Rob G - You and your big mouth (keyboard)

[Pierre]

My best wishes too Rob, and I'm with you for the ride.
Joe

 

[Elkmagnet]

If anything, it has elevated me to hero status in these parts .

Absolutely!

 

[Elkmagnet]

I hope you come out of this feeling like a hero and not a martyr.

 

[noharleyyet]

this isn't slowing me down. If anything, it has elevated me to hero status in these parts .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pR1cVgk7Is

 

[Ben Lamb]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdlQM9hGh3s

 

[katqanna]

Though Rawstory didn't use Rob's name, they referenced his story.

Wealthy Montana Republican threatens lawsuit against rival for exposing his love for oligarchy

Robert Saunders, who is challenging state Rep. Jessica Karjala (D-Billings) for Montana’s 48th District seat, sent a cease-and-desist letter to the incumbent lawmaker over a comment she says he made online, reported Last Best News...

“The Founding Fathers thought so,” Saunders said. “Our form of government was designed so that only people with a stake in the country’s future could vote. In the early days, this meant that only people who owned property could vote – just like today, in business, only shareholders in the company can vote.”

“Likewise, only people who owned property could run for public office. Know why?” Saunders continued. “Because the Founders (rightly) believed that the people with the most to lose would be the least likely to screw up. People with money have the time and opportunity to educate themselves and a vested interest in doing so. Transients, college kids, and others without a dollar to their name have nothing to lose and are thus extremely unsafe custodians of power, being more likely to ‘experiment,’ often with catastrophic results.”

“That’s why people think it’s a good thing that our leadership is generally relatively wealthy,” Saunders said. “Life under the leadership of people with lots to lose – while certainly not perfect – has always been proven to be better than life under people with nothing to lose. Order, stability, and the rule of law is definitely preferable to the alternative.”

 

[RobG]

Though Rawstory didn't use Rob's name, they referenced his story.

Wealthy Montana Republican threatens lawsuit against rival for exposing his love for oligarchy

Ah, another lawsuit from the party of tort reform...


I'm sure my historical education does not compare with a graduate of the evangelical college for the home schooled, but my understanding is that the founding fathers were very concerned about the uneducated and/or poor people being easily influenced by the wealthy through trickery or outright buying of their vote.

They spent much of the Constitutional convention trying to come up with a solution which, in part, had the state legislators elect the U.S. Senators. In doing this they unwittingly made it far easier to bribe your way into the Senate since you only needed to buy a few votes instead of thousands of voters.

Stick with me... this is relevant.

In 1899 William Clark, the Butte Copper King, bribed enough legislators to get elected to the U.S. Senate. He was exposed and it was clear that he was going to be kicked out of the Senate so he resigned. Then, when the Montana Governor left the state on business, Clark had the acting governor appoint him to the Senate to fill the vacancy he had just created!

My letter drew parallels of Clark and Wittich, who also faced removal from office when his violations during his Senate campaign came to light. The next election Wittich decided to run for House instead of Senate, a move that was unprecedented and completely bizarre since he lost a lot of influence.

Well, when it came to sentencing Wittich argued that he couldn't be removed from office because he no longer held the Senate seat that he obtained with illegal assistance. I figured 99% of the voting public didn't make the connection so it was a fact that needed to be brought out, the parallels to Clark being frosting on the cake.

By the way, the following election Clark re-ran for U.S. Senate and was legally elected by legislators he help elect. It stood because it was a separate election. If Wittich tries that I may just have to point that out too.


http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/contested_elections/089William_Clark.htm

 

[grizzly_]

:in Paul Harvey's voice: "And now you know the rest of the story."

 

[Big Fin]

Judge Holly Brown, a judge I respect a lot, has suspended Wittich's crazy suit against Rob.

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.co...cle_6e511b82-70dc-5db4-8954-9212a5efdf0c.html

Knowing Holly, I suspect she has little tolerance for her court being tied up with the wastefulness represented by thin-skinned politicians who might be butt hurt and want to take our their frustrations on an electorate who fails to drink the carpetbagger-funded Kool-aid. Good for her, good for Rob.

 

[idnative1948]

This is good news!

 

[RobG]

Ha, and I find about it here first. Actually, this might just be a procedural thing. Nobody requested it on my behalf that I know of. I'm not sure if this makes any difference for me as it appears he can still serve me. Originally he had to do that withing one year and I hope this doesn't stop the clocking clock.

Judge Holly Brown, a judge I respect a lot, has suspended Wittich's crazy suit against Rob.

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.co...cle_6e511b82-70dc-5db4-8954-9212a5efdf0c.html

Knowing Holly, I suspect she has little tolerance for her court being tied up with the wastefulness represented by thin-skinned politicians who might be butt hurt and want to take our their frustrations on an electorate who fails to drink the carpetbagger-funded Kool-aid. Good for her, good for Rob.

 

[Corax]

Libel? Hell, it sounds like a public service.

 

[noharleyyet]

Hope it's the beginning of the end of that crap for you Rob.