Today, my not-so-current well-ripened Section 312(a)(7) dispute, from 1991, hangs with Rhenquist, Chief of all Coats, in the Supreme Court, but only by a kevlar shred of The Coat's own weave.
I'd given up on administrative justice, tired of waiting for the agency's final slug on my most excellent Application for Review, that topping off my masterpiece of Formal Complaint, to which the rigid FCC had no response.
When it comes to the law and the violated rights of Michael Stephen Levinson, the FCC's staff attorneys are constitutional losers. All the appellate decisions supported my 1991 request for access, and of the Bureau cases I cited, there was one amazing bull's eye, a Teddy Kennedy complaint to FCC, stumbled into, by God's grace, one quiet night in a law school library, in the FCC's own Law Review, with slippery slope extrapolations by one Henry Geller, the FCC's own retired General Counsel.
Super. The ad min case I cited made clear, beyond any shadow, I was entitled to the time I sought, but I couldn't scale the FCC's self-bureau-made stone walls. So I got on with my life, and grated my homeless, ungiven speech.
I have waited a long long time, to very simply say a delicate poem, spout some rhyme, as president of United States, world wide, running and punning in every spoken tongue, so to create, with my dusk until dawn mull tie ling well world wide verse, the first peaceful night in five thousand years of recorded history, thus beginning a change in the course of human history, on the good ship mother earth.
Such is the miss tickle nature of my yet to be given campaign speech. Patience is a virtue. Every thing that ever happened in the world happened for a rea zun. "What ha pens next / God own le nose."
The election was history and nearly two years passed. Then one day, in 1994, I chance picked up The Wall Street Gurgle, and behold! a mealy mouthed op-ed, back-grounded in gray, focused on FCC, Rupert Murdoch, and Fox Tv, by my old nemesis, Bob Wright, the prezzo of NBC, prompting your humble non-stop candidate to start smashing out his own retro-view of the Ex Communications Commission: "312(a)(7) or Siberia, Standing Lookout for Public Office Aboard the S/S FCC Treblinka."
Immediately, for openers, I recollected an old FCC inspired quatrain: "Wear this gold star, Jew / So we can see who you are, / Board this railroad car, / Your campaign is a goin' to Babyyar."
Drafting away, giant strings of word spouts flowing, on a lark angelicly inspired, I telephoned the FCC's Political Branch, where I am persona non grata, my cases against them taught to fresh-faced interns.
With bated breath, my voice, goofed in disguise so to spoof the operator, after a moment's hold, was put through to an intern. I asked a stew dense classroom question, and then inquired, my goofy voice suddenly normalized, "by the way, what was the final disposition of that Michael Levinson case. He filed an Application for Review . . . " but not revealing that it was Michael Levinson, the candidate on the telephone asking.
Whelp, their stealthy skud of guided do-do, flushed by an Angel guiding me, was about to cream the wrong fan. The FCC trainee fumbled, and put me back on hold. A solid minute passed, and then the familiar voice, "Robert Baker here."
"Robert Baker," I softly repeated, and Baker yelped, "Holy Moley it's you."
It turned out FCC's overly ripened rule - after two years of anal retentive making - was finally 12 days fresh splat, alive in the 30 day window for appellate review, but, "no we will not send you a copy of the ruling," that illegitimate, inappropriate answer passed along from now retired dead and buried Bureau Chief Gross, who was, as always in life, running Baker's show, the silent participant when my calls went through to his soon-to-be-the-chief staff attorney.
Cocky and sticky, this alien creature, this rigid protege bureaucracy that sucks our tax wealth within, and feeds off itself to multiply.
So after more than two years delay, FCC's final caprice, that running four pages deep, an epic for them, was slip-cased loose in the Federal Register during the last doggy days of June, when all of Washington is out of town, vacationing before the July 4th fireworks display.
Slip-cased loose means the ruling would've lain buried for months before reaching the general public through repository libraries, that arrival, long after the 30 day window for appeal is closed. The world wide web, where everything today is instantly available, was brand new, and ad judicatory rulings on complaints, after their publication in the Federal Record, were only available via snail mail.
I filed timely notice, and petitioned for Review in the Court of Appeals. Our second highest court then issued its own orders to show cause, and voted en banq against even hearing my appeal, citing two unrelated cases. The first of their case citations was an FCC matter, though far and away off point from our access laws.
Petitioners in that first citation had their timely hearing at the administrative level, where FCC, after microscopic reconsideration, ruled against. The appellate court properly denied the complainant's petition, for their complaint was truly stale, lacking merit, and likely docketed just for lawyers' churn.
On my Application for Review, attached for the Court, besides the new and novel issue raised at the agency level, Agency stone walled and entitled to review, I'd been stone walled, too, from my original complaint's entitlement to the public hearing I requested at the agency, regardless the quality of "new and novel" issues, as the hearing threshold, noted above, is also required by statute, so my case was much distinguished and far removed from the Court's prime citation of applicable rulings.
Furthermore, FCC's slam call against my request for access was tooled with fascist cues, those written in to annihilate all my future broadcast rights, too, the legacy on a long list of unconstitutional scurrilous last Bureau acts by the dead and buried Bureau Chief Gross!
