Our Only Hope For A Safe, Livable America; Talking About Mental Health

Our Only Hope For A Safe, Livable America; Talking About Mental Health | INVISIBLE CHILDREN:

Not talking about mental health is killing us, violently, cruelly, repeatedly.  Long before Michael Swanson murdered the 2 clerks in Iowa, his mother had been working tirelessly to find him help and for years she lived in fear of and in fear for her son just like so many other mothers and dads with scary unstable children.

Read More:

In Defense of Redress of Grievences-NH

In Defense of Redress of Grievences:

Testimony before House Rules Committee on removal of the Redress of Grievances Committee from the rules

by Representative George Lambert® - Hillsborough 44 / Manchester, Litchfield

“Redress of Grievances” is unfamiliar to many citizens today and often considered by some to be an outdated concept, but it was a staple of the principals and intention of government when this nation was founded. Many people today believe that the purpose of the legislature is to make law, but that is not the original intent, the purpose was to meet to Redress of public Grievances and THEN to make to make laws as the public good may require.

That purpose is clearly stated in the 1 line of the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire that is titled Meetings of the Legislature, for What Purposes ^[1] The legislature shall assemble for the redress of public grievances.  

AND for making such laws as the public good may require. Clearly under Article 31 the first defined role of this legislature is to assemble for the redress of public grievances.  By not including a body directly accountable to the people for hearing their grievances we defile that very purpose of this body as defined in the constitution.  

The ability for the people to have direct access to the form and function of government is more critical in this modern age than ever before. The people have an unprecedented ability to witness and participate in the government that dictates the day to day rules in their lives. More than ever before the people can make direct correlations between the procedures and the actions of government and the day to day impact of those acts and procedures.

These people have a direct responsibility in our constitution their requirement is to hold us, those in power responsible for the preservation of their public liberty. “whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind”^[2]. and yet we are here discussing rules to remove their direct access to request redress when they believe that the ends of government have become perverted and that public liberty is manifestly endangered?

The internal practices and procedures of the legislative process tend to exclude participation of the general public. The public are often ill-equipped to navigate the complex maze of the legislative process implemented by our own rules. Today that public are no longer ignoring the details of that process. Laws with unintended consequence are the direct result of the subtle compromise required for a functional republic. There are people in this state who have fallen through the cracks as a direct result of our public policy and procedure. Yet our committee and  hearing processes favor the expert testimony of the our appointed agents, rather than the pleas for assistance from our most frustrated constituents who have for decades felt disregarded until the reestablishment of a committee of redress of Grievances.  

History has repeatedly demonstrated that very nature of Government no matter how well intentioned in principle tends to be flawed in execution.  From the time of the founding of the State of New Hampshire the people have held one fundamental truth. The government must be accountable to the people, while dealing with the challengers of the administration of government.  This delicate balancing act often still leaves the voice of the people out of the equation. This dilemma is as old as government itself and was highlighted in the founding document of this nation, the Declaration of Independence which states  “In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

Without a direct venue for the the people to freely petition their government for Redress of the Grievances,  we as the legislative body of the State of New Hampshire risk ascending to the role of Tyrant contrary to the very constitution that we swore to uphold and protect.

The power granted to this legislature is delegated to us by the consent of the people and was explicitly granted in Article 8 and described as therein as “all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them. Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive.^[3]”  

“All government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good”^[4] according to Article 1. The rights of those citizens are enshrined for posterity in Article 2 as “All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness.” ^[5] The Compromise of society is described in Article 3 “When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void.” ^[6] 

When “Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community” ^[7] fail to protect their interests, we leave them but one choice and a responsibility to repair or replace it.   Article 10 says “whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.” ^[8].

Shall we leave the public no option but to conclude that their voice has been displaced by arbitrary power?  That we as a body have become willful conspirators in the oppression of their ability to voice their demands for Redress of Grievances by dismantling their direct venue for the demands of Grievance?  

---

[1][Art.] 31. [Meetings of Legislature, for What Purposes.] The legislature shall assemble for the redress of public grievances and for making such laws as the public good may require.

[2] [Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind. 

[3] [Art.] 8. [Accountability of Magistrates and Officers; Public’s Right to Know.] All power residing originally in, and being derived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them. Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive. To that end, the public’s right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted.

[4] Article 1. [Equality of Men; Origin and Object of Government.] All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good.

[5] [Art.] 2. [Natural Rights.] All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this state on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin.

[6] [Art.] 3. [Society, its Organization and Purposes.] When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void. 

[7] [Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

[8] [Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

KingCast winces as Terie Norelli, corrupt NH pols try to 86 the Committee for Redress & Grievances; a green light for more mortgage fraud foreclosure fraud and DCYF abuses.

Chris King's First Amendment Page: KingCast winces as Terie Norelli, corrupt NH pols try to 86 the Committee for Redress & Grievances; a green light for more mortgage fraud foreclosure fraud and DCYF abuses.:

I did my tour of duty in New Hampshire as NAACP Legal Chair and Citizen-at-Large, winning several First Amendment battles and earning a Mayoral Commendation from the longest-sitting member of the Governor's Executive Council. I will say this: So much of what I learned in law school is complete hogwash when it comes to how the courts and government really operate and I am not afraid to publicly say it. The amount of lies, deceit and outright corruption on the mortgage side and in family courts is enough to make you sick. And who is behind this nonsense? Democrat Teri Norelli, whom I sued a few years back to uncover information about how North Country's Martha McLeod tried to railroad HB 1428 "Bruce McKay Highway" through without telling anyone. We prevailed again against SB 154, all of which is linked herein. 

Read More:

Welcoming, and wary of, a focus on mental health

Welcoming, and wary of, a focus on mental health | The Connecticut Mirror:

The calls to improve the mental health care system in the wake of last week's elementary-school shooting are welcome, and worrisome, for people like Kate Mattias.

Read More:

Mental illness and mass shootings

Mental illness and mass shootings | The Connecticut Mirror:

Investigators have not yet disclosed whether Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old who invaded an elementary school and killed 20 children and six adults, had a mental illness.The distinction might sound academic -- after all, don't his actions answer the question?

Read More:

Redress of Grievance in Jeopardy LOB Room 301 2 pm 12/20/12

DMVC Productions = Results: Redress of Grievance in Jeopardy LOB Room 301 2 pm 12/20/12:

Action Alert: 

NH House Rules committee is intending to remove the Redress of Grievances Committee from the Rules of the House on Thursday at 2:00 pm - If the public wants to show concern over the loss, they should have a big presence. Room 301 keep it crowded so we can all get there!

If at all possible please to try to be there, the model other states are following is in jeopardy;May Horrigan will actually live up to his own ramblings and vote to keep the redress of grievance committee as he stated here:

2013 Petitions to the New Hampshire House

Additional commentary by Rep. Timothy Horrigan
last revised: December 2012

See Also:

• Chairman Ingbretson's November 2012 Report to the Speaker
• 2012 Petitions
• 2011 Petitions
• 2010 Petitions
• 2009 Petitions

Read More:

NH Redress Grievance Committee May End

Today-Thursday December 20th, 2012 at 2 PM in the LOB Building-Room 301 in Concord, the Rules Committee will conduct a hearing. Under Speaker Teri Norelli and the Democratic Legislature, the plan is to Quash the Redress Grievance Committee.
Please make your voices heard, Loud and Clear that ending the Redress Grievance Committee would be a grave injustice to each and every one of us. If you can't be there, make call's, send e-mails, do something. Don't let the State of New Hampshire take away our right of Redress!

Our Constitution gives "We the People" the right to Redress our Grievances, per Articles 31 and 32.
We were finally permitted that right by former Speaker of the House Bill O'Brien. Mr. O'Brien is a man who keeps his word and has fought tirelessly for the people of New Hampshire. He is responsible for making the Redress Grievance Committee a model for all other States to follow. Making New Hampshire first in the Nation to allow Redress to all the people unjustly accused in one way or another, by the unethical actions of the New Hampshire Judicial System and the notorious DCYF.

Now the Rules Committee plans on ending the Redress Committee, where none of us will get the justice we deserve and have waited so long for. The Redress Grievance Committee is our only hope in rectifying all of the injustice so many of us have suffered at the hands of the Court's and DCYF. To end the Committee would only make the same abuses keep happening. More and more of the people of New Hampshire will suffer, including our children. Innocent children suffering at the hands of the State.

We must fight to keep the Committee alive. This is Our Constitutional right! To keep the Redress Committee fighting for us. God knows no-one else has fought for us and I sincerely doubt they ever will. Many of our Petitions have been Founded, including one from my daughter. Will my grandchildren EVER be returned?  So what happens now? Many of us have proven innocence, but still railroaded by DCYF and the Courts. How do we reverse the harm we've already suffered? Without the Redress Committee there is no chance in ever rectifying the damage already done. We will NEVER get Justice!

Where do we go from here? Will our children finally be returned? Will new laws be enacted to stop the abuses we've suffered from happening to anyone else. Ending the Redress Committee will surely push New Hampshire backward. Shouldn't we be proud that New Hampshire's Redress Committee has become well known all over the Country, making other States want to follow in our footsteps?