (first amendment), it states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" That represents the Seperation of Church and State JUST, by not establishing an official religion. That line does NOT state that the government can not use religion.
In the future, if a candidate for president uses such phrases as "God Bless", that would be accepted though, under the law of Freedom Of Speech, also stated in the 1st Amendment.
Do the right thing and correct the Constitution that so many have been tricked into believing by the words that they use.
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html - US Constitution
Red Lodge is facing a new challenge. The City Council is debating whether to allow electronic signs in the Community Entrance zones by amending the existing sign code (which currently bans electronic signs). The potential consequences of such an amendment are troubling, as MANY civic groups will have the ability to put up electronic signs. In addition, businesses can and most likely will challenge the language of the amendment to get in on the action too.
All organizations currently have the ability to convey their messages through signage; however they are limited to non-electronic formats. If we want to avoid having Red Lodge look like King Avenue or Grand Avenue in Billings in a matter of years, this amendment needs to be opposed. It has already passed 4-3 on "first read" so the next City Council meeting is the last opportunity to change the Council's vote on this matter.
Sign this petition to show your discontent with the current age requirements to run for federal offices. Show your support for younger leaders by supporting a Constitutional Amendment to allow younger people to run for political office.
26. Ban Gay Marage
This petition is meant to support the proposal for a constitutional amendment making marage legal only if it is betweeen one man, and one woman.
The 1996 (DOMA) Defense of Marriage Act was enacted into law. This law clearly states that the definition of marriage is a bond between one woman and one man. This clearly states that same sex relations are not considered to be married legaly.
Taken from a letter from Patty Murray, she states "The Constitution leaves marriage to be regulated by the states rather than the federal government."
Another letter from Adam Smith on the Gay Marriage Bill states, "The amendment in question would prohibit states from allowing gay marriage... After evaluating the issue carefully, I have serious concerns with theis amendment and will oppose it. . . I do not see gay marriage as a threat that would chang the rights or obligations of heterosexual marriage. The real threat to marriage is abuse, neglect or outright lack of commitment to the contract people have voluntarily entered into when taking marriage vows. I believe our society is made stronger buy more committed and stable relationships, and we should encourage that."
Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott | posted 02/19/2004 has this to say, " We believe there are compelling reasons why the institutionalization of gay marriage would be 1) bad for marriage, 2) bad for children, and 3) bad for society.
1. The first casualty of the acceptance of gay marriage would be the very definition of marriage itself. For thousands of years and in every Western society marriage has meant the life-long union of a man and a woman. Such a statement about marriage is what philosophers call an analytic proposition. The concept of marriage necessarily includes the idea of a man and woman committing themselves to each other. Any other arrangement contradicts the basic definition.
Scrambling the definition of marriage will be a shock to our fundamental understanding of human social relations and institutions. One effect will be that sexual fidelity will be detached from the commitment of marriage. The advocates of gay marriage themselves admit as much. "Among gay male relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more likely to survive than many heterosexual bonds," Andrew Sullivan, the most eloquent proponent of gay marriage, wrote in his 1996 book, Virtually Normal. "There is more likely to be a greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman. … Something of the gay relationship's necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds."
The former moderator of the Metropolitan Community Church, a largely homosexual denomination, made the same point. "Monogamy is not a word the gay community uses," Troy Perry told The Dallas Morning News. "We talk about fidelity. That means you live in a loving, caring, honest relationship with your partner. Because we can't marry, we have people with widely varying opinions as to what that means. Some would say that committed couples could have multiple sexual partners as long as there's no deception."
A recent study from the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legal, suggests that the moderator is correct. Researchers found that even among stable homosexual partnerships, men have an average of eight partners per year outside their "monogamous" relationship.
In short, gay marriage will change marriage more than it will change gays.
Further, if we scramble our definition of marriage, it will soon embrace relationships that will involve more than two persons. Prominent advocates hope to use gay marriage as a wedge to abolish governmental support for traditional marriage altogether. Law Professor Martha Ertman of the University of Utah, for example, wants to render the distinction between traditional marriage and "polyamory" (group marriage) "morally neutral." She argues that greater openness to gay partnerships will help us establish this moral neutrality (Her main article on this topic, in the Winter 2001 Harvard Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review, is not available online, but she made a similar case in the Spring/Summer 2001 Duke Journal Of Gender Law & Policy). University of Michigan law professor David Chambers wrote in a widely cited 1996 Michigan Law Review piece that he expects gay marriage will lead government to be "more receptive to [marital] units of three or more" (1996 Michigan Law Review).
