AG - No Opinion Laslovich Residence

McGrath declines GOP request on senator's residency
Posted on June 13By MATT GOURAS of the Associated Press
HELENA - Attorney General Mike McGrath told the House speaker Friday that he won't be looking into the residency status of a state lawmaker who works in his office.
McGrath said Scott Sales' request does not conform with the requirements for a formal attorney general opinion.
Sales, a Republican, asked McGrath last week to look into the residency of Democratic Sen. Jesse Laslovich. Sales said he doesn't think Laslovich lives in Anaconda and shouldn't be able to represent the area.
But McGrath, in a letter to Sales, said attorney general opinions are reserved for questions of law, and are not meant for fact-finding.
Sales did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
McGrath also said state law allows the House speaker to ask for formal legal opinions only on issues related to the office. He said the residency of Laslovich does not relate to Sales' position.
The attorney general also referred to an analysis done by legislative attorney Greg Petesch, where Petesch says a candidate's intent is a big part of determining residency. Petesch also says state law allows for lawmakers to temporarily move with the intention of returning.
Past decisions on the issue have found that residency is largely a matter of intent.
But McGrath said he wasn't in a position to make a determination on Laslovich because "no mechanism exists in the opinion process for the gathering of evidence through investigation and hearing and determination of factual issues."
Laslovich, a lawyer, also works in McGrath's office and owns a Helena home. He used his parents' Anaconda address when he filed for re-election, and has said he doesn't consider Helena his permanent residence in part because his current job is a temporary one.
The Democrat has said that Sales' request is "a little bit of politics."
Copyright © 2008 Missoulian

Laslovich Residency Response

June 7, 2008
Letter to Editor
Mike Denision's, Standard State Bureau, article, “Legislator's Residency in Question”, reported that House Speaker Scott Sales asked Attorney General, Mike McGrath, for a formal opinion on the residency of Senator Jesse Laslovich. I'm the Republican candidate for Senate District 43. Until the article was published, I was not aware that Mr. Sales had filed a formal complaint with the AG. I'm also in the process of questioning Mr. Laslovich's residency with the Secretary of State's office and the Office of Political Practice. At this point, I considered the residency question an administrative matter to be resolved by one of the agencies. Requesting a formal opinion from the AG converts what should be an administrative matter to a legal and ethical issue. Mike McGrath, AG, is the one who hired Mr. Laslovich. The AG appears to have a conflict of interest and should not issue an opinion concerning Laslovich's residency.
Mr. Laslovich's candidacy raises two Constitutional issues, separation of powers and district residency. As a legislator, Mr. Laslovich is Chairman of the Judicial and Ethics Committees. Although he's still a legislator, Mr. Laslovich is working for the Attorney General's Office of Consumer Protection. The Separation of Powers clause states, “No person or persons charged with the exercise of power properly belonging to one branch shall exercise any power properly belonging to either of the others...”. Concerning residency, the Legislative Qualification clause states, “ For six months next preceding the general election, he shall be a resident of the county if it contains one or more districts”. From an objective point of view, Mr. Laslovich is working in Helena for the AG, his wife is working for a Helena law firm and their residence is in Helena. Mr. Laslovich stated that residency “boils down to the intent of the person...” and that he uses his parents address because he considers Anaconda his home. When he was attending law school, his parents' address was his residence. Now that he's graduated law school, married, employed and living in Helena, the response that he considers Anaconda his “intended” residence is no longer persuasive or appropriate.

