Notice that these individuals propose this as a necessary addition to the Arizona constitution without telling you what is already in the constitution of Arizona. Alex Kolodin, Joseph Chaplik, (the dynamic duo that brought you HCR 2039 that I fought hard to defeat and won because the people recognized it almost too late how damaging it was to liberty.) Justin Heap, Hendrix, Keshel, Olson, Beverly Pingerelli, and Senator Hoffman. They are all running once again for office, asking you to recycle their unqualified presence in your government.

Arizona Constitution, Article 7, Suffrage and Elections, Section 2A; 2. Qualifications of voters; disqualification

Section 2. A. No person shall be entitled to vote at any general election, or for any office that now is, or hereafter may be, elective by the people, or upon any question which may be submitted to a vote of the people, unless such person be a citizen of the United States of the age of eighteen years or over, and shall have resided in the state for the period of time preceding such election as prescribed by law, provided that qualifications for voters at a general election for the purpose of electing presidential electors shall be as prescribed by law. The word “citizen” shall include persons of the male and female sex.

So, it is already contained in the constitution that you must be a citizen of the United States and must be 18 years old. How is this done? If you are under 25 years old and go to purchase alcohol, what is asked of you? Show your identification. Same for being 18 to purchase cigarettes. That is because it is a state law that this be done, not a constitutional amendment, but a law.

Since the constitution, law, already mandates citizenship and that you must be 18 years old, what is the most logical remedy, if one is really needed to enforce this? Ask for your ID at polls to verify what is already law. Simple, right? So, why do these conniving legislators want you to amend the constitution to do what is already mandatory? So, they can slip in other items you have not been told in the pamphlet or quickly skimmed over in order to get you to do what you otherwise should not do; make it now a constitutional process to have early voting and violate the one day one vote messaging the “Republicans” have for decades professed to want.

It is my opinion that we have already been violating the constitution with early election. Forget the fact that President Trump and many others have campaigned on their claim that early voting is ripe with fraud. This has been a cry of protests about early voting from state to state. But never mind what the argument against early voting is. What does our state constitution say?

Article 7, - 11. General elections; date (Notice it says “date” and not days, or from day to day …)

Section 11. There shall be a general election of representatives in congress, and of state, county, and precinct officers on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of the first even numbered year after the year in which Arizona is admitted to statehood and biennially thereafter.

So, it is my position that our elections have been intended to be and have for our entirety as a state and country, been a one day of election tradition and act of patriotism. This only recently started to change in approximately 1998 with Oregon becoming the first state to “vote by mail”. Since then, it has been one state after another doing the same, and with more and more claims of voter fraud and actual cases being demonstrated as problematic with mail in ballots. Arizona is not immune. Most recently, AZ TV 3 did a report showing two large boxes apparently containing some ballots “mistakenly” being placed inside a “drop box” to be counted. Other reports in Arizona over the years have shown video of workers dismissing workers for “a break” or for some other reason and then pulling boxes out from under the table with a cloth covering them and counting ballots while workers were dismissed. Others showed ballots being counted more than once. These were early ballots easy to mix or replace ones less desirable.

So, why would a “republican” group sponsoring a bill to make a constitutional amendment, one that is not needed, slip in a provision authorizing the state legislature to make law for early mail in voting, in violation of a previous constitution section? Once again, Alex Kolodin rears his head. Is this like their other attempts to do the same, for example with HCR 2039, (Alex Kolodin and Joesph Chaplik) making it legal for the governor to declare a state of emergency, suspend the constitution violating all your rights? I believe so. They are already violating the constitution with these acts discussed here and attempting to legalize it with new legislation. I have had discussions with many of them either during meetings or being on stage in front of an audience debating this with them to stop these bills and resolutions. During my discussions and de

bates, all they do is demonstrate an inability to articulate any understanding or knowledge of our constitutions.

I ask you to vote no on proposition 144. I would vote no on many others as well, but going into specifics as I did here is too much at this time.

Randy Miller

Since President Trump took office for his second term the issues I covered regarding his illegal, unconstitutional actions and undiplomatic comments and insults towards anyone and everyone who disagreed with him, stirred up the “MAGA” crowd enough to write 2, that’s right, 2 complaints. America’s political environment has become very divided and toxic. It isn’t about laws anymore. It’s about sides and being supportive of party, either Democrat or Republican and their respective agendas.

So, you can imagine what happens when I criticize the Trump administration and his illegal powers he assumes for himself on a daily basis. I won’t get into them here. I have covered it intensely over the last year and a half. I will say, even though I have been proven to be on the right side of the constitution by the recent Supreme Court Ruling on Trump’s tariffs, this seems to only further infuriate the Trump supporters. I was able to criticize and dissect the Biden and Obama administrations without harassment, but Trump seems to be off limits regardless of his immorality and criminality. So, I have been specific on my criticism of all administrations regardless of political affiliation. I’ve based my writings on the constitutionality of the acts of congress, president, and the courts.

So, what happened? I submitted my October 2026 article and received an email from the owner. His name isn’t important. He is the owner of the Radio Station and magazine. He complimented my article saying it was “one of the BEST” I’ve written. Probably because I didn’t indicate a specific reference to the Trump administration. Then the next day I was forwarded a complaint email regarding my September Article as being “inaccurate” and “biased”. Of course there was nothing specific picked out to criticize, just generality and a comment that the individual was “there during 911” and knows what happened. I never made reference to 911 or the attack, so the conclusion I can make is that the person was critical of my stating that Trump started an unconstitutional war against Iran, violated international law, and made the U.S. a cobelligerent in the war with Israel against Iran, Syria, and Lebanon. I also stated that this will, and should, legally make every congressman that voted to not stop the president and continue funding his war, and the president’s administration guilty of war crimes being committed with our weapons and participation. What is inaccurate about all this?

Additionally, Iran wasn’t the attacker of on 911, it was Saudi Aribia, our apparent “ally” which the U.S. secretly flew Saudi Arabian diplomats out of the country before closing our airspace on 911. Our 911 investigation report even named Saudia Arabia as a belligerent in the events. Of course, the internet has conflicting information about this, but that is part of the information war being waged on us all. This individual complaining has no knowledge behind his beliefs, only a blind devotion to a tyrant occupying our White House.

After this letter, within one day, I received another email from the owner basically saying he is cancelling my column as a business decision. He is concerned for advertisers pulling funding and radio airtime and publications live or die on corporations and business advertising. He ended nicely, saying he will always be a friend and it isn’t personal, its business. I agree with this and consider him a friend. My issue isn’t with him personally.

However, this is not free speech; it is a form of censorship in America that happens all the time. If someone says or reports information that is not favorable to a political agenda, if they can silence your voice they will find a way. I’m not saying this happened here, but the fear of it happening was enough to pull my voice from the people that hear it. There were many supporting voices for my articles, but the threat of a minority was enough because there can be money attached.

What happens to a constitutional republic when citizens become afraid to speak, publishers become afraid to publish, and businesses become afraid of the financial consequences of allowing politically controversial speech? This is a legitimate question about the health of a free society even if no government official ever personally orders the publication to stop.

I am sure there may be some who unsubscribe to my Substack because they blindly follow something that fits their comfort zone. Fine, be gone. I would rather stand in front of thousands and say you are all wrong, than follow the heard off the cliff of self-imposed ignorance. Only the strong stand together in a storm of chaos. I will not abandon my path and stand with all of you who stand for what is right.

Thank you to all who stay and stand for right and call out what is wrong.

The purpose of government is not to control those rights, but to protect them. Yet for decades, government at both the state and federal levels have steadily expanded its reach into the lives of ordinary Americans.

Consider the growing use of Flock cameras and other surveillance technologies. These systems have helped law enforcement solve serious crimes and can provide legitimate public-safety benefits. But the same technology also creates the potential for unprecedented surveillance and abuse.

We are entering an era in which technology can record and analyze where we go, when we go there, and who or what we interact with. Our cell phones already generate enormous amounts of location and behavioral data. Flock cameras can photograph vehicles, record license plates, and track movements over time. Can this information be inputted into a predictive algorithm to know when and where you will be on any given day? Reports have also raised questions about whether future or expanded systems could collect additional information from blue tooth connected vehicles and electronic devices as they are in range of a camera. How this could all be used in conjunction with electronic digital ID and centrally controlled digital currencies should frighten all of us. With our current economic status and deteriorating value of the dollar, is the stage for the final blow, such as parts of the Genius Act concerning digital currency, being set?

A database that can reconstruct a person’s movements and identify patterns of behavior creates enormous power in the hands of whoever controls it. Without appropriate legal safeguards, technology intended to protect the public can become a tool for monitoring the public. The problem is we have legal safeguards already in place that have proven to be no deterrence to abuse by law enforcement. There are many cases you can find where police officers at all levels have used the system for non-law enforcement functions and some cases that were manufactured to create charges on an innocent citizen. Additionally, who monitors the use of the data with all the Homeowner’s Associations, (HOA’s), around the country installing Flock cameras? I will not buy a home in a community that monitors its residents with Flock.

Whether every alleged capability with these systems exists today is less important than the larger question: How much surveillance should a free people allow government and private corporations to conduct without meaningful limits, transparency, or consent? This applies to HOA’s as well.

