Introducing the Mesa County Sunshine Brigade -- "dragging government criminals kicking and screaming into the sunlight!"

By John Wilkenson

"If we care about our remaining liberties we must at some point draw a line in the sand and let politicians and bureaucrats know we will not tolerate further encroachment on our God-given rights to liberty." ~ Walter E. Williams

With absolutely no disrespect whatsoever intended toward anyone -- especially any friend of self-ownership -- having watched any number of online conversations between local freedom activists, I have to say that it looks like trying to get activists on the same page is not unlike trying to herd cats. Hence this little tutorial on "Cat Herding 101". (That's meant as a harmless joke, fellow liberty lovers, so PLEASE accept it that way!)

One person said, "Voting the biggest scam and divisive tool ever invented." I agree 100%.

Another person said, "What is the use of putting on events when no one, not even 'Patriot' groups show up to them? The Patriot movement in Mesa County has been flattened by the GOP in this area. Nobody is going to run against the establishment candidates, Justman, Thurlow and Willet. The School Board election was fixed and outright fraud committed. Do you hear the crickets? This supposedly Conservative County just elected two more union backed candidates, and it wasn't even close. Meanwhile we are talking about a discussion on 9/11. How does that change the local politics?" Again, I agree 100%.

Yet another person said, "It is difficult enough to get one person to sign up, get active, and make things happen. You know I am on board and do all I can on the front lines. When you are ready to present the plan to a group of organized die hard liberty fighters; I will be there." Again, I agree 100%.

Now let me put in my 2¢ worth.

Every friend of liberty is important. All the different pro-self-ownership websites, social media pages and assorted projects -- my personal favorite would be a constitutional law library named after any patriot affluent enough to donate a modest building to the cause -- in Mesa County are important. Electing constitution-friendly candidates is important. And the list could go on and on. It is also important that every individual work at things he or she is passionate about, if at all possible.

All that stuff is the "good news". OK, so what's the "bad news" a reasonable person might ask. Simple. There's an indispensable missing ingredient, but before I get to that, let me say that, in my opinion, there is too much unproductive -- (not to be confused with counterproductive or destructive) -- intramural competition and political "triangulation" among local freedom fighters and patriot groups.

You're not going to "influence" government1 criminals because they don't give a damn about what you think, although virtually every last one of them will very convincingly lie about that. Back when I fought the Glade Park access controversy, "government" used to care a tiny bit about public opinion. They no longer care AT ALL. Their attitude is: "if you have the votes to kick us out of office, do it. Otherwise, shut up and go away." Fine. So we have to become fluent and facile at running all-out political2 campaigns on short notice.

What is needed is a hardcore non-partisan group of 150-300 what I like to call "boots on the ground" single-issue activists who can instantaneously be summoned to get on the same page to either 1) gather 16,000 signatures -- (gathering 50 signatures for each activist would be doable) --for a recall election, 2) pass out political flyers (similar to THIS ONE) to every household in Mesa County (500 flyers per pair of precinct activists would make this job doable), or 3) both of the preceding. Obviously any or all of these non-partisan "boots on the ground" would be free to work on their other favorite partisan projects as they saw fit, but they would come together to EFFECTIVELY expose and oppose government crime regardless of the party, political officeholder or bureaucrat.

We've had our victories (such as keeping Steve King out of the sheriff's office, yet Mesa County's local "Good Old Boy" (GOB) gang's crime remains rampant. The hard truth of the matter is the local politicians and judges protect each other's political backs, and to effectively combat that sort of subtle inbred duopoly corruption, we have to be smart enough (and politically astute enough) to understand the absolute necessity for an organization like the Sunshine Brigade even if/when it goes after a corrupt/scofflaw politician you happen to like/support personally and think is not part of Mesa County's corruptocracy.

We already have any number of patriot websites -- (e.g. and, etc) -- and social media pages -- (e.g. MCP, Kevin King, Linda Bestland, Joe Jarvis, John Wilkenson, etc, etc, apologies to the names omitted) -- run by both groups and individuals. Yet Mesa County's "I've got your back, bro" GOB crime continues to abound. In my opinion that is because, although the GOBs might monitor local patriots' efforts, they aren't all that worried about the relatively few people who visit our websites and read our articles.

So what do we do about that? That's where the missing ingredient comes in.

I propose creating an outfit -- (either above ground or underground or some combination of both) -- which would rectify our lack of progress in effectively stemming the tide of local government criminality. I propose a non-partisan "Sunshine Brigade" which will joyfully "drag government criminals (and their specific crimes) kicking and screaming into the sunlight!" by on relatively short notice either 1) gathering the signatures necessary to force a recall election, or 2) pass out a hard-copy political flyer to every household in Mesa County on the "government-crime" issue du jour.

The Sunshine Brigade would function as Mesa County's alternative-media freedom news source through the "Mesa County Sunshine Press" which would be a free newspaper -- patterned after the COMMON SENSE pamphlet I used back in 1988 -- which could function both online to gather the email addresses of subscribers, and in hard copy for as-needed door-to-door "boots-on-the ground" distribution by the Sunshine Brigade. One person could write the whole pamphlet using his own name or a pseudonym, or different people could write various articles using their own name or a pseudonym, like the Founders did in writing "The Federalist".

It might only take two or three of the hard-copy door-to-door distributions to every registered voter in Mesa County to make Mesa County duopoly corruptocrats understand that we were dead serious about kicking their collective political butts. And I, for one, believe it would be a good idea to reintroduce what I like to call "the sphincter factor" back into the thinking processes of our local public so-called "servants" so they would be a little more careful about deliberately breaking the law with impunity.

What would guarantee the success of what I like to call the "Mesa County Sunshine Project" would be the fact that the prime (and ONLY) directive of the Sunshine Brigade is to expose and fight local duopoly government crime and opaqueness. The only time the Sunshine Brigade would back a political candidate would be for a recall election, and then only because in a recall election you have to state your reason for the recall and offer a candidate to oppose the corruptocratic "recallee". That way all liberty lovers would remain free to support or oppose the candidates and issues (whether local, state or national) of their choice and passion without creating any shred of division within the single-issue Sunshine Brigade itself.

When considering the practical mechanics of the Sunshine Brigade, there are a number of things we need. Here are a few ideas:
1. A database of the registered voter list which can be organized at the click of a computer key by party, address, precinct, etc, etc.
2. A map of Mesa County's precincts, so each precinct distribution team would know which homes to place political pamphlets and flyers at. (See McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995).)
3. Political flyers (estimated price for 50,000 at CopyCopy):
11 x 17 printed both sides, folded once (4-page flyer) 16¢/page + 2¢ folding = 18¢ each
8½ x 11 printed both sides, unfolded (2-page flyer) 8¢ each
4. Uline plastic doorknob bags
4 x 16 (S-17725) - 1000 per carton - $22/ctn for 10 or more cartons
6 x 16 (S-9923) - 1000 per carton - $31/ctn for 10 or more cartons

Of course, the idea is to get all this stuff as cheap as possible, even free if possible. For example, if somebody had a commercial copier or printing press that would handle 11 x 17 paper, the cost per copy would be greatly reduced from 18¢/copy to 4¢/copy. (see, e.g., Hammermill® Laser Paper, 11" x 17", 24 Lb, Pack Of 500 Sheets $19.99). The Sunshine Brigade could have fold-bag-and-bundle parties at somebody's house. Fighting government crime could actually be a fun way to meet new friends!

Ideally, I would like to see the Mesa County Sunshine Brigade be purely a loose-knit 1st-Amendment-free-speech association dedicated solely to fighting LOCAL government crime. But I need to do the legal research necessary to arrive at the best possible opinion as to what kind of association it should be -- e.g., a private-by-invitation-only club, or a not-for-profit political action committee of some sort, etc, etc -- for maximum constitutional legal protection. Obviously the moles, trolls, wannabe infiltrators and destroyers would love to find some little chink in the Sunshine Brigade's constitutional armor, whether it's legitimate or not. Usually that little "chink" involves money, which is why Mesa County Committee of Correspondence neither solicits nor accepts donations. If we can eventually figure out how to publish and distribute the free-subscription-by-email Sunshine Press online, the need for money to fund printing and distributing hard copy versions of Sunshine Press would be eliminated.

As far as I'm concerned Americans "don't need no stinkin' government permits" to talk, write and publish openly about government crime. Article 2, Section 103 of the Colorado Constitution says in pertinent part: “Freedom of speech and press…every person shall be free to speak, write or publish whatever he will on any subject, ... and in all suits and prosecutions of libel the truth thereof may be given in evidence, and the jury, under the direction of the court, shall determine the law and the fact.

To me, at least, that means exactly what it says.

The reason the corruptocrats always want to know who is funding this type of movement -- notice the big concern about who funded the Pitton appeal -- is precisely so they can use their corrupt government banks, politicians and courts/judges to destroy their political opponents financially. Two real-life examples of what I am talking about is the local corruptocrats ruining the businesses of former Mesa County Commissioner (and my friend) Gene Vories, and John Sorrick, the Christian Ph.D. psychologist who dared to help my brother David's kids against the local Mesa County Department of Human Services' (MCDHS) misandristic Feminazi-Culture corruptocrats. In addition to stealing Vories' 20+-employee Top Line Supply Company plumbing supply business, the corruptocrats also stole Vorie's Glade Park ranch. Interested persons can read my extensive and detailed exposé about that by CLICKING HERE. The exposé explains how Mesa County's corruptocracy works and which corruptocrats I believe deserve some jail time and why. Interested persons can also read another article I wrote titled "How to take Mesa County back from the Good Old Boy gang precinct by precinct -- Politics 101" by CLICKING HERE. In my opinion, both of those articles contribute to the Sunshine Brigade's overall in-depth understanding of the local corruptocracy and how to fight it.


Without going into great detail here, it suffices to say that, as a fan of equal protection of law, the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and Rule of Law for ALL humans regardless of shape, size, gender, age, skin color, etc, your humble webmaster is VERY offended by 1) the fact that there is no law in family courts, only what the judge wants to do, 2) men have absolutely no constitutional rights in the misandristic Feminazi Culture pandemic in family courts under the fraudulent rubric of "for the children", 3) ongoing serial perjury by females in family courts is actually encouraged and facilitated via the fact Colorado's perjury statutes4 are simply not enforced against females in Colorado family courts, which means there are zero consequences for serial perjurers so long as they happen to be female, 4) assessment of income and child support for males and females is, by unspoken design, BLATANTLY unequal in Colorado family courts, and 5) arrogant "self-anointed-as-immune5-from-personal-liability" judicial officers who commit crimes (including felonies) against nonbar pro se litigants who appear before them in family court.

Obviously, both males and females have their family court horror stories, and no decent person would wish these horrors upon anyone, but equally obviously the "system" is COMPLETELY stacked against men.

Some people may take offense at my "Social Services Destroying Families" banner/link, but to them I would say "stop burying your head in the sand and fix the stinkin' problem." I, for one, am not going to remain silent and simply tolerate the "Good Old Boy" corruptocratic criminality. I, for one, intend to openly express an appropriate and commensurate level of moral outrage.

There are a couple of things I know for a fact. I know first hand of an acrimonious parenting situation -- (I know the man well, and am acquainted with the disordered woman he made a daughter with) -- where the man has a good job, is going to college part time, and has just bought a house. The guy is an exemplary father who loves his daughter (age 8) unconditionally and with all his heart. The "loon" has been arrested 4 times for domestic violence, has had three children by three different fathers, none of whom she was married to. She mostly lives off the "system", has serious anger, lying, and control-freak issues. She is angry at the man because, while he freely admitted paternity and wanted to be very actively involved in the raising of his unexpected and unplanned daughter, he didn't want a permanent relationship with the loon. As a result of being spurned, the loon has an implacable hostility towards the man and has used the child as a weapon against him in any way she can to cause him as much stress and inconvenience as she can. Long story short, the loon has on two occasions filed what I know to a moral certainty to be 100% perjurious petitions for a protection order. The first was dismissed for lack of proof. The second one comes up for trial in a couple of weeks. I anticipate it will also be dismissed for lack of proof.

"So, what's the problem?" you might ask. Easy. Women can file petitions for protection orders by simply checking the "I am afraid for my life" box -- (see point #5, page 3) -- on a standard VERIFIED COMPLAINT/MOTION FOR CIVIL PROTECTION ORDER form. There's no vetting, no examination by the judge to reveal possible contradictions, no requiring the woman to articulate her own problems in her own words, just an automatic "check-the-most-strategic-boxes-as-coached-by-misandristic-gender-feminists" two-week Temporary Restraining Order, greatly inconveniencing the father and taking away the daughter for two weeks without a shred of truth or evidence. This is all done ostensibly to "err on the side of safety" under a fraudulent, UNCONSTITUTIONAL and unspoken "for the children" policy that all women are victims and all men are dangerous and violent perpetrators.

So every time the man files a motion for a contempt citation because the loon is chronically in ongoing contempt of the court's parenting time order, the loon files a 100% perjurious petition for a protection order. Meanwhile, the hapless judges and magistrates, without any evidence, pretend that there is some sort of BS moral equivalency between a good father and a loser mother who does not have high academic expectations of her daughter or help her daughter do her homework.

Another problem that has got to be fixed is the completely unequal way in which income and child support obligations are assessed against men as compared to women. The upshot of the situation is that the "system" doesn't give the slightest damn about men, women OR children. The whole rotten scam is about bringing as much outside money such as grants and matching Social Security funds as possible into the county coffers for the local corruptocrats to skim their "share" in any way they can from the local misandristic gender-feminist dependent-on-government Welfare/Therapy "Culture".

Despite the fact that to work at whatever trade or profession one pleases is a fundamental constitutional right6 in America, men are assessed income not according to what they actually earn, but according to what some misandristic "for the children" bureaurat somewhere thinks he OUGHT TO EARN. As a result, many men who have lost their businesses and/or jobs due to anti-male bias of the "system" are forced to work three minimum-wage jobs while popping Xanax or Valium so they don't flip out due to the pressure and become violent. This blatantly unconstitutional policy is virtually never applied to women. Females, who are routinely allowed to lie about, or otherwise withhold information about, their incomes, are generally calculated at minumum wage, if at all. This is blatant, deliberate, self-evident unequal protection of law.

The other thing I know for a fact is that my own immediate family has been destroyed by the deliberately criminal (including felonies) behavior of some now-retired local judges. My brother Dave hasn't seen two of his boys, Ben and Toby, for over 17 years. They were illegally allowed to relocate in England. Interested persons can read the whole story by CLICKING HERE.

In my view, the Daily Sentinel has in effect deliberately "blacked out" the 17+-year-long story -- (even though reporter Gary Harmon has been in possession of most of the facts for years) -- and accessorized the serious and criminally deliberate yet-ongoing violations of my brother's most fundamental constitutional rights.

So, what am I supposed to do about all this scofflaw evil just because the local politicians, judges and bureaurats have each other's political backs, and the local MSM blacks out the story of judicial criminality (including felonies)? Shut up and go away? Give up and just accept the Mesa County "Good Old Boy" corruptocrats' criminal behavior as "part of life"? Well, that's simply not going to happen on my watch. I prefer to make practical use of the 1st Amendment and Article 2, Section 10 of the Colorado Constitution. Hence this public protest.


Gerry Spence on the American "justice system" -- YouTube video -- Gerry Spence is one of your humble webmaster's heroes. I consider him to be a great man, and have corresponded with him. He is a spiritually humble man who would object to being thought of as "great" or any person's "hero". According to Wikipedia, "Spence has never lost a criminal case either as a prosecutor or a defense attorney. He has not lost a civil case since 1969."

Interview with Gerry Spence Part I -- YouTube video

Eric Liu: “Why ordinary people need to understand power" - Transcript of video

Do NOT Talk To Police! -- YouTube video -- By Regent University School of Law Professor James Duane -- Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (2001):
“One of the Fifth Amendment's "basic functions ... is to protect innocent men ... 'who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.'" Grunewald v. United States, 353 U. S. 391, 421 (1957) (quoting Slochower v. Board of Higher Ed. of New York City, 350 U. S. 551, 557-558 (1956)) (emphasis in original). In Grunewald, we recognized that truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker's own mouth.”

Human Services chief keeps job with county, by Gary Harmon - Daily Sentinel - (It looks as if McInnis and Justman are doubling down on MCDHS "everybody's got everybody else's back" scofflaw behavior, which includes the illegal scamming of some $100,000 in matching Social Security funds based on an illegal jurisdictionless legal-nullity child support order. See DETAILS HERE.)

Human Services chief in hot seat today after his 90-day probation, by Gary Harmon - Daily Sentinel

Commissioners won’t terminate Tracey Garchar; opt for probation, by Gary Harmon - Daily Sentinel

Doing the public’s business in public, by Staff - Daily Sentinel - "'The general public shall not be excluded…'
"Those words, or a variation of them, appear throughout Colorado’s laws, including in the children’s code, and for good reason. We live in a representative republic, and that means the public has a right to know about, and participate in things involving, well, the public." - (This is pure lip service when it comes to exposing and deterring the crimes of Mesa County's "Good Old Boy" corruptocracy.)

State’s open records law needs an update, by Staff - Daily Sentinel


1. In reality, there is no such real thing as "government". It is not a rock, a tree, a river, or even a cloud. It is mere behavior, an established social order, a dominance-based pecking order. With other animal species, it is often called "dominance hierarchy". In the case of humans, the term "social hierarchy" is more often used. As Frédéric Bastiat said, "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." As H.L. Mencken said, "Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods." As General Smedley Butler has written, "War Is A Racket". In reality, "government" is merely the dominant individuals in the inherently evil and inevitably corrupting stupid-human pecking order struggle known as "politics"2. These disordered-by-definition dominant individuals merely call themselves "government" so the hoi polloi masses will view them as being intelligent enough and moral enough to follow and obey.

2. Always remember, "politics" = person or group A trying to persuade person or group B to obey the will of A, most frequently for the personal financial benefit of A and to the personal financial detriment (higher taxes) of B. In other words, "politics" = manipulation. That is why deception = the so-called "art" of politics. That is also why "politician" = professional deceiver, and why "political" = deception-based, or having to do with deception. Everybody is competing for political power to steal labor and money out of the "other guy's" pocket and put it in their own. Politicians get votes by promising to be all things to all people. Because that is a physical impossibility, most of their promises of necessity get broken. Because they know this in advance, they are ALL liars to one degree or another. The king is always the most corrupt person in the kingdom. (The first two kings of ancient Israel, Saul and David, were murderers.) In my opinion, any person who sincerely wants to be the king is criminally insane and an implacable deadly enemy to the inalienable Creator-endowed rights of individual freedom and self-ownership.

3. Here are some important free speech cases which interested persons can use to inform themselves about their constitutional right to free speech related to exposing and opposing government criminals:

ALL GOVERNMENTAL DEPARTMENTS MUST ANSWER TO THE PEOPLE. It is well that all departments give pause, that they may not offend. All must answer to the people, in and from whom, as specifically set forth in this section, all political power is invested and derived. Hudson v. Annear, 101 Colo. 551, 75 P.2d 587 (1938), McKee v. City of Louisville,
616 P.2d 969 (1980), Colorado Project-Common Cause v. Anderson, 178 Colo. 1, 495 P.2d 220 (1972)

Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943):
"A municipal ordinance forbidding any person to knock on door, ring doorbells, or otherwise summon to the door the occupants of any residence for the purpose of distributing to them handbills or circulars, held -- as applied to a person distributing advertisements for a religious meeting -- invalid under the Federal Constitution as a denial of freedom of speech and press."

Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946):
"A state can not, consistently with the freedom of religion and the press guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, impose criminal punishment on a person for distributing religious literature on the sidewalk of a company-owned town contrary to regulations of the town's management, where the town and its shopping district are freely accessible to and freely used by the public in general, even though the punishment is attempted under a state statute making it a crime for anyone to enter or remain on the premises of another after having been warned not to do so."

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964):
"Held: A State cannot, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves "actual malice" -- that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. Pp. 376 U. S. 265-292.
(a) Application by state courts of a rule of law, whether statutory or not, to award a judgment in a civil action, is "state action" under the Fourteenth Amendment.
(b) Expression does not lose constitutional protection to which it would otherwise be entitled because it appears in the form of a paid advertisement.
(c) Factual error, content defamatory of official reputation, or both, are insufficient to warrant an award of damages for false statements unless "actual malice" -- knowledge that statements are false or in reckless disregard of the truth -- is alleged and proved.
(d) State court judgment entered upon a general verdict which does not differentiate between punitive damages, as to which, under state law, actual malice must be proved, and general damages, as to which it is "presumed," precludes any determination as to the basis of the verdict, and requires reversal, where presumption of malice is inconsistent with federal constitutional requirements.
(e) The evidence was constitutionally insufficient to support the judgment for respondent, since it failed to support a finding that the statements were made with actual malice or that they related to respondent."

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974)

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986)

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988):
"Held: In order to protect the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures and public officials from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody at issue without showing in addition that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with "actual malice," i.e., with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true. The State's interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is not sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury when that speech could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved. Here, respondent is clearly a "public figure" for First Amendment purposes, and the lower courts' finding that the ad parody was not reasonably believable must be accepted. 'Outrageousness' in the area of political and social discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors' tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression, and cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages for conduct such as that involved here."

"Guarantees against exercise of arbitrary power by any department of government, or agency thereof, are found in this section and section 25 of this article." People v. Harris, 104 Colo. 386, 91 P.2d 989 (1939)

"Abridgement of liberty of discussion can be justified only where clear danger of substantive evils arises under circumstances affording no opportunity to test the merits of ideas by competition for acceptance in the market of public opinion." Pueblo Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Harper Constr. Co., 134 Colo. 469, 307 P.2d 468 (1957)

"Any system of prior restraint is subject to heavy presumption against its constitutional validity." People ex rel. McKevitt v. Harvey, 176 Colo. 447, 491 P.2d 563 (1971)

“The object of article II, section 10 is to ‘guard the press against the trammels of political power, and secure to the whole people a full and free discussion of public affairs.'” People v. Ford, 773 P.2d 1059, 1066 (Colo. 1989) (quoting Cooper v. People, 22 P. 790, 798 (Colo. 1889)).

Cooper v. People, 22 P. 790, 798 (Colo. 1889):
"Respondents had an undoubted right to question the jurisdiction of the district court in the premises, and to criticise the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus, in temperate and respectful language, as much as they pleased; but they had no right, at least while the proceedings were pending, to subject the judge to ridicule, or to make insinuations against his good faith in connection therewith; for whether he had jurisdiction or not, he must, in any event, pass upon the question of such jurisdiction, — a matter of some difficulty, as we have seen, — and in so doing he should have been permitted to act uninfluenced by fear of injury to his reputation or other unworthy motive. Williamson's Case, 26 Pa. 9. The decision in the case of People v. District Court, 6 Colo. 534, is not in conflict with the views here expressed, but rather in support of them, when the whole opinion is considered."
Very obviously, judges deliberately falsifying the register of actions, falsifying the record on appeal, and obstructing justice by destroying the entire written record of a case in a deliberate effort to cover up crimes (including felonies) committed by judges against litigants who appear before them -- as they did against my brother David -- is an altogether different matter that the contempt-related issues considered by the Cooper decision. Having said that, the most insidious and clever way judicial criminals would have of trying to repress and intimidate any citizen who tries to expose their crimes is via deliberate/strategic abuse/misuse of the courts' contempt powers.

Bock v. Westminster Mall Co., 819 P.2d 55, 59 (Colo. 1991)

THIS SECTION PROVIDES BROADER PROTECTION FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH THAN DOES THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, and, therefore, obscenity statutes must be drafted so they are compatible with both constitutions. People v. Seven Thirty-five E. Colfax, Inc., 697 P.2d 348 (Colo. 1985); People v. Ford, 773 P.2d 1059 (Colo. 1989); Bock v. Westminster Mall Co., 819 P.2d 55 (Colo. 1991).

