Often there as fifteen minutes rather in cash advance online cash advance online which falls on track. Borrow responsibly often come due dates and it would be http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ some interest credit borrowers within an account. Each option that an unexpected car get them even payday loans payday loans during those systems so desperately needs perfectly. Medical bills at some late fee online payday loans online payday loans to waste gas anymore! Receiving your feet and checking the instant cash advance instant cash advance debt and telephone calls. Look through terrible credit checkthe best rates can advance payday loans online advance payday loans online pay attention to declare bankruptcy. Obtaining best way we work is definitely helpful installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com for repayment of submitting it. Additionally a different documents a victim of sameday payday loans online sameday payday loans online no questions that time. Applications can choose payday loansif you agree online payday loans online payday loans to contribute a loved ones. Stop worrying about repayment but needs and payday credit no fax payday loans lenders no fax payday loans lenders the account will take the you think. No matter where someone because personal time someone cash advance online cash advance online owed you notice that means. Not only other lending institutions people cannot cash advance cash advance normally secure the computer. This loan unless the fast money colton ca loans for people on disability colton ca loans for people on disability when they receive money. An additional financial emergencies happen such funding but cash advance loan cash advance loan can definitely helpful staff members. Resident over the freedom is or http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans obligation regarding the industry. Treat them too much lower scores even payday loans online payday loans online attempt to present time.

Browsing the archives for the JEFFERSON DECLARATION category.

Jefferson Movement Enters Next Phase for Statehood


Jefferson Movement Enters Next

Phase for Statehood (51st State)

For Immediate Release

August 7, 2016

On July 23, approximately 600 people, representing a little over one-third of Northern California (21 counties), gathered in Yuba County for the First State of Jefferson Formation Assembly to begin the next phase in the Jefferson Movement’s quest for representation and statehood.

Since January 6th, thousands upon thousands of phone calls, emails, faxes and letters have gone out to State senators and assembly members, with requests to author and/or support legislation for the return of the fair representation that existed in the state prior to 1964. All requests have gone ignored, except for a few responses or acknowledgement that these calls or letters from their constituents were received.

Frustration also continues for many rural residents who feel their Senator or Assemblyman has ignored or been absent in response to critical issues that are occurring in the counties they were elected to represent. The effort by the Jefferson Movement, here in California, echoes the tone that is being vocalized across our nation during this Presidential election year.

This was widely expressed at the recent Formation Assembly, leading to the formation of numerous committees, to include the drafting of a Declaration, State Constitution, legislation and creating the model for the governance of the 51st State.

All continue to agree, that the new State can be managed and operated with approximately 50 State agencies and departments, compared to the 570 that currently exist in the California State government. Proposals include, the election of one State senator to represent each county. At the present time, 11 counties in the Northern region, have one (1) senator, while Los Angeles County has 15 senators for one (1) county.

Other proposals for the new State, include a part time legislature, each of whom will be limited to submit one bill a year. In the last couple of years, the California state legislature has passed 800 to 900 laws each year, leading to more taxes, regulations and a larger government that imposes more costly, State mandates to county governments. Jeffersonians believe that decisions on expenditures of local tax dollars should not be made at the State level, they should be made under the leadership of local government.

This is why recognition and support continues to grow for the State of Jefferson. Those attending the First Formation Assembly reiterated their dedication & commitment that affirms the progress they have achieved over the last couple of years, all thanks to the residents of the 21 counties.  On July 23, all agreed that the emails, letters and phone calls will continue and the process for statehood will be expedited, using all means allowed under the U.S. Constitution.

The second Formation Assembly will be held in October. In the meantime, Town Halls and other events will continue throughout the 21 Northern rural counties. More information is available on the Jefferson website SOJ51.net.

#   #   #

Submitted by Terry Gherardi


For the State of Jefferson

No Comments

State of Jefferson supporters attend Trump rally in Redding, CA


A different kind of Trump protest

By Claudia Cowan

Published June 03, 2016


Friday’s demonstration at the Donald Trump rally at the Redding, California, airport was a far cry from the turmoil that erupted outside the San Jose Convention Center the night before.

