By Sam Williams
“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