2. Gay marriage would be bad for children. According to a recent article in Child Trends, "Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage." While gay marriage would encourage adoption of children by homosexual couples, which may be preferable to foster care, some lesbian couples want to have children through anonymous sperm donations, which means some children will be created purposely without knowledge of one of their biological parents. Research has also shown that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, suffer a greater rate of molestation within the family, and have homosexual experiences more often.
Gay marriage will also encourage teens who are unsure of their sexuality to embrace a lifestyle that suffers high rates of suicide, depression, HIV, drug abuse, STDs, and other pathogens. This is particularly alarming because, according to a 1991 scientific survey among 12-year-old boys, more than 25 percent feel uncertain about their sexual orientations. We have already seen that lesbianism is "chic" in certain elite social sectors.
Finally, acceptance of gay marriage will strengthen the notion that marriage is primarily about adult yearnings for intimacy and is not essentially connected to raising children. Children will be hurt by those who will too easily bail out of a marriage because it is not "fulfilling" to them.
3. Gay marriage would be bad for society. The effects we have described above will have strong repercussions on a society that is already having trouble maintaining wholesome stability in marriage and family life. If marriage and families are the foundation for a healthy society, introducing more uncertainty and instability in them will be bad for society.
In addition, we believe that gay marriage can only be imposed by activist judges, not by the democratic will of the people. The vast majority of people define marriage as the life-long union of a man and a woman. They will strongly resist redefinition. Like the 1973 judicial activism regarding abortion, the imposition of gay marriage would bring contempt for the law and our courts in the eyes of many Americans. It would exacerbate social conflict and division in our nation, a division that is already bitter and possibly dangerous.
I strive daily to uphold the laws of the land but what is going on in the Nation about Marriage, I must speak up. I am a Christian and the higer voice we should seek and listen to is that of the Bible. Let me quote the breath of God in this matter, "For this reason, a man (male) will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife (woman), and they shall become one flesh." Genesis 2:24
There was a problem with this same thing in the Bible, what does it say about Gays and Lesbians? "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, that is detestable." Leviticus 18:22
" Are you still so dull ? Jesus asked them Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart and these make the man unclean. For out of the heart comes evil thoughts, murder, adultry, sexual immorality, theft, false testamony, slander. These are what makes a man unclean." Matthew 15:16-20
WE find in many other New Testament books of warnings of immoral relations, we must listen to them.
Did you know that (as of 6/98) BLM "official" figures show that there are only about 42,000 wild horses and burros (approximately 35,000 horses & 7,000 burros) left on public lands (in 10 western states - confined by law to Herd Management Allotments or "HMA's")? However, HorseAid places this figure much lower (see our "BLM Report Card", below for more information).
The Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 (the "Wild Horse Annie Act") declared that wild free-roaming horses and burros are living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West (in essence, an American "heritage"), and require protection under U.S. Federal law ("Congress finds and declares that wild free-roaming horses and burros are living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West; that they contribute to the diversity of lifeforms within the nation and enrich the lives of the American people." -- December 15, 1971 Congressional Declaration). Yet, there are currently less wild horses and burros on public lands in the Western states (their traditional ancestral range) than there were in 1971, when the Act was passed (approximately 172,000 horses and burros have been "adopted" since the adoption program was initiated).
The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for the protection of these animals, and yet, sadly and tragically, it may be this same agency which is responsible for their "fast disappearing from the American West". By revising policy at will, and circumventing the law when it suits them, some individuals within the Bureau of Land Management are bringing about the total destruction of this great American heritage largely in the interest of, and for, personal gain or to save the "integrity" of the agency itself Criminal investigations by several Bureau of Land Management law enforcement agents that would have exposed illegal activity in the Wild Horse and Burro Program, have been obstructed by numerous BLM managers and employees. If something is not done, and done soon -- we stand a very good chance of forever losing this "living symbol of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West".
A reporter chased the perennial allegations of BLM malfeasance by tracing paper trails, something animal advocates have not done on any comparable scale. "Using freeze-brand numbers and computer records," "the AP traced more than 57 former BLM horses sold to slaughterhouses since September. Eighty percent were less than 10 years old and 25% were less than five years old." "The AP matched computer records of horse adoptions with a computerized list of federal employees and found that more than 200 current BLM employees have adopted more than 600 wild horses and burros." Mendoza got some eye-popping quotes, too. "Asked about the AP's findings," she wrote, It is conceded that about 90% of the horses rounded up go to slaughter."
"Using the BLM's computerized records maintained in Denver and obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, the AP found that 32,774 of all adopted horses and burros--20%--remain untitled. Legally, they are still federal property." The 57 wild horses sold to slaughter in approximately four months was not a greater number than go to slaughter from many individual riding stables, racetracks, and ranches. That 90% of the BLM horses eventually go to slaughter, would just reflect the fate of most horses from any source who go to auction. "While it is common for old or lame horses to go to slaughter," "nearly all former BLM horses sent to slaughter are young and healthy."
Yet dozens of horse rescue groups from coast to coast stay busy buying and adopting out other young, healthy horses they find at slaughter auctions. The fact is, horse overpopulation seems to be as much a reality as pet overpopulation, and although many people are willing to adopt a horse for a while, most quickly find themselves unable to keep up with the ongoing costs and demand on time. Wild horses, precisely because they are wild, require particular effort to turn into good riding steeds. Since federal budget cuts killed most of the prison-based projects that formerly either "gentled" or "broke" wild horses to saddle, the horses available for adoption have been more problematic, less suitable for the average rider. They can't compete with abundant ready-to-ride horses from domestic oversupply, even at the BLM adoption price of $125, 11% of the average cost to the government of rounding up, vaccinating, freezebranding, and adopting out a wild horse.
Adopters "can get lame or old horses for as little as $25, or even for free," , referring to the fee-waiver program the BLM uses to rid itself of horses nobody wants. "After holding the horses for a year, the adopters are free to sell them for slaughter, typically receiving $700 per animal. The government spends $1,100. The adopter can make $575 or more."
In other news...Nine young mares that survived the barren deserts of the West died of stress induced by their capture and a 1,000-mile truck ride to Colorado.
The horses died of "capture myopathy,'' a condition in wild animals triggered by anxiety of capture, according to test results released Tuesday by the Bureau of Land Management.
Forty mares and 10 studs were loaded into a truck Feb. 17 (1998) at the BLM's center in Palomino Valley north of here for the 24-hour trip to a similar facility south of Denver.
Nine horses arrived showing signs of distress. None survived.
Handling of the animals is a topic being addressed by a new advisory board looking into issues surrounding the estimated 44,000 wild horses and burros that roam free across 11 Western states.
"The advisory board will be looking into ways to minimize stress, whether on the range, during gathers or as they move through the adopt-a-horse program,'' said Robin Lohnes, a board member and the executive director of the American Horse Protection Association in Washington, D.C.
The 26-year-old adoption program was intended by Congress to reduce the number of animals competing with ranchers' cattle for scant forage on federal lands. Horses are rounded up into corrals and put up for adoption.
The establishment of the advisory panel followed reports last year by The Associated Press that thousands of animals adopted through a federal program were sold for slaughter with BLM employees among those who profited.
The AP also reported that the BLM lost track of about 32,000 adopted animals and that agency officials gave false information to Congress.
People need to be aware and more responsible for the heritage that is being killed. Our goverments need to make an amendment to protect not just the wild horses, but all of our horses, before it is too late. Horses are always going to be here, if we take care of them. Besides, who can not smile when they see horses grazing peacfully in a rolling green pasture? If we don't do something now, that sight will only be a fading memory.
Please sign this petition. It will get send to our governments in hope they will write and pass an amendment that will protect our wild horses. Also send this petition to your friends and let's see how many signatures we can get. Anyone interested in helping me, contact me, the author, and let's make history!
"...so that all horses and ponies may lead a
full and productive life, free from pain and abuse."
In Florida's general election of 2002, Amendment 9 - Florida's Amendment to Reduce Class Sizes was passed. It is to my concern, however, that the general public was not aware of the effect this amendment would have on the public schools in Florida. Public schools lack the money and personnel needed to reduce class sizes by the year 2010.
As for Anti smoking rules, We request amendment to change smoking rules to allow smoking outdoors on company property during breaks and before and after workday.