The new year (2003) had barely begun when Peter Mancus, seeing no improvement in the ongoing illegal refusal to issue CCW by the police chief, and other tyrannical behaviors, wrote a warning to the City Government that should be read by all, and used by others as a guideline to warn their various governments.
Remember, it is the goal of the NCA to warn governments at all levels that there are people all over the country that will NOT allow incursions to occur, regardless of the costs to their life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.
Recall that activity Mancus is emulating:
"Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall
we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely
on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of Hope, until
our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not
weak, if we make a proper use of those means which the God of
nature placed in our power." -- Patrick Henry
Dear Sebastopol Civil Authority [City Council/Manager/Police Chief]:
I emailed you a version of this message earlier on January 8, 2003. Since then, I realized I left out some things of import. It was also brought to my attention that due to a slight error in an Internet link that I gave you, that link was, and is, not functional; therefore, I re-send this message to you with revisions, plus a functional link.
Please read what that link will take you to. Should you fail to read what can be found at that link, your continued ignorance will be self-inflicted. You get zero points for voluntary ignorance. Voluntary ignorance is consistent with your apparent, irresponsible, implementation of a form of statecraft malpractice, namely, adherence to the Doctrine of Deliberate Indifference, behind which you hide, which makes you political cowards.
You continue to confirm what an ancient Greek opined: He who refuses to participate in self-government runs the risk of being ruled by fools greater than himself. To exacerbate matters, even when I try to participate, and thereby offer you an amicable, constructive, saving hand, you continue with behavior and statements that manifest a vote of "No confidence!" on my part in you.
At the start of 2003, still early into a new century, you seem to be off toward being another mediocre council unwilling to focus--and stay focused--on issues of importance to me and others. These are bedrock, eternal, pivotal issues, which, in my judgment, should have greater priority with you. Yet you appear to stonewall and deflect these issues. These issues will not go away merely because you ignore them or you are afraid of them or you are ill-equipped to cope with them. The cry, "Liberty in our time! Back the Constitution first! Put the Constitutional collar on Civil Authority's neck and tie that beast down by the Constitution's chains!" grows hot and loud as you become coldly indifferent and deaf to the cry--which is an ominous sign.
You squander a precious, transient, opportunity to cope intelligently with a conflict that can, and will--under certain circumstances--break the keel on the ship of state. Hence, I experience you to be dangerous. You are misleaders, fools, and domestic enemies of the U.S. Constitution, regardless of your self-proclaimed good, subjective intent. Regime change sounds heavenly relative to you--individually and collectively.
You will be judged by your performance, not by your rhetoric and not by your intent.
I continue to believe that Councilmember Bob Anderson has the best brain and the best critical thinking skills. I was disappointed that he did not attend last night's council meeting. I savor hearing what comes out of his mouth because it reflects indirectly the workings of his well honed critical thinking skills. Unfortunately, however, I also do not experience Mr. Anderson to be a champion of the U.S. Bill of Rights.
I do not experience any of you to be a champion of the U.S. Bill of Rights. I doubt if I ever will. At most, there are minimal signs that some of you occasionally give lip service to that Bill, which is not good enough. In fact, that lip service is as phony as a whore dressed in a nun's habit.
Councilmember Larry Robinson continues to impress me negatively. I was, and am, appalled, and startled, by his remarks after your vote last night to have the city withdraw from a county wide consortium to upgrade and standardize on law enforcement communications. Mr. Robinson said something to this effect: he did not like citizens' input to the Council that the local police department was not really serious about protecting citizens, and he also did not like citizens' input to the Council that the Council and the Police Chief need to be "authoritarian" about making the local officers switch over to the communication system that most of the other county-wide law enforcement agencies are adopting. I experience Mr. Robinson to be highly Authoritarian . . . and Elitist. And Arrogant. And Condescending. And a Pseudo Intellectual. Mr. Robinson is the same person who wrote an op-ed which wrongly described our form of government as being a "democracy." The damn fool does not even have a correct understanding of our form of government, or, in the alternative, he intentionally wrongly characterizes our true form of government because he wants to slip further the Constitutional collar because he loathes the Constitutional Rule of Law, and he has an ulterior, sinister agenda to advance. Mr. Robinson, like the other two Greenies on the Council, also loves to throw around the phrase "People of conscience believe/[or] would do . . . .," as if anyone who disagrees lacks a "conscience" and are therefore "bad" or "stupid." Mr. Robinson is not the intellectual he appears to fancy himself to be. Examples of his idea of "conscience" are consistent with brain fart or fecal matter. "People of conscience," when used by him, is only a transparent, arrogant, condescending, attempt to maneuver others to their disadvantage.
