Another day, another shady Peay project

Using heavy machinery to tear down trees leaves a lot of debris that the state needs to remove to prevent fires. Clear-cutting large areas of forest leads to erosion and polluted water supplies. And scientists worry about impacts on a variety of wildlife, not just game.

‘A little thing to help’​

During the 2016 election season, Siaperas began forging political connections. He donated $2,700 to Donald Trump’s presidential bid and $4,800 to the Republican National Committee. His involvement in politics was encouraged by Don Peay, the head of Trump’s Utah campaign.

Peay, 63, a longtime GOP donor, has been a fixture on Utah’s Capitol Hill for nearly three decades, pushing for hunting-related causes. Lawmakers almost always back the bills he champions and block those he opposes. He was impressed by the roller-felling project and would eventually help form a nonprofit connected to Siaperas’ ranch.

They first met and became friends in 1994, when Peay hosted a rally to bolster the state’s mule deer populations. Shortly after, Peay founded Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, a group that raises money for state conservation projects by auctioning off Utah hunting permits at an annual expo.

(Trent Nelson | The Salt Lake Tribune) The annual Western Hunting and Conservation Expo in Salt Lake City. Hunting licenses auctioned off at the event generate state income.

(Trent Nelson | The Salt Lake Tribune) The annual Western Hunting and Conservation Expo in Salt Lake City. Hunting licenses auctioned off at the event generate state income.
The expo has raised $80 million for the state since 2001. It attracts celebrities like Wayne LaPierre, the former chief executive of the National Rifle Association, and Donald Trump Jr., an avid hunter who was a keynote speaker in 2016. Two years later, the then-president’s son visited Siaperas’ property, Range Valley Ranch, and shot a bear and a mountain lion nearby.


In 2019, Siaperas reached a new level of business for his tree-clearing enterprise. He spoke on Capitol Hill after a lobbyist connected him to state lawmakers, Peay said. Several legislators visited the ranch to see the results. That year, one of them requested $2 million on Siaperas’ behalf for “strategic and targeted forest fire treatment.”

The next year, Eric Hutchings, a Republican then serving in the state House of Representatives, said he requested $500,000 to support Siaperas’ business. In an interview, Hutchings recalled that lawmakers were worried about the shrinking Great Salt Lake and the threat of wildfire, given record damage a few years before. “As a Legislature, we were like, ‘What do we do?’” he said, adding, “I feel good about having done a little thing to help.”

Lawmakers earmarked another $900,000 in 2021, totaling $3.4 million in allocations over three years.

That process was unusual. Typically, state environmental experts design projects and find suitable contractors, often through open bidding. In this case, lawmakers handpicked someone with little relevant experience and set aside millions of dollars for his business.

Utah has one of the shortest legislative sessions in the nation: 45 days. That makes the appropriations process a rapid-fire event in which part-time lawmakers — many of them developers or real estate investors — and lobbyists have mere minutes to make their case to get budget items funded. There is limited input from scientists and experts, and no opportunity for public feedback.

A tailor-made contract​

Initially, more than $1 million of those funds went to a roller-felling trial. Siaperas leveled 900 acres of woodland on two private ranches starting in 2020. One of them was Preston Nutter Ranch, a 42,000-acre property that abuts his land and is owned by family members behind Hunt Energy, who are worth nearly $25 billion.

With the pilot project complete, he participated in his first competitive bidding process in late 2022, for the clearing of 825 acres in the state reserve of Currant Creek.

Eight contractors submitted bids, ranging from $552,225 to $3.2 million. Siaperas’ estimate came in at $950,000 — almost exactly what state lawmakers had appropriated in 2021.

(Rick Egan | The Salt Lake Tribune) The Range Valley Ranch last month. When Siaperas bought the ranch, there were too many trees for his liking. “I wanted to see wildlife,” he said.

(Rick Egan | The Salt Lake Tribune) The Range Valley Ranch last month. When Siaperas bought the ranch, there were too many trees for his liking. “I wanted to see wildlife,” he said.
Days later, the state canceled the process, requiring contractors to take a virtual site visit. The proposal request was reissued in March 2023. This time, the scope of work called for a heavy-duty cable “pulled between two dozers” with a “rotating fulcrum roller to keep the cable elevated roughly 4 ft off the ground.”

Siaperas had patented his fulcrum roller in 2020. His company was the only contractor to submit a bid on the revised proposal.

“It seemed to me that they were custom-tailoring this job just to give it to exactly who they wanted,” said Chris Ivester, whose business was the low bidder in the initial process.

Jamie Barnes, the Utah state forester who oversaw project logistics, said the job could have gone to Siaperas through a sole-source award because he held the patent. State officials decided to have a competitive process anyway.

“I can completely see why people would think that was a rigged bid,” Barnes said. “It was not.” She added that the wide range of previous bids suggested that contractors did not understand the project’s scope.

As it turned out, Siaperas was able to roller-fell only about 10% of the Currant Creek project because the site was too steep for his equipment. The state paid him $240,000, about a quarter of the budget.

The $5 million lodge​

His most recent strategy to obtain state funds for his roller-felling company was through his nonprofit, Atlantis USA Foundation, registered in 2022. The charity’s website says it intends to bring about positive change for veterans “through conservation of our lands and our values.” Last year, Peay, who was then serving on its board, appeared before a legislative appropriations subcommittee requesting funds. Lawmakers appropriated $1 million for Atlantis that year and $700,000 this year.

The state budget description for the funds makes no mention of veterans, however. Instead it directs the money to be spent on restoring aspens to decrease wildfires.

In a conflict-of-interest form filed with the Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity, which is overseeing the $1 million from last year, Siaperas disclosed his intention to hire 106 Reforestation to do the work.

Mike Siaperas completed construction of his Atlantis Lodge, a luxury hunting accommodation, last year.
Since 2020, Siaperas has made campaign contributions to Utah’s governor, Spencer Cox ($10,417); attorney general, Sean Reyes ($25,000); and former House speaker, Brad Wilson ($5,000). Cox and Reyes praised Siaperas in a 2023 video promoting his nonprofit that compared his efforts to Charles Lindbergh’s solo flight across the Atlantic.

Last September, Siaperas opened the Atlantis Lodge on his ranch. Ben Cervinski, a representative for Siaperas and the nonprofit, said the lodge has cost more than $5 million so far and remains in “phases of completion.” Veterans could stay at special rates, according to the ranch’s website. But for other guests, the lodge was listed at $2,500 a night per person. Smaller cabins, like the one where Donald Trump Jr. had stayed, and glamping tents went for less. Siaperas planned to turn the ranch into a boutique ski resort in winter and had enlisted high school students to dig private biking trails. The website removed the pricing information after Siaperas briefly spoke to a reporter for The Times and The Tribune.

To date, he has not used the money appropriated to Atlantis for any forestry work, officials said. The state of Utah, his primary client, has not identified any sites where roller felling could be deployed, though the governor’s office paid Atlantis $900,000 after the nonprofit submitted an invoice in June 2023.

In an email to the governor’s office last month, Cervinski asked to return that money.

Still, Siaperas and his ventures have collected at least $1.35 million from the state since 2020 alone.

Patience for such projects appears to be wearing thin among some lawmakers. Legislators are investigating the payments to Siaperas’ ventures, a state auditor confirmed. Rep. Casey Snider, a Republican from Cache County, commissioned an audit of the payments to Peay for wolf lobbying this year.

Though Siaperas once claimed in an interview that he could take any business, even one he knew nothing about, and “make it work,” 106 Reforestation is now rethinking its business strategy.

“If you want to lay blame, it’s at the federal government,” said Peay, because it manages most of the suitable land.

He recalled how he and Siaperas envisioned licensing veteran-owned roller-felling companies in every Western state.

“Every veteran would love to have 106 Reforestation on our federal lands,” Peay said, “running big equipment, being out in nature, getting away from all the chaos and making more water, less fires, better wildlife habitat.”

A spokesperson for the U.S. Forest Service confirmed that the federal agency was not considering any roller-felling projects.

106 Reforestation is now trying to “engage” with private landholder clients instead, according to Cervinski. He said Siaperas welcomed the forthcoming audit of his forestry work.

“Audits can draw attention to many things beyond money received and spent,” Cervinski said. “They can help shed light on bureaucratic logjams that can hinder the work that the funds were intended for.”

6EPPRCX3KNGCNDHQHYVC3RKADM.jpg
 
What legend old Don Peay is, still keeps his regime alive and well and fully funded with state tax $ for 30 years. Best of luck on the hunts this fall.
 
Elected officials keep giving taxpayer dollars to certain people and groups because there are no checks and balances in a single-party government.

It's also why this Amendment D stuff got through with all the bogus changes to State Law at the last second, such as Public Notice, who writes the description, required timelines, etc...

But, rest assured, not a single incumbent will lose their seat over it.

Same thing with millions in tree projects, lake projects, and BGF funds. Most people don't know about it, and those who do can't stop it.

Same thing with our AG office. Is this three straight leaving office under suspicious circumstances. Yet, the replacement will be elected in November and we'll start over.

In a single-party government, the absolute power corrupts absolutely

Screenshot_20240910_210101_Samsung Internet.jpg
 
grizzly said:
Elected officials keep giving taxpayer dollars to certain people and groups because there are no checks and balances in a single-party government.

It's also why this Amendment D stuff got through with all the bogus changes to State Law at the last second, such as Public Notice, who writes the description, required timelines, etc...

But, rest assured, not a single incumbent will lose their seat over it.

Same thing with millions in tree projects, lake projects, and BGF funds. Most people don't know about it, and those who do can't stop it.

Same thing with our AG office. Is this three straight leaving office under suspicious circumstances. Yet, the replacement will be elected in November and we'll start over.

In a single-party government, the absolute power corrupts absolutely
Click to expand...

True!

But Nobody Listens Anymore!

grizzly said:
View attachment 157534
Click to expand...
 
grizzly said:
Elected officials keep giving taxpayer dollars to certain people and groups because there are no checks and balances in a single-party government.

It's also why this Amendment D stuff got through with all the bogus changes to State Law at the last second, such as Public Notice, who writes the description, required timelines, etc...

But, rest assured, not a single incumbent will lose their seat over it.

Same thing with millions in tree projects, lake projects, and BGF funds. Most people don't know about it, and those who do can't stop it.

Same thing with our AG office. Is this three straight leaving office under suspicious circumstances. Yet, the replacement will be elected in November and we'll start over.

In a single-party government, the absolute power corrupts absolutely

View attachment 157534
Click to expand...
The Lord has spoken.
 
So?

Roller-Felling Gives Them A Bid For The Current Creek Project But After Being Awarded The Job They Claim It's Too Steep To Do The Roller-Felling?

Did Anybody Go Look At The Job/Terrain Before Giving The Bid?
 
grizzly said:
It's also why this Amendment D stuff got through with all the bogus changes to State Law at the last second, such as Public Notice, who writes the description, required timelines, etc...
Click to expand...

Everyone vote yes on this amendment! Look at Colorado and its wolves if you want a good reason why. (I won’t even bring up California…)
 
Vanilla said:
Everyone vote yes on this amendment! Look at Colorado and its wolves if you want a good reason why. (I won’t even bring up California…)
Click to expand...
I'm honestly shocked you're that naive and shortsighted. We already have Prop 5 (2/3 rule for hunting related initiatives that would prevent something like wolves) and less than a dozen initiatives have passed since 1924. There is also no evidence that "foreign influence" is a problem in our ballot initiatives. Zero. It's never happened. Plus, the state recently made it even more difficult to reach the signature threshold to even get an initiative on the ballot with individual county minimums so an urban area can't overrule the rural areas, like what happened in Colorado.

To give the same legislators that pass our taxpayer money to BGF, sketchy tree projects, and illegal lake projects who also want to sell public land, veto power over the citizens is pure idiocy. It also can't be changed in the future because the legislators can veto THAT initiative if this is passed. Plus, this isn't just a law... It literally amends our Constitution!

They talk like they're worried about special interest money influencing elections, when in reality THEY'RE the ones taking money from special interests. They call them campaign donations.

We can each name a dozen shady things our legislators has done in the last five years. This amendment gives them veto power to keep doing them and there's nothing we can do to stop it. The Supreme Court ruled citizens have the right to reform our government. This Amendment literally votes ourselves out of that right.

I'm virtually speechless that you think something like the fear of a wolf initiative is a reason to do that. Notwithstanding Prop 5, which would prevent it anyway, there's a million other ways this amendment can be used against hunting interests... like with the selling of public land or the veto of gun rights initiative that the legislators don't like, but the citizens do.

This amendment would make it so the citizens can never defend themselves from government overreach directly at the ballot. They'd be forced to try and to do it by voting an incumbent out of office (which almost never happens) and only after the incumbent has passed a law the voters don't want. The voters ability to respond would only be after the legislators passed a horrible law anyway. There's no reason to put ourselves in that position.

You and I have had our differences, but I'm honestly shocked that you fell for that. Wow.
 
Last edited:
I didn’t fall for anything. I’ve always felt ballot initiatives were the worst way to govern because they can’t be debated, tweaked, or modified once they get put out for signatures. Once it’s crafted and put out for signatures, it is yea or nay, nothing else.

I doubt I’d ever sign a ballot initiative and likely wouldn’t even for one I agreed with. This was long before the Supreme Court made them sacrosanct, which I think is wrong as well.

This position I have existed long before 75% of Utah finally discovered we actually have ballot initiatives a couple months ago.

Ballot initiatives are the worst way to govern. We are not a democracy, we are a democratic republic. There is a reason our founding fathers set the government up the way they did. Full democracy was on the table and rightfully rejected. But I love America and the constitution and prefer things to work they way they were intended.
 
grizzly said:
I'm honestly shocked you're that naive and shortsighted. We already have Prop 5 (2/3 rule for hunting related initiatives that would prevent something like wolves) and less than a dozen initiatives have passed since 1924. There is also no evidence that "foreign influence" is a problem in our ballot initiatives. Zero. It's never happened. Plus, the state recently made it even more difficult to reach the signature threshold to even get an initiative on the ballot with individual county minimums so an urban area can't overrule the rural areas, like what happened in Colorado.

To give the same legislators that pass our taxpayer money to BGF, sketchy tree projects, and illegal lake projects who also want to sell public land, veto power over the citizens is pure idiocy. It also can't be changed in the future because the legislators can veto THAT initiative if this is passed. Plus, this isn't just a law... It literally amends our Constitution!

They talk like they're worried about special interest money influencing elections, when in reality THEY'RE the ones taking money from special interests. They call them campaign donations.

We can each name a dozen shady things our legislators has done in the last five years. This amendment gives them veto power to keep doing them and there's nothing we can do to stop it. The Supreme Court ruled citizens have the right to reform our government. This Amendment literally votes ourselves out of that right.

I'm virtually speechless that you think something like the fear of a wolf initiative is a reason to do that. Notwithstanding Prop 5, which would prevent it anyway, there's a million other ways this amendment can be used against hunting interests... like with the selling of public land or the veto of gun rights initiative that the legislators don't like, but the citizens do.

This amendment would make it so the citizens can never defend themselves from government overreach directly at the ballot. They'd be forced to try and to do it by voting an incumbent out of office (which almost never happens) and only after the incumbent has passed a law the voters don't want. The voters ability to respond would only be after the legislators passed a horrible law anyway. There's no reason to put ourselves in that position.

You and I have had our differences, but I'm honestly shocked that you fell for that. Wow.
Click to expand...

Prop 5 doesn't protect ballot initiatives dictating HOW we hunt. It doesn't dictate WHO can sit on what boards. It doesn't dictate HOW funding is done. It doesn't dictate seasons, lengths, areas, means of take, etc, etc, etc.
 
We're not only a Democratic Republic. We're a state led By The People. The Utah Supreme Court, appointed entirely by Republicans, ruled UNANIMOUSLY that we have the Right to reform our government directly. This Amendment 100% undoes that. It literally changes it Constitution to take rights away from The People.

To see the corruption in politics and then willfully hand all your rights to the politicians is mind-numbingly shocking.

With the protections of Prop 5, it is literally easier for the legislature to put wolves in Utah than it already is for a ballot initiative to do it. This amendment would make it impossible for the voters to overrule the legislature and stop the wolves. Insanity.
 
I get it Grizz. Your fragile and overinflated ego couldn’t possibly allow you to conceive that anyone that disagrees with you is educated and well-versed on a topic, but is only duped or insane.

I’m sure those arguments go over well in your day job.

I believe what I believe. You can disagree. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time you were wrong.
 
hossblur said:
Prop 5 doesn't protect ballot initiatives dictating HOW we hunt. It doesn't dictate WHO can sit on what boards. It doesn't dictate HOW funding is done. It doesn't dictate seasons, lengths, areas, means of take, etc, etc, etc.
Click to expand...
It requires 2/3 vote for any ballot initiative limiting or prohibiting taking of wildlife or method of take.

Screenshot_20240911_074434_Samsung Internet.jpg


To moveb this to public land, something that IS in contention right now. Let's say the legislature wins the land grab lawsuit and gets federal land. A group of citizens could lead a ballot initiative that requires that all public lands greater than 40 acres can never be sold. This would pass with ~80% approval in Utah as most people want it to remain public, albeit with state control.

The legislature can veto that if Amendment D passes. And we can't undo it. This is WAY bigger than wolves.

The same could be said with the right to possess firearms if we want rights the legislature doesn't want us to have.
 
Vanilla said:
I get it Grizz. Your fragile and overinflated ego couldn’t possibly allow you to conceive that anyone that disagrees with you is educated and well-versed on a topic, but is only duped or insane.

I’m sure those arguments go over well in your day job.

I believe what I believe. You can disagree. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time you were wrong.
Click to expand...
Haha, we all know what your day job is lol. And now you've resorted to personal attacks, that's YOUR ego talking. You just don't like that somebody can call you out for your false arguments and red herrings. You like to believe you're the only one who can make a cogent argument and hate when people can match you blow for blow.

I've said many times to people that we can just agree to disagree, just yesterday to treed, for example. You've not ever taken that position, you just run to personal attacks and your repeated attempts to bully people by bringing up old arguments for years on end.

Like I said, you and I have had our disagreements, but I'm literally shocked that you fell for this one. I also know that it doesn't matter what anybody says or what evidence is put in front of you, your overinflated ego will never allow you to reconsider. So bull moose up all you want, I've seen it before.
 
grizzly said:
We're not only a Democratic Republic. We're a state led By The People. The Utah Supreme Court, appointed entirely by Republicans, ruled UNANIMOUSLY that we have the Right to reform our government directly. This Amendment 100% undoes that. It literally changes it Constitution to take rights away from The People.

To see the corruption in politics and then willfully hand all your rights to the politicians is mind-numbingly shocking.

With the protections of Prop 5, it is literally easier for the legislature to put wolves in Utah than it already is for a ballot initiative to do it. This amendment would make it impossible for the voters to overrule the legislature and stop the wolves. Insanity.
Click to expand...


Fighting last years battles is naive.

The "game" isn't Colorado. The game is control of the WB boards. Hunters are the minority, we stand to lose in the initiative war.

And yeah, I trust my local state rep a hell of a lot more than national leadership of the humane society.
 
Meh.

My dad can beat up your dad.

But as for Amendment D, everyone vote yes. There is a reason the people shouting the loudest that we have to "let the people decide" are also trying to remove Amendment D from the ballot so the people can't decide.

By their fruits ye shall know them.
 
Vanilla said:
Meh.

My dad can beat up your dad.

But as for Amendment D, everyone vote yes. There is a reason the people shouting the loudest that we have to "let the people decide" are also trying to remove Amendment D from the ballot so the people can't decide.

By their fruits ye shall know them.
Click to expand...
Haha

The people trying to pass Amendment D are trying to NOT let the people decide by gutting the initiative process... The only way the people can directly pass legislation or reform their own government.
 
grizzly said:
Haha

The people trying to pass Amendment D are trying to NOT let the people decide by gutting the initiative process... The only way the people can directly pass legislation or reform their own government.
Click to expand...

"Not letting them decide by asking them to actually vote on it."

Yep, checks out logically! Keep telling yourself that. Maybe one day you'll actually believe it.

"We trust Utah voters to make good decisions..." Uh...until we don't.

Or in other words, we love the "voice of the people" so long as it perfectly aligns with our left of center ideals and goals.
 
Vanilla said:
"Not letting them decide by asking them to actually vote on it."

Yep, checks out logically! Keep telling yourself that. Maybe one day you'll actually believe it.

"We trust Utah voters to make good decisions..." Uh...until we don't.

Or in other words, we love the "voice of the people" so long as it perfectly aligns with our left of center ideals and goals.
Click to expand...
The state already made it much harder to even get a ballot initiative on the ballot by having minimum signature requirements in EVERY county in the state within a short time period.

Amendment D is asking people to remove their rights to reform government in future amorphous, yet to be defined, ways.

Essentially, vote "Yes" today and then you won't have a vote in the future because the government has veto power over your yet to be conceived ballot initiatives. That's literally what this says.

Nobody can conceive of what the voters may want to do in the future (such as term limits for legislators, for example) but this Amendment would allow those very legislators to void the will of the people for their own benefit.

To pretend that this respects the will of the people to reform the government when we have no idea what the people may want to reform is absolutely misleading.

I'm saying to let the people vote. You're saying to vote today and then the people CAN'T vote in the future, and pretending that's what the people in a decade or generation will want. You're literally advocating the seizure of power from the unborn, because they will not have the ability to reform their government without elected official's approval.
 
grizzly said:
I'm saying to let the people vote. You're saying to vote today and then the people CAN'T vote in the future, and pretending that's what the people in a decade or generation will want. You're literally advocating the seizure of power from the unborn, because they will not have the ability to reform their government without elected official's approval.
Click to expand...

You’ve thrown around words like “misleading” and then you type this BS? I’m not even going to waste my time responding to a post that claims something “literally” does something that it literally does NOT do.

Go fact check your post and come back to me.
 
To be more clear...

I'm saying to let the people vote on their own issues.

Maybe it's to outlaw abortion, or legalize it to a certain term.

Maybe it's redistricting.

Maybe it's marijuana.

Maybe it's school choice.

Maybe it's Constitutional Carry of firearms.

Maybe it's Medicare reform.

Maybe it's the disposal of public land.

It could be countless subjects and Amendment D takes away the power of the people on ALL OF THEM.

To pretend that a blanket amendment rendering the people powerless to reform their own government is leaving the vote TO THE PEOPLE, when they're not voting on any actual issues...

IS TERRIBLY MISLEADING
 
Vanilla said:
You’ve thrown around words like “misleading” and then you type this BS? I’m not even going to waste my time responding to a post that claims something “literally” does something that it literally does NOT do.

Go fact check your post and come back to me.
Click to expand...
Haha, you don't think it's misleading when the ballot says Amendment D "strengthens the initiative process" haha? There go your false arguments again by trying to distract from the actual discussion.

In no way does it "strengthen" the initiative process, yet that's the language. That's entirely misleading and even members of the GOP legislature have acknowledged that.

You know they had to change the law so the ballot language wasn't written neutrally, right? It literally required a change in state law.

Yeah, that happened in special session just a few weeks ago.
 
I have never claimed the description by the legislature is not misleading. Don't make up arguments just because you're getting your ass kicked in this one. Stick to the facts only, Grizz.

What I did do is claim YOUR post is misleading. The constitutional amendment will do nothing that you are saying. You are saying it strips people of the power to do something and doesn't allow them to vote on those issues. That is not just misleading, as I was trying to be polite, that is a blatant lie!

What the amendment will do is allow the legislature to amend ballot initiatives that pass as a co-equal legislative body. Something that has always been understood to be the case and has actually happened pretty often over time.

The constitutional amendment does not prevent ballot intiatives, it simply says they are not sacrosanct like the Utah Supreme Court announced was our new rule recently. So I will say again, go fact check your statements and come back to me.

This whole "attack Vanilla as stupid and duped" and "act incredulously offended" becuase someone actually understands this better than you and still formed a different opinion schtick is bit is lame. Show me you're better than that, if you can.
 
grizzly said:
The state already made it much harder to even get a ballot initiative on the ballot by having minimum signature requirements in EVERY county in the state within a short time period.

Amendment D is asking people to remove their rights to reform government in future amorphous, yet to be defined, ways.

Essentially, vote "Yes" today and then you won't have a vote in the future because the government has veto power over your yet to be conceived ballot initiatives. That's literally what this says.

Nobody can conceive of what the voters may want to do in the future (such as term limits for legislators, for example) but this Amendment would allow those very legislators to void the will of the people for their own benefit.

To pretend that this respects the will of the people to reform the government when we have no idea what the people may want to reform is absolutely misleading.

I'm saying to let the people vote. You're saying to vote today and then the people CAN'T vote in the future, and pretending that's what the people in a decade or generation will want. You're literally advocating the seizure of power from the unborn, because they will not have the ability to reform their government without elected official's approval.
Click to expand...





I wasn't allowed to vote on checkerboard landscapes, location of reservations and their rules, or a million other things voted on prior to my birth.

My Kids didn't get to vote on prop 5.

So are we now going to revote on everything every few years so as to not steal that ability from future generations?
 
Vanilla said:
I have never claimed the description by the legislature is not misleading. Don't make up arguments just because you're getting your ass kicked in this one. Stick to the facts only, Grizz.

What I did do is claim YOUR post is misleading. The constitutional amendment will do nothing that you are saying. You are saying it strips people of the power to do something and doesn't allow them to vote on those issues. That is not just misleading, as I was trying to be polite, that is a blatant lie!

What the amendment will do is allow the legislature to amend ballot initiatives that pass as a co-equal legislative body. Something that has always been understood to be the case and has actually happened pretty often over time.

The constitutional amendment does not prevent ballot intiatives, it simply says they are not sacrosanct like the Utah Supreme Court announced was our new rule recently. So I will say again, go fact check your statements and come back to me.

This whole "attack Vanilla as stupid and duped" and "act incredulously offended" becuase someone actually understands this better than you and still formed a different opinion schtick is bit is lame. Show me you're better than that, if you can.
Click to expand...
Omfg, you're off the rails dude! Your entire post is complete BS.

You either don't understand the issues at all, which is likely the case since you call this a "new rule" knowing full well it was a unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court affirming government reform as a core right bestowed upon the citizens by our Constitution.

Or, you're just still bitter about your Stream Access loss and are trying to stick it to the Supreme Court.

One thing is crystal clear, you DO NOT accurately present the issues. Thankfully, some of the best and brightest attorneys in the state are working to protect the rights of the citizens from the lies of the power hungry politicians.

I pray they prevail and this gets tossed as the illegal power grab that it is. Should the Courts let it continue, hopefully the citizens will reject it overwhelmingly and hold those politicians responsible.
 
hossblur said:
I wasn't allowed to vote on checkerboard landscapes, location of reservations and their rules, or a million other things voted on prior to my birth.

My Kids didn't get to vote on prop 5.

So are we now going to revote on everything every few years so as to not steal that ability from future generations?
Click to expand...
If you want to meet the incredibly high threshold of getting a ballot initiative passed (it was made even more difficult a few years ago), then we can vote on it. That's democracy and a government OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE.

Ballot initiatives will never happen again if Amendment D passes because the expense and time it takes to meet the signature threshold is gutted when the legislature can veto it all in one Special Session on a random day with no fanfare or public comment.

You'd literally be voting yourself out of ALL future citizen-led initiatives. You're taking away the right to reform the government in ways we can't even conceive of today.
 
QUOTE="grizzly, post: 2310949, member: 1465"]
If you want to meet the incredibly high threshold of getting a ballot initiative passed (it was made even more difficult a few years ago), then we can vote on it. That's democracy and a government OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE.

Ballot initiatives will never happen again if Amendment D passes because the expense and time it takes to meet the signature threshold is gutted when the legislature can veto it all in one Special Session on a random day with no fanfare or public comment.

You'd literally be voting yourself out of ALL future citizen-led initiatives. You're taking away the right to reform the government in ways we can't even conceive of today.
[/QUOTE]


I like how you moved the goalpost there.

I have a chance to reform government about every 2 years. I just recently did so. It's called voting in elections. What you want is an end run on majority vote.

If you can't make a persuasive argument in either a primary or general, then you don't deserve a third shot.


But again, because this is a hunting page, NO I don't want the real housewives of SLC getting to vote on whether I can hunt a bear, hunt a swan, hunt a cat, etc. And you need only look on Utah borders to see how the initiative process is being used.
 
Update: A 3rd District Judge will rule tonight; though, whatever the ruling, I doubt this is the end of the battle. Here's an article regarding the hearings today...

_________________

A judge says she will decide by Wednesday night whether to disqualify Amendment D — a proposed constitutional amendment guaranteeing that lawmakers can repeal citizen ballot initiatives — from the ballot.

Attorneys for the lieutenant governor’s office stressed that time is of the essence, since ballots have to be sent to be printed by Thursday morning in order to meet federal deadlines for getting them to overseas voters — military personnel, LDS Church missionaries, diplomats and others.

During arguments that lasted more than 90 minutes Wednesday, 3rd District Judge Dianna Gibson pressed lawyers for the state over whether it is inaccurate for ballots to say the amendment would “strengthen the initiative process.” If passed, the amendment would essentially reverse a ruling by the Utah Supreme Court that prevents the Legislature from repealing a government reform initiative without a “compelling reason.”

“Does it give the Legislature more authority with regard to laws that are successfully passed by citizen initiative?” Gibson asked Tyler Green, the lawyer representing the Legislature.

“No, I don’t think it does, Your Honor,” Green replied. “What it does, I think, is what the ballot summary description says, which is strengthens and clarifies the way that the state’s historical representative democracy path and direct democracy path have always been understood to operate.”

But Mark Gaber, arguing for groups trying to have Amendment D disqualified, said a reasonably intelligent voter who reads the ballot question would think that the way the amendment strengthens the process is by putting limits on the Legislature’s ability to undo initiatives.

“It is counterfactual,” he said. “It is 100% false to say that if the voters vote yes on the amendment, state law will be changed to require the Legislature to respect the intent of voters when they pass an initiative. It does the precise opposite of that.”

Gaber also argued that the Legislature failed to meet a constitutional mandate that it publish the text of the amendment in newspapers around the state before the amendment is put on the ballot.

Green countered that the text was available on the Legislature’s website and was added to the lieutenant governor’s website on Monday. He likened the constitutional requirementthat it be published in newspapers to the Second Amendment right to bear arms, which does not apply only to arms that existed when the Bill of Rights was adopted.

Publishing it online, he said, provides substantially the same notice, and he pointed to declarations from voters who said they had read the amendment text online.

The judge asked whether the court can decide that the constitutional mandate for “publication in a newspaper is something other than publication in a newspaper?”

Green maintained that distributing information online “is now firmly and definitively established as part of what it means to be a newspaper.”

But Gaber argued that some Utahns, particularly the elderly, may not be able to easily find the amendment. And since voter guides are no longer printed and mailed to homes, voters may never read the actual amendment before voting — which is even more crucial, Gaber said, because the question presented on the ballot is “entirely false.”

The ballot language in question was written by Utah House Speaker Mike Schultz and Senate President Stuart Adams under a law changed by the Republican legislators earlier this year, which took the job away from the Legislature’s nonpartisan attorneys.

As it is written, the ballots would ask voters if they want to “strengthen the initiative process” by banning “foreign influence” in initiatives and “clarifying the voters and legislative bodies’ ability to amend laws.”

Lance Sorensen, an assistant attorney general representing the lieutenant governor’s office, urged Gibson to let the ballots be printed with the Amendment D language, even if she was inclined to rule that the language is misleading or that the state failed to publish the text of the amendment as required.

That way, he said, if her ruling is appealed and overturned by the Utah Supreme Court, the ballots would not need to be reprinted, which may not be possible given the time crunch. If the ruling is upheld, he said, clerks could simply be instructed to ignore the votes for or against Amendment D.

Republican lawmakers hastily passed the proposed amendment during an “emergency” special legislative session last month to overturn a unanimous July ruling by the Utah Supreme Court. The justices — all Republican appointees — ruled the Legislature must give a degree of deference to a 2018 initiative that prohibited partisan gerrymandering, the practice of drawing political boundaries to benefit one political party at the expense of the other.

Legislators repealed the provision banning gerrymandering in 2020 and adopted the boundaries they saw fit, splitting Salt Lake County, one of the most liberal parts of the state, into four congressional districts.

Supporters of the anti-gerrymandering initiative — the League of Women Voters, Mormon Women for Ethical Government and a number of residents impacted by the split — sued, saying the boundaries were unfair and the Legislature defied the constitutional right of voters to reform their government through the initiative process.

Green
argued there were numerous groups — the Utah Republican Party, The Sutherland Institute, Pro-Life Utah and others — who argued the court’s ruling hamstrung the Legislature if it needed to adjust voter-approved initiatives and wanted voters to decide if the Utah Constitution should be amended to ensure the Legislature can repeal or amend any initiative.

In a brief filed with the court Wednesday, Green and the lieutenant governor’s lawyer argued the courts should give Schultz and Adams deference to write the language, that removing the issue from the ballot would be unprecedented, and that the plaintiffs’ objections to the words “strengthen” and “clarifying” are subjective.

www.sltrib.com

Will Amendment D stay on the ballot? Judge set to decide today.

Attorneys for the Utah Legislature argued Wednesday that it’s opponents of a proposed constitutional amendment that would empower state lawmakers to repeal or amend voter-approved ballot initiatives, and not Republican legislators, who are trying to deny citizens a voice in government by trying...
www.sltrib.com www.sltrib.com
 
hossblur said:
I like how you moved the goalpost there.

I have a chance to reform government about every 2 years. I just recently did so. It's called voting in elections. What you want is an end run on majority vote.
Click to expand...
I didn't move the goalposts at all. You gave historical examples and tried to make the argument that because they happened in the past that voters shouldn't get a say in the future either. It makes no sense. The fact that WWII happened before I was born has nothing to do with letting me participate in the reform of my government tomorrow.

My position is 100% not an end run on majority vote. It would preserve majority vote. The Legislature is the one trying to end run majority vote by getting people to give up their rights today so they can't vote on the actual issues tomorrow. Whatever those issues may be.

The idea that elections are where these issues will be decided was proved wrong the day the people voted on redistricting, Medicare, and marijuana and overruled Congress... clearly what the majority wanted... but didn't kick out their legislators the following election.

The power of incumbency is too great and I just provided real, live perfect examples of how initiatives allowed the people to reform their government in ways that typical elections do not. On an issue-specific basis.

That, my friend, is the majority rule the power hungry politicians want to take away with Amendment D.
 
Last edited:
grizzly said:
I didn't move the goalposts at all. You gave historical examples and tried to make the argument that because they happened in the past that voters shouldn't get a say in the future either. It makes no sense. The fact that WWII happened before I was born has nothing to do with letting the people reform their government tomorrow.

My position is 100% not an end run on majority vote. It would preserve majority vote. The Legislature is the one trying to end run majority vote by getting people to give up their rights today so they can't vote on the actual issues tomorrow. Whatever they may be.
Click to expand...

It's amazing watching you try and pretend the initiative process is just a grassroots process. And I know you are well read and well versed.

The initiative process is used by special interest groups to end run the vote of the citizens.

Whether it's the LDS church in California gay rights issues, or the humane society in Colorado, or WWF in Arizona and Washington, it's not a grass roots or thing. It's a huge bank, special interest thing.

The quickest way for non SLC/ Park City citizens to get dictated to, is to allow them the chance to bypass elected representatives and allow a concentrated voter block to run the state...

We don't live in a democracy for a reason.
 
grizzly said:
Update: A 3rd District Judge will rule tonight; though, whatever the ruling, I doubt this is the end of the battle. Here's an article regarding the hearings today...

_________________

A judge says she will decide by Wednesday night whether to disqualify Amendment D — a proposed constitutional amendment guaranteeing that lawmakers can repeal citizen ballot initiatives — from the ballot.

Attorneys for the lieutenant governor’s office stressed that time is of the essence, since ballots have to be sent to be printed by Thursday morning in order to meet federal deadlines for getting them to overseas voters — military personnel, LDS Church missionaries, diplomats and others.

During arguments that lasted more than 90 minutes Wednesday, 3rd District Judge Dianna Gibson pressed lawyers for the state over whether it is inaccurate for ballots to say the amendment would “strengthen the initiative process.” If passed, the amendment would essentially reverse a ruling by the Utah Supreme Court that prevents the Legislature from repealing a government reform initiative without a “compelling reason.”

“Does it give the Legislature more authority with regard to laws that are successfully passed by citizen initiative?” Gibson asked Tyler Green, the lawyer representing the Legislature.

“No, I don’t think it does, Your Honor,” Green replied. “What it does, I think, is what the ballot summary description says, which is strengthens and clarifies the way that the state’s historical representative democracy path and direct democracy path have always been understood to operate.”

But Mark Gaber, arguing for groups trying to have Amendment D disqualified, said a reasonably intelligent voter who reads the ballot question would think that the way the amendment strengthens the process is by putting limits on the Legislature’s ability to undo initiatives.

“It is counterfactual,” he said. “It is 100% false to say that if the voters vote yes on the amendment, state law will be changed to require the Legislature to respect the intent of voters when they pass an initiative. It does the precise opposite of that.”

Gaber also argued that the Legislature failed to meet a constitutional mandate that it publish the text of the amendment in newspapers around the state before the amendment is put on the ballot.

Green countered that the text was available on the Legislature’s website and was added to the lieutenant governor’s website on Monday. He likened the constitutional requirementthat it be published in newspapers to the Second Amendment right to bear arms, which does not apply only to arms that existed when the Bill of Rights was adopted.

Publishing it online, he said, provides substantially the same notice, and he pointed to declarations from voters who said they had read the amendment text online.

The judge asked whether the court can decide that the constitutional mandate for “publication in a newspaper is something other than publication in a newspaper?”

Green maintained that distributing information online “is now firmly and definitively established as part of what it means to be a newspaper.”

But Gaber argued that some Utahns, particularly the elderly, may not be able to easily find the amendment. And since voter guides are no longer printed and mailed to homes, voters may never read the actual amendment before voting — which is even more crucial, Gaber said, because the question presented on the ballot is “entirely false.”

The ballot language in question was written by Utah House Speaker Mike Schultz and Senate President Stuart Adams under a law changed by the Republican legislators earlier this year, which took the job away from the Legislature’s nonpartisan attorneys.

As it is written, the ballots would ask voters if they want to “strengthen the initiative process” by banning “foreign influence” in initiatives and “clarifying the voters and legislative bodies’ ability to amend laws.”

Lance Sorensen, an assistant attorney general representing the lieutenant governor’s office, urged Gibson to let the ballots be printed with the Amendment D language, even if she was inclined to rule that the language is misleading or that the state failed to publish the text of the amendment as required.

That way, he said, if her ruling is appealed and overturned by the Utah Supreme Court, the ballots would not need to be reprinted, which may not be possible given the time crunch. If the ruling is upheld, he said, clerks could simply be instructed to ignore the votes for or against Amendment D.

Republican lawmakers hastily passed the proposed amendment during an “emergency” special legislative session last month to overturn a unanimous July ruling by the Utah Supreme Court. The justices — all Republican appointees — ruled the Legislature must give a degree of deference to a 2018 initiative that prohibited partisan gerrymandering, the practice of drawing political boundaries to benefit one political party at the expense of the other.

Legislators repealed the provision banning gerrymandering in 2020 and adopted the boundaries they saw fit, splitting Salt Lake County, one of the most liberal parts of the state, into four congressional districts.

Supporters of the anti-gerrymandering initiative — the League of Women Voters, Mormon Women for Ethical Government and a number of residents impacted by the split — sued, saying the boundaries were unfair and the Legislature defied the constitutional right of voters to reform their government through the initiative process.

Green
argued there were numerous groups — the Utah Republican Party, The Sutherland Institute, Pro-Life Utah and others — who argued the court’s ruling hamstrung the Legislature if it needed to adjust voter-approved initiatives and wanted voters to decide if the Utah Constitution should be amended to ensure the Legislature can repeal or amend any initiative.

In a brief filed with the court Wednesday, Green and the lieutenant governor’s lawyer argued the courts should give Schultz and Adams deference to write the language, that removing the issue from the ballot would be unprecedented, and that the plaintiffs’ objections to the words “strengthen” and “clarifying” are subjective.

www.sltrib.com

Will Amendment D stay on the ballot? Judge set to decide today.

Attorneys for the Utah Legislature argued Wednesday that it’s opponents of a proposed constitutional amendment that would empower state lawmakers to repeal or amend voter-approved ballot initiatives, and not Republican legislators, who are trying to deny citizens a voice in government by trying...
www.sltrib.com www.sltrib.com
Click to expand...


So, to summarize.

The supposed "we want everyone to vote" crowd, wants a single judge to dictate to the entire state.

Gotcha
 
hossblur said:
It's amazing watching you try and pretend the initiative process is just a grassroots process. And I know you are well read and well versed.

The initiative process is used by special interest groups to end run the vote of the citizens.

Whether it's the LDS church in California gay rights issues, or the humane society in Colorado, or WWF in Arizona and Washington, it's not a grass roots or thing. It's a huge bank, special interest thing.

The quickest way for non SLC/ Park City citizens to get dictated to, is to allow them the chance to bypass elected representatives and allow a concentrated voter block to run the state...

We don't live in a democracy for a reason.
Click to expand...
The signature requirements for a ballot initiative exist for that reason. The proponents must get over 134,000 signatures to get an initiative on a ballot. That includes the following amount in EACH of 26 of the 29 Senate Districts.

Its impossible for SLC or Park City to overrule Kane and Juab and Box Elder and Wayne and Iron Counties. A required signature threshold exists in all the rural areas too.

This requirement was increased after the last ballot initiatives to make it more difficult to get initiatives on the ballot.

Screenshot_20240911_200142_Docs.jpg
 
Last edited:
hossblur said:
So, to summarize.

The supposed "we want everyone to vote" crowd, wants a single judge to dictate to the entire state.

Gotcha
Click to expand...
Nope, the Judicial Branch is being asked to protect the rights of the citizens from the Legislative Branch.

That's why we have co-equal branches. It's the way the system is designed.

PS. The purpose of Amendment D is the Legislative Branch trying to end run the rights guaranteed in our Constitution with an amendment designed to evade the Judicial Branch.

PPS. As I said, it's not going to be decided by a single judge. It'll go to the Supreme Court. Almost certainly.
 
grizzly said:
Nope, the Judicial Branch is being asked to protect the rights of the citizens from the Legislative Branch.

That's why we have co-equal branches. It's the way the system is designed.

PS. The purpose of Amendment D is the Legislative Branch trying to end run the rights guaranteed in our Constitution with an amendment designed to evade the Judicial Branch.

PPS. As I said, it's not going to be decided by a single judge. It'll go to the Supreme Court. Almost certainly.
Click to expand...



Sorry.

Where did I get to vote on D before it was in court?


Funny how my vote doesn't matter to those who claim they are for voting.


It's in court over wording. Because us dumbass rubes don't understand English, so our betters must have a judge rule.
 
hossblur said:
Sorry.

Where did I get to vote on D before it was in court?


Funny how my vote doesn't matter to those who claim they are for voting.


It's in court over wording. Because us dumbass rubes don't understand English, so our betters must have a judge rule.
Click to expand...
Nobody got to vote or comment on Amendment D before it was put on the ballot. It was done so hastily, just a few weeks ago, that the Legislature had to change the law because their timeline was too short to meet current existing law. Those laws exist for a reason, so the public has a chance to contact their local politicians and make their voices heard. All that was taken away.

This was all done with no public comment, no chance to call your elected officials, and no newspaper publication or neutral explanation. It took many changes to existing law to rush this through under cover of darkness in an "emergency special session" just a few weeks ago.

Opponents haven't even been able to have signs printed to oppose it because the legislature is trying to rush it through without the public knowing the details.

In no way is this getting a fair shake, Schultz and Adams are doing their best to ensure that.
 
grizzly said:
Nobody got to vote or comment on Amendment D before it was put on the ballot. It was done so hastily, just a few weeks ago, that the Legislature had to change the law because their timeline was too short to meet current existing law. Those laws exist for a reason, so the public has a chance to contact their local politicians and make their voices heard. All that was taken away.

This was all done with no public comment, no chance to call your elected officials, and no newspaper publication or neutral explanation. It took many changes to existing law to rush this through under cover of darkness in an "emergency special session" just a few weeks ago.

Opponents haven't even been able to have signs printed to oppose it because the legislature is trying to rush it through without the public knowing the details.

In no way is this getting a fair shake, Schultz and Adams are doing their best to ensure that.
Click to expand...

You gotta decide where your at.

There was enough time to hire lawyers and get to court, but......


We want the voters to decide but........

It's not getting a fair shake so don't let voters vote, let a judge decide


I guess I just trust my neighbors in Hooper to decide if they want Shultz speaking for them, I realize, an appointed Supreme Court Judge will much better represent their interests.
 
hossblur said:
You gotta decide where your at.

There was enough time to hire lawyers and get to court, but......


We want the voters to decide but........

It's not getting a fair shake so don't let voters vote, let a judge decide


I guess I just trust my neighbors in Hooper to decide if they want Shultz speaking for them, I realize, an appointed Supreme Court Judge will much better represent their interests.
Click to expand...
Politicians take money from special interests, judges don't.

And, no, there wasn't enough time to hire lawyers other than a quick hearing on an emergency schedule. Courts typically take years, this was a few days. This was held on a truncated timeline and the judge is ruling tonight because of it.
 
grizzly said:
Politicians take money from special interests, judges don't.

And, no, there wasn't enough time to hire lawyers other than a quick hearing on an emergency schedule. Courts typically take years, this was a few days. This was held on a truncated timeline and the judge is ruling tonight because of it.
Click to expand...


So, I guess just allowing folks to vote was out of the question?

You know, democracy and all?



I know, you have to suspend democracy in order to save it. Seems a pattern among the left
 
I didn’t read all the posts, but I’ll reiterate that Grizz wants a judge to remove this question from the ballot so that Utahns are prevented from voting. In fact, by his own words he’s praying for that!

I’m just going to leave that out there and let everyone decide who is off the rails for themselves.

grizzly said:
I pray they prevail and this gets tossed as the illegal power grab that it is.
Click to expand...

Grizz, you aren’t as well versed on this as you think. Not sure where you’re getting your info, but you’re objectively wrong. Oh well. I. An explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.

Praying for a judge to determine unilaterally decide that Utahns shouldn’t be able to vote on this policy issue? By their fruits ye shall know them.

Sounds a lot like someone the believes the people should decide. Yep, sure does!
 
Vanilla said:
I didn’t read all the posts, but I’ll reiterate that Grizz wants a judge to remove this question from the ballot so that Utahns are prevented from voting. In fact, by his own words he’s praying for that!

I’m just going to leave that out there and let everyone decide who is off the rails for themselves.



Grizz, you aren’t as well versed on this as you think. Not sure where you’re getting your info, but you’re objectively wrong. Oh well. I. An explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.

Praying for a judge to determine unilaterally decide that Utahns shouldn’t be able to vote on this policy issue? By their fruits ye shall know them.

Sounds a lot like someone the believes the people should decide. Yep, sure does!
Click to expand...
Backatcha, slick. Notice how the article discussing the hearing this afternoon had many of the exact same arguments I've been making? Yeah, I was saying the same things as the attorneys before they even said them. My information and take on things are accurate. Yours is wildly inaccurate and unsubstantiated.

I'm not predicting an outcome, judges are too fickle sometimes, but I'm comfortable with my position and some brilliant attorneys made the exact same arguments that I've made. I'm in good company.

PS. I'm all for letting the citizens vote on Amendment D... with the proper notifications, notices, and safeguards that have long been honored for important legislation like a Constitutional Amendment. Hence the reason I've mentioned that a dozen times already.

They can come back in two years and bring it for a vote. I'm still going to lobby against it, but there is a process for amendments for a reason and when those processes are followed, the people can decide.
 
Last edited:
Here's an even better article with the actual language from the hearing today. It's pretty much exactly what I've said and the judge asked very pointed questions that go exactly to what I've written here. I don't know how she'll rule, but regardless of how much niller thinks he knows, he's missing a ton on this issue. The judge at least appears to take it seriously that we're being misled by the legislature...

Screenshot_20240911_224217_Samsung Internet.jpg

I guess we'll all find out soon which side carries the day and which side has to file the emergency appeal.


utahnewsdispatch.com

‘Is it accurate’? Judge weighs whether to pull constitutional amendment from Utah ballot • Utah News Dispatch

A judge is expected to issue a decision on whether constitutional Amendment D should stay on Utah's Nov. 5 ballot.
utahnewsdispatch.com utahnewsdispatch.com
 
Last edited:
You're so wrapped up in "being right" you have missed the flaming irony the entire time.

You're foaming at the mouth that it's anti democratic to let 1/3 of the government decide how, what, or if an initiative can be, while cheering loudly as another third is now deciding how or what D can be.

Supposedly, Shultz(who I've known 30 years and have nothing good to say about) and Adams who were elected by their constituents, and then further elected by the body as a whole, are stripping my democratic rights. Yet a single 3rd circuit court judge who NO ONE in the state voted for(assisted appointment via governor) is the champion of democracy.

Shultz and Adams, face elections. They are replaceable via democracy. Their policies and actions get scrutinized via the ballot box continuously.

The judge you're so excited about DOES NOT.

Vanilla got so far under your skin, you've spent an entire day, missing the irony of your position, and it's amazing to watch.

A vote on D let's ME DECIDE.

The 3rd circuit DOES NOT.

1 is DEMOCRATIC

The other IS NOT


You are highly intelligent, no doubt, but Vanilla has so twisted up trying to out lawyer him, you are incapable of seeing simple truths.
 
Last edited:
This topic is very interesting, although my head is about to explode.

The playbook to destroy our institutions keeps getting thicker.
 
Hoss, Grizz’s ego will never allow him to see the “irony” (I prefer hypocrisy) of the entire situation.

Like I said, we want the people to decide so long as the people decide it the way we want. And then we’ll decide for you.

I mean, could you imagine ever going into an election when someone has had some misleading comment?!?!?!

Let the people decide! Unless they might go against us. Then we just want a judge to do it and not have a vote.

By their fruits…
 
Vanilla said:
Hoss, Grizz’s ego will never allow him to see the “irony” (I prefer hypocrisy) of the entire situation.

Like I said, we want the people to decide so long as the people decide it the way we want. And then we’ll decide for you.
Click to expand...
You Mean Besides The Lieng,Corruption,BrainWashing,BrainWashing Of Youngsters,Cutthroat BS(Not The Fish Cutthroat!)And All The Other BS That Goes On In Todays World?

These CROOKED ######## Will Do Anything For A Vote!

Then I See Somebody Posted This:

https://apnews.com/article/election...stal-service-985dd6e483fb6dc593d83255b11a9d0a

Vanilla said:
I mean, could you imagine ever going into an election when someone has had some misleading comment?!?!?!

Let the people decide! Unless they might go against us. Then we just want a judge to do it and not have a vote.

By their fruits…
Click to expand...
 
hossblur said:
You're so wrapped up in "being right" you have missed the flaming irony the entire time.

You're foaming at the mouth that it's anti democratic to let 1/3 of the government decide how, what, or if an initiative can be, while cheering loudly as another third is now deciding how or what D can be.

Supposedly, Shultz(who I've known 30 years and have nothing good to say about) and Adams who were elected by their constituents, and then further elected by the body as a whole, are stripping my democratic rights. Yet a single 3rd circuit court judge who NO ONE in the state voted for(assisted appointment via governor) is the champion of democracy.

Shultz and Adams, face elections. They are replaceable via democracy. Their policies and actions get scrutinized via the ballot box continuously.

The judge you're so excited about DOES NOT.

Vanilla got so far under your skin, you've spent an entire day, missing the irony of your position, and it's amazing to watch.

A vote on D let's ME DECIDE.

The 3rd circuit DOES NOT.

1 is DEMOCRATIC

The other IS NOT


You are highly intelligent, no doubt, but Vanilla has so twisted up trying to out lawyer him, you are incapable of seeing simple truths.
Click to expand...
Dude, district judges do face retention elections.

Niller has no idea what he's talking about, he's literally saying random crap that nobody else is saying and then changes the subject and throws another personal attack when he gets called out. Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive and Dodge. Not even the attorneys representing the legislature are saying what he's saying, it's completely unsubstantiated. However, everything I'm saying is the same stuff the plaintiffs are saying, in court and on the record.

I have no idea how the judge will rule, and I've made it clear I don't think she'll be the final say anyway. Heck, the last Supreme Court ruling in this case overturned a District Judge, so even if she ruled entirely in my favor I wouldn't be spiking the ball. She could easily be overturned, regardless of which way she rules.

But I will tell the story and have posted two articles from yesterday to back up everything I've said. I don't care to be "right" as no ruling or election is going to change my beliefs anyway, I'll still oppose Amendment D (of which the text was posted for public review for the first time less than 72 hours ago). Just like with everything on MM, nobody ever changes anybody's mind, it's just fun to banter.

PS. You're talking about a vote on a bill to take away the right to vote. I'm talking about preserving the right to vote on actual issues for the future. I'm not sure how you're not gathering that.
 
Last edited:
grizzly said:
PS. You're talking about a vote on a bill to take away the right to vote. I'm talking about preserving the right to vote on actual issues for the future. I'm not sure how you're not gathering that.
Click to expand...

I was wondering if you just misunderstood the issue, now I’m beginning to believe you’re just a liar.

I have two very simple yes or no questions for you to answer.

If Amendment D passes, will ballot initiatives still be allowed?

And if the answer is yes to that, will it allow more time for those proponents to gather signatures to get those issues on the ballot?

Simple yes or no questions Grizz, do you have the courage and integrity to answer them?
 
grizzly said:
Dude, district judges do face retention elections.

Niller has no idea what he's talking about, he's literally saying random crap that nobody else is saying and then changes the subject and throws another personal attack when he gets called out. Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive and Dodge. Not even the attorneys representing the legislature are saying what he's saying, it's completely unsubstantiated. However, everything I'm saying is the same stuff the plaintiffs are saying, in court and on the record.

I have no idea how the judge will rule, and I've made it clear I don't think she'll be the final say anyway. Heck, the last Supreme Court ruling in this case overturned a District Judge, so even if she ruled entirely in my favor I wouldn't be spiking the ball. She could easily be overturned, regardless of which way she rules.

But I will tell the story and have posted two articles from yesterday to back up everything I've said. I don't care to be "right" as no ruling or election is going to change my beliefs anyway, I'll still oppose Amendment D (of which the text was posted for public review for the first time less than 72 hours ago). Just like with everything on MM, nobody ever changes anybody's mind, it's just fun to banter.

PS. You're talking about a vote on a bill to take away the right to vote. I'm talking about preserving the right to vote on actual issues for the future. I'm not sure how you're not gathering that.
Click to expand...


You're talking about taking my oppurtunity to vote on D and letting A SINGLE JUDGE(who was appointed, not elected) make the decision.

You are LITERALLY calling for NOT ALLOWING the citizens of Utah a chance to make their voice heard.

And frankly, you're being disingenuous with the whole big picture talk.

This is 100% the left in this state butthurt because they don't win elections and didn't get a change to draw district boundaries. Shoe on the other foot, it would be crickets.

While the "foreign" talk on the right is bullshit, so is the "right to vote" bullshit from the left.


But YOU CANNOT stop the citizens of Utah from voting , then turn around and talk about "saving democracy".

It's also amusing listening to the "rushed" special session bs.

When it's a special session for the lefts priorities(education spending), I don't hear nearly the same nashing of teeth.

Here's ya a hint. You really want to stop Shultz? Check where he actually lives vs where he represents. There's a discrepancy there.

But don't stop millions from voting.
 
Grizz keeps telling us Amendment D would take away Utahn's right to vote. He has said it multipe times here. Then he goes off on 7 paragraph essays about how I don't understand this issue.

Grizz, I'll ask again. Very simple yes or no question.

If Amendment D passes, will voter intiatives still be allowed?

And a follow up, only if the answer is yes. Will those proponents have more time to gather signatures than they currently do under the law?

Yes or no. No petty attacks. No whining. Simple yes or no answers.
 
Great article. This is journalism.

Why do our elected officials give our tax dollars to people/companies that don't need it? Like the Smith Group in SLC.?? Let them pay for things themselves.!!

Also, I'm really liking Casey Snider.!!
 
Vanilla said:
I was wondering if you just misunderstood the issue, now I’m beginning to believe you’re just a liar.

I have two very simple yes or no questions for you to answer.

If Amendment D passes, will ballot initiatives still be allowed?

And if the answer is yes to that, will it allow more time for those proponents to gather signatures to get those issues on the ballot?

Simple yes or no questions Grizz, do you have the courage and integrity to answer them?
Click to expand...
Haha, you literally call me a liar and say I don't understand the issues and minutes later the judge rules in my favor and throws out Amendment D. Everything I said was true and correct, your disparagement of me was your arrogance and ego getting the best of you.

Like your other legal analysis on MM, it ages like milk in the desert sun.

Screenshot_20240912_105226_Samsung Internet.jpg


www.sltrib.com

“Amendment D is void’: GOP lawmakers’ constitutional amendment won’t be counted in 2024 election

Judge Dianna Gibson on Thursday declared constitutional Amendment D invalid, citing its deceptive and misleading presentation on the ballot and the Legislature’s failure to publish the text of the amendment, as required by the Utah Constitution.
www.sltrib.com www.sltrib.com

Do you have the courage and integrity to admit you were wrong? We both know the answer.

I'm done with you. You can fire up your personal attacks again and try and distract from your defeat, but the judge has spoken. Hopefully you'll at least respect our court system.

And, yes, the fight is not over and the Supreme Court could overturn, but that doesn't change the fact that what I said was not a lie and I did understand the issues. Regardless of your personal attacks and disparagement.
 
Last edited:
Oh boy let's all celebrate.

Millions of Utahns just lost their right to vote via ONE SINGLE UNELECTED JUDGE.


Democracy for all, right?

Ukraine, and the DNC both approve of this save of democracy
 
What am I wrong about? I never once said how a judge would rule. I’ve shared my opinion on a policy. I haven’t given one sentence of legal analysis.

I’ll give you one more chance to answer the question while you’re taking the faux victory lap your last post said you weren’t going to take.

If Amemdment D were to pass, would it still allow ballot initiatives where people could vote?
 
hossblur said:
You're talking about taking my oppurtunity to vote on D and letting A SINGLE JUDGE(who was appointed, not elected) make the decision.

You are LITERALLY calling for NOT ALLOWING the citizens of Utah a chance to make their voice heard.

And frankly, you're being disingenuous with the whole big picture talk.

This is 100% the left in this state butthurt because they don't win elections and didn't get a change to draw district boundaries. Shoe on the other foot, it would be crickets.

While the "foreign" talk on the right is bullshit, so is the "right to vote" bullshit from the left.


But YOU CANNOT stop the citizens of Utah from voting , then turn around and talk about "saving democracy".

It's also amusing listening to the "rushed" special session bs.

When it's a special session for the lefts priorities(education spending), I don't hear nearly the same nashing of teeth.

Here's ya a hint. You really want to stop Shultz? Check where he actually lives vs where he represents. There's a discrepancy there.

But don't stop millions from voting.
Click to expand...
Hoss, you hitched your wagon to the wrong pony.
 
Vanilla said:
I’ll give you one more chance to answer the question while you’re taking the faux victory lap your last post said you weren’t going to take.
Click to expand...

That was before you called me a liar. Now I'm relishing in it.

I never cared to be "right" though I do care to defend my name when somebody says I'm ignorant, misleading, or lying.

That's what happened, I was vindicated, regardless of any future rulings.

It's been proved that what I said was true and accurate. That's what I care about. I can't control the outcome, I can control the accuracy of the information I share, and I try and keep that accurate. It was proved to be so.
 
Last edited:
grizzly said:
Hoss, you hitched your wagon to the wrong pony.
Click to expand...

Yeah, never underestimate the lefts ability to undermine democracy via a court.

I just watched a coup on the sitting president that overturned 14 million votes, the left no longer surprises me

Lawyers cost money.

Where's the funding coming for the plaintiffs?

For some "unknown" reason, these couple of groups, "Better Boundaries" and the jungle primary folks, are pretty dodgy about that.

Grizz, you know a lot, feel free to answer without a 6 page book
 
grizzly said:
That was before you called me a liar. Now I'm relishing in it.

I never cared to be "right" though I do care to defend my name when somebody says I'm ignorant, misleading, or lying.

That's what happened, I was vindicated, regardless of any future rulings.

It's been proved that what I said was true and accurate. That's what I care about. I can't control the outcome, I can control the accuracy of the information I share, and I try and keep that accurate. It was proved to be so.
Click to expand...

The only thing that has been proved true is your unwillingness to answer a simple yes or no question. One more try:

If Amendment D were to pass, would a ballot intiative still be allowed to proceed where Utah voters could vote upon it?
 
I just want Grizz to answer a simple yes or no question.

What is he afraid of?

Could it be, just maybe, that my label for him was correct?
 
Vanilla said:
I just want Grizz to answer a simple yes or no question.

What is he afraid of?

Could it be, just maybe, that my label for him was correct?
Click to expand...
That's a logical fallacy and you know it. It's like the old high school gag, "Do your parents know you're gay? Yes or no."

The question isn't, "Could initiatives proceed?"

The correct question is, "Would Amendment D hinder the ability of citizens to reform the government through ballot initiatives?"

The other question is, "Was Amendment D pushed through in a misleading and unlawful way?"

Those are the two arguments I made. The answer to both of those questions is YES and the court agreed.

You know Amendment D rendered ballot initiatives powerless, that's why you support Amendment D... because you don't think citizens should have the right to create legislation (post 17 and others). You're trying to have it both ways and claim D preserves the rights of citizens while supporting D because it reduces the power of citizens. Those are contradictory beliefs, you're just hoping to save face and gain some points.

Exactly as I predicted above, you'll try and distract from the fact you said you knew more than everybody here and even called me a liar for saying the exact same things as the attorneys and the judge.

You then accused me of having an ego for defending myself while yourself being too arrogant to admit you didn't know what you were talking about. We've seen it all before from you. Now you'll start your attempts at keyboard bullying on other random threads, we've seen that before too. Just like with Tri and the WLH thread, you can keep this going as long as you'd like.

At this point I don't even really care if the Supreme Court overturns it, my goal was to prove I wasn't lying with what I said and that's been accomplished. I'm satisfied, so it's up to you how long you want to keep digging a hole.
 
grizzly said:
PS. You're talking about a vote on a bill to take away the right to vote. I'm talking about preserving the right to vote on actual issues for the future. I'm not sure how you're not gathering that.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm….
grizzly said:
The question isn't, "Could initiatives proceed?"

The correct question is, "Would Amendment D hinder the ability of citizens to reform the government through ballot initiatives?"

The other question is, "Was Amendment D pushed through in a misleading and unlawful way?"

Those are the two arguments I made. The answer to both of those questions is YES and the court agreed.
Click to expand...

I got the receipts. Should I post other quotes, or does one work? When you speak in such absolutes like you have here, all it takes is one.

So was this about “a vote on a bill to take away the right to vote? Or not?

Because that is a direct quote. So either you misunderstood it, or lied. I’ll allow you to tell us which one, I don’t want to assume.

I’m sorry your fragile ego and feelings were hurt by being shown how your logic was wrong here. I wouldn’t want to be a keyboard bully, after all!
 
Rarely will i admit im wrong, but im wrong.

A full grown man, who has writtten War and Peace II just whined about being a victim of a keyboard bully?

Sorry Vanilla telling him hrs pretty and buying a blouse has zero chance. I can only Imagine how many micro aggressions hes suffered today.

Guy completely hijacked a thread on Don Peay doing his best Perry Mason routine, and hes offended?

Keyboard bully. From a full grown(i guess?) man.

Congrats man, it is now easier for antis, animal nazis, and every other freak show to launch attacks at the margins wbile you arroganrly and erroneously believe prop 5 saves us.

Last i checked this is a hunting forum, right?There is a political forum, but you best stay out of there, lots of keyboard bullies, micro aggressors and meanies.
 
Keystone said:
A full grown man, who has writtten War and Peace II just whined about being a victim of a keyboard bully?
Click to expand...
Read it again. I didn't say I was a victim, I said he attempts it.

grizzly said:
Now you'll start your attempts at keyboard bullying on other random threads, we've seen that before too.
Click to expand...
I can handle my own, that's what triggers his personal attacks about ego and feelings. It's called projection.
 
grizzly said:
Read it again. I didn't say I was a victim, I said he attempts it.


I can handle my own, that's what triggers his personal attacks about ego and feelings. It's called projection.
Click to expand...
Every once in a while in a man's life he says something that upon reflection, he just has to own, and eat.

Keyboard bully, is one of those phrases.

I know you're proud, but there really isn't a way to use "keyboard bully" in a sentence that doesn't deserve at least ridicule.
.Just own it, take the heat, move on. But don't compound the deserved heat by pulling the context card.

For the record, and I am # 1,2,&3 in the Tri is a clown club. I've never seen him complain, or even use the word bully.

That keystone dude took you to the wood shed, you deserved it. Love to fight another day.

He's also right about hunters now being easier to target, btw
 
hossblur said:
Every once in a while in a man's life he says something that upon reflection, he just has to own, and eat.

Keyboard bully, is one of those phrases.

I know you're proud, but there really isn't a way to use "keyboard bully" in a sentence that doesn't deserve at least ridicule.
.Just own it, take the heat, move on. But don't compound the deserved heat by pulling the context card.

For the record, and I am # 1,2,&3 in the Tri is a clown club. I've never seen him complain, or even use the word bully.

That keystone dude took you to the wood shed, you deserved it. Love to fight another day.

He's also right about hunters now being easier to target, btw
Click to expand...
Keyboard warrior? Keyboard commando? Would those words make you feel better? Pick whatever title you want. The shoe still fits.

I gave my thoughts on an Amendment and the court agreed with me. The guy whose side didn't prevail couldn't handle it and he called me a liar. Sad.

You and I have disagreed passionately on many subjects, but neither has attacked the other's character or called somebody a liar. I may disagree with you on certain things, but I respect you. (Plus you seem like a good dad, which is admirable)

Anyway, it's been a long day at work and tomorrow is just as busy, but more importantly, I'm bored with this. As you've seen me do before when I get bored, I just walk away. You can have the last word, man. I'll catch you on the next thread.
 
I’d be bored with this too and tuck tail and run if I couldn’t answer a simple question without admitting I either didn’t know the issue or that I lied.

But I can answer simple questions without being ignorant or a liar.

I’ve given you plenty of chances, but here we are.

By their fruits.
 

Similar threads

hossblur
Utah's never ending desire to sell off public land
Replies
10
Views
746
elkassassin
elkassassin
Bluehair
Rocket Dog?
Replies
9
Views
521
Moe
M
lundellhunting7
2024 GS deer
Replies
18
Views
1k
Camper_A1
Camper_A1

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

20200908_163206.jpg
Screenshot_20211117-172121_Facebook.jpg
3.jpg
55018782-1FF6-4EFD-BAF0-293245414D81.png
Screenshot_20231104_211534_Gallery.jpg
3259510D-5139-413B-AEDB-DE4E757E3FDF.jpeg
Dad Elk.jpg
20201002_084329.jpg
B2D7ECFA-3249-4217-8456-12BC32C6B280.jpeg
IMG_20191026_174742_661.jpg
Double Dropper spotting me
75A6535F-3DDA-4FE9-8A59-69C82521D5E4.png
Bearpaw Outfitters

Experience world class hunting for mule deer, elk, cougar, bear, turkey, moose, sheep and more.

Wild West Outfitters

Hunt the big bulls, bucks, bear and cats in southern Utah. Your hunt of a lifetime awaits.

J & J Outfitters

Offering quality fair-chase hunts for trophy mule deer, elk, shiras moose and mountain lions.

Shane Scott Outfitting

Quality trophy hunting in Utah. Offering FREE Utah drawing consultation. Great local guides.

Utah Big Game Outfitters

Specializing in bighorn sheep, mule deer, elk, mountain goat, lions, bears & antelope.

Apex Outfitters

We offer experienced guides who hunt Elk, Mule Deer, Antelope, Sheep, Bison, Goats, Cougar, and Bear.

Urge 2 Hunt

We offer high quality hunts on large private ranches around the state, with landowner vouchers.

Allout Guiding & Outfitting

Offering high quality mule deer, elk, bear, cougar and bison hunts in the Book Cliffs and Henry Mtns.

Lickity Split Outfitters

General season and LE fully guided hunts for mule deer, elk, moose, antelope, lion, turkey, bear and coyotes.

Back
Top Bottom