California Rural counties for equal representation

Jefferson - California Rural counties for equal representation

State of Jefferson Town Hall in Weaverville

Trinity Gazette

October 2014 Editon

By Liz Bowen
Jefferson News

Mark Baird and the Jefferson Declaration Committee continued to travel this past month speaking at Town Halls and a county supervisor meeting.
“Things are moving at a fast pace,” said Baird, who continues to drive up and down Northern California as county grassroots committees organize meetings and find support growing for splitting from the State of California.
This last month, Town Hall meetings were held in Placer, Lassen and Nevada Counties with interested folks asking questions regarding the statehood process. Currently, the Jefferson Committee is putting together a “Steps to Statehood” DVD, which explains the basic first steps as well as the nuts and bolts of the project.
Baird addressed the Plumas County Board of Supervisors on Oct. 14th and was kept answering questions for an hour by inquisitive supervisors. “Things look good there,” said Baird. “Several of the supervisors were quite interested.”
Coming up in November, the Colusa County Committee is holding a Town Hall in Maxwell at the Maxwell Inn on Nov. 9, 2014 at 2 p.m. All those interested in hearing about the viability of a new state are invited to attend.
Then on Nov. 12, 2014, Baird will be giving a presentation to the Trinity County Board of Supervisors. The time on the agenda has not yet been set.
On Nov. 15th, Baird will speak about the State of Jefferson at the “Liberty Tour” in Live Oak. The day begins at 8:30 the Church of Glad Tidings on 1179 Eager Rd. It is a two-day event that starts at 5 p.m. on Nov. 14 with a dinner at the Calvary Christian Center, 2620 Colusa Hwy in Yuba City. The “Liberty Tour” is presented by Paul Preston of Agenda 21 Register by calling 888-857-6220. Admission ranges from $15 for students to $95.
Also on Nov. 15, the Tehama Jefferson Committee is hosting a Sporting Clay Tournament as a fundraising event. Time is 8 a.m. for signups. It will be held at the Rolling Hills Casino. Each county is invited to send delegates to shoot for a great cause. Lunch and awards ceremony will take place after the shooting and non-shooters are welcome.
Cost per shooter is $100 and $20 for non shooter. Lunch is included for both. Call Karin Knorr at 530-824-4035 to enter. Please enter or RSVP by Thurs. Oct. 30, 2014.
# # #

Proponents of the state of Jefferson ask Plumas to join; Supervisors decline to pass a declaration in support

Comment: Remember that the Agenda item for the Plumas Co. Board of Supervisors was “discussion” only. They could not have voted on the Declaration to withdraw from the State of California  (legally) even if they had wanted. There is a process in the Supervisors’ Agenda for their meetings. Apparently, the reporter does not understand this point and wrote it incorrectly. — Admin Liz Bowen

Proponents of the state of Jefferson ask Plumas to join; Supervisors decline to pass a declaration in support

Debra Moore
Staff Writer


Plumas County

Does Plumas County want to be part of a 51st state?

Representatives who want to form the state of Jefferson presented their plan to the Board of Supervisors in front of a standing-room-only audience Oct. 14.

Inadequate representation, high taxes and unnecessary regulations top the reasons proponents want to leave California and form a new state composed of a dozen or so northern counties.

Mark Baird, a businessman from Siskiyou County, made a well-organized, thoughtful presentation that lasted just short of one hour.

Citing constitutional law and historical precedent, Baird laid out the reasons a new north state is needed and the process to accomplish it.

He wanted to leave the meeting with a declaration of support from the supervisors, but that didn’t occur.

“I think the people should vote,” Board Chairman Jon Kennedy said.

“A declaration causes no legal action,” Baird said. “I’m not opposed to the ballot, but there is a somewhat narrow window.”

An audience member encouraged the supervisors to vote, but Supervisor Lori Simpson responded, “I know a lot of people in my district are against it.”

“It isn’t legally binding,” Baird said.

Since the presentation had not been listed as an agenda item, the board declined to vote.

Chairman Kennedy, who has voiced his opposition to the idea in the past, listened carefully to Baird’s remarks, and then said one of his biggest concerns was the financial viability of a new state.

“I think there’s huge flaws,” he said.

Baird said there is an 88-page financial document available for review on the group’s website.

“Not only viable, but profitable,” he said.

“We are not poor in Northern California,” Baird added later. “We’ve been impoverished.”

He recalled how timber receipts from federal land used to fund Siskiyou County’s schools and roads before logging came to a standstill in the wake of spotted owl protections and other state and federal regulations.

Baird has received calls of interest from Sacramento, Riverside and Inyo counties, but said the goal is to stop at 12 or 13 counties.

The literature lists 18 potential counties that have pages on the state of Jefferson website as well as a contact person: Butte, Colusa, Del Norte, El Dorado, Glenn, Lake, Lassen, Modoc, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity and Yuba.

Humboldt County is included on the tentative north state map, but doesn’t have a Web page.

Of the counties listed, the boards of supervisors for Siskiyou, Modoc, Tehama, Sutter, Yuba and Glenn have voted to proceed with investigating the formation of a new state by passing the declaration, and Siskiyou and Modoc have been registered with the secretary of state, the next step in the process.


Regarding representation, Baird quoted George Washington: “One for 30,000 is democracy; one for 40,000 is tyranny.”

Baird said that each state senator represents 900,000 people, while assembly members represent 450,000. Northern California is represented by three out of 80 seats in the assembly and two out of 40 in the senate.

“We have no representation that’s effective on the state level,” Baird said. “They are doing their best, but they are overwhelmed.”

The state of Jefferson would have its own state senators, assembly members and governor, as well as two U.S. senators and congressional representatives.

Taxation and regulations

Baird enumerated a host of taxes and fees paid by Californians including gas and carbon taxes, and regulations that govern private property, and said it would be different in the state of Jefferson.

According to the group’s literature, the state of Jefferson means “less taxes, state sovereignty, fewer agencies, less bureaucracy, representation in government, better business climate, utilization of natural resources and more freedom.”

More information can be found on the website

Baird offered to return to the county as many times as necessary to talk about the state of Jefferson and to answer questions.

The supervisors did not set another meeting date to discuss the issue further.

Tehama County: Get signed up for the State of Jefferson Fundraiser

Tehama County will be hosting a Sporting Clay Tournament as a fundraising event for the State of Jefferson on November 15th at the Rolling Hills Casino. Each county is invited to send their delegates to shoot for a great cause.

Lunch and awards ceremony will take place after the shooting and non-shooters are welcome. Please find attached the information flyer and registration forms, due back by October 30th.

All proceeds will go to the State of Jefferson, earmarked for education and advertising.
See you there!

Fundraiser for State of Jefferson

1st Annual State of Jefferson Sporting Clay Tournament

Sponsored by Tehama County for State of Jefferson

Sat. Nov. 15, 2014

8 a.m. is sign up
9 a.m. starts

1 p.m. lunch and awards
Clear Creek Sports Club
Rolling Hills Casino
I-5 and Liberal Ave.
Corning, CA.

$100 per shooter, includes sporting clays and tri-tip lunch at Rolling Hills Casino
$20 for non-shooter and lunch

Represent your county!!!!!

RSVP and deposit deadline is Oct. 30th
Call Karin Knorr at 530-824-4035


Jerry Brown using campaign funds on Props. 1 and 2

Published 3:12 pm, Friday, October 24, 2014


Gov. Jerry Brown has found a use for the $23 million that’s been gathering dust in his campaign treasury this year. He’s decided to give it away.

Of the $3.42 million Brown spent between Oct.1 and 18, the closing date for the latest state campaign finance report, only about $62,000 went toward his effort to win an unprecedented fourth term as governor. The rest of the money, more than $3.36 million, was used to boost Propositions 1 and 2, the state water bond and the proposed state rainy day fund.

Here’s another indication about how worried the governor is about his race against Orange County Republican Neel Kashkari. With election day less than two weeks away, the governor left California Thursday to fly back east for the 50th reunion of his Yale Law School class. He’s not expected back in California until Sunday.

Brown’s campaign, including the fundraising, remains on cruise control. He collected almost $750,000 in the first part of the month, leaving him with more than $20 million in the bank.

Although a Public Policy Institute of California poll released this week shows Brown with a 52 percent to 36 percent lead over Kashkari, the Orange County resident put another $1 million of his own money into his campaign last week, bringing his total contribution to $3.1 million.

Even after that contribution, Kashkari had only $841,000 left in the bank for the final weeks of the campaign, along with $140,000 in unpaid bills.