Since Mr. Robinson is offended by--and ultra sensitive to--such petty things, he is well advised to attempt to look at the world from my view and then to ask himself if I am a mere chronic complainer or someone who has a meritorious complaint. If he concludes I have a meritorious complaint, he should then decide if he has the guts to do anything material about my complaint(s). If he lacks those guts, he should resign. I stress I experience him to be politically gutless, a domestic enemy of the United States, and an intellectual light weight.
I was also stunned when Chief Pitter told you last night that he was willing to forgo funding for another full time police officer if that was part of what it took for the Council to allow his department to withdraw from the county-wide consortium to standardized on, and upgrade, its communication systems with the county's other law enforcement agencies' communications system, and, that, if necessary, he was willing to have his department absorb a financial hit of up to $408,000.00 dollars! Question: How much fat is in his budget?
I told you from the podium: a good officer [per my definition which I gave you] is a priceless national/local community asset, and I recommended that our department stay with the consortium, honor its commitment to it, avoid losing $408,000.00 from our local police department, and let Chief Pitter have another full time police officer. But Chief Pitter, inexplicably, did not want that and all four of the present councilmembers granted Chief Pitter his wish. Amazing.
Local civil authority can get away with having such a small department not because it is effective or "great" but because it enjoys the good will of a huge percentage of the local citizens, who do not need the police most of the time because they are mature enough to police themselves well, but the Chief Serpent [Pitter] insults us by telling us that we have to be the best to exercise lawful self-defense with a gun with a CCW permit issued by him but since he cannot tell who is the best, no one gets such a permit. I guess this Serpent is hell bent on trying to make all of us totally dependent on him and his little police empire because he is so small minded he fears that if X is not under his control it is out of control.
Sebastopol has slightly less than 7,800 souls: from infants to everyone with one foot in the grave. A $408,000.00 loss which ultimately affects 7,800 citizens in one form or another is a huge hit. To compound matters, California is suffering from a $35 billion deficit. I bet most of you non-Greenies [in civil authority, in Sebastopol, in Sonoma County, and in California] voted a straight Democratic Party ticket last election. You are the very folks who helped bring this deficit upon us. You have not yet learned that a public raid on the public treasury to buy votes will bankrupt the public treasury. But, it appears that when you folks manage other peoples' money, gross negligence and incompetence is acceptable. You can just tax more. [If the deficit was gone tomorrow, and if you and other political whores took in X in taxes, in three more days you'd spend X + Y and in one year more you'd spend X + XXXXX.]
You have driven me to these conclusions: Individually, and as a group, some of the things that galvanize your attention are: public ridicule; seeing your name as a "defendant" in the caption of a lawsuit; a threat to your power/job/income stream; and conflict or violence which you cannot manage.
The preceding sets up my following non-negotiable demands of you. Before the next council meeting, I want confirmation in writing on city letterhead signed by someone with authority that the following shall occur forthwith--with a no BS, no wiggle room, definite commitment to a definite date in the immediate near future. A specification of what I demand follows.
