R-71 litigation

August 29, 2009

With a lawsuite against R-71 at this time is just a delay tactic and expense tactic by the opposition.  The controversy is not over the signatures or the number of signatures but rather that the signature of the signature gatherers were not included on a vast majority of the R-71 petitions.



All of the ones which I submitted did have a signature on the back of the form however.  I did not get paid for gathering signatures on R-71 like everyone else.  No one got paid for gathering signatures for R-71.  I did notice Larry Stickney and his son got paid for their effort in coordinating this effort however.  

The Washington Secretary of State demanded to have included on inititatives and referndums a section for the signature and printed name of  “paid” signature gatherers. 

Since there were no “paid” signature gatherers the lawsuite/litigation is a waste of time and effort but only if not for the delay and expense factor.  The opposition to R-71 are spending money in an effort to get attention for their cause.  This is extremely common with political maneuvering and only in that context commendable. 

In other contexts this could be extremely dangerous.  Publicity by the opponents could counter-swing and backfire.  Attention to this matter could stimulate the R-71 base and accentuate the need to the “NO” vote supported by R-71 supporters.  I would have left the issue silent instead of stirring the “hornets nest”.  But as a supporting I am proud of getting the FREE  PR on behalf of my opponents. 

It does look like the number of signatures needed to pass R-71 (120,577) will be concluded on Monday afternoon.  With 7693 left to count and 5994 left for needing to be passed that would leave a margin of 1699 which could be still rejected and thus a rejection possibility rate of  22.0851%.  The average reject rate to dte is 11.86% for the other signatures which are already counted.  Also, with a possibility of 54 being added because of previously being rejected due to the Signature Image being Pending due to various county images being difficulty to read by the State auditors.

The intermediate news should come on Monday for passage.

What part of the Russian submarine Kursk is not known here.  “Damn the torpedoes – full speed ahead.”  In this case who holds the gold and are the nuclear weapons armed.  But unlike the Kursk the prayers of the various Churches will have a different type of emergency to them.  How will God perceive their prayers.  All civilized citizens of the world had their prayers united for the crew of the Kursk though.  But this time I know that both sides will be praying for their outcome.   




Bill of Rights – Guarantees Rights of Individuals only and not the States

July 28, 2009

Concerning the Bill of Rights.

The total essence of the Bill of Rights was established for Individuals and not the State nor for the federal government.

 As an example:

 If with the 1st Amendment I am concerned about the State and the free exercise and the non-establishment thereof, etc. then the argument could be made to believe that the separation of Church and State does need to be in Existence.  But if the argument see below for with the individual.

 Again, with the 2nd Amendment the argument commonly argued is that the State has a Right to form a Militia for its own defenses.

But if the Bill of Rights was for the State then in the U.S. Constitution would not of had to state that all other rights are reserved for the State.  Yes, the U.S. Constitution was addressed first but before the U.S. Constitution could be ratified the guaranteeing of individual rights were ratified.  It would have been completely unnecessary and duplicity of efforts to include as an amendment the 10 Rights because they were already covered.  If not a Right or Duty of the Federal then it is of the States or still reserved for the People.  So then the only logical and I do not know why it has not been addressed before the Supreme Court in this fashion previously reasoned. 

 What I think needs to be done is to get copies of logic in the Post Revolutionary timeframe and specifically of our founders to see if their speech is directed toward the States or to the Individuals.  Logic would then dictate it was directed toward the individual and not toward the State.

 What do you think about this.


R-71Pastors/Church Guide

June 20, 2009

The way to use the below until I can change it is the first yes/no refers to Churches and the second yes/no refers to Pastors.  This reflects how someone can or cannot relate to R-71 in a Church or Pastor environment.

See also www.ProtectMarriageWA.com or R-71 for the bill information.