The second of the Appellate Court's citations, fascistic buzz, en flames!
The petitioner in the 2nd of our 2nd highest court's citations had been employed by the District of Columbia. Getting fired from any government job seldom happens, and the record shows petitioner's termination of employment was of his own doing, for good cause: the repeated failure to perform simple duties, on request from his superiors.
The petitioner appealed his job dismissal directly to the appellate court, seeking redress there claiming, absent job reinstatement by Order of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, petitioner could not afford to pay his mortgage or feed his kids, and petitioner's new deal, a welfare line, was irreparably harmful to petitioner.
This citation, a textbook example of a truly bizarre and frivolous case that legally could not be heard, and other of the court's self-generated frustraneous show causeways, in the Michael Stephen Levinson matter, smacks of Herr Goebbels building the railroad to Auschwitz. Chilling.
Moses the Teacher gave us our binding laws, his franchise, Universals with the Force. Our juris stems from English Common Law, tracing back to Mosha's works. Figure your poli-appointed blind appellatista jurists were just out of cite, circuit breached, and litmus reconfigured for their own personal poli-hinds. All rise for Coat's Supreme, Justice Future-focused!
How boringly convenient, our District of Columbia's circuit bench became a dull haunt of Shepherd's dross and trench, whilst the biggest schmuck petitioner of all is guttered, bereft of his kinsman, our departed legal giants, that bench full of giant red lions, who from the heavens watch.
And since Red Lion days, which of our presidents so richly stuffed our circuit courts with such a bunch of so very unoriginal, aristo-poli-capos, there to clerk the work for future gain, that hive of bureaucra-jurists chopping away at all our hard cased First Amendment decisions, those most eloquent teachings of our Highest Court, by this pre-configured circuit under-crew, turned into just so much wasted tissue, to be flushed from their chambers with the waste water.
It must have been my tissue metaphor, paraphrased here, that irreparably stressed the District of Columbia's en banq bunch at brunch, digestives and all that.
Fascistically erroneous, that they are for sure, but they won't get off the stick. Or is it that other band, The Enema Within, J. Edgarrina Hoover's shod legacy, those rats of baton coats entrenched hiding inside FCC's labyrinth bureau? Is it Herr Goebbels Group, fearing the wurst? What fascistic bugged-up-ass drives their prob limmo, stifling your rights?
Why did our guys land on those beaches of Normandy, and Iwo Jima, anyway, and in more recent times, the orange clad jungles, and poisoned desert slimes, but for "The Franchise, to protect the vast panoply of our nation's living freedom, writes, and heritage. Political speech, the right thereof, distinguishes America from all the rest.
Grant there is humorous byte to my pronouncements, but nothing frivolous, or any frivo-louse descriptions here, in my active battle, covering more than sixteen years, to simply give a protected broadcast Political Speech on behalf of my life long candidacy. I actually declared my treck for our highest office at age 4.
Relative to original papers brought to the administrative bar on the exhaustive road to remedy, there was but one error, that typo graphic, in my Formal Complaint of 1991-2, which the opponent station's counsels jumped on, of course, and distorted, the typo blown up, which FCC then repeated, for the FCC Record, with impermissible maliciousness, for agencies of the government are absent the right to malice.
Fascist, nothing less, when an obvious typo is misleadingly quoted as though fact, alive in a Rule Making FCC determination, expressly to stilt the Public's Record, and camouflage the railroad to political oblivion. An Eichmann like styled juris is not permitted in America. Not.
Especially chilling, as the Court of Appeals relied on that same obviously-a-typo to misleadingly suggest that mine, or ours, was a frivolous matter, for the appellate court's citation would discourage 4th estate reporters from reviewing the matter, including the written records attached.
In spite of that, my final case still hangs by a kevlar thread in the Supreme Court. They received my petition, timely, August 21, 1995 and it was docketed September 7, 1995.
Then hark! After years on the road to justice, the oxen driven wheels of jurisprudential (used to be prudence) started to peel, petal to the mettle in place. No. 95-5876, according to the Supreme Court's own hacked data bank, was distributed to the clerks, for the Justices to pre-review, on November 16, 1995. The papers were then delivered to their conference Chambers for the Supreme Coat's December 1, 1995, Friday conference, at which time the Coats instantly voted to zap petitioner's Writ.
This wheels of justice issue needs some tabloid investigation, a first, because the process of Supreme Court review was Rhenquist rearranged for scurrilous reason. Hot Hot Hot. But in consideration of the many thousands of pro se in forma paupuris applications for writs our highest court receives every year, mine did reach the judges' chambers. From session to session perhaps one or two pro se cases get that far.
The Supreme Coat's Rhenquist inspired Certiorarian trashing was released three days later, on Dec. 4, which was hark! ground hog day for presidential wannabees in New Hampshire, coincidentally, the first opportunity petitioner had to officially reactivate his unstoppable candidacy for president with unquestionable ballot status, which would have dramatically primed our docket in the Supreme Court, and my rights to Instant Remedy with Goldbar and the Coats.
Justice isn't blind! Only her doors are locked and the lights out.
After September 7, and before November 16, a blink in courtroom litigation, the Solicitor General's office filed a carefully tailored Supreme Court Brief in Opposition, filled with inaccurate background, to discourage our highest court from hearing the case!