Dick Motta
Candidate Senate District 43

Laslovich Residency Questioned

Legislator’s residency in question
By Mike Dennison, Standard State Bureau - 06/06/2008
HELENA — The Republican speaker of the Montana House is questioning whether state Sen. Jesse Laslovich, D-Anaconda, is a legal resident of the district where Laslovich is running for re-election.
On Thursday, House Speaker Scott Sales asked Attorney General Mike McGrath for a formal opinion on whether Laslovich, who lives and works in Helena, is a resident of Senate District 43, the Anaconda-Deer Lodge district he represents.
Laslovich works in Helena as an assistant attorney general, doing legal work for the Office of Consumer Protection in the state Justice Department. He was appointed to the position in July 2007 by McGrath, a Democrat.
“I don’t think that, geographically and according to the law, that (Laslovich) is the right guy to be running over there (in Senate District 43),” said Sales, a Bozeman Republican.
“The fact that he’s an employee of the Department of Justice makes it even more important that some sort of decision be rendered on it,” Sales added.
Lynn Solomon, spokeswoman for the attorney general, said the office hadn’t yet received Sales’ written request, and would respond once it did.
Laslovich said Thursday the state law on residency “boils down to the intent of the person, where he intends to be or intends to live,” and that he still considers Anaconda to be his home.
Laslovich said he and his wife, Jill, bought a home in Helena in 2006 after she got a job working as an attorney for a law firm in Helena. He worked for a Missoula law firm until July 2007, when he was appointed to his position in Helena.
Laslovich filed to run for re-election in January and listed his parents’ address in Anaconda as his residence. He said Thursday that his job in Helena expires at the end of this year, so he doesn’t consider Helena his permanent residence.
“I’m outside (of the Senate district) for temporary purposes; my job is clearly temporary,” he said. “I’m registered to vote in Anaconda. I’m in Anaconda more than I’m in Helena.
“If (Sales) had a question about my residency, he should have called me himself. I would have been happy to explain to him what is going on in my life.” Sales’ request for a formal attorney general’s opinion “is a little bit of politics,” Laslovich said.
In his letter to McGrath, Sales said since Laslovich and his wife own a home in Helena and have jobs there, “it stretches the imagination that it is the intent of Mr. Laslovich to return to his parents’ house in Anaconda any time soon, if ever.” Laslovich, 27, is opposed in the general election by Republican Dick Motta of Philipsburg. SD43 contains Deer Lodge and Granite counties and the southern portion of Powell County, including the city of Deer Lodge.
http://www.mtstandard.com/articles/2008/06/06/state_top/20080606_state_top.txt

SD 43 Primary 06/03/08

Montana Senate District 43
As of 6/4/08 12:56 PM
Jesse Laslovich(D) vs Dick Motta(R)

Senate District 43 Primary
Deer Lodge
Granite County
Powell County

Draft EMS Legislation

Subject: Draft EMS Legislation Now Online

Several bill drafts related to an ongoing legislative study of Montana's emergency medical system are now available online, representing everything from special license plates to tax incentives and an EMS grant program.
The bills were drafted as part of the Senate Joint Resolution 5 study approved by the 2007 Legislature. The Children, Families, Health, and Human Services Interim Committee will take public comment on the bill drafts at a meeting next week. The committee will then decide -- based on public comment and committee preferences -- which bills to proceed with, whether to make any revisions to the existing drafts, and whether to request additional legislation.
The committee meets June 10 and June 11 in Helena, in room 137 of the State Capitol.
The agenda and other meeting materials, including briefing papers on each of the EMS bill drafts, are available on the Committee's Web site. The bills can be viewed online at the Senate Joint Resolution 5 study page for the Children, Families, Health, and Human Services Interim Committee
Committee members will discuss the SJR 5 study and the proposed EMS bill drafts on June 11. Public comment is scheduled for approximately 1:45 p.m.
People who are unable to attend the meeting may also submit written comment to the committee by regular mail to:
Sue O'ConnellLegislative Services DivisionP.O. Box 201706Helena, MT 59620-1706
Comments also may be sent via e-mail, to soconnell@mt.gov.


Sue O'Connell
Legislative Services Division
P.O. Box 201706
Helena, MT 59620-1706
Comments also may be sent via e-mail, to soconnell@mt.gov.

Email Dick

dickm@blackfoot.net
Call 859.5016

Election Laws

Montana Constitution
Montana Codes Annotated Index

Article 3 -- General Government
Section 1. Separation of Powers. The power of the government of this state is divided into three distinct branches—legislative, executive, and judicial. No person or persons charged with the exercise of power properly belonging to one branch shall exercise any power properly belonging to either of the others, except as in this constitution expressly directed or permitted.”

Article IV -- SUFFRAGE AND ELECTIONS
Section 4. Eligibility for public office. Any qualified elector is eligible to any public office except as otherwise provided in this constitution. The legislature may provide additional qualifications but no person convicted of a felony shall be eligible to hold office until his final discharge from state supervision.

Article V -- THE LEGISLATURE
Section 4. Qualifications. A candidate for the legislature shall be a resident of the state for at least one year next preceding the general election. For six months next preceding the general election, he shall be a resident of the county if it contains one or more districts or of the district if it contains all or parts of more than one county.

2-2-111. Rules of conduct for legislators. Proof of commission of any act enumerated in this section is proof that the legislator committing the act has breached the legislator's public duty. A legislator may not: (1) accept a fee, contingent fee, or any other compensation, except the official compensation provided by statute, for promoting or opposing the passage of legislation; (2) seek other employment for the legislator or solicit a contract for the legislator's services by the use of the office; or (3) accept a fee or other compensation, except as provided for in 5-2-302, from a Montana state agency or a political subdivision of the state of Montana for speaking to the agency or political subdivision.

2-2-135. Ethics committees. (1) Each house of the legislature shall establish an ethics committee. Subject to 5-5-234, the committee must consist of two members of the majority party and two members of the minority party. The committees may meet jointly. Each committee shall educate members concerning the provisions of this part concerning legislators and may consider conflicts between public duty and private interest as provided in 2-2-112. The joint committee may consider matters affecting the entire legislature. (2) Pursuant to Article V, section 10, of the Montana constitution, the legislature is responsible for enforcement of the provisions of this part concerning legislators.

13-36-101. Grounds for contest of nomination or election to public office. An elector may contest the right of any person to any nomination or election to public office for which the elector has the right to vote, for any of the following causes: (1) on the ground of a deliberate, serious, and material violation of any provision of the law relating to nominations or elections; (2) whenever the person whose right is contested was not, at the time of the election, eligible to such office; (3) on account of illegal votes or an erroneous or fraudulent count or canvass of votes.

13-36-102. Time for commencing contest. (1) Five days or less after a candidate has been certified as nominated, a person wishing to contest the nomination to any public office shall give notice in writing to the candidate whose nomination he intends to contest, briefly stating the cause for the contest. The contestant shall make application to the district court in the county where the contest is to be had. The judge shall then set the time for the hearing. The contestant shall serve notice 3 days before the hearing is scheduled. The notice shall state the time and place of the hearing. (2) Any action to contest the right of a candidate to be declared elected to an office or to annul and set aside such election or to remove from or deprive any person of an office of which he is the incumbent for any offense mentioned in this title must, unless a different time is stated, be commenced within 1 year after the day of election at which such offense was committed.

MSSA Survey Response

From my perspective, the government violates our rights every time they impose a new regulation and I think the courts should declare the laws unconstitutional. Guns are a Constitutionally protected right. Per Article II, “...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. That right has been infringed by more than 22,000 laws and we don't need any more. It is unconstitutional to impose any rules and regulations which limit the possession of a weapon. If a person uses a weapon in the commission of a crime, prosecute him for the crime. If an individual chooses not to possess a weapon, that's their prerogative and they shouldn't buy one. Restrict personal evaluations to your own individual life style.

Per your survey, I support your positions and accept the reality that gun laws are not going to be overturned overnight. I would support your position, but I have several bills I want to sponsor so I may not be able to give your bills the attention they deserve. I do not agree with the grant request on the basis that government uses the funds as a tool to control rather than facilitate. The FWP action in granting permits or permissions is a primary example. Unfortunately, most government agencies have assumed a quasi-legislative, executive and judicial stance, whereby their policies, definitions and enforcement override the law and they are not being held accountable for their actions.

Note: I have not responded to the NRA questionaire. In my estimation, they have compromised on too many gun legislation bills and I have serious reservations about their objectives.
Thank you for your outstanding work on protecting gun rights.
Dick Motta

Legislative Interim Committee Proposed Bills

There are Legislative Interim Committes meetings, Legislative Interim Committee Proposed Bills , being held with the purpose of drafting bills to be presented to the next Legislative session. As of May 26, 2008, there are 122 bills being drafted by the legislative administrative staff. By the time the legislative session commences, there will probably be in excess of 200 bills. Some of the drafts are the result of the previous legislative session requesting studies, Interim Studies_2008, of a particular issue. Most of the bills are requested by government bureaucrats expanding their jurisdiction, authority, rules or the penalties they think are necessary to perform their jobs and to control the people more effectively. The legislative staff coordinates the agenda, schedules the meetings, notifies "interested persons" and assists in the conduct of the meeting.

The problem with this process is that executive and judicial officials are the primary sponsors of numerous bills and they are the ones who determine the subject matter for proposed legislation. Committees are scheduled to hear the proposals and "interested parties" are contacted to provide testimony. Generally the "interested parties" are public officials who proposed the bill and non-government groups who have a special interest in it's passage. At the hearing, the agenda is approximately nine hours in length. During the nine hours, officials monopolize the testimony and the public is accorded fifteen minutes. The public receives fifteen minutes because they are not aware the meeting is being conducted and, therefore, there are few people in attendance. Public officials are paid to testify and attend the interim committee meetings. Individuals may have to travel long distances and pay for gas, meals and lodging.