The same concern applies to government responses during emergencies. Measures such as mandatory restrictions on movement, curfews, or requirements imposed on employment and personal medical decisions raise fundamental questions about the limits of government power. An emergency does not erase constitutional rights. Government authority must remain subject to the Constitution even when circumstances are difficult.

The 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, provides another example of why these questions matter. Section 24220, known as the HALT Act, directed the development of technology intended to detect impaired driving and prevent a vehicle from being operated when impairment is detected. Supporters viewed such technology as a means of saving lives. Critics, including Representative Thomas Massie, raised concerns about government-mandated surveillance and control over personal vehicles. His introduction of the No Kill Switches in Cars Act (H.R. 1137) reflected a broader debate over how far government should go in using technology to regulate individual behavior. Apparently, his resistance to more controls didn’t sit well with the current administration, so large funding sources were mobilized to eliminate Mr. Massie from the seat in congress. Another form of election interference should be recognized here.

These issues should not be reduced to Republican versus Democrat, conservative versus liberal, or one administration versus another. The principle is bigger than politics. Government power should be judged by the same constitutional standards regardless of which political party controls it.

The Declaration of Independence provides the clearest statement of the purpose of government:

One of the principles of the Declaration states; “To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” Government does not create our rights; the People create government. Its legitimate authority comes from “the consent of the governed.”

Arizona’s Constitution, like many other state constitutions I have read, expresses the same principle. Article 2, Section 2 declares:

“All political power is inherent in the people” and states that “government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed” and that government exists “to protect and maintain individual rights.” These are not merely words from history. They establish the fundamental relationship between the people and their government.

We are not subjects of government. Government is the servant of the people. When government expands its power, the burden is on government to demonstrate that the power is lawful, necessary, and consistent with the rights it was created to protect.

The question we should continually ask is therefore not, “Can government do this?” but:

“Should a government created to protect our freedom have the power to do this to its people?”

That is the question every free society must remain willing to ask.

The 4^th of July 1776, the continental congress declared our independence from Britian by adopting the resolution stating so. The actual Declaration of Independence was signed by 56 delegates representing the position of the colonies that they were no longer under the King and are independent entities, on August 2, 1776, at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Times were not easy as a new colony. The continent was new and a vast territory and other European countries wanted in on the action. The colonies dedicated themselves for the preservation of the new land under the name of the Crown. Sure, it was for their own interest too, but the benefactor of territory was the Crown. The colonies fought in a series of 4 wars for the Crown between 1689 to 1763. King William’s War, 1689–1697, was the American leg of the Nine Years’ War that was fought against France in the American Colonies. (French Expansionist Policies.) Queen Anne’s War, 1702–1713, was the North American phase of the War of the Spanish Succession, fought against French and Spanish forces. And King George’s War, 1744–1748, was the North American theater of the War of the Austrian Succession, notable for colonial forces capturing the French fortress of Louisburg in Nova Scotia. And finally, the French and Indian War, 1754–1763. This was the North American theater of the global “Seven Years’ War.” Colonial militias and volunteers fought alongside the British Army to stop the French and drive them out of the Ohio River Valley and Canada.

After decades of shedding their blood for Great Britan, they had tax laws imposed on them in which they had no say or representation. The Stamp Act of 1765, requirement special stamps on all paper products like; legal documents, newspapers, pamphlets, playing cards, and dice. This affected almost everyone, particularly, printers, merchants, and those practicing law. The colonies were successful in getting this repealed a few years later, but it was followed by another tax act.

The Quartering Act of 1765. This was not a direct tax, but a mandate on the colonial citizens to pay for British soldiers in their territory. The Act said pay for all provisions, so I assume it includes housing, food, clothing and possibly powder and muskets for the British soldiers. This was a large financial and personal burden on the colonies. Therefore, there is a specific amendment in the US constitution. The third amendment says, “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

The Townsend Act of 1767. This mandated import duties, or tariffs, on essential goods like glass, lead, paint, paper and tea. The colonies successfully got this appealed after a few years, but it was followed by the infamous Tea Act of 1773. This was the final stress point for the colonies. The Tea Act was a bailout for the East India Company. They had 17 million pounds of unsold tea that was sitting in London warehouses, spoiling and needed to be sold. The British government refunded the company’s 25% duty they paid on the tea and allowed them to ship directly to the American colonies. The colonies could only purchase this tea with the specific stamp and were being forced to cover the expense. This is the resulted in the “Boston Tea Party”. The colonist literally boarded the ships and threw the tea overboard in the harbor. Further, this is why Article congress has the authority, and only congress, to “lay and collect, Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises.” Duties are a Tariff and not authorized for the president to impose. This is taxation without representation. The people are represented by members of congress directly. We control our taxes by having direct access to our representatives in our districts, or we are supposed to.

Because of the Quartering Act, the British soldiers were present to enforce and collect the tax imposed. This resulted in the Battle of Lexington and Concord, April 18 and 19^th 1775. The British soldiers were tasked with raiding and collecting the arms and munitions of the colonists. It was the now famous Paul Revere and William Dawes, riding to warn, “The British are coming.” This is one of the main reasons for the Second Amendment, our “Right to Keep and Bear a Arms.”

The colonist was unsuccessful in the battle against the British at Lexington but succeeded at Concord. They lost approximately 30 men with several wounded and only wounding one British soldier in Lexington. These battles, along with the taxation without representation and the Quartering Act, pushed the next level on July 6, 1775, the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms. The Declaration argued that the British government attempted to enslave the colonies by extending its power unjustly. (We are witness of this today. Our federal government as assumed an inordinate amount of power for themselves, and we basically have lost our country as a result.) The declaration stressed that the colonies had repeatedly petitioned for redress for 10 years, but their pleas were ignored, leaving armed resistance as the only remaining option.

All this led up to the signing of the Declaration of Independence and over 6 years of war with the British. On September 3^rd, 1783, the Treaty of Paris was signed, ending the Revolutionary War and England recognizing the 13 colonies as independent and establishing their boundaries. The new country governed itself under the Articles of Confederation from March 1, 1781, until March 4, 1789, when the government began operating under the new constitution after the national constitution convention and then ratification by 12 of the 13 states. New York temporarily abstained signing of on the new constitution because they believed the constitution created a central government that was too strong. This resulted in the Federalist Papers written by Jon Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton, which had the effect of changing the minds of enough people to ratify the new constitution on July 26, 1788, at the “New York Ratifying Convention.”

The birth of our nation is the result of great men, knowledgeable of history, strong in faith in God, and tenacious enough to choose a path of freedom for themselves and for “posterity.” They sacrificed their lives and property so the future generations had the opportunity to build a new nation on the principals we should all recognize today; “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” They designed a central national government limited in size and operation, leaving the great majority of self-governing to the states and the people respectively. The constitution is very specific on the limitation of government by only granted specific enumerated powers, dividing the three branches of government with each having their own sovereign responsibilities and having checks and balances with certain cooperative functions requiring approval from the other. This is a simplistic explanation, but one I hope gives a basic understanding of authority being separate and distinct. The constitution has no stated mechanism for enforcement. This is because it is a contract between the states. It is the states that have the authority and responsibility to step in when violations occur, like assumption of power not granted.

And finally, James Madison has another famous quote regarding our constitution and separation of powers worthy of consideration; “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

After 250 years, maybe it is time for reflection on from where we came, where we are today in relation to our founding, and where we need to be. Please read and understand the US constitution and your state constitutions. Also refer to the federalist papers for clarification. Our constitutions belong to the people, and no one will manufacture an interpretation when the people are there to say, “that is not what it says.”

Randy Miller

Imagine going to the store and having your card declined at the checkout for your groceries. Now, you’ll have no food and your children are hungry. You go to the gas station, and you are denied filling up your car. How will you get to work, or get home if your gas tank is low? This is because the bank believes you have had too many withdrawals or deposits than what is believed to be a normal pattern. Or, for example, your neighbor believes you are selling drugs because you have what they believe is too much traffic at your home. Because of his suspicion, he has the “authority” to lock you out of your house and file a suspicious activity report. There is no difference, only policy granting this authority. Your neighbor is a civilian, did no investigation and has no probable cause other than your visitors on a regular basis. No information as to any change in your circumstances or new business ventures, which is really not either’s business, only a suspicion from the bank or a neighbor. This alone doesn’t constitute criminal activity, but in the eyes of the government, or pursuant to an executive directive, this is determined to be an authorized function of the bank or your neighbor on behalf of government. You’re thinking; how could this happen? It already happens with banks, and the groundwork for expansion of their controls has been set.

The “Genius Act” has set the framework for controlling digital currency. (1) The argument is to “modernize the payment system globally.” Along with this mantra, they are pushing for AI driven facial recognition at the checkout. Of course, all of this is only for your security and faster payment processing. Many people will accept it because they say it is convenient.

