|
|
|
For those not familiar with the issue, starting with the QUICK READ Section is recommended. |
| ALL OF THE ABOVE SECTIONS ARE IN A SINGLE FILE. IT TAKES A MINUTE OR SO TO LOAD THAT FILE INTO YOUR SYSTEM DEPENDING UPON THE SPEED OF YOUR SYSTEM. ONCE LOADED, HOWEVER, NAVIGATION AMONG THOSE SECTIONS IS VERY FAST.
ALL OF THE BELOW SECTIONS ARE INDIVIDUAL SECTIONS. IF YOU WISH TO REVIEW MORE THAN ONE OF THOSE SECTIONS IT WILL SAVE YOU TIME IF YOU RETURN TO THE "SMALL" MAIN MENU AFTER REVIEWING EACH SECTION. | ||
|
The PonyTail Institute for Change (pi4c) was officially registered in Fairfax County, Virginia on November 18, 1996 for the purposes of social and political sensitization. Predicated on the premise that at its most fundamental level it is
the individual, the I's, me's of this world, that are the root cause of
many, if not most, of the problems of this planet, and that simplicity
is the essence of perfection, the Institute seeks to effect change at the
unit level, the individual, through increasing the sensitivity of the individual
to the fundamental causes of problems and providing support necessary for
the individual to grow and thereby reduce that individual's contribution
to the problem. It is the one thing each and every individual can do. Cumulatively
...
At this juncture, however, the pi4c is engaged in a life and death struggle. I, Keith B. Davis, founder, director, and currently the sole member
of pi4c am conducting the PonyTail HUNGER-STRIKE FOR JUSTICE, a protest
of what in reality is a death sentence imposed upon me by those in control
of the government of the state of minnesota and those in control of the
united states government, (capitalization deliberately omitted).
The above is an excerpt from the last page of the opinion by which I was suspended from the practice of general law by the state of minnesota. The patent and trademark office rubber stamped the so-called opinion. One lied. The other swore to it. The so-called opinion is unlawful on its face. Should anyone trouble themselves to go beyond that face, they would find that any such "psychiatric" problem issue had been expressly excluded as an issue in the proceedings. The trial/hearing judge (a District Court Judge), had denied a Rule 35 Motion for Mental examination sought by the state. I had not objected to the motion. The only caveat I had put on that issue was that the state pay for an expert witness of my choice, and pay for my time because my practice was very young. The law clearly gave me the right to have my own expert witness present (the tests are very subjective, Rohrshock ink blot and the like). Let's put this mental thing to rest once and for all. About 5 years
prior to the Rule 35 disciplinary proceeding motion of the above paragraph,
as part of divorce proceedings, I had been through this psychiatric testing
drill. I characterize the process as one of each side getting a hired gun
(expert witness) and they go into court and have a shoot out. We did. My
ex's experts said yes he is. Mine said no he isn't. The judge said nothing.
The last is the most significant. That judge issued a proper decision,
one which included findings of fact, and conclusions of law. He made no
direct finding whatsoever relating to the psychiatric issue. He inferentially
did so when he found I was a "fit parent".