By Mathew D. Staver, Esq.
Endorsing or opposing political candidates No Yes
Contributions to political candidate No Yes
In-kind and independent expenditures for or against political candidates No Yes
Contributions to Political Action Committees No Yes
Appearance of political candidate at church meeting or service Yes N/A
Introduction of political candidates at church Yes Yes
Political candidate to preach or read scripture (contributions should not be solicited & message
should not urge people to vote for the candidate) Yes N/A
Voter registration programs and campaigns (non-partisan) Yes Yes
Distribution of candidate surveys and incumbent voting records (avoid editorial opinions) Yes Yes
Distribution in church parking lot of political statements and opinions on political issues (so
long as no church endorsement) Yes N/A
Rent or loan church mailing lists to political candidates (list must be made available to all
candidates on similar terms and prices) Yes N/A
Church bulletin political ads at regular price and news stories Yes N/A
Church bulletin editorial where the pastor or staff member endorses or opposes a candidate No No
Church bulletin editorial regarding political issues or two different church members take
opposing views on a candidate Yes N/A
Use of church facilities by political candidates (if all other candidates are allowed or invited) Yes N/A
Fund-raising for candidates No Yes
Campaigning for candidates No Yes
Educate members of the public about viewpoints of candidates Yes Yes
Discuss church doctrine pertaining to candidate views such as abortion Yes Yes
Granting use of name to support a political candidate No* Yes*
Support or oppose judicial, department or cabinet appointments Yes Yes
Support or oppose judicial candidates No Yes
Support or oppose other political appointments of non-elected officials Yes Yes
Use of church facilities by lobbying groups to discuss social issues Yes N/A
Rent or loan church mailing list to lobbying groups Yes N/A
Preach sermons on social issues and political issues and activism Yes Yes
Educate on political process and political/social/legislative issues Yes Yes
Petition drives supporting or opposing legislation Yes Yes
Support or oppose legislation unrelated to the church organization Yes** Yes
Support or oppose legislation that directly relates to the organization Yes*** Yes
Encourage members to voice their opinions in favor or in opposition to certain legislation Yes** Yes
Lobby candidates to support or oppose legislation Yes** Yes
Distribute position papers supporting or opposing legislation Yes** Yes
*A pastor may include title and church affiliation in a personal endorsement along with the following notation: “Title and
affiliation for identification purposes.”
**Churches and other 501(c)3 organizations may support or oppose legislation so long as such activity comprises an
insubstantial part of the overall operation. A 501(c)4 organization may support or oppose legislation without any limitations.
***A church or any other 501(c)3 organization may without limitation support or oppose legislation that directly affects the
organizational structure and operation of the organization. For example, a church may without limitation oppose legislation
attempting to repeal the tax-exempt status of the church.
Copyright © 2000-2004. Resource: Liberty Counsel:

HB 2133 – Accumulated sick leave for volunteer work

February 16, 2009
HB 2133 – Accumulated sick leave for volunteer work


This bill in its conceptualization seems to be of a positive good-hearted nature. But. This is exactly the opposite of what the employee and the State need for achieving overall personal and state goals.

The purpose of accumulating and even of having sick leave is to be able to continue with the payment of bills if and ever if an accident or a catastrophic illness occurs. Twenty-two days is but only a little bit over one month of accumulation of sick pay. For all purposes this is not enough if a serious illness does occur.

This bill will create ill-will and disillusionment on the part of the government employee. “I helped out during my communities mishappenings and now that I am sick no one else is helping me” syndrome. The world, yes, is cruel and benevolence is noteworthy.

The objective of sick pay is to be accumulated while one is sick and not having money come in because of the reliance upon a continuation of cash flow. Long-term care insurance which would take over in about three months or six months is taken out to guard against the real catastrophies of life. There is no sense in having this catastophe compounded by making the employee suffer financially for five months period of time rather than a shorter period of time.

Ideally the accumulation of sick leave up to the point where the long-term care insurance kicks in is the primary objective of sick pay.

Under current federal law a retiring individual can specify that remaining sick leave be used to pay for health insurance or to be paid out in a lump sum. This lump sum in cash would obviously be taxable. The accumulation of one of the major costs of retirement for future years benefits would greatly enhance the senior citizens prospects of surviving in a more comfortable fashion rather than being paid for the current acts of kindness which would have been better served as future income rather than meeting present income needs.

In no way is this bill in the benefit of the employee overall and in no way is this bill in the best interest of the community and in no way is this bill in the best interest of the greater State of Washington.

This bill also violates the entire premise of sound financial planning for the retirement years which would be ahead.