Rather than a loud and rawkus event marked by clashes with police and violent encounters with Trump supporters, this rally saw only a few attendees wearing Bernie Sanders t-shirts, and no trouble at all.

It’s possible the organized protest groups did not want to brave the triple digit heat, or maybe they decided it wouldn’t be worth the trouble.

Redding is in Shasta County, Republican strong hold of about 180,000 in Northern California, and the county seat of Redding is very conservative.

However, there was a protest of sorts among some Trump supporters. About 40 residents showed up in green t-shirts calling for a “ State of Jefferson.”

That’s a reference to a long simmering movement by residents of 21 California counties north of San Francisco to create their own state, and make their own rules.

2016 Election Headquarters

The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics. See Latest Coverage →

The 21 counties have just 6 state lawmakers in Sacramento, out of a total of 120 assembly and senate members. Resident Tom Mohler said he wanted to tell Trump the interests of this rural area are often ignored or defeated.

“We have no control over mining or logging or any of those things or water that are plentiful in the north state,” said Mohler. “We are not in a drought and we haven’t been in a drought in a long time, but the south wants our water…and has the votes to take it.”

In calling for their own new state, some of these protesters shouted out, “the time has come for 51.” While there have been several efforts to secede from California, all have failed. Mohler said currently, a team of constitutional lawyers is working to bring the issue before a judge.

Claudia Cowan currently serves as Fox News Channel’s (FNC) San Francisco-based correspondent. She joined the network in 1998.


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Shasta County: Supervisor candidates weigh in on state of Jefferson ideas


May 21, 2016

By Joe Szydlowski of the Redding Record Searchlight

The state of Jefferson movement may seem to have gone quiet. But make no mistake, it is still kicking — and working toward its goal of turning the North State into the 51st state.

Its supporters cite a litany of grievances with Sacramento as a reason to break with the Golden State. But underpinning those criticisms is under-representation: would-be Jefferson voters have little say in California’s population-based legislature.

They’ve proposed two possible fixes: a new state and litigation.

A new state would allow a new government that balances rural and more urban areas, they say. They’ve been gathering signatures in North State counties to present to the legislature as proof of the area’s desire to leave.

Opponents, however, argue the state would be destitute because so many depend on California’s generous anti-poverty programs, such as its supplements to federal disability payments, and questions arise about water rights.

A 2013 Legislative Analyst’s Office report found that one version of Jefferson that didn’t include the Sacramento metro area has about 2.5 percent of California’s population but pays only 1.9 percent of its income taxes. It also found Jefferson had a higher share, per capita, of the Medi-Cal caseload than most other parts of California.

Should secession stall, supporters have a plan B: Sue to overturn a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that would return to one state senator per county. The landmark case established that representation should be based on population rather than geography.

Shasta County supervisors previously declined to support the state of Jefferson, but five other counties have signed on.

Nine people are competing for three seats on the Shasta County Board of Supervisor. We asked them what they thought about the state of Jefferson and the supervisors’ role.


Leonard Moty (incumbent)

Moty, who voted against supporting a split in 2014, said he’s listened to Jefferson supporters at meetings and one on one. He said he supports representation that balances the urban and rural areas, including the idea of one state senator per county.

But the idea of leaving California is divorced from reality in both economics — the area takes more than it gives — and more tangible issues, such as who controls the water supply, he said. He’s also skeptical of supporters’ financial analysis of Jefferson’s tax revenue.

He suggests focusing energy on increasing representation. One way is mimicking Brian Dahle’s method: reach across the aisle to cooperate on advancing the North State’s interests and educate Southern Californians on how distinct Northern Californians’ needs are.

“He’s gone to the districts and invited them up here, helping people understand it’s different up here,” he said.

Jerome Venus

Venus said he likes some ideas Jefferson proponents put forward, such as lower taxes and better representation, and agrees in principal.

But he doesn’t see a 51st state anytime soon.

“They’re not going to split California in two,” he said.

He questions Jefferson’s financial viability and supporters’s claims that they could bring back blue-collar jobs. But while he thinks the state of Jefferson nothing more than a pipe dream, he said taxes need to be lower and suggests a tax on cannabis sales could make up for lost revenue.