There is a need for more transparency in the interim committee meeting process. The committees should comply with public notice and participation provisions required by the Constitution and statutes. Representatives need to be reminded that they represent the people and that the people want a limited government. The people are intelligent and responsible enough to lead their own lives. We do not need or want government officials to evaluate, administer and enforce their views concerning how our lives should be conducted. The law is supposed to limit government and the government is supposed be our servant. The entire concept and principals defined in the Constituion are being reversed, corrupted and redefined. The people must demand that our representatives formulate statutes which limits administrative law and respects the rights and sovereignty of the people or we will no longer be a free nation.

Human Rights, Science and Energy

Article - Scientists promoting energy-self sufficiency and decreased regulations
HUMAN RIGHTS, SCIENCE AND ENERGY
by Arthur RobinsonMay 19, 2008NewsWithViews.com
More than 31,000 U.S. scientists have signed a petition rejecting the claims that human release of greenhouse gases is damaging our climate. This petition states:
“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
Millions of Americans are being battered by an economic crisis caused largely by energy shortages and rapidly increasing prices for energy.
Yet, the United Nations and other vocal political interests say the U.S. must enact new laws that will sharply reduce domestic energy production and raise energy prices even higher. These special interests claim that continued use of hydrocarbon fuels will destroy the Earth’s climate and cause many environmental catastrophes. Hydrocarbon fuels account for 85% of current United States energy supplies.
What should the U.S government do in response to this situation? The answer is provided by science, economics, and the basic principles of human rights.
The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness include the right of access to life-giving and life-enhancing technology. This is especially true of access to the most basic of all technologies: energy. These human rights have been extensively and wrongly abridged.
During the past two generations in the U.S., a system of high taxation, extensive regulation, and ubiquitous litigation has arisen that prevents the accumulation of sufficient capital and the exercise of sufficient freedom to build and preserve needed modern technology.
These unfavorable political trends have severely damaged our energy production, where lack of industrial progress has left our country dependent upon foreign sources for 30% of the energy required to maintain our current level of prosperity.
Moreover, the transfer of other U.S. industries abroad as a result of these same trends has left U.S. citizens with too few goods and services to trade for the energy that they do not produce. A huge and unsustainable trade deficit and rapidly rising energy prices have been the result.
These difficulties are entirely unnecessary. The hydrocarbon resources – coal, oil, natural gas, and other hydrocarbon reserves – and the nuclear energy resources of the United States can provide abundant fuel for low-cost energy in the U.S. for many future centuries. Moreover, the necessary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy production technologies have been available to U.S. engineers for many decades. We can develop these resources without harm to people or the environment. There is absolutely no technical, resource, or environmental reason for the U.S. to be a net importer of energy. The U.S. should, in fact, be a net exporter of energy.
Now, new laws are being proposed that will further infringe on our human rights by severely restricting access to hydrocarbon energy. These proposals are being justified by claims that release of carbon dioxide from continued hydrocarbon energy production will destroy the climate of the Earth and cause catastrophic disasters. These claims are based upon the publications of the United Nations, whose power, prestige, and revenues would be greatly increased by world taxation and regulation of hydrocarbon energy.
However, the scientific hypothesis known as “human-caused global warming” – which is the basis of these United Nations claims – has been discredited and invalidated by unequivocal experimental research data and sound scientific interpretations of that data. This is attested to by the more than 31,000 U.S. scientists in relevant scientific fields – over 9,000 of whom hold PhD degrees – who have signed this petition.
It is tragic for industries, workers, and families that this shortage of low cost energy has occurred. In order to correct this problem and to ensure that it does not recur, the current high level of taxation, regulation, and litigation of U.S. energy industries must be reduced, so that free enterprise – working with private capital and without tax funds or subsidies – can build new U.S. hydrocarbon and nuclear power capacity as quickly as possible.
It has been suggested that technologies other than hydrocarbon and nuclear are also abundant, reliable, and affordable sources of energy. This is best determined in the free market. Elimination of all tax subsidies and marked reduction of taxation, regulation, and litigation of all energy-production industries will allow economically healthy competition. This will ease the current energy crisis and provide abundant energy for future prosperity.
In order to alleviate the current energy emergency and prevent future emergencies, we need to remove the governmental restrictions that have caused this problem. Fundamental human rights require that U.S. citizens and their industries be free to produce and use the low cost, abundant energy that they need. As the 31,000 signatories of this petition emphasize, environmental science supports this freedom.
Arthur B. Robinson541-592-4142 or artr@oism.orgPetition Project - www.petitionproject.org
© 2008 - Art Robinson - All Rights Reserve

Ponder the Maunder

Kristen did an excellent analysis of global warming and concluded that green-house warming is not man-made, but rather a result of solar activity. The analysis is extremely well documented and due to the frequency of people accessing the site, it is sometimes hard to access. The article debunks the false science presented by Al Gore's video, "An Inconvenient Truth" and questions his true motivation of profiting from energy credits .