There is also a requirement for ongoing “end to end” verification of your transactions. They want to know who you are, who you are transacting with, how much and what the transaction is for. Therefore, any “suspicious” activity will cancel your transaction. Of course, they define what is suspicious. The banks are now acting as an agent of government, a law enforcement agency, and must report what the bank believes is “no reasonable explanation for a transaction” or face penalty themselves. No need for probable cause understanding other than a civilian acting on a belief and having been given the authority to suspend or freeze your account. Due process requires a law enforcement agency to show proof a crime has been committed, evidence that you may have committed it, and present it to a court to determine the evidence is enough to convict. This is a violation of your fourth amendment rights. You also have defense rights, present your own evidence, and question the accuser. Here, you experience first-hand how executive departments govern/rule without legislative oversight and started from executive rules granted by legislation. You are financially harmed by freezing your account, halting transactions until you prove your innocent of their claims. It is my position that this is unconstitutional and designed to co-op the banks as an arm of the federal government through illegal regulation. FinCEN are regulations stemming from the unconstitutional “Patriot Act.” The internal banking policies are a result of lobbying for executive policy making authority granted from congress to the unconstitutional federal reserve, and the expansion of banking regulation defining all requirements of financial institutions nationwide.

We seem to have lost sight of the fact that the states are independent entities; nation states, within the United States, that are supposed to have representation in congress representing the interest of the states. The constitution is the founding authority for all acts of Congress, the Executive and Judicial branch of government. Nothing in the constitution gives controlling power over individual activity, financial activity or personal spending. Yet, this is exactly what the federal government has continued to grant themselves and expand on. If there is any criminal activity associated with an individual with his bank, then the course of action is getting a warrant by local law enforcement and presentation to the district attorney for a criminal complaint.

Another concern is the huge expansion of the AI data centers all over the country. For instance, (2) “The US leads the world comprehensively: as of March 2026, there are 4,011 data centers in the United States — more than any other country by a wide margin, …” These data centers claim to be mainly used for “Chat Box” and other AI information services. But we also know they store much more information on us that are used to track our physical and online activities without warrant. Many times, the information is purchased by a government agency.

Why is this a concern? Because there are many in government now calling for strict enforcement on first amendment rights and expressing dissatisfaction with government activities. It is already happening in the UK and other parts of the European Union. This is done by storing and accessing all your online and physical activity through surveillance and without warrants and punishing you if they don’t like your online posts or complaints.

Our state constitutions define the purpose of government and define that purpose as to protect individual rights. The federal constitution is nothing more than a contract between the states defining what the federal government is to do, and what they cannot do. If it isn’t granted in the constitution, then congress, the president/executive branch, and the judiciary cannot perform that function.

Currently, the Federal Reserve is the “sole issuer of the US dollar”, granting it currency control. This is a violation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 5. Only congress can coin money and determine the value. Today, value is manipulated by the FR and inflation being an expectation. The states are only to pay their debts in gold and silver pursuant to Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1, and are not to print “bills of credit.” The states are prohibited from printing bills of credit, and the federal government was not granted this authority. So, all the efforts and acts to force on the American people a system of digital currency and ID is completely unconstitutional, and clearly only for further expansion of federal control over the people. Further, the federal government demanding any form of Identification, digital or otherwise is also an unconstitutional expansion of federal powers and not a function of government.

It is hoped that the American people will soon recognize the constant bombarding of fear and safety concerns is only a part of federal manipulation for more controls. You think we would have learned from COVID.

(1) https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2026/04/18/everyone-celebrated-the-genius-act-nobody-read-the-compliance-section/

(2) https://theworlddata.com/data-center-statistics-in-us/

Economically, I have written with constitutional referencing of fact, stating that the Trump administration’ tariffs are unconstitutional, weaponized against other countries, and inflationary. I was correct with SCOTUS ruling, in part, saying president Trump exceeded authority based on “(1) the 1977 law “providing him the authority to regulate commerce during national emergencies created by foreign threats.” I believe this ruling by the court is their being cautious so as not to discredit themselves in failing to properly rule in the past that this law is unconstitutional altogether. The constitution does not allow congress to convey powers to the president. Doing so is a modification of the constitution outside of an Article 5 process. The constitution does not grant emergency powers to the president nor to congress. Congress can convene in an emergency and the president can convene congress during recess for an emergency and action is to be addressed in this manner. Outside of this constitutional process, Americans would be at the dangerous whim of a man or woman that believes their own moral standard is all that is necessary for any and all decisions. We are not a monarchy or oligarchy.

If the founders of the constitution and those that ratified it among the states believed congress or the president should be able to declare an emergency and suspend the constitution, like they did during COVID, they would have done so and included it. This however, makes the constitution superfluous, thereby placing the American people living in a constant state of emergency without any say. This is not the function of government. The same is true for our state constitutions. I have read many state constitutions and they all have as a basis for their governments as being like ours in Arizona. Under Article II, in Arizona’s constitution, the “Declaration of Rights”, Section 2, Political power, purpose of government, it says “All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.” So, where is our state legislators standing up and enforcing the US Constitution and properly operating under our state constitution?

As for the president independently deciding to go to war, the president was never granted this authority and for good reason. Especially when he or she believes his or her own independent belief of morality is all that is needed, that international law is unimportant or not needed, and/or they believe the interest of another nation is superior to our own. As I have noted in the past, only congress can declare war and a declaration of war is only in the interest, defense or security and survival of America. We are taxed for specific functions and congress is only authorized to spend on those limited functions under Article I, Section 8. There are 18 clauses there and spending is only for those functions, nothing else. So, basically, why are the American people paying taxes when the greatest majority of congressional spending is unconstitutional? The spending being done and the failure of congress to intervene when American military resources are being syphoned away for Israel puts our own defense and national security at risk. In April of this year, congress had a measure to stop the president’s war in Iran but failed to pass it by one vote out of 430 members that were present. Three chose not to vote. Unfortunately, only those that voted to stop the unconstitutional war are valid with their vote. All the others are complicit in every negative impact the American people and the world are experiencing and will experience as a result of this personal war of aggression intended to expand the admitted goal of “greater Israel”. This doesn’t take into account the international laws that are being broken with the killing of tens of thousands of Iranians, Palestinians, Gazans, and citizens of Lebanon, and the piracy of foreign ships. Remember, there has never been a declaration of war and our own intelligence agencies have said that Iran was not working on getting a nuclear weapon, is not and has not been working on one, and the IAEA inspectors have never reported any violation during their inspections. The is an unjustified war and is not what America represents or should represent. We used to be a model of good for other nations and have been going downhill for many decades. Today and for many decades prior, we have committed crimes against humanity, crimes against human rights, and war crimes being committed on behalf of America since it is our government behind these acts.

The current war in Iran have serious consequences are only just beginning with the interference of necessary economic, social and basic survival needs not being available since the start of this illegal war. In an article posted by the World Economic Forum, (I know, how ironic using the WEF when they are a destructive organization against humanity.) But, here is what they say, (2) “Beyond energy, the conflict is disrupting key non-oil commodities – like methanol, aluminum, sulfur and graphite – impacting global manufacturing and the green energy transition.” And, “Disruptions to these industrial essentials are rapidly reshaping global supply chains – from fertilizers for future harvests to minerals driving high-tech industries.”

The bottom line is we are now facing inflation in the grocery store, gas prices going higher every week, an economy consisting of job losses and home values declining in many geographic areas, and internal stress in our political and social environment caused by this unconstitutional war. Soon, it is anticipated that gas prices will only get worse and the supply chain for food and industrial needs will also be seriously impacted causing many countries to have possible famine concerns.

All this because our government has been heavily influenced if not taken over by the interest of a foreign country; Israel. When I was growing up, this would have been considered treason by those assisting a foreign nation by selling our resources and political influence and subverting the security of our nation. Now, we have direct involvement by those in office and our president and it is causing a global impact. What we are witnessing, in my opinion, is complete lawlessness and an abandonment of any moral consideration for human rights and international law. Our constitution has been disregarded and rewritten by the courts to the point of our government being unrecognizable.

America isn’t the only country demonstrating a complete disregard of human live, but many in the international community, mainly European leaders supporting and failing to intervene and stop the death and destruction in Iran, and arming and assisting Ukraine in total national suicide in an attempt to weaken and destroy Russia. Unfortunately, it is also for the personal gain of those benefiting from military contracts, insider trading, and business contracts before, after and during the destruction of these wars.

With any luck and lots of prayer, maybe this war will not continue beyond where it is as of the writing of this article.

1. https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/02/supreme-court-strikes-down-tariffs/

2. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2026/04/beyond-oil-lng-commodities-impacted-closure-hormuz-strait/

Attacks on free speech isn’t anything new.  News organizations and citizens alike have been chastised and threatened with jail and loss of unconstitutional public funding by government officials and agencies with agendas for decades due to negative reporting on controversial topics.  We just lived through the Biden administration threatening to “lock up” parents and labeling them as “domestic terrorists” for speaking out at school board meetings.  President Trump has threatened colleges and universities for not “cracking down” on students that speak out against the killing and butchering of innocent people by Israel in Gaza calling it “antisemitic”.  President Trump is unhappy with students expressing their first amendment right to hold rallies for what they believe in.  Anything reported, posted, or part of public activism that is truthful or not, that presents government in the wrong is met with threats and crackdown against the rights of the individual and news organizations making such claims. Another method of controlling free speech is billionaires, like Larry Ellison and his son, David, buying news networks like CNN and CBS News, allowing them to control the narrative and information given. They also have significant investments in TicTok and X. It is no coincidence that President Trump commented that he couldn’t wait for CNN to be bought by the Ellison’s. At one time, the country used to monitor and breakup monopolies under anti-trust laws. Now, clearly it is part of the game plan.