I hold the Court's docket numbers were capriciously reordered, for cases that far along are mostly moved for hearing, not dismissive decisions. The Solicitor General's Office would not, and cannot be bothered with lengthy Opposition Briefs to frivolous, soon-to-be trashed petitions, and unlike dishonest narco-cops, one stretches to imagine, the Solicitor General does not "lie" under oath.
Petitioner's Response to the Solicitor's Opposition Brief, with certified documents attached, shows the nation's top attorney, the Solicitor General, as misleading the Highest Bench, where he was an officer of the court, with key statements knowingly grounded in falsified historical records, from his client, the FCC. Fascist coating, and all of that, or was it justa typo?
Years ago, a Solicitor General's misleading our highest court would have been seen as beyond an inappropriate breach, and headlined everywhere. As far as the Solicitor General goes, shortly after my response, he self-spirited off, but not far enough, returning to a waiting post at Yale. The Solicitor should have gone to Macau with Charlie Yah lin Trie.
Lucky for us and unlucky for the Solicitor General's office, my pro se thread bare case is kevlar with the Coats, according to the court's own rules, and still alive!
When I submitted my Petition for Reconsideration, I failed to include an affidavit stating I wasn't delaying matters to avoid the outcome. There isn't any time limit on in forma papuris papers returned to petitioner for resubmission, as long as they were originally filed within their established time line, which mine were, on December 29, 1995.
But The Supreme Coats aren't going to hear or even read my case, not mine or yours, chump, unless they hear or read about it first, in news papers of record, to which they all subscribe, or chomp on with breakfast.
Appreciate, that had the Supreme Court initially granted petitioner's Writ of Certiorari, I would have been entitled to instant Bold Measures before our highest court, which I sought going in, and that would have made the cover of every magazine, in January 1996, in the heat of campaigning, arguing my case, pro se, on behalf of the American people, for the access I was clearly entitled to, and I would have won make up time, too, from NBC-TV, and PBS, before the New Hampshire primary, showing America that amongst all of her candidates, I was and remain the one most qualified to place my hand on the Bible, and be sworn by oath to defend our constitution.
The security of all our rights is my electronic street corner purpose here, and on that behalf, to deliver the most political information, for the least amount of money, at least world wide on the internet, so public knowledge joins this constitutional challenge.
The beltway darkness cast on issues is the fascist's dark delight. The internet is changing that.
I believe The Supreme Coats never read my petition, though amongst them, someone did. They did not even glance at papers attached. They could not have! Nor can their Certiorari coating grant the Court certiorari to sit above our laws! That certiorarian right, though unchallenged, since its inception in the Coats' Supreme docket history, is beyond the breach! Beyond.
When the Public Interest is at stake, where the First Amendment petitioner is a presidential candidate, then his and the whole nation's constitutional rights are staked together at bar, clearly bound!
Notwithstanding who, petitions brought with new and novel First Amendment constitutional issues, with prime face records of an agency in gross violation of its own codified regulations, cannot be trenched or set aside without the Court's violation of its own bench, that ultimate balance in our public affairs required by our most hallowed franchise, the Constitution, itself!
In the world's total history of jurisprudence, nothing ever brought to any court matches my standing with this Supreme Court, the individual rights of our whole nation at bar, except petitioner's standing in that famous case, Moses v. King Ramses. The Supreme Coats seriously need to reconsider their having taken the side of Yule B. Ramses' Bar, for Moses, we are taught, though his petition was denied, at least was granted his hearing in King Ramses' court.
Who knows when the clarion ram's horn blows, calling thousands of citizen campers to alite the court house steps, as locusts with sleeping bags attached, the door posts and all that granite, Whermacht painted thru the night, portent of unheard petitions and tea party's past.
Well, my Certiorari spliffle floors the lawyers, and is beyond dispute. I say the Coats could not have read those papers in a million years, but regardless who read what, I'm going to publish all of my court house papers, everything, besides this ruffle, for all to see on the internet, including perhaps, a video of my planned moot court, "The Case Unheard."
Then it will be clear to all that our fed a rill franchise truly is hollowed out, which in itself, calls for taking bold measures, and taking leave of this remarkably boring, clerk fed Highest Court, for staining the memory of its own teachings, and the lives of those who gave their fox hole lives, defending those high teachings.
For my Moot Coat, "The Case Unheard v. Darkness at 10 A.M.," I'm hard pressed to find even one single attorney to take the agency's position, for the Coat's denial of my Writ, left unchallenged, and who can challenge them, though I am challenging you, translates thus:
Now and forever, any broadcaster can counter-offer any reasonable request for access by any candidate for president with, "Five minutes is all we are willing to give or sell," blah blah blah, and these counter offers, to every unknown poet candidate the broadcaster doesn't like, will automatically be upheld upon complaint to FCC by the independent candidate seeking time, as FCC ruled already that five minutes was not unreasonable in Michael Stephen Levinson v. WGBH and NHPTV, which FCC furthermore cited in a Fulani case, in '96, thus aggrieved complainant denied, unless you're a sitting president, or senator who wants more time, and then, you'll get the time you seek without the stations wasting your time, tendering bogus counter offers. So it goes for the office holders. Five whole stinking minutes is guaranteed for you and me.
Thus, our nation's First Amendment Broadcast Rights, affirmed in the benchmark CBS, INC. v. F.C.C. have been affirmatively pre-wiped for the waste water, slipped for the flush, that a fascist's masterpiece, the teaching of our Highest Court, trenched without hearing or any other record of Public Notice, as our laws require.
It won't matter that in the final days of campaigning your opponent candidates are getting half hour blocks of time from the nets to state their case, you will be denied, and offered five minutes, their hand in glove FCC, a fascistic iron curtain, guarding the portal station's door.
With everything winding up on the internet, the Supreme Coats' power is eclipsed by my planned moot court. For them, you wait years and maybe the Coats will grant you thirty minutes. Why bother making reapplication for a writ and hearing on the merits, when given their chance, all the Coats are going to do is zap the writ and kill our rights?
Originally I'd planned on spending my first precious minutes in the Supreme Court, with the Coats, crafting, in paragraphic rhyme, my argument, shepherding the true story of King Solomon and Baby "Eliana," as King Solomon v. Baby "Eliana" (formerly Baby "M") is the prime citation that irrefutably proves my case!
All my FCC2d cases, and Appellate cases, and their own S.Ct. cases I was prepared to cite by heart were secondary. King Solomon's for cite ruling is right on the mark and so much higher then anything ever writ by this currently blabberific most high court.
When it came to Solomon's famous Baby "Eliana" case, King Solomon smelt the truth almost from jump street.
Solomon's Chief clerk, along with the King on a trip to the pit, in the heat of the trial, told King Solomon the actual true Baby "Eliana" story that he, the clerk, had first hand from a camel driver, who passed through Jerusalem the night before, from Sidon: neither of the two women petitioning in King Solomon's court for custody of Baby "Eliana" was Baby "Eliana's" true mother!
Baby "Eliana's" actual mother died in child birth, in Sidon, at the other end of the kingdom, where Baby "Eliana" was born.
King Solomon had a thousand wives, and his own Child Protective, managed by the B'nai Briss Ladies Auxiliary.
Solomon knew instantly what should be done, upon the ring of truth in his clerk's hearsay: dismiss the matter without prejudice, and remand Baby "Eliana," to his court's Child Protective for clean diapers, a wet nurse, and interviews for adoption, which Solomon planned; but the would-be mothers' continuous bickering back and forth challenged the King's even temper, besides delaying Solomon's favorite thursday lunch, a rack of hot lamb, washed with goblets of kosher merlot, for good circulation.
This bold idea of Solomon's, calling on his personal butcher, to chop Baby "Eliana" in half, ruled at the adjournment for lunch, a charge in the cluttered court that even silenced the bawling Baby goil was only a court ordered lark, really, an afterthought, an afterthought lark on King Solomon's part, as he rose to depart for noon time prayers.
But hearing just what King Solomon said, deciding as he went, and the women's response, and who said what on that unbearably hot humid, diaper-loaded day in King Solomon's court, is not what you've been told before, so for the true Levite tale, you must await my own day in a moot court, perhaps with some randomly selected citizen Coats, jumping jurisdiction, gag jewels, and all the rest.
Much better, that. I ought skip reopening with the supremely dull Coats, and instead, appeal to the courts of Opra and Montrell, to get me some courtroom practice, and chance on the Justices benched from Opra's and Montrell's audience. "C'monnnn down. Your choice: black robes, or white sheet with a hood."
How else for people to hear my legal argument, couched in the story of King Solomon and Baby "Eliana," and then judge for themselves who wins the case. It's the American people's case, when brought, as much as mine.
Or should I reapply, and wait for my final chance with Rhenquist and the Coats, to slip my own fat haired paralegal into court, coifed with a hidden mini-cam to record the sleepers benched. Sell those snoozing Clarence Thomas tapes to Current Affair. Betcha the Coats themselves would not hesitate to order my arrest, and for what that, publicizing all that bureaucratic coating we, the people so largely detest?
Elian. Elian. What, you ask, does the love poet prophet of a thousand one night stands have to say about Elian? This just in from king Solomon: Chop the little kid in half, so all sides win!
Here is how to do that so the world, maybe even including Fidel, rejoices: Elian stays here, in freedom, where his mother died, bringing him. His father is given a state of the art high speed imac, with paid for internet connection, by us, and video telephony software. Elian, the same, with a 24 / 7 connection.
The father and son can be with each other, every day. The father is in charge of raising his son. When the great uncle reports that Elian snatched a dollar from the table and ran outside to get an ice cream before dinner, it is for Juan Miguel to say, give him a spanking.
Every night, Juan Miguel and his Miami family can take turns reading Elian a bed time story. Monday night is in english, "The Three Bears and the Chicken Soup," (my mother's version). Tuesday is Juan Miguel's turn, "Little Red Riding Fidel-hood."
Elian, a cymbol of liberty for every third world kid, will then have the best of all possible worlds. He sees his father every day, and Juan Miguel, his son; and the father has a toe hold in America, free to come here when ever he is ready. Done right, and Fidel would not dare to harm the grandmothers.
The congress must move immediately to pass The Elian Gonzalas Immigration Act. This act of congress will award citizenship to any kid, Haitian, Korean, Chinese, it doesn't matter, any kid, age 7 or younger, who lands, without supervision on our soil, or is plucked from the sea within a day fisherman's ride off the coast.
"Give me your tired and your poor," not some rigid, heavy handed INS bureaucracy, is what our country is all about. The issue, again, is jurisdiction.
We know from family courts, whenever a kid is raised where one of the parents is a step father or mother, and the parents have another child, together, it is not uncommon that the first born, from an earlier mairrage, gets short shrift from the step parent.
One of the grandmothers stated, on our television, here in America, that when she was visiting Elian, she kissed him on the mouth and bit his tongue. She said she was only "playing" when she inspected his genitals and said, "my how big you have grown."
Maybe it's a cultural thing. Maybe one night when Elian's mother picked him up at the grandmother's house, on the way home, Elain told his mother, "Gramma was playing with my tu tu today, and the mother thought, "enough of this, we are going to America, as soon as I can find a boat." We don't know. It's for a seasoned family court, to get at the bottom of this, not the INS.
So lets cut to the banq already, with a solution, and satisfactorily solve our constitutional issue of mass media speech, as a whole people, without them, lest our big buck franchise slips away to shore up someone else's bank. Sometimes the most seemingly complicated of constitutional issues are not so complicated after all!
Brian Lamb's recently, (1994) reality checked C-Span, is our veddy best prospect for America's primary prime time speech avenue, at least, the most likely.
C-Span surely deserves to reap what they've been lately sewing, and deserves what they've been getting, which is booted off the air at many cable stations, which is fair enough for me, as we, the people deserve a bigger bang than Brian Lamb's C-Span, and so much more than C-Span's fascist con.
Even adjectified, you don't like that "F" word, yet it occurs and reappears for such accurate reason.
Flatly, C-Span sits above our laws, cutting a wide swath without any broadcast, or cable cast license. Oh! theirs is the broadest of license, which is none whatsoever, none of the above, not beholden at all to any of our broadcast laws.
America's 24 / 7 "Network of Political Record," as the soft over voice claims, is also, independently, comptroller of those records, too.
But whose "Political Record" is it, dear reader ship mates? Their records, or ours? Clearly, C-Span doesn't have any 315 statutory obligations to candidates, requiring C-span to give them e quill time, upon request, but shouldn't they be required to give some time, for fairness, and politic balance?
The own le prob limb with this idea of C-Span giving any time, e quill, or otherwise, upon request, is this measure runs cross purpose to the beltway's fascistic control freak we-know-better culture and mentality, in which the C-Span is clearly anchored.
C-Span's non-profit programming mission is uninterrupted Congress, and when Congress isn't in session, C-Span creates unmitigated, uncensored, end-to-end vid records of mediafied commentators, generally in the form of paneled beltway news events.
Excluding gravel-to-grovel in both Houses of Congress, O'Slippery Span's official mission excuse, C-Span solely determines what C-span covers, campaign speeches and all the rest, and therefore C-span's belt is censoring everything.
Instead of raw ideas, from a candidate's mouth, C-Span shells out dull process, and campaign trivia, last seen, volunteers for Senator Bradley were being trailed by C-Span's cameras, walking down a street, knocking on random doors.
This bill of fair on the Netwurk of Political Wreckurd, whilst the "other" candidates are willfully ignored regardless who they are, or how compelling their issues facing us, are, or why they are standing for our public offices in the first place, is at least, fascistic. Ahh, that disturbing "F" word again, popping up from my gut thesaurus.
You, the candidate cannot request time to come on and make a live speech on C-Span's channels for free, unless you are in the habit of mailing out junk mail, because you don't have any right to appear on C-span unless you are invited by the C-Span to appear.
You are absent any access rights with C-Span to even make such a request to deliver an unmitigated, uninterrupted live speech on behalf of your candidacy. Your access-to-cable rights were vacated, years ago by the FCC.
And what arbitrary bar does C-Span employ, they of course deciding for you, when rejecting those candidates they like to pretend are not relevant for viewing, your fare a bunch of weekend volunteers in a dead campaign passing out brochures? Where is C-Span's threshold for speech written down? As in all things arbitrarily fascist, the fascist's bar adjusts for the flow, and isn't writ down anywhere.
C-Span decides with their own rule of thumb, and censors potential appearances with a heavy hand. Could there be any reason for the 24 / 7 cable industry owned public political Tv network to reject any 312(a)(7) request for access from any candidate, beyond Brian Lamb's C-Span filter sitting above our laws, unlicensed, and therefore, beholden not to any statutory requirements, or lickedy-split fascistic agency review?
According to the Supreme Court, regardless of license held, there aren't any reasons for rejecting the affirmative right of a reasonable request for mass media access, by a legally qualified candidate. There aren't.
There are indeed compelling reasons for the "The Netwurk of Political Record" to instead, prize every tendered request they get for access, without the Congress fine printing any fresh statutes; but actual respect for the Constitution and our Bill of Rights is not held, or a governing principal, or controlling authority at C-Span, nor are there any statutory cable requirements actively, or inactively protecting our rights upheld, so when some viewer calls and asks, "Why can't we see these candidates sitting down, instead of just walking around, and shaking hands with voters on the trail," C-Span's shoddy reply, in elections past, ran thus, "We can't get these candidates to sit down for an interview, with questions from you, because of their schedules," leaving out Brian Lamb's knee jerk C-Span "company" policy: a pre-determined trashing of all requests from any of those other candidates, the odd few requests they get, unless the request is beltway connected.
I canceled my cable in '95. I needed to get away from watching C-Span's fascistic manipulation. Maybe they've gone and changed formats, soft ad over voices and their, "Network of Political Record," message since, but America's Netwurk of Record is still a hoax, and, in its present form, deserves the trash.
Would it hurt us, or Brian Lamb, for C-Span's doors to be truly opened to speech, statements of case, and explanations of issues by whomever announces they are standing for federal elective office. Of course not! Speech, free enterprise, and free democratic elections, our lamplight of liberty, is what used to brighten the hopes, anyway, of all the third world's peoples.!
Here is how our First Amendment program should work, for C-Span's redemption: Imagine you are running for Congress, or Senator, or President. Ram tough, you file your request with Lamby C-Span, exercising your constitutionally protected affirmative right to jam, your political stuff right down their throats.
The format rules governing your appearance are clear: you must appear live, state your case, say the first twenty minutes of a guaranteed hour, then take call-in-questions from identifiable reporters, from all around the country, from their news rooms, and questions from school class rooms where the students are participating, but not, perhaps, calls necessarily from the body at large, so to avoid a call-in monopoly of pre-arranged loaded questions being fronted by gushing supporters.
Repeat requests for access by candidates are reasonable, too, for an hour with any important person is only a taste, an eye opener. Don't we need a hard look, to see who our real candidates are, whoever they are, and how they respond under sharp media fire, with questions from all angles, coming out of the blue, to judge the contents of their characters? Aren't we entitled to more than a red plaid shirt, or pre-scripted ten second clip?
Then, before the New Hampshire primary, there could be a gnashional media straw type poll, like AP's NCAA rankings of our best college teams, together our lowest level reporters and students casting straws on who is "recognized by national news media" for prime time, or who appeared to be a de minimus entertainment, therefore disqualified from their next opportunity, the broadcast, network level of privileged 312(a)(7) broadcast rights, unless the de minimus candidates have their own money to pay, as the Coats ruled long ago in, Buckley v. Sarajevo, that money talks.
Whether common citizens or common candidates, all are entitled to hold their own views, or adopt someone else's positions on hot button issues, like abortion or Quemoy and Matsu, and hold, perhaps only in their own minds they are qualified for some high position.
True leaders best always start from bottom decks below, smell the breeze above the choppy sea, see the forest for the trees, and chart us a course for arrival. They show the way. Steer. Explain the picture for the rest of us in tow.
Between us and our First Amendment, my C-Span deal is excellent. A liberal rubbing of C-Span's call-in chaff will grant the commonest folk a chance in advance to distinguish their potential leaders from our currently cropped chopped forest of half empty party suits, and even send a few bucks along, in support of their choice.
Participants breed participation. We surely need a couple thousand super bright people to be our moderately paid, vastly expanded, lobby proof House of Representatives, that a two year show, down below, but qualified to keep the presidency in tow, and pass a bed tax on the Lincoln bedroom.
"Leaders come forward. They have clear heads, begin in log cabins, write their own speeches, make a lot of sense, and don't raise their voices." How else to find our leaders without this expanded C-Span guaranteed must carry approach to speech management, Lamb racked, like Solomon's lunch. Chomp. Chomp.
A simple C-Span Bill in the C-Span beholden Congress, repeating our 312(a)(7) language, directed at C-Span, including loose rules for appearance, simply stated, as above, furthermore, hammered back and forth in public congressional discourse, then see view in play wa lah we'd have step one complete: a two lane politic speech road from every hamlet leading out, our own clean political avenue, wide enough for all to participate, with C-Span's stop light cops waving traffic, and our established driving rights to protected, unmitigated political sprechen-zing, happening over our air waves, for openers, on the cable industry's gift to America, that conduit C-Span, America's C-Span scripted "Netwurk of Record."
Aren't we the youngest living nation with the oldest standing government, where our rights are protected, where our true leaders, the ones who see a way, (how annoying, that recurrent vision thing), can rise up from the populace without compromise, or bartering of the soul with special in trysts, because our avenue for Political Speech would again be as the founding fathers manifestly paved it, toll free as the air we breath?
Aren't we entitled to Freedom of Speech on our own air waves?
Don't both of the entrenched parties run a candidates' outreach, recruiting for our offices? Do the out-reachers rub their draftee noses in all that schmaltz the potential candidate will come into, upon election, including that after five two year terms they will be qualified for $40,000 yearly pension, regardless how old they are?
They don't have to rub. They need only locate an acceptable climber ready and willing, then arrange fund raising forays and medja-blitzkreigs, and then, whichever side wins, when shovel comes to push, voting in the House, both sides of the aisle have their beholden party stalwarts who will vote the party line because the party's local infrastructure put them there.
"Campaign speeches, Mr. potential candidate? Don't you worry, we've got position papers, insiders, pollsters, advisors, focus groups, internet spam, even people in the field."
That's what the entrenched dems and reps have for their anointed draftee candidates. Can't we do better? We, the people need draft free agency. Free-Span.
I believe in the two party system: one party should be registered voters, and the other party, unregistered voters, with the unregistered electorate in charge of running the elections.
Political parties were not included in the founding father's God inspired creation, and one big tent for the new millennium, with room for all factions would save the American people billions of featherbeded two party dollars at every level of government!
So who is it that actually decides our politishinz' party policy lines, from issue to issue, blocking freedom's way? Triangulators only decide which by-party lines to spam-cast for a win. Are the politishinz' aisle divided lines of attack coming from our two main party's shared main-line, Mr. Web Soft-money, that casual constituent, who, like plastic-man of old, is able to slip any keyhole or gate, even the White House grate, and slide unnoticed thru most obscure loop holes into any link bedroom?
Does Mr. Web Soft-money have the ears of our parties' connected bleeder leaders, buckled on his beltway, that main sewer line for a position on every issue? I believe that he / she does.
When FCC quietly eliminated 312(a)(7) cable speech, relieving cable casters from Section 312(a)(7) obligations, in the late eighties, FCC had the sub-committee's pre-approval belted, too, in advance, or Mr. Web Soft-money's carefully crafted squeeze on Political Speech at the boob tube bottle's neck would not have passed committee.
But FCC's privatized cable logic ignores the public's air waves that actually carry the programs from distant studios to the local cable outlets. So why did FCC illogically ignore that obvious "use" of "our" air waves?
Absent affirmative access rights to reasonably priced, local cable, is it possible for you or any citizen in any home district to kick off a campaign and run for any incumbent's seat in our Congress, or run for State Assembly, without the stringy blessing of the local parties' local favorite Mr. Web Soft-money? Not hardly, not without a big bunch of your own play money.
Why pay monthly franchise fees to local cable casters when you, the candidate, don't have access rights to commercial cable channels for your speech? Any dim can see why cable was removed from 312(a)(7) obligations to candidates for federal office: to keep the costs of running for federal public office beyond the reach of the common citizenry. That recurring "F" word, fascist, nothing less.
Not withstanding Buckley, money doesn't talk, but a carefully delivered Political Speech, jammed with common sense, might inspire support for a candidate from the audience of free agent voters.
Mr. Web Soft-money slides both sides of the aisle and fuels our continuous campaigns, but the naked issue of speech can not be just money, so who is this Mr. Web Soft-money guy, anyway?
This soft money prob limb, the answer at least is to depose that special in tryst bottleneck on our constitutional rights to mass media televised speech, that clearly unconstitutional FCC oversight over our First Amendment affirmative rights to access, whether it be to cable or broadcast television.
Any dispute on a denial-of-access issue, must be heard in the Federal District Court where the complaint arises, to maintain the Franchise, our constitution, where FCC mavins could be invited out of retirement, or from their new positions as telecommunications sub-committee staff, to file amicus brief, upon request of complainant, the court, or request of the network, one imagines, that does not want their Public Interest license gone begging for an ironed curtain. Affirmative. Onward Political Sprechen-zing! Steady as she goes.
A change of venue, jurisdiction, with show cause orders the top of docketry, and our constitutional protection is once again up righted and firm.
In practice, with just this one plain change in statutory jurisdiction over one law, extending this much needed adminis traitored relief only to candidates for public office, replacing those cobbled stone walls of remedies' caprice with a free pass to instant justice, then our 4th estate's see-no-evil, unprobed limb of Mr. Web Soft-money's campaign agenda, regardless of dollar amount or source code washed, would cease corrupting our political campaigns, would cease as an issue perplexing, those guilty lobsters finely webified clean, and, for all we know, this might not even bother everybody's most infamous wannabe beltway lobster buddy, that long plastic shadow-man from Gucci Gulch, Mr. Web Soft-money!
The voters inspired might choose for their leaders decent righteous people, who accept the "public's right to know," as consequence of standing for their public offices, who talk good old fashioned common sense, were we, the people only given a chance to view such potential candidates, enabled, by a simple change in jurisdiction, to state their own cases for nomination, absent the slick endorsement of Mr. Web's Soft-money!
Let us carefully revisit the courtroom cases here, to get some facts in balance, before my winning, non-partisan broadcast speech solution is here revealed. Can I be the only one who clearly sees a fail safe constitutional solution to what all sides admit is a broken politics?
On October 10, 1995, ABC affiliate, channel 9, in Manchester, New Hampshire, and CNN, co-sponsored the republican party's "Lackluster Gang of Ten" presidential candidates in open "debate."
For me this was the 2nd time around my new and novel, stone walled issue ripened. A broadcast staged appearance nationwide of candidates for president, without any of them having first obtained ballot status in ten states, FCC's out dated threshold for presidential candidates seeking nation wide attention via mass media access, opened the door again for a repeat of my 1991-92 request.
Every other avowed candidate not-yet-on-any-ballot was also entitled to air time from all the broadcasters who are under the access law! The "Lackluster Gang of Ten" appeared, their campaigns officially joined, so other candidates were also entitled to be given, or sold the time to state their cases for nomination, without having to have first achieved any ballot status in ten states. That beyond any shadow!
Originally, when the statute passed, in 1970, Congress charged FCC to an annual, reinterpretative Rule Making procedure. The public is always invited to comment. One of the "rules" FCC promulgated was the ten state threshold for access nationwide. The FCC ruled that one-issue, one-state geographic candidates were qualified for access only in that one state but not entitled nationwide. Congress affirmed.
A campaign in nine states plus the District of Columbia qualified for nationwide mass media access. A write-in campaign, consisting of an, "I declare" letter to the FEC, would not. But a write-in candidate, with committee, bank account, press releases, and campaign speeches, would qualify. Congress affirmed.
Today, an unexamined threshold that clearly distinguishes the genuine candidate from a so-called technically qualified publicity seeker, is a web site.
With $200 anyone can purchase 60 million bona fide email addresses in a ready for sending format, so everyone running, potentially, can be broadly self cast. The old facistic thresholds for mass media speech are not applicable.
With internet email ploys around, the self-proclaimed candidate for public office, absent a beef laden web site, with down to earth ideas clearly expressed, is hardly a realistic, or serious candidate for office. But that is a judgement call.
I am the only citizen candidate ever, in the whole history of our 312(a)(7) access law, to have actually crossed the FCC's promulgated threshold requirements for bona-fide's as a write-in, meaning qualified for mass media broadcast. That was 1980. Michael Stephen Levinson 87 FCC2d 433 (1980), is the FCC's flawed, doctored version, in hard covers, for public consumption.
Their "published" version differs from the copy FCC sent to both complainant and the stations complained against, in 1980. The one Tv station where I clearly met the bona fides for speech, WNED-TV, in western New York, where incidentally most of my campaign activities took place, including a 90 minute cable-cast speech, that, legally protected at the time, was stripped from the government's published ruling!
They illegally erased from their record, the one station where I was qualified to speak because FCC's Enforcement Branch decision, in light of their parallel Carter-Mondale case, handled in their General Counsel's office, a half a block away, was on it's face, erroneous, and flew in Carter's, Mondale's, and all their geographic faces.
Michael Stephen Levinson, 87 FCC 2d 433, (1980), the true facts unadulterated version, wouldn't have stopped the music, but the CBS, Inc. v. F.C.C. et, al attorneys might all have come a begging for the opportunity to represent complainant, pro bono, in their own Public Interest.
The federali's slippery skull duggery is deeper yet.... In the benchmark, CBS, Inc. v. F. C. C., 101 S.Ct. 2841 (1981), Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, in his most brief and telling dissent:
"In my judgment, the question whether a broadcast licensee has violated 47 U.S.C. Section 312(a)(7) by denying a political candidate reasonable access to broadcast time must be answered in the context of an entire political campaign, rather than by focusing upon the licensee's rejection of a single request for access." [italics added]
That is the first line in the jurist's reasoning. Well, what about multiple requests for access, all arbitrarily rejected? Here is Justice Steven's next line:
"The licensee has a duty to act impartially and to make an adequate quantity of desirable time available."
Okaaay, Stevens' first two sentences affirm the Berger ruling. Affirm it! Dissent is absent. Justice Stevens departs, only in his next two sentences, the first, a peon to those billion dollar companies at bar, nit picks his colleague, Chief Justice Berger, but upon my parse, the sentence constitutes only prose bridgework:
"The performance of that duty cannot be evaluated adequately by focusing solely on particular requests or the particular needs of individual candidates."
That is bridgework, nit picking the decision, and leads then, finally to the most telling nitty gritty of any opinion Stevens ever rendered in the whole of his career on the bench:
"The approach the Federal Communications Commission has taken in this litigation, now adopted by the court, creates an impermissible risk that the Commission's evaluation of a given refusal by a licensee will be biased - or will appear to be biased - by the character of the office held by the candidate making the request."
Ok, all you 101 legal beagles, don't scroll, read again the above telling sentence, three times, and show and tell me where oh where is the required citation supporting?
There is an asterisk on the last word, "request," not shown here but in 101 S.Ct., but the asterisk refers to the network's "petitions for reconsideration" filed well below, at the ad min level, on the Commission's original ruling, in favor of the Carter-Mondale Presidential Committee's complaint.
In that rule, the FCC commissioners split along party lines. The jurist's footnote points to 74 F.C.C. 2d 631, 652, 653, 654 (1979). The asterisk is not a citation. It's an off point footnote. [bold added]
Words mean something. They relate. Stevens is a careful writer. C'mon, read again Steven's telling fourth line in his dissent, quoted four paragraphs up. The bias, or the potential thereof, refers to the character of the office held by complainant, not which political party!
Without repeating the full footnote, trust me, it refers only the political make up the Commission itself, and only cites the Carter-Mondale administrative ruling with four dems over ruling three reps, and this is far far far off point from what Stevens carefully judged, an "impermissible risk."
The linguistic structure of Stevens fourth sentence in his brief dissent gives it away : "has taken". . . "now adopted". . . . then shifting gears to a verb transitive perfect form, "creates an impermissible risk. . ." By the way, what is it, dear readers, Stevens dissenting, is pointing out as actually at risk here? Izzit but some potential "will be" future event?