Ponder the Maunder, now the official site of the Kristen Byrnes Science Foundation

Message from Kristen: 4-14-08

Anthony Watts has now written 56 articles on “how not to measure temperature.” Of the 1,221 United States Historic Climate Network stations that are used to measure global warming in the US, over 500 have been surveyed and photographed by Anthony and his volunteers. 85% of the stations thus far surveyed violate the rules for locating stations. Anthony’s series can be found here:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/category/weather_stations/
From the Web Master:

Due to the overwhelming response to the FANTASTIC news piece by NPR, all traffic to this site is being redirected to
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?item.10.1 , which reproduces all of Kristen’s work.

Conclusions:
"Solar activity is and has always been what drives the climate system."

"The results were quite surprising, and rather clear. There was no sign of greenhouse warming at all. Only the clear fingerprint of solar activity was left. For some reason, probably not known to greenhouse theorists and their scientists, greenhouse gases did not play a role in late 20th century warming. It was simply a matter of solar variation being clouded by El Ninos and La Ninas."

Term Limits

The question of enforcing Montana's Constitutional provision for term limits for federal legislative positions has never been resolved. At a recent meeting, Brad Johnson, Secretary of State, stated that “federal law trumps state law” and that he was not in a position to challenge the Supreme Court decision concerning term limits for federal legislative positions. Term limits are enforced for State elected positions, but not federal.
Montana's Constitutional term limits provision has not been repealed and the State Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue. The tenth amendment to the Federal Constitution reserves to the states those things which are not specifically delegated to the federal government. The Federal Constitution provides for age, citizenship and residence as the qualification for federal legislators. The Federal Constitution also provides that “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof...”. The Montana Constitution complies with the age, residence and citizenship qualifications and, assuming that any additional provisions are not discriminatory, the power to expand on those qualifications is reserved to the people of Montana. The Secretary of State and candidates to federal office take an oath to uphold the Montana Constitution and therefore, they should be governed by its' provisions. At the very least, the candidates should demonstrate that their ethical considerations and allegiance are to the people of Montana and voluntarily comply with term limits. The people of Montana voted for term limits, the candidates should respect that provision and the Secretary of State should enforce Montana's Constitutional mandate.

Economic Development

At a recent Economic Affairs committee meeting, the University of Montana demonstrated the findings of their research in biomedicine, biofuels and related technologies. The emphasis was on converting the research to viable businesses and corresponding jobs. I also talked to a professor from Montana Tech about the mining that was going on in Butte and the rest of the state. He commented that approximately 200 people were employed at the Butte mine, but they were doing the work formerly done by 10,000. In the logging industry, technological advances have made the equipment more efficient, but that has also had a corresponding negative effect on the need for manual labor. My conclusion was that SW Montana is not going to see a major resurgence in jobs associated with natural resouces. The future for employment will be technology and people have to assure that they are developing their skills to meet those opportunities. Unfortunately, school enrollment is decreasing and younger people and their children are leaving Montana to find more opportunities in other states. SW Montana has great scenic beauty, recreational and natural resources which are an attraction to both tourists and retired people. Those resources should be developed and marketed to provide opportunities for people to stay in Montana.

Energy Self Sufficiency

The price of fuel is skyrocketing and obviously our useless and clueless leaders have no solutions which are either practical or economically feasible. Oil prices are being manipulated by the producer nations, oil cartels and commodity market speculators. Supplies are marginal, 2.2% increase in productivity and 1.6% increase in demand. Even though supplies are barely keeping up with real or perceived demand, the corporation use the price increase for the swing oil as the basis for increasing prices immediately. Most oil companies have their own source of oil production and their price is determined by long term contracts. Last year Exxon had a $40 billion profit. If they had a supply problem, they would be paying the higher commodity price and that would have resulted in a corresponding decrease in profits.
There have been no gas station closures in this country.