It’s not only the candidates who have come up with cash for the last push to Nov. 4. In what’s expected to be a tight race for state superintendent of public instruction, incumbent Tom Torlakson has about $100,000 in his account, after subtracting unpaid bills, while challenger Marshall Tuck had a net balance of around $87,000.

But an independent expenditure committee financed mostly by the California Teachers Association has put up more than $3.3 million to back Torlakson, while another committee calling for changes in the way schools are run has spent $4.4 million on Tuck’s behalf.

In the race for state controller, both Democrat Betty Yee and Republican Ashley Swearengin have less than $55,000 in unencumbered cash, but in the past week a labor group has spent more than $400,000 on a series of mailers attacking Swearengin.

Democratic state Sen. Alex Padilla of Pacoima (Los Angeles County) has a big cash advantage over Republican businessman Pete Peterson in the contest for secretary of state. Padilla has about $220,000 in the bank, while Peterson’s campaign is in the red with $57,576 in the bank and $64,351 in unpaid bills.

The other statewide races have Democrats with comfortable leads in both in the polls and at the bank. Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, Attorney General Kamala Harris, Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones and termed-out Controller John Chiang, who’s running for state treasurer, all have better than $2.3 million in their campaign accounts and are running against Republicans who are struggling to stay in the black.

That doesn’t mean there isn’t a Plan B for at least one of those threatened Republicans. State Sen. Ted Gaines of Rocklin (Placer County) may be $28,000 in the red in his run for state insurance commissioner, but he already has $184,000 in the bank for his state Senate re-election campaign in 2016.

John Wildermuth is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: Twitter: @jfwildermuth


Court sides with IRS in tea-party targeting scandal

Comment: More biased judging creating more tyranny. This is not abiding by the Constitution or Bill of Rights. — Admin Liz Bowen

World Net

Bush-appointed judge says ‘no harm done’


A federal judge has sided with the Internal Revenue Service and dismissed lawsuits by tea-party groups seeking redress for the secret targeting of their applications for tax-exempt status, which the groups argued were intentionally delayed for political purposes.

The tea party organizations immediately announced they would appeal the decision by Washington, D.C., District Judge Reggie B. Walton, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush.

Walton ruled that two lawsuits by Texas-based True the Vote and Linchpins of Liberty, along with 41 other conservative groups, were moot because the IRS took steps to address the scandal and “publicly suspended its targeting scheme.”

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law & Justice, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of the tea party groups, said he plans to appeal the case.

“The decision by the court is disappointing. However, it does not deter our efforts to seek justice for our clients. We are reviewing the decision and plan to appeal,” Sekulow said in an emailed statement.

In its federal lawsuit, the ACLJ represents 41 organizations in 22 states. Of the 41 groups, 28 organizations received tax-exempt status after lengthy delays, seven are still pending, five withdrew applications because of frustration with the IRS process, and one had its file closed by the IRS after refusing to answer the unconstitutional requests for more information, Sekulow said.

“It’s a disappointing ruling because it basically leaves targets of bad behavior by the IRS without a remedy,” Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal.

Walton decided that because the organizations eventually won tax-exempt status, any wrongdoing they suffered had been remedied.

“We are stunned by today’s judgment,” said Catherine Engelbrecht, founder of True the Vote. “The notion that the IRS can target Americans for years because of their political beliefs is reprehensible.”

Although the tea party groups argued there is no guarantee the IRS would not target conservative groups again, Walton ruled that the “prospect of future harm is speculative.”

Von Spakovsky, the Heritage legal fellow, told the Daily Signal that given the unapologetic behavior of Lois Lerner and other Obama cronies at the IRS, “and their total lack of remorse, I don’t think it’s ‘speculative’ that this could happen again in the future.”

Sekulow said previously that the IRS violated the groups’ constitutional rights to due process and equal protection with its secret targeting of their applications. The lawsuit was initially filed on May 20, 2013, with 25 plaintiffs. But more have come forward.

“The floodgates opened after we filed our initial lawsuit,” Sekulow said after the complaint was amended in June 2013 to reflect the additional groups. “We have been contacted by many additional organizations that have been unlawfully targeted by the IRS — revealing that this unconstitutional scheme was pervasive and damaging.”

Mark Baird explains bad 1964 U.S. Supreme Court Decision “Reynolds v Sims”

Liberty will find the light of day!

Reynolds v Sims set us on this course of action.

The Supreme Court invented and conferred upon itself the power to change the States election process.