Currently, we have seen attacks on our first amendment with such things as the FCC chair “threatening” the broadcast licenses of news organizations that report “unfavorably on the war in Iran.”  Plus, we have President Trump supporting this with a post on social media calling the reports on Iran “Fake news” and “causing damage to America”, while expressing his support for this threat.  The bottom line, this is an illegal war, not declared by congress and based on unsubstantiated and false claims by the Trump administration. Our intelligence agencies have reported facts stating the opposite of these claims made used to justify this war.  Joe Kent the director of the National Intelligence Center resigned on March 16, 2026, because of his position on the U.S. war in Iran.  He stated that Iran posed "no imminent threat" and stated that our involvement was pushed by outside influence”, specifically, Israel.

The fall out of this is already being witnessed and threatens the safety and security of our country, economy and future standing on the global stage.  This war of personal choice of one man is a total disaster.  This is the why we have congress being vested in the power to declare war and not the president.  The states are impacted by the decision to go to war and we are the ones that are to decide through our representation in congress.

Regardless of how you may feel about the war, how we got involved and why we are there, the fact still remains, the people and our news agencies have a constitutionally protected right to report on it how we see it with either criticism or support as perceived by us, including you, the reader.

Benjamin Franklin wrote several letters to his brother’s paper while only 16 years old, under the pen name, “Silence Dogood”.  Letter #8 was dated July 9th, 1722.  Here are a couple of many, quotes he wrote.

“That free men ought to speak well of the their governors is true, while their governors deserve to be well spoken of; but to do publick Mischief, without hearing of it, is only the Prerogative of Felicity and Tyranny: A free People will be shewing that they are so, by their Freedom of Speech.”

“The Administration of Government, is nothing else but the Attendance of the Trustees of the People upon the interest and Affairs of the People: And as it is the Part and Business of the People, for whose Sake alone all publick Matters are, or ought to be transacted, to see whether they be well or ill transacted; so it is the Interest, and ought to be the Ambition, of all honest Magistrates, to have their Deeds openly examined, and publickly scann’d: Only the wicked Governours of Men dread what is said of them; “Audivit Tiberius probra quiets lacerabitur, ancient perculsus est.”  The publick Censure was true, else he had not felt it bitter.”

And one more.  “Freedom of Speech is ever the Symptom, as well as the Effect of good Government.  In old Rome, all was left to the Judgement and Pleasure of the People, who examined the publick Proceedings with such Discretion, and censured those who administered them with such Equity and Mildness, that in the space of Three Hundred Years, not five publick Ministers suffered unjustly.  Indeed whenever the Commons proceeded to Violence, the great ones had been Agressors.”

Freedom of speech has long been valued as a right necessary for the control of government and maintenance of liberty.  It is not just a liberty of press, but of the people.  It is an individual responsibility to exercise this right and question the daily acts of government.  It is also the responsibility to speak out against the actions and behavior you know is destructive on a moral, social, and inhumane manner.  Silence is acceptance and only begets more of the same.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/16/trump-fcc-chair-broadcast-license-threat-iran-war?CMP=share_btn_url

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0rjr28nxrwo

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/16/us/politics/uss-ford-fire-iran-venezuela.html

The federal government has no authority to just buy a property they want and for any purpose they claim to have the power to do.  The constitution clearly defines what the authorities are under Article I, Section 8.  There are 18 powers, and only 18.  Any property they claim a need for must be solicited to the state legislature of the state that the property is in.  This is under the Property Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.  This is part of the “checks and balances” covered in everyone’s classroom instruction in civics and our constitutions.  Apparently, it either isn’t taught anymore, all our legislators failed this class, or they never went.  My vote is for all the above.

The Department of Home Land Security is purchasing and taking control over land and buildings within the jurisdictions of the states, without constitutional authority, and without permission and compensation to the states.  I refer you to Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.  One of the listed authorized purchases are for “needful buildings”.  These are buildings that would be used for one of their constitutional authorities under Article I, Section 8.  Since the only authority is for “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States”, one must wonder why federal agents are operating within a sovereign state and beating and killing citizens and immigrants.  Once again, naturalization is how to become a citizen, not who comes in and how they get here.  Of course, the courts will not agree since they already say the federal government controls whatever they want to that is the current trend for the day.  This is despite that the courts themselves limited in their authority under Article 3, Section 2.

So, the federal government is limited to specific functions and can only obtain property within a state with state legislature permission and compensation.   These properties must be for things like post offices, federal court buildings or such things as a military base or naval ports, as examples.  Buying warehouses for the purposes of housing people in violation of due process rights and without constitutional authority for that function isn’t one of them.  Our state legislature continues to demonstrate their lack of understanding and mastery of our constitutions while violating their oath of office.

This doesn’t mean I agree with all the illegal immigrants invading our home without our permission.  Contrary, I have always believed we were a system of laws and that our governments are to uphold and defend our system of laws, not violate them and change them to suit their purpose of more controls over the states and the people they are supposed to be working for.  It is clear to me that the people have forgotten their role in all of this.  That they are supposed to be the masters and the government the servants of the people.  In a perfect world, I suppose this would be the case.  But in today’s, unstable, ever changing world of government assassinations, kidnappings, and interference in sovereign societies to govern themselves, I don’t see how this is going to be corrected.  People are more concerned with “the ends justifies the means” mentality that we may just end up devouring ourselves trying to correct previous examples of lawlessness with a new choice of methods for lawlessness.

Will society come around and see just what is truly happening to us all, or will we continue down the path of dehumanizing each other to eliminate what we believe to be a “nuisance” by any means necessary even if that means your neighbor that may have a different opinion than you.  I certainly hope not, but we have a long history of this and I don’t see any signs of growth beyond this destructive path of lawlessness and uncivilized behavior against one another.  I certainly hope I am wrong, but just look around the world today.  We have a talent for wanting some evil that needs to be destroyed and finding a way to justify it in our minds and in the minds of the people that must support it.

I hope and pray the American people and the citizens of Europe wake up to the destructive forces within and behind their governments and controlling them.  What is the solution?  I wish I knew.  I have tried for many years educating and traveling around the state and other states, teaching and doing presentations on our constitutions hoping to make a difference.  So far, we have only gotten farther down the path of self destruction.

And by the way, according to Fox News and several other sources, The department of Homeland Security bought a building in Surprise Arizona for $70 million to house and processing illegal immigrants from around the region.  Ask your state legislature if they authorized this purchase and if they understand it isn’t a constitutional authority of the federal government to control immigration within our state.  They will tell you they can’t tell the feds what to do and they do have the authority according to the courts.  Last I knew, the courts can’t rewrite the constitution, don’t make law, and the states are the controlling party of the constitution.  The states should have been controlling the flow of immigrants for a very long time, but have not.  There is a lot of blame to go around.

https://www.fox10phoenix.com/video/fmc-8lvds81uysnht2vp

I will limit my focus on foreign aid and the nilly willy spending that congress has been liberally handing out at your expense. The constitution imposes spending limits on congress, and the president can only operate within those funding purposes authorized by congress within the constitutional limitations. And why is this important? Let’s start from the beginning. The Preamble to the Constitution says; “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” I have highlighted specific points I want to make. Let me state this again! The people of the United States created the federal government for these purposes. The states are independent sovereign nations that created the federal government under the contract we know as the Constitution, to establish Justice, for our domestic Tranquility, and to secure the Blessings of Liberty TO OURSELVES and OUR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We are the United States of America. Our constitution is for our specific country of united independent sovereign states that are to be the focus under the constitution, our supreme law, and nothing else! It is not a constitutional authority to provide ongoing military support to foreign nations, especially when that military support involves unwarranted aggression to other nations. The preamble spells out what the interest of the federal government is. It is our domestic interest, safety, and welfare.

We have been giving military support, money, and partnering in the interest of Israel for over thirty years pursuant to an “MOU” that is renewed every 10 years. This is not a treaty as is outlined in Article 6, Section 2, or Article 2, Section 2. This is an informal understanding that we will give lots of America’s money and military to support Israel, which is outside our constitution’s authority to congress and the president. So far, you and your family have given Israel $174 billion in “non inflation adjusted dollars”, which means it is much more.

One more example of many that can be given, is Ukraine. The US has been “sending billions of dollars to Ukraine” since the 1990’s. So far, according to congress, since February 2022 to September 2023, American families have provided funding to Ukraine totaling $113 billion, despite the US knowing Ukraine is the most corrupt country in Eastern Europe. But, according to President Trump, his figures show $136.6 billion, since 2021.

There is nothing in our constitution that authorizes congress or the president to appropriate your money through taxation and give it to another country for any purpose such as grants, loans, or assistance. Article I, Section 8, is very clear and is specific as to what congress can tax and spend on. Only those specific enumerated functions are authorized spending for congress. There is no “inherent power” granted to congress. It is clear under article I, Section 8, Clause 18, “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. “Foregoing” means “just mentioned” or “preceding”. There are 17 enumerated powers prior to the “Necessary and Proper Clause.” There should be no question but, yet, here we are once again calling out every member of congress for failing to know and understand their role under the constitution and the limits placed on them. Additionally, only congress can declare war. Which, as I have discussed many times prior, the president cannot enter into military conflict at will and impose military threats as part of “negotiations”. This is America’s military, not any one president.

I guess when you can enter congress as an average citizen, and within a term or two become a millionaire, you are more willing to make concessions on the people’s behalf. To me this fits the description of racketeering and a criminal organization.

