Klosinski Archive

Sign Phyllis Klosinksi’s Petition for Redress of Grievance to the Indiana Senate

By
LPIN Editor
Published: July 27, 2011

(Listen to the back story of this petition here.)

Petition for Redress of Grievance to Indiana Senate via Senator David Long, President Pro Tempore

Sign the petition here!

If you are an inhabitant of the State or own property subject to property taxes located anywhere with the State boundaries of Indiana you are represented by the entire membership of the Indiana General Assembly, as each Legislator has the right to exercise the vote to pass or fail legislation. Each vote cast by any Member is binding on all taxpayers subject to property taxation regardless of place of residence.

Your signature on this Petition will register your dissatisfaction with the law which currently only allows an individual taxpayer owning 10% or more of the assessed value in the taxing unit (county, city, town, special taxing district) to object and appeal the budget, tax rate or levy of the political taxing unit levying the property tax you must pay the County Treasurer under penalty of law and seizure of your property for non payment. You need not reside in the State of Indiana; property ownership is the standing for your right to appeal the property tax. Being an inhabitant of the State provides your Constitutional Right to Petition for Redress.

Read the rest of this entry »

Are you really the King of your Castle?

By
LPIN Editor
Published: June 14, 2011

(By Phyllis Klosinski, Brown County resident)

ATTENTION to all Indiana Conservancy District freeholders, there is an urgent need to protect your rights. (If you aren’t sure what a conservancy district is, please learn about it here.)

The Indiana Ct. of Appeals issued Opinion No 07A01-1008-PL-429 on April 12, 2011.  This cause was filed to protect the individual rights of freeholders claiming the Cordry Sweetwater Conservancy District was exceeding statutory authority.  There is much to this story and this is just an initial post to get all taxpayers informed of the damage a conservancy district can now do to individual rights as a result of this opinion.  This is an important lesson in statutory construction, and judges legislating from the bench, all to be brought to light in following posts.  Where are the state  agencies controlling conservancy districts in this? ……… ABSENT…….. details to follow.

Critical to this post is the following quote from page 10 of the Opinion.

“We do not read the District’s purpose so narrowly.  In fact, Indiana Code Section 14-33-23-6 provides that the article regarding conservancy districts “shall be liberally construed to accomplish the purpose of creating districts by which local water management problems can best be solved”.  The District’s purpose does not limit its ability to regulate the collection, treatment and disposal of sewage to establishing a public sewage system.  Rather, the District has the ability to regulate all collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage, even the collection, treatment, and disposal through PRIVATE septic systems.”

The approved purpose of this District statutorily is:  “IC 14-33-1-1-(5) Providing for the collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage and other liquid wastes.” When do regulations over PRIVATE septic systems equal PROVIDING for?

All freeholders be aware the liberty controllers in your districts now have the authority to take over every aspect of your individual rights under the ability to liberally construe the Conservancy Act.  Does anyone see any problem here?   The full story exposing the extent to which this District has seized unauthorized authority will follow.

Please join the Libertarian effort  and check your  local elected officials and what is being done to you and compare it to the reality of Rule of Law. The Libertarian Party has links and information which can assist you in protecting your Liberty!  Contact us, join us, stand with us,it is every life we protect!

For more information on this case, read an article by Bose, McKinney and Evans.

Grandparent Visitation Overrides Parental Rights

By
LPIN Editor
Published: April 4, 2011

(By Phyllis Klosinski)

The Libertarian Party repeats: “No law shall be passed, the taking effect of which shall be made to depend upon any authority, except as provided in this Constitution.”

The Libertarian Party repeats: “The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunity, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.”

This Indiana Constitution language is explicit, limiting and deliberate; it controls government, not YOU. Why does the LP repeat the Indiana Constitution?  Because apparently Indiana citizens are disregarding the Rule of Law which binds all equally under the Constitution.

Grandparent visitation has been a contentious issue on the LLTT.  But why?  Each generation is born as an individual reaches adult status as an individual and acquires sole dominion over their lives and responsibility for their individual actions. Yet grandparents seek to have their will to visit grandchildren override the “parental rights” and the responsibilities of parenthood.

Parents relinquish “parental rights” when the child reaches “legal age”.  It is part of the natural cycle of life, which does not depend upon any intrusion of government to be completed.  There is no natural right of grandparents to impose upon their child the right to visitation of their grandchild by force of court order.  There is no Constitutional authority for Indiana to order visitation rights for grandparents over parental rights.

This is not protection of the child following due process.  Rather legislators are once again attempting to frame legislation as “Constitutional” by violating the rights of both the  “intact family” unit controlled by SB 0003 and controlling the parental rights of “broken” family units existing under IC 31.

So Indiana now once again seeks to make two segments of citizens equal by equally denying the indefeasible rights of both the intact and broken family unit.