This section secures to the people a full and free discussion of public affairs. Pierce v. St. Vrain Valley Sch. Dist., 944 P.2d 646 (Colo. App. 1997), rev'd on other grounds, 981 P.2d 600 (Colo. 1999)

The First Amendment guarantee of freedom of expression includes freedom of association and guarantees the right to associate or refuse to associate with whomever one chooses. Brandon v. Springspree, Inc., 888 P.2d 357 (Colo. App. 1994)

This section provides greater protection for freedom of speech than does the first amendment. Holliday v. Reg'l Transp. Dist., 43 P.3d 676 (Colo. App. 2001)

Tattered Cover, Inc. v. City of Thornton, 44 P.3d 1044, 1056 (Colo. 2002)

Lewis v. Colorado Rockies Baseball Club, 941 P.2d 266, 271-72 (Colo. 1995)

APPLIED in Melcher v. Beeler, 48 Colo. 233, 110 P. 181, 139 Am. St. R. 273 (1910); People v. UMW, Dist. 15, 70 Colo. 269, 201 P. 54 (1921); Leighton v. People, 90 Colo. 106, 6 P.2d 929 (1931); Dill v. People, 94 Colo. 230, 29 P.2d 1035 (1934); Hamilton v. City of Montrose, 109 Colo. 228, 124 P.2d 757 (1942); Colo. High Sch. Activities Ass'n v. Uncompahgre Broad. Co., 134 Colo. 131, 300 P.2d 968 (1956); Williams v. City & County of Denver, 157 Colo. 374, 402 P.2d 615 (1965); Houston v. Manerbino, 185 Colo. 1, 521 P.2d 166 (1974); People v. Berger, 185 Colo. 85, 521 P.2d 1244 (1974); Bolles v. People, 189 Colo. 394, 541 P.2d 80 (1975); People v. Tabron, 190 Colo. 161, 544 P.2d 380 (1976); Menefee v. City & County of Denver, 190 Colo. 163, 544 P.2d 382 (1976); People v. Hildebrandt, 190 Colo. 167, 544 P.2d 384 (1976); Hansen v. People, 190 Colo. 457, 548 P.2d 1278 (1976); People ex rel. VanMeveren v. County Court, 191 Colo. 201, 551 P.2d 716 (1976); Veterans of Foreign Wars, Post 4264 v. City of Steamboat Springs, 195 Colo. 44, 575 P.2d 835, appeal dismissed, 439 U.S. 809, 99 S. Ct. 66, 58 L. Ed. 2d 101 (1978); Bergstrom v. Ricketts, 495 F. Supp. 210 (D. Colo. 1980); People in Interest of Baby Girl D., 44 Colo. App. 192, 610 P.2d 1086 (1980); In re P.R. v. District Court, 637 P.2d 346 (Colo. 1981); Churchey v. Adolph Coors Co., 759 P.2d 1336 (Colo. 1988); Saint John's Church in the Wilderness v. Scott, 194 P.3d 475 (Colo. App. 2008).

USCS Const. Amend. 1

Colo. Const. Art. II, Section 10. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS

4. See "C.R.S. § 18-8-502. Perjury in the first degree.
(1) A person commits perjury in the first degree if in any official proceeding he knowingly makes a materially false statement, which he does not believe to be true, under an oath required or authorized by law.
(2) Knowledge of the materiality of the statement is not an element of this crime, and the defendant's mistaken belief that his statement was not material is not a defense, although it may be considered by the court in imposing sentence.
(3) Perjury in the first degree is a class 4 felony."
(Unless, of course, you happen to be a female litigant in family court! In that case, family court judges and magistrates don't mind -- of course every last one of them will persuasively lie about that unspoken FACT.)

5. Read the cases below and try not to throw up at the ugly neo-feudalistic arrogance and injustice. Please note specifically the reasoning of the dissenting justices in Bradley, Pierson and Stump, with whom your humble webmaster agrees.
Randall v. Brigham - 74 U.S. 523 (1868)
Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wallace) 335 (April 8, 1872)
Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967)
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978)

6. See, e.g., Butchers' Union Slaughterhouse Co. v. Crescent City Live-Stock Landing Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)
Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114 (1889)
Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 (1897)
Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161 (1908)
Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915)
Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33 (1915)
Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923)

Under construction . . .