If only we can all have a basic understanding of what James Madison meant when he said the federal government “is to be constrained by the Constitution.”

Randy Miller

1. U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel: Overview and Developments since October 7, 2023 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL33222

2. Is an MOU the same thing as a treaty - Search

https://www.bing.com/search?q=Is+an+MOU+the+same+thing+as+a+treaty&form=ANNTH1&refig=6981db4054494b4bbfc2a75788d96696&pc=LCTS

3. Fact Sheet_ U.S. Assistance to Ukraine _ The American Presidency Project 2015.pdf

file:///C:/Users/itsti/OneDrive/Documents/US%20aide%20to%20Ukraine/Fact%20Sheet_%20U.S.%20Assistance%20to%20Ukraine%20_%20The%20American%20Presidency%20Project%202015.pdf

4. U.S. assistance to Ukraine - 2014.pdffile:///C:/Users/itsti/OneDrive/Documents/US%20aide%20to%20Ukraine/U.S.%20assistance%20to%20Ukraine%20-%202014.pdf

5. US aid to Ukraine: How it’s changed under Trump, Obama and Bush | Fox Business

6[RM1] https://www.state.gov/bureau-of-political-military-affairs/releases/2025/01/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine

[RM1]

The last 11 months under the Trump administration is no exception. President Trump campaigned on “No new wars” and being the man of peace. Yet, he has bombed Libia, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Nigeria, and Venezuela. He is the first president in history to bomb 7 countries in his first year. President Trump professes to be a man of peace while vying for the Nobel Peace Prize.

He is not finished, according to his own statements. He says he can do what he did to Venezuela, and nobody can stop him. He threatened Cuba, Mexico, Columbia, and Greenland. He dismisses our constitution and uses our military as a personal playground bully to destroy those that refuse his decrees and demands. He admits he used the consultation of oil executives prior to invading Caracos and kidnapping President Maduro. What is his justification? The Monroe Doctrine.

What is the Monroe Doctrine? It starts with; “At the proposal of the Russian Imperial Government, made through the minister of the Emperor residing here, a full power and instructions have been transmitted to the minister of the United States at St. Petersburg to arrange by amicable negotiation the respective rights and interests of the two nations on the northwest coast of this continent.” This proposal was presented to respect the territorial hemispheres of our respective governments through a promise of no colonization in neighboring countries that can threaten the sovereignty of security of each. The understanding and commitment from this arrangement is basically that the territories and countries in the western hemisphere, “are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.” This was a quid pro quo, meaning the US would also not interfere or attempt any colonization of countries in the eastern hemisphere. We have been the most egregious violator of this doctrine. It continues, “We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere.” So, our concern and stated belief and practice as a country under the Monroe Doctrine is that there should be no attempt to change through interference any system of government counter to ours that threatens our security, and we will not do the same. What has Venezuela done to change their system of government because of undue influence of eastern nations? President Trump claims many reasons, except this. A link is below for the full text of the Monroe Doctrine. Currently, President Trump is misrepresenting the Monroe Doctrine for his benefit hoping the American people will not check his represented interpretation.

I maintain that the actions of President Trump are outside the constitution and clear rationale listed in the War Powers Act of 1973. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, clearly reserves declarations of war to the congress. Article 2, Section 2, conveys to the President the role of Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and the militia when called into actual service. This means once there is a constitutional declaration of war called by congress. Congress now backs out and the president takes over during the process of war. But the US is not to arbitrarily go around the globe instigating or engaging in conflict. The declaration of war is a legal process that grants certain protections and is supposed to place specific international laws in place to maintain some consequence for inhumane acts outside of agreed upon rules of engagement.

Under the War Powers Act, it is states, “The constitutional powers of the President as Commander in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” Regarding number 2, I question the constitutional authority for circumventing specific congressional actions for the president to engage our military into hostilities or interpret independently, circumstances other than on attack on our country or a direct attack on our military by hostile nations, the authority to independently assert our military into war. Additionally, President Trump, under the War Powers Act, is to present to Congress within 72 hours his justifications for engaging our military in hostilities or war.

Attacking 7 nations this past 11 months is not within our constitution or an authority for the president. This threatens our national security and the safety of our nation and citizens overseas. It also has damaged what credibility and respectability we as a nation may have had to the point where we may more than likely be engaged in a kinetic war having to defend our nation from aggression we started.

We are no longer a country of laws governed as a constitutional republic. We are a nation governed by self-serving incompetents working for the greater good of corporations and not for the good of the people.

Avalon Project - Monroe Doctrine; December 2 1823

War Power Act

When it comes to election law, it is specific under Article 1, Section 4 of the US Constitution and Article 7, section 10 of the Arizona constitution. Specifically, the Arizona constitution says, “The Legislature shall enact a direct primary election law, which shall provide for the nomination of candidates for all elective State, county, and city offices, including candidates for United States Senator and for Representative in Congress.” The US constitution speaks on federal congressional candidates and now senators after the 17^th amendment. Both constitutions do not grant authority for the state legislature to pass laws on electing the president. That has been discussed previously and is for another day. So, all election law is decided by the legislature, not the governor or secretary of state, but the legislature.

Article 7, Sections 2, “Qualifications of voters, and Section 12, Purity of elections for having laws that “maintain the purity of elections”, which would include maintenance of legitimate voter rolls. These are all legislative enactment duties textually assigned to the legislature. So, why is there a bill, HB 2631, going to the governor to sign off on stripping the SOS of the authority to write and sign off on, with the governor, on the procedures for each cycle of elections?

Why bring all this up? Because there has been a “political dispute” between the Republican party and the Secretary of State, (SOS) Adrian Fontes over the SOS making “rules” governing elections that he has no authority to make. These “Rules” have been made for reasons related to the legislature giving permission to the SOS to write an “election procedure manual.” This permission is not limited enough in scope to protect elections and has no, or limited oversight resulting in conflicts arising that are unnecessary in my opinion. First, as stated, the legislature has textual assignment of the duty to “enact” all primary election law. The governor in this instance has no role in veto or request for modification, it is assigned to the legislature. What does “enact” mean? It is like a decree, an order, a directive, to make into law. If the governor has veto power, then the legislature isn’t enacting anything without the permission of the governor. This is not what the constitutions say. This is not a bill requiring separation of power to protect the people from overreaching laws. The representatives in this regard answer directly to the people, all the people, who elect them and under the laws of elections. There is no bargaining between the legislature and the governor. So, if the laws spell out the procedures for how elections are to be run in the counties, there is no need for a procedure manual and for elections. Another question, does the court have subject matter jurisdiction over election law when it is textually assigned to the legislature? Are there ARSs that grant the court authority over election procedure disputes?

The laws must be observed and when the SOS violates them and demonstrates malfeasance in attempts to manipulate elections with his position of authority, the legislature has an option that they never seem to bring up; impeachment and rewriting the authority of the SOS. Yes, they can do this as well as removing the power to write an election procedure manual. They can write it themselves through statute.

The Arizona constitution does not grant authorities to the secretary of state, treasurer, attorney general, and superintendent of public Instruction. They get their power from the legislature through statute as stated under Article 5, Section 9. This means the authority of these state officers come from the legislature. There is no “inherent power” for these officers.

In Connecticut there is a court case on the issue of both state and federal constitutions having a textual assignment of authority to the legislature over elections. (JIM FEEHAN v. RICK MARCONE ET AL.) In Arizona, as stated above, the section is clearer leaving all authority with the legislature. There are ARSs in Title 16 that assign legal issues to the courts when it concerns criminal violations amounting to fraud, interference, forgery, poll violations, election campaign violations, etc. But these are not specific to election procedures established by the legislature. So, my question is why the court is inserting themselves in cases concerning the election procedure manual, and voter roles as an example. There are no statutes granting judicial review and decision authority under title 16 that I have found. The constitution leaves this to the legislature to decide and they should. Gina Swoboda filed a lawsuit against Governor Katie Hobbs because of two executive orders for expanding voter registration and ballot drop off. The governor has no authority for this, and the party leaders, legislature and governor should know and act accordingly. The court I imagine would know, in my opinion, that there is no subject matter jurisdiction according to the constitution’s strict assignment to the legislature, and rule accordingly. I am just asking a simple question. How did our elections and government operation become so chaotic and dysfunctional? It is like watching the Keystone cops in clown costumes.

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=0edb8f45a09225640c1c79c00430dd8c1c37f86c8e6e246e17c793207af7dac0JmltdHM9MTc2NTMyNDgwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=3bd09d3f-e981-614a-3a55-8b5be8eb6022&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVkLmN0Lmdvdi9sYXdqb3VybmFsL0RvY3MvQ1RSZXBvcnRzLzIwMTkvMTcvY3IzMzFfODA0My5wZGY&ntb=1

Then there is another side. One reference I found said, “Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho presents a dramatically different perspective, claiming the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will actually reduce the deficit by nearly $400 billion and cut federal spending by over $1.5 trillion.” (2) I see a contradiction here. How can they increase the debt by $3.4 trillion while claiming to cut government spending by $1.5 Trillion and claim to be shrinking government? According to the reports, the bill’s provisions are supposed to be temporary, but they can be extended. When has spending ever been temporary? This provision was just a carrot dangling in front of the people to make it easier going down. Also, they admit an increase in military spending, as always. The bottom line, their spending is out of control, destructive to our country and is now appearing to be deliberate in an effort to crash our dollar and implement their new digital currency, also unconstitutional.

The text of the bill is reported to be 1116 pages long. How many in congress read every page to understand what they vote on? Is this the representation we deserve and want?

I don’t see their figures adding up just by factoring in current interest accumulation today and the presented claim of totaling $4 trillion over the next 10 years. Currently our interest payment just for 2025, is reported to be $1.2 trillion. With compounded interest, it increases exponentially every month and every year going forward, so the annual amount in my opinion, will far exceed their figures. Maybe I’m wrong. I’m just an average American trying to make sense of it. Either way, it is not what the American people deserve, want, or can afford let alone justify our government doing this to begin with. Additionally, the congressional spending is not in alignment with constitutional authorities.

Our economy is struggling at best, and yet we are told it is thriving, “the best we’ve ever had.” (3) This is just not true. Corporations are laying off workers by the thousands, and many are closing some doors to cut expenses. Do a search on layoffs and business closures. If they are going to lie to us on so many levels, why should the people trust them on this or anything else. The economy alone does not support this spending, and many federal programs and agencies should be cut. This is since the constitution forbids the spending on these programs and agencies. For instance, the Department of Education, Transportation, Homeland Security, TSA, Social Security Administration, National Forest Service, National Parks, CDC, FBI, CIA, are just an example where the constitution grants no authority for them to exist or be funded. I have written about this in the past and in detail. And then there is the funding to other nations.

Let’s understand that the federal government was created by the states as a mechanism to keep us together as independent sovereign nation states. The states never gave up their sovereignty; in fact, the constitution clearly preserves it. The intent was to keep us united under a central government commanded by a contract, the US Constitution, and to do only specific limited functions listed, and no more. The states are to maintain their independence and not be policed, controlled, or dictated to by a national government on anything outside of those powers enumerated in the constitution. There are no police powers granted to the federal government and using the military to police American cities is dangerous and illegal. It violates the Posse Comitatus Act, and the militia clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 14. There, it explains precisely the entity that is to “execute the Laws of the Union”, “suppress Insurrections”, and repel Invasions”. Further, there is no authority for declaring a state of emergency to suspend the constitution and deny state authority or dictate to the states how to handle a perceived emergency.

Share

Regarding the federal agencies controlling state lands and minerals, the federal government has no property held within a state like parks, forest, and has no control over any minerals or oil contained within a state. These are all rights of the states and under their control and sole decision of how to use them and are part of the state’s sovereign economic resources, not the nations. This is clear under the property clause of the constitution, defining those specific properties and for specific purposes.

One last point I need to make, the main driving force behind our constitutional republic being destroyed is the “public private” partnership between government and corporations. This is the definition of fascism. Too many corporations or “NGOs” are contracting with government and acting as the administrator of programs. Additionally, these organizations are the very ones that are influencing policy decisions and funding. This is all in contrast to a representative form of government.

So, in summary, the current situation in America is, and has been, nothing short of lawlessness in the sense that the constitution, being our supreme law, continues to be ignored and worse yet, quoted as an authority for an action when it is a direct violation of it. This is nothing short of gas lighting the American people and further expanding federal powers where they do not exist. If the people won’t see the reality of the federal government being out of control with ever expanding authority and powers, we will be the living example of George Orwell’s 1984, only worse.

Subscribe now

(1) https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/big-beautiful-bill-national-debt-a3198c

(2) https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-weighs-trumps-big-beautiful-bill-cbo-projects-3-trillion-debt-increase?msockid=3bd09d3fe981614a3a558b5be8eb6022

(3) https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/frustrated-voters-refute-trump-claim-the-economy-is-the-best-we-ve-ever-had/ar-AA1MtCNw

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/explainer/what-does-the-one-big-beautiful-bill-cost/

https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/cbo-estimates-the-fiscal-impact-of-the-one-big-beautiful-bill/

If voters pass this bond, they will be on the hook for this amount putting their home up for collateral. A search result showed, “In 2024, Maricopa County has 12,047 tax liens and 6,398 other distressed listings available as of October 7.” This is 12, 047 families or investors that lost their home or investment property. Another search for Foreclosures showed, “In 2024, Maricopa County had 19,124 foreclosure listings available. Additionally, there were 334 properties in foreclosure as of July 2025. This indicates a significant number of properties currently facing foreclosure in the area.”

Having been a Realtor for approximately 10 years up until late 2023, I follow the housing market. Today, with the slowdown in units sold compared to new listings on the market, we will probably witness a further decrease in home values. So, just on this alone, is this a good time to ask home owners to put their home up as collateral for a new bond? I say no.

Additionally, the amount of the bond is related to the recent assessed values of property in the county. If this bond were to come next year, I am sure the amount would be much lower due to the home values being hit with poor sales and shrinking values. Additionally, the interest cap is at 10%, and every time they want to “incrementally” sell a new bond to fund a project, they say there is an “estimated costs of issuance associated with each sale of bonds are approximately $825,000.” I believe this is all ridiculous cost amounts that have not been justified. Additionally, there has not been an accounting of how previous monies were used to demonstrate efficiency of taxpayer funds. Look at all the previous instances of government waste and fraud. Governor Katie Hobbs has a stain on her record for $350,000,000 being unaccounted for and is being investigated for “pay to play” scheme involving a group home operation responsible for children in need. Now, homeowners want to be asked to trust more government spending in a down economy and incompetent corrupt political environment.

Regarding the constitutional portion, yes, it is in our state constitution. My position on this is Arizona become a state in 1913, the same time the Federal Reserve Act, the 16^th amendment granting the federal government the ability to tax the individual based on income, and the destruction of state representation changing how State Senators were chosen with the 17^th amendment. Arizona’s joining the US of America was right in the middle of these changes. We lost our state representation in Congress by no longer having our state legislators controlling them. We lost the protection in Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, the prohibition against direct taxes. We had the creation of the unconstitutional Federal Reserve; a private corporation designed to control and take over economic security through manipulation and a constant fixed inflation while destroying individual economic liberty. So, is it no surprise that Arizona included an ad valorem tax, or property tax in their constitutions?

The 4^th amendment is to protect us against unreasonable search and seizure by government and our right to due process of law. This is based on the belief that the individual had committed a crime. Nowhere in my readings is it shown that the crime was based on taxing your real property and taking it if you can’t. This was one of the protections discussed during this amendment. It was originally a protection saying, “No person shall be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law.” However, it was decided to say, “Pursuit of Happiness”.

So, to sum it up, I believe the state constitutions that have a property tax are in contradiction to the intent of our federal constitution in protecting liberty and the rights of the people and should be repealed. In fact, this should be on the next election cycle to repeal the ad valorem tax under Article 9, of Arizona Constitution.

It is my position, that the voters should vote no on this bond measure. Further, there never is a demonstration of past expenditures being valid and the money being spent wisely, not wasted. We have no way to trust this government and giving them more is incomprehensible in my opinion. Second, where did the figures showing costs estimates come from? Not from bids as to how much any new facility should costs based on drawing of their ideas and desires. It is all according to the presentations and interviews listed in the introduction of the bill. Where are the findings that replacing current facilities is even necessary? As stated, “The bond package derives from the work of a Hospital Campus Master Plan developed by health system and physician leadership.” And “In the fall of 2022, there were stakeholder interviews with physicians, leaders, board members, and chair of the Valleywise Community Health Centers Governing Council (a group of community volunteers).” Who were the “leaders” and what experience in funding and facility design and expenses do the “physician leadership” members have? We don’t know. There is no information as to their background and experience in project management and development and no presented information as to a workup regarding the lack capacity for current needs with existing facilities. I just think there should have been more information on this. Yes, I could have gone to meetings, but many can’t attend these presentations. They should have enough information given to voters to sell their product. That was not done in my opinion.

This bond was laid out by medical professionals coming together and putting their dream and vision they want and are asking the home owners of Maricopa County to fund it with their home as collateral. The future is uncertain, at a minimum, and disastrous at worse. A bond is government debt and they are asking you to mortgage your property for more of their spending. When someone loses their home in tax liens, they are also robbed of any equity in the home. It is another example of a transfer of wealth. This is legalized theft and needs to stop.

If government wants to expand these services, and I support the services, show us where you can cut other areas, like in bloated bureaucracy, management budgets, and other savings. If a family is struggling to provide everything they need, they cut other areas first or find other ways to provide the need more efficiently. Government just does not get it.

I say no on Prop 409

Katie Hobbs fraud problems.

Maricopa County Special Health Care District Final Pamphlet 2025.pdf

Share Randy’s Newsletter

Article I, Section 9, Clause 7, says; “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

This Court of Appeals case, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT v. RICHMOND CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT No. 88-1943. Argued February 21, 1990-Decided June 11, 1990, is an example as to the strictness of the appropriations clause. In this example, it is section (b) of the courts findings that I want to reference. This is required for specific funding. Congress cannot pass a blanket law giving discretionary spending authority to the president.

“(b) A claim for payment of money from the Public Treasury contrary to a statutory appropriation is prohibited by the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, § 9, cl. 7, which provides in effect that such money may be paid out only as authorized by a statute.

The United States will have over $38 trillion in debt in just a few weeks. It cannot be paid back. We have an infrastructure that is outdated and needing repair. At the state level, our roads are poorly maintained compared to the amount of taxes from all resources for roads that they demand and receive. Our economy is failing and adversely affecting our labor, distribution, manufacturing, and service sectors. Unconstitutional presidential executive ordered tariffs are adversely affecting our farming and inflationary prices felt by families. And our housing and commercial real estate sectors are being adversely impacted showing obvious signs of stress. The US dollar continues to lose strength and confidence in the global market with countries, now India, stating they are no longer using dollars to buy oil and for other trade. Then to complicate things more, the brilliance of the federal government has for a very long time believed they have the authority and duty to support other nations on the backs of the states and American people. The very same states and people that they work for and are commanded to do specific enumerated functions for and nothing else.

For instance, the United States provides economic and military aid to Israel, Egypt, Afghanistan, South Vietnam, Ukraine, Iraq, South Korea, United Kingdom, India, and Türkiye. Israel has been the largest benefactor of all, receiving over $300 billion dollars since 1946. Currently, Israel is under contract (MOU) to receive $3.3 billion per year. In 2023 congress and the president signed a bill to give $12.5 billion in direct military aid to Israel… “. “In 2024, congress and the president gave an additional $8.7 billion in military aid to Israel.” These giveaways to Israel are in addition to the annual amount. These military assistance grants are to be “used to purchase US military equipment and services.” However, it was noted that Israel is the only country allowed to use American grants to purchase from their own military defense firms.” Remember, this is in violation of sections of the constitution mentioned above as well as Article I, Section 8. There is nothing listed there that permits any of these actions.

Further, the US has been financing approximately 15% of Israels defense. In addition to these countries receiving military and economic aid from the US, President Trump just gave $20 billion to Argentina in a “bailout”. After which, Argentina has made trade deals with China to purchase their soybeans, choking out our American farmers, many of which will lose their crops and threaten their farms. Additionally, the US gave over $150 billion, maybe more, in economic and military aid to Ukraine. Much of which was stolen through corruption to purchase mansions and expensive cars, known by US officials but continued anyway.

America has clearly not been first in the minds of congress and the office of the president for many decades. Our constitution has strict limitations on what government can and cannot do. None of what I mentioned above is an authority of the United States Government and is a result of decades of expansion in powers over the states our founding fathers warned us about.

America has been declining in moral and economic standing due to the forces in office supporting corruption and illegality. This has been seen many times by the two-tiered justice system. Hillary Clinton, Bill Gates and “Dr.” Fauci are perfect examples. You pick your favorites.

Our problem is we have strayed so far from our national and state constitutions that the American people have lost the foundation of what once held us together. The political and corporate forces have successfully divided us by party, class, and race that we find battles to fight among us rather than unite against the corruption and destructive forces against liberty and our countries safety and security. This is what they want. I hope and pray that we as a people can read my article with an open mind and eyes wide open and see what I see and say enough is enough. How we address it is something I can’t answer. But the faster we come together and start talking among ourselves and look at solutions, the better off we will be.

This is our country, not those in office. They are elected to represent us, the people and the states, but they will not until we become better at finding solutions for ourselves and being a stronger force of change.

Read more

This is because our monetary system under our US constitution is based on Gold and Silver, specifically, Article I, Section 8, Clause 5, and Article I, Section 10, Clause I. Alabama became a state much earlier than Arizona, in 1819, long before the unconstitutional Federal Reserve. Although they did have a central bank which was later declared unconstitutional by Andrew Jackson in 1832 and not renewed.

I shared this information only to point out the power of our state constitutions and how we fail to follow them. In Arizona, I want to address our State Constitution in regard to monopolies and how I believe we are failing on this. I will address one in particular, that being our energy source.

I like comfort as well. Unfortunately, many people can't afford to pay $400 or more just for electricity. I believe Arizona has a monopoly in utilities being operated in violation of Article 14, Section 15. This is a mandate on the legislature to enact laws with penalties, including, if necessary, forfeiture of franchises, to enforce this prohibition. Additionally, Arizona Revised Statutes, specifically §44-1403, declares the establishment, maintenance, or use of a monopoly to exclude competition or control prices as unlawful. Arizona Constitution: Article 14, Section 15: This section explicitly states that "Monopolies and trusts shall never be allowed in this state." It further prohibits any incorporated company, co-partnership, or association from combining or contracting to fix prices, limit production, or regulate transportation." It empowers the legislature to create laws with "adequate penalties," including the potential forfeiture of franchises for corporations, to enforce this prohibition. Arizona Revised Statutes: § 44-1403, clarifies the constitutional provision, stating that it is unlawful to establish, maintain, or use a monopoly to exclude competition or control prices. This statute applies to any part of trade or commerce within the state.

There are several providers in the state, but many times we have only one in our city or county. This is a limitation on our choice. Is this a monopoly if you don't have a choice for your electric providers? Is there competition to keep prices competitive? Can we do something better to provide more choice for our electric providers?

The other question is can we really say there is competition if you have one power provider that utilizes Nuclear or a hydro-electric power to a solar company? Are we comparing a competitive market when they are not doing the same process or providing the same electricity? I say no. They are two completely different things. Additionally, you still get involved with the other, say APS, when you use solar because it is hooked into their grid. You are charged for this by APS. You have no choices in who’s grid you want to use. This is a monopoly in my opinion and grants great pricing power to the utility company at our expense.

I welcome input and discussion on this because I may not be entirely accurate on the service industry for our electricity, and water. But I have not had a personal choice despite the location I lived in. So, for me, I was faced with a monopoly on my services for home heating, and water. I know there is a cost and development for infrastructure for these services, but haven’t we through decades of legislative authority allowed this to happen?

I’m asking these questions to develop discussions among your groups and to evaluate our system under our constitutions. I’m also asking that your state constitutions be consulted more and think before amending them. Modifications are mostly for other interest than for yours. It is for our benefit that we get more involved and use more critical thinking of our own rather than rely on politicians to “lookout for our interests.” I don’t trust this process, do you?

There are other control mechanisms to force societal compliance to government controls. Fear mechanisms, either through the threats of war, pandemic, climate change, terrorism, foreign economic intrusions, etc., are all created by the elite powers as part of their tools of control by instilling fear. Of course, they always have new legislation cleverly named and presented as a tool needed for preservation of your liberty or disguised as patriotic. So, how can you resist, right? The Patriot Act and “Obamacare” or the “Affordable Care Act” are perfect examples. There is nothing affordable about Obamacare and nothing Patriotic about the Patriot Act. Both are a serious overreach of authority; a violation of the US constitution and the oath of office. They are another controlling force over your liberties. Then we have the education system, designed to weaken the mind and build subvariant worker bees.

This is all part of a global power change we have been living for a long time. The design is to eliminate patriotism or nationalism in the true sense which is a recognition of the importance of preserving your national culture, history, language, heritage, and sovereignty. This is to create more dependency on government and less on individual strength building and success. You cannot be successful and must lean on government to take care of you. You cannot think for yourself or realize any results from your success. This must be eliminated in order to dissolve borders, remove the identity of people, and a recognition of an ability to be independent. You must all be the same, have your needs provided for and controlled by government while leaving no realization of individual successes. Look back on COVID. The mask removed individual identity and the six-foot rule demonstrated brainless compliance due to fear. Remove any attachment you have through nationality and patriotism, and you remove the chain of identity. There is less to fight for. Just look at the destruction of the middle class, the division of our people and the major illegal importation of illegal aliens to our country. Look at the very same thing happening in all of Europe. Saturate a society with many different cultures and you have no common identity, culture, and social norms.

I have been writing and talking about government actions being illegal based on our constitutions for many years now. I’ve been writing for a local magazine in Phoenix for almost 4 years, done videos, and have been an invited speaker for many different public forums and radio shows. I even ran for both state and local public office several times. I have been an active precinct committeeman since 2010 for the republican party, and actively involved with our legislators, state and federal. I know what the political system is and how it operates. I have and witnessed the lack of ability of our legislators. Politics is a dirty world, there is corruption in how it operates and its in both parties. It’s been said, ”America has the best democracy money can buy.” Despite the fact we are not a democracy. We are a republic. But the reference is to demonstrate who influences and makes the decisions. It is those that contribute the most to campaigns and makes those in office the most money through their promises of future successes and current continued support. We don’t matter, the money talks and moral representation of the people is insignificant today.

What we are witnessing today regarding our state and federal government failing the country and being out of control is a direct result of the people not recognizing the power they have and failing to know and understand our constitutions. This I have hammered home many times to no avail. Just what it will take to stop this train wreck, I really don’t know. But I know it won’t be by one man. It is up to the people to see with open eyes, talk to each other and learn our constitutions enough to be effectively applied and remove the incompetence in office at all levels. Don’t see those that bring up illegal acts of government players as the villain, even though you may believe the act will “fix” a problem you see. It is everyone’s job to do so. Evaluate everything for yourself with constitutional facts, not emotion. The end result of those acts when illegal and unconstitutional, will only harm us in the future. Why? because you’re setting a precedence of violations of law being okay. If we don’t have a foundation to work from, we only get chaos with the ever-changing policy direction of the ideology in office at the time. We are to restrict government by our constitutions.

Thomas Jefferson said; “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

I have been participating in our political environment since 2010, when I first became a Precinct Committeeman. I have watched our political figures fumble and BS their way to the top while we, the people, watch and shake our heads. We keep recycling the same political clowns from one position to another and we never secure our liberty beyond words contradicting their deeds. I have seen the most incompetent, irresponsible clowns get elected to office and the people having no recourse to remove them other than a lengthy recall process ending in failure.

I believe if there was a citizen government oversight system with qualified members also elected by the people, acting separately from political law making process as a constitutional system, there might be a chance to save our republic.

This is a draft that I put together just thinking about the required knowledge and commitment to the oath of office being demonstrated by any and all candidates as well as those in office. The oath of office is a commitment to the people and to the constitution made before God, a promise. This requires that all those in office and running for office must know the constitutions they are to support. Clearly, this is a failure demonstrated today by our politicians and it must end. This idea requires a good understanding and commitment to know and constantly educate oneself of our constitutions or this will never work.

The following is a draft and is being put out there for others to consider, modify, play with and consider the idea of finding a positive way to control the circus destroying our states and country. Do with it what you want, but keep in mind, it is only an idea being put out there for others with an interest to work with, and maybe put their own idea in place for discussion. I know this is a little long, but lets get the discussion going.

Amendment to Arizona Constitution, Article VIII.

Part 3, CITIZEN’S GRAND JURY, REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.

1. Power of the people to hear evidence and remove from office.

Our system of government is dependent on and determined by the laws that establish government and regulate the actions and authorities granted it under those laws, which are our constitutions. The foundation of government in America and Arizona are that “All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.”

Therefore, it is herein created the peoples Citizen Grand Jury and Citizen’s Grand Jury Commissioner for Arizona, under our constitutionally protected right of the people to be self-governing and place the necessary controls and mediation between this government and the people who employ it.

2. Creation Commissioner For the Citizen’s Grand Jury of Arizona, and The Citizen’s Grand Jury.

There are hereby created in the state of Arizona, a Citizen’s Grand Jury Commissioner with support staff, and two citizen grand jurors per county.

3. Funding and budget

The legislature of the state shall set funding for operations, staffing and management to commensurate with the budget of the Administrative Hearings Office.

4. Official documents and Seal

All records, filings, and letterhead shall contain the official seal of the State of Arizona and the title “The office of the Citizens Grand Jury Commissioner”.

5. Commissioner for Citizen’s Grand Jury; Election; Term of Office

The Commissioner shall be elected by the people whose duty is to oversee, receive, review and schedule complaints to be heard by the Citizen’s Grand Jury. He shall be intitled to compensation during the time of service and shall serve 4-year terms, limited to two terms, beginning the second Monday, in January of the year following passing of this amendment, with the election being held for this office the next year after being passed by the people.

6. Privilege from outside interference.

No law or regulation shall be enacted limiting or directing the duties of the Citizen’s Grand Jury Commissioner by the legislature or executive.

7. Qualification of Grand Jury Commissioner

No person shall be eligible for the office of Commissioner unless they are a citizen of the United States, a resident of Arizona at least 3 years at the time of being elected, attained the age of 30, shall not have a felony conviction, and must demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the United States and Arizona Constitutions. The person shall have obtained qualified signatures of those listed in the “Statewide and U.S. Senate” seats listed on the Arizona Secretary of State (AZSOS) Website. (This position should be non partisan since it is about the constitutions. The constitutions are the constitutions and it doesn’t matter what your belief is, follow the constitution.) The candidate shall participate in no less than two public debates with public questioning during the Primary election process on questions relating to our constitutions. Both debates shall be organized by the AZSOS’s office.

8. Compensation- Commissioner of Citizen’s Grand Jury

The Commissioner shall be entitled to compensation during his time in office. Compensation shall be no less than that for the Secretary of State for Arizona.

9. Jurisdiction and authority of commissioner and Citizen’s Grand Jury

The Citizen’s Grand Jury shall have the authority to subpoena, hear evidence, and make decisions to remove from office any elected official holding office being elected by citizens of Arizona serving in State, County, City, School Board Member, or Judge. This includes any other person elected, appointed or hired, within the state to represent or serve the people under the oath of office, within their jurisdiction for which the person has been accused of violating their oath of office through one, or all of the following; Malfeasance, Nonfeasance, or rebellion against the constitution. This jurisdiction for this section shall apply to any person elected under the laws of the state of Arizona, and in a position of authority who takes the oath of office, including a city chief of police. The duty of office includes their responsibility of subordinates under their control who violate their oath as an employee or responsible party under their authority and appropriate disciplinary and corrective action has not been taken.

10. Initiation of complaint to Grand Jury

The jurisdiction shall extend to all who take the oath of office, in the state of Arizona.

A formal complaint may be made by a citizen of Arizona, against any state, county, or local office, elected in the State of Arizona to represent them as a constituent in Arizona. This includes a Judge, Justice of the Peace and Municipal Court Judge and Chief of Police.

The complainant must demonstrate that there has been an effort to address their complaint with the elected, appointed or hired individual at least once, and no corrective action has been made or explanation of constitutionality demonstrated. The individual of the complaint must be bound by oath of office under our constitutions.

The complaint shall be on the form developed by the commissioner and shall require the statement of violation, supporting facts and witness statements, along with any written and or video/audio evidence of the violations. The presentment of evidence shall be accompanied by a sworn affidavit of the complainant, stamped as received and a receipt provided to the complainant with case number.

The Grand Jury Commissioner shall, when deemed a violation, present the complaint to no less than 4 members of the citizens grand jury for review and assessment. If determined a violation exist and no corrective action has been made, the Grand Jury Commissioner may call a formal gathering of the Arizona Citizen’s Grand Jury for a formal hearing under this chapter.

Share

11. Powers and responsibilities.

The commissioner shall be responsible for receiving and processing complaints, and shall determine a standardized system for;

The manner in which complaints shall be filed,

The process of vetting validity of complaints,

The times places and manner of holding hearings,

The calling up the citizens grand jury and selecting alternates from the official list of elected jurors,

The schedule of hearings,

A system of cataloguing complaints and record keeping of hearings and filed complaints,

Coordinating process service of witnesses and elected officials alleged to be in violation,

Logging in and maintaining evidence,

Power of subpoena for records the commissioner, and grand jury deem appropriate for the case and for those named in the accusation.

Coordinating with local sheriffs for assistance in removal upon finding of guilt,

Filing of findings with the Secretary of State for public notice and records.

Establishing and coordinating a 40-hour instruction course on our US and State Constitutions with oral and written proficiency exams for candidates of the Citizens Grand Jury.

12. Qualifications of members of the Citizen’s Grand Jury

A member shall be a citizen of the United States and resident of Arizona at least 3 years at time of their taking office. They shall be a resident of the county in which they are elected at least 1 year prior to the time of taking office.

13. Number of members, and Election and term

The Citizens Grand Jury shall consist of 23 people with 7 alternates. The person shall have obtained qualified signatures within the county of residence of no less than 350, and no more than 700 signatures to qualify to be on the primary ballot. Each member shall be for a term of 2 years starting in 2026, (or one year after the amendment gets passed by the people) with the first set of counties with populations over 500,000 citizens or more, shall serve a 3-year term for the initial term and then serving 2 years in subsequent elections beginning 2029. (I’m trying to stagger the seats so as not to have all newbies with little understanding of the job.)

14. Duties when called into service.

The purpose is to ensure that the accused receives a fair and just ruling during the process. Each juror shall have the ability to ask questions, and clarify points of confusion. Each juror is to maintain an unbiased opinion and make judgement based on the facts presented and answers received from questions asked. Jurors will be called to hear cases outside their respective county.

Each juror shall be required to attend 30-hours of continuing education covering the Constitution of the United States and of Arizona, annually. They shall then demonstrate competency through both oral and written questioning with results being maintained by the Commissioner.

15. Juror Compensation while in service

The juror shall be entitled to vehicle allowance of $35 plus .50 cents per mile, per day, meals of $90 per day, plus hotel accommodation when called for duty. This compensation schedule may be adjusted by the Citizen’s Grand Jury Commissioner upon finding of necessity and shall be treated as any other agency for appropriations. Any changes shall be filed with the Secretary of state and may not be made more than once every 3 years. (Is this necessary? Filing with SOS? I think it is since this is an allotment of funds. Or would it be the treasurer?)

16. Location and Use of facilities when Citizen’s Grand Jury is called to service

Adequate Office Space and hearing rooms shall be provided for by the Legislature of the state of Arizona for management and operations necessary for the Commissioner for the Citizens Grand Jury of Arizona, if a state position. If a county or local positions is in question the jurisdiction holding the hearing shall make city, school board, and county government centers available.

17. Requirement for a finding of guilt

Upon the presentation and examination of evidence presented to the Grand Jury, it shall be a requirement that a simple majority vote of guilty be made. If a juror is unable to attend, or cannot continue during a hearing, the remaining will become a quorum, but it shall not be less than 16 at any given hearing. (In common law, it is a simple majority.)

18. Finding of guilt against an elected official

When there is a finding of guilt by the citizen’s grand jury, the person is immediately removed from office, credentials are considered revoked and the individual is no longer eligible to serve in public office. Any office space, equipment issued and files maintained by the position is considered property of the people and the person shall no longer have access to it. Any materials, equipment, keys and badges shall be handed over immediately. The sheriff or state police having security or jurisdiction concerning the person shall secure the office and equipment for further investigation with oversight by the citizens grand jury delegated by the commissioner.