The Libertarian Party has determined to continue to issue comparisons between Constitutional Rights of Individuals and Constitutional Limits of government so you have the ability to protect YOUR Rights!  The principles of the LP Platform are available for everyone, but YOU must make the determination that it is time to stand for Rule of Law and protect each individual from the out of control limitless Indiana government.

Does the proposed and existing legislation authorizing state determination of grandparent visitation comply with the Rule of Law?  No.  Should existing grandparent visitation laws be repealed?  Yes.  Only these actions will guarantee equal protection of indefeasible rights under the Constitution.  What is the true Party of limited government?   The Libertarian Party protects the Liberty of all equally with no special interests considered.   LP believes human relationships cannot be forced through unconstitutional government court order; no one should be forced to sacrifice individual values for the benefit of others.

Is Personal Freedom in Indiana a Constitutional Right or Unauthorized Government Control?

By
LPIN Editor
Published: March 21, 2011

(By Phyllis Klosinski of Brown County)

This Indiana Constitution language is explicit, limiting and deliberate, it controls government not YOU.

“No law shall be passed, the taking effect of which shall be made to depend upon any authority, except as provided in this Constitution.”

The Libertarian Party Platform adheres to the Constitutional constraints protecting YOUR sole dominion over YOUR life.  The Libertarian Party is committed to protecting theses rights, and stopping a government that over steps its boundaries.

This is why Libertarians oppose any law that keeps two people from living their lives as they wish.It’s why we oppose the government dictating to us the terms of marriage for anyone, not just same-sex couples.

Do Indiana Court Rulings over-rule the Constitution and your guaranteed inalienable rights of individual personal freedom? Rulings such as Morrison v. Sadler 2005 which determined:

“The State has no burden to demonstrate that the statute is constitutional, the burden is entirely upon the Plaintiff (The anti-gay marriage amendment side) to overcome the presumption of constitutionality and to establish a constitutional violation”;

Only the Indiana Constitution contains the authority for Legislators to consider passage of laws and only if those laws adhere to the provisions of the Constitution.

The Indiana Constitution does not contain any authority for the passage of laws which provide government control of marriage. The Amendment adding Section 38 defining marriage in civil law terms will impose unlimited government authority to define, condition, limit and control marriage.

The Constitution is the sole source of authority, therefore current Indiana Code which defines marriage, prohibitions and any and all requirements, licenses, terms, and conditions are not authorized by any current section of the Constitution.  The passage of this “Marriage” Amendment would legalize the aspects of family law which are now not authorized under the same Constitution.

Some in the government claim government control is necessary to protect marriage, but none explain how the statutes controlling personal choice, including marriage, were ever enacted into law absent the required mandatory Constitutional authority.  Instead Indiana Legislators have chosen to make statutes legal after the fact.

If you think Indiana is protecting you consider the language contained in amendments to HJR-6:

“The legislature has the power to define marriage and the legal rights, obligations, privileges, and immunities of marriage”:  “Marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman shall remain permanent until death do they part”.

Further consider SB 119 “ Covenant marriage” controlling by civil contract the lifelong commitment of marriage and HB 1248 requiring “The office of the secretary shall review research based marriage and relationship curricula for the purposes of IC 31-11-4.5-2(3)(F) and approve curricula that meets the criteria established by the office of the secretary”.

And finally SB 2 defining the “Authority to solemnize marriages” all authorizing Indiana to make personal determinations not authorized by the Constitution by nullifying YOUR Rights.

Every individual within Indiana law is under attack by even the proposal of laws which do not adhere to the Constitution, we must all set our individual preferences aside and unite to protect all equally.

The principles of the LP Platform are available for everyone, but YOU are the driving engine, YOU must protect Your Rights!   In a series of comparisons between Constitutional Rights and proposed and enacted legislation, LP will provide continued information for the necessity of all citizens to act now to protect themselves from an out of control limitless Indiana government.

What does the Indiana Constitution Say About the Democrat’s Disorderly Behavior?

By
phyllisjklosinski
Published: February 22, 2011

Disorderly behavior by the House Democrats has exposed the root of the right to work debate.  When does the individual right not to be forced to work become a violation of another’s right to have the work performed?  When there is a contract.

Elected officials take an oath of office paramount in that sworn duty is the responsibility to perform their elected functions regardless of controversy.  Flight to states with Democratic Governors to avoid taking difficult votes is a dereliction of duty.

After the behavior of the House Democrats, I think two sections of the Indiana Constitution apply: Article 4 Sections 13 and 14.

Section 13 lays out that all meetings shall be open sessions and committee meetings are Constitutional requirements, not discretionary actions. Democrats are continuing to discuss the public business of amendment to several bills absent their presence in the Chambers in violation of their Constitutional duty.