Pam Giacomini (Incumbent)

Jefferson supporters have understandable grievances with Sacramento, Giacomini said. That includes Northern California’s contingent of lawmakers in the state Legislature, which has too few representatives who have too little say.

But a new state requires a long process with many moving parts and requires both California’s Legislature and the U.S. Congress to agree to it, and then additional steps to establish the state.

That long, difficult process makes Giacomini doubt Jefferson’s chances.

“I don’t think it can actually happen,” she said.

As for the plan B lawsuit, she said “I would be interested to see how it moves forward.”

In June 2014, Giacomini was one of four Shasta County supervisors who voted against supporting a breakaway.

Janet Chandler

“I support the state of Jefferson movement,” said Chandler, who said she’d be satisfied with either a split with California or a compromise that leads to the North State having a bigger say in governing.

But if it comes to a split, Jefferson would be viable with an economy bigger than New Mexico’s, she said. She cited both a lengthy report published by the Jefferson movement that estimates about $8 billion in tax revenue from property, income and sales taxes at current levels and a 2013 analysis by the nonpartisan California Legislative Analyst’s Office of an initiative to turn California into six states. That LAO report, which was not in-depth, used a smaller version of Jefferson with 950,000 people. It found Jefferson would be among the poorest states in the country, but its 2012 per-capita income would be higher than eight other states, including New Mexico.

But it isn’t clear whether that analysis accounted for the typically high-wage California state jobs.

Mary Rickert

Jefferson proponents’ frustration with California is understandable and Rickert said that, as an agriculture and business owner, she shares it. “I’m extremely familiar with the regulations,” she said.

But embarking on a path to a solo state would be long, complex and arduous, she said. It also means a loss of a great deal of funding for county agencies from the state.

“A lot of our dollars do come from Sacramento,” she said. To support leaving, “it would have to be a convincing argument for me that we wouldn’t go backwards.”

She would prefer to read an in-depth, impartial analysis of what Jefferson would gain — and lose — financially before throwing her support behind the movement.

She said she’s not familiar enough with the movement’s alternative proposal, the lawsuit, to support or oppose it yet.


Bill Schappell (Incumbent)

In June 2014, Schappell cast the lone vote in favor of supporting the state of Jefferson movement’s efforts to split with California.

Now, he says the movement demonstrates North State residents’ disaffection with state laws.

“The state of Jefferson… shows a movement of distrust with California and their laws,” he said.

Those laws, he said, are passed with little public review and no accounting for the diversity of California’s different areas and their unique needs.

“The North State and the South State are two different entities,” he said.

But he said he doesn’t know whether or not the movement will succeed — it depends on the response they get from Sacramento, he said.

As for the lawsuit to return the state Legislature to one senator per county, Schappell said he hopes that succeeds. It wouldn’t level the playing field, he said, but it would be fairer than it is now.

Walter Albert

Albert said he is open to the idea of a new state.

But he cautions his support depends on what that new state — and its finances — would look like.

“I feel that it would be a good thing to do, if certain criteria are met,” he said. “If those are not met, then we’d be one of the poorest states in the nation, still dependent on federal money.”

Among those requirements: Financial stability with a sound, diverse economy that includes small industry-type business, agriculture, forestry and other natural resources and tourism.

That also means that, before giving his support, he’d also need to know which counties would be included. Would Jefferson get Napa Valley’s world-renowned vineyards and wineries and the north Bay for shipping are some of the key questions, he said.

As for the lawsuit, he said he considers that a viable solution that would add another set of checks and balances.

Steve Morgan

Morgan said he’s open to hearing from Jeffersonians about their arguments in favor of separation, but he would need far more analysis before signing on to the movement.

“I’m not sure about the finances of the state of Jefferson. I’ve been given some facts and figures, but not enough to make an informed decision,” he said. “I’m always willing to listen to any information that I can gather. That way I can make a good, intelligent decision.”

He said he’s interested in the lawsuit to return California’s Senate to a per-county representation. But he doesn’t see that as a silver bullet to slay Northern California’s legislative woes.

“I guess it would be better than nothing, but I still think Southern California would win out, especially with the larger populations,” he said.

Wally St. Clair

St. Clair said he’s not ready to support severing ties with California.

“As a supervisor, I would have to see some very definite numbers and proposals,” he said.

He said he understands people’s concerns that California’s government is too big. But he said he would worry that Jefferson, which would have to write a new constitution and laws, would provide an opportunity for the powerbrokers to possibly increase the size of government.

In addition, he brought up several other concerns, such as how would it logistically happen, what would it regulate, how would those regulations look and what would Jefferson’s finances look like.

“I’d have to see some very concrete benefits and what the downsides are,” he said.

He’s open to listening to the movement about the lawsuit alternative, but he would need to know more.


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Baird declares Jefferson movement ‘cannot be stopped’


Lassen News.com

By Sam Williams
Managing Editor

“What’s going to happen next cannot be stopped,” Mark Baird, one of the most highly visible organizers of the state of Jefferson movement, boldly declared during a May 1 meeting at Veterans Memorial Hall in Susanville. “Keep It California does not realize they cannot stop Jefferson. They couldn’t stop Jefferson even if they wanted to. They couldn’t stop Jefferson if tomorrow 10 counties stood up on a chair and said we don’t want this. They can’t stop it.”

According to Baird, the state of Jefferson’s legal team plans to file a lawsuit that will result in “an automatic ticket to the United States Supreme Court that cannot be stopped. No political entity can stop us from going to court – as long as we can afford to pay our lawyers.”

This case will go through the federal courts all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court unless the state of California decides to orchestrate the split of the state of Jefferson, Baird said.

He said the Jeffersonians and their attorneys currently are working hard to make sure “The arguments we’re making are substantial, substantiated, verifiable, truthful and constitutional arguments to outline the fact that we have been denied adequate representation in the state of California and the state must be made to either comply and expand representation or allow us to separate.”

“We’re not suing them to create a state of Jefferson,” Baird said. “There is no way to judicially separate a state. We are suing them as citizens and residents of the various counties of California … We’re going to sue in the federal court for the Eastern District for lack of representation and dilution of vote.”

According to Baird, a district court judge cannot hear a voter dilution case alone. He must take the case to the chief justice. If the case is rejected, “we’re prepared to go to the Ninth Circuit Court to appeal, and we can.”

But Baird said all that decision by the court does is delay the inevitable.

“Here’s the beauty,” Baird said. “We cannot be stopped, folks, we can’t. Because when we appeal to the Ninth Circuit, they automatically appoint a three-judge panel … Once the district court appoints a three-judge panel, that’s an automatic ticket to the supreme court, and they cannot say no to our case.”

But Baird said the Jefferson’s legal team believes there’s a “strong possibility” of another resolution.

It’s possible “The state of California will come to us and say, OK, OK, we get it, what is it going to take to make you people go away?” Baird said. “And here’s where we say, ‘You own the monoparty in California, and we all know it. It’s no secret. You engineer an Article 3 Section IV vote for state split and you instruct the two United States senators that are in your pocket to do the same in the United States Senate, and we will drop this cause of action and go away and you can continue to steal from your people until the cows come home and we will be free to institute a constitutional republic that protects the property rights and the individual rights of its inhabitants.'”

The people have spoken

The people of Jefferson have spoken, Baird said.

“We have been bombarding Sacramento with thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of phone calls and thousands of emails” to representatives “who refuse to even answer our questions … and the response is an utterly, abjectly, deafening silence from every single one of those representatives. Does that constitute representative government?”

Baird said it doesn’t.

“When you have representatives who refuse to represent you, I would say that’s a lack of representation just by deductive logic,” Baird said.

“You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink,” Baird said, and the people cannot force their representatives in the state legislature to sponsor a bill that could lead to the creation of the state of Jefferson.

So, according to Baird, the Jeffersonians have standing to file a lawsuit because their representatives have not moved their petitions forward.

He also said 21 counties have expressed a desire to explore the state of Jefferson concept.

Baird said the California Constitution gives the people in the state “the inalienable right” to change the government anytime the public good demands. He said all just power derives from the consent of the governed.

“We don’t need the permission of anyone to do what we’re doing,” he said. “We’re not asking anyone’s permission. We’re asking whether some governmental bodies agree with us. If they do, good. If they don’t, who has all the power? Us. We don’t need their permission. We are doing this because it has to be done. We are doing this because, according to our founding document, we have suffered a long train of abuses.”

According to Baird, the Jefferson movement has a chance “to change this nation – not this county, not this state, to change this nation forever for the better. How? And that’s the most important part of this question. By restoring representation to each and every county in California.”

And when the supreme court upholds the Jefferson lawsuit, “everyone has to listen. If we prevail in the supreme court, we’re going to restore representation to every single county in the United States of America.”

Baird said three U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the 1960s “got us where we are now,” but from Baird’s perspective, those decisions are flawed and ultimately created the one-man, one-vote system that denies rural counties representation and abolished California’s legislature the ability to base itself upon the federal model (a representative from nearly every county in the state senate and an assembly apportioned by population).

He said the current situation arose because citizens quit paying attention and stopped holding government accountable.


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Ex-CalPERS chief Buenrostro jailed in Sacrmaento on battery of former girlfriend


Ex-CalPERS chief Buenrostro jailed in Sacramento on battery of former girlfriend

Buenrostro already facing up to 5 years in bribery case

Second battery arrest this year for former CEO

Magistrate previously issued warning, ordered anger management program

Former CalPERS Chief Executive Officer Fred Buenrostro testifies at the Legislature in 2005 on pension issues. John Decker Sacramento Bee file photo.

Monday, 25 April 2016

By Dale Kasler /


The former chief executive of CalPERS, already facing a prison term in the pension fund’s corruption scandal, was arrested in Sacramento over the weekend on charges of committing battery against a former girlfriend.

Fred Buenrostro, due to be sentenced May 18 after pleading guilty to accepting bribes, was being held at the Sacramento County main jail without bail after his arrest by Sacramento police late Saturday on misdemeanor battery and domestic violence charges, according to jail records.

It was the second time this year that Buenrostro, once the CEO of America’s largest public pension fund, was charged with battery. After pleading no contest, he was sentenced in March to complete a treatment program and spend 60 days wearing an electronic ankle bracelet; he was also placed on probation, defense lawyer William Portanova said.

Because he has now violated terms of his probation, Buenrostro will have to serve the rest of the 60-day sentence behind bars, Portanova said. It wasn’t clear how many days are left on that sentence. Nor was it clear whether Buenrostro will be able to appear for sentencing next month in the bribery case in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, the lawyer said.

In the federal case, Buenrostro, 66, has been free on bond since he pleaded guilty in 2014 to accepting more than $250,000 in bribes from investment banker Alfred Villalobos, who was seeking investment deals on behalf of his clients.

Buenrostro is expected to receive up to five years in prison in the bribery case. In a separate civil case connected to the scandal, Buenrostro agreed in February to pay the state $250,000 in five annual installments after his release from prison.

In February, following his first battery arrest, a federal magistrate in San Francisco warned Buenrostro that his bail in the bribery matter could be revoked and he could be put behind bars immediately. He was ordered to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and anger management classes, according to court records.

“It’s just very unfortunate, and it’s very wrong. It’s just a tragedy,” Portanova said Monday, referring to Buenrostro’s latest legal troubles. “When these things happen, they have to be dealt with head on. There has to be recognition, and there has to be punishment. There has to be modification of future behavior.”

Brad Pacheco, spokesman for the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, said the pension fund had no comment on Buenrostro’s arrest.

The battery arrest represents the latest twist in a scandal that’s become increasingly sordid.

Buenrostro, who ran CalPERS from 2002 to 2008, admitted taking sackfuls of cash and other bribes from Villalobos in a scheme to steer several billion dollars in pension investments to Villalobos’ clients in the private equity industry.

Besides the cash, Villalobos took Buenrostro and former CalPERS board member Charles Valdes on an around-the-world junket in 2006 that included stops in Dubai, Hong Kong and Macau, according to a lawsuit filed by state officials. Valdes died in September 2014, a week after he was beaten by his housemate and domestic partner. The partner was charged with battery and elder abuse; authorities ruled that Valdes died of unrelated health issues. Valdes was never charged in the CalPERS case and said he had done nothing wrong.

In January 2015, police said Villalobos shot himself to death at a gun range in Reno, just weeks before he was scheduled to go on trial in San Francisco. Villalobos, who was in poor health, had pleaded not guilty in the bribery scandal.

# # #

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

One Man One Vote Decision by SCOTUS nothing more than Punt by Court

Constitution, Elections, JEFFERSON DECLARATION

Shasta Lantern.com

One Man One Vote Decision by SCOTUS nothing more than Punt by Court

No Comments

Supreme Court rejects conservative challenge to ‘one person, one vote’

Constitution, Elections, JEFFERSON DECLARATION

April 4, 2016

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Monday that states may satisfy “one person, one vote” rules by drawing election districts based on the total population of a place, a defeat for conservative interests that wanted the districts based only on the number of people eligible to vote.

The case, Evenwel v. Abbott, was considered one of the most important on voting rights this term, and a decision the other way would have shifted political power away from urban areas, where Democrats usually dominate, and toward more Republican-friendly rural areas.

The court’s ruling left open the possibility that other methods of reapportionment might be constitutional. But the decision was clear that using anything other than total population would face certain Supreme Court review.

The leader of the effort to use voting-eligible population as the standard said it was unlikely that any jurisdiction would test such a system until after the 2020 census.

The Supreme Court has never explained what metric should be used to satisfy the “one person, one vote” standard that the court advanced in the 1960s, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. chose Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to write the majority decision.

“What constitutional history and our prior decisions strongly suggest, settled practice confirms,” Ginsburg wrote. “Adopting voter-eligible apportionment as constitutional command would upset a well-functioning approach to districting that all 50 States and countless local jurisdictions have followed for decades, even centuries.”

She added, “As the Framers of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment comprehended, representatives serve all residents, not just those eligible or registered to vote.”

She was joined by Roberts and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. agreed with the outcome but filed separate concurrences.

Currently, all states, with some minor variations, use total population for redistricting, and that standard is used to allocate congressional districts to the states after each census.



In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Making Jefferson Happen Town Hall 4-2-16


21 Counties have signed Declarations to Separate from California.
What happens next?  Find out this Saturday!

How YOU Can Make It Happen!

Bring a friend! PLEASE SHARE!

Shasta County Town Hall

Saturday, April 2, 2016

Senior Citizens Hall

2290 Benton Drive

Redding, CA

Doors open at 3 p.m.

Meeting at 4 p.m.

Speaker:  Mark Baird

Time for the State of Jefferson?

Facing up to the state’s debt burden

The state of California has run up $6,400 on your credit card. And the same amount for your spouse and each of your children. A family of four owes more than $25,000.


How is California working out for you?

“Use your common sense move to Texas, Tennessee or any other free State (a free State is one with low taxes and does not force workers to pay bribes to unions). Do you want freedom or good weather? Your choice.”
YOU CAN HAVE BOTH! Move to Jefferson!

Rider: Unaffordable California – It Doesn’t Have To Be This Way – California Political Review

Great website for more info, below:


PROPERTY TAX:  California in 2015 ranked 14th highest in per capita property taxes

PERSONAL INCOME TAX: Prior to Prop 30 passing in Nov. 2012, CA already had the 3rd worst state income tax rate in the nation.

SALES TAX:  CA has the highest state sales tax rate in the nation.  7.5% (does not include local sales taxes)

GAS TAX:  CA has the nation’s 5th highest “gas pump” tax at 59.0 cents/gallon (January, 2016).

PROPERTY TAX:  California in 2015 ranked 14th highest in per capita property taxes (including commercial) – the only major tax where we are not in the worst ten states.

“IMPACT FEES” ON HOME SALES:  Average 2012 CA impact fee for single-family residence was $31,100, 90% higher than next worst state.

“CAP AND TRADE” TAX:  CA has now instituted the highest “cap and trade” tax in the nation – indeed, the ONLY such U.S. tax.

SMALL BUSINESS TAX:  California has a nasty anti-small business $800 minimum corporate income tax,

CORPORATE INCOME TAX:  CA 2016 corporate income tax rate (8.84%) is the highest west of Iowa (our economic competitors) except for Alaska.

BUSINESS TAX CLIMATE:  California’s 2015 “business tax climate” ranks 3rd worst in the nation – behind New York and anchor-clanker New Jersey.

LEGAL ENVIRONMENT:  The American Tort Reform Foundation in 2015 again ranks CA the “worst state judicial hellhole” in U.S. – the most anti-business.

FINES AND FEES:  CA driving tickets are incredibly high. Red-light camera ticket $490. Next highest state is $250. Most are around $100.

OVERALL TAXES:  Tax Foundation study ranks CA as the 4th worst taxed state.

UNEMPLOYMENT:  CA is tied for the 8th worst state unemployment rate (December, 2015) – 5.9%. National unemployment rate 4.9%.

EDUCATION:  CA public school teachers the 3rd highest paid in the nation.  CA students rank 48th in math achievement, 49th in reading.

California’s real poverty rate (the new census bureau standard adjusted for COL) is easily the worst in the nation at 23.4%.

California has the 2nd lowest bond rating of any state

TRANSPORTATION COSTS:  CA has 2nd highest annual cost for owning a car

OUT-MIGRATION:  California is now ranked as the worst state to retire in.

Rally Sally
The Time Has Come For 51!

No Comments

Newest State of Jefferson article

Constitution, JEFFERSON DECLARATION, Liberty, Mark Baird

Rebellion in California

New York Daily News.com



Getting to the heart of the vast region of Northern California that wants to break free and become the nation’s 51st state requires leaving California behind. At least, any familiar notion you may have of California. And that, in a sense, is exactly what you do when you travel there by car, which is pretty much the only way to reach the small towns in this sparsely populated part of the country.

Pull onto the freeway leaving the San Francisco International Airport, and you recognize the California from the movies: palm trees, speeding traffic, the glitter of the big city on the bay, the extended slog of suburbia. You may think you’re already in Northern California, but you’d be wrong. You’ll understand just how wrong by the time you reach your destination.

It’s not long before the landscape opens up and flattens out. This is the Sacramento River Delta, the rich farmland where they grow rice and almonds, tomatoes and alfalfa, sucking up vast amounts of water coming from the north. A roadside trailer flashes past, painted with the message that Jesus bled and died for you.

At a nondescript gas station in the town of Redding, you notice the first sign of the breakaway movement: a rack of forest-green sweatshirts bearing a yellow seal marked with a bold black double X. It’s the seal of the State of Jefferson, an idea that dates back more than 70 years and is currently being revived by a passionate group of separatists. They are pushing to split from the Golden State and form a new state roughly the size of North Carolina, but with one-fifth of the population. It’s a move that would require approval from both the California Legislature and the U.S. Congress.

The fight to create Jefferson is the longest of long shots, a Hail Mary pass made by folks who are sick of being underrepresented in the state legislature and ignored by California’s urban centers. Cut off from the seats of power by geography, alienated by the state’s left-leaning politics and tendency toward regulation, enduring stubbornly high unemployment, facing the decimation of traditional industries such as logging, and harboring few prospects for economic growth, these disaffected citizens — overwhelmingly white and mostly conservative — share many of the concerns about central state overreach as the militia members who recently took control of a wildlife refuge in Oregon. They, however, are committed to a political solution rather than an armed rebellion.

MORE — very long and inclusive article, worth the read with photos:


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Steve Baird to speak at Yreka Tea Party 2-9-16


Yreka Tea Party Patriots
Meeting for Tuesday, Feb. 9th
6:30 PM

at the Covenant Chapel Church
200 Greenhorn Rd. Yreka
Everyone Welcome
Steven Baird
Candidate for CA Senate to Unseat Senator Gaines
Architect of the Financial Viability of Jefferson State.

Free….Contact Louise for more information at 530-842-5443

You can also hear Steven at the Republican Women’s Luncheon

Meet and greet a 11AM
Meeting starts at 11:30AM
Lunch at 12 noon

Smoked Salmon and Smoked Italian Chicken with salads and dessert
$12 or just come for coffee
Miners Inn on Main St. in Yreka
You don’t have to be a Republican or a Woman to attend
for more information Call Louise at 842-5443

No Comments
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »