My Supreme Court case for representation of the poor in our MT Constitution
The four questions/issues I've introduced on appeal of my District
Court Case (Gold v. State of Montana DV 09-320) are:
1) Did the District Court err in denying Plaintiff and Appellant's
summary judgment motion while granting Defendant's summary judgment
motion and while not addressing Plaintiff and Appellant's claims
against the State of Montana?
2) Did the District Court err by not addressing in the final order,
Plaintiff and Appellant's arguments regarding the Duty of Care of
Montana Constitution's demanding sworn oath of office upon Montana
Legislators and the Governor in the performance of their duties of
office and their greater duties to our Constitution,
especially in regards to discrimination?
3) Did the District Court err by not addressing in the final order,
Plaintiff and Appellant's procedural arguments and objections,
especially in regards to the Montana Constitution's demanding oath of
office and Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, in both his "summary
judgment motion and brief' and in his "Combined Memorandum in Response
to Defendant's Combined Memorandum in
Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiffs
Response to Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment?"
4) Was Plaintiff and Appellant denied his Constitutional Right of the
Administration of Justice Article 11 - $16 and deprived of procedural
due process and substantive due process of law guaranteed by the 14'~A
mendment of the US.
Constitution and Article II. § 4 of the Montana Constitution by the
4th District Court in its final Order and Memorandum by not engaging
in required constitutional analysis as well as offering no Findings of
Fact or Conclusions of Law, specifically as to why Plaintiff should be
denied his Constitutional claims against the State?
I feel like Don Quixote tilting at Montana windmills. The political
reality OF 2010 is that "indigent" individuals in Montana and the U.S.
cannot expect or find legal Counsel for Civil complaints involving
Guaranteed Fundamental Rights.
In Montana, this Catch-22 political reality is reflected in a
Catch-as-catch-can, or less formally, Willy Nilly Public Defender
System ("the Montana Public Defender Act $47 MCA"), defined and
developed out of a necessity to defend individuals accused of crimes
against the State. (Art. I1 - 5 24. Rights of the accused.
Montana Constitution). However, in common law as well as enumerated
law, defending individuals is only half of our "equal protection of
the laws" (see Section 4. Individual dignity. Montana Constitution),
the other half is defending Our Montana Constitution and Our
Fundamental Rights through Civil action. This political reality is
exactly what Attorney Dahood argued about in his amicus brief
in Dorwart v. Caraway ,
". . .in order to avoid this result and in order to give Montana's
constitutional guarantees teeth, the framers intended that the people
retain the ability to protect their rights--both
enumerated and unenumerated--through direct actions in the courts.
This conclusion follows from the Committee's proposal of Article 11,
Section 34 to the Convention delegates and the subsequent adoption of
this provision. Article 11, Section 34 states: Unenumerated rights.
The enumeration in this constitution of certain rights shall not be
construed to deny, impair, or disparage others retained by the
people." Donvart v. Caraway, 2002 MT 240; 3 12 Mont. 1; 58 P.3d 128
Whether political expediency, indifference, or simply a lack of
understanding regarding the basic necessity of "equal access" and
"equal protection" to Montana's Court system, the 1972 Montana
Constitutional Delegates couldn't muster the needed votes to include
and insure legal Counsel for ALL in Montana, especially the poor in
Montana Civil Jurisprudence.
*Art. I1 - 5 4. Individual dignity. The dignity of the human being is
inviolable. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the
laws. Neither the state nor any person, firm,
corporation, or institution shall discriminate against any person in
the exercise of his civil or political rights on account of race,
color, sex, culture, social origin or condition, or political
or religious ideas.
Subsequently, they stopped short by requiring that Montana ONLY
provide legal Counsel for Criminal Defendants in our 1972
Constitution. They also foresaw that they could not and should not
limit the possession of ONLY those Montana's Constitutional Rights
Enumerated, and that we the people recognize the possession
also of" Unenurnerated Rights" "(w)hich shall not be construed to
deny, impair, or disparage others retained by thepeople." Art. I1 - 5
34. Unenumerated rights.
Montana Constitution. From these "Unenurnerated Rights" the Court has
a vested self-interest in ensuring equal access to trained Counsel in
Montana Jurisprudence for ALL the poor, yet as we see, in the instant
Civil case, this is NOT the case to date and has caused the
Discrimination in the Montana Public Defender Act.
If you want to keep up with this case and/or read my opening brief:
On the internet goto:
Click on: Supreme Court Case Number
Enter ( DA 09-0675 ) in the box and click search.
Next click on Gold v. State and then click on
Appelant Brief and a new window will pop up with my pdf.
- Prev by Date: <<<<<<<<<why Victoria's Secret Angels love to flowers most with lovable words>>>>>>>>>>
- Next by Date: A Closer Look At Clergy***Abuse - In Ireland
- Previous by thread: <<<<<<<<<why Victoria's Secret Angels love to flowers most with lovable words>>>>>>>>>>
- Next by thread: A Closer Look At Clergy***Abuse - In Ireland