Section 14 lays out discipline for disorderly behavior. It is limited to enforcement by the Legislators performing their sworn duty.

Continued discussion by absent House Members denies the Indiana citizen their right to representation under the Constitutional contract.  It is disorderly behavior to not be present to conduct public business and invoke sanctuary in another state to avoid performance.

Failure to compel absent House Members to honor the terms of their employment with the citizens of Indiana violates the right of the employer (us) to receive the benefit of their work, which has been entered into by the contract of being elected to public position.

Legislators fought to be elected by promising to be the person better to do the job than their opponent.  When it comes time to do the difficult work they were hired to perform, where are they?

By Phyllis Klosinski, a Brown County Libertarian. Ms. Klosinki’s opinion does not necessarily reflect the view of the LPIN or it’s legal counsel.

Indiana General Assembly: Sovereignty’s Imminent Date with Destiny

By
phyllisjklosinski
Published: February 1, 2011

(By Phyllis Klosinski, A Brown County Libertarian)

The Supremacy of Indiana and your individual liberty is being determined by Indiana Legislators making a calculated Constitutional move.  The Libertarian Legislative Think Tank has considered three constitutional amendments and a bill amending Indiana Code defining state sovereignty to block the implementation of certain federal laws in Indiana.

Define Sovereignty to establish the Autonomy predominating both the U.S. and Indiana Constitutions: the destiny of any and all individual freedom of choice is forever to be determined.

Proposed legislation attempts the protection of rights by declaring the  “inapplicability of certain federal law in Indiana”, using the limits of federal authority delineated in the U.S. Constitution Ninth and Tenth Amendments.  Is the Federal government adhering to the limits in the Constitution, NO.  Since the Federal government is violating the contractual agreement of the U.S. Constitution, Indiana has the duty to challenge the violation of that contract and provide citizen protection by blocking implementation.

An Indiana resident has a “private right of action to enjoin” implementation or enforcement of a federal law declared void in Indiana; so what?  Right of action already exists in both Constitutions.  Right to opt out of health care system specifies certain rights with respect to any health care system, yet Legislators have left it up to the individual citizen to seek private action.  State sovereignty and health care choice legislation SB 0319 (2010) mandated provision that the attorney general shall provide for the legal defense of health care providers and residents of Indiana, this crucial protection is noticeably absent from current legislation.

It is noble to declare a statute of the United States found inconsistent with Indiana Constitutional rights inapplicable, but where does the individual go when the IRS directly imposes the Federal Mandates through seizure of your paycheck and property?

The Libertarian Party Platform holds the individual not government has the right to exercise sole dominion over their own life recognizing the freedom of individual determination of all health care needs.  LP Platform holds we must follow and protect the Constitution (both), which in turn are the written guarantees of the absolute limits of government.

LPIN members should support SB 0505, however when contacting Legislators impress the need for inclusion of critical State defense language, protecting the individual.

To register your position contacts are:

Senators: Tomes, Kruse, Banks, Steele, Alting, Waterman

INLP should support these Indiana Cons. Amendments, proposing identical protection.

HJR 0008:  Representatives; Turner, Stemler, Koch

SJR 0011:  Senators; Kruse, Tomes

SJR 0015:  Senators; Grooms,



The Decriminalization of a Constitutional Right – SB 506

By
phyllisjklosinski
Published: January 28, 2011

(By Phyllis Klosinski, Brown County, IN)

The Libertarian Legislative Think Tank has swiftly reacted to a Senate bill proposing measured restoration of the Constitutional Right to Bear Arms, prompting extensive discussion overwhelmingly expressing support.

A Restoration of a Constitutional right: why have we become so willing to “accept” back what government has arbitrarily taken from us?  This legislation is an attempt to provide less government, and correct legislation which limits individual freedom by moving closer to the explicit terms of the Constitution.

The LP platform promotes individual freedom, including the presumption of innocent until proven guilty, with the qualification of accepting individual personal responsibility. It is up to the government to prove an individual has relinquished the right to bear arms.

Instead under current law, the individual must prove they are worthy of exercising their Constitutional right.

Read the rest of this entry »

What is a Constitutional Marriage in Indiana?

By
phyllisjklosinski
Published: January 26, 2011

(By Phyllis Klosinski Brown County, IN)

The proposal of two Constitutional Amendments has created a firestorm of religious, sexual and governmental policy debate in the LPIN’s Libertarian Legislative Think Tank (LLTT).

A Constitutional amendment must be provided extreme diligence. Caution: once enacted, forever hold your peace.

The LP platform holds personal relationships are individual choice and government has no authority to define, license or restrict. The Indiana Constitution established governmental power not the limits of individual rights and was written to protect individual rights, not collective rights of any union or group; Sec. 4 prohibits preference by law to any creed or religious society.

Read the rest of this entry »