THE MAJOR LIES: I. That at the time in question, I had psychiatric problems which rendered me incompetent, or was otherwise incompetent, to represent clients in the state of minnesota. At best, an unproven allegation. In fact, calculated character assasination and business libel. A MAMMOTH LIE. One lied. The other swore to it. II. That if I in fact had psychiatric problems, I would not seek appropriate treatment. The court, and that is taking major liberties with the word, correctly wrote that there was "no evidence that [I] was disposed to submit to psychiatric or other medical treatment." (Literally true, but misleading.) Of course there wasn't any evidence. The matter had been specifically excluded from issue during pre-trial. A MAMMOTH LIE. One lied. The other swore to it. Every proper judicial proceeding of this type should follow the following progression: 1) allege it; 2) prove it; 3) incorporate it into a finding(s) of fact; 4) incorporate it into conclusions of law; and 5) incorporate it into the final order. "They" omitted the first four steps. I defy anyone to compare the so-called opinion to any recognized standard for essential elements in a decision, such as those undoubtedly provided to newly appointed judges. The entire so-called opinion is A MAMMOTH LIE. One lied. The other swore to it. The so-called opinion had to have been written before the trial on the merits, and almost certainly was written before the pre-trial hearing at which the Rule 35 Motion for mental examination was denied. A very calculated, pre-meditated MAMMOTH LIE. One lied. The other swore to it. The so-called opinion includes fifty two denigrations. At best, if one could succeed in comprehending them, and with one possible exception, probably boiler plate assertions that apply to every person who has ever practiced law. In reality, totally unrelated to "instability" or "psychiatric". It is as though they are gratuitous. The exception may be those which relate to my asking two clients to provide me with AFFIDAVITS OF GOOD FAITH. Their official position was that asking the clients to sign a very simple affidavit was intimidation. In reality, an admission that the client could not sign the affidavit without committing perjury. A MONSTROUS PACK OF LIES. One lied. The other swore to it.
< BR> THE EXECUTION:
< BR> TRIPARTITE SYSTEM OF CHECKS & BALANCES: After exhausting all legal appeals, the judicial branch of government, by definition, was the problem. It could not be said whether it was the problem because of an inherit flaw, or because it was controlled by evil people acting with malice. In all events, I sought to test the checks and balances theory of our government, that having a tri-partite form of government, that three separate and equal branches of government would protect the citizens of this society from the excesses of one branch of government. Pursuant to the 1st Amendment Constitutional right to "petition the
government for a redress of grievances", the issue of the UNLAWFUL suspensions
was presented to the Executive and Legislative branches of government in
a variety of ways. suffice it to say that, if anything, the response to
each such "petition" was to compound the injury.
All that is asked of you is your thoughtful consideration of an issue, The PonyTail Hunger Strike for Justice. Over the course of the Strike, so much material has been generated that it must now be a daunting task for newcomers to assimilate the material, particularly because of the newspaper columnist and thematic style of many of the Daily Messages (DMs). That body of material had developed facts which make an unrefutable showing of a denial of justice to the PonyTail, including rights expressly guaranteed to every citizen by the Constitution. The most basic and fundamental of these were summarized as "premises" in the 30 August DM. There are two reasons for characterizing those facts as premises. For those who are open minded and truly interested in making an informed decision about the issue, a statement of premises is logically correct. Secondly, for my adversaries who are only interested in deve loping whatever spin would best serve their selfish interests, they are t hus presented as a direct challenge. By these premises a gauntlet is thrown down. "They" are dared, and the fair minded are invited, to attack them! The premises are all as solid as solid can be; each and every one is as solid as solid can be. The combination of the premises and the Death Sentence Section of the PonyTail Institute for Change (pi4c) website provides a "Quick Read" of what the PonyTail Hunger Strike for Justice is all about. Four of the five premises are exactly as set forth in the 30 August DM. The fifth, premise 3, has been modified only to make it more inclusive; specifically, to include individuals other than the original perpetrators. New readers may be a bit puzzled by the 5th. premise and wonder why it is even included. Admittedly, it is not in any way essential to establishing any of the injustices for which relief is sought. It does, however, contribute significantly to the PonyTail Issue big picture. For now, the emphasis must necessarily be kept on the life threatening hunger strike so suffice it to say that fascism is dealt with at length at the pi4c website, MARQUEE ISSUES, Defacto Fascism. Again, all that is asked is your thoughtful consideration of The PonyTail Hunger Strike for Justice issue.
The patent and trademark office rubber stamped the so-called opinion. One lied. The other swore to it. The so-called opinion is unlawful on its face. Should anyone trouble themselves to go beyond that face, they would find that any such "psychiatric" problem issue had been expressly excluded as an issue in the proceedings. The trial/hearing judge (a District Court Judge), had denied a Rule 35 Motion for Mental examination sought by the state. I had not objected to the motion. The only caveat I had put on that issue was that the state pay for an expert w itness of my choice, and pay for my time because my practice was very young. The law clearly gave me the right to have my own expert witness present (the tests are very subjective, Rohrshock ink blot and the like). Let's put this mental thing to rest once and for all. About 5 years prior to the Rule 35 disciplinary proceeding motion of the above paragraph, as part of divorce proceedings, I had been through this psychiatric testing drill. I characterize the process as one of each side getting a hired gun (expert witness) and they go into court and have a shoot out. We did. My ex's experts said yes he is. Mine said no he isn't. The judge said nothing. The last is the most significant. That judge issued a proper decision, one which included findings of fact, and conclusions of law. He made no direct finding whatsoever relating to the psychiatric issue. He inferentially did so when he found I was a "fit parent". THE MAJOR LIES: I. That at the time in question, I had psychiatric problems which rendered me incompetent, or was otherwise incompetent, to represent clients in the state of minnesota. At best, an unproven allegation. In fact, calculated character assassination and business libel. A MAMMOTH LIE. One lied. The other swore to it. II. That if I in fact had psychiatric problems, I would not seek appropriate treatment. The court, and that is taking major liberties with the word, correctly wrote that there was "no evidence that [I] was disposed to submit to psychiatric or other medical treatment." (Literally true, but misleading.) Of course there wasn't any evidence. The matter had been specifically excluded from issue during pre-trial. A MAMMOTH LIE. One lied. The other swore to it. Every proper judicial proceeding of this type should follow the following progression: 1) allege it; 2) prove it; 3) incorporate it into a finding(s) of fact; 4) incorporate it into a conclusion(s) of law; and 5) incorporate it into the final order. "They" omitted the first four steps. I defy anyone to demonstrate that the so-called opinion complies with any recognized standard for essential elements in a decision, such as those undoubtedly provided to newly appointed judges. The entire so-called opinion is A MAMMOTH LIE. One lied. The other swore to it. The so-called opinion had to have been written before the trial on the merits, and almost certainly was written before the pre-trial hearing at which the Rule 35 Motion for mental examination was denied. A very calculated, pre-meditated MAMMOTH LIE. One lied. The other swore to it. The so-called opinion includes fifty two denigrations. At best, if one could succeed in comprehending them, and with one possible exception, probably boiler plate assertions that apply to every person who has ever practiced law. I don't believe any include either a direct or indirect link to "instability" or "psychiatric". It is as though they are gratuitous. The exception may be those which relate to my asking two clients to provide me with AFFIDAVITS OF GOOD FAITH. Their official position was that asking the clients to sign a very simple affidavit was intimidation. In reality, their position was an admission that the client could not sign the affidavit without committing perjury. A MONSTROUS PACK OF LIES. One lied. The other swore to it. The oxymoronic language of the suspensions would be comical had it no consequences. The actual consequences are the implementation of a scheme of victimization so massive it is a virtual death sentence. The combination of departure from standard legal procedures, total lack of any objective evidence whatsoever, total absence of reasoning to support the subjective judgments upon which the suspension is based, and total absence of any conduct consistent with empathy for a sick person (Reference: September 3rd. DM) make it clear that the proceedings had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with carrying out any legal function but instead was solely concerned with carrying out private agendas, agendas violative of the Constitution. Indeed, the agendas of these perpetrators were contemptuous of the Constitution, as contemptuous as contemptuous gets. Their arbitrary action, and the condonation of that arbitrary action implicit in the actions and non-actions of the numerous government and private sector individuals from whom relief from this victimization has been sought, evidence a pervasive arbitrary elitism in this society, and thus evidence a significant element of defacto fascism in this society. The issue started in the state of minnesota, lack of capitalization deliberate, and numerous attempts to obtain relief from various state officials produced no response. The most recent was on June 4, 1999 when standard handout materials