Before I publish my letter of request on this blog, I want to untangle some nonsense that is found in Stephen's letter. You see, these government employees are like most Americans. They are shallow thinkers. They hear a clever cliche and don't bother to think it through. They just go on repeating it as if it is the gospel truth. Then, since they fall for the snippet, they act and perform their duties as if the incomplete cliche is gospel and complete. Then they try to get the public, ME, to fall for the nonsense the same way they do.
I have already untangled a lot of nonsense coming from government employees, but let me list a couple here. First, I untangled the application and jurisdiction of "Administrative Law." Administrative Law governs the administration of a government program. Administrative law governs people who sign up to participate in the government program. Administrative law does not apply to the general public who has not signed away their constitutionally protected rights in order to participate in the government program. Administrative law does not overrule constitutionally protected rights and liberties. SIMPLE! It can't get any simpler!
Another bunch of nonsense I untangled is the "Helping the Local Handyman" bill that Rep. Shelley Short introduced to the legislature. These legislators, and all government employees, need to simply uphold our Supreme Law of the Land and repeal unconstitutional legislation, not introduce more nonsensical laws to fix unconstitutional laws. What is so hard to understand about that? Didn't they all take an Oath of Office to support our contracts between We the People and their public servants? It is so frustrating trying to communicate with people who are stuck in la-la land and who willfully refuse to come back to simple reality.
Okay, the nonsense and deceit in Reinmuth's letter that needs to be untangled is found in his second to the last sentence. "Until there is a change in the electrical contractor law, the Department of Labor and Industries must enforce, and the Attorney General's Office must defend, the law as it currently stands." Does Reinmuth really expect me to fall for that nonsense? Is he forgetting his Oath of Office regarding our Supreme Law of the Land and my right to publish a list of my skills, and my right to a speedy trial by jury? Reinmuth is thinking shallow. He takes his "cliche" directive to mean that he is required to defend legislation, regulations, and statutes that are clearly unconstitutional, thus nullifying our Supreme Law of the Land. Nullifying our Supreme Law of the Land is equal to disregarding his own Oath of Attorney. His position and words to me are completely untenable. Is he really that stupid? Evidently so, and it appears that nearly all government employees are in la-la land doing the same thing. From my perspective, all of this is ridiculous. The citations I received are clearly unconstitutional, and correcting the mistake is way too simple! Yet, the government employees continue to make fools of themselves believing their nonsensical cliches and unconstitutional directives. Our Supreme Law of the Land is written in 6th grade English. It is easily understood by the people who ratified our state and federal constitutions, but these foolish government employees pretend that our constitutions cannot be understood by themselves or by We the People. These government employees defer to to the State and Federal Supreme Courts to tell us what our constitutions really mean. Once again, more ridiculousness! What is a simple and clear thinking person like myself supposed to do with this onslaught of ridiculous nonsense? The citations are absolutely clear nonsense and unconstitutional, yet government employees PRETEND that they are not nonsense! How do you rescue people from PRETEND? How do you pull people out of la-la land when they prefer to invent more nonsense and lies in order to stay in la-la land? SHEESH! ...at least it is as amusing to me. It should be embarrassing to them! Good grief!
There, I untangled some more nonsense... Here is the letter I wrote in hopes of getting some help from attorneys who are not in la-la land. [Reinmuth's letter to me is uploaded to my previous UPDATE, November 12, 2015]
November 30, 2015
TO: Attorney
FROM: Russ Hinds
SUBJECT: First Amendment case
Dear Mr. Attorney,
Please find the enclosed letter
from Stephen T. Reinmuth, Senior Assistant Attorney General of
Washington State, which is in regard to my dispute with Washington
Department of Labor and Industries. The dispute is over 2 citations
with fines totaling $1500.00 issued to me by WDLI for publishing a
list of my skills and posting that list on a private bulletin board
in an effort to serve my neighbors and make new friends.
The letter asks me to seek legal
counsel in my dispute so that my perspective on the administrative
law (RCW 19.28) may be properly presented to the appropriate public
servants in charge of interpreting and enforcing the law. In my view,
the tone of the letter implies that the public servants would like to
have the dispute clarified and resolved correctly according to our
state and federal constitutions FOR THEM so that they may do their
job better in compliance with their Oath of Office/Attorney. My
experience dealing with these public servants makes it obvious that
they are doing their job by the seat of their pants without the
courage to go against the government employee crowd (the machine)
which has disregarded our constitutionally protected rights for the
last 5 decades, and more.
It is my belief and hope that
correctly resolving the unconstitutional issuance of fines for
hanging an innocent flier on a private bulletin board in accordance
with our Supreme Law of the Land will result in more confidence and
courage on the part of public servants who honestly desire to abide
by their Oath of Office/Attorney. Public servants adhering to their
Oath will bring back some sanity to out of control government...
From you, I am seeking a phone conversation to discuss ways I may pursue victory in standing up for my constitutionally protected rights. Obviously, I am not pursuing this for my own benefit, but for the benefit of all people who desire the freedom and rights protected in our contract with government employees. However, there is some just compensation desired on my part in order to be made whole regarding the expense of appeals and the income lost due to my loss of liberty and due process of law.
From you, I am seeking a phone conversation to discuss ways I may pursue victory in standing up for my constitutionally protected rights. Obviously, I am not pursuing this for my own benefit, but for the benefit of all people who desire the freedom and rights protected in our contract with government employees. However, there is some just compensation desired on my part in order to be made whole regarding the expense of appeals and the income lost due to my loss of liberty and due process of law.
In today's out of control
government, if we do not exorcise our rights, we lose them.
Please respond via the address, phone,
or email above.
Much appreciation for your time,
Russ Hinds enclosure, 2 pages
I would love to get a response from these attorneys. It would be very refreshing to speak to people who do not reside in la-la land.