- Chief Pitter shall issue CCW permits to everyone who applies for same on a non-discretionary, shall-issue basis, namely, the burden of proof shall be on him to come up with an objective, compelling reason not to issue a CCW permit. About 30 of the 50 states have adopted this reform. As a result, crime has gone down. Reformulated, the burden of proof will not be on citizens to establish "good cause" for such a permit. Furthermore, no citizen shall be charged any money for applying for, processing, nor getting such a permit. The Chief obviously has money to waste, so there is no legitimate need for him to charge any money to process such fees. Also, no citizen needs to pay money to anyone to exercise a Constitutional right.
- If Pitter is unwilling to comply with No. 1, he shall resign or be fired forthwith and replaced with a Chief who will Enforce the Constitution.
- If City Manager David Brennan refuses to fire Chief Pitter, the Council shall fire Mr. Brennan.
- If any of you in local civil authority think the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to arms independent of government employment, cite me to controlling Constitutional authority for that proposition and schedule a public study session to discuss same.
- If you believe that citizens do not have an individual right to arms, then order the Chief to begin arms confiscation forthwith. Put your position into action--or try to. Let's get on with it. Put up or shut up, back down, and voluntarily wear your Constitutional collar.
- 6. At the next council meeting, publicly adopt a formal council resolution which clearly and unequivocally declares that citizens do have an individual right to arms independent of government employment, a right which is not subject to any form of prior restraint. [Sebastopol's City Council, historically, and the present one, has a well established track record of issuing proclamations not directly relevant to city affairs, so you have established precedent for addressing state, national, and international issues.]
- At the next council meeting, publicly adopt a formal council resolution condemning the Federal Ninth Circuit's recent Silveria decision, Gov. Gray Davis' anti-RKBA [right to keep and bear arms] position, and the same for CA Atty Gen. Bill Lockyer and the California Legislature.
- At the next council meeting, publicly adopt a formal council resolution condemning the federal Patriot Act as being unconstitutional and a grave threat to Liberty.
- At the next council meeting, publicly order Chief Pitter to implement on a crash basis a 1-3 hour study course on "the Nuremberg Principle," which shall be mandatory formal classroom training for all Sebastopol Police Officers.
- At the next council meeting, publicly commit to forthwith place at the Council's public meeting rooms a large, framed copy of the U.S. Bill of Rights with its own Preamble.
- At the next council meeting, publicly declare that each of you vow to make a sustained effort to compare all future proposed ordinances to the U.S. Bill of Rights, and you will never approve any proposed ordinance if there is any meaningful doubt in your mind that the proposed ordinance conflicts with any part of the U.S. Bill of Rights.
As to No. 1, I personally will never apply for a damn CCW permit. Pitter can wipe his ass with same or eat them and choke to death. To permit is to control. Control is prior restraint. Prior restraint is unconstitutional. Gun control in the guise of crime control is really people control. People control is control. Control is control. Control is the antithesis of Liberty. Real gun control is putting ten bullets in the same hole. People control is not criminal control.
I want No. 1 for others who lack the courage to defy the Chief Serpent, who think they need the Chief Serpent's permission to exercise lawful self-defense with a firearm in a public place.
I expect that none of you will champion any of Nos. 1-11. If you confirm my expectations, you define yourselves as political cowards, as domestic enemies of the U.S. Constitution, as American Taliban. That makes you my enemy. I do not suffer my enemy.
Before you dismiss these non-negotiable demands, you are well advised to do a Google search on my name and read what that search turns up. You are also well advised to read some other things on the Internet that a Google search might not turn up:
Mancus on the Silveria decision. Plus, go to www.keepandbeararms.com and on the home page, in the top upper right, click on the word "Liberty," read that article, and think!
Should you fail to implement Nos. 1-11 by the next council meeting [or the next first one that I am free to attend,] I shall begin to test your commitment to the First Amendment by subjecting you to public ridicule. You can sit there, mute, and absorb the criticism. Or you can attempt to defend yourselves. Either way, it will be a tar baby death for you.
Since the public is limited to five minutes at the podium, I will skip reasoning-to-result. I will just go to bottom-line assessments, give you a grade, pummel you to the best of my ability, and dare you to attempt to defend yourselves from that type of verbal barrage and public ridicule.