were handed directly to governor Jesse Ventura. An agreement was reached at that time with members of his staff to open lines of communication for the purpose of resolving the issue. They reneged on the agreement. Most damning is the behavior of three of the highest offices in this society, Treasury, Justice and the President's Chief of Staff's office. Each of those three offices has engaged in STONEWALLING. The issue was duly and properly worked up through the entire chain of command in each of Treasury and Justice. On December 7, 1993 it was placed directly on the desk of Attorney General Reno by invoking her supervisory authority. I was told by her executive secretariat's office that she personally had reviewed the communication invoking her supervisory authority. There has been no response from Reno. On December 13, 1993 it was placed directly on the desk of then Secretary of Treasury Bentsen. I am 90% certain that I was told by his executive secretariat's office that he personally had reviewed the communication invoking his supervisory authority. There was no response from Bentsen, nor has there been any response from any of Bentsen's successors, and each of those successors has in turn been sent a communication advising them of this unresolved item of "old business" of their predecessor. After numerous efforts to elicit a response from Justice and Treasury fell upon deaf ears, the supervisory authority of President Clinton was invoked by means of a communication to him addressed to his Chief of Staff's (CoS's) office. The non- response-response from the CoS's office was orders of magnitude worse than those of Justice and Treasury. The personnel in the CoS's office were overtly hostile. The issue was a legitimate issue for approximately ten years at various levels in the chain of command. These non-actions, where action is thus unequivocally required, are quintessential stonewalling. Accordingly, stonewalling was made the central theme of the hunger strike, and the following has been addressed to the stonewallers, yea verily, the MURDEROUS STONEWALLERS: Stonewallers, you understand the premises! Stonewallers, you know the suspension is unlawful! Stonewallers, you know that under the Constitution the victim is entitled to relief! Stonewallers, you have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution! Stonewallers, you know you subvert the Constitution when you deny the victim relief! Stonewallers, you know that it is only a question of time until denial of relief to the victim shall result in his death! MURDEROUS STONEWALLERS, you understand the premises!!! MURDEROUS STONEWALLERS, you know the suspension is unlawful!!! MURDEROUS STONEWALLERS, you know that under the Constitution the victim is entitled to relief!!! MURDEROUS STONEWALLERS, you have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution!!! MURDEROUS STONEWALLERS, you know you subvert the Constitution when you deny the victim relief!!! MURDEROUS STONEWALLERS, you know that it is only a question of time until denial of relief to the victim shall result in his death!!! All that was asked was your thoughtful consideration of the matter. Just as I knew my adversaries could not possibly successfully attack the premises, I was equally confident that any fair minded person would find the matter a just and worthy cause. And, I am equally confident that anyone finding the matter a just and worthy cause would want to do whatever they could to see that justice is done. Accordingly, for your convenience, contact information is provided below which will allow you to become pro-active on behalf of the cause, a cause which in the larger scheme of things is believed to be of great importance to this society, indeed to be very important to every person on this planet. (Will not the 5th. premise, an integral if not essential element of the cause, ultimately be the final nail in the coffin of fascism on planet earth?) Virtually all of you are familiar with how fast a doubling progression changes a totally insignificant number into a huge number ala the starting with a penny and doubling it every day phenomena. Your pro-active contact of the "bad guys" every day and recruiting two others to do the same thing would absolutely guarantee success for the cause, wouldn't it! You will agree, I am sure, that the only true weapon in a hunger strike is the prospect of death. With the experience gained over the course of the hunger strike I am certain that it can, and I shall, bring it to a conclusion not later than Jan. 25, 2000. Accordingly, your support between now and then is particularly critical. As the strike draws to a conclusion, it is also necessary for me to ask for a very nominal amount of financial support as outlined at the following link: Your Assistance Please
TELE: 651 296 3391 or 800 657 3717 FAX: 651 296 2089 email: jesse.ventura@state.mn.us |
| PRESIDENT | ATTORNEY GENERAL | TREASURY SECRETARY |
| TELE: 202 456 6797 | TELE: 202 514 2063 | TELE: 202 622 0064 |
| FAX: 202 456 2883 | FAX: 202 514 4507 | FAX: 202 622 0073 |
| email: president@whitehouse.gov | email: NONE | email: OPCMail@do.treas.gov |
MISSION STATEMENT DEATH SENTENCE EXECUTION
This is a work in progress. There shall be more as time and energy permits. © 1999 PonyTail Institute for Change |