This power is not within the Court’s jurisdiction, under Article three nor is it found under article one, section 8 of the United States Constitution.

Justice Warren invented the principle of one man, one vote for both houses of a States legislature. The Federal model of government gave each County one State representative, just as each State has two Federal Senators. The result of the Reynolds opinion is a lack of representation.

We have six Counties already petitioning California for withdraw from the State. We are talking to ten more. We will restore representation to Jefferson. We will restore Liberty through Constitutional government.

Without Liberty and representation, nothing else matters. What will you do to secure Liberty for your posterity, as your fathers did for you?

The Time Has Come For 51.

Reasons for voting NO on Prop. 1 Water Bond

NO on Proposition 1 – The Water Bond

The Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 (AB1471), the Water Bond, is on the ballot this November for voter approval. Proponents want us to believe that it will ‘save’ water by building dams and reservoirs. It won’t. It is designed to remove dams, not create them. It supports wetlands restoration, not water storage.

In the beginning, this bill called for the removal of four Klamath River dams. The language has been changed to make its intent less obvious, and the intent stands.

79732. (a) In protecting and restoring California rivers, lakes, streams, and watersheds, the purposes of this chapter are to:

(4) Protect and restore aquatic, wetland, and migratory bird ecosystems, including fish and wildlife corridors and the acquisition of water rights for instream flow.

(6) Remove barriers to fish passage.

That’s dam removal.

79736. Of the funds authorized by Section 79730, four hundred seventy-five million dollars ($475,000,000) shall be available to the Natural Resources Agency to support projects that fulfill the obligations of the State of California in complying with the terms of any of the following:

(e) Any intrastate or multiparty settlement agreement related to water acted upon or before December 31, 2013.

Those agreements include the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement that calls for the removal of four dams that today provide not only water storage and flood control, but clean hydroelectric power to over 70,000 homes. The dams also sustain a crucial fish hatchery.

Here is the text of Jerry Brown’s California Water Action Plan, which is where that $475,000,000 will be directed:

Page 11 Bullet 2:


Continue Restoration Efforts in the Klamath Basin

The Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Natural Resources Agency will continue to work with diverse stakeholders to implement the Klamath Basin restoration and settlement agreements. … The administration will work with Congress to secure the necessary federal authorizations for the agreements and secure the necessary funding for removal of four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River and funding for the necessary basin restoration.

Between the years 2000 and 2006 voters approved Propositions 12, 13, 40, 50 and 84 which all promised water protection of some sort. Each of those cost taxpayers double what they voted for, and they got nothing in return. The billions of dollars attached to those bonds were redirected to carry out various environmental groups’ objectives, as well as those of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Taxpayer monies have been used to help conservation organizations, such as The Nature Conservancy, acquire ranches and conservation easements to establish CDFW control over the rural economy. The results have been putting ranchers out of business and closing down access roads into mountainous areas.

In Chapter 6 of the Water Bond we learn that three hundred twenty-seven million five hundred thousand dollars ($327,500,000) will go to such conservancies. Twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000) to the Sierra Nevada Conservancy alone. The word ‘acquisition’ is used several times

Who has contributed to Prop 1? Corporate agriculture businesses are on the list.

One contributor in particular is Beverly Hills billionaire Stewart Resnick who owns Paramount Farms. He turned a dry-farm ranch into an irrigated property to grow pomegranates, pistachios, almonds and oranges.

He also controls the Kern Water Bank.

The Kern Water Bank, which is the nation’s largest underground water banking system, was once owned by the people of California. Now it’s a private company run by Resnick. The Department of Water Resources (DWR) built canals and pumps to connect the water bank to the state’s aqueduct system in order to move water from storage sites to farms and cities. It prioritized urban water supplies during droughts. In 1994 the state’s water plan was changed to serve the interests of agribusiness and developers.

The Resnicks are only one contributor in support of Prop 1, but they alone have plenty of practice in taking and selling resources. They own Fiji Water.

To read more about Resnick’s potential to make a lot of money controlling our water, and to find a record of other contributions he’s made, please see the article entitled: Water, Money, Taxes, Campaigns, and the Bond: The Resnick Farming Story.

It would be good for us to learn from our past mistakes.

Vote NO on Proposition 1.

– Thank you to Jean Gerard for sending this to us. — Admin Liz Bowen

Jean Gerard
Nevada City