If you want to "reason," read what I have referred you to, and, if interested, contact me for further dispassionate, constructive discussions.
I am sorry it has come to this. But you have brought it upon yourselves. Ex-Councilmember Bill Roventini taught me how a councilmember can stall for years, to my severe prejudice. I visit the sins of that bad ghost from my past onto you.
2003 shall be a year of meaningful change as to issues important to me. The Council, the Chief Serpent, the City Manager, and the City Attorney will start taking these issues seriously or face the consequences.
Reform. Resign. Risk litigation. Risk citizens with access to tons of fresh manure dumping same at your doorsteps--office and residence. Or try to defend why you overtly or covertly champion Nazi-inspired, racist based, victim disarmament laws.
This has been festering for years. The status quo is insufferable. It is insufferable because at the end of the day, when the rhetoric is silent, the reality is this: Chief Serpent Pitter foolishly and arrogantly still thinks no one is good enough for a CCW permit, I [and others] have to beg him for his permission to get a CCW permit, and, he wrongly seems to think we need his damn permission to defend our lives with a gun in a public place in a lawful act of self-defense or lawful defense of others. To exacerbate matters, he has made it clear that even if anyone begged, he will never issue a CCW permit to anyone, when he knows he has no legal duty to defend, cannot assuredly defend, and is legally and financially immune for failing to defend. And the Council, City Manager, and City Attorney let him get away with that insufferable orientation, which makes the rest of you the Chief Serpent's Keepers, and, hence, Domestic Enemies of the U.S. Constitution, and my sworn enemy. I know of no tactful way to deliver this message.
To compound matters, the Sonoma County Sheriff and the Santa Rosa Police Chief have reported that the gang problem in Sonoma County is growing and is at a crisis turning point because there are now approximately 3,200 confirmed gang members, some of whom have admitted that they go out in public with the intent to, and actually do, hunt people to maim and/or rob and/or murder. The gangs have more members than all of the law enforcement officers in the county combined. Think about that. Inexplicably, however, senior law enforcement will not let citizens arm themselves in public to cope with what they cannot assuredly handle. One solution to this growing gang problem is simple: armed citizens point loaded pistols at gang members.
To exacerbate matters further, national civil authority tells us the homeland is under sustained attack from secret cells of terrorists. So far, the only thing the national civil authority has excelled at in coping with this alleged threat is to scuttle the Bill of Rights, to sacrifice Liberty for a non-existent Security. In the interim, our local misleaders remain mute on this burning issue.
That reality, buttressed by the original Constitutional Rule of Law, and the Force of My Will and Judgment [and the Will and Judgment of Others] gives rise to something called "The Law of Necessity" and Defiance of Tyranny.
Fail to comply with Nos. 1-11 and you confirm you are Domestic Enemies of the U.S. Constitution, you are irrelevant, and you have forfeited your legitimacy: you took your positions subject to a sworn oath of office which you dishonor, which I experience to be a form of fraud against the public in violation of a sacred public trust entrusted to you.
Your prolonged acts of deliberate indifference have created a danger which is insufferable. Citizens are not cats. Citizens do not have nine lives. Losing life because of your stupidity, your laziness, your insufficient data base, your political cowardice, your political agenda, your political values, is not a good reason for me or anyone else to die.
"People of conscience" do not try to make others circulate in public, unarmed, as easy plunder for criminals or terrorists or both. "People of conscience" stand up for the U.S. Constitution and the real, the original, Constitutional Rule of Law, not your damn perversion of the law--the real law.
If you do not like this message, do your best to educate yourself, to bring yourself into solid compliance with the U.S. Constitution. In the alternative, do your best to try to figure out a way to deny me my First Amendment rights--with immunity. Or, manifest the ultimate horrific, stupid act of statecraft malpractice: follow through on your apparent belief that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to arms and try to confiscate them. Go ahead: give the order you cannot enforce.
-- Peter Mancus
One of your bosses!
To return to our home page, click: