THIS PIG STINKS!

by Peter J.Mancus
Attorney at Law
Victorian Square
876 Gravenstein Ave. So., Suite 3
Sebastopol, CA 95472
Tel.: (707) 829-9050
pmancus@prodigy.net
© Peter J. Mancus, 2002

March 29, 2002

 

Table of Contents

Introduction
Introduction 2
I. Background
II. Chief Serpent Gordon Pitter's Position on CCW Permits and the Second Amendment
III. Why The Chief Serpent's CCW/Second Amendment Position Stinks
IV. My Assessment of the Chief Serpent's Position
V. Juxtaposition
VI. Questions For The Chief Serpent And Civil Authority
VII. Mancus' Message To Chief Serpent Gordon Pitter
VIII. Sebastopol Attorney's Letter Refusing Civil Dialogue
IX. How To Contact Sebastopol, California's Civil Authorities
X. Letters to Chief Pitter & Company

Note: This article, including a link to a "printer friendly" version, was to be found at http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/Mancus/pig.asp.  [Note - this link is no longer working, but is left here at the request of the original publisher]: Permission is granted to freely distribute this message, despite the copyright notice, provided the above link is included.

Introduction
 
by Angel Shamaya - [Ed. - we do not know if this address is current]
  KeepAndBearArms.com

I've once again been given the honor by the author of offering an introduction to his latest work, "THIS PIG STINKS!". In a word: volcanic. It's not every day an attorney in an anti-self-defense state — a former Deputy District Attorney, no less — directly and vehemently challenges his local police chief on violations of fundamental rights and Liberty Itself.

Peter Mancus has not only received a highly enlightening letter from his local anti-self-defense Police Chief, via a city council member, he's dissected it and responded in detail to each and every pathetic concept the Chief presents. And there is sufficient evidence in what came from Chief Pitter through Councilman Roventini to conclude that not only are these public servants self-serving anti-rights elitists, they are perhaps the scariest variety of that species: they believe, at least to some extent, that what they are saying is true, valid, correct, moral, ethical and Constitutional.

I'll end this introduction by telling you a brief personal story that helps express why I am so impressed with Peter Mancus' willingness to go as far as he is going with the message you are about to read...

After relocating to Flagstaff, Arizona late last May, our local paper (Arizona Daily Sun) ran a quote from our Police Chief (J.T. McCann) that was an untrue statement. I wrote a letter to the editor challenging the Chief to produce evidence to validate his assertions, and they ran my letter unedited. That morning, Chief McCann called me and asked me to meet with him, and I did. He bought me lunch. Over lunch, after proving to myself that his statement was inaccurate and thus my letter's challenge was fair and correct, I queried him on several gun-related and crime-related issues, ultimately landing on this question: "If the President signed a law banning civilian possession of firearms, would you send your troops out to enforce it?" His response contained the phrase "my pension."

Now, I live in Arizona, and I carry a gun nearly everywhere without fear of being arrested for simply exercising my rights. I've been pulled over by a police officer for speeding, answered honestly when he asked if I had a gun in the car (Two or three at all times!) and had him act like I'd just given him a meaningless piece of information while talking to me about the need to stick to speed limits. And still that answer from a seemingly nice Police Chief in a gun-friendly state did not sit well with me. And I pondered what it would mean to stridently push the issue — to get in his face over his willingness to even consider enforcing such an obviously unConstitutional "law". And, in my imagination, several scenarios quickly emerged that could have me at direct odds with pretty much the entire local police force. ("Authorities" tend to believe they really are.) I quickly realized I had much more pressing fights to fight and support than to scuffle over "what if" scenarios, logged the information in my permanent memory and let it slide. Here's my point:

Peter Mancus does not live in a gun friendly state where a lawful, decent person can strap on a .45 and walk down main street; he lives in a state where the Governor has unequivocally stated that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms — in a city where his local police chief refuses to support the right to armed self-defense outside of the home or place of business. And not only is Mancus unabashedly defying his local authorities, he's doing so with venom the likes of which we rarely see anymore in the gun rights community. I wish there were a lot more people with the guts to stand up and be heard — and I am hopeful you will use the email addresses and other contact points below to show these anti-self-defense "public servants" that this gentleman is not standing on the front lines all by himself. I'm also hopeful that enough people putting a spotlight on this Police Chief and City Council will give them great caution when it comes to how they deal with Peter Mancus and other longsuffering gun owners.

INTRODUCTION 2
  by Cornet Joyce II 
  North Caucus of America

Dear All,

As we all know, or should know, the noted author-attorney Peter Mancus, author of "Liberty": http://www.cloud9photography.us/pdf/liberty.pdf? 

is now in the process of confronting his own city, Sebastopol, California in the matter of their refusal to issue CCW according to the law.

There is not a one of us who has not lusted for a way to engage an attorney and take our various legislative bodies into the ring for their obvious tyranny. Each of us has been stifled in that pursuit by the inability to provide the attorney with his hire for such an endeavor.

Suddenly and fortuitously we have an attorney, gifted with the passion and communication skills of Patrick Henry, versed in every aspect of the validity of the Bill of Rights, offended to the quick by the constant creation and enforcement of ex-post facto and unconstitutional law, publicly confronting, at his own precious expense and time, a microcosmic sample of each and every tyranny across our land.

We shall, each of us, be found guilty of the most blatant stupidity and ignorance if we do not watch very carefully how this matter goes, for in its perfect representation of the tyranny, we have the opportunity to see exactly what outcome we can expect during any similar confrontation on any level we chose to prosecute it.

So far, Dr. Mancus has been unilaterally deprived of his Constitutional rights to access to "Sebastopol Hall" by their attorney, surprisingly parallel to the activities of Janet Reno as she protected her client Bill Clinton from Constitutionally acceptable examination.

Let us now watch. The outcome in this microcosmic matter will tell us whether or not that confrontation is inevitable which would be the only possible outcome to Dr. Mancus' loss in this execution of his personal Constitutional rights. Let us examine ourselves carefully to insure that each of us is mentally and physically competent to confront the tyranny at the level revealed to us by the outcome of this matter, particularly if it requires civil disobedience.


I. Background

Sebastopol, California is located 60 miles north of San Francisco. Its population is 7,800 souls. It has a track record of supporting anti-gun rights democrats. Sebastopol is a quirky liberal ghetto, an asylum for political lunatics. The current five member city council has a three member majority of Green Party members. Sebastopol's current Chief of Police is Gordon Pitter. I openly refer to Pitter as Chief Serpent or the lizard. I no longer deem him to be a public servant loyal to the U.S. Constitution. To better understand what follows, all readers are urged to read four articles I have written. These articles can be found at:

www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/peter/ 
[My 2000 letter to Sebastopol's civil authority.]

www.ccops.org/copsagainstccops1.html 
[Deals with a conversation I had with Sebastopol Police Officer Robert Smith.]

http://www.cloud9photography.us/pdf/liberty.pdf?  
[An insightful discussion regarding Liberty.]

www.jpfo.org/Mancus-ccw.htm 
[Objections to California's Concealed Weapons Permit Law]

These articles put in context what follows. They help to explain my tone.

back to top

 

II. Chief Serpent Gordon Pitter's Position on CCW Permits and the Second Amendment

Sebastopol Councilmember Bill Roventini, in an undated letter addressed to me, on City of Sebastopol letterhead, signed by Mr. Roventini, with an indication that a copy was sent to Chief Serpent Gordon Pitter, summarized what Chief Serpent Pitter told Mr. Roventini about some of my prior writings on the subjects discussed herein. I quote Mr. Roventini, where relevant, as to the attributions Roventini made in this letter to Chief Serpent Pitter:

Peter, I will try to relate, to you, the answer I received from Chief Pitter on concealed weapons permit question. . . .

The Chief's actions or omissions must be consistent with the adopted rules and regulations, practices, customs, policies, etc. of the Sebastopol Police Department and the law enforcement field. This would be within the Chief's scope of employment. . . . .

The Chief's actions or omissions must be articulated by a good faith belief [Emphasis in original.] that he was pursuing a choice he truly perceived as the best based on his experience and training, to successfully resolve the issue without malice. . . . .

The Chief must be able to objectively demonstrate that the area of law that concerns his act or omission is discretionary in nature where the law is not clearly understood.

Furthermore, if one were to strictly adhere to the 2nd. amendment, all people could carry a firearm concealed or otherwise; including but not limited to, felons, the mentally ill, to all people of any age with or without training.

The Chief continues: You and I know that the Bill of Rights, which includes the 2nd amendment are not absolute rights. Secondly, the constitution created a government that can be changed by the people through peaceful methodology. No dictator can take over. We elect and un-elect our leaders. We have an extensive check and balance system. Those conditions that spawned Hitler and others like him did not originate in a healthy democracy such as ours. Will another madman come into power in the United States and take away our guns and enslave us? Chances are this will not happen without popular support and subsequent election by our citizens.

Personally, I believe that people have the right to keep and bear arms under the limited conditions as state and federal laws set forth. I also believe that firearms are an implement of destruction, and there are too many in some of which are the salt of the earth. However, some of these people when under pressure may not be the best individuals to have in their possession an implement of destruction with which in six (6) pound trigger pull can change their lives forever and destroy the lives of those around them.

For this reason, I choose not to issue CCW permits, not because of liability.

The paragraphs above are direct quotes from a memo to me from Chief Pitter dated 9/27/00.

I hope this gives greater clarity to Chief Pitter's rationale regarding the issuance of CCW's.

back to top

 

III. Why The Chief Serpent's CCW/Second Amendment Position Stinks

What Councilmember Roventini attributed to Chief Serpent Pitter in the above letter is also repeated below. For ease of reading, Roventini's remarks are indented and italicized, and my responses are interspersed:

The Chief's actions or omissions must be consistent with the adopted rules

True. But only rules that are Constitutional per the U.S. Constitution, including the Second and Fourteenth Amendments and those parts of California law that do not conflict with any part of the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause and the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, plus the inalienable rights of citizens to exercise self-defense in a public place without anyone's permission required and with the most pragmatic means—a sidearm.

and regulations, practices, customs, policies, etc. of the Sebastopol Police Department

No! This is de facto, illegal "legislation by cop!", in contravention of the people's rights—exactly the kind of mischievousness the Framers sought to bar by the Second's clear, constitutional bright line, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Senior law enforcement personnel have demonstrated their bias to gut the Constitutional Rule of Law to try to make the streets safe for cops but the Constitution was designed to make society safe for citizens, not cops. When the streets become safe for cops, we have degenerated into a Police State. Everyone on all points of the political spectrum who values individual liberty should pull together in opposition to Police States.

and the law enforcement field.

Ditto my last remarks.

This would be within the Chief's scope of employment.

Not necessarily. The Chief is a public servant. He took a solemn oath to uphold, support and defend the U.S. Constitution, NOT to implement "legislation by cop"! But he reasons like a domestic enemy of the Constitution he took an oath to support and to defend against.

The Chief's actions or omissions must be articulated by a good faith belief [Emphasis in original.]

True! IF HE IS SO SMUG AND CONFIDENT THAT HE CAN DO THIS, I CHALLENGE HIM TO SIT IN THE CHAIR, TAKE THE OATH TO TELL THE TRUTH, AND SIT FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION.

that he was pursuing a choice

But the Second and the Ninth Amendments and the Fourteenth Amendments take this "choice" away from Chief Serpent Pitter.

he truly perceived as the best based on his experience and training, to successfully resolve the issue without malice...

But this standard smacks of the kind of arbitrary, subjective, wavy line that the CLEAR, ABSOLUTE, bright line of "shall not be infringed" barred. The Second TAKES THE "CHOICE" OUT OF THE CHIEF'S PREROGATIVE. PER THE SECOND, THE CHIEF HAS NO PREROGATIVE, AND NO LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY TO EVEN EXERCISE HIS ARBITRARY JUDGMENT AND GOOD FAITH BELIEF! NONE WHATSOEVER. ANY CALIFORNIA LAW THAT PURPORTS TO GIVE HIM THAT PREROGATIVE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The Chief must be able to objectively demonstrate that the area of law that concerns his act or omission is discretionary in nature where the law is not clearly understood.

True! IF HE IS SO SMUG AND CONFIDENT THAT HE CAN DO THIS, I CHALLENGE HIM TO SIT IN THE CHAIR, TAKE THE OATH TO TELL THE TRUTH, AND SIT FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION. I predict that during cross-examination, he cannot objectively nor persuasively demonstrate that his CCW position is Constitutional or prudent. Per the Second and other laws, it is objectively and logically impossible, without stooping to dishonest intellectual perversion of the controlling laws, to demonstrate that he has Constitutionally legitimate discretion to exercise. He, like all ordinary citizens, is also charged with knowing what the law is. Civil Authority cannot get away with making citizens turn square corners on a dime and cut itself self-serving slack, claim the law is unclear—the law that it passed—and turn a well rounded corner on a silver dollar.

Furthermore, if one were to strictly adhere to the 2nd. amendment, all people could carry a firearm concealed or otherwise; including but not limited to, felons, the mentally ill, to all people of any age with or without training.

Hogwash! There exist appropriate laws that Constitutionally bar felons from carrying firearms. Simultaneously, I am tentatively receptive to allowing felons convicted of non-violent felonies and felons who have "paid their debt to society" to enjoy full Second Amendment rights for lawful self-defense. There are also civil procedures (guardianship/conservatorship, etc.) that are well suited for a judicial determination of a person's mental health. Chief Serpent Pitter's concern for "the mentally ill," for people of "any age" and for people "without training" enjoying Second Amendment rights, is code for his back door way of adding IMPERMISSIBLE, CONSTITUTIONALLY INFIRMED, PRIOR RESTRAINTS, calculated to strip citizens of their unalienable and Constitutional rights to arms.

Reformulated, this chief serpent is impliedly asserting that he has awesome, infallible, esoteric skills to accurately determine who can be safely entrusted with the exercise of a Constitutional right. This chief serpent has also telegraphed that he thinks he has the power and the right to usurp citizens' right to make a vital decision FOR THEMSELVES: to take responsibility to defend their life with a gun in a public place. This chief serpent, if sincere, clearly believes he has the legitimate power and right to take that Constitutional choice away from all citizens! If this chief serpent does not believe this, then he caters to his local superiors, who he reasonably believes believe this, and he sucks up to them to get the job . . . and to keep it. If that is true, he is a despicable whore. He is a despicable whore because he would sell out citizens, those who pay his salary and who trust him with a high public trust, because he wants to ingratiate himself to those who can fire him. Furthermore, many Gun Prohibitionists in our society think that anyone who quotes the Founding Fathers or who is obsessive about these issues is clearly "mentally ill."

The Second does NOT impose an age nor a mental health nor a training pre-condition on the exercise of this right. Again, this is a right. But Chief Serpent Pitter's mindset converts this right to a privilege which he withholds. Chief Serpent Pitter is manifesting frank, illegal, "legislation by cop!" in contravention of what the Framers and the Ratifiers believed. They decided this issue on December 15, 1791. The Chief Serpent's attitude is consistent with him manifesting anarchy and treason or a sincere misinformed, ignorance of our nation's history and/or his inability to construe the law competently or he sucks up to Sebastopol's movers and shakers in local civil authority who champion more victim disarmament laws.

The Chief continues: You and I know that the Bill of Rights, which includes the 2nd amendment are not absolute rights.

Says who? The U.S. Supreme Court? The real law is the Constitution. Any judge's, or panel of judges' decisions, in contravention of the real law, is not the law, and is not a substitute for the real law. The Chief Serpent took an oath to uphold, support and defend the U.S. Constitution, not blindly all decisions of any judge nor panel of judges. Per our Constitution, before it was perverted, all of civil authority, including the entire Judiciary, is below the Constitution, not above and against it. Where is the equivocation in "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."? I DEFY CHIEF SERPENT PITTER TO ARTICULATE A PRINCIPLED, PERSUASIVE ANALYSIS THAT THIS RIGHT DOES NOT BAR ALL PRIOR RESTRAINT.

The professional legal community is divided over this issue. Some believe that the Constitution is "a living document" and the law is whatever a judge says it is. Per this view, if the judge says the Second does not guarantee an absolute right, then it is not an absolute right. The Constitution, however, clearly states that it is the supreme law of the land. Article VI, Section 2. A judge's decision is not "it." Judges are duty bound by "it" to uphold, support and defend the Constitution, down to the last letter. When the Constitution and a judge's decision are divergent, the Constitution prevails. A judge's decision is "the law of the case" decided. It is not a replacement for what the Constitution says is the law.

There are many in our nation who have agendas, which include the destruction of our Constitutional Rule of Law, the destruction of the idea of normative, anchored, unalienable, absolute, rights, who think they are smarter and wiser than the Founders, the Framers and the Ratifiers. These people function like dishonest termites who eat away at the Constitution. These people, judges, dress up their professional acts to try to put a fig leaf of legitimacy over their treasonous conduct-conduct that gives aid and comfort to this nation's enemies, conduct that arguably merits putting them up against the wall for execution.

As soon as we accept the notion that the law is what a judge says it is even if what the judge decides is clearly contrary to what the Constitution says, we end up with a Judicial Aristocracy at best or with Judicial Despotism at worse, neither of which are acceptable. Thomas Jefferson warned us of this dynamic, and his fears have become reality. Once one deviates from the concepts of Absolute Rights, and that the Constitution is the supreme law, and acquiesces to the imposition of prior restraints against absolute rights for the convenience of Civil Authority, this nation as conceived by the Founders and Framers, stands on the edge of the grave it dug for itself.

Secondly, the constitution created a government that can be changed by the people through peaceful methodology.

True. Non-violence is the preferred method but not the only method. If the No Absolute Rights crowd thinks it can go from Liberty to Tyranny and skip Accountability, adherents of the Absolute Rights school of thought can skip a recall.

No dictator can take over.

Prove it! Categorically—Is there really no risk of a low grade tyrant wannabee making an attempt to become a political T-Rex? This nation, and this state, are awash in low grade tyrant wanabees. Bill Klinton, with the support of many movers and shakers, the courts, the media, academia and the majority, succeeded in going a long way down the road to reduce the Bill of Rights to Bill's Rights, and Bill's opinion, of what privileges he would let others enjoy. Klinton was charged with the task of making sure that the laws were faithfully executed. But he undermined those laws, he got re-elected and he was not thrown out of office. Gray Davis, as governor of the most populous state in the nation, incredibly, went on record with two alarming remarks: he will not elevate judges who decide cases contrary to his ideas (a direct threat to the independence of the judiciary) and he believes that the function of the California Legislature is to carry out his vision! Apparently, Davis believes that the idea of separation of powers and checks and balances is out of date and all power should be consolidated with one person—him. (Governor Davis, however, forgot one thing: Before he can consolidate all power, he has got to get rid of the guns in the hands of responsible citizens.) And, you know what? A lopsided majority of Sebastopol's voters voted for Klinton and Red Davis.

The most practical means to make certain that "No dictator can take over." is to do the following: Get right in the face of Civil Authority; insist that Civil Authority wear its Constitutional collar and remain tied down—securely—by the Constitution's chains; cut Civil Authority no slack; do not let wordsmiths like Chief Serpent Pitter use weasel words, equivocations, redefinitions, language perversions, scare tactics, blatant grabs of power, and fallacious reasoning-to-result to undermine rights, and, be prepared to go to war— literally—with Civil Authority, and, if necessary, promptly kill off its most egregious traitors to send the rest a stark message. Patriots must stop being intimidated by civil authority's unconstitutional laws and guns. Patriots should, and must, show their courage. Patriots must use their rights or lose their rights. Patriots must always remember that Tyrant Wannabes fear Patriots' guns, which is why they demonize them and all responsible firearm owners.

BURN THIS INTO YOUR PSYCHE: THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS TO KEEP CIVIL AUTHORITY HONEST AND ACCOUNTABLE BY SCARING THE CRAP OUT OF CIVIL AUTHORITY'S AGENTS, AND, ULTIMATELY, IF NECESSARY, USING PRIVATELY OWNED, UNREGISTERED FIREARMS AS TYRANT TERMINATOR TOOLS.

We elect and un-elect our leaders.

True, many of whom are misleaders who do not faithfully enforce the laws, who are intentional misleaders with their own agendas.

We have an extensive check and balance system.

True, on paper. These paper barriers to Tyranny have broken down substantially. Want proof? Proof, sadly, exists—in abundance. Even here in sad sack Sebastopol, which is proving to be an unconstitutional hell-hole, a springboard for oppression that increasingly becomes seriously insufferable. Go back and read Councilmember Roventini's letter to me and what he attributes to the Chief Serpent. Can it really be true that this Chief Serpent sincerely believes that his CCW policies and issuing criteria are "Constitutional" or "prudent" or both? Is he really that misinformed? That stupid? That dense? Or, in the alternative, is he that flat out evil?

To exacerbate matters, the U.S. Supreme Court has granted all branches of civil authority, and many of their agents, immunities from liability for acting illegally. The Judiciary invented these immunities. These immunities put all of Civil Authority above and against the Constitution and the People. Civil Authority, by these invented immunities, has broken its Constitutional chains and now runs amuck, without Constitutionally legitimate authority. These invented immunities make a mockery of the First Amendment's Right to Petition. The Right to Petition is a sham, 100% ineffective, when juxtaposed against these invented immunities.

To further exacerbate matters, the Judiciary now claims for itself a monopoly on determining what the Constitution means, and the power to reduce rights to privileges, by perverting language and by placing the alleged general welfare above rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Anyone who says our system of checks and balances is working well is uninformed, misinformed, naive, or a liar. If those checks and balances worked, this nation would function differently and many laws on the books would not be on the books. Courts at all levels for decades have sanctioned tremendous expansion of Civil Authority's power. That expansion eroded the peoples' liberty. Statism is winning. Liberty is losing. A majority of the media, academia, the legal community and the electorate have supported this trend and continue to support it.

The majority has snarly instincts and scant respect, if any, for the rights of the minority or rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The media and slick politicians have done an excellent job in bamboozling most citizens by perverting the language and the law to advance their dangerous agendas.

There is power in language. Beware that power. Be alert to language manipulation and perversion! Many tyrant wannabees are well skilled at perverting language to advance their goals. Example: The much maligned militia is also one of the most critical of these "checks and balances," but champions of more victim disarmament laws incessantly rail against "the militia." If necessary, the militia will be forced to put the Constitutional collar back on Civil Authority's neck. In the process, many pubic serpents will likely get their necks broken and/or their hearts shot out and/or their brains turned into a pink mist.

Those conditions that spawned Hitler and others like him did not originate in a healthy democracy such as ours.

I do not accept the characterization nor the premise that the U.S. is a democracy nor that it is a healthy one. Chief Serpent Pitter never defined what he meant by "healthy" or "democracy." If Chief Serpent Pitter intended to use democracy accurately, he revealed his ignorance and he telegraphed why he is potentially dangerous, if not already dangerous. We are not a democracy. We are a Constitutionally limited democratic republic with guaranteed rights that are off limits from all Civil Authority and a majority vote. To the extent that Chief Serpent Pitter does not understand or refuses to accept this bedrock concept, he is dangerous. If he is sincere in his beliefs, his sincerity does not cut him slack. He has no legitimate power to deny people their rights because he is ignorant and sincere. Ultimately, I do not give a damn about his sincerity. When one sincerely believes what is wrong, one remains "wrong"! I care about conduct, the Constitutional Rule of Law, and results. The mere fact that Chief Serpent Pitter would describe our form of government, and its health, as "a healthy democracy," reveals how out of touch with reality he is. I, for one, loathe his position. Should he take one step that is truly insufferable, he will be held accountable.

Among some citizens, myself included, Chief Serpent Pitter is one of the most despised persons in Sebastopol. This is because of his "No issue" CCW policy coupled with his arrogance and closed mindset on this topic. He seems to be clueless as to his predicament. He seems to be clueless has to how polarized this nation is, how large groups and the legal community and the political community do not agree on fundamental principles. He seems clueless that angry, armed citizens who believe in Absolute Rights and maintaining Constitutional lines are serious about guarding the public Liberty. These people do not have confidence in the Chief Serpent Pitters of this nation. 

To exacerbate matters further, there are law enforcement departments in this nation that commit political heresy and treason: using public funds, they teach their officers that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to arms and that ordinary citizens do not have a right to own or keep any firearm, anywhere, for any purpose. There is also extensive evidence that most law enforcement officers have not had any training about the Nuremberg Principle. For example, Sebastopol Police Officer Bob Smith told the author that Officer Smith, after being a cop for many years, has never had any training in the Nuremberg Principle. Officer Smith also said that if he were ordered to confiscate all firearms from all citizens within the city limits, he would do so, and he would use lethal force, if necessary, day after day after day, to enforce that order. When the author asked Officer Smith why he would do that, he said because if he was issued an order, it is his job to enforce his orders, citizens have to obey all orders, he worked for many years as a cop, and he cannot risk giving his department an excuse to fire him before he retires because he needs to collect his retirement benefits! (I guess we fought the Nazis for this! Somehow, I experience Officer Smith to be inadequately trained, confused, poorly lead, and potentially dangerous—extremely dangerous.)

Will another madman come into power in the United States and take away our guns and enslave us?

To the extent that we abandon the concept of Absolute Rights and Civil Authority's infringement of unalienable and Constitutional rights, and disarm citizens, the answer is "Yes!" Civil Authority already has gutted the Bill of Rights and has already slipped its Constitutional collar, and it has done this while there is still an armed citizenry.

Chances are this will not happen without popular support and subsequent election by our citizens.

Said like a European Jew who trusted civilized, democratic Germany. Those Jews paid the price for trusting Civil Authority and for allowing Civil Authority to demonize and defang them. How many of us, if we were at our intellectual prime in 1936, could have predicted accurately, which nation, out of over one hundred nations in the world, in less than ten years, would become what Germany became and do what Germany did—to its own citizens, to the citizens of other nations and to the world? Winston Churchill was one of the few who was concerned and his warnings fell on deaf ears. It should never be forgotten that Hitler came to power in a civilized nation as the result of a valid, democratic election. He enjoyed the enthusiastic support of a majority of the German people and the learned, sophisticated, German legal system enthusiastically sanctioned Hitler's Rule of Law.

Chief Serpent Pitter, therefore, is too smug in his orientation and his dubious assumptions. He manifests characteristics of being a Useful Idiot for the Tyrant Wannabee crowd. He portrays himself as an experienced, educated law enforcement officer with good intentions who only wants to help but insists that he be trusted. In context, he wants citizens to trust 911 instead of a .38 Special. I advise: Run like hell away from this man! Never let this man infringe on your rights. Do not preempt. But prepare to have to kill him if necessary should he ever order his department to defang responsible armed citizens. The alternative is to risk becoming first a subject and then a slave, a bullet stop, landfill, or a lampshade.

Personally, I believe that people have the right

Of course, this depends on his definition of a "right." Read on. Be alert to how Pitter plays the redefinition/language perversion game of equivocation and switcheroo.

to keep and bear arms under the limited conditions as state and federal laws set forth.

Notice that Chief Serpent Pitter does not discriminate as to the pecking order of laws. Why? It appears that to Pitter, one law is as good as another. Pitter, with this mind set, is no longer a peace officer who will enforce only Constitutional law. Instead, he is an enforcer—he will unthinkingly enforce any law, especially ones that enhance his discretion and his power. The more Pitter explains himself and his orientation on these issues, the more he alarms me and confirms that he is dangerous, that he has dishonored his sworn oath.

I also believe that firearms are an implement of destruction,

Note the pejorative characterization: "an implement of destruction." Why not, "I believe that a firearm is an inanimate object, a tool, that can be used for good or for bad. As a tool, they are not different from a knife, a hammer, a screwdriver, a pair of scissors—all of which can be used for socially useful purposes and all of which can be misused for a criminal purpose. Firearms can also be used for lawful self-defense, to defend Liberty and to deter Tyranny. Firearms are excellent in that application."

While it is true that "firearms are an implement of destruction," so what? They can destroy criminals, tyrants, a tyrant's goons. Motor vehicles, needles, computers, etc. can also be used as "an implement of destruction," but Pitter does not demonize these inanimate objects. He does not impose his same prior restraint conditions on drivers—people who put thousands of pounds of metal in motion at high speed in close quarters with others. Nor does he try to impose prior restraint on the various instruments of communication—all of which can be used to plot crime, etc. Are firearms somehow bad or evil because they can destroy—Tyrants?

and there are too many

Says who? If Pitter were Thomas Jefferson or Patrick Henry, as Thomas Jefferson or Patrick Henry, he would find great comfort in knowing that there still existed a widespread, armed citizenry, bold enough to pack a handgun without believing a CCW permit was required, and bold enough to pack a handgun without Chief Serpent Pitter's CCW permit. But Pitter is no Thomas Jefferson nor Patrick Henry. Pitter, barely, is worthy of being mud or crud on the bottom of Jefferson's or Henry's boot. A widespread armed citizenry makes it more difficult for Civil Authority to become despotic and abusive of its citizens, makes it difficult for a foreign power to invade, and discourages criminal plunder. Each of these facts is a major social benefit, if you value Liberty, the Constitutional Rule of Law, and the sanctity of human life.

in some of which are the salt of the earth. However, some of these people

Can Pitter accurately pick these people out in advance? No! No one can. We do not even know what Pitter will do under pressure.

when under pressure may not be the best individuals to have in their possession an implement of destruction with which in six (6) pound trigger pull can change their lives forever and destroy the lives of those around them.

So, because a citizen "may not be the best," per Pitter's highly subjective, arbitrary feelings about this, he plays God, and denies people their unalienable and Constitutional right to use a firearm for lawful self-defense. Note how Pitter raised the bar to exercise a Constitutional right: per his arbitrary "legislation by cop!" standard, one now has to be "the best individual" (emphasis added) to get a CCW permit! Does one have to be "the best individual" to exercise First Amendment rights? To get an abortion? To get a jury trial? To not be burdened with unreasonable search and seizure? To benefit from reasonable bail? But Chief Serpent Pitter implies he does not know who "may not be the best." Thus, he raises the bar to get a CCW permit further while simultaneously articulating an inability to determine who, if anyone, is "the best."

Where is it written that only "the best" have rights? That only "the best" can exercise rights? That Pitter has the Constitutional authority, or the pragmatic ability, to determine who is "the best"? Where is the hard evidence? Chief Serpent Pitter has telegraphed an elitist bias, but Elitism is the mortal foe of Equality, Liberty and "Justice for all." Pitter's standards are too variable, too wishy washy, too subjective, too indefensible—exactly the kind of mischievousness the Framers and Ratifiers foresaw and barred with the Constitutional bright line of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The Bill of Rights was intended to be an impregnable bulwark against Chief Serpent Pitter's self-serving, foul smelling crap.

For this reason,

One! Just this one! And this one is grossly non-meritorious for many compelling reasons!

I choose not to issue CCW permits, not because of liability.

Note how cavalier this Lizard is about lawsuits. So how does Pitter exercise his discretion, which he never should have been given, and was given to him unconstitutionally? He declares that he will not issue CCW permits, period! Incredible. Absolutely incredible. The Kalifornia Legislature, a Gun Prohibitionist stronghold if ever there was one, by passing Penal Code § 12050, implied that some people should be issued CCW permits if they proved "good character" etc., but Pitter, by his absolute No Issue Policy, has boldly set himself at cross purposes with the Kalifornia Legislature. Am I suppose to have respect for this man? This one man has, in effect, pitted himself against the entire march of history—Mankind's awesome, gut wrenching struggle for Liberty, plus the Bill of Rights, and, in effect, he declares that every thing that preceded was for naught, that he is wiser, that he is in control, and when anyone asks him for his permission to use a gun for lawful self-defense in a public place, he has already made up his mind, and the answer is "No!" And this chief serpent says, "No! No! No!" over and over again, ad nauseam, knowing that he has no legal duty to protect anyone, does not have an assured ability to protect anyone, and is legally and financially immune for failing to protect anyone. To exacerbate matters, this chief serpent would not even stock at his police headquarters the CCW permit application forms. Why? Because he made up his mind, in advance, contrary to California court law, that he would never issue a CCW permit to anyone, so there was, according to him, no point in even keeping the permit application forms on the premises!

Law-abiding citizens, for generations, have puked their guts for this nation, have manifested loyalty to this nation, have worked hard, have paid bazillions of dollars in taxes, etc., and have been "good," but for what? To have it all come down to this: The supreme law of the land is now this: Per Pitter, one must agree to be unarmed prey and die without any complaint and without making any fuss that would be an inconvenience for Civil Authority.

Every instrument has been abused, can be abused and will be abused again. Even cops do this. Cops have been known to abuse broom sticks, night sticks, guns, motor vehicles, telephones, their badges, and the means of communication. Cops have been known to be perjurers, rapists, child molesters, burglars, thieves, murderers. Some have even murdered their own—while each were in full uniform and on duty! Remember Serpico? Citizens never know when another cop will abuse one of these instruments. I wonder how long Pitter would want to remain in law enforcement if citizens told him, "Chief, we have decided that to promote citizens' safety, and to preserve our rights, if you want to remain a police chief, you and your officers must do your job without night sticks, guns, motor vehicles, telephones, badges and any means of communication. We fear that you or your officers might abuse the tools you need to do your job."

I submit that the 225 years experience in the State of Vermont supports well my orientation toward the Second Amendment. It is my understanding that no permit has ever been required in that state to carry a firearm, openly or concealed. See Vermont Statutes Chapter 85, Weapons. Per Vermont's laws, coupled with the Second Amendment, anyone over the age of 16 years is eligible to exercise, without prior restraint of any kind, their full Second Amendment rights. Vermont, arguably, is a superb example of literal compliance with the Second Amendment. Vermont's civil authority believes that the Second is your permit. Vermont's 225 years of experience of no prior restraint in contravention of the Second undercuts, or logically should undercut, all of the chief serpent's, and other Gun Prohibitionists', contrived fears that are relied upon to gut the Second. There is no legitimate reason to think that Vermont's experience would be different anywhere else in the United States.

In January 2002, I stopped for gas and food at a fast food joint along I-5, in California, near the famous Harris Ranch. I was about 70 miles north of Bakersfield. I saw three young men. Each had facial hair. Each were dressed neatly and cleanly. Each looked like a modern cattle drover or a person on a movie or TV set for a western. I engaged the three of them in conversation about gun control. I told them about the chief serpent's attitude toward issuing CCW permits. These young men confirmed that they were modern cattle drovers. They also told me the following: your police chief is nuts; down here, everyone who wants to carry a gun, does, with or without a CCW permit; their sheriff and their police chief know this, permit it, and have no problem with it; it is rare for anyone locally who is not a real criminal to misuse a firearm; gun control is not an issue with them because guns are commonly carried and that is widely accepted; and they would not tolerate anyone with Pitter's attitude and policy. Question: Is this area plagued with gun related crime? Answer: Hardly! Question: If you were a criminal, where would you prefer to practice your plunder: in that area of California or in Sebastopol?

California's Constitution, Article I, Section 7(b) states, "A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked." This state has approximately 50+ counties and hundreds of towns and cities. Thus, we have 50+ sheriffs and hundreds of police chiefs. These sheriffs and these police chiefs lack a uniform standard regarding issuing CCW permits. Arguably, that is a violation of Equal Protection and a violation of Article I, Section 7(b). Furthermore, peace officers are a class created by the Legislature. As such, peace officers enjoy many privileges and immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.

California's Constitution, Article III, Section 1, states, "The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land." California has not seceded from the Union. The Second Amendment is part of that Supreme Law. That Supreme Law is analogous to a saddle, bridle, and stirrups on a jack ass called Chief Serpent.

Jim Bertoli is a long time Sebastopol resident. Mr. Bertoli, in November, 2000, won an election to be a superior court judge. I do not know if Mr. Bertoli has asked Pitter to issue him a CCW permit. Assuming that at some point in time Mr. Bertoli will (or did) ask Pitter for a CCW permit, I wonder what Pitter's response will be (or was.) If Pitter refuses (or refused) to issue Judge Bertoli a CCW permit, Pitter demonstrates that he is too restrictive. On the other hand, if Pitter will issue (did issue) a CCW permit to Judge Bertoli, Pitter demonstrates that the entire CCW permit system smacks of elitism and that only the politically well connected get such permits, which makes a farce out of corny concepts—Equality, Liberty, Equal Justice, Equal Protection of the Laws, Due Process of Law.

Sebastopol has a population of 7,800 and a police department of about 14 full time cops, of which only about 10 are patrol officers, plus about 7 volunteer reserve officers. Pitter, on a sustained basis, can put on patrol at most 3 to 4 cops per each 8 hour shift. 3 to 4 cops cannot adequately protect 7,800 citizens. Yet, Pitter will not issue CCW permits! This man is grossly irresponsible. He enjoys the illusion of control. In reality, many citizens pack a sidearm for self-defense without his damn permission. 3 to 4 Sebastopol cops can patrol Sebastopol daily and go home at the end of their shifts because the overwhelming majority of the armed citizens of Sebastopol are responsible, have no bloodlust and can be trusted with arms, as demonstrated by the fact that the percentage who have misused a firearm is small.

I predict that if any Sebastopol Police Chief orders his officers to confiscate firearms from armed, responsible citizens, that department will be decimated within 5 to 45 days.

The idea of murdering a peace officer is repulsive. But the idea of killing a gun grabbing government goon sent to defang me in contravention of my rights is, as a last stand effort to preserve, or to restore, Liberty, appealing. This is because standing up for Liberty is noble, and the idea of being defanged and reduced to subject status is not an option.

The paragraphs on this page are direct quotes from a memo to me from Chief Pitter dated 9/27/00.

I hope this gives greater clarity to Chief Pitter's rationale regarding the issuance of CCW's.

It certainly did! Sadly! Find me a bucket. I need to puke.

back to top

 

IV. My Assessment of the Chief Serpent's Position

Chief Serpent Gordon Pitter's CCW position and policies are a PIG! This is because they are:

P:  For preposterous!

I:   For inflammatory!, and

G:  For being a grotesque distortion of Inalienable Rights from a Creator, of the Constitutional Rule of Law, and of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

 

V. Juxtaposition

Consider this:

1791: The Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." [Emphasis added.]

1905: U.S. Supreme Court: "The constitution is a written instrument. As such, it's meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now." South Carolina v. U.S. (1905) 199 U.S. 437, 448

2001: Chief Serpent Gordon Pitter: "I believe that people have the right to keep and bear arms under the limited conditions as state and federal laws set forth. . . . However, some of these people when under pressure may not be the best individuals to have in their possession an implement of destruction . . . . For this reason, I choose not to issue CCW permits, not because of liability. [Emphasis added.]

back to top

 

VI. Questions For The Chief Serpent And Civil Authority

What happened between 1791 and 2001?

When, and why, did civil authority slip its Constitutional collar?

Why did the Judiciary, the Legislature, and the Executive misread, or pervert, or ignore, the big "C"—the Constitution?

Why do the Black Robes drag down Liberty with heavy, prior restraint, chains?

Why do the Black Robes abuse their position and pervert the laws with words turned inside out and upside down?

Why do they engage in an illegitimate razzle dazzle display of word smithing which reduces a right to a privilege?

Why did the big "C" morph into a document of oppression?

Why did citizens get morphed into being reduced to subjects and reduced further still to being piss ants?

Why does civil authority inexplicably persist in devaluing U.S. citizenship?

Exactly what are "the limited conditions as state and federal laws set forth" that the chief serpent referenced?

Exactly how are these alleged "limited conditions" Constitutional?

Exactly how, if at all, do these alleged "limited conditions" square with the Bill of Rights' Preamble and the bright as possible Constitutional bright line, ". . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."?

Exactly how can the California Legislature Constitutionally delegate to Chief Serpent Pitter legitimate authority to have absolute, unfettered discretion to require citizens to have to beg him for his permission to defend their lives with a firearm in a public place and, even when they beg, deny them CCW permits?

Is Chief Serpent Gordon Pitter of Sebastopol, California guilty of frankly making up the law? Of implementing his own "legislation by cop"? If so, who in hell granted him the power to be Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary? Is this Chief Serpent a "Chief of Police" or a duly elected "Legislator"?

Exactly why should law-abiding citizens be penalized and defanged simply because Chief Serpent Gordon Pitter impermissibly raised the bar to too high a lofty height, namely, one has to be "the best" before one can exercise Second Amendment rights?

Is not what the California Legislature has done and/or what Chief Serpent Pitter has done representative of the kind of mischievousness that the Framers and the Ratifiers did their utmost best to prevent when they wrote, and approved, ". . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."?

Exactly how does Chief Serpent Pitter's arbitrary "the best" standard control criminals? Disarm criminals?

If Pitter is incapable of being able to determine who is "the best," why in hell is he the Police Chief?

If Pitter stoops to making up the law, why in hell is he the Police Chief?

If Pitter is wiping his ass with the Bill of Rights, why in hell is he the Police Chief?

Is Chief Serpent Gordon Pitter of Sebastopol, California screwing around with the Constitution?

Is Chief Serpent Pitter out of control?

Why should citizens obey this serpent?

Why should citizens allow themselves to be reduced to unarmed prey by this serpent?

How did "shall not be infringed" morph into this serpent's unfettered discretion?

How did the responsible carry of a firearm for lawful self-defense in a public place without this serpent's permission, or permit, become a crime?

Is not Chief Serpent Gordon Pitter's position on these issues a crime?

Is not Chief Serpent Gordon Pitter in violation of the Supreme Law?

Should Chief Serpent Gordon Pitter be fired if he will not yield to the Supreme Law? If he will not FIRST ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTION?

Is the Sebastopol City Manager, City Attorney, and/or City Council derelict for failing to exercise their oversight control responsibility relative to this chief serpent?

Can Sebastopol's civil authority really be clueless as to how much they irresponsibly risk reaching a truly inflammatory flash point?

Can the chief serpent really be clueless as to how much his position stinks?

Can the chief serpent really be clueless as to how much his position severely alienates certain citizens who are in no mood to cut him any further slack?

HOW CAN A RIGHT BE REGULATED WITHOUT BEING INFRINGED?

IF THIS CHIEF SERPENT REALLY IS PROFESSIONAL, COMPETENT, EXPERIENCED, AND ETHICAL, WHERE IS THE CONTROLLING LEGAL AUTHORITY THAT SUPPORTS THIS SERPENT'S POSITION THAT ONE HAS TO BE "THE BEST," AND SINCE HE CANNOT TELL WHO IS "THE BEST," NO ONE GETS A CCW PERMIT? [I HAVE ASKED THIS SERPENT, THE CITY COUNCIL, THE CITY MANAGER, AND THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PRODUCE SUCH AUTHORITY FOR AT LEAST ONE YEAR. TO DATE, THEY HAVE NOT PRODUCED ANY SUCH AUTHORITY. THAT FACT IS NOT SURPRISING. WE ALL KNOW, INCLUDING THEM, THAT NO SUCH AUTHORITY EXISTS. WHICH IS THE RAW RUB. WHICH MAKES MY COMPLAINT AGAINST THESE FOLKS 100% RIGHTEOUS.]

back to top

 

VII. Mancus' Message To Chief Serpent Gordon Pitter

Your choices are:

Yield to the Constitutional Rule of Law, admit that your CCW issuance policy stinks (because it is unconstitutional, it is preposterous, it is inflammatory and it is grotesque,) and immediately FIRST ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTION, namely, get 100% the hell out of the CCW issuance business, and immediately publicly declare that you and your department will permit citizens to fully enjoy their inalienable and their Second Amendment rights within Sebastopol's city limits, just as in Vermont.

Continue to stonewall and hide from me, like a damn ostrich.

Sit in the damn chair and submit to rational cross-examination to demonstrate your alleged professionalism, expertise, and competency on these issues.

Resign.

Rashly strike out at me, e.g., attempt to frame me or worse.

If you make the right choice, perhaps we can be friends. Until then, we are in a state of cold war, and I deem you to be a dangerous domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution who is a meaningful threat to my vital interests.

If you are so sure that you are correct, if Mayor Sam Spooner's confidence in your alleged professionalism, experience, and competency is well placed, PROVE IT! SIT IN THE DAMN CHAIR. SUBMIT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION UNDER OATH. LET'S HAVE A HIGH LEVEL CEREBRAL JOUST. OR DO YOU PREFER TO STILL TRY TO STONEWALL YOUR WAY THROUGH THIS? DO YOU NOW REALIZE THAT STONEWALLING, AND BUSINESS AS USUAL, WILL NO LONGER CUT IT?

WELCOME TO THE LAND OF NO MORE SLACK.

THIS IS ONE OF THE PRECIOUS FEW REMAINING STOPS BEFORE FLASH POINT.

SEBASTOPOL IS CELEBRATING ITS 100TH ANNIVERSARY THIS YEAR, AND WE ARE INTO THE SECOND YEAR OF A NEW MILLENNIUM. IS IT NOT TIME FOR LOCAL, STATE, AND NATIONAL CIVIL AUTHORITY TO FINALLY GET IT RIGHT?

DO YOU REALIZE THAT IT WILL TAKE MORE THAN AN APPOINTMENT TO YOUR POSITION, MORE THAN A BLUE UNIFORM, MORE THAN A BADGE, MORE THAN A GUN, FOR YOU TO EARN, AND TO KEEP, THE LEGITIMATE TITLE OF CHIEF OF POLICE?

AS OF NOW, YOU HAVE EARNED ONE TITLE: CHIEF SERPENT.

TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU CONTINUE TO WIPE YOUR ASS WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS, I HOLD YOU IN CONTEMPT.

YOU DO NOT KNOW ME. YOU DO NOT KNOW THE REST OF MY FELLOW 7,800 SEBASTOPOL NEIGHBORS. YET, YOU SIT BEHIND YOUR BULLET PROOF WINDOWS IN AN AIR CONDITIONED OFFICE, ARMED, SURROUNDED BY ARMED SUBORDINATES, WEARING YOUR GOLD STARS ON YOUR COLLAR, WHILE YOU INSULT US AND DRAW AN UNEARNED SALARY FROM US. YOU TELL US WE ARE NOT "THE BEST," THAT WE ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO EXERCISE OUR RIGHTS. YOU INVENT CRAP THAT YOU CALL THE LAW, WHICH I CALL LEGISLATION BY CHIEF SERPENT. YOU TELL US THAT WE HAVE TO BEG YOU FOR YOUR PERMISSION TO EXERCISE OUR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DEFEND OUR LIVES, KNOWING THAT YOU HAVE NO DUTY TO DEFEND US, KNOWING THAT YOU ARE LEGALLY IMMUNE FOR FAILING TO DEFEND US, AND YET YOU DESPICABLY AND CALLOUSLY REFUSE TO LET US DEFEND OURSELVES.

DAMN YOU.

YIELD OR SELF-FORNICATE.

YIELD OR GO TO HELL AND BURN INDEFINITELY.

CHIEF SERPENT, HOW EFFECTIVE DO YOU THINK YOU ARE IN THIS TOWN NOW?

WHICH IS BIGGER: YOUR BRAIN OR YOUR TAIL?

ARE YOU GOING TO CONTINUE TO CRAWL ON YOUR BELLY OR WILL YOU YIELD TO THE CONSTITUTION? OR WILL YOU SIT IN THE CHAIR AND CEREBRALLY EXPLAIN—AND DEFEND—YOURSELF AND YOUR POLICIES?

DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE REALLY ACCOMPLISHED SINCE YOU CAME TO TOWN?

I ITEMIZE BELOW WHAT YOU HAVE ACCOMPLISHED.

YOU HAVE SEVERELY ALIENATED WELL INFORMED, ARMED CITIZENS WHO ARE SERIOUS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RULE OF LAW.

AS A RESULT OF YOUR ARROGANCE, YOUR STONEWALLING, AND YOUR INEXPLICABLE WIPING YOUR ASS WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS, YOU HAVE DRIVEN A SERIOUS WEDGE BETWEEN ARMED CITIZENS AND UNIFORMED CIVIL LAW ENFORCEMENT.

YOU HAVE STRUCK A MATCH WHICH YOU HOLD CLOSE TO A STICK OF TNT, BOTH OF WHICH YOU FOOLISHLY REFUSE TO SEPARATE AND PUT DOWN.

YOU HAVE SERIOUSLY IMPAIRED YOUR EFFECTIVENESS AS A POLICE CHIEF.

YOU HAVE RUINED YOUR CREDIBILITY AMONG THOSE WHO ARE ON TO YOU.

YOU HAVE BEEN REDUCED TO THE STATUS OF CHIEF SERPENT.

YOU HAVE BECOME A USEFUL RALLYING CRY FOR LIBERTY.

YOU HAVE MANIFESTED POLICIES, AND ATTITUDES, SIMILAR TO KING GEORGE, III.

YOU HAVE STUNK UP THE PLACE. THIS IS BECAUSE YOUR POSITION, YOUR POLICIES, YOUR ATTITUDES STINK!

Pitter, to summarize, how do I experience thee? I experience thee to be incompetent, misinformed, or evil. Either way, you enable the further destruction of the Constitutional Rule of Law, and you arrogantly, foolishly, and recklessly dare to deny me my most fundamental right of self-preservation via responsible use of a firearm in a public place.

Pitter, read No. 75 of my " LIBERTY" article that is referenced in Roman Numeral I above. After reading No. 75, I dare you to explain, in a principled, logical, persuasive manner, why my analysis in No. 75 is not persuasive.

Pitter, realize that your CCW permit issuance criteria is a "PIG" (Preposterous, Inflammatory, and Grotesque). In that sense, you are dangerous.

Pitter, I am not "a lone nut". I am not "a gun nut". And I am not "a nut." I am a well informed citizen, a Liberty activist who knows the difference between God's Liberty and your perversion of God's Liberty. I shall not wear your yoke nor your chains.

Pitter, wear your damn Constitutional collar! Be a true professional senior law enforcement peace officer, not a damn "enforcer" of unconstitutional laws.

Pitter, put that collar on voluntarily or risk unintended consequences when you miscalculate and force citizens to force you to wear that collar and remain tied down by the chains of the Constitution.

Pitter, I do not know of any senior law enforcement officer who has gone as far as you have in championing victim disarmament laws. You are the only one I know of who has raised the bar to get a CCW permit so high that one has to be "the best." And, to exacerbate matters, you then claim that since you cannot tell who is "the best," you refuse to issue a CCW permit to anyone. Why, and exactly how, do your admitted shortcomings, without something more, justify you denying citizens their inalienable and Constitutional rights, especially when we are discussing preserving human life and self-preservation—Nature's most powerful instinct? In that sense, Pitter, you are alone. You are way out there on point, all alone, playing with yourself, inventing law, enjoying your ego trip, while you screw around with the Constitution and other peoples' lives and most sacred, fundamental rights. Serpent, you are out of the ball park. Lizard, you are the "nut case" - the "lone nut" - and the Sebastopol City Council, City Manager, and City Attorney ratify, support, and defend you. Incredible!

Pitter, if you were truly professional, competent, ethical and courageous, you would clean up the foul mess you have created — voluntarily, without the need for litigation or violence. I did not create this mess — your mess. I merely spotlight and hold up for ridicule — you and your mess.

Pitter, you now function and think like a "bad pig," namely a "peace officer" who morphed into a "law enforcement officer" who further morphed into an "enforcer"-one who will enforce any law, no matter how badly it is Constitutionally infirmed. I urge you to think, and to function, like a "good pig." I do not intend any offense by that term. What I envision by that term follows. You immediately show PRIDE, INTEGRITY, and GUTS. You can do that by:

(a) admitting that your CCW permit issuance criteria is seriously flawed and inexorably unconstitutional; 

(b) returning to the Constitutional Rule of Law; 

(c) getting 100% out of the CCW permit issuance business; 

(d) publicly adopting, and advocating for, a pure Second Amendment position, namely, the Second guarantees an individual right which bars all prior restraint against the right; and 

(e) by confronting this objectively verifiable truth: the word "immunities" appears only once in the U.S. Constitution—in the 14th Amendment, and, in context, that word means that citizens are immune from criminal prosecution merely for exercising any, or all, of their rights responsibly despite all unconstitutional laws to the contrary.

Reformulated, I, and all other peaceable, responsible, otherwise law-abiding citizens, have a 100% absolute, Constitutional right, and immunity from criminal prosecution, for the peaceable, responsible, exercise of that right, to carry a firearm, openly or concealed, in a public place, for lawful self-defense and for lawful defense of others, without any CCW permit required, because the Second Amendment is every such citizen's CCW permit. Pitter, do that and we can be friends—strongly bonded in principle to the true Constitutional Rule of Law, which we both took a sworn oath to support and to defend. I was, and I remain, serious about my oath. Were you serious? Are you serious? Pitter, fail to do that, and we shall remain potential mortal enemies, in a state of cold war. That is because you currently hide behind an illegitimate, qualified immunity that the U.S. Supreme Court and the Kalifornia Legislature invented whereas I enjoy the legitimate rights set forth in the Bill of Rights and the legitimate immunity set forth in the Fourteenth Amendment.

back to top

 

VIII. Sebastopol Attorney's Letter Refusing Civil Dialogue

A letter I recently received from Sebastopol's city attorney is very instructive. This letter speaks for itself. In essence, the City Attorney and his fellow rogue civil servants have withdrawn an offer to meet in person and discuss these matters in civil terms. The real question is: what does it mean? Some may not understand this letter as I experience it.

First, I want to correct a false statement in the City Attorney's letter and then a false impression that he created by something else he wrote, and failed to write in his letter. The City Attorney wrote that I alleged that this Chief Serpent "unlawfully refused to consider your [my] application for a CCW permit." This statement is 100% false. The truth follows, and this is the truth that I alleged, verbally, and in writing, tot he Sebastopol City Council. When I asked a lady at the local police department for a copy of the Chief Serpent's current CCW permit application form, I did so because I simply wanted to study it, primarily for anticipated litigation, not because I had any intention of filling it out and submitting it to get a CCW permit. When I made that request, this lady told me that this Chief Serpent did not any have any such forms on the premises. I was told that that was because the Chief Serpent had already made up his mind that he would never issue a CCW permit to anyone; therefore, there was no point to him keeping the application forms on the premises.

I stress that this Chief Serpent and this City Attorney can never produce my application for a CCW permit because I never filled one out and I never submitted one.

The City Attorney also wrote that I "have addressed the council on numerous occasions regarding this allegation." In context, "this allegation" references what I state above is 100% false. I am disturbed about the City Attorney's inability, or unwillingness, to report the facts accurately. Sebastopol's City Council meetings are audio-visually recorded. I am 100% confident that a most thorough review of those tapes of my presentations to the City Council will 100% support my credibility and undercut the City Attorney's. I am also 100% confident that a review of the original memo I gave the City Council about the real allegation I made about this Chief Serpent will also support my credibility and further undercut the City Attorney's.

City Attorney, I challenge you to make that review and to publicly apologize to me for making false attributions to me. I also challenge you to "Back the Constitution first!," consistent with your sworn oath as a member of the California State Bar. This City Attorney's inability, or unwillingness, to report the truth and to be an accurate historian makes me suspect that he is negligently or intentionally failing to give this Chief Serpent and City Council prudent, competent, legal advice relevant to the issues I raise. Or perhaps this City Attorney genuinely believes that his understanding of the law is correct and superior to mine. Or, perhaps this City Attorney is trying to distort the truth to effectuate a cover up for the Chief Serpent and the City Council.

This City Attorney also left the following relevant information out of his letter: I have repeatedly told the City Council, City Manager, and City Attorney to get the Chief Serpent "under control or fire him" and replace him with a new chief who will obey the Constitution, and, if they did either, there would be no need for litigation, which I hoped could be avoided.

I submit that this missing information further casts doubts on the City Attorney's veracity, motivation, and agenda.

To me, this letter marks a Black Day in Sebastopol's history. Per this letter, Sebastopol's City Council, City Attorney, City Manager, and Chief Serpent appear to be conspiring against the U.S. Constitution and the inalienable rights, First Amendment, and Second Amendment rights of those who live within Sebastopol's city limits. Per this letter, Sebastopol, arguably, is now plagued with a multi-head, arrogant, smug, rogue, self-serving, public serpent monstrosity with a MFFU orientation. "MFFU" means this: "Me First. Fornicate You." Translated: "We are afraid of being sued. We are afraid of being held personally liable for violating Constitutional rights. So, we clam up. And we circle the wagons around the Chief Serpent to protect him and to protect ourselves, our jobs, our careers. Screw you and your rights. You and your rights are expendable. Our careers are more important than you, your rights or the Constitution."

To the extent that any of these public serpents, or all of them, have this suspected "MFFU" attitude, they probably ratcheted this community closer to litigation and perhaps closer toward violence. I had cautious hopes that the scheduled, now cancelled, study session, would yield positive results in a cost-time effective, civil, manner. The city attorney's letter, with the Council's acquiescence, however, confirms the cynic's [realist's?] judgment call: The only thing public serpents like these folks understand is litigation and force; they will never yield power until forced to do so by a power greater than themselves.

This city attorney's letter speaks volumes against this city attorney's judgment. Note how this city attorney ends his letter with an invitation for me to apply for a CCW permit. Note how this city attorney assures me that the police chief will consider my CCW permit application per California's Penal Code. Note that nothing is said about the U.S. Constitution nor the Second Amendment. Amazing! After three years of my sustained work trying to offer Sebastopol's civil authority a helping hand [not a fist] on these issues, this City Attorney remains focused on Kalifornia's Penal Code, as if the U.S. Constitution was irrelevant or as if Kalifornia had formally seceded from the Union.

These folks can wipe their assess with the Chief Serpent's CCW permit application forms.

Apparently, this city attorney is willing to Back the Badge instead of the Constitution, even when the Badge acts in violation of the Constitution. I am all for "Back the Badge," but only to the extent that "the Badge" "Backs the Constitution first." Sadly, in Kalifornia, and in Sebastopol, "the Badge" backs only the unfettered discretion of sheriffs and police chiefs to arbitrarily permit, and to forbid, who may exercise precious, inalienable and Second Amendment rights, in stark contravention of the U.S. Constitution and the Second Amendment's unequivocally clear, written, "Constitutional bright line": " . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Sebastopol's civil authority's inexplicable, stubborn, steadfast refusal to function Constitutionally and to hold formal public discussion on these issues is not a manifestation of civic wisdom. What has now happened in Sebastopol is a stark microcosm of what has happened to the nation. Statists, with their idea of "privilege" from civil authority, are clearly pitted against Patriots, with their idea of "inalienable rights" from a Creator or as innate.

This city attorney, as a precondition for membership in the State Bar, and as a condition for remaining a member in good standing with the State Bar, took an oath, and has an ethical duty, to support and defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I submit that this city attorney, to the extent that he has advised the Chief Serpent and the City Council, that Kalifornia's CCW permit laws are legal, is vulnerable to a meritorious, persuasive charge that he has dishonored that oath.

It further appears that the Sebastopol City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, and Chief Serpent are conspiring against the inalienable, First Amendment, and Second Amendment rights of their constituents who they deem to be "not good enough" to enjoy the Blessings of Liberty. It further appears that they have recklessly and foolishly prejudged the tone of the scheduled, now cancelled, study session and further prejudged the benefits and outcome of such a study session. But these folks are not clairvoyant. Shame on them. They do not have a crystal ball, let alone one that works.

A civil, rational, peaceful resolution of this dispute is strongly preferred. Canceling the study session, impeding rational dialogue on these issues, and defending the status quo will NOT have a salutary effect. Instead, the cancellation of this study session will exacerbate an already horrible situation. While these public serpents play "Stall" and "Hide" and "Circle the wagons," peoples' lives are needlessly at risk and their rights are being denied by faithless public serpents who refuse to yield to the Constitution. I PUT THESE QUESTIONS TO ALL—SQUARELY: FIRST, IS SEBASTOPOL'S CIVIL AUTHORITY FUNCTIONING CONSTITUTIONALLY? SECOND, IS SEBASTOPOL'S CIVIL AUTHORITY OUT OF CONTROL? THIRD, DOES AN INSUFFERABLE CONDITION NOW EXIST IN SEBASTOPOL? IF SO, HOW LONG WILL THIS CONDITION BE TOLERATED? FOURTH, DOES THIS CHIEF SERPENT, THIS CITY COUNCIL, THIS CITY ATTORNEY HAVE A MONOPOLY ON WISDOM? FIFTH, DO SEBASTOPOL'S RESIDENTS HAVE NOTHING MEANINGFUL TO SAY, PUBLICLY, ABOUT THIS DISPUTE? SIXTH, WAS THE SCHEDULED, NOW CANCELLED, STUDY SESSION, A VITAL ESCAPE VALVE FOR PENT UP, RIGHTEOUS ANGER? SEVENTH, DOES CANCELING THAT STUDY SESSION MAKE THAT ANGER DISAPPEAR OR INCREASE IT?

Burn this idea into your psyche: "To permit" is the euphemistic side of one coin-the opposite side of which is "To forbid." There is no gold in that coin. That coin is mica, at best. That coin is Fool's Gold. That coin is a buy-in to Tyranny. CIVIL AUTHORITY KNOWS THAT MANY AMERICANS LOATHE THE IDEA OF CIVIL AUTHORITY ASSIGNING TO ITSELF THE POWER "TO FORBID." SO, WHAT DOES CIVIL AUTHORITY DO? IT DILUTES STARK REALITY AND EUPHEMISTICALLY LABELS ITS CLAIMED POWER "TO FORBID" AS A POWER "TO PERMIT." AGAIN, CIVIL AUTHORITY CLEVERLY ATTEMPTS TO TREAT ORDINARY FOLKS AS DUMB DOWNED SUBJECTS. HOPEFULLY, A RAPIDLY GROWING NUMBER OF ORDINARY FOLKS, AND EVEN DECENT FOLKS WHO ARE PART OF CIVIL AUTHORITY, WILL FINALLY REALIZE THESE DANGEROUS DYNAMICS AND TAKE EFFECTIVE, PROMPT ACTION TO RESTORE THEIR RIGHTS AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL RULE OF LAW SO THAT VIOLENCE WILL PROVE TO BE UNNECESSARY.

Burn this idea deep into your psyche: The difference between a "right" and a "privilege" is vital and pivotal. It is basic. It is far more important than the difference between male and female, north and south, east and west, house and home, courage and cowardice, joy and misery, life and death, love and infatuation, investment and speculation, duty and irresponsibility, youth and old age, diamonds and dirt.

Sebastopol's civil authority is composed of political cockroaches who apparently loathe having a public spotlight focused on these issues and their unconstitutional rule. Hence, these cockroaches cancelled the study session because they run from "light"—intelligent, informed, dialogue that exposes Kalifornia's CCW permit laws. These cockroaches, by canceling the study session, now manifest how naked they are, and how desperately they desire to hide from the spotlight of public debate and discussion.

Note how far these serpents have fallen. Note how illegitimate their authority has become. Note how these roaches, these serpents have now blatantly soiled themselves by dishonoring their sworn oaths of office. These folks are desperate. THEY ARE HANGING ONTO THEIR POWER WITH ONE HAND, AS IF THEY WERE HANGING ON THE EDGE OF A CLIFF. They know that to the extent they openly try to justify Kalifornia's asinine CCW permit laws, they dig themselves a deeper pit into which they would surely fall. So, in their total lack of wisdom, what do these non-statesman do? They circle the wagons, terminate public discussion, and bury their heads deeper, exposing their butts, inviting swift, hard kicks.

What does all this prove? At a minimum, it proves that Sebastopol's civil authorities are unworthy of their positions and of the public trust. These fools cannot find a hole deep enough to bury the stink that surrounds Sebastopol. Sebastopol is now plagued with Chief Serpent Pitter's "legislation by cop" and his immediate superiors have now openly morphed into being a multi-head public serpent monstrosity. It also, arguably, proves that Sebastopol's Chief Serpent, City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney are unprincipled, cowardly, myopic, irresponsible, political fecal matter.

back to top

 

IX. How To Contact Sebastopol, California's Civil Authorities

Dear Reader, thank you for taking the time to read this.

Regardless of where you live, I encourage you to communicate how you feel about what I have communicated.

I suggest that your communications to Sebastopol's civil authority and the Chief Serpent be brief, logical, candid, and civil.

Methods for contacting Sebastopol's key officials are stated below.

City Officials

Chief of Police Gordon Pitter
Sebastopol Police Services 
6850 Laguna Park Way 
Sebastopol, CA 95472 
Tel: (707) 829-4400 
Fax: (707) 829-0967 
gpitter@sonic.net
 

Mayor Sam Spooner
Tel: (707) 829-2545
gcircle@aol.com 

Councilmember Craig Litwin
Tel: (707) 829-2108 
litwincraig@hotmail.com
 

Councilmember Larry Robinson
Tel: (707) 823-1708 
lrob@pon.net
 

Councilmember Bill Roventini
Tel: (707) 823-0406 
BillRoventini@aol.com

Councilmember Bob Anderson
arkitekt@sonic.net
 

City Manager David D. Brennan
Tel: (707) 823-1153 
dbrennan@sonic.net
 

City Attorney Larry McLaughlin
Tel: (707) 823-7865
lwmclaughlin@juno.com

State Officials

State Assemblymember Virginia Strom-Martin
Democrat

Assemblymember.Strom-Martin@assembly.ca.gov
http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a01/

State Senator Wesley Chesbro
Democrat
senator.chesbro@sen.ca.gov
http://democrats.sen.ca.gov/senator/chesbro/

California Governor Gray Davis
governor@governor.ca.gov 

Federal Officials

U.S. Rep. Lynn Woolsey
6th District
lynn.woolsey@mail.house.gov
http://www.house.gov/woolsey/
Petaluma area-707-795-1462
Santa Rosa office 1101 College Avenue, 707-542-7182

U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft
web@usdoj.gov

 

X. Letters to Chief Pitter & Company

 

Letter to Sebastopol City Council
from David Codrea
codrea4@adelphia.net 

Dear Council Members,

If you truly agree with Chief Pitter's assertion that only "the best" citizens may carry a concealed weapon in Sebastopol, then there is only one logically consistent course available to you: Pass an ordinance forbidding anyone who is not an authorized law enforcement officer from carrying concealed in Sebastopol, including those with CCW's obtained from other jurisdictions. After all, they have not proven to be "the best," only that they come from areas with more lax requirements — if the Chief's concerns about the judgment-impairing properties of firearms hold true for Sebastopol residents, then they should certainly also apply to strangers visiting your city, no?

Unless there's some unknown factor that makes your citizens more dangerous and untrustworthy than out-of-towners? Perhaps that your residents would freely give such as you power over themselves demonstrates a disqualifying mental deficiency on their part?

Besides, to not follow my suggestion results in elevating one class of citizen, visitors, above your own residents — a clear violation of the California Constitution's AND the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of equal protection/privileges and immunities clauses:

*CA: A person may not be deprived of ...or denied equal protection of the... laws... A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.

*US: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States... . No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person ...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Based on the above, I wouldn't let the fact that my recommendation violates California preemption laws regarding firearms (1) concern you overmuch — because setting such an absurd, undefined and unattainable standard as the chief has apparently done already clearly flaunts numerous other established laws and precedents. So what will another illegal edict matter?

And after all, you have demonstrated that you can get away with making up and interpreting laws when and as they suit your purposes — haven't you?

Sincerely,

David Codrea
codrea4@adelphia.net 
www.keepandbeararms.com/petition/
 

(1) Not that THAT will ultimately prove Constitutional wherever state edicts conflict with unalienable (look it up) rights guaranteed to We the People in the Bill of Rights. Here's another pesky impediment imposed by the CA Constitution:

"The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land."

And while you're at it, you might want to come to grips with the following from William Rawle — for those of you on the Council who don't know any better, this contemporary of the Founders' "'View of the Constitution' was the standard constitutional law text at Harvard until 1845 and at Dartmouth until 1860." Per Rawle:

"No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under a general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any pursuit of an inordinate power either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."

See more at: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2088 

Perhaps Chief Pitter can tell us what he knows that Rawle did not? I hope for your sakes he can — otherwise, it appears your blindly giving him what he wants creates no small amount of liability for you — and by extension, for the citizens of Sebastopol, who will ultimately foot the bill for your unthinking acquiescence to his indefensible and illegal edicts.

 

Letter to City, County, State & Federal Officials
by Angel Shamaya
Director@KeepAndBearArms.com

RE:
SEBASTOPOL POLICE CHIEF'S LAW VIOLATIONS

TO:
City, County, State and Federal Officials, as listed below

SEBASTOPOL, CALIFORNIA CITY OFFICIALS:

Sebastopol Chief of Police Gordon Pitter
gpitter@sonic.net 
Mayor Sam Spooner
gcircle@aol.com 
Councilmember Craig Litwin
litwincraig@hotmail.com 
Councilmember Larry Robinson
lrob@pon.net 
Councilmember Bill Roventini
BillRoventini@aol.com 
Councilmember Bob Anderson
arkitekt@sonic.net 
City Manager David D. Brennan
dbrennan@sonic.net 
City Attorney Larry McLaughlin
lwmclaughlin@juno.com
 

SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA OFFICIALS:

Sonoma County Sheriff Jim Piccinini
info@sonomasheriff.org
District Attorney J. Michael Mullins
mmullins@sonoma-county.org
 
County Board of Supervisors:
Chairman Mike Kerns
Sup. Paul Kelley
Sup. Mike Reilly
Sup. Tim Smith
Sup. Michael Cale
bos@sonoma-county.org
 
Accounting Manager Mark Sampietro
msampiet@sonoma-county.org
 
Auditor-Controller Rod Dole
rdole@sonoma-county.org
 
Assistant Auditor-Controller Mark Walsh
mwalsh@sonoma-county.org
 
Administrative Services Kathy Sowers
ksowers@sonoma-county.org
 

CALIFORNIA STATE OFFICIALS:

State Assemblymember Virginia Strom-Martin
Assemblymember.Strom-Martin@assembly.ca.gov
 
State Senator Wesley Chesbro
senator.chesbro@sen.ca.gov
 
California Governor Arnold Swarzenegger
governor@governor.ca.gov
 

FEDERAL OFFICIALS:

U.S. Rep. Lynn Woolsey
lynn.woolsey@mail.house.gov
 
U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft
web@usdoj.gov
 

CC:
KeepAndBearArms.com Legal Department
KeepAndBearArms.com Advisory Board
Gun Owners of America
Gun Owners of California
Second Amendment Foundation
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
Liberty Belles, California-based Gun Rights Group
California Attorney Peter Mancus

BCC:
A few armed citizens in Sebastopol and scattered throughout Sonoma County who are aware of this situation and find it quite troubling

General Broadcast via Internet:
Many Thousands of gun owners in California and the Nation

FROM:
Angel Shamaya
Founder/Executive Director
KeepAndBearArms.com
National organization with many California members and members in Sebastopol, California, specifically
(928) 522-8833
Director@KeepAndBearArms.com 

March 29, 2002

To All Addressed Recipients,

It has come to our attention that Sebastopol, California Police Chief Gordon Pitter has been acting in violation of California and Federal law as relates to his approach to denying concealed weapons permits to local residents. City, County and State officials are complicit in his derelictions of duty and are wide open to meritorious lawsuits under California and Federal law — in both official and personal capacities.

We have recently published a very strident redress of grievances by a local Sebastopol resident — a member of our organization in good standing and with whom we agree in principle. Attendance to his grievances, along with the descriptions of Chief Pitter's lawbreaking below, is strongly advised: http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/mancus/pig.asp.

PAY CLOSE ATTENTION NOW.

First, there's the matter of California Penal Code 12050(a)(1)(B), which states, in part:

"The chief or other head of a municipal police department of any city...upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance...(E), may issue to that person a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person..."

That in itself isn't the landmine — it's only a "may" issue statute. Salute vs. Pitchess, however, should concern Chief Pitter personally — and Pitter's violation should concern every last senior official who draws a paycheck from the City of Sebastopol or the County of Sonoma. California appellate court clearly stated in Salute vs. Pitchess 61 Cal. App. 3d 557 (1976) that

"to refuse to consider the existence of good cause on the part of citizens generally is an abuse of, and not an exercise of, discretion".

But Chief Pitter is not considering good cause in the matter of issuing self-defense concealed carry permits to lawful, decent citizens in the City of Sebastopol. In fact, he is flatly refusing to consider good cause, and we have a written record of that fact. The operative phrase, from California's court, again, is "abuse of discretion."

Furthermore, Pitchess also tells us that "an investigation and determination, on an individual basis" must be made into cases where citizens seek to obtain a concealed weapons permit in the state of California. That's two violations for Chief Pitter, and the problems get even deeper.

Chief Pitter is on record that he will issue a CCW permit to only "the best" — an arbitrary, capricious and invented criteria that cannot legally be set by a police chief. Pitter's impossible issuance standard is not the law; to the contrary, his criteria is the polar opposite to "equal protection of the law" and is thus legally indefensible, even in the eyes of an intellectually honest first-year law student.

The Chief's lawbreaking also holds dire consequences for any government employee who assists his violations of law. In other words, HIS ACCOMPLICES ARE IN HOT WATER, TOO, and that means you. Here is where the rest of Sebastopol's, Sonoma's and California's public servants come into the picture — Listen Up:

The Federal 9th Circuit found in Guillory vs. Gates 731 F.2d 1379 (1984) that CCW permit issuance was subject to scrutiny on the basis of Federal equal protection law, and that people underneath the rank of the actual "top cop" who supported their boss' discrimination could be sued for aiding in the problems. Chief Pitter's anti-CCW helpers can expect to eat their fair share of bitter porridge — if he continues to break the law as he has been doing and if you do not seek to correct the error of his ways.

And this is just the TIP of the iceberg of available meritorious legal arguments against the Chief, the City, the County, and the City Council members — as individuals, and in official capacities.

The Mayor, Council, City Attorney, District Attorney, County Supervisors and Sheriff's jobs are partially about assuring that your Police Chief(s) and police department(s) are operating within the law. "Within the law" includes the U.S. Constitution and its amendments — as per the California Constitution's declaration of supremacy found in Article 3, Section 1. Police Chief Pitter is not operating within the law, and now you are clear as to exactly how the law is being violated by him. Failure to correct the problem of Chief Pitter's violation of the law makes you an accomplice to his violations, which exposes you to civil liability in your professional and individual capacity.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO SEBASTOPOL CHIEF PITTER AND TO HIS KEEPERS

1) Preferred Choice: Declare that any lawful, decent citizen found carrying a firearm for self-defense in Sebastopol will be allowed to go on his or her way provided he or she is not manifesting any criminal or negligent misuse of his or her firearm. This would be in compliance with the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights — the one that comes immediately after the First Amendment's protection of Free Speech, Free Press and Freedom of Religion, by which you are also bound.

2) Less Desirable: Begin accepting and honestly reviewing concealed weapons permit applications, and issue permits based on legitimate good cause, with the burden of proof being on civil authority to show substantial good cause not to issue a permit. Self-defense is good cause. The right to life and the means to protect life is good cause. The ability to stop a mugger or a kidnapper is good cause. The ability to stop a rapist or a would-be murderer is indeed good cause.

NOTE ON SHERIFF'S COMPLICITY: We also have a letter from Sonoma County Sheriff Jim Piccinini's office. This letter clearly states that the Sheriff and the Police Chiefs in Sonoma County have an agreement regarding CCW permits. This agreement and the way it is being applied appears to violate California's CCW statute and Federal law. This agreement also appears to be evidence of the Sheriff and the Police Chiefs conspiring against the inalienable and Constitutional rights of Sonoma County's law-abiding residents.

Those are your two best choices. Failure to choose one of these two options leaves not only Chief Pitter but numerous Sebastopol City officials, Sonoma County officials, and State of California officials open to lawsuit. And it also leaves people thinking about the events that led up to the Declaration of Independence, as well. So what's it gonna be? Are you going to correct Police Chief Pitter's law violations and step back in line with State and Federal Law?

To do so would be a wise choice.